See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/304997106

Correlation of UCS Rating with Schmidt Hammer Surface Hardness for Rock
Mass Classification

Article  in  Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering · July 2016

DOI: 10.1007/s00603-016-1044-7

CITATIONS READS

23 3,187

3 authors:

Wang Hu Hang Lin

Central South University Central South University
4 PUBLICATIONS   48 CITATIONS    99 PUBLICATIONS   1,072 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ping Cao
University of Science and Technology of China
141 PUBLICATIONS   1,225 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Brazilian disk test View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hang Lin on 17 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Rock Mech Rock Eng
DOI 10.1007/s00603-016-1044-7
TECHNICAL NOTE
Correlation of UCS Rating with Schmidt Hammer Surface
Hardness for Rock Mass Classification
Hu Wang1 • Hang Lin1,2 • Ping Cao1
Received: 8 December 2015 / Accepted: 27 June 2016
Ó Springer-Verlag Wien 2016
Keywords Rock mass classification
Surface hardness

Schmidt hammer
Rebound value
Uniaxial compressive
strength
1 Introduction
The physical and mechanical properties of a rock mass
need to be accurately determined when rocks are utilized as
minerals or structural component. To distinguish the
material properties of rock mass, engineers typically per-
form physical and mechanical experiments (e.g., laboratory
and in situ tests) and geological observations (e.g., dis-
continuities, ground water). We can predict rock mass
behavior, only the combination of these properties. Thus, in
rock engineering, standard methods exist for rock mass
classification, such as rock mass rating (RMR), Q-system
and rock mass index (RMi) (Barton et al. 1974; Bieniawski
1989; Palmström 1995). The standard index can fully
designate the properties of a rock mass in a complex
environment and provide a reliable basis for rational use of
rocks and selection of appropriate mechanical parameters
& Hang Lin
linhangabc@126.com
Hu Wang
whwhclyy@163.com
Ping Cao
pcao_csu@163.com
1 domness of rocks, it is not possible to accurately obtain
School of Resources and Safety Engineering, Central South
University, Changsha 410083, Hunan, China
2 introduce the concept of Hr in rock mass classification.
State Key Laboratory Cultivation Base for Gas Geology and
Gas Control, Henan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo 454000,
China
(Barton 2002; Palmstrom and Stille 2007). It can also be
used to develop design- and construction-related properties
(Justo et al. 2010; Marinos et al. 2005; Palmström and
Singh 2001). Additionally, the uniaxial compressive
strength (UCS) is usually tested during rock mass classi-
fication (Aydan et al. 2014; Bieniawski 1989; China 1995;
Palmström 1995). To assess rock mass quality, the average
UCS is obtained because the dispersion of UCS results in
laboratory testing is usually large. The average UCS indi-
cates the strength of intact rocks in an area to some extent,
and, in this process, adequate sampling and testing should
be performed. This is, however, often time-consuming and
costly, and furthermore it is complicated by often being
unable to collect representative standard samples of some
rock types. As a consequence, a rock mass cannot be
immediately classified following field investigations.
In contrast, surface hardness is a mechanical parameter
obtained from Schmidt hammer testing—a nondestructive
and rapid testing method. Studies (Aydin and Basu 2005;
Dinçer et al. 2004; Heather et al. 2011; Kahraman 2001; Li
et al. 2000; Singh and Elkington 1983; Shalabi et al. 2007;
Sheorey et al. 1984; Xu and Mahtab 1990; Yagiz 2009;
Yaşar and Erdoğan 2004; Yılmaz and Sendır 2002) have
revealed that the Schmidt hammer rebound (Hr) value is
well correlated with UCS. This correlation is essential for
geotechnical design and stability analysis for rapid and
convenient rock mass classification. These studies mainly
focused on using statistical methods to improve empirical
correlations for specific rocks. However, because the
operational principle of Schmidt hammer and the ran-
UCS from the rebound value. As such, it is necessary to
Depending on the summary of the correlations between Hr
value and UCS from previous findings, this study investigated
123

the prediction of UCS from L- and N-type rebound values and
also provides a new correlation between L-type rebound
values and UCS for all rocks. Additionally, the correlation is
further utilized to introduce Hr values in determining UCS
ratings for RMR and basic quality (BQ) of rock mass. This
avoids dispersion and reduces both time and costs of
mechanical experiments. The results of this study show that
this method can be used as a convenient tool in practice for
engineers to estimate rock mass quality.
2 Correlation between Hr values and UCS
Since the early 1960s, Hr has been used to estimate the
UCS of rocks. Hr is used in accordance with the opera-
tional principle proposed by Basu and Aydin (2004), and Li
et al. (2000) presented the quantitative relationship
between the amount of rebound of a piston and rock
hardness based on stress wave theory and conservation of
energy. This provides the theoretical basis from which to
apply rebound values. Surface hardness is also commonly
used in metallic materials, as described in previous studies.
To determine UCS indirectly, researchers proposed
empirical correlations between Hr and UCS, as shown in
Table 1. Hr is directly related to UCS: UCS increases as Hr
increases. The correlation coefficients of empirical equa-
tions are sound, as determined by linear or nonlinear fitting.
For example, Aydin and Basu (2005) used the nonlinear
equation UCS = 1.45e(0.07Hr) and obtained a correlation
coefficient of 0.92. However, the most evident attribute of
empirical correlations is that the fitting relationship varies
in different rock types. Furthermore, the same type of
rocks, such as coal, exhibits variation. Sheorey et al.
(1984), Ghose (1986), and Kahraman (2001) established
the following fitting equations: UCS = 0.4RN - 3.6,
UCS = 0.88RN - 12.11 and UCS = 0.00045*(RN*q),
respectively. For coal, these equations have relative coef-
ficients of 0.94, 0.87 and 0.96, respectively. In some
empirical correlations, rock density (q) is considered, but
regression coefficients have yet to be improved obviously
and Aydin and Basu (2005) also indicated the use of
additional variables (e.g., density, porosity, ultrasonic
velocity) should be avoided when their roles are not
complementary and significant. Further studies should be
conducted to evaluate the use of q to improve correlation
between Hr and UCS. Previous studies (Buyuksagis and
Goktan 2007; Demirdag et al. 2009; Heather et al. 2011;
Kahraman et al. 2002; Yaşar and Erdoğan 2004) demon-
strated that many factors, such as Schmidt hammer types
(e.g., classic N-type and L-type), sample sizes, weathering,
rock type and softness, can affect rebound values. There-
fore, the relationships summarized in Table 1 are suit-
able only for the specific rocks.
123
H. Wang et al.
UCS, which is also influenced by geometric size and
shape, is not an essential property of rocks. The effect of size
needs to be considered because UCS is obtained through
standard laboratory specimen tests and surface hardness is
determined through laboratory or in situ Schmidt hammer
tests. As such, it is best to attempt to establish accurate
relationships between UCS and laboratory or in situ deter-
mined Hr. In the theoretical analysis of Li et al. (2000),
geometric size and internal structure are not involved. The
International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) (Aydin
2009) suggested that cores for L- and N-types should have at
least NX size (C54.7 mm) and T2 size (C84 mm), respec-
tively, and block specimens should be at least 100 mm thick
at the point of impact. By contrast, the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM 2005) recommends an edge
length of at least 15 cm. Demirdag et al. (2009) suggested
that the ‘edge dimension of the cubic block should be at least
11 cm to determine a consistent hardness value.’
Empirical correlations established to indirectly deter-
mine UCS for rocks, which is rapidly measured but only
suitable for given rock types, and previous studies have
mainly focused on improving empirical correlations based
on statistics. However, given the operational principle of
Schmidt hammer and randomness of rocks, it is not pos-
sible to obtain UCS accurately just from the rebound value.
Therefore, by employing data from previous studies (Aydin
and Basu 2005; Buyuksagis and Goktan 2007; Çobanoğlu
and Çelik 2008; Dinçer et al. 2004; Kahraman et al. 2002;
Karakus and Tutmez 2006; Katz et al. 2000; Kayabali and
Selcuk 2010; Yagiz 2009), a new correlation was estab-
lished (Figs. 1, 2) to estimate UCS values, especially in
unspecified rock types.
It was found from analysis of this data that the N-type
value is not suitable for UCS estimation for all rock types
(Fig. 2), because of the high degree of scatter of sample
points, and consequent lack of well-fitting regression. The
N-type have upper limit values where UCS = 3.03RN-30.3
(the line in Fig. 2), and so the use of N-type is only valid if
the rebound value is larger than 10. The large variation
could account for the high impact energy (2.207 Nm) of
N-type Schmidt hammers and the significant influence of
microstructures on the N-type rebound value. Conse-
quently, the N-type value will generate a more accurate
prediction for a given type rock with the same grain size,
which accords with the findings of Aydin and Basu (2005).
By contrast, the L-type hammer, with a lower impact energy
of 0.735 Nm, is subject to negligible influence by
microstructures. Additionally, Li et al. (2000) and Heather
et al. (2011) showed that the Schmidt impact hammer is not
appropriate for very soft plastic rocks and extremely hard
rocks; thus, there are no rebound values for very soft rocks. The
exponential best fit of Model 3 (UCS = 4.52927e0.05609RL)
and Model 1 (UCS = 4.52927*1.0577RL) coincide, with a
Correlation of UCS Rating with Schmidt Hammer Surface Hardness for Rock Mass Classification

Table 1 Correlations between Hr and UCS

No. Researchers Fitting formula R Rock type Remarks

1. Singh and UCS = 2RL 0.86 Sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, seatearth

Elkington
(1983)
2. Sheorey UCS = 0.4RN - 3.6 0.94 Coal
et al.
(1984)
3. Haramy and UCS = 0.994RN - 0.383 0.7 Coal
Demarco
(1985)
4. Ghose UCS = 0.88RN - 12.11 0.87 Coal
(1986)
5. O’Rourke UCS = 4.85RL - 76.18 0.77 Sandstone, siltstone, limestone and anhydrite
(1989)
6. Xu and UCS = e(aRL?B) – Mica-schist, prasinite, serpentinite, gabbro, mudstone a and b
Mahtab depending
(1990) on rock
types
7. Sachpazis UCS = 4.29RL - 67.52 0.96 Carbonate rocks (marble, limestone, dolomite)
(1990)
8. Aggistalis UCS = 1.31RN - 2.52 0.55 Gabbro and basalt
et al.
(1980)
9. Kahraman UCS = 0.00045*(RN*q)2.46 0.96 Coal
(2001)
10. Tuğrul and UCS = 8.36*RL - 416.00 0.87 Granite
Zarif
(1999)
11. Katz et al. UCS = 2.21*e(0.07*RN) 0.96 Maresha chalk, Cordoba-Cream limestone, Berea sandstone,
(2000) Indiana limestone, Carrara marble, Gevanim syenite and Mt
Scott Granite
12. Kahraman UCS = 6.97*e(0.01*RN*q) 0.78 Carbonates
(2001)
13. Yılmaz and UCS = e(0.818?0.059RN) 0.91 Gypsum
Sendır
(2002)
14. Dinçer et al. UCS = 2.75RN - 36.83 0.95 Andesites, basalts and tuffs
(2004)
15. Yaşar and UCS = 0.000004RL4.29 0.89 Carbonate, sandstone, basalt
Erdoğan
(2004)
16. Aydin and UCS = 1.45e(0.07RL) 0.92 Granite
Basu
(2005)
17. Shalabi et al. UCS = 3.20Hr - 46.59 0.76 Shale, anhydrite, dolomite
(2007)
18. Yagiz (2009) UCS = 0.0098Hr2.584 0.92 Travertine, limestone, Schist and Dolomitic limestone
19. Kayabali and UCS = 9.97exp(0.02RLq) – Gypsum, tuff, ignimbrite, andesite, sandstone, limestone,
Selcuk marble
(2010)
20. This study UCS = 4.52927exp(0.05609RL) 0.774 Rock type without specific expression
UCS uniaxial compressive strength (MPa), q density of rock (g/cm3), RL and RN rebound values for L and N hammers, Hr not specified Schmidt
hammer type in original paper, R regression coefficient

123
 H. Wang et al.

Fig. 1 Comparison of different Model 1

Equation y = a*b^x
fitting models for L-type 300 0.77394
Adj. R-Square Model 1
rebound value and UCS Value Standard Error
UCS a 4.52927 0.65202 Model 2
UCS b 1.0577 0.00266
Model 3
Model 2
250
Equation y = a*x^b Linear fit
Adj. R-Square 0.76856
Value Standard Error
a 8.91721E-4 5.3294E-4
UCS
200 b 2.91165 0.1486
Model 3
y=a*exp(b*x)

UCS (MPa)
Equation
Adj. R-Square 0.77394
Value Standard Error
150 UCS a 4.52927 0.65202
UCS b 0.05609 0.00251
Model Linear fit
Equation y = a + b*x
Adj. R-Square 0.65506
100
Value Standard Error
Intercept -63.24367 7.04405
UCS
Slope 2.97174 0.16466

50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
L-type value

regression coefficient of 0.77394 (Fig. 1). The residual anal-
ysis of different models is shown in Fig. 3. For Model 2
(UCS = a*RLb) (Fig. 3b), it is evident that when the L-type
value is \32.5, the residual of UCS is a positive value while for
a linear fit (Fig. 3d) the residual of UCS is parabolic.
However, Model 1 (UCS = a*bRL) coincides with Model
3 (UCS = a*exp(b*RL)), and residual randomly scattered
on both sides of x-axis except greater residual for large
L-type value. The ISRM (Aydin 2009) suggests that expo-
nential fitting and power fitting can be used as generalized
expressions for UCS and rebound value correlation. For this
reason, Model 3 is chosen as best correlated to the results.
Nevertheless, for Models 1, 2 and 3, when RL [ 47.5 and
with increased UCS, the residual increases. It is evident that
some samples correspond to UCS values [100 MPa for
RL [ 47.5, and data scatter increases. The ISRM (Aydin
2009) proposes that L-type hammers give better results when
testing is weak, porous and weathered rocks, thus caution
should be exercised when testing hard rocks and other test
procedures, such as suggested by ISRM, could lead to
deviations. The sections that follow provide further analysis
of the empirical correlation formulated above.
3 Using the Hr Value to Determine UCS Rating
in Rock Mass Classification
On the basis of the statistical analysis presented in Sect. 2
of this paper, a definite relationship between surface
hardness and UCS is observed. While previous studies
have proposed different relationships between these two
parameters in various rock types, the correlation between
surface hardness and UCS for efficient estimation of UCS
by proxy of Hr is established here.
3.1 Hr in Rock Mass Rating
Using the correlations between Hr and UCS shown in
Table 1 and the exponential relationship proposed in this
study, the range of Hr can be calculated. For example,
UCS = 2RL is obtained for sandstone, siltstone, mud-
stone and seatearth (Singh and Elkington 1983). Applying
the reverse operation with a UCS range of 50–100 MPa, a
range of 25–50 is obtained for Hr. Therefore, a rating of 7
is obtained from an Hr range of 25–50. The results are
summarized in Table 2. Combining geological observa-
tion with the Hr values obtained, RMR values can be
rapidly determined without the need for sampling and
testing.
In some cases a partial reverse operation is performed
(Table 2) because some parts of the relationships described
in Table 1 are more complex and density is required. And
it should note that Hr values [100 and \0 are not realistic
because Hr ranges only from 0 to 100 (Table 2).
From previous studies, it can be concluded that rock
type affects Hr, and the correlations described in Table 1
are based on specific rock types. Thus, and on the basis of
the results presented, the listed corresponding ranges
(Table 2) are only suitable for the given rock types and
conditions. However, the listed corresponding ranges, cal-
culated from this study, are suitable for rocks without
specific expression (discussed further in Sect. 3.3).

123
Correlation of UCS Rating with Schmidt Hammer Surface Hardness for Rock Mass Classification

Fig. 2 Comparison of different 300

Equation y=a*exp(b*x)
fitting models for N-type Adj. R-Square 0.69759
rebound value and UCS Value Standard Error
UCS a 5.45707 0.7708
UCS b 0.04527 0.00218
250
Equation y = a + b*x
Pearson's r 0.76416
Adj. R-Square 0.58186
Value Standard Error
200 UCS Intercept -45.24105 6.32662
UCS Slope 2.19606 0.13107 Upper limit values

UCS (MPa)
UCS=3.03Hr-30.3
Linear fit
150 Exponetial fit

100

50

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
N-type value

3.2 Hr in the Chinese Rock Mass Classification
Standard GB 50218-94
The basic quality (BQ) (China 1995) of rock mass was
established on the basis of the Chinese standard of engineering
classification of rock masses. In this classification, the deter-
mining factors of rock mass quality are the degrees of solidity
and intactness. The engineering classification of rock masses
is determined on the basis of BQ and modified according to
underground water, main joint set orientation and initial stress
conditions. In terms of the BQ, UCS is related to the qualita-
tive boundaries of solidity, as shown in Table 3. Combining
the correlations of Hr and UCS described in Table 1 and this
study, the range of Hr corresponding to the range of UCS is
obtained (Table 4). Therefore, an indirect way to discriminate
the degree of solidity is achieved.
The range of Hr is consistent with the measured range of
Schmidt hammer results; however, the range of Hr in
Table 4 is different from the measured range in Table 2. In
RMR, UCS ranges from 1 to 250 MPa, whereas in the BQ
of rock mass, UCS ranges from 5 to 60 MPa, which may
explain the variance between data in Tables 2 and 4. The
degree of solidity is qualitatively determined on the basis
of a difficult hammering degree, spring back phenomena
and water absorption. For example, a rock is qualitatively
considered ‘hard’ if hammering sounds clear and melodi-
ous, exhibits spring back, does not shatter easily and does
not absorb water after soaking. This qualitative differential
method is thus strongly associated with the influences of
actual rock type and degree of weathering. As a
consequence, Hr can differentiate the degree of solidity of
rock clearly. Singh and Elkington (1983) investigated
sandstone, siltstone, mudstone and seatearth and found that
Hr [ 30 corresponds to hard rock, while Aydin and Basu
(2005) examined granite and observed that Hr is [53.2
corresponds to hard rock. This study proposes that
Hr [ 46.1 corresponds to hard rock. These findings verify
that rock type plays a critical role in Hr determination, and
it cannot be ignored in practical application.
3.3 Analysis of UCS Replaced with Hr
The exchange relations of Hr and UCS have been estab-
lished in rock mass classification, but a simple and reliable
method should be developed for practical applications.
Considering that Hr is affected by rock type and errors are
produced through the reverse operation of the fitting rela-
tionships, the exchange relations calculated from the cor-
relations were analyzed. This was done on the basis of
single rock types with high degrees-of-fit in comparison
with results of this study.
Six comparison groups from Table 1 were selected;
these are described in previous studies (Aydin and Basu
2005; Dinçer et al. 2004; Ghose 1986; Singh and Elkington
1983; Tuğrul and Zarif 1999; Yılmaz and Sendır 2002). As
shown in Figs. 4, 5 and 6, UCS was assigned to the hori-
zontal axis and Hr to the vertical axis, where Hr is 0 when a
negative value is obtained.
RMR is initially considered (Figs. 4, 5) and, as a whole,
it is possible to distinguish the UCS rating by the Hr value

123
 H. Wang et al.

a b
200
200
Model 1 Model 2
150
150

100 100
Residual of UCS

Residual of UCS
50 50

0 0

-50 -50

-100 -100
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
L-type value L-type value

c d
200 200
Model 3 Linear fit

150 150

100 100
Residual of UCS

Residual of UCS

50 50

0 0

-50 -50

-100 -100
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
L-type value L-type value

Fig. 3 Residual analysis of UCS for different models of L-type

Table 2 Application of Hr in RMR

UCS (MPa) [250 100–250 50–100 25–50 5–25 1–5 \1
Rating 15 12 7 4 2 1 0

Range of Schmidt hammer Singh and Elkington (1983) [125 50–125 25–50 12.5–25 2.5–12.5 0.5–2.5 \0.5
rebound values Sheorey et al. (1984) [634 259–634 134–259 71.5–134 21.5–71.5 11.5–21.5 \11.5
Haramy and Demarco (1985) [251.9 101.0–251.9 50.7–101.0 25.5–50.7 5.4–25.5 1.4–5.4 \1.4
Ghose (1986) [308.1 137.6–308.1 70.6–137.6 42.2–70.6 19.4–42.2 14.9–19.4 \14.9
Sachpazis (1990) [74.0 39.0–74.0 27.4–39.0 21.6–27.4 16.9–21.6 16.0–16.9 \16.0
uğrul and Zarif (T1999) [79.7 61.7–79.7 55.7–61.7 52.8–55.7 50.4–52.8 49.9–50.4 \49.9
Yılmaz and Sendır (2002) [79.7 64.2–79.7 52.4–64.2 40.7–52.4 13.4–40.7 \13.4 –
Dinçer et al. (2004) [104.3 49.8–104.3 31.6–49.8 22.5–31.6 15.2–22.5 13.8–15.2 \13.8
Aydin and Basu (2005) [73.6 60–73.6 50–60 40–50 17.1–40 \17.1 –
Shalabi et al. (2007) [92.7 45.8–92.7 30.2–45.8 22.4–30.2 16.1–22.4 14.9–16.1 \14.9
Yagiz (2009) [82.4 57.8–82.4 44.2–57.8 33.8–44.2 18.1–33.8 9.7–18.1 \9.7
This study [71.5 55.2–71.5 42.8–55.2 30.5–42.8 1.8–30.5 \1.8 –

123
Correlation of UCS Rating with Schmidt Hammer Surface Hardness for Rock Mass Classification

Table 3 Relationship between UCS and qualitative boundaries of solidity (China 1995)
UCS (MPa) [60 60–30 30–15 15–5 \5

The degrees of solidity Hard rock Fairly hard rock Fairly soft rock Soft rock Extremely soft rock

Table 4 Application of Hr in rock mass basic quality(BQ)

UCS (MPa) [60 60–30 30–15 1–5 \5
The degrees of solidity Hard rock Fairly hard rock Fairly soft rock Soft rock Extremely soft rock

Range of Schmidt hammer Singh and Elkington (1983) [30 30–15 15–7.5 7.5–2.5 \2.5
rebound values Sheorey et al. (1984) [159 159–84 84–46.5 46.5–21.5 \21.5
Haramy and Demarco (1985) [60.7 60.7–30.6 30.6–15.5 15.5–5.4 \5.4
Ghose (1986) [81.9 81.9–47.9 47.9–30.8 30.8–19.4 \19.4
Sachpazis (1990) [29.7 29.7–22.7 22.7–19.2 19.2–16.9 \16.9
Tuğrul and Zarif (1999) [56.9 56.9–53.3 53.3–51.6 51.6–50.4 \50.4
Yılmaz and Sendır (2002) [55.5 55.5–43.8 43.8–32.0 32.0–13.4 \13.4
Dinçer et al. (2004) [35.2 35.2–24.3 24.3–18.8 18.8–15.2 \15.2
Aydin and Basu (2005) [53.2 53.2–43.3 43.3–33.4 33.4–17.7 \17.7
Shalabi et al. (2007) [33.3 33.3–23.9 23.9–19.2 19.2–16.1 \16.1
Yagiz (2009) [29.2 29.2–22.3 22.3–17.1 17.1–11.2 \11.2
This study [46.1 33.7–46.1 21.3–33.7 1.8–21.3 \1.8

350
Singh and Elkington (1983)
UCS (approx. 0–100 MPa), which is likely attributable to
Ghose (1986) control by the rock type. For example, Aydin and Basu
300 Tugrul and Zarif (1999)
Yilmaz and Sendir (2002) (2005) showed that the fitting of results of Ghose (1986)
250
Ismail Dincer (2004) were valid for the approximate range of 15–53 MPa. So the
Aydin and Basu (2005)
This study validity range of Hr for a given rock, as proposed by Aydin
200 and Basu (2005) and Yagiz (2009), cannot necessarily be
Hr

Validity range overlooked when employing this method.

150 for rebound value For the BQ of a rock mass, there are no data beyond the
range of the Schmidt hammer (Fig. 6), and there is good
100
discrimination with which to determine the UCS rating.
50 The curve (Tuğrul and Zarif 1999) in Fig. 6 shows a vague
discrimination that cannot be easily used in practical
0 applications, however. It is essential to take the validity
0 50 100 150 200 250 range into consideration, as the above analysis shows.
UCS (Mpa) The curves in Figs. 4, 5 and 6 indicate that Hr cannot be
used to distinguish very soft rocks, because when UCS is
Fig. 4 Comparison curves of different correlations between Hr and
UCS in RMR close to 0 Mpa, there is no rebound value. Similarly, for
extreme hard rock, the rebound value is beyond the mea-
sure range. Previous studies (Aydin and Basu 2005; Hea-
range, but the point interval of the curves (obtained from ther et al. 2011) also revealed that Hr is not suitable for soft
the work of Tuğrul and Zarif (1999)), is very close. In the or very hard rocks; Li et al. (2000) provided a theoretical
actual measurement, the average Hr is frequently used, and explanation of this. This lack of suitability for such rocks is
thus the extreme rebound value has a significant influence not investigated further in this paper.
on predicting the UCS rating. Considering Hr values of The curves for all rocks in Fig. 5 are proposed by this
0–100, it is evident that some data are beyond this range study. For a rating value of 7 (UCS range 50–100 MPa),
(Fig. 4). This range is magnified in Fig. 5 in which the there is correspondence to an RL range of 42.8–55.2, and
curves (Ghose 1986) correspond to the narrow range of Aydin and Basu (2005) proposed a corresponding range of

123
 H. Wang et al.

100 investigated in this paper. Hr can be obtained in the field or

in a laboratory, which is convenient, rapid and nonde-
80 structive. However, the existing correlation between Hr
and UCS is suitable only for a single rock, and previous
studies have mainly focused on statistical methods of
60
improving empirical correlations for given rock types.
Hr

Also, given the operational principle of Schmidt hammer

40 Singh and Elkington (1983) testing and the randomness of rocks, it is not possible to
Ghose (1986)
Tugrul and Zarif (1999) obtain an accurate UCS value from the rebound value.
20
Yilmaz and Sendir (2002) However, the results of this study demonstrate an
Ismail Dincer (2004)
Aydin and Basu (2005) empirical correlation between values obtained with the
This study
L-type hammer and UCS values for all rocks where
0
UCS = 4.52927e0.05609RL. There is an upper limit value
0 50 100 150 200 250 line where UCS = 3.03RN - 30.3 for the N-type hammer
UCS (Mpa) correlation with UCS, indicating a valid correlation only if
the N-type rebound value is [10.
Fig. 5 Comparison curves of different correlations between Hr and
UCS in RMR(when Hr ranges from 0 to 100) The introduction of RL to determine UCS ratings in
RMR and BQ classification was investigated using data
from this and previous studies. A correlation suitable for all
90
Singh and Elkington (1983) rocks is proposed, but errors may be generated in predict-
Ghose (1986)
80 Tugrul and Zarif(1999) ing UCS. Consequently, it is recommended that such is
70
Yilmaz and Sendir (2002) only used for estimating UCS rating in rocks without
Ismail Dincer (2004)
Aydin and Basu(2005) specific expressions and be revised in practical
60 This study
applications.
50 Overall, this study shows the value of Hr as a proxy for
Hr

40
UCS in rock mass classification such that ranges of Hr can
be calculated through reverse operation and, from fitting
30
relationships, the UCS rating can be determined. From this,
20 the RMR and BQ values can be determined. Thus, this
10
method is economic, time-saving, rapid and convenient for
rock mass classification, and avoids the need for sampling,
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
laboratory testing and large dispersions of data.
UCS (Mpa)
Acknowledgments This paper gets its funding from Project
Fig. 6 Comparison curves of different correlations between Hr and (51304240, 51474249) supported by National Natural Science
UCS in BQ Foundation of China; Project (No.2016CX019) supported by Inno-
vation Driven Plan of Central South University. Project
(WS2013A01) funded by the Open Projects of Supported by the State
50–60. This disparity may be related to a number of factors, Key Laboratory Cultivation Base for Gas Geology and Gas Control
such as differences in correlation for a given rock or all rock (Henan Polytechnic University). The authors wish to acknowledge
these supports. The authors would like to thank reviewer’s positive
types, or the fact that rebound values are affected by weath- suggestions.
ering, moisture content and grain size. However, the correla-
tion for a given rock provides an accurate UCS rating when
within the range of validity. For this reason, the correlation References
proposed in this study is best suited only for estimating UCS
rating, should be limited only to rocks without specific Aggistalis G, Alivizatos A, Stamoulis D, Stournaras G (1980)
expressions and should be revised in each practical application. Correlating uniaxial compressive strength with Schmidt hard-
ness, point load index, young’s modulus, and mineralogy of
gabbros and basalts (Northern Greece). Bull Eng Geol Environ
22:3–11
4 Conclusions ASTM (2005) Standard test method for determination of rock
hardness by Rebound Hammer Method, pp D5805–D5873
Aydan Ö, Ulusay R, Tokashiki N (2014) A new rock mass quality
To provide a convenient tool for engineers to determine rating system: rock mass quality rating (RMQR) and its
UCS rating values with which to estimate rock mass application to the estimation of geomechanical characteristics
quality, the correlation between Hr and UCS has been of rock masses. Rock Mech Rock Eng 47:1255–1276

123
Correlation of UCS Rating with Schmidt Hammer Surface Hardness for Rock Mass Classification
Aydin A (2009) ISRM suggested method for determination of the
Schmidt hammer rebound hardness: revised version. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 46:627–634
Aydin A, Basu A (2005) The Schmidt hammer in rock material
characterization. Eng Geol 81:1–14
Barton N (2002) Some new Q-value correlations to assist in site
characterisation and tunnel design. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
39:185–216
Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rock
masses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech Rock Eng
6:189–236
Basu A, Aydin A (2004) A method for normalization of Schmidt
hammer rebound values. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
41:1211–1214
Bieniawski ZT (1989) Engineering Rock Mass Classification. John
Wiley & Sons, New York
Buyuksagis IS, Goktan RM (2007) The effect of Schmidt hammer
type on uniaxial compressive strength prediction of rock. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci 44:299–307
China NSotPsRo (1995) Standard for engineering classification of
rock masses (GB50218-94). China Planning Press, Beijing
Çobanoğlu İ, Çelik SB (2008) Estimation of uniaxial compressive
strength from point load strength, Schmidt hardness and P-wave
velocity. Bull Eng Geol Environ 67:491–498
Demirdag S, Yavuz H, Altindag R (2009) The effect of sample size
on Schmidt rebound hardness value of rocks. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci 46:725–730
Dinçer I, Acar A, Çobanoğlu I, Uras Y (2004) Correlation between
Schmidt hardness, uniaxial compressive strength and Young’s
modulus for andesites, basalts and tuffs. Bull Eng Geol Environ
63:141–148
Ghose AK (1986) Empirical strength indices of Indian coals—An
Investigation. Paper presented at the The 27th US Symposium on
Rock Mechanics (USRMS), Tuscaloosa, Alabama 23–25 June
Haramy KY, Demarco MJ (1985) Use of the Schmidt hammer for
rock and coal testing. US Symp Rock Mech 1:901–907
Heather V, Andrew G, Stefan G, Jennifer L (2011) The use of the
Schmidt hammer and Equotip for rock hardness assessment in
geomorphology and heritage science: a comparative analysis.
Earth Surf Proc Land 36:320–333
Justo JL, Justo E, Azañón JM, Durand P, Morales A (2010) The use of
rock mass classification systems to estimate the modulus and
strength of jointed rock. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43:287–304
Kahraman S (2001) Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the
uniaxial compressive strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
38:981–994
Kahraman S, Fener M, Gunaydin O (2002) Predicting the Schmidt
hammer values of in–situ intact rock from core sample values.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 39:395–399
Karakus M, Tutmez B (2006) Fuzzy and multiple regression
modelling for evaluation of intact rock strength based on point
load, Schmidt hammer and sonic velocity. Rock Mech Rock Eng
39:45–57
View publication stats
Katz O, Reches Z, Roegiers JC (2000) Evaluation of mechanical rock
properties using a Schmidt hammer. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
37:723–728
Kayabali K, Selcuk L (2010) Nail penetration test for determining the
uniaxial compressive strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
47:265–271
Li X, Rupert G, Summers DA, Santi P, Liu D (2000) Analysis of
impact hammer rebound to estimate rock drillability. Rock Mech
Rock Eng 33:1–13
Marinos V, Marinos P, Hoek E (2005) The geological strength index:
applications and limitations. Bull Eng Geol Environ 64:55–65
O’Rourke JE (1989) Rock index properties for geoengineering in
underground development. Min Eng 41:106–110
Palmström A (1995) RMi-A rock mass characterization system for
rock engineering purposes. Oslo University, Oslo
Palmström A, Singh R (2001) The deformation modulus of rock
masses—comparisons between in situ tests and indirect esti-
mates. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 16:115–131
Palmstrom A, Stille H (2007) Ground behaviour and rock engineering
tools for underground excavations. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
22:363–376
Sachpazis CI (1990) Correlating Schmidt hardness with compressive
strength and Young’s modulus of carbonate rocks. Bull Eng
Geol Environ 42:75–83
Shalabi FI, Cording EJ, Al-Hattamleh OH (2007) Estimation of rock
engineering properties using hardness tests. Eng Geol
90:138–147
Sheorey PR, Barat D, Das MN (1984) Schmidt hammer rebound data
for estimation of large scale in situ coal strength. Int J Rock
Mech Mining Sci Geomech Abstracts 21:39–42
Singh RN, Elkington PAS (1983) The application of strength and
deformation index testing to the stability assessment of coal
measures excavations. Paper presented at the The 24th US
Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS), College Station,
Texas, 20–23 June
Tuğrul A, Zarif IH (1999) Correlation of mineralogical and textural
characteristics with engineering properties of selected granitic
rocks from Turkey. Eng Geol 51:303–317
Xu S, Mahtab A (1990) Use of Schmidt hammer for estimating
mechanical properties of weak rock. Paper presented at the Proc.
6th international IAEG congress, Balkema, Rotterdam, Vol. 1,
511–519
Yagiz S (2009) Predicting uniaxial compressive strength, modulus of
elasticity and index properties of rocks using the Schmidt
hammer. Bull Eng Geol Environ 68:55–63
Yaşar E, Erdoğan Y (2004) Estimation of rock physicomechanical
properties using hardness methods. Eng Geol 71:281–288
Yılmaz I, Sendır H (2002) Correlation of Schmidt hardness with
unconfined compressive strength and Young’s modulus in
gypsum from Sivas (Turkey). Eng Geol 66:211–219
123