Evaluation of roughcast on the adhesion mechanisms of mortars on ceramic substrates

  • Euzébio Bernabé ZanelatoEmail author
  • Jonas Alexandre
  • Afonso Rangel Garcez de Azevedo
  • Markssuel Teixeira Marvila
Original Article


Buildings frequently suffer from the low durability of external coating layers that use mortar. Low durability can be caused by a low efficiency of the adhesion between the coating mortar and the substrate, which may be ceramic, concrete, natural stone or other material. The application of the roughcast is often used empirically to increase adhesion, however, there are few studies to support this practice. The objective of this study was to analyze the adhesion mechanisms between the substrate and the mortar layer, evaluating tensile bond strength implications beyond the microstructure in the transition zone. Two conventional mortar coatings were used, applied on two ceramic substrates fired at 700 °C and 950 °C, besides the application or not of the intermediate adhesion system (roughcast). Both mortars and ceramic blocks were characterized according to the main testing standards. The tensile bond strength was performed for all the combinations proposed. The heat of hydration of samples of the roughcast was also analyzed. The results indicated that the adoption of the intermediary adhesion mechanisms between the ceramic substrate and the mortar, referred to as “Roughcast”, significantly increased the tensile bond strength and altered the type of rupture in the test. The composition of the mortar as well as the firing temperature of the ceramic substrate also influenced the strength conditions.


Adhesion Mortar Ceramic block Roughcast 



Funding was provided by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (Grant No. 2200).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest in this study.


  1. 1.
    Botas S, Veiga R, Velosa A (2017) Mater Struct 50:211. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Malheiro R, Meira G, Lima M, Perazzo N (2011) Influence of mortar rendering on chloride penetration into concrete structures. Cement Concr Compos 33(2):233–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nogueira R, Pinto APF, Gomes A (2018) Design and behavior of traditional lime-based plasters and renders. Rev Crit Apprais Strengths Weaknesses Cem Concr Compos 89:192–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Recena FAP (2008) Knowing mortar. Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS, p 192 (in Portuguese)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bertrand L, Maximilien S, Guyonnet R (2004) Wedge splitting test: a test to measure the polysaccharide influence on adhesion of mortar on its substrate. In: Proceedings of the 11th international congress on polymers in concrete. Berlin, pp 569–576Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jenni A, Holzer L, Zurbriggen R, Herwegh M (2005) Influence of polymers on microstructure and adhesive strength of cementitious tile adhesive mortars. Cem Concr Res 35:35–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Govin A, Bartholin M, Biasotti B, Giudici M, Langella V, Grosseau P (2016) Modification of water retention and rheological properties of fresh cement-based mortars by guar gum derivatives. Constr Build Mater 122:772–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cardoso FA, John VM, Pileggi RG, Banfill PFG (2014) Characterization of rendering mortars by squeeze-flow and rotational rheometry. Cem Concr Res 57:79–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stolz CM, Masuero AB (2015) Analysis of main parameters affecting substrate/mortar contact area through tridimensional laser scanner. J Colloid Interface Sci 455:16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Becker FA, Andrade JJDO (2017) The influence of concrete substrate in adhesive strength of different types of slurry mortar. Matéria (Rio J.), Rio de Janeiro 22(4):e-11906. (In Portuguese)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ramos NMM, Simões ML, Delgado JMPQ, de Freitas VP (2012) Reliability of the pull-off test in situ evaluation of adhesion strength. Constr Build Mater 31:86–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kanning RC, Portella KF, Bragança MOGP, Bonato MM, dos Santos JCM (2014) Banana leaves ashes as pozzolan for concrete and mortar of Portland cement. Constr Build Mater 54:460–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Condeixa Karina, Haddad Assed, Boer Dieter (2014) Life cycle impact assessment of masonry system as inner walls: a case study in Brazil. Constr Build Mater 70:141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Abadie M, Limam K, Allard F (2001) Indoor particle pollution: effect of wall textures on particle deposition. Build Environ 36(7):821–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ji Y, Duanmu L, Li X (2017) Building air leakage analysis for individual apartments in North China. Build Environ 122:105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Walker R, Pavía S (2018) Thermal and moisture monitoring of an internally insulated historic brick wall. Build Environ 133:178–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grandes FA, Sakano VK, Rego ACA, Cardoso FA, Pileggi RG (2018) Squeeze flow coupled with dynamic pressure mapping for the rheological evaluation of cement-based mortars. Cem Concr Compos 92:18–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Silva BA, Ferreira Pinto AP, Gomes A (2014) Influence of natural hydraulic lime content on the properties of aerial lime-based mortars. Constr Build Mater 72:208–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carasek H, Japiassú P, Cascudo O, Velosa A (2014) Bond between 19th Century lime mortars and glazed ceramic tiles. Constr Build Mater 59:85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Azevedo ARG, França BR, Alexandre J, Marvila MT, Zanelato EB, Xavier GC (2018) Influence of sintering temperature of a ceramic substrate in mortar adhesion for civil construction. J Build Eng 19:342–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hendrickx R, Roels S, Van Balen K (2010) Measuring the water capacity and transfer properties of fresh mortar. Cem Concr Res 40(12):1650–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hemalatha MS, Santhanam M (2018) Characterizing supplementary cementing materials in blended mortars. Constr Build Mater 191:440–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    ABNT NBR 16697 (2018) Portland cement—requirementsGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    ABNT NBR 7175 (2003) Hydrated lime for mortars—requirementsGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Barros SVA, Marciano JEA, Ferreira HC, Menezes RR, de Araújo Neves G (2016) Addition of quartzite residues on mortars: analysis of the alkali aggregate reaction and the mechanical behavior. Constr Build Mater 118:344–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    de Azevedo ARG, Alexandre J, Zanelato EB, Marvila MT (2017) Influence of incorporation of glass waste on the rheological properties of adhesive mortar. Constr Build Mater 148:359–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Casali JM et al (2018) Caracterização e influência do teor do resíduo de areia de fundição fenólica em argamassas de revestimento. Ambient Constr [online] 18(1):261–279MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    ABNT NBR 13276 (2016) Mortars applied on walls and ceilings—determination of the consistence indexGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Farinha C, de Brito J, Veiga R et al (2016) Mater Struct 49:1605. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Arizzi A, Banfill PFG (2019) Mater Struct 52:8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cardoso FA, Fujii AL, Pileggi RG, Chaouche M (2015) Parallel-plate rotational rheometry of cement paste: influence of the squeeze velocity during gap positioning. Cem Concr Res 75:66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mantellato S, Palacios M, Flatt RJ (2019) Mater Struct 52:5. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ramesh M, Azenha M, Lourenço PB (2019) Mater Struct 52:13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    ABNT NBR 13277 (2005) Mortars applied on walls and ceilings—determination of the water retentivityGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    ASTM C1506 (2017) Standard test method for water retention of hydraulic cement-based mortars and plastersGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    ABNT NBR 13278 (2005) Mortars applied on walls and ceilings—determination of the specific gravity and the air entrained content in the fresh stageGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    ABNT NBR NM 47 (2002) Concrete—determination of air content of freshly mixed concrete—pressure methodGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    ASTM C231 (2017) Standard test method for air content of freshly mixed concrete by the pressure methodGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    ABNT NBR 13279 (2005) Mortars applied on walls and ceilings—determination of the flexural and the compressive strength in the hardened stageGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    ASTM C348 (2018) Standard test method for flexural strength of hydraulic-cement mortarsGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    ASTM C349 (2018) Standard test method for compressive strength of hydraulic-cement mortars (using portions of prisms broken in flexure)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bidoung JC, Pliya P, Meukam P et al (2016) Mater Struct 49:4991. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pardo F, Jordan MM, Montero MA (2018) Ceramic behaviour of clays in Central Chile. Appl Clay Sci 157:158–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ioannou I, Charalambous C, Hall C (2017) Mater Struct 50:208. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    ASTM C67 (2018) Standard test methods for sampling and testing brick and structural clay tileGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    ABNT NBR 13528 (2010) Render made of inorganic mortars applied on walls—determination of bond tensile bond strengthGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    ASTM C1702 (2017) Standard test method for measurement of heat of hydration of hydraulic cementitious materials using isothermal conduction calorimetryGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UENF - State University of the Northern Rio de Janeiro, LECIV – Civil Engineering LaboratoryCampos Dos GoytacazesBrazil

Personalised recommendations