السبت، 20 يوليو 2013
الأحد، 28 أكتوبر 2012
STONE RESTORATION part 7
STONE RESTORATION PRACTICE IN PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES:
A CASE STUDY FROM JERUSALEM
part 7
FIGURE
CAPTIONS
Figure
(1): Views from famous Palestinian old cities.
a)
Alleys and stairways, Hosh Al- Ghuzlan, Old City of Jerusalem.
http://images.google.com/images,
pictures from the old city of Jerusalem (Last Retrieved in February, 2010).
b)
Alleys and stairways, Old City of Nablus, 2009.
Figure
(2): The Phenomenon of salt crystallization on
the walls of famous buildings in the Old City of Jerusalem.
a) Bab Al- Silsila
gate, Al- Aqsa Mosque, Old City of Jerusalem, , 2009.
b)
Spafford Children Center, West Elevation, Old City of Jerusalem, 2009.
c)
Al- Ashrafeyyah School, Al- Aqsa Mosque, Old City of Jerusalem, 2009.
d)
Armenian Museum, Old City of Jerusalem, 2010.
Figure
(3): The phenomenon of fracturing and fissuring
on the walls of famous buildings in the Old City of Jerusalem.
a)
Spafford Children Center, Entrance gate, Old City of Jerusalem, 2008.
b) Armenian Museum,
Door sill, Old City of Jerusalem, 2010.
Figure
(4): Phenomenon of crust and incrustation on
the walls of famous buildings in the Old City of Jerusalem.
a) Spafford Children Center, Entrance gate,
Old City of Jerusalem, 2008.
b) Armenian Museum, Door sill, Old City of
Jerusalem, 2010.
c) Al- Ashrafeyyah School, Al- Aqsa Mosque,
Old City of Jerusalem, 2009.
Figure
(5):
Sieve analysis of the crushed stone.
Figure
(6):
Sieve analysis of the silica sand.
Figure (7):
Sieve analysis of the different ratios of mixing crushed stone with silica
sand, and compared with ASTM136- 06 Standard.
a) Summary of the sieve analysis from Table
(3).
b) ASTM C136 - 06 Standard Test Method for
Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates.
Figure (8):
Analysis of the optimal density using different ratios of mixing crushed
stone and silica sand.
TABLE
CAPTIONS
Table (1): Porosity test for stone samples extracted from buildings
in the Old City of Jerusalem.
Table (2): Porosity test
for stone samples extracted from the quarries that provided and still provide
stones for the restoration process in the Old City of Jerusalem.
Table
(3): Sieve analysis of the Crushed stone.
Table (4): Sieve analysis
of the silica sand.
Table
(5): Analysis of different
ratios of mixing crushed stone and silica sand.
Table (6): Analysis of the
optimal density using different ratios of mixing crushed stone and silica sand.
Table (7): Porosity test for samples prepared with
crushed stone.
Table (8): Porosity test for samples prepared with
silica sand.
Table (9): Porosity test for samples prepared with
mixtures from crushed stone and silica sand.
Table (10): Summary from the porosity tests of all
samples.
a) Alleys and stairways, Hosh Al-
Ghuzlan, Old City of Jerusalem,
http://images.google.com/images, pictures from the old city of Jerusalem (Last
Retrieved in February, 2010)
|
b) Alleys and stairways, Old
City of Nablus, 2009.
|
Figure (1): Views
from famous Palestinian old cities.
|
|
a) Bab Al- Silsila gate,
Al- Aqsa Mosque, Old City of Jerusalem, , 2009.
|
b) Spafford Children
Center, West Elevation, Old City of Jerusalem, 2009.
|
c) Al- Ashrafeyyah
School, Al- Aqsa Mosque, Old City of Jerusalem, 2009.
|
d) Armenian Museum, Old City of Jerusalem, 2010.
|
Figure (2): The phenomenon
of salt crystallization on the walls of famous buildings in the Old City of
Jerusalem
|
|
a) Spafford Children Center, Entrance gate, Old
City of Jerusalem, 2008.
|
b) Armenian Museum, Door sill, Old City of
Jerusalem, 2010.
|
Figure (3): The phenomenon
of fracturing and fissuring on the walls of famous buildings in the Old City
of Jerusalem
|
|
a) Spafford Children Center, Entrance gate, Old
City of Jerusalem, 2008.
|
b) Armenian Museum, Door sill, Old City of
Jerusalem, 2010.
|
c) Al- Ashrafeyyah School, Al- Aqsa Mosque, Old
City of Jerusalem, 2009.
|
|
Figure
(4): The
phenomenon of crust and incrustation on the walls of famous buildings in the Old City of Jerusalem
|
|
Figure
(5): Sieve analysis of the crushed stone
Figure
(6): Sieve analysis of the silica sand
a) Summary of the sieve analysis from Table (3)
b) ASTM C136 - 06 Standard Test Method for
Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates
Figure (7): Sieve analysis of the different ratios of
mixing crushed stone with silica sand, compared with ASTM136- 06 Standard.
Figure (8): Analysis of the optimal density
using different ratios of mixing crushed stone and silica sand.
Table (1): Porosity test for
stone samples extracted from buildings in the Old City of Jerusalem
Sample
Origin
|
Saturated
Dry Surface Weight (g)
|
Dry
weight
(g)
|
Weights
Difference (g)
|
Saturated
Weight in Water (g)
|
Volume
(cm3)
|
Absorption
Ratio (%)
|
Density
(g/ cm3)
|
|
Bulk Density
(g/ cm3)
|
Dry
Density (g/cm3)
|
|||||||
Jerusalem 1
|
987
|
924
|
63
|
542
|
445
|
6.38%
|
2.22
|
2.08
|
Jerusalem 2
|
998
|
923
|
75
|
535
|
463
|
7.52%
|
2.16
|
1.99
|
Jerusalem 3
|
877
|
842
|
35
|
514
|
363
|
3.99%
|
2.42
|
2.32
|
Jerusalem 4
|
1077
|
1016
|
61
|
592
|
485
|
5.66%
|
2.22
|
2.09
|
Jerusalem 5
|
1512
|
1355
|
157
|
765
|
747
|
10.38%
|
2.02
|
1.81
|
Jerusalem 6
|
1170
|
1057
|
113
|
600
|
570
|
9.66%
|
2.05
|
1.85
|
Jerusalem 7
|
415
|
375
|
40
|
217
|
198
|
9.64%
|
2.10
|
1.89
|
Jerusalem 8
|
705
|
645
|
60
|
371
|
334
|
8.51%
|
2.11
|
1.93
|
Jerusalem 9
|
1087
|
1032
|
55
|
644
|
443
|
5.06%
|
2.45
|
2.33
|
Jerusalem 10
|
635
|
600
|
35
|
375
|
260
|
5.51%
|
2.44
|
2.31
|
Jerusalem 11
|
1103
|
1047
|
56
|
651
|
452
|
5.08%
|
2.44
|
2.32
|
Table (2): Porosity test for stone
samples extracted from the quarries that provided and still provide stones for
the restoration process in the Old City of Jerusalem.
Sample
Origin
|
Saturated
Dry Surface Weight (g)
|
Dry
weight
(g)
|
Weights
Difference (g)
|
Saturated
Weight in Water (g)
|
Volume
(cm3)
|
Absorption
Ratio (%)
|
Density
(g/ cm3)
|
|
Bulk Density
(g/ cm3)
|
Dry
Density (g/cm3)
|
|||||||
A’nata 1
|
657
|
547
|
110
|
333
|
324
|
16.74%
|
1.69
|
2.03
|
A’nata 2
|
1583
|
1347
|
236
|
793
|
790
|
14.91%
|
1.71
|
2.00
|
Birzeit 1
|
858
|
850
|
8
|
537
|
321
|
0.93%
|
2.65
|
2.67
|
Birzeit 2
|
380
|
376
|
4
|
237
|
143
|
1.05%
|
2.63
|
2.66
|
Birzeit 3
|
1614
|
1602
|
12
|
1013
|
601
|
0.74%
|
2.67
|
2.69
|
Birzeit 4
|
1196
|
1186
|
10
|
749
|
447
|
0.84%
|
2.65
|
2.68
|
Birzeit 5
|
932
|
924
|
8
|
586
|
346
|
0.86%
|
2.67
|
2.69
|
Beit Fajjar 1
|
715.3
|
702
|
13.3
|
442.5
|
272.8
|
1.86%
|
2.62
|
2.57
|
Beit Fajjar 2
|
748.3
|
735.2
|
13.1
|
464
|
284.3
|
1.75%
|
2.63
|
2.59
|
Beit Fajjar 3
|
778.2
|
763.9
|
14.3
|
482.5
|
295.7
|
1.84%
|
2.63
|
2.58
|
Bethlehem 1
|
403.4
|
399
|
4.4
|
256.5
|
146.9
|
1.09%
|
2.75
|
2.72
|
Bethlehem 2
|
400.7
|
396.5
|
4.2
|
254
|
146.7
|
1.05%
|
2.73
|
2.70
|
Bethlehem 3
|
396.9
|
393
|
3.9
|
251.5
|
145.4
|
0.98%
|
2.73
|
2.70
|
Hebron 1
|
537
|
533
|
4.0
|
336
|
201
|
0.74%
|
2.67
|
2.65
|
Hebron 2
|
283.2
|
281.1
|
2.1
|
179
|
104.2
|
0.74%
|
2.72
|
2.70
|
Hebron 3
|
214.6
|
212.3
|
2.3
|
134
|
80.6
|
1.07%
|
2.66
|
2.63
|
Jordan Valley
|
201.8
|
200.2
|
1.6
|
100
|
101.8
|
0.79%
|
1.98
|
1.97
|
Table (3): Sieve analysis
of the crushed stone.
Sieve No.
|
Sieve size in (mm)
|
Weight in g.
|
cumulative weight in g.
|
cumulative percentage (A)
|
100%-A
|
4
|
4.750
|
0
|
0
|
0.0%
|
100.0%
|
8
|
2.380
|
177
|
177
|
38.5%
|
61.5%
|
16
|
1.180
|
105
|
282
|
61.3%
|
38.7%
|
30
|
0.600
|
44
|
326
|
70.9%
|
29.1%
|
50
|
0.300
|
29
|
355
|
77.2%
|
22.8%
|
100
|
0.150
|
21
|
376
|
81.7%
|
18.3%
|
200
|
0.075
|
13
|
389
|
84.6%
|
15.4%
|
plate
|
0.000
|
71
|
460
|
100.0%
|
0.0%
|
Table (4): Sieve analysis
of the silica sand.
Sieve No.
|
Sieve size in mm
|
Weight in g.
|
cumulative weight in g.
|
cumulative percentage (A)
|
100%-A
|
4
|
4.750
|
12.3
|
12.3
|
3.4%
|
96.6%
|
8
|
2.380
|
14.2
|
26.5
|
7.4%
|
92.6%
|
16
|
1.180
|
8.0
|
34.5
|
9.6%
|
90.4%
|
30
|
0.600
|
5.5
|
40
|
11.1%
|
88.9%
|
50
|
0.300
|
8.0
|
48
|
13.3%
|
86.7%
|
100
|
0.150
|
217.8
|
265.8
|
73.8%
|
26.2%
|
200
|
0.075
|
34.2
|
300
|
83.3%
|
16.7%
|
Plate
|
0.000
|
60.0
|
360
|
100.0%
|
0.0%
|
Table (5): Analysis of different ratios of mixing crushed
stone and silica sand
Mixing 90% of crushed stone with 10% of silica sand
|
Sieve
No.
|
Sieve
size in mm
|
C(100%-A)
|
S(100%-A)
|
90%C
|
10%S
|
10%S+90%C
|
4
|
4.750
|
100%
|
96.6%
|
90.00%
|
9.66%
|
99.66%
|
|
8
|
2.380
|
62%
|
92.6%
|
55.35%
|
9.26%
|
64.61%
|
|
16
|
1.180
|
39%
|
90.4%
|
34.83%
|
9.04%
|
43.87%
|
|
30
|
0.600
|
29%
|
88.9%
|
26.19%
|
8.89%
|
35.08%
|
|
50
|
0.300
|
23%
|
86.7%
|
20.52%
|
8.67%
|
29.19%
|
|
100
|
0.150
|
18%
|
26.2%
|
16.47%
|
2.62%
|
19.09%
|
|
200
|
0.075
|
15%
|
16.7%
|
13.86%
|
1.67%
|
15.53%
|
|
plate
|
0.000
|
0%
|
0.0%
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
|
Mixing 80% of crushed stone with 20% of silica sand
|
Sieve
No.
|
Sieve
size in mm
|
C(100%-A)
|
S(100%-A)
|
80%C
|
20%S
|
20%S+80%C
|
4
|
4.750
|
100%
|
97%
|
80.00%
|
19.32%
|
99.32%
|
|
8
|
2.380
|
62%
|
93%
|
49.20%
|
18.52%
|
67.72%
|
|
16
|
1.180
|
39%
|
90%
|
30.96%
|
18.08%
|
49.04%
|
|
30
|
0.600
|
29%
|
89%
|
23.28%
|
17.78%
|
41.06%
|
|
50
|
0.300
|
23%
|
87%
|
18.24%
|
17.34%
|
35.58%
|
|
100
|
0.150
|
18%
|
26%
|
14.64%
|
5.24%
|
19.88%
|
|
200
|
0.075
|
15%
|
17%
|
12.32%
|
3.34%
|
15.66%
|
|
plate
|
0.000
|
0%
|
0%
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
|
Mixing 70% of crushed stone with 30% of silica sand
|
Sieve
No.
|
Sieve
size in mm
|
C(100%-A)
|
S(100%-A)
|
70%C
|
30%S
|
30%S+70%C
|
4
|
4.750
|
100%
|
97%
|
30.00%
|
28.98%
|
58.98%
|
|
8
|
2.380
|
62%
|
93%
|
18.45%
|
27.78%
|
46.23%
|
|
16
|
1.180
|
39%
|
90%
|
11.61%
|
27.12%
|
38.73%
|
|
30
|
0.600
|
29%
|
89%
|
8.73%
|
26.67%
|
35.40%
|
|
50
|
0.300
|
23%
|
87%
|
6.84%
|
26.01%
|
32.85%
|
|
100
|
0.150
|
18%
|
26%
|
5.49%
|
7.86%
|
13.35%
|
|
200
|
0.075
|
15%
|
17%
|
4.62%
|
5.01%
|
9.63%
|
|
plate
|
0.000
|
0%
|
0%
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
|
Mixing 60% of crushed stone with 40% of silica sand
|
Sieve
No.
|
Sieve
size in mm
|
C(100%-A)
|
S(100%-A)
|
60%C
|
40%S
|
40%S+60%C
|
4
|
4.750
|
100%
|
96.6%
|
60.00%
|
38.64%
|
98.64%
|
|
8
|
2.380
|
62%
|
92.6%
|
36.90%
|
37.04%
|
73.94%
|
|
16
|
1.180
|
39%
|
90.4%
|
23.22%
|
36.16%
|
59.38%
|
|
30
|
0.600
|
29%
|
88.9%
|
17.46%
|
35.56%
|
53.02%
|
|
50
|
0.300
|
23%
|
86.7%
|
13.68%
|
34.68%
|
48.36%
|
|
100
|
0.150
|
18%
|
26.2%
|
10.98%
|
10.48%
|
21.46%
|
|
200
|
0.075
|
15%
|
16.7%
|
9.24%
|
6.68%
|
15.92%
|
|
Mixing 50% of crushed stone and 50% of silica sand
|
Sieve
No.
|
Sieve
size in mm
|
C(100%-A)
|
S(100%-A)
|
50%C
|
50%S
|
50%S+50%C
|
4
|
4.750
|
100%
|
97%
|
50.00%
|
48.30%
|
98.30%
|
|
8
|
2.380
|
62%
|
93%
|
30.75%
|
46.30%
|
77.05%
|
|
16
|
1.180
|
39%
|
90%
|
19.35%
|
45.20%
|
64.55%
|
|
30
|
0.600
|
29%
|
89%
|
14.55%
|
44.45%
|
59.00%
|
|
50
|
0.300
|
23%
|
87%
|
11.40%
|
43.35%
|
54.75%
|
|
100
|
0.150
|
18%
|
26%
|
9.15%
|
13.10%
|
22.25%
|
|
200
|
0.075
|
15%
|
17%
|
7.70%
|
8.35%
|
16.05%
|
|
plate
|
0.000
|
0%
|
0%
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
0.00%
|
Table (6): Analysis of the optimal density
using different ratios of mixing crushed stone and silica sand
Sand/crushed stone ratio (%)
|
Weight in g.
|
Cubic volume in cm3
|
Density in g/cm3
|
10%+90%
|
578
|
364.896
|
1.584
|
20%+80%
|
581
|
364.896
|
1.592
|
25%+75%
|
580
|
364.896
|
1.589
|
30%+70%
|
578
|
364.896
|
1.584
|
Table (7): Porosity Test for samples prepared with crushed stones
Density (g/cm3)
|
Absorption
Ratio %
|
Volume
(cm3)
|
Saturated
Weight in Water (g)
|
Weight
difference (g)
|
Dry
weight (g)
|
Saturated
Dry Surface Weight (g)
|
Materials
in Units
|
Sample
No.
|
||||||
Dry
Density (g/cm3)
|
Bulk
Density (g/cm3)
|
Mixture
of Crushed Stone and Silica sand (78%+22%)
|
Hydrated
Lime Paste
|
White
Cement
|
Hydraulic
Lime
|
Silica
Sand
|
Crushed
Stone
|
|||||||
1.48
|
1.86
|
20.1
|
187.2
|
160.5
|
70.0
|
277.7
|
347.7
|
-
|
1.0
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
1.0
|
1
|
1.73
|
2.03
|
14.6
|
173.7
|
178.5
|
51.4
|
300.8
|
352.2
|
-
|
1.0
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
2.0
|
2
|
1.67
|
1.98
|
15.5
|
180.5
|
176.5
|
55.4
|
301.6
|
357.0
|
-
|
1.5
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
2.5
|
3
|
1.76
|
2.04
|
13.5
|
160.9
|
167.0
|
44.4
|
283.5
|
327.9
|
-
|
1.0
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
3.0
|
4
|
1.71
|
2.00
|
14.6
|
185.7
|
54.7
|
54.1
|
317.6
|
371.7
|
-
|
1.0
|
1.0
|
-
|
-
|
2.0
|
5
|
1.67
|
1.99
|
16.0
|
225.5
|
54.7
|
71.8
|
377.2
|
449.0
|
-
|
1.5
|
1.0
|
-
|
-
|
2.5
|
6
|
1.74
|
2.03
|
14.2
|
166.5
|
52.2
|
47.9
|
290.1
|
338.0
|
-
|
1.0
|
1.0
|
-
|
-
|
3.0
|
7
|
Table (8): Porosity Test for samples prepared with silica sand
Density (g/cm3)
|
Absorption
Ratio %
|
Volume
(cm3)
|
Saturated
Weight in Water (g)
|
Weight
difference (g)
|
Dry
weight (g)
|
Saturated
Dry Surface Weight (g)
|
Materials
in Units
|
Sample
No.
|
||||||
Dry
Density (g/cm3)
|
Bulk
Density (g/cm3)
|
Mixture
of Crushed Stone and Silica sand (78%+22%)
|
Hydrated
Lime Paste
|
White
Cement
|
Hydraulic
Lime
|
Silica
Sand
|
Crushed
Stone
|
|||||||
1.64
|
1.95
|
15.7
|
217.0
|
206.0
|
66.3
|
356.7
|
423.0
|
-
|
1.0
|
-
|
-
|
1.0
|
-
|
1
|
1.69
|
1.93
|
12.2
|
250.0
|
270.0
|
63.5
|
456.5
|
520.0
|
-
|
1.0
|
-
|
-
|
2.0
|
-
|
2
|
1.71
|
1.97
|
13.6
|
248.2
|
241.0
|
66.8
|
423.2
|
490.0
|
-
|
1.5
|
-
|
-
|
2.5
|
-
|
3
|
1.70
|
1.99
|
14.5
|
226.3
|
223.0
|
65.2
|
384.1
|
449.3
|
-
|
1.0
|
1.0
|
-
|
2.0
|
-
|
4
|
1.67
|
1.97
|
15.1
|
265.9
|
257.0
|
79.1
|
443.8
|
522.9
|
-
|
1.5
|
1.0
|
-
|
2.5
|
-
|
5
|
1.70
|
1.98
|
14.0
|
199.8
|
196.0
|
55.6
|
340.2
|
395.8
|
-
|
1.0
|
1.0
|
-
|
3.0
|
-
|
6
|
1.76
|
2.06
|
14.3
|
224.2
|
237.5
|
66.0
|
395.7
|
461.7
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
1.0
|
1.0
|
-
|
7
|
1.79
|
2.04
|
12.3
|
233.6
|
242.0
|
58.4
|
417.2
|
475.6
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
1.0
|
2.0
|
-
|
8
|
1.71
|
1.97
|
13.3
|
228.0
|
222.0
|
60.0
|
390.0
|
450.0
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
1.5
|
2.5
|
-
|
9
|
1.72
|
1.93
|
11.3
|
185.2
|
173.0
|
40.4
|
317.8
|
358.2
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
1.0
|
3.0
|
-
|
10
|
Table (9): Porosity Test for samples prepared with mixtures of crushed stone & silica sand
Density (g/cm3)
|
Absorption
Ratio %
|
Volume
(cm3)
|
Saturated
Weight in Water (g)
|
Weight
Difference (g)
|
Dry
Weight (g)
|
Saturated
Dry Surface Weight (g)
|
Materials
in Units
|
Sample
No.
|
||||||
Dry
Density (g/cm3)
|
Bulk
Density (g/cm3)
|
Mixture
of Crushed Stone and Silica Sand (78%+22%)
|
Hydrated
Lime Paste
|
White
Cement
|
Hydraulic
Lime
|
Silica
Sand
|
Crushed
Stone
|
|||||||
1.56
|
1.90
|
17.7
|
275.0
|
247.0
|
92.6
|
429.4
|
522.0
|
1.0
|
1.0
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
1
|
1.77
|
2.05
|
13.4
|
155.5
|
163.0
|
42.7
|
275.8
|
318.5
|
2.0
|
1.0
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
2
|
1.65
|
1.95
|
15.4
|
135.0
|
128.0
|
40.4
|
222.6
|
263.0
|
2.5
|
1.5
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
3
|
1.78
|
2.04
|
12.5
|
260.0
|
270.0
|
66.0
|
464.0
|
530.0
|
3.0
|
1.0
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
4
|
1.70
|
1.98
|
14.2
|
219.0
|
214.0
|
61.4
|
371.6
|
433.0
|
1.0
|
-
|
-
|
1.0
|
-
|
-
|
5
|
1.82
|
2.07
|
12.2
|
220.0
|
236.0
|
55.6
|
400.4
|
456.0
|
2.0
|
-
|
-
|
1.0
|
-
|
-
|
6
|
1.82
|
2.06
|
11.9
|
195.0
|
207.5
|
47.8
|
354.7
|
402.5
|
2.5
|
-
|
-
|
1.5
|
-
|
-
|
7
|
1.91
|
2.14
|
10.5
|
153.0
|
174.0
|
34.4
|
292.6
|
327.0
|
3.0
|
-
|
-
|
1.0
|
-
|
-
|
8
|
1.74
|
2.03
|
14.1
|
220.1
|
226.0
|
62.9
|
383.2
|
446.1
|
2.0
|
1.0
|
1.0
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
9
|
1.66
|
1.97
|
15.8
|
243.9
|
237.0
|
75.9
|
405.0
|
480.9
|
2.5
|
1.5
|
1.0
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
10
|
1.80
|
2.06
|
12.9
|
214.8
|
228.0
|
57.0
|
385.8
|
442.8
|
3.0
|
1.0
|
1.0
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
11
|
Table (10): Summary from the porosity tests of all samples.
Average Density (g/cm3)
|
Average
Absorption Ratio %
|
Samples and Materials
|
||
Dry
Density (g/cm3)
|
Bulk
Density (g/cm3)
|
|||
1.66
|
1.98
|
15.90
|
Crushed stone and hydrated lime paste
|
1
|
1.71
|
2.01
|
14.93
|
Crushed stone, hydrated lime paste and
white cement
|
2
|
1.68
|
1.95
|
13.80
|
Silica sand and hydrated lime paste
|
3
|
1.69
|
1.98
|
14.50
|
Silica sand, hydrated lime paste and
white cement
|
4
|
1.79
|
2.00
|
12.80
|
Silica sand and hydraulic lime
|
5
|
1.69
|
1.99
|
14.75
|
Mixture of crushed stone and silica sand with
hydrated lime paste
|
6
|
1.73
|
2.02
|
14.26
|
Mixture of crushed stone and silica sand with
hydrated lime paste and white cement
|
7
|
1.81
|
2.06
|
12.2
|
Mixture of crushed stone and silica sand with
hydraulic lime
|
8
|
2.02
|
1.70
|
15.83
|
Stones from the quarries of A’nata
|
9
|
2.61
|
2.62
|
01.09
|
Stones from other quarries presently used
in restoration
|
10
|
2.08
|
2.24
|
7.03
|
Stones from the old buildings of
Jerusalem
|
11
|
الاشتراك في:
الرسائل (Atom)