Viability of Ceramic Residues in Lime-Based Mortars



When we approach the subject of construction and rehabilitation of buildings we necessarily must think about external wall coatings as they are the elements more exposed to climate actions, mechanical and environmental conditions and, consequently, the first to be deteriorated and to need rehabilitation. Concerning to the replacement of old plasters and renders, air lime mortars are normally the ones that are more compatible with the existing elements, presenting, however, some limitations due to its slow setting time. As an alternative we may use natural hydraulic lime mortars. We know that brick dust and grains have been widely used in mortars in the past, improving its characteristics, and that actually there are many kinds of ceramic residues that are byproducts of industry and are normally carried into landfills. Within this context and associating the improvement of mortars characteristics to the necessity of sustainable construction practices, some mortars, formulated based on air lime or natural hydraulic lime, with the addition of ceramic residues, have been recently studied. The aim of this paper is to present the experimental work that has been developed concerning the behaviour of two types of these lime mortars with ceramic residues. Characteristics, particularly in terms of flexural and compressive resistances, capillary water absorption and water vapour permeability will be discussed. Comparison will be made between the characteristics of the mortars made with the two limes, and of mortars made with those limes with partial substitutions of siliceous sand by different types of ceramic residues. It will be possible to draw same conclusions about the interest and viability of recycling the ceramic residues as aggregates, its contribution as pozzolan and filler, and also if natural hydraulic lime-based mortars can be a good alternative to air lime-based mortar for ancient masonry.


Air lime mortars Natural hydraulic lime mortars Ceramic residues 


  1. Bakolas, A., Biscontin, G., Moropoulou, A., & Zendri, E. (1998). Characterization of structural byzantine mortars by thermogravimetric analysis. Thermochimica Acta, 321, 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baronio, G., Binda, L., & Lombardini, N. (2006). The role of brick pebbles and dust in conglomerates based on hydrated lime and crushed bricks. Construction and Building Materials, 11, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Böke, H., Akkurt, S., İpekoğlu, B., & Uğurluet, E. (2006). Characteristics of brick used as aggregate in historic brick-lime mortars and plasters. Cement and Concrete Research, 36, 1115–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Charola, E., Faria-Rodrigues, P., McGhie, A., & Henriques, F. (2005). Pozzolanic components in lime mortars: correlating behaviour, composition and microstructure. Restoration of Buildings and Monuments, 11(2), 111–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gameiro, A., Santos Silva, A., Faria, P., Grilo, J., Branco, T., Veiga, R., et al. (2014). Physical and chemical assessment of lime–metakaolin mortars: Influence of binder: aggregate ratio. Cement & Concrete Composites, 45, 264–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grilo, J., Faria, P., Veiga, R., Santos Silva, A., Silva, V., & Velosa, A. (2014a). New natural hydraulic lime mortars—Physical and microstructural properties in different curing conditions. Construction and Building Materials, 54, 378–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grilo, J., Santos Silva, A., Faria, P., Gameiro, A., Veiga, R., & Velosa, A. (2014b). Mechanical and mineralogical properties of natural hydraulic lime-metakaolin mortars in different curing conditions. Construction and Building Materials, 51, 287–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Moropoulou, A., Bakolas, A., & Anagnostopoulouet, S. (2005). Composite materials in ancient structures. Cement & Concrete Composites, 27, 295–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. O’Farrell, M., Sabir, B. B., & Wild, S. (2006). Strength and chemical resistance of mortars containing brick manufacturing clays subjected to different treatments. Cement & Concrete Composites, 28, 790–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pereira-de-Oliveira, L. A., Castro-Gomes, João P., & Santos, Pedro M. S. (2012). The potential pozzolanic activity of glass and red-clay ceramic waste as cement mortars components. Construction and Building Materials, 31, 197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Toledo Filho, R. D., Gonçalves, J. P., Americano, B. B., & Fairbairn, E. M. R. (2007). Potential for use of crushed waste calcined-clay brick as a supplementary cementitious material in Brazil. Cement and Concrete Research, 37, 1357–1365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Veiga, M., Fragata, A., Velosa, A., Magalhães, A., & Margalha, G. (2010). Lime-based mortars: Viability for use as substitution renders in historical buildings. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 4, 177–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ITeCons—Institute for Research and Technological Development in Construction, Energy, Environment and SustainabilityCoimbraPortugal
  2. 2.UNIC, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Sciences and Technology of NOVAUniversity of LisbonLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Sciences and TechnologyUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations