Impact of aggregate type on air lime mortar properties

Sarah Scannell, Michael Lawrence, Pete Walker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In recent years, the need for low energy materials has become increasingly recognised. Government targets aim to achieve a decrease in carbon emissions by 80% before 2050. With the construction industry being responsible for approximately 50% of UK carbon emissions, an increased use of low energy materials could go a long way to achieving this target. With this in mind, it is also important that materials still have adequate properties to fit their purpose. For this study, four limestone aggregates were compared with a silicate aggregate in order to assess the impact of the aggregate type on the properties of air lime mortar (CL90). The primary focus was to assess the differences in compressive strength, and investigate reasons behind the measured differences. Without exception, the mortars made with limestone aggregate have higher compressive strengths than those made with silicate sand. Phenolphthalein staining shows slight differences in carbonation levels at 28 days, which could help to explain the strength differences observed. Furthermore, SEM analysis has revealed differences at the binder/aggregate interface between limestone aggregate mortars and silicate sand mortars.
LanguageEnglish
Pages81
Number of pages90
JournalEnergy Procedia
Volume62
DOIs
StatusPublished - Dec 2014

Fingerprint

Mortar
Lime
Air
Limestone
Silicates
Compressive strength
Sand
Carbon
Carbonation
Construction industry
Binders
Scanning electron microscopy

Keywords

  • limestone aggregate
  • silicate sand
  • air lime
  • Compressive Strength
  • Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)

Cite this

Impact of aggregate type on air lime mortar properties. / Scannell, Sarah; Lawrence, Michael; Walker, Pete.

In: Energy Procedia, Vol. 62, 12.2014, p. 81.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e685981513584586abf423248d1cae99,
title = "Impact of aggregate type on air lime mortar properties",
abstract = "In recent years, the need for low energy materials has become increasingly recognised. Government targets aim to achieve a decrease in carbon emissions by 80{\%} before 2050. With the construction industry being responsible for approximately 50{\%} of UK carbon emissions, an increased use of low energy materials could go a long way to achieving this target. With this in mind, it is also important that materials still have adequate properties to fit their purpose. For this study, four limestone aggregates were compared with a silicate aggregate in order to assess the impact of the aggregate type on the properties of air lime mortar (CL90). The primary focus was to assess the differences in compressive strength, and investigate reasons behind the measured differences. Without exception, the mortars made with limestone aggregate have higher compressive strengths than those made with silicate sand. Phenolphthalein staining shows slight differences in carbonation levels at 28 days, which could help to explain the strength differences observed. Furthermore, SEM analysis has revealed differences at the binder/aggregate interface between limestone aggregate mortars and silicate sand mortars.",
keywords = "limestone aggregate, silicate sand, air lime, Compressive Strength, Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)",
author = "Sarah Scannell and Michael Lawrence and Pete Walker",
year = "2014",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1016/j.egypro.2014.12.369",
language = "English",
volume = "62",
pages = "81",
journal = "Energy Procedia",
issn = "1876-6102",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Impact of aggregate type on air lime mortar properties

AU - Scannell, Sarah

AU - Lawrence, Michael

AU - Walker, Pete

PY - 2014/12

Y1 - 2014/12

N2 - In recent years, the need for low energy materials has become increasingly recognised. Government targets aim to achieve a decrease in carbon emissions by 80% before 2050. With the construction industry being responsible for approximately 50% of UK carbon emissions, an increased use of low energy materials could go a long way to achieving this target. With this in mind, it is also important that materials still have adequate properties to fit their purpose. For this study, four limestone aggregates were compared with a silicate aggregate in order to assess the impact of the aggregate type on the properties of air lime mortar (CL90). The primary focus was to assess the differences in compressive strength, and investigate reasons behind the measured differences. Without exception, the mortars made with limestone aggregate have higher compressive strengths than those made with silicate sand. Phenolphthalein staining shows slight differences in carbonation levels at 28 days, which could help to explain the strength differences observed. Furthermore, SEM analysis has revealed differences at the binder/aggregate interface between limestone aggregate mortars and silicate sand mortars.

AB - In recent years, the need for low energy materials has become increasingly recognised. Government targets aim to achieve a decrease in carbon emissions by 80% before 2050. With the construction industry being responsible for approximately 50% of UK carbon emissions, an increased use of low energy materials could go a long way to achieving this target. With this in mind, it is also important that materials still have adequate properties to fit their purpose. For this study, four limestone aggregates were compared with a silicate aggregate in order to assess the impact of the aggregate type on the properties of air lime mortar (CL90). The primary focus was to assess the differences in compressive strength, and investigate reasons behind the measured differences. Without exception, the mortars made with limestone aggregate have higher compressive strengths than those made with silicate sand. Phenolphthalein staining shows slight differences in carbonation levels at 28 days, which could help to explain the strength differences observed. Furthermore, SEM analysis has revealed differences at the binder/aggregate interface between limestone aggregate mortars and silicate sand mortars.

KW - limestone aggregate

KW - silicate sand

KW - air lime

KW - Compressive Strength

KW - Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)

UR - http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.12.369

U2 - 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.12.369

DO - 10.1016/j.egypro.2014.12.369

M3 - Article

VL - 62

SP - 81

JO - Energy Procedia

T2 - Energy Procedia

JF - Energy Procedia

SN - 1876-6102

ER -