Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:14:29.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fine sepiolite addition to air lime-metakaolin mortars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2018

S. Andrejkovičová ,
E. Ferraz ,
A. L. Velosa ,
A. S. Silva  and
F. Rocha
S. Andrejkovičová*
Affiliation:
Geosciences Department, Geobiotec Research Unit, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal Institute of Inorganic Chemistry, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dúbravská cesta 9, Bratislava, Sk-845 36, Slovakia
E. Ferraz
Affiliation:
Civil Engineering Department, Geobiotec Research Unit, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
A. L. Velosa
Affiliation:
Civil Engineering Department, Geobiotec Research Unit, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
A. S. Silva
Affiliation:
Materials Department, Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil, I.P. Av. do Brasil 101, 1700-066, Lisbon, Portugal
F. Rocha
Affiliation:
Geosciences Department, Geobiotec Research Unit, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
*
*E-mail: slavka@ua.pt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lime-based mortars with admixtures of metakaolin (10, 20 and 30 wt.%) and fine sepiolite (5 wt.%) were prepared with the aim of facilitating their use as repair mortars in low-humidity conditions. The mechanical properties and the dynamic modulus of elasticity were studied after 28, 90 and 180 days of curing. With an increasing amount of metakaolin in lime mortars, improved mechanical strength was observed mainly after 90 days. Addition of fine sepiolite, due to its adsorption properties for storing water for later supply to the mortar system and its microfibrous morphology, led to an improvement of compressive and flexural strength of blended air lime/air lime-metakaolin mortars, espec ially at later ages of curing. Incorporation of fine sepiolite into air lime-metakaolin mortars resulted in comprehensive densification of the core of the mortars. Air lime mortar containing 5 wt.% of fine sepiolite and 20 wt.% of metakaolin appears to be an optimal admixture.

Keywords

limemortarmetakaolinsepiolitemechanical propertieselasticity modulus
Type
Research Article
Information
Clay Minerals , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 621 - 635
Copyright
Copyright © The Mineralogical Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahmad, S., Barbhuiya, S.A., Elahi, A. & Iqbal, J. (2011) Effect of Pakistani bentonite on properties of mortar and concrete. Clay Minerals, 46, 85–92.Google Scholar
Badogiannis, E., Kakali, G. & Tsivilis, S. (2005) Metakaolin as supplementary cementitious material — Optimization of kaolin to metakaolin conversion. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 81, 457–462.Google Scholar
BS 3406-2 (1986) Methods for determination of particle size distribution, Recommendations for gravitational liquid sedimentation methods for powders and suspensions. British Standards Institution, London.Google Scholar
BS 1881-209 (1990) Testing concrete, Recommendations for the measurement of dynamic modulus of elasticity. British Standards Institution, London.Google Scholar
Cabrera, J. & Rojas, M.F. (2001) Mechanism of hydration of the metakaolin-lime-water system. Cement and Concrete Research, 31, 177–182.Google Scholar
EN 1015-11 (1999) Methods of test for mortar for masonry — Part 11: Determination of flexural and compressive strength of hardened mortar. Google Scholar
Faria, P., Henriques, F. & Rato, V. (2008) Comparative evaluation of lime mortars for architectural conservation. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 9, 338–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortes-Revilla, C., Martínez-Ramírez, S. & Blanco-Varela, M.T. (2006) Modelling of slaked limemetakaolin mortar engineering characteristics in terms of process variables. Cement and Concrete Composites, 28, 458–467.Google Scholar
Frost, R.L. & Ding, Z. (2003) Controlled rate thermal analysis and differential scanning calorimetry of sepiolites and palygorskites. Thermochimica Ada, 397, 119–128.Google Scholar
Frost, R.L., Kristóf, J. & Horváth, E. (2009) Controlled rate thermal analysis of sepiolite. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 98, 749–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleize, P.J.P., Cyr, M. & Escadeillas, G. (2007) Effects of metakaolin on autogenous shrinkage of cement pastes. Cement and Concrete Composites, 29, 80–87.Google Scholar
He, Ch., Makovicky, E. & Osback, B. (1996) Thermal treatment and pozzolanic activity of sepiolite. Applied Clay Science, 10, 337–349.Google Scholar
Ilić, B.R., Mitrović, A.A. & Miličić, Lj.R. (2010) Thermal treatment of kaolin clay to obtain metakaolin. Hemijska Industrija, 64, 351–356.Google Scholar
Illston, J.M. (1994) Construction Materials — Their Nature and Behaviour. E & FN SPON, London.Google Scholar
Jarabo, R., Fuente, E., Moral, A., Blanco, A., Izquirdo, L. & Negro, C. (2010) Effect of sepiolite on the flocculation of suspensions of fibre-reinforced cement. Cement and Concrete Research, 40, 1524–1530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kakali, G., Perraki, T., Tsivilis, S. & Badogiannis, E. (2001) Thermal treatment of kaolin: The effect of mineralogy on the pozzolanic activity. Applied Clay Science, 20, 73–80.Google Scholar
Kang, H.J., Song, M.S. & Kim, Y.S. (2008) Effects of sepiolite on the properties of Portland cement mortar. Journal of the Korean Ceramic Society, 45, 443–452.Google Scholar
Kavas, T., Sabah, E. & Çelik, M.S. (2004) Structural properties of sepiolite-reinforced cement composite. Cement and Concrete Research, 34, 2135–2139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanas, J. & Alvarez, J.I. (2003) Masonry repair limebased mortars: Factors affecting the mechanical behavior. Cement and Concrete Research, 33, 1867–1876.Google Scholar
Lanas, J., Sirera, R. & Alvarez, J.I. (2006) Study of the mechanical behavior of masonry repair lime-based mortars cured and exposed under different conditions. Cement and Concrete Research, 36, 961–970.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, R.C. (1957) The Differential Thermal Investigation of Clays. Mineralogical Society, London.Google Scholar
Martínez-Ramírez, S., Puertas, F. & Blanco-Varela, M.T. (1995) Carbonation process and properties of a new lime mortar with added sepiolite. Cement and Concrete Research, 25, 39–50.Google Scholar
Martínez-Ramírez, S., Puertas, F., Blanco-Varela, M.T., Thompson, G.E. & Almendros, P. (1998a) Behaviour of repair lime mortars by wet deposition process. Cement and Concrete Research, 28, 221–229.Google Scholar
Martínez-Ramírez, S., Puertas, F., Blanco-Varela, M.T. & Thompson, G.E. (1998b) Effect of dry deposition of pollutants on the degradation of lime mortars with sepiolite. Cement and Concrete Research, 28, 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D.P. & Moslemi, A.A. (1991) Effect of model compounds on hydration characteristics and tensilestrength. Wood and Fiber Science, 23, 472–482.Google Scholar
Moropoulou, A., Bakolas, A., Aggelakopoulou, E. & Anagnostopoulou, S. (2004) Evaluation of pozzolanic activity of natural and artificial pozzolans by thermal analysis. Thermochimica Acta, 420, 135-140.Google Scholar
NF P 18-513 (2010) Métakaolin, addition pouzzolanique pour bétons — Définitions, spécifications, critères de conformité. AFNOR, Saint-Denis.Google Scholar
Pérez, R. & Álvarez, A. (1988) TOLSA SA assignee, Process for manufacture of fibre reinforced concrete articles. European patent EP 0252210.Google Scholar
Pérez-Rodríguez, J.L. & Galán, E. (1994) Determination of impurity in sepiolite by thermal analysis. Journal of Thermal Analysis, 42, 131–141.Google Scholar
Rojas, M.F. (2006) Study of hydrated phases present in a MK—lime system cured at 60°C and 60 months of reaction. Cement and Concrete Research, 36, 827–831.Google Scholar
Sabir, B.B., Wild, S. & Bai, J. (2001) Metakaolin and calcined clays as pozzolans for concrete: A review. Cement and Concrete Composites, 23, 441–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvador, S. (1995) Pozzolanic properties of flashcalcined kaolinite: A comparative study with soakcalcined products. Cement and Concrete Research, 25, 102–112.Google Scholar
Sepulcre-Aguilar, A. & Hernández-Olivarez, F. (2010) Assessment of phase formation in lime-based mortars with added metakaolin, Portland cement and sepiolite, for grouting of historic masonry. Cement and Concrete Research, 40, 66–76.Google Scholar
Shvarzman, A., Kovler, K., Schamban, I., Grader, G.S. & Shter, G.E. (2002) Influence of chemical and phase composition of mineral admixtures on their pozzolanic activity. Advances in Cement Research, 14, 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siddique, R. & Klaus, J. (2009) Influence of metakaolin on the properties of mortar and concrete: A review. Applied Clay Science, 43, 392–400.Google Scholar
Stefanidou, M. & Papayianni, I. (2005) The role of aggregates on the structure and properties of lime mortars. Cement and Concrete Composites, 27, 914–919.Google Scholar
Velho, J. & Gomes, C. (1991) Characterization of Portuguese kaolins for the paper industry: Beneficiation through new delamination techniques. Applied Clay Science, 6, 155–170.Google Scholar
Velosa, A.L., Rocha, F. & Veiga, R. (2009) Influence of chemical and mineralogical composition of metakaolin on mortar characteristics. Acta Geodynamica et Geomaterialia, 153, 1–6.Google Scholar