- 1767 -

Prediction of Unconfined Compressive

Strength of Limestone Rock Samples
Using L-Type Schmidt Hammer
Dr. Ramli Nazir
Associate Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of Geotechnics
and Transportation, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Malaysia)
Ehsan Momeni
PhD Student, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of Geotechnics
and Transportation, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Malaysia)
mehsan23@live.utm.my
Danial Jahed Armaghani
PhD Student, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of Geotechnics
and Transportation, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Malaysia)
danialarmaghani@yahoo.com
Mohd For Mohd Amin
Associate Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of Geotechnics
and Transportation, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (Malaysia)

ABSTRACT
Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) of the rock is one of the most crucial parameters
in the analysis of geotechnical problems such as tunnel design, rock blasting and
mechanical rock excavation. However, proper determination of UCS through direct
experimental test is not always possible as it is difficult to obtain sufficient numberof rock
samples from highly to moderate weathered rocks. In addition, Unconfined Compression
Test (UCT) is time consuming and expensive. Indirect method of UCS estimation such as
Schmidt Rebound Hammer Test which is a quick and inexpensive test can be used for
predicting the unconfined compressive strength. This study investigates different
correlations between UCS and Schmidt hammer. Hence a total number of 60 laboratory
tests (UCT, Dry density, and Schmidt hammer) on 20 limestone core samples were
conducted. Findings show a good agreement between the results of experimental studies
and previous well established literatures. A new correlation with high accuracy level for
UCS prediction of limestone rocks is proposed and the reliability of one the most widely
used correlation in Malaysia (Miller`s correlation) for UCS prediction using Rebound
hammer is examined. Results show the degree of reliability of Miller`s correlation is high
enough and it is in close agreement with the new proposed correlation. However, being
only a function of Rebound number (R
L
) is the advantage of the new proposed correlation
over Miller`s correlation.
KEYWORDS: Unconfined Compressive Strength, Rebound Number, Schmidt
hammer, Dry density, Limestone.

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. I 1768

INTRODUCTION
One of the important engineering properties of the rock, which plays an essential role in
designing various geotechnical applications such as tunnel and dam is Unconfined Compressive
Strength (UCS) of the core samples (Bieniawski 1974). However, UCS test is an expensive and
time consuming test which is not always practical especially in case of highly weathered rock
samples. This is mainly because it is difficult to obtain sufficient number of proper rock
samples in this situation. (Cargill and Shakoor, 1990; Gokceoglu and Zorlu, 2004; Ceryan et
al., 2012). Due to the aforementioned problems, the use of indirect method of UCS
determination has become popular especially because of its ease of use and quick procedure. In
indirect methods such as point load index and Schmidt hammer simple index, parameters and
physical properties are considered for UCS prediction (Kahraman 2001; Chang et al.
2006).Schmidt (1951) introduced a special kind of hammer for non-destructive testing of
concrete hardness. The application of Schmidt hammer later on was extended to rock strength
estimation (Aydin and Basu, 2005; Cargill and Shakoor, 1990). In order to have comparable
and reliable data, the test is standardized by ISRM (1978) and ASTM (2001). This paper
presents a review of the most famous correlations between Schmidt hammer and UCS in
addition to a new correlation obtained through a set of experimental tests in Geotechnical
Laboratory of University Teknologi Malaysia (UTM).
LITERATURE REVIEW
There are many published works which focused on obtaining a correlation between UCS
and other physical properties of the rock samples (Inoue and omi, 1970; Broch and Miller,
1972; Sheorey et al. 1984; Shakoor and Bonelli, 1991; Romana, 1999; Katza et al. 2000; Guney
et al. 2005; Vasconcelos, 2008; Sharma and Sing, 2008). Table 1 presents a list of previous
researches conducted for UCS prediction using Schmidt hammer on different type of rocks. As
shown in table 1, the empirical relationship between UCS and Rebound number (R
L
) are in the
form of linear, exponential, and power functions. Although most of the correlations are defined
in a way that R
L
is the only independent variable for UCS prediction, there are some reported
case that UCS is correlated with rebound number and dry density ( ) of rock samples.
Table 1: UCS correlations with Schmidt hammer
References Correlation R Rock Type
Kilic and Teymen (2008)
o
UCS
= u.u1S7 R
L
2.2721

0.93 Different rock types
Cobanoglu and Selik (2008) o
UCS
= 6.S9 R
L
-212.6 64.7 Limestone, sandstone, cement mortar
Yasar and Erdogan (2004)
o
UCS
= u.uuuuu4 R
L
4.29

0.89 Carbonates, sandstone, basalt
Tugrul and Zarif (1999) o
UCS
= 8.S6 R
L
-416 0.87 Granite
Sachpazis (1990) o
UCS
= 4.29 R
L
-67.S2 0.96 33 different carbonates
Xu et al. (1990) o
UCS
=2.98 c
(0.06R
L)
0.95 Mica-schist
Cargill and Shakoor (1990) o
UCS
=18.17 c
(0.02pR
L)
0.98 Carbonates
O Rourke (1989) o
UCS
=4.85 R
L
-76.18 0.77 Sandstone, siltstone, limestone, anhydride
Ghose and Chakraborti (1986) o
UCS
=0.88 R
L
-12.11 0.87 Coal
Haramy and DeMarco (1985) o
UCS
=0.99 R
L
-0.38 0.70 Coal
Singh et al.(1983) o
UCS
=2 R
L
0.86 Sandstone, siltstone, mudstone, seatearth
Aufmuth (1973) o
UCS
=0.33 (R
L
p)
1.35
0.80 25 different lithologies

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. I 1769

EXPERIMENTAL TESTS
Schmidt hammer test
Schmidt hammer test or rebound test is a simple index test to determine surface strength of
rock sample. The test does not involve destruction of sample (non-destructive) and it can be
repeated on the same sample. Index value obtained is rebound number (R), which is an
indicator of surface hardness of the sample. The value of R can be converted to compressive
strength using the following formula (Miller, 1965).

Log
10
J CS =0.00088()(R) +1.01 (1)

where, J CS is joint compressive strength (MPa) and is unit weight of rock (kN/m
3
). J CS also
indicates compressive strength of sample surface being tested. Miller`s correlation is one of the
most widely used correlations for UCS prediction in Malaysia.For fresh rock (weathering grade
I) sample, J CS is approximately equal to the UCS of the internal material. In other words, when
rock is not weathered, its surface compressive strength is approximately equal to its material
strength.
In this test program, when index test does not involve destruction of sample (e.g. rebound
hammer test), the sample is reused for other strength tests (e.g. uniaxial compression test). Such
procedure will help reduce effect of sample variation on test data.
Uniaxial Compression Test
Uniaxial compression test evaluates compressive strength of rock sample under uniaxial
loading. The compressive strength (UCS) of rock sample is determined by loading rock sample
under load-controlled (e.g.10 kN/s) condition or under strain-controlled (e.g. 0.1 % strain/s)
condition. The mode of loading under strain-controlled condition represents loading conditions
more accurately in the field and enables complete stress-strain curve of sample to be obtained.
Depending on monitored parameters during test, several fundamental properties of rock can
be determined from this test. In its simplest form, UCT is used to determine uniaxial/ultimate
compressive strength (UCS). Stillborg (1986) listedtypical values for compressive strength
(UCS) for various rocks.
TEST PROCEDURE
A number of 60 laboratory tests on limestone core samples including 20 physical property
tests i.e. dry density test, 20 index strength tests i.e. Schmidts hammer test and 20 direct
strength testsi.e UCT were conducted in Geotechnical Laboratory of University Teknologi
Malaysia. The procedures suggested by ISRM (1981) were considered for the tests.More detail
of tests procedures are given in the following paragraphs.
Dry Density Test
Dry density is determined on all prepared core samples for the UCT. The dry mass of
samples was obtained after they have been dried at room temperature for several days. In order
to obtain the volume, the diameter (D) and height (H) of core samples was measured using
electronic vernier caliper with the accuracy of 0.01 mm (Figure 1). Dry mass of sample was
determined using digital balance of 0.1 gm accuracy.


Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. I 1770


.












Schmidt hammer test procedure
Rebound hammer used in this study was Schmidt hammer L-type (MATEST of Italy).
Sample cradle was used to hold the core sample rigidly in position during test (see Figure 2).
For each sample, 20 rebound tests were undertaken at different point on the core surface. Data
collected is rebound number, R. From the 20 readings collected, the average R value was
calculated from 50 % of the highest readings. Value of R can be used to calculate compressive
strength of sample surface tested (equation 1).



Figure 2: Schmidt Hammer L-type

Uniaxial compression test
The compression tests were conducted on Tinius Olsen (USA) Universal Testing Machine
(UTM).This 3000 kN capacity machine is able to apply compressive load at constant strain rate
on the sample. All compression tests were conducted at strain rate at of 0.5mm/mm/s. Strain
gauges were used to measure deformation (strains) of the sample, while TML 500 kN load cell
(see Figure 3) monitored applied load (stress) throughout the test. Both these strain and stress
transducers were wired to data logging system. The stress-strain data was continuously logged
into a computer and the stress at failure was considered as the UCS of core sample.


Figure 1: Digital vernier (left) and Electronic balance (right)
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. I 1771




Figure 3: 500 kN TML load cell

Result and Discussion
The results of 60 laboratory tests (dry density, Schmidt hammer and UCS) are tabulated in
Table 2. The general trends of the findings show good agreement with previous well
established studies (Daly et al., 1966; Bickel and Kuesel, 1982; Kahraman, 2001; Aydin and
Basu, 2005). In Table 2, apart from obtained UCS in the laboratory, the UCS was predicted
according to Miller`s correlation to investigate the reliability of this correlation.
Table 2: Rock characterization results
No. Sample Type
Dry Density
(kg/m
3
)
R
L

UCS: Miller`s
correlation(MPa)
UCS:Obtained in
Laboratory(MPa)
1 Limestone 2817 36 72 72.9
2 Limestone 2748 35.9 76 72.9
3 Limestone 2646 31.5 55 58.5
4 Limestone 2777 31.5 60 60.6
5 Limestone 2671 28.9 49 52.2
6 Limestone 2773 30.4 56 56.4
7 Limestone 2676 37.7 79 76.7
8 Limestone 2683 36.8 76 75.7
9 Limestone 2748 34.8 71 72.5
10 Limestone 2707 35.6 72 69.6
11 Limestone 2759 36.6 79 78.1
12 Limestone 2704 33.9 66 63.5
13 Limestone 2726 35.1 71 75.7
14 Limestone 2796 37.9 88 83.3
15 Limestone 2822 36.4 82 85.6
16 Limestone 2730 36 74 76.2
17 Limestone 2720 36 71 74.8
18 Limestone 2887 35 72 70.5
19 Limestone 2699 39 81 83.6
20 Limestone 2679 37 76 73.4

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. I 1772

The accuracy of Miller`s correlation is shown in Figure 4. As it is shown in this figure, it
can be seen that the value of R
2
is about 0.93, showing high reliability of Miller`s equation for
prediction of UCS. However, it is worthy to note that the reliability of this correlation can be
reduced significantly if the rock samples are categorized among moderate or highly weathered
rocks. This is mainly due to the fact that Schmidt hammer measure the strength on the surface
of the rock.



Figure 4: Reliability of Miller`s correlation

Miller`s correlation was based on both rebound number (R
L
) and unit weight of the rock
sample. Figure 5 presents a developed correlation which is obtained from the results of the
laboratory tests. The proposed correlation is only based on rebound number. As shown in this
figure, the reliability and accuracy of the new correlation is very close to Miller`s correlation.
However, in the new correlation, there is no need to determine unit weight. The R
2
of the new
correlation is almost 0.91. The unremarkable error shows high accuracy of the new correlation.
The formula for the new correlation is as follows:

UCS (MPa) =12.83e
0.0487R
L (2)

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. I 1773



Figure 5: Developed correlation between Rebound number (R
L
) and UCS


Since the laboratory tests were conducted on limestone samples, the use of new correlation
for this specific type of rock is recommended as it will increase the reliability and the degree of
accuracy of the correlation. Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, the weathering grade can affect
the reliability of the correlation inversely. In fact, as the degree of weathering grade in rock
samples increases, the reliability of Schmidt hammer correlations including both Miller`s
correlation and new developed correlation decreases. Hence, the use of Schmidt hammer
correlations in weathered rock samples should be done with caution.
CONCLUSIONS
The reliability of one of the most widely used Schmidt hammer correlation in Malaysia for
prediction of unconfined compressive strength of rock samples was evaluated by obtaining the
dry density of 20 different rock samples and conducting both Schmidt hammer tests and UCT
on the prepared core samples. It was observed that the degree of reliability of Miller`s
correlation is high enough. Based on the results of the experimental tests, a new correlation
with almost same degree of accuracy and reliability was introduced. In comparison to Miller`s
equation, the new proposed correlation has the advantage of being a function of only one
independent variable i.e rebound number. However, like other Schmidt hammer correlations,
the use of new developed correlation for UCS prediction in case of highly weathered rock is not
recommended due to improper UCS prediction. On the other hand, the use of developed
correlation for limestone rocks is recommended as the laboratory tests were conducted on
limestone core samples.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The second and third authors would like to thank University Teknologi Malaysia for its
financial support via allocating International Doctoral Fellowship.
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. I 1774

REFERENCES
1. Aydin A., Basu A. (2005) The Schmidt hammer in rock material characterization.
EngGeol 81:114
2. ASTM.(2001) Standard test method for determination of rock hardness by rebound
hammer method. ASTM Stand. 04.09 (D 5873-00).
3. Aufmuth, R.E.(1973) A systematic determination of engineering criteria for rocks.
Bull. Assoc. Eng. Geol. 11, 235 245.
4. Bieniawski. Z. T. (1974) Estimating the strength of rock materials. J . S. African
Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Vol. 74,No.8. pp. 312 -320.
5. Bickel, J .O., and Kuesel, T.R. (1982) Tunnel Engineering Handbook. London: Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co.
6. Broch, E., and Miller, J .A. (1972) The point load strength test. Journal Rock Mechanics
& Mineral Science. Vol. 9: 669-697.
7. Cargill J.S., and Shakoor A. (1990) Evaluation of empirical methods for measuring the
uniaxial compressive strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci & Geomech Abstr
27:495-503.
8. Ceryan N, Okkan U,Kesimal, A (2012) Prediction of unconned compressive strength
of carbonate rocksusing articial neural networks. Environ Earth Sci. DOI
10.1007/s12665-012-1783-z
9. Chang C, Zoback MD, Khaksar A (2006) Empirical relations between rock strength
and physical properties in sedimentary rocks. J Petrol Sci Eng 51
10. Daly, R.A., Manger, G.E. and Clark, S.P. (1966) Density of Rocks. In: S.P. Clark
(Editor). Geol. Soc. American. Member 97. Handbook of Physical Constants. 19-26.
11. Ghose, A.K., and Chakraborti, S.(1986) Empirical strength indices of Indian coalsan
investigation. Proc. 27th US Symp. on Rock Mech. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 59 61.
12. Gokceoglu C, and Zorlu K. (2004) A fuzzy model to predict the unconfined
compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of aproblematic rock. Eng Appl Artif
Intell. 17:6172
13. Guney, A. R. Altnda, H. Yavuz and S. Sara. 2005 Evaluation of the Relationships
between Schmidt Hardness Rebound Number and Other (Engineering) Properties of
Rocks. The 19th International Mining Congress and Fair of Turkey, IMCET2005,
zmir, Turkey, J une 09-12.
14. Haramy, K.Y., and DeMarco, M.J . (1985). Use of Schmidt hammer for rock and coal
testing. Proc. 26th US Symp. on Rock Mech. 2628 J une, Rapid City. Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp. 549 555.
15. Inoue M., and Omi M. (1970) Study on the strength of rocks by the Schmidt hammer
test. In: Rock mechanics in J apan, vol. 1 p. 17779.
16. ISRM. (1978) Suggested methods for determining hardness and abrasiveness of rocks.
Int. J . Rock Mech. Min. Sci., Geomech. Abstr. 15, 89 97.
17. ISRM. (1981)Rock Characterization testing and monitoring, ISRM suggested methods.
Commission on testing methods. International Society for Rock mechanic. Oxford:
Pergamon press Ltd.
18. Kahraman S. (2001) Evaluation of simple methods for assessing the uniaxial
compressive strength of rock. Int J Rock MechMin Sci 38:981994.
Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. I 1775

19. Katza, O.,Rechesa, Z., and Roegiers, J .-C. (2000) Evaluation of mechanical rock
properties using a Schmidt Hammer. International J ournal of Rock Mechanics and
Mining Sciences, 37: 723-728.
20. Miller R. P. (1965) Engineering classification and index properties for intact rock.
Thesis, University of Illinuis.
21. O Rourke, J .E. (1989) Rock index properties for geoengineering in underground
development. Min. Eng., 106 110.
22. Romana M. (1999) Correlation between unconned compressive and point-load (Miller
tests) strengths for different rock classes. In: 9th ISRM Congress, 1. Balkema, Paris, pp
673676.
23. Sachpazis, C.I. (1990) Correlating Schmidt hardness with compressive strength and
Youngs modulus of carbonate rocks. Bull. Int. Assoc. Eng. Geol. 42, 75 83.
24. Schmidt E. (1951) A non-destructive concrete tester. Concrete, 59 (8):34-5.
25. Shakoor A., and Bonelli R. (1991) Relationship between petrographic characteristics,
engineering index properties and mechanical properties of selected sandstones. Bull
AssocEngGeol 28:5571.
26. Sharma P.K., Singh T.N. (2008) A correlation between P-wave velocity, impact
strength index, slake durability index and uniaxial compressive strength. Bull EngGeol
Environ 67:1722.
27. Sheorey P.R., Barat D., Das M.N., Mukherjee K.P., and Singh B. (1984)Schmidt
hammer rebound data for estimation of large scale in situ coal strength. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci. Geomech. Abstr 21:3942
28. Singh, R.N., Hassani, F.P., and Elkington, P.A. S.(1983) The application of strength
and deformation index testing to the stability assessment of coal measures excavations.
Proc. 24th US Symp. On Rock Mech. Texas A and M Univ. AEG, Balkema,
Rotterdam, pp. 599609.
29. Stillborg, B. (1986) Professional users handbook for rock bolting. Germany. Transtech
publication. 144 pp.
30. Yasar, E., and Erdogan, Y. (2004) Estimation of rock physio-mechanical properties
using hardness methods. Eng. Geol. 71, 281 288.
31. Tugrul, A., and Zarif, I. H.(1999) Correlation of mineralogical and textural
characteristics with engineering properties of selected granitic rocks from Turkey. Eng.
Geol. 51, 303317.
32. Vasconcelos G., Lourenco P.B., Alves C.S.A., and Pamplona J . (2008) Ultrasonic
evaluation of the physical and mechanical properties of granites. Ultrasonics 48:453
466
33. Xu, S., Grasso, P., and Mahtab, A. (1990) Use of Schmidt hammer for estimating
mechanical properties of weak rock. Proc. 6th International IAEG Congress, vol. 1.
Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 511 519.

2013 ejge