Los Angeles Abrasion
Los Angeles Abrasion
www.elsevier.com/locate/matlet
Abstract
Los Angeles abrasion, Uniaxial compression, and porosity tests were performed on 35 different rock types collected from different areas of
Turkey, nine of which were igneous, eleven of which were metamorphic and fifteen of which were sedimentary. To investigate the possibility of
predicting the Los Angeles (LA) abrasion loss from the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), the results of the tests were analyzed using
regression analysis. A good correlation between L.A. abrasion loss and UCS was found. In addition, it was seen that when the rocks were
classified into classes according to porosity, the correlation coefficients were increased. Concluding remark is that derived equations can reliably
be used for the prediction of L.A. abrasion loss from the UCS.
2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Los Angeles (LA) abrasion loss; Uniaxial compressive strength; Porosity; Regression analysis
1. Introduction
Rock aggregate is a material used in very different
construction works. It is used in building constructions and
most public projects including roads and highways, bridges,
railroad etc. An enormous amount of aggregate is used in the
world each year. The demand of crushed stone aggregates has
increased from day to day, because of increasing expansion of
highway and other construction works and decreasing natural
aggregate resources in the world. Abrasion resistance is an
important property of aggregates. The abrasion resistance of
aggregates is generally tested using the Los Angeles (L.A.)
testing machine. The L.A. abrasion test was originally
developed to provide a quantitative method for evaluating the
quality of aggregates for use in highway construction. The test
measures the resistance of aggregate to wear due to attrition
between rock particles and also to impact and crushing by steel
spheres.
Although the L.A. abrasion test is relatively simple, it is time
consuming and requires more sample comparing to the UCS
Corresponding author. Fax: +90 388 2250112.
E-mail address: sairkahraman@yahoo.com (S. Kahraman).
0167-577X/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.matlet.2007.06.003
test. Core samples used in the UCS tests are generally obtained
during the field investigation of a rock aggregates deposit. On
the other hand, UCS test is usually carried out to determine the
quality of the rock aggregate. Therefore, if the UCS strongly
correlates with the L.A. abrasion value, it can be used for the
prediction purposes.
Some researchers have investigated the correlations between
L.A. abrasion test and uniaxial compressive strength (UCS).
Kazi and Al-Mansour [1] obtained a strong correlation between
UCS determined by the Schmidt hammer and L.A. abrasion loss
for the Saudi Arabian aggregates (volcanic and plutonic rocks)
near the city of Jeddah. Ballivy and Dayre [2] found an inverse
relation between UCS and L.A. abrasion loss for limestones, the
degree of correlation being different for different types of
limestone. The porous limestones indicated the strong correlation, whereas the correlation for the massive, less porous
limestones varied as a function of grain size. The coarse-grained
or crystalline limestones showed a higher percentage loss due to
abrasion than the fine-grained limestones of the same
compressive strength. Cargill and Shakoor [3] established a
non-linear inverse relation between the compressive strength
and L.A. abrasion loss divided by dry density for sedimentary
and metamorphic rocks. The decrease in percentage loss with
Table 1
The location and name of the rocks sampled
Rock code
Location
Rock type
Rock class
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Altinhisar/Nigde
Tepekoy/Nigde
Azatli/Nigde
Uckapili/Nigde
Uckapili/Nigde
Uckapili/Nigde
Ortakoy/Aksaray
Kaman/Kirsehir
Kaman/Kirsehir
Gumusler/Nigde
Gumusler/Nigde
Uckapili/Nigde
Altindag/Ktahya
Iscehisar/Afyon
Yatagan/Mula
Gumusler/Nigde
Gumusler/Nigde
Gumusler/Nigde
Gumusler/Nigde
Kilavuzkoy/Nigde
Sogutalan/Bursa
Korkuteli/Antalya
Basmakc/Nigde
Yahyali/Kayseri
Fethiye/Mugla
Bunyan/Kayseri
Gokbez/Nigde
Yldzeli/Sivas
Finike/Antalya
Bucak/Burdur
Demre/Antalya
Demre/Antalya
Godene/Konya
Mut/Icel
Karaman
Basalt
Andesite
Andesite
Granodiorite
Metagabro
Granite
Granite (Anadolu grey)
Granite(Kaman Rosa)
Granite (Krcicegi)
Quartzite
Marble
Marble
Marble
Marble
Marble
Amphibolschist
Gneiss
Mica schist
Migmatite
Serpentinite
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
Dolomitic limestone
Limestone
Limestone (Bunyan Rosa)
Travertine
Travertine
Travertine (Limra)
Travertine (Limra)
Travertine (Demre stone)
Travertine (Limra)
Travertine
Travertine
Travertine
Igneous
Igneous
Igneous
Igneous
Igneous
Igneous
Igneous
Igneous
Igneous
Metamorphic
Metamorphic
Metamorphic
Metamorphic
Metamorphic
Metamorphic
Metamorphic
Metamorphic
Metamorphic
Metamorphic
Metamorphic
Sedimentary
Sedimentary
Sedimentary
Sedimentary
Sedimentary
Sedimentary
Sedimentary
Sedimentary
Sedimentary
Sedimentary
Sedimentary
Sedimentary
Sedimentary
Sedimentary
Sedimentary
Table 2
The results of the tests
Rock code
UCS (MPa)
Porosity (%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
202.9
150.4
164.1
109.2
115.4
133.2
114.5
84.9
89.6
111.5
69.8
90.5
73.8
28.5
26.5
186.5
85.9
70.9
203.6
210.6
128.8
134.2
126.1
136.7
79.5
175.0
87.8
83.3
80.0
50.3
57.6
112.3
45.4
60.0
50.3
17.2
18.2
18.3
29.7
10.2
15.7
33.7
40.3
34.7
20.2
45.5
40.6
28.8
47.2
73.2
22.3
40.5
37.7
16.6
15.9
33.3
28.9
23.3
25.0
35.6
24.7
21.9
31.4
42.3
75.9
54.5
45.3
40.1
61.9
39.0
5.50
7.19
1.15
2.51
0.65
1.15
0.62
0.63
0.98
0.85
0.37
0.37
0.06
0.13
0.30
1.90
0.79
1.95
1.33
0.91
0.69
0.38
0.18
0.31
0.18
0.93
7.22
3.12
5.93
12.57
2.15
13.27
4.08
8.74
4.04
r2 0:63
The test results given in Table 2 were analysed using the method of
least squares regression. Linear, logarithmic, exponential and power
curve fitting approximations were tried and the best approximation
equation with highest correlation coefficient was determined for each
regression.
3.3. Porosity
Porosity values were determined using saturation and
calliper techniques. NX size core samples were used in the
tests. At least three samples were used for each rock type.
4. Results and discussion
Fig. 7. L.A. abrasion loss versus UCS for having porosity value lower than 1%.
except for very high strength rocks. Since Fig. 1 falls between two
extreme trend and embraces all rock classes, it can be accepted as
general trend.
To see how the correlation varies with the rock class, regression
analysis was performed for igneous rocks, metamorphic rocks and
sedimentary rocks, respectively (Figs. 35). The equations of the
curves are:for igneous rocks,
LA 26:23lnrc 150:81
r2 0:50
r2 0:81
r2 0:50
r2 0:96
Fig. 6. L.A. abrasion loss versus UCS for the rocks having porosity value
between 0.18% and 0.38%.
for n = 15%,
LA 634:04r0:68
c
LA 29:19rc 168:41
r2 0:79
for n N 5%,
LA 42:36r1:05
c
r2 0:75
The former studies on the relation between UCS and L.A. abrasion
loss generally conducted for one rock type or, one or two rock classes
and for limited number of rocks. This study embraces all rock classes
(igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic) and the number of rocks
tested is high. In addition, the UCS and L.A. abrasion values of the
tested rocks have a wide range. The UCS values range from 24 MPa to
Fig. 8. L.A. abrasion loss versus UCS for having porosity value between 1% and
5%.
UCS and L.A. abrasion loss was found. Also, it was shown that
if the rocks are classified into classes according to porosity, the
correlation coefficients increase. Eq. (1) which embraces all
rock types is reliable enough for the estimation of the L.A.
abrasion loss from UCS. However, one who wants to make
more accurate estimation can alternatively use the Eqs. (6), (7)
and (8).
This study covers igneous, sedimentary and metamorphic
rocks and the range of the UCS and L.A. abrasion values of the
tested rocks is wide enough for the generalization. Concluding
remark is that the derived equations can reliably be used.
Acknowledgement
Fig. 9. L.A. abrasion loss versus UCS for having porosity value higher than 5%.
210 MPa and L.A. abrasion values range from 10% to 76%. So,
developed equations are more general and more useful.
5. Conclusion
The L.A. abrasion loss, UCS and porosity tests were carried
out on 35 different rock types to investigate the relation between
the L.A. abrasion loss and UCS. A good correlation between