Comparative Study of Durability Indices for Clay Bricks
Publication: Journal of Architectural Engineering
Volume 4, Issue 1
Abstract
The potential durability of clay bricks is generally assessed using specifications and test methods mentioned in respective national standards. The current American and Canadian standards for the evaluation of brick durability have, in certain cases, been criticized by researchers as time consuming, unrealistic, and inadequate. These standards cannot be used for comparing the performance level of the bricks. The use of an index for evaluating durability has advantages in that it can be used for comparing brick types and also it will facilitate the designers to specify it as a construction requirement for selecting the proper type of brick. The different durability indices for bricks developed by various researchers are reviewed in this paper. An experimental work carried out to study and compare the performance of these indices is also discussed. The results from the study showed that the existing indices have limitations in assessing durability and that there is a need for a new durability index by taking into account the pore size distribution as well as the water absorption characteristics of bricks.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Arnott, M. (1990). “Investigation of freeze-thaw durability.”NRC-IRC Report No. CR 5680.1, Nat. Res. Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
2.
Bortz, S. A., Marusin, S. L., and Monk, C. B. Jr. (1990). “A critical review of masonry durability standards.”Proc., 5th North Am. Masonry Conf., Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Ill., 1523–1535.
3.
Burned clay brick (solid masonry units made from clay or shale). (1987). CAN/CSA-A82.1-M87, Canadian Standards Assn., Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
4.
Gazzola, E. A. (1992). “A critical review of durability provisions in Canadian masonry materials standards.”Proc., 6th Canadian Masonry Symp., Univ. of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, 449–467.
5.
Hauck, D., Hilker, E., and Ruppik, M. (1990). “Influence of the firing process on frost resistance.”Ziegelindustrie International, Bauverlag GmbH, Wiesbaden, Germany, 501–507.
6.
Herget, F. A., Crooks, R. W., and Winslow, D. N. (1992). “Variability within single projects of physical properties of face brick as related to potential durability.”Proc., 6th Canadian Masonry Symp., Univ. of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, 417–428.
7.
Kung, J. H.(1985). “Frost durability of Canadian clay bricks.”Proc., 7th Int. Brick Masonry Conf., Dept. of Arch. and Build., Univ. of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, 1, 245–252.
8.
Kung, J. H.(1987a). “Frost durability study on Canadian clay bricks: II. thermal gradient and quality of burnt bricks in kilns.”Durability of building materials, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 5, 111–124.
9.
Kung, J. H. (1987b). “Frost durability study on Canadian clay bricks: III. characterization of raw materials and burnt bricks.”Durability of building materials, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 125–143.
10.
Maage, M.(1984). “Frost resistance and pore size distribution in bricks.”Mat. and Struct., (RILEM), Bordas-Gauthier-Villars, France, 17(101), 345–350.
11.
Marusin, S. L.(1990). “Failure of brick with high compressive strength, low water absorption, and saturation coefficient higher than 0.80 under severe weather conditions.”Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull., 69(8), 1332–1337.
12.
May, J. O., and Butterworth, B. (1962). “Studies of pore size distribution: III. the effect of firing temperature.”Science of ceramics, Vol. 1, G. H. Stewart, ed., Academic Press, Inc., London, 201–221.
13.
Methods of sampling and testing brick. (1978). CAN3-A82.2-M78, Canadian Standards Assn., Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
14.
Nakamura, M.(1988). “Indirect evaluation of frost susceptibility of building materials.”Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull., 67(12), 1964–1965.
15.
Robinson, G. C.(1984). “The relationship between pore structure and durability of brick.”Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull., 63(2), 295–300.
16.
Robinson, G. C., Holman, J. R., and Edwards, J. F.(1977). “Relation between physical properties and durability of commercially marketed brick.”Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull., 56(12), 1071–1075.
17.
Smalley, A. R., Aitcin, P. C., and Langlois, J. L. (1987). “The correlation between mercury porosimetry and the durability of burned clay brick.”Proc., 4th North Am. Masonry Conf., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of California, Los Angeles, Calif., II, 65.1–65.13.
18.
Standard methods of sampling and testing brick and structural clay tile, ASTM C67-93a. (1993). 1994 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa., Vol. 4.05, 38–46.
19.
Standard specifications for facing brick (solid masonry units made from clay or shale), ASTM C216-92d. (1992). 1994 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM, Philadelphia, Pa., Vol. 4.05, 105–108.
20.
Winslow, D. N., Kilgour, C. L., and Crooks, R. W.(1988). “Predicting the durability of bricks.”J. Test. Eval., ASTM, 16(6), 527–531.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Architectural Engineering
Volume 4 • Issue 1 • March 1998
Pages: 26 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Published online: Mar 1, 1998
Published in print: Mar 1998
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.