STANDARDISATION OR NON-STANDARDISATION?

THE CASE OF BRICKWORK IN SRI LANKA

W.V.K.M. Abeysekera1 and A. Thorpe2

Standardisation seeks single best solutions to chaotic problems. However, these

solutions are essentially static. Moreover, unimplementable and inappropriate
standards undermine their general usefulness and raise doubts as to their efficacy
especially in an emerging future. Sri Lankan brickwork is characterised by irregular
sizes of bricks, brickwork joints and wall widths. These walls which are plastered on
both sides are mainly used as infills and partitions except for walls in single and two
storey buildings carrying light loads. Internationally, standard wall widths are
associated with standard brick sizes with a unique joint size of 10 mm. However, this
study shows that standard width walls may be built not necessarily of standard size
bricks with a standard joint size of 10 mm, but with an endless variety of brick and
joint sizes. This is made possible by varying the size of the wall joint and by a Sri
Lankan practice known as chapparu whereby the spaces created by the shortfall of
the length or the breadth of a brick is filled by mortar to make the wall surfaces flat
as a plate. As such, this study advocates a paradigm shift from the conventional focus
of the brick and the joint to the wall and its width. It proposes a methodology for
the standardisation of the wall width and decision rules for the non-standardisation
of the bed joint, concluding that both approaches are useful. Accordingly, this study
calls for a seed change in the mind set of construction managers who specify and
manage brickwork operations.

Keywords: Brick, brickwork, chaos, chapparu, complexity, consensus,

standardisation.

INTRODUCTION
Standardisation is widely believed to be a preferential approach to rationalised
building. It offers many advantages. For example, ... there is now a much wider
recognition of standards [the product of standardisation] as a means of
communicating ideas and technical data, in creating order out of disorder and
offering simplification in place of complexity (Sanders, 1972). Despite these
apparent advantages, there is also much criticism of these standards (Kaplinsky,
Schilderman; 1992). Furthermore, the fact that brickwork is an age old activity
reinforced by custom and practice rather than by a process of scientific explanation
(Abeysekera, 1997) one is inclined to raise questions on the adequacy of various
Standards related brickwork and to cast doubts on their validity in an emerging future.

1
E-mail: pahana@slt.lk; Pahana, 43c, Lauries Road, Colombo 4, Sri Lanka.
2
Professor of Construction Information Technology, Loughborough University, UK.
E-mail: A.Thorpe@lboro.ac.uk
Abeysekera, W V K M and Thorpe, A (1997) Standardisation or non-standardisation? The case of
brickwork in Sri Lanka. In: Stephenson, P (Ed.), 13th Annual ARCOM Conference, 15-17 September
1997, King's College, Cambridge. Association of Researchers in Construction Management, Vol. 1,
173-82.
Abeysekera and Thorpe

STANDARDS AND STANDARDISATION

Principles of Standardisation
A principle is a basic general truth that underlies a subject (Oxford Advanced
Learners Dictionary, 1989). In social sciences a principle (law being synonymous
with it) is defined as an universal generalisation of a classes of facts and are important
statements about what is so; they are spoken of as being discovered and not created;
they do not explain anything, instead they just summarise the way things are (Babbie,
1989). Some of the important principles of standardisation as quoted by Sanders
(1972) are indeed useful to understand the underlying truths about it:
Standardisation is an act of simplification.
It is a social as well as an economic activity. It should be
based on a general consensus.
Standardisation should result in implementable standards.
It should be reviewed at regular intervals.

OBJECTIVES OF STANDARDISATION
According to Sanders (1972) the principal objectives of standardisation (as defined by
the ISO committee for the Study of the Principles of Standardisation) are the
promotion of:
i.. overall economy in terms of human effort, materials, power etc.;
ii. the protection of consumer interest through adequate & consistent quality;
iii. safety, health and protection of life; and
iv. the promotion of expression and of communication amongst interested parties.
Thiard and Plau (1991) adds that objectives of standardisation should also include the
promotion of trade, domestic and international, by eliminating technical obstacles by
creating a common language. Whilst these objectives appear to persist, they claim
that the latter two objectives have assumed considerable importance in recent years,
especially in Europe, due to the target of single market, but also throughout the world,
due to international trade.
However, a cursory examination shows that these principles and objectives may take
different levels of importance depending on the main purpose of standardisation. For
example, where safety and health issues are at stake, it is seldom possible to adopt the
most economical solution. Furthermore, the greatest economy in labour may preclude
the greatest economy in materials, and vice-versa. Still further, the greatest economy
in design and manufacture may give rise to a product which is not the most
economical in terms of life cycle costs. Thus, it may be necessary to either prioritise
the objectives and/or have a compromise solution with all other objectives attaining an
optimum (especially when there is interdependency).

REACHING CONSENSUS
One of the main characteristics which needs to be elaborated relates to the
methodology adopted for reaching consensus when developing standards. This
consensus is usually obtained within working committees assembling the

174
 Standardisation or non-standardisation of brickwork in Sri Lanka?

representatives of all the interested parties. Thereafter the contents of the standards so
developed are subjected to the broadest possible public enquiry before it is published.
Reaching a consensus is by no means an easy task. In fact, many of the allegations
made on the inappropriateness of standards stem from a lack of attention to this very
important characteristic. For example, standards are claimed to be set by middle-or
high income policy makers often recognising the well-to-do only, and as such is
socially divisive. Standards are also considered to be unaffordable to the masses often
failing to reflect peoples priorities. Furthermore, standards which are imported are
considered not only to destroy local traditions but replace them with inappropriate
methods and materials, categorising local practices as sub-standard and illegal.
(Schilderman, 1992). Clearly, the development of suitable methodologies for reaching
consensus is an area which needs to be investigated in depth. As such, this aspect is
reviewed further in section 4.2.

STANDARDISATION AND BRICKWORK

BS 3921 of 1995 and Sri Lanka Standard (SLS) 39 of 1981 (i.e. standards for brunt
clay bricks) specify a non-modular single size of 215 x 102.5 x 65 mm and 220 x 105
x 65 mm respectively, with a joint size of 10 mm. Thus, standardisation relates not
only to the size of the brick but also to the size of the joints. Accordingly, a single
brick thick wall would have widths of 215 mm and 220 mm, respectively.
Examination of international, regional and national standards for burnt clay bricks
show that there is a wide disparity in their contents (Abeysekera, 1997). As such
reaching an universal agreement on detail specifications is far from reality.
Differences can be seen with respect to many areas including those related to, standard
sizes, number of preferred sizes (single or multiple), classification of types adopted,
and many more. However, a striking feature in almost all these standards is the
prescription of a standard joint size of 10 mm. Arguably, there is no reason why
all the joints should be of the same size, especially in plastered brickwork where
uniformity and consistency are of minor importance (Abeysekera, 1997).
Conventional brickwork has two main types of joints, viz. the bed-joint and the
perpend-joints. The latter may be classified further depending on whether they are
cross- joints or wall-joints. In single brick thick walls in English bond, the header
course has only cross-joints whilst the stretcher course has both types of joints, i.e.
cross-joints (perpendicular to the wall) and wall-joints (along the wall).
Currently, all these joints are standardised to 10 mm as mentioned before. The size of
the joint is useful for identifying the manufacturing size of the masonry unit (i.e. the
brick) when buildings are designed using a dimensional framework made up by
adding together multiples of a basic module. This form of co-ordination is known as
dimensional co-ordination. For example, if the size of this module is taken as 75
mm, the height of the brick would be 75-10 mm (i.e. 65 mm), the length could be 75
mm x 3 modules - 10 mm (i.e. 215 mm) and the width (215 mm - 10 mm)/2 (i.e. 102.5
mm). In fact, the current rule of four courses to 300 mm arise from such a co-
ordinated approach to design. This approach is of considerable importance where
uniformity and consistency in appearance is paramount - as in exposed brickwork.
However, buildings could also be designed without reference to such a dimensional
framework (DoE, 1978). For example, available bricks could be joined together to fit
an overall size of a building (or a wall) with comparative ease due to the dimensional
flexibility of the brick (Brunton, 1972). There is no need to standardise joints so that

175
Abeysekera and Thorpe

bricks fit into a dimensionally co-ordinated framework. For example, any differences
in line and level of brick courses for satisfying requirements connected with door and
window openings could simply be adjusted by changing the sizes of joints. ... It is
worthwhile to bear in mind that dimensional co-ordination is not an end in itself, but a
means to [a] better and more efficient building. The possible costs of imposing
dimensional restraints should be offset against the likely benefits, and the disciplines
only imposed where there are clear overall benefits in doing so. (Forbes, 1971). Thus
for brickwork which is plastered on both sides, carrying light loads, where appearance
and consistency is of minor importance, the requirements imposed by dimensional co-
ordination could be traded-off with other time/cost advantages. (See section 4.3.)

THE CASE OF SRI LANKAN BRICKWORK

Building with burnt clay bricks is part of Sri Lankas engineering culture. To date,
bricks produced by the islands cottage industry have remained the principal building
element in the construction of walls. These walls, plastered on both sides, are used
mainly as infills or partitions in reinforced concrete buildings except for walls in
single storey and two storey buildings carrying light loads.
Neither bricks nor walls in Sri Lanka confirm with standard sizes and vary widely.
Brickwork joints too vary, with significant departures from the norms of other
organised construction industries. These variations result in many problems in what
can be described as a disordered or chaotic environment. Despite these shortcomings
there is a ready demand for hand made burnt clay bricks which are one third to one
fourth the price of machine made bricks.
Currently, many different sizes of bricks are being produced in Sri Lanka with much
irregularity and diversity. Despite on-going efforts (notwithstanding the efforts made
in the past), the status-quo prevails. The SL Standard first published in 1965 and
modelled on lines similar to the BS has ceased to be of any regulatory value in this
environment. Like the BS, the SLS specifies only one standard size and has
unsuccessfully attempted to over simplify this diversity by limiting to one standard
size. Oversimplification leads to inefficiency! In contrast, this approach of
simplification has been successful in the UK - largely due to the mechanised process
of manufacture, the recognition of non-standard sizes (as given in BS 4729), and the
use of bricks in exposed brickwork. This is in sharp contrast to the situation in Sri
Lanka where bricks are produced mainly by a cottage industry using timber moulds
which can literally be changed overnight, the non-recognition of non-standard sizes,
and the use of bricks in plastered brickwork. Clearly, there is a need to take account of
local practices and procedures when localising international standards.
The failure of the standardisation approach in Sri Lanka is not necessarily due to the
adoption of an unimplementable standard, but also due to many other reasons;
production problems of brick producers, lack of knowledge on basic facts on bricks,
vested interests of transporters, inadequate response of related institutions, and poor
attitudes of industry professionals are amongst the factors that has contributed to this
chaos (Abeysekera, 1997).
Yet, many would perceive that the only solution to this problem is standardisation.
No doubt, as explained in section 2.0 it has its advantages in bringing order to this
disorderly state and reduce the complexity of dealing with many variations in brick
and joint sizes. Not surprisingly, these variations manifest in many management
related problems, from design to construction, to the extent that industry appears to be

176
 Standardisation or non-standardisation of brickwork in Sri Lanka?

lost in finding directions through this chaos; use of inappropriate norms for
estimating, inadequate control of brick and joint sizes, lack of compliance with
technical specifications, drawings, Bill of Quantities and the like are symptoms of this
problem.
However, despite the apparent advantages, the standardisation approach of
focusing on the brick and the joint has failed to take root in Sri Lanka - an
approach which rests largely on reaching consensus on many issues (related to bricks)
with interested parties diverse in nature. This is not an easy task as mentioned before;
it needs the involvement of producers, transporters, architects, engineers, contractors,
related institutions, grass root organisations and many more. Could they come
together in resolving this chaos and reach consensus? Are there other ways in which
to cope with this chaos?

SHIFTING FOCUS
Widths of single brick thick walls in Sri Lanka vary widely (Abeysekera, 1997).
Analysis of data from 59 building construction sites revealed a positively skewed
distribution (with mean 203.5 mm; std. dev. 15.3 mm; mode interval 190-200 mm;
and range 179.4 - 235 mm). A field survey on practices adopted by bricklayers for
establishing these wall widths revealed 14 different practices. Conventionally, there is
only one way to fix the wall width. For example, in the case of a single brick thick
wall, the wall width is fixed by the length of the brick. But, this is not the case in Sri
Lanka!
The reason for this is largely due to an ingenious indigenous practice of resorting to
what is commonly known in Sri Lanka as chapparu - a strategy for coping with the
irregularity of non-standard bricks. There are three of types of chapparu in all as
shown in Fig. 1. The walls so built appear flat as a plate on both sides. The
procedure adopted for building a chapparu wall is to first fix the wall width (as
required) by adjusting the bricks in the stretcher course (s/c). Thereafter, the bricks on
the header course (h/c) are laid (with or without plumbing and stringing as
appropriate) and then filling the gap created by the shortfall in the length of brick (as
compared with the wall width) with mortar. (See h/c in Fig. 1.) This is usually
attended to after laying the next s/c, similar to the manner in which wall plaster is
applied. Thus, it is possible to construct walls of varying widths by adjusting the size
of the chapparu (with a corresponding adjustment of the size of the wall joint in the
s/c). Similarly, a wall of a given width may be constructed not necessarily out of few
discrete sizes of bricks and a standard joint size, but with a variety of bricks and joint
sizes. In other words, chapparu is an effective strategy for coping with irregular
brick sizes.

177
Abeysekera and Thorpe

A B
Chapparu on both sides Chapparu on side B Chapparu alternating on both sides
Type 1 (No plumbing & stringing in h/c) Type 2 Type 3
Fig. 1: Elevation of a single brick thick wall in English bond with Chapparu
The wall width is an important parameter from many angles and under no
circumstances should it be allowed to vary arbitrarily (as seen often in Sri Lanka).
This situation has risen as a result of the focus being on the brick often, the
irregularity of the brick size being blamed for the wide variation in wall widths.
Moreover, this variation has also resulted in a wide variation in the sizes of
accompanying columns and beams which are adjusted/ matched to suit the wall width.
This should not be the case, and is unnecessary, as a given wall width can be built
with many different sizes of bricks (utilising chapparu). In fact, investigations have
shown that the chapparu can be as large as 37.5 mm. This suggests that the width of
a single brick thick wall can vary from 2B to 2B+375. mm (where B is the breadth of
the brick). Hence, it is absolutely essential to shift the focus to the wall and the wall
width rather than to the brick and the joint as the wall is the end product the
industry is interested in.
This is a pragmatic shift considering the fact this approach focuses on a process which
is carried out at the site (i.e. building a wall) rather than on a process which goes on at
a distant locality (i.e. brick manufacturing). But, how could a degree of order be
brought about to the wide variation in the wall width? How could consensus be
reached given the fact that walls with many different widths could be constructed
with a given brick size?

A METHODOLOGY FOR STANDARDISING WALL WIDTH

International Standards on bricks reveal that there is a wide range of standard wall
widths (see Table 1). It can be shown that amongst the factors that affect this choice,
only strength and dimensional co-ordination are of any importance to a tropical
country like Sri Lanka. However, for the types of walls used (as for example, walls
which carry light loads and which are plastered on both sides) neither strength nor
dimensional co-ordination is of much importance as discussed in sections 3.0 and 4.0.
In Sri Lanka, blockwork is the closest competitor to brickwork. As such , it is useful
to examine the preferred wall widths of brick/block walls as prescribed in various
standards:

178
 Standardisation or non-standardisation of brickwork in Sri Lanka?

Table 1:
A comparison of standard wall widths of brickwork and blockwork

Width 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Blocks* 75 100 115 125 140 150 175 190 200 215 220 225 250 -
Bricks Half brick thick walls Single brick thick walls
90 102.5 110 - 140 - 180 190 - 215 220 230 240 290
* Based on SLS 855: Part 1
Clearly, industries the world over have demanded various widths - a demand for
greater variability in wall widths. Should widths of brick walls and block walls be
different? Of the 14 sizes listed above in Table 1, only four match; There is no logic in
such differentiation and arguably, these widths must be matched. Such a process may
then be referred to as cross-standardisation. It assists in rationalising industry
processes and importantly promotes competition between two principal types of
walling in Sri Lanka (i.e. brickwork and cement blockwork):
What should be done therefore is to narrow down the matching sizes to a demanded
range (as given in section 4.1). This yields a set of values of 190, 200, 215 and 220
mm, to be used as preferred widths of single brick thick walls. Of the 14 practices
quoted by bricklayers, four related to setting of wall widths to 7 1/2, 8. 8 1/2 and
9. Converting these to SI units give values of 190.5 mm, 203.2 mm; 215.9 mm, and
228.6 mm. These values match closely with the values in the selected set except for
the disparity in the 220 and 228.6 mm values, which aspect is resolved as discussed
next.
A somewhat baffling local practice relates to the adoption of a wall width of 225 (or
9). In a survey of 44 consulting engineers (comprising 32 chartered engineers) only
one specified correctly the standard width of a single brick thick wall (i.e. 220 mm
with SLS bricks). Of the balance 43, nine quoted 225 mm whilst 32 quoted 9" when it
should have been 215 mm (with BS bricks) or 220 mm (with SLS bricks). These
results confirm a strong entrenchment of a misconceived practice. Why is it
misconceived? The reason for this can be traced back to the nine inch brick used
during the colonial period of British rule. It was customary then to identify a single
brick thick wall as a nine inch wall to suit a 9 inch long brick. In the modern context,
this is really a misnomer as the standard length of a brick size is less than this. This
practice has continued to date with reinforced concrete columns and beams designed
with dimensions to match 225 mm. However, to give heed to this local practice it is
not necessary for the brick to be 225 mm long as a brick which is 215 mm can be used
with a chapparu of 10 mm to obtain a 225 mm wall width. Thus, this size (i.e. 225
mm) could be incorporated into the set of values of already selected by giving heed to
a strong local design practice, giving a set of values with 190, 200, 215 and 225 mm.
The foregoing discussion provides a methodology for arriving at a choice of a set of
wall widths which has the potential for meeting industry consensus with the five
features of rationalisation, competitiveness, demanded range compliance,
bricklayers familiarity and local design practice. In effect the continuous
distribution of the wall width could now be reduced to a discrete distribution in order
to bring a degree of order or simplification to the wall width (see principles 1 and 2
in section 2.0). However, is there a need to adopt such an approach with respect to the
bed joint as well?

179
Abeysekera and Thorpe

THE RATIONALE FOR THE NON-STANDARDISATION OF BED

JOINT
Of all the joints in brickwork, the mortar in the bed joint accounts for the largest
portion of mortar; the proportion of bed mortar in a 215 mm wall with BS bricks and
a 10 mm bed joint accounts for about 2/3rds of the total volume of mortar. Thus, the
bed joint is an important joint from the point of view of mortar consumption. As
brickwork is made up of bricks and mortar, manipulation of the bed joint could
provide an effective strategy for cost effectiveness.
Similar to the wall width, the bed joint too varies widely. Analysis of data from 59
construction sites revealed a variation of 6.02 - 25.49 mm with a mode interval of 14-
20 mm. The mean was 17.11 mm with a std. dev. of 3.67 mm. Examining reasons for
this variation it was found that ease of construction provides a good explanation for
it. (This lays the foundation for a theory on brickwork). Four categories of
bricklayers were identified; all bricklayers did not share a common view on the size of
bed joint which was most convenient. Instead they differed with a central tendency
similar in shape with a normal distribution. Category 1 preferred small joints, whilst
category 2 preferred large joints. Though category 3 preferred a joint size which was
neither too small nor too large, category 4 failed to differentiate. The implication to
practice is that, if it is necessary to adopt either a small or a large joint, then it would
be necessary to exercise control. Interviews with bricklayers also revealed that
reference to small and large joints referred to sizes of 12.7 mm (i.e. 1/2) and 25.4
mm (1) respectively.
Studies have shown that when the bed joint size increases the hourly output increases
as well (Abeysekera and Thorpe, 1997a). It should be noted that this conclusion has
been made with respect to the Sri Lankan method bricklaying. However, if brickwork
is sub-contracted to labour only trade contractors who do not differentiate rates based
on joint size (Munasinghe, 1996), no direct cost advantages could be expected. A
change in the bed joint size affects the bricks to mortar ratio and as such has an impact
on costs. Arguably, if the cost density (i.e. cost per unit volume) of brick is greater
than the cost density of mortar, the cost of construction can be reduced by using a
greater proportion of mortar. One method of achieving this is to increase the size of
the bed joint. The reverse is true if the cost density of brick is cheaper than that of
mortar. It could be shown that if cost polarity (i.e. cost density of bricks to mortar) is
outside the range 0.85 - 1.2 savings not less than 5% can be achieved by changing the
bricks to mortar ratio from 5 to 1. For example, with a cost polarity of 2, a saving as
much as 18.2% can be achieved (Abeysekera and Thorpe, 1997b). This cost feature of
brickwork has been referred to as its universality by Abeysekera (1997) which holds
true in any part of the world, either currently or in the future.
Interestingly, it can also be shown that if the cost polarity lies within the range 0.85 -
1.2, no significant cost advantage could be had by controlling the bed joint size though
hourly output of brickwork could be increased by increasing the bed joint. Therefore,
it can be concluded that by fixing the bed joint size, opportunities for cost/time
optimisation may be lost due to variations in cost polarity. What is advocated then is
to take a dynamic approach to the bed joint size by taking into account of contextual
conditions and the emerging nature of the future environment within which decisions
have to be made. Paradoxically, this non-standardisation approach, complies with
some of the more important principles and objectives of standardisation outlined in
section 2.0 (i.e. economy in costs and human effort).

180
 Standardisation or non-standardisation of brickwork in Sri Lanka?

CONCLUSIONS
This study raised the question whether the standardisation or the non-
standardisation approach is useful for chaotic problems in industry. Paradoxically,
both approaches are useful. Accordingly, this study calls for a seed change in the mind
set of construction managers who specify and manage brickwork operations.
Brickwork in Sri Lanka is plastered on both sides. They carry light loads and are often
non-load bearing. Irregular sizes of bricks and brickwork joints are used with widely
varying wall widths. The walls so built appear flat as a plate on both sides mainly
due to an ingenious indigenous practice of using chapparu.
The standardisation approach is similar to the single best solution to problems - an
approach essentially static. Accordingly, this study finds favour in it for rationalising
wall widths. Nevertheless, it condemns it for standardising the size of the bed joint in
favour of a dynamic approach to bed joint size for especially in an emerging future.
The standardisation approach is embodied with principles such as consensus,
simplification, economy, implementability, and the like as explained. However, there
is a need to develop suitable methodologies for reaching consensus. Accordingly, the
wall widths were standardised by a specific methodology with the potential of
reaching industry consensus. It simplified the diversity in wall widths. Arguably, this
process leads to a scheme which is implementable.
Strangely, the non-standardisation approach is not necessarily devoid of the afore-
mentioned principles. For example, the approach recommended for dealing with the
bed joint embodies the principle of economy in costs and human effort. However,
one may argue that many different bed joint sizes lead to complexity. This is not
true. The discovery of universality in brickwork costs makes this apparent
complexity rather simplistic.

REFERENCES
Abeysekera, W.V.K.M. (1997) A strategy for managing brickwork in Sri Lanka, A Ph.D.
Thesis, Dept. of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, UK.
Abeysekera W.V.K.M. and Thorpe, A. (1997a) Optimising brickwork costs in a chaotic and
complex environment, Annual Transactions, Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka,
September. (To be published.).
Abeysekera W.V.K.M. and Thorpe, A. (1997b) Productivity characteristics of chapparu
brickwork via a scenario-simulation approach. (To be published).
Babie, E. (1989) The practice of social research, Fourth Edition, California: Wadsworth
Publishing Co.
British Standards Institution (1995) BS3921 British standard specification for clay bricks.
British Standards Institution (1990) BS4729 British standard specifications for dimensions of
bricks of special shapes and sizes.
Brunton, J. (1972) Dilemma of the brick, Building, 24 March 1972.
Cowie, A.P. ed. (1989) Oxford advanced learners dictionary of current english, 4th ed.,
Oxford University Press.
Department of the Environment (1978) An introduction to dimensional co-ordination.
London: Her Majestys Stationery Office.

181
Abeysekera and Thorpe

Forbes, W.S. (1971) Dimensional disciplines and the output of bricklayers: a case study,
Building, 27 August.
Kaplinsky, R. (1992) Whose standards are appropriate?. Appropriate Technology, 19(1), June
1992.
Munasinghe, K.A. (1996) Procedures adopted by labour sub-contractors for estimating rates
for masonry works. A M. Tech. Thesis, Construction Management Programme, Open
University of Sri Lanka, 1996.
Schilderman, T. (1992) Housing standards: can they be made appropriate?, Appropriate
Technology, 19(1), June 1992.
Thiard, A. and Plau, W.F. (1991) Research and development and standardization: a guide,
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, ECSC-
EEC-EAEC.
Sanders, T.R.B. (1972) The aims and principles of standardisation, International Standards
Organisation.
Sri Lanka Standards Institution, SLS 39 (1981) Specification for common burnt clay building
bricks.
Sri Lanka Standards Institution, SLS 855 (1989) Specification for cement blocks.

182