EVALUATION OF THE TUFF FROM EVLIYATEKKE REGION, KONYA PROVINCE AS A BUILDING MATERIAL

Abstract

Today, a variety of materials such as cement-based plasters, fired materials like ceramics and clinker, wood, plastic, glass, metals, and natural stones are commonly used as façade cladding materials. However, these materials often present environmental disadvantages due to the unsustainable nature of their production processes, high energy consumption during cutting, drilling, shaping, and transportation, and the associated increase in carbon footprint. Therefore, it is crucial that materials selected for façade applications are locally available, exhibit low environmental impact, possess adequate resistance to atmospheric conditions, and require minimal energy during processing. Natural materials with porous structures offer additional benefits, including reduced weight, energy efficiency, and thermal insulation. In this study, the usability of tuff stone obtained from the Evliyatekke region of the Meram district, Konya Province, as a natural stone façade cladding material was investigated. For this purpose, various physico-mechanical tests such as Schmidt hammer hardness (SHR), dry density (ρd), porosity (n), uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), Brazilian tensile strength (BTS), point load strength index (PLT), and freeze-thaw resistance (FTR) were conducted on the tuff samples, along with abrasion tests including Los Angeles (LA) and Micro-Deval (MD). The findings indicate that Evliyatekke tuff possesses characteristics suitable for use as a natural cladding material in building façades.

Keywords

• Abrasion Tests
• Construction Material
• Evliyatekke Region Tuffs
• Physico-Mechanical Tests

Ethical Statement

The authors declare that the study complies with all applicable laws and regulations and meets ethical standards.

References

1. J. Wang, S. Liu, X. Zhao, K. Wu, J. Fang, H. Yu, J. Guo, and L. Xu, “Carbon sequestration in relation to cement variety: Mechanical properties, microstructural evolution and carbon footprint,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 468, p. 140401, 2025.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2025.140401
2. I. Elkhaldi, E. Rozière, and A. Loukili, “To what extent does decreasing the proportion of clinker in cement production effectively decrease its carbon footprint?,” Mater. Today: Proc., 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2023.07.349
3. D. Suescum-Morales, J. M. Fernández-Rodríguez, and J. R. Jiménez, “Use of carbonated water to improve the mechanical properties and reduce the carbon footprint of cement-based materials with recycled aggregates,” J. CO2 Util., vol. 57, p. 101886, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcou.2022.101886
4. M. Dereli, “The effect of using volcanic tuff aggregate with different grain sizes in facade cladding material on physical and mechanical properties,” Politeknik Derg., pp. 1–1, 2024. https://doi.org/10.2339/politeknik.1446047
5. Y. Zhang, Y. Pan, T. Ren, J. Zhang, and H. Liang, “Impact of internal pre-damage due to drying shrinkage under various humidity conditions on DEF expansion in cement paste and mortar,” Case Stud. Constr. Mater., vol. 20, p. e03100, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e03100
6. M. Dereli and Ç. Öztürk, “Alternative material recommendation for facade cladding: High silica-containing stonepaste ceramics,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 11, p. e32672, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e32672
7. X. Ma, T. Zhang, X. Shen, Y. Zhai, and J. Hong, “Environmental footprint assessment of China's ceramic tile production from energy-carbon-water nexus insight,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 337, p. 130606, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130606
8. M. Dereli and M. Tosun, “Analysis of the effects of adding pyroclastic rock to red mud for the production of a baked building material in terms of its resistance to frost actions,” SN Appl. Sci., vol. 2, no. 10, p. 1632, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-03472-w

9. J. Deng et al., “Optimization strategies for the carbon footprint of aluminum-plastic materials under low-carbon targets,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 498, p. 145182, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.145182
10. TS EN 12407, Natural Stone Test Methods – Petrographic Examination, Turkish Standards Institution, Ankara, Turkey, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3403/02090920u
11. R. Schmid, "Descriptive nomenclature and classification of pyroclastic deposits and fragments: Recommendations of the IUGS Subcommission on the Systematics of Igneous Rocks," Geologische Rundschau, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 794–799, 1981. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01822152
12. ASTM D5873-14, Standard Test Method for Determination of Rock Hardness by Rebound Hammer Method, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1520/d5873-14
13. ISRM, Suggested Methods for Determining Tensile Strength of Rock Materials: Suggested Method for Determining Indirect Tensile Strength by Brazilian Test, Commission on Standardization of Laboratory and Field Tests, Z.T. Bieniawski and I. Hawkes, Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 99–103, 1978. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(78)90003-7
14. Turkish Standards Institution, TS EN 1936: Natural Stone Test Methods – Determination of Real Density and Apparent Density, and Open Porosity, TSI, Ankara, Turkey, 2007. https://doi.org/10.3403/30149240
15. Norwegian Group of Rock Mechanics (NBG), Engineering Geology and Rock Engineering, Fornebu, Norway, 1985.
16. ISRM, Suggested Methods for Determining the Uniaxial Compressive Strength and Deformability of Rock Materials, in The Complete ISRM Suggested Methods for Rock Characterization, Testing and Monitoring: 1974–2006, R. Ulusay and J.A. Hudson, Eds., Prepared by the Commission on Testing Methods, ISRM, 2007.
17. ISRM Commission on the Classification of Rocks and Rock Masses, “Basic geotechnical description of rock masses,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., vol. 18, pp. 85–110, 1981.
18. ISRM, “Point load test, suggested method for determining point load strength,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. Geomech. Abstr., vol. 22, pp. 55–60, 1985. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-9062(85)92985-7
19. Z. T. Bieniawski, "The point-load test in geotechnical practice," Engineering Geology, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 1975.
20. TS 699, "Doğal yapı taşları- İnceleme ve laboratuar deney yöntemleri," Türk Standartları Enstitüsü, Ankara, 2009.
21. TS-EN-12371, "Doğal Taşlar- Deney Yöntemleri Dona Dayanım Deneyleri," Türk Standardları Enstitüsü, Necatibey Caddesi, 112 Bakanlıklar, Ankara, 2011.
22. A. L. Cooley, M. S. Huner, and R. H. James, "NCAT Report 02-09, MicroDeval Testing of Aggregates in The Southeast, USA," 2003. https://doi.org/10.3141/1837-08
23. P. S. Kandhal and F. Parker Jr, "NCHRP Report 405: Aggregate Tests Related to Asphalt Concrete Performance in Pavements, USA," 1998.
24. TS EN 1097-1, "Agregaların Mekanik ve Fiziksel Özellikleri için Deneyler-Bölüm 1: Aşınmaya Karşı Direncin Tayini (Mikro-Deval)," 2002.
25. TS 706 EN 12620+A1, "Beton Agregaları," Türk Standartları Enstitüsü, Ankara, 2009.
26. TS-EN-1097-2, "Agregaların Mekanik ve Fiziksel Özellikleri İçin Deneyler-Bölüm 2: Parçalanma Direncinin Tayini İçin Yöntemler," Türk Standartları Enstitüsü, Ankara, 2010b.
27. M. Sert and H. T. Özkahraman, "The importance of welded tuff stones in construction industry according to their physicomechanical properties," Harran Univ. J. Eng., vol. 1, pp. 8–18, 2016.
28. İ. İnce, "Elektrik Özdirenç Yöntemiyle Piroklastik Kayaçların İndeks-Dayanım Özelliklerinin Belirlenmesi," Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 772–780, 2018. https://doi.org/10.28948/ngumuh.444789
29. TS EN 771-3, Kâgir birimler - Özellikler - Bölüm 3: Beton kâgir birimler (yoğun ve hafif agregalı), Ankara, Türkiye: Türk Standardları Enstitüsü (TSE), 2012.
30. Türk Standardları Enstitüsü (TSE), TS EN 206: Beton – Özellikler, performans, üretim ve uygunluk (EN 206:2013 + A1:2016 + A2:2021), Ankara, Türkiye: TSE, 2021.