2010
DOI: 10.1080/15583050902914678
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lime-Based Mortars: Viability for Use as Substitution Renders in Historical Buildings

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
36
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 105 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
1
36
0
Order By: Relevance
“…According to the data of Figure 6 some conclusions are ascertained in terms of the mechanical behavior of the earth render of tabique building components. The inclusion of a hydraulic binder tends to increase the mechanical behavior of the earth render, as also evidenced in other studies, e.g., Livesey (2002) and Veiga et al (2010). In fact, Mixes 4, 5, and 6 have higher compressive and flexural strengths than Mixes 1, 2, and 3.…”
Section: Flexural and Compressive Strengthssupporting
confidence: 53%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…According to the data of Figure 6 some conclusions are ascertained in terms of the mechanical behavior of the earth render of tabique building components. The inclusion of a hydraulic binder tends to increase the mechanical behavior of the earth render, as also evidenced in other studies, e.g., Livesey (2002) and Veiga et al (2010). In fact, Mixes 4, 5, and 6 have higher compressive and flexural strengths than Mixes 1, 2, and 3.…”
Section: Flexural and Compressive Strengthssupporting
confidence: 53%
“…For example, stone, timber, earth, sand, clay, cork, and bamboo (Bui et al, 2009;Brás, Gonçalves, and Faustino 2014;Cherki et al 2014;Ciancio, Jaquin, and Walker 2013;Escamilla and Habert 2014;Feio et al 2013;Hendry 2001;Silva et al 2013) are some traditional building materials that match these requirements. Taking into account that traditional building techniques apply these types of materials, focusing on their study may result in improving the knowledge related to the application of these building materials (Coroado et al 2010;Veiga et al 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The mortar CS30_FS15_PCM30 is the only that does not meet this range; such a low Ed may be justified by micro-cracking that may have occurred. Comparing the mechanical properties obtained in the present study with the range established by Veiga et al (2010) for plastering mortars to assure compatibility with historic masonry, it is possible to conclude that the mortars with PCM and air lime do not meet requirements for dynamic elasticity modulus and flexural strength defined by the researchers, while mortars with addition of air lime do not meet the compressive strength requirements. All the other tested mortars comply with the range defined for plasters for historic masonry (Veiga et al, 2010).…”
Section: Mechanical and Mineralogical Characterizationmentioning
confidence: 53%
“…The angular surfaces of the ceramic sanitary and marble waste particles may lead, on the one hand, to a better cohesion between the air lime mortar materials and, on the other hand, to some pozzolanic reaction that might occur between the lime and the surface of the ceramic particles and the high CaCO 3 content obtained in the chemical composition of marble, as has been suggested by other researchers (Böke et al , 2006; Matias et al , 2014; Tunc, 2019). Therefore, the studies on air lime mortars with waste aggregates replacement are mechanically adequate and such mortars can be regarded as efficient air lime mortars for use in the conservation of old buildings (Maravelaki-Kalaitzaki et al , 2005; Li et al , 2019; Böke et al , 2006; Veiga et al , 2010).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%