SOUTH DAKOTA SCHOOL OF MINES AND TECHNOLOGY

MEM 304L – ROCK MECHANICS LABORATORY

REPORT
IN-SITU ROCK STRENGTH
TESTING: SCHMIDT HAMER AND
HLADYSZ HAMMER

98/100

TO: Dr. Kelli McCormick

FROM: Bernardo Moreno Baqueiro Sansao
DATE: April 23, 2014
 1

REPORT: SCHMIDT HAMMER AND HLADYSZ HAMMER

TO: Dr. Kelli McCormick

FROM: Bernardo Moreno Baqueiro Sansao
DATE: April 23, 2014
SUBJECT: MEM 304L Rock Mechanics Lab – Schmidt Hammer and Hladysz
Hammer

Introduction

In Rock Mechanics, understand the behavior of rocks and rock masses is essential
to avoid accidents in civil constructions and in mines. Tunnels, shafts, drifts, bridges,
buildings, are built over or in the rock, then it is necessary to discover how much load the
rock can support. Lab tests are not the same as in-situ tests, several considerations must
be taken into account when the test data will be applied in-situ, and the specimen
prepared in lab may not contain discontinuities or water content. In this lab, a bigger
specimen of rock was tested using two rapid methods to measure the uniaxial strength of
rocks. The Schmidt Hammer and the Hladysz Hammer are test that it is possible to use
light materials. These methods are welcome for in-situ tests, once can be handled by a
man and any drilling or complex operation is necessary. However these methods, once
they have empirical relations within their calculations, they must be carefully made.

Equipment
In this lab the following equipment were used:
Hammer
Portable rock strength tester
Schmidt Hammer
Steel bar
Micrometer

Procedure

In the Schmidt Hammer test, the Schmidt Hammer, first design for testing
concrete, to control concrete’s quality, was used in this lab to test the rock quality
(applying empirical correlations). A large piece of sandstone rock was taken from the
Rock Mechanics lab to be tested, the most uniform side of the rock sample was chosen so
the test could provide accurate results.
First the Schmidt Hammer was used in a steel basis to take three angles. Then the
Schmidt Hammer was used in five different spots on the rock. The angle direction used to
impact the rock was 90 degrees with the needle on the bottom.
In the Hladysz Hammer, a hammer, a steel bar and a portable strength tester were
used to make the test. The portable strength tester has a steel ball at the bottom of the
device. The steel bar was put in the hole in the portable strength tester, and then the
device is hammered in the rock’s surface, the ball then marks the rock’s surface and the
steel bar, making two indentations. 10 different spots were hammered. The marks were
then measured and the calculations and empirical relations were applied.
 2

After the measurements and the corrections, the uniaxial compressive strength is
then calculated.

Data collected, analysis and calculations

I. Schmidt Hammer data

The three measurements angles taken from the Schmidt Hammer reading after
impacting the hammer in the steel basis. These angles were: 80, 79, and 79.

The reading number from the Schmidt Hammer must be corrected due to the
orientation of the hammer during the test using a chart in the lab handouts.

rac = ra ± correction

The data collected and the results after correction being applied are shown in the
Table 1.

Table 1. Data Collected and Corrections from Schmidt Hammer test

Raw Data Correction Corrected Data
I 43 + 2.9 45.9
II 48 + 2.7 50.7
III 42 + 2.9 44.9
IV 49 + 2.5 51.5
V 43 + 2.9 45.9

Now a normal average of the Corrected Data is taken and applied to the following
empirical relation: Co = 0.447 e0.045r + γ. Where r is the average and γ is the rock density
(2.65 g/cm3). Co is the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock (in MPa).

ra = 47.78; Applying this to the empirical relation we have:

Co = 0.447 e0.045x47.78 + 2.65

Co = 54.32 MPa = 7878.45 psi

II. Hladysz Hammer

Ten different spots were hammered using the portable rock strength tester. The
measured indentations, both on the rock and on the steel bar are shown in the Table 2.
The indentations were read using a micrometer, a reading error could occurred during the
measurements.
 3

Table 2. Measured values of the indentations on the rock and on the steel bar
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Steel Bar (d) (mm) 2.0 1.9 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.0
Rock (D) (mm) 3.3 3.0 2.0 3.0 1.5 3.7 3.7 1.7 4.0 2.5

The following calculation is done: Hb x d2/D2. The results are shown in the Table
3. Hb is considered 157 due to material hardness.

Table 3. Results after calculations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Hb x d2/D2 57.7 62.9 226 109.0 369.1 66.1 45.9 217.3 43.3 100.5

A normal average of the number was taken: A = 129.78

The empirical relation to find out the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock (in
MPa) is given by: Co = 0.44 A – 0.79
Co = 0.44 (129.78) – 0.79

Co = 56.31 MPa = 8167.08 psi

The difference between the results is 1.99 MPa. It is not a bad difference despite
the accuracy issues.

Conclusions

In these experiments it was possible to calculate the uniaxial compressive strength

of a big specimen of rock using hammers, which is possible to make those tests in a very
easy way on in-situ rocks. These tests have some factor that can change the results if not
taken carefully, the accuracy is a very important factor in this lab. In the Hladysz hammer
test, some errors could occur due to the difference of force applied in the impact, once
each impact is done by human hands and they are not the same every time Probably the
larger error is from the measurement of the indentations. In the Schmidt hammer test, the
reading of the Schmidt Hammer or even the equipment calibration could change the
results, the reading of the micrometer could change the results as well. This lab is pretty
much comparative, but is a good experiment to know quickly the rock strength when a
hydraulic machine is not available.

Coverpage - 5 5
Introduction - 15 15
Equipment - 5 5
Procedure -5 5
Data - 25 25
Analysis and Calculation - 30 30
Conclusion - 15 13
Total - 100 98
4