Advertisement

Decreasing salt susceptibility index of nummulitic limestone using three resins applied in different ratios and concentrations

  • Gamal M. Eisawy Kamh
  • Maher Dawood
  • Ahmed El-loly
Original Paper
  • 15 Downloads

Abstract

Salt weathering is one of the most aggressive worldwide weathering processes severely affecting natural and artificial materials to unlimited weathering grades. This impact is highly considered for the highly ranked archeological sites. So, this paper aims to examine the durability of the huge quarries of the Eocene nummulitic limestone that had been widely used for construction and/or carving of the Pharaonic archeological sites in Egypt, e.g., the Giza Pyramids and the Great Sphinx. The durability had been examined for this limestone before and after applying three resins prepared in single or combined states and at variable limits of concentration. These resins are namely ethyl silicate, Premal-AC33, and Paraloid 80. Petrographic, mineralogical, physical, and mechanical properties and durability investigations had been conducted for this limestone before treatment with such resins. Treatment has been conducted through two regimes, namely repeated brushing and total immersion using each resin at each level of concentration. Examining samples’ surface color after treatment and resin’s penetration depth, as well as rock’s geotechnical properties’, limits using ultrasonic waves, and sample’s salt susceptibility index (SSI) using Mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) has been considered for each resin at each level of concentration. The data had been discussed indicating that Paraloid B-80 used in a single state dissolved in 300 ml acetone or in combination with ethyl silicate dissolved in ethyl alcohol are the best for increasing durability of such nummulitic limestone.

Keywords

Nummulitic limestone Ethyl silicate Primal Paraloid B80 Consolidation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are highly acknowledging the staff at the main laboratories of Saitama University, Japan, for conducting the laboratory work of this paper during the fellowship of the corresponding author of this research who was fully financially supported with JSPS. The authors are also appreciating the efforts of Prof Dr. Derek Alex the Head of Earth Science Department, UCC, UK, for his intensive reading and language correction of this work. Great thanks are also for the editors and team of AJGS as well as the reviewers for their efforts during the progress of this paper publication.

References

  1. Abd el-Hady M, Soliman K, Hassan M (2005) Resins testing for color matching on limestone tomb of 2nd Dynasty, Neb Raa God at Pharos, Upper Egypt. Egyptian Archaeological and Conservation Journal 16(2):34–45Google Scholar
  2. Aghamelu OP, Amah JI (2017) Quality and durability of some marble deposits in the southern schist belt (Nigeria) as construction stones. Bull Eng Geol Environ 76:1563–1575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barry AR (1991) The durability of porous stone. Stone Industries 26(10):22–25Google Scholar
  4. Benavente D, Garci MA, Fort R, Ordo S (2004) Durability estimation of porous building stones from pore structure and strength. Earth Surf Process Landf 74:113–127Google Scholar
  5. Dakhnova G R (1982) Petrophysical properties, accurate and specific determination for limestone, sandstone and fine grained sediments. 6th International Congress on Stone Weathering, Italy, Rome 17(2):342–354Google Scholar
  6. Fitzner B, Snethlage R (1982) Ueber Zusammenhange zwischen salzkristallisation-sdruck und Porenradienverteilung. GP Newsletter 3:13–24Google Scholar
  7. Folk R (1962) Spectral subdivision of limestone types. In: Ham, W.E. (Ed.), Classification of Carbonate Rocks. Memoir- American Association of Petroleum Geologists 1:62–84Google Scholar
  8. Kamh GME (2003) Examining the workability of five limestone facies for reconstruction of archaeological sites, petrologic, durability and ultrasonic investigations. I J R 14(3):213–221Google Scholar
  9. Kamh GME (2010) Quantification of the damage category of sandstone at Ramesseum Temple: a case study. An International Journal for Restoration of Buildings and Monuments 16:477–494Google Scholar
  10. Kapranos PA, Al-Helaly MHH, Whittaker VN (1981) Ultrasonic velocity measurements in 316 austenitic weldments. British Journal of Non-Destructive Testing 23(6):211–222Google Scholar
  11. Maria A G, Maria A V, Emilio G, Zezza F (2000) The physical-mechanical properties and ultrasonic data as criteria for evaluation of calcareous stone decay. Proceedings of 9th International Congress on deterioration and conservation of stone, June 2000, Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp 309–312Google Scholar
  12. McGreevy BJ (1988) Contour scaling of a sandstone by salt weathering under simulated hot desert conditions. Earth Surf Process Landf 13:697–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Montoto M, Calleja L, Perez B, Esbert RM (1981) Evaluation in situ of the state of deterioration of monumental stones by non-destructive techniques. Mater Res Soc Symp Proc 185:273–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Montoto ML, Valdeon L, Cotte P, Calleja L, Esbert RM (2000) Non-destructive characterization of the state of deterioration of megaliths by ultrasonic tomography: a petrophysical interpretation. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on Deterioration and Conservation of stone, June 19–24, Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp 3–9Google Scholar
  15. Okubio K, Yu DH (2013) Resins curing at normal and accelerated conditions of low and high limits of temperature using age accelerated chamber, AAC-3200, seven resins as a case study. International Journal of Applied Sciences, Saitama University, Japan 12(4):154–166Google Scholar
  16. Punuru AR, Ahad NC, Niraj PK, Gauri KL (1990) Control of porosity on durability of limestone at the Great Sphinx, Egypt. Environ Geol Water Sci 15(3):225–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rainer B (1994) The application of ultrasonic testing in the preservation of monuments. J Stone Conservation 17:751–762Google Scholar
  18. Robert JA (1988) A non-destructive method of determining rock strength. Earth Surf Process Landf 13:729–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith BJ, McGreevy JP (1983) A simulation study of salt weathering in hot deserts. Geografiska Annular 65A:127–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stefan S, Anne ML (2000) Decay of limestone blocks in the block fields of Karnak Temple (Egypt): non-destructive damage analysis and control of consolidation treatments. J Stone 14:743–749Google Scholar
  21. Turkington AV (1998) Cavernous weathering in sandstone: lessons to be learned from natural exposure. QJEG 31:375–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yu S, Oguchi CT (2010) Is sodium sulfate invariably effective in destroying any type of rock?. Natural Stone Resources for Historical Monuments, Prikyl and Torok “eds”. Geological Society, London, Special publication 333:43–58Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gamal M. Eisawy Kamh
    • 1
  • Maher Dawood
    • 1
  • Ahmed El-loly
    • 2
  1. 1.Geology Department, Faculty of ScienceMenoufiya UniversityShibin El KomEgypt
  2. 2.Menoufiya GovernorateShibin El KomEgypt

Personalised recommendations