Wytwarzanie przyjaznej dla środowiska, wysokowytrzymałej zaprawy naprawczej do renowacji obiektów zabytkowych

Tombulca, Can; Çavuş, Murat

doi:10.32047/CWB.2023.28.3.5

Artykuł - szczegóły

Tytuł artykułu

Wytwarzanie przyjaznej dla środowiska, wysokowytrzymałej zaprawy naprawczej do renowacji obiektów zabytkowych

Autorzy

Tombulca Can , Çavuş Murat

Wybrane pełne teksty z tego czasopisma

http://www.cementwapnobeton.pl/

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.32047/CWB.2023.28.3.5

Warianty tytułu

Production of environmentally-friendly, high-strength repair mortar for the restoration of historical buildings

Języki publikacji

PL EN

Abstrakty

W pracy badano zaprawy naprawcze ze sztucznymi i naturalnymi dodatkami pucolanowymi do renowacji obiektów zabytkowych. Do zapraw wapiennych wprowadzono sztuczną pucolanę - popiół lotny wapienny klasy C oraz pucolanę naturalną w postaci zeolitu. Do przygotowania zapraw wykorzystano dwa różne rodzaje kruszyw: naturalny piasek rzeczny i cegłę łamaną. Łącznie wyprodukowano 18 zapraw, z czego dwie były zaprawami odniesienia. W pierwszej grupie zapraw badano popiół lotny będący główną pucolaną, w zaprawach z obu rodzajami kruszywa przy 20%, 40% i 60% zastąpieniu wapna popiołem. W drugiej serii zapraw jako zamiennika wapna zastosowano popiół lotny i zeolit w różnych proporcjach. W zaprawie odniesienia zastosowano samo wapno powietrzne. Po 28, 56 i 90 dniach dojrzewania zapraw oznaczono właściwości mechaniczne, fizyczne i skład fazowy. Porównując zaprawy z dodatkiem pucolany z zaprawami odniesienia, zauważono, że pucolany zapewniają znaczną poprawę właściwości fizycznych i mechanicznych zapraw naprawczych. O ile zaobserwowano znaczną poprawę właściwości fizycznych zapraw, w których jako jedyną pucolanę zastosowano popiół lotny, to właściwości mechaniczne były lepsze w zaprawach z zeolitem.

In this study, repair mortars with artificial and natural pozzolan additives were produced for the restoration of historical buildings. Class C fly ash, an artificial pozzolan and zeolite the natural pozzolan, were substituted into these lime-based mortars. Two different aggregate types were used in the preparation of the mortars: natural river sand and crushed brick. A total of 18 batches of mortars were produced, two of which were reference batches. In the first group of batches, fly ash, which is the major pozzolan, was tested in both aggregate groups in 20%, 40%, and 60% ratios of lime substitution. In the second group of batches, fly ash and zeolite were used in different proportions as lime substitution. In the reference series, air lime was used alone. At the end of the 28, 56, and 90 days curing period, mechanical, physical properties, and phase composition of the mortars were determined. When the pozzolan-added mortars were compared with the reference mortars, it was observed that pozzolans provided significant improvements in the physical and mechanical properties of the repair mortars. While significant improvements were observed in the physical properties of the mortars where fly ash was used as the only pozzolan, mechanical properties were better in the mortars with zeolite.

Słowa kluczowe

zaprawa wapienna popiół lotny zeolit cegła łamana porowatość absorpcja wody kapilarnej zaprawa naprawcza obiekt zabytkowy

lime mortar fly ash zeolite crushed brick porosity capillary water absorption repair mortar historic building

Wydawca

Fundacja Cement, Wapno, Beton

Czasopismo

Cement Wapno Beton

Rocznik

2023

Tom

R. 28, nr 3

Strony

194--205

Opis fizyczny

Bibliogr. 40 poz., il., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Tombulca Can

Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University, Department of Civil Engineering, Tokat, Turkey

autor

Çavuş Murat

murat.cavus@gop.edu.tr

Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa University, Department of Civil Engineering, Tokat, Turkey

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9480-4418

Bibliografia

1. A. Güleç, T. Tulun, Physico-chemical and petrographical studies of old mortars and plasters of Anatolia. Cem. Concr. Res. 27, 227-234 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(97)00005-7.
2. A. Moropoulou, A.S. Cakmak, G. Biscontin, A. Bakolas, E. Zendri, Advanced Byzantine cement based composites resisting earthquake stresses: The crushed brick/lime mortars of Justinian’s Hagia Sophia. Constr. Build. Mater. 16, 543-552 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-0618(02)00005-3.
3. K. Callebaut, J. Elsen, K. Van Balen, W. Viaene, Nineteenth century hydraulic restoration mortars in the Saint Michael’s Church (Leuven, Belgium): Natural hydraulic lime or cement? Cem. Concr. Res. 31, 397-403 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(00)00499-3.
4. S.A. Hartshorn, J.H. Sharp, R.N. Swamy, Thaumasite formation in Portland-limestone cement pastes. Cem. Concr. Res. 29, 1331-1340 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(99)00100-3.
5. R.M. Espinosa-Marzal, G.W. Scherer, Advances in understanding damage by salt crystallization. Acc. Chem. Res. 43, 897-905 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1021/ar9002224.
6. ICOMOS, The Venice Charter, (1964) 1-3. http://www.icomos.org.tr/Dosyalar/ICOMOSTR_en0243704001536681730.pdf.
7. ICOMOS, The Declaration of Amsterdam, (1975). http://www.icomos.org.tr/Dosyalar/ICOMOSTR_en0458431001536681780.pdf.
8. I. Papayianni, V. Pachta, M. Stefanidou, Analysis of ancient mortars and design of compatible repair mortars: The case study of Odeion of the archaeological site of Dion. Constr. Build. Mater. 40, 84-92 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.09.086.
9. P. Degryse, J. Elsen, M. Waelkens, Study of ancient mortars from Sagalassos (Turkey) in view of their conservation. Cem. Concr. Res. 32, 1457-1463 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(02)00807-4.
10. M.P. Riccardi, P. Duminuco, C. Tomasi, P. Ferloni, Thermal, microscopic and X-ray diffraction studies on some ancient mortars. Thermochim. Acta. 321, 207-214 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-6031(98)00461-4.
11. C. Genestar, C. Pons, A. Más, Analytical characterisation of ancient mortars from the archaeological Roman city of Pollentia (Balearic Islands, Spain). Anal. Chim. Acta, 2006, 373-379 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2005.10.058.
12. S. Thirumalini, R. Ravi, M. Rajesh, Experimental investigation on physical and mechanical properties of lime mortar: Effect of organic addition. J. Cult. Herit. 31, 97-104 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CULHER.2017.10.009.
13. S.Q. Fang, H. Zhang, B.J. Zhang, Y. Zheng, The identification of organic additives in traditional lime mortar. J. Cult. Herit. 15, 144-150 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2013.04.001.
14. S. Tian, S. Liu, F. Gao, M. Fan, J. Ren, Preparation and assessment of superhydrophobic organic-inorganic hybrid coatings for conservation of Yungang Grottoes. Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. MRS Online Procc. Lib. 1319, 406 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1557/opl.2011.736.
15. L. Ventol, M. Vendrell, P. Giraldez, L. Merino, Traditional organic additives improve lime mortars: New old materials for restoration and building natural stone fabrics. Constr. Build. Mater. 25, 3313-3318 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.03.020.
16. A. Bakolas, E. Aggelakopoulou, A. Moropoulou, S. Anagnostopoulou, Evaluation of pozzolanic activity and physicomechanical characteristics in metakaolin-lime pastes. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 84, 157-163 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-005-7262-y.
17. V. Pavlík, M. Užáková, Effect of curing conditions on the properties of lime, lime-metakaolin and lime-zeolite mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 102, 14-25 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.128.
18. S. Andrejkovičová, A.L. Velosa, F. Rocha, Air lime-metakaolin-sepiolite mortars for earth based walls, Constr. Build. Mater. 44, 133-141 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.03.008.
19. A. Gameiro, A. Santos Silva, P. Faria, J. Grilo, T. Branco, R. Veiga, A. Velosa, Physical and chemical assessment of lime-metakaolin mortars: Influence of binder: aggregate ration. Cem. Concr. Compos. 45, 264-271 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.06.010.
20. A. Sepulcre-Aguilar, F. Hernández-Olivares, Assessment of phase formation in lime-based mortars with added metakaolin, Portland cement and sepiolite, for grouting of historic masonry. Cem. Concr. Res. 40, 66-76 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2009.08.028.
21. G. Boffey, E. Hirst, The Use of Pozzolans in Lime Mortars. J. Archit. Conserv. 5, 34-42 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1080/13556207.1999.1078 5250.
22. A. Moropoulou, A. Bakolas, K. Bisbikou, Investigation of the technology of historic mortars. J. Cult. Herit. 1, 45-58 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1296-2074(99)00118-1.
23. M. Budak, S. Akkurt, H. Böke, Evaluation of heat treated clay for potential use in intervention mortars. Appl. Clay Sci. 49, 414-419 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2009.11.031.
24. TS EN 459-1, Building lime - Part 1: Definitions, specifications and conformity criteria, Ankara, 2017.
25. TS 25, Natural pozzolan (Trass) for use in cement and concrete - Definitions, requirements and conformity criteria, Turkish Stand. Inst. (2008).
26. C. Oğuz, F. Türker, N.U. Koçkal, Andriake Limani’nda Roma, Bizans ve Selçuklu Dönemi Harçlarin Özellikleri. Tek. Dergi/Technical J. Turkish Chamb. Civ. Eng. 26, 6993-7013 (2015). https://doi.org/10.18400/td.55157.
27. Y. Zeng, B. Zhang, X. Liang, A case study and mechanism investigation of typical mortars used on ancient architecture in China. Thermochim. Acta. 473, 1-6 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tca.2008.03.019.
28. F. Yang, B. Zhang, C. Pan, Y. Zeng, Traditional mortar represented by sticky rice lime mortar-One of the great inventions in ancient China. Sci. China, Ser. E Technol. Sci. 52, 1641-1647 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11431-008-0317-0.
29. D. Carran, J. Hughes, A. Leslie, C. Kennedy, International Journal of Architectural Heritage Conservation, Analysis, and Restoration A Short History of the Use of Lime as a Building Material Beyond Europe and North America. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 6, 117-146 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2010.511694.
30. TS EN 1015-3, Methods of test for mortar for masonry - Part 3: Determination of consistence of fresh mortar, Turkish Stand. Inst. (2006).
31. TS EN 196-1, Methods of testing cement - Part 1: Determination of strength, Turkish Stand. Inst. (2016).
32. TS EN 1015-11, Methods of test for mortar for masonry - Part 11: Determination of flexural and compressive strength of hardened mortar, Turkish Stand. Inst. (2020).
33. EN 1015-10, Methods of test for mortar for masonry - Part 10: Determination of dry bulk density of hardened mortar, Turkish Stand. Inst. (2001).
34. TS EN 1015-18, Methods of test for mortar for masonry - Part 18: Determination of water absorption coefficient due to capillary action of hardened mortar, Turkish Stand. Inst. (2014).
35. A. Wongsa, V. Sata, P. Nuaklong, P. Chindaprasirt, Use of crushed clay brick and pumice aggregates in lightweight geopolymer concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 188, 1025-1034 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.08.176.
36. S.S. Tunçoku, Characterization of masonry mortars used in some Anatolian Seljuk monuments in Konya, Beyşehir and Akşehir. Middle East Technical University, 2001.
37. M. Dayı, Examination of the Khorasan mortars used in historical buildings and production of alternative Khorasan mortar, Gazi University, 2017.
38. S.M. Moayedian, M. Hejazi, Effect of scale on compressive strength of brick masonry with gypsum mortar. Meas. J. Int. Meas. Confed. 172, 108932 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2020.108932.
39. M. Abdi Moghadam, R.A. Izadifard, Effects of zeolite and silica fume substitution on the microstructure and mechanical properties of mortar at high temperatures. Constr. Build. Mater. 253, 119206 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119206.
40. M.Y. Çelik, M. Sert, An assessment of capillary water absorption changes related to the different salt solutions and their concentrations ratios in the Döğer tuff (Afyonkarahisar-Turkey) used as building stone of cultural heritages. J. Build. Eng. 35, 102102 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.102102.

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.baztech-76242ea6-4ae4-4956-815d-195d9d1b0ef4