Next Article in Journal
Enhancing Sea Ice Inertial Oscillations in the Arctic Ocean between 1979 and 2019
Next Article in Special Issue
Investigation of the Leachate Effect on Permeability and Geotechnical Characteristics of Fine-Grained Soil Modified Using Nanoclay–Nanofiber Composites
Previous Article in Journal
Parameter Optimization of SWMM Model Using Integrated Morris and GLUE Methods
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Armourstone Quality Analysis for Coastal Construction in Chabahar, Southeast Iran

Mohyeddin Ahrari-Roudi
1 and
Mojtaba Zaresefat
Oceanography Department, Faculty of Marine Science, Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar 99717-78631, Iran
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2023, 15(1), 151;
Submission received: 24 November 2022 / Revised: 20 December 2022 / Accepted: 23 December 2022 / Published: 30 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Water, Geohazards, and Artificial Intelligence)


Natural stones (armourstones) of varying sizes and qualities are frequently used to construct breakwaters to protect coastal engineering structures from wave actions for economic reasons. Time-related armourstone deterioration in the form of abrasion and disintegration may result in structural damage. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the performance and quality of the armourstones, which should be robust and long-lasting. The study aimed to examine the quality of two distinct types of rocks from three breakwaters used as armourstones in the Chabahar region and compare the results to the observed field performance. This study aimed to illustrate why it is crucial to characterise rocks thoroughly before deciding which ones to use in a particular project and to evaluate how well current classification techniques account for the observed field performance of stones that may have complex geological compositions. The physical and mechanical properties of the rock were evaluated through both on-site observation and laboratory testing. The results indicated that the class of rocks used in the breakwater had a wide range of suitability ratings. It was discovered that sedimentary rocks have the best water absorption and porosity properties. In addition, age is a positive factor, as the rate of destruction decreases with age. Component and particle size can also play a role in lithology, which is a significant factor in the rock’s durability. Also, the findings demonstrated that the marine organisms in the rock component play an important role in the stability of these structures, even though rock mass breakwaters are less qualified for breakwater construction as per international coastal engineering standards. According to the findings, a breakwater made of lumachel rock boulders, or alternatively sandstone boulders, will last the longest.

1. Introduction

Stones’ durability measures their ability to withstand wear and tear and maintain their initial physical-mechanical properties and aesthetics over time [1,2]. Greater durability in a rock mass means it can be used for longer. Several factors, including mineral make-up, rock fabric, chemical composition texture, porosity, pore structure properties, pore morphology, pore size distribution, water absorption, water absorption coefficient, bulk properties, strength, climate, and environmental conditions, all play a role in the variation in stone’s durability [3,4,5,6,7]. Durability stone classification and evaluation have been debated since the early 1990s. CIRIA and CUR are pioneering methods for assessing European armourstone-quality rocks [8]. However, armourstone suitability for coastal structures is assessed in the quarry where the material is mined. As Erickson [9] notes, an experienced geologist must evaluate quality because the selected rocks affect armourstone longevity. Large blocks of magmatic and metamorphic rocks and dense sedimentary rocks with irregular shapes are commonly used for armourstones [10].
Rock properties and the abrasiveness of the stone’s environment determine degradation [11]. Understanding the mechanism of stone deterioration involves numerous factors, ranging from environmental conditions to stone properties [11]. Evaluations require an appropriate geological composition, but index properties like water absorption, grading, specific gravity, weight, and visual inspections are also recommended. Thus, assessing a stone’s durability requires skilled interpretation of multiple tests and consideration of its intended use and environment [11,12]. It implies that a stone’s durability can hardly be determined by a single test or defined by a single value [11]. Rocks’ field performance is their behaviour after being used in an engineering project, and they may perform differently in areas with different environmental factors [5]. However, all stones used in engineering projects as construction materials lose their original material properties like unit weight, water absorption, and uniaxial compressive strength over time [13].
Typical laboratory procedures for evaluating the performance of armourstones include hardness, durability, crushing strength, wetting-drying, and geometrical properties [14]. According to Smith [15], durability evaluations typically involve measuring the breakwater’s resistance to abrasion and attrition, wetting–drying, thermal cycling, freeze-thaw, and salt crystallisation.
Various studies and research have been conducted in marine protection structure construction, which can be classified into the relationship between identifying the type of rock materials, the engineering properties of rocks [16], and rock age [17] on rock durability. Evaluation of the effect of age on the strength and porosity of sedimentary rocks, such as argillite rocks with Paleozoic to Tertiary ages, showed that increasing the age of epistemology increases the strength of these rocks and decreases their porosity [18]. Also, increasing the samples’ age increases the samples’ dry density, and consequently, the compressive strength has increased to some extent [19]. Although detailed guidelines exist for characterising and evaluating armourstones, they are not implemented globally. In some parts of the world, design guidelines are not well established or enforced, and stones are selected based on accessibility and aesthetics rather than durability and quality.
The geopolitical and economic importance of the Makran coast has led the Iranian government to develop a wide range of strategic plans for developing and optimal inspection of the coastal structures in the Chabahar region [20]. Several large-size rubble mound breakwaters have been constructed around 25 to 40 m in width and 250 to 800 m in length (Figure 1). Furthermore, the optimal inspection plan was established based on a mixture of qualitative and quantitative maintenance decision-making approaches combined with time-dependent and condition-dependent maintenance. In the proposed maintenance strategy, inspections are event-driven or based on updates to previous observations. However, the breakwaters need to receive more attention, causing them to deteriorate over time, and unsuitable materials have caused significant financial losses.
This study examined breakwater rocks mined for quality and field performance. The goal was to demonstrate the importance of the initial characterisation/classification of rocks before their selection in a project and to evaluate existing classification methods for capturing the observed field performance of stones with complex geological compositions. The breakwater stones were considered years after their construction and use.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area and Geological Setting

Chabahar is located in the northern portion of the Gulf of Oman, in the Iranian province of Sistan and Baluchestan (Figure 1). The study area is a free port with many commercial and political investment opportunities, persuaded the government to approve a strategic plan for the southern Makran Coast’s sustainable development and, in turn, benefit its Indigenous people while reducing social and environmental damage; consequently, this region was chosen for study. Due to the economic importance of coastal ports and facilities in south Iran, it is necessary to evaluate the engineering properties of rocky construction materials in such structures. Chabahar’s climate is hot and humid, with winter temperatures of 7 °C and summer temperatures of 47 °C. Precipitation amounts vary from year to year, typically falling within the range of 150 mm [21]. Two types of Indian Ocean monsoons affect this region: one from the northeast (during the winter) and one from the southwest (during the summer). There is widespread upwelling and high surface productivity along the coasts during the summer monsoon season because of the wet winds.
On the other hand, the sea water’s biological productivity is low during the winter due to the dryness of the monsoon winds [22]. Hydrodynamic modelling shows that Chabahar’s coast is vulnerable to storm surges [23], and the frequency of severe storms has increased [24]. From 1980 to 2008, Hoarau and Chalonge recorded 21 intense storms [25]. As a result, breakwaters and marine construction were damaged.
Lumachel, a bio-sedimentary rock sandstone abundant and easily extracted in the coastal strip’s Miocene to Pliocene formations, is used in constructing Chabahar coastal structures. Although these quarries were not far apart geographically, the stones produced by each quarry were distinct due to the study area’s geology complexity. The study area is geologically located within Makran Trench in the Oman Sea basin in the northern Indian Ocean. The Makran Trench forms in the subduction zone of the Arabian and Eurasian plates at the base of the Pakistani continental margin, in the zone of northward subduction of the high-velocity Arabian Plate to the continental crust of the slow-moving Eurasian Plate [26,27,28], which makes numerous active faults, seismotectonic events, and morphotectonic features, common on the Iranian plate [29,30,31]. Makran, one of the most active zones, is located south of the Jazmourian depression. Its western boundary is the Minab fault [32]; to the south, it is restricted by the Oman Sea, and to the east, it extends into Pakistan. The dominance of east-west trending faults characterises the northern part, the Bashagard fault being the most important one [33]. Along these faults lies a large section of the ophiolite series. The oldest rocks in this zone are the ophiolites of the late Cretaceous-Paleocene overlaid by a thick sequence (about 5000 m) of sandstone, shale, and marl. The whole sequence is deformed before the Early Miocene [34]. A thick sequence of Neogene rock units above 5000 m covers the older series [34,35]. According to recent studies [36,37], the Chabahar coast, as a part of coastal Makran, was divided into two central units, which are extremely common and consist of light grey medium-thick bedded marls or thin-medium bedded calcareous sandstones, partly with polymictic conglomerate and rarely with gypsum. The Dar Pahn and Jaghin unit’s lower stratigraphic boundary is faulted, and the upper limit with the marine terrace deposits is not observed or unconformable with the Nahang unit. Recent studies introduced Pliocene-Pleistocene shallow water sediments (Chabahar unit) for the Pliocene-Pleistocene deposits cropped out in minor occurrences along the coast. This unit was previously identified as marine terraces composed of light grey sandstones and conglomerates with silty marls. Previous geologists proposed Pliocene-Pleistocene continental deposition (Nahang unit) for fluvial conglomerates cropped out on the 1:250,000 scale Pishin and Nikshah geological maps (Figure 2).

2.2. The Erosion Evaluation

Impacts, abrasion, and physicochemical weathering can cause the armourstone to change shape and size quickly, which can be disastrous for the stability of the armourstone [38]. Resistance to abrasion in service is especially important for sites where suspended sand from wave action can attack the armourstone. On the other hand, abrasion is the most crucial factor in determining the service life of an armourstone, which is related to the durability of a stone in seawater [39]. A suitable armourstone with the proper physical characteristics and resistance to erosion is necessary for harsh marine conditions (such as wave loads, chemical weathering, physical erosion, etc.) [40]. Here, regarding the field observation, commonly observed erosion processes include chemical dissolution, roundness, exfoliation, lamination, and fracture (Figure 3).
Chemical dissolution is the process whereby chemical reactions dissolve rocks. The deterioration of rocks is due to atmospheric water, humidity, and air pollution on water-soluble salt sand [40,41]. Roundness is a process where sedimentary particles have been smoothed by abrasion [42]. Exfoliation is a type of mechanical weathering in which curved plates of rock are peeled away from the rock beneath [43]. In sedimentary rocks, lamination is a small-scale sequence of fine layers (laminae; singular: lamina). A fracture is any separation in a geologic formation that divides the rock into two or more pieces, such as a joint or a fault [44].

2.3. Sample Design and Data Collection

Classifying stones according to their durability is essential for assessing their suitability and predicting their behaviour in service life when used as construction materials in coastal structures. In the literature, investigations were conducted while visiting them to determine the quality of the armourstones used in constructing the Chabahar breakwaters; 25 samples of their rocky materials were collected for laboratory evaluations. Following the procedures outlined by Priest [45], a scanline survey was carried out alongside the production bench to detect and document the existence and characteristics of the discontinuities. Based on field observations and laboratory tests, the stones were classified following CIRIA/CUR [8] and Rock Engineering Rating System(RERS) [46]. The results of numerous researchers utilising these guidelines, consisting of different evaluation methods for all factors affecting the intrinsic properties of armourstone [11,20,47], persuaded us to use them as well. Detailed laboratory evaluations, including physical properties, mechanical properties, and durability testing, were performed to investigate the following tests: porosity (%), specific weight (N/m3), dry density (g/cm3), saturation density (g/cm3), slake durability index, water absorption (%), Los Angeles abrasion (%), impact value (%), and sulfate health (%), which are all used by many researchers so far [48,49,50,51,52,53]. All laboratory tests were conducted at the Chabahar Maritime University within the facilities located as part of the engineering geology and mining engineering departments.
Accelerated weathering tests, such as freezing-and-thawing, wetting-and-drying, and salt crystallisation tests, particularly in humid conditions, predict rock field performance by evaluating stone durability and long-term field performance [54]. Wetting-and-drying tests benefit limestone and other rocks with a relatively high water expansion coefficient. In addition, crystallisation pressure, dependent on porosity and degree of supersaturation, is the principal decay mechanism during a salt attack and is used to simulate harsh environmental conditions [55]. In addition to the results of accelerated weathering tests, classifications of stone durability, such as a saturation coefficient and durability index, are essential for determining their suitability and estimating their service life in engineering projects [56].

2.4. Statistical Analysis and Correlation Analysis

The results of one set of tests can be used to predict or estimate the outcomes of another set of tests since there is always a relationship between physical properties, resistance, and durability. Specifically, regression equations and their respective determination Pearson correlation coefficient (r) are calculated with the aid of IBM SPSS Statistics. Also, we used SPSS to conduct mean values for all samples collected per station. Pearson correlation coefficient (r) can be calculated according to the formula (Equation (1)).
r = i = 1 n ( x i x ¯ ) ( y i y ¯ ) i = 1 n ( x i x ¯ ) 2 i = 1 n ( y i y ¯ ) 2
Where r is the correlation coefficient of the two variables (x and y), and its value ranges from 1 to 1. The variables’ averages are x and y. A result of r < 0 denotes a negative correlation between x and y, while r > 0 denotes a positive correlation between x and y. When r = 0, however, it indicates no linear correlation between the variables. A greater absolute value of the correlation coefficient indicates a higher degree of association between the variables under investigation.
Also presented are the maximum and minimum acceptable tolerances for rock sample characteristics. If any of the characteristics of a rock sample falls below the specified tolerance, the sample is deemed unsuitable and should not be used. Table 1 displays the acceptable tolerance levels for each parameter of sandstone and limestone.

3. Result and Discussion

The durability of materials used in constructing engineering structures in corrosive environments is a crucial aspect of the structure’s service life. Due to the climatic and regional conditions of the country’s coastlines, the stone is one of the primary materials used in the construction of breakwaters, which should be of high quality and have a long lifespan. The evaluations included field observation and laboratory testing, including physical, mechanical, and durability assessments. The outcomes of these analyses are as follows:

3.1. Field Observation

The construction of ports and breakwaters in the Chabahar region primarily uses lumachel extracted from local mines. Based on the investigated geological maps, the sequence of formations, and the researchers’ earlier work, the age of the collected stone was computed in millions of years, as shown in Table 2. These objects are modern since they are Cenozoic. Most of these materials (95%) contain carbonate compounds and comprise limestone and biodegradable stones (Lumachel), except the Shahid Kalantari breakwater, where sandstone is the predominant material. Due to their low density, high percentage of wear, and low resistance after saturation by seawater, the Lumachelic stone components utilised in most breakwaters are easily rounded. They have vast and numerous voids between the components, particularly in the tidal zone. It decreases the quantity of locking and fastening of stone components. Parts of the sandstone used in the Shahid Kalantari breakwater are not durable because, on the one hand, they contain numerous calcite vessels that dissolve, which causes the entire rock mass to be crushed, and, on the other hand, they undergo rounding, scaling, and excessive erosion when in contact with water. According to the field observations obtained from the rock samples of the region, combining them with the results of quality measurement experiments of the samples and a comparison with the stone selection criteria, the performance of each rock in the region was determined as follows:
  • Marl limestone:
The water absorption, porosity, and specific gravity range from weak to very weak, and the rock is in good health. In addition to physical characteristics, field observations indicate that the performance of these rocks is more influenced by the particles that make up the rock. Weathering and onion skin (scaling) erosion contribute to these rocks’ erosion, but the fracture zone’s breakdown is much more pronounced than in the crown zone. Here, similar to other rocks, the erosion rate of these rocks rises as their porosity and water absorption rise. Fossil particles increase rock resistance and change scaling erosion to pitting erosion. Pitting erosion is much preferable to scaling erosion. Furthermore, poor performance in the tidal and flood zones causes these rocks to be severely eroded and highly rounded in the tidal zone, as well as drastically reduced resistance, allowing marine organisms to penetrate the rock easily.
  • Calcareous conglomerate
The rock’s specific gravity is low, its water absorption and porosity are average, and its health is excellent. Although the physical properties of this rock are nearly ideal, field observations indicate that the performance of these rocks is also dependent on the particle size of the rock’s constituent particles. The fine-grained conglomerate has superior physical properties to a coarse-grained conglomerate, as well as greater grain particle adhesion to the main body of the rock, allowing it to perform better in fracture and tidal zones and not even round in the tidal zone. Nonetheless, this difference is diminished due to the accumulation of algae on the rock in the tidal and submerged zone, and both rocks exhibit excellent performance.

3.2. Physical and Mechanical Properties

One of the most important methods for evaluating the durability of materials is the impact value test and sulfate health test. Rock materials in marine environments, especially on shores, are highly exposed to shocks caused by waves and chemical compounds, salts, and salts in the water composition. The relationship between water absorption and the porosity parameter is direct and considerable, suggesting the utility of porosity in rocks. The rock’s porosity is a weakness factor and decreases the rock’s engineering qualities. As porosity and water absorption rise, mechanical parameters such as uniaxial compressive strength and Brazilian tensile strength decrease, and the percentage of drop resulting from the test increase the impact value.
Table 3 presents the average laboratory results for the physical and mechanical properties of each station’s collected stones. According to the test results, the porosity of the stones ranges between 5.2% and 42.7%, placing them in the category of poor quality, except the Shahid Kalantari breakwater, which is of good quality. The specific weight result reveals that all stones are categorised as excellent and good. The all wet–dry (% loss) is less than 0.5, indicating all stones have an excellent classification. The slake durability index results suggest that all stones belong to the excellent group. However, the water absorption results indicate that all stones belong to the poor group, except Shahid Kalantari’s samples, which are of marginal quality. Shahid Kalantari’s samples are good quality, whilst others are in poor, marginal condition, according to the Los Angeles abrasion test results. The impact values also indicate that the samples from Sahid Beheshti and Konarak are of high quality, whereas those from Pasabandar and Ramin are of poor quality. The quality of the Beris and Shahid Kalantari samples is rated as poor.
Comparing Table 2 and Table 3 reveals that as the age of carbonate rocks has increased, all engineering metrics have improved due to the sedimentary environment. Samples of younger rocks have been formed mainly in the intertidal zone, and older ones have settled in deeper environments such as the neritic and oceanic zones. A positive correlation exists between the geologic age of rock materials and their wet and dry density. Due to a decline in cavity formation with time, the water absorption capacity of stone materials declines with age. The porosity parameter meets this requirement as well. The age of rock materials older than 20 million years causes a dramatic reduction in the volume of pores, and this reduction is exponential in nature. It shows that the rock density increases due to the potential of petrification to diminish rock pores or the formation of overburden.
However, although there is a general trend toward enhanced engineering capabilities with age, this is only sometimes the case, and limestone has superior technical characteristics to lumachel rocks. Additionally, despite their young age, terrigenous rock samples like sandstone show adequate physical and mechanical characteristics similar to older carbonate rocks. This highlights the significance of lithology, as it is attributable to differences in the rock’s mineral composition. For instance, the sandstone samples from Shahid Kalantari port, which date back to the Miocene, have very few pores due to the effect of rock mineralogy and have a distinctive sandstone texture. In contrast to porosity and density, the impact value and sulfate health test have an inverse correlation with age and increase the rate of destruction. However, the age impact is more significant on carbonate rocks.
One should consider that Hafezi Moghaddas et al. [68] evaluated the engineering properties of rock used in such structures at local mines. Comparing Table 5 and Table 6 from their work outcome with Table 3 from our work outcome reveals that our physical and mechanical properties did not change significantly over time.

3.3. The Correlation Analysis Result

The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) result is presented in Table 4. Here, relationships with extreme significance (>0.7) and strong significance (>0.5) levels are shown in italic bold formatted and bold formatted, respectively. Strong relationships have higher correlation coefficients.
The mechanical parameters are predominantly correlated in such a way that as the integrity and compressive strength of the stone increase, so does its tensile strength. Consequently, this increase in resistance reduces the erosion and loss of stone caused by physical and chemical interactions. There is a direct relationship between dry density and saturated density, point load strength, Brazilian tensile strength, and uniaxial compressive strength, and an inverse relationship between dry density and water absorption, porosity, and the impact value test. The relationship between water absorption and the porosity parameter is direct and significant, indicating the utility of porosity in rocks. Porosity is a weakening factor in stone and decreases the stone’s engineering properties. With increased porosity and water absorption, mechanical parameters such as uniaxial compressive strength and Brazilian tensile strength decrease, whereas the weight loss percentage increases.
The smallest regression relationship between the data is associated with the specific weight, durability of deposition, and sulphate health. Numerous pores and the looseness of the Lumachelic rocks, which comprised most of the samples, are primarily responsible for the disparate results of the durability tests and sulphate health. Also, the relationship between specific weight and other mechanical properties displays the greatest degree of dispersion among the physical properties. The primary reason may be that the samples’ specific weights are comparable, so their variations do not significantly affect the results of other characteristics. Among the results that can be inferred, we can mention the inverse relationship between the age of stone materials and the weight loss percentage resulting from the impact value test. Like other results, the amount of loss of sandstone materials according to their age has a significant difference compared to other materials.

4. Conclusions

This study examined the quality of four distinct types of armourstones extracted from three distinct quarries. These stones were used to construct breakwaters in the region of Chabahar. Stones from these quarries have been analysed in-depth, characterised through extensive laboratory testing, and ranked according to several criteria. The study’s findings were compared to field observations after the stones were used. This study found that the CIRIA/CUR [8] and RERS [46] classification methods are good predictors of field performance in most cases but not always. This research also demonstrated the significance of thorough stone evaluations before selecting stones for use as armourstones. The study also suggested that standard (traditional) classification methods may not always be adequate for capturing the complexities associated with geological origins. For example, this study concluded that breakwaters, which are morphologically less qualified for breakwater construction according to international coastal engineering standards, rely heavily on marine organisms attached to the rock mass for stability. So, it is best to use as many different methods as possible when classifying. Furthermore, the results of this research showed that even though rock mass breakwaters are less qualified for breakwater construction according to international coastal engineering standards, the marine organisms that attach themselves to the rock play a crucial role in the stability of these structures. Thus, the research also indicates that lumachel rock boulders, followed by sandstone boulders, are the best option for constructing long-lasting jetties.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, M.A.-R.; methodology, M.A.-R.; software, M.Z. and M.A.-R.; validation, M.Z.; formal analysis, M.A.-R.; investigation, M.Z. and M.A.-R.; resources, M.A.-R.; data curation, M.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.-R.; writing—review and editing, M.Z.; visualisation, M.Z.; supervision, M.A.-R.; project administration, M.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.


Mojtaba Zaresefat would like to express his sincere appreciation for the Ministry of Science, Research, and Technology’s (MSRT) financial support of the Islamic Republic of Iran government’s scholarship program.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors state that they have no financial or personal relationships that could be seen as competing with the work reported in this paper.


  1. Engidasew, T.A.; Abay, A. Assessment and evaluation of volcanic rocks used as construction materials in the city of addis ababa. Momona Ethiop. J. Sci. 2016, 8, 193–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Přikryl, R.; Török, Á.; Theodoridou, M.; Gomez-Heras, M.; Miskovsky, K. Geomaterials in construction and their sustainability: Understanding their role in modern society. Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 2016, 416, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Çelik, M.Y.; Sert, M. An Assessment of Pore Size Distribution Changes of the Andesite (İscehisar, Turkey) Used as Building Stone of Cultural Heritages in Relation to the Artificial Accelerated Ageing Factors. Geoheritage 2020, 12, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Di Benedetto, C.; Cappelletti, P.; Favaro, M.; Graziano, S.; Langella, A.; Calcaterra, D.; Colella, A. Porosity as key factor in the durability of two historical building stones: Neapolitan Yellow Tuff and Vicenza Stone. Eng. Geol. 2015, 193, 310–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Yavuz, A.B.; Dağ, R.; Sarı, S.A. Quantification and estimation of the durability of stones used as construction material more precisely by modification of static rock durability index. Constr. Build Mater. 2022, 355, 129221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zalooli, A.; Freire-Lista, D.M.; Khamehchiyan, M.; Nikudel, M.R.; Fort, R.; Ghasemi, S. Ghaleh-khargushi rhyodacite and Gorid andesite from Iran: Characterisation, uses, and durability. Environ. Earth Sci. 2018, 77, 315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Miltiadou-Fezans, A.; Delagrammatikas, M.; Kalagri, A.; Vassiliou, P. Evaluation of performance of matured hydraulic grouts: Strength development, microstructural characteristics and durability issues. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions SAHC21, 29 September–1 October 2021; Online; pp. 2480–2491. [Google Scholar]
  8. CIRIA/CUR: Construction Industry Research and Information Association; Civieltechnisch Centrum Uitvoering Research en Regelgeving (Netherlands); Centre D’études Maritimes et Fluviales (France). The Rock Manual: The Use of Rock in Hydraulic Engineering; CIRIA: London, UK, 2007; Volume 683. [Google Scholar]
  9. Erickson, R.L. Evaluation of limestone and dolomite armor stone durability from observations in the Great Lakes region. In Rock for Erosion Control; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  10. Přikryl, R. Constructional geomaterials: Versatile earth resources in the service of humankind—Introduction to the thematic set of papers on: Challenges to supply and quality of geomaterials used in construction. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2017, 76, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Deniz, B.E.; Topal, T. A new durability assessment method of the tuffs used in some historical buildings of Cappadocia (Turkey). Environ. Earth Sci. 2021, 80, 266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Miglio, B.; Willmott, T. Durability of stone for construction. J. ASTM Int. Sel. Tech. Pap. STP 2010, 1514, 241–246. [Google Scholar]
  13. Winkler, E.M. Stone: Properties, Durability in Man’s Environment; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
  14. Keller, R.J. Further Design Considerations. In Guidelines for the Design of River Bank Stability and Protection Using RIP-RAP; Catchment Hydrology. 2005. Available online: (accessed on 11 October 2022).
  15. Smith, M.R. Stone: Building Stone, Rock Fill and Armourstone in Construction; The Geological Socirty: Bath, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  16. Li, Z.; Dong, S.; Ashour, A. Assessment of durability and deterioration of rocks from western Iraq. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 1105, 012112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dhakal, G.; Yoneda, T.; Kato, M.; Kaneko, K. Slake durability and mineralogical properties of some pyroclastic and sedimentary rocks. Eng. Geol. 2002, 65, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Rahmani, I.; Sadeghi, E.; Nikoodel, R.M. Evaluation of Relation between Sedimentary Rocks Age and Durability of Them in Deteriorate Environments. Sci. Q. J. Geosci. 2021, 31, 187–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Shafieefar, M.; Nikudel, M.R.; Hafezi Moghaddas, N. The Guide to Use Rocks in Breakwaters and Coastal Protection Structures; Transportation Research Institute (TRI), Ministry of Road and Urban Development, Department of Marine Transportation Research: Tehran, Iran, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  20. Radfar, S.; Shafieefar, M.; Akbari, H.; Galiatsatou, P.A.; Mazyak, A.R. Design of a rubble mound breakwater under the combined effect of wave heights and water levels, under present and future climate conditions. Appl. Ocean Res. 2021, 112, 102711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kabiri, K.; Moradi, M. Landsat-8 imagery to estimate clarity in near-shore coastal waters: Feasibility study—Chabahar Bay, Iran. Cont. Shelf. Res. 2016, 125, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gupta, A.K.; Anderson, D.M. Mysteries of the Indian Ocean monsoon system. J. Geol. Soc. India 2005, 65, 54–60. [Google Scholar]
  23. Soltanpour, M.; Dibajnia, M. Field Measurements and 3D Numerical Modeling of Hydrodynamics in Chabahar Bay, Iran. Int. J. Marit. Technol. 2015, 3, 49–60. Available online: (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  24. IMD. WEB Cyclone ATLAS::AboutEAtlas. 2011. Available online: (accessed on 12 October 2022).
  25. Hoarau, K.; Chalonge, L. A climatology of intense tropical cyclones in the North Indian ocean over the past three decades (1980–2008). In Indian Ocean Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 3–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. White, R.S. Deformation of the Makran accretionary sediment prism in the Gulf of Oman (north-west Indian Ocean). Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 1982, 10, 357–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Al-Lazki, A.I.; Al-Damegh, K.S.; El-Hadidy, S.Y.; Ghods, A.; Tatar, M. Pn-velocity structure beneath Arabia-Eurasia Zagros collision and makran subduction zones. Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 2014, 392, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Straume, E.O.; Gaina, C.; Medvedev, S.; Hochmuth, K.; Gohl, K.; Whittaker, J.M.; Fattah, R.A.; Doornenbal, J.C.; Hopper, J.R. GlobSed: Updated total sediment thickness in the world’s oceans. Geochem. Geophys. Geosystems 2019, 20, 1756–1772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rahbar, R.; Bafti, S.S.; Derakhshani, R. Investigation of the tectonic activity of Bazargan Mountain in Iran. Sustain. Dev. Mt. Territ. 2017, 9, 380–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Fadaie Kermani, A.; Derakhshani, R.; Shafiei Bafti, S. Data on morphotectonic indices of Dashtekhak district, Iran. Data Brief 2017, 14, 782–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Derakhshani, R.; Eslami, S.S. A new viewpoint for seismotectonic zoning. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 2011, 7, 212–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Derakhshan, R.; Farhoudi, G.; Farhoudi, G. Existence of the Oman Line in the Empty Quarter of Saudi Arabia and its Continuation in the Red Sea. J. Appl. Sci. 2005, 5, 745–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Grando, G.; McClay, K. Morphotectonics domains and structural styles in the Makran accretionary prism, offshore Iran. Sediment. Geol. 2007, 196, 157–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Burg, J.-P. Geology of the onshore Makran accretionary wedge: Synthesis and tectonic interpretation. Earth Sci. Rev. 2018, 185, 1210–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Nabavi, M.H. An Introduction to the Geology of Iran; Geological Survey of Iran Publication: Tehran, Iran, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  36. Dolati, A. Stratigraphy, Structural Geology and Low-Temperature Thermochronology across the Makran Accretionary Wedge in Iran. Ph.D. Thesis, ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Burg, J.P.; Dolati, A.; Bernoulli, D.; Smit, J. Structural style of the makran tertiary accretionary complex in SE-Iran. Front. Earth Sci. 2013, 5, 239–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Latham, J.-P.; Poole, A.B. Assessing the Effect of Armourstone Shape and Wear. In Coastal Engineering 1988, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Coastal Engineering, Costa del Sol-Malaga, Spain, 20–25 June 1988; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 1989; pp. 2299–2312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Acir, Ö.; Kiliç, R. Determining Abrasion Rate of Armourstones Using Physical Modeling Techniques. Coast. Eng. J. 2018, 54, 1250021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sandrolini, F.; Franzoni, E. An operative protocol for reliable measurements of moisture in porous materials of ancient buildings. Build Environ. 2006, 41, 1372–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Killip, I.R.; Cheetham, D.W. The prevention of rain penetration through external walls and joints by means of pressure equalisation. Build Environ. 1984, 19, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tao, J.; Zhang, C.; Qu, J.; Yu, S.; Zhu, R. A de-flat roundness method for particle shape quantitative characterisation. Arab. J. Geosci. 2018, 11, 414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lee, C.H.; Lee, S.; Kim, J. Weathering and Degradation Assessment of Rock Properties at the West Stone Pagoda, Gameunsaji Temple Site, Korea. Conserv. Restor. Cult. Herit. 2012, 1, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Eppes, M.-C.M. 3.03 Mechanical Weathering: A Conceptual Overview. In Treatise on Geomorphology; Shroder, J.J.F., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  45. Priest, S.D. Discontinuity Analysis for Rock Engineering; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lienhart, D.A. Rock engineering rating system for assessing the suitability of armourstone sources. Geol. Soc. Eng. Geol. Spec. Publ. 1998, 13, 91–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Aboubacar, M.H.; Yavuz, A.B.; Tanyu, B.F.; Sarı, S.A. Investigation of the quality of armour stones used in rubble mound breakwater in Güzelbahçe (İzmir), Turkey. Environ. Earth Sci. 2021, 80, 401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hosseinzadeh, N.; Ghiasian, M.; Andiroglu, E.; Lamere, J.; Rhode-Barbarigos, L.; Sobczak, J.; Sealey, K.S.; Suraneni, P. Concrete seawalls: A review of load considerations, ecological performance, durability, and recent innovations. Ecol. Eng. 2022, 178, 106573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Karandagh, V.T.; Nikudel, M.R.; Lashkaripour, G.R.; Muhunthan, B. Evaluation of the Material Durability and Classification of Rocks Used in the Anzali Port Breakwater. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 24–27 March 2019; pp. 494–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kewalramani, M.; Khartabil, A.; Ma, C.; Shi, T. Porosity Evaluation of Concrete Containing Supplementary Cementitious Materials for Durability Assessment through Volume of Permeable Voids and Water Immersion Conditions. Buildings 2021, 11, 378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Latham, J.P.; Poole, A.B. Pilot study of an aggregate abrasion test for breakwater armourstone. Q. J. Eng. Geol. 1987, 20, 311–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Qaidi, S.M.A.; Tayeh, B.A.; Zeyad, A.M.; de Azevedo, A.R.G.; Ahmed, H.U.; Emad, W. Recycling of mine tailings for the geopolymers production: A systematic review. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 16, e00933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Silva, M.V.; de Rezende, L.R.; dos Mascarenha, M.M.A.; de Oliveira, R.B. Phosphogypsum, tropical soil and cement mixtures for asphalt pavements under wet and dry environmental conditions. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 144, 123–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Winkler, E.M. Important agents of weathering for building and monumental stone. Eng. Geol. 1966, 1, 381–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jamshidi, A.; Nikudel, M.R.; Khamehchiyan, M. Predicting the long-term durability of building stones against freeze-thaw using a decay function model. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 2013, 92, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Jamshidi, A.; Nikudel, M.R.; Khamehchiyan, M. A novel physico-mechanical parameter for estimating the mechanical strength of travertines after a freeze–thaw test. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2017, 76, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lienhart, D.A.; Gerdsen, A.H.; Sayao, O.J. Predicted service life of armor stone: A case history. In Proceedings of the Breakwaters’ 99: First International Symposium on Monitoring of Breakwaters, Madison, WI, USA, 8–10 September 1999; American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA, USA, 2002; pp. 145–160. [Google Scholar]
  58. Anon, O.H. Classification of rocks and soils for engineering geological mapping. Part 1: Rock and soil materials. Bull. Int. Assoc. Eng. Geol. 1979, 19, 364–437. [Google Scholar]
  59. ASTM D5313; Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Durability of Rock for Erosion Control under Wetting and Drying Conditions. American Society for Testing and Materials: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2002; pp. 1347–1348.
  60. Zhu, J.J.; Deng, H. Durability classification of red beds rocks in central Yunnan based on particle size distribution and slaking procedure. J. Mt. Sci. 2019, 16, 714–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. EN 13383-2; Armourstone. Test Methods. British Standards Institution: London, UK, 2002.
  62. EN 1097-2; Tests for Mechanical and Physical Properties of Aggregates. Methods for the Determination of Resistance to Fragmentation. British Standards Institution: London, UK, 1998.
  63. ISRM. Commission on testing methods. Suggested method for determining mode I fracture toughness using cracked chevron notched Brazilian disc (CCNBD) specimens. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 1995, 32, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. ISRM. Suggested method for determining point load strength. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 1985, 22, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bieniawski, Z.T.; Hawkes, I. Suggested methods for determining tensile strength of rock materials. Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 1978, 15, 99–103. [Google Scholar]
  66. AC 10520925; Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Intact Rock Core Specimens. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2008.
  67. Ministry of Roads and Transportation (MRT). Ports and Marine Structures Design Manual (Breakwaters and Coastal Protection Structures). No: 300-5. 2006. Available online: (accessed on 17 October 2022).
  68. Hafezi Moghaddas, N.; Nikudel, M.R.; Talkhablou, M.; Uromeihy, A.; Shafiefar, M. Investigation the engineering geology of rocks and presentation a criterion to used for construction of rubble mound breakwaters in southern coast of Iran. Sci. Q. J. Iran. Assoc. Eng. Geol. 2008, 1, 1–22. (In Persian) [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. The study area location. A satellite view of all breakwaters in the study area is also presented. The lowercase letters represent the names and locations of the breakwaters, which include: (a): Konarak, (b): Shahid Beheshti, and Shahid Kalantari, (c): Ramin, (d): Beris, (e): Pasabandar.
Figure 1. The study area location. A satellite view of all breakwaters in the study area is also presented. The lowercase letters represent the names and locations of the breakwaters, which include: (a): Konarak, (b): Shahid Beheshti, and Shahid Kalantari, (c): Ramin, (d): Beris, (e): Pasabandar.
Water 15 00151 g001
Figure 2. The surface geology of the study area.
Figure 2. The surface geology of the study area.
Water 15 00151 g002
Figure 3. Erosion patterns varied across the studied breakwaters’ armourstones. The corresponding lowercase letters represent the erosion types observed; (a): chemical dissolution,(b): lamination, (c): fracture, and (d): exfoliation.
Figure 3. Erosion patterns varied across the studied breakwaters’ armourstones. The corresponding lowercase letters represent the erosion types observed; (a): chemical dissolution,(b): lamination, (c): fracture, and (d): exfoliation.
Water 15 00151 g003aWater 15 00151 g003b
Table 1. Rock Manual test values and guidelines for using sandstone and limestone as armourstone.
Table 1. Rock Manual test values and guidelines for using sandstone and limestone as armourstone.
TestRock Manual Guideline ValuesSource
Specific weight>2.552.2–2.552.2–1.8<1.8[58]
Wet–dry (% loss)<0.50.5–11.0–2>2[59]
Slake durability index>8065–8035–65<35[60]
Water absorption<0.50.5–2.02.0–6.0>6.0[61]
Los Angeles abrasion<1515–2525–35>35[62]
Impact value>6050–6040–50<40[63]
Sulfate health<22–1212–30>30[8]
Point load>84–81.5–4>1.5[64]
Table 2. The geological age of materials used in the construction of breakwaters.
Table 2. The geological age of materials used in the construction of breakwaters.
BreakwatersLithologyGeological timeAge
Sahid BeheshtilumachelPliocene4
Shahid KalantarisandstoneMiocene12
Table 3. Physical and mechanical properties of the stones tested in this study. The code description is as follows: P: Porosity(%), SW: Specific Weight, WD: Wet–dry (% Loss), DI: Durability Index (%), WA: Water Absorption (%), LAA: Los Angeles Abrasion (%), IV: Impact Value(%), SH: Sulfate Health (%).
Table 3. Physical and mechanical properties of the stones tested in this study. The code description is as follows: P: Porosity(%), SW: Specific Weight, WD: Wet–dry (% Loss), DI: Durability Index (%), WA: Water Absorption (%), LAA: Los Angeles Abrasion (%), IV: Impact Value(%), SH: Sulfate Health (%).
Sahid Beheshti31.102.650.391.85178851.30-
Shahid Kalantari5.222.540.0699.042.1823.2615.608.60
Table 4. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between physical, mechanical, and durability parameters. The code description is as follows: DD: Dry Density, SD: Saturation Density, DI: Durability Index, WA: Water Absorption, P: Porosity, PL: Point Load, B: Brazilians, U: Uniaxial, IV: Impact Value, D: Durability, SH: Sulfate Health, LAA: Los Angeles Abrasion.
Table 4. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between physical, mechanical, and durability parameters. The code description is as follows: DD: Dry Density, SD: Saturation Density, DI: Durability Index, WA: Water Absorption, P: Porosity, PL: Point Load, B: Brazilians, U: Uniaxial, IV: Impact Value, D: Durability, SH: Sulfate Health, LAA: Los Angeles Abrasion.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ahrari-Roudi, M.; Zaresefat, M. Armourstone Quality Analysis for Coastal Construction in Chabahar, Southeast Iran. Water 2023, 15, 151.

AMA Style

Ahrari-Roudi M, Zaresefat M. Armourstone Quality Analysis for Coastal Construction in Chabahar, Southeast Iran. Water. 2023; 15(1):151.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ahrari-Roudi, Mohyeddin, and Mojtaba Zaresefat. 2023. "Armourstone Quality Analysis for Coastal Construction in Chabahar, Southeast Iran" Water 15, no. 1: 151.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop