See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283299448

Different plastering materials in the Philippines

Research · October 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4129.4809

CITATIONS READS

0 207

1 author:

Jason Ongpeng
De La Salle University
66 PUBLICATIONS   95 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Theory, Experiment, and Modeling of Partial FRP-Confined Concrete Cylinders View project

DLSU Construction Technology and Management Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jason Ongpeng on 29 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CHAPTER V

DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

This chapter covers the data yielded from the series of experimental

procedures conducted in this study as well as its analysis which includes the

compressive strength test of mortar cube specimens, the drying shrinkage

test of rectangular prism specimens, temperature monitoring readings and the

crack evaluation of mortar cubes after the 28th day of compressive testing.

5.1 Compressive Strength Test

In this portion of the paper, the researchers studied the strength of the

eight (8) plastering materials with the use of Compression Testing Machine.

There were three (3) trial specimens allotted for each testing date per material

wherein there were a total of 96 cube specimens experimented on. The said

testing dates were taken at time intervals of 24 th Hour, 3rd Day, 8th Day, and

28th Day. It should be noted that the third testing date was supposed to be at

7th Day as specified in ASTM C109. However, due to some limitations in the

laboratory usage, the testing date was adjusted to 8th Day.

Figure 5.1 is a graphical representation of the averaged compressive

strength of Skimcoat plasters with respect to time. It could be seen from the

graph that the compressive strength is directly proportional to the age of the

54
Skimcoat plasters. The curves as could be observed are relatively different

and distant from each other. This indicates that each of the Skimcoat material

has different capacity of withstanding the compressive load applied on it until

fail. This can be primarily associated to the fact that the Skimcoats will behave

differently because they are made up of properties which are unique from

each other.
Compressive Strength in Mpa

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Skimcoat A Skimcoat B Skimcoat C Skimcoat D

Age in Days

Figure 5.1 Compressive Strength Comparison for Skimcoat Plasters

Skimcoat D as could be seen had the highest compressive strength

among the Skimcoat plasters. Its early and late strength development

continued to become the highest among the others up to the last testing date.

Skimcoat B on the other hand had the lowest compressive strength among

the others. This behavior was observed even at the start of early strength

55
development and it continued to attain the lowest compressive strength up to

the last curing day.

Skimcoat A and C are the two Skimcoat plasters initially predicted to

have a similar compressive strength but it could be observed from Figure 5.1

that upon reaching the 10th up to the 28th day, their strengths started to vary

from one another. As could be observed, the strength values of the said

plaster were close to each other during the 24th Hour and 3rd Day Testing,

wherein Skimcoat C’s strength is slightly higher than Skimcoat A’s strength.

But upon reaching the 10th day, the strength of Skimcoat A started to increase

slowly and surpassed the strength of Skimcoat C. One could infer out of this

that the early strength development of Skimcoat C is faster than Skimcoat A.

But the late strength development of Skimcoat A is higher than Skimcoat C.

Generally it could be observed that the strength greatly increased also

at the third day except for Skimcoat B which took more days to develop and

increased at 8th day. One could infer out of these results that the strength

development of all the plasters experimented on is higher during its early age

than late age. Please refer to Appendix C for the complete compressive

strength values at different testing dates.

Figure 5.2 is a graphical representation of the strength development of

the mortar plasters. It could be observed that the compressive strength of the

mortar plasters increased with time as well. As could be seen, the graphical

56
curves of the mortar plasters are similar in behavior. The trends have shown

that their strength development are slightly similar which was already

expected since they are all made up of the same material and only the water-

cement-sand ratio were varied. Despite of the said similarity, one cannot fail

to notice the curve intersection of some of the graphs, which tells us the

inconsistent strength development of the mortar mixes that at some point

some mortar plasters would perform better than the others then later on will

be surpassed by the other mortars.

Each of the mortar plasters has different capacities in withstanding the

compressive load until failure because their water cement and cement-sand

ratios were varied. It could also be observed from the Figure 5.2 that the

curves were not widely spread from each other which means that the

compressive strength of the mortar plasters were just a little higher and lower

from each other.

Compressive Strength in MPa

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
MORTAR A MORTAR B MORTAR C MORTAR D
Age in Days
Figure 5.2 Compressive Strength Comparison of Mortar Plasters

57
 Despite of the minor differences in strength, it is still evident from the

illustration which among the four (4) mortar plasters acquired the highest and

lowest strength. Mortar A had the highest compressive strength among the

others. In the 24th hour testing, it acquired a strength of 12.27 MPa. However

it was not consistent since it could be observed from Appendix C that at the

3rd Curing Day, the strength of Mortar Mix A was surpassed by Mortar Mix D.

Mortar C on the other hand had the lowest compressive strength

among the others. However one cannot fail to notice that this behavior was

not consistent because at the 8th day, it was able to surpass the compressive

strength of Mortar D.

Mortars B and D were the two mortar plasters that were observed in

between the highest and lowest performing mortar mix. During the 24 th and 3rd

day of strength development, Mortar D continued to perform better than

Mortar B but upon reaching the 8th day until the 28th day, Mortar D’s

compressive strength development slowed down paving way for Mortar B to

surpass its strength.

There was no fixed pattern observed in the strength development of

the mortar plasters which showed that there could be a problem in the

uniformity of the mix which is the downside of the said plastering material. It is

hard to control the uniformity since the mortar mix involves 3 different

materials mixed together.

58
 It could be generalized that during the 24th hour testing, it was Mortar A

which got the highest compressive strength equal to 12.27 MPa, followed by

Mortar D’s strength of 9.76 MPa and then Mortar B and C’s strength which

were equal to 7.82 MPa and 7.16 MPa, respectively. Starting on the 3 rd day,

the compressive strength of the mortar plasters greatly developed and their

strength values were observed to be slightly close to each other. Starting at

8th day, the compressive strength of the Mortar plasters varied by 2 to 4 MPa.

Lastly at the 28th day, the differences in compressive strength started to

become apparent wherein Mortar A became the strongest with a strength

value equal to 33.87 MPa, followed by Mortar B with a strength of 31.57 MPa,

succeeded by Mortar D with a strength of 28.05 MPa and lastly Mortar C with

a strength 23.53 MPa. Please refer to Appendix C for the complete

compressive strength values at different testing dates.

Figure 5.3 is an illustration to show a better compressive strength

comparison of the eight (8) plastering materials. As could be seen, the

strength of the mortar plasters are higher compare to the Skimcoat plasters.

However this does not automatically lead to a notion that the mortars

are better than the Skimcoat. One of the references of this study which came

from the site, Masonry Advisory, tells us that ideally the background must be

stronger than the render. The said research claimed that it would be

disadvantageous to have high strength plasters because it would be difficult to

remove it. If by chance that the failure takes place first at the walls and other

59
structural members being protected, removing the said plaster layer would

take time and it might cause further damage to the structural member

depending on the method of removal.

40
Compressive Strength in Mpa

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Skimcoat A Skimcoat B Skimcoat C Skimcoat D

MORTAR A MORTAR B MORTAR C MORTAR D
Age in Days

Figure 5.3 28th Day Compressive Strength Comparison of the Eight (8)
Plastering Materials

It is apparent from the graph that the greatest increase of strength

mostly happened during the third day except for Skimcoat B which greatly

developed its strength at 8th day. This goes to show that both the Skimcoat

and Mortar plasters are good for protecting the structural members because it

already started to develop its compressive strength as early as 3rd to 8th day.

Figure 5.4 is an illustration to show the comparison between the target

and the actual compressive strength of the eight (8) plastering materials. This

60
is to verify whether the plasters were able to meet the strengths set by the

manufacturer and scientific research journals. The target strengths presented

for the Skimcoat plasters were acquired from the technical data given by the

manufacturers. The said data came from their own laboratory tests which

were conducted under different conditions which will be discussed on the

latter part of this paper. It could be observed from the graph that there are no

target strengths provided for Skimcoats B and C. This is because the

manufacturer of the said Skimcoat plasters only provided adhesion strength

data.

As for the target strength of the mortar plasters, they were all based

from the Journal: “Optimization Mix Proportion of High Performance Mortar for

Structural Application”. It could be seen that the strengths obtained did not

surpassed the target strengths. However this does not automatically leads to

the idea that the data gathered are erroneous. One has to consider that the

target strengths set by the manufacturers and researchers of the eight (8)

plasters were tested in different sample size. It can be recalled that this study

made use of smaller sample size which is the main reason why the obtained

strengths were smaller. Take for example, the journal where the mortar

design mix was patterned from made use of a 100x100x100 mm mortar cubes

which is bigger when compared to our 50x50x50 mm mortar cubes. Another

reason to consider for the target strengths provided by the manufacturers is

that the data were gathered under the testing conditions in their respective

countries. As previously mentioned, environmental exposure plays a crucial

61
role in the testing procedures not only for plasters but in other materials alike.

Humidity is one factor to look at because the humidity here in Philippines is

definitely different from other countries.

Compressive Strength in MPa

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

Target Strength Actual Strength

17.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 39.80 38.17 41.84 39.75
12.15 6.20 7.77 15.97 33.87 31.57 26.75 28.05

Figure 5.4 Comparison of Target and Actual Compressive Strength at 28th

Day

It can be recalled that during the mixing and casting of the specimens,

the specimens were left exposed to environmental conditions. One cannot

really tell whether this exposure had caused a decrease or increase of the

water content of the specimen because there’s no way to verify this except for

the fact that the temperature change pattern was fluctuating for the rest of the

62
materials. The researchers’ stand about this matter is that the target strengths

serve just a guide but not applicable for this study because of the

aforementioned reasons.

Table 5.1 shows the actual strength of the eight (8) plastering materials

to the ASTM’s minimum standard in classifying the type of plaster (Refer to

Table 4.3 for the different types of plastering classification). For the Skimcoat

they were classified into types N and S while the Mortar plaster were

generally classified as M type of plasters.

Table 5.1 Comparison of Actual 28th Day Strength with Minimum Required
Compressive Strength
ACTUAL Plaster Type Based
PLASTER
STRENGTH (MPa) from ASTM
SKIMCOAT A 12.15 N
SKIMCOAT B 6.2 N
SKIMCOAT C 7.77 N
SKIMCOAT D 15.97 S
MORTAR A 33.87 M
MORTAR B 31.57 M
MORTAR C 26.75 M
MORTAR D 28.05 M

Skimcoat A acquired a strength 12.15 MPa during its 28th Day. Its

strength falls in between the range of 5.17 MPa to 12.40 MPa which is the

reason why it was classified as Type N of plaster. Upon looking at the

technical data of Skimcoat A, it was indicated that it is recommended to be

used in hot condition application, Skimcoat A should be lightly mist in order to

keep it from drying. This information just verified that Skimcoat A can be truly

63
categorized as Type N plaster because it can be used both in interior and

exterior application.

Skimcoat B acquired a strength of 6.2 MPa during its 28th day. Its

strength falls in between the range of 5.17 MPa to 12.40 MPa which is the

reason why it was classified as Type N of plaster. Upon reviewing the

technical data of Skimcoat B, it was indicated there that it can be used for

interior and exterior application. This information verifies that Skimcoat B can

be categorized as Type N of plaster.

Skimcoat C acquired a strength of 7.77 MPa during its 28 th Day where

its strength falls in between the range of 5.17 MPa to 12.40 MPa which is the

reason why it was classified as Type N of plaster. Upon interviewing a

personnel from the manufacturing company, it was verified that Skimcoat C is

intended for both exterior and interior application.

Skimcoat D acquired a strength of 15.97 MPa during it 28th Day where

its strength falls in between the range of 12.41 MPa to 17.23 MPa during its

28th Day which is the reason why it was classified as Type S of plaster. No

technical data verifies the said categorization. However upon preparing the

said plaster it is judged to be good for Type S plaster application which is

mostly for below grade work meaning to say any plaster application below the

ground.

64
 In general, we could see the differences in application of the eight (8)

plasters. The classification made does not mean that the Mortar plasters have

an advantage over the Skimcoat plaster because the minimum strength of

type M plasters is higher than types N and S. The classification made is

intended to show the difference in application of the eight (8) plasters basing

their strength from the ASTM standards. For the mortar plasters, they were all

categorized under type M plaster because they are all made up of the same

properties and materials. For Skimcoat plasters, not all of them are in the

same category. Only Skimcoats A, B, and C falls under the type N plasters

wherein they are generally used for both exterior and interior application.

Lastly, for Skimcoat D which was classified to be Type S plaster is generally

intended for below ground work application.

The standard deviation of the said compressive strength values were

also computed by the group which were all graphically presented in Appendix

L-1 to L-8. Wherein, one could observe that generally most but not all of the

testing dates of the plastering materials had 1 out of the 3 trials specimen

outside the boundary and the rest were within the boundary. The mean as

well as the upper and lower limits of the standard deviation are presented.

Standard deviation is a value representing the limits from the mean wherein

the data points enveloped in it are considered sound data. This means that

the data points not exceeding the limits are within the standard. Thus, data

points outside the boundaries are considered either too high or too low from

the mean. The upper limit was obtained through the addition of the standard

65
deviation to the mean while the lower limit was obtained through the

subtraction of the standard deviation from the mean.

5.1.1 Density

The densities of the plaster specimen were derived with the use of the

formula:

(Equation 2)

The mass of the specimens were weighed during the experiment while

the volume was computed with the use of the dimensions measured by a 0.05

precision Vernier caliper.

The density data from all the different testing dates were averaged

which are all summarized in Figure 5.5. It could be observed that the densities

of the mortar plasters are all higher than the Skimcoat plasters. Generally,

when the density is high, it would mean lesser presence of voids. However

this does not automatically mean that the mortar plasters have lesser voids

than the Skimcoat plasters. The researchers’ stand about the said matter is

that the density of the mortar plasters are hard to evaluate when being

compared to Skimcoat plasters because they are all made up of different

properties and materials. Mortar plasters would generally turn out to be

denser than the Skimcoat plasters because its properties are heavier (Refer

to Appendix A for the weights of the plaster specimens). This is due to the

66
presence of fine aggregates, which is sand. Primarily, the mass of the

Skimcoats would be lighter as manifested in its powdery appearance.

In the process of evaluating the plaster specimens, the researchers

were able to observe by visual inspection that the surfaces of the mortar

plaster are more porous compared to the surfaces of the Skimcoat plaster

specimens. By judging their appearances, one cannot totally say that the

mortars have lesser voids compared to the Skimcoat because only the

surfaces are visible.

The weight of the plasters should be considered because it greatly

influences the density values. One could expect higher density when the

weight is high because the volumes of the mortar specimens in this research

are more or less similar to each other (Taking into account that the volume of

the specimens would be a little bit higher or lower than 125,000 mm 3 since the

cube specimens are designed to be 50mmx50mmx50mm). This could be

supported by the weight results obtained that are summarized and graphically

represented in Figure 5.6.

For the mortar plasters, the comparison of the density can be made

because they are all made out of the same materials. It could be generalized

that Mortar A had the least voids among the four (4) mortar plasters being

observed because it has the highest density. While Mortar D can be inferred

67
to have the most voids since it had the smallest density among the mortar

plasters.

The density of the plasters decreases as the water-cement ratio

increases (Chee & Ban, 2010). Given that the Mortars A and B have the same

cement-sand ratio, Mortar A was proven to have higher density since it has

smaller water-cement ratio (Refer Table 4 for the water-cement ratio values of

mortar plasters). Likewise, in Mortars C and D, the same behavior was also

observed wherein Mortar C had higher density since it has smaller water-

cement ratio.

As for the Skimcoat plasters, as previously mentioned, it’s hard to

evaluate the voids by just comparing their density values because they are

made out of different materials. It cannot be generally inferred out of the data

that since Skimcoat A is the densest among the Skimcoat plasters, it has the

least voids. And likewise with Skimcoat D, it doesn’t directly mean that it has

the most voids among the plasters since it acquired the smallest density

values. It cannot be generalized which among the plasters had the best result

in terms of observing the density values because of the reasons pointed out

previously.

68
 2500.00

Density (kg/m3)
2000.00
1500.00
1000.00
500.00
0.00
PLASTER MATERIAL
Skimcoat A 1880.17
Skimcoat B 1766.72
Skimcoat C 1789.03
Skimcoat D 1740.09
MORTAR A 2205.77
MORTAR B 2122.53
MORTAR C 2138.61
MORTAR D 2120.70

Figure 5.5 Density Comparison of the Plasters

5.1.2 Workability

Workability is a general term used when a mix is easily spread with a

trowel and readily adheres to any surface. There are no standardized

characteristics to define or to measure workability. Table 5.2 is used to

tabulate the different consistencies of the eight (8) plasters based on the

visual judgment of the researchers of this study.

69
 300.00
250.00

Weight (grams)
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
PLASTER
SKIMCOAT A 246.07
SKIMCOAT B 228.03
SKIMCOAT C 232.88
SKIMCOAT D 232.60
MORTAR A 278.38
MORTAR B 271.65
MORTAR C 272.97
MORTAR D 274.56

Figure 5.6 Overall Weight Comparison of the Plasters

The colors of each plaster material were also included to help in

differentiating the eight (8) plasters experimented on. The differences in

consistencies and workability of the plasters can be point to the fact that each

of them has its own specific mix ratios. It could be seen from Figures 5.7 to

5.16 that some of the plasters exhibited high workability but there are others

like Skimcoat C, Mortar B, and Mortar C which appeared to be less workable

compared to the other plasters.

The water content influences the workability of the plaster mix (Refer to

Table 4.4 and Table 4.7 for the water-plaster, water-cement, and water-sand

70
ratio). It could be observed that Skimcoat A is a highly workable material. It is

dark gray in color similar to that of mortar.

Table 5.2 Consistency, Workability, and Color of Plasters

DEGREE of
MIXING WORKABILITY
PLASTER WITH (Very Low, Low, COLOR Remarks
TROWEL Moderate, High,
Very High)
SKIMCOAT A Easiest to mix Very High Dark Grey Very Flowy
Pasty and
SKIMCOAT B Easy to Mix High Dark Grey
Smooth
Hardest to
SKIMCOAT C Very Low Light Grey Dry and Poor
Mix
Pasty and
SKIMCOAT D Hard to Mix Low White
Smooth
MORTAR A Easy to Mix Moderate Grey Dry
MORTAR B Easy to Mix High Grey Pasty
MORTAR C Easy to Mix Moderate Grey Dry
MORTAR D Easy to Mix High Grey Pasty

However, for Skimcoat A, the 6 liters of water that was supposed to be

added in the mix was not followed because of the consistency observed. It

could be seen from Figure 5.7 that the mix was too flowy and practically

speaking, if all of the water was added, the plaster would tend to slide down

when applied. Thus, the water was reduced to 5.5 liters.

Skimcoat B was the easiest to mix. As could be seen in Figure 5.8, its

consistency is pasty and smooth having a color similar to that of Skimcoat A,

only lighter in shade. In terms of workability, Skimcoat B had high workability

but less than that of Skimcoat A.

71
 Skimcoat C had very low workability. It stuck to the trowel as it was

being mixed. It is actually the hardest to mix among all of the eight plasters.

Its color is light grey. There was a need to add water to the mix in excess of

the specified 6-7 liters because of the dry and poor consistency of the

material. Figure 5.9 is an image to show how the mix looked like before the

addition of water. A total of 1 liter of water was added to the mix in order to

achieve the desired workability which can be seen in Figure 5.10.

On the other hand, Skimcoat D also had very low workability. It was,

however, super fine white in color and smooth in consistency after the

addition of water. There was also a need to add water to the mix in excess of

the specified 7 liters. Figure 5.11 is an image to show how the mix looked like

before the addition of water. A total of 75 milliliters of water was added to the

mix in achieving the desired workability which can be seen in Figure 5.12.

For the mortar plasters, the researchers strictly followed the water

content derived from a research journal. Mortars A and C have dry

consistency as shown in Figures 5.13 and 5.15. The workability of these mix

designs was not as good as compared to Mortars B and D. Mortars A and C

had less water proportions.

Plasters which have poor workability cannot be regarded to be a good

plaster. It can be said that no matter how high the compressive strength of a

plaster is, it cannot be regarded as a good plaster when it has poor

72
workability. In real practice, the consistency will matter because workers just

do estimates for the amount of water to be added in the plaster mix and doing

that simply alters the strength of plasters. This simply tells us that strength

alone is not the sole basis for evaluating whether the plaster is good or not.

Generally, it could be inferred from all the observations made that

Skimcoat A, Mortar B and Mortar D were the top 3 plasters which had high

workability and generally good consistency. They can be a good choice of

plaster for actual application on walls and structural members because the

desired workability for the said plasters is easy to achieve without adjusting

the water content.

Figure 5.7 Skimcoat A Consistency Figure 5.8 Skimcoat B Consistency

Figure 5.9 Skimcoat C Consistency Figure 5.10 Skimcoat C Consistency

Before Addition of Water After Addition of Water

73
Figure 5.11 Skimcoat D Consistency Figure 5.12 Skimcoat D Consistency
Before Addition of Water After Addition of Water

Figure 5.13 Mortar A Consistency Figure 5.14 Mortar B Consistency

Figure 5.15 Mortar C Consistency Figure 5.16 Mortar D Consistency

5.2 Drying Shrinkage Test

In this study, a total of 32 specimens were stored in a controlled

container at room temperature. The specimens were clustered into the

commercially available and the conventional type of plaster. Vernier calipers

74
of 0.05mm and 0.02mm precisions were used for the two clusters of

specimen. For each specimen, there were a total of six faces of the prism,

whose sides were measured in three portions (top, middle and bottom).

Appendix D shows the averaged reading measurements taken for each face

of the specimen. The three readings of lengths were averaged in order to

better represent the length measurements for each face. There were a total of

three averaged readings for each testing, which are the length, the depth and

the height. Measurements were taken for four test ages, namely 4 th day, 8th

day, 11th day and 25th day excluding the initial reading taken as the

benchmark for length change.

The change in length of each specimen was taken as the final reading

in the testing age subtracted from the initial reading. Appendix E shows a

summary of the length changes for each test age. The negative values

indicate that the final reading for the specified curing age is greater than the

initial reading. Thus, it is manifested that there is expansion instead of

reduction in volume.

For the commercial plasters, a magnitude of 0.40 mm was obtained as

the largest length change while zero was the smallest. On the other hand, an

absolute value of 0.87 mm was obtained as the largest length change for the

mortar plasters. The smallest length change was zero. Comparing the two

clusters of plaster, both were able to have zero shrinkage but the maximum

recorded length change in mortar plasters is double the value from the

75
commercial plasters. This observation means that in terms of the maximum

length change, the mortar plasters cluster is greater.

Further, the percent change in length was also calculated. This is also

called as the shrinkage percentage. Shrinkage percentage is the deformation

in sample length with the original length. The shrinkage percentage was

calculated according to (Lerner and Donahue 2003) as follows:

Shrinkage (%) = (L/L)*100 (Equation 3)

Where: L = change in length in mm and

L = initial length in mm

The results of the shrinkage percentage with respect to length change

are summarized in Appendix F. Greater percentages describe higher intensity

of shrinkage in the specimen.

The highest shrinkage percentage recorded was 0.88% while the

lowest was 0% for the individual data. The average shrinkage percentages of

Skimcoats A, B, C and D were 0.17, 0.15, 0.29 and 0.18%, respectively.

These results indicated that Skimcoat C attained the greatest shrinkage

percentage in length followed by Skimcoats D, A and B.

The highest percentage of length change recorded for the mortar

plasters was 3.49% while the lowest was 0%. The average shrinkage

76
percentages of Mortars A, B, C and D were 0.11, 0.32, 0.23 and 0.17%,

respectively. These results indicated that Mortar B attained the greatest

shrinkage percentage in length followed by Mortars C, D and A.

Since shrinkage is defined as the reduction in volume, the volume of

each specimen was also calculated as well as the shrinkage percentage with

respect to volume change. While change in length could establish the

intensity of differences in dimensions, volume change, on the other hand,

would give a more concrete approach to establishing the amount of over-all

shrinkage experienced by each specimen. Tables 5.3 and 5.4 show a

summary of the volume changes while Tables 5.5 and 5.6 show a summary of

the shrinkage percentages with respect to volume change. Similarly, the

percent change in volume represents the over-all shrinkage of the specimen.

It is calculated similar to percent change in length except that the volume is

considered instead of length. It was calculated as follows:

Shrinkage (%) = (V/V)*100 (Equation 4)

Where: V = change in volume in mm3 and

V = initial volume in mm3

Similar to length change, the negative values from the table indicate

that there was an increase in volume. The largest volume change recorded for

the commercial plasters had an absolute value of 2881.94 cubic millimeters

while the least was 85.81 cubic millimeters.

77
 Table 5.3 Volume Change of Commercial Plasters
Change in Volume (mm3)
Specimen
25th
No. 4th Day 11th Day 18th Day
Day
1 289.71 85.81 360.74 184.07
SKIMCOAT A
2 -619.59 -234.36 -297.20 -287.96

3 422.51 -75.94 306.68 -721.44

4 972.50 256.64 702.42 482.96

1 145.00 469.95 626.33 1669.42

SKIMCOAT B

2 714.91 288.70 653.95 714.82

3 667.97 624.13 791.15 1241.93

4 829.25 453.35 659.56 1297.57

1 1424.88 2278.18 2741.21 2881.94

SKIMCOAT C

2 884.76 935.49 1286.90 1797.87

3 381.88 322.08 -462.53 1316.97

4 1253.01 1822.88 659.15 1606.39

1 491.61 -393.91 -232.64 605.22

SKIMCOAT D

2 614.56 -948.06 -728.45 -137.93

3 540.58 -1326.44 -1252.76 -390.33

4 768.65 -1892.76 -1438.76 -99.42

The largest magnitude of volume change for mortar plasters was

6484.17 cubic millimeters while the lowest was 0.54 cubic millimeters. By

comparing the two clusters of plaster, it is quantified that the highest volume

change obtained in mortar plasters is 44% higher than the commercial

plasters.

78
 Table 5.4 Volume Change of Mortar Plasters
Change in Volume (mm3)
Specimen No.
4th Day 11th Day 18th Day 25th Day
1 107.21 412.09 479.73 -283.18

MORTAR A
2 925.56 -389.23 -109.52 -398.84

3 740.91 622.14 698.98 1054.87

4 275.86 -200.41 -255.61 -81.99

1 331.92 -6484.17 -6432.34 -5225.26

MORTAR B

2 560.37 1004.56 1049.44 666.34

3 134.07 516.73 1728.64 100.11

4 0.00 -1314.25 -1767.85 -1491.68

1 1266.59 2111.05 1676.02 929.52

MORTAR C

2 1561.94 1947.11 2726.37 4395.47

3 -657.88 -170.78 -125.13 -204.04

4 112.16 164.43 -124.84 784.84

1 570.41 539.34 614.30 601.48

MORTAR D

2 -59.49 -0.54 359.03 479.24

3 261.83 -50.61 -190.38 -238.32

4 485.19 1022.26 1714.24 1845.91

In terms of the over-all shrinkage of the commercial plasters from Table

5.5, the lowest was 0.04% while the greatest was 1.55%. The averaged over-

all shrinkage percentage of Skimcoats A, B, C and D were 0.19, 0.38, 0.75

and 0.39%, respectively.

79
 Table 5.5 Percent Change in Volume of Commercial Plasters
Percent Change in Volume (%)
Specimen No.
4th Day 11th Day 18th Day 25th Day
1 0.15 0.04 0.18 0.09
SKIMCOAT A 2 0.32 0.12 0.16 0.15

3 0.22 0.04 0.16 0.38

4 0.50 0.13 0.36 0.25

1 0.08 0.25 0.33 0.88

SKIMCOAT B

2 0.37 0.15 0.34 0.37

3 0.33 0.31 0.40 0.62

4 0.43 0.24 0.34 0.68

1 0.77 1.22 1.47 1.55

SKIMCOAT C

2 0.48 0.51 0.70 0.98

3 0.21 0.17 0.25 0.71

4 0.68 0.99 0.36 0.87

1 0.26 0.20 0.12 0.31

SKIMCOAT D

2 0.31 0.48 0.37 0.07

3 0.28 0.69 0.65 0.20

4 0.42 1.03 0.78 0.05

Each of the materials behaved uniquely with respect to time. Skimcoats

A and C followed the same pattern until the 18 th day of testing but Skimcoat C

increased during the 25th day while Skimcoat A remained the same. Skimcoat

B rather observed an initial decrease on the 11 th day and continuous increase

until the 25th day. The behavior of Skimcoat D is opposite to that of Skimcoat

80
B wherein it increased on the 11th day and continuously decreased until the

25th day. The four commercial plasters showed fluctuating change in volume

but Skimcoat D possessed the steepest slope (See Figure 5.17).

0.70
0.60
Over-all Shrinkage
Percentage (%)

0.50
0.40 Skimcoat A
0.30 Skimcoat B
0.20 Skimcoat C
0.10 Skimcoat D
0.00
4th Day 11th Day 18th Day 25th Day
Test Age (Days)

Figure 5.17 Over-all Shrinkage Percentage vs Test Age Graph of Different

Commercial Plasters

On the other hand, the over-all shrinkage of mortar plasters had the

lowest value of 0% while the greatest was recorded to be 3.57%. The largest

over-all shrinkage of mortar plasters is approximately twice as much as the

percentage value of the commercial plasters, showing a big deviation

between the two clusters. This means that in terms of the over-all shrinkage,

mortar plasters exhibited greater values than the commercial plasters. The

average over-all shrinkage percentage for mortars A, B, C and D were 0.23,

0.99, 0.64 and 0.32%, respectively.

81
 Table 5.6 Percent Change in Volume of Mortar Plasters
Percent Change in Volume (%)
Specimen No. th
4 Day 11th Day 18th Day 25th Day
1 0.06 0.21 0.25 0.15
MORTAR A 2 0.50 0.21 0.06 0.22

3 0.38 0.32 0.36 0.54

4 0.14 0.10 0.13 0.04

1 0.18 3.57 3.55 2.88

MORTAR B

2 0.31 0.55 0.57 0.36

3 0.07 0.28 0.93 0.05

4 0.00 0.71 0.96 0.81

1 0.68 1.13 0.90 0.50

MORTAR C

2 0.84 1.04 1.46 2.36

3 0.35 0.09 0.07 0.11

4 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.42

1 0.32 0.31 0.35 0.34

MORTAR D

2 0.03 0.00 0.20 0.27

3 0.15 0.03 0.11 0.13

4 0.27 0.57 0.95 1.03

Unlike the trend of commercial plasters which is cross-linked towards

each other, the trend of mortar plasters is less intersecting. All the mortar

plasters are almost horizontally flat except for Mortar B. Mortar B increased

until the 18th day and decreased on the 25th day. It could be seen from the bar

graph that the shrinkage percentage of Mortar B has a great deviation from

the others. In fact, it reached up to a maximum of 1.5% shrinkage on the 18th

82
day. Mortar C, on the other hand, had higher shrinkage percentages for all the

testing dates than Mortars A and D. As previously analyzed, the average

over-all shrinkage percentage for mortars A, B, C and D were 0.23, 0.99, 0.64

and 0.32%, respectively.

1.60
1.40
Over-all Shrinkage
Percentage (%)

1.20
1.00
0.80 Mortar A
0.60 Mortar B
0.40 Mortar C
0.20 Mortar D
0.00
4th Day 11th Day 18th Day 25th Day
Test Age (Days)

Figure 5.18 Averaged Over-all Shrinkage Percentage vs Test Age Graph for

Different Mortar Plasters

From Figure 5.19 it is evident that the mortar plasters are generally

higher in shrinkage percentage. Specifically, Mortar B deviates greatly from

the rest of the plasters. This means that Mortar B has the greatest shrinkage

percentage for all the test ages except for the 4 th day. The rest of the plasters

were interlinked with each other such that the trends could not be specifically

determined.

83
 Over-all Shrinkage Percentage (%)
1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
4th Day 11th Day 18th Day 25th Day
Test Age (Days)
Skimcoat A Skimcoat B Skimcoat C Skimcoat D
Mortar A Mortar B Mortar C Mortar D

Figure 5.19 Averaged Over-all Shrinkage Percentage vs Test Age Graph for
Different Plastering Materials

Generally, the researchers have assessed that for each of the different

plasters, each material has its respective shrinkage percentage along with its

change pattern. Based from theory, materials that have greater water cement

ratio (w/c) tend to have greater shrinkage. In the case of mortar plasters, this

could be referred to as water-powder ratio. Thus, for commercial plasters, the

theory was applicable. The adjusted water-powder ratios (w/p) of the

materials were calculated as follows: 0.20, 0.32, 0.40 and 0.35 for Skimcoats

A, B, C and D, respectively. The adjusted water-powder ratio is the value

wherein the addition and reduction of water in the mix proportions was

considered. From previous analysis, the average over-all shrinkage

percentage of Skimcoats A, B, C and D were 0.19, 0.38, 0.75 and 0.39%,

84
respectively. In summary, Skimcoat C had the greatest over-all shrinkage

percentage of 0.75% having the largest w/p of 0.40. Skimcoat D followed with

an over-all shrinkage percentage of 0.39% with w/p of 0.35. Skimcoat B

succeeded in line with an over-all shrinkage percentage of 0.38% with w/p of

0.32. The commercial plaster that had the least shrinkage was Skimcoat A

with a value of 0.19% and w/p of 0.22.

For the mortar plasters, however, Mortars B and D have a w/c of 0.50

while Mortars A and C have a w/c of 0.475. It was previously analyzed that

the average over-all shrinkage percentage for mortars A, B, C and D were

0.23, 0.99, 0.64 and 0.32%, respectively. The data showed that Mortar B had

the greatest shrinkage of 0.99% and w/c of 0.500. On the contrary, Mortar D

had 0.32% shrinkage and w/c of 0.500. This could be true to the fact that

there are also other factors affecting shrinkage besides the water cement

ratio. Factors of environmental conditions could have also affected the results.

By comparing the over-all shrinkage percentage of commercial and

mortar plasters, results indicated that not all of the mortar plasters have

greater shrinkage percentages than the rest of the commercial plasters. This

could mean that although mortar plasters are generally conceived to attain

greater shrinkage percentages, it could be affected by the plaster’s other

properties.

85
 In order to assess the validity of the data points gathered from the

experiment, statistical analysis was applied with the use of standard deviation.

Generally, this statistical parameter best describes the limits of the standards

in the data with respect to all of the data points gathered. Similarly, the data

points that would be enveloped by the said limits (or boundaries) are those

data that are belonging to the “standard” of the set. Likewise, the data points

that are outside of the limits would only mean that either those data points are

too high or too low from the mean depending on where they belong in the

graph.

Appendix I summarizes the distribution of individual data points for the

over-all shrinkage of each plastering material. The general observation is that

most of the data points are scattered in the graphs, meaning to say that the

individual data points are not consistently approaching the mean. Generally,

at least 2 out of 4 data points are within the range of standard deviation. This

is a good indication of data distribution in the trials. However, it can be noted

that the data points beyond the boundaries are mostly on the upper limit side,

which means that there are mostly data that are deviating largely from the

mean. Thus, this was an indication of the obtained high over-all shrinkage

percentages shown previously exceeding 1% in value.

From the theoretical considerations, the typical mortar shrinkage was

determined by Health and Roesler to be within the range of 800 and 2000

microstrain. This means that shrinkage exceeding 2000 microstrain is not

86
allowable. Microstrain is computed as the change in length over the initial

length. It is a dimensionless unit, which is usually used to describe shrinkage.

Table 5.7 below shows the summary of the microstrains obtained for all the

test ages for each plastering material with a total of 4 specimens each.

From the table, it is seen that the highest strain obtained was 1416

microstrain for Skimcoat D and the lowest was zero microstrain, which meant

that there was no change in length at all. By comparing the shrinkage strain

obtained from the actual experimentation performed in this study, it is verified

Table 5.7 Summary of Shrinkage Strain for Different Plastering Materials

MICROSTRAIN (mm/mm)
SPECIMEN NO.
4th day 11th day 18th day 25th day
SKIMCOAT A
1 219 746 717 640
2 366 571 556 373
3 139 359 344 210
4 263 935 906 526
SKIMCOAT B
1 482 491 549 950
2 263 805 776 878
3 132 380 366 614
4 227 841 856 1017
SKIMCOAT C
1 716 862 1330 1111
2 222 717 1112 965
3 526 687 1185 1170
4 234 380 928 958
SKIMCOAT D
1 526 438 526 701
2 701 993 1051 1416
3 606 883 942 1015
4 366 2181 2122 907

87
 MICROSTRAIN (mm/mm)
SPECIMEN NO.
4th day 11th day 18th day 25th day
MORTAR A
1 146 233 175 58
2 87 52 122 262
3 29 160 87 436
4 58 0 29 204
MORTAR B
1 87 233 291 233
2 29 262 291 408
3 58 58 58 87
4 0 1107 1049 991
MORTAR C
1 366 44 161 351
2 73 234 468 673
3 132 241 585 702
4 388 22 344 475
MORTAR D
1 102 44 366 380
2 0 219 570 468
3 270 365 380 438
4 321 358 519 636

through the theoretical values of 800 to 2000 microstrain whether the obtained

shrinkage is passing the allowable values. Since the highest value obtained

was 1416 microstrain, it means that the obtained shrinkage values from the

experiment are acceptable.

5.3 Temperature Monitoring

Figures 5.20 and 5.22 are illustrations representing the temperature

change of the eight (8) different plasters experimented on in this research.

The specimens were placed inside a styrofoam container in order to insulate

88
the specimens from outside conditions. The containers were only opened

every 12 hours within a span of seven (7) days.

It could be recalled in the journal of Bai, entitled “Investigation on the

Temperature Change and Heat Evolution of Mortar Containing PFA and

Metakaolin” that they made use of thermocouple in monitoring the

temperature of the plasters. However, upon inquiring about the said

equipment, it was found out that the thermocouple available in the campus

cannot monitor small changes in temperature. It cannot be utilized in this

research because generally, all of the temperature change is small. Instead,

an infrared thermometer was used to take the temperature readings of the

specimens.

One can also recall from Bai’s journal that the temperature of the

plasters was monitored every minute which cannot be adopted in this thesis

due to time constraints. Instead, the group just monitored the temperature

change among the plasters during the morning and evening.

It should be noted that the first temperature reading presented was

taken 12 hours after the demoulding of the shrinkage specimens. For better

understanding of the data presentation, it should be noted that testing hours

12, 36, 60, 84, 108, 132, and 156 were temperature readings taken during the

night. While testing hours, 24, 48, 72, 96, 120, 144, and 168 were all taken

during the morning. It should be noted also that testing hours 12 and 24, 36

89
and 48, 60 and 72, 84 and 96, 108 and 120, 132 and 144, and lastly 156 and

169 each represents the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th day of temperature

reading respectively.

For better comparisons, the study adapted two clusters namely

commercial plasters and mortar plasters. The commercial plasters include

four materials namely Skimcoat A, Skimcoat B, Skimcoat C and Skimcoat D

while the mortar plasters include four mortar mix designs namely Mortar A,

Mortar B, Mortar C and Mortar D.

It could be observed from Figure 5.20 that Skimcoats B, C, and D

generally have the similar temperature change pattern. While Skimcoat A

exhibited a different temperature change pattern where in some testing time it

will either have a bigger or smaller value of temperature reading compared to

Skimcoat B, C, and D.

90
 32

Temperature, in degrees Celsius

31

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23
12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168
Skimcoat A 26.383 28.583 26.758 29.342 29.792 30.683 30.492 28.917 27.492 29.325 28.375 28.85 28.383 28.35
Skimcoat B 28.475 25.517 28.35 29.367 29.75 29.783 28.317 26.142 28.308 28.133 28.183 27.633 27.775 30.408
Skimcoat C 28.283 25.367 28.608 29.383 30.108 29.962 28.633 26.083 28.875 28.133 27.592 28.25 27.708 29.858
Skimcoat D 28.242 26.308 28.683 29.5 29.958 29.983 28.2 26.842 28.925 28.183 27.958 27.967 27.892 29.5

Time, in hours

Figure 5.20 Comparison of Temperature Change in Skimcoat Plasters

91
 By referring to Figure 5.21, it could be generalized that the temperature

change of the Skimcoat plasters is erratic. Skimcoats B, C and D have the

same temperature pattern while Skimcoat A acted differently on the first 36

hours. It had a lower starting temperature compared to Skimcoats B, C and D.

Skimcoat A experienced its highest temperature 12 hours after the other 3

Skimcoat plasters did. As seen from the graph, the temperature of Skimcoat A

is generally higher compared to the other 3.

32
Temperature, in degrees Celsius

31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168
Time, in hours

Skimcoat A Skimcoat B
Skimcoat C Skimcoat D

Figure 5.21 Comparison of Averaged Temperature Change in

Skimcoat Plasters

It could be observed from Figure 5.22 that Mortars A and B have the

similar temperature change pattern. While Mortars C and D have similar

92
temperature change pattern as well. As noticed in the graph when Mortars A

and B is experiencing a high temperature, Mortars C and D is experiencing

the opposite and vice versa. Generally, both Mortar A and B experienced a

higher temperature change compared to C and D. The over-all temperature

range of both A and B is from 26.2oC to 31.2oC while C and D is from 26.8oC

to 30.2 oC.

From Figure 5.23, it could be observed that both Mortars A and B have

the same temperature change pattern. On the other hand, Mortars C and D

also have the same temperature change pattern. Considering Mortars A and

B as one and Mortars C and D as one, we can say both have different

behaviors. The only close reading they experienced was during the 12 th hour,

60th, 84th, 120th and 156th hour where there temperatures are intersecting. For

the rest, they have completely the opposite temperatures. Both A and B

experienced its highest temperature on the 24th hour while C and D

experienced its highest temperature on its 108th hour.

From the temperature change pattern of all the plastering materials in

Figure 5.24, the trends are erratic. No similar pattern can be distinguished

from the Mortar plasters and Skimcoat plasters. By comparing the mortar

samples to the Skimcoat, it can be generalized that the samples are behaving

differently and they have different temperature patterns.

93
 32

Temperature, in degrees Celsius

31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168
Mortar A 29.45 31.075 28.758 30.033 28.825 29.967 28.45 28.058 28.617 29.4 30.125 29.917 28.708 26.283
Mortar B 29.25 31.242 28.842 30.075 28.833 30.008 28.417 28.158 28.583 29.4 30.275 29.992 28.892 26.283
Mortar C 28 27.517 28.042 26.858 29.475 27.05 29.492 29 30.292 29.283 29.458 28.708 29.425 29.708
Mortar D 28.692 27.633 28.283 27.458 29.408 26.85 28.942 28.975 29.817 29.217 29.353 28.692 29.408 29.75

Time, in hours

Figure 5.22 Comparison of Temperature Change in Mortar Plasters

94
 For the first 36 hours of temperature monitoring of Mortars A and B and

Skimcoat A, the same pattern is observed and after that they completely

change patterns. The samples start by having a low temperature then

increase on the 24th hour then decrease again.

32
Temperature, in degrees Celsius

31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168
Time, in hours

Mortar A Mortar B Mortar C Mortar D

Figure 5.23 Comparison of Averaged Temperature Change in Mortar Plasters

On the other hand, Mortars C and D have the same behavior with

Skimcoats B, C and D having a higher temperature at start then decreases on

its 24th hour and increases again on its 36th hour. After the 36th hour, the

Skimcoat plasters and mortar plasters acted differently. Overall, the mortars

experienced a higher temperature compared to the Skimcoat plasters. By

analyzing the graph, one can notice that both mortars A and B experienced

the highest temperature on the 24th hour while skim coats A and B

95
experienced its lowest temperature on its 24th hour. By looking at the

temperature change of the Skimcoat plasters it is more gradual compared to

the change of temperature of the mortar plasters. The behavior of the

temperature of the mortar plasters is rampant while the temperature change

of the Skimcoat plasters is plodding. By looking at the range of the

temperature of the mortar plasters, it has a higher range compared to the

Skimcoat plasters having smaller temperature changes.

32
Temperature, in degrees

31
30
29
Celsius

28
27
26
25
24
23
12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168
Time, in hours
Skimcoat A Skimcoat B Skimcoat C Skimcoat D
Mortar A Mortar B Mortar C Mortar D

Figure 5.24 Comparison of Averaged Temperature Change in Skimcoat and

Mortar Plasters

5.4 Crack Evaluation

This section discusses the cracks that propagate through each

specimen as it failed when induced load was applied on it. Photographs were

96
taken for each side of each specimen to be able to evaluate the cracks that

formed on its surfaces. For each specimen, there are 6 faces and for each

material, there are 3 samples. Furthermore, there are two clusters to be

evaluated in this section similar to the previous ones namely commercial and

conventional plasters. Each of the clusters contains four different materials.

For the case of commercial plasters, the materials are different while for the

conventional plasters, the materials are the same but only differ in mix design.

There are different modes of failure that were identified from the

samples. Compression failure is indicated by the crushing of the specimen.

Tension failure is indicated by the cracks in the sample. Shear cracks are

indicated by the nature of the cracking having a diagonal or horizontal

direction.

Cracks have a wide range of classifications. There are cracks that are

thin while there are some that are deep and severe in appearance. However,

it should be noted that these are cracks that were produced from crushing

failure contrary to the naturally occurring cracks in plaster layers. Some

cracks are products of scaling, or that wherein a thin layer of the plaster is

scraped off.

5.4.1 Crack Evaluation of Commercial Plasters

As can be seen from the photos, the labels are not the same as the

category or the type of material under which it belongs to. For specific

97
purposes, it was intended to label the materials in random letters rather than

putting the initials of the material brand itself.

The main objective of this study is to interlink the results of the different

tests on the plaster properties and evaluate its effect on surface cracking.

Thus, the role of crack evaluation in this study would be significant in

determining and proving the efficiency, adequacy and quality of each

plastering material among all the other materials considered. The evaluation

of the cracks in this portion of the study did not base on length measurements

but rather on mere observations and identification of the types of cracks that

propagate on the samples.

Figures 5.25 to 5.33 show the different compilations of photographs

taken immediately after the specimens were subject to crushing for the 28 th

day compressive strength test. For better analysis, each specimen is

analyzed individually. Further, the three specimens for each material were

compiled to produce an integrated analysis for each.

From the previous tests conducted, the generalization that was

produced for the commercial plasters was that it had lower compressive

strengths, lower over-all shrinkage percentage, more gradual temperature

change than the mortar plasters. These results were based from the

experiments done regarding each property.

98
5.4.1.1 Skimcoat A (Figure 5.25)

Figure 5.25a shows the crack formation in Skimcoat A specimen 1. The

specimen did not fail in total crushing. Instead, minor cracks manifested.

Photo 1 showed scaling in the bottom portion and thin cracks on the left edge.

The cracks observed were purely vertical in this face. In one face (Photo 3),

portions of the specimen specifically on the top were detached while a clearly

defined crack is seen at the middle portion. There could be different factors

affecting detachment such as density, presence of voids, and the cohesion of

the material. The crack along the neutral axis is partially inclined due to shear

failure and progressed vertically until the bottom edge.

Specimen 2 is less damaged as far as the inhibition of cracks is

concerned. Only two faces of the specimen have shown the effect of

compressive load resistance (See photos 1 and 5 from Figure 5.25b). Photo 5

showed a detached portion from the specimen at the upper part. Thin cracks

are also visible at its bottom.

The third specimen of this material proved to be the least damaged

among the 3. In fact, it almost didn’t even manifest that it had undergone a

compression test considering the fact that a maximum load of 33.5 kN was

applied on it. There are, however thin cracks that are almost invisible to the

naked eye. Encircled are the portions where these cracks were identified.

99
 The averaged total maximum load that Skimcoat A was able to resist is

30.37 kN. Specimen 1 was able to resist 28.8 kN same with specimen 2, both

showing more definite cracks than specimen 3 which resisted a higher load of

33.5 kN but having minimal thin cracks. This means that Skimcoat A is able to

resist such magnitude of force without manifesting total crushing and rupture

in appearance. In terms of shrinkage percentage, Skimcoat A obtained the

least value of 0.19% among the other commercial plasters.

5.4.1.2 Skimcoat B (Figure 5.26)

Figure 5.26a contains images showing crack formation in Skimcoat B

specimen 1 where generally, minor cracks are observed. However, there are

faces of the cube that are still intact (Photos 1,2 and 4). For one face (Photo

3), the cracks starting from the bottom are parallel to the applied load and

partially inclined as it progressed upward. It could be observed that the crack

started at the bottom. Probably, this is due to the resistance of the material to

the compressive force applied on it. As it progressed, it inclined near the

neutral axis. It should be noted that shear stress is maximum at this point. It

may have been that the shear stress was greater than the stress induced by

the compressive force, which caused the crack to incline.

The crack widths are very minimal. Photo 5 shows a greater crack

width that is more defined. It can be seen that there is one major crack

leaning towards the right and branched out with a hairline crack leaning

100
towards the left. The orientation of the crack manifested shear failure. The last

photo shows thin thin cracks at different locations on the face. Over-all, this

specimen did not manifest complete specimen crushing even after load

application.

The crack formations in Specimen 2 are compiled in Figure 5.26b. The

obtained cracks for this specimen is the same with the location of cracks in

Specimen 1 (Photos 3,5 and 6). The 3rd photo shows the different directions

of crack. There is a main vertical crack that branched out into horizontal ones

inclined towards the left. A more defined crack is seen on the 5th photo with

thin cracks surrounding it all in the vertical orientation. For the 6 th photo,

scaling as well as thin thin cracks are observed. The cracks started singularly

at the bottom and leaned towards the left until it reached the top edge. The

third specimen is that which achieved the least cracks. Most of its faces are

intact. However, minor cracks are observed from photos 3 and 6. There is a

single crack seen in the 3rd photo in a curved form concaving to the right

edge.

The averaged total maximum load applied to Skimcoat B was 15.5 kN.

Among the three specimens, specimen 3 obtained the highest maximum load,

which is 17.7 kN at the same time having the least cracks. Specimen 1

achieved 16.5 kN maximum load while specimen 2 attained 12.3 kN of

maximum load. Despite resisting smaller load, specimen 2 obtained greater

crack formations. In terms of the effect of shrinkage to cracking, the overall

101
shrinkage percentage previously calculated from Skimcoat B was 0.38%

whose value is ranked as having the second to the least shrinkage

percentage.

102
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.25a Crack Propagation of Specimen 1, Skimcoat A

103
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.25b Crack Propagation of Specimen 2, Skimcoat A

104
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.25c Crack Propagation of Specimen 3, Skimcoat A

105
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.26a Crack Propagation of Specimen 1, Skimcoat B

106
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.26b Crack Propagation of Specimen 2, Skimcoat B

107
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.26c Crack Propagation of Specimen 3, Skimcoat B

108
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.27a Crack Propagation of Specimen 1, Skimcoat C

109
1
2

3
4

5 6

Figure 5.27b Crack Propagation of Specimen 2, Skimcoat C

110
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.27c Crack Propagation of Specimen 3, Skimcoat C

111
5.4.1.2 Skimcoat C (Figure 5.27)

The specimens of Skimcoat C individually obtained large crack

formations as opposed to the two previous materials. For the first specimen,

definite vertical cracks were observed in its faces (Photos 1,5 and 6 of Figure

5.27a). Specimen 2 shows the presence of moderate cracks that are almost

unseen due to the porous surfaces. The third specimen is also shows great

crack formation. The 5th photo (Figure 5.27c) shows webbing or intersecting

cracks at different orientations. The 3rd photo (Figure 5.27c) illustrates the big

chunk that was detached from its form. Lastly, the 6th photo manifested a

single crack whose orientation is vertical.

The maximum load resisted by Specimens 1,2 and 3 were 22.7, 16.7

and 18.9 kN, respectively. Likewise, the extent of cracking among the three

specimens of Skimcoat D is greater than the rest of the commercial plasters

which is true to the fact that it obtained the the highest over-all shrinkage

percentage of 0.75%.

5.4.1.3 Skimcoat D (Figure 5.28)

Smooth in texture and pure white in color, the cracks that manifested in

specimen 1 are minimal. Most of its faces were intact except for the 6 th photo

where scaling was observed. Thin cracks are seen progressing upwards

towards the left.

112
 The crack formation in the second specimen (Figure 5.28b) is highly

different from the previous one. The cracks were more defined and severe. A

big chunk was detached from the main body (See Photo 3) and horizontal

cracks manifesting shear failure (See photo 4) have also appeared. For two

faces, however (Photos 5 and 6), vertical cracks existed, all ending at the

edges.

Specimen 3 shows less crack formation that the previous one.

However, it showed definite vertical cracks. Scaling was also seen on the top

portion. Scaling is an indication that the material’s surface is brittle enough for

thin layers to chip off.

Among the four commercial plasters, Skimcoat D obtained the highest

maximum load with an averaged value of 39.93 kN. From the crack

evaluation, the cracks that manifested in this material are minimal. The first

specimen, that manifested minimal scaling, was able to resist a load of 46.7

kN. Specimen 2 had more cracks than the other two specimens, whose

maximum load resisted was 37.6 kN. Specimen 3 on the other hand, resisted

35.5 kN and was the most intact specimen. No cracking was visible to the

naked eye. In terms of shrinkage, the over-all percentage obtained for

Skimcoat D was 0.39%.

113
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.28a Crack Propagation of Specimen 1, Skimcoat D

114
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.28b Crack Propagation of Specimen 2, Skimcoat D

115
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.28c Crack Propagation of Specimen 3, Skimcoat D

116
5.4.2 Crack Evaluation of Conventional Plasters

The same method was adapted in analyzing the crack formation in this

cluster. However, spider webs are seen on the faces of the samples.

Comparing the two clusters, the surfaces of the specimens in this group are

generally rougher in texture. More so, these are denser materials due to the

presence of sand. Rougher particles in a specimen tend to create friction

towards each other thus creating collision providing more room for cracking.

Whereas, smoother particles tend to slide towards each other such as the

case of commercial plasters that possess smooth particles.

5.4.2.2 Mortar A (Figure 5.29)

Crushing was observed in this specimen. Unlike in previous analyses

on commercial plasters, this material showed crushing like that seen on the

last photo from Figure 5.29a. There are also portions that were detached from

the form. Vertical cracks are evident also on the 5 th photo ranging from bigger

lengths to shorter ones. Some faces also manifested thin cracks.

Similar to the previous, specimen 2 experienced crushing wherein

great chunks were disengaged from the formation specifically the exterior

portions of the cube. Diagonal cracks were also seen. Thin cracks weren’t

visible from the faces since the failures were mostly caused by the

detachment of mortar. This could be an indication of poor adhesion and

117
cohesion of the material particles since it tends to break apart from each other

as maximum load is resisted. Specimen 3 also failed in crushing. The material

also disintegrated into pieces although majority of the volume remained intact.

The cracks on the faces are oriented vertically.

Skimcoat A had an average of 84.67 kN of maximum load resisted for

the three specimens while the individual data for maximum load are 84.2, 73.3

and 96.5 kN for the three specimens respectively. Despite having resisted the

maximum load, specimen 3 proved to be the least damaged specimen among

the three. With respect to the over-all shrinkage percentage obtained, Mortar

A had a value of 0.23%, having the least magnitude from its cluster.

5.4.2.2 Mortar B (Figure 5.30)

Figure 5.30a shows the crack formation on specimen 1. It is seen that

there are many voids on the surfaces. However, no much cracks emanated.

Vertical, thin cracks were seen on faces 5 and 6. This specimen was able to

resist a total load of 86.1 kN.

The second specimen (Figure 5.30b) experienced crushing. A huge

block of mortar was detached from the main body. Bigger, vertical cracks

were also evident (Photo 1 and 3). Thin, thin cracks are seen in the 5th photo.

This specimen showed a combination of failures including scaling of mortar. It

was able to resist 65.5 kN amount of load.

118
 The third specimen (Figure 5.30c) reached a maximum load of 85.2

kN. Vertical cracks were mostly observed and little amount of thin, thin cracks.

Partial scaling was also manifested. Two faces however (Photo 2 and 4)

remained intact.

For the shrinkage percentage of this material, the largest value was

yielded with a magnitude of 0.99%. This value is not only the largest in its

cluster but also in all of the materials considered.

119
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.29a Crack Propagation of Specimen 1, Mortar A

120
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.29b Crack Propagation of Specimen 2, Mortar A

121
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.29c Crack Propagation of Specimen 3, Mortar A

122
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.30a Crack Propagation of Specimen 1, Mortar B

123
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.30b Crack Propagation of Specimen 2, Mortar B

124
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.30c Crack Propagation of Specimen 2, Mortar B

125
5.4.2.3 Mortar C (Figure 5.31)

Detachment from the body characterizes the first specimen. More so,

thin thin cracks are evident. The detachment of portions from the mortar could

be described as caused by a bursting effect on the material as it attained its

maximum load. The projection of the detachment is leaned outwards. For this

specimen, the maximum load was 72.3 kN, which is the largest among the

samples in this material.

Specimen 2 is characterized by the same failure of crushing with the

previous although the extent is to a lesser degree. The first photo (Figure

5.31b) shows a horizontal crack that is intersecting another crack that is

vertically oriented. An inclined crack was also present in the last photo leaning

towards the left across the neutral axis. A magnitude of 58.3 kN was the

maximum load that this specimen was able to resist.

The last specimen (Figure 5.31c) showed scaling and thin thin cracks.

In addition, vertical cracks are also seen. A load of 70 kN was resisted by the

sample.

At an average, the total maximum load resisted by Mortar C was 66.87

kN, which is the lowest among its cluster. A shrinkage percentage of 0.64%

was recorded for this material. Although Mortar C was second in rank in

126
having the greatest shrinkage among conventional plasters, the crack

formation in its specimens is not as high compared to the previous ones.

127
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.31a Crack Propagation of Specimen 1, Mortar C

128
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.31b Crack Propagation of Specimen 2, Mortar C

129
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.31c Crack Propagation of Specimen 3, Mortar C

130
5.4.2.3 Mortar D (Figure 5.32)

Mortar D obtained an average of 70.13 kN of maximum load while its

over-all shrinkage percentage was 0.32% being second to the lowest. The

first specimen (Figure 5.32a) shows minimal cracking wherein no

disintegration occurred. Thin cracks with abstract direction are observed on

the last photo. This specimen was able to resist an 81.3 kN load without

crushing failure.

The second specimen (Figure 5.32b) shows higher degree crack

formation wherein a big portion of one side detached as a whole unit (Photos

3 and 6). This specimen resisted the least maximum load of 46.5 kN however,

showing total crushing in the sample. Wider crack widths (Photo 1) and

vertical cracks are also present (Photo 5).

Lastly, the third specimen of Mortar D manifested a major shear crack

(Figure 5.32c Photo 6) and vertical cracks. The shear crack can be described

as producing burst effect thus showing the specimen resistance to the load

applied on it.

131
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.32a Crack Propagation of Specimen 1, Mortar D

132
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.32b Crack Propagation of Specimen 2, Mortar D

133
1 2

3 4

5 6

Figure 5.32c Crack Propagation of Specimen 3, Mortar D

134
5.5 Integration of Results: Point System

In order to integrate all of the obtained results from experimentation,

the researchers came up with a point system that gives quantitative ranking

for the eight (8) plastering materials experimented on in this study.

The pointing system shall comprise of six (6) categories such as cost,

degree of workability, compressive strength, drying shrinkage, density, and

crack evaluation presented in Figure 5.33. Wherein, each of it carries an

equal weight of 16.67% in order to remove the biases for each property. The

weight value shall serve as a multiplier to the total points earned for each

category.

Cost

16.67% 16.67% Workability

16.67% 16.67% Compressive

Strength
Drying Shrinkage
16.67% 16.67%
Density

Crack Evaluation

Figure 5.33 Six Categories Considered in the Over-all Point System

Table 5.7 is the summarized rating, ranking and visual judgment of the

plasters. Table 5.8 shows the tally of the points earned for each property of

135
each material and the best plastering product was determined as well as the

over-all ranking.

5.5.1 Compressive Strength Point System

It was generalized by the group that the higher the compressive

strength value, the better since it has a higher capacity to withstand greater

loadings in application. Therefore, more points are given for plasters which

have higher compressive strength values.

The point system in the compressive strength category was based on

ranking. Wherein, a rank of 1 is given to the plaster which has the lowest

compressive strength and a rank of 8 to the plaster which has the highest

compressive strength. The rank given each plastering material is multiplied to

the weight value of 0.167 and then product of which, served as the points

earned by the plaster for the compressive strength category.

5.5.2 Drying Shrinkage Point System

In this portion of rating the plasters, it was generalized by the

researchers that the lower the shrinkage value, the better since shrinkage

poses cracking risks on plaster according to theory. Therefore, more points

are given for plasters which have lower shrinkage values.

136
 The point system adapted for shrinkage was based on ranking from1 to

5. Wherein, a rating of 1 is given for shrinkage values that range from 0.81 to

1.0; a rating of 2 is given for shrinkage values that range from 0.61 to 0.8; a

rating of 3 is given for shrinkage values that range from 0.41 to 0.6; a rating of

4 is given for values that range from 0.21 to 0.4 shrinkage percentage.

Finally, a rating of 5 is given for shrinkage values that range from 0.0 to 0.2.

The rating given to the plaster is multiplied to the weight value of 0.167 and

the product served as the points earned by the plaster for the drying

shrinkage category.

5.5.3 Density Point System

It was generalized by the group that the lower the density, the better

since a heavier plaster is generally more inconvenient to apply. Therefore

more points are given for plasters which have lower density.

The point system in the density category is similar to that of workability.

A rank of 1 is given to the plaster which has the lowest density and a rank of 8

is given to the plaster with the highest density. The rank given to the plaster is

multiplied to the weight value of 0.167 and the product served as the points

earned by the plastering material for the density category.

137
5.5.4 Cost Point System

One of the concerns in the choice of plastering material is the cost.

Generally, mortar is traditionally used because consumers would basically opt

to purchase at lower cost. Therefore, more points are given for plasters which

are cheaper in cost.

The costing rate of the plasters is computed as the price per 20 kg of

the plastering material. The different costs of the eight (8) plastering materials

were summed up and used as a divisor for all of the computed price per 20 kg

of the plastering materials. The quotient value was deducted to 1. For better

understanding, the formula is presented in Equation 5.

Costing Rate = 1 – Cost of material / Total Cost of all material (Equation 5)

The computed costing rate for each material is multiplied to the weight

value of 0.167 and the product served as the points earned by the plaster for

the cost category.

5.5.5 Degree of Workability Point System

It is generalized by the researchers that the more workable the plaster

is, the better since a more workable plaster would entail less labor and

138
increase the convenience of usage. Therefore, more points are given for

plasters which have high workability.

The point system for the degree of workability is based on a 1 to 5

rating. Table 5.8 below shows the rating system used to describe the

workability of the plasters.

Table 5.8 Degree of Workability Rating System

RATING WORKABILITY DESCRIPTION
1 Very Low Workability
2 Low Workability
3 Moderate
4 High Workability
5 Very High Workability

The rating given to the plaster was multiplied to the weight value of

0.167 and the product served as the points earned by the plaster for the

workability category.

5.5.6 Crack Evaluation Point System

Generally, the weight given to the crack evaluation point system is

16.67%. This percentage is further divided into four (4) sub-categories. Figure

5.34 shows the weight distribution of the four (4) sub-categories. It could be

observed from the sub-categories that each has its respective weights where

more importance was given to the crack length and width. In the paper

entitled: “A Sectoral Study of Reinforced Concrete Cracks in the Philippines

139
and Japan” by Baccay et. al., the crack length and width were the two

significant factors considered in the analysis of cracks in structures. The

Japan Concrete Institute as well as the American Concrete Institute provides

data for the permissible crack width in concrete structures. These provisions

give emphasis to the width of cracks in evaluation. Due to the limitations of

this study, the crack length and the crack width were not measured but rather

evaluated through visual and subjective inspection. To minimize the biases,

three subjective inputs were considered in the evaluation. In addition, each of

the equivalent points is briefly described to support the basis for the

researcher’s judgment.

Number of Sides
20.00% with Cracks
20.00%
Degree of Failure
20.00%
20.00% Crack Length

Crack Width

Figure 5.34 Six Categories Considered in Crack Evaluation Point System

Similar trend from the previous point systems in other categories could

be observed wherein higher point values can be expected for plasters which

have performed better.

140
 It should be noted that the averaging of the three (3) trials per

plastering material was done after getting their total equivalent points wherein

the weights were already incorporated.

5.5.6.1 Number of Sides with Cracks

The rating given to the plasters under this category was 1 to 6. Table

5.9 below shows the points given according to how many faces of the plaster

cube specimens had evident cracks on its surface. One could see that more

points are given to plaster specimens which have fewer sides with cracks

while lesser points for plaster specimens with more sides that have cracks.

Table 5.9 Number of Sides with Cracks Point System

Points Number of Sides with Cracks
1 6 sides
2 5 sides
3 4 sides
4 3 sides
5 2 sides
6 1 side

The respective points given for each of the specimens were multiplied

to 0.2 in order to get their respective equivalent points.

141
5.5.6.2 Degree of Failure in Plasters

Under this category, a rating of 1 to 5 was given to the plasters. In

doing the crack evaluation for this category, the group compared the different

appearances of the plaster specimens’ failure. From there, the specimens

were grouped together according to which had similar degrees of failure.

Table 5.10 shows the rating system used in describing the plasters’ degree of

failure to serve as a guide as to how the researchers classified very severe,

severe, moderate, mild, and very mild.

Table 5.10 Degree of Failure Rating System

Degree of
Rating Failure Figure Reference Remarks
Description

 Total Crushing of the

Figure 29b, Figure Specimen
30b, Figure 31a,  At least one face of
1 Very Severe the specimens was
Figure 31c, Figure
32b detached after the
induced load was
applied
Figure 27a, Figure  Partial Crushing of the
27c, Figure 29a, Specimen
2 Severe  Corners of the
Figure 29c, Figure
31b specimens were
detached
 Refers to long and
thick crack formation
Figure 26b, Figure on different faces of
3 Moderate 30c, Figure32a, the specimens
Figure 32c  Some of the cracks
formed appear in
vertical or in diagonal
direction

142
 Degree of
Rating Failure Figure Reference Remarks
Description

 Refers to short and

thin crack formation on
Figure 25a, Figure different faces of the
26a, Figure 26c, specimens
4 Mild
Figure 27b, Figure  Some of the cracks
28b, Figure 30a formed appear in
vertical and horizontal
direction
 Refers to hairline
crack formation on
Figure 25b, Figure different faces of the
5 Very Mild 25c, Figure 28a, specimens
Figure 28c  Any cracks that do not
look as serious and as
critical as the other
types of crack ratings

The respective points given for each of the specimens was multiplied to

0.2 in order to obtain the equivalent points with respect to the degree of

failure.

5.5.6.3 Crack Length

In this category, the point classification for the rating system used for

crack length evaluation is listed in Table 5.11 below.

Table 5.11 Crack Length Rating System

POINTS CRACK LENGTH DEFINITION
1 Very Long
2 Long
3 Medium
4 Short
5 Very Short

143
 It should be noted that in evaluating the crack length of the specimens,

there was no crack comparator used but just the visual judgment of the

researchers of this study. Another important idea to consider in this crack

evaluation is that not all of the cracks in the specimen can be generally

treated to be long or short because each of the faces of the specimens have

varying crack lengths. Hence, the group evaluated each face of the

specimens and accumulated the points earned based from the crack length

rating system previously discussed.

The formula used in order to compute for the total equivalent point of

the specimens for crack length is presented in Equation 6 below.

(Equation 6)

Each face of the specimen was observed in order to obtain the value

for the accumulated points for the crack lengths seen. In general, the higher

the value earned in this category means that more long cracks were observed

in the specimen. A perfect score of 100 was set wherein the total

accumulated points is deducted. Likewise, the perfect score served as the

benchmark of the lowest performing plaster in terms of crack length.

With the use of Equation 6, the resulting points earned means that a

higher point is earned when less accumulated points is subtracted from it.

144
 Likewise, less accumulated points mean that shorter crack lengths are

observed from the specimen.

5.5.6.4 Crack Width

Under this category, a rating of 1 to 5 was given to the plaster

specimens and the respective points given are all included in Table 5.12

below.

Table 5.12 Crack Width Rating System

POINTS CRACK WIDTH DEFINITION
1 Very Thick
2 Thick
3 Medium
4 Thin
5 Very Very

The rating system used in this category was very much similar to that

of the crack length. Wherein, visual judgment was applied. Similar concept of

point designation was also used, where the highest value obtained would be

the benchmark of lowest performing plasters in terms of crack width. Equation

8 was also used in solving for the equivalent points of the specimens.

145

View publication stats