HOSTED BY Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 840–848
www.elsevier.com/locate/sandf

A new practical method for determining the LA abrasion value

for aggregates
Abbas Mohajerani ⇑, Bao Thach Nguyen, Yasin Tanriverdi, Kavindha Chandrawanka
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

Received 13 August 2016; received in revised form 25 February 2017; accepted 1 July 2017
Available online 9 October 2017

Abstract

The Los Angeles (LA) abrasion method is commonly used for determining the abrasion characteristics and classification of the gran-
ular materials used in road and pavement construction. The abrasion resistance of materials can significantly affect the service life of road
pavements when exposed to long-term dynamic traffic loads. The LA abrasion method suffers from several drawbacks including the time
needed to perform the test, the operational noise and dust and the space required by the machine. The objective of this study was to
investigate whether the modified compaction method can be a suitable alternative for determining the LA abrasion value. This study
was proposed in consideration of the similarities in the treatment of materials by the LA abrasion method and the modified compaction
method. It was considered that the laboratory-modified compaction method closely simulates the abrasion resistance of the unbound
granular materials in the base course and sub-base layers of road pavements that experience repetitive dynamic loads. As indicated
by the results of tests on nineteen different aggregate samples, a strong correlation exists between the Los Angeles Abrasion Values
(LAVs) and the values obtained when implementing the modified compaction method, namely, the Compaction Abrasion Values
(CAVs).
Ó 2017 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
This is an open access article under CC BY-NC-ND license. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Keywords: Granular materials; Aggregates; Los Angeles Abrasion Value; Compaction Abrasion Value; Modified standard compaction; Pavement ma-
terials (IGC: D00/E00)

1. Introduction when stockpiled, fed through asphalt plants, placed with

1.1. Background
The unbound granular materials used in road construc-
tion are subject to substantial wear and tear throughout
their service life. Generally speaking, the materials must
be tough and resistant to abrasion in order to avoid being
crushed or damaged by degradation and/or disintegration
Peer review under responsibility of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: abbas.mohajerani@rmit.edu.au, dr.abbas@rmit.edu.
au (A. Mohajerani).
pavers, compacted with rollers or subjected to traffic load-
ings (Wu et al., 1998; Ozcelik, 2011). Additionally, the
materials should have the ability to adequately distribute
loads from the wearing surface to the base course and
sub-base layers, and then to the subgrade. Granular mate-
rials that lack adequate toughness and abrasion resistance
may be the cause of serious problems in the long-term per-
formance and lifespan of the pavement structures com-
posed of them (Ugur et al., 2010). Therefore, before any
road pavement is constructed, it is vital to analyse and test
the toughness and abrasion resistance of the aggregates for
the base and sub-base layers in accordance with the rele-
vant standards.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2017.08.013
0038-0806/Ó 2017 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
This is an open access article under CC BY-NC-ND license. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
 A. Mohajerani et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 840–848 841

In general, road construction projects have set the

parameters for project specifications, which define the test
requirements of the road materials. Accordingly, the tested
materials should have acceptable values within the defined
parameters.
Methods for determining the abrasion resistance of
granular materials have been standardised in various forms
and in many places around the world. These include, but
are not limited to, the following (Table 1):
The LA abrasion test is the most widely used method for
testing aggregate abrasion (Wu et al., 1998). In Australia,
the LA abrasion method is available in the Australian
Standards (AS 1141.23), whereas other standards, such as
ASTM C131/C131M, may be used in other parts of the
world.

1.2. Los Angeles abrasion

The LA abrasion test is a standard method for measur-

ing the abrasion resistance of unbound granular materials
(Kahraman et al., 2010). The values obtained from the
LA abrasion test are principally measures of the break-
down of the materials caused by impact and degradation
during handling, batching and lay-down operations
(Meininger, 2004). According to the Roads Corporation
(Victoria) (1998), the LAV is largely influenced by the grain
size and shape of the minerals, the nature and strength of
the interlock between the mineral grains and the degree
of weathering of the rock. The LA abrasion test is generally
performed on unbound granular materials, which include
aggregates, crushed rock and gravel, or on crushed materi-
als derived from rock spalls or bore cores Roads
Corporation (Victoria) (1998). These materials can be com-
posed of different types of rock, such as igneous, metamor-
phic or sedimentary.
The LA abrasion machine (Fig. 1) is a fairly large
instrument (approximately half a tonne) with dimensions,
including the soundproof cabinet, of about 1.10 m

1.18 m
1.25 m.
Fig. 1. Los Angeles abrasion testing machine.
The LA abrasion test involves placing a portion of the
aggregate in a steel drum that is fitted with an internal baf-
fle and a specified number of steel balls; the drum is then
rotated a fixed number of times (Austroads, 2008). Once
the test is completed, the LAV is obtained by expressing
the calculated mass of the particles that have broken into
smaller sizes as a percentage of the total mass of the sample
before the test (Standards Australia, 2009; Interactive,
2011).
The value obtained from the Los Angeles abrasion test
gives an indication of the abrasion resistance of the mate-
rial. A low LAV indicates that the material has high abra-
sion resistance. Conversely, a high LAV indicates that the
material has low abrasion resistance. Table 2 shows a list

Table 1
List of test methods.
Method Relevant standards
LA Abrasion
Aggregate Impact Value
Aggregate Crushing Value
Micro-Deval Abrasion
Texas Ball Mill (Wet)
AASHTO T 96 (2002)
AS 1141.23 (2009)
ASTM C131/C131M (2014)
JSA JIS A 1121 (2007)
SASO 279 (1982)
BSI BS 812-112 (1990c)
AS 1141.21 (1997)
BSI BS 812-110 (1990b)
AASHTO TP 58 (1999)
ASTM D6928 (2010)
AENOR UNE-EN 1097-1 (2011)
AS1141.28 (2014)
Country Roads Board, Victoria – Test Method 341 (National
Association of Australian State Road Authorities 1976)
842 A. Mohajerani et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 840–848

Table 2 ical and the mechanical properties of 32 different rock

LAVs for different types of rock (Interactive 2011). types, including igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary.
Aggregate type LAV These properties included unit volume weight (UVW),
Basalt 10–17 apparent porosity (AP), shore hardness (SH), uniaxial
Dolomite 18–30 compressive strength (UCS), tensile strength (TS) and
Gneiss 33–57 point load strength (PL). A good correlation was found
Granite 27–49
Limestone 19–30
for sedimentary rocks between the LAV and the SH,
Quartzite 20–35 UVW, UCS, PL and TS. Likewise, good correlations were
found for metamorphic rocks for the SH, UCS, PL and TS
and for igneous rocks for the SH, UVW, AP, UCS, PL and
of typical LAVs for different rock types that may or may TS.
not be used in road construction. Although previous studies indicate a good relationship
Although the Los Angeles abrasion test is relatively sim- between the rock properties and the LAV, this study differs
ple, if the whole procedure for a single sample is considered in that it identifies an alternate method that is simpler and
from start to finish, including the preparation of the mate- more acceptable.
rials, grading, testing and mass determination, in total, it
can take up to 37 h to obtain the LAV. A summary of 1.4. Objective
the duration of each task involved in obtaining the LAV
is provided in Table 3. The objective of this study was to examine the possibil-
ity of utilising the modified compaction method instead of
1.3. Previous works the LA abrasion method to determine the LAV of the
unbound granular materials used in road construction.
The LA abrasion test was originally developed in the This study was proposed in consideration of the similar-
1920s to provide a quantitative method for evaluating the ities in the treatment of materials by the LA abrasion test
quality of pavement materials (Prowell et al., 2005; and the modified compaction test. For instance, the inter-
Kahraman and Fener, 2007). Over time, as the LA abra- action of the materials with the steel spherical balls in the
sion test was incorporated into various global standards, LA abrasion test was thought to be quite similar to the
several attempts were made to investigate the relationship interaction of the materials with the compaction rammer
of the LAV to alternate methods. This was mainly due to used in the modified compaction test. Essentially, both of
the test procedure being time-consuming and requiring these tests achieved the same effect through the repetitive
more samples compared to other direct or indirect testing grinding and pounding of aggregates by a steel mechanism
methods (Kahraman and Toraman, 2008). (balls or compaction rammer) as well as that of the aggre-
In 1980, Kazi and Al-Mansour obtained a strong corre- gates against each other. Moreover, it was considered that
lation between the uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) the compaction method more closely simulated the abra-
and the LA abrasion loss from testing Saudi Arabian sion resistance of the base and sub-base aggregates in road
aggregates (Volcanic and Plutonic) near the city of Jeddah. pavements that experience repetitive dynamic loads.
More recently, Kahraman and Toraman (2008) investi-
gated the use of the crushability index of aggregates to 2. Experimental works
identify the LAV using a jaw crusher machine. They were
able to obtain significant correlations for both single and 2.1. Materials
multiple regression analyses from the LA abrasion tests,
namely, crushability, porosity and density tests. The materials obtained for the experiments were sourced
One of the most recent studies associated with obtaining from the Boral Quarry in Deer Park, Kilmore Quarry, Alex
the LAV from alternate methods was conducted by Ozcelik Fraser Group, Australian Slag Association, and from other
(2011). The study provided a correlation between the phys- local quarries in Geelong and Frankston. The reason for
procuring materials from various sites was to provide an
experimental analysis of a wide range of granular materials
Table 3
Approximate task durations for LA test (Standards Australia, 2009; of differing sizes, classes and rock types, in recognition of
Interactive 2011). the fact that not all roads are constructed of the same mate-
Main activities Duration (h) rials. A total of nineteen different samples were collected, as
described in Table 4. Furthermore, the typical values for
Select test grade and wash sample 0.3–0.5
Oven dry washed sample 15–16 the physical and mechanical properties of the blast furnace
Cool oven-dried sample 1–4 slag, steel furnace slag and electric arc furnace slag used in
Test with LA machine 0.25–0.5 this study are provided in Table 5.
Sieve and wash tested sample 0.5 In order to perform the LA abrasion test at various test
Oven dry washed sample 15–16 grades and the modified compaction test with a single
Cool oven-dried sample 1–4
mould type, the maximum size of the required aggregate
 A. Mohajerani et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 840–848 843

Table 4
Experimental material samples.
Sample No. Material Source
a
S-1 20 mm class 1 basalt crushed rock Alex Fraser Group in Clayton
S-2 20 mm class 2a basalt crushed rock Alex Fraser Group in Clayton
S-3 10 mm class 2a basalt crushed rock Alex Fraser Group in Clayton
S-4 20 mm class 3a basalt crushed rock Alex Fraser Group in Clayton
S-5 20 mm class 4a basalt crushed rock Alex Fraser Group in Clayton
S-6 20 mm reclaimed asphalt pavement Alex Fraser Group in Clayton
S-7 14 mm basalt aggregate Kilmore Quarry
S-8 10 mm basalt aggregate Kilmore Quarry
S-9 7 mm basalt aggregate Kilmore Quarry
S-10 20 mm river pebble Local quarry in Frankston
S-11 14 mm crushed river aggregate Local quarry in Geelong
S-12 7 mm crushed river aggregate Local quarry in Geelong
S-13 20 mm granite rock Local quarry in Frankston
S-14 14 mm air-cooled blast furnace slagb Australian Slag Association
S-15 14 mm steel furnace slagb Australian Slag Association
S-16 Electric arc furnace slagb Australian Slag Association
S-17 20 mm crushed rock aggregate Boral Quarry in Deer Park
S-18 14 mm crushed rock aggregate Boral Quarry in Deer Park
S-19 7 mm crushed rock aggregate Boral Quarry in Deer Park
a
According to VicRoads (2013), crushed rock aggregates are categorised into four classes, with classes 1 and 2 being base course materials and classes 3
and 4 being sub-base materials. The categorisation is based on several parameters, including the material grading, liquid limit, plasticity index, California
Bearing Ratio, flakiness index, permeability and LAV limits.
b
Slag is an industrial by-product coming from the manufacture of iron and steel. In the production of steel, iron ore is fed into a blast furnace. After this
process, molten iron metal and molten slag are produced. Molten slag is then separated from the molten metal and is commonly called blast furnace slag.
Molten iron is then processed further to produce steel. One of the common methods for this process is the electric arc furnace method. At the end of this
procedure, the steel and the slag (steel furnace slag and electric arc furnace slag) are separated.

Table 5
Typical values for physical and mechanical properties of blast furnace slag, steel furnace slag and electric arc furnace slag.
Physical properties Blast furnace slag Steel furnace slag Electric arc furnace slag Test method
Bulk density (t/m3) 1.2 1.7 1.7 AS 1141.4
Particle dry density (kg/m3) 2450–2550 3300–3400 3300 AS 1141.5
Dry strength (kN) 85–100 275 250 AS 1141.22
Wet strength (kN) 65–90 230–300 240–300 AS 1141.22
Wet/Dry variation (%) 10–20 5–20 5–15 AS 1141.22
Water absorption (%) 4–7 1–2 (coarse) 1–2 (coarse) AS 1141.5
2–4 (fine) 2–4 (fine) AS 1141.6
Polish aggregate friction value (PAFV) 50 58–63 58–63 AS 1141.41
AS 1141.42
Sodium sulfate soundness (%) <1 <4 <4 AS 1141.24

was 19 mm. For this reason, particles larger than 19 mm
were excluded from the 20-mm-aggregate samples in
Table 4.
2.2. Los Angeles abrasion method
Although various methods and standards are available
for obtaining the LAV of unbound granular materials, this
experiment undertook testing in accordance with
AS1141.23 (2009).
As part of the process, the material samples were pre-
pared according to four different testing grades, as sum-
marised in Table 6.
2.3. Modified compaction method
The soil compaction procedure was originally developed
by Ralph Roscoe Proctor from 1930-33 to determine the
maximum dry unit weight of soil (Proctor, 1948; Budhu,
2010). During the 1930s, he implemented mechanical
strength tests during the construction of an earth dam
using methods similar to what later became ASTM
D1558-10 (Proctor, 1945).
Since its development, the Proctor method has become
the most widely used compaction method in the study of
the unbound granular materials used in road construction
(Cerni and Camilli, 2011).
Generally speaking, various standards can be used to
perform a compaction test, including AS 1289.5.1.1, AS
1289.5.2.1, ASTM D698 and BSI 1377-4. In Australia,
two types of compaction methods are available – standard
compaction (AS 1289.5.1.1) and modified or heavy com-
paction (AS 1289.5.2.1). Although both tests are quite sim-
ilar in procedure, more commonly the standard
compaction method is used for fine-grained materials and
the modified compaction method is used for coarse-
844 A. Mohajerani et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 840–848

Table 6
Selected test grades.
Sample Testing Material size Mass of unwashed Desired mass of washed Total mass of test Number of Total mass of steel
No. grade (mm) fraction (g) fraction (g) sample (g) steel balls balls (g)
S-1 Ba 19.0 to 13.2 2600 ± 50 2500 5000 ± 10 11 4584 ± 25
13.2 to 9.5 2600 ± 50 2500
S-2 Ba 19.0 to 13.2 2600 ± 50 2500 5000 ± 10 11 4584 ± 25
13.2 to 9.5 2600 ± 50 2500
S-3 K 9.5 to 4.75 5100 ± 50 5000 5000 ± 10 7 2915 ± 20
S-4 B 19.0 to 13.2 2600 ± 50 2500 5000 ± 10 11 4584 ± 25
13.2 to 9.5 2600 ± 50 2500
S-5 Ba 19.0 to 13.2 2600 ± 50 2500 5000 ± 10 11 4584 ± 25
13.2 to 9.5 2600 ± 50 2500
S-6 Ba 19.0 to 13.2 2600 ± 50 2500 5000 ± 10 11 4584 ± 25
13.2 to 9.5 2600 ± 50 2500
S-7 H 19.0 to 13.2 5100 ± 50 5000 5000 ± 10 12 5000 ± 25
S-8 J 13.2 to 9.5 5100 ± 50 5000 5000 ± 10 10 4165 ± 25
S-9 K 9.5 to 4.75 5100 ± 50 5000 5000 ± 10 7 2915 ± 20
S-10 H 19.0 to 13.2 5100 ± 50 5000 5000 ± 10 12 5000 ± 25
S-11 H 19.0 to 13.2 5100 ± 50 5000 5000 ± 10 12 5000 ± 25
S-12 K 9.5 to 4.75 5100 ± 50 5000 5000 ± 10 7 2915 ± 20
S-13 H 19.0 to 13.2 5100 ± 50 5000 5000 ± 10 12 5000 ± 25
S-14 K 9.5 to 4.75 5100 ± 50 5000 5000 ± 10 7 2915 ± 20
S-15 K 9.5 to 4.75 5100 ± 50 5000 5000 ± 10 7 2915 ± 20
S-16 Ba 19.0 to 13.2 2600 ± 50 2500 5000 ± 10 11 4584 ± 25
13.2 to 9.5 2600 ± 50 2500
S-17 H 19.0 to 13.2 5100 ± 50 5000 5000 ± 10 12 5000 ± 25
S-18 J 13.2 to 9.5 5100 ± 50 5000 5000 ± 10 10 4165 ± 25
S-19 K 9.5 to 4.75 5100 ± 50 5000 5000 ± 10 7 2915 ± 20
a
The material used for testing grade B consisted of 50% by mass of 19.0 to 13.2 mm, and 50% by mass of 13.2 mm to 9.5 mm.

grained materials. Given that the experimental materials
being investigated are granular materials, the modified
compaction method was adopted.
In considering the large amount of testing required of
the experimental samples, as well as the manpower and
testing time needed, an automatic compaction machine
was used in this experiment as part of the modified com-
paction method.
The compaction machine (Fig. 2) incorporates the use of
two different steel rammers, 2.7 kg or 4.9 kg, depending on
the standard followed (Standards Australia, 2003b, 2003a).
In this case, the 4.9-kg compaction rammer was used in
accordance with AS 1289.5.2.1. Further to the require-
ments of the standard, the machine’s blow counter was
set up for 25 blows and the samples were compacted in five
layers.
According to AS (2003a), the compaction test also
requires the selection of the type of mould, which depends
on the size of the materials. Given that the maximum nom-
inal size for all the samples was 19 mm, cylindrical mould
type A (Fig. 3) was selected with a diameter of 105 mm,
an effective height of 115.5 mm and a nominal volume of
1000 cm3.
The procedure for determining the LAV with the mod-
ified compactor was implemented in the same manner as
the LA abrasion procedure in accordance with AS
1141.23 (2009). The only difference in the methodology
was the use of the modified compactor instead of the LA
abrasion machine. The preparation of materials, the siev-
ing process, the weighing and the oven drying were identi-
cal, except that, rather than performing the test using the
LA abrasion machine, the materials were placed inside
the mould of the compaction machine, and the modified
compaction test was performed. The remaining steps after
the compaction test continued unchanged. The values
determined from these experiments were named the Com-
paction Abrasion Values (CAVs).
The compaction test that was performed as part of the
experimental procedure was no different from the normal
routine for a compaction test other than that the materials
were dry instead of wet with different moisture contents.
The procedure used to obtain the CAV is described in
the Appendix A.
3. Results and discussion
A summary of the results obtained from the Los Angeles
abrasion and modified compaction tests is provided in
Table 7. The values for each sample were averaged from
the two replicated tests.
It can be seen from the results that sample 10 has the
highest LAV of 42 and that sample 15 has the lowest
LAV of 12. In comparison, sample 14 has the largest
CAV of 22 and sample 7 has the smallest CAV of 5.
It can also be observed that the variation in LAVs is not
significant for samples S-7, S-8, S-9, S-17, S-18 and S-19,
which have the same set of aggregates, but different sizes.
This indicates that the LAV is more dependent on the
material properties than on the nominal particle size. This
is further supported by observing aggregates of the same
 A. Mohajerani et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 840–848 845

Table 7
Summary of Los Angeles Abrasion Value (LAV) and Compaction
Abrasion Value (CAV) for all samples.
Sample No. Material LAV CAV
S-1 20 mm class 1 basalt crushed rock 14 5
S-2 20 mm class 2 basalt crushed rock 14 6
S-3 10 mm class 2 basalt crushed rock 15 9
S-4 20 mm class 3 basalt crushed rock 34 20
S-5 20 mm class 4 basalt crushed rock 36 21
S-6 20 mm reclaimed asphalt pavement 29 13
S-7 14 mm basalt aggregate 15 5
S-8 10 mm basalt aggregate 13 6
S-9 7 mm basalt aggregate 14 10
S-10 20 mm river pebble 42 15
S-11 14 mm crushed river aggregate 23 7
S-12 7 mm crushed river aggregate 17 10
S-13 20 mm granite rock 25 8
S-14 14 mm air-cooled blast furnace slag 36 22
S-15 14 mm steel furnace slag 12 6
S-16 Electric arc furnace slag 20 7
S-17 20 mm crushed rock aggregate 19 6
S-18 14 mm crushed rock aggregate 18 7
S-19 7 mm crushed rock aggregate 20 10

This is because the material properties between these

classes are relatively similar.
In looking at samples S-1, S-5, S-6, S-10, S-13 and S-17,
which have the same 20-mm-aggregate size but different
material properties, there is a significant difference in the
CAV. However, for the 7-mm-aggregate samples (S-9, S-
12 and S-19) that also have different material properties,
the CAV is the same. This implies that the variation in
CAVs not only depends on the nominal particle size, but
also on the material properties.
Before examining the relationship between LAVs and
CAVs, it is noted that the tested materials were classified
with different testing grades in accordance with AS
1141.23-2009. Table 8 presents the LAVs and CAVs for
all the samples in their respective testing grades.
Fig. 2. Automatic compaction machine with modified compaction
hammer. Table 8
LAV and CAV data according to testing grade.
Testing grade Sample No. LAV CAV
B S-1 14 5
B S-2 14 6
B S-4 34 20
B S-5 36 21
B S-6 29 13
B S-16 20 7
H S-7 15 5
H S-10 42 15
H S-11 23 7
H S-13 25 8
H S-17 19 6
J S-8 13 6
J S-18 18 7
Fig. 3. Cylindrical mould type A.
K S-3 15 9
K S-9 14 10
size from S-1, S-2, S-4 and S-5, where the difference in K S-12 17 10
classes (material properties) yields varying LAVs. How- K S-14 36 22
ever, it can be seen that similar values for aggregates exist K S-15 12 6
K S-19 20 10
between classes 1 and 2, and also between classes 3 and 4.
846 A. Mohajerani et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 840–848

Table 9
Correlations between LAV and CAV.
Testing grade Relationship R2
B LAV = 1.881 (CAV) . . .(1) 0.88
H LAV = 2.957 (CAV) . . .(2) 0.98
J LAV = 2.400 (CAV) . . .(3) 0.98
K LAV = 1.675 (CAV) . . .(4) 0.97
* ity of utilising the modified compaction method as an alter-
STEXY: standard error of the predicted LAV for each CAV in the
regression.
For each group of testing grades, the relationship
between the LAV and the CAV was investigated. The rela-
tionships and coefficient of determination (R2) values are
presented in Table 9 and illustrated in Fig. 4.
It can be observed from Table 9 and Fig. 4 that the R2
values for all the grade types are very high, and that three
of them are close to one. The R2 value for testing grades H
and J is 0.98, for K is 0.97 and for B is 0.88. Furthermore,
the standard error in the predicted LAV for each CAV
(STEXY) in the regression is shown in Table 9. These val-
ues indicate that a strong correlation exists between LAVs
and CAVs with low standard error values.
Although a strong correlation exists for testing grade J,
only two samples were analysed for this grade; therefore,
additional tests are required to ensure that the correlation
is accurate. Nevertheless, considering that all the other
grades displayed strong correlations, it is expected that
after further testing a strong correlation would be main-
tained for this grade.
It is important to note that the correlations between the
LAV and the CAV for all the experimental materials com-
bined would not yield scientifically accurate results. This is
due to the material samples being tested for different
grades, which means they were under different testing con-
ditions (e.g., a different number of steel balls for the LAV
test, as shown in Table 6).
STEXY*
3.6 4. Conclusions
1.59
1.83
2.06
The objective of this study was to investigate the possibil-
native to the LA abrasion method to determine the LAV of
the unbound granular materials used in road construction.
The motive behind the study was that the LA abrasion
test and the modified compaction test utilise similar treat-
ments of the aggregates, namely, grinding and pounding
by means of steel spherical balls and a compaction rammer,
respectively. Additionally, it was considered that the mod-
ified compaction method more closely simulated the abra-
sion resistance of the base and sub-base aggregates in
pavements that experience repetitive dynamic loads.
A total of nineteen different types of unbound granular
materials were collected from various parts of Victoria,
Australia. These materials were then used to perform the
LA abrasion method and the proposed modified com-
paction method. The values obtained from the modified
compaction method were labelled Compaction Abrasion
Values (CAVs).
The results of the experiments indicated that strong cor-
relations exist between the LAV and the CAV. Three out of
the four testing grades (K, H and J) had a coefficient of
determination (R2) equal to or greater than 0.97 with the
other testing grade (B) having an R2 value of 0.88.
In conclusion, despite having used aggregates from
rocks of different types and sizes, and with varying charac-
teristics, a strong correlation was found between the LAVs
and CAVs within their respective testing grades. Hence, the
utilisation of the modified compaction method as an alter-
native to the LA abrasion method was justified. It should

Testing Grade B Testing Grade H

50 50
40 40
30
LAV

30
LAV

20 LAV = 1.881 (CAV) 20

LAV = 2.957 (CAV)
10 R² = 0.88 10 R² = 0.98
0 0
0 10 20 30 0 5 10 15
CAV CAV

Testing Grade J Testing Grade K

20 40

15 30
LAV
LAV

10 20
LAV = 2.400 (CAV) LAV = 1.675 (CAV)
5 10
R² = 0.98 R² = 0.97
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 5 10 15 20 25
CAV CAV

Fig. 4. LAV vs. CAV for each testing grade.

 A. Mohajerani et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 840–848
be noted that the proposed relationship was developed
based on the Australian modified compaction method
(AS 1289.5.2.1-2003) with the total compaction energy of
2703 kJ/m3. Any changes in this compaction energy, for
example, a change in the number of blows or the hammer
mass, could invalidate the proposed correlations and the
new method.
5. Proposal
Based on the findings of this study, it is proposed that
instead of performing the LA abrasion method to deter-
mine the abrasion characteristics of unbound granular
materials, the modified compaction method be imple-
mented. This new CA method can be used internationally
to determine the abrasion resistance index (CAV) of natu-
ral and crushed rock aggregates used in unbound and
bound pavement materials, and in different types of con-
crete, as well as for the classification of aggregates and
source rocks used for the production of aggregates. As dis-
cussed earlier, the CAV can be easily converted to the
LAV, if required.
The modified compaction method requires less space,
is safer in operational use, causes less operational noise
and dust and is more efficient in terms of the running
and purchase costs of the machine. More importantly,
this novel proposal is simple, practical and convenient,
especially considering that the compaction machine
and/or the modified compaction hammer and mould
for manual testing are widely available in geotechnical
laboratories.
Over time, the replacement of the LAV by the CAV in
project specifications is anticipated. However, further
research and an investigation into the different materials
collected from various locations around the world are
required to confirm the correlations developed in this study
847
as well as to create universally acceptable models for differ-
ent grades of aggregates.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks are owed to the Boral Quarry in Deer
Park, Alex Fraser Group, and the Australian Slag Associ-
ation for their contribution of materials.
Appendix A
The procedure used to obtain the Compaction Abrasion
Value:
1. The testing grade of the material was selected accord-
ing to Tables 1–3 of Australian Standard AS 1141.23
(2009) and the nominal particle size of the testing
material. The standard grades are summarised in
Table 6 of this paper.
2. The experimental material was then washed through a
1.70 mm sieve, and a washed dry sample from the mate-
rial retained on 1.70 mm sieve (2500 ± 10 g (mT)) was
obtained.
The washed sample was compacted in a standard mould
using the procedure for modified/heavy compaction
according to AS 1289.5.2.1 (2003), as discussed in Sec-
tion 2.3 of this paper.
3. The compacted sample was then removed from the
mould and washed through a 1.70 mm sieve. The mate-
rial retained on the 1.70 mm sieve was then washed and
oven dried at 105 °C for a minimum 16 h. The dry mass
was recorded as mW, and the compaction abrasion value
was then calculated as seen below:
848 A. Mohajerani et al. / Soils and Foundations 57 (2017) 840–848

ðmT  mW Þ
100 Proctor, R.R., 1945. Proctor on military airfield. Trans. Am. Soc. Civ.
CAV ¼ Eng. (ASCE) 110, 799–809.
mT
Proctor, R.R., 1948. Laboratory soil compaction methods, penetration
where: CAV = Compaction Abrasion Value resistance measurements, and the indicated saturated penetration
mT = initial total mass of the tested sample resistance. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 5, pp. 242-247.
mW = final dry mass of the tested sample after com-
Prowell, B.D., Zhang, J., Brown, E.R., 2005. Aggregate properties and the
paction (retained on 1.70-mm sieve) performance of superpave-designed hot mix asphalt (No. 539).
Transportation Research Board.
Roads Corporation (Victoria), 1998. Guide to General Requirements for
References Unbound Pavement Materials. Technical Bulletin 39, VicRoads,
Melbourne.
Saudi Arabian Standards Organisation SASO 279, 1982. Methods of Test
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
for Concrete Aggregate – Part 5: Determination of Coarse Aggregate
AASHTO T 96, 2002. Standard Method of Test for Resistance to
Resistance to Abrasion by Los Angeles Machine.
Degradation of Small-size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact
AENOR UNE-EN, Spanish Association for Standardization and Certi-
in the Los Angeles Machine.
fication 1097-1, 2011. Tests for Mechanical and Physical Properties of
American Society for Testing and Materials ASTM D6928, 2010.
Aggregates – Part 1: Determination of the Resistance to Wear (Micro-
Standard test Method for Resistance of Coarse Aggregate to Degra-
Deval).
dation by Abrasion in the Micro-deval Apparatus.
AS, Standards Australia 1141.42, 1984. Methods for Sampling and
ASTM D698, American Society for Testing and Materials, 2012. Standard
Testing Aggregates – Pendulum Friction Test (PAFV).
Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil
AS, Standards Australia 1141.6, 1996. Methods for Sampling and Testing
using Standard Effort.
Aggregates – Particle Density and Water Absorption of Coarse
Austroads, 2008. Guide to pavement technology part 4L: aggregate and
Aggregate.
source rock. Austroads Incorporated, Australia.
AS, Standards Australia 1141.21, 1997. Methods for Sampling and
BSI, British Standards Institution BS 1377-4, 1990a. Methods of Test for
Testing Aggregates – Aggregate Crushing Value.
Soils for Civil Engineering Purposes.
AS, Standards Australia 1141.41, 1999. Methods for Sampling and
BSI, British Standards Institution BS 812-110, 1990b. Testing aggregates -
Testing Aggregates – Polished Aggregate Friction Value – Horizontal
Part 110: Methods for determination of aggregate crushing value
Bed Machine.
(ACV).
AS, Standards Australia 1141.4, 2000. Methods for Sampling and Testing
BSI, British Standards Institution BS 812-112, 1990c. Testing aggregates –
Aggregates - Bulk Density of Aggregate.
Part 112: Methods for determination of aggregate impact value (AIV).
AS, Standards Australia 1141.5, 2000. Methods for Sampling and Testing
Budhu, M., 2010. Soil Mechanics and Foundations, third ed. John Wiley
Aggregates – Particle Density and Water Absorption of Fine
& Sons Inc., United States of America.
Aggregate.
Cerni, G., Camilli, S., 2011. Comparative analysis of gyratory and proctor
AS, Standards Australia 1289.5.2.1, 2003a. Methods of testing soils for
compaction processes of unbound granular materials. Road Mater.
engineering purposes - Soil compaction and density tests - Determi-
Pavement Des. 12 (2), 397–421.
nation of the dry density or moisture content relation of a soil using
Interactive, 2011. Los Angeles Abrasion. <http://www.pavementinterac-
modified compactive effort.
tive.org/article/los-angeles-abrasion>.
AS, Standards Australia 1289.5.1.1, 2003b. Methods of testing soils for
Japanese Standard Association JSA JIS A 1121, 2007. Method of Test for
engineering purposes - Soil compaction and density tests – Determi-
Resistance to Abrasion of Coarse Aggregate by Use of the Los Angeles
nation of the dry density/moisture content relation of a soil using
Machine.
standard compactive effort.
Kahraman, S., Fener, M., 2007. Predicting the Los Angeles abrasion loss
AS, Standards Australia 1141.22, 2008. Methods for Sampling and
of rock aggregates from the uniaxial compressive strength. Mater.
Testing Aggregates – Wet/dry Strength Variation.
Lett. 61 (26), 4861–4865.
AS, Standards Australia 1141.23, 2009. Methods for sampling and testing
Kahraman, S., Toraman, O.Y., 2008. Predicting Los Angeles abrasion loss
aggregates – Method 23: Los Angeles value.
of rock aggregates from crushability index. Bull. Mater. Sci. 31 (2),
AS, Standards Australia AS 1141.24, 2013. Methods for Sampling and
173–177.
Testing Aggregates - Aggregate Soundness - Evaluation by Exposure
Kahraman, S., Fener, M., Gunaydin, O., 2010. Estimating the Abrasion
to Sodium Sulphate Solution.
Resistance of Rock Aggregates from the P-wave Velocity. The 1st
AS, Standards Australia 1141.28, 2014. Methods for sampling and testing
International Applied Geological Congress, Department of Geology,
aggregates.
Mashad, Iran.
Ugur, I., Demirdag, S., Yavuz, H., 2010. Effect of rock properties on the
Kazi, A., Al-Mansour, Z.R., 1980. Influence of geological factors on
Los Angeles abrasion and impact test characteristics of the aggregates.
abrasion and soundness characteristics of aggregates. Eng. Geol. 15
Mater. Charact. 61 (1), 90–96.
(3–4), 195–203.
VicRoads, 2013. Standard Sections - 800 Series – Materials, Section 812 –
Meininger, R., 2004. Micro-Deval vs. L. A. Abrasion. Rock Products 107
Crushed Rock for Pavement Base and Subbase, Melbourne, pp. 2–5.
(4), 33–35.
Wu, Y., Parker, F., Kandhal, P.S., 1998. Aggregate toughness/abrasion
National Association of Australian State Road Authorities, 1976.
resistance and durability/soundness tests related to asphalt concrete
Pavement Materials, Part 3 - Crushed Rock. Australia.
performance in pavements, pp. 85–93.
Ozcelik, Y., 2011. Predicting Los Angeles abrasion of rocks from some
physical and mechanical properties. Sci. Res. Essays 6 (7), 1612–1619.