Advertisement

Materials and Structures

, 52:28 | Cite as

Recommendation of RILEM TC 243-SGM: functional requirements for surface repair mortars for historic buildings

  • Jan VálekEmail author
  • John J. Hughes
  • Francesca Pique
  • Davide Gulotta
  • Rob van Hees
  • Ioanna Papayiani
RILEM Technical Committee

Abstract

Surface repair mortars are used for the compensation, or repair, of lost portions of surface materials in historic masonry buildings. It is recommended that their design and application should be performed in a wider context of conservation values related decision making, to prioritise preservation of original fabric, authenticity of approach and maintenance of integrity, and not just on technical principles alone. However, a technical context for their design does exist, that requires understanding of the properties of the substrate that they will be applied onto, and adherence to minimum aesthetic (colour and texture) requirements. The principles of physical, mechanical and chemical compatibility of repair apply and the attributes of the repair mortar should be carefully matched to the substrate alongside a sacrificial behaviour (not more durable than the material being replaced). Guidance is given on the design, application and the functional requirements that must be met when using surface repair mortars.

Keywords

Surface repair Mortar Historic masonry Functional requirements 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The publication was written within the frameworks of RILEM TC 243-SGM with a special contribution of Dr. Ana Velosa of University of Aveiro.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Ashurst J, Ashurst N (1988) Practical Building Conservation: Stone Masonry. English Heritage Technical Handbook, vol 1. Gower Technical Press, AvonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Griswold J, Uricheck S (1998) Loss compensation method for stone. J Am Inst Conserv 37:89–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Isebaert A, Van Parys L, Cnudde V (2014) Composition and compatibility requirements of mineral repair mortars for stone—a review. Constr Build Mater 59:39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Demoulin T, Girardet F, Wangler TP, Scherer GW, Flatt RJ (2016) On-site monitoring for better selection of stone repairs: a case study. Herit Sci 4–38:1–17Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Demoulin T, Scherer G, Girardet F, Flatt RJ (2016) Thermo-mechanical compatibility of viscoelastic mortars for stone repair. Materials 9(1):56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    TC203-RHM (2012) Repair mortars for historic masonry. The role of mortar in masonry: an introduction to requirements for the design of repair mortars. Mater Struct 45:1287–1294.  https://doi.org/10.1671/s11527-012-9847-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    TC203-RHM (2012) Repair mortars for historic masonry. Performance requirements for renders and plasters. Mater Struct 45:1277–1285.  https://doi.org/10.1671/s11527-012-996-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    TC203-RHM (2012) Repair mortars for historic masonry. From problem to intervention: a decision process. Mater Struct 45:1295–1302.  https://doi.org/10.1671/s11527-012-9917-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    TC203-RHM (2012) Repair mortars for historic masonry. Requirements for repointing mortars for historic masonry. Mater Struct 45:1303–1309.  https://doi.org/10.1671/s11527-012-9849-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hyslop EK (2008) Assessing stone decay and the future repair needs of a Sandstone City: a survey of the stone built heritage in Glasgow, Scotland. In: Lukaszewicz JW, Niemcewicz P (eds) Proceedings of 11th international congress on deterioration and conservation of stone, Nicolaus Copernicus University, pp 1117–1124Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Forster AM, Carter K, Banfill PFG, Kayan B (2011) Green maintenance for historic masonry buildings: an emerging concept. Build Res Inf 39:654–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Groot C, Ashall G, Hughes J (eds) (2004) Characterisation of old mortars with respect to their repair. RILEM, ParisGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). Charters and other doctrinal texts. http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  14. 14.
    Van Hees RPJ (2000) Damage diagnosis and compatible repair mortars. In: Bartos PJM, Groot CJW, Hughes JJ (eds) Proceedings of historic mortars: characteristics and tests. RILEM, pp 27–36Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peroni S, Tersigni C, Torraca G, Cerea S, Forti M, Guidobaldi F, Rossi-Doria P, De Rege A, Picchi D, Pietrafitta FJ, Benedetti G (1981) Lime based mortars for the repair of ancient masonry and possible substitutes. In: Proceedings of mortars, cements and grouts used in the conservation of historic buildings, ICCROM, pp 63–100Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sasse HR, Snethlage R (1997) Methods for the evolution of stone conservation treatments. In: Baer NS, Snethlage R (eds) Report of the Dahlem workshop on Saving our architectural heritage: the conservation of historic stone structures. Wiley, New York, pp 223–243Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hughes JJ, Válek J (2003) Mortars in historic buildings—review of the conservation, technical and scientific literature. Historic Scotland, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Knöfel D, Shubert P (1993) Zur Beurteilung von Mörteln für die Instandsetzung von Mauerwerk. In: Knöfel D, Schubert P (eds) Mörtel und Stein-ergänzungsstoffe in der Denkmalpfledge. Verlag Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, pp 87–106Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Erguler ZA, Ulusay R (2009) Water-induced variations in mechanical properties of clay-bearing rocks. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 46:355–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Verstrynge E, Adriaens R, Elsen J, Van Balen K (2014) Multi-scale analysis on the influence of moisture on the mechanical behavior of ferruginous sandstone. Constr Build Mater 54:78–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Drdácký M (2011) Non-standard testing of mechanical characteristics of historic mortars. Int J Archit Herit 5:383–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Custance-Baker AB (2012) Linostone: a sandstone coating product investigated. In: Proceedings of the 12th international congress on the deterioration and conservation of stone. Columbia University, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kotlík P, Hucková M (2008) The study of consolidation of artificial stone with epoxy resin binder. In: Lukaszewicz JW, Niemcewicz P (eds) Proceedings of 11th international congress on deterioration and conservation of stone, Nicolaus Copernicus University, pp 949–957Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moens F, De Witte E (2000) Optimisation of mineral repair mortars for historic buildings (lithos arte mortars). In.: EC conference on research for protection, conservation and enhancement of cultural heritage: opportunities for European enterprises. Strasbourg, pp 22–24Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hanzlíček T, Steinerová M, Straka P, Perná I, Siegl P, Švarcová T (2009) Reinforcement of the terracotta sculpture by geopolymer composite. Mater Des 30:3229–3234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Frankeová D, Slížková Z (2016) Determination of the pozzolanic activity of mortar’s components by thermal analysis. J Therm Anal Calorim 125:1115–1123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lubelli B, Van Hees RPJ, Nijland TG, Bolhuis J (2015) A new method for making artificially weathered stone specimens for testing of conservation treatments. J Cult Herit 16:698–704.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2015.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bromblet P, Gilles M, Francois M (2005) Approach for compatible mortars for restoration purposes: stone reparations of the Roman amphitheatre of Arles. In: Proceedings of International workshop repair mortars for historic masonry. TU DelftGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Technical data sheet Jahn M70. https://insite360.azureedge.net/csp/DepartmentDatasheet/1004.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  30. 30.
    Technical data sheet Jahn M100. https://insite360.azureedge.net/csp/DepartmentDatasheet/1006.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  31. 31.
    Technical data sheet M160. https://insite360.azureedge.net/csp/DepartmentDatasheet/1007.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  32. 32.
    Technical data sheet Lithomex. https://limes.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/lithomex_data.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  33. 33.
    Technical data sheet Petra C. http://www.aquabarta.cz/4_stahuj/tech_listy/Petra_C_standard.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  34. 34.
    Technical data sheet Petra E. http://www.aquabarta.cz/4_stahuj/tech_listy/Petra_E.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  35. 35.
    Technical data sheet Restoration mortar. http://www.remmers.co.uk/fileadmin/doc/tm/TM1_0750_EN.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  36. 36.
    Technical data sheet Restoration mortar CF. http://www.remmers.co.uk/fileadmin/doc/tm/TM1_0585_EN.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  37. 37.
    Technical data sheet Soft sandstone mortar. http://www.bridevaux.ch/Dokumente/Technisches%20Datenblatt_WS_web_ENG.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  38. 38.
    Technical data sheet Hard sandstone mortar. http://www.bridevaux.ch/Dokumente/Technisches%20Datenblatt_HSKS_web_ENG.pdf. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  39. 39.
    Van Hees R, Veiga R, Slížková Z (2017) Consolidation of renders and plasters. Mater Struct 50:50–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Drdácký M, Slížková Z (2013) Enhanced affordable methods for assessing material characteristics and consolidation effects on stone and mortar. J Geophys Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-2132/10/6/064005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jornet A, Somaini M, Romer A (2005) Lime mortars for renders: is there a relationship between finishing technique and properties?—Preliminary results. In: Proceedings of international workshop repair mortars for historic masonry. TU DelftGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hall C, Hoff W (2002) Water transport in brick, stone and concrete. Taylor and Francis Group, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Drdácký M, Beran P (2010) Compatible dilation limits of masonry joint mortars. Int J Archit Herit 4:155–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lubelli B, Cnudde V, Diaz-Goncalves T, Franzoni E, van Hees RPJ, Ioannou I, Menendez B, Nunes C, Siedel H, Stefanidou M, Verges-Belmin V, Viles H (2018) Towards a more effective and reliable salt crystallization test for porous building materials: state of the art. Mater Struct 51:55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Flatt RJ, Aly Mohamed N, Caruso F, Derluyn H, Desarnaud J, Lubelli B, Espinosa-Marzal RM, Pel L, Rodriguez-Navarro C, Scherer GW, Shahidzadeh N, Steiger M (2017) Predicting salt damage in practice: a theoretical insight into laboratory tests. RILEM Tech Lett 2:108–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Theoretical and Applied MechanicsCzech Academy of SciencesPragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.University of the West of ScotlandPaisleyUK
  3. 3.SUPSILuganoSwitzerland
  4. 4.Department of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering “Giulio Natta”Politecnico di Milano and INSTMMilanoItaly
  5. 5.TNO, Delft & TU DelftDelftNetherlands
  6. 6.Aristoteles University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations