Investigation of the physico-chemical and microscopic properties of Ottoman mortars from Erzurum (Turkey)

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Investigation of the physico-chemical and microscopic properties of Ottomanmortars from Erzurum (Turkey)

Hanifi Binici a,*, Joselito Arocena b, Selim Kapur c, Orhan Aksogan d, Hasan Kaplan e

a Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University, Engineering and Architectural Faculty, Department of Civil Engineering, Kahramanmaras, Turkeyb Canada Research Chair-Soil and Environmental Sciences, Ecosystem Science and Management, University of Northern British Columbia,3333 University Way, Prince George, BC, Canada V2N 4Z9c Cukurova University, Department of Soil Science and Archaeometry Adana, Turkeyd Maltepe University, Department of Civil Engineering, Istanbul, Turkeye Pamukkale University, Department of Civil Engineering, Denizli, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 28 April 2008Received in revised form 29 March 2010Accepted 31 March 2010Available online 22 April 2010

Keywords:Ottoman mortarsErzurumChemical assessmentMicroscopic properties

a b s t r a c t

Ottoman mortar is the long-established binding material used for centuries and there are many historicalbuildings as evidence of its use by Ottomans in Erzurum (Eastern Turkey). The physico-chemical andmicroscopic properties of the Ottoman mortars in Erzurum have been studied in detail as part of aninvestigation of the mineral raw materials present in the territory of Turkey. For this purpose, SEM,XRD and EDS analyses of six main types of mortars were carried out showing the presence of organicfibers and calcite, quartz and muscovite minerals. The chemical analyses of the specimens showed thathigher SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3 contents yielded in higher values of hydraulicity and cementation indices.A significant result of this investigation was that mortars with higher hydraulicity and cementation indi-ces had higher compressive strengths. Most probably this is the main reason why historical Ottomanbuildings were resistant against serious earthquakes.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The Ottomans were one of the greatest and most powerful civ-ilizations of the modern period (1299–1923) (see Fig. 1). Their mo-ment of glory in the 16th century represents one of the heights ofhuman creativity, optimism, and artistry. The empire they builtwas the largest and most influential of the Muslim empires ofthe modern period and their culture and military expansioncrossed over into Europe.

One of the countries where the Ottoman cultural influence isthe densest is Turkey. Looking from an historical perspective, it isknown that many civilizations have lived in the country and con-sequently produced many different cultures and architecturalproducts. For instance, a case point is Erzurum which is one ofthe oldest cities that boasts such historical examples surviving un-til the present. It is a historical city in the east of Turkey, which hasbeen influenced by several cultures and civilisations (Fig. 1). To citesome examples, Ibrahim Pasa Mosque, Erzurum Castle, Lala PasaMosque, Pasinler Castle, Cifte Minerat and Pasinler Ulu Mosque

are some of the historical masterpieces, most of which were prob-ably designed by the famous Ottoman architect ‘Sinan’.

The Romans are credited with a large number of innovations inconstruction, including hydraulic cement, a mixture of volcanic ashand lime. Mortars of different types and compositions were widelyknown and used in the ancient world and the lime mortar–puttywas widespread throughout the Roman and Byzantine Empires.In many cases lime was used as a binder and for better plasticity[1,2]. Mortars with crushed ceramics as aggregates were used bythe Ottomans. These mortars, besides being suitable for buildingpurposes were also preferred as a watertight layer on buildingmortars or to enhance the watertight aspects of a building mortar.Adding limestone to the mix has been known to enhance the mor-tar strength. Mortars with volcanic aggregates, with or withoutlimestone fragments, were used for most building components oron exterior surfaces in the Ottoman and Byzantine buildings, aswas used in the unique dome structure mortars of the contempo-rary St. Sophia Museum in Istanbul [3]. The better freeze–thawresistance of the mortars prepared with limestone and volcanicaggregates is probably due to an appropriate pore structure andsufficient mechanical strength. Furthermore, the better water-proofing behavior of the mortars with the addition of fine crushedceramic is believed to result from a denser pore structure of themortar binder [4].

0950-0618/$ - see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.03.013

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 344 2191278; fax: +90 344 2191052.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H. Binici), [email protected] (J. Arocena),

[email protected] (S. Kapur), [email protected] (O. Aksogan), [email protected] (H. Kaplan).

Construction and Building Materials 24 (2010) 1995–2002

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /conbui ldmat


Some recent research is conducted on pilot applications withcompatible restoration mortars, avoiding the common practice ofcement mortar mixtures. These applications are sought to be eval-uated not only by their performance during the recent earthquakesin Turkey and Greece, but also by their examination in situ withnon-destructive tests [5].

A selected set of specimens from excavations from the Cathe-dral at Tournai in Belgium has been characterized using a combina-tion of chemical and microscopical techniques [6]. The results ofthe characterization of these specimens clearly indicate the impor-tance of an optical microscopic study using thin sections as a firststep in the chemical–mineralogical characterization of historicmortars because of the complexity and heterogeneity of such com-posite materials. It was concluded that microprobe analysis resultson mortars have proved to be useful in helping the interpretationof the hydraulic character of ancient mortars.

The compactness of the studied mortar groups confirms thatthere were, in the past, traditional mortar technologies that re-mained unaltered for large historical periods. The properties ofcrushed brick mortars, for example, do not show appreciablechanges from the early Byzantine to the late Ottoman period [1].

Roman mortars have been highly appreciated for their durabil-ity. Hence, their physico-chemical and microstructural characteris-tics have been widely investigated [7]. However, the maintechnological properties of the Ottoman mortars, such as themechanical strength, durability, and permeability, are not suffi-ciently well known to enable correlations to be established withtheir microstructure.

The concrete manufacturing process consists of, the develop-ment of macro-porosity of a micro-mortar matrix made of cement,lime, sand and water, by the addition of an expansive agent, whichreacts with the water and the lime liberated by the hydration of

Fig. 1. Map of Ottoman Empire and location of Erzurum.

1996 H. Binici et al. / Construction and Building Materials 24 (2010) 1995–2002


the binder [8]. The gaseous release generated by this chemicalreaction causes the fresh mortar to expand and leads to the devel-opment of pores, which give the aerated concrete its well knowncharacteristics, i.e., the low weight and high thermal performances[9]. Moreover, the high porosity of aerated concretes, essential totheir main function, which is thermal insulation, leads to very poormechanical strengths compared to normal concrete. The quantityof pores and the pore distribution mainly influence the mechanicalproperties [10]. An experimental study has shown that an increasein the cement dosage increases the introduced porosity, whereasan increase in the sand or lime dosages decreases it [11].

The aim of the present study is to draw attention to the generalresistance of the Ottoman buildings, by studying the chemical,strength, porosity and microscopic properties of the Ottoman mor-tars from Erzurum (Turkey). The performance of Ottoman build-ings against earthquake damage is dependent, to a large extent,on the physical characteristics of their mortars. Hence, compres-sive strength is a crucial parameter regarding the load capacity ofthe structures and was therefore included in the assessmentprogrammed.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Materials

Ottoman mortar specimens were taken using hammer and chisel. With respectto their function, the specimens can be divided into three main groups. The firstgroup consists of broken brick and limestone masonry mortars, the second groupconsists of crushed ceramic and broken bricks and the last group has only lime-stone. Sample locations and appearance of Ottoman mortar specimens from Erzu-rum, Turkey, are given in Table 1. Color of the patina and interiors are observedto be very different. This may be depending on the mineral binder and the addi-tional constituents. The main mineral constituents of these specimens are givenin Table 2. The proportion of the lightweight particles in the aggregate materialwas determined according to the Turkish Standard Specification EN TS 3528.

Specimens were taken from minaret walls and leftovers from castle restorationworks. The main elemental contents in the Ottoman mortars are given in Table 3.Depending on the colors and the types of aggregates, the specimens were separatedinto three groups. Samples from each group were used for chemical and micro-scopic analyses and for the compressive strength tests. The major elements Ca,Mg, Fe, and Al were measured by Atomic Absorption Spectrometry after HCl (1 N)treatment. The amount of soluble SiO2 (not equal to the total amount), was esti-mated by the dissolution of the specimens in HCl (3 N) and analysis by AtomicEmission Spectrometry. The amounts of the elements are related to the degree ofhydraulicity of the mortars as suggested by EN TS 3624 with higher indices indicat-ing higher hydraulicities. Hydraulicity and cementation indices are defined, respec-tively, as follows [12]:

HI ¼ Al2O3%þ Fe2O3%þ SiO2%

CaO%þMgO%ð1Þ

CI ¼ 1:1Al2O3 þ 0:7Fe2O3%þ 2:8SiO2%

CaO%þ 1:4MgO%ð2Þ

This paper discusses six different groups of mortars from six different buildingsas shown in Fig. 2 in Erzurum, Turkey (see selected buildings in Figs. 2a–2d). Thespecimens were taken from the walls of the minarets and walls of the castles, leftbehind after restoration works. The cross-section of the studied historical building(S1) is given in Fig. 3. Samples varied in size from thumbnail to hand specimen,weighing between 100 and 150 g, and containing coarse aggregate grains up to10 mm.

2.2. Electron microscopy and EDS analyses

The hydration–dehydration products were identified by means of a ScanningElectron Microscope. Selected mortar prisms were cut into cubes of approximately10 mm3 size, one side of which was polished flat. The samples were then placed in avacuum dessicator for a minimum period of three days. Polished surfaces werecoated with gold using a BIO-RAD polar Division SEM coating system. The micro-structure of the specimens was studied in a Philips XLS 30 scanning electronmicroscope equipped with an energy dispersion spectrometer (EDS) detector. TheSEM-EDAX study was carried out at low vacuum and acceleration voltages of20 keV, beam current of 36 lA, vacuum pressure (in the electron gun) of8.3 � 10�8 mbar, sample pressure of 4.5 � 10�6 mbar, 400 s of counting–integrationtime for EDS and beam size of 1 lm. The submicroscopic pore and aggregate char-acterizations of the mortars, namely as size, shape and orientation was carried bythe micromorphological approach developed by FitzPatrick and Kelling et al.[13,14].

2.3. X-ray powder diffraction analysis

X-ray diffraction analysis was conducted using a Bruker D8 diffractometer withgeneral area diffraction detector and an 800 mm collimator with a pinhole from 2.2�to 90� 2h using Co Ka radiation with wavelength k = 1.79026 Å, generated at 40 keVand 20 mA. Diffraction patterns were compared with ICDD PDF card files to identifymineral species and were obtained using a laser-focusing system that allows non-destructive spot XRD analysis of the mineral of interest on the rock samples.

2.4. Chemical assessment methods

The chemical composition of the Ottoman mortars was determined by a num-ber of complementary methods, according to the Turkish Standard EN TS 196-2 pre-sented in weight percentage. Sample material was pulverized and subsequentlydigested in excess concentrated hydrochloric acid (1 N HCl). Na and K were mea-sured separately in a Jenway PFP 7 flame photometer. Main elements Ca, Mg, Fe,and Al were measured by atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS). Analysis ofMn2O5 and P2O5 was done by XRF. Loss on ignition was determined at 1000 �C.The amount of soluble SiO2 (as different from SiO2-total!) was estimated by disso-lution in excess 3 N HCl and subsequent analysis by AES. Furthermore, analysis ofSiO2 was conducted by gravimetric method by determining the insoluble residueby weight and the remaining components were determined by EDTA titration.Hydraulicity and cementation indices were recalculated using Eqs. (1) and (2).

2.5. Physical and mechanical assessment methods

The specimens used for the compressive strength test were 40 ± 5 mm cubes.The density, specific porosity and water absorption of the specimens were calcu-lated using the Archimedes principle on the same size cubes [12]. Aggregate typesand lightweight particle contents of the mortars were tested according to the EN TS196-1. The compressive strength tests were carried out using a 20,000 kN capacityautomatic compression machine according to EN TS 24 by taking the averagestrength of the three parallel measurements of each specimen. The total porositywas determined according to the water saturation test with a hydrostatic balance[15].

Table 1Locations and colors of the mortars.

Specimens Location Yearcompleted

Patinacolor

Interiorcolor

S1 Ibrahim PasaMosque

1748 White White

S2 Erzurum Castle 1771 White GrayS3 Lala Pasa Mosque 1571 White GrayS4 Pasinler Castle 1336 Black GrayS5 Cifte Minerat 1294 Gray WhiteS6 Pasinler Ulu

Mosque1564 Gray White

Table 2Additives and mineral constituents of the mortars.

Specimens Additives–coarsematerials

Binder Additions Lightsubstance(wt.%)

S1 Broken bricks(200 mm) + limestone

Calcite,muscovite

Organicfragments

0.27

S2 Brokenbricks + limestone

Muscovite,calcite

Organicfragments

0.35

S3 Brokenbricks + limestone

Calcite,quartz

Organicfibers

0.33

S4 Brokenbricks + crushedceramics

Calcite,quartz,muscovite

Organicfibers

0.26

S5 Limestone Calcite,muscovite,quartz

– 0.44

S6 Limestone Calcite,muscovite,quartz

– 0.41

H. Binici et al. / Construction and Building Materials 24 (2010) 1995–2002 1997


3. Results

3.1. Electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction (XRD)

The SEM images reveal the presence of calcite and amorphousCSH phases (Fig. 4) determined as the major component of themortar admixtures commonly known as the ‘lime mortars’ (Ta-ble 2). However, XRD analysis revealed the presence of fine musco-vite and quartz that were masked by the abundant calcite binderand the amorphous hydraulic formations determined in the SEM

images (Table 2). Frequent organic fibers and fragments were iden-tified in the matrices of the S1, S2, S3 and S4 specimens respec-tively (Figs. 5–8). Some were partly decomposed organic fibers(most probably straw fragments) (Fig. 5) and plant epidermal tis-sues (Fig. 6).

The images, furthermore, reveal an open pore (continuous pores)structure with pore sizes of about 20–100 lm complemented byabout an equal distribution of smaller closed pores (discontinuouspores) of 5–50 lm size embedded in a very fine grained granularmatrix, i.e., matrix composed of irregular to elongated micro-aggre-

Fig. 2a. Ibrahim Pasa Mosque.

Fig. 2b. Erzurum Castle.

Fig. 2c. Lala Pasa Mosque.

Fig. 2d. Pasinler Castle.

Table 3EDS-Spot analysis of mortars.

Energy level (keV) Intensity (csp) Specimens

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

0–0.8 and 08–1.6 Medium Ca, Cu, Si Ca, Cu, Si Ca, Cu, Si O, Mg Si Si2.6–4.0 High Si, Ca Ca Ca Si, Cl, Ca Ca Ca4.2–6.4 High Ca Ca Ca – – –7.2–8.0 Low Fe Fe Fe Fe – –



gates (varying sizes from 10 lm to 200 lm) and reinforced by thefrequent organic fragments and fibers observed in some of the spec-imens. The average grain size of the abundant calcite crystals aggre-gated with the CSH structures was 5–10 lm, with minor differencesbetween mortars from different structures (Fig. 4).

The oxide composition analysis of the Ottoman mortars used inthe historical buildings conducted by the EDS of the selected spec-imens (Table 3), revealed the presence of the dominant elements ofcalcium, magnesium, silica and iron. Other elements were belowthe lower detection limits of the EDS system. Table 3 illustrates

Fig. 3. Cross-section of the studied historical building (S1).

Fig. 4. SEM image of specimen S5.







peaks near 0.80 keV for copper (Cu), a rather unusual constituent ofmortar, especially in quantities detectable by SEM-EDS and twopeaks near 2.6 keV for chlorine (Cl), which is another rather unu-sual mortar constituent.

3.2. Chemical compositions

Chemical composition data in wt.% oxides for all six samplelocations are shown in Table 4. The results reveal remarkably uni-form compositions for mortars from very different structures, al-most spanning 500 years through history.

Many authors have tried to determine the hydraulicity of an-cient mortars on the basis of the combined results of chemicaland microscopical analyses [16–22]. Concerning the results of thechemical analyses are given in Table 4,

Hydraulic properties of mortars were determined by calculatinghydraulic (HI) and cementation (CI) indices considering the chem-ical compositions of white lumps according to Boynton formula(Eqs. (1) and (2)), the highest values for the hydraulicity andcementation indices correspond to a higher SiO2, Al2O3 and Fe2O3

content. Table 4 illustrates that the above values are highest forspecimen S4.

3.3. Physical properties

Data on the physical properties are shown in Table 5. The con-tent of lightweight particles in modern mortars is limited accord-ing to Turkish standard EN-TS 3528. Thus, mortars are considereddurable when the content of lightweight particles is less than0.5 vol.%, whereas content higher than 0.5 vol.% is consideredpoorly durable [23].

Specimen S4 contains brick fragments and crushed ceramics(Table 5) and is observed to have the highest compressive strength.Other specimens containing limestone fragments along with otheringredients mentioned show lower compressive strength.

According to water absorption data, specimen S4 also has thelowest porosity value, whereas S2 containing brick and limestonefragments attained the highest porosity.

All Ottoman mortars do fulfill compressive strength require-ments of ASTM C 140-05a and EN TS 3114 and 6433.

4. Discussion

4.1. Microscopy, mineral content and chemical composition

The oxide composition analysis of the Ottoman mortars used inthe historical buildings by EDS indicated that all the mortars weremainly composed of high amounts of Si, Ca and moderate amountsof Fe, Na and K (Table 3). However, the amounts of Fe in all mortarsused in the historical buildings were found to be more or less thesame (see Tables 3 and 4). Abundant calcite crystal-amorphoushydraulic formations (CSH) clusters-aggregates were determinedin the matrix of the mortars, especially in specimens S1, S3 andS5 (Figs. 4, 5 and 7). This reflected the use of finely ground abun-dant limestone fragments as the main ingredient of the mortars,which was most likely recrystallised as fine calcite and CSH aggre-gates and oriented as clusters following the hydration process.

The well to moderately uniform distribution of the porosity ob-served in the SEM images is probably due to the homogeneous dis-tribution of the hydration products, i.e., indicating most likely auniformly proceeding hydration process, and mainly composed ofcalcite and CSH in specimen S1 of lowest density as also deter-mined in the earlier studies [24,25].

The source of the detrital muscovite was most probably one ofthe sources of the mineral constituents, namely the brick, ceramicand limestone fragments added to the mortar mixtures (Table 2).

Despite the limited sample sizes of the mortars obtained for thestudy, the above mentioned minerals and the amorphous CSH phasewere most probably responsible for the development of the strongadhesion bonds and the durability of the lime mortars. The absor-bant properties of the CSH amorphous phases, that have formed inthe matrix of the mortars, was most likely one of the primary rea-sons of the earthquake resistance of the structures as earlier statedby Moropoulou et al. [26] to be valid for other Byzantine buildings.

The presence of the frequent organic fragments and fibers mayalso indicate an incremental increase in mortar durability in spec-imens S3 and S4.

The source of copper may be the infiltrated meteoric water con-taining dissolved Cu from the copper of bronze or brass rain pipes,roofing, cladding, or other copper-containing parts on the structure(scarecrow of the minaret). The presence of Cl may be due to thecontamination during the restoration or cleaning of the facadesof the building by dilute hydrochloric acid.

Formation of the hydraulic compounds, such as calcium silicatehydrates and calcium aluminate hydrates at the interface weremost probably due to the reactions between the broken bricks,crushed ceramics and aggregates, Similar to the highly cementi-

Table 4Chemical compositions of the mortars by wt.%.

Element species LLD Specimen

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6

Na2O 0.1 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6K2O 0.1 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2CaO 0.1 29.8 29.2 29.6 29.1 29.3 29.3MgO 0.1 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9MnO 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03Fe2O3-total 0.1 5.3 5.6 5.3 5.8 5.4 5.5Al2O3 0.1 7.4 7.5 7.9 8.2 7.5 7.9SiO2 0.1 40.1 40.3 41.0 41.9 41.6 40.8P2O5 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5LOI 0.1 14.1 14.0 12.2 10.8 12.6 13.9Total 99.9 100.0 99.2 99.1 99.7 99.6HI (hydraulic index) – 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.8CI (cementation index) – 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.1

Table 5Some physical and mechanical properties of the mortars.

Specimens Compressivestrength (MPa)

Water absorptionafter 24 h (%)

Density(g/cm3)

Porosity(%)

S1 13.2 12.4 1.96 34.3S2 12.4 12.1 2.24 39.1S3 13.6 12.3 2.15 36.6S4 15.3 9.6 2.23 31.3S5 14.5 10.4 2.18 35.1S6 14.1 11.6 2.16 36.4



tious nature of the crushed brick–lime mortars of the dome ofHagia Sophia, which explains the fact that the monument stillstands by absorbing the energy derived from the earthquakeswithout affecting the material properties [3].

The results indicated that the increase in the use of the additivetype and content caused a significant increase in the durability ofthe Ottoman mortars in contrast to the lime mortars of the NotoCathedral in Milan, Italy, with low cohesion and adhesion to thestones that were also friable and undurable [27,28].

4.2. Physical and mechanical properties

As physical properties, compressive strength is a prime prop-erty reflecting the quality of the mortars. It depends on the typeof additives used and the density–porosity of the mortars. Speci-men 4 has the highest compressive strength, which may be dueto high hydraulicity and cementation indices. The compressivestrength characteristics of the mortars were affected not only bythe additive types, but in some cases, also by the organic fibersand probably muscovite flakes behaving as short fibers.

The fibers oriented in longitudinal and transverse directions,prevent the deformations in the matrix and preserve the shape ofthe mortars by their stress-resistance. The fibers also prevent themortar, near the surface, from being crushed and from falling off.Where there are fibers in the mortar, the transverse expansiondue to Poisson’s effect is prevented by the fibers. The existenceof these fibers increased the elasticity of the mortar.

It is evident that some ancient mortars have been durable forcenturies, depending on the fact that they contained hydrauliccomponents, i.e. the binder. A significant result of our investigationwas that the mortars with higher hydraulicity and cementationindices had higher compressive strengths.

4.3. The resistance to earthquakes

Up to now, there have been many earthquakes of various inten-sities in Erzurum, e.g. the 1458 earthquake with an intensity of 10(calculated according to Richter scale simulation) in which 32,000lives were lost, the 1584 and 1859 earthquakes with an intensity of9 in which 15,000 lives were lost, the 1901 earthquake with anintensity of 6.1 and the 1983 earthquake of 6.7 intensity [29].The survival of the studied Ottoman buildings until today withthe severe damages of the other buildings may be due to the mate-rials used in their construction.

The ductility capacity is important only in its relation to theductility demand and this can be expressed equivalently in termsof the displacement capacity and demand [25]. The compressivestrength of the Ottoman mortars fulfill the ASTM and TS standardsrequirements, hence, being more resistant to earthquakes.

Moreover, the presence of fibers and muscovite minerals in themortars provides flexibility to the structures thus enhancing theirearthquake resistance.

Thus, Ottoman mortars can store more elastic energy, whichrenders a higher resistance to earthquakes.

5. Conclusions

The following conclusions can be drawn from the study:

1. The broken bricks, as appropriate puzzolanic materials,together with the organic fibers and fragments, the muscovitemineral content, the uniformly recrystallized calcite, the CSHamorphous phases (calcite + CSH aggregates) and the consistentopen–closed pore distributions of the mortar matrices weremost probably responsible for the high compressive strengthof the mortars.

2. EDS indicated that the oxide composition of the Ottoman mor-tars were mainly composed of high amounts of Si, Ca and sub-ordinate amounts of Fe, Na and K.

3. The higher SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2 O3 content resulted in higher val-ues of hydraulicity and cementation indices. Moreover, a signif-icant result of this investigation was that the mortars withhigher hydraulicity and cementation indices had higher com-pressive strengths.

4. Specimen S4 with the highest durability and lowest waterabsorption and porosity was used in the most intact buildingof the region.

5. The exceptional compressive strength obtained from the mor-tars of this study is primarily responsible for the survival ofthe Ottoman buildings, despite the periodic and severe earth-quakes of Eastern Turkey.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Mustafa Nuri UNER for hisinvaluable contribution to the present study.

References

[1] Moropoulou A, Polikreti K, Bakolas A, Michailidis P. Correlation of physico-chemical and mechanical properties of historical mortars and classification bymultivariate statistics. Cem Concr Res 2003;33:891–8.

[2] Meir IA, Freidin C, Gilead I. Analysis of Byzantine mortars from the Negevdesert, Israel, and subsequent environmental and economic implications. JArchaeol Sci 2005;32:767–74.

[3] Moropoulou A, Cakmak AS, Biscontin G, Bakolas A, Zendri E. AdvancedByzantine cement based composites resisting earthquake stresses: thecrushed brick–lime mortars of Justinian’s Hagia Sophia. Constr Build Mater2002;16(8):543–52.

[4] Degryse P, Elsen J, Waelkens M. Study of ancient mortars from Sagalassos(Turkey) in view of their conservation. Cem Concr Res 2002;32:1457–63.

[5] Program agreement on the Seismic Protection of the Hagia Sophia between theBogazici University, Princeton University and National Technical University ofAthens, Istanbul, Turkey, March, 1994.

[6] Elsen J, Brutsaert A, Deckers M, Brulet R. Microscopical study of ancientmortars from Tournai (Belgium). Mater Charact 2004;53:289–94.

[7] Malinowsky R. Concretes and mortars in ancient aqueducts. Concr Int1979;1:66–76.

[8] Wittman FH. Development in civil engineering. Autoclaved aerated concretemoisture and properties. Netherlands: Elsevier; 1983.

[9] Narayanan N, Ramamurthy K. Structure and properties of aerated concrete: areview. Cem Concr Comp 2000;22:321–9.

[10] Alexanderson J. Relations between structure and mechanical properties ofautoclaved aerated concrete. Cem Concr Res 1979;9:507–14.

[11] Cabrillac R, Bruno F, Anne-lise B, Helene D, Sophie O. Experimental study of themechanical anisotropy of aerated concretes and of the adjustment parametersof the introduced porosity. Constr Build Mater 2006;20:286–95.

[12] Boynton RS. Chemistry and technology of lime and limestone. New York; 1980.[13] FitzPatrick EA. Soil microscopy and micromorphology. New York: J&W Sons

Inc.; 1993. 304p..[14] Kelling G, Kapur S, Sakarya N, Akca E, Karaman C, Sakarya B. Basaltic Tephra:

potential new resource for ceramic industry. British Ceram Trans2000;99(2):129–36.

[15] RILEM. Mater Struct 1980;13:175–253.[16] Banfill PFG, Forrester AM. A relationship between hydraulicity and

permeability of hydraulic lime. In: Proceedings of the ınternational RILEM-workshop historic mortars: characteristics and tests. Paisley; 2000, p. 173–83.

[17] Franzini M, Leoni L, Lezzerini M. A procedure for determining the chemicalcomposition of binder and aggregate in ancient mortars: its application tomortars from some medieval buildings in Pisa. J Cult Heritage 2000;4:365–73.

[18] Callebaut K, Elsen J, Balen KV, Viaene W. Nineteenth century hydraulicrestoration mortars in the Saint Michael’s church (Leuven, Belgium): naturalhydraulic lime or cement? Cem Concr Res 2001;31:397–403.

[19] Middendorf B, Baronio G, Callebaut K, Hughes JJ. Chemical–mineralogical and ‘investigations of old mortars. In: Proceedings of an international RILEM-workshop historic mortars: characteristics and tests. Paisley; 2000. p. 53–61.

[20] Böhm CB. Analysis of mortars containing pozzolans. In: Proceedings of aninternational RILEM-workshop historic mortars: characteristics and tests.Paisley. 2000, p. 105–113.

[21] Martinet G, Quenee B. Proposal for a useful methodology for the study ofancient mortars. In: Bartos, P, Groot, C, Hughes JJ., editors. Proceedings of aninternational RILEM workshop on historic mortars: characteristics and tests.Paisley; 2000, p. 81–93.



[22] Van Balen K, Toymaker EE, Blanco Varela MT, Aguilera J, Puertas F, Sabbioni C.,et al. Procedure for mortar type identification: a proposal. In: Proceedings of aninternational RILEM-workshop historic mortars: characteristics and tests.Paisley; 2000, p. 61–71.

[23] Temiz H, Binici H, Kara O, Bodur MN. Engineering properties of the naturalaggregates in Kahramanmaras, KSU. Sci J 2006;9(2):61–6.

[24] Begimgil M. Microstructure of cement paste. Cem Concr World (Turkish ed.)2000;5:47–54.

[25] Binici H, Aksogan O, Shah T. Investigation of fibre reinforced mud brick asbuilding materials. Constr Build Mater 2005;19:313–8.

[26] Moropoulou A, Labropoulos K, Moundoulas P, Bakolas A. The contrıbutıon ofhistoric mortars on the earthquake resistance of Byzantine monuments,measuring, monitoring and modeling concrete Properties. In: An international

symposium dedicated to professor Surendra P Shah, Northwestern University,USA. The Netherlands: Springer; 2006. p. 643-652.

[27] Baronio G, Binda L, Tedeschi C, Tiraboschi C. Characterisation of the materialsused in the construction of the Noto Cathedral. Constr Build Mater2003;17:557–71.

[28] Binda L, Baronio, Tiraboschi, Tedeschi C. Experimental research for the choiceof adequate materials for the reconstruction of the Cathedral of Noto. ConstrBuild Mater 2003;17:629–39.

[29] Kalafat D. Türkiye Deprem _Izleme Agı içinde Dogu Anadolu Jeofizik DepremÖlçerleri ve Depremsellik, TMMOB Jeofizik Mühendisleri Odası 1. DoguAnadolu ve Kafkasya Depremleri Jeofizik Toplantısı Kitapçıgı, Erzurum; 2001,p. 1–12. [in Turkish].


Investigation of the physico-chemical and microscopic properties of Ottoman mortars from Erzurum (Turkey)

Documents