The Journal of Adhesion

ISSN: 0021-8464 (Print) 1545-5823 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gadh20

Mechanical and adhesion properties of polymer-

modified cement mortars in relation with their
microstructure

S Papaioannou, R Argyropoulou, C Kalogiannidou, G Melidis, L

Papadopoulou, I Evelzaman & M Argyropoulou

To cite this article: S Papaioannou, R Argyropoulou, C Kalogiannidou, G Melidis, L Papadopoulou,

I Evelzaman & M Argyropoulou (2018): Mechanical and adhesion properties of polymer-
modified cement mortars in relation with their microstructure, The Journal of Adhesion, DOI:
10.1080/00218464.2017.1406348

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00218464.2017.1406348

Published online: 29 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 27

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gadh20
THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION
https://doi.org/10.1080/00218464.2017.1406348

Mechanical and adhesion properties of polymer-modified

cement mortars in relation with their microstructure
S Papaioannoua, R Argyropouloua,b, C Kalogiannidoua, G Melidisa,
L Papadopoulouc, I Evelzamand, and M Argyropouloub
a
Technological Educational Institute of Central Macedonia, Civil Engineering Department, Serres,
Greece; bThe Management School, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK; cDepartment of Geology,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece; dTechnological Educational Institute of
Central Macedonia, Mechanical Engineering Department, Serres, Greece

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In this study, cement mortars were modified with a commercial Received 25 July 2017
polymer admixture. The aim of this study is to investigate the Accepted 14 November 2017
influence of the polymer content on the mechanical and adhe- KEYWORDS
sion properties of the mortars and to relate these properties Latex and dispersion; civil
with mortars’ microstructure. A series of mortars were pro- engineering; mechanical
duced with various polymer/cement/water/aggregate ratios. properties of adhesives;
The adhesion properties of the mortars to clay bricks were microscopy; destructive
tested with a simplified tensile testing measurement. The testing
microstructure of mortars, as well as interfaces, were evaluated
by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). It was found that with
high polymer content, large size hardened particles are
formed, reducing the compressive strength of the mortars.
Polymer addition enhances the adhesion between the mortar
and brick. The mortar microstructure at the interface affects
the adhesion properties and the mode of failure.

Introduction
Polymer-modified cement-based mortars have been widely used in a
number of applications, such as floor finishing, repair, and masonry.[1]
The addition of polymers to Portland cement results in improved work-
ability of fresh mortars[2,3] and it increases the adhesional bond strength of
mortars on different substrates.[4] In the hardened state, polymer modifi-
cation increases the flexural strength of the cement-based mortars but
decreases the compressive strength.[5] There have been many attempts to
clarify the mechanism of polymer modification and it has been documen-
ted that effective modification is accomplished by a polymer network or
film formation that bonds together the cement hydrates, developing a
polymer–cement co-matrix.[6,7] The co-existence of cement and polymers
in fresh mortars provokes the interaction of two fundamental processes:

CONTACT R Argyropoulou rachelargyropoulou@yahoo.gr Technological Educational Institute of Central

Macedonia, Civil Engineering Department, Terma Magnesias, Serres, Greece
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/gadh.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
2 S. PAPAIOANNOU ET AL.

cement hydration and film formation. Curing conditions should enhance

both processes, as wet curing is beneficial to cement hydration, while dry
curing is necessary for film formation[7] and for the increase of flexural
strength.[8] Different kinds of polymers, such as Poly(vinyl alcohol)
(PVA),[9,10] Polyacrylate (PA),[7] Styrene–Butadiene Rubber,[3] and
Cellulose Ethers (CE)[11] have been studied for their effect on cement-
based mortars’ properties, such as mechanical strength,[5] adhesion,[8] and
durability.[11,12] The majority of these studies has been performed with the
controlled addition of specific polymers to mortars made with Portland
cement, quartz sand, and deionized water. The cement to sand ratio is
usually up to 1:3, while polymers are added either at a constant water to
cement ratio (W/C) for similar hydration or at a constant consistency by
adjusting W/C.[3,7] Research on the adhesion properties of polymer-mod-
ified mortars is focused on the interaction between mortars and porcelain
or ceramic tiles.[13,14]
The influence of specific polymers on cement mortars has been extensively
studied, however, limited research has been performed on the influence of
commercial admixtures. At present, latex emulsions are widely used as they
are easy to be applied.[3] Most of the latexes used in mortar modification are
commercially manufactured with the presence of surfactants up to 5%,
including PVA, for latex particle stabilization.[9] In latexes, the presence of
emulsifiers which are usually water absorbent, and the presence or absence of
anti-foaming admixture may affect significantly the latex performance in
cement mortars.[2,3]
On construction sites, engineers use commercial admixtures for mortar
production, aiming at obtaining the desired mortar consistency by adjusting
the water to cement ratio or by adding plasticizer.[7] However, with a high
amount of latex emulsion, some side effects such as air entrainment, or
mechanical strength loss may be observed due to the presence of the above-
mentioned substances.[3]
In this study, cement-based mortars were modified with a commercial
polymer admixture of unknown composition. The aim of this study is to
investigate the effect of polymer content in relation to the water to cement
ratio and aggregate content on the consistency, mechanical and adhesion
properties of cement modified mortars. Upon measuring the aforementioned
properties, the microstructure of mortars was observed. Mortars were pre-
pared with various polymer to cement and water to cement ratios. The
cement to aggregate ratio was 1:5 and higher. For the preparation of mortars,
drinking (tap) water was used. The workability of the fresh mortars was
measured. The mechanical strengths of mortars were obtained by compres-
sive test and flexural test. The adhesion of mortars to perforated clay bricks
was qualitatively estimated with a simplified tensile testing measurement.
The microstructure of mortars was observed by Scanning Electron
 THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 3

Microscopy (SEM). Finally, the results of the microstructure observations

were associated with those from the mechanical and the adhesion test.

Materials and methods

Materials
For the mortars preparation, cement type CEM IV/B (P-W) 32.5 R (Lafarge
industry, Volos, Greece), mortar admixture and aggregates were mixed in
various ratios. Mortar admixture (LATEX) is described by the manufacturer
as a polymer latex which, when added to the building mortars and coatings,
it increases bonding to the substrate, provides water impermeability and
elasticity. According to the directions for use, LATEX is added to the mixing
water of mortars. The mixing ratio of LATEX to water can be 1:1 up to 1:5.
The admixture can be applied for the production of (i) plasters with high
strength and water impermeability, (ii) mortars with resistance to chemicals
and petroleum product, (iii) repair mortars and thin layers, etc. This admix-
ture is produced by one of the largest Greek manufacturers of building
chemicals and mortars and it is widely used in construction. Aggregates
were crushed stone sand for mortars provided by a quarry located in Serres
(Macedonia, Greece). The main mineral in the sand was calcite. Small
amounts of ankerite were also present. The moisture content of the sand
was 2%. The fineness modulus of the sand was 2.8 and the average grain size
was 1mm. The grading of the sand is presented in Table 1.

Mortars preparation and testing

Cement and aggregates were introduced into a mixing machine (CONTROLS S.
r.l., Milan, Italy) and stirred for 5 minutes until homogenous. Then, the water-
LATEX solution was added to the mixture and stirred for 10 minutes. The
workability of mortars was measured by flow table (CONTROLS S.r.l., Milan,
Italy) according to EN 1015–3.[15] The mortars were cast into 40x40x160 mm
prismatic molds and compacted with a jolting table to remove air bubbles and
voids. Mortars remained in the mold to cure for 24 h, covered with wet cloth
and membrane. After this period, they were demolded and kept under room
laboratory conditions (Temperature = 20°C, Relative Humidity = 60%) for

Table 1. Grading of sand.

Sieve size Cumulative % weight passing
4 mm 100
2 mm 67.5
1 mm 39.4
0.25 mm 17.9
63 mic 1
4 S. PAPAIOANNOU ET AL.

28 days. The flexural strength of mortars was tested in a three-point-bending

test (INSTRON instruments, Massachusetts, USA) according to EN 1015-11.[16]
It was three specimens of each mortar that were measured. The two halves of
the prisms from the flexural test were subsequently submitted to the compres-
sive strength test (INSTRON instruments, Massachusetts, USA) which means
that six specimens of each mortar were investigated in terms of compressive
strength. During this test, load was applied to the whole surface of specimens
and the compressive strength was calculated as

P
F¼ N=mm2 (1)
ð40x80Þ

where F represents the compressive strength and P the peak load.

Adhesion test
Specimens for the adhesion test were manufactured by assembling two moistened
horizontally perforated clay bricks with mortar. The thickness of the mortar
between the units was adjusted at 5 mm as follows: on a flat, rectangular piece
of plywood, we drew, starting from the lower edge, two bricks with their exact
dimensions and the intended thickness (5 mm) of mortar. Then, we fixed the
plywood to a constant, vertical surface so that it can serve as a guide when
assembling the bricks, achieving the appropriate thickness of the mortar and
avoiding tilting. The adhesion of mortars to bricks was measured by a tensile
test. Metallic cylinders were inserted in the holes of the bricks. The cylinders were
then adapted to the grips of the testing machine (INSTRON KN1200). Tensile
forces were applied perpendicular to the mortar/unit contact area. As samples
were brittle, in order to obtain accurate data, loading was kept slow by keeping the
elongation rate constant at 1 mm/min, measured in the machine’s crosshead. All
measurements were performed in a period of 40–45 days after the preparation of
the mortars. The adhesion strength was calculated by dividing the rupture force to
the mortar/unit contact area. Details of the adhesion test are described
elsewhere.[17]

SEM observations
Before the examination, all samples were coated with a thin carbon film,
using a vacuum evaporator JEOL-4X. The microstructure of samples was
observed using a Scanning Electron Microscope with associated Energy
Dispersive Spectroscopy-EDS (JEOL J.S.M. 840A, Tokyo, Japan).
 THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 5

Results and discussion

Table 2 provides the mixing ratios and the properties of mortars. Mortars
L1–L13, M1–M13, and H1–H13 have been prepared with low, medium and
high polymer content, respectively. The Water/Cement and Cement/Sand
ratios are in the form of % weight. The LATEX/Water ratio is per volume.

Workability of fresh mortars

From the results shown in Table 2, it can be noticed that for the same water/
cement/sand ratio the workability of mortars increases with higher polymer level
(e.g. comparing the flow of mortars L3, M3 and H3 or L8, M8 and H8). Same
results have been observed in[2] for mortars modified by PVA and P (VA-MTC)
and in[3] for mortars modified by Styrene Acrylate Rubber or Styrene Butadiene
Rubber. It can also be noticed that with LATEX/Water (L/W) equal to 1:4, the
majority of mortars were ‘hard’ (flow<140mm). With L/W equal to 1:3 and with
the same cement/sand ratio, mortars became plastic (flow = 140–200 mm) with
a small increase in water. However, with L/W equal to 1:2 the majority of
mortars presented good workability. These results are similar to those in,[3]
where it is argued that in order to get a constant consistency, the Water/Cement
ratio decreases when the polymer content is above a certain percent.

Mechanical properties
The results from the tensile and compressive tests
A general remark for all mortars tested is that compressive strength decreases
when polymer content is high (L/W = 1:2), while flexural strength seems to
be less affected by the L/W ratio. A comparison of the mechanical properties
of mixtures prepared with the same L/W (mortars L1–L13, M1–M13, and
H1–H13), reveals that the compressive strength decreases when Cement/
Sand (C/S) ratio is 1:7 and 1:8. The flexural strength does not follow this
trend, especially when L/W is equal to 1:2. Mortars with C/S = 1:6 and with
the same Water/Cement (W/C) ratio, presented highest compressive
(Figure 1) and flexural strength (Figure 2) for L/W equal to 1:3. A reduction
of both strengths was observed at L/W equal to 1:2. However, for mortars
with C/S equal to 1:7 or 1:8, highest compressive strengths were achieved at
L/W = 1:3 (Figures 3 and 4), while the flexural strength tended to increase
with an increase in the polymer content (Figures 5 and 6). Regarding the
compressive strength, the above results are in agreement with the findings
in,[3,5,7] where it is reported that at constant W/C, the compressive strength
decreases when Polymer/Cement (P/C) ratio is above a certain percent.
However, as far as the flexural strength, in the above studies, it was con-
cluded that there is an optimum polymer content for the effective
6 S. PAPAIOANNOU ET AL.

Table 2. Mixing ratio and properties of mortars.

Latex/ Water/ Cement/ Flexural Compressive Adhesion
Mortar Water Cement Sand Flow Strength (MPa) Strength (MPa) Strength (MPa)
Mortar (L/W) (W/C) (C/S) (mm) s s Mode of failure
L1 1:4 0.65 1:5 157 6.78 34.09 > 0.09
0.51 2.08 No failure
L2 1:4 0.50 1:6 100 3.5 14.89 0.00
0.42 0.18
L3 1:4 0.60 1:6 105 5.36 43.75 0.02
0.54 3.12 Adhesion
L4 1:4 0.65 1:6 112 4.98 29.27 0.07
0.52 1.00 Adhesion
L5 1:4 0.70 1:6 121 3.69 28.54 > 0.08
0.28 0.95 No failure
L6 1:4 0.60 1:7 115 4.16 22.71 0.07
0.30 0.79 Adhesion
L7 1:4 0.65 1:7 123 5.95 22.82 > 0.10
0.28 1.21 No failure
L8 1:4 0.70 1:7 137 3.56 26.04 0.11
0.04 2.37 Adhesion
L9 1:4 0.75 1:7 148 3.05 19.48 > 0.09
0.09 1.57 No failure
L10 1:4 0.65 1:8 110 3.52 19.17 0.00
0.56 5.70
L11 1:4 0.70 1:8 136 3.85 23.44 0.008
0.69 3.68 Adhesion
L12 1:4 0.75 1:8 145 3.91 25.94 0.05
0.06 1.74 Adhesion
L13 1:4 0.80 1:8 153 3.37 23.04 0.08
0.38 0.14 Adhesion
M1 1:3 0.65 1:5 162 4.63 30.73 0.10
0.32 0.90 Adhesion
M2 1:3 0.50 1:6 108 4.91 39.48 0.00
0.20 1.57
M3 1:3 0.60 1:6 130 6.4 42.5 > 0.09
1.69 1.25 No failure
M4 1:3 0.65 1:6 148 5.23 34.17 > 0.12
0.68 1.57 No failure
M5 1:3 0.70 1:6 164 5.30 33.85 > 0.08
0.55 1.09 No failure
M6 1:3 0.60 1:7 126 4.49 34.38 > 0.10
0.43 0.31 No failure
M7 1:3 0.65 1:7 139 5.49 35.73 > 0.09
0.17 3.75 No failure
M8 1:3 0.70 1:7 156 3.86 30.52 > 0.09
0.04 0.78 No failure
M9 1:3 0.75 1:7 167 3.88 28.65 > 0.08
0.53 1.47 No failure
M10 1:3 0.65 1:8 100 3.50 25.94 > 0.08
0.34 0.27 No failure
M11 1:3 0.70 1:8 123 3.32 19.27 0.11
0.29 0.47 Adhesion
M12 1:3 0.75 1:8 143 4.17 32.81 0.09
0.22 0.31 Adhesion
M13 1:3 0.80 1:8 156 4.24 29.17 0.08
0.54 3.00 Adhesion

(Continued )
 THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 7

Table 2. (Continued).
Latex/ Water/ Cement/ Flexural Compressive Adhesion
Mortar Water Cement Sand Flow Strength (MPa) Strength (MPa) Strength (MPa)
Mortar (L/W) (W/C) (C/S) (mm) s s Mode of failure
H1 1:2 0.65 1:5 182 4.54 17.25 > 0.13
0.07 0.47 No failure
H2 1:2 0.50 1:6 130 3.89 33.65 0.07
0.57 2.0 Adhesion
H3 1:2 0.60 1:6 151 5.10 22.46 > 0.12
0.46 2.78 No failure
H4 1:2 0.65 1:6 180 4.96 23.36 > 0.10
0.50 0.90 No failure
H5 1:2 0.70 1:6 233 4.70 17.49 > 0.08
0.35 0.29 No failure
H6 1:2 0.60 1:7 145 6.23 24.46 0.12
0.21 0.78 Adhesion
H7 1:2 0.65 1:7 160 4.69 19.48 > 0.09
0.09 0.79 No failure
H8 1:2 0.70 1:7 174 5.24 19.06 > 0.10
0.19 0.22 No failure
H9 1:2 0.75 1:7 205 4.61 16.09 > 0.10
0.43 0.71 No failure
H10 1:2 0.65 1:8 135 4.44 16.22 > 0.09
0.38 0.36 No failure
H11 1:2 0.70 1:8 144 4.5 17.54 > 0.08
0.61 2.29 No failure
H12 1:2 0.75 1:8 164 3.61 17.40 > 0.10
0.18 1.09 No failure
H13 1:2 0.80 1:8 180 4.70 16.51 0.10
0.21 0.25 Adhesion
s: Standard deviation

Figure 1. The compressive strength of mortars prepared with Cement/Sand ratio equal to 1:6.

improvement of the flexural strength above of which, a decrease of the

strength could be expected. The evolution of the flexural strength was
attributed to the polymeric film formation that can effectively limit the
8 S. PAPAIOANNOU ET AL.

Figure 2. The flexural strength of mortars prepared with Cement/Sand ratio equal to 1:6.

Figure 3. The compressive strength of mortars prepared with Cement/Sand ratio equal to 1:7.

development of micro-cracks,[7] however, after a critical P/C ratio, the film

thickens and, therefore, the mechanical properties cannot be improved any
further.[3] The differences in the flexural strength observed between the
above studies and the present work could be attributed to the aggregate
content in mortars. In,[3,5,7] the mortars tested had a C/S ratio up to 1:3. In
this study, mortars with high C/S ratios (1:7 and 1:8) developed their highest
compressive and flexural strengths at different L/W ratios. This could mean
that when the sand content is increased and cement grains are surrounded by
more aggregates, the polymer film formation for the effective improvement
of flexural strength is developed at increased polymer level since polymer
particles adhere on cement and not on sand.[6]
 THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 9

Figure 4. The compressive strength of mortars prepared with Cement/Sand ratio equal to 1:8.

Figure 5. The flexural strength of mortars prepared with Cement/Sand ratio equal to 1:7.

The relationship between mixing ratios and mechanical properties

From the results shown in Table 2, it is apparent that at a given C/S, there is a
relationship between L/W and W/C ratios for the effective evolution of
mechanical properties. More specifically, with C/S equal to 1:6, maximum
mechanical strengths were achieved with W/C = 0.6 when L/W was 1:4 or
1:3. However, with L/W equal to 1:2, mortar H2 (W/C = 0.5) presented the
highest compressive strength, while mortar H3 (W/C = 0.6) presented the
highest flexural strength.
Different results can be observed for mortars with high aggregate
content. For example, mortars with C/S equal to 1:7, at L/W = 1:4, 1:3
and 1:2 exhibited highest compressive strength at W/C 0.7, 0.65, and 0.6,
10 S. PAPAIOANNOU ET AL.

Figure 6. The flexural strength of mortars prepared with Cement/Sand ratio equal to 1:8.

respectively, and their highest flexural strength at W/C equal to 0.65 (for
L/W = 1:2 and 1:3) and at W/C = 0.7 for L/W = 1:2. The relationship
between L/W and W/C can be also observed when comparing mortars L2
and M2. Mortar L2 presented very low compressive strength and low-
medium flexural strength. By increasing the polymer content, mortar M2
had 130% and 40% increase in compressive and flexural strength, respec-
tively, in comparison to L2. This means, that at W/C = 0.5 and L/W = 1:4,
the polymer content is not enough for the formation of a film that can
provide mechanical strength to the cementitious material. At L/W = 1:3,
the mechanical properties are improved without any addition of water for
cement hydration. In,[5] it has been discussed that the formation of a
continuous polymer network is responsible for the increase of flexural
strength, while cement hydration cannot account for the evolution of this
strength. From mortars L2 and M2, it could be also concluded that the
development of compressive strength is due to the polymer film forma-
tion, since these mortars have the same W/C ratio and, consequently,
present the same cement hydration.
Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted in an attempt to
determine the relationship between the mixing ratios and the mechanical
properties. For mortars with C/S = 1:6, there was no significant relation-
ship between the compressive strength with L/W and W/C either indivi-
dually or collectively. The same results were obtained for the flexural
strength.
For mortars with C/S = 1:7, it resulted that the compressive strength is not
related to L/W and to W/C either individually or in combination. For the
tensile strength the regression equation is:
 THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 11

Tensile strength ¼ ð9:19  2:77Þþð4:13  2:1Þ L=W  ð9:00  3:93Þ W=C

(2)
The squared multiple correlation R2 = 0.502 and standard deviation = 0.761
For mortars with C/S = 1:8, the result shows a relationship between the
tensile strength and L/W but there is no significant relationship between the
tensile strength and W/C. For the tensile strength the regression equation is:
Tensile strength ¼ ð2:97  0:41Þ þ ð2:66  1:09Þ L=W (3)
The squared multiple correlation R2 = 0.372 and standard deviation = 0.394
For mortars with C/S = 1:8, the compressive strength is related to L/W but
there is no significant relationship between the compressive strength and W/C.
For the compressive strength the regression equation is:
Compressive strength ¼ ð32:74  4:76Þ  ð29:27  12:70Þ L=W (4)
The squared multiple correlation R2 = 0.347 and standard deviation = 4.586.
The above results confirm that the evolution of tensile strength is influ-
enced mainly by the L/W ratio. The relation of the compressive strength with
L/W was confirmed for mortars with C/S = 1:8. However, the small sample
size (12 samples for each C/S category) makes it difficult for any general-
ization of the results.

SEM observations of mortars

In Figures 7(a) and 8(a), SEM micrographs of mortars M3 and H3 are demon-
strated. Mortars L3 (not shown) and M3 have similar dense structures; however,
mortar H3 presents greater porosity, less homogeneity, and larger grain size
distribution than L3 and M3, which explains why this mortar has lower strength
(in comparison with mortar M3 it presents 47% and 20% reduction in compres-
sive and flexural strength respectively). EDS spectra of mortar M3 (Figure 7(b))
show the presence of C–S–H phase (spectrum 2), while in spectrum 1 the Ca/Si
ratio (4.1) is much higher than expected for C–S–H matured pastes (1.5–2.0). In
mortar H3 (Figure 8(b)), spectrum 1 has Ca/Si ratio 3.48, meaning that it does not
correspond to typical C–S–H phases, probably due to the chemical composition of
aggregates. Spectrum 2 corresponds to the CH phase. In Figures 9(a) and 10(a),
SEM micrographs of mortars M7 and H7 are depicted. Both mortars present the
characteristic formation of needle-like C–S–H phase. In microscopic investiga-
tions, the identification of polymers within the cementitious matrix is a major
problem, especially for commercial formulations with low polymer
concentrations[10]; however, as polymers are transparent or dark in backscattered
(BSE) images, the comparison between BSE and secondary electron (SE) images is
a reliable way to distinguish between polymer films and cementitious gels.[10,18] In
Figures 9(b) and 10(b) BSE images of Figures 9(a) and 10(b) are depicted. By
comparing Figure 9(a) and 9(b), it can be concluded that mortar M7 presents a
12 S. PAPAIOANNOU ET AL.

1 2

Element %
Atomic Element %
Al 0.28 Atomic
Si 0.88 Mg 0.13
S 0.57 Al 0.18
Cl 0.30 Si 1.76
K 0.36 S 0.12
Ca 3.63 Ca 3.72

Figure 7. (a) SEM micrograph of mortar M3. The numbers in boxes indicate the EDS spectra. (b)
EDS spectra of mortar M3.

dense structure with reduced porosity. Polymer film is located at air voids and
microcracks (shown in yellow frames). On the other hand, by comparing
Figure 10(a) and 10(b), it is apparent that mortar H7 presents large pores and it
is coarsely crystallized. Thick polymer film is located at air voids and cement
materials are embedded within the film (shown in red frames). Taking into
consideration the mechanical properties of mortars L3, M3, H3 and M7, H7
and relating them with the observed microstructure, it can be concluded that at
low polymer content (mortars L3, M3, and M7), the formation of dense structures
with uniform grain size is favored. These observations are in agreement with,[7]
where the authors using the equation:
kh  vc  a
r¼ P=C
(5)
vc  a þ W
C þn ρ r

(where r represents the gel/space ratio in polymer modified cement, kh is the

hydrates volume expansion factor of ordinary Portland cement, vc is the
specific volume of cement, a is the degree of hydration of cement, ρr is the
 THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 13

1
2

b Element %
Element % Atomic
Atomic Si 0.37
Mg 0.21 S 0.07
Al 0.40 Ca 5.05
Si 0.80
S 0.17
Ca 2.79
Fe 0.10

Figure 8. (a)SEM micrograph of mortar H3. The numbers in boxes indicate the EDS spectra. (b)
EDS spectra of mortar H3.

density of polymer, n indicates the degree the polymer can be considered as

space and P/C is the polymer to cement ratio)
concluded that in a low dosage of polymer addition, the chemical reactions
may make cement hydrates bond to each other to form denser and stronger
structure, which enhances the compressive strength of polymer modified
mortars, while in a high dosage of incorporation, the polymer phase tends
to form larger particles which act as defects. Ιn this study, it was noticed that
at greater polymer addition, the porosity of mortars is increased. However,
based on the mechanical measurements, it is apparent that large particles and
increased porosity result in a reduction of the compressive strength but they
influence the flexural strength to a lesser extent.

Adhesion properties
In Table 2 the adhesion strength of the mortars is demonstrated. It can be
noticed that weak adhesion was observed only for mortars that had either a
low polymer content (L/W = 1: 4) and/or low W/C (mortars L2 and M2).
Thus, it can be concluded that for low polymer content the adhesion bond
14 S. PAPAIOANNOU ET AL.

C-S-H

C- S-H

C-S-H

Figure 9. (a) SEM micrograph of mortar M7. (b) BSE image of mortar M7.

depends on W/C, while for high polymer content the adhesion bond
improves due to the polymer. The failure mode that was observed was mainly
an adhesion failure (failure occurs between the brick and the mortar)
(Figure 11). In some cases, no separation was observed as bricks broke
prior to any rupture, which indicates that the adhesion and cohesion strength
of the mortar exceeded the strength of the masonry units. In these cases, the
 THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 15

C-S-H

C-S-H

Figure 10. (a)SEM micrograph of mortar H7. (b) BSE image of mortar H7.

adhesion strength is indicated as >Pi, where Pi demonstrates the tensile

strength that caused the brick failure. For SEM observations, the mortar
was mechanically separated from the brick. However, the separation was
difficult and a thin layer of mortar kept adhered onto the brick surface. In
16 S. PAPAIOANNOU ET AL.

Figure 11. Presentation of the failure mode during the adhesion test. The failure occurred at the
interface between the mortar and the brick. All the adhesive is on one side of the separated
materials (brick on the left side of the picture).

Figure 12, the surface of mortar L1 that remained adhered to brick (from the
brick side) is presented. It can be noticed that the mortar presents a dense
structure with fine pores. Moreover, the mortar surface shows the presence of
hydration fibers. It should be noted that all mortars that did not separate
from the brick during the adhesion test, had similar structures near the brick
surface, with regions rich in the C–S–H phase and fibers/needles with
variations in Ca/Si/Al. The EDS spectra (not shown) revealed the formation
of needle-like C–S–H and ettringite (Figure 13). Different structures were
observed when failure occurred during the adhesion test. For example, in
Figure 14(a), the brick/mortar M12 interface (from the brick side) is
depicted. In this interface, cement hydrates (spectrum 2) and a clean area
of the brick surface (spectrum 1) can be observed (Figure 14(b)). Hydration
fibers were not observed. However, hydration C–S–H needles were observed
at the mortar interface, indicating that fine hydration products in polymer-
modified mortars do not penetrate into brick pores in the way that tradi-
tional lime-cement mortars do.[17] In a study on the adhesion of PVA
modified mortars to porcelain tiles, it was found that mortar/tile interfaces
present a single layer of the C–S–H phase, due to low water content and
absence of bleeding areas.[19] Moreover, the authors argue that the polymer
 THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 17

C-S-H

Figure 12. SEM micrograph of mortar L1 adhered to brick (from the brick side).

C-S-H
Ett

Ett

Figure 13. SEM micrograph of mortar H7 adhered to brick, showing the formation of C–S–H and
ettringite needles (Ett).
18 S. PAPAIOANNOU ET AL.

Element %
Atomic
Mg 0.31
Element %
Al 0.89
Atomic
Si 1.78
Mg 0.29
K 0.15
Si 1.11
Ca 0.52
S 0.15
Fe 0.21
K 0.09
Ca 2.58
Fe 0.15
Br 0.25

Figure 14. (a) SEM micrograph of brick/mortar M12 interface (from the brick side). The numbers
in boxes indicate the EDS spectra. (b): EDS spectra of brick/mortar M12 interface (from the brick
side).

addition caused a mixed mode of interfacial-cohesive failure, where adhesive

rupture areas present the typical morphology of the C–S–H gel, while
cohesive rupture areas present acicular C–S–H. In the present study, the
presence of the C–S–H layer was also noticed on adhesive rupture areas.
Moreover, it was observed that this layer was not continuous on the brick/
mortar interface when adhesion failure occurred. However, the role of poly-
mers in the increase of adhesive strength is unclear due to the difficulties in
identifying polymer domains at the mortar/brick interface. From the results
shown in Table 2, it is apparent that at low polymer content the adhesive
bond is affected by the amount of water and aggregates, while at high
polymer content the adhesive strength increases and it is not influenced by
the aggregate and the water level.
 THE JOURNAL OF ADHESION 19

Conclusions
The influence of a commercial polymer admixture to the mechanical and
adhesion properties of a pozzolanic cement mortar was studied. It was
found that the polymer addition causes a similar effect as to ordinary
Portland cement. The mechanical properties of the mortar were improved
when the LATEX/Water ratio is up to 1:3. The polymer film is located in
air voids and microcracks. Further addition results in the formation of
large crystals during cement hydration and it increases the porosity of the
mortar. Good mechanical properties are obtained when the cement/sand
ratio is up to 1:6. The adhesion of modified cement to clay bricks improves
with high polymer content and it is not affected by the aggregate content.
The adhesion is improved due to the formation of dense structures at the
mortar/brick interface. The above results indicate that for masonry mor-
tars, the Cement/Sand ratio should be up to 1:6 and the Latex/Water equal
to 1:3. Mortars with low polymer content present good mechanical
strength but not a strong adhesion to the masonry units. Moreover, the
adhesion bond is located at limited locations of the interface, which might
allow water to enter the brick masonry reducing the durability. However,
mortars with C/S equal to 1:6, L/W equal to 1:3 and W/C equal to 0.6–0.7
present a good combination of mechanical and adhesion strength for
masonry construction. The polymer admixture can be used with L/W
equal to 1:2 for the preparation of plasters. The increased polymer content
enhances the plasticity for application and provides strong adhesion.
Moreover, the Cement/Sand ratio can be 1:7 or 1:8.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the RESEARCH COMMITTEE of the Technological
Educational Institute of Central Macedonia for the financial support under the Grant SAT/
CE/070916-176/02.

References
1. Chung, D. D. L. J. Mater. Sci. 2004, 39, 2973–2978.
2. Wang, J.; Zhang, S.; Yu, H.; Kong, X.; Wang, X.; Gu, Z. Cement Concr. Comp. 2005, 27,
920–925.
3. Eren, F.; Gödek, E.; Keskinates, M.; Tosun-Felekoglu, K.; Felekoglu, B. Constr. Build
Mater. 2017, 133, 226–233.
4. He, D.; Wang, P.; Liu, P.; Liu, X. J. Mater. Civil Eng. 2013, 25(6), 726–730.
5. Pascal, S.; Alliche, A.; Pilvin, P. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2004, 380, 1–8.
6. Tian, Y.; Jin, X.; Jin, N.; Zhao, R.; Li, Z.; Ma, H. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 47, 1381–
1394.
7. Ma, H.; Li, Z. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 47, 579–587.
8. Knapen, E.; Van Gemert, D. Cement Concr. Comp. 2015, 58, 23–28.
20 S. PAPAIOANNOU ET AL.

9. Mansur, A. A. P.; Mansur, H. S. Cement Concr. Comp. 2011, 33, 742–748.

10. Jenni, A.; Holzer, L.; Zurbriggen, R.; Herwegh, M. Cement Concr. Res. 2005, 35, 35–50.
11. Winnefeld, F.; Kaufmann, J.; Hack, E.; Harzer, S.; Wetzel, A.; Zurbriggen, R. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2012, 30, 426–438.
12. Maranhão, F. L.; Loh, K.; John, V. M. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 2948–2954.
13. Wetzel, A.; Zurbriggen, R.; Herwegh, M. Cement Concr. Comp. 2010, 32, 327–338.
14. Petit, J. Y.; Wirquin, E. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes 2013, 40, 202–209.
15. EN 1015-3: Methods of test for mortar for masonry - Part 3: Determination of
consistency of fresh mortar (by flow table), 1999. European Standard.
16. EN 1015-11: Methods of test for mortar for masonry – Part 11: Determination of
flexural and compressive strength of hardened mortar, 2000. European Standard.
17. Papaioannou, S.; Argyropoulou, R.; Tachos, C.; Markantonis, N. J. Adhes. 2015, 91(7),
505–517.
18. Jenni, A.; Zurbriggen, R.; Holzer, L.; Herwegh, M. Cement Concr. Res. 2006, 36, 79–90.
19. Mansur, A. A. P.; Santos, D. B.; Mansur, H. S. Cement Concr. Res. 2007, 37, 270–282.