See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/278689162

Historic Mortars

Chapter · May 2012

DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-4635-0_16

CITATIONS READS

4 703

1 author:

Maria Do Rosário Veiga

National Laboratory for Civil Engineering
386 PUBLICATIONS 6,255 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Maria Do Rosário Veiga on 16 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Conservation of historic renders and plasters:
from laboratory to site

Maria do Rosário Veiga1

1
Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil (LNEC), Portugal, [email protected]

Abstract In interventions on historic renders and plasters, the first step is to

decide upon the strategy: repair or substitution, based on an evaluation of the
cultural value of the render or plaster, of the building itself and on a careful
diagnosis of the typology of defects, their quantity and reparability. New renders
or repaired renders should fulfil the main functions they are required to, especially
protection and aesthetic functions. Compatible materials should always be used.
Compatibility is needed for durability, not of the render, but of the wall as a
whole, and also for preserving the documentary and symbolic value of the
building as well as its image. Compatibility is defined in relation to the substrate
and the existing mortars. Therefore tests need to be carried out on the old
materials and on possible solutions, to compare characteristics and assist in the
selection of the best. It is acceptable to begin using non-destructive or slightly
destructive in-situ tests, because with them it is possible to collect useful
information quickly and without destruction of the historic renders. Simple
mechanical and physical tests can be carried out on the old mortars and a few
chemical tests can also be performed, with portable equipment. If rigorous and
complete tests are needed, some samples can be collected and tested in the
laboratory, using methods adapted to non-regular, possibly friable specimens. The
characteristics of the mortars to use can be established, based on the results
obtained, in order to fulfil both functionality and compatibility. However,
sometimes it is not possible to obtain enough data about old materials, especially
concerning masonry as a whole, which is more difficult to test than mortars. For
this situation, some general requirements have been established, based on previous
work carried out on Portuguese historic masonry buildings, which can be used
without risk of damaging existing materials. Decisions concerning the materials to
use, especially binder materials, should also take into account the climatic and
environmental conditions. Appropriate application techniques, workmanship and
curing conditions are indispensable in achieving good aesthetic, physical and
mechanical results. Therefore it is important to know what conditions are available
for the application phase. An effective knowledge of the historic materials and of
the possible compatible solutions, of their characteristics and problems, is
essential; tests are an important tool but the interpretation of their results in order
to take useful decisions is a complex task, requiring a multidisciplinary team
efficiently coordinated.

203
1 Conservation strategy decision making

1.1 Strategy and factors

When facing an intervention on old renders, the first step – and probably the
most important one – is deciding upon the strategy to implement. Two basic
alternatives are possible:
 Preservation and repair with compatible materials
 Substitution by compatible new renders
Many factors should be taken into account, some of them of a subjective
nature, others more technical and quantifiable:
1. Cultural value (for example combinations of historic value, artistic value,
technical value and value associated with rarity).
2. State of conservation of the background and its capacity to be repaired
(reparability).
3. State of conservation of the render: severity and intensity of anomalies and
their reparability.
4. Compatibility of the render with its current (or foreseen) use and the
environmental conditions.
5. Available workmanship.
Factor 1 dominates. However, most cases fall in the category of “medium
cultural value”. The technical team has essentially to deal with factors 2, 3 and 4,
although an opinion on 1 and 5 is usually required. This decision requires a
diagnosis and quantification of the wall’s anomalies (both masonry and render), as
well as an evaluation of the future actions on the rendered surface that are
foreseen.

1.2 Diagnostics

In many cases of planning interventions on renders and plasters quite simple

and quick investigations and observations are enough to establish a diagnosis [1]:
1. Observation by a trained person:
1.1. Presence of moisture.
1.2. Type of defects: fungus, black crusts, detachments, lack of
cohesion, cracks and micro-cracks, brown stains of corrosion
products.
1.3. Quantity and localisation of defects.
2. Moisture measurements: localisation and intensity of moisture, map of
moisture distribution (Fig. 1), using comparative, indicative measurements.
3. Mechanical and physical in-situ and laboratory tests (Figs. 2-4).

204
 These actions allow important questions to be addressed:
 Is moisture a problem? Observations 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and action 2 should
provide an answer. Where does the moisture come from? Actions 1.3 and 2
will help to discover it.
 Apart from moisture, what other causes of defects are there? 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2
and possibly 3 will furnish the appropriate information. Structural
problems – deformation? Salty fog? Pollution? Corrosion of metallic
elements (Fig. 5)? Poor interventions with incompatible materials?
 Are there defects with a low degree of reparability (Fig. 6)? Detachment
and lack of cohesion are usually the most difficult defects to repair [2-4].
Observations 1.2 and 1.3 will generally allow the identification of these
types of anomalies and action 3 will permit some quantification.
 Are renders and plasters globally affected, in a significant degree? Namely,
are they globally too weak and permeable? Action 3 will help to get this
answer [5-7].
The results of these simple diagnostic actions and their careful interpretation
should provide significant information including: the identification of the main
causes of defects and the way to control them; the identification of the defects of
masonry and the possibility of evaluating the need to remove the render or plaster
locally or globally; the classification of the state of conservation of the render or
plaster itself, considering the intensity of defects and their reparability classed as
high, medium or low levels of degradation.

Fig. 1 Moisture measurements with a portable Fig. 2 Modulus of elasticity by ultra-sound

humidimeter measurements

205
Fig. 3 Water absorption by capillarity of irregular Fig. 4 Compressive strength of irregular
samples samples

Fig. 5 Corrosion of metallic elements may Fig. 6 Repair of render detachment using
require partial removing of the plaster grouts is a delicate, complex technique

1.3 Foreseen actions

Old buildings today can be subjected to different loads, due to change in use or
diverse environmental conditions. It is necessary to verify if the current or future
conditions of the building may suggest changes or enhancements to particular
characteristics of renders and plasters. For example, for renders, higher pollution
or traffic vibrations may now occur or for plasters, different uses such as
museums, music or theatre rooms may require different physical characteristics.

1.4 Decision making

Based on the actions and observations mentioned above a decision about

preservation and repair or substitution is possible. Table 1 gives an idea of the
systematisation of decision processes for the case of “medium cultural value”.

206
Table 1 Support for intervention strategy decision making

State of State of Compatib-

Cultural value conservation of conservation of ility with use Recommended strategy
the substrate the render/plaster and actions
Protect or reinforce the
Good Good Bad render/plaster in a compatible
way (ex. silicate based painting)
Repair and consolidation of the
Good Bad Good
render/plaster
Repair the substrate with
techniques of low intrusivity;
Bad Good Good Keep the render/plaster filling
lacunae and reintegrating
aesthetically
Repair the substrate with
techniques of low intrusivity;
Bad Bad Good
Medium Partial substitution of
render/plaster
Repair the substrate with
techniques of low intrusivity;
Bad Good Bad
Reinforce the render/plaster in a
compatible way
Analyse the viability of repair and
consolidation of the render/plaster
Good Bad Bad against partial substitution with
compatible techniques and
materials.
Repair of the substrate and
Bad Bad Bad substitution of the render/plaster
with compatible materials

2 Choice of materials

2.1 Fulfilment of main functions

The main functions of renders and plasters are:

 Protection of masonry (against external actions such as impact, abrasion,
weather, pollution).
 Regularisation (making look smooth or consistent) of the walls.
 Finishing and decoration.
The repair or renewal of renders and plasters is intended to fulfil these main
functions. They have no structural functions, but they have a significant role in the

207
protection of structural old masonry and hence on its durability and general good
performance. The mortars to use don’t need high strength, but some resistance to
friction and impact, some deformability to follow masonry displacements without
cracking and some ability to delay rain water penetration and to allow the easy
evaporation of water from inside old porous walls.

2.2 Compatibility

Renders and plasters are a part of the walls. Materials both for their repair and
for their renewal should be compatible with the existing mortars and substrates [8-
11].
This means essentially:
 there should be no new damage as a result of the intervention;
 they should be consistent with the overall appearance, now and after ageing
How can repair and substitution materials be harmful to existing materials?
Some properties of new mortars can produce damaging actions:
 The introduction of stress due to higher stiffness and different thermal
dilation coefficients, producing differential deformations in relation to the
old materials in contact. Shrinkage of the new mortar, thermal variations
and deformations of the masonry will produce stresses at the interface
between old and new materials, damaging the weakest material (Fig. 7).
The stresses are higher when differences between characteristics are larger
[12]. As the extant material should be preserved, it must not be the
weakest.
 The reduction of the drying ability of the wall through the application of
renders with lower capillarity and lower water vapour permeability than the
existing ones may result in the retention of water inside the masonry and
higher capillary rise on the wall. This could become a problem in historic
buildings, especially when there is water coming from under the foundation
level or when the masonry is water saturated due to roof deterioration. Any
soluble salts present in the walls will be transported by capillary rise and
spread into larger areas of the masonry. Eventually they will crystallise at
the new drying surface, often the interface between masonry and render,
producing damage of the masonry and detachment of the render (Fig. 8).
 Driving the water through older mortars or stones, due to lower capillarity
compared to new materials. In fact, when more impermeable materials are
used, the water transport through the capillary net is diverted to the most
permeable old materials in contact, accelerating their degradation.
 Introduction of new salts due to the presence of cement or other
constituents containing soluble salts [13].

208
Table 2 Compatibility requirements and new mortars characteristics

Requirements Rc & Rf E C Wvp S  Materials

(direct influence)
Protection against - - - -

Low-Medium
(indicative)

(indicative)
impact and
Medium

Medium
abrasion
Main functions

Protection against - - Medium - - -

Low
rain penetration

Protection against - - Medium - - Air lime (CaCO3) is

pollution attack vulnerable to acid rain and

Low
pollutant gases in general
(SO2, CO2 and NO2)

No introduction - - Similar No high proportion of

of stress to old cement
Low

Low

Low

mortars
&
substrate
No retention of - - Medium - - No water repellents, no
High

water inside resins

walls
Compa-tibility

No driving water - - Similar or - - No water repellents, no

High

through old higher resins

materials than old
mortars
No introduction - - - - - - No cement
of new salts
No aesthetic - Similar or - No cement, no resins
effect higher
High

Similar aggregates, similar

Low

Low

than old binder

mortars
Similar pigments
Medium – Similar No cement, no resins, no
Low-Medium

Low-Medium

Similar to to old water repellent, similar

High

old mortars aggregates, similar binder,

Low

Global analysis
mortars and similar pigments
and/or substrate
substrates

Rc – compressive strength; Rf – flexural strength; E – modulus of elasticity; C – Capillary

coefficient; Wvp – water vapour permeability; S – shrinkage; coefficient of thermal dilation

209
 How can new products affect aesthetics?
 Different texture or colour due to different aggregates, different binder
nature or different pigments.
 Differential ageing due to the different nature of constituents (resins,
organic pigments, etc.).
A set of compatibility requirements can be established considering these issues.
In Table 2 a correspondence is established between compatibility requirements
and material characteristics.

2.3 Environmental considerations

The choice of materials is also limited by some environmental conditions:

weather, the proximity of the sea and pollution. Rainy weather, salty fog and spray
of salty water and high pollution are factors that may militate against the use of
pure air lime mortars. In Portugal, air lime mortars were used in the past in misty,
salty environments [14, 15], but today it is difficult to guarantee appropriate
conditions of application and curing, so some hydraulicity is advisable. In
moderately dry climates (like the South of Portugal), away from the sea, air lime
mortars can be a good solution, except when high levels of pollution exist and
create the danger of damage by acid attack.

2.4 Site testing

Compatibility is defined in relation to the background and the existing mortars.

Thus, it is important to determine the main characteristics of the masonry and the
old renders, in order to design new mortars with similar characteristics. In-situ
testing, especially using non-destructive methods, is a first approach to evaluate
significant characteristics (Figs. 1, 2, 9 to 12). Generally they have to be used in a
comparative basis, as there are currently no sufficient correlations with laboratory
tests.

Fig. 7 Mechanical damage due to Fig. 8 Damage due to reduction of water

incompatible new render permeability of the walls

210
Fig. 9 Evaluation of water permeability with Fig. 10 Evaluation of mechanical strength
Karsten tubes with Pendular Schmidt Hammer

Fig. 11 Evaluation of surface hardness with a Fig. 12 Identification of presence of some

durometer salts with colorimetric strips

In Table 3 some simple tests, non-destructive or slightly destructive, are

considered, and related (qualitatively) with performance.

Table 3 Relation of in situ tests with performance characteristics

Salt
Pendular
Moisture colorimetric
Schmidt Durometer Ultrasound Karsten tubes
measurement stripes or salt
hammer
kits
Mechanical - X X X - -
Strength
Dynamic - X - X - -
modulus of
elasticity
Water - - - - X -
permeability
Presence of - - - - - X
salts on the
surface

211
 It is also now possible to perform in-situ some mineralogical tests with portable
equipment. One of the most used is X Ray Fluorescence, with portable equipment,
permitting for example the discrimination of the type of binder, or other
compounds present, such as salts. The “Hercules Center”, of Évora University, in
Portugal, makes this equipment available to the scientific community. X Ray
Diffraction with a portable apparatus is also possible.
For current situations in-situ tests may give enough information for decision
making concerning the choice of repair materials.

2.5 Laboratory testing

More specific tests are carried out in the laboratory, whenever needed (Figs. 3,
4). Laboratory tests require the collection of samples, so in this sense they are
always destructive. For this reason and also for economic and time constraints,
they must be complementary to site testing and usually be limited to those that are
unavoidable. Due to limitations of dimensions, shape and cohesiveness of plaster
samples collected from buildings, not every laboratory technique can be used and
the number of possible tests is smaller than for laboratory produced specimens. In
Table 4 the most useful groups of complementary laboratory tests are presented
and related to characteristics and performance.

Table 4 Relation of laboratory tests with performance characteristics

Main laboratory Chemical mineralogical Compressive Capillary water Porous structure

tests on samples and microstructural strength [17] absorption [18] by MIP [19]
removed from characterisation
site [10, 16]
Objective Composition; Resistance Protection from Hygric behaviour
microstructure; against water penetration and behaviour to
products mechanical and promotion salts
of alteration loads of drying

2.6 Requirements

The characteristics of the mortars to use can be established based on the sets of
results obtained, in order to fulfil both functionality and compatibility, as
summarised in Table 2. However, sometimes it is not possible to get enough data
concerning the old materials, especially about the masonry, which is rather more
difficult to test than mortars. For that situation, some general requirements have
been established, based on previous work carried out on Portuguese historic
masonry buildings, which can be used without risk of damaging existing materials
[10]. These requirements, summarised in Table 5, consider medium to low
strength masonry of irregular stone, agglomerated with lime mortars, which are
very common in old buildings in the south of Portugal.

212
Table 5 General requirements concerning some characteristics for rendering and plastering
repair mortars for historic buildings

Type of
render Mechanical characteristics at 90 days (N/mm2) Hygric behaviour at 90 days

Wvp C
Rf Rc E A
Sd (m) (kg/m2.min1/2)
0.1-0.3 or
Exterior
0.2-0.7 0.4-2.5 2000-5000 cohesive < 0,08 < 1.5; > 1.0
render
rupture
0.1-0.3 or
Interior
0.2-0.7 0.4-2.5 2000-5000 cohesive < 0,10 -
render
rupture

Rf – flexural strength; Rc – compressive strength; E – modulus of elasticity; A – bond strength;

Wvp – water vapour permeability; Sd – thickness of air with equivalent diffusion; C – Capillary
coefficient

2.7 Global analysis and decision making for repair and

substitution solutions

Subsequently a global analysis of all the data – observations, tests and available
conditions – is needed to choose a mortar for repair or substitution.
What are the choices for possible compositions of the binder(s) to use? The
most compatible binders are: air lime, hydraulic lime free of salts, and air lime
plus pozzolans (either natural or artificial). Although cement should be avoided as
a single binder for the repair of historic lime mortars, lime-cement mixes can also
be acceptable binders for that purpose, in some circumstances [20, 21].
The volumetric ratio 1:3 (binder:aggregate), or near this proportion, is currently
adopted. This is the proportion that theoretically assures the highest compaction of
the mortar, when the aggregate has a well-balanced grain size distribution. It has
also been verified in practice that contemporary renders with a higher proportion
of binder have a strong tendency to crack, although there is much evidence of their
successful use in the past.
The groups of mixes considered as possibly compatible, and their basic average
range of characteristics, are compiled in Table 6. The range of results presented is
based in previous work [20-24].

213
Table 6 Average range of characteristics of some types of mortars

Range of values (indicative)

Dynamic
Mix and volumetric modulus of Water capillary
Basic application field
proportion Compressive elasticity (by absorption
(indicative)
binder:aggregate strength (MPa) frequency of coefficient
resonance) (kg/m2.min1/2)
(MPa)
Mild weather (not too
Lime:sand humid or very dry); non-
0.2-0.8 2300-4100 1.1-1.6
(1:3) aggressive conditions;
interior surfaces (plasters)
Frequent presence of
Lime + moisture, due to rainy
pozzolan:sand weather or to capillary
0.5-2.3 2500-4500 1.3-2.3
rising water (because the
(1:2 to 1:3) pozzolanic reaction needs
moisture for long time)
Lime + some
Variation between dry and
hydraulic lime:sand 0.4-1.0 1600-5600 1.2-1.9
humid weather
(1:2 to 1:3)
Hydraulic Variation between dry and
lime*:sand (1:2 to 0.6-3.1 1100-7500 1.0-2.4 humid weather and some
1:3) aggressive conditions
Lime + some Aggressive conditions: for
cement:sand 0.9-5.1 3000-6500 1.0-2.0 example exposed to sea
(1:3) spray and high pollution
* use hydraulic lime free of salts and of low hydraulicity (NHL 3.5 or HL 3.5)

The characteristics of all these types of mixes may be adjusted and improved
by manipulating the aggregate type and grain size distribution, the type of lime,
when two binders are mixed, variation of their relative proportions, considering
the method of application and the curing conditions and, possibly, the use of some
additives or admixtures.

3 Application

After decisions about materials are made, it is important to guarantee the

appropriate conditions of application, concerning technique, workmanship and
curing.
For lime mortars, the application technique is particularly important: the exact
quantity of mixing water (enough for good workability but not too much, for good
compaction); long mixing; several thin coats; careful curing, avoiding quick
drying and closing cracks when they occur during the early stage of application
etc. [25, 26]. The application of air lime renders, or air lime and pozzolan renders,

214
requires careful and rigorous workmanship. Plasterers normally working with
modern materials and not used to the application of this this kind of mortars on
large surfaces, will probably not achieve good results (appropriate physical and
aesthetic characteristics), except if constant supervision is provided.
Appropriate curing is one of the main secrets of ensuring the success of lime
renders. The carbonation of calcium hydroxide requires some humidity for the
dissolution of the carbon dioxide but not too much, to allow its reaction with
calcium hydroxide. This reaction is slow, so it is necessary to provide special
conditions for several days, maybe some weeks. On the other hand, most of the
mixing water of lime mortars is not used up in hydration reactions as happens in
hydraulic binders, so it leaves the mortar, through evaporation or due to absorption
by the substrate, causing high shrinkage. This can produce cracks, which must be
closed while the mortar is still in a plastic state [22].

4 Examples

Some case studies of historic buildings’ renders and plasters repaired with
compatible mortars are represented in Figs. 13-16 [1, 6, 7, 14].

Fig. 13 Main LNEC building: repair with air Fig. 14 Inglesinhos Convent: substitution air
lime mortar lime render

Fig. 15 Sacramento church: repair and partial Fig. 16 S. Bruno Fortress: substitution air lime
substitution of plasters using air lime, hydraulic plus cement render
lime mortars, gypsum and air lime mixes

215
5 Conclusions

Decisions about conservation strategy and about the materials to use for the
conservation of historic renders and plasters are based on several factors, both of a
subjective and an objective nature. Tests play an important role, for an evaluation
of the severity of anomalies and for an assessment of compatibility by a
comparison of the characteristics of existing materials and proposed solutions.
However, they are only a part of the methodology. They should come after a
careful expert observation and they must be adequately interpreted. The type of
tests and their localisation are to be chosen in order to obtain the maximum
information with the minimum intrusion and disruption to the original fabric, and
without taking more time than is necessary to fulfil the objectives. Hence, in-situ
tests must be used first followed by complementary laboratory tests. Previous
results in similar buildings and materials must be taken into account.
Functionality, compatibility and adaptation to the prevailing environment and
foreseen actions must be considered. Considering all of these factors carefully,
creates a new perspective that aims to ensure the improvement of the durability of
the whole building, respecting its characteristics.
To plan adequate interventions on historic buildings is a complex task,
requiring many skills; therefore a multidisciplinary team must be chosen to do it
and given a reasonable amount of time.

6 References

1. Veiga MR, Fragata A, Tavares M, Magalhães A, Ferreira N (2009) Inglesinhos Convent:

Compatible renders and other measures to mitigate water capillary rising problems. Int.
Journal of Building Appraisal, vol 5, Issue 2, Sept 2009, pp. 171-185. ISSN:17428262;
DOI: 10.1057/jba.28
2. Tavares M, Veiga MR, Fragata A (2008) Conservation of old renderings – the consolidation
of renderings with loss of cohesion. Conservar Património, 8, December 2008, pp. 13-19
3. Tavares M, Fragata A, Veiga MR (2007) A consolidação da falta de aderência de rebocos
antigos – um estudo com diferentes argamassas para grouting. In 2º Congresso Nacional de
Argamassas de Construção, APFAC, Lisbon, November 2007
4. Tavares M, Magalhães A, Veiga MR, Aguiar J (2005) Métodos de diagnóstico para
revestimientos de edifícios antiguos. Importancia y aplicabilidad de los ensaios in situ.
Boletin del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico, nº 53 – Especial critérios, April
2005, pp. 11-17
5. Magalhães A, Matias L, Vilhena A, Veiga MR, Pina dos Santos C (2005) Non-destructive
testing for the assessment of moisture defects on ancient walls. Some case studies. In 8th
International Conference on Non-destructive Investigations and Microanalysis for the
Diagnostics and Conservation of the Cultural and Environmental Heritage, Lecce (Italy),
May 2005
6. Magalhães A, Veiga MR (2009) Physical and mechanical characterisation of ancient
mortars. Application to the evaluation of the state of conservation. Materiales de
Construcción, Vol 59(295): 61-77 doi: 10.3989/mc.41907

216
7. Santos Silva A, Borsoi G, Veiga R, Fragata A, Tavares M, Llera F (2010) Physico-chemical
characterization of the plasters from the church of “Santissimo Sacramento” in Alcântara,
Lisbon. In HMC2010, Prague, September 2010
8. Papayianni I (1998) Criteria and methodology for manufacturing compatible repair mortars
and bricks. Compatible Materials Recommendations for the Preservation of European
Cultural Heritage, Athens: National Technical University
9. Moropoulou A, Bakolas A (1998) Range of acceptability limits of physical, chemical and
mechanical characteristics deriving from the evaluation of historic mortars. Compatible
Materials Recommendations for the Preservation of European Cultural Heritage, National
Technical University, Athens
10. Veiga MR, Santos Silva A, Aguiar J, Carvalho F (2001) Methodologies for characterisation
and repair of mortars of ancient buildings. In Int. Seminar Historical Constructions 2001.
Guimarães, Universidade do Minho, November 2001, pp. 353-362
11. Lanas J, Alvarez JJ (2003) Masonry Repair lime-based mortars: Factors affecting the
mechanical behaviour. Cement and Concrete Research, 33, pp. 1867-1876
12. Veiga MR, Velosa A, Magalhães A (2006) Evaluation of mechanical compatibility of
renders to apply on old walls based on a restrained shrinkage test. Materials and Structures,
vol. 40, nº10, December 2006
13. Gonçalves T, Rodrigues J, Abreu M, Esteves A, Santos Silva A (2006) Causes of salt decay
and repair of plasters and renders of five historic buildings in Portugal. In Conference
Heritage, Weathering and Conservation, vol. 1, Balkema, Madrid, pp. 273-284, ISBN 0-
415-41272-2
14. Santos Silva A, Veiga MR(2008) Degradation and repair of renders in ancient fortresses
close to the sea. In MEDACHS 08 - 1st Int. Conference Construction Heritage in Coastal
and marine Environment, Lisbon, LNEC, 8 p
15. Borges C, Santos Silva A, Veiga MR (2010) Ancient mortars under action of marine
environment: a physico-chemical characterization, In HMC2010, Prague, September 2010.
16. Candeias AE, Nogueira P, Mirão J, Santos Silva A, Veiga MR, Casal MG, Seruya AI
(2006) Characterization of ancient mortars: present methodology and future perspectives,
Internacional Workshop Chemistry for the Conservation of Cultural Heritage: Present and
Future Perspectives, EU-ARTECH, Perugia, Italy, 4 p
17. Válek, J, Veiga R (2005) Characterisation of mechanical properties of historic mortars -
Testing of irregular samples. Advances in Architecture Series Volume 20, pp. 365-374
18. Veiga MR, Magalhães A, Bosilijkov V (2004) Capillarity tests on Historic mortar samples
extracted from site. Methodology and compared results. In 13th International Masonry
Conference, Amsterdam, July 2004
19. Magalhães A, Moragues A, Veiga MR (2004) Application of some methods on evaluation
of porous systems of wall renderings. VII Congreso Internacional de rehabilitación del
patrimonio y edificación", Lanzarote, July 2004
20. Veiga MR, Fragata A, Velosa A, Magalhães A, Margalha G (2008) Substitution mortars for
application in historical buildings close to the sea environment. Analysis of the viability of
several types of compositions. In Medachs – Construction Heritage in Coastal and Marine
Environments, Lisbon, LNEC, January 2008
21. Veiga R, Fragata A, Velosa A, Magalhães A, Margalha G (2008) Lime-based mortars:
viability for use as substitution renders in historical buildings. Int. Journal of Architectural
Heritage vol. 4 (2), pp.177-195, April-June 2010. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis. Paulo
B. Lourenço and Pere Roca eds. Special Issue: Select papers from HMC 2008 – The first
Historical Mortars Conference. ISSN 1558-3058
22. Penas F, Veiga MR, Gomes A (2008) Hydraulic lime mortars to use in old buildings:
advantages and drawbacks. In HMC08 – 1st Historical Mortars Conference 2008:
Characterization, Diagnosis, Conservation, Repair and Compatibility, Lisbon, LNEC, 24-26
September 2008

217
 23. Fragata A, Veiga MR (2010) Air lime mortars: the influence of calcareous aggregate and
filler addition. Materials Science Forum, vols 636-637 (2010) p. 1280-1285, 2010 Trans
Tech Publications, Switzerland. Doi10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.636-637.1280
24. Margalha G (2009) Mineral air binders. Hydration processes and the time factor in their
quality (in Portuguese). Ph.D Thesis by Instituto Superior Técnico (IST) of Technical
University of Lisbon, January 2009
25. Cavaco L, Veiga MR, Gomes A (2003) Render application techniques for ancient buildings.
In 2nd Int. Symposium on Building Pathology, Durability and Rehabilitation, Lisbon,
LNEC, CIB, November 2003
26. Balksten K, Klasén K (2005) The influence of craftmanship on the inner structures of lime
plasters. In RILEM Workshop, Delft, January 2005

218

View publication stats