Abrasiveness Vs Abrasivity

sustainability
Review
Application of Rock Abrasiveness and Rock Abrasivity Test
Methods—A Review
Kamil Mucha
Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics, AGH University of Science and Technology, al. Mickiewicza 30,
30-059 Krakow, Poland; [email protected]
Abstract: The processes of rock formation have long been known and widely described in many
literature items worldwide. Due to the multitude of occurring rock types, they are distinguished
by various properties. For many decades, scientists worldwide have been determining various
parameters by which these properties of rocks can be described. Tests of these parameters are
commonly performed in many research centres worldwide. Depending on the scientific discipline,
some researchers focus on geological properties (colour, structure, texture, chemical composition).
Other researchers focus on physical and mechanical properties: hardness, density, strength properties,
compactness, etc. Among them, abrasiveness and abrasivity can also be distinguished. In terms
of nomenclature, they are very similar and often confused. Even within the academic community,
researchers often use the names interchangeably, which needs to be corrected. This article aims
to explain the difference between rock abrasiveness and rock abrasivity, classify methods for their
assessment and present their practical applications in the mining and construction industry. It should
be emphasized here that abrasiveness is determined when we are interested in the abrasive wear of
natural stone and abrasivity when we are interested in the wear of the tool with which we cut the
stone. The purpose of this article is also to let the reader decide whether to carry out an abrasiveness
or abrasivity test and which method to use.
Keywords: rock properties; rock abrasiveness; rock abrasivity; abrasive wear
Citation: Mucha, K. Application of

1. Introduction
Rock Abrasiveness and Rock
Abrasivity Test Methods—A Review.
Rocks are characterised by various properties resulting from their structure. It later
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11243. has a direct impact on the processes related to the destruction of their cohesion in order to
https://doi.org/10.3390/ obtain a product (output) irregular (energy raw materials, but also gravels, sands, clays,
su151411243 aggregates, hardcore, etc.) or regular (paving stones, kerbs, slabs, decorative materials,
etc.) [1–3].
Academic Editor: Jianjun Ma
Rocks have anisotropic properties due to their discontinuity in the geometric sense
Received: 23 June 2023 (grain size, stratification, fractures, etc.) and the physical sense (variable properties in
Revised: 12 July 2023 different directions). Therefore, describing their properties with only one parameter is
Accepted: 17 July 2023 not very accurate and, in many cases, even impossible. Hence, several or over a dozen
Published: 19 July 2023 parameters describing their properties are used to characterise rocks.
The procedure for determining the properties of a given rock begins with very pre-
liminary tests, i.e., organoleptic tests (macroscopic analysis). On this basis, it is possible
to determine properties such as colour, lustre, structure, texture, streak or transparency.
Copyright: © 2023 by the author.
Then, it is possible to proceed to the microscopic analysis. After preparing the appropri-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
ate preparations, it is possible to perform, among other things, a detailed analysis of the
This article is an open access article
mineral composition, determine the grain size or colour of individual minerals (using a
distributed under the terms and
polarizing or scanning microscope) and even the exact chemical composition (e.g., using a
conditions of the Creative Commons
spectrometer) [4,5].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
Physical and chemical properties are also used to characterize rocks. They consti-
4.0/).
tute an extensive range of properties, including hardness (Mosh scale), cleavage, density,
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11243. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411243 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 11243 2 of 21
porosity, water absorption, fire resistance, low-temperature resistance, permeability, heat

conductivity, electric conductance, magneticity and many more [6–9].
Among the physical properties, the so-called mechanical properties can be distin-
guished. The largest group are strength properties, where compressive strength (USC),
tensile strength (BTS) and bending or shear strength are determined. In addition, the
mechanical properties include workability [10], compactness (point load compression by
Protodiakonov [11]) and abrasive properties [12]. Regarding the abrasive properties of
rocks, there are two very similar concepts—rock abrasiveness and rock abrasivity.
ABRASIVENESS is defined in different ways. In the case of natural and artificial
materials, their susceptibility to abrasive wear is defined by abrasiveness. It can be said
that the abrasiveness is responsible for the extent to which the rock will be “worn out”
during the impact of the abrasive material on it.
In contrast with abrasiveness, ABRASIVITY describes the ability of rocks (minerals)
to wear (frictionally) the surface of solid materials, primarily metal but not only. Such
contact occurs during rock mining (digging tools, excavator buckets), drilling holes (drilling
tools), loading (loader buckets) or its transport for short-distances (flight-bar conveyors,
tractor-scrapers, dozers) and long-distances (haul truck’s boxes). Abrasivity is responsible
for how much the element in contact with it wears out.
The definitions of rock abrasiveness and rock abrasivity are similar and, therefore,
very often need clarification. Even within the academic community, researchers often use
the names interchangeably, which needs to be corrected. Various methods determine the
parameters defining them and at various test stands, the following article presents the
methods of their determination and practical application in the construction industry and
various other industries.
2. Rock Abrasiveness Test Methods

Among the rock abrasiveness test methods, Böhme, wide wheel, Amsler and micro-
Deval are currently four commonly used methods.
2.1. Böhme Abrasion Test

The most common method of assessing rock abrasiveness is the Böhme abrasion test
(BA) [13,14]. The test consists of placing the rock sample on the test track of the rotating disk,
on which a standard abrasive is poured. The disc is rotated and the samples are pressed at
approximately 294 N for several cycles. Artificial corundum is used as the standard abrasive
material. At least six samples are required for the test: cubes of approximately 71 mm on
an edge or cuboids with a square base of approximately 71 mm on each side. The front
contact surface must be smooth and flat. Samples must be clean and dry. Before testing,
the bulk density of the sample, ρb , is determined by measuring its sides and weighing it to
determine the initial mass, mi. Wet or water-saturated samples can also be tested using
this method. The device (Figure 1) consists of a rotating disc with a test track, a sample
holder and a counterweight. The disc has a diameter of 750 mm, is flat and horizontal and
should rotate at 30 rpm. In addition, the disc is equipped with a revolution counter and
a device that turns it off automatically after 22 revolutions. The test track is ring-shaped
with an internal diameter of 120 mm and an external diameter of 320 mm. The rotating
disc is cast iron and must be replaced as its surface wears out during testing. The sample
holder consists of a U-shaped frame of approx. 40 mm high, 5 mm distant from the test
track. The counterweight consists of a lever with two arms of different lengths, a weight
and a balance [13–15].
The test begins with pouring 20 g of abrasive onto the test track. Next, the sample in
the holder is fixed and, after setting the front surface on the track, it is axially loaded with a
force of about 294 N. The sample is subjected to 16 abrasion cycles, 22 turns each. After
each cycle, both the disc and the face of the sample are cleaned, the sample is turned 90◦ in
the same direction and 20 g of abrasive material is refilled into the apparatus. Before testing
and after every four cycles, the sample should be weighed. The result of the tests is the
each cycle, both the disc and the face of the sample are cleaned, the sample is turned 90°
in the same direction and 20 g of abrasive material is refilled into the apparatus. Before
testing and after every four cycles, the sample should be weighed. The result of the tests
is the calculation of wear due to abrasion after 16 cycles as the average decrease in the
volume of the sample ΔV, from Formula (1).
calculation of wear due to abrasion after 16 cycles as the average decrease in the volume of
the sample ∆V, from Formula (1). ∆𝑚
∆𝑉 = (1)
∆m𝜌
∆V = (1)
ρb
where: ΔV—sample volume loss after 16 cycles, mm ; Δm = (mi − mf)—sample mass loss
3
where:
after ∆V—sample
16 cycles, volume loss
g; ρb—sample bulkafter 16 cycles,
density, g/mm 3. 3 ; ∆m = (m − m )—sample mass loss
mm i f
after 16 cycles, g; ρb —sample bulk density, g/mm3 .
Figure
Figure1.1.Böhme
Böhme abrasion testdevice:
abrasion test device:1—counterweight,
1—counterweight, 2—test
2—test track,
track, 3—loading
3—loading weight,
weight, 4—sam-
4—sample
ple holder, 5—tested sample, 6—rotating disc [13,15].
holder, 5—tested sample, 6—rotating disc [13,15].
2.2.Wide
2.2. WideWheel
WheelAbrasion
Abrasion Test
Test
Thesecond
The second most
most popular
popular method
methodof ofassessing
assessingrock
rockabrasiveness
abrasiveness is the wide
is the widewheelwheel
abrasion test (WWA). According to the PN-EN 14157:2017 standard [13], this method is
abrasion test (WWA). According to the PN-EN 14157:2017 standard [13], this method is
considered a reference. It consists of wearing the upper surface of the sample with an
considered a reference. It consists of wearing the upper surface of the sample with an
abrasive material, which in the test is corundum (white alumina) with a grain size of 80. At
abrasive material, which in the test is corundum (white alumina) with a grain size of 80.
least six samples with dimensions of at least 100 × 70 mm are needed for the test. Samples
At least six
must be cleansamples with
and dry. Thedimensions
test surface of of at
theleast 100must
sample × 70 be
mm flatare
and needed
smooth. forImmediately
the test. Sam-
ples must
before thebe clean
test, the and
surfacedry.should
The test be surface
coveredof theasample
with dye that must be flatthe
facilitates and smooth. Im-
subsequent
mediately before the test,
measurement of the groove [15]. the surface should be covered with a dye that facilitates the sub-
sequent Themeasurement
WWA device of the groove
(Figure [15].of a wide abrasion wheel, a storage hopper with
2) consists
one The WWA
or two device
control valves(Figure 2) consists
to regulate of aofwide
the flow abrasion
abrasive wheel,
material, a storage
a flow guidance hopper
hopper, with
one or two control
a clamping trolley valves to regulate
with a sample holdertheand
flowa counterweight.
of abrasive material, a flow guidance
The diameter of the steel hop-
wheel
per, is 200 mmtrolley
a clamping and itswith
width a is 70 mm.
sample The clamping
holder trolley with theThe
and a counterweight. sample holderofisthe
diameter
steel wheel is 200 mm and its width is 70 mm. The clamping trolley with the sample The
mounted on bearings. A 14 kg counterweight forces its movement towards the wheel. holder
isstorage
mounted hopper is used toAsupply
on bearings. 14 kg abrasive material
counterweight to theitsflow
forces guidancetowards
movement hopper.the A flowwheel.
guidance
The storage hopper
hopper with
is aused
cylindrical
to supply or rectangular cross-section
abrasive material to thehas a slotted
flow guidance outlet about A
hopper.
45 mm long and 4 mm wide [15].
flow guidance hopper with a cylindrical or rectangular cross-section has a slotted outlet
During the test, the sample is fixed on the clamping trolley with a wedge to allow the
about 45 mm long and 4 mm wide [15].
abrasive to flow under it and is pressed against the wide abrasion wheel. The wheel makes
During the test, the sample is fixed on the clamping trolley with a wedge to allow the
75 revolutions in 60 s. The abrasive material is fed from the flow guidance hopper onto the
abrasive to flow under it and is pressed against the wide abrasion wheel. The wheel makes
wide wheel with a constant stream at a speed of 2.5 L/min. After 75 revolutions, the wheel
75and
revolutions
the abrasive in material
60 s. The abrasive
flow must be material
stopped.is The
fed result
from of thetheflow
testguidance hopper of
is the dimensions onto
the
the groove (Figure 3). The dimensions of the groove are measured with a digital calliperthe
wide wheel with a constant stream at a speed of 2.5 L/min. After 75 revolutions,
wheel andAthe
at points abrasive
and B, at thematerial
inner edge flowofmust be stopped.groove
the longitudinal The result of the test
boundaries is the
l1 and l2 . dimen-
The
sions of the groove
measurement 10 ± (Figure
1 mm from 3). The dimensions
the end of the(CD)
of the groove groove must arebemeasured
repeated to with a digital
calibrate
calliper at points
and obtain A and B,[13,15].
three readings at the inner edge of the longitudinal groove boundaries l1 and
l2. The measurement 10 ± 1 mm from the end of the groove (CD) must be repeated to
calibrate and obtain three readings [13,15].
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 22
Figure 2.
2.2.Wide
Wide wheel abrasion test device: 1—clamping trolley, 2—fixing screw,
screw,3—tested speci-
Figure
Figure
men, Widewheel
4—control valve,
abrasion
abrasiontest
wheel5—storage testdevice:
device:
hopper,
1—clamping
1—clamping
6—flow guidance
trolley,
trolley, 2—fixing
2—fixing
hopper, 7—widescrew,
3—tested
3—tested
abrasion
spec-
wheel,speci-
8—
imen,
men, 4—control
4—control valve, 5—storage
5—storagehopper,
hopper,6—flow
6—flowguidance
guidancehopper,
hopper, 7—wide
7—wide abrasion
abrasion wheel,
wheel, 8—
counterweight, 9—slot, 10—groove, 11—abrasive material flow, 12—abrasive material collector,
8—counterweight,
counterweight, 9—slot,10—groove,
9—slot, 10—groove,11—abrasive
11—abrasivematerial
material flow,
flow, 12—abrasive
12—abrasive material
materialcollector,
collector,
13—wedge [13,16].
13—wedge[13,16].
13—wedge [13,16].
Figure 3.
Figure Measurement of
3. Measurement of groove
groove geometry on the sample after the test [13].
Figure 3. Measurement of groove geometry on the sample after the test [13].
2.3. Amsler Abrasion Test
2.3. Amsler Abrasion Test
2.3. The
Amsler
thirdAbrasion
methodTest of determining rock abrasiveness is the Amsler test. The test begins
The third method of determining rock abrasiveness is the Amsler test. The test begins
with placing
The thirdthemethod
rock sample on the disc rock
of determining (Figure 4), where the
abrasiveness abrasive
is the Amslermaterial
test. Theis test
scattered.
begins
with placing the rock sample on the disc (Figure 4), where the abrasive material is scat-
Thewithdisc is then
placing therotated
rock sample and the onrock sample
the disc is worn
(Figure for several
4), where cycles.material
the abrasive The abrasive
is scat-
tered. The disc is then rotated and the rock sample is worn for several cycles. The abrasive
material
tered. Theis medium
disc is then silica sandand
rotated (0.2the
to rock
0.6 mm).sampleAtisleast
worn sixfor mm ×cycles.
60several 60 mmThe × abrasive
25 mm
material is medium silica sand (0.2 to 0.6 mm). At least six 60 mm × 60 mm × 25 mm sam-
samples
materialare is required
medium silicafor thesandtest (0.2
[13].to 0.6 mm). At least six 60 mm × 60 mm × 25 mm sam-
ples are required for the test [13].
plesThe
are testing
required machine
for the consists
test [13].of the following parts:
The testing machine consists of the following parts:
– The testing
horizontal machine
cast iron disc consists
rotatingof the
aroundfollowing parts:
a vertical axis (Figure 4, position 1);
‒– horizontal
rock castholder,
iron disc rotating around a vertical axis (Figure 4,disc
position
with 1);
‒ horizontal cast iron disc rotating around a verticalthe
sample which presses the sample to axisrotating
(Figure 4, position a1);
force of
‒ rock
335 N sample
and holder,
allows it which
to presses
rotate around the sample
its vertical to the
axis rotating
at a disc
rotationalwith
speed a force
of ofrpm
0.75 335
‒ rock sample holder, which presses the sample to the rotating disc with a force of 335
N and
(Figure allows it to rotate around its vertical axis at a rotational speed of 0.75 rpm
N and 4,allows
position 2);rotate around its vertical axis at a rotational speed of 0.75 rpm
it to
– (Figure
devices 4, position
(Figurefor feeding2);
4, position water,
2); drop by drop, and sand onto the rotating disc at 150 g/min
(Figure 4, position 3) [13].
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11243 ‒ devices for feeding water, drop by drop, and sand onto the rotating disc5at 150 g/min
of 21
(Figure 4, position 3) [13].
Before testing, the thickness of each sample is measured in the centre of each of the
fourBefore testing,
side faces. the thickness
After mountingofthe each sample to
samples is measured in the
holders, the centre
stand of each of
is started. Thethetest end
four side faces. After mounting the samples to holders, the stand is started. The test ends
when each sample has made a distance of 200 m. The rock samples are removed, washed
when each sample has made a distance of 200 m. The rock samples are removed, washed
withclean
with cleanwater
waterandand cleaned
cleaned with
with a cloth.
a cloth. The thickness
The final final thickness is measured
is measured as beforeasthe
before the
test. The result of the test is the wear of each sample and is calculated
test. The result of the test is the wear of each sample and is calculated as follows:as follows:
A l= lA − lB
A = lA − (2) (2
B
where: A—sample wear, mm; lA—average thickness of each sample before testing, mm
where: A—sample wear, mm; lA —average thickness of each sample before testing, mm;
lB—average thickness of each sample after testing, mm.
lB —average thickness of each sample after testing, mm.
Figure4.4.Amsler
Figure Amsler abrasion
abrasion testing
testing machine:
machine: 1—cast
1—cast iron 2—rock
iron disc, disc, 2—rock
samplesample holder, 3—device
holder, 3—device for for
feeding water [17].
feeding water [17].
2.4.
2.4.Micro-Deval
Micro-DevalAbrasion
AbrasionTestTest
The micro-Deval abrasion test is the last method to assess rock abrasiveness [18]. The
The micro-Deval abrasion test is the last method to assess rock abrasiveness [18]. The
test determines the percentage loss of the initial mass of the sample during its abrasion to
test determines
dimensions thethan
smaller percentage
1.6 mm. Thelossmicro-Deval
of the initialtesting
mass machine
of the sample
is shownduring its abrasion
in Figure 5. to
dimensions smaller than 1.6 mm. The micro-Deval testing machine
It consists of one to four drums, closed at one end, with an internal diameter of 200 mm. is shown in Figure 5
It consists
The drums, of one are
which to four drums,
arranged closed
on two at one
driving end,
shafts with an
rotating internal diameter
horizontally, are madeof of200 mm
The drums,
stainless steel which
and theirarewall
arranged
thicknessonistwo driving
at least 3 mm. shafts rotating
The inside horizontally,
of the drums mustare not made o
have unevenness
stainless duetheir
steel and to welds
wallorthickness
the method is of
at joining.
least 3 mm.The drums shouldofbethe
The inside closed
drumswithmust no
flat
havecovers, at least 8due
unevenness mmtothick,
welds andorathe
gasket,
methodensuring they are
of joining. water-
The drums andshould
dust-tight. A
be closed with
typical motor drives the drums with a power of about 1 kW and a constant
flat covers, at least 8 mm thick, and a gasket, ensuring they are water- and dust-tight. Aspeed of about
100 rpm. The motor stops when a certain number of revolutions is reached, which is set
typical motor drives the drums with a power of about 1 kW and a constant speed of abou
using a counter or other device equipped with an automatic device [18].
100 The
rpm.testThe motor stops when a certain number of revolutions is reached, which is se
is carried out on aggregate passing through a 14 mm sieve and remaining on
ausing
10 mm a sieve.
counter or other
A sample device
mass equipped
of at least with an
2 kg should automatic
be sieved device
through [18].
10, 11.2 and 14 mm
sieves to obtain a grain size of 10 to 11.2 mm and 11.2 to 14 mm. Then, each aggregate
sample should be washed separately and dried at 110 ± 5 ◦ C to constant mass. After
cooling to ambient temperature, both samples should be mixed to obtain a modified sample
with a 10 to 14 mm grain size. Two samples are needed for the test, each of 500 g in mass.
The abrasive material is steel balls with a diameter of 10 mm.
Figure 5. Micro-Deval
Figure5. Micro-Deval testing
testing machine
machine with
with four
four drums:
drums: 1—drums, 2—electric motor with reducer,
reducer,
3—driving
3—drivingshaft,
shaft,4—shaft
4—shaftfixing,
fixing,5—frame,
5—frame,6—flexible
6—flexiblecoupling
coupling[18].
[18].
Each sample
The test is placed
is carried out in
onaaggregate
separate drum.
passing Anthrough
amounta of 145000
mm gsieve
of steel
andballs is added
remaining on
to each drum. The drums are rotated at 100 rpm until 12,000 revolutions
a 10 mm sieve. A sample mass of at least 2 kg should be sieved through 10, 11.2 and are reached. After
14
the
mmtest, the to
sieves aggregate
obtain aisgrain
placed
sizeonofa10
1.6tomm
11.2sieve. Then,
mm and thetoaggregate
11.2 grainseach
14 mm. Then, remaining on
aggregate
the sieveshould
sample are carefully separated
be washed from and
separately the steel
driedballs,
at 110not
± 5losing
°C toany aggregate
constant mass.grains. The
After cool-
grains can be selected by hand and a magnet can remove the balls from
ing to ambient temperature, both samples should be mixed to obtain a modified sample the sieve. Finally, it
is necessary to record the mass, m, of grains remaining on the 1.6 mm sieve.
with a 10 to 14 mm grain size. Two samples are needed for the test, each of 500 g in mass. Each sample’s
micro-Deval
The abrasiveMDS factor
material is calculated
is steel balls with using Formulaof(3).
a diameter 10 mm.
Each sample is placed in a separate drum. 500An−m amount of 5000 g of steel balls is added
to each drum. The drums are rotatedM 100=rpm until 12,000 revolutions are reached. After
atDS (3)
5
the test, the aggregate is placed on a 1.6 mm sieve. Then, the aggregate grains remaining
on the m—mass
where: of dry aggregate
sieve are carefully remaining
separated from theon the balls,
steel 1.6 mmnotsieve, g. any aggregate grains.
losing
The mean value of the micro-Deval is calculated from
The grains can be selected by hand and a magnet can remove the balls the values obtained from
from the the
sieve.
two test samples.
Finally, The test
it is necessary tocan also the
record be performed
mass, m, of wet. Theyremaining
grains are carriedonoutthe
in 1.6
the mm
samesieve.
way,
only
Eachwater is added
sample’s to the drum.
micro-Deval MDSFor distinction,
factor the name
is calculated usingofFormula
the MDS(3).coefficient has been
changed to MDE and it is also calculated using Formula (3) [18].
500 − 𝑚
𝑀 = (3)
2.5. Summary 5
where:Them—mass
WWA test of is
dry aggregate remaining
straightforward on theThe
to perform. 1.6stand
mm sieve,
has ang.uncomplicated struc-
The mean value of the micro-Deval is calculated
ture. However, the test requires the preparation of abrasive material from the values obtained
with from the
the appropriate
two test
grain size,samples.
which is The
quitetest can also be performed
time-consuming wet. They are
and labour-intensive. carried out
In addition, the in theresult
test’s same
(the
way,measurement
only water isofadded
the linear dimensions
to the drum. Forofdistinction,
the groove)the may needoftothe
name be more
MDS precise.
coefficient
In thechanged
has been case of the
to BA
MDE test,
andtheitonly disadvantage
is also is the very
calculated using time-consuming
Formula (3) [18]. and labour-
intensive conduct of the test, which requires constant control by the person performing the
test. However, a definite advantage is that the test result is based on the measurement of
2.5. Summary
mass,The whichWWAcantest
be measured with much
is straightforward greater accuracy.
to perform. The stand In has
addition, the Böhme test,
an uncomplicated in
struc-
contrast to the WWA test, can also test wet or water-saturated samples.
ture. However, the test requires the preparation of abrasive material with the appropriate
grainThe result
size, of the
which Amsler
is quite test is also a linear
time-consuming measurement ofIn
and labour-intensive. the samples,the
addition, which
test’scan
re-
also be inaccurate, especially in the case of uneven sample wear.
sult (the measurement of the linear dimensions of the groove) may need to be more pre-
cise. Performing the micro-Deval test is also very time-consuming and labour-intensive.
This is Inmainly
the caserelated
of thetoBA the long
test, theand complicated
only disadvantage process
is theofvery
preparing samples with
time-consuming andthe
la-
appropriate grain size. Additionally, the aggregate during testing in drums is also worn by
bour-intensive conduct of the test, which requires constant control by the person perform-
crushing, not only abrasion. It should also be emphasized that the micro-Deval method is
ing the test. However, a definite advantage is that the test result is based on the measure-
applied to determine the abrasiveness of grained material, not the natural stone.
ment of mass, which can be measured with much greater accuracy. In addition, the Böhme
Some researchers also qualify the Los Angeles (LA) test to assess rock abrasiveness.
test, in contrast to the WWA test, can also test wet or water-saturated samples.
However, it should be emphasized here that this test is used to assess the fragmentation
The result of the Amsler test is also a linear measurement of the samples, which can
resistance of the aggregates [19,20], not abrasive wear. It is performed under the European
also be inaccurate, especially in the case of uneven sample wear.
standard EN 1097-2 [21].
Performing the micro-Deval test is also very time-consuming and labour-intensive.
This is mainly related to the long and complicated process of preparing samples with the
Sustainability 2023, 15,
Sustainability x FOR
2023, PEER REVIEW
15, 11243 77 of 22
of 21
3. Rock Abrasivity
appropriate grain size.Test Methods the aggregate during testing in drums is also worn
Additionally,
by crushing, not only abrasion.
Among the rock abrasivity It should also be Cerchar,
test methods, emphasized that the
Shimazek, micro-Deval
LCPC, method
SAT, RIAT, RSAI
is applied
and AGH to determine theseven
are currently abrasiveness
commonly of used
grained material, not the natural stone.
methods.
Some researchers also qualify the Los Angeles (LA) test to assess rock abrasiveness.
3.1. Cerchar
However, Scratch
it should beTest
emphasized here that this test is used to assess the fragmentation
The most commonly applied not
resistance of the aggregates [19,20], method is determining
abrasive wear. It isthe Cerchar abrasivity
performed under theindex (CAI)
European
value in the Cerchar
standard EN 1097-2 [21]. scratch test. The test was originally developed by the Laboratoire du
Centre d’Études et Recherches des Charbonnages (CERCHAR) de France for coal mining
applications
3. Rock Abrasivity(Cerchar
Test 1986)
Methods[22–25]. This test method is described by two French standards:
AFNOR NF P 94-430-1 (2000) [26] and ASTM D7625-10 (2010) [27]. It is widely used in
Amongand
research the rock abrasivity
practice. test methods,
The original Cerchar,
testing stand was Shimazek,
developed LCPC, SAT, RIAT,
at the Cerchar RSAI
Centre in
and1973.
AGHThen,
are currently seven commonly used methods.
in 1989, West [28,29] proposed a modified testing stand.
The test is carried out using a sharpened testing pin (Figure 6) with a conical tip angle
3.1. of
Cerchar
90◦ andScratch Test of 11 mm and a length of 60 mm. It should be made of 115CrV3 steel
a diameter
hardened
The most commonlyThe
to 55 HRC. pin is pressed
applied method against the rock sample’s
is determining the Cercharsurface under aindex
abrasivity load
(CAI)of 70 N, with
value in thewhich a groove
Cerchar 10 mm
scratch test.long
Theis test
drawn was(Figure 7). The
originally test is performed
developed by the La- on
the surface of a small piece of rock of natural roughness. The
boratoire du Centre d’Études et Recherches des Charbonnages (CERCHAR) de France for sample is mounted in the
coalvice [22]. The
mining test is repeated
applications (Cercharseveral
1986)times in different
[22–25]. This directions
test methodof the
is rock sample,
described byusing
two
a new testing pin each time in order to take into account the anisotropy phenomenon when
French standards: AFNOR NF P 94-430-1 (2000) [26] and ASTM D7625-10 (2010) [27]. It is
calculating the resultant diameter of the flattening testing pin in mm caused by friction
widely used in research and practice. The original testing stand was developed at the Cer-
with the surface of the sample [22–25].
char Centre in 1973. Then, in 1989, West [28,29] proposed a modified testing stand.
The CAI value is determined using the wear of the testing pin tip (flattening, rounding)
The
caused test
byisfriction
carriedwithout the
using a sharpened
sample (Figure 8), testing pin (Figure
measured using an6) optical
with a conical tip angle
microscope. The
of 90° and a diameter
flattening diameterof is 11 mm and
measured inafour
length of 60 mm.
positions, with It should
the testingbe
pinmade of 115CrV3
rotated steel
90◦ each time.
hardened
Hence,to the55measurement
HRC. The pin is pressed
is made at 0◦ , against
90◦ , 180◦the
and rock
270◦sample’s surface under
of the circumferences ofathe
load of
steel
70 N, with pin
testing which
tip. aThe
groove
CAI is10calculated
mm longusing is drawn (Figure
Equation 7). The test is performed on the
(4) [22–25].
surface of a small piece of rock of natural roughness. The sample is mounted in the vice
1
[22]. The test is repeated several times
CAIin =
different ∑d
10 · · directions
n
of the rock sample, using(4)a
new testing pin each time in order to take into account the anisotropy phenomenon when
n
calculating the resultant diameter of the flattening testing pin in mm caused by friction
where: n—number of measurements, d—the resultant diameter of the flattening testing pin,
withmm.
the surface of the sample [22–25].
Figure
Figure 6. Original
6. Original testing
testing stand
stand forfor
thethe Cerchar
Cerchar test
test [23].
[23].
Sustainability 2023, 15,
Sustainability2023, 15, 11243
x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 21
8 of 22
Figure 7. The Cerchar scratch test [23].
The CAI value is determined using the wear of the testing pin tip (flattening, round-
ing) caused by friction with the sample (Figure 8), measured using an optical microscope.
The flattening diameter is measured in four positions, with the testing pin rotated 90° each
time. Hence, the measurement is made at 0°, 90°, 180° and 270° of the circumferences of
Figure
Figure 7.7.The
the steel TheCerchar
testing pin scratch
Cerchar scratch
tip. Thetest [23].
test
CAI [23].
is calculated using Equation (4) [22–25].
The CAI value is determined using the wear of the testing pin tip (flattening, round-
ing) caused by friction with the sample (Figure 8), measured using an optical microscope.
The flattening diameter is measured in four positions, with the testing pin rotated 90° each
time. Hence, the measurement is made at 0°, 90°, 180° and 270° of the circumferences of
the steel testing pin tip. The CAI is calculated using Equation (4) [22–25].
The testing pin tip before performing the The testing pin tip after performing the
test test
Figure 8.
Figure 8. The
Themeasurement
measurementofofthe
thesteel
steeltesting pin
testing tip.
pin tip.
Based on many rock tests at the SMC (Sandvik Mining and Construction) petrography
1
laboratory
The testinginpin
Zeltweg, Austria,
tip before 𝐶𝐴𝐼the
= 10grades
abrasivity
performing ∙The∙ testing
𝑑 pin tipinafter
expressed CAIperforming
values were
thecreated.
(4)
𝑛
This classification istest
given in Table 1 [30]. test
where:8.n—number
Figure of measurements,
The measurement of the d—the resultant diameter of the flattening testing
Table 1. Mineral classification in steel
termstesting pin tip.
of abrasivity [23,30].
pin, mm.
Based onCAI
many rock tests at the SMCRock(Sandvik Mining and Construction)
Abrasivity petrogra-
FSCHIM Index
phy laboratory in Zeltweg, Austria,𝐶𝐴𝐼 abrasivity 1
grades expressed in CAI values were cre-
4.50 ≤ CAI = 10 ∙ abrasive
extremely ∙ 𝑑 3.50 ≤ F (4)
ated. This classification is given in Table 1 [30]. 𝑛
3.0 ≤ CAI < 4.5 highly abrasive 1.00 ≤ F < 3.50
2.3 ≤ CAI <of
where: n—number 3.0measurements, d—thevery abrasive
resultant diameter of the0.50 ≤ F < 1.00
flattening testing
1.8 ≤ CAI < 2.3 abrasive 0.25 ≤ F < 0.50
pin, mm.
1.3 ≤ CAI < 1.8 considerably abrasive 0.10 ≤ F < 0.25
Based
1.0on many
≤ CAI rock tests at the moderately
< 1.3 SMC (Sandvik Mining and Construction)
abrasive 0.05 ≤ F <petrogra-
0.10
phy laboratory in Zeltweg,
0.5 ≤ CAI < 1.0 Austria, abrasivity grades expressed in CAI0.01
slightly abrasive values
≤ F <were
0.05 cre-
ated. This classification
CAI < 0.5 is given in Table 1not
[30].
abrasive F < 0.01
3.2. SHIMAZEK Coefficient

The second indicator determining the rock abrasiveness is the SHIMAZEK F coefficient,
calculated based on the tensile strength of the mineral (BTS), the average diameter of the
quartz grains and the content of hard minerals referred to as quartz (percentage equivalent
of quartz content) [31,32]. Then, the abrasivity value should be determined using the
following Equation (5).
Rr · dqu · Q
FSCH I M = (5)
100
where: Rr —tensile strength, dqu —average size of quartz grains, Q—percentage equivalent
of quartz content, where:
Q = vk + 0.33 · vm (6)
where: vk —percentage of quartz in a tested rock, vm —percentage of other abrasive minerals.
Grain size and mineralogical composition are determined on a thin rock sample under
a polarizing microscope. First, the average grain size of the individual mineralogical
components is determined. Depending on the size, 50, 100 or 200 grains are measured
individually using an optical microscope. The final value is calculated as the average of
the individual measurements. For rocks with one dominant orientation (stratification),
calculations are performed in two directions, parallel and normal to the direction of this
orientation. The determination is made only for quartz grains if the dominant mineral
is quartz. It is easy to see that the above method is more challenging to implement and,
therefore, more expensive. However, minerals with a low quartz content should be marked
with FSCHIM , which can be converted into an abrasivity index CAI (7) and vice versa (8) [30].
CAI = 2.9 · FSCH I M 0.347 (7)
FSCH I M = 0.046 ·CAI 2.88 (8)

Research and practical conclusions have shown that the value of the CAI is more
suitable than FSCHIM for assessing the abrasivity of minerals in the aspect of wear of cutting
tools (picks, discs, drilling tools). The disadvantage of this method is inaccuracy for low- to
medium-abrasive minerals such as carbonates, shales, etc. However, these minerals are not
critical for the wear of cutting tools [30]. The mineral classification according to abrasivity
is presented in Table 1.
3.3.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW LCPC Abrasivity Test 10 of 22
The third method of determining rock abrasivity is the LCPC test. The method was
developed in the 1980s by a French laboratory (Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées)
Chaussées) to test
to test soil soil abrasivity
abrasivity and is described
and is described in French
in French Standard
Standard NF P18-579
NF P18-579 [33]. [33].
Figure 9 shows
Figure
the9test
shows
standthefor
testperforming
stand for performing
the LCPCthe LCPC abrasivity
abrasivity test. Thetest.
mainTheunits
mainofunits
the oftest stand are
the test
the stand
frame,arethe
themotor,
frame, the
themotor,
funnelthe funnel
tube, thetube,
metaltheimpeller
metal impeller
and theandsample
the sample
container. The
container.
0.75 kW Themotor
0.75 kW motorthe
ensures ensures the rotation
rotation of the axle.
of the axle.
Figure 9. LCPC
Figure abrasivity
9. LCPC testing testing
abrasivity device [34,35].
device [34,35].
A steel impeller (sample) is mounted to the end of the axle and immersed in a cylin-
drical sample container. The impeller has a rectangular shape of 50 mm × 25 mm × 5 mm
and is made of standardised steel with a Rockwell hardness of HRB 60–75. The impeller
must be replaced after each test [34,35]. To determine the LAC coefficient, measuring the
A steel impeller (sample) is mounted to the end of the axle and immersed in a cylin-
drical sample container. The impeller has a rectangular shape of 50 mm × 25 mm × 5 mm
and is made of standardised steel with a Rockwell hardness of HRB 60–75. The impeller
must be replaced after each test [34,35]. To determine the LAC coefficient, measuring the
weight loss of the rectangular metal impeller is necessary. It is rotated at 4500 rpm for
5 min, covered with 500 g of rock previously crushed into pieces with a 4.0 to 6.3 mm
diameter. The LAC coefficient is calculated as the ratio of mass loss of the steel impeller
and the sample mass.
m0 − m1 h g i
LAC = (9)
M t
where: LAC—LCPC abrasivity coefficient, g/t; m0 —mass of the steel impeller before test, g;
m1 —mass of the steel impeller after test, g; M—mass of the sample material (=0.0005 t), t.
3.4. SAT Abrasivity Test

Another of the currently used methods of testing the abrasiveness of rocks is the SAT
test, also called the NTNU/SINTEF test, developed at the Norwegian University of Science
and Technology in Trondheim (NTNU—Porges teknisk-naturvidenskabelige universitet) in
cooperation with the SINTEF (Stiftelsen for industriell og teknisk forskning). Initially, the
test measured the abrasive wear of a tungsten carbide specimen, while today, the specimen
is made of steel [35–37].
The test specimen (Figure 10) is a cube with a rounded surface shape. The length of
the test specimen is 30 mm, the width 20 mm and the radius 15 mm. The soil sample must
be dry and gently crushed with a grain size of less than 4 mm [35–37].
Test specimen for soil abrasivity test SAT [36].

Figure 10. Test
The test device for the soil abrasivity test, SAT, (Figure 11) consists of a drive, a rotating
Figure
steel 10. Test
disc, specimen
a test for soil
specimen, abrasivity
a weight, test SATmaterial
a sample [36]. feeder and a suction device.
Figure 11. Test device for soil abrasivity test, SAT [36].
The abrasivity test represents the time-dependent abrasion of steel test specimens
Figure 11. Test device for soil abrasivity
abrasivity test, SAT
SAT [36].
caused by rock powder or soil grains.test, [36].steel disc with a circuit of 1000 mm is set
A circular
horizontally and rotates around its axis at a speed of 20 rpm. A rock or soil sample falls
through the feeder onto the steel disc and forms a material swath. The mass flow rate of
caused by rock powder or soil grains. A circular steel disc with a circuit of 1000 mm is set
the sample material is about 80 g/min. The test specimen is mounted in front of the feeder
and loaded with a force of 100 N. The test specimen is rigidly clamped and immovable
through the feeder onto the steel disc and forms a material swath. The mass flow rate of
during the test. The contact between the test specimen and the soil sample causes abrasive
caused by rock powder or soil grains. A circular steel disc with a circuit of 1000 mm is set
through the feeder onto the steel disc and forms a material swath. The mass flow rate of the
sample material is about 80 g/min. The test specimen is mounted in front of the feeder and
loaded with a force of 100 N. The test specimen is rigidly clamped and immovable during
the test. The contact between the test specimen and the soil sample causes abrasive wear on
the test specimen. Behind the feeder, a suction device is installed to remove the soil sample
from the steel disc. The test lasts 1 min or 20-disc rotations and usually is carried out on
2–4 test specimens. After the test, rock abrasivity is classified according to Table 2 [35–37].
Table 2. Mineral classification in terms of abrasivity [35].
Specimen Weight Loss [mg] Abrasivity
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW ≥22.0 high 12 of 22

7.0 ÷ 22.0 medium
≤7.7 low
rolling disc and the rock sample imitates the working conditions of the cutting discs used
3.5. RIAT Abrasivity Test
in TBM [38].
Another
Miniaturecurrently usedare
rolling discs method
made of ofhot
testing
workabrasivity is the RIAT test
tool steel X40CrMoV5-1, developed
generally usedby
the
for the real TBM cutter discs. The miniature discs have a constant tip width of 4 mm andIn
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), just like the SAT test.
the methodsofdescribed
a diameter 30 mm. The above, theRockwell
steel’s pin/specimen
hardness slidisover
HRCthe 50 surface
± 1. The of the rock
sample is asample.
block
In contrast to the tests described above, the RIAT is based on a
of rock that can have any shape. Usually, a circular rock core is used for the test, with rolling contact thatais
more pragmatic for assessing disc cutter wear. This contact method
minimum diameter of 100 mm. The rock sample surface is recommended to be smooth between the miniature
rolling disc and[38].
and horizontal the rock sample imitates the working conditions of the cutting discs used
in TBM The[38].
RIAT device is shown schematically in Figure 12. During the test, two miniature
discs roll over arolling
Miniature discs are
rock sample made
under theofnormal
hot work toolofsteel
force 1.25 X40CrMoV5-1,
kN at a speed of generally
40 rpm and used
for the real TBM cutter discs. The miniature discs
a centre distance of 60 mm. The test duration is 30 min [38]. have a constant tip width of 4 mm and a
diameter of 30 mm. The steel’s Rockwell hardness is HRC 50 ± 1.
The RIAT test results are the RIAT abrasivity index (RIATa) and the RIAT indentation The sample is a block
of rock(RIAT
index that ican
). Thehave
RIATany shape. Usually, a circular rock core is used for the test, with a
a is defined as the mass loss of the miniature rolling disc, measured
minimum diameter of 100 mm. The rock sample
in milligrams after the test. A representative surface
means is recommended
at least to be smooth
three tests determine and
value.
horizontal [38].
The RIATi is defined as the mean value of 10 evenly distributed measurements of the pen-
Thedepth
etration RIAT device is shown schematically
of the miniature rolling disc into in the
Figure
rock12. During
surface in the test,
1/100 mm.twoThe miniature
RIATi
discs roll over a rock sample under the normal force of 1.25 kN at a speed
value is an indication of the penetration resistance of the rock or the hardness of the rock of 40 rpm and a
centre
surface.distance of 60 mm. The test duration is 30 min [38].
1250 N
Figure 12. RIAT device [38].

Figure 12.
3.6. RSAI Abrasivity Test

The rock and soil abrasivity index (RSAI) can be determined using a testing device
schematically shown in Figure 13. The blade rotates in a soil or crushed rock medium
The RIAT test results are the RIAT abrasivity index (RIATa ) and the RIAT indentation
index (RIATi ). The RIATa is defined as the mass loss of the miniature rolling disc, measured
in milligrams after the test. A representative means at least three tests determine value.
The RIATi is defined as the mean value of 10 evenly distributed measurements of the
penetration depth of the miniature rolling disc into the rock surface in 1/100 mm. The
RIATi value is an indication of the penetration resistance of the rock or the hardness of the
rock surface.
3.6. RSAI Abrasivity Test

The rock and soil abrasivity index (RSAI) can be determined using a testing device
schematically shown in Figure 13. The blade rotates in a soil or crushed rock medium when
it has a specific pitch angle. It generates soil compaction and leads to wear of the blade
under high contact stresses. The blade and soil interaction also generates a frictional torque
on the test chamber, measured by a torque meter. By directly measuring weight
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW R loss 13 on the
of 22
blade cover and given the selected hardness of the cover, the calculation of Tδθ from the
test allows for quantification of (K/µ) [39].
Figure13.13.
Figure Schematic
Schematic drawing
drawing of the
of the SAISAI tester
tester for for measuring
measuring RSAIRSAI
and and the frictional
the frictional torque
torque out-
output
put
[39]. [39].
Based on extensive experimental work on the values of wear and friction indexes for
3.7. AGH Abrasivity Test
soil and rock materials, the RSAI is suggested as follows (10):
The last method to determine rock abrasivity was developed at the Polish AGH Uni-

versity of Science and Technology in Krakow. K The AGH abrasivity HV test evaluates the mass
RSAI = 10, 000 = 10, 000 R (10)
abrasive wear of a testing pin in contact with µ a rock sample with Tδθ a constant normal force
of 300 N and moving uniformly around a circle at 50 rpm for 8 min. The testing pin is
3.7. AGH
made Abrasivity
of S235 Test a diameter of 8 mm and a length of 35 mm. Rock samples for
steel, with
testingThe
are alast
core with a diameter
method of 70 rock
to determine mm or a cube with
abrasivity was andeveloped
edge lengthatofthe
70 mmPolish[40,41].
AGH
The testof
University stand is equipped
Science with a motor
and Technology reducer,
in Krakow. ThetheAGH shaft of whichtest
abrasivity is fitted with the
evaluates a
testing pin holder
mass abrasive (Figure
wear 14). Thepin
of a testing rockin sample
contact is fixed
with in a unique
a rock sample holder
with a that ensures
constant its
normal
immobilisation
force of 300 N during the test.
and moving The testing
uniformly pin with
around theatrock
a circle sample
50 rpm for 8forms
min. aThe
friction
testingpair
pin
(Figure
is made of S235 steel, with a diameter of 8 mm and a length of 35 mm. Rock samplesto
15). The counterweight ensures the constant clamping of the rock sample face for
the surface
testing areofa the
coretesting
with apin. The computer
diameter of 70 mmsets or athe
cube rotational
with an speed of the of
edge length testing
70 mm pin[40,41].
and
time. Thanks
The testtostand
the control system,with
is equipped the amotor
motor stops compulsorily
reducer, the shaft after a set is
of which time [40,41].
fitted with a
The pin
testing mass of the(Figure
holder testing14).
pin The
and rock
the rock sample
sample is measured
is fixed before
in a unique andthat
holder afterensures
the test.its
The parameter characterising
immobilisation during the test.the The
rocktesting
abrasivity is thethe
pin with abrasivity coefficient,
rock sample forms W z, whichpair
a friction is
defined as the ratio of the mass loss of the testing pin to the mass loss of the rock sampleto
(Figure 15). The counterweight ensures the constant clamping of the rock sample face
theissurface
and of the as
determined testing pin.(11):
follows The computer sets the rotational speed of the testing pin and
time. Thanks to the control system, the motor stops compulsorily after a set time [40,41].
𝑚 𝑚 −𝑚
𝑊 = = (11)
𝑚 𝑚 −𝑚
where: mpab—mass of testing pin before test, g; mpaa—mass of testing pin after test, g; mpib—
mass of rock sample before test, g; mpia—mass of rock sample after test, g.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x
Sustainability FOR PEER REVIEW
11243 14 of
13 22
of 21
Figure 14.
Figure14. Test stand
standtoto
Teststand
14.Test determine
todetermine the rock
determinethe
the rock abrasivity
abrasivity using
using AGH
AGH abrasivity
abrasivity test.
test.
Figure rock abrasivity using AGH abrasivity test.
(a)
(a) (b)(b)
Figure
Figure 15.
15.AA
Figure15. friction
Afriction pair
pairinin
frictionpair AGH
inAGH abrasivity
AGHabrasivity test:
abrasivitytest: (a)
test:(a) core
(a)core sample,
sample,
core (b)(b)
sample, (b) cube
cube sample.
sample.
cube sample.
3.8. Summary
3.8. Summary
The mass of the testing pin and the rock sample is measured before and after the test.
The parameter
The
The main characterisingofof
maindisadvantage
disadvantage the rock
the
the abrasivity
Cerchar
Cerchar method
method is the abrasivity
isisthat
thatthe coefficient,can
themeasurement
measurement Wcan
z ,be
which
becon-con-is
defined
ducted as
only theon ratio
small of the
rock mass loss
pieces. of
This the
can testing
lead to pin
a to
large
ducted only on small rock pieces. This can lead to a large spread of the obtained results,the mass
spread loss
of theof the
obtainedrock sample
results,
and is determined
depending
depending onthe
on thetestas follows
test areachosen
area (11):by
chosen bythetheoperator,
operator,for forinhomogeneous
inhomogeneous andand variable
variable rockrock
samples.Secondly,
samples. Secondly,the theveracity
veracityofofthisthismethod
methodprimarily
primarilydepends dependsonon the
the skills
skills andand expe-
expe-
m pa m pab − m paa
rience of
rience ofthe
theoperator.
operator.This Thisperson
person must
= have
Wzmust have sufficientexperience
= sufficient experience toto identify
identify thethe criteria
criteria (11)
m pi m pib − m pia
for abrasion
for abrasionof ofthetherock
rocksample
sampleand andthenthen perform
perform thetest
the testaccording
accordingtotothese these criteria.
criteria. In In
addition,mthe
addition,
where: the—mass
measurement
measurement of testingofofthe
the
pinpin
pin flattening
flattening
before diameter
test,diameter
g; mpaa —mass requires
requires specialised
ofspecialised
testing equipment.
pinequipment.
after test, g;
pab
ItIt
mpibcan
can be challenging
be
—mass challenging
of rock sample ininthe
thebefore
caseofof
case unsymmetrical
unsymmetrical
test, g; mpia —mass oror one-sided
ofone-sided
rock sample flats
flats ofofthe
after the testing
testing
test, g. pin.pin.
Therefore,this
Therefore, thistest’s
test’sresults
resultsare areoften
oftenunreliable
unreliableororincomparable,
incomparable, which
which is is pointed
pointed outoutbyby
Käsling
Käsling
3.8. Summaryand
andThuroThuro[34]. [34].
The
The SHIMAZEK
SHIMAZEKFFcoefficient coefficientisisdetermined
determinedininexceptional
exceptionalcases casesforforminerals
minerals withwith
The main disadvantage of the Cerchar method is that the measurement can be con-
low
low quartz
quartzcontent
contentor orsedimentary
sedimentaryrocks, rocks,but butonly
onlywhen whennecessary.
necessary. ToTocalculate
calculate this coef-
this coef-
ducted only on small rock pieces. This can lead to a large spread of the obtained results,
ficient,
ficient,ititisisnecessary
necessarytotodeterminedetermineasasmany manyasasthreethreeparameters,
parameters,such such asasthetheuniaxial
uniaxial ten-ten-
depending on the test area chosen by the operator, for inhomogeneous and variable rock
sile strength, the average size of quartz grains and the percentage
sile strength, the average size of quartz grains and the percentage equivalent of quartz equivalent of quartz
samples. Secondly, the veracity of this method primarily depends on the skills and experi-
content,
content, which
which requires
requires time-consuming
time-consuming and
andcostly
costlytests.
tests.
ence of the operator. This person must have sufficient experience to identify the criteria
The
The LCPC
LCPC test
test isisnot
not aawidely
widely known
known way
way totodetermine
determine rock
rockabrasivity.
abrasivity. Although it it
for abrasion of the rock sample and then perform the test according to theseAlthough
criteria. In
is
is standardised
standardised in
in France
France (AFNOR
(AFNOR P18-579),
P18-579), work
work isisstill
stillunderway
underway totoimplement
implement it. it.
In In
addition, the measurement of the pin flattening diameter requires specialised equipment.
addition,
addition, the publication’s
the publication’s authors
authors [34] emphasise that there are significant discrepancies
It can be challenging in the case of[34] emphasise that
unsymmetrical or there are significant
one-sided flats of the discrepancies
testing pin.
between
between the
the results
results ofof the
the Cerchar
Cerchar and
and the
the LCPC
LCPC test.
test.
Therefore, this test’s results are often unreliable or incomparable, which is pointed out by
The SAT
Theand test
SATThurotestproposes
proposes only
onlythree
threeabrasivity
abrasivityclasses
classesbecause
becausethis this method
method is is
relatively
relatively
Käsling [34].
new
new Theand the amount
and SHIMAZEK
the amount of of collected
collected data
data is small.
is small.
F coefficient is determined in exceptional cases for minerals with low
During
During the
theorRIAT
RIAT test,
test,rock dust
dustand
rockrocks, anddebris
debris formed
formed should
shouldbe beremoved
removed fromfrom thethe sur-
sur-
quartz content sedimentary but only when necessary. To calculate this coefficient,
face
face of the rock to be tested to ensure that the small rolling disc is in constant contact with
it is of the rock to
necessary to be tested toas
determine ensure
manythat as the
threesmall rolling disc
parameters, suchis inasconstant
the uniaxial contact with
tensile
strength, the average size of quartz grains and the percentage equivalent of quartz content,
which requires time-consuming and costly tests.
The LCPC test is not a widely known way to determine rock abrasivity. Although it
is standardised in France (AFNOR P18-579), work is still underway to implement it. In
addition, the publication’s authors [34] emphasise that there are significant discrepancies
between the results of the Cerchar and the LCPC test.
The SAT test proposes only three abrasivity classes because this method is relatively
new and the amount of collected data is small.
During the RIAT test, rock dust and debris formed should be removed from the surface
of the rock to be tested to ensure that the small rolling disc is in constant contact with
the rock sample. For this purpose, compressed air and suction are used, which requires
additional installation in the laboratory. In addition, this method is mainly dedicated to
rock mining using discs.
The RSAI method is related mainly to the previously mentioned LCPC test and is only
suitable for crushed rocks.
The stand’s essential advantage in the AGH abrasivity test is the rock sample’s hori-
zontal arrangement. This enables the removal of detached rock grains from the road along
which the testing pin moves. This solution eliminated the influence of loosened grains on
the testing pin and the rock sample wear.
4. Discussion
The assessment of rock abrasiveness and rock abrasivity is carried out for different
purposes, for different materials and in different industries, such as construction, road
construction and mining. The scope of practical use of the above-described methods
was analysed and presented to emphasise the importance of performing these tests. The
analysis was conducted so the reader could decide whether to carry out an abrasiveness or
abrasivity test and which method to use.
4.1. Rock Abrasiveness Test Methods Application

As previously mentioned, rock abrasiveness is assessed to check resistance to abrasive
wear. The standard method in EN 14157:2017 standard [13] is the wide wheel abrasion
test (WWA). However, the most commonly used method for evaluating rock abrasiveness
is the Böhme abrasion test (BA). The BA test was used by Cobanoglu et al. [15] to assess
the abrasion resistance of natural stones used as slabs in the construction sector. The
tested materials included carbonate rocks, such as travertines, limestones and dolomites.
Karaca et al. [42] also used the Böhme test to assess the abrasion resistance of different
natural stones from sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous groups in terms of their use
for paving slabs. Shagñay et al. [43] proposed using industrial (slag and fly ash) and
ceramic wastes for the total or partial substitution of Portland cement in manufacturing
both alkaline-activated and hybrid types of cement. Different mortars were manufactured
to carry out this study and evaluate the behaviour of the new materials. The behaviour
of all the mortars regarding mechanical resistance and endurance to abrasion was tested.
After the Böhme abrasion test, their effectiveness was reiterated and even some had better
durability to wear in comparison to the Portland cement. Bodnárová et al. [44] used the
Böhme test to evaluate the abrasion resistance of concrete by adding different types of active
and inert mineral additives. An abrasive effect is most noticeable in transport or water
management structures and these structures are often designed for a substantially longer
lifetime (usually 100 years). Alaskar et al. [45] performed a study to enhance concrete’s
abrasion and skid resistance as a pavement material by reinforcing it with polypropylene
(PP) fibres. The influences of waste PP fibres and palm oil fuel ash (POFA) on the abrasion
resistance (using a Böhme surface abrasion machine) of the concrete were investigated.
Strzałkowski and Köken [46] developed an alternative to the standard Böhme test method
using neural networks to assess rock abrasiveness based on physical and mechanical
properties such as dry density (ρd ), water absorption by weight (wa ), Shore hardness value
(SHV), pulse wave velocity (Vp ) and uniaxial compressive strength (UCS) of rocks.
The second most commonly used method of evaluating rock abrasiveness is the micro-
Deval test [17]. Benjeddou and Mashaan [20] used this method to assess the abrasion
resistance of aggregate obtained by crushing marble waste as a conventional aggregate for
road construction. The test was performed to verify that the coarse aggregate obtained
by crushing marble waste is resistant to abrasion actions between the grains themselves
and between grains and external loads. Copetti Callai et al. [47] used this method to
evaluate the geopolymer material’s resistance to abrasion obtained from a mix of activators
and precursors. The materials used in these tests, as precursors, were metakaolin and
powdered basalt. Ðokić et al. [48] used the micro-Deval test to assess the abrasion resistance
of the concrete aggregate (RCA) as a partial replacement of natural aggregate in road
engineering in different flexible and rigid pavement layers and for various traffic loads.
RCA was reached by crushing 30-year-old concrete slabs covered with a protective layer
of asphalt. This concrete contained natural river aggregate with a maximum grain size
of 16 mm. Courard et al. [49] dealt with the same topic. Authors claim that fine recycled
aggregates are produced in large quantities when crushing construction and demolition
waste (C&DW). However, even if coarse recycled aggregates are commonly used for road
foundations, fine particles are often rejected as they are considered detrimental to the
long-term behaviour of foundations. Micro-Deval tests are required according to road
authority specifications for road foundation construction [50], where the micro-Deval
coefficient maximum values of 35 and 50 are recommended. The micro-Deval test was
also used by De Witt et al. [51] to determine the ability to predict aggregate performance
during hauling. The correlation of the wear rates to standard material property tests may
allow for improved prediction of the impacts from forest roads based on the selection
of aggregate surfacing. Macro-encapsulated phase change material (PCM) lightweight
aggregates (ME-LWA) were tested by Zhou et al. [52]. They were tested end assessed for
their mechanical and thermal properties in road engineering applications. Many aggregates
are more susceptible to wear when wet compared to dry. The micro-Deval test enables
the use of water, in contrast to some other tests. The test results helped evaluate the
toughness/abrasion resistance of coarse aggregate subject to wear. As mentioned earlier,
the EN 14157:2017 [13] standard indicates the wide wheel abrasion test (WWA) as a model
for assessing rock abrasiveness. However, among the available publications, this method
is rare. Celik and Çobanoğlu [53] used the wide wheel abrasion test to assess building
stone samples’ abrasiveness. Natural building stones constitute an essential economic
input for countries with substantial reserves and international market share worldwide.
It is a known fact that the continuous production of natural stone leads to a decrease or
even the depletion of limited natural resources. The service life of rock materials used as
natural building stones is controlled mainly by their physical and mechanical properties.
Rock abrasiveness is an important parameter that should be considered, especially in areas
subject to heavy pedestrian or vehicle traffic. Kolgitti and Çelik [54] used the WWA test to
determine the abrasiveness of rocks used as natural building stones. Within the scope of
this study, nine different rock types were selected (e.g., ignimbrites, dolomites, travertines,
limestones, diabases and marbles). Sample groups were obtained as blocks from different
regions of Turkey. According to European Standards, the WWA test is carried out on only
prismatic samples. However, in the design of rock engineering structures such as tunnels,
dams and investigations for various purposes, samples are supplied as cylindrical cores
from exploration drillings. So, in this study, the WWA test on rock cores using a newly
designed core holder apparatus was investigated.
The least used method for evaluating rock abrasiveness is the Amsler test, presented
in the available publications only by Costa et al. [17], to assess the abrasiveness of concrete
blocks produced with sinter feed tailings.
4.2. Rock Abrasivity Test Methods Application

As mentioned before, abrasivity is determined when we are interested in the wear of
the tool with which we cut the stone or the wear of machine elements in direct contact with
the rock.
The Cerchar abrasion index (CAI) is commonly used to represent rock abrasivity and
estimate disc life and wear in tunnelling applications. This method was used, among others,
by Ko and Lee [55], Rostami et al. [56] and Jeong et al. [57] to assess rock abrasivity in terms
of disc wear. Currently, TBMs meet growing requirements, enabling tunnelling in hard-to-
cut and abrasive rocks, such as granites, basalts, sandstones, melaphyres, porphyries and
dolomites. Ko and Lee [55] also noted that rock abrasivity significantly affects not only the
discs’ wear but also the discharge pipes and pumps of transport systems. Another area
of application of the CAI is hard coal mining, which is carried out with road headers and
longwall shearers. Rock mining is carried out by cutting (milling) with various mining
tools. The most commonly used are conical picks that wear out in contact with the mined
rock [58–60]. In the aspect of wear of mining tools, the CAI was used, among others, by
Alber [61], Hamzaban et al. [62], Zhang et al. [63] and Teymen [64]. Zhang et al. [65],
based on the test results of the CAI and physical and mechanical properties of 13 groups
of rock samples collected from southwestern China, focused on the correlations of the
CAI value with rock strength, petrographic characteristics and drilling parameters. The
results provide a new method for rapidly and accurately determining rock abrasivity in the
drilling field. Capik and Yilmaz [66] investigated the relationships between the CAI and
drill bit lifetime. They even developed a way to model drill bit lifetime based on the CAI.
The research was carried out for marl and andesitic-basaltic formation. Larsen-Basse and
Perrott [67] focused on the impact of rock abrasivity on wear mechanisms during rotary
drilling of sandstone with sintered tungsten carbide tools. The higher the rock’s abrasivity
index, the finer the abrasive particles in the rock. This leads to selective cobalt removal and
microfracture of the carbide skeleton. Hence, knowledge of rock abrasivity is essential in
selecting the appropriate type of sintered carbide for drilling tools. Di Giovanni et al. [68]
used the Cerchar test to assess the rock abrasivity of marble, which is extracted mainly
using chainsaw cutting machines. These are currently used extensively due to their high-
safety working conditions compared to other techniques and their extraordinary versatility,
especially in underground mining. Although this cutting technique is well-known and
widely used, an uncommon problem of tool wear was found in the quarry under study,
which strongly acted on production. The assessment of rock abrasivity is also used in civil
engineering. Figarska-Warchoł and Rembiś [2] used the Cerchar test to investigate the
influence of the lithological diversification of thin layers—laminae present in terrigenous
sandstones of various genesis on selected physical and mechanical properties of these rocks.
The results collate with the velocities of the longitudinal ultrasonic waves and the apparent
density and water absorbability of the sandstone samples. Thorough knowledge of the
quality variation in laminated sandstones enables the management of rock material with
different properties and reduces waste production. Thus, it significantly contributes to the
protection of such rock deposits. Additionally, the authors point out that the designers’
disregard for the diversity of the stone’s technical parameters may lead to grave planning
errors, damage to the stone elements and more severe construction disasters that risk
human health and life. As an example, they give a way of anchoring elevation wallboards.
There must be more than one mechanically resistant outer lamina to secure a firm stone
setting. The construction stability depends on the deeper laminae in which the anchor
bolts are fixed. Assuming that the mechanical resistance of such inner laminae happens to
be weak, the resulting stress may finally lead to the defoliation of the wall-board and the
peeling off of elevation fragments.
Majeed and Abu Bakar [69], in the aspect of disc wear in tunnel construction, first
used the CAI to assess the abrasivity of rock samples taken from various places in Pakistan.
However, later, in cooperation with Rostami [70], they used the LCPC method. The authors
argue that the advantage of the LCPC test over the standard Cerchar test is that the LCPC
method allows the test to also be performed on saturated samples with different water
content. De Azevedo Barbosa et al. [71] used the LCPC test to evaluate the abrasivity
of rocks from the iron oxide-copper-gold (IOCG) deposit of Sossego (Canaã dos Carajás,
Brazil), where hydrothermal alterations in shear zones concentrated the metals of interest
and added new characteristics to the metavolcanic-sedimentary and granite rocks. This in-
formation permitted the researchers to take preventive measures to minimise the influence
of processing this highly abrasive material.
Additionally, de Azevedo Barbosa et al. [71] used the SAT test to understand the
wear potential of the studied material firstly and, secondly, the desirable effect potentially
obtained by using conditioning agents (water and other additives). Tang et al. [72] used
the improved soil abrasion test (SAT) to study the impact mechanism of soil parameters
on scraper wear. These tests enabled the assessment of the variation in scraper wear with
quartz content, particle size, particle shape and water content.
The rolling indentation abrasion test (RIAT) [38] is used only for disk wear. This
test procedure aims to simulate the wear behaviour of hard rock tunnel boring in a more
realistic way than the generally used methods because wear by rolling contact on intact
rock samples is submitted. Tunnels, e.g., subways, are often drilled in abrasive sandy soil.
Hence, Rostami et al. [73] used the RSAI method, which simulates the working conditions
of the cutting discs in the excavation chamber of pressurised face shields. There are high
contact stresses between the cutting disc and the soil. This test assures the original soil
size distribution, field moisture conditions and the possibility of applying high ambient
pressures and soil conditioners. When TBM tunnelling in abrasive sandy ground, the
cutting discs are subject to wear and the scrapers are loaded with heavy forces resulting
from the extrusion and friction processes of sand. The wear of the scraper resulting in
displacement or desquamation is related to soil parameters.
Khoshouei et al. [74] investigated the possibility of estimating rock abrasivity by
processing the acoustic and vibration signals generated while drilling. Before the tests, the
Schimazek abrasivity factor, F, of the samples of igneous rocks, classified as hard rocks,
was obtained. Acoustic and vibration signals were analysed in time, frequency and time–
frequency domains and a series of parameters related to the resulting spectra were extracted.
After receiving the acoustic and vibration parameters for drilling, the relationship between
them and the rock abrasivity was studied.
The AGH method is mainly used to assess rock abrasivity regarding the wear of
conical picks used in underground mining [5,40,41]. This method is also used to assess the
abrasivity of building materials, such as granite paving stones (Figure 15b), in terms of
their cutting out.
5. Conclusions
The analysis of the behaviour in the extraction, transportation and utilization of hard-
rock-type mineral substances determined that abrasive wear is one of the most extended
and aggressive forms of wear. The effects of abrasive wear on the machine components
and their economic implications are considerable, mainly due to the operational pauses in
the technological flows.
The results of the performed experiments demonstrate that both the reconditioning
and execution of spare parts, with the help of reusable materials, could be solutions for
sustainability in many economic fields, especially in those where the production costs are
immense [75]. For this reason, many methods exist for assessing rock abrasiveness and
rock abrasivity.
All rock abrasiveness test methods are carried out under the standards that describe
the method of preparing samples for testing, individual elements of the test stand and the
test procedure itself. However, in the case of assessing rock abrasivity, some methods are
described in standards (Cerchar, LCPC) and others only in publications. They are invented
in different research centres worldwide depending on how the rock interacts with the
wear element (picks, discs, drills, conveyor troughs, etc.). Therefore, the assessment of
rock abrasivity is often performed using two methods for the same materials to compare
the results.
Rock abrasiveness assessment is mainly used to evaluate various natural stones and
concrete for their abrasion resistance in terms of their use for paving slabs. The assessment
of rock abrasivity is most commonly used in tunnel construction, where the cutting shields
of the TBM (tunnel boring machine) are equipped with cutting discs that excavate the
rocks by static crushing. The effectiveness of the tunnelling process is influenced by rock
abrasivity, which determines the rate of abrasive disc wear [75,76]. Rock abrasivity is also
an essential factor affecting drilling tool wear used in many industries, such as drilling,
mining and construction. Abrasivity is a vital rock property with a direct impact on the
wear rate counting lifetime of drilling equipment and the rate of penetration. In addition,
the assessment of rock abrasivity is also carried out in underground mining in terms of the
wear of conical picks.
Many researchers are still looking for correlations between particular methods. Others
seek a relationship between abrasiveness or abrasivity and other rock properties.
This manuscript proves that both these terms are notoriously used interchangeably,
which needs to be corrected. The authors in one article use different nomenclature. There-
fore, it should be emphasized once again that abrasiveness is the susceptibility to abrasive
wear of rocks. At the same time, abrasivity describes the rock’s ability to destroy the
surfaces of solid materials, mainly steel, but not only (WC-Co, PCD [77] etc.).
Funding: This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data presented in the article are original and not inappropriately
selected, manipulated, enhanced, or fabricated.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.
References
1. Zhang, G.; Konietzky, H.; Song, Z.; Zhang, M. Study of Cerchar abrasive parameters and their relations to intrinsic properties of
rocks for construction. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 244, 118327. [CrossRef]
2. Figarska-Warchoł, B.; Rembiś, M. Lamination and Its Impact on the Physical and Mechanical Properties of the Permian and
Triassic Terrestrial Sandstones. Resources 2021, 10, 42. [CrossRef]
3. Valentini, F.; Pallecchi, P.; Relucenti, M.; Donfrancesco, O.; Sottili, G.; Pettiti, I.; Mussi, V.; De Angelis, S.; Scatigno, C.; Festa, G.
SiO2 Nanoparticles as New Repairing Treatments toward the Pietraforte Sandstone in Florence Renaissance Buildings. Crystals
2022, 12, 1182. [CrossRef]
4. Jonczy, I.; Wieczorek, A.; Filipowicz, K.; Mucha, K.; Kuczaj, M.; Pawlikowski, A.; Nuckowski, P.; Pieczora, E. Impact Identification
of Carbon-Containing Carboniferous Clays on Surfaces of Friction Nodes. Energies 2021, 14, 1422. [CrossRef]
5. Jonczy, I.; Mucha, K. Relationships between the Petrographic and Abrasive Properties of Sandstones in the Aspect of Their
Cutting. Energies 2022, 15, 2692. [CrossRef]
6. Alzahrani, A.M.; Lasheen, E.S.R.; Rashwan, M.A. Relationship of Mineralogical Composition to Thermal Expansion, Spectral
Reflectance, and Physico-Mechanical Aspects of Commercial Ornamental Granitic Rocks. Materials 2022, 15, 2041. [CrossRef]
7. Ye, Z.; Zhang, L.; Zhou, Z.; Pan, K.; Liu, X.; Liu, W.; Wu, Q. Mechanical Properties of the Combination of Surrounding Rock and
Primary Support under Impacting Load. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4410. [CrossRef]
8. Wang, X.; Wei, W.; Niu, Y.; Xia, C.; Song, L.; Han, G.; Zhu, Z. Triaxial Creep Mechanical Behaviors and Creep Damage Model of
Dolomitic Limestone Material under Multi-Stage Incremental Loading. Materials 2023, 16, 1918. [CrossRef]
9. Li, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Song, Q.; Wang, P.; Liu, D. Dynamic Mechanical Properties and Failure Characteristics of Sandstone with Pre-Flaws
Parallel to the Loading Direction. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3587. [CrossRef]
10. Zhang, S.; Che, C.; Zhao, C.; Du, S.; Liu, Y.; Li, J.; Yang, S. Effect of Fly Ash and Steel Fiber Content on Workability and Mechanical
Properties of Roadway Side Backfilling Materials in Deep Mine. Energies 2023, 16, 1505. [CrossRef]
11. Guidicini, G.; Nieble, C.M.; de Cornides, A.T. Analysis of point load test as a method for preliminary geotechnical classification of
rocks. Bull. Int. Assoc. Eng. Geol. 1973, 7, 37–52. [CrossRef]
12. Šporin, J.; Mrvar, P.; Janc, B.; Vukelić, Ž. Expression of the Self-Sharpening Mechanism of a Roller Cone Bit during Wear Due to
the Influence of the Erosion Protection Carbide Coating. Coatings 2021, 11, 1308. [CrossRef]
13. EN 14157:2017; Natural Stone Test Methods—Determination of the Abrasion Resistance. BSI Standards: London, UK, 2017.
14. PN-EN 1341:2013-05; Płyty z Kamienia Naturalnego do Zewn˛etrznych Nawierzchni Drogowych—Wymagania i Metody Badań.
Polski Komitet Normalizacyjny: Warsaw, Poland, 2013.
15. Cobanoglu, I.; Celik, S.B.; Alkaya, D. Correlation between “Wide wheel abrasion (capon)” and “Bohme abrasion” test results for
some carbonate rocks. Sci. Res. Essays 2010, 5, 3398–3404.
16. FORM+TEST Seidner&Co. GmbH. Available online: http://www.formtest.de (accessed on 16 January 2023).
17. Costa, A.V.; Gumieri, A.G.; Brandao, P.R.G. Interlocking concrete blocks produced with sinter feed tailings. IBRACON Struct.
Mater. J. 2014, 7, 228–259.
18. EN 1097-1:2011; Tests for Mechanical and Physical Properties of Aggregates—Part 1: Determination of the Resistance to Wear
(Micro-Deval); European Standard. CEN: Stockholm, Sweden, 2011.
19. Strzałkowski, P.; Kaźmierczak, U. Wear and Fragmentation Resistance of Mineral Aggregates—A Review of Micro-Deval and Los
Angeles Tests. Materials 2021, 14, 5456. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Benjeddou, O.; Mashaan, N. Experimental Study of the Usability of Recycling Marble Waste as Aggregate for Road Construction.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3195. [CrossRef]
21. EN 1097-2; Tests for Mechanical and Physical Properties of Aggregates—Part 2: Methods for the Determination of Resistance to
Fragmentation; European Standard. CEN: Stockholm, Sweden, 2020.
22. Plinninger, R.; Käsling, H.; Thuro, K.; Spaun, G. Testing conditions and geomechanical properties influencing the CERCHAR
abrasiveness index (CAI) value. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2003, 40, 259–263. [CrossRef]
23. Plinninger, R.J.; Restner, U. Abrasivity Testing, Quo Vadis?—A Commented Overview of Abrasivity Testing Methods. Geomech.
Tunelling 2008, 1, 61–70. [CrossRef]
24. Yaralı, O.; Yaşar, E.; Bacak, G.; Ranjith, P. A study of rock abrasivity and tool wear in Coal Measures Rocks. Int. J. Coal Geol. 2008,
74, 53–66. [CrossRef]
25. Torrijo, F.J.; Garzón-Roca, J.; Company, J.; Cobos, G. Estimation of Cerchar abrasivity index of andesitic rocks in Ecuador from
chemical compounds and petrographical properties using regression analyses. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2019, 78, 2331–2344.
[CrossRef]
26. NF P94-430-1; Rock—Determination of the Rock Abrasiveness—Part 1: Schratching—Test with a Pointed Tool. AFNOR: Paris,
France, 2000.
27. ASTM D7625-10; Standard Test Method for Laboratory Determination of Abrasiveness of Rock Using the CERCHAR Method.
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2010.
28. West, G. A relation between abrasiveness and quartz content for some Coal Measures sediments. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 1986, 4,
73–78. [CrossRef]
29. Alber, M.; Yaralı, O.; Dahl, F.; Bruland, A.; Käsling, H.; Michalakopoulos, T.N.; Cardu, M.; Hagan, P.; Aydın, H.; Özarslan, A.
ISRM Suggested Method for Determining the Abrasivity of Rock by the CERCHAR Abrasivity Test. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2014,
47, 261–266. [CrossRef]
30. SANDVIK Mining and Construction G.m.b.H. Available online: https://www.rocktechnology.sandvik/en/ (accessed on
10 February 2023).
31. Schimazek, J.; Knatz, H. Der Einfluss des Gesteinsaubaus auf die Schnittgeschwindigkeit und Meisselverschleiss von Streckenvor-
triebsmaschinen. Gluckauf 1970, 6, 274–278.
32. Ziaei, J.; Ghadernejad, S.; Jafarpour, A.; Mikaeil, R. A Modified Schimazek’s F-abrasiveness Factor for Evaluating Abrasiveness of
Andesite Rocks in Rock Sawing Process. J. Min. Environ. (JME) 2020, 11, 563–575. [CrossRef]
33. NF P18-579; Aggregate—Abrasiveness and Grindability Tests. AFNOR: Paris, France, 2013.
34. Käsling, H.; Thuro, K. Determing abrasivity of rock and soil in the laboratory. In Geologically Active, Proceedings of the 11th IAEG
Congress, Auckland, New Zealand, 5–10 September 2010; CRC Press: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2010.
35. Janc, B.; Jovicić, V.; Vukelić, Z. Laboratory Test Methods for Assessing the Abrasivity of Rocks and Soils in Geotechnology and
Mining Applications. Min. Environ. 2020, 67, 103–117. [CrossRef]
36. Dahl, F.; Bruland, A.; Jakobsen, P.D.; Nilsen, B.; Grøv, E. Classification of properties influencing the drillability of rocks, based on
the NTNU/SINTEF test method. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2012, 28, 150–158. [CrossRef]
37. Jakobsen, P.D.; Bruland, A.; Dahl, F. Review and assessment of the NTNU/SINTEF Soil Abrasion Test (SATTM) for determination
of abrasiveness of soil and soft ground. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2013, 37, 107–114. [CrossRef]
38. Macias, F.J.; Dahl, F.; Bruland, A. New Rock Abrasivity Test Method for Tool Life Assessments on Hard Rock Tunnel Boring: The
Rolling Indentation Abrasion Test (RIAT). Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2016, 49, 1679–1693. [CrossRef]
39. Mosleh, M.; Hu, W.; Rostami, J. Introduction to Rock and Soil Abrasivity Index (RSAI). Wear 2019, 432–433, 202953. [CrossRef]
40. Mucha, K. Ścierność skał w Aspekcie Prognozowania Zużycia Noży Kombajnowych (Rock Abrasivity in Terms of Forecasting the
Abrasive Wear of Cutting Picks). Ph.D. Thesis, AGH University of Science and Technology, Kraków, Poland, 2019.
41. Mucha, K. The new method for assessing rock abrasivity in terms of wear of conical picks. New Trends Prod. Eng. 2019, 2, 186–194.
[CrossRef]
42. Karaca, Z.; Günes Yılmaz, N.; Goktan, R.M. Considerations on the European Standard EN 14157 Test Methods: Abrasion
Resistance of Natural Stones Used for Flooring in Buildings. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2012, 45, 103–111. [CrossRef]
43. Shagñay, S.; Ramón, L.; Fernández-Álvarez, M.; Bautista, A.; Velasco, F.; Torres-Carrasco, M. Eco-Efficient Hybrid Cements:
Pozzolanic, Mechanical and Abrasion Properties. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8986. [CrossRef]
44. Bodnárová, L.; Ťažký, M.; Ťažká, L.; Hela, R.; Pikna, O.; Sitek, L. Abrasive Wear Resistance of Concrete in Connection with the
Use of Crushed and Mined Aggregate, Active and Non-Active Mineral Additives, and the Use of Fibers in Concrete. Sustainability
2020, 12, 9920. [CrossRef]
45. Alaskar, A.; Alabduljabbar, H.; Mohamed, A.M.; Alrshoudi, F.; Alyousef, R. Abrasion and skid resistance of concrete containing
waste polypropylene fibers and palm oil fuel ash as pavement material. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 282, 122681. [CrossRef]
46. Strzałkowski, P.; Köken, E. Assessment of Böhme Abrasion Value of Natural Stones through Artificial Neural Networks (ANN).
Materials 2022, 15, 2533. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Copetti Callai, S.; Tataranni, P.; De Rose, M.; Natali Murri, A.; Vaiana, R.; Sangiorgi, C. A Preliminary Laboratory Evaluation of
Artificial Aggregates from Alkali-Activated Basalt Powder. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16653. [CrossRef]
48. Ðokić, O.; Radević, A.; Zakić, D.; Ðokić, B. Potential of Natural and Recycled Concrete Aggregate Mixtures for Use in Pavement
Structures. Minerals 2020, 10, 744. [CrossRef]
49. Courard, L.; Rondeux, M.; Zhao, Z.; Michel, F. Use of Recycled Fine Aggregates from C&DW for Unbound Road Sub-Base.
Materials 2020, 13, 2994. [CrossRef]
50. SPW CCT. Cahier des Charges Type Qualiroutes; Service Public de Wallonie: Namur, Belgium, 2016.
51. De Witt, A.; Boston, K.; Leshchinsky, B. Predicting Aggregate Degradation in Forest Roads in Northwest Oregon. Forests 2020,
11, 729. [CrossRef]
52. Zhou, X.; Kastiukas, G.; Lantieri, C.; Tataranni, P.; Vaiana, R.; Sangiorgi, C. Mechanical and Thermal Performance of Macro-
Encapsulated Phase Change Materials for Pavement Application. Materials 2018, 11, 1398. [CrossRef]
53. Celik, S.B.; Çobanoğlu, I. Modelling and estimation of Wide Wheel abrasion values of building stones by multivariate regression
and artificial neural network analyses. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 45, 103443. [CrossRef]
54. Kolgitti, T.; Çelik, S.B. Investigation of the usability of wide wheel abrasion test on rock core samples. Environ. Earth Sci. 2022,
81, 540. [CrossRef]
55. Ko, T.Y.; Lee, S.S. Effect of Rock Abrasiveness on Wear of Shield Tunnelling in Bukit Timah Granite. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3231.
[CrossRef]
56. Rostami, J.; Ghasemi, A.; Alavi Gharahbagh, E.; Dogruoz, C.; Dahl, F. Study of Dominant Factors Affecting Cerchar Abrasivity
Index. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2014, 47, 1905–1919. [CrossRef]
57. Jeong, H.; Choi, S.; Lee, Y.-K. Evaluation of Cutting Performance of a TBM Disc Cutter and Cerchar Abrasivity Index Based on the
Brittleness and Properties of Rock. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2612. [CrossRef]
58. Dewangan, S.; Chattopadhyaya, S.; Hloch, S. Wear Assessment of Conical Pick used in Coal Cutting Operation. Rock Mech. Rock
Eng. 2015, 48, 2129–2139. [CrossRef]
59. Krauze, K.; Mucha, K.; Wydro, T.; Pawlik, J.; Wróblewska-Pawlik, A. Mass and Volumetric Abrasive Wear Measurements of the
Mining Conical Picks. Sustainability 2023, 15, 850. [CrossRef]
60. Bołoz, Ł.; Biały, W. Methods and Test Benches for Cutting Tools Testing—A Review. Energies 2023, 16, 445. [CrossRef]
61. Alber, M. Stress dependency of the Cerchar abrasivity index (CAI) and its effects on wear of selected rock cutting tools. Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol. 2008, 23, 351–359. [CrossRef]
62. Hamzaban, M.-T.; Memarian, H.; Rostami, J.; Ghasemi-Monfared, H. Study of rock–pin interaction in cerchar abrasivity test. Int.
J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 2014, 72, 100–108. [CrossRef]
63. Zhang, G.; Konietzky, H.; Frühwirt, T. Investigation of scratching specific energy in the Cerchar abrasivity test and its application
for evaluating rock-tool interaction and efficiency of rock cutting. Wear 2020, 448–449, 203218. [CrossRef]
64. Teymen, A. The usability of Cerchar abrasivity index for the estimation of mechanical rock properties. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci.
2020, 128, 104258. [CrossRef]
65. Zhang, S.-R.; She, L.; Wang, C.; Wang, Y.-J.; Cao, R.-L.; Li, Y.-L.; Cao, K.-L. Investigation on the relationship among the Cerchar
abrasivity index, drilling parameters and physical and mechanical properties of the rock. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2021, 112,
103907. [CrossRef]
66. Capik, M.; Yilmaz, A.O. Correlation between Cerchar abrasivity index, rock properties, and drill bit lifetime. Arab. J. Geosci. 2017,
10, 15. [CrossRef]
67. Larsen-Basse, J.; Perrott, C.M. Abrasive wear of tungsten carbide—Cobalt composites. Mater. Sci. Eng. 1974, 13, 93–100. [CrossRef]
68. Di Giovanni, A.; Todaro, C.; Cardu, M.; Bianchini, S.; Forfori, B. Laboratory Test Campaign Aimed at the Analysis of an
Uncommon Wear Phenomenon in a Marble Quarry. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 2264. [CrossRef]
69. Majeed, Y.; Abu Bakar, M.Z. Statistical evaluation of CERCHAR Abrasivity Index (CAI) measurement methods and dependence
on petrographic and mechanical properties of selected rocks of Pakistan. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2016, 75, 1341–1360. [CrossRef]
70. Abu Bakar, M.Z.; Majeed, Y.; Rostami, J. Influence of moisture content on the LCPC test results and its implications on tool wear
in mechanized tunneling. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2018, 81, 165–175. [CrossRef]
71. de Azevedo Barbosa, P.; Bergerman, M.G.; da Fonseca, E.; Kwitko-Ribeiro, R. Determination of Abrasiveness in Copper-Gold
Sulfide Ores: A Contribution to the Geometallurgical Model of the Sossego Deposit. Minerals 2021, 11, 1427. [CrossRef]
72. Tang, S.-H.; Zhang, X.-P.; Liu, Q.-S.; Xie, W.-Q.; Wang, H.-J.; Li, X.-F.; Zhang, X.-Y. New soil abrasion testing method for evaluating
the influence of geological parameters of abrasive sandy ground on scraper wear in TBM tunnelling. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
2022, 128, 104604. [CrossRef]
73. Rostami, J.; Gharahbagh, E.A.; Palomino, A.M.; Mosleh, M. Development of soil abrasivity testing for soft ground tunneling
using shield machines. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2012, 28, 245–256. [CrossRef]
74. Khoshouei, M.; Bagherpour, R.; Sadeghisorkhani, H.; Jalalian, M.H. A New Look at Hard Rock Abrasivity Evaluation Using
Acoustic Emission Technique (AET). Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2022, 55, 2425–2443. [CrossRef]
75. Florea, V.A.; Itu, R.-B. Potential Methods for Limiting the Consumption of Machine Components Exposed to Abrasive Wear.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 12819. [CrossRef]
76. Kotwica, K. Atypical and innovative tool, holder and mining head designed for roadheaders used to tunnel and gallery drilling
in hard rock. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2018, 82, 493–503. [CrossRef]
77. Liu, J.; Zheng, H.; Kuang, Y.; Xie, H.; Qin, C. 3D Numerical Simulation of Rock Cutting of an Innovative Non-Planar Face PDC
Cutter and Experimental Verification. Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 4372. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Abrasiveness Vs Abrasivity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abrasiveness Vs Abrasivity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Abrasiveness Vs Abrasivity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Keywords: rock properties; rock abrasiveness; rock abrasivity; abrasive wear

Citation: Mucha, K. Application of

Sustainability 2023, 15, 11243. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411243 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

porosity, water absorption, fire resistance, low-temperature resistance, permeability, heat

2. Rock Abrasiveness Test Methods

2.1. Böhme Abrasion Test

Figure 7. The Cerchar scratch test [23].

3.2. SHIMAZEK Coefficient

CAI = 2.9 · FSCH I M 0.347 (7)

FSCH I M = 0.046 ·CAI 2.88 (8)

3.4. SAT Abrasivity Test

Test specimen for soil abrasivity test SAT [36].

Table 2. Mineral classification in terms of abrasivity [35].

Specimen Weight Loss [mg] Abrasivity

Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW ≥22.0 high 12 of 22

Figure 12. RIAT device [38].

3.6. RSAI Abrasivity Test

3.6. RSAI Abrasivity Test

4.1. Rock Abrasiveness Test Methods Application

4.2. Rock Abrasivity Test Methods Application

Funding: This research received no external funding.

You might also like