Comparison: Lime vs Cement

Salt deposits in %

FEN X Cao K20 Na20
HYDRATED 0,79 0,27 0,05
NATURAL 1,29 0,41 0,07
CEMENT Cao K20 Na20
HYDRATED 3,78 0,52 0,07
NATURAL 4,14 0,54 0,08

1. Course Sand (Sand 1) FIG.1.
Results of comprehensive and splitting strength on mortar cubes.

A. Lime Mortar Cubes (1:3 Lime-Sand)


Comprehensive strength of lime cubes (N/mm2)

SAMPLE 7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 56 Days
1 1.82 2.78 3.45 4.85
2 1.93 2.95 3.65 5.10
3 1.79 2.80 3.50 4.77

Tensile splitting strength of lime mortar cubes (N/mm2)

SAMPLE 7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 56 Days
1 0.16 0.25 0.28 0.45
2 0.18 0.21 0.32 0.49
3 0.12 0.19 0.34 0.51

A. Lime Mortar Cubes (1:3 Lime-Sand)


Comprehensive strength of lime cubes (N/mm2)

SAMPLE 7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 56 Days
1 1.00 1.53 2.02 2.56
2 1.10 1.66 2.15 2.98
3 0.96 1.43 2.03 2.65

Tensile splitting strength of lime mortar cubes (N/mm2)

SAMPLE 7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 56 Days
1 0.09 0.15 0.20 0.25
2 0.11 0.12 0.17 0.29
3 0.07 0.18 0.21 0.25

B. Ordinary Portland Cement Mortar Cubes (1:3 Cement-Sand)


Comprehensive splitting strength of O.P.C mortar cubes (N/mm2)

SAMPLE 7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 56 Days
1 18.90 21.70 24.33 28.74
2 18.24 22.56 26.59 26.86
3 18.42 23.05 25.65 28.92

Tensile splitting strength of O.P.C mortar cubes (N/mm2)

SAMPLE 7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 56 Days
1 1.93 2.23 2.38 3.04
2 2.37 2.35 2.58 3.26
3 2.49 2.12 2.33 3.40

B. Ordinary Portland Cement Mortar Cubes (1:3 Cement-Sand)


Comprehensive splitting strength of O.P.C mortar cubes (N/mm2)

SAMPLE 7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 56 Days
1 14.18 15.47
2 14.31 16.37
3 15.37 18.61

Tensile splitting strength of O.P.C mortar cubes (N/mm2)

SAMPLE 7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 56 Days
1 1.38 1.74
2 1.57 1.81
3 1.49 1.62

Conclusion

The above results suggest that using coarse sand (Sand 1) in lime mortar gives better results (approximately 50% increase in comprehensive strength) than using fine sand (Sand 2). This suggests that for practical reasons coarse sand should be used to improve carbonation and eventually compressive and tensile splitting strength. The coarse sand used in this study contained a high percentage of 5mm particles. This size of particles will not cause any problem in stonework or blockwork but it will cause some problems in brickwork. In all cases the 5mm particles can be changed to 4mm particles for better workability and ease of construction. Data printed within this section has been prepared by Napier University, Edinburgh under a commission for Telling Lime Products for whom ongoing tests are progressing upon adhesion, strengths, salt tolerance and weathering.

Fig.2 shows the porosity results for FEN X lime mortar 1:3 (lime:coarse sand) and other civil engineering materials. It can be seen that the FEN X lime mortar has a reasonable porosity. The results suggest that FEN X lime mortar also has a reasonable permeability.

FIG.2. Porosity results for clay bricks, lime mortar and granite (means of 5-6 samples)

Salt deposits in %

Sample Type Compressive strength (N/mm2 Porosity by vacuum (%)
Type B engineering block 92 14.85
Common clay solid-frogged brick 39 25.0
FEN X lime mortar (1:3) 4.91 30
Granite 6.15

Experimental Results

Experimental Results Fig.3 gives the compressive strength results at different age of testing for the 70mm mortar cubes. The table gives the results for the FEN X lime and one type of cement used in the study. The compressive strength results and coefficient of variations were derived from 3 mortar cubes.

Fig.3. Compressive strength of lime and cement mortar cubes (N/MM2)

Mortar type 7 Days CV(%) 14 Days CV(%) 28 Days CV(%) 42 Days CV(%)
FEN X 1.85 4.5 2.78 3.1 3.47 4.0 3.84 3.7
OPC 26.05 4.5 31.87 1.2 32.75 2.6 33.12 3.2