Materials Letters 61 (2007) 4861 4865

www.elsevier.com/locate/matlet

Predicting the Los Angeles abrasion loss of rock aggregates from

the uniaxial compressive strength
S. Kahraman a,, M. Fener b
a

Mining Engineering Department, Nigde University, 51100 Nigde, Turkey

Geological Engineering Department, Nigde University, 01330 Nigde, Turkey
Received 27 October 2006; accepted 1 June 2007
Available online 9 June 2007

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

S. Kahraman, M. Fener / Materials Letters 61 (2007) 48614865

increasing strength is much more rapid at strength values below

100 MPa than at higher strength values. Shakoor and Brown [4]
performed multivariate regression between UCS and L.A. loss,
dry density, and absorption for carbonate rocks. They obtained a
statistically significant correlation that can be used to predict
UCS.
Although the correlation between UCS and L.A. abrasion
loss has been investigated by some researchers, the relation
between the two parameters has not clearly been defined. In this
study, 35 different rock types were tested to investigate the
relation between UCS and L.A. abrasion loss. L.A. abrasion
loss, UCS, and porosity values of each rock type were
determined and the results were statistically analysed.
2. Sampling
A total of 35 different rock types were sampled, 9 of which
were igneous, 15 were sedimentary and 11 were metamorphic.
Quarries, granite and marble factories, and natural outcrops in
Nigde, Kayseri, Konya, Antalya and Afyon areas of Turkey
were visited and rock blocks were collected. Each block sample

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)

L.A. abrasion loss (%)

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

was inspected for macroscopic defects so that it would provide

test specimens free from fractures, partings or alteration zones.
The location and the name of the rocks are given in Table 1.
3. Experimental studies
3.1. Uniaxial compressive strength
Uniaxial compression tests were performed on trimmed core
samples, which had a diameter of 38 mm and a length-todiameter ratio of 2. The stress rate was applied within the limits
of 0.51.0 MPa/s. The tests were repeated at least five times for
each material type and the average value was recorded as the
UCS.
3.2. Los Angeles abrasion test
ASTM method C 131-66 was used for the L.A. abrasion test.
Test samples were oven-dried at 105110 C for 24 h and then
cooled to room temperature before they were tested. There are
four aggregate sizes grading to choose from in the ASTM
method. Grading D was used in the tests. 6 steel spheres were

S. Kahraman, M. Fener / Materials Letters 61 (2007) 48614865

Fig. 1. L.A. abrasion loss versus UCS for all rocks.

Fig. 3. L.A. abrasion loss versus UCS for igneous rocks.

placed in a steel drum along with approximately 5000 g

aggregate sample and the drum was rotated for 500 revolutions
at a rate of 3033 rev/min. After the revolution was complete,
the sample was sieved through the No. 12 sieve (1.7 mm). The
amount of material passing the sieve, expressed as a percentage
of the original weight, is the L.A. abrasion loss or percentage
loss.

Firstly, UCS values were correlated with corresponding L.A.

abrasion loss values and a good correlation was obtained (Fig. 1). The
relation follows an exponential function. The equation of the curve is:
LA 24:12lnrc 143:78

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.

where LA is the L. A. abrasion loss (%) and c is the UCS (MPa).

Fig. 1 is compared with the previous studies in Fig. 2. As shown in
Fig. 2, the trend in Fig. 1 is similar to the trend of combined data from
Shakoor and Brown [4] and Ballivy and Dayre [2]. Although the
combined data is from carbonate rocks, it conforms to the trend in Fig.
1. However, the trend in Fig. 1 differs from the trend of data from
Cargill and Shakoor [3] and Kazi and Al-Mansour [1]. This
unconformity is probably due to the differences of rock types. Cargill
and Shakoor [3] tested sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. Half of the
rocks tested by Cargill and Shakoor [3] were sandstone. Since the
sandstones are cemented granular rocks, they show different trend and
have higher abrasion loss than the other rocks for the same UCS except
for very high strength rocks. Kazi and Al-Mansour [1] tested volcanic
and plutonic rocks. Because these rocks have different texture and
mineral skeleton comparing to sandstones and carbonate rocks, they
also show different trend. Unlike the sandstones, volcanic and plutonic
rocks have lower abrasion loss than the other rocks for the same UCS

Fig. 2. The comparison of Fig. 1 with the previous studies.

Fig. 4. L.A. abrasion loss versus UCS for metamorphic rocks.

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

S. Kahraman, M. Fener / Materials Letters 61 (2007) 48614865

Fig. 5. L.A. abrasion loss versus UCS for sedimentary rocks.

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

As shown in the Eqs. (2)(4), while the correlation coefficients for

igneous and sedimentary rocks decrease, the correlation coefficient for
metamorphic rocks increased comparing to Eq. (1). That the correlation
coefficient for metamorphic rocks is high is due to the fact that these
rocks have a narrow porosity range. To clearly show this reality, Fig. 6
was plotted for the rocks having too narrow porosity range (0.18

Fig. 6. L.A. abrasion loss versus UCS for the rocks having porosity value
between 0.18% and 0.38%.

To develop stronger relations, the tested rocks were divided into

three groups according to porosity (n) values: n b 1%, n = 15% and
n N 5%. Regression analysis was repeated for these porosity groups and
more significant correlations (Figs. 79) were obtained. The equations
of the correlations are: for n b 1%,
6

for n = 15%,
LA 634:04r0:68
c

for sedimentary rocks,

LA 536:89r0:60
c

LA 29:19rc 168:41

LA 21:89lnrc 132:73 r2 0:68

for metamorphic rocks,

LA 511:42r0:62
c

0.38). As shown in this figure, there is too strong correlation between

UCS and L.A. abrasion loss. The equation of the correlation is:

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%.

S. Kahraman, M. Fener / Materials Letters 61 (2007) 48614865

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

This work has been supported by the Turkish Academy of

Sciences, in the framework of the Young Scientist Award
Program (EA-TUBA-GEBIP/2001-1-1).
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

A. Kazi, L.R. Al-Mansour, Q. J. Eng. Geol. 13 (1980) 45.

G. Ballivy, M. Dayre, Int. Assoc. Eng. Geol. Bull. 29 (1984) 339.
J.S. Cargill, A. Shakoor, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 27 (1990) 495.
A. Shakoor, C.I. Brown, Int. Assoc. Eng. Geol. Bull. 53 (1996) 97.