EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS, VOL.

8,289-292 (1983)

THE EFFECT OF SURFACE TEXTURE ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE

SURFACE HARDNESS OF ROCK USING THE SCHMIDT HAMMER
R. B. G . WILLIAMS AND D. A. ROBINSON
Geography Laboratory, University of Sussex, Brighton, BNI 9QN, U.K

Received 2 April 1982

Revised I2 November 1982

ABSTRACT
The Schmidt hammer is employed by geomorphologists as a convenient field instrument for measuring the hardness of
rock surfaces.Field trials indicate that the readings obtained are a functionofnot only the hardnessof the surfacesbut also
their texture. Smooth planar surfaces give much higher readings than rough or irregular surfaces. This makes
interpretation of the resultsparticularly difficult when the hammer is used to measure the hardnessof natural rock surfaces
that have been roughened by weathering.
KEY WORDS

Weathering Rock hardness Schmidt hammer Millstone Grit

The Schmidt hammer is a light, portable instrument originally designed to measure the surface strength of
concrete and other building materials (Schmidt, 1951). In recent years it has been employed by
geomorphologists to make rapid field measurements of the surface strength of rocks. Yaalon and Singer
(1974), for example, used the hammer to measure the surface induration of an Jsraeli limestone, and more
recently it was used by Summerfield and Goudie (1980) to assess the relative hardness of silcrete boulders in
southern England and Africa.
Day and Goudie (1977) have published a detailed evaluation of the use of the hammer in geomorphological
studies. This usefully supplements the instruction booklet produced by the Swiss manufacturers of the
hammer (Proceq SA), which is primarily concerned with the testing of concrete. Day and Goudie demonstrate
that the edges and corners of rocks should be avoided when readings are taken, otherwise abnormally low
values will be recorded, and they also show that readings on wet rock surfaces are lower than those recorded
when the surfaces are dry. However, readings are unaffected by surface temperature, and operator variance is
not a significant problem.
The manufacturers booklet mentions that surfaces selected for testing should be smooth and free from
flaws or other inhomogeneities, and a carborundum stone is supplied with each hammer for grinding down
and smoothing rough surfaces. Unfortunately, the booklet fails to state whether the readings on rough
surfaces tend to be too low or too high; nor does it indicate the extent to which surface roughness can falsify
readings. The user is left to decide for himself how much surface preparation is required for accurate
measurement. Day and Goudie are more informative and explain that readings on rough surfaces tend to be
lower than on smooth surfaces, but they give no indication of the probable magnitude of the difference. In
general, they seem very satisfied with the performance of the hammer, stating that each reading with the
hammer takes about 10 seconds(p. 24), and that large numbers of readings can be obtained in a small area in
a short period of time (p. 19), which suggests that they consider that surface smoothing is not normally
necessary. This is in strong contrast to Hucka (1965) who emphasizes that it is essential to prepare surfaces
0197-9337/83/0302894M$01.00
0 1983 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

290

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

carefully if aberrant readings are to be avoided, and recommends that the surfaces should be dressed with a
chisel before being smoothed with the carborundum stone.
The present authors have carried out extensive measurements with the hammer on sandstone outcrops in
England and France as part of a study of the development of indurated weathering rinds. They are convinced
that accurate information on the surface strength of different rocks can be obtained only when the rocks
exhibit similar surface textures. The field trials reported here confirm that readings obtained with the hammer
are lower on rough surfaces than on smooth surfaces. The difference can be very large, and the readings on a
rough surface may give very little indication of the true hardness of the rock. The interpretation of Schmidt
hammer readings is not as simple as has hitherto been supposed.
The magnitude of the difference between the readings obtained with the Schmidt hammer from surfaces of
different roughness became apparent during an investigation into the surface hardness of Ashover Grit at
Birchover, Derbyshire. This grit is a medium textured felspathic sandstone belonging to the Millstone Grit
formation of Namurian age. It is fairly massively bedded with widely spaced vertical joints. To the north of the
village it outcrops as a series ofcrags along the sides of Stanton Moor. Other crags are found both in the village
and a short distance to the south.
A type L hammer was used to test a small sample of blocks of recently quarried unweathered grit lying on
the floor of the quarry on the edge of Stanton Moor belonging to Ann Twyford Ltd. (Grid Ref. SK 243 624),
and on one of the natural crags to the south of the village. In the quarry, pairs of readings were taken on the
upper surfaces of ten large blocks (mean size about 0.5 m3). Five of the blocks had freshly split surfaces; five
had sawn surfaces. Hammer readings on the split surfaces averaged 30.1 (n = 10 with S.D. = 2.7) while
readings on the sawn surfaces averaged 45-1 (n = 10 with S.D. = 4.6). The average of ten readings on the
upper surfaces of joint blocks of the natural crag was 25.0 (S.D. = 2.8).
Following these initial results a more detailed field investigation was undertaken in the same locality six
months later. Hammer readings were made on the tops of joint blocks on most of the crags around Birchover.
Five readings were taken on each of 20 individual joint blocks. The rock surface was not prepared with the
carborundum stone, but care was taken to avoid any localities where surface scaling was occurring or where
lichen crusts were present. All readings were taken well away from bounding joints, and the hammer was
operated vertically downwards. The mean of the readings was 23.7 with a standard deviation of 3.8 (Table I).
In an area of Twyfords Quarry not sampled on the previous visit, another 20 blocks of unweathered
sandstone (mean size about 0.5 m3) were selected with upper surfaces that were freshly split, and a further 20
blocks were selected with upper surfaces that were freshly sawn. Five readings were taken vertically on each
block, no surface preparation was undertaken and all readings were well away from the edges of the blocks.
The 100 readings on the split surfaces averaged 32.1 with a standard deviation of 3.8 and the 100 readings on
the sawn surfaces averaged 42.4 with a standard deviation of 2.7 (Table I).
Table I. Schmidt hammer readings on horizontal surfaces of Ashover Grit, Birchover,
Derbyshire
Location of sample

Weathered tops of crags

Unweathered surfaces of quarried blocks:
1. Split (rough) surfaces
2. Sawn (smooth) surfaces

Sample
size

Mean

Standard
deviation

100

23.1

3.8

100
100

32.1
424

3.8
2.1

Nested analysis of variance indicates that the differences in the mean readings of the three surfaces are
statistically significant at well beyond the 0.01 level (Table 11). Differences between joint blocks, although
much smaller, are also significant at beyond the 0.01 level. Some 87-7 per cent of the total variance of the
readings can be attributed to the type of surface and 4.4 per cent to variations between joint blocks. Only 7.9
per cent of the variance is unattributable, i.e. due to unexamined factors such as slight variations in the angle of
impact of the hammer.

29 1

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Table 11. Analysis of variance for the Schmidt hammer readings

Sum of
squares

Source of variation
Type of surface
(Factor A)
Individual joint block
(Factor B)
Replications on each block

17 587.260

1692.060
1904*400

Df.

Variance
estimate

F-ratio

Cumulative
explanation
of the
variance

8793.630

296.229

87.639

57

29.685
7.935

3-741

91.989
99.924

240

Some supplementary readings were made which confirm the same general picture as the main set of readings
summarized in Table I. One of the sampled blocks in the quarry had an upper surface that was part sawn and
part split. Ten readings on the sawn part gave a mean of 41.4 (S.D. = 1.0) while 10 readings on the rough part
gave a mean of 32-6 (S.D. = 3.1). Another sampled block with a roughly split patch in the centre of a sawn
upper surface averaged 40.8 for the sawn surface (n = 5.0 with S.D. = 2.1) and 33.8 for the rough patch
(n = 5-0 with S.D. = 4.0).
Three sets of readings were also obtained on vertical faces with the hammer operated horizontally. Oiie set
was obtained from vertical faces on the natural crags, a second from unweathered joint faces freshly exposed
in Twyfords Quarry and a third set from weathered faces in an abandoned quarry close by on Stanton Moor
(Grid Ref. SK 244 626). The means of the three sets of readings were significantly different from each other
with the highest values recorded on the fresh quarry faces and the lowest values on the highly weathered
natural crags (Table 111).
Table 111. Schmidt hammer readings on vertical surfaces of Ashover Grit,
Birchover, Derbyshire
Location of sample
Faces of natural crags
Faces in disused quarry
Faces in active quarry

Sample size

Mean

Standard
deviation

105
16
30

23.3
28.8
33.3

3.0
3.6
4.3

DISCUSSION O F THE RESULTS

The magnitude of the difference between the means of the readings obtained from the sawn surfaces and the
split surfaces iz much too large to be attributed to variations in surface moisture. There was no apparent
difference in the dampness of the two sets of surfaces, but, even if the rough surfaces were saturated and the
sawn surfaces totally dry, the results of Day and Goudie (1977), indicate that any difference in the hammer
readings due to the moisture variations would be very small compared to the difference actually observed. The
difference in the observed mean values can be satisfactorily explained only in terms of the marked difference in
the texture of the two surfaces. The sawn surfaces are smoother and more planer, and provide excellent
contact for the head of the hammer. Split surfaces possess minor surface irregularities which result in an
imperfect contact between the smooth head of the hammer and the rock, thereby lowering the reading
obtained.
The even lower readings on the natural crags would seem to have two explanations. First, the surfaces are
rough as a result of differential weathering of the minerals in the sandstone. Felspar crystals are preferentially
weathered and etched out of the surface of the rock leaving the quartz grains projecting. As a result there is
reduced contact between the hammer head and the rock surface. Secondly, some reduction is probably due to
a weakening or softening of the rock surface by weathering. Some projecting quartz grains are loosened by

292

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

weathering and can be detached from the surface by the impact of the hammer. This partially dissipates the
energy of the hammer and lowers the readings that are obtained. In addition, felspars close to the surface may
be altered to clays be weathering thus contributing to the lower readings.
From the difference between the readings obtained from the working and abandoned quarries it appears
that even a brief period of weathering has a marked effect on the character of the rock surface leading to
substantially lower hammer readings. Changes appear to be rapid at first and then progressively slower since
readings in the abandoned quarry differ more from those in the working quarry than from those on the crags,
which have doubtless been weathering for thousands of years.

CONCLUSIONS
The values obtained with the Schmidt hammer are a function of both the hardness and the surface texture of
rock surfaces. Surfaces can be ground flat, but, if the rock is hard, this is very time consuming and it is difficult
to ensure a consistent degree of smoothness from one sampling location to another. Furthermore, many rocks
have thin weathering rinds which may be partially or wholly removed during grinding so that the readings will
reflect the artificially smoothed rock beneath the rinds and not the weathered rock surface, which may be the
focus of interest.
For geomorphologists the attraction of the Schmidt hammer lies in its supposed ability to provide quick
determinations of the hardness or strength of natural rock surfaces in the field. It is now apparent that, when
readings of surface hardness are made, they may be greatly influenced by surface texture. Different rocks have
different surface textures and these change upon exposure to weathering. Textural changes caused by
weathering are especially marked in minerallogically heterogeneous rocks, because the different minerals tend
to vary in their susceptibility to weathering. The use of the Schmidt hammer to measure the relative hardness
of different rock types or relative intensities of weathering on different surfaces of the same rock type seems
particularly doubtful. In all uses, the readings obtained with a Schmidt hammer are representative only of a
given rock and a given surface texture of that rock.
REFERENCES
Day, M. J . and Goudie, A. S. 1977. Field assessment of rock hardness using the Schmidt Test Hammer, British Geomorphological
Research Group Technical Bulletin. IS, 19-29.
Hucka, V. 1965. A rapid method for determining the strength of rock in situ, International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining
Science, 2, 127-34.
Proceq, SA. 1977 etc. Operating instructions; concrete test hammer, Zurich, Switzerland. 15 pp.
Schmidt, E. 1951. Experiments with the new concrete test hammer, Schweizec. Archiu.
Summerfield. M. A. and Goudie, A. S. 1980, The sarsens of southern England: their palaeoenvironrnental interpretation with reference
to other silcretes, in Jones, D. K . C. (Ed.), The Shaping of Southern England, Academic Press, London. pp. 71 -100.
Yaalon, D. H. and Singer, S. 1974. Vertical variation in strength and porosity of calcrete (Nari) on chalk, Shefela, Israel and
interpretation of its origin, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 44, 1016-1023.