Measurement 91 (2016) 114–123

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Measurement
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/measurement

Correlation of physico-mechanical properties of granitic rocks with

Cerchar Abrasivity Index in Turkey
Selman Er ⇑, Atiye Tuğrul
Department of Geological Engineering, Engineering Faculty, Istanbul University, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: During the last decades, the rapid developments in mining operations and tunnel construction have lead
Received 11 July 2015 to a rapid increase in the number of excavation machines. In order to achieve the expected benefits of
Received in revised form 3 March 2016 mechanical excavation machines, these machines should be selected in accordance with the characteris-
Accepted 10 May 2016
tics of rocks. Tool abrasion is an important factor in hard rock tunnelling, mining, and it is highly affected
Available online 11 May 2016
by rock abrasivity. There are several methods to identify the rock abrasivity. One of the commonly used
abrasion test in rock is the Cerchar abrasivity index (CAI). Before selection and implementation of exca-
Keywords:
vating machines, physical and mechanical properties of the rocks should be determined. It’s known that,
Granitic rocks
Cerchar abrasivity index
physical-mechanical properties of granitic rocks are generally better than those of many rock types
Uniaxial compressive strength although they cause some difficulties (tool wear, lost time, etc.) in excavation and increase the cutter
Surface characteristics costs. The purpose of the present study is to determine empirical relationships between CAI and
physical-mechanical properties of different granitic rocks using regression method. In this study, some
laboratory experiments were conducted on samples collected from granite quarries in different parts
of Turkey, particularly from the Marmara Region. Firstly, petrographical, mineralogical and physical-
mechanical characteristics of the collected granitic rocks were determined. Then, empirical relationships
between these properties and CAI were determined using method of regression analysis. According to the
results obtained, a strong correlation is found between CAI value, quartz content and quartz size of the
granitic rocks. In addition, the uniaxial compressive strength and indirect tensile strength of the studied
granitic rocks increase as CAI increases. Surface roughness, waviness and peak number of granitic rocks
lead to an increase in CAI. On the contrary, Bohme abrasion resistance increases while CAI decreases.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Abrasion controls the wear life of cutting tools in any rock exca-
vation operation from small holes drilled for blasting large diame-
ter tunnels bored by the tunnel boring machines (TBMs). Various
rock abrasion measures have been introduced throughout the
years to allow the engineers to estimate tool life. As the wear life
of the rock cutting tools often has a linear relationship with the
measured rock abrasion, any variation in the measurements has
a direct and proportional impact on the estimated tool life, opera-
tional delays, and related costs [21]. Several models have been
developed during the last decades to assess machine performance
and rock abrasivity under different application conditions [18].
CERCHAR abrasion test is one of the most common test used for
laboratory assessment of rock abrasivity. Many researchers have
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: selmaner@gmail.com (S. Er).
been studied CAI last decades. Suana and Peters [24] studied to
predict the CAI calculated the equivalent quartz content used thin
section analyses. Also, they presented that some parameters such
as grain size and matrix properties were important for CAI. The
relationship between rock strength and CAI examined by
Al-Ameen and Waller [1]. Plinninger et al. [20] explained testing
specifications and physical-mechanical properties which influence
on CAI. Also, young modulus and equivalent quartz content corre-
lated the CAI by Plinninger et al. [20]. Michalakopoulos et al. [18]
studied the effect of steel styli hardness on the CAI. Alber [5] stud-
ied the stress dependency of CAI and its effects on abrasion of the
rock cutting tools; and Lassnig et al. [17] studied the impact of the
size of grains on CAI. Lassnig et al. [17] examined the mineral size
effect and on different testing orders on the CAI. Kahraman et al.
[15] presented predictability of uniaxial compressive strength
and elasticity values model of Misis Fault Breccia from the CAI.
Deliormanlı [9] investigated strength and wear properties of 15
different marble stones using CAI. Moradizadeh et al. [19]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2016.05.034
0263-2241/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Er, A. Tuğrul / Measurement 91 (2016) 114–123 115

Fig. 1. Location map of the granitic rocks tested.

Table 1 CAI. Kahraman et al. [16] applied to the data pertaining to Misis
Code, location, rock name of the samples. Fault Breccia to develop estimative models for the differential
Sample code Sample location Rock namea stress from non-destructive methods including the CAI. Also Alavi
Nezhad Khalil Abad et al. [2–4] studied the relationship between
GB Bulancak/Giresun Quartz monzonite
BE Erdek/Balıkesir Monzogranite/Granodiorite
joint characterization and the state of weathering in granitic rocks.
AY Yaylak/Aksaray Monzogranite In this study, the relationships between CAI and physical-
KB Balaban/Kırklareli Monzogranite mechanical properties of granitic rocks were compared. Studies
YF Fıstıklı/Yalova Granodiorite were conducted on samples from granite quarries especially taken
IT _
Tepecik/Istanbul Monzogranite
from Marmara Region and from different regions of Turkey to
GAII Tamdere/Asarcık/Giresun Quartz monzonite
GAI Tamzara/Asarcık/Giresun Monzogranite
obtain varying samples (Fig. 1). In the first stage of the study, the
CK Kestanbol/Çanakkale Monzogranite/Granodiorite samples were selected to thin section examination in terms of pet-
IK _
Kozak/Izmir Monzogranite/Granodiorite rographical and mineralogical properties. These specimens were
AS Sipahi/Aksaray Monzogranite prepared to make petrographical properties. Then, physico-
TS Saray/Tekirdağ Quartz monzodiorite mechanical characteristics of the collected granitic rocks were
a
According to proposed by Streckeisen [23]. found out including Shore hardness, Schmidt hardness, P-wave
velocity, uniaxial compressive strength, Bohme abrasion test,
tensile strength, and surface characteristics of the sample. The rela-
tionships between these properties and CAI were also determined
using simple regression analysis method.
presented the geological properties for predicting CAI in sand-
stones. Dominant factors affects on CAI studied by Rostami et al.
[21]. Alber et al. [7] determined abrasivity of rock by CAI. Tumac 2. Petrographical characteristics
[25] showed the potential of CAI in predicting the Shore scle-
rescope values, and found strong correlation in a power function Petrographical assessment mainly included the description of
(R2 = 0.94). Tumac [26] stated that the most important physical grain-size distribution and modal composition of the granitic rock
and mechanical properties of natural stones influence the sawing samples. Firstly, thin sections were prepared from each granitic
performance of circular saws were deformation coefficient and rock sample, and then, they were surveyed using the polarized

Table 2
Modal composition of the studied granite.

Sample Code Quartz (vol%) Plagioclase (vol%) Orthoclase (vol%) Biotite (vol%) Amphibole (vol%) Weathered min. (vol%)
YF 25.1 36.8 17.1 8.2 5.8 7
IT 21.1 29.9 20 3.8 2.2 23
KB 19.3 35.3 21.8 1.2 4.1 18.3
AS 28.4 33.6 21.3 7.6 4.4 4.7
AY 25.2 30.7 27.4 4.1 – 11.6
CK 18.9 40.4 21.7 7.2 9.9 1.9
GB 6.8 31.8 38.3 5.3 2.7 15.1
IK 21.7 37.9 21.7 9.6 8.4 0.7
GA II 5.6 37.4 39.7 2.5 – 14.8
GA I 29.1 29.9 19.8 12.6 6.7 1.9
BE 34.8 35 20.1 7.9 – 2.2
TS 5.2 33.6 16.5 0.5 44.1 4.1

Vol: Volume.
116 S. Er, A. Tuğrul / Measurement 91 (2016) 114–123

Fig. 2. Photomicrographs of the studied granite samples.

microscope (Fig. 2). Granitic rock samples were classified
according to mineral compositions proposed by Streckeisen [23]
classification system (Table 1).
The granitic rock samples including monzogranite, monzodior-
ite, granodiorite and quartzmonzonite show different textural
features in terms of the, granularity, crystallinity degree, grain
size and shape of grains. K-feldspar, plagioclase, Quartz and
biotite were the main minerals in all samples showing variations
in their mineral contents (percentage) and grain sizes (Tables 2
and 3).
3. Physical and mechanical properties
The physical-mechanical properties of the samples were exam-
ined by the procedures given in TS EN [27] and ISRM [11–13]. We
had to follow more than one standard because the tests we con-
ducted were not covered by the any single standard given above
(Table 4). Also all test samples were cylinder in this study therefore
some tests were examined without standards but followed given
procedure in standards. For determination of schmidt hardness
value block samples was used (Table 5). Physical-mechanical
 S. Er, A. Tuğrul / Measurement 91 (2016) 114–123 117

Table 3 Table 7
Grain size range of the studied granite. Result of cerchar abrasiveness index.

Sample Quartz Plagioclase Orthoclase Biotite Amphibole CAI (Cerchar Abrasiviness Index)
Code (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Min Max Mean
TS 0.16 0.25 0.4 0.25 2.1
YF 5.01 5.71 5.22
GA I 0.52 0.5 0.81 0.75 0.75
IT 4.78 5.55 5.06
BE 0.75 0.58 0.9 0.7 –
KB 4.81 5.52 5.03
AS 0.72 0.6 1.1 0.7 0.95
AS 5.27 6.15 5.67
GAII 0.25 0.65 1.3 0.35 –
AY 4.34 5.89 5.34
CK 0.42 0.69 1.7 0.5 0.4
CK 4.29 5.71 5.29
KB 0.48 0.71 2.2 0.45 0.35
GB 4.12 5.67 5.12
IT 0.42 0.75 2.2 0.7 0.8
IK 4.60 5.58 5.10
IK 0.45 0.78 2.3 0.5 1.6
GA II 3.95 5.18 4.65
YF 0.56 0.78 2.4 0.4 1.4
GA I 4.14 5.66 5.14
AY 0.57 0.9 2.5 0.5 –
BE 4.82 6.37 5.82
GB 0.35 1.2 3.1 0.4 1.3
TS 4.47 5.51 5.07

Table 4
Tests, type of standard and manner of application.

Tests Standard methods Manner of application

Schmidt hardness value ISRM 1981 On block sample
Shore hardness ISRM 1981b On standard sample
P-wave velocity ISRM 2007 On standard sample
Brazilian tensile strength ISRM 2007 On standard sample
Uniaxial compressive strength ISRM 2007 On standard sample
Bohme abrasion value TS EN 14157 Cylinder samples but same procedure
Cerchar abrasiveness index ISRM 2014 On cut surface

ISRM: International Society for Rock Mechanics, TS EN: Turkish Standards and European Norm.

Table 5
Schmidt hardness value, shore hardness and P-wave velocity value of the granitic rocks.

SHV (schmidt hardness value) SH (shore hardness) Vp (km/sn)

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean
YF 51.18 73.14 61.60 73.2 97.5 81.5 4.287 5.426 4.712
IT 39.58 61.54 56.00 65.7 90.0 80.8 4.200 4.639 4.323
KB 53.38 75.34 63.80 72.1 96.4 81.5 3.886 5.025 4.309
AS 54.08 76.04 68.50 83.5 97.8 90.3 4.654 5.793 5.355
AY 49.23 71.19 67.65 79.2 93.5 89.7 4.167 5.306 5.177
CK 51.24 73.20 65.66 70.8 95.1 83.6 3.824 4.963 4.790
GB 41.58 63.54 58.00 66.7 91.0 80.8 3.703 4.842 4.476
IK 48.78 70.74 55.20 62.0 86.3 74.8 3.799 4.438 4.177
GA II 48.30 70.26 51.72 64.1 88.4 71.9 4.078 4.517 4.204
GA I 50.58 72.54 63.25 69.4 93.7 82.5 4.028 4.867 4.401
BE 58.83 80.79 72.25 82.7 107.0 94.9 4.853 5.592 5.322
TS 38.38 60.34 53.80 61.8 96.1 74.6 3.881 4.420 4.051

Table 6
Brazilian tensile strength, uniaxial compressive strength, and Bohme abrasion value of the granitic rocks.

rb (MPa) rc (MPa) Db (%)

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean
YF 10.46 16.52 14.88 104.5 122.2 110.0 14.41 16.62 15.8
IT 9.86 13.92 11.28 89.5 100.2 95.0 13.86 18.91 16.5
KB 7.92 13.98 11.34 93.9 106.6 98.0 14.92 19.98 16.2
AS 11.99 17.05 16.41 119.3 127.0 124.0 12.09 16.03 13.8
AY 13.22 17.28 15.64 109.8 117.5 115.0 12.21 16.25 14.4
CK 11.61 16.67 14.50 101.9 116.6 110.0 11.61 16.52 14.9
GB 9.83 14.89 12.19 101.1 108.8 105.0 18.73 22.09 19.6
IK 10.77 13.83 11.25 89.0 103.7 94.0 15.77 19.81 17.6
GA II 10.43 13.49 12.02 95.8 109.5 102.5 17.31 25.61 22.1
GA I 10.26 14.32 12.68 97.1 115.8 105.0 13.19 16.91 15.8
BE 15.03 18.09 17.45 131.8 159.5 141.5 10.12 14.09 13.4
TS 9.60 11.66 10.64 88.7 109.4 95.0 17.01 19.91 18.4
118 S. Er, A. Tuğrul / Measurement 91 (2016) 114–123

Fig. 3. Taylor Hobson, FORM TALYSURF 50 model device.

Fig. 5. View of surface measure direction and scratch direction.

characteristics were examined on the core samples including the

uniaxial compressive strength, the shore hardness, the tensile
Table 8
strength, the P wave and the Bohme abrasion test (Table 6). Bohme Roughness average, waveness average and peak number value of the granitic rocks.
abrasion test was performed on the core samples (BX diameter)
Ra (lm) Wa (lm) Wshc (quantity)
but TS EN [27] procedure was adopted. CAI tests were performed
according to the procedures given in ISRM [13]. The tests were per- GA II 2.32 82.21 8
TS 2.29 88.85 8
formed using the suggested by ISRM [13] Cerchar apparatus with
GB 2.48 87.15 9
pins of HRC 55 loaded with 70 N in 1 s over a distance of 10 mm IK 3.13 94.47 10
that were carried out on the core surface gained by circular saw. IT 3.07 88.98 11
After the diameter of pins was horizontally measured four times, KB 2.91 89.65 11
they were rotated by 90° every time. For calculation CAI used five GA I 2.87 94.22 12
YF 3.21 91.71 14
scratch tests results for a granitic rock sample, and then the arith-
CK 2.90 91.98 15
metic mean of each tests of a sample was used to obtain the CAI AY 3.47 101.63 15
value. CAI value is calculated in the below way, as expressed by AS 3.09 107.57 16
Alber et al. [7] BE 3.61 112.34 17

CAI ¼ d  10 ð1Þ lm: Micrometre.

where d is the wear tip surface measured to an accuracy of

0.01 mm.
The results are given Table 7. In order to determine the effect of
surface conditions on CAI, some surface characteristics were
gauged by Taylor Hobson, FORM TALYSURF 50 model device. This
device was preferred because of improved software and ease of
use (Fig. 3). Roughness average (Ra) and waveness average (Wa)
are generally accepted surface parameters, but in this study, peak
number (Wshc) parameter was also used (Fig. 4). Different granitic
rocks were affected to properties of cut surface. When surface
properties measured horizontal and vertical to trace on cut sur-
faces, different results were obtained. Therefore, measuring direc-
tion on sample surfaces were used parallel to scratch direction for
each samples in this study (Fig. 5). The results of surface parame-
ters are given in Table 8.
4. Discussion
Regression analyses have preferred by several researches for
analyzing data [29,22]. In order to find out the influence of the
physico-mechanical properties of granitic rocks on CAI, simple
regression analyses were used. Regression analysis is used to find
out the degree of relation between two variables. R value is a

Fig. 4. View of roughness, waviness and peak.

 S. Er, A. Tuğrul / Measurement 91 (2016) 114–123 119

Table 9
Result of correlation analyses.

CAI (Cerchar Abrasiveness Index)

Regression equation R F P-value
1 CAI = 4.74 + 0.02 Qc 0.74 12.07 0.006
2 CAI = 4.52 + 1.47 Qs 0.83 21.82 0.001
3 CAI = 2.73 + 0.04 SHV 0.86 28.71 0.000
4 CAI = 1.87 + 0.04 SH 0.91 45.82 0.000
5 CAI = 2.55 + 0.58 Vp 0.87 31.75 0.000
6 CAI = 3.19 + 0.02 rc 0.85 26.26 0.000
7 CAI = 3.73 + 0.11 rt 0.84 23.73 0.001
8 CAI = 6.90  0.10 Db 0.85 26.56 0.000
9 CAI = 3.67 + 0.52 Ra 0.71 10.39 0.009
10 CAI = 2.12 + 0.03 Wa 0.94 78.84 0.000
11 CAI = 4.19 + 0.08 Wshc 0.87 30.02 0.000
12 Qs = 0.59 + 0.36 Ra 0.87 30.29 0.000
13 Qs = 1.14 + 0.02 Wa 0.87 30.68 0.000
14 Qs = 0.12 + 0.05 Wshc 0.88 35.98 0.000
15 Qc = 41.57 + 20.94 Ra 0.90 41.22 0.000
16 Qc = 63.85 + 0.89 Wa 0.81 18.52 0.002
17 Qc = 11.24 + 2.58 Wshc 0.84 23.93 0.001
18 Fc = 970.4 Wa 0.43 2.49 0.146
19 Fs = 2.530.01 Wa 0.22 0.57 0.469
20 Bc = 10.2 + 0.171 Wa 0.41 2.08 0.180
21 Bs = 0.55 + 0.01 Wa 0.61 6.10 0.033
22 Ac = 36.70.31 Wa 0.22 0.54 0.478
23 As = 2.780.02 Wa 0.26 0.76 0.404

Qc: quartz content; Qs: quartz size; Fc: feldeispar content; Fs: feldispar size; Bc: biotite content; Bs: biotite size; Ac: amphibole content; As: amphibole size; SHV: schmidth
hardness value; SH: shore harness; Vp: P-wave; rc: uncompressive strength; rt: tensile strength; Db: Bohme abrasion; Ra: Roughness average; Wa: Waveness average; Wshc:
Peak number.

50
50 Regression
Regression 95% CI
95% CI 40 95% PI
40 95% PI BE
BE
Quartz content (%)
Quartz content (%)

GA I
30
GA I AS 30 AS
YF AY
YF AY
IK IT
IT IK CK
20
KB 20 KB
CK

10 10 GB
GB TS
TS
GA II GA II

0 0
R= 90% R= 84%

2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 9 10 8 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Roughness average (micrometer) Peak number (quantity)

Fig. 6. Relation between quartz content and roughness average. Fig. 8. Relation between quartz content and peak number.

60 Regression
Regression 0.9
95% CI
95% CI
50 0.8 95% PI BE
95% PI AS
0.7
Quartz size (mm)

40
Quartz content (%)

BE
0.6 YF AY
GA I
GA I AS
30 0.5 KB
IK
YF AY
IT
IT IK
CK 0.4 GB
CK
20 KB
0.3 GA II

10 GA II GB 0.2 TS
TS

0.1
0
R= 81% 0.0 R= 87%

80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6
Waveness average (micrometer) Roughness avarege (micrometer)

Fig. 7. Relation between quartz content and waveness average. Fig. 9. Relation between quartz size and roughness average.
120 S. Er, A. Tuğrul / Measurement 91 (2016) 114–123

1.0 Regression
95% CI
95% PI
0.8 BE
Quartz size (mm)

AS

0.6 YF AY
GA I
KB
IK
IT CK
0.4 GB

GA II

0.2 TS

R= 87%
0.0
80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115
Waveness average (micrometer)

Fig. 10. Relation between quartz size and waveness average. Fig. 13. Relation between CAI and quartz size.

The mineral composition of studied granitic rocks is primarily

0.9 Regression made up of feldspar grains and quartz with other minerals. Quartz
95% CI has no cleavage but feldspar displays two cleavage planes that
0.8 95% PI BE
AS intersect at 90°. Generally, in granitic rocks larger mineral grain
Quartz size (mm)

0.7 size contributes to increased sensitivity to fracture in two ways:

0.6 YF AY (i) mineral cleavage in feldspars can occur more easily [10], and
GA I
0.5 IK
KB (ii) the larger the grain size, the larger the grain boundary, and then
IT CK
the less the energy needed to keep the crack growing because sur-
0.4 GB
face energies of grain boundaries should be less than those of the
0.3 GA II intact grains [28]. These properties of granitic rocks affect surface
0.2 TS characteristics of a sample. According to Byerlee [8], in granitic
0.1 rocks, there is a positive linear relationship between quartz con-
R= 88% tent and roughness. In this study, similar results were obtained
0.0
9 10 8 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 (Fig. 6). The correlation between the quartz content and roughness
Peak number (quantity) average is significant at a 95% confidence level (R = 0.90). The sim-
ilar relationship was also found in waviness (R = 0.81) and peak
Fig. 11. Relation between quartz size and peak number. number (R = 0.84) (Figs. 7 and 8). Also the relationship between
quartz size and surface characteristics is displayed in Figs. 9–11.
In this study, no relationship was found between other minerals
and surface characteristics (Table 8). Results show that, in granitic
rocks, quartz content and size is more effective than other minerals
on the surface characteristics.
Alber [6] performed many tests on four rock types and con-
cluded that no significant correlation was found between CAI and
neither the quartz content nor the equivalent quartz content. How-
ever; in this study, a relationship was found between the CAI and
quartz content and quartz size, and it is displayed in Figs. 12 and
13. The results show that there is a strong (positive correlation) lin-
ear relationship between the CAI and quartz content and quartz
size. These results are supported by the studies of Yaralı et al.
[30]. They reported that quartz content and size, which are the
most dominant parameters, provide a convenient measurement
for rock abrasivity. In this study, no relationship was found
between CAI and other minerals. Because anhedral quartz grains
are harder, more durable and resistant to cutting than other min-
erals in granitic rocks (Fig. 14).
Fig. 12. Relation between CAI and quartz content. Hardness is one of the characteristics of rocks showing its resis-
tance to permanent deformation. Several factors control the hard-
ness of rock materials such as mineral content, size and texture.
statistical computing of how close the data are to the fitted regres- Schmidt hammer and Shore scleroscope are widely used tools
sion line. P-value, probability value, is the controlled degree of sig- mainly [14]. Figs. 15 and 16 illustrate the variation of CAI with Sch-
nificance for the test. The conventional 5% significance level has midt hardness value and Shore hardness value of the granitic rocks.
been used in this study. For this reason, results with a P-value of As shown in these figures, a positive linear relationship occurs
<0.05 were considered to be statistically significant at a confidence between the CAI, SHV and SH. There are also statistically significant
level of 95% (Table 9). The statistically significant prediction mod- correlations between CAI and P-wave velocity (Fig. 17). In Figs. 18
els derived for the studied granitic rocks have been plotted in and 19, the CAI was plotted against uniaxial compressive strength
graphical form. and indirect tensile strength determined by loading to failure. The
 S. Er, A. Tuğrul / Measurement 91 (2016) 114–123 121

Fig. 14. View of scratched surface of granitic rocks.

Fig. 15. Relation between CAI and schmidt hardness value.

Fig. 17. Relation between CAI and P-wave.

Fig. 16. Relation between CAI and shore hardness. Fig. 18. Relation between CAI and uniaxial compressive strength.

correlation between the CAI and uniaxial compressive strength and to abrasion. When Bohme abrasion and CAI value are statistically
indirect tensile strength is positive linear. Bohme abrasion test is considered, a strong relation is obtained as shown in Fig. 20. It sug-
most commonly used test mainly because it can be used on a gests that there is a strong negative relationship between Bohme
greater variety of rock types with better predictability of resistance abrasion and CAI value. CAI is a friction test method on rock surface
122 S. Er, A. Tuğrul / Measurement 91 (2016) 114–123
Fig. 19. Relation between CAI and tensile strength.
Fig. 20. Relation between CAI and Bohme abrasion strength.
Fig. 21. Relation between CAI and roughness.
so that surface conditions of a rock are important. Figs. 21–23 illus-
trate the variations of CAI with Ra value, Wa value and Wshc num-
ber of the granitic rocks. As shown in these figures, a positive linear
relation exists between the CAI and other parameters. The best
relationship between CAI and surface parameters is Wa and CAI
(R = 94%). This result shows that a pin wears more on wave surface
than rough surface.
5. Conclusion
Interrelationships between the CAI and physico-mechanical
properties of the 12 different granitic rock samples were
Fig. 22. Relation between CAI and waveness.
Fig. 23. Relation between CAI and peak number.
determined using simple regression analysis. According to the
results of this study; the mean quartz size and content has an
impact on the CAI. Quartz content and quartz size of the granitic
rocks lead to an increase in CAI. Also, no relationship was found
between CAI and other minerals in this study. Among the engineer-
ing properties studied, statistically significant positive correlation
relationships were found between CAI and Shore hardness value,
CAI and Schmidt hardness value, CAI and UCS, CAI and tensile
strength.
Simple regression analyses show that there is negative correla-
tion between CAI and Bohme abrasion test. The mean quartz size
and content has an impact on surface conditions of granitic rocks.
Rough surface tends to yield higher CAI values.
References
[1] S.L. Al-Ameen, M.D. Waller, The influence of rock strength and abrasive
mineral content on the CERCHAR abrasive index, Eng. Geol. 36 (1994) 293–
301.
[2] S.V. Alavi Nezhad Khalil Abad, E.T. Mohamad, I. Komoo, Dominant weathering
profiles of granite in southern Peninsular Malaysia, Eng. Geol. 183 (2014) 208–
215, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2014.10.019.
[3] S.V. Alavi Nezhad Khalil Abad, E.T. Mohamad, I. Komoo, R. Kalatehjari, A typical
weathering profile of granitic rock in Johor, Malaysia based on joint
characterization, Arab. J. Geosci. 8 (4) (2015) 2191–2201, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s12517-014-1345-7.
[4] S.V. Alavi Nezhad Khalil Abad, E.T. Mohamad, I. Komoo, R. Kalatehjari,
Assessment of weathering effects on rock mass structure in granite, J.
Teknologi (Sci. Eng.) 72 (1) (2015) 71–75, http://dx.doi.org/10.11113/jt.
v72.2875.
[5] M. Alber, Stress dependency of the Cerchar Abrasivity Index (CAI) and its
effects on wear of selected rock cutting tools, Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 9
(2007) 351–539.
 S. Er, A. Tuğrul / Measurement 91 (2016) 114–123
[6] M. Alber, Stress dependency of the Cerchar abrasivity index (CAI) and its
effects on wear of selected rock cutting tools, Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 23
(2008) 351–359.
[7] Michael Alber, Olgay Yaralı, Filip Dahl, Amund Bruland, Heiko Käsling,
Theodore N. Michalakopoulos, Marilena Cardu, Paul Hagan, Hamit. Aydın,
Ahmet Özarslan, ISRM suggested method for determining the abrasivity of
rock by the CERCHAR abrasivity test, Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 47 (2014) 261–266.
[8] D.J. Byerlee, The Frictional Characteristics of Westerly Granite PhD Thesis,
Queensland University, 1963, p. 102.
[9] A. Deliormanlı, Cerchar abrasivity index (CAI) and its relation to strength and
abrasion test methods for marble stones, Constr. Build. Mater. 30 (2011) 16–
21.
[10] V. Hajiabdolmajid, P.K. Kaiser, Brittleness of rock and stability assessment in
hard rock tunneling, Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 18 (9) (2003) 35–48.
[11] ISRM, Rock Characterization, in: E.T. Brown (Ed.), Testing and Monitoring–
ISRM Suggested Methods, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1981, p. 211.
[12] ISRM, The complete ISRM suggested methods for rock characterization, testing
and monitoring: 1974–2006, in: R. Ulusay, J.A. Hudson (Eds.), Commission on
Testing Methods, International Society of Rock Mechanics, Compilation
arranged by the ISRM Turkish National Group, Ankara, Turkey, 2007, pp. 628.
[13] ISRM, Rock Characterization, in: Resßat Ulusay (Ed.), Testing and Monitoring–
ISRM Suggested Methods, Springer Press, 2014, p. 293.
[14] R.B. Johnson, J.V. De Graff, Principles of Engineering Geology, John Wiley and
Sons, New York, 1988, p. 497.
[15] S. Kahraman, M. Alber, M. Fener, O. Gunaydin, The usability of Cerchar
abrasivity index for the prediction of UCS and E of Misis Fault Breccia:
regression and artificial neural networks analysis, Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (2010)
(2010) 8750–8756.
[16] S. Kahraman, M. Alber, M. Fener, O. Gunaydin, M. Fener, The usability of
Cerchar abrasivity index for the evaluation of the triaxial strength of Misis
Fault Breccia, Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 74 (2015) 163–170.
[17] K. Lassnig, C. Latal, K. Klima, Impact of Grain Size on the Cerchar Abrasiveness
Test, Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften
GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin Geomechanik und Tunnelbau 1.Heft 1, 2008.
123
[18] T.N. Michalakopoulos, V.G. Anagnostou, M.E. Bassanou, G.N. Panagiotou, The
influence of steel styli hardness on the Cerchar abrasiveness index value, Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 43 (2005) 321–327.
[19] M. Moradizadeh, M. Ghafoori, G. Lashkaripour, T.S. Azali, Int. J. Emerg. Technol.
Adv. Eng. 3 (9) (2013) 99–109.
[20] R. Plinninger, H. Kasling, K. Thuro, G. Spaun, Testing conditions and
geomechanical properties in influencing the CERCHAR abrasiveness index
(CAI) value, J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 40 (2003) 159–263.
[21] J. Rostami, A. Ghasemi, A.E. Gharahbagh, C. Dogruoz, F. Dahl, Rock, Study of
dominant factors affecting cerchar abrasivity index, Mech. Rock Eng. 47 (2014)
1905–1919.
[22] H.S. Shang, S. Yi, L.S. Yang, Experimental study on the compressive strength of
big mobility concrete with nondestructive testing method, Adv. Mater. Sci.
Eng. 2012 (2012) 1–6.
[23] A. Streckeisen, To each plutonic rock its proper name, Eart-Sci. Rev. 12 (1979)
1–33.
[24] M. Suana, T. Peters, The CERCHAR abrasivity index and its relation to rock
mineralogy and petrography, Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 15 (1982) 1–7.
[25] D. Tumac, Predicting the performance of chain saw machines based on Shore
scleroscope hardness, Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 47 (2) (2014) 703–715.
[26] D. Tumac, Predicting the performance of large diameter circular saws based on
Schmidt hammer and other properties for some Turkish carbonate rocks, Int. J.
Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 75 (2015) 159–168.
[27] Turkish Standard EN 14157, Natural Stone – Determination of The Abrasion
Resistance, Ankara, 2005, p. 16.
[28] A. Whittaker, M.H.P. Bott, G.D. Waghorn, Stresses and plate boundary forces
associated with subduction plate margins, J. Geophys. Res. 97 (1992), http://
dx.doi.org/10.1029/91JB00148. ISSN: 0148-0227.
[29] Yan Liu, Ting-Hua Yi, Cui-Qin Wang, Investment decision support for
engineering projects based on risk correlation analysis, Math. Probl. Eng.
2012 (2012). 14 pages 242187.
[30] O. Yaralı, E. Yasßar, G. Bacak, P.G. Ranjith, A study of rock abrasivity and tool
wear in coal measures rocks, Int. J. Coal Geol. 74 (2008) 53–66.