A method for the consolidation of mural substrates and mortars with enemas, using a

mechanical pump apparatus. The case study of the wall-paintings’ consolidation in the church of “The
Virgin Mary Dormition” in Gelanthi Mouzakiou, Karditsa

Periklis Mitronatsios1, Dimitris Tsipotas2, Αlexandros Shortsianitis3 and George Mastroyiannis4

1
Conservation Technician of Works of Art, owner of the "Conservation and Restoration Centre of Byzantine
Heritage”, Pili, Trikala, Greece
2
Conservator of Antiquities and Works of Art, professor of TEI Larissas, department of Karditsa, partner of
the "Conservation and Restoration Centre of Byzantine Heritage”
3
Conservation Technician of Works of Art, partner of the "Conservation and Restoration Centre of
Byzantine Heritage”, Pili, Trikala, Greece
4
Conservator of Antiquities and Works of Art, Director of the Conservation Department of “The City of
Athens Museum”, external partner of the "Conservation and Restoration Centre of Byzantine Heritage”

*dtsipotas@yahoo.gr

ABSTRACT
A device for the infusion of grouts in murals’ substrates is introduced. Additionally, the results of its
application for the consolidation of a wall-painting’s surface with respective pathology, is examined. A short
literature review on methods previously used, as well as the parts and operation of the “Sistema di micro-
iniezioni e fugatura” are documented. The device enables real-time instrumental measurement of the mortar
injection process, with precise pressure regulation, quantity of the enema and removal of infused material.
The calibration controls in order for a perfectly safe application to be achieved are presented. Also described
are the technical problems and modifications made to individual components from the apparatus
manufacturer, after the in situ technical observations. The wall-paintings conserved are in the church of “The
Virgin Mary Dormition”, in Gelanthi, Mouzaki district, Karditsa prefecture, Greece and date in 1843. The
mural’s substrate pathology was complete loss of areas, detachments from the stonemasonry, plastic
deformities and cracks, which in all cases had carried the painting surface along. Conclusively, the pros of
the apparatus versus the traditional method of manual enemas are evaluated. Through the overall assessment
of the equipment its suitability in mural’s substrates and mortars consolidation is eventually established.

INTRODUCTION

The village of Gelanthi belongs to the

municipality of Mouzaki in Karditsa prefecture,
Greece. The church of “the Virgin Mary
Dormition” is located to the northeast of the
village near the shore of the river “Pamisos”. The
church was characterized as a “Heritage listed
building” in F.E.K. 601/16-6-1998.

Church architecture

The temple was built by the villagers

during the Turkish domination. It is of the cross-
in-square type under a dome, with narthex
(women's loft) on the west side. The temple
masonry has a thickness of approximately 0.80 m.
Figure 1. North-west view of the church
with dressed stones from the adjacent river, placed
randomly in layers, connected by lime-mortar. The
four corners of the temple are built with large, squarely dressed blocks of limestone (Fig. 1). The main nave
is rectangular (8.90 m long and 9.60 meters wide)
and the four columns supporting the dome divide it
into three aisles. These columns along with other
two square ones located in the church’s sanctuary
are connected to the perimeter walls with relief
arches. The roof of the nave is divided by two
cross arches and six blind domes, and the
sanctuary roof by one arch and two blind domes.
The dome is located 10 meters high from the floor,
is eight-sided on the outside with eight small
oblong windows and circular on the inside. It is
built from limestone rocks and rests on four pillars
of circular cross-section forming a square area. A
single gabled roof with Byzantine type tiles covers
the narthex, the three aisles of the nave as well as
the dome itself. Figure 2. Ground plan of the church
The church’s sanctuary is separated from
the nave by a wooden chancel screen. On the inner
side of the east wall of the sanctuary a semicircular apse is opened at the centre. Another small semicircular
indentation is placed inside the wall width. The narthex is separated from the nave by a wall. The floor of the
narthex is elevated 30 cm from the floor of the nave and at the same level with the ground. Two columns of
circular cross section form three aisles. The columns are connected to the perimeter walls with relief arches
in all directions. Four blind domes are formed on the narthex roof and a large arch in the middle aisle.

Wall - paintings

Where substrate losses occur, four mortar layers are clearly distinguishable. A layer of lime-mortar is
used for the smoothing of the masonry, followed by a layer of soil with straw particles and a layer of coarse
lime-mortar. A final layer of fine lime-mortar acts as carrier for the painting surface too. The frescoes of the
nave were made “a secco”. This is evident due to the peeling of the paint like a thin film, which means that it
was placed with a binder other than the mortar itself, thus creating a different layer [1].

Definition

Grout is a thin binding mortar containing an amount of water so that it has the consistency of a
viscous liquid in order to be poured or pumped into joints, spaces, cracks, voids and (to some extent) pores,
within masonry systems with the purpose to fill them [2], [3], [4]. The process of the consolidation of a
structural system with injecting grouts is called grouting [5].

Enemas in the consolidation of architectural surfaces

Grouting is applicable in the repair of masonry from the beginning of the 19th century [6], [7]. The
use of injections of suitable fluid mixtures to reinstate adhesion of parts that are partly detached from the
wall structure is nevertheless still gaining a widespread acceptance [8], [9]. A common consequence of the
stratigraphic nature of wall paintings is that a separation between the strata easily occurs [10]. Grouting aims
to address this lack of adhesion occurring within the render layers and support of a wall-painting in situ [11],
[12]. Evidently, particular care has to be taken for the adequate execution of the grouting intervention.
Practical experience revealed a series of problems and highlighted the need for detailed guidelines in order to
achieve a satisfactory application. Such guidelines should comprise, along with the aforementioned relevant
performance and working criteria, with main requirements for grouting equipment and the injection
procedure itself [13]. According to Miltiadou [14], since masonry in historic buildings is especially
heterogeneous with not easily defined mechanical properties, the up-to-date experience in civil engineer
grouting research can only be used indirectly and indicatively, after all other parameters have been
quantified. Consequently, the technical standards applicable in these areas have little direct effect in
conservation science.
Grouting can be carried out by four different methods: manually (hand grouting), by gravity, pumped
and also vacuum [15], [16].
 Consolidation by surface grouting (non-structural surface injections)

In surface grouting the enema is injected in cracks or holes

opened in the surface. The injection of the grout is normally
preceded by the injection of a liquid meant to “clean” the internal
voids by removing dust and fine debris that would hinder the
adhesion. The preliminary injections are also useful to determine
the points from which the grout might escape from the cracks and
flow on the surface; this must be avoided not only for the soiling it
causes but mainly because the diffusion of the grout inside the
internal voids is unsatisfactory when the pressure (applied by hand)
is released by the outflow of the fluid. Therefore, as soon as a point Figure 3. Drawing representation of
of escape is detected, it is carefully filled, normally with a lime surfacing grouting
mortar, and the injection of the grout is performed after the filling
mortar has properly set [17].
The equipment for the diversion of the grout is a problem for conservation, but also a cause for
experimentation. Thus, conservators have tried several mechanical means. The injection by hand with a
syringe and needle of 100 ml capacity has been proved the most practical so far. The pros of hand grouting
are the total manual control of the injection pressure, especially in areas where collapsing could occur, and
the low equipment cost.
Some of the disadvantages of the method are its low productivity (especially in big detachments and
areas where the grout is dispersing in the masonry voids), its difficulty in application with lower viscosity
materials, the frequent clogging of the holes in the architectural surfaces due to mortar setting during the
replenishment of the enema and the small potential of consolidation depth. Additionally, this otherwise
traditional method cannot be applied reliably at the surface of the wall-painting, frequently resulting in
leakage. The flow of the consolidant may be applied at a low hand pressure, which helps to avoid rupturing
of the weakened mural layers, but this eventually means lower volumetric rates as well, which result to
longer periods of injection time. This procedure is also flawed because the liquid consolidant is inevitably
supplied spasmodically, at an inconsistent rate and pressure. Metering pumps can administer consolidant at a
constant volumetric rate, but that process is not desirable, since if an obstruction occurs or if the gap is filled,
the constant volumetric rate results in sharply rising pressure [18].

Enema application under pneumatic pressure

With the invention (around 1888) of the first

pneumatic grouting device from J. Greathead the
method's applications in monuments gradually begun. Sir
Francis Fox, a civil engineer, having the experience of
using the machine of J. Greathead in the construction of
the London Underground made the first applications
(Winchester Cathedral 1905, St. Paul's Cathedral 1906
and 1926, Lincoln Cathedral 1922-1927) [19].
Enemas under pneumatic pressure are the most
widespread method of masonry structural consolidation
since [20]. In masonry grouting applications the injection
of the mixture is accomplished through elastic tubes with
Figure 4. The first pneumatic grouting device a diameter equivalent to the amount of grout to be
introduced. The tubes are inserted either in holes created
for this purpose, or existing cracks or gaps in the walls.
Because the grout takes the position of the air there must be provision for its exit from the masonry, so there
should always be at least two holes in a small distance. The introduction of the grout starts from the lowest
point and proceeds upwards. After completion of the work the tubes are removed [21], [22].
In the works for the structural restoration of the Parthenon a pneumatic apparatus for the injection of
the grout in the columns’ cracks was designed and manufactured, in order to have full control of the
necessary low pressure and continuous monitoring of the grout injection and consumption (Fig. 5) [23].
 For the design of the hydraulic grout for the consolidation of the Dafni monastery mosaics as well,
the specific methodology and technique was further developed with a special apparatus for mixing,

Figure 5. The Parthenon apparatus (b) ultrasound device combined with mechanical mixing (c) injection
grout under fully controlled pressure

collection and promotion of the grout. This equipment was designed and manufactured for grouting works by
the “Directorate of Cultural Buildings and Restoration of
Contemporary Monuments” (Δ.Σ.Ν.Α.Μ.) and a relevant
apparatus is used in experimental enema applications from the
“Directorate of Restoration Technical Research” (ΔΙ.Τ.Ε.Α.)
[24].
The success of the application depends greatly on
correct methodology. For this purpose, based on experience
gained from the grouting on the Parthenon columns’ structural
restoration, an application methodology that includes specific
instructions for the equipment, the creation of the grout and the

Figure 6. Injection apparatus at the Dafni

mosaics. Pressure controled with the
manometer

injection execution was developed. The

experimental formulation of this
methodology played the role of "general
tests" as well, before applying it to the
monument and the mosaics especially.
According to literature on grouting, the
equipment was assembled by a 20-liter
capacity mixer with a combination of
ultrasound and mechanical stirring (300 rpm)
and a propulsion container of the grout, using
compressed air, since the available equipment
on the market was considered unsuitable for
Figure 7. Modern injection installation. (Van the creation and propulsion of small
Rickstal, F., 2003) quantities of grout [25], [26]. The grout after
A. High turbulence mixer mixing was collected by a vacuum pump in a
B. Low turbulence mixer cylindrical propulsion container, which is
C. Enema pneumatic pump made of transparent Plexiglas (to allow
D. Enema channeling tube
monitoring of changes in the level of the
E. Enema return tube
F. Valve
grout and the stability of the suspension) and
G. Manometer has a magnetic stirring system. The container
H. Injection point was fed with compressed air (l - 2 bar), which
regularly presses the surface of the grout and
forces it to enter the bottom of a rigid plastic tube (at the center, near the bottom of the container) and flow
from the top of the container through a flexible plastic tube. The grout is injected in the construction from a
small diameter nozzle at the other end of the tube, which has an integrated pressure gauge. If the inlet
pressure of the grout in the nozzle exceeds the desired value
(0,5 - 1 bar) there is a valve that allows the diversion of the
grout in a separate container. Prior to grouting execution,
transparent, flexible tubes of small diameter (1,0 - 3,3 mm) are
placed at various depths between the different mosaics’
substrate layers and the masonry [27].
A similar pneumatic installation has been introduced by
Van Rickstal (Fig. 7) [28] and Adams. In Adams [29] the
system described consists of a reservoir of liquid consolidant
tightly connected to the plaster by a tube. A regulated air
pressure is maintained in the reservoir in order to drive the
consolidant into the plaster at a steady rate (Fig. 8). According
to him it is an innovative technique for infusing wall-painting
supports and offers a safe and effective alternative of manual
grouting for plaster consolidation. It can also be used with
essentially any consolidant as it has been successfully used in
tests with various organic and inorganic dispersions and
emulsions.

EXPERIMENTAL

Preservation state of the wall-paintings

Figure 8. Diagram of Adams’
installation typical configuration.
Components are (1) delivery nipple,
(2) delivery tube, (3) delivery valve
and syringe, (4) delivery bottle, (5)
halyard, (6) air tube, (7) air valve and
syringe, (8) regulator with gauge, (9)
air supply
The pathology of the wall-paintings is directly
associated with the preservation state of the preparation layers,
exhibiting detachments and total losses, which carried along the
painting surface. These substrates exhibit severe cracks and
swellings all over the stonework along with total losses, while
other sections have already collapsed.

The “Magic Plus” apparatus

The “Magic plus” series of devices is a

microinjection, injection and grouting mortars and
other consolidants system, manufactured from
“Umiblock” company (Fig. 9). The equipment comes
standard with a remote control including the electrical
control of injection speed and pressure. The versions
for microinjections are equipped with a needle and a
precision gauge for the control of the injection
pressure and speed as well, all from the wrist of the
user (Fig. 12). The versions for injections are equipped
with tubes of 20 mm in diameter with a conical nozzle
and a precision pressure gauge for controlling the
injection pressure too. The version for grouting uses a
container cone for grouting mortars with a capacity of
9 litres and tubes of 20 mm diameter with a round or
flat nozzle. The device consists of a 12 Volt DC type
rotary motor pump, with electric or battery supply and
Figure 9. The Magic plus equipment with
a rechargeable 12V battery at 12A/h, all mounted on a the microinjections kit (umiblock.it)
frame with wheels and handle for easy transport. The
standard equipment includes two 12V rechargeable
batteries, a charger with charge indication and a variety of accessories for different uses (Fig. 14) [30].
 The electrtical section
consists of a rheostatic switch with a
safety lock, calibrated from 1 to 10
with decimal subdivisions, which
adjusts the volume flow of the grout
and gradually stops it automatically
if the pressure exceeds the
adjustment. There is also an on - off
central switch, a 10 amp fuse and
two plugs for the wired remote
control and the 12V battery or AC
cables. Figure 10. Electrical Figure 11. The inside of the motor
The mechanical rotary motor section and outside view
creates propulsion or infusion of the of the rotary motor
mortar or consolidant by rotation of
four metal rods.
The wired remote control has
a green button for the injection of the
grout and a red one for the reverse
action if needed. The manometer
gauge has a highest reading of 1 bar
pressure and helps monitor the flow of
the grout inside the wall-painting and
masonry layers.

Figure 12. Wired remote control and manometer gauge strapped

in the wrist with Velcro (umiblock.it)

Figure 13. Leaflet of the P60 model, with complete technical specifications of the device (umiblock.it)
 Changes - Improvements

The first model of the apparatus did not generally differ in external features from the second one.
The basic alterations occurred by observations through practical difficulties and flaws of the device during
use. Thus, a second rheostatic switch with calibration and safety lock was incorporated on the electrical
section of the device for enhanced safety, due to the possibility of dangerously rising pressure by mistake on
the hand remote. The manometer gauge strapped on the users hand with Velcro just before the injection
needle has also been transferred to the remote control used by the other hand. Finally, the prior silicone tubes
that transferred the grout, exhibited extremely high elasticity, which resulted in their swelling and sometimes
blowing, during grouting and they have been replaced by polyurethane ones of the same diameter. All the
changes were made by the manufacturing company after recommendations of the conservators - partners of
the "Conservation and Restoration Centre of Byzantine Heritage” working on the monument.

Figure 14. Various accessories of the “Magic plus” device series. Notice the suction hose (up right)
and the new pressure controls with manometer gauge (lower left) (umiblock.it)

Application methodology

According to
the technical
research for the
conservation
treatments of the
monument’s wall-
paintings [31],
approved by the
“ΥΠΠΟ/ΣΥΝΤ/Φ07/
6050π.ε./6816”
decision of the
Figure 15. Application with the first (left) and second (right) versions of the device “Directorate of
Cultural Buildings
and Restoration of Contemporary Monuments”, the grout that performs better based on bibliography for
performance and composition characteristics is the “Lafarge” hydraulic lime in composition of: 100 parts
“Lafarge” hydraulic lime, 100 parts de-ionized water, 40-80 parts of fine marble powder, 5-10 parts Primal
AC 532Κ and 1 part sodium glutamate.

Following the graphic tracing of all the areas

of extensive detachments or probable losses from the
stonemasonry, needles with elastic tubes were
inserted upon existing damages or cracks of the wall-
painting and the grouting procedure through the first
version of the “Magic plus” device was initiated,
nevertheless soon continued and completed with the
use of the second version, taking into account all
relevant bibliographic references and specifications.
The final mortar mixture used after some additional
in situ testing comprised from: 60 gr Lafarge Chaux
Blanche, 100 ml de-ionized water, 10 ml Primal AC
532K and 2 gr sodium glutamate. Furthermore, the
viscosity of the grout was modified by the addition of
Figure 16. Pressing for the repair of plastic fine aggregates, like marble-powder or brick-dust.
derformities Pressing was also used where needed, to repair plastic
deformities.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The problem of the sensitivity of the remote control buttons, frequently resulting in sharply rising
pressure of the injected grout, was repaired with the prior to use precise calibration of the second rheostatic
switch. Thus, the procedure is now totally safe since if the applied pressure exceeds the set limit, the
automatic safety lock slows down the flow of the grout. The manometer gauge, strapped to the same hand
controlling the injection needle for long periods of time, proved very tiresome and not practical at all, since
the needle was inserted in the architectural surface in various angles and the gauge dial could not be easily
and constantly inspected. Transferring it to the remote control that can be held on the other hand, solved
successfully both problems. Finally, the replacement of the elastic silicone tubes with small thickness, which
exhibited frequent problems of swelling and rapture upon rises of the pressure, corrected a series of problems
for the safety of application to the wall-paintings as well as the personnel itself. In general, the repair of these
in theory unpredictable flaws evolved the primary version of the device to a much safer one.

CONCLUSIONS

Grouting application with the “Magic plus” version II apparatus seems to have overcome all
traditional drawbacks of the manual grouting technique. Its application is exhibiting the particular care
needed for the adequate execution of the grouting procedure in overall, since it provides complete control
and inspection over all the parameters involved in it. As such, it can successfully address the urgent need for
detailed guidelines for grouting equipment and the injection procedure itself, on the contrary to subjective
manual application, which has not been researched for conservation applications so far. Furthermore, the
major disadvantages of low productivity, difficulty in application with lower viscosity materials, clogging of
the holes during replenishment of the syringes and small potential of consolidation depth due to low manual
pressure, all presented in bibliography, are totally resolved. It is evident that low pressure can be obtained
with the “Magic Plus” device as well. More importantly the low pressure can be ensured and at a constant
rate by the failsafe switch, which completely prevents accidents due to masonry inhibition or human fault.
The spasmodic and inconsistent rate of grouting is also resolved due to the continuous mechanical propulsion
of the consolidant. The only direct disadvantage of the “Magic plus” device is its elevated price, which is
nevertheless quickly written off due to elevated productivity, minimized personnel needs and low
maintenance costs.

It must be noted that the "Conservation and Restoration Centre of Byzantine Heritage” and its
associates in cooperation with the manufacturing company, are also testing the devices applications with
various materials (organic and inorganic), accessories and consolidants.
REFERENCES

[1] Μητσάτσικας, Μ. (2004). “Μελέτη συντήρησης των τοιχογραφιών του Ι.Ν. Κοιμήσεως της Θεοτόκου
Δ.Δ. Γελάνθης Καρδίτσας”. 7η Εφορεία Βυζαντινών Αρχαιοτήτων, Λάρισα.
[2] Harris, C. M. (2000). “Ed. Dictionary of Architecture & Construction”. Third Ed. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 444.
[3] Vintzileou, E. (2007). “Grouting of three-leaf stone masonry: Types of grouts mechanical properties of
masonry before and after grouting”. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference [on] Structural
Analysis of Historical Constructions: Possibilities of Numerical and Experimental Techniques, 6-8November
2006 , ed. Paulo B. Lourenço, P. Roca, C. Modena, and S. Agrawal, 48-56. New Delhi, Macmillan.
[4] Μιλτιάδου, Α. (2004). “Η μέθοδος των υδραυλικών ενεμάτων για την επισκευή και ενίσχυση παλιών
κατασκευών από λιθοδομή”. Τεχνικό Επιμελητήριο Ελλάδας, Αθήνα.
[5] Houlsby A. C. (1990). “Construction and Design of Cement Grouting”. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc, 1.
[6] Mpounta, O. (2007). “I efarmogi ton enematon stin apokatastasi ton mnimion (=Application of enemas in
monument restoration).” Diploma dissertation. Department of Civil Engineering. School of Engineering,
University of Patras.
[7] Torraca G.(2009). “Lectures on Materials Science for Architectural Conservation.” The Getty
Conservation Institute. Los Angeles.
[8] ibid 7.
[9] Ferragnani D., M. Forti, J. Malliet, P. Mora, J.-M. Teutonico and G. Torraca. “Injection grouting of mural
paintings and mosaics”. (1984). Adhesives and consolidants: Contributions to the 1984 IIC Congress, Paris ,
pp 110-116.
[10] Baglioni P., L. Dei, F. Piqué, G. Sarti and E. Ferroni. (1997). “New Autogenous Lime-Based Grouts
Used in the Conservation of Lime-Based Wall Paintings”. Studies in Conservation, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 43-
54, International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works.
[11] Griffin I. (2004). “Pozzolanas as additives for grouts: an investigation of their working properties and
performance characteristics”. Studies in Conservation 49, pp 23-34.
[12] Miltiadou-Fezans A., E. Vintzileou. (2010). “Design and application of hydraulic grouts for repair and
strengthening of historic masonry structures”. Technical Committee DHM.
[13] ibid 12.
[14] Μιλτιάδου, Α. (1985). “Η χρήση ενεμάτων ως μέθοδος επισκευής και ενίσχυσης λιθοδομών”, Πρακτικά
Διεθνούς Συμποσίου Θεσσαλονίκης.
[15] Ashurst J. and N. Ashurst. (1988). “Practical Building Conservation, Volume 2: Brick, Terracotta and
Earth”. New York, Halsted Press.
[16] Chaudhry Ch. (2007). “Evaluation of Grouting as a Strengthening Technique for Earthen Structures in
Seismic Areas: Case Study Chiripa”. Theses (Historic Preservation), University of Pennsylvania.
[17] ibid 7.
[18] Adams, G.W. (2006). “A Practical Technique for Injection of Consolidants behind Wall and Ceiling
Paintings”. APT Bulletin (Association for Preservation Technology International). Vol. 37, No. 2/3, pp. 33-
36.
[19] ibid 6.
[20] ibid 6.
[21] Βέρρας Δ., Ε. Βιντζηλαίου, και Αθ. Τριανταφύλλου. 2004.“Αποτίμηση σεισμικών βλαβών, επισκευές
και ενισχύσεις παραδοσιακών και μνημειακών κτιρίων”.
[22] Δημοσθένους Μ.Α., και Κ.Χ. Στυλιανίδης. (2000). “Κριτήρια επιλογής μεθόδων επισκευής και
ενίσχυσης μνημείων και παραδοσιακών κτιρίων από τοιχοποιία”. Πρακτικά 1ου εθνικού συνεδρίου , Ήπιες
επεμβάσεις και προστασία ιστορικών κατασκευών, Θεσσαλονίκη, 23-25 Νοεμβρίου 2000.
[23] 5η Διεθνής Συνάντηση για την Αποκατάσταση των Μνημείων της Ακροπόλεως, Πρακτικά ΥΠΠΟ,
ΕΣΜΑ, Αθήνα, 4-6 Οκτωβρίου 2002.
[24] Αναματερού Ε. (2008). “Η πορεία της συντήρησης των ψηφιδωτών στην Ελλάδα και οι εμπειρίες που
αποκτήθηκαν από τη συντήρηση των εντοίχιων ψηφιδωτών στη Μονή Δαφνίου”. Ψηφίδα την ψηφίδα.
Δημιουργία και συντήρηση του ψηφιδωτού. Ημερίδα 28 Μαρτίου 2007, Βυζαντινό και Χριστιανικό
Μουσείο, ΥΠ.ΠΟ., Αθήνα.
[25] Miltiadou-Fezans, A., E.Vintzileou, E. Papadopoulou and A. Kalagri. (2006). "Mechanical properties of
three-leaf stone masonry after grouting", 5th Int. Sem. on Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions,
New Delhi, India.
[26] Miltiadou-Fezans A., A. Kalagri and N. Delinikolas. (2007). "Design of hydraulic grout and application
methodology for stone masonry structures bearing mosaics and mural paintings: the case of the Katholikon
of Dafni Monastery", Proc. int. symp. on Studies on Historical Heritage, Antalya, Turkey, 16-21
Σεπτεμβρίου 2007.
[27] Μιλτιάδου Α. (2008). “Τεχνικές έρευνες υποστήριξης των εργασιών των εντοίχιων ψηφιδωτών του
Καθολικού της Ι.Μ. Δαφνίου”. Ψηφίδα την ψηφίδα. Δημιουργία και συντήρηση του ψηφιδωτού. Ημερίδα 28
Μαρτίου 2007, Βυζαντινό και Χριστιανικό Μουσείο, ΥΠ.ΠΟ., Αθήνα.
[28] Van Rickstal, F. (2001). “Grout injection of masonry, scientific approach and modeling.” In
International Journal for Restoration 7, No. 3-4, pp. 407-432.
[29] Adams, G.W. (2006). “A Practical Technique for Injection of Consolidants behind Wall and Ceiling
Paintings”. APT Bulletin (Association for Preservation Technology International). Vol. 37, No. 2/3, pp. 33-
36.
[30] www.brescianisrl.it - info@brescianisrl.it. BRESCIANI srl - Milano - ITALIA Tel. 02.27002121 Fax
02.2576184
[31] ibid 1.