Fig 1.
Lime-soil archaeological samples (A. lime-soil used for a tomb, Li Hongzhang’s family tomb, Hefei, Anhui, China [30]; B. lime-soil used for masonry, Lanxi Zhuge Bagua Village, Jinhua, Zhejiang, China; C. lime-soil used for a floor, Ningbo Maoxing Village, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China; D. lime-soil used for a fort, Ningbo Zhenhaikou coastal defense, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China).
Table 1.
Chemical and mineralogical composition of the raw materials used in this study.
Fig 2.
XRD pattern (A) and photograph (B) of the soil used in the study.
Fig 3.
XRD pattern (left) and photograph (right) of the three types of lime used in the study.
Table 2.
Lime-soil mixture ratio (mass ratio).
Fig 4.
Dry density of different lime-soils ((A) Blocky quicklime; (B) Powdered quicklime; (C) Hydrated lime).
Fig 5.
Temperature variation curves of different lime-soils during hydration.
Fig 6.
Distribution of lime-soil particles after mixing dry materials with water for 5 days.
Fig 7.
Compressive strength test results of different lime-soil specimens after 28-day and 60-day curing.
Fig 8.
Water absorption test results of different lime-soil specimens.
Fig 9.
Photos of different lime-soil specimens after being soaked in water for 28 days.
Fig 10.
Photos of different lime-soil specimens after freeze-thaw cycles (Note: Apparent color variations between specimens are due to differences in photographic lighting conditions and are not related to material chemical changes.).
Fig 11.
Test results of (A) specific surface area and (B) cation exchange capacity of different lime-soils.
Fig 12.
The SEM pictures of different lime-soil specimens after curing for 60 days.
Fig 13.
FTIR spectra of pure calcium oxide, pure calcium hydroxide, and lime-soil mixtures after adding water for certain periods.
Fig 14.
Phenolphthalein test results of lime-soil specimens (lime content 20%) after 28 days of curing ((A) blocky quicklime-soil; (B) powdered quicklime-soil; (C) hydrated lime-soil).