• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Elaich module 5 solution exercise 5.c advanced
 

Elaich module 5 solution exercise 5.c advanced

on

  • 352 views

ELAICH - Educational Linkage Approach in Cultural Heritage. For more information and presentations, please visit: http://elaich.technion.ac.il/

ELAICH - Educational Linkage Approach in Cultural Heritage. For more information and presentations, please visit: http://elaich.technion.ac.il/

Statistics

Views

Total Views
352
Views on SlideShare
319
Embed Views
33

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 33

http://elaich.technion.ac.il 21
http://www.elaich.technion.ac.il 12

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Elaich module 5 solution exercise 5.c advanced Elaich module 5 solution exercise 5.c advanced Document Transcript

    • Educational Linkage Approach In Cultural HeritageE x e r c i s e 5.CAdvanced CourseModule 5 Monitoring & MaintenanceTopic 5.1 To Monitor or not to Monitor, that is the question! Solution of Exercise 5.C Hands on materials: Macro & Micro-world observations Authors: Prof. Guido Biscontin, Dr. Francesca Caterina Izzo, Prof. Elisabetta Zendri, Ms. Laura Falchi- Ca’ Foscari University of Venice Exercise 5.C part 1 Question: Link the following macro image of building material with the correspondent micro images Correct answer: C. Image A is a 15X images of a cement mortar. Image B is a 20X images of a brick. Image C is a 20X images of Lecce Stone. Exercise 5.C part 2 Effects of conservative treatments Questions: 1. Give a brief description of the two surfaces, before and after the treatment. 2. What do you notice? How is the appearance of the surfaces? 3. Has the colour changed after the treatment? In your opinion, is it acceptable? A) Brick: consolidation treatment with silicate 1. Before the treatment the surface is rough, pale red coloured and seems dusty. After the treatment the surface is brilliant and brighter and it looks wet. The surface remains rough after the treatment. 2. The second surface is brighter than the first one. 3. Yes, it has. This change is not acceptable, because the surface colours is brighter and materials looks wet after the treatment. This could be considered a damage of the material from the aesthetical point of view. 1
    • Educational Linkage Approach In Cultural HeritageE x e r c i s e 5.C B) Gypsum: consolidation treatment with a silicate 1. The surface before the treatment is smooth, white and compact, with a very homogeneous texture, while after the treatment it is possible to observe a layer of consolidant product on the surface, with glassy aspect and a lot of cracks (craqueleure). 2. It is possible to notice the presence of the consolidant and this layer is not homogeneous. 3. The colour does not significantly change, but the general aspect does, so it is not an acceptable treatment from the aesthetical point of view. C) Natural hydraulic mortar: consolidation treatment with an acrylic resin 1. Both the surfaces are rough, with a high porosity, and is it possible to observe different aggregates linked by a white matrix. After the treatment it is possible to observe a layer of consolidant around the pore walls. 2. The first surface seems dusty, the second one is covered by a plastic layer. 3. The colour does not change after the treatment and the consolidant is able to cover, but this layer of acrylic resin is quite not acceptable. 2