Török and Szemerey-Kiss Progress in Earth and Planetary Science
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40645-019-0282-1(2019) 6:42

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Progress in Earth andPlanetary Science

Open AccessFreeze-thaw durability of repair mortars
and porous limestone: compatibility issuesÁkos Török1*

and Balázs Szemerey-Kiss2

Abstract
Freeze-thaw cycles can cause considerable damage to porous materials and thus have an adverse effect on the durability ofmortars and porous stone. To assess the behavior and frost resistance of two types of porous limestone, three commerciallyavailable repair mortars and four mixtures of laboratory-prepared repair mortars were subjected to freeze-thaw cycles
according to EN 12371. During the test, samples of stone and mortar were bonded together and the weight loss wascontinuously monitored. The adhesion bond between the stone and the mortar was also observed during the cycles.
Petrographic analysis and thin sections were also made before and after the freeze-thaw test. The pore size distribution(mercury intrusion porosimetry, MIP) of mortars and stones was also measured. The test showed that most of the repair
mortars were damage more than porous limestone due to frost action. Two exceptions are two commercial available repair
mortars. These mortars were able to keep the adhesion with the stone, and the frost did not modify significantly the cubic
shape of the test specimens, only rounding of the edges was observed. All other samples were broken during the frost tests;
stone/mortar interface was dismounted. Other typical damage features such as delamination, blistering, powdering, andgranular disintegration were also observed leading to the gradual surface loss of the material. Our tests proved that low
pozzolanic cement content in mortars decreases the material durability. According to the pore size distribution (MIP), thesmall pores (around 0.1 μm) control the weathering behavior of tested porous materials.
Keywords: Durability, Freeze-thaw, Pore size distribution, Repair mortar, Limestone

Introduction
Phase transition of water to ice causes severe damage tostones, causing frost damage which has been already described many years ago (Schaffer 1932). The weathering
mechanism of porous materials is almost the same in thecase of frost and salt crystallization. Some of the salt tests
could cause higher structural stress on the stone matrix thanfrost damage—what suggests, that weathering process is faster in a salt-rich environment (Cárdenes et al. 2013). Stoneand mortar damage depends on relative humidity (RH),
temperature, and pore structure in salt-rich environment(Linnow 2007), while in region, the damage is mainly controlled by the presence of the water, the porosity, the poresize distribution, and the saturation rate (Ruedrich et al.
2011, Al-Omari et al. 2015, Gökçe et al. 2016). Frost damage
can lead to material loss, and in addition, it also decreases
the stone durability against other stress factors such as salts* Correspondence: torokakos@mail.bme.hu
1
Department of Engineering Geology and Geotechnics, Budapest Universityof Technology and Economics, Budapest, Műegyetem rkp. 3 1111, Hungary
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article(Yu and Oguchi 2010). Earlier test results showed that carbonate stones have higher resistance against frost than salt
crystallization (Thomachot-Schneider et al. 2010, 2011, Cárdenes et al. 2013). It has been also outlined that pore sizes
play an important role in frost resistivity of stones, namely,
pore throat sizes control the resistance of rock against
weathering (Benavente et al. 2007, 2011 Martínez-Martínez
et al. 2013). The sensitivity to salt weathering was linked topore sizes. Various authors denoted various pore ranges thatmake the stone/mortar prone to salt weathering (Age andOguchi 2011). Yu and Oguchi (2010) emphasized that poresof 0.1 μm in diameter are damaged the most during salt
crystallization, similarly to Ordonez (1997), while Steiger(2005a, 2005b) showed that materials characterized bysmaller pores of 0.05 μm are also sensitive to salt weathering.
Larger pore size (1 μm) was found to be responsible for salt
damage of porous stones (Benavente et al. 2004). The poresize also controls the durability of mortars (Papayianni and
Stefanidou 2006, Grilo et al. 2014, Korat et al. 2015, Giosuè
et al. 2018). Thus, natural stone and mortar durability
are closely related (Klisińska-Kopacz et al. 2010, Rivas© The Author(s). 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

(2019) 6:42

Török and Szemerey-Kiss Progress in Earth and Planetary Science

Page 2 of 12

Table 1 Abbreviation and composition of tested mortars
Name

BinderAggregate

Unit(C:L:LS:Q)

Cement (C)Lime (L)Limestone sand (LS)Quartz sand (Q)A

Portland cement

Hydrated lime

Ø 1–2

Ø 0.25–0.5

1:1:3:1

B

Portland cement

Hydrated lime

Ø 1–2

–

1:1:4:0C

Portland pozzolanic cement

Quicklime

Ø 1–2

–

1:1:4:0

D

Portland pozzolanic cement + portland cement

–

Ø 1–2

–

1 + 0.25:0:4:0

T

Portland cement

Hydrated lime–

Ø 0.2–0.4

1:0.25:0:4

T50

Portland cement

Hydrated lime

Ø 1–2

Ø 0.2–2.0

1:0.25:5:4

R

Portland cement

Hydrated lime–

Ø 0.3–0.5

1:0.3:0:3

R50

Portland cement

Hydrated lime

Ø 1–2

Ø 0.2–2.0

1:0.3:4:3

K

Portland pozzolanic cement

Hydrated lime–

Ø 0.3–0.5

1:0.3:0:3.5

K50

Portland pozzolanic cement

Hydrated lime

Ø 1–2

Ø 0.2–2.0

1:0.3:4:3.5

Limestone sand was 1–2 mm in diameter, while quartz sand was 0.2–2 mm. Last column shows the proportions of binder and aggregate (C, L, LS, and Q)

et al. 2010, Yu and Oguchi 2010, Schueremans et al.
2011, Szemerey-Kiss and Török 2011a, 2012, 2017a;
Szemerey-Kiss et al. 2013, Isebaert et al. 2014). The
strength of mortars against crystallization pressure isalso controlled by microfabric, mineralogical composition, and pore structure (Arizzi and Cultrone 2012,
Szemerey-Kiss and Török 2011b, Pavia and Hanley

2010, Lanas et al. 2006). In terms of aggregate andbinder composition, the durability of mortars is very
different (Isebaert et al. 2014). Hydrated lime additions
to the cement-based mortars improve the workability,
the bond strength, and some cases the durability(Duran et al. 2014). On the other hand, according toLanas et al. (2006), mortars with high porosity and low

Fig. 1 Samples of repair mortars/limestone prisms (dashed lines represent the boundaries). a Coarse-grained limestone and repair mortar R. b
Coarse-grained limestone and repair mortar T50. c Fine-grained limestone and repair mortar T. d Fine-grained limestone and repair mortar T50(explanation for sample codes are given in Table 1)

Török and Szemerey-Kiss Progress in Earth and Planetary Sciencestrength are more susceptible to degradation due tofreeze-thaw cycles. The susceptibility of lime mortars tofrost damage is well known, especially of young
non-carbonated mortars.
The present paper compares the frost durability of porous limestone and mortars. It is a key question when repair mortars are applied in heritage structures (Isebaert etal. 2014). The aim is to assess the compatibility of threecommercial available repair mortars and four mixture oflaboratory-prepared repair mortars with porous limestoneunder harsh environmental conditions. The tested mortars
are suggested to be used to repair porous stone. During
the tests, not only the individual behavior of mortars andporous limestone is tested but also the strength of thebond between limestone substrate and mortar is also evaluated. The bond between mortar and stone and the compatibility of physical properties are also important issues
that control the long-term behavior of loss compensation(Griswold and Uricheck 1998, Van Balen et al. 2005). The
compatibility is also assessed in terms of changes in
microfabric and weight loss of specimens. In addition, the(2019) 6:42

Page 3 of 12

pore size distribution of test specimens was also assessed
to link the porosity to the frost resistance of mortars andporous limestone.

Methods/Experimental
Sample preparation

The stones and the used aggregates were collected from
Sóskút quarry. It is located 38 km to the southwest of
the city Budapest. Two main types of porous limestone
were used for tests: (i) a fine-grained oolitic limestone(FL) and (II) a coarse-grained bioclastic oolitic limestone(CL). The detailed description of limestone types is given
by Török (2003) and Pápay and Török (2015, 2018).
Mortar specimens were also tested. Ten types of mixtures were prepared. Two mixtures were made using
portland cement and various proportion of hydrated
lime, limestone sand, and quartz sand (types A and B)(Table 1).
Two additional mixtures were prepared adding portland
pozzolanic cement (types C and D). The materials thatwere used for types A–D were hydraulic lime with density

Fig. 2 Images (top) and thin section photographs (bottom) of porous limestones: coarse-grained limestone (a, c) and fine-grained limestone (b, d)

Török and Szemerey-Kiss Progress in Earth and Planetary Scienceof 2.24 g/cm3 and portland pozzolanic cement with material density of 3.14 g/cm3 and fine limestone aggregate of 1–
2 mm or less in size with material density of 2.69 g/cm3 orquartz sand with a material density of 2.65 g/cm3. Three
additional ready-to-mix mortars were also tested marked as
T, R, and K. Their composition is also given in Table 1.
Additionally, samples with 50 m% of limestone sand aggregate were also prepared. Thus, in these types of specimens,
sand-sized porous limestone was used as aggregate(Table 1). These mixtures are marked with T50, R50, andK50 throughout the paper. Two types of samples were prepared from mortars. First sets were cubes of mortars of 30
mm × 30 mm × 30 mm in size which were made in stainless steel casts. The second sets are prismatic specimensof 40 mm × 40 mm × 80 mm, where one half of the specimen is porous limestone and the other half is mortar, a
composite sample (Fig. 1). Both fine- and coarse-grained
limestone samples (FL, CL) were used for these test

(2019) 6:42

Page 4 of 12

specimens (Fig. 2). The textural properties of these limestone types have been described in previous works (Török
2003, Pápay and Török 2010, Szemerey-Kiss and Török
2012). These limestone/mortar samples were also prepared in stainless steel casts. During the curing, thestone/mortar interface was kept in contact to provide
an excellent binding. Both types of samples (puremortars and stone/mortar composites) were kept in
the cast for 24 h prior to removing from the steel
frames. Once demolded, the specimens were cured
for 28 days at room temperature (20 °C ± 5 °C) undercontrolled RH. All together, 48 samples were prepared: 30 cubes of 30 mm × 30 mm × 30 mm and 18
prismatic specimens of 40 mm × 40 mm × 80 mm.
Mercury intrusion porosimetry and apparent porosity

The measurements were made with a Carlo Erba
2000 (GFZ Potsdam) porosimeter. The collected data

Fig. 3 Pore size distribution of the tested specimens. FL and CL are porous limestone and A, B, C, D, T, T50, R, R50, K, and KR50 are repair mortars,
detailed descriptions of samples are given in the text and in Table 1)

Török and Szemerey-Kiss Progress in Earth and Planetary Scienceevaluation was made by Pascal software (version1.03). Cylindrical specimens of 10 mm in diameterand different length samples were drilled from mortars and from stone samples for the pore size distribution analyses. Before the tests, samples were driedin an oven to constant mass at 105 °C. The apparent
porosity of test specimens was also determined according to EN 1936:2007.
Freeze-thaw test

For the freeze-thaw test, the European Norm Standard
used as a reference was EN 12371 natural stone
methods-determination of frost resistance. The samples
were initially dried and then submerged in distilled waterat 20 °C until full saturation. After this time, the samples
were placed in a freeze chamber at − 20 to − 22 °C for 6 h.
After freezing, the samples were removed and kept inwater for 6 h. These two steps comprised one cycle.
Weight of the specimens was measured before and after
each freeze cycle. Test specimens of mortars were subjected to 25 freeze-thaw cycles.
Polarizing microscopy analyses

Thin sections were prepared from test specimens prior andafter the freeze-thaw cycles to detect microfabric changes.
Epoxy resin was used to impregnate the porous specimens,
and slices were cut after impregnation. The microfabricanalysis of thin sections was performed by using polarizing
microscopy (ZEISS Axio Imager A2m microscope).

Results
Mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) porosity measurements indicate that there are major differences in between the pore size distribution of limestone samples
and mortars (Fig. 3). Larger pores (larger than 10 μm)
prevail in limestones (more than 55%) while the pores ofthe mortars are in the lower size ranges (Table 2). In themortar samples, the prevailing pore ranges are in between 0.1 and 1 μm with the exception of T, R, and R50
mortars. In the former one, 0.01–0.1 pores are the mostcommon, while in the latter ones, (R, R50) larger pores(1–10 μm) predominate. The apparent porosity of mortars is less than 30%, with the exceptions of T50, R50, K,
and K50 mortars (Table 2).
The freeze-thaw tests showed that most of the limestone
samples are hardly affected even after 25 frost cycles.
Damages are observed in the form of minor rounding ofedges. Tested commercial mortars of T and R have higher
frost resistance than any of the tested limestone samples.
Damage of mortar samples is seen after 10 freeze-thaw cycles, but major damage is observed at several samples after
25 freeze-thaw cycles (Fig. 4).
The visible signs of frost damage appeared in the formsof surface spalling or microcrack formation (Fig. 5).

(2019) 6:42

Page 5 of 12

Table 2 Pore-size distribution and apparent porosity of stone
and mortar
Abbreviation 0.001–0.01 0.01–0.1 0.1–1 1–10
of testedsamples/pore
ranges (inmicrometer)

10–100 Apparent
porosity
(V%)

FL

4.16

11.31

5.41

18.14 60.98

38.8

CL

7.44

13.36

5.27

18.23 55.69

33.9

A

1.35

16.37

51.23 27.33 3.66

22.6

B

0.97

10.08

35.70 49.10 4.15

24.6

C

16.06

16.54

32.45 32.35 1.60

27.6

D

0.55

26.54

52.67 17.65 2.59

22.5

T

5.31

40.00

39.41 13.88 1.41

25.5

T50

5.52

23.56

51.09 16.67 3.15

32.5

R

5.84

13.20

30.22 39.55 1.21

29.8

R50

5.87

19.96

32.08 41.09 1.01

32.8

K

4.79

16.38

38.02 38.98 1.82

35.6

K50

4.01

13.95

54.81 24.1

39.7

3.12

Pore sizes are given in micrometer, while apparent porosity is in V%. FL and
CL are porous limestone, while A, B, C, D, T, T50, R, R50, K, and KR50 are repair
mortars, detailed descriptions of samples are given in the text and in Table 1

The weight loss of laboratory-prepared mortar samples
related to frost action is different. D mortar with noadded lime has the highest frost resistance, while hydrated lime-containing samples (sample set A and B)
have the lowest frost durability (Fig. 6).
The commercially available mortars seemed to berelatively frost resistant, but the K mortar showed aweight loss of nearly 20% after 25 freeze-thaw cycles(Fig. 7). When limestone aggregate was added, thefrost resistance of these mortars was reduced in different rates (Fig. 7.). The lowest durability was foundat K50 mortar, which completely disintegrated after
25 freeze-thaw cycles. The damage of pure cement
and hydrated lime-based mortars (T and R) duringfreeze-thaw cycling was lower.
Microscopic analyses of limestone samples suggestthat frost action causes the formation of microcracks
and these cracks tend to open (Fig. 8). The cracks were
found in the porous Hungarian limestone in the carbonate cement between the grains and also within the carbonate grains. Larger cracks (80–100 μm) and networksof smaller intragranular microcracks were also visualized
by using a microscope (Fig. 8).
Mortar specimens have slightly different microcrack
patterns according to microscopic images. Many
cracks are formed parallel to the surface of the mortar (Fig. 9).
Damage and disintegration of bonds between mortar
and limestone during freeze-thaw cycling were not

Török and Szemerey-Kiss Progress in Earth and Planetary Science(2019) 6:42

Page 6 of 12

Fig. 4 Samples before the frost test (a), after the 5th freeze-thaw cycles (b), after the 10th freeze-thaw cycles (c), after the 15th freeze-thaw cycles(d), after the 20th freeze-thaw cycles (e), and after the 25th freeze-thaw cycles (f)gradual. Comparing the results of the failure of thetested mortar/stone composite samples, it is evident
that visible cracks are not necessarily formed prior
to the separation of stone/mortar interface (Table 3).
There were composite specimens that showed theformation of microcracks prior to the dismounting(e.g., C and D, Table 3), but there were mortars
where the bounds between the stone and mortar
were eliminated without any sign of crack formation(e.g., K50, Table 3). The most common failure was
the forms of cracks at the stone/mortar interface(Fig. 10).

Discussion
Previous studies suggest that the porosity and pore size distribution have an important role in the durability of construction materials under laboratory conditions (Benavente
et al. 2004; Chen and Wu 2013; Chen et al. 2013; Martínez-Martínez et al. 2013; Al-Omari et al. 2015; Pápay and
Török 2018) and also in exposed buildings (Thomachot-Schneider et al. 2011, Vázquez et al. 2015, Gökçe et al.
2016). In this study, the most durable mortars were theones of D, T, and R (Figs. 6 and 7). These mortars have very
different pore size distributions (Table 2 and Fig. 3). D and
T mortars have a very high amount of pores in the pore

Török and Szemerey-Kiss Progress in Earth and Planetary Science(2019) 6:42

Page 7 of 12

Fig. 5 Frost damage of cubic mortar specimens: a scaling (K50 after 5 freeze-thaw cycles) and b rounding of edges, surface scaling, and cracking(K50 after 11 freeze-thaw cycles) (red arrows show scaling, while white arrows point to microcracks)

ranges of 0.01–0.1 μm (Table 2). This pore range was considered as one of the most sensitive ones in terms of salt
damage (Yu and Oguchi 2010), while Benavente et al.
(2004) suggested that larger pores (0.1–10 μm) all contribute to salt damage. Other authors (Steiger 2005a, 2005b;
Cárdenes et al. 2013) clearly noted that smaller pores canbe also considered in salt damage. Frost damage is also
linked to porosity, and there is a strong link between humidity, capillary condensation, and frost damage of porous

materials (Al-Omari et al. 2015; Scrivano et al. 2018). Besides porosity and pore size distribution, the composition
also controls the frost resistance of the tested mortars.
Mortars that contain pozzolanic cement with hydrated lime
are more sensitive to frost action (K, Table 1, Fig. 7) thanthe ones that contain portland cement (T and R, Table 1,
Fig. 7). It was also documented for pozzolanic mortars thatthe frost damage is clearly related to microcrack formation(Siline et al. 2017). At the tested mortars, microcracking

Fig. 6 Average weight loss (%) of the tested specimens (A, B, C, and D, see sample description in Table 1) (please note that there is an overlap
between the symbols up to 10 cycles)

Török and Szemerey-Kiss Progress in Earth and Planetary Science(2019) 6:42

Page 8 of 12

Fig. 7 Average weight loss (%) of mortar samples (T, T50, R, R50, K, and K50, see legend in Table 1 and in the text) (please note that there is an
overlap between the symbols at 0.00 line up to 21 cycles)

and spalling occurred, and granular disintegration was also
observed (Fig. 5) after 10 to 15 cycles. Granular disintegration was also reported even after 5 freeze-thaw cycles whenlime mortars were tested (Nunes and Slízková 2016). The
fact that granular disintegration was only observed after 10cycles and not earlier could be related to the presence of
portland cement in all tested specimens.

The freeze-thaw cycles cause somewhat similar damage forms on mortars and artificial stones to the ones related to salt damage (Rusin and Swiercz 2017,
Husillos-Rodriguez et al. 2018). The latter one is alsocharacterized by microcracking, granular disintegration,and scaling (Thomachot-Schneider et al. 2016). Similarly,
the frost damage in limestone also appears in the form ofFig. 8 Cracks developed within the porous limestone due to frost damage. Microscopic images (crossed polars): a fine-grained oolitic limestone(FL) with microcracks in between the grain boundaries crossing microsparitic cement and b opened microcrack at grain boundary coarse-grained
oolitic limestone (CL) (arrows show microcracks)

Török and Szemerey-Kiss Progress in Earth and Planetary Science(2019) 6:42

Page 9 of 12

Fig. 9 Surface parallel cracks (arrows) observed in mortar specimens. a Mortar A. b Mortar C (see sample description in Table 1). The boundaries
of split surfaces are marked by red lines

crack formation under laboratory conditions (Martínez-Martínez et al. 2013) and also in monuments (Török
2003, Laycock et al. 2008), while it was observed here
under the microscope (Fig. 8).

Table 3 Failure of the tested mortar/stone sample formation of
cracks and separation of stone/mortar interface (number offreeze-thaw cycles are given)
Sampleabbreviation

Number of the freeze cycle, when
Cracks appear between themortar and the stone

Separation of the stone
and mortar

A1

9

12

A2

–

4

B1

–

9

B2

8

9

C1

9

10

C2

5

6

D1

8

9

D2

7

8

T1

–

–

T2

16

17

T501

–

19

T502

20

21

R1

–

–

R2

–

23

R501

–

19

R502

17

19

K1

8

9

K2

6

7

K501

–

5

K502

–

4

Similar cracks were observed by Martínez-Martínez etal. (2013) studying six limestone types under simulated
frost weathering. Our observations are also in good
agreement with the findings of Al-Omari et al. (2015),
since in that paper, the damage of highly porous French
limestone due to frost action was recorded as microcrack formation.
Earlier tests have shown that the rate of the frost damage in Miocene limestone depends on the different texture of this limestone type (Pápay and Török 2018).
There are fine-grained, medium-grained, and coarse
limestone types of porous limestone extracted the same
quarry—Sóskút (Török 2003, Török et al. 2004), andthese limestones have a different pore size distributionthat affects their durability and resistance to weathering(Török and Rozgonyi 2004). According to Szemerey-Kiss
and Török (2011b) and Pápay and Török (2018), most of
the Miocene limestone is not frost resistant. The highly
porous limestone of Central France is similar to the studied ones since its frost resistance is also limited and controlled by porosity (Hassine et al. 2018a) and relative
humidity (Al-Omari et al. 2015). The water infiltration
can also cause strain (Hassine et al. 2018b), but the strain
is much enhanced by frost action (Al-Omari et al. 2015)that can lead to the formation of microcracks and damageof the limestone (Martínez-Martínez et al. 2013).
Garbalinska and Wygocka (2014) showed that thesecracks are related to the internal structure of the cement
mortars and pore size distribution, too. In this study, therelationships between crack formation and pore size distribution cannot be clearly outlined. However, damage
patterns can be linked to porosity; namely, the mortar thatwas the least durable (T50, Fig. 7) has the highest amountof pores in the pore range of 0.1–1 μm (Table 2).
The previous test has demonstrated that various failuremodes exist between mortar and limestone (Szemerey-Kiss

Török and Szemerey-Kiss Progress in Earth and Planetary Science(2019) 6:42

Page 10 of 12

Fig. 10 Cracks observed at and parallel to stone/mortar interface due to frost damage. a T and coarse porous limestone. b Coarse porous
limestone and T50. c Coarse porous limestone and K. d Coarse porous limestone and K50

and Török 2017a). The surface adherence of mortar
also depends on the surface pretreatment (wetting,etc.), and it has been demonstrated that the adherence
strength of mortar to limestone is much lower(Szemerey-Kiss and Török 2017a) than that of theconcrete (Sadowski and Hola 2015; Sadowski et al.
2016). The surface adherence also depends on surface
roughness (Sadowski and Mathia 2016), and it seems
that adding limestone sand to mortar increases surface
roughness and probably contributes to the increase of
frost resistance of mortar/limestone interface (Table 2).
The appearance of cracks does not necessarily predict
the failure at stone/mortar interface since there areseveral specimens (A2, B1, R2, and R501 in Table 3)
where no cracks were observed prior to failure (separation of stone/mortar interface). The adherence of themortar to the stone surface is also controlled by the
durability of the mortar itself; mortars with low frost
durability (e.g., D (Fig. 6) or K50 (Fig. 7)) were separated from the stone surface after a lower number offreeze-thaw cycles (Table 3).
These tests also provide information on how many
freeze-thaw cycles are needed to assess the durability ofthese mortars (Szemerey-Kiss and Török 2017b). Goudie(1999) used 80 cycles in his study to guarantee that at least
two thirds of the samples were affected by thefreeze-thaw. In our study, 25 cycles were reached andthese provided a good hint to observe the differences indurability; however, some authors emphasize the use of aneven higher number of freeze-thaw cycles to better understand the frost durability of natural stones (Martínez-Martínez et al. 2013) and mortars (Siline et al. 2017).

Conclusions
The freeze-thaw test of repair mortars and porous limestone indicates that there is a strong link between porosity and frost durability. Adding limestone aggregate toready-to-mix mortars reduces the frost durability. The
mortars that contain pozzolanic cement are more sensitive to frost than the ones of portland cement binders.
Adding hydraulic lime accelerates curing, but often reduces the frost durability of mortars. Frost damage of
limestone/mortar interface appears in the form of microcracks and dismounting of the mortar from the stone.
Microcrack formation does not necessarily occur prior
to losing the adhesion of the stone surface. It could happen rapidly without visible signs.

Török and Szemerey-Kiss Progress in Earth and Planetary Science

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Orsolya Farkas for her help in the porosity
analyses.
Funding
The financial support of National Research, Development and Innovation(NKFI) Fund (ref. no. K 116532) is appreciated. The research was also realizedwith the support of the EU-funded project EFOP-3.6.1-16-2016-00021 (Hungarian University of Fine Arts). ÁT gratefully acknowledges the travel grantfrom Japan Geoscience Union to attend the Japan Geosciences Union Meeting 2017 that took place in Tokyo, Japan.
Availability of data and materials
Data sharing is not applicable to this article since it is an ongoing project
which has not been terminated yet. If additional data is needed, pleasecontact the authors for data request.
Authors’ contributions
The tests were performed by BS-K in the laboratory. The evaluation andinterpretation of test results were made by ÁT and BS-K. The paper was
written by ÁT and BS-K. Both authors read and approved the final
manuscript.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims inpublished maps and institutional affiliations.
Author details
1
Department of Engineering Geology and Geotechnics, Budapest Universityof Technology and Economics, Budapest, Műegyetem rkp. 3 1111, Hungary.
2
Faculty of Conservation, Hungarian Academy of Fine Arts, Budapest,
Andrássy út 69-71 1062, Hungary.
Received: 17 July 2018 Accepted: 18 April 2019

References
Al-Omari A, Beck K, Brunetaud X, Török Á, Al-Mukhtar M (2015) Critical degree ofsaturation: a control factor of freeze-thaw damage of porous limestones at
Castle of Chambord, France. Eng Geol 185:71–80
Arizzi A, Cultrone G (2012) The difference in behaviour between calcitic anddolomitic lime mortars set under dry conditions: the relationship between
textural and physical-mechanical properties. Cem Concr Res 42:818–826
Aye T, Oguchi CT (2011) Resistance of plain and blended cement mortars
exposed to severe sulfate attacks. Constr Build Mater 25:2988–2996
Benavente D, Cueto N, Martínez-Martínez J, Garcìa Del Cura MA, Cañaveras JC(2007) The influence of petrophysical properties on the salt weathering of
porous building rocks. Environ Geol 52:215–224
Benavente D, Garcia del Cura MA, Fort R, Ordónez S (2004) Durability estimationof porous building stones from pore structure and strength. Eng Geol 74:
113–127
Benavente D, Sanchez-Moral S, Fernandez-Cortes A, Cañaveras JC, Elez J, SáizJiménez C (2011) Salt damage and microclimate in the Postumius Tomb,
Roman necropolis of Carmona, Spain. Environ Geol 63:1529–1543
Cárdenes V, Maetos FJ, Fernándet-Lorenzo S (2013) Analysis of the correlations
between freeze-thaw and salt crystallization tests. Environ Earth Sci 71:1123–1134
Chen X, Wu S (2013) Influence of water-to-cement ratio and curing period onpore structure of cement mortar. Constr Build Mater 38:804–812
Chen X, Wu S, Zhou J (2013) Influence of porosity on compressive and tensile
strength of cement mortar. Constr Build Mater 40:869–874
Duran A, Navarro-Blasco I, Fernández JM, Alvarez JI (2014) Long-term mechanicalresistance and durability of air lime mortars with large additions of
nanosilica. Constr Build Mater 58:147–158
Garbalinska H, Wygocka A (2014) Microstructure modification of cement mortars:
effect on capillarity and frost-resistance. Constr Build Mater 51:258–266
Giosuè C, Yu QL, Ruello ML, Tittarelli F, Brouwers HJH (2018) Effect of pore
structure on the performance of photocatalytic lightweight lime-based
finishing mortar. Constr Build Mater 171:232–242(2019) 6:42

Page 11 of 12

Gökçe MV, Ince I, Fener M, Taşkıran T, Kayabali K (2016) The effects of freez-thaw(F-T) cycles on the Gödene travertine used in historical structures in Konya(Turkey). Cold Reg Sci Technol 127:65–75
Goudie A (1999) A Comparison of the Relative Resistance of Limestones to Frostand Salt Weathering. Permafrost Periglac Process 10:309–316
Grilo J, Faria P, Veiga R, Silva AS, Silva V, Velosa A (2014) New natural hydrauliclime mortars – physical and microstructural properties in different curingconditions. Constr Build Mater 54:378–384
Griswold J, Uricheck S (1998) Loss compensation methods for stone. J Am Inst
Conserv 37:89–110
Hassine MA, Beck K, Brunetaud X, Al-Mukhtar M (2018a) Use of electricalresistance measurement to assess the water saturation profile in porous
limestones during capillary imbibition. Constr Build Mater 165:206–217
Hassine MA, Beck K, Brunetaud X, Al-Mukhtar M (2018b) Strain measurements during
capillary water infiltration in porous limestones. Constr Build Mater 165:439–447
Husillos-Rodríguez N, Carmona-Quiroga PM, Martínez-Ramírez S, Blanco-Varela MT, Fort
R (2018) Sacrificial mortars for surface desalination. Constr Build Mater 173:452–460
Isebaert A, Van Parys L, Cnudde V (2014) Composition and compatibility
requirements of mineral repair mortars for stone – a review. Constr Build
Mater 59:39–50
Klisińska-Kopacz A, Tišlova R, Adamski G, Kozłowski R (2010) Pore structure ofhistoric and repair Roman cement mortars to establish their compatibility. J
Cult Herit 11:404–410
Korat L, Mirti B, Mladenovi A, Pranji AM, Kramar S (2015) Formulation andmicrostructural evaluation of tuff repair mortar. J Cult Herit 16:705–711
Lanas J, Sirera R, Alvarez JI (2006) Study of the mechanical behaviour of masonrylime-based mortars cured and exposed under different conditions. Cem
Concr Res 36:961–970
Laycock EA, Spence K, Jefferson DP, Hetherington S, Martin B, Wood C (2008)
Testing the durability of limestone for chatedral façade restoration. Environ
Geol 56:521–528
Linnow K (2007) Salt damage in porous materials: an RH-XRD investigation, PhD
dissertaton. Dissertation Zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades vorgelegt im
Department Chemie der Fakultät für Mathematik, Informatik und
Naturwissenschaften Universität, Hamburg, p 167
Martínez-Martínez J, Benavente D, Gomez-Heras M, Marco-Castańo L, García-delCura M (2013) Non-linear decay of building stones during freeze–thaw
weathering processes. Constr Build Mater 38:443–454
Nunes C, Slízková Z (2016) Freezing and thawing resistance of aerial lime mortar
with metakaolin and a traditional water-repellent admixture. Constr Build
Mater 114:896–905
Ordonez S, Fort R, García del Cura MA (1997) Pore size distribution and the
durability of a porous limestone. Q J Eng Geol 30:221–230
Pápay Z, Török Á (2010) Physical changes of porous Hungarian limestones related tosilicic acid ester consolidant treatments. Geol Soc Lond, Spec Publ 331:147–155
Pápay Z, Török Á (2015) Micro-Fabric, Pore-Size Distribution and Water
Absorption of Consolidated Porous Limestone. In: Lollino G, Giordan D,
Marunteanu C, Christaras B, Yoshinori I, Margottini C (eds) Engineering
Geology for Society and Territory - Volume 8: Preservation of Cultural
Heritage. 12th IAEG Congress. Springer Switzerland, Torino, pp 553–556
Pápay Z, Török Á (2018) Effect of thermal and freeze-thaw stress on the mechanicalproperties of porous limestone. Period Polytech Civ Eng 62:423–428
Papayianni I, Stefanidou M (2006) Strength–porosity relationships in lime–
pozzolan mortars. Constr Build Mater 20:700–705
Pavia S, Hanley R (2010) Flexural bond strength of natural hydraulic lime mortar
and clay brick. Mater Struct 43:913–922
Rivas T, Alvarez E, Mosquera MJ, Aljeano L, Taboada J (2010) Crystallization
modifiers applied in granite desalination: the role of the stone pore structure.
Constr Build Mater 24:766–776
Ruedrich J, Kirchner D, Siegesmund S (2011) Physical weathering of buildingstones induced by freeze–thaw action: a laboratory long-term study. Environ
Earth Sci 63:1573–1586
Rusin Z, Swiercz P (2017) Frost resistance of rock materials. Constr Build Mater
148:704–714
Sadowski L, Czarnecki S, Hola J (2016) Evoluation of the height 3D roughness
parameters of concrete substrate and adhesion to epoxy resin. Int J Adhes
Adhes 67:3–13
Sadowski L, Hola J (2015) ANN modelling of pull-off adhesion of concrete layers.
Adv Eng Softw 89:17–27
Sadowski L, Mathia TG (2016) Multi-scale metrology of concrete surface
morphology: fundamentals and specificity. Constr Build Mater 113:613–621

Török and Szemerey-Kiss Progress in Earth and Planetary Science

Schaffer RJ (1932) The weathering of natural building stones. His Majesty’s
Stationary Office, London, p 149
Schueremans L, Cizer Ö, Janssens E, Serré G, Van Balen K (2011) Characterizationof repair mortars for the assessment of their compatibility in restoration
projects: research and practice. Constr Build Mater 25:4338–4350
Scrivano S, Gaggero L, Aguilar J (2018) Micro-porosity and micro-petrographic
features influences on decay: experimental data from four dimension stones.
Constr Build Mater 173:342–349
Siline M, Elhem G, Mekki B (2017) Effect of freeze–thaw cycles on thephysicomechanical properties of a pozzolanic mortar. Constr Build Mater 134:32–38
Steiger M (2005a) Crystal growth in porous materials – I. the crystallizationpressure of large crystals. J Cryst Growth 282:455–469. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jcrysgro.2005.05.00
Steiger M (2005b) Crystal growth in porous materials – II. influence of crystal sizeon the crystallization pressure. J Cryst Growth 282:470–481. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcrysgro.2005.05.008
Szemerey-Kiss B, Török Á (2011a) Time-dependent changes in the strengthof repair mortar used in loss compensation of stone. Environ Earth Sci
63:1613–1621
Szemerey-Kiss B, Török Á (2011b) Salt durability tests of repair mortars used in
the restoration of porous limestones. In: Ioannou I, Theodoridou M (eds) Salt
Weathering on Buildings and Stone Sculptures, SWBSS, Limassol, pp 323–330
Szemerey-Kiss B, Török Á (2012) Porosity and compatibility of repair mortars andHungarian porous limestones. Central Eur Geol 52(2):123–133
Szemerey-Kiss B, Török Á (2017a) Failure mechanisms of repair mortar stoneinterface assessed by pull-off strength tests. Bull Eng Geol Environ 76:159–167
Szemerey-Kiss B, Török Á (2017b) The effects of the different curing conditions
and the role of added aggregate in the strength of repair mortars. Environ
Earth Sci 76:284
Szemerey-Kiss B, Török Á, Siegesmund S (2013) The influence of binder/
aggregate ratio on the properties and strength of repair mortars. Environ
Earth Sci 69:1439–1449
Thomachot-Schneider C, Gommeaux M, Fronteau G, Oguchi CT, Eyssautier S,
Kartheuser B (2010) A comparison of the properties and salt weathering
susceptibility of natural and reconstituted stones of the Orval Abbey(Belgium). Environ Earth Sci 63:1447–1461
Thomachot-Schneider C, Gommeaux M, Fronteau G, Oguchi CT, Eyssautier S,
Kartheuser B (2011) A comparison of the properties and salt weathering
susceptibility of natural and reconstituted stones of the Orval Abbey(Belgium). Environ Earth Sci 63:1447–1461
Thomachot-Schneider C, Gommeaux M, Lelarge N, Conreux A, Kamel M, Bodnar
JL, Vázquez P (2016) Relationship between Na2SO4 concentration andthermal response of reconstituted stone in the laboratory and on site.
Environ Earth Sci 75:762
Török Á (2003) Surface strength and mineralogy of weathering crusts onlimestone buildings in Budapest. Build Environ 38:1185–1192
Török Á, Rozgonyi N (2004) Morphology and mineralogy of weathering crusts onhighly porous oolitic limestones, a case study from Budapest. Envir Geol 46:
333–349
Török Á, Rozgonyi N, Prikryl R, Prikrylová J (2004) Leithakalk: the ornamental andbuilding stone of Central Europe, an overview. In: Prikryl R (ed) Dimension
stone. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 89–93
Van Balen K, Papayianni I, Van Hees R, Binda L, Waldum A (2005) Introduction torequirements for and functions and properties of repair mortars. Mat Struct
38:781–785
Vázquez P, Menéndez B, Denecker M, Thomachot-Schneider, C (2015)
Comparison between petrophysical properties, durability and use of twolimestones of the Paris region. In: Přikryl R, Török Á, Gomez-Heras M,
Miskovsky K, Theodoridou M (eds) Sustainable use of traditional geomaterials
in construction practice. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 416:
203–216
Yu S, Oguchi CT (2010) Role of pore size distribution in salt uptake, damage, andpredicting salt susceptibility of eight types of Japanese building stones. Eng
Geol 115:226–236(2019) 6:42

Page 12 of 12