Bureau oi ir^candardB
The program of research on building materials and structm-es, carried on by the

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

Housing Committee, an informal organization of Government agencies concerned

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

a subcommittee of principal technical assistants.

CENTRAL HOUSING COMMITTEE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TECHNICAL RESEARCH

Walter Junge, Chairman. A. C. Shibe, Vice Chairman.

Federal Housiag Administration. United States Housing Authority.

Sterling R. March, Secretary.

Albert G. Bear,

Veterans' Administration.

Pierre Blouke,

Federal Home Loan Bank Board (Federal Loan Agency).

Carroll W. Chamberlain,

Public Buildings Administration (Federal Works Agency).

Joseph M. DallaValle,

Pubhc Health Service (Federal Security

Agency).

John Donovan,

Farm Security Administration (Agriculture).

George E. Knox,

Yards and Docks (Navy).

Vincent B. Phelan,

National Bureau of Standards (Commerce).

Edward A. Poynton,

Ofl&ce of Indian Affairs (Interior).

George W. Trayer,

Forest Service (Agriculture).

Elsmere J. Walters,

Construction Division (War).

CHAIRMEN OF SECTIONS

Specifications Maintenance Mechanical Equipment

Carroll W. Chamberlain Charles Peters Robert K. Thulman

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

STAFF COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION AND COORDINATION

Hugh L. Dryden, Chairman.

Mechanics and Sound.

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 BMS53

Structural Properties of a Masonry Wall Construction

of "Munlock Dry Wall Brick" Sponsored

by the Munlock Engineering Co.

by HERBERT L. WHITTEMORE. AMBROSE H. STANG,

and DOUGLAS e. parsons

ISSUED JUNE 13, 1940

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 • I94O

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

This report is one of a series issued by the National Bureau of Standards on the structural properties of constructions intended for low-cost houses and apartments. These

constructions were sponsored by organizations within the building industry advocating

and promoting their use. The sponsor built and submitted the specimens described in

this report for participation in the program outlined in BMS2, Methods of Determining

the Structural Properties of Low-Cost House Constructions. The sponsor, therefore,

is responsible for the design of the constructions and the description of materials and

methods used in their fabrication. The Bureau is responsible for the method of testing

and for the test results. This report covers only the load-deformation relations and strength of the structural elements of a house when subjected to compressive, transverse, concentrated,

impact, and racking loads by standardized methods simulating the loads to which the

element would be subjected in actual service. Later, it may be feasible to determine

the heat transmission at ordinary temperatures and the fire resistance of these same

constructions.

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 presented in this series provide the basic data

from which architects and engineers can determine whether a construction meets desired

performance requirements.

Lyman J. Briggs, Director.

[n]
Structural Properties of a Masonry Wall Construction of

"Munlock Dry Wall Brick" Sponsored by the

Munlock Engineering Co.

by Herbert L. Whittemore, Ambrose H. Stang, and Douglas E. Parsons

CONTENTS

Page

Foreword ii

I. Introduction 1 II. Sponsor and product 2

III. Specimens and tests 2 IV. WaU CP 3

1. Sponsor's statement 3

(a) Materials 3

(b) Description of specimens 5

IV. Wall CP—Continued.

1. Sponsor's statement—Continued. page

(c) Fabrication data 5

(d) Comments 6

2. Compressive load 7

3. Transverse load 9

4. Concentrated load 9

5. Impact load 11

6. Racking load 11

ABSTRACT

For the program on the determination of tlie structural properties of low-cost house constructions, the Munloclt Engineering Co. submitted 12 specimens rep- resenting their "Munlock Dry Wall Brick" wall construction. The specimens were subjected to compressive, transverse, concentrated, impact, and racking loads. For

each of these 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. The results are presented in graphs and in a

table.

I. INTRODUCTION

To provide technical facts on the performance

of constructions which might be used in lowcost houses, to discover promising new constructions, and ultimately to determine the

properties necessary for acceptable performance in actual service, the National Bureau of Standards has invited the cooperation of the

building industry in a program of research on building materials and structures suitable

for 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 structural properties in report BMS2, Methods of

Determming the Structural Properties of LowCost House Constructions.

Masonry constructions and wood constructions of types which have been extensively used

in this country for houses were included in the

program because their behavior under widely

different service conditions is known to builders

and the public. The reports on these constructions are BMS5, Structural Properties of Six

Masonry Wall Constructions, and BMS25,

Structural Properties of Conventional WoodFrame Constructions for Walls, Partitions,

Floors, and Roofs. The masonry specimens were built by the Masonry Construction Section of this Bureau, and the wood-frame speci- mens were built and tested by the Forest

Products Laboratory at Madison, Wis.

The present report describes the structural

properties of a wall construction sponsored by

one of the manufactvu-ers in the buUding

industry. The specimens were subjected to

[1]
compressive, transverse, concentrated, impact,

and. racking loads, simulating the 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 second-story walls, if any, by furniture

and occupants, and by snow and wind loads on

the roof. Transverse loads on a wall are produced by the wind, concentrated and impact

loads by 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, considered

as a structure, the suitability of a construction

depends not only on its resistance to deformation when loads are applied but also on whether

it returns to its original size and shape when the

loads are removed.

II. SPONSOR AND PRODUCT

The specimens were submitted by the Munlock Engineering Co., Washington, D. C, and

represented a wall construction of "Mimlock

Dry Wall Brick" units.

The water permeability of this wall construction has been measured by the Masonry Construction Section of the National Bureau of

Standards, and the results will be included in a

future publication of this series. In addition,

the thermal conductivity of the construction

may be determined later.

III. SPECIMENS AND TESTS

The wall construction was assigned the

symbol CP, and the individual specimens were

assigned the designations given in table 1.

Table 1.Specimen designations, wall CP

Specimen desieiiation

CI, C2, C3.

Tl, T2, TS.

PI, PZ, PS ' II, 12, IS... Rl, m, R3.

Load

Compressive-.

Transverse

Concentrated. Impact

Racking

Load applied

Upper end. Either face. Do.

Do. Near upper end.

" The transverse and concentrated loads were applied to the same

specimens. The transverse load was applied first.

Except as mentioned below, the specimens were tested in accordance with the procedure

outlined in BMS2, wliich report also gives the

requirements for the specimens and describes

the presentation of the results of the tests, particularly the load-deformation graphs.

Only three specimens each were tested under

the transverse, concentrated, and impact loads,

not six, as required by BMS2. The wall construction was symmetrical about a plane midway between the faces; therefore the results for these loads applied to one face of a specimen

should be identical with those obtained by

applying the loads to the other face. Under compressive load the shortenings and

sets were measured with the compressometers

attached to the steel plates through which the

load was applied, not attached to the specimen

as described in BMS2.

Lateral deflections under compressive and

transverse loads were measured with a deflec- tometer of fixed gage length, which consisted of a light (duralumin) tubular frame having a leg at one end and a hinged plate at the other.

The deflectometer was attached to the specimen by clampmg the liinged plate to the upper

end of a face. The gage length was 7 ft. 6 in. A dial micrometer was fastened to the frame at midlength. The micrometer was graduated to 0.001 in., and the readings were recorded to the nearest tenth of a division. Two deflectometers were attached to the specimen, one near

each edge. This method of measurement was

used instead of the taut-wire mirror-scale device

described in BMS2.

The indentation under concentrated load and

the set after the load was removed were measured, not the set only, as described in BMS2.

The specunen. A, shown in figure 1, was in a

vertical position, as for the transverse test. The load was applied by a jack, B, through a

ring dynamometer (load-measuring device), C,

to a freely movable steel beam, D, to which

were attached a thick steel disk, E, and two

dial micrometers, F. One end of the disk and

the spindles of the micrometers were in contact with the face of the wall specimen. The

distance between the micrometer spindles was

16 in. The dials were graduated to 0.001 in., and readings were recorded to the nearest tenth of a division. An initial load was applied

to the disk to prevent shifting of the apparatus,

and the average of the micrometer readings was taken as the initial reading. Greater

loads were then applied to the disk, sjad the

[2]
Figure 1.

Apparatus for concentrated-load test.

A, wall specimen; B, hydraulic jack; C, ring dynamometer; D, beam

E, loading disk; F, dial micrometer.

average of the micrometer readings minus the

initial reading was taken as the depth of the

mdentation under load. The set after the load was removed was determined similarly.

The deformations under racking load were measured with a right-angle deformeter, consisting of a steel channel and a steel angle

braced to form a rigid connection. In use, the

channel of the deformeter was supported by

two steel plates, }^ in. thick and 4 in. square, on the top of the specimen, with the steel angle

extendmg do\vnward in the plane of the speci- men. A dial micrometer was attached to the

edge of the specimen at the stop. The spindle

of the micrometer was in contact with the steel angle of the deformeter. The gage length

(distance from the top of the specimen to the

point of attachment of the micrometer) was

6 ft 11 in. The micrometer was graduated to 0.001 in., and readings were recorded to the

nearest tenth of a division. This deformeter was used instead of the taut-wire mirror-scale

device described ia BMS2.

The tests were begun July 18, 1939, and

completed July 26, 1939. The specimens were

tested on the 28th day after they were built. The sponsor's representative witnessed the

tests. IV. WALL CP

1. Sponsor's Statement

Unless otherwise mentioned, the information

for this statement was obtained from the sponsor and from inspection of the specuuens. The

Masomy Construction Section of the National

Bureaa of Standards assisted the sponsor by

determining some of the physical properties of

the brick and mortax and by obtaining the

fabrication data for the walls.

(a) Materials

"Munlock" brick.—End-cut shale units; aver- age dimensions: length, 7.95 in.; width, 8.11 in.; face height, 2.30 in. (about 7'%^ by 8% by

2^6 in). There were five ^^e-in. holes in each

[3]
Figure 2.

"Munlock Dry Wall Brick."

Standard unit.

brick, parallel to the length, as shown in fig- ure 2. Along the top of each brick was a longitudinal ridge at midwidth, and a corresponding

depression along the bottom.

The physical properties of the brick are given

in table 2.

Table 2.

Physical properties of " Munlock" brick, wall CP

Compiessive strength

Modulus of rupture

Water absorption, by weight

Weight,

dry 2-1-hr cold immersion, C

5-hr boiling immersion, B

Saturation

coeffi- cient, CIS

1-min partial immersion as

laid »

2, 010

lb/in.' 1,577 Percent

1. 68 Percent3.63 0. 463

g/cnii

0. 0243

gjbrick

6. 55

lb/brick

9. 62

" Immersed in >^ in. of water.

The brick were manufactured by the Colonial

Brick Co., Winchester, Va.

Mortar.—The materials for the mortar were Potomac River building sand and Hy-Test

Cement Co.'s "Hy-Test" masonry cement.

The mortar consisted of 1 part of cement

to 3.43 parts of dry sand, by weight (1:3 by

vohmie). The amount of water in the mix

was adjusted to the satisfaction of the mason,

and was 14.9 percent of the dry materials, by

weight. The materials for each batch were measured by weight and mixed in a batch

mixer having a capacity of % ft^. Samples of the mortar were taken from at

least one batch for each wall, the flow before

and after suction was determined in accordance

with Federal Specification SS-C-181b, Cement;

Masonry, and sLx 2-in. cubes were made. The

average flow of the mortar was 87 percent and

the ratio of the flow after suction to the initial flow was 53 percent. Three cubes were stored

in water at 70° F and thi'ee stored in air near

the wall specimens. The strength of the mortar

is given in table 3. The cement in the mortar complied with the

requirements of Federal Specification SS-C181b, Cement; Masonry, Type II, for fineness,

soundness, compressive strength, water retention, and water repellency. The sieve analysis

of the sand is given in table 4.

[4]
TvBLE 3.~-Avprage compressive strength of mortar, wall CP

[Determined on the day the corresponding wall specimen was tested]

Specimen

CI

C?._ CS

Tl

Ts'_'.'.'.y.'.'.

1313Rlm

R3

Weighted average

Compressive

strength

Water

storage Airstorage

Iblin.''

1, 120 980

1, 140

510 420

630

1,180

1, 180 1,160

460

600 540

1,050 - 1,230

1, 110

1,200

1,225

1,225

640

500 510

1. 150 545

Table 4.Sieve analysis of the sand, wall CP

U. S. standard Sieve No.

Passing, by

weight

Percent

4 100.0

8 99.5

16 88. 2 30 60 7 50 21.0

100 3. 1 CP

Figure 3.Four-fool wall specimen CP.

(6) Description of Specimens

(1) Four-foot wall specimens.—The average

dimensions of the specimens which are shown

in figure 3 were: height, 8 ft 2%e in.; width, 4 ft 2 in.; thicloiess, 8)^ in. There were 36 courses

of brick in each 4-ft wall specimen, with 6 full- sized units or the equivalent in each course. A typical wall specunen during construction

is shown in figure 4. The specimens were

built by an experienced mason. The brick were dry when received and were laid without

preliminary wetting. The mortar for the bed

joints was spj-ead on both sides of the ridge of

the brick, none being placed on the ridge.

Head joints were formed by buttering one end

of each unit, leaving 2 in. at midwidth without

mortar. One face of the wall was plumbed

and the mortar joints were cut flush with the

faces of the brick. For testing purposes, each

specimen was capped with mortar to make the

upper surface smooth.

The price of tliis construction in Wasliington,

D. C, as of July 1937, was $0.38/ft^

(2) Eight-foot wall specimens.—The speci- mens were similar to the 4-ft specimens. The

average dimensions were: height, 8 ft 2 9/16 in.

;

width, 8 ft. 3 11/16 in.; thickness, 8 1/8 in. There were 36 courses of brick in each 8-ft wall

specimen, with 12 full-sized units or the equivalent in each course.

(c) Fabrication Data

Fabrication data are given in table 5.

Table 5.

Fabrication data, wall CP

The values per snuare foot were computed using the face area of the specimens]

Thickness of joints Mortar materials Mason's

time Bed Head

Masonry

units Masonry

cement

Sand, dry

in. 0.41

in.

0. 41 No.lfP6. 32 MP4.2 Iblp

14.3

hrfli

0. 092

[5]
(d) Comments

Walls of this construction have been in use

since 1935. At the present time there are five houses in Washington, D. C, with this type of

wall, and other buildings have been erected in

various parts of the country. Other materials,

such as terra cotta and stone, may be combined

in the construction.

This construction is designed to reduce labor

cost, prevent passage of water through the wall,

provide greater thermal insulation than con- ventional masonry, and by the use of self- alining units reduce the amount of mortar.

The brick in the specimens described in this report are intended for 8-in. walls, and similar

units are manufactured for 12-ui. walls. The

units may be split longitudinally through the

ridge, and the split units used for veneer, facing

of joists, topping of lintels, etc. Half-length

units are supplied at half the price of the standard units and are used to give the appearance

of headers and to provide an economical filler. At corners and around openings for doors and

windows, some conventional bricks are necessary; and some of them must have one corner cut away to clear the ridge on the "Munlock"

unit below. These bricks are supplied by the

sponsor and are termed "closer" units.

Details of a typical house wall of this construction are shown in figure 5. The foundation, A, may be conventional

construction, such as brick, stone, or concrete- block masonry or poured concrete. The wall is "Munlock Dry Wall Brick" from foundation to roof plate. Full-sized brick, B, are used in the

continuous portions of the wall. Split brick,

C, are used at the ends of joists and around

recesses for radiators, vertical pipes, and conduits, as at D. The spaces between joists are

filled with tile, E. The angle lintel, F, supports

a course of split units. The roof plate, G, is anchored by bolts, H, which pass through five courses of split brick.

Split "Munlock" brick may be used as veneer on wood frame. Details of a typical house of

this construction are shown in figure 6. The

foundation. A, may be conventional. The

[6]
floor plate, B, the studs, C, and the wood sheathing, D, are assembled in the usual way. The

split bricks, K, are then laid, and metal ties, F,

are fastened to the sheathing and embedded

in every fifth or sixth mortar bed joint. The

space between the sheatliing and the brick veneer should be about 1 in. Any conventional inside finish may be

applied. The wall shown in figure 5 may be

faced on the inside and paint applied to the

brick for inside finish. Plaster may be appUed

directly to the brick. If desired, nailing strips

may be inserted in the bed joints of the wall

during erection, furring then fastened to the

nailing strips, and conventional lath and plaster

applied. The veneer construction may have

any conventional inside finish that can be

applied to the wood frame.

2. Compressive Load

Wall specimen CP-Cl under compressive

load is shown in figures 7 and 8. The results for wall specimens CP-Cl , C2, and C3 are shown

in table 6 and in figures 9 and 10.

/ 1^ 1

Figure 5.

Details of a typical house wall of "Munlock

Dry Wall Brick."

A, foundation; B, full-sized brirk; C, split brick; D, radiator recess; E,

tile; F, lintel; G, root plate; //, anchor bolt.

Figure 6.

Details of a typical wood-frame wall with "Munlock" brick veneer. A, foundation; B, floor plate: C, stud; D, sheathing; E, split brick

F, metal ties. Table 6.

Structural properties, wall CP

[Weight, y;.? lb/ft 2]

Compressive load Transverse load Concentrated load Impact load » Racking load

Specimen Maximum

load Specimen Maximum

load Specimen Maximumload Specimen

Maximum

height of drop

Specimen Maximum

load

CI

b Kips/ft

59.3 59.8

58.7

Tl

lb/ft 2 75.0

70.0 89.6

PI

lb

= ],000

" 1, 000

" 1,000

//

Jt 5.0 4.0

5.0

Rl

" Kipslft "6.03

<^6. 00

' 6. 03 C2 T«... P2 12 R2

€S T3 PS 13 as

Average.. Average.. Average.

-

59.3 78. 2 « 1,000 Average.. 4.7 Average. 0 6. 02

' Span 7 ft 6 in. b A kip is 1,000 lb. Test discontinued. Specimen did not fail.

[7]
The speed of the movable head of the testing

macliine was 0.072 m./min.

Under a load of 50 kips/ft, specimen CP-Cl

cracked vertically at one edge about 3 in. from

the inside face, the crack extending from the

mortar cap tlirough the holes in the brick of three courses. Under the maximum load on

each specunen, the upper three courses cracked

vertically along the entire width of the specimen

tlirough the holes in the brick. On the inside

face the units crushed, cracking horizontally,

and the mortar spalled from the bed joints.

On the outside face the mortar joint between

the upper two courses ruptmed in the bond

between the mortar and the brick.

Figure 7. WdU sprci men CP~Cl under

compressive load.

A, compressometers; B, deflectometer.

Figure 8.

Applying comprcsn/re loud to wall specimen CP-Cl.

[8]
(T)

A:

•I

(0

\

60

50

40

50

20

10

c < 1

»

/ —o

-o—<>-<

1 —«•— o

'

1 —m—

/ —•

• • -d—o—

/

0

/

/

/ y

0 0,04 0.08

shor/en/'nc^ in.lSf/

Figure 9.Compressive load on ivall CP.

Load-shortening (open circles) and load-set (solid circles) results for spec- imens CP-Cl, C2. and C3. The load was applied 2.71 in. (one-third the

thickness of the wall) from one face. The loads are in kips per foot of actual width of specimen.

60

50 ^

(0

> 40

50

\\ 20

1

10

0

•

-o

/ 1

C

f-oo

D

m% ( > —o——+<K3

CP 0 0.0^ 004 0.06

hr/ero/ c/ef/ec^/'on /h. FiGUBE 10.

Com'pressive load on wall CP.

Load-lateral deflection (open circles) and load-lateral set (solid circles) results for specimens CP-Cl, C2, and C3. The load was applied 2.71

in. (one-third the thickness of the wall) from one face. The loads are

in kips per foot of actual width of specimen. The deflections and sets

are for a gage length of 7 ft 6 in., the gage length of the deflectometers.

Figure 11. —Wall specimen CP~T3 under transverse

load.

4, deflectometer; B, ring dynamometer.

3. Transverse LiOad

Wall specimen CP-T3 under transverse load

is shown in figure 11. The results for wall

specimens CP-Tl, T2, and T3 are shown in table 6 and in figure 12. Under the maximum load on each specimen, one mortar bed joint between the loading

rollers ruptured in the bond between the brick

and the mortar, the crack extending the entire

width and tliickness of the wall.

4. Concentrated Load

The results of the concentrated load on wall

specimens CP-PI, P2, and PS are shown in table 6 and in figure 13.

[9]
so

60

t[ 40

I

5: 20

••o

0 • c

CP

1000 pifo

0 0,0^ 0.04 0,06

c/er/ecf/'on in, Figure 12. —Transverse load on wall CP.

Load-deflection (open circles) and load-set (solid circles) results for specimens CP-Tl, T2. and T3 on the span 7 ft 6 in.

soo

600

>

I

o

o

400 <=p>

200

0

<E0-

0 aOf 0.04 0,06

inc/enfafion in, Figure 13.

Concentrated load on wall CP.

Load-indentation (open circles) and load-set (solid circles) results for specimens CP~P1, P2, and PS.

[10]
The load was applied to a brick near the

center of the specunen. The sets after a load

of 1,000 lb had been applied to specimens

CP-PI, P2, and P3 were 0.004, 0.001, and 0.001

in., respectively, and no other effects were

observed.

5. Impact Load

Wall specimen CP-11 during the impact test

is shown in figure 14. The results for wall

specimens CP-Il, 12, and IS are given in table 6 and in figure 15. 0

0.2 0.4 oe

c/ef/ec//on in, Figure 15.

Im'pact load on wall CP.

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

circles) results for specimens CP-Il, IZ, and IS on the span 7 ft 6 in. At a drop of 4.5 ft on specimen CP-Il, a mortar bed joint near midheight cracked in the

bond between the brick and the mortar, beginning at the face not loaded and extending the

entire width of the wall, but not through the

entire thickness. Specimen 12 cracked in the same way at a drop of 3.5 ft, and specimen IS

at a drop of 4.5 ft. Under the maximum

height of drop, the crack extended through the

entire thickness of each wall specimen.

6. Racking Load

Wall specimen CP~RS under racking load is shown in figure 16. The results for wall speci- mens CP-Rl, R2, and RS are given in table 6 and in figure 17.

Figure 16.

Wall specimen CP-R3 under racking load.

A, deformeter.

I

4 c»>

% 2 ^

5.

/ 4^

0

0 a02 0.04 006

defbr/T7af/on h./Sff

Figure 17.

Racking load on wall CP.

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

[11]
The racking load was applied, to one edge of each specimen at midthickness 6 in. below the

top. The sets after a racking load of 6.0 kips/ft

(maximum load) had been applied were 0.000,

0.000 and 0.005 in. for specimens Rl , R2, and

R3, respectively. No other effect was observed.

The drawings of the specimens were prepared

by E. J. Schell, 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 by 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, H. Dollar, M. Dubm, A. H. Easton, A. S. Endler, A. B. Lanham, P. H. Petersen, A. J. Sussman, and L. R. Sweetman.

Washington, December 11, 1939.

[12]
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 wiU be no charge for receiving such notices. An alternative method is to deposit with the Superintendent of Documents the sum of $5.00,

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.

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 Suitabihty of Fiber Insulating Lath as a Plaster Base 10^ BMS4 Accelerated Aging of Fiber Building Boards 100 BMS5 Structural Properties of Six Masonry Wall Constructions 15^ BMS6 Survey of Roofing Materials in the Southeastern States 15^ BMS7 Water Permeabihty 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 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 100 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 "WheeUng 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" 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 WaU Construction and a Brick-Tile CavityWall Construction Sponsored by the Structural Clay Products Institute 100 BMS25 Structural Properties of Conventional Wood-Frame Constructions for WaUs, 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" WaU 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 WaU Construction Sponsored by the Douglas

Fir Plywood Association 100 BMS31 Structural Properties of "Insulite" WaU and "InsuUte" 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 lOfi BMS34 Performance Test of Floor Coverings for Use in Low-Cost Housing: Part 1 10^5 BMS35 Stability of Sheathing Papers as Determined by Accelerated Aging lOi 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^ BMS38 Structural Properties of Two "Dunstone" Wall Constructions Sponsored by the W. E. Dunn Manufacturing Co 10^5 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 Efifect of Heating and Cooling on the Permeability of Masonry Walls 100 BMS42 Structural Properties of Wood-Frame WaU and Partition Constructions with "Celotex"

Insulating Boards Sponsored by The Celotex Corporation 100 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 WaUs, 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

Tilecrete Co 100 BMS53 Structural Properties of a Masonry Wall Construction of "Munlock Dry Wall Brick"

Sponsored by the Munlock Engineering Co 100