Sand Gradation Influence on Masonry Mortar Properties

By Tim Conway and William Behie, Manager, Quality Assurance and R&D, and Masonry Specialist,
respectively, Holcim (US) Inc.

In the United States and elsewhere, masonry

mortars are specified per American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) C 270, Specification
for Mortar for Unit Masonry. ASTM C 270 provides
two options for specifying mortar: proportion
or property. If each ingredient meets its own
specification, either approach is possible.

Mortar properties are influenced by aggregate—

masonry sand. Although sand would seem to be a
constant, its characteristics vary geographically and
over time. This is normal and expect-
ed. For instance, it is not uncommon
#50 Sieve
for sand gradation to fall a little outside
100
the range allowed by ASTM C 144,
Figure 1. Mortar 90
80
Specification for Aggregate for Masonry
is proportioned
70 Mortar. When sand does not satisfy
Percent passing

by volume and 60
min
max
gradation requirements of C 144, a
sand should be 50 ideal
40 no #50
waiver allows for that sand to be used
measured in a 30
double #50
provided the mortar is proportioned
damp, loose 20
10 (and tested) to meet certain required
condition. 0
properties, shown here in Table 1.
(IMG12185) 8 16 30 50 100 200 Pan
Seive size Table 2 shows gradation limits for
natural sand, both the range (“allow-
able percent passing”) and an “ideal”
Figure 2. A series of sand gradation curves for
gradation—defined for this study as one that falls in
an ASTM C 144 material showing maximum,
the middle of the gradation curves. See Standard
minimum, “ideal,” and #50 modified sands.
C 144 for the manufactured sand gradation.
Vol. 16, No. 1
Summer 2006 Modifying the Gradation

The purpose of the study was to determine the

Contents
effect of each size fraction on mortar properties of
Sand Gradation Influence on Masonry Mortar Properties air, water requirement for cubes, water retention,
Announcements
 Water to make cubes
and compressive strength. Masonry cement was used to evaluate
255
250 the impact on entrained air; a Type S was chosen for conve-
245
nience in producing a C 270 Type S mortar. Proportions were
Milliliters of water

240
235 typical 1 part cement to 3 parts sand. Although bond strength,
230
225 permeability, and workability were not studied, it is expected
220
215
that these properties would also be affected.
210
205 A commercially available masonry sand from Summerfield,
d #8 #8 6 6 0 0 0 0 00 100 00 200 n n
an #1 e #1 #3 #3 #5 #5 #1 #2 pa pa
ea
ls No uble No
ub
l No uble No uble No le
#
No uble
#
No uble South Carolina was used for this study. It was regraded to fall in
Id Do Do Do Do oub o D o
D D
Sand
the midpoint of ASTM C 144 on each sieve. One size fraction
was systematically removed from the ideal gradation and other
Figure 3. Effect of gradation on water content to make cubes.
sizes were adjusted to maintain the 1440-g sample size to deter-
Air mine how the mortar was affected by each size. In the same
14 manner, the ideal gradation quantity of each size fraction was
12
doubled. These gradation variations are large, particularly from a
10
single source. Smaller variations would be expected to have less
Percent

6
effect on mortar properties.
4
The gradations for the ideal and both #50 modified sands are
2

0 shown in Fig. 2. The two red lines show the maximum and
minimum allowable gradation limits; the green line is the ideal
8

n
6

00

00
d

#8

00

00

n
#

pa
#1

#3

#5
an

#1

#3

#5

pa
#1

#2
#1

#2
o

e
ls

o
o

o
bl

e
N
N

o
bl

bl

bl

bl
ea

ou

N
bl

bl
ou

ou

ou

ou

grading; the yellow line has all the #50 material removed; and
Id

ou

ou
D

D
D

Sand
the blue line represents a doubling of the #50 material.
Figure 4. Effect of gradation on air content.
Water retention
ASTM C 270 Mortar Properties
100
95 The #30 and #50 particles have the greatest impact on mortar
90
properties studied, probably in part because these two sieves have
85
Percent

80
the largest amount of material retained on them. The +50 mesh, for
75 instance, is 35% of the total mass of the sand with the ideal grada-
70
tion. Removing all of it, then doubling it, changed the proportion
65

60
of that size fraction from 0% to 70%—a very large change.
#8
d

#8

ou 30

n
6

ou 100

00

ou 200

00

n
an

#1

#5

pa
#1

#3

#5

pa
#

#1

#2
o

In Figures 3-6, the data can be viewed as groups of three: low,

ls

#
N

o
bl

e
N

N
o

o
bl

bl

bl

bl
ea

ou

N
bl

bl
ou

ou

ou
Id

D
D

Sand normal, and high amounts of each sieve fraction. The middle
Figure 5. Effect of sand gradation on water retention of mortar. bar in each grouping is the test result using the sand graded to
the midpoint mass of all the fractions.
28-day strength

4000 Cube water content: Fig. 3 shows the effects of the sand changes
3500
on the water needed for the correct flow of mortar to make cubes.
3000
Situations that lead to a greater proportion of fines increase the
Strength, psi

2500
water demand: for instance, doubling the #50 mesh material or
2000
removing all of the #8 or #16 material.
1500

1000
Air content: Fig. 4 shows that the #50 sieve has the biggest
500
impact on air content on both sides of ideal. Still, changes in
0

an
d #8 #8 #1
6
#1
6
#3
0
#3
0
#5
0
#5
0 00 00 00 00 pa
n
pa
n gradation did not cause any test to fail C 270.
ls No uble #1 #1 #2 #2
ea o No uble No uble No uble No
ble No
ble No uble
Id D Do Do Do u u Do
Do Do
Sand
Water retention: As in the other graphs, the middle bar in each
series in Fig. 5 represents the ideal sand gradation. In almost
Figure 6. Effect of sand gradation on compressive strength.
2 Masonry Today / Summer 2006
 Table 1. C 270 Mortar Property Table*
Mortar Type 28-day compressive Water retention, Air content, Aggregate ratio
strength, psi (MPa) min. % max. %

}
Cement-lime or M 2500 (17.2) 12 2-1/4 to 3-1/2 times the
mortar cement S 1800 (12.4) 12 cementitious materials
75
N 750 (5.2) 14**
O 350 (2.4) 14**

}
Masonry cement M 2500 (17.2) 18 2-1/4 to 3-1/2 times the
S 1800 (12.4) 18 cementitious materials
75
N 750 (5.2) 20†
O 350 (2.4) 20†

* Adapted from ASTM.

** If structural reinforcement is present, the maximum air content shall be 12%.
† If structural reinforcement is present, the maximum air content shall be 18%.

Table 2. C 144 “Ideal” Natural Sand Gradation and Allowable Limits

Screen Allowable % Ideal % Cumulative % Cumulative weight Batch weight, grams
passing passing retained retained
4 100 100 0
8 95–100 97.50 2.50 36.00 36.0
16 70–100 85.00 15.00 216.00 180.0
30 40–75 57.50 42.50 612.00 396.0
50 10–35 22.50 77.50 1116.00 504.0
100 2–15 8.50 91.50 1317.60 201.6
200 0–5 2.50 97.50 1404.00 86.4
Pan 0.00 100.00 1440.00 36.0

Total 1440

every case, removing or doubling the material on each sieve
lowers the water retention. This implies that having some amount
of material in each size fraction—in other words, a well graded
sand—is favorable to water retention. Two of the tests did fall
just short of passing water retention (75% minimum): the double
#50 mesh test and the removal of the #200 mesh material.
Compressive strength: Similar trends occur for both the 7-day
and 28-day compressive strength results. Only the 28-day strength
is shown in Fig. 6. Note again that most of the variations have
little impact on strength. The #50 sieve exhibits the widest
variation in strength on both sides of ideal (whether the material
is removed entirely or doubled). For the Type S mortar used
here, changes in sand gradation did not cause any strength test
to fail C 270.
Conclusions
It's helpful to have an idea how the gradation of sand for mortar
impacts the desired properties. When a sand does not conform
to C 144, mortar made with it must be tested to show it has the
required C 270 properties. This study demonstrates that many
of the properties can be expected to meet C 270, even when
gradations are outside the range allowed by C 144. Specific results

Masonry Today / Summer 2006 3


ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
of mortar properties given in this article pertain to this sand and cement
combination. In addition, and perhaps more broadly:
• The amount of each size fraction can vary widely and still be at or near
gradation allowed by C 144 (changes to the #50 and #30 mesh material
affect grading the most): see Fig. 2.
• Water demand (for cubes) increases when finer material is increased
substantially (doubling the #50) or when coarser material is removed
(no #8, no #16): see Fig. 3.
• Well graded sands lead to mortars with better water retention: see Fig. 5.
TMS
The Masonry Society is holding its 2006 Annual Meeting and Business Meetings in
Atlanta, Georgia, October 12–17. Among the technical programs, social events, and
recreational activities planned, two seminars offer educational opportunities:
Design of Masonry Structures to the 2005 MSJC and the IBC 2006
The Role of Masonry in Sustainable Design and LEEDTM
See www.masonrysociety.org for more information
ASTM C 12 75th Anniversary
2006 is the 75th anniversary for Committee C 12 of the American Society for
Testing and Materials, Mortars and Grouts for Unit Masonry. On Wednesday
evening, December 6, C 12 will celebrate with a dinner and reception at the Hyatt
Regency Atlanta, Georgia. The fall meeting of C 12 is set for December 5–7, 2006.
For more information about the meeting or event, contact C12 Staff Manager, Kevin
Shanahan at 610.832.9737.
See www.astm.org for more information
© 2006 Portland Cement Association PL389.01
All rights reserved
Presort Standard
US Postage
PAID
Permit No. 155
Skokie, IL
MASONRY
Today
Intended for decisionmakers associated with the design,
specification, management, and construction of masonry,
Masonry Today is published twice yearly by the Product
Standards and Technology department of the Portland
Cement Association. Our purpose is to disseminate infor-
mation related to the use of masonry in construction,
focusing on the technical aspects of masonry design,
materials, and construction. If there are topics or ideas you
would like to have discussed in future issues, please let us
know. Items from this newsletter may be reprinted with
prior permission from the Association. PCA grants permis-
sion to share an electronic version of this document with
other professionals on the condition that no part of the file
or document is changed.
Portland Cement Association (PCA) is a not-for-profit
organization and provides this publication solely for
the continuing education of qualified professionals.
THIS PUBLICATION SHOULD ONLY BE USED BY
QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS who possess all required
license(s), who are competent to evaluate the significance
and limitations of the information provided herein, and
who accept total responsibility for the application of this
information. OTHER READERS SHOULD OBTAIN
ASSISTANCE FROM A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL
BEFORE PROCEEDING.
PCA and its members make no express or implied war-
ranty in connection with this publication or any informa-
tion contained herein. In particular, no warranty is made
of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. PCA
and its members disclaim any product liability (including
without limitation any strict liability in tort) in connection
with this publication or any information contained herein.
Direct all correspondence to:
Jamie Farny, Editor
jfarny@cement.org