The influence of lime type on the properties of traditional lime-soil materials
Shiqiang Fang, Wenjing Hu, Xueqiang Chen, Lina Xie, Luxiang Cai
TL;DR
This study compares different types of lime in soil materials for repairing historic buildings, finding that powdered lime is more reliable while blocky lime needs careful use.
Contribution
The study provides a systematic evaluation of blocky quicklime's performance in lime-soil materials, revealing its dosage-dependent behavior and unique hydration mechanisms.
Findings
Hydrated lime showed inferior strength and durability compared to quicklime types.
Blocky quicklime performed best at 15% content but declined beyond due to expansion stresses.
Powdered quicklime provided consistent, dosage-dependent performance suitable for high-performance needs.
Abstract
The conservation of historic earthen structures requires repair materials that are both high-performance and historically appropriate. While archaeological evidence indicates that the historical use of blocky quicklime to make lime-soil materials, modern research and conservation practice often focus on its powdered counterpart, creating a knowledge gap. Thus, this work systematically evaluated the physical properties, microstructure, and composition of lime-soil materials prepared with blocky quicklime, powdered quicklime, and hydrated lime (at 10–20% content). The results demonstrated that hydrated lime yielded inferior strength and durability. Although both types of quicklime enhanced performance, they functioned through distinct mechanisms. Powdered quicklime provided consistent, dosage-dependent improvement, making it reliable for high-performance requirements. In contrast, blocky…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsBuilding materials and conservation · Hygrothermal properties of building materials · Concrete and Cement Materials Research