technical paper 101 Masonry bond strength and the effects of supplementary cementitious materials * S} Lawrence * Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability, ‘School of Engineering, The University of Newcastle, NSW SPL Consulting Pty Ltd, Sydney, NSW HO Sugo and AW Page Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability, School of Engineering, The University of Newcastle, NSW SUMMARY: The paper presents the results of two imcestigations into flexural tensile bond strengtlt of masonry using a wide range of materials. The materials include clay, concrete ad calcium silicate bricks; general purpose, slag blend, fly ash blend and masonry cements; and mortar mixes covering the commonty used range, with and without rater thickener admixture. Tests were carried out at ‘ages from 7 10730 days (2 years). The bond wrench technique was used to test the individual joints of {five-course stack-bonded masonry prisms. Ten replicates ofeach set of conditions were tested, giving @ {otal of 3120 measurements in te frst study and 1200 measurements in the second study. Significant results and interactions are discussed and illustrated. The implications for masonry design and AS 3700 are outlined. 1 INTRODUCTION Masonry is inherently strong under compressive stresses and relatively weak under tensile stresses. Compressive strengths of the composite material range up to 15 MPa or more, while tensile strengths are typically an order of magnitude less. The tensile strength is highly dependent on many factors, including the type of masonry unit, composition of the mortar, any admixtures that might be included in the mortar, and workmanship. It is a common misconception that tensile strength is a property of the mortar; it is rather a property of the mortar and masonry unit in combination, expressing how well they are bonded together, and is usually referred to as bond strength for this reason. In practice, it is usually measured as a flexural tensile strength of the composite, using a test known as the bond wrench. For unreinforced masonry, bond strength is the primary material property involved in resisting forces produced by wind and earthquake actions Paper $07-M02 submitted 31/05/07; accepted for publication after review and revision 30/08/07. +. Corresponding author Dr Stephen Lawrence can be contacted at spl@bigpond.net.au on structures. The Australian Masonry Structure standard AS3700 Standards Australia, 2001) permits designers to assume a characteristic bond strength of 0.2 MPa without testing on site, and values up to 1.0, MPa ifsite testing is cartied out during construction. A range of deemed-to-satisfy mortar mixes is given in the standard. The formation of bond between masonry units and mortar has been the subject of much research. and has been shown to be a complex phenomenon, wolving many factors (Edgell, 1987; Portland Cement Association, 1994). One of the principal difficulties is that materials vary so much between, different parts of the world, making the comparison of results sometimes difficult. Work is continuing in efforts to understand the mechanisms of masonry bond and the complex interactions of the many influencing factors. In Australia and other parts of the world, there is an increasing trend to use industry by-products such as ground granulated blast furnace slag and fly ash as Supplementary cementitious materials, This use of by-products is beneficial to the environment by reducing the need for landfill, avoiding the need to source new raw materials and reducing greenhouse gas production associated with the manufacturing (© Institution of Engincers Australia, 2008 ‘Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol 8 No 2102 “Masonry bond strength and the effects of supplementary cementitious materials” ~ Lawrence, Sugo & Page of Portland cement. Much of the development work for the use of these materials has been carried out in relation to reinforced concrete construction, where the primary action is compression. Ina keynote paper, Shrive (2001) gavea good review of bond formation and the factors affecting it, and presented arguments in favour of using blended cements, especially fly ash blends. He argued that testing with a wider range of units, ages and exposure conditions is needed to explore this potential. This and other related papers (Reda Taha & Shrive, 2001; 2004) indicated the potential, in the right circumstances, for strength enhancement with fly ash blends, but demonstrated that it is vital to consider all the factors — brick, cement, water retentivity of ‘mortarand age —in investigating these effects. These authors also presented evidence that bond strength with masonry cements can be significantly lower than with other cements, while other work (Ribar & Dubovoy, 1990; Ghosh, 1991) provided evidence that satisfactory strengths can be achieved. One factor that can detract from bond strength with masonry cements high air content, as shown by examinations of the interface microstructure (Reda & Shrive, 2000; Sugo et al, 2000). Masonry cements are proprietary mixes and their composition varies widely, making it difficult to translate experimental results from country to country. There is therefore a need to establish data on performance of the materials and. ‘methods common in Australia The importance of bond strength for design to resist wind and earthquakes led to a series of investigations at the University of Newcastle and. CSIRO, initially with funding from the Australian Research Council and later with additional funding, from industry groups. This work has continued for more than a decade, covering both fundamental and applied aspects, and has significantly extended our understanding of the factors affecting masonry bond strength in relation to materials in common use in Australia, The work culminated in a major report (Lawrence et al, 2000) and two supplementary reports (Page, 2001; Lawrence, 2008). This paper presents an overview and some of the results from two studies that formed part of the overall investigation. The first study was part of a collaborative project examining mortar mix, unit type, age (up to two years) and curing conditions. Studies of the microstructure of the interface were included to gain further insight into the nature of bone! between masonry units and mortat. This study is referred to here as tie first study. With the common availability of blended cements containing various proportions of blast furnace slag and fly ash materials, and the tendency to use these as direct substitutes for general purpose (GP) cement, itbecame increasingly important to investigate their effects, particularly in masonry mortars. This led to the second study ~ a project at the University of Newcastle, with funding from the Australi Research Council - which investigated the influence of various proportions of cement replacement with blast furnace slag and fly ash. This study is referred to here as the second study. Analysis of variance is an ideal technique for analysing large bodies of data to identify which of the variable factors are significant. In both of the studies described in this paper, foreach combination of factors, two prisms with five joints in each were tested. Preliminary examination of the data showed that the prism number and joint location had no significant effect on bond strength and these have therefore been considered as random variates in the analysis, resulting in ten replicates for each set of conditions. The analysis showed that all the main factors and most of the two-way interactions are significant. Some of the three-way and higher interactions between factors are also statistically significant, but these interactions are often of no practical interest and have, in many cases, been pooled as error. This can have the effect of making any conclusions drawn concerning the main effects and lower-level interactions less reliable, because they are pooled across factors that might not be consistent in their effects. Conclusions should therefore be interpreted as indicative, with the respective effects likely to be observed on average, but not necessarily in every particular case Asa consequence of space limitations, only the most nificant effects and their interactions are presented and discussed here. The results are presented graphically for ease of interpretation; the analysis of variance tables and cell means are given in the main project reports (Lawrence et al, 2000; Page, 2001; Lawrence, 2005), 2 FIRST STUDY 24 Scope This collaborative study ofbond strength was carried ‘out by the University of Newcastle and CSIRO from 1095 to 2000 with a combination of research grant and industry funding. The results are presented in a report (Lawrence et al, 2000), which covers. bond wrench tests done on masonry specimens up to one year old, Subsequent to the preparation of the report, the final tests at two years (730 days) age were conducted at the University of Newcastle and the results summarised in a supplementary document (Page, 2001). An analysis of variance of these results, in conjunction with the results of later work (the second study) was included in a further supplementary report (Lawrence, 2005). Some of the outcomes of this work have also been reported. previously by Sugo et al (1997; 2001) and Page et al (2008; 2004). In all, 3120 measurements of bond. ‘astralan Journal of Structural Engineering Val 8Noo“Masonry bond strength and the effects of supplementary cementitious materials” — Lawrence, Sugo & Page 103 Table 1: Coding for factor levels. Units Cements Mixes | CP [Clay pressed GP__| General purpose MRI_[ 1:16 CE [Clay extruded $B__| Slag blend MR2__ [1:43 CC [Concrete FAB _| Fly ash blend MR3_|1:5 + water thickener CS [Calcium-silicate MC__| Masonry cement Mra_ [1:5 (MC only) MRS _[1:3 (MC only) Table 2: Grouping of factors for first study. Units ‘Cements Mixes Group 1 CPCE GP,SB, FAB MRI, MR2, Group? cos, GP, SB, FAB, MC MR3. Group 3 CP.CE,CCCS MC MRs Group 4 CE MC MRS, MR5 strength on individual joints were made in this study. In this study, masonry units were all solid or cored bricks, and the types were clay pressed, clay extruded, concrete and calciumsilicate. The pressed clay brick had a high rate of suction and the extruded brick had a relatively low rate. Four cement types were included: GP Portland, a commercial blend with blast furnace slag, a commercial blend with fly ash and a commercial masonry cement. Five mix compositions were used across various groups of units and cements. Mix proportions are referred to in the conventional way as cement : lime (if used) : sand by volume. The coding for the factor levels is shown in table 1; this coding is used throughout this paper. ‘The mortar mix referred to as MR3 contained a methy/-cellulose based water thickener admixture that is specifically formulated for masonry mortars to increase the water retentivity, and is recommended for use with concrete and calcium-silicate units (Baker et al, 1991). The mortars MR4 and MRS were only used with the masonry cementand did not have the water thickener added. Because the mortar mixes normally used with concrete and calcium-silicate units differ from those used with clay units, which have different ‘material characteristics, the experiments could notbe structured in a fully factorial design. Consequently, separate analyses have been conducted for four separate combinations of units and mixes, which are shown in table 2. For each combination of ‘unit, cement and mix there were two sets of tests, comprising specimens subjected to inside and outside curing regimes. For the inside regime, specimens were laid in the laboratory, wrapped in plastic forthe first seven days, and then unwrapped and stored in laboratory air until testing. For the ‘outside curing regime, specimens were laid outside in the open air and left unwrapped and exposed to the elements, with only the tops covered to prevent direct ingress of rain, until the time of testing. Tests, were carried out for each combination of factors at ages of 7, 28, 90, 180, 365 and 730 days. 22 Results 22.1 Group 1 (clay units) This group comprises 1440 measurements covering two clay brick types (CP and CE), two mortar mixes (1:1:6 and 1:43), three cements (GP, SB and FAB), six ages (7, 28, 90, 180, 360 and 730 days), two curing regimes (inside and outside), and 10 replicates for each combination of factors. ‘The means for the cement-age interaction are shown in figure 1. This shows that strength has increased significantly beyond seven days for all cements. The strength with GP cement levels off after 365 days. The $B cement shows a drop from 180 to 365 days, but then regains strength and increases further to 730 days, The FAB cement is level from 180 to 365 days and showsa slight drop to 730 days. The requirement ‘of AS 3700 for a characteristic flexural strength of 0.2 Mpa translates (for atypical coefficient of variation of 0.25) into an equivalent mean strength of 0.34 MPa. ‘The strengths in figure 1 for all cements remain well above the 28-day strength and the requirement of AS 3700, which is shown asa dashed line. The slight drop ‘measured at 730 days for the FAB cement mightbe a result of other factors or merely random variability within the repeatability of the test method. The observed slower rate of strength increase with blended cements than with GP cement is in broad agreement with the findings of others (Reda Taha & Shrive, 2004), but the higher strength withslag blend cement than with fly ash blend cement is contrary to their finding (Reda Taha & Shrive, 2001). This variation is not surprising, given the complexity of the bond forming mechanisms and the differences between materials in different parts of the world. ‘Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 8No2104 *Masoney bond strength and the effects of supplementary cementitious materials” ~ Lawrence, Sugo & Page 400 50060700800 Age (Days) 06 od 02 00 0 0200 300 Figure I: Cement-age interaction for clay bricks. Figure 2: Mix-cement interaction for clay bricks, The means for the mix-cement interaction are plotted in figure 2. For both mixes, GP cement gave the highest strength, followed by the SB cement and the FAB cement. All combinations show strengths well above the requirement of the standard. The relative strength for the 1:1:6 mix compared with the 1: 4:3 mix is approximately the same for each of the cements ~ for GP cement the proportion is 60%, for SB cement 62% and for FAB cement 65 222 Group 2 (concrete and calciumesilicate units) This group comprises 960 measurements covering two brick types (CC and CS), four cements (GP, SB, FAB and MC), six ages (7, 28, 90, 180, 360 and 730 days), two curing regimes (inside and outside), and 10 replicates for each combination of factors. The mix for all is 1:5 with water thickener. The means for the cement-curing interaction are shown in figure 3. Allcements show lower results for the outside conditions than for the inside conditions. In particular, the SB cement has suffered from oulside exposure, giving strength under outside conditions only 52% of that achieved under inside conditions and only just above the requirement of the standard, Lower strengths for blended cements, in outside conditions are also the case with the clay bricks in Group 1 (Lawrence et al, 2000), but the effect is more marked here. However, it should be noted that the conditions under outside exposure ‘astralon Journal of Structural Engineering Val SNo2h (MPa) 00 Figure 3: 10 09 Strength (MPa) 09 —— ° 100 200 300 lasonry bond strength and the effects of supplementary cementitious materials” Lanorence, Sugo & Page 105 Mc ‘Cement-curing interaction for CC and CS bricks — Hor == SB PAB -> Mc = As3700 400 S00 600 700 800 Age (Days) Figure 4: for these tests might be harsher than those applying for construction in a typical building. Although atmospheric conditions were not monitored, it is likely that outside exposure led to quicker drying of the specimens than those stored in the laboratory. The result is therefore in agreement with the finding of Reda Taha & Shrive (2004) that bond development is very sensitive to curing, especially with blended cements. ‘The means for the cement-age interaction are shown in figure 4, The results show a reduction in strength for GP and FAB cements from 365 days to 730 days, which is marked in the case of FAB cement. The SB Cement-age interaction for CC and CS bricks. and MC cements at 730 days have recovered strength to about the 180 day level, but are still below the 90 day level. All cements are well above the requirement of the standard but if the reduction for FAB cement continued beyond 730 days it might be a cause for The means for the brick-age interaction are shown in figure 5. When averaged over other factors, both. bricks show a drop in bond strength from 365 to 730 days. This is unlike the case of clay bricks, where strengths continue to increase. All strengths remain well above the requirement of the standard. However, if the strength at 28 days were to be used ‘Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol No?106 “Masonry bond strength and the effects of supplementary cementitious materials” — Lawrence, Sugo & Page Boa d 03 |e Ee TRE Ee Sr. cc 02 es oa | — —AS 3700, oo = Ce ee ee ee ase Figure 5: Brick-age interaction for CC and CS bricks. 09 08) o7| 5 05} Z os) & oal ? 3} | 02) cc sp FAB Mc Figure 6: Brick-cement interaction for CC andl CS bricks. for design, the downward trend would be of some concern. The means for the brick-cement interaction are shown, in figure 6. The calcium-silicate brick, on average, gives higher strength than the concrete brick for GP cement, but the opposite is the case for the blended (GB and FAB) and MC cements. In particular, the lower strength with CS bricks is marked in the case of FAB and MC cements. The CC brick gives the hhighest strength with the FAB cement and both bricks give their lowest strength with the MC cement. The strength on average with MC cement is only 46% of the value with GP cement. All combinations give strengths above the requirement of the standard but the margins are not as high as for clay bricks (Group 1). 2.2.3, Group 3 (masonry cement rwithout water thickener) This group comprises 480 measurements covering four brick types (CE, CP, CC and CS), one mortar mix (1:5 masonry cement without water thickener), six ages (7, 28, 90, 180, 365 and 730 days), two curing regimes (inside and outside exposure), and 10 replicates for each combination of factors. ‘The brick-age-curing interaction is examined by plotting the brick-age means for each of the curing ‘Australian Journal of Structural Engineering VolBNo2“Masonry bond strength and the effects of supplementary cementitious materials” Strength (MPa) Lawrence, Sugo & Page N07 09 La=-2 01m = 2m 3000s 078 Age (D339) Figure 7: _Brick-age interaction inside curing) for 15 MC mortar without water thickener. a0 cr ec: se cc 6s cas = =As3700 Blo 5 e pooch nnn , meek 05 |p” Sa os Fp 00 oe rT ee ee ee ee Age ays) Figure 8: Brick-age interaction (outside curing) for 1:5 MC mortar without water thickener conditions: inside and outside. The means for inside conditions are shown in figure 7. Bond strength with the clay bricks increases steadily with age, but the strengths with conerete and calcium-silicate bricks peak at 28 and 7 days, respectively, and then decline. Both the CC and CS bricks give strengths at 730 days that are significantly below the requirement of the standard, shown by the dashed line, The means for outside conditions are shown in figure 8. These results are worse than for inside curing conditions. For outside conditions, the strength with the CE. brick increases to 180 days, then declines steadily and is only marginally above the requirement of the standard at 730 days. The strength with the CP brick also declines after 180 days and never comes close to the requirement of the standard. The strengths with the CC and CS bricks are much lower than those for inside curing conditions; they show virtually no increase in strength after seven days and are never close to the requirement of the standard. The overall conclusion must be that the masonry cement (MC) should not be used in this mix (1:5 with no water thickener additive) for any type of masonry units. The results for this group are in agreement with the findings of Reda Taha & Shrive (2004), who showed that masonry cement gave the lowest bond strength. of the cements examined and did not reach the level roquited by the Canadian standard. The markedly lower strengths for outside exposure than for inside exposure also highlight the sensitivity of masonry cement mortars to curing conditions, although this difference was not pronounced when water thickener was included in the mix (Group 2). ‘Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol @No2108 “Masonry bond strength and the effects of suppl Strength (0 lementary cementitious materials" ~ Lawrence, Sugo & Page oo ° 100 200300400 SDD 700 80 Age Days) Figure 9: Brick-age interaction (inside curing) for MC mortars with clay bricks 16 La cr 12 ce = = Assi ° 100 200 300 Figure 10: 224 Group 4 (clay units with masonry cement) This group comprises 480 measurements covering two clay brick types (CP and CF), two mortar mixes (MR¢ and MR5), six ages (7, 28, 90, 180, 365 and 730 days), two curing regimes (inside and outside exposure), and 10 replicates for each combination of factors. The mortar mixes are the MR4 (1:5 masonry cement) considered in Group 3 and the MRS (1:3 masonry cement). Both mixes are without any water thickener additive. The brick-age-curing interaction is examined by plotting the brick-age means for each of the curing, conditions: inside and outside. The means for inside conditions are shown in figure 9. This graph shows, 400 Age (Days) 300 600 700 800 Brick-age interaction (outside curing) for MC mortars with clay bricks. that both bricks give strengths increasing with age, but the CP brick is approximately constant after 90 days, whereas the CE brick continues to increase and performs better overall, The means for outside conditions are shown in figure 10. This graph shows that the performance is not as good for outside conditions; the same resultas for Group 3. For outside conditions, strength with the CE brick declines after 90 days and, while still above the requirement of the standard, this is of some concern. ‘The CP brick performs very badly and never reaches the minimum level of strength required by the standard. The conclusion, similar to Group 3, is that the MC cement isnot reliable in mixes without water thickener under ‘outside curing conditions and the MR3 mix (1:5 with ‘water thickener) is to be preferred. Australian Journal of Sractural Engineering a Vol 8Noo“Masonry bond strength and the effects of supplementary cementitious materials” ~ Lawrence, Sugo & Page 108 Ls Le eis es Zi ean é AS 3700 210 Box 06 = a. 09 ° 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 00 Age (Days) Figure 1: Mix-age interaction (inside curing) for MC mortars with clay bricks, 20 18 16 1 is = 15 €! = =As3700 Zio £08 o 100 200 300 400 300 600 700 800 Age (Days) Figure 12: Mixage interaction (outside curing) for MC mortars with clay bricks. The mix-age-curing interaction is examined by plotting the mix-age means for each of the curing conditions: inside and outside. The means for inside conditions are shown in figure 11, The average bond strengths with the 1:5 mortar are higher than those with the 1:3 mortar, which is the reverse of what would be expected based on cement content. The 1:5 continues to increase with age, whereas the 1:3 is approximately constant after 90 days and is just above the requirement of the standard. ‘The means for outside conditions are shown in figure 12, In this case, the two mixes give approximately equal bond strengths. The performance would be classed as poor, being only marginally above the requirement of the standard after 90 days and declining thereafter. These results support the conclusion that the masonry cement isnot reliable for outside curing conditions and a mix of 1s with water thickener (as used in Group 2) is to be preferred. 3. SECOND STUDY 34 Scope The focus of the second study is the effect of blended cements with various proportions of fly ash and slag (in combination with other factors) on bond strength. Some results from the study have been presented by Bokan-Bosiljkov et al (2004), This paper ‘Australian Journal of Structural Engineering. Val 5Noo110 “Masonry bond strength and the effects of supplementary cementitious materials” ~ Lawrence, Sugo & Page sB Figure 13: Blend-brick interaction (second study), Figure 14: Overall age effect (second study) includes an analysis of those results and considers them in relation to the results ofthe first study. The data from this study comprise 1200 measurements covering two clay bricks (extruded and pressed), two mortar mixes (1:1:6 and 1:5 with water thickener), two cements (SB and FAB), two ages (7 and 28 days), ight proportions of cement replacement (0% to 60% by volume) and 10 replicates for each combination. A parallel study of the durability of mortars made with these blended cements has also been carried out (Testone et al, 2004) Pressed Extruded 32 Results ‘The means for the blend-brick interaction are shown in figure 13. The blends give approximately equal strengths for the extruded brick, but the SB cement gives higher strengths than the FAB cement for the pressed brick. It can therefore be said that the pressed brick is a better match for the SB cement than the extruded brick is, and the extruded brick is a better match for the FAB cement. The same pattern is evident in Group 1 of the first study (Lawrence et al, 2000), By contrast, Reda Taha é& Shrive (2001) ‘astral Journal of Structural Engineering Val@No2Strength (MPa) t it : i Proportion == ass700 0g ESR a oe ee Proportion (%) Figure 15: 09 | 00 1:6 igure 16: Overall mix effect (second study). found lower strength with slag blend cement (SB) than with fly ash blend cement (SB) for a replacement proportion of 20%. The strengths of all combinations studied here are well above the requirement of the standard when averaged across mix, age and replacement proportion. The overall means for the age effect are shown in figure 14. On average, the strength at 28 days is, 136% of the strength at seven days. By means of comparison, for Group 1 of he first study, theaverage strength at 28 days is 118% of the average strength at seven days. ‘The overall means for the proportion effect are shown in figure 15, When averaged over other factors, there Overall proportion effect (second study). is a steady reduction in strength with increasing proportion of cement replacement. The average strength at 60% replacement is 65% of the average strength of the reference GP cement (0% replacement), but this is still well above the requirement of the standard, shown by the dashed line. The overall means for the mix effect are shown in figure 16, On average, the 1:1:6 mix gives strengths 14% higher than the 1:5 mix, despite the higher cement content in the latter. However, this should not be taken as a general conclusion; the strength achieved with any particular mix depends on compatibility with the masonry unit, as well as other factors such as climate and workmanship. The ‘Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 8Noo112 "Masonry bond strength and the effects of supplementary cementitious materials” ~ Lawrence, Sugo & Page presence of lime probably has a beneficial effect that ‘more than compensates for the lower cement content in the 1:1:6 mix compared with the 1:5 mix. 4 IMPLICATIONS FOR DESIGN 4.1 Mixes The Group 1 tests show that the 1:13 mix gives significantly higher strengths with clay bricks than, the 1:1:6 mix does, in line with its higher cement content. Cement content isnot considered in AS3700 when determining bond strength for design, and this, is supported by the Group 4 results, which show that the 1:5 masonry cement mix gives markedly higher strengths for inside curing conditions than, the 1:3 masonry cement mix. In general, cement content can not be relied upon as determining, bond strength without considering other factors, such as cement type, curing conditions and type of masonry unit, The second study also showed that, because of interaction with brick type and the effect of the presence of lime, cement content alone is not a reliable indicator of bond strength. Designers and specifiers should therefore not assume, when tensile bond strength is critical, that a mortar with a higher cement content will perform better than one with a lower cement content 42 Cements In Group 1 of the first study, GP cement gives higher bond strengths with clay bricks than blended cements do, However, all the cements tested give strengths above the minimum requirement of AS 3700 and the effects of other factors, such as age and mix composition, are at least as strong. These other factors are not considered in AS 3700 and this is the primary reason for removing the distinction between cement types in Amendment 1 (Standards ‘Australia, 2002). In Group 2, all the cements tested give strengths above the minimum requirement of AS 3700, but there isa general downward trend of bond strength with age beyond 28 days for both concrete and. calcium silicate units. This is particularly strong for FAB cement and it is recommended that this effect should be investigated further. On average, GP cement gives higher bond strengths with concrete and calcium silicate bricks than blended cements do; masonry cement gives the lowest strengths for the cements tested. The highest strengths with concrete bricks are obtained at early ages using FAB cement In the second study, both $B and FAB cements show a progressive reduction in bond strength as the proportion of cement replacement increases from 0% to 60%. However, the bond strengths for all combinations are above the minimum code requirement, even at 60% cement replacement. It should be noted that commercial blended cements do not have replacement proportions as high as ‘60%, This study also gives indications that the SB cement is a better match for the pressed brick than for the extruded brick, while the FAB cement is a better match for the extruded brick. At higher cement replacement levels, matching of the blend type and the brick type might produce benefits, but this is not likely to be practical for implementation in design and construction standards. 4.3. Masonry unit types Group 2 tests show that bond with conerete and calcium silicate units is more sensitive to curing conditions than is the case with clay units. In particular, calcium silicate units requite good curing conditions to ensure the development of bond strength sufficient to reach the requirements of AS 3700. Group 2 also shows that, while masonry cement in a mix of 1:5 with water thickener can give adequate bond strengths with calcium silicate units, this isnot a recommended combination. This finding is in line with AS 3700 Table 10.1, which currently does not provide deemed-to-satisfy status for any masonry cement mixes with calcium silicate units. Optimum strengths for calcium silicate units are achieved with GP cement, 44 Age effects ‘The Group 1 tests in the first study show that forclay bricks, on average, there isa steady increase in bond strength from seven to 730 days. The rate of increase reduces after 180 days. This increase in strength with age is not accounted for in AS 3700, which is based on bond strength at seven days. The pattern of increase did not hold for masonry cement mortars with clay bricks in outside curing conditions or for concrete and calcium-silicate bricks. In the second study, all the combinations showed an increase in bond strength from seven to 28 days. Clearly, in some circumstances, there are significant margins of strength above the seven day strength used for design in AS 3700. 4.5 Curing conditions Group 3 and 4 results show that external exposure conditions have a particularly adverse effect on the development of bond strength with masonry cement in 155 or 1:3 mortar mixes without water thickener. 4.6 Water thickeners ‘The Group 3 results show that, for masonry cement, a mortar mix of 1:5 should not be used without water thickener admixture, because strengths with this mortar are likely tobe well below the minimum ‘Australian Journal of Structural Engineering a Vol No?“"Masoney bond strength and the effects of supplementary cementitious materials” requirement of AS 3700. Better performance is achieved with a mix of 1:5 plus methyl-cellulose admixture (as shown by the results from Group 2). Similarly, the Group 4 results show that mortar mixes of 1:5 or 1:3 with masonry cement should not be used without water thickener admixture, because they are likely to be below the minimum requirement of AS 3700, However, it should be noted that no results for clay bricks with masonry cement mortar and water thickener are available in this study. AS 3700 Table 10.1 currently provides deemed-to- satisfy status for masonry cement mixes of 1:3 and 1st without a water thickener admixture when used with clay units, and 1:4 without water thickener when used with concrete units. No masonry cement mixes are provided for calcium silicate units. In the light of the poor results reported here for mixes, without water thickener, those provisions should be re-examined and consideration given to inclucing, water thickener for masonry cement mixes in a future amendment of AS 3700. 5 CONCLUSION Prior to the publication of Amendment I to AS 3700 in May 2002, the standard distinguished between GP Portland cement and GB blended cement, and required different proportions of each to be used in the deemed-to-satisfy mixes (see Tables 10.1 and 12.1 of AS 3700), Part of the work described in this paper was used as the basis for amendment to this area of AS 3700, A further amendment is to be proposed, which will require the inclusion of water thickener in masonry cement mixes that are specified in Table 10.1 and Table 12.1 as being deemed-to-satisfy the requirements of the standard, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. Funding for the research was provided by the Australian Research Council, Cement Concrete and Aggregates Australia (CCAA), the Clay Brick and Paver Institute (CBP), the Concrete Masonry Association of Australia (CMAA), the University of Neweastle and the CSIRO. The analysis of variance and supplementary report were funded by CCA Assistance with the second study by Dr Violeta Bokan-Bosiljkov and valuable discussions with Dr Samia Guirguis of CCAA are also gratefully acknowledged. REFERENCES, Baker, L. R. (editor), Lawrence, S. J. & Page, A. W. 1991, Australian Masonry Manual, Deakin University Press, Geelong, Lawrence, Sugo & Page M13 Bokan-Bosiljkov, V., Sugo, H. O., Page, A. W. & Lawrence, S. J. 2004, “The influence of cement replacement materials on the flexural bond strength ‘of masonry”, Proceedings of the 13" International Brick/ Block Masonry Conference, Amsterdam. Edgell, G. J. 1987, “Factors affecting the flexural strength of brick masonry”, Masonry International, Vol. 1, No, 1, pp. 16-24 Ghosh, S. K. 1991, “Flexural bond strength of masonry: an experimental review”, The Masonry Society Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 64-72. Lawrence, S. J. 2005, Masonry Bond Project Supplementary Report: Analysis of Variance, SPL Consulting Pty Ltd, Sydney, 77p. Lawrence, S. J, Page, A. W,, Samarasinghe, W. & Sugo, H. O. 2000, Masonry Bonul Strength Research Report, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, 39lp. Page, A. W. 2001, Masonry Bond Strength Research Report: Part 3 ~ Age and Curing Studies: Additional 2-year Bond Strength Results, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle Page, A. W., Sugo, H. ©. & Lawrence, S. J. 2003, “The influence of blended cements on masonry bond strength ~an ongoing study”, A New Eva of Building’ International Conference on Performance of Construction Materials, Cairo. Page, A. W,,Sugo H. O. & Lawrence, , J. 2004, “The influence of cement type, age and curing conditions on masonry bond strength”, Proceedings of the 7* Australasian Masonry Conference, Newcastle. Portland Cement Association, 1994, Factors Affecting Bond Strength of Masonry, Information Sheet 278.01M, Mlinois. Reda, M. M. & Shrive, N. G. 2000, “Enhancing, masonry bond using fly ash”, Masonry International, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 9-17, Reda Taha, M. M. & Shrive, N. G, 2001, “The use of pozzolans to improve bond and bond strength”, Proceedings of the $ Canadian Masonry Symposium, Fredericton, Canada. Reda Taha, M. M. & Shrive, N. G. 2004, “Flexural bond strength of normal and fly ash modified Proceedings of the 7” Australasian Masonry Conference, Newcastle, NSW, pp. 161-70. mortars’, Ribar, J. W. & Dubovoy, V.$.1990, “Masonry cements ~a laboratory investigation”, Masonry: Components to Asseniblages, ASTM, pp. 85-107. ‘Australian Journal of Structural Engineering VoliNoo114 “Masonry bond strength and the effects of supplementary cementitious materials” ~ Lawrence, Sugo & Page Shrive, N. G.2001, “Recent developments in Canada in the use of FRP’s in masonry and the enhancement ‘of masonry bond”, Keynote Paper, Proceedings of the 6" Australasian Masonry Conference, Adelaide, SA, pp. 33448. Standards Australia, 2001, AS 3700 Masonry Structures Standards Australia, 2002, Amendment 1 to AS 3700: ‘Masonry Structures. Sugo, H. O., Page, A. W. & Lawrence, S.J. 1997, “A study of bond mechanisms in masonry”, Proceedings of the 15" Australasian Conference on the Mechanics of Structures and Materials, Melbourne, pp. 657-662. Sugo, H. O., Page, A. W. & Lawrence, $ J. 2000, "A study of bond strength and mortar microstructure developed using masonry cement”, Proceedings of the 12" International Brick/Block Masonry Conference, Madrid, 9p. Sugo, H.O,, Page, A. W. & Lawrence, S.J. 2001, “The development of mortar/unit bond”, Proceedings of the 6" Australasian Masonry Conference, Adelaide, pp. 367-377. ‘Testone, ', Sugo, H. O,, Page, A. W. & Lawrence, S. J. 2004, “A study of mortar durability using the scratch test”, Proceedings ofthe 13” International Brick/ Block Masonry Conference, Bindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands, 10p. ‘Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vola No to“Masonry bond strength and the effects of supplementary cementitious materials” — Lawrence, Sugo & Page 115 STEPHEN LAWRENCE Dr Stephen J Lawrence isa consultant specialising in masonry structures. After 25 years experience in building research for the Experimental Building Station, the National Building Technology Centre and the CSIRO, Stephen established his own consulting practice in 1998. He continues active involvement in ‘masonry research and has been appointed a conjoint professor at the Univ of Newcastle. Stephen completed his ME degree at the University of Adelaide in 1971 and his PRD at the University of New South Wales in 1984 on the resistance of rnon-load bearing brickwork panels to out-of-plane lateral loading. His main research interests are the behaviour of unreinforced masonry structures, flexural behaviour, bond strength and fire resistance of masonry. He has had a long involvement with the development of codes and standards for masonry, and chaired the committee responsible for the Australian Masonry Code AS 3700 from 1987 to 1996, He has written over 100 papers on masonry research and practice, prepared two masonry teaching packages and a series of manuals for the Clay Brick & Paver Institute, and is co-author of the Australian Masonry Manual. He is a Fellow of Engineers Australia, a member of the British Masonry Society and a member of the Masonry Society, USA. HEBER SUGO Dr Heber Sugo is a Senior Research Associate in the School of Engineering at the University of Newcastle. His research interests include bond formation in masonry, masonry durability, thermal performance of building envelopes and sustainable building materials. Heber is a materials science graduate from the University of Technology Sydney, where he also completed his MSc. He completed his PhD at The University of Newcastle investigating the nature of : cement hydration products formed at the brick/ mortar interface ADRIAN PAGE Adrian Page is an Emeritus Professor in the School of Engineering at the University of Newcastle, and is the leader of the Masonry Research Group in the Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability. He has been actively involved in fundamental and applied masonry research for many years, and has been internationally recognised for his work. Much of his research has related to, the development of design provisions for the Masonry Structures Code AS3700, which he currently chairs. Adrian has close links with the industry and was awarded the Brick Industry Medal in 2006 for his contributions to that industry. His Chair at Newcastle has also been supported by “Think Brick Australia” (formally the Clay Brick and Paver Institute) since 1992. Adrian is a Fellow of the Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, an Honorary Fellow of Engineers Australia, and a past recipient of the Engineers Australia Warren and Chapman Medals. ‘stration Journal of Structural Engineering ValSNo2