## 3 Results and Discussion
### Water Behaviour  
The water absorption curves of the mortars under analysis at 28 days and 365 days are presented in Figure 1. The initial water absorption rate was analysed through the slope of the first straight line segment of the water absorption curve. This slope corresponds to the capillary coefficient that \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{l}{**MORTARS**} & & & & & & \\ \cline{2-7}  & **REF** & **SWF** & **SWP** & **FBA** & **SWF +FBA** & **SWF+SWP+FBA** \\ \hline
**Consistency (mm)** & \(161.2\pm 1.8\) & \(174.5\pm 6.4\) & \(175.5\pm 0.7\) & \(167.2\pm 3.1\) & \(158.2\pm 2.3\) & \(161.3\pm 0.8\) & \(169.2\pm 0.8\) \\ \hline
**W/b ratio** & \(1.3\) & \(1.4\) & \(0.9\) & \(1.4\) & \(1.5\) & \(1.1\) & \(1.2\) \\ \hline
**Bulk density (kg/m\({}^{3}\))** & \(1975\pm 7\) & \(1780\pm 25\) & \(2064\pm 9\) & \(2045\pm 17\) & \(1794\pm 8\) & \(2042\pm 4\) & \(1886\pm 8\) \\ \hline
**Reference** & - & [5] & [6] & [14] & - & - & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Fresh state tests results. was measured for all mortars and it is presented in Table 2. Of all the mortars presented, the ones that contained SWP waste were the ones with lower slope and therefore lower capillary coefficients (Table 2). On the contrary, the SWF waste was responsible for an increase of this coefficient. The SWP+FBA mortar presented a capillary coefficient of 0.89 and 1.11 kg/(m\({}^{2}\).min\({}^{0.5}\)), respectively, at 28 and 90 days, which correspond to a reduction of this coefficient by about 39% and 28%, relative to the REF mortar. When SWF and FBA were combined, the capillary coefficient achieved a value of about 2 kg/(m\({}^{2}\).min\({}^{0.5}\)), which is considered high for this coefficient, corresponding to twice the value of the SWP + FBA mortar. The addition of SWP to SWF+FBA, which results in the SWF+SWP+FBA mortar, was responsible for a decrease in the capillary coefficient. The value obtained was 1.25 and 1.33 kg/(m\({}^{2}\).min\({}^{0.5}\)), at 28 days and 365 days, respectively. These values were lower than the ones presented by the REF mortar, by about 14%. Thus, the SWF+SWP+FBA mortar absorbed less water in the first minutes of the test, meaning that this mortar absorbs water slower than REF's. In a real application, the mortar would take more time to absorb water than REF's. Concerning total absorption, only the SWP+FBA mortar showed an absorption lower than REF's. SWF+FBA and the SWF+SWP+FBA presented higher increments of water. The SWF+SWP+FBA mortar presented an absorption higher than the one presented by the REF mortar, by about 13%. The mortar took longer to absorb water but over time it absorbed a greater amount of water than REF's. The incorporation of SWP into the SWF+FBA mortar reduced the volume of water absorbed, but not enough to be smaller than REF's. Thus, the negative effects of SWF and FBA were predominant over the benefits of the SWP waste. The mechanism of the SWF+SWP+FBA mortar's absorption is explained by its porosity. This mortar has a larger volume of pores within the capillary range, and that is why it absorbs a greater amount of water. However, the diameter of these pores is probably smaller than REF's, which explains the slower absorption of water. In order to evaluate the porosity of the mortars, the open porosity test was performed (Table 2). The open porosity test showed that SWF+SWP+FBA presented a porosity higher than REF's from 28 days until 365 days. The open porosity of SWF+SWP+FBA was about 26% while that of the REF mortar was between 24% and 25%, depending on age. The porosity of the mortars influenced not only their water absorption behaviour but also their drying behaviour. Water drying was analysed over time from the loss of water curves. In Figure 2, the drying curves of the mortars at 28 days and 365 days are presented.