See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319111075

Estimation of Los Angeles abrasion resistance of igneous rocks from

mechanical aggregate properties

Article  in  Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment · March 2019

DOI: 10.1007/s10064-017-1134-0

CITATIONS READS

12 993

1 author:

Assoc. Prof. Ahmet Teymen

Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University
31 PUBLICATIONS   288 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The effects of scoria and pumice aggregates on the strengths and unit weights of lightweight concrete View project

ÇELİK VE SENTETİK LİFLERİN KENDİLİĞİNDEN YERLEŞEN BETONLARIN TAZE VE MEKANİK ÖZELLİKLERİ ÜZERİNE ETKİS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Assoc. Prof. Ahmet Teymen on 06 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Bull Eng Geol Environ (2019) 78:837–846
DOI 10.1007/s10064-017-1134-0
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Estimation of Los Angeles abrasion resistance of igneous rocks
from mechanical aggregate properties
Ahmet Teymen 1
Received: 30 March 2017 / Accepted: 25 July 2017 / Published online: 14 August 2017
# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017
Abstract Aggregates are one of the most common mate-
rials used in engineering projects, and they are exposed to
a variety of physical and chemical influences depending on
the areas in which they are used. An aggregate should gen-
erally be hard, durable, uniform and clean, as well as highly
abrasion-resistant. It must not contain harmful substances
that can cause alkali-silica reactions. One of the most im-
portant properties for determining the quality of an aggre-
gates is its abrasion resistance; the best known and most
widely applied test used to measure abrasion resistance is
the Los Angeles abrasion test (LA). Although the relation-
ship between rock properties and LA has been investigated
by some researchers, the relations between other aggregate
strength properties and LA has not been clearly defined. In
this study, thirty-nine igneous rock aggregates were tested
to measure the quality of the aggregates and to determine the
relationships between the LA values and the mechanical-
physical properties of the aggregates. The LA values of the
tested aggregates ranged from 16.13 to 58.9%. Both simple
and multiple regression analysis techniques were used to
evaluate in detail the test results obtained from the experi-
ments. The LA value was estimated with the help of some
aggregate tests (rock impact hardness-RIHN, coefficient of
rock strength-CRS and aggregate crushing value-ACV, etc.)
which can be done by using small amounts of the aggregates
and relatively simple test tools. The aim of this study is to
estimate in a practical way, the abrasion resistance of the
aggregates with the help of these correlations, which were
* Ahmet Teymen
ateymen@ohu.edu.tr
1
Department of Mining Engineering, Niğde Ömer Halisdemir
University, 51240 Niğde, Turkey
obtained by using relatively simple tests. The regression
analyses (simple and multiple) indicated strong correlations
between LA and mechanical tests of aggregate.
Keywords Los Angeles test . Regression analyses .
Aggregate properties . Igneous rock . ACV . RIHN
Introduction
Crushed stone aggregates, which can be obtained from rock of
various origins by applying mechanical processes, are widely
used for many engineering purposes. The demand for crushed
stone aggregates in engineering works (highways, dams, as-
phalt and concrete) is increasing rapidly from day to day.
Natural aggregate reserves are decreasing at an increasing rate
all over the world, further increasing the demand for crushed
stone aggregates. It is very important to analyze the qualities
of aggregates to determine whether they are suitable for their
intended engineering activities (Al-Harthi 2001).
The importance of determining the quality of aggregates
becomes clear in light of the fact that aggregates are used 75–
85% by volume in the concrete, and 93–100% by volume in
base courses and asphalt mixtures. Aggregates used for these
applications must be abrasion resistant to prevent crushing,
disintegration and degradation when stockpiled, compacted
with rollers, fed through an asphalt plant, placed with a paver
and subjected to traffic loadings. It is obvious that aggregates
that lack adequate abrasion resistance and toughness will
cause performance problems under such usage conditions
(Wu et al. 1998).
The quality and strength of aggregates can be determined
by different test methods. These aggregate strength tests give
engineers an idea of how aggregates will behave under load-
ing conditions. It is very important to determine the abrasion
838
resistance of aggregates used in engineering applications such
as railway ballast, base layer material and concrete. The LA is
a common and widely used method for evaluating the abra-
sion resistance of aggregates. The basic principle of the meth-
od is the measurement of the wear of the rock particles due to
crushing, abrasion and impact effects created by steel spheres.
However, the preparation phase of the LA test and the execu-
tion of the test are expensive and time consuming compared to
other mechanical aggregate tests. The graded aggregate that
must be used for the test can be obtained by sieving large
quantities of the aggregate to be tested. By contrast, testing
equipment such as CRS, RIHN, and ACVare quite simple and
some of them can be easily used in the field. The amount of
sample used in these tests is very small compared to the LA
test. It may be technically and economically beneficial to use
these simple test techniques that determine the strength of
aggregates under mechanical forces such as impact and
crushing to predict how an aggregate would perform under a
full LA test.
Many researchers have attempted to determine correlations
between LA and different rock properties. Some of the tests
chosen by the researchers for this purpose are point load index
(Is), Schmidt hardness (SCH), uniaxial compressive strength
(UCS), unit volume weight and porosity tests. Moavenzadeh
and Goetz (1963) concluded that the gradation was the most
important parameter factor determining degradation. In their
work, they found that the degradation in the aggregates with
high LA values was greater than that of the aggregates with
low LA values. Rocks with weak cementation produced more
degradation than rocks with good interlocking between grains.
Kazi and Al-Mansour (1980a) conducted a series of experi-
mental studies using aggregates produced from volcanic rocks
collected from Saudi Arabia (Jeddah). The researchers esti-
mated the LA abrasion loss from the UCS calculated with
SCH and determined very significant correlations.
Kazi and Al-Mansour (1980b) tested the abrasion proper-
ties of crushed aggregates produced from plutonic and
volcanic rocks. Their most striking finding was that the
grain size is the primary geological factor controlling the
abrasion resistance. The rock, which is fine grained
compared to rocks with the same porosity rating, was more
resistant to erosion than the coarse grained rock. Gandhi and
Lytton (1984) conducted a study in two phases. Phase I was
concerned with the methodology of aggregate selection while
Phase II was concerned with petrographic examinations and
laboratory tests. Their results indicated strong relationships
between the LA values and field performance with regard to
abrasion resistance and toughness of the aggregates. Ballivy
and Dayre (1984) conducted a study on the UCS and LA of
limestone, and they found an inverse relationship between the
two parameters. Correlations between massive (less porous)
limestones varied depending on grain size, and strong corre-
lations were obtained from porous limestones. Although they
A. Teymen
have the same UCS, coarse crystalline limestones showed
more abrasion loss than fine crystalline limestones. Some rock
types (sandstones, dolomite, gneiss, marble and limestones)
were tested by Cargill and Shakoor (1990) to evaluate the
relationships between the UCS and the corresponding results
of the Is, SCH, slake durability tests and LA. According to the
results, there was a nonlinear correlation between UCS and
LA, while there was a strong linear correlation between UCS
and Is, SCH. No significant correlation between UCS and
slake durability index test was obtained by authors. For car-
bonate rocks, UCS, LA, dry unit volume weight and water
absorption tests were performed by Shakoor and Brown
(1996). Researchers who analyzed the test results with multi-
ple regression techniques estimated the UCS using other pa-
rameters and obtained significant correlations.
Kasim and Shakoor (1996) conducted a study to determine
whether degradation was a useful indicator of UCS. The re-
searchers do not obtain any significant results from the
limestone/dolomite rock group, but the correlations which
were obtained from the sandstones and the igneous/
metamorphic rock group shown inverse and significant rela-
tionships. Al-Harthi (2001) tested 110 different rocks and
crushed aggregates according to BS and ASTM standards.
In the laboratory, he conducted aggregate impact value
(AIV), ACV and LA experiments for aggregates, UCS, SCH
and Is experiments for rocks. Their results indicate that aggre-
gate strength properties (crushing, impact, abrasion) can be
estimated from practical rock tests (SCH, Is). Kahraman and
Gunaydin (2007), like many researchers, have tried to esti-
mate the LA resistance of aggregates using the SCH and Is
test. The correlations obtained with the Is are more reliable
and predictive than the correlations obtained with the SCH
value.
A laboratory study was conducted by Kahraman and Fener
(2007) using 35 different rock types (metamorphic, igneous
and sedimentary). The researchers determined UCS, LA and
porosity values of the corresponding rocks. As a result of their
regression analysis, they found a significant correlation
between UCS and LA. In addition, the rocks were classified
by porosity and it was observed that the correlation
coefficients increased. Kahraman and Fener (2008) developed
an empirical formula for the estimation of LA abrasion loss
from electrical resistivity in their work using 27 different rock
types. The researchers, based on the results of the regression
studies, found that the LA values of aggregates could be esti-
mated reliably from electrical resistivity properties. Kahraman
and Toraman (2008) conducted a series of tests on 11 rocks
collected from different regions of Turkey. In this study, LA,
density, porosity and crushability index (CI) results were test-
ed with two different regression analyses: simple and multiple.
Significant correlations were obtained with both techniques.
Their results showed that for prediction of LA abrasion
resistance, multiple regression analyses have a higher
Estimation of Los Angeles abrasion resistance of igneous rocks from mechanical aggregate properties
prediction capacity than simple regression analyses. Ugur
et al. (2010) carried out laboratory tests on 12 different rocks
(limestone, travertines, marbles and andesite) to investigate
LA value of rocks. The test results have shown that some rock
properties (P wave, UCS, SCH, Is and tensile strength) are a
certain effect on abrasion. Ozcelik (2011) carried out labora-
tory tests on different rocks (igneous, metamorphic and sedi-
mentary). They have estimated the LA value from some me-
chanical and physical properties (tensile strength, shore hard-
ness etc.) of thirty-two different rock units. Their empirical
equations were used separately for all rock types.
Some studies in the literature predict the LA abrasion re-
sistance by means of main rock properties (rock mechanics
tests). However, very few studies have been concerned with
the correlations between LA abrasion resistance and other
strength properties of aggregates. Therefore, the relationships
between these properties and LA has not clearly been defined.
This deficiency in the literature was taken into consideration,
and this study was carried out by testing 39 different magmatic
rocks.
The main objective of this article was to determining ag-
gregate properties of igneous rocks and to obtain empirical
relationships between the LA abrasion and practical aggregate
properties such as RIHN and ACV of these samples collected
from different cities in Turkey. Calculating the LA value with
simple methods provides both time and money savings and is
useful for forecasting purposes in initial studies. For this rea-
son, the test results were analyzed with statistical techniques in
order to obtain equations with significant and high correlation
coefficients.
Materials and testing procedures
Sampling
The main rock blocks from which the aggregates were pro-
duced were collected from stone processing plants, quarries,
and natural outcrops in different cities in Turkey. The labora-
tory work was carried out by using 39 different rocks, all of
which were of igneous origin. For each rock property, more
than one test was carried out and the mean values were ob-
tained. Locations, rock classes and test results of these igneous
rocks are given in Table 1. The devices, apparatus and some
test samples used in the tests are shown in Fig. 1.
Experimental studies
Unit volume weight (UW), water absorption (W) and effective
porosity (ne)
Laboratory tests described in the ISRM (1981) standard have
been used to determine the physical properties of the
839
aggregates. Caliper and saturation techniques were preferred
for testing, such as unit volume weight, effective porosity and
water absorption test. The water absorption rate is a handy
feature for evaluating the durability of building materials
(Shakoor and Bonelli 1991).
The total volume of core samples was calculated from an
average of caliper readings. The dry weight of the samples
was determined by a balance capable of weighing to an accu-
racy of 0.01 of the sample weight. To calculate unit volume
weights of each aggregate, the dry weight of the sample was
divided by the sample volume. The water absorptions by
weight were calculated as the ratio of the weight difference
of the saturated-surface-dry weight and the dry weight of the
sample to the weight of the dry sample. The pore volumes of
the samples were determined from the weight difference of the
saturated weight (surface dry) and the dry sample weight, and
the effective porosity (interconnected porosity) values were
calculated as the ratio of pore volumes to bulk sample volume.
Five cored samples with a diameter of 54 mm were used to
determine the mean values of the tests given above. The cal-
culated mean values are given in Table 1.
Los Angeles abrasion test (LA)
The LA test machine consists of a hollow steel drum with an
inner diameter of 711 mm, with a 90 mm deep and 25 mm
thick shelf inside. The LA test was carried out using aggregate
sizes (a specially graded mix of 4.75 and 9.5 mm size frac-
tions) of C class as defined in ASTM C 131–66 ( 2006).
Aggregates (5000 g) were dried at 110 °C for 24 h and then
cooled to room temperature and then, along with eight steel
spheres (approximately 3330 g), were placed in a steel drum.
The hatch lid was then bolted in place and the drum was
rotated for 500 revolutions at a rate of 31–33 rev/min. After
the 500 revolutions were complete, crushed aggregate parti-
cles and the steel spheres were emptied into a tray set. The
aggregate samples were separated from the steel spheres and
then crushed aggregate particles were sieved through a
1.7 mm sieve. The amount of material passing the sieve,
expressed as a percentage of the original mass, is the LA
abrasion resistance or percentage loss. The recommended
LA value of aggregate to be used in coating and road surface
operations is less than 30%.
Coefficient of rock strength (CRS)
A factor of aggregate quality is a drillability, which is quanti-
fied by CRS. The CRS value can be used together with the
operating air pressure to calculate the penetration rate of per-
cussive drills. An engineering drilling plan should include a
prediction of drilling speed. CRS is another version of the
Protodyakonov shatter strength test standardized by the US
Bureau of Mines, and it measures resistance to comminution
840 A. Teymen

Table 1 The location, rock types and test results of igneous rock aggregates

No Location Rock Type LA ACV AIV ISI RIHN CRS CI UW W ne

% % % % – – % gr/cm3 % %

1 Osmaniye Basalt 27.1 22.7 7.0 86.2 27.7 2.06 68.7 2.691 1.58 4.22
2 Kırklareli Granite 28.6 21.4 6.8 86.7 31.4 1.89 58.7 2.707 0.32 0.86
3 Adana Aplite 20.8 15.5 8.2 90.1 59.7 3.52 60.6 2.628 0.46 0.30
4 Adana Gabbro 21.1 18.2 7.1 90.2 63.0 4.03 62.2 2.838 0.41 1.18
5 Adana Spilite 17.1 14.3 4.4 91.0 62.6 3.81 58.7 2.768 0.72 2.01
6 Erzurum Basalt 27.9 21.3 13.4 76.0 29.0 2.68 68.3 2.622 0.92 2.42
7 Niğde Gabbro 16.9 19.0 7.3 91.5 70.4 5.02 66.1 2.878 0.07 0.21
8 Niğde Spilitic Basalt 31.5 26.3 10.6 72.7 31.9 1.64 80.9 2.612 0.69 1.82
9 Niğde Basalt 16.9 21.8 8.6 90.9 55.4 2.89 61.0 2.556 0.62 1.58
10 Niğde Andesite 37.6 27.4 13.4 74.0 27.0 1.40 72.0 2.347 2.73 6.50
11 Niğde Metagabbro 19.4 15.9 6.2 85.1 70.5 5.53 62.7 2.965 0.25 0.73
12 Niğde Diabase 22.2 18.0 5.9 87.7 73.8 3.66 57.0 2.809 0.25 0.70
13 Kayseri Tuff (rhyolitic) 52.3 47.4 28.4 52.9 10.6 0.70 82.3 1.832 14.21 25.77
14 Kayseri Dacite 30.7 27.4 15.8 71.1 31.9 1.01 82.0 2.259 5.66 12.74
15 Nevşehir Tuff (rhyolitic) 58.9 52.9 28.5 49.5 10.9 0.51 83.3 1.568 17.97 28.14
16 Kayseri Tuff (dacitic) 53.6 51.4 25.2 63.4 12.6 0.63 85.5 1.610 16.61 26.85
17 Kayseri Tuff (dacitic) 47.4 42.7 27.0 64.5 11.3 0.71 81.4 1.890 9.71 18.18
18 Aksaray Granite 20.1 22.8 11.5 73.7 47.8 2.23 67.6 2.576 0.47 1.21
19 Kırşehir Syenite 29.7 36.1 15.8 64.3 32.3 1.37 78.9 2.535 0.21 0.53
20 Niğde Granite 32.1 26.6 13.3 77.0 43.4 2.28 69.9 2.587 0.38 0.99
21 Spain Granite 31.6 31.6 17.9 70.6 24.0 1.02 72.4 2.566 0.36 0.91
22 China Granite 29.4 29.5 14.6 73.8 35.5 1.48 75.2 2.592 0.19 0.49
23 Balıkesir Diorite 26.0 30.1 14.5 77.5 40.3 1.55 74.6 2.618 0.17 0.45
24 Kırşehir Quartz diorite 25.8 33.0 15.5 69.6 26.5 1.16 75.5 2.666 0.23 0.60
25 Kayseri Serpentinite 34.1 39.5 19.9 67.9 22.4 0.87 81.4 2.527 0.87 2.01
26 Niğde Andesite 16.9 21.5 9.3 90.9 57.0 4.72 64.4 2.638 0.13 0.33
27 Adana Dunite 28.0 26.6 16.3 80.1 41.6 2.60 71.1 2.528 0.72 1.83
28 Adana Diabase 17.7 12.2 4.1 92.8 78.0 5.00 51.6 2.832 0.25 0.71
29 Adana Serpentinite 34.4 26.2 11.0 78.2 36.0 1.60 76.6 2.749 0.87 2.36
30 Ardahan Andesite 20.8 13.3 5.8 81.6 47.5 3.24 56.6 2.598 1.04 2.60
31 Eskişehir Microgranite 18.0 21.8 9.5 83.1 43.6 3.12 69.5 2.614 0.41 1.07
32 Erzurum Rhyolite 26.0 23.0 7.6 86.2 36.1 2.32 66.5 2.421 1.22 2.91
33 Sivas Dolerite 23.2 20.6 9.9 80.2 34.4 2.47 70.1 2.694 0.47 1.27
34 Erzincan Rhyolite 22.0 19.6 9.8 89.9 61.0 3.74 60.5 2.558 0.73 1.86
35 Kars Dacite 37.1 32.4 16.7 75.4 21.6 1.71 64.9 2.422 2.79 6.80
36 Kars Spilitic Basalt 32.7 27.4 12.9 81.2 34.2 2.33 68.5 2.508 1.56 3.97
37 Kars Dacite 39.3 30.8 18.1 65.5 22.7 1.35 70.5 2.268 4.15 9.40
38 Kars Basalt 14.4 15.4 6.3 89.1 72.7 6.67 53.6 2.622 0.01 0.01
39 Erzurum Basalt 16.1 12.3 10.1 87.9 66.5 4.76 52.2 2.713 0.22 0.60

in terms of energy/unit volume. The test was carried out by
dropping a weight of 2.4 kg from a height of 63.5 cm onto two
pieces of the selected aggregate between 25.4 mm and
19.1 mm sieves. This procedure was repeated five times
ontwo new samples of the same rock using different numbers
of drops. The aggregate fragments, which were crushed due to
the applied drops, were sieved from a 500-μm sieve. The
smallest value found in the calculations from the five experi-
ments was considered as the CRS value of that rock sample.
Rock impact hardness number (RIHN)
The RIHN test is another version of the Protodyakonov shatter
strength test (standardized by Dr. N. Brook). It measures
Estimation of Los Angeles abrasion resistance of igneous rocks from mechanical aggregate properties
Fig. 1 Devices, apparatus and (a)
some of test samples used in this
study
(d)
comminution resistance, in terms of the amount of energy
needed to produce an arbitrary proportion of fines. Shore hard-
ness and operating air pressures and RIHN values can be used
to calculate the penetration rate of down-the-hole hammer
percussive drills. Core samples with a volume of 25.4 cm3
were prepared for the experiment. The test was carried out
by dropping a weight of 2.4 kg from a height of 63.5 cm onto
the core samples. The RIHN is the number of drops that re-
sults in 25% of the original mass passing through a 0.5 mm
sieve.
Aggregate impact value (AIV)
AIVs of the aggregates were determined according to the pro-
cedures described in the BS 812–112 ( 1990b) standard and
were performed using the standard aggregate sizes (−14 +
10 mm). In these tests, dry aggregate samples were subjected
to shock load using an impact apparatus that consisted of a
steel test mold with a falling hammer. After placing the test
sample in the steel mold, aggregates were compressed by 25
strokes with a tamping rod. The aggregate, thus prepared for
the experiment, was subjected to 15 blows at a height of 38 cm
with a hammer weighing 13.5 kg. The crushed aggregate was
sieved through a 2.36 mm sieve and the proportion of sieved
material calculated as a percentage of the original weight of
the sample. The test was carried out three times for each ig-
neous rock type; the average values are given in Table 1.
Aggregate crushing value (ACV)
The ACV test measures the relative resistance to crushing of
an aggregate exposed to a gradually applied compressive load.
841
(b) (c)
(e) (f)
Aggregates must have a minimum ACV value; ACV is a
measure of the strength of the aggregate. ACV tests were
performed on samples ranging from 10 to 14 mm according
to the test procedures specified in the BS 812–110 ( 1990a)
standard. The aggregate volume required for the test was ob-
tained by filling a measuring cylinder (154 mm diameter and
125 mm high) in three layers, each layer tamped 25 times with
a rod. The cylinder, plunger and aggregate samples were
placed between the platens of the compression testing ma-
chine, and a 400 kN load was applied to the sample. The
aggregate crushed by the applied load was sieved through
the 2.36 mm sieve and the material under the sieve was
weighed. The ACV value was obtained as a percentage of
the original mass. At least three aggregate samples were used
for tests. The calculated mean values are given in Table 1.
Crushability index (CI)
CI is a nonstandard test method that can be used to compare
the crushability properties of aggregates. Pieces of igneous
rock samples were crushed, using a hand hammer, to small
sizes which were suitable for the jaw crusher. For the test, a
500 g aggregate (−10 + 5 mm) sample dried at 110 °C for 24 h
was used. Prepared aggregate specimens were fed to a labo-
ratory Blake type jaw crusher (Fig. 1b) with an opening of
10 × 10 cm and a jaw length of 20 cm. When the jaw crusher
was in the closed position, the outlet opening of the crusher
was set to 5 mm, which is the sub-size of the feed sample. The
crushed aggregates in the jaw crusher were sieved through a
5 mm sieve. The ratio of the weight of the aggregate under the
5 mm sieve to the weight of the aggregate being tested was
defined as CI value.
842 A. Teymen

Impact strength index (ISI)
The ISI test used by Evans and Pomeroy (1966) for classifying
coal seams was first developed by Protodyakonov. The test
was then modified by several researchers (Paone et al. 1969;
Tandanand and Unger 1975 and Rabia and Brook 1980). Our
ISI test was carried out using 100 g aggregate (−9.525 +
3.175 mm) placed in a 42.86 mm diameter cylinder. The spec-
imens were crushed by dropping a 1.8 kg hammer 20 times
from a height of 30.48 cm. The aggregate weight on the
3.175 mm sieve was used as the ISI value of the aggregates.
The experiment was repeated 3 times for each aggregate type
to obtain the average ISI values.
Statistical analysis and results
Simple regression analysis
Simple regression analyses of the test results detailed in Table 2
were performed using the least squares regression technique.
Exponential, linear and logarithmic models were used to obtain
equations representing the most appropriate relations and hav-
ing the highest correlation coefficients. Some mechanical test
values of the aggregates, all of which were produced from
igneous rock, were significantly correlated with LA values of
these rocks. As can be seen from Fig. 2, the LA abrasion resis-
tance showed a linear relationship with the ACV, AIV and CI
values, but showed an inversely proportional relationship with
the ISI, CRS and RIHN values. The correlation coefficients
obtained from the equations attempting to predict the LA abra-
sion resistance varied between 0.62 and 0.86. The highest cor-
relation coefficient (Eq. 6) was obtained from RIHN values.
The weakest correlation between these six tests belongs to the
CI test (Eq. 4). The equations and correlation coefficients of the
correlations were as follows:


LA ¼ 11:93e 0:03ACV R2 ¼ 0:78 ð1Þ


LA ¼ 1:49AIV þ 9:53 R2 ¼ 0:79 ð2Þ


LA ¼ −63:3lnðISIÞ þ 303:85 R2 ¼ 0:77 ð3Þ


LA ¼ 3:28 e 0:03CI R2 ¼ 0:62 ð4Þ


LA ¼ 38:25 CRS−0:49 R2 ¼ 0:82 ð5Þ


LA ¼ −18:4lnðRIHN Þ þ 94:38 R ¼ 0:86 2
ð6Þ
The regression lines and scatter plots for igneous rocks are
shown in Fig. 2.Confidence interval values of 95% were calcu-
lated to check the validity of the derived equations. The F and t-
tests were used to determine the validity of the Eqs. (1–6). The t-
test was used to determine the significance level of the R values
of the equations. When examining Table 2, it can be seen that the
absolute values of the calculated t-values are greater than the
tabulated t-values for all equations. In addition, the significance
of all t-values was less than 0.05. This is an indication of the
validity of the established models. In addition to the t-test, re-
gression analysis of variance was used to determine the impor-
tance of regressions. As shown in Table 2, the calculated F
values were significantly greater than the tabulated F values, so
all the equations were important compared to the F-test.
These equations can be used reliably, especially for predic-
tion purposes, since the significance of the equations is man-
ifested by the F and t tests. Since Eq. 4 has a higher correlation
coefficient than the other equations, the RIHN experiment can
be used a practical estimate for LA of aggregates. Since the
first six equations are estimated using a single independent
variable, they are more practical and reliable than equations
with more than one independent variable.

Table 2 Validation of the derived simple models (F-test and t-test) of igneous rock aggregates

Eq. Indep. B Std. R2 |t| Sig. t- F- Sig. F-

no variables (Coeff.) Error value tabulated value tabulated

1 ACV 0.03 0.00 0.78 11.31 0.00 2.024 128.0 0.00 4.11
Exponential (Constant) 11.93 0.91 13.17 0.00
2 AIV 1.49 0.13 0.79 11.82 0.00 139.7 0.00
Linear (Constant) 9.53 1.78 5.34 0.00
3 ln (ISI) −63.30 5.71 0.77 11.08 0.00 122.8 0.00
Logarithmic (Constant) 303.85 24.88 12.21 0.00
4 CI 0.03 0.00 0.62 7.82 0.00 61.2 0.00
Exponential (Constant) 3.28 0.89 3.71 0.00
5 ln (CRS) −0.49 0.04 0.82 12.84 0.00 164.8 0.00
Power (Constant) 38.25 1.44 26.60 0.00
6 ln (RIHN) −18.40 1.23 0.86 15.02 0.00 225.7 0.00
Logarithmic (Constant) 94.38 4.45 21.23 0.00
Estimation of Los Angeles abrasion resistance of igneous rocks from mechanical aggregate properties 843

Fig. 2 Mechanic tests versus LA 60 60

abrasion a) ACV b) AIV c) ISI d) 55 LA = 11.93e0.031ACV 55 LA = 1.485 AIV + 9.53
50 R² = 0.77 50 R² = 0.79
CI e) CRS and f) RIHN
45 45

LA abrasion (%)

LA abrasion (%)
40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 a 15 b
10 10
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Aggregate Crushing Value - ACV (%) Aggregate Impact Value - AIV (%)
60 60
55 LA = - 63.3ln(ISI) + 304 55 LA = 3.284e0.03 CI
50 R² = 0.77 50 R² = 0.62
45 45

LA abrasion (%)
LA abrasion (%)

40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 c 15 d
10 10
45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
Impact Strength Index - ISI (%) Crushability Index- CI (%)
60 60
55 LA = 38.23 CRS- 0.49 55 LA = -18.39 ln(RIHN) + 94.36
50 R² = 0.8167 50 R² = 0.86
45 45

LA abrasion (%)
LA abrasion (%)

40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 e 15 f
10 10
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Coefficient of Rock Strength- CRS (%) Rock Impact Hardness Number- RIHN (%)

The thirty nine (39) igneous rocks used in the study
consisted of 12 plutonic, 4 subvolcanic, 16 volcanic, 4
pyroclastic and 3 metamorphic (igneous origin) rocks.
Among igneous rocks formed from molten rock or mag-
ma, the most important difference is between plutonic and
volcanic rocks. The formation mechanisms, the textures
and the mineral skeletons of the igneous rocks deposited
on the surface and the igneous rocks formed in the depths
of the ground are different. Plutonic rocks (intrusive igne-
ous rocks) are igneous rocks that solidified from a melt at
great depth and have large and coarse-grained crystals.
Subvolcanic rocks are intrusive igneous rocks emplaced
at medium to shallow depths within the crust and have
intermediate grain sizes. Subvolcanic rocks are very sim-
ilar to plutonic rocks in terms of texture. The porosity
values of both rock types are very low (0.21–2.01% for
this study). Volcanic rocks are extrusive igneous rocks
formed on the surface or exterior of the earth. Volcanic
rocks have formed from the eruption or extrusion of lava
from a volcano that cools rapidly, so small crystals form.
Pyroclastic rocks are volcanoclastic rocks formed by the
accumulation of pyroclasts (fragments) during an explo-
sive eruption. These two types of rocks generally have a
large number of homogeneously distributed interconnect-
ed pores (0.01–28.14% for this study).
The rocks used in the study were divided into two main
groups in light of the above explanations. The first group,
surface rocks, consists of volcanic and pyroclastic rocks; the
second group, depth rocks, consists of plutonic, subvolcanic
and metamorphic rocks of magmatic origin. Only simple re-
gression analyses for all rocks were repeated to see how the
correlation changed relative to these groups. In order to check
the validity of the obtained equations, a 95% confidence in-
terval was selected in a manner similar to the other equations.
The F and t-tests were used to determine the validity of Eqs.
(7–18). The valid equations and correlation coefficients of the
correlations were as follows for surface rocks:


LA ¼ 29:7 lnðACVÞ−64: R2 ¼ 0:89 6 ð7Þ


LA ¼ 1:63AIV þ 8:62 R ¼ 0:872
ð8Þ
LA ¼ −ISI þ 108:5 ðR2 ¼ 0:89Þ ð9Þ
844 A. Teymen

Table 3 Validation of the derived multiple models (F, t-test and VIF values) of igneous rock aggregates

Eq. Indep. B Std. R2 |t| Sig. t- F- Sig. F- VIF

no variables (Coeff.) Error value tabulated value tabulated

19 (Constant) 42.40 12.84 0.86 3.30 0.002 2.028 114.5 0.00 3.26
ACV 0.65 0.12 5.28 0.000 3.53
UW −12.24 3.97 3.09 0.004 3.53
20 (Constant) 37.46 1.85 0.90 20.23 0.000 2.028 159.9 0.00 3.26
RIHN −0.30 0.04 7.98 0.000 1.55
W 1.29 0.16 8.12 0.000 1.55
21 (Constant) 8.97 2.18 0.88 4.11 0.000 2.028 137.2 0.00 3.26
ACV 0.65 0.10 6.65 0.000 2.61
n 0.55 0.13 4.16 0.001 2.61
22 (Constant) 36.33 2.00 0.90 18.20 0.000 2.028 153.6 0.00 3.26
RIHN −0.28 0.04 7.26 0.000 1.65
n 0.79 0.10 7.90 0.000 1.65
23 (Constant) 32.45 1.55 0.89 20.91 0.000 2.028 146.8 0.00 3.26
CRS −3.21 0.46 7.01 0.000 1.39
n 0.89 0.09 9.54 0.000 1.39
24 (Constant) 24.13 4.69 0.92 5.15 0.000 2.030 124.9 0.00 2.87
ACV 0.34 0.12 2.83 0.008 5.32
RIHN −0.18 0.05 3.54 0.001 3.35
n 0.59 0.12 5.08 0.000 2.64
25 (Constant) 21.24 4.28 0.91 4.96 0.000 2.030 118.7 0.00 2.87
ACV 0.35 0.13 2.77 0.009 5.56
CRS −1.97 0.61 3.22 0.003 2.96
n 0.65 0.12 5.35 0.000 2.81
26 (Constant) 29.51 3.86 0.91 7.65 0.000 2.030 112.7 0.00 2.87
RIHN −0.22 0.05 4.42 0.000 2.86
AIV 0.39 0.19 2.04 0.049 4.78
n 0.63 0.12 5.06 0.000 2.76
27 (Constant) 8.99 16.72 0.92 0.54 0.594 2.032 93.6 0.00 2.65
ACV 0.37 0.13 2.97 0.005 5.75
RIHN −0.19 0.05 3.65 0.001 3.48
UW 5.52 5.85 0.94 0.352 11.82
n 0.76 0.21 3.56 0.001 8.83

LA ¼ 2:34e0:036CI R2 ¼ 0:76 ð10Þ LA ¼ 39:25e−0:01RIHN R2 ¼ 0:61 ð18Þ


LA ¼ −17:4lnðCRSÞ þ 42:7 R ¼ 0:90 2
ð11Þ

As shown in Eqs. (13–18), while the correlation coeffi-
LA ¼ −20:9lnðRIHN Þ þ 102:9 R2 ¼ 0:94 ð12Þ
cients for depth rocks decrease, the correlation coefficient
The equations and correlation coefficients of the correla- for surface rocks (Eqs. 7–12) increase, when comparing to
tions were as follows for depth rocks: Eqs. (1–6). It is well known that plutonic and subvolcanic

rocks are composed of coarse-medium crystals in different
LA ¼ 3:99 ACV0:58 R2 ¼ 0:61 ð13Þ

sizes. The matrix material is almost non-existent in these
LA ¼ 16:17e 0:037AIV
R ¼ 0:53
2
ð14Þ rocks. In the surface rocks, very small mineral crystals are

embedded in the matrix. The homogeneous nature of depth
LA ¼ 110e−0:02ISI R2 ¼ 0:48 ð15Þ
rocks is an important advantage when larger test samples,


LA ¼ 30:9lnðCIÞ þ 105 R2 ¼ 0:42 ð16Þ especially for rock mechanics tests, are concerned. A reduc-

tion in the size of the test samples causes this advantage to
LA ¼ 32:7 CRS−0:34 R2 ¼ 0:68 ð17Þ disappear. When these rocks are reduced to aggregate size by
Estimation of Los Angeles abrasion resistance of igneous rocks from mechanical aggregate properties 845

Fig. 3 Comparison of predicted 60 60

and measured values of LA a) Eq. 55 y = 0.8951x + 2.9741 55 y = 0.9145x + 2.4234
R² = 0.895 R² = 0.9144

Predicted LA (%)

Predicted LA (%)
22 and b) Eq. 24 50 50
45 45
40 40
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 a) Equation 22 15 b) Equation 24
10 10
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Measured LA (%) Measured LA (%)

mechanical processes, the integrity of their structures disap- To verify multiple regression equations, F and t-tests were
pears and grain liberation occurs in different coarse minerals. used (95% level of confidence) in a manner similar to simple
The representing ability of parent rock of liberated and partly regressions (Table 3). Whether or not there was a problem of
deformed mineral grains reduces. This leads to an increase in multicollinearity has also been examined in order to make the
the standard deviation of the test results. Since the mineral validation more powerful. The indicator of a problem of
grain sizes and matrix material in surface rocks are very small, multicollinearity is the VIF (variance inflation factor) value,
even very small aggregate specimens have the ability to rep- which must be less than 10. Scatter diagrams (Fig. 3) of ob-
resent the parent rock. For all these reasons, the impact tests of served and estimated LA values were plotted to determine the
depth rocks (solid) can be detected with a higher standard predictability of the equations (Eqs. 22 and 24) with the
deviation value according to the impact tests of porous surface highest coefficient among multiple regressions. The fact that
rocks. This is the general reason why models predicting LA the dots were evenly distributed around the diagonal line in
with depth rocks have a lower correlation coefficient com- both plots reinforced the reliability of the models.
pared to models derived from surface rocks. All estimated values of the derived equations (Eqs. 22 and
24) were observed to be within the calculated 95% confidence
Multiple regression analysis interval, indicating the validity of the predicted equations. As
can be seen from Table 3, all of the multiple regressions were
Statistical analysis of the test results obtained from the main successful in the analysis of variance (F-test) at the 95% con-
rock samples and aggregates was done by SPSS software. The fidence level. A similar situation applies to the t-tests.
equations and correlation coefficients of the multiple correla- However, two t-values in Eq. 27 were lower than the tabulated
tions are as follows; value. This was a sign that there was some doubt in the

established model, although it had a high correlation
LA ¼ 0:65ACV−12:24UW þ 42:4 R2 ¼ 0:86 ð19Þ

coefficient.
LA ¼ 1:29W−0:3RIHN þ 37:46 R2 ¼ 0:90 ð20Þ Detailed analyses have shown that all multiple equations

except Eq. 27 can be used for a more accurate prediction.
LA ¼ 0:65ACV þ 0:55n þ 8:97 R2 ¼ 0:88 ð21Þ
Since more than one independent variable enters a model in


LA ¼ 0:79n−0:28RIHN þ 36:33 R2 ¼ 0:90 ð22Þ multiple equations, the estimation capabilities and correlation

coefficients are stronger than in simple models.
LA ¼ 0:89n−3:21CRS þ 32:45 R2 ¼ 0:89 ð23Þ
LA ¼ 0:34ACV þ 0:59n−0:18RIHN


þ 24:13 R2 ¼ 0:92 ð24Þ Conclusions

LA ¼ 0:35ACV þ 0:65n−1:97CRS & A simple estimate of the LA abrasion resistance is possible

with other experiments, except the CI test, which has the
þ 21:24 R2 ¼ 0:91 ð25Þ
smallest correlation coefficient. The highest correlation
LA ¼ 0:39AIV þ 0:63n−0:22RIHN coefficient among simple regressions belongs to the

RIHN test.
þ 29:51 R2 ¼ 0:91 ð26Þ
& If there are data about the aggregate properties from more
LA ¼ 0:37ACV þ 0:76n−0:19RIHN þ 5:52UW than one test, the equations generated using the multiple
regression techniques can be used to predict the LA abra-
þ 9 ðR2 ¼ 0:92Þ ð27Þ sion resistance.
846
& The tests with the most significant correlations with the
LA abrasion are the RIHN, CRS and ACV experiments,
respectively. Considering the volcanic and pyroclastic
rocks, which we categorized as surface rocks, it is seen
that the predictive ability of the equations derived by sim-
ple regression is considerably higher. The RIHN test given
in Eq. 12 is the most reliable equation that can be used in
the prediction of the LA with a correlation coefficient of
0.94.
& The porosity of an aggregate is the most important phys-
ical property used in multiple regression models. The con-
tribution to the models was higher than the unit volume
weight and water absorption values.
& The best model obtained from multiple regression studies
to predict the LA value of magmatic aggregates is given in
Eq. 24.
& The study suggests that the RIHN, ACV and porosity tests
are the best empirical methods for estimating the LA abra-
sion value.
& Simple regression equations, which were obtained from
correlation between two parameters, are sufficiently prac-
tical and reliable when used for estimation purposes.
However, multiple regression equations can be used in
which two or more independent variables are used for a
more precise prediction.
& This study includes several members of the igneous rock
family, and the number of rocks tested is rather high. The
tested igneous rocks were selected from a wide range of
compressive strengths (20–300 MPa). The LA values of
these rocks also vary widely (about 14–59%). A substan-
tial part of the equations given in the detailed analyses in
Tables 2 and 3 have passed the reliability tests successful-
ly. Therefore, the improved equations are more general
and more useful.
References
Al-Harthi AA (2001) A field index to determine the strength characteris-
tics of crushed aggregate. Bull Eng Geol Env 60(3):193–200
ASTM (2006) Resistance to degradation of small-size coarse aggregate
by abrasion and impact in the Los Angeles machine. ASTM desig-
nation C-131-01. American Society for Testing Materials,
Philadelphia
Ballivy G, Dayre M (1984) The mechanical behaviour of aggregates
related to physicomechanical properties of rocks. Int Assoc Eng
Geol Bull 29:339–342
View publication stats
A. Teymen
British Standards Institution (1990a) Methods for determination of aggre-
gate crushing value (ACV). BS 812–110. BSI, London
British Standards Institution (1990b) Methods for determination of ag-
gregate impact value (AIV). BS 812–112. BSI, London
Cargill JS, Shakoor A (1990) Evaluation of empirical methods for mea-
suring the uniaxial compressive strength of rock. Int J Rock Mech
Min Sci Geomech Abstr 27(6):495–503
Evans I, Pomeroy CD (1966) The strength, fracture and workability of
coal. Pergamon Press, London
Gandhi PM, Lytton RL (1984) Evaluation of aggregates for acceptance in
asphalt paving mixtures. J Assoc Asph Paving Technol 53
ISRM (1981) In: Brown ET (ed) ISRM suggested methods-rock charac-
terization testing and monitoring. Pergamon Press, Oxford 211 p
Kahraman S, Fener M (2007) Predicting the Los Angeles abrasion loss of
rock aggregates from the uniaxial compressive strength. Mater Lett
61(26):4861–4865
Kahraman S, Fener M (2008) Electrical resistivity measurements to pre-
dict abrasion resistance of rock aggregates. Bull Mater Sci 31(2):
179–184
Kahraman S, Gunaydin O (2007) Empirical methods to predict the abra-
sion resistance of rock aggregates. Bull Eng Geol Environ 66(4):
449–455
Kahraman S, Toraman OY (2008) Predicting Los Angeles abrasion loss
of rock aggregates from crushability index. Bull Mater Sci 31(2):
173–177
Kasim M, Shakoor A (1996) An investigation of the relationship between
uniaxial compressive strength and degradation for selected rock
types. Eng Geol 44(1–4):213–227
Kazi A, Al-Mansour ZR (1980a) Empirical relationship between Los
Angeles abrasion and Schmidt hammer strength tests with applica-
tion to aggregate around Jeddah. Q J Eng Geol 13(1):45–52
Kazi A, Al-Mansour ZR (1980b) Influence of geological factors on abra-
sion and soundness characteristics of aggregates. Eng Geol 15(3–4):
195–203
Moavenzadeh F, Goetz WH (1963) Aggregate degradation in bituminous
mixtures. Highw Res Rec 24
Ozcelik Y (2011) Predicting Los Angeles abrasion of rocks from some
physical and mechanical properties. Sci Res Essays 6(7):1612–1619
Paone J, Madson D, Bruce WE (1969) Drillability studies: laboratory
percussive drilling. USBM RI 7300
Rabia H, Brook W (1980) An empirical equation for drill performance
prediction. In: Proceedings of the 21st US symposium on rock me-
chanics. Univ Missouri-Rolla, pp 103
Shakoor A, Bonelli RE (1991) Relationship between petrographic char-
acteristics, engineering index properties, and mechanical properties
of selected sandstones. Bull Assoc Eng Geol 28(1):55–71
Shakoor A, Brown CL (1996) Development of a quantitative relationship
between unconfined compressive strength and Los Angeles abrasion
loss for carbonate rocks. Bull Eng Geol Environ 53(1):97–103
Tandanand S, Unger HF (1975) Drillability determination: a drillability
index of percussive drills. USBM RI 8073
Ugur I, Demirdag S, Yavuz H (2010) Effect of rock properties on the Los
Angeles abrasion and impact test characteristics of the aggregates.
Mater Char 61(1):90–96
Wu Y, Parker F, Kandhal K (1998) Aggregate toughness/abrasion resis-
tance and durability/soundness tests related to asphalt concrete per-
formance in pavements. J Transp Res Board 1638:85–93