ARTICLE IN PRESS

International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 998–999

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Reply

Authors’ Reply to Discussion by R. Göktan on ‘‘ISRM surface areas and volumes were prepared (Table 3) and SH
Suggested Method for determining the Shore Hardness value measurements were conducted.
for rocks’’ by R. Altindag, A. Güney, International Journal The variations in SH values with sample volume are
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences, 2006; 43: 19–22 illustrated in Fig. 1. The results indicate that, for the rock

The authors appreciate the Discussion comments by Dr.

Göktan and his interest in the new ISRM Suggested
Method. As is known, the Shore Hardness (SH), as one of Table 1
the physical properties of rocks, is widely employed to Classification of rock types [4]
describe the hardness of rocks and the testing procedure Rock group Material type
requires that at least 20 measurements should be imple-
mented at different points on the testing surface of the Group A Carbonate materials with well-developed crystal
sample. Rocks are composed of a matrix with grains of the cleavage (e.g., limestone, dolomite, and marble)
Group B Lithified argillaceous materials (e.g., mudstone, shale,
kind or of different minerals and a bonding material.
clay)
Therefore, SH measurements even on the same surface of a Group C Arenaceous materials with strong crystals and poorly
rock sample may give different results if the rock consists developed crystal cleavage (e.g., sandstone and
of different minerals. This plays a significant role, as stated quartzite)
by Dr. Göktan, in the determination of the SH values. In Group D Fine-grained polyminerallic igneous crystalline
materials (e.g., andesite, dolerite, diabase and rhyolite)
addition, mineral grain size, degree of cementing, rock
Group E Coarse-grained polyminerallic igneous and
density, porosity, etc. also influence SH measurements. metamorphic materials (e.g., granite, gabro, gneiss).
However, the objective of the study conducted by
Altindag and Güney [1,2] was not to investigate the effect
of rock composition on SH values. The authors of the
study aimed to determine the effect of sample size on SH
values and define a critical sample volume for which SH Table 2
values become consistent and do not vary with increasing Tested rock types
sample volume. Altindag and Güney [1] and Altindag [3] Rock no. Rock type Location Rock class [4]
have investigated a total of 14 different rocks including
marble, limestone, sandstone and travertine. Altindag and 1 Marn Isparta Group B
Güney [2] have determined a critical sample volume of 2 Sandstone–I (fine grained) Isparta Group C
3 Sandstone–II(coarse grained) Isparta Group C
80 cm3 and proposed an empirical equation that can be
4 Sandstone–III Isparta Group C
used to estimate consistent SH values for sample volumes 5 Andesite–I Ankara Group D
lower than 80 cm3. 6 Andesite–II Isparta Group D
Dr. Göktan has stated in his Discussion that the rocks
tested in [1,2] solely pertain to Group A and consequently
questioned the validity of the ISRM Suggested Method for
the rocks in the other groups in Table 1. In a study by Table 3
Altindag [3], SH measurements on sandstone, classified in Specifications of prepared samples
Group C, have been conducted and a critical sample Rock no. Test surface area Specimen volume Number of
volume of 80 cm3 has also been obtained. In order to study A, (cm2) V, (cm3) specimen
the applicability of the ISRM Suggested Method to a wider
range of rock types, 6 different rock types from Groups 1 13–63 14.6–289 13
2 14–63 12.2–289 13
B–D in Table 1 were collected and tested (Table 2). In the
3 12–47 14.4–258 10
scope of the study, a total of 65 samples of various test 4 16.3–50 21.5–346 10
5 14–83 20.9–403 10
6 11.2–25 13–179 9
DOI’s of original article: 10.1016/j.ijrmms.2005.04.004, 10.1016/ Total 65
j.ijrmms.2005.12.011

1365-1609/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2005.12.012
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Reply / International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences 43 (2006) 998–999 999

volume for consistent SH values of rocks is valid at 80 cm3

◆1 K 4
over a wider range of rock types.
2 Ψ 5

90 ▲ 3 6 References

80 [1] Altindag R, Güney A. ISRM suggested method for determining the

Shore hardness value for rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2006;43:
Ψ 19–22.
70 Ψ Ψ
Ψ [2] Altindag R, Güney A. Effect of the specimen size on the determination
ΨK ▲ of consistent Shore hardness values. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
Shore hardness (SH m)

Ψ ▲ ▲
60 ▲ ▲ 2005;42:153–60.
Ψ ▲
▲ [3] Altindag R. Effects of specimen volume and temperature on
50 ▲ measurements of Shore hardness. Rock Mech Rock Engng 2002;35(2):
▲
▲
109–13.
40 [4] Hoek E. Strength of jointed rock masses. Geotechnique 1983;33:
187–223.

30 ◆ ◆◆ ◆
◆◆◆◆◆ R. Altindag
20
◆◆◆K Department of Mining Engineering, Engineering and
KK

K K
K
K
K

XK
Architecture Faculty, Süleyman Demirel University,
10 32260 Isparta, Turkey
E-mail address: rasit@mmf.sdu.edu.tr
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Specimen volume (cm3) A. Güney
Engineering Faculty, Mugla University,
Fig. 1. Correlation between SH values and specimen volumes the legend 48000 Mugla, Turkey
numbers refer to the rock types in Table 2.
30 December 2005

types tested, the SH values a increase as the volume of the

sample is increased up to the critical volume of 80 cm3 and
remain nearly constant as the volume of the sample is
increased beyond the critical volume.
In conclusion, results of this supplemantary study
support the ISRM Suggested Method prepared by
Altindag and Güney so that the critical (minimum) sample