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 committee of principal technicians.

CENTRAL HOUSING COMMITTEE

ON RESEARCH, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION

A C. Shiee, Chairman.

United States Housing Authority.

Howard P. Vermilya, Vice Chairman.

Federal Housing Administration.

Sterling R. March, Secretary

Pierre Blouke,

Federal Home Loan Bank Board.

Hugh L. Dryden,

National Bureau of Standards.

Louis A. Simon,

Public Buildings Administration.

Luther M. Leisenring,

Construction Division (War).

Edward A. Poynton,

Office of Indian Affairs.

John S. Donovan,

Farm Security Administration.

George W. Trayer,

Forest Service (F. P. Laboratory).

Joseph M. DallaValle,

Public Health Service.

George E. Knox,

Yards and Docks (Navy).

William R. Talbott,

Veterans' Administration.

Wallace Ashby,

Bureau of Agricultural Chemistry and Engineering

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

STAFF COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION AND COORDINATION

Hugh L. Dryden, Chairman.

Mechanics and Sound.

Phaon H. Bates,

Clay and Silicate Products.

Hobart C. Dickinson,

Heat and Power.

Warren E. Emley,

Organic and Fibrous Materials.

Gustav E. F. Lundell,

Chemistry.

Addams S. McAllister,

Codes and Specifications.

Henry S. Rawdon,

Metallurgy.

The Forest Products Laboratory of the Forest Service is cooperating with both

committees on investigations of wood constructions.

[For list of BMS publications and directions for purchasing, see cover page in.]
UNITED STATES'DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE • Harry L. Hopkins, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS • Lyman J. Briggs, Director BUILDING MATERIALS

W STRUCTURES

REPORT BMS59

Properties ot Adhesives for Floor Coverings

PERCY A. SIGLER a^c/ ROBERT I. MARTENS

ISSUED SEPTEMBER 19, 1940

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

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

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE • WASHINGTON • I94O

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

In connection with the research program on building materials for use in low-cost

house construction, being conducted by the National Bureau of Standards, a study was made of adhesives for floor coverings. Failure of a floor covering to adhere to the

subfloor has a considerable effect on the ability of the floor covering to withstand service.

In view of the increasing desire for floor coverings in basements, the moisture resisting

qualities of commercial adhesives and of a few experinn>ntal preparations were investigated.

This report jiresents the results of tests on a variety of adhesives and primers along

with comments on their suitabilities for use on concrete floors that are subject to dampness.

Lyman J. Briggs, Director.

[11]
Properties of

by PERCY A.

Adhesives for Floor Coverings

SIGLER and ROBERT I. MARTENS

CONTENTS

Page

Foreword ii

I. Introduction 1 II. Methods of testing 1

1. Outline of procedure 1

2. Adhesive-strength tests 2

(a) Straight-pull test on dry speci- mens 2

(b) Straight-pull test on specimens

exposed to water 3

(c) Stripping-pull test on dry speci- mens 3

Page

3. Exposure tests on concrete slabs . 4

(a) Linoleum bonded to concrete and exposed to dampness 4

(b) Permeability of coatings to moisture 4

III. Results 5 IV. Summary and conclusions 7

V. Selected references 8

ABSTRACT

An investigation was conducted on adhesives and

primers used for bonding linoleum and other floor coverings to subfloors. Tests were made to determine

their resistance to both a straight pull and a stripping

pull when used to bond }i-inch battleship linoleum to concrete, wood, and metal. Specimens were tested in a dry condition and after exposure to moisture. Pieces

of linoleum bonded to concrete slabs with selected adhesives and primers were inspected periodically during exposure to moisture. The methods of testing are described and the results are presented in tables. In view of the results of this investigation it would appear

advisable in new constructions to waterproof concrete

floors which are in contact with the ground.

I. INTRODUCTION

In locations vv'here complete coverage of the

floor space is desired, it is advantageous to bond some types of floor coverings to the subfloor. It is well known that a failure in the

bond will cause almost any floor covering to become prematurely unserviceable. Failure of a bond may result from an unclean or wet

condition of the subfloor, separation in an

underlay, a faulty adhesive or method of in- stallation, or from excessive dimensional changes

of a floor covering with changes in relative

humidity and temperature. In general, no

difficulty is experienced in making satisfactory

installations on subfloors which are dry, even,

riaid, and clean. The results of performance tests on installa- tions of various floor coverings and adhesives on comparatively dry subfloors have been re- ported in previous Bureau publications [1, 2] ^

It has not been established, however, that

satisfactory installations of such floor coverings as wood, linoleum, rubber, and felt base can be made over concrete subfloors which are damp or which may become so. Installations

of asphalt tile with asphaltic cements have

met with fair success on concrete subfloors

which are in contact with the ground. Such

installations are not always successful where

excessive dampness prevails and should not be

made at a time when the stu'face of the concrete

is wet. Adhesives claimed to be "waterproof"

have been on the market for some time. In

view of the lack of information on adhesives

for floor coverings, a study was made of their

comparative bonding strengths and moistm-eresisting properties.

' Figures in brackets indicate the literature references at the end of this paper.

251301°—40 [1]
II. METHODS OF TESTING

1. Outline of Procedure

The investigation was conducted along several lines. The various adhesives were used to bond linoleum to wood, steel, and concrete. The resistances of the adhesives to a straight

pull and a stripping pull were measured. Similar specimens on concrete were exposed to moisture and their resistances to a straight pull

determined.

and strips of linoleum were removed peiiodically to inspect the bond.

A practical measure was made of the permeability to moisture of selected adhesives, primers,

and membranes.

2. Adhesive-Strength Tests

(a) Straight-Pull Test on Dry Specimens

The specimens for the straight-pull test were

prepared by bonding 2-in. squares of /s-in.

P'iGURE 1.

Strnighl-piill test.

Specimens on concrete were prepared, using

"waterproof" priming coats in conjunction

with an adhesive selected as a control. The

specimens were exposed to moisture and adhesive-strength tests were made as a means of

determining the effectiveness of the primers as moisture barriers.

Squares of linoleum, 12 by 12 in., were bonded

to concrete slabs with selected adhesives and

primers. The slabs were exposed to moisture

battleship linoleum to blocks of wood, steel, or concrete with each of the various adhesives.

The adhesives were spread with a notched

trowel in order to control the thickness within

practical limits, and each adhesive was allowed

to dry for about 5 minutes before affixing the

linoleum, unless otherwise specified by the

manufacturer. A small wooden block was

cemented to the top surface of the linoleum on each specimen with a cellulose nitrate

[2]
cement, to serve as a clamping surface in test- ing the specimens.

The specimens thus prepared were subjected

to a pressure of approximately % lb/in. ^ and

were allowed to dry for 7 days under this pres- sure in an atmosphere of 65-percent relative

humidity and at a temperature of 70° F. The

Figure 2.

Stripping-pull test.

force required to rupture the bond was then

determined in a tensile-testing machine (see

fig. 1) . The force was applied at approximately

right angles to the bonded surfaces and at a power jaw speed of 2 in./min.

Failure in the bond usually occurred at the

junction of the adhesive with the burlap backing of the linoleum. Preliminary tests showed

that the nature of the biulup backing had an

appreciable effect on the results. The bonding

strength of an adluisive was higher with a lin- oleum which had the burlap deeply keyed to the

linoleum mix than with a linoleum which liad the burlap moderately keyed. The linoleum

adopted for these tests was one with the burlap

moderately keyed to the linoleum mix. The

steel blocks were cold-rolled steel Yi in. thick.

The concrete blocks were 1)9 in. thick, and

were made of 2 parts of cement, 6 parts of concrete sand, and 1 part of water, by weight.

The wooden blocks used were cut from a planed

white-pine board % in. thick.

(6) Straiglit-Pull Test on Specimens Exposed to Water

For deterininiug the eil'ect of moisture ou the

resistance of the adhesives to a straight pull,

the specimens on concrete blocks were similar

to those prepared for the dry test. After the

drying period of 7 clays, the specimens were

exposed to moisture for either 7 days or 14 days.

The 7-day exposure was made by setting the

concrete block in water to a level about }{ in. below the top of the concrete. For the 14-day

exposure the water level was maintained even

with the top of the concrete. In the latter case the edge of the linoleum was covered with a

layer of the adhesive ; this layer was scraped off before testing. The force required to rupture

the bond was determined immediately upon

removal from the water.

(f) Stripping-Pull Test on Dry Specimens

Specimens for the stripping-pull test consisted of 2- by 6-in. pieces of wood, steel, or

concrete, to which strips of }8-in. battleship

linoleum, 2 in. wide and 8 in. long, were bonded.

The strip of linoleum was placed on the block

so that one end of the linoleum extended 2 in. beyond the block for the purpose of clamping.

After a 7-day drying period under a pressure of

approximately % lb/in. ^, the maximiun force

required to strip the linoleima over a distance of

4 in. was determined. Before making the test, the linoleiun was stripped back by hand for a distance of about 1 in. The stripping force was

applied at an angle of approximately 90° with

[3]
respect to the surface of the base and at a power

jaw speed of 2 in./min (see fig. 2).

3. Exposure Tests on Concrete Slabs

(a) Linoleum Bonded to Concrete and Exposed

to Dampness

The concrete slabs were 14 by 28 by V/o in. and were made of 2 parts of cement, 6 parts of concrete sand, and 1 part of water, by weiglit.

Tlie top surface of eacli slab was given a steel trowel finish. The slabs were allowed to dry

for at least 2 weeks. Squares of /s-in. battlepieces of linoleum for the purpose of demonstration.

(6) Permeability of Coatings to Moisture

A few selected adhesives and a few selected

primers were spread on concrete slabs and

allowed to dry. Care was taken to see that

complete coverage was obtained. Tlu'ee coats

of the primers were applied. The adhesives were troweled three times, each troweling being

at right angles to the previous one. A small

tray of anhydrous calcium chloride and a small

tray of anhydrous copper sulfate were placed over each coating. A watch glass, 6 in. in

Figure 3.

Exposure test of linoleum handed to concrete slab.

ship linoleum, 12 by 12 in., were bonded to the

slabs with moisture-resisting adhesives or with

selected adhesives in conjunction with moistureresisting priming coats. The adhesives were

allowed to dry approximately 24 hours. Each

slab was then set in a tray of water that was

maintained at a level of about ji in. below the

top surface of the concrete. Strips of the lino- leum were removed periodically to inspect the

bond. Figure 3 shows specimens exposed to moisture. Strips of linoleum, 3 in. wide, have

been removed from the slab and have been

placed in an inverted position on the remaining

diameter, was placed over the trays as a cover. The edge of the watch glass was sealed to the

coating with paraffin to prevent moisture in

the atmosphere from afl^ecting the indicators.

The slabs were then set in water to within ji in. of the coatings, and the length of time required

for the indicators to be obviously affected was

noted (see fig. 4) . In the presence of moisture,

calcium chloride granules form a liquid, and

anhydrous copper sulfate, which is white, is hydrated and turns green. The permeability to moisture of a few selected

membranes bonded with adhesives to concrete

[4]
Figure 4. —Test of permmhililij of coalings to moisture.

slabs was also determinod in a similar manner

(see fig. 5).

III. RESULTS

Table 1 shows the comparative bonding

strengths of various commercial adhesives as

well as of a few experimental preparations when

used to bond linoleum to wood, steel, or concrete. The effects of exposure to moisture on

the bonding strengths of the adhesives are also shown in this table. Adhesive-strength tests were made on a few asphaltic adhesives in which asphalt tile was substituted for linoleum

in the test specimens. The results of these

tests are presented in table 2.

Figure 5. —Test of penrieability of membranes to moisture.

[5]
Table 1.

Results of adhesive-strength tests with linoleum

Adhesive

Sample

designation

.4... B.-- C_- D—

(7. H...

K..

L... M..

N...

0.-. P

R

v....

X...

FA.. El

E4'.. E5..

Type

Lifrnin paste do . do _ do . Copal resin cement , do. . do

do Curaar resin cement . Resin and oil cement _ do

Rosin and petrolatum paste Casein-latex cement _ do . do Alumina cement and latex paste do White Portland cement and latex paste Rubber dispersion cement

_do "Cut-back" rubber cement "Cut-back" asphalt cement

do _ Asphalt emulsion, soap type Asphalt emulsion, clay type

Caol-tar cement ^ do. d do. <J do. d Cumar resin cement applied hot (7.'j° C)

do. <! Portland cement and cellulose nitrate dope«._

Wood

Ih256

249

2Sn

324 252

294

336

27920 399

336

Straight pull (4-in.2 area) Stripping pull (2-in. width)

Dry '

Steel

324

37X

248

285

304

286

10 325

.360

Concrete

314

268

308

291 198 246

315

226

248

27 429 480

165 362

281 262

10475

245

236

7143

305

27384

252

48

56

187

Exposed to water

7 days

Concrete

125

44 213

14320

9343

51 220

1S6 105

138 106

260

256

52

17167

92

14 days

Concrete

118

131 206

133 116

23

232

113

126

71

17 103

64

104 203

Dry

Wood Steel Concrete

3118

» ,\fter 7 days' drying. ' Top surface of concrete block given 2 coats of coal-tar primer.

b No vulcanizing agent. ' .Adhesive remained in a plastic state. Allowed to dry 23 days before testing.

' With vulcanizing agent. " T^xperimental preparation.

d Experimental adhesives prepared by a manufacturer's research laboratory.

Table 2.- Results of adhesive-strength tests with aspIuiU

tile

Adhesive

Straight pull (4-in.- areai

Dry »

Exposed

to water »

Exposed to saturated

solution Ca(0H)2»

Sample

desig- nation Type

7 days14 days

7 days

Wood

Steel

Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete

\V "Cut-back" asphalt /h lb lb lb lb lb cement 83 105 140 191 100 91 A' Asphalt emulsion. 132 119 203 128 85 54 soap tvpe - V. Asphalt emulsion,

clay type _ . 201 178 228 143 TO 49 Z do 139 202 124 94 68

.A-fter 7 days' drying.

As an aid in determining the effectiveness of moisture-resisting primers, adhesive-strength

specimens were prepared on concrete blocks

which had been previously treated with the

primers. All primers were applied in three coats and each coat was allowed to dry separately. Lignin paste and an oil-base cement

were the adhesives used for determining the

comparative effectiveness of the primers as moisture barriers. Lignin paste is partiallj^

soluble in water and thus has very little adhesive strength when wet. The oil-base cement is not readily soluble in water, however, tests showed that its adhesive strength is noticeably

lowered hj contact with moisture. The results of adhesive-strength tests on these specimens

are shown in table 3. As a supplement to the adhesive-strength

tests, specimens of a larger size were exposed to moisture. A personal inspection was the principal means of determining the results of these

exposures. The results of this study on selected

adhesives and primers are recorded in table 4. Table 5 shows the comparative permeability

to moisture of selected adhesives, primers, and

membranes.

[6]
Table 3. -Comparative effectiveness of priming coals as moisture barriers

Primer

None

Bakolite dope [3] BakeUtP and slvceryl-phthalate dope

[3] : Bakelite and china wood oil dope [3]. Cellulose nitrate dope Cumar resin dissolved in toluene Rubber resin paint- Aluminum powder and varnish Coal tar_

Resistance to straight pull

(4-in.* ares)

Control ad

hesive, lignin paste

Drv

Concrete

lb268

361 230

Exposed

to water < for 7 days

Concrete

16110

10

0 104

108

Control adhesive,

resin and oil cement

Dry

Concrete

II) 258

366

263

263

224 239

269

137

Exposed to water »

7 days

Concrete

lb96

400

252

203

140

201 227

228

148

14 days

Concrete

133

188

160

184

194

« After 7 days' drying. Table 4.

Resvlts of exposure to moisture of 12- by 12-in.

pieces of linoleum bonded to concrete slabs with selected adhesives and primers

Adhesive

Lignin paste (B).-- Do

Do.

Do

Do

Do_

Do

Do

Copal resin cement

(G).

Cumar resin cement

(/).Do

Do

\ Resin and oil cement

(J). Resin and oil cement

(K-. Alumina cement

and latex paste (P)Do.__

' "Cut-back" rubber cement (U). Do

"Cut-back" asphalt

I cement ( I^.

rC'oal - tar cement

I (Ell.

Toal-tar cement and

coal-tar felt.

None

Bakelito dope 1.3]_

Bakelite and glycer- vlphthalate dope

[3], Bakolite and China wood oil dope [31.

Cumar resin and

china wood oil in toluene. Ctimar resin and

tricresyl phosphate

in toluene. Asphalt

Coal tar

.Skim coat of adhesive.

do

Bakelite dope (.3]

Coal tar_ None

do_. do .

Cement-latex _ None . .

.

"Cut-back" rubber Skim coat of adhesive.

Coal tar

-do

Appearance (6 weeks or

less)

Paste was moist. Bond

was poor. Paste wjs very wet. Bond

was poor. Adhesion of primer to concrete was

fair. Paste was wet. Bond was

poor. Primer was easily separated from concrete. Paste was very wet. Bond

was poor. Adhesion of primer to concrete was

fair. Paste was wet. Bond was

poor. Primer was easily peeled from concrete. Do.

Do.

Paste was wet. Bond was

poor. Adhesion of primer

to concrete was good.

.Vfter 3 weeks, the linoleum buckled and separated from the concrete slab. -\dhesive and back of linoleum was very wet. Bond was fair. Back of linoleum was dry. Bond wr^s poor. Primer

stuck to adhesive and was easily separated from

concrete. Do. Bond was fair. Back of linoleum was drv. Do. Bond was fair. Back of linoleum was wet. Do.

Do.

Do.

After 3 weeks, the linoleum buckled and separated from the concrete slab. After 5 days, the linoleum buckled and separoted from the concrete slab. Bond was poor. Linoleum and felt were easily sepa- rated from primed concrete slab.

Table 5.

Comparative perni.eahilily to moisture of

selected coatings

Primer

Chlorinated - rubber paint. Do

None

Cement-latex. None

Do. Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Do.

Adhesive

None.

do Alumina cement and latex

paste (P). do "Cut-back "rubber cement

Resin and oil cement (if)." Cumar resin ce- ment (/). Alumina cement

and latex paste

(P). ...do

"Cut-back"rubber cement

(V). None

.do.

Membrane

None.

.do.

.do.

.do. .do.

.do.

.do. Asphalt-laminated

sheathing paper, ZZ.h Asphalt-laminated

sheathing paper, Z."

do.c

Asphal tic-concrete

slab, No. 1, VA

in. thick.

«

Asphal tic-concrete

slab, No. 2, V/i

in. thick.

«

Time required

to aflect indicators

84 hours.

13.5 hours.

24 hours.

96 hours.

120 hours.

50 days. Do.

72 hours.

Unchanged at

115 days.<i Unchanged at

50 days.<i Unchanged at

115 days. Do.

» Adhesive was stripped from the concrete without difficulty.

i> .See report BMS35 [41, sample designated ZZ

.

» See report BMS35 [t], sample designated Z.

<i Ability of adhesive to adequately bond membrane to concrete ex- posed to dampness over a large area is questionable. Membrane was

stripped from concrete slab without difficulty.

' Experimental slab furnished by the Asphalt Institute. Consisted of a mixture of approximately 12 percent asphalt with graded aggregate. Slab itself placed in water to within M inch of top surface. IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Many of the adhesives tested possess high

adhesive strengths under dry conditions. None,

however, show adequate resistance to moisture

to be satisfactory for bonding hnoleum to basement subfioors where moisture conditions are prolonged or severe. Even though the surface

of a concrete floor in a basement may appear

dry, it may become wet after the application of a floor covering. The floor covering causes an

appreciable lowering in the rate of evaporation

of moisture in the concrete. Lignin paste, which is much lower in cost than most other fioor-covermg adhesives, appears satisfactory for bonding such floor coverings as linoleum, rubber, and felt base to subfioors in dry locations. It is partially

soluble in water and should not be used where

contact with moisture is probable.

The cumar resin cement (/) and the resin and

oil cements {J, K) showed fair resistance to moisture in that their adhesive strengths were

only moderately lowered by exposure to water

and they were fairly impervious to moisture.

They should prove satisfactory where moisture

[7]
conditions are not severe, for example, concrete

floors having contact with the ground wliere

drainage conditions are excellent. The adhesive strengths of the alumina cement

and latex paste (P) and the "cut-back" rubber

cement {U) were only moderately afl'ected by

exposure to moisture. However, they transmit

moisture quite readily and would not be satis- factory in damp locations with floor coverings

that would be damaged by prolonged exposure

to water, such as linoleum with a burlap backing.

The asphaltic and coal-tar adhesives appeared

unsatisfactory for bonding linoleum to concrete

subfloors exposed to dampness. In conjunction

with asphalt tile, the "cut-back" asphalt cement

showed fair resistance to moisture. The ability

of asphaltic cements to remain tacky and

rebond is their prmcipal advantage.

The behavior of lignin paste with various

primers served to establish the ineft'ectiveness of priming coats as moisture barriers. It should

not be concluded that ])riming coats are of no

benefit. Used in conjunction with adhesives of a similar nature, they are of benefit, especially on concrete siibfloors which are extremely dry,

dusty, or porous.

There are asphalt sheathing papers on the

market which have adequate imperviousness to moisture. However, the problem of finding a means of bonding the membrane to concrete exposed to severe dampness, other than by a weight placed over it, such as a concrete topping,

has yet to be solved.

Properly proportioned asphaltic concrete of

sufficient thickness placed over a cement-concrete subfloor or structural slab should serve

as an adecjuate moisture barrier.

In locations where drainage conditions are poor and considerable dampness is likely to

prevail, it would be advisable to waterproof

concrete floors which are in contact with the

ground. One method of doing this is to use a bituminous membrane placed between two

concrete slabs. Such an installation can be more cheaply and conveniently made at the

time of construction. Although not included

in this study of adhesives, this type of waterproofing has been successfully used and is described in the literature [5, 6].

V. SELECTED REFERENCES

[1] P. A. Sigler and E. A. Koerner, Performance Test

of Floor Coverings for Use in Low-Cost Housing:

Part I, Building Materials and Structures (1940)

NBS Rep. BMS34. (See cover page III.)

[2] P. A. Sigler and E. A. Koerner, Performance Test

of Floor Coverings for Use in Low-Cost Housing:

Part II, Building Materials and Structures (1940)

NBS Rep. BMS43. (See cover page III.)

[.3] G. M. Kline, Permeability to Moisture of Synthetic

Resin Finishes for Aircraft, J. Research NBS 18, 235 (1937) RP974. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. Price 5 cents.

[4] S. G. Weissberg, D. A. Jessup, and C. G. Weber,

Stability of Sheathing Papers as Determined by

Accelerated Aging, Building Materials and

Structures (1939) NBS Rep. BMS35. (See cover page III.)

[.')] T. Crane and T. Nolan, Concrete Building Construction (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N. Y., 1927).

[6] G. A. Hool and W. S. Kinne, Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Structures (McGraw-Hill Book

Co., New York, N. Y., 1924).

Washington, June 14, 1940.

O

[8]
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 paper 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.

The following publications in this series are available by purchase 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.. 10^ BMS3 Suitability of Fiber Insulating Lath as a Plaster Base 10^ BMS4 Accelerated Aging of Fiber Building Boards 10^ BMS5 Structural Properties of Six Masonry Wall Constructions 15^ BMS6 Survey of Roofing Materials in the Southeastern States ISjS BMS7 Water Permeability of Masonry Walls 10^ BMS8 Methods of Investigation of- Surface Treatment for Corrosion Protection of Steel 10^ BMS9 Structural Properties of the Insulated Steel Construction Company's "FramelessSteel" Constructions for WaUs, Partitions, Floors, and Roofs 10^ BMSIO Structural Properties of One of the "Keystone Beam Steel Floor" Constructions Sponsored by the H. H. Robertson Co lOjS 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

Wheeling Corrugating Co-__ 100 BMS16 Structural Properties of a "Tilecrete" Floor Construction Sponsored by Tilecrete Floors, Inc 100 BMS17 Sound Insulation of WaU and Floor Constructions 100 BMS18 Structural Properties of "Pre-Fab" Constructions for WaUs, 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" WaU Construction Sponsored by the W. E. Dunn Manufacturing Co 100 BMS23 Structural Properties of a Brick Cavity-Wall Construction Sponsored by the Brick

Manufacturers Association of New York, Inc 100 BMS24 Structural Properties of a Reinforced-Brick Wall Construction and a Brick-Tile CavityWall Construction Sponsored by the Structural Clay Products Institute 100 BMS25 Structural Properties of Conventional Wood-Frame Constructions for Walls, Partitions,

Floors, and Roofs 150 BMS26 Structural Properties of "Nelson Pre-Cast Concrete Foundation" Wall Construction

Sponsored by the Nelson Cement Stone Co., Inc 100 BMS27 Structural Properties of "Bender Steel Home" Wall Construction Sponsored by The

Bender Body Co 100 BMS28 Backflow Prevention in Over-Rim Water Supplies 100 BMS29 Survey of Roofing Materials in the Northeastern States 100 BMS30 Structural Properties of a Wood-Frame Wall Construction Sponsored by the Douglas

Fir Plywood Association 100 BMS31 Structural Properties of "Insulite" WaU and "Insulite" Partition Constructions Sponsored by The Insulite Co 150 BMS32 Structural Properties of Two Brick-Concrete-Block Wall Constructions and a Concrete- Block Wall Construction Sponsored by the National Concrete Masonry Association. . 100

[List continued on cover page iv]
BUILDING MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES REPORTS

[ Continued from cover page iii ] BMS33 Plastic Calking Materials 10^ BMS34 Performance Test of Floor Coverings for Low-Cost Housing: Part 1 10^ BMS35 Stability of Sheathing Papers as Determined by Accelerated Aging 10^ BMS36 Structural Properties of Wood-Frame Wall, Partition, Floor, and Roof Constructions with

"Red Stripe" Lath Sponsored by The Weston Paper and Manufacturing Co 10(4 BMS37 Structural Properties of "Palisade Homes" Constructions for Walls, Partitions, and

Floors, Sponsored by Palisade Homes 10(i BMS38 Structural Properties of Two "Dunstone" Wall Constructions Sponsored by the W. E. Dunn Manufacturing Co 100 BMS39 Structural Properties of a Wall Construction of "Pfeifer Units" Sponsored by the Wisconsin Units Co 100 BMS40 Structural Properties of a Wall Construction of "Knap Concrete Wall Units" Sponsored

by Knap America, Inc lOji BMS41 Effect of Heating and Cooling on the Permeability of Masonry Walls 100 BMS42 Structural Properties of Wood-Frame Wall and Partition Constructions with "Celotex"

Insulating Boards Sponsored by the Celotex Corporation 10(4 BMS43 Performance Test of Floor Coverings for Use in Low-Cost Housing: Part 2 100 BMS44 Surface Treatment of Steel Prior to Painting 100 BMS45 Air Infiltration Through Windows 100 BMS46 Structural Properties of "Scot-Bilt" Prefabricated Sheet-Steel Constructions for Walls,

Floors, and Roofs Sponsored by The Globe-Wernicke Co 100 BMS47 Structural Properties of Prefabricated Wood-Frame Constructions for Walls, Partitions,

and Floors Sponsored by American Houses, Inc 100 BMS48 Structural Properties of "Precision-Built" Frame Wall and Partition Constructions

Sponsored by the Homasote Co 100 BMS49 Metallic Roofing for Low-Cost House Construction 100 BMS50 Stability of Fiber Building Boards as Determined by Accelerated Aging 100 BMS51 Structural Properties of "Tilecrete Type A" Floor Construction Sponsored by the Tile- crete Co 100 BMS52 Effect of Ceiling Insulation upon Summer Comfort 100 BMS53 Structural Properties of a Wall Construction of "Munlock Dry Wall Brick," Sponsored

by the Munlock Engineering Co 100 BMS54 Effect of Soot on the Rating of an Oil-Fired Heating Boiler 100 BMS55 Effects of Wetting and Drying on the Permeability of Masonry Walls 100 BMS57 Roofing in the United States—Results of a Questionnaire 100 BMS59 Properties of Adhesives for Floor Coverings 100