See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319154111

RILEM TC 203-RHM: Repair mortars for historic masonry. Repair mortars for
historic masonry. From problem to intervention: a decision process

Article  in  Materials and Structures · September 2012

CITATIONS READS

16 587

17 authors, including:

R.P.J. Van Hees Caspar Groot

Delft University of Technology Delft University of Technology
119 PUBLICATIONS   2,111 CITATIONS    83 PUBLICATIONS   752 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

John J Hughes Koenraad Van Balen

University of the West of Scotland KU Leuven
64 PUBLICATIONS   1,875 CITATIONS    164 PUBLICATIONS   3,870 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Church of St James, Leuven View project

EAF slag aggregates View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Caspar Groot on 01 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Materials and Structures (2012) 45:1295–1302
DOI 10.1617/s11527-012-9917-z
RILEM TECHNICAL COMMITTEE
RILEM TC 203-RHM: Repair mortars for historic masonry
Repair mortars for historic masonry. From problem to intervention: a decision
process
TC 203-RHM (Main author: Rob van Hees)
 RILEM 2012
Abstract This article focuses on repair or replace-
ment mortars for historical buildings. Both the deci-
sion process and questions arising are dealt with, in
order to better define and illustrate technical require-
ments for mortars to be used for the repair or
restoration of monuments and historic buildings
(masonry mortars, plasters, renders…). The article
summarizes a longer document, meant to help profes-
sionals in their decisions on the interventions, taking
into account aspects, which are ranging from the ethics
of restoration to the technical requirements.
TC-Membership:
Chairman: Caspar Groot, The Netherlands.
Secretary: John J. Hughes, Scotland.
Members: Koen van Balen, Belgium; Beril Bicer-Simsir, USA;
Luigia Binda, Italy; Jan Elsen, Belgium; Rob van Hees,
The Netherlands; Thorborg von Konow , Finland; Jan Erik
Lindqvist, Sweden; Paul Maurenbrecher, Canada; Ioanna
Papayanni, Greece; Maria Subercaseaux, Canada; Cristina
Tedeschi, Italy; Eleni-Eva Toumbakari, Greece; Margaret
Thompson, USA; Jan Valek, Czech Republic; Rosario Veiga,
Portugal.
Acknowledgments: The contributions to this study and to the
TC 203-RHM by Christine Bläuer, Switzerland; Bernhard
Middendorf, Germany; Stefan Simon, Germany; Maria
Stefanidou, Greece, and Yves Vanhellemont, Belgium, are
gratefully acknowledged.
TC 203-RHM (Main author: Rob van Hees) (&)
TNO & TU DELFT, Delft, The Netherlands
e-mail: rob.vanhees@tno.nl
Keywords Mortars
Repair
Decision process

Requirements
1 Introduction
For those responsible for the execution of a restoration
project, technical problems are only a part of the task
that has to be dealt with. Redesign and re-use, i.e. the
transformation of historic buildings, in order to meet
current needs may be the main challenge for the
architect and the structural engineer. However, at the
same time aspects like authenticity, and conceptual
and functional requirements represent questions that
have to be answered as well. In fact the architect,
engineer or conservation specialist goes through a
continuous process of decision-making during the
realization of a restoration project.
Given the complexity of many restoration projects,
a guideline that deals with these decisions in a logical
way, can be considered a useful tool. It is important
that all involved disciplines cooperate and arrive at
well balanced decisions.
When dealing with the conservation of monuments
and historic buildings, decisions should be made at
several levels of abstraction and it is not possible to
neglect authenticity questions. Therefore a complete
framework was proposed by RILEM TC 167-COM
[1], ranging from philosophical (more abstract) to
practical (mix design) requirements, as a basis for the
description of functional and technical requirements
for repair mortars.
1296
Fig. 1 Framework for
intervention requirements in
historic buildings
Figure 1 shows how the mix design for a mortar fits
into the framework of requirements at several levels of
abstraction.
2 Assessment of the state of conservation
A restoration project should always start with an
assessment of the state of conservation of the building
or construction concerned. This is the first and
necessary step for defining the problem to be solved.
This step also includes the decision on which inves-
tigations have to be performed.
Two options could be followed for the design of the
repair mortar:
1. a mortar based on authentic (existing) materials
(which theoretically might be the most compat-
ible1 solution); under certain circumstances a
mortar based on the original (existing) mortar
could be designed, thus stimulating the conserva-
tion of traditional craftsmanship and know-how.
2. a mortar that is inherently durable.
1
Compatible is defined as: not causing any damage (in a broad
sense, ranging from technical to aesthetic and historical) to the
existing fabric and being as durable as possible under that
condition.
Materials and Structures (2012) 45:1295–1302
Experience has shown that some repair mortars
which proved to be durable were not compatible with
the original fabric, so although the mortar was not
damaged it created new problems. Thus, the designer
should prove that the proposed interventions are not
only durable, but also compatible. In practice one has
to ‘optimise’ between durability and compatibility and
nowadays, up to a certain extent, compatibility is
generally strived for.
Focusing on repair mortars for the first option, the
mortar design should be based on the characteristics
of the existing mortar (which has to be analyzed
systematically) that govern both historical and tech-
nical compatibility.
In practical cases, the steps shown in Table 1
should be undertaken and for the repair mortar the
concept to be followed should be decided.
The historical and value assessments of the building
should include past interventions and historical
events that may have contributed to the degradation
of the building. The possible (historical) value of
past interventions and events should be taken into
consideration.
The assessment of the technical state of conserva-
tion (technical assessment), includes:
– damage assessment
– exposure conditions
Materials and Structures (2012) 45:1295–1302 1297

Table 1 Survey and

interventions in historic
buildings: steps to be taken
Assessment and documentation of heritage significance & state of conservation
Historical assessment
Technical assessment
Location and extent of different damaged building parts (show in plan of building)
Analysis and diagnosis of degradation phenomena
• Analysis and diagnosis of damages (e.g. by non-destructive test methods)
• Assess properties of existing mortar and masonry units (and masonry)
• Monitoring of degradation and damage
• Risk analysis related to environmental influences (earthquake, flood, storm, fire, …)
Compatible and as durable as possible intervention and strengthening
• Decide on concept: balance compatibility \=[ durability
• Quality assurance of intervention and risk assessment
• Assess technical requirements/decide on composition/make trial mixes
• Plan side measures
Plan future maintenance activities and monitoring of the state of conservation

– description and identification (characterization) of the basis of the historical and technical assessment of
materials the structure. They provide a rational basis for the
– problem diagnosis, including risk assessment and choice of the raw materials, the compositions to be
a description of the mechanism(s) of decay used and the tests to be carried out. Requirements for a
repair mortar are based upon its function in the
On the basis of the assessment several decisions have
structure, its exposure and on specific threats it may be
to be taken. Focusing on mortars, such decisions include:
subjected to. Each of those issues provides a set of
– decision on what to keep and what to replace different requirements.
(location, extent, depth, …)
– decision on the (technical) requirements for the
3.1 Function of a mortar
mortar mix
– decision on mortar mix(es), fitting in with the
The main functional applications of a mortar can be
concept and requirements.
categorised as:
– decision on suitable raw materials (salt content,
pozzolanicity, reactivity,…) – Bedding
– how to perform quality control on materials used – Pointing
and during execution of the work. – Infill
– Exterior render and interior plaster
Finally, sound documentation of all decisions made
– Decoration
is of utmost importance, not only for the particular
– Flooring
structure, but also as a basis for future knowledge
– Capping
development.
– Stone repair
The Monument Damage Diagnostic System
(MDDS) is an example of a decision system that follows
the methods described in this document (Fig. 2 and [2]). 3.2 Exposure

Masonry and therefore the mortar can be exposed to:

3 Functional (design) issues, exposure and specific
(a) environmental conditions (varying severity)
threats
Driving rain
Functional (or design) requirements for mortars are a Freeze–thaw cycles
set of qualitative imperatives that should be defined on Sea spray, de-icing salts
1298 Materials and Structures (2012) 45:1295–1302

Fig. 2 Example of an analysis according to the approach in Fig. 1: Assessment of a historic building using the Monument Damage
Diagnostic System

Underground conditions (earth retaining although the compatibility with the existing fabric
walls, archaeological remains,..) should be given priority. These threats can derive from:
Strongly drying conditions
(a) the existing state of the building, for example
Air pollution (SOx, NOx)
presence of salts and/or rising damp, presence of
Biological attack
biological growth, use of frost sensitive materials,…
Wetting–drying
(b) contemporary issues, such as climate change
Mechanical action of water and wind
(floods or, inversely, too dry a climate) and
human behaviour
(b) Permanent and transient loads Damage can be classified according to its origin, i.e.
chemical, physical or mechanical (Fig. 3).
Dead load
Eccentric load,
3.4 Set of simple recommendations for repair
Thrust of arches, vaults and roofs
mortars
Soil settlements
Landslides
In general, the following aspects should be taken into
Wind
account:
Traffic vibrations
Floods – existing mortar and masonry
Earthquakes – surrounding materials and structure
– environment
– costs
3.3 Specific threats
The mortar should be made as workable and
A repair mortar, especially in historic masonry, may be durable as possible taking into account compatibility
subjected to specific threats that should be dealt with, and retreatability). Good adhesion, i.e. good contact
Materials and Structures (2012) 45:1295–1302 1299

Swelling compounds into account. Apart from that, the substrate

Leaching + encrustation materials should be known. The characterization
…..
of the existing (ancient/original) mortar generally
constitutes a sound starting point for the design of
the repair mortar. The following list gives a
general indication. In each individual case the
Chemical problems
most appropriate characteristics should be decided
upon.
– the colour (macro picture with colour card)
– the shape (profile) of the (re)pointing
Mortar – distribution of the aggregate grain sizes
Mix – mortar composition and binder/aggregate ratio
Physical problems – presence of damage
Mechanical problems
– porosity and pore size distribution of mortar
– porosity and pore size distribution for surrounding
brick or stone
– bulk density and total porosity of the mortar
Salt crystallization Cracks from settlement – presence of salts
Frost action earthquakes
– compressive strength, tensile strength and stiffness
….. …..
(if possible obtain suitable samples…)
Fig. 3 Classification of specific problems – water absorption coefficient by capillary rise, or
1 min initial rate of water absorption (mortar,
and appropriate bond strength and low shrinkage,
brick, stone)
should be strived for.
The following aspects need a decision (keeping in An extensive description of the test techniques to
mind the needed strength and stiffness): determine the various mortar characteristics can be
found in [1] and [3].
– Binder and aggregate type
– Binder/aggregate ratio
– Additives 4.2 How to decide on the binder type or binder
– Colour system?
– Porosity and pore size distribution
– Water absorption and drying behaviour The starting point should always be the function of
the mortar and the composition and type of binder
4 Frequently asked questions used in the original mortar. In many cases the binder
may have been lime. In modern repairs several
In this article three examples of frequently asked considerations play a role, which may often result in
questions are given. A description of the cause(s) of a decision to add ‘some’ cement, or to use a
the problem is given, together with the possible hydraulic lime instead of an original air hardening
mechanism that may have caused the observed dam- lime (Fig. 4).
age. Then, a possible composition for the proposed In any case, the choice of the binder type (air
repair mortar is given, together with a description of hardening or hydraulic) should also be based upon
how the repair mortar reduces the risk of new damage. the environmental conditions the masonry is sub-
jected to. Can carbonation take place or are the
4.1 Which characteristics of the existing mortar conditions too humid [4]. In the case of earth
do we need to know? retaining walls, masonry below ground level or
quay-walls one will have to choose a hydraulic
The functional role of the existing mortar and its binder (e.g. lime-pozzolan.
environmental exposure are the first aspects to take Possible binders and pozzolans include:
1300 Materials and Structures (2012) 45:1295–1302

4.2.3 Remarks

1. For pozzolans, pozzolanicity should be tested

beforehand. Sometimes the pozzolanicity can be
very low, for example brick dust derived from
modern bricks, and even some types of trass.
Alternatively the compressive strength of mortar
specimens containing the pozzolan could be tested;
the early strength (14 or 28 days) of a sound
pozzolan/lime mortar should be clearly higher than
that of a corresponding hydrated lime mortar.
2. Lime—silica fume or lime—metakaolin, if used
as a binder system would result in much stiffer and
Fig. 4 Thick mortar joints (ca. 3 cm height) in Byzantine type
of masonry stronger mortars than mortars using lime with a
traditional pozzolan.
3. Mortars with pozzolans should be cured ade-
4.2.1 Binders quately, especially mortars containing pozzolan
with a relatively low pozzolanicity. Otherwise the
lime may carbonate before the pozzolan can react
Hydrated lime (i.e. air hardening lime)
with it, and will therefore end up as an aggregate,
Hydraulic lime
without any chance to build up strength at a later
Lime-pozzolan
stage. In case of a pozzolan with a high pozzo-
Lime-cement
lanicity, this risk is much less.
Lime-cement-pozzolan
Cements (Portland, Blast Furnace Slag, Natural,
Roman,…) 4.3 Which mortar composition is best to deal
with sea salts?
4.2.2 Pozzolans/materials with pozzolanic properties
The presence of sea salts in mortars may be the result
of different events or conditions: direct contact in case
Natural pozzolans
of buildings constructed in seawater or subjected to
– Earth from Pozzuoli (and other pozzolans, i.e. flooding, deposit of sea salt in the form of aerosol on
from Lazio, Sardinia, Sicily) the surface; the salt may also be present due to the use
– Santorini earth (nowadays replaced by Milos earth of unwashed sand from the beach or even from the use
for example) of seawater in mortar preparation.
– Trass (historically known as ‘Dutch’ trass) Damage to mortars (pointing, plaster or render) due
to sea salts generally shows up as sanding, powdering
Artificial pozzolans
or pitting (Fig. 5).
– Slag In lime pointing, the damage (pitting) concentrates
– Metakaolin in the centre of the joints. Re-pointing, either with lime
– Silica fume or with cement mortars, leads to the formation of voids
– Brick dust2 (preferably low fired brick3) at the brick (stone) mortar interface, where the salt
– Others, such as fly ash present in the masonry units may quickly and in
considerable amounts contaminate the mortar. In
plasters or renders, pitting may occur, but also
2
Brick dust may act as a filler, rather than as a pozzolan
3
contributing to compressive strength or flexural strength. It can NB one should be aware in this case of the risk of introducing
contribute to the impermeability of a mortar and it also favours a sulfates; apart from this, nowadays normally only higher fired
high water retention. brick will be available.
Materials and Structures (2012) 45:1295–1302
Fig. 5 Examples of the damaging effects of sea salts on masonry, plaster, lime mortar joints (pitting in the pointing mortar) and cement
mortar joints (voids, mainly between brick and mortar)
phenomena like exfoliation and loss of adhesion
between plaster and substrate.
The damage is mainly the result of a physical
process (cycles of crystallisation and dissolution); a
chemical process (chemical transformation of calcite
and sodium chloride into easily soluble calcium
chloride) is considered less probable.
In the past, lime-pozzolan-sand mortars were used
under these conditions.
4.3.1 Repair
For interventions, repair mortars in principle should be
sacrificial, i.e. eventually protecting the surrounding
brick or stone from damage.
Different options could be considered:
1. Create internal space: have a mortar with suffi-
cient void space to allow salts to crystallize
without damage; this could be obtained either by
the use of an air entraining agent, or by the use of
adapted sand grading; especially the use of an air
entraining agent could be considered in order to
limit the risk of the repair mortar being too strong
1301
and stiff in comparison to the strength of the brick
or stone.
2. Prevent penetration of new salts. The addition of
natural polymers seems to contribute to the
mortar’s resistance to the penetration of new sea
salts (for example linseed oil; 2% of the binder
weight) [5].
3. Use a binder that (better) resists the salts. Lime-
pozzolan-cement-sand, lime-pozzolan-sand, hydrau-
lic lime-sand or cement-pozzolan-sand mortars
can be used as repair mortars for masonry that
was originally constructed with mortars on the
basis of lime, lime-pozzolan or hydraulic lime.
Examples of mortars used for renders can be
found in [6].
Depending on the situation different combinations
of the options can be chosen.
References
1. Groot C, Ashall G, Hughes J (eds) (2004) Characterisation of
old mortars with respect to their repair—RILEM report 28.
ISBN: 978-2-912143-56-3, e-ISBN: 2912143675. www.
1302
rilem.net/repDetails.php?rep=rep028. Accessed 4 August
2010
2. van Hees R, Naldini S, Binda L, Van Balen K (2008) The use
of MDDS in the visual assessment of masonry and stone
structures. In: Binda L, di Prisco M, Felicetti R (eds) Pro-
ceedings of the 1st Rilem symposium on site assessment of
concrete, masonry and timber structures, SACOMATIS,
Varenna (It), Sept. 2008, pp 651–660
3. Rilem TC (2009) 203-RHM: repair mortars for historic
masonry, testing of hardened mortars, a process of ques-
tioning and interpreting. Mater Struct 42(7):853–867
4. Papayianni I (2005) Design and manufacture of repair mor-
tars for interventions on monuments and historical buildings.
RILEM TC, 2nd international workshop on repair mortars for
View publication stats
Materials and Structures (2012) 45:1295–1302
historic masonry, RILEM TC RMHM2 Delft, Netherlands,
January 26–28, 2005
5. Čechová E, Papayianni I, Stefanidou M (2008) The role of
polymer addition on the properties of lime-based mortars. 9th
international (CICOP) congress on architectural heritage and
building rehabilitation Seville 2008
6. Veiga MR, Fragata A, Velosa A, Magalhaes A, Margalha G
(2008) Substitution mortars for application in historical
buildings close to the sea environment. Analysis of the via-
bility of several types of compositions. In: Medachs—con-
struction heritage in coastal and marine environments:
damage, diagnostics, maintenance and rehabilitation, Lisbon,
LNEC, January 2008