Construction and Building Materials 325 (2022) 126770

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Eco-friendly gypsum-lime mortar with the incorporation

of recycled waste brick
Khalil Naciri *, Issam Aalil , Ali Chaaba
Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Higher School of Engineering (ENSAM), Moulay Ismail University, Marjane II, BP 15290 Al Mansour, Meknès, Morocco

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: To reduce the consumption of cement and thus mitigate the negative impact of its manufacturing industry on the
Mortar environment, the use of traditional gypsum and lime binders, with less environmental impact, was adopted in
Calcium hydroxide this work for the preparation of an eco-friendly mortar. Furthermore, recycled waste brick was incorporated as a
Calcium sulphate hemihydrate
replacement for sand to promote the recycling of construction and demolition waste on one side, and to reduce
Brick dust
Pozzolanic activity
the depletion of natural sand resources on the other side.
Compressive strength In this paper, the effect of the amount of lime, gypsum, and brick powder on the mortar properties was
Adhesion strength investigated. To this end, eight mortars were prepared using gypsum, lime, and gypsum-lime binders with and
without brick powder. The replacement percentage of sand by brick powder in the gypsum-lime mortars was
33% and 66%. A cement mortar was also included for comparison purposes. It was observed that increasing the
percentage of gypsum in gypsum-lime mortars improves bond, flexural, and dry compressive strengths but results
in more porous structure and less resistance in the saturated state. Although the replacement of 66% of sand by
the brick powder in mortars containing 66% of gypsum as binder increased the capillary absorption rate, it
provided less dense mortars with a much better bond strength than cement mortar. It also improved the me­
chanical strength and especially the saturated strength compared to the mortar without brick powder addition.
This improvement can be attributed to the formation of new CASH/CSH phases. The mortar containing 66% of
gypsum as binder and 66% of brick powder as aggregate can be a very promising alternative towards an
ecological mortar with less impact on the environment.

1. Introduction
Cement is one of the most used building materials in the construction
sector. The large advantages of this binder have always made it a
preferred choice for the preparation of mortar and concrete. Today, with
the increase of the environmental changes related to the greenhouse
effect, the environmental impact of the cement production must be
seriously considered.
Cement manufacturing is performed at a very high temperature of
about 1450 ◦ C [1]. It involves an energy-intensive production process
and consumes massive quantities of exhaustible natural resources and
fossil energies. In 2017, cement production was responsible for
approximately 8% to 9% of global emissions of CO2 [2], one of the main
gases causing the greenhouse effect and the first contributor to global
warming [3,4]. In addition to the combustion process, a large amount of
CO2 is directly generated by the calcination reaction of limestone [5].
Since 2018, global annual production of ordinary Portland cement has
exceeded 4.1 billion tons and is still growing [6,7]. For all these reasons,
the use of alternative binders with less environmental impact and which
can reduce cement consumption can be one of the con­
tributing solutions, in particular for elements where the high compres­
sive strength of cement is not the main criterion governing the choice of
the binder type.
Aerial lime and hemihydrate gypsum are ancient binders that have
been widely used since antiquity for construction [8–12]. Hemihydrate
gypsum (CaSO4.½H2O) is obtained by heating dihydrate gypsum
(CaSO4⋅2H2O) at temperatures between 100 ◦ C and 180 ◦ C [13]. When
mixed with water, hemihydrate gypsum recovers the water lost during
its heating preparation and reforms gypsum crystals as described in Eq.
(1).
CaSO4 ⋅0.5H2 O + 1.5H2 O→CaSO4 ⋅2H2 O (1)
Generally, gypsum products show adequate thermal insulation
properties [14]. During a building fire, dihydrate gypsum, which holds

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: k.naciri@est.umi.ac.ma (K. Naciri).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126770
Received 2 December 2021; Received in revised form 22 January 2022; Accepted 4 February 2022
Available online 10 February 2022
0950-0618/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Naciri et al.
large quantities of water molecules in hydrated form, is transformed
back into hemihydrate gypsum while releasing water vapor. This pro­
cess slows down the rate of temperature increase in the building and
delays the fire spread [15].
Aerial lime (Ca(OH)2) fabrication starts by a calcination of calcar­
eous rock (CaCO3) at a temperature of about 900 ◦ C [16] to obtain
quicklime (CaO), which turns into aerial lime after hydration. Calcite is
then obtained from aerial lime by absorption of atmospheric CO2 ac­
cording to the chemical reaction given in Eq. (2).
Ca(OH)2 + CO2 →CaCO3 + H2 O (2)
Although lime calcination is responsible for significant CO2 emis­
sions [17,18], the carbonation process described in Eq. (2) is able to
recover during the first 3 months, under a natural concentration of CO2,
more than half of the carbon dioxide emitted during the quicklime
manufacturing phase [19]. Furthermore, the manufacturing tempera­
ture of gypsum and lime is significantly lower than that of cement,
which means less fuel consumption and less CO2 emissions. This makes
these two binders environmentally friendly materials with a signifi­
cantly lower purchase cost. However, several drawbacks have restricted
their application in new buildings. Gypsum products have shown low
resistance in the presence of water and moisture [20,21] limiting their
use in exterior applications exposed to weathering. On the other hand,
lime mortar is characterized by a very long carbonation time [22],
remarkable shrinkage [23], and reduced compressive and flexural
strengths [23,24].
Construction and demolition waste is another issue with a significant
impact on the environment. The growth of the building industry has
significantly increased the generation of construction waste which ac­
counts for 40% of the total solid waste [25]. In particular, Morocco,
reports considerable losses in terms of bricks broken during manufacture
and transport or during the building process. Fig. 1 shows an example of
the huge quantity of waste brick generated by local producers. Their
recycling is a strongly encouraged solution to reduce the impact on the
environment.
In this context, several efforts have been made to reuse waste brick
especially in mortars as a substitution of aggregate. In [26], properties of
gypsum mortar with ceramic waste additions, obtained from brick
fragments, were investigated. Beldjilali et al. [27] also studied the in­
fluence of waste brick incorporation on gypsum mortars. It was observed
that the adhesive, flexural, and compressive strength were improved
even though no chemical reaction between gypsum and waste brick was
detected. The brick powder was also combined with aerial lime to
develop a restoration mortar [24] with improved mechanical perfor­
mance due to the pozzolanic reaction that occurs between portlandite
and the brick powder. This reactivity has been further exploited to
develop mortars with improved characteristics compared to the refer­
ence ones [22,28,29], or for the elaboration of restoration mortars
compatible with the local historical monuments [30–32].
However, the addition of brick powder to blended gypsum-lime
Fig. 1. Waste brick generated by a local brick manufacturer in Meknes, Morocco.
2
Construction and Building Materials 325 (2022) 126770
mortars and its influence on the characteristics of these types of mor­
tars has not yet been investigated in the literature. Gypsum-lime mortar
has been mainly intended for restoration practices [10,23,33]. In this
research, it was chosen to develop an eco-friendly mortar for practical
uses in masonry bricklaying. Brick powder was introduced as a partial
replacement of sand to promote the recycling of brick waste and to
reduce the consumption of extracted raw materials. The possibility of
improving the poor mechanical properties of lime and the high de­
gradability of gypsum in contact with water was explored by combining
these two binders in the presence of brick powder with appropriate
proportions. To this end, pure lime, pure gypsum, and gypsum-lime
mortars, with and without brick powder addition, were prepared. A
cement mortar was also included in this work for comparison purposes.
These mortars were tested at 1 and 3 months to determine their porosity,
density, capillary absorption rate as well as their flexural strength,
compressive strength in the dry and saturated state, and finally their
adhesion resistance.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
The mortars tested in this work were prepared from β-hemihydrate
gypsum (CaSO4.½H2O) produced by CMPE (Morocco), aerial lime from
Sefrou region (Morocco), Portland cement of strength class CM 25 ac­
cording to Moroccan standard NM 10.1.004 [34] produced by Lafarge-
Holcim, crushed sand, and brick powder. The sand was sieved, then,
only the 0.16/4 mm fraction was kept. Fine particles were removed to
achieve an appropriate cleanliness level of 74% measured by the san­
d equivalent test as per NF EN 933–8 standard [35]. The brick powder
was prepared in the laboratory from broken brick pieces using the Los
Angeles apparatus. The powder was then sieved and only fine grains
smaller than 315 µm were used to achieve the best mechanical perfor­
mance as reported in [8,36,37]. The particle size distribution curves of
sand and brick powder, determined according to NF EN 933–1 [38] and
NF EN ISO 17892–4 [39] standards, are shown in Fig. 2. Table 1 sum­
marizes the absolute densities and specific surface areas of the raw
materials. Their mineralogical composition is shown in Fig. 3. Gypsum is
predominantly composed of bassanite. Portlandite and dolomite are the
major crystalline phases constituting aerial lime and sand, respectively.
The brick powder is mostly constituted by quartz; some amount of
diopside, albite, microcline, and hematite were also detected. Finally,
plain fired clay bricks, supplied by Brimak (Safi, Morocco), of di­
mensions 210 mm length, 55 mm height, and 105 mm thickness, were
used to evaluate the bond strength of mortars.
2.2. Mortars design and preparation
Nine mortars were prepared in this study. The pure lime mortar,
denoted as M1, was composed of 35% of lime and 65% of sand in order
K. Naciri et al. Construction and Building Materials 325 (2022) 126770

Fig. 2. Particle size distribution of sand and brick powder.

conventional cement mortar.

Table 1
The amount of added water in mixtures was set in order to get the
Absolute densities and specific surface areas of the raw materials.
same workability of 175 ± 10 mm in the flow table test as suggested by
Samples Cement Lime Gypsum Sand Brick NF EN 1015–2 standard [41] for mortars of bulk density higher than
powder
1200 kg/m3, which corresponds to our case. Table 2 summarizes the
Absolute density (kg/ 2679 2227 2784 2803 2614 content of the nine mortars and the flow obtained according to NF EN
m3)
1015-3 standard [42].
Specific surface area 5572 10,944 11,688 8021
(cm2/g) The mixture preparation was performed as follows. The dry com­
ponents were first premixed for 30 s. Water was then added and the
mixture was mixed for 1 min followed by a 90 s pause during which the
to achieve the maximum compressive strength as reported in [40]. This mortar adhering to the bowl sides and bottom was scraped off and put
binder:aggregate weight ratio was retained for the other mortars. The back into the bowl, and finally an additional 30 s of mixing. A low speed
gypsum effect was investigated by replacing lime with 33%, 66%, and corresponding to 140 ± 5 rpm was maintained during all the kneading
100% of gypsum in mortars M2, M3, and M4, respectively. In mortars steps in order to avoid any loss of particles outside the bowl.
M5, M6, M7, and M8, brick powder was introduced, in combination with Molds, of dimensions 40 × 40 × 160 mm3, were filled with mortar in
the gypsum-lime binder, as a replacement of sand with increasing per­ two approximately equal layers according to the procedure recom­
centages of 33% and 66%. Thus, the effect of the brick powder on the mended in NF EN 1015–11 standard [43] and then kept in sealed po­
gypsum-lime mortars can be visualized. Fig. 4 summarizes the different lyethylene bags for 5 days. Afterwards, the samples were demolded and
proportions of lime/gypsum used as binder and sand/brick powder used replaced in the polyethylene bags for another 2 days and later stored in
as aggregate in mortars M1 to M8. The last mortar, denoted as M0, is a laboratory conditions (RH 60 ± 5% and 22 ± 5 ◦ C) until the testing ages.
cement-based mortar prepared with cement:sand weight ratio of 1:3, as Although the demolding of cement and gypsum mortars is recom­
commonly used in practice. This mortar was included in this work to mended for 2 days [43], it was considered preferable to apply the same
compare the performance of the eight mortars with that of the curing conditions for all mortars except for the pure lime mortar (M1),

Fig. 3. XRD patterns of raw materials. A: anhydrite, Al: albite, B: bassanite, C: calcite, D: dolomite, Di: diopside, He: hematite, M: magnesite, Mi: microcline, P:
portlandite, Q: quartz.

3
K. Naciri et al. Construction and Building Materials 325 (2022) 126770

Fig. 4. Mixing proportions of M1-M8 mortars.

Table 2
Composition and obtained flow of the nine mortars.
Mortars Mass of constituents (%) Percentage of water in the mixture (by mass) Flow (mm)

Cement Lime Gypsum Sand Brick powder

M1 35.00 65.00 19.81 171

M2 23.33 11.67 65.00 21.22 182
M3 11.67 23.33 65.00 22.29 180
M4 35.00 65.00 22.04 178
M5 23.33 11.67 43.33 21.67 24.45 179
M6 23.33 11.67 21.67 43.33 27.15 179
M7 11.67 23.33 43.33 21.67 24.48 176
M8 11.67 23.33 21.67 43.33 26.72 174
M0 25.00 75.00 12.93 181

which did not harden in the polyethylene bag during the first 5 days as it
requires the absorption of atmospheric CO2. It was necessary to prepare
it again and to keep it directly at the ambient laboratory conditions.
2.3. Crossed-brick preparation
To determine the mortars bond strength, three crossed-brick couplets
were prepared for each mortar in accordance with ASTM C952-02
standard [44]. Bricks were assembled with a 10 mm mortar thickness
and then placed, except for mortar M1, in polyethylene bags for the first
7 days and then stored in laboratory conditions (RH 60 ± 5% and 22 ±
5 ◦ C) until the testing age.
2.4. Test methods
All tests were conducted at 1 and 3 months. Three specimens of each
mortar were first subjected to the flexural test on a CONTROLS (model
65-L1142) machine. Three of the six broken half prisms were subjected
to the compression test. The loading rate used for both flexural and
compression tests was 1 N/s.
The three remaining half prisms were used to determine water ­
absorption coefficient due to capillary action, porosity, bulk density,
and compressive strength in the saturated state as follows. First, the
broken prisms were weighed and immersed in water to a depth of 5 mm
to 10 mm. The amount of absorbed water was weighed regularly and

4
K. Naciri et al.
measurements carried out at 10 min and 90 min were used to calculate
the coefficient of water absorption by capillarity according to NF EN
1015-18 standard [45]. The samples, partially saturated due capillary
action, were then placed in a vacuum desiccator under a pressure of less
than 25 mbar, saturated with water, and then subjected again to a
pressure of less than 25 mbar as recommended in NF P 18-459 standard
[46]. Later, saturated and hydrostatic weighing were performed to
derive the porosity and density values. The 3 saturated samples were
finally subjected to the compression test at 1 N/s loading rate.
Crossed brick couplet tensile test was conducted on the flexural
machine at 10 N/s loading rate; the test setup is shown in Fig. 5.
Mortars mineralogical phases were identified by means of X-ray
diffraction analysis (XRD) using an Advance D8 diffractometer of Bruker
Corporation (Cu-Kα radiation, 40 kV, 40 mA). Their microstructure
morphology and chemical composition were determined by scanning
electron microscopy (SEM) coupled with energy dispersive spectros­
copy (EDS) using a high resolution scanning electron microscope
JEOL JSM-IT500 HR with an acceleration voltage between 0.5 and 30
Kv.
3. Results and discussions
3.1. XRD and SEM-EDS analyses
The mineralogical composition of the M1-M8 mortars obtained by
XRD after 6 months of curing is shown in Fig. 6. All mortars contain
dolomite originating from sand. In mortars containing lime, portlandite
was also identified indicating that, at 6 months, the lime was not totally
carbonated to calcite. The peaks corresponding to calcite and gypsum
are more intense in mortars with high portlandite (M1, M2, M5, and M6)
and bassanite (M3, M4, M7, and M8) contents while they disappear in
mortars M4 and M1, respectively. In mortars M5 to M8, quarts and
traces of albite and diopside originating from the brick powder were
detected. In addition, akermanite and gehlenite are two new identified
minerals that may be derived from the pozzolanic reaction between
portlandite and the reactive aluminates and silicates present in the brick
powder. These minerals have indeed been identified in some previous
works as hydration products [47,48].
In order to clearly visualize the influence of the brick powder on the
gypsum-lime mortars, the microstructural morphology of mortar M2
was compared with that of mortar M6, which has the same binder
dosage but with a replacement of 66% of sand by the brick powder.
Furthermore, EDS analysis were performed to identify the chemical
composition of the observed crystals within the specimen. The analyzed
zone of mortar M2, presented in Fig. 7, shows the presence of two main
crystals that turned out to be gypsum (Spc1) and calcite (Spc2) by the
EDS analysis. Due to the large amount of lime used in mortar M2, calcite
Fig. 5. Crossed-brick tensile test.
5
Construction and Building Materials 325 (2022) 126770
crystals are globally more dominant than gypsum.
The SEM images of mortar M6 are shown on Fig. 8. The analyzed
zone corresponds to a sand grain surrounded by crystals of shape similar
to that of calcite. Their chemical composition, analyzed by EDS on
different points, revealed the presence, in addition to calcite and gyp­
sum, of some CSH and CASH phases. Thus, the EDS analysis confirm the
XRD results about the presence of new hydraulic products. However, no
chemical reaction between the bassanite and the brick powder was
detected. The same behavior was observed in [27,49].
3.2. Porosity
Fig. 9 summarizes the porosity values of the mortars measured at 1
and 3 months. Error bars indicate the highest and lowest value obtained
for each mortar. The results show that the cement mortar is the least
porous. Mortars {M1, M2, M3, M4} and {M5, M7} showed increasing
porosity when replacing lime with gypsum. Similarly, the replacement
of sand by brick powder increased the porosity in mortars {M2, M5, M6}
and {M3, M7, M8}.
As shown in previous studies [50–52], the porosity of the nine
mortars is directly related to the amount of water required to obtain the
same workability, see Fig. 10. The evaporation of the free kneading
water available in the mixture during the curing process generated air
voids in the structure leading to a more porous medium.
The fineness of binder and aggregate grains greatly influences the
amount of kneading water. The finer the material, the more water is
required to wet the entire surface, reduce inter-particle friction, and
therefore achieve adequate workability. As concluded from the specific
surface area values given in Table 1, cement mortar has a larger grain
size than the other binders, and therefore it needs less mixing water,
which may justify its low porosity. Compared to the percentage of water
added (Table 2), the increase in porosity between M1 and M2 mortars is
significantly more remarkable than that between M2 and M3 or between
M3 and M4. Mortar M1 has a significantly lower porosity due first to the
low amount of mixing water and second to an evaporation of water in
the first curing days associated with a clearly visible shrinkage as shown
in Fig. 11. The shrinkage measured at 1 month with a digital caliper was
about 3 mm. The voids left by the evaporated water during the first 2
days were partially healed due to shrinkage. This was not possible with
the gypsum-lime mortars because of the rapid hardening and the
dimensional stability of gypsum [23], which blocked the structure
shrinkage and consequently generated pores inside the mortar.
It is worth noting that two M2 mortar samples, containing 66% of
lime and 33% of gypsum, were dissolved during saturation in the
desiccator at 1 month. This was due to a partial dissolution of the non-
carbonated portlandite [53], which actually underwent only 3 weeks of
air curing. In the third M2 sample, water has filled the void left by the
K. Naciri et al. Construction and Building Materials 325 (2022) 126770

Fig. 6. XRD patterns of mortars M1-M8. Ak: akermanite, Al: albite, C: calcite, D: dolomite, Di: diopside, G: gypsum, Ge: gehlenite, P: portlandite, Q: quartz.

Fig. 7. SEM images and EDS analysis of mortar M2.

dissolved portlandite, which may justify the high porosity value ob­
tained in mortar M2 at 1 month. This phenomenon was not observed in
mortars M5 and M6 containing the same proportion of lime as M2 due to
the activation of the pozzolanic reaction during the first week, even
without carbon dioxide [54]. No dissolution was observed at 3 months
either.
As was the case in some previous works [23,24,55,56], the porosity
of lime-based mortars has shown a slight decrease with time. Among the
factors that may be responsible for this decrease is the change in pore
structure and size as a result of the transformation of portlandite to
calcite as the carbonation reaction progressed [57,58].
3.3. Density
The bulk densities measured by hydrostatic weighing are summa­
rized in Fig. 12. It can be seen that the cement mortar is the most dense.
Its reduced porosity contributed to its high density relative to the other
mortars. The density decreased with the replacement of lime by gypsum
in mortars M2, M3, and M4, given that the absolute density of gypsum
(2270 kg/m3 [59]) is lower than that of calcite (2709 kg/m3 [60]). In

6
K. Naciri et al. Construction and Building Materials 325 (2022) 126770

Fig. 8. SEM images and EDS analysis of mortar M6.

Fig. 9. Porosity of the nine mortars at 1 and 3 months.

Fig. 10. Relationship between the amount of added water and porosity at 1 and 3 months.

addition, results of mortars {M2, M5, M6} and {M3, M7, M8} show that
the replacement of sand by brick powder reduced the density for the
same reason: sand has a higher absolute density than brick powder (see
Table 1). The considerable reduction in density between M1 and M2 is
actually due to the reduced porosity of mortar M1. Similarly, the low
density observed for mortar M2 compared to M3 at 1 month is attributed
to its high porosity and the carbonation of a small amount of calcite due
to the curing conditions previously discussed. In general, the trend
observed in the nine mortars is mainly related to the absolute density of
materials in combination with the porosity of mortars.

7
K. Naciri et al. Construction and Building Materials 325 (2022) 126770

3.4. Water absorption

The water absorption coefficient due to capillary action of the nine

mortars is given in Fig. 13. All mortars showed a slight reduction in the
absorption rate between 1 and 3 months. Cement mortar has the lowest
water absorption coefficient followed by mortar M1. The replacement of
lime by gypsum with percentages of 33% and 66% in M2 and M3,
respectively, increased the absorption rate. Furthermore, mortars {M2,
M5, M6} and {M3, M7, M8} showed an increase in the absorption rate
with the increasing percentage of the brick powder. This is due to the
increase in the porosity of the sample which is caused by the evaporation
of mixing water. The low absorption rate measured in the cement mortar
is also well correlated with its reduced porosity. However, it can be
noticed that the absorption rate decreases when reaching 100% of
gypsum in mortar M4 and when passing from 33% of gypsum in M5 and
M6 to 66% in M7 and M8 mortars. The explanation of this reduction in
the absorption rate in mortars with a high percentage of gypsum can be
related to other parameters than porosity.
Indeed, several studies have reported that capillarity is also affected
by the presence of coarse aggregate, the angle formed between the
mortar and water surfaces, as well as the shape, connectivity, and pore
size [61,62]. Pores with a radius between 0.1 and 1 μm are those that
remarkably influence capillarity. The smaller the pore diameter in this
range, the greater the capillary forces, resulting in faster water absorp­
Fig. 11. Shrinkage of mortar M1 at 2 days of curing.
tion [53]. A visual inspection of mortars M2 and M4, which have the
same absorption rate even though mortar M2 is less porous, clearly
confirms the presence of larger pore sizes in mortar M4, see Fig. 14. The
same finding was experimentally reported in [23], where the pore size
distribution was tested using mercury intrusion porosimetry on gypsum-

Fig. 12. Bulk density of the nine mortars at 1 and 3 months.

Fig. 13. Water absorption coefficient of the nine mortars at 1 and 3 months.

8
K. Naciri et al.
Fig. 14. Macroscopic aspect of the pore size in mortars M2 and M4.
lime mortars. The main pore radius of the pure gypsum mortars was
above 4 μm, while it ranged around 0.7 μm for pure lime mortars.
3.5. Flexural strength
The nine mortars flexural strength at 1 and 3 months is illustrated in
Fig. 15. An increase in resistance can be observed between 1 and 3
months. The cement mortar has a flexural strength largely higher than
other mortars. The flexural strength of mortar M2 is the lowest at 1 and
3 months first, because of its high porosity compared to mortar M1,
which facilitated the development and progression of micro-cracks, and
second, because of its reduced amount of gypsum compared to M3 and
M4 mortars. The increase in the gypsum percentage between M5 and M7
and between M6 and M8, where the porosity is almost the same, resulted
in an increase in the flexural strength. Pure lime mortar has a lower
flexural strength at 1 month than mortar M3 and M4 containing 66%
and 100% of gypsum respectively. However, at 3 months, the flexural
strength of mortar M1 exceeded that of M3 and M4 due to the pro­
gression of portlandite carbonation. The replacement of sand by brick
powder in gypsum-lime mortars improved the flexural strength, even
with a slight increase in porosity, due to the activation of the pozzolanic
reaction and the reduction of the inactive aggregates to be bonded by the
binder. The same observation was reported in [10,63,64], where mor­
tars with low aggregate content showed higher flexural strength.
3.6. Dry and saturated compressive strengths
The dry compressive strength of mortars, at 1 and 3 months, is shown
in Fig. 16. As was expected, the compressive strength of cement mortar
far exceeds that of other specimens. At 1 month, it is 146% higher than
Fig. 15. Flexural strength of the nine mortars at 1 and 3 months.
9
Construction and Building Materials 325 (2022) 126770
that of mortar M8, the second most resistant mortar in compression, and
110% higher at 3 months. Mortar M2, which contains 66% of lime, has
the lowest compressive strength value at both 1 and 3 months. The
curing of this mortar, in the absence of carbon dioxide during the first 7
days, has negatively influenced the strength. Furthermore, the porous
structure of M2 led to 32% lower strength compared to M1 at 3 months.
Porosity is not the only main factor affecting strength. This is clearly
visible from mortars M2, M3, and M4 where the replacement of lime by
gypsum resulted in an improvement in strength even with a more porous
structure. The same trend can be observed in mortars {M5, M7} and
{M6, M8}.
The pozzolanic reaction produced in M5, M6, M7, and M8 mortars
provided a much higher strength than the pure gypsum mortar.
Comparing the strength increase percentage at 3 months, the best
improvement is observed between M2 and M5 where the replacement of
33% of sand by brick powder, in a mixture of 66 % of lime and 33% of
gypsum, produced an improvement of 141%. Between M3 and M7,
where gypsum is more dominant (33% of lime and 66% of gypsum), the
replacement of 33% of sand by brick powder only resulted in an
improvement of 81%. A further increase in brick powder between M5
and M6, containing 66% of lime and 33% of gypsum, and between M7
and M8, containing 33% of lime and 66% of gypsum, only resulted in a
gain of +25% and +27%, respectively. This allows us to suppose that
perhaps a replacement of 100% of sand by brick powder will not result
in a significant further improvement in strength since some of the brick
powder will be in excess compared to the lime and will only act as filler
in the structure [8].
All mortars showed an increase in strength between 1 and 3 months.
Mortar M1 showed the highest increase value of 106% due to the slow
nature of the carbonation reaction [65] compared to the cement
K. Naciri et al.
Fig. 16. Compressive strength of the nine mortars at 1 and 3 months.
hydration reaction, where the increase did not exceed 7%.
The saturated compressive strength of mortars, at 1 and 3 months, is
depicted in Fig. 17. The cement mortar shows the highest saturated
strength among the nine mortars, with only 17% and 13% reduction
compared to the dry state at 1 and 3 months, respectively. As for the dry
strength, mortar M2 was the least resistant in the saturated state. This
low strength at 1 month was significantly improved by 168% and 303%
with the replacement of sand by 33% and 66% of brick powder in
mortars M5 and M6, respectively. The increase in the saturated strength
between 1 and 3 months was significantly high in M1 and M2 mortars
due to the transformation of a significant amount of portlandite to
calcite, a less soluble substance [53,58]. At 3 months, the pure gypsum
mortar strength was lower than that of mortars M1 and M3 in the
saturated state while it was exceeding them in the dry state. The strength
degradation of this mortar, reaching 73%, is the most significant among
the nine mortars because of the high solubility of gypsum dihydrate in
water [13].
3.7. Bond strength
Bond strength is one of the main important properties of hardened
mortar [66,67]. It qualifies the resistance to debonding under a
perpendicular load at the interface between mortar and masonry units.
Fig. 18 shows the results of the tensile tests performed on crossed-crick
couplets at 1 and 3 months. The adhesion increased when increasing the
gypsum content. Thus, the highest adhesion value was obtained for the
pure gypsum mortar. Cement mortar, which showed the best
Fig. 17. Saturated compressive strength of the nine mortars at 1 and 3 months.
10
Construction and Building Materials 325 (2022) 126770
performance in all the other properties, had a much lower bond than the
pure gypsum mortar and just slightly higher bond than the pure lime
mortar. The latter was the weakest.
The adhesion increased when replacing sand with brick powder. A
possible factor for this improvement was the reduction of the aggregate
size. The fine particles can access more easily to the brick pores dragged
by capillary penetration of water [68]. Their hardening inside the pores,
improved by the pozzolanic reaction, creates a kind of interlocking be­
tween mortar and brick and contributes mechanically to the adhesion.
This reasoning may also justify the unexpected low value of the cement
bond strength, since it has a larger particle size than other binders (see
Table 1). Comparing the bond strength results between 1 and 3 months,
an increase in adhesion is observed for all mortars as a result of the
ongoing pozzolanic and carbonation reactions [54,65], which improves
the interlocking between mortar and brick pores. The improvement
observed in the gypsum mortar may be due to a delayed hydration of the
unreacted bassanite and anhydrite [69] and may also be the origin of the
aforementioned increase in the compressive and flexural strengths.
However, for the pure lime mortar, the increase is only 27%, while it
ranges from 75% to 88% for mortars with a gypsum content of 66% or
more. This may be the result of the shrinkage that occurred in mortar M1
as observed in Fig. 11 causing a partial detachment between mortar and
brick interfaces during the first days of curing. This shrinkage may also
be the origin of a total detachment that occurred in one of the 3 couplets
prepared using mortar M1 for the 3-month crossed-crick test. Thus,
carbonation was not able to produce a significant improvement in
adhesion. In contrast, gypsum mortars have shown a dimensionally
K. Naciri et al.
Fig. 18. Bond strength of the nine mortars at 1 and 3 months.
stable structure [23] or a slight expansion [70].
In general, the trend of these results can only be thoroughly
explained in relation to other parameters such as the mortar composi­
tion, workability and rheology, mortar water retention, brick water
suction, aggregate sphericity, and mineralogy [68,71–73].
4. Conclusions
This study explored the incorporation of recycled waste brick in
gypsum-lime mortars in order to move towards an environmentally
friendly mortar. The influence of the amount of lime, gypsum, and brick
powder on the mortar characteristics was studied and the deduced
conclusions are summarized as follows:
• The capillary absorption rate and porosity increased in mortars with
large amounts of gypsum and brick powder as a consequence of the
increase in mixing water. The latter is mainly influenced by the
fineness of the used raw materials.
• The pure lime mortar showed considerable shrinkage which could be
the reason for the low adhesion value measured for this mortar.
• The replacement of lime by gypsum resulted in mortars with higher
flexural, compressive, and bond strengths. However, the compres­
sive strength in the saturated state was strongly degraded especially
for the pure gypsum mortar.
• The replacement of 66% of sand by brick powder in mortars made of
33% of lime and 66% of gypsum reduced the bulk density and
improved the brick–mortar bond strength, flexural strength, and
compressive resistances in the dry state and especially in the satu­
rated state. This dosage was even able to provide a much higher bond
strength than cement mortar.
• XRD and SEM-EDS analyses revealed the presence of new CSH/CASH
phases resulting from the reaction between lime and brick powder,
which justifies the improvement of the mechanical characteristics of
mortars containing waste brick.
• No chemical reaction between gypsum and brick powder was
detected by EDS analysis.
• The dry and saturated compressive strength, flexural strength, and
water absorption rate of the cement mortar are significantly better
compared to the other tested mortars. However, gypsum-lime mor­
tars showed low density and comparable or even higher bond
strength, mainly when a high percentage of gypsum and brick
powder is used.
Overall, mortar containing 66% of gypsum as binder and 66% of
brick powder as aggregate has shown to be a promising alternative for
masonry wall construction where the high compressive strength of
cement is not the primary design criteria.
11
Construction and Building Materials 325 (2022) 126770
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Khalil Naciri: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Re­
sources. Issam Aalil: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources,
Validation, Writing – review & editing. Ali Chaaba: Conceptualization,
Project administration, Resources, Validation, Writing – review & edit­
ing, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Mr. Azeddine Maatof, General
Manager of Brimak brickworks (Safi, Morocco) for supplying the bricks
used in the bond strength test and Mr. Hatim Abrada, Production
Manager at Bab Mansour brickworks (Meknes, Morocco) for providing
the brick waste. XRD and SEM-EDS analyses were performed at the
“Centre de l’Innovation et du Transfert Technologique” (CITT-UMI,
Meknes, Morocco). The assistance of Mr. Abdelmalek Ouannou is greatly
appreciated.
References
[1] M. Wu, Y. Zhang, Y. Jia, W. She, G. Liu, Z. Yang, Y. Zhang, W. Zhang, W. Sun,
Effects of sodium sulfate on the hydration and properties of lime-based low carbon
cementitious materials, J. Clean. Prod. 220 (2019) 677–687, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.186.
[2] P.J.M. Monteiro, S.A. Miller, A. Horvath, Towards sustainable concrete, Nat. Mater.
16 (7) (2017) 698–699, https://doi.org/10.1038/nmat4930.
[3] T.M. Letcher, Why do we have global warming?, Elsevier Inc., 2018. doi:10.1016/
B978-0-12-814104-5.00001-6.
[4] G.A. Florides, P. Christodoulides, Global warming and carbon dioxide through
sciences, Environ. Int. 35 (2) (2009) 390–401, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envint.2008.07.007.
[5] D.Y. Oh, T. Noguchi, R. Kitagaki, W.J. Park, CO2 emission reduction by reuse of
building material waste in the Japanese cement industry, Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 38 (2014) 796–810, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.036.
[6] Y. Wang, Y.i. Tan, Y. Wang, C. Liu, Mechanical properties and chloride
permeability of green concrete mixed with fly ash and coal gangue, Constr. Build.
Mater. 233 (2020) 117166, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117166.
[7] S.H. Kang, Y. Jeong, K.H. Tan, J. Moon, High-volume use of limestone in ultra-high
performance fiber-reinforced concrete for reducing cement content and autogenous
shrinkage, Constr. Build. Mater. 213 (2019) 292–305, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.04.091.
[8] E. Navrátilová, P. Rovnaníková, Pozzolanic properties of brick powders and their
effect on the properties of modified lime mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 120 (2016)
530–539, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.062.
K. Naciri et al.
[9] W. Bartz, T. Filar, Mineralogical characterization of rendering mortars from
decorative details of a baroque building in Kożuchów (SW Poland), Mater. Charact.
61 (1) (2010) 105–115, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchar.2009.10.013.
[10] J. Igea Romera, S. Martínez-Ramírez, P. Lapuente, M.T. Blanco-Varela, Assessment
of the physico-mechanical behaviour of gypsum-lime repair mortars as a function
of curing time, Environ. Earth Sci. 70 (4) (2013) 1605–1618, https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12665-013-2245-y.
[11] L. Ventolà, M. Vendrell, P. Giraldez, L. Merino, Traditional organic additives
improve lime mortars: New old materials for restoration and building natural stone
fabrics, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (8) (2011) 3313–3318, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2011.03.020.
[12] R. Nogueira, A.P. Ferreira Pinto, A. Gomes, Design and behavior of traditional
lime-based plasters and renders. Review and critical appraisal of strengths and
weaknesses, Cem. Concr. Compos. 89 (2018) 192–204, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2018.03.005.
[13] G. Camarini, J.A. De Milito, Gypsum hemihydrate-cement blends to improve
renderings durability, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (11) (2011) 4121–4125, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.04.048.
[14] D.A. Kontogeorgos, M.A. Founti, Gypsum board reaction kinetics at elevated
temperatures, Thermochim. Acta. 529 (2012) 6–13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tca.2011.11.014.
[15] H. Javangula, Q. Lineberry, Comparative studies on fire-rated and standard
gypsum wallboard, J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 116 (3) (2014) 1417–1433, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10973-014-3795-2.
[16] A. Rahman, M. Rasul, M.M.K. Khan, S. Sharma, Assessment of energy performance
and emission control using alternative fuels in cement industry through a process
model, Energies. 10 (12) (2017) 1996, https://doi.org/10.3390/en10121996.
[17] A. Sagastume Gutiérrez, J. Van Caneghem, J.B. Cogollos Martínez,
C. Vandecasteele, Evaluation of the environmental performance of lime production
in Cuba, J. Clean. Prod. 31 (2012) 126–136, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2012.02.035.
[18] B. Jiang, D. Xia, B.o. Yu, R. Xiong, W. Ao, P. Zhang, L. Cong, An environment-
friendly process for limestone calcination with CO2 looping and recovery, J. Clean.
Prod. 240 (2019) 118147, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118147.
[19] S.-H. Kang, Y.-H. Kwon, J. Moon, Quantitative analysis of CO2 uptake and
mechanical properties of air lime-based materials, Energies. 12 (15) (2019) 2903,
https://doi.org/10.3390/en12152903.
[20] B. Middendorf, Physico-mechanical and microstructural characteristics of historic
and restoration mortars based on gypsum: Current knowledge and perspective,
Geol. Soc. Spec. Publ. 205 (1) (2002) 165–176, https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.
SP.2002.205.01.13.
[21] N. Kondratieva, M. Barre, F. Goutenoire, M. Sanytsky, Study of modified gypsum
binder, Constr. Build. Mater. 149 (2017) 535–542, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2017.05.140.
[22] A. Arizzi, G. Cultrone, Aerial lime-based mortars blended with a pozzolanic
additive and different admixtures: A mineralogical, textural and physical-
mechanical study, Constr. Build. Mater. 31 (2012) 135–143, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.12.069.
[23] M.T. Freire, M.d.R. Veiga, A. Santos Silva, J. de Brito, Restoration of ancient
gypsum-based plasters: Design of compatible materials, Cem. Concr. Compos. 120
(2021) 104014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2021.104014.
[24] I. Aalil, D. Badreddine, K. Beck, X. Brunetaud, K. Cherkaoui, A. Chaaba, M. Al-
Mukhtar, Valorization of crushed bricks in lime-based mortars, Constr. Build.
Mater. 226 (2019) 555–563, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.265.
[25] C. Sun, L. Chen, J. Xiao, A. Singh, J. Zeng, Compound utilization of construction
and industrial waste as cementitious recycled powder in mortar, Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 170 (2021) 105561, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105561.
[26] M. del Río Merino, J. Santa Cruz Astorqui, P. Villoria Sáez, R. Santos Jiménez,
M. González Cortina, Eco plaster mortars with addition of waste for high hardness
coatings, Constr. Build. Mater. 158 (2018) 649–656, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2017.10.037.
[27] S. Beldjilali, A. Bougara, J. Aguiar, N.-E. Bouhamou, R. Dabbebi, Properties of a
new material based on a gypsum matrix incorporating waste brick, Constr. Build.
Mater. 259 (2020) 120416, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120416.
[28] R. Černý, A. Kunca, V. Tydlitát, J. Drchalová, P. Rovnaníková, Effect of pozzolanic
admixtures on mechanical, thermal and hygric properties of lime plasters, Constr.
Build. Mater. 20 (10) (2006) 849–857, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2005.07.002.
[29] V. Nežerka, Z. Slížková, P. Tesárek, T. Plachý, D. Frankeová, V. Petráňová,
Comprehensive study on mechanical properties of lime-based pastes with additions
of metakaolin and brick dust, Cem. Concr. Res. 64 (2014) 17–29, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconres.2014.06.006.
[30] E. Aggelakopoulou, A. Bakolas, A. Moropoulou, Properties of lime-metakolin
mortars for the restoration of historic masonries, Appl. Clay Sci. 53 (1) (2011)
15–19, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2011.04.005.
[31] E. Vejmelková, M. Keppert, P. Rovnaníková, Z. Keršner, R. Černý, Application of
burnt clay shale as pozzolan addition to lime mortar, Cem. Concr. Compos. 34 (4)
(2012) 486–492, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.01.001.
[32] I. Aalil, K. Beck, X. Brunetaud, D. Badreddine, K. Cherkaoui, A. Chaaba, M. Al-
Mukhtar, Restoration mortars for the Volubilis calcarenite stone, Procedia Struct,
Integr. 2nd Int. Conf. Struct. Integr. 5 (2017) 1123–1128, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.prostr.2017.07.106.
[33] J. Lv, T. Zhou, Q. Du, H. Wu, Experimental investigation on properties of gypsum-
quicklime-soil grout material in the reparation of earthen site cracks, Constr. Build.
Mater. 157 (2017) 253–262, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.08.180.
12
Construction and Building Materials 325 (2022) 126770
[34] SNIMA, NM 10.1.004 Norme Marocaine: Liants Hydrauliques – Ciments –
Composition, spécifications et critères de conformité, Rabat, Morocco, 2003.
[35] AFNOR, NF EN 933-8. Essais pour déterminer les caractéristiques géométriques des
granulats - Partie 8 : évaluation des fines - Équivalent de sable, 2012.
[36] L. Zheng, Z. Ge, Z. Yao, Z. Gao, Mechanical Properties of Mortar with Recycled
Clay-Brick-Powder, in: ASCE Conf Proc, ICCTP 2011 Towar. Sustain. Transp. Syst.,
2011: pp. 3379–3388. doi:10.1061/41186(421)335.
[37] Y. Zhao, J. Gao, C. Liu, X. Chen, Z. Xu, The particle-size effect of waste clay brick
powder on its pozzolanic activity and properties of blended cement, J. Clean. Prod.
242 (2020) 118521, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118521.
[38] AFNOR, NF EN 933-1. Essais pour déterminer les caractéristiques géométriques des
granulats - Partie 1 : détermination de la granularité - Analyse granulométrique par
tamisage, 2012.
[39] AFNOR, NF EN ISO 17892-4. Geotechnical Investigation and Testing - Laboratory
Testing of Soil - Part 4: Determination of Particle Size Distribution, 2018.
[40] J. Lanas, J.I. Alvarez-Galindo, Masonry repair lime-based mortars: Factors affecting
the mechanical behavior, Cem. Concr. Res. 33 (11) (2003) 1867–1876, https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0008-8846(03)00210-2.
[41] AFNOR, NF EN 1015-2. Méthodes d’essai des mortiers pour maçonnerie - Partie 2:
échantillonnage global des mortiers et préparation des mortiers pour essai, 2007.
[42] AFNOR, NF EN 1015-3. Méthodes d’essai des mortiers pour maçonnerie - Partie 3:
détermination de la consistance du mortier frais (avec une table à secousses), 2007.
[43] AFNOR, NF EN 1015-11. Méthodes d’essai des mortiers pour maçonnerie - Partie
11: détermination de la résistance en flexion et en compression du mortier durci,
2019.
[44] Astm C952–02, Standard test method for bond strength of mortar to masonry units
2002 West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
[45] AFNOR, NF EN 1015-18. Méthodes d’essai des mortiers pour maçonnerie - Partie
18: détermination du coefficient d’absorption d’eau par capillarité du mortier
durci, 2003.
[46] AFNOR, NF P18-459. Béton - Essai pour béton durci - Essai de porosité et de masse
volumique, 2010.
[47] M.F. Rojas, M.I. Sánchez de Rojas, The effect of high curing temperature on the
reaction kinetics in MK/lime and MK-blended cement matrices at 60 ◦ C, Cem.
Concr. Res. 33 (5) (2003) 643–649, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(02)
01040-2.
[48] A. Kadhim, M. Sadique, R. Al-Mufti, K. Hashim, Long-term performance of novel
high-calcium one-part alkali-activated cement developed from thermally activated
lime kiln dust, J. Build. Eng. 32 (2020) 101766, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2020.101766.
[49] M.Y. Durgun, Experimental research on gypsum-based mixtures containing
recycled roofing tile powder at ambient and high temperatures, Constr. Build.
Mater. 285 (2021) 122956, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122956.
[50] M. Arandigoyen, J.L.P. Bernal, M.A.B. López, J.I. Alvarez, Lime-pastes with
different kneading water: Pore structure and capillary porosity, Appl. Surf. Sci. 252
(5) (2005) 1449–1459, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2005.02.145.
[51] M. Arandigoyen, J.I. Alvarez, Pore structure and mechanical properties of cement-
lime mortars, Cem. Concr. Res. 37 (5) (2007) 767–775, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconres.2007.02.023.
[52] S.F. Marques, R.A. Ribeiro, L.M. Silva, V.M. Ferreira, J.A. Labrincha, Study of
rehabilitation mortars: Construction of a knowledge correlation matrix, Cem.
Concr. Res. 36 (10) (2006) 1894–1902, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconres.2006.06.005.
[53] A. Arizzi, G. Cultrone, The influence of aggregate texture, morphology and grading
on the carbonation of non-hydraulic (aerial) limebased mortars, Q. J. Eng. Geol.
Hydrogeol. 46 (4) (2013) 507–520, https://doi.org/10.1144/qjegh2012-017.
[54] D. Zhang, J. Zhao, D. Wang, C. Xu, M. Zhai, X. Ma, Comparative study on the
properties of three hydraulic lime mortar systems: Natural hydraulic lime mortar,
cement-aerial lime-based mortar and slag-aerial lime-based mortar, Constr. Build.
Mater. 186 (2018) 42–52, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.053.
[55] O. Cazalla, C. Rodriguez-Navarro, E. Sebastian, G. Cultrone, Effects on Traditional
Lime Mortar Carbonation, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 76 (2002) 1070–1076.
[56] I. Papayianni, M. Stefanidou, Strength-porosity relationships in lime-pozzolan
mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 20 (9) (2006) 700–705, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2005.02.012.
[57] M. Arandigoyen, B. Bicer-Simsir, J.I. Alvarez, D.A. Lange, Variation of
microstructure with carbonation in lime and blended pastes, Appl. Surf. Sci. 252
(20) (2006) 7562–7571, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2005.09.007.
[58] R.M. Lawrence, T.J. Mays, S.P. Rigby, P. Walker, D. D’Ayala, Effects of carbonation
on the pore structure of non-hydraulic lime mortars, Cem. Concr. Res. 37 (7)
(2007) 1059–1069, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.04.011.
[59] W.A. Wooster, On the Crystal Structure of Gypsum, CaSO4⋅2H2O, Zeitschrift Fur
Krist. 94 (1936) 375–396, https://doi.org/10.1524/ZKRI.1936.94.1.375.
[60] E.N. Maslen, V.A. Streltsov, N.R. Streltsova, X-ray study of the electron density in
calcite, CaCo3, Acta Crystallogr. Sect. B. 49 (4) (1993) 636–641, https://doi.org/
10.1107/S0108768193002575.
[61] A. Isebaert, L. Van Parys, V. Cnudde, Composition and compatibility requirements
of mineral repair mortars for stone - A review, Constr. Build. Mater. 59 (2014)
39–50, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.02.020.
[62] I. Centauro, E. Cantisani, C. Grandin, A. Salvini, S. Vettori, The Influence of Natural
Organic Materials on the Properties of Traditional Lime-Based Mortars, Int. J.
Archit. Herit. 11 (2017) 670–684, https://doi.org/10.1080/
15583058.2017.1287978.
[63] J. Lanas, J.L. Pérez Bernal, M.A. Bello, J.I. Alvarez Galindo, Mechanical properties
of natural hydraulic lime-based mortars, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (12) (2004)
2191–2201, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.02.005.
K. Naciri et al.
[64] A. Gameiro, A. Santos Silva, P. Faria, J. Grilo, T. Branco, R. Veiga, A. Velosa,
Physical and chemical assessment of lime-metakaolin mortars: Influence of binder:
aggregate ratio, Cem. Concr. Compos. 45 (2014) 264–271, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.06.010.
[65] M. Apostolopoulou, E.T. Delegou, E. Alexakis, M. Kalofonou, K.C. Lampropoulos,
E. Aggelakopoulou, A. Bakolas, A. Moropoulou, Study of the historical mortars of
the Holy Aedicule as a basis for the design, application and assessment of repair
mortars: A multispectral approach applied on the Holy Aedicule, Constr. Build.
Mater. 181 (2018) 618–637, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.06.016.
[66] M. Tate, The Most Important Property of Cement-Lime Mortar in Masonry
Construction Is, Int. Build. Lime Symp. (2005) 1–13.
[67] B.I. Association, Technical notes on brick construction, Technical Notes 8-Mortars
for Brick Masonry, Virginia, USA, 2003.
[68] A.R. Lopes dos Santos, M.d.R. da Silva Veiga, A.M. dos Santos Silva, J.M. Caliço
Lopes de Brito, Tensile bond strength of lime-based mortars: The role of the
microstructure on their performance assessed by a new non-standard test method,
J. Build. Eng. 29 (2020) 101136, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.101136.
13
Construction and Building Materials 325 (2022) 126770
[69] A. Vimmrová, J. Krejsová, L. Scheinherrová, M. Doleželová, M. Keppert, Changes
in structure and composition of gypsum paste at elevated temperatures, J. Therm.
Anal. Calorim. 142 (1) (2020) 19–28, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-020-
09528-8.
[70] D.R. Moorehead, Cementation by the carbonation of hydrated lime, Cem. Concr.
Res. 16 (5) (1986) 700–708.
[71] E. Marrocchino, A.N. Fried, A. Koulouris, C. Vaccaro, Micro-chemical/structural
characterisation of thin layer masonry: A correlation with engineering
performance, Constr. Build. Mater. 23 (1) (2009) 582–594, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.09.010.
[72] H. Carasek, P. Japiassú, O. Cascudo, A. Velosa, Bond between 19th Century lime
mortars and glazed ceramic tiles, Constr. Build. Mater. 59 (2014) 85–98, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.02.043.
[73] T. Žižlavský, P. Bayer, M. Vyšvařil, Bond properties of NHL-based mortars with
viscosity-modifying water-retentive admixtures, Minerals. 11 (7) (2021) 685,
https://doi.org/10.3390/min11070685.