VOL. 36, NO.
4
JOURNAL
Americun Ceramic Society
Relation Between Bond and the Surface Physics
of Masonry Units
by JOHN C. THORNTON
The Detroit Edison Company, Detroit, Michigan
While the author and his colleagues were doing
research work with mortars, it was noticed that
many brick had high capillarity on rough or
sanded surfaces and little or none on others.
This led to bond tests during which it became
evident that there was a relation between the
kind of surface on a unit and the amount of bond.
Further experiments with chimneys or wells.
showed that (1) leakage and extent of dye pene-
tration coincided closely with the previous labora-
tory bond tests, ( 2 ) there was excellent bond and
practically no dye penetration with smooth brick,
which had little or no capillarity, (3) bond de-
creased and dye penetration increased according
to the surface, and (4) a s the capillarity of the
surface increased, the bond decreased. It be-
came apparent that while there are differences in
mortars in respect to bond, these differences are
rather small when compared with the effect
caused by the surfaces of masonry units.
Foreword
This paper is the result of more than a year of research on
the part of the author and his colleagues. The findings
shown are those that they obtained. With other units
and different conditions, the results might have differed. The
significant thing is that the observations always appear to
point in the same direction. Individual results may not be
too important, but trends call for thoughtful consideration.
Some of the things observed in this work bothered the au-
thor as much as they will the brick manufacturers and dealers.
If, however, what have been found in this research project
are facts, and all who have gone through the experiments step
by step have no reason to doubt them, they must be faced.
Presented at the Fifty-Fourth Annual Meeting, The American
Ceramic Society, Pittsburgh, Pa., April 29, 1952 (Structural Clay
Products Division, No. 6). Received September 15, 1952.
The author is the architect for The Detroit Edison Company
and is a member of the American Institute of Architects.
105
APRIL 1, 1953
The author believes that what has been found indicates
bond weaknesses in certain finishes of masonry units and that
these weaknesses should be recognized by both manufacturers
and users.
1. Introduction
EAKING masonry walls have plagued the building industry
L and building owners for many years. Considerable re-
search work has been done and many papers and reports
have been published. Many things have been found that
affect the permeability of walls.
About one year ago, while working with technicians of the
Huron Portland Cement Company, on mortars, we stumbled
on something that caused us to initiate a series of experiments
which had astonishing results. As so often happens, the most
significant data found were not at all what we set out to try to
determine.
Our attention was attracted to something that has not been
considered heretofore. Although we do not by any means
wish to create the impression that it is the cause of all leaks,
there appears to be little doubt but that it has in many cases
contributed materially to leakage in masonry. We believe
that we have found that the surface physics, i.e., the surface
texture of masonry units, affects bond and therefore leakage.
We have never been afraid to use matts, rugs, or sand-finish
brick because it was believed that a rough surface gave a bet-
ter bond. Our experiments, however, have caused us to ques-
tion this belief.
We have taken an active interest in the problem of wall
leakage for more than twenty years and have conducted many
experiments during this time. On several occasions brick
chimneys, or wells, were built of both common brick of high
absorption and smooth shale brick of about 791, absorption.
These chimneys were built with mortars of different lime con-
tent. The smooth shale brick gave practically leakproof
walls; common brick, however, permitted leaks, but it was
found that by using more lime, fewer leaks occurred. It is
emphasized that leakproof walls could be achieved with
smooth brick. We have had little trouble with leaks, the cause
of which could not be definitely traced, but have used smooth
brick in most cases.
106 Journal of The American Ceramic Society-Thornton
3 1
Fig. 1 . Differential pressure (water in inches) b e t w e e n exterior
a n d interior of building.
A few years ago a bad case of leaking walls arosc in one of
our buildings wherc a sand-finish facebrick had been used.
Instruments were placed on the walls and up to 0.7 in. of water
differential pressure between the interior and exterior of the
wall was found a t certain times. The arrows in Fig. 1 indi-
cate the direction and velocity of wind, the average for the
day, and the maximum. The temperatures and barometric
pressures are also shown. The top curve is the west wall; the
lower curve, the north. Note that April 2 and 4 showed high
difTerentia1pressure. When the .walls were opened, the work-
nianship was reported as good, but it is suspected that this
covercd full joints only. At the time, the leaks were attri-
buted to the abnormal suction and to the fact that there was
probably poor bond between the mortar and the salt-glazed
ends of the brick tile used for interior finish. It appears now
that the sand finish of the brick caused much of the trouble.
During the difficult time with this building, the masonry
foreman suggested that the sanded brick might be causing the
trouble. We arc embarrassed that we did not follow his lead
a t that time.
I n another case o€ bad leakage (not one of our buildings), a
sand-finish brick was used. The mortar appeared to be poor
and had a high capillary action. It now seems probable that
the sand finish of the brick may have caused less bond than
there would have been otherwise. Mortar taken from the
wall showed that the surface next to the brick had the glazed
smoothness typical of no bond.
In both cases the brick themselves were hard-burned shale
h i c k with the proper amount of suction for good bond (a
brick we have used for many years in the smooth finish with
little difficulty).
Two other cases have come to our attention: (1) a smooth
brick where there was no leakage and (2) a rug brick that
leaked badly.
II. A Discovery
The author was called in on some experiments that thc
Huron Portland Cement Company wished to make. Some
chimneys built of an Ohio rug shale brick leaked badly with
different mortars, contrary to our previous experiments with
Ohio shale brick. The workmanship was of the best in both
cases. While observing these chimneys, we noted that the
water in the chimneys climbed up the inner surface and over
the top. When dye was used in the water and the walls were
torn down, little bond was found for 11/2 in. from the face.
The water evidently had been drawn from the mortar before
bond had been obtained.
In searching for the cause, we first asked ourselves what the
difference was hetween these chimneys and those formerly
tested. The difference appeared to be only in the finish of the
brick. When samples of the shale brick were placed in ‘/2 in.
of water, the water climbed rapidly up the rug face but did not
rise on the smooth back. We decided to go into the problem
further and test a number of brick with different surface
treatments.
Vol. 36, No. 4
Thirty-seven brick of different makes and finishes were
stood on end in a large flat pan with the water “ 8 in. deep;
the water surface line was marked on each specimen. At the
end of 15 minutes, the distance the water had risen on each
face was marked on the brick.
Brick whose finish had direction, e.g., vertically scored
brick, were also placed in the water on one side. This showed
clearly that the rise could he practically nil one way but very
great in the other.
The surtace finish of the brick affected the capillary action.
5
Here, in using the terni “capillarity,” we are talking about the
finish of the brick that causes the water to move along its sur-
face.
It has been considered that a brick whose suction rate is
less than 20 gm., according to the forniula’
W’ - IV
s = ~ A x 30
S = suction rate (gm./min.).
W = weight of unit before partial immersion (gm.).
W’ = weight of unit after partial immersion for 1 minute (gin ).
A = net cross-sectionalarea of surface of unit immersed (sq. in. 1.
does not need wetting. Our experiments have shown that
this may not always be true, that surface capillary action
must also be considered, that certain brick with a suction rate
a5 low as 1.8 gm. but with high surface capillary action may
need wetting or the use of better mortar than we now employ.
The tests showed a wide range of suction rates (from 0.9Fi to
106.1 gm.); only four, however, were above the 20-gm. limit.
These tests indicated that we must look elsewhere for the
cauSe of poor bond.
111. Surface Capillarity Experiments
Figures 2 to 7, inclusive, show the results obtained by set-
ting the various brick in “8 in. of water and recording the sur-
face rise on the brick in 15 minutes. Note in each the dif-
ference of the rise on the back and on the face.
Figure 2 shows the capillary action on rug-finish brick.
Kugs are scored and then rerolled and come in many degrees
of roughness. The rerolling causes undercuts. Note that on
the smooth backs, the water does not rise, but on the face the
rise is related to the roughness of the texture. Continuous
roughness pulls up the water; smooth spots stop it. When
the brick are placed on the bed, the water rises badly, often
covering the whole face and going up over the top. Note
that sample No. 20 has a suction rate of 10.53 gm. whereas
sample No. 30 has a suction rate of 1.84 gm. only; No. 30,
however, has higher capillarity.
Figure 3 shows matt-texture brick; some are very rough
and others are nearly smooth. Where the cuts contact each
other, the water rises rapidly; if the cuts are few and do not
connect, the smooth sections act as dams.
Figure 4 shows the results on smooth and semismooth fin-
ishes. Samples Nos. 1, 2, 19, and 26 show little or no rise.
The semismooth samples, Nos. 13 and 25, show little rise ex-
cept on sanded areas and around rough punchings.
Vertically scored brick (Fig. 5) show little rise except on
rough areas. The smooth sections between the scores act as
dams. When the brick are placed on the bed, it is a different
story. The rise is determined by the roughness of the scores;
some brick show small rise and others show high capillarity.
Figure ci shows the rise on common brick. The suction
rate is high (106.1 gm. in one brick), but the surface capillary
action is relatively low. The whole brick, of course, absorbs
water, i.e., the water goes in as it rises; the brick therefore
shows less rise than it would otherwise.
1 H. C. Plummer, Brick and Tile Engineering. Structural
Clay Products Institute, Washington, D. C., 1950, p. 86; Cernm.
Abstracts. 1951, May. p. 85g.
April 1953 Bond and Surface Physics of Masonry Units 107

Figs. 2-7. Capillarity tests on various types of brick.

The results of a most interesting experiment are shown in

Fig. 7, our sand-mold and sand-finish specimens. Numbers 4
and 5 are sand-mold brick; the rise occurs on all sides and is
very high. The rise on all the others is high on the sanded
faces, but the suction rate is not high.
Figure 8 is a composite of the capillary action and the suc-
tion rate of 35 brick and indicates that there is no relation be-
tween the two. It also shows that the surface finish of the
brick governs the capillary action.
IV. Bond Tests
Up to this time we had thought that when good bond in
Fig. 8. Composite chart showing relation of capillarity and suction.
head joints was not achieved, the capillary action of the ma-
sonry unit and also of the mortar would help water through
the wall. We had surniised by observation on the job that
the voids on the brick were not filled; to determine, therefore, lowed to set for 4 hours. The test was made with much bet-
how far this went, differently finished brick were laid and al- ter workmanship than i s usually found on the job.
108 Journal of The American Ceramic Society-Thornton Vol. 36, No. 4
100 100 100 100
90 90 90 90
80 80 00 80
70 70 c] 0
E 70 70
Wv)
60 60%-
0 5 g 60 60
6 50 50 Ez
El= 2
I 50 50
v)

2
40 40 $g d 40 40 *
30
. . . . . .. .
30 'z 30 30
T :
... .
20 20
VERTICAL SCORED m 20 20
10 SANDED. 10 x

0 0
s 10 10

(Al 0 0
Fig. 10. Comparison of bond after 4 hours and after 4 days. Mor-
100 100 tar, 1 :1:6.

90 90
80 80 Sand-mold brick showed very poor bond. The brick
70 70 fell away from the head and bed joints without disturbing the
mortar and practically no mortar adhered to the brick. The
60 60 8 bond on semimatt-texture brick was rather poor. Mortar
g 50 50
Y

%
did not fill all voids and did not bond to the rough areas.
Mortar did not bond or fill all the voids of matt-texiure
40 40 brick. The bond on vertically scored brick was fair. The
30 30 mortar adhered to the smooth surfaces between the scores.
Some scores were not filled. Mortar bonded to the entire
20 . . .. .. .. .. .. .
.2 20 head joint of smooth-surfaced brick, covering the end of the
10 10 brick completely. This appeared to bear out the permeability
tests with chimneys, which showed that tighter walls were ob-
0 0 tained with smooth brick.
Although we appeared to have found a reason for certain
100 100 masonry leakage, we were much concerned, for we liked to use
the kind of brick finishes that did not show up well. The ex-
90 90 periments were continued, therefore, in an effort to find what
80 80 could be done so that other than smooth brick could be used
with good results.
70 70 The next experiment was conducted to determine the effect
60 60 of waterproofing on capillary action and bond. The heads of
z
2 50 50 E the brick were treated with waterproofing and the brick were
allowed to dry. Both a silicone and a wax-base product were
40 40 used and a comparison was made between the waterproofings
and between the treated and untreated surfaces. The treated
30 30
ends were tested for capillary action and it was found that
20
CINDER
......
. . . . . -33
20 this treatment stopped the action entirely on all finishes.
The brick were then tested for bond as before. The treated
10 10
half of each brick end showed a much better bond than the un-
0 0 treated half. There was little or no difference between water-
fCl proofed ends, both showing good bond. This was very notice-
Fig. 9. Bond tests on ( A ) dry and waterproofed brick; (B) dry and able on the sand-finish brick; the treated halves showed a
soaked brick; and ( C ) dry and moistened brick. Mortar, 1:1:6;
t y p e 4 lime.
i%Y0bond and the untreated halves showed 15 to 35% bond.
When the brick were tapped lightly, the sand-mold brick
came away from the bed-joint mortar cleanly, not bringing
any mortar with them. Even the frogs in several brick were
The mortar used for this experiment was a 1: 1: 6 mix, using left perfectly in the mortar bed joint, no mortar being picked
Portland cement, a pressure-hydrated t y p e 3 lime, and pit up. The mortar used was a 1:1:6 mix. Figure 9 ( A )
sand (mortar sand) conforming to A.S.T.M. specifications. shows the comparison. Bond appears to have increased on
A 1/2-in. bed of mortar was laid and a smooth-surfaced brick all surfaces tested, but it is more prominent on sanded and
was embedded in i t ; thcrcri-fter mortar was placed on the end sand-mold brick. The percentages were taken visually and
oi each brick with a trowel and precautions were taken to therefore of course are approximate.
make sure that the end was covered completely with a t least Although the suction tests indicated that under presently
3/4 in. of mortar. The brick was then embedded in the bed accepted standards the brick that we were concerned about
mortar and pushed against the adjoining brick so that the did not require wetting, we proceeded with tests in which the
mortar at the head joint squeezed out enough to leave a 3/8-in. brick were (1) wetted by dipping in water and (2) simply
joint. This procedure was followed with each brick to make dampened.
sure that each head joint was properly filled. After 4 hours Figure 9 ( B ) compares dry brick and brick soaked for 1
each brick was knocked loose with a hammer and tapped un- minute. The mortar was 1:1:6 as before.
til the mortar fell away from the brick. The end faces were Soaking brick does not help bond much except in some cases
then inspected. of sanded and sand-mold brick, where it helps a great deal.
April 1958 Bond and Surface Physics of Masonry Units 109
Table 1. Surface Capillarity from Mortar Joints

Shows moisture (%) drawn from mortar joint in which brick is set.
Readings taken with Kaydel moisture tester using black scale.
Distance from mortar (in.)
_____
’/a ‘/a ‘/z a/, 1 11/4

Brick No. 4 (Sand-Mold)

15 inin. 8 2 0
30 niin. 15 3 0
45 inin. 8 2 0
1 hr. 4 1 0
1 hr. 30 min. 2 0
2 hr. 2 0
2 hr. 30 inin. 0
Brick No. 4 (Sand-Mold)
15 niin. 10 8 9 10 0
30 niin. 10 10 15 17 18 0
45 niin. 7 7 10 17 18 0
I hr. 6 6 7 10 8 0
1 hr. 30 niin. 5 4 0 Fig. 1 1. Bond tests. l e f t column shows bond with dry brick; right column,
2 hr. 4 1 0 moist brick. Third column for brick No. 33 shows that soaking gives better
2 hr. 30 niin. 1 0 bond. Horizontal lines show better bond on buttered head.

Brick No. 5 (Sand-Mold)

15 niin. 13 4 2 0
30 niin. 6 3 3 2 2 0
45 inin. 5 3 3 2 2 0
1 hr. 5 3 3 2 1 0 Further ex~erimentswere then conducted on drv and moist
1 hr. 30 inin. 5 3 3 2 1 0 brick. Figuie I1 indicates the extent of bond. The left
2 hr. column shows bond with dry brick; the right column shows
2 hr. 30 inin.
3 hr. bond with moist brick. Note that the percentage of bond is in
many cases decidedly different on the buttered end than on the
Brick No. 7 (Vcrtically Scored) backup end. The buttered end really gets two shoves and the
15 I n i n . 15 11 7 3 0 mortar is possibly a little wetter. If a long bed of mortar is
45 niin. 6 2 0
1 hr. 15 min. 3 1 0 laid, it will be found that the bed-joint bond is much better on
1 hr. 45 inin. 0 the first brick laid than on the last. With matt-texture brick,
Brick No. 9 (Sand-Finish) the mortar is often buttered against the grain and the voids
are filled. The upper line, in some cases, shows the difference
15 min. 17 9 5 3 0
30 min. 12 8 5 3 2 0 in bond of the two ends. We, however, take the poor bond,
45 inin. 12 6 5 3 2 0 as a wall is no better than its poorest joint. It was also noted
1 hr. 9 5 4 1 0 that when a smooth-surfaced brick is laid next to a rough
1 hr. 30 mill. 6 4 3 1 0 brick, the mortar breaks away from the rough brick and
2 hr. 4 3 2 0
2 hr. 30 min. 2 I 0 sticks to the smooth.
3 hr. 2 0 Figure 11 shows that with smooth brick of low suction, a
good bond is obtained when the brick are laid dry; moistening
BI-ick No. 35 (Rug)
does not help and can reduce the bond.
15 inin. 5 4 4 0
30 niin. 9 9 6 0 The vertically scored brick are not helped by wetting.
45 min. 4 5 1 0 There is lack of bond only because the mortar does not get
1 hr. 5 4 3 0 into the scores. It is about the same with matt-texture brick.
1 hr. 30 inin. 6 5 5 1 0 A third column is shown with cinder brick No. 33, as soaking
2 hr. 6 5 3 2 0
2 hr. 30 niiii. 5 5 3 2 0 appears to give better bond than simply moistening.
Moistening helps a little on some rugs and, as with matts,
the wetting helps with certain kinds of roughness but not with
others.
The results on sanded brick are astonishing; in the case of
the two sand-mold brick, moistening increases the bond to
Figurc 9 (C) shows the results of simply moistening the 95%. Practically all the rest show considerable improvement
brick. On sand-mold brick, the bond jumps from 15 and 25 by moistening, with one of the adverse to prove the rule.
to 95c%,. Most of the sanded brick show an improvement. In tests such as these, do not be misled by small percent-
Moistening docs not help the rug-texture brick. ages; too many factors can change them. Only trends should
T o dctcrmine the bond after setting for 4 days instead of for be studied.
4 hours, five brick were tested. We know, of course, that It has been shown that the mix used was 1: 1: 6. Nearly
bond docs increase a certain amount with age This experi- every test was made with 1: 1:6, 1 :2 : 8 (using t y p e 3 lime), a
nicnt (Fig. LO) and later tests showed that the 4-hour test niasonry cement (mixed 1:3), and a few other experimental
gave a good indication of bond. mixes. The results varied a few percentage on different brick
We next tricd to detennine what effect surface texture had but averaged very well. To determine the proper sand con-
on drawing water out ol a mortar joint, knowing, of course, tent, a Voss plastometer was used.
that if the water is drawn from the mortar, as in the case of a Note that the brick with the crosses under the number do
conimon brick of high suction, good bond is not achieved not show up well when dry, when damp, or when any type of
Table I shows rather clearly that some brick do draw water mortar is used.
out of joints as much as 1 in. and for a period of a t least 2 Color photographs were taken of several tests. As i t is im-
hours. It also shows that other brick are not very bad in this possible to reproduce them here in color, they are shown in
respect. Brick No. 4 shows rather well in one case and poorly black and white. They do not, however, show the results so
in anothcr. This brick varies considerably, as will be dis- clearly. In each of these pictures, note the end of the brick
cussed later. only.
110 Journal of The American Ceramic Society-Thocnton
Fig. 12. Brick No, 1, a smooth iron-spot. Brick 1 -A was laid damp;
1-B was laid dry. The bond is the same in both cases, excellent.
Fig. 13. Brick No. 6,vertically scored. The mortar does not get into
the scores i f they are deep.
Fig. 14. Brick No. 7, vertically scored. The brick was broken to
show the difference in bond between the buttered and backup ends.
Fig. 15. Rug brick No. 35. Mortar does not fill the voids.
Vol. 36, No. 4
Fig. 16. Brick No. 23, a matt-texture brick, was laid with l:l:6
mortar using regular lime that had not been soaked. The mix was
on the dry side, which often happens. The result is a poor bond.
Fig. 17. This matt, brick No. 31, was broken to show the difference
in bond between the buttered and backup ends.
Fig. 18. Brick No. 4 is a sand-mold brick. Brick 4-A is a well-
burned brick which sheds its sand better. The underburned brick
(4-B) does not shed its sand and poor bond results.
Brick No. 1, a smooth iron-spot brick, shows excellent bond
when laid either damp or dry (Fig. 12).
Brick No. 6, a vertically scored specimen, shows clearly
that the mortar does not get into the scores but has good bond
on smooth sections (Fig. 13).
Brick No. 7 , another vertically scored brick, shows consid-
erable difference in bond between the buttered and backup
ends (Fig. 14).
Brick No. 35, a rug-texture brick that showed bad leakage
in the chimney tests, indicates that the mortar does not get
into the voids. I t is better on these specimens than wss usu-
ally found (Fig. 15).
Brick No. 2 3 in Fig. 16 was laid with 1: 1: 6 mortar using
regular lime that had not been soaked; the mix was a little on
the dry side, which 6ften happens, The mortar was too stiff
to get into the voids. As a result, the bond is very poor.
April 1953 Bond and Surface Physics of Masonry Units
Fig. 19. Brick No. 5, a sand-mold brick, was laid in four different ways:
5-A, a very wet mortar; 5-B (two brick), dampened; 5-C, 1 :2:8 mortar;
5-D, masonry cement mortar.
._______
Fig. 20.
Sanded brick, No. 37, with practically no bond.
Fig. 2 1 . A sanded brick from a 10-year-old wall. Practically no band is
exhibited. Left ond center brick booked to show both sides of mortar joint.
Note glazed surface and loose sand on mortar at right. Back of brick in
some wall with same mortar showed good bond.
nrick No. 31, a matt-texture brick, shows much better bond
on the buttered end; the mortar does not fill the voids (Fig.
17).
Brick No. 4, a sand-mold brick laid dry, shows very poor
bond on one brick and good bond on another; these brick
vary considerably (Fig. 18). Note that the darker well-
burned brick shows up better. This will be mentioned later
when describing how the sand conies off the darker brick
more easily.
Brick No. 5 (a sand-mold brick) was laid in four different
ways (Fig. 19) : 5-C, a 1: 2 :8 mortar; 5-D, a masonry cement
mortar; >-A, a very wet mortar; and 5-B (two brick),
111
Fig. 22. Test chimneys or wells.
dampened. The dampened brick show better bond than the
wet mortar, but both of them are very much better than
when laid dry.
Brick No. 37, a sanded brick laid dry, shows extremely poor
bond (Fig. 20).
V. Bond in an Old Wall
A wall built in 1941 to enclose a transformer had to be torn
down recently. The brick were i~iadeof a mixture that siniu-
lated autumn shades and most of them were sanded. No mor-
tar clung to the ends of many of the brick removed, but some
of the smooth brick did have mortar on them. Several of the
brick are shown (Fig. 21), illustrating the lack of bond. Leak-
age of the wall could not be determined, as the wall was exposed
on both sides. When the brick were broken apart, it \was
found that there was no bond between the sanded face and the
mortar. A little of the sand was carried on the mortar. The
significant thing was that back 4 or 5 in. from the face, the
mortar was glazed, showing that there had never been any
bond. The back of the brick, which was smooth and was, of
course, laid with the same mortar, showed excellent bond.
Our results seemed to prove that the surface texture of ma-
sonry units affected bond to a great extent, but brickinen said:
“So what? How do we know that it affects leakage?” This,
indeed, was a fair question. By this time, our experiments
were well known and we were asked for assistance on many
occasions. In this manner, we learned of several jobs that
were causing difficulty. The brick in questionwere
usually the kind that had showed up badly in our experiments.
To find out if bond had any relation to leakage, eight chim-
neys were built, using four different mortars and six different
brick.
VI. First Chimney Experiments
The chimneys were approximately 4 f t . square (Fig. 22) and
8 in. thick and were 6 courses high (4 different brick in each
chimney). There were no headers. All joints were full and
the best workmanship was used throughout. This was not an
average job but was the best that could be laid. The joints
between the different panels were laid in calking coinpound
so that water could not get from one panel to another. All
joints were concave-tooled; just before introducing the water,
the raked-out joint a t the concrete floor was well calked. The
mason remarked that he did not see how there would be a
single leak. Only the tops of the walls were covered with tar-
paper, so that rain could not enter from the top of the wall;
the sides were exposed. All brick were laid dry, except brick
No. 14, a common brick of high suction, which was wetted be-
fore laying.
At the end of 30 days, water was introduced into each chim-
ney and an accurate record of each leak was kept. Although
112 Journal of The American Ceramic Society-Thornton Vol. 36, No. 4

.EVATI0
LEAKS)

I PLANS
C-6
CHIMNEY NO I CHIMNEY N0.3 CHIMNEY NO 5
LEEEEl rE33EFI lIIE3Ea
CHIMNEY N0.7
PLANS
C-6
CHIMNEY N0.I CHIMNEY N0.3 CHIMNEY N0.5 CHIMNEY N0.7

c-5EEEI3i m r3EzlEx %
W c-5 EEE33 EEH3
:
W

>.
c - 4 m m m I-
w
&
c-4 €E?€€€I
mm c-3 EEE%
Ilil-FUm
c-imm m LEEESL L
-
BRICK N0.28
BRICK N0.I
(SMOOTH) (SANDED)
Fig. 23

MORTAR NO I MORTAR NO 2 MORTAR NO 3 MORTAR NO 4 MORTAR NO. I MORTAR N0.2 MORTAR N0.3 MORTAR NO. 4
ELEVATION :LEVATON
(LEAKS) (LEAKS)
p, bNS CHIMNEY NO 2 CHIMNEY NO. 4 CHIMNEY NO6 CHIMNEY NO 8
PLANS
C-6

E
w
c-5
c-4
&
c-3
B9 c-2

c-l EE€n Ei€E€U l€E€ll EEEal

BRICK NO 35
Fig. 26

MORTAR NO I MORTAR NO 2 MORTAR NO 3 MORTAR NO 4 MORTAR NO I MORTAR N O 2 MORTAR N0.3 MORTAR N0.4
ELEVATION LEVATION
(LEAKS) (LEAKS)
_, ..,- CHIMNEY NO 2 CHIMNEY N O 4 CHIMNEY N O 6 CHIMNEY N O 8 PLANS
C-6 C-6

2W c-5 2
W
c-5
I- I-
9 c-4 w c-4
0 &
c -3
3 3 c-3
3 8
=
c-2 c-2

c-l EE€3 EEEE3l EEEEII C-l€€€€€l liE€!Hl €EEm €€€El

BRICK NO 14 BRICK N O 4
(COMMON SAND MOLD) 1 Fig. 28)
MORTAR NO I MORTAR N0.2 MORTAR NO 3 MORTAR NO 4
E LEVATION LEVATION
(LEAKS) (LEAKS)
PLANS CHIMNEY N0.2 CHIMNEY N0.4 CHIMNEY N0.6 CHIMNEY NO.8 PLANS
C-6 C-6

% c-5 $ c-5
2 W
I-
w c-4 w c-4
& >-
n
c-3 c -3
3 5a
9
= €€EEll
c-2 c-2

c-1- EliEEEa c-1 EEEB EEErl El€En EE€E3l

BRICK N0.4 BRICK N0.5
(SAND MOLD) (SAND-MOLD)
[Fig. 291 [Fig. 30)

Figs. 23-30. Charts showing leaks in elevations and dyed areas a t each course on the
plans. The lighter dyed areas are the bed joints; head joints are dark.
April 1953 Bond and Surface Physics of M a s o n r y Units 113
Table II. Chimney Tests
( 1 ) Leaks
Mortar No.
Brick NO. 1 2 3 4 Total 80

1 0 0 0 0 0 70
4 14 13 7 3 8 17 20 18 100 ? 60
5 12 12 20 10 54 a
W
14 11 12 13 5 41 -1 50
28 1 2 2 1 6 & 40
35 9 11 7 2 12 2 3 3 49
- - I - - - - - - LT
m
30
Total 24 47 16 29 22 52 24 36 250 I
3 20
(2) Avcrage Leaks z
10
Mortar No.
0
Brick IGJ. 1 2 3 4 Total
Fig. 32. Curve showing time interval before leaks appeared in
1 0 0 0 0 0
12.5 (W)19 50 chimneys.
4
5 12
13.5 ( B ) 1; (W)20 (B) 10 54
14 11 12 (W)13 (B) 5 41
28 (€3) 1 (W) 2 (W) (B) 1 6
35 (W) 10 4.5 (B) 3 24.5 MORTAR 900
NO 4
__ __ __ - ___
Total 47.5 35.5 54.5 38 175.5
B = lowest number of leaks.
W = highest number of leaks.

BRICK NO.
I 128 (35 114 ( 4 ( 5
t I I I 1
90
80
70
60 Fig. 33. Dyed areas for the six brick and four mortars
50 indicate that the brick varied much more than the
mortar.
40
30
20
10 Brick No. 28 (Fig. 24) is a sanded brick. The result is pe-
0 culiar, as more leaks were expected. The reason has been
found and will be discussed later.
Fig. 31. Curves showing laboratory bond tests in Brick No. 35 is a rough rug (suction rate 9.26 gm., but es-
comparison with leaks in chimneys. pecially high capillary action in a vertical direction). The
water completely covered the face and went over one-third of
the top in 15 minutes. This brick test was repeated, so that
two figures are shown (Figs. 25 and 26).
Figure 27 is brick No. 14, a sand-mold common brick of high
thc i i i r ~ s ~thought
ii that thcrc ~7ouldbe no leaks, two men were suction. These brick were wet when laid.
kept busy recording tlicin. Oiily one chimney was tested a t a Figures 28 and 29 are brick No. 4, a sand-mold brick.
time 'I'lierc were 250 leaks in the eight chimneys, but there Figure 30 is brick No. 5 , another sand-mold brick, which
was not a singlc leak with any mortar with the No. 1 brick, a shows up badly. The leaks came so fitst on these that it was
siiiooth iron-spot brick. As a record, each leak was circled difficult to keep up with them.
with yellow paint and colored pictures were taken of each
chimney VII. Charts of First Experiments
A t 45 days, dyc was put in the water and the chimneys were Section 1 in Table I1 shows the total number of leaks. As
iillcd again. Thcrc were fewcr leaks this time, which showed some of the panels were repeated, Section 2 shows the averages
tlyat if a building could be submerged, the leakage would be for each brick. Figure 31 is a graph that compares the results
reduced materially. Water furthers the chemical reaction of the previous laboratory bond tests and the leak tests. The
and tcnds to produce better bond. curves show that the bond tests were fairly indicative of the
A few days after the dye test, the chimneys were torn down leaks.
and the dye pciietration a t every joint was recorded carefully. We wondered about the time it took water to get through
Uetailcd drawings made of each brick panel showed the 30-day an 8-in. wall. Figure 32 was drawn from the records and
ledks and the number of minutes elapsing before e ~ c leak h ap- shows the time element for these tests. In each ease, most of
peared; plans of each course showed the extent of dye pene- the leaks occur between 10 and 20 minutes, 15 to 20 being the
tration on each joint. peak for all but one of the brick. After 25 minutes, the num-
The following figures show the results (bed joints are light, ber dwindles.
head joints are dark). This shows the results from outdoor tests. Later indoor
Brick No. 1 (Fig. 23), a smooth iron-spot brick, shows no tests showed that penetration of the panels averages a much
leaks with any mortar and the extent of dye penetration is longer time.
negligible. The bed joints of course No. I are not considered The areas were figured for both head and bed joints and
in any panel. put into chart form (Fig. 33); this graph was then made
113 Journal of The American Ceramic Society-Thornton
COMBINATION OF VARIOUS TESTS
x =Leaks 3000
=Area Stained
2500
- 2000
Fig. 34. Graph showing results of various tests on sanded and
sand-maid brick.
showing the total areas for the different brick and the four
niortars. Note that the brick are in almost the same order as
the\. are in the leak graphs. Only brick No. 14 changes place
with brick No. 4. Note brick No. 28, as the characteristics
o r this brick will be discussed later. Figure 33 shows that
there is considerably less difference in mortars than in brick.
The action of sanded and sand-mold brick was peculiar, so
we decided to plot the actions of eight of these kinds of
brick. The action of brick No. 28 was especially peculiar.
Tlic data obtained from the bond, capillary, leak, and stained-
area tests are plotted in Fig. 34. Another quick test for capil-
larity was also tried, i.e., one drop of water was placed on the
surface of each brick and the time in seconds for the reflection
to di\appear was noted. The amounts given here are the
averages of iiiany trials. Two seconds is about the average
for several brick, but with brick No. 28 the average is 33
second\. This, of course, should be a curve in the opposite
direction from the capillarity tests and so i t proves to be. It
also givcs one reason why brick No. 28 shows up well.
Some brickinen believe that the chimney test is rather se-
vere. 'This may be true, but we feel that we have made up
for it by the almoqt perfect workmanship.
I t should also be noted, in the figures showing the extent of
(lye penetration, that penetration of the dye is extensive in
the fifth and sixth courses where the water pressure is low.
I t is to be expected, of courge, that the penetration would be
more general lowcr where the pressure is high, but there is not
so much increase as would be expected.
We were attempting to get answers on bond by using
different finishes. These tests gave the answers. It can be
said that rain would not penetrate these walls. Rain does
penetrate walls in every section of the country-walls built
with what is considered to be good average workmanship.
The weaknesses found in certain surfaces can, we have reason
to believe, cause leakage.
Brick No. 28 still bothered us, so the brick were studied un-
der the microscope. There was really not much sand on the
brick, but the sand that was there had made the surface a mass
of cups, which did not promote capillary action. The first
bond test and capillarity tests showed about 2 in. of capil-
lary rise and tjOyobond. Brick taken from the pile used for
the chimneys showed better bond and a capillary rise of about
in.
As brick No. 28 showed up well in the chimney test, it was
chosen for use in one of our buildings. When we went to the
job, we found that the brick were not the same as those we had
used in the laboratory. There was a great deal of sand on the
brick, which had come directly to the job. The brick were
tested in the laboratory ; they had a great deal more capillary
action and did not show as good bond. Much of the sand
Vol. 36, No. 4
1
I
E
;
0
Fig. 35. Photograph showing the effect of wire brushing on capii-
lority of sand-mold brick No. 4. Brick A, wire-brushed; brick 8,
untreated.
could be removed by wire brushing; after removal of the
sand the capillarity decreased and the bond increased.
We also found that when a sand-mold brick was baked in an
oven overnight at 300°F., a very fine powder dropped easily
from it. One brick was wire-brushed; the others were tested
as they came. The sand was fine (140-mesh). The two
brick in Fig. 35 were as nearly the same color as could be
found. Note that the capillarity of the wire-brushed speci-
men A is low, whereas the capillarity of the untreated brick B
is high. In bond tests better bond was obtained with the
wire-brushed brick. Scraping also acted the same as wire
brushing.
VIII. Second Chimney Experiments
When the results of the outdoor chimney tests were tabu-
lated, we found, as is usual, that more information was needed.
We decided, therefore, to build 15 more chimneys inside, for
winter approached, using several other brick and a few other
mortars that showed promising possibilities in the laboratory.
Brick Nos. 35 and 4 and mortar No. 3 were reused in order to
relate these tests to the outdoor experiments.
Figures 36 to 44, inclusive, show the leaks and dyed areas in
the second or indoor tests.
In Fig. 36 brick No. 32, a vertically scored brick, has very
low leakage and dye penetration is not excessive, which backs
up our previous thought regarding this brick.
A sanded brick, No. 37 (Fig. 37), showed results contrary to
laboratory tests; we therefore tried to find the reason. The
brick used in the laboratory had ends and faces with high
capillarity and had poor bond, as shown in Fig. 20. The brick
delivered for the test showed high capillarity on the face but
low capillarity on the head. This will be discussed later.
Figure 38 shows a reuse of brick No. 28, which showed up
well on the first test. The brick used, however, had been
handled very little and there was loose sand on them. Here
there are considerably more leaks and dyed areas.
Brick No. 10, a rug, in Fig. 39, indicates that all rugs are not
bad. The capillarity on the end is very low. On the side i t
is rather high, but not nearly so bad as brick No. 35, which
leaked consistently with all mortars. The drop test shows
that brick No. 10 is two to five times better on the head and
face.
Brick No. 30 in Fig. 40 is called a matt, but it is really a rough
rug that shows considerable leakage. It shows high capil-
larity both ways. The drop test shows an unusually bad
head. The dye penetration indicates that the head joints are
very bad. Bed-joint dyed areas are small compared with the
heads.
Figure 41 shows brick No. 24, a sanded brick. Capillary
action is high and the drop test shows face and head the same,
both poor.
(Text continued on p. 118)
April 1953 Bond und Surface Physics of Mason?y Units 115

1 MORTAR NO. 3 MORTAR N0.5 MORTAR NO. 5 MORTAR NO.6 MORTAR NO. 6 MORTAR NO. 2

I _-- -.
PLANS ' I' I' I' I' I'
II lU
I ' P-FU ' I II "+Hl5+55da---
CHIMNEY NO. 12 CHIMNEY NO. 14 CHIMNEY NO.16 CHIMNEY NO. 17 CHIMNEY NO. 20 CHIMNEY NO.22

& c-4-

5
In
c-3
d-
c-2 EE333-
c-1- €EE€H lizEE# lEE333 EEEEl l3333
1 Fig.36 I BRICK N0.32
(VERTICAL SCORED)

I MORTAR N0.3 MORTAR NO. 5 MORTAR N0.5 MORTAR N0.6 MORTAR N0.6 MORTAR N0.7
ELEVATION
(LEAKS)
CHIMNEY NO. I I CHIMNEY NO. 13 CHIMNEY NO. 15 CHIMNEY NO. 17 CHIMNEY NO. 18 CHIMNEY NO. 21
PLANS

c-1- €EEEl E E 3 3 m €3EEEI i2EE3i4

I Fig, 37 1 BRICK N0.37
(SANDED)

MORTAR NO. 3 MORTAR NO. 5 MORTAR NO. 5 MORTAR N0.6 MORTAR N0.6 MORTAR N0.7
ELEVATION
(LEAKS)
CHIMNEY NO. I1 CHIMNEY NO. 13 CHIMNEY NO. 15 CHIMNEY NO. 17 CHIMNEY NO. 18
PLANS
C -6
I-
W
u,
I-
c-5- lF7EHEI l!!EEEH
"Zi c-4E!EEEEl €!HEEH
G
n
c-3

BRICK NO. 28
(Fig. 381 (SANDED)

Figs. 36-38. leaks and dyed areas in the indoor chimney tests.
116 Journal of The American Ceramic Society-Thornton Vol. 36, No. 4

MORTAR N0.5 MORTAR N0.5 MORTAR N0.6 MORTAR N0.7

ELEVATION C L - 1 0 ' c7[-
(LEAKS) .UCJL-ZILL-
xcri1-rl 0 n
CHIMNEY NO. 14 CHIMNEY NO. 16 CHIMNEY NO. 19 CHIMNEY NO. 20 CHIMNEY NO. 22
PLANS
mm

BRICK NO. 10
(RUG)

MORTAR NO. 3 MORTAR N0.5 MORTAR N0.5 MORTAR N0.6 MORTAR NO. 6 MORTAR N0.7
ZLEVATION
(LEAKS)
PLANS
C-6-

BRICK NO. 30
(ROUGH MATT)

MORTAR N0.3 MORTAR N0.5 MORTAR N0.5 MORTAR N0.6 MORTAR N0.6 MORTAR N0.7
LLEVAT10N
(LEAKS)

PLANS
C-6

$I c-5
W
I-
w c-4
&
c-3
0
$ c-2

C - l E E € H E€€€H EEEEE4 EEE€H E 3 3 3 H-fr=Ms

I Fig. 41 I BRICK N0.24
(SANDED)

Figs. 39-41. leaks and dyed areas in the indoor chimney tests.
April 1953 Bond and Surface Physics of Masonry Uwits 117

MORTAR NO. 3 MORTAR NO. 5 MORTAR NO. 5 MORTAR NO. 6 MORTAR NO. 6 MORTAR N0.7
LEVATION
(LEAKS)
PLANS CHIMNEY NO I I CHIMNEY NO. 13 CHIMNEY NO. 15 CHIMNEY NO. 17 CHIMNEY NO. 18 CHIMNEY NO. 21

C -6

$i c-5
W
I-
w c-4
(5
c-3
a
In
q c-2

c-1- E€EEH EE€a E€E€H EE€€El EEEEEH

r Fig. 42 I BRICK N 0 . 2 3
(MATT)
MORTAR NO. 3 MORTAR NO. 5 MORTAR NO. 5 MORTAR NO. 6 MORTAR NO. 6 MORTAR N0.7
LEVATION
(LEAKS)
CHIMNEY NO. 18 CHIMNEY NO. 21
PLANS
C-6

$i
W
c-5
I-
w c-4
&
$ c-3
n
!$ c-2

c-1- EEEB EEEE! €EE€lB EEEm E333I

BRICK NO. 35
(RUG)

MORTAR M0.3 MORTAR N0.3

CHIMNEY NO. 23 CHIMNEY NO. 23 CHIMNEY NO. 23 CHIMNEY NO. 23

PLANS
C-6

biW c-5

b
5 c-3

BRICK N0.4
1 Fig. 441 (SAND MOLD)

Figs. 42-44. leaks and dyed areas in the indoor chimney tests.
118 Journal of The American Ceramic Society-Thorntoit VOl. 36, No. 4
Table 111. Mortar Tests *I OUTDOORS #2 INDOORS

Water Plasticity Strength,

Mortar Retention Flow ( % of flow, 28days
No. (Ox,) (in.) 20 min.) (Ib./so. in.)

1 80.0 8.0 -7.2 100.0 1410

2 83.72 8 . 3 -7.6 100.0 700
3 80.00 8 . 3 -7.44 94.6 1412
4 82.97 8 . 0 -7.32 88.4 1363
5 82.78 8.119-7.41 87.6 1905
6 81 .OO 8 . 2 9 -7.45 91.6 1937
7 76.3 8.218-7.219 98.4 1648

Brick No. 23 in Fig. 42 is a matt that has medium-high

capillarity and is also poor in the drop test on face, head, and
bed. The back is good. Note that although there is only
one leak with mortar No. 3 , the dyed area is only a little less Mold
than some with a great many leaks. Fig. 45. Outdoor and indoor chimney leak tests rhow-
Figure 43 shows brick No. 35, the rug that showed up badly ing total and 30-minute leaks.
in the outdoor test and also in the laboratory tests. In the
drop test the head and face show badly but the back and bed
are good.
Figure 44 indicates what happened with brick No. 4, a
sand-mold brick, which has been mentioned several times.
This experiment was made with mortar No. 3, the difference
being that the first panel was laid with brick as they came.
The brick in panel No. 2 were wetted before laying; the brick
i n panels Nos. 3 and 4 were wire-brushed.
There are thirteen leaks with the untreated brick, none with
the wetted brick, and an average of I1/z for the wire-brushed
panels. The 3G-minute leak is not counted, as it was dis-
coloration only. The dyed areas do not show so startling a
difference as the leaks, but the drop is really very good. The
areas are as follows: untreated, 905 sq. in.; wetted, 31% sq.
in.; and brushed, 458 sq. in. average.

IX. The Mortars

\?re have been asked why more mortars were not tried.
More were tried. Many were tcsted in the laboratory and
those used that werc considered best for the chimney tests.
To try out those that were used took more than one hundred
panels.
Laboratory tests of the seven mortars used in the chimneys
provided the data shown in Table 111. These tests were made
with Ottawa sand.
X. Charts of Results of All Tests
A large number of leaks did not appear for more than an
hour. As we were not greatly concerned with leaks after 30
minutes, we charted the averages (Fig. 45) for the different
brick and mortars in 30 minutes in both the outdoor and in-
door tests. This did not change greatly the order of results
obtained in charting the total number of leaks.
Figure 46 shows a composite of the averages of leaks with
the different brick and mortars, i.e., they are all on the same
basis. Figure 46 shows where each brick stands in both tests,
the kind of brick, and the approximate capillarity of the
brick. Note that the leaks follow the capillarity rather closely.
Some seem to be slightly off, but most cases can be ex-
plained, for example brick No. 28. In the first test, most of
the sand was rubbed off (leakage was low). In test No. 2,
care was taken to use brick that had not been handled to any
extent and there was roughly three times the leakage and four
times the dyed areas. Brick No. 37, a sanded brick,
showed up badly in laboratory tests. Here the brick furnished
were difierent; the ends of most of the brick were smooth.
A sand sludge is rolled onto this type of brick. Evidently the
side rollers became dry while this run went through. The
drop test ordinarily showed 2 seconds on the face and head.
These brick show 2 seconds on the face and 63 seconds on the
head.
Fig. 46. Average leaks and dyed areas showing that they follow
copillarity rather closely.
Brick Nos. 23 and 24 acted queerly; the 30-minute leaks
decrease but the dyed areas soar. We have not been able to
analyze this action as yet.
In the outdoor and indoor panels, there was a distinct dif-
ference with brick No. 4. This was to be expected, as brick
No. 4 varies a great deal. We have reason to believe that the
action of wind and sun on outdoor work increases the capillary
action and reduces bond with some types of brick.
Brick No. 4, a sand-mold brick, has bothered us exceedingly.
It acts so differently a t different times.
Chimneys were built using this brick, each having one panel
dry, one wetted, and one brushed, as referred to previously.
Figure 47 shows how the brick in the indoor test compare us-
ing one mortar, No. 3.
Leaks and dyed areas on the dye charts do not always run
parallel. In many cases where one mortar shows more leaks
than another, the dyed areas are more nearly the same, and
often, although only a few leaks actually appear, there are
many potential leaks.
XI. A Theory of What Happens
The tests with sanded and sand-mold brick show very little
bond when the brick are laid dry, although the suction rate is
well within the accepted limit. Only a pin-point contact
seems to be obtained.
On a sand-surfaced brick, the globular particles give several
times more surface area than there is on a smooth surface and
thus take up more water. Moistening the brick mayvelieve
April 1953 Bond and Surface Physics of hfasonry Units
I ST RUN
BRICK NO
Fig. 47. Leaks for various brick with mortar No. 3.
Note brick No. 4, a sand-mold brick, untreated, wetted,
and wire-brushed.
the surface tension and allow the mortar to penetrate the small
openings. It is also possible that loose sand is removed dur-
ing thc wetting process.
If the brick are laid dry and the mortar does not fill the
small voids, high capillary action takes place and water may
be drawn from the mortar to the edge of the brick; the high
capillary action on the face carries it along where i t will dry
rapidly. This can pull sufficient water from the mortar so
that it does not bond as in the case of brick of high suction,
which we have always considered should be wetted before
laying.
Figure 48 shows what niay take place theoretically and is
not offcred as fact. Brick of high suction draws the water
from the mortar into the brick and poor bond results. A
brick of low suction, but with more surface area, pulls the
water from the mortar, and the pin-point contact leaves a path
to the surface where the water spreads out on the face of the
brick ; as it dries, more moisture follows. The result is very
little or no bond. Some observations we have made have led
us to believc that cracks hctween brick and mortar, usually
blamed on shrinkage, are really cases of no bond in the first
place.
One contractor remarked that lie always wetted sand-mold
brick. He had found that masons laid more brick when the
brick were wet. The reason lie gave was that they had to tool
the joints too quickly, which backs up our contention that the
moisture is drawn out of the joint too quickly.
XII. Discussion of the Problem
We srcm to have discovered another reason why some of the
sand-mold brick show up so poorly in bond. The diflerence
between the well-burned brick and the underburned brick is
tremendous. We have obtained better bond with the well-
burned brick and have found that loose sand falls off much
more easily. The underburned brick have greater suction.
None of brick No. 4 show more than 12.18 gm. suction, but
some of brick No. 5 show much more than 20 gm.
I n the case of brick No. 5, a sand-mold brick, we find that
many are used near where they are made with little difficulty.
The answer to this seems to be that it is the custom in that
locality to use a much wetter mortar than masons elsewhere
will use.
It can now be seen how the weather can affect bond. On
damp days there may be enough moisture on certain brick to
cut down the capillary action. Dry, windy days will increase
it.
The brick do vary, and it has been shown definitely that
when they are clean, good bond is obtained; when there is
sand, the bond is poor.
119
LOW SUCTION HIGH SUCTION
5ANDtD
t t t l t
Fig. 48. Diagram illustrating theory of how water is drawn from
mortar to surface of sanded brick.
We believe that ways should be found to remove all loose
sand from brick, whether it is as fine as I40-mesh, as is found
in some sand-mold brick, or coarse, as is used in others. There
is no bond where there is loose sand. Sand is used in many
places to prevent sticking. In cast metal work, sand is used
in the molds. In the brick industry sand is used extensively
to keep the brick from sticking together, yet we are all
shocked to find that this same sand acts in the same way with
mortar.
We have determined definitely that some of these brick
show a better bond when the sand is wire-brushed from them.
We are trying to develop a mortar that will be satisfactory to
use with other rough brick, but we have no hope of improving
the bond when loose sand is on the brick. This is up to the
brick industry. Brick Nos. 28 and 4 have just as fine an ap-
pearance without the sand. It can be removed. There may
be other things that will have to be done, but i t will be well
worth the time and effort that we have put into this work if the
brick industry will carry on in an attempt to eliminate loose
sand.
When a heavily sanded brick was laid, it was noted that
when the brick was tapped to straighten it, sand fell off in
quantities on the mortar projecting from the bed joint. This
mortar is cut off with a trowel and is used on the next head
joint. The mortar thus used contains considerable sand that
is not mixed in. This may r e d t in a poor bond, especially if
the mortar is used in a partial head joint.
Sanded brick that lies around the yard goes through freezing
and thawing, is rained on, is handled several times, sheds a
great deal of sand, and gives better bond than brick that goes
directly to the job with little handling. The use of tongs
tends to leave more sand on brick.
We have been able to answer some questions that have
bothered us, i.e., why can we lay a good wall that is impervious
to moisture a t one time and have disastrous results with the
same brick and mortar on another job?
Bad leakage with rug brick first called our attention to the
relation of surface physics to permeability. There is a con-
siderable difference in rug finishes and the capillary action
varies a great deal. In some cases the brick are deeply scored
and then rerolled, leaving deep undercut cavities. Even when
the brick are shoved into place, these cavities apparently are
not filled. This should not cause leakage unless there is a
continuity of voids, which does happen, especially when the
head joint is not full. The capillary action then can help
make a path for the entrance of water. Many rugs also pull
the water from the joint by capillary action.
Matt-texture brick act somewhat the same. When the
brick are laid dry, the crevices are not filled. Our observa-
tions indicate that heavy matts are in somewhat the same
class as rough rugs.
Although mortar does not fill the grooves of vertically
scored brick, we are not concerned about leakage of head
joints from bond or capillary action with this class of brick.
120 Journal of T h e American Ceramic Society-Thornton
Thc smooth sections between the ribs give perfect bond and
the only chance for capillary action and poor bond is in a ver-
tical direction from the horizontal joints. Capillary action is
the rcsult of continuous roughness in the crevices.
The holes in brick have been blamed for leakage. Our ex-
periments showed some interesting things in this regard.
There is little doubt but that when the brick are laid in the
wall and the holes are near the surface, water can be pulled
into the holes and does find its way down and into the wall if
there is poor bond. We do not believe that this is a major
reason lor leakage, but we do feel that holes in brick should not
be ncar the face. If the holes are a t least 1 in. from the face,
we do not believe, with our present knowledge, that holes in
brick contribute materially to leakage. Later experiments
have shown that although the holes are not a cause of leakage,
they aid materially in the distribution of water.
The mortar used with the sand-mold brick did not stick to
the frogs. Nearly all frogs were completely covered with the
dye. It is an odd coincidence that with one common brick
thc mortar stuck t o the frogs. The only explanation we have
for this is that in wetting these brick, considerable water is
absorbed and, since the frog is on the bottom, some of that
moisture is added to the mortar.
It was noted that the backs of some brick were scored. The
scores make i t almost impossible to fill the joints completely,
when using a slushed-in mortar backup. Better results were
obtained when brick had smooth backs.
A few interesting things have been discovered about tooling.
T%rickthat showed few leaks in the %in. wall showed several in
a 4-in. wall. Here i t was found that the bond was good for
about in. back from the face; then, if dye penetrated, it
ran along back of the line. This has led us to believe
that possibly the tooling compressed the mortar and made i t
less pernieable a t that point, but that i t tended to lilt the brick
enough to affect the bond back of the 1/2-in.line. Both the 4-
in. wall and the 8-in. wall weie tooled after the six courses were
laid, but it was more than twice as long a time before the tool-
ing was done in the %in. wall than in the 4-in. wall. The time
element in tooling secins to have a great deal to do with the
over a11 bond.
It is usually stated that head joints are the cause of most
wall leaks. From these experiments it is evident that there is
another reason why hcad joints usually give trouble. Al-
though the top and bottom of the brick are not always per-
fectly sinc~oth,they are smoother, except in sand-mold brick,
and therefore give better bond than the rough finish of the
ends of brick. We have found, however, that high capillarity
of the face can cause poor bond in bed joints.
It is not common practice, of course, to fill head joints com-
pletely. Even when masons try to do good work and fill
head joints, a perfect job cannot be expected. Brick with
high capillary action in walls where the head joints are not
filled are almost sure to cause troublc.
IIcre a word might be said about efflorescence. It is the
symptom of a disease. Moisture must get into a wall and
then come out to produceit. Let us try tokeep moisture from
getting in. This does not, however, pardon the use of materials
containing free salts.
Our invcstigations seem to have shown that the surface
physics of masonry units does affect the bond between mortar
and brick units. Some cluestions have been answered that
have bccn uncxplainable before. It is possible that some of you
will feel that what we have done is not conclusive. We do not
blanie you; we did not belicvc it ourselves at first. We were
a littlc frightened. We thought that we had a disease without
a cure.
During our work we have found that this kind of research
can never be finished, as there is so much to learn. Each
experiment shows us that several more should be made.
Several times results were achieved that did not agree with
Vol. 36, No. 4
previous findings. Each time there has been concentration on
why this happened and in most cases an explanation has been
found. All through the investigation, the finger has pretty
consistently pointed in the same direction. Our work has not
been approached with the idea of proving something; i t has
been to learn the truth and let the chips fall where they may.
Our experiments have been restricted to the effect of the
surface physics of the masonry units on the bond with mortar.
We believe that a relationship has been found, The point
where this weakness in bond affects leakage on the job requires
further work. Workmanship and the wedther will affect
permeability, as we have known; its effect is just understood a
little better. Poor mortars or good mortars, improperly used,
and over-sanding of mortar are some of the large factors in
leakage.
We believe that leakage is the problem of all in the construc-
tion industry-the architect, the contractor, and the manu-
facturer of both mortars and masonry units. The tendency
has always been t o blame i t on the other fellow. Each one
must try to correct the weaknesses in his field.
XIII. Conclusions
Let us review what seems to be apparent from our research
work to date:
(1) Mortar does not get into the voids of rough brick, re-
gardlessaf whether the voids are large as in rugs or small as in
sand-finish brick,
(2) Capillary action of some brick surfaces draws moisture
from the mortar before perfect bond can take place.
(3) Loose or removable sand on any faces of brick raises
capillarity and reduces bond considerably, regardless of
whether the sand is coarse or very fine.
(4) For rough brick a mortar is needed with a sufficiently
high workability to fill the voids on the face of the brick and
sufficient water retention to nullify the surface capillarity.
We hope that it can be found.
( 5 ) In head joints the poorer joint is the backup joint.
I n bed joints i t is the contact with the brick above, i t . , the
first contacts are the best, usually by a high percentage.
Advocate spreading short bed joints.
(6) Time in tooling is important. Tooling too quickly
breaks the bond.
(7) You should advocate wetting mortar boards or advise
using metal or treated wood boards. Keep the water in the
mortar as long as possible.
(8) Some brick of low suction require wetting to obtain
proper bond. Test the brick and do not be ashamed to advise
wetting.
We have not advised stopping the use of any certain finish
although we believe that it is necessary to modify some fin-
ishes, such as rough and deeply undercut rugs, rough matts,
and heavily sanded brick, and to eliminate loose sand on any
brick.
We hope that the permeability of masonry walls can be
reduced. If this can be done to any extent, it will aid the
entire construction industry.
Acknowledgment
In this research work we have been fortunate in receiving aid
and advice from a large number of persons: Edward Kryk, who
has conducted most of the experiments, and others of our col-
leagues in our company; F. S. Long, who worked with Mr.
Kryk, J. A. Kauer, W. T. Young, who built the chimneys,
and A. C. Fowler, of the staff of the Huron Portland Cement
Company; A. E. Pavlish, of Kelley Island Lime & Transport
Company; H. C. Plummer, of the Structural Clay Products
Institute; P. V. Johnson, of the Structural Clay Products Re-
search Foundation; Douglas Parsons and J. W. McBurney of
the National Bureau of Standards; and several brick dealers
and manufacturers who have cooperated to the fullest extent.
We are happy that Mr. Johnson is working on these prob-
lems in his laboratory. He can do many things we have been
unable to do.