Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
[SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Type M vs Type S mortar[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaoc(--nospam--at)power.net
- Subject: [SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Type M vs Type S mortar
- From: pepper(--nospam--at)mailhost.netrunner.net (John Pepper)
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 07:28:00 -0400 (EDT)
You wrote: >Aside from strength what are the relative benefits of the two types of >mortar? We have found that type M, while giving higher compressive strength often gives lower bond strength to the block. While not imporant in most applications, in heavy wind loads, where some codes allow use of unreinformced masnory in minor tensions, bond strenth, which allows flextural stresses to develop in the wall can be very benificial. Since the allowable flextural stress is usually quoted as a percent of f'm, it would seem that the M would give higher allowable flextural stresses. Since the bond is often lowered, it in fact does not, based on our testing. So we often find ourselves specifing S mortar where the compresive stresses, and placment considerations will allow. This is of course, a savings to the contractor. John Pepper, P.E. John Pepper The Pepper Engineering Group, Inc. 20895 East Dixie Highway Aventura, FL 33180 pepper(--nospam--at)netrunner.net ...
- Prev by Subject: [SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Type M vs Type S mortar
- Next by Subject: [SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] UBC Review Classes
- Previous by thread: [SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] Type M vs Type S mortar
- Next by thread: [SEAOC] Re: [SEAOC] [SEAOC] Gyp. board shear walls in LA