Sand Gradation Influence on Masonry Mortar Properties

By Tim Conway and William Behie, Manager, Quality Assurance and R&D, and Masonry Specialist,
respectively, Holcim (US) Inc.

In the United States and elsewhere, masonry

mortars are specified per American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) C 270, Specification
for Mortar for Unit Masonry. ASTM C 270 provides
two options for specifying mortar: proportion
or property. If each ingredient meets its own
specification, either approach is possible.
Mortar properties are influenced by aggregate
masonry sand. Although sand would seem to be a
constant, its characteristics vary geographically and
over time. This is normal and expected. For instance, it is not uncommon
#50 Sieve

for sand gradation to fall a little outside

the range allowed by ASTM C 144,

100

Figure 1. Mortar

90

Specification for Aggregate for Masonry

80

Percent passing

is proportioned
by volume and
sand should be
measured in a
damp, loose

70
min
max
ideal
no #50
double #50

60
50
40
30

waiver allows for that sand to be used

(and tested) to meet certain required

10
0

(IMG12185)

gradation requirements of C 144, a

provided the mortar is proportioned

20

condition.

Mortar. When sand does not satisfy

16

30

50

100

200

Seive size

Pan

properties, shown here in Table 1.

Table 2 shows gradation limits for
natural sand, both the range (allow-

Figure 2. A series of sand gradation curves for

an ASTM C 144 material showing maximum,
minimum, ideal, and #50 modified sands.

able percent passing) and an ideal

gradationdefined for this study as one that falls in
the middle of the gradation curves. See Standard
C 144 for the manufactured sand gradation.

Vol. 16, No. 1

Summer 2006

Modifying the Gradation

Contents

The purpose of the study was to determine the

Sand Gradation Influence on Masonry Mortar Properties

air, water requirement for cubes, water retention,

Announcements

effect of each size fraction on mortar properties of

Water to make cubes

255

the impact on entrained air; a Type S was chosen for conve-

250

Milliliters of water

and compressive strength. Masonry cement was used to evaluate

245

nience in producing a C 270 Type S mortar. Proportions were

240

typical 1 part cement to 3 parts sand. Although bond strength,

235
230

permeability, and workability were not studied, it is expected

225
220

that these properties would also be affected.

215
210

A commercially available masonry sand from Summerfield,

205

d
6
0
n
0
6
0
n
0
#8
00 100
00 200
#8
an
#3
pa
#5
#1 e #1
#3
pa
#5
#1
#2
#
#
No uble No
ls
l
No uble
No uble
No uble No
le
No uble
ea
ub
o
ub
Do
Id
o
o
Do
Do
D
Do
D
D

Sand

Figure 3. Effect of gradation on water content to make cubes.

the midpoint of ASTM C 144 on each sieve. One size fraction

was systematically removed from the ideal gradation and other
sizes were adjusted to maintain the 1440-g sample size to determine how the mortar was affected by each size. In the same

Air
14

manner, the ideal gradation quantity of each size fraction was

12

doubled. These gradation variations are large, particularly from a

10

Percent

South Carolina was used for this study. It was regraded to fall in

single source. Smaller variations would be expected to have less

effect on mortar properties.

6
4

The gradations for the ideal and both #50 modified sands are

shown in Fig. 2. The two red lines show the maximum and

Id
ea
ls
an
d
N
o
#
8
D
ou
bl
e
#8
N
o
#1
D
6
ou
bl
e
#1
6
N
o
#3
D
0
ou
bl
e
#3
0
N
o
#5
D
0
ou
bl
e
#5
0
N
o
#1
D
00
ou
bl
e
#1
00
N
o
#2
D
00
ou
bl
e
#2
00
N
o
pa
D
n
ou
bl
e
pa
n

Sand

minimum allowable gradation limits; the green line is the ideal

grading; the yellow line has all the #50 material removed; and
the blue line represents a doubling of the #50 material.

Figure 4. Effect of gradation on air content.

Water retention

ASTM C 270 Mortar Properties

Percent

100
95

The #30 and #50 particles have the greatest impact on mortar

90

properties studied, probably in part because these two sieves have

85

the largest amount of material retained on them. The +50 mesh, for

80
75

instance, is 35% of the total mass of the sand with the ideal grada-

70

tion. Removing all of it, then doubling it, changed the proportion

65

of that size fraction from 0% to 70%a very large change.

Id
ea
ls
an
d
N
o
#8
D
ou
bl
e
#8
N
o
#1
D
ou
6
bl
e
#1
6
N
o
#
D
ou 30
bl
e
#3
0
N
o
#5
D
ou
0
bl
e
#5
0
N
o
#
D
ou 100
bl
e
#1
00
N
o
#
D
ou 200
bl
e
#2
00
N
o
pa
D
ou
n
bl
e
pa
n

60

Sand

normal, and high amounts of each sieve fraction. The middle

Figure 5. Effect of sand gradation on water retention of mortar.

bar in each grouping is the test result using the sand graded to

Strength, psi

28-day strength

the midpoint mass of all the fractions.

4000

Cube water content: Fig. 3 shows the effects of the sand changes

3500

on the water needed for the correct flow of mortar to make cubes.

3000

Situations that lead to a greater proportion of fines increase the

2500

water demand: for instance, doubling the #50 mesh material or

2000

removing all of the #8 or #16 material.

1500
1000

Air content: Fig. 4 shows that the #50 sieve has the biggest

500

impact on air content on both sides of ideal. Still, changes in

0
6
0
n
0
d
6
0
n
0
#8
00
00
00
00
#8
#1
#5
pa
#3
#1
#5
pa
#3
an
#1
#2
#1
#2
No uble
ls
o
o
No uble
No uble
No uble
No uble
le
le
N
N
ea
b
b
o
d
u
u
D
I
Do
Do
Do
Do
Do
Do

Sand

Figure 6. Effect of sand gradation on compressive strength.

2

In Figures 3-6, the data can be viewed as groups of three: low,

Masonry Today / Summer 2006

gradation did not cause any test to fail C 270.

Water retention: As in the other graphs, the middle bar in each
series in Fig. 5 represents the ideal sand gradation. In almost

Table 1. C 270 Mortar Property Table*

Mortar

Type

28-day compressive
strength, psi (MPa)

Cement-lime or
mortar cement

M
S
N
O

2500
1800
750
350

(17.2)
(12.4)
(5.2)
(2.4)

Masonry cement

M
S
N
O

2500
1800
750
350

(17.2)
(12.4)
(5.2)
(2.4)

Water retention,
min. %

}
}

Air content,
max. %

Aggregate ratio

75

12
12
14**
14**

2-1/4 to 3-1/2 times the

cementitious materials

75

18
18
20
20

2-1/4 to 3-1/2 times the

cementitious materials

Cumulative weight
retained

Batch weight, grams

* Adapted from ASTM.

** If structural reinforcement is present, the maximum air content shall be 12%.
If structural reinforcement is present, the maximum air content shall be 18%.

Table 2. C 144 Ideal Natural Sand Gradation and Allowable Limits

Screen

Allowable %
passing

Ideal %
passing

100

100

95100

97.50

2.50

36.00

36.0

16

70100

85.00

15.00

216.00

180.0

30

4075

57.50

42.50

612.00

396.0

50

1035

22.50

77.50

1116.00

504.0

100

215

8.50

91.50

1317.60

201.6

200

05

2.50

97.50

1404.00

86.4

0.00

100.00

1440.00

36.0

Pan

Cumulative %
retained

Total

1440

every case, removing or doubling the material on each sieve

is removed entirely or doubled). For the Type S mortar used

lowers the water retention. This implies that having some amount

here, changes in sand gradation did not cause any strength test

of material in each size fractionin other words, a well graded

to fail C 270.

sandis favorable to water retention. Two of the tests did fall

just short of passing water retention (75% minimum): the double

Conclusions

#50 mesh test and the removal of the #200 mesh material.
It's helpful to have an idea how the gradation of sand for mortar
Compressive strength: Similar trends occur for both the 7-day

impacts the desired properties. When a sand does not conform

and 28-day compressive strength results. Only the 28-day strength

to C 144, mortar made with it must be tested to show it has the

is shown in Fig. 6. Note again that most of the variations have

required C 270 properties. This study demonstrates that many

little impact on strength. The #50 sieve exhibits the widest

of the properties can be expected to meet C 270, even when

variation in strength on both sides of ideal (whether the material

gradations are outside the range allowed by C 144. Specific results

Masonry Today / Summer 2006

Presort Standard
US Postage
PAID
Permit No. 155
Skokie, IL

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

of mortar properties given in this article pertain to this sand and cement
combination. In addition, and perhaps more broadly:
The amount of each size fraction can vary widely and still be at or near
gradation allowed by C 144 (changes to the #50 and #30 mesh material
affect grading the most): see Fig. 2.
Water demand (for cubes) increases when finer material is increased
substantially (doubling the #50) or when coarser material is removed
(no #8, no #16): see Fig. 3.
Well graded sands lead to mortars with better water retention: see Fig. 5.

TMS
The Masonry Society is holding its 2006 Annual Meeting and Business Meetings in
Atlanta, Georgia, October 1217. Among the technical programs, social events, and
recreational activities planned, two seminars offer educational opportunities:
Design of Masonry Structures to the 2005 MSJC and the IBC 2006
The Role of Masonry in Sustainable Design and LEEDTM
See www.masonrysociety.org for more information

ASTM C 12 75th Anniversary

MASONRY
Today
Intended for decisionmakers associated with the design,
specification, management, and construction of masonry,
Masonry Today is published twice yearly by the Product
Standards and Technology department of the Portland
Cement Association. Our purpose is to disseminate information related to the use of masonry in construction,
focusing on the technical aspects of masonry design,
materials, and construction. If there are topics or ideas you
would like to have discussed in future issues, please let us
know. Items from this newsletter may be reprinted with
prior permission from the Association. PCA grants permission to share an electronic version of this document with
other professionals on the condition that no part of the file
or document is changed.
Portland Cement Association (PCA) is a not-for-profit
organization and provides this publication solely for
the continuing education of qualified professionals.
THIS PUBLICATION SHOULD ONLY BE USED BY
QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS who possess all required
license(s), who are competent to evaluate the significance
and limitations of the information provided herein, and
who accept total responsibility for the application of this
information. OTHER READERS SHOULD OBTAIN
ASSISTANCE FROM A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL
BEFORE PROCEEDING.

evening, December 6, C 12 will celebrate with a dinner and reception at the Hyatt

PCA and its members make no express or implied warranty in connection with this publication or any information contained herein. In particular, no warranty is made
of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. PCA
and its members disclaim any product liability (including
without limitation any strict liability in tort) in connection
with this publication or any information contained herein.

Regency Atlanta, Georgia. The fall meeting of C 12 is set for December 57, 2006.

Direct all correspondence to:

2006 is the 75th anniversary for Committee C 12 of the American Society for
Testing and Materials, Mortars and Grouts for Unit Masonry. On Wednesday

For more information about the meeting or event, contact C12 Staff Manager, Kevin
Shanahan at 610.832.9737.
See www.astm.org for more information

2006 Portland Cement Association

All rights reserved

PL389.01

Jamie Farny, Editor

jfarny@cement.org