# Stone veneer pillars



## tkle (Apr 15, 2006)

Picture laying the stone without mortar. It should basically hold itself up. If using joints let the mud squeeze out the front. Cut it after the initial set. It will help support it. Don't use type s. Use common with just a touch of lime to keep it from bleeding. Common will set up quicker. Parge the stone and the wall leaving a void in between. As the mud starts to set fill in the void.


----------



## chan58 (Jul 6, 2008)

I have all this type S and a ton or so of sand, so it's what I'll have to go with. I think I'm starting to get the hang of it - much as you say here: parge, stick the stones (shim where necessary with stone chips), then tuck and fill in all around the edges (wearing plastic gloves, doing this by hand works well).

Temperature seems very important - I've been using a garden hose stretched out across the yard and baking in the sun. I noticed the mortar was drying out very quickly and becoming crumbly after setting just a couple of stones - all subsequent stones were falling off. When I started using cool water, everything slowed down considerably, which works well since I'm very slow.

The most difficult part now seems to be the design. Findng the right stones, chipping/grinding them for a proper fit, minimizing gaps, staggering edge overlaps, maintaining straight lines, avoiding patterns, etc. Its slow work for a rookie...


----------



## tkle (Apr 15, 2006)

chan58 said:


> I have all this type S and a ton or so of sand, so it's what I'll have to go with. I think I'm starting to get the hang of it - much as you say here: parge, stick the stones (shim where necessary with stone chips), then tuck and fill in all around the edges (wearing plastic gloves, doing this by hand works well).
> 
> Temperature seems very important - I've been using a garden hose stretched out across the yard and baking in the sun. I noticed the mortar was drying out very quickly and becoming crumbly after setting just a couple of stones - all subsequent stones were falling off. When I started using cool water, everything slowed down considerably, which works well since I'm very slow.
> 
> The most difficult part now seems to be the design. Findng the right stones, chipping/grinding them for a proper fit, minimizing gaps, staggering edge overlaps, maintaining straight lines, avoiding patterns, etc. Its slow work for a rookie...


Type s is fine but it retains water longer making the work slower. Perhaps cut back on the sand slightly. "The most difficult part" is really only the most tedious part. It's slow for anybody. Perhaps sort your stone out a little bit according to size. Make a stack of corners...Have more than enough stone. Be picky to as to which stones you stock. Pick up a stone...lay it. You'll get there. Post pics when you're done.


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

I have said it before, but it is important, so I will say it again:

"Type S" is a mortar STRENGTH  designation, not a type of cement. If you have a bag of type S and a bag of type N masonry cement (that is the type designation:masonry cement), each bag contains exactly the same thing, in exactly the same proportions, but the bag of type S will have 5 more pounds of material in it. Portland/lime blends are the same, but the weight will vary.

You can produce Type S, N, M or O mortar simply by controlling the volume of sand you mix with the masonry cement or blended cement.

Only if you are using pre-mixed mortar (with the sand already in the bag) does the type designation on the bag matter.


----------



## tkle (Apr 15, 2006)

When he said "type S" I assumed he was talking about plastic cement or masonry cement and how he was mixing it.
My comment about using a little more sand was incorrect. What he should do is mix a bit of common type I-II into the mix. Straight common and sand is the better mix. A slight addition of lime, much less than is usually called for in type S, increases the workability and board time and also stops the bleeding. IBC Codes lists type S as having a .25 to a .50 ratio of lime to cement. Stone mud needs to be only around .05/1 ratio.


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

Tkle, stone can and in most cases should be laid with a high lime mortar. For soft limestone for example, a 2-1 lime/portland is a very good mix. For hard stone, you would not want to use that mix, but in all cases, you should have either lime or annother plasticizer (either an admix, or part of the grind, as in masonry cement).

The Type S designation is a strength designation, and can be achieved in a number of ways with different amounts and types of cements/lime/additives.


----------



## tkle (Apr 15, 2006)

There is no reason structurally to use lime. 
Section 1405.6 of the IBC calls for a minimum of 1" of grout behind stone veneer. Grout contains a ratio of .1 lime maximum. Mortar needs to conform to either the proportions table or to the properties table listed in the code concerning minimum compressive strength and water retention and maximum air content. Type I-II mixed properly satisfies these conditions.


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

We have hijacked this poor man's thread enough. I will start a mortar thread later.

S!


----------



## tkle (Apr 15, 2006)

Tscarborough said:


> We have hijacked this poor man's thread enough. I will start a mortar thread later.
> 
> S!


I'm sure that between the two of us we have him throughly confused...:laughing:


----------



## stacker (Jan 31, 2006)

Tscarborough said:


> I have said it before, but it is important, so I will say it again:
> 
> "Type S" is a mortar STRENGTH  designation, not a type of cement. If you have a bag of type S and a bag of type N masonry cement (that is the type designation:masonry cement), each bag contains exactly the same thing, in exactly the same proportions, but the bag of type S will have 5 more pounds of material in it. Portland/lime blends are the same, but the weight will vary.
> 
> ...


like i have said,"if you dont learn something new everyday in this business,your not tring."
i never knew that type n and s were the same except for the weight.i always assumed that type s had more portland in it,therefore making it stronger.
i bow to greatness.:notworthy


----------



## Tommy C (Jul 11, 2005)

I know that the UBC requires the airspace to be slushed with mortar for a full-stone veneer application, but here's a dumb question. If, theoretically, the stone veneer was all equal thickness, say 4" like brick, could the 1" airspace be maintained?


----------



## artisanstone (Nov 27, 2007)

I believe that the specification for filling behind the stone is derived from the fact that fieldstones and other irregular building stones are difficult to lay without doing that. If you are working with quarried limestone, granite, or sandstone that lends itself to working with a cavity, I think you should leave one. Basically an airspace is superior in theory but not always possible in practice. I think eventually code will require drainboard type products behind masonry veneers when leaving a cavity is not possible.

But that's just my opinion.:thumbsup:


----------



## Tommy C (Jul 11, 2005)

I think that this code requirement is due to the fact that an uneven airspace is undesirable. So if the airspace is slushed with mortar, the resulting shrinkage will create a tiny (but EVEN) airspace between the mortar and the sheathing/moisture barrier. Like, a 1/16 of an inch.

But if it was a fairly uniform sized stone, it would essentially be like a 4" brick veneer wall, then I think I would feel more comfortable leaving the cavity open.


----------



## chan58 (Jul 6, 2008)

Well, I'm about as confused as can be. But that's nothing new.

Working with this stuff for a couple of weeks, here's what I know. Lime is good. More lime is more good. No matter whether you're using S, N, M or O. The key is to know when to back off the lime. Too much lime, and the work slows WAY down...


----------



## tkle (Apr 15, 2006)

chan58 said:


> Well, I'm about as confused as can be. But that's nothing new.
> 
> Working with this stuff for a couple of weeks, here's what I know. Lime is good. More lime is more good. No matter whether you're using S, N, M or O. The key is to know when to back off the lime. Too much lime, and the work slows WAY down...


Actually I've reconstructed walls that were over 100 years old using purely lime mortar.
Couldn't find any corners?


----------



## raskolnikov (Mar 10, 2008)

tkle,
My guess is there isn't a corner to be had in the hole pile! The lime looks good though...

D.


----------



## chan58 (Jul 6, 2008)

Every stone's a corner. Maybe that's my problem. :blink:


----------



## tkle (Apr 15, 2006)

Ohh the lime.:laughing:..A little slow here.


----------



## chan58 (Jul 6, 2008)

Here is my original design: four stone pillars framing three tongue-and-groove cedar fence panels. However, rather than set fence posts in soil (next to the pillars), I decided to "hang" the cedar fence panels from the pillars. I bolted heavy-duty pins into the block, then back-filled the voids in the block with mortar. The pins will work for both the stationary panels and the swinging gate panels. The bonus is that I can take the panels down very easily. Since there is a large southern magnolia in front of the gate, this means I can drive big equipment into the back yard by removing one of the fence panels.

Anyway, just curious if anyone's ever done fence panels this way?


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

4 of my fence panels are removable in a similar fashion so that I can get light equipment and septic-suckers into the back yard.


----------

