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