1st International Conference on Innovative

Building Materials
Dec. 28-30, 2014

8302 03-82

IMPROVEMENT OF THE TRADITIONAL LIME MORTARS BY

GEOPOLYMER TECHNOLOGY
IN CONSERVATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS
APPLIED ON AYTMISH AL-BAGASI MOSQE
(1338 A.D.-785 A.H.) "HISTORIC CAIRO"
*Hussein M. Ali, **Huda M. Dahab , ***waleed H. soufy.
*Professor in Faculty of Fine Arts, Minia University, Minia University
** Conservation Project Manager, Ministry of Antiquities.
*** Ass. Professor in Housing and Building National Research Center, Cairo, Egypt.

Abstract
The research aim at improving the mechanical, chemical and physical prosperities of the
mortars which are used in "Cracks Conservation of Historic Buildings" caused by Mortars
deterioration by using Geopolymer Mortars.
This Study show an improvement in Strength of the traditional lime mortar due to the addition of
geopolymer. The apparent bulk density and compressive strength of the Geopolymer mortars
increase than the traditional lime mortars with time of duration. Geopolymers Mortars gave
better resistance according to the effect of Sodium Chloride Solution as aggressive media
attack and gets the same behaviour in presence of HCl.

1. INTRODUCTION
Geopolymers are inorganic materials produced artificially in a process called
geopolymerisation from aluminosilicates activated with alkali silicate solutions. The
aluminosilicate can be a dehydroxylated aluminosilicate clay mineral (e.g. kaolin) or an
industrial waste such as fly ash or ground blast furnace slag. The activation process initiates a
poly condensation reaction, leading to the formation of a short-range ordered molecular network
of SiO4 and Al2O3 tetrahedral joined by oxygen bridges. In this configuration the AlO4
tetrahedron introduces a negative charge, which the alkali metal balances. Geopolymers show
some of the best properties of ceramics and cement-based materials, including good
mechanical performance and excellent adherence to aggregate and reinforcing materials. They
are also noninflammable, with good resistance towards acids and low permeability [1-3].
Geopolymers are green materials for a sustainable economy since they are derived from natural
sources and can be prepared simply at room temperature with 10 times lower CO2 emission
than Portland cement
[3,4], although their brittle characteristic usually affects its wide
applications [5].
To improve their mechanical properties, many strategies have been applied, ranging from the
changes of the raw materials composition and ratios [6] to the addition of organic and inorganic
fibers [7, 8]. An increase of the compressive strength was observed in a mixed system of alkaliactivated metakaolin and ground blast furnace slag with high Ca content, at high NaOH
concentration, due to the calcium precipitation within the geopolymer binder [9], while, more
recently, geopolymeric composites combined with carbon fiber fabrics or steel cords to
strengthen reinforced concrete structural elements, have shown poor results only when coupled
with carbon fabrics designed for epoxy impregnation [10].

151

1st International Conference on Innovative

Building Materials
Dec. 28-30, 2014

8302 03-82
The aim of this work is a preliminary assessment of geopolymeric materials for the specific use
in the field of structural retrofitting of historical masonry. Geopolymers can satisfy these
requirements since they can be produced with a controlled composition (for instance avoiding
the side effects of Ordinary Portland Cement applied on historical constructions) and specific
physical and mechanical properties (as much as possible close to the parent substrate) [11] and
proved by preliminary application on movable terracotta cultural heritages [12].

2. EXPERIMENTAL
For preparing the investigations and analyses of the traditional mortars, some samples got from
Aytmish al-Bagasi Mosqe (1338 A.D.-785 A.H.) "Historic Cairo" which is the mortars
deterioration is the principal causes of occurrence of cracks in the building.
The main cause of the mosque deterioration mortars is the water supply of the public tap on
North wall and the damage and decay of Sewage network in the mosque in addition the whole
area.
1- X Ray. Diffraction analyses , samples

Albite calcian low; Hematite

Albite calcian low

Quartz; Albite calcian low; Hematite

Albite calcian low; Hematite

Quartz; Albite calcian low

Albite calcian low; Hematite

Quartz; Albite calcian low

Albite calcian low

Quartz

Albite calcian low

Albite calcian low

50

Albite calcian low; Hematite

100

Hematite

Quartz; Albite calcian low

icl1882

Albite calcian low

Counts/s

0
10

20

30

40

Position [2Theta]

Fig.1: X-Ray Diffraction Red Brick.

The sample main component minerals in Red Brick is quartz (SiO2) which used in Itomosh Al
Bagasi Mosque in addition of using it as a silicate source in the experimental mortars

1st International Conference on Innovative

Building Materials
Dec. 28-30, 2014

8302 03-82

Counts/s
Calcite

Rst1857

600

Calcite
Calcite
Calcite

Quartz

Calcite
Quartz

Calcite

Calcite

Quartz

Calcite
Calcite

Quartz

200

Calcite

Calcite; Quartz

400

0
10

20

30

40

Position [2Theta]

Fig. 2: " X-Ray Diffraction lime stone

The sample contains calcite and quartz without any salts of underground water pollution cause
the sample was taken from the top of the lime stone brick wall
Counts
Calcite; Gypsum

Rst 1856 3

10

20

30

40

Position [2Theta]

Fig. 3: X-Ray Diffraction Lime Stone

Calcite; Gypsum
Calcite; Gypsum

Calcite

Calcite; Gypsum
Gypsum

Gypsum
Gypsum; Quartz

Calcite; Gypsum
Gypsum

Gypsum
Calcite

Quartz

Calcite

Gypsum

Gypsum; Quartz

100

Calcite; Gypsum; Quartz

200

1st International Conference on Innovative

Building Materials
Dec. 28-30, 2014

8302 03-82
The sample shows the major mineral of the lime stone brick components is calcium carbonate "
calcite" side by side with quartz and gypsum, explanation of gypsum presence considered
component of building process or as a salt output underground water pollution reaction.
Counts/s
Halite

Rst 1855

Halite

1000

Halite Halite

500

0
10

20

30

40

Position [2Theta]

Fig. 4: X-Ray Diffraction of salts

The sample represent salt" halite" as a result of the underground water supply from the public
tap on the western faade
2- EDX Investigation Method

Fig.5
Fig.(5)The mortar sample show mortar raw materials and the presence of quartz a part means
the mortar didnt reach the temperature limit to made good mortar

1st International Conference on Innovative

Building Materials
Dec. 28-30, 2014

8302 03-82

Fig.6
Fig.(6):The mortar sample show mortar raw materials means it is not good mortar and show the
harmful chloride salts

Fig.7
Fig.(7): The sample represent the mortar sample and this minerals similar to red brick
components which is carnivorous materials " good mortar"

Fig.8

1st International Conference on Innovative

Building Materials
Dec. 28-30, 2014

8302 03-82
Fig.(8)" Bad mortar" the sample show chloride salts and sodium, magnesium, titanium and iron
oxides minerals which are didnt present the main components of mortar formation
3- measurements of mortars physical properties the mosque samples"
Test results
Samples

Test
Density
Absorption
Porosity

1
1.12
25.0
22.2

( gm/ cm )
(%)
(%)

2
1.11
20.0
18.75

Experimental Work
Geopolymer Mortars
The experimental investigation done on performance of geopolymer mortars subjected to
severe environmental conditions ,Geopolymer results from the reaction of a source material that
is rich in silica and alumina with alkaline liquid
Preparing the Mortars
There are two types of mortars prepared in the experimental work
1- Traditional lime mortars with three sources of silica
M1( Calcium Hydroxide 5+Red Brick powder). A:
B: H1 ( Calcium Hydroxide 5+Fly Ash powder).
C:W1 ( Calcium Hydroxide 5+Clay powder).
2- Geoplymer Mortars with Three Sources of Silica
(alkaline liquid : lime) (Sodium Hydroxide : lime ) (1 : 2 ) + silica and alumina source)
A: M2 ( Sodium Hydroxide 10 mol + Calcium Hydroxide +Red Brick powder).
B: H2 ( Sodium Hydroxide 10 mol + Calcium Hydroxide +Fly Ash powder).
C: W2 ( Sodium Hydroxide 10 mol + Calcium Hydroxide +Clay powder).
Table 1: Comparison of the Traditional Lime Mortars Contents and the Geopolymer
Mortars Contents
Mix No.

Silica and Alumina

source

Calcium Hydroxide

M1

Red Brick powder

5%

M2

Red Brick Powder

H1

Fly Ash

H2

Fly Ash

W1

Clay powder

W2

Clay powder

Sodium Hydroxide

10mol
5%
10mol
5%
10mol

1st International Conference on Innovative

Building Materials
Dec. 28-30, 2014

8302 03-82
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Bulk Density
The values of bulk density of samples under investigation are given in Table 2 at various curing
time of 1, 3, 7 and 28 days. These are also graphically represented as a function of curing times
in Fig.(9).
3

Table2: Bulk Density (g/cm ) of pastes made by various proportions of powder and
calcium hydroxide and alkali materials.
3

Bulk Density (g/cm )

Mix No.
1 Day

3 Days

7 Days

28 Days

M1

1.27

1.31

1.36

1.47

M2

1.84

1.89

1.94

2.29

H1

1.34

1.39

1.44

1.51

H2

1.59

1.63

1.73

2.08

W1

1.42

1.47

1.52

1.58

W2

1.66

1.86

1.91

2.08

1 day
3 days
7 days
28 days

3.0

2.5

Bulk Density (g/cm )

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

M1

M2

H1

H2

W1

W2

MIX
3

Fig.9: Bulk Density (g/cm ) of pastes made by various proportions of powder and
calcium hydroxide and alkali materials according to different intervals time.
The results indicate that, bulk density of the specimen's increases with the increase of curing
time. As a hydration reaction proceeds, more hydrated products are formed and precipitated
within the pores originally filled with water leading to an increase in bulk density. The value of
bulk density recorded the high value in presence of red brick powder and sodium hydroxide.
Also, bulk density improved in each species include sodium hydroxide which mainly due to the
formation of geopolymer phases.

1st International Conference on Innovative

Building Materials
Dec. 28-30, 2014

8302 03-82
3.2. Total Porosity
The total porosity of hardened specimens is given in Table3 these values are also graphically
represented as a function of curing time in Fig (10).
Table 3: Total porosity of pastes made by various proportions of powder and calcium
hydroxide and alkali materials.
Total porosity,(%)
Mix No.
1 Day

3 Days

7 Days

28 Days

M1

26.57

24.04

19.05

17.72

M2

26.33

23.24

16.09

12.31

H1

26.38

24.38

17.75

15.15

H2

26.75

23.42

16. 1

11.81

W1

26.80

25.11

22.31

19.95

W2

25.91

22.71

15.27

11.82

1 day
3 days
7 days
28 days

35
30

Total porosity,(%)

25
20
15
10
5
0

M1

M2

H1

H2

W1

W2

MIX
Fig.10: Total porosity of pastes made by various proportions of powder and calcium
hydroxide and alkali materials.
The presented results are going in the opposite direction to the results of bulk density. Thus,
porosity decreases as curing time increases. The above phenomena affect the results of the
compressive strength; the value of porosity recorded the lower value in presence of Fly Ash
powder and sodium hydroxide. Also, porosity reduces in each species include sodium
hydroxide.

1st International Conference on Innovative

Building Materials
Dec. 28-30, 2014

8302 03-82
3.3.

Compressive Strength

3.3.1. Compressive strength in tab water

Fig. (11) Illustrates the results of compressive strength of geopolymer mortar. The compressive
strength increases for all samples with the increasing of curing time due to the nature of
hydrated phases formed during the hydration process. The precipitation and accumulation of
hydrated products fill a part of the available pores. Hence, the total porosity decreases and the
values of compressive strength increase. And the data are noted in table 4.
2

Table 4: Compressive Strength (kg /cm )of pastes made by various proportions of
powder and calcium hydroxide and alkali materials.
2

Compressive Strength (kg /cm )

Mix No.
M1

1 Day
154

3 Days
213

7 Days
315

28 Days
396

M2

169

353

416

565

H1

146

218

341

401

H2

155

306

422

553

W1

111

181

241

321

W2

135

336

448

563

1 day
3 days
7 days
28 days

600

Compressive Strength (kg /cm2)

500

400

300

200

100

M1

M2

H1

H2

W1

W2

MIX
2

Fig.11: Compressive Strength (Kg /cm ) of pastes made by various proportions

of powder and calcium hydroxide and alkali materials versus curing time.
Compressive strength gets the higher value red brick with sodium hydroxide. Compressive
2
strength recorded 565 kg /cm at 28 days of hydration. Every sample which includes sodium
hydroxide as alkaline activator recorded highest compared with the values of sample which
included calcium hydroxide as alkaline activator. This mainly related to the reaction behavior in
each case. In presence of calcium hydroxide the reaction mainly follows the pozzolanic
reaction, while in presence of sodium hydroxide the reaction mainly produces the geopolymer
phases.
3.3.2. Compressive strength in sodium chloride
The influence of aggressive attack is studied on different mixes of geopolymer mortar pastes in
5% sodium chloride solution up to 180 days. The various types of mixes studied in the present

1st International Conference on Innovative

Building Materials
Dec. 28-30, 2014

8302 03-82
investigation are given in table 5. And This values also graphically plotted as a function of curing
time in Fig.(12).
2

Table 5: Compressive Strength (kg /cm )of pastes made by various proportions of
powder and calcium hydroxide and alkali materials immersed in 5% sodium chloride
solution
2

Compressive Strength (kg /cm )

Mix No.
M1

1 Day
396

30 Days
380

90 Days
294

180 Days
225

M2

565

578

590

467

H1

401

372

311

263

H2

553

589

577

534

W1

321

287

234

221

W2

563

582

611

576

600

Compressive Strength (kg /cm )

550
500
M1
M2
H1
H2
W1
W2

450
400
350
300
250
200
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Time (days)
2

Fig.12: Compressive Strength (Kg /cm ) of pastes made by various proportions

of powder and calcium hydroxide and alkali materials versus curing time
immersed in in 5% sodium chloride solution.
According to figure 12 all mixes get two behaviour, the first behaviour which produce in
presence of mix M2, H2 and w2 , compressive strength increases with time up to 90 days then
the compressive strength decreases. This behaviour mainly related to the formation of
geopolymeric in presence of NaOH as alkaline activator. On the other hand, the compressive
strength in other cases decreases with time due to the formation of unstable cement form reacts
with aggressive media.
3.3.3 Compressive strength in dilute hydrochloric acid
The influence of aggressive attack is studied on different mixes of geopolymer mortar pastes in
5% sodium chloride solution up to 180 dayes. The various types of mixes studied in the present
investigation are given in table 6. And This values also graphically plotted as a function of curing
time in Fig.(13).

11

1st International Conference on Innovative

Building Materials
Dec. 28-30, 2014

8302 03-82
2

Table 6: Compressive Strength (kg /cm )of pastes made by various proportions of
powder and calcium hydroxide and alkali materials immersed in 5% HCl.
2

Compressive Strength (kg /cm )

Mix No.
M1

1 Day
396

30 Days
343

90 Days
274

180 Days
213

M2

565

547

521

488

H1

401

387

366

324

H2

553

531

496

461

W1

321

298

256

217

W2

563

541

511

486

600

Compressive Strength (kg /cm )

550
500
M1
M2
H1
H2
W1
W2

450
400
350
300
250
200
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Time (days)
2

Fig.13: Compressive Strength (Kg /cm ) of pastes made by various proportions

of powder and calcium hydroxide and alkali materials versus curing time
immersed in 5% HCl.
Figure13 notes decreases in compressive strength of all mixes. The resistance to aggressive
media HCl recorded small change in presence of mixes include NaOH and the variation
increases in presence of Ca(OH)2.

4. CONCLUSION
1- There an improvement in Strength of the traditional lime mortar due to the addition of
geopolymer with Nano technology.
2- The apparent bulk density of the Geopolymer mortars increases than the traditional lime
mortars throughout ( 1 day, 3 days, 7days , 28 days) measurements .
3- The Increase in the Compressive Strength of Geopolymer Mortars appears after the
comparison measurements throughout (1 day, 3 days, 28 days).

11

1st International Conference on Innovative

Building Materials
Dec. 28-30, 2014

8302 03-82
4- Geopolymers Mortars gave better measurements under the effect of Sodium Chloride
Solution throughout (1 day, 3 days, 90 days,180 days).
5- Geopolymer Mortars show highly resistance of HCl Acid from the compressive strength
measurements during (1 day, 3 days, 90 days, 180 days).

REFERENCE
[1].

Davidovits J., 1989, Geopolymers and Geopolymeric Materials, J. Therm. Anal.,

35,429-41.
[2]. Duxson P., Fernandez-Jimenez A., Provis J., Lukey G., Palomo A., van Deventer J.,2007,
Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art, J Mater Sci, 42:2917.
[3]. Song X., 2007, Development and Performance of Class F Fly Ash Based Geopolymer
Concretes against Sulphuric Acid Attack, Phd thesis, The University of New South Wales,
Australia.
[4]. Pacheco Torgal F., Jalali S., 2011, Eco-efficient Construction and Building
Materials,Springer (Berlin, Germany).
[5]. Zhao Q., Nair B., Rahimian T., Balaguru P., 2007, Novel geopolymer based composites
with enhanced ductility, J Mater Sci, 42(9), 3131-3137.
[6]. Heah C.Y., Kamarudin H., Al Bakri A.M.M., Binhussain M., Luqman M., Nizar I.K., Ruzaidi
C.M, Liew, Y.M., 2013, Infl uence of oxide molar ratios on kaolin geopolymers,
Advanced Science Letters, 19, 3588-3591.
[7]. Yao Jun Z., Sheng L., De Long X., Bao Qiang W., Guo Ming X., Dong Feng Y., Nan W.,
Hou Cun L., Ya Chao W., 2010, A novel method for preparation of organic resins
reinforced geopolymer composites, J Mater Sci, 45, 1189-1192.
[8]. Rill E., Lowry D.R., Kriven W.M., 2010, Properties of basalt fi ber reinforced geopolymer
composites, Ceramic Engineering and Science Proceedings, 31(10) , 57-67.
[9]. Zhang Y.J., Wang Y. C., Xu D.E.,Li S. l., 2010, Mechanical performance and hydration
mechanism of geopolymer composite reinforced by resin, Materials Science and
Engineering, A 527 (2010) 65746580
[10]. Menna C., Asprone D., Ferone C., Colangelo F., Balsamo A., Prota A., Cioffi R., Manfredi
G., 2013, Use of geopolymers for composite external reinforcement of RC
members,Composites: Part B, 45, 1667-1676.
[11]. Leonelli C. and Romagnoli M. (Eds), 2011, Geopolimeri, Polimeri Inorganici
Chimicamente Attivati, I.Cer.S (Bologna, Italy) ISBN 978-1-4477-1913-7
[12]. Hanzlek T., Steinerov M., Straka P., Pern I., Siegl P. and varcov T., 2009,
Reinforcement of the terracotta sculpture by geopolymer composite, Materials and
Design , 30(8), 3229-3234.

12