Environmental Earth Sciences

, Volume 63, Issue 7–8, pp 1613–1621 | Cite as

Time-dependent changes in the strength of repair mortar used in the loss compensation of stone

  • B. Szemerey-Kiss
  • Á. TörökEmail author
Special Issue


Repair mortar and mixture of repair mortar with porous limestone sand aggregate were tested under laboratory conditions. Water absorption properties and micro-fabric analyses with a combination of strength tests were applied to assess the durability and compatibility of repair mortar with porous limestone. Uniaxial compressive strength and flexural strength were measured after 3, 7, 14, 28 and 90 days of casting. Durability was tested by comparing strength test results of samples kept air dry, water saturated, dried in drying chamber, freeze–thaw and non-standardized freeze–thaw cycles. The results indicate that with time various trends in strength were observed. In general, limestone aggregate content decreases more the compressive strength more than the flexural strength of the mortar. Standardized freeze–thaw tests of saturated samples caused a rapid material loss after 25 cycles, while freeze–thaw tests of undersaturated samples demonstrated that even after 100 cycles the test specimens still have a significant strength. Water-saturated samples that contain 50% of limestone aggregate have a 50% loss of strength in comparison with saturated repair mortar, while air-dry and water-saturated repair mortar has a minor strength difference after 90 days. The use of smaller amounts of porous limestone aggregate in repair mortar allow the preparation of repairs that are compatible with the monuments of Central Europe that were constructed from porous limestone.


Mortar Compressive strength Flexural strength Water absorption Durability Monument 



The financial support of DAAD-MÖB project (P-MÖB/842) and the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA no. K63399) are appreciated. This work is connected to the scientific program of the “Development of quality-oriented and harmonized R+D+I strategy and functional model at BME” project. This project is supported by the New Hungary Development Plan (Project ID: TÁMOP-4.2.1/B-09/1/KMR-2010-0002). The authors are grateful to Gy. Emszt, B. Pálinkás, É. Lublóy, V. Rónaky for the technical help in laboratory analyses.


  1. Barsottelli M, Cellai GF, Fratini F, Manganelli F (2001) The hygrometric behaviour of some artificial stone materials used as elements of masonry walls. Mater Struct 34:211–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck K, Al-Mukhtar M (2008) Formulation and characterization of an appropriate lime-based mortar for use with a porous limestone. Environ Geol 56:715–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benachour Y, Davy CA, Skoczylas F, Houari H (2008) Effect of a high calcite filler addition upon microstructural, mechanical, shrinkage and transport properties of a mortar. Cem Concr Res 38:727–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Budak M, Maravelaki-Kalaitzaki P, Kallithrakas-Kontos N (2008) Chemical characterization of cretan clays for the design of restoration mortars. Microchim Acta 162:325–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bultrini G, Fragala I, Ingo GM, Lanza G (2006) Minero-petrographic, thermal and microchemical investigation of historical mortars used in Catania (Sicily) during the XVII century A.D. Appl Phys 83:529–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ghrici M, Kenai S, Said-Mansour M (2007) Mechanical properties and durability of mortar and concrete containing natural pozzolana and limestone blended cements. Cem Concr Compos 29:542–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gosselin C, Verges-Belmin V, Royer A, Martinet G (2009) Natural cement and monumental restoration. Mater Struct 42:749–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Griswold J, Uricheck S (1998) Loss compensation methods for stone. J Am Inst Conserv 37:89–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanley R, Pavía S (2008) A study of the workability of natural hydraulic lime mortars and its influence on strength. Mater Struct 41:373–381Google Scholar
  10. Hees RPJ, Binda L, Papayianni I, Toumbakari (2004) Characterisation and damage analysis of old mortars. Mater Struct 37:644–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heikal M, El-Didamony MH, Morsy MS (2000) Limestone-filled pozzolanic cement. Cem Concr Res 30:1827–1834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kieslinger A (1949) Die Steine von Sankt Stephan. Verlag Herold, WienGoogle Scholar
  13. Kriston L (2000) A kő és vakolatrestaurálás alapismeretei. MKE, Budapest, pp 113–119Google Scholar
  14. Laho M, Franzen C, Holzer R, Mirwald PW (2010) Pore and hygric properties of porous limestones a case study from Bratislava, Slovakia. In: Přikryl R, Török Á (eds) Natural stone resources for historical monuments, Geological Society, London, Special Publications 333, pp 165–174Google Scholar
  15. Lanas J, Pérez Bernal JL, Bello MA, Alvarez Galindo JI (2004) Mechanical properties of natural hydraulic lime-based mortars. Cem Concr Res 34:2191–2201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lawrence M, Walker P, D’Ayala D (2006) Non-hydraulic lime mortars. The influence of binder and filler type on early strength development. J Archit Conserv 12:7–33Google Scholar
  17. Lindqvist JE, Sandström M (2000) Quantitative analysis of historical mortars using optical microscopy. Mater Struct 33:612–617Google Scholar
  18. Luque A, Cultrone G, Sebastián E (2010) The use of lime mortars in restoration work on architectural heritage. In: Bostenaru Dan M, Přikryl R, Török Á (eds) Materials, technologies and practice in historic heritage structures. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Middendorf B, Hughes JJ, Callebaut K, Baronio G, Papayianni I (2005a) Investigative methods for the characterisation of historic mortars part 1: minerological characterization. Mater Struct 38:761–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Middendorf B, Hughes JJ, Callebaut K, Baronio G, Papayianni I (2005b) Investigative methods for the characterisation of historic mortars part 2: chemical characterization. Mater Struct 38:771–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moropoulou A, Bakolas A, Bisbikou K (2000) Physico-chemical adhesion and cohesion bonds in joint mortars imparting durability to the historic structures. Constr Build Mater 12:1561–1571Google Scholar
  22. Papayianni I (2006) The longevity of old mortars. Appl Phys A 83:685–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Papayianni I, Stefanidou M, Pachta V (2008) Design and application of artificial stone compatible to the existing old one in the archeological site of Pella. In: Lukaszewicz J, Niemcewicz P (eds) Proceedings of the 11th international congress on deterioration and conservation of stone, vol I. Nicolaus Copernicus University Press, Torun, pp 709–716Google Scholar
  24. Pavia S, Toomey B (2008) Influence of the aggregate quality on the physical properties of natural feebly hydraulic lime mortars. Mater Struct 41:559–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pavia S, Fitzgerald B, Treacy E (2006) An assessment of lime mortars for masonry repair. Concrete Research in Ireland Colloquium, University College Dublin, Dublin, pp 101–108Google Scholar
  26. Pecchioni E, Malesani P, Bellucci B, Fratini F (2005) Artificial stones utilised in florence historical palaces between the XIX and XX centuries. J Cult Herit 6:227–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Přikryl R, Šťastná A (2010) Contribution of clayey–calcareous silicite to the mechanical properties of structural mortared rubble masonry of medieval Charles Bridge in Prague (Czech Republic). Eng Geol 115:257–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Siegesmund S, Török Á, Hüpers A, Müller C, Klemm W (2007) Mineralogical, geochemical and microfabric evidences of gypsum crusts: a case study from Budapest. Environ Geol 52(2):358–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sinan C (2003) Aggregate/mortar interface: influence of silica fume at the micro- and macro-level. Cem Concr Compos 25:557–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Szemerey KB, Török Á (2008) Műemléki plasztikus kőkiegészítő anyagok jellemzői és felhasználhatósága. In: Török Á, Vásárhelyi B (eds) Mérnökgeológia-Kőzetmechanika 2008. Műegyetemi kiadó, Budapest, pp 203–214Google Scholar
  31. Török Á (2002) Oolitic limestone in polluted atmospheric environment in Budapest: weathering phenomena and alterations in physical properties. In: Siegesmund S, Weiss TS, Vollbrecht A (eds) Natural stones, weathering phenomena, conservation strategies and case studies. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 205, pp 363–379Google Scholar
  32. Török Á (2007) Morphology and detachment mechanism of weathering crusts of porous limestone in the urban environment of Budapest. Cent Eur Geol 50(3):225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Török Á, Rozgonyi N, Prikryl R, Prikrylová J (2004) Leithakalk: the ornamental and building stone of Central Europe, an overview. In: Prikryl R (ed) Dimension stone. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 89–93Google Scholar
  34. Tunçoku SS, Caner-Saltık EN (2006) Opal-A rich additives used in ancient lime mortars. Cem Concr Res 36:1886–1893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vasari G (1991) The lives of the most excellent painters, sculptors, and architects. In: Bondanella JC, Bondanella P (eds) Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Vitruvius P (2001) Ten books on architecture. In: Rowland ID (ed) Thomas Noble, TexasGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Construction Materials and Engineering GeologyBudapest University of Technology and EconomicsBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations