EARTH SURFACE PROCESSES AND LANDFORMS, VOL.

16,477480 (1991)

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS
THE SCHMIDT HAMMER, WEATHERING A N D ROCK SURFACE ROUGHNESS
DANNY McCARROLL

Department of Geography, University of Southampton. SO9 SNH, U.K.

Received 16 November 1990
Revised 21 January 1991

ABSTRACT
Measures of the differential relief of adjacent feldspar and pyroxene grains provide the first clear negative correlation of
Schmidt hammer rebound (R-) values and degree of weathering. However, weathering and roughness are intimately
related, so the latter cannot be seen simply as a source of error limiting the utility of the Schmidt hammer. Only where
surfaces had similar textures prior to weathering can R-values be compared directly. Even where surface texture is well
controlled, differences in R-values should be viewed critically rather than assigned indiscriminately to differences in
degree of weathering.
KEY WORDS

Schmidt hammer Weathering Roughness

INTRODUCTION
The Schmidt hammer was designed for in situ testing of the surface hardness of concrete. It records the
distance of rebound of a spring-loaded mass (Day and Goudie, 1977). It is commonly used as a field measure
of the hardness of natural rock surfaces (Deere and Miller, 1966; Barton and Choubey, 1978; Day, 1980;
Selby, 1980; Summerfield and Goudie, 1980; Sheorey et al., 1984; Whitlow and Shakesby, 1988) and as an
index of degree of rock surface weathering (Barton and Choubey, 1978; Day, 1980; Matthews and Shakesby,
1984; Ballantyne, 1986; Dawson et al., 1986; Matthews et al., 1986; Shakesby et al., 1987; Sjoberg, 1987a,
1987b, 1987c; Campbell et al., 1987; McCarroll, 1987, 1989a, 1989b; Ballantyne et al., 1989). Although it is
logical to expect rock weathering to result in a loss of surface strength and therefore a decline in Schmidt
hammer rebound (R-) values, a clear correlation of R-values and an independent measure of degree of
weathering has not been demonstrated. Moreover, Williams and Robinson (1983 p. 292) have argued that
rock surface texture exerts such a strong influence on R-values that the use of the Schmidt hammer to
measure the relative hardness of different rock types or the relative intensities of weathering on different
surfaces seems particularly doubtful. Here, careful measurement of the influence of weathering on rock
surface texture is used to elucidate the relationships between weathering, roughness, and Schmidt hammer
rebound values.
METHODS
On a recently exhumed outcrop of gabbroic rocks in Leirdalen, southern Norway, the differential weathering
of feldspar and pyroxene grains was investigated. At 11 levels beneath the former soil surface, a purpose-built
micro-roughness meter was used to measure the width and relative height of 11 feldspar and 10 adjacent
pyroxene grains. Indices of differential relief (mean height of pyroxenes above adjacent feldspars) and

0197-93 37/91/05O477-O41$05.OO

0 1991 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

478

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

differential weathering (taking account of the width, and therefore stability of the protruding minerals) and
the mean depth of mineral removed were calculated. Full details of the field methods and calculations are
provided elsewhere (McCarroll, 1990a). All three indices decline with increasing depth down to 80 cm
beneath the former soil surface. On each area of rock at which differential relief was measured, ten Schmidt
hammer R-values were also recorded from separate points of impact.
The Leirdalen site provides an ideal location for assessing the influence of weathering and roughness on
R-values. Although including a clear gradation in degree of weathering, measurements were restricted to
a small area ( < 1 m2)of uniform lithology. The outcrop was subglacially abraded prior to burial about
9000 BP (Blystad and Selsing, 1988) and prior to the influence of surface and subsurface weathering would
have displayed a uniform surface texture.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The relationships between the three measures of degree of weathering and R-values are displayed in Figure 1.
In each case more than 79 per cent of the variability in mean R-values can be explained by variability in
degree of weathering. It is also clear that the spread of R-values increases with degree of weathering.
60-

55-

50-

45

40

35

30

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Index of differential relief (mm)

-2

10

12

14

16

18

Index of differential weathering

60-

55-

50-

45

40-

35

30
-0.1

0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Mean depth of mineral removed (mm)

0.6

I
0.7

Figure 1. The relationship between Schmidt hammer rebound (R-) values (f2 standard errors of the mean) and three measures of
degree of weathering based on the differential relief of adjacent feldspar and pyroxene grains

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

419

These results demonstrate a clear negative correlation between degree of rock surface weathering and
Schmidt hammer R-values. However, they also demonstrate that degree of weathering and rock surface
texture may be intimately related. Differences in surface roughness cannot be viewed simply as a potential
source of error limiting the utility of the Schmidt hammer. On the contrary, surface roughness reflects both
initial texture and the influence of weathering, and as degree of weathering increases so differences in surface
roughness developed as a direct result of weathering are likely to contribute substantially to the decline in
R-values. However, it can be assumed that differences in surface roughness have developed as a result of
weathering only where it is reasonable to assume that prior to the influence of weathering the surfaces would
have exhibited similar textures.
Unfortunately, there are many geomorphological situations in which such an assumption is unreasonable.
Boulders in a scree deposit, for example, cannot be assumed to have had similar unweathered surface textures
to those from adjacent glacial or fluvial deposits. Differences in R-values may therefore reflect differences in
initial roughness as well as differences in degree of weathering.
Even where it can be assumed that surfaces initially displayed similar surface textures, or the influence of
initial surface texture can be controlled, differences in R-values should not be assigned indiscriminately to
differences in degree of weathering. The Schmidt hammer can be used to gather large samples of data
relatively quickly, and small differences in mean R-values between sites can prove statistically significant.
This implies that there is a real difference in R-values; whether this reflects a difference in degree
of weathering is another question. Instrument errors (McCarroll, 1987), inappropriate sample design
(McCarroll, 1990b),and small differences in lithology (McCarroll, 1989b) can result in significant differences
in mean R-values obtained from surfaces which are weathered to the same degree. As sample size is increased
and the statistical significance of small differences in mean R-values increases, so the likelihood of extraneous
sources of error becoming significant also increases. When using the Schmidt hammer, or any indirect
measure of degree of weathering, it is essential that a critical methodology is adopted. Increasing statistical
probability should not be confused with establishing causality.
CONCLUSIONS
Measurement of the differential relief of adjacent feldspar and pyroxene crystals on a small exhumed outcrop
of uniform gabbroic rock reveals a clear decline in degree of weathering with increasing depth of burial,
providing an ideal site at which to assess the relationships between weathering, rock surface roughness, and
Schmidt hammer R-values. A strong negative correlation between R-values and degree of weathering is
demonstrated. However, weathering and surface roughness are intimately related, so that roughness cannot
be seen simply as a source of error limiting the utility of the Schmidt hammer. Where surfaces can be assumed
to have displayed similar surface textures prior to the influence of weathering, it is valid to compare R-values
irrespective of differences in surface roughness. Even where the influence of surface texture is well controlled,
differences in R-values, irrespective of their statistical significance, should not be assigned indiscriminately to
differences in weathering. A critical methodology, counterposing and testing alternative hypotheses, should
be adopted.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Louise Zelinka for assistance in the field and Colin Ballantyne, Mark Berrisford,
John Matthews, and Rick Shakesby, for useful comments. Figure 1 was kindly drawn by the staff
of the cartographic unit, Department of Geography, University of Southampton. This work represents
Jotunheimen Research Expeditions Contribution No. 93.
REFERENCES
Ballantyne, C. K. 1986. Protalus rampart development and the limits of former glaciers in the vicinity of Baosbheinn, Wester Ross,
Scottish Journal of Geology, 22, 13-25.

480

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Ballantyne, C. K., Black, N. M., and Finlay, D. P. 1989. Enhanced boulder weathering under late-lying snowpatches, Earth Surjbce
Processes and Landforms, 14, 745-750.
Barton, N. and Choubey, V. 1978. The shear strength of rock joints in theory and practice, Rock Mechanics, 10, 1-54.
Blystad, P. and Selsing, L. 1988. Deglaciation chronology in the mountain area between Suldal and Setesdal, southwestern Norway,
Norges Geologiske Undesekelse Bulletin, 413, 67-92.
Boulton, G. S. 1978. Boulder shape and grain-size distributions of debris as indicators of transport paths through a glacier and till
genesis, Sedimentology, 25, 773-779.
Campbell, M. D., Shakesby, R. A., and Walsh, R. P. D. 1987. The distribution of weathering and erosion on an inselberg-pediment
system in semi-arid Sudan, in Gardiner, V. (Ed.), International Geomorphology Part 11, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 1249-1270.
Day, M. 3. 1980. Rock hardness; field assessment of geomorphic importance, Professional Geographer, 32, 72-81.
Day, M. J. and Goudie, A. S. 1977. Field assessment of rock hardness using the Schmidt hammer, British Geomorphological Research
Group Technical Bulletin, 18, 19-29.
Dawson, A. G., Matthews, J. A., and Shakesby, R. A. 1986. A catastrophic landslide (Sturtzstrom) in Verkilsdalen, Rondane National
Park, Southern Norway, Geograjska Annaler, 68(A), 77-87.
Deere, D. V. and Miller, R. P. 1966. Engineering classification and index properties for intact rock, Technical Report Number
AFNL-TRdS-116. Air Force Weapons Laboratory, New Mexico.
Matthews, J. A,, Dawson, A. G., and Shakesby, R. A. 1986. Lake shoreline development, frost weathering and rock platform erosion in
an alpine periglacial environment, Jotunheimen, southern Norway, Boreas, 15, 33-50.
Matthews, J. A. and Shakesby, R. A. 1984. The status of the Little Ice Age in southern Norway: relative-age dating of Neoglacial
moraines with Schmidt hammer and lichenometry, Boreas, 13, 333-346.
McCarroll, D. 1987. The Schmidt hammer in geomorphology: five sources of instrument error, British Geomorphological Research
Group Technical Bulletin, 36, 16-27.
McCarroll, D. 1989a. Potential and limitations of the Schmidt hammer for relative-age dating; field tests on neoglacial moraines,
Jotunheimen, Southern Norway, Arctic and Alpine Research, 21, 268-275.
McCarroll, D. 1989b. Schmidt hammer relative-age evaluation of a possible pre-Little Ice Age Neoglacial moraine, Leirbreen,
southern Norway, Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift, 69, 125-1 30.
McCarroll, D. 1990a.Differential weathering of plagioclase and pyroxene in an arctic-alpine environment, Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms, 15, 641-651.
McCarroll, D. 1990b. A comment on Enhanced boulder weathering under late-lying snowpatches by Ballantyne, C. K.,Black, N. M.
and Finlay, D. P.,Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 15, 467-469.
Selby, M. J. 1980. A rock mass strength classification for geomorphic purposes with tests from Antarctica and New Zealand, Zeitschriji
fur Geomorphologie, 24, 31-35.
Shakesby, R. A,, Dawson, A. G., and Matthews, J. A. 1987. Rock glaciers, protalus ramparts and related phenomena, Rondane, Norway:
a continuum of large-scale talus-derived landforms, Boreas, 16, 305-3 17.
Sheorey, P. R., Barat, D., Das, M. N., Mukheqee, K. P., and Singh, B. 1984. Schmidt hammer rebound data for estimation of large scale
in situ coal strength, International Journal of Rocks and Minerals Science and Geomechanics Abstracts, 21, 39-42.
Sjoberg, R. 1987a. Vittringsstudier med Schmidt test-hammer, Tillampningar inom geomorfologi och arkeologi, Center for Arctic
Cultural Researh, Umea University, Research Reports, 1, 78 pp.
Sjoberg, R. 1987b. Vittringsstudier med Schmidt test-hammer och lchenometriska dateringar pa Hornslandsudde, Center for Arctic
Cultural Research, Umea University, Research Reports, 6, 35 pp.
Sjoberg, R. 1987c. Test results of measurements with the Schmidt test-hammer in Zbrasovske Aragonite cave, Moravia, CSSR,
GERUM arbetsrapport, 1987-12-08. 8 pp.
Summerfield,M. A. and Goudie, A. S. 1980. The sarsen stones of southern England their palaeoenvironmental significance with regard
to other silcretes, in Jones, D. K. C. (Ed.), The shaping of southern England, Institute of British Geographers Special Publication, 11,
71-100.
Whitlow, R. and Shakesby, R. A. 1988. Bornhardt micro-geomorphology: form and origin of micro-valleys and rimmed gutters,
Domboshava, Zimbabwe, Zeitschrift fur geomorphologie, 32, 179-194.
Williams, R. B. G. and Robinson, D. A. 1983. The effects of surface texture on the determination of the surface hardness of rock using the
Schmidt hammer, Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 8, 289-292.