Effect of Different Silicic Acid Ester on the Properties of Sandstones with Varying Binders
-
Franziska Braun
and
Jeanette Orlowsky
Abstract
This study deals with the effect of using different silicic acid ethyl esters (SAE) on diverse sandstones and to estimate their influence on the properties of the treated stones. Prismatic samples of Baumberger Sandstone (BST), Sander Sandstone (SST) and Nievelsteiner Sandstone (NST) with the dimensions 50 mm×50 mm×100 mm were treated with three different consolidating agents based on silicic acid ethyl ester (KSE 100, KSE 300, KSE 510) in three different procedures (vacuum, 1- and 5- time impregnation). The aim of this study is to demonstrate that differences in application, for instance varying stone consolidation agents, other treatment procedures as well as using sandstone samples with different binders (BST: calcareous, SST: clayey, NST: quartzitic), cause in each case different results concerning the strengthening effect and the success of a consolidation action. Laboratory measurements were performed on treated and untreated material in order to estimate the effectiveness of stone consolidation actions. To detect the influence of subsequent treatment procedures, water vapour diffusion resistance (WVDR) and capillary water absorption (CWA) measurements were carried out. Furthermore, the effectiveness of a stone consolidation was analysed by measuring ultrasound velocity, compressive strength, flexural strength, bond strength by pull-off and the porosity of the stone samples. Due to varying treatment procedures the investigated sandstones showed different petrophysical and mechanical properties (no strengthening effect up to “over-treating”). Different treatment procedures lead to increasing amounts of strengthening agent in the pore space of the investigated stones and as a result to higher values in WVDR (except BST and NST samples), ultrasound velocity and to an improvement in mechanical strength (except compressive strength of NST). This applies in particular to 1-time, 5-time and vacuum impregnated SST and 5-time treated NST and BST, regardless of the used stone strengthener. On the other hand, these different treatment procedures lead often to a decreased CWA and to a reduction in total porosity. The performed measurements indicate a development in strength in case of 5-time and vacuum treatment, but also an increase of the possibility of sealing the pores, especially for SST samples.
Bibliography
1. Siegesmund S, Weiss T, Vollbrecht A, editors. Natural stone, weathering phenomena, conservation strategies and case studies: introduction. London: Geological Society, 2002.Search in Google Scholar
2. Wheeler G. Alkoxysilanes and the consolidation of stone: research in conservation. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, 2005:1–196.Search in Google Scholar
3. Scherer G, Wheeler G. Silicate consolidants for stone. Key Eng Mater. 2009;391:1–25.10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.391.1Search in Google Scholar
4. Snethlage R, Wendler E. Chemical conservation of stone structures. Ullmann’s Encycl Ind Chem. 2000;8:223–48.10.1002/14356007.d06_d01Search in Google Scholar
5. De Clercq H, De Zanche S, Biscontin G. The influence of application schedules on the effectiveness of Ethyl Silicate based consolidants for brick and limestone. Restor Build Monuments. 2002;14(4):283–94.10.1515/rbm-2008-6229Search in Google Scholar
6. Zornoza-Indart A, Lopez-Arce P, Leal N, Simão J, Zoghlami K. Consolidation of a Tunisian bioclastic calcarenite: from conventional ethyl silicate products to nanostructured and nanoparticle based consolidants. Constr Build Mater. 2016;116:188–202.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.04.114Search in Google Scholar
7. Wendler E, Grassegger G. Chemie der Steinfestigung mit Kieselsäureestern, Reaktionen bei Erhärtung, Anwendung und Modifizierung. In: Patitz G, Grassegger G, Wölbert O, editors. Natursteinbauwerke: Untersuchen – Bewerten – Instandsetzen. vol. 29. Stuttgart: Fraunhofer IRB Verlag, 2015:208–18.Search in Google Scholar
8. Franzoni E, Graziani G, Sassoni E, Bacilieri G, Griffa M, Lura P. Solvent-based ethyl silicate for stone consolidation: influence of the application technique on penetration depth, efficacy and pore occlusion. Mater Struct. 2015;48:3503–15.10.1617/s11527-014-0417-1Search in Google Scholar
9. Remmers Baustofftechnik GmbH. Technical Information Sheet Article No. 0720, KSE 300, Solvent-free stone strengthener on a silicic acid ethyl ester base, gel deposit rate approx. 30 %. 2007, 1–3.Search in Google Scholar
10. Geological Society of America. Rock-Color Chart. 8. print. Colorado: Geological Society of America, 1995.Search in Google Scholar
11. Grimm W. Bildatlas wichtiger Denkmalgesteine der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Arbeitsheft, Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege. vol. 50. München: Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, 1990.Search in Google Scholar
12. DIN EN 15803:2010-04: conservation of cultural property – Test methods – Determination of water vapour permeability (δp); German version EN 15803:2009.Search in Google Scholar
13. DIN EN 1925:1999-05: natural stone test methods – Determination of water absorption coefficient capillarity; German version EN 1925:1999.Search in Google Scholar
14. DIN 66133:1993-06: determination of pore volume distribution and specific surface area of solids by mercury intrusion.Search in Google Scholar
15. DIN EN 1542:1999-07: products and systems for the protection and repair of concrete structures – Test methods – measurement of bond strength by pull-off; German version EN 1542:1999.Search in Google Scholar
16. DIN EN EN 12372:2007-02: natural stone test methods – Determination of flexural strength under concentrated load; German version EN 12372:2006.Search in Google Scholar
17. DIN EN EN 1926:2007-03: natural stone test methods – Determination of uniaxial compressive strength; German version EN 1926:2006.Search in Google Scholar
18. Snethlage R. Stone Conservation. In: Siegesmund S, Snethlage R, editors. Stone in architecture – properties, durability. 5th ed. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Verlag, 2014:415–37.10.1007/978-3-642-45155-3_7Search in Google Scholar
19. Karatasios I, Theoulakis P, Kalagri A, Sapalidis A, Kilikoglou V. Evaluation of consolidation treatments of marly limestones used in archaeological monuments. Constr Build Mater. 2009;23:2803–12.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.03.001Search in Google Scholar
20. Sassoni E, Franzoni E, Pigino B, Scherer GW, Naidu S. Consolidation of calcareous and siliceous sandstones by hydroxyapatite: comparison with a TEOS-based consolidant. J Cult Heritage. 2013;45:e103–e108.10.1016/j.culher.2012.11.029Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Birkhäuser Verlag GmbH, Basel. Part of Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Effect of Different Silicic Acid Ester on the Properties of Sandstones with Varying Binders
- Behaviour of Pigeon Excreta on Masonry Surfaces
- Comparison of Evolution of Pop-Out Damage by Mixed in Burnt Lime Nodules in Precast Concrete in Outside and Inside Exposure Conditions
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Effect of Different Silicic Acid Ester on the Properties of Sandstones with Varying Binders
- Behaviour of Pigeon Excreta on Masonry Surfaces
- Comparison of Evolution of Pop-Out Damage by Mixed in Burnt Lime Nodules in Precast Concrete in Outside and Inside Exposure Conditions
