Siegfried Siegesmund - Monument Future

63The use of organic additives, like resins, can improve the mechanical properties of mortars (Ordoñez et al. 2019). In our case, HSCR mortar shows only little improvement in the flexural strength compared to HSC mortar.

The mean dynamic Young’s modulus at 360 days is 7.25(2) GPa, the minimum is shown in mortar HSP with 2.58 GPa and the maximum in HSG with 11.45 GPa. These values are similar to those obtained by Nežerka et al. (2015).

The mean dynamic Poisson ratio at 360 days is 0.20(0.05), the minimum corresponds to mortar HSFD with 0.13, and the maximum to mortar HSP with 0.32. These values are similar to those of Palomar et al. (2015).

Frost Resistance results are presented in Figure 3. All mortar samples presented a slow and constant increase in weight during the thaw/frost test until the 13 cycles when the sample HFD started to lose weight. The mean mass variation per unit of mass is 0.11(0.04), with a maximum of 0.15 for the mortar HC. The mean final weight is 11(4)% higher than the initial one. This fact may indicate that mortars are still undergoing carbonation under these conditions, as carbonation produces a weight increase in mortars, clearly higher in mortars with higher amount of lime (Arizzi et al. 2012).

The results of salt crystallization tests are presented in figure 4. Weight decreases for all the samples during 16 cycles. Mortars AS and HSP collapse prematurely, with partial destruction at cycle 8. Mortar HSC shows the same partial destruction at cycle 13. In contrast, all the other mortars resist 16 cycles. In mortars HC, HB and HS, deterioration occurred at a much slower rate. These values are within normal boundaries according to Klisińska-Kopacza et al. (2013). Low weathering rate is related to the presence of hydraulic lime and hard minerals, such as silicates. Mineral additives can improve the durability of the mortars according to Theodoridou et al. (2014). The Mortar HSPR showed better durability in comparison with the mortar HSP. We can say that the addition of pinecone resin solution seems to be adequate to increase the durability of mortars.

Figure 3:Frost Resistance test. ΔM/M(%) vs number of cycles.

Figure 4:Salt Crystallization test. ΔM/M(%) vs number of cycles.

Correlations were established between mortars properties and the use of different additives. It can be concluded that employed recyclable additives will improve some mortars properties.

Pinecone fragments reduce significantly the capillarity coefficient but also its mechanical properties. The waste glass powder improves the compressive strength of materials and decreases porosity. Mortars with crushed brick waste as aggregate absorb almost twice more water than mortars with sand, this additive can be used as a red dye and has a high resistance in durability tests.

The Pinecone Resin shows an improvement in the durability of the mortars as well as a slight improvement in mechanical properties.

Future works will seek to combine different additives in order to obtain better mortars.

New methods to calculate the life cycle analysis are available with Open LCA methods, We plan to use design models and economic models in order to select the composition of new mortars we want to develop.

We thank the programs “Make Our Planet Great Again” and “Initiative d’excellence Paris Seine” for 64providing economic support for the development of this research; and the companies Socly, Rocamat, Briqueterie d’Allone and Fédération du Verre for providing the materials for this work.

Aalil I.,Badreddine D., Beck K., Xavier Brunetaud X., Cherkaoui K., Chaaba A., Al-Mukhtar M. (2019) “Valorization of crushed bricks in limebased mortars” Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 555–563.

Apostolopoulou M., Armaghanib D., Bakolas A., Douvika M, Moropouloua A. Asteris P. (2019) “Compressive strength of natural hydraulic lime mortars using soft computing techniques” Procedia Structural Integrity 17: 914–923.

Arizzi A., Viles H., Cultrone G. (2012) “Experimental testing of the durability of lime-based mortars used for rendering historic buildings” Construction and Building Materials 28: 807–818.

Carsana M., Frassoni M., Bertolini L. (2014) “Comparison of ground waste glass with other supplementary cementitious materials” Cement & Concrete Composites 45: 39–45.

Baron N. (2007) “Rock quality seismic velocity attenuation and anisotropy” Taylor & Francis Group, London UK.

Klisińska-Kopacza A., Tišlova R. (2013) “The Effect of Composition of Roman Cement Repair Mortars on Their Salt Crystallization Resistance and Adhesion” Procedia Engineering 57: 565–571.

Margalha G., Veiga R., Santos Silva A., Brito J. (2011) “Traditional methods of mortar preparation: The hot lime mix method” Cement & Concrete Composites 33: 796–804.

Nežerka V.,Antoš J., Litoša J.,Tesárek P., Zeman J.(2015) “An Integrated Experimental-Numerical Study of the Performance of Lime-Based Mortars in Masonry Piers Under Eccentric Loading” condmat.mtrl-sci 8 Dec 2015.

Ordóñez A., Melken G., Rodríguez C., Gómez J.,Navarrete N. (2019) “Mortero arquitectónico a base de resina del árbol de chukum” ISSN 2594-018X Año 4, Núm.2, Vol.VII, Julio-Diciembre 2019, Edición Especial, pp. 107–114.

Palomar I., Barluenga G., Puentes J. (2015) “Assessment by non destruvtive testing of coating mortars for retrofitting the architectural heritage” Repairs and Maintenance of Heritage Architecture XIV.

Kozlowski R., Hughes D., Weber J.(2010) “Roman cements-Key materials of the built heritage of the nineteenth century” Materials, Technologies and Practice in Historic Heritage Structures Springer.

Rampazzi L., Colombini M., Conti C., Corti C., Lluveras-Tenorio A., Sansonetti A., And Zanaboni (2016) “Technology of Medieval Mortars: An Investigation into the Use of Organic Additives.” Archaeometry, Wiley, 2016, 58 (1),pp.115–130. 10.1111/arcm.12155. hal-01705544.