The Smeaton
Project: Affecting
Properties of Lime-Based Mortars
JEANNE MARIE TEUTONICO, IAIN McCAIG, COLIN BURNS, JOHN ASHURST
The broad objective of the
Smeaton Projectis to contributeto
the understandingof the character-
istics and behavior of lime-based
mortarsfor the repairand conser-
vation of historic buildings. This
article presents the first phase
results of a joint research program
of ICCROM, EnglishHeritage,and
BournemouthUniversity.
32
Factors
the
Preface
The first phase of the Smeaton
Project was intended to be a range-
finding exercise, which would
1) assist the project team in refining
the methods used for preparation,
cure, and testing of samples and
2) establish some trends so as to bet-
ter define and limit future phases of
the research. In general, these objec-
tives were achieved.
However, the authors wish to
emphasize the very preliminary
nature of the findings reported in this
paper. They are published primarily
to promote dialogue and, perhaps,
more widespread collaboration in the
future. In no way should the results
be considered definitive or con-
clusive.
The paper should, thus, be read as
an exploratory exercise that will be
used to focus and refine future work,
rather than as a conclusive scientific
study. In the first phase, insufficient
samples were produced to statistical-
ly validate trends. The consistency
of results was also affected by both
the method of preparation and cure
of the samples. Problems with
demoulding and cutting of the large
samples used in Phase I, for example,
meant that certain samples were not
available for all test procedures.
Based on this experience, both prepa-
ration and cure methods have been
altered in Phase II, which is now
underway.
Similarly, there is controversy
about some of the test procedures
utilized. In particular, the salt crys-
tallization test that is still widely
used to assess durability in the U.K.
is no longer recognized by the
Canadian Standards Association and
is currently under review by ASTM.
There is much discussion regarding
this test and freeze-thaw durability
tests in general on a European and
international level. Again, it was
decided to utilize the salt crystalliza-
tion test largely to assess its suitabil-
ity and to establish some basis for
comparison of samples. Modifica-
tions have been made in the experi-
mental design of Phases II and III
based on this experience.
Finally, it was impossible, in this
very preliminary stage of research, to
consider all variables that might have
affected the behavior of the mortars
tested or to explain all mechanisms
observed. This is the nature of scien-
tific enquiry. It is hoped that some
questions may be answered through
more detailed laboratory studies later
in the project as well as through
comparison with long-term results
observed on the exposure site and in
field testing.
Introduction
Interest (or perhaps renewed interest)
in the use of lime based materials -
mortars, grouts, plasters, renders and
paints - for use in the repair and
maintenance of historic buildings
and monuments has been growing
steadily in the international conser-
vation community for the past 15 to
20 years. To a large extent, current
practices have evolved through trial
and error informed by only limited
scientific and academic research.
Although there is a significant body
of experience in the use of lime-based
materials in certain parts of the
world, it is apparent that practice is
not always matching theory and that
there are still many partially un-
solved problems.

The characteristicsof mortarsmay
be definedin severalways. In practi-
cal terms,the ones that concernus
most are:
1. Of the freshmortar
* workability
* moisturecontent
* rate of hardening
shrinkage
? up in responseto the need to address
2. Of the hardenedmortar
* appearance
* moistureand air content
* permeability
* mechanicalproperties
including
* adhesion
* abilityto tolerate
movement
strength
? rial and practiceparametersthat
* durability (resistanceto dam-
age by frost and salts)
These,togetherwith the chemical
propertiesof the mortar,must clearly
be compatiblewith existinghistoric
materialsand appropriateto the con-
text in which they are to be used.
The factorsaffectingthe charac-
teristicsand behaviorof lime mortars
are derivednot solely from the mor-
tar constituentsbut also from the
techniquesused in processingthe
ingredientsand in preparingand
placingthe mortars. The properties
of materialsin contactwith the mor-
tar and ambientenvironmentalcon-
ditions at the time of placingand
hardeningof the mortarare also
influential.
In summary,thereare probably
threecategoriesof problemsthat
need to be addressed.These are :
1. Mortar analysis and the com-
ponents of historic mortars
2. Performance criteria and com-
ponents of specification mortars
3. Mortar preparation and utiliza-
tion
The SmeatonProject- a joint
researchprogramof ICCROM(the
InternationalCentrefor the Study
of the Preservationand the
Restorationof CulturalProperty),
EnglishHeritage(the Historic
Buildingsand Monuments
Commissionfor England),and
BournemouthUniversity- was set
such issuesin a systematicway
throughboth laboratoryand field
research.
The broadobjectiveof the
SmeatonProjectis to contributeto
the understandingof the characteris-
tics and behaviorof lime-basedmor-
tars by attemptingto identify- and
where possiblequantify- the mate-
affecttheirproperties.
Specificemphasishas beenplaced
in the first stage of the researchon
materialand practiceparameters
that will improvethe durabilityand
frost-resistanceof lime-basedmor-
tars in harshclimates. It is hoped
that the researchwill ultimatelylead
to the productionof practicalguide-
lines for specifying,preparing,and
utilizingconservationmortarsin a
wide varietyof regionalconditions.
The name of the projectrefersto
John Smeaton,a mathematical
instrumentmakerand engineer,who
in 1756, afterexperimentingwith
limes and additivesfor "waterbuild-
ing" (mortarcapableof hardening
underwater),decidedto lay the
coursesof stone for the Eddystone
lighthouse(20 miles off the coast of
Devon, England)in a mixtureof
pozzolanafrom Italyand Liaslime
from the southwest of England. His
report on this work1 was the first of
many studies preceding the current
project that, in a sense, brought
together England and Italy in seek-
ing to identify and quantify poz-
zolanic additives for optimum per-
formance.
THE SMEATONPROJECT 33
TOCURRENT
BACKGROUND
PROJECT
The Smeaton Project grew out of
experimental work begun by English
Heritage in 1986 to identify suitable
mortars for use in the conservation
of Hadrian's Wall (Fig. 1) in the
north of England. Sections of this
Roman wall are on high ground and
exposed to severe weather condi-
tions.
In the recent past, relatively strong
mortars gauged with portland
cement had been used for pointing
and repair. This mortar was itself
sufficiently durable to withstand the
extreme exposure to which the
Roman wall is subjected but con-
tributed to the deterioration of the
wall in a number of ways that are
typical where cement is used in con-
tact with weaker and more porous
materials.
These deleterious effects include:
1. Concentrating cycles of wet-
ting and drying through the stone
faces because water cannot escape
through the relatively impervious
pointing mortar
2. Trapping water, thereby caus-
ing leaching of original core mortar
and increasing the risk of frost dam-
age
3. Increasing the likelihood of
mechanical damage to stone on
removal of high-strength mortar in
the course of maintenance works
Recognition of these problems led
to an attempt to exclude all cement
in mortars used on the Roman wall.
However, early trials with lime mor-
tars were not completely successful
because the mortars had inadequate
frost resistance. While their behavior
as a sacrificial material was techni-
cally satisfactory, such mortars had
to be replaced at a frequency that
was not economically sustainable for
English Heritage.
34 APT BULLETIN

.......
...

-" ":..:. .. •.. .....:

....
• • • • • .,.....
aft.,....
~a~8......:.. ?~'?i ," . . ,
Nii-.
.. .... ... ..
. . .. . . :...""
....
.. ....i?••. .. . ...... :...

. . . ...
:"'
,ji. '."•• :: .:
:.
.
-
.... ... ." -: . . .. . =
.•: ::.
5-i
.,. , ? :. " , . "
.. .o: ,r
Vin

I;
"
?F .. :, .: ? .
.i .:. ki
,,q
4'..- .
. .+.
' , %:" ; k
........ .-.• :,
?1 • ,, ,.,..
.•...•1
?i ?
•:2 .
. ..
•
• •, • ..
":.. . . : ,, ?- ..*r
cl
"'1• . ", , " :. ,:".. , -..;?"~ ??-:4 -. • . ::", tA
. .: . .' :!...... . .• . ., ..: .:. . . ..•- ... . . .
':•.• ??i'
,
~ ~~ ~ ? ~' . ~ :,: ~ ?? ~ ~' ~•:",~ ~
" ?
?,,, ., ...~ •
? - ,,?:
"~:
, ..+ o
•?
, . , ,?:?......• •
"... :'••:?
.. "...,"
:. :,::•
.. "'? % , ,•. ?.<?:::
!..',
:••.•:
<.
...
....
..... .b , ,•.
... ....
.. . ••?--•.."....•;
. .
;, . .. ... ..... i
.;. . .... ..,
• ' - .. ,,
,?.".,
Ir:. ,L.: . .

Fig.1. Hadrian'sWall,generalview.

MortarTrialsat Hadrian'sWall This exercisewas designedprimarily obtainedfrom a local manufacturer)

to observethe comparativeperfor- and HTI Powder(High-Temperature
A testing program was thus initiated
manceof the bindingmaterialsin the Insulant-refractory brickdust2),both
to develop more appropriate conser- mortarsand was not intendedat that crushedto pass a 300 micronsieve.
vation mortars for the site.
As a first step, a number of joint- stage to simulatesite practice. The sand type and gradingwas con-
The trial mortarswere groupedin sistentthroughoutthe trialmixes
ing and core mortars were sampled threecategoriesaccordingto the type and conformedto relevantBritish
from areas of the Roman wall
of the principalbindermaterial: standardsfor buildingsands.
known to contain original material.
Two 150 mm and two 50 mm
These were found to contain lime, GroupA: non-hydrauliclimes cubeswere preparedof each sample
crushed tile, crushed sandstone, (both putty and dryhydrate) in the springof 1986. Afteran initial
sand, and kiln debris. The binder: GroupB: hydrauliclimes curingperiod of two weeks, the larg-
aggregate ratio ranged from 1:1 to er mortarcubeswere placedon
1:3. Traces of animal fat, probably GroupC: portlandcements
exposureracks (Fig. 2) in two loca-
tallow, were also observed in some of The mortarswere mixed in vary- tions nearthe Romanwall. The two
the samples. ing proportionsof binder:aggregate smallersets of cubes were storedin a
The next phase was a program of with and without pozzolanicand air- ventilatedfrost-freeenvironmentand
comparative durability tests on a entrainingadditives. Principalpoz- were subjectedto the British
range of 120 mortar mixes com- zolanic additiveswere ordinarybrick ResearchEstablishment(BRE)salt
menced at Hadrian's Wall in 1986. dust (essentiallycrushedfacingbrick
crystallisationtest3in spring,1987.
 THE SMEATONPROJECT 35

added to the standard 1:3 mix.

This trend was a bit disturbing,
":?1~%
:. ":*"
"W6
given the widespread tendency in the
UK to add small amounts of cement
Al ?? ..
to lime mortars in conservation
X . . work. However, the observation did
. ..X........ .., • . seem to be consistent with laboratory
. ....w... . .. .
:
xx
• 4 • ?: results that had been achieved in an
7.
...:,.
,.,..
.,..
.i.. :,i: ??.
." -•a~~i:'i~
...........I~u
? ?
.... ..
earlier Swedish study published by
. ', Ingmar Holmstrom in 1977.6
,-~... .... ...
i46i ~ ii?
3. In the mortarsbasedon
hydrauliclime, resultswere extreme-
... .,•-."f'':

•
ANa .
= .
i•:•i
.... " " '=
'$
Fig.2. Mortartrials,Hadrian'sWall.
The samples exposed on site were
visually assessed for signs of break-
down after each winter period, utiliz-
ing a simple A - E code to describe
the degree of deterioration. The letter
A described mortars which showed
no deterioration; E indicated total
disintegration. The letters B, C, D
and various letter combinations were
used to designate levels of deteriora-
tion in between these two extremes.
In 1988 selected mortars were used
in the consolidation of small trial
sections of the wall. The purpose of
these trials can be summarized as
follows:
1. To evaluate the practical issues
involved in the preparation of lime
mortars both on site and at a remote
depot
2. To evaluate such issues as
workability and ease of handling in
the use of lime mortars on site and to
record any problems encountered
3. To provide realistic and varied
test sites for the long-term moni-
toring of performance of the trial
mortars
. ."
"
"
i.
dii i?
I
P'
,,..
A joint inspection of the exposed
cubes and of the trial sections of
wall in 1989 posed many questions
but also indicated trends, some of
them surprising given assumptions
about lime mortars and some stan-
dard conservation practice at the
time. Similar trends were observed
in a report produced after a five-year
exposure period,4 which compared
field results to those observed in the
laboratory tests. These trends
include:
1. In the mortarsbasedon non-
hydrauliclime, the best performerss
were the mixturesof lime:sand:brick
dust in proportions1:3:1 (Fig.3,
samplesA2B, A2D).
In all cases, the standard brick
dust performed significantly better
and more consistently than the HTI
Powder (refractory brick dust).
2. The worst performerwas the
mixtureof lime and sand, to which a
1/10 part of white cementhad been
added (Fig.3, SampleA3D).
In fact, all of the lime:cement
mixtures performed poorly until at
least 1/2 part of cement had been
ly inconsistent,dependingverymuch
k on the type of hydrauliclime utilized
in the mix (Fig.4).
Those made with a buff hydraulic
lime (Samples B1 A-D) performed
reasonably well; those mixed with a
white hydraulic lime (Samples B1 E-
H) showed severe deterioration. In
the case of the buff hydraulic lime,
performance was markedly improved
by the addition of one part standard
brick dust (Samples B3 A-D). And
again, the standard brick dust was
more successful in improving the
durability of these mortars than
equivalent parts of the refractory
brick dust (Samples B2 A-D).
Clearly, there was a need to try to
quantify some of these empirical
observations and to determine the
effect of various factors on perfor-
mance. The overall framework of
the Smeaton Project was, in fact,
designed in response to the questions
raised by that site inspection and the
frustration inherent in trying to
specify materials based on the
observed results.
THESMEATONPROJECT
The Smeaton Project is to be carried
out in phases that will test a variety
of material and practical parameters
over a five-year period. A general
outline and schedule for the project
is given in Appendix A.
Scope of Work
Given the questions raised at
Hadrian's Wall and in the subsequent
36 APT BULLETIN

EXHAM1 SALT
Keyto Figures3 and 4
MMoeTA HOUSE3'rD
h--MOITA-
TEEAELNCI CON.STJTUENTS
1 A 1 5 CYTALUS-
NUAbes : ATIOrTEST Mortar Reference Numbers
Nue _-e -l Yt5 R Y e Lo
AIA 31 D E CDD bWT-. Group Al: based on lime: sand
1 Group A2: based on lime: sand plus brick
A1 23P 1cD ,5
dust or HTI powder
AlP jZYzI I I C D 41-5
AIE i2
2 - ME E coDe 33.3 Group A3: based on lime: sand plus ordi-
AIF 2 i 1 Dom
) 3
14 nary portland cement or white cement
DE D G P
Group Bi: based on hydraulic lime: sand
A2A 3 1 1
1 A As A
4.0
Group B2: based on hydraulic lime: sand
AZ
AZC 1 AcA c 14. & plus HTI powder
AA A AP 2-4
AZP 3 1 Group B3: based on hydraulic lime: sand
_IVAe.P 37-0
A2F A2,
31W..AA& A 5 7.5 plus brick dust
A2 3 I1 V2 A b so 35-1
Mortar Constituents
3 1 s A P AGG Aggregate (sand)
A3P os
, .. PLQ Lime putty from Quicklime
PLH Lime putty from Hydrated
Lime
A31
AP 3 i 'Ao14 A Ie bc
C di '-
c oI!l *ataldisifejrathn
7vf LH Hydrated Lime (powder)
/
A3F 31 /z
AAs A 8 30-1a HL Hydrated hydraulic Lime
(buff)
HLW Hydrated hydraulic Lime -
White
* Samplemuch disintegrated
OPC Ordinary Portland Cement
WOPC White Portland Cement
SSample much disintegrated
HTI High Temperature Insulant
Fig.3. Results, Hadrian'sWalltrials,non-hydraulic
limes. refractory brick dust
BD Brick Dust
MOeTAV o
tAeTAZ CON5TITUENTS l5SGTD SALT
e(XHJAM -
ttV-JC~
FE04CEICctT - - 1 5ATION
A5.L5 TEST Exposure Sites on Hadrian's Wall
iL) t 0 Y
_y ey~ Y wrT.LoW3J Hexham
•E
Housesteads
51A 2 I- -I AA ob A A6 33 4
sib ) A1 A-S - AS 34 S5
eIC 4 1 - I A b C 34.7
p
__D 5 1 A _
CD 42Z3
___ 2z I Qco PC DE DB 34'7

4 1 C D
CDOILP 5-4
....
1~14 5 1 CP o c. D 45t-S

2/ I p c BC 4* 1
92A 1 1
&20 3 I I I PC JC scD
40"-2
zeC 41 I I CP sC~ c 44.0
1 1 ac P
,5
b21P _s.G
26
,Z Z I I
z& &BesC -5S
52F 3 1 A be.9c
62G 4 I It aI CC2•4., 42-4
1I I1 SC- aW Pa
a c. c _C 47,09
47
" ' 'I *.9
1,_•. A A A A 10-5
.3A 3 i
A1 I

4 I 1 A AA A 23*.
pp
~C.. ,1 I A & 4

5 I_A A 9
A
AAp 442
3. 1-

Fig.4. Results, Hadrian'sWalltrials,hydrauliclimes.


literature search, it was decided to
focus the initial phases of the
research on the effects of set addi-
tives, specifically brick dust and
cements, on the performance of
lime:sand mortars.
The first phase, completed in
August, 1992, had two main objec-
tives:
1. To confirm trends observed in
the field and in the literature regard-
ing brick dusts and cements so as to
develop parameters and limit vari-
ables in future phases
In terms of brick dusts, an attempt
was made to understand the effects
of such factors as optimum particle
size, firing temperature, and propor-
tion of dust in the mix.
In terms of cement, it was hoped
to confirm the trends shown at
Hadrian's Wall and in the Swedish
experiments indicating that small
additions of cement to lime:sand
mortars actually reduce the perfor-
mance of the mortar.
2. To develop appropriate meth-
ods for the preparation and testing of
samples to obtain useful results
regarding the established variables.
Since most mortar test procedures
have been developed for cement-
based mortars, this was an important
area of investigation
Phase I
Materials and preparation of samples.
A series of 34 mortars were tested in
PhaseI (AppendixB). All were
basedon a coarsestuff of one part
lime putty to three parts sand by vol-
ume, modified by the addition of
brick dusts and/or cements.7 In gen-
eral, the mix types fell into three
categories:
Group A: based on lime:sand
coarse stuff plus various amounts of
four different brick dusts in particle
sizes from 75 to 300 microns.
Group B: based on lime:sand
coarse stuff plus varying amounts of
THE SMEATONPROJECT 37
.I .. Ai-i ~:
% . .,o ...
!,
?? .
?8.
? •
.. ..•,
'1 .'
.C
.:?
. . .... ... ' ,., - .
.... ,. . . .......
. .,..-
......?
. .....
- .. . ...
..
:, ' %.
?'?= :.:=i,'=::• :...,: : ,,i••
?: : i. .".
"
, .,.•?
: ".
.'.
'
• ::t =;. ..
::.•::•:
:'•",'•:: ? . ,., .• .:•..•.= . . . .
Fig.5. Sample mortarblock,Phase I.
either white ordinary portland After this curing period, the
cement or sulphate resisting cement. blocks were cut to size for the vari-
ous tests which were carried out by
Group C: based on lime:sand
coarse stuff plus brick dust and the Weathering Sciences Section of
white ordinary portland cement. the Building Research Establishment
under contract to English Heritage.
All test mixes were prepared by
English Heritage. Initially, lime Test procedures. The following tests
putty, obtained by slaking lump were performed:
lime, and sand were blended with
excess water in a "Rollpanit" roller 1. On the fresh mortar:
pan mixer. The resultant coarse Moisture content. Samples of
stuff was then stored for a period of each wet mix were placed in a small
two months in humid conditions. plastic bag and weighed. The sample
At the time of sample prepara- bags were then slit open and placed
tion, the seasoned coarse stuff was in a drying oven at 60'C until con-
reworked using a small "Mixal" stant mass was achieved. The differ-
mixer and by hand. Brick dusts and ence in weight was used to determine
cements were added in the form of a the moisture content of the mix,
slurry at this stage. expressed as a percentage of the mass
Where necessary, further mea- of the oven-dry sample.
sured amounts of water were then Stiffening rate. This was deter-
added to the mixes before moulding mined at intervals of 15 minutes, two
to achieve a consistency suitable for hours, five hours and 24 hours after
bedding as judged by English placing using a Stanhope-Seta pen-
Heritage master craftsmen. etrometer (Fig. 6). The penetrometer
The prepared mixes were then measures in 0.1 mm units how far a
hand compacted into wooden weighted cone penetrates the mortar.
moulds to create large rectangular
2. On the hardened mortar:
mortar blocks (600 x 100 x 100
mm) (Fig. 5). These blocks were Compressive strength. Two 100
removed from their moulds after one mm cubes were cut from each prism
week and then placed in an environ- and tested on a standard 200 kN
compressive test machine. Before
mentally controlled room at 25" C
and 90% RH for 120 days. testing, the samples were immersed
38 APT BULLETIN

placed in aluminium trays containing cycles of the salt crystallization test

approximately70 grammesof calci- on one of the samples.
um chloride. The edgesof the sam- In addition to these laboratory
plesweresealedto thesidesof the tests, 33 cubes were placed on a
tray with hot wax, leaving only the rack on the BRE exposure site.
~
,,,.,..:?.:.:.••
I 100 mm2 face free to transfer water Before exposure, samples were dried
I •:..!:
K ....
vapor. The samplesin theirtrays in an oven at 600 C to constant
.... were then weighedand placedin a weight and the physical dimensions
relativehumiditycabinetmaintained measured. It is intended to measure
? ....... ?
'• at 75% RH. The increase in weight and weigh the samples at intervals of
was measured and plotted against six months (Fig. 8).
time until no furtherincreasein
weight was observed. Discussion of results
48' L- Depth of carbonation. This was
established by spraying the freshly Moisture content: Mortars had a
cut surface of the sample with phe- relatively consistent water content, in
a range from 15 to 19% (Table 1).
nolphthalein (a standard pH indica-
:i:
Above all, this result is an indication
tor). The sample turns purple when
:
the alkalinity of the sample remains that the skill of the craftsman is an
.
.
greater than pH 9 to 9.5 leaving the important factor in any conservation
r?

'"'I .........~ss~
.
:
i carbonated areas colorless. operation.
Sodium sulphate crystallization There are no obvious trends, other
test. This is the standard test used by than a general reduction in the
the BRE to approximate freeze-thaw amount of water added to the
lime:sand:brick dust mixes as the
cycles and provide an indication of
the durability of a stone or mortar. brick dust size is reduced. This may
Four 50 mm mortar cubes of each be due to the fact that the larger
Fig.6. Penetrometerused to test stiffening
rateof fresh mortar. brick dust particles tend to function
sample were subjected to 15 cycles
of: as porous particulates (which absorb

1. soaking in a 21.5% sodium

in water at 20?C for at least 24
sulphate solution for two hours
hours. The load rate was 0.03
N/mm2/s. 2. drying in an oven for 16 to 20
Water vapor permeability. This hours at 105" C.
was measuredusing a modifiedver- The weight loss after the 15 cycles Table 1. Moisture Content
sion of BS 3177:1959. Samples was used to rank the different mor- Sorted by increasingcontent
measuring 25 x 100 x 100 mm were tars. Fig. 7 shows the results of 15 Sample Moisture Sample Moisture
No. Content No. Content
a4/1 15.11 a17/1 17.02
a8/1 15.25 a9/1 17.07
bl/1 15.34 all/1 17.11
b5/1 15.62 a7/1 17.11
a6/1 15.74 c4/1 17.18
*. a10/1 16.21 a13/1 17.27
k.
Pol a14/1 16.22 a21/1 17.38
..i •.
~ a3/1 16.47 b7/1 17.40
'-/,;
idip
•r
a18/1 16.55 b3/1 17.42
9??:"+ al5/1 16.61 a25/1 17.54
1: .
a16/1 16.72 a23/1 17.61
'..
....* ' • ".
. . :
. . ..: " • .. . :. . '
a5/1 16.74 b4/1 17.62
: " ..
• ..,*:. ::^. .. .
. :.
cl/1 16.74 a2/1 17.80
b2/1 16.81 a22/1 18.27
a24/1 16.81 al/1 18.42
c2/1 16.89 a19/1 18.84
a12/1 16.91 a20/1 19.30
Fig.7. Sample cubes after 15 cycles of the salt crystallization
test.
 THE SMEATON PROJECT 39

the mortarsafter 15 minutes,proba-

bly due to the variationin watercon-
tent and working.
...... The mortarsmade with one of the
F
...
...
.......... lower-firedbrickdusts did tend to
hardenslightlymore rapidlythan the
other lime:sand:brick dust mortars.
In all of these mortars,however,
.
:4m. the shape of the curveis relatively
similarand probablyrepresentative
of the numerousfactorswhich lead
....
.... - to stiffeningin lime-basedmortars
(Fig.9). Initially, the mortarsimply
tends to revertto the stiffnessit pos-
sessed beforere-workingon site.
Subsequentstiffeningis causedby
loss of water and, eventually,by
carbonation.
By comparison,all mortarsfrom
groupsB and C (containingcement
Fig.8. Exposurerack,BuildingResearchEstablishment,Garston. or cementand brickdust) hardened
aftertwo hours . It is interestingto
note, however,that this initialspeed
in stiffeningbore no relationshipto
water in mixing),a factorwhich will andthewidenumberof variables. the eventualstrengthand durability
be discussedfurtherin this paper. However,certaingeneraltrendscan achievedafter 120 days of cure.
Stiffeningrate. It is difficultto be observed Carbonationdepth. Thistest was
discernsubtletrendsregardingstiff- Regardingthelime:sand:brick not expectedto establishtrends,but
ening rate, due to the limitednumber dustmortars,therewerewidevaria- simplyto providesome ideaof the
of samplestestedin this firstphase tionsin thedepthof penetration
of valueswhichcould be expectedunder

260 -
240 -
- Table2. CarbonationDepth
220 Sorted on increasingdepth
200 -
SampleCarbonationSampleCarbonation
180 - No. Depth(mm) No. Depth(mm)
160- A 12 b7/1 0- 1 a15/1 10.0
140 A- 11 b5/1 5.0 c2/1 11.0
a5/1 6.0 cl/1 11.0
D120 A7 b4/1 6.0 all/1 11.0
E 100 a7/1 7.0 a18/1 11.0
a8/1 7.0 a17/1 11.0
C 80 A8 bl/1 7.0 b2/1 12.0
a10/1 8.0 c4/1 12.0
a9/1 8.0 a6/1 12.0
40 al/1 8.0 a16/1 13.0
A 10 a4/1 8.0 a20/1 10 - 17
20 - a12/1 8- 12 a22/1 14.0
a24/1 10.0 a23/1 15.0
a3/1 10.0 a19/1 15.0
0.00 10.00 20.00 a2/1 10.0 b3/1 15.0
Hours a13/1 10.0 a21/1 17.0
a14/1 10.0

Fig.9. Stiffeningratecurve: Samples A7-12.

40 APT BULLETIN
the established curing conditions. As
seen in Table 2, carbonation depth
varied from 0 to 17.00 mm.
Compressive strength. Here, the
tests (Table 3) confirmed the trends
seen at Hadrian's Wall and in the
Swedish experiments reported on by
I. Holmstrom in 1977.8
In general, the lime mortars con-
taining a higher proportion of brick
dust were stronger than those con-
taining a lower proportion.
For three of the brick dusts,
strength appears to increase with
reduction in particle size. This trend
is more apparent for the higher brick
dust to coarse stuff ratio (Fig. 10:
samples A6, A18, A24).
As seen at Hadrian's Wall, the
compressive strengths of the mortars
with small quantities of white ordi-
nary portland cement or sulphate
resisting cement (Fig. 10: samples B3,
B4, B7) were generally lower than
those of lime mortars with brick
dust. This was the case until a ratio
of 1:12 (cement:coarse stuff) or
approximately 1/4:1:3 (cement:lime:
sand) was reached.
The lime:cement:brick dust mor-
tars (C group) were all stronger than
the mortars of 1:12 cement:coarse
stuff.
9.00 -
8.00 -
7.00
S6.00o
Ss.00oo
4.00-
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Sample No.
Fig. 10. Results: Compressive strength tests.
Water vapor permeability (WVP).
As would have been expected, the
WVP of the lime mortars with white
ordinary portland cement or sulphate-
resisting cement seem to decrease
with increasing cement content.
The mortars with the highest
white ordinary portland cement or
sulphate-resisting cement content
(samples B1 and B5) had lower WVP
than all the lime mortars with brick
dust additives (Table 4).
Among the lime:brick dust mor-
tars, there is some indication that
WVP decreases with increasing pro-
portion of brick dust.
For three of the brick dusts, this
trend seems to be more marked with
decreasing particle size (Fig. 11).
This may again be an indication that
the larger-size brick dusts act more as
porous particulates in the mix than
as pozzolanic components, a factor
which will be discussed later in this
paper.
Sodium sulphate crystallization
test. There is some indication that
this test may be too aggressive to dis-
cover very subtle differences between
the durability of different mortar
mixes. A large variation in weight
loss made it difficult to identify
trends conclusively in the lime:sand:
brick dust mortars (Appendix C).
However,theredoesseemto be an
indicationthatthelower-fired
brick
dusts (Samples A1-A12) performed
better than those fired at higher tem-
peratures.This corroboratesinfor-
mation from a much earlier study on
lime:pozzolan mortars carried out by
the BRE in 1940.9
In general, though, this test again
confirmed the trends seen at
Hadrian'sWallregardinglime:sand
mortars containing small additions
of cement. All of the lime mortars
withcement:coarse
stuffratios
between 1:12 and 1:60 (1/4 to 1/20
partof cementin a 1:3 lime:sand
mix) failed by the end of the 15th
cycle(Table5). Theadditionof
brick dust to the lime mortar:cement
mixture does not seem to have pro-
duced much improvement in the
result of this test.
These results are most clear in the
bar graph (Fig. 12) where it can be
observed that:
1. All of the lime:sand:brick dust
mortars(GroupA) survivedall
cycles.
2. TheB mortarscontainingsmall
quantities of cement (B2, B3, B4, B7)
all failed by the end of the 15th
cycle.
3. TheC mortarscontaining
lime:sand:brick dust:cement also
failed or suffered significant weight
loss.
Conclusions: Phase I
The work carried out in Phase I of
the Smeaton Project has allowed us
to confirm various trends observed in
the field and to refine the variables to
be tested and the testing procedures
for Phase II. In general, the prelimi-
nary conclusions can be summarized
as follows:
i. ThTeaddition of brick dust does
significantly alter the properties of
lime mortars. This is more pro-
nounced in lime: sand: brick dust
mixtures of at least 1:3:1.
 THE SMEATONPROJECT 41

1.0
Table3. Compressive Strength 100mm Cubes
Sorted on Descending Strength 0.9

Sample Cube 1 Cube2 Mean Sample Mean

No. N/mm2 No. N/mm2 -
0.8 \

al/1 0.65 0.65 0.65 bl\1 8.10 0.7

a2/1 0.90 0.90 0.90 b5/1 8.08
a3/1 0.65 0.605 .65 c2/1 3.45 0.6
a4/1 1.85 1.85 1.85 cl/1 3.13
a5/1 0.90 0.90 0.90 a24/1 2.43
a6/1 2.40 2.10 2.25 c4/1 2.30 150s 751
300o
a7/1 0.95 0.90 0.93 a6/1 2.25 Hastings
a8/1 1.50 1.40 1.45 a18/1 2.18 1.0
a9/1 0.95 0.75 0.85 a4/1 1.85
a10/1 1.35 1.50 1.43 a16/1 1.83
all/i 0.85 0.90 0.88 b2/1 1.73 0.9

a12/1 1.10 1.15 1.13 a14/1 1.60

a13/1 0.90 1.00 0.95 a8/1 1.45 E 0.8-
a14/1 1.45 1.75 1.60 a10/1 1.43
al5/1 0.70 0.75 0.73 a17/1 1.13 0.7
a16/1 2.00 1.65 1.83 a12/1 1.13
a17/1 1.40 0.85 1.13 a22/1 1.00 0.6 .
a18/1 1.95 2.40 2.18 a13/1 0.95
a19/1 0.55 0.60 0.58 a7/1 0.93
a20/1 0.65 0.60 0.63 a23/1 0.90 300 150L 75p
a21/1 0.80 0.85 0.83 a2/1 0.90 Waingroves
a22/1 1.10 0.90 1.00 a5/1 0.90 1.0
a23/1 0.85 0.95 0.90 all/1 0.88
a24/1 2.10 2.75 2.43 a9/1 0.85 0.9
bl/1 8.25 7.95 8.10 a21/1 0.83
b2/1 1.75 1.70 1.73 al5/1 0.73 0.8
b3/1 0.45 0.45 0.45 a3/1 0.65
b4/1 0.30 0.30 0.30 al/1 0.65
b5/1 7.80 8.35 8.08 a20/1 0.63 S0.7
b7/1 0.55 0.60 0.58 b7/1 0.58
cl/i 3.05 3.20 3.13 a19/1 0.58 0.6

c2/1 3.30 3.60 3.45 b3/1 0.45

c4/1 2.40 2.20 2.30 b4/1 0.30
3001 1501 75p
Kirton

1.0

2. Low-fired brick dusts seem to
have the most positive effect on the
strength and durability of lime:sand:
brick dust mixtures. This trend is
more pronounced if the brick dust is
a more significant portion of the
mix. At this point in the research,
however, it is not possible to say
whether this result is due strictly to
firing temperature or is also related
to clay type.
3. The addition of small quanti-
ties of cement to lime:sand mortars
has a negative effect on the strength
and durability of the mortars. In
general, mortar mixes composed of
0.9
lime: sand: brick dust show better
0.8
strength and durability than lime:
sand:cement mortars until the
0.7
amount of cement in the mix is
equal to 1/2 the volume of lime (in a 0.6 \
1:3 lime:sand mix).
It seems from these results and
from trends perceived by other 300L
150•
HTI
75cr
researchers both in Europe1l and
North Americall that the addition
Parts
Coarse stuff: Brick Dust
of brick dust to lime:sand mortars S9:1
may improve their performance in
-.. ...4:1
two ways.
In the lower size particle range
(< 75 microns or < 38 microns Fig. 11. Results:Watervaporpermeability
according to some researchers), the plottedagainsttype and proportionof brick
dust.
42 APT BULLETIN

Table4. WaterVaporPermeability problemsandinconsistencies created

Sorted by increasingpermeability by cuttinglargeprisms in Phase I.
Compaction has beenmore regular
Sample WaterVapor Sample WaterVapor andmorecarefullycontrolled.In
No. Permeability No. Permeability addition,certaintestshavebeenper-
g/100mm2/day g/100mm2/day formedon sampleswhichwere
b5/1 0.39 a3/1 0.71
formedbetweenpairsof saturated
bl/1 0.47 a5/1 0.71 bricks.13
a18/1 0.54 al/1 0.72 Thetestsformoisturecontent,
a6/1 0.57 c4/1 0.72 stiffeningrate,compressivestrength
a24/1 0.59 all/1 0.74 andwatervaporpermeability all
a14/1 0.62 a7/1 0.74
a10/1 0.63 a22/1 0.77 gaveusefulinformation andare
c2/1 0.64 a2/1 0.78 beingrepeatedin PhaseII.
a4/1 0.65 a13/1 0.80 Additionaltestshavebeenmade
a17/1 0.66 b7/1 0.80 on thefreshmortarforconsistency
a16/1 0.67 a21/1 0.82
a8/1 0.67 a19/1 0.87
usinga flowtableandon thehard-
a12/1 0.67 a15/1 0.90
enedmortarforporositysincerecent
cl/1 0.68 b3/1 0.93 researchhasindicatedimportant cor-
b2/1 0.69 a20/1 0.96 relationsbetweenporosity/porosime-
a23/1 0.69 b4/1 0.98 tryandthestrengthanddurability of
a9/1 0.71 mortars.14
Thesaltcrystallization testhas
beenalteredto be lessaggressive, in
an attemptto revealmoresubtledif-
ferencesbetweensamples.15
brickdustactsas pozzolan,which which seem to have improved perfor- Datahasnow beencollectedfor
reactswiththelimeto speedsetting mance in Phase I. mostof thesamplestestedin Phase
andcreatea higherstrength Based on the experience of Phase II. Completetestresultsareexpected
hydraulic mortar. I, the preparation of samples was byJuly,1994.
Inthehigherparticlesizerange altered to afford better control and In all cases,laboratoryresultsfor
(> 300 microns),thebrickdusttends to more closely simulate field prac- durability will be correlated
in the
to actmoreas a porousparticulate tice. Specifically, groups of smaller long term with results
observed on
or air-entraining
additive.Theair moulds have been used to create the samplesplaced on theexposure
contentof theaggregate aidscarbon- samples for each test to avoid the racks.
ationandimprovesresistance to
frostandsaltcrystallization.
In theformercase,it seemsthata
below950'Cpro- 80.00
firingtemperature
ducesthebestqualitybrickdustfor 70.00
additionto limemortars.
Inthelattercase,theporosityof 60.00
the brickdustmaybe moresignifi- 50.00
cantthanfiringtemperature.12 0
S40o.oo00
oof
Phase II • 30.00

Thesehypotheses arebeingtestedin 20o.oo00-

PhaseIIof theSmeatonProjectin a 10.00a-
limitedseriesof mixesutilizinglow-
firedbrickdustswithparticlesin the 0.00

extremesof theparticlesizerange.A
non-pozzolanic porousparticulate is SampleNo
alsobeingtestedto attemptto distin-
guishbetweenthetwo phenomena
Fig. 12. Results: Salt crystallization tests.
 THE SMEATONPROJECT 43

* mechanicalmilling(optimum
Table5. Salt CrystallizationTest
Sorted by increasingweight loss
durationand roller/paddle
Mean Mean settings)
Sample Sample
No. % WeightLoss No. % WeightLoss Method and timingof intro-
b5/1 9.47 a22/1 33.21 ductionof additives
bl/1 15.43 a12/1 33.38
a9/1 16.42 a16/1 34.14 3. Utilizationof mortar
a4/1 17.37 a14/1 34.80 of the
a6/1 18.02 a23/1 35.28 Workability/consistency
a7/1 19.45 a19/1 37.22 mortarwhen used
a5/1 20.63 a21/1 39.80 Compactionof mortar:
a3/1 21.13 a20/1 41.85 * degreeof compaction
al/1 23.32 a18/1 47.47
a10/1 23.47 c2/1 74.99 * influenceof aggregatetype/
a2/1 25.29 b3/1 f9 shape
all/1 26.21 c4/1 f12 * methodand timingof com-
a15/1 26.76 b7/1 f12 paction \(durationand limit-
a24/1 29.32 b2/1 f13
a8/1 30.07 cl/1 f14 ing factors)
a13/1 30.69 b4/1 f15 Finishing:
a17/1 32.24 * closedtexturevs. open
texture.
4. Settingand hardeningof mortar
FuturePhases 1. Preparation of lime putty Effectsof low and high suction
backgrounds(to what extent
Futurephasesof theprojectwill Ways in which lime putty is can effectsbe regulatedby pre-
attemptto providea morein-depth prepared, such as treatmentof surfacesor by
andmoreconclusive * lime putty from slaking
understanding mortarformulation)
statisticaldataregarding thematerial * hydrated lime run to putty
which affect the behavior by soaking Environmentalconditions:
parameters * effectsof dryingrates
of pozzolanicadditivesin limemor- The effects of storage or * methodsof control
tars,especiallyas regardsparticle "seasoning"
size,mixratio,andclaytype(inthe Othertreatments:
caseof brickdusts). 2. Blending and preparation of * periodicre-wetting(duration
Theprojectwill alsobeginto mortar and limitingfactors)
investigate hydrauliclimesandto Form in which lime is used: Sinceon-sitecorrelationof labora-
comparethebehaviorof hydraulic * dry mixed hydrated
tory work is essential,it is intended
limemortarswiththosepreviously lime/sand that the projectwill concludewith
studied. Thisis an important area * lime putty/sand
field testingof selectedmortarmixes.
of concern,especiallyin viewof * granular quicklime slaked
A numberof sites will be chosen,
emergingstandardization in the with sand
representingdifferentconservation
European marketplace. Trialswill
Method of blending binder problems,exposuresand environ-
attemptto characterize andevaluate and aggregates: mentalconditions. Performancewill
theperformance of varioushydraulic * hand mixing be monitoredat establishedintervals.
limes. * mechanical mixing/milling
Of equalconcern,however,are * minimum water vs. excess
practiceparameters, whichare,per- PRACTICE
IMPLICATIONS
water
haps,moredifficultto quantifybut At this preliminary stage in the
of greatimportance in theperfor- Storage of mortar vs. immedi-
manceof mortars. ate use research, it is premature to make
Finalphasesof theprojectwill sweeping statements regarding the
Method of 'knocking up' or implications of the Smeaton Project
attemptto quantifyperformance reworking: Phase I results on field practice.
variablesof freshandhardened lime- * hand processes (optimum Definitive conclusions can be drawn
basedmortarsin respectof issues duration and technique)
suchas: only after repeated tests on a greater
44 APT BULLETIN
number of samples and after field
trials.
At this point, it is possible to pro-
vide only general indications based
on observed trends in the hopes that
more specific recommendations can
be made in the future. These can be
summarized as follows:
Cement-Gaugingof LimeMortars
Results indicate that the addition of
small quantities of cement to
lime:sand mortars has a negative
effect on strength and durability.
In practice, this means that
cement-gauged mortars with less
cement than a 1:3:12 (cement:lime:
sand) mix should be avoided.
However, it must be remembered
that though stronger mixes (such as
1:2:9 and 1:1:6) do improve durabili-
ty, they may be unacceptable in terms
of hardness, water vapor permeabili-
ty, etc. Similarly, pure lime mortars
may not have adequate durability in
very harsh climates. As always, deci-
sions must be made based on the
nature and condition of the masonry
and on the environmental conditions
which it must withstand, as well as
an informed understanding of the
original material and technology.
BrickDust Gauging of Lime
Mortars
Results indicate that the addition of
brick dust to lime:sand mortars does
improve strength and durability,
especially if the brick dust is a more
significant component of the mix.
In terms of firing temperature,
low-fired brick dusts (fired below
950oC) seem to have the most posi-
tive effect. These performed better
and more consistently than HTI
powder (refractory brick dust) in the
trials. At this point in the research,
however, it is not possible to say
whether this result is due strictly to
firing temperature or is also related
to clay type.
As for particle size, both large and
small particles seem to play a part in
the improvement of strength and
durability, though these mechanisms
are not yet well understood.
It is, thus, difficult to be extremely
precise regarding practice. If brick
dust gauging is considered desirable
to enhance the durability of a lime
mortar, best results will probably be
achieved with a low-fired brick dust
in a range of particle sizes from 38-
600 microns. A mix ratio of 1:3:1
proved most successful in the trials,
though this will obviously have
implications in terms of mortar color
and texture.
It is hoped that the results of
Phase II may permit more specific
recommendations regarding particle
size, mix ratio, and clay type.
EUROPEAN ANDINTERNATIONAL to
CONTEXT
Before concluding, it is of interest to
place the Smeaton Project in the con-
text of other European efforts to pro- research design to account for a vari-
mote technical research on building
limes, lime-based mortars, renders
and plasters and the manufacturing,
processing and construction crafts
practices associated with them.
In this regard, it is probably most The repair of mortars, plasters and
important to mention the "Euro-
lime" project, a family of aligned and
overlapping research programs under
the umbrella of the EUREKA EURO-
CARE research protocols. Countries
involved to date include the United
Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, and the
Netherlands, with expertise also
drawn from ICCROM.
Detailed information on EURO-
CARE can be obtained from its sec-
retariat.16 Briefly, EUROCARE is
the arm of the EUREKA system
which deals with the conservation
and maintenance of the built envi-
ronment. "Eurolime" is one of the
projects being developed under the
EUROCARE umbrella.
Work being considered in this pre-
liminary period of Eurolime develop-
ment includes:
1. Mapping national lime types in
use in the building industry.
2. Cataloguing common national
building practices with lime, in order
to see how practice parameters may
affect performance.
3. The effects of pozzolans (trass,
pozzolana, pulverized fuel ash, brick
dust, etc.) on the qualities of lime
mortars.
Though the Smeaton project
remains a tri-lateral collaboration
between English Heritage,
Bournemouth University and
ICCROM, links have been estab-
lished with Eurolime which may lead
to future joint endeavors in areas of
common concern.
Through ICCROM, it is also
hoped to link the Smeaton research
non-European contexts and to
diverse field situations. Such projects
will allow us to test research results
in the field and to broaden the
ety of environmental conditions and
local usage.
CONCLUSIONS
renders requires an understanding of
the historical materials which are to
be conserved and repaired, together
with sufficient knowledge of the
materials which are now available to
prepare a sensible specification for
such work. Good conservation prac-
tice dictates maximum compatibility
and minimum intervention so that
new material can co-exist with the
old in a sympathetic, supportive and,
if necessary, sacrificial capacity.
However, there are some impor-
tant points to be remembered:
1. The materials in use today are
not always the same as those used by
the builders whose work is to be con-
served and repaired - even if they
are called by the same name.

2. Materials are not always being
used in the same way. Although
analysis can indicate the ingredients
of a mortar, it does not tell how the
mortar was made or used. In places
where traditional skills have been
lost, such practices must often be
rediscovered through trial and error.
Field experience suggests that the
techniques employed in the prepara-
tion and utilization of mortars may
be of equal significance to their com-
position in determining their perfor-
mance. Thus, laboratory research
which is not correlated with field
experience is of limited usefulness.
3. The performance requirements
of a repair mortar may be signifi-
cantly different from those of the
original mortar. For example, the
walls of a ruined building remain
wetter and colder for longer than
those of a roofed and occupied build-
ing. In such a situation, the repair
mortar might well need to possess
greater resistance to damage by frost
and salts than the original.
The Smeaton Project is a collabo-
rative international effort seeking to
address some of these issues. The
research team is an interdisciplinary
one including scientists, architects,
conservators and artisans, all of
whom have a specific area of knowl-
edge and expertise to contribute.
The program includes both labo-
ratory and field research, in an effort
both to develop practical solutions
and to improve test methods.
It is hoped that the information
gained through this research will
provide a more informed basis for
the selection, manufacture and uti-
lization of suitable conservation mor-
tars in a wide variety of regional con-
ditions.
More generally, it is hoped that
this endeavor will lead to construc-
tive dialogue and, perhaps, to more
widespread collaboration in the
future.
JEANNEMARIETEUTONICOis an
architecturalconservatorwho worked
for ten yearson the staff of the
ArchitecturalConservationProgramat
ICCROM(TheInternationalCentrefor
the Studyof the Preservationand the
Restorationof CulturalProperty)in
Rome,Italy. Sheis currentlyin private
practicein London,England,and con-
sults for organizationsincludingEnglish
Heritage,UNESCO,and the University
of Pennsylvania.
IAINMcCAIGtrainedin architecture
and spenta formativeperiodin the
GreaterLondonCouncil'sHistoric
BuildingsDivisionbeforejoiningEnglish
Heritage,wherehe has spentoverten
yearson technicaladvice,researchand
trainingin its ArchitecturalConservation
Branch.
COLINBURNSis a mastermasonand
trainerat EnglishHeritage'sBuilding
ConservationTrainingCentreat Fort
Brockhurst,Gosport,in the United
Kingdomand is a memberof the organi-
zation'sArchitecturalConservation
Branch,Scienceand Conservation
ServicesDivision.
JOHN ASHURSTis an architectwho
workedfor morethan 25 yearsfor
EnglishHeritageand its predecessorson
the careof ancientmonumentsin the
UnitedKingdom. Co-authorof English
Heritage'sPracticalBuildingConserva-
tion series,he is currentlyDirectorof
HistoricBuildingand SiteServices,a
researchand consultancyunit in the
Departmentof ConservationSciencesat
BournemouthUniversity.
Notes
1. J. Smeaton, A Narrativeof the
Buildingand a Descriptionof the
Constructionof the Eddystone
Lighthouse ... (London, 1791).
2. HTI powdercame into widespread
use in the UnitedKingdomin the early
1970s. It was originallyused in lime-
stone conservation,meetingthe require-
mentsfor a low-sulphatereactivebrick
dust of appropriatecolor.
3. K. Ross, D. Hart and R. Butlin,
"DurabilityTestsfor NaturalBuilding
Stone"in FifthInternationalConference
on Durabilityof BuildingMaterialsand
Components,Brighton,UK, 7-9
November1990 , ed. by J.M. Baker,P.J.
THE SMEATONPROJECT 45
Dixon, A.J. Majmundarand H. Davies
(London:E. & EN. Spon, 1991), 97-111.
4. J. Ashurst, Hadrian'sWallProject
1985 - 1991 with Notes on
Developmentsin Canada (Internal
report,EnglishHeritage,1991).
5. "Best"performancewas determined
by evaluatingboth field trialsand the
resultsof the salt crystallizationtest.
Thoughsome of the mortarscontaining
1/2 partwhite or portlandcementin a
1:3 mixtureof lime:sandalso performed
well in the field trials(SamplesA3C,
A3F,A3K, A3N), they were less consis-
tent in the laboratorytests.
6. I. Holmstrom, "SuitableMaterials
for Use in Repairof HistoricStructures,"
presentedat Conferenceon Structural
Conservationof HistoricBuildings,
ICCROM,Rome,Italy,13-19 September
1977, manuscript,ICCROMLibrary.
7. The materialsused in the trialswere
the following:
Limeputty:The raw materialfor this
lime is a limestonefromthe Penninesin
the northwestof England,which is
96.5% calciumcarbonate. The lime
puttywas producedfromlumplime
slakedin excesswaterby ChardsLtd.,
Bristol.The putty as suppliedwas kept in
sealedplasticcontainersfor a further6
monthsby EnglishHeritage.
Sand:WarmwellsandfromWarmwell,
Dorset,was obtainedfromthe English
Heritagedepot at LulworthCastle,
Dorset.
Brickdusts:Thesewere obtainedfrom
ButterleyBrickLtd., Kirton,Newark,
Nottinghamshire.The threetypespro-
videdwere:
Works FiringTemp. Raw Material
Kirton 10000C KeuperMarl
Wain- 1050"C
MiddleCoal
groves MeasuresShale
Hastings 950'C BrickEarth
HTI powder:This was providedby
SteetleyRefractoriesLtd., Dudley,West
Midlands. FiringTemperature was
between1120 and 1350oC.
Cements:WhiteOrdinaryPortland
Cementconformingto BS 12: 1971.
SulphateResistingCementconformingto
BS4027.
8. Holmstrom,"SuitableMaterials."
9. F.M.Lea, Investigationson
Pozzolana I, Pozzolanaand Lime-
PozzolanaMixes, BuildingResearch
46 APT BULLETIN
Technical Paper 27 (Garston: Building
Research Station, Department of
Scientific and Industrial Research, 1940).
10. T. Perander and T. Raman, Ancient
and Modern Mortars in the Restoration
of Historical Buildings, Research Note
No. 450 (Espoo: Technical Research
Centre of Finland, Concrete and Silicate
Laboratory, May 1985).
11. G. Litvan and P.J.Sereda,
Particulate Admixture for Enhanced
Freeze-Thaw Resistance of Concrete
(Ottawa: National Research Council of
Canada, 1978).
G.G. Litvan, Further Study of Particulate
Admixtures for Enhanced Freeze-Thaw
Resistance of Concrete (Ottawa:
National Research Council of Canada,
1985).
12. Litvan and Sereda, Particulate
Admixture. Litvan, Further Study.
13. W.H. Harrison, "Durability Tests on
Building Mortars, Effects of Sand
Grading," Magazine of Concrete
Research 38:135 (1986): 95-107.
W.H. Harrison and M.E. Gaze, "Lab-
Scale Tests on Building Mortars for
Durability and Related Properties,"
Masonry International 3:1 (1989): 35-
41.
14. G. Chiari, M.L. Santarelli and G.
Torraca, "Caratterizzazione delle malte
antiche mediante l'analisi di campioni
non frazionati," Materiali e Strutture 2:1
(1992): 111-137.
15. A simple freeze-thaw test was also
attempted in Phase II but proved too
aggressive to yield useful results. A
revised test design is currently under
study for Phase III.
16. Further information on Eurocare can
be obtained from Svein Haagenrud, c/o
Norwegian Institute for Air Research,
P.O. Box 64, N-2001, Lillestrom,
Norway.
Selected Bibliography
Lime and Cement Technology
Blanks, R.E, and Kennedy, H.L. The
Technology of Cement and Concrete.
New York:John Wiley and Sons,
1955.
Boynton, R.D. Chemistry and
Technology of Lime and Limestone.
New York: Wiley Interscience, 1966.
Building Research Establishment. Bricks
and Mortar. Overseas Building Note
173. Overseas Division, Building
Research Establishment. London:
HMSO, 1977.
Building Research Establishment.
Building Mortar. BRE Digest 362.
London: HMSO, 1991.
Davison, J.I. Quality Control in
Preparing Masonry Mortar. Building
Practice Note No. 5. Ottawa:
National Research Council of Canada,
Division of Building Research, 1977.
Lea, EM., and Desch, C.H. The
Chemistry of Cement and Concrete.
London: Edward Arnold Ltd., 1956.
Spalding, Frederick P. Hydraulic
Cement: Its Properties, Testing, and
Use. London: Chapman and Hall,
1898.
Wingate, M. Small-Scale Lime Burning.
London: Intermediate Technology
Publications, 1985.
Studies of Lime and Lime: Cement
Mortars
Cowper, A.D. Lime and Lime Mortars.
Building Research Special Report 9.
London: HMSO, 1927.
Davison, J.I. Curing of Cement-Lime
Mortars. Research Paper 430.
Ottawa: National Research Council of
Canada, Division of Building
Research, 1970. Also ASTM Special
Publication 472, 1970, 193-208.
Davison, J.I. Mortar Technology.
Research Paper 692. Ottawa:
National Research Council of Canada,
Division of Building Research, 1976.
Davison, J.I. "Volume Change Due to
Freezing in Plastic Masonry Mortar,"
Masonry: Materials, Properties, and
Performance, ASTM STP 778, J.G.
Borchelt, ed., American Society For
Testing and Materials, 1982: 27-37.
Harrison, W.H. "Durability Tests on
Building Mortars, Effect of Sand
Grading," Magazine of Concrete
Research 38:135 (1986): 95-107.
Harrison, W.H., and Gaze, M.E. "Lab-
Scale Tests on Building Mortars for
Durability and Related Properties,"
Masonry International 3:1 (1989): 35-
41.
Holmstrom, I. "Suitable Materials for
Use in Repair of Historic Structures."
presented at Conference on Structural
Conservation of Historic Buildings,
ICCROM, Rome, Italy, 13-19
September 1977, manuscript,
ICCROM Library.
Hummel, A., and Wesche, A. Tests on
Masonry Mortars. Technical
Translation 887. Ottawa: National
Research Council of Canada, 1960.
Jacob, J., and Weiss, N.R. "Laboratory
Measurement of Water Vapor
Transmission Rates of Masonry
Mortars and Paints," Bulletin of the
Association for Preservation
Technology 21:3/4 (1989): 62-70.
Malinowski, R. "Ancient Mortars and
Concretes, Durability Aspects,"
Mortars, Cements and Grouts Used in
the Conservation of Historic Buildings,
Rome, 3-6 November 1981, 341-349.
Rome: ICCROM, 1982.
Perander,T. and Raman, T. Ancient and
Modern Mortars in the Restoration of
Historical Buildings. Research note
450. Espoo: Technical Research
Centre of Finland, 1985.
Peroni, S.,and others. "Lime-based
Mortars for the Repair of Ancient
Masonry and Possible Substitutes,"
Mortars, Cements and Grouts Used in
the Conservation of Historic Buildings,
Rome, 3-6 November 1981, 63-99.
Rome: ICCROM, 1982.
Ritchie, T. and Davison, J.I. "Moisture
Content and Freeze-Thaw Cycles of
Masonry Materials," Journal of
Materials, 3:3 (1968): 658-671.
Ross, K., D. Hart and R. Butlin.
"Durability Tests for Natural Building
Stone." Fifth International Conference
on Durability of Building Materials
and Components, J.M. Baker, P.J.
Nixon, A.J. Majmundar and H.
Davies, eds., Brighton, 7-9 November,
1990, 97-111. London: E. & EN.
Spon, 1991.
Rossi-Doria, P.R. "Mortars for
Restoration: Basic Requirements and
Quality Control," Materials and
Structures 19:114, 445-448.
Van Jessen, C. "Lime, Lime Mortars and
Lime Colours," Building Conservation
88 Symposium, 204-213. Helsinki:
Finnish National Commission for
UNESCO, 1989.

Pozzolans, Brick and Brick Dusts
Allen, W.J. "Locating Reactive Natural
Pozzolana," Lime and Other
Alternative Cements, N. Hill, S.
Holmes and D. Mather, eds., 64-72.
London: Intermediate Technology
Publications, 1992.
Baradan, B. "Lime Stabilized Lignite Fly
Ash." Lime and Other Alternative
Cements, N. Hill, S. Holmes and D.
Mather, eds., 210-217. London:
Intermediate Technology Publications,
1992.
Lea, F.M. Investigations on Pozzolana.
Building Research Technical Paper 27.
Garston: Building Research Station,
Department of Scientific and Industrial
Research, 1940.
Lea, F.M. "The Testing of Pozzolanic
Cements," Cement Technology
(1973): 21-25.
Livingston, R.A. "Geochemical Methods
Applied to the Reproduction of
Handmolded Brick," Proceedings of
the 8th International Brick/Block
Masonry Conference, J. de Courcy, ed.
New York: Elsevier, 1988.
Luxan, M.P., et. al. "Rapid Evaluation
of Pozzolanic Activity of Natural
Products by Conductivity
Measurement," Cement and Concrete
Research 19 (1989): 63-68.
Mielentz, R.C., L.P. Wittle and O.J.
Glantz. "The Effect of Calcination on
Natural Pozzolanas." American
Society for Testing Materials SP-99,
1950.
Popovic, K., V. Ukraincik and A.
Djurekovic. "Improvement of Mortar
and Concrete Durability by the Use of
Condensed Silica Fume," Durability
of Building Materials 2 (1984): 171-
186.
Price, W.H. "Pozzolans - A Review,"
ACI Journal (May 1975): 225-232.
Smith, R.G. "Rice Husk Ash Cement,"
Lime and Other Alternative Cements,
N. Hill, S. Holmes and D. Mather,
eds., 89-105. London: Intermediate
Technology Publications, 1992.
Surana, M.S. and Joshi, S.N.
"Condumetric Technique for
Estimating the Activity of Pozzolanic
Materials," The Indian Concrete
Journal (February 1990): 89-92.
Additives, Admixtures, Porous
Particulates
Dolch, W.L. "Air Entraining
Admixtures," Concrete Admixtures
Handbook, V.S. Ramachandran, ed.,
369-392. New Jersey: Noyes
Publishers, 1984.
Litvan, G.G. Further Study of
Particulate Admixtures for Enhanced
Frost Resistance of Concrete. Ottawa:
National Research Council of Canada,
1985.
Litvan, G. and Sereda, P.J. Particulate
Admixture for Enhanced Concrete.
Ottawa: National Research Council of
Canada, 1978.
Santiago, C.C., and Mendonca de
Oliveira, M. "Organic Additives in
Brazilian Lime Mortars." Lime and
Other Alternative Cements, N. Hill,
S. Holmes and D. Mather, eds., 203-
210. London: Intermediate
Technology Publications, 1992.
Sickels, L. B. "Organics Vs. Synthetics:
Their Use as Additives in Mortars,"
Mortars, Cements and Grouts Used in
the Conservation of Historic
Buildings, Rome, 3-6 November 1981,
25-52. Rome: ICCROM, 1982.
Copyright, ICCROM, English Heritage
and Bournemouth University.
THE SMEATONPROJECT 47
AppendixA
General ProjectSchedule
February 1990 - September 1990
* Literature search
* Assembly of existing test standards
* Assessment of field trials to date
* Experimental design: Phase I
(Brick dusts and cements)
September 1990 - March 1991
* Acquisition of materials
* Preparation of samples
March 1991- January 1992
* Curing of samples
* Laboratory testing: Phase I, first
series
January 1992 - July 1992
* Curing of samples
* Testing: Phase I, second series
* Interpretation, write-up of results
August 1992 - December 1992
* Presentation results: Phase I
* Experimental design: Phase II
(Porous particulates)
* Preparation of Phase II samples:
Groups 1 and 2
* Curing of samples
1993
* Publication no. 1, Phase I
* Preparation of Phase II samples:
Group 3
* Laboratory testing, Phase II
1994
* Laboratory testing, Phase II
* Interpretation, write-up of results,
Phase II
* Experimental design, Phase III
* Preparation of samples, Phase III
1995
* Laboratory testing: Phase III
* Evaluation of results to date
* Publication no. 2
48 APT BULLETIN

AppendixB
Test Mixes
Group A Based on Coarse stuff (CS) of 1 part lime putty:3 parts sand and various
types of brick dust (BD).
Sample Parts CS Parts BD Type Brick Dust
Firing Temperature
Al 9 1 BD1 300p
A2 4 1 BD1 300p
A3 9 1 BD1 150p Hastings
A4 4 1 BD1 150p (950oC)
A5 9 1 BD1 75p
A6 4 1 BD1 75p

A7 9 1 BD2 300p
A8 4 1 BD2 300p
A9 9 1 BD2 150p Kirton
A10 4 1 BD2 150p (1000"C)
All 9 1 BD2 75p
A12 4 1 BD2 75p

A13 9 1 BD3 300p

A14 4 1 BD3 300p
A15 9 1 BD3 150p Waingroves
A16 4 1 BD3 150p (1050C)
A17 9 1 BD3 75p
A18 4 1 BD3 75p

A19 9 1 BD4 300p

A20 4 1 BD4 300p HTI
A21 9 1 BD4 150p (1120- 1350"C)
A22 4 1 BD4 150p
A23 9 1 BD4 75p
A24 4 1 BD4 75p
A25 4

Group B Based on Coarse stuff (CS) of 1 part lime putty:3 parts sand with the
addition of either white portland cement (WOPC) or sulphate-resisting
cement (SRC).
Parts CS : Parts WOPC
B1 6 1
B2 12 1
B3 30 1
B4 60 1
Parts CS Parts SRC
B5 6 1
B7 30 1
B8 60 1

Group C Based on Coarse stuff (CS) of 1 part lime putty:3 parts sand with the
addition of both white portland cement and brick dust.
Parts CS Parts BD Parts WOPC
C1 9 4 BD1 150p 1
C2 9 4 BD2 150p 1
C4 9 4 BD4 150p 1
 THE SMEATONPROJECT 49

AppendixC
Salt CrystallizationTest

Sample % Weight Mean % Sample % Weight Mean % Sample % Weight Mean %

Loss Weight Loss Loss Weight Loss Loss Weight Loss
al/la 15.94 a13/1a 20.61 bl/la 24.70
al/lb 34.91 a13/1b 34.76 bl/lb 13.13
al/lc 15.97 23.32 a13/lc 27.18 30.69 bl/lc 10.45 15.43
al/ld 26.46 a13/1d 40.23 bl/ld 13.45
a2/la 28.01 a14/1a 33.39 b2/la 100.00
a2/lb 22.08 a14/1b 37.07 b2/1b 100.00
a2/lc 31.08 25.29 a14/lc 39.34 34.80 b2/lc 72.91 f13
a2/ld 19.97 a14/1d 29.38 b2/ld 100.00
a3/la 15.08 al5/1a 32.68 b3/la 100.00
a3/lb 25.87 a15/1b 16.78 b3/lb 100.00
a3/lc 28.18 21.13 a15/lc 20.11 26.76 b3/lc 100.00 f9
a3/ld 15.40 a15/1d 37.47 b3/ld 100.00
a4/la 16.31 a16/1a 32.95 b4/la 69.74
a4/lb 24.80 a16/1b 37.53 b4/lb 100.00
a4/lc 18.18 17.37 a16/lc 26.02 34.14 b4/lc 68.28 f15
a4/ld 10.18 a16/1d 40.08 b4/ld 100.00
a5/la 13.98 a17/1a 36.24 b5/la 18.26
a5/lb 29.00 a17/1b 30.23 b5/lb 12.69
a5/lc 24.55 20.63 a17/lc 28.71 32.24 b5/lc 2.00 9.47
a5/ld 14.98 a17/1d 33.77 b5/ld 4.92
a6/la 25.48 a18/1a 45.40 b7/la 61.29
a6/lb 23.77 a18/1b 47.60 b7/lb 100.00
a6/lc 9.34 18.02 a18/lc 45.50 47.45 b7/lc 100.00 f12
a6/ld 13.49 a18/1d 51.31 b7/ld 100.00
a7/la 22.42 a19/1a 51.95
a7/lb 15.99 a19/1b 19.80 cl/la 100.00
a7/lc 17.98 19.45 a19/lc 25.27 37.22 cl/lb 100.00
a7/ld 21.41 a19/1d 51.85 cl/lc 100.00 f14
a8/la 23.50 a20/la 50.53 cl/ld 100.00
a8/lb 27.58 a20/lb 32.41 c2/la 100.00
a8/lc 28.49 30.07 a20/lc 54.89 41.85 c2/lb 55.71
a8/ld 40.70 a20/ld 29.59 c2/lc 74.60 74.99
a9/la 14.27 a21/la 23.73 c2/ld 69.63
a9/lb 20.90 a21/lb 56.60 c4/la 100.00
a9/lc 11.40 16.42 a21/lc 57.40 39.80 c4/lb 100.00
a9/ld 19.10 a21/ld 21.47 c4/lc 100.00 f12
alO/la 24.20 a22/1a 28.08 c4/ld 100.00
alO/lb 21.51 a22/lb 36.79
alO/lc 28.62 23.47 a22/lc 25.27 33.21
alO/ld 19.57 a22/ld 42.68
all/la 15.60 a23/la 23.56
all/lb 14.61 a23/lb 49.31
all/1c 32.97 26.21 a23/lc 41.09 35.28
all/ld 41.65 a23/ld 27.15
a12/1a 30.80 a24/la 34.52
a12/1b 27.73 a24/lb 25.47
a12/lc 50.65 33.38 a24/lc 30.63 29.32
a12/1d 24.35 a24/1d 26.67