Advertisement

Materials and Structures

, 52:112 | Cite as

Assessment of test methods for the durability of thermal mortars exposure to freezing

  • J. MaiaEmail author
  • Nuno M. M. Ramos
  • R. Veiga
Original Article
  • 69 Downloads

Abstract

Thermal mortars are a trend in the construction industry in recent years, owing to the required decrease of the thermal transmission of building envelopes. The high porosity of thermal mortars leads to permeability values that can affect their durability since it creates more favourable conditions for the penetration of aggressive agents. Water is observed as one of the most common and harmful degradation agents. Regarding the climatic variability in Europe, freezing is a usual degradation mechanism both in severe and moderate climates. Since thermal mortars have higher water absorption than a common insulation, the freezing may occur. As no durability assessment methodologies to evaluate the exposure of thermal mortars to freezing degradation mechanisms exist, the present work has the objective to analyse existing accelerated ageing procedures, which envisage freezing degradation mechanism. As such, the durability assessment described in EN 1015-21 and ETAG 004 was adapted and implemented in different thermal mortars. It was observed that the higher number of cycles and the severity of the freeze–thaw ageing cycles, according to ETAG 004, may reproduce the effect of the northern European climates, while the ageing cycles, described in EN 1015-21, combine degradation mechanisms that occur in central and southern European climates. This adaptation allowed collecting reliable data and inputs to the development of durability assessment methodologies directly applicable to thermal rendering and plastering systems.

Keywords

Thermal mortar Durability Accelerated ageing Experimental tests Degradation mechanisms 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge to Saint-Gobain Weber, Secil Argamassas and Sival – Gessos Especiais to the materials supply.

Funding

This work was financially supported by Project PTDC/ECI-CON/28766/2017 - POCI-01-0145-FEDER-028766 funded by FEDER funds through COMPETE2020 - Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalização (POCI) and by national funds (PIDDAC) through FCT/MCTES and the Project Reuse – Rehabilitation and Sustainability, supported by LNEC. This work was financially supported by: UID/ECI/04708/2019- CONSTRUCT - Instituto de I&D em Estruturas e Construções funded by national funds through the FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC). The first author would like to acknowledge the support of FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, the funding of the Doctoral Grant PD/BD/52659/2014, through the Doctoral Programme EcoCoRe.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11527_2019_1411_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16.4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16,800 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    van Breugel K (2018) How models can make a difference for a sustainable future of the building industry. Mater Struct/Materiaux et Constructions.  https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-018-1287-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Esmaeeli HS, Farnam Y, Bentz DP, Zavattieri PD, Weiss WJ (2017) Numerical simulation of the freeze–thaw behavior of mortar containing deicing salt solution. Mater Struct/Materiaux et Constructions.  https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-016-0964-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thomson M, Erik Lindqvist J, Elsen J, Groot C (2007) Chapter 2.5 characterisation: porosity of mortarsGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Coutinho MJÁRdS (1998) Improvement of concrete durability by formwork treatment. University of Porto, PortoGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Concrete Society (1987) Permeability testing of site concrete. A review of methods and experience. Techical ReportGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gomes MG, Flores-Colen I, Melo H, Soares A (2019) Physical performance of industrial and EPS and cork experimental thermal insulation renders. Constr Build Mater 198:786–795.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Puertas F, Amat T, Fernández-Jiménez A, Vázquez T (2003) Mechanical and durable behaviour of alkaline cement mortars reinforced with polypropylene fibres. Cem Concr Res 33(12):2031–2036.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(03)00222-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Degirmenci N, Yilmaz A (2009) Use of diatomite as partial replacement for Portland cement in cement mortars. Constr Build Mater 23(1):284–288.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.12.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vejmelková E, Keppert M, Keršner Z, Rovnaníková P, Černý R (2012) Mechanical, fracture-mechanical, hydric, thermal, and durability properties of lime-metakaolin plasters for renovation of historical buildings. Constr Build Mater 31:22–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hannawi K, Prince-Agbodjan W (2015) Transfer behaviour and durability of cementitious mortars containing polycarbonate plastic wastes. Eur J Environ Civ Eng 19(4):467–481.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2014.960100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    CEN (2010) EN 998 specification for mortar for masonry. Part 1: rendering and plastering mortar. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    CEN (2002) EN 1015 methods of test for mortar for masonry. Part 21: determination of the compatibility of one-coat rendering mortars with substrates. European Commitee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ISO (2011) ISO 15686 buildings and constructed assets—service life planning. Part 1: general principles and frameworkGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Batchelor AW, Loh NL, Chandrasekaran M (2011) Materials degradation and its control by surface engineeringGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Addleson L (1992) Buildings failures: a guide to diagnosis, remedy and prevention, 3rd edn. Butterworth Architecture, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Aguiar J, Cabrita A, Appleton J (2002) Support guide to the rehabilitation of residential buildings (Guia de apoio à reabilitação de edifícios residenciais), vol 1 and 2. LisboaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Palomo A, Blanco-Varela MT, Martinez-Ramirez S, Puertas F, Fortes C (2000) Historic mortars: characterization and durability. New tendencies for research paper presented at the proceedings 9th international congress on deterioration and conservation of stone, Venice, 19–24 June 2000Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Hees R, Veiga R, Slížková Z (2017) Consolidation of renders and plasters. Mater Struct/Materiaux et Constructions.  https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-016-0894-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pavía S, Treacy E (2006) A comparative study of the durability and behaviour of fat lime and feebly-hydraulic lime mortars. Mater Struct/Materiaux et Constructions 39(287):391–398.  https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-005-9033-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Flores-Colen I, Brito Jd, Freitas V (2005) Diagnosis and maintenance techniques for stain removal in rendered walls. In: APFAC (ed) I National Congress on Construction Mortars Lisbon, pp 24–25Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    CEB (1992) Durable concrete structures. Design guide, vol Bulletin d’Information Thomas TelfordGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sousa V, Pereira FD, Brito Jd (2005) Traditional renders: main causes of degradation. Engenharia Civil, vol 23 Minho University. Civil Engineering DepartmentGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Borges C, Santos Silva A, Veiga R (2014) Durability of ancient lime mortars in humid environment. Constr Build Mater 66:606–620.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fragata A, Rosário Veiga M, Velosa A (2016) Substitution ventilated render systems for historic masonry: salt crystallization tests evaluation. Constr Build Mater 102:592–600.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.130 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    do Rosário Veiga M, Fragata A, Velosa AL, Magalhães AC, Margalha G (2010) Lime-based mortars: viability for use as substitution renders in historical buildings. Int J Archit Heritage 4(2):177–195.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15583050902914678 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Franzoni E, Gentilini C, Santandrea M, Zanotto S, Carloni C (2017) Durability of steel FRCM-masonry joints: effect of water and salt crystallization. Mater Struct/Materiaux et Constructions.  https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-017-1070-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gonçalves de Carvalho C, Flores-Colen I, Faria P (2015) Rehabilitation of renders of old buildings in Portugal: survey, supporting methodology proposal and case study. Struct Surv 33(4/5):337–353.  https://doi.org/10.1108/SS-04-2015-0024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    CSA (1995) CSA S478-95: guideline on durability in buildings. CSA, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    EOTA (1999) Assessment of working life of products. Guidance document 003. European Organisation for Technical Approvals, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Maia J, Ramos NMM, Veiga R (2018) Evaluation of the hygrothermal properties of thermal rendering systems. Build Environ 144:437–449.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.08.055 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    EOTA (2013) ETAG 004. Guideline for European technical approval of external thermal insulation composite systems with rendering. European Organisation for Technical Approvals, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gonçalves da Silva M (2004) Influence of environmental aging on properties of polymeric mortars. J Mater Civ Eng 16(5):461–468.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2004)16:5(461) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ferrándiz-Mas V, García-Alcocel E (2013) Durability of expanded polystyrene mortars. Constr Build Mater 46:175–182.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.04.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bocca P, Grazzini A (2012) Mechanical properties and freeze–thaw durability of strengthening mortars. J Mater Civ Eng 25(2):274–280.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000597 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    ČSN (1968) ČSN 72 2452—testing of frost resistance of mortar. Czech standardGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wang R, Meyer C (2012) Performance of cement mortar made with recycled high impact polystyrene. Cem Concr Compos 34(9):975–981.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.06.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    ASTM (2008) Standard test method for resistance of concrete to rapid freezing and thawing. ASTM International, United States of AmericaGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Di Bella G, Fiore V, Galtieri G, Borsellino C, Valenza A (2014) Effects of natural fibres reinforcement in lime plasters (kenaf and sisal vs. Polypropylene). Constr Build Mater 58:159–165.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.02.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Norvaišiene R, Griciute G, Bliudžius R, Ramanauskas J (2013) The changes of moisture absorption properties during the service life of external thermal insulation composite system. Medziagotyra 19(1):103–107.  https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ms.19.1.3834 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    CEN (2000) EN 1015 methods of test for mortar for masonry. Part 12: determination of adhesive strength of hardened rendering and plastering mortars on substrates. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    CEN (2002) EN 13497 thermal insulation products for building applications determination of the resistance to impact of external thermal insulation composite systems (ETICS). European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Klimchouk A (2000) Dissolution and conversions of gypsum and anhydriteGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hong D, Fan M, Yu L, Cao J (2018) An experimental study simulating the dissolution of gypsum rock. Energy Explor Exploit 36(4):942–954.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0144598717751927 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    CEN (2017) EN 15824 specifications for external renders and internal plasters based on organic binders. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Costa E, Carasek H, Cascudo O, Almeida S (2007) Evaluation of Brasilian test method for the adhesive strength determination of renders. In: Paper presented at the II National Congress on construction mortars, Lisbon, 22–23 NovemberGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gonçalves S (2004) Variability and dispersion factor of adhesive strength of renders—case study. University of Brasília, BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Botas S, Veiga R, Velosa A (2017) Bond strength in mortar/ceramic tile interface—testing procedure and adequacy evaluation. Mater Struct/Materiaux et Constructions.  https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-017-1086-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Torres I, Veiga R, Freitas V (2018) Influence of substrate characteristics on behavior of applied mortar. J Mater Civ Eng 30(10):04018254.  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002339 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Maia J, Ramos NMM, Veiga R (2019) A new durability assessment methodology of thermal mortars applied in multilayer rendering systems. Constr Build Mater 222:654–663.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.06.178 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CONSTRUCT-LFC, Faculty of Engineering (FEUP)University of Porto, Porto, PortugalPortoPortugal
  2. 2.LNEC, National Laboratory for Civil Engineering, Lisbon, PortugalLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations