Comparison of Traditional Brick Masonry and Dryfix Adhesive Masonry

Introduction: In modern construction, there is growing interest in solutions that enable faster, more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly building. Traditional masonry with thick cement-lime mortar requires large quantities of material and water, creates thermal bridges and burdens the environment. Methods: A hypothetical comparative analysis was carried out on the example of a single-family house (230 m² of walls) using identical ground Porotherm Profi bricks. Results: Traditional masonry consumed approximately 5.5 tonnes of mortar and 8,000 litres of water, and the process took 550 hours. Masonry with thin-bed mortar required 1 tonne of material and 250 hours of work.

Problem

Introduction: In modern construction, there is growing interest in solutions that enable faster, more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly building. Traditional masonry with thick cement-lime mortar requires large quantities of material and water, creates thermal bridges and burdens the environment. Dry masonry with ground bricks and Dryfix polyurethane adhesive promises a smaller carbon footprint and shorter construction time, but is still rare in practice.

Solution and Method

Methods: A hypothetical comparative analysis was carried out on the example of a single-family house (230 m² of walls) using identical ground Porotherm Profi bricks. Three systems were compared: traditional mortar, thin-bed mortar and Dryfix adhesive. Data from technical sheets and literature on material consumption, water, working time and thermal conductivity were used.

Labour costs were estimated at an hourly rate of 20 EUR/h.

Results

Results: Traditional masonry consumed approximately 5.5 tonnes of mortar and 8,000 litres of water, and the process took 550 hours. Masonry with thin-bed mortar required 1 tonne of material and 250 hours of work. The Dryfix system consumed only 46 cans of adhesive (< 100 kg), with no water use, and construction was completed in 160 hours.

Labour costs were highest with traditional mortar and lowest with the Dryfix system. The results clearly show that the choice of masonry technology significantly affects the consumption of materials, time and labour. Compared to traditional masonry, the use of thin-bed mortar reduced the quantity of binding material by more than 80% and almost halved the execution time.

Due to easier application and faster execution, labour costs were also lowest with this system. Based on the comparison, it can be concluded that modern masonry systems contribute to greater productivity, reduced resource consumption and improved economic efficiency of the construction process. Discussion: Dry masonry with Dryfix proved to be the fastest and most materially efficient.

Time savings exceed 50%, water consumption and CO₂ emissions are significantly reduced, as the cement industry contributes approximately 8% of global emissions. Thermal bridges are less pronounced, but the difference in U-value between thin-bed and dry methods is smaller than expected. Disadvantages of the Dryfix system are the higher cost of adhesive, the need for trained contractors and an underdeveloped legal framework, but it nevertheless remains a promising alternative to traditional methods.