Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 3950

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Review

Composition and compatibility requirements of mineral repair mortars

for stone A review
Aurlie Isebaert a,, Laurent Van Parys a, Veerle Cnudde b
a
b

Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, University of Mons, Place du Parc 20, 7000 Mons, Belgium
Geology and Soil Science Department, Faculty of Sciences, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281 S8, 9000 Ghent, Belgium

h i g h l i g h t s
 The aggregates, binders and their ratios determine the mortars properties.
 Developing repair mortars should be with respect to the ranking of its properties.
 Surface repair mortars can be advantageous but are now empirically made or adapted.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 5 September 2013
Received in revised form 3 February 2014
Accepted 8 February 2014
Available online 12 March 2014
Keywords:
Restoration
Natural stone
Mineral mortars
Compatibility

a b s t r a c t
When designing repair mortars, it is important to consider all its components such as the binder and the
aggregates since they have a great inuence on the mortars nal properties. The binder, and the aggregates angularity and chemical composition determine the properties of the mortar, properties critical for
a good compatibility and durability of a restoration intervention. In this article, some mineral repair mortar design philosophies are approached, followed by the requirements set for a plastic repair mortar for
stone. Up to which point is an intervention compatible? An answer was found when examining several
articles that discuss the compatibility tolerance plane. This article aims to give the reader a hands-on
approach in mineral repair mortar design and how this can be used to make a mineral repair mortar more
compatible with the substrate.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents
1.
2.

3.
4.

5.
6.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Influence of the main components of a mineral mortar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.
Nature and influence of different mineral binders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2.
Impact of aggregates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3.
Complementary aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mortar design philosophies: case-related development of repair mortars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Compatibility requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1.
Critical parameters for compatibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2.
Incompatibility features and following alterations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Compatibility tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Discussion and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 65374532.

E-mail addresses: aurelie.isebaert@umons.ac.be (A. Isebaert), laurent.vanparys@umons.ac.be (L. Van Parys), veerle.cnudde@ugent.be (V. Cnudde).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.02.020
0950-0618/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

40
40
40
43
44
45
46
46
46
47
48
48
48

40

A. Isebaert et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 3950

1. Introduction
This article is a review, and has as purpose to create a link between the scientic research on binders and mortars in general,
and the stone repair practice. The focus lies on the specic needs
and required demands needed for mineral repair mortars i.e. mortars used for replicating lost parts of stone elements. In the rst
part, the different components of a mortar will be discussed, as
well as their inuence on the nal properties of a repair mortar.
Next, the compatibility requirements that are expected from mineral repair mortars are listed, including possible evaluation methods for conservation materials. Finally, the current approaches for
formulating compatible repair mortar for stone are discussed.
During restoration of heritage buildings, mortars are frequently
used for the repointing of joints or for the plastic repair of stone,
which are designed to ll in missing parts of stone. Stone repair
mortar, reconstitution mortar or plastic repair mortar as it is also
called, is a moldable mortar that can be applied in situ, and sets
into place by its own adhesion to the substrate [1] (see Figs. 1
and 2). They consist generally of a binder, aggregates and sometimes additives or adjuvants. Empirical results show they can attain a life expectancy of 30 years [2,3]. Plastic repair mortars are
often subdivided based on their binders [1,4]. Ashurst and Dimes
and Feilden both discuss repair mortars for stone with cement,
lime, or a combination of both [3,5]. [3] mention resin-based repair
mortars as well. Also [1] divide repair mortars in inorganic and organic repair mortars. [4] divides them into resin-based mortars,
mineral mortars and chemical mortars. Resin-based mortars have
organic polymers as binders such as epoxies or acrylics. Even
though they imitate alabaster and marble very well, due to their
completely different chemical composition, they behave and
weather differently than stone [1,3,6,7]. Chemical mortars are
ready-made zinc hydroxychloride mortars, wherein two components, a zinc chloride uid and a zinc oxide coated aggregate react
[8,9]. The group of mineral binders with lime and cement are closer
to stone in composition and they have been used the longest for
the repointing and reconstituting of stone. Hydraulic mortars have
been used since roman period for the repair of buildings. In the
19th century, (Portland) cement mortars are manufactured and

Fig. 2. Left is a sketch of a damaged column for which a plastic repair mortar might
be used to ll in the missing parts, as suggested in the right sketch.

used for the repair of stone [1]. This group of mineral binders will
be discussed more thoroughly in this article, including possible
weak points in terms of compatibility.
Interpreting the philosophical and ethical guidelines of both the
Venice Charter and the Nara Document, an ideal repair mortar for
natural stone should be durable enough, but self-sacricing on the
long run [1012]. The properties of the mortar should be close to
the stone it is repairing, but overall, less durable than the stone.
One of the questions this article tries to answer is which properties
are considered important, and which elements of a mortar determine these properties. Considering that the values of each property
one would like to obtain for its mortar vary from project to project,
the answer is not simple and universal. Taking into account the differential properties of various stone types and stone layers, it is difcult to dene exact values, and some binderaggregate
combinations will be more applicable for these or other stones.
One of the advantages of repair mortar is that it allows preserving
as much as original material as possible [3]. Although roughening
or cutouts are required in order for the mortar to attach itself
mechanically to the stone, more original material can be saved. Another advantage that is often claimed is the lower cost compared
with other approaches [3]. Steenmeijer agrees, certainly when
these repair mortars are used for casting replicas of repetitive
architectural elements [13]. Another advantage is that they can
be adapted to the condition and appearance of the stone, and can
hereby increase the lifetime expectancy of the original material.
Moreover, the restoration of missing and weathered parts and
the lling in of holes, will allow the architectural lines and details
to be understood better by the visitor, and it will therefore,
together with other interventions, positively inuence the perception and estimation of the building.
Repair mortars could be used where replacement would only be
possible with an unsuitable stone. Although generally, repair mortars can co-exist next to the replacement of stones: repair mortars
are used when damage to the original material is limited, and
replacement occurs where whole blocks or larger parts should be
restored. However, the border line indicating when to use a mortar
and when a replacement stone can vary greatly from practitioner,
and even from country to country [5].
2. Inuence of the main components of a mineral mortar
2.1. Nature and inuence of different mineral binders

Fig. 1. Restoration of architectural details at the entrance of the St. Anne church,
Bottelare, Belgium. Aurlie Isebaert.

The nature of each part of the mortar determines the behaviour

of the whole mortar mix. Binders are discussed more elaborately,
and previous studies are crossed and combined in order to make
the inuence of each material more clear. In the following part,
the differences between lime and cement binders are summed
up, as well as their (dis)advantages for their use in mortars.

41

A. Isebaert et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 3950

Air hardening lime is composed of portlandite (Ca(OH)2 or CH

in mortar chemistry) (see Table 1).
Portlandite, the main component of air hardening lime, undergoes a change in shape when placed in water; the hexagonal prismatic crystals turn into thin hexagonal plates [14,15]. Lime putty
therefore has a high water retention capacity and a high sand carrying capacity [15]. Aged putty (putty of more than one year old)
also carbonates faster than non-aged lime putty [16]. The carbonation process is slow mainly due to the fact that the hydrogen carbonate has to be able to reach the portlandite crystals through the
pore network [15].
According to research by Lawrence et al. calcite crystals seem to
be smaller than portlandite crystals, and attach themselves to surrounding aggregates, which might explain why a carbonated mortar contains smaller pores than uncarbonated mortar [17] (see
Fig. 3). Calcite also attaches to unreacted portlandite, and due to
the small pores, carbonation through CO2 of portlandite is very
slow and may be self-limiting [17]. Because of its high water retention capacity, air hardening lime is able to take up more water, and
it requires a higher waterbinder ratio (W/B) to make a workable
mortar. This combined with slow carbonation can induce the
cracks which are so characteristic for this mortar. It depends on
application skills and environmental conditions if the subsequent
occurring cracks are limited to micro-scale cracks or if they are visible on a macro-scale. In Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry (MIP) data,
air hardening lime mortar presents a bimodal pore size distribution, which is due to the two types of pores present: shrinking ssures and air voids [18]. Mortars with this binder have a large pore
network, a low density and a low compressive strength, which lies
typically below 2 or even 1 MPa [19].
Natural hydraulic lime (NHL) consists of portlandite and calcium silicate hydrates (see Table 2).
Due to the presence of portlandite as well as calcium silicates,
the lime will set by two means. First, a calciumsilicatehydrate
(CSH) is formed, then on a long-term, calcite is formed: a similar
reaction as in air hardening lime. The portlandite also splits the C
SH into calcite and amorphous silica [14]. Since a part of NHL also
consists of portlandite, the water retention capacity is high, but not

Table 1
Synthetic table of air hardening lime.
Raw material

Chemical
composition

Setting

Pure limestone
Burned below
clinkering point
(8001200 C)

Ca(OH)2 CH
Portlandite as
powder or
putty

Carbonation: slow
Ca(OH)2 + H2CO3 ? CaCO3 + H2O

Table 2
Synthetic table of natural hydraulic lime.
Raw material

Chemical
composition

Setting

(siliceous) limestone

Ca(OH)2
CH
2 CaOSiO2
C2S (CaO)
(3 CaOSiO2
C2S)

(a) Hydraulic setting: CSH

Burned below clinkering

point (8001200 C)

2 (2CaOSiO2) +
4H2O ? 3CaOSiO23H2O + Ca(OH)2
(b) Carbonation
Ca(OH)2 + H2CO3 ? CaCO3 + H2O

so elevated as in air hardening lime. Failure due to large shrink is

therefore lower, but is still present.
Classication concerning hydraulic lime types is sometimes difcult, and therefore it can be unclear to which type of lime is referred. In this review, the classication of EN 459-1 will be
followed [19], wherein natural hydraulic lime (NHL) is lime with
hydraulic properties, which was made due to the burning of (siliceous) limestone below clinkering point (between 800 and
1200 C) and does not contain any additives. Research in repair
mortar discusses largely only NHL lime, most likely because, as
Smith et al. (2005) describe, NHL is regarded as the true and
authentic hydraulic lime as used in the past [20]. Other types
are formulated lime (FL) and hydraulic lime (HL).
Because of their composition, air lime and hydraulic lime mortars have a large connected pore network, with high water vapour
diffusivity and permeability. The presence of portlandite allows a
better plastic deformation of the mortar, but their large pore network makes them less resistant to compressive and exural
strength [22]. The presence of the CSH will give the NHL a faster
and higher resistance than the air hardening lime. EN 459 standard
sets the compressive strength of NHL after 28 days between 2
(minimal limit NHL2) and 15 MPa (maximal limit NHL5) [19].
Although the standard gives these values for NHL binders, this is
absent for air hardening lime.
Natural cement is a natural material, and the binder composition is quite variable (see Table 3).
Although more research into the differences between XRD and
SEM-EDX results is required [23], presume that the main phases
in hardened natural cement are calcium silicate hydrate, followed
by calcium aluminate hydrate (CAH) and partially carbonated
hydrated calcium aluminate phases. Examples for natural cement
are available from Vicat or Lillienfeld cement [24]. Natural cement
was a product used frequently for rendering faades in the 19th
century in Europe (France, Austria, Poland), and in that aspect, it
is also known as Roman cement, although this can cause confusion with the cement from the Roman period. Natural cement varies in colour from yellow to red-brown [23]. The pore structure of
natural cement is variable, depending on water:binding ratios (W/
B) and curing conditions [25], but a dual-phased hydrating mechanism can be detected through a characteristic development of the
pore structure [26]. The CAH gel is the rst to be developed and

Table 3
Synthetic table of natural cement.

Fig. 3. Proposed model from Lawrence et al. (2007) the interaction of air hardening
lime with aggregate particles: (left) portlandite crystals surround the aggregate
particle, (right) after carbonation, smaller calcite crystals are more densely packed
around the aggregate particle [17].

Raw material

Chemical
composition

Setting

Argillaceous limestone
Burned below clinkering
point (8001200 C)

C2S, (C3S)
C3A2

Hydraulic setting: CAH

3 CaOAl2O3 + 6 H2O ? 3
CaOAl2O36H2O
Hydraulic setting: CSH
2 (2CaOSiO2) + 4 H2O ? 3
CaOSiO23H2O + Ca(OH)2

C3S2
CS
CaO

42

A. Isebaert et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 3950

produces a relative open pore structure (0.20.8 lm threshold pore

diameter in MIP) and only in the second hydration phase the
threshold pore width shifts to about 0.02 lm, due to the formation
of the more voluminous CSH gel. Samples taken from renderings
from the 19th century showed low formation of CSH gel, and
large air pores, with a bi- or tri-modal pore size distribution in
MIP-analysis [25]. [24] refers especially to natural cement suited
as binder for repair mortars for natural stone due to its high porosity and possibility of water to evaporate; typical porosity values lie
between 2232%. Natural cement attains a compressive strength
higher than 10 or 25 MPa (depending on the classication type)
[27]. Maximum values are not given in this work, but research performed for the European Rocare project let to understand a typical
compressive strength value between 20 and 60 MPa [27].
Portland cement appears to have been used more for repair
mortars than any other cement type.
Portland cement always contains calcium sulphate (CaSO4 2
H2O) (<5%) that is added to slow down the reaction (see Table 4).
The gypsum reacts with a part of the C3A, creating primary ettringite. Primary ettringite may not be confused with secondary ettringite, created after hardening of cement, and which causes damage
due to volume expansion. This primary ettringite reacts on a later
time with calcium aluminate hydrate into calcium alumina
sulphate. The larger the percentage of cement in the mortar, the
lower the porosity: the calcium silicate hydrate gel takes up all
the capillary pore spaces and encloses large air voids in their matrix. Since the matrix is very dense, permeability is very low to
non-existent, and these mortars present high compressive and

exural strength. The sulphate elements in the matrix can crystallize [28]. Cement also undergoes carbonation upon ageing. Carbon
dioxide slowly penetrating in the dense matrix turns calcium
compounds into calcite and the silicates and aluminates into
amorphous silica and alumina [14]. The carbonation lowers the
pH-value of cement from 12 to 8, and will therefore affect the
durability of mortars with reinforcements.
Based on the information given above we can state that all the
binders behave quite differently, even though they may be produced from similar materials. Each binder has its own strengths
and weaknesses, and Hughes et al. assembled the values of the
different binders in Table 5 [29].
Blended limecement mortars harden due to hydration of cement particles and carbonation of portlandite [22]. Mosquera et al.
found that air lime-cement mortars approach hydraulic lime (NHL
3,5) in pore size range and water vapour diffusivity values, and that
an air lime-cement mortar (8:1) was considered more suitable
than the tested hydraulic lime [21]. An increase in cement percentage means a decrease in porosity, while an increase in lime means
an increase in porosity [18,22]. Nevertheless, Arizzi and Cultrone
[18] stated that the addition of cement in low percentages still creates mortars that were more vapour diffusive than the natural
stones tested. Sbabi et al. stated that the addition of less than
10 m% lime to a cement mortar does not alter the microstructure
of the mortar, but that the addition of a higher percentage induces
micro-cracks in the matrix [30]. Advantages of blended lime-cement mortars are the early stage strength development, the resistance which is lower than pure cement mortar, and which can be

Table 4
Synthetic table of Portland cement.
Raw material

Chemical composition

Setting

Argillaceous limestone/clay-limestone mix

Burned above clinkering point

C3S
C3A
C2S,
C4AF
CaSO4 2 H2O

Hydraulic setting: CAH

3 CaOAl2O3 + 6 H2O ? 3 CaOAl2O36H2O
4 CaOAl2O3Fe2O3 + 2 Ca(OH)2 + 10 H2O ? 3 CaOAl2O36H2O
Hydraulic setting: CSH
2 (2CaOSiO2) + 4 H2O ? 3 CaOSiO23H2O + Ca(OH)2
2 (3CaOSiO2) + 6 H2O ? 3 CaOSiO23H2O + 3Ca(OH)2
Primary ettringite:
3 CaOAl2O3 + 3 CaSO4 + 32 H2O ? 3CaOAl2O33CaSO432 H2O
Primary ettringite + CAH:
3CaOAl2O33CaSO432 H2O + 2 (3 CaOAl2O3 + 6 H2O) ? 3 (3CaOAl2O3CaSO4) + 2 H2O

Table 5
Technical properties of mortar binders versus the classication of the mortar. The arrows indicate the direction of the increase in values, on a relative scale from 1 (low) to 6
(high), after [29].
Technical requirements

Binder type
Air hardening lime

Calcium silicate cements

Calcium sulphate based

Clay earth

Adhesion

Hydraulic lime

Pozzolan lime

Strength (comp./ex./tens.)

E-modulus

Water penetration resistance

Freezethaw resistance
Thermal dilatation

2
1

6
1

1
1

1
1

Vapour transmission

Aesthetics

Depends on specic requirements

A. Isebaert et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 3950

43

et al. point out that the decrease or increase in compressive

strength is not proportional to the percentage limecement: adding cement (<40%) to a lime mortar creates a slightly higher
strength, while the addition of 25% lime to a cement mortar means
a decrease in strength by 50% [32]. [32] also remarks that the more
cement is added, the more problems can rise concerning the diffusion of uids, creating a similar situation to that of pure cement
mortar.
2.2. Impact of aggregates

Fig. 4. Representation of variability in compressive and exural strength and

dynamic E modulus when using the same ingredients in a mortar mix, but changing
the proportions. Ingredients are cement, limestone powder and hydraulic lime.
Tested at 28 days, (left) compressive strength (MPa), (middle) exural strength
(MPa) and (right) dynamic elastic modulus (GPa), by [50].

varied by adapting the cement:lime ratio [22] (see Fig. 4). The
amount of lime also makes a certain elasticplastic deformation
possible before failure [22]. Winnefeld et al. tested lime and
lime-cement mortars on their sulphate resistance with a testing
method where 15 m% of gypsum was added to the binder [31].
After precuring, both samples without and with gypsum were
stored under water for 8 days. After 28 days, the length change between the reference sample and the sulphate-attacked samples
was measured. [31] admit it is a severe test to study sulphate
resistance, but they showed that lime-cement mortars were more
resistant to sulphate attack and freezethaw actions than lime
mortars. Some distinction should be made, however. Arandigoyen

Next to the binders, the aggregates play an important role in the

mortars characteristics. Depending on the aggregates, an air lime
mortar can be made more resistant to compressive strength, or a
cement mortar can be made less resistant. Most of the (natural)
aggregates added to mortar are siliceous or calcareous of nature.
Their origin (river, quarry, ect.) and possible processing method
(crushing) also affects the form and behaviour of each aggregate.
The inuence of aggregates works on two different levels: the
inuence of the material (mineralogical composition, porosity,
resistance) and the inuence of the size and the shape of the aggregate. [33] suggested that with a low binder: aggregate ratio (B/A),
one could easily adapt the properties of the mortar through aggregate variation.
In general, increased angularity and neness of the aggregate
will increase the compressive strength and the bond strength between binder and aggregate. Fine aggregates have a strong inuence on the water demand and workability of the mortar.
Westerholm writes that plasticity increases due to increased particle friction [34]. Fine aggregates should also give a higher elastic
modulus and higher frost resistance [33]. In terms of angularity,
Ingham states that rounded aggregates are easier to work with
[35]. Caliskan and Karihaloo noted that the surface roughness of
the aggregate determines the interfacial bond strength, in particular for smaller sized aggregates [36]. The more porous and more
absorbing an aggregate is, the rougher the aggregate is at the
surface, and thus the higher the bond strength. The impact of the
surface roughness decreases when the aggregate size increases.
The grain size distribution of the repair mortar can be linked
with the aimed workability and structural appearance. For example, a repair mortar for a coarse grained stone will have to be
coarser grained as well in order to show compatibility in visual
appearance. Allen refers to the standard sand grading curve from
the European Standard EN 13139:2002 or one of its predecessors
and Ashurst and Dimes state that sand should be well graded, ranging from ne to coarse and that this may require mixing aggregates
from different sources [3,37]. The sole use of ne grained aggregates in a mortar could lead to water retention on the substrates
surface when applied, while only coarse grained aggregates in a
mortar will lower the interfacial bond strength, and might prohibit
the desired visual appearance. Grain size distribution inuences the
porosity and pore size distribution and therefore also the water vapour transmission. Von Konow [33] suggested the use of an Aggregate Index (AI) in order to clarify the inuence of aggregates in
mortar. An equation showing the relationship between grain sizes
was formulated, taking into account the smaller mass of ne particles (Eq. (1)). A general coarser grain size lowers the AI and a ne
grain size increases it. An AI of 40 was considered a well-dispersed
grain size distribution. Lower AI tested mortars proved to have a
lower modulus of elasticity and a higher capillary absorption rate.
Frost resistance was highest for tested mortars with a high AI.
Eq. (1) for the formulation of an aggregate index, after [33]

Aggregate index 1=a  c  b=b  a

a = grain size at 10% sieve passage, b = grain size at 50% sieve passage, c = grain size at 80% sieve passage.

44

A. Isebaert et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 3950

The mineralogical composition of the aggregates is also a determining factor. Mortars with clay minerals (<63 lm) and air hardening or hydraulic lime, show formation of ettringite on the clay
minerals after sulphate attack, and therefore, clayey nes can be
an alumina source favouring secondary ettringite in the mortar
[31]. The EN13139:2002 standard about additives for mortar for
example allows the presence of maximum 3% clays in sand used
for (masonry) mortars. Because of the high specic surface of clays,
a large amount of water is needed to make the mortar and when
mortar is hardened, mortars with a high amount of clays show a
high water retention capacity. This increase in water demand leads
to:
 A decrease in dynamic elastic modulus, exural and compressive strength up to 50%.
 An increase in capillary pore content, but also in shrinkage.
 An increase in water absorption coefcient and vapour diffusion, but a decrease in drying rate.
 Consequently, a decrease in freezethaw resistance.
So, although clay-rich sands are frequently used because they
can increase workability and/or help nding the right colour for
the restoration mortar, the durability of the mortar itself is affected
due to the addition of clays. Winnefeld and Bttger therefore recommend to rst examine unwashed sands on type and percentage
of clays present before use [31].
Other secondary minerals in mortars have a large inuence as
well: glauconite swells and oxidizes, and chalcedony and opal
are reactive silica, meaning they can form an alkali silica reaction
(ASR) when in contact with alkali minerals such as sodium and

potassium hydroxides [35,38]. These secondary minerals are very

ne, and can therefore be catalogued as silt, aggregates with a particle range from 0.004 mm to 0.0625 mm. They can lead to the formation of ASR when used on buildings containing sodium chloride
[38]. Marine dredged aggregates contain (sodium) chlorides that
can favour corrosion in reinforced mortars. Any aggregate containing detectable opal or opaline silica (unstable and therefore reactive) should be avoided due to its potential alkali-reactivity [35].
Ingham also reported other minerals such as marine shells, chalk,
organic matter and mica as unsuitable for cement mortars, following European standards [35]. Lanzon [39] examined low-density
additions for (cement) mortar through X-ray micro computed
tomography (micro-CT). These additions were expanded perlite,
expanded glass and cenospheres, which showed good adhesion,
while changing the microstructure and increasing the porosity.
[40] found that the use of limestone aggregates in a lime mortar increased the strength, pointing out that it is probably due to a lack
of discontinuities in the chemical composition of the mortar. However, the calcite aggregate used was less coarse grained than the
quartz aggregates Lanas et al. compared it with. [17] found that
mortars with silicate sand and air hardening lime carbonate faster
than the same mortars with an oolite limestone powder as aggregate. The water absorption and porosity of the mortar itself are not
affected by the nature of the aggregates according to Pavia et al.
[41].
2.3. Complementary aspects
In a mortar, variations in mechanical and physical characteristics can be made as well by changing some variables. These vari-

Table 6
Figure with combinations of binderaggregates in a eld, with water transfer properties, and strength and thermal tension on opposite sides of the eld. Combinations at the left
have a higher interfacial bond strength.

AL Air lime.
NHL Natural hydraulic lime.
L Lime (not specied).
C Portland cement.
NC Natural cement.
CaCO3 Calcite aggregate.
SiO2 Silicate aggregate.

A. Isebaert et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 3950

ables have to be changed with moderation: a too dry or too wet

mortar mix is to be avoided. One can change the following:
 The binder: aggregate ratio (B/A). For example, an increase in B/
A in an air hardening lime mortar induces higher porosity and
higher strength [40].
 The water: binder ratio (W/B). An increase in W/B means an
increase in porosity (capillary pore spaces due to evaporation
of water), although a too high W/B ratio can induce shrinking
and shrinking fractures can appear. The W/B ratio is one of
the main factors affecting concrete permeability [42]. In natural
cement mortars a low W/B ratio causes uni-modal pore size distribution, while a high W/B ratio creates a bimodal pore size
distribution [22].
 Curing conditions inuence the porosity of lime (-pozzolan)
mortars in terms of open porosity and therefore the life expectancy of the restoration [43].
 Mixing method: the method of mixing (by hand or mechanically), the speed and the time of mixing, can have an inuence
on the behaviour of the mortar and on its properties [44].
In the previous sections, we have seen that not only the binders
play an important role in the behaviour of fresh and hardened mortar, the aggregates are important as well. In Table 6, a sketch is
made based on previous sections, to represent where various mortars of different binders, combined with different aggregates,
would be situated looking at the expected mortar properties. In
terms of water transfer properties and deformability, lime mortars
score highest, while cement mortars make denser mortars, which
are more resistant to compressive and exural actions. Their high
thermal expansion coefcient and low deformability in combination with large thermal cycles can damage the stone [38]. In terms
of interfacial bond strength, the theory of Lanas et al. is followed
and the mineralogical compatibility of mortar and binder is taken
into account [40]. This theory-based representation differentiates
the binderaggregate combinations on a relative scale. Measurements should be performed in the future to indicate whether the
interfacial bond strength of Portland cement + SiO2 mortars is of
about the same level of lime + CaCO3 mortars. Additionally, the
denser cement mortars have a higher frost resistance and lower
susceptibility for gypsum formation than the calcite lime mortars.
In terms of the properties discussed here, natural cement mortars
are somewhere in between lime and cement mortars. The sketch is
a simplied representation, and some effects of aggregates are not
included: only the mineralogical composition is taken into account,
and not the neness or angularity of the aggregate.

45

rial (pointing mortar or natural stone), a binder and aggregates are

proposed and several mortar mixes are made varying in ratio or in
binder or aggregate material. Consecutively, the properties, workability, ageing, chemical analysis of mortar are tested. Unfortunately, not every project disposes of the time and money
necessary to nd the best compatible repair mortar, making this
trial and error process disadvantageous to use. Bromblet [46] studied the possibilities to make repair mortars for several French limestones (Tuffeau, St. Maximin and Courville) with air and hydraulic
hardening lime, concluding that each stone demands its specic
binder: soft air lime for the Tuffeau, stronger NHL for the more
compact stones. Most professionals turn to commercial mortars,
which are specically designed for one stone. The advantage is that
it is prefabricated, and the manufacturer can guarantee that the
contents mix is standardized, creating the same workability and
properties for each batch. This is much appreciated by restoration
architects and contractors [2,43]. However, this advantage can be a
disadvantage as well. In cases where the stone is very heterogeneous, and properties can differ greatly from one stone to another,
the standardized process will be less successful when aiming to
achieve a compatible mortar. It is generally assumed that these
mortars contain additives to facilitate workability or increase
porosity. Bromblet tested four mortars, including homemade and
commercial mortars, to restore the Fontvieille stone [47]. After
the analysis of the properties and the onsite test, one of the commercial mortars was preferred, mainly due to its high workability
and the guarantee from the manufacturer. In restoration studies
using commercial mortars, aggregates (crushed stone powder,
sands with a high concentration of a certain mineral) are frequently added to solve the problem of heterogeneity in one stone
[48,49]. Szemerey-Kiss [49] mixed additional limestone powder
with an unidentied commercial mortar. Powder from porous oolite Hungarian Soskut limestone was used as additional aggregate
to have a repair mortar more compatible with this limestone.
The amount of powder inuenced the mortars properties.
Research by Ramge et al. at the German BAM showed an approach trying to combine the advantage of (self-made) mortars
with the commercial mortars advantage: a modular system with
a base mix. According to the stone type, other aggregates or additives are mixed with the base mix. This tends to allow a combination of the personalised mortars from the trial-and-error side and
a certain standardization, which is the advantage of the commercial variants [50,51]. This research is on going, and rst results
are focused on a repair mortar for one type of sandstone.
To conclude, recent studies into repair mortars for stone gives
new prospects for the development of more compatible mortars.
However, in practice approaches remain focused on (adaptations

3. Mortar design philosophies: case-related development of

repair mortars
As discussed in Section 2.2, the addition of a certain mineral to
the mortar that is also present in the stone could make a mortar
more compatible. The use of certain ingredients for repair mortars
for stone can often be explained by the mineralogical description of
the stone. For example, Beck and Al-Mukhtar started from the
properties analysis of the stone [45]. They focused on a mortar
with only two ingredients: NHL lime and the stone powder, coming from the same stone they wished to repair. The main focus in
the research was to obtain a similar porosity between repair mortar and stone, and they did so by focusing on bulk density. Schueremans et al. report projects where the old repointing mortar was
analysed, and a mortar mix was assembled based on wet and dry
chemical analysis, XRF or XRD [12]. In the area of repointing mortar research, this approach by building up mortars from scratch is
more common. On basis of the properties from the original mate-

Fig. 5. Texture variability due to differential erosion between the repaired element
and the original cast element it is to imitate from [57].

46

A. Isebaert et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 3950

of) commercial mortars and recipes based on experience. These

adaptations most often include the addition of a certain type of
aggregates to the mortar.
4. Compatibility requirements
4.1. Critical parameters for compatibility
The end products that can be expected from some combinations
of binders and aggregates are now known, but when preparing a
mortar also certain parameters need to be taken into account.
Though, how should one dene the properties of the mortar that
will be used to repair natural stone? Since all stones are subjected
to a range of weathering processes and since they are spatially variable and heterogeneous, establishing their properties is not an
easy task. If the stones property values are very regular, using
one single repair mortar could be sufcient. When a natural stone
seems to show a large difference in its properties, ideally some
adaptations to the mortar are made. The aspects of a mortar which
largely determine the durability of stone and mortar, are the physical and mechanical aspects:
 Water transfer properties. The presence of water contributes
greatly to the deterioration of stone, since it can cause stress
fractures, erode and favour biological colonization. Therefore,
the possibility of the mortar to transfer water (vapour) has to
be equal or possibly higher than the stone since it will allow
water trapped in the stone to migrate faster out of the stone
than a mortar with a lower water vapour transmission rate than
the stone. A key factor is the pore structure of the mortar [25].
 Modulus of elasticity and deformability: if the repair mortar
will be used for the lling-in of larger or structural parts, a good
balance between strength and deformability has to be found to
avoid the formation of cracks, since historic structures can be
subjected to external actions inherent to their use. If in that case
the repair material is too rigid, fractures can arise [52].
 Bonding strength and adhesion: a good adhesion to the substrate is crucial. The bonding can be assured mechanically
and/or chemically, with aid of prime coatings or reinforcement
dowels. When looking into adhesion, not only the adhesive
strength needs to be taken into account, but also other aspects
which can inuence the bond strength, e.g. water vapour diffusion [53]. Following EN 1015-12:2001, one can conclude that
the bond strength should be lower than the tensile strength of
the stone, a parameter that is almost never tested on natural
stone.
 Response on high temperature differences. High temperature
differences on sun-faced walls cause the minerals in stones to
expand and contract. The internal stresses in the stone due to
the consequent cycles of temperature differences, can lead to
detachment, deformation or cracking of stone and/or mortar

[52]. Groot and Gunneweg state that for soft masonry, a large
thermal expansion means a low hygric expansion, and vice
versa [38]. For stone, however, this might not be the case: Koch
and Siegesmund [55] investigated marbles that both show a
high thermal and hygric expansion. Benavente et al. [54] tested
several stone samples and concluded that thermal processes
comply with hygric expansion and reinforce decay phenomena.
In comparison to the other aspects, this one takes place on the
mineralogical level, but it has a direct inuence on the durability of the whole repair mortar intervention.
Next to physical aspects, also the chemical aspects determine
the durability of the stone after conservation interventions. Repair
mortars can contain, create or attract materials that are harmful for
the stone. Repair mortars that are made with organic polymers, or
that contain organic polymers as additive or adjuvant, are more
susceptible for biological organisms and can be a nutrition source
for biological colonization on the stone [6]. Ageing tests taking into
account biological growth can be an indicator for the durability
and compatibility of this type of mortar.
The visual appearance of the mortar in se does not affect the
durability of the stone, and is mostly important for the compatibility. In visual appearance, texture and colour are discussed in concerned literature. Compatible colour of the repair mortar is found
an important criterion. Ruling conservation theories demand that
the intervention can still be distinguished from the original
[10,56]. Therefore, the mortar can differ slightly with the stone in
colour or it can slightly differ in texture. The difculty lies not only
in making the matching colour with the stones current condition,
but also with the stones future colour. Some stones are known to
discolour and this should be taken into account when developing
or choosing its repair mortar. Ramge et al. also include the aspect
of texture in their development for a repair mortar for sandstone
(see Fig. 5) [57].
4.2. Incompatibility features and following alterations
Unfortunately, several phenomena can prohibit the development of a convenient repair mortar, consequently inducing damage to the stone. A repair mortar is a man-made, and possibly,
standardized material, which is designed to be compatible with a
naturally heterogeneous material. This makes it difcult to make
a good repair mortar. Each stone type is different, and requires a
specically adapted restoration mortar, maybe with each time a
different binder. Each binder-lime, cement, or commercial varieties-behaves differently in application and setting and therefore
demands from the restorer to adapt their application techniques
and methods. Due to this, a lot of repair mortars have proven to
be incompatible with the stone they had to repair: the stone is
damaged instead of being restored and preserved for the future.
Report has been made of lime mortar damaging granite: a correla-

Fig. 6. A repair with a cement-based mortar has failed to smoothen and restore the weathered surface of these stone ashlars in Glasgow from [2]. The illustration on the left
and right show the render loosening from the stone faade, allowing differential weathering of the stone beneath.

47

A. Isebaert et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 3950

Table 7
Evaluation method for repair materials for natural stone after [62].
Stone repair materials
Property

Symbol

Requirement (%)

Requirement after 1 year (%)

Dynamic E-modulus
Compressive strength
Thermal dilatation coefcient
Water uptake coefcient
Value of water vapour resistance
Pull-off strength

E-modulus
bCS

20100
20100
50150
50100
50100
50801

60
60
100

aTH
w

l
bPOS

The requirements are related to the properties of the substrate.

The adhesion is desired to fail in the stone repair material or in the contact area, but not in the stone.
bPOS: pull-off strength of the surface; aTH: thermal dilatation; l: value of water vapour resistance.
1
Or to be dened in special cases.

Table 8
Critical properties in the development of a repair mortar. (a) Values by [62]. Values in brackets indicate the recommended value after 1 year, (b) suggested values proposed by the
author, (c) value of minor importance, (d) value is similar as the stones value.
Ranking

Property

Symbol

1
1
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7

Grain size distribution

Mineral components
Water absorption coefcient
Water vapour resistance
Porosity (open, total)
Pore size distribution
Colour difference
Dyn. E mod.
Adhesion
Thermal expansion coefcient
Hygric dilatation coefcient
Compressive strength
Tensile strength
Ageing tests

WAC

Testing method

EN 101518

l
P%

DE
Edyn
Ra

a
H
Rc
Rf

tion was made between areas of disrupted granite and a source of

calcium ions in solution (run-offs, mortar joint). The calcium-ions
led to the deposition of gypsum in the granite [58,59].
Report has also been made of cement mortar used for the
repointing of gneiss and arkoses: the replacement stone was chosen for purely esthetical reasons, and the original stone surface receded 100 times faster in the restored zones (repointing with
cement and replacement with a new stone) than in the other zones
[58] (see Fig. 6). In [12] compatibility mortar recipes were described after thermal and chemical analysis of each repointing
mortar. However, these new repair mortars did not show a good visual compatibility with the original mortar, and therefore the nal
recipe was then adapted until visual appearance did match. The
change in recipe will have had an impact on the other properties
of the mortar as well. Schwengelbeck, nally, draws our attention
to the mode of application and the use of rods in the mortar [60].
Although application techniques for repair mortar must not be neglected, they are beyond the scope of this research and will not be
further discussed here. These examples of incompatible use of repair mortars for natural stone, demonstrate which properties are
considered important when evaluating the compatibility. Although
visual aspects (colour and surface roughness) are inferior in terms
of durability than e.g. vapour diffusivity; in terms of compatibility,
the visual aspects of the repair mortar are not to be neglected.
The repair mortar has to re-evoke a certain type of authenticity
to the building and should therefore have a comparable colour
and structure in fresh and weathered state.
5. Compatibility tolerance
Several authors have discussed the compatibility requirements
for repair mortars. Most of the researchers set requirements for re-

EN 1936
micro-CT
CIE L * a * b*
UPV
EN 101512
TMA
EN 101511
EN 101511

Recommendation
c
c
50100%
50100%
>80%
d
50150%
20100%
0.50.8%
50150%
d
20100%
c
d

[100%]
[60%]
[100%]
[60%]

(b)
(b)
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
(b)
(a)
(a)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(b)

pair mortars, but do not discuss up to which level a difference in

properties between mortar and stone is acceptable [12,52,61].
Van Balen et al. propose a general study to the buildings history
and architecture, which should lead to establishing some conceptual requirements (harmonization, durability and sustainability)
[61]. This makes the listing of functional requirements for that
building possible, together with technical requirements. A mortar
mix can then be designed that will hopefully lead to a compatible
repair mortar. According to [61], the most decisive technical characteristics for compatibility between a new and old (repointing)
mortar are: (1) surface features, (2) composition (including grain
size distribution), (3) strength, (4) elasticity, (5) porosity properties, (6) coefcient of thermal dilation and (7) others. Hayen discusses the compatibility of different types of repair materials
(lime-based, cement-based, polymer-based) through mechanical,
physical, chemical and esthetical properties. These properties are
given relative values (from ++ to or o) [52]. Some researchers
have proposed evaluation methods in terms of compatibility of
the repair mortar with the stone, aiming a preservation of the original material. Sasse and Snethlage suggest compatibility estimations for conservation treatments such as water repellence,
consolidation and stone repair. The original material, i.e. the natural stone, is hereby taken as reference level [62]. The requirements
for the repair material are divided per property: rigidity, (compressive) strength, adhesion to the substrate, water (vapour) diffusion
and thermal expansion (see Table 7). This method has appeared
as well in Sasse and Schulze and Bromblet [47,63]. Bromblet used
the method to evaluate six different repair mortars, and added
hydric dilation to the list of properties to be evaluated, but no tolerance percentage was suggested.
A method to evaluate the compatibility of replacement stones
might also be applicable for the evaluation of restoration mortars.

48

A. Isebaert et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 3950

The method of Dessandier et al. takes into account the behaviour of

minerals in the presence of water: indication of clays, water
absorption coefcient (48 h), capillarity and compressive strength
of the stone [64]. Each value range for each property is assigned
a number, and the durability and the compatibility index is assembled by putting them next to each other (e.g. 186 A: a low
compressive strength, high WAC, medium capillarity, A: absence
of clays). Veiga et al. describe the characteristics a rendering and
repointing mortar should have, as well as appropriate testing
methods [65]. Some value ranges that should make good repair
renders or repointing mortars are given as well. The focus lies on
mechanical resistance, water transfer properties and shrinking
behaviour of the mortar. Delgado Rodrigues et al. take this even
further and rank the properties according to the role they play in
the compatibility of a mortar with a stone [66]. The two ranks of
Compatibility Indicators (CI) are further rated in a rating scale
determining an incompatibility risk (0 for low risk, 5 for medium,
10 for high risk). This rating method takes into account the properties of the mortar and of the substrate (mortar, traditional
masonry). These properties include e.g. the chemical composition,
the porosity, the colour and the salt content of the mortar:
elements that have not been discussed in previously described
compatibility evaluating methods. [66]do state that this method
is in its rst stage of development, and perhaps ought to be
adapted when evaluated. Compatibility requirements for repointing mortars in soft masonry were given absolute values by [38].
Since these requirements are specically etched on repointing
mortars for soft masonry, these values are to be reconsidered since
each stone is different in properties.

6. Discussion and conclusion

Through the discussion of the main components of a mortar,
more insight has been created in the behaviour of repair mortars
for stone. All binders behave quite differently, even though they
may be made from similar materials. Each binder has its own
strength and its weakness, and Hughes et al. assembled the values
of the different binders in Table 5. Advantages of blended lime
cement mortars are the early-stage strength development, the
resistance which is lower than average Portland cement, and which
can be varied, by adapting the cement:lime ratio [29]. The amount
of lime allows a certain elasticplastic deformation [29]. Not only
the binders play an important role in the behaviour of fresh and
hardened mortar, the aggregates are important as well. In Table 6,
a sketch situates various mortars of different binders and different
aggregates in terms of properties and assembles the characteristics
of each mortar component. The lime mortars have a higher deformability and water (vapour) transfer capacity. The cement mortars
are more resistant to compressive strength, but they are also denser and have a lower porosity. Their high thermal expansion coefcient and low deformability in combination with large thermal
cycles can damage the stone [37].
Critical parameters were discussed next to indicate more clearly
which and how one of the previously discussed components can
help fullling one of these critical parameters. However, when
assembling or adjusting a repair mortar, not all of these parameters
can be answered at once. Visual appearance proved to be an important factor for the success rate of a repair mortar in terms of compatibility, but is less important when looking at the durability.
However, it must be taken into account when developing a repair
mortar, since several cases are known where the proposed repair
mortar was changed to meet the visual demands, not fullling
other requirements that are important for the stones preservation.
In literature, several authors have tried to place these parameters in their right order. In principle, they all mostly agree on each

other, although the representation is variable. [61] discuss the

whole picture, going from the different authenticity values of a
building and how they nally lead to the choice of the repair mortar. Just like Hayen, the properties mentioned as decisive characteristics, are a good starting point [52]. Sasse and Snethlage give
variability ranges between mortar and stone in percentages, which
makes the use of this method easier where stone is the original
material, due to its heterogeneity [62]. [38,65] include the standards and testing methods that they applied for their evaluation
method. [64,66] rank each evaluated property, taking into account
the role they play on compatibility level.
Table 8 is the authors interpretation of the ideas and conclusions gathered above. In the rst column, the ranking of the property is presented and indicates in which order the properties are
preferentially tested. The lower the ranking, the more important
it is in terms of compatibility. Because of the dual meaning of this
ranking, it is possible to test only a part of the list, adapt the mortar
and test again: the most important properties are ranked rst.
Grain size distribution and mineral components are designated
as c, inferior in testing, since they are not tested (directly). However, they are important and therefore ll rst ranks: they both
affect all other properties. It is advisable to start with knowledge
about the mortars grain size and mineral components that should
allow an estimation of properties. In the column recommendation
the recommended compatibility with the stone is given, hereby
following Sasse and Snethlage in their evaluation methods. The
variable range in the recommendation column allows operating
in between the specically designed mortars for one stone sample,
and the commercial, generalized mortars. All the testing methods
are designed to test mortar samples. When natural stone is tested,
the norms and standards for natural stone will be used. However,
no real comparison is then possible between stone and mortar to
see if they are indeed compatible. Another possibility can be the
testing of natural stone through natural stone test methods and
mortar test methods.

Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for
their comments and suggestions, and they would like to thank
them for helping improving this article.

References
[1] Griswold J, Uricheck S. Loss compensation methods for stone. J Am Inst Cons
1998;37(1):89110.
[2] Torney C et al. Plastic repair of natural stone in Scotland: perceptions and
practice. Struct Surv 2012;30(4):297311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
02630801211256643.
[3] Ashurst J, Dimes FG, editors. Conservation of Building and Decorative
Stone. Oxford: ButterworthHeinemann Series in Conservation and
Museology, Elsevier; 1998.
[4] De Naeyer A. New materials for safeguarding cultural heritage. In: Workshop
10 ARIADNE new materials for safeguarding cultural heritage. 2228 April
2002. <http://www.arcchip.cz/w10/w10_naeyer.pdf (June 2013)>.
[5] Feilden BM. Conservation of Historic Buildings. 3rd ed. Oxford: Architectural
Press, Elsevier; 2003.
[6] Warscheid T, Braams J. Biodeterioration of stone: a review. Int Biodeter
Biodegr 2000;46:34368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0964-8305(00)00109-8.
[7] Roig Salom JL et al. SEM/EDX and vis spectrophotometry study for the stability
of resin-bound mortars used for casting replicas and lling missing parts of
historic stone fountains. Anal Bioanal Chem 2003;375:117681. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00216-003-1826-0.
[8] Oliveira TP. Investigation on whether Zinc Hydroxychloride mortar is suitable
as lling materials for the conservation of architectural Portuguese azulejos
adhesion and compatibility analysis. Master of Arts thesis in conservation
studies. West Dean College, Sussex; 2012 (unpublished).
[9] Moens F, De Witte E. Optimisation of mineral repair mortars for historic
buildings (lithos arte mortars), European commission conference on research
for protection, conservation and enhancement of cultural heritage:
opportunities for European enterprises. Strasbourg: 22-24 November 2000.

A. Isebaert et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 3950

[10]

[11]
[12]

[13]

[14]
[15]
[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]
[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]
[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]
[36]

<http://www.enluminures.culture.fr/culture/editions/archives/
conference_strasbourg_2000.pdf#page=119 (June 2013)>.
ICOMOS. The Venice Charter. International charter for the conservation and
restoration of monuments and sites. In: Second international congress of
architects and technicians of historic monuments. 1964. <http://icomos.org/
en/charters-and-texts (14/01/2013)>.
ICOMOS. The nara document on authenticity. 1994. <http://icomos.org/en/
charters-and-texts (14/01/2013)>.
Schueremans L et al. Characterization of repair mortars for the assessment of
their compatibility in restoration projects: research and practice. Constr Build
Mater 2011;25:433850. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.01.00.
Steenmeijer R. Kunststeen of natuursteen. In: Voorbeelden uit de Praktijk,
Hayen R, De Clercq H, editors. Versteend erfgoed omgaan met herstelmortel
en kunststeen, Studiedag 28 mei 2010. Brussels: KIK/IRPA; 2010. p. 338.
Torraca G. Lectures on materials science for architectural conservation. Los
Angeles: J.P. Getty Trust, The Getty Conservation Institute; 2009.
Elert K et al. Lime mortars for the conservation of historic buildings. Stud Cons
2002;47(1):6275. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1506835>.
Cazalla O et al. Aging of lime putty: effects on traditional lime mortar
carbonation. J Am Cer Soc 2000;83(5):10706. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
j.1151-2916.2000.tb01332.x.
Lawrence RM, Mays TJ, Rigby SP, Walker P, DAyala D. Effects of carbonation on
the pore structure of non-hydraulic lime mortars. Cem Concr Res
2007;37:105969. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.04.011.
Arizzi A, Cultrone G. The difference in behaviour between calcitic and
dolomitic lime mortars set under dry conditions: the relationship between
textural and physical-mechanical properties. Cem Concr Res 2012;42:81826.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2012.03.008.
NBN European Standard 4591:2010. Building lime Part 1: denitions,
specications and conformity criteria. CEN; September 2010.
A. Smith, D. Highley, A. Bloodworth, R. Bate, D. Rayner, Natural hydraulic limes.
In: Mineral planning factsheets. British Geological Survey for the Ofce of the
Deputy Prime Minister. 2005. http://www.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/planning/
mineralPlanningFactsheets.html
Mosquera MJ et al. Addition of cement to lime-based mortars: effect on pore
structure and vapor transport. Cem Concr Res 2006;36:163542. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.04.011.
Cizer O, Van Balen K, Van Gemert D, Elsen J. Blended lime-cement mortars for
conservation purposes: microstructure and strength development. In: DAyala,
Fodde, editors. Structural analysis of historic construction. London: Springer;
2008. p. 96572.
Bayer K, et al. Microstructure of historic and modern Roman cements to
understand their specic properties. In: Proceedings 13th Euroseminar on
Microscopy applied to building materials. Ljubljana; 14-18 June 2011. <http://
www.rocare.eu/page/publications.php (August 14 2013)>.
Gosselin C et al. Natural cement and monumental restoration. Mater Struct
2009;42:74963. http://dx.doi.org/10.1617/s11527-008-9421-7.
Klisinska-Kopacz A et al. Pore structure of historic and repair Roman cement
mortars to establish their compatibility. J Cult Her 2010;11:40410. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2010.03.00.
Wilk D, Bratasz , Kozlowski R. Reducing shrinkage cracks in Roman cement
renders, In: Preprints of 2nd historic mortars conference & RILEM TC 203-RHM
Repair mortars for historic masonry nal workshop, Prague; 22-24 September
2010. <http://www.rocare.eu/page/publications.php (August 15 2013)>.
Gurtner C., Hilbert G., Hughes D., Kozlowski R., Weber J, editors. 2012, Manual
on best practice in the application of Roman cements. Roman cement, past and
present. Conservation theory and practice. Version 2 November 2012. EU
Project 226898 FP7-ENV-2008-1 ROCARE Roman cement for architectural
restoration to new high standards. 2012. <http://www.rocare.eu>.
Van Balen K et al. Kalkboek: het gebruik van kalk als bindmiddel voor metselen voegmortels in verleden en heden. Zeist: Rijksdienst voor de
Monumentenzorg; 2003.
Hughes JJ, et al. The role of mortar in masonry: an introduction to
requirements for the design of repair mortars. In: 2nd historic mortars
conference HMC 2010, RILEM TC 203-RHM nal workshop. Prague; 2010, pp.
132329, doi: 10.1617/14319.
Sbabi Y, Dheilly RM, Beaudoin B, Quneudec M. The effect of various slaked
limes on the microstructure of a lime-cement-sand mortar. Cem Concr Res
2006;36:9718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2005.12.02.
Winnefeld F, Bttger KG. How clayey nes in aggregated inuence the
properties of lime mortars. Mater Struct 2006;39:43343. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1617/s11527-005-9023-6.
Arandigoyen M, Alvarez JI. Blended pastes of cement and lime: pore structure
and capillary porosity. Appl Surf Sci 2006;252:807785. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.apsusc.2005.10.01.
Von Konow T. Aggregate grain size distribution a major inuence on many
properties of lime mortars for restoration. In: Euromat 2003 Symposium P2
Materials & Conservation of cultural heritage. Lausanne; 2003
Westerholm M et al. Inuence of ne aggregate characteristics on the
rheological properties of mortars. Cem Concr Comp 2008;30:27482. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2007.08.00.
Ingham JP. Geomaterials under the microscope. London: Manson Publishing;
2011.
Caliskan S, Karihaloo BL. Effect of surface roughness, type and size of model
aggregates on the bond strength of aggregate/mortar interface. Interface Sci
2004;12:36174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:INTS.0000042334.43266.62.

49

[37] Allen G, editor. Hydraulic lime mortar for stone, brick and block
masonry. Dorset: Donhead; 2003.
[38] Groot C, Gunneweg J. Rapportage. Deelproject voegherstelmortels voor
historisch metselwerk. Delft: TU Delft, 2012. <http://repository.tudelft.nl/
assets/uuid:cf80caf6-4244-4e1f-9455-1618bb3bfcbc/OR_3__HISTORISCH_METSELWERK_RESTAURATIEVOEGMORTELS_sep_2012.pdf
(August 15 2013)>.
[39] Lanzon M et al. X-ray microtomography to evaluate microstructure of mortars
containing low-density additions. Cem Concr Compos 2012;34:9931000.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.06.01.
[40] Lanas J, Alvarez JI. Masonry repair lime-based mortars: factors affecting the
mechanical behavior. Cem Concr Res 2003;33:186776. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S0008-8846(03)00210-.
[41] Pavia S, Toomey B. Inuence of the aggregate quality on the physical
properties of natural feebly-hydraulic lime mortars. Mater Struct
2008;41:55969. http://dx.doi.org/10.1617/s11527-007-9267-4.
[42] Sanjuan MA et al. Inuence of the water-cement ratio on the air permeability
of concrete. J Mater Sci 1996;31:282932. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
BF00355989.
[43] Papayianni I, Stefanidou M. Strength-porosity relationships in lime-pozzolan
mortars. Constr Build Mater 2006;20:7005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2005.02.01.
[44] Shao-peng Z, Bo T, Da-peng W, Zi-yi H. Cement mortar liquidity testing
method by rheological properties. J Highway Transp Res Dev Engl Ed
2013;7(3):117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/JHTRCQ.000032.
[45] Beck K, Al-Mukhtar M. Formulation and characterization of an appropriate
lime-based mortar for use with a porous limestone. Environ Geol
2008;56:71527. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00254-008-1299-8.
[46] Bromblet Ph. Evaluation of the durability and compatibility of traditional
repair lime-based mortars on three limestones. Int Z Bauinstandsetzen
Baudenkmalpege 2000;6(5):51328.
[47] Bromblet Ph et al. Approach for compatible mortars for restoration purposes:
stone repairs of the roman amphitheatre of Arles (France). Delft: Int., RILEM
Workshop on repair mortars for historic masonry; 2005.
[48] De Kock T, et al. Compatibility study and adaptation of stone repair mortars for
the Lede stone. In: Geophysical research abstracts 14. Belgium; 2012
[49] Szemerey-Kiss B, Trk A. Time-dependent changes in the strength of repair
mortar used in the loss compensation of stone. Environ Earth Sci
2011;63:161321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-011-0917-z.
[50] Ramge P, Khne, H-C, 2012, Development of Repair Mortars for the Restoration
of Natural Stone in Cultural Heritage, Concrete Repair, Rehabilitation and
Retrotting III. In: Alexander, M G, Beushausen H-D, Dehn F, Moyo P, editors.
Proc. of 3rd International Conference on Concrete Repair, Rehabilitation and
Retrotting, ICCRRR 2012, Cape Town, South Africa: CRC Press/Balkema, p.
882-7.
[51] Ramge P, Khne H-C, Meng B. Entwicklung von modularen
Instandsetzungsmrteln
fr
den
Einsatz
an
denkmalgeschtzten
Natursteinbauwerken. Tagungsband 52. DAfStb-Forschungskolloquium 2011,
Berlin: BAM Bundesanstalt fr Materialforschung und prfung; 2011, p. 247-5.
[52] Hayen R. Herstelmortels breed uitgesmeerd, In: Hayen R, De Clercq H, editors.
Versteend erfgoed omgaan met herstelmortel en kunststeen, Studiedag 28
mei 2010, Brussels: KIK/IRPA; 2010, p. 4-19.
[53] Vanderauwera M. Grenzen aan herstelmortels. In: Hayen R, De Clercq H,
editors. Versteend erfgoed omgaan met herstelmortel en kunststeen,
Studiedag 28 mei 2010, Brussels: KIK/IRPA; 2010, p. 29-32.
[54] Benavente D et al. The combines inuence of mineralogical, hygric and
thermal properties on the durability of porous building stones. Eur J Miner
2008;20:67385.
[55] Koch A, Siegesmund S. The combined effect of moisture and temperature on
the anomalous expansion behaviour of marble. Environ Geol 2004;46:35063.
[56] Muoz Vias S. Contemporary theory of conservation. Oxford: Butterworth
Heinemann, Elsevier; 2005.
[57] Ramge P, Khne H-C, Meng B. Repair mortars for the restoration and
reproling of natural stone elements in cultural heritage. In: EWCHP-2011,
European workshop and training day on cultural heritage preservation. 26-28
September 2011. Berlin: 2011, p.281-8
[58] OBrien PF et al. Role of mortars in the decay of granite. Sci Total Environ
1995;167:10310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(95)04573-.
[59] Silva B, Aira N, Martinez-Cortizas A, Prieto B. Chemical composition and origin
of black patinas on granite. Sci Total Environ 2009;408:1307. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.09.02.
[60] Schwengelbeck O. Steinersatzmasse Naturstein. Bauhandwerk 2002;6:502.
[61] Van Balen K et al. Introduction to requirements for and functions and
properties of repair mortars. Mater Struct 2005;38:7815. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/BF02479291.
[62] Sasse HR, Snethlage R. Methods for the evaluation of stone conservation
treatment. In: Snethlage R, editor. Dahlem workshop on saving our
architectural heritage, the conservation of historic structures. Wiley
Chichster; 1997. p. 22343.
[63] Sasse R, Schulze H. Entwicklung einer wirksamen Konservierungstechnologie
fr
verwitternde
Natursteinbauten.
In:
Zusammenfassung
der
Abschluberichte zu den Forschungsvorhaben mit den Projekt-Nummern
des
BMBF
BAU5014M,
5014N,
und
70014M.
2002.
<http://
www.baufachinformation.de/literatur/Entwicklung-einer-wirksamenKonservierungstechnologie-f%C3%BCr-verwitternde-Natursteinbauten/
2007039008440 (August 15 2013)>.

50

A. Isebaert et al. / Construction and Building Materials 59 (2014) 3950

[64] Dessandier D, et al. Guide mthodologique de slection des pierres des

monuments en termes de durabilit et comptabilit. BRGM-RP-50137-FR.
2000.
[65] Veiga MR, et al. Methodologies for characterization and repair of mortars of
ancient buildings. In; Loureno PB, Roca P, editors. Guimares: Historical
Constructions; 2001, p. 353362.

[66] Delgado Rodrigues J, Grossi A. Indicators and ratings for the compatibility
assessment of conservation actions. J Cult Heritage 2007;8:3243. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2006.04.00.