Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 786–795

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Physical performance of industrial and EPS and cork experimental

thermal insulation renders
M. Glória Gomes ⇑, Inês Flores-Colen, Humberto Melo, António Soares
CERIS, Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Georesources, Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Av Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal

h i g h l i g h t s

 Experimental campaign on industrial and experimental thermal renders.

 Formulations with EPS, cork, and several binders and admixtures.
 Physical properties at fresh and hardened states.
 Standard and non-standard specimens and brick-render models.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Nowadays, there is a concern in getting buildings with reduced environmental impact and improved
Received 24 October 2017 thermal and energy performance. The need to use new technologies to comply with the thermal require-
Received in revised form 17 November 2018 ments has been driven by the regulation for buildings. With this goal in mind, the use of thermal insu-
Accepted 19 November 2018
lation systems on facades has increased. In this context, renders with high thermal insulation
Available online 10 December 2018
performance have recently emerged on the market. This paper discusses the physical characteristics of
four industrial thermal renders, comparing with two experimental render mixtures in which sand is
Keywords:
replaced by aggregates with thermal insulating properties (EPS and cork) without any additions or
Thermal renders
Performance
admixtures. It is noticed a need to incorporate high ratios of aggregate with thermal characteristics to
Physical properties achieve thermal insulation renders, affecting other physical properties of the renders at both fresh (work-
Thermal conductivity ability, air content and bulk density) and hardened (water absorption under low pressure, capillary, dry
bulk density, open porosity and drying capacity) states.
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction conductivity below 0.05 W/m.K [6]. Lightweight aggregates can

The growing concerns with sustainability and more demanding
energy and environmental requirements in European directives
(2012/27/UE and 2010/30/UE [1,2]) promote energy efficiency
and nearly zero-energy buildings by the end of 2020. In order to
meet such goals, and taking into account the importance of energy
issues, more thermal insulation systems in buildings’ envelope
have been developed. A trend of thermal renders has recently been
observed in the industry to meet the objectives regarding build-
ings’ enhanced thermal performance [3,4] and standard require-
ments [5].
In order to improve renders’ thermal properties, innovative
solutions have been developed incorporating lightweight insulat-
ing materials, with density typically below 150 kg/m3 and thermal
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: maria.gloria.gomes@tecnico.ulisboa.pt (M.G. Gomes), ines.
flores.colen@tecnico.ulisboa.pt (I. Flores-Colen).
also be categorized according to their origin and transformation
process. Such categorization falls into inorganic (e.g. porous sedi-
mentary rocks; expanded glass; and expanded clay), and organic
(e.g. expanded polystyrene or cork) [7,8] materials. Also, the incor-
poration of innovative high thermal insulating aggregates has been
studied but its presence on the market is still at a low level [9,10].
Expanded polystyrene (EPS) and cork are one of the most used
lightweight aggregates in industrial thermal renders formulation.
Cork is a cellular, natural and renewable material, featuring low
thermal conductivity (0.035–0.07 W/m.K), slow combustion
(despite being an organic material), and good physical and
mechanical properties [11,12]. The cork good insulation properties
are related to its internal microstructure with closed and hollow
small cells, much smaller than common cell matter, filled with
air [13]. Previous research studies show that cork and render are
reciprocally compatible and new renders’ formulations can be
made by mixing cork in different quantity percentage [3,11,14].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.151
0950-0618/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M.G. Gomes et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 786–795 787

Karade et al. [14] studied the influence of cork granules size and
density (90–280 kg/m3) on the cement hydration and found that
large and medium granules size (2–3 mm; 1 mm) are more com-
patible with cement than fine granules, allowing incorporations
of up to 30% by mass of the binder. Panesar and Shindman [3] con-
cluded that higher percentages of cork (330–670 kg/m3) as sand
replacement had a beneficial impact on concrete thermal resis-
tance (46% of thermal resistance increase for 20% by volume cork
incorporation) but not directly correlated with size distribution
of cork granules (0.5–14 mm) for 10% by volume cork
incorporation.
Brás et al. [11] concluded that cork granules with bulk density
of 112.4 kg/m3 can decrease the thermal conductivity of conven-
tional cement render in 75% and the water capillary absorption
when sand is replaced by cork with percentage replacements by
mass of up to 80%. Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) is a rigid and resis-
tant thermoplastic polymer, with closed cells, which is used in con-
struction work. Given that it is composed of 98% air and 2% plastic
with low thermal conductivity (0.033–0.057 W/m.K), it features
outstanding thermal insulation properties [11,12,15–17].
Sayadi et al. [18] conclude that lower thermal conductivity was
reached with high volumes of EPS aggregate (bulk density of
16.6 kg/m3) replacements (thermal conductivity is 2.5 times higher
with 28% EPS than with 82% EPS volume replacement). Babu et al.
[19] reached to the conclusion that higher size and volumes of EPS
aggregates (bulk density of 9–23.6 kg/m3) in concrete induce
greater moisture migration and absorption phenomena. In that
study 2.36–6.3 mm EPS granules size and 20–50% of EPS replace-
ment in total volume were considered. Brás et al. [11] concluded
that EPS aggregates (bulk density of 16.7 kg/m3) can decrease the
thermal conductivity of conventional cement render in 60% when
sand is replaced by EPS with percentage replacements by mass of
up to 80%.
It is worth mentioning that according to EN 998-1 standard [5],
thermal renders should present thermal conductivity (k) less than
0.1 and 0.2 (W/m.K), categorized respectively as T1 and T2. The
physical performance of these renders to be used in external ele-
ments is also characterized by a capillary water absorption coeffi-
cient (C) lower or equal to 0.4 kg/(m2.min0.5) (W1 class), and by a
water vapour diffusion resistance coefficient (m) lower or equal to
15.
There are already several industrial thermal renders in the
European Market, with cork and EPS aggregates. Table 1 summa-
rizes the standard physical properties of some industrial thermal
renders available on the manufacturers’ technical documentation.
It is possible to observe in Table 1 that most of the thermal ren-
ders with cork and EPS aggregates in the European Market has T1
class (0.1 W/m.K [5]), presenting with 0.042 W/m.K as the lowest
value. This is in accordance with Barbero et al. [20] study that anal-
ysed thirty one thermal renders, most reaching T1 class, with a
minimum value of 0.055 W/m.K. The majority of the thermal ren-
ders of Table 1 has hydraulic binders. The collected data also shows
that not all thermal renders have declared values of capillary water
absorption, fire reaction, and to a lesser extent, of dry bulk density
and water vapour diffusion resistance. Nevertheless, it is possible
to conclude that most of thermal renders present low water vapour
diffusion resistance coefficient and dry bulk density (q of 130–
500 kg/m3). The majority of the thermal renders fulfils the water
vapour diffusion resistance standard requirements (m  15 [5]).
On the other hand, the information of the capillary water absorp-
tion of these thermal renders is scarce but most are suitable to
be used on external elements (C  0.40 kg/m2.min0.5 [5]).
In the present study, industrial and experimental thermal ren-
ders physical properties are studied on both specimens and
brick-renders models, applying standardized and expedient testing
techniques. This study contributes to discuss several physical prop-
erties (declared and non-declared on standards) and to enhance
the physical performance knowledge of thermal renders with cork
and EPS aggregates.
2. Experimental work
2.1. Renders and specimens production
The aim of the experimental programme was to make a com-
parative analysis of the physical characteristics of different renders
with improved thermal performance. In order to achieve this
objective, two experimental (FT(cork); GT(EPS)) and four industrial
thermal renders (AI(EPS); BI(EPS);CI(cork); DI(cork)) were produced
according to EN 196-1 standard [21]. A reference sand-based ren-
der was also produced (ET) for comparison purposes. The selected
renders compositions are summarized in Table 2. The 1:3 (cement:
sand) volumetric ratio was chosen for producing all experimental
renders for results comparison. In the course of the experimental
programme, to achieve lower values of thermal conductivity in
accordance with Brás et al. [11] and Sayadi et al. [18], cork and

Table 1
Examples of industrial cork and EPS based-thermal renders properties in the European Market.

Render (manufacturer) Binder Insulation aggregates q [kg/m3] CFR C [kg/m2.min0.5] l [–] k [W/m.K]
Diathonite evolution (Diasen) Hydraulic lime NHL 3,5 Cork; clay; diatomaceous earth 360 ± 20 A1 W2 4 0.045 (T1)
Diathonite acoustix (Diasen) Hydraulic binder Cork; clay; diatomaceous earth 470 ± 30 A1 W2 4 0.083 (T1)
Diathonite deumix (Diasen) Hydraulic lime NHL 5 Cork; clay; diatomaceous earth 450 ± 45 A1 W2 4 0.080 (T1)
ISODUR (Secil) Binder mix EPS 300 ± 50 B W2 <5 0.050 (T1)
RHP ECOCORK (Secil) Hydraulic binders Cork 900 ± 50 A2-S1, d0 W2 <15 T2
AISLON (Weber) Lime Lightweight and mineral fillers 150 ± 5 B s1 d0 <0,4 (W1) 5 0.042 (T1)
Fassa Bortolo KT 48 (Fassa Bartolo) Hydraulic binder EPS 500 0,4 (W1) 9 0.083 (T1)
Ardex Isolteco (Ardex) Hydraulic binder EPS 250 A2 s1 d0 W1 9 0.058 (T1)
THW Cork (Thermowall) Hydraulic binder Cork; silica based 825 ± 75 A1 W1 14 0.065 (T1)
CVR TERMOPOR (CVR) Hydraulic binder EPS 250 12 0.062 (T1)
Chiraema Asciugo Drywall (Chiraema) Hydraulic binder EPS 290 9 0.053 (T1)
ISOLCAP XX 500 (Edilteco) Hydraulic binder EPS 500 21 0.104 (T2)
ISOLTECO Light 110 (Edilteco) Hydraulic binder EPS 130 0.043 (T1)
Isolcap Speed 525 (Edilteco) Hydraulic binder EPS 21 0.095 (T1)
Isolcap Fein 300 (Edilteco) Hydraulic binder EPS 300 12 0.080 (T1)
Isolcap max 800 (Edilteco) Hydraulic binder EPS 815 0.176 (T2)
Edilteco protherm light (Edilteco) Hydraulic binder EPS 300 A1 9 0.079 (T1)

Caption: q – dry bulk density [kg/m ]; CFR – Class of fire reaction (A1 – non-combustible materials; A2 e B – combustible materials; s1 – smoke production class; d0 – no
3

flaming droplets; C - water absorption due to capillary [kg/m2.min0,5] (W0 – not specified; W1 – C  0,4 kg/m2.min0.5; W2 – C  0,2 kg/m2.min0.5); l – water vapour diffusion
resistance coefficient; k – thermal conductivity coefficient [W/m.K] (T1  0.1 W/m.K; T2  0.2 W/m.K).
788 M.G. Gomes et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 786–795

Table 2
Renders compositions in the experimental work.

Renders Binder [%] (by Dmax Other materials Water/ Water/dry Additions/Admixtures
volume) [mm] binder ratio constituents ratio
Industrial AI(EPS) Lime/cement 100% EPS 3 without incorporation Not specified 1.14 Re-dispersible polymer;
hydrophobic agent; expansive
agent; water-retaining agents
BI(EPS) Lime/cement/ 70–80% EPS 1.5–2 Sand (siliceous and calcareous) Not specified 0.7 Not specified
synthetic binder
CI(cork) Cement 70–80% cork 1.5–2 Sand (siliceous and calcareous) Not specified 0.33 Re-dispersible powder; air
introducing agent; hydrophobic
powder; shrinkage control
agent; water retaining agents
DI(cork) Natural hydraulic Cork 3 Diatomaceous earth and clay Not specified 0.55 Natural additions; fibres, air
lime entraining agent
Experimental ET Cement – – Sand (quartz, quartzite, feldspar) 0.8 – With no additions
FT(cork) Cement 80% cork 1–2 Sand (quartz, quartzite, feldspar) 0.7 – With no additions
GT(EPS) Cement 85% EPS 3.4–4 Sand (quartz, quartzite, feldspar) 0.5 – With no additions

EPS based-renders were produced: i) replacing sand with cork, by
80% of the volume of aggregates, and a bulk density of 101 kg/m3
(FT(cork)); and ii) replacing sand with EPS, by 85% of the volume of
aggregates, and a bulk density of 11 kg/m3 (GT(EPS)).
It should be noted that, in all of the experimental renders, Port-
land cement of the CEM II B/L type, 32.5 N class was used as the
binder; while the mixing water was added to ensure a good work-
ability of the experimental renders, according to the EN 1015-2
standard [22].
The production of dry industrial renders (Fig. 1a–c), supplied in
bags, followed the manufacturers’ instructions in particular,
regarding the amounts of water that should be added to the pow-
der product (Table 2).
Thirteen moulds were produced in the experimental program for
each render type: nine standard specimens 40  40  160 (mm3) –
Fig. 2a; three with 80  70  25 (mm3) – Fig. 2b; and one with
300  300  50 (mm3) dimensions – Fig. 2c. Furthermore, 2 brick-
render models (Fig. 3a) were also prepared by pressing the render
against the brick with a masonry trowel, in successive thin coats
until the intended thickness of 4 cm was achieved (Fig. 3b), and
finally the render was levelled with a ruler to give a smooth finish.
The storage and curing of the samples were performed accord-
ing to the EN 1015-11 standard [23]. Wet curing in polyethylene
bags (7 days) was followed by dry curing (21 days) in a climatic
chamber under controlled conditions, corresponding to 65% ± 5%
of relative humidity and a temperature of 20 °C ± 2 °C.
2.2. Testing procedures
The testing procedures included both fresh and hardened
state techniques. The determination of consistence of fresh
mortar (workability) was tested by means of flow table test
(Fig. 4a), according to standard EN 1015-3 [24], with the flow
value as function of bulk density of fresh mortar, in accordance
with standard EN 1015-2 [22]. In turn, the bulk density of fresh
mortar test (Fig. 4b) was performed following the standard EN
1015-6 [25]. The air content of fresh mortar was evaluated by
the pressure method (Fig. 4c), standard EN 105-7 [26]. All these
tests were performed on 21 samples (three for each render
composition).
For hardened state, the determination of open porosity (Fig. 5a)
was conducted in accordance with RILEM/PEM25 [27], and the dry
bulk density was made by geometric method following the stan-
dard EN 1015-10 [28], both in standard specimens
(40  40  160 mm3). To assess the water absorption due to capil-
lary it was used the procedure described in the standard EN 1015-
18 [29], using standard specimens (40  40  160 mm3) without
waterproofing their lateral faces. This test (Fig. 5b) allows deter-
mining the rate of the capillary water absorption represented by
the water absorption coefficient. All these tests were also per-
formed on 21 specimens (three for each render composition).
The measurement of water absorption under low pressure was
carried out with Karsten tubes according to RILEM 25-PEM [30].
This methodology allows to evaluate the water permeability of
renders from readings of water absorption (in cm3) made during
the first 5, 10, 25, 30 and 60 min. From this readings, it is possible
to obtain water absorption as function of time and thereafter
determine the water absorption coefficient express in kg/
(m2 min0.5). For this study, it were used 2 Karsten tubes (Fig. 5c)
in each brick render model (2 models for each render’s composi-
tion), in smooth areas and without cracking, totaling 28 Karsten
tube measurements.

Fig. 1. Production of industrial render: (a) render’s powder weighting; (b) powder and water mixing; (c) render at fresh state.
 M.G. Gomes et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 786–795 789

Fig. 2. Moulds: (a) standard specimens; specimens for thermal conductivity measurements with (b) transient and (c) steady-state methods.

Fig. 3. Brick-render models: (a) moulds and (b) 4 cm render’s thickness on brick block.

Fig. 4. Fresh state testing: (a) workability; (b) bulk density; and (c) air content.

Fig. 5. Hardened state testing: (a) open porosity; (b) capillary water absorption; and (c) water absorption under low pressure – Karsten pipe.

The drying index was calculated as the relationship between RILEM Test n°. II.5 [32]. The test finished when the relationship
the drying integral curve (which relates the moisture content to between the mass variation and the initial dry mass was below
the test time, in hours), and the initial moisture content multiplied 2%. For the drying test, saturated specimens from the open porosity
by the test’s duration, in accordance with NORMAL 29/88 [31] and and apparent specific gravity tests were used, without waterproof-
790 M.G. Gomes et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 786–795
ing the lateral faces. These specimens (Fig. 6a) where dried in a
controlled environmental chamber with relative humidity (RH) of
55 ± 5% and a temperature of 20 ± 2 °C.
The thermal conductivity was assessed by two different meth-
ods (transient and steady state) and equipments (ISOMET 2114
and Holometrix Rapid-k). The ISOMET 2114 (Fig. 6b) operates in
transient mode, according to ASTM D5930-09 [33], and the ther-
mal conductivity measurement range of this equipment varies
between 0.04 W/m.K and 6.00 W/m.K. The equipment Holometrix
Rapid-k (Fig. 6c) follows the ASTM C518-91 [34] and ISO 8301
[35] standards. This instrument measures, by the heat flow
method, the heat flux in steady state between two parallel plates
with different temperatures (in the present study 40 °C and 30 °C
were selected, respectively). The range of thermal conductivity val-
ues reported by Holometrix Rapid-k varies between 0.015 W/m.K
and 0.43 W/m.K.
Three different types of specimens were tested with transient
method (ISOMET 2114): 21 specimens with 80  70  25 (mm3),
type 1 – Fig. 7a; 7 specimens with 300  300  50 (mm3), type 2
– Fig. 7b; and 14 brick-render models with 4 cm render thickness
(type 3 – Fig. 7c). The specimens type 2 with 300  300  50
(mm3) were also used in steady state method (Holometrix Rapid-
k) measurements. Both methods were carried out at 14 and
28 days of curing. Moreover, all the renders’ specimens, except
brick models, were also tested under the dry state conditions using
an oven at a constant temperature of 60 °C. Additionally, the mois-
ture content volume by volume (volume of evaporable water
divided by volume of dry material) of 80  70  25 (mm3) speci-
mens was determined at 14, 28 days of curing and at saturated
state, in accordance with ISO 12570 [36].
Fig. 6. Hardened state testing: (a) drying index; thermal conductivity, (b) transient method and (c) heat flow steady state method.
Fig. 7. Types of specimens used on thermal conductivity measurements by transient method: (a) type 1: 80  70  25 (mm3); (b) type 2: 300  300  50 (mm3); and (c) type
3: brick-render models with 4 cm render thickness.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Fresh state results discussion
Table 3 shows fresh state results of the studied renders. It can
be observed that, as expected, the highest value of bulk density
at fresh state was reached by the sand-based reference render
(ET) without lightweight aggregates. The cork-based renders pre-
sent higher values of bulk density than EPS-based renders, which
can be related with the difference of bulk density of these two
types of aggregates (e.g. qcork = 101 kg/m3; qEPS = 11 kg/m3, deter-
mined for FT(cork) and GT(EPS) experimental renders according to
EN 1097-3 [37]). The adding mixing water (Table 2) in both exper-
imental and industrial renders production allowed an adequate
consistence in fresh state (workability, Table 3), in compliance
with EN 1015-2 standard [22].
The experimental results also show that, in general, the rate of
air content in fresh state in industrial renders ranges between 5
and 7%, except for the AI(EPS) render, where this value is close to
10%. It is worth referring that EPS was the only aggregate used in
AI(EPS) and the amount of water used in the mixture was greater
than that used in other industrial renders. The high value for air
content in cement-based render CI(cork) (6.6%), despite the low
amount of incorporated water, could be related with the absence
of lime in the binder of this render, which can lead to higher air
contents at fresh state [38], and/or the presence of admixtures,
such as air entraining-agents.
In experimental lightweight renders, the values of air content
are also close to those found in industrial renders, ranging between
5 and 6%, thus being slightly higher than those in the reference
 M.G. Gomes et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 786–795 791

Table 3
Fresh state results.

Renders Bulk density Workability Air content

3
Mean values [kg/m ] CV [%] Mean values [mm] CV [%] Mean values [%] CV [%]
AI(EPS) 411 0.49 141 0.58 9.6 3.40
BI(EPS) 563 0.89 132 1.09 5.2 3.14
CI(cork) 1016 1.58 152 0.82 6.6 3.71
DI(cork) 896 2.57 151 0.83 6.0 6.80
ET 2105 0.57 173 0.47 4.7 3.47
FT(cork) 1056 2.56 158 2.07 5.0 0.94
GT(EPS) 662 3.93 151 0.41 6.2 2.63

Caption: CV – variation coefficient.

render (with air content close to 5%). In these experimental ren-
ders, the incorporation of EPS lead to higher air content.
To sum up, renders incorporating a high percentage of insulat-
ing aggregates tend to contain greater amounts of air. This influ-
ence is even more noticed in experimental renders with EPS
incorporation, whereas in the industrial renders the influence of
other admixtures misleads the results of this property.
3.2. Hardened state results discussion
Table 4 shows hardened state results of the studied renders at
28 days of curing. The thermal conductivity is also analysed in this
section (Table 5, Figs. 8 and 9), with transient and steady-state
method at different days of curing (14 and 28 days) and for both
saturated and dry states.
Dry bulk density in the hardened state of renders incorporating
insulating aggregates presents values ranging between 237 and
863 kg/m3 (Table 4). According to EN 998-1 [5], these renders
can be classified as lightweight renders (dry bulk den-
sity  1300 kg/m3). As a result of the water evaporation during
the curing process, dry bulk densities at hardened state are lower
than the ones measured at fresh state. As already observed in fresh
state, renders with incorporation of granulated cork have bulk den-
sity values higher than renders with incorporation of granulates
EPS. The introduction of granulated cork and EPS caused a decrease
in the dry bulk density in the range of 55% and 65%, respectively,
when compared to the reference render (ET).
Open porosity could only be ascertained in cork renders, due to
the reduced density of renders with EPS, which made the hydro-
static weighting of samples unfeasible. The results for renders’
open porosity have shown that cork incorporation rates higher
than 70% result in open porosity values between 38% and 47%,
while the value for open porosity in the cement-based reference
render is close to 26%.
In experimental renders incorporating cork (FT(cork)) and EPS
(GT(EPS)) there were a reduction in the water absorption capillary
coefficient when compared with the reference render (ET). This
reduction is significantly higher (about 70%) in GT(EPS) which can
be explained by the hydrophobic nature of the EPS aggregates.
The same conclusion was drawn by Babu et al. [19]. Regarding
cork-based render (FT(cork)) there was a slight decrease when com-
pared with the reference render. Bras et al. [11] have also observed

Table 4
Hardened state results at 28 days of curing.

Renders Dry bulk density Open porosity Water absorption Water absorption under low pressure – Karsten tube Drying test
coefficient due to
capillary action
Mean values [kg/m3] CV [%] Mean values [%] CV [%] Mean values [kg/ Mean values [cm3] CV [%] Ca [kg/(m2.min0.5)] Di [–]
(m2.min0.5)]
C R2
AI(EPS) 237 17 – – 1.01 0.962 6.65 16.03 1.51 0.23
BI(EPS) 432 17 – – 0.34 0.981 0.93 6.24 0.21 0.24
CI(cork) 863 13 46.4 2.37 0.14 0.994 0.43 23.53 0.11 0.44
DI(cork) 642 13 47.3 0.85 0.70 0.951 1.33 26.50 0.30 0.31
ET 1885 8 25.6 0.78 0.74 0.989 1.60 14.43 0.36 0.32
FT(cork) 855 21 37.5 0.27 0.67 0.995 0.38 40.73 0.09 0.28
GT(EPS) 683 20 – – 0.22 0.984 0.83 7.00 0.19 0.29

Caption: CV – variation coefficient; C – water absorption due to capillary [kg/m2.min0,5]; Ca – water absorption coefficient under low pressure [kg/m2.min0,5]; Di – drying
index [–].

Table 5
Thermal conductivity measurements with transient method (ʎTM) as function of moisture content (volume by volume) for specimens with 80  70  25 (mm3).

Renders Saturation stage 14 days of curing 28 days of curing Dry state

ʎTM [W/m.K] W [%] ʎTM [W/m.K] W [%] ʎTM [W/m.K] W [%] ʎTM [W/m.K]
AI(EPS) 0.33 45.15 0.07 0.65 0.06 0.09 0.06
BI(EPS) 0.29 38.14 0.11 3.61 0.10 2.55 0.09
CI(cork) 0.32 38.86 0.24 5.68 0.23 2.93 0.17
DI(cork) 0.26 38.75 0.16 3.07 0.14 2.17 0.12
ET 2.07 27.71 1.54 2.34 1.34 1.46 1.33
FT(cork) 0.69 38.96 0.30 4.36 0.27 3.07 0.23
GT(EPS) 0.30 26.09 0.29 3.99 0.23 3.31 0.22
792 M.G. Gomes et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 786–795

0.60 was not observed in lightweight experimental renders, which can

be justified by the high variability of Karsten tube test (e.g.
0.50 y = 1.057x + 0.022 CV = 41% in FT(cork)) and the sensitivity of these values to the ren-
R² = 0.935
der’s surface condition (such as, high roughness due to the aggre-
0.40 gate grade size) [39].
Table 4 also shows that there was a decrease in the drying index
SM [W/m.K]

0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
TM [W/m.K]
Fig. 8. Thermal conductivity measurements with both transient (ʎTM) and steady
state (ʎSM) methods for specimens with 300  300  50 (mm3).
a tendency of decrease of capillary water absorption, in cases when
cork incorporation was made by 80%, and when particle size ran-
ged between 0.5 and 2 mm.
By analysing the capillary water absorption of industrial
lightweight renders (Table 4), it can be concluded that render BI
2 0.5
(EPS) belongs to the W1 class (C  0.40 kg/m .min ) and the render
CI(cork) to the W2 class (C  0.20 kg/m2.min0.5) in accordance with
EN 998-1 [5], whereas AI(EPS) and DI(cork) have shown
non-expected higher values due to probable different mixing and
production procedures and distinguish formulations (e.g. lime;
hydrophobic agents; air entraining agents).
Despite the high porosity of CI(cork) render (about 46.4%), it has
shown a low coefficient of capillary water absorption. The signifi-
cant difference found in water absorption, in renders with approx-
imate open porosity CI(cork) and DI(cork) (of about 47%), can also be
explained by particular differences of formulations, by the pres-
ence of hydrophobic agents in render CI(cork), by the variations of
the binder, non-insulating aggregate, and by the percentage varia-
tion of aggregate incorporation (absent in the case of DI(cork)).
Regarding the water absorption under low pressure (water
absorption volume and coefficient), a 75% and 50% decrease can
be seen in the cork (FT(cork)) and EPS (GT(EPS)) based experimental
renders, when compared with the reference render (ET). By analys-
ing industrial renders, it can be concluded that there is a strict rela-
tionship between water absorption under low pressure and
capillary water absorption coefficients, with higher values of both
coefficients in AI(EPS) and lower in CI(cork) renders. This relationship
14 days of curing of lightweight renders (FT(cork)) and (GT(EPS)) of about 10–13%, when
28 days of curing compared to the reference render. This is expected because these
Dry state renders have higher open porosity as a result of lightweight aggre-
gates incorporation in renders as a replacement for sand.
The renders which absorb more water tend to be the ones that
show better drying behaviour [40]. In this study the same tendency
was observed in AI(EPS) industrial render, while the CI(cork) render
0.50
showed the smallest water absorption coefficients due to both cap-
illary and under low pressure, and the worst drying index. Despite
of the high open porosity (46%) of CI(cork), the presence of
hydrophobic compounds can justify this difference between hydric
and drying behaviour [41].
It can also be referred that the drying index can be used to indi-
rectly assess water vapour diffusion resistance coefficient (stan-
dard characteristic in the EN 998-1 [5]) [41].
Table 5 shows the thermal conductivity measurements with
transient method (ISOMET 2114) on specimens with
80  70  25 (mm3) for the studied renders as function of moisture
content (volume by volume) and curing days.
The thermal conductivity of industrial renders for dry state
which corresponds to the set of conditions IIa (23 °C of reference
temperature at dry state), in accordance to ISO/FDIS 10456 [42]
are in the range of 0.06–0.17 W/m.K, that fall into the category of
thermal renders (T1 or T2, according to the European standard
EN 998-1 [5]). When comparing experimental renders with the ref-
erence render (ET), the addition of thermal insulation materials has
resulted in a substantial reduction (about 80%) of the value of
thermal conductivity (values close to 0.2 W/m.K, as opposed to
1.33 W/m.K for the reference render). Bras et al. [11] have also
concluded that renders’ thermal conductivity decreases with the
introduction of the lightweight aggregates such as cork and EPS.
This was also accompanied by a substantial decrease in appar-
ent bulk density. In fact, renders with higher percentages of incor-
poration of insulation aggregates show lower values of apparent
bulk density (Table 4) and lower thermal conductivity (Table 5).
It should be noted that the lowest values of bulk density and ther-
mal conductivity were obtained in renders with EPS aggregates
incorporation.
Table 5 also shows that the increase of moisture content leads
to higher thermal conductivity values. It is observed that render

0.40

0.35

0.30

0.25
[W/m.K]

0.20

0.15
TM

0.10

0.05

0.00
14 days 28 days 14 days 28 days 14 days 28 days 14 days 28 days 14 days 28 days 14 days 28 days
AI(EPS) BI(EPS) CI(cork) DI(cork) FT(cork) GT(EPS)
Indus tri al r enders Conventi onal r enders

Specimens type 1 Specimens type 2 Specimens type 3

Fig. 9. Thermal conductivity measurements with the transient method on different specimens at 14 and 28 days of curing: type 1: 80  70  25 (mm3); type 2:
300  300  50 (mm3); and type 3: brick + 4 cm render.
 M.G. Gomes et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 786–795
Table 6
Matrix of correlations between properties of renders with improved thermal performance.
Air Water absorption under low
content pressure [cm3]
[%]
Air content [%] D Lin.
Water absorption under low +++ D Lin.
pressure [cm3]
Water absorption capillary + ++
[kg/(m2.min0.5)]
Dry bulk density [kg/m3] ++ +++
Drying index [–] + ++
ʎTM, 28 days [W/m.K] + ++
Open porosity [%] +++ + +
Caption: Lin. – linear; Exp – exponential; Pow. – power; Log. – logarithmic; D – same test;
(a relation); +++ = R2  0.8) (a good correlation).
AI(EPS) presents the lowest values of moisture content at 14 and
28 days of curing, despite the highest water/pounder ratio
(Table 2), which can be explained by a faster drying of this render
(low drying index, Table 4). In the experimental renders, the same
tendency, but more slightly, was observed. Moreover, the AI(EPS)
render has the highest water absorption both due to capillary
and under low pressure (Table 4), which explain the highest mois-
ture content at saturated state. On the other hand, since this render
has the lowest drying index (Table 4) that corresponds to a better
drying, the variation of moisture content, and thus of thermal con-
ductivity, between saturated and dry states is high.
The significant difference in thermal conductivity between ren-
der FT(cork) and GT(EPS) at saturated stage can be attributed to a
higher moisture content in render FT(cork) [43]. The thermal con-
ductivity of EPS shows a less dependence of moisture content than
cork [44,45]. Fig. 8 shows the thermal conductivity measurements
on specimens with 300  300  50 (mm3) with both transient
(ISOMET 2114) and steady state (Holometrix Rapid-k) methods
for the studied thermal renders.
It can be observed that the results obtained with both methods
are very similar, with a linear regression line with a Pearson linear
coefficient of 0.935 and with a slope of near 1. The thermal conduc-
tivity results obtained with the steady-state method are slightly
higher than the ones measured with the transient method, due
to the different testing conditions, in particular the highest mean
testing temperature 35 °C in the heat flow meter steady-state
method against to 23 °C in transient method.
Fig. 9 shows the thermal conductivity coefficient measured
with the transient method, for different types of specimens at 14
and 28 days of curing (as referred, types 1 and 2 are specimens pro-
duced with moulds, and specimens type 3 includes de brick models
with the application of 4 cm coat thickness of render).
It is possible to observe that, in general, the thermal conductiv-
ity values for specimens’ type 2 are higher than the values on spec-
imens’ type 1. These differences are significant for 14 days of
curing when the specimens have higher moisture content. This
can be explained by the higher moisture content of specimens type
2 when compared with specimens type 1, which might be associ-
ated with the higher dimensions of specimens type 2 that difficult
the drying process. In fact, the moisture content of specimen’s type
1 and 2 were respectively of 0.6–6% and 2–14% at 14 days of curing,
and of 0.8–3% and 0.3–11% at 28 days of curing.
Although the brick substrate suction can increase the compact-
ness of the applied render that would rise the thermal conductiv-
ity, the thermal conductivity for the specimeńs type 3 presents,
in general, the lowest values. Adherence tests conducted on spec-
imens type 3, that are not within the scope of this paper, showed
that these renders do not have good adherence (0.3 MPa), which
can explain the decrease of thermal conductivity due to a probable
793
Water absorption capillary Dry bulk Drying ʎTM, 28 days Open
[kg/(m2.min0.5)] density [kg/m3] index [–] [W/m.K] porosity
[%]
Lin. Exp. Pow. Pow. Log.
Exp. Pow. Pow. Lin.
D Exp. Log. Exp. Lin.
+ D Exp. Pow. Exp.
++ D Pow. Log.
+ +++ + D Pow.
+ ++ D
= R2 < 0.2 (no relation);+ = (0.2 < R2 < 0.4) (a tendency); ++ = (0.4  R2 < 0.8)
loss of internal cohesion of the render. GT(EPS) showed the highest
thermal conductivity difference between specimen’s type 3 and
types 1 and 2, which can be justified by a non-uniform distribution
of EPS particles within the render more which are more confined at
the surface and induce higher roughness of the surface, affecting
the measurement with the surface probe of the ISOMET equipment
(transient method).
3.3. Correlations
The obtained results have made it possible to establish correla-
tions between the different properties of the studied renders with
improved thermal performance, which are shown in Table 6.
Reasonable good correlations (R2 > 0.8) were identified between:
thermal conductivity and dry bulk density; water absorption under
low pressure and dry bulk density; water absorption under low
pressure and air content; air content and open porosity. Panesar
and Shindman [3] have also noted that there was a direct relation-
ship between thermal conductivity and density, when cork was
incorporated. Open porosity is also correlated with air content but
shows lower relationships with the other analysed properties. How-
ever, it is important to refer that the number of open porosity results
were limited to only three lightweight renders.
Finally, other correlations involving water absorption under low
pressure and dry bulk density and air content could be related to
the directly dependency of those properties with the internal voids
at both fresh and hardened states. Water absorption can be also
influenced by the incorporation of hydrophobic agents and the
affinity of the pore walls to water [9] not studied in this paper.
4. Conclusions
This study compares the physical characteristics of four thermal
industrial and two experimental renders with enhanced thermal
performance with high percentages (up to 80% in aggregate vol-
ume) of incorporation of EPS and granulated cork. A sand-based
reference render was also used for comparison purposes. Four dif-
ferent specimens were produced: standard prismatic dimensions;
80  70  25 (mm3); 300  300  50 (mm3); and brick-render
models with 4 cm of applied render.
Physical performance of thermal renders should be based not
only on thermal conductivity but also on standard (e.g. water
absorption capillary coefficient) and non-standard physical proper-
ties (e.g. air content, open porosity) at fresh and hardened states.
When analyzing the physical characteristics, significant
improvements in thermal performance were found with incorpora-
tion of lightweight aggregates (EPS and cork). A decrease of about
80% of the thermal conductivity was reached, in comparison to the
794 M.G. Gomes et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 786–795
reference render, with values in the range of 0.06–0.17 W/m.K, in
industrial thermal renders, and close to 0.2 W/m.K, in experimen-
tal thermal renders. This has resulted in more porous renders
(open porosity values ranging between 38 and 47% in renders with
cork when compared to 26% of the reference render), with a signif-
icant decrease in dry bulk density values up to 87%. Also at fresh
state thermal renders showed lower bulk densities than the refer-
ence render, and a slight increase in air content (most values rang-
ing between 5 and 7%), with suitable workability.
Regarding the water absorption due to capillary, the values for
the studied thermal renders varied significantly and are mainly
lower than the reference render, but with some of them exceeding
the standard W1 class range for thermal renders external applica-
tion, which may be related to the effects of the non-incorporation
of hydrophobic agents (aggregates, addition/admixtures) and/or
the affinity of the pores walls to water. The water absorption under
low pressure also follows the same tendency of water absorption
due to capillary presenting, in general, lower values in thermal ren-
ders than in the reference render.
The incorporation of lightweight aggregates led to lower drying
index as a consequence of higher open porosity, which is an indi-
rect measure of higher renders’ drying capacity and water vapour
permeability.
In general, the experimental results have shown fairly good cor-
relations between some physical characteristics, such as thermal
conductivity and bulk density; water absorption under low pres-
sure and bulk density; water absorption under low pressure and
air content; air content and open porosity.
Both industrial and experimental renders incorporating EPS had
lower dry bulk density values and thermal conductivity than those
incorporating cork, which can be related with aggregates’ bulk
densities (101 kg/m3 and 11 kg/m3, for cork and EPS respectively).
Furthermore, it was concluded that thermal conductivity increases
with the moisture content, and renders with EPS shows a less
dependence of moisture content than with cork. On the other hand,
EPS renders showed higher air content at fresh state and a lower
water absorption due to capillary, the latter probable related to
the hydrophobic nature of this aggregate. It was not possible to
establish a direct causality between the use of these insulation
aggregates (EPS and cork) and the others analysed physical proper-
ties, given considerable differences in renders’ formulations and
restraints in testing procedures.
It can be observed that the results obtained with steady-state
and transient methods are very similar and slightly higher in
steady-state than the ones measured with the transient method,
due to the different testing conditions, in particular the higher
mean testing temperature of the steady state-method.
The study also observed that, in general, the thermal conductiv-
ity is higher in specimens with higher dimensions, which might
difficult the drying process. The brick specimens with 4 cm of ren-
der thickness present the lowest thermal conductivity values,
which can be explained by the eventual loss of internal cohesion
of the applied renders.
A more comprehensive study of the effects of different renders’
compounds with enhanced thermal performance is needed, in par-
ticular, concerns different binders, thermal insulation aggregates,
and additions/admixtures.
Conflict of interest
There are no known conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the CERIS
Research Institute, IST, University of Lisbon and the FCT (Founda-
tion for Science and Technology, Portugal) through the financial
support on the Project FCT PTDC/ECM/118262/2010 and PhD Grant
SFRH/BD/97182/2013. The authors also would like to thank the
manufacturers who provided the industrial renders for the exper-
imental campaign carried out.
References
[1] Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25
October 2012 on ‘‘Energy efficiency”, Off. J. Eur. Union 315 (2012) L.315/1-55.
[2] Directive 2010/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May
2010 on ‘‘The indication by labelling and standard product information of the
consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products”, Off. J.
Eur. Union 153 (2010) L.153/1-12.
[3] D. Panesar, B. Shindman, The mechanical, transport and thermal properties of
mortar and concrete containing waste cork, Cem. Concr. Compos. 34 (2012)
982–992.
[4] J. Maia, N.M.M. Ramos, V.P. de Freitas, Â. Sousa, Laboratory tests and potential
of thermal insulation plasters, Energy Proc. 78 (2015) 2724–2729.
[5] CEN EN 998-1, Specification for Mortar for Masonry – Part 1: Rendering and
Plastering Mortar, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium,
2010.
[6] A. Rodrigues, A. Piedade, A. Braga, in: Building Thermal, first ed., ORION, 2009,
p. 688 (in portuguese).
[7] EuroLightConR1, Definitions and International Consensus Report, European
Union – Brite EuRam III 1988 BE96-3942/R1, 1988.
[8] M. Stefanidou, Cement-based renders with insulating properties, Constr. Build.
Mater. 65 (2014) 427–431.
[9] M. Júlio, A. Soares, L.M. Ilharco, I. Flores-Colen, J. de Brito, Aerogel-based
renders with lightweight aggregates: correlation between molecular/pore
structure and performance, Constr. Build. Mater. 124 (2016) 485–495.
[10] M.G. Gomes, I. Flores-Colen, L.M. Manga, The influence of moisture content on
the thermal conductivity of external thermal mortars, Constr. Build. Mater.
135 (2017) 279–286.
[11] A. Brás, M. Leal, P. Faria, Cement-cork mortars for thermal bridges correction.
Comparison with cement-EPS mortars performance, Constr. Build. Mater. 49
(2013) 315–327.
[12] P. Nóvoa, M. Ribeiro, A. Ferreira, A. Marques, Mechanical characterization of
lightweight polymer mortar modified with cork granulates, Compos. Sci.
Technol. 64 (2004) 2197–2205.
[13] L. Gil, Cork, in: Materials for Construction and Civil Engineering, Springer
International Publishing, 2015, pp. 585–627.
[14] S.R. Karade, M. Irle, K. Maher, Influence of granule properties and
concentration on cork-cement compatibility, Holz als Roh- und Werkstoff 64
(2006) 281–286.
[15] D. Babu, K. Babu, T. Wee, Properties of lightweight expanded polystyrene
aggregate concretes containing fly ash, Cem. Concr. Res. 35 (2005) 1218–
1223.
[16] R. Madandoust, M. Ranjbar, S. Mousavi, An investigation of the fresh properties
of self-compacted lightweight concrete containing expanded polystyrene,
Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 3721–3731.
[17] A. Nadeem, W.C. Tang, Y. Lo, Mechanical and shrinkage properties of
structural-graded polystyrene aggregate concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 30
(2008) 403–409.
[18] A. Sayadi, J.V. Tapia, T.R. Neitzert, G.C. Clifton, Effects of expanded polystyrene
(EPS) particles on fire resistance, thermal conductivity and compressive
strength of foamed concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 112 (2016) 716–724.
[19] D.S. Babu, K.G. Babu, W. Tion-Huan, Effect of polystyrene aggregate size on
strength and moisture migration characteristics of lightweight concrete, Cem.
Concr. Compos. 28 (6) (2006) 520–527.
[20] S. Barbero, M. Dutto, C. Ferrua, A. Pereno, Analysis on existent thermal
insulating plasters towards innovative applications: evaluation methodology
for a real cost-performance comparison, Energy Build. 77 (2014) 40–47.
[21] EN 196-1, Methods of Testing Cement – Part 1: Determination of Strength,
Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
[22] EN 1015-2, Methods of Test for Mortar for Masonry – Part 2: Bulk Sampling of
Mortars and Preparation of Test Mortars”, Comité Européen de Normalisation,
Brussels, Belgium, 1998.
[23] EN 1015-11, Methods of Test for Mortar for Masonry – Part 11: Determination
of Flexural and Compressive Strength of Hardened Mortar, Comité Européen
de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, 1999.
[24] EN 1015-3, Methods of Test for Mortar for Masonry – Part 3: Determination of
Consistence of Fresh Mortar (by Flow Table)”, Comité Européen de
Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, 1999.
[25] EN 1015-6, Methods of Test for Mortar for Masonry – Part 6: Determination of
Bulk Density of Fresh Mortar”, Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels,
Belgium, 1998.
[26] EN 1015-7, Methods of Test for Mortar for Masonry – Part 7: Determination of
Air Content of Fresh Mortar”, Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels,
Belgium, 1998.
[27] RILEM, Recommended Tests to Measure the Deterioration of Stone and to
Assess the Effectiveness of Treatment Methods, Commission 25-PEM:
Protection et Erosion des Monuments, 1980, pp. 175–253.
 M.G. Gomes et al. / Construction and Building Materials 198 (2019) 786–795
[28] EN 1015-10, Methods of Test for Mortar for Masonry – Part 10: Determination
of Dry Bulk Density of Hardened Mortar”, Comité Européen de Normalisation,
Brussels, Belgium, 1999.
[29] EN 1015-18, Methods of Test for Mortar for Masonry – Part 18: Determination
of Water Absorption Coefficient Due to Capillary Action of Hardened Mortar,
Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, 2002.
[30] RILEM, Water Absorption Under Low Pressure. Pipe Method, Test No. II.4,
RILEM Recommendations, Paris, France, 1980.
[31] NORMAL 29/88, Drying Index Measurement (in Italian), International RILEM
Workshop, Mantova (Italy), 1988, pp. 203–212.
[32] RILEM, Recommended Tests to Measure the Deterioration of Stone and to
Assess the Effectiveness of Treatment Methods, Test No. II. 5 – Evaporation
Curve, Materials Structures, 1980, pp. 175–253.
[33] ASTM D5930-09,, Thermal Conductivity of Plastics by Means of a Transient
Line-source Technique, American Society for Testing Materials, Philadelphia,
2009.
[34] ASTM C518-91, Steady-state Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal
Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus,
American Society for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, 2010.
[35] ISO 8301, Thermal Insulation – Determination of Steady-state Thermal
Resistance and Related Properties – Heat Flow Meter Apparatus”, International
Organization for Standardization, Genève, 1991.
[36] ISO 12570, Hygrothermal Performance of Building Materials and Products –
Determination of Moisture Content by Drying at Elevated Temperature,
International Organization for Standardization, Genève, 2000.
[37] EN 1097-3, Tests for Mechanical and Physical Properties of Aggregates – Part
3: Determination of Loose Bulk Density and Voids, Comité Européen de
Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium, 1998.
795
[38] C. Stolz, A.B. Masuero, Analysis of main parameters that affect contact area
between mortar rendering and substrate: use of 3D laser scanning technique,
in: Recent Developments in Building Diagnosis Techniques, Building Pathology
and Rehabilitation, 5, Springer, Singapore, 2016, pp. 21–35.
[39] I. Flores-Colen, J. de Brito, V.P. Freitas, On-site performance assessment of
rendering façades for predictive maintenance, Struct. Surv. 29 (2) (2010) 133–
146.
[40] A. Soares, M. Júlio, I. Flores-Colen, I. Ilharco, J. Brito de, J. Gaspar Martinho,
Water-resistance of mortars with lightweight aggregates, Key Eng. Mater. 634
(2015) 46–53.
[41] I. Flores-Colen, L. Silva, J. de Brito, V.P. Freitas, Drying index for in-service
physical performance assessment of renders, Constr. Build. Mater. 112 (2016)
1101–1109.
[42] ISO 10456, Building Materials and Products – Hygrothermal Properties –
Tabulated Design Values and Procedures for Determining Declared and Design
Thermal Values, International Organization for Standardization, Genève, 2007.
[43] M. Ramires, C. Nieto de Castro, Y. Nagasaka, A. Nagashima, M. Assael, W.
Wakeham, Standard reference data for the thermal conductivity of water, J.
Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 24 (3) (1995) 1377–1381.
[44] M. Jerman, R. Černý, Effect of moisture content on heat and moisture transport
and storage properties of thermal insulation materials, Energy Build. 53 (2012)
39–46.
[45] C. Langlais, A. Silberstein, P. Sandberg, Effects of moisture on the thermal
performance of insulating materials (Chapter 4), in: Moisture Control in
Buildings, ASTM, 1994, pp. 54–71.