MortarsTechnicalGuide Online

TECHNICAL GUIDE
Mortars: materials, mixes and methods

A guide to repointing mortar joints
in older buildings
David Young
HERITAGE COUNCIL OF VICTORIA HERITAGE COUNCIL OF NEW SOUTH WALES HERITAGE SOUTH AUSTRALIA
HERITAGE COUNCIL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TASMANIAN HERITAGE COUNCIL QUEENSLAND HERITAGE COUNCIL
Acknowledgement
We acknowledge the Traditional Owners of Country throughout Australia, and their continuing connection to land,
sea and community, and pay respects to them and their cultures, and to their Elders – past, present and emerging.
Authorship Disclaimer Cover photo: Close-up of lime mortar in the

Text, photos and diagrams by David Young, This publication may be of assistance to you circa-1840 stables at Cooma Cottage, near
Heritage Conservation Consultant, Melbourne. but the States of Victoria, New South Wales, Yass, NSW. Large lumps or ‘knots’ of lime are
Additional illustrations and photos as credited. Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and apparent in a lime-rich mix. This texture is
Western Australia, their employees and the common in traditional mortars and is due to
Copyright author do not guarantee that the publication the way they were made – directly from
© 2021 Heritage Council of Victoria, Heritage is without flaw of any kind or is wholly quicklime, by sand-slaking (hot-mixing).
Council of New South Wales, Heritage South appropriate for your particular purposes and Despite the intervening 180 years, the mortar
Australia, Heritage Council of Western Australia, therefore disclaims all liability for any error, is in good condition, retaining evidence of its
Tasmanian Heritage Council and Queensland loss or other consequence which may arise struck finish. Importantly, because it is elastic
Heritage Council; and David Young. from you relying on any information in this and permeable, it is compatible with the soft,
Printed by Finsbury Green publication. low-fired clay bricks.
Edited by Get it Write!
Accessibility
Designed by Billington Prideaux Partnership
If you would like to receive this
ISBN 978-1-76105-615-4 (Print) publication in an alternative format,
ISBN 978-1-76105-616-1 (pdf/online/MS word)
please telephone the Heritage Council
of Victoria on (03) 8508 1656, or email
heritage.council@delwp.vic.gov.au.
This document is also available on the
internet at www.heritagecouncil.vic.gov.au.
Contents
PART 1 Introduction and the basics 1
1 Introduction 2
1.1 Key terms used in this guide 3
2 The basics 4
2.1 What makes a good mortar? 4
2.2 Mortar materials and mixes 5
2.3 Repointing mortar joints 8
2.4 Questions and answers 9
2.5 Repointing lime mortar joints: 11 key points 10
2.6 The dos and don’ts of repointing mortar joints 12
PART 2 Mortar materials and mixes 13
3 Role of mortars in traditional construction 14

4 Mortars in Australia – then and now 15
5 Limes 17
5.1 Types of lime: non-hydraulic and hydraulic 17
5.2 Non-hydraulic (pure) limes and the lime cycle 17
5.3 Lime putty and hydrated lime 20
5.4 Densities of lime putties and hydrated limes 21
5.5 Quicklime mortars 23
5.6 Setting of lime mortars 23
5.7 Hydraulic limes 24
6 Cements 27
6.1 Natural cement 27
6.2 Portland cement 27
6.3 Portland cement through time 29
6.4 Types of Portland and blended cements 29
6.5 Masonry cements 30
6.6 Rapid-hardening cements 31
6.7 Which cement? 31
7 Pozzolanic materials 33
8 Comparison of lime and cement binders 35
8.1 The lime–cement spectrum 35
8.2 Comparison of binder properties 36
9 Sands and other aggregates 39
9.1 Mineralogy and colour 39
9.2 Impurities 40
9.3 Surface texture and grain shape 40
9.4 Size grading 41
9.5 Clays and silts – fines 45
Contents i
9.6 Void ratio and its impact on mixes 48
9.7 Assessing sands for their suitability 49
9.8 Blending sands 51
9.9 Other aggregates 52
9.10 Mineral fillers 54
9.11 Making do with poor sands 55
10 Water 56
11 Admixtures and additives 57
11.1 Plasticisers, air-entrainers, water-retainers 57
11.2 Bonding agents 58
12 Pigments and colouring agents 59
12.1 Matching colours of existing mortars 60
13 Mortar mixes 61
13.1 Traditional mixes 61
13.2 Composition mortars 62
13.3 Durability 63
13.4 Choosing the right mix – significance 63
13.5 Choosing the right mix – compatibility 64
13.6 Choosing the right mix – applying the criteria 65
13.7 A range of mortar mixes 68
14 Workability 72
14.1 Plasticity 72
14.2 Water retentivity 72
14.3 Achieving workability 73
15 Mortar mixing 76
15.1 Traditional mixing 76
15.2 Contemporary mixing 78
15.3 Off-site preparation and maturing of mixes 79
16 Special jointing materials 80
16.1 Mason’s putty 80
16.2 Elastomeric sealants (mastics) 81
17 Investigation and analysis of mortars 82
17.1 Being clear about the purpose 82
17.2 Mapping and sampling the walls 82
17.3 Visual analysis, photography, stereomicroscopy 84
17.4 Acid digestion and analysis of aggregates 85
17.5 Thin-section (polarised light) microscopy 85
17.6 XRD and SEM/EDX 86
17.7 Wet chemical analysis 86
17.8 Testing for salts 87
17.9 Other tests 87
17.10 Getting useful test results 87
17.11 Using the test results 88
ii TECHNICAL GUIDE Mortars: materials, mixes and methods

PART 3 Repointing mortar joints 89
18 Repointing – key decisions 90

18.1 Principles of repointing 90
18.2 When to repoint? 90
18.3 Matching previous mortars 91
18.4 Ensuring compatibility 93
18.5 Matching joint profiles 93
18.6 Small patches or larger areas? 94
19 Batching, mixing and knocking up 98
19.1 Batching 98
19.2 Mixing 100
19.3 Knocking up 102
20 Raking and cutting out joints 104
21 Pre-wetting 107
22 Repointing 108
23 Finishing joints 110
23.1 Tamping 111
24 Protection and curing 112
24.1 Protecting work 112
24.2 Curing procedure 113
25 Using lean or sacrificial mixes 114
26 Deep repointing 115
27 Specifying repointing 117
28 Conclusion 119
29 Glossary 120
30 Further reading 128

30.1 Historical sources 128
30.2 General works and technical guides 128
30.3 Papers and conference proceedings 129
30.4 Standards and codes of practice 131
30.5 Audiovisual training materials 132
30.6 Internet links 132
31 Index 133
Contents iii
Boxes
Box 1: Mortar basics – materials 7

Box 2: Chemistry of non-hydraulic limes 19
Box 3: Chemistry of hydraulic limes 25
Box 4: Classification of hydraulic limes 26
Box 5: Cement chemistry 28
Box 6: Problems with cement-based mortars 38
Box 7: Size-grading specifications for mortar sands 46
Box 8: Mortar sands and Australian Standards 49
Box 9: Compatibility 67
Box 10: Mortars and Australian Standards 70
Box 11: Mortars and the Building Code of Australia 71
Box 12: Changing appearances 75
Box 13: Lime lumps 77
Box 14: Joint profiles 95
Box 15: Respecting traditional practice 97
Box 16: Health and safety with mortars 103
Tables
Table 1: Principal binders used in Australian mortars 15

Table 2: Classification of natural hydraulic limes 26
Table 3: Principal components of Portland cement 28
Table 4: Comparison of binder properties 36
Table 5: Sand particle size classifications 42
Table 6: Sand size-grading limits 44
Table 7: Proposed size-grading specifications 46
Table 8: Specific surface area of aggregates 47
Table 9: Composition mortars 62
Table 10: Mortar mixes arranged by type 69
Table 11: AS 3700 deemed-to-conform mortar mixes 70
Table 12: Investigative and analytical techniques for mortars 83
Figures
Figure 1: How not to repoint a wall 1

Figure 2: Mortar terminology 4
Figure 3: Mature lime putty 7
Figure 4: Natural hydraulic limes 7
Figure 5: A well-graded sand 7
Figure 6: Jointing tools 8
Figure 7: Traditional lime burning 13
Figure 8: Permeable mortar 14
Figure 9: Slaking quicklime to produce lime putty 18
Figure 10: The lime cycle 20
iv TECHNICAL GUIDE Mortars: materials, mixes and methods

Figures (cont.)
Figure 11: Density matters! 22

Figure 12: Hardened binders and pore blocking 28
Figure 13: Compressive strengths of Portland cements, 1840–2000 29
Figure 14: The lime–cement spectrum 35
Figure 15: Impermeable mortar causing decay of adjacent stone 38
Figure 16: Spalling of edges due to thermal expansion 38
Figure 17: Good-quality sand 40
Figure 18: Surface texture of sand grains 41
Figure 19: Grading of sands 43
Figure 20: Histograms and cumulative plots of sand size gradings 43
Figure 21: Standard size-grading envelopes 45
Figure 22: Proposed size-grading envelopes 46
Figure 23: Impact of size grading on void ratio 48
Figure 24: Settling test 50
Figure 25: Establishing the void ratio of a sand 50
Figure 26: Blending sands 51
Figure 27: A sand that needs blending with a finer sand 52
Figure 28: Shell fragments in an 1830s mortar 53
Figure 29: Adding limestone filler to improve size grading 54
Figure 30: Tuck-pointed brickwork 59
Figure 31: Pigmented mortar 59
Figure 32: 1860s blue mortar 60
Figure 33: Limewashed and lime-rendered walls in Gamle Stan, Stockholm 63
Figure 34: Which mortar? 65
Figure 35: Water and salt damage to brickwork 66
Figure 36: Compatible mortar 67
Figure 37: Incompatible mortar 67
Figure 38: Original surface of a sticky mortar 75
Figure 39: Beginning to lose the surface skin 75
Figure 40: Internal view after abrasion 75
Figure 41: Covered in lichen 75
Figure 42: An 1840s mortar 77
Figure 43: A 1920s mortar 77
Figure 44: Roller pan mixer 78
Figure 45: Forced action mixer 79
Figure 46: Mason’s putty 80
Figure 47: Inappropriate use of elastomeric sealant 81
Figure 48: Old mastic sealant 81
Figure 49: A simple loupe 84
Figure 50: Thin-section photomicrograph 86
Figure 51: Medieval masons at work 89
Figure 52: When to repoint 90
Figure 53: Nonmatching mortar 92
Figure 54: Salt attack decay of mortar and low-fired bricks 93
Figure 55: Slightly recessing a joint 94
Figure 56: Common Australian joint profiles 95
Figure 57: Matching an aged mortar 96
Figures v
Figures (cont.)
Figure 58: Traditional practice (left) 97

Figure 59: Traditional practice (right) 97
Figure 60: Flushed up pointing 97
Figure 61: What not to do 97
Figure 62: Fresh and matured lime putties 98
Figure 63: Sand-slaking quicklime 101
Figure 64: Grinder damage 104
Figure 65: Oscillating-blade tools 105
Figure 66: Mason’s chisels 106
Figure 67: Filling a bed joint 109
Figure 68: Filling a narrow perpend 109
Figure 69: Using a trowel as a hawk 109
Figure 70: Avoiding feathered edges 110
Figure 71: Tamping the joints 111
Figure 72: Tamped joints in rubble stonework 111
Figure 73: Brick growth 115
Figure 74: Steel tamping or deep-packing tools 115
Figure 75: Mortar loss due to salt damp 116
Figure 76: Mortar loss due to dissolution 116
A note about the photographs: Photographs which show the inside of historic
mortars have been made possible because of the use of abrasive cleaning (by
others) which has removed surfaces, exposing the interior of joints. Cleaning
methods have included high-pressure water blasting, sand blasting and grinding.
Most of these treatments are damaging and can significantly reduce the life of
traditional masonry.
Abbreviations
AS Australian Standard
AS/NZS Australian/New Zealand Standard
ASTM American Society for Testing Materials (standard)
BCA Building Code of Australia
BS British Standard
DPC damp-proof course
EDX energy dispersive X-ray (sometimes EDS)
EN European Standard (literally European ‘Norm’)
FTIR Fourier transform infrared (spectroscopy)
g/L grams per litre
GB blended cement
GGBFS ground granulated blast-furnace slag
GL general purpose limestone cement
GP general purpose cement
HE high early strength cement
ICPOES inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry
IRA initial rate of absorption
vi TECHNICAL GUIDE Mortars: materials, mixes and methods

Abbreviations (cont.)
kg/L kilograms per litre

LH low-heat cement
NHL natural hydraulic lime
µm micron
mm millimetre
MIP mercury intrusion porosimetry
NCC National Construction Code
PVA polyvinyl acetate
SBR styrene butadiene rubber
SEM scanning electron microscope
SCM supplementary cementitious material
SR sulfate-resisting cement
TDS total dissolved solids
UV-VIS ultraviolet-visible spectroscopy
XRD X-ray diffraction
Acknowledgements
Nicola Ashurst, Susan Balderstone, David Beauchamp, Beril Bicer-Simsir, William Blackledge, Barrie Cooper,
Ed Coppo, Andrew Daly, Donald Ellsmore, Alan Forster, George Gibbons, Jacqui Goddard, Meredith Gould, John
Greenshields, Caspar Groot, Katie Hicks, Stafford Holmes, Liz Holt, John Hughes, Douglas Johnston, Bill Jordan,
Alan Kelsall, Jake & Kris Krawczyk, Andrew Klenke, Mike Lawrence, Barbara Lubelli, Kim Lukomski, Peter McKenzie,
Stuart McLennan, Rudi Meuwissen, Jinx Miles, Philip Morey, Greg Owen, Sam Pentelow, Libby Robertson, David
Rowe, Stephen Schrapel, Joy Singh, Jasper Swann, David West, Ray Wiltshire, Linda Young, Building Limes Forum,
Centennial Stone Program – NSW Public Works Mortars Research Project 2011/2012, Heritage Council of NSW’s
Technical Advisory Group, Heritage Council of Victoria’s Technical Advisory Committee, Longford Academy,
Scottish Lime Centre, West Dean College.
Special thanks to Ian Brocklebank, Michelle Glynn, Paul Livesey, Elisha Long, Gerard Lynch and William Revie.
Abbreviations and Acknowledgements vii

‘ … how is it that mortar is often such perishable stuff, that new buildings often require pointing after a few
years? Almost invariably the reason is, that loam is used in order to economise the lime, whereas good mortar
consists essentially of lime and siliceous sand alone, the lime in the state of hydrate.
‘The difference in the expense and trouble of making mortar which will last for centuries, and each century
become harder; and useless rotten stuff, that would not last twelve months, is so trifling, that it must be from
ignorance alone the mistake is now made. …
‘The lime should be fresh, the sand a sharp grit and quite clean, and the water pure and free from salt. The sand is
made into the form of a basin, into which the lime is thrown in a quick state; water is then thrown upon it to slake
it, and it is immediately covered up with sand; after remaining in this state until the whole of the lime is reduced
to powder, it is worked up with the sand, and then passed through a wire screen, which separates the core. More
water is then added, and it is well worked up or larryed for use.’
Precautions in building, The Australian Town and Country Journal, 4 December 1875
viii TECHNICAL GUIDE Mortars: materials, mixes and methods

PART 1
Introduction and the basics

The guide begins with a summary of the key information, particularly as it relates to repointing.
Readers with insufficient time should at least read the Introduction and Chapter 2 ‘The basics’
which has some common questions and answers, some important dos and don’ts, and an
outline of the main points that need to be considered for successful repointing of lime mortar
joints in stone and brick masonry.
Figure 1: How not to repoint a wall. As well as being unsightly, this example breaks all the rules. Repointing should match the colour, the
materials and the finish of the mortar joints. The original lime mortar had deteriorated due to salt attack and rising damp, and its repairer
should have recognised the need for the wall to dry out through the joints and for salts to be controlled. Responding to all these factors
means using a lime mortar with a clean, well-graded sand. By using a stiff, yet plastic, mortar (which is essential for all repointing), and by
placing it with tools that fit within the joints (caulking or finger trowels), repointing can be undertaken without any mortar smears on the face
of the brickwork. The cement mortar used here will be too inelastic to allow for small movements and too impermeable to permit drying
through the joints. The bricks can be expected to decay.
Introduction and the basics 1

PART 1 Introduction and the basics
1 Introduction
In building constructions there are few things of more importance, and

thought less about, than the mortar, either as to the quality of the
materials or the manner of mixing them …
Hodgson, 1907
The focus of this guide is on mortars in older Australian buildings, and

consequently there is an emphasis on traditional lime mortars. These were
This guide does not cover earth mortars, widely used until the middle of the twentieth century, when major changes in
where the principal binder is clay, nor earth building practices (after World War II) led to cement becoming the principal
mortars that were stabilised with lime. binder. Cement began replacing lime from the late nineteenth century, though
the use of composition mortars (cement and lime in varying proportions) was
soon adopted and remains common practice.
Mortars: mixes, methods and materials is in three main parts. Part 1 is an introduction
and provides a summary of the key information, particularly with regard to
repointing. The chapter on The Basics should be read before dipping into other
parts of the guide.
Part 2 aims to provide a thorough understanding of mortar materials and mixes,
including the binders (limes and cements) and the sands and other aggregates
that are the raw materials of mortars. Subsequent sections explain the range of
mortar mixes and the circumstances in which they might be used, as well as the
investigation and analysis of existing mortars to aid in their repair.
Part 3 is the ‘how to do it’ part of the guide and covers the practical aspects of
repointing, which is the process of replacing the outer part of a mortar joint.
Though focused on lime mortars, the recommendations can also be applied to
cement-lime (composition) mortars. The guide concludes with a chapter
outlining the topics that should be covered when specifying repointing work.
Key terms are explained in the next section, and there is a fuller glossary at the
end of the guide. A bibliography of further reading includes references to
Australian Standards and some standards from overseas. Boxes that explain
particular topics are distributed through the text.
The technically minded may want to read this guide from the beginning. Those
involved in repointing work may prefer to read the basic material in the next
chapter and then go to Part 3 for the practical details of repointing, referring
back to Part 2 on materials and mixes as needed.
Describing proportions in mortar mixes

There are two ways of describing the proportions of materials in a mortar mix:
one begins with the binder (e.g. 1:3 binder to sand) and the other begins with the
sand (3:1 sand to binder). This guide adopts the binder-to-sand convention,
beginning with any cement component, which is generally kept at one part. Thus
a 1:2:9 mix means one part of cement, two parts of lime and nine parts of sand.
Where only two components are shown (e.g. 1:2), the binder could be cement or
lime, and should be identified (e.g. 1:2, lime to sand).
2 TECHNICAL GUIDE Mortars: materials, mixes and methods

1.1 Key terms used in this guide
This list provides basic definitions, in the order that they appear in the guide, to
help you get started; for the full definitions of these terms see the Glossary at the
end of the book.
binders and Mortars are made from a binder (such as lime or cement) or a
aggregates combination of these (composition mortar or ‘compo’) and an
aggregate, which is generally sand but may include some crushed stone.
Water is used to make the mortar plastic until it stiffens and hardens.
limes Lime binders come in several forms, and it is important to be clear > See Chapter 5 ‘Limes’
about the differences between them and the sometimes confusing
terminology. Limes may be non-hydraulic or hydraulic.
non-hydraulic Non-hydraulic (or pure) limes were the most commonly used limes in
limes Australian building. Generally described just as lime, the term ‘non-
hydraulic’ means they do not harden by reacting with water, in contrast
to hydraulic limes and cements, which do. Non-hydraulic (or pure) limes > See Section 5.2 ‘Non-hydraulic (pure)
come in three distinct forms: limes and the lime cycle’
• quicklime, which is slaked with the sand
• a wet putty, described as slaked lime putty or just lime putty
• a dry powder, known as hydrated lime, or builder’s lime: ‘dry hydrate’
is sometimes used to distinguish it from putty.
hydraulic limes Hydraulic limes can be thought of as a cross between non-hydraulic > See Section 5.7 ‘Hydraulic limes’
limes and cements. Some of the chemicals in a hydraulic lime harden by
reacting with water (like cement) producing a stronger binder than
non-hydraulic limes. There are natural hydraulic limes and artificial ones,
depending on the source of their raw materials.
cements Cements differ from hydraulic limes in consisting mainly of hydraulic > See Chapter 6 ‘Cements’
materials. Like hydraulic limes, there are natural and artificial cements.
There was some use of natural cement in Australia in the nineteenth
century, until Portland cement (an artificial cement) became more
widely used.
pozzolanic Pozzolanic materials have little or no binding power of their own, but > See Chapter 7 ‘Pozzolanic materials’
materials when mixed with non-hydraulic lime they make some of it hydraulic and
so increase the strength of the resulting binder.
void ratio The void ratio is the amount of voids (or air) in a measure of dry sand, > See Section 9.6 ‘Void ratio and its
and it is an important factor determining the correct proportioning of a impact on mixes’
mortar mix and hence its workability and water retentivity.
compatibility Whether for repairs or new building, mortars should always be > See Section 13.5 ‘Choosing the right
compatible with the adjacent masonry. This means having appropriate mix – compatibility’
physical properties, such as strength, elasticity, porosity and
permeability. Repair needs may dictate that these properties should be
different from those of the original.
workability This describes the relative ease with which a fresh mortar can be spread > See Chapter 14 ‘Workability’
and worked. It is not a single, measurable property but a combination of
several properties, particularly plasticity and water retentivity.
repointing Repointing is the process of replacing the outer part of a mortar joint. > See Part 3 ‘Repointing mortar joints’
It may be applied to joints that were originally laid and finished in a
single mortar (jointing), or to joints that were finished in two stages by
raking out some bedding mortar and adding a pointing mortar (pointing).
It is commonly undertaken in response to loss of the existing material.
Introduction 3
2 The basics
Figure 2: Mortar terminology. Jointing is

the process of laying masonry (bricks or
stones) and finishing the mortar joints with
a single bedding mortar. In pointing, the
joints are finished by raking out some of the
bedding mortar and inserting a separate
pointing mortar. Note how the pointing is
termed ‘stopping’ in tuck pointing. The
repair of tuck pointing (Figure 30) is not
covered in this guide. See also Figure 56,
‘Common Australian joint profiles’.
2.1 What makes a good mortar?

The following are the key qualities and characteristics of a good mortar:
> See Chapter 14 ‘Workability’ • workability – it should flow from the trowel when used for laying.
Workability requirements vary depending on the application. A bedding
mortar should spread readily, so the bricks or stones can be properly placed
and the joints completely filled. A pointing mortar should have a much lower
water content and be stiffer, yet still plastic.
> See Section 14.2 ‘Water retentivity’ • cohesiveness – good mortars should pass the trowel test by sticking to an
upturned trowel. Mortar that is too wet will not be cohesive: it won’t hang
together. The water will tend to separate out, or ‘leak’, leaving run-down
stains on the masonry and a mortar with poor durability.
• sufficient strength – to bind the individual masonry units (bond strength),
support the overlying masonry and building structure (compressive strength)
and resist dynamic loads such as wind and minor movements (bond and
flexural strengths).
• not too strong – mortars should always be weaker than the masonry units,
so any cracking that develops in the wall will be expressed in the mortar
joints where it is much less obvious. It is much easier to repair the mortar
than to replace bricks or stones.
> See Chapter 3 ‘Role of mortars in • permeability – mortars should be more permeable than the masonry units.
traditional construction’ This is so walls will breathe through the mortar joints, allowing them to dry
rapidly after rain.
> See Box 9 ‘Compatibility’ • be sacrificial – the mortar should always fail before the masonry units. This
is a combination of the two previous points. Deliberately sacrificial mortars
are commonly specified for the repair of masonry damaged by high
concentrations of soluble salts.
• reasonable durability – it should resist the action of wind, rain and other
forces, but it should not be more durable than the adjacent masonry. Mortars
should not be designed solely on the basis of the exposure conditions.
Instead their design should ensure that they will be compatible with the
masonry units.

• compatibility – a compatible mortar will comply with the previous four
points in terms of its relative strength, permeability, durability and capacity
to act sacrificially. For porous materials (such as many sandstones,
limestones and older, handmade and low-fired bricks), this means relatively > See Box 9 ‘Compatibility’ and Section
low-strength mortar with good elasticity and relatively high porosity and 13.5 ‘Choosing the right mix –
permeability. In contrast, mortars for use with modern exposure-grade compatibility’
bricks, which have very high strengths and low porosities, will need much
higher bond strengths to be compatible.
2.2 Mortar materials and mixes

This guide focuses on lime and cement binders, though earth bedding mortars
are commonly found in older Australian buildings – weather protection was
achieved by pointing the face of the joints in a lime-sand mortar or by
limewashing the exterior. There is a range of limes used in building including
non-hydraulic and hydraulic varieties. These form a continuous chemical > See Section 8.1 ‘The lime–cement
spectrum with cement: non-hydraulic limes merge into hydraulic limes, which in spectrum’
turn merge into cements.
Lime was the principal binder in mortars and plasters of Australia’s early
colonial buildings and continued in use in domestic construction until the
middle of the twentieth century. Although some Portland cement was used in
the mortars of larger buildings in the late nineteenth century, its widespread use
began with the advent of substantial local production in the early twentieth > See Chapter 4 ‘Mortars in Australia
century. Composition mortars consisting of cement, lime and sand also became – then and now’
common early in the twentieth century.
There were major changes in industry and building practices after World War II.
Small-scale lime burning for quicklime declined, and it was superseded by large,
mechanised kilns and plants producing hydrated lime. Quicklime and lime putty
were mostly replaced by hydrated lime in a bag – for convenience – while the
faster hardening and greater strength of cement led to its predominant use in all
mortars and the consequent loss of knowledge of traditional lime practices.
Lime is a relatively weak binder, but it has the considerable advantage of good > See Chapter 5 ‘Limes’ and Chapter 6
workability, particularly in the sand-slaked and directly slaked putty forms. ‘Cements’
Although much stronger, cement is harsher and more difficult to work with a trowel.
The change from lime to cement was followed by a change from sharp sands that
were free of clay to clay-rich fine-grained sands in order to regain some lost
workability. There is no point reverting to the use of lime unless good sands are
used. Using soft bricklaying sands with high clay contents is bad practice.
Instead of using clay, the workability of clean but ‘hungry’ sands can often be > See Chapter 9 ‘Sands and other
improved by adding ground limestone or marble fillers. aggregates’
Traditional mortar mixes are frequently stated as being one-part lime to three-
parts sand (1:3), but the truth is more nuanced than this simple ratio suggests.
Analysis of historic mortars shows much richer mixes, commonly in the range
1:1.5 to 1:2.5. Part of the explanation is that traditional mix proportions were in > See Section 13.1 ‘Traditional mixes’
fact 1:3 quicklime to sand, which results in a mix of about 1:2 lime to sand,
because the quicklime expands on slaking.
Also relevant is the quality of the sand, particularly its size grading and particle > See Chapter 9 ‘Sands and other
size. A 1:3 mix is appropriate for a well-graded sand, but richer mixes (like 1:2.5 or aggregates’, particularly Section 9.6
1:2) may be required for poorly graded, or uniform sands. As the size of the sand ‘Void ratio and its impact on mixes’
grains gets finer, their surface area increases (for the same volume of sand) and
the proportion of lime binder must be increased to compensate. Very fine sands
may require mixes as rich as 1:1.5 or 1:1.
Many late-nineteenth-century cement mortars were specified to be 1:2 or 1:3 > See Section 6.3 ‘Portland cement
cement to sand. This was in an era when Portland cements were quite different through time’ and Chapter 8
and much weaker than they are today. A modern cement mortar made with ‘Comparison of lime and cement
washed, well-graded sand in these proportions will not only be difficult to work binders’
with; it will also be too strong, too brittle and too impermeable for most
masonry materials.
The basics 5
> See Section 13.2 ‘Composition mortars’ Composition mortars have been widely used by those seeking to combine the
advantages of cement (faster hardening and greater strength) and lime
(workability). However, recent research and field trials have shown that weaker
mixes (such as 1:3:12) are not as durable as pure lime mortars and that cement
inhibits the curing of the lime by blocking pores in the mortar.
This guide recommends the 1:3:12 mix no longer be used. There are several
alternatives to this mix if greater strengths than those provided by pure lime
mortars are required: the use of natural hydraulic limes (NHLs) or of pozzolanic
> See Section 5.7 ‘Hydraulic limes’ and materials, which are added to pure lime mortars to produce results similar to
Chapter 7 ‘Pozzolanic materials’ hydraulic limes.
One of the challenges of repairing older buildings is that their materials are
often very different from those in common use today. For example, bricks today
> See Chapter 4 ‘Mortars in Australia are generally much stronger, denser and less porous than those used in the
– then and now’ nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Yet most people working on buildings,
whether as specifiers (such as architects and engineers) or as contractors and
tradespeople (such as bricklayers and stonemasons) have been trained to use
contemporary materials, and they may not be aware of the damage they can do
by using modern materials on older walls.
The Building Code of Australia now forms Uncritical adherence to the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions of the Building Code
part of the National Construction Code: of Australia (and on the Australian Standards on which parts of them are based)
see Box 10 ‘Mortars and Australian can compound this problem, as they reflect contemporary practice and
Standards’ and Box 11 ‘Mortars and the materials. Bricks and mortar are made differently today, but old bricks and
Building Code of Australia’. stones (like sandstone and limestone) haven’t changed – they need mortars, and
construction and repair practices, that are compatible with their relatively
porous nature.

Box 1: Mortar basics – materials
Some of the materials used to repair the mortar joints of older buildings are not
commonly used in contemporary building practice:
• Mature lime putty is a dense, wet putty that has considerable advantages
over the more-common dry-powder form of hydrated lime. Its fine particle
size makes it more workable and more reactive. It is used in mortars, the set
coat of plasters and in limewashes.
• Natural hydraulic lime (NHL), which is only available in dry powder form, can
be thought of as a cross between pure lime and cement. However, it has
advantages that are not achieved by mixing cement and pure lime together.
Figure 4 shows bags of NHL from various European manufacturers.
• Good sand is an essential element of any mortar. Figure 5 shows a sand that
has been sieved through progressively finer mesh sizes and separated into
different grades. That there is a range of particle sizes shows that it is well
graded, and that means it will make a workable mortar, despite the presence Figure 3: Mature lime putty.
of the coarser grains. Well-graded sands washed free of clay are a key
component of good repair mortars.
Figure 4: Natural hydraulic limes.
Figure 5: A well-graded sand.
The basics 7
2.3 Repointing mortar joints

> See Chapter 13 ‘Mortar mixes’ Mortar joints that were originally made with lime mortar should be
repointed with lime mortar. The use of cement mortar or cement-lime
composition mortar (compo) to repoint lime mortar joints is bad practice
and may lead to irreversible damage to the adjacent masonry.
Though not difficult, repointing with lime mortars requires skills some people
may not have and a level of care and attention to detail to which some may not
be willing to commit. It also requires appropriate tools, including caulking or
finger trowels that fit snugly within the joints, so that the mortar can be tightly
compacted into the back of the joints.
Figure 6: Jointing tools. Some of the

jointing tools used by master brickmason
Dr Gerard Lynch. Caulking or finger trowels
that fit within the joints are essential tools
for successful repointing. With a range of
widths and lengths to suit different joints,
these tools enable neat placement and tight
compaction of relatively stiff (yet plastic)
mortars without smearing any material over
the face of the brick or stonework. See
Figures 67, 68 and 69 for examples of some
of these tools in use.
> See Section 5.6 ‘Setting of lime mortars’, Curing of lime mortars is critical. Lime hardens by absorbing carbon dioxide
Chapter 22 ‘Pre-wetting’ and Chapter 24 from the atmosphere, in the presence of water. If the work is allowed to dry out
‘Protection and curing’ prematurely, hardening will cease, leaving the mortar weak and prone to decay.
It is essential to thoroughly pre-wet raked-out joints and maintain damp curing
conditions for at least four weeks. The Australian climate can make this difficult,
so you need to consider how this can be best achieved.

2.4 Questions and answers
Q houldn’t I add some cement to

S A o. Lime mortars do not need any cement to make them go off. Their
N
make sure the lime will go off? hardening occurs slowly, by absorbing carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere.
Q Why
should I use or specify A trength is often not an issue, particularly when repointing, as lime
S
lime when cement is so much mortars have adequate strength for traditional brick and stone masonry.
stronger? On the other hand, modern, cement-based mortars can be too strong,
leading to cracking in the bricks or stones, rather than through the joints
where it is less obvious and more readily repaired. Mortars should always
be weaker than the adjacent masonry. Also, walls need to breathe: any
moisture in the wall should dry out through the joints, which need to be
more permeable than the adjacent masonry. Lime mortars are much better
at allowing breathing than are mortars made of cement, or cement-and-
lime compositions.
Q When should I use cement? A I f the building was constructed with cement in the mortar, then it may be
appropriate to repair it with cement. However, the proportion in the mix
will need to be considerably reduced to account for the high strength of
modern cements and to make the new mortar compatible with the
masonry. In some circumstances, it may be better to use a hydraulic lime
or a lime and pozzolan mix. Some repairs to lime-mortared buildings (such
as undersetting for salt damp) require early hardening and justify the use
of cements. In such instances, the quick-setting characteristics of natural
cement may be advantageous.
Q Why
should I use coarse, sharp A ricklaying sands, which are fine grained and rich in clay, produce weak
B
sands? Bricklaying sands are so mortars with low bond strengths and poor breathing characteristics. In
much easier to work. contrast, well-graded, coarse, sharp sands produce strong and durable
mortars that bond well to the adjacent masonry. By using lime, you can
regain the workability lost with the change to cement. The workability of
lime, cement and composition mortars can be improved with the correct
use of mineral fillers (e.g. ground limestone) and water-retaining and
air-entraining admixtures.
Q When
I tried using lime putty, a A our mix may have been too wet or the putty insufficiently matured.
Y
milky stain spread over the Always use dry sand and lime putty that has been matured for at least four
brickwork. How can I stop this months. Drain the putty or carefully pour off the watery material from the
happening? top and use only stiff putty that will stand like feta cheese rather than run
like thin cream. There is enough water in a stiff putty to make mortar for
repointing. Do not add more. When the mix is stiff (yet still workable), the
lime will not bleed (‘leak’) over the face of the brickwork, and so staining
should not occur.
Q
Why all the fuss about curing? A ell they did actually, or at least some of them did: expressing concern
W
I’ll bet they didn’t worry about that hot weather was bad for new brickwork. Also, there is a big difference
curing 100 years ago when they between building a wall and repointing it. When the wall was built, porous
built this place. bricks or stones were soaked or dipped in water to ‘kill’ their excessive
suction and so the whole wall was wet through. The wall dried slowly, and
the moisture in the bricks and stones helped the curing of the mortar.
When we come to repoint them, most walls are relatively dry, so we need
to add water before (by pre-wetting), during and after the work to prevent
premature drying.
The basics 9
2.5 Repointing lime mortar joints: 11 key points

These are the key points to consider for successful repointing of lime mortar joints in stone and brick masonry.
1. Match previous mortars 5. Sands should be washed clean, and be

• Binder: if the original was lime, use a similar type of sharp and well graded
lime. • Washing sands clean removes clay, salt and organic
• Sand: try to match the colour, grain size, grain shape material.
and grading. • Sharp sands – i.e. that are angular in shape – ensure a
• Match the finished appearance of the original joint good bond to lime and to adjacent masonry.
profile (such as flush, struck or tuck pointed). • Well-graded sands provide a range of coarse, medium
• Match the mix proportions: traditional mixes were and fine particle sizes.
commonly 1:2–3 quicklime to sand. • Sands of a uniform grain size (whether coarse, medium
or fine) lead to higher void ratios, requiring more lime
2. You may need to modify the mortar mix to fill the voids.
• The nature of the available limes or sands may differ • Dry sand makes for a better bond between lime putty
from the originals. and sand.
• It may need to be made weaker (sacrificial) to protect • Damp sand may produce too wet a mix for good
the adjacent bricks or stones. repointing work.
• It may need to be more permeable to promote better • A proportion of porous aggregates (e.g. crushed porous
evaporation (breathing). limestone) can be beneficial.
• It may need to be made slightly stronger by adding
pozzolanic or hydraulic materials. 6. Mixing mortars from matured putty
• Sacrificial mortars should be in the range 1:3 to 1:5 (lime • Lime putty mortars are best made by pounding and
to sand), depending on circumstances. chopping the putty into the sand with the broad end of
a mattock handle in a bucket or with a mason’s hoe
• Adjust the mix by adding lime (not water) to make poor (‘larry’), a forced action (screed) mixer, a handheld
sand more workable or to allow for finer-grained sand helical-bladed mixer or a roller pan mixer.
(e.g. 1:3 to 1:2.5 to 1:2 to 1:1.5 as sands get progressively
finer). • Conventional rotary cement mixers can be used, but
need the addition of heavy stone or steel balls (such as
3. Some mortars should not be matched milling balls) to force the lime and sand together.
• Hard, cement repointing of an original lime mortar may • Pointing mortars need much less water than laying or
need to be replaced in lime. bedding mortars.
• Where good breathing is needed, mason’s putty may be • Lime putty should be drained of any free water and only
too impermeable. dense, stiff material used.
4. Lime mortars are best made with slaked • Do not add water to the mix: there is enough in the
lime putty or quicklime putty.
• Slaked lime putty is more workable – more plastic or • Add more putty, not water, if needed to improve
buttery – than hydrated lime. workability.
• Maturing putty before using it results in a finer particle • Pure lime mortars can be mixed well ahead, kept sealed
size, faster curing and better working properties: these and then knocked up for use.
are even more important for plaster and limewash. • The benefits of maturing the mix are greater than
• Lime putty mortars can be stronger and will be more maturing the putty separately.
elastic than those made with hydrated lime mortars. • Slaking quicklime with the sand (sand-slaking)
• The workability of hydrated lime can be improved by produces mixes with excellent workability, good
running it to a putty in water 24 hours before use – this strength and other desired characteristics.
is not slaking, but soaking – and do ensure the lime is • After maturing, knock up the mortar with similar tools
fresh. used in the original mixing (mattock handle, larry, or
• Excellent mortars can be made by the traditional forced action, handheld, or roller pan mixer), but do not
practice of sand-slaking quicklime. add water.

7. Raking or cutting out old mortar 10. Finishing the joint
• Rake the old mortar out to a depth at least 2½ times the • Match the previous finish (such as struck or ruled);
joint width, leaving the ends square. otherwise, use a plain flush finish.
• Never widen original joints, no matter how narrow they • Don’t overwork by dragging the tool: this brings too
are. much lime to the surface.
• Oscillating-blade tools (mortar saws or multi-tools) can • Dampen the joint with a fine water spray as soon as
be very useful for removing lime mortars. possible after placing the mortar.
• Use a small-diameter angle grinder to cut a slot in the • After initial stiffening, lightly scrape off any excess
centre of hard cement mortars, then use a sharp, mortar with a trowel or small tool.
tungsten-tipped chisel to remove the mortar from • Tamp the joint with a stiff-bristled brush to prevent
bricks or stones. shrinkage, expose sand and increase the surface area.
• Clean out joints with a vacuum cleaner and low-pressure Do this when it’s still just possible to push a fingernail
water sprays. into the mortar.
8. Pre-wetting • Tamping produces an aged appearance. The amount of

tamping will be determined by the need to match any
• Pre-wet masonry thoroughly, to control suction and existing mortar and by the need for good breathing
prevent premature drying of the mortar, which leads to characteristics (the more tamping, the better the
inadequate hardening and poor durability. breathability).
• For most old (porous) walls, it will be necessary to wet • Spray the joint with a fine water spray as soon as
them the day before and then several times on the day, tamping is complete.
the last time immediately before placing the new
mortar. 11. Protection and curing
• Walls should be thoroughly dampened, but not have • Good protection and curing are essential aspects of
water glistening on the surface. making durable lime mortars.
9. Repointing • Water must be present for the hardening reactions –

carbonation and hydration – to occur.
• A relatively stiff, dryish mortar mix is much better than
one that is too wet. • New mortars must be protected during application
from rain, heat, frost and particularly wind, to prevent
• Mortar must be compacted tightly into the joints to rapid drying, and for at least four weeks afterwards.
achieve a bond with the masonry.
• Misting systems may be needed to control humidity
• Always fill any deep voids first, grouting if necessary within tightly enclosed scaffolds, or cover work with
before final repointing. removalists’ blankets (or carpets) that are kept wet.
• Never use backing rods: they prevent good adhesion • Ideally, work only when the temperature is between 5˚C
and stop the joint breathing. and 30˚C, and stage the job to avoid hot sun on new
• Use the correct tools: caulking or finger trowels that fit work.
snugly in the joints, or plasterer’s small tools for wide • Keep new lime mortars quite damp for a week, then
joints in rubble stone walls. allow a week of damp ‘drying’, then a week of wetting
• For narrow joints, use a stiff, dry mix with care, or use and then damp ‘drying’ for the fourth week.
masking tape on either side. • Improved results can be achieved by additional cycles
of wetting and drying, which should be specified for hot,
windy or exposed environments.
The basics 11
2.6 The dos and don’ts of repointing mortar joints

Dos Don’ts
Do consider whether the joints really need repointing. Don’t use cement to repoint joints that were originally
Unless they are allowing water to leak through the wall, made with lime. As well as being historically wrong, there
slightly eroded joints may not need attention in the are good technical reasons for not doing so: cement is too
short-to-medium term. Deeply eroded joints risk excessive hard and too rigid and it blocks pores, preventing the
moisture penetration and should always be repointed. mortar from breathing well. Where salts are present, they
may damage the adjacent masonry instead of the mortar.
Do match the original materials, colour and texture as
The greater thermal expansion of cement mortars can also
closely as possible. This means matching the colour, grain
damage adjacent bricks or stones, spalling their edges or
size, grain shape and grading of sands as well as binders. It
arrises.
also means matching the finished appearance of the
original joints (e.g. flush or struck), if appropriate. Often an Don’t use high proportions of reactive pozzolans in lime
aged look is needed to blend the new work in with the mortars to repair old masonry. Modern pozzolans like
existing. ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS) and fly ash
are quite reactive and, like cement, will tend to block pores.
Do use lime mortars when repairing joints that were
Use these materials at 10% by volume of the lime if
originally made with lime. Sand-slaked quicklime or slaked
moderate strength is required; 5% by volume of the lime
lime putty will make more workable mixes than hydrated
will be enough for much repointing. Less-reactive
lime.
pozzolans (such as trass) can be used in higher
Do soak hydrated lime in water for 24 hours before using it. proportions.
This will improve its performance, but it will never be as
Don’t use the higher classes of natural hydraulic lime
workable as traditionally slaked lime putty. Ensure the
(NHL 3.5 or NHL 5) when the lower (NHL 2) will suffice,
hydrated lime is fresh.
particularly where the original mortar was essentially
Do consider that you may need sacrificial mixes to manage non-hydraulic. The higher the class of NHL, the more
excessive salt accumulation in the masonry, particularly blocked will be the pores, though much less so than with
where the need for repointing is because of mortar loss due cement.
to salt damp.
Don’t carry out repointing when the temperature is more
Do use jointing tools (such as caulking or finger trowels) than 30˚C. The new work will dry out too quickly and the
that fit snugly within the joints and apply considerable mortar won’t harden. Strong winds in cool weather can be
pressure to tightly compact the mortar into the back of the equally damaging. Protect walls with tightly enclosed
joints. scaffolds, and work around a building away from direct sun.
Don’t use acids and high-pressure water jets to clean
mortar spills off brickwork. Repointing can be done
without leaving mortar smears on the surface. Mixes
should be made with a low water content and be relatively
dry and stiff. If mortar is correctly placed with tools that fit
within the joints, there should be no mortar on the face of
the brickwork.
Don’t even think about sealing older walls with water-
repellent coatings: they can trap water and salts and
disrupt the surface. Most permanent anti-graffiti coatings
will also trap water.

PART 2
Mortar materials and mixes

This part of the guide aims to provide a thorough understanding of mortar materials, including
limes, cements and pozzolans, as well as sands and other aggregates before discussing how
they are combined in mortars. Mixes for six mortar types are suggested for a range of
applications. Further chapters cover workability, mortar mixing and the investigation and
analysis of existing mortars. The part begins with some background on the role of mortars in
traditional masonry and some key changes in Australian construction practice.
Figure 7: Traditional lime burning. A lime kiln at Susac Lime Supply, Carabooda, north of Perth, Western Australia. This may be the last
such lime kiln operating in Australia: most had ceased production by World War II.
Photo: Alan Kelsall.
Mortar materials and mixes 13

PART 2 Mortar materials and mixes
3 Role of mortars in traditional construction
As well as contributing to the appearance of a wall, mortar performs four

important roles:
• providing a cushion – an even bed – for the overlying masonry units
• bonding the masonry units together
• weatherproofing the wall
• providing a drying wick: a moisture path that promotes drying.
The first three of these roles are commonly understood. The fourth is
particularly important for older, solid walls, which are normally more porous
and permeable than modern ones.
The drying wick or moisture path through a wall is essential to allow it to dry
rapidly after rain. When rain strikes a wall, some runs off down the wall surface
and some soaks in through the network of fine capillaries that is the pore
structure of the masonry units and of the mortar. When the mortar is more
Bricks, stones and blocks are collectively permeable than the masonry units, much of the drying can take place through
described as masonry units. the joints, speeding up the drying process and reducing the risk of water
penetrating deeper into the wall.
At first it may seem that weatherproofing a wall and also providing a moisture path
through it are contradictory aims, but this is not so. The explanation lies in the
relative sizes of the voids and pores in a wall. Large voids, such as gaps between
brick and stones, that would let substantial water through a wall are filled with
mortar to make it weatherproof. On the other hand, small pores in the masonry
(stone, brick and mortar) allow some moisture to move through the wall, but it
does so slowly and generally the wall will dry before the moisture reaches the
other side. Porous masonry behaves like a giant sponge, absorbing moisture during
rain and giving it up in dry periods. The quicker that a solid wall can dry the better,
as it reduces the likelihood of moisture reaching internal spaces. Permeable
mortar is the key to promoting rapid drying and good breathing of older walls.
Traditional masonry walls are a system in which the permeable mortar plays an
important role in concert with the bricks or stones. Figure 8 illustrates this:
moisture moving through the wall is carrying a lot of salt, which predominantly
crystallises at the more permeable mortar joints (see also Box 9 ‘Compatibility’).
Figure 8: Permeable mortar. Salt crystals

extruding from joints indicate that the lime
mortar is more permeable than the bricks.
By decaying in preference, and so protecting
the bricks, the mortar is said to be sacrificial.
Were the salt to be trapped in the less-
permeable bricks, the damage to them
would be very much greater than it is.

4 Mortars in Australia – then and now
Lime was the principal binder in mortars and plasters of nineteenth century Earth mortars, in which clay is the binder,
Australian buildings, and continued in this role in domestic construction until were widely used for laying masonry in
the mid-twentieth century. early buildings. Their joints were made
weatherproof by pointing with lime
Most of the lime used in Australia was the more common non-hydraulic variety, and sand.
though there was some local production and also importation of hydraulic limes.
Hydraulic limes were used in engineering works and other highly specified
structures, but the full extent of their use in Australia is not yet clear and needs
further research. The boundary between non-hydraulic limes and hydraulic
limes is gradational (see Section 8.1 ‘The lime–cement spectrum’) and some of
the older limes that would be classified as non-hydraulic are likely to have had a
small proportion of hydraulic components.
Portland cement was first imported in the 1850s but, along with the earlier,
natural cements, would, on account of the higher cost, have been reserved for
limited use on the more exposed parts of buildings (such as renders, mouldings
and cast work). Portland cement began to be used in the mortars of larger
buildings in the late nineteenth century. Its more widespread use came in the
early twentieth century with the advent of large-scale local production.
Major changes in building practices after World War II led to the predominant
use of cement in mortars, as cement-and-lime composition (compo) mortars. A
key reason for this was that cement hardened much faster, which enabled more
rapid construction. Increasing industrialisation also saw the decline of small-
scale lime burning (see Figure 7) and its replacement by larger operations
producing hydrated lime. As a result, sand-slaked lime mortars (and lime putties
for plasters and limewashes) were replaced by dry hydrated lime, with the added
convenience of its supply in paper bags, like cement. Today, building is only one
of many uses for hydrated lime, which is made from relatively pure limestone
and may be quite different to the limes used in the past.
Table 1: Principal binders used in Australian mortars
Houses & small buildings Year Large buildings & engineered structures
composition 2000 composition

composition 1950 composition cement
lime composition 1920 cement composition
lime composition 1900 cement composition
lime clay 1880 cement hydraulic lime lime
lime clay 1850 lime hydraulic lime
clay lime 1800 lime clay
Note: The larger the type size, the more dominant the usage. This is provisional
information and needs further research: exceptions and local variations are to be
expected. Note that cements used in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
were very different to modern cements (see Section 6.3 ‘Portland cement through time’).
Mortars in Australia – then and now 15

The change from lime to cement meant a change from plastic, workable mortars
to materials that were more difficult to work with a trowel. To regain lost
workability, there was also a change in the use of sands in many areas, from
sharp and well-graded sands that were free of clay to soft sands that are fine
In some areas, the only available sands grained and clay rich. Clay-rich bricklaying sands produce poor-quality mortars
were of poor quality. Those using them of low durability. Despite this, they are used today with cement because they
adjusted their mixes to suit. See Section bring workability advantages: clay is even added to some sands with poor
9.11 ‘Making do with poor sands’. working properties.
The challenge for repairers of older buildings that were constructed with
lime is to:
• revert to the use of lime binders in place of cement
• revert to the use of good-quality building sands
• ensure everyone involved understands these materials.
All three must be progressed in unison for the results to be successful.
Ensuring that everyone understands the use of lime binders and good-quality
building sands is particularly important. Anyone working on buildings today,
whether as a specifier (such as an architect or engineer) or as a contractor or
tradesperson (such as a bricklayer or stonemason) will have been trained to
work with contemporary materials and may not be aware of the often very
different properties of traditional masonry materials.
Old bricks can be quite porous – 25–35% porosity is common for low-fired bricks
from the mid-nineteenth century – whereas modern, general-purpose extruded
bricks are more highly fired and have porosities around 7%, while exposure-
grade bricks can have less than 5% porosity. A strong, cement-based mortar
suitable for use with a modern, exposure-grade brick will lead to irreparable
Suction is determined by pore size and damage if used with a soft, porous brick, while a mortar appropriate for such a
distribution, as well as total porosity. brick will have insufficient bond strength for the low suction of a modern brick.
With the change in materials has come a change in work practices. Traditional
practices included pre-wetting the masonry units by hosing the stack and this
> See Chapter 10 ‘Water’, Section 14.2 was often followed by dipping them in a bucket of water, just prior to laying. The
‘Water retentivity’, and Chapter 21 aim was to reduce or ‘kill’ the suction of the brick or stone so it would not draw
‘Pre-wetting’ too much moisture from the mortar. If this was allowed to happen, the mortar
would dry prematurely leaving it friable, of low strength and poor durability.
With pre-wetting, the natural workability of the lime allowed the use of mortars
with a low water content.
In contrast, contemporary practice with modern bricks of low suction – with a
low initial rate of absorption, or ‘IRA’ – is not to pre-wet the bricks but to lay
them using mortar that has a maximum water content (consistent with good
bricklaying practice) so that the bricks absorb some water and pull some cement
in with the water, to create a good bond.
When repointing older walls made of porous materials, work practices need to
be appropriate for them. Also, some materials still in use today are very porous
(particularly sandstones, limestones and recycled older bricks). Mortars for
these materials need to be traditional porous mixes to be compatible with them,
and so produce walls that work as systems (as Chapter 3 explains).

5 Limes
Originally, the word ‘lime’ was used for sticky materials (such as glues and
pastes). Today the word has a variety of meanings, and in relation to mortars it is
used for both quicklime (calcium oxide) and for slaked or hydrated lime
(calcium hydroxide). There are different types of limes including non-hydraulic
limes and hydraulic limes and it is important to be clear about the distinction
between them.
To complicate things further, there are calcium limes and dolomitic limes. Don’t confuse building limes with
Dolomitic limes contain both calcium and magnesium and have more complex agricultural lime (ag-lime), which is just
chemistries than calcium limes. This guide does not cover dolomitic limes ground limestone and has no binding
because they are not common in Australia, though they are widely used overseas, power.
particularly in North America and parts of Europe.
5.1 Types of lime: non-hydraulic and hydraulic

Non-hydraulic limes have been the most commonly used limes in Australian
building construction and are generally described just as lime. ‘Non-hydraulic’
implies they do not harden by reacting with water; instead they react with
carbon dioxide in the air, and for this reason they are also known as air limes. The term ‘air lime’ is common in Europe
Non-hydraulic (or pure) limes come in three distinct forms: and is used in the European standard for
building lime (EN 459) as the general name
• as quicklime, in various particle sizes, such as rock, pebble (nut) or powder for all non-hydraulic limes.
• as a wet hydrate or putty, commonly described as slaked lime putty or simply
lime putty
• as a dry hydrate or powder, known as hydrated lime, or builder’s lime.
Hydraulic limes (or water limes) are more complex materials containing a
hydraulic component and a non-hydraulic component. The hydraulic component
hardens by reacting with water (as do cements), producing a stronger binder
than non-hydraulic limes. The non-hydraulic component hardens by reacting
with air, as for non-hydraulic limes. As noted in Chapter 4, the gradational
boundary between non-hydraulic and hydraulic limes means that some non- > See also Section 8.1 ‘The lime–cement
hydraulic limes will contain a small proportion of hydraulic material. spectrum’
Following sections explain the manufacture and properties of the various limes.
This guide focuses on non-hydraulic limes, as these were the materials used
most in Australian building. They remain widely available but in the modern
form of relatively pure hydrated lime. There are also several manufacturers of Although most non-hydraulic limes today
slaked lime putties. Although hydraulic limes were used here, they are not are pure limes, some early mortars were
currently made in Australia and are imported from Europe, where there are made with lean limes.
several manufacturers.
5.2 Non-hydraulic (pure) limes and the lime cycle

The raw material for making lime is calcium carbonate, generally in the form of
relatively pure limestone or chalk. Marble, which is a metamorphosed (altered)
limestone, is another source. Other sources include seashells and coral, which
the early British colonists used to make lime in Australia. Some sands are
naturally composed of calcium carbonate (as worn-down seashells) and these
can also be used for making lime. They are known as lime sands, as distinct from
quartz (silica) sands.
Lime burning (calcination)

The first stage of producing lime is to heat the limestone (or the other materials)
in a kiln to about 950°C. The heating, which is technically described as calcining
(and is commonly but incorrectly known as burning) converts the calcium > The chemistry of lime burning and the
carbonate, giving off carbon dioxide gas and leaving behind calcium oxide, which other reactions in the lime cycle are
is quicklime. explained in Box 2.
Limes 17
Lime slaking (hydration)

Quicklime (also known as rock lime or lump lime) is a highly reactive material
that stores the energy involved in making it. When combined with water, it
reacts vigorously and generates a lot of heat. The process is known as slaking
(technically hydration) and the product is calcium hydroxide, or slaked lime.
The energy liberated by the reaction depends on the purity of the limestone raw
> See Box 16 ‘Health and safety with material and on the calcining temperature, but it can be sufficient to boil the
mortars’ water (see Figure 9) or cause a steam explosion if not handled correctly: when
slaking, highly reactive quicklime is always added to water, never water to
quicklime. Soft-burnt quicklimes – those that have been calcined at temperatures
below about 950˚C – are more reactive and are preferred to those calcined at
higher temperatures (hard-burnt quicklimes).
Figure 9: Slaking quicklime to produce

lime putty. The reaction releases the
stored energy in the quicklime and can
produce sufficient heat to boil the water, as
seen here, though ideally the temperature
should be kept just below boiling point.
When making putty, quicklime is always
added to water: adding water to highly
reactive quicklime risks a hazardous steam
explosion. Anyone working with quicklime
must understand the risks involved and
must be able to describe and apply the
necessary safety precautions.
In traditional production, quicklime was slaked in more water than needed for
the reaction, resulting in the formation of a wet hydrate or putty known as
slaked lime putty or just lime putty. In modern hydrating plants, an old practice
has been mechanised: just enough water is added to the quicklime to produce
the dry powder known as hydrated lime, or builder’s lime. In theory, lime putty
and hydrated lime should be the same (after allowing for the water in the putty)
but in practice there are important differences, which the next section explains.
Lime hardening (carbonation)

Lime putty and hydrated lime are binder materials that are mixed with
aggregates (principally sands) to make mortars, plasters and renders. The
hardening (or curing) of non-hydraulic lime binders involves the slow
absorption of carbon dioxide from the air and the conversion of the calcium
hydroxide back to calcium carbonate in a process known as carbonation.
There are actually two stages to this reaction. In the first stage, carbon dioxide
from the air dissolves into the mixing water remaining in the pores to form
carbonic acid. In the second stage, the reaction of the carbonate in the acid with
the lime (calcium hydroxide), which dissolves into the acidic water, produces
calcium carbonate, which precipitates out to form a mass of small crystals that
bind to each other and to the aggregate.
> The hardening of lime mortars is While the hardening of a non-hydraulic lime is with carbon dioxide from
further discussed in Section 5.6. the air, the reaction will only take place in the presence of water. This why
lime mortars must be kept damp (well cured) during hardening.

Box 2: Chemistry of non-hydraulic limes
The chemical reactions that take place during the burning, slaking and hardening of non-hydraulic limes are set out here.
Burning (calcination)
Limestone (or marble, seashells or coral) is heated in a kiln to drive off carbon dioxide and produce quicklime:
CaCO₃ + heat (950°C) = CaO + CO₂ (1)

Limestone + heat = quicklime + carbon dioxide
(calcium carbonate) (calcium oxide) (gas)
Slaking (hydration)
The quicklime is then combined with water in the process known as slaking:
CaO + H₂O = Ca(OH)₂ + heat (2)

Quicklime + water = slaked lime + heat
(calcium oxide) (calcium hydroxide)
The reaction is strongly exothermic – it produces a lot of heat – and can be hazardous.
Hardening (carbonation)
Pure limes harden by slowly reabsorbing the carbon dioxide from the air, in a process known as carbonation:
Ca(OH)₂ + CO₂ = CaCO₃ + H₂O (3)

Lime + carbon dioxide = calcium carbonate + water
(calcium hydroxide)
In fact, there are two stages to this reaction, which is more correctly shown here. In the first stage, carbon dioxide
dissolves into the mixing water to form carbonic acid:
CO₂ + H₂O = H₂CO₃ (3a)

Carbon dioxide + water = carbonic acid
In the second stage, the lime dissolves into the acidic water and reacts to produce calcium carbonate:
Ca(OH)₂ + H₂CO₃ = CaCO₃ + 2H₂O (3b)

Lime + carbonic acid = calcium carbonate + water
(calcium hydroxide)
The calcium carbonate precipitates out to form a mass of small crystals that bind to each other and to the aggregate,
while the excess water evaporates.
Limes 19
The lime cycle

Because the hardened product (calcium carbonate) is chemically the same as the
limestone raw material, the production and hardening of lime is known as the
lime cycle. Figure 10 shows the three stages of the cycle:
• the burning (calcining) of limestone to make quicklime
• its slaking (hydration) to form slaked lime
• the hardening (carbonation) of the lime back to calcium carbonate.
Figure 10: The lime cycle.
So far, we have looked at lime made from relatively pure sources of calcium
carbonate. These produce what are known as pure or high-calcium limes. Many
limestones contain other minerals (such as sand, silt or clay) in appreciable
quantities. Though geologically described as impurities, these additional
minerals may be beneficial in that they may react in the kiln to produce calcium
silicates and calcium aluminates which are stronger binders than lime. These are
hydraulic limes, which are discussed in Section 5.7.
Some materials remain unaltered in the kiln and contribute nothing to the
The underburnt centre (core) of some product. These underburnt or inert lumps are often removed by screening
lumps of quicklime may remain as calcium before the lime is used. A lime with appreciable inert material is known as a ‘lean
carbonate. Unless removed, they lime’, in contrast to a pure, high-calcium or ‘fat’ lime. These terms give an
effectively become part of the aggregate understanding of their workability and sand-carrying capacity:
(see Box 13 ‘Lime lumps’).
• a fat lime is readily worked because of its buttery or creamy consistency and
has a high sand-carrying capacity
• a lean lime is less workable and needs to be used with a smaller proportion of
sand to make a mortar with similar workability to that of a fat lime. Lean
limes are less common today.
5.3 Lime putty and hydrated lime

Though they apparently have the same chemistry, there are noticeable
differences between a mortar made with lime putty and one made from hydrated
lime. Some differences result from their initial formation, others from maturing
(or ageing) of putties, while others may occur during storage and use. Here it is
important to be clear about terminology. Lime putty and hydrated lime have
both been hydrated by reaction with water. The term lime putty is used for
material that has been directly slaked (from quicklime) in an excess of water to
form a wet putty, while hydrated lime is (paradoxically) used to mean the dry

powder form. Hydrated lime can be run to a putty in water, but this is soaking,
not slaking, and its properties will differ from those of a putty that is directly
slaked from quicklime.
Provided it is protected from carbon dioxide in the air (by sealing it under a layer
of water or in a lidded pail or drum), lime putty can be kept indefinitely, as it will
not harden. On the other hand, if not tightly sealed in an airtight bag, dry
hydrated lime can absorb carbon dioxide from humid air and can partially
carbonate, leading to a less workable material with reduced binding power
because some of it has hardened before use. A similar problem happens with
bagged cement, though in that case the reaction is with water in the atmosphere,
not with carbon dioxide.
Slaked lime putties have finer particle sizes than soaked hydrated limes. The
fineness increases with prolonged maturing of the putty: the particle size gets
smaller and the shape of the particles change as they break down – hexagonal
columns cleave into tiny plates – leading to a significant increase in plasticity, as > Plasticity, a key aspect of workability, is
the tiny plate-like particles slide past each other more readily than do the discussed in Chapter 14 ‘Workability’
coarser columns. Lime putty is often specified to be matured for at least four
months, but in practical terms the desirable maturation period depends on the
application: limewash calls for the most mature lime putty, then plaster and
render, then pointing and repointing, and finally bedding mortar for the least-
mature putty.
Provided that it has settled out to a dense putty, a few weeks maturing may be
sufficient for laying bricks or stones; four months will make a pointing mortar
more workable; and limewash will be improved by at least a year’s maturing to
reduce its particle size and increase its reactivity by increasing the effective
surface area of the particles. Premixed mortars of lime putty and sand can also > See Section 15.3 ‘Off-site preparation
be matured, and the benefits of doing this are greater than those of maturing the and maturing of mixes’
putty separately.
Directly slaked lime putties (known as irreversible colloids) consist of fine
particles of calcium hydroxide surrounded by water, which, if they are allowed to
dry out, will never recover their former properties. This is because the drying
process leads to small particles clumping together into much larger particles,
which cannot be broken down simply by adding water. The same clumping (also
known as agglomeration or crystal coarsening) occurs during the manufacture of
hydrated limes, and it is a reason why mortars made of the latter are not as
workable as those made from putties.
The workability of mortars made from hydrated lime can be improved by mixing
the lime powder to a putty consistency in water (soaking it) and storing it for at
least 24 hours before using it. For the reasons explained above, further maturing
will have limited workability benefits, but may be needed to allow time for the
putty to settle out and become sufficiently dense.
Researchers have differed on whether lime putty makes stronger mortar than Differences between types of sand
hydrated lime. Some research indicates similar strengths for both types; other (aggregate) may produce greater
research shows significantly greater early (28 day) strength for lime putty. variations in strength than differences
Mortars made with hydrated lime will certainly be weaker than those made with between limes (see Section 9.9 ‘Other
lime putty if the hydrated lime has partially carbonated before use. ‘Going-off’ in aggregates’ and Section 9.10 ‘Mineral
fillers’).
the bag can be minimised by using only freshly manufactured material.
There is no reason why a lime mortar cannot be made of a blend of lime putty
and fresh hydrated lime. Indeed, this may be a useful compromise in situations
where some workability can be sacrificed for the low weight of hydrated lime,
with consequent savings in transport costs.
5.4 Densities of lime putties and hydrated limes

The densities of lime putties and hydrated limes can vary widely, both within
and between the two types. Despite the water content, a dense, matured putty
will contain more lime than the same volume of dry hydrated lime. If this is not
understood, and appropriate adjustments made, the resulting mortars may not
meet specification and will commonly have insufficient lime.
Limes 21
Lime putty (made from a high-calcium limestone) should have a bulk density of
least 1,350 g/L (1.35 kg/L). At this density, the lime will be a little under half the
weight of the putty (about 600 g in a litre of putty), while water will be a little
over half the weight (about 750 g in a litre of putty) and about three-quarters of
the volume of the putty.
Freshly made putties of lower densities will contain more water and less lime.
Consider, for example, a density of 1,270 g/L. This might seem close to 1,350 g/L,
but such a putty will have only three-quarters of the lime of the latter. These
differences will have a significant bearing on the actual proportions of binder to
aggregate in a mortar mix: in this case, a 1:3 mix would actually be a 1:4 mix, if
putty of the lower density were used.
While 1.35 kg/L is the minimum density for lime putty, the ideal is closer to
1.4 kg/L when the lime content will be about 675 g/L. Such a putty contains 50%
more lime than one with a density of 1.27 kg/L.
Commercially available Australian putties are generally less dense than 1.35 kg/L.
They should be drained before use to ensure only stiff putty remains, although
the lime slurry from on top should be retained, because it has potential uses,
which Section 19.1 ‘Batching’ explains. In cooler and damper climates, lime putty
> See Section 19.2 ‘Mixing’ for more is stored in woven polypropylene bulker bags, to allow it to drain. This is less
details about managing the water practical in the hotter, drier Australian climate as the putty would prematurely
content of putties and mixes dry out and carbonate.
Hydrated lime has a bulk density of 350–640 g/L – the wide range reflects
variability of the raw materials, as well as bulking of the dry powder. Fine, dry
powders can bulk up, increasing their volume substantially and giving a
Australian Standard 1672.1 assumes that a misleading impression of the actual amount of material present. In a hydrated
given volume of putty contains an equal lime with a density of 400 g/L, there is only two-thirds of the amount of lime
volume of hydrated lime: the implied present compared to a matured, dense putty (which is 600 g/L). For this reason,
densities are 1.285 kg/L for putty and mix proportions may need adjusting when using hydrated lime (see Section 19.1
480 g/L for hydrated lime (see Box 10 ‘Batching’). A mix made with hydrated lime may need to be as rich as 1:2 to be
‘Mortars and Australian Standards’). comparable with a 1:3 mix made with lime putty.
Densities of putties and dry hydrates can be straightforwardly measured by
weighing their known volumes. For example, take a container that will hold a
suitable volume that can be accurately measured: say, 1 or 2 litres. Weigh the
container empty. Fill it with lime putty or hydrated lime, level it off carefully and
weigh it again. Subtract the weight of the container and then divide the result in
grams by the volume in litres. As noted above, lime putty should be at least
1,350 g/L (1.35 kg/L). Transferring hydrated limes to the container will inevitably
lead to some bulking of the dry powder, but after tapping the sides of the
container to reduce the bulking effect, their compacted densities will typically
range from 450–640 g/L.
Figure 11: Density matters! In addition to

its water content, a matured, dense lime
putty will have about 600 g/L of lime. The
same amount of lime in dry, hydrated form
can occupy one and a half times the volume
of the putty, and may, depending on the
source and bulking, be closer to two times
the volume of the putty. It is important to
take account of these differences when
batching mortars. One way to do this (and
avoid bulking concerns) is to run the
hydrated lime to a putty in water (see
Section 19.1), let it stand to allow the putty
to settle and then use only the denser
material, as is done with directly slaked lime
putties. Because they clump (as mentioned
in Section 5.3), soaked hydrated limes will
never achieve the same densities as directly
slaked putties.

5.5 Quicklime mortars
An alternative to using putties and hydrated limes is to make mortars in the
traditional way, directly from quicklime. The quicklime is slaked with the sand,
not separately. This sand-slaking (or dry-slaking; also hot-mixing) was the way
most lime mortars were made until well into the twentieth century. Traditional
mixes were based on run-of-kiln lump quicklime, whereas modern quicklime As with putties and hydrated limes, density
may be in chip or powder form with densities ranging from 900–1,200 g/L, differences between quicklimes must be
depending on particle size and degree of burning. taken into account.
Sand-slaking can be a way of safely controlling the energy released from the
quicklime. Also, the heat generated by the slaking cleans up the sand and leads
to better contact with the lime. Section 19.2 explains how quicklime mortars are > Sand-slaking and the related hot lime
made by sand-slaking. These mixes can be stored in sealed containers and mortars are further explained in
allowed to mature before use, which improves their workability. Section 15.1 ‘Traditional mixing’.
5.6 Setting of lime mortars

The setting of lime mortars is a two-stage process: stiffening, then hardening.
The initial stiffening and drying of a newly laid mortar is due to the suction of
the adjacent masonry units, which draws the mixing water from the mortar into
the pores of the bricks or stones. Some drying is also due to evaporation. This
first stage – developing an initial set as the mortar loses its plasticity or
workability – involves no chemical reaction. It is due to forces related to surface
tension, the same forces that cause damp sand to increase in volume (to bulk
up) and allow it to stand as sandcastles on a beach.
The second hardening (or curing) stage is when chemical reactions occur and
the binder hardens around the sand to form a solid mortar. These two stages
happen to all mortars, whether cement- or lime-based, but are particularly
relevant to lime mortars (including hydraulic limes) because of their slower > Lime mortars need thorough curing if
hardening. Slow hardening of lime mortars is well documented, with cases of they are to harden properly, see
lime deep inside thick walls that have never properly cured. Lime mortars need Chapter 24 ‘Protection and curing’ for
thorough curing if they are to harden properly. practical details.
Lime mortars should be kept quite damp for a week, during which time there will be
little or no carbonation (except at the surface), only the slow dissolving of carbon
dioxide into the mixing water. Then, as the mortar slowly dries, carbonation will
begin to occur as the lime dissolves into the now-acidic mixing water and reacts Excessive hot weather is bad for
to produce calcium carbonate (as explained in reactions 3a and 3b in Box 2). The brickwork. The best conditions for good
ideal curing conditions (after the initial week of wetting) are a temperature of work are in winter, when the atmosphere is
15–20˚C and relative humidity of 60–70%. These conditions are unlikely in the damp. The slow setting of the work is
hotter and drier months in Australia, and indeed for much of the year. Consequently, always to be aimed at.
it is usually necessary to modify the environment around a curing mortar. Haddon, 1908
Experience has shown that periodic wetting and drying will improve the hardening
of lime mortars. Cycles of wetting and drying can be deliberately applied as part of
a planned curing process, but such cycles might also happen naturally where rain
periodically strikes the wall. This is one reason why some sides of a building can be
better cured than others. The effect is commonly seen on chimneys which are more
exposed to the weather: the weather side is often better cured. Deterioration on
the lee side of a chimney might be partly due to incomplete hardening, but there
might be other factors at work, particularly salt attack (see Figure 34).
Recent laboratory research has demonstrated that repeated cycles of wetting and
drying can ensure thorough carbonation of a lime mortar, which can increase its
strength to nearly double that of an untreated sample. The same research
showed additional cycles of wetting and drying further increased the mortar’s
strength to about two and half times that of the untreated mortar. Importantly,
as well as further carbonation, the additional cycles also resulted in dissolution
and recrystallisation of the newly formed calcium carbonate, producing a
better-interlocked binder matrix that should be stronger and more durable. This > The steps needed to ensure thorough
confirms the effectiveness of the traditional practice of repeatedly wetting lime hardening of mortars are explained in
mortars, plasters and washes to accelerate their hardening. Chapter 24 ‘Protecting and curing’.
Limes 23
5.7 Hydraulic limes

Hydraulic limes can be thought of as a cross between pure (non-hydraulic) limes
and cements. Like cement, a component of a hydraulic lime sets by reacting with
Don’t confuse hydraulic limes with hydrated water in a process known as hydration, caused by the presence of silica and/or
limes – they’re different. Although hydraulic alumina, either in the limestone raw material or added later. The materials
limes have been partly hydrated, the term produced on hardening – principally hydrated calcium silicates – are quite
‘hydrated lime’ is normally used only for different binders to the calcium carbonate of non-hydraulic limes. Hydraulic
pure (non-hydraulic) limes. limes can be natural or artificial.
Natural hydraulic limes

Natural hydraulic limes (NHLs) are so named because their limestone raw
material naturally contains silica or alumina (as amorphous silica, or as
aluminosilicate minerals in clays) in the correct proportions for the binder. Such
materials are called argillaceous (if clay bearing) or siliceous (if silica bearing)
limestones. Geologically, these limestones are described as impure, yet it is the
impurities which are the key to making hydraulic limes.
The impure limestones are burnt at temperatures of about 1000–1100˚C which
produces a reaction between some of the resulting quicklime (from the
limestone) and the silica (or alumina) to produce calcium silicates (or calcium
aluminates). The resulting mix of calcium silicate (or aluminate) and calcium
oxide is then slaked with just enough water to hydrate the calcium oxide (but
> See Box 3 for an outline of the not so much as to cause a reaction with the hydraulic component), leaving a dry
chemistry of hydraulic limes. powder which is then ground (if required) and bagged.
It is important to be clear that there are two active components in a bag of
natural hydraulic lime: a hydraulic component (calcium silicate and/or calcium
aluminate) and a non-hydraulic component (calcium hydroxide, i.e. hydrated
lime). Two reactions occur when the natural hydraulic lime is mixed with water:
the hydraulic component hardens in a reaction known as hydration; the non-
hydraulic component hardens by carbonation, which Section 5.2 explains.
As it reacts, the hydraulic component consumes some of the mixing water and
grows as interlocking needle-like crystals. This leads to a stronger but less-
> See Figure 12 permeable mortar than one made with non-hydraulic lime.
The proportions of the hydraulic and non-hydraulic components can vary,
leading to a series of natural hydraulic limes with a range of strengths and other
The classification of hydraulic limes is
explained in Box 4 and the spectrum from properties that sit between non-hydraulic limes and cements. European
pure limes through hydraulic limes to Standard EN 459 currently recognises three classes: NHL 2, NHL 3.5 and NHL 5.
cements is discussed in more detail in NHL 5 is the most hydraulic – the strongest and fastest hardening – while NHL 2
Chapter 8 ‘Comparison of lime and cement is the closest to pure (non-hydraulic) lime. Some argue for the introduction of
binders’. an NHL 1 class, which would sit between NHL 2 and pure limes.
Because hydraulic limes react with water, they are only available as dry powders
and come in paper bags, like hydrated lime and cement (see Figure 4). As with
those materials, the dry powder can bulk up. It is important to be aware of their
normal, compact density and use an initially weighed amount as a basis for
calculating proportions when batching mixes (see Section 19.1 ‘Batching’).
Typical compacted (that is, not bulked up) densities of lime powders are:
• non-hydraulic (hydrated) lime: 450–640 g/L
• natural hydraulic lime (NHL 2): 475–565 g/L
• natural hydraulic lime (NHL 3.5): 440–650 g/L
• natural hydraulic lime (NHL 5): 690–700 g/L.
The ranges above reflect variations in raw materials as well as in manufacturing
processes.
Compared to cement, hydraulic limes harden relatively slowly and can take up to
two years to achieve their ultimate strength. This needs to be allowed for in
construction, but is generally not an issue for repointing, so long as the ultimate

strengths are clearly understood. Hydraulic lime mortars should not be designed
on the basis of 28-day strengths; 90 days gives a more characteristic value, but it
should be remembered that the strength may eventually exceed 150% of the
90-day value.
As with pure limes, hydraulic limes need careful protection and curing if they are Repeated wetting and drying (as explained
to perform as intended (see Chapter 24 ‘Protection and curing’). in Section 5.6) also improve the hardening
of hydraulic limes.
Artificial hydraulic limes
Artificial hydraulic limes can be made either by burning limestone and silica or
clay together in the required proportions, or by combining (cold) non-hydraulic
lime (as putty or dry hydrate) with reactive siliceous materials known as
pozzolans (see Chapter 7 ‘Pozzolanic materials’). The nature and proportion of A pre-packaged mix of hydrated lime and
the pozzolan used determines the hydraulicity, strength, porosity and other pozzolan would be classed as a formulated
properties of the resulting binder. lime according to EN 459.
Box 3: Chemistry of hydraulic limes
The chemistry of hydraulic limes is more complex than that of non-hydraulic limes, so for simplicity only reactions with
silica are shown below. Most hydraulic limes contain silicates, while some contain appreciable aluminates.
Burning (calcination)
Siliceous limestone is heated in a kiln, driving off carbon dioxide and producing quicklime (as for non-hydraulic limes, see
reaction 1 in Box 2). Some of the quicklime reacts with silica to form calcium silicate:
2CaO + SiO₂ + heat (1,000°C) = Ca₂SiO₄ (4)

Quicklime + silica + heat = di-calcium silicate
(calcium oxide)
Di-calcium silicate is the mineral belite, which is also found in Portland cements (see Box 5 ‘Cement chemistry’).
The resulting mix of belite (di-calcium silicate) and quicklime (calcium oxide) is then slaked with just enough water to
hydrate the calcium oxide (as in reaction 2 in Box 2) but not so much as to cause a reaction with the silicate.
Hardening (hydration and carbonation)

Two separate reactions occur as a hydraulic lime hardens. The hydraulic component (di-calcium silicate) reacts with
water in a reaction known as hydration, producing a complex hydrated calcium silicate:
Ca₂SiO₄ + H₂O = C–S–H* (5)

Di-calcium silicate + water = calcium silicate
hydrate
* Because the chemistry of this material is very complex, cement chemists use a simplified notation: C–S–H indicating calcium
silicate hydrate; see Box 5 for details.
The non-hydraulic component (hydrated lime) hardens by carbonation, as in reactions 3a and 3b in Box 2.
The resulting binder is a mixture of calcium silicate hydrate and calcium carbonate.
Limes 25
Box 4: Classification of hydraulic limes
Natural hydraulic limes (NHLs) have been classified in various ways, beginning with the early-nineteenth-century work of
Vicat who identified three classes or grades (later to be known as Feebly, Moderately and Eminently hydraulic limes),
based on their setting times in water and on the proportions of active clay and silica in the limestone. Some have used
the relative proportions of the component oxides to derive a Hydraulic Index and later a Cementation Index. Others
argue that classification should be based on the proportion of active silica and clay actually combined in the hydraulic
component, rather than the proportion in the raw material (which may include a portion that remains inert).
European Standard EN 459 uses a different approach, based on the compressive strength of a mortar made from the
NHL. There are three classes and while they can be roughly equated to those of Vicat, they cannot be directly compared
because modern NHLs are stronger than those of Vicat’s time, as Figure 14 shows.
Table 2 shows the strength and free lime (non-hydraulic) requirements of EN 459. It also shows the range of free lime
contents of typical materials. NHL stands for natural hydraulic lime – not to be confused with non-hydraulic lime.
Table 2: Classification of natural hydraulic limes
EN 459 Compressive strength at 28 days Free lime (%)* Free lime (%)
notation (MPa) EN 459 typical
Minimum Maximum Minimum Range
NHL 2 2 7 ≥ 35 35–60
NHL 3.5 3.5 10 ≥ 25 25–50
NHL 5 5 15 ≥ 15 15–30
* EN 459 uses the term ‘available lime expressed as Ca(OH)₂’.

Caution: these compressive strengths should not be used for design purposes. They are derived from testing special rich
mortar mixes using a standard sand and very low water contents, and are solely for classification. Mortars used in actual practice
will be significantly weaker than the specified minimums at 28 days. Also, testing at 28 days (which is derived from testing cement)
is not appropriate for determining the ultimate strengths of lime mortars as they cure more slowly, often not achieving their final
strengths for one to two years.
An issue with the EN 459 classification is that 28-day strengths in the range 5–7 MPa conform to all three classes,
apparently leaving no way of distinguishing between them. Similarly, the required minimum free lime content may also
fail to separate them, as can be seen from the right column of Table 2. However, it is important to understand that
EN 459 also provides conformity criteria for manufacturers, which effectively narrows each of the strength ranges to
the point where there is minimal overlap between them. The compliance ranges are 3.5 ≥ NHL 2 ≤ 5.8, 5.6 ≥ NHL 3.5 ≤ 8.3
and 8.2 ≥ NHL 5 ≤ 12.5 MPa.
EN 459 also provides for two other categories of lime with hydraulic properties:
• formulated lime (FL), which may include disclosed additions including cement or pozzolans to a natural hydraulic
lime and/or to a pure lime
• hydraulic lime (HL), which contains lime and other materials and for which there is no requirement to disclose its
composition.
Natural hydraulic limes are appropriate for use in heritage conservation and more broadly to repair older buildings.
Formulated limes may also be used, provided their components are fully disclosed and their properties understood.
Note: Recent research in the United Kingdom has shown widely varying test results between brands of NHL and between
classes from the same brand. Specifiers should seek up-to-date test data before deciding on a particular product.

6 Cements
Cements differ from hydraulic limes by consisting predominantly of hydraulic

materials. As with hydraulic limes, there are natural and artificial cements; and
again, these terms relate to the source of the raw materials. Natural cement is
made from a single raw material, sometimes known as cement stone, while
artificial cements (such as Portland cement) are made by combining several raw
materials in carefully controlled proportions.
6.1 Natural cement

Natural cements are made from argillaceous (clayey) limestones that contain
just the right proportions (about 30–40%) of clay, so that on firing at moderate
temperatures (about 1,000˚C) they produce a material that contains calcium
silicate and calcium aluminate but little or no free lime. After grinding to a fine
powder, natural cement reacts with water to form hydrated calcium silicates and
calcium aluminates.
The presence of relatively high levels of calcium aluminates in the cement leads
to rapid hardening, and this is exploited for a variety of purposes. These include
casting decorative elements and mouldings, and making quick-setting repairs
where time is limited (such as in the intertidal zone).
Parker’s so-called Roman cement is a natural cement commonly found in For information about Roman cements
nineteenth-century buildings in Australia. It was imported from the UK. It has a and their conservation, see Gurtner et al.
distinctive brown colour and can be found internally (as the dado in entrance 2012. Manual on best practice in the
halls) and externally (as renders, moulding and stucco work). It was not application of Roman cements.
commonly used as a mortar.
6.2 Portland cement

Today, most hydraulic cements are artificial. The principal one is Portland cement,
so named by its inventor Joseph Aspdin because he thought it resembled
Portland limestone, one of the UK’s main building stones.
Raw materials for Portland cement include limestone, clay or weathered shale,
and small amounts of silica and iron. Limestone (or chalk, coral, marble or
sea-floor shell deposit) is the principal raw material, accounting for about 80%
of the blend. The mixture is ground and then burnt at a temperature around
1,450˚C, substantially higher than the temperature for limes and natural
cements. The resulting, partially fused cement clinker is ground with about 5%
of gypsum, which is added to retard setting and provide enough working time for
normal use.
Box 5 ‘Cement chemistry’ briefly outlines a very complex subject. There are four
principal components of ordinary Portland cements, and one or two of them are
also found in hydraulic limes. The chemical links with hydraulic limes, which in
turn are related to non-hydraulic limes, lead to an understanding of a continuous
spectrum from pure lime through to cement. > See Section 8.1 The lime–cement
spectrum
On reacting with water, cement produces complex hydrated calcium silicates
and calcium aluminates. The needle-like crystals of the silicates tightly interlock
with adjacent particles and give cement its great strength. The network of
needles fills the space between particles previously occupied by the mixing
water, blocking pores and reducing permeability, as Figure 12 shows.
Cements 27
Figure 12: Hardened binders and pore blocking. Schematic representation of particles of hardened pure lime (left), hydraulic lime (centre)
and cement (right). The illustration on the right shows how needle-like crystals of cement largely fill the pore space between particles,
significantly reducing permeability. This is in contrast to pure lime, in which much of the pore structure remains open. The degree of partial
blocking of pores by natural hydraulic limes depends on their class: NHL 2 mortars are more permeable and NHL 5, less permeable.
Box 5: Cement chemistry
To simplify a complex subject, cement chemists use a shorthand notation based on the first letter of the oxides:
C = CaO (quicklime), S = SiO₂ (silica), A = Al₂O₃ (alumina), F = FeO (iron oxide) and H = H₂O (water). The complex
calcium silicate hydrates and calcium aluminate hydrates that are the products of the reaction with water are notated
by C–S–H and C–A–H respectively, the dashes indicating variable proportions.
The principal components in ordinary (normal) Portland cements and their approximate proportions are shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Principal components of Portland cement
Chemical Notation Name Proportions (%)
Tri-calcium silicate C₃S Alite 40–70
Di-calcium silicate C₂S Belite 15–35
Tri-calcium aluminate C₃A Aluminate 5–10
Tetra-calcium aluminoferrite C₄AF Ferrite 5–15
Tri-calcium silicate (alite) is the most important constituent of Portland cements. As well as being the dominant
material, it is the one responsible for the early strength development of the hardened cement paste. It is only formed
when kiln temperatures exceed about 1,250˚C, and so it is not generally found in hydraulic limes, except for a small
proportion in the highest class (NHL 5).
Di-calcium silicate (belite) is the second most important constituent. It reacts much more slowly than alite, but it can
ultimately lead to similar strengths after about a year of hardening. Belite forms at much-lower kiln temperatures than
alite and is a key component of natural hydraulic limes. It is the reason why they develop reasonable strengths, but do
so slowly.
Tri-calcium aluminate (aluminate) reacts rapidly with water, which is why gypsum is added to Portland cements to prevent
rapid hardening. It is less stable than the silicates, particularly in high-sulfate environments, and manufacturers reduce its
proportion when making sulfate-resisting cements. Calcium aluminates are also found in hydraulic limes and natural cements.
Tetra-calcium aluminoferrite (ferrite) is principally responsible for the grey colour of many cements, and manufacturers
minimise its proportion when making white and off-white cements. Ferrite contributes little to the overall strength
of cement.

6.3 Portland cement through time
Although Portland cement was invented in 1824, there was a period before its Because of their significant free lime
manufacture was well understood, and it wasn’t until the 1840s that cements (quicklime) content, early cements had to
resembling today’s material were in regular production. Even so, there are big be air-slaked to avoid the expansion
differences between the Portland cements of the nineteenth century and those caused by slaking after application. The
hydrated lime that was produced, and the
made today, one being that early cements contained a significant amount of free
low alite content, meant that early
lime, whereas modern cements contain a minimum.
cements were much more workable than
Figure 13 shows the progressive increase in the strength of Portland cement modern cements.
since the 1840s. While the basic chemistry of cements has remained much the
same, advances in production have included burning at higher temperatures
(producing more alite and hence higher and earlier strengths), continuous
manufacture in rotary kilns and improved grinding technology, which produces
finer-grained, more-reactive materials.
The conservation and repair of buildings and structures made with > See Sections 13.4 to 13.6 ‘Choosing the
nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century cements must take into account right mix’
the substantial differences between the materials used then and those
available today.
Figure 13: Compressive strengths of

Portland cements, 1840–2000 (after
Livesey, 2003). Sudden increases in strength
indicate advances in manufacture (such as
the introduction of rotary kilns in the early
twentieth century). Portland cements of the
nineteenth century were 4–10 times weaker
than today’s material, which has important
implications for how we approach their
repair.
6.4 Types of Portland and blended cements

By controlling the blend of raw materials and other aspects of production (such
as the fineness to which they are ground), cements are made to a range of
formulations for different purposes.
Australian Standard (AS) 3972 General purpose and blended cements provides for
general purpose and blended cements, and for a range of special purpose cements.
The types of cement the standard identifies, and the two-letter code of each,
include the following.
General purpose and blended cements Special purpose cements
GP – general purpose cement HE – high early strength cement
GL – general purpose limestone cement LH – low-heat cement
GB – blended cement SR – sulfate-resisting cement
General purpose cement (GP) is the common Portland cement that is widely
used in concrete construction.
General purpose limestone cement (GL), which may contain up to 20%
ground limestone, was introduced in 2010 to reduce cement’s carbon footprint.
Cements 29
Blended cement (GB) takes advantage of the fact that while Portland cement
consists almost entirely of hydraulic materials, its hardening produces free lime,
which makes up about 20% of the hardened cement paste. By adding pozzolanic
materials (such as fly ash or ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS), as
Chapter 7 ‘Pozzolanic materials’ explains), the lime is converted to hydrated
By making use of by-products of other calcium silicates and aluminates that are similar to those produced by the
processes, blended cements have lower hardening of the cement itself. Although the early strength may be lower
environmental impacts than ordinary (because of slower-reacting pozzolans), the ultimate strength of blended cement
cement. can be significantly higher than that of Portland cement.
Special purpose cements can be either general purpose (GP) or blended (GB)
cements that are modified to meet the requirements of each type.
High early strength cements (HE) are produced by adjusting their chemistry
(more alite and aluminate), by grinding them more finely to make them more
reactive or by a combination of both. They are used where fast stripping of
concrete formwork is required and also in cold weather applications.
Low-heat cements (LH) are in a sense opposite to HE cements: to minimise
heat and expansive forces, they harden more slowly and have lower early
strengths, but may ultimately achieve higher strengths. Low-heat cements are
used in dams and other situations requiring massive concrete sections.
Sulfate-resisting cements (SR) are used where soils, groundwater and masonry
The scientific world has adopted the are high in sulfate salts and where soils contain minerals, such as pyrite (iron
American spelling of sulphur: hence sulfur, sulfide), that may degrade general purpose cements. They may be general purpose
sulfate and sulfide. cements (GP) with reduced proportions of aluminate, or blended cements (GB)
containing substantial proportions of GGBFS, fly ash or both.
White and off-white cements are not separately identified in the Australian
Standard, but their manufacture – finer grinding, and minimising ferrite with
consequent increased aluminate – often results in materials that also meet the
requirements of high early strength (HE) cement.
Slag cements are binders consisting mainly of GGBFS, which is a by-product of
making iron in a blast furnace. When combined with Portland cement, the
proportion of slag can be higher than 65% and still produce materials that meet
the requirements of AS 3972 for blended (GB) cements. Lower strength cements
consisting of slag and hydrated lime (and sometimes fly ash) are used in road
stabilisation.
6.5 Masonry cements

Masonry cements are proprietary products containing Portland cement and
> See Chapter 11 ‘Admixtures and additional materials (such as ground limestone) as fillers. Plasticisers or air-
additives’ entraining agents are commonly included to improve workability.
Masonry cements acknowledge that modern Portland cement, while ideal for
reinforced concrete, is too strong for most masonry (i.e. mortar) applications.
AS 1316 Masonry cement provides for two distinct types of masonry cements:
• masonry composite cements: these may contain up to 25% of ground
limestone or up to 35% of slag and/or fly ash (with or without admixtures).
An advantage claimed for masonry cements is there is no need to add
> See Section 13.2 ‘Composition mortars’ hydrated lime to mixes, as in composition mortars.
• masonry binary cements: these are mixtures of general purpose cements
(GP or GB) and hydrated lime in proportions that, when mixed with sand,
will produce standard composition mortars: that is, cement and lime in
proportions of 1:0.5, 1:1 and 1:2. As with masonry composite cements, these
have the advantage of a one-bag mix, avoiding the need to mix cement and
lime from separate bags while also ensuring the correct proportioning of the
two binder components. Another advantage is that pre-packaging allows for
> See Chapter 11 ‘Admixtures and the right amount of admixtures to be included, potentially eliminating the
additives’ common problem of overdosing during on-site mixing.

Because of the lower strengths and higher elasticities and permeabilities
obtainable with the more lime-rich compositions, masonry binary cements are
preferable to masonry composite cements for repairing older buildings, though Mortars made from masonry composite
the potential use of masonry composite cements combined with lime is worth cement and hydrated lime have been used
exploring (see Section 6.7 ‘Which cement?’). in Canada, with good test results.
6.6 Rapid-hardening cements

Rapid-hardening cements come in several forms.
Modified general purpose cements may contain additives designed to
accelerate hardening. These include calcium chloride and other soluble salts,
which are a concern as they may lead to salt attack in the masonry. Some
rapid-hardening concrete mixes, which are intended for applications such as
setting posts in the ground, contain plaster of Paris. This will add to salt loads,
and it risks expansive cracking due to reaction between the sulfate (in the
plaster) and the cement. These materials should not be used for repair of older
buildings.
Calcium aluminate cements (high-alumina cements) are made from a mixture
of limestone and bauxite that is melted at about 1,600˚C. Because they are more
expensive, their use is limited to specialised applications (such as refractories
and applications calling for high chemical resistance or rapid strength
development). Rapid-hardening mixes are also made by blending Portland
cement with calcium aluminate cements.
Natural cements are also rapid hardening, and are preferable for repairing older
buildings where the speed of hardening (but not high strength) is important (see
Section 6.1 ‘Natural cement’).
6.7 Which cement?

Common practice when repairing lime mortars has been to use white and
off-white cements combined with hydrated lime, the colour being the main
reason for the choice of cement type.
With better understanding of the importance of permeability, elasticity
and thermal compatibility, as well as the availability of pozzolans and
hydraulic limes, it is no longer appropriate to use cements to repair lime
mortars, particularly for repointing.
This leads to the question of which cement should be specified for situations
where their use is appropriate: that is, typically combined with lime, for repairing
buildings originally constructed with cement mortars, or with composition mortars.
A concern with using cements in older masonry is their relatively high soluble
salt content. Some salt is unavoidable because of the gypsum (calcium sulfate)
incorporated as a retarder, but it can be kept to a minimum by using blended There is more information about salts in
cements with high proportions of slag or fly ash. There are other salts in Salt attack and rising damp: a guide to salt
cements, and these can be reduced by using material with a low-alkali content: damp in historic and older buildings,
that is, low sodium and potassium. Low-alkali cements are not separately another guide in this series.
identified in AS 3972, but the standard does provide for the alkali content to be
reported where required.
As sulfate salts are commonly found in older walls, the use of sulfate-resisting (SR)
cement would seem to be an obvious choice. SR cements and low-heat (LH)
cements are often similar: both may have high proportions (up to 65%) of slag
and fly ash, and some Australian products meet the requirements for both types.
These materials are not normally recommended for contemporary use in
mortars or renders because of their slower initial hardening times, but this
feature may be advantageous where longer working times are required. Longer
working times are often useful when doing repairs, so these cements should be
considered for such work. However, though they initially harden more slowly, SR
and LH cements ultimately produce very high strengths, which may be too high
for many masonry materials, even if combined with lime (see Section 6.4 ‘Types
of Portland and blended cements’).
Cements 31
An extension of this approach would be to omit Portland cement altogether and

use GGBFS combined with lime, as is done in road stabilisation. This has the
advantage of producing lower strengths, more like those of nineteenth and
early-twentieth-century cements (see Section 6.3 ‘Portland cement through time’).
Longer curing times will be needed where All cements must be properly cured, and this is even more important for
cements are combined with lime (see slag, LH and some SR cements because of their slower hardening: at least
Chapter 24 ‘Protection and Curing’). a week of damp curing is needed.
Blended cements (GB) are recommended for situations (such as undersetting
treatments for salt damp) that need faster hardening times than slag, LH and
some SR cements can provide. Natural cements may be appropriate where rapid
hardening is required (see Section 6.1 ‘Natural cement’ and Section 6.6 ‘Rapid-
hardening’ cements).

7 Pozzolanic materials
There is also a kind of powder which naturally produces extraordinary

results. It occurs in the region . . . around Mount Vesuvius. When mixed
with lime and rubble, this powder not only ensures the durability of
different types of construction, but even when masonry piers are built
with it in the sea, they set hard under water.
Vitruvius, c. 30–20 BCE
Pozzolanic materials are binder additives used in mortars and concretes. They
have no binding power of their own, but when mixed with lime they make a
portion of the mix hydraulic, increasing its strength.
The name comes from Pozzuoli (near Naples in Italy) where the ancient Romans
used local volcanic ash to produce a hydraulic reaction with lime, enabling their
concrete to harden underwater. Ashes, pumice and similar volcanic materials
(collectively known as pozzuolana) have been traditional sources. Trass (formerly
tarras) is a German pozzolan derived from tuff, a compacted volcanic ash. The
volcanic Santorine (or Theran) earth from the Greek island of Santorini was first
used in about 700 BCE, and more recently to build the Suez Canal in the 1860s.
The Romans also crushed clay bricks and tiles for use as pozzolans in their mortars.
Modern pozzolans include by-products (such as fly ash from coal-burning power
stations and GGBFS), as well as deliberately manufactured materials (such as
metakaolin, which is calcined [heated] clay). All these materials contain very Rice husks are burnt as a fuel in many
fine-grained, glassy particles of reactive silica and alumina. Even though they are Asian countries, leaving a silica-rich ash
mixed cold, they are sufficiently reactive when combined with calcium hydroxide that can be a reactive pozzolan.
to produce hydrated calcium silicates and calcium aluminates, which are similar
to the hardened products of hydraulic limes and cements.
Pozzolans are widely used today in blended cements (GB). These cements
commonly contain 25–30% of fly ash or GGBFS, to consume the free lime > See Section 6.4 ‘Types of Portland and
produced during the hardening of the cement. blended cements’
Pozzolans also have a role in the repair of lime mortars. Modern limes are
relatively pure and therefore non-hydraulic, whereas some traditional
production of lime mortars may have resulted in slightly to weakly hydraulic
materials with increased strengths, compared to pure limes. Combining
pozzolans with modern limes can be a way of producing materials with similar
properties to some of those used traditionally.
The use of pozzolans requires an understanding of their relative reactivities.
Pozzolans ranked from most reactive to least reactive include metakaolin, silica
fume, fly ash, GGBFS, pozzuolana, trass and brick dust.
This ranking of reactivities is approximate: reactivity depends on several factors
including the fineness to which the pozzolan is ground and the inherent variability
of the material. For example, variations in clay minerals, firing temperatures and
particle size make some brick dusts more pozzolanic than others, while some may AS/NZS 3582.1 Supplementary cementitious
not be pozzolanic at all. To be suitable, bricks should be fired at temperatures materials provides for three grades of fly
below about 900˚C. Most bricks made in Australia today are fired at higher ash, depending on particle size. Coarser
temperatures, making them unsuitable for use as pozzolans. (less reactive) grades are preferred.
The more reactive a pozzolan, the more hydraulic will be the resulting binder.
This is important when considering mix proportions. While there is currently
insufficient research data to confirm the appropriate proportions of common
pozzolans when combined with lime, indicative proportions for producing a
binder similar to a weakly to moderately hydraulic lime are:
• metakaolin, 5% (1/20 part)
• fly ash or GGBFS, 10% (1/10 part)
• trass, 20% (1/5 part).
Pozzolanic materials 33
Using half these proportions (e.g. 5% of fly ash or GGBFS) will be appropriate
for many repointing applications, producing slightly to weakly hydraulic mixes.
Understanding the reactivities of pozzolans is also important when we consider
the permeability (breathing characteristics) of the resultant mortar. As with
natural hydraulic limes, the more reactive the pozzolan, the less permeable the
resulting mortar will be. Similarly, the higher the proportion of pozzolan in the
mix, the greater will be the reduction in permeability. As Figure 12 shows, these
reductions in permeability occur because the hydraulic components grow into
and partially block the pore space between the particles of lime.
Just as with cement, it’s important to resist the temptation to add a bit
more pozzolan to a mix to make it that little bit stronger. The benefits of
moving from cements to limes can be undone by the overuse of reactive
and highly reactive pozzolans.
Pozzolans are measured as a proportion of the lime content, not of the total
mortar (coarse stuff). To convert to approximate proportions of coarse stuff,
divide by the sand content. For example, for pozzolan at the rate of 10% of the
lime, a 1:3 mix will have 3.3% of the total. A 1:2.5 mix will have 4% and a 1:2 mix
will have 5% pozzolan.
Materials such as crushed bricks and pozzuolana may make other contributions
to a mortar mix. While only the finer particle sizes (generally less than about
75 µm) will be pozzolanic, the coarser particles may add colour and a desirable
degree of porosity to a mortar. The coarser fractions of these materials should be
> Section 9.9 ‘Other aggregates’ considered as part of the aggregate, while the finer (reactive) fractions should
be considered as part of the binder matrix.
Several of these materials are not strictly pozzolans but what are known as
latent hydraulic cements. This is because they already contain some lime, which
can induce a slow (but inadequate) hydraulic reaction without adding further
lime. They include GGBFS and some high-lime fly ashes. Pozzolans and latent
hydraulic cements are collectively known as supplementary cementitious
materials (SCMs) and are covered in AS 3582.
Like cements, pozzolans contain salts, which may contribute to salt attack decay
of masonry. Fly ash may contain sulfates derived from sulfur in the coal. GGBFS
may contain sulfide minerals, which eventually oxidise to sulfates after the
hydration reaction. Further, gypsum (calcium sulfate) is often added to GGBFS
Small amounts of sulfide minerals in to increase early strength development. In chemical analyses, sulfate
GGBFS may produce a blue-green colour concentration will often be expressed as sulfur trioxide (SO₃). For conservation
after hardening. The colour fades to work, pozzolans should contain less than 2% sulfide or sulfur trioxide, or
off-white on exposure. 3% gypsum (CaSO₄.2H₂O).

8 Comparison of lime and cement binders
8.1 The lime–cement spectrum

Although this guide describes non-hydraulic limes, hydraulic limes and cements
in discrete categories, there is in fact a continuum (or spectrum) from pure lime
through hydraulic limes to hydraulic cement, as Figure 14 shows.
Figure 14: The lime–cement spectrum. The diagram shows the continuous range of materials from pure (non-hydraulic) lime on the left
through the hydraulic limes to modern cements on the right. Their increasing strength and other properties are shown against firing
temperatures and the changes in their lime and silicate chemistry. The diagram simplifies complex data and boundaries are approximate only.
Diagram: Ian Brocklebank (first published in Brocklebank, 2012).
Comparison of lime and cement binders 35

8.2 Comparison of binder properties

As will be apparent from the lime–cement spectrum in Figure 14, the boundaries
between the different types of binder are gradual. Also, each type has a range of
properties and a single number cannot be ascribed to a particular characteristic.
With this in mind, Table 4 summarises the properties of lime and cement binders,
and of the mortars made from them. Like Figure 14, it greatly simplifies a lot of
information. The properties in the table are explained below in more detail.
Workability refers to the relative ease with which a fresh mortar can be spread
and worked, whether for laying masonry or for repointing. Sand-slaked
quicklime and lime putties make the most workable mortars, followed by
hydrated limes, which vary depending on the fineness of their particle size. The
workability of hydraulic limes varies with their classes: those most like pure
limes (NHL 2) are more workable while the highest class (NHL 5) is the least
> See Chapter 14 ‘Workability’ workable. Cements make harsh mortars, which are difficult to work.
Strength ranges from low for limes to very high for cements. The compressive
strength of modern Portland cement is too high for most traditional masonry,
particularly for the softer materials of older buildings. Though compressive
strength is most commonly referred to, bond strength and flexural strength
(bending strength) are arguably more important considerations for mortars.
Because of their fine particle size, high water retentivities and crystal structures,
limes (pure and hydraulic) have relatively high bond and bending strengths as a
proportion of their compressive strengths.
Pore structure of the hardened mortars ranges from open (for pure limes) to
mostly blocked (for Portland cements). Blocked pores are desirable if an
impermeable material is required (such as for a water tank) but are undesirable
if a wall needs to breathe, as most old walls do.
Elasticity ranges from relatively flexible (for lime mortars) to brittle (for
cement-based mortars). A low-elastic modulus (i.e. high elasticity) means a
mortar has some flexibility, which allows a wall to settle without failure as it is
being built, and it cushions the masonry units when they are loaded or are under
cyclical stresses from thermal expansion and contraction. Brittle materials like
cement are less able to accommodate minor movements.
Table 4: Comparison of binder properties
Property Pure limes Hydraulic limes Cements
Including putties and Including NHLs and Including Portland and

dry hydrates lime + pozzolan mixes related cements
Workability Good Good to moderate Poor
Strength Low Low to moderate High to very high
Pore structure Open Mostly open to partly blocked Mostly blocked
Elasticity Flexible Moderate Brittle
Thermal expansion Compatible Compatible Incompatible
Hardening mechanism Carbonation Carbonation and hydration Hydration
Hardening rate Slow Intermediate Fast
Pot life when mixed Indefinite Intermediate to short Short
Salt content Negligible Negligible to very low Low to moderate
Note: there is a wide range of properties within each group, particularly among the hydraulic limes, which includes natural hydraulic limes
and lime and pozzolan mixes.

Thermal expansion coefficients range from those that are similar to and
therefore compatible with stone and brick masonry (for lime), to nearly twice
that of masonry (for Portland cement). A high coefficient of expansion coupled
with strong, brittle material sets up stresses in the outer surface of the masonry
because it heats and cools more quickly than the rest of the wall, leading to
spalling and cracking (e.g. Figure 16 in Box 6).
The two different hardening mechanisms – carbonation and hydration – have
been explained in Chapter 5 ‘Limes’ and Chapter 6 ‘Cements’. Importantly,
hydraulic limes harden by a combination of both mechanisms.
Hardening rates are related to the respective mechanisms. Carbonation is
relatively slow, as it involves absorption of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Hydration is faster, but the rate varies according to the chemistry of the material:
alite in Portland cement reacts much faster than the belite in hydraulic limes.
The hardening rate of hydraulic limes, which is described here as intermediate,
varies from relatively slow to moderate depending on the hydraulicity of the
lime: the more belite (in the higher classes), the faster the rate of hardening.
Hardening rates for lime and pozzolan binders depend on the reactivity and
proportion of the particular pozzolan.
Pot life is the effective working time after first mixing a mortar. Pure (non-
hydraulic) lime mortars (without pozzolanic additives) can be stored indefinitely,
provided they are kept in airtight containers to prevent carbonation. Portland
cements (GP) have relatively short working times of about one hour. Longer
times can be achieved by using blended cements (GB), particularly those with
high slag contents (such as sulfate-resisting [SR], low-heat [LH] and slag cements).
Hydraulic limes come in between pure limes and cements: their actual working
times depend on the weather and storage conditions but can be up to 24 hours
for NHL 2, 12 hours for NHL 3.5 and 8 hours for NHL 5. These can be extended
by continuously agitating the mix. Working times for lime and pozzolan binders
depend on the reactivity and proportion of the particular pozzolan.
Salt content ranges from negligible to very low (for pure and hydraulic limes)
through to low to moderate (for cements). Some cements have a higher alkali
salt content than others, depending on their raw materials. As Section 6.7 ‘Which
cement?’ explains, the amount of gypsum salt in a cement can be minimised by
using blends, particularly those with high proportions of slag. The soluble salt There is more information about salts in
content of repair materials should be minimised. Old walls absorb salts during Salt attack and rising damp: a guide to salt
their lives: adding more may tip the masonry over a threshold, leading to salt damp in historic and older buildings,
attack decay. another guide in this series.
Comparison of lime and cement binders 37

Box 6: Problems with cement-based mortars
These photographs and diagrams illustrate some common problems with using cement in mortars. Both examples are
from a mid-nineteenth-century sandstone building that was built in lime mortar and repointed in the mid-to-late-twentieth
century in a rich cement mortar.
As the image in Figure 15 shows, because the cement repointing mortar is relatively impermeable, moisture from within
the masonry is forced to evaporate through the adjacent stones, leading to decay of the sandstone as salts are
precipitated within its pores. The diagram on the right shows a section through the wall, illustrating the paths moisture
is forced to take because of the dense mortar.
In Figure 16, the inelastic cement repointing provides no cushioning action for the stones, while the high thermal
expansion of the cement imposes stresses, producing a pinching effect, as the wall surface heats relative to the body of
the wall behind it. Salt attack will be contributing to the spalling action, as it has to the decay on either side of the
spalling area, where spalled sections of the stones have already fallen away, taking the repointing with them and
exposing the softer, lime-based bedding mortar behind.
Figure 15: Impermeable mortar causing decay of adjacent stone.
Figure 16: Spalling of edges due to thermal expansion.

9 Sands and other aggregates
. . . no mortar can be good unless the sand has the right qualities. Clean, sharp
and coarse sand is always good for mortar, and most other sands are not.
Powys, 1929
Sands make up the greater part of mortars, and their selection can be critical to
achieving workable and durable results. Yet the attention paid to sands is often
cursory. A thorough understanding of sands is essential to the successful Soft, bricklaying sands that contain clay
specification and practical use of mortars, particularly those based on lime are not suitable for use with lime binders:
binders. Testing conducted 100 years ago showed that the strength of a lime washed concrete or plastering sands are
mortar could be doubled by the choice of an appropriate sand. preferred.
Sands are technically described as fine aggregates, as distinct from coarse

aggregates (natural gravels and crushed rocks) which are used in concrete and
other applications. Sands are generally natural materials and are excavated from Before good transport and widespread
pits, dunes, riverbeds and terraces. Though natural, they are often highly quarrying for sands became common,
processed, being passed through sieves of varying sizes (screened) to remove many alternative materials were used in
oversized and undersized particles and to adjust their grading. Sands are commonly mortars. These included road grit (drift),
washed during screening, to remove clays and other unwanted materials. As burnt clay, coal ash, coke breeze, shells
their name suggests, dry-screened sands are unwashed. Sands from different and sands used for moulding in foundries
sources are often blended to produce materials with particular properties. (see Section 9.9 ‘Other aggregates’).
Some sands are manufactured by further crushing of coarse aggregates produced

from hard rock quarries. These quarry or crusher sands can be washed and
screened as required.
The properties of sands that affect the quality of mortar include:
• the mineral type (mineralogy) and colour of the sand grains
• unwanted impurities (such as organic matter and salt)
• the surface texture and grain shape: sharp sands are better
• the range of grain sizes (size grading)
• the undesirable presence of clays and fine silts (fines)
• the proportion of voids between grains (void ratio).
Each of these points are explained in detail in this chapter and are followed by a
section on assessing sands for their suitability for use in mortars. Then there are
sections on blending sands, on other aggregate materials (such as shells, crushed
bricks and stones), on the use of mineral fillers (such as ground limestone) and
finally, on how to ‘make-do’ with poorer sands.
9.1 Mineralogy and colour

The most common sand mineral is quartz, which is the principle component of
many light-coloured beach sands and has a typical clear or light grey colour, as
Figure 17 shows. Quartz is chemically silica (SiO₂) and is very strong and
durable. Sands with darker-coloured particles include silicate-based materials
that can also be strong and durable (see Figure 72).
Some beach and coastal dune sands are composed of shell fragments, broken up
and reduced in size by constant wave action. These sands are chemically calcium
carbonate (CaCO₃, the same as limestone) and are known as lime sands or
carbonate sands. Being softer, the grains tend to be rounder, and their light
colours are more opaque. While they are not as inherently strong as silica and
silicate materials, they can make excellent mortars. Well-rounded surface
textures may be an issue with some lime sands (see Section 9.3 ‘Surface texture
and grain shape’). Aggregates that include crushed limestone particles are known
to promote the hardening of lime and to produce stronger mortars because of
their similar chemistry and high porosity (see Section 9.9 ‘Other aggregates’).
Sands and other aggregates 39

Although pure quartz is clear, many quartz sands have yellow and red colours
due to very small amounts of different iron minerals dispersed through the
quartz (Figure 17). However, as Figure 27 shows, the colour of some quartz sands
is due to thin clay and iron oxide coatings on the surface of otherwise clear
grains. If the coatings are weakly bonded to the grains, the sand will not make a
good mortar: washing might be enough to remove the coating, and with it the
Standard classification schemes (such as colour. Some sands require double (or even triple) washing to remove clay
the Munsell Colour system) are used to coatings. The overall colour of many sands and the mortars made from them is
describe the colour of sands. due to the colour of the finer particles.
Figure 17: Good-quality sand. This is a

close-up of a 10 mm wide lime mortar joint
in a 100-year-old sandstone wall, showing a
good-quality sand. The sand is clean – there
is no clay – and the quartz grains have an
angular surface texture which would feel
sharp if rubbed in the hand. The sand is well
graded: there is a good range of grain sizes:
from very coarse through coarse, medium
and fine down to very fine. Laboratory
testing has shown that lime mortars made
from sharp, well-graded sands (such as this
one) can be twice as strong as those made
from soft, fine-grained sands.
9.2 Impurities
Sands should be free of impurities, which commonly include organic matter,
salts, friable materials, clays and fine silts. Organic matter (such as leaf and tree
litter, loam and humic material from soils) is avoided by carefully selecting the
sand during quarrying and by washing and screening it.
Salts are a problem, as they may lead to salt attack decay of the masonry. Sands
from beaches and coastal dunes should be washed with fresh water. Sands
excavated from the dry beds of ephemeral inland streams can also contain salt.
There is more information about salts in Another source of contamination can be sand containing sulfide minerals, such
Salt attack and rising damp: a guide to salt as pyrite (iron sulfide), which oxidise when exposed to air to form sulfate salts.
damp in historic and older buildings, These can cause aggressive salt attack. Friable materials (such as shale, clay
another guide in this series. lumps, mud stones and weathered micas) will produce weak mortars and should
be avoided. Too many very fine particles will weaken a mortar (see Section 9.5
‘Clays and silts – fines’).
9.3 Surface texture and grain shape

The surface texture and shape of the sand grains make an important contribution
to a mortar’s performance, particularly to that of a lime mortar. Imagine a bedding
mortar made of perfectly smooth spheres (such as ball bearings). The mortar
would rely totally on the binder to restrain the spheres; without it, the masonry
units would tend to roll sideways in relation to the masonry below them. The
smooth, round grains would not interlock with each other and the mortar would
be relatively weak. In contrast, a good mortar is made of sand with a more angular
surface texture: the corners of the grains lock into each other and into indentations
in the masonry units. This is important for a strong bond and for slip resistance
of one course of masonry over another. The terms used to describe the surface
texture of sand grains are: angular, sub-angular, sub-rounded, rounded, well-
rounded. Figure 18 shows examples of sands at either end of this range.

Figure 18: Surface texture of sand grains. The sand on the left has angular to sub-angular (sharp) grains, while that on the right has rounded
to well-rounded grains. Sharp sands make strong mortars; rounded sands don’t. Another aspect of these sands is that the one on the left has
been washed clean, while the one on the right has clay coatings on the grains, which will weaken a mortar made from it (see Section 9.5).
Scale bars in millimetres; each small division is 0.1 mm (100 µm).
Sands with angular to subangular surface textures are described as sharp because The best (sand) will be the one that crackles
they feel sharp or abrasive when rubbed by hand. Some sands are described as when rubbed in the hand, while the one
soft, but that’s not the direct opposite of a sharp sand. A soft sand is fine grained which has earth in it will not be rough
and often contains humic (soil) material, and may also be described as loamy. enough: the sand will be suitable if, when
Soft and rounded sands will make weak mortars with poor bonding wrapped up in a white cloth and then
shaken out, the cloth is not stained and no
characteristics. The clay content of soft or loamy sands makes them quite
earth is left on it.
workable, as Chapter 14 ‘Workability’ explains, so they are popular for cement-
based mortars. In contrast, sharp sands are more difficult to work, and they may Vitruvius, c. 30–20 BCE
need richer mixes with more binder or the judicious use of admixtures.
The angularity or roundness of the surface is one aspect of grain shape. The
other is the degree of sphericity, or conversely the degree of elongation. While
this property is more an issue for coarse aggregates, there are some sands to > See Section 9.6 ‘Void ratio and its
which it may apply. Sand with a high proportion of elongate shell fragments will impact on mixes’ and Section 14.2
be difficult to work and will have a high void ratio and poor water retentivity. ‘Water retentivity’
9.4 Size grading

An important property of sands is their size grading or particle size distribution
(also known as granulometry). This refers not only to whether the sands have a
broad range of grain sizes (e.g. coarse, medium and fine), but to the relative
proportions of the different grain sizes.
A sand of only one grain size, irrespective of which size, is described as a uniform The grading of a sand is the inverse of the
or poorly graded sand. It will not make a good mortar. A sand with a broad range geological term sorting, which is a measure
of grain sizes and similar proportions of particles across the range is described of the uniformity of the particle size of a
as a well-graded sand, and it will make a good mortar. sediment. A well-sorted sand implies a
relatively uniform grain size, and in building
In well-graded sands, the voids (gaps) between the coarser grains are filled with terms this is a poorly graded sand.
medium grains, the gaps between the medium grains with fine grains, and so on
with finer grain sizes. This reduces the size and proportion of voids, which is
desirable because the voids need to be filled with binder. With smaller voids, less
binder is needed (see Section 9.6 ‘ Void ratio and its impact on mixes’).
Using well-graded sand also improves workability. A sand with a broad range of
grain sizes including coarse grains will be more workable than a sand with a
narrow range of grain sizes, even though the latter may be fine or medium sizes.
This is because the grains of well-graded sand fit well together. Filling up the
void spaces with smaller grains allows bigger grains to roll past each other more
readily and not get caught in gaps between grains. Figure 19 shows examples of
well-graded and poorly graded sands.

The size grading of sands is determined by passing them through a series of

sieves of progressively finer apertures, the standard ones being 4.75, 2.36, 1.18,
0.60, 0.30, 0.15 and 0.075 mm. The last four are generally described in microns
(µm): one µm is a millionth of a metre, or a thousandth of a millimetre. So, the
last four apertures are 600, 300, 150 and 75 µm respectively. Table 5 shows the
classification of sand sizes.
Table 5: Sand particle size classifications
Classification Coarser than … Finer than …
Fine gravel 2.36 mm 4.75 mm
Very coarse sand 1.18 mm 2.36 mm
Coarse sand 600 µm 1.18 mm
Medium sand 300 µm 600 µm
Fine sand 150 µm 300 µm
Very fine sand 75 µm 150 µm
Fines (silts and clays) 75 µm
The amount of sand retained on each sieve is weighed and the proportions of
each size expressed as a percentage of the total. The results can be presented in
different ways. The most common is a simple table. The most technical way is a
cumulative size-grading plot and the most readily understood is a histogram.
Figure 20 shows histograms and cumulative size-grading plots for the well-graded
and poorly graded sands in Figure 19.
What to look for

The histograms in Figure 20 show that the well-graded sand has four (or five)
substantial bars of similar height, whereas the poorly graded sand has only two
substantial bars. In the cumulative plots, the well-graded sand has a gently sloped
and straighter line, while the poorly graded sand has a steeper and more bent line.
A rule of thumb for lime-based bedding When selecting sands, the aim is to have three and preferably four (or more)
mortars is that the size of the coarsest substantial bars, each greater than about 10%, on the histogram, or the
grains should be about one third of the joint straightest and least vertical line on the cumulative plot. While histograms are
width. Pointing mortars are often made with easier to read, cumulative plots allow better comparison between sands and
finer-grained sands than bedding mortars. against standard limits.
The description of the overall size of sands is based on the position of the
central bars, using the terms in Table 5. The well-graded sand is described as
medium to coarse grained and the poorly graded sand as fine to medium grained.

Figure 19: Grading of sands. The sand on the left is well graded. It has a wide range of particle sizes from very coarse through coarse,
medium, fine and very fine. The sand on the right is poorly graded, with a relatively uniform (fine to medium) particle size. Each division on
the scales in these photographs is 1 mm; each image is about 20 mm across.
Figure 20: Histograms and cumulative plots of sand size gradings. These are the same sands as shown above in Figure 19. Note that
the bars of the histograms correspond with the intervals in the cumulative plots below: the <75 µm (silt and clay) fraction at the left of the
histograms represents the ‘fines’ material that is not shown to the left of the cumulative plots.
Size-grading limits
As there is no Australian Standard for mortar sand, Table 6 shows the size-
grading limits of two standards from other countries:
• ASTM C144 – 18 Standard specification for aggregate for masonry mortar
• BS 1200:1976 Specifications for building sands from natural sources: sands for
mortars for bricklaying.
Table 6: Sand size-grading limits
Sieve aperture ASTM C144 BS 1200(S)
% passing % passing
4.75 mm 100 98–100
2.36 mm 95–100 90–100
1.18 mm 70–100 70–100
600 µm 40–75 40–100
300 µm 10–35 5–70
150 µm 2–15 0–15
75 µm 0–5 0–5
Note: these limits are for natural sands as distinct from manufactured sands (made from
crushed rock) for which both standards permit greater proportions of fines (material less
than 75 µm). BS 1200 defines two gradings: that shown here is Type S, while Type G permits
finer sands and higher proportions of fines. Excessive fines can be a problem, which is
explained in the next section.
Figure 21 shows cumulative plots of the grading limits of the two standards in
Table 6. Pairs of lines for each standard define an envelope, the area within
which complying sands will plot. Also shown are the well-graded and poorly
graded sands from Figures 19 and 20.
As Figure 21 shows, the grading envelope for BS 1200(S) is relatively broad,
Sands for the base coats of plasters and whereas the ASTM C144 envelope is much tighter. The latter will produce
renders are often coarser, or they have well-graded, medium-to-coarse-grained sands which are appropriate for 10 mm
more coarse grains and fewer very fine wide mortar joints. However, it will exclude the fine-to-medium-grained sands
grains than those used for bedding mortars. which are needed for narrow (3 mm) joints. While the BS 1200(S) envelope
This is to avoid shrinkage cracking. allows for such finer sands, it is sufficiently wide to permit poorly graded sands,
as the example from Figures 19 and 20 shows.
This guide proposes two new size-grading specifications, set out in Box 7 (see
page 46). One is similar to ASTM C144 and suitable for normal (10 mm) joints,
and the other is suitable for the narrow (3 mm) joints commonly found in
ashlar masonry.

Figure 21: Standard size-grading envelopes. Cumulative plots showing size-grading limits for ASTM C144 and BS 1200(S) as pairs of solid
lines. A sand meeting one of these standards will plot within the envelope defined by its pair of lines. The dashed lines show the well-graded
and poorly graded sands of Figures 19 and 20. The well-graded sand is within the BS 1200(S) envelope and almost within that of ASTM C144.
The poorly graded sand is within the BS 1200(S) envelope but is well outside the tighter ASTM C144 standard. Box 7 proposes new size-
grading specifications for mortar sands, with two grading envelopes: one for normal, 10 mm joints and one for narrow, 3 mm joints.
9.5 Clays and silts – fines

Materials finer than 75 µm are collectively known as fines. They include coarse,
medium and fine silts which grade from 75 µm down to 2 µm and clays which are
less than 2 µm in particle size. Clays and fine silts can be detrimental to mortars Sands for lime mortars should be free of
for the following reasons: clays and fine silts.
• very high surface areas reduce strength and can cause shrinkage Composition mortars can tolerate a small
proportion (<5%) of fines.
• reactive (expansive) clays cause shrinkage cracking as they dry
Where contemporary practice would add
• clays substantially reduce the bond strength of masonry clay to a poorly graded sand to improve its
• clays reduce pore sizes, decreasing breathing capacity. workability, ground limestone should be
added instead (see Section 9.10)
It is important to distinguish between clay minerals and clay-size particles.
Clay-size particles might be of clay or another mineral (such as quartz).
Similarly, silt-size particles might be of clay or another mineral. The use of the
same terms to describe grain size and mineralogy often leads to confusion. In
practice, many silts are quartz and most clay-size particles are indeed clay
minerals. Clay minerals can naturally clump together in larger particles and in
this form they can be particularly harmful, as they may survive dry-screening
intact and give a misleading impression of particle size. This is why washing
sands can be so important.
However, not all fines are problematic: a small proportion of medium-to-coarse
silts can be beneficial, filling smaller voids and improving the workability of the
mortar mix. Section 9.10 explains how adding ground limestone can improve
workability.
Clay minerals are layered and consist of tiny, flat, plate-like particles that slide
easily over each other, and are often greasy to touch. The structure of some clays
means they swell substantially when wet and shrink as they dry. Swelling clays,
which include the smectite group minerals such as montmorillonite, are the
components of reactive or expansive soils which cause cracking in buildings.

Box 7: Size-grading specifications for mortar sands
Though applicable to all mortars, the size-grading specifications proposed in Table 7 are particularly intended for lime
mortars, for which, clean, well-graded sands are preferred. There are two size gradings: a fine–medium sand for the
narrow (3 mm) joints found in ashlar masonry and a medium–coarse sand for normal (10 mm) joints. The specifications
are deliberately tight: their relatively narrow envelopes are intended produce well-graded sands and so overcome the
problem that poorly graded sands can meet current standards (see Section 9.4)
The grading of sands should be determined using the procedure set out in AS 1141 and compared with these specifications.
The results should be interpreted with an understanding of the aim: small variations from either envelope should not
preclude the use of a well-graded sand that is otherwise acceptable.
Table 7: Proposed size-grading specifications
Sieve aperture Fine–medium sand Medium–coarse sand
% passing % passing
4.75 mm 100 100
2.36 mm 100 90–100
1.18 mm 95–100 70–100
600 µm 70–100 40–75
300 µm 35–70 10–40
150 µm 10–25 2–15
75 µm 0–5 0–5
Figure 22: Proposed size-grading envelopes. Cumulative plots of proposed envelopes for fine–medium and medium–coarse
sands. The plot for a particular sand should ideally lie approximately parallel to the envelope boundaries. A medium-grained sand
suitable for 5–7 mm joints should plot close to the overlap between the two envelopes shown here. Sands may need to be screened
to reduce the maximum particle sizes to suit particular joint widths.

Sands for building should not contain any swelling clays. Using them leads to
shrinkage cracking when they dry and to long-term deterioration of mortars,
plasters and renders due to stresses set up by swelling and shrinking from
periodic wetting and drying.
As particles become smaller, their surface area increases, compared to a constant
mass. Silt-size particles have 10 times the surface area of fine sand and 100 times
that of coarse sand. Table 8 shows the specific surface area of aggregates,
measured in square metres per gram.
Table 8: Specific surface area of aggregates
Material m² / g
Coarse sand 0.01
Fine sand 0.1
Silt 1.0
Clay (kaolinite group) 5–100
Clay (smectite group) 700–800
As the table makes clear, the surface areas of clays are many times greater than
those of silts. The different surface areas of the clays are related to their mineral
structures, as are their swelling responses to water: the kaolin group are stable
while the smectite group are highly reactive.
Large surface areas are a concern because all available surfaces must be fully
coated with binder if a mortar is to achieve its maximum strength. Mortars made
with finer-grained aggregates require higher proportions of binder in the mix
than those made with coarser aggregates. When the aggregate contains a
substantial amount of clays, it is not possible to coat all of their surfaces, so
mortars made with them will have reduced strengths. Also, large surface areas
mean more water is needed to lubricate the particles in a mix, leading to the risk
of shrinkage cracking as the mortar dries.
Clays in a mortar mix significantly reduce the bond strength – the tensile This … (points) out the necessity of never
strength of the bond between the mortar and masonry units. Bond strength using, in the place of sand, which is a durable
depends on some water and binder penetrating into the surface and pores of the stony body, the scrapings of roads, old
masonry; plate-like clay minerals prevent this happening and produce a weak mortar, and other rubbish, from ancient
layer against the bricks or stones. While the compressive strength of mortars can buildings, which are frequently made use
of, as all of them consist, more or less, of
be increased by adding more binder, the bond strength – a key property of
muddy, soft, and minutely divided particles.
masonry – may not be improved.
Anon (Nicholson), 1823
Laboratory research has shown that adding clays to otherwise clean sands
increases the water demand of the mortar mix, resulting in an increase in the
porosity of the hardened mortar. Despite this increased porosity, the drying
behaviour of the mortar was impaired. Importantly, the pore size of pure lime
mortars was substantially reduced by adding clay, suggesting a reduction in their
breathing capacity and greater susceptibility to salt attack.
For these reasons, limits are required on the proportions of clays and fine silts in This discussion applies to mortars made
mortar sands. This guide recommends mortar sands should have a maximum from sand and a lime or cement-and-lime
of 5% of material passing a 75 µm sieve, with no more than 1% of clay-sized binder. It does not apply to mortars that
particles (<2 µm) and no swelling clays. Lime mortars should ideally have were principally earth, such as mortars
no clays at all. However, these limits should be interpreted with an understanding used with adobe (mud brick). In these, clay
is the binder and using clay to repair them
of the mineralogy and the size gradings. If all the <75 µm material is relatively
is entirely appropriate.
coarse silt and composed of quartz, then more than 5% may be acceptable. More
than 5% fines may also be acceptable where they consist of a mineral filler, such
as ground limestone or marble (see Section 9.10).

Despite these concerns, bricklaying sands that are often rich in clay are widely
used in contemporary construction. Builder’s clay or fireclay are commonly
added to mortar mixes, to improve workability. This is because the plate-like
Loamy sand will on no account be structure and the greasiness of clay minerals makes sand fatty and mortars
permitted even for admixture with sharp buttery. As Chapter 4 ‘Mortars in Australia – then and now’ explains, the need
for brick mortar. for such materials arose because of the difficulty of working cement, whereas in
1877 specification for a traditional practice the workability was provided by lime, and (where there was a
South Australian school choice) mortar sands were sharp, well graded and free of clay. Those who change
to lime mortars (particularly when using putty) must abandon the bad
practice of using clay-rich sands in favour of more appropriate materials.
9.6 Void ratio and its impact on mixes

Another important property of a building sand is its void ratio: the proportion of
voids (or air) in the dry sand, expressed as a percentage of the total volume. The
void ratio of sands typically ranges from about 30% to about 40%.
While it may seem unlikely, the void ratio of a fine sand can be the same or even
higher than that of a coarse sand, as Figure 23 shows. Differences in void ratio
arise because of variations in grain shape and surface texture and particularly
because of different size gradings. As the figure shows, poorly graded (or
uniform) sand will have a high void ratio (like the example on the left) whereas a
well-graded sand (on the right) will have a lower void ratio.
Figure 23: Impact of size grading on

void ratio. On the left, provided the
packing pattern remains unchanged, the
proportion of voids in this uniform (poorly
graded) sand will not change, irrespective
of the actual size of the grains. On the right,
a well-graded sand with a range of grain
sizes has a lower void ratio because
progressively finer grains fill the gaps
between larger grains. In this illustration,
the sand grains are shown as spheres to
make the point; in real sands, the void ratio
is also affected by the shape and surface
texture of the grains (see Section 9.3).
The void ratio of a sand is an important factor that affects several key
aspects of mortars: their water retentivity, workability and the mix
proportions (ratio) of binder to sand.
Sands with high void ratios have poor water retentivity – their capacity to retain
mixing water against the suction of the masonry is low because there are relatively
large voids in the sand. A mortar made from such a ‘hungry’ sand will lose its
The workability of a ‘hungry’ sand can be workability and ‘go dead’ as the mixing water is drawn into the masonry. This will
improved by adding more binder or a prevent further working and risks poor bond strength and imperfect hardening.
mineral filler, or both (see Section 9.10 and In contrast, a mortar made from well-graded sands with smaller voids will retain
Chapter 14 ‘Workability’). mixing water and remain workable for longer, after it is applied to the masonry.
In a well-graded sand, the void ratio will be about 33%, or one-third of its
volume. When making a mortar, the aim is to fill all the void space with binder in
order to weatherproof the wall. This leads to mix proportions of 33 to 100, or
one-part binder to three-parts sand. This is the basis for the normal (and
nominal) 1:3 mix.

Box 8: Mortar sands and Australian Standards
Since the withdrawal of AS A123 – 1963 Mortar for masonry construction in 1995, Australian Standards have provided
little guidance on the suitability of sands for mortar.
AS A123 adopted the size-grading requirements of AS A77 – 1957 Aggregates for concrete, but relaxed the amount
passing a 75 µm sieve to allow a maximum of 10% of fines. This is the basis on which bricklaying sands have commonly
been specified. Current standards have no size-grading specifications.
AS 3700:2018 Masonry structures requires only that ‘Sand shall be free from materials deleterious to the mortar and to
embedded items, and shall be chosen to produce mortar that meets the requirements of this Standard.’ There is no
limit on the proportion of fine material (clay and silt) that is acceptable, other than that implied by the need to meet
‘the requirements of this Standard’.
AS 4773.2:2015 Masonry in small buildings: 2. Construction requires that ‘Sand shall be free from material harmful to the
mortar, grout, masonry units, reinforcement or any embedded items. Sand shall be well graded and … shall contain not
more than 10% of material passing the 75 micron sieve.’ And ‘Fireclay shall not be used (as an additive) unless the sand is
sharp and requires more workability.’ The standard requires that if fireclay is added, the proposed mix shall be tested
and achieve a minimum flexural strength.
This guide proposes new size-grading specifications for mortar sands. Box 7 sets out particle size distribution limits for a
fine–medium sand for narrow (3 mm) joints and a medium–coarse sand for normal (10 mm) joints.
Void ratios of about 40% occur in some sands (such as dune and beach sands) The actual proportion of binder used in a
which are poorly graded, with a narrow range of particle sizes. These sands mix may need to be different from what
require mix proportions of 40 to 100 – one-part binder to two-and-a-half-parts the void ratio indicates. With fine-grained
sand (1:2.5) – simply to fill the voids. Finer sands need higher proportions of sands it will be higher, to ensure coating of
binder (e.g. 1:2 and often as rich as 1:1.5 or even 1:1) to allow for the more all particles; for deliberately porous (i.e.
sacrificial) mixes, it will be lower.
uniform size grading and the progressively larger surface area of the sand.
Void ratios of about 30% and below suggest that the void space in an otherwise
well-graded sand is being partly filled with an excess of fines. Such sands may need
further washing and screening to make them suitable for building. Void ratios
can be readily measured with simple equipment, as explained in the next section.
Another aspect of void ratios and mix proportions needs explanation. When
making a 1:3 mix we begin with four parts of material – one of binder and three
of sand. When combined in the mix, the total volume is only three parts, as the In a bucket containing three parts of
binder occupies the void space in the sand. If we then measure the proportions (well-graded) sand, there are actually
in the hardened mortar, we will get one-third (or one part) of binder and only two-parts sand and one-part voids. It is not
two-thirds (or two parts) of sand: a ratio of 1:2 and not the 1:3 we started with. possible to separate the voids from a loose
Understanding this apparent change in proportions from components to sand!
hardened mortars is important when visually analysing existing mortars to
determine their original composition. A mortar that in cross section looks like it
contains equal amounts of binder and sand is closer to a 1:2 mix than to a 1:1 mix.
9.7 Assessing sands for their suitability

Obtaining sands suitable for the repair of older buildings is made more difficult
by the substantial change in the use of sands that followed the change from lime
to cement. Ask a sand supplier for a mortar sand and you will commonly be
offered a soft, fine-grained bricklaying sand which may contain considerable clay Look for sharp, washed sands, such as
– in other words, a sand that is not suitable for use with lime binders. To assist in concrete or plastering sands.
selecting sands, this section describes a series of tests, beginning with the simpler
ones which anyone can do and concluding with tests done in a laboratory.
Looking closely
To get an accurate visual impression of a sand, it must be quite dry: damp sand
grains clump together, confusing an observer by looking larger and hiding their
surface texture with a layer of water.

To look closely, use a hand lens (loupe) of about 10x magnification (as shown in
Figure 49 and explained in Section 17.3 ‘Visual analysis, photography,
stereomicroscopy’). At this magnification it is possible to see clay coating on
grains (see Figures 18 and 27) and any aggregates or clumps of grains held
together by clay. The surface texture and grain shape (explained in Section 9.3)
can be assessed, and it’s also possible to get a first impression of the range of
particle sizes (explained in Section 9.4). Close-up photographs provide a good
record and, where it is possible to include a scale bar, enable a reasonably
accurate description of grain sizes (see Figure 27).
Feeling a sand
Feeling a sand is a very useful test. Sharpness can be judged by rubbing a dry or
slightly damp (but not wet) sand between thumb and fingers: does it crackle, or
is it soft? Rubbing the sand quite hard will also show if it has a significant
proportion of clay: if so, after brushing off the rest of the sand, it will leave a
smooth and often greasy residue on the fingers. Rubbing will also show whether
Figure 24: Settling test. A clay layer any coarse ‘grains’ are actually lumps of clay or clay-bound silt.
settled on top of a fine sand after shaking in
water. At 9% clay this sand is not suitable Estimating clays and fine silts
for use in mortars. The proportion of clays and fine silts can be estimated using settling tests, based on
the observation that finer particles settle more slowly in water than coarser particles.
The simplest method is to one-third fill a tall, straight-sided jar with sand, add
water until it’s two-thirds full and vigorously shake it for 30 seconds to separate
the grains. Put it on a stable base and allow it to settle out, which may be
overnight or even longer for very fine clay particles. While the boundary between
silts and sands may be difficult to judge, the distinction between them and the
overlying layer(s) of clay and possibly humic material will be clear, as Figure 24
shows. If the jar has a regular shape, the proportion of clay can be estimated
using a tape or ruler to measure the heights of the various layers.
A more accurate version of this test uses a laboratory measuring cylinder and a
1% salt solution so that the clay settles faster. AS 1141.33 explains the method.
Using a measuring cylinder allows the proportions to be easily read off.
Measuring void ratio

Use a laboratory measuring cylinder to determine the void ratio. Measure out
exactly 100 ml of oven-dry sand and tip it into a temporary container (or use two
cylinders). Add water to the 100 ml mark of the cylinder and pour the sand
slowly onto the water. Gently tap the cylinder to settle the grains and measure
the level of the water after air stops bubbling out of the sand. The reduction in
height from 200 ml is the amount of water in millilitres now filling the voids.
Expressed as a percentage, this is the void ratio (see Figure 25).
By doing this test first and then adding several good pinches of table salt to the
cylinder and shaking it vigorously for 30 seconds, you can do the settling test for
clays on the same sample.
Determining size grading

Size grading is established using sieves of the sizes identified in Section 9.4 and
the procedure set out in AS 1141.11. Sieving can be undertaken dry or wet, though
wet sieving is more accurate, and is required by the standard for measuring the
proportion that passes through a 75 µm sieve. Dry sieving is acceptable for
preliminary investigations and for routine checking that the grading of a well-
washed sand is consistent with previous results.
Figure 25: Establishing the void ratio of

Many producers will have had their sands laboratory tested, and will make the
a sand. Using a measuring cylinder, 100 ml results available. These should indicate whether the sieving was done dry or wet,
of dry sand is poured onto 100 ml of water, and should include the size grading according to AS 1141.11 and the proportion of
the difference from 200 ml is the amount of (<75 µm) fines according to AS 1141.11 or AS 1141.12. By plotting the results on a
water now filling the voids. This is expressed cumulative size-grading chart, such as the one in Figure 22 (Box 7), comparisons
as a percentage, in this case 36%. can be made between different sands, as well as checking that they are within the
grading envelopes.

Understanding the finer particles
These tests require a well-equipped laboratory. The <75 µm fraction saved from
the sieving is analysed using X-ray diffraction (XRD), a technique explained in
Section 17.6 ‘XRD and SEM/EDX’. This provides a semi-quantitative analysis of
the minerals present in the sample, and it can distinguish between stable clays
(such as kaolinite and illite) and the swelling clays of the smectite group
(including montmorillonite) which should be avoided at all costs. Sometimes
illites can have interlayered smectites and these, too, should be avoided (see
Section 9.5).
While the settling test explained above provides an estimate of a sand’s clay
content, it is more accurately determined using a sedimentation technique which is
also applied to the <75 µm fraction. This technique, which is detailed in AS 1141.13,
determines the percentage of the sand finer than 2 µm (i.e. clay-sized).
9.8 Blending sands

One way to obtain a suitable sand is to blend material from several sources.
Figure 26 shows the impact on size grading of blending a bricklaying sand which
has too much fine material (11%) with a washed concrete sand that has about 1%
fines. By blending two parts of the concrete sand to one part of the bricklaying
sand, the mix will have about 4% fines. Usefully, the blend will have about 10% of
very fine sand (75–150 µm) which will improve its workability compared with the
concrete sand. This blend would be suitable for use with composition mortars,
which can tolerate a proportion of fines, but should not be used with lime
mortars. For lime mortars, the washed concrete sand should be used in higher
proportions in the blend (e.g. 3:1 or 4:1) or preferably without blending (to avoid
all clay). Alternatively, it may be appropriate to use a small proportion of mineral
filler to improve workability, should the sand be very sharp (see Section 9.10).
Figure 26: Blending sands. Cumulative size-grading plots of a concrete sand, a bricklaying sand and a 2:1 blend of the two. The bricklaying
sand has too many fines to be used by itself, but by blending it with a cleaner sand the fines can be reduced to an amount acceptable for use
with composition mortars. Fewer fines are preferred for lime mortars and so 3:1 or 4:1 sand blends would be better than 2:1. The size-grading
envelopes (red and blue lines) are those proposed in Box 7 (Figure 22) for fine–medium and medium–coarse sands.

Figure 27: A sand that needs blending

with a finer sand. The sharp (angular to
subangular) quartz grains have noticeable,
brown clay coatings on their surfaces. As
well, this medium- to coarse-grained sand
lacks particles smaller than about 200 µm
(i.e. fine and very fine sand sizes), and so it
has a high void ratio, of about 40%.
Although it may initially feel workable in a
mortar mix (because of the clay), in use it
will prove ‘hungry’ as the suction of the
substrate draws water from the mix. After
washing to remove the clay, this sand should
be blended with a small amount of a finer
sand (as little as 25%) to produce a
better-graded aggregate with a lower void
ratio. Scale bar is in millimetres; each small
division is 0.1 mm (100 µm).
Controlling the proportion of fines and improving size gradings are not the only
opportunities blending can provide. Blending can be used to adjust the colour to
match an original, or to improve workability by including a proportion of a more
rounded sand in an otherwise angular material. A higher-quality sand that is
more expensive because it has had to be transported some distance could be
extended by blending it with a local, cheaper material. Figure 27 shows a sand
that could be improved by blending (and washing).
9.9 Other aggregates

As well as the more common sands, a wide range of other aggregates have been
used in historic mortars including:
• shell fragments, some perhaps as unburnt material from lime making
• crushed bricks, included for colour and possibly as pozzolans
• crushed stones, particularly sandstones and limestones
• charcoal and coal ashes, for colour (see Figure 32)
• coke breeze: coarser versions were used in lightweight concretes.
Some of these aggregates may have been used as cheap extenders, to make the
sand go further. Coarser particles may have been included to provide structure,
limiting shrinkage of otherwise very fine sands (see Figure 28).
The question arises as to when it is appropriate to use the same or similar
materials when undertaking repairs, and the issues include positive and negative
effects of the materials, as well as philosophical considerations relating to the
extent of repair. Colour matching is discussed in Section 12.1 ‘Matching colours
of existing mortars’.
Negative effects may arise from using coke breeze and coal ashes, due to their
likely sulfate content and the tendency of coke breeze to swell with time, causing
expansive cracking. Such damage is commonly seen in early, lightweight
concretes that are exposed to the weather.

Figure 28: Shell fragments in an 1830s
mortar. The rest of the aggregate is a very
fine, silty sand with some darker gravel
particles.
Porous aggregates
As well as contributing to colour and size grading, there are benefits from the use
of crushed bricks and stones where those materials are themselves porous.
Porous aggregates (or porous particulates) contribute in three ways:
• they assist carbonation and hydration of the binders by holding and retaining Very porous aggregates may increase the
additional water during application and initial stiffening water demand of a mortar mix.
• as the mortar dries during hardening, the additional porosity allows better
penetration by carbon dioxide and hence improved (and faster) carbonation
of non-hydraulic components
• the additional porosity increases the hardened mortar’s breathing capacity
and its resistance to salt attack.
Suitable raw materials for use as porous aggregates include older bricks with
high porosities and porous stones, such as limestones comprised of fossil
fragments which may themselves be porous. Both materials may have additional It is important to minimise the amount of
benefits: if low-fired, the finer fractions of brick particles may be pozzolanic (as very fine dust when using crushed
Chapter 7 ‘Pozzolanic materials’ explains), while the limestone, being chemically materials. Excessive fines will increase
alike with lime, produces stronger mortars (as the next section explains). water demand and the risk of shrinkage
Further, the angular, porous surface texture of crushed limestones will ensure a (see Section 9.5 ‘Clays and silts – fines’).
more tightly interlocked structure, again producing stronger mortars.
To shell or not shell?

Because of their frequently plate-like shape, shell fragments are not an ideal aggregate
for mortars, though their use as a small proportion of a mix is quite acceptable.
If, as in Figure 28, an old mortar has shell fragments, a question arises when
repointing as to whether shells should be used in the mix to match the old joints.
For small patches, where the repair should match the surrounding original, the
answer is clear: use shells to match the original texture and appearance as
closely as possible.
For large areas (such as the whole elevation of a building), the decision is less
obvious and will require consideration of the significance of the existing mortars
(see Section 13.4 ‘Choosing the right mix – significance’), the availability of
matching shells and alternative ways of producing a similar texture. The latter
might involve using a sand containing some very coarse (fine gravel) grains to
produce a similar porphyritic texture of coarse grains in a finer groundmass. The
key to achieving an aged appearance similar to that of the old mortar will be in
the way the joint is finished: Chapter 23 ‘Finishing joints’ explains how tamping
the surface with a stiff-bristled brush will expose the coarse grains.
Crushed shell fragments provide some carbonate chemistry to the mix, as do
crushed limestones. If shells are not to be used, consideration might be given to
an alternative source of carbonate, such as a mineral filler.
9.10 Mineral fillers

Adding finely ground mineral fillers (particularly limestone and marble) can
benefit mortars by:
• promoting hardening of limes, when carbonate-based filler is used
• improving the size grading of otherwise poorly graded sands
• hence improving the workability of the resulting mix.
Research has confirmed what has been observed in practice: that the strength of
lime mortars is greater if the aggregates are carbonate minerals (such as crushed
limestone) rather than silica sands. Two- to fourfold strength increases have
been reported. This is partly because of better bonding between the newly
formed calcium carbonate and the carbonate aggregate: it is like bonding with
like. It may also be due to the angular shape and porosity of the larger limestone
particles (as the previous section explained).
Poorly graded sands often lack sufficient finer particles, particularly in the
75–150 µm range. These very fine sand-sized particles contribute workability
(and colour) to a mortar mix, and their absence leads to high void ratios and
poor water retentivity. These problems may be overcome by adding finely
ground minerals (such as limestone or marble) with an approximate particle size
range of 40–200 µm. Ultra-fine, dust-size particles (0–20 µm) should be avoided
as they produce a high water demand and weaken mixes. Figure 29 shows the
effect of adding one-sixth part filler to a poorly graded sand. Less filler will be
required for better-graded sands.
Figure 29: Adding limestone filler to improve size grading. A cumulative size-grading plot showing the effect of adding a one-sixth part
of ground limestone filler to a poorly graded sand. With the filler, the sand complies with the fine–medium specification shown here and
proposed in Box 7. More filler may be warranted, particularly if the aim is to make an alternative to mason’s putty (see Section 16.1). Ground
limestone or marble fillers should be used instead of clay or loam, which should never be used to improve the working qualities of a lime mortar.

9.11 Making do with poor sands
Some aspects of the advice in this guide may seem contradictory, and so require
further comment. This guide advises that sands suitable for use with lime
binders should be free of clay and have sharp surface textures and a wide range
of grain sizes. Yet many early buildings, constructed of materials from nearby,
have very fine, silty and often loamy sands in their mortars. How have such
mortars survived? And if they are decaying, what materials should we use for
their repair?
In fact, many early mortars have not survived well, and deteriorate rapidly in
exposed environments. Some survive as bedding mortars only because they are
protected by better-quality pointing mortars or by limewash coatings.
However, a key factor in the survival of many early mortars is the way they were
made – directly from quicklime by slaking it with the sand in a process known as
sand-slaking (see Section 15.1 ‘Traditional mixing’). In this process, the heat
generated by the slaking quicklime cleaned the sand, and produced much better Mortars made directly from quicklime are
contact between sand and lime. Also, many early mixes were very rich in lime, in known as quicklime mortars or hot-mixed
part making up for the poor sand. Furthermore, they commonly had large lumps mortars.
of unslaked lime that effectively became part of the aggregate, providing some
coarse structure to otherwise very fine-grained material (cover photo, and
Figure 39 in Box 12 and Figure 42 in Box 13).
If the significance (i.e. heritage value) of the existing mortar warrants accurately
matching it with a poor sand, then the mortar will need to be made in the
traditional way, by sand-slaking quicklime, and it will need to be as rich as the
original mix. Sand-slaking is not commonly practiced in Australia, but it
should be if the significance of the place justifies it. Section 19.2 ‘Mixing’
explains how to sand-slake quicklime to make mortars.
If sand-slaking is not practicable in the particular circumstances, then lime putty
should be used, but this will mean using a better-quality sand and achieving an
approximate match in other ways. Blending material from several sources (see
Section 9.8 ‘Blending sands’) may be a way of retaining the appearance of the
original, while using a better sand. Pigments may help match the original
colours, and matching the texture may be achieved by using occasional coarse, > See also the discussion about shells in
white grains of a quartz sand to replicate the lumpy look. Section 9.9 ‘Other aggregates’
Factors that may affect the approach to repairing mortars with poor sands
include the significance of the existing mortars (see Section 13.4 ‘Choosing the
right mix – significance’), the need to ensure compatibility with the masonry
units (see Section 13.5 ‘Choosing the right mix – compatibility’) and the practical
aspects covered in Part 3 of this guide. These include:
• procedures for matching previous mortars (Section 18.3)
• examples of ensuring compatibility (Section 18.4)
• matching joint profiles (Section 18.5)
• decisions about repairing small patches or larger areas (Section 18.6)
• making quicklime mortars by sand-slaking (Section 19.2).

10 Water
Water should be clean and free of organic matter, suspended particles and
excessive dissolved salts. Salts are a particular concern, and bore water should be
tested before use. 2,500 parts per million (0.25%) soluble salt is the maximum
that should be used, but much less is preferred: blend salty with fresh water if
needed. Ideally, water should be potable, or safe to drink.
There have been substantial changes in the use of water in mortars from
traditional to modern practice. Traditionally, mortars were prepared with a
relatively low water content, whereas in modern construction mortars are
prepared relatively wet. Understanding why this change has occurred is critical
for successfully repairing older buildings, and also for using traditional materials
in new construction.
Few workmen are sufficiently aware of the Traditionally, mortars were used relatively dry because the high plasticity of lime
advantage of wetting bricks before they provided the necessary workability. Mortars for pointing joints were prepared
are used; but experience has shown that even stiffer and drier than those used for laying bricks or stones. The high
works in which this practice has been porosity of many traditional materials (such as low-fired bricks, some
followed have been much stronger than sandstones and limestones) produces considerable suction, which tends to draw
others wherein it has been neglected. water from a mortar as it is laid; too much abstraction of water and the mix will
Anon (Nicholson), 1823 become impossible to work. Furthermore, loss of water from the mix leads to
premature drying and incomplete hardening of the mortar. These problems were
largely overcome by pre-wetting the masonry units before they were laid, either
by dipping them in buckets of water or by throwing or spraying water over them.
The water retained in the newly constructed wall provided a further benefit,
namely the improved hardening of the mortar.
Unfortunately, some dated specifications In contrast, contemporary bricklaying practice is not to pre-wet the bricks and
still require bricks to be wetted prior to to use mixes containing a maximum amount of water consistent with good
laying. Only bricks having very high water practice. This means not so much water that a brick ‘floats’ on the wet mix and
suction (the initial rate of absorption or fails to bond properly, or that the mix ‘falls apart’ and water leaks or bleeds out
IRA) need pre-wetting to reduce their of the mortar and stains the brickwork below. This change from dryish to
suction, and then only in hot and windy
much-wetter mixes is partly because of the need to improve the workability of
weather with a light water spray to
cement-based mortars, but it is mainly due to the much-lower porosities and
dampen the surface.
hence suctions – the initial rate of absorption, or IRA – of modern bricks. It is
Think Brick Aust., 2019
essential that some water is drawn into the masonry units (whether bricks or
stones) so that it pulls the binder with it and creates a good bond between the
masonry units and the mortar. Consequently, the approach taken with low IRA
materials like modern bricks is to encourage absorption by using dry bricks and
to ensure that workability is maintained for long enough to lay the bricks by
maximising the water content of the mortar.
This leads to the need to understand the suction or porosity of the masonry
units, whether for use in new building, reconstruction work or when repointing
joints. Also, it is important to recognise that different masonry materials in the
same wall may have very different suctions.
> For more discussion of these issues see Traditional practice should be followed when repairing traditional
Chapter 14 ‘Workability’, Chapter 21 materials: porous masonry requires thorough pre-wetting to control
‘Pre-wetting’ and Chapter 25 ‘Using suction.
lean or sacrificial mixes’.

11 Admixtures and additives
11.1 Plasticisers, air-entrainers, water-retainers

Traditional mortar and plaster mixes from around the globe often included local
ingredients derived from animal or vegetable sources. Organic materials used in
mortars have included beer; blood; egg whites; the juice and pulp of bael, fig,
tamarind and other fruits; milk and milk products (such as casein and cheese);
rice; sugar; urine; and vegetable oils (such as linseed oil). Some of these
contributed to the properties of the hardened mortar, while others were used to
modify the behaviour of the wet mix, to accelerate or retard its set and,
particularly, to improve its workability and plastic properties. Today, the modern
synthetic versions of such materials are known as admixtures and are divided
according to their function (though some overlap).
Plasticisers (and superplasticisers) are commonly surfactants (surface active
agents or detergents) and provide a lubricating action to improve the workability
of mixes. By reducing the required water content by about 20%, superplasticisers Superplasticisers have an important role in
can help reduce shrinkage. Unfortunately, plasticisers are widely abused by being grouts and in the pumping and placing of
added in excessive quantities, which produces weak mortars with poor durability. concrete.
By trapping air in minute bubbles, they may also act as air-entraining agents.
Air-entraining agents are powerful surfactants and are added to concrete mixes
to protect the hardened concrete from damage during freeze–thaw cycles in cold
climates. Minute bubbles of entrained air also protect lime mortars and plasters
from frost damage, and they also improve the rate of carbonation of the lime. By
providing void spaces in which salts can crystallise, the judicious use of air-
entrainers should help protect mortars from salt attack. Excessive use of
air-entrainers will seriously reduce bond strengths, irrespective of the type of
binder (cement or lime).
Water-retaining agents (water thickeners) are commonly based on methyl
cellulose and are designed to resist the suction of the masonry units when the
fresh mortar is placed. Retaining some of the mixing water ensures the
continuing workability of the wet mix, which might otherwise ‘go dead’ and be
too hard to work if the sand is poorly graded. Additionally, by slowing the drying
of the mix, water-retainers improve the hardening of limes and cements.
Admixtures should never be used as substitutes for lime in composition
mortars. They can be used to improve the workability, hardening and durability > See Chapter 14 ‘Workability’
of mortars in which the binder is either pure lime, hydraulic lime or a
composition of cement and lime. However, admixtures should not be the first
port of call when seeking to improve the working characteristics of a mortar.
Sacrificial mortars are an exception because of their high sand content.
Admixtures are incorporated in very small proportions, typically a few parts in a
thousand. The challenge on a building site is ensuring the correct proportioning
of such small amounts, when everything else is measured in comparatively large Some bagged cement-and-lime products
volumes. Admixtures must not be used at more than the recommended contain air-entraining agents – adding
rates, irrespective of the type of mortar. This is particularly important more is not recommended.
with lime mortars, as they cannot afford the substantial reductions in
strength which result from overdosing with admixtures.
Admixtures and additives 57

11.2 Bonding agents

Various polymers have been used in modern mortars, plasters and renders as
bonding agents, and to increase their strength and reduce their permeability.
These materials are used as water-based emulsions or dispersions (latexes) and
are added during mixing. They are also applied directly to substrates as primers
to improve the adhesion of the mix. Among the more successful of these
materials are the styrene acrylics and styrene butadiene rubbers (SBRs).
Product data sheets for these materials These materials may have some, but very limited, application in the conservation
generally recommend their use in and repair of older buildings. Very limited, because they will commonly fail the
conjunction with 1:3 cement-to-sand compatibility test (see Section 13.5 ‘Choosing the right mix – compatibility’) by
mortars. Such mixes are not appropriate producing mortars that are too strong for the masonry and too impermeable,
for repointing older masonry.
restricting breathing through the joints. They should never be used for
normal repointing of porous masonry.
These materials are likely to be required only in uncommon circumstances, and
only on specialist advice. These may include situations where previous,
> See Section 16.2 ‘Elastomeric sealants inappropriate treatments have left masonry units with impermeable surfaces
(mastics)’ with no suction, to which conventional mortars cannot adhere.
Polyvinyl acetate (PVA) has been widely used as a woodworking adhesive, and
also in masonry applications. However, it is not stable in the presence of
moisture and it blocks pores, which prevents breathing. Although it is cheap
compared to acrylics or SBRs, PVA should never be used in the conservation
or repair of valuable masonry materials.

12 Pigments and colouring agents
Most mortars in Australia are naturally coloured: additional pigments or

colouring agents have not been included in the mix. Their colour is mostly due
to the finer sand particles and to the off-white of lime and white cements and the
light-to-mid-greys of normal cement.
Exposure and weathering will change the appearance of a mortar with time,
adding warm, yellow and reddish colours due to windblown dust and grey-to-
dark-grey tones as lichens and other micro-organisms accumulate on walls
which face the prevailing weather. > See Box 12 ‘Changing appearances’
Pigments are added to mortars where brickwork is tuck pointed: the stopping
mortar is coloured to match the bricks – commonly red but also cream and dark
brown – and a narrow white (or black or red pigmented) ribbon or bead of lime
and fine sand is applied over the top to give the impression of fine-jointed work Pencilling is the traditional term for
(see Figure 30). Red pigments were also used to colour pointing that was ruled painting joints with a thin brush (known as
with an incised groove and pencilled (see Figure 31). a pencil). See also Box 14 ‘Joint profiles’.
Dark-coloured stones (such as bluestone) were often finished with a dark mortar,
which contained one or a combination of coal ashes, charcoal, lampblack or coke
breeze, and were ruled and pencilled (see Box 14 ‘Joint profiles’ and Figure 57). The
joints in red brickwork were sometimes pointed in a dark mortar (see Figure 32).
Figure 30: Tuck-pointed brickwork. The

pale-red stopping mortar has faded from an
original dark colour due to leaching out of
the carbon black pigment. On completion,
the stopping mortar would have been
closer in tone to the surrounding bricks.
Figure 31: Pigmented mortar. The red

pointing mortar, which matches the colour
of the bricks, retains some of the black
paint, termed pencilling, in the ruled joint.
To the left, the white pointing tones-in with
the sandstone on the far left.
Pigments and colouring agents 59

Figure 32: 1860s blue mortar. This dark

pointing mortar was made from lime and
sand coloured with charcoal or ashes and a
finer pigment, such as vegetable black or
lampblack. The face of the brickwork was
washed with a black colourwash, traces of
which remain, particularly on the lower
bricks. Weathering has eroded much of the
pointing and exposed some of the lighter
bedding mortar. Sands blackened by their
use as moulding sands in foundries were
also used in dark-coloured mortars.
12.1 Matching colours of existing mortars

Matching the colour of an existing mortar should first be approached by seeking
to match the colour of the unweathered mortar, if necessary, by scraping off
> See Chapter 9 ‘Sands and other some of the surface to expose the fresh material beneath. The aim should be to
aggregates’ match the colour of the binder and the sand.
We are commonly faced with the problem of modern pure limes, which are made
from high-grade limestone in gas-fired kilns, being much whiter than the off-white
Hydraulic limes can have cream, pale buff and cream colours found in traditional limes. These colours occurred because of
and light grey colours. Fly ash pozzolans impurities in the limestone, or because wood- or coal-fired kilns often resulted
are also grey and will tone down a white in some of the ash being incorporated into the lime. In such cases, it is
lime. However, colour should not be the appropriate to use pigments or other means to tone down the blinding white of
primary reason for using these materials. modern, pure limes. Satisfactory toning down can be achieved with about
1/100 part (1%) pigment.
Pigments should only be added to mortar mixes to match the fresh colour of
traditional limes and not to match the appearance of joints that have aged with
weathering. Matching an aged appearance should be achieved by applying a
> See Section 18.3 ‘Matching previous tamped finish (see Chapter 23 ‘Finishing joints’) or by adding colouring (or dust)
mortars’ to the surface after the joint is finished.
When using pigments, the general rule should be to use as little as possible, with
a maximum pigment concentration of 10% of the volume of the binder or 2% for
carbon black (lampblack). These limits are necessary because the fine particle
size of pigments, which are exceptionally fine for carbon black, means they have
very high surface areas. Too much pigment will increase water demand and
significantly reduce the bond strength of a mortar. Using smaller quantities of a
stronger pigment may be preferable to larger amounts of a paler hue, even
though it will be more difficult to get the proportions consistently correct.
Pigments should always be natural earths or alkali-stable synthetic oxides, such
> See Section 18.3 ‘Matching previous as are used with cement. Organic dyes should never be used, as they fade with
mortars’ for advice about preparing time. Pigments should be considered as part of the aggregate. Importantly, a
sample biscuits for colour and texture sand which already has appreciable fines may, after the inclusion of the pigment,
comparisons. end up having too much, and produce a weak mortar of poor durability.
Section 9.10 ‘Mineral fillers’ discusses the use of crushed and milled limestone as
a filler to improve the workability of sands that lack finer particles. Many ground
limestones will be white, but if the filler is produced from coloured marble or
travertine it may help reduce the whiteness of modern limes.
One way of adding a warm, dust-like hue is to paint or spray onto the new
mortar a weak solution of iron sulfate (also known as copperas, or green vitriol),
which was widely used in yellow colourwashes and limewashes on renders and
> Section 18.3 ‘Matching previous mortars’ stuccoes. The initially pale-green-coloured solution oxidises to a warm yellow on
has advice about how to use copperas. exposure. While this means adding soluble sulfate salts to the wall, the
proportion will be very small and should not be a problem.

13 Mortar mixes
When (the lime) has been slaked, the mortar should be mixed in such a
way that if quarry-sand is to be used, three parts of sand to one of lime
should be poured in; if using river or sea sand, two parts of sand should be
mixed with one of lime; this will be the right adjustment of the proportions
of the mixture. Furthermore, if anyone using river or sea sand were to add
in a third of ground-up and sifted fired brick, this will produce a mortar
better mixed for use.
Vitruvius, c. 30–20 BCE
13.1 Traditional mixes

Most people involved in the conservation and repair of older buildings would be
familiar with the traditional mortar mix of one part of lime to three parts of
sand, a mix that has been known for thousands of years. But when we look at old
mortars (and their specifications) and ask the questions, ‘Which sand?’, ‘Which
lime?’ and, ‘For what purpose?’, we find such a wide range of mixes that things
become confused. This is compounded by the substantial changes in materials
and practice since World War II, which make it harder for us to comprehend
how it was originally done.
Which sand?
Today, we understand the theory behind a 1:3 mix as being the amount of lime
required to coat all the sand grains and to fill the void space between them, to
produce a weatherproof joint. With well-graded sand, there will typically be
about 33% (one-third) of voids, and so the amount of lime required is one-third
of the volume of the sand. However, this only applies to well-graded sands. A
poorly graded sand with a void ratio of 40% will need a mix of 1:2.5 to fill the
voids. If the sand is fine grained, the mix will need to be richer still – 1:2 or 1:1.5,
or even 1:1 for very fine sands (see Section 9.6 ‘Void ratio and its impact on mixes’).
Which lime?
When planning to match a mortar, we naturally think in terms of commonly
available limes – hydrated lime and lime putty. Yet in the nineteenth and early
twentieth century, most mortar for brick and stonework was produced by slaking
quicklime together with the sand – sand-slaking, see Section 15.1 ‘Traditional > Making sand-slaked mixes is explained
mixing’. The significance of this is that the mortar proportion was a ratio of in Section 19.2 ‘Mixing’.
quicklime to sand, not lime putty or hydrated lime to sand. The use of the term
‘lime’ to mean both quicklime and slaked lime has helped confuse the issue.
Because quicklime expands on slaking, starting with a mix of 1:3 quicklime to
sand will produce a mortar in the range 1:1.5–1:2 slaked lime to sand. Chemical
analyses of many early mortars show rich mixes ranging between 1:1 and 1:3 (see
Box 13 ‘Lime lumps’ for examples of very rich mixes).
Another factor is how hydraulic was the quicklime: the more hydraulic, the less
it will expand on slaking, so the proportions were adjusted to account for this.
This explains why one source recommended the proportions of quicklime to
sand for mixes that were to be sand-slaked should be:
1:3 for fat, non-hydraulic limes
1:2.5 for feebly hydraulic limes
1:2 for moderately hydraulic limes.
What purpose?
To further complicate the picture, many specifications appropriately called for
different strength mixes for different parts of buildings, and particularly for the
use of richer mixtures for below the damp-proof course and for exposed
Mortar mixes 61
elements, such as copings. Mixes ranging from 1:1 to 1:3 were specified for both
lime and cement mortars.
So, while there is a sound (void ratio) basis for a modern 1:3 mix made with
dense lime putty, there were many traditional mixes. The question of which
mixes to use in the repair of old mortars is discussed in the following sections.
13.2 Composition mortars

1:1:6 . . . is fast becoming standard practice After the initial enthusiasm for pure cement mortars in the late nineteenth and
for one- and two-storey residential work early twentieth centuries, the benefits of combining cement and lime in
and for most small to moderate-sized composition (‘compo’) mortars were recognised. They included the faster
buildings. hardening and higher strengths of cement, and the workability and better water
Watson Sharp, 1953 retentivity of lime. Table 9 shows typical composition mortars and their
classifications according to AS 3700 Masonry structures and ASTM C270 Standard
specification for mortar for unit masonry.
Table 9: Composition mortars
Mix proportions by volume Mortar class/type Properties
Cement Lime Sand AS 3700 ASTM C270
1 0.5 4.5 M4 S
Increasing strength
1 1 6 M3 N & brittleness
Decreasing
1 2 9 M2 O
permeability &
1 3 12 M1 K workability
Note: These mixes are for contemporary construction and are not recommended for the
normal repair of porous materials. See Box 10 ‘Mortars and Australian Standards’,
particularly about the nature and proportioning of the lime component.
These mixes preserve the 1:3 ratio of binder (cement plus lime) to sand, with
changing cement to lime ratios depending on the properties required. They
> See Section 9.6 ‘Void ratio and its assume well-graded sands: poorly graded sands may require richer mixes (such
impact on mixes’ as 1:1:5 instead of 1:1:6 and 1:2:7–8 instead of 1:2:9).
> See Chapter 6 ‘Cements’ and Chapter 8 Mixes like 1:2:9 and 1:3:12 have been widely specified by those seeking to replicate
‘Comparison of lime and cement lime mortars, with the added advantages of some cement. There are now
binders’ concerns about the suitability of such mixes for porous masonry.
This guide recommends that 1:3:12 mixes should no longer be used. Instead,
mortars based on pure limes with added pozzolans, or on natural hydraulic limes
should be used for circumstances where greater strengths are required than
those of pure lime mortars. For a given compressive strength, a hydraulic lime
mortar will have an equal or superior flexural (bending) strength and much
greater elasticity and permeability than a cement-and-lime composition mortar.
Sulfate-resisting (SR) or low-heat (LH) Mixes such as 1:2:9 and 1:1:6 may still have a role in repair work, such as in
cements should be considered instead of circumstances that need reasonably fast hardening (e.g. undersetting), or where
general purpose (GP) or blended cements the building or structure was constructed with a cement-based mortar and
(GB) where slower early hardening is strong, dense bricks or stones. But even in these situations, alternative solutions,
acceptable (see Section 6.7 ‘Which cement?’). such as the use of natural cements or the stronger classes of natural hydraulic
limes, may be more appropriate.
The lack of attention to curing that is all too common in Australia is likely,
particularly during hot or windy weather, to produce weak mortars in which only
a small proportion of the lime (and not all of the cement) is properly cured. In
these circumstances, 1:2:9 and 1:1:6 mixes are best thought of as cement mortars
> See Chapter 24 ‘Protection and curing’ containing lime as a workability aid.

13.3 Durability
Failures of modern, cement-based mortars and renders on porous masonry have
led to research and field trials which have resulted in new understanding of the
behaviour and durability of traditional limes.
Perhaps the most outstanding example comes from Sweden, where lime-
rendered and limewashed walls of seventeenth- to nineteenth-century buildings
were repaired in the 1950s and 1960s with cement-based renders and modern
paints. The modern repairs failed in the freezing Swedish winters, whereas the
traditional materials survived. A long period of research and trial and error led to
the reintroduction of the traditional practice, so that today the walls are re-
rendered in lime and recoated in limewash (see Figure 33).
The key understanding here is that, paradoxically, the more open and porous a
mortar or render is (within reason), the more resistant it will be to the repeated cycles
of freezing and thawing that are common in the harsh Swedish winters. The same
goes for the paint coatings, too. Adding cement to a lime mix to increase its strength
and durability was found in practice to make less-durable mixes than straight lime
mortars. The reason is that the cement blocks pores (see Figure 12) which leads
to water becoming trapped in smaller pores and the masonry fails as the water
expands as it turns to ice. The findings of this Swedish work are also relevant to
hotter climates, where salt attack is a major mechanism of masonry decay.
A project involving laboratory testing and field trials in England – the Smeaton Figure 33: Limewashed and lime-
Project – found similar results: adding small amounts of cement produces mixes rendered walls in Gamle Stan,
that are less durable than lime mortar. Stockholm.
More recent laboratory work in Portugal tested a range of mixes including pure These results may seem to be at odds with
lime, lime with pozzolans, hydraulic lime and cement-and-lime compositions. durability testing of contemporary
This work used an accelerated weathering test, which simulates salt attack with composition mortars, which shows that
a series of wetting and drying cycles. The results showed that pure lime mortars M4 mortars are more durable than M3,
performed better than those with pozzolanic additives and better than hydraulic and M3 more durable than M2. Both sets
limes. While directly translating these findings to real walls is not straightforward, of test results are valid: their different
outcomes are a product of different
this work also showed that 1:3:12, 1:2:9 and even 1:1:6 composition mixes
starting points for the research, as well as
performed poorly against sulfate salts, which are particularly aggressive. different test procedures.
Poor durability is the reason for the recommendation to no longer use 1:3:12
mixes. Mortars of equivalent strength, better elasticity and greater porosity and
permeability (and hence durability) can be made from pure lime with suitable
pozzolans or from natural hydraulic limes.
Improved durability has been demonstrated for lime mortars containing porous
particles in the aggregate (see Section 9.9 ‘Other aggregates’). Because they
provide additional pore space, the porous aggregates also improve the hardening
of the mortar, initially by holding water, and then by allowing more carbon > See also Section 5.6 ‘Setting of lime
dioxide to reach the carbonation front. mortars’
It’s also important to consider the durability conferred on a whole wall by using
a weaker mortar that protects the masonry units (see Section 13.5).
13.4 Choosing the right mix – significance

The repair and conservation of masonry buildings and structures often involves
repointing mortar joints and reconstructing walls. Decisions about the choice of
materials and mixes for these works should be based on two criteria:
• the significance of the building and the existing mortars
• the compatibility of the proposed replacements.
Where the existing mortar is of cultural significance (i.e. of heritage value), its
conservation should be based on the principles of the Australia ICOMOS Burra
Charter including:
• retention of as much significant material as possible
• like-for-like replacement where needed
• preference for using traditional materials and techniques.
Mortar mixes 63
These principles imply matching the original materials, in terms of their nature,
> See Chapter 17 ‘Investigation and colour, texture, grain size and proportions. To do this well, the existing mortar
analysis of mortars’ needs to be closely studied and analysed to determine its make-up.
Significance cannot be the sole factor determining the choice of materials. Some
traditional materials are simply not available, or they are not available in the
The significance of the mortar also needs form they were in when used in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
to be weighed against the significance of Also, original materials may sometimes be accelerating deterioration of the
the whole building or structure and its fabric or unsuited to a changed physical environment. Further, where the
conservation needs. existing mortars were made of poor materials (e.g. sand containing a lot of silt
and clay), matching the existing mortar might be unwise because it could lead to
the need for more frequent repairs. These factors may force us to choose
alternative materials, and here the question of compatibility is critical.
13.5 Choosing the right mix – compatibility

New materials and the mortars made from them must be compatible with the
existing mortar and with the masonry units with which they are to be used. This
usually means producing a mix with porosity, permeability and strength
A long term view is required – an apparent characteristics similar to those of the original. The key requirement for
success, judged after a few years, may compatibility is that the new materials and mix should never damage the
later prove to have failed. original bricks, stones and mortar.
In designing a replacement mortar mix, we begin with the original materials and
mix (or as close to them as possible) and then consider whether the compatibility
criterion will be satisfied in the particular circumstances. This may mean
modifying the original mix so that:
• it is weaker than the original
• it has appropriate porosity and permeability
• it has appropriate thermal expansion characteristics
• it is sufficiently flexible to allow for minor movements
• potential problems (such as soluble salts) can be managed
• there are no adverse side effects of the repairs.
Another way of saying this is that mortars should always be designed to suit:
• the particular masonry units or combination of masonry units
• the exposure levels of the different elements of the building
• the condition (and hence repair needs) of those elements.
Mortar types Each of these points is explained below and examples of potentially suitable
1. Pure lime repointing mixes are given using the mortar types shown at left; these mortar
types are explained in Table 10 and Section 13.7.
2. Lime + pozzolan
3. Natural hydraulic lime (NHL) Ensuring compatibility with the masonry units
4. Cement + lime This means selecting from a range of mixes that reflect the porosities and
5. Sacrificial lime strengths of the masonry units. For porous, weak materials (such as low-fired
bricks or some limestones and sandstones), a pure lime (type 1) mortar may be
6. Narrow joint
appropriate, whereas for materials of moderate porosity and strength a lime +
For details of these mortar types see pozzolan (type 2 with less pozzolan) or a natural hydraulic lime (type 3 – NHL 2)
Table 10 and Section 13.7.
mortar may be more suitable. For stronger materials with low porosities, lime +
pozzolan (type 2) or natural hydraulic lime (type 3 – NHL 3.5) mortars should be
considered. Provided they are compatible, cement + lime (type 4) mortars may
be appropriate for strong, dense materials, but only where the originals were
cement based and generally only for post-1920 structures.
Very hard materials (such as granites) actually require softer mortars (types 2 or 3)
to allow for movement during thermal expansion and contraction. Less-elastic
mortars would simply be crushed between the granite blocks. Where a building
or structure is made of several types of masonry units with different porosities
(e.g. bluestone with brick dressings or brick with limestone dressings), the
approach to mortar selection should be based on compatibility with whichever

are the more porous units. Some circumstances may warrant using different
mixes for the different masonry units in the same building.
Ensuring compatibility with exposure levels

This means taking account of the different exposure levels around a building and
selecting mortars appropriate to them. More exposed parts (such as chimneys and
parapets) may warrant the use of lime + pozzolan (type 2) or natural hydraulic
lime (type 3 – NHL 2) mixes. Stronger versions of these mixes (NHL 3.5 in the
case of type 3) should be considered for very exposed elements (such as towers
and spires). Thus, several different mixes may be needed in any one project.
Other exposure-level considerations include the zone below the damp-proof
course, the splash zone near ground level (often the same thing) and buildings in
coastal environments, particularly those facing esplanades. Each of these
circumstances suggests the use of a stronger mix than normal, and this will
usually be appropriate for new building work where the masonry units are also
chosen to suit the higher exposure levels. However, for repair and repointing of
existing buildings, a key determinant is the condition of the existing masonry
(see Figure 34).
Ensuring compatibility with the existing masonry

This requires clearly understanding its present condition and the nature of any
deterioration mechanisms that have been at work or that may still be at work.
Managing salt-damaged masonry is a common problem in building repair, and it More active methods of salt removal (such
often leads to the challenge faced by the chimney in Figure 34. Here, the as poulticing and captive-head washing)
exposure would suggest a stronger mortar than the original (which was a pure are explained in Salt attack and rising damp:
lime, type 1), but the low-fired bricks have been damaged by salt attack and will a guide to salt damp in historic and older
decay more rapidly if repointed with a less-permeable mortar. In the first buildings, another in this series of guides.
instance, they should be repointed with a sacrificial mortar (type 5) with the aim
of drawing as much salt as possible from the bricks into the mortar. Although
this will mean having to revisit the work after a relatively short period, it may be
that the mortar will extract most of the salt from the bricks, so the third mortar
can be a little more durable.
Figure 35 shows a design-detailing fault which is allowing excessive moisture to
penetrate the brick buttresses, resulting in erosion of the mortar joints. An
appropriate response might be to use two mortar mixes: one less permeable (e.g.
types 2 or 3) to reduce water entry into the buttresses and another more
permeable (types 1 or 5) to encourage rapid drying, and so localise ongoing
damage to a small area on the faces and opposite sides of the buttresses.
Another aspect of compatibility is that weaker mortars can provide durability
and resilience to walls. Research has shown that soft lime mortars behave
plastically under triaxial compression producing a cushioning effect, which helps
protect the masonry units from damage during settlement or seismic activity.
This is because the stress is absorbed by compression of the pore spaces within
the mortar: the mortar collapses internally rather than expanding outwards and
damaging the vulnerable edges (arrises) of bricks or stones.
13.6 Choosing the right mix – applying the criteria

The following examples illustrate how the significance and compatibility criteria
guide the choice of replacement mortars.
Replacing a lime mortar in soft brickwork with a cement mortar not only fails
the significance test – because it’s not the same as the original – but also fails the
compatibility test – because the new mortar would be incompatible with the soft Figure 34: Which mortar? Because
bricks and with the original mortar. chimneys are more exposed, the initial
Though there will always be exceptions, a replacement mortar should usually be response may be to use a stronger mortar
than the original, but here the bricks are
weaker than the original, so any future failure occurs in the repair work, which
deteriorating, requiring a weaker, sacrificial
protects the older fabric that may be of heritage value.
mix (type 5).
Mortar mixes 65
Figure 35: Water and salt damage to

brickwork. Water running down the
pediment coping is penetrating the
buttresses and then drying out through
their faces and opposite sides. This is where
salt attack decay takes place, and so it will
be important to replace the eroded mortar
with a permeable mix to encourage rapid
drying and so localise salts. A less-permeable
mix finished with a denser surface to limit
water entry should be used on the inside
buttress faces.
Replacing a mid-twentieth century 1:3 cement-to-sand mortar with a 1:3 mortar

made with Portland cement would fail the compatibility test, because modern
cement is much stronger than that of the mid-twentieth-century (see Section 6.3
‘Portland cement through time’). A replacement mortar of these proportions
would be too strong, too brittle and too impermeable for most masonry units.
The challenge in these circumstances is to design a cement-based mortar that is
slightly weaker than the original but has appropriate porosity and other
characteristics. One approach would be to use a composition mortar based on
cement and lime; another would be a composition mortar using masonry cement
and lime (see Section 6.5 ‘Masonry cements’). A third would be to use ground
granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS) in combination with lime to produce a
> See Section 6.7 ‘Which cement?’ composition mortar in which the ground slag replaces Portland cement.
For earlier (nineteenth and early twentieth century) cement mortars, which are
weaker still, it may be appropriate to not use any cement in the replacement, but
to instead use a mortar based on natural hydraulic lime: see mortar type 3 (NHL)
in Table 10.
As Section 13.4 notes, original materials are sometimes contributing to decay, but
those same materials may be acceptable in other circumstances. Mason’s putty
Reducing or omitting the linseed oil from (see Section 16.1) is one of these. Because it is relatively impermeable, it will not
the putty may be desirable, to limit oil be compatible with porous sandstone or limestone, particularly where the stones
penetrating into the granite or marble, are weakened by excessive water penetration. However, where the masonry units
which may cause staining and water are dense materials like granite or marble, repointing with a mason’s putty may
repellency. satisfy both the compatibility and significance criteria.
Producing a mortar with appropriate porosity and permeability may necessitate
using a cleaner sand than the original (to avoid clays) or incorporating porous
aggregates and/or the judicious use of air-entraining agents to increase porosity.
Each of these changes from a significant original may be warranted to achieve a
more compatible mix.
Selection of joint finishes is another aspect of ensuring compatibility which may
sometimes require a departure from the significant original. While an original
profile may have been a struck finish (see Box 14 ‘Joint profiles’), the need to ensure
good breathing behaviour of the joint may suggest using a tamped finish to increase
the surface area and improve the capacity to exchange air with the atmosphere
(see Chapter 23 ‘Finishing joints’). There may also be good significance-related
reasons to use a tamped finish, as it gives an aged appearance to the joint. If an
> See Section 18.6 ‘Small patches or larger aspect of a building’s significance is its age, then it should look old: patch
areas?’ for a discussion of the issues with repointing of mortar joints should blend in with the remainder and so may need
repairing small patches and large areas. an aged look. This in turn may happily coincide with the need for compatibility.

Box 9: Compatibility
These photographs illustrate a key requirement of

mortars: they should always be compatible with the
masonry units, even if this means more frequent repairs
than we might prefer.
Though decaying, the mortar in Figure 36 is compatible
with the adjacent bricks because:
• it is weaker than the bricks, and so is behaving
sacrificially
• it is more permeable than the bricks, allowing drying
through the joints
• its large pores accumulate salts (which are the cause
of its decay)
• it has a similar thermal expansion to that of the bricks.
The mortar has failed, but because it is compatible it has
protected the bricks from damage due to the rising Figure 36: Compatible mortar.
dampness and associated salts in the masonry. Now, after
a hundred years, the mortar is in need of replacement.
Figure 37: Incompatible mortar.
In contrast, Figure 37 shows a sandstone wall about 10 years after repointing with a 1:1:6 composition mortar which is
not compatible with the stone. The sandstone is decaying because the relatively impermeable mortar is forcing
evaporation of dampness through the stones rather than the joints. As a result the stone faces are retreating due to salt
attack and the mortar now sits proud of the stones, producing the shadow lines seen here.
Compatibility 67
13.7 A range of mortar mixes

Table 10 on the next page illustrates a range of mortar mixes that are appropriate
for use in the repair of older buildings.
While these mixes may help develop specifications for repair, they are
intended as a guide only and not as a substitute for careful investigation
and analysis of the circumstances that apply to each case.
The mixes are arranged by mortar type, and the proportions are indicated as
nominal mixes. The actual mixes may vary depending on the nature of the
> See Chapter 14 ‘Workability’ binder and the sand, and importantly on the need to ensure good workability.
Where the binder is non-hydraulic lime, the table shows this as either quicklime
or lime putty. Quicklime produces excellent sticky mixes that are richer than putty
and more akin to traditional mortars. Where quicklime is not available, lime putty
is preferred to hydrated lime because of its superior working characteristics,
> See Section 5.3 ‘Lime putty and though the latter can be used if there is no practicable alternative, provided that
hydrated lime’ it is fresh and that allowance is made for the different densities of these materials.
Pozzolans are measured as a percentage of the lime content, and are shown as
fly ash, GGBFS or trass, in proportions appropriate to their hydraulic reactivity.
> See Chapter 7 ‘Pozzolanic materials’ Other pozzolans might be used, provided their reactivity is taken into account.
The proportion of sand in a mix will depend on its properties, particularly its
void ratio (see Section 9.6 ‘Void ratio and its impact on mixes’). The nominal
mixes assume well-graded sands. Poorly graded sands, or those with finer grain
sizes, will require richer mixes with less sand. Mixes richer than the nominal
ones will often be required when using lime putty or hydrated lime binders.
Porous aggregates, such as crushed porous limestone, may be used in place of
some of the sand to retain water and so improve curing, as well as improving the
> See Section 9.9 ‘Other aggregates’ breathing characteristics of the hardened mortar.
Fillers, such as ground limestone or marble, may be needed to reduce the
strength of a cement-based mortar (see Section 6.5 ‘Masonry cements’), to
enhance the hardening of lime mortars, to improve the grading and hence
workability of a sand (as in Section 9.10 ‘Mineral fillers’) or to make a mortar
suitable for narrow (3 mm) joint work (see Section 16.1 ‘Mason’s putty’).
Admixtures may be required to improve working and curing behaviour, particularly
where poorly graded sands must be used. Air-entrainers and water-retainers are
> See Section 11.1 ‘Plasticisers, air- recommended for sacrificial mortars because of the need to provide additional
entrainers, water-retainers’ pore space and because the higher proportion of sand reduces workability.
Some applications for the various mixes are shown in the table. The choice of
> See Sections 13.4 to 13.6 ‘Choosing the mix should be based on the significance of the existing mortar, on the exposure
right mix’ conditions and particularly on the need to ensure compatibility.
The circumstances may warrant the use of alternative binders and mixes such
as those shown in the table. Half the proportion of pozzolan (i.e. 5% of fly ash or
GGBFS, or 10% of trass) will be appropriate for many repointing jobs. The
workability of natural hydraulic lime (NHL) mortars can be improved by adding
10% of lime putty to the mix. Higher proportions of putty (e.g. 25%) are
recommended for NHL mixes whenever greater permeability is needed to
manage a dampness and/or salt problem. Pure lime or lime and pozzolan mixes
will provide improved permeability compared to NHLs.

Table 10: Mortar mixes arranged by type
Mortar type 1. Pure lime 2. Lime + 3. NHL 4. Cement + 5. Sacrificial 6. Narrow

pozzolan lime lime joint
Nominal mix 1:3 1:3 1:2.51 1:2:9 1:4 1:1.5
Binder Quicklime or Quicklime or NHL 2 or Cement2 + lime Quicklime or Lime putty

putty putty NHL 3.5 putty
Pozzolan 10% fly ash or ± 5% fly ash or

10% GGBFS or ± 5% GGBFS or
20% trass3 10% trass3
Sand 2–3 parts 2–3 parts 1.5–2.5 parts 7–9 parts 3–5 parts 1–1.5 parts
Porous ± Por. agg. ± Por. agg. ± Por. agg. ± Por. agg. Por. agg.
aggregate replacing replacing replacing replacing replacing
0.5 part of sand 0.5 part of sand 0.5 part of sand 0.5–1 part of sand 0.5–1 part of sand
Filler ± Finely ground ± Finely ground ± Finely ground ± Finely ground Finely ground
limestone/marble limestone/marble limestone/marble limestone/marble limestone/marble
up to 0.5 part
Admixtures ± Air-entrainer ± Air-entrainer ± Air-entrainer ± Air-entrainer Air-entrainer ± Air-entrainer

± Water-retainer ± Water-retainer ± Water-retainer ± Water-retainer Water-retainer ± Water-retainer
Applications Bedding and Bedding mortars; NHL 2 pointing & Repointing of Repointing very Repointing narrow
repointing Repointing bedding mortars; strong materials weak materials, (3 mm) joints in
weak bricks bricks and NHL 3.5 mortars originally built and/or to control ashlar stonework
and stones stones if very exposed with cement high salt levels
mortars4
Alternative Fresh hydrated Less pozzolan NHL + putty; 1:1:6 for Lime + 5% pozz. or NHL 2 + 25% putty
binders and lime, provided (e.g. half the NHL + pozzolan; bedding stronger NHL 2 + 25% putty for exposed
mixes its density is above %); Lime + pozzolan materials5; for exposed locations
allowed for NHL mixes NHL mixes locations
This table should be read in conjunction with the explanation on the preceding page and the advice in the remainder of this technical guide.
1. N
ominal mixes for NHLs (natural hydraulic limes) are richer than for pure limes because NHLs contain a proportion of inert material, and
so have less sand-carrying capacity.
2. S ection 6.7 ‘Which cement?’ discusses the types of cement that may be appropriate for use in repairs: e.g. blended, low-heat,
sulfate-resisting, or slag cements.
3. P
ozzolans are measured as a percentage of the lime content, not of the total mix; their proportion depends on their hydraulic reactivity
(Chapter 7 ‘Pozzolanic materials’).
4. C
ement + lime composition mortars should not be used for repointing lime mortar joints. Instead use pure lime, lime + pozzolan or
natural hydraulic lime mortars.
5. V
ery hard materials (such as granite) require more elastic lime mortars (such as types 2 or 3), to allow for thermal movement.
± This symbol means plus or minus, or with or without the pozzolan, porous aggregate, filler or admixture, depending on the circumstances.
Mortar mixes 69
Box 10: Mortars and Australian Standards
Developed primarily for new buildings and addressing contemporary building practices, the current Australian Standards
for masonry are AS 3700 Masonry structures and AS 4773 Masonry in small buildings. These require that cement and
building lime comply with:
• AS 3972 General purpose and blended cements
• AS 1316 Masonry cement
• AS 1672.1 Limes and limestones, Part 1: Limes for building.
AS 3700 and AS 4773 also have material requirements for sand (see Box 8), water and admixtures.
AS 3700 classifies mortars according to their proportions by volume into four classes: M1 to M4. Durability and structural
requirements are deemed to be met by mortars used in accordance with Table 11, which is extracted from AS 3700
tables 5.1 and 11.1. Note that Table 11 applies only to clay bricks and does not include mortars made from masonry cement.
Table 11: AS 3700 deemed-to-conform mortar mixes
Durability grade of Mortar class Mix proportions by volume

masonry units
Cement Lime Sand
Exposure M4 1 0 to 0.25 3
1 0.5 4.5
General purpose M3 1 1 6
Protected M2 1 2 9
M1 1 3 12
– 1 3
AS 3700 requires that ‘Class M1 mortars shall be used only putty may contain 50% more lime than the same volume
for restoration of existing buildings that have been originally of hydrated lime (and may contain at least 25% more lime
constructed using this type of mortar’. Guidance provided than a putty conforming to AS 1672.1). Differing densities
in Appendix H of the standard says, ‘Type M1 mortars (i.e. of putties and powders must be taken into account
sand–lime mortars) do not possess suitable durability when specifying and batching mortars.
properties and, therefore, cannot generally be used to
Further, Australian Standards do not mention hydraulic
construct masonry in accordance with this Standard. They
limes: specifications for works that are to include natural
are permitted to be used only in masonry being constructed
hydraulic limes should reference EN 459 Building lime
to restore existing buildings that were initially built using
(see also Box 4). Binders made from lime and pozzolan
these mortars. Special approval or certification should be
are also not covered by Australian Standards.
obtained to construct a new building using Type M1 mortars
for cases where this is deemed desirable; for example, the Because of their understandable focus on new building,
construction of a new building as part of a reconstruction AS 3700 and AS 4773 don’t adequately deal with
of a complex of period buildings.’ traditional construction with porous materials. Such
construction requires permeable mortars of low-elastic
The advice that lime mortars ‘do not possess suitable
modulus (i.e. of high elasticity) that will act sacrificially
durability properties’ is not supported by the many
and also cushion the masonry units during subsequent
Australian examples that are in excellent condition after
deformation. Lime mortars have demonstrated their
more than 150 years, nor by much older examples from
suitability and durability in such construction over
around the world.
thousands of years.
There are several other difficulties with the application of
Accordingly, while AS 3700 and AS 4773 should be used
these standards to the repair of older buildings. The
for new buildings where composition mortars are
standards assume that a given volume of lime putty
appropriate, they are not suitable for traditional lime
contains an approximately-equal volume of hydrated lime
mortar construction including maintenance and
in dry powder form. However, as explained in Section 5.4
repair work.
‘Densities of lime putties and hydrated limes’, a dense

Box 11: Mortars and the Building Code of Australia
For simple repair work, such as repointing mortar joints, However, as explained in Boxes 8 and 10, there are several
the Building Code of Australia (BCA) may not be applicable, drawbacks with these standards in relation to the use of
but it is important to be clear about its role as a limes and sands in mortars, and so a different approach is
construction standard. required.
Now part of the National Construction Code (NCC), the Performance Solutions
frequently updated BCA is a uniform set of performance-
The Performance Solution (formerly Alternative Solution)
based technical provisions for the design and construction
approach of the BCA should be adopted where lime
of buildings and other structures throughout Australia.
mortars are specified and the nature and scale of the
The BCA is given legal effect by the building legislation and
works requires compliance. A Performance Solution must
regulations of each state and territory, and it is generally
be assessed according to one or more assessment
applied to new buildings and new building work only. The
methods which include:
application of the BCA to work on an existing building is
triggered when the scale of works reaches certain (a) evidence of suitability that the use of a material or
thresholds that vary between states and territories. In form of construction meets the relevant Performance
some states and territories it may be necessary to bring Requirements
an entire building into compliance due to the extent of
(b) verification by a calculation, a test, an inspection or
construction work, for example, where an existing building
other method that determines compliance with the
is to be substantially extended. In general, when works to
relevant requirements
an existing building comprise only maintenance and
repairs (such as repointing mortar joints), the BCA does (c) expert judgement by someone who has the
not need to be considered. qualifications and experience to determine whether
the solution complies with the requirements
Performance Requirements
(d) comparison with the Deemed-to-Satisfy Provisions.
The BCA contains mandatory Performance Requirements.
Those relevant to mortars are ‘P2.1.1 Structural stability A suitable approach is likely to be method (c) expert
and resistance’, and ‘P2.2.2 Weatherproofing’. Broadly, judgement based on (a) evidence including this technical
P2.1.1 requires buildings or structures to perform guide (approved by panels of experts and published by the
adequately under reasonably expected actions (loads), to Heritage Councils or heritage agencies of the six Australian
withstand extreme or frequently repeated actions and to states) and the evidence of the successful performance of
avoid causing damage to other properties by resisting the lime mortars in existing buildings. An appropriate expert
actions – including dead and live loads, wind, rain, will be someone with at least ten years of demonstrated
groundwater, earthquake, thermal effects, time-dependent experience in the investigation, assessment, repair and
effects and ground movement – to which the buildings or conservation of traditional masonry constructed with lime
structures may reasonably be expected to be subjected. mortars.
P2.2.2 requires external walls to prevent penetration of For most cases of repointing there are no structural issues,
water that could cause (a) unhealthy or dangerous which leaves only questions of fitness for purpose and
conditions, or loss of amenity for occupants, and (b) undue durability. As noted in Box 10, the many Australian buildings
dampness or deterioration of building elements. These that are in good condition after more than 150 years provide
requirements are drawn from Volume Two of the 2019 BCA ample evidence of the fitness for purpose and durability of
(the Housing Provisions). BP1.1 and FP1.4 in Volume One lime mortars. Selection and specification of materials for
of the NCC have similar requirements. mortars (including binder type, sand and other aggregates,
Satisfying the Performance Requirements and their proportions in the mix) should be based on the
advice in this guide, as should the methods of preparing,
There are three ways of satisfying the Performance mixing, pre-wetting, applying, protecting and curing them.
Requirements: by a Deemed-to-Satisfy Solution, by a The importance of producing mortars compatible with
Performance Solution, or by a combination of both. the masonry units cannot be overemphasised.
Deemed-to-Satisfy Solutions are deemed to comply with
the Performance Requirements. Volume Two of the 2019
BCA includes under Section 3 (Acceptable construction),
parts 3.3.1 and 3.3.4 in which Performance Requirements
P2.1.1 and P2.2.2 are satisfied by design and construction in
accordance with AS 3700 Masonry structures or AS 4773
Masonry in small buildings, Parts 1 and 2.
Mortars and the BCA 71

14 Workability
The workability (or working properties) of a fresh mortar is a crucial factor in

achieving good results in all aspects of its use, whether for laying bricks,
repointing stonework or applying renders and plasters. If a tradesperson has
difficulty using a mortar because it is hard to work, the job will be slower and the
quality of the result may suffer. All the components of a mortar (binder,
aggregate and any admixtures) contribute to its workability.
Determining whether a mortar is workable Workability is not a single measurable property but a combination of several
or not is to some degree subjective: related properties, the key ones being plasticity and water retentivity. Both these
different tradespeople may rate the same will soon become apparent to a tradesperson.
mortar differently.
14.1 Plasticity
The plasticity (or ‘spreadability’) of a mortar is judged by its response to being
worked with a trowel. A laying or bedding mortar should flow well from the
trowel so that the masonry units can be laid and pushed into place. For pointing,
Consistency (the thickness or viscosity of a a stiffer, drier mix with the consistency of modelling clay is needed.
mortar) is related to its plasticity, but is
also determined by its water content. Factors contributing to plasticity include:
• the nature of the binder
• the shape and surface texture of the sand grains
• the size grading of the sand
• the proportion of binder to sand.
Due to their fine particle size and shape, lime putties that have been matured for
at least four months are the most plastic of the binders, and these were
traditionally favoured for plasters and limewashes. Then come lime putties with
shorter maturing times (weeks), followed by hydrated limes, hydraulic limes and
finally cements, which are the least plastic of all.
Rounded and sub-rounded sand grains will add to the plasticity of a mortar,
whereas angular and sub-angular (sharp) grains will detract from its plasticity.
However, the benefits of a sharp sand (see Section 9.3 ‘Surface texture and grain
shape’) are so great that other ways of improving plasticity need to be sought
and rounded sand grains should not be used when sharper alternatives are
available. Because of the range of particle sizes, a well-graded sand (see Section
9.4 ‘Size grading’) will flow better than a uniform or poorly graded sand and so
add to the plasticity of a mortar.
Plasticity can best be increased by ensuring that all the void spaces in the sand
are filled with binder. A rich mix, with more binder than required to fill the voids,
will be more plastic. A lean mix, in which there is less binder than the void ratio
> See also Chapter 25 ‘Using lean or indicates (see Section 9.6 ‘Void ratio and its impact on mixes’) will be more
sacrificial mixes’ difficult to spread.
Workable mixes are critical to achieving good bonds between mortar and
masonry units. A bedding mortar must flow readily across the unit and fully
cover the joint surfaces to ensure a good bed and bond. For repointing, where
stiffer mixes are used, successful bonding depends on tightly compacting the
new mortar so that it is forced into the surface pores and crevices of the
surrounding masonry units.
14.2 Water retentivity

The water retentivity of a mortar is judged by its response to the masonry units
during application and subsequent working. Masonry units with high suction or
initial rate of absorption (IRA), such as porous bricks and stones, tend to draw
water out of the mortar, leaving a mix that may lose its plasticity and become
stiff and difficult, and sometimes impossible, to work. Such mortars have low

water retentivity and are described as ‘hungry’ – they ‘go dead’ when laid on
porous masonry.
A mortar with good water retentivity will be cohesive: it will ‘hang together’. A
cohesive or sticky mortar will pass the ‘trowel test’, by sticking to an upturned
trowel. This is an important aspect of its workability, for as well as being plastic,
the mortar must not fall apart on being spread (or leak or bleed), leading to
stains running down the masonry as water separates out from the mix and
carries some binder with it.
Factors contributing to water retentivity include:
• the nature of the binder
• the size grading of the sand
• the proportion of binder to sand.
Due to their very fine particle size (and therefore large surface area), matured
lime putties have a strong affinity for water and are the most water-retentive of
all the binders. Hydrated limes are next, followed by the range of natural
hydraulic limes and then Portland cements, which are the least water-retentive.
Lime putties are so water-retentive there is a risk of shrinkage cracking as they
set and dry. This can be minimised by using only well-drained, mature putties.
In a similar way but on a larger scale, fine-grained sands are more water-retentive
than coarse-grained sands. Best of all are well-graded sands containing a good
range of particle sizes including fine and very fine sands (see Section 9.4 ‘Size
grading’). Worst of all are sands of a uniform grain size that lack progressively Poorly graded sands can often be
finer particles to fill the void spaces between the medium and coarser grains. In improved by adding finely ground
a sense, these poorly graded sands have holes in them, through which water can limestone or marble (see Section 9.10
be drawn too readily, leading to a ‘hungry’ (or perhaps ‘thirsty’) mortar. ‘Mineral fillers’).
Finally, there’s the proportion of binder to sand: a mortar in which the binder
does not fill all the void spaces in the sand will still have ‘holes’ in it, and so lack
sufficient water retentivity. This is another reason why it’s important to measure
the void ratio of a sand and to adjust a mix from the nominal proportions to > See Section 9.6 ‘Void ratio and its
those that suit the particular sand (e.g. from a nominal 1:3 to 1:2.5 for a sand with impact on mixes’ and Chapter 25 ‘Using
a void ratio of 40%). lean or sacrificial mixes’
The required water retentivity for a particular mortar will depend on the suction
of the masonry units. Porous masonry with a high suction or IRA (such as older
bricks and some stones), will require a mortar with high water retentivity, so the
mortar remains plastic for long enough to lay and position the masonry units.
Conversely, modern bricks with relatively low IRAs will require mortars with
lower retentivity, so that sufficient water (and binder) will be drawn into the
bricks to ensure a good bond. > See Chapter 10 ‘Water’
14.3 Achieving workability

Common practice in contemporary work with composition mortars is to achieve
workability by using clay-rich bricklaying sands, by adding more water to the mix
or by using admixtures, particularly air-entraining agents.
With mortars based on matured lime putty (or with sand-slaked quicklime mortars),
the lime will generally contribute all the plasticity and water retentivity required,
provided the sand is well graded and has a reasonable proportion of very fine,
sand-size particles. However, corrections to improve workability may be required Sands lacking very fine sand-size particles
in the following circumstances: can be improved by adding ground
limestone or marble (see Section 9.10
• to account for very sharp sand ‘Mineral fillers’).
• where the sand has a high void ratio
• because of large surface areas due to a generally fine-grained sand.
Workability 73
In such cases, the mix should be corrected by adding a small amount of

lime putty and not by adding water. This is a key point and one that should
also be applied to composition mortars. Because of its plasticity and capacity to
Make sure there’s the right amount of lime flow into pores and crevices in the masonry units, lime contributes substantially
in the mix to begin with (see Section 5.4 to the strength of the bond between the mortar and the masonry. The benefits of
‘Densities of lime putties and hydrated the improved bond produced by increasing the relative proportion of lime
limes’). (including fewer cracks between the mortar and the masonry, and hence more
weatherproof walls) will outweigh any slight reduction in compressive strength.
Circumstances where adding more lime may not be the right approach include
> See Section 9.9 ‘Other aggregates’, the need to make deliberately sacrificial mortars to control a salt problem or to
mortar type 5 (sacrificial lime) in Table make more permeable mortars to ensure drying takes place through the joints
10, Section 13.7 ‘A range of mortar rather than through the adjacent weak, porous masonry (see Section 13.5
mixes’ and Chapter 25 ‘Using lean or ‘Choosing the right mix – compatibility’). These cases may warrant the use of
sacrificial mixes’ porous aggregates (such as crushed, porous limestone).
Such cases might also justify the use of admixtures, such as air-entraining and
water-retaining agents (see Section 11.1 ‘Plasticisers, air-entrainers, water-
retainers’). Air-entraining agents contribute plasticity and cohesiveness; their
tiny bubbles make the mortar spread more readily under the trowel and reduce
the amount of mixing water needed. Water-retaining agents help to make up for
the ‘holes’ in the mix, which might otherwise lead to rapid loss of water due to
the suction of the masonry. Superplasticisers can be used to reduce the water
content while improving the workability of mixes.
However, as Section 11.1 ‘Plasticisers, air-entrainers, water-retainers’ notes, the
overuse of admixtures must be avoided at all costs. Lime mortars need to work
close to their maximum, and substantial reductions in their strength cannot be
tolerated. Excessive use of air-entraining agents will seriously reduce the bond
strengths of all types of mortar. Admixtures should not be used as alternatives to
lime in what should be composition mortars. Instead (and where appropriate)
they should be used in addition to lime. Workability should first be sought by
careful selection of well-graded sands and choice of binder. Adjustments should
then be made to the mix proportions to achieve the desired plasticity. Only then
should admixtures be considered. Deliberately sacrificial mixes are an exception:
for these admixtures will be needed to make up for the higher proportion of sand
and the consequent reductions in plasticity and water retentivity.

Box 12: Changing appearances
These photographs of the joints of a mid-nineteenth-century brick stable in Tasmania show how the same lime mortar
can exhibit very different appearances depending on the circumstances. The joints are about 10 mm wide.
Figure 38 shows the original, finished surface of a mortar joint in remarkably good condition: the very sticky mortar
produced the ridged texture of the joint surface as the trowel was pulled away. Figure 39 shows a not-quite-so-sticky
batch of mortar which left a very smooth surface, which is now weathering: the harder surface skin is being lost,
exposing white lumps of lime and fine sand grains. The light reddish-brown colour of the original surfaces is largely due
to the accumulation of windblown dust.
Figure 38: Original surface of a sticky mortar. Figure 39: Beginning to lose the surface skin.
Figure 40: Internal view after abrasion. Figure 41: Covered in lichen.
Figure 40 shows an internal view of the mortar, where abrasion has revealed the lime lumps, coarse brown grit and fine
sand of which it is made. A break during construction can be seen between the perpend and the overlying bed joint.
Figure 41 is on the weather side of the stable. The joint and the bricks are slightly eroded, and the mortar is almost
entirely covered in a grey lichen, with only a few coarse grains showing through. The yellow lichen prefers the (silicate)
chemistry of the bricks. Though slightly eroded, the joint is still in good condition and needs no repair. The rate of damage
due to the lichens is low and their removal is not warranted: cleaning them off may do more damage than doing nothing.
Changing appearances 75
15 Mortar mixing
When you slake the lime, take care to wet it everywhere a little, but do not
over-wet it, and cover with sand every laying, or bed of lime, being about a
bushel at a time as you slake it up, that so the stream, or spirit of the lime,
may be kept in, and not flee away, but mix itself with the sand, which will
make the mortar much stronger, than if you slake all your lime first, and
throw on your sand altogether at last, as some use to do.
Moxon, 1703
15.1 Traditional mixing

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, lime mortars were made directly
from quicklime and sand by sand-slaking (or dry-slaking).
The term ‘sand-slaking’ makes it clear that quicklime was slaked with the sand,
the work being undertaken on a wooden platform (or stage) which was set up
for the purpose (see Figure 51). The initial slaking used a minimum of water
(hence the alternate term ‘dry-slaking’) and produced a dry mix, which was
screened (sieved) if required. Water was then added to produce a workable
consistency and the mix heaped up (or banked) to mature for about a week.
When required, batches of mortar were cut from the heap and ‘knocked up’ to
make them workable and ready for use. In large projects, mortar mills were used
to ensure thorough mixing.
The terms ‘quicklime mortars’ and Hot lime mortars were also made by slaking quicklime with the sand, except that
‘hot-mixing’ are also used. Here, ‘sand- the mortar was used while it was still hot, particularly for filling the cores of
slaking’ and ‘hot lime mortar’ are used to thick, stone walls. The steam generated by the slaking had the effect of
distinguish between those quicklime mortars entraining air in the mortar. By raising wall temperatures a little, hot lime
that are used cold (after maturing) and mortars provided some protection against frost in colder climates.
those that are used while still hot.
Sand-slaking was used for pure (non-hydraulic) quicklimes and also for hydraulic
quicklimes, though maturing times would be reduced with increasing hydraulicity.
The heat generated by slaking initially dried the sand and ensured good contact
with the lime. Even with a relatively pure lime, there may have been some slight
hydraulic reaction with wood ash from the kiln. However, the benefits of
sand-slaking are more likely to be due to good contact between the sand and
lime, enhanced by the cleaning and slight etching of the sand grains by the hot
lime. Imperfect lime burning together with sand-slaking are the most likely
> See Box 13 ‘Lime lumps’ explanations for the lumps (knots) of lime we find in old mortars.
The lime used to be of the best kind, well The sand-slaked heap of mortar stiffened as it dried a little and would be
burnt, and free from kernels or nodules. knocked up just before use. Knocking up by hand involved chopping the mix
The lime mortar used is to be composed of with a larry or the edge of a spade or trowel, then beating it with the back of the
one part lime to three of sand, well mixed tool. This process broke down the stiffness of the mix and created additional
together and thoroughly slaked, and that plasticity. Repeated beating and chopping made the mix more workable because
for the brickwork to be passed through a it released water from the lime, and also because it entrained air in the mix, in
fine sieve. the process producing a more durable mortar.
1904 specification for South Australian
It is important to be clear that sand-slaking was a process used by masons laying
houses of brick and stone
bricks or stones, and it would not have been used for the finish coat of plasters
(the set coat). Plastering lime was made from relatively pure quicklime, which
The plasterer’s coarse stuff to be of mortar was slaked separately and allowed to mature as a putty for prolonged periods.
as above. The setting coat to be of putty This was partly to develop finer particle sizes (and hence improved workability)
and plaster. and also to ensure that there were no unslaked lime particles remaining, which if
1922 specification for an extension to a they later slaked on a wall would lead to popping or pitting of the plaster surface.
South Australian church

Box 13: Lime lumps
Figure 42: An 1840s mortar.
Sometimes described as knots, lime inclusions or as

binder-related particles, the idea of lime lumps can be
grasped from these photographs. Lumps are relatively
large particles of lime that can be found in most
Australian lime mortars up to the middle of the twentieth
century. While they appear more or less incidental to the
1920s mortar (see Figure 43), they are clearly a dominant
part of the 1840s mixes (see Figure 42 and the cover
photo). There are several explanations for their origin.
Sand-slaking (see Section 15.1 ‘Traditional mixing’) is the
most likely, with the lumps being underburnt or overburnt
particles of lime that haven’t slaked and were not
screened out of the mix. Apart from the lumps, the
mortars appear to be otherwise well mixed, indicating
that the lumps were hard enough to survive the mixing
process, which in turn tends to confirm their origin as
unslaked lime particles. Figure 43: A 1920s mortar.
Such a combination could be explained by the
incorporation of hardened, leftover material from a be one explanation for the very high lime content of
previous batch, but if this were the case we would expect these mixes, which is much higher than in ‘normal’
to find sand grains in some of the lumps: yet most appear mortars. Even discounting the lumps or knots, some of
to be free of sand. The same problem applies to a these mixes are very rich in lime. Note that despite the
hardened crust that developed on a maturing mix that rich mixes, there’s no problem with shrinkage.
was not well covered. While the crust might get mixed
Modern mortars, made with putty or powders, will not
back into the mortar and survive as lumps, we should still
reproduce such textures, though they could be created
find sand in some of the lime particles.
by leaving some putty exposed to harden before
Another theory is the last-minute addition of quicklime to combining it into a mix. Even sand-slaking will not
an existing, matured mix that was too wet to use, with the produce substantial lumps if the quicklime is in powder
aim of drying it out to a suitable consistency. This would form and the slaking is undertaken in a mixer.
Lime lumps 77
15.2 Contemporary mixing

Competition is carried on to such an extent, and we are always in such a
desperate hurry, that we cannot stop to mix the mortar properly.
Hodgson, 1907
Sand-slaking of quicklime should still be done today (see Section 19.2 ‘Mixing’)
though its use may be limited to more important projects. Soft-burnt quicklime
is preferred for its greater reactivity, and it should be slaked as soon as practicable
The ‘freshly slaked’ in some old after manufacture (i.e. freshly slaked) to retain maximum reactivity by minimising
specifications, actually meant slaked while the proportion that air-slakes and carbonates, whereupon it ceases to be a binder.
fresh rather than used straight after Rather than sand-slaking, most mortar for repairs today are likely to be mixed
slaking. A period of maturing of the mix from lime putties and from dry powders including pure and hydraulic limes,
was (and still is) beneficial, even for
pozzolans and cements.
hydraulic limes.
Making good mortars requires thorough, intimate mixing of the binder and the
sand, and this is particularly important for lime binders. Damp sands have a
minute layer of water bonded tightly around each grain; disrupting this water
layer so that the lime can bond with the sand takes considerable force. To avoid
this problem, it’s best to use dry sand.
Conventional rotary cement mixers cannot deliver the force required for
adequate mixing. However, they can be improved by adding dense, hard stones
or large-diameter steel balls (100–150 mm) to the mixer to provide a tumbling or
milling action. Lime mortars need prolonged mixing and knocking up times (of
20 minutes), compared to those commonly used for cement or composition
mortars.
Better alternative mixers are roller pan mixers, forced action (screed) mixers
and handheld, helical-bladed mixers. Roller pan mixers consist of a pair of steel
wheels rotating around a mixing pan (see Figure 44). An important feature, not
shared by all such mills, is that the height of the wheels should be adjustable so
that the aggregate is not crushed during mixing. Forced action mixers have
relatively small blades rotating around a vertical axis (see Figure 45). The small
blades deliver a high pressure in a similar way to the stiletto heel. Purpose-made,
handheld, whisk-type mixers with helical blades can also be used for mortars;
their portability makes them very convenient for small batches and for knocking
up on scaffolds.
Small batches can also be mixed by hand. The simplest method is to use the
widened end of a mattock handle to pound the mix in a bucket or tub.
Figure 44: Roller pan mixer. Looking

through the safety screen of a roller pan
mixer used for mixing and knocking up
mortars. The heavy wheels roll around the
pan and their rolling action forces lime and
sand together, overcoming the tightly
bonded water layer around each sand grain.
A key feature of the roller pan mixer is the
height-adjustable wheels which roll over the
aggregate rather than crushing it, though it
can also be used to crush stones and bricks
for addition to mixes as porous aggregates
(see Section 9.9 ‘Other aggregates’).

Alternatively, a larry (mason’s hoe) is used to combine the lime putty and sand, a
small portion at a time, in a trough. Considerable downward pressure is required
to force the putty and the sand together to ensure good contact.
While mixing times should always be sufficient to ensure thorough and uniform
combination of the ingredients, the advantages of prolonged mixing of lime
mortars cannot be overemphasised. Longer mixing times improve the
consistency and workability of the mortar. This allows the use of a lower water
content, leading to less risk of shrinkage and to stronger mixes.
Figure 45: Forced action mixer. Looking

down into the mixing pan of a forced action
(screed) mixer in which the blades rotate
about a vertical axis. The relatively small
blades force the lime and sand particles
together in a way not achieved with
conventional rotary mixers.
15.3 Off-site preparation and maturing of mixes

There are considerable advantages to preparing mortar mixes off-site including The production of premixed lime mortars
greater accuracy of batching and improved quality control of materials. If all in a range of proportions and sand types
components are dry, they can be thoroughly blended beforehand and need only should be encouraged. Premixed mortars
the addition of water on the site. overcome the need to mix and mature the
mortar at the beginning of a job.
Lime putty and sand-slaked quicklime mortars can be premixed and stored in
sealed containers to prevent them drying out and carbonating. When needed, Premixed mortars made with immature
the mix is turned out and knocked up to regain its workability, without adding putty may be too wet and contain
water. Maturing such a mix will give improved strengths and greater porosities insufficient lime. As explained in Section
as well as making the mix more workable. The benefits of maturing the mix are 5.4 ‘Densities of lime putties and hydrated
greater than those of maturing the putty separately (see Section 5.3 ‘Lime putty limes’, varying densities must always be
and hydrated lime’). Shrinkage, which may increase as a result of prolonged taken into account.
maturation, can be avoided by using minimal water.
Any hydraulic components (such as pozzolan or cement) as well as any admixtures
are added to mixes during knocking up, just before use. When adding these
components, it is important to avoid clumping of dry powders onto a wet mix,
for this will lead to an uneven mix that performs poorly. All dry materials should
first be mixed together and then run to a slurry before adding them to the wet
mix. Using the thicker liquids, drained from lime putty, as the mixing water for > See Chapter 19 ‘Batching, mixing and
the slurry will aid workability. knocking up’
Mortar mixing 79
16 Special jointing materials
16.1 Mason’s putty

Mason’s putty (or oil putty) is a mortar found in narrow-joint (3 mm) ashlar
masonry from about the 1880s to about the 1930s. It can be thought of as a cross
between lime mortar and glazing putty, and it was made by mixing lime putty,
whiting (ground chalk), linseed oil and very fine sand to a putty-like consistency.
The sand was often omitted in favour of more whiting. Mason’s putty was laid as
a bead along each edge of the bed, a wet mortar poured into the dam created by
the putty and the overlying stones laid into place. Excess putty was then
trimmed off.
Mason’s putty generally has a cream colour due to the linseed oil and a
characteristic crack pattern due to shrinkage (see Figure 46). The cracks allow
rainwater to penetrate into the masonry while the impermeable oil limits
subsequent drying.
Figure 46: Mason’s putty. It is a mixture

of lime putty, whiting, linseed oil and
sometimes very fine sand. It typically has a
cream colour, due to the oil. Shrinkage
causes a characteristic crack pattern which
allows water to penetrate into the masonry.
Drying is limited by the relatively
impermeable oil, which forces moisture
through the stones, causing the decay seen
on the right.
Decisions about repointing joints with mason’s putty will depend primarily on
compatibility. If the stones are dense materials (such as marble or granite) then
it may be appropriate to repoint with a putty that is similar to the original. On
the other hand, if the stones are porous materials (like sandstone and limestone)
then it will be better to use a mortar of lime putty and very fine sand to allow the
joints to breathe and so protect the stones. This is particularly important when
soluble salts are present in appreciable quantities or if there is a risk of water
> See Mortar type 6 (narrow joint) in percolating through the masonry. To limit shrinkage and improve permeability, a
Table 10 in Section 13.7 ‘A range of form of mason’s putty can be made with more sand, less whiting and without the
mortar mixes’ linseed oil.
Some proprietary mason’s putties incorporated asbestos fibres in their mix; if
there’s any doubt about the presence of asbestos, the putty should be analysed
before undertaking works. The same applies to lead white, which was sometimes
> See Figure 48 and Box 16 ‘Health and used to whiten the putty. Appropriate health and safety precautions must be
safety with mortars’ taken when raking out mason’s putty containing asbestos fibres or lead white.

16.2 Elastomeric sealants (mastics)
Elastomeric sealants (mastics), such as polysulfides, silicones and urethanes,
have been used in building since the 1950s. They are commonly used as sealants
between panels of relatively impermeable materials (like granite and glass) in
curtain walling applications in modern buildings.
Unfortunately, sealants have been widely used for pointing and repointing joints
in porous materials, such as sandstone and limestone. Elastomeric sealants are
impermeable and are incompatible with porous materials because they prevent
moisture from evaporating through the joints, forcing it through the adjacent
masonry (see Figure 47). Further, oils bleeding from the sealant may permanently Penetration of water-repellent materials
stain the masonry, while too-stiff a sealant or one that becomes stiff with age into the adjacent masonry can inhibit
will, over time, tear apart many stones. bonding of later repointing mortars.
Elastomeric sealants should never be used for normal pointing of porous

masonry. They may have a role, but only in special circumstances, such as
sealing movement joints to prevent water entry.
Figure 47: Inappropriate use of

elastomeric sealant. Pointing the joints
with an impermeable sealant has forced
moisture to dry through the porous stones
(rather than through the joints), resulting in
salt attack decay to the sandstone. The
damaged stones have been repaired with an
equally impermeable patching material,
forcing decay further through the sandstone.
Figure 48: Old mastic sealant. The

deteriorating sealant has pulled away from
the adjacent stones, allowing water to enter
the structure. Weathering of the sealant has
exposed fibrous material which may be
asbestos. Safety precautions must be taken
when removing such materials (see Box 16
‘Health and safety with mortars’). The
bright yellow patches are lichens.
Special jointing materials 81

17 Investigation and analysis of mortars
For many years, laboratory investigations of mortar have been undertaken with
traditional, wet chemical analyses. While these still have a role, they are best
used in combination with microscopic techniques, which are increasingly the
preferred tool because of their capacity to tell so much more about the
chemistry and physical structure of the mortar.
The following sections explain the wide range of techniques available and the
circumstances in which they might be used. But first, it is important to be clear
about the purpose of testing and about the nature of the test results. Some tests
Some tests report their results in volume are qualitative: they identify what components are present, but not their amount.
proportions, while others report their Some tests are quantitative: they identify how much of a particular material is
results on a weight basis (see note to present, while others are semi-quantitative: they produce approximate results,
Table 12). which can be sufficient for many purposes.
17.1 Being clear about the purpose

The reasons for analysing mortars include:
• understanding heritage significance including understanding whether the
mortars themselves are of historic or technological value, clarifying the
construction history to understand the broader significance of the building
and archival recording and documentation
• understanding decay mechanisms (such as salt attack) so they can be taken
into account when designing repairs
• providing a basis for designing repair mixes for repointing or reconstructing
masonry: these commonly require mortars that match the existing in colour,
texture and other properties
• compliance testing of repairs or new work, to ensure they meet specifications
and performance criteria.
It is important to be clear about the purpose and need for the proposed testing.
Which one (or more) of the reasons above is driving the investigation? Does it
need a battery of tests, producing precise quantitative results, or will one or two
tests with semi-quantitative results be sufficient? Are the age, significance and
materials of the building such that visual examination with a hand lens will be
enough to design a repair mix? Visual examination with a hand lens might do if
it’s a simple building with a pure lime mortar made with a commonly available
sand. Table 12 shows how investigative and analytical techniques might vary
depending on the purpose of the testing.
17.2 Mapping and sampling the walls

If a building has a complex history with a series of stages and a range of decay
mechanisms, it will be necessary to closely survey the walls to understand their
history and to map the patterns of decay. While mapping alone may provide a
good understanding of the decay mechanisms, laboratory tests may be warranted
for confirmation and to guide repairs. If a mortar is to be tested to understand
why it is decaying, then it’s important to also collect samples that are not
decayed, for comparison purposes.
Irrespective of the purpose, it is essential that samples (whether collected or just
examined in situ) are representative of the stage of the building and the location
within it. Some building elements (such as parapets and chimneys) may have
different mixes because of different exposure conditions. Multiple phases of
alterations and repairs can create a confusing picture, which may only be
clarified by careful observation and recording. The number of samples collected
should be sufficient to represent each variant that is to be tested.

The type of sample required will depend on the purpose. If the mortar is Limitations on sample size may restrict the
decaying due to salt attack and you need to understand the nature and amount ability to undertake particular tests.
of salts present, then powdered samples (collected as cuttings by drilling holes)
can suffice. However, if the aim is a more comprehensive analysis of the mortar
components and its pore structure, then intact sections of mortar 50–100 mm in
length will be required. The relatively small size of many joints and the shallow
depth of much original pointing makes successful sampling very difficult,
particularly as samples should be disturbed as little as possible. Very fine, sharp
chisels, small, craft-scale cutting wheels and oscillating-blade cutting tools may
be needed (see Figure 65).
Table 12: Investigative and analytical techniques for mortars
Technique Purpose
Understanding Understanding Providing a basis Compliance

significance decay for repair testing
Mapping and sampling ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆
Visual analysis, photography ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆
Stereomicroscopy ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆
Acid digestion & analysis of

◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆
aggregates
Thin section microscopy ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆ ◆◆
X-ray diffraction (XRD) ◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆
SEM/EDX ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Wet chemical techniques ◆ ◆◆ ◆◆
Salt testing by TDS and/or ion

◆◆ ◆
chromatography or ICPOES & UV-VIS
Thermal analysis ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
FTIR spectroscopy ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆
Mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) ◆ ◆ ◆
The table shows how investigative and analytical techniques for mortars may vary depending on the purpose.
◆◆ indicates techniques that are most likely to provide useful information.
◆ indicates techniques that may be useful.
This is not meant to preclude the use of any particular technique including some not explained in this guide.
Note that visual methods (visual analysis, photography and microscopy) report their results on a volume basis, while chemical methods
(acid digestion, wet chemical, TDS, ion chromatography and others) report their results on a weight basis. The latter can then be converted
to volumes by using densities, but assumptions on densities should always be checked.
Investigation and analysis of mortars 83

17.3 Visual analysis, photography, stereomicroscopy

Visual analysis by an experienced person using a magnifier (hand lens or loupe
in the range 6x–12x magnification) can be an effective way of investigating
mortars. Some magnifiers in this range are available with built-in illumination,
which can be an advantage in low light. Simple loupes (shown in Figure 49) are
an alternative, as the clear plastic base allows daylight to reach the subject.
Figure 49: A simple loupe. A simple loupe

of 6x–10x magnification is an ideal first tool
for investigating mortars. The clear plastic
base allows light onto the subject, but it does
limit their use to relatively planar surfaces:
mortar in a deeply eroded joint will not be
in focus. Higher magnifications on fixed
bases are not recommended unless they
have adjustable focusing.
Figure 27 was taken through a 25x magnifier More powerful magnifiers in the range 15x–25x can be useful tools, particularly those
using a moderately priced 12-megapixel that incorporate a scale bar as that enables measurement of sand grain sizes, while
compact digital camera. The sands in the magnification is sufficient to observe key features of the mortar. The benefits
Figure 19 were photographed using a of magnifications higher than about 25x are offset by the unavoidably shallow
20-megapixel compact digital camera. depth of field – the distance between the nearest and furthest objects in focus.
Only the central 10% of each image is
shown in the figure. Compact digital cameras with good macro capabilities can produce images that
are adequate for most purposes. Close-up attachments for smart phone cameras
have potential. Very high magnifications can be obtained with handheld digital
microscopes connected directly to a computer. What they lack in image quality
– having a shallow depth of field and often low resolution – they make up for in
modest price and high magnification.
A crude scratch test has been used to try to distinguish lime mortars from
mortars containing cement, the theory being that a lime mortar will be readily
scratched whereas a cement-based mortar should not be. Tools range from a
pocketknife or screwdriver to a car key. This test is not appropriate: there are too
many variables that can affect the result. A well-made and well-cured lime
mortar can be difficult to scratch, while a cement mortar will be readily
scratched if it has insufficient cement, contains too much clay or was poorly
cured. A more sophisticated scratch test using a specially designed tool forms a
basis for classifying composition mortars in AS 3700.
Physical samples for testing should first be inspected in the laboratory using a
stereomicroscope, a binocular microscope that gives a relatively low
magnification view of the sample. This can provide useful information about the
components, texture and pore structure of the mortar. Stereomicroscopes can
magnify up to about 100 times and should be used as the first stage of more
advanced microscopy (see Section 17.5).

At this stage, another test using phenolphthalein can be performed.
Phenolphthalein is an indicator solution that (like litmus) changes colour
depending on the acidity or alkalinity (pH) of the solution. It is colourless at
acid and neutral pHs, pale pink at 9.3 and turns a strong pink above a pH of 10.0. pH is a measure of the acidity or alkalinity
The significance of these figures is that fresh limes (e.g. putty) have a pH of over of a solution and ranges from zero –
12, whereas carbonated lime (calcium carbonate) has a pH of 9. If adding a few strongly acidic – through 7 – neutral – to
drops of phenolphthalein to a lime mortar produces a strong pink colour, we 14 – strongly alkaline.
know that some of the lime remains uncarbonated, making it a simple test for
checking the extent of hardening of the lime. Note that the absence of a strong
colour does not fully prove that carbonation is complete, because there may be
thin shells of cured lime forming a relatively impermeable layer around still
uncarbonated material.
17.4 Acid digestion and analysis of aggregates

A common test for relatively pure lime mortars is acid digestion – dissolving a
lightly ground and weighed sample in a 10% hydrochloric acid solution. Pure
lime rapidly dissolves, leaving the sand, which is captured by washing the residue
in a filter funnel and then dried and weighed to determine the proportion of
sand in the mortar mix (and by subtraction, the weight proportion of the lime).
The sand can then be examined with a hand lens or stereomicroscope for its
surface texture and grain shape. If the sample is large enough, it can be screened > See Section 9.3 ‘Surface texture and
through a series of sieves to establish its size grading. Care must be taken not to grain shape’, Section 9.4 ‘Size grading’
over-crush the sample before digestion or the size grading of the sand will be and Section 9.6 ‘Void ratio and its
affected. The void ratio of the sand can also be measured. impact on mixes’
A pitfall with this method is that any carbonate mineral that is part of the
aggregate (such as limestone, marble or shells) will also be dissolved by the acid,
leaving no trace and giving a misleading impression of the proportions of
aggregate and binder in the mortar. The large lumps of lime commonly found in
many early mortars (see Box 13 ‘Lime lumps’) are also readily dissolved by acids.
Such mortars are best characterised by thin-section microscopy (see Section
17.5). An experienced person should be able to identify carbonate minerals in the
aggregate when examining the sample with a stereomicroscope, though finely
ground limestone (included as a filler) would not be identified this way.
17.5 Thin-section (polarised light) microscopy

This is probably the most powerful tool for the scientific investigation and
analysis of old mortars. Microscopic examination of thin sections of material
using polarised light comes from the branch of geological science known as
petrography. Most geological materials including stones used in building are
translucent when ground very thin: they allow light to pass through them. All
minerals have characteristic crystalline structures which refract (bend) polarised
light in particular ways, enabling their accurate identification. This applies
equally to mortars, plasters, renders and concretes.
Using thin-section examination, the type of aggregate and the binder can be
identified, as well as the presence and nature of pozzolans. Point-counting
techniques enable the semi-quantitative assessment of proportions. Importantly,
thin-section examination enables the pore structure and texture – the fabric – of
the material to be observed (see Figure 50). Pore sizes can be measured and
assessments made of permeability. Shrinkage cracks and potential problems
(such as the development of secondary minerals) can be observed. The ideal
sample size is about 50 mm by 25 mm, but useful information can be obtained
from smaller pieces.

Figure 50: Thin-section photomicrograph.

This is a view down a microscope looking at
a thin section of a mortar made with a slaked
oyster-shell lime and a quartz-rich sand. The
light grey particles are quartz grains and are
dominant in this view; the fine-grained
brown-coloured material is the lime binder.
The pale blue-coloured areas are a dyed
resin that is used to encapsulate the mortar
so that it can be ground thinly. The blue
dye highlights the void or pore space and
any cracks in the mortar, which in this
sample make up approximately 20% of its
volume. There are small shrinkage features
and larger channel ways through the lime
which make an important contribution to
the permeability of the mortar. The field of
view is 1 mm. A small air bubble entrapped
within the resin is seen at top centre. Mix
proportions for this mortar were estimated
to be 1:2 lime putty to sand.
Photomicrograph and analysis: William Revie.
17.6 XRD and SEM/EDX

These acronyms are shorthand for several useful mineralogical techniques. X-ray
diffraction (XRD) measures the way that different crystals refract a beam of
X-rays. As each crystal is unique, the constituent minerals can be identified
including any hydraulic components that may be present in a mortar. When
coupled to data-processing software (such as Rietveld Refinement), the degree
of hydraulicity can be assessed semi-quantitatively. Small, powdered samples are
tested, and so the technique can also be used to identify the nature of a
particular salt that is crystallising on masonry.
Scanning Electron Microscopes (SEMs) enable very high magnification of solid
specimens, allowing close-up views of the shape and surfaces of individual
particles and crystals (such as those in limes and cements). When fitted with
Energy Dispersive X-ray devices (EDX, sometimes EDS), the individual elements
present can be analysed. SEMs are very expensive and are mostly tools for
scientific researchers, but they may be useful in resolving particularly difficult
conservation questions.
17.7 Wet chemical analysis

Wet chemical analysis is a common method for analysing mortar composition,
particularly in compliance testing of new work. It involves several stages of
digestion in progressively stronger acids, the aim being to separate the more
soluble calcium carbonate (as in Section 17.4 ‘Acid digestion’) from the less
AS 2701 sets out the laboratory procedure soluble silica (the hydraulic component) and that in turn from the insoluble
for wet chemical analysis. aggregate. Assumptions about composition are then used to calculate weight
proportions of lime, Portland cement and aggregate. These are converted to
volumetric proportions using standard densities.
The method relies on there being no carbonate material in the aggregate and on
the assumptions made about chemical composition of the components.
Importantly, wet chemical analysis cannot distinguish between Portland cement
and hydraulic lime. Only mineralogical techniques (such as polarised light
ASTM C1324 sets out an analytical microscopy and XRD) can make that distinction. Wet chemical analysis does
procedure that combines wet chemical have a role in fully characterising a mortar, but it should preferably be used after
analysis with polarised light microscopy. mineralogical techniques have first identified the constituent parts.

17.8 Testing for salts
Salt attack in association with rising or falling damp is a common cause of mortar
loss from masonry. Knowing how much salt is left in a wall can be an essential
step in resolving the problem, and there are several analytical techniques that There is much more information about salt
can help. attack in the technical guide Salt attack
and rising damp: a guide to salt damp in
One is ion chromatography, in which known amounts of drill cuttings or surface historic and older buildings, which is
scrapings are dissolved in water and analysed for the principal anions (chloride, published in the same series as this guide.
nitrate and sulfate) and cations (sodium, potassium, magnesium and calcium) that
make up the common soluble salts. The quantitative results are then recombined
by an experienced person to give an impression of the likely mix of salts.
Another technique is a combination of inductively coupled plasma optical
emission spectrometry (ICPOES) and ultraviolet–visible spectroscopy (UV-VIS).
Like ion chromatography, these techniques measure the amounts of the principal
anions and cations in a solution of the sample.
A simpler, cheaper alternative is the determination of the total soluble salt
content (TSS or often TDS – total dissolved solids) by measuring the electrical
conductivity of a solution of the soluble component of the mortar. Though not A rule of thumb is that total soluble salt
as accurate as ion chromatography or ICPOES & UV-VIS, TDS analyses are often contents greater than 0.5% by weight of
adequate for our purposes. TDS analyses cannot determine which salts are the mortar may warrant remedial action.
present, only the total quantity.
An investigation of a salt problem might include submitting samples for several
tests: a few samples for ion chromatography or ICPOES & UV-VIS – to establish
the type – and others for TDS – to determine the amount and extent of salt
contamination.
There may be circumstances where determining which particular salt is present
will help diagnose an unusual decay problem. XRD (see Section 17.6) is the
appropriate tool in these cases.
17.9 Other tests

Thermal analysis studies changes in material properties with changes in
temperature. Knowing the temperature at which various calcium compounds
decompose, the technique can be used to determine which binders are present
in mortars.
Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) is commonly used to analyse
organic compounds (such as paints and coatings), but has application to
mortars, particularly for investigating bonding agents or consolidants that may
have been used in the mix.
Mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) is a technique in which mercury is injected
into the pore structure of a material. MIP can provide quantitative data about
total porosity and distribution of pore sizes, complementing observations made
with polarised light microscopy.
17.10 Getting useful test results

Getting useful results from laboratory testing depends on two things:
• finding an experienced analyst
• being an informed client.
It is essential to find a materials analyst with experience in the field of historic
building materials and their repair and conservation and ideally with specific
experience analysing historic mortars. There will be laboratories that can do a
particular test according to a standard procedure, but without experience in this
specialised field they may be unable to interpret the results in a meaningful way.
The best working arrangement is to involve the analyst in the early stages of a
project, so they can help select test methods and advise about appropriate
sample sizes. Where possible, the analyst should also be involved in the actual

sampling so they can better understand the nature of the task. Few laboratories
will have the resources to undertake the wide range of analytical techniques
discussed; many will subcontract out some tests to other laboratories. While
there are advantages in one laboratory conducting all the tests, the most
important issue is the experience of the lead analyst.
The more informed the client is, the better the outcome. Most laboratory
investigations work best when you already know something about the samples,
whether the information came from documentary evidence or from detailed
mapping of walls and recording of decay patterns. This gives the laboratory a
head start and enables it to suggest the most appropriate techniques. There’s
also the need for flexibility, to allow for changes to analytical techniques should
there be new discoveries.
17.11 Using the test results

Test results are just that – test results. They provide a snapshot of parts of the
building in its present condition. While they may help us understand what the
building was built with, and why it’s in its present condition, they are not a
recipe for repair. Instead, they should form part of the evidence on which a
repair specification is to be based. Some examples should make this clear.
A series of analyses might show the average mortar mix in a particular building
was 1:2.8 lime to sand. It would be wrong to expect a repair mix to have identical
proportions, for even slight variations in the types of lime and sand from the
originals will mean changes to the mix; and as previously noted the currently
available materials can be very different from those used originally. The repair
mix should be specified as approximately 1:3 lime to sand, with the final
> See Chapter 4 ‘Mortars in Australia adjustment left to the mason and based on the need to achieve workability. And
– then and now’ and Section 13.1 that assumes there are no compatibility reasons to change the mix from the
‘Traditional mixes’ original, as the next example shows.
Mortars in an 1880s sandstone building are found to have an early Portland
cement binder in proportions 1:3 cement to sand, even though the specification
called for a mix of 1:2. Neither of these mixes would be appropriate today: as
explained in Section 6.3 ‘Portland cement through time’, Portland cement has
changed significantly since the 1880s and its use in those proportions would be
incompatible with the masonry. The use of any cement may be inappropriate,
> See Sections 13.4 to 13.6 ‘Choosing the and instead it may be best to use a lime + pozzolan or a natural hydraulic lime
right mix’ binder to replicate the physical properties of the original mortar.

PART 3
Repointing mortar joints

This is the ‘how to do it’ part of the guide, and it is specifically about repointing work. The first
chapter covers the decisions that need to be made – when to repoint and with what – and is
followed by chapters about each stage of the process. While the guide aims to explain each stage
clearly, there is no substitute for appropriate training and meaningful practical experience.
Figure 51: Medieval masons at work. Detail of an illuminated manuscript depicting the construction of a church in France, 1448. The labourer
at the bottom right is knocking up some lime mortar with a larry (or mason’s hoe), having cut it off as a slice from the maturing heap of banked
mortar. This practice, including the kerbed, wooden platform (or stage) on which the mortar was mixed, was still in use in Australia in the late
nineteenth century (see Section 15.1 ‘Traditional mixing’). Chronique de Girart de Roussillon. Codex 2549, folio 164, Austrian National Library,
Vienna.
Image: New York Public Library/Science Source.

Repointing mortar joints 89
PART 3 Repointing mortar joints
18 Repointing – key decisions
18.1 Principles of repointing

The principles of repointing can be summarised as:
• repoint only when necessary – keep original mortar where it is sound
• match previous mortars – often the original will be the most important
• ensure compatibility – which may mean different materials and mixes
• match previous profiles – which may now mean an aged appearance.
These principles are explained in the next sections and are followed by a
discussion of the often difficult decisions of just how much to repoint – whether
to patch a small area or to repoint a whole wall.
18.2 When to repoint?

Avoid unnecessary repointing – slightly eroded mortar joints should be left
alone. A useful rule of thumb is that repointing should be undertaken once the
mortar is eroded to a depth greater than the width of the joints.
Builders and tradespeople will often be Figure 52 illustrates examples of repointing decisions. Repointing should
surprised by the relative softness of some definitely be undertaken if the existing mortar is eroded to the point where it
lime mortars compared to the cement risks structural failure or if it is badly cracked and letting water into the walls.
mortars they’re more familiar with. Soft Repointing should also be undertaken where a previous phase of repointing has
mortars are not a fault. Unless the joints introduced an inappropriately hard and impervious mortar, which is causing
are deeply eroded or cracked, they should
damage to the masonry units (see Box 6 ‘Problems with cement-based mortars’
be left alone.
and Box 9 ‘Compatibility’). Each case needs to be judged on its merits. Not every
case of poor previous repointing will warrant replacement: some may be best left
alone if in protected areas and not causing damage.
Figure 52: When to repoint. A useful rule

of thumb is to repoint when the mortar is
eroded to a depth greater than the joint
width, as in the middle example. Cracked
joints, like the example on the right, will
allow water into the wall and should always
be repointed.
Commonly, repointing will be required in response to mortar loss caused by

dampness (such as rising or falling damp) with decay due to the action of soluble
There is more information about salts and salts (see Figures 8, 54 and 75). In such situations, the source of the dampness
dampness in the technical guide Salt attack needs to be addressed as well as replacing the lost mortar. Salt loads on the
and rising damp: a guide to salt damp in masonry may need to be reduced, and the replacement mortar may need to be
historic and older buildings, which is made deliberately sacrificial to manage any residual salts that are deep in the
another guide in this series. wall and which will take time to reach the surface.

18.3 Matching previous mortars
A common requirement for a repointing mortar is that it should match the original.
This is particularly important for buildings of heritage value (see Section 13.4
‘Choosing the right mix – significance’). The aim should be to put it back the way
it was. Ideally, this means matching:
• the binder: if the original was lime, then use lime
• the sand: for colour, grain size, grain shape and grading
• the proportions of binder to sand. > See Chapter 5 ‘Limes’ and Chapter 9
‘Sands and other aggregates’
Perfect matching is often impossible: the limes and cements available today are
different from those of the nineteenth century, the original sand source may not
be accessible and copying the original mix proportions may not produce a
suitable mortar using today’s materials. Further, as explained in the next section,
the original mix may need to be modified to ensure compatibility with the
surrounding masonry. Compromises will be necessary, but the aim should still
be to match as closely as reasonably possible.
The general appearance of an old mortar is due to its colour, texture and the
extent of weathering. Matching each of these can be quite difficult, and it is
important to deal with them separately. If the masonry is also to be cleaned,
repointing should be undertaken after the cleaning, so that colour matching and
the extent of repairs can be better judged. Colour matching should always be to
the fresh (or internal) colour of a mortar, not to that of its aged appearance,
which may have a lot to do with dark-grey grime in polluted atmospheres, to
windblown dust giving yellow or reddish-brown hues or to lichens and other
micro-organisms adding a grey tinge. > See Box 12 ‘Changing appearances’
The colour of traditional limes was often an off-white or cream, whereas modern
(pure) limes are bright white and may need toning down with a small amount of
pigment to match the colours of the earlier materials. This can be achieved with
about 1/100 part of pigment (i.e. 1% of the lime). Suitable pigments may include
raw umber and yellow: try a 75:25 mix to begin with. Many other pigments are
available; always use natural earths or alkali-stable synthetic oxides (such as are > See Section 12.1 ‘Matching colours of
used with cement). Organic dyes should never be used, as they fade with time. existing mortars’
Sample biscuits
Small, biscuit-sized samples should be made for colour and texture matching.
They can be easily prepared by using metal poached egg rings or slices of PVC
pipe to hold the samples, which should be set on a plywood base to absorb some
of the moisture from the mortar. The samples should be cured properly by
keeping them damp for several days before allowing them to dry out slowly.
Rapid drying of an improperly cured mix will not give accurate results.
Make three specimens of each mix:
• one as a reference and backup
• one to snap in half to see the fresh inside appearance
• one to keep as a damp sample, also snapped in half.
Only the broken faces should be used for comparison, as they show the true
colour of the mortar as well as the texture imparted by the sand grains. After
thorough curing, the third sample can be kept damp for the duration of the
project to aid colour matching of new batches of mortar.
Repointing – key decisions 91

Figure 53: Nonmatching mortar. The

new brickwork on the right uses a strong
yellow sand, which does not match the
original mortar on the left.
Matching an aged appearance

Attempts to match the aged appearance of older mortars have seen the common
but incorrect use of strongly coloured sands, particularly yellow sands which are
not at all like the original (see Figure 53). Instead, matching an aged appearance
can be achieved by:
• tamping the surface to expose the colour and texture of the sand
• applying a light surface colouring, such as cold tea or copperas
• allowing the new mortar to age naturally over time.
As well as producing an aged appearance, tamping has other advantages which
are explained in Chapter 23 ‘Finishing joints’. A light surface colouring can be
applied several ways: a wash with cold, black tea was a common treatment.
> See Section 12.1 ‘Matching colours of Another was green copperas (iron sulfate) which was traditionally used in yellow
existing mortars’ colourwashes and limewashes on renders and stuccoes. It is readily available
today as a garden fertiliser (sulfate of iron) which can be used to tone down
bright mortars as follows:
• dissolve the pale-green or grey crystals in hot water at a rate of 0.5% (5 g/L)
• brush or spray on a very light coating
• wait for an hour for it to fully colour up before deciding whether further
coats are needed
• don’t overdo it – less is usually more in these cases.
Multiple thin coats are best, as gaps and overlaps can be dealt with. Spraying
risks run-downs and colour streaks where there are uneven absorbencies, such
as with glazed headers in brickwork.
The colouring action of copperas will be strongest with fresh mortar and weaken
as the mortar ages. Colouring should be applied (after tamping) during the first
week of curing (see Section 24.2 ‘Curing procedure’).
Soft earth mortars are liable to rapidly Many early buildings, particularly those with thick stone walls, were constructed
erode if sprayed with water during raking with relatively weak bedding mortars, often of earth in which clay was the
out and pre-wetting. After raking out, principal binder. These walls were protected with a more durable pointing of
consolidate with multiple light sprays of lime and sand. Today, we may be faced with the loss of the pointing and the
limewater. subsequent rapid erosion of the weaker bedding mortar. Given the risk of
shrinkage of earth mortars, the appropriate response may be deep repointing (in
stages) with an earth mortar, stabilised with quicklime. The wall is then pointed
to match the original.

Occasionally, a building may be more important for a later period, perhaps when
it was extended substantially and the original pointing style and other details were
changed to match that of the new. If this is the case, it would be wrong to return
the existing pointing back to its original state. Decisions about which is more
significant should be made as part of the Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter process.
18.4 Ensuring compatibility

While our initial aim is to match an original mortar, a key requirement is that the
new mortar should not damage the existing masonry: instead, it should be
compatible with it. This means that we may need to change the components and > See Section 13.5 ‘Choosing the right mix
mix proportions, as the following examples show. – compatibility’
Figure 54: Salt attack decay of mortar

and low-fired bricks. A 1:3 pure lime
mortar might not be permeable enough for
these bricks, so instead we should consider
a sacrificial mix containing crushed
limestone (to add porosity) and possibly
admixtures to entrain air and retain water
during the initial stiffening. Depending on
the void ratio of the sand, the proportions
of lime putty to sand might be around 1:3.5.
A weaker mix may be appropriate for a
more protected location (e.g. a cellar). The
condition of the bricks suggests that other
works may be needed, including removal of
salts, though the sacrificial mortar will
contribute to this by encouraging the wall
to dry out through the joints rather than
through the bricks. See Mortar type 5
(sacrificial lime) in Table 10 in Section 13.7 ‘A
range of mortar mixes’; see also Chapter 25
‘Using lean or sacrificial mixes’.
Cement-based mortars: When repairing cement-based mortars, we must recognise

that modern cement is much stronger than that used in older buildings (see
Section 6.3 ‘Portland cement through time’) and so we may need to design a mix
containing much less Portland cement than before, and replace the rest with lime.
Alternatively, we may replace it entirely, and instead use ground slag (GGBFS) in > See Mortar type 3 (NHL) and type 4
composition with lime, or use one of the stronger natural hydraulic limes (NHLs). (cement + lime) in Table 10 in Section
These alternatives provide improved workability and greater elasticity and 13.7 ‘A range of mortar mixes’
permeability.
Mason’s putty: Water penetration through porous stonework may have weathered
the masonry to such an extent that repointing the joints with a relatively
impermeable mason’s putty would increase the rate of decay. This is because it
would force all the drying of the wall to occur through the stone, rather than
through the joints. In this situation, an appropriate repair mortar would omit the > See Section 16.1 Mason’s putty, Mortar
linseed oil and some of the whiting from the mason’s putty, while adding some type 6 (Narrow joint) in Table 10 in
fine sand, all with the aim of achieving a permeable (breathable) mix. Section 13.7 ‘A range of mortar mixes’
18.5 Matching joint profiles

In principle, the profile of the new pointing should match the original, or the more
significant if it’s not original. Determining what the original was can be difficult,
especially where there has been subsequent repointing. Clues to the original may
remain on a building, hidden behind downpipes or tucked away in protected
areas, such as high-up under overhangs or verandahs. Careful, close examination
is required. Sometimes, the answer can be found on neighbouring buildings
constructed at the same time and in a similar style. Where there is no evidence
of the original profile, a plain, flush finish should be used, so as not to invent a
more elaborate detail that the building may never have had. Figure 56 in Box 14
shows some of the joint profiles commonly found on Australian buildings.
Repointing – key decisions 93
The question can arise: should an aged or weathered appearance be matched, or

should the original profile be reproduced? To some extent, the answer will be
> See Section 18.6 ‘Small patches or large related to the scale of the repairs: if it’s just a small patch, it should be matched
areas?’ to the surrounding, aged appearance; if it’s a complete elevation, there is an
opportunity to put the original form back. Here, the significance of the building
should guide decisions. If the form is important, then reproducing the original
profile will be desirable. If age is a key component of its significance, a time-
worn appearance (or at least a not-new appearance) may be appropriate.
In turn, the picture is complicated by the need to ensure compatibility. This may
mean having an open-textured (worn) look to the joint surfaces, to gain
> See Section 18.4 ‘Ensuring compatibility’ maximum surface area and permeability to enhance the drying behaviour of the
and Section 13.5 ‘Choosing the right mix wall. Tamping joints to improve their drying behaviour (and curing) is explained
– compatibility’ in Section 23 ‘Finishing joints’.
Where the weather has eroded the arrises (edges) of stones to a more rounded
profile, there is a case for slightly recessing the joints, as shown in Figure 55. This
way, the width of the joint is maintained as it was intended, whereas finishing it
to the original wall line would show very wide joints and substantially change the
appearance of the wall. But don’t overdo it: the recessing should be slight.
Figure 55: Slightly recessing a joint.

At left, the joint is slightly recessed to allow
for the rounded arrises. Finishing the joint
flush in line with the wall face (at right) will
produce apparent joint widths much larger
than intended, dramatically changing the
appearance of the wall. Also, the feathered
edges of the joints will fail, allowing water to
enter the masonry.
18.6 Small patches or larger areas?

How extensive should the repointing be? The issue here is the visual effect of the
repointing. If not done very carefully, a series of small patches across a wall may
be rather unsightly. For the sake of a uniform appearance, it may be better to
repoint a larger area, perhaps a complete wall. Here we may need to compromise
between the heritage ideal of only doing as much as necessary and the client’s
response to what may be a less-than-ideal visual result.
Accurate matching of existing joints is not always easy: it requires skill, patience
and sometimes many trials of mixes and finishing techniques. Because of the
time required, some suggest that the cost of a series of patches could be greater
than the cost of repointing a complete wall. However, apparent cost differences
may diminish when the full costs of the job, including thorough curing, are taken
> See Chapter 24 ‘Protection and curing’ into account.
Where there is considerable heritage value in the existing mortars, careful
Where the job is a total repoint, it is good patching will be the appropriate aim and any extra cost well justified. Where
practice to leave a representative area – there is less significance in the existing joints, it may be acceptable to repoint
say a square metre – of the original larger areas but still with the aim of matching the colour, texture and profile of
pointing, in a discreet location. the joints in the rest of the building.

Box 14: Joint profiles
Figure 56: Common Australian joint profiles.
These are some of the more common Australian joint profiles. The first five are traditional profiles, while the last three
are from the second half of the twentieth century. While the weather-struck profile may be more sound (in terms of
water shedding) than overhand struck, it is not a traditional Australian profile and should not be applied to older
buildings. Neither should the ironed nor recessed joint profiles. The recessed profile is not suitable for use with porous
brick or stone, as it will promote water entry. Where bedding mortars were pointed (or stopped in the case of tuck
pointing), the depth of the pointing or stopping was typically only 2–6 mm. When repointing, joints should be raked out
to a depth of at least 2.5 times the joint width (i.e. 25 mm for 10 mm joints) to ensure good bonding with the masonry
units (see Chapter 20 ‘Raking and cutting out joints’).
Joint profiles 95
Extending the area to be repointed to meet architectural details (such as string

courses and sill lines and to re-entrant angles) may be an appropriate way of
minimising the visual impact of the repairs. Keep in mind that the new repairs
will weather-in and become less apparent with time.
Several examples of matching existing (aged) joints need discussion in this
context. Carbon or vegetable blacks have often been leached out of pointing or
stopping mortars: this has left what once may have been a very dark colour faded
to a mid-grey (see Figure 57) or a pale-red (see Figure 30). Patch repointing
would mean matching the faded colour, whereas for a whole wall or building
reinstating the original, darker colour may be the correct approach.
White or black pencilling may have eroded from the ruled joints across much of
a wall face, only a section of which needs repointing. Finishing the repaired
joints by ruling the lines but not pencilling (painting) them, and then tamping to
> See Chapter 23 ‘Finishing joints’ produce an aged appearance, may be the right response.
Figure 57: Matching an aged mortar.

Loss of the joint surface (due to abrasion)
exposes how the pointing mortar has been
darkened with charcoal, coal ashes, coke
breeze or lampblack (or a combination of
these) to tone-in with the darker bluestone.
Leaching of the finest particles (lampblack)
has produced a faded grey colour at the
surface, which is also coloured by red,
windblown dust. Off-white bedding mortar
is exposed at the extreme left. Patch
repointing would mean matching the faded
grey and then adding a little red dust!

Box 15: Respecting traditional practice
Traditional practice commonly saw the use of more highly finished front walls, with a simpler finish used on side and
rear walls. This practice should be respected when undertaking repairs: don’t change the pointing styles to make them
‘better’ – match what was there originally.
Figures 58 (left) and 59 (right): Traditional practice.
Figures 58, 59 and 60 are examples of traditional practice. Figure 58 shows South Australian bluestone that has been
squared for the front walls, with smaller pieces used as rubble in the side walls. The pointing follows the same hierarchy:
ruled and pencilled on the front walls, with a plain, flush finish on the side walls. Similar detailing is seen around Australia
on walls of sandstone, limestone and bluestone. Figures 59 and 60 show flush-finished lime pointing to rubble bluestone
on the side wall of a house. This original pointing is almost 150 years old and is in good condition, though it is beginning
to retreat from the stones and will eventually require replacement. Figure 60 shows a closer view, with lime lumps and
large quartz grains in the mortar, and small pinning stones, which compact and tighten the joint (see Chapter 22
‘Repointing’).
Figure 60: Flushed up pointing. Figure 61: What not to do.
Figure 61, on the other hand, shows what not to do when repointing – the joints have been recessed to emphasise the
stones in a way that was never intended. As well as not respecting the traditional aesthetic, the less permeable cement
mortar will limit drying of the wall through the joints, and so will promote decay of the stones (see Section 13.5 ‘Choosing
the right mix – compatibility’).
Respecting traditional practice 97

19 Batching, mixing and knocking up
19.1 Batching
Traditional practice involved the use of Accurate batching (or gauging) of mortars is essential to achieving good,
bottomless, wooden gauge boxes for each repeatable results. Mortars should never be shovel-batched: the inevitable
component of the mix. bulking up of dry powders will produce mixes very different from those
specified. Mortars should always be batched by volume using containers of
known measures kept expressly for the purpose.
Some argue for batching by weight, but this is impractical in many situations.
Nevertheless, the correct amount of dry powders (such as hydrated and
hydraulic limes) should initially be determined by weighing out the required
amounts, using the compacted density data supplied by the manufacturer.
Subsequent measures can then be based on repeating the same volume, but care
is still required to avoid further bulking up during measuring. Tap the sides of
measuring containers to minimise bulking of powders and sands.
Bagged products should ideally be used by the whole bag: it has a known weight
and therefore volume, based on its compacted density. Cutting bags in half is an
option for smaller batches – but measure it, don’t guess it.
Batching needs to account for the different amounts of lime present in putties
and dry hydrates. As explained in Section 5.4 ‘Densities of lime putties and
hydrated limes’, lime putty should have a density of at least 1,350 g/L (when each
Drain lime putties of limewater and creamy litre will contain about 600 grams of lime). To achieve this, Australian putties
slurry and use only stiff putty that will stand should be allowed to settle and then be carefully drained to remove the liquid
like feta cheese. See also ‘Managing the material – clear limewater and creamy slurry – from the top. The liquid shouldn’t
water content of mixes’ later in this chapter. be discarded: the creamy slurry can be used in knocking up, should the mix be too
stiff, and also for mixing dry materials (such as pozzolans and pigments) to a slurry
before adding them to the mortar mix. Clear limewater can be used to promote
curing and to consolidate weak brick, mortar and plaster. Many applications are
required: 30–50 may be needed when using limewater as a consolidant.
Figure 62: Fresh and matured lime

putties. At the front, the freshly slaked
putty has the consistency of thick cream. To
the rear right, the mature putty is more like
feta cheese and will stand without slumping.
For repointing work, putties should be
matured for at least four months. Despite
the stiff, dryish look of the mature putty,
there’s enough water in it to make a
workable repointing mortar when it is
mixed with dry sand. No water should be
added to the mix, the exception being when
dry materials (such as pozzolans or
pigments) are to be included. These should
be added as a slurry, made with the liquid
material drained from the putty.
Photo: Paul McGahan.
The densities of hydrated limes range from 350–640 g/L: that is, from about half
to the same amount of lime per litre as in a dense putty. This has to be taken into
account when batching: to make a mortar equivalent to a 1:3 mortar made with a
dense putty may require a mix as rich as 1:2 hydrated lime to sand.

One way to avoid having to adjust for the differences in density is to first prepare
the hydrated lime as a putty by adding it slowly to a bucket that is one-third
filled with water, and continually whisking it until it reaches the consistency of
whipped cream. Allow the putty to settle out to a stiff, cheese-like consistency
and then drain it before use. This approach has the additional advantage of
maximising the workability of the hydrated lime. Note, this is soaking, not
slaking: soaked, hydrated limes will never achieve the same densities as directly
slaked lime putty.
Because of their finer particle size and greater reactivity and workability, directly
slaked lime putties are preferred over the use of hydrated lime. If availability or
other circumstances dictate the use of hydrated lime, it must be fresh material to > See Section 5.3 ‘Lime putty and
avoid it having gone off in the bag. hydrated lime’
When all the materials are dry (such as a hydraulic lime and sand mortar or a
composition mortar of cement, hydrated lime and sand), they should be
thoroughly mixed together dry before adding any mixing water. Where some of
the binder is wet (like putty) the dry components should be run to a slurry
before mixing them together with the putty. Thus, in a composition mix of lime
putty and cement (or lime putty and hydraulic lime), the cement (or hydraulic
lime) should be run to a slurry before mixing it with the putty. This is to ensure
thorough mixing of the components: adding dry powders to a lime putty will The workability of hydraulic lime and
result in the dry particles ‘patching’, or clumping, producing an uneven mix. To composition mortars can be improved by
minimise dust, dry mixing requires a forced action mixer (see Section 15.2 using the slurry drained from lime putties
‘Contemporary mixing’ and Section 19.2). as the mixing water.
The same principle applies to any fillers, pigments, pozzolans and admixtures,
such as air-entraining or water-retaining agents. If they are dry powders, they
should be mixed directly with other dry ingredients, but if lime putty (or a
sand-slaked quicklime mortar) is used they should be added in slurry form. If
there’s more than one dry component, they should be thoroughly mixed
together before adding them to the wet mix. This will improve their dispersal
and ensure a more uniform mix. Accurate proportioning of pigments,
pozzolans and admixtures is an essential aspect of making good mortars.
Dry rather than damp sand is preferred for three reasons. Dry sand ensures
better contact with the lime, because of the absence of a layer of water on the
sand grains (see Section 15.2 ‘Contemporary mixing’). Relatively stiff, dryish
mixes are needed for repointing work, and even slightly damp sand can be too
wet when mixed with lime putty. Further, using dry sand avoids any concern
about the bulking that occurs with damp sand.
Bulking of sand
Damp sand occupies a greater volume than dry sand. This is not because of the
additional volume of the water: add enough water to fully saturate the sand and
it will collapse back to the dry volume. The increase in volume, or bulking, is due
to forces related to surface tension which hold small amounts of water tightly
between the sand grains, so that it acts as a temporary (and weak) adhesive or
binder. The amount of bulking will vary with the type of sand, as well as with the
water content. Typically, damp sands show an increase of 10–30% over the dry
volume. Well-graded sand will bulk up less than a poorly graded sand.
Whenever there’s no choice but to use damp sand the amount of bulking
must be measured, and the mix proportions adjusted accordingly:
otherwise mixes will have too little sand.
Batching, mixing and knocking up 99

19.2 Mixing
Beat all your mortar with a beater three or four times over before you use
it, for thereby you break all the knots of lime that go through the sieve,
and incorporate the sand and lime well together, and the air which the
beater forces into the mortar at every stroke, conduces very much to the
strength thereof.
If I might advise anyone that is minded to build well, or use strong mortar
for repairs, I would have them beat the mortar well, let it lie 2 or 3 days,
and then beat it well again when ‘tis to be used.
Moxon, 1703
Ideally, mortars should be mixed in a forced action (screed) mixer (see Figure
45), a roller pan mixer (see Figure 44) or with a handheld mixer. Normal rotary
cement mixers are not capable of delivering the pressure required to force the
binder and sand together and to displace water layers on the sand grains (see
Section 15.2 ‘Contemporary mixing’). Handheld mixers should be purpose-made;
normal drills will burn out quickly. Using a handheld mixer can be made easier
by whisking up the lime putty before adding the sand.
Hand methods of mixing include pounding and chopping lime putty into the
sand with a mason’s hoe (larry) in a suitable trough, or for small amounts with
the end of a mattock handle in a flexible tub. Pounding the relatively dry mix will
seem like a lost cause, but eventually there comes a magic moment when it all
goes sticky and hangs together. Simply turning over the ingredients with a shovel
will not produce satisfactory mortars. Considerable force is required: traditional
practice was to beat the mix with a piece of timber or the back of a spade.
Where practicable, lime mortars should be premixed and matured for as long as
possible in sealed containers. They will not go off, provided there is no hydraulic
component (such as hydraulic lime or pozzolan) in the mix.
Even when off-site premixing is not practicable, there are definite workability
gains to be made by short-term maturing of lime mortars before use. Pure lime
mortars can be stored indefinitely, while the lower classes of hydraulic limes can
> See Section 15.3 ‘Off-site preparation be stored for a day after mixing. Keep stored mortars cool and covered or sealed
and maturing of mixes’ to prevent them drying out.
Making quicklime mortars by sand-slaking

Those working with quicklime (and any Rather than slaking quicklime to a putty and later adding sand, mortars were
limes) must understand the risks involved traditionally made by slaking quicklime with the sand in the process known as
and must be able to describe and apply the sand-slaking (see Section 15.1 ‘Traditional mixing’). This method, which has been
necessary safety precautions (see Box 16 found to produce excellent sticky mortars with good working properties, should
‘Health and safety with mortars’). be used whenever the significance (heritage value) of the building warrants it. It
is the only practical way of producing mortars with the lumpy lime appearance
found in older buildings (see Box 13 ‘Lime lumps’).
A sheet of thick plywood can be used as the slaking platform (see Figure 63) and
should be wetted down to avoid charring from the heat of the slake. The
quicklime is placed within a ring formed in the sand, and water is added using a
watering can with a sprinkler head to spread it evenly. Sand is immediately
An alternative to sand-slaking on a platform drawn over the quicklime using a mason’s hoe (larry). The heap will crack open
is to do it in a forced action mixer (see as the slaking quicklime expands and will need attention to keep the lime
Figure 45). The sand and quicklime are covered. The heat energy released by the quicklime is absorbed by the sand,
first turned in the mixer and then water is making the process safer than slaking it separately.
added through a hose fitted with a ‘shower’
trigger nozzle while turning the mix. This The quantities used in a recent series of slakes are presented here as a guide to
method requires quicklime that has been what to expect. Twenty litres of quicklime (a mix of rock and powder) were
crushed to a small particle size. added to 60 litres of dry, well-graded sand. This amount was found to be
convenient for a standard size sheet of plywood. Thirty-five litres of water were
slowly added to ensure that the water was absorbed by the quicklime and did not
simply run off the board.

Figure 63: Sand-slaking quicklime.
The hard lumps of quicklime (rocklime)
have slaked to a white powder, seen here
breaking out through the sand. The plywood
board is a reduced-scale version of a
traditional sand-slaking platform or stage.
The (lime) concrete is to be made upon a

timber platform, 12 ft square, with a 9” curb
on three sides. The same to be left for
mixing the mortar upon throughout the
contract . . . All the mortar is to be made
with fresh burnt lime and clean sharp
beach sand, mixed one part lime to two
and a half parts sand thoroughly beaten up
before being put on the scaffold for use by
the masons.
1877 specification for a
South Australian school
After cooling, the slakes were covered overnight to keep out any rain. The next
day they were found to be still damp in parts, suggesting that the amount of
water was about right for this particular quicklime and the dry sand. Less water
should be added if the sand is damp. An advantage of this technique (unlike
using lime putty) is that you can start with damp sand, as the quicklime will dry
it (but you must allow for bulking).
The aim should be to add the full amount of water needed for the slake in the
one go, while avoiding adding too much. This will maximise the energy released
from the quicklime and so dry and clean up the sand, improving the contact
between sand and lime. Adding some of the water at the beginning and then
more later will result in the second addition cooling the slake and reducing the
heat available to the sand.
The mixes were then put through a forced action mixer (see Figure 45) and a
small amount of water (generally less than a litre) was added to produce stiff,
dryish mortars. Each slake produced about 70 litres of mortar – a result of the
expansion of the quicklime on slaking – making the effective mix proportions
close to 1:2.
The mixes were stored in 15-litre pails for later use. On opening after an
extended period of maturing, the mixes had expanded in the pails and were very
stiff – some quicklime had continued to slake during maturing – and a little more
water was needed to make them workable.
Managing the water content of mixes

In contrast to laying bricks or stones, many mortar-repair tasks, including
repointing or deep packing of joints or cracks, need relatively stiff mixes.
Consequently, it’s better to start with mixes that are too dry, rather than mixes
that are too wet. As noted above, sand-slaked quicklime mortars can initially be
made very stiff and dry and then wetted up if more workability is needed.
If a quicklime mortar is accidentally made too wet, it can be corrected by adding
more quicklime – and dry sand in the right proportions, but not water – while
turning the mix in a forced action mixer. Add only a small amount of quicklime
(a handful) at a time and wait until it has fully slaked and taken up the water from
the rest of the mix before deciding whether to add more. This may take 10 minutes
or more – fortunately, you can’t overmix a lime mortar.
For mortars made with lime putty, the options for drying out a wet mix include
spreading it out on a sheet of plywood and allowing the wood to absorb some of
the moisture; some will also evaporate. Because lime hardens slowly, it’s a very
forgiving material: it won’t go off in the few hours needed to dry the mix to a
better consistency.
Batching, mixing and knocking up 101

However, the main ways to achieve stiff mixes with lime putties are to use dry
sand and as dense a putty as possible. While prolonged maturation and gentle
Repeatedly pouring off the water that vibration in the back of the ute will help settle putties stored in drums or pails,
accumulates on top of the putty will help. they still may not produce putty that is sufficiently dense.
In colder climates, lime putty is matured in woven bulker bags through which
excess water can slowly drain, but this is not practicable in the hotter and drier
Australian climate. One option may be to drain putties by standing them in a
tightly woven sieve or bag of dense shade cloth suspended in a sturdy bin with a
tight-fitting lid to slow air getting to the lime.
An alternative to draining putties is to thicken them by adding hydrated lime
powder, a small amount at a time, while whisking the putty with a drill mixer in a
flexi-tub. To retain most of the workability advantages of the putty, limit the
hydrated lime to 10–15% of the total.
When putty mixes are too stiff, they should be made workable by adding more
putty and not by adding water. In a recent example, a fine sand was initially
assessed as needing a 1:2 putty to sand mix, but this balled up in the mixer and
produced solid marbles until more putty was added, bringing the mix proportions
closer to 1:1.5 and yielding a workable mix. This example highlights the need to
allow the tradesperson to adjust a mix on-site to make it workable: insisting on a
rigidly specified mix will not achieve good results.
19.3 Knocking up
The beating of mortar is of the utmost Turn out a well-matured lime mortar onto a board and it will be stiff and
consequence to its durability, and it would apparently unworkable. However, by thorough reworking or knocking up for at
appear that the effect produced by it, is least 10 minutes (using the same techniques as mixing) the workability will be
owing to something more than a mere greater than before. Don’t add water, add force. If after thorough knocking up a
mechanical mixture. lime mortar intended for repointing is still too stiff to use, its workability can be
Nicholson, 1850 improved by adding a small amount of lime putty, but not water.
Lime mortar should . . . (be) well knocked Workability of a lime mortar intended for laying masonry can be corrected by
up and left in large heaps fully ten days adding a small quantity of lime slurry drained from the putty. Where adding
before use. more water is undesirable (e.g. to limit shrinkage) the use of superplasticisers or
Haddon, 1908 air-entrainers may be warranted, see Chapter 11 ‘Admixtures and additives’ and
Chapter 14 ‘Workability’.
Admixtures and pozzolans are added to mixes during knocking up and should be
thoroughly incorporated into the mix. All dry, powdered materials should be
added in slurry form (see Section 19.1).
As distinct from reworking or knocking up, retempering is the bad practice of
trying to rejuvenate a mix that has already started to harden, by adding more
water and remixing it to the desired consistency. The resulting mortar will be
weaker than intended, as some of the chemical bonds that have started to form
will be broken. Retempering is a problem more commonly associated with
cement and composition mortars that have shorter pot lives. Water may be
added to mixes that are drying out too fast in warm weather, but only within the
time limits specified for the particular binder.

Box 16: Health and safety with mortars
Since 2012, Australian work health and safety regulations have been aligned with the United Nations’ Globally Harmonised
System (GHS) of classification and labelling of chemicals. Under this system, limes, cements and some pozzolans are
classified as hazardous.
What are the hazards? • an individual eyewash, based on complexing agents

The hazards related to using mortars and their materials (e.g. Diphoterine®)
are due to: • dust masks, wherever and whenever dust might be
created
• the caustic (highly alkaline) nature of limes and
cements • waterproof gloves (long-sleeved, chemical-resistant
gloves if slaking quicklime)
• dusts from limes, cements and pozzolans, which as
well as being caustic may contain respirable silica • protective clothing (full-length clothing to minimise
exposed areas of skin)
• the heat produced by slaking reactive quicklimes (see
Section 5.2 ‘Non-hydraulic (pure) limes and the lime • barrier cream (for exposed skin).
cycle’) All workers should be aware of the potential for sealants
• dusts and particles produced during raking and to contain asbestos fibres and for mason’s putties to
cutting out existing mortars contain asbestos and/or lead white. If there is any doubt
as to whether these materials are present, the mortars or
• the potential for sealants and mason’s putties to
sealant should be analysed before undertaking any works.
contain asbestos (see Chapter 16 ‘Special jointing
Should they be discovered, their removal should be
materials’)
managed in accordance with the following model codes of
• the potential for mason’s putties to contain lead white practice published by Safe Work Australia (www.swa.gov.au):
(see Chapter 16).
• How to manage and control asbestos in the
What are the associated risks? workplace (2020)
The risks associated with these hazards are: • How to safely remove asbestos (2020)
• serious eye damage (and potentially blindness) from • Managing risks of hazardous chemicals in the
lime and cement particles, putties and limewashes workplace (2020).
• irritation and chemical burns to the skin from caustic What first aid should be provided?
materials
Eyes: should dust or splashes from limes, cements,
• irritation and caustic burns from inhaling dusts, mortars or limewashes lodge in the eyes, immediate
particularly quicklime action is required. Quickly flush the eyes with an eyewash
• burns from hot quicklime, which may be both physical or with tap water or other clean water if an eyewash is
(heat) and chemical (caustic) not available. Continue flushing while seeking urgent
medical attention. If needed, use cotton buds with great
• inhalation of respirable silica, with the consequent risk care to remove particles. Keep flushing.
of silicosis
Nose and throat: should dust from limes or cements be
• inhalation of asbestos fibres, with the consequent
inhaled, continuously flush the nose and throat with clean
risks of asbestosis and mesothelioma
water for at least 20 minutes, taking care to avoid
• ingestion of lead white, with the consequent risk of breathing in the water.
lead poisoning.
Swallowing: should limes or cements be swallowed,
What precautions should be taken? thoroughly wash out the mouth with water, drink large
Worksites should provide eyewash stations and readily amounts of water and do not induce vomiting. Seek
accessible first aid kits that include eyewashes and cotton medical attention.
buds. Skin: should spills of limes or cements and all types of
Workers should wear and carry: mortar contact the skin, wash them off as soon as
possible. Replace lost natural oils with skin cream.
• eye protection (close-fitting goggles that exclude
dusts and splashes from putties and limewashes)
Health and safety 103

20 Raking and cutting out joints
Always work from the top down when Good preparation is one of the key aspects of successful repointing: the failure
raking out and repointing. of work is often due to inadequate raking out of joints.
Although much original pointing was quite shallow – often only a few millimetres
in depth – repointing needs to be much deeper to be successful. This is because
the original pointing was applied when the wall was green – when the bedding
mortar and masonry were still damp – and the dampness helped the pointing
harden properly and bond well. Today when we repoint, we do so in much drier
walls and so need a greater mass of new material. This is partly to introduce and
retain more water and particularly to ensure sufficient contact area for a good
bond to the adjacent masonry.
Joints should be raked out to a depth that is at least 2.5 times their width.
This rule of thumb means that a normal 10 mm bed joint in brickwork should be
raked out to at least 25 mm. Wider joints generally don’t need to be raked out
Narrow 3 mm joints in ashlar stonework more than about 30 mm, though there are circumstances where greater depths
should be raked out to at least 20 mm. will be necessary. These may include rubble stonework where small pinning
stones have been inserted into the joints (see Figures 60 and 72). Raking out will
loosen them and so they will need to be carefully removed and put aside until
the repointing stage (see Chapter 22 ‘Repointing’). Where dampness and salt
attack have decayed the mortar, the raking depth may need to be much greater,
partly to remove decayed material and also to remove as much salt as possible
(see Chapter 26 ‘Deep repointing’).
The term ‘raking out’ derives from traditional practice when pointing new work:
the still-soft bedding mortars were readily raked out with simple tools. Softer
Tungsten-tipped ‘score and snap’ tools for mortars may still be raked out today, using chisels that are dragged along the
cutting cement fibreboard are ideal for joints or skates (rakers) which have wheels that run over the face of the bricks
removing lime mortars. and adjustable raking heads to control the depth.
However, it is often necessary to cut out much harder mortars, particularly previous
repointing with hard cement, and for that work we often need mechanical tools
as well as sharp, tungsten-tipped chisels. There have been arguments about the
use of mechanical tools, such as angle grinders and disc cutters: their high
torque can make them hard to control and they can kick or run off, damaging
adjacent bricks (see Figure 64). This can widen joints and leave bricks above and
below perpends with unsightly slots cut in them. This has led to some people
wanting to ban the use of machines and to limit all work to hand tools.
Figure 64: Grinder damage. This shows

damage to bricks from using angle grinders
to cut out old mortar. Overruns and
widening of joints often occur because of
oversized blades and because the torque
produced by rotating tools makes them
difficult to control. Oscillating-blade tools
(see Figure 65) are preferred for removing
old lime mortar.

Figure 65: Oscillating-blade tools. These enable removal of moderately hard mortars while maintaining good control, reducing the risk of
overruns. They are also much safer to use than rotating tools and produce less dust.
Fortunately, this problem has been partly overcome by the development of

oscillating-blade tools (such as the mortar saws or multi-tools shown in Figure 65).
These are much more controllable and can be used with greater accuracy. Also, they
produce less dust and are much safer to use than angle grinders and disc cutters. > See Box 16 ‘Health and safety with
They can cut deeply into joints, enabling ready removal of bricks from a wall. mortars’
Given the advantages of oscillating-blade tools, angle grinders should not be

used for cutting out mortar joints that are not excessively hard (i.e. lime
mortars). However, hard, cement-based mortars can be difficult to remove and
for these it is appropriate to use disc cutters and small handcraft-scale cutting
wheels.
Hard mortars should be removed in two stages. First cut a narrow slot along the
centre of the joint with a small-diameter diamond disc or cutting wheel. Then
use a sharp, tungsten-tipped mason’s chisel to remove the mortar from the brick
or stone. By always working into the free space in the centre of the joint, hard
mortar can often be removed without significant damage to the masonry units
and without disrupting the bond of the remainder of the joint.
This latter point is critical: heavy hammering with plugging chisels will damage
arrises (edges) and bounce hard stones and bricks around in the wall, breaking
the bond of the nearby joints and destroying the wall’s structural integrity and
weatherproofing.
For cutting out mortars by hand, there are mason’s quirks or carving chisels
which have blades wider than their shanks (throats) so they won’t wedge the
joints and damage the arrises of the bricks or stones. Provided they are kept
sharp, small stonemasonry chisels with tungsten tips are useful for removing
hard mortars from masonry units (see Figure 66). All tools require skilled,
patient hands for good results.
Very narrow joints present particular challenges, but they should never be
widened to make them easier to clean out and repoint. Instead, use hacksaw or
reciprocating saw blades, masonry saws or old, wood saws that have been cut off
near the handle to leave a short but deep blade.
Joints should be cut out square and attention paid to thoroughly cleaning the
surfaces of the masonry units on both sides of the joint, as absorbent surfaces
are essential for ensuring a good bond with the new mortar.
Raking and cutting out joints 105

Figure 66: Mason’s chisels. On the left is

an inappropriate, modern, plugging chisel
alongside some tungsten-tipped
stonemasonry chisels and quirks used for
cutting out joints by hand. Note the narrow
throats which help prevent the chisels
becoming wedged in the joints, thus
avoiding damage to the edges (arrises) of
the bricks or stones.
Thoroughly clean out the debris with a vacuum cleaner, followed by a low-pressure
water spray, which can double as the first stage of pre-wetting (see the next
Chapter). Capture as much mortar dust as possible before wetting the walls.
Fine white powders that get stuck in the pores of masonry units can be difficult
to remove and may remain visually intrusive.

21 Pre-wetting
If you lay bricks in hot dry weather, and it be (a) piece of work that you
would have very strong, dip every brick you lay, all over in a pail of water,
which will make the wall much stronger than if the bricks were laid dry.
Moxon, 1703
Pre-wetting is an essential step in the repointing process. Thorough pre-wetting

is needed to control the background suction of the masonry and to prevent
premature drying and consequent failure of the new mortar.
For most old walls, it will be necessary to wet them the day before repointing and
then several times on the day. The last wetting should be just before placing the
new mortar. Wall surfaces should be damp, but not glistening with surface water.
Older walls are generally more porous than modern ones: their bricks, stones
and existing mortar may have porosities exceeding 20% and sometimes 30%.
Applying a new mortar (or plaster) to these materials when dry would result in
the mixing water being rapidly drawn out of the wet mortar by the suction of the
adjacent masonry. The new mortar will ‘go dead’ and be impossible to work, as it
will now be too dry. Rapid drying also means that the mortar won’t harden
properly and will fail prematurely.
Traditional practice with porous materials like older bricks and some sandstones
and limestones was to dip them in water or hose them down before laying them, All bricks to be well wetted with fresh water
so as to reduce or ‘kill’ their suction. In contrast, modern bricks have much immediately before being used.
lower porosities: their initial rates of absorption (IRA) are low and contemporary 1877 specification for a
practice is to avoid pre-wetting during construction (see Chapter 10 ‘Water’). South Australian school
Some suction is essential so that some of the binder is drawn into the masonry
units to form a good bond.
Very porous materials should be soaked the evening before repointing and then All bricks should be charged with moisture
several times on the day. The walls should be thoroughly wet but not glistening before use. In dry weather bricks should
with surface water, as that may mean too little suction and the risk of leaking be hosed or dipped in water, otherwise the
and smearing mortar across the face of the bricks or stones. Research suggests dry nature of the brick will quickly absorb
that to be effective in controlling suction, the last phase of pre-wetting needs to the moisture from the mortar and nullify
its adhesive properties.
be applied (and the water allowed to soak in) immediately before applying the
mortar (or plaster). Haddon, 1908
The common use of splash brushes (stock brushes) will deliver only a small
fraction of the water required for most old walls. Instead, use a hose fitted with a
fine spray nozzle or a garden sprayer with a good-capacity tank. A sprayer is
particularly useful for the last phase of pre-wetting if the nozzle can be placed
within the joint. This avoids wetting the face of the masonry, while adding water
to the back of the joint, where it is needed most.
A sprayer will also be useful where walls consist of materials of very different Pre-wetting is also needed when
porosities, e.g. granite blocks in lime mortar. Little or no pre-wetting is required reconstructing walls. When bricks and
for the granite, but the mortar at the back of the joint will need plenty. Similarly, stones are being reused or recycled from
walls of different masonry units, such as a bluestone wall with brick dressings, salvaged materials, it’s essential to remove
will need careful control of pre-wetting to ensure that the more-porous bricks dust and mortar residues from their
surfaces.
get sufficient water while the less-porous bluestone gets enough, but not too
much, dampening.
Building up a store of water in the wall has an additional purpose: that of
providing a moist environment to improve the hardening or curing of the lime
binder (see Chapter 24 ‘Protection and curing’).
Pre-wetting 107
22 Repointing
The key messages about filling joints during repointing are:

• use a stiff, dryish yet still-workable mortar
• compact the mortar tightly into the joints
• use tools that fit snugly into the joints
• always fill any deep voids, working in stages
• fill inaccessible voids with grout
• never use backing rods, as they prevent joints from breathing
• if needed, use masking tape to keep the faces of narrow joints clean.
Repointing needs stiffer, drier mortars than those used for laying bricks and
stones. Though stiff and with the consistency of modelling clay, the mortar
should still be quite plastic and easy to work. A mix that is too wet will ooze out
around the trowel or jointing tool and will not be compacted tightly into the
> Section 19.2 ‘Mixing’ explains how to joint. A wet mix also risks staining the face of the masonry, whereas crumbs from
deal with a mix that is too wet. a dryish mix will not.
It should be apparent by now that the key ingredient of stiff, dryish yet plastic
and workable mortar is lime, which ideally should be used as a sand-slaked
quicklime mortar or in dense putty form for all repointing work. Where the
nature of the work calls for the use of a natural hydraulic lime (NHL), the mix
> See Chapter 14 ‘Workability’ and can be made more workable by adding 10% of putty. Further, the workability of
Section 19 ‘Batching, mixing and an NHL (or composition) mortar can be improved by using the slurry drained
knocking up’ from lime putty as the mixing water.
Due to its relatively low water content, pointing mortar must be compacted
tightly into the joints to achieve a good bond with the masonry units on either
side and with the bedding mortar at the back. This means having the right tools:
caulking or finger trowels, as well as traditional pointing keys or jointing irons that
> Figure 6 also shows a range of jointing fit snugly into the joints (see Figures 67, 68 and 69). Tools with blades of different
tools. widths will be needed to deal with the varying joint widths in a single building.
Caulking trowels are made with blades about 150 mm long, but for perpends in
brickwork they should be cut down to lengths of about 70 mm. The shorter the
length, the greater the force that can be delivered to compact the mortar.
Plasterer’s small tools may be useful for repointing rubble stonework, where the
joints are often wider. Triangular pointing trowels are not appropriate for this
stage of repointing: they won’t fit into the joints and they can’t deliver the force
required to ensure they are fully packed. Furthermore, their use can produce
mortar smears over the surface.
There is no in-principle objection to using Provided the correct tools are used, a stiff, dryish mortar can be placed into a
a caulking gun to inject mortars into joints. joint without risk of staining the surface. This is because any crumbs or spills
However, achieving the consistency required that sit on the surface won’t be pushed into it, and their dryness will mean that
to enable the mortar to be pumped will little or no lime will be transferred into the surface. For very narrow joints,
generally mean using softer sands and masking the stones with tape on either side of the joint can help placing the
wetter mixes than are appropriate for lime
mortar without staining the masonry. The problem of the masking tape not
mortars. The injected mortar must still be
tightly compacted using a caulking trowel,
sticking to damp stonework may be overcome by thorough pre-wetting the day
and this will mean waiting until some of before, masking up the joints on the day then wetting again using sprayers with
the water is absorbed by the masonry. small nozzles that fit within the joints (see the previous Chapter).
The addition of polymer modifiers to allow Deeply eroded joints will need to be filled in several stages, building up no more
a mortar to be pumped through a caulking than 30 mm of mortar at a time and allowing at least three days for the previous
gun will block pores and is not acceptable. stage to begin hardening. Pre-wet before each stage. Inaccessible, deep voids in
thick walls may need to be grouted as part of the repairs. If so, this should be
undertaken before the final stage of repointing.

Backing rods, of compressible foam that are inserted into joints, have become
commonplace in construction and have an important role in the application of Traditional masonry, whether brick or
elastomeric sealants between granite and glass in modern buildings. Unfortunately, stone, relies on the mortar joints being
some people have used them to minimise the amount of repointing work required more permeable than the masonry units
in traditional masonry. This is bad practice as it leaves potentially damaging so that walls dry (‘breathe’) through the
voids behind the rods, reduces the adhesion of the pointing mortar and prevents joints (see Figure 8).
the proper drying of the walls through the joints. Backing rods should never
be used when repointing traditionally constructed porous masonry.
Rubble stonework often has pinning stones in the wider joints (see Figures 60
and 72). These are small pieces of stone pushed into the mortar to compact it
and reduce shrinkage. They will be loosened during the raking-out process, and
should be removed, saved and reinstated during repointing. They should never
be left out: it would be a mistake to think that they are not needed. The joints
should be nearly filled flush and then the pinning stones pushed and tapped Maintaining the character of the wall
lightly into place in the still-damp mortar. requires reinstating any pinning stones.
Figure 67: Filling a bed joint. An 8 mm

trowel is used to place a small amount of
mortar at the back of the raked-out joint;
this is repeated until the joint is filled. The
mortar is tightly compacted into the joint
and also back into the last-filled section.
This means working from right to left for a
right-hander and left to right for a left-
hander.
Figure 68: Filling a narrow perpend.

Using a 4 mm wide trowel to place a thin
wedge of mortar into a narrow joint.
Careful placement with this technique
removes the need to mask the face of the
bricks with adhesive tape.
Figure 69: Using a trowel as a hawk.

Speeding up delivery of mortar to a bed
joint by using a gauging trowel as a hawk.
Provided the underside of the trowel is kept
clean, there need be no mortar stains on
the face of the brickwork. A plastering
trowel can be used in the same way.
Repointing 109
23 Finishing joints
The process of finishing the joints is as important as using the right mix and
compacting it tightly into the back of the raked-out joints. Finishing gives the
work its character and can also affect its durability. When repointing old walls,
we may need to use techniques, such as tamping with stiff brushes, which are not
used in contemporary work. Finishing involves:
• matching a previous joint profile
• compacting (but not overworking) the surface
• keeping new work damp with fine water sprays
• scraping off any excess mortar
• possibly tamping with a stiff-bristled brush
• more spraying to maintain damp conditions.
Joints should be slightly overfilled with the pointing mortar and then left to
stiffen a little. Dampen the new work with a fine water spray as soon as possible
after pointing. Provided the mix has been made to a stiff, dryish consistency,
there will be no risk of lime washing down the face of the work unless excessive
water pressure is used. If lime does run down the face, it’s generally a sign the
mix was too wet to begin with.
Reference panels of each pointing style After allowing the mortar to stiffen a little, apply the correct profile to the joint
should be established at the beginning of (see Section 18.5 ‘Matching joint profiles’). Here the use of a pointing trowel to
the project and used as a basis for apply flush and struck finishes is entirely appropriate. As Box 15 explains, it’s
accepting or rejecting work (see Chapter 27 important to respect traditional practice and not attempt to ‘improve’ walls by
‘Specifying repointing’). applying joint profiles they never had. This particularly applies to side and rear
elevations, which were often finished with plain, flushed-up joints.
Compaction is an important part of finishing the joints, closing up the surface
and reducing the risk of shrinkage cracking. However, overworking with the
trowel should be avoided. Overworking brings too much binder to the surface
and forms a smooth skin (laitance) which will slow hardening by reducing the
permeability (or breathing capacity) of the surface. The smooth skin can be
broken up by working over the joints with wooden tools (see Figure 6), which
will raise the sand grains.
Lightly scrape off any excess mortar with the side of a trowel or small tool. Use
the small tool to trim mortar from holes in the face of the masonry units to
avoid the appearance of variable joint widths, while ensuring that the finished
profile won’t encourage water penetration into the joint.
Never finish a joint with mortar thinly feathered out over the masonry units. Not
only is it unsightly, it won’t last as it won’t harden well. The edges will open up
and let water into the joint. Instead, where some water shedding is required
(such as on string courses), finish the joint with a slight haunch as shown in
Figure 70.
Keep the new mortar well dampened. As it begins to harden, the amount of
water sprayed on each time can be increased, but take care not to disrupt the
surface with excessive water or pressure.
Figure 70: Avoiding feathered edges.
To avoid feathering, finish the tail of a joint
with a slight haunch, which can be shaped
by tamping with a bundle of bristles.

23.1 Tamping
Tamping is the process of using a stiff-bristled brush (such as the churn brush in
Figure 71) to strike the new mortar with the ends of the bristles. This is not a
brushing or sweeping action, but a direct tamping of the surface: each bristle,
acting like a stiletto heel, delivers considerable force. As a result, the mortar is
compacted, reducing the risk of shrinkage cracking. Lime is removed from the
top of some sand grains, exposing their colour and texture. Also, the surface area
is increased, which together with the removal of the surface skin (laitance) will
improve hardening and the breathing capacity of the joint.
Tamping produces an aged appearance (see Figures 71 and 72). It can be light or
heavy, to suit the degree of ageing required when matching existing joints. While
tamping has many benefits, it is not appropriate in all circumstances and the
decision to tamp must be made in a considered way (see Chapter 18 ‘Repointing
– key decisions’). Tamping is appropriate where small areas are being repointed
to match existing joints that are slightly eroded. It is also appropriate in very old
masonry where no evidence remains of the original joint finish. Clearly, tamping
will not work on raised joint profiles, such as ribbon pointing and tuck pointing:
tamping these would simply destroy them. Trials and reference panels should be
used to resolve and agree on the extent of tamping (see Chapter 27 ‘Specifying Figure 71: Tamping the joints. Tamping
repointing’). with a stiff-bristled brush (such as this churn
brush) produces an aged appearance.
Joints are ready for tamping once the mortar has stiffened to the point where it
is just possible to push a fingernail into them: this is sometimes described as
‘leather hard’. This may take several days (or even a week) for pure lime mortars
in cool, damp conditions, or just a few hours for stronger, hydraulic limes in warm
weather. Timing is critical: too soon, when the mortar is too wet, and the brush
will dimple the surface, pick up lime and spread it over the face of the masonry;
too late, and the mortar will have hardened too much for tamping to be effective.
A variety of stiff-bristled brushes and similar tools can be used for tamping.
These include the traditional churn brush (see Figure 71), cut-down sections of
stiff brooms and small bundles of plastic bristles bound together. The latter can
be used to shape the joint and cut away feathered edges (see Figure 70). Spray
the new work with a fine water mist as soon as tamping is complete.
One method of producing an aged appearance that has unfortunately become
prevalent on new building work is to cut off the top of an uncompacted joint
with the edge of a trowel, let it dry and then clean it up with acid and a pressure
wash. This can open up the joint, exposing a loosely bound mortar with poor
durability, irrespective of the type of binder used. Using acid to clean up mortar
spills may be warranted in some special circumstances, but it simply isn’t needed
if the quality of the repointing work is up to standard.
Figure 72: Tamped joints in rubble

stonework. The tamped joints have a
weathered or aged appearance with
exposed sand grains. Without tamping, the
colour would be that of the binder and finer
sand grains. Also note the small pinning
stones pushed into the mortar during
repointing (see Chapter 22).
Finishing joints 111

24 Protection and curing
All mortars including those based on cement, hydraulic lime and pure lime need
attention to their curing if they are to perform as intended.
There is an erroneous perception among many in the industry that cement
doesn’t need curing, and this is often extended to composition mixes of cement
and lime (compo). The result is that many mortars are not properly hardened
> Section 13.2 ‘Composition mortars’ and will have low durability.
Very rapid drying may bring fines to the Rapid drying of any mortar will lead to early failure. In the case of cement and
surface of the joint, producing a distinct any hydraulic component in limes, this is because they harden by reacting with
skin (or crust) with reduced permeability, water. Insufficient water will lead to the formation of weak shells (like eggshells)
limiting further hardening. of hardened material surrounding uncured cement or lime, which may react only
very slowly or not at all. A similar situation applies to the non-hydraulic
component in limes, but here the reason is that water must be present for
> Section 5.6 ‘Setting of lime mortars’ carbon dioxide to react with the lime.
Newly repointed lime mortars that fail Limes harden much more slowly than cements and depend more on good curing
within 12 months of placement, exposing conditions being maintained. This applies equally to pure limes and hydraulic
friable mortar beneath a thin surface skin, limes. It is wrong to think that using pozzolans or natural hydraulic limes
are generally a sign of poor curing, though negates or reduces the need for good curing.
their failure may also be due to the
presence of salts in the masonry. Good curing practice includes:
• protecting work from adverse weather (wind, rain, heat and frost)
• tight enclosure of scaffolds, with misting systems in warm weather
• staging works around a building, to avoid hot sun on new work
• keeping new mortars quite damp for a week (wetting)
• a second week of ‘dry’ (but damp) curing
> Cyclic wetting and drying improves
hardening, see Section 5.6 ‘Setting of • a third week of thorough wetting
lime mortars’ • a fourth week of damp ‘drying’
24.1 Protecting work

Cover all your walls in the summer-time to New work should be protected from adverse weather conditions from the
keep them from drying too hastily, for the pre-wetting stage until at least four weeks after repointing. Scaffolds should be
mortar doth not cement so strongly to the tightly enclosed to prevent direct rain strike and rapid drying due to wind.
bricks when it dries hastily, as when slowly. Hot-weather work (over 30˚C) should be avoided, but as this is not always
Be sure to cover them well in the winter- practicable, measures (such as intermittent mist-spraying systems) may be
time, to preserve them from rain, snow needed to maintain humidity. Specifiers should identify the need for such
and frost, which last is a great enemy to all systems in tender documents whenever alternatives are impractical.
kinds of mortar, especially to that which
hath taken wet just before the frost. In cold weather, work should stop when the temperature risks going below 5˚C.
Moxon, 1703 This is because hydration ceases and the expansive force of frost will damage
new mortar that is still wet and not yet sufficiently hardened. Providing heated
scaffolds or enclosures around the work site is an alternative to having to stop
work in cold conditions.
For ground-level projects where scaffolding is not required, the new work should
be protected with removalists’ blankets or carpet hung on simple frames that
can be laid close to (but not directly against) the wall. Hessian sheeting is often
used, but unless there are many layers which are protected by an outer layer of
plastic, the hessian will dry too rapidly to provide effective curing conditions.
Frames should be easily pulled back to allow the wall to be sprayed. Other
methods of keeping new work damp include using timer-controlled soaker hoses
on top of copings and some means of dispersing the water, such as sheets of
geofabric.

Where possible, work should be staged around a building to avoid hot sun.
Repointing may be best done in the late afternoon, allowing the cool of the
evening to provide better curing conditions when rapid drying is less likely.
It’s important to continue providing protection overnight and particularly
on weekends. Repointing late on a Friday with no attention paid to curing
until the Monday morning is not acceptable.
To avoid the work involved in protection and curing being overlooked or
underestimated, the cost should be a separate item on the tender form. This will
enable it to be assessed separately when tenders are evaluated. > See Chapter 27 ‘Specifying repointing’
24.2 Curing procedure

1. Wetting
Keep mortars quite damp for a week after placing them. Use fine water sprays Adding water is necessary to make up for
many times a day and keep blanket or carpet covers damp at all times. Maintain that lost to the suction of the adjacent
a minimum relative humidity (RH) against the walls of 90%. During this period masonry and to evaporation.
any hydration reactions are occurring, and the water in the mix is absorbing
carbon dioxide for later combination with lime.
2. ‘Drying’
Provide a week of protected ‘drying’. Rather than totally dry, the aim is to
maintain 60–70% RH against the walls. Providing protection against wind and
rain may be all that is required in cool, humid weather. However, in the warmer
and drier months, extra moisture will be needed, ideally supplied by timer-
controlled misting systems. In addition, walls should be lightly sprayed daily: Smartphone weather apps can be used to
this should be done around midday and again later in the day when the walls are monitor local humidities and adjust timing
‘breathing in’. of additional spraying.
3. Further wetting
Wet the walls again for a week. Rather than maintaining continuous dampness,
this week-long period can be undertaken as a series of thorough wetting events,
three or more times a day, with the background humidity being maintained at
60–70% RH as before.
4. Further ‘drying’
Maintain the same conditions as in stage 2 for a further week.
This four-week curing period should be the minimum for most projects. Any Curing may need to be extended during
proposal for a shorter period must be substantiated with evidence (such as cold weather to offset slower hydraulic
climate data) and not just assumed. reactions.
Improved results can be achieved by further cycles of wetting and drying, which
should be considered for projects where the climate will not assist the curing
process. These include exposed locations such as chimneys, towers and spires,
coastal environments where strong winds will dry mortars too quickly, and most
other sites during hot, dry weather.
If not proceeding with further cycles of wetting and drying, at least wet the walls
thoroughly several times as enclosures and scaffolding are being removed.
Protection and curing 113

25 Using lean or sacrificial mixes
With normal mixes, the aim is to Lean mixes are those where the proportion of binder is less than the normal mix,
completely fill the voids in the sand with as determined by the properties of the sand, such as void ratio, grain shape and
binder. Additionally, fine-grained sands size. For example, 1:3.5 or 1:4 are lean mixes compared to a normal 1:3; or 1:3
require extra binder to ensure complete would be a lean mix when a normal mix is 1:2 because of a fine-grained sand and
coating of all particles (see Chapter 9, in a high void ratio. By contrast, a rich mix has a greater proportion of binder than
particular Section 9.6 ‘Void ratio and its
a normal mix. Sacrificial mixes are made deliberately lean to reduce their strength
impact on mixes’).
and increase their permeability, the latter to promote good breathing through
the mortar joints.
When lean mixes (whether deliberate or unintentional) are used on porous
bricks or stones, the mortar will stiffen rapidly and ‘go dead’ (i.e. be difficult to
work). This stiffening is not due to any chemical reaction but to the loss of the
Thorough pre-wetting is essential to mixing water due to the suction of the masonry and the poor water retentivity of
minimising the suction of porous masonry. the lean mix (see Section 14.2 ‘Water retentivity’). Where a particularly
permeable (i.e. sacrificial) mix was not intended, the mix should be corrected by
adding more binder up to at least the proportions suggested by the void ratio of
the sand. This will make the mortar workable for a much longer period after
being placed on or in the porous masonry. The richer mortar will stiffen and
harden more slowly, but it will if properly cured produce a stronger mortar.
Delaying the stiffening will mean that any tamping will have to be delayed by up
to several days, depending on the change of proportions and the weather
conditions. However, this may be beneficial if working on a large area where
> See Chapter 23 ‘Finishing joints’ there is a need to complete all the repointing before tamping.
Where the circumstances call for a deliberately lean sacrificial mortar, ways of
improving its workability include using air-entraining and water-retaining agents.
> See Chapter 14 ‘Workability’ and Air-entraining agents will improve the plasticity (‘spreadability’) of the mix.
Section 11.1 ‘Plasticisers, air-entrainers, Water-retainers (water thickeners) will slow the rate at which a porous substrate
water-retainers’ will draw water from the mix, prolonging the working time after it has been applied.
It is essential that admixtures such as air-entraining and water-retaining
agents are not overused as they can severely reduce bond strengths.
When using lime putty as the binder, it’s important to use only stiff material that
> See Section 5.4 ‘Densities of lime putties has been drained of excess water: only then will it contain sufficient lime to
and hydrated limes’, Section 14.2 ‘Water make a sound mortar. A putty that is too wet will produce a lean mix which may
retentivity’, Section 19.1 ‘Batching’ and initially feel workable, but when applied to a porous substrate will stiffen rapidly
Section 19.2 ‘Mixing’ as the water is lost.
Avoiding problems with unintentionally lean mixes requires:
• measuring the void ratio of the sand to determine mix proportions
• adjusting mix proportions to account for finer-grained sands
> See Section 5.4 ‘Densities of lime putties • draining lime putties and only using stiff material
and hydrated limes’ and Chapter 19
• taking account of bulking when using dry, powdered materials.
‘Batching, mixing and knocking up’
All lean mixes require particular attention to pre-wetting and curing: rapid
drying on porous substrates risks premature failure as hardening reactions
(carbonation and hydration) cease due to lack of water.

26 Deep repointing
There will be occasions where mortar loss has exceeded the 20–30 mm depths
commonly associated with repointing. These might be caused by:
• salt attack and rising damp (salt damp) at the base of walls (see Figure 75)
• falling or penetrating damp that has dissolved lime and flushed mortar out of
joints and out of the cores of thick walls (see Figure 76)
• the burrowing action of lizards and ants, wasps and other insects.
Repairing walls in these situations will commonly need deep repointing, also Grouting may also be required, but it is
known as deep packing. outside the scope of this guide.
There are other circumstances when deep repointing may be required to

weatherproof a wall as well as to regain its structural integrity. A defect that
often produces leaky walls is the lack of mortar across the full depth of perpend
or cross joints. Poor construction practice often saw only 20–30 mm of mortar
near the face of the brick, with voids behind. Even when filled, cross joints are
more vulnerable to erosion because they were often not tightly compacted: the
weight of the masonry units compacts the bed joints, but extra effort is required
to fully compact the perpends.
Another not-so-obvious problem sometimes occurs in composite solid walls
where a stone facing has a backing of brickwork. This is particularly the case in
buildings of the 1920s to 1960s, when cement mortars were used. Brick growth
may produce a slight expansion in the brickwork, sufficient to relieve much of
the vertical load from the stones and leave hairline cracks at every second
horizontal joint (see Figure 73). Deep repointing of the whole building may be
required. Brick growth may not be apparent in walls made with elastic lime
mortars, because they can accommodate the expansion.
The task with deeply raked joints is to place and tightly pack mortar into the back
of the joints. This is done with tools including steel tampers (see Figure 74) and
pieces of wood. Because of their weight, steel tampers can provide considerable
force, and care is required to avoid breaking the remaining bond with the
adjacent masonry.
Figure 73: Brick growth. In this sectional

view of a composite wall, brick growth has
lifted the stones, producing a hairline crack
at every second bed joint.
Figure 74: Steel tamping or deep-packing tools. While the aim is tightly compacted
mortar, tamping with these heavy, purpose-made tools needs to be done with care, as too
much force will break the bond of the remaining joint. Other packing devices include pieces
of wood or plywood for narrow joints. Mortars must be relatively dry and stiff if they are to
take up the load of overlying masonry and weatherproof the wall. The outer part of the joint
is finished in the way described in the previous chapters.
Deep repointing 115
Deep joints should be filled in layers of no more than 30 mm at a time, and at

least three days allowed for initial hardening of lime mortars before applying
more. Pre-wet between layers and provide protection and good curing conditions
(see Chapter 24 ‘Protection and curing’). Because of the slow carbonation of
> See Section 13.5 ‘Choosing the right mix lime in deep joints, it may be appropriate to include a pozzolan (or use a natural
– compatibility’ and Section 18.4 hydraulic lime) in the mortar. This will depend on compatibility with the
‘Ensuring compatibility’ masonry units.
Where salt attack and rising damp (salt damp) has eroded so much mortar that
bricks or stones are barely supported (see Figure 75), the repair technique
known as undersetting may be required. Undersetting involves the progressive
When undersetting an old wall with a removal of sections of masonry from the base of the wall and their reconstruction
cement-and-lime composition mix, always with salt-free materials, together with the insertion of a new damp-proof course.
repoint the joints in a lime mortar, to This is explained in more detail in the technical guide Salt attack and rising damp:
minimise thermal expansion stresses on a guide to salt damp in historic and older buildings, which is published in the same
the surfaces of the bricks or stones. series as this guide.
Figure 75: Mortar loss due to salt damp.

Salt attack and rising damp has deeply
eroded the lime mortar joints at the base of
the wall. Deep packing will be needed for
the first stages of repointing to fill the joints
in this solid wall. Had the wall been of cavity
construction, the extent of mortar loss may
have been too great to enable successful
repointing, and undersetting of the outer
leaf may have been required.
Figure 76: Mortar loss due to dissolution.

An 1830s sandstone retaining wall in which
water percolating through the joints has
dissolved much of the lime, with some of it
redeposited at the face of the joints, as seen
here. The dental probe on the right was
inserted 40 mm into the joint without
meeting resistance. Raking out and deep
packing of the joints will be required to
partially reinstate the wall’s structural
integrity. Similar work is likely to be required
on the other (buried) side of the wall.

27 Specifying repointing
Specifications for repointing should be appropriate to the scale and importance of the job. Small, domestic-scale repointing
may warrant only a brief statement of the materials and mixes to be used and the various work methods to be employed,
including how the new work is to be protected and properly cured. Larger projects and work on places of heritage
significance should have comprehensive specifications for a range of works across the site. Such specifications should deal
with the following aspects of repointing.
1. Materials 4. Raking and cutting out old mortar

• the materials to be used, such as lime, sand, pozzolan • the depth to which joints are to be raked or cut out
and pigment • tools to be used and not used
• the properties of the materials, such as age and density • the shape and cleanliness of raked- or cut-out joints
of lime putty; class of NHL; size grading, fines content
and surface texture of sand • flushing-out of debris from joints and prevention of
fine-particle stains.
• additional materials, such as crushed porous limestone,
fillers and admixtures 5. Pre-wetting
• the alternatives that are acceptable, and in what • requirements for pre-wetting walls to control suction
circumstances • acceptable methods of pre-wetting
• preferred suppliers and quality control procedures. • frequency and timing of pre-wetting.
2. Mixes and batching
6. Repointing
• what mix proportions are to be used, for what part of
the site • tools to be used for placing and compacting mortar
• whether additional mixes are to be prepared for the • the method to be used, building up in layers for deeper
trials (see ‘10. Trials, samples, reference panels’ repointing
following) • use of any tape for masking the surface of the masonry.
• whether full bags are to be used for dry ingredients
7. Finishing the joints
• initial weighing to ensure correct quantities when dry
• joint profile(s) to be matched
batching
• the method of finishing joints
• whether sands are to be dry or, if damp, the procedure
to be used to account for bulking • the degree of tamping and tools to be used
• the use of separate containers specifically for batching • any prohibition of the use of acid for cleaning up
• special requirements (e.g. a record or logging system) • any provision for the use of acid in specially approved
to manage the use of admixtures, to ensure they are circumstances.
used in the correct amounts
8. Protection and curing
• whether batching is to be done wet or dry and the
procedures for the addition of dry materials (e.g. • protection methods and the period of protection from
admixtures or pigments) to a wet mix. adverse weather
• unacceptable weather conditions for repointing and curing
3. Mixing and knocking up
• recording of temperature and humidity during works
• whether premixing and maturing is required and for
and curing
what period
• a week-long period of wetting (very damp) curing after
• what mixing equipment is to be used and for how long
placement
• if hand mixing, the method(s) to be employed
• a week-long period of damp drying during which
• requirements for on-site storage of prepared mixes protection is to remain and relative humidity
• acceptable knocking up or reworking procedures maintained within acceptable limits
• procedures for adding hydraulic components and • whether additional spraying will be required during
admixtures damp drying
• flexibility (within limits) for the operator to adjust the • requirements for subsequent week-long cycles of
mix for workability wetting and drying
• controls on retempering of mixes containing cement. • separate listing of costs of protection and curing on
tender forms.
Specifying repointing 117

9. Site practices 11. Compliance

• storage of materials (off the ground, kept dry and • frequency and role of site inspections
protected) • what tests will be used to assess compliance
• general site management (e.g. dust control) • responsibility for testing
• protection of the building and occupants. • test procedures and approved laboratories
10. Trials, samples, reference panels • how non-compliant works are to be dealt with (e.g.
replacement of all repointing since the previous
• sample biscuits of different mixes and aggregates
inspection)
• schedule of trials, mixes and workability
• certification of compliance.
• reference panels or sample areas, to be retained during
job 12. Training
• at least one sample for each style of pointing • induction and training requirements for contractors
• testing if required of properties such as density and • minimum proportion of trained workers to be
entrained air maintained on-site throughout the duration of the
works.
• acceptance of trial samples as minimum standards to be
met
• retention of a section of existing/original mortar as
evidence.

28 Conclusion
The last three decades have seen extensive international laboratory research and field trials on most aspects of traditional
mortars including work on lime putties, sand-slaked quicklime mixes, natural hydraulic limes and pozzolans. Chapter 30
‘Further reading’ includes some of the key historical sources, technical guides, research papers and conference proceedings
that document our continually evolving understanding of the field.
Among the principal insights are that:
• traditional masonry walls need to breathe and to do so through permeable mortars
• Portland cement blocks pores and restricts the breathing of mortars, plasters and renders
• the availability of suitable pozzolans and natural hydraulic limes removes the need to use any cement when repairing
lime mortars
• sands should be clean, sharp and well graded: this is not new, but it is often not contemporary practice
• using clayey sands (or worse, adding clay) to improve workability is bad practice: it significantly reduces bond strength,
durability and the breathing capacity of mortars
• plasticising, air-entraining and water-retaining admixtures can improve the working characteristics and durability of
some lime mortars
• porous particles in the aggregate can help retain water during placement and improve carbonation and breathing
characteristics
• partly because of like bonding to like, crushed limestone aggregates produce stronger mortars than those made from
crushed sandstones
• using ground limestone or marble fillers can improve size grading of some sands and promote hardening of lime
mortars
• prolonged maturation of lime putties improves workability, while maturing mortar mixes improves their workability
and strength
• good practice with non-hydraulic limes (including putties and sand-slaked quicklime mixes) can make excellent,
durable materials
• porous masonry must be thoroughly pre-wetted and mortars well cured if they are to perform as intended.
As well as the heritage principle of replacing like with like, there are good performance reasons why lime mortars should be
used to repair older buildings. These relate to their compatibility with the adjacent masonry and the need for walls to work
as systems and not just as piles of stones or bricks.
There is still much to learn about traditional lime practice and about the properties of the available materials. There is even
more to be done passing on what is known to those who use it. The need for training extends across the industry, from
specifiers to estimators, project managers, builders, contractors and tradespeople. Making the substantial changes that are
needed will require a new level of understanding and engagement from all those involved in the process. Relearning and
maintaining traditional trade skills will be a key challenge in the face of the incessant tide of modern practice with its
quick-fix approach, which is so damaging to traditionally constructed buildings.
Conclusion 119
29 Glossary
admixture A substance, not including aggregate, binder or pozzolan, added to a mortar mix to modify its
properties. For example see air-entraining agent.
aggregate Hard, inert, granular material used as a filler in mortars and concrete: coarse aggregate =
gravel; fine aggregate = sand. It includes natural sand, sand produced by further crushing of
coarse aggregate, crushed brick and stone, and ground mineral filler.
agricultural lime Ground limestone used to sweeten acidic soils. It has no binding power and cannot be used for
mortars, except as a filler.
air-entraining agent Admixture for mortars to improve their durability, workability and the rate of carbonation of
lime mortars by increasing porosity. Air-entrainers can be used to partly overcome poor size
grading of some sands, particularly those with insufficient very fine sand-sized particles.
air lime Non-hydraulic or pure lime. A lime that hardens by reacting with carbon dioxide in the air
(carbonation). See also water lime.
air-slaking Slaking of quicklime due to the absorption of moisture from humid air. It is accompanied by
some carbonation and hence loss of binding power.
alkali-stable pigment Pigment that is stable in the alkaline conditions found in lime and cement mortars and
concretes.
alumina Aluminium oxide: Al₂O₃. In this context, it is generally found in combination with silica as
aluminosilicates in clays and in pozzolans.
aluminosilicates Silicate minerals containing alumina, as in many clay minerals.
amorphous silica A glassy, non-crystalline form of silica that can be a reactive pozzolan.
argillaceous Rocks or sediments consisting of or containing clay.
artificial cement Cement (e.g. Portland cement) made from several raw materials that are blended together.
An old term, contrasting with natural cement.
arris An edge produced by the meeting of two surfaces on a brick or stone.
ashlar masonry Stone masonry dressed to fine tolerances and regular shapes and laid with narrow (nominal
3 mm) mortar joints.
autogenous healing The capacity of lime mortars to self-heal across small cracks, as a result of dissolution and
recrystallisation of some calcium carbonate binder.
batching Proportioning the constituent materials for a mortar mix.
bedding mortar Mortar used for laying masonry units (such as bricks, blocks, stones and terracotta). See also
pointing mortar.
bed joint A horizontal joint on which masonry units are bedded in mortar.
binder Materials, such as limes and cements, used in powder, paste or putty form, which harden to
hold the aggregate particles together and bind to the masonry units.
blended cement A composite cement containing Portland cement and pozzolanic additions, such as fly ash or
GGBFS.
blue mortar Dark-coloured pointing mortar made from lime and sand (or used foundry sand) charcoal,
ashes and pigments (such as lampblack).
breathability See breathing (of walls), permeability and vapour permeability.
breathing (of walls) The exchange of air and water vapour between permeable masonry materials and the
atmosphere, due to changes in temperature and air pressure.

brick growth The long-term, permanent expansion of some clay bricks due to the absorption of moisture
onto and into clay minerals in the bricks. It may lead to cracking of masonry with hard
mortars.
bricklaying sand Sand that is commonly fine grained and often contains clay, which is used because it improves
workability of cement mortars. ‘Brickies sand’.
builder’s lime See hydrated lime.
burning (limestone) The calcining of limestone in a kiln to make quicklime. The word burning, though commonly
used, is technically incorrect because limestone does not burn.
calcining Heating, firing or roasting at high temperatures.
calcium carbonate The chemical name for the mineral calcite, CaCO₃, which is commonly found in nature as
limestone, marble, chalk, coral or seashells.
calcium hydroxide The chemical name for slaked or hydrated lime: Ca(OH)₂. Commonly described as lime, it is
the product of slaking quicklime with water.
calcium lime Limes consisting mainly of calcium oxide or calcium hydroxide. EN 459 uses the designation
CL. See also dolomitic lime and high-calcium lime.
calcium oxide The chemical name for quicklime: CaO.
carbonates Minerals, such as calcite and dolomite, which contain carbon and oxygen and other elements,
such as calcium and magnesium.
carbonation The hardening of calcium hydroxide (lime) by the absorption of carbon dioxide from the air
(in the presence of water) to form calcium carbonate. The term is used in the concrete
industry for the formation of calcium carbonate by carbonation of free lime in cement paste,
and also for the alteration of silicate minerals to carbonate minerals.
cement A binder that consists only of hydraulic materials, unlike hydraulic limes. Cement can be
natural or artificial, the latter including Portland cement. Cements harden by reacting with
water (hydration).
Cementation Index An index for classifying hydraulic limes and cements, based on the proportions and
hydraulicity of their chemical components.
clinker (cement) The hard, stony, fused product of calcining cement raw materials, which is then finely ground
to make it reactive.
coarse stuff Lime and (generally coarse) sand mixed together as a mortar for masonry, or as a material for
the first coats of plaster. See also fine stuff.
cohesive (mortar) A cohesive mortar will adhere to itself, or ‘hang together’, and not separate into its constituent
parts while it is being placed.
coke breeze Waste product from coal gas ovens used in lightweight concretes and building blocks. Cinders
and charcoal were used similarly.
compatible (mortar) A compatible mortar will have physical properties (such as strength, elasticity, porosity and
permeability) that are appropriate for the adjacent masonry. Its compressive strength should
be lower, while elasticity, porosity and permeability should be higher than those of the
adjacent masonry units.
composition mortar A mortar in which the binder is a composition of cement and lime: ‘compo’.
consistency The thickness or viscosity of a fresh mortar, due to the nature of its constituents (such as lime,
cement and sand) and its water content.
copperas Green, ferrous iron sulfate (green vitriol) used as a colouring agent in limewash and
colourwash. It turns yellow-orange as it oxidises on exposure to air.
curing The process of ensuring (by maintaining appropriate moisture and temperature conditions)
the chemical hardening of a binder (such as lime or cement) to form a solid material.
Glossary 121
cutting out Removing mortar from the face of a joint that is too hard to be raked out and must be cut out
with sharp chisels and/or mechanical tools.
damp-proof course A layer of impervious material (e.g. polyethylene) built into a wall to prevent the upward
(DPC) migration of water. Also called a dampcourse. Remedial damp-proofing may include chemical
DPCs.
deep packing Packing mortar into deeply eroded joints by tamping with purpose-made tools.
desalination The removal of salt, in this case from masonry materials.
dolomitic lime Lime made from a magnesian limestone or dolomite. In addition to calcium hydroxide, it
contains a significant proportion of magnesium hydroxide: Mg(OH)₂. EN 459 uses the
designation DL.
dry-slaking Slaking quicklime in sand with a minimum of water. See also sand-slaking.
durability The ability of materials to withstand the action of the weather over an extended period.
Durability is not necessarily related to strength.
efflorescence The crystallisation of white, powdery salts on the surface of masonry.
elastomeric sealant Elastic polymers (commonly known as mastics): viscous liquids that cure to become an
elastic, sealing compound. They are widely used in modern construction.
extreme dryness As dry as a lime-burner’s boot.
fat lime Pure, non-hydraulic lime, which is also called high-calcium lime and pure lime. See also lean
lime.
fines The portion of aggregate that passes through a 75 µm sieve. Fines consist of clays and silts.
fine stuff Lime and fine sand mixed together, generally for the final (setting) coat of lime plasters. Also
known as ‘setting stuff’. See also coarse stuff.
fly ash Fine, glassy ash, a by-product from burning pulverised coal. Highly siliceous, it is a reactive
pozzolan and used in blended cements.
formulated lime A term used in EN 459 for a hydraulic lime mainly consisting of air lime and/or natural
hydraulic lime with added hydraulic and/or pozzolanic material. EN 459 uses the designation FL.
gauging Measuring mortar materials in the correct proportions, traditionally by using gauge boxes. See
also batching. Also, adding cement or pozzolan to a pre-mixed lime mortar, hence the term
‘gauged with cement’.
‘go dead’ When a mortar loses its plasticity and becomes difficult to work.
granulometry Particle or grain size distribution. See also size grading of sand.
ground granulated Glassy, siliceous slag is a by-product of smelting ores in blast furnaces. When finely ground, it
blast-furnace slag is a reactive pozzolan and is used in blended cements. It is also written as GGBS and as ground
(GGBFS) slag. See also latent hydraulic cement.
ground slag Short form of ground granulated blast-furnace slag.
hard-burnt quicklime Quicklime produced by burning at higher temperatures than needed. It slakes slowly and is
less reactive than soft-burnt quicklime.
hardening The chemical hardening of a binder (such as lime or cement) to form a solid material. It
follows stiffening. See also setting.
high-calcium lime Pure lime. Quicklime or hydrated lime containing at least 80% available lime as CaO or
Ca(OH)₂ respectively. EN 459 uses the designation CL 90.
hot lime mortar Mortar made by slaking quicklime in conjunction with the sand, which is then used while still
hot or warm. See also hot-mixing and sand-slaking.
hot-mixing Making mortar by slaking quicklime with the sand, resulting in a hot mix. The terms sand-
slaking and hot lime mortar distinguish between those mortars that are used cold after a
period of maturing and those that are used while still hot or warm from the slaking process.

hydrated lime Calcium hydroxide: Ca(OH)₂. The result of combining quicklime with water to produce either
a wet hydrate (putty) or a dry hydrate (powder). The term is normally used for the dry powder
form. It is also known as builder’s lime. See also hydration.
hydration A reaction resulting in combination with water. It applies to quicklime, which reacts to
become hydrated lime, and to hydraulic limes and cements which harden by reacting with
water to form hydrates.
hydraulic cement A binder that hardens by reacting with the mixing water. Portland cement is the main
hydraulic cement used in modern construction.
Hydraulic Index An index for classifying hydraulic limes and cements, based on the proportions of their
chemical components. See also Cementation Index.
hydraulic lime A lime that hardens partly by reacting with water (hydration), and so can harden underwater.
Hydraulic limes contain silicates (and aluminates), which harden by hydration and calcium
hydroxide, which hardens by carbonation. See also natural hydraulic lime.
hydraulicity The degree of hydraulic reaction (i.e. with water) of a lime or cement.
hydrophobic Materials that are water repellent.
hygroscopic Materials (such as salts) that absorb moisture from the air.
initial rate of A measure of the suction of porous masonry units.
absorption (IRA)
jointing The process of laying masonry and finishing the mortar joints in one operation with a single
bedding mortar. See also pointing.
knocking up Making a stored (matured) lime mortar workable by repeated beating and chopping – in
traditional practice – or by further mixing in an appropriate mechanical mixer. It is also called
reworking.
laitance A milky skin of binder and fines that is brought to the surface of a mortar joint by the action of
trowelling. Overworking thickens the laitance and reduces the permeability of the joint
surface.
latent hydraulic Materials (such as GGBFS and some high-lime fly ashes) that have a slow hydraulic set but
cement which require an activator (such as lime) to produce a hydraulic reaction sufficient to make
satisfactory binders.
larry A mason’s hoe, used for mixing mortars.
lean lime Non-hydraulic lime containing appreciable inert impurities. Lean limes are not common today,
as most non-hydraulic limes are relatively pure. See also fat lime.
lean mix A mortar mix in which the proportion of binder is less than normal. See also rich mix.
lime Confusingly, a term used for quicklime (calcium oxide), for slaked or hydrated lime (calcium
hydroxide) and for hydraulic limes. References to lime in most nineteenth- and early-
twentieth-century specifications mean quicklime. The term is also loosely used for other
calcium compounds.
lime cycle The three stages of burning, slaking and hardening of lime that form a complete cycle, which
begins and ends with calcium carbonate.
lime putty A putty of calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)₂, made by slaking quicklime in water and allowing it to
settle out until it is stiff enough to retain its shape without slumping. It can also be made by
soaking dry hydrated lime.
lime slurry Midway between lime putty and milk of lime, lime slurry has the consistency of cream and will
flow like a viscous liquid.
limestone A sedimentary rock consisting mainly of calcium carbonate: CaCO₃. It is the principal raw
material of lime and cement binders.
Glossary 123
limewash A coating material produced by thinning lime putty with water to a thin, milk-like consistency.
It may include additives and pigments.
limewater A solution of lime in water, the clear liquid above a settled lime putty. It is used as a
consolidant for weak bricks, limestone, mortar and plaster.
loamy sand A soft sand containing clay, silt and humic (soil) material.
low-alkali cement Portland cement that contains low proportions of the alkalis, sodium and potassium, in order
to avoid alkali-silica reactions with aggregates.
masonry Clay bricks, concrete bricks or blocks, stone and terracotta (the masonry units) laid in mortar
to form walls or other structures.
masonry cement Cementitious material for use in mortars for masonry construction, containing Portland
cement with fillers and plasticisers or air-entraining agents to improve workability.
mason’s putty An Australian term for a putty-like mortar made with lime putty, whiting, linseed oil and very
fine sand (which is sometimes omitted). It is used in narrow-jointed ashlar masonry. It is also
known as oil putty.
mastic Waterproof, flexible sealant used in building applications. See also elastomeric sealant.
matrix The fine material in a mortar, including the binder and any pozzolan.
maturing The ageing of lime putty, leading to finer particle sizes and greater workability. Like wine, you
need to start with good material. It also applies to lime mortars which improve with maturing
before use.
milk of lime Lime putty thinned with water to a milk-like consistency. See also limewash.
mineralogy The scientific study of minerals.
mortar Any material that in wet, paste form can be used to lay masonry or make plasters and renders,
and which then stiffens and hardens. It applies to clay-bound materials as well as those bound
with limes or cement. Mortars generally consist of binder and aggregate.
mud Colloquial term for mortar.
natural cement Hydraulic cement made from a single, natural, raw material, commonly an argillaceous
limestone. It hardens rapidly due to its calcium aluminate components. It is also known as
Roman cement.
natural hydraulic lime Hydraulic lime made by calcining impure limestone that naturally contains silica or
(NHL) aluminosilicates in suitable proportions, without any additions. EN 459 uses the designation
NHL.
non-hydraulic lime Relatively pure limes including lime putty and hydrated lime that harden by reacting with
carbon dioxide in the air (carbonation) rather than with water. Air lime, fat lime and high-
calcium lime are alternative terms for pure or non-hydraulic lime.
pencilling (brickwork) The use of a thin paintbrush, known as a pencil, to paint the ruled line (or other surface) of a
joint in white or black to contrast with the jointing or pointing mortar.
permeability The property of a porous material that allows gas (such as water vapour) and liquids (such as
water) to pass through it. Permeable materials breathe; impermeable materials don’t.
perpend A perpendicular, vertical or cross joint in masonry, often shortened to ‘perp’. See also bed joint.
pinning stones Small pieces of stone that are ‘pinned’ into wide joints in rubble stonework to compact the
mortar and reduce shrinkage.
plaster A mortar applied to walls and ceilings in a plastic state and which later hardens. External
plasters are commonly known as renders.
plaster setting coat The thin, finishing coat of internal plasters. It was made of lime putty and fine sand (fine stuff
or setting stuff) in early buildings and later of mixtures of lime putty and plaster of Paris
(gypsum plaster).

plasticiser An admixture for mortars and concretes, used to improve workability and to reduce the
required water content. Superplasticisers are used to promote flow in grouts and in pumped
concrete.
plasticity The ‘spreadability’ of a fresh mortar while being worked with a trowel. Plasticity is determined
by the nature and proportion of the constituents (binder, aggregate and any admixture).
Plasticity is a key element of workability.
pointing Finishing a mortar joint by raking out some of the bedding mortar and inserting a separate
pointing mortar. See also jointing.
pointing mortar Mortar used to finish joints by pointing. It may differ from the bedding mortar in its materials,
mix proportions, colour and durability.
poorly graded sand A sand that has a uniform grain size or a narrow range of grain sizes. See also well-graded sand
and size grading of sand.
porosity The void (or pore) space in a material, expressed as a percentage.
porous aggregates Crushed porous bricks or stones added to mortars in place of some of the sand to increase
their porosity. They are also known as porous particulates.
Portland cement A hydraulic cement produced by calcining a blend of raw materials including limestone and
clay or weathered shale. The resulting clinker is ground with gypsum to prevent rapid
hardening.
pozzolan Fine-grained, glassy materials containing reactive silica and often alumina that have no
binding power of their own but combine with pure lime to make binders that are similar to
hydraulic limes.
pozzuolana Volcanic ash, pumice and related material from Pozzuoli, Italy. It was used by the Romans in
their mortars and concretes, hence the origin of the term pozzolan.
pre-wetting Wetting walls prior to repointing to control, or ‘kill’, their suction, so that mortars do not dry
out prematurely.
pure lime Lime made from relatively pure limestone, resulting in a non-hydraulic, high-calcium lime.
Pure limes are also known as fat limes or air limes.
putty See lime putty and mason’s putty.
quicklime Calcium oxide, CaO, produced by calcining (burning) limestone, marble, chalk, coral or shells.
It is also known as rock lime or lump lime.
quicklime mortar Mortar made directly from quicklime by sand-slaking (hot-mixing).
raking out Removing mortar from the surface of a joint, using a raker or other tools, to enable pointing or
repointing. See also cutting out.
render A mortar applied to external walls in a plastic state that hardens as it dries. The term is also
used for the first coat of plasters on masonry. See also stucco.
repointing Replacing the outer part of a mortar joint in masonry, which may have been originally jointed
or pointed.
retempering The bad practice of adding water and remixing to again make workable a cement or
composition mortar that is beginning to harden.
reworking Making a matured lime mortar workable again by a period of further mixing. It is also called
knocking up.
rich mix A mortar mix in which the proportion of binder is greater than normal. See also lean mix.
rising damp The upward migration of water in masonry due to capillary suction. It is often the medium for
transporting soluble salts into walls.
Roman cement The trade name of a nineteenth-century English natural cement with a distinctive brown
colour, which was used in Australia. The term Roman cement is now used more widely to
mean natural cement.
Glossary 125
sacrificial mortar A mortar designed to fail in preference to the adjacent masonry, and so protect it. A sacrificial
mortar will be significantly more porous and permeable, and of lower strength than the
masonry units.
salt attack The progressive decay of masonry materials due to cyclic crystallisation or hydration of
soluble salts within the pores of the material.
salt damp A term originating in South Australia that neatly combines the two discrete phenomena of salt
attack and rising damp.
sand-carrying The amount of sand that a binder can carry in a mix. A pure (fat) lime will carry up to three
capacity parts of well-graded sand. Because of the presence of some inert material, a natural hydraulic
lime will carry up to about two and a half parts of the same sand.
sand-slaking Slaking of quicklime in conjunction with the sand to produce a mortar, which is then matured
before use. It is also known as dry-slaking, when a minimum of water (sufficient only to slake
the quicklime) is used initially. See also hot-mixing.
setting The stiffening and hardening of a mortar, plaster or render to form a solid mass.
sharp sand Sand that is angular and so feels sharp when rubbed in the hand.
silica Silicon dioxide: SiO₂. When it is crystalline, it is the mineral quartz which is found in many
sands. When it is amorphous, it is a potentially reactive pozzolan.
silica fume A reactive form of amorphous silica used as a pozzolan in concretes.
silicates Minerals which contain silicon, oxygen and other elements, such as aluminium, calcium, iron,
magnesium and sodium.
siliceous Rocks or sediments consisting of or containing silica.
size grading of sand The distribution of particle sizes (grain sizes) in a sand. It is also known as granulometry. See
also sorting of sands, poorly graded sand and well-graded sand.
slag cement Cement based on GGBFS. It may also contain Portland cement.
slaked lime (putty) Lime putty or hydrated lime, both of which have been produced by slaking quicklime, though
the term is commonly limited to lime putty.
slaking Like a thirst, quicklime is slaked (or slacked) by adding water. The product of slaking
quicklime is slaked or hydrated lime.
slurry A thin mixture of solid material in water. Mortar mixes intended for grouting are made into
slurries by the addition of plasticisers.
soaking Making a form of lime putty by mixing hydrated lime powder with water and leaving it to
stand and settle out. This is not slaking.
soft-burnt quicklime Quicklime produced by burning (calcining) the raw material at relatively low temperatures,
ideally 900–950˚C. If pure, it will be very reactive when slaked. See also hard-burnt quicklime.
soft sand Sand that feels soft in the hand because it is fine grained and loam rich (clay, silt and
organics). It is not the direct opposite of a sharp sand.
sorting of sands A term used by geologists to describe the maturity of a sediment in a stream. Well-sorted sand
will have relatively uniform grain sizes whereas poorly sorted sand will have a broad range of
grain sizes. Sorting and grading are inversely related: a well-graded sand is poorly sorted, and a
poorly graded sand is well sorted.
specific surface area The total surface area of all the particles of a material (such as sand), measured for a standard
quantity (such as a gram weight).
stiffening The initial setting of a mortar as a result of the loss of water by suction into the masonry and
by evaporation. Stiffening is followed by hardening.
stopping A tuck-pointing term for the coloured mortar applied to the face of the bedding mortar joints,
before adding the tuck ribbon or bead.

stucco An external lime- or cement-based rendered surface, commonly to imitate stone. It is often
self-coloured or colour-washed. See also render.
subflorescence The crystallisation of salts within the pores of masonry. It is sometimes referred to as crypto-
efflorescence, meaning hidden. See also efflorescence and salt attack.
suction The negative force exerted by the capillarity of porous materials. It draws water into walls and
helps plaster and mortar adhere. Suction is a function of porosity, pore size and distribution.
See also initial rate of absorption.
superplasticiser See plasticiser.
supplementary Binder additives that include pozzolans and latent hydraulic cements. When added to Portland
cementitious cement they make blended cements. When added to pure lime they make binders similar to
material (SCM) hydraulic limes.
tamping Finishing a semi-hardened mortar joint by tamping the face with the ends of the bristles of a
stiff-bristled brush.
trass Light-coloured, compacted volcanic ash (tuff) that is ground and used as a pozzolan. It was
formerly called tarras.
tuck pointing Finishing a mortar joint with a narrow ribbon or bead of light- or dark-coloured mortar that
contrasts with the stopping, which is usually coloured to match the bricks or stones. This
creates the illusion of finely jointed, high-quality brickwork or stonework.
undersetting A treatment for salt damp in which sections of the base of a wall are progressively removed
and rebuilt, often using new materials and incorporating a damp-proof course.
uniform sand A sand with a single grain size, or a narrow range of grain sizes, making it poorly graded.
unit (of masonry) Bricks, stones or blocks that are laid in mortar to form masonry.
vapour permeability The rate of passage of vapour (e.g. air and water vapour) through a permeable material. It is
loosely described as breathability.
voids Empty spaces; the gaps between the grains of a dry sand that make it porous.
void ratio The proportion of voids in a dry sand (the porosity) expressed as a percentage of the total
volume.
water lime An historic term for hydraulic lime; a lime that was suitable for building works in water, such
as canals or harbours. See also air lime.
water-retainer A water-retaining agent or water thickener; an admixture that improves the water retentivity
of a fresh mortar.
water retentivity A property of binders, aggregates and mixed mortars that is a measure of how well they retain
their mixing water against the suction of the masonry to which they are applied. See also
workability.
weathering 1. T
he action of the weather and pollutants over time, producing an aged appearance and
ultimately causing decay.
2. A
surface (such as a coping or sill) that is sloped to promote water run-off (hence a
weather-struck joint profile).
well-graded sand A sand that has a broad range of grain sizes in roughly similar proportions. See also poorly
graded sand and size grading of sand.
whiting Ground chalk or limestone used in glazing putty and as a filler in many industries. It is a
component of mason’s putty.
workability The relative ease with which a fresh mortar can be spread and worked. It is related to its
plasticity, water retentivity and consistency.
Glossary 127
30 Further reading
30.1 Historical sources 30.2 General works and technical

Andrews, H. 1950. Mortar for brickwork, block construction guides
and masonry. National Building Studies, Bulletin 8, Building
Allen, G., Allen, J., Elton, J., Farey, M., Holmes, S., Livesey,
Research Station, HMSO, London.
P. & Radonjic, M. 2003. Hydraulic lime mortar: for stone, brick
Anon (Nicholson, P.) 1823. The new practical builder, and and block masonry. Donhead, Shaftesbury, UK.
workman’s companion. Thomas Kelly, London.
Ashurst, J. 2003. Mortars, plasters and renders in conservation.
Cowper, A.D. 1927. Lime and lime mortars. DSIR (Building 2nd edn, Ecclesiastical Architects’ and Surveyors’
Research Station) Special Report 9, HMSO, London. (1998 Association, (London).
reprint, Donhead, Shaftesbury, UK.)
Ashurst, J. & Burns, C. 2007. “Philosophy, technology and
Cowper, A.D. 1950. Sands for plasters, mortars and external craft”. In: Ashurst, J. (ed) Conservation of ruins.
renderings. National Building Studies, Bulletin 7, Building Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Research Station, HMSO, London.
Australia ICOMOS. 2013. The Burra Charter: the Australia
Eckel, E.C. 1928. Cements, limes and plasters: their materials, ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013.
manufacture and properties. 3rd edn, Wiley New York. (2005 Australia ICOMOS Inc., Melbourne.
reprint, Donhead Shaftesbury, UK.)
Boynton, R.S. 1980. Chemistry and technology of lime and
Haddon, R.J. 1908. Australian architecture: a technical manual limestone. 2nd edn, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
for all those engaged in architectural and building work.
Bye, G. 2011. Portland cement. 3rd edn, edited by Livesey, P.
George Robertson & Co., Melbourne.
& Struble, L. ICE Publishing, London.
Hodgson, F.T. 1907. Practical bricklaying: self-taught. F.J. Drake
Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia. Technical Notes
& Co., Chicago.
(www.ccaa.com.au)
Mayes, C.E. 1862. The Australian builders’ price-book. 2nd edn,
TN 59. Cements: manufacture, characterization and use.
Sands & McDougall, Melbourne. (first published in 1859 as
2017.
the Victorian contractors’ and builders’ price-book. C. Mayes,
Melbourne) (Nine subsequent editions through to 1951.) TN 65. Bond strength in masonry construction. 2001.
McKay, W.B. 1938–1944. McKay’s building construction. TN 67. Durability of masonry mortar. 2007.
4 volumes, Longman, London. (2005 reprint of volumes
TN 77. Fly ash: properties, characterisation and uses. 2017.
1–3, Donhead, Shaftesbury, UK.)
TN 78. Ground slag: properties, characterisation and uses.
Moxon, J. 1703. Mechanick exercises: or the doctrine of
2018.
handy-works. 3rd edn. (2009 reprint, Toolemera Press,
Dedham, Mass, USA.) TN 79. Amorphous silica: properties, characterisation and
uses. 2018.
Nangle, J. 1900. Australian building practice: a treatise for
Australian students of building construction. George Copsey, N. 2019. Hot mixed lime and traditional mortars: a
Robertson & Co., Melbourne. (Four subsequent editions practical guide to their use in conservation and repair. The
through to 1947, William Brooks & Co, Sydney.) Crowood Press, Ramsbury, UK.
Nicholson, P. 1850. The mechanic’s companion. Bell, Philadelphia. English Heritage. 2011. Practical building conservation:
(2011 reprint, Toolemera Press, Dedham, Mass, USA.) mortars, renders and plasters. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham,
UK. See also Stone and Earth, brick & terracotta in the
Powys, A.R. 1929. Repair of ancient buildings. 4th edn, 2015,
Practical building conservation series.
The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, Shire
Publications, Oxford. Forster, A.M. 2004. How hydraulic lime binders work:
hydraulicity for beginners and the hydraulic lime family. Love
Vicat, L.J. 1837. Mortars and cements. Translated and
Your Building Publishing, Edinburgh.
annotated by J.T. Smith, John Weale, Architectural Library,
London. (1997 reprint, Donhead, Shaftesbury, UK.) Gurtner, C., Hilbert, G., Hughes, D., Kozlowski, R. & Weber,
J. 2012. Manual on best practice in the application of Roman
Vitruvius (Pollio, M.V.) c. 30–20 BCE. On architecture. 2009
cements. 2nd edn, EU Project No. 226898, ROCARE.
translation by R. Schofield, introduction by R. Tavernor,
(http://www.rocare.eu/page/imgt/file/rocare-manual_low-
Penguin Books, London.
res%20(2b).pdf)
Watson Sharp, W. 1946. Australian methods of building
Hall, C. & Hoff, W.D. 2012. Water Transport in Brick, Stone
construction. Angus and Robertson, Sydney. (Three revised
and Concrete. 2nd edn, Spon Press, Oxford.
editions through to 1969.)

Hewlett, P.C. & Liksa, M. (eds) 2019. Lea’s chemistry of Yates, T. & Ferguson, A. 2008. The use of lime-based mortars
cement and concrete. 5th edn, Butterworth-Heinemann, in new build. NHBC Foundation & IHS BRE Press,
Oxford. Amersham, UK. (https://www.nhbcfoundation.org/
publications/)
Historic Scotland. 2003. Preparation and use of lime mortars.
Rev. edition, Technical Advice Note 1, Historic Scotland, Young, D. 2008. Salt attack and rising damp: a guide to salt
Edinburgh. damp in historic and older buildings. Heritage Council of NSW,
South Australian Department for Environment and Heritage,
Holmes, S. & Wingate, M. 2002. Building with lime: a practical
Adelaide City Council, Heritage Victoria, Melbourne.
introduction. Revised edition, ITDG Publications, London.
Lynch, G. 1994. Brickwork: history, technology and practice. 30.3 Papers and conference
2 volumes, Donhead, Shaftesbury, UK.
proceedings
Mack, R.C. & Speweik, J.P. 1998. Repointing mortar joints in
historic masonry buildings. Preservation Brief 2, National Bartos, P., Groot, C. & Hughes, J. (eds) 2000. Historic
Park Service, US Department of the Interior, Washington mortars: characteristics and tests. Proceedings of the
DC. (https://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs.htm) International RILEM workshop, May 1999, Paisley,
Scotland, RILEM Publications, Cachan, France.
Maurenbrecher, A.H.P., Trischuk, K., Rousseau, M.Z. &
Subercaseaux, M. I. 2007. Key considerations for repointing Brocklebank, I. (ed) 2012. Building limes in conservation.
mortars for the conservation of older masonry. Research Donhead, Shaftesbury, UK.
Report 225, Institute for Research in Construction, Building Limes Forum. 1992– . The Journal of the Building
National Research Council Canada, (Ottawa). Limes Forum. (Formerly Lime News) (https://www.
McAfee, P. 2009. Lime works: using lime in traditional & new buildinglimesforum.org.uk)
buildings. Building Limes Forum Ireland and Associated Cizer, Ö., Van Balen, K., Van Gemert, D. & Elsen, J. 2008.
Editions, Dublin. “Blended lime-cement mortars for conservation processes:
Oates, J.A.H. 1998. Lime and limestone: chemistry and microstructure and strength development”. In: D’Ayala, D.
technology, production and uses. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim. & Fodde, E. (eds). Structural analysis of historic construction:
preserving safety and significance. Proceedings of the Sixth
Schofield, J. 1997. Lime in building: a practical guide. 3rd edn, International Conference on Structural Analysis of Historic
Black Dog Press, Crediton, UK. Construction, 2-4 July, Bath, UK, CRC Press, London.
Smith, M.R. & Collis, L. (eds) 2001. Aggregates: sand, gravel pp 965–972.
and crushed rock aggregates for construction purposes. 3rd edn, Elert, K., Rodriguez-Navarro, C., Pardo, E., Hansen, E. &
Engineering Geology Special Publication No 17, Geological Cazalla, O. 2002. “Lime mortars for the conservation of
Society, London. historic buildings”. Studies in Conservation, Volume 47, 62–75.
Soutsos, M. & Domone, P.L.J. (eds) 2018. Construction European Commission. 2012. Roman cements for
materials: their nature and behaviour. 5th edn, CRC Press, architectural restoration to new high standards (ROCARE).
Boca Raton, FL. EU Project No. 226898. (https://cordis.europa.eu/project/
SPAB. 2017. Repointing stone and brick walling. 4th edn, id/226898, accessed October 2020)
Technical Guide, The Society for the Protection of Ancient Forster, Alan M. 2004. “Hot-lime mortars: a current
Buildings, London. perspective”. Journal of Architectural Conservation,
Taylor, H.F.W. 1997. Cement Chemistry. 2nd edn, Thomas Volume 10, No 3, 7–27.
Telford, London. Getty Conservation Institute. 2003. Preservation of lime
Think Brick Australia. Technical Manuals. (www.thinkbrick. mortars and plasters. GCI Project Bibliography Series, Getty
com.au) Conservation Institute, Los Angeles. (http://www.getty.edu/
search/publications)
Manual 10. Construction guidelines for clay masonry. 2018.
Getty Conservation Institute. 2011. Lime mortars and
Manual 19. Industry reference guide. 2019. plasters (1998–2009). Research project. (http://www.getty.
Torraca, G. 1988. Porous building materials: materials science edu/conservation/our_projects/science/mortars/index.html,
for architectural conservation. 3rd edn, reprinted 2005, accessed October 2020)
ICCROM, Rome. Groot, C., Ashall, G. & Hughes, J. (eds) 2004.
Torraca, G. 2009. Lectures on materials science for architectural Characterisation of old mortars with respect to their repair:
conservation. Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles. Final Report of RILEM TC 167-COM. RILEM Report 28,
(http://www.getty.edu/search/publications) RILEM Publications, Bagneaux, France. (https://www.rilem.
net/publication/publication/92)
de Vekey, Bob. 2005. Building masonry with lime-based
bedding mortars. Good Building Guide 66, Building Research Groot, C. (ed) 2009. Repair mortars for historic masonry.
Establishment, Watford, UK. Proceedings of the International RILEM workshop, January
2005, Delft, The Netherlands, RILEM Publications, Cachan,
Welland, M. 2009. Sand: a journey through science and the France. (https://www.rilem.net/publication/publication/71)
imagination. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Further reading 129
Hansen, E.F., Rodríguez-Navarro, C. & Van Balen, K. 2008. Lawrence, R.M.H. & Walker, P. 2008. “The impact of the
“Lime putties and mortars: insights into fundamental water/lime ratio on the structural characteristics of air lime
properties”. Studies in Conservation, Volume 53, 9–23. mortars”. In: D’Ayala, D. & Fodde, E. (eds). Structural
analysis of historic construction: preserving safety and significance.
Henriques, F.M.A. 2004. “Replacement mortars in
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on
conservation: an overview”. In: Kwiatkowski, D. &
Structural Analysis of Historic Construction, 2–4 July, Bath,
Löfvendahl, R. (eds) Proceedings of the 10th International
UK, CRC Press, London. pp 885–890.
Congress on Deterioration and Conservation of Stone,
Stockholm, 27 June – 2 July, ICOMOS Sweden, Stockholm, Leslie, A.B. & Eden, M. 2008. A code of practice for the
pp 973–983. petrographic examination of mortars, plasters, renders and
related materials. Applied Petrography Group, London.
Historic Environment Scotland. Technical papers.
(http://www.appliedpetrographygroup.com/reports.htm)
Technical Paper 27: Hot-mixed lime mortars:
Livesey, P. 2002. “Succeeding with hydraulic lime mortars.”
microstructure and functional performance. 2018.
Journal of Architectural Conservation, Volume 8, No 2, 23–37.
Technical Paper 28: Specifying hot-mixed lime mortars.
Livesey, P. 2003. “Hydraulicity”. The building conservation
2018.
directory. Cathedral Communications, London. (https://
Technical Paper 30: Historic literature review of www.buildingconservation.com/articles/hydraulicity/
traditional lime mortars: excerpts from historic texts 160 BC hydraulicity.htm, accessed October 2020)
– 1955. 2019.
Livesey, P. 2003. “Portland cement strengths through the
(https://www.historicenvironment.scot/archives-and- ages”. Journal of the Building Limes Forum, Volume 10, 76–79.
research/publications/)
Lynch, G.C.J. 1998. “Lime mortars for brickwork: traditional
Holmes, S. 2011. “Specification writing: a question of practice and modern misconceptions – Parts One and Two”.
standards”. Journal of the Building Limes Forum, Volume 18, Journal of Architectural Conservation, Volume 4, No 1, 7–20,
65–71. & No 2, 7–19.
Holmström, I. 1996. “The use of lime” (in Sweden). In: Lynch, G.C.J. 2006. “The colour washing and pencilling of
Ward, J.D. & Maxwell, I. (eds) “The Historic Scotland historic English brickwork”. Journal of Architectural
international lime conference”. Proceedings of the Conservation, Volume 12, No 2, 63–80.
September 1995 conference. The Building Limes Forum and
Lynch, G.C.J. 2009. “The myth in the mix – the 1:3 ratio of
Historic Scotland, Lime News 4:1, 48–63.
lime to sand”. Journal of the Building Limes Forum. Volume
Hughes, J. & Válek, J. 2003. Mortars in historic buildings: a 16, 8–10.
review of the conservation, technical and scientific literature.
Malinowski, E.W. & Seir Hansen, T. 2011. “Hot lime mortar
Historic Scotland, Edinburgh.
in conservation – repair and replastering of the façades of
Hughes, J., Válek, J. & Groot, C. (eds) 2019. Historic mortars: Läckö Castle”. Journal of Architectural Conservation,
advances in research and practical conservation. Springer, Volume 17, No 1, 95–118.
Cham, Switzerland.
Maurenbrecher, P. & Groot, C. (eds) 2016. Repair Mortars
ICCROM 1982. Mortars, cements and grouts used in the for Historic Masonry. State of the Art Report of RILEM
conservation of historic buildings. Proceedings of an ICCROM Technical Committee TC 203-RHM, RILEM Report 45,
symposium, 3–6.11.1981, ICCROM, Rome. RILEM Publications, Paris, France.
Jordan, J.W. 2004. “Lime mortar and the conservation of Michoinová, D. & Rovnaníková, P. 2008. “High-calcium
historic structures”. Australian Journal of Multi-disciplinary lime mortar: the effects of traditional preparation and
Engineering. Volume 3, Issue 1, 35–41. curing”. APT Bulletin: the Journal of Preservation Technology,
Lanas, J. & Alvarez, J.I. 2003. “Masonry repair lime-based Volume 39, No 4, 23-29.
mortars: factors affecting the mechanical behaviour”. NLA Building Lime Group. 2005. Proceedings of the 2005
Cement and Concrete Research, Volume 33, 1867–1876. International Building Lime Symposium, 9–11 March 2005,
Lanas, J., Pérez Bernal, J.L., Bello, M.A. & Alvarez Galindo, Orlando, Florida. National Lime Association, Arlington, VA.
J.I. 2004. “Mechanical properties of natural hydraulic (http://www.buildinglime.org/IBLS05papers.htm)
lime-based mortars”. Cement and Concrete Research, Pain, A.M. & Gray, N.D. 1999. Physical properties of
Volume 34, 2191–2201. construction sands from the Adelaide area. Report Book
Lawrence, M., Walker, P. & D’Ayala, D. 2006. “Non-hydraulic 99/00011, Department of Primary Industries and
lime mortars: the influence of binder and filler type on Resources, South Australia.
early strength development”. Journal of Architectural Palmer, L.A. 1934. “How mortars contribute to dry walls”.
Conservation, Volume 12, No 1, 7–33. Architectural Record, Volume 76, No 5, 377-384.
Phillips, M.W. 1994. “A source of confusion about mortar
formulas”. APT Bulletin: the Journal of Preservation
Technology, Volume 25, Nos 3–4, 50–53.

Pienmunne, J.T. & Whitehouse, J. 2001. Supply and demand
for construction sand in the Sydney Planning Region.
30.4 Standards and codes of practice
Geological Survey Report GS2001/086, NSW Department ABCB. 2019. Building Code of Australia. Volumes One and Two
of Mineral Resources. of the National Construction Code Series, 2019, Australian
Building Codes Board, Canberra.
Rodrigues, P.F. & Henriques, F.M.A. 2004. “Current mortars
in conservation: an overview”. Restoration of buildings and Australian Standards
monuments: an international journal, Volume 10 [6] 609–22.
AS A123:1963. Mortar for masonry construction. (withdrawn
Schork, J., Weiss, N.R. & Walsh, J.J. 2012. “Comparative 1995).
laboratory evaluation of conservation mortars”. APT Bulletin:
AS 1141:2015. Methods for sampling and testing aggregates
the Journal of Preservation Technology, Volume 43, No 1, 7–14.
(Parts 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, 13 & 33).
Suter, G.T., Thomson, M.L. & Fontaine, L. 1998. “Mortar
AS 1316:2003 (R2016). Masonry cement.
study of mechanical properties for the repointing of the
Canadian Parliament Buildings.” APT Bulletin: the Journal of AS 1478.1:2000 (R2018). Chemical admixtures for concrete,
Preservation Technology, Volume 29, No 2, 51–58. mortar and grout. Part 1: Admixtures for concrete.
Teutonico, J.M., McCaig, I., Burns, C. & Ashurst, J. 1994. AS 1672.1:1997 (R2016). Lime and limestones, Part 1: Limes for
“The Smeaton Project: factors affecting the properties of building.
lime-based mortars”. APT Bulletin: the Journal of Preservation
AS 2701:2001 (R2015). Methods of sampling and testing
Technology, Volume 25, Nos 3–4, 32–49.
mortar for masonry construction.
Válek, J. Groot, C, & Hughes, J.J. (eds) 2010. Proceedings
AS/NZS 3582.1:2016. Supplementary cementitious materials.
pro078: 2nd conference on Historic Mortars: HMC 2010 and
Part 1: Fly ash.
RILEM TC 203-RHM final workshop. RILEM Publications
SARL, Bagneaux, France. (http://www.rilem.net/gene/main. AS 3582.2:2016. Supplementary cementitious materials. Part 2:
php?base=500218&id_publication=82) Slag – Ground granulated blast-furnace.
Válek, J. Groot, C, & Hughes, J.J. (eds) 2012. Historic AS 3700:2018. Masonry structures.
mortars: characterisation, assessment and repair. RILEM AS 3972:2010. General purpose and blended cements.
Bookseries 7, Springer, Dordrecht.
AS 4773:2015. Masonry in small buildings. Part 1: Design; Part
Veiga, M.R., Fragata, A., Velosa, A.L., Magalhães, A.C. & 2: Construction.
Margalha, G. 2010. “Lime-based mortars: viability for use as
substitution renders in historical buildings”. International American Society for Testing Materials
Journal of Architectural Heritage, Volume 4, 177–195. (ASTM) Standards
Walker, E. 2020. “Hydraulicity revisited”. The building ASTM C144-18. Standard specification for aggregate for
conservation directory. Cathedral Communications, London. masonry mortar.
(https://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/
hydraulicity-revisit/hydraulicity-revisit.html, accessed ASTM C270-19ae1. Standard specification for mortar for unit
October 2020) masonry.
Ward, J.D. & Maxwell, I. (eds) 1996. “The Historic Scotland ASTM C1324-20. Standard test method for examination and
international lime conference.” Proceedings of the analysis of hardened masonry mortar.
September 1995 conference. The Building Limes Forum and ASTM C1489-15. Standard specification for lime putty for
Historic Scotland, Lime News 4:1. structural purposes.
Wendler, E. & Charola, A.E. 2008. “Water and its interaction ASTM C1713-17. Standard specification for mortars for the
with porous inorganic building materials”. In: De Clercq, H. repair of historic masonry.
& Charola, A.E. (eds) Hydrophobe V: proceedings of the fifth
ASTM E2260-03(2012)e1. Standard guide for repointing
international conference on water-repellent treatment of building
(tuckpointing) historic masonry.
materials, Brussels, April 2008. Aedificatio Publishers,
Freiburg, Germany, pp 57–74. British Standards and related documents
Winnefeld, F. & Böttger, K.G. 2006. “How clayey fines in BS 1199 and 1200:1976 (AMD 5126, 1986). Specifications for
aggregates influence the properties of lime mortars”. building sands from natural sources. (Replaced by BS EN
Materials and Structures, Volume 39, No. 4, 433–443. 13139:2002, but remains current).
PD 6678:2005. Guide to the specification of masonry mortar.
PD 6682-3:2003. Aggregates – Part 3: Aggregates for mortar –
Guidance on the use of BS EN 13139.
Further reading 131

European Standards 30.6 Internet links
EN 459-1:2015. Building lime – Part 1: Definitions, specifications A PDF version of this document, and links to related
and conformity criteria. documents, can be found on the following internet sites:
EN 998:2016. Specification for mortar for masonry – Part 1: Heritage New South Wales
Rendering and plastering mortar; Part 2: Masonry mortar. www.heritage.nsw.gov.au
EN 1015:1999–2019. Methods of test for mortar for masonry. Heritage South Australia
(Multiple parts). www.environment.sa.gov.au/topics/heritage
EN 13139:2013 Aggregates for mortar. Heritage Tasmania
https://heritage.tas.gov.au
Heritage Technical Codes
HTC 1:2020. Lime mortars for the repair of masonry. Heritage Heritage Victoria
Council of Victoria, Melbourne. www.heritage.vic.gov.au
HTC 2:2020. Repointing with lime mortars. Heritage Council Queensland Department of Environment and Science
of Victoria, Melbourne. www.qld.gov.au/environment/land/heritage
WA Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage – Historic
30.5 Audiovisual training materials Heritage
St Astier Limes. 2009. Making lime mortars. Building & https://www.dplh.wa.gov.au/information-and-services/
pointing with lime. The Master Stroke DVD Tutorial series historic-heritage
(https://www.studioscotland.com/themasterstroke)
Scottish Lime Centre Trust. 2008. Traditional masonry
building repair. DVD format. (https://www.scotlime.org/
resources/dvd-traditional-masonry-building-repair/)
Scottish Lime Centre Trust. 2021. Training video 2:
Repointing traditional masonry. Online (https://www.
scotlime.org/resources/products/repointing-traditional-
masonry/).

31 Index
A blending sands 51–52, 55 Portland 3, 5, 15, 27–32, 36–37, 93

acid digestion 83, 85, 86 blue mortar 60 rapid-hardening 31
additive 31, 57–58, see also pozzolans slag 30, 37
bond strength 4–5, 9, 16, 36, 47, 48, 57,
74, 114 sulfate-resisting (SR) 28–32, 37
admixture 9, 30, 57–58, 68–69, 72–74, 99,
white 28, 30–31
102, 114 breathing (of walls) 4, 9–11, 14, 36, 47, 53,
93, 109, 110–111 cementation index 26
aged appearance 11, 53, 60, 66, 90–94,
96, 111 brick dust 33 composition mortar 3, 5, 6, 8, 15, 30,
62–64, 66-67, 69, see also cement
agglomeration 21, see also clumping brick growth 115
mortar
aggregate 39–55, see also sand, shells bricklaying sand 5, 9, 16, 48–49, 51
cement clinker 27
coarse 39 British Standard BS 1200 44–45
porous 10, 53, 63, 66, 68–69, 74 cement mixer 10, 78–79, 100
builder’s clay 48
agricultural lime 17 cement mortar 5, 8, 9, 12, 16, 36, 38,
builder’s lime 3, 17–18 62–64, 66, 93, 105, see also
air-entraining agent 9, 57, 66, 68–69, 73–74, composition mortar
Building Code of Australia (BCA) 6, 71
99, 102, 114, see also admixtures
bulk density 21–24, 98–99 chalk 17, 27, 80
air lime see non-hydraulic lime
bulking 22, 98–99 charcoal 52, 59–60, 96
air-slaking 29, 78
Burra Charter, The 63, 93 chisels 11, 83, 104–106
alite 28–30, 37
churn brush 111
alkali-stable pigment 60, 91 C clay
alumina 24, 33 calcining 17–20, 25, 33 as a binder 2, 15, 92
aluminates 20, 24–25, 27–28, 30, 31, 33 calcium aluminate 20, 24, 27–28, 31, 33 in hydraulic binders 20, 24–27
amorphous silica 24, see also pozzolan calcium carbonate 17–20, 23, 24–25, 39, in pozzolans 33
analysis of mortars 51, 82–88 54, 85–86 in sands 5, 9, 16, 39–43, 45, 47–52,
55, 64
angle grinder 11, 104–105 calcium hydroxide 17–21, 24, 33
clay minerals 33, 45, 47–48
anti-graffiti coating 12 calcium limes 17, 20
clumping 21, 79, 99
artificial hydraulic lime see hydraulic lime calcium oxide 17–20, 24–25
coal ashes 52, 59, 96
asbestos 80–81, 103 calcium silicate 20, 24–25, 27–28, 30, 33
coarse aggregates 39
ASTM (standards) calcium sulfate 31, 34
cohesive mortar 4, 73–74
ASTM C144 44–45 carbonation 11, 18–20, 23, 24–25, 36–37, 85
ASTM C270 62 coke breeze 39, 52, 59, 96
carbon dioxide 8–9, 17–19, 21, 23, 25, 37,
ASTM C1324 86 112–113 cold-weather work 112–113
Australian Standards 6, 49, 70–71 carbonic acid 18–19 colourwash 60, 92
AS A123 49 caulking gun 108 compaction 8, 110
AS 1141 46, 50–51
caulking trowels 8, 11, 12, 108–109 compatibility 3, 5, 36, 55, 63–68, 90, 93–94
AS 1316 30, 70
cavity wall 116 compliance testing 82–83, 86
AS 1672 22, 70
AS 2701 86 cement 27–32, 35–38, 103 composition mortar 2–3, 5–6, 8, 15, 30,
alkali content 31, 37 62–63, 66-67, 99, 116
AS 3582 34
AS 3700 49, 62, 70–71 artificial 3, 27 compressive strength 4, 26, 29, 36, 47
AS 3972 29–30, 70 blended (GB) 29–32, 33, 37 concrete 29–31, 33, 39, 52, 57
AS 4773 49, 70–71 calcium aluminate 31 consistency 20–21, 72, 79, 98–99, 101–102,
chemistry 28 108, 110
B general purpose (GP) 29–31 copperas 60, 92
backing rods 11, 108–109 high early strength (HE) 29–30
coral 17, 19, 27
batching 22, 24, 79, 98–99 low-alkali 31
low-heat (LH) 29–30 core 20
bedding mortar 4, 42, 69, 72, 92, 104, 108
masonry 30–31 cracking 4, 9, 31, 36, 45, 52, see also
belite 25, 28, 37 natural 3, 15, 27–28, 31–32 shrinkage cracking
binders, comparison of 35–38 off-white 28, 30–31 crushed bricks 33–34, 39, 52–53
Index 133
crushed porous limestone 10, 68, 74, see fines (clay and silt) 42–45, 47–51, 112 artificial 3, 25
also porous aggregate finger trowels 8, 11, 12, 108–109 classification 26
cultural significance see significance HL (as in EN 459) 26
flexural (bending) strength 4, 36, 49, 62
cumulative size-grading plots 42–46, 50, hydraulic reactivity see hydraulicity
fly ash 12, 30–31, 33–34, 68–69
51, 54
forced action mixer 10, 78–79, 99–101 I
curing 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 23, 25, 32, 62, 68, 94,
107, 112–113, 114 formulate lime (FL) 25, 26 impurities (in limes) 20, 24
cutting out 11, 104–106 free lime 26, 27, 29, 30, 33 impurities (in sands) 39–40
frost damage protection 11, 57, 76, 112 incompatible mortar 65, 67, 81, 88
D
initial rate of absorption (IRA) 16, 56,
dampening 11, 56, 107, 110, see also G
72–73, 107, see also suction, controlling
pre-wetting gauging see batching
initial stiffening see stiffening
dampness 67, 68, 71, 90, 104, see also glazing putty 80
falling dampness, rising damp, salt ion chromatography 83, 87
damp grading of sands 39, 41–54, 72–73
iron sulfate see copperas
damp-proof course 61, 65, 116 grain shape 10, 12, 39–41, 48, 91, 114
iron sulfide 30, 40
decay mechanisms 34, 37, 38, 40, 63, granulometry 39, 41–54, 72–73
65–67, 81, 82–83, 90, 93 green vitriol see copperas J
deep packing see deep repointing ground granulated blast-furnace slag jointing tools (keys) 8, 12, 108–109
deep repointing 92, 101, 115–116 (GGBFS) 12, 30–32, 33–34, 37, 66, joint profiles 10, 59, 66, 93–95, 110–111
68–69, 93
density of limes 21–23, 24, 68–69, 70,
98–99 ground limestone see filler, mineral K
di-calcium silicate see belite ground slag see ground granulated kaolinite group minerals 47, 51
blast-furnace slag
disc cutter 104–105, see also angle grinder knocking up 10, 76, 78–79, 89, 98, 102
gypsum 27–28, 31, 34, 37
dissolution of lime 23, 116
L
dolomitic lime 17 H laitance 110–111
drying behaviour 14, 47, 67, 94, see also hardening 9, 11, 18–20, 23, 25, 28, 30–32,
lampblack 59–60, 96
premature drying, rapid drying 36–37, 53–54, 56, 57, see also stiffening
larry 10, 76, 79, 89, 100
drying wick see drying behaviour hazards 18–19, 103
latent hydraulic cement 34
dry-slaking 23, 76, see also sand-slaking health and safety 18, 80–81, 100, 103
lead white 80, 103
durability 4–5, 16, 57, 63, 65, 70, 110–111, 112 helical blade mixer 10, 78
lean lime 20
heritage significance see significance
E lean mix 72, 114
heritage value 55, 63, 65, 91, 94, 100, see
earth mortar 2, 5, 15, 47, 92, see also clay as also significance lime and pozzolan mortars 9, 25, 36–37,
a binder 64–65, 68–69
high-calcium lime 20, see also calcium
elasticity 3, 5, 10, 31, 36, 62–63, 69, 70, limes lime burning 5, 13, 15, 17
93, 115
hot-mixing 23, 76, see also sand-slaking lime–cement spectrum 35
elastomeric sealant 81, 103, 109
hot-weather work 9, 23, 112 lime cycle 20
eminently hydraulic lime 26, 35, see also
humidity 11, 23, 112–113 lime inclusions, knots see lime lumps
natural hydraulic lime
hungry mortar 52, 73 lime lumps 75–77, 85, 97, 100
European Standard EN 459 17, 24–26, 70
hungry sand 5, 48, 52 lime putty 3, 5, 7, 17–22, 36, 61, 68–69, 80,
evaporation 10, 23, 67, 113
103
exposure conditions/levels 4, 64–65, 68, 82 hydrated lime 3, 5, 15, 17–22, 24–25, 36, 61,
68–69 in practice 9, 10, 72–74, 76–79, 93,
exposure-grade bricks 5, 16, 70 98–102, 108, 114
in practice 10, 12, 72–73, 98–99, 102
limewash 7, 15, 21, 60, 63, 92, 103
F hydration 11, 18–20, 24–25, 36–37, 53,
112–113 linseed oil 57, 66, 80, 93
falling dampness 87, 90, 115
hydraulic cement see cement low-fired bricks 5, 16, 53, 64–65, 93
fat lime 20, 35, see also non-hydraulic lime
hydraulicity 25–26, 37, 68–69, 76, 86
feebly hydraulic lime 26, 35, see also M
natural hydraulic lime hydraulic index 26
masking tape 11, 108
ferrite 28, 30 hydraulic lime 3, 5, 6, 9, 15, 17, 20, 24–26,
28, 35–37, see also natural hydraulic mason’s hoe see larry
filler, mineral 5, 9, 30, 54, 68–69 lime mason’s putty 10, 54, 66, 80, 93

mastic see elastomeric sealant pigments 59–60, 91, 98–99 mortar preparation 98–102
matching of materials/finishes 10–12, pinning stones 97, 104, 109, 111 mortar selection 64–66, 68–69
52–55, 60, 64, 82, 90–97, 110–111 protection and curing 112–113
plaster 7, 15, 18, 21, 31, 44, 76
maturing putties and mortar mixes 9, 10, specifying 117–118
plasticisers 57, 74
21, 72–73, 76, 79, 89, 98, 100–102 respecting traditional practice 97, 110
plasticity 21, 72–74
mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) retempering 102
83, 87 pointing 4, 21, 56, 59–60, 92–97, 104,
108–111 reworking see knocking up
metakaolin 33
pointing trowels 108, 110 rich mix 5, 55, 61, 72, 77, 114
mineral filler see filler, mineral
polarised light microscopy 85–86 rising damp 67, 90, 115–116, see also salt
misting systems 11, 112–113 damp
polyvinyl acetate (PVA) 58
mixers see mortar mixers roller pan mixer 10, 78, 100
pore blocking 6, 12, 27–28, 36, 58, 63, 108
mixing mortars 10, 76–79, 98–102 Roman cement see natural cement
pore structure 14, 28, 36, 85, 87
mix proportions 2, 5, 10, 22, 48–49, 61–62, rotary cement mixer 10, 78–79, 100
68–69, 70 porosity 5, 16, 47, 53, 56, 63–64, 66, 93, 107
in practice 72–74, 91, 93, 100–102, 114 porous aggregates 10, 53, 63, 66, 68–69, 74 S
moderately hydraulic lime 26, 35, see also porous masonry 5, 14, 16, 56, 58, 63, 70, sacrificial behaviour 4, 10, 12, 14, 67, 90,
natural hydraulic lime 73–74, 81, 107, 109 93, 114
montmorillonite see smectite porous particulates see porous aggregates sacrificial mortar 4, 10, 12, 64–65, 68–69,
mortar analysis see analysis of mortars Portland cement 3, 5, 15, 27–32, 36–37, 93 74, 93, 114
mortar mixers 10, 78–79, 99–101 pozzolans 3, 12, 25, 30, 33–34, 36–37, 53, 103 safety see health and safety
mortar mixes see mix proportions, in mortar mixes 33–34, 36–37, 62–65, salt attack decay 31, 34, 37, 40, 65–67, 81,
mortar types 68–69 87, 93
in practice 6, 9, 10, 12, 33–34, 98–102, salt damp 9, 12, 65, 115–116, see also rising
mortar saws see oscillating blade tools
112, 116 damp
mortar smears 8, 12, 107, 108
premature drying 8, 9, 11, 16, 56, 107, 114 salt testing 83, 87
mortar types 62, 64–66, 68–69
premixed mortar 21, 79, 100 sample biscuits 91
multi-tools see oscillating blade tools
pre-wetting 8, 9, 11, 16, 56, 92, 107, 114 sand 5, 7, 9, 10, 39–55
N protecting works 11, 12, 23, 25, 112–113 blending 51–52, 55
pure lime see non-hydraulic lime bricklaying 5, 9, 16, 48–49, 51
National Construction Code (NCC) see
Building Code of Australia clay content 42–45, 47–51, 112
putty see lime putty, mason’s putty
concrete 39, 49, 51
natural cement 3, 15, 27–28, 31–32
damp 10, 49, 99, 101
natural hydraulic lime (NHL) 3, 7, 24–26, Q
dry 9, 10, 78, 98–99, 101–102
28, 36–37, see also hydraulic lime quartz 39–40, 45, 47, 52, see also silica
dry-screened 39, 45
chemistry 25 quicklime 5, 10, 17–20, 23, 25, 61, 68–69, fines (clay and silt) 42–45, 47–51, 112
classification 24, 26 76, 78, 103
grain shape 10, 12, 39–41, 48, 91, 114
in mortar mixes 36–37, 62–66, 68–69, quicklime mortar 23, 55, 76, 100–101 hungry 5, 48, 52
in practice 6, 12, 72–73, 93, 108, 112, 116
impurities 39–40
non-hydraulic lime 3, 5, 15, 17–19, 35–36, R
plastering and rendering 39, 44
68, see also hydrated lime, lime raking out 11, 104–106 poorly graded 5, 41–46, 48–49, 54, 68,
putty, quicklime
rapid drying 72–73
of new mortars 11, 107, 112–113, see screening 39, 45, 46, 49, see also size
O
also premature drying grading
occupational health and safety see health sharp 9, 10, 16, 39–41, 52, 72–73, see
of walls after rain 4, 14, 65–66
and safety also surface texture
rapid-hardening cement 31
oscillating-blade tools 11, 104–105 size grading 39, 41–54, 72–73
reference panels 110–111 soft 5, 39–41, 49, see also surface texture
overdosing (of admixtures) 30, 57, 114
relative humidity see humidity specific surface area 47
overworking 110
render 15, 18, 21, 27, 31, 44, 63 surface texture 39–41, 53, 72
P repointing 1–12, 90–116 uniform 5, 10, 41, 43, 48, see also
poorly graded
particle size distribution see size grading joint filling 108–109
void ratio 3, 48–50, 52, 61, 68, 72–73, 114
pencilling 59, 96 joint finishing 110–111
washed 7, 10, 39–41, 49, 51
joint preparation 104–107
permeability 4, 14, 27–28, 34, 62–68, well-graded 5, 7, 10, 16, 40–46, 48–49,
85–86, 93–94, 110, 114 key decisions 90–97
61–62, 68, 72–74
Index 135
sand-carrying capacity 20, 69 smears see mortar smears pointing 108, 110
sand-slaking 10, 23, 55, 61, 76–78, 100–101 smectite 45, 47, 51 tuck pointing 4, 59, 95
scratch test 84 spalling (of edges) 12, 36, 38
U
sealant see elastomeric sealant specifications 44–46, 49, 117–118, see also
standards undersetting 9, 32, 62, 116
setting 23, see also hardening, stiffening
specific surface area (of aggregates) 47
settling test 50–51 V
standards see ASTM, Australian
selection of mortars 64–66, 68–69 visual analysis 83–84
Standards, British Standard BS 1200
shells (as aggregate) 39, 41, 52–53 and European Standard EN 459 void ratio 3, 48–50, 52, 61, 68, 72–73, 114
shrinkage 11, 52–53, 57, 79, 92, 102, 109 stereomicroscopy 83–85
W
shrinkage cracking 44–45, 47, 73, 80, stiffening 23, 114, see also hardening
85–86, 110–111 water demand 47, 53–54, 60
stopping mortar 4, 59, 95
sieve analysis (of aggregates) 41–45, see water lime see hydraulic lime
stucco 27, 60, 92
also size grading (of sands) water-retaining agent 57, 68–69, 74, 114
suction, controlling 9, 11, 16, 56, 57, 72–74,
sieves 39, 42, 44, 46, 49–50 water retentivity 36, 41, 48, 54, 72–74, 114
107
significance 53, 55, 63–66, 68, 82–83, 94, water thickener see water-retaining agent
sulfate salts 30–31, 34, 40, 52, 60, 63, 87
100, see also heritage value
swelling clay 45, 47, 51 weathered appearance see aged
silica 24–26, 33, 39, 54, 103 appearance
silicates 20, 24–25, 27–28, 30, 33, 35, 39, 75 T wet chemical analyses 82–83, 86
silt 39–40, 42–43, 45, 47, 49–50, 53, 55 tamping 11, 92, 96, 110–111 wetting and drying cycles 11, 23, 25,
size grading (of sands) 39, 41–54, 72–73 112–113
TDS (total dissolved solids) 83, 87
slag white cement 28, 30–31
thermal analysis 83, 87
cement 30, 32, 37, 69 whiting 80, 93
thermal expansion 12, 36, 38, 64, 67, 116
as a pozzolan 12, 30–32, 33–34, 37, 66, workability 3, 4, 7, 16, 20–21, 36, 41, 45, 48,
68–69, 93 thin section examination see polarised
54, 56, 57, 68, 72–74
light microscopy
slaked lime see non-hydraulic lime in practice 9, 10, 72–74, 79, 98–102,
trass 12, 33, 68–69 108, 114
slaked lime putty see lime putty
tri-calcium silicate see alite
slaking quicklime 18–20, 23, 55, 61, 76–78,
trowels X
100–101, 103
caulking, finger 8, 11, 12, 108–109 X-ray diffraction (XRD) 51, 83, 86–87
slurry 22, 79, 98–99, 102, 108

MortarsTechnicalGuide Online

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MortarsTechnicalGuide Online

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MortarsTechnicalGuide Online

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TECHNICAL GUIDE

Mortars: materials, mixes and methods

Authorship Disclaimer Cover photo: Close-up of lime mortar in the

PART 1 Introduction and the basics 1

PART 2 Mortar materials and mixes 13

3 Role of mortars in traditional construction 14

ii TECHNICAL GUIDE Mortars: materials, mixes and methods

18 Repointing – key decisions 90

30 Further reading 128

Box 1: Mortar basics – materials 7

Table 1: Principal binders used in Australian mortars 15

Figure 1: How not to repoint a wall 1

iv TECHNICAL GUIDE Mortars: materials, mixes and methods

Figure 11: Density matters! 22

Figure 58: Traditional practice (left) 97

vi TECHNICAL GUIDE Mortars: materials, mixes and methods

kg/L kilograms per litre

Abbreviations and Acknowledgements vii

viii TECHNICAL GUIDE Mortars: materials, mixes and methods

Introduction and the basics

Introduction and the basics 1

In building constructions there are few things of more importance, and

The focus of this guide is on mortars in older Australian buildings, and

Describing proportions in mortar mixes

2 TECHNICAL GUIDE Mortars: materials, mixes and methods

Figure 2: Mortar terminology. Jointing is

2.1 What makes a good mortar?

4 TECHNICAL GUIDE Mortars: materials, mixes and methods

2.2 Mortar materials and mixes

6 TECHNICAL GUIDE Mortars: materials, mixes and methods

Figure 4: Natural hydraulic limes.

Figure 5: A well-graded sand.

2.3 Repointing mortar joints

Figure 6: Jointing tools. Some of the

8 TECHNICAL GUIDE Mortars: materials, mixes and methods

Q  houldn’t I add some cement to

2.5 Repointing lime mortar joints: 11 key points

1. Match previous mortars 5. Sands should be washed clean, and be

10 TECHNICAL GUIDE Mortars: materials, mixes and methods

8. Pre-wetting • Tamping produces an aged appearance. The amount of

9. Repointing • Water must be present for the hardening reactions –

2.6 The dos and don’ts of repointing mortar joints

12 TECHNICAL GUIDE Mortars: materials, mixes and methods

Mortar materials and mixes

Photo: Alan Kelsall.

Mortar materials and mixes 13

3 Role of mortars in traditional construction

As well as contributing to the appearance of a wall, mortar performs four

Figure 8: Permeable mortar. Salt crystals

14 TECHNICAL GUIDE Mortars: materials, mixes and methods

Table 1: Principal binders used in Australian mortars

composition 2000 composition

lime composition 1920 cement composition

lime composition 1900 cement composition

lime clay 1880 cement hydraulic lime lime

lime clay 1850 lime hydraulic lime

clay lime 1800 lime clay

Mortars in Australia – then and now 15

16 TECHNICAL GUIDE Mortars: materials, mixes and methods

5.1 Types of lime: non-hydraulic and hydraulic

3 Role of mortars in traditional construction 14

Q houldn’t I add some cement to

1. Match previous mortars 5. Sands should be washed clean, and be

3 Role of mortars in traditional construction