Reverence book none ce

taken from the LibraryPlasticity and Water Retentivity

of Hydrated Limes for Structural Purposes

I iicrj.jcw- SHTtstitu ox Standards

library, N.W. Bldg

s£fc 1 7 1303

United States Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

Building Materials and Structures Report 146
BUILDING MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES REPORTS

On request, the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, 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.

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 25, D. G.

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 * BMS2 Methods of Determining the Structural Properties of Low-Cost House Constructions. 15(4 BMS3 Suitability of Fiber Insulating Lath as a Plaster Base * BMS4 Accelerated Aging of Fiber Building Boards 10

0

BMS5 Structural Properties of Six Masonry Wall Constructions 25(4 BMS6 Survey of Roofing Materials in the Southeastern States * BMS7 Water Permeability of Masonry Walls * BMS8 Methods of Investigation of Surface Treatment for Corrosion Protection of Steel 150 BMS9 Structural Properties of the Insulated Steel Construction Co.’s “Frameless-Steel” Constructions for Walls, Partitions, Floors, and Roofs * BMS10 Structural Properties of One of the “Keystone Beam Steel Floor” Constructions Sponsored by the H. H. Robertson Co 10(4 BMSll Structural Properties of the Current Fabriliome Corporation’s “Fabrihome” Constructions for Walls and Partitions _ 10(4 BMS12 Structural Properties of “Steelox” Constructions for Walls, Partitions, Floors, and

Roofs, Sponsored by Steel Buildings, Inc 15? BMS13 Properties of Some Fiber Building Boards of Current Manufacture * BMS14 Indentation and Recovery of Low-Cost Floor Coverings * BMS15 Structural Properties of “Wheeling Long-Span Steel Floor” Construction Sponsored by

the Wheeling Corrugating Co 10(4 BMS16 Structural Properties of a “Tilecrete” Floor Construction Sponsored by Tilecrete

Floors, Inc 1 10(4 BMS17 Sound Insulation of Wall and Floor Constructions f BMS18 Structural Properties of “Pre-fab” Constructions for Walls, Partitions, and Floors Sponsored by the Harnischfeger Corporation 10(4 BMS19 Preparation and Revision of Building Codes J 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 150 BMS22 Structural Properties of “Dun-Ti-Stone” AVall Construction Sponsored by the W. E. Dunn Manufacturing Co * BMS23 Structural Properties of a Brick Cavity-Wall Construction Sponsored by the Brick

Manufacturers Association of New York, Inc BMS24 Structural Properties of a Reinforced-Brick Wall Construction and a Brick-Tile CavityW all Construction Sponsored by the Structural Clay Products Institute BMS25 Structural Properties of Conventional Wood-Frame Constructions for Walls, Partitions, Floors, and Roofs 250 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 I 100 BMS2S Backflow Prevention in Over-Rim Water Supplies * BMS29 Survey of Roofing Materials in the Northeastern States * BMS30 Structural Properties of a Wood-Frame Wall Construction Sponsored by the Douglas

Fir Plywood Association * BMS31 Structural Properties of “Insulite” Wall and “Insulite” Partition Constructions Sponsored by The Insulite Co * BMS32 Structural Properties of Two Brick-Concrete-Block Wall Constructions and a Concrete- Block Wall Construction Sponsored bv the National Concrete Masor.rv Association. * BMS33 Plastic Calking Materials I * BMS34 Performance Test, of Floor Coverings for Use in Low-Cost Housing: Part 1 150 BMS35 Stability of Sheathing Papers as Determined by Accelerated Aging * BMS36 Structural Properties of Wood-Frame Wall, Partition, Floor, and Roof Constructions

With “Red Stripe” Lath Sponsored by The Weston Paper and Manufacturing Co _ * BMS37 Structural Properties of “Palisade Homes” Constructions for WTalls, Partitions, and

Floors, Sponsored by Palisade Homes * ’Out of print. t.Superseded by BMS144.

{Superseded by BMSlld.

[List continued on cover page in]
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE • Sinclair Weeks, Secretary NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS • A. V. Astin, Director

Plasticity and Water Retentivity

of Hydrated Limes for Structural Purposes

Ernest M. Levin, Walter F. Clarke, and Lansing S. Wells

Building Materials and Structures Report 146

Issued February 20, 1956

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington 25, D. C.

Price 15 cents
Contents

Page

1. Introduction 1

2. Materials 1 2.1. Hydrated lime 1 2.2. Sand 1 3. Apparatus and procedure 3

3.1. Plasticity ___ 3

3.2. Water retentivity .. 3

4. Results and discussion 4

4.1. Plasticity of lime putties 4

4.2. Water retentivity of lime-sand mortars 5

4.3. Relation of plasticity of lime putties to water retentivity of lime-sand mortars 6

5. Application of results to formulation of specifications 7

5.1. Present specifications 7

5.2. Finishing lime 8

5.3. Masons lime 8

6 . Summary 9

7. References 9

n
Plasticity and Water Retentivity of Hydrated Limes for

Structural Purposes

Ernest M. Levin, Walter F. Clarke, and Lansing S. Wells 1

Workability characteristics imparted to plasters and mortars by hydrated lime are of importance to the plasterer and to the mason. Emley plasticity values were determined for putties prepared from 65 hydrated limes of the various types, after soaking them for 30 minutes and for 1 day. Water-retentivity values, defined as the ratio of the flow after suction to the flow before suction, were obtained for lime-sand mortars prepared in the proportions of 1 : 3 by weight, 1 : 3 by volume, and 1 : 3 by volume using lime putty aged overnight. It was found that acceptable plasticity was associated with acceptable water

retentivity, but that acceptable water retentivity did not necessarily imply acceptable

plasticity. Results are discussed with relation to the improvement of specifications.

1. Introduction

For the plasterer and for the mason, workability is a most important consideration with re- spect to hydrated lime to be used for structural

purposes. Such workability concerns primarily

the ease of troweling of the wet mix during its application to an absorbent base. The continuous

removal of water by such a base causes a stiffening

of the mix and complicates the measurement of

workability, for which no direct method is available. The usual methods of measuring viscosity

and plastic flow are so designed that these properties remain constant during the period of testing.

Methods have been developed, however, for testing

the plasticity and the water retentivity of hydrated lime, and the values so obtained are an

indirect measure of the workability.

The Emley plasticimeter [1]

2 has been for many

years the accepted instrument for measuring the

relative plasticity 3 of hydrated lime. Although

the Ernie}* plasticimeter shows that there are

great differences in the plasticities and in the

water-retaining capacities of lime putties, it is not

well adapted to indicate these differences when the

putties are incorporated with sand and other materials as mortars. The water-retaining capacity

of mortars, however, can be determined with the

apparatus developed by J. S. Rogers [2] and

described by L. A. Palmer and D. A. Parsons [3]. The objectives of the present investigation were

fourfold: (1) to determine relative plasticities and

water retentivities of different types of commercial

hydrated lime: (2) to study the relation between

plasticities of lime putties and water retentivities

of lime-sand mortars; (3) to consider these properties in relation to plastering and to masonry

construction; and (4) to relate these results to the

possible improvement of specifications.

1 Deceased.

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

3 Throughout this paper, “plasticity” denotes the relative values as de- termined by the Emley plasticimeter.

2. Materials

2.1. Hydrated Lime

The investigation included tests of 65 structural

hydrated limes obtained from several widely sep- arated lime-producing centers in the L'nited States. The limes were part of the group used in previous

studies [4, 5]. For convenience of identification

and comparison, these lime samples have been

assigned the same numbers in the present paper

as in those publications.

The chemical analyses were made (as part of the previous studies) in accordance with Federal

Specification SS-L-351 for hydrated lime [1]. and

the percentage of unhydrated oxide was calculated in accordance with Proposed Amendment 1 to that specification [6]. The analytical data are repeated herein in table 1, columns 2 through 10. On the basis of the chemical analyses, the

hydrated limes were classified as high -calcium,

dolomitic, and magnesian. Those containing less than 5 percent of total magnesia were arbitrarily

classified as high-calcium, series A; those with more than 25 percent as dolomitic, series B and

C; and four limes, having between 5 and 25 per- cent of magnesia, as magnesian, series D. The

hydrated dolomitic limes were further subdivided

into “regularly hydrated” (normal hydrated

dolomitic), series B, in which the major portion

of the magnesia had been left unhydrated, and

“highly hydrated”, series C, in which the major

portion of the magneisa had been hydrated. The

designation “highly hydrated” follows the terminology already used in previous publications

[4, 5] and seems preferable to such terms as “autoclaved” or “pressure hydrated limes.” In each

series the hydrated limes are arranged in table 1 in the order of increasing percentage of calculated

unhydrated oxides.

2.2. Sand

The sand used in preparing lime-sand mortars was natural silica sand from Ottawa. 111., graded

to pass a No. 20 sieve and to be retained on a No.

30 sieve [7].

389884—56 l
Table 1. Chemical analysis and calculated percentage of unhydrated oxides for 65 hydrated limes, together with the plasticity of

putties prepared from these limes after soaking the samples for 30 minutes and 1 day, and the water retentivity of sand-lime I mortars prepared in the proportions of 1 lime:3 sand by weight; 1 lime:3 sand by volume; and 1 lime:3 sand by volume ; using lime putty aged overnight.

Chemical analysis (oxide composition) Plasticity of putties after— Water retentivity of mortars j proportioned

Calcu-

| Lime number

lated H2 0 unhydrated

1:3 by

wt

1:3 by

vol

1:3 by

CO2 Si02 R203 CaO MgO Total oxides 30 min 1 day vol (aeed Free Combined

putty)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

SERIES A—HIGH-CALCIUM HYDRATED LIMES

% %

Of

/O % % % % % % % % % I

1 0. 57 23.74 0.51 0.54 0. 20 73. 92 0.46 99. 94 0. 0 130 170 90 85 90

2 .41 23. 18 1.58 .58 .38 72. 82 . 67 99. 62 0 130 480 82 78 96

3 .24 23. 59 1.02 .44 .32 73. 97 .33 99.91 0 250 250 92 88 92

4 .36 23.68 0.56 .60 .42 73. 90 .35 99. 87 0 210 240 91 88 93

5 .29 23. 90 .39 .50 .30 73. 62 .82 99.82 0 150 440 92 82 91

6 . 66 23. 42 .99 1

. 56 . 14 73.17 .60 99. 54 0 140 210 88 85 94

7 .59 23. 66 .70 . 16 .55 73. 65 .69 100. 00 . 1 130 310 84 73 92

8 .83 23. 26 1 . 10 .20 .55 73.47 .72 100. 13 . 5 160 260 83 74 92

9 . 54 23. 26 0. 68 .86 . 48 73.31 .81 99. 94 .8 150 180 90 86 94

10 .54 22. 96 1.56 .42 .24 73. 22 .96 99. 90 .8 150 150 88 80 94

11 .53 23. 06 0. 70 . 74 .60 72. 60 1.04 99. 27 1.0 130 380 78 74 94

12 . 29 23. 00 . 97 .80 . 50 73. 29 0. 61 99. 46 1. 1 120 160 75 64

13 .75 22. 95 .67 1. 14 . 78 71.35 1.82 99. 46 1. 1 130 150 89 84 88 I 14 .68 22. 58 1. 27 1.02 .64 71.89 1.19 99. 27 1.2 150 160 87 78 90

15 . 44 23.07 0. 33 1.09 .50 72. 78 1.06 99. 27 1.6 120 120 76 69 81

16 .34 22. 88 1.19 0.58 .38 73. 00 1.41 99. 78 1. 7 120 140 89 83

I 90

17 .58 22. 99 0.65 1.00 .46 71. 55 2.41 99. 64 1.8 120 200 88 81 94

18 .30 23. 23 .27 0. 70 . 46 73. 68 1. 18 99. 82 2.

120 130 82 77 89

19 .40 22. 20 1.37 1.88 .92 72. 02 1.09 99. 88 2.3 140 140 87 87 89

20 .33 22. 48 0. 87 0.86 . 16 71.23 3. 02 98.95 3.2 120 200 78 72 94

21 .70 22.01 1.01 1.31 .76 72. 42 1.29 99.50 3.9 120 150 82 64 87

SERIES B—REGULARLY HYDRATED DOLOMITIC LIMES

23 0. 19 18.21 1.64 1.75 1.07 45. 17 31.83 99. 86 22.

120 120 75 63 75 1 24 .25 17. 51 2. 57 0.82 0.36 52. 58 25. 79 99. 88 22.

130 160 87 77 92 ; 25 .30 19.03 0.45 1.04 .48 46. 14 32. 54 99. 98 22.7 130 260 87 79 94 27 .30 17.96 .63 0.94 .36 46. 72 33. 08 99. 99 25.9 1.30 300 90 83 95 1 28 .13 17.90 1.01 . 12 . 16 47. 41 33. 09 99. 82 26.2 180 460 87 80 92

I 29 .28 16. 63 3. 1.3 .20 .18 46.98 32. 51 99. 91 26.2 230 540 90 85 94 j 30 . .28 17.58 1. 18 .28 .22 47. 58 32. 62 99.74 26.4 240 500 87 83 91 31 .22 17.41 1. 73 . 14 . 14 47.00 33. 30 99.94 26.5 140 470 85 75 93

32 . 15 16. 63 2.79 .26 . 16 46. 81 32. 93 99. 73 26.8 200 460 85 79 94 1 34 .20 17.01 1. 79 .40 . 28 47.06 33.24 99. 98 27.4 150 380 82 79 96

; 35 .20 17.26 0. 88 .34 .22 47. 43 32.98 99.31 27. 7 160 440 85 74 94 [ 36 .19 17. 25 .50 .54 .48 47. 29 33. 53 99. 78 28.5 130 120 90 80 87 37 .24 16. 94 .94 .20 .18 47.43 3.3. 97 99. 90 29.3 180 550 89 87 95 1 38 .04 16. 56 .98 .20 . 10 48. 43 32. 98 99.29 29.9 130 230 76 72 88

39 .21 15. 96 2.09 . 14 . 10 47. 76 33. 69 99. 95 30.4 140 480 88 / l 95

40 . 17 16. 65 0.90 .20 . 12 47. 83 34 10 99. 97 30.4 140 570 83 79 95

41 ..... .23 16.53 1.02 .24 . 12 47. 79 34. 06 99.99 30.5 140 480 84 84 93

42 . 16 15. 97 1.59 .37 .53 48. 45 33. 05 100. 12 30.7 120 200 87 76 95

43 ' .20 16. 29 1.31 . 18 . 16 47.85 34.01 100. 00 30.8 170 530 87 77 94

44 .22 16. 28 0. 75 .80 .54 47. 63 33. 63 99. 85 30.8 140 130 88 /o 87 j 45 . .43 15. 81 1.45 .10 . 12 46. 78 35. 21 99. 90 31.2 150 600 91 84 95

46 .04 15. 91 1.05 . 14 . 18 48. 32 34. 30 99. 94 32.5 130 380 83 69 96 | 47. .30 15. 45 0. 79 1.42 . 46 47. 70 33 82 99 94 32.8

34.3

140

120

240 87

82

83

48 .50 14.58 1.25 1.34 .68 48. 27 33.00 99. 62 130 70 91

SERIES C—HIGHLY HYDRATED DOLOMITIC LIMES

50 0. 21 25. 28 1.72 0.24 0. 18 42. 58 29. 75 99. 96 2.2 270 320 91 88 93

51 .16 .25. 52 1.32 .23 .35 43. 01 29. 65 100. 24 2.3 310 420 92 90 96

52_ _ .00 25.41 1.33 .26 .36 42. 47 29.88 99.71 2.3 220 260 93 90 95

53

.

.51 24. 56 1.87 1.56 .50 41.83 29. 09 99. 92 2.6 460 550 94 92

54 .04 25. 31 1.56 0. 18 . 18 42. 59 30.08 99. 94 2.6 250 350 92 90 92

57 .09 25. 14 1. 75 .26 . 10 42.68 30.04 100. 06 2.9 280 320 93 90 94

59 - . 17 24.47 2. 79 . 18 . 14 42. 49 29. 75 99. 99 3.0 280 320 93 93 j 61 , .23 24. 58 1.98 . 18 . 16 42. 91 29. 14 99. 18 3.2 440 500 94 93 94 ! 62 .25

.17

24. 37

25. 18

2. 00

0.37

1.45

1.82

.62

.44

42. 10 42.12

29. 46

29.82

100. 25 99.92

3.4 3.4230

370

360 400

96

93

919396

95 i 64 .09 25. 67 .38 0. 14 .08 43. 22 30. 17 99. 75 3.5 220 320 92 86 92

65 . 19 23. 66 3. 12 . 16 .20 42. 78 29. 09 99. 20 4.0 360 450 90 88 93 i 66 .08 24. 82 0.87 .02 . 19 43. 41 30. 24 99. 63 5.1 210 310 89 85 94

69_ .09 22. 72 3. 40 .22 . 16 42. 89 29. 93 99. 41 6.8 210 360 94 88 95 i 70 .20 23. 35 1.18 2. 18 .89 42. 89 29. 43 100. 12 6.9 200 220 90 86 93

72 . 13 23. 83 1.06 0.20 . 12 43.73 30.58 99. 65 7. 7 270 350 92 83 94

2
Table 1 .-—Continued

Chemical analysis (oxide composition)

CaleuPlasticity of putties after— Water retentivity of mortars

proportioned

Lime number h2 o

lated unhydrated

1:3 by

wt

,.0 hv 1:3 by

*•" Py vol (aged

vo1 putty) Free ^ Com‘ * ree

i bined

CO: Si0 2 R2 O3 CaO MgO Total oxides 30 min 1 day

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

SERIES D—MAGNESIAN HYDRATED LIMES — 0. 38 21.67 0.67 2.26 0.82 67.78 6.24 99. 82 5.9 150 160 93 89

78- - .39 21.92 .96 0.76 .78 62. 96 11.88 99. 67 7.2 250 430 96 85

79 3 .99 17. 60 4.95 2.47 3.13 64.61 6. 25 100. 00 9.8 120 160 78 64 80 3 .52 19. 79 1.10 2.64 1.30 57.13 16.88 99. 36 12.7 140 180 94 83

3 Failed to meet the requirement of Federal Specification SS-L-351 that the total CaO plus MgO shall be not less than 95 percent, calculated on nonvolatile basis.

3. Apparatus and Procedure

3.1. Plasticity

As masonry materials, portland-cement mortars, in general, are harsh to work. For actual

construction purposes, therefore, lime is often

added to cement with the intention of improving

plasticity and water-retaining capacity of the

mortar mix.

With the Emley plasticimeter [1], measurement

is made of the torque exerted on a steel disk bearing against a pat of lime putty as the pat is slowly

raised and revolved. During the process the

putty stiffens because of the removal of water by

a standardized absorbent plate on which the pat, rests. Plasticity is calculated from the empirical

formula

p=a F2 +(ioD2

,

in which P is the plasticity value (to the nearest

10 units), F is the scale reading (torque) at the

end of the test, and T is the time in minutes from

the moment of initial contact of the paste with

the absorbent plate to the end of the determination. The test is considered complete when (a)

the scale reading (F) is 100, (b) any reading be- comes and remains less than the one before, or (c) the scale reading remains constant for three consecutive readings (2 min) and the specimen is visibly ruptured. Calculated according to the

formula above, a plasticity value of 200 is the

specification minimum for an acceptably plastic

lime.

Two series of plasticity determinations were made on putties prepared from each of the limes.

One series was made on stiff putties soaked overnight (20 ±4 hr), according to the time requirement in Federal Specification SS-L-351 [1], For

the purpose of obtaining a measure of early

plasticity, the other series was made on stiff putties soaked for only 30 min. Immediately

prior to testing, the stiff putties were stirred for

5 min. and then with vigorous stirring were brought to standard consistency [1] by the addition of water in small amounts. This procedure

gave reproducible results.

3.2. Water Retentivity

Whereas the Emley plasticimeter removes water

from a pat of lime putty by capillary absorption

into a base plate, the Rogers apparatus removes

water from a sanded mix by means of suction. In the latter case, the flow of a mortar is determined before and after suction. The ratio of the

flow after suction to the flow before suction,

expressed as a percentage, defines the so-called

water retentivity.

In the present study, the procedure for determining water retentivity was essentially that

described in detail in Federal Specification SS-C181b [8].

4 The apparatus for applying suction

consists basically of a perforated dish resting on a funnel connected to a mercury-column relief valve

and to a water aspirator.

Three sets of mortars were prepared; in these

the proportions of hydrated lime to standard

Ottawa sand (20 to 30) were, respectively, as

follows:

(1) 1:3 by weight; specifically, 500 g of dry

hydrated lime to 1,500 g of dry sand.

(2) 1:3 by volume; on the practical basis, one bag of dry hydrated lime to 3 ft

3 of loose damp

sand. Proportioning was, actually, on a weight

basis. One bag of dry hydrated lime (approxi

mately 1 ft 3

) weighs 50 lbs, and 1 ft 3 of loose

damp sand contains approximately SO lbs of dry

sand; so the proportion by weight of hydrated

lime to sand in this series was 50 to 240 (i. e., 1 to 4.8 by weight). For test purposes, 350 g of lime was mixed with 1,680 g of Ottawa sand.

(3) 1:3 by volume with aged putty, using hydrated lime which had been soaked overnight as

4 Since completion of the work, this specification has Ivon siuv mv. '

: > SS-C-181c.

o
a stiff putty. The weight proportion on a driedputty basis was the same as for (2)

.

For preparing and testing the water retentivity

of the 1:3 by volume aged-putty mortars, the

procedure was modified as follows: 350 g of dry

hydrated lime was weighed into a porcelain casserole, and sufficient water was added, with

stirring, to produce a stiff putty. The putty was

aged overnight (16 to 24 hr) in a moist closet maintained at a temperature of 70° ±3° F and

at a relative humidity not less than 90 percent.

At the end of that aging period, the putty was

stirred for 5 mins. The contents of the casserole were then transferred to a mixing bowl, and

1,680 g of sand in 2 portions were mixed into the

putty, as prescribed in Federal Specification

SS-C-181b (F-3 g(3)). In almost every instance

it was necessary to add more water in order to obtain the desired initial flow of 100 to 115;

however, neither the rate nor the manner of addition of the water was found to be critical. If in the event of misjudgment too low a flow value was obtained, more water was added to the mortar. It was quickly remixed for a period of 30 sec, and another flow determination was made.

When the flow value obtained was too high, water was removed with an absorbent plate. The

remainder of the procedure followed that used for the other sets of mortars.

4. Results and Discussion

I 4.1. Plasticity of Lime Putties

For the two sets of hydrated-lime putties tested

after soaking the specimens for 30 min and overnight, respectively, plasticity values are given in

table 1 and are plotted in figure 1. In most

eases, each value represents a single measurement.

From previous experience it is known that, for putties having plasticity values close to 200,

duplicate measurements generally agree to within

10 units. The limes in figure 1, within each class, are arranged according to increasing values of the

overnight plasticity. The level of the 200 plasticity value is specially denoted in the figure, foi\it

is the accepted minimum for a finishing lime [1]. Regarding overnight plasticities, all of the highly

hydrated and most of the regularly hydrated

dolomitic limes showed values of 200 or higher;

about half of the high-calcium and magnesian

limes showed such high values.

As regards 30-min plasticities, not one of the 16

highly hydrated dolomitic limes tested gave a value of less than 200. Of a total of 49 limes of | the other three types, however, 43 gave values of

less than 200; whereas only 6, one or more of each

type, gave values ranging from 200 to 250.

Figure 1 . Emley plasticity values of 65 hydrated limes of various types after aging for two time periods. O. 30 min; #, 20 ±4 hr.

4
Comparison of the 30-min with the overnight

plasticities fails to show good correlation, but in

nearly all cases the overnight plasticities were

greater than the 30-min values. The highly

hydrated dolomitic limes having comparatively

high 30-min plasticity values gave the least in- creases in plasticity after overnight soaking. In

contrast, the majority of the regularly hydrated

dolomitic limes gave greatly increased plasticity

values for putties soaked overnight.

Two points of special interest might be emphasized. The first is that as a result of the special

manufacturing processes involved, the highly

hydrated dolomitic limes yielded putties that were

plastic after only 30 min of soaking. The second

is that some of the hydrated high-calcium limes were found to yield plastic putties after overnight

soaking.

4.2. Water Retentivity of Lime-Sand Mortars

The water-retent ivity values for the mortars

are given in table 1 and are plotted in figure 2. by

classes of limes. Most of the water-re ten tivity

values for mortars proportioned 1 lime to 3 sand by

volume are the averages of at least two values

obtained by two operators. The standard deviation measuring the spread of replicate determinations was found to be 2 units for mortars proportioned either on a weight or a volume basis.

Reproducibility for mortars prepared from the

putty aged overnight, as determined in a few

instances, appears to be of the same order of magnitude.

In the figure the limes of each class are arranged

according to the increasing water-retentivity

values of the 1:3 by volume mortars. The figure

Figure 2. Water-retentivity values for three different sets of lime-sand mortars prepared from 6o hydrated limes ot ' ;

• types. • , 1 lime:3 sand, by volume; ©, 1 lime:3 sand, by weight; O. 1 lime:3sand, by volume using lime putty aged overnight.
I

shows a wide over-all range in values (from 63 to 96 percent). In general, for any one lime the 1 :3 by volume mortar had the lowest retentivity; the

1:3 by weight mortar, an intermediate value; and

the 1 :3 by volume aged-putty mortar, the highest

value. As a class, the magnesian limes, of which

there were only four, were in one respect an exception; two of them showed slightly higher waterretentivity values for the 1:3 by weight mortars

than for the 1:3 by volume aged-putty mortars. The figure shows that every 1 : 3 by weight mortar

had a water-retentivity value of 75 percent or

greater. It should be emphasized that, regardless

of the class of lime tested, the water-retentivitv

values for aged-putty mortars, with only two

exceptions, were greater than 85 percent.

The highly hydrated dolomitic limes differed

notably from the others in having relatively high

water-retentivity values for the three sets of mortars: for the 1 :3 by volume mortar, no value was

below 83 percent; for the 1:3 by weight mortar, none was below 89 percent; and for the 1:3 by

volume aged-putty mortar, none was below 92

percent. The regularly hydrated dolomitic limes,

as a class, showed, over all, the widest and the most

distinct separations for the three sets of retentivity

values. In summary, for each class of lime two variables

are represented in the figure: (1) change of limesand ratio and (2) aging of the lime putty. As to the first, it is seen that on nonaged putty, for any

one class, the 1:3 by volume mortar shows, in

general, lower water retentivity, with greater

spread in values, than does the 1 :3 by weight mortar. The lower values are attributed to the fact

that a 1 :3 by volume mortar has a lower lime-sand

ratio than a 1:3 by weight mortar. As to the

second variable, that of aging, it is seen that the

1:3 by volume aged-putty mortar shows higher

water retentivity, with lesser spread in values,

than does the 1:3 by volume mortar made from

nonaged putty. It is even true that, with the

exception of three magnesian limes, the 1:3 by

volume aged-putty mortar, in spite of a leaner

lime ratio, shows a higher value than does the 1 :3 by weight mortar.

4.3. Relation of Plasticity of Lime Putties to Water Retentivity of Lime- Sand Mortars

For masonry-construction purposes, hydrated

lime is used, in many cases, immediately after being mixed. Its “immediate” workability, therefore, is of importance. As regards finishing lime,

also, the question of immediate use needs to be

considered. Pertinent to the subject of immediate

workability, figure 3 shows the relation between

the water retentivities of the 1 :3 by volume (nonaged) mortars and the 30-min (immediate)

plasticities of putties made from the corresponding

limes. It can be seen that the limes that showed

acceptable (200 or greater) plasticities had, with

one exception, water retentivities of 83 percent or

greater, and that those which showed low water

n i

i ii i i i

|

i i i

i i i i i i

i

i i i i i i i i i |

i i

i it i i i i |

i i i i i i i i i -

X HIGH-CALCIUM

• REGULARLY HYDRATED OOLOMITIC O HIGHLY HYDRATED DOLOMITIC

& MAGNESIAN

I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I -1..1 1 1 1 1-L i i i i I i i i i I 200 300 400 500 600

PLASTICITY OF PUTTY AFTER 30 MINUTES Figure 3. Relation between water retentivity of lime-sand mortar proportioned on a volume basis and plasticity of corresponding hydrated-lime putty after soaking for SO

minutes.

I- U

L -V

|

i i i i

|

i i

i i 1i i

i i |

' ' i i

|

i i i' i

|

' 'I i i

|

I I

i i ~|~l l "

X HIGH -CALCIUM

• REGULARLY HYDRATED DOLOMITIC O HIGHLY HYDRATEO DOLOMITIC

A MAGNESIAN

I 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I i i i i I

i i i i ' i i i i i 200 300 400

PLASTICITY OF PUTTY AFTER 30 MINUTES Figure 4. Relation between water retentivity of lime-sand

mortar proportioned on a weight basis and plasticity of corresponding hydrated-lime putty after soaking for 30

minutes.

retentivities had low plasticities; but some of the

limes that gave low plasticities had high water

retentivities. The highly hydrated dolomitic limes

gave 30-min plasticities of 200 or more and water

retentivities of 83 percent or greater. The other

types of limes showed a wide distribution of water

retentivities (63 to 89 percent), but only six showed plasticities of 200 or greater.

A plot of the water retentivities of the 1:3 by

weight mortars versus the 30 min plasticities of putties made from the corresponding limes is shown in figure 4. The relations between them are similar to those shown in the plot of the 30-min

plasticities versus the water retentivities on the

1 :3 by volume basis (fig. 3). It may be noted that

6
i

1

1

' ' 1

1

*- 95 o • o x

» 0x0 • OO o A* • O TM1

s

a 85 -

x HIGH-CALCIUM

• REGULARLY HYDRATED DOLOMITIC O HIGHLY HYDRATED DOLOMITIC

A MAGNESIAN

i 1 1 1 1 i i ' 1 1 i m 1 1 l i m i i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 r

PLASTICITY OF PUTTY AFTER I DAY Figcre 5. Relation between water retentivity of lime-sand

mortar proportioned on a volume basis using aged putty

and plasticity of corresponding hydrated-lime putty after aging for 20 ±4 hours.

t HIGH -CALCIUM

• REGULARLY HYDRATED DOLOMITIC —

O HIGHLY HYDRATED DOLOMITIC

A MAGNESIAN

- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 M II 1 1 1 1 I I ll I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 i 1 1 1 .

.

PLASTICITY OF PUTTY AFTER I 0 AY Figure 6. Relation between water retentivity of lime-sand

mortar proportioned on a volume basis and plasticity of corresponding hydrated-lime putty after aging 20 ±4

hours.

every lime with, a plasticity (30-min) figure of 200

or greater had a water-retentivity value (1:3 by

weight) of 85 percent or greater.

Figure 5 shows the relation between the plasticities of aged-lime putties and the water retent ivities of the 1 :3 by volume aged-putty mortars. For the

relatively wide plasticity range of 200 to 600, the

limes had, with one exception (an 88-percent

value), the comparatively narrow retentivity range

of 91 to 96 percent. For the narrow plasticity range

of 110 to 200, they had the wide retentivity spread

of 75 to 94 percent.

Figure 6 shows the relation of the plasticities for lime putties soaked overnight to the water retentivities of the 1:3 by volume (nonaged) mortars.

It should he noted that here the treatments of the

lime prior to the plasticity and to water-retentivity

determinations were not comparable; the lime was

soaked overnight in the former case but not in the

latter. Doubtless for this reason, no over-all trend was found; however, as contrasted to the regularly

hydrated dolomitic and to the high-calcium lime-,

the highly hydrated dolomitic limes showed ac- ceptable plasticity and water retentivity greater

than 82 percent.

A comparison of the plasticities for lime putties

soaked overnight with the water retentivities of the 1 :3 by weight (nonaged) mortars is not shown

because this case is essentially the same as for the

data shown in figure 6, except that the spread in water retentivities is less. For the procedures involved in figures 3, 4, and

5, the results indicated that acceptable plasticity was associated with acceptably high water reten

tivity, but that acceptable water retentivity did not necessarily imply acceptable plasticity. In

figure 6, the first relation holds only for highly

hydrated dolomitic lime.

5. Application of Results to Formulation of Specifications

5.1. Present Specifications

Hydrated lime for structural purposes is classi- fied broadly as finishing lime and as masons lime.

Specifications (table 2) of the American Society

for Testing Materials and of the National Lime

Association further classify both kinds of lime as type N (normal) and type S (special). Type S

lime, both finishing and masons, is characterized

chemically by a limitation of 8 percent on unhydrated oxides [9, 10, 11, see also 6]. Type X

lime and types meeting present Federal Specifications are not subject to an unhydrated oxide

limitation; but for white-coat (finish) plaster

there is serious objection [12] to the use of limes

containing more than 8 percent of unhydrated

oxides. Some doubt exists, however, as to whether the same objection is valid with respect

to limes intended for masonry purposes. As an

alternative to the 8-percent-unhydrated-oxides

requirement, an accelerated performance test lias been suggested [4], In this connection, it is interesting to note that a tentative autoclave

expansion test for hydraulic lime is given in the

1953 Supplement to Book of ASTM Standards

[13]. Tentatively specified is an expansion limit of 1 percent for a blend of 1 of port land cement

to 3 of hydraulic lime.

Plasticity and water-retentivity requirements

in the various specifications are given in table 2. Type F, type N-normal finishing hydrate, and

both type Slimes must meet a minimum plasticity

requirement of 200. although there is some variation between the different specifications in the

length of time the lime putty must be soaked
Table 2, Comparison of plasticity and water-retentivity requirements in various specifications for hydrated lime for structural purposes

Specification Designation

Plasticity

Value Aging (of lime putty)

Water retentivity

Value Proportions (lime: standard sand)

American Society for Test- ing Materials [1, 9, 11].

National Lime Association

[10].

Federal [1].

Type N-normal finishing hydrate Type S-special finishing hydrate Type N-normal hydrated lime for masonry

purposes. Type S-special hydrated lime for masonry

purposes. Type N-“normal” finishing hydrate. Type S-special finishing hydrate

200

200

It) to 24 hr.

0 to 24 hr._

200

200 200

0 to 30 min.

Type N-masons hydrated lime. Type S-masons hydrated lime.. Type F: Finishing. Type M: Masons...

16 to 24 hr

0 to 8 hr or 16 to 24 hr. 1

200

200

0 to 15 min.

16 to 24 hr..

1:3 by dry weight, or from putty “aged 16

to 24 hr. 1:3 by dry weight.

1:3 by dry weight, or from putty

to 24 hr.

1 : 3 by dry weight.

aged 16

° The lime putty proportioned on a dry-weight basis.

k If 200 plasticity is not developed in 0 to 8 hr.

prior to test. The plasticity requirement for type S special finishing hydrated lime provides

that the lime may be tested or retested after mixing with water and after aging for any period

not exceeding 24 hr. Type F and type N-normal

finishing hydrates, however, must be aged for

16 to 24 hr before testing. Type S hydrated

lime for masonry purposes must be tested within

15 min [10] or 30 min [11] after mixing with

water. In addition, type S lime for masonry

purposes must meet a minimum water-retentivity

requirement of 85 percent, when tested as a mortar

made from the dry hydrate in the proportion,

by weight, of 1 of lime to 3 of standard Ottawa

sand (20 to 30). Type N lime for masonry

purposes must meet only a 75-percent waterretentivity requirement and may be tested either

as a dry hydrate or as an aged (16 to 24 hr) putty.

In the present Federal Specifications, lime for masonry purposes, whether type M or type F,

is not subject to a water-retentivity requirement.

Existing requirements for plasticity and water

retentivity of hydrated limes will now be considered with relation to the results of the present

investigation.

5.2. Finishing Lime

For a finishing hydrated lime, the accepted

minimum (Emley) value of 200 for plasticity is well established in the construction industry and

appears to be a satisfactory limit. As hydrated

limes that need no special soaking period are

available, requirements for type F, as well as for type S finishing lime (similar to the case of type

S masons lime), should provide for the option in which the purchaser desires to use the lime without aging overnight as a putty. For type S finish- ing hydrated lime, current specifications permit

immediate testing but provide for soaking of the

putty overnight in the event that the lime fails

to pass. At the present time, some commercial

limes require aging overnight as putties prior to

use. Even though all of the highly hydrated

dolomitie limes tested in this study had plasticity

values of 200 or greater at 30 min (fig. 1), many of

the manufacturers of these limes recommend

overnight aging as a putty in order to develop

optimum plasticity and working properties. An

overnight plasticity requirement, therefore, should

be retained for those finishing limes that require

aging.

5.3. Masons Lime

Workability of a mortar is of primary concern

to the mason because it is a direct measure of the

ease with which he can apply the mortar. Workability is important, furthermore, because it lias a bearing on such properties as strength, water

resistance, and workmanship of masonry construction. In preparing masonry mortar from

hydrated lime, the usual procedure is to mix the

proper proportions of dry hydrated lime, cement,

and sand with water shortly before use. Some

masons, however, still prefer to use an aged (overnight) hydrated lime putty in preparing a mortar.

For type S lime for masonry purposes, the present

specifications require that the lime develop an

early plasticity value of 200 after mixing with

water but do not provide for overnight aging. For

type M and for type N limes for masonry purposes, a plasticity requirement is not specified

(table 2). Consequently, if a plasticity requirement be designated for type S masons hydrated

lime, two alternative time periods are indicated,

as for the case of finishing hydrated lime, the

choice to depend on the option of the purchaser.

A water-retentivity test is the standard method

of determining wafer-retaining capacity of mortars

in which hydrated lime or lime putty is incorporated with sand and other materials. Wells,

S
Bishop, and Watstein [13] found that fiow after suction of cement -lime mortars depends far more

on the properties of the lime than on the cementlime ratio. As mentioned under 5.1, the specifications of the ASTM and of the National Lime

Association require that type S-masons hydrated

lime shall have a minimum water-retentivity

figure of 85, when the dry hydrated lime is tested

as a mortar in the proportions of one part dry

lime to three parts standard sand by weight. In- spection of figure 4 reveals the interesting fact

that, of a total of 65 limes tested, every one which

had a plasticity (30-min) value of at least 200 had,

also, a water-retentivity (1:3 by weight) value of

at least 85 percent. Figure 3 shows that even when the water-retentivity test was made on a

1:3 by volume mortar (from nonaged putty),

only one lime with a plasticity (30-min) figure of

at least 200 had a water-retentivity figure of less than 83. On the basis of the limes tested, it is evident that acceptable plasticity (30-min) is associated with acceptable water retentivity and

that a water-retentivity requirement is unnecessary if a plasticity requirement is specified.

At the present time, the Federal Specification

for masons hydrated lime (type M) does not in- clude plasticity nor water-retentivity requirements. From the previous discussion it would

follow that a plasticity (30-min) requirement of 200 would obviate a water-retentivity requirement.

Such a plasticity requirement, however, would

eliminate some limes, in particular, many of the

high-calcium hydrated limes, which have been

used extensively and satisfactorily in mortars. A water-retentivity requirement could be specified in place of a 30-min plasticity- test, although

not considered so desirable byr the authors with

respect to all workability- properties. The present

water-retentivity requirement of 75 percent for

ty-pe X lime is too low, inasmuch as mortars pre- pared from such limes tend to bleed and are harsh

to work with coarse sand. A minimum value of

! 80 on a 1:3 by weight basis would not exclude

any- limes of adequate (30-min) plasticity, and

yet is not so strict as the 85-percent requirement

| for ty-pe S lime. A minimum value of 70, on a

1:3 by- volume basis would be equivalent, and the

] limes are better differentiated at this proportion.

6. Summary

A study has been made of the plasticity and

the water retentivity of 65 hydrated limes, comprising 21 high-calcium, 24 regularly hydrated

I dolomitic, 16 highly- hydrated dolomitie, and 4

magnesian limes.

Emley plasticity- values were determined for two sets of putties prepared from these limes,

j after soaking, respectively, for 30 min and for 1

l day-. Water-retentivity- values were obtained for three sets of lime-sand mortars prepared in the

proportions of 1 lime: 3 sand by weight; 1 lime:

3

sand by volume; and 1 lime: 3 sand by- volume

using lime putty aged overnight.

For most of the limes, the overnight plasticityvalues were greater than the corresponding 30-

min values; the greatest differences were exhibited

by regularly hydrated dolomitic limes, and the

least differences, by the highly- hydrated dolomitic

limes. All of the highly hydrated dolomitic limes

showed plasticity values of 200 or greater when

tested at both time intervals. A number of the

high-calcium hydrated limes also showed over- night plasticities greater than 200.

Except for 3 of the 4 magnesian limes, for any- one lime, the 1:3 by volume mortar gave the

lowest retentivity; the 1:3 by weight, mortar an

intermediate value; and the 1:3 by volume, agedputty mortar the highest value. The highly hy - drated dolomitic limes, as a group, gave the highest

water-retentivity values for the three different sets of mortars, and the lowest spread in values.

The regularly hydrated dolomitic limes gave the

w-idest spread in values for each of the three dif- ferent sets of mortars.

Plots of 30-min plasticity values versus waterretentitivity values of nonaged mortars tested on

a 1:3 by weight and a 1:3 by volume basis, respectively-, showed that acceptable plasticity- (30-

min) was associated with acceptable water retentivity-, but that the converse showed numerous

exceptions. No lime with a plasticity (30-min)

figure of 200 or greater had a water-retentivity

value of less than 85 when tested on a weight

basis, nor (with one exception) less than 83 on a volume basis. Regardless of the class of lime,

the water-retentivity value for the aged-putty

mortar w

r as in almost every case greater than 85

percent.

Recommendations are given for improving the

present specifications for hydrated lime for building purposes.

7. References

[1] Federal Specification SS-L-351 for lime: hydrated

(for) structural purposes (October 14, 1930'. Standard methods of physical testing of quicklime

and hydrated lime ASTM Designation: C110-49

ASTM Standards, part 3, 235 (1952).

[2] J. S. Rogers and R. L. Blaine, Investigation of commercial masonry cements, J. Research XBS 13 . 811

(1934) RP746.

[3] L. A. Palmer and D. A. Parsons, Rate of stiffening of mortars on a porous base, Rock Products 35. No

18, 18 (1932).

[4] Lansing S. Wells, Walter F. Clarke, and Ernest M.

Levin, Expansive characteristics of hydrated linn - and the development of an autoclave test for soundness, J. Research XBS 41 . 179 i!9ts RP1917.

[5] Lansing S. Wells, Walter F. Clarke, and Erne-t M

Levin, Effect of aging on soundness of regular! \ hydrated dolomitic lime putties. XBS Build,-

c

Materials and Structures Report 127 April 25. 1952).
[6] Proposed amendment 1 to Federal Specification SSL-351 for lime; hydrated (for) structural purposes. (Date of amendment, February 2, 1940.)

[7] Federal Specification SS-C-158c for cements, hydraulic; methods for sampling, inspection, and testing,

paragraph 4. 4. 9. 2.

[8] Federal Specification SS-C-181b for cement; masonry, F-3i (1938).

[9] Standard specifications for special finishing hydrated

lime, ASTM Designation: C206-49, ASTM Standards, part 3,191 (1952).

[10] National Lime Association Specifications for lime and

its uses in plastering, stucco, unit masonry and concrete, N. L. A. Specification No. 1-45 (November

1945).

[1 1] Standard specifications for hydrated lime for masonry

purposes, ASTM Designation: C207-49, ASTM

Standards, part 3, 193 (1952).

[12] Lansing S. Wells, Walter F. Clarke, Edwin S. Newman, and Dana L. Bishop, Investigation of failures

of white-coat, plaster, NBS Building Materials and

Structures Report 121 (Feb. 1, 1951).

[13] Tentative specifications for hydraulic hydrated lime

for structural purposes, ASTM Designation:

C141-42, ASTM Standards, 1953 Supplement, part

3, 371 (1953).

[14] Lansing S. Wells, Dana L. Bishop, and David Watstein, Differences in limes as reflected in certain properties of masonry mortars, J. Research NBS

17 , 895 (1936) RP952.

Washington, July 29, 1955.

10

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1956
BUILDING MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES REPORTS

[Continued from cover page n]

BMS38 Structural Properties of Two “Dunstone” Wall Constructions Sponsored by the W. E. Dunn Manufacturing Co _ 106 BMS39 Structural Properties of a Wall Construction of “Pfeifer Units” Sponsored by the Wisconsin Units Co 106 BMS40 Structural Properties of a Wall Construction of “Knap Concrete Wall Units” Sponsored

by Knap America, Inc * BMS41 Effect of Heating and Cooling on the Permeability of Masonry Walls * BMS42 Structural Properties of Wood-Frame Wall and Partition Construction with “Celotex”

Insulating Boards Sponsored by The Celotex Corporation * BMS43 Performance Test of Floor Coverings for Use in Low-Cost Housing: Part 2. _ * BMS44 Surface Treatment of Steel Prior to Painting * BMS45 Air Infiltration Through Windows 206 BMS46 Structural Properties of “Scott-Bilt” Prefabricated Sheet-Steel Construction for Walls,

Floors, and Roofs Sponsored by The Globe-Wernicke Co * BMS47 Structural Properties of Prefabricated Wood-Frame Constructions for Walls, Partitions, and Floors Sponsored by American Houses, Inc * BMS48 Structural Properties of “Precision-Built” Frame Wall and Partition Constructions

Sponsored by the Homasote Co * BMS49 Metallic Roofing for Low-Cost House Construction 256 BMS50 Stability of Fiber Building Boards as Determined by Accelerated Aging * BMS51 Structural Properties of “Tilecrete Type A” Floor Construction Sponsored by the

Tilecrete Co * BMS52 Effect of Ceiling Insulation Upon Summer Comfort 15c BMS53 Structural Properties of a Masonry Wall Construction of “Munlock Dry Wall Brick”

Sponsored by the Munlock Engineering Co 1 00 BMS54 Effect of Soot on the Rating of an Oil-Fired Heating Boiler * BMS55 Effects of Wetting and Drying on the Permeability of Masonry Walls * BMS56 A Survey of Humidities in Residences 106 BMS57 Roofing in the United States—Results of a Questionnaire * BMS58 Strength of Soft-Soldered Joints in Copper Tubing 156 BMS59 Properties of Adhesives for Floor Coverings * BMS60 Strength, Absorption, and Resistance to Laboratory Freezing and Thawing of Building

Bricks Produced in the United States 306 BMS61 Structural Properties of Two Nonreinforced Monolithic Concrete Wall Constructions. * BMS62 Structural Properties of a Precast Joist Concrete Floor Construction Sponsored by the Portland Cement Association * BMS63 Moisture Condensation in Building Walls * BMS64 Solar Heating of Various Surfaces 100 BMS65 Methods of Estimating Loads in Plumbing Systems 206 BMS66 Plumbing Manual 406 BMS67 Structural Properties of “Mu-Steel” Prefabricated Sheet-Steel Constructions for Walls,

Partitions, Floors, and Roofs, Sponsored by Herman A. Mugler 20c BMSG8 Performance Test for Floor Coverings for Use in Low-Cost Housing: Part 3 * BMS69 Stability of Fiber Sheathing Boards as Determined by Accelerated Aging 106 BMS70 Asphalt-Prepared Roll Roofings and Shingles 206 BMS71 Fire Tests of Wood- and Metal-Framed Partitions 306 BMS72 Structural Properties of “Precision-Built, Jr.” Prefabricated Wood-Frame Wall Construction Sponsored by the Homasote Co * BMS73 Indentation Characteristics of Floor Coverings 106 BMS74 Structural and Heat-Transfer Properties of “U. S. S. Panelbilt” Prefabricated SheetSteel Constructions for Walls, Partitions, and Roofs Sponsored by the Tennessee

Coal, Iron & Railroad Co 206 BMS75 Survey of Roofing Materials in the North Central States * BMS76 Effect of Outdoor Exposure on the Water Permeability of Masonry Walls * BMS77 Properties and Performance of Fiber Tile Boards * BMS78 Structural, Heat-Tran3fer, and Water-Permeability Properties of Five Earth-Wall

Constructions . 356 BMS79 Water-Distributing Systems for Buildings . 206 BMS80 Performance Test of Floor Coverings for Use in Low-Cost Housing: Part 4 256 BMS81 Field Inspectors’ Check List for Building Constructions (cloth cover, 5 x 7\'i inches).. 406 BMS82 Water Permeability of Walls Built of Masonry Units 256 BMS83 Strength of Sleeve Joints in Copper Tubing Made With Various Lead-Base Solders .. 156 BMS84 Survey of Roofing Materials in the South Central States * BMS85 Dimensional Changes of Floor Coverings With Changes in Relative Humidity and

Temperature * BMS86 Structural, Heat-Transfer, and Water-Permeabilitv Properties of “Speedbrik” Wall

Construction Sponsored by the General Shale Products Corporation * BMS87 A Method for Developing Specifications for Building Construction—Report of Subcommittee on Specifications of the Central Housing Committee on Research,

Design, and Construction 206 BMSS8 Recommended Building Code Requirements for New Dwelling Construction With

Special Reference to War Housing * BMS89 Structural Properties of “Precision-Built, Jr.” (Second Construction! Prefabricated Wood-Frame Wall Construction Sponsored by the Homasote Co * •Out of print. [List continued on cover page iv]
BUILDING MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES REPORTS

[Continued from cover page hi] BMS90 Structural Properties of “PHC” Prefabricated Wood-Frame Constructions for Walls,

Floors, and Roofs Sponsored by the PHC Housing Corporation 15$

BMS91 A Glossary of Housing Terms.. * BMS92 Fire-Resistance Classifications of Building Constructions 35$

BMS93 Accumulation of Moisture in Walls of Frame Construction During Winter Exposure.. * BMS94 Water Permeability and Weathering Resistance of Stucco-Faced, Gunite-Faced, and

“Knap Concrete-Unit” Walls * BMS95 Test of Cement-Water Paints and Other Waterproofings for Unit-Masonry Walls 30$

BMS96 Properties of a Porous Concrete of Cement and Uniform-Sized Gravel * BMS97 Experimental Dry-Wall Construction With Fiber Insulating Board * BMS98 Physical Properties of Terrazzo Aggregates * BMS99 Structural and Heat-Transfer Properties of “Multiple Box-Girder Plywood Panels” for Walls, Floors, and Roofs * BMS100 Relative Slipperiness of Floor and Deck Surfaces * BMS101 Strength and Resistance to Corrosion of Ties for Cavity Walls * BMS102 Painting Steel 15$

BMS103 Measurements of Heat Losses From Slab Floors * BMS104 Structural Properties of Prefabricated Plywood Lightweight Constructions for Walls,

Partitions, Floors, and Roofs Sponsored by the Douglas Fir Plywood Association.. * BMS105 Paint Manual with particular reference to Federal Specifications $1. 50 BMS106 Laboratory Observations of Condensation in Wall Specimens 15$

BMS107 Building Code Requirements for New Dwelling Construction * BMS108 Temperature Distribution in a Test Bungalow With Various Heating Devices 15$

BMS109 Strength of Houses: Application of Engineering Principles to Structural Design 70$

BMS110 Paints for Exterior Masonry Walls 20$

BMSlll Performance of a Coal-Fired Boiler Converted to Oil 15$

BMS112 Properties of Some Lightweight-Aggregate Concretes With and Without an Air- Entraining Admixture 15$

BMS113 Fire Resistance of Structural Clay Tile Partitions 15$

BMS114 Temperature in a Test Bungalow With Some Radiant and Jacketed Space Heaters 25$

BMS115 A Study of a Baseboard Convector Heating System in a Test Bungalow 20$

BMS116 Preparation and Revision of Building Codes 20$

BMS117 Fire Resistance of Walls of Lightweight Aggregate Concrete Masonry Units 25$

BMS118 Stack Venting of Plumbing Fixtures 25$

BMS119 Wet Venting of Plumbing Fixtures 25$

BMS120 Fire Resistance of Walls of Gravel-Aggregate Concrete Masonry Units 15$

BMS121 Investigation of Failures of White-Coat Plasters 30$

BMS122 Physical Properties of Some Samples of Asbestos-Cement Siding 20$

BMS123 Fire Tests of Wood-Framed Walls and Partitions With Asbestos-Cement Facings * BMS124 Fire Tests of Steel Columns Protected With Siliceous Aggregate Concrete 15$

BMS125 Stone Exposure Test Wall 30$

B MS126 The Self-Siphonage of Fixture Traps 20$

BMS127 Effect of Aging on the Soundness of Regularly Hydrated Dolomitic Lime Putties 15$

BMS128 Atmospheric Exposure Tests of Nailed Sheet Metal Building Materials 20$

BMS129 Fire Endurance of Shutters for Moving-Stairway Openings 10? BMS130 Methods and Equipment for Testing Printed-Enamel Felt-Base Floor Covering 15$

BMS131 Fire Tests of Gunite Slabs and Partitions. 15$

BMS132 Capacities of Plumbing Stacks in Buildings 25$

BMS133 Live Loads on Floors in Buildings 25$

BMS134 Fire Resistance of Concrete Floors * BMS135 Fire Tests of Steel Columns Encased With Gypsum Lath and Plaster 15$

BMS136 Properties of Cavity Walls 15$

BMS137 Influence of the Wash From Bronze on the Weathering of Marble 15$

BMS138 Effect of Edge Insulation Upon Temperature and Condensation on Concrete-Slab

Floors 20$

BMS139 Studies of Stone-Setting Mortars 25$

BMS140 Selected Bibliography on Building Construction and Maintenance 30$

BMS141 Fire Endurance of Open-Web Steel Joist Floors with Concrete Slabs and Gypsum

Ceilings 20$

BMS142 Frost Closure of Roof Vents 25$

BMS143 Fire Tests of Brick Walls 35$

BMS144 Sound Insulation of Wall and Floor Constructions 40$

BMS146 Plasticity and Water Retentivity of Hydrated Limes for Structural Purposes 15$

•Out of print.