Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://localhost:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/8844
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSobhe Matuk, Adeal-
dc.date.accessioned2022-11-15T20:38:22Z-
dc.date.available2022-11-15T20:38:22Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.urihttp://localhost:8080/xmlui/handle/123456789/8844-
dc.description.abstractAntique, or low fire, brick has suffered critical damage from repairs using Portland Cement, specifically water damage, as moisture cannot move equally throughout both materials. The effects of this water intrusion include spalling, stains, efflorescence, algae growth, and a decrease in insulating properties. The best way to continue preservation is to block moisture from entering the brick using a water repelling penetrant. This research will compare the most commonly used penetrants on low-fire brick and determine which product is best for preservation. Water repelling abilities as well as water vapor permeability will be tested using: Rilem tubes, a freeze/thaw chamber, and the ASTM water vapor permeability test. The penetrants being tested are: siloxane and room temperature vulcanizing (RTV) silicone.en_US
dc.publisherSession ETD 315en_US
dc.subjectASTM , RTV , Antiqueen_US
dc.titleComparing Water Repelling Penetrants on Antique Masonryen_US
Appears in Collections:قسم الفيزياء

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Comparing Water Repelling.pdf540.65 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.