Most Common Myths for Masonry Mortar and Grout

Jamie Farny1 , Nick Lang2 , and Phillip J. Samblanet3

A BSTRACT
Masonry construction has been used for centuries, even millennia, yet is often misunderstood. Many de-
signers are not exposed to masonry until they are in practice. As a result, some common myths persist.
In part, these are due to confusion with concrete construction, which is more widely used and understood.
This paper addresses the following common misunderstandings about masonry mortar and grout: selecting
a high-strength mortar when a lower strength would suffice; requiring testing for field-sampled mortar and
trying to apply a compressive strength requirement to it; not understanding that retempering mortar—adding
water and remixing—is typically good practice; limiting the selection of cementitious materials for mortar;
and limiting the water content of grout. Best practices for design, quality assurance, and construction are
offered.

K EYWORDS : mortar, grout, compressive strength, mix proportioning, quality assurance, quality control

1
Directory of Building Marketing; Portland Cement Association; Skokie, IL, USA; jfarny@cement.org
2
Vice President of Business Development; National Concrete Masonry Association; Herndon, VA, USA; nlang@ncma.org
3
Executive Director; The Masonry Society; Longmont, CO, USA; psamblanet@masonrysociety.org

Farny J., Lang N., and Samblanet P. (2019, June). “Most Common Myths for Masonry Mortar and Grout.” In P.B. Dillon & F.S. Fonseca (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Thirteenth North American Masonry Conference. Paper presented at the 13th North American Masonry Conference, Salt Lake
City, Utah (pp. 823–835). Longmont, CO: The Masonry Society.
c 2019 TMS. All rights reserved. ISSN 1053-2366.

823
P ROCEEDINGS OF THE 13 TH N ORTH A MERICAN M ASONRY C ONFERENCE

MOST COMMON MYTHS FOR MASONRY MORTAR AND GROUT

Why Masonry Myths Persist
Masonry construction has been around centuries and it seems to be commonplace, yet it often is not well
understood. The materials are generally common, though subtle changes can make huge differences in how
the materials behave and perform. In addition, many designers are unfamiliar with masonry and do not
understand how masonry components work together. Increasingly, it seems that many people believe that
masonry is a lot like concrete and that materials are used in much the same way. There are, however, sig-
nificant differences in practice between concrete and masonry construction.

This paper was developed to call attention to prevalent myths of masonry construction – particularly those
related to masonry mortar and grout. These myths have been around for a long time as evidenced in previous
papers (Borchelt 1994), yet they still persist and they cause problems for designers, builders, and owners.
They can delay projects and lead to unnecessary testing and costs, and are often based on an incorrect
understanding of masonry materials and required performance.

Masonry Myth #1: High strength mortar is best

Overly strong mortars for masonry continue to be specified, even though the problems of using them are
well documented. In the case of masonry, increased mortar strength does not necessarily translate to im-
proved performance of the system. Numerous papers, articles and technical notes (Farny et al. 2008, Jaffe
2017) addressing the topic of mortar selection have been written.

Appendix X.1 of the consensus standard ASTM C270-14a, Standard Specification for Mortar for Unit Ma-
sonry, provides guidance on mortar types for various applications and discusses some of the problems with
specifying high strength mortars. Section X.1.6.3.2 states that:

• the importance of compressive strength of mortar is overemphasized

• compressive strength should not be the sole criterion for mortar selection
• bond strength and workability are typically more important than compressive strength
• mortars should typically be weaker than the masonry units.

Based on these criteria, it should be clear that a reasonable strength, more workable mortar is preferred.
Section X.1.6.3.3 notes that it is frequently desirable to sacrifice some compressive strength of the mortar
in favor of improved bond. Mortar strength should be selected to be consistent with (comparable to) the
unit strength, or weaker than the units (ASTM C270-14a, BIA 2008). ASTM and various industry sources
recommend Type N or S mortar for most structural masonry and Type N mortar for most veneers and
interior partitions (ASTM Table X1.1).

Mortar compressive strength is not a good indicator of the strength of the masonry system and, in fact, has
only a marginal effect on the overall compressive strength of the masonry system (Fishburn, 1961). More
recent research (NCMA 2012) showed that for lower strength concrete masonry units, mortar type and
compressive strength had little impact on the strength of the assembly (as measured by masonry prism
testing). (Figure 1). The reasons for this may not be obvious, but they include that units provide some
restraint to the mortar and that mortar fails in tension rather than compression due to the Poisson effect
(Figure 2).

824
S ALT L AKE C ITY, U TAH J UNE 16–19, 2019

Figure 1. As an example, a 240% increase in mortar strength (Type S vs. Type N) results in only a 12% to 17% in-
crease in prism strength (TMS 2016).

Figure 2. The effect of masonry unit restraint on mortar joint is significant over its 3/8 in. (10 mm) thickness (PCA
1993).

High compressive strength mortars can lead to other problems with masonry, such as reduced workability
in fresh mortars. The importance of a workable mortar to allow proper placement, alignment, and adjust-
ment of units is critical in providing a strong, beautiful, and durable project that also better withstands wind,
rain, fire, and other environmental effects. Reduced workability can also create problems with the mortar-
unit interface, and can lead to reduced bond strength, even when the mortar is stronger. In addition, as with
most masonry construction today, production consideration often dictates that mortar smears and droppings
not be removed immediately from the face of the wall. Instead, they are removed later, during the final
cleaning. This is often done by washing. Higher compressive strength mortars tend to be harder, and they
adhere more strongly to the face of masonry. As such, higher strength mortars are typically more difficult
to remove. The contractor then must use a greater cleaning effort to remove such mortar (such as pressure
washing or chemical cleaning), and those efforts have a higher potential to result in damage to the finish of
the units than less aggressive methods that work with lower strength mortars.

For hardened mortars, higher compressive strength typically means higher cement content. This higher
cement content increases the likelihood for high shrinkage and a risk for cracking to occur in the units rather
than the mortar or mortar-unit interface. Weaker mortar can better accommodate unit movement than
stronger mortar (Hedstrom et al. 1968), protecting the units from cracking and making subsequent repairs

825
P ROCEEDINGS OF THE 13 TH N ORTH A MERICAN M ASONRY C ONFERENCE

easier, cheaper, and more aesthetically pleasing than trying to patch or replace units. Additionally, the in-
efficient use of cement in higher strength mortars makes the mortar less economical and less sustainable
compared to a moderate strength mortar.

Masonry Myth #2: The first choice for testing quality of field mortar should be compres-
sive strength
ASTM C780, Standard Test Method for Preconstruction and Construction Evaluation of Mortars for Plain
and Reinforced Unit Masonry, is the standard that defines tests and procedures for masonry mortar in the
field. The standard contains several procedures to evaluate various properties of mortar, including con-
sistency, consistency retention, mortar-aggregate ratio, air content, and compressive strength.

The compressive strength test in ASTM C780 is of limited value for evaluating masonry mortar in the field.
Compressive strength provides little insight into whether the mortar was mixed to comply with the propor-
tions determined by ASTM C270. Changes in compressive strength of mortar can be caused by many var-
iables, including weather conditions, curing conditions of the specimens, changes in specimen geometry,
and more. As such, batch-to-batch variations in compressive strength do not necessarily indicate a change
in material proportions, nor a reason to question the quality of the resulting construction. Compressive
strength results are best used to compare batch-to-batch results for consistency, and preconstruction testing
is necessary to determine a baseline. In no case should field compressive strength results be compared to
the property requirements in ASTM C270.

For field evaluation, one of the most important determinations is to ensure that the correct proportions are
used during construction. One way to accomplish this is to monitor the amounts of materials added to the
mortar mixer. While simple and easy, this also requires periodic observations by the evaluating authority.
A quantitative methodology for evaluation of the relative proportions in a mortar mix is through the mortar-
aggregate ratio test contained in Annex A4 of ASTM C780 (Figure 3). This test provides an accurate de-
termination of the relative proportions of materials in the mortar at the time of mixing, which is compared
to proportions established by ASTM C270. The mortar-aggregate ratio test is normally completed within
24 hours, soon enough to make corrections or adjustments to mortar batching and mixing activities if nec-
essary. That is not the case with compressive strength results, which aren’t available until 28 days after
specimens are formed.

Figure 3. The mortar-aggregate ratio test requires two fresh mortar samples and one sand sample. Wet-sieving mor-
tar samples separates the cementitious materials from the aggregate so that proportions can be determined.

826
S ALT L AKE C ITY, U TAH J UNE 16–19, 2019

As is the case with any type of construction, a designer wants assurance that specified materials achieve the
right properties. The test procedures in ASTM C780 help evaluate different properties of masonry mortar
in the field. These are intended for quality control and assurance, and not for compliance with the actual
property requirements of ASTM C270. Because the compressive strength of field mortar is often tested
incorrectly and yields very little meaningful information even when done right, a better alternative is the
mortar-aggregate ratio test to evaluate compliance with the proportions established for mortar.

Masonry Myth #3: Field-tested mortars should meet the compressive strength require-
ments of ASTM C270
One of the most common problems encountered with masonry mortar occurs when mortar is sampled in
the field and tested for compressive strength. This can lead to an interpretation of results that the strength
of the mortar is low. As discussed in the previous two myths, higher strength mortars are not a good choice,
and other tests are better for field evaluation. Nevertheless, compressive strength testing in the field persists.

The two main standards that govern masonry mortar are ASTM C270 and ASTM C780. ASTM C270 in-
cludes the requirements for masonry mortar through two separate specification paths. One is the Proportion
Specification and it specifies a particular recipe for masonry mortar. It can be used when the mortar con-
stituents meet their relevant specifications, and are combined in the specific proportions contained in ASTM
C270 (such as a ratio of one part masonry cement to three parts sand). When using the proportion specifi-
cation, there are no physical property requirements for the mortar.

The second specification is the Property Specification. When this is used, a mortar is mixed in a laboratory
and then tested in the laboratory for compressive strength, water retention, and air content. The mortar must
meet the property requirements contained in ASTM C270. Assuming the results are satisfactory, the mate-
rials and proportions are the ones that are to be used in the field. The properties contained in ASTM C270
apply only to mortars mixed and tested in the laboratory. This is reinforced within ASTM C270 itself, which
states “Physical properties of field sampled mortar shall not be used to determine compliance to this spec-
ification and are not intended as criteria to determine the acceptance or rejection of the mortar.”

ASTM C780 contains a series of tests that can evaluate various properties of the mortar in the field. Com-
pressive strength is the one that is most commonly specified, and usually the source of most mortar testing
problems. Based on ASTM C270 and ASTM C780, there are no compressive strength requirements for
field-sampled mortar. Further, the requirements for compressive strength contained in ASTM C270 should
not be applied to field mortars. ASTM C780 states “The test results obtained under this test method are
not required to meet the minimum compressive values in accordance with the property specifications in
Specification C270.”

The primary reason why it is inappropriate to apply ASTM C270 compressive strength requirements has to
do with water content of laboratory-tested mortar. When mortars are mixed in the lab, the amount of water
added is tightly controlled. The laboratory-mixed mortar has a much stiffer than the consistency of mortar
used in the field when it comes out of the mixer. This is done so the water content of the lab mortar is more
representative of the water content of the mortar after it has been placed on units. This is confirmed in
ASTM C1586, Standard Guide for Quality Assurance of Mortar, which states “The Property Specifications
require evaluation of a mortar with a consistency (flow) of 110 ± 5%. This is an arbitrarily established
mortar consistency that is used to approximate the water content of mortar after it is placed in a masonry
assemblage with absorbent masonry units.”

827
P ROCEEDINGS OF THE 13 TH N ORTH A MERICAN M ASONRY C ONFERENCE

It is well known that the water-cement ratio of a cementitious mixture affects the compressive strength. All
other things being equal, a lower water-cement ratio will result in a higher compressive strength result. In
the field, the mortar is mixed with more water than used in the laboratory to provide masons with a workable
material for quality workmanship. When the mortar is placed on masonry units, some of this water is ab-
sorbed into the unit, reducing the water-to-cement ratio of the mortar. For field-sampled mortar, the mortar
is placed into non-absorptive molds immediately after mixing, so the excess water is not removed.

The laboratory procedures detailed above are intended to simulate the water-cement ratio of a mortar after
it has been placed in the wall. The compressive strength procedures in ASTM C780 do not account for the
reduction in water in mortar after it is placed in the wall, and it should be expected that field mortar strengths
should be lower than what is determined in the laboratory, and the property specification requirements in
ASTM C270 should not be applied to field-sampled mortars.

Because of the factors above, specifying that mortar cubes be tested in compression per ASTM C780 and
that those strengths meet requirements in ASTM C270 is both incorrect and inappropriate. In the rare case
when mortar compressive strengths need to be confirmed, then procedures in ASTM C780 must be fol-
lowed. Initial strengths of field mortar need to be determined from preconstruction mortars made with the
same materials, in the same proportions, mixed to the same consistency, cured under similar circumstances,
and tested at the same age as noted in ASTM C780, Appendix Section A6.1. Because mortar compressive
strength rarely has a large influence on the overall strength of the masonry (see Myth #1), the authors
recommend that mortar compressive strength not be tested on most masonry jobs. The results are typically
irrelevant to the overall condition of the masonry, are frequently misinterpreted, cause confusion and doubt,
cost money, and could lead to litigation.

Masonry Myth #4: Do not retemper mortar

The practice of adding water to prepared mortar and remixing to a uniform consistency is known as retem-
pering, as shown in Figure 4. Not only is this typically acceptable, it is normally preferred because it keeps
the mortar in the best condition for achieving optimum placement of units, allows for good tooling charac-
teristics, and leads to the best potential for good bond.

The confusion about retempering might stem from the fact that concrete construction is more common and
familiar to specifiers. With concrete, mixtures are designed to a maximum water-cement ratio to ensure that
a particular minimum compressive strength is achieved. In concrete, lower water contents are also benefi-
cial because they help to limit plastic shrinkage cracking, which occurs as a result of excess water evapo-
rating out during curing, causing a loss of volume.

Figure 4. Retempering, or adding water to mortar to restore workability, is good practice.

828
S ALT L AKE C ITY, U TAH J UNE 16–19, 2019

Mortar, however, behaves much differently. Whereas concrete is placed against non-absorbent formwork,
mortar is placed between absorptive masonry units, most commonly concrete masonry units (CMU) or clay
units (brick). Both CMU and brick draw water out of fresh mortar when units are placed in contact with it.
Without enough water in the mortar and good water retention characteristics, mortar would quickly become
stiff and unworkable when trying to place units, likely impairing the bond between units and mortar.

It would be hard to judge the quality of fresh mortar by sight, because water can be added to restore some
workability. Therefore, the best control of mortar quality is age. From the first contact (initial mixing) of
water with cement, mortar should typically be used within 2-1/2 hours. This prevents excess hydration of
cement particles before mortar is placed into a wall. Masons can improve the likelihood of good work by
mixing mortar in batch sizes that can reasonably be used in the usual ‘workability window’ of 2-1/2 hours.

The mason is the best to judge how the mortar is behaving during placement, and they will work with their
tender (mortar mixer) to adjust water content for optimum workability to match the weather. The 2-1/2
hours is a general rule of thumb, but shorter or longer periods may be required or allowed depending on the
weather. Hot, dry, or windy conditions could reduce the usable time, whereas cooler temperatures might
extend it. TMS 602 recognizes the effects of hot weather on mortar during construction, so when the ambi-
ent air temperature exceeds 100ºF (37.8ºC), or exceeds 90ºF (32.2ºC) with a wind velocity greater than 8
mph (12.9 km/hr), mortar must be used within 2 hours of initial mixing (TMS 602 2016).

In general, retempering is not only acceptable, it is required for good results. Research (Isberner 1974) has
shown that tensile bond strength increases with increased water-cement ratio (Figure 5). Therefore, there
should not be concern that added of water when retempering will adversely affect bond strength of mortar.

Even though retempering is good practice, it should not be used without limitations. One caution is for
(white or) colored mortars: retempering colored mortars should be avoided or done with extreme care to
prevent color differences (Farny et al. 2008, PCA 2004). While many factors affect the final color result,
higher water-cement ratios result in lighter mortar color, so limiting or preventing addition of water removes
one variable. Another limitation on retempering is for mortars that contain a set retarder. These materials
are sometimes used during hot weather to extend the board life of fresh mortar up to 5 hours by counteract-
ing the effects of rapid set and high evaporation rates. No retempering is allowed when set retarders are
used in mortar (Beall 2003) and for glass unit masonry (TMS 602 2016).

Figure 5. Effect of water-cement ratio on tensile bond and compressive strength of mortar (Isberner 1974).

829
P ROCEEDINGS OF THE 13 TH N ORTH A MERICAN M ASONRY C ONFERENCE

Masonry Myth #5: Cement-Lime mortars are best

Throughout the world, masonry is used successfully in every climate. The effects of various climatic vari-
ables must be accounted for, however, in order to achieve success. Many times this is accomplished through
careful selection of materials for a given project. In the U.S., for instance, conditions range from semi-
tropical in Florida to arctic in Alaska, with literally every other climate in between. In addition, there is a
wide variety of masonry units including clay brick, concrete masonry units, natural stone, manufactured
stone, glass block, and others. There is no one perfect mortar that is optimum for all of these variable climate
conditions and unit types. ASTM C270 is intended to be used throughout the entire country regardless of
climate. The standard is written to allow flexibility for specifiers and other users to choose the proper ma-
terials for a given climate and project requirements.

Focusing on C270, there are five cements that can be used as the key binder in mortar. They are C150/port-
land cement, C595/blended cement, C1157/hydraulic cement, C91/masonry cement, and C1329/mortar ce-
ment. The first three are manufactured for general construction uses, so they require additional cementitious
material to provide workability to mortar, usually lime or quicklime (Figure 6). The other two, C91 and
C1329, contain workability agents as part of their composition, and no additional plasticizers are allowed.

While there are slight differences in batching mortars due to the different cements, the standard treats all of
them more or less equally in terms of end performance. (The exception is that C91 masonry cement mortars
may not provide the same level of flexural bond strength as the others.) Using the proportion method will
provide adequate compressive strength and durable characteristics, and depending on mortar types, may
also provide flexural bond strength. The property specification is different in that the materials must be lab
tested to demonstrate performance, then be converted to proportions for ease of use during field construc-
tion. These mortars must meet minimum requirements for compressive strength, water retention, and air
content.

Figure 6. ASTM C270 allows for five cement-based materials as the mortar binder, as shown by the proportion
specifications table.

830
S ALT L AKE C ITY, U TAH J UNE 16–19, 2019

The robustness of these specifications to allow for different cementitious materials means that masons who
are doing the work have a say in what works best for the climate, units, and conditions. Whether a specific
cementitious material (binder) is more suited to local conditions, more prevalent in that region, or more
readily available at the time of the work, the approach of allowing for the use of any of them is the most
efficient way to obtain good results consistently.

The C270 standard, which is not area-specific, assures fresh and hardened properties, clearly identifies
which types of cement will perform in mortar. Masonry codes are coordinated with this standard so that the
masonry construction will perform as intended, bonding the units together, while also carrying applied
loads and forces. To the extent that structural performance requires flexural bond strength, TMS 402 Code
lists the mortar requirements. For instance, TMS 402 Section 7.4.4.2.2 says that for Seismic Zone Category
D and higher, fully grouted participating members (used as part of the lateral force resisting system) can be
made with any Type S or M mortar, but partially grouted members are limited to Type S or M cement-lime
or mortar cement mortars.

Generally, there is no single mortar type that is the ‘best’ for every project. Instead, specifiers and users
should consider the aspects of each project and identify the most suitable mortar type and constituent ma-
terials. Factors such as climate, structural demand, units, and more should be considered. In some cases, a
cement-lime mortar may be appropriate. For others, a masonry cement or mortar cement mortar may be the
best choice.

Masonry Myth #6: Limit how much water is added to grout

Likely due to concerns with high water-cement ratios from what is known about concrete designs, specifiers
sometimes call for masonry grouts that do not have adequate workability for proper placement. This is a
mistake. High-slump grout is needed to flow into small spaces in masonry assemblages (Farny et al. 2008,
Chrysler et al. 2018). Chrysler (2015) reports that the high water-cement ratio drops drastically when grout
contacts units because masonry is absorbent, unlike wood or steel forms coated with release agent that are
used for concrete. In fact, bleed water on the surface, and even coming down the surface of the masonry
units being grouted, is common (Figure 7). In fact, Atkinson and Kingsley (1985) found that the migration
of water from grout to surrounding masonry units decreases water-cement ratio, and has a profound effect
on grout properties.

Figure 7. Water from grout is absorbed by CMU during placement, which is why high slumps are needed.

831
P ROCEEDINGS OF THE 13 TH N ORTH A MERICAN M ASONRY C ONFERENCE

Because of this, both ASTM C476 and TMS 602 require conventional grout slump to be 8 to 11 in. (200 to
280 mm) (Figure 8). The commentary to TMS 602, Article 2.6 B.2 notes that a slump of at least 8 in. (200
mm) provides a mix fluid enough to be properly placed and supplies water demand of the masonry units.
Self-consolidating grouts are different, achieving a high slump flow of 24 to 30 in. (610 to 760 mm) via
chemical admixtures and materials other than water.

Figure 8. Conventional grout slump should be 8 to 11 in. (200 to 280 mm), much more fluid than typical concrete
mixtures. (1 in. = 25.4 mm)

While having too much excess water in grout can lead to lower strengths, in most cases, the grout strengths
are more than adequate, and industry recommendations are that strength and bond requirements should not
be considered independently of placement procedures (Kingsley et al, 1985).

Some have countered that with very dense, non-absorbent units, or wet units, the slump should be signifi-
cantly reduced. Thomas and Samblanet (1998) studied grout bond to wet concrete masonry units, and con-
cluded that concrete masonry unit moisture content does not have a significant influence on the magnitude
of bond that developed between grout and the units or on the compressive strength of the grout. Using
plasticizers and water reducers to minimize the amount of mix water should only be done with care to
ensure that adequate water is available for both absorption by the units and hydration of the cement.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Masonry construction differs from concrete construction and some of those differences can be confusing,
especially to specifiers who are more familiar with concrete. This paper attempts to dispel some of the
commonly held misperceptions about mortar and grout.

The authors support the development of consensus standards to determine reasonable requirements for ma-
terials, design, and construction based on the views and opinions of a broad, diverse group of experts using
research, where available. It is not surprising then, that the authors recommend the use of consensus stand-
ards such as TMS 602 and ASTM standards related to typical masonry construction. While there are always
special cases and circumstances where one may need to look outside consensus standards, recommenda-
tions summarized in Table 1 for typical masonry construction help counter the myths discussed in this
paper. The goal is to inform specifiers and provide them with clear guidance on preferred practices regard-
ing mortar and grout to facilitate the construction of economical, quality masonry.

832
S ALT L AKE C ITY, U TAH J UNE 16–19, 2019

Table 1. General Recommendations for the Specification of Mortar and Grout for Masonry
Recommendation Commentary
Use ASTM C270-14a, Table X1.1 - Higher strength mortars can have unintended consequences and unde-
to help guide selection of the mortar sirable outcomes.
type, within any limitations of TMS - Strength should always be selected as the lowest level necessary for
402, typically selecting the weakest the application.
mortar that is acceptable. - ASTM C270 provides recommendations on mortar type selection.
TMS 402 does have some limits on mortar types in high seismic risk
regions.
Use TMS 402/602 to determine - TMS 402/602 provides minimum levels of quality assurance for ma-
minimum quality assurance, in- sonry projects, which serve well for most masonry projects.
cluding any required mortar or - QA requirements in TMS 402/602 do not require compressive strength
grout testing. testing of masonry mortar.
- Compressive strength testing of field mortar samples is often done in-
For special cases, where additional correctly and yields very little information even when done correctly.
quality assurance is needed, use the Instead, verify proportioning and mixing of mortar at the project site.
mortar aggregate ratio rather than – Mortar-aggregate ratio testing is recommended as an alternative to
mortar compressive strength test- compressive strength testing, and it yields faster results.
ing. – The compressive strength requirements in ASTM C270 solely apply
to mortar that is mixed and tested in the LABORATORY.
If mortar compressive strength test- – No ASTM standard has minimum (or maximum) limits for compres-
ing is felt to be needed, establish sive strength of mortar sampled in the field.
strength criteria using ASTM C780
on preconstruction specimens.
Permit mortar retempering con- – TMS 602 allows mortar retempering within specified limits and con-
sistent with TMS 602. ditions.
– Observing the time limits in TMS 602 for the age of fresh mortar pro-
tects mortar quality and bond.
– For colored mortars, retempering should be done sparingly to ensure
consistent color.
– For mortar for glass unit masonry, TMS 602 does not allow retemper-
ing.
Specify mortar Type per ASTM – ASTM C270 allows for a wide variety of cementitious materials.
C270. – Allowing specifiers, masons and the marketplace determine which ce-
mentitious system and mortar type are appropriate for a given project
leads to better results.
– In high seismic zones, TMS 402 does place limitations on mortar for
partially grouted members that are part of the lateral force resisting sys-
tem.
Specify grout per ASTM C476 by – The extra water in grout helps with placement and the excess water is
proportion or property without drawn out of the grout, resulting in lower water-cement ratios and ap-
placing limits on the water content. propriate strength levels.
- Even though grout and concrete are made with similar ingredients they
are placed into very different forms. Concrete is placed into nonabsor-
bent formwork, whereas grout is placed into absorbent masonry units.

REFERENCES
ASTM C91/C91M (2018). Standard Specification for Masonry Cement, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM C150/C150M (2019). Standard Specification for Portland Cement, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Conshohocken, PA.

833
P ROCEEDINGS OF THE 13 TH N ORTH A MERICAN M ASONRY C ONFERENCE

ASTM C270 (2014a). Standard Specification for Mortar for Unit Masonry, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM C476 (2018). Standard Specification for Grout for Masonry, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM C595/C595M (2018). Standard Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cements, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM C780 (2018a). Standard Test Method for Preconstruction and Construction Evaluation of Mortars
for Plain and Reinforced Unit Masonry, American Society for Testing and Materials, Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM C1157/C1157M (2017). Standard Performance Specification for Hydraulic Cement, American So-
ciety for Testing and Materials, Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM C1329/C1329M (2016a). Standard Specification for Mortar Cement, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Conshohocken, PA.

ASTM C1586 (2017). Standard Guide for Quality Assurance of Mortars, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Conshohocken, PA.

Atkinson, R.H., and Kingsley, G.R. (1985). “A comparison of the Behavior of Clay and Concrete Masonry
in Compression”, U.S.-Japan Coordinated Program for Masonry Building Research, Atkinson-Noland &
Associates, Inc., Boulder, CO.

Beall, C. (2003). Masonry Design and Detailing for Architects and Contractors, 5th Edition, McGraw-Hill.

BIA (2008). “Mortars for Brickwork,” BIA Technical Note 8, Brick Industry Association, Reston, VA.

Borchelt, J. G. (1994). “Use and Interpretation of Mortar Specifications and Test Methods”, Proceeding of
the Fourth North American Masonry Conference, The Masonry Society, Longmont, CO.

Chrysler (2015). Reinforced Concrete Masonry Construction Inspector’s Handbook, 9th Edition, Masonry
Institute of America, Torrance, CA.

Chrysler, J., Siggard, K., and Samblanet, P. (2018). “Common Sense Approach to Masonry Quality Assur-
ance,” Australasian Masonry Conference, Sidney, Australia, www.10amc.com.

Farny, J.A., Melander, J. M., and Panarese, W.C. (2008). Concrete Masonry Handbook for Architects, En-
gineers, Builders, 6th Edition, EB008, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL.

Fishburn, C.C., (1961). “Effect of Mortar Properties on Strength of Masonry”, National Bureau of Stand-
ards, Monograph 36, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.

Hedstrom, R.O., Litvin, A., and Hanson, J.A., (1968). “Influence of Mortar and Block Properties on Shrink-
age Cracking of Masonry Walls”, Journal of the PCA Research and Development Laboratories, DX131,
Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL.

834
S ALT L AKE C ITY, U TAH J UNE 16–19, 2019

Isberner, A. W. (1974). Properties of Masonry Cement Mortars, RD019, Portland Cement Association,
Skokie, IL.

Jaffe, R. C. (2017). Masonry Basics, 2nd Ed., The Masonry Society (TMS), Longmont, CO.

Kingsley, G.R., Noland, J.L., and Tulin, L.G., (1985). “The Influence of Water Content and Unit Absorp-
tion Properties on Grout Compressive Strength and Bond Strength in Hollow Clay Masonry,” Third North
American Masonry Conference Proceedings, University of Texas at Arlington, The Masonry Society,
Longmont, CO.

NCMA (2012). Recalibration of the Unit Strength Method for Verifying Compliance with the Specified
Compressive Strength of Concrete Masonry, MR37, National Concrete Masonry Association, Herndon,
VA.

PCA (1993). Compressive Strength of Masonry, IS276, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL.

PCA (2004). Masonry Mortars, IS040, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL.

Thomas, R., and Samblanet, P. (1998). The Effects of Concrete Masonry Unit Moisture Content on Grout
Bond and Grout Compressive Strength, National Concrete Masonry Association, Herndon, VA.

TMS 402/602 (2016). Building Code Requirements and Specification for Masonry Structures, The Masonry
Society (TMS), Longmont, CO.

835