Effect of type of curing and metakaolin replacement on air lime mortars for the durability of masonries

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

The interest in restoration and maintenance of old masonries towards their durability is nowadays combined with the concept of sustainability and the need to implement more suitable materials for building heritage interventions. This has led to the importance of having a better knowledge of air lime mortars, namely on the effect of pozzolanic additions, curing conditions and evolution at early stages. This study consisted in the characterization of mortars based on hydrated air lime and sand, with 1:2 (lime:sand) volumetric composition, with different weight percentages of substitution of lime by metakaolin (Mk): 0%, 10% and 20%. Mortar prisms were analyzed in three different curing environments: maritime (by the Atlantic Ocean), in laboratory humidity (95 ± 5% relative humidity, RH) and standard (65 ± 5% RH) conditioning. Tests were conducted to evaluate fresh and hardened properties of mortars, considering physical, chemical and mechanical performance at 28, 90 and 180 days. Results showed the viability of applying air lime-Mk mortars with curing conditions similar to the tested ones. In the standard curing, the mortar with 20% Mk revealed advantages in mechanical parameters. Concerning the behaviour towards water, improvements were shown at an early stage with the humid curing, while maritime curing benefited its behaviour for at least up to 6 months.

Original languageEnglish
Article number143
JournalInfrastructures
Volume6
Issue number10
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 8 Oct 2021

Keywords

  • Ageing
  • Curing conditions
  • Hydrated air lime
  • Maritime natural exposure
  • Masonries durability
  • Metakaolin
  • Mortars
  • Performance

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Effect of type of curing and metakaolin replacement on air lime mortars for the durability of masonries'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this