Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for

Engineered Systems and Geohazards

ISSN: 1749-9518 (Print) 1749-9526 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ngrk20

Reliability of empirical equations to predict

uniaxial compressive strength of rocks using
Schmidt hammer

Diyari Abdulalrahman Mohammed, Y. M. Alshkane & Y. A. Hamaamin

To cite this article: Diyari Abdulalrahman Mohammed, Y. M. Alshkane & Y. A. Hamaamin (2019):
Reliability of empirical equations to predict uniaxial compressive strength of rocks using Schmidt
hammer, Georisk: Assessment and Management of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards,
DOI: 10.1080/17499518.2019.1658881

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2019.1658881

Published online: 28 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ngrk20
GEORISK
https://doi.org/10.1080/17499518.2019.1658881

Reliability of empirical equations to predict uniaxial compressive strength of rocks

using Schmidt hammer
Diyari Abdulalrahman Mohammed , Y. M. Alshkane and Y. A. Hamaamin
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sulaimani, Sulaimani, Iraq

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

While the direct measurement of uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of rocks is expensive and Received 26 March 2019
time-consuming, many empirical equations were developed to predict UCS of rocks by the Accepted 24 July 2019
indirect method such as Schmidt hammer rebound number (RL). However, to the best of our
KEYWORDS
knowledge, the reliability of these equations is not investigated. The aim of this paper is to Reliability; limestone rocks;
check the reliability of the available empirical equations to predict UCS for limestone rocks using empirical equations; uniaxial
L-type Schmidt hammer (RL) test. A total of 112 core sample test results of limestone rocks, compressive strength;
which were collected from four different borrow areas in Iraq, were measured. Results of this Schmidt hammer test
study showed that the equation developed by Arslan et al., 2015 [“Prediction of Durability and
Strength from Schmidt Rebound Hammer Number for Limestone Rocks from Salt Range,
Pakistan.” Journal of Himalayan Earth Science 48: 1] is the more reliable regression model to
predict UCS from RL. Furthermore, the performance of the selected equation is enhanced using
the measured values of UCS from this study.

1. Introduction
Rocks are one of the abundant materials used in the
construction of engineering projects such as buildings,
monuments, historical buildings and wall gardens
(Karaca, Hacimustafaoʇlu, and Gökçe 2015; La Russa
et al. 2015; Sirdesai et al. 2018; Zhou et al. 2018). Uni-
axial compressive strength (UCS) can be measured
according to both the American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM D7012 2010) and the Inter-
national Society for Rock Mechanics (ISRM 1981; Car-
gill and Shakoor 1990; Kahraman 2001). To investigate
the mechanical behaviour of various rock types, UCS
value is the critical parameter (Yurdakul and Akdas
2013). UCS of rock is the most important mechanical
property that affects the design and construction on/in
rock foundations such as building structure, tunnel
and dam (Jabbar 2011; Mishra and Basu 2013; Barone
et al. 2015; Kurtuluş, Sertçelik, and Sertçelik 2016;
Daoud, Alshkane, and Rashid 2018). For poor quality
rocks, drilling core samples are difficult and the prep-
aration of the samples for UCS test is costly, so,
Schmidt hammer test can be used to predict UCS,
which is a simple, quick test and does not need sample
preparation (Yaşar and Erdog an 2004; Çobanoglu and
Çelik 2008; Sengun et al. 2011; Kallu and Roghanchi
2015; Çobanoğlu and Çelik 2017; Daoud, Rashed,
and Alshkane 2018).
Schmidt hammer test has been used as a non-
destructive test to find UCS of rocks since early
1960s (Aydin and Basu 2005; Kallu and Roghanchi
2015). There are three types of Schmidt hammer: N-
type hammer used for UCS range of weak to very
strong, L-type hammer used when the hardness of
rock is lower than that of N-type hammer and P-
type hammer is a pendulum hammer used for very
low hardness rock (Saptono, Kramadibrata, and Sulis-
tianto 2013). Schmidt hammer test can be used by
two different laboratory methods, vertically (measure
position 90°) and horizontally (measure position 0°)
(Yaşar and Erdog an 2004). Many researchers investi-
gated the correlation between UCS and RL for various
rock types in several countries and they developed the
model equations by using advance statistics such as
fuzzy inference system and Artificial Neural Network
(ANN) (Gökceoglu and Aksoy 2002; Yilmaz and Yuk-
sek 2008; Mishra and Basu 2013). Nevertheless, the
reliability of these empirical equations is not evaluated
and investigated yet according to the authors’ knowl-
edge. Also, another method such as multivariate adap-
tive regression splines (MARS) and back-propagation
algorithm (BPNN) can be used for creating a model
equation (Zhang and Goh 2013; Zhang and Goh
2016), but more importantly the reliability of the
regression models should be studied (Alshkane 2017).

CONTACT Y. M. Alshkane Younis.ali@univsul.edu.iq Department of Civil Engineering, University of Sulaimani, Sulaimani, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 D. A. MOHAMAD ET AL.
ISRM (1981) suggested L-type hammer test as a stan-
dard method for the measurement of compressive
strength of rock materials, whereas, N-type hammer is
appropriate for concrete materials. The main purpose
of this study is to investigate the reliability of L-type
Schmidt hammer (RL) to predict UCS of limestone
rocks from the empirical equations developed from the
literature. In this study, 112 measured data of UCS and
RL were obtained from the test results of core samples
and used to check the reliability of these empirical
equations. In addition, the statistical analysis of each
specific site and the total 112 data of UCS and RL includ-
ing standard deviation, mean, variance, maximum and
minimum values of UCS and RL were presented. For-
merly, the more reliable empirical equation was selected
through the study. Finally, a modification of the selected
best equation is presented based on the 112 measured
data points, to be used with more consistency to predict
UCS of limestone rocks.
2. Methodology
2.1. Measured data and rock sampling
Limestone rocks can be considered as one of the abun-
dant rocks used in the construction of building and dec-
oration in Sulaymaniyah, Kurdistan Region of Iraq.
Generally, in Iraq, limestone rocks are available in
three main formations which include Kometan, Pila
Spy and Sinjar formations and one formation from
Mosul province includes the Lower Fars formation.
Kometan formation is a limestone formation that was
first described by Dunnington (1958) at Kometan village
of the High Folded Zones (Al-Barzinjy 2008). Pila Spi
formation is the limestone formation that was first
reported by Lees in 1930 from the surrounding of Pila
Spi village of the High Folded Zones those crop out in
anticlinal limbs and cores in the foreland folds of the
northern Iraq (Numan, Hammoudi, and Chorowicz
1998). Sinjar Formation is a limestone formation that
was first described by Keller (1941) from the Jabal Sinjar
area near Mantissa village (Buday 1980; Daoud 2009).
Lower Fars formation also called Fatha formation is
the limestone formation that was originally described
in the Fars province of Iran by Busk and Mayo in 1918
(Al-Juboury and McCann 2008; Busk and Mayo 1918).
The Middle Miocene Lower Fars formation in the north-
ern Iraq was particularly in the area surrounding the
Mosul city (Jassim, Jibril, and Numan 1997; Al-Juboury
and McCann 2008).
In this study, 112 rock samples using NX core size
(54.7 mm in diameter) were drilled from three different
formations of Sulaymaniyah province including
Kometan formation at Qlyasan region, Pila spy for-
mation at Qaradax region and Sinjar formation at
Tasluja region with one formation of Mosul province
in the north of Iraq which is known as Lower Fars for-
mation at Al-Shora and Ayn al-Jahesh, as shown in
Figure 1. UCS and RL tests were conducted on the rock
samples. Single core barrel with 63 mm outside diameter,
54.7 mm inside diameter and 400 mm length according
to ISRM (1981) were used for drilling the intact rock,
then the limestone core samples were obtained. The
number of samples drilled in each location is presented
in Table 1 from different points with different layers of
rock masses. It should be noted that the samples were
taken in two directions: vertically (Figure 2(A)) and lat-
erally (Figure 2(B)) on the rock masses to obtain the
different strength and representative samples of the
selected site locations.
2.2. Experimental tests
2.2.1. Sample preparation
For UCS test, the samples were prepared according to
ASTM D7012 (2010) with a core size diameter of NX
(54.7 mm) and trimmed (Figure 3(A)) for length to
diameter ratio 2:1. Sample ends were further smooth-
ened using a surface grinder machine (Figure 3(B))
and polished to minimise the contact friction between
platens and sample ends during loading. For RL test,
the samples were prepared according to ISRM (1981)
with a core size diameter of NX (54.7 mm) with a length
of 100 mm. The prepared samples were divided into two
groups to perform UCS and RL tests, half of the samples
were tested in dry case, while the other half were tested in
saturated case. Samples were saturated in a special
device, as shown in Figure 3(C).
2.2.2. Uniaxial compressive strength test
UCS tests were conducted on the prepared NX size
samples based on ISRM (1981) with a compressive test-
ing machine manufactured by Control Company (Figure
3(F)). In order to select the more reliable model that can
be used for dry and saturated condition, samples were
divided into two groups to perform UCS test, dry and
saturated samples.
2.2.3. Schmidt hammer test
RL tests were conducted based on ISRM (1981). Initially,
the hammer was calibrated by using a calibration test
anvil (Figure 3(D)). L-type Schmidt hammer instrument
with a steel base of about 20 kg weight (Figure 3(E)) was
used. Also, the perpendicularity of the hammer was con-
sidered during RL tests.
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS 3

Figure 1. Study area of limestone rocks. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Iraq/).

2.3. Literature equations
In this study, 40 empirical equations were collected, as
summarised in Table 2, for various rock types from the
literature.
2.4. Assessment of equations
The assessment of 40 empirical equations (Table 2) was
performed by applying the equations to the total 112 RL
collected data points for limestone rocks to predict the
UCS. To compare the predicted data points with the
measured data points, the Root Mean Square Error
(RMSE), the Mean Absolute Error (MAE), the coefficient
of determination (R 2) and p-value from Mann–Whitney
test were used. Formerly, the more reliable equation of
limestone UCS estimation was selected.
2.5. Modification of the best empirical equation
After the selection of the best empirical equation, based
on the correlation equation of the predicted values
4 D. A. MOHAMAD ET AL.

Table 1. Number of drilled samples in each location. of the measured and predicted UCS data was checked
Number of using Minitab 17 statistical software program (Minitab
drilled Limestone
Cities Formations Locations samples types 2017). According to the normality test of the measured
Sulaymaniyah Kometan Qlyasan 20 White and predicted data of UCS, the statistical test was
limestone selected. For non-normal datasets (predicted and
Pila Spy Qaradax 27 Dolomitic
limestone
measured), the p-value of each empirical equation was
Sinjar Tasluja 25 Milky limestone considered using nonparametric Mann–Whitney test
Mosul Lower Fars Al-Shora 16 Fossiliferous (Ott and Longnecker 2015). Figure 4 shows the statistical
limestone
Lower Fars Ayn al- 24 Marley analysis flowchart. Wang and Aladejare (2015) tested the
Jahesh limestone reliability of empirical equations based on the trend line
of each empirical equation prediction compared with
that of measured test results. The most reliable equation
from the best equation and 112 measured data values was selected depending on the best-fitted line.
from this study, a modified equation was obtained. In Figure 4, a two-tail test with 95% confident interval
was used with test hypothesis assumptions, null hypoth-
3. Statistical analysis and tests eses (Ho: measured and predicted data are identical) and
research hypotheses (Ha: measured and predicted data
3.1. Statistical analysis are not identical).
The descriptive statistics of measured UCS with RL data During statistical analysis, Ho was failed to be rejected
points of limestone rocks for any site specific from any (accepted) for p-value ≥ 0.05, and Ho was rejected for p-
rock formation are shown in Table 3. Aladejare and value <0.05 for all tests.
Wang 2017 performed this procedure for three main 


















n 2
rock types including: igneous, sedimentary and meta- i=1 (Yp − Yi)
RMSE = (41)
morphic rocks in many countries. N

n
3.2. Statistical analysis and test hypothesis i=1 /(Yp − Yi)/
MAE = (42)
N
The values of UCS were predicted for all 40 empirical
equations separately using 112 measured limestone where: RMSE = root mean square error MAE = mean
data of RL. Subsequently, the RMSE (Equation (41)), absolute error Yp= predicted value from empirical
MAE (Equation (42)), and R 2 were computed for equations Yi = actual value of collected data N = no. of
measured and predicted data points. Also, the normality measured or predicted data Yp- Yi = error

Figure 2. Rock sampling in the field. A. Vertically drilling, B. Laterally drilling.

 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS 5

Figure 3. Apparatus used to perform tests in this study. A. Rock trimmer, B. Rock grinding, C. Saturation machine, D. Schmidt hammer
calibration, E. Schmidt hammer machine with base and F. Rock compressive testing machine.

4. Results and discussion

The reliability of empirical equations was conducted by
using 112 measured data points of UCS and RL to com-
pute RMSE, MAE and R 2 between measured and pre-
dicted data points (Table 4). The range of measured
UCS was 6.8 MPa to 184.95 MPa, while the minimum
and maximum values of measured RL were 10.462 and
43.347, respectively. From Table 4, the minimum values
of RMSE and MAE were 35.372 MPa and 28.345,
respectively, for Equation (5). The maximum value of
6 D. A. MOHAMAD ET AL.

Table 2. Empirical correlation equations from the literature to predict UCS from RL.
Eq. No. References Equations R2 Rock types
1 Deere and Miller (1966) UCS = 0.0086 *RL – 0.241 0.77 Various rock types
2 Singh, Hassani, and Elkington (1983) UCS = 2*RL 0.74 Sedimentary (sandstone, siltstone, mudstone and seat earth)
3 O’Rourke (1989) UCS = 4.84*RL – 76.118 0.59 Sedimentary
4 Sachpazis (1990) UCS = 4.2937*RL – 67.5157 0.92 Marble, dolomite and limestone
5 Tug rul and Zarif (1999) UCS = 8.36*RL – 416 0.88 Granite
6 Gökceoglu and Aksoy (2002) UCS = 0.7291*RL – 12.774 0.67 Marlstone
7 UCS = 18.294* Ln(RL) –53.301 0.66 Marlstone
8 UCS = 0.0001*(RL)3.2658 0.71 Marlstone
9 UCS = 0.1969*exp(0.1285*RL) 0.69 Marlstone
10 Yilmaz and Sendr (2002) UCS = exp(0.818+0.059*RL) 0.96 Gypsum
11 Yaşar and Erdog an (2004) UCS = 0.000004*(RL)4.2917 0.80 Marlstone, limestone, sandstone and basalt
12 Dinçer et al. (2004) UCS = 2.75*RL – 36.83 0.95 Andesite, basalt and tuffs
13 Aydin and Basu (2005) UCS = 1.4459*exp(0.0706*RL) 0.85 Granite
14 Haramy and DeMarco (2005) UCS = 0.994*RL – 0.383 0.71 Coal measure rock
15 UCS = 0.287*(RL)1.3252 0.72
16 Grasso, Xu, and Mahtab (2005) UCS = exp(0.045*RL + 2.27) 0.56 Mudstone
17 Buyuksagis and Goktan (2007) UCS = 2.4817*exp(0.0725*RL) 0.88 Various rock types (granite, marble, limestone and travertine)
18 UCS = 2.6363*exp(0.0659*RL) 0.89
19 UCS = 3.2123*exp(0.0706*RL) 0.86
20 UCS = 3.6834*exp(0.0679*RL) 0.86
21 UCS = 2.4736*exp(0.0691*RL) 0.88
22 Shalabi, Cording, and Al-Hattamleh (2007) UCS = 3.201* RL – 46.59 0.76 Various rock types
23 Sabatakakis et al. (2008) UCS = 3.1*exp(0.09*RL) 0.79 Sedimentary (marlstone, sandstone and limestone)
24 Çobanog lu and Çelik (2008) UCS = 6.59*RL – 212.63 0.65 Sedimentary (cement mortar, sandstone and limestone)
25 Yilmaz and Yuksek (2008) UCS = 1.2483*RL – 24.723 0.96 Gypsum
26 Yagiz (2009) UCS = 0.0028*(RL)2.584 0.92 Travertine, limestone, dolomitic limestone and schist
27 Mishra and Basu (2013) UCS = 3.79*exp(0.055*RL) 0.85 Sandstone
28 UCS = 5.19*RL – 168.1 0.75 Granite
29 UCS = 2.46*exp(0.06*RL) 0.78 Schist
30 UCS = 2.38*exp(0.065*RL) 0.87 Sandstone, granite and schist
31 Minaeian and Ahangari (2013) UCS = 0.678* RL 0.98 Weak, conglomeratic rock, tuff, limestone, and marl
32 UCS = 6.038*Ln(RL) 0.88
33 UCS = (RL)0.885 0.87
34 UCS = exp(0.092* RL) 0.87
35 Kallu and Roghanchi (2015) UCS = 0.25*(RL)1.77 0.88 Rhyolite and basalt
36 Arslan, Khan, and Yaqub (2015) UCS = 23.8*exp(0.032* RL) 0.78 Limestone
37 Daoud, Alshkane, and Rashid (2018) UCS = 0.00004*(RL)4.1643 0.88 Limestone and sandstone
38 Yilmaz and Goktan (2018) UCS = 0.0001*(RL)3.5486 0.84 Sedimentary
39 UCS = 0.00007*(RL)3.6023 0.88 Sedimentary
40 UCS = 0.0001*(RL)3.4798 0.85 Sedimentary
Note: UCS in MPa.

Table 3. Summary of statistical analysis of limestone rocks data for all sites.
Parameter Locations No. of data Mean Minimum Maximum Variance Standard deviation
UCS (MPa) Qlyasan 20 117.56 64.79 178.03 892.84 29.88
Qaradax 27 102.53 51.46 184.95 1353.51 36.79
Tasluja 25 69.29 23.48 164.86 1319.56 36.33
Al-Shora 16 13.114 6.803 18.434 10.467 3.235
Ayn al-Jahesh 24 18.81 9.71 30.69 62.20 7.89
Over all 112 67.08 6.8 184.95 2458.93 49.59
RL Qlyasan 20 36.269 32.894 43.347 5.634 2.374
Qaradax 27 29.454 16.206 35.567 17.020 4.126
Tasluja 25 31.975 26.269 36.341 6.340 2.518
Al-Shora 16 13.748 10.462 18.082 6.326 2.515
Ayn al-Jahesh 24 15.440 11.483 20.556 10.413 3.227
Over all 112 25.987 10.462 43.347 85.023 9.221

R 2 was 0.624 for Equation (4) whereas the maximum
values of RMSE and MAE were 263.189 and
256.894 MPa, respectively, for Equation (12) and the
minimum value of R 2 was 0.211 for Equation (24).
To find out the accuracy of a model, RMSE is more
suitable than MAE when the error distribution is normal
(Chai and Draxler 2014). However, when the RMSE
values of two models have the same values, and the
MAE values are different, MAE can be used for compari-
sons of the two model equations (Chai and Draxler
2014).
In this study, the error distributions (difference
between measured and predicted values) of all empirical
equations except the Equation (24) were non-normally
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS
Figure 4. Flowchart of empirical equation performance evaluation.
distributed (p-value for error distribution <0.05);there-
fore, RMSE was not considered (Chai and Draxler
2014). Also, MAE was not considered for the evaluation
of empirical equations because MAE correlates to RMSE.
Furthermore, R 2 was not considered because R 2 is a weak
indicator (Willmott and Matsuura 2005).
In addition, while the error distribution of Equation
(24) was normally distributed, RMSE and MAE of this
equation were higher than the other equations and R 2
was lower than the other equations; therefore, there
was insufficient evidence to accept this equation. To
further evaluate the performance of the 40 empirical
equations, the nonparametric two sample test (Mann–
Whitney test) was performed. Initially the normality of
the output from the empirical equations was tested.
Then depending on the frequency distribution of the
data (normality of the measured and predicted data) of
UCS, the statistical tests to check the reliability of empiri-
cal equations were selected (Figure 4).
Since the statistical results (the measured and pre-
dicted UCS) were non-normally distributed; the
Mann–Whitney test was used to check the reliability of
empirical equations. The normal probability plot of the
measured UCS data is shown in Figure 5 and the normal
probability for 40 predicted dataset from 40 empirical
equations is presented in Table 5.
Table 5 shows the p-value from the Mann–Whitney
test results for empirical equations, the minimum and
7
maximum p-values were 0 and 0.522, respectively.
Based on the p-value from this test, only one empirical
equation, Equation (36) was more reliable to predict
UCS of limestone rocks that was developed by Arslan,
Khan, and Yaqub (2015). The p-value of this equation
is greater than 0.05; therefore, this equation can be
used with more confidence compared to the other
empirical equations to predict the UCS of limestone
rocks. However, Arslan, Khan, and Yaqub (2015) used
18 data of limestone rocks to develop this equation
(Equation (36)).
Then correlation between measured and predicted
UCS data points for Equation (36) is presented
(Figure 6). It can be realised from Figure 6 that Equation
(36) underestimates the UCS value, but it produces a
safe value. In order to enhance the under estimation of
the model, the correlation between Measured UCS and
Predicted UCS was determined as in the following
Equation (43):
UCS(measured) = 2.4786∗UCS(predicted) −74.128 (43)
Combining Equation (36) and Equation (43), a
modified regression model can be obtained as presented
in Equation (44):
UCS(modified) = 58.991∗exp(0.032∗RL) −74.128 (44)
8 D. A. MOHAMAD ET AL.

Table 4. Results of evaluation criteria for empirical equations of It is worth to mention that Equation (36) was created
UCS compared to measured data. based on 18 data points, whereas Equation (44) is devel-
Evaluation criteria oped based on 112 measured data points.
Eq. No. Equations RMSE (MPa) MAE (MPa) R2
In addition, to show the performance of the modified
1 UCS = 0.0086 *RL – 0.241 83.264 67.097 0.623
2 UCS = 2*RL 39.638 29.652 0.623
equation (Equation (44)), predictions from this equation
3 UCS = 4.84*RL – 76.118 35.372 28.345 0.623 against the measured data are plotted in Figure 7. It can be
4 UCS = 4.2937*RL – 67.5157 38.051 30.400 0.623 observed that the trend line of Equation (44) is almost
5 UCS = 8.36*RL – 416 263.189 256.894 0.465
6 UCS = 0.7291*RL – 12.774 75.297 60.906 0.623 along the equality 45° line, while the trend line of the
7 UCS = 18.294* Ln(RL) –53.301 76.041 62.193 0.603 Equation (36) (Figure 6) is more deviated from the equal-
8 UCS = 0.0001*(RL)3.2658 76.351 61.073 0.579
9 UCS = 0.1969*exp(0.1285*RL) 72.272 57.506 0.494 ity line. Therefore, the trend line of the modified equation
10 UCS = exp(0.818+0.059*RL) 59.765 46.147 0.384 (Equation (44)) is the best fit with the equality line.
11 UCS = 0.000004*(RL)4.2917 62.121 49.462 0.281
12 UCS = 2.75*RL – 36.83 46.467 35.218 0.623
13 UCS = 1.4459*exp(0.0706*RL) 71.909 56.165 0.590
14 UCS = 0.994*RL – 0.383 59.516 42.243 0.623
15 UCS = 0.287*(RL)1.3252 61.568 44.995 0.624 5. Conclusions and recommendations
16 UCS = exp(0.045*RL + 2.27) 52.242 37.110 0.613
17 UCS = 2.4817*exp(0.0725*RL) 62.794 47.211 0.588 In this study, statistical parameters of RMSE, MAE, R 2
18 UCS = 2.6363*exp(0.0659*RL) 65.724 49.858 0.595
19 UCS = 3.2123*exp(0.0706*RL) 58.613 42.881 0.590 and nonparametric Mann–Whitney’s p-value were
20 UCS = 3.6834*exp(0.0679*RL) 57.499 41.617 0.593 used to check the reliability of empirical equations to
21 UCS = 2.4736*exp(0.0691*RL) 64.976 49.251 0.592
22 UCS = 3.201* RL – 46.59 44.038 34.122 0.623 predict UCS from RL for limestone rocks. A total of
23 UCS = 3.1*exp(0.09*RL) 41.331 28.795 0.564 112 field data points were used for the evaluation
24 UCS = 6.59*RL – 212.63 112.023 101.142 0.211
25 UCS = 1.2483*RL – 24.723 72.104 59.363 0.623
process.
26 UCS = 0.0028*(RL)2.584 65.883 51.265 0.603 Depending on the results from this study, the follow-
27 UCS = 3.79*exp(0.055*RL) 65.718 49.299 0.606 ing conclusions are drawn:
28 UCS = 5.19*RL – 168.1 105.141 100.307 0.623
29 UCS = 2.46*exp(0.06*RL) 69.732 53.654 0.601
30 UCS = 2.38*exp(0.065*RL) 67.845 51.955 0.596 . Probability Distribution of data points is the key in
31 UCS = 0.678* RL 66.610 49.483 0.623
32 UCS = 6.038*Ln(RL) 67.408 49.499 0.603 selecting the more reliable empirical equations to pre-
33 UCS = (RL)0.885 66.802 49.387 0.622 dict UCS from RL. When the distribution is non-nor-
34 UCS = exp(0.092* RL) 67.274 52.294 0.561
35 UCS = 0.25*(RL)1.77 37.151 28.500 0.621 mal, the following statistical parameters RMSE, MAE
36 UCS = 23.8*exp(0.032* RL) 39.580 31.641 0.620 and R2 may not be a good indicator. Therefore, the p-
37 UCS = 0.00004*(RL)4.1643 38.535 29.134 0.535
38 UCS = 0.0001*(RL)3.5486 64.936 50.983 0.566
value of nonparametric Mann–Whitney test is the
39 UCS = 0.00007*(RL)3.6023 67.668 53.489 0.564 best indicator for the evaluation of empirical
40 UCS = 0.0001*(RL)3.4798 68.754 54.419 0.569 equations.

Figure 5. The normal probability plot of measured UCS data.

 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS 9

Table 5. Results of Mann–Whitney test for empirical equations of UCS compared to measured data.
Normality test
Eq. No. Equations Measured UCS Predicted UCS Normality test for error distribution p-value from Mann–Whitney test
1 UCS = 0.0086 *RL – 0.241 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
2 UCS = 2*RL <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
3 UCS = 4.84*RL – 76.118 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.01206
4 UCS = 4.2937*RL – 67.5157 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00037
5 UCS = 8.36*RL – 416 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
6 UCS = 0.7291*RL – 12.774 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
7 UCS = 18.294* Ln(RL) –53.301 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
8 UCS = 0.0001*(RL)3.2658 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
9 UCS = 0.1969*e(0.1285*RL) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
10 UCS = exp(0.818+0.059*RL) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
11 UCS = 0.000004*(RL)4.2917 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
12 UCS = 2.75*RL – 36.83 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
13 UCS = 1.4459*exp(0.0706*RL) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
14 UCS = 0.994*RL – 0.383 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
15 UCS = 0.287*(RL)1.3252 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
16 UCS = exp(0.045*RL + 2.27) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00018
17 UCS = 2.4817*exp(0.0725*RL) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
18 UCS = 2.6363*exp(0.0659*RL) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
19 UCS = 3.2123*exp(0.0706*RL) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
20 UCS = 3.6834*exp(0.0679*RL) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
21 UCS = 2.4736*exp(0.0691*RL) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
22 UCS = 3.201* RL –46.59 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
23 UCS = 3.1*exp(0.09*RL) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00014
24 UCS = 6.59*RL – 212.63 <0.005 <0.005 0.126 0.00000
25 UCS = 1.2483*RL – 24.723 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
26 UCS = 0.0028*(RL)2.584 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
27 UCS = 3.79*exp(0.055*RL) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
28 UCS = 5.19*RL – 168.1 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
29 UCS = 2.46*exp(0.06*RL) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
30 UCS = 2.38*exp(0.065*RL) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
31 UCS = 0.678* RL <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
32 UCS = 6.038*Ln(RL) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
33 UCS = (RL)0.885 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
34 UCS = exp(0.092* RL) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
35 UCS = 0.25*(RL)1.77 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00024
36 UCS = 23.8*exp(0.032* RL) <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.52202
37 UCS = 0.00004*(RL)4.1643 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00992
38 UCS = 0.0001*(RL)3.5486 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
39 UCS = 0.00007*(RL)3.6023 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000
40 UCS = 0.0001*(RL)3.4798 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.00000

Figure 6. Relationship between measured and predicted UCS for Equation (36).
10 D. A. MOHAMAD ET AL.
Figure 7. Relationship between measured UCS from test results and modified UCS from Equation (44).
. The recommended equation to predict UCS from RL
of limestone rocks is Equation (36) which has a higher
p-value compared with other equations.
. While the range of the total of the 112 RL data was
between 10.462 and 43.347 it is recommended to
use the selected best equation to predict UCS of
rocks with the same range of RL.
. A modified regression model (Equation (44)) was
obtained to predict UCS for limestone rocks
based on Equation (36) and the test results of
this study.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
ORCID
Diyari Abdulalrahman Mohammed http://orcid.org/0000-
0002-5046-3420
Y. M. Alshkane http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4699-0129
Y. A. Hamaamin http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2621-7489
References
Al-Barzinjy, S. T. 2008. “Origins of Chert Nodules in Kometan
Formation from Dokan Area, NE-Iraq.” Iraqi Bulletin of
Geology and Mining 4 (1): 95–104.
Al-Juboury, A. I., and T. McCann. 2008. “The Middle Miocene
Fatha (Lower Fars) Formation, Iraq.” Geoarabia-Manama
13 (3): 141.
Aladejare, A. E., and Y. Wang. 2017. “Evaluation of Rock
Property Variability.” Georisk: Assessment and Management
of Risk for Engineered Systems and Geohazards 11 (1): 22–
41. doi:10.1080/17499518.2016.1207784.
Alshkane, Y. M. 2017. “Discussion on “Property
Correlations and Statistical Variations in the
Geotechnical Properties of (CH) Clay Soils.”
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, doi:10.1007/
s10706-017-0416-4.
Arslan, M., M. S. Khan, and M. Yaqub. 2015. “Prediction
of Durability and Strength from Schmidt Rebound
Hammer Number for Limestone Rocks from Salt
Range, Pakistan.” Journal of Himalayan Earth Science
48: 1.
ASTM D7012-10. 2010. “Standard Test Method for
Compressive Strength and Elastic Moduli of Intact Rock
Core Specimens Under Varying States of Stress and
Temperatures.” ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, (C): 1–8. doi:10.1520/D7012-13.1.
Aydin, A., and A. Basu. 2005. “The Schmidt Hammer in Rock
Material Characterization.” Engineering Geology 81 (1):
1–14. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.06.006.
Barone, G., P. Mazzoleni, G. Pappalardo, and S. Raneri. 2015.
“Microtextural and Microstructural Influence on the
Changes of Physical and Mechanical Proprieties Related
to Salts Crystallization Weathering in Natural Building
Stones. The Example of Sabucina Stone (Sicily).”
Construction and Building Materials 95: 355–365. doi:10.
1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.131.
 GEORISK: ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK FOR ENGINEERED SYSTEMS AND GEOHAZARDS
Brown, E. T., and ISRM. 1981. Rock Characterization, Testing
and Monitoring. ISRM Suggested Methods. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Buday, T. 1980. “The Regional Geology of Iraq,” Vol. 1,
Stratigraphy and Paleogeography. GEOSURV. Baghdad,
Iraq. 445.
Busk, H. G., and H. T. Mayo. 1918. “Some notes on the
Geology of Persian Oilfields.” The Journal of Petroleum
Technology 5: 5–26.
Buyuksagis, I. S., and R. M. Goktan. 2007. “The Effect of
Schmidt Hammer Type on Uniaxial Compressive Strength
Prediction of Rock.” International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 44 (2): 299–307. doi:10.
1016/j.ijrmms.2006.07.008.
Cargill, J. S., and A. Shakoor. 1990. “Evaluation of Empirical
Methods for Measuring the Uniaxial Compressive
Strength of Rock.” International Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Mining Sciences 27 (6): 495–503. doi:10.
1016/0148-9062(90)91001-N.
Chai, T., and R. R. Draxler. 2014. “Root Mean Square Error
(RMSE) or Mean Absolute Error (MAE)? -Arguments
Against Avoiding RMSE in the Literature.” Geoscientific
Model Development 7 (3): 1247–1250. doi:10.5194/gmd-7-
1247-2014.
Çobanoglu, I., and S. B. Çelik. 2008. “Estimation of Uniaxial
Compressive Strength From Point Load Strength, Schmidt
Hardness and P-Wave Velocity.” Bulletin of Engineering
Geology and the Environment 67 (4): 491–498. doi:10.
1007/s10064-008-0158-x.
Çobanoğlu, İ, and S. B. Çelik. 2017. “Assessments on the
Usability of Wide Wheel (Capon) Test as Reference
Abrasion Test Method for Building Stones.” Construction
and Building Materials 151: 319–330. doi:10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2017.06.045.
Daoud, H. 2009. “Carbonate Microfacies Analysis of Sinjar
Formation from Qara Dagh Mountain. Southwest of
Sulaimaniyah City, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.” World
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 58:
1227–1237.
Daoud, H., Y. Alshkane, and K. A. Rashid. 2018. “Prediction of
Uniaxial Compressive Strength and Modulus of Elasticity
for Some Sedimentary Rocks in Kurdistan Region- Iraq
Using Schmidt Hammer.” Kirkuk University Journal for
Scientific Studies 13 (1): 52–67.
Daoud, H. S. D., K. A. R. Rashed, and Y. M. A. Alshkane. 2018.
“Correlations of Uniaxial Compressive Strength and
Modulus of Elasticity with Point Load Strength Index,
Pulse Velocity and Dry Density of Limestone and
Sandstone Rocks in Sulaimani Governorate, Kurdistan
Region, Iraq.” Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani - Part A 19
(3&4): 57–72. doi:10.17656/jzs.10632.
Deere, D. U., and R. P. Miller. 1966. “Engineering Classification
and Index Properties for Intact Rock.” Illinois Univ at
Urbana Dept of Civil Engineering Chicago. 1–327.
Dinçer, I., A. Acar, I. Çobanog lu, and Y. Uras. 2004.
“Correlation Between Schmidt Hardness, Uniaxial
Compressive Strength and Young’s Modulus for
Andesites, Basalts and Tuffs.”.” Bulletin of Engineering
Geology and the Environment 63 (2): 141–148. doi:10.
1007/s10064-004-0230-0.
Dunnington, H. V. 1958. “Generation, Migration and
Dissipation of Oil in Northern Iraq.” In: Arabian Gulf,
11
Geology and Productivity, AAPG Foreign Reprint Series
125: 1194–1251.
Gökceoglu, C., and H. Aksoy. 2002. “Landslide Susceptibility
Mapping of the Slopes in the Residual Soils of the
Mengen Region (Turkey) by Deterministic Stability
Analyses and Image Processing Techniques.” Engineering
Geology 44 (1-4): 147–161. doi:10.1016/s0013-7952
(97)81260-4.
Grasso, P., S. Xu, and A. Mahtab. 2005. “Problems and
Promises of Index Testing of Rocks.” International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences &
Geomechanics Abstracts 30 (5): 278. doi:10.1016/0148-
9062(93)92299-6.
Haramy, K. Y., and M. J. DeMarco. 2005. “Use of the Schmidt
Hammer for Rock and Coal Testing.” International Journal
of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences & Geomechanics
Abstracts 23 (4): 132. doi:10.1016/0148-9062(86)90704-7.
Jabbar, M. A. 2011. “Correlations of Point Load Index and
Pulse Velocity with the Uniaxial Compressive Strength for
Rocks.” Journal of Engineering 17 (4): 992–1006.
Jassim, S. Z., A. S. Jibril, and N. M. S. Numan. 1997. “Gypsum
Karstification in the Middle Miocene Fatha Formation,
Mosul Area, Northern Iraq.” Geomorphology 18 (2): 137–
149. doi:10.1016/S0169-555X(96)00018-9.
Kahraman, S. 2001. “Evaluation of Simple Methods for
Assessing the Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Rock.”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences 38 (7): 981–994. doi:10.1016/S1365-1609
(01)00039-9.
Kallu, R., and P. Roghanchi. 2015. “Correlations Between
Direct and Indirect Strength Test Methods.” International
Journal of Mining Science and Technology 25 (3): 355–360.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmst.2015.03.005.
Karaca, Z., R. Hacimustafaoʇlu, and M. V. Gökçe. 2015. “Grain
Properties, Grain-Boundary Interactions and Their Effects
on the Characteristics of Marbles Used as Building
Stones.” Construction and Building Materials 93: 166–171.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.05.023.
Keller, F. S. 1941. “Light-aversion in the White rat.” The
Psychological Record 4 (17): 235–250. doi:10.1007/
BF03393248.
Kurtuluş, C., F. Sertçelik, and I. Sertçelik. 2016. “Correlating
Physico-Mechanical Properties of Intact Rocks with P-
Wave Velocity.” Acta Geodaetica et Geophysica 51 (3):
571–582. doi:10.1007/s40328-015-0145-1.
La Russa, M. F., C. M. Belfiore, G. V. Fichera, R. Maniscalco, C.
Calabrò, S. A. Ruffolo, and A. Pezzino. 2015. “The
Behaviour to Weathering of the Hyblean Limestone in the
Baroque Architecture of the Val di Noto (SE Sicily): An
Experimental Study on the “Calcare a Lumachella” Stone.”
Construction and Building Materials 77: 7–19. doi:10.
1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.11.073.
Minaeian, B., and K. Ahangari. 2013. “Estimation of Uniaxial
Compressive Strength Based on P-Wave and Schmidt
Hammer Rebound Using Statistical Method.” Arabian
Journal of Geosciences 6 (6): 1925–1931. doi:10.1007/
s12517-011-0460-y.
Minitab, I. N. C. 2017. “MINITAB Statistical Software.”
Minitab Release. 13.
Mishra, D. A., and A. Basu. 2013. “Estimation of Uniaxial
Compressive Strength of Rock Materials by Index Tests
Using Regression Analysis and Fuzzy Inference System.”
12 D. A. MOHAMAD ET AL.
Engineering Geology 160: 54–68. doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2013.
04.004.
Numan, N. M. S., R. A. Hammoudi, and J. Chorowicz. 1998.
“Synsedimentary Tectonics in the Eocene Pila Spi
Limestone Formation in Iraq and its Geodynamic
Implications.” Journal of African Earth Sciences 27 (1):
141–148. doi:10.1016/S0899-5362(98)00052-9.
O’Rourke, J. E. 1989. “Rock Index Properties for
Geoengineering in Underground Development.” Mining
Engineering (Littleton, Colorado 41 (2): 106–109.
Ott, R. L., and M. T. Longnecker. 2015. “An Introduction to
Statistical Methods and Data Analysis.” Nelson Education,
doi:10.5194/gmd-7-1247-2014,. 2014.
Sabatakakis, N., G. Koukis, G. Tsiambaos, and S. Papanakli.
2008. “Index Properties and Strength Variation
Controlled by Microstructure for Sedimentary Rocks.”
Engineering Geology 97 (1-2): 80–90. doi:10.1016/j.
enggeo.2007.12.004.
Sachpazis, C. I. 1990. “Correlating Schmidt Hardness with
Compressive Strength and Young’s Modulus of Carbonate
Rocks.” Bulletin of the International Association of
Engineering Geology-Bulletin de L’Association
Internationale de Géologie de L’Ingénieur 42 (1): 75–83.
Saptono, S., S. Kramadibrata, and B. Sulistianto. 2013. “Using
the Schmidt Hammer on Rock Mass Characteristic in
Sedimentary Rock at Tutupan Coal Mine.” Procedia Earth
and Planetary Science 6: 390–395. doi:10.1016/j.proeps.
2013.01.051.
Sengun, N., R. Altindag, S. Demirdag, and H. Yavuz. 2011. “P-
wave Velocity and Schmidt Rebound Hardness Value of
Rocks Under Uniaxial Compressional Loading.”
International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Sciences 48 (4): 693–696. doi:10.1016/j.ijrmms.2011.02.007.
Shalabi, F. I., E. J. Cording, and O. H. Al-Hattamleh. 2007.
“Estimation of Rock Engineering Properties Using
Hardness Tests.” Engineering Geology 90 (3–4): 138–147.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2006.12.006.
Singh, R. N., F. P. Hassani, and P. A. S. Elkington. 1983.
“Application of Strength and Deformation Index Testing
to the Stability Assessment of Coal Measures
Excavations.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences & Geomechanics Abstracts 21 (2): 48.
doi:10.1016/0148-9062(84)91244-0.
Sirdesai, N. N., T. Gupta, T. N. Singh, and P. G. Ranjith. 2018.
“Studying the Acoustic Emission Response of an Indian
Monumental Sandstone Under Varying Temperatures and
Strains.” Construction and Building Materials 168: 346–
361. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.180.
Tug rul, A., and I. H. Zarif. 1999. “Correlation of
Mineralogical and Textural Characteristics with
Engineering Properties of Selected Granitic Rocks from
Turkey.” Engineering Geology 51 (4): 303–317. doi:10.
1016/S0013-7952(98)00071-4.
Wang, Y., and A. E. Aladejare. 2015. “Selection of Site-Specific
Regression Model for Characterization of Uniaxial
Compressive Strength of Rock.” International Journal of
Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences 75: 73–81. doi:10.
1016/j.ijrmms.2015.01.008.
Willmott, C. J., and K. Matsuura. 2005. “Advantages of the
Mean Absolute Error (MAE) Over the Root Mean Square
Error (RMSE) in Assessing Average Model Performance.”
Climate Research 30 (1): 79–82. doi:10.3354/cr030079.
Yagiz, S. 2009. “Predicting Uniaxial Compressive Strength,
Modulus of Elasticity and Index Properties of Rocks
Using the Schmidt Hammer.” Bulletin of Engineering
Geology and the Environment 68 (1): 55–63. doi:10.1007/
s10064-008-0172-z.
Yaşar, E., and Y. Erdogan. 2004. “Estimation of Rock
Physicomechanical Properties Using Hardness Methods.”
Engineering Geology 71 (3-4): 281–288. doi:10.1016/S0013-
7952(03)00141-8.
Yilmaz, N. G., and R. M. Goktan. 2018. “Comparison and
Combination of two NDT Methods with Implications for
Compressive Strength Evaluation of Selected Masonry and
Building Stones.” Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the
Environment, 1–11. doi:10.1007/s10064-018-1382-7.
Yilmaz, I., and H. Sendr. 2002. “Correlation of Schmidt Hardness
with Unconfined Compressive Strength and Young’s Modulus
in Gypsum from Sivas (Turkey).” Engineering Geology 66 (3-
4): 211–219. doi:10.1016/S0013-7952(02)00041-8.
Yilmaz, I., and A. G. Yuksek. 2008. “An Example of Artificial
Neural Network (ANN) Application for Indirect Estimation
of Rock Parameters.” Rock Mechanics and Rock Engineering
41 (5): 781–795. doi:10.1007/s00603-007-0138-7.
Yurdakul, M., and H. Akdas. 2013. “Modeling Uniaxial
Compressive Strength of Building Stones Using non-
Destructive Test Results as Neural Networks Input
Parameters.” Construction and Building Materials 47:
1010–1019. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.05.109.
Zhang, W. G., and A. T. C. Goh. 2013. “Multivariate Adaptive
Regression Splines for Analysis of Geotechnical Engineering
Systems.” Computers and Geotechnics 48: 82–95. doi:10.
1016/j.compgeo.2012.09.016.
Zhang, W., and A. T. Goh. 2016. “Multivariate Adaptive
Regression Splines and Neural Network Models for
Prediction of Pile Drivability.” Geoscience Frontiers 7 (1):
45–52. doi:10.1016/j.gsf.2014.10.003.
Zhou, Z., X. Cai, D. Ma, L. Chen, S. Wang, and L. Tan. 2018.
“Dynamic Tensile Properties of Sandstone Subjected to
Wetting and Drying Cycles.” Construction and Building
Materials 182: 215–232. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.
06.056.