;u{.

' e8tvi
The program of research on building materials and structures, carried on by the

National Bureau of Standards, was undertaken with the assistance of the Central

Housing Committee, an informal organization of governmental agencies concerned

with housing construction and finance, which is cooperating in the investigations through

a subcommittee of principal technical assistants.

CENTKAL HOUSING COMMITTEE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNICAL RESEARCH

Walter Junge, Chairman, Federal Hous- Arthuh C. Shire, Vice Chairman, United

ing Administration. States Housing Authority.

Sterling R. March, Secretary

Albert G. Bear, George E. Knox,

Veterans Administration. Yards and Docks (Navy).

Pierre Blouke, Vincent B. Phelan,

Federal Home Loan Bank Board. National Bureau of Standards (ComCarroll W. Chamberlain, merce).

Procurement Division (Treasury). Edward A. Poynton,

Joseph M. DallaValle, Ofiice of Indian Affairs (Interior).

Public Health Service (Federal Security George W. Trayer,

Agency). Forest Service (Agriculture).

John Donovan, Elsmere J. Walters,

Farm Security Administration (Agri- Construction Division (War),

culture).

CHAIRMEN OF SECTIONS

Specifications Materials Maintenance

Carroll W. Chamberlain Elsmere J. Walters John H. Schaefer

Mechanical Equipment Methods and Practices

Robert K. Thulman

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

STAFF COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION AND COORDINATION

Hugh L. Dryden, Chairman.

Mechanics and Soxmd

Phaon H. Bates, Gustav E. F. Lundell,

Clay and Silicate Products. Chemistry.

Hobart C. Dickinson, Addams S. McAllister,

Heat and Power. Codes and Specifications.

Warren E. Emley, Henry S. Rawdon,

Organic and Fibrous Materials. Metallurgy.

The Forest Products Laboratory of the United States Department of Agriculture

is cooperating with both committees on investigations of wood constructions.

[For list of BMS publications and how to purchase, see cover page iii]
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE • Harry L. Hopkins, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS • Lyman J. Briggs, Director

BUILDING MATERIALS

and STRUCTURES

REPORT BMS23

Structural Properties of a Brick Cavity-Wall Construction

Sponsored by the

Brick Manufacturers Association

of New York, Inc.

by HERBERT L. WHITTEMORE, AMBROSE H. STANG,

and DOUGLAS e. parsons

ISSUED AUGUST 31, 1939

The National Bureau of Standards is a fact-finding organization;

it does not "approve" any particular material or method of construction. The technical findings in this series of reports are to be construed accordingly.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE • WASHINGTON • 1939

FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, WASHINGTON, D. C. • PRICE lO CENTS
Foreword

This report is one of a series issued by tlie National Bureau of vStandards on the

structural properties of constructions intended for low-cost houses and apartments.

Practically all of these constructions were sponsored by groups within the building in- dustry which advocate and promote the use of such constructions and which have built

and submitted representative specimens, as outlined in report BMS2, Methods of Determining the Structural Properties of Low-Cost House Constructions. The sponsor

is responsible for the representative character of the specimens and for the description

given in each report. The Bureau is responsible for the test data.

Tlais report covers only the load-deformation relations and strength of the wall of a house when subjected to compressive, transverse, concentrated, impact, and racking

loads by standardized methods simidating the loads to which the wall would be subjected in actual service. It may be feasible later to determine the heat transmission at ordinary temperatures and the fire resistance of this construction and perhaps other

properties.

The National Bureau of Standards does not "approve" a construction, nor does it express an opinion as to the merits of a construction for the reasons given in reports

BMSl and BMS2. The technical facts on this and other constructions provide the

basic data from which architects and engineers can determine whether a construction

meets desired performance requirements.

Lyman J. Briggs, Director.

(II)
Structural Properties of a Brick Cavity-Wall Construction Sponsored by the Brick Manufacturers Association of New York, Inc.

by HERBERT L. WHITTEMORE, AMBROSE H. STANG, cllld D()U(iJ,AS E. PARSONS

CONTENTS

Foreword ii

I. Introduction 1 n. Sponsor and product 2

III. Specimens and tests 2

IV. Wall BD 2

1. Sponsor's statement 2

(a) Materials 2

(6) Description 3

(1) Four-foot wall speci- mens 3

(2) Eight-foot wall speci- mens 3

Page IV. Wall BD—Continued.

(f) Fal)rication data 4

(d) Comments 4

2. Compressive load 5

(a) Load on facing and backing 5

(6) Load on backing only 6

3. Transverse load 7

4. Concentrated load 9

5. Impact load 9

6. Racking load 11 V. Selected references.. 12

ABSTRACT

For the program on the determination of the structural properties of low-cost house constructions, the

Brick Manufacturers Association of New York, Inc., submitted 15 specimens representing a brick cavitywall construction. The specimens were subjected to compressive, transverse, concentrated, impact, and racking loads. The

compressive loads were applied to the facing and backing of three specimens and to the backing only of three

other specimens. For each of the loads, three like specimens were tested. The deformation under load and the set after the load was removed were measured

for uniform increments of load, except for concentrated

loads, for which the set only was determined. The

results are presented graphically and in a table.

I. INTRODUCTION

In order to provide technical facts on the per- formance of constructions which might be used

in low-cost houses, to discover promising constructions, and ultimately to determine the

properties necessary for acceptable performance,

the National Bureau of Standards has invited

the building industry to cooperate iir a program

of research on building materials and structures

for use in low-cost houses and apartments.

The objectives of this program are described in report BMSl, Research on Building Materials

and Structures for Use in Low-Cost Housing,

and that part of the program relating to the

structural properties in report BMS2, Methods

of Determining the Structural Properties of Low-Cost House Constructions.

As a part of the research on structural properties, six masonry wall constructions have

been subjected to a series of standardized

laboratory tests to provide data on the properties of some constructions for which the behavior in service is generally Imown. These

data are given in report BMS5, Structural

Properties of Six Masonry Wall Constructions.

Similar tests have been made on wood-frame

constructions by the Forest Products Laboratory of the United States Department of Agriculture, the results of which will be given in a subsequent report in this series. This pi'esent report describes the structural

properties of a wall construction sponsored by

one of the groups in the building industry.

The specimens were subjected to compressive,

transverse, concentrated, impact, and racldng

loads, simulating loads to which the walls of a house are subjected. In actual service, compressive loads on a wall are produced by the

weight of the roof, second floor and secondstory walls if any, furniture and occupants,

wind load on adjoining second-story walls, and

163035°—39 [11
snow and wind loads on the roof. Transverse

loads on a wall are produced by the wind, concentrated and impact loads by furniture or accidental contact with heavy objects, and

racking loads by the action of the wind on

adjoining walls. The deformation and set under each increment of load were measured because the suit- ability of a wall construction depends in part on its resistance to deformation under load and

whether it returns to its original size and shape

when the load is removed.

II. SPONSOR AND PRODUCT

The specimens were submitted by the Brick

Manufacturers Association of New York, Inc., New York, N. Y., and represented a brick

cavity-wall construction. The specimens consisted of a brick facing and backing separated

by an air space and connected by steel wall

ties. The joints were cement-lime mortar.

III. SPECIMENS AND TESTS

The wall construction was assigned the

symbol BD, and the specimens were assigned

the designations given in table 1.

Table 1.Specimen designations, wall BD

Specimen desig- nation Load Load applied

CI, Ci, cs

Cla, C2a, CSa

Tl, T2. TS

PI, P2, PS - 11, 12, IS Rl, R?, RS

Compressive. __ do

Transverse

Concentrated.

.

Impact

Racking .

Upper end, 3.12 in. from the inside

face. Upper end, on backing only, cen- tered on backing. Either face. Do. Do. Near upper end

.

" These specimens were undamaged portions of the transverse speci- mens.

The specimens were tested in accordance

with BMS2, Methods of Determining the

Structural Properties of Low-Cost House Constructions, which also gives the requirements for the specimens and describes the presentation

of the results of the tests, particularly the loaddeformation graphs.

For the compressive load, three specimens were tested with the load applied to the facing

and the backing, one-tliird the thickness of the

specimens from the inside face, and three additional specimens with the load applied to the

backing only, centered on the backing.

For the transverse, concentrated, and impact

loads, only three specimens for each loading were tested, because the wall was symmetrical

about a plane midway between the faces, and

the results for loads applied to one face of the

specimens should be the same as those obtained

by applying the loads to the other face. The tests were begun July 21, 1938 and

completed September 16, 1938. The speci- mens were tested 28 days after they were built. The sponsor's representative witnessed the

tests. IV. WALL BD

1. Sponsor's Statement

(a) Materials

Brick.—Clay brick, formed in sanded molds

by the soft-mud process, and having frogs (depressed panels), 6 by 2 by }i, in., on one side,

with the raised letters "SSIBCO." The average

dimensions were 8.09 by 3.65 by 2.30 in. (about

SKe by 32^2 by 2^6 in). Sutton & Sudderly

Brick Co., Coeymans, N. Y.

The following properties of the brick were

determined by the Masonry Construction Section of the National Bureau of Standards.

When laid, the brick were damp. The absorption for 1-min partial immersion was determined

for two bricks taken about every 30 min from

the mason's scaffold. The physical properties

of the brick, determined in accordance with the

American Society for Testing Materials Standard C 67-37,' are given in table 2.

Table 2.

Physical properties of the brick, wall BD

Compressive strengthModulus of rupture

Water absorption

Weight, dry 5-hr cold

24-hr

cold, C

5-hr

boil. B

Saturation

coefl3- cient, C

B

1-min partial immersion "

Dry As

laid

Ibjin.i 3,240 540

Percent 13.4Percent 13.8

Percent 18.7 0.74

Grams/

brick

41

Grams/

brick15lb/brick

4. 13

Immersed on flat side in H in. of water.

1 Am. Soc. Testing Materials Supplement to Book of ASTM Standards,

78-82 (1937).

[2]
Mortar.—The materials for the mortar were Medusa Cement Co.'s "Medusa" portla-nd

cement, lime putty made by slaking Standard

Lime and Stone Co.'s "Washington" powdered

quicklime, and Potomac River building sand.

The mortar was 1 part of cement, 0.42 part

of hydrated lime, and 5.1 parts of dry sand, by

weight. The proportions by volume wei'e 1 part of cement, 1 part of hydrated lime, and 6 parts of loose damp sand, assuming that portland cement weighs 94 Ib/ft^, dry hydrated lime

40 Ib/ft^, and 80 lb of dry sand is equivalent to

1 ft^ of loose damp sand. The materials for each batch were measured by weight and mixed

in a batch mixer having a capacity of 2/3 ft\

The amount of water added to the mortar was

adjusted to the satisfaction of the mason. The following properties of the mortar materials and of the mortar were determined by the

Masonry Construction Section. The cement

complied with the requirements of Federal

Specification SS-C-191a for fineness, soundness, time of setting, and tensile strength. The

lime putty contained 40 to 45 percent of dry

hydrate, by weight, and had a plasticity of over 600, measured in accordance with Federal

Specification SS-L-351. The sieve analysis of the sand is given in table 3.

Table 3.

Sieve analysis of the sand, wall BD

Table 4. Physical [) roperlies of the mortar, vmll BfJ

United

States Passing, Standard by weight

sieve No.

Percent

8 100

16 88

30 53 50 9 100

The average water content of the mortar was

22.3 percent, by weight of dry materials.

Samples were taken from at least one batch of mortar for each wall specimen, the flow determined in accordance with Federal Specification

SS-C-181b, and six 2-in. cubes made. Three

cubes were stored in water at 70° F, and three were stored in air near the wall specimen. The

compressive strength of each cube was determined on the day the corresponding wall

specimen was tested. The physical properties

of the mortar are given in table 4.

Specimen

CI... ce

CS. Cla

C^a... C3a

T3.

IIa

13. Rl

R'/ R3

Averape

Flow

Percent

106

108

111 115

101 108

104

112

101 103

110

108

111 115

102

105

Compres.sive .slrenKlh

Air storage Water storIbjin.-698

588 868

686

544

592

.560 689

676

540

648

653 592

641 543 558

548

425

108

Iblin.' m

770

703 660

617

683

751 666

700

717

744 868 830

753 792 838

745

Wall ties. —Steel, Yi-in. diam, bent to a Z

shape with 90° angles between the outstanding legs and the stem. The length of the stem was 6 in. and of the outstanding legs 3 in.

(6) Description

(1) Four-foot wall specimens.—The 4-ft wall

specimens were 8 ft 2^2 in. high, 4 ft 0 in. wide,

and 9/^ in. thick. The specimens were built

with a brick facing. A, and backing, B, as shown

in figure 1, separated by an air space, C, and

connected by steel wall ties, D. There were

35 courses of brick in both the facing and the

backing. Two wall ties, spaced 2 ft 0 in. on

centers, were placed every sixth course start- ing with the joint between the third and fourth

courses. The bed joints were furrowed. The head

joints were formed by applying the mortar cut from the bed joint at the face of the specimen

to the outer edge of the brick and that from

the cavity side to the bottom edge of the brick

before placing. This resulted in solidly filled head joints.

The price of this construction in Washington,

D. C, as of July 1937, was $0.40/ftl

(2) Eight-foot wall specimens.—The 8-ft wall

specimens were 8 ft 2}^ in. high, 8 ft 1 in. wide,

and 9% in. thick. The specimens were similar

to the 4-ft specimens. There were four wall

ties, spaced 2 ft 0 in. on centers, placed every

[3]
Because the two sections of cavity walls are connected only by the small steel wall ties, any

moisture which penetrates the facing will run down the inside of the facing. Consequently,

provision must be made to catch this moisture

at the bottom of the cavity or above openings,

Figure 1.

Four-foot wall specimen BD.

A, facing; B, backing; C, air space; D, wall ties.

sixth course, starting with the joint between

the third arid fourth courses.

(o) Fabrication Data

The fabrication data, determined by the

Masonry Construction Section, are given in

table 5.

Table 5.Fabrication data, wall BD

[The values per sciuare foot were computed using the face area of the specimens!

Thickness of joints Masonry

units

Mortar materials Mason's

time Bed Head Cement Lime, dry

hydrate Sand, dry

in. 0.52in.

0. 38 Number/ft'12. 1 Ib/fP2. 87

lb/ft'1.21Ib/JO14.6 hr/p

0. 183

{d) Comments

Brick cavity walls are widely used in Europe,

especially in England, where cavity-wall construction is conmionly used for brick walls.

Figure 2.

Flashing above and below windows, and

dampproofing at bottom of cavity iralls.

A, flashing; B, wall ties; C, dampproofing; B, weep holes.

4]
1

and deflect it outward. This is usuall}^ done

by means of flexible dampproofing or flashing,

as shown in figure 2. Weep holes or open joints

may be provided to allow collected moisture to drain from the bottom of the cavity.

Furring, lath, and plaster, or other insulation or finish may be applied to the inside face

of cavity walls in the same manner as to solid

walls. It has not been considered good practice, however, to place insulation inside the

cavity.

2. CoMPUESsiVK Load

(a) Load on Facing a ml liacki'ng

Specimens BD Cl, C2, and (J3 wer(! tested in accordance with JiMS2. The compressive loads were applied to both the facing and the backing,

3.12 in. from the inside face. Wall specimen BD-C2 under compressive

load is shown in figure 3. The results for wall

specimens BD-Cl , C2, and C3 are shown in table 6 and in figures 4 and 5.

Figure 3.Wall specimen BD-C2 under cunt- pressive load, load applied to both facing

and backing.

[51
shorfening 'in./8 ff

FiGTJRE 4.

Compressive load on wall BD, load applied

to facing and hacking.

Load-shortening (open circles) and load-set (solid circles) results for specimens BD~Cl, C2, and CS. Load applied 3.12 in. from the inside

face. The loads are in kips per foot of actual width of specimen

0. 0.2 0.4 0.6

laferal deflecfion in. Figure 5.

Compressive load on wall BD, load applied

to facing and hacking.

Load-lateral deflection (open circles) and load-lateral set (solid circles) results for specimens BD-Ct, C2, and CS. Load applied 3.12 in. from

the inside face. The loads are in kips per foot of actual width of speci- men. The deflections and sets are for a gage length of 7 ft 3 in., the gage length of the deflectometers.

Table 6.Structural properties, wall BD

[Weight, 67.6 Ib/ft^]

Load Load applied

Speci- men

desig- nation

Fail- ure of loaded

face, height

of drop

Fail- ure of opposite face, height

of drop

Maxi- mum

height

of drop

Maxi- mum

load

CompressiveDo

(Upper end, 3.12

\ in. from the

( inside face Average

\ C2

[ CS

ft ft ft 'Kipslft 62.6 6L7 6L9

62.

[Upper end on

J backing only,

1 centered on

I backing Average

1 Cla

\ Cia

CSa

50.9

48.3

52.5

Transverse - -

Concentrated

Impact

50. 6

rOne face; span,

I 7 ft 6 in.

Average.-- -

( Tl

\ T2

[ TS

Iblft^ 22. 0 30.0

24.0

25.3

One face I P2

[ PS

lb

k 1. 000

646

k 1, 000 Average

/One face; span,

\ 7 ft 6 in.

Average-..

Near upper end

Averaee

1\ 12

[ IS

(")

1. 5 1.5

3.0

2. 5 2.0

3.0

3.5

2.0

Racking

2. 5 2.8

({ R2

{ RS

^Kipslft

4. 95

6. 03 6.00

5. 66

« A kip is 1,000 lb.

k Specimen did not fail. Test discontinued.

• There was a crack in the loaded face before the test.

The shortenings and sets shown in figure 4

for a heiglit of 8 ft were computed from the

values obtained from the compressomoter readings. The gage length of the compressometers was 7 ft 4 in. Specimens CI and C2 failed by crushing of the brick and the mortar bed joints in two or three courses of the backing at about twothirds the height, followed by rupture of both

backing and facing at this height. Specimen C3

failed by crushing of a few bricks and the mortar

bed joint in one course of the backing at about

two-thirds the height.

{h) Load on Backing Only

Specimens BD-Cla, C2a, and CSa were

tested in addition to the specimens required by

BMS2. The compressive loads were applied to the backing only and centered on the backing.

[6]
Figure 6. —Wall specimen BD-Cla under compressive load, load applied to backing only.

This loading probably more nearly represents

the load transmitted to the wall by the floor

joists.

Wall specimen BD-Cla under compressive

load is shown in figure 6. The results for wall

specimens CI a, C2a, and CSa are shown in

table 6 and in figures 7 and 8. The shortenings and sets shown in figure 7

for a height of 8 ft were computed from the

values obtained from the compressometer readings. The gage length of the compressometers was 7 ft 3 in. Specimen Cla failed by crushing of a few

bricks and the mortar bed joint in one course of the backing at about two-thirds the height, followed by rupture of both backing and facing.

Specimen G2a failed by crushing of a few bricks

in one course of the backing near the upper end

of the specimen and cracldng of the bacldug

vertically at midwidth from about midheight

to the upper end. Specimen CSa failed by

crushing of one mortar bed joint of the backing

at about two-thirds the height and cracking of the backing vertically.

3. Transverse Load

Wall specimen BD-TS under transverse load

is shown in figure 9. The results for wall

specimens BD-Tl , T2, and T3 are shown in

table 6 and in figure 10.

[7]
50

40

IS 30

.1 ?0

to

0

4

/

1

1

Im—

1

1

50cr

0 0.1^

}n./8n

Fi

0.04- 0.08

shorfen/ncf

Com pnssiue loud on trail BD, load applied

to hacking only.

L(ia(i--<l](irteniog (oijen circles) and load-set (solid circles) results for specimens BD-Cln, da, and CSa. Load centered on hacking. The

loads are in kips per foot of actual width of specimen. JO

I

30

/O*

7

]/

iJ

n

1

1

BO-cr

0.2 0.4 0.6

laferal deflecfion in

Figure 8.Com pres-^iivi load on wall BD, load applied

to hacking only.

Load-lateral deflection (open circles) and load-lateral set (solid circles) results for specimens BD-Cla, CSa, and CSa. Load centered on backing. The loads are in kips per foot of actual width of specimen. The

deflections and sets are for a gage length of 7 ft 3 in., the gage length of the deflectometers.

Figure 9.—Wall specimen BD-T3 under transuerse

load.

The deflections shown in figure 10 are the

averages of the deflections of the loaded face

and the opposite face, measured independently.

The loaded face deflected the same amount as the opposite face within 0.01 in., the estimated

error of measurement.

Each of the specimens failed by rupture of the bond between the brick and the mortar at one bed joint near a loading roller in both the

loaded face and the opposite face. The rupture of the joint in the loaded face of specimen

Tl occurred at a joint having ties. The opposite

face of specimen Tl and both faces of specimens

T2 and T3 failed at joints having no ties.

[8]
28

24

5 12'

8

•< )

i » —o—

1 ' D

u —

g

t

0.2 0.4 0.6

defleciion in.

Figure 10.—Transverse load on wall BD.

Load-deflection (open circles) and load-set (solid circles) results for speci- mens BD-Tl, T2, and TS on the span 7 ft 6 in. The deflections and

sets are for a gage length of 7 ft 3 in., the gage length of the deflec- tometers.

800

o

600

400

200'

t

^ (

»

1

—

<»

..1 -%

1

1 -—

•

-• / BD

Fig URE 11.—Wall specimen BD—Pl under concentrated

0 0.02' 0.04 0.06

indeniaiion in. Figure 12.

Concentrated load on wall BD.

Load-indentation results for specimens BD-Pl, P2, and P3.

4. Concentrated Load

Wall specimen BD-Pl under concentrated

load is shown in figure 11. The results for wall

specimens BD-Pl, P2, and P3 are shown in

table 6 and in figure 12. The concentrated loads were applied to one

face of each of specimens PI and P2 at the

center of the rectangle formed by four ties, the

load being a])plied at the junction of a bed and

a head joint for specunen Pi and on a head

joint for specimen P2. The concentrated loads were applied to specunen P3 at midwidth on a brick in a course which was two courses above

a bed joint having ties. The indentations after a load of 1,000 lb had been applied were 0.001

in. for specimens Pi and PS and no other effect was observed. Specimen P2 failed at a load of

646 lb by rupture of the bond between the

brick and the mortar at the bed joint below the course to which the load was applied.

5. Impact Load

Wall specimen BD-I3 under impact load is shown in figure 13. The results for wall speci- mens BD-Il, 12, and 13 are shown in table 6 and in figure 14.

[9]
FiGUKK 13. —Wall specimen BD-I3 under impact load.

The impact loads were applied to the center

of one face of each specimen, the sandbag strik- ing the face between wall ties. Specimen II had a crack in a bed joint in the loaded face at

four-fifths the heiglit before the test and, therefore, no set readings for this specimen were

taken. This crack probably occurred when the

specimen was moved to the impact equipment.

No other cracks were observed in this face during the test. The opposite face of this specimen failed by rupture of the bond between the

brick and the mortar at a bed joint two courses above the crack in the loaded face. For specimen IS at a drop of 1.5 ft, a bed joint near midheight in the loaded face cracked, and at 2.5

ft a bed joint three courses above in the opposite face also cracked. At the maximum drop

the specimen failed by rupture of the bond between the brick and the mortar at the bed joints

previously cracked. For specimen 13 at a drop

of 1.5 ft a bed joint at two-thirds the height in

the loaded face cracked. At the maximum

drop the specimen failed by rupture of the bond

between the brick and the mortar at this joint

and at a joint at the same height in the opposite

face.

[10]
6. Racking Load

Wall specimen BD-R2 under racking load

is shown in figure 15. The results for wall

specimens BD-Rl, R2, and R3 are shown in table 6 and in figure 16. The deformations and sets shown in figure 16 for a height of 8 ft were computed from the

measuring-device readings. The gage length

of the vertical measuring device was 6 ft 4 in. The gage length of the horizontal measuring

device was 5 ft 0 in. Specimens Rl and R3 failed by rupture of both facing and backing approximately along a

diagonal between the point of application of

load and the stop. The cracks followed the

joints in some places and passed directly through

the brick in other places. Specimen R2 failed

by rupture of the backing only. The failure of the backing was similar to that for specimens

Rl and R3.

1 <

-

>

1 —0-|

• —

•—

0

o-oi

—

)—

BD 0 0.6- def/ecfion in. Figure 14.

Impact load on wall BD.

Height of drop-deflection (open circles) and height of drop-set (solid

circles) results for specimens BD-Il, n, and 73 on the span 7 ft 6 in.

Figure 15.—Wall specimen BD~R'2 under

racking load.

[11]
OW 0.04 0.06

deformafion tn./Sff

Figure 16.Radkiug load on icall BD.

Load-deformation (open circles) and load-set (solid circles) results for specimens BD-Rl , R2, and R3. The loads are in kips per foot of actual width of specimen.

The drawings of the specimens were pre- pared by E. J. Scheil, G. W. Shaw, and T. J.

Hanley of the Bureau's Building Practice and

Specifications Section, under the supervision

of V. B. Phelan.

The structural properties were determined

by the Engineering Mechanics Section, under

the supervision of H. L. Whittemore and A. H.

Stang, and the Masonry Construction Section,

under the supervision of D. E. Parsons, with

the assistance of the following members of the

professional staff: C. C. Fishburn, F. Cardile,

R. C. Carter, H. Dollar, M. Dubin, A. H.

Easton, A. S. Endler, C. D. Johnson, P. H.

Petersen, A. J. Sussman, and L. R. Sweetman.

V. SELECTED REFERENCES

Edwin Gunn, Survey of modern building techniques—

domestic and similar structures, Architect and Building News (London), 152, 101-2 (1937). Notes from the Information Bureau of the Building

Research Station, Architect and Building News

(London), 153, 234 (1938); 156, 199-200 (1938); Master Builder (London), p. 806 (Nov. 1938). Leonard W. Burridge, Weatherproof brickwork. The

British Clayworker, p. 119-31 (July 1938). London Countij Council, Construction of Buildings in London, p. 22 and 28 (June 1938).

Washington, April 6, 1939.

o

[12]

V
BUILDING MATERIALS AND STEUCTURES REPORTS

The following publications in this series are now available by punshase from the

Superintendent of Documents at the prices indicated:

BMSl Research on Building Materials and Structures for Use in Low-Cost Housing 10^ BMS2 Methods of Determining the Structural Properties of Low-Cost House Constructions lOfi BMS3 Suitability of Fiber Insulating Lath as a Plaster Base lOfi BMS4 Accelerated Aging of Fiber Building Boards 100 BMS5 Structural Properties of Six Masonry Wall Constructions 16^ BMS6 Survey of Roofing Materials in the Southeastern States 15^ BMS7 Water Permeability of Masonry Walls IQij- BMS8 Methods of Investigation of Surface Treatment for Corrosion Protection of Steel 10^ BMS9 Structural Properties of the Insulated Steel Construction Co.'s "Frameless-Steel" Constructions for Walls, Partitions, Floors, and Roofs 10^ BMSIO Structural Properties of One of the "Keystone Beam Steel Floor" Constructions Sponsored by the H. H. Robertson Co lOf, BMSll Structural Properties of the Curren Fabrihome Corporation's "Fabrihome" Constructions for Walls and Partitions 100 BMS12 Structural Properties of "Steelox" Constructions for Walls, Partitions, Floors, and Roofs

Sponsored by Steel Buildings, Inc 150 BMS13 Properties of Some Fiber Building Boards of Current Manufacture 100 BMS14 Indentation and Recovery of Low-Cost Floor Coverings 100 BMS15 Structural Properties of "Wheeling Long-Span Steel Floor" Construction Sponsored by

the Wheeling Corrugating Co 100 BMS16 Structural Properties of a "Tilecrete" Floor Construction Sponsored by Tilecrete Floors, Inc 100 BMS17 Sound Insulation of Wall and Floor Constructions 100 BMS18 Structural Properties of "Pre-Fab" Constructions for Walls, Partitions, and Floors Sponsored by the Harnischfeger Corporation 100 BMS19 Preparation and Revision of Building Codes 150 BMS20 Structural Properties of "Twachtman" Constructions for Walls and Floors Sponsored by

Connecticut Pre-Cast Buildings Corporation 100 BMS21 Structural Properties of a Concrete-Block Cavity-Wall Construction Sponsored by the National Concrete Masonry Association 100 BMS22 Structural Properties of "Dun-Ti-Stone" Wall Construction Sponsored by the W. E. Dunn Manufacturing Co 100

How To Purchase

BUILDING MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES REPORTS

On request, the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington,

D. C, will place your name on a special mailing list to receive notices of new reports in this

series as soon as they are issued. There will be no charge for receiving such notices. An alternative method is to deposit with the Superintendent of Documents the sum of $5, with the request that the reports be sent to you as soon as issued, and that the cost thereof be charged against your deposit. This will provide for the mailing of the publications without

delay. You will be notified when the amount of your deposit has become exhausted.

If 100 copies or more of any report are ordered at one time, a discount of 25 percent is allowed. Send all orders and remittances to the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, D. C.