th

15 International Brick and Block

Masonry Conference
Florianpolis Brazil 2012

SUSTAINABLE MASONRY:
THE IMPORTANCE OF MORTAR QUALITY
F. Verhelst1, E. Kjaer2, W. Jaeger3, B. Middendorf4, K. Van Balen5, P. Walker6
1
2
3
4

Chief engineer, Danish Technological Institute, ehk@teknologisk.dk

Prof. Dr.-Ing., Technische Universitt Dresden, Structural Design, w.jaeger@jaeger-ingenieure.de

Prof. Dr. , TU Dortmund University, Department of Building Materials, bernhard.middendorf@tu-dortmund.de

5

EuLA, Mortar task force, Frederik.verhelst@lhoist.com

Prof. Dr., Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Civil engineering, koenraad.vanbalen@bwk.kuleuven.be

Professor, Director of the BRE Centre for Innovative Construction Materials, Department of Architecture and Civil
Engineering, University of Bath, p.walker@bath.ac.uk

Looking to historic as well as to modern buildings, we notice the durability of masonry

structures. A well-built masonry structure provides a long term sustainable solution by virtue
of its durability, adaptability and maintainability.
However, building practice is rapidly changing in the last decade with increasing expectations
on behalf of thermal performance of our buildings. Building speed, quality and durability
need to be combined if masonry wants to survive in the future mainstream construction
industry. Materials will not only need to be durable and sustainable but will also have to
contribute to the long lasting performance in relation to energy consumption.
These evolving requirements are creating more stringent expectations towards masonry. Walls
are becoming increasingly slender and invoke the need to become less brittle, more elastic,
stress resistant and offering better compatibility between mortar and brick (adhesion and
relative strength). The masonry sector is in front of major challenges to maintain and renew
its traditional image of solid, durable and sustainable building technology.
Lesson for modern masonry practice can be found from current studies of traditional work
and materials.
The complex stress state in the mortar explains the ductile behaviour of masonry with low
compressive strength, highly deformable mortars.
Inspired by these observations, this evolution is discussed and developed to seek how
masonry and its components can answer to these requirements to be a sustainable mainstream
building material with future.
Keywords: Sustainability, durability, masonry, mortars, standards, lime

BACKGROUND
In recent decades we have observed an undesirable tendency on behalf of mortar quality and
use. Since development of the EN standards in the early 2000s this trend has been most
evident in countries where traditional recipe mixed mortars, based on many years experience,
were used. The switch from traditional prescribed mix (recipe) mortars to performance
(focusing on compressive strength) based mortars, has been detrimental to the other aspects
like the durability and long term behaviour of the mortars and masonry. Although

compressive strength provides simple basis for testing and specification it is detrimental
where in situations where low strength mortars have beneficial qualities. Compressive
strength evaluation focuses on short term performance testing of the isolated mortar and
ignores interaction as part of a system combined with masonry units or its long term
behaviour. Mortar characteristics play a very important role in other masonry aspects,
including movement behaviour (expansion joint spacing), bond strength, and moisture
movement (influencing durability). There is a great deal of historical evidence, supported by
modern conservation works, to support use of lower strength lime mortars.
EXISTING KNOWLEDGE
In a bibliographic study performed in 2009i the aspects of lime mortar use were considered
for different stakeholders: the masons; the designers; and, the owners. The evaluation looked
into the characteristics of masonry in its fresh state, of greatest relevance to the mason, in its
early age (up to 28 days), of greatest relevance to the designer, and to its durability aspects, of
most relevance to the end user and owner.
FRESH MORTAR
Exploring the relevant parameters for the mason, it appears that users of the fresh mortar are
mainly interested in a product which is easy to handle, easy to mix, easy to use, controllable
and preferably cheap. The mason is interested in workabilityii of the mortar and its ability to
retain water. Improving the workability of mortar, the proven solution of matured lime putties
(saturated hydrated lime) as a rheology agentiii iv has been abandoned for main stream
mortars. The cheapest and fastest solution which has been developed to obtain the workability
of the mortar has been the entrainment of air by adding organic admixtures. However in
contrast with lime, the use of air entrainers to improve workability affects porosity of the
hardened mortar which jeopardizes its durability.
The natural air content of mortars based on purely mineral binders has can be as low as 3 to
5%. In mainstream mortars as much as 20 25% of air is possible to obtain the required
workability. The high air content will lead to a loss in compressive strengthv, which normally
is compensated by adding hydraulic components. Placing that mortar between sucking bricks
will lead to even higher air content in the joint and very low porosity skeleton with
detrimental effects on the bond strength mortar-brickvi.
Short mortar mixing processes are not compatible with lime based binders with high finesse
and high specific surface area, which by nature need more energy and time as more surface
area has to be wetted. The risk of not applying sufficient energy in mixing of the mortar is
over-dosing of the mortar with water, leading to late stiffening and too high porosity. Making
a proper mortar means adjusting the different components in the mortar (binder, aggregates,
water and additives) to the specificity of the brick while maintaining good workability (water
retention, speed of mixing, the right amount of water) and short and long term durability
(exposure to water, rain, frost, wind and sun at young age). The compatible particle size
distribution of the different components of the mortar has demonstrated to be one of the major
factors influencing rheology and workability of mortarvii.
The strength of lime containing mortars is that they will show good workability and water
retentionviii ix in the short term and in the long term they can deliver exceptional durabilityx
thanks to the delay of hardening and possibility of self-healing. However, on the short term
(first few months) they often show lower compressive strength and resistance to frost. Special
attention is needed in design (exposure to rain) and execution (exposure to rain and frost).

MORTAR IN ITS YOUNG HARDENED STATE:

THE ENGINEER-DESIGNER SEEKING STRENGTH
The design engineer is primarily concerned with the mechanical behaviour of the masonry, in
particular structural stability under vertical and horizontal loading. Vertical loadings include
permanent actions (self weight gravitational loads) and variable actions (applied and
environmental loads such as snow). For horizontal loading, the engineer is concerned with
wind and seismic actions. As well as stability when subjected to differential settlements and
displacement under horizontal loadings has to be satisfactory.
Mortar properties and behaviour have a direct influence on mechanical properties of masonry;
in particular to compressive, shear and flexural strength, dynamic modulus of elasticity (in
longitudinal and transverse directions) and Poissons ratioxi. These all contribute to the
capacity of the masonry to resist vertical structural loadsxii. Masonry compressive strength is
governed by masonry unit (tensile) strength with mortar strength as a secondary parameter.
The design for the most compatible mortar to assure masonry to resist compressive load and
to remain deformable in case of exceeding load, should be based on the concept to reduce the
strength of the mortar based on the tensile strength of the brickxiii. The compressive strength
of masonry is not governed by the compressive strength of mortar as measured in most
standards. In the (tri-axial) stress state the limiting factor of the strength and deformability
(ductility) is mostly governed by the tensile strength of the units (brick, stone, block ). To
avoid units to break under too high tensile stresses (a fundamental durability and mechanical
requirement), the behaviour of the mortar in tri-axial compressive stress state should be able
to change from a shear band to pore collapse mechanism. As the confinement stress (one/two
of the components of the tri-axial stress state) is limited by the reaction component of the
tensile stress of the unit, transition to pore collapse mechanism should occur at fairly low
stresses.
A compatible design promotes the occurrence of a pore-collapse mechanism in the mortar
before confinement tensile stresses in the brick lead to their breaking.
For horizontal loading, both in-plane and out-of-plane, flexural bond strength, initial shear
strength and friction coefficient are the determining factors. With increasing insulation levels
in cavity walls, external leaves shear walls have become more and more slender, increasing
the importance of the flexural bond strength. The practice of using air entraining additives is
however proving detrimental to flexural bond strength. In pure hydraulic binder mortars, the
flexural strength of the masonry is reduced by a factor 5 to 10 if the air content is increased by
a factor 5 from 3 to 15% of air content vi.
Under horizontal loads, we need also to approach the horizontal movement due to volume
variations of the products. In any building material volume variation is caused by shrinkage,
creep, thermal and moisture variations as well as imposed actions. Using high strength
mortars has led to use of closely spaced expansion joints to prevent secondary stress build up.
The recommended movement joint spacings in Eurocode 6 are seen as very conservative and
based on use of high strength hydraulic bound mortars. Practices with the use of cement
mortar have lead to such conclusions which seems indifferent for the type of binder. Nothing
however is less true, however here again explanation understanding the advantage of pore
collapse behaviour makes this clear. Overall unrestrained thermal dilation of mortar is
governed by the thermal dilation of the sand matrix and therefore it seems indifferent for the
type of binder. Unrestrained thermal dilation of the sand matrix and this of mortar is in an
average twice as high as unrestrained thermal dilation of bricks and is quiet similar to that of
concrete units.

Bond between mortar and units as well as allowance for mortar to deform by pore collapse
mechanism at stress state that are compatible with the strength of the units and the bond
between mortar and units, will define the dilation of the masonry.xiv
Weaker (lime-based) mortars will reduce the thermal dilation to the one of the bricks while
preserving the bond; in case of (rich) hydraulic mortar the thermal dilation of the mortar (thus
sand matrix) governs and will result in higher dilation and more debonding.
The main benefit of hydraulic bound mortars is their rapid strength development which allows
a fast progress of construction work. Workability requirements can be obtained using organic
admixtures. The drawback is the sensitivity to the dosage of the chemistry (including in
appropriate mixing energy) and the long term durability. Special attention is needed in design
(expansion joints, maintenance, and exposure to rain) and execution (exposure to rain and
frost).
Concluding it can be stated that design based on standard compressive strength of mortar is
not conducive and erroneous. The tri-axial stress state and deformability of mortar that is
compatible with the properties of the units is what governs the strength, durability and
longevity of masonry.
THE MORTAR IN HARDENED STATE: AESTHETICS AND DURABILITY
The architects, designers as well as the clients are most concerned with aesthetics and
durability of the masonry. Mortar vapour permeability and porosity play key role in both
aspects. Water will always be a fundamental part of the life of a building material. At young
age water is either introduced during construction or when the unfinished building is exposed
to rain water. Afterwards, rain and ground water both need to be dealt with. Trying to make
masonry impermeable is an admirable ambition but, without a plastic sealant, regrettably
impracticable for rigid construction materials. Movements, because of the volumetric
variations or because of the stress state, will always occur and water will be present.
Practice (as well historic as contemporarily) shows that durability is better guaranteed when
masonry (including or not pointing, renders ) is designed with acceptance of water ingress
to occur while drying is also properly considered and designed.
The best solution is to have a water permeable (breathable) structure. If humidity is not dealt
with in the right way, water soluble components from the building materials deposit on the
surface through the drying process, leaving discoloured walls (efflorescencexv) and in some
cases are able to damage building materials because of increasing crystallisation pressure of
the efflorescence. Build up of humidity can further lead to fungal and mould growth. Moisture
build up in building materials like bricks, natural stones and mortars will also lead to frost
damagexvi.
IDENTIFYING THE KNOWLEDGE GAPS
Throughout the 20th century Portland cement concrete and structural steel has replaced
masonry and other traditional forms of construction in novel and innovative forms and
solutions. This development has been supported by a substantial body of research and
development investment. Ever since Eiffel a fierce competition has developed between these
two leading structural materials. In comparison, over the last 70 years since after WW II,
masonry research and innovation has been modest, with concrete and steel attracting the main
resources and efforts. Two of the most significant developments over this period have been
the growth in concrete block masonry and the replacement of traditional lime mortars with
stronger, brittle and fasting setting cement based mortars.
Research on concrete materials and technology has developed a huge source of knowledge
which has also impacted on masonry construction. Testing methods developed for fresh and

hardened material properties, developed for Portland cement and concrete materials, have
often been subsequently adopted for masonry materials. For example, the 28 day compressive
strength standard for cement is now commonly specified for mortar strength determination.
The flow table test for workability, developed for concrete, has been adopted to test
workability of masonry mortars as well. This resulted in overlooking the diversity in methods
and standards that existed to judge on mortar that existed since the 18th century.
However, the appropriateness of these tests deducted from Portland cement governed concrete
research tests and specifications for slow setting lime based mortars, is called into question.
Concrete is more impermeable and has a much lower porosity. There is much slower or no
carbon dioxide uptake. Carbon dioxide uptake is considered undesirable in concrete since as it
removes passive protection provided to embedded steel reinforcement and loss of
performance of reinforced concrete. Rather interestingly the cement and concrete industry are
happy to recognise the benefits in reducing embodied carbon content.
In contrast carbonation of lime mortars is beneficial process, that contributes to mechanical
and physical performance of lime based mortarsxvii.
As a result of increased porosity the carbonation rates (also dependent on environment
factors) of lime based materials is generally much faster than in cement based materials.
The rate of strength gain in lime based materials is slower than Portland cement based
materials, with 91 days (3 months) recognised as a more appropriate time period than 28 days.
Standardised test methodologies that recognise the different rheological properties of fresh
materials and the benefits of slow hardening materials are required for lime containing
mortars. Development of standards has to be supported by knowledge transfer from
fundamental research work.
Products such as renders, plastersxviii and masonry mortars are typically used in relatively thin
layers onto a wide variety of substrates. The final performance on properties is dependent on a
complex interaction between the two materials. Fresh mortars put on or in between bricksxix,
are exposed to a complex, dynamic environment in which the brick dewaters the mortar and
sucks water-binder solution into the brick as such ensuring the adhesion brick-mortarxx. The
rate at which the dewatering occurs depends on properties of the masonry unit and mortar. A
similar process occurs when renders and plasters are placed onto their substrates. The reduced
water content of the mortar or finish facilitates commencement and overall rate of
carbonation. The quality of final materials is also dependent on skills of mason and their
response to this interaction. Subsequent cycles of watering and drying accelerate the stiffening
and strengthening of mortars.xxi
Understanding of the complex interaction between mortars and masonry units is very limited.
Design guidance for masonry materials reflects this through the low design material
properties often assumed. Knowledge of the longer-term movement properties of lime
mortared masonry is in its infancy. Although there is much evidence that lime mortared
masonry is more adept at responding to movements, there is little scientific evidence to
support formal incorporation of this in the modern design codes. Improving our overall
understanding will reduce the high factors of safety inherent in masonry design codes,
ultimately improving competitiveness.
The hardening of a mortar is a combination of the hydration of the hydraulic phase (if present)
combined with the carbonation of the air binder phasesxxii. When preparing standardised
mortar prisms of 40x40x160 mm, on the one hand the dimensions of the samples are very
well fitting with an operational execution of the test but show little resemblance with the real
dimension of the mortar in the masonry. On the other hand the mortars will harden in a total

different environment as they will do in masonry. The moulded prisms cannot exchange water
or moisture with the bricks like mortars in a masonry wall do.
Standards postulate to store the mortar samples the first 7 days at a temperature of 20C in a
95% relative humidity condition which raise a concern that during this time no or low
carbonation take place. The preparation as well as the storage of lab made mortars is different
than the preparation and storage of mortar in masonry, i.e. it and so do not represent the real
state and conditions of a mortar used as render or as masonry mortar.xxiii
Furthermore there is a wide variety of different binders: hydraulic, latent hydraulic,
pozzolanic and air hardening binders.
The hydraulic binders will react with and under water by building up a microstructure of
calcium-silicate-hydrate (CSH) phases. The latent hydraulic binders like granulated blast
furnace slag need an initial accelerator (mostly calcium hydroxide) for starting up the
hardening process. The pozzolanic binders like fine grained trass powder need a permanent
reaction partner, which is in inorganic binder systems mostly calcium hydroxide. The so
called air binders (lime putty) need moisture and CO2 from the atmosphere or from the used
water for their hardening process.xxiv
As discussed, air limes develop their strength much slower than hydraulic binders, so that
most mortar producers mix the air limes with hydraulic binders, latent hydraulic and/or
pozzolanic binders to increase initial strength.
The characteristic of mortars containing latent hydraulic or pozzolanic components is their
slow post setting. We measure the compressive strength after 28 days, but the mortar hardens
slowly over a period of months.
The strength used for calculation and the building of the masonry underestimates the final
state which is approximately a 40% higher in compressive strength.
The measurement of spread (slump) on a flow table is used as a reference test for mortar
workability. This test is based on gravity and behaviour under dynamic load. However, the
test does not take into account the difference in density, particle size and specific surface
between different binders as the aimed spread is defined independently of the difference of
rheological behaviour of such materials. Workability assessment through the flow table test is
maybe considered a good method to assess workability of pure sand-hydraulic based mortars
on which the standard has been calibrated but need to be reassessed for materials with
different rheology, such as air binder based materials.
Mortar compressive strength is used to determine design parameters for masonry strength,
including compressive strength and flexural strength. However, current test methods, using
steel moulds, do not reflect the differences in binding kinetics in the different masonry
systems. It also does not reflect the difference in mechanical behaviour of mortars when
subjected to the stresses they are carrying into the mortar/brick or block composite. However,
it explains why highly hydraulic bound mixtures are preferred over systems with other
binding characteristics.
PATHS FORWARD TOWARDS DURABLE AND SUSTAINABLE MASONRY
In simplest form lime mortars are comprised of three materials: (lime) binder; fine aggregates
(sand) and water. Modern mortars are more complex and a variety of additives can be
included in the binder formulation or directly into the mortar to improve initial and long-term
performance. Air-entrainers improve workability; set retarders extend use during
construction; pozzolans improve strength. Others can improve permeability or reduce water

absorption. Given the scope for variation in material constituents alone, the performance of
lime mortars varies significantly.
Composition plays a major role in the life performance of mortars and masonry. Material
composition and the mixing process define initial mortar workability. Workability influences
the filling of the joint by the mason and their subsequent permeability and bond. Material
composition influences the mortar porosity and will define a pore system which influences
rates of drying and hardeningxxv. The pore system also influences water transfer and the water
permeability which will impact the frost resistance.
The enhanced permeability of lime mortars is now widely recognised as beneficial to the
longer-term durability of masonry units.
The structural bond interface between mortar and bricks is governed by the composition of
the mortar and its relation to the mechanical properties of the mortar. Mortar properties
directly influence the mechanical properties of the masonry including deformation. All these
features will influence the behaviour of the masonry wall to its exposure to weather, to
differential settlements and response to earthquakes.
Characterisation of masonry system requires a holistic approach. Individual tests on building
bricks and solitary mortar is helpful for material specification and control, but can be little
benefit to understanding behaviour and modelling of the system if complex interactions
between elements are not included. Therefore, it is essential that the combination of mortar
and substrate is to be investigated also. To properly estimate the properties of each component
in the masonry testing procedures should take into account the real boundary conditions to
which they are subjected.
In order to be able to model behaviour, all aspects in the life of a fresh mortar are required.
These include: the workability of the mortar; the porosity of the system; the unit mortar
interface; the mechanical interaction between mortar and unit (tri-axial behaviour)xxvi,
shrinkage versus hardening; chemical reactions involved and the wetting and drying (as
cycles including leaching and self-healing) need to be addressed.
Frequently the Poisson ratio or coefficient being the ratio of dilation in direction
perpendicular to the dilation parallel to a unixial stress is used to model masonry. However,
this is strictly spoken only valid on a elastic material that does not suffer volumetric
strain/changes.
Pore collapse and shear band failure mechanisms are plastic types of deformation as they are
irreversible; the volumetric strain/change differs according to the stress state amongst others
according to the ratio of the confinement stress to the vertical stress. It has been demonstrated
to when this ratio is higher than 0.3 a pore collapse failure mode will reign over a shear band
failure mode. The latter resulting in volumetric strain increase while the latter leading to
volumetric strain decrease.
Proof of durable and sustainable masonry can be found all around in our historical city
centres. For historic building the argument is won on the basis of compatibility and
authenticity.xxvii Since lots of information for practitioners is availablexxviii for the use of
traditional recipe mortars, there are no excuses not to use lime-based materials in
conservation.
However, the link to modern contemporary materials is not so easy to make.
In current practice the apparent contradiction between long term durability and perception of
short term failure (e.g. freeze thaw, differential movements between mortar and substrate,
differences in the strength of mortar and substrate and micro cracking caused by shrinkage in

strong mortars) is an issue which needs attention. A good definition of durability is certainly
necessary and has to take into account the total life cycle of a building. It is not only a matter
of material parameters but also of mix design, building practice and curing. Good execution
needs to be assured by training and follow up. Knowledge about the preparation use and
curing are the key factors of durability. Durability needs to be challenged in its broadest form
namely that of a Life Cycle including the time between repair of a structure.
BRINGING THE RELEVANT PARAMETERS INTO STANDARDIZATION
In order establish its long term future masonry has to be characterized by its real behaviour.
As explained, todays modelling is based on basic assumptions in relation with simplified
testing. Calculation methods are based on models using uni-axial compressive strength where
as masonry strength is determined by is tri-axial behaviour and its flexural bond strengthxxix.
Regrettably, this approach is missing in EC6, where the masonry compressive strength is only
defined by the result of statistical evaluations of test data for different groups of masonryxxx.
This method goes back to the 1940s and is no longer appropriate. Some ideas for
mechanically based failure models have been presented in the past, but this research work
should be finalized and introduced in the practice.xxxi The basic work has been done by
Hilsdorfxxxii in 1965, who introduced in his formulae the friction between mortar and units
during compression failure due to the mortar deformation. Later on Berndtxxxiiideveloped this
fact further and described the strength of masonry on the basis of the cohesion and the angle
of inner friction of the mortar as well as of the tensile (splitting) strength of the units. This
was done exemplarily for masonry made by Saxon sandstone and lime or lime-cement mortar.
The formulae allowed to consider different mechanical characteristics on the basis of a failure
model.
The continuation of this fundamental work is required to identify and quantify the different
parameters that explain performance of walls on the basis of relevant performance
characteristics of the units and the mortar for instance compressive strength, the tensile
strength of units, flexural strength, elastic modulus, flexural bond strength and bond strength
due to water retention of the mortar. A failure model for mortars in masonry which takes into
account realistic and real behaviour in complex stress states can be developed and verified.
A cornerstone will be to develop reliable, reproducible and repeatable tests (e.g. flexural
strength) which are technically and commercially realistic and that reflect the actual failure
modes of the mortar in the joint and in the masonry.
In order to establish an appreciation of the long term performance and have a reliable
evaluation of the sustainability of masonry, durability tests (e.g. freeze-thaw; water
penetration) need to be considered which reflect performance in the masonry system under
realistic conservation procedures instead of on idealized hydraulic environments.
CONCLUSIONS
In todays preoccupation with energy efficiency, sustainability and durability, masonry is
facing crucial challenges. At the same time, the Eurocodes have introduced unified
engineering rules all over Europe for the design of masonry and for the evaluation of its
resistance to seismic loading.
n order to cope with these challenges, masonry understanding has to be fundamentally
reassessed. The failure mode of masonry in compression needs to be investigated in view of
the relation between the tensile strength of units and mortar towards the bond in the interface
between units and mortar.

The relevant product parameters such as bond need to be taken into account for factory
production control by the means of a reliable simple test.
Practice shows the need for the development of simple product property tests supplying data
to be used in the modelling of the strength of masonry in compression.
To the benefit of the modelling, the characterization of the masonry samples has to reflect as
closely as possible the real strengthening kinetics of the system.
It has to cover as well the contribution from the hydraulic phases as those from air binders.
Different gaps urge for more debate, collaboration, and research to eventually lead to new
(types of) standards within a holistic approach.
Work will need to cover interaction between masonry elements and representative testing.
Strength, deformability, durability of masonry needs to be defined by the interaction between
the units and mortar; understanding compatible requirements which may differ for the type of
application (bedding mortar, render ) will help to develop a durable design.
The differential hardening kinetics depending on the composition of the binder are influenced
by the conditioning environment and impact long-term properties and durability of the mortar
in the masonry application.
Realistic and reliable tests are needed which are adapted to the reality of masonry
construction and the interaction between mortar and brick. Extrapolation of (standardized)
tests from the field of concrete should be evaluated cautiously; this is of importance regarding
for example measuring workability. Maturing conditions need to go beyond the quality testing
for idealized hydraulic performance and need to have realist humidity conditions and timing.
The Poisson ratio is strictly spoken only valid on a elastic material that does not suffer
volumetric strain/changes. Pore collapse and shear band failure mechanisms are plastic types
of deformation as they are irreversible. At higher ratios pore collapse failure mode will reign
over a shear band failure mode.
Further understanding and modelling could lead to adapted calculation methods.
Even if it is possible to develop a reliable short term durability test to simulate the
performance of our products, traditional lasting constructions, have fostered experience which
should be used in modern technique.
If realistic modelling, taking into account the actual behaviour of the entire system is
developed and appropriate products are used, the future buildability of masonry will be
assured.

REFERENCES
i

Bibliographic study on mortars DTI 2009 commissioned by Eula available on request or via www.eula.eu
Hendrickx, Roel (Ph.D. 2009) The Adequate Measurement of the Workability of Masonry Mortar, Ph.D.
dissertation, Civil Engineering Department, K.U.Leuven, 213 p., Oct. 2009, ISBN 978-94-6018-136-8
iii
Cultrone et al, Aging of Lime Putty: Effect on Traditional Lime Mortar Carbonation, American Ceramic
Society, 1999
iv
Klein D. et al.: The influence of calcium hydroxide on the plasticity of lime putties; Proceedings of the 2nd
Historic Mortar Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, 22.-24.09.2010
v
J.I. Davison, National Research Council of Canada, Division of Building Research, Ottawa, Ont. K1A0R6
Canada: Effect of air content on durability of cement-lime mortars
vi
E. Kjaer : The influence of air entraining agents in mortar on properties of masonry; Brittish Masonry Society
Proceedings n4, 1990
vii
Hendrickx, Roel (Ph.D. 2009) The Adequate Measurement of the Workability of Masonry Mortar, Ph.D.
dissertation, Civil Engineering Department, K.U.Leuven, 213 p., Oct. 2009, ISBN 978-94-6018-136-8
ii

viii

Green, M. et al, The effects of lime and admixtures on the water-retaining properties of cement mortars,
Cement and Concrete Research 29 (1999), pp 1743-1747 (Bibliography No. 55)
ix
Boynton R. S., Gutschick K. A., Strength considerations in mortar and masonry, Masonry Mortar Technical
notes 2 (1984) (Bibliography No. 220)
x
Tsimas, S., Raikos, K., Lime, an irreplaceable mortar constituent, ZKG International, 1995 (6), pp 350-356
(Bibliography No.161)
xi
Berndt, E.:, TU Dresden, Chair of Structural Design, Zur Druck- und Schubfestigkeit von Mauerwerk experimentell nachgewiesen an Strukturen an Elbesandstein. Bautechnik 73 (1996) 4, pp. 222-234
xii
Pavia S. et al, Mechanical properties of clay brick masonry bound with hydraulic limes and hydrated calcium
lime 6th IMC 2010
xiii
Hayen, R., et al.,Triaxial interaction of natural stone, brick and mortar in masonry constructions. In:
Schueremans L. (Eds.), Building Materials and Building technology to Preserve the Built Heritage, WTA
Schriftenreihe (pp. 333-352), 2009
xiv
Cizer, O. et al, Blended cement-lime mortars for conservation purposes-Microstructure and strength
development, Structural Analysis of Historic Construction, pp 965-972 (Bibliography No. 178)
xv
Wesoowska et al, Compatibility of masonry components from gas permeability tests - 6th IMC 2010
xvi
Smits A., Grgoire Y.,et al, Research concerning the durability assessment of lime masonry mortars,
HMC2008
xvii
Van Balen K, Carbonation reaction of lime, kinetics at ambient temperature. Cement and concrete research
35, 2005
xviii
Arizzi, A (Ph.d. 2010) Granada university (Spain) Design of lime mortars for their use as rendering material
in architectural heritage and modern constructions.
xix
Kubica J. et al, Mortar and masonry, 8th ISSM, 2008
xx
Kjaer E , The influence of suction from masonry units upon the strength of the hardened masonry mortar,
IB2MAC, 1991
xxi
Ball R. J. et al, The measurement of water transport in porous materials using impedance spectroscopy, J.
Phys D: Appl Phys, 43, 2010, 105503 doi:10.1088/0022-3727/43/10/105503.
xxii
Cizer O (PHD 2009), KUL Competition between carbonation and hydration on the hardening of calcium
hydroxide and calcium silicate binders
xxiii
Schubert, P. et al, RWTHAachen, Institut fr Bauforschung, ZUr Ermittlung der Druckfestigkeit von
Mauermrtel in der Fuge - Fugendruckfestigkeit. In: Mauerwerk-Kalender 24 (1999). Ed. P. Funk. Ersnts &
Sohn, Berlin, pp. 707 - 727.
xxiv
Middendorf B. et al., The new groups of Formulated Limes (FL) of lime standard EN 459 bane or boon?,
Proceeding of the 2nd Historic Mortars Conference HMC2010 and RILEM TC 203-RHM Repair mortars for
historic masonry, RILEM Proceedings PRO 78, e-ISBN: 978-2-35158-112-4, 2010 Edition,22-24 September
2010, Prague, Czech Republic,. pp. 1087 - 1097
xxv
Schueremans et al (Belgium) L. Effect of mortar type and workmanship on the behaviour of masonry under
uniaxial compression, IB2Mac 2008
xxvi
Van Balen K et al: Weaker can be better:learning from the past contributes to sustainable construction
technology with lime : International Building Lime Symposium 2005
xxvii
Forster A.M., Hot lime mortars: a current perspective. Journal of Architectural Conservation, Volume 3,
Number 10, Nov. 2004, Pp 7-27
xxviii
Hughes, J.J.; Valek, J.: Mortars in Historic Buildings. Published by Historic Scotland, Edinburgh 2003,
ISBN 1903570824
xxix
Walker P. et al, Flexural bond strength development of brickwork using natural hydraulic lime mortar
IB2mac 2008
xxx
Mann, W., TU Darmstadt, Faculty of Architecture, Chair of Building Structures, Druckfestigkeit von
Mauerwerk : Eine statische Auswertung von Versuchsergebnissen in geschlossener Darstellung mit Hilfe von
Potenzfunktionen. In: Mauerwerk-Kalender 8 (1983). Ed. P. Funk. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, pp. 687 - 699.
xxxi
Jger, W. et al: TU Dresden, Faculty of Architecture, Chair of Structural Design, Mechanische Festigkeit
von Mauerwerk. In: Mauerwerk - Bemessung nach DIN 1053-100. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 2010, pp. 123 - 180.
xxxii
Hilsdorf, H.: Untersuchungen ber die Grundlagen der Mauerwerksfestigkeit. Bericht Nr. 40.
Materialprfungsamt fr das Bauwesen der Technischen Hochschule Mnchen. Mnchen 1965.
xxxiii
Berndt, E.; s. xi.