THEMATIC ISSUE

Engineering geological characterization of the Antalya karsticrocks, southern Turkey

Evrim Sopacı1 • Haluk Akgun2

Received: 29 March 2015 / Accepted: 3 September 2015

� Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Abstract This study encompasses engineering geological

characterization of the Antalya karstic foundation rocks,

particularly tufa, whose mechanical behavior is highly

variable. The Antalya tufa rock has no well-developed

discontinuity systems. It is variably porous, and is com-

posed of different rock types with variable structures. To

reveal the engineering geological parameters and to

develop a thorough engineering geological database, which

is not available in the literature for the Antalya tufa rock,

geological observations, engineering geological site

investigations, mineralogical analyses, field (plate load

tests) and laboratory geomechanics tests have been per-

formed. The physico-mechanical properties such as

porosity, seismic wave velocity, uniaxial compressive

strength, Young’s modulus, deformation modulus, tensile

strength, cohesion, angle of internal friction and other

petrographic characteristics such as organic matter content

and rock fabric that are expected to have a significant

influence on its behavior were determined. Regression

analyses have been performed to obtain relationships

between the engineering geological parameters of the

Antalya tufa rock. A number of good correlations

(R2 C 0.75) obtained by regression analyses indicated that

the Antalya tufa rock types could be differentiated better by

using the strength parameters (namely, uniaxial compres-

sive and tensile strength) and the index parameters

(namely, unit weight and porosity).

Keywords Antalya � Tufa rock � Engineering geological

characterization � Karst

Introduction

Antalya, one of the largest cities of Turkey, presents

deposits related to a rich tufa depositional environment

(Fig. 1a). Tufa is a general name which covers a wide

variety of calcareous freshwater deposits that is especially

common in Late Quaternary and recent successions. Tufa

has been defined by Ford and Pedley (1996) as the product

of calcium carbonate precipitation under a cool water (near

ambient temperature) regime and typically contains the

remains of microphytes and macrophytes, invertebrates and

bacteria. Tufa and travertine, despite their identical

chemical composition and similar characteristics, are dif-

ferent in their lithofacies and depositional environments.

Travertines are dominantly hard, crystalline precipitates,

frequently possessing thin laminations and indicating

shrub-like bacterial growth.

One of the earliest studies regarding the engineering

geological properties of the Antalya tufa was carried out by

Kılıc and Yavuz (1994) where tufa deposits of the Lara

district that belong to the Duden Plateau were examined

with regard to porosity, permeability, unit weight, uniaxial

compressive strength, and Young’s modulus in association

with their fabric. It was concluded that massive types have

relatively low porosity (25 %) and permeability (8.2 l/

min), and relatively high unit weight (19.9 kN/m3) and

Young’s modulus (5 GPa). In addition, it was mentioned

This article is a part of a Topical Collection in Environmental Earth

Sciences on ‘‘Engineering Problems in Karst’’; edited by Mario

Parise.

& Haluk Akgun

hakgun@metu.edu.tr

1 Temelsu International Engineering Services Inc., Cankaya,

Ankara, Turkey

2 Geotechnology Unit, Department of Geological Engineering,

Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

123

Environ Earth Sci (2016) 75:366

DOI 10.1007/s12665-015-5085-0

Fig. 1 a Location map of the study area, and b General layout of the basins in the vicinity of the study area and its surroundings (after Glover

and Robertson 2003)

366 Page 2 of 20 Environ Earth Sci (2016) 75:366

123

that the porous type possessed the lowest unit weight

(13.2 kN/m3) and strength values (2.37 MPa). Dipova

(2002) assessed the collapse potential of the lithoclastic or

microdetrital tufa types (named herein as intraclast and

phytoclast tufa) as a function of initial void ratio, volume

of compressibility and percentage of fines upon wetting of

these particular tufa types. Further, Dipova (2011) inves-

tigated some of the engineering properties such as unit

weight, porosity, deformation modulus and uniaxial com-

pressive strength of the prominent Antalya tufa rock types.

Benavente et al. (2007) and Andriani and Walsh (2010)

have studied the petrophysical properties of porous build-

ing rocks. Flugel (2004) has investigated the microfacies of

carbonate rocks and Anon (1979) has provided a classifi-

cation for carbonate rocks. Difficulties in the definition of

the mechanical properties of carbonate rocks, and the

applicability of the related models, especially in the case of

soluble rocks affected by karst, have been recently dealt

with by Andriani and Parise (2015).

In general, the mechanical strength of the rocks is often

mainly determined by the heterogeneity of the rock and its

fabrics instead of by the individual properties of the rock

forming minerals (Siegesmund and Durrast 2011). Com-

parable to the compressive strength, the main factors that

have an influence on the static E-modulus are the

mechanical properties of the minerals and the size of the

grains.

One of the main factors affecting the tensile strength of

the rocks is the existence and spatial orientation of any

foliation or sedimentary layering in the rock sample and the

loading direction with respect to these rock fabric elements

(Siegesmund and Durrast 2011).

Along the ultrasonic measurements, P-wave velocity

(VP) measurements correlated with porosity show an

increase due to fabric damages in rocks. However, the

determination of the S-wave is essential for the calculation

of the modulus of elasticity (E) or Young’s Modulus

(Siegesmund and Durrast 2011).

The Antalya tufa rock includes numerous types of tufa

identified by Pedley (1990), Glover and Robertson (2003)

and Kosun (2012). The main purpose of this study is to

identify the engineering geological parameters and

behavior of five of the Antalya tufa types (namely,

microcrystalline tufa, phytoherm framestone, phytoherm

boundstone, phytoclast tufa and intraclast tufa) that are

highly variable due to their structure. In order to charac-

terize the Antalya tufa rocks in terms of engineering

geology, numerous field and laboratory tests have been

performed. Laboratory testing consisted of uniaxial com-

pressive strength (rc), triaxial compressive strength, point

load strength index, indirect tensile strength (Brazilian),

slake durability, ultrasonic velocity, porosity and loss on

ignition (LOI) tests, while the field tests consisted of plate

load tests.

Geology of the study area

The city of Antalya is located in a Cenozoic sedimentary

basin, namely the Aksu basin of southern Turkey (Glover

and Robertson 1998; Fig. 1). The Aksu basin is bordered

by strike-slip faulting and regional uplift to the north and

the east, while several east–west trending grabens confine

the basin to the west.

The regional geology of the area has complex tectono-

stratigraphic relations. The area can basically be grouped

into two units, namely, autochthonous and allochthonous

units at the regional scale. The Antalya basin has developed

unconformably on a Mesozoic autochthonous carbonate

platform (the Beydagları platform to the west and the

Anamas–Akseki platform to the east) and on an imbricated

basement, which were overthrusted by allochthonous units

(Lycian Nappes, Antalya Nappes and Alanya Massif)

between Late Cretaceous and Pliocene, within the Isparta

Angle in the western Taurides (Karabıyıkoglu et al. 2005).

The Late Cenozoic sedimentary deposits of the Antalya

basin include a relatively thick succession of Miocene and

Pliocene clastics, coralgal reefs, reef shelf carbonates and

extensive travertine deposits (Ciner et al. 2008).

The stratigraphy of the Aksu basin is closely related

with regional tectonics such as the uplift of the Tauride

Mountains, rifting within the Isparta Angle and subsidence

within the Antalya Bay. Glover and Robertson (1998)

defined the area as an ideal place to correlate Plio-Pleis-

tocene sedimentary and geomorphological features with

offshore marine deposits.

The stratigraphy above the deformed Miocene sedi-

ments of the Antalya region is defined by the following

formations listed starting from the older: Gebiz Limestone

and subordinate gypsum (Late Tortonian), shallow marine

clastic sediments of Yenimahalle Formation, and deltaic to

alluvial Calkaya Formation including some tuffaceous

deposits. In the western and northwestern parts of the Aksu

basin, fanglomerates, which are overlain by extensive

Antalya tufa deposits, are present (Glover and Robertson

1998).

The Antalya tufa has been deposited in the Antalya

basin, which is located in the northwestern part of the Aksu

basin (Glover and Robertson 1998). The tufa rock gener-

ally shows karst forms, which were formed by successive

dissolution and re-cementation of tufa. Glover and

Roberston (2003) mention that extensional tectonics have

had a significant effect in the localization of the depocen-

ters in the western Antalya basin. Due to the almost north–

Environ Earth Sci (2016) 75:366 Page 3 of 20 366

123

south trending normal fault, which has produced a half-

graben morphology in the basin, Pliocene and older rocks

have been faulted and have produced north–south trending,

west dipping fault blocks. These fault blocks or grabens

were suitable for ponding small lakes where tufa first

commenced to deposit, which later on produced barriers.

Mineralogy and petrography of the Antalya tufarocks

The Antalya tufa rock is almost entirely composed of the

calcium mineral. On the other hand, the fabric of the

Antalya tufa rock is unpredictable due to its porosity,

which arises mostly from karstic dissolutions and primary

pores developed during carbonate encrustation of plants. It

is difficult to characterize the dimensions and distribution

of the pores within the tufa rock. The pore spaces, partic-

ularly those developed in the form of dissolution cavities,

may be partially or entirely filled up with sediments. These

sediments could be terra-rossa type red clay or calcium

carbonate precipitation or any other detrital infilling.

Different depositional settings have been recognized by

Glover and Robertson (2003) for the Antalya tufa. Almost

all the tufa types identified by Pedley (1990) with further

types discovered by Glover and Robertson (2003) are pre-

sent in the Antalya tufa basin (Fig. 2). Hence, the Antalya

tufa rock has varying rock characteristics from a geological

and engineering geological point of view (Fig. 3) (Sopacı2012; Sopacı and Akgun 2014). In general, the Antalya tufa

Fig. 2 Photographs of a microcrystalline, b phytoherm framestone, c phytoherm boundstone, d phytoclast, and e intraclast samples

366 Page 4 of 20 Environ Earth Sci (2016) 75:366

123

rock does not possess any distinct discontinuities, which are

key structures for almost all rock mass classification sys-

tems, and particularly for carbonate rocks (see Andriani and

Parise 2015). No bedding planes or systematical joint sys-

tems have been observed to exist for the Antalya tufa rock

during field observations. However, few banding structures

were noted particularly for the phytoherm boundstone type.

As indicated in Fig. 4, microcrystalline tufa is characterized

by microcrystalline calcite bearing hard and massive tufa

whereas phytoherm framestone and phytoherm boundstone

tufa rock types show variably oriented in situ carbonate-

encrusted plants (Fig. 4) and laminated stromatolitic tufa in

the form of mats and domes (Fig. 4), respectively. Phyto-

clast and intraclast tufa are grain-supported tufa with re-

cemented plant fragments (Fig. 4) and silt and sand-sized

detrital tufa with some cross-bedding (Fig. 4), respectively.

Figure 4f presents structural views of the tufa rock outcrops

and core samples.

Phytoherm framestone is a large ‘reef’ structure con-

sisting of variably orientated in situ carbonate-encrusted

plant material, commonly associated with ostracodes, lar-

vae and molluscs. Phytoherm tufa is commonly patchy

rather than massive, except where locally associated with

cascades or waterfalls. Layers of cemented, vertical plant

stems commonly alternate with more crumbly micro-de-

trital layers (Glover and Robertson 2003).

Phytoherm boundstone is a laminated stromatolitic tufa

forming thick, near-horizontal algal mats, up to 10 m thick.

Stromatolites often take the form of large ‘heads’, up to

3 m in diameter, which locally coalesce to form large

domal build-ups, 0.5–1 m in height.

Phytoclast tufa represents plant fragments that were

cemented during or after transport, as opposed to phyto-

herm boundstone, which developed in situ. Fragments of

stems, leaves and detrital grains, up to a few centimetres in

size, make up these grain-supported deposits that are

commonly associated with thin binding algal mats (Glover

and Robertson 2003).

Intraclast tufa is a reworked tufa that consists largely of

silt- and sand-sized detrital tufa. Numerous, small, elongate

fragments have probably originated as coatings around

grasses, together with large broken, cemented pieces of

phytohermal material. Individual deposits are usually up to

several tens of centimetres thick and are commonly len-

ticular and cross-bedded.

The microcrystalline tufa has a massive structure and is

composed of micrite crystals without pores. It is hard and

resembles limestone in this respect.

For the mineralogical characterization of the Antalya tufa

rock, a total of five thin section mineralogical analyses,

twenty-five LOI tests, five scanning electron microscope

(SEM) analyses, five energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy

(EDS) analyses and five differential thermal analyses (DTA)

were performed.

During thin section examinations, the coarse and

micritic crystals have been observed to be uniformly dis-

tributed in one type, the microcrystalline tufa (Sopacı 2012;Sopacı and Akgun 2014). Some porous structures have also

been noted. It has been interpreted that the smoky

appearance might be due to the presence of clay minerals.

The presence of a black colored opaque mineral has been

interpreted as organic matter content in microcrystalline

tufa (Fig. 5a). In thin sections of the phytoherm framestone

samples, hollow circles, which are common for staglag-

mites–stalactites, have been observed to be filled with

sparry and micritic calcite crystals (Fig. 5b). Brown iron

oxide together with clay filtered through soil horizons may

be observed to fill these pores. The presence of concentric

calcite and clay depositions around pore spaces has been

noticed to be quite common. Organic matter or lessivage

structures were almost non-existent. Calcite deposition has

been observed in the alternation form of coarse and micritic

Fig. 3 A photo of each of the five facies at the sample scale: a phytoherm boundstone, b microcrystalline; c phytoherm framestone, d intraclast,

and e phytoclast samples

Environ Earth Sci (2016) 75:366 Page 5 of 20 366

123

crystals. Coarse calcite crystals were mostly present within

the inner sides of the pore spaces while micritic crystals

were observed to be close to the outer rims. The thin

sections of the phytoherm boundstone samples were char-

acterized by homogeneously distributed micritic calcite

crystals with some irregular small pore spaces. Numerous

MICROCRYSTALLINE

Microcrystalline calcite bearing hard and massive tufa

PHYTOHERM FRAMESTONE

Variably oriented in-situ carbonate-encrusted plants

PHYTOHERM BOUNDSTONE

Laminated stromatolitic tufa in the form of mats and domes

PHYTOCLAST

Grain-supported tufa with re-cemented plant fragments

INTRACLAST

Silt and sand sized detrital tufa with some cross-bedding

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Fig. 4 Structural characteristics

of different tufa types, namely

a microcrystalline, b phytoherm

framestone, c phytoherm

boundstone, d phytoclast, and

e intraclast tufa rock types

observed in the Antalya tufa

rock mass, respectively. f Viewsof the structures observed in the

rock outcrops and in the rock

core samples obtained from

those rock outcrops

366 Page 6 of 20 Environ Earth Sci (2016) 75:366

123

black opaque minerals or organic matter have been

observed as impurities (Fig. 5c). Combining thin section

examinations with outcrop observations, it was determined

that the porous structure of the tufa rock exists at all scales

from microscopic to macroscopic. The pores, the smoky

appearance due to the clay minerals, and the organic

material observed in thin sections are believed to be a

consequence of the karstification of the tufa rock.

Loss on ignition tests were carried out on each of the

five tufa types in accordance with the ASTM standard

(ASTM C25-11 2011) to determine the organic content,

whose presence could change the mechanical behavior of

the tufa rock types. According to the LOI test results

(Table 1), all of the tufa types possessed similar LOI values

in the neighborhood of 42 %, with the exception of the

microcrystalline tufa type. This latter, on the other hand,

showed lower LOI values ranging from about 9 to 20 %.

This result (i.e., low organic content) might be interpreted

as one of the main reasons for the microcrystalline tufa

rock type to possess higher uniaxial compressive strength

values, as it will be discussed further.

Since the total loss in the mass cannot be solely due to

the organic matter, i.e., some dehydration almost always

takes place during heating, to find the dehydration portion,

the results obtained by the LOI tests have been compared

with the results of the differential thermal analyses (DTA).

Examination of the DTA curves of the tufa samples

revealed that apart from the microcrystalline type, all other

tufa types possessed similar DTA curves (Fig. 6). The

peaks (Peak 1 and Peak 2) before 200 �C observed on the

DTA curves represent the exothermic reactions that are

related to the burning of the organic matter. The

Analyzer out 4X view

Smoky appearence

600μm

Coarse and micritic calcite crystals

600μm

Concentric clay

deposition

Black opaque minerals or organic matter

(b)

(c)

(a)

Fig. 5 Thin section photographs of a microcrystalline, b phytoherm framestone, and c phytoherm boundstone tufa samples

Table 1 Results of the loss on ignition (LOI) tests

Sample type LOI (%) range Mean 1

SD

Microcrystalline 9.16–20.2 15.7 5.08

Phytoclast 43.1–43.3 43.2 0.08

Phytoherm boundstone 41.1–43.1 42.6 0.86

Intraclast 41.9–42.3 42.1 0.21

Phytoherm

framestone

41.2–42.9 42.5 0.78

Environ Earth Sci (2016) 75:366 Page 7 of 20 366

123

microcrystalline type shows a lower number of peaks

indicating a lower amount of organic matter. This outcome

is in agreement with the LOI test results and may probably

be interpreted as one of the reasons for the origin of the

higher strength of microcrystalline tufa (see further on).

Samples from each tufa typewere analyzed by a JSM-6400

JEOL Scanning Electron Microscope, equipped with a

NORAN 6 X-ray microanalysis system and a Semafore dig-

itizer. Together with SEM, EDS was also performed for the

element analyses of the tufa types in accordance with ASTM

E1508-12a (2012) (Sopacı 2012; Sopacı and Akgun 2014).

Figure 7 presents the results of the SEM and EDS analyses,

while the outcomes of the EDS analyses are summarized in

Table 2. All the tufa types possess a high calcium percentage

by weight (Table 2). More specifically, the autochthonous

types (i.e., phytoherm framestone, phytoherm boundstone

and microcrystalline tufa) possess higher percentage of cal-

cium as compared to silica and aluminum, whereas the

allochthonous types possess relatively higher percentages of

silica and aluminum. This difference could be related to

erosional phenomena (i.e., transportation and deposition) that

might have influenced the allochthonous deposits.

Physical and mechanical properties of the Antalyatufa rocks

The physical and mechanical properties of the rock types

underlying the City of Antalya have been identified by

in situ and laboratory testing. Thirty-three plate load tests,

one-hundred and fifty-six ultrasonic velocity measure-

ments, seventeen uniaxial compressive strength (rc) tests,nineteen triaxial compressive strength tests, fifty-two point

load strength index tests, forty-seven Brazilian indirect

tensile strength tests and thirty-four slake durability tests

along with one-hundred and fifty-six porosity and unit

weight determination tests were performed.

In situ engineering geological tests

Plate load tests have been performed in accordance with

the ASTM standard (ASTM D1196/D1196 M-12 2012) in

the field on the tufa types which were difficult to be sam-

pled due to their fragile structure, namely, on the weaker

and fragile phytoclast and intraclast tufa types, respec-

tively. Figure 8 provides the locations of the plate load

tests.

The purpose of applying plate load testing was to

enlarge the geotechnical database and to obtain the mod-

ulus of deformation values of the weaker tuff rock types,

particularly intraclast tufa. Plate load tests were performed

using a truck or a JCB backhoe loader as a loading device,

hydraulic jack assembly, three dial gages, a deflection

beam and a bearing plate with diameters of 300 and

762 mm, respectively.

The modulus of deformation was calculated from both

the first and the second loading cycles. It was determined

from the loading cycle, as the inclination of the secant line

between two points given by the value of the 0.3- and 0.7-

Peak 1Peak 3

Peak 2

No Peak 2 for Microcrystalline

Fig. 6 Differential thermal analysis (DTA) curves for the Antalya tufa rock types

366 Page 8 of 20 Environ Earth Sci (2016) 75:366

123

Fig. 7 SEM and EDS analyses

of a phytoherm framestone tufa,

b phytoherm boundstone tufa,

c microcrystalline tufa,

d phytoclast tufa, and

e intraclast tufa

Environ Earth Sci (2016) 75:366 Page 9 of 20 366

123

multiple of the maximum load, using Eq. (1) given in DIN

18134: 2012-04 (2012).

Em ¼ 1:5� r � DrDs

ð1Þ

where Ev is the static modulus of deformation (MPa), r is

the bearing (loading) plate radius (m), Dr is the difference

in the value of the 0.3- and 0.7-multiple of the maximum

load (MPa), and Ds is the difference in the bearing (load-

ing) plate insertion between the value of the 0.3- and 0.7-

multiple of the maximum load (m).

Table 3 presents the results of the plate load tests along

with the mean and standard deviation of the deformation

modulus for the first and second loading cycles (i.e., ES1and ES2, respectively) for each tufa type. Based on the

deformation modulus values calculated through plate load

testing, there are mainly two tufa categories: intraclast and

phytoclast tufa, and phytoherm framestone and micro-

crystalline tufa. A similar compatible grouping was also

achieved for these tufa types based on the uniaxial com-

pressive strength values, as shall be discussed later. The

mean deformation modulus ± one standard deviation val-

ues obtained by plate load testing for intraclast, phytoclast,

phytoherm framestone and microcrystalline tufa were

81.0 ± 47.0, 106 ± 30.8, 255 ± 196, and 449 ±

253 MPa, respectively. These values were based on the

second loading cycles (ES2) that represented conditions

where the initial stresses were relieved and secondary

stresses were present (Table 3).

Laboratory tests

A total of one-hundred and fifty-six tufa rock core samples

were recovered from more than 50 rock blocks with

various dimensions by a portable drilling machine and then

prepared for laboratory testing.

The ultrasonic velocity measurements were performed

in accordance with the ISRM standard (ISRM 1981). As a

non-destructive testing method, this test provided an

opportunity to correlate the P-wave and S-wave velocities

of the tufa rock with its strength parameters, such as point

load strength index and uniaxial compressive strength

along with the elastic constants. The mean values and

standard deviations of the P-wave and S-wave velocities of

the tufa rock types are shown in Table 4. The dynamic

Young’s modulus, shear modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the

Antalya tufa rock types are also listed in Table 4. Micro-

crystalline tufa possesses the highest mean P-wave veloc-

ity, S-wave velocity, dynamic deformation modulus and

shear modulus, while intraclast tufa possesses the lowest

values (Table 4).

The unit weight and porosity of the tufa rock samples

obtained from the rock blocks have been measured in

accordance with ISRM (1981). The tufa rock has a mean

unit weight of 19.5 kN/m3 and a mean porosity of 14.7 %

(Table 5), almost comparable to the unit weight and

porosity values of sandstone (Zhang 2005). Microcrys-

talline tufa has the highest mean unit weight and the lowest

mean porosity, while phytoclast tufa has the lowest mean

unit weight and the highest mean porosity.

The uniaxial compressive strength (rc) tests were per-

formed in accordance with ASTM D7012-10 (2010) to

determine the uniaxial compressive strength and elastic

constants such as Young’s modulus (E) and Poisson’s ratio

(m) of the tufa rock types. In addition to these, seventeen

uniaxial compressive strength tests were carried out during

the triaxial compressive strength tests with zero confining

pressure leading to a total of forty uniaxial compressive

Table 2 Results of the energy-

dispersive X-ray spectroscopy

(EDS) analyses

Sample type Element Weight conc. (%) Atom conc. (%)

1. Phytoherm framestone Al 2.00 2.90

Si 5.54 7.72

K 0.83 0.83

Ca 88.21 86.15

Fe 3.42 2.40

2. Phytoherm boundstone Ca 100.0 100.0

3. Microcrystalline Ca 100.0 100.0

4. Phytoclast Al 11.38 14.25

Si 30.54 36.75

Ca 58.09 48.99

5. Intraclast Mg 0.90 1.38

Al 5.47 7.57

Si 9.44 12.56

Ca 84.20 78.49

366 Page 10 of 20 Environ Earth Sci (2016) 75:366

123

Fig. 8 Detailed layout of the field investigations performed. a Entire area, b subarea A, and c subarea B

Environ Earth Sci (2016) 75:366 Page 11 of 20 366

123

strength and twenty-three elastic constant measurements.

According to the uniaxial compressive strength test results,

microcrystalline tufa has the highest uniaxial compressive

strength (rc) and Young’s modulus (E) values, while intr-

aclast tufa has the lowest values (Table 5). This result was

expected due to the massive structure of the microcrys-

talline tufa. The Young’s modulus of the samples has been

calculated from the slopes of the linear best fit curves

between the data points at 30 and 80 % of the failure load,

respectively, from the axial stress vs. axial strain plots.

In addition to the uniaxial compressive strength (rc) andunit weight data obtained in this study, data from previous

studies were compiled as well (Fig. 9a).

To determine the tensile strength of the tufa rock types,

Brazilian indirect tensile strength tests have been carried

out in accordance with the relevant ISRM standard (ISRM

Table 3 Results of the plate

load testsPLT no. Lithology ES1 (MPa) ES2 (MPa) ES2/ES1 Subgrade modulus (MPa/m)

PLT-1 Intraclast tufa 78.8 116 1.47 241

PLT-2 31.5 170 5.38 104

PLT-6 71.1 110 1.55 138

PLT-8 32.0 78.8 2.46 116

PLT-10a 290 630 2.17 1010

PLT-11a 71.1 441 6.20 268

PLT-23 50.1 91.9 1.83 143

PLT-27 49.0 78.8 1.61 202

PLT 28 81.2 122 1.50 185

PLT 29 82.4 130 1.58 107

PLT 30 37.3 43.1 1.16 51.3

PLT 31 20.0 23.3 1.17 44.4

PLT 32 20.0 25.5 1.28 36.3

PLT 33 29.5 35.0 1.19 54.1

PLT 34 25.5 29.5 1.16 49.7

Mean ± 1 SD 46.8 ± 23.8 81.0 ± 47.0 113 ± 66.5

PLT-12 Microcrystalline tufa 98.4 459 4.67 524

PLT-13 162 339 2.09 528

PLT-14 408 286 0.70 1952

PLT-16 71.1 276 3.88 287

PLT-17 137 882 6.44 575

PLT-20a 1131 1460 1.29 4933

Mean ± 1 SD 175 ± 135 449 ± 253 773 ± 668

PLT 35 Phytoclast tufa 102 140 1.38 144

PLT 36 90.3 98.3 1.09 168

PLT 37 77.8 80.0 1.03 146

Mean ± 1 SD 90 ± 12 106 ± 30.8 153 ± 13.1

PLT-3 Phytoherm framestone 27.6 170 6.15 109

PLT-9 63.0 116 1.84 242

PLT-19 91.5 479 5.24 310

Mean ± 1 SD 60.7 ± 32.0 255 ± 196 220 ± 102

PLT-18 Terra-rossa 22.1 73.5 3.33 66.5

PLT-22 88.9 88.6 1.00 335

PLT-24 121 134 1.11 370

PLT-26 43.2 63.9 1.48 184

Mean ± 1 SD 68.8 ± 44.7 90.1 ± 31.3 239 ± 140

ES1 and ES2 are the deformation moduli for the first and second loading cycles, respectively. Figure 8c

gives the plate load test locationsa Outlier values that were not included in the calculation of the mean and standard deviation values

366 Page 12 of 20 Environ Earth Sci (2016) 75:366

123

1981). The mean Brazilian tensile strength value of the tufa

rock ± one standard deviation has been determined to be

1.75 MPa ± 1.12 (Table 5). The highest and lowest mean

Brazilian tensile strength values were possessed by

microcrystalline tufa and phytoclast tufa, respectively.

The point load strength index tests of the tufa rock types

have been performed in accordance with the relevant ISRM

standard (ISRM, 1981). The mean point load strength index

value (Is50) of the tufa rock ± one standard deviation has

been determined to be 1.34 ± 1.24 MPa for a total of fifty-

two point load index strength tests performed (Table 6).

The highest and lowest mean point load strength index

values were possessed by microcrystalline tufa and phy-

toherm framestone tufa, respectively.

The triaxial compressive strength tests were performed

in accordance with the ISRM standard (ISRM 1981).

According to the results of the triaxial compressive

strength tests (Table 7), the Antalya tufa rock could be

considered to be mostly brittle with regard to the brittle–

ductile transition criterion proposed by Mogi (1966).

The highest and lowest mean cohesion values of 5.7 and

1.3 MPa belonged to microcrystalline tufa and phytoclast

tufa, respectively, while the highest and lowest mean angle

of internal friction values of 39� and 23� were for phyto-

herm boundstone tufa and phytoherm framestone tufa. The

Antalya tufa rock in general possesses a mean cohesion and

mean angle of internal friction value of 3.2 MPa and 32�(Table 7).

The slake durability tests were performed in accordance

with ISRM (1981) and with ASTM D4644-08 (2008).

Although two cycles are mentioned to be sufficient in these

standards, more than two cycles have been employed in the

Table 4 The mean values and one standard deviation of the P-wave velocity (VP), S-wave velocity (VS), dynamic Young’s modulus (E), shear

modulus (G) and Poisson’s ratio (m) of the Antalya tufa rock types

Tufa type VP (m/s) VS (m/s) Ea (GPa) Gb (GPa) mc

No. of samples

tested

Mean 1 SD Mean 1 SD Mean 1 SD Mean 1 SD Mean 1 SD

Microcrystalline 37 4262 931 1969 322 22 7 8.1 2.9 0.32 0.1

Phytoherm framestone 36 3686 1344 1725 581 15 9 5.5 3.5 0.32 0.1

Phytoherm boundstone 32 3515 665 1599 354 14 7 5.2 2.5 0.33 0.1

Phytoclast tufa 47 3417 525 1543 303 12 4 4.3 1.7 0.33 0.1

Intraclast tufa 4 2722 276 1444 42 4 1 4.3 0.3 0.25 0.1

Antalya tufa rock 156 3684 960 1696 428 11 4 5.6 2.5 0.32 0.1

a E = [qVS2 (3VP

2 - 4VS2)]/(VP

2 - VS2)

b G = qVS2

c m = (VP/VS)2 - 2/2(VP/VS)

2 - 1

Table 5 The mean values and one standard deviation of unit weight, porosity, uniaxial compressive strength (rc), Young’s modulus (E),

Poisson’s ratio (m) and Brazilian tensile strength (rt) of the Antalya tufa rock types

Tufa types Porosity (%) Unit

weight

(kN/m3)

Uniaxial compressive strength test Brazilian tensile strength

test

rc (MPa) E (GPa) m rt (MPa)

No. of

samples

Mean 1

SD

Mean 1

SD

No. of

samples

Mean 1

SD

Mean 1

SD

Mean 1

SD

No. of

samples

Mean 1

SD

Microcrystalline 37 10.6 3.9 20.9 1.3 10 18.56 7.94 8.44 4.57 0.09 0.04 11 3.10 1.20

Intraclast tufa 4 14.0 5.6 20.8 0.9 3 4.66 1.34 1.54 0.61 0.29 0.23 – – –

Phytoherm

boundstone

32 14.3 9.6 20.3 2.9 7 8.97 5.31 4.55 0.84 0.05 0.05 13 1.43 0.76

Phytoherm

framestone

36 14.0 5.9 18.6 2.4 13 7.76 5.35 4.41 2.99 0.11 0.05 9 1.40 0.80

Phytoclast 47 18.2 5.0 18.1 1.5 7 5.50 2.09 2.26 0.57 0.05 0.04 14 1.20 0.60

Antalya tufa rock 156 14.7 7.1 19.5 2.3 40 9.66 7.17 4.23 3.04 0.08 0.05 47 1.75 1.12

Environ Earth Sci (2016) 75:366 Page 13 of 20 366

123

slake durability testing of a number of tufa rock samples in

this study. The aim was to observe the effects of further

weathering and water reaction. According to the weather-

ing classes proposed based on the slake durability index by

Franklin and Chandra (1972), the majority of the tufa

samples tested fell in the extremely high (Id2 = 95 –

100 %) and very high (Id2 = 90–95 %) classes (Fig. 9b).

Correlations among the geotechnical parametersof the Antalya tufa rock

Figures 10, 11 and 12 present plots of the regression

analyses of the geotechnical parameters of the Antalya tufa

rock with coefficient of determination (R2) values greater

than 0.50 for the data obtained in this study.

After relating the individual geotechnical parameters of

the Antalya tufa rock, a number of fair (i.e.,

0.46\R2\ 0.75) and good correlations (R2 C 0.75) were

observed to be obtained for the tufa rock types. Inspection

of the regression results of the geomechanical parameters

(Figs. 9, 10, 11) revealed that the Antalya tufa rock is best

characterized by utilizing the strength parameters, namely

the uniaxial compressive strength (rc) and the tensile

strength (rt), together with the index parameters, namely

the unit weight (c) and the porosity (n).

The Antalya tufa rock possesses higher coefficient of

determination values between uniaxial compressive

strength (rc) and Young’s modulus (E), between rc and

tensile strength (rt), between porosity (n) and unit weight

(c), and between S-wave velocity (VS) and P-wave velocity

(VP), respectively. These correlations were all determined

to be linear. Further correlations between the other

geomechanical parameters of the Antalya tufa rock have

resulted in fair (i.e., 0.46\R2\ 0.75) coefficient of

determination values. Slake durability index (Id2) values of

the Antalya tufa rock have been observed to lead to poor

correlations with the other geomechanical parameters.

However, the slake durability index has been determined to

be a fairly well-representative parameter for the assessment

of the durability of the weaker tufa rock types against

weathering and water reaction.

Among the rock types of the Antalya tufa rock, intra-

clast tufa has been poorly characterized since a very lim-

ited number of samples could be recovered due to its

Fig. 9 a Best fit of unit weight (c) vs. uniaxial compressive strength

(rc) of the Antalya tufa rock types which include a combination of the

data of this study and the compiled data. A total of 40 rc vs. unit

weight test data were obtained in this study; 333 rc vs. unit weightdata were compiled leading to a total of 373 rc vs. unit weight testdata. R2 = coefficient of determination. b Results of the slake

durability tests performed on the Antalya tufa rock types

Table 6 The mean point load strength index value (Is50) ± one

standard deviation of the Antalya tufa rock types

Tufa type Is50 (MPa)

No. of samples Mean 1 SD

Microcrystalline 13 2.34 1.52

Phytoherm boundstone 13 1.59 1.26

Phytoherm framestone 14 0.64 0.52

Phytoclast 12 0.89 0.59

Antalya tufa rock 52 1.34 1.24

366 Page 14 of 20 Environ Earth Sci (2016) 75:366

123

fragile and weak structure. Conflicting trends, i.e., between

rc and VS, between rc and VP, between E and VP, between

E and VS, between VS and c, between VP and n and between

n and VS, have been observed for intraclast tufa. Ultrasonic

wave velocity values determined for intraclast tufa had no

correlation with most of the other geomechanical param-

eters tested. The medium porous structure and possible clay

minerals along the rims of pore spaces might have had a

significant effect on the varying ultrasonic wave velocity

measurements, which could have possibly reduced the

coefficient of determination.

Similar to the intraclast tufa type, the phytoclast tufa

type is one of the weak rock types of the Antalya tufa rock.

The coefficient of determination values obtained for phy-

toclast tufa has shown that a few good correlations between

the geomechanical parameters could be used for charac-

terization purposes. The point load strength index has been

found to be in good correlation with rc, n and rt. The pointload strength index of a rock sample is easy to be deter-

mined both in the field and in the laboratory due to its

flexibility in regards to sample geometry requirements.

Hence, its correlations with the other strength parameters

might be very useful in cases of scarce data. Furthermore, a

good linear correlation between VS and E has been

observed for phytoclast tufa. However, conflicting trends

(i.e., between rc and rt and between E and Is50) have been

observed for phytoclast tufa. Although the coefficient of

determination values of these conflicting trends was very

low, the existence of such relationships illustrated the

variability of the geomechanical properties of the phyto-

clast tufa, or its highly heterogenous nature.

Phytoherm boundstone type has been observed to be

characterized better by rc, n, E and c, as also observed for

the Antalya tufa rock. Most of the correlations for these

geomechanical parameters have been linear, with only the

correlations between n and c, and between n and E being

exponential. The VP, VS, rc, E and n parameters of

phytoherm framestone type were in good correlation,

mostly with a linear trend. Only the correlation between rcand ultrasonic wave velocity appeared to be exponential.

Microcrystalline tufa, the stronger and massive among

the Antalya tufa rocks, has been successfully characterized

as far as most of the geomechanical parameters tested are

concerned. For characterization purposes, it would be

better to use the E, rc, n, c and rt parameters with high

coefficient of determination (R2) values, which also holds

true for the Antalya tufa rock in general.

Discussions

The results of more than ten different mineralogical and

geotechnical characterization methods as a consequence of

a fairly extensive testing program carried out both in the

field and in the laboratory have shown large variations that

limit a practical identification and characterization of the

Antalya tufa rock types. In fact, such large variations were

expected due to the nature of the Antalya tufa rock. In

addition to the natural variability, other factors such as

sampling might have been further sources of the variability

obtained in this study.

Tufa is a living system that depends on several param-

eters such as water chemistry, climate, terrain slope,

organisms, etc. Even a slight change in one of these

parameters in time may lead to the formation of a different

tufa rock type. The spatial extent of this variability of the

tufa rock is hard to estimate, leading to changes in the form

or structure of the rock type that will have an effect on the

strength or deformability of the rock (Sopacı 2012; Sopacıand Akgun 2014).

Characterization and classification of the rock in terms

of strength or strength related (i.e., deformation) parame-

ters are very useful in engineering design. However, it is

not an easy task since several features might affect the

Table 7 The mean values and

one standard deviation of

cohesion (c) and internal

friction angle (/) obtainedthrough triaxial compressive

strength tests for each of the

Antalya tufa rock types

Tufa type c (MPa) / (�)

Mean 1 SD Mean 1 SD

Microcrystalline (6 sets of three samples) 5.7 5.1 33 25

Phytoherm framestone (5 sets of three samples) 2.9 2.0 23 19

Phytoherm boundstone (5 sets of three samples) 1.8 1.8 39 23

Phytoclast (3 sets of three samples) 1.3 0.5 34 18

Antalya tufa rock (19 sets of three samples) 3.2 2.6 32 20

The number of the tested sample sets is given in parentheses

Environ Earth Sci (2016) 75:366 Page 15 of 20 366

123

366 Page 16 of 20 Environ Earth Sci (2016) 75:366

123

strength or deformability of the rock. One of the most

common and controlling features is the discontinuity of the

rock mass. However, the Antalya tufa rock has been

observed to be discontinuity free. With regard to the fac-

tor(s) controlling the Antalya tufa rock strength or behav-

ior, porosity has been observed to be the most probable

candidate responsible for the variations or for the hetero-

geneity of the rock. Pore spaces in tufa might be formed

either during tufa formation or dissolution after the for-

mation. It is extremely difficult to estimate the spatial and

dimensional variation as well as the shape and infilling

condition of the pore spaces of the Antalya tufa rock. From

a geomechanical characterization standpoint, dimensioning

rather than locating a cavity or a pore space and determi-

nation of the pore size distribution are more useful. How-

ever, most of the time it is almost impossible to figure out

the dimensions of the cavities or the pore size distribution

of the rock even approximately in the field.

Carbonate-bonding or cementation, which could be

loosened by water unsaturated with calcium carbonate, is

believed to be another key parameter that governs the tufa

rock strength (Sopacı 2012; Sopacı and Akgun 2014).

Depending on the climatic conditions in the region,

groundwater can play an effective role in dissolving car-

bonate rocks and decreasing the strength. The same

weakening effect could also be caused by the urban sewer

(wastewater) released from broken sewer lines on the tufa

rock, which could favor instability in the rock masses (see

in this regard Calcaterra and Parise 2010; Gutierrez et al.

2014).

When the range of the wave velocities of the common

rocks given by Schon (1996) is compared with that of the

Antalya tufa rocks, it is observed that it mostly resembles

sandstone, gneiss and schist (Sopacı 2012). The Brazilian

tensile strength of the Antalya tufa rocks has been deter-

mined to be appreciably lower than the tensile strength of

the other rock types mentioned by Singh (1989). The

lowest value given by Singh (1989) was 7.1 MPa for

sandstone (Berea). The deformability characteristics of the

Antalya tufa rocks might mostly resemble those of sedi-

mentary rocks, namely, shale and sandstone as given by

AASHTO (1989). The Young’s modulus values for shale

and sandstone are given as 27 and 30 MPa, respectively,

while the Poisson’s ratio for shale and sandstone is given as

0.09 and 0.20, respectively, by AASHTO (1989).

Conclusions

As a conclusion, a thorough engineering geological data-

base, not available so far in the literature, has been gen-

erated for the Antalya tufa rock.

During preliminary design calculations, to determine the

strength parameters, the values of the geotechnical

parameters given here for the Antalya tufa rocks could be

helpful for rock mass classification purposes for engineers.

Later, these preliminary results would need to be checked

and verified on a local basis during the engineering design

process.

According to the results of the porosity measurements of

the tufa rock cores, a mean porosity ± one standard devi-

ation of 14.7 ± 7.1 % has been determined for the Antalya

tufa rock which places it between ‘‘medium porous’’ and

‘‘high porous’’ class. Microcrystalline tufa, which has been

observed mostly in massive appearance during site visits,

has been determined to possess the lowest porosity while

phytoclast tufa, which was the allochtohonous type, had the

highest value.

Being inversely proportional with porosity, the unit

weight of the Antalya tufa rock has been determined to

possess a mean value ± one standard deviation of

19.5 ± 2.1 kN/m3. As expected, microcrystalline tufa

possessed the highest unit weight while phytoclast tufa

possessed the lowest unit weight.

A mean shear wave velocity (VS) ± one standard

deviation of 1.97 ± 0.32 km/h (VP = 4.26 ± 0.93 km/h)

has been determined for microcrystalline tufa, which was

followed by phytoherm framestone with a mean shear

wave velocity (VS) ± one standard deviation of

1.73 ± 0.58 km/h (VP = 3.69 ± 1.34 km/h). Intraclast

tufa had the lowest mean shear wave velocity (VS) ± one

standard deviation of 1.44 ± 0.04 km/h (VP = 2.72 ±

0.28 km/h).

Among the five Antalya tufa rock types, mainly three

categories with different strengths have been determined

according to the results of the uniaxial compressive

strength tests. Microcrystalline tufa falls in the ‘‘medium

strong (15–50 MPa)’’ category, while phytoherm frame-

stone and phytoherm boundstone fall in the ‘‘weak

(5–15 MPa)’’ category. Phytoclast tufa and intraclast tufa

fall in the ‘‘very weak (1–5 MPa)’’ category. The mean

uniaxial compressive strength (rc) for the Antalya tufa rock

bFig. 10 Regression plots of uniaxial compressive strength (rc) vs.

tensile strength (rt), point load strength index (Is50), P-wave velocity

(VP) and S-wave velocity (VS), respectively, for the Antalya tufa rock

types and tufa rock in general with fair coefficient of determination

(R2) values (i.e., 0.46\R2\ 0.75) for the data obtained in this study

Environ Earth Sci (2016) 75:366 Page 17 of 20 366

123

E = 0.0128e0.276γ

R² = 0.467

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

13 15 17 19 21 23 25

E; G

Pa

γ; kN/m3

Antalya tufa rock

E= 0.0387e0.208γ

R² = 0.982

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

13 15 17 19 21 23 25

E; G

Pa

γ; kN/m3

E = 10.35e-0.088n

R² = 0.462

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

0 10 20 30 40

E; G

Pa

n; %

Antalya tufa rock

E = -0.935n + 14.8R² = 0.968

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

7,0

8,0

9,0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

E; G

Pa

n; %

Phytoherm framestone

E = 0.097e0.001Vp

R² = 0.725

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

E; G

Pa

Vp; m/s

Antalya tufa rock

E = 0.031e0.0013Vp

R² = 0.884

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

E; G

Pa

Vp; m/s

Microcrystalline tufa

E = 0.066e0.002Vs

R² = 0.685

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

E; G

Pa

Vs; m/s

Antalya tufa rock

E = 0.025Vs - 43.1R² = 0.902

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

1500 1700 1900 2100 2300 2500 2700

E; G

Pa

Vs; m/s

Microcrystalline tufa

Phytoherm boundstone

366 Page 18 of 20 Environ Earth Sci (2016) 75:366

123

core samples with an L/D ratio of 2.0 has been determined

to be 9.66 MPa. The mean value of the Young’s modulus

and Poisson’s ratio measured between 30 and 80 % of the

failure load of the intact tufa rock samples was 4.23 GPa

and 0.08, respectively. The Brazilian tensile strength (rt)measured on 54 mm diameter disk samples led to a mean

tensile strength ± one standard deviation of

1.75 ± 1.12 MPa. Point load strength index (Is50) tests

have resulted in a mean point load strength ± one standard

deviation of 1.34 ± 1.24 MPa for the Antalya tufa rock.

The results of the slake durability index tests have revealed

that the majority of the Antalya tufa rock types were very

highly durable (Id2 = 90–95 %) to extremely highly dur-

able (Id2 = 95–100 %).

The results of the fairly extensive field and laboratory

testing program carried out indicate that the Antalya tufa

rock has highly variable geotechnical properties and is

highly heterogeneous.

Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Middle East

Technical University (METU) Research Fund Project No. BAP-03-

09-2009-03. Thanks are due to all the staff members of the Technical

Research Department of DLH, especially to Mehmet Altıntas for his

kind assistance in the laboratory tests. Our deepest gratitude is also

due to Ahmet Benliay, Mustafa Yucel Kaya, Hakan Tanyas, Dr.

Mustafa Kerem Kockar, Dr. Kıvanc Okalp, Arif Mert Eker and Selim

Cambazoglu for their endless support.

bFig. 11 Regression plots of Young’s modulus (E) vs. unit weight (c),porosity (n), P-wave velocity (VP) and S-wave velocity (VS),

respectively, for the Antalya tufa rock types and tufa rock in general

with fair coefficient of determination (R2) values (i.e.,

0.46\R2\ 0.75) for the data obtained in this study

σt = 0.58γ - 8.72R² = 0.813

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0

5,0

6,0

12,0 14,0 16,0 18,0 20,0 22,0 24,0

σt;

MPa

γ; kN/m3

Microcrystalline tufa

Vp = 726σt + 2286R² = 0.5

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0

Vp;

m/s

σ t; MPa

Phytoherm framestone

Vs = 0.423Vp + 163.9R² = 0.812

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1500 2500 3500 4500 5500 6500 7500 8500 9500

Vs;

m/s

Vp; m/s

Antalya tufa rock

Vs = 0.401Vp + 231.03R² = 0.691

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Vs;

m/s

Vp; m/s

Phytoherm boundstone

Fig. 12 Regression plots of P-wave velocity (VP) vs. tensile strength

(rt), S-wave velocity (VS) vs. tensile strength (rt), P-wave velocity

(VP) vs. S-wave velocity (VS) and unit weight (c) vs. tensile strength

(rt) for the Antalya tufa types and tufa rock in general with fair

coefficient of determination (R2) values (i.e., 0.46\R2\ 0.75) for

the data obtained in this study

Environ Earth Sci (2016) 75:366 Page 19 of 20 366

123

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest The research performed in this study was

supported by the Middle East Technical University (METU) Research

Fund Project No. BAP-03-09-2009-03 which the corresponding

author (Haluk Akgun) has received from the Middle East Technical

University (METU) Research Fund.

References

AASHTO (1989) Standard specifications for highway bridges, 14th

edn. American Association of State Highway and Transport

Officials, Washington, DC

Andriani GF, Parise M (2015) On the applicability of geomechanical

models for carbonate rock masses interested by karst processes.

Environ Earth Sci. doi:10.1007/s12665-015-4596-z

Andriani GF, Walsh N (2010) Petrophysical and mechanical prop-

erties of soft and porous building rocks used in Apulian

monuments (south Italy). In: Prikryl R, Torok A (eds) Natural

stone resources for historical monuments. Special publications,

vol 333. Geological Society, London, pp 129–141

ANON (1979) Classification of rocks and soils for engineering

geological mapping. Part I: rock and soil materials. Bull Int

Assoc Eng Geol 19:364–371

ASTM D1196/D1196 M-12 (2012) Standard test method for non-

repetitive static plate load tests of soils and flexible pavement

components, for use in evaluation and design of airport and

highway pavements. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

ASTM E1508-12a (2012) Standard guide for quantitative analysis by

energy-dispersive spectroscopy. ASTM International, West

Conshohocken

ASTM C25-11 (2011) Standard test methods for chemical analysis of

limestone, quicklime, and hydrated lime. ASTM International,

West Conshohocken

ASTM D4644-08 (2008) Standard test method for slake durability of

shales and similar weak rocks. ASTM International, West

Conshohocken

ASTM D7012-10 (2010) Standard test method for compressive

strength and elastic moduli of intact rock core specimens under

varying states of stress and temperatures. ASTM International,

West Conshohocken

Benavente D, Cueto N, Martinez-Martinez J, Garcia Del Cura MA,

Canaveras JC (2007) The influence of petrophysical properties

on the salt weathering of porous building rocks. Environ Geol

52:215–224

Calcaterra D, Parise M (eds) (2010) Weathering as a predisposing

factor to slope movements. Engineering geology special publi-

cation, vol 23. Geological Society of London, London

Ciner A, Karabıyıkoglu M, Monod O, Deynoux M, Tuzcu S (2008)

Late Cenozoic sedimentary evolution of the Antalya basin,

southern Turkey. Turk J Earth Sci 17:1–41

DIN 18134: 2012-04 (2012) Soil—testing procedures and testing

equipment—plate load test (English translation of DIN 18134:

2012-04). DIN Deutsches Institut fur Normung e. V

Dipova N (2002) Collapse mechanism of Antalya tufa deposits. Ph.

D. dissertation, Middle East Technical University, Department

of Geological Engineering, Ankara

Dipova N (2011) The engineering properties of tufa in the Antalya

area, SW Turkey. Q J Eng Geol Hydrogeol 44:123–134

Flugel E (2004) Microfacies of carbonate rocks. Analysis, interpre-

tation and application. Springer, Berlin

Ford TD, Pedley HM (1996) A review of tufa and travertine deposits

of the world. Earth Sci Rev 41:117–175

Franklin JA, Chandra A (1972) The slake durability test. Int J Rock

Mech Miner Sci 9:325–341

Glover C, Roberston AHF (2003) Origin of tufa (cool-water

carbonate) and related terraces in the Antalya area, SW Turkey.

Geol J 38:329–358

Glover C, Robertson AHF (1998) Role of regional extensional and

uplift in the Plio-Pleistocene evolution of the Aksu Basin, SW

Turkey. J Geol Soc Lond 15:365–388

Gutierrez F, Parise M, De Waele J, Jourde H (2014) A review on

natural and human-induced geohazards and impacts in karst.

Earth-Sci Rev 138:61–88. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2014.08.002

ISRM (1981) Suggested methods for the quantitative description of

discontinuities in rock masses. In: Barton ET (ed) Rock

characterization, testing and monitoring. Pergamon Press,

Oxford

Karabıyıkoglu M, Tuzcu S, Ciner A, Deynoux M, Orcen S, Hakyemez

A (2005) Facies and environmental setting of the Miocene coral

reefs in the late-orogenic fill of the Antalya Basin, Western

Taurids, Turkey. In: Kelling G, Robertson AHF, Van Buchem F

(eds), Cenozoic sedimentary basins of South Central Turkey. Sed

Geol 173:345–371

Kılıc R, Yavuz S (1994) Relationship between geotechnical proper-

ties of the Antalya (Turkey) travertine. Bull IAEG 50:43–50

Kosun E (2012) Facies characteristics and depositional environments

of Quaternary tufa deposits, Antalya, SW Turkey. Carbonates

and Evaporites 27(3–4):269–289

Mogi K (1966) Pressure dependence of rock strength and transition

from brittle ductile flow. Bull Earthquake Res Inst Tokyo Univ

44:215–232

Pedley HM (1990) Classification and environmental models of cool

freshwater tufas. Sed Geol 68:143–154

Schon JH (1996) Physical properties of rocks—fundamentals andprinciples of petrophysics. Pergamon, Oxford, UK

Siegesmund S, Durrast H (2011) Physical and mechanical properties

of rocks. In: Siegesmund S, Snethlage R (eds). Stone in

architecture. Properties, durability. Springer, Berlin, pp 97–225

Singh MM (1989) Strength of rock. In: Physical properties of rocks

and minerals. In: Touloukian YS, Judd WR, Roy RF (eds)

Hemisphere Publishing Corp, New York, pp 83–121

Sopacı E (2012) Geotechnical characterization and rock mass

classification of the Antalya karstic rock masses. PhD Disser-

tation, Middle East Technical University, Department of Geo-

logical Engineering, Ankara

Sopacı E, Akgun H (2014) Engineering geological characterization of

the Antalya karstic rocks, IAEG XII Congress, Engineering

Geology for Society and Territory. In: Lollino G, Manconi A,

Guzzetti F, Culshaw M, Bobrowsky P, Luino F (eds.) Urban

geology, sustainable planning and landscape exploitation, vol 5,

September 15–19, Torino, Italy, Paper 94. Springer, Berlin,

pp 489–492

Zhang L (2005) Engineering properties of rocks. In: Elsevier geo-

engineering book series, vol 4. Elsevier, Amsterdam. ISSN

1571-9960

366 Page 20 of 20 Environ Earth Sci (2016) 75:366

123