CSIRO - TEST REPORTS
Return to Home Page

Confidential BCE Doc 97/177 (M)

Report on Tech-Dry Water Repellent Block Wall System to ASTM E514-90 ‘Standard Test Method for Water Penetration and Leakage Through Masonry’

September 1997

By B.L. Schafter and B. Budgen

Report on

Tech-Dry Water Repellent Block Wall System to ASTM E514-90 ‘Standard Test Method for Water Penetration and Leakage Through Masonry’

By Barry Schafer & Bev Budgen

September 1997


This document has been prepared for distribution to Tasco Bricks, Blocks & Pavers and is confidential. It may not be cited in any publication nor published in any form without written approval of the company and CSIRO. The contents may be subject to revision.


Please address all enquiries to:

The Chief

CSIRO Building, Construction and Engineering

PO Box 56

HIGHETT VIC 3190

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION

BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING

REPORT FOR

Tech-Dry Water Repellent Block Wall System to ASTM E514-90 ‘Standard Test Method for Water Penetration and Leakage Through Masonry’


Product name Tech-Dry Water Repellent Block Wall System

Application Tasco Brick Block & Pavers

26 Bass Highway

Round Hill

Burnie, Tasmania


B L Schafer, B Budgen

Officers Conducting Test

Date 30.9.97

Report on Tech-Dry Water Repellent Block Wall System to ASTM E514-90 ‘Standard Test Method for Water Penetration and Leakage Through Masonry

By Barry L Schafer & Bev Budgen Officers of CSIRO BCE

9th September 1997

On Thursday 28 August, a wall built from nominal 200mm wide by 200mm high and 400mm long blocks was tested to ‘ASTM E514-90’ Standard Test Method for Water penetration and Leakage through Masonry’ at CSIRO BCE, Highett site. The blocks were supplied by Tasco Bricks Block and Pavers of 26 Bass Highway, Burnie, Tasmania.

The wall was 2.5 blocks wide and 8 courses high (see Figure1). The mortar was made to the following specification as set out in Tasco specification sheet, ‘Specification Tech-Dry Mortar’ (January 1997).

The Tech-Dry mortar is mixed at the rate of two (2) litre of additive to 20 litres of water. Cement ratio must be 1 to 3 using a ‘fatty brickies sand’. Neither plasticisers nor lime should be added to the mix.

The wall had been constructed on the 9th of July 1997.

The test method applies water at a rate of 138 l/m and there is a positive pressure between the wet side and observation side of 500Pa. The ASTM method requires the test to last for a period of 4 hours. Figure 2 shows the test chamber attached to the wall and Figure 3 shows the inside of the chamber with the test in progress.

Note: 500 Pa equates to a base wind speed of about 33m/s or 120 km/h

for walls of low rise buildings and only subjected to a positive pressure coefficient.

Results

Within a few seconds of the pressure being applied a small damp spot appeared in the top left hand perpend of the wall. This spot initially grew in size to 65mm then proceeded to retract. At the end of the 4 hour period it was 55 mm long.

At 2 hours, a second damp spot appeared in the fourth perpend from the base also at the left hand edge of the wall . Some water was noticed in the cavity of one core on the web three courses down from the top. The amount of water at this location was initially enough to spill over the width of the web and drop further down the cavity (see Figure 5).

As the pressure box extended over the base of the wall onto the supporting channel, some water penetrated the jucntion between the channel and the wall. Water that penetrated this junction was not considered relevant to the test as the test was only meant to be on the masonry wall. The extension over the junction between the supporting channel and the wall was required as there were insufficient blocks supplied to build an additional course at the top of the wall which would have enabled the pressure box to be fitted to the wall only.

Discussion

At the end of the 4 hour test period, with the only two damp spots visible on the non-wet side of the wall, both of which were retracting, the wall could be considered as being an effective against wind driven rain. Whilst this is a qualitative test, it was noted that the water penetration at the two mortar joints would be approximately equal to an area of 0.04% of the wall after 4 hours.

As the two damp spots were retreating, the test was continued for a duration of 4 days. By 24 hours the two damp spots had retrated to half their initial size, and at the end of the four day period had completely disappeared (see Figure 6). This would indicate that the small passage that was allowing water to track to these two location homogenously healed during the test period.

Conclusion

Walls build with this system could be considered as water repellent against wind driven rain if they are free of cracking. It would be considered prudent to include weep holes to drain any water which may drain down the hollow cores of the block walls.


Barry L Schafer B Budgen

Project Leader Appraisals

30.9.97

Fig1
Fig2
fig5
Fig6