Materials and Structures/Mat6riaux et Constructions,Vol.
32, October1999, pp 571o578
British Standard and RILEM water absorption tests: A
critical evaluation
M. A. Wilson, M. A. Carter and W. D. Hoff
Department of Building Engineering, UMIST, P 0 Box 88, Manchester,M60 1QD, UK
Paper received:February 15, 1999; Paperaccepted:May 10, 1999
A B S T R A C T
British Standard and RILEM capillary suction rate
and water absorption tests used for clay bricks, stones
and pre-cast concrete products are critically examined.
Experimental data are reported comparing the initial rate
of suction with the sorptivity, an analytically based
m e t h o d of measuring capillary suction rate.
Experimental work is also reported comparing water
contents attained as a result of vacuum saturation
absorption and the British Standard 5 h boiling test.
Results of 24 h and 30 min immersion tests are also
reported.
It is concluded that the initial rate of suction test is
fundamentally flawed and may produce misleading
results because of its use of only a single point measure-
ment. It is further concluded that vacuum saturation
provides the most accurate measurement of water
absorption, and therefore porosity. The 5 h boiling test
generally produces results significantly below those
obtained by vacuum saturation with samples attaining
approximately 90% of vacuum saturation. Immersion
tests, used to provide comparative data on the rates of
absorption of different materials, can only be valid if the
specimens have identical dimensions.
1. I N T R O D U C T I O N
Two aspects of the water absorption characteristics of
porous construction materials are of particular interest
and practical significance. These are the total (water
absorption) porosities and the capillary suction proper-
ties of the materials.
The total porosity of any masonry material has a deter-
mining influence on the compressive strength and also on
the permeability of the material to water or liquid flow.
Thus in BS 3921 [1] clay bricks of low porosity and high
strength are classified as engineering bricks, whilst mea-
1359-5997/99 9 ILILEM
R I~ S U M I':-
Les essais de succion par capillaritd et d'absorption d'eau
bas& sur la norme anglaise et sur la recommandation
R I L E M , utilis& pour les briques d'argiles, les pierres et les
produits pr~fabriqu& en b~ton sont examin&. Des donn&s
exp&imentales sont pr&ent&s, en comparant le taux de suc-
cion initial et la sorptivitd, une mdthode analytique de mesure
de la sucabn par capillaritY. On rapporte dgalement, quelques
donn&s exp&imentales comparant les teneurs d'eau atteintes
par absorption sous vide selon la norme anglaise apr~s
5 heures d'~bullition. Les rOsultats des essais d'immersion de
24 heures et 30 minutes sont aussi prOsent&.
On conclut que l'essai de taux de succion initial est
fondamentalement d~fectueux et peut produire des r&ultats
trompeurs dus h l'utilisation d'un seul point de mesure. II
est aussi conclu que la plus pr&ise des m~thodes de mesure
d'absorption d'eau, et par consequent de la porositd, est
celle de saturation sous vide. Le test de 5 heures d'~bulli-
tion donne des r&ultats proches de ceux obtenus par satu-
ration sous vide pour des &hantillons atteignant environ
90% de saturation de vide. Les essais d'immersion, utili-
s& pour obtenir des donn&s comparatives sur les taux
d'absorption de diff&ent mat&iaux, ne sont valides que si
les sp&imens sont de dimensions identiques.
surement of the total water absorption porosity is also used
in this standard in the definition of those types of clay brick
which are suitable for use as damp proof courses.
In the use and specification of clay bricks water
absorption porosity is often taken as a guide for the pre-
diction of frost resistance, in that bricks of high strength
and low porosity have generally proved to be frost resistant
in practice. However, it has been shown [2] that frost
damage is a result of complex patterns of freezing of pore
water, and porosity alone is not the determining parame-
ter of frost resistance. Thus several types of relatively
porous clay bricks (notably some hand-made bricks)
5 71
Materials and Structures/Mat6riaux et Constructions,Vol,32, October1999
prove, in testing and in practice, to be as resistant to dam-
age on freeze-thaw cycling as many engineering bricks.
The capillary suction properties of masonry materials
are relevant in respect of both construction practice and
weathering performance. During construction wet
trade practices rely upon the suction of masonry materi-
als to encourage bonding between mortar or plaster and
brickwork or blockwork. In brick or block laying exces-
sive suction causes rapid removal of water from the soft
mortar and can, in principle, result in incomplete hydra-
tion and a weak or porous hardened mortar. Similar
considerations apply in the application of renders or plas-
ters to brick or block substrates. The use of additives or
admixtures in mortars and plasters to improve the water
retaining properties of the soft solid can help to balance
the effects of excessive suction. Pre-wetting of the
masonry material with the aim of reducing its suction is
widely adopted although the effectiveness of this tech-
nique has been questioned [3].
The capillary suction properties of masonry materials
also define their behaviour in driving rain. Walls of
masonry units having high suction tend to absorb inci-
dent rainwater readily and the time to surface saturation
is relatively long [4, 5]. In low suction walls - typically
built of engineering bricks of low porosity- surface sat-
uration occurs quickly and incident rain will then flow
across the wall surface and tend to penetrate at shrinkage
microcracks in perpend joints and at other defects.
That it is necessary to be able to measure, in routine
testing, the water absorption porosities and the capillary
suction properties of masonry materials is recognised in
a number of British Standard [1, 6] and 1LILEM [7-12]
tests. In this paper we report the results of laboratory
measurements of these properties and critically review
the appropriateness of the present British Standard and
RILEM procedures. Recommendations are made for
possible changes to current testing practice.
2. WATER A B S O R P T I O N TEST PROCEDURES
2.1 Capillary suction tests
Sorptivi~
The capillary absorption of water into a porous solid
is described by the non- linear diffusion equation [13]:
0~-= V. DV0 (1)
where 0 is the volume fraction water content of the
material and D(0) its unsaturated hydraulic diffusivity.
Solution of the one-dimensional form of equation (1)
gives a partial differential equation describing absorption
through one end of a semi-infinite bar:
00 _ ~ D 00 (2)
0t Ox ax
such that:
0 = 0 satx = 0, t_> 0 and
0 = 0 0 f o r x > 0, t=0.
572
0 0 and 0 s are the volume fraction water contents of the
solid in the dry and saturated states respectively.
Equation (2) has a solution of the form [13]:
x(O,t) : r 2 (3)
so that the advancing water content versus distance pro-
file maintains constant shape ~(0).
The cumulative absorbed volume of water per unit
area of supply surface, i, is given by:
i=t
1/2 0s
Ioo ~adO = S t 1/2
(4)
where S is the sorptivity [14, 15], a parameter defining
the ability of a material to absorb and transmit water by
capillarity. Clearly, from equation (4), the sorptivity
depends on the initial water content of the material [16]
and is highest when the material is dry and zero when it
is saturated. Sorptivity to water scales with surface ten-
sion, o, and viscosity, ~, as (o/q)1/z [14]. Thus the sorp-
tivity to water increases with temperature.
A useful application of the sorptivity in respect of
masonry structures is in the calculation of the time to
surface saturation, ts, of a wall exposed to driving rain [4,
5] using:
t s = 3'$2. (5)
where 7 is a constant (0.64 for most building materials)
and v0 is the velocity of the driving rain. At times less
than t Sall incident rainwater is absorbed. At times greater
than ts, some water continues to be absorbed and the
remainder runs off.
A precise procedure for the measurement of sorptiv-
ity has been described by Hall and Tse [17]. The sample,
typically rectangular in section, is dried to constant mass
in an air oven at 105~ and its dry mass noted. After
cooling to room temperature the sample is immersed to
a depth of 3-5ram in a tray of water. The sample is
removed at intervals (times of 1, 4, 9, 16 and 25 min are
convenient) and weighed. The sorptivity is determined
from the gradient of the straight line (equation (4))
obtained by plotting the cumulative volume of water
absorbed per unit area, i, against tl/2. It is convenient to
express the sorptivity in units m m min-lS2. Typical i(# z)
graphs are shown in Fig. 1. Neither of these lines passes
through the origin, one line having a very significant
positive intercept. One dimensional water absorption
data usually produce an intercept at t = 0 [18]. Thus the
general equation defining o n e - d i m e n s i o n a l water
absorption is more correctly written
i = St1~2 + B (6)
Most bricks produce a positive intercept (B > 0).
One cause of this is the depth to which the sample is
immersed in the water allowing some water to be
absorbed through the sides of the sample as well as the
base. Some bricks however produce a negative intercept
(B < 0). This has been attributed to a dense surface layer
formed during firing [18]. A minor factor in either a
positive or negative intercept is the accuracy of the tim-
Wilson, Carter, Hoff
90
60
9 40
30
20
10
0
t V2/minl~
Fig. 1 - i(t1/2)
graphs for a clay brick, D, and an aerated auto-
claved concrete (aac) block, O, [3]. The slopes of the dotted
lines in the insert define the initial rate o f suction values for these
materials.
ing procedure. Since the absorption rate is very high at
short times (absorption rate = di/dt = 1/2 St -1/2) a small
delay in starting the clock will contribute to a negative
intercept. If timing is started slightly early the intercept
will be increased in the positive direction.
The sorptivity is not included in either the British
Standard or the RILEM water absorption test proce-
dures although it is being increasingly adopted in con-
crete technology [19].
The Initial Rate of Suction (IRS)
The initial rate of suction tests described in BS 3921
[1] and LUM A5: Initial rate of suction (IRS) of masonry
units [8] are identical.
The IRS is measured by immersing a dry brick of
known mass in water to a depth of 3 + 1ram. After one
minute the brick is removed from the water and, after the
removal of any excess water from its surface, is weighed.
The initial rate of suction, I, is calculated from [1]:
I (m2 - ml ) (7)
1000A
where m1 is the mass of the dry sample (in g), me the
mass of the wet sample (in g) and A the area of the
absorbing surface (in mm2). From this definition the
units of I are given kg mm -2 min -1 as recommended in
BS 3921.
In order to be consistent with our definition of S, it
is convenient to express 1in units o f m m min <. Thus:
I=(m2-ml)
1000pA
where p is the density of water in g cm -3.
Because "41 = 1 the initial rate of suction I as defined by
equation (8) will be numerically equal to the sorptivity, S, if
the straight line graph of/versus tl/2 passes through the ori-
gin (i.e. B = 0 in equation (6)). The units of/ (nun rain <)
are different from the units ofS (mm rain-I/2), but if/is to
be a practically useful measure of suction the numerical
values o f / a n d S must be equal or in simple proportion to
each other. Unfortunately this is rarely the case because B
in equation (6) is usually not zero. An example of the con-
sequence of a non-zero value of B is shown by the experi-
mental data in Fig. 1 [3]. The values of I for brick and
autoclaved aerated concrete (aac) block from these data are
numerically equal to the gradient of a line from t = 1 to the
origin for each material. The values of I suggest that the
aac material has the higher suction which is clearly not the
case when the data are examined as a whole. The value of
I for brick also overestimates the true suction of the brick.
A further shortcoming of the IRS test is the lack of
any means of correction for variations in temperature.
As discussed, the sorptivity scales with temperature as
(o/11)1/2 [14]. Sorptivity data may therefore be normalised
to a standard temperature of, say, 20~ However, the
temperature effect is not large: the sorptivity increases by
about 1% for every 1~ rise in temperature.
Variations on the IRS test are found in PAN 1:
Testing methods for natural stones [7] and C P C l l . 2 :
Absorption of water by concreteby capillarity [12]. In PAN 1 a
dry stone specimen is immersed to a depth of 2 mm and
allowed to absorb water t h r o u g h one face.
Measurements of change in mass are taken at intervals
until the water reaches the upper surface of the speci-
men. However it is only the last of these measurements
which is used in the determination of the capillarity
coefficient, Cap, which is defined by:
rn c
Cap = A~/t (9)
where mc is the total mass of water absorbed since the
start of the test, A the absorbing area and t the elapsed
time. This test is a more accurate measure of suction
than the IRS test because it is taken over a longer time
and recognises that absorption is linear with tl/2.
However it is a single point measurement and does not
correct for intercepts at t = 0 or for possible departures
from linearity of the i(tl/2) graph as the water reaches the
top of the specimen.
In CPC 11.2 the dry concrete specimen is immersed
to a depth of 5 + l m m and changes in mass at 3, 6, 24
and 72 h are measured. Again only the change in mass
measured since the start of the test is used to calculate
the "absorption o f water by capillarity" which is
expressed in g/mm 2. This test does not take into
account the tl/2 relationship defining the volume of
water absorbed; nor does it take account of the complex
issues associated with long-term water absorption into
concretes which are affected by long-term reactivity and
swelling of the gel [20, 21].
(8)
2.2 Water absorption tests
vacuum saturation porosity
Vacuum saturation is a method of assessing the total
water absorption porosity of a material. To measure the
573
Materialsand Structures/Mat4riauxet Constructions,Vol. 32, October 1999
vacuum saturation porosity the sample is dried to constant
mass at 105~ before being allowed to cool. In a typical
procedure the sample is then placed in a vacuum chamber
which is connected by a hose to a rotary vacuum pump
capable of producing a vacuum of~ 0.1 mm of mercury.
The chamber (and therefore the sample) is evacuated and
pumping is continued for some time. The hose is then
clamped, disconnected from the vacuum pump and
immersed in a second tank containing water. When the
clamp is released water is drawn into the vacuum cham-
ber. When the sample has become fully immersed, the
hose is removed from the water tank and air allowed to
enter the vacuum tank so that atmospheric pressure forces
water into the evacuated pores of the material. After an
appropriate period of soaking the sample is removed from
the water and weighed. The water absorption porosity is
often quoted as a percentage of dry mass. The volume
fraction porosity, f is calculated from:
f = volume of water absorbed (10)
volume of sample
There are no vacuum absorption tests in the British
Standards, although an earlier version of BS 3921 did
contain such a test. There are a number of variations on
vacuum absorption in the IKILEM tests in which various
reduced pressures and soaking times are recommended.
In LUM A4: Water absorption and waterporosity of masonry
units [9] an unspecified pumping time is followed by a
1 h soak. PAN 1: Testing methodsfor natural stones [7]
specifies 3 h pumping followed by 3 h immersion under
vacuum which is then followed by a 21 h soak at atmos-
pheric pressure. CP 11.3: Absorption of water by concreteby
immersion under vacuum [10] specifies a 24 h period of
evacuation followed by a 2 h immersion under vacuum
followed by 24 h immersion under atmospheric pressure
before the first weighing. The material remains
immersed and weighings are continued until the mater-
ial reaches constant mass.
Variation in the amount of water absorbed with both
pumping and immersion times has been investigated by
Prout [22] for clay bricks using a 20 litre vacuum tank and
an appropriate rotary pump. Taking the water content
after 5 h pumping followed by a 5 day immersion period
as a nominal value of complete saturation, it was found
that 5 h pumping followed by 10 min soaking or 6 min
pumping followed by 15 min soaking gave essentially
complete saturation. Prout also noted that very long
soaking times (~ 2 months) gave a small increase in mass
for some bricks. These increases were less than 0.25% for
a high porosity brick and less than 1% for a low porosity
brick. In an early paper Washburn and Footitt [23] discuss
the relationship between pore size and soaking time when
vacuum saturation is used. Peake and Ford [24] found
that following evacuation dense bricks may require
immersion times as long as 23 days to reach constant mass.
Water absorption by boiling
BS 3921 [1] and LUM A4: Water absorption and water
porosity of masonry units [9] both contain an identical
water absorption (boiling) test. For this test dry bricks of
574
known mass are placed in a tank of water at room tem-
perature. The temperature of the water is increased to
boiling point over a period of approximately 1 h, main-
tained at 100~ for 5 h and then allowed to cool to room
temperature for between 16 and 19 h. The wet bricks
are then removed and weighed and the water absorption
porosity, A, calculated from:
100 (wet mass-dry mass)
Z = (11)
dry mass
with the results expressed as a percentage of the dry
mass. The tests referred to in LUM A4 include an option
to calculate the water absorption by volume which is
referred to as the "water porosity".
In a second water absorption test described in PAN 1:
Testing methodsfor natural stones [7], air-dried specimens of
stone are boiled for 3 h followed by a 24 h soak. After
being weighed the specimens are then oven dried to
enable their water contents to be calculated. The water
content is expressed as a percentage of the dry mass.
The water absorption tests discussed here have two
essential components: the soaking time during which
the water is being heated or cooled and the boiling time.
By the time the brick reaches 100~ it will have a high
water content. During the boiling period the water
within the pores will generally turn to vapour and
expand. This will create considerable pressure within
the pores and both water vapour and air will be expelled
from the brick. During the 5 h boiling period the air
within the pore space will be replaced by steam which
on cooling will undergo the phase change back to water
with an associated large volume contraction. The conse-
quent lowering of pressure in the pore space of the brick
will result in water being forced into these pores by
atmospheric pressure acting on the bulk water.
These boiling tests are empirical test procedures
which are believed to give the true total water absorption
porosities of the materials. Washburn and Footitt [23]
express concern about the use of boiling at atmospheric
pressure as a method of measuring porosity and conclude
that it is not sufficiently reliable as a reference method.
They also discuss the damage to the brick ceramic mate-
rial which may result from boiling.
Although the porosity (by whatever means obtained)
may be a useful measurement, it must be borne in mind
that there are only small differences in porosity across a
range of materials. For example, over a range of brick
materials the volume fraction porosity may vary from 0.t
to 0.5 (a factor of 5) whereas the sorptivity over the same
range of materials may vary from 0.02 to 3 mm min -1/2, a
factor of 150 [25]. The porosity, even when measured by
vacuum saturation, is an inherently insensitive parameter.
Water absorption by soaking
There are a number of tests which determine water
absorption by soaking. One use of such tests is in the
determination of the saturation coefficient which is
defined as the percentage of pore volume filled in a 24 h
soak. The saturation coefficient is used as an empirical
guide to the durability of building stones [26, 27].
Wilson, Carter,Hoff

It is well established [3] that a simple immersion test
does not result in saturation due to air becoming
entrapped within the porous solid. This air is held under
the curved menisci of the water and is therefore under
pressure. The entrapped air will eventually escape from
the brick by dissolving in the water and hence diffusing
out through the pore system. However this will take
some time. It has been shown that a brick placed on end
in a tray of water under conditions of free evaporation
from the exposed surfaces will reach full (vacuum) satu-
ration after 2 years [3].
The water absorption which occurs during soaking
will essentially be suction-driven. In this paper we focus
on the 24 h immersion test as described in LUM A4 and
the 30 min immersion test described in BS 7263.
LUM A4: Waterabsorptionand waterporosity of masonry
units [9] measures the percentage water content either by
mass or by volume of initially dry specimens which have
been soaked in water at room temperature for 24 h. It
does however state that soaking times longer than 24 h
may be required for some materials but makes no men-
tion of achieving constant mass. The dimensions of the
specimens are not specified
PAN1: Testing methodsfor natural stones [7] measures
the percentage water content by volume of initially dry
specimens which have been soaked for several days. The
specimen size is not defined, but must be of greater vol-
ume than 20 dm 3. Measurements of change in mass are
taken every 24 h until constant mass has been attained.
However it is clearly unlikely that saturation will occur
in a matter of a few days and the results reported in [3]
suggest that the timescale for true constant mass may be
of the order of a year or more. Variations on this test
include progressive immersion and absorption under
reduced or increased pressures.
CP 11.1: Absorptionof waterby concreteby immersion[11]
measures the increase in mass of hardened concrete
which has been soaked until 2 weighings, taken 24 h
apart, result in a change in mass of less than 1%. The
specimen size is not defined, but must be of volume not
less than 0.001 m 3. The water content of the specimen
is calculated after oven drying and is expressed as a per-
centage of the mass of the wet material. The major dis-
advantage of this test is that since the material is not dry
before the test commences, the absorption rate will be
greatly reduced (equation (4)) leading to a large increase
in the time taken to reach saturation.
An absorption test of much shorter duration is
described in BS 7263 [6]. Although not applicable to
bricks or stones we include a brief discussion of this test
together with experimental results for brick and stone
materials to illustrate the results of absorption tests car-
ried out over short times.
The test described in BS 7263 is applied to pre-cast
concrete products such as flags, kerbs, channels and edg-
ings for which maximum water absorption values are spec-
ified. Dry samples of specified dimensions and known dry
mass are immersed in a tank of water at 20 + 1~ to a cov-
ered depth of 25 + 5 mm. After 30 + 0.5 min the samples
are removed from the water and weighed and the water
absorption, W, determined from:
w=(Wet mass-dry mass.) (12)
dry mass
with the results expressed as a percentage of the dry mass.
3. EXPERIMENTAL W O R K
Brick and limestone materials of widely varying
hydraulic properties were selected for the experimental
work. M1 the samples were approximately the same size.
The materials used are summarised in Table 1.
The sorptivity of each material was measured as
described with an immersion depth of approximately
4 mm. In the case of the bricks the sorptivities were
measured through the bed faces. Values of initial rate of
suction were not measured in a separate set of experi-
ments but were obtained from the same data used to
determine the sorptivities. This ensured that both sorp-
tivity and initial rate of suction values for each material
were determined from identical immersion depths and
experimental conditions.
To illustrate the effect of immersion depth on both
sorptivity and initial rate of suction, three absorption
experiments were carried on the same brick (a clay fac-
ing brick of the same type as sample 5) at depths of 1, 3
and 6 mm.

Table 1 - Summary of materials used in the experimental work together with experimental results
obtained from the test methods described
Sample Description Sorptivity Initial rate Vacuum Water Water Water
of suction saturation absorption absorption absorption
(ram mm-1/2) (mm mm"t) porosity (5 h boiling) (24 h soak) (30 rain soak)
% by mass % by mass % by mass % by mass
1 TELFORDBLUE (Wire cut engineering brick) 0.05 0.096 6.72 6.15 4.06 0.6
2 ANSTRUDEDE JAUNE(Limestone) 0.27 0.41 9.87 9.03 4.67 3.4
3 BRICKPAVER 0.19 0.22 7.96 7.2 5.88 2.4
4 St. MAXlMIN FINE (Limestone) 3.98 2.41 22.03 22.07 15.83 13.4
5 LIGHTBUFF (Wire cut facing brick) 1.94 2.3 22.45 20.07 16.18 15.3
6 STAFFORDSHIREBLUE(Engineering brick) 0.20 0.28 6.48 5.2 3.18 2.13
7 ACCRINGTONNORI (Engineering brick) 0.48 0.34 6.85 6.83 5.23 3.80

575
Materials and Structures/MaMriaux et Constructions, Vol. 32, October1999

The water absorption (boiling) tests were carried

out in accordance with BS 3921 and LUM A4. The
samples were left to soak for 18 h after boiling for 5 h
giving a total immersion time of 24 h (including lh
taken to reach boiling point). After drying again to
constant weight the materials were vacuum saturated.
Pumping was continued for 2 h and, after flooding the
chamber, the samples were left to soak for 24 h giving
equal immersion times for both the boiling and the
vacuum tests.
After drying again to constant weight the 30rain
absorption test (by soaking) was carried out in accor-
dance with BS 7263. After weighing the samples were
returned to the water to complete a 24 h soak in accor-
dance with LUM A4.

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
4.1 Comparison between sorptivity and initial Fig. 3 - Comparison between sorptivity values (black) and values of
rate of suction the BS 3921 initial rate of suction (grey) for all the samples tested.

Fig. 2 shows experimentally determined i(tl/2) data for
a selection of the materials tested9 Both positive and nega-
tive intercepts at t = 0 are apparent9 Clearly these inter-
cepts will affect the calculation of initial rate of suction.
Sorptivity values obtained from the gradients of the
lines in Fig. 2 are summarised in column 3 of Table 1.
Values of the initial rate of suction, expressed in mm
min-1 rather than kg mm -2 min -1 to aid comparison,
are given in column 4 of Table 1. Fig. 3 compares sorp-
tivity with initial rate of suction for each material,
arranged in order of increasing sorptivity. Fig. 3 shows
that although both sets of data follow broadly the same
trend, there are some inconsistencies. The initial rate of
suction test shows samples 4 and 5 to have similar suc-
tion properties whereas the sorptivity of sample 4 is over
twice that of sample 5; this test also shows 2 to have a
higher suction' than 7 when the reverse is the case. The
initial rate of suction test further shows 6 to have a
higher suction than 3 when both these materials have
the same sorptivity. These anomalies are undoubtedly
caused by the factors discussed earlier.
The effect of immersion depth on both the sorptivity
and initial rate of suction are summarised in Table 2 and

- 12 . . . . . . . . . -

5-

0! '2
54 f
i 0- O ~ ~ ~ ::::l~~m
1 2 3 4 5

-5 -

t v2 / min v2 -2 t 1/2 / rainY2

Fig. 2 - Experimentally determined i(t 1/2) data for a selection of
the materials tested: &, sample 3; 9 sample 4; x sample 5; t , Fig. 4 - i(t 1/2) data measured at immersion depths o f l mm, 9
sample 7. The solid lines are least squares fits through the data 3mm, A; and 6mm, , . The solid lines are least squares fits
points. through the data points.

576
Wilson, Carter, Hoff

Table 2 - The effect of different immersion depths on the " 600

sorptivity and the BS 3921 initial rate of suction for an
ordinary quality clay facing brick of the same type as sample 5
Immersion depth Sorptivity Initial rate of suction
500
(mm) (mm min-1/2) (mm min"1)
1 2.54 2.19 "~ 400
3 2.51 2.85
6 2.53 3.9 "" 300 4

"6 200
illustrated in Fig. 4. The i(tl/2) data in Fig. 4 clearly show
the intercept increasing with immersion depth in the
positive y direction. Table 2 shows that immersion
depths of 1, 3 and 6 m m produce different initial rate of
suction values which increase significantly with immer-
sion depth. The sorptivity however is not affected by
these small changes in immersion depth. 1 3 7 6 2
Sample
4.2 Comparison between vacuum saturation, Fig. 5 - Comparison between the volume of water absorbed dur-
ing each of the 4 water absorption tests described. First column
water absorption (boiling) and water absorp- in each case: 30 min immersion; second column: 24 h immersion;
tion (soaking) tests third column: 5 h boil; fourth column: vacuum saturation.

The results of all the water absorption tests - vacuum

saturation porosity (2 h vacuum followed by 24 h long enough. This is consistent with the results reported
immersion); the BS 3921 and LUM A4 water absorption in [24] where it was found that a dense brick only
test (5 h boiling followed by 18 h soak); the LUM A4 reached approximately 85% of full saturation after a 24 h
24 h soak and the BS 7263 30 min soak are summarised soak following evacuation.
in columns 5 to 8 of Table 1. All the results are Fig. 5 also shows that all the materials tested have
expressed in terms of percentage mass fraction to aid absorbed proportionally different amounts of water in
comparison. Fig. 5 compares the volume of water the 30 rain and 24 h immersion tests compared to vac-
absorbed by the samples during each test. The water u u m saturation. In the case of the 30 min soak the
contents attained by the samples during the boiling test, degree of vacuum saturation attained varies from 8% for
the 24 h soak and the 30 rain soak are shown in Table 3 sample 1 to nearly 70% for sample 5. For the 24 h soak
as a percentage of those attained by vacuum saturation. water contents vary from 47 to 74% of vacuum satura-
Fig. 5 shows that the water absorption (5 h boiling) tion (i.e. saturation coefficients range from 0.47 to 0.74).
test consistently produces lower water contents than the The results of the soaking tests depend on the sizes of
vacuum saturation test with the exception of samples 4 the samples under test. This is not recognised in the
and 7 which have, within the bounds of experimental specifications of the various tests. For example in the 30
error, absorbed the same amount of water in each test. min soak test the concrete materials for which this test is
In the other samples the shortfall in water content for designed are of varying specified size. Consider a cube
the 5 h boiling test varies from 15 cm 3 for sample 1 to
nearly 60 cm 3 in the case of sample 5. However, there is
a correlation between the amount of water absorbed
during this test and that absorbed during vacuum satura- Table 3 - Water contents attained during the 5 h boiling,
tion. Table 3 shows that the boiling test, again with the 30 rain immersion and 24 h immersion water
exception of samples 4 and 7, results in the samples con- absorption tests expressed as percentages
of the vacuum saturation water contents
sistently attaining 80 to 90% of vacuum saturation.
Samples 4 and 7 have very different hydraulic properties: Sample 5 h boil 30 min 24 h
4 has over 8 times the sorptivity of 7; in terms of volume immersion immersion
fraction, 4 has nearly 3 times the water porosity of 7. It 91.5 8.5 60.5
seems reasonable to assume that 4, being a very high suc- 91.0 34.4 47.3
tion and highly porous material, may well attain the 90.5 30.0 73.9
same level of saturation in both the vacuum saturation
100.0 60.8 71.84
and boil tests. However in the case of 7, a relatively
impervious material of low sorptivity and porosity, the 89.0 68.2 72.0
same level of saturation in each test implies that the post- 80.8 32.98 49.0
evacuation soak in the vacuum test may not have been 99.7 55.84 76.45

577
Materials and Structures/Mat6riaux et Constructions,Vol. 32, October 1999
of side x mm into which water has penetrated a distance
a mm through all sides. For samples of different sizes the
volume depends on x 3 but the volume of absorbed
water depends o n f [ x 3 - (x - 2a)3], wherefis the volume
fraction porosity. A large sample will therefore absorb
proportionally less water than a small sample of the same
material. In contrast, the vacuum saturation porosity
would be constant irrespective of sample size.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The experimental results show an inherent inaccuracy
in the measurement of initial rate of suction. The use of
only a single data point means that the results are influ-
enced by initial experimental error arising fi'om the
immersion depth or the timing. In the sorptivity test,
since the cumulative increase in mass is measured, all the
data points are similarly affected resulting in an upward or
downward displacement of the entire data set to produce
an intercept on the y axis; the slope of the line, which
indicates the sorptivity, is unchanged. The intercept is
therefore a measure of the initial experimental error. The
initial rate of suction test, using only a single data point,
cannot compensate for this error. The sorptivity is there-
fore a more satisfactory measurement of capillary suction.
Measurement of the sorptivity only differs from that of
the initial suction rate in the number of data points
required. Thus the initial rate of suction test could be
improved upon with only minor changes to the experi-
mental procedure. Other suction tests (PAN 1, CPll.2)
in which several data points are collected could easily be
used to determine sorptivity values with no change to the
experimental procedure. However the data would have
to be checked to ensure the i(tl/2) plots were linear over
the time scale of these tests. Departure from linearity, as
is often seen in cementitious materials, would provide
evidence of other long-term effects.
The experimental results also show that the water
absorption (5 h boiling) test consistently results in sam-
ples attaining approximately 80 to 90% of vacuum satu-
ration. However there is some correlation between the
amount of water absorbed during both vacuum satura-
tion and boiling. Vacuum saturation can give a more
accurate measurement of a material's water porosity with
no increase in experimental time over the 5 h boiling
test.
T h e soaking tests are o f limited value, but the satura-
tion coefficient m a y be useful as an indicator o f stone
durability [26]. It must be emphasised that if soaking
measurements are to have any value for comparative pur-
poses the s p e c i m e n d i m e n s i o n s m u s t be defined p r e -
cisely, and comparisons only made between specimens
o f identical dimensions.
578
REFERENCES
[1] British Standards Institution. British Standard specification for
clay bricks. BS 3921, (1985).
[2] Pront, W. and Hoff, W. D., 'Durability of Building Materials and
Components', Proceedings of the 5th International Conference,
Brighton, (1990) 39-51.
[3] Gummerson, R. J., Hall, C. and Hoff, W. D., 'Capillary water
transport in masonry structures; building construction applica-
tions of Darcy's Law', ConstructionPapers I (1980) 17-27.
[4] Hall. C. and Kalimeris A. N., 'Water movement in porous build-
ing materials - V. Absorption and shedding of rain by building
surfaces', Bldg. Envir. 19 (1982) 13-20.
[5] Hall. C. and Kalimeris A. N., 'Rain absorption and runoff on
porous building surfaces', CanadianJournal of Civil Engineering 11
(1984) 108-111.
[6] British Standards Institution. Pre-cast concrete flags, kerbs, chan-
nels, edgings and quadrants. Part 1: Specification. BS 7263,
(1994).
[7] PAN 1: 'Testing methods for natural stones', in 'RILEM
Technical Recommendations for the Testing and Use of
Construction Materials', (E&FN Spon, London,1994).
[8] LUM A5: Initial rate of suction (IRS) of masonry units. Ibid.
[9] LUM A4: Water absorption and water porosity of masonry units.
Ibid.
[10] CPC 11.3. Absorption of water by immersion. Ibid.
[ 11] CPC 1i. 1: Absorption of water by concrete by immersion. Ibid.
[12] CPC 11.2: Absorption of water by concrete by capillarity. Ibid.
[13] Philip, J. R., 'Theory of infiltration', Advances in Hydroscience 5
(1969) 215-296.
[14] Gummerson, R.J., Hall, C. and Hoff, W. D., 'Water movement
in porous building materials - II. Hydraulic suction and sorptiv-
ity of brick and other masonry materials', Bldg. Envir. 15 (1980)
101-108.
[15] Hall, C., 'The water sorptivity of mortars and concretes: a
review', Mag. ConcreteRes. 41 (1989) 51-61.
[16] Hall, C., Hoff, W. D. and Skeldon, M., 'The sorptivity of brick:
dependence on initial water content', Journal of Physics D, Applied
Physics 16 (1983) 1875-1880.
[17] Hall, C. and Kam Ming Tse, T., 'Water movement in porous
building materials - VII. The sorptivity of mortars', Bldg. Envir.
21 (1986) 101-108.
[18] Gummerson, R.J., Hall, C. and Hoff, W. D., 'The suction rate
and sorptivity of brick', Transactions and Journal of the British
Ceramic Society 80 (1981) 150-152.
[19] Reinhardt, H. W. (Ed), 'Penetration and permeability of con-
crete. Barriers to organic and contaminating liquids', RILEM
Report 16, (E&FN Spon, London, 1998).
[20] Taylor, S. C., 'A study of the liquid transport properties of
cement-based materials', PhD Thesis, UMIST, (1998).
[21] Hall, C., Hoff, W. D., Taylor, S. C., Wilson, M. A., Beom-Gi
Yoon, Reinhardt, H. W., Sosoro, M., Meredith, P. and Donald,
A. M., 'Water anomaly in capillary absorption by cement-based
materials',Journal of Materials &ience Letters 14 (1995) 1178-1181.
[221 Prout, W. 'Studies of Frost Damage in Masonry', PhD Thesis,
UMIST, (1989).
[23] Washburn, E. W. and Footitt F. F., 'Porosity: III. Water as an
absorption liquid',Journal of the American Ceramic Society 4 (1921)
527-537.
[24] Peake, F. and Ford, R. W., 'A comparison of the vacuum and
boiling methods for measuring the water absorption of bricks',
Trans.J. Br. Ceram. Soc. 81 (1982) 160-162.
[25] Hall, C., Hoff, W. D. and Prout, W., 'Sorptivity - porosity rela-
tions in clay brick ceramic', American Ceramic Society Bulletin 71
(1992) 1112-1116.
[26] Building Research Establishment, 'Selecting natural building
stones', BRE Digest 420 (1997).
[27J Ross, K. D. and Butlin, R. N., 'Durability tests for building
stone', BILE Report BR141, Garston, (1989).