Pore Structure as a Determinant of Flexibility in Sustainable Lime-Cement Mortar Composites



Abstract Views
300

Downloads
265

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Sep 14, 2021
Published Oct 22, 2021
10.24018/ejeng.2021.6.6.2598

Abstract viewed = 300 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

Flexibility of Lime Mortar resulting from its good permeability feature through its relatively large interconnected pore structure makes it popular as an old sustainable building material. This characteristic feature enhances its capability to suppress masonry deformation. However, its mechanical strength is weak. To address this shortcoming, cement is added to form a stronger composite. This study, therefore, evaluates the pore structure of the resulting lime-cement composite, with a view to assessing impact and sustainability of the lime’s flexibility in the overall performance of the composite. Adopting equal mix ratio (1:3) of Binder/Aggregate (B/A), mortars were prepared using lime as a lone binder, as well as other five different compositions in the ascending and descending order of lime and cement binders (i.e., 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, 2:1 and 3:1). Each composition was assessed in fresh state using Water/Binder ratio, Air Content and Bulk Density. For the hardened state assessments, mechanical characteristics and microstructural features evaluated through six (6) and twelve (12) month curing periods respectively, were considered. Results of the investigation reveal that low cumulative porosity (i.e., summation of the porosities) across the three pore regions of Inter-Nano pores (1 – 10 nm), Super-Nano pores (10 – 100 nm) and Sub-Micro pores (0.1 – 1 µm), for each of the mortars, is observed to be synonymous with low cement content, low Modulus of Elasticity, low (fc/ff), and thus, high flexibility. This observation is supported by high linear coefficient of correlation (R2 = 0.89) for the equation describing both ‘cumulative porosity’ (within the referenced three pore ranges) and cement content. Thus, it could be inferred that despite cement addition with resulting alteration in the pore structure of the composite, presence of lime would retain flexibility property of the composites, with more flexibility in the descending order of cement contents. Considering the impacts of pandemic climate change, growing energy costs and human activities on the environment, this study therefore attempts to promote revival of an old but partially abandoned sustainable lime based mortars, with a view to facilitating improved lime mortar performances, conservation of energy resources and overall protection of the environment.

Keywords: Climate Change, Flexibility, Lime Mortars, Pore Structure, Sustainability

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. J. Lanas, J. L. Pérez Bernal, M. A. Bello, and J. I. Alvarez Galindo, “Mechanical properties of natural hydraulic lime-based mortars,” Cement and Concrete Research, vol. 34(12), pp. 2191–2201, 2004.
     Google Scholar
  2. M. Arandigoyen, and J. I. Alvarez, “Pore structure and mechanical properties of cement–lime mortars,” Cement and Concrete Research, 37(5), 767-775, 2007.
     Google Scholar
  3. J. Hughes, J. E. Lindqvist, CBI Betonginstitutet AB, SP – Sveriges Tekniska Forskningsinstitut, and RISE. “RILEM TC 203-RHM: Repair mortars for historic masonry: The role of mortar in masonry: An introduction to requirements for the design of repair mortars,” Materials and Structures, 45(9), 1287-1294, 2012.
     Google Scholar
  4. S. A. Olaniyan, “Impact of Changing Microstructural Compositions of Lime Based Mortar on Flexibility: Case Study of Sustainable Lime-Cement Composites,” Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, Vol. 5, No. 6, 1488-1498, 2020a (https://astesj.com/v05/i02/p99/).
     Google Scholar
  5. S. Pavía, and E. Treacy, “A comparative study of the durability and behaviour of fat lime and feebly-hydraulic lime mortars,” Materials and Structures, 39(3), 391-398, 2007.
     Google Scholar
  6. R. Hanley, and S. Pavía “A study of the workability of natural hydraulic lime mortars and its influence on strength,” Materials and Structures, 41(2), 373-381, 2008.
     Google Scholar
  7. S. Pavia, and O. Brennan, “Portland cement-lime mortars for conservation,” Proceedings of 3rd Historic Mortars Conference (HMC13), held at the University of the West of Scotland Glasgow, Scotland, 2013.
     Google Scholar
  8. A. M. Forster, “An assessment of the relationship between the water vapour permeability and hydraulicity of lime based mortars with particular reference to building conservation materials science,” PhD Thesis, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, 2002.
     Google Scholar
  9. A. Isebaert, W. De Boever, V. Cnudde, & L. Van Parys, “An empirical method for the estimation of permeability in natural hydraulic lime mortars,” Materials and Structures, 49(11), 4853-4865, 2016.
     Google Scholar
  10. P. F. G. Banfill, “Rheological methods for assessing the flow properties of mortar and related materials,” Construction and Building Materials, 8(1), 43-50, 1994.
     Google Scholar
  11. L. Mcdonald, “Hydraulic lime mortar for the house of the future,” The Structural Engineer, 78 (7), 2000.
     Google Scholar
  12. A. Solak, “Experimental investigation of lime mortar used in historical buildings in Becin, Turkey,” Materials Science, 22(1), 105-112, 2016
     Google Scholar
  13. A. J. Edwards, “Properties of hydraulic and non-hydraulic limes for use in construction,” PhD Thesis, Napier University, Edinburgh, 2005.
     Google Scholar
  14. R. J. Ball, A. El-Turki, W. J. Allen, J. A. Nicholson, and G. C. Allen, “Deformation of NHL3.5 and CL90/PC hybrid mortars,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Construction Materials, 162(1), 29-35, 2009.
     Google Scholar
  15. S. A. Olaniyan, and A. J. Klemm, “Current Trends in Development of Lime Based Composites,” Building Physics in Theory and Practice, Volume VII, No.3, pp 49-54, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  16. G. Cultrone, E. Sebastián, and M. O. Huertas, “Forced and natural carbonation of lime-based mortars with and without additives: Mineralogical and textural changes,” Cement and Concrete Research, 35(12), 2278-2289, 2005.
     Google Scholar
  17. A. M. Forster, and K. Carter, “A framework for specifying natural hydraulic lime mortars for masonry construction” Structural Survey, 29(5), 373-396, 2011.
     Google Scholar
  18. A. Arizzi, H. Viles, and G. Cultrone, “Experimental testing of the durability of lime-based mortars used for rendering historic buildings,” Construction and Building Materials, 28(1), 807-818, 2012.
     Google Scholar
  19. A. J. Klemm, and D. E. Wiggins, “Lime mortar and sacrificial protection of heritage stonework,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering History and Heritage, 168(4), 167-176, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  20. L. Ventola, M. Vendrell, and P. Giraldez, “Newly-designed traditional lime mortar with a phase change material as an additive,” Construction and Building Materials, 47, 1210-1216, 2013.
     Google Scholar
  21. F. Pacheco-Torgal, J. Faria, and S. Jalali, “Some considerations about the use of lime–cement mortars for building conservation purposes in portugal: A reprehensible option or a lesser evil?,” Construction and Building Materials, 30(1), 488-494, 2012
     Google Scholar
  22. A. Izaguirre, J. Lanas, and J. I. Alvarez, “Effect of a polypropylene fibre on the behaviour of aerial lime-based mortars,” Construction and Building Materials, 25(2), 992-1000, 2011.
     Google Scholar
  23. M. J. Mosquera, B. Silva, B. Prieto, and E. Ruiz-Herrera, “Addition of cement to lime-based mortars: effect on pore structure and vapor transport,” Cement and Concrete Research, 36, 1635– 1642, 2006.
     Google Scholar
  24. R. J. Ball, A. El-Turki, W. J. Allen, J. A. Nicholson, and G. C. Allen, “Deformation of NHL3.5 and CL90/PC hybrid mortars,” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Construction Materials, 162(1), 29-35, 2009
     Google Scholar
  25. M. Tate, “The most important property of cement-lime mortar in masonry construction,” Proceedings of International Building Lime Symposium, Orlando, Florida, March 9-11, 2005.
     Google Scholar
  26. C. Torney, and A. M. Forster, “Concerned with compatibility,” Building Surveying Journal, 28, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  27. C. Torney, A. M. Forster, and E. M. Szadurski, “Specialist ‘restoration mortars’ for stone elements: A comparison of the physical properties of two stone repair materials,” Heritage Science, 2(1), 1-12, 2014.
     Google Scholar
  28. S. A. Olaniyan, “Sustainable Lime Based Mortars: Performance Assessment of Composites for Building Construction” PhD Thesis, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, Scotland (UK), 2017.
     Google Scholar
  29. A. Moropoulou, “Reverse engineering: a proper methodology for compatible restoration mortars,” RILEM Conference Proceedings on Historic Mortars, Delft, 2005.
     Google Scholar
  30. British Standards Institution (BSI) BS EN 13139, “Aggregates for mortar - Part 3 (PD 6682): Guidance on the use of Aggregates,” British Standards, 2013.
     Google Scholar
  31. ASTM C136, “American Society for Testing and Materials Standard Test Method for particle size distributions,” ASTM Standard, 2014.
     Google Scholar
  32. ASTM C 33, “American Society for Testing and Materials Standard Specification for mortar Aggregates,” ASTM Standard, 2016.
     Google Scholar
  33. British Standards Institution (BSI) BS EN 1015 “Methods of Test for Mortar for Masonry – Part 3: Determination of Consistence of Fresh Mortar (by Flow Table),” British Standards, 2000.
     Google Scholar
  34. J. Lanas, and J. I. Alvarez-Galindo, “Masonry repair lime-based mortars: Factors affecting the mechanical behaviour,” Cement and Concrete Research, 33(11), 1867-1876, 2003.
     Google Scholar
  35. A. Moropoulou, A. S. Cakmak, G. Biscontin, A. Bakolas, and E. Zendri, “Advanced byzantine cement based composites resisting earthquake stresses: The crushed brick/lime mortars of justinian's hagia Sophia,” Construction and Building Materials, 16(8), 543-552, 2002.
     Google Scholar
  36. British Standards Institution (BSI) BS EN 1015, “Methods of Test for Mortar for Masonry – Part 6: Determination of Bulk Density of Fresh Mortar,” British Standards, 1999.
     Google Scholar
  37. British Standards Institution (BSI) PD 6678, “Published Document - Guide to the Specification of the Masonry Mortar,” British Standards, 2005.
     Google Scholar
  38. S. A. Olaniyan, “Low Carbon Sustainable Building Material: Maximising Slag potentials for improved lime mortar mechanical properties,” Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2, 786-794, 2020b (https://astesj.com/v05/i02/p99/).
     Google Scholar
  39. British Standards Institution (BSI) “PD 6697: Published Document - Recommendations for the Design of Masonry Structures to BS EN 1996 1 1 and BS EN 1996 2, British Standards, 2010.
     Google Scholar
  40. J. S. Pozo-Antonio, “Evolution of mechanical properties and drying shrinkage in lime-based and lime cement-based mortars with pure limestone aggregate,” Construction and Building Materials, 77, 472-478, 2015
     Google Scholar
  41. E. A. W. Hendry, “Masonry walls: material and construction,” Construction and Building Materials, 15, 323–330, 2001.
     Google Scholar
  42. K. M. Green, M. A. Carter, W. D. Hoff, and M. A. Wilson (1999). The effects of lime and admixtures on the water-retaining properties of cement mortars,” Cement and Concrete Research, 29(11), 1743-1747, 1999.
     Google Scholar
  43. Y. Sébaïbi, R. M. Dheilly, B. Beaudoin, and M. Quéneudec, “The effect of various slaked limes on the microstructure of a lime–cement–sand mortar,” Cement and Concrete Research, 36(5), 971-978, 2006.
     Google Scholar
  44. K. Aligizaki, “Pore Structure of Cement-Based Materials: Testing, Interpretation and Requirements,” Taylor and Francis, 2006.
     Google Scholar
  45. J. Grilo, P. Faria, R. Veiga, A. S. Silva, V. Silva, and A. Velosa, “New natural hydraulic lime mortars – physical and microstructural properties in different curing conditions,” Construction and Building Materials, 54, pp 378-384, 2014.
     Google Scholar
  46. G. Land, and D. Stephan, “Controlling cement hydration with nanoparticles,” Cement and Concrete Comp., 57, 64-67, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  47. Y. C. Choi, Y. K. Cho, K. Shin, and S. Kwon, “Development and application of microcapsule for cement hydration control,” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 20(1), 282-292, 2015.
     Google Scholar
  48. B. S. Briccoli, and L. Rovero, “Gli additivi per malte usati nell' antichita,” Ed. Mascolo G, Materiali e tecniche per il Restauro Cassino. Idea Stampa Editore AIMAT, INISM, 1997.
     Google Scholar
  49. A. Moropoulou, A. Bakolas, P. Moundoulas, E. Aggelakopoulou, and S. Anagnostopoulou, “Strength development and lime reaction in mortars for repairing historic masonries,” Cement and Concrete Comp., 27(2), pp 289-294, 2005.
     Google Scholar