Restrained shrinkage of polymer-modified mortar layers applied on

adhesive substrate: measurement device and results

P. Nicot 1,2,*, B. Ruot 2, O. Devès 2, J.P. Balayssac 1, C.H. Détriché 1

1: Laboratoire Matériaux et Durabilité des Constructions, INSA-UPS, Génie Civil, 135 av.
de Rangueil, 31077 Toulouse Cedex, France.

2: Centre Scientifique et Technique du Bâtiment, Département Enveloppe et Revêtements,

84 av. Jean Jaurès, Champs-sur-Marne, 77447 Marne-la-Vallée Cedex 2, France.

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: p_nicot@insa-toulouse.fr

Abstract: Mortars such as adhesives and renderings are complex products associating
hydraulic binders together with polymer admixtures. The exchanges occurring between the
mortar and its substrate or the atmosphere may alter, sometimes drastically, the process of
hydration, the hardening and the shrinkage of the mortar layer. Thus, mortar durability is
closely related to the properties of the substrate because of its application in thin layer (mm
to cm). The aim of the research is to characterize the durability of the mortar in relation
with the substrate onto which it is applied. Early age shrinkage and restrained shrinkage
measurements are performed on thin mortar layer containing several admixtures (cellulose
ether, latex and air entrainer) applied on brick.

Keywords: Mortar; Polymer; Admixture; Restrained shrinkage; Brick.

1. Introduction

Mortars are complex products associating hydraulic binders together with polymers and
multiple other additives. The durability of a mortar applied as a thin layer (mm to cm) is
closely related to the properties of the substrate. The system formed by the substrate and the
mortar constitutes a place of physico-chemical exchanges and mechanical interactions. In
particular, water exchanges are extremely important during and after mortar setting.
Actually, they are relevant for hydration and thereby the development of mechanical
performances of the mortar and its adhesion to the substrate. In addition, the restrained
shrinkage created by adhesion to the substrate induces a stress state within the mortar,
which may lead to, on the one hand, adhesion loss, and on the other hand, cracking
generation. The aim of this study is to characterize the effects of several admixtures on free
shrinkage and restrained shrinkage of a mortar applied to a substrate. Four admixtures are
studied: two cellulose ethers, one latex and one air-entraining agent.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Nature and characterization of the substrate

The substrate used was burnt clay brick, having a water porosity of about 24% and apparent
bulk density of about 2000 kg/m3. The test consisted in the determination of three
measurements: dry weight of water-satured specimen, and apparent volume by hydrostatic
weighting. By saturating the specimen in vacuum and drying, the apparent bulk density and
the water porosity could be calculated [1].
Two water saturation degrees were used: 0% and 50%. The 0% water saturation was
obtained by drying the brick at 105 °C. To obtain the 50% saturation degree, measurements
were performed to calculate the time necessary to reach 50% of total water saturation of the
brick by capillary absorption. After testing, the specimen was stored in an air-conditioned
room at 20 °C and 65% of relative humidity (RH).

2.2. Nature, preparation and characterization of the mortars

Every studied mortar was laboratory made, having the following basic composition: 65%
wt. siliceous sand, 30% wt. Portland grey cement and 5% wt. calcareous filler (99.3%
CaCO3). Cement was CEM I 52.5 R CE CP2 according to EN 197-1 [2] and was provided
by Lafarge; chemical and phase compositions of the cement are given in Table 1. The
mortars were prepared using a laboratory mixer, with a water / cement ratio (wt. / wt.) fixed
at 0.9. They were cured at 20 °C and 65% RH.

Table 1 - Chemical and phase compositions of the cement. Chemical composition was
obtained by atomic absorption spectrometry and phase composition was calculated
according to Bogue approximation.
Chemical composition (% wt.) Phase composition (% wt.)

SiO2 20.32 C3S 59.1

Al2O3 4.49 C2S 13.8
Fe2O3 2.29 C3A 8.0
MgO 2.50 C4AF 7.0
CaO 62.82 Gypsum –
NaO 0.21 CaCO3 –
K 2O 0.69 Anhydrite –
MnO 0.04 Quartz –

Apparent density of the fresh mortar and the hardened mortar density at 28 days were
calculated according to the CSTB procedure [3]. Weight variations were determined on 1 ×
15 × 40 cm specimens by weighing specimens with a balance everyday for the first days.
Measurements started at demoulding, i.e. 24 h after casting. Flexural and compressive
strengths were determined on 4 × 4 × 16 cm specimens according to EN 1015-11 [4].

2.3. Description of the admixtures

Different types of admixtures were included in the mortar composition described above:
cellulose ether, latex and air-entraining agent.
Cellulose ethers are water-soluble semi-synthetic polymers derived from cellulose. They
are systematically introduced into mortars, so as to improve water retention and workability
of the fresh paste. However, they are also known to slow down cement hydration [5, 6, 7,
8]. In our study, two cellulose ethers have been considered: hydroxyethylmethyl cellulose
HEMC, noted as CEA, and hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose HPMC, noted as CEB. They
had the same molecular weight (Mw = 650,000 Da) but different methoxyl group contents
OCH3 (25% for CEA and 29% for CEB); besides, CEA had a hydroxyethyl group content
(CH2)2OH of 3.3% and CEB had a hydroxypropyl group content (CH2)3OH of 7%. The two
cellulose ethers have previously been investigated by Pourchez et al. [5]. Those polymers
had the same impact on the viscosity of the fresh mortar. They were introduced into the
mortar at a level of 0.09, 0.18 or 0.27% wt. in addition to the dry mix (sand, cement and
filler).
Latexes are water-insoluble polymer particles suspended in an aqueous solution. They are
composed of a core made of the polymer and a stabilization system used to avoid system
flocculation. Latexes are used in mortar manufacturing as they confer workability of the
fresh paste, bringing some flexibility to the hardened material and improve mortar’s
adhesion to the substrate. Thus, one of the major applications of latexes in mortar industry
is tile adhesive [9]. Like cellulose ethers, latexes induce a slowing down of cement
hydration [8,10]. In this work, one latex was considered, with a core being the copolymer
poly(ethylene / vinyl acetate) EVA (particle mean diameter = 700 nm; Tg = 19 °C), the
sterical stabilization being provided by poly(vinylic alcohol) PVOH (hydrolysis degree =
88% mol.). The latex, noted as LA, has previously been investigated by Goto [10]. It was
introduced into the mortar at a level of 2.5 or 5% wt. in substitution to sand and filler.
The last admixture considered in this study was an air-entraining agent. Air entrainers are
used to favour the formation of small air bubbles dispersed uniformly through the mortar,
in order to improve freeze-thaw durability. The selected product, noted as AE, is based on a
long chain olephin sulphonate (a surfactant) and was introduced into the mortar at a level of
0.01% wt. in addition to the dry mix.

2.4. Shrinkage measurements

2.4.1. Shrinkage between 0 and 23 h

After mixing, the fresh mortar was cast in a 1 × 15 × 40 cm metallic mould. The
measurements were performed using two LVDT (Linear Variable Differential Transformer)
sensors positioned at each end of the specimen and stuck on anchorage shanks, immediately
after casting [11]. The device is shown in Figure 1.

c
15
a e
cm15 35 cm
35 cm
b
40 40
cm
d

Figure 1 – Device used to measure shrinkage between 0 and 23 h. (a) mortar, (b) brick,
(c) mould, (d) LVDT sensors, (e) anchorage shank.

Shrinkage was monitored continuously at 20 °C and 65% RH during 23 h. Three different

configurations were adopted: (i) a foil made of Teflon was placed at the bottom of the
mould, before casting. Teflon prevented adhesion of the mortar but also reduced friction
effects. Measurements led to the free shrinkage εf(t); (ii) a screen (filter paper) was placed
between the mortar layer and the substrate; such screen avoided adhesion to the porous
substrate but allowed water exchanges between the substrate and the mortar; we thus
obtained the non adhesive shrinkage εna(t); (iii) no screen was used, enabling adhesion and
giving the adhesive shrinkage εa(t). The two last configurations permitted to define the
restrained shrinkage, noted as εr(t):
ε r (t ) = ε na (t ) − ε a (t ) (1)
To compare the different values of restrained shrinkage, the restrained shrinkage ratio Rs(t)
was introduced:
ε r (t )
RS (t ) = × 100 (2)
ε na (t )
Thus, Rs(t) is as much closer to 0 as there is lower the restrained shrinkage.

2.4.2. Shrinkage beyond 23 h

Measurements were performed at 20 °C and 65% RH, on the specimens taken from non
adhesive measurements within 23 h. A special piece was stuck at the ends of the specimen
and shrinkage was monitored for the further 28 days with a retractometer. The
measurements were performed daily. For every formulation with 0.27% of CEA,
aluminium adhesive paper was stuck on the back side and the edges of the specimen, in
order to reproduce the evaporation conditions of the mortar applied directly on the brick.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Characterization of the mortars

Density, porosity and mechanical characteristics of the different mortars are gathered in
Table 2. Neither nature nor amount of the cellulose ether seemed to influence density of the
fresh paste. Also, addition of latex did not significantly decrease density. However,
presence of air-entraining agent led to a slight decrease of the fresh density, from about
1900 kg/m3 to about 1750 kg/m3. After 28 days of curing, nature of the cellulose ether at
0.27 % did not affect density but with latex, density slightly decreased. This decrease was
reinforced when air-entraining agent was introduced.
Neither the nature nor the amount of cellulose ether seemed to influence global porosity.
However, it has been recently demonstrated that cellulose ethers influence pore size
distribution of cement-based materials [12, 13]. Presence of latex together with cellulose
ether seemed to slightly increase global porosity, though porosity did not seem to vary
when the amount of latex increased. Presence of air entrainer in a mortar containing both
cellulose ether and latex only seemed to increase moderately the global porosity; such a
result is coherent with the role attributed to air entrainers in mortars and concretes.
However, when the mortar also included latex, porosity did not seem to increase
additionally. As presence of admixtures may nevertheless alter pore size distribution of the
cementitious matrix, this could be confirmed by performing mercury intrusion porosity
measurements. Mechanical performances of mortars were also investigated. In the presence
of cellulose ether and/or latex, there were no great variations of flexural strength, remaining
within the range 5–6 MPa. Presence of air entrainer with both cellulose ether and latex did
not bring any further variation. The only composition that may bring variation of flexural
strength (Rf) was combination of cellulose ether and air-entraining agent, without latex: in
that case, Rf decreased of ca. 50% (3 MPa). This last result is coherent with observations
made on porosity and density: increasing amounts of small bubbles lead to a decrease of
density and an increase of porosity; the resulting material is therefore less mechanically
resistant. Alterations of compressive strength are quite difficult to interpret; presence of air
entrainer seemed to slightly decrease Rc (compressive strength), though not quite as
obvious. Goto [10] has already noticed that influence of latex on mechanical performances
is quite difficult to investigate using flexural and compressive strength tests only.

Table 2 - Characteristics of different formulations.

References CEA CEB LA AE Fresh Hardened Water Flexural Compressive
paste mortar porosity strength strength
density density
(+/-4%) (+/-5%)
(kg/ m3) (kg/ m3) (%) (MPa) (MPa)

CEA0.09 0.09 1890 1630 39 5.0 15.0

CEB0.18LA2.5 0.18 2.5 1900 1640 41 6.0 18.5
CEB0.18LA2.5AE 0.18 2.5 0.01 1790 1620 41 5.0 17.5
CEA0.18LA5 0.18 5 1840 1600 40 6.0 16.5
CEB0.18LA5 0.18 5 1830 1580 40 5.5 17.0
CEA0.18LA5AE 0.18 5 0.01 1730 1480 44 5.0 14.5
CEA0.18AE 0.18 0.01 1720 1620 42 3.0 14.0
CEA0.27 0.27 1940 1640 38 4.0 15.0
CEB0.27 0.27 1940 1760 37 5.0 19.5
CEA0.27LA2.5 0.27 2.5 1820 1620 42 5.0 15.5
CEA0.27LA2.5AE 0.27 2.5 0.01 1760 1600 45 5.0 15.5
CEA0.27LA5 0.27 5 1760 1480 42 5.0 14.5
CEA0.27LA5AE 0.27 5 0.01 1650 1390 42 4.5 12.5

Thus, from the results described above, one hypothesis that could be emitted is the
interactions between admixtures.

3.2. Shrinkage measurements

3.2.1. Shrinkage between 0 and 23 h

3.2.1.1. Free shrinkage

Figure 2 shows free shrinkage of mortars containing only cellulose ether. It is clear that
nature of the cellulose ether had a strong impact on free shrinkage. Indeed, shrinkage
occurred almost immediately for CEA, while there was no detectable shrinkage for CEB
within the first 3 h. Additionally, shrinkage for CEB was low and seemed to reach a plateau
after 12 h. On the contrary, there was a constant increase of shrinkage between 0 and 7 h
for CEA; then shrinkage speed decreased progressively, without reaching a plateau within
the 0–23 h period. At 23 h, free shrinkage for CEA was about 0.11 mm/m, which was four
times higher than that for CEB. Several mechanisms could occur to explain this difference.
In the very first hours, one of these mechanisms could be cement hydration. However, CEA
is known to strongly slow down hydration, while CEB has a lower impact on hydration on
pure phase C3S and dilute cement solution. It has been demonstrated that, for HEMC and
HPMC, the OCH3 content is the key parameter for slowing down mechanisms of CH
(portlandite) precipitation [5, 8]. For CEA0.27, if hydration is delayed, the quantity of
water which could evaporate is important and thus the shrinkage could be higher than the
one for CEB0.27. Moreover, the retention capacity of evaporable water and the retention
capacity vs. the suction of the substrate could be different between both cellulose ethers and
could enhance this behaviour.

0,16
0,14
0,12
0,1
εf (mm/m)

CEA0.27
0,08
CEB0.27
0,06
0,04
0,02

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (hours)

Figure 2 - Free shrinkage of mortars containing 0.27% of cellulose ether. Influence of

the cellulose ether nature.

Figure 3 shows free shrinkage at 23 h, of mortars containing cellulose ether at 0.18% and
0.27%. In the first case, addition of latex did not seem to greatly influence the free
shrinkage, which seems to be mainly governed by the nature of cellulose ether. However,
for 5% of latex added, the presence of air-entraining agent decreased free shrinkage. For
mortar containing 0.27% of cellulose ether (Figure 3-b), shrinkage was globally greater
than in the case of 0.18% (Figure 3-a). With latex added, free shrinkage tended to enlarge
as the amount of latex increased. This result is in accordance with the result obtained with
other latexes [14].

(a) CE 0.18%
(b) CE 0.27%

0,4 0,4

0,3 0,3
ε f (mm/m)
ε f(mm/m)

0,2 0,2

0,1 0,1

0
0
A

A
27

A5
.2

2.

5E
5E
EA

A
5

A5
5

0.

7L
LA

LA
A0
2.

5E

LA
2.
EB
8L
8
LA

.2
LA

LA
18

CE

27
.1

7
A0
.1

C
18

A0

.2
0.

0.
18

27
A0

CE

A0
0.

EB

EA
CE

0.

0.
CE
EB

CE
A

EA
C

C
CE
C

Figure 3 - Free shrinkage at 23 h of mortars containing 0.18% (a) and 0.27% (b) of
cellulose ether. Influence of other admixtures.

The action of air-entraining agent seemed to depend on the content of latex: indeed, when
the amount of latex was 2.5%, addition of air entrainer slightly increased free shrinkage.
But when latex was present at 5%, the opposite behaviour was observed since addition of
air entrainer led to a decrease of free shrinkage. In this case, this is coherent with the role of
the selected air entrainer, which also acts as a shrinkage-reducing agent. From Figures 2
and 3, we could say that both nature and proportion of cellulose ether influence the free
shrinkage. In addition, there is a latex amount between 2.5 and 5% for which there are
interactions between latex and air entrainer. Moreover, measurements by TGA (Thermo
Gravimetric Analysis) showed that incresing amounts of latex tend to lower the quantity of
formed CH for a fixed amount of CEA and air entraining agent (in the case of brick at 50%
of water saturation degree).

3.2.1.2. Restrained shrinkage

Figure 4 shows values of free and non adhesive shrinkages, estimated at 23 h on bricks at
0% and 50% of water saturation degrees. Apart from the formulation containing 0.27%
cellulose ether, 2.5% latex and 0.01% air entrainer, there was no significant difference
between non adhesive shrinkage on brick at 0%, non adhesive shrinkage on brick at 50%
and free shrinkage. For CEA0.27LA2.5AE, shrinkage was significantly reduced (about
60%) when a screen was interposed between the mortar and the substrate, in comparison to
free shrinkage.

0,4

0,3
ε (mm/m)

εna, brick 0%
0,2 εna, brick 50%
εf
0,1

0
E
5
27

E
5
5A
2.

5A
0.

7L
LA

2.

LA
EA

2
27

0.

27
C

7L
0.

EA

0.
2
EA

0.

EA
C
EA
C

C
C

Figure 4 - Free shrinkage and non adhesive shrinkage (brick at 0% and 50% water
saturation degrees) at 23 h of mortars containing 0.27% of cellulose ether (CEA). Influence
of other admixtures.

Figure 5 shows adhesive shrinkages at 23 h on brick with the two mentioned water
saturation degrees. Adhesive shrinkage was globally four times lower than free and non
adhesive shrinkages. As for free shrinkage, the difference between the two water saturation
degrees is not obvious. Finally, Figure 6 shows restrained shrinkage ratios at 23 h. Once
again, singularity of the formulation CEA0.27LA2.5AE is highlighted, as it exhibited the
lowest restrained shrinkage (i.e. the lowest ratio Rs). In this case, 2.5% of latex seems to be
a peculiar amount regarding shrinkage of mortars. The highest restrained shrinkage ratio is
obtained with CEA0.27LA5 independently of the nature of the substrate. Adhesion tests
were performed and shown a higher adhesion with the formulation containing 5% of latex.
However, tests to characterize the cracking susceptibility were performed by mean of an
original device [15]. It has been shown that with 5% of latex added to CEA, the cracking is
delayed compared to the formulation with only CEA. But even if the restrained shrinkage is
high, the stress state which induces the cracking also depends on the deformability of the
mortar. In this case, the deformability of mortar with latex is perhaps higher than the one
without latex. The measurement of the mortar modulus should confirm this assumption.
 0,4

εa (mm/m), 23h
0,3
brick 0%
0,2
brick 50%
0,1

E
E
7

5
.5

5A
.2

5A
A2

7L
A0

A
2.
7L

.2

7L
LA
CE

A0
.2

.2
27
A0

CE

A0
0.
CE

CE
A
CE

Figure 5 - Adhesive shrinkage at 23 h (brick at 0% and 50% water saturation degrees) of

mortars containing 0.27% of cellulose ether (CEA). Influence of other admixtures.

80
Rs (%,23h)

60
brick 0%
40 brick 50%
20
0
E
E
7

A5
.5

A
.2

A
A2

7L

A5
.5
A0

7L

A2

.2

7L
CE

A0
.2

7L

.2
A0

CE

A0
.2
CE

A0

CE
CE

Figure 6 - Restrained shrinkage ratio at 23 h (brick at 0% and 50% water saturation

degrees) of mortars containing 0.27% of cellulose ether (CEA). Influence of other
admixtures.

Figure 7 shows another view of results from Figure 6. For a same formulation family and a
same deformability of the mortar, a higher value of the restrained shrinkage ratio Rs (23h)
is related with a greater tendency for cracking. With the brick at 0% of water saturation
degree (Figure 7-a), the addition of air-entrainer to latex decreases this ratio. When the
brick at 50% of water saturation degree is used (Figure 7-b), the effect of air entrainer on
the restrained shrinkage ratio is lower and can be cancelled if the mortar contains 5% of
latex.

100 100
(a) (b)
80 80
R s (23h,% )

R s (% ,23h)

60 w/o AE 60 w/o AE
40 with AE 40 with AE

20 20

0 0
0 2,5 5 0 2,5 5
latex (%) latex (%)

Figure 7 - Mortar applied on brick at 0% (a) and 50% (b) water saturation degree: restrained
shrinkage ratio (at 23 h) of hardened mortars containing 0.27% of cellulose ether (CEA) vs.
the amount of latex. Influence of the presence of 0.01% air entrainer.
3.2.2. Shrinkage beyond 23 hours

Figure 8 shows the evolution of shrinkage from 23 h to 28 days measured with a

retractometer. In this case, the exchanges between the specimens and the atmosphere are
allowed by all the specimen sides. For every formulation, shrinkage increased rapidly up to
about 10 days, and then started to be stabilized between 1.6 and 2.2 mm/m. From 24 h to 10
days, influence of both nature and proportion of cellulose ether was negligible. The same
observation could be made on mortars containing also 2.5% latex. On the other hand, when
the mortar contains 5% latex, we could notice a delay of several days in the shrinkage
increase. Betioli et al. have shown that EVA reduced the amount of portlandite CH; this
reduction was all the more important that content of EVA increased [16]. This could
explain why a delay in the shrinkage increase is detectable for 5% latex and not 2.5%.

2,5

2
CEA0.18LA5
1,5
CEB0.18LA5
εf (mm/m)

CEA0.09
1
CEA0.27
CEB0.18LA2.5
0,5
CEA0.18LA2.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
-0,5
Time (days)

Figure 8 - Shrinkage after 24 hours on 1×15×40 cm specimens (evaporation allowed by all

the specimen sides).

In the case of Figure 9, the exchanges between the specimens and the atmosphere are
allowed only by the front side of the specimens to reproduce the reality. The higher the
content of latex is, the higher the shrinkage at 28 days is. With the formulation containing
0.27% of CEA, no delay in the shrinkage was noticed. There are not significant differences
between the substrates. Like previously, the formulation CEA0.27LA2.5AE has a special
behaviour, the free shrinkage is significantly higher than the ones on bricks.

2,5
ε (mm/m), 28 days

1,5 εna, brick 0%

εna, brick 50%
1 εf

0,5

0
5
5
27

E
E

LA
2,

5A

5A
0,

LA

27
A

LA
2,
27
CE

LA

0,

27
A
0,

27

0,
CE
A

A
0,
CE

CE
A
CE

Figure 9 - 28-day shrinkage of specimens cast on brick with screen and in Teflon mould
(evaporation allowed by the front side of the specimen).
3.2.3. Weight variations

Weight variations of different mortars, as 1 × 15 × 40 cm specimens, are shown in Figure

10 (free shrinkage specimens). Every mortar exhibited a rapid weight loss within the first 3
days, mainly due to evaporation of mixing water. Then, a weight gain was noticed, due to
carbonation of the cement hydrated phases. Nature of the cellulose ether had no influence
on early-age weight loss. An increase of cellulose ether seemed to increase weight loss,
though it could be confirmed with cellulose ether introduced at 0.09%.

time (days)
0 10 20 30 40
0
weight variation (%)

-2

-4 CEA0.18LA2.5
CEA0.18
-6
CEB0.18
-8 CEA0.27
-10

-12

Figure 10 - Weight loss after 24 hours on 1×15×40 cm specimens (evaporation allowed by

all the specimen sides).

The addition of 0.27% CEA increases the water retention ability at the early age. Then the
quantity of evaporable water is thus important and also the shrinkage. The cellulose ether
may retain water only for the first days. When the mortar also contained latex at 2.5%,
weight loss was less rapid during the first 3 days and then weight gain due to carbonation
occurred at a weight variation less important than that of mortars without latex. Weight
variations of mortar containing 0.18% of CEA and 5% of latex should be measured to
notice the influence of latex content increase. Figure 11 shows weight loss at 28 days with
the formulations containing 0.27% of CEA and others admixtures.

12
weight loss (%), 28 days

10
8 brick 0%
6 brick 50%
4 free

2
0
7

5
5

E
AE
2

A
2,

5A
0,

7L
5
LA
A

A
2,

2
27

7L
CE

LA

0,

2
A
0,

27

0,
CE
A

A
0,
CE

CE
A
CE

Figure 11 - Weight loss after 24 hours on 1×15×40 cm specimens (evaporation allowed by

the front side of the specimen).
As shown in Figure 9, the exchanges between the specimens and the atmosphere are
allowed only by the front side of the specimens. The increase of latex content seems to
increase the weight loss. This result is in accordance with the ones previously obtained by
Vallée [17].

4. Conclusions and perspectives

The effect of admixtures such as cellulose ethers, latex and entrainer-agent on shrinkage
appears clearly. Both nature and the amount of cellulose ether have a significant influence
on early-age shrinkage. Latex increases the shrinkage (at the early-age and beyond 23 h).
This fact could be explained by hydration delay. However, the behaviour with entrainer
agent depends on the amount of both cellulose ether and latex. Moreover the effects of air
entrainer on mortar shrinkage are not the same if cellulose ether and latex are used alone or
together. The restrained shrinkage ratio increases with the amount of latex and depends on
the water saturation degree of the brick. When air entrainer is added, the restrained
shrinkage ratio decreases if the mortar is cast on a brick at 0% of water saturation degree.
On the other hand, if brick at 50% of water saturation degree is used, the effect of air
entrainer on restrained shrinkage decreases and can even be cancelled. The nature of
cellulose ether does not affect shrinkage after one day. Nevertheless, the influence of the
latex addition depends on measuring conditions. When the exchanges are allowed by only
the front side of the specimen, a higher latex content increases the weight loss. The nature
of the substrate does not strongly influence the weight loss. For all the tests, the behaviour
of the formulation containing 2.5% of latex and air entrainer seems to be particular.
For the next future, it is necessary to understand the action mode of each admixture and
their consequences on the hydration and the pore size distribution. TGA and mercury
intrusion porosity measurements should provide relevant informations for a better
understanding of the different interactions.

5. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the technical and financial support of the CEReM
(Consortium for Study and Research on Mortars, http://cerem.cstb.fr). Financial support
was also awarded by grant No. 1032/2004 from the Association Nationale de la Recherche
Technique.

6. References

[1] J.P. Ollivier. AFC-AFREM: Détermination de la masse volumique apparente et de la

porosité accessible à l’eau. Méthodes recommandées pour la mesure des grandeurs
associées à la durabilité. Compte rendu des Journées Techniques Durabilité des bétons,
LMDC – INSA Toulouse, France, 1997, pp. 121-124.
[2] EN 197-1. Cement. Part 1: Composition, specification and conformity criteria for
common cements. 2001.
[3] Certification CSTB des enduits monocouches d’imperméabilisation. Modalités d’essais.
Cahier du CSTB n° 2669-4, livraison 341, juillet-août 1993.
[4] EN 1015-11. Method of test for mortar masonry. Part 11: Determination of flexural and
compressive strength of hardened mortar. 2000.
[5] J. Pourchez, A. Peschard, P. Grosseau, R. Guyonnet, F. Vallée. HMPC and HEMC
influence on cement hydration. Cement and Concrete Research 36, 2006, pp. 288-294.
[6] J. Pourchez, P. Grosseau, R. Guyonnet, B. Ruot. HEC influence on cement hydration
measured by conductometry. Cement and Concrete Research 36, 2006, pp. 1777-1780.
[7] I. Müller. Influence of cellulose ethers on the kinetics of early Portland cement
hydration. PhD thesis, Karlsruhe University, Germany, 2006, 113 p.
[8] B. Ruot, T. Goto, J. Pourchez. Some aspects of cellulose ethers and latexes influence on
the properties of cement-based materials – Examples of results obtained within the
CEReM. VII SBTA (7° Symposio Brasileiro de Tecnologia das Argamassas). Recife, Brazil,
1–4 May 2007.
[9] A. Jenni, L. Holzer, R. Zurbriggen, M. Herwegh. Influence of polymers on
microstructure and adhesive strength of cementious tile adhesive mortars. Cement and
Concrete Research 35, 2004, pp. 35-50.
[10] T. Goto. Influence des paramètres moléculaires du latex sur l’hydratation, la rhéologie
et les propriétés mécaniques des composites ciment/latex. PhD thesis, École Supérieure de
Physique et de Chimie Industrielles, Université Paris VI, France, 2006, 201 p.
[11] C.H. Détriché. Contribution à l’étude du comportement des couches minces de
mortiers de liants hydrauliques, application aux enduits. PhD thesis, INSA Toulouse,
France, 1983, 202 p.
[12] D.A. Silva, V.M. John, J.L.D. Ribeiro, H.R. Roman. Pore size distribution of hydrated
cement pastes modified with polymers. Cement and Concrete Research 31, 2001, pp. 1177-
1184.
[13] J. Pourchez, J. Debayle, P. Grosseau, J.C. Pinoli, E. Pourchez, E. Boller, E. Maire.
Journées annuelles de la Société Française de Métallurgie et Matériaux (SF2M), Saint-
Étienne, France, 30 mai–1er juin 2007.
[14] C.M.J. Capener. Effect of admixtures on the fresh and hardened properties of modern
rendering system. Thesis for the degree of licentiate of engineering, Chalmers University of
Technology, Göteborg, Sweden, 2004, 60 p.
[15] P. Nicot, C.H. Détriché, J.P. Balayssac, B. Ruot, O. Devès. Mortar-substrate
interactions: decisive factors for performances and adhesion of a mortar. CEReM Journal
n° 4, 2006.
[16] A.M. Betioli, D.A. Silva, M.A. Cincotto, J.H. Filho, R.G. Pileggi. EVA polymer
influences in Portland cement pastes consolidation. VII SBTA (7° Symposio Brasileiro de
Tecnologia das Argamassas). Recife, Brazil, 1–4 May 2007.
[17] F. Vallée. Durabilité des composites polymères/ciment : application au cas des enduits
minces sur isolants. PhD thesis, Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble, 1999, 205 p.