International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 123 (2019) 104094

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijrmms

Technical Note

A new empirical formula for evaluating uniaxial compressive strength using T

the Schmidt hammer test
Min Wanga,∗, Wen Wanb
a
School of Mechanical Engineering, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan, China
b
School of Resource Environment and Safety Engineering, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of rock is an important geotechnical parameter for engineering ap-
Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) plications. However, how to determine the UCS simply and accurately has drawn the attentions of may re-
Schmidt hammer test searchers. To date, different kinds of indirect methods have been invented to determine the UCS of rocks, and
Empirical formula among these methods, estimation of the UCS based on the Schmidt hammer rebound value (Hr) was commonly
Simulated annealing-gene expression
adopted. In this paper, an insightful analysis of the literature related to UCS estimation using the Schmidt
programming(SA-GEP)
hammer test was conducted, and three stages for the development of UCS estimation using Hr were classified.
The drawbacks and merits of different kinds of techniques were analyzed in detail. Then, a data set containing
the data for different rock types was collected from references, and to obtain an objective empirical formula, the
simulated annealing-gene expression programming (SA-GEP) method was employed to establish the correlation
between UCS and Hr. Based on the calculation results, the L-type Schmidt hammer was suggested for use in UCS
estimation, and the corresponding empirical formula was established. To confirm validity of the empirical
formula, the Schmidt hammer tests and uniaxial compressive tests were conducted separately, the experimental
results were in a good agreement with the proposed empirical formula, implying that the proposed empirical
formula can be applied in engineering practice.

1. Introduction
Uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) is an important mechanical
parameter for rock classification, rock mass engineering design and
rock mass stability analysis, and it can also be used to assess rock
material strength in Rock Mass Rating (RMR).1 Conventionally, the UCS
of rocks can be determined by the uniaxial compressive tests, as sug-
gested by the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM)2 and the
American Standards for Testing Materials (ASTM).3 However, the
testing procedure is expensive, time-consuming, expensive, involves
destructive tests,4 and requires quality machined specimens.5,6 In fact,
it is not always possible to extract sufficient quantities of high-quality
cores from weak, highly fractured, weathered and thinly bedded rocks.
Hence, the conventional method for the testing uniaxial compressive
strength of rocks is limited to the physical and mineralogical properties
only. Additionally, measurement of the UCS by using the uniaxial
compressive tests is not convenient for the in situ testing.
Therefore, various indirect estimation methods have been so far
developed, the UCS of rocks can be estimated from different kinds of
measured data obtained in both laboratory tests and in situ
investigations. The indirect methods for estimating the UCS of rocks
have attracted increasing attentions1,7–14 due to several advantages,
such as little or no specimen preparation required for the test. Among
these indirect methods, the Schmidt hammer test has been widely used
to determine the UCS of rock materials.15–25
The Schmidt hammer is a portable compact, lightweight, cost-ef-
fective, and nondestructive device. The Schmidt hammer rebound test
was originally developed for concrete testing in the late 1940s, and for
many years, it has also been applied in a field testing of rock hard-
ness,26–32 it has been increasingly used worldwide due to its rapidity,
simplicity and portability.33 The Schmidt hammer test is quite easy to
implement because it requires less, no sample preparation and the
testing equipment is unsophisticated so that it can be easily applied in
the field. The procedure for using the Schmidt hammer is as follows:
first, the hammer should be regularly checked for calibration on a steel
anvil according to the instructions provided by manufacturer. Then, the
Schmidt hammer is pressed against a surface of rock materials, and the
piston in the Schmidt hammer is then released on the plunger. Some of
the piston's energy is transformed into sound and heat. The remaining
energy represents the impact penetration resistance of the surface,

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: michaelwong307@outlook.com (M. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2019.104094
Received 27 July 2018; Received in revised form 17 December 2018; Accepted 3 September 2019
Available online 20 September 2019
1365-1609/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Wang and W. Wan
which enables the piston to rebound. The rebound height of the piston
is called the Schmidt hammer rebound value.34 The Schmidt hammer
should be applied perpendicular to the core samples on five different
representative points spaced by least twice the plunger's diameter, be-
sides, and the rebound value is illustrated by a pointer on a scale (in the
10–100 range) on the side of the instrument.35
The Schmidt hammer models are designed with different levels of
impact energy, with the types L and N are commonly used for de-
termining the rock properties. The L-type Schmidt hammer (impact
energy of 0.735 Nm) is commonly used for rock testing, while the N-
type hammer (impact energy of 2.207 Nm) is used for concrete
testing.36,37 Due to the wide application of the Schmidt hammer in the
field of rock mechanics, the Schmidt hammer method has been ac-
cepted by the International Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM) and the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
With the development of rock mechanics, it was reported that the
Schmidt hammer test can be used for measuring different properties,
such as the penetration degree,38–42 discontinuities in rock,43 wall
strength of rock discontinuities,44 mine-roof control,45 rock mass ex-
cavatability classification,46 Young's modulus,15,47 and the UCS of rock
materials.48–54 The Schmidt hammer test was applied to estimate UCS
in many studies, such as those carried out by Signgh et al.55 and Shorey
et al.56 that established the correlation between UCS and the Schmidt
hammer rebound value for different lithological units. Haramy et al.57
performed the Schmidt hammer test using coal blocks from different US
locations, and the Schmidt hammer test rebound value was used to
predict the UCS of the rocks, while Ghose et al.58 proposed an empirical
relation between the UCS and Schmidt hammer rebound value for In-
dian coal that is convenient for practical use. O'Rourke59 obtained a
correlation with the regression coefficient (R) of 0.60 between the UCS
and Schmidt hammer rebound values based on the samples of sand-
stone, siltstone, limestone and anhydrite, and Kilic et al.60 found strong
relationships between the Schmidt hammer rebound value and the UCS
values for 19 different rock samples, including sedimentary, igneous,
and metamorphic rocks, and constructed the corresponding soft com-
puting models were constructed to predict the UCS. Obviously, the
methods for estimating the UCS using the Schmidt hammer test could
be divided into two kinds, namely, the empirical formula and the soft
computation techniques, both of which are useful methods of esti-
mating the UCS.
In this paper, to evaluate the UCS of rocks simply and accurately,
the references related to the UCS estimation using the Schmidt hammer
tests were reviewed in detail, the stages of development of UCS esti-
mation using the Schmidt hammer rebound value were classified, and
the advantages and the disadvantages of the techniques used to esti-
mate the UCS were analyzed. Then, a large amount data set was col-
lected from the references, and a simulated annealing-gene expression
programming algorithm was applied to establish objective empirical
formulas. Subsequently, a new empirical formula for estimating the
UCS using the L-type Schmidt hammer test was established.
Furthermore, to verify the validity of the proposed empirical formula,
the Schmidt hammer tests and the uniaxial compressive tests were
performed, and the results obtained by the empirical formula were
compared to the experimental data, confirming the validity of the
proposed empirical formula.
2. Development of Schmidt hammer tests for calculating UCS
Due to the limitation of the uniaxial compressive test, the Schmidt
hammer test was commonly applied to evaluate the UCS of rocks. Many
attempts have been made to predict the correlation between UCS and
Hr. To summarize, the research methods can be classified into two ca-
tegories: empirical formulas (Table 1) and soft computation techniques
(Table 2). Through analysis of Tables 1 and 2, three research stages for
the development of the Schmidt hammer tests for calculating UCS can
be observed.
2
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 123 (2019) 104094
Stage 1 (1966–1980) This stage began with the publication by Deere
et al.15 who used different rock types, such as basalt, diabase, and do-
lomite, and performed the corresponding Schmidt hammer test and the
uniaxial compressive test. Based on the experimental data, the em-
pirical formula was then obtained. Because the Schmidt hammer is
portable, compact and lightweight, the UCS can be quickly obtained by
using empirical formulas in situ, which is quite convenient in en-
gineering practice. Therefore, estimation of UCS by using the Schmidt
hammer test was gradually accepted by researchers.16,17,61,62
Stage 2 (1981–1993) Owing to the merits of the Schmidt hammer
test, this test was officially recommended by ISRM44 for obtaining the
hardness of rock materials, and the application of the Schmidt hammer
test was further accepted by many researchers and developed for other
applications. An increasing number of empirical formulas for evalu-
ating the UCS using the Schmidt hammer test were used,47,55–59,63 and
UCS estimation using the Schmidt hammer test was widely applied,
with this method drawing intense attention.
Stage 3 (1994-present) With the development of computer science,
different kinds of artificial algorithms were invented, and these tech-
niques have become increasingly attractive in many research fields
because a wide range of uncertainty can be tolerated. Additionally, soft
computation techniques, such as the ANN, FIS, SVR, etc., were applied
to predict the UCS of rocks.11,13,14,79–87 These artificial algorithms
promoted the development of the Schmidt hammer test for estimating
UCS. Meanwhile, in this stage, it should be noted that additional
parameters, such as dry density and ultrasonic P-wave velocity etc.,
were utilized to estimate the UCS, clearly improving the accuracy of
UCS estimation to some extent.
Despite the many improvements in the UCS estimation using the
Schmidt hammer test, some problems that should be addressed properly
still remain. The drawbacks of empirical formulas and soft computation
techniques should be analyzed separately. Empirical formulas have
been widely applied for in situ measurements due to the simplicity of
this approach. However, since empirical formulas were established on
the basis of limited experimental data sets and limited rock types, these
empirical formulas cannot be extensively applied in engineering prac-
tice. Another important factor that should be taken into consideration is
the empirical formula type. The empirical formula type (Table 1) is
chosen subjectively and ultimately determined trial and error. Fre-
quently, some common function types, such as linear, exponential,
power, and logarithmic functions, were selected, and then the best
empirical formula was determined based on the fitting coefficient.
Evidently, the trial and error method for determining the empirical
formula type is not sufficiently scientific or objective.
Soft computation techniques also have some limitations. First, the
soft computation techniques depend on the training data set, so if the
training data set is not sufficient large, the UCS prediction will be either
inaccurate or even be wrong. Second, it should be noted that many
prediction models listed in Table 2 are based on the ANN method that
has drawbacks that should be taken into consideration. On the one
hand, the hidden layer in the artificial neural network is a black box,
the data processing procedure is not clear or sufficiently transparent,
and the neural network may misunderstand the purpose of the re-
searchers, so the prediction result should be verified frequently. On the
other hand, the artificial neural network is a much more expensive
technique than the conventional method (empirical formulas), parti-
cularly with respect to the computational time. The computational time
of an ANN depends on the number of hidden layers and neurons, and
the number of hidden layers and neurons can not be determined ea-
sily.88–90 Additionally, the fuzzy inference system was also frequently
used to predict the UCS. Fuzzy logic and fuzzy inference systems in-
volve too many fuzzy rules that are difficult to deal with in practical
cases where variability exits. Additionally, the soft computation tech-
niques are not convenient for use in engineering practice.
Comparison to soft computation techniques shows that the em-
pirical formula is an easy-to-implement, time-saving technique for
M. Wang and W. Wan International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 123 (2019) 104094

Table 1
Empirical formulas for estimating the UCS using Hr.
Reference Rock type Schmidt hammer Empirical formula
type

Deere and Miller (1966)15
Aufmuth (1973)16
Dearman and Irfan (1978)17
Beverly (1979)61
Kidybinski (1980)62
Singh et al. (1983)55
Sheorey et al. (1984)56
Haramy and DeMarco
(1985)57
Ghose (1986)58
O'Rourk (1989)59
Sachpazis (1990)47
Xu et al. (1990)63
Aggistalist and Alivizatos
(1996)18
Tugrul and Zarif (1999)64
Katz et al. (2000)65
Kahraman (2001)66
51
Yilmaz and Sendir (2002)
Yasar and Erdogan (2004)51
Dincer et al. (2004)52
Aydin and Basu (2005)67
Fener et al. (2005)68
Shalabi et al. (2007)53
Kilic and Teymen (2008)60
Cobanoglu and Celik
(2008)54
Gupta (2009)69
Yagiz (2009)35
Torabi et al. (2010)22
Minaeian and Ahangari
(2013)70
Bruno et al. (2013)71
Saptono et al. (2013)72
Kadir and Kesimal (2015)73
Armaghani et al. (2016)74
Liang et al. (2016)75
Azimian (2017)76
Hebib et al. (2017)77
Kong and Shang (2018)78
Basalt, diabase, dolomite, gneiss, granite, limestone, marble, Not given UCS = 1246Hr − 34890
quartzite, rock salt, sandstone, schist, siltstone, tuff
25 different lithology Not given UCS = 0.33(Hr ·ρ)1.35
Granite L-type UCS = 0.0016Hr3.47
20 different rocks Not given UCS = 12.74e 0.185Hr
Different rock types and coal Not given UCS = 0.447e 0.45(Hr + 3.5) + γ
30 sedimentary units L-type UCS = 2Jr
20 lithological units N-type UCS = 0.4Hr − 3.6
10 different lithologies L-type UCS = 0.99Hr − 0.38
Coal Not given UCS = 0.88Hr − 12.11
Sandstone, siltstone, anhydrite L-type UCS = 4.85Hr − 76.18
Carbonates L-type UCS = 4.29Hr − 67.52
Mica-schist Not given UCS = 2.98e 0.06Hr
Gabbro, basalt Not given UCS = 1.31Hr − 2.52
Granite Not given UCS = 8.36Hr − 416
Chalk, limestone, marble, granite N-type UCS = 2.208e 0.067Hr
Dolomite, sandstone, limestone, marble, granite, diabase, N-type UCS = 6.97e 0.014Hr
serpentine, hematite
Gypsum Not given UCS = e (0.818 + 0.06Hr )
13 samples of various carbonate rock types Not given UCS = 0.000004Hr4.29
Andesite, basalts, tuffs Not given UCS = 2.75Hr − 36.83
Granite L-type UCS = 1.45e 0.07Hr
11 different rock samples N-type UCS = 4.24e (0.059Hr )
Shale, anhydrite, dolomite L-type UCS = 3.201Hr − 46.59
19 different rock samples N-type UCS = 0.0137Hr2.2721
Sandstone, mortar samples L-type UCS = 6.59Hr − 212.63
Granite Not given UCS = 1.15Hr − 15
Carbonates, metamorphic Not given UCS = 0.28Hr2.584
Siltstone, sandstone, shale, argyle L-type UCS = 0.0465Hr − 0.1756PLI + 27.682
Stuff, limestone, marl L-type UCS = 0.678HrUCS = 0.056Vp + 0.315Hr − 0.46
Sedimentary carbonate rocks Not given UCS = e 2.28Hr − 4.04
Wlarukin formation sandstone, mudstone (Turkey) L-type UCS = 0.308Hr1.327
Sedimentary rocks, igneous rocks L-type UCS = 0.1383Hr1.743
UCS = 0.097Hr1.8776
UCS = 4.2423Hr − 81.92
Granite, metamorphic, sedimentary rocks L-type UCS = 11.42e 0.0297Hr + 0.001Vp1.178 + 22.297Is(50) − 35.051
Sandstone Not given UCS = 43.36DD + 11.161Is(50) + 1.039Hr − 112.46
limestone L-type UCS = 2.664Hr − 35.22UCS = 1.530Hr + 0.11Vp − 24.673
limestone, sandstone, Dolomite, Calcareous tuff L-type UCS = 2.855e 0.0632Hr
Magnesian limesonte, woodkirk sandstone L-type UCS = 1.80 × 10−5Hr − 5.5(L− type)
N-type
UCS = 0.30Hr1.43 (N− type)

UCS : uniaxial compressive strength; Hr : Schmidt hammer rebound value; Vp : ultrasonic P-wave velocity; DD : dry density; PLI : point load index; γ : unit weight.

determining the UCS, but the limitations of the empirical formulas
should be addressed properly. Hence, in this paper, a soft computing
technique, namely, simulated annealing-gene expression programming,
was used to determine the empirical formulas objectively based on a
large data set.
3. Empirical formula determination using simulated annealing-
gene expression programming
3.1. Gene expression programming
In the process of identifying the proper empirical formula relating
UCS and Hr, the empirical formula type can not be determined a prior,
it should be determined based on the data set. In fact, the empirical
formula function can be treated as an algebraic expression, thus
transforming the problem into that of finding an appropriate algebraic
expression that can reflect the data set well. Gene expression pro-
gramming (GEP) is a good approach for determining an algebraic
expression objectively based on the data set.
The gene expression programming (GEP) algorithm was invented by
Ferreira in 2001.91,92 The GEP is a genotype-phenotype genetic algo-
rithm that has the simplicity of the genetic algorithm and the cap-
abilities of genetic programming,93 while overcoming the GEP the
drawbacks of the genetic algorithm and genetic programming ap-
proaches.94,95 The chromosomes in GEP consist of two different kinds of
symbols, namely, function symbols and terminal symbols. The function
symbols can be standard mathematical operations {+, -, *,/, sqrt, exp,
log, ln, sin, cos, … }, logical operations {and, or, not, … } or user-
defined functions. While, the terminal symbols can be inclusive vari-
ables or numerical constants.96,97 In the process of transformation from
the chromosomes, the function symbols have a different number of
arguments, whereas the terminal argument is zero. The chromosomes in
GEP are linear symbolic strings that follow the Karva language that was
invented by Ferreira.92 The Karva language is applied to read the coded
programs in the chromosomes. For example, a GEP chromosome can be
expressed as:

3
M. Wang and W. Wan International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 123 (2019) 104094

Table 2
Soft computation techniques for predicting the UCS.
Reference Rock type Predictive model variable

79
Garret (1994) Not given ANN Hr Vp Is(50) , n
Yilmaz and Yuksek (2008)80 Gypsum ANN Hr , ne Is(50) , Id
Yilmaz and Yuksek (2009)11 Gypsum ANN, ANFIS Hr Vp Is(50) , Wc
Dehghan et al. (2010)81 Travertine samples ANN Hr Is(50)Vp , n
Monjezi et al. (2012)13 Sandstone, limestone, dolomite, granite, chalk, geneiss, siltstone, tuff, gypsum, olivine, ANN-GA Hr ρ , n
granodiorite, slate, schist, conglomerate, quartzite, gabbro and amphibolite
Yagiz et al. (2012)14 Carbonates, metamorphic ANN Hr Vpn ρ , Id
Rezaei et al. (2012)82 Diabase, gabbro, olivine, amphibolite, dolerite, granodiorite, quartzite, basalt FIS Hr ρ , n
Yurdakul and Akdas (2013)83 marble, limestone, travertine, lacustrine, Breccia ANN Hr SH , Vp
Mishra and Basu (2013)24 Granite, sandstone and schist FIS Hr Vp Is(50) , BPI
Momeni et al. (2015)84 limestone, granite PSO-ANN Hr ρVp , Is(50)
Danial Jahed Armaghani et al. Sandstone ICA-ANN Hr Vp , Is(50)
(2016)85
Fattahi (2017)86 Basalt, Metabasalt SVR-ABC Hr
Heidari et al. (2018)87 grainstone, wackestone-mudstone, boundstone, gypsum, silty marl FIS Hr BPI , Is(50) , Vp

BPI : block punch index; Is(50) : point load strength; Hr : Schmidt hammer rebound value; Vp : ultrasonic P-wave velocity; Id : slake durability index; ne : effective porosity;
n : porosity; ρ : density; SH : shore hardness; FIS: fuzzy inference system; ANN: artificial neural network; PSO: particle swarm optimization; ICA: imperialist com-
petitive algorithm; ANFIS: adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system; SVR: support vector regression; ABC: artificial bee colony algorithm; GA: genetic algorithm.

Q∗ + −a b c d (1)

where “Q” represents the square root function in the GEP individual, ‘*’
represents multiplication, ‘+’ represents addition, ‘-’ represents sub-
traction, and ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘c’, ‘d’ are the terminal symbols. Then, the term-
inals and functions are listed from top to bottom, and from left to right
on each line. The process is repeated until a line containing a terminal is
formed. Therefore, the chromosome (Eq. (1)) can be simply trans-
formed into an expression tree as illustrated in Fig. 1.
According to the expression tree (Fig. 1), an algebraic expression
can be obtained:

(a + b) × (c − d ) (2)

GEP have two advantages: first, GEP chromosomes can be easily

transformed into an algebraic expression, and this process is simple and
elegant; second, GEP chromosomes have fixed lengths, but the open
reading frames length may be equal to or less than the length of the GEP
chromosomes, which is convenient for the further operation in the GEP
algorithm.91
A chromosome in the GEP algorithm consists of two parts: a head
and a tail. A head can contain any function or terminal symbols,
whereas a tail part can only contain terminal symbols. The length of the
head is an user-determined parameter, while the length of the tail is
estimated based on the following equation98,99:
t = h (n − 1) + 1
where, t is the length of the tail, h is the length of the head, and n is the
maximum arguments of the functions. In the GEP process, a certain
number (population size) of chromosomes will be generated in the in-
itial step, and then the chromosomes are expressed as expression trees
and algebraic expressions, and their fitness is estimated based on the
algebraic expressions. If the termination criterion is not satisfied, the
Fig. 2. The flow chart of GEP.
process is continued. The main process of the GEP algorithm is illu-
(3) strated in Fig. 2.
As illustrated in Fig. 2, the conceptual basis of GEP is on basis of
Darwin's theory of the ‘survival of the fittest’, and the main genetic
operators in GEP consist of selection, mutation, transposition and re-
combination, which are applied to the chromosomes. In the selection
process, the individuals are selected based on the fitness and the roul-
ette wheel sampling99 to produce the new generation. It should be
mentioned that in the mutation operator, any symbol can be replaced
by another symbol. In addition, the mutation rate should be in the
range of 0.01–0.1, as was recommended by some researchers.100–103 In
the transposition, the gene in the chromosome can be moved to another
location, and the recommended transposition rate is between 0.01 and
0.1; additional explanation of transposition procedure can be found in
Ferreira's work.91,92 Another important part of GEP is recombination,
which is also called crossover, and the recombination part of GEP is the
same as that in a genetic algorithm.93

3.2. Simulated annealing-gene expression programming (SA-GEP)

Fig. 1. The expression tree. Nevertheless, GEP has two drawbacks: 1) the chromosome code in

4
M. Wang and W. Wan
GEP requires a large storage space; 2) the convergence rate is slow.
Obviously, the storage of the chromosome code can hardly be changed
because it is determined by the GEP algorithm. Hence, the GEP algo-
rithm can only be improved with regard to the convergence rate.
Adler104 suggested that changing the mutation rate in the mutation
process according to the simulated annealing algorithm105,106 can ac-
celerate the convergence of the genetic algorithm. Similarly, the GEP
also contains a mutation process, hence, this improvement can also be
applied to the GEP. According to Adler, the fitness of every individual
can been changed as follows:
e fi / T
fi − roulette wheel = M
∑i = 1 e fi / T
where, fi is the fitness of the i th individual, fi − roulette wheel is the fitness of
the i th individual in roulette wheel sampling99; M is the population
size, and T is the temperature. The temperature T can be expressed as
follows.
T = T0 (0.99 g − 1)
where T0 is the initial temperature, g is the number of evolutions, and T
is the temperature after g evolutions.
According to Adler, the mutations occur based on the simulated
annealing algorithm (SA). When the fitness of the individual after
mutation is greater than that before the mutation, the mutation will
occur, or, the mutation will occur at the probability of e (fi − before − fi − after )/ T .
fi − before is the fitness of the i th individual before the mutation, and
fi − after is the fitness of the i th individual after the mutation.
For convenience of implementation of SA-GEP in the following, the
flow chart of SA-GEP is illustrated in Fig. 3.
3.3. Empirical formula determined by SA-GEP
Before determining the empirical formulas, the data set of UCS and
Hr should be collected. In this paper, 1106 groups of data sets were
collected from twenty-seven references, and the basic information
contained in data sets is listed in Table 3.
Because two types of the Schimidt hammer exist, to avoid the in-
fluence of the Schmidt hammer type, the collected data were divided
into two parts: the data determined by the L-type Schmidt hammer
(Fig. 4(a), 640 groups of data sets) and those determined using the N-
type Schmidt hammer (Fig. 4(b), 466 groups of data sets).
Fig. 3. Flow chart of SA-GEP.
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 123 (2019) 104094
The data set of UCS and Hr of rocks includes the results obtained for
a variety of rock types, including sandstone, limestone, marble, and
granite, and the sufficiently large size of the data set guarantees the
effectiveness of the empirical formulas.
Combining the data set and SA-GEP theory, an objective empirical
formula will be determined. Prior to implementing gene expression
programming, the function set F should be determined, and in this
paper, a total of eight functions were selected, as listed in Eq. (6).
F = {sqrt,+,−,×,÷,exp,log,pow} (6)
where ‘sqrt’ represents the square root function (one argument), ‘+’
represents addition (two arguments), ‘-’ means subtraction (two argu-
(4) ments), ‘×’ represents multiplication (two arguments), ‘÷’ represents
division (two arguments), ‘exp’ represents the exponential function
with the base e (one argument), ‘log’ represents the logarithmic func-
tion (two arguments), and ‘pow’ represents the exponential function
(two arguments).
The terminal sets are as follows:
(5) T = {P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10, P11, Hr } (7)
where ‘P1‘~ ’P11‘are the fitting parameters that must be determined when
the regression is conducted based on the algebraic expression and data
set, and ‘Hr’ is the Schmidt hammer rebound value. It is worth men-
tioning that the terminal symbols in the chromosomes of GEP do not
have any arguments.
In this paper, the head length of chromosomes h is 20, and n
(maximum argument of all functions in head) is 40, and based on Eq.
(3) the tail of the chromosomes is 781. Therefore, the length of the
chromosomes is 801.
Every chromosome can be decoded as an algebraic expression, then
the algebraic expression can be treated as f (Hr ) , and the UCS values
can be expressed by the algebraic expression f (Hr ) .
UCS = f (Hr ) (8)
The fitting coefficient R of Eq. (8) based on the data set (Fig. 4) was
2
selected as the fitness of the corresponding chromosome, and R2 can be
calculated based on the following equation.
n
∑i = 1 (f (Hri ) − UCSi )2
R2 = 1 − n
∑i = 1 (UCSi − UCSmean )2 (9)
where UCSi are the measured UCS values from the collected data set,
UCSmean is the average UCS value in the data set, f (Hri ) are the pre-
dicted UCS values calculated based on the fitting of Eq. (8) and Hr in the
collected data set, and n is the size of the data set.
Furthermore, a series of parameters should be determined before
implementing the SA-GEP algorithm. In our study, the initial tem-
perature in the mutation process is set to 100, the transposition rate is
0.01, the recombination rate is 0.7, the population size is 500, these
parameters were determined based on the work of Ferreira,91,92 Du-
panloup105 and Kipkpatrick.106 The SA-GEP process is terminated when
now new best individuals were generated within the last 1000 evolu-
tion iterations.
To conveniently obtain the empirical formula based on the data set
by using SA-GEP, the process was determined as illustrated in Fig. 5.
The SA-GEP algorithm used to obtain the empirical equation was
implemented by the Python programming language that has many
merits; Python is elegant, easy to learn, and commonly used in the
artificial intelligence field.
After 4929 evolution iterations, the best results were obtained, and
the best chromosome (L-type Schmidt hammer test) in the population
that appeared in the evolution was as follows:
−/
 P1 P5 − P9 Hr Hr +P
5/
+/ ∗ − P5 + P8 HP1 
r P1……
P
11
head(length is 20) tail(length is 781) (10)
Eq. (10) can be decoded into an expression tree, which is depicted in
Fig. 6. Then the expression tree can be transformed into an algebraic
5
M. Wang and W. Wan International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 123 (2019) 104094

Table 3
The ba]sic information of the collected data sets.
Reference Rock type Schmidt hammer type Number of data sets

66
Kahraman (2001) dolomite, sandstone, limestone, marl, diabase N-type 46
Aydin and Basu (2005)67 Granite L-type 40 (L-type)
N-type 40 (N-type)
Fener et al. (2005)68 Basalt Granite, andesite, metagabro, granodiorite, quartzite, marble, limestone, travertine N-type 11
Karakus and Tutmez (2006)107 dacite, biosparitic limestone, sparitic crystallised limestone, Elazig marble, sandy sparitic L-type 9
limestone, Listwanite
Buyuksagis and Goktan (2007)108 granite, marble, limestone, Breccia L-type and N-type 27 (L-type)
27 (N-type)
53
Faisal et al. (2007) Dolomite, Dolomitic limestone L-type 35
Kilic and Teymen (2008)60 Diorite, quartzite, limestone, sandstone, granodiorite, basalt, marble, trachyte, andesite N-type 19
Cobanoglu and Celic (2008)54 Sandstone, limestone L-type 15
Torabi et al. (2010)22 Shale, argile, siltstone L-type 41
Kayabali and Selcuk (2010)109 Gypsum, sandstone, Andesite, Tuff, Ignimbrite, Marble, Limestone L-type and N-type 65 (L-type)
65 (N-type)
Yarali and Soyer (2013)110 Quartzite, limestone, Diabase, Granodiorite, Siltstone, Syenite, Dolomit, Basalt, Marl, N-type 22
Sandstone
83
Yurdakul and Akdas (2013) marble, limestone, travertine, lacustrine, Breccia N-type 10
Ataei et al. (2015)111 magnetite N-type 11
Momeni et al. (2015)84 limestone, granite L-type 66
Tandon and Gupta (2015)112 Himalayan quartzites, granite, geneisses, Himalayan metabasics, dolomite N-type 60
Karaman and Kesimal (2015)113 Basalt, Metabasalt, dacite, limesonte, sandy limestone L-type 46
Iok-Tong et al. (2015)114 granite L-type 115
Armaghani et al. (2016)74 Granite, metamorphic, sedimentary rocks L-type 71
Hebib et al. (2017)77 limestone, sandstone, Dolomite, Calcareous tuff L-type 19
Azimian (2017)76 limestone L-type 30
Akram et al. (2017)115 wackestone, mudstone, packstone L-type 37
Afolagboye et al. (2017)116 granite, migmatite gneiss, quartzite, charnokites N-type 50
Fattahi (2017)86 Basalt, Metabasalt L-type 10
Kong and Shang (2018)78 Magnesian limestone, Woodekirk sandstone type 9 (L-type)
N-type 9 (N-type)
Heidari et al. (2018)87 grainstone, wackestone-mudstone, boundstone, gypsum, silty marl N-type 115
Ghasemi et al. (2018)117 carbonate rocks L-type 1
Petrakis and Komnitsas (2018)118 quartz, marble, quartzite, metasandstone L-type 4

expression: 3.4. Empirical formula verification

P5/(P9 − Hr ) − P1 (11) To further verify the validity of the proposed empirical formula (Eq.
(13)), five kinds of rocks (granite, yellow rust granite, red sandstone,
Moreover, based on the calculation result, the value of fitting Maokou limestone and skarn) were selected, and the corresponding
parameters P5, P9 and P1 are 6222, 88.15 and 70.38, respectively. cylindrical specimens with dimensions of Φ50mm × 100mm were pre-
Hence, Eq. (11) can be simplified as: pared. Meanwhile, four specimens were prepared for each kind of rock,
for a total of 20 rock specimens.
6222
− 70.38 The HT-225B Schmidt hammer (L-type) was applied to obtain the
(88.15 − Hr ) (12)
Schmidt hammer rebound value, and the Schmidt hammer tests were
repeated fifty times for each specimen, with the average value used as
Based on the calculation results, the relation between the UCS va-
the result. Then, the uniaxial compressive tests were performed by
lues and Hr can be expressed as:
using a New SANS testing machine with a loading rate of 100 N/s. The
6222 experimental results obtained using the Schmidt hammer tests and the
UCS = − 70.38 uniaxial compressive tests are listed in Table 4.
(88.15 − Hr ) (13)
To compare the results obtained using the proposed empirical for-
The corresponding fitting coefficient (R2) is 0.6081. Meanwhile, the mula and the experimental data, the R2 value is calculated based on Eq.
calculation was also implemented using GEP, but it takes 10000 evo- (9), and the fitting coefficient R2 is found to be 0.95, indicating that the
lution iterations, hence, the use of SA-GEP is preferred. Similarly, the proposed empirical formula can reflect the experimental data well and
empirical formula for estimating UCS using the N-type Schmidt confirming the validity of the empirical formula Eq. (11). Fig. 7 illus-
hammer was established and is given by: trates the proposed empirical formula and the experimental results.

0.6549
UCS = ⎛2.0798 +
⎜
⎞ × (Hr +
⎟ Hr ) − 28.02
⎝ − 4.0339Hr + 328.5 ⎠
The corresponding fitting coefficient is 0.4301. By comparing to the
N-type Schmidt hammer type, the empirical formula for estimating the
UCS using the L-type Schmidt hammer can clearly provide good pre-
diction results, and the empirical formula for estimating UCS using the
L-type Schmidt hammer is much simpler than that using the N-type
Schmidt hammer. Hence, the L-type Schmidt hammer was strongly
recommended for predicting the UCS, which is consistent with the
study of ISRM study.5,6
4. Discussion
(14)
The UCS of a rock is a critically important parameter for rock mass
engineering stability and rock mass design, particularly when the rocks
are subjected to compressive stresses with low confining pressure.119
Therefore, determining the UCS accurately and simply is of critical
importance for rock mass engineering. Generally, two types of methods
are used for the determination of the UCS: (a) direct laboratory tests on
rock samples; (b) indirect estimations based on some correlated para-
meters that can be obtained much more easily than the UCS itself. The
direct laboratory tests require very strict conditions for the preparation

6
M. Wang and W. Wan
Fig. 4. The data set collected from 27 references.
of the rock specimens, which are difficult and sometimes even im-
possible to realize for cracked rocks. Additionally, obtaining core
samples is costly and time-consuming because it requires a highly
skilled operator.4,8,98,120 Therefore, the indirect estimation methods of
the UCS of rocks have been widely used due to simplicity and non-
destructive nature. Among these techniques, the Schmidt hammer test
to estimate the UCS of rock is more practical and economical. The
Schmidt hammer is portable and can be used in both the laboratory and
the field.
Hence, in this paper, the references related to UCS prediction using
the Schmidt hammer tests were reviewed in detail, and it was found
that the UCS estimated using the Schmidt hammer test can be divided
into two kinds: those using the empirical formulas and those using soft
computation techniques. Previously, the empirical formulas were
commonly utilized to estimate the UCS based on Hr. To obtain more
accurate UCS, considerable efforts have been devoted to the develop-
ment of empirical formulas to predict the UCS for various rock types by
linear regression analysis,87,104,121–123 the multiple regression80,120
and nonlinear regression models.23,124–127 For empirical formulas,
there exist two problems that should be addressed properly: the ob-
jective empirical formula type and the limited rock types. Con-
ventionally, the empirical formula types were often determined based
on researchers’ experience. In the process of determining the empirical
formula, some typical formula types were frequently utilized, such as
7
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 123 (2019) 104094
the linear, exponential, power, and logarithmic functions, and then, the
best empirical formula types were be determined based on the fitting
coefficient. Clearly, this process is not scientific, and as a result, the
reliability and applicability of the previous empirical formulas are
questionable.
Meanwhile, with the development of soft computation techniques,
some artificial algorithms were applied to UCS prediction. An analysis
of the soft computation techniques found that a large data set is needed
in the prediction models, and the computational process is time-con-
suming, while soft computation techniques are strongly dependent on
the software and computational equipment.
Combining the merits of the soft computation techniques and the
empirical formulas, a soft computation technique, namely, SA-GEP, was
used to determine an empirical formula for predicting the UCS values.
In this paper, 1106 groups of data set were collected from twenty-seven
references, and the SA-GEP calculations were applied to obtain the
empirical formulas. Consequently, two empirical formulas were ob-
tained for UCS evaluation by using the L-type or N-type Schmidt
hammer. According to the computation results, the use of the L-type
Schmidt hammer was strongly suggested, as was also found by previous
studies.5,6,44,67 Consequently, the validity of the proposed empirical
formula was verified by the Schmidt hammer tests and the uniaxial
compressive tests, and the proposed empirical formula can be applied to
engineering practice.
M. Wang and W. Wan International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 123 (2019) 104094

Table 4
The experimental results of Schmidt hammer tests and uniaxial compressive
tests.
Specimen Hr UCS(MPa)

Granite-1 67 189
Granite-2 64 178
Grainte-3 65 185
Granite-4 66 199
Yellow rust granite-1 55 124
Yellow rust granite-2 57 138
Yellow rust granite-3 62 150
Yellow rust granite-4 57 141
Red sandstone-1 20 25
Red sandstone-2 39 53
Red sandstone-3 29 40
Red sandstone-4 20 23
Markou limestone-1 50 92
Markou limestone-2 45 68
Markou limestone-3 49 87
Markou limestone-4 51 97
Skarn-1 52 99
Skarn-2 53 101
Skarn-3 46 84
Skarn-4 54 110

Fig. 5. The flow chart of SA-GEP for obtaining the empirical formula.

Fig. 7. The proposed empirical formula and the experimental results.

Schmidt hammer rebound orientation, weathering state of the rock, and

Fig. 6. The expression tree of Eq. (10).
It should be noted that the empirical formulas obtained by SA-GEP
are inherently very different from the conventional regression method.
Strictly speaking, the regression is only part of the procedure for de-
termining an empirical formula using the SA-GEP algorithm, and the
process of selecting the best empirical formulas according to the data
set uses artificial intelligence so that the SA-GEP method can be used to
determine the empirical formula more objectively.
However, it should be mentioned that the empirical formulas pro-
posed in this paper still exhibit some drawbacks that are caused by the
limitation of the Schmidt hammer test and the data set. In practice, the
application of the Schmidt hammer test on very soft and extremely hard
rocks is not recommended,63 hence, the empirical formula cannot ac-
curately estimate the UCS of soft rocks and extremely hard rocks. Ad-
ditionally, the Hr value in the data set for determining the empirical
formula are in the range of 10–70, and the Hr values in the experimental
data for verifying the proposed empirical formula were also between 10
and 70. Hence, the Hr values in Eq. (13) should be between 10 and 70.
Furthermore, the Schmidt hammer rebound values are influenced by
the specimens’ size, rock type, density, anisotropy, moisture content,
other factors,34,128,129 which can influence the UCS estimation, but
these factors are not discussed and considered in this paper, the con-
sideration of these factors will be our next task. Nevertheless, the em-
pirical formula was determined objectively using a large number of
data set, and the proposed empirical formula was verified by the
Schmidt hammer tests and uniaxial compressive tests so that the em-
pirical formula can be applied in engineering practice.
5. Conclusions
The UCS of rock is regarded as the most widely used design para-
meter in the general field of rock engineering. As a nondestructive,
portable and cost-effective device for a hardness testing device, the
Schmidt hammer is often used to obtain an indirect estimation of UCS.
To predict the UCS based on the Schmidt hammer rebound value ac-
curately and simply, in this paper, references related to UCS estimation
using the Schmidt hammer test were reviewed in detail. Afterwards,
1106 data sets in total were collected from twenty-seven references,
and the SA-GEP algorithm was utilized. The corresponding empirical
formula was determined. In addition, the proposed empirical formula
was verified by the Schmidt hammer tests and the uniaxial compressive

8
M. Wang and W. Wan
tests. The main conclusions of this paper are summarized below.
Through an analysis of the references, the development of the UCS
estimation using Hr values can be classified into three stages. The merits
and drawbacks of conventional empirical formulas and soft computa-
tion techniques were analyzed. It was found that previous empirical
formulas were determined subjectively.
Conventionally, the empirical formula type was determined ac-
cording to the researchers' experience, which is not scientific. To ad-
dress this problem, the SA-GEP method was applied to determine the
empirical formulas based on the data set. The empirical formulas were
established. According the computation results, the L-type Schmidt
hammer was recommended for practical use, and the empirical formula
6222
for the L-type Schmidt hammer is UCS = (88.15 − H ) − 70.38
r
(10 ≤ Hr ≤ 70) . However, the application of the Schmidt hammer test
on very soft and extremely hard rocks is not recommended, hence, the
empirical formula cannot accurately estimate the UCS of soft rocks and
extremely hard rocks. Furthermore, the Schmidt hammer rebound va-
lues are influenced by the specimens’ size, rock type, density, aniso-
tropy, moisture content, Schmidt hammer rebound orientation,
weathering state of the rock, and other factors, which can influence the
UCS estimation, but these factors are not discussed and considered in
this paper, the proposed empirical formula can be applied in en-
gineering practice according to specific condition.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (51774131, 51774132 & 51804110).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2019.104094.
6. Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
1. Bieniawski ZT. Point load test in geotechnical practice. Eng Geol. 1975;9(1):1–11.
2. ISRM. The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing and
monitoring. In: Ulusay R, Hudson JA, eds. Suggested Methods Prepared by the
Commission on Testing Methods, International Society for Rock Mechanics. Ankara,
Turkey: RSRM Turkish National Group; 2007:1974–2006.
3. ASTM. Standard Test Method for Unconfined Compressive Strength of Intact Rock Core
Specimens. Soil and Rock, Building Stones: Annual Book of ASTM Standards 4.08.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: ASTM; 1984.
4. Gokceoglu C, Zorlu K. A fuzzy model to predict the unconfined compressive strength
and modulus of elasticity of probluematic rock. Eng Appl Artif Intell. 2004;17:61–72.
5. ASTM. Standard Practice for Preparing Rock Core Specimens and Determining
Dimensional and Shape Tolerances. D4543 Philadelphia Pa: ASTM; 2001.
6. Suggested ISRM. Methods for determining the uniaxial compressive strength and
deformability of rock materials. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr.
1979;16:135–140.
7. Meulenkamp F, Grima MA. Application of neural networks for the unconfined
compressive strength (UCS) from Equotip hardness. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.
1999;36(1):29–39.
8. Diamantis K, Gartzos E, Migiros G. Study on uniaxial compressive strength point
load strength index dynamic and physical properties of serpentinites from Central
Greece: test results and empirical relations. Eng Geol. 2009;108:199–207.
9. Gokceoglu C, Sonmez H, Zorlu K. Estimating the uniaxial compressive strength of
some clay-bearing rocks selected from Turkey by nonlinear multivariable regression
and rule-based fuzzy models. Expert Syst. 2009;26(2):176–190.
10. Gokceoglu C, Zorlu K, Ceryanc S, Nefeslioglu HA. A comparative study on indirect
determination of degree of weathering of granites from some physical and strength
parameters by two soft computing techniques. Mater Char. 2009;60:1317–1327.
11. Yilmaz I, Yuksek G. Prediction of the strength and elastic modulus of gypsum using
multiple regression ANN and ANFIS models. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.
2009;46:803–810.
12. Del Potro R, Hurlimann M. A comparison of different indirect techniques to evaluate
volcanic intact rock strength. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2009;42:931–938.
9
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 123 (2019) 104094
13. Monjezi M, Khoshalan HA, Razifard M. A neuro-genetic network for predicting
uniaxial compressive strength of rock. Geotech Geol Eng. 2012;30:1053–1063.
14. Yagiz S, Sezer EA, Gokceoglu C. Artificial neural networks and nonlinear regression
techniques to assess the influence of slake durability cycles on the prediction of
uniaxial compressive strength and modulus of elasticity for carbonate rocks. Int J
Numer Anal Methods Geomech. 2012;36:1636–1650.
15. Deer DU, Miller R. Engineering Classification and Index Properties for Intact Rock.
Deformation Curve AFNL-TR; 1966:65–116.
16. Aufmuth ER. A systematic determination of engineering criteria for rocks. Bull Assoc
Eng Geol. 1973;11:235–245.
17. Dearman WR, Irfan TY. Assessment of the degree of weathering in granite using
petrographic and physical index tests. Proc. Int. Symp. On Deterioration and Protection
of Stone Monuments. Paris: Unesco; 1978:1–35.
18. Aggistalis G, Alivizatos A. Correlating uniaxial compressive strength with Schmidt
hammer rebound number, point load index, Young's modulus, and mineralogy of
gabbros and basalts. Bull Eng Geol. 1996;54:3–11.
19. Tugrul A. The effect of weathering on pore geometry and compressive strength of
selected rock types from Turkey. Eng Geol. 2004;75:215–227.
20. Sabatakakis N, Koukis G, Tsiambaos G, Papanakli S. Index properties and strength
variation controlled by microstructure for sedimentary rocks. Eng Geol. 2008;97(1-
2):80–90.
21. Andrade PS, Saraiva AA. Physical and mechanical characterization of phyllites and
metagreywackes in central Portugal. Bull Eng Geol Environ. 2010;69:207–214.
22. Torabi SR, Ataei M, Javanshir M. Application of Schmidt rebound number for es-
timating rock strength under specific geological conditions. J Min Environ.
2010;1(2):1–8.
23. Moomivand H. Development of a new method for estimating the indirect uniaxial
compressive strength of rock using Schmidt hammer. BHM. 2011;156(4):142–146.
24. Mishara DA, Basu A. Estimation of uniaxial compressive strength of rock materials
by index tests using regression analysis and fuzzy inference system. Eng Geol.
2013;160:54–68.
25. Fereidooni D. Determination of the geotechnical characteristices of Hornfelsic rocks
with a particular emphasis on the correlation between physical and mechanical
properties. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2016;49(7):2595–2608.
26. Uehigashi K, Tokairin Y, Ishikawa K, Kikuchi T. Possibility of rock excavation by
boom-type tunneling machines. 6th Australian Tunneling Conference. 1987;
1987:253–259 Melbourne.
27. Day M, Goudie A. Field assessment of rock hardness using the Schmidt test hammer.
Geomorph Res Group Technol Bull. 1977;18:19–29.
28. Day MJ. Rock hardness: field assessment and geomorphic importance. Prof Geogr.
1980;32(1):72–81.
29. Mattews JA, Shakesby RA. The status of the ‘Little Ice Age’ in southern Norway:
relative-age dating of Neoglacial moraines with Schmidt hammer and lichenometry.
Boreas. 1984;13(3):333–346.
30. Stahl T, Winkler S, Quigley M, Bebbington M, Duffy B, Duke D. Schmidt hammer
exposure-age dating (SHD) of late Quaternary fluvial terraces in New Zealand. Earth
Surf Process Landforms. 2013;38(15):1838–1850.
31. Schmidt E. Anon-destructive concrete tester. Concrete. 1951;59(8):34–35.
32. Goudie AS. The Schmidt hammer in geomorphological research. Porgr Phys Geogr.
2006;30(6):703–718.
33. Hoseinie SH, Ataei M, Mikaiel R. Comparison of some rock hardness scales applied
in drillability studies. Arabian J Sci Eng. 2012;37(5):1451–1458.
34. Demirdag S, Yavuz H, Altingdag R. The effect of sample size on Schmidt rebound
hardness value of rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2009;46(4):725–730.
35. Yagiz S. Predicting uniaxial compressive strength, modulus of elasticity and index
properties of rocks using the Schmidt hammer. Bull Eng Geol Environ.
2009;68(1):55–63.
36. Basu A, Aydin A. A method for normalization of Schmidt hammer rebound values.
Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2004;41:1211–1214.
37. Shakesby RA, Matthews JA, Owen G. The Schmidt hammer as a relative-age dating
tool and its potential for calibrated-age dating in Holocene glaciated environments.
Quat Sci Rev. 2016;25(21):2846–2867.
38. Howarth D, Adamson W, Berndt J. Correlation of model tunnel boring and drilling
machine performances with rock properties. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.
1986;23(2):171–175.
39. Kahraman S. Rotary and percussive drilling prediction using regression analysis. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1999;36(7):981–989.
40. Kahraman S, Balc C, Yazc S, Bilgin N. Prediction of the penetration rate of rotary
blast hole drills using a new drillability index. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci.
2000;37(5):729–743.
41. Li X, Rupert G, Summers DA, Santi P, Liu D. Analysis of impact hammer rebound to
estimate rock drillability. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2000;33(1):1–13.
42. Kahraman S, Bilgin N, Feridunoglu C. Dominant rock properties affecting the pe-
netration rate of percussive drills. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2003;40(5):711–723.
43. Poole R, Farmer I. Consistency and repeatability of Schmidt hammer rebound data
during field testing. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1980;17(3):167–171.
44. ISRM. Suggested Methods for Determining Hardness and Abrasiveness of Rocks. Part 3
1981; 1981:101–102.
45. Kidybinski A. Rebound number and the quality of mine roof strata. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci. 1968;5(4):283–292.
46. Karpuz C. A classification system for excavation of surface coal measures. Min Sci
Technol. 1990;11(2):157–163.
47. Sachpazis C. Correlating Schmidt hardness with compressive strength and Young's
modulus of carbonate rocks. Bull. Int. Assoc. Eng. Geol.-Bull. de 1’ Assoc.
Internationale de Geologie de l’Ingnieur. 1990;42(1):75–83.
48. Kazi A, Al-Mansour A. Empirical relationship between LosAngeles abrasion and
M. Wang and W. Wan
Schmidt hammer strength tests with application to aggregates around Jeddah. Q J
Eng Geol. 1980;13(1):45–52.
49. Cargill JS, Shakoor A. Evaluation of empirical methods for measuring the uniaxial
compressive strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Sci. 1990;27(6):495–503.
50. Yilmaz I, Sendr H. Correlation of Schmidt hardness with unconfined compressive
strength and Young's modulus in gypsum from Sivas (Turkey). Eng Geol.
2002;66(3):211–219.
51. Yasar E, Erdogan Y. Estimation of rock physicomechanical properties using hard-
ness methods. Eng Geol. 2004;71(3):281–288.
52. Dincer I, Ascar A, Cobanoglu I, Uras Y. Correlation between Schmidt hardness,
uniaxial compressive strength and Young's modulus for andesites, basalts and tuffs.
Bull Eng Geol Environ. 2004;63(2):141–148.
53. Shalabi FI, Cording EJ, Al-Hattamleh OH. Estimation of rock engineering properties
using hardness tests. Eng Geol. 2007;90(3):138–147.
54. Cobanoglu I, Celik SB. Estimation of uniaxial compressive strength from point load
strength, Schmidt hardness and P-wave velocity. Bull Eng Geol Environ.
2008;67(4):491–498.
55. Singh R, Hassani F, Elkington P. The application of strength and deformation index
testing to the stability assessment of coal measures excavations. The 24 Th US
Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS). American Rock Mechanics Association;
1983.
56. Sheorey P, Barat D, Das M, Mukherjee K, Sigh B. Schmidt hammer rebound data for
estimation of large scale in situ coal strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr.
1984;1:39–42.
57. Haramy K, DeMarco M. Use of the Schmidt hammer for rock and coal testing. The 26
Th US Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS). American Rock Mechanics
Association; 1985.
58. Ghose A. Empirical strength indices of Indian coals-an investigation. The 27 Th US
Symposium on Rock Mechanics (USRMS). American Rock Mechanics Association;
1986.
59. O'Rourke J. Rock index properties for geoengineering in underground development.
Min Eng. 1989;41:106–110.
60. Kilic A, Teymen A. Determination of mechanical properties of rock using simple
methods. Bull Eng Geol Environ. 2008;67(2):237–244.
61. Beverly BE, Schoenwolf DA, Brierly GS. Correlations of Rock Index Values with
Engineering Properties and the Classification of Intact Rock. Washington, DC: FHWA;
1979.
62. Kidybinski A. Bursting liability indices of coal. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech
Abstr. 1980;17:167–171.
63. Xu S, Grasso P, Mahtab A. Use of Schmidt hammer for estimating mechanical
properties of weak rock. 6 Th International IAEG Congress. Rotterdam: Balkema;
1990:511–519.
64. Tugrul A, Zarif IH. Correlation of mineralogical and textural characteristics with
engineering properties of selected granitic rocks from Turkey. Eng Geol.
1999;51:303–317.
65. Katz O, Reches Z, Roegiers JC. Evaluation of mechanical rock properties using a
Schmidt hammer. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2000;37(4):723–728.
66. Kahraman K. Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the uniaxial compressive
strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2001;38:981–994.
67. Aydin A, Basu A. The Schmidt hammer in rock material characterization. Eng Geol.
2005;81:1–14.
68. Fener M, Kahraman S, Bilgil A, Gunaydin O. A comparative evaluation of indirect
methods to estimate the compressive strength of rocks. Rock Mech Rock Eng.
2005;38(4):329–343.
69. Gupta V. Non-destructive testing of some higher Himalayan rocks in the Satluj
Valley. Bull Eng Geol Environ. 2009;68:409–416.
70. Minaeian B, Ahangari K. Estimation of uniaxial compressive strength based on P-
wave and Schmidt hammer rebound using statistical method. Arab J Geosci.
2013;6:1925–1931.
71. Bruno G, Vessia G, Bobbo L. Statistical method for assessing the uniaxial com-
pressive strength of carbonate rock by Schmidt hammer tests performed on core
samples. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2013;46(1):199–206.
72. Saptono S, Kramadibratab S, Sulistiantob B. Using the Schmidt hammer on rock
mass characteristic in sedimentary rock at Tutupan Coal Mine. Procedia Earth Planet
Sci. 2013;6:390–395.
73. Karaman K, Kesimal A. A comparative study of Schmidt hammer test methods for
estimating the uniaxial compressive strength of rocks. Bull Eng Geol Environ.
2015;74:507–520.
74. Armaghani DJ, Mohamad ET, Momeni E, Monjezi M, Narayanasamy MS. Prediction
of the strength and elasticity modulus of granite through an expert artificial neural
network. Arab J Geosci. 2016;9:48.
75. Liang M, Mohamad ET, Faradonbeh RS, Armaghani DJ, Ghoraba S. Rock strength
assessment based on regression tree technique. Eng Comput. 2016;32:343–354.
76. Azimian A. Application of statistical methods for predicting uniaxial compressive
strength of limestone rocks using nondestructive tests. Acta Geotechnica.
2017;12(2):1–13.
77. Hebib R, Belhai D, Alloul B. Estimation of uniaxial compressive strength of North
Algeria sedimentary rocks using density, porosity, and Schmidt hardness. Arab J
Geosci. 2017;10:383.
78. Kong K, Shang J. A validation study for the estimation of uniaxial compressive
strength based on index tests. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2018;51:2289–2297.
79. Garret JH. Where and why artificial neural networks are applicable in civil en-
gineering. J Comput Civ Eng. 1994;8:129–130.
80. Yilmaz I, Yuksek AG. An example of artificial neural network (ANN) application for
indirect estimation of rock parameters. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2008;41(5):781–795.
81. Dehghan S, Sattari GH, Chehreh Chelgani S, Aliabadi MA. Prediction of uniaxial
10
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 123 (2019) 104094
compressive strength and modulus of elasticity for Travertine samples using re-
gression and artificial neural networks. Min Sci Technol. 2010;20:41–46.
82. Rezaei M, Majdi A, Monjezi M. An intelligent approach to predict unconfined
compressive strength of rock surrounding access tunnels in longwall coal mining.
Neural Comput Appl. 2012;24(1):233–241 2012.
83. Yurdakul M, Akdas H. Modeling uniaxial compressive strength of building stones
using non-destructive test results as neutral networks input parameters. Constr Build
Mater. 2013;47:1010–1019.
84. Momeni E, Armaghani DJ, Hajihassani M, Amin MFM. Prediction of uniaxial
compressive strength of rock samples using hybrid particle swarm optimization-
based arificial neural netwoks. Measurement. 2015;60:50–63.
85. Armaghani DJ, Amin MFM, Yagiz S, Faradonbeh RS, Abdullah RA. Prediction of the
uniaxial compressive strength of sandstone using various modeling techniques. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci. 2016;85:174–186.
86. Fattahi H. Applying soft computing methods to predict the uniaxial compressive
strength of rock from schmidt hammer rebound values. Comput Geosci.
2017;21(1):1–17.
87. Heidari M, Mohseni H, Jalali SH. Prediction of uniaxial compressive strength of
some sedimentary rocks by fuzzy and regression models. Geotech Geol Eng.
2018;36:401–412.
88. Yagiz S, Gokceoglu C, Sezer E, Iplikci S. Application of two non-linear prediction
tools to the estimation of tunnel boring machine performance. Eng Appl Artif Intell.
2009;22(4):808–814.
89. Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C, Nefeslioglu HA, Kayabasi A. Estimation of rock modulus:
for intact rocks with an artificial neural network and for rock masses with a new
empirical equation. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2006;43:224–235.
90. Sonmez H, Gokceoglu C. Discussion on the paper by H. Gullu and E. Ercelebi A
neural network approach for attenuation relationships: an application using strong
ground motion data from Turkey. Eng Geol. 2008;97:91–93.
91. Ferreira C. Gene expression programming: a new adaptive algorithm for solving
problems. Complex Syst. 2001;13(2):87–129.
92. Ferreira C. Gene expression programming in problem solving. In: Roy R, Koppen M,
Ovaska S, Furuhashi T, Hoffmann F, eds. Soft Computing and Industry-Recent
Applications. Springer-Verlag; 2002:635–654.
93. Faradonbeh RS, Armaghani DJ, Monjezi M, Mohamad ET. Genetic programming
and gen expression programming for flyrock assessment due to mine blasting. Int J
Rock Mech Min Sci. 2016;88:254–264 2016.
94. Steeb WH. The Nonlinear Workbook: Chaos, Fractals, Cellular Automata, Neural
Networks, Genetic Algorithms, Gene Expression Programming, Support Vector Machine,
Wavelets, Hidden Markov Models, Fuzzy Logic with C++, Java and Symbolic C++
Programs. third ed. Singapore: World Scientific; 2011.
95. Brownlee J. Clever Algorithms: Nature-Inspired Programming Recipes. Jason Brownlee;
2011.
96. Karakus M. Function identification for the intrinsic strength and elastic properties of
granitic rock via genetic programming (GP). Comput Geosci. 2011;37(9):1318–1323.
97. Koza JR. Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers by Means of Natural
Selection. Cambridge, MA: MIT press; 1992.
98. Baykasoglu A, Gullu H, Canakci H, Ozbakir L. Prediction of compressive and tensile
strength of limestone via genetic programming. Expert Syst Appl. 2008;35:111–123.
99. Silva S, Almeida J. Dynamic maximum tree depth—a simple technique for avoiding
bloat in tree-based GP. In: Cantu-Paz E, Foster JA, Deb K, eds. Proceedings of the
GECCO 2003. Berlin: Springer; 2003:1776–1787.
100. Teodorescu L, Sherwood D. High energy physics event selection with gene ex-
pression programming. 2008 Comput Phys Commun. 2008;178:409–419.
101. Yang Y, Li X, Gao L, Shao X. A new approach for predicting and collaborative
evaluating the cutting force in face milling based on gene expression programming.
J Netw Comput Appl. 2013;36(6):1540–1550 2013.
102. Kayadelen C. Soil liquefaction modeling by genetic expression programming and
neuro-fuzzy. Expert Syst Appl. 2011;38:4080–4087.
103. Mollahasani A, Alavi AH, Gandomi AH. Empirical modeling of plate load test
moduli of soil via gene expression programming. Comput Geotech. 2011;38:281–286
2011.
104. Adler D. Genetic algorithms and simulated annealing: a marriage proposal.
International Symposium on Neural Networks. 1993; 1993:1104–1109.
105. Dupanloup I, Schneider S, Excoffier L. A simulated annealing approach to define the
genetic structure of populations. Mol Ecol. 2002;11(12):2571–2581.
106. Kipkpatrick S, Gelatt CD, Vecchi MP. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science.
1983;220(4598):671–680.
107. Karakus M, Tutmez B. Fuzzy and multiple regression modelling for evaluation of
intact rock strength based on point load, Schmidt hammer and sonic velocity. Rock
Mech Rock Eng. 2006;39(1):45–57.
108. Buyuksagis IS, Goktan RM. The effect of Schmidt hammer type on uniaxial com-
pressive strength prediction of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2007;44:299–307.
109. Kayabali K, Selcuk L. Nail penetration test for determining the uniaxial compressive
strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2010;47:265–271.
110. Yarali O, Soyer E. Assessment of relationships between drilling rate index and
mechanical properties of rock. Tunn Undergr Space Technol. 2013;33:46–53.
111. Ataei M, Kakaie R, Ghavidel M, Saeidi S. Drilling rate prediction of an open pit mine
using the rock mass drillability index. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2015;73:130–138.
112. Tandon RS, Gupta V. Estimation of strength characteristics of different Himalayan
rocks from Schmidt hammer rebound, point load index, and compressional wave
velocity. Bull Eng Geol Environ. 2015;74:521–533.
113. Karaman K, Kesimal A. Correlation of Schmidt hammer rebound hardness with
compressive strength and P-wave velocity of rock materials. Arabian J Sci Eng.
2015;40:1897–1906.
114. Ng IT, Yuen KV, Lau CH. Predictive model for uniaxial compressive strength for
M. Wang and W. Wan
grade III granitic rocks from Macao. Eng Geol. 2015;199:28–37.
115. Akram MS, Farooq S, Naeem M, Ghazi S. Prediction of mechanical behaviour from
mineralogical composition of Sakesar limestone, central Salt range, Pakistan. Bull
Eng Geol Environ. 2017;76(2):601–615.
116. Afolagboye LO, Talabi AO, Oyelami CA. The use of index tests to determine the
mechanical properties of crushed aggregates from precambrian basedment complex
rocks, Ado-Ekiti, SW Nigeria. J Afr Earth Sci. 2017;129:659–667.
117. Ghasemi E, Kalhori H, Bagherpour R, Yagiz S. Model tree approach for predicting
uniaxial compressive strength and Young's modulus of carbonate rocks. Bull Eng
Geol Environ. 2018;77:331–343.
118. Petrakis E, Komnitsas K. Correlation between Material properties and breakage rate
parameters determined from grinding tests. Appl Sci. 2018;8(2):220.
119. Yilmaz I. A new testing method for indirect determination of the unconfined
compressive strength of rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci. 2009;46(8):1349–1357.
120. Ceryan N, Okkan U, Kesimal A. Prediction of unconfined compressive strength of
carbonate rocks using artificial neural networks. Environ Earth Sci.
2012;68:807–819.
121. Gunsallus KL, Kulhawy FH. A comparative evaluation of rock strength measures. Int
J Rock Mech Min Sci. 1984;21:233–248.
11
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 123 (2019) 104094
122. Ulusay R, Tureli K, Ider MH. Prediction of engineering properties of a selected li-
tharenite sandstone from its petrographic characteristics using correlation and
multivariate statistical techniques. Eng Geol. 1994;38:135–157.
123. Li D, Wong LNY. Point load test on meta-sedimentary rocks and correlation to UCS
and BTS. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2013;46(4):889–896.
124. Grasso P, Xu S, Mahtab A. Problems and promises of index testing of rocks. 33 Rd US
Symposium on Rock Mechanics. Sante Fe: Balkema; 1992:879–888 Rotterdam.
125. Palchik V, Hatzor YH. The influence of porosity on tensile and compressive strength
of porous chalk. Rock Mech Rock Eng. 2004;37(4):331–341.
126. Quane SL, Russel JK. Rock strength as a metric of welding intensity in pyroclastic
doposits. Eur J Mineral. 2003;15:855–864.
127. Tsiambaos G, Sabatakakis N. Considerations on strength of intack sedimentary
rocks. Eng Geol. 2004;72(3-4):261–273.
128. Hucka V. A rapid method of determining the strength of rocks in situ. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci. 1965;2(2):127–134.
129. Goktan R, Ayday C. A suggested improvement to the Schmidt rebound hardness
ISRM suggested method with particular reference to rock machineability. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci. 1993;30(3):321–322.