Slide 1
UNIVERSITY OF GAZIANTEP FACULTY OF ENGINEERING CIVIL
DEPARTMENT
Report About :(Predicting the Los Angeles abrasion loss of rock
aggregates fromthe uniaxial compressive strength
CE-565Measurement of Rock Properties Submitted to:Do.Dr. Hanifi
ANAKI
Prepared by:Chalak Ahmed [email protected]
2014 45056A B S T R A C TLos Angeles abrasion, Uniaxial
compression, and porosity tests were performed on 35 different rock
types collected from different areas , nine of which were igneous,
eleven of which were metamorphic and fifteen of which were
sedimentary.
To investigate the possibility ofpredicting 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
UCSIntroductionRock 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 theworld each year.
The demand of crushed stone aggregates hasincreased from day to
day, because of increasing expansion ofhighway and other
construction works and decreasing natural aggregate resources in
the world.
Abrasion resistance is ani mportant property of aggregates. The
abrasion resistance ofaggregates 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 testmeasures the resistance of aggregate to wear due to
attritionbetween rock particles and also to impact and crushing by
steelspheresMaterials used for this test :Although the L.A.
abrasion test is relatively simple, it is timeconsuming and
requires more sample comparing to the UCStest. Core samples used in
the UCS tests are generally obtainedduring the field investigation
of a rock aggregates deposit. Onthe other hand, UCS test is usually
carried out to determine thequality of the rock aggregate.
Therefore, if the UCS strongly correlates with the L.A. abrasion
value, it can be used for theprediction purposes.Sampling
A total of 35 different rock types were sampled, 9 of whichwere
igneous, 15 were sedimentary and 11 were metamorphic.collected.
Table 1The location and name of the rocks sampledRock code
Location Rock type Rock class1 Altinhisar/Nigde Basalt Igneous2
Tepekoy/Nigde Andesite Igneous3 Azatli/Nigde Andesite Igneous4
Uckapili/Nigde Granodiorite Igneous5 Uckapili/Nigde Metagabro
Igneous6 Uckapili/Nigde Granite Igneous7 Ortakoy/Aksaray Granite
(Anadolu grey) Igneous8 Kaman/Kirsehir Granite(Kaman Rosa) Igneous9
Kaman/Kirsehir Granite (Krcicegi) Igneous10 Gumusler/Nigde
Quartzite Metamorphic11 Gumusler/Nigde Marble Metamorphic12
Uckapili/Nigde Marble Metamorphic13 Altindag/Ktahya Marble
Metamorphic14 Iscehisar/Afyon Marble Metamorphic15 Yatagan/Mula
Marble Metamorphic16 Gumusler/Nigde Amphibolschist Metamorphic17
Gumusler/Nigde Gneiss Metamorphic18 Gumusler/Nigde Mica schist
Metamorphic19 Gumusler/Nigde Migmatite Metamorphic20
Kilavuzkoy/Nigde Serpentinite Metamorphic21 Sogutalan/Bursa
Limestone Sedimentary22 Korkuteli/Antalya Limestone Sedimentary23
Basmakc/Nigde Limestone Sedimentary24 Yahyali/Kayseri Dolomitic
limestone Sedimentary25 Fethiye/Mugla Limestone Sedimentary26
Bunyan/Kayseri Limestone (Bunyan Rosa) Sedimentary27 Gokbez/Nigde
Travertine Sedimentary28 Yldzeli/Sivas Travertine Sedimentary29
Finike/Antalya Travertine (Limra) Sedimentary30 Bucak/Burdur
Travertine (Limra) Sedimentary31 Demre/Antalya Travertine (Demre
stone) Sedimentary32 Demre/Antalya Travertine (Limra) Sedimentary33
Godene/Konya Travertine Sedimentary34 Mut/Icel Travertine
Sedimentary35 Karaman Travertine SedimentaryExperimental studies
Uniaxial compressive strength Uniaxial compression tests were
performed on trimmed coresamples, which had a diameter of 38 mm and
a length-todiameterratio of 2. The stress rate was applied within
the limitsof 0.51.0 MPa/s. The tests were repeated at least five
times foreach material type and the average value was recorded as
theUCS.
Los Angeles abrasion testASTMmethod C 131-66 was used for the
L.A. abrasion test.Test samples were oven-dried at 105110 C for 24
h and thenc ooled to room temperature before they were tested.
There arefour aggregate sizes grading to choose from in the
ASTMmethod. Grading D was used in the tests. 6 steel spheres
wereplaced in a steel drum along with approximately 5000 gaggregate
sample and the drum was rotated for 500 revolutionsat a rate of
3033 rev/min. After the revolution was complete,the sample was
sieved through the No. 12 sieve (1.7 mm). Theamount of material
passing the sieve, expressed as a percentageof the original weight,
is the L.A. abrasion loss or percentageloss.
PorosityPorosity values were determined using saturation
andcalliper techniques. NX size core samples were used in thetests.
At least three samples were used for each rock type.
Results:The results of the testsRock code UCS (MPa) L.A.
abrasion loss (%) Porosity (%)1 202.9 17.2 5.502 150.4 18.2 7.193
164.1 18.3 1.154 109.2 29.7 2.515 115.4 10.2 0.656 133.2 15.7 1.157
114.5 33.7 0.628 84.9 40.3 0.639 89.6 34.7 0.9810 111.5 20.2 0.8511
69.8 45.5 0.3712 90.5 40.6 0.3713 73.8 28.8 0.0614 28.5 47.2 0.1315
26.5 73.2 0.3016 186.5 22.3 1.9017 85.9 40.5 0.7918 70.9 37.7
1.9519 203.6 16.6 1.3320 210.6 15.9 0.9121 128.8 33.3 0.6922 134.2
28.9 0.3823 126.1 23.3 0.1824 136.7 25.0 0.3125 79.5 35.6 0.1826
175.0 24.7 0.9327 87.8 21.9 7.2228 83.3 31.4 3.1229 80.0 42.3
5.9330 50.3 75.9 12.5731 57.6 54.5 2.1532 112.3 45.3 13.2733 45.4
40.1 4.0860.0 61.9 8.7435 50.3 39.0 4.04
L.A. abrasion loss versus UCS for all rocks
L.A. abrasion loss versus UCS for igneous rocks
L.A. abrasion loss versus UCS for metamorphic rocks
L.A. abrasion loss versus UCS for sedimentary
rocks.ConclusionThe L.A. abrasion loss, UCS and porosity tests were
carriedout on 35 different rock types to investigate the relation
betweenthe L.A. abrasion loss and UCS.
A good correlation between UCS and L.A. abrasion loss was found.
Also, it was shown thatif the rocks are classified into classes
according to porosity, thecorrelation coefficients increase. Eq.
(1) which embraces allrock types is reliable enough for the
estimation of the L.A.abrasion loss from UCS.
However, one who wants to makemore accurate estimation can
alternatively use the Eqs. (6), (7)and (8).
This study covers igneous, sedimentary and metamorphicrocks and
the range of the UCS and L.A. abrasion values of thetested rocks is
wide enough for the generalization. Concludingremark is that the
derived equations can reliably be used.Thank you
