Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
~
1753
TABLE 1
Porosity data (Y : Yeiiow; R : Red)
Yl 35 , 5 1508 2338
Y2 32,6 1589 2356
Rl 18 , 6 1837 2258
R2 15,5 1791 2121
Furtherone we wiii see that the yeiiow bricks are very sensitive to
frost action . The frost resistance of the bricks has been tested
according to the NBN B27-009 standard .
This test shows that a11 ye110w bricks, the damaged as we11 as the
sound ones, are very sensitive to further deterioration. This conc1usion
is in fu11 agreement with the difference in porosity of the two types of
bricks.
1755
The waterabsorption of the pointing mortar was slightly higher than the
absorption of the yellow bricks. In many cases very fine shrinkage cracks
were found between mortar and stone, through which water can penetrate
very easily in the masonry mass. The chemical analysis of the pointing
mortar was executed, following the procedures of the belgian standard NBN
B15-250. The morta r composition is given in table 11.
TABLE 2
Composition of mortar
Pointing Masonry
The total cement and lime content of the pointing mortar are much
higher than in the masonry mortar. This results in a totally different
physical behaviour of both. Especially the difference in thermal
conductivity leads to water condensation at the interface between pointing
and masonry mortar. The ice formed in this interface pushes the pointing
mortar outwards. The week stones can't resist these forces and scale off
or crack.
Four wall elements with dim~nsions of 1 m x 1 m were cut out from the
outer layer of the façades of the church (Fig. 5) and transported to the
Reyntjens Laboratory.
d
1757
This first test affirmed that the cause of the damages was due to
frost and mutual interaction of the materiaIs.
Four different pointing mortars have been tried out on the other two
wall elements. After repointing and hardening during 28 days, these wall
elements were tested in the same way as the two previous ones.
After the frost-thaw test the repointed walls showed much lesser
damages than the reference walls. No pushing out of the joints was
observed anymore. Scaling of the bricks still occured, but to a much
lesse r extent, and the least with the mortar of type 2.
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the church fabric of the st. Gaugericus church,
the municipal authority of Roosdaal-Pamel, the design office Lierman & Van
Den Houwe and the Flemish Community Administration for their support of
the research work.
REFERENCES