Variability of Schmidt Rebound Values in Volcanic Rocks (Basalt and Lapilli Tuff): Comparative Effect of Surface Roughness, Alteration, and Testing Methods


Karaman K., Külekçi G., Çakır Y., Kolaylı H.

APPLIED SCIENCES, cilt.16, sa.2, ss.1-17, 2026 (SCI-Expanded, Scopus)

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 16 Sayı: 2
  • Basım Tarihi: 2026
  • Doi Numarası: 10.3390/app16020886
  • Dergi Adı: APPLIED SCIENCES
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Scopus, Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Compendex, INSPEC, Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.1-17
  • Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Enhancing the sustainability and safety of rock engineering requires understanding how micro-structural and alteration conditions influence the geomechanical properties of rocks in geotechnical projects. The determination of surface hardness using the Schmidt Hammer is an interdisciplinary experimental method employed in mining, geology, and civil engineering. This study quantitatively evaluates the effects of surface roughness, weathering degree, and evaluation procedures on Schmidt rebound values obtained from basalt and lapilli tuff. Field measurements on eight surfaces produced rebound values between 10 and 60, with standard deviations ranging from 2.4 to 11, reflecting substantial variability related to roughness and alteration. Laboratory results showed that cut surfaces yielded the highest hardness values (Mean ≈ 57–58) with very low variability (SD ≈ 1.1–1.6), whereas natural surfaces exhibited markedly lower rebound values (Mean ≈ 19–22) and greater scatter (SD ≈ 4–4.5). A strong correlation (R2 > 0.97) was observed between JRC roughness and rebound values in laboratory-prepared samples. The percentage difference among the USBR, ASTM, and Sumner & Nel methods remained below 5% when the standard deviation of measurements was under 2, indicating that method selection becomes critical only for heterogeneous surfaces. Mineralogical heterogeneity further increased variability in lapilli tuff, whereas basalt provided highly consistent responses. Overall, this study introduces quantitative thresholds linking roughness, weathering, and statistical variability, offering a more rigorous and reproducible framework for interpreting Schmidt hardness measurements.