# The Use of Fibreglass Mesh in the Experimental Characterisation of Applied Coating Mortars

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{5}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. Materials

#### 2.2. Methods

- For first 2 days, in the case of cement and hydraulic lime mortars, and for the first 5 days, in the case of air lime mortar: temperature of 20 °C +/− 2 °C, relative humidity of 95% +/− 5% or in a polyethylene bag (in the mould);
- Following 5 days (for cement and hydraulic lime mortars, the following 2 days), in the case of air lime mortar: temperature of 20 °C +/− 2 °C, relative humidity of 95% +/− 5% or in a polyethylene bag (without the mould);
- Remaining 21 days (for cement and hydraulic lime mortars, remaining 83 days), in the case of air lime mortar: temperature of 20 °C +/− 2 °C, relative humidity of 65% +/− 5% (without the mould).

- Bulk density and open porosity

_{s}). Then, they were immersed in water until saturation, for 48 h, and were weighed while immersed (M

_{h}) (hydrostatic weighing). After that, they were removed from the water, the excess water was removed, and they were weighed again to obtain the saturated mass (M

_{sat}).

- BD is the bulk density in kg/m
^{3}; - M
_{s}is the mass of the dry specimen, in g; - M
_{h}is the mass of the specimen immersed in water, in g; - M
_{sat}is the mass of the saturated specimen, in g; - ρrh is the density of water at room temperature, in kg/m
^{3}; - OP is the open porosity in %.

- Capillary water absorption coefficient

- ∆m’
_{tf}is the mass change, per unit area, on the straight line, at time t_{f}, in kg/m^{2}; - ∆m’
_{0}is the mass change, per unit area, at the intersection of the straight line with the mass change axis, in kg/m^{2}; - t
_{f}is the time elapsed between the start and end of the straight portion of the test curve, in seconds.

- Water vapour permeability

- G is the water vapour flow rate, in kg/s;
- m
_{2}− m_{1}is the change in mass after the steady-state diffusion current is established, in kg; - t
_{2}− t_{1}is the time interval corresponding to the mass change, in s.

- g is the density of water vapour flow rate in kg/(s·m
^{2}); - G is the water vapour flow rate, in kg/s;
- A is the sample area, in m².

- p
_{sat}is the saturation pressure at the test temperature (23 °C), in Pa; - ∅
_{1}–∅_{2}is the difference between the relative humidity values inside and outside the test cup, in %.

- δ is the water vapour permeability, in kg/(m·s·Pa);
- W is the water vapour permeance, in kg/(m²·s·Pa);
- d is the thickness of the specimens, in m.

- Drying index

- t
_{i}is the test time i, in hours; - W
_{i}is the moisture content at time i, in %; - t
_{f}is the final test time, in hours.

- Percentage and distribution of pore sizes was determined through mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP)

- Compressive strength

- R
_{c}is the compressive strength, in MPa; - F
_{c}is the compressive failure load, in N; - S is the load application area, in mm
^{2}.

## 3. Results and Discussion

- Pores larger than 10 microns—these usually have no relevant influence on water capillarity and are often closed; so, in addition to not influencing the water transport in general, they may also be interparticle voids, influencing vapour transport but not liquid water capillary transport in a significant way.
- Capillary pores—between 0.0025 and 10 microns (controlling water capillary transport).

- Large capillary pores—between 0.050 and 10 microns (high effect on capillarity);
- Medium capillary pores—between 0.010 and 0.050 microns (small effect on permeability);
- Small capillary pores, or gel pores, affecting mainly the shrinkage and characteristics of the hydrated cement matrixes.
- For each type of mortar, the results are represented graphically, with the pore sizes vs the differential mercury intrusion, which allows for the evaluation of the volume of the pores for each one of the ranges of pore diameters described above.

#### 3.1. Cement Mortar

#### 3.2. Hydraulic Lime Mortar

#### 3.3. Industrial Air Lime Mortar

## 4. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Veiga, M.R. Behaviour of Renderings Mortars: Contribution for the Research in Cracking Resistance. Ph.D. Thesis, Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal, 1998. (In Portuguese). [Google Scholar]
- Magalhães, A. Pathology of Old Plasters; Cadernos Edifícios, n.
^{o}2; LNEC: Lisboa, Portugal, 2002. [Google Scholar] - Nicot, P. Interactions Mortier-Support: Éléments Déterminants des Performances et de L’adhérence D’un Mortier. Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Costa, E.B.C.; John, V.M. Substrate-cement matrix adhesion-state of the art. In IX Simpósio Brasileiro de Tecnologia de Argamassas; GT Argamassas: Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2011. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar]
- LNEC. Recommendations for the Execution of External Mortar Coatings; Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil: Lisboa, Portugal, 1968. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar]
- Flores-Colen, I. Methodology for Evaluating the Performance in Service of Plastered Facades from the Perspective of Predictive Maintenance. Ph.D. Thesis, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisboa, Portugal, 2009. (In Portuguese). [Google Scholar]
- Martins, A. Study of the Influence of Cement Dosage on the Performance of Plastering Mortars. Master’s Thesis, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisboa, Portugal, 2008. (In Portuguese). [Google Scholar]
- Bellei, P.; Arromba, J.; Flores-Colen, I.; Veiga, R.; Torres, I. Influence of brick and concrete substrates on the performance of renders using in-situ testing techniques. J. Build. Eng.
**2021**, 43, 102871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Torres, I.; Veiga, R.; Freitas, V. Influence of substrate characteristics on behaviour of applied mortar. J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
**2018**, 30, 04018254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Freitas, V.P.; Corvacho, H.; Sá, A.; Quintela, M.A. Discussing the Durability Assessment of Cement Mortars—A Contribution for a Prediction Model. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Durability of Building Material and Components (11DBMC), Istambul, Turkey, 11–14 May 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Flores-Colen, I.; de Brito, J.; Branco, F. In Situ Adherence Evaluation of Coating Materials. Exp. Tech.
**2009**, 33, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Malva, M. Rendering Mortars for Old Buildings Contribute to the Evaluation of Their Performance through In Situ and Laboratory Test Techniques. Master’s Thesis, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisboa, Portugal, 2009. (In Portuguese). [Google Scholar]
- Silva, L.; Ferreira, V.M.; Vera, F. Influence of parameters associated with the mixing and application of a monolayer coating, with air introducer, on the properties of paste mortar and hardened. In 2nd International Symposium on Pathology, Durability and Rehabilitation of Buildings. GECoRPA; CIB W86; LNEC: Lisbon, Portugal, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Romano, C.; Schreurs, H.; Silva, F.; Cardoso, F.; Barros, M.; Pileggi, R.; John, V. Effect of the mixing procedure on the characteristics of industrialized coating mortars. In 3rd Portuguese Congress of Construction Mortars; National Civil Engineering Laboratory: Lisbon, Portugal, 2010. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar]
- Palmer, L.A.; Parsons, D.A. A study of the properties of mortars and bricks and their relation to bond. Bur. Stand. J. Res.
**1934**, 12, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Grandet, J. Contribution h L’dtude de la Liaison entre la Pdte de Ciment Portland et les Terres Cuites. Doctoral Thesis, l’Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France, 1971. [Google Scholar]
- Costa, E.B.C.; John, V.M. Adhesion substrate-matrix—State of the art. In IX SBTA; ANTAC: Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2011. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar]
- Carvalho, A.N., Jr. Evaluation of the Adhesion of Mortared Coatings: A Contribution to the Identification of the Mechanical Adhesion System. Ph.D. Thesis, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2002. (In Portuguese). [Google Scholar]
- Silveira, D.; Gonçalves, A.; Flores-Colen, I.; Veiga, R.; Torres, I.; Travincas, R. Evaluation of in-service performance factors of renders based on in-situ testing techniques. J. Build. Eng.
**2020**, 34, 101806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Torres, I.; Flores-Colen, I.; Travincas, R.; Silveira, D. Study of Different Sand Particle Size in Cement Mortars after Application in Ceramic Brick Substrate, Construction, Energy, Environment E Sustainability; CEES: Coimbra, Portugal, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Torres, I.; Travincas, R.; Flores-Colen, I.; Bellei, P. The Influence of Ceramic Brick Support on Water Resistance in Applied Industrial Mortar. Construction, Energy, Environment E Sustainability; CEES: Coimbra, Portugal, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- EN1015-11; Methods of Test for Mortar for Masonry—Part 11: Determination of Flexural and Compressive Strength of Hardened Mortar. EN: Brussels, Belgium, 1999.
- NP EN 1936; Test Methods for Natural Stone. Determination of Real and Bulk Density and Total and Open Porosity. IPQ: Caparica, Portugal, 2008. (In Portuguese)
- ISO 15091; Evaluation of Pore size Distribution and Porosity of Solid Materials by Mercury Porosimetry and Gas Adsorption—Mercury Porosimetry. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
- NP EN ISO 15148; Hygrothermal Performance of Building Materials and Products—Determination of Water Absorption Coefficient by Partial Immersion. CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2002.
- EN 16322; Conservation of Cultural Heritage; Test Methods; Determination of drying Properties. CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2013.
- NP EN ISO 12572; Hygrothermal Performance of Building Materials and Products–Determination of Water Vapour Transmission Properties. CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
- Falco, J.G. Applied Statistics; EdUFMT/UFPR: Cuiabá/Curitiba, Brazil, 2008. (In Portuguese) [Google Scholar]
- Pipilikaki, P.; Beazi-Katsioti, M. The assessment of porosity and pore size distribution of limestone portland cement pastes. Constr. Build. Mater.
**2009**, 23, 1966–1970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 1.**Substrates: hollow ceramic brick (

**a**); solid ceramic brick (

**b**); concrete slab (

**c**); lightweight concrete block (

**d**); natural stone slab (

**e**).

**Figure 3.**Substrates preparation: with the fibreglass mesh (

**a**); without the fibreglass mesh (

**b**); wetting the application surface of the hollow ceramic bricks substrates (

**c**).

**Figure 4.**Mortar–substrate specimens: levelling the coating surface (

**a**); mortar applied to the substrate (

**b**); specimens marked on the coating layer (

**c**).

**Figure 5.**Porosimetry properties obtained by mercury intrusion of cement mortar applied to hollow ceramic brick substrate, with and without mesh.

**Figure 6.**Porosimetry properties obtained by mercury intrusion of cement mortar applied to concrete slab substrate, with and without mesh.

**Figure 7.**Porosimetry properties obtained by mercury intrusion of cement mortar applied to lightweight concrete block substrate, with and without mesh.

**Figure 8.**Porosimetry properties obtained via mercury intrusion of hydraulic lime mortar applied to hollow ceramic brick substrate, with and without mesh.

**Figure 9.**Porosimetry properties obtained by mercury intrusion of hydraulic lime mortar applied to concrete slab substrate, with and without mesh.

**Figure 10.**Porosimetry properties obtained by mercury intrusion of hydraulic lime mortar applied to lightweight concrete block substrate, with and without mesh.

**Figure 11.**Porosimetry properties obtained by mercury intrusion of hydraulic lime mortar applied to solid ceramic brick substrate, with and without mesh.

**Figure 12.**Porosimetry properties obtained by mercury intrusion of hydraulic lime mortar applied to natural stone substrate, with and without mesh.

**Figure 13.**Porosimetry properties obtained by mercury intrusion of air lime mortar applied to solid ceramic brick substrate, with and without mesh.

**Figure 14.**Porosimetry properties obtained by mercury intrusion of air lime mortar applied to natural stone substrate, with and without mesh.

Mortar | Hollow Ceramic Brick | Solid Ceramic Brick | Concrete Slab | Lightweight Concrete Block | Natural Stone Slab |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

Cement | X | - | X | X | - |

Hydraulic lime | X | X | X | X | X |

Air lime | - | X | - | - | X |

Tests | Fibreglass Mesh | No. of Specimens | Mean Value | CV (%) | Means Difference | p-Value * |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Bulk density (kg/m^{3}) | Without | 3 | 1944 | 0.6 | +1% | 0.48 |

With | 3 | 1951 | 0.5 | |||

Open porosity (%) | Without | 3 | 16.9 | 0.0 | −5% | 0.10 |

With | 3 | 16.1 | 3.1 | |||

Capillarity water absorption coefficient (kg/(m^{2}·s^{0.5})) | Without | 3 | 0.32 | 2.4 | −25% | 0.06 |

With | 3 | 0.24 | 14.1 | |||

Drying index | Without | 3 | 0.17 | 19.7 | +11% | 0.42 |

With | 3 | 0.19 | 0.8 | |||

Compressive strength (MPa) | Without | 3 | 23.6 | 14.5 | −10% | 0.39 |

With | 3 | 21.4 | 4.9 |

Tests | Fibreglass Mesh | No. of Specimens | Mean Value | CV (%) | Means Difference | p-Value * |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Bulk density (kg/m^{3}) | Without | 3 | 1844.47 | 0.9 | +1% | 0.30 |

With | 3 | 1857.30 | 0.4 | |||

Open porosity (%) | Without | 3 | 19.53 | 1.6 | −3% | 0.10 |

With | 3 | 19.07 | 1.2 | |||

Capillarity water absorption coefficient (kg/(m^{2}·s^{0.5})) | Without | 3 | 0.270 | 3.4 | −20% | 0.11 |

With | 3 | 0.220 | 14.4 | |||

Drying index | Without | 3 | 0.121 | 9.3 | −34% | 0.10 |

With | 3 | 0.090 | 22.4 | |||

Water vapour permeability coefficient (kg/(m·s·Pa)) | Without | 2 | 1.42 × 10^{−11} | 1.9 | −7% | 0.35 |

With | 2 | 1.32 × 10^{−11} | 6.4 | |||

Compressive strength (MPa) | Without | 3 | 11.51 | 13.1 | +17% | 0.40 |

With | 3 | 13.47 | 23.1 |

Tests | Fibreglass Mesh | No. of Specimens | Mean Value | CV (%) | Means Difference | p-Value * |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Bulk density (kg/m^{3}) | Without | 4 | 1885.05 | 1.0 | −1% | 0.81 |

With | 6 | 1882.47 | 0.5 | |||

Open porosity (%) | Without | 4 | 19.98 | 1.2 | +1% | 0.69 |

With | 6 | 20.12 | 3.1 | |||

Capillarity water absorption coefficient (kg/(m^{2}·s^{0.5})) | Without | 3 | 0.280 | 11.2 | 1% | 0.91 |

With | 3 | 0.28 | 3.2 | |||

Drying index | Without | 3 | 0.13 | 13.2 | −34% | 0.24 |

With | 3 | 0.103 | 31.2 | |||

Compressive strength (MPa) | Without | 4 | 12.64 | 6.4 | 4% | 0.59 |

With | 6 | 12.19 | 14.2 |

Sample | 0.0025 μm < ø < 0.01 μm | 0.01 μm < ø < 0.05 μm | 0.05 μm < ø < 10 μm | ø > 10 μm |
---|---|---|---|---|

(mL/g) | (mL/g) | (mL/g) | (mL/g) | |

Hollow brick—without mesh | 0.0070 | 0.1440 | 0.3411 | 0.1646 |

Hollow brick—with mesh | 0.0117 | 0.1159 | 0.6022 | 0.1364 |

Concrete slab—without mesh | 0.0000 | 0.0440 | 0.3524 | 0.2161 |

Concrete slab—with mesh | 0.0476 | 0.1331 | 1.4634 | 1.0686 |

Lightweight concrete block—without mesh | 0.0012 | 0.1373 | 0.8058 | 0.0446 |

Lightweight concrete block—with mesh | 0.0269 | 0.1241 | 0.7064 | 0.0442 |

Tests | Fibreglass Mesh | No. of Specimens | Mean | CV (%) | Means Difference | p-Value * |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Bulk density (kg/m^{3}) | Without | 3 | 1898.73 | 0.7 | 1% | 0.38 |

With | 3 | 1889.63 | 0.5 | |||

Open porosity (%) | Without | 3 | 22.40 | 1.6 | 5% | 0.02 |

With | 3 | 21.20 | 2.2 | |||

Capillarity water absorption coefficient (kg/(m^{2}·s^{0.5})) | Without | 3 | 0.46 | 9.3 | 10% | 0.21 |

With | 3 | 0.42 | 5.8 | |||

Drying index | Without | 3 | 0.19 | 22.2 | 24% | 0.19 |

With | 3 | 0.24 | 9.1 | |||

Water vapour permeability coefficient (kg/(m·s·Pa)) | Without | 2 | 1.83 × 10^{−11} | 3.6 | 1% | 0.85 |

With | 3 | 1.85 × 10^{−11} | 7.4 | |||

Compressive strength (MPa) | Without | 3 | 11.16 | 5.4 | 17% | 0.46 |

With | 3 | 9.52 | 32.4 |

Tests | Fibreglass Mesh | No. of Specimens | Mean | CV (%) | Means Difference | p-Value * |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Bulk density (kg/m^{3}) | With | 3 | 1876.60 | 0.6 | 1% | 0.08 |

Without | 3 | 1856.67 | 0.5 | |||

Open porosity (%) | With | 3 | 22.03 | 0.7 | 3% | 0.08 |

Without | 3 | 21.43 | 1.8 | |||

Capillarity water absorption coefficient (kg/(m^{2}·s^{0.5})) | With | 3 | 0.38 | 11.0 | 2% | 0.78 |

Without | 3 | 0.37 | 8.9 | |||

Drying index | With | 3 | 0.11 | 0.5 | 3% | 0.45 |

Without | 3 | 0.11 | 4.4 | |||

Compressive strength (MPa) | With | 3 | 8.50 | 20.2 | 18% | 0.34 |

Without | 3 | 7.04 | 22.8 |

Tests | Fibreglass Mesh | No. of Specimens | Mean | CV (%) | Means Difference | p-Value * |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Bulk density (kg/m^{3}) | With | 5 | 1854.98 | 0.9 | 1% | 0.84 |

Without | 4 | 1857.40 | 1.0 | |||

Open porosity (%) | With | 5 | 23.30 | 1.5 | 3% | 0.36 |

Without | 4 | 23.53 | 1.4 | |||

Capillarity water absorption coefficient (kg/(m^{2}·s^{0.5})) | With | 3 | 0.44 | 4.4 | 6% | 0.17 |

Without | 3 | 0.47 | 5.0 | |||

Drying index | With | 3 | 0.13 | 12.9 | 3% | 0.97 |

Without | 3 | 0.13 | 18.4 | |||

Water vapour permeability coefficient (kg/(m·s·Pa)) | With | 5 | 1.58 × 10^{−11} | 6.1 | 1% | 0.62 |

Without | 4 | 1.61 × 10^{−11} | 2.9 | |||

Compressive strength (MPa) | With | 5 | 6.46 | 14.7 | 2% | 0.87 |

Without | 3 | 6.33 | 18.5 |

Tests | Fibreglass Mesh | No. of Specimens | Mean | CV (%) | Means Difference | p-Value * |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Bulk density (kg/m^{3}) | With | 3 | 1761.90 | 2.0 | 1% | 0.46 |

Without | 3 | 1782.97 | 1.5 | |||

Open porosity (%) | With | 3 | 23.04 | 3.2 | 3% | 0.66 |

Without | 3 | 22.61 | 5.8 | |||

Capillarity water absorption coefficient (kg/(m^{2}·s^{0.5})) | With | 3 | 0.29 | 33.9 | 17% | 0.42 |

Without | 3 | 0.35 | 8.2 | |||

Drying index | With | 3 | 0.15 | 7.5 | 45% | 0.03 |

Without | 3 | 0.11 | 16.7 | |||

Compressive strength (MPa) | With | 3 | 3.55 | 32.7 | 2% | 0.90 |

Without | 3 | 3.66 | 22.9 |

Tests | Fibreglass Mesh | No. of Specimens | Mean | CV (%) | Means Difference | p-Value * |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Bulk density (kg/m^{3}) | With | 3 | 1775.51 | 0.9 | 1% | 0.75 |

Without | 3 | 1778.96 | 0.5 | |||

Open porosity (%) | With | 3 | 21.46 | 1.9 | 5% | 0.01 |

Without | 3 | 22.78 | 0.7 | |||

Capillarity water absorption coefficient (kg/(m^{2}·s^{0.5})) | With | 4 | 0.27 | 2.6 | 10% | 0.23 |

Without | 3 | 0.30 | 10.3 | |||

Drying index | With | 4 | 0.17 | 16.6 | 32% | 0.06 |

Without | 3 | 0.13 | 4.5 | |||

Compressive strength (MPa) | With | 3 | 9.90 | 20.2 | 60% | 0.04 |

Without | 3 | 4.03 | 16.3 |

Sample | 0.0025 μm < ø < 0.01 μm | 0.01 μm < ø < 0.05 μm | 0.05 μm < ø < 10 μm | ø > 10 μm |
---|---|---|---|---|

(mL/g) | (mL/g) | (mL/g) | (mL/g) | |

hollow ceramic brick—without mesh | 00000 | 0.0000 | 0.0019 | 0.1328 |

hollow ceramic brick—with mesh | 0.0086 | 0.0963 | 0.8723 | 0.1258 |

concrete slab—without mesh | 0.0000 | 0.0939 | 1.0072 | 0.1583 |

concrete slab—with mesh | 0.0159 | 0.0447 | 0.9132 | 0.1404 |

lightweight concrete block—without mesh | 0.0020 | 0.1044 | 1.1603 | 0.0811 |

lightweight concrete block—with mesh | 0.0159 | 0.0448 | 1.0371 | 0.0321 |

solid ceramic brick—without mesh | 0.0000 | 0.0266 | 0.3415 | 0.3830 |

solid ceramic brick—with mesh | 0.0044 | 0.0639 | 0.5554 | 0.4157 |

natural stone—without mesh | 0.0000 | 0.0554 | 0.4732 | 0.3256 |

natural stone—with mesh | 0.0054 | 0.0698 | 0.6491 | 0.4074 |

Tests | Fibreglass Mesh | No. of Specimens | Mean | CV (%) | Means Difference | p-Value * |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Bulk density (kg/m^{3}) | With | 3 | 1647.25 | 0.5 | 2% | <0.01 |

Without | 3 | 1605.22 | 0.6 | |||

Open porosity (%) | With | 3 | 23.55 | 6.1 | 1% | 0.95 |

Without | 3 | 23.60 | 0.7 | |||

Capillarity water absorption coefficient (kg/(m^{2}·s^{0.5})) | With | 4 | 0.01 | 11.9 | 37% | 0.09 |

Without | 3 | 0.01 | 14.9 | |||

Drying index | With | 3 | 0.20 | 5.5 | 28% | <0.01 |

Without | 3 | 0.15 | 1.5 | |||

Water vapour permeability coefficient (kg/(m·s·Pa)) | With | 2 | 0.95 × 10^{−11} | 5.4 | 18% | 0.01 |

Without | 3 | 1.16 × 10^{−11} | 2.4 | |||

Compressive strength (MPa) | With | 3 | 15.47 | 78.3 | 42% | 0.48 |

Without | 3 | 10.90 | 49.4 |

Tests | Fibreglass Mesh | No. of Specimens | Mean | CV (%) | Means Difference | p-Value * |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Bulk density (kg/m^{3}) | With | 4 | 1631.17 | 1.4 | 2% | 0.43 |

Without | 3 | 1618.79 | 0.9 | |||

Open porosity (%) | With | 4 | 23.48 | 1.4 | 23% | <0.01 |

Without | 3 | 19.05 | 1.1 | |||

Capillarity water absorption coefficient (kg/(m^{2}·s^{0.5})) | With | 3 | 0.01 | 2.9 | 10% | 0.07 |

Without | 3 | 0.01 | 6.0 | |||

Drying index | With | 3 | 0.19 | 9.9 | 41% | <0.01 |

Without | 3 | 0.14 | 10.4 | |||

Water vapour permeability coefficient (kg/(m·s·Pa)) | With | 3 | 1.28 × 10^{−11} | 4.9 | 6% | 0.13 |

Without | 2 | 1.36 × 10^{−11} | 3.7 | |||

Compressive strength (MPa) | With | 3 | 21.84 | 30.2 | 96% | 0.09 |

Without | 3 | 11.12 | 31.7 |

Sample | 0.0025 μm < ø < 0.01 μm | 0.01 μm < ø < 0.05 μm | 0.05 μm < ø < 10 μm | ø > 10 μm |
---|---|---|---|---|

(mL/g) | (mL/g) | (mL/g) | (mL/g) | |

solid ceramic brick—without mesh | 0.0000 | 0.1760 | 1.1282 | 0.0938 |

solid ceramic brick—with mesh | 0.0811 | 0.3143 | 1.3688 | 0.0549 |

natural stone—without mesh | 0.0000 | 0.1860 | 0.7173 | 0.5662 |

natural stone—with mesh | 0.0593 | 0.3796 | 1.2628 | 0.1515 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Travincas, R.; Bellei, P.; Torres, I.; Flores-Colen, I.; Matias, G.; Silveira, D.
The Use of Fibreglass Mesh in the Experimental Characterisation of Applied Coating Mortars. *Coatings* **2022**, *12*, 1091.
https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings12081091

**AMA Style**

Travincas R, Bellei P, Torres I, Flores-Colen I, Matias G, Silveira D.
The Use of Fibreglass Mesh in the Experimental Characterisation of Applied Coating Mortars. *Coatings*. 2022; 12(8):1091.
https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings12081091

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Travincas, Rafael, Poliana Bellei, Isabel Torres, Inês Flores-Colen, Gina Matias, and Dora Silveira.
2022. "The Use of Fibreglass Mesh in the Experimental Characterisation of Applied Coating Mortars" *Coatings* 12, no. 8: 1091.
https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings12081091