Materials and Structures (2007) 40:1115–1126
DOI 10.1617/s11527-006-9209-6
O R I G I N A L A RT I C L E
Evaluation of mechanical compatibility of renders to apply
on old walls based on a restrained shrinkage test
Maria Rosário Veiga Æ Ana L. Velosa Æ
Ana C. Magalhães
Received: 11 April 2006 / Accepted: 27 October 2006 / Published online: 21 December 2006

RILEM 2006
Abstract When fresh mortars are applied on a
substrate they lose water by suction and by
evaporation, sometimes very quickly, and they
start suffering some shrinkage, while simulta-
neously hardening and getting stiffer. Because
they are adherent to a rigid background—the
wall—the deformation is restrained, stresses
develop in the render and are partially trans-
ferred to the background. These phenomena can
generate cracks on the rendering and damage on
weak or friable masonry. Air lime renders also
suffer these actions, even if they react in a
different way compared to cement mortars: they
sometimes have high shrinkage, although they
have also some ductility (comparatively high
rupture energy), developing lower stresses.
New renders to apply on old walls must be
mechanically compatible with old pre-existent
materials, namely with old masonry: they should
not produce damage and they must be able
to protect the wall for a reasonable period of
time.
In this paper a test is described to evaluate the
performance of renders concerning restrained
M. R. Veiga (&)
A. C. Magalhães
Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil (LNEC),
Av. do Brasil 101, 1700-066 Lisbon, Portugal
e-mail: rveiga@lnec.pt
A. L. Velosa
Universidade de Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal
shrinkage, results obtained are discussed and
conclusions are summarised about compatibility
parameters and classification.
Keywords Restrained shrinkage test

Mechanical compatibility
Compatibility
assessment
Lime renders
Pozzolanic mortars
1 Introduction
Mortars to apply on ancient walls must fulfil
several requirements to be compatible with the
background and the pre-existent materials in
general. These requirements concern mainly the
water behaviour, the chemical behaviour and the
mechanical behaviour, besides the more visible
aesthetic compatibility.
The mechanical compatibility of the mortar
means essentially that the new material must
not transmit tensions to the old ones, over a
level that can contribute seriously to their
cracking, delamination or rupture in any way.
Usually this is controlled through the modulus
of elasticity, which must not be higher than the
modulus of elasticity of the old materials in
contact [1]. But in effect the transmission of
tensions occurs along a period of time and
depends on the dynamic development of several
processes, such as the hardening of the mortar
(by hydration, carbonation or other reactions),
1116
its shrinkage and relaxation ability, which are
not all synthesised by the modulus of elasticity
and by instantaneous measures of other charac-
teristics.
A method was developed to model the evolu-
tion of the mortar’s mechanical performance and
used to study its mechanical compatibility with
old masonry, based on a restrained shrinkage test
followed by a tensile test.
2 Technique
2.1 Experimental model
The experimental model used consists of restrain-
ing the shrinkage deformation in unidimensional
mortar specimens, from the time of moulding
until relative stabilisation takes place and mea-
suring the tensile stresses developed (Fig. 1).
Dogbone specimens have been chosen because
they optimise conditions for tensile tests.
The thickness adopted for the specimens is
20 mm, because it is a representative thickness for
common render coats applied on external walls.
The other dimensions are indicated in Fig. 1. The
specimens are prepared as similarly as possible to
Fig. 1 Scheme of the
experimental model
Materials and Structures (2007) 40:1115–1126
the usual application method for manually ap-
plied renders (Fig. 2).
This model is based in previous studies from
literature [2, 3] and has been used at LNEC for
some years to study the effects of restrained
shrinkage on rendering mortars [4–7].
2.2 Equipment
To perform these tests a special equipment is
used: an apparatus designed and constructed at
LNEC [8], basically constituted by a rigid struc-
ture and two ‘‘heads’’ that work as a mould
(Fig. 1); the inferior head is fixed to the structure
and the superior one has a free longitudinal
movement, stopped by a force transducer linked
to a screw; when shrinkage acts, the screw stops
the displacement and the force is transmitted to
the transducer; the remaining small displacements
are also measured by a displacement transducer
of the linearly variable displacement transducer
(LVDT) type, in order to be taken into account; a
set of six apparatus are used in these tests; a data
logger with a special software prepared also at
LNEC is able to read, register and save the data
measured by the six force transducers and the six
LVDT.
Materials and Structures (2007) 40:1115–1126 1117

2.4 Tensile test

At the ages of 7 days (cement-based mortars) or

of 28 days (lime-based mortars), a tensile test is
performed on the specimens submitted to
restrained shrinkage, by slowly turning the screw
(Fig. 4). Force/displacement curves are plotted
from the tensile tests, with a maximum value Rt
corresponding to the tensile resistance.

3 Performance classification
Fig. 2 Moulding the specimen in the apparatus for
restrained shrinkage test (horizontal position) 3.1 Classification of cracking susceptibility

Based on the data obtained at restrained shrink-

2.3 Restrained shrinkage test age and tensile tests two criteria were chosen to
define cracking susceptibility classes.
The specimens are moulded inside the apparatus The first criterion is quantified by the
in horizontal position (Fig. 2) and some hours Safety coefficient to the opening of the first crack:
later they are turned to vertical (Fig. 3): 18 h later
for cementitious materials or 24 h later for lime-
based mortars as at these ages the referred
materials show enough resistance to be able to
maintain the vertical position. This position per-
mits to minimise the friction forces and also to
avoid different evaporation rates in both surfaces
of the specimen, which would cause differential
stresses in thickness. Force/time curves—
F(t)—are plotted from the restrained shrinkage
tests, with a maximum value identified as Fm.

Fig. 3 Restrained shrinkage test with six apparatus,

second phase (vertical position) Fig. 4 Specimen after the tensile test
1118
S = Rt/Fm (Rt—Tensile resistance; Fm—Maxi-
mum measured force during restrained shrink-
age).
The first crack opens if S < 1.
The second criterion is energy related and it is
quantified by the Resistance coefficient to crack-
ing evolution: R = G/Fm (G—Rupture tensile
energy; Fm—Maximum measured force during
restrained shrinkage).
The larger is R, the larger is the energy
needed to the evolution of the micro-crack-
ing—produced after the non-verification of the
first criterion—until the instability point is
attained; so the less probable is that evolution.
A large R is related to some deformation before
complete rupture, so in a sense it means some
ductility.
A classification based on the referred criteria
was established after testing and analysing the
results obtained for 16 mortars, in several curing
conditions, and comparing them with known in
situ behaviour [7]. After that, the classification,
which is presented on Table 1, has been used and
verified on very diversified mortars, based on
cement, cement and lime, cement and resin,
cement and fibres and more recently lime and
lime and pozzolans.
3.2 Mechanical compatibility classification
The application of the test to study lime mortars
used as ancient buildings’ renders permits,
besides the knowledge of S and R and the
susceptibility to cracking, also the determination
of some parameters relevant for compatibility
assessment.
The maximum force (Fm) induced by re-
strained shrinkage is an important factor to
Table 1 Classification of cracking susceptibility based on
coefficients S and R
Cracking susceptibility class S R (mm)
a fulfilled
1 (Low cracking susceptibility) S‡1 R‡1
2 (Medium cracking susceptibility)a S‡1 0.6 £ R < 1
3 (High cracking susceptibility)b S<1 R < 0.6
a
It must verify both conditions
b fulfilled
It must verify one of the conditions
Materials and Structures (2007) 40:1115–1126
consider, because it gives a scale of the forces
that can be transmitted to the background and
contribute to its deterioration. The rupture
energy (G) is of major importance, because it
measures some deformation ability before rup-
ture and ancient walls, having structural functions
as well as fulfilment and protection functions, are
submitted to deformation and require adaptable
renders. Because of their hardening process, lime
mortars are weak and susceptible to early dete-
rioration during the first days after application, so
they must always be cured and carefully treated
during this period. Later, however, they must
have an increased protection ability, so the
requirements for the S and R factors must be
severe, although applicable later: at 28 days
instead of 7 days.
Considering these specific requirements of
renders for ancient walls, another performance
classification, adequate for compatible lime mor-
tars, was established as presented at Table 2.
The limits proposed—of parameters obtained
from a restrained shrinkage test during 28 days
(for lime-based mortars) and a tensile test at
that age—are nor rigid and have to be consid-
ered as a whole, because sometimes they are
contradictory.
All the criteria defined above depend only on
the mortar characteristics. In fact, although the
suction of the background is an important factor
influencing shrinkage, it was not considered here,
because the aim was to compare the mortars,
independently of the background they happen to
be applied on. However, the equipment allows for
the consideration of the background suction
effect, and some studies about this have been
carried out before [7].
Table 2 Classification of mechanical compatibility
Mechanical Fr G S R Inter-
compatibility (N) (N mm) (mm) pretative
class notes
Compatible <70 >40 >1.5 ‡0.7 All criteria
Limited <100 – >1.0 ‡0.6 –
compatibility
Non- ‡100 – <1.0 <0.6 At least one
compatible criteria
Materials and Structures (2007) 40:1115–1126 1119

4 Materials 5 Results

The test and the compatibility classification were 5.1 Results

applied to a set of mortars with different charac-
teristics.
Standard mortars used for comparison were:
cement mortars, lime–cement mortars and pure
lime mortars.
The rendering solutions studied concerning
mechanical compatibility were slightly hydraulic
mortars, obtained through the use of weak mixes
of lime and hydraulic lime, lime and acrylic resin
and, specially lime and pozzolan, which are
considered to have good characteristics for
ancient walls [9–15].
The mortars tested are described in Table 3.
The results obtained from the restrained shrink-
age and tensile tests on the described mortars are
synthesised at Table 4 and illustrated at-
Figs. 5–20. The curves of Figs. 5, 7, 9, 11, 13,
15, 17 and 19, on the left, represent the slow
evolution of the force during the restrained
shrinkage test, and, during the last minutes, the
fast evolution of the force during the tensile test,
until rupture occurs. On the other hand, the
curves of Figs. 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, on the
right, show displacement versus force during
the tensile test (corresponding to the peak of

Table 3 Mortars’ composition

Mortar Composition
Type Ref. Volumetric dosage Constituents

Cement C4 1:4 Cement: siliceous sand

Ma – Cement commercial mortar
Mb – Cement commercial mortar: one coat mortar
Lime–cement L-C31 1:3:12 Cement: lime: well graded siliceous sand
L-C11 1:1:6 Cement: lime: siliceous sand
Highly hydraulic lime HL3 1:3 Highly hydraulic lime: well graded
siliceous sand
Lime–hydraulic lime LHL11 1:1: (3 + 3) Lime: hydraulic lime: siliceous sand
with a small proportion of claya
Lime L3a 1:3 Lime: well graded siliceous sand
L3b 1:3 Lime: siliceous sand
PD-LA – Pre-dosed lime mortar with acrylic addition
PD-LA2 – Pre-dosed lime mortar with acrylic addition
(smaller proportion)
Lime–pozzolan L-BP 1:1:2.5 Lime: brick pieces: siliceous sand
LP-BP 1:1:1 Lime putty: brick pieces: siliceous sand
L-BPo 1:1:4 Lime: brick powder: siliceous sand
L-PCV0.5 1:0.5:2.5 Lime: Cabo Verde Pozzolan: siliceous sand
L-PCV1 1:1:4 Lime: Cabo Verde Pozzolan: siliceous sand
L-PAz 1:1:4 Lime: Azorean Pozzolan: siliceous sand
L-Ma10 1:0.10b:3 Lime : Metacaulin a : siliceous sand
L-Mb10 1:0.10b:3 Lime: Metacaulin b: siliceous sand
L-Ma20 1:0.20b:3 Lime: Metacaulin a: siliceous sand
L-Mb20 1:0.20b:3 Lime: Metacaulin b: siliceous sand
L-ECF 1:1:4 Lime: Expanded clay filler: siliceous sand
L-PA 1:1:4 Lime: Paper ashes: siliceous sand
L-FA 1:1:4 Lime: Fly ash: siliceous sand
a
Used in practice to increase plasticity
b
Weight dosage of metacaulin
1120 Materials and Structures (2007) 40:1115–1126

Table 4 Synthesis of the test results

Mortars Fr (N) Rt (N) G (N mm) S R (mm) Mechanical Cracking
compatibility susceptibility
classification classification

Cement mortars C4 136 292 70 2.1 0.5 Non-compatible High

Ma 221 753 99 5.0 0.8 Non-compatible Medium
Mb 148 909 144 6.5 1.0 Non-compatible Low
Lime–cement mortars L-C31 75 218 51 2.9 0.8 Limited comp. Medium
L-C11 49 145 58 3.0 1.2 Compatible Low
Highly hydraulic HL3 100 280 60 2.8 0.7 Limited comp. Medium
lime mortar
Lime–hydraulic LHL3 84 159 64 2.0 0.7 Limited comp. Medium
lime mortar
Lime mortars L3a 59 83 73 1.4 1.2 Compatible Low
L3b 50 72 82 1.4 1.6 Compatible Low
PD-LA 55 226 47 4.0 0.8 Compatible Medium
PD-LA2 54 318 53 6.0 1.0 Compatible Low
Lime–brick mortars L-BP 64 121 76 6.9 6.4 Compatible Low
LP-BP 52 214 97 5.0 2.5 Compatible Low
L-BPo 57 157 90 7.5 5.4 Compatible Low
Lime–Natural pozzolan L-PCV0.5 51 84 39 1.6 0.8 Compatible Medium
L-PCV1 47 50 85 1.1 1.8 Limited comp. Low
L-PAz 51 58 69 1.1 1.4 Limited comp. Low
Lime–Metacaulin mortars L-Mb10 57 71 65 1.2 1.2 Limited comp. Low
L-Ma10 50 71 34 1.5 0.7 Compatible Medium
L-Ma20 29 99 108 12.2 10.1 Compatible Low
L-Mb20 49 94 98 1.9 2.3 Compatible Low
Lime–Artificial pozzolan L-ECF 53 124 48 2.4 0.9 Compatible Low
L-PA 72 198 104 2.9 1.5 Compatible Low
L-FA 66 111 104 1.8 1.5 Compatible Low

the graphic on the left). The area under these
curves measures the rupture energy. It is clearly
shown that highly hydraulic mortars are very
fragile and they suffer rupture with practically
zero displacement, while lime mortars with
pozzolans or additivated with acrylic resin show
some ductility, because they suffer some dis-
placement before they become unable to support
increase of force; after rupture, there is a gradual
reduction of force and increase of displacement,
as long as the first micro-cracks grow to complete
rupture.
It is important to stress that the values
presented on the table are the average obtained
from three specimens, while the figures show
graphics of one specimen of some of the mortars.

Fig. 5 Restrained 250

shrinkage, cement
mortar—C4 200

150
Force (N)

100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

-50
Time (h)
Materials and Structures (2007) 40:1115–1126 1121

Fig. 6 Tensile test, 250

cement mortar—C4
200

150

FORCE (N)
100

50

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

DISPLACEMENT (mm)

Fig. 7 Restrained 1000

shrinkage, cement based 900

one coat mortar—Mb 800

700

600
FORCE (N)

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
-100
TIME (h)

Fig. 8 Tensile test, 1000

cement based one coat

mortar—Mb 800

600
FORCE (N)

400

200

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

The ages of the tests were 7 days for cement,
lime–cement and highly hydraulic lime mortars
and 28 days for lime–hydraulic lime, pozzolan–
lime and lime mortars.
6 Discussion
The results compiled at Table 4 show that,
according to the established classification:
– All the cement mortars tested are mechani-
cally incompatible mainly because of the high
tensions potentially transmissible to the
background. Nevertheless one of them—a
one-coat mortar—has a low susceptibility to
cracking. Figures 5–8 show very resistant
mortars at 7 days, with low ductility.
– The high hydraulic lime mortar studied is also
classified as incompatible, because it develops
1122 Materials and Structures (2007) 40:1115–1126

Fig. 9 Restrained 160

shrinkage, lime–hydraulic 140
lime—LHL3
120

100

FORCE (N)
80

60

40

20

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
-20
TIME (h)

Fig. 10 Tensile test, 160

lime–hydraulic
140
lime—LHL3
120

100
FORCE (N)

80

60

40

20

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

Fig. 11 Restrained 160

shrinkage, lime–acrylic 140

resin—PD-LA
120

100
FORCE (N)

80

60

40

20

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
-20
TIME (h)

high forces during restrained shrinkage. It
shows medium susceptibility to cracking.
– Mortars based on air lime mixed with
cement or with hydraulic lime show, in most
cases, limited compatibility and medium
susceptibility to cracking, except on the case
of CACI1, classified as mechanically com-
patible and low susceptibility to cracking.
Figures 9, 10 illustrate the low force devel-
oped by restrained shrinkage and the low
rupture energy of the lime—hydraulic lime
mortar.
– Mortars based on air lime and pozzolans are,
in most cases, classified as mechanically com-
patible and generally as having low suscepti-
bility to cracking. Their good performance is
shown on Figs. 13–20.
– The exceptions are one of the lime–metacau-
lin mortars and two natural pozzolan mortars,
classified as limited compatibility, because of a
Materials and Structures (2007) 40:1115–1126 1123

Fig. 12 Tensile test, 160

lime–acrylic resin—PD-
140
LA
120

100

FORCE (N)
80

60

40

20

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

Fig. 13 Restrained 160

shrinkage, lime–Cabo 140

Verde
120
pozzolan—LPCV0.5
100
FORCE (N)

80

60

40

20

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
-20
TIME (h)

Fig. 14 Tensile test, 160

lime–Cabo Verde
140
pozzolan—LPCV0.5
120

100
Force (N)

80

60

40

20

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Displacement (mm)

low S. These mortars need some moisture to
hydrate and they have a slow hardening, so it
is expectable that results would be better after
a longer curing period, in a more adjusted
environment, with higher relative humidity
[11, 12].
– Mortars made of lime and brick pieces—pre-
pared to reproduce some Roman mor-
tars—show a particularly good behaviour,
namely a very high rupture energy (see also
Fig. 16), probably due to a multi-cracking
phenomenon producing a fake ductility.
1124 Materials and Structures (2007) 40:1115–1126

Fig. 15 Restrained 250

shrinkage, lime putty–

brick pieces—LPBP 200

FORCE (N)
150

100

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
TIME (h)

Fig. 16 Tensile test, lime 250

putty–brick
pieces—LPBP
200

150
Force (N)

100

50

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 17 Restrained 160

shrinkage, lime–expanded 140

clay filler—LECF
120

100
FORCE (N)

80

60

40

20

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
-20
TIME (h)

Nevertheless, they also show the most impor- 7 Conclusions

tant dispersion of results, probably due to the
heterogeneity introduced by the fragments.
– Finally, pure air lime mortars, as would be
expected, show compatibility from the mechan-
ical point of view, with low forces generated by
restrained shrinkage, as illustrated in Figs. 11, 12.
The restrained shrinkage test and the mechanical
compatibility classification established permit to
distinguish clearly between mortars with different
performances. Consequently, the method seems
to be adequate to evaluate mechanical compati-
Materials and Structures (2007) 40:1115–1126 1125

Fig. 18 Tensile test, 180

lime–expanded clay 160

filler—LECF
140

120

Force (N)
100

80

60

40

20

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Displacement (mm)

Fig. 19 Restrained 160

shrinkage, lime– 140

metacaulin—LMb10
120

100
FORCE (N)

80

60

40

20

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
-20
TIME (h)

Fig. 20 Tensile test, 160

lime–metacaulin—LMb10
140

120

100
Force (N)

80

60

40

20

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Displacement (mm)

bility, although the conditioning environment and
duration may have to be adjusted for lime and
pozzolan mortars, to simulate in situ recom-
mended application conditions. Besides, the tests
performed make available useful data to study
the mechanical kinetics of hardening and rupture
energy of mortars. The presented results can be
used as comparison values for materials intended
to repair or to renovate walls.
Acknowledgements This research is developed within
the Projects ‘‘Development of methodologies for the
assessment of moisture effects on ancient walls’’—
POCTI/ECM/46323/2002 and ‘‘Study of compatible
mortars for the preservation of the constructed
1126
Heritage’’—POCI/HEC/57890/2004, both with financial
support of ‘‘Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia’’ of
Portugal.
References
1. Papayanni J (2005) Design and manufacture of repair
mortars for interventions on monuments and historical
buildings. In: RILEM (ed) Workshop ‘‘Repair mortars
for Historic masonry’’, TC RMH, Delft, 25–28 January
2005
2. Tamin PF (1986) Study of the mechanical behaviour of
wall renderings. Ph.D. Thesis, École Nationale des
Ponts et Chaussées (ENPC), Paris (Only available in
French)
3. Penev D, Kawamura M (1992) A laboratory device for
restrained shrinkage fracture of soil–cement mixtures.
Mater Struct 25:115–120
4. Veiga MR, Abrantes V (1998) Improving the cracking
resistance of rendering mortars. Influence of
composition factors. In: XXV World Congress of
Housing. IAHS, Lisbon, June/July 1998
5. Veiga MR (1998) A methodology to evaluate the
cracking susceptibility of renders: equipment, tests and
criteria. Experimental data. In: 5th Int. Masonry
Confer, London, Oct. 1998
6. Veiga MR (2000) Methodology to evaluate the
cracking susceptibility of mortars. Selection criteria
of rendering and repointing mortars for ancient
buildings. In: Seminar ‘‘Malte a vista com sabie locali
nella conservazione degli edifici storici’’, Polit. di
Torino, Torino, July 2000, Invited paper
7. Veiga MR (2000) Influence of application conditions
on the cracking susceptibility of renderings. In:
RILEM (ed) Concrete science and engineering, vol
2, pp 134–140
Materials and Structures (2007) 40:1115–1126
8. Veiga MR (1994) Aparelho para medição de tensões
originadas pela restrição da retracção em argamassas
para revestimento de paredes. Concepção, projecto e
testes realizados. LNEC, Lisbon. Report 35/94-NCCt
9. Magalhães AC, Veiga MR (2005) Estudo comparativo
de possı́veis soluções de argamassas para
revestimentos de paredes de edifı́cios antigos. In: 1
Cong. Nac. ‘‘Argamassas de Construção’’, Lisbon, 24–
25 Nov. 2005
10. Velosa A, Veiga MR (2001) The use of pozzolans as
additives in lime mortars for employment in building
rehabilitation. In: Int. Sem. ‘‘Historical Constructions’’
2001. Universidade do Minho, Guimarães, Nov. 2001
11. Velosa A, Veiga MR (2002) Use of additivated lime
mortars for old building rehabilitation. Adapted test
methods. In: Proc. 9th Int. Conf. ‘‘Durability of
building materials and components’’, Brisbane,
Australia, March 2002
12. Velosa A, Veiga MR (2004) Parameters influencing
the performance of lime mortars with pozzolanic
additives: a testing campaign. In: ICOMOS (ed) 10th
Int. Cong. ‘‘Deterioration and conservation of stone’’,
Stockolm, June/July 2004
13. Moropoulou A, Bakolas A, Moundoulas P,
Aggelakoupoulou E, Anagnostopoulou S (2005)
Strength development and lime reaction in mortars
for repairing historic mortars. In: Elsevier (ed) Cement
and concrete composites, vol 27, pp 289–294
14. Dunn E, Rapp G (2004) Characterization of mortars
and pozzolanic materials from Umm al-Jimal. Stud
Conserv 49:145–160
15. Maravelaki-Kalaitzaki P, Bakolas A, Moropoulou A
(2003) Physico-chemical study of Cretan ancient
mortars. In: Elsevier (ed) Cement and concrete
research, vol 33, pp 651–661