EnvironGeology v53n6 2008 QualityDurabilityArmourstone Ertas&Topal

Environ Geol (2008) 53:12351247
DOI 10.1007/s00254-007-0712-z
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Quality and durability assessments of the armourstones

for two rubble mound breakwaters (Mersin, Turkey)
B. Ertas T. Topal
Received: 7 January 2007 / Accepted: 1 March 2007 / Published online: 24 March 2007
Springer-Verlag 2007
Abstract Due to economic reasons, natural stones

(armourstones) of various sizes and qualities are very frequently used for the constructions of the breakwaters to
protect coastal engineering structures from wave actions.
Deterioration of the armourstones with time in the form of
abrasion and disintegration may end up with the damage of
the structures. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the
long-term performance and quality of the armourstones,
which should be sound and durable. Mersin and Kumkuyu
harbours were constructed using four different limestones
obtained from two quarries. The limestones have different
characters and site performances. In this study, the material
and mass properties of the limestones taken from the
quarries with known site performances as armourstones are
investigated. The site performances and durability of the
limestones are compared with the field measurements and
laboratory works. Thus, the information obtained is used to
assess long-term durability of the armourstones. The longterm performance of the Degirmencayi and Tirtar upper
level limestones are observed to be good whereas it is rather poor for the Tirtar middle and lower level limestones.
Comparison between the predicted and observed durabilities of the armourstones indicated that CIRIA/CUR, RDId,
RERS, and wet to dry strength ratio give better results
based on their field performances. However, the prediction
of the durability of the limestones is poor in case RDIs,
average pore diameter, and saturation coefficient are used.
Keywords Armourstone Breakwater Durability
Mersin Quality Turkey
B. Ertas T. Topal (&)
Department of Geological Engineering,
Middle East Technical University, 06531 Ankara, Turkey
e-mail: topal@metu.edu.tr
Introduction
Rubble mound breakwaters are important coastal defence
structures for harbour and shore protection. Large quantities of natural rocks with different sizes and shapes are
commonly used as armourstone in the construction of the
breakwaters (Mather 1985; Latham 1991; Poole 1991;
Erickson 1993; Smith 1999; Topal and Acir 2004; Latham
et al. 2006a, b). They may have variable properties because
of their geological origins (Latham et al. 1990). Severe
marine environmental conditions, particularly during
storms, require suitable armourstone having certain physical and mechanical properties, and durability characteristics (Fookes and Poole 1981; Lienhart and Stransky 1981;
Dibb et al. 1983; Clark 1988; Clark and Palmer 1991;
Magoon and Baird 1992; Lutton and Erickson 1992; Stank
and Knox 1992; Lienhart 1994, 2003; Latham 1998; Ertas
and Topal 2006). The deterioration of the armourstones
with time in the form of abrasion and disintegration may
cause damage to the coastal engineering structures.
Rubble mound breakwaters were constructed for Mersin
and Kumkuyu harbours in Turkey in the past (Figs. 1, 2).
The armourstones were obtained from Degirmencayi
quarry for Mersin harbour, and from Tirtar quarry for
Kumkuyu harbour (Fig. 3). The region is characterized by
a typical Mediterranean climate having hot-dry summers,
and mild-rainy winters with very high relative humidity.
However, some of the stones used in these breakwaters
show poor site performances.
The purpose of this study is to determine which
combinations of laboratory/field tests best predicted the
quality and durability of the armourstones used in Mersin
and Kumkuyu harbours through available durability
assessment methods. For this purpose, several laboratory
tests were conducted to determine the physical and
123
1236
Environ Geol (2008) 53:12351247
Fig. 1 Armourstones used in a Mersin and b Kumkuyu harbours

Fig. 3 A view from a the Degirmencayi and b the Tirtar quarries
mechanical properties of the armourstones, and to

understand their behaviours under different environmental conditions. The findings were then correlated with the
field performances of the armourstones in order to assess
their long-term durabilities.
Fig. 2 Location map of the

study area
123
Geological setting
In the Degirmencayi quarry (Fig. 3a), the rock is micritic
fossiliferous limestone (Ozbek et al. 2003). It is beige,
thick bedded to massive, moderately weathered near the
Environ Geol (2008) 53:12351247
1237
surface but slightly weathered below the surface. Under the

microscope, locally clayey lenses or veins exist within the
rock. Fossil fragments and intraclasts are embedded within
calcareous matrix. The limestone also contains solution
cavities near the surface (Ertas and Topal 2006). Based on
the fossil content, the age of the limestone is indicated to be
EarlyMiddle Miocene (Senol et al. 1998).
In Tirtar quarry, there exist three limestone levels having different engineering properties (Ertas and Topal
2006). They are named Tirtar upper level, middle level and
lower level limestones in this study (Fig. 3b). Bilgin et al.
(1994) indicated that the age of the limestone exposed in
the quarry is Middle Miocene based on the fossil content.
Upper level of the quarry is light brown, fine-grained, thick

bedded, slightly weathered, microsparitic-sparitic fossiliferous limestone containing oolite, pisolite and other fossil
fragments. These fragments are embedded in sparitic calcareous matrix. The limestone contains local solution
cavities for the upper 12 m of the quarry. No dissolution
effect can be observed below this level. The total thickness
of the upper limestone level varies between 4 and 6 m. The
middle level limestone is weaker than the upper level
limestone. The middle level limestone is beige to light
brown. This limestone is classified as biosparitic limestone.
It contains nummulites within the calcareous matrix. In the
limestone, there are microscale solutions cavities filled
Table 1 Index properties of the Degirmencayi limestone

Properties
Standard used
for testing
Number
of tests
Dry
mean SDa
23.71 2.00
Test results
Unit weight (kN/m3)
ISRM (1981)
180
Effective porosity (%)
ISRM (1981)
180
9.62 5.82
Water absorption under atmospheric

pressure-by weight (%)
TS699 (1987)
180
3.31 2.40
Water absorption under atmospheric

pressure-by volume (%)
TS699 (1987)
180
7.59 4.83
24.65 1.80
Water absorption under pressure-by weight (%)
ISRM (1981)
180
4.13 2.85
Water absorption under pressure-by volume (%)

Saturation coefficient
ISRM (1981)
TS699 (1987)
180
180
9.62 5.82
0.81 0.39
Methylene blue adsorption value, MBA (g/100 g)
AFNOR (1980)
0.30 0.05
Cation exchange capacity, CEC (meq./100 g)
AFNOR (1980)
0.68 0.11
Wetdry loss (%)
ASTM (1992)
0.57 0.16
Freezethaw loss (%)
CIRIA/CUR (1991)
1.25 0.66
Saturated
Mean SDa
Magnesium sulphate soundness value (%)
ASTM (1990)
4.56 1.61
Sodium sulphate soundness value (%)
ASTM (1990)
2.25 0.87
Micro-deval value (%)
TS EN1097-1 (2002)
19.60 0.25
Mill abrasion resistance indexc, ks (%)
CIRIA/CUR (1991)
Point load strength index, Is
ISRM (1985)
1.86 0.92
1.43 0.57
Fracture toughnessd (MPa.m )
Bearman (1999)
0.39 0.19
0.30 0.12
Uniaxial compressive strength (MPa)
ISRM (1981)
10
35.70 1.99
26.90 3.51
Sonic velocitye (m/s)
ISRM (1981)
180
4806.48 645.70
5219.69 689.14
Schmidt rebound hardness
(50)
1/2
(MPa)
0.0039 0.001
ISRM (1981)
10
61.00 3.39
58.00 4.57
Los Angeles abrasiong (%)

Aggregate impact value (%)
ASTM (1989)
BSI (1990a)
2
2
13.51 0.01
16.79 1.75
14.82 0.01
18.25 0.10
Aggregate crushing value (%)
BSI (1990b)
18.11 0.65
Modified aggregate impact value (%)
BSI (1990a)
10% fines value (kN)
BSI (1990c)
19.62 0.51
17.84 0.07
255.52
222.14
Standard deviation
Determined from methylene blue adsorption test
Determined from micro-deval test
Determined from Is
(50)
using correlation factor
Pundit-plus 500-kHz transducers are used
L-Type Schmidt hammer is used
Loss after 1,000 revolution
123
1238
Environ Geol (2008) 53:12351247
with secondary calcite. It also includes fewer amounts of

oolites. The cement in the limestone is formed by sparitic
calcite. Although the lower level of the quarry also consists
of limestone, it is the weakest level. It is light brown
to beige, fine-grained, slightly weathered, biomicritic
limestone with some fossil fragments. Oolite and pisolite
contents at the lower level decrease in the quarry. This unit
locally contains clayey matrix.
Engineering geological properties of the limestones

Evaluation of the engineering geological properties of the
four limestones (Degirmencayi, Tirtar upper, middle, and
lower levels) is based on the field observations and laboratory tests. For the laboratory tests, 50 block samples from the
Tirtar quarry and 30 block samples from the Degirmencayi
quarry were taken. A number of cubic samples with
5cm 5cm dimensions and crushed samples of suitable sizes were prepared from those block samples. The laboratory
tests included the determination of dry and saturated unit
weights, effective porosity, water absorption, saturation
coefficient, methylene blue adsorption, wet-dry loss, freeze
thaw loss, magnesium sulphate soundness, micro-deval
abrasion, Los Angeles abrasion value, slake durability index,
point load strength index, fracture toughness, sonic velocity,
dry and saturated uniaxial compressive strengths, aggregate
impact value, aggregate crushing value and 10% fines value.
Table 2 Index properties of the Tirtar upper level limestone

Test results
Properties
Standard used
for testing
Number
of tests
Dry
mean SDa
Unit weight (kN/m3)
ISRM (1981)
155
25.90 1.17
ISRM (1981)
155
4.87 2.68
Water absorption under atmospheric pressure-by

weight (%)
TS 699 (1987)
155
1.38 0.93

volume (%)
TS 699 (1987)
155
3.54 2.19
ISRM (1981)
155
1.88 1.13

ISRM (1981)
TS 699 (1987)
155
155
4.87 2.68
0.73 0.14
AFNOR (1980)
0.30 0.05
26.38 1.04
AFNOR (1980)
0.68 0.11
Wetdry loss (%)
ASTM (1992)
1.48 0.58
Freezethaw loss (%)
CIRIA/CUR (1991)
1.95 0.25
ASTM (1990)
8.59 1.18
ASTM (1990)
5.06 4.46
Micro-deval index, MDE (%)
TS EN1097-1 (2002)
22.20 4.46
CIRIA/CUR (1991)
0.0045 0.02
(50)
(MPa)
Fracture toughnessd (MPa.m1/2)
ISRM (1985)
1.78 0.53
1.40 0.41
Bearman (1999)
0.37 0.34
0.29 0.16
32.80 2.94
25.25 3.79
5113.10 614.89
5733.80 432.93
ISRM (1981)
10
ISRM (1981)
155
Saturated
Mean SDa
ISRM (1981)
10
52.00 1.63
48.00 3.23

ASTM (1989)
BSI (1990a)
2
2
16.20 0.36
18.13 2.62
16.70 1.13
24.48 0.08
BSI (1990b)
23.05 0.28
BSI (1990a)
10 % fines value (kN)
BSI (1990c)
Standard deviation
Determined from Is
(50)
123
29.25 0.10
21. 71 0.07
236.44
171.86
Environ Geol (2008) 53:12351247
1239
The strength related tests were performed in dry and saturated conditions. They were performed according to ISRM
(1981), RILEM (1980), TS699 (1987) and TS EN1097-1
(2002). The test results for the four limestones are given in
Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4.
The field studies involved the assessment of the rock
mass properties. The scanline surveys were performed in
accordance with Priest (1993). The dominant discontinuity
sets are found using computer program called DIPS
5.0 (1999). The description of rock material and mass
characteristics is based on Anon (1977), BSI (1981) and
ISRM (1981). The survey results are presented in Tables 5,
6 and 7.
Quality and durability evaluations of the armourstones

Performance of armourstone in a breakwater is directly
related to the long-term structural durability of the armourstone used in coastal protection (Clark 1988). This
long-term durability can be assessed through field observations and experimental laboratory data (CIRIA/CUR
1991; Smith 1999). In this study, quality evaluation of the
limestones is done on the basis of CIRIA/CUR (1991)
criteria, Rock Engineering Rating System (RERS) of
Lienhart (1998), the rock durability index of Fookes et al.
(1988), average pore diameter, saturation coefficient of
Schaffer (1972), and wet-to-dry strength ratio of Winkler
Table 3 Index properties of the Tirtar middle level limestone

Properties
Standard used
for testing
Number
of tests
Dry
mean SDa
21.74 1.02
Test results
Unit weight (kN/m3)
ISRM (1981)
40
ISRM (1981)
40
13.16 4.24

weight (%)
TS 699 (1987)
40
4.77 1.72

volume (%)
TS 699 (1987)
40
10.44 3.52
23.03 0.71
ISRM (1981)
40
6.02 2.13

ISRM (1981)
TS 699 (1987)
40
40
13.16 4.24
0.78 0.13
AFNOR (1980)
0.43 0.05
Saturated
mean SDa
AFNOR (1980)
0.99 0.11
Wetdry loss (%)
ASTM (1992)
3.54 0.89
Freezethaw loss (%)
CIRIA/CUR (1991)
2.06 0.74
ASTM (1990)
9.49 2.13
ASTM (1990)
5.29 0.20
TS EN1097-1 (2002)
32.77 0.94
CIRIA/CUR (1991)
ISRM (1985)
1.34 0.39
Fracture toughnessd (MPa.m )
Bearman (1999)
0.28 0.08
0.20 0.08
ISRM (1981)
10
21.70 4.30
14.60 3.90
ISRM (1981)
40
4303.50 277.18
4045.60 289.31
(50)
1/2
(MPa)
0.0079 0.003
0.94 0.37
ISRM (1981)
10
49.00 2.49
47.00 3.12

ASTM (1989)
BSI (1990a)
2
2
17.92 0.16
27.41 0.07
18.13 0.16
31.03 0.32
BSI (1990b)
33.33 0.69
BSI (1990a)
10 % fines value (kN)
BSI (1990c)
36.52 0.78
29.94 0.52
169.20
123.09
Standard deviation
Determined from Is
(50)
123
1240
Environ Geol (2008) 53:12351247
Table 4 Index properties of the Tirtar lower level limestone

Properties
Standard used
for testing
Number Dry
of tests mean SDa
Unit weight (kN/m3)
ISRM (1981)
110
Test results
22.64 1.52
Saturated
mean SDa
24.07 1.24
ISRM (1981)
110
14.54 5.74

weight (%)
TS 699 (1987)
110
5.58 2.75

volume (%)
TS 699 (1987)
110
12.38 5.30
ISRM (1981)
110
6.43 2.84
ISRM (1981)
110
14.54 5.74
TS 699 (1987)
110
0.95 1.18
Methylene blue adsorption value, MBA (g/100 g) AFNOR (1980)
0.71 0.22
Cation exchange capacity, CECb (meq./100 g)
AFNOR (1980)
1.61 0.52
Wetdry loss (%)
ASTM (1992)
5.14 0.90
Freezethaw loss (%)
CIRIA/CUR (1991)
11.60 1.34
ASTM (1990)
23.14 7.88
ASTM (1990)
15.23 5.11
TS EN1097-1 (2002)
57.07 0.36
CIRIA/CUR (1991)
ISRM (1985)
0.94 0.28
0.65 0.15
Fracture toughnessd (MPa.m1/2)
Bearman (1999)
0.20 0.07
0.14 0.02

ISRM (1981)
ISRM (1981)
10
110
14.70 2.97
3868.90 674.38
9.20 1.39
4287.40 655.45
Schmidt rebound hardnessf
ISRM (1981)
10
43.00 2.86
41.00 2.94
ASTM (1989)
27.77 0.01
30.96 0.01
BSI (1990a)
33.26 1.44
39.37 2.07
BSI (1990b)
37.15 1.97
BSI (1990a)
10% fines value (kN)
BSI (1990c)
(50)
(MPa)
Standard deviation
Determined from Is (50) using correlation factor

e
f
(1986). The results obtained are compared with the field

performances of the four armourstones.
CIRIA/CUR (1991) classification is based on the
laboratory and field tests of the armourstone. This system
represents the outlines of the marginal values of rocks
for different tests. The CIRIA/CUR (1991) classifications
for the limestones are given in Tables 8, 9, 10 and 11.
The strength-related parameters in the tables belong to
saturated conditions, only. The CIRIA/CUR (1991)
classification for the four limestones belonging to two
quarries indicates that both the Degirmencayi and Tirtar
upper level limestones are generally marginal to good in
quality, whereas the Tirtar middle level limestone is poor
123
0.00152 0.0012
47.21 5.24
36.73 0.02
151.57
96.19
to good and the Tirtar lower level limestone is poor to

marginal.
Lienhart (1998) suggests RERS consisting of various
complex processes for the evaluation of quality of an
armourstone. These processes consider inspection, production methods and testing steps with their related subfactors. However, the entire process may be viewed as a
combination of rock engineering matrices, in which the
sum of all corresponded values is accepted as the overall
rating. These are three main matrix groups (processes) that
affect the quality of armourstones. They include geological
processes (lithology, regional in-situ stress, weathering
grade, discontinuity analysis and groundwater conditions),
Environ Geol (2008) 53:12351247
1241
Table 5 Properties of the discontinuities in the Degirmencayi limestone
Table 6 Properties of the discontinuities in the Tirtar upper level

limestone
Discontinuity
properties
Bedding plane
Joint 1
Discontinuity
properties
Bedding
plane
Orientation
005/5
130/68
Orientation
225/10
190/36
085/80
Spacing
60 cm2 m
(wide)
210 m
(very wide to
extremely wide)
Spacing
60 cm2 m
(wide)
26 m (very
wide)
20 cm2 m
(moderate
to wide)
Persistence
>20 m
(Very high)
1020 m (High)
Persistence
>20 m (Very
high)
1020 m (High) 310 m

(Medium)
Aperture
0.10.25 mm
(Tight)
0.10.25 mm
(Tight)
Aperture
0.13 mm
(Tight)
0.13 mm
(Tight)
0.13 mm
(Tight)
Roughness
Wall Strength
Rough planar
Strong
Roughness
Rough
planar
Smooth
planar
Rough
planar
Weathering
Slightly weathered
Wall strength
Strong
Infilling
Clay
Weathering
Slightly to moderately to weathered
Seepage
None
Infilling
Clay
Number of sets
Seepage
None
Block size (Max),

(Min), (V80)a
(6)(0.6)(4.8)
Number of sets
3
(5)(0.5)(4.6)
Volumetric joint
count (Jv) (joints/m3)
Not applicable due to two

discontinuity sets
Block size (Max),

(Min), (V80)*

discontinuity sets
Volumetric joint
count
(Jv) (joints/m3)
0.7 (very large blocks)
Block shape
Block shape
Blocky
Assessed
production/construction processes (production method,

rock quality, set-aside time and block integrity), in-service
processes (petrography, sonic velocity, point load strength,
Schmidt impact resistance, Los Angeles abrasion, specific
gravity, water absorption, adsorption/absorption, magnesium sulphate soundness, freezethaw loss and wetdry
loss). A typical overall rating using RERS for the Degirmencayi limestone is presented in Table 12. Based on the
RERS of Lienhart (1998), the overall rating of the Degirmencayi limestone is 3.19 (good), the Tirtar upper level
limestone 3.20 (good), the Tirtar middle level limestone
2.71 (marginal) and the Tirtar lower level limestone 2.48
(marginal), respectively.
The factors affecting the rock durability in marine
environments are mainly originated by the physical structure of the armourstone (Dibb et al. 1983). The rock
durability index of Fookes et al. (1988) is one of the most
commonly used approaches for analysing the performance
of geomaterials to be used in a coastal structure. The index
can be applied for static and dynamic conditions that are
valid for breakwaters. The static rock durability index
(RDIs) is better suited to underlayer and core of the
breakwater, whereas the dynamic rock durability index
(RDId) is applied for armour layer of the breakwater
(Fookes et al. 1988). RDIs is expressed as follows:
RDIs = Is50 0.1(SST + 5 Wab )qssd
Joint 1
Joint 2
Assessed
Table 7 Properties of the discontinuities in the Tirtar middle and

lower level limestones
Discontinuity
properties
Bedding
plane
Joint 1
Orientation
228/8
083/85
Spacing
20 cm2 m
(Moderate
to wide)
60 cm2 m
(Wide)
Persistence
1020 m (High)
13 m (Low)
Aperture
<0.10.25 mm
(Tight)
10 cm to >1 m
(Extremely wide
to cavernous)
Roughness
Wall strength
Rough planar
Medium strong
Weathering
Slightly to moderately weathered
Infilling
Clay
Seepage
None
Number of sets
Block size (Max),

(Min), (V80)a
(2.4)(0.07)(1.8)
Volumetric joint count

(Jv) (joints/m3)

discontinuity sets
Block shape

discontinuity sets
Assessed
123
1242
Environ Geol (2008) 53:12351247
Table 8 Quality evaluation system of the Degirmencayi limestone by CIRIA/CUR (1991)

Properties
CIRIA/CUR Criteria
Excellent
Good
Marginal
Poor
Degirmencayi
limestone
Dry density (t/m3)
2.9
2.62.9
2.32.6
2.3
2.42
Water absorption (%)
0.5
0.52.0
2.06.0
6.0
3.31
Magnesium sulphate soundness (%)
212
1230
30
4.56
Freezethaw (%)
0.1
0.10.5
0.52.0
2.0
1.25
Methylene blue absorption (g/100 g)
0.4
0.40.7
0.71.0
1.0
0.30
Fracture toughnessa (MPa.m1/2)
2.2
1.42.2
0.81.4
0.8
0.33
Point load strength index (MPa)
8.0
4.08.0
1.54.0
1.5
1.56
12.0
1220
2030
30
19.62
Saturated dynamic crushing value (%)

b
Mill abrasion resistance , ks (%)
0.002
0.0020.004
0.0040.015
0.015
0.0039
Block integrity drop test, Id (%)
25
515
15
25
Assessed from point load strength index test
Assessed from micro-deval test
Table 9 Quality evaluation system of the Tirtar upper level limestone by CIRIA/CUR (1991)
Properties
CIRIA/CUR criteria
Excellent
3
Good
Marginal
Tirtar upper level

limestone
Poor
Dry density (t/m )
2.9
2.62.9
2.32.6
2.3
2.64
0.5
0.52.0
2.06.0
6.0
3.54
212
1230
30
8.59
Freezethaw (%)
0.1
0.10.5
0.52.0
2.0
1.50
0.30
0.4
0.40.7
0.71.0
1.0
2.2
1.42.2
0.81.4
0.8
0.32
8.0
4.08.0
1.54.0
1.5
1.52
Saturated dynamic crushing value (%)
12.0
1220
2030
30
29.25
Mill abrasion resistanceb, ks (%)
0.002
0.0020.004
0.0040.015
0.015
0.0045
25
515
15
25
Assessed from point load strength index test
Assessed from micro-deval test
Table 10 Quality evaluation

system of the Tirtar middle level
limestone by CIRIA/CUR
(1991)
Properties
CIRIA/CUR criteria
Excellent Good
Marginal
Poor
Dry density (t/m3)
2.9
2.62.9
2.32.6
2.3
2.22
0.5
0.52.0
2.06.0
6.0
4.77
212
1230
30
9.49
Freezethaw (%)
0.1
0.10.5
0.52.0
2.0
1.95
0.4
0.40.7
0.71.0
1.0
0.43
Fracture toughness (MPa.m )
2.2
1.42.2
0.81.4
0.8
0.20
8.0
4.08.0
1.54.0
1.5
0.95
Saturated dynamic crushing value (%) 12.0
1220
2030
30
36.52
0.002
0.0020.004 0.0040.015 0.015 0.0079
25
Assessed from point load

strength index test
Assessed from micro-deval

test
123
Tirtar middle
level limestone
1/2
515
15
515
Environ Geol (2008) 53:12351247

Table 11 Quality evaluation
system of the Tirtar lower level
limestone by CIRIA/CUR
(1991)
Assessed from point load

strength index test
Assessed from micro-deval

test
1243
Properties
CIRIA/CUR criteria
Tirtar lower
level limestone
Excellent Good
Marginal
Poor
Dry density (t/m3)
2.9
2.62.9
2.32.6
2.3
2.31
0.5
0.52.0
2.06.0
6.0
5.58

Freezethaw (%)
2
0.1
212
0.10.5
1230
0.52.0
30
2.0
23.14
11.51
0.4
0.40.7
0.71.0
1.0
0.71
2.2
1.42.2
0.81.4
0.8
0.14
8.0
4.08.0
1.54.0
1.5
0.65
Saturated dynamic crushing value (%) 12.0
1220
2030
30
47.21
0.002
0.0020.004 0.0040.015 0.015 0.00152
25
where, Is(50) = Average of dry and saturated point load

strength index (ISRM 1985) SST = Magnesium sulphate
soundness at 5th cycle (Hosking and Tubey 1969)
Wab = Water absorption at atmospheric pressure (BSI
1975; TS699 1987) qssd = Saturated surface dry relative
density (BSI 1975; ISRM 1981).
A tentative estimation of the potential durabilities of
rocks based on the static rock quality index is given in
Table 13. The calculated RDIs values of the Degirmencayi,
Tirtar upper level, Tirtar middle level and Tirtar lower
level limestones are 3.63 (poor), 2.56 (Marginal), 6.69
(Poor), 11.69 (Poor), respectively.
515
15
515
RDId is expressed as follows:

RDId 0:1MAIV 5Wab =qssd
where, MAIV = Modified aggregate impact value (Hosking
and Tubey 1969), Wab = Water absorption at atmospheric
pressure (BSI 1975; TS699 1987), qssd = Saturated surface
dry relative density (BSI 1975; ISRM 1981).
A tentative estimation of the potential durability of
rocks based on the dynamic rock quality index is given
in Table 14. The calculated RDId values of the Degirmencayi, Tirtar upper level, Tirtar middle level and
Table 12 RERS assessment of the Degirmencayi limestone

Criteria
Quality rating
Excellen = 4 Good = 3 Marginal = 2 Poor = 1
Lithological classification
Regional in situ stress

Weathering grade
Rating value Cause-effect rating Index

Weighted rating
(d/dmean) (c x e)
3
11.31
0.74
2.22
14.14
0.93
3.72
14.14
0.93
2.79
Discontinuity analysis
18.38
1.20
4.8
Groundwater conditions
14.14
0.93
3.72
Production method
15.56
1.02
3.06
Rock quality
15.56
1.02
3.06
Set-aside
13.43
0.88
2.64
Block integrity
15.56
1.02
3.06
18.38
1.20
4.8
3
3
16.97
1.11
3.60
15.56
1.02
1.69
1.02
2.37
Petrographic evaluation

Sonic velocity
Point load strength
Schmidt impact resistance

LA abrasion
Specific gravity
Water Absorption
Adsorption/absorption
MgSO4
15.56
Mean = 15.28
Freezethaw loss
Wetdry loss
Overall rating = 3.19
123
1244
Environ Geol (2008) 53:12351247
Tirtar lower level limestones are 1.37 (Good), 1.06

(Good), 2.28 (Marginal), 2.63 (Marginal), respectively.
Average pore diameter is also considered to be an
important parameter for the freezethaw durability of
stones (Larsen and Cady 1969). They stated that the critical
pore size is 5 lm below which pore water cannot be
drained out of the stone. Therefore, stones having average
pore size less than 5 lm are susceptile to frost damage. The
average pore diameters of the Degirmancayi and the Tirtar
limestones are obtained from the intrusion data of the
mercury porosimeter. They are 0.10 lm for the Degirmencayi, 0.02 lm for the Tirtar upper level, 0.13 lm for
the Tirtar middle level and 0.12 lm for the Tirtar lower
level limestones. These results are showed that all samples
are susceptile to frost damage.
Saturation coefficient (S) of a stone is the ratio between
the natural capacity of a stone to absorb water after complete immersion under atmospheric pressure for a definite
time, and its total volume of the pores that is accessible to
water. A stone with very high saturation coefficient may be
deteriorated by freezethaw activity (RILEM 1980).
Therefore, this value will be helpful to evaluate the durability of the stone in freezethaw situation. The value of
saturation coefficient can mostly vary between 0.4 and 0.95
(BRE 1983). A saturation coefficient greater than 0.8,
indicates low durability susceptible to frost activity
(Schaffer 1972 and TS2513 1977). However, many stones
have saturation coefficient in the range of 0.660.77. In this
range, the saturation coefficient gives an unreliable guide
(Anon 1975 and BRE 1983). The saturation coefficient of
the Degirmencayi limestone is 0.82. This value indicates
that the Degirmencayi limestone has a low durability
(susceptible to frost activity). The saturation coefficient of
the Tirtar upper level limestone is 0.73. This value indicates that the Tirtar upper level limestone has a high
durability (resistant to frost activity). The saturation coefficient of the Tirtar middle limestone is 0.78, which is almost in the unreliable range and also in or near to frost
susceptibility boundary. The saturation coefficient of the
Tirtar lower level limestone is 0.95 which indicates a low
durability (susceptible to frost activity). Therefore, by a
Table 13 Tentative static durability estimation of rocks (Fookes

et al. 1988)
RDIs value
Durability class
2.5
Excellent
2.5 to (1)
Good
(1) to (3)
Marginal
<(3)
Poor
Table 14 Tentative dynamic durability estimation of rocks (Fookes

et al. 1988)
RDId value
Durability class
<0.5
Excellent
0.52.0
Good
2.04.0
Marginal
>4.0
Poor
Fig. 4 Durability evaluations of stone based on the wet-to-dry

strength ratio (after Winkler 1986)
Table 15 Quality and durability assessments of the limestones using various methods
Armourstone Name
CIRIA/CUR
RDIs
RDId
RERS
Average pore diameter
Wet-to-dry strength
ratio
Degirmencayi
MG
VGG
Trtar Upper
MG
VGG
Trtar Middle
Trtar Lower
PG
PM
P
P
M
M
M
M
P
P
M
P
M
P
VG very good, G good, M marginal, P poor
123
Environ Geol (2008) 53:12351247
conservative approach, except the Tirtar upper level limestone, the other limestones may be considered to be frost
susceptible based on the saturation coefficient.
Swelling and non-swelling clay in stone tends to attract
water when exposed to moisture. The strength of the stone
can be reduced significantly due to the presence of moisture. Winkler (1986, 1993) suggested that the wet-to-dry
strength ratio based on the modulus of rupture or the uniaxial compressive strength or the tensile strength is a good
and rapid method of testing the durability of a stone in use
as a durability index. In this study, the durability indexes of
the Degirmancayi and the Tirtar limestones are evaluated
based on the saturated and dry uniaxial compressive
strength of the rocks (Fig. 4). The wet-to-dry strength ratio
of the Degirmancayi, Tirtar upper level, Tirtar middle level
and Tirtar lower level limestones are 75, 76, 67 and 62,
respectively. This reveals that the Degirmencayi and Tirtar
upper level limestones have very good to good durability,
but the Tirtar middle level limestone has good durability
and the Tirtar lower level limestone poor durability.
A summary table related to the durability assessments of
the armourstones is presented in Table 15. As can be seen
from the table, different durability assessment methods
give different results. However, the field observations by
checking the performances of the armourstones in both
harbours indicate that the Degirmancayi and Tirtar upper
level limestones showed rather good performances
(Figs. 5, 6). On the other hand, the Tirtar middle and lower
level limestones were readily disintegrated (Fig. 7) after a
few months. For this reason, they are not used anymore.
Therefore, they have poor performances.
The comparison between varies laboratory-based durability and field performances reveal that CIRIA/CUR,
RDId, RERS, and wet to dry strength ratio predict the
armourstone durability better than RDIs, average pore
diameter and saturation coefficient. No significant further
1245
Fig. 6 A close-up view of the Tirtar upper level limestone used in

Kumkuyu harbour
Fig. 7 Tirtar middle and lower level limestones after a few months of
service in Kumkuyu harbour
deterioration is expected for the Degirmancayi and Tirtar

upper level limestones in the breakwaters. However, the
Tirtar middle and lower level armourstones with poor field
and laboratory performances should not be used for the
protection of any marine structures.
Based on the outcomes of this study, it can be stated that
if a new quarry is to be opened containing a variety of
limestones, then the CIRIA/CUR, RDId, RERS, and wet to
dry strength ratio methods should be used to select which
rock type to use for armourstone, because these tests have
been shown to be the best predictors of durability. On the
other hand, the RDIs, average pore diameter and saturation
coefficient methods should not be used since they are not
good predictors.
Conclusions and recommendations
Fig. 5 The Degirmencayi limestone blocks after 2 years of service in

the Mersin harbour
Systematic tests were performed in this study to assess the

quality and durability of the four limestones used as
armourstones in Mersin and Kumkuyu harbours, and the
123
1246
field and laboratory performances of the rocks were

compared. The Degirmancayi and Tirtar upper level
limestones showed good performances whereas the Tirtar
middle and lower level limestones presented rather poor
performances. Among the durability assessment methods,
CIRIA/CUR, RDId, RERS, and wet to dry strength ratio
give better results if compared with their field performances. However, RDIs, average pore diameter, and saturation coefficient yield poor performances. Further
systematic studies on other rock types with known site
performances are expected to provide valuable data which
may be used to test and improve the available quality and
durability assessment methods.
Acknowledgments This study is financially supported by
_
TUBITAK
Project (104Y178). The authors gratefully acknowledge
Muge Akin for her valuable support during field and laboratory
studies. The authors would also like to express their thanks to the
anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions on the manuscript.
References
AFNOR (1980) Essai au bleu de methylene. 18-592. AFNOR 80181.
Paris La Defence
Anon (1975) Testing porous building stone, Stone Handbook, The
Architects Journal, 13:337339
Anon (1977) The description of rock masses for engineering
purposes. Q J Eng Geol 10:355389
ASTM (1989) Standard test method for resistance to degradation of
large-size coarse aggregate by abrasion and impact in the Los
Angeles Machine C535, pp 285287
ASTM (1990) Standard test method for soundness of aggregates by
the use of sodium sulphate or magnesium sulphate Am Soc Test
Mater C88:3741
ASTM (1992) Standard test method for evaluation of durability of
rock for erosion control under wetting and drying conditions Am
Soc Test Mater D5313:13471348
Bearman RA (1999) The use of the point load test for the rapid
estimation of Mode I fracture toughness: Int J Rock Mech Miner
Sci 36:257263
Bilgin A, Uguz M, Elibol E, Guner E, Gedik I (1994) Mut-Silifke_ el ili Jeolojisi). MTA, pp 120
Gulnar Yoresinin (Ic
BRE (1983) The selection of natural building stone. Building
Research Establishment, Digest 290, 8 p
BSI (1975) Testing aggregates-methods for determining the physical
properties. British Standards Institution. BS 812: Part 2, London
BSI (1981) Code of Practice for Site Investigations-BS 5930, British
Standards Institution, pp 147
BSI (1990a) Testing aggregates-methods for determination of aggregate impact value. British Standards Institution. BS 812: Part
112, London
BSI (1990b) Method for determination of aggregate crushing value.
British Standards Institution. BS 812: Part 110, London
BSI (1990c) Testing aggregates-methods for determination of ten
percent fines value (TFV). British Standards Institution. BS 812:
Part 111, London
Clark AR (1988) The use of Portland stone rock armour in coastal
protection and sea defence works. Q J Eng Geol 21:13136
Clark AR, Palmer JS (1991) The problem of quality control and
selection of armourstone. Q J Eng Geol 24:119122
123
Environ Geol (2008) 53:12351247

CIRIA/CUR (1991) Manual on the use of rock in coastal and
shoreline engineering. Construction Industry Research and
Information Association, CIRIA Special Publication 83/ CUR
Report 154
Dibb TE, Hughes DW, Poole AB (1983) The identifiation of critical
factors affecting rock durability in marine environments. Q J Eng
Geol 16:149161
DIPS 5.0 (1999) DIPS-computer program for graphical and statistical
analysis of orientation data. Rocscience Inc., Canada
Erickson RL (1993) Evaluation of limestone and dolomite armor
stone durability from observations in the Great Lakes regions.
Rock for Erosion Control, 8893
Ertas B, Topal T (2006) Comparison between site performance and
index properties of the armourstones in two harbours. In:
Proceedings of 10th International congress IAEG 2006Engineering geology for tomorrows cities, Nottingham, Paper No:
326, 7p
Fookes PG, Poole AB (1981) Some preliminary considerations on the
selection and durability of rock and concrete materials for
breakwaters and coastal protection works. Q J Eng Geol 14:97
128
Fookes PG, Gourley CS, Ohikere C (1988) Rock weathering in
engineering time. Q J Eng Geol 21:3357
Hosking JR, Tubey W (1969) Research on low-grade and unsound
aggregates. Road Research Laboratory Report, LR 293, Crowthone
ISRM (1981) Rock characterization, testing and monitoring. In:
Brown ET (ed) International Society for rock mechanics,
suggested methods. Pergamon Press, Oxford
ISRM (1985) Suggested method for point load strength. International
Journal of Rock Mechanics, Mineral Sciences and Geotechnical
Abstracts 22:5160
Larsen TD, Cady PD (1969) Identification of frost susceptible
particles in concrete aggregates, National Cooperative Research
Program, Report 66, Washington, D.C., Highway Research
Board, p 62
Latham JP (1991) Degradation model for rock armour in coastal
engineering. Q J Eng Geol 24:101118
Latham JP (1998) Assessment and specification of armourstone
quality from CIRIA/CUR (1991) to CEN (2000). Advances in
Aggregates and Armourstone Evaluation. The Geological Society, Engineering Geology Special Publication No.13, pp 6585
Latham JP, Poole AB, Laan GJ, Verhoef PNF (1990) Geological
constraints on the use of quarried rock in coastal structures.
Proceedings of the 6th International Congress IAEG, Balkema.
Symposia, pp 217225
Latham JP, Mulen JV, Dupray S (2006a) Prediction of in-situ block
size distributions with reference to armourstone for breakwaters.
Eng Geol 86:1836
Latham JP, Mulen JV, Dupray S (2006b) The specification of
armourstone gradings and EN 13383 (2002). Q J Eng Geol
Hydrogeol 39:5164
Lienhart DA (1994) Durability issues in the production of rock for
erosion control. In: Proceedings of the 1st North American Rock
Mechanics Symposium on Rock Mechanics, Models, and
Measurements, Challenges from Industry, Balkema, Rotterdam,
10831090
Lienhart DA (1998) Rock engineering rating system for assessing the
suitability of armourstone sources, Advances in Aggregates and
Armourstone Evaluation. The Geological Society, Engineering
Geology Special Publication, No: 13, pp 91106
Lienhart DA (2003) A systems approach to evaluation of riprap and
armor stone sources. Environ Eng Geosci 9:131149
Lienhart DA, Stransky TE (1981) Evaluation of the potential sources
of rip-rap and armourstone-methods and considerations. Bull
Assoc Eng Geol 18:323332
Environ Geol (2008) 53:12351247

Lutton RJ, Erickson RL (1992) Problems with armor-stone quality on
Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie. Durability of Stone for Rubble
Mound Breakwaters, pp 115136
Magoon OT, Baird WF (1992) Durability of armor stone for rubble
mound structures. Durability of Stone for Rubble Mound
Breakwaters, pp 34
Mather RP (1985) Rock for breakwater construction in western
Australia-its availability and influence on design. Eng Geol
22:3544
Ozbek A, Cobanoglu I, Turkmen S, Acar A, Uras Y (2003)
Engineering Aspects of Miocene Limestone in Mersin/Turkey.
In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Industrial
Minerals and Building Stones
Poole AB (1991) Rock quality in coastal engineering. Q J Eng Geol
24:8590
Priest SD (1993) Discontinuity analysis for rock engineering.
Chapman & Hall, London
RILEM (1980) Recommended tests to measure the deterioration of
stone and to assess the effectiveness of treatment methods.
Commission 25-PEM. Mater Struct 13:175253
Schaffer RJ (1972) The weathering of natural building stones.
Department of Scientific and Industrial Researches, Special
Report No.18
1247
Senol M, Sahin S, Duman T (1998) Adana-Mersin dolaynn jeoloji
etut raporu (1/100 000) olcekli Mersin O 33 paftasi, MTA, 46 p
Smith MR (1999) Stone: Building stone, rock fill and armourstone in
construction. The Geological Society. Engineering Geology
Special Publication No.16
Stank KR, Knox JW (1992) Service records of Chicago district
breakwater stone and how these relate to test results. Durability
of Stone for Rubble Mound Breakwaters, pp 95114
Topal T, Acir O (2004) Quality assessment of armourstone for a
rouble mound breakwater (Sinop-Turkey). Environ Geol
46:905913
TS2513 (1977) Natural building stones. Turkish Standards Institute
(in Turkish), pp 6
TS699 (1987) Methods of testing for natural building stones. Turkish
Standards Institute (in Turkish), pp 82
TS EN1097-1 (2002) Tests for mechanical and physical properties of
aggregates-Part 1: determination of the resistance to ware (Micro
deval). Turkish Standards Institute (in Turkish), pp 8
Winkler EM (1986) A durability index for stone. Bull Assoc Eng
Geol 30:99101
Winkler EM 1993 Discussion and reply on the durability of sandstone
as a building stone, especially in urban environments. Bull Assoc
Eng Geol 30:99101
123

EnvironGeology v53n6 2008 QualityDurabilityArmourstone Ertas&amp;Topal

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

EnvironGeology v53n6 2008 QualityDurabilityArmourstone Ertas&amp;Topal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environ Geol (2008) 53:12351247

Quality and durability assessments of the armourstones

Abstract Due to economic reasons, natural stones

Environ Geol (2008) 53:12351247

Fig. 1 Armourstones used in a Mersin and b Kumkuyu harbours

mechanical properties of the armourstones, and to

Fig. 2 Location map of the

Environ Geol (2008) 53:12351247

surface but slightly weathered below the surface. Under the

Upper level of the quarry is light brown, fine-grained, thick

Table 1 Index properties of the Degirmencayi limestone

Unit weight (kN/m3)

Effective porosity (%)

Water absorption under atmospheric

Water absorption under atmospheric

Water absorption under pressure-by weight (%)

Water absorption under pressure-by volume (%)

Methylene blue adsorption value, MBA (g/100 g)

Cation exchange capacity, CEC (meq./100 g)

Wetdry loss (%)

Freezethaw loss (%)

Magnesium sulphate soundness value (%)

Sodium sulphate soundness value (%)

Micro-deval value (%)

Mill abrasion resistance indexc, ks (%)

Point load strength index, Is

Fracture toughnessd (MPa.m )

Uniaxial compressive strength (MPa)

Sonic velocitye (m/s)

Schmidt rebound hardness

Los Angeles abrasiong (%)

Aggregate crushing value (%)

Modified aggregate impact value (%)

10% fines value (kN)

Determined from methylene blue adsorption test

Determined from micro-deval test

using correlation factor

Pundit-plus 500-kHz transducers are used

L-Type Schmidt hammer is used

Loss after 1,000 revolution

Environ Geol (2008) 53:12351247

with secondary calcite. It also includes fewer amounts of

Engineering geological properties of the limestones

Table 2 Index properties of the Tirtar upper level limestone

Unit weight (kN/m3)

Effective porosity (%)

Water absorption under atmospheric pressure-by

Water absorption under atmospheric pressure-by

Water absorption under pressure-by weight (%)

Water absorption under pressure-by volume (%)

Methylene blue adsorption value, MBA (g/100 g)

Cation exchange capacity, CEC (meq./100 g)

Wetdry loss (%)

Freezethaw loss (%)

Magnesium sulphate soundness value (%)

Sodium sulphate soundness value (%)

Micro-deval index, MDE (%)

Mill abrasion resistance indexc, ks (%)

Point load strength index, Is

Fracture toughnessd (MPa.m1/2)

Uniaxial compressive strength (MPa)

Sonic velocitye (m/s)

Schmidt rebound hardness

Los Angeles abrasiong (%)

EnvironGeology v53n6 2008 QualityDurabilityArmourstone Ertas&Topal

EnvironGeology v53n6 2008 QualityDurabilityArmourstone Ertas&Topal