## 4 Results and Discussion
### Analysis Results and Geotechnical Classification
It is noted that the basalt (sample SC-39) has  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **Density** & **Porosity** & **Absorption** & **Los Angeles** & **Micro-Deval** & **French** & **Moroccan** \\
**(t/m\({}^{3}\))** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **(\%)** & **Classification** & **Classification** \\  & & & & & & & **Code** & **Code** \\ \hline SC-23 & 2.64 & 1.61 & 0.61 & 20 & 17 & C & 3C  
an L.A equal to 12% and the granite (sample SC-27, SC-31) has an MDE equal to 5%, and are the rocks which have respectively the highest impact resistance and wear resistance. Furthermore, we used studies conducted by several authors on different types of rock to determine mechanical parameters (MDE and LA). Table 5 shows the L.A and MDE coefficients of the aggregates of different origins. If we compare our results with those quoted above, we can see that:  
* The carbonate rocks show very similar values of wear resistance (MDE) and impact resistance (L.A) according to the minimum values, with a slight difference of 1.8% for MDE and 1% for L.A. However, the maximum values in the literature [48; 49; 50; 51] are almost double. * The magmatic rocks have an almost similar wear resistance (MDE) and impact resistance (L.A) with a range of variation between 3% and 6% for both values (maximum and minimum) of the MDE and a difference of 4% for the minimum value of L.A. However, the maximum value of L.A, according to the authors, is almost double and even triple for some samples. * The detrital and volcano-detrital rocks have almost similar wear resistance (MDE) and impact resistance (L.A) with a slight difference of 1.8% for both values (maximum and minimum) of the MDE and 3.7% for the minimum value of L.A. On the other hand, the maximum value of L.A according to the authors is almost double. From this comparison, we can see that for the same type of rock, there is a difference in the value of the two mechanical parameters (MDE and L.A). This difference is explained, according to several authors [55; 56; 57; 58; 59], by the heterogeneity of geological parameters (including mineralogy, grain and crystal size, grain shape, and porosity). To enhance and exploit the results of Table 4, we considered classifications [60] according to French [32] and Moroccan [33] standards (Figure 5), then we carried out a spatial analysis using the GIS to create thematic maps for each standard. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Lithology**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Reference**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Rock Type**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Los Angeles (\%)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Micro-Deval (\%)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Number of**} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-6}  & & & **Min Value** & & **Max Value** & & **Min Value** & **Max Value** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Limeestone} & [48] & & 20.50 & 41.20 & - & - & 11 \\ \cline{2-6}  & [49] & & 21 & 49 & 11 & 60 & 17 \\ \cline{2-6}  & [50] & Carbonate rock & 13 & 45 & 7.8 & 39.3 & 21 \\ \cline{2-6}  & [51] & & 18 & 51 & 22 & 45 & 3 \\ \hline Dolomites & [49] & & 18 & 31 & 9 & 52 & 9 \\ \hline Andesite & [48] & & 15.40 & 18.90 & - & - & 10 \\ \hline Basalt & [52] & & 8 & 14 & 5 & 13 & 9 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Granite} & [53] & & 20 & 39 & 4 & 13 & 6 \\ \cline{2-6}  & [51] & & 28 & 35 & 11 & 11 & 2 \\ \cline{2-6}  & [50] & & 15 & 66 & 2 & 22.9 & 27 \\ \hline Meta-granite & [53] & & 21 & 30 & 6 & 9 & 2 \\ \hline Quartz & [53] & & 17 & 17 & 2 & 2 & 1 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Granoidorite} & [53] & & 21 & 23 & 5 & 6 & 2 \\ \cline{2-6}  & [51] & & 31 & 31 & 9 & 9 & 1 \\ \hline Meta-granoidorite & [53] & & 24 & 37 & 9 & 18 & 3 \\ \hline Sandstone & [54] & & 17.7 & 51.7 & 22.1 & 24 & 27 \\ \cline{2-6}  & [50] & Detritic rock & 24 & 54 & 11.2 & 21.8 & 4 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Mechanical parameters of rocks according to the literature. Figure 5: Diagram of mechanical parameters: (**a**) French standards; (**b**) Moroccan standards.