Materials and Structures (2014) 47:493–501
DOI 10.1617/s11527-013-0074-9
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The influence of supplementary cementing materials
on water retaining characteristics of hydrated lime
and cement mortars in masonry construction
C. Ince • Y. Ozturk • M. A. Carter • M. A. Wilson
Received: 9 August 2012 / Accepted: 10 April 2013 / Published online: 16 May 2013
Ó RILEM 2013
Abstract The purpose of this paper is an investigation
of the possible role of supplementary cementing mate-
rials (SCMs) on the water retaining ability of hydrated
lime (CL90) and Portland cement (PC) mortars.
Desorptivity (R) defines the water retaining ability of
mortars in the freshly-mixed wet state. Transfer sorp-
tivity (A) defines the ability of the substrate to withdraw
water from the wet mix. The time to dewater (tdw), is an
expression derived from the sharp front theory, and
enables calculation of the time taken for a wet mortar
joint to be dewatered by an absorbent substrate. The
results show that the very water retaining CL90 mortars
become progressively more water releasing with
increased volume fraction replacement levels of both
ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) and fly
ash (FA). On the other hand, the very water releasing PC
mortars become more water retaining with the addition
of silica fume (SF). Results also show that transfer
sorptivity increases as the volume fraction replacement
levels of GGBS and FA increases in CL90 mortars and
decreases with increased volume fraction replacement
levels of SF in PC mortars. Since the time taken to
C. Ince (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
and Architecture, Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey
e-mail: ceren_ince@hotmail.com;
ceren.ince@yeditepe.edu.tr
Y. Ozturk  M. A. Carter  M. A. Wilson
School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering,
University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
dewater a mortar joint (tdw) is inversely proportional to
the squared transfer sorptivity, tdw can be dramatically
altered by the addition of SCMs in both CL90 and PC
mortars. These parameters have important practical
consequences, not only in the initial adhesion of the
mortar to the substrate but also in the strength of the set
material. The ability to manipulate the water retaining
properties can also allow construction time to be
reduced.
Keywords Desorptivity  Transfer sorptivity  Time
to dewater  Mortar
1 Introduction
Mortars, renders and plasters are the only construction
materials that are applied in the freshly-mixed wet
state as thin layers to absorbent substrates such as
brick, stone and concrete block and they are dewatered
by varying amounts by these substrates prior to setting.
In this paper, we consider the particular case of
jointing mortars, typically applied to brick, block and
stone masonry units. It has conclusively been shown
that the rate of dewatering of a wet mix depends on
both the suction of the absorbent substrate (the
sorptivity, S) and the water retentivity of the fresh
mix (the desorptivity, R) [11, 13, 15]. The sorptivity as
the liquid absorption ability of a porous medium by
capillarity is first described in [18]. The desorptivity,
defined in [17], describes the water retaining ability of
494
mortars in the freshly-mixed, wet state. Water reten-
tivity is the ability of freshly-mixed mortar to retain
water against the suction exerted by the absorbent
substrate to which it is applied.
Dewatering in the freshly-mixed wet state affects
the properties of the set mortar and hence the overall
masonry performance. Dewatering of mortar not only
affects the strength of the hardened mortar, but also the
adhesion of the mortar to the substrate material [10].
When freshly mixed wet mortar comes into contact
with a dry masonry unit, the water from the fresh
mortar is absorbed by the capillary forces of the
substrate. In the case of a high suction substrate (e.g.
high sorptivity brick) in contact with a highly water
releasing mortar, an excessive amount of mix water
may be withdrawn from the mortar. This will not only
result in insufficient water for complete cement
hydration but also poor adhesion between brick and
mortar. Conversely, a low suction brick or a very water
retaining wet mix will also result in a poor bond
because of the lack of immediate suction on placing.
We have previously reported in [13] that the loss of
mix water during dewatering of freshly mixed mortars
when in contact with a dry absorbent substrate results
in an increase in strength compared to non-dewatered
mortars. The strength increase in the most hydraulic
PC mortars was *55 % while this ratio was in the
range of *25–70 % for NHLs. Porosity also plays a
significant role in the hardened properties of mortars
and we have also reported in [13] that increase in the
relative amount of binder (following dewatering)
leads to the formation of a less porous microstructure
and hence increase in strength. Transfer sorptivity, A,
is a function of both R and S and characterises the
ability of a porous material to absorb water from a wet
mix. Sorptivity, S, desorptivity, R, and transfer sorp-
tivity, A, are related by
1 1 1
2
¼ 2þ 2: ð1Þ
A R S
A full derivation of Eq. (1) is given in [17]. This
equation has been experimentally validated in [11] for
the case of the absorption of water from wet mortar
mixes by fired clay bricks. Furthermore, an equation is
developed (derived from sharp front theory) describ-
ing the time taken to dewater (tdw) a wet mix by an
absorbent substrate [15].
There are two extreme forms of mortar. Portland
cement (PC) mortar has a high compressive strength
Materials and Structures (2014) 47:493–501
but a low water retaining ability. On the other hand,
hydrated lime (CL90) mortar has a lower compressive
strength but a much higher water retaining ability.
Mortars with higher water retentivity can be used with
high-suction masonry units. Mortars with lower water
retentivity are more suitable for use with low-suction
units.
The aim of this paper is to investigate the possible
effects of supplementary cementing materials (SCMs)
on desorptivity (R), transfer sorptivity (A) and time
taken to dewater (tdw) of PC and hydrated lime
mortars. The very water retaining hydrated lime
mortars become progressively more water releasing
with increased volume fraction replacement levels of
both ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) and
fly ash (FA). Furthermore, the very water releasing PC
mortars become more water retaining with increased
volume fraction replacement levels of silica fume. The
very high water retaining ability and the slow setting
time is the main barrier to the use of hydrated lime
mortars in construction. Therefore, the use of hydrated
lime mortars may be encouraged if the addition of
SCMs can be shown to modify hydrated lime mortars
to achieve the same desorptivity, R, transfer sorptivity,
A, and time to dewater, tdw, as PC mortar. It may also
be expected that the water releasing ability of PC
mortars may be reduced by the addition of SCMs,
possibly to the same desorptivity, R, transfer sorptiv-
ity, A, and time to dewater, tdw, as hydrated lime
mortar. The ability to manipulate desorptivity, (R),
transfer sorptivity, A, and time to dewater, tdw, by the
addition of SCMs can therefore lead to the possibility
of wet mortar/substrate optimisation or matching to
overcome the inherent problems of either very high or
very low suction substrate materials.
2 Theory
We consider the idealised case of two bricks with-
drawing water from either side of a mortar joint having
been placed in contact with the mortar simultaneously.
The bricks are initially dry so that at time t = 0 the
volume fraction water content of each brick h = 0.
The wet mix, of thickness L, has an initial volume
fraction water content hi and a volume fraction solids
content ui so that h ? u = 1. We assume the solids to
be uniformly distributed throughout the wet mix. The
bricks withdraw water from the wet mix by capillary
Materials and Structures (2014) 47:493–501
suction (desorption) resulting in an advancing wetted
zone within each brick. Assuming these zones to be of
uniform water content, hw, desorption will cease when
all the wet mix has been dewatered and converted to
filter cake. Due to consolidation, the filter cake will be
of reduced depth Lc = Lui/uc. At the end of desorp-
tion, the total volume of water per unit area desorbed
from the wet mix is given by i = (Lhi - Lchc). The
withdrawal of water from a wet mix by an initially dry
(or at least unsaturated) substrate is described by
i ¼ At1=2 ; ð2Þ
where A is the transfer sorptivity. All the wet mix will
be converted to cake at time t = tdw [15] and this is
given by
 2
La
tdw ¼ : ð3Þ
A 20 ± 5 °C in compliance with [3, 4]. First, the
Time tdw is the ‘time to dewater’ and corresponds to
that at which no further water can be abstracted by the
substrate. Full derivation of tdw can be found in [15].
a = hi - uihc/uc where hi and ui are the initial
volume fraction water and solid contents and hc and uc
are the final volume fraction water and solid contents
respectively.
3 Experimental methods
3.1 Materials and mix design
Experiments were carried out on freshly-mixed mor-
tars using CL90, PC and SCMs as binders. The
constituents of the mortars examined were CL90 or
PC, fine aggregate (sand) and water. CL90 was
obtained from Hanson Cement Ltd and complies with
[9]. PC (CEM I 52.5N) was manufactured by the
Hanson Cement Ltd and complies with [9]. In the case
of SCM additions, varying volume fraction replace-
ment levels of FA, GGBS and silica fume (SF) were
used. The FA, CEMEX 450-S, was produced by
Cemex UK Ltd and complies with [6]. The FA used in
this study conforms to the special fineness (S) category
of [6]. The GGBS used in the experimental work, also
manufactured by Hanson Cement Ltd, complies with
[7]. The SF, Microsilica 920E D, was obtained from
Elkem Materials and complies with [8]. The fine
aggregate used in the study was normal construction
sand complying with [5]. Following drying at 105 °C,
495
the sieving procedure described in [2] was followed to
obtain the 300–600 lm size fraction of sand used in
the mortar mixes.
All the mortars were prepared using a water: binder:
sand ratio of 0.78:1:2 by volume as recommended by
Hanson Cement Ltd, this suggesting that mortars
prepared using the recommended mix design are
workable and acceptable for all binder types in
masonry construction [11, 13], as experimentally
tested and reported in results and discussion section.
The CL90 was partially replaced with 50 % FA and
70 % GGBS by volume. The PC was partially
replaced with 50 % SF by volume.
3.2 Mortar preparation
Mixing was carried out at an ambient temperature of
required volume of water was added to the bowl of
an orbital food processor (Hobart Planetary Mixer).
Following this, the binder material was added and
mixed for 1 min on slow speed. Next, sand was added
within 1 min without stopping the mixer. Once all the
constituents were added, the resultant mortar was
mixed for one more minute. Mixing was then stopped
in order to incorporate the mortar that had adhered to
the sides and base of the bowl. This was done using a
spatula. Mixing was then continued for 7 more
minutes, giving a total mixing time of 10 min.
Following mixing, the mortar was transferred to
purpose-built moulds for transfer sorptivity, A, and
time to dewater, tdw, measurements.
3.3 Experimental procedure
3.3.1 Desorptiviy
The desorptivity, R, of the freshly-mixed mortars was
measured using the modified American Petroleum
Institute (API) pressure cell [1]. The length of the cell
is 245 mm and its internal diameter 54 mm. The
measurement procedure followed is detailed in [14,
16] and is briefly explained here. Whatman No. 3 filter
paper with a particle retention size of 6 lm was placed
at the outflow end of the pressure cell. The filter paper
was saturated with tap water and any excess water was
shaken off. The filter paper was then attached to the
pressure cell with the bottom collar. Afterwards, the
tap at the bottom of the cell was closed tightly using a
496
Fig. 1 a Experimental arrangements for transfer sorptivity and
time to dewater measurements, b purpose built moulds
spanner. This prevented any water loss from the wet
mix prior to the start of the experiment. The pressure in
the nitrogen tube was adjusted before attaching the top
collar. The wet mortar mix was placed into the
pressure cell, approximately one-third of the sample at
a time. Each time, tamping was carried out to remove
any trapped air. Once the mortar was loaded, an ‘‘O’’
ring was placed in position and the top collar sealed
tightly. The cell was then pressurised with nitrogen gas
at 0.1 MPa, the tap opened and desorbed water from
the mortar collected in a container placed on a top
loading balance. The mass of the desorbed water at
specified time intervals (3 or 5 s) was recorded until
gas-breakthrough occurred. The test duration varied
from 1 to 30 min, depending on the applied pressure
and the constituents of the mix. The desorptivity of the
mortar was determined from the gradient of a graph of
the cumulative desorbed volume of water per unit
area, i, plotted against the square root of time.
3.3.2 Transfer sorptivity and time taken to dewater
Previous research found that Leicester buff brick has a
uniform sorptivity (*2.5 mm/min1/2) across the mid-
dle sections and is a suitable homogeneous substrate
material for the purpose of transfer sorptivity mea-
surement [15]. The procedure followed for the transfer
sorptivity measurement was detailed in [11, 15] and
this procedure is briefly explained here.
The experimental arrangements for transfer sorp-
tivity and time to dewater measurements together with
the purpose built moulds are shown in Fig. 1a and b,
Materials and Structures (2014) 47:493–501
respectively. A purpose-built mould was divided to
five equally sized rectangular sections for the transfer
sorptivity measurements. The dimensions of the
compartments were 45 9 110 mm and the dimen-
sions of the samples were approximately
30 9 100 mm. The substrate material comprised 5
‘slices’ obtained from the mid section of a Leicester
Buff brick. The freshly mixed mortar was placed to a
depth of 20 mm into each compartment. Each brick
slice, dried at 105 °C for 24 h, was then placed in
contact with the mortar in each section. The cross
sectional area of each compartment was only slightly
larger than the brick slices to ensure unidirectional
absorption from the freshly mixed mortar. The absor-
bent substrate slices were removed from the mortar
consecutively at increasing time intervals and weighed
on a top loading balance. Prior to weighing, any
adhering mortar was removed with a stiff brush. The
mass and hence the volume of mix water absorbed at
five time intervals was therefore determined. The
transfer sorptivity was then calculated from the
gradients of plots of the cumulative absorbed volume
of water per unit area of material in contact with the
mortar, i, versus the square root of time, t1/2.
The experiments to measure tdw were specifically
designed, from previous experience and knowledge of
the relevant parameters, to allow the determination of
both transfer sorptivity and time to dewater from the
same set of data. The tdw was determined from a plot of
the cumulative absorbed volume of water per unit
area, i, versus the square root of time, t1/2 (Fig. 2). The
slope at the beginning of the graph corresponds to the
progressive water absorption (dewatering) from the
freshly mixed mortar by the absorbent substrate and
the gradient of this region gives the transfer sorptivity,
A. At t [ tdw, there is no further water abstraction and
i reaches a plateau. Extrapolation and intersection of
these two data regions gives the square root of tdw on
the x-axis and this is shown in Fig. 2.
4 Results and discussion
4.1 Desorptivity
Figure 3 shows the variation in desorptivity, R, with
increased volume fraction replacement levels of FA,
GGBS and SF measured at 0.1 MPa applied gas
pressure. The results show that the mortar becomes
Materials and Structures (2014) 47:493–501 497

9 Gradient of (a)
this region = A 6
8
7
5
6 60%
i (mm)

R (mm/min1/2)
5 4 50%
4
40%
3 3
2 30%
1 t dw 1/2 2
20%
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0%
1
t 1/2 (min) 1/2
0
Fig. 2 Schematic plot showing the principle of obtaining % Fly ash
directly measured values of A and tdw
6
(b)
progressively more water releasing (R increases) as 5
the CL90 is partially replaced with increasing amounts
4

R (mm/min1/2)
of both FA and GGBS. It can be seen from a 70%
comparison of Fig. 3a, b that the addition of FA has
3 60%
a greater effect on the desorptivity than the addition of
GGBS. Particle size distribution of FA, GGBS and SF 50%
2 40%
shown in Fig. 4 reveals that although the particle size 30%
ranges of FA and GGBS are very similar FA has 20%
1 10%
coarser grain size than GGBS and therefore FA 0%
addition to CL90 results in a greater increase in 0
desorptivity than the addition of GGBS. In both cases, % GGBS
it is clear that even small replacement levels make (c)
5
significant changes to the water retaining ability of
CL90 mortars. Previous research has shown that 4
desorptivity increases as the particle size of the binder 0%
R (mm/min1/2)

is increased [16]. The CL90, FA and GGBS used in 3

this study have particle size ranges of 0.5–30, 0.5–120
and 3–100 lm, respectively (manufacturer’s data). In
this study the fine CL90 binder has been partially
replaced by FA, the particle size of which is greater
than that of CL90. CL90 mortar with FA additions
would thus be expected to have a reduced water
retaining ability (i.e. become more water releasing).
The CL90 with FA addition has an overall larger
particle size and thus a lower specific surface area than
the CL90 alone. It is shown similarly that CL90 mortar
becomes more water releasing when the CL90 is
partially replaced with GGBS which also has a larger
particle size than the CL90.
Figure 3c shows the effect of systematic replace-
ment of PC with SF. The results show a clear trend of
decreasing desorptivity, R, with increased volume
fraction replacement levels of SF. The PC and SF used
in this study have particle size ranges of 0.2–120 and
10%
2
20%
30%
1 50%
0
% Silica fume
Fig. 3 Variation in desorptivity, R, with increased volume
fraction replacement levels of a CL90 mortar with FA
replacement; b CL90 mortar with GGBS replacement; c PC
mortar with SF replacement at 0.1 MPa applied gas pressure
(0 % in each case is the material with no SCM additions)
0.03–0.3 lm respectively (manufacturer’s data). It is
clear that, in this case, that the coarser binder (PC) is
being partially replaced with a finer binder (SF). Based
on the small particle size of SF, therefore higher
specific surface area, PC mortars with SF additions
498 Materials and Structures (2014) 47:493–501

70 6
Cumulative % passing

60 5
Silica Fume

R (mm/min1/2)
50
Fly Ash 4
40
GGBS 3
30
20 2
10 1 PC CL90 CL90
CL90 + PC + +
0 50% SF 50% FA 70% GGBS
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0

Particle Size (µm)

Fig. 4 Particle size distribution of silica fume, fly ash and
GGBS (manufacturer’s data)
would be expected to have a higher water retaining
ability. The PC with SF binder has a smaller overall
particle size and therefore a higher specific surface
area than the PC alone. The desorptivity decreases (the
mortar becomes more water retaining) because the
overall particle size of the binder is decreased. One of
the consequences of the incorporation of fine SF
particles is the ‘‘filler effect’’ which is the ability of SF
particles to fill the voids within the mortar matrix [12].
This leads to a less porous, less permeable mortar and
a finer pore system.
The particle size range, specific surface area,
relative particle density and loss on ignition of GGBS,
FA, SF, PC, and CL90 are given in Table 1. Given that
the FA, GGBS and silica fume are practically chem-
ically inert in the fresh mortar, it must be emphases
that the physical attributes of the powders are much
more significant than chemical properties in this study.
The main results of the desorptivity study, summa-
rised in Fig. 5, demonstrated that the water retaining
ability of CL90 and PC mortars can be manipulated by
SCMs. The addition of 50 % FA or 70 % GGBS to
CL90 mortar causes a dramatic increase in desorptiv-
ity which is quantitatively equivalent to the most water
releasing PC mortars. Furthermore, the addition of
50 % SF to PC mortar causes a decrease in
Fig. 5 Comparison of main results of desorptivity
desorptivity which is equivalent to the most water
retaining CL90 mortar.
These results are also consistent if the experiments
are carried out at different pressures and Table 2
presents a summary of the desorptivity results obtained
at a range of applied gas pressures. The results show the
same trend across all applied pressures examined.
A further observation during the course of the
experimental work was the variability in consistency
of the mortars used. Although all having the same
volume fraction mix water content, each mix had an
entirely different consistency. We report that the
consistency of the CL90, PC, PC with 50 % SF, CL90
with 50 % FA and CL90 with 70 % GGBS mortars are
155, 185, 160, 175, and 185 mm respectively. The
most water releasing PC mortars has the highest and
most water retaining CL90 mortars have the lowest
consistency. Replacing 50 % SF to PC mortars
resulted in a decrease in consistency when compared
to PC mortars and replacing 50 % FA and 70 % GGBS
to CL90 mortars resulted in an increase in consistency
when compared to CL90 mortars. This is in a good
agreement with the experimental observations such
that PC mortar and CL90 mortar with 70 % GGBS
addition were the wettest mortars produced. CL90
mortar with 50 % FA addition was less wet. Both
CL90 and PC mortar with 50 % SF were very dry. It is
known that SF addition causes ‘‘loss of fluidity’’ in

Table 1 The physical properties of PC, CL90, GGBS, FA and SF from the manufacturer’s data
Addition GGBS FA SF PC CL90

Particle size range (lm) 3–100 0.5–120 0.03–0.3 0.2–120 0.5–30

Specific surface area (m2/kg) 450–550 N/A 20,000 405 15,500
Relative particle density 2.75–3.00 1.80–2.40 2.20–2.30 3.08 N/A
Loss on ignition N/A 5.2 \4.00 3.03 N/A
Materials and Structures (2014) 47:493–501 499

Table 2 Comparison of
Pressure (MPa) Desorptivity (mm/min1/2)
desorptivity values at four
different applied gas PC CL90 ? 50 % FA CL90 ? 70 % GGBS CL90 PC ? 50 % SF
pressures
0.05 3.56 3.37 3.41 0.83 1.49
0.10 4.49 4.41 5.03 1.73 1.79
0.15 5.99 6.19 6.53 2.35 2.21
0.20 7.72 7.19 7.92 2.53 N/A

Table 3 Transfer sorptivity and desorptivity values of freshly Table 4 Transfer sorptivity and desorptivity values of freshly
mixed CL90, CL90 with 50 % FA, CL90 with 70 % GGBS mixed PC, PC with 50 % SF and CL90 mortars
and PC mortars
Binder Transfer Desorptivity,
Binder Transfer Desorptivity, sorptivity, R (at 0.1 MPa)
sorptivity, R (at 0.1 MPa) A (mm/min1/2) (mm/min1/2)
A (mm/min1/2) (mm/min1/2)
PC 1.85 4.49
CL90 0.85 1.73 PC ? 50 % SF 0.94 1.79
CL90 ? 50 % FA 2.06 4.41 CL90 0.85 1.73
CL90 ? 70 % GGBS 2.11 5.03
PC 1.85 4.49

of binder, water and sand. Desorptivity values of the

concrete because of its fine particle size [12] and it is
clear from this study that the fine particle size results in
a loss of fluidity in mortars also. It should also be noted
that different binders require different amounts of
water to achieve mixes of the same consistency. In this
study, all the mortars had the same amount of water
and thus widely differing consistencies.
4.2 Transfer sorptivity
Table 3 shows the results of transfer sorptivity mea-
surements carried out with Leicester buff brick on
mortars made using PC alone; CL90 with 50 % FA
replacement; CL90 with 70 % GGBS replacement and
CL90 alone, all made with the same volume fractions
of binder, water and sand. Desorptivity values of the
same four mortars, previously obtained from pressure
cell measurements, are shown in the 3rd column
(Table 3) for comparison. Table 3 shows that the
presence of 50 % FA in CL90 mortar and 70 % GGBS
in CL90 mortar resulted in a dramatic increase in
transfer sorptivity which is quantitatively equivalent
to the transfer sorptivity of PC mortar.
Table 4 shows the results of transfer sorptivity
measurements carried out with Leicester buff brick on
mortars made using PC alone; PC ? 50 % SF and
CL90 alone, all made with the same volume fractions
same three mortars, previously obtained from pressure
cell measurements, are shown in the 3rd column
(Table 4) for comparison. The presence of 50 % SF in
PC mortar resulted in a dramatic decrease in transfer
sorptivity which is quantitatively equivalent to the
transfer sorptivity of CL90 mortar as summarised in
Table 4.
Tables 3 and 4 confirm the relationship between
A and R in the case of a constant S as given in Eq. (1)
[11]. This suggests that increasing the overall particle
size of binder should result in increased desorptivity,
and that decreasing the overall particle size of binder
should result in decreased desorptivity. The 3rd
columns of Tables 3 and 4 show that an increase in
overall particle size caused both R and A to increase
(Table 3) and a decrease in overall particle size caused
both R and A to decrease (Table 4) as predicted by
[11].
4.3 Time to dewater
Figure 6 compares the experimentally determined
values of tdw for CL90 mortar and the same mortar
made with FA and GGBS additions. It can be seen from
Fig. 6 that tdw of the CL90 mortar was significantly
reduced by the addition of 50 % FA or 70 % GGBS.
Figure 7 compares the experimentally determined
500 Materials and Structures (2014) 47:493–501

9 The results shown in Figs. 6 and 7 are summarised in

8 Table 5.
7
The results shown in Fig. 6 were expected because
as the overall particle size of the binder increased the
6
water retaining ability of the material is decreased,
5 resulting in an increased desorptivity, R, and an
i (mm)

4 increased transfer sorptivity, A (Table 3). Since tdw is

3 inversely proportional to the squared transfer sorptiv-
ity, from Eq. (3), tdw decreases as transfer sorptivity
2
increases. The results shown in Fig. 7 were also
1
expected because as the overall particle size of the
0 binder decreased the water retaining ability of the
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
material is increased, resulting in a decreased desorp-
time 1/2 (min) 1/2
tivity, R, and therefore a decreased transfer sorptivity,
Fig. 6 Cumulative absorbed volume of water per unit area A. Since tdw is inversely proportional to the squared
i versus t1/2 for filled circle CL90; filled triangle CL90 with transfer sorptivity, tdw increases as transfer sorptivity
50 % FA; and open square CL90 with 70 % GGBS mortars all
decreases.
of mix composition water:binder:sand 0.78:1:2 by volume
The results shown in Figs. 6 and 7 demonstrate that
the presence of 50 % FA or 70 % GGBS in CL90
9
mortar results in a dramatic increase in transfer
8 sorptivity and a reduced tdw which are quantitatively
7 equivalent to the transfer sorptivity and tdw of PC
6 mortars. On the other hand, the presence of 50 % SF in
5 PC mortars results in a dramatic decrease in transfer
i (mm)

4 sorptivity and an extended tdw which are quantitatively

3 equivalent to the transfer sorptivity and tdw of CL90
2 mortars.
1
It must be noted that since CL90 mortars become
more water releasing when CL90 is partially replaced
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 with SF and GGBS, it is not surprising to see that the
time 1/2 (min) 1/2 ultimate value of i obtained by CL90 mortars with SF
and GGBS is higher than CL90 mortars alone and this
Fig. 7 Cumulative absorbed volume of water per unit area
i versus t1/2 for open circle PC; six spoked asterisk PC with 50 %
is clearly demonstrated in Fig. 6. The PC mortar on the
SF mortars all of mix composition water:binder:sand 0.78:1:2 other hand is the most water releasing mortar consid-
by volume ered for this study. The presence of FA in PC mortar
results in a decrease in water releasing ability and
Table 5 tdw values for the range of mortars examined therefore the ultimate value of i obtained by the PC
Binder Time to dewater, mortars are higher compared to PC mortars with FA as
tdw (min) shown in Fig. 7.

CL90 17.7
CL90 ? 50 % FA 13.0
5 Conclusions
CL90 ? 70 % GGBS 12.1
PC 12.7 This study has shown that the water retaining ability of
PC ? 50 % SF 17.8 CL90 and PC mortars can be manipulated by the
addition of SCMs. The results show that the very water
values of tdw for PC mortar and the same mortar made retaining CL90 mortars become progressively more
with SF addition. It can be seen from Fig. 7 that tdw of water releasing with increased volume fraction
the PC mortar increased by the addition of 50 % SF. replacement levels of both GGBS and FA. The
Materials and Structures (2014) 47:493–501
presence of 50 % FA in CL90 mortars and 70 %
GGBS in CL90 resulted in a dramatic increase in
desorptivity which is quantitatively equivalent to the
most water releasing PC mortars. On the other hand,
the very water releasing PC mortars become progres-
sively more water retaining with increased volume
fraction replacement levels of SF. The presence of
50 % SF in PC mortars resulted in a dramatic decrease
in desorptivity which is quantitatively equivalent to
the most water retaining CL90 mortars.
There is a linear relationship between 1/A2 and 1/R2
for the case an absorbent substrate material of constant
sorptivity (Eq. 1). The results show that the presence
of 50 % FA in CL90 mortars and 70 % GGBS in CL90
mortar resulted in a dramatic increase in transfer
sorptivity which is quantitatively equivalent to the
transfer sorptivity of PC mortars. On the other hand,
the presence of 50 % SF in PC mortars resulted in a
dramatic decrease in transfer sorptivity which is
quantitatively equivalent to the transfer sorptivity of
CL90 mortars. The fine CL90 binder had been
partially replaced by FA or GGBS, the particle size
of which were greater than that of CL90. Therefore,
the possible explanation for the increased transfer
sorptivity was that as the particle size increases, the
total surface area of particles decreases, therefore
creating an easier passage for the water to be removed
from the freshly mixed mortar [11, 16]. These results
were consistent with [16] which show that the
decrease in sand grain size results in a decrease in
desorptivity of freshly mixed mortars. On the other
hand, the coarser binder (PC) was partially replaced
with a finer binder (SF). Based on the small particle
size of SF, therefore higher specific surface area, PC
mortars with 50 % SF addition resulted in lower
transfer sorptivity. This was mainly due to the filler
effect of fine binder particles which make the water
passage harder, and thus water cannot be removed
from the freshly mixed mortar easily. The results also
confirm the proportional relationship between R and A.
The time to dewater a mortar joint (tdw) is inversely
proportional to the squared transfer sorptivity, it is
therefore shown that tdw can be manipulated by the
addition of SCMs to both CL90 and PC mortars. The
tdw of CL90 mortar was reduced by the addition of
50 % FA or 70 % GGBS. On the other hand, the tdw of
PC mortar was extended by the addition of 50 % SF.
The ability to manipulate these parameters, R, A and
therefore tdw, by the addition of SCMs leads to the
501
possibility of wet mortar/substrate optimisation or
‘‘matching’’ to overcome the inherent problems of
either very high or very low suction substrate
materials.
References
1. API specification 10 (1998) American Petroleum Institute,
Northwest, Washington, DC
2. BSI (1997) Tests for geometrical properties of aggregates.
Determination of particle size distribution. Sieving method.
BS EN 933 Part 1
3. BSI (1999) Methods of test for mortar for masonry. Bulk
sampling of mortars and preparation of test mortars. BS EN
1015 Part 2
4. BSI (2000) Cement. Composition, specifications and con-
formity criteria for common cements. BS EN 197 Part 1
5. BSI (2002) Aggregates for mortar. BS EN 13139
6. BSI (2005) Fly ash for concrete. Definition, specifications
and conformity criteria. BS EN 450 Part 1
7. BSI (2006) Ground granulated blast furnace slag for use in
concrete, mortar and grout. Definitions, specifications and
conformity criteria. BS EN 15167 Part 1
8. BSI (2009) Silica fume for concrete. Definitions, require-
ments and conformity criteria. BS EN 13263 Part 1
9. BSI (2010) Building Lime. Definitions, specifications and
conformity criteria. BS EN 459-1:2010
10. Carter MA, Green KM, Wilson MA, Hoff WD (2003)
Measurement of the water retentivity of cement mortars.
Adv Cem Res 15(4):155–159
11. Collier NC, Wilson MA, Carter MA, Hoff WD, Hall C, Ball
RJ, El-Turki A, Allen GC (2007) Theoretical development
and validation of a sharp front model of the dewatering
of a slurry by an absorbent substrate. J Phys D 40(13):
4049–4054
12. Domone P, Illston J (2010) Construction materials: their
nature and behaviour, 4th edn. Taylor & Francis, London,
Chap 3
13. El-Turki A, Ball RJ, Carter MA, Wilson MA, Ince C, Allen
GC (2010) Effect of dewatering on the strength of lime and
cement mortars. J Am Ceram Soc 93(7):2074–2081
14. Green KM, Carter MA, Hoff WD, Wilson MA (1999) The
effects of lime and admixtures on the water-retaining
properties of cement mortars. Cem Concr Res 29(11):
1743–1747
15. Ince C, Carter M, Wilson M, El-Turki A, Ball R, Allen G,
Collier N (2010) Analysis of the abstraction of water from
freshly mixed jointing mortars in masonry construction.
Mater Struct 43(7):985–992
16. Ince C, Carter M, Wilson M, Collier N, El-Turki A, Ball R,
Allen G (2011) Factors affecting the water retaining char-
acteristics of lime and cement mortars in the freshly-mixed
state. Mater Struct 44(2):509–516
17. Hall C, Hoff WD (2002) Water transport in brick, stone and
concrete. Spoon Press, London
18. Philip JR (1957) The theory of infiltration: 4. Sorptivity and
algebraic infiltration equations. Soil Sci 84(3):257–264