# Identifying Lime Mortar. Can it be repointed with Type N?



## yourfriend (Aug 16, 2013)

I have a chimney in Southern California from the early 1940s where mortar has been removed by me for repointing by another contractor. This is my mother's house and your kind advice on the issue of mortar
and mortar selection will help my efforts to make the result right.

Efforts to identify the old mortar in place at various professional masonry yards were largely unsuccessful. Only one person (previously in the trade of buying old bricks) gave an opinion and that was a vote for "lime mortar". Whether he was right is one point. And if he is, whether that fixes the formula to one certainty beats me...

Question one, is there a way to identify the mortar sample by a field test I can perform? I did put a drop of pool muriatic acid on it and it bubbled pretty well until the acid soaked in. Without expertise or comparative experience with how Portland cement mortars react I can't make an assessment. Any suggestions?

Is there a lab that could do an analysis on this quickly that anyone
can point me to? The job is rolling toward the end of next week.

Question two, assuming that it is lime mortar, is repointing the chimney with Type N mortar a good option? The chimney brick involved has been identified as "Higgins brick" which was described to me as a softer brick.

I'm fretting about this because it is an area of my great ignorance and
because of who owns the house. I appreciate any experienced advice.

Thank you.


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

It is relatively easy to identify a lime mortar vs a portland one. A simple test,take a chunk the size of .25 piece,from about 3 ft. off concrete slab drop it so it lands on the flat side,if it rings out with a "metallic" ring it is portland. Lime will have a "softer " thud sound to it.



The only knowledge I have about Higgins brick is what I read in a book by Kurkle. It was a plant in Washington state I believe who used the molded process. IMHO I do not believe a type N portland on the weaker side would do any harm at all to those brick. You could go with a 1:2:8 mix.Portland/lime/sand,if you have a really good gradation of sand(meets ASTM C 144) to a T you could increase your sand a tad to 9.


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

Muriatic acid will react with lime or portland, but vinegar usually will only react with lime, so it is a better test.

The formula fjn gave would be safe and easy to work with.


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

This short article may be helpful to you.


http://www.maconline.org/tech/maintenance/point1/point1.html


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

fjn said:


> The only knowledge I have about Higgins brick is what I read in a book by Kurkle. It was a plant in Washington state I believe who used the molded process. IMHO I do not believe a type N portland on the weaker side would do any harm at all to those brick.


If those really were soft brick, then a lime mortar would have been a good original choice - soft mortar with soft brick. Repointing with too strong of a mortar can get you into trouble.


----------



## stuart45 (Oct 7, 2009)

Here's another article on analysis.
http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/mortar/mortar.htm


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

hdavis said:


> If those really were soft brick, then a lime mortar would have been a good original choice - soft mortar with soft brick. Repointing with too strong of a mortar can get you into trouble.






Those brick were produced until 1980 0r "81 if I recall.Being molded does not always mean a very soft brick. The brick by Cushwa,Old Va.and Watsontown brick today are all molded and meet all requirements to be classified as S.W. .


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

I blew it as far as the authors last name,been a while since I read it.


I found the book quite interesting,even though it is about the N.W. brick production the information is somewhat overlapping.

Here is a connection to the book I referenced.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Bricks_and_Brickmaking.html?id=tkvXAAAAMAAJ


----------



## stuart45 (Oct 7, 2009)

fjn said:


> Those brick were produced until 1980 0r "81 if I recall.Being molded does not always mean a very soft brick..


That's correct. These were among the hardest.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/accrington-brick-closes-over-housing-340686


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

Just to get some feedback / info. from you fellows while soft brick are being discussed. The softest brick that I'M aware of that were being produced in the U.S. during mid to late 20th century were Chicago commons. They were an unusual brick for several reasons. First off they were the last brick company that still used a scove kiln for production. Most unusual though was the fact that they were extruded however, they are the only brick I"M familiar with that were end cut vs face cut.


As soft as they were a type N mortar that bordered on type o would still be compatible with them.


Do any of you folks know of an extremely soft brick made in your region in the aforementioned time slot that would suffer from a type N mortar ?


IMHO even back in the 1800's when scove kilns were quite prevalent brick that had a tendency to spall were perhaps a gradation error. The reason I say that is because in a scove kiln three types of brick are produced,clinkers,salmon,and hard burned facing brick which may have regionally been called stock brick.


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

Austin commons are very similar, though not extruded until the teens. The Mexican brick that are prevalent in this market are also very soft and resemble early Austin commons (and are made the same way they were then).


----------



## yourfriend (Aug 16, 2013)

Thanks to all for the kind replies.

A test with 5% acid vinegar showed light bubbling on the mortar. The reaction was not vigorous. A visit this morning to another masonry supply yard found
a fellow who seconded the opinion that the original mortar was lime.


The people at Virginia Lime Works were very genial. Because of the age, the gentleman there said an OPC mortar mix with lime was likely
involved. Obviously, couldn't see the mortar but his thought was
Type N mortar would be OK for repointing.

I checked on testing. The cost is about $500 and getting results in time for the work to move as calendared was not likely.

Then I called the bricklayer's union local. The man there with plenty of local chimney experience in his working youth said Type S spec mix was a natural call.

To clarify, the "Higgins brick" in the chimney was manufactured by Higgins Brick Company of Chino Hills, Santa Monica and Gardena, California. They left the business sometime soon after 2002.

Again, I appreciate all the time and continued consideration those who have responded have given this issue and the uncertainties which I'm struggling to resolve.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

fjn said:


> Do any of you folks know of an extremely soft brick made in your region in the aforementioned time slot that would suffer from a type N mortar ?


Not around here. I ran across some architectural ones around Dallas that were EXTREMELY soft - don't know the manufacturer. Cracks and spalling everywhere (lots of movement). Houses circa ~1975. Some for these were softer than the old hand made bricks I've worked with.


----------



## JBM (Mar 31, 2011)

Show us a picture of the brickwork. Sometimes can just tell by looking at it.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

it's difficult to explain but portland based mortars will either come completely off a brick and just leave a (white)film or mostly come off and leave large, hard chunks behind whereas lime mortars will more often come totally off and not leave as much of a film or come off and leave variously sized chunks that can be rubbed off with your fingers or a piece of wood.

Err on the side of caution and use the mix that FJN gave you. Stay away from a type S. totally unnecessary


----------



## yourfriend (Aug 16, 2013)

JBM: 

My camera is out on loan. 

Although words may not help, I'll try.

The old mortar is a whitish grey with prominent sand grains. Fragments
darken a bit when wet but dry quickly in the sun. When pieces break, they don't do so in a consistent way. The material doesn't have any glossiness or glassiness about it. Overall, it appears very dry.

If you stroke a somewhat uneven edge on a cement step several times, particles are rapidly shed and the edge becomes roughly even pretty quickly. Strokes leave a light but detectable greyish streak on the cement.

Although it doesn't dig in, a rasping fingernail will dislodge grains of
material on a rough surface.

When pieces break, they don't do so in a consistent pattern or fracture
sharply.

I realize the above may offer no master key to identification. 
Are there any other visible or working tests that can be used to make
a differentiation?

When I get access to a camera, there will be pictures.
Thanks for your help.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

the fact that when it breaks it doesn't have crisp edges tells me it's a lime based mortar. Use FJN's mix (a type O). It's a good safe bet.


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

dom-mas said:


> Err on the side of caution and use the mix that FJN gave you. Stay away from a type S. totally unnecessary




Wow! It is pretty scary that someone was even talking about a type S for his job !


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

At my local yard which is a lumber yard not a masonry yard, they always ask me why I'm always buying lime. All the other locals buy type S so it will last. That lime stuff is junk. (actually at that yard it is junk if you remember my post from the spring)


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

dom-mas said:


> At my local yard which is a lumber yard not a masonry yard, they always ask me why I'm always buying lime. All the other locals buy type S so it will last. That lime stuff is junk. (actually at that yard it is junk if you remember my post from the spring)




Yes .I do remember your post. As I mentioned then,in the '70 s the material yards around here could not keep the semi trucks full of lime on the shelf. Now, as I mentioned previously there are a couple of masonry supply yards that do not even carry it ????

I hope A.S.T.M. gets the date stamp rule for the lime bags implemented soon.


----------



## CarpenterSFO (Dec 12, 2012)

For what it's worth - the early 40's were a time of construction material shortcuts. Fuel was rationed heavily during WWII - the manufacture of PC uses a lot of energy. It could just be a very weak portland cement mix. I wouldn't focus so much on the exact identity of the existing mortar as matching the new mortar to the hardness of the existing brick. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

There is no standard for them to test it like that. There is no specification that dictates what the mortar should test at for field collected mortar. Trust me, I have been down this road 100 times in the last 20 years, including with the COE, and they are simply wrong, and if you get in a jam about the breaks, you will win in court every single time.


----------



## concretemasonry (Dec 1, 2006)

Since the mixing, sampling and testing from anything actually on the job, the ASTM C12 mortar committee would not alter the consensus standards for an individual method that is based on a single procedure for site sampling. Part of that is because the ASTM standards are incorporated into the U.S. model codes and other international standards and procedures. - The history and reliability of site samples and the slow testing procedure is not good, even if it makes sense initially.

I have seen larger masonry contractors that pay a mud mixer as much or more than a quality long term mason because it makes economic sense to get the best performance of the crew. If it is a union job, they usually sign a side agreement with the union to pay over scale and any bonuses at the end of the year are not questioned.

Mortar is not a science, but a skill.


----------



## heavyc (Jul 2, 2013)

The washed clean sand is probably second only to proper proportion the reason for the cubic boxes attached to our mixers. Never had any issues with results. Our site made grout and fine grout concrete company supplied mixes are under same guide lines. When we question the Corps say RFI and receive said info to proceed it's known as getting a blessing if that puts the Corps power in prospective. They are after all the US Governments eyes,ears and hands on site.


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

But even they have to abide by the specifications they include in the project documents, and there simply is NO accepted method or standard for lab testing field samples for either bond, compressive, or flexural strength.


----------



## heavyc (Jul 2, 2013)

I don't know if you'll have ever dealt with ACOE . For the past 22 years I have and am currently. They over ride any out side entity known to me. To include any safety protocol set forth by OSHA. All the terms and conditions are included in contracts and job scope descriptions. Then all T's are crossed and I's doted in the preparatory meeting prior to work beginning. Sample panels must be blessed and signed off on. Phases of work also must have initial inspections and signed off (blessed ) to proceed. This includes every phase from flashing installation to wall tie placement and installation process weep vent/hole location installation, bond placement, mortar spreading to view finials of head and bed joints which both must be full and no more than 1/2" protrusion all the way down to method and direction of tooling and means of such, runners/ thumb jointers. Really quite mind boggling. And that's just the tip of the Glacier.


----------



## concretemasonry (Dec 1, 2006)

No question about the detailed and small-minded requirement from a minor (ACOE) user. It is no wonder that the contractors bidding is limited because there are better and larger projects. I know of suppliers that do not even quote those type of jobs or stipulate standard list prices (no special/volume discounts) since there are better things to worry about.


As a supplier, we quoted strict published prices for the few contractors that wandered into situation, plus we included our normal escalation schedule that was used for all jobs that MIGHT exceed 6 months. The escalation was done at the request of contractors (G.Cs and masonry contractors) that did not want to reveal larger projects being bid or negotiated.


----------



## dakzaag (Jan 6, 2009)

Mean while, back at the ranch...

For the OP, the suggestions given so far are spot on regarding the mortar being the weakest part of the the wall.

Since you are already dealing with spalling and breakage of the brick, we can conclude that either the brick were really soft/poor or the mortar was too strong. Frankly, if your dealing with significant decay now, in ten years the chimney will be crumbling to the point of collapse. I would strongly consider a complete rebuild with better quality brick. Then your type S or N will be fine. 

History would tell us that by 1940, virtually all commercial mortar contained Portland. But many individuals mixed their own masonry cement well into the 70's and later. I reused some brick this past winter that were originally laid in the 60's and I would bet the price of the job ($15,000) that they were originally laid in lime mortar.
It is not worth testing your sample, or worrying too much about the mortar since the brick quality has already been compromised. 

In this case, undoubtedly the mortar was stronger than the brick and movement cause the damage instead of water and freeze thaw cycles.

If pointing is the only option, then the softest mortar you can get should be used. I am a big fan of Virginia Lime Works and a number of their products would work in your situation. A watered down(with extra sand) version of type S would also be better than full strength type S. Never heard that all of So.Cal is laid with Type S but your research seems to indicate this reality. 

Good luck with the project


----------



## yourfriend (Aug 16, 2013)

To cover a few points made:

Spalling on the chimney is quite limited. Maybe 15 bricks show it. These are all in areas that received excessive wetting due to bad grading against brick, heavy wetting from lack of a gutter on an adjacent eave and "pencil" rebar spalling from the chimney not having a cap.

I discovered that the Higgins brick may be soft in relation to modern offerings but manufacturing processes at the time don't seem likely it is as soft as we might have suspected.

Though the building is not in Long Beach which suffered a severe earthquake in 1933 it is next door in a then unincorporated area.

The Internet told me the 1930 building code for Long Beach required a 1:1:6 mortar mix. That specification subsequently was incorporated into the Uniform Building Code by the Pacific Coast Building Association. Could the old mortar be 1:1:6 Type N given the early 1940s construction and quoted references that most builders had moved to
a 1:1 cement/lime ratios nationwide by that date? Do the physical observations on the mortar that I have reported work with the possibility of Type N?

I enjoy all your perspectives and thank you for them.


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

A 1:1:6 is a type N. A 1:1 cement / lime ?? That is the same animal with the sand omitted,there is no such thing.


----------



## yourfriend (Aug 16, 2013)

FJN:

I apologize for shortening the reference. What I read said by the 1930s (and I read it in more than one place), builders were using 1:1 proportions of cement to lime with sand. Numbers for the sand weren't given and I assumed there was a range.

I'm also going to put a lump of the old mortar in vinegar (5% acetic) acid overnight as it has been suggested that if it survives relatively intact that will be due to cement in the mix and point to a Type N or O mortar. 

Thanks for refining my posting.


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

Do the test and see what happens. I have done jobs on old buildings from 1800,s were matching brick could not be had. Did one job were on approx. 600 sq.ft. of wall we cut out about 250 spalled brick and reversed them (back sides were fine).You could do the same and point with that 1:2:8 or 9 mix and you should be fine. You would be erring on the side of caution.


----------



## superseal (Feb 4, 2009)

1:1:6 is the mix I most use today in new work. Very common in the 40's and still in use today :thumbup:


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

Tscarborough said:


> My point was that Type S or N is just a strength designation, not a mix design, although mix designs are given in ASTM C270 to produce, under lab conditions, the rated strength.


I understand what you are saying but you can't just remove portland/add sand to get from a type S to a type N because you would end up with an unworkable mix. Plus there would not be enough cementious materials to fill, the voids. you would also be passed the 1:4.x ratio that is required for an accepted mix. A type S varies from what 1250psi- 2000psi? If you were at the max sand allowed, 4.x sand to 1 part type S cement, you'd be at the low end of that spectrum, but still a type S. You can't just add more sand because you're at the max according to standards (plus it's totally unworkable) so you would need to add plasticizer or lime. At that point you could increase the sand to portland ratio and get down to a type n in the 750PSI area. 

While I agree that Type X is purely a strength designation....you still need to have a mix that is useable and code says as much by giving a max and min sand requirement (yes concrete I read your post that if it has been found to be fine in the past it is acceptable but I'm talking about the rule, not what breaks the rule) It's NOT just what is found in the lab, it is what is workable as well. A 6:1 sand portland ratio would be unworkable so it has no bearing on any discussion.


----------



## yourfriend (Aug 16, 2013)

You gentlemen are smarter about this than I am. Here is the web page that discusses
the historic evolution in building code mortar specifications that truncates some of the mix ratios confusingly for me:
http://cidbimena.desastres.hn/pdf/eng/doc2485/doc2485-2c.pdf

Note that the 1930 code specifies a 1:3 "cement mortar" formula for isolated piers, mullions and below ground structures. As that specification category included chimneys
in description of the 1913 code, it may have included them in 1930.

By the way, since we all know time is money, would there be such a lower cost of the components of a lime mortar without cement be worth what I assume is the greater difficulty and amount of time it takes to work with it? If my assumption is wrong, you'll
let me know. If Portland cement was difficult to get during the period around WWII, as
mentioned by ContractorSFO above, that may have been a factor.


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

If (and they were) short on portland, then they were short on lime too. Lime mortar is no harder to work with than portland mortar, it is easier, actually. Since you are in shake-country, you will need to go by the current code, which appears to be a Type S for chimney use. The only thing I would do differently than normal practice is rake the joints a little deeper, close to an inch.


----------



## yourfriend (Aug 16, 2013)

Thanks to Tscarborough for giving me correcting information on lime vs. portland workability.

The exterior of the rough, shooter-marble sized chunk of old mortar that spent a night in 5% acid vinegar did not shed much free material in the solution. However, when removed for examination and handled, it was evident that the sample was disassociated into particles to the 3/16" depth to which the vinegar had penetrated it.


----------



## stuart45 (Oct 7, 2009)

Saw on the news tonight that taking out the cement pointing and replacing with lime mortar in the walls of an old kitchen not too far from me is costing £375,000. I didn't get the job.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-23753162


----------



## S.U.M (Apr 17, 2013)

Stuart, is Dr Gerrard Lynch involved in this project?


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

Portland needs to be fired at a minimum of 1200* and often higher, closer to 1500*. Lime on the other hand is fired around 800*. If you take limestone that is intended to be used for Portland cement production, and fire it at only 1000* you'll get something in between, like a naturally hydrated lime, but not exactly, or more like a weak portland which i think where SFO was going with it. The difference between lime and Portland is twice the heat and 33% admixture of alumina and silica also known as clay, or impure limestone which is why there are grey areas before the end of WWII.


----------



## yourfriend (Aug 16, 2013)

I spoke with a smart guy at the Masonry Institute of America. He likes either FJN's
O mix or an N with ratios of 1:1.25:6. He did say that because of irregular building code
inspection in the area in this area during the war, anything is possible with the mix of the original mortar.


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

Tscarborough said:


> If (and they were) short on portland, then they were short on lime too. Lime mortar is no harder to work with than portland mortar, it is easier, actually. Since you are in shake-country, you will need to go by the current code, which appears to be a Type S for chimney use. The only thing I would do differently than normal practice is rake the joints a little deeper, close to an inch.





Being in shake country or not,I can not see how a type S is going to be any benefit. It looks to me they want the current spec. followed for mortar which is futile IMHO seeing as how there is no way to place the vertical re-bar which I'M sure also is part of the current spec. One without the other has very little benefit.


----------



## yourfriend (Aug 16, 2013)

fjn said:


> Being in shake country or not,I can not see how a type S is going to be any benefit. It looks to me they want the current spec. followed for mortar which is futile IMHO seeing as how there is no way to place the vertical re-bar which I'M sure also is part of the current spec. One without the other has very little benefit.


We agree the current code is butting heads with sense from another perspective. 

If Type S causes the chimney to greatly increase the rate of brick spalling, the structure may be so jeopardized both structurally and esthetically that it might be considered a tear down. The City of LA
has actually eliminated_all_new construction of residential brick chimneys from what I've heard. Making S mandatory for an old chimney like mine may or may not be a more sly way of slowly eliminating them
through planned deterioration. Who knows.

A call did go in to a materials analysis firm today which brings hope of
getting a more practical viewpoint. Wouldn't it be dandy if, maybe, S might work better than we think because of the mild climate?


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

I'm certain that in your area raked joints are acceptable. So if you point up a raked joint with a weak mortar the structure won't be compromised, the same argument can be made. The structure is still built with the original mortar no matter what the strength of the repointing material is.


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

That is a good point about using the original mortar type as a method to avoid the code. You can probably make that fly, so long as you do the due diligence to determine the old mortar (or just do the work and not worry about code compliance).


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

Tscarborough said:


> (or just do the work and not worry about code compliance).


 :thumbsup::thumbsup:




It is better to ask for forgiveness than ask for permission.


----------



## yourfriend (Aug 16, 2013)

If it is the same inspector as in the past, he is reasonable.

If the bricks didn't lose an appreciable amount of fireskin during
the old mortar removal and if some of the replacement Higgins
bricks I was able to scavenge weren't wire cut along both broad
faces leaving an irregular, "burled" (you'll have a better word) surface, 
a raked joint would get more mulling. 

As it stands, I'm leading with a concave joint tight to the surface to
keep the water moving with gravity.

By the by, does that vinegar test of the old mortar lump go into
the ballot box for lime mortar?


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

I'm not suggesting using a raked joint, what i'm saying is using a raked joint as an argument as to why it doesn't matter that the outer joint is weaker than the rest of the joint.


----------



## yourfriend (Aug 16, 2013)

dom-mas said:


> I'm not suggesting using a raked joint, what i'm saying is using a raked joint as an argument as to why it doesn't matter that the outer joint is weaker than the rest of the joint.


Aha. Now you've knocked understanding into my head. That is an
excellent talking point that I wouldn't have thought of. Thanks.


----------



## dakzaag (Jan 6, 2009)

yourfriend said:


> By the by, does that vinegar test of the old mortar lump go into
> the ballot box for lime mortar?


I think you could compare your sample to the reaction of known masonry cement samples to get a good feeling for the amount of lime in the existing construction. 

I believe you said there was a moderate reaction, which leads me to believe there was some lime in the original mortar, perhaps not straight lime, but a lime cement mix.


----------



## yourfriend (Aug 16, 2013)

dakzaag said:


> I think you could compare your sample to the reaction of known masonry cement samples to get a good feeling for the amount of lime in the existing construction.
> 
> I believe you said there was a moderate reaction, which leads me to believe there was some lime in the original mortar, perhaps not straight lime, but a lime cement mix.



There was a moderate reaction by the old mortar when I put drops of vinegar on it, yes. 

Yet, when I soaked a jawbreaker-sized lump in half of a glass of vinegar overnight, I think the old mortar's reaction was importantly different. Although the lump didn't change shape much by itself, I was able to easily wipe away all the exterior to the depth the vinegar had penetrated once I took it out of the solution. Would that happen with a Portland cement/lime mortar? I don't know.

And you are right. Comparison with known samples of Types S, N or O
would be great. Unfortunately, there are none handy.


----------



## stuart45 (Oct 7, 2009)

S.U.M said:


> Stuart, is Dr Gerrard Lynch involved in this project?


I don't know, but will try and find out a few more details. I'm not sure who is doing the work yet.


----------



## JBM (Mar 31, 2011)

So let me get this right, your worried about an inspector coming by and being able to tell that you used a lime mortar and not a type S ?

Right.....

Buy a bag of portland, pour it in a bucket, bring empty bag to jobsite.


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

JBM said:


> So let me get this right, your worried about an inspector coming by and being able to tell that you used a lime mortar and not a type S ?
> 
> Right.....
> 
> Buy a bag of portland, pour it in a bucket, bring empty bag to jobsite.





How come I did not think of that.:laughing:



Sounds similar to an old trick a booty crew of bricklayers around here used to pull off. They would take a small handful of wall ties and drop them around base of wall to fool inspector. Those boots would run walls up as high as they felt like and not install a tie.


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

Yes, it is odd how a 100,000 block job will only require 25 corners and 25 tees for the horizontal reinforcing....


----------



## fjn (Aug 17, 2011)

Tscarborough said:


> Yes, it is odd how a 100,000 block job will only require 25 corners and 25 tees for the horizontal reinforcing....





You are lucky to sell the boots 25 each. Around here they "nip" the wire,bend it around corners and pull off some such similar antic for the intersecting wall wire.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

I've heard of guys just cutting random lengths of blok lok (joint reinforcement) and dropping iton the ground and taking 1' lengths of rebar and sticking them out the top with a bunch of sand filling the cores and just a few scoops of mud on top. 2nd hand info only,never actually seen this since it was in the early '80's when the engineers were a bit more blase and didn't go drilling holes in the bottom course


----------



## JBM (Mar 31, 2011)

fjn said:


> How come I did not think of that.:laughing:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds similar to an old trick a booty crew of bricklayers around here used to pull off. They would take a small handful of wall ties and drop them around base of wall to fool inspector. Those boots would run walls up as high as they felt like and not install a tie.


Whoa wall ties are a whole nother ball of wax! Ive seen it done with block wire too


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

Trust me, if I thought that job-made tees and corners were not sufficient, they would not get away with it.


----------



## heavyc (Jul 2, 2013)

For wall intersections or butts "Z" bars are common now. Also some jobs allow rat/chicken wire for those instances. But also include 90° rebars of minimal 2' #4 & 3' #5 2 each placed at horizontal bond beam coursing. Said 90°'s must placed from opposing directions. Several engineers deem it necessary to also tie said 90°'s to the horizontal lay down bars. In most cases there are also 1 and sometimes 2 vertical bars where the intersections occur, main body of wall will have 3 verticals where intersection is to occur. Which must be grouted of course and vibrated during grout placement. These are generally in low lift grout pours. Most high lift pours require inspection block and covers to insure desired integrity is achieved. I chose low lift for several reasons. Most important being complete cell fill. Cell opening size is greatly reduced with so much reinforcement then if ladder wire is not positioned properly, too much interference possibilities make high lift pours success rate very low in my experiences. All vertical with no intersections is a different animal in regards to successful high lift pours.


----------

