Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:45:56.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pore Potential and Durability of Limestone at the Sphinx

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2011

K.L. Gauri  and
Srinivas S. Yerrapragada
K.L. Gauri
Affiliation:
Geology Department, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292
Srinivas S. Yerrapragada
Affiliation:
Geology Department, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292
Get access

Abstract

In mercury porosimetry of limestone two hystereses are generated. A PV-- diagram for initial intrusion and extrusion reveals one hysteresis as entrapment of mercury in large cavities that are connected to the exterior through narrow channels. The other hysteresis is a loop (HL) enclosed between the extrusion and reintrusion curves which indicate narrow channels. An HL is unique to a stone.

The thermodynamic work (W) calculated as ΣPV, is W1, WE, WRE, WHy, and WT for the initial intrusion, extrusion, reintrusion, the hysteresis loop, and the entrapment, respectively. The pore-potential (U) defined as

regulates the volume and rate of movement of water through the pores which in turn determines the stone's durability. Microporous stones are highly susceptible to weathering and have a large value for WHy. WHy. in association with the WT can be related to the durability factor (DF) as

The DF values, thus obtained, accurately reflect the observed condition of the strata of the Sphinx.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 267: Symposium J – Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology III , 1992 , 917
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

1. Everett, D.W., Trans. Faraday Soc. 57, 1541 (1961).Google Scholar
2. Fitzner, B. and Snethlage, R., G.P. Newsletter 3, 13 (1982).Google Scholar
3. Punuru, A.R., Chowdhury, A.N., and Gauri, K.L., Environ. Geol. Water Sci.LS, 225 (1990).Google Scholar
4. Kaneuji, M., Winslow, D.N., and Dolch, W.L., Cement and Concrete Res. 10, 433 (1980).Google Scholar
5. Ordaz, J. and R.M. Esbert in Deterioration and Conservation of Stone,edited by G. Felix (V. International Congress Proc., Lausanne, 1985)pp. 93-102; W.D. Robertson, pp. 87-92.Google Scholar
6. Wardlaw, N.C. and McKellar, M., Powder Technol. 29, 127 (1981).Google Scholar
7. Washburn, E.W., Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 7, 115 (1921).Google Scholar
8. Lowell, S. and Shields, J.E., Colloid, J. and Interface Sci., 83, 273 (1981); Powder Surface Area and Porosity, 2nd ed. (Chapman and HallPublishers, New York, 1984), p. 234.Google Scholar
9. Schaffer, R.J., The Weathering of Natural Building Stones, Special ReportNo. 18 (Building Research Establishment, Garston, 1972), p. 149.Google Scholar
10. Honeyborne, D.B. and Harris, P.B., Proc. Colston Rem. Soc. 10, 343 (1958).Google Scholar
11.Anon, Resistance of Concrete to rapid Freezing and Thawing, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard C 666 - 73.Google Scholar
12. Shakoor, A., West, T.R., and Scholer, C.F., Bull. Assoc. Eng. Geol. 29, 371 (1982).Google Scholar