Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Manuscript
Manuscript
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271508259
CITATIONS READS
2 1,555
3 authors, including:
Sathiparan Navaratnarajah
University of Jaffna
66 PUBLICATIONS 113 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Sathiparan Navaratnarajah on 29 January 2015.
Anusari M.K.N.,
Samindika N.N.
Introduction
Masonry is the building of structures from individual units laid in and bound
together by mortar, and the term "masonry" can also refer to the units themselves.
Masonry, through its long history, is widespread used around the world and still
remains as a main building material in many places especially in developing
countries. Masonry is generally a highly durable form of construction. However,
the materials used, the quality of the mortar and workmanship, and the pattern the
units are put in can strongly affect the durability of the overall masonry
construction. The common materials of masonry construction are brick, stone
such as marble, granite, travertine, limestone; concrete block, glass block, and tile.
Nowadays, cement/concrete hollow blocks have an important place in the modern
building industry. Higher void cement hollow blocks offer the potential for energy
savings, decreased raw material usage and reduced environmental impact. These
advantages are related to the movement toward “green” building materials. Also
hollow cement block will need a low maintenance, and it has good fire resistance.
The air in hollow of the block, does not allow outside heat or cold in the house. So
it keeps house cool in summer and warm in winter and provide natural thermal
insulation. These cement hollow blocks are often used as substitutes for
conventional bricks in the construction of buildings, as these cement hollow
blocks are lighter and more economical.
In today’s construction, the majority of hollow blocks produced are used in
reinforced or unreinforced single Wythe structural walls. Hollow block for this
type of use generally ranges in size from 200 to 400 mm in nominal length and
100 to 200 mm in nominal thickness with void ratios in the 25 to 65 range.
However, ASTM standards [1] contain minimum requirements that assure
properties necessary for quality performance. These requirements include items
such as conformance to specified component materials, compressive strength,
permissible variations in dimensions, and finish and appearance criteria. Table 1
shows the final approved minimum face shell thickness and web thickness
reflected in ASTM C90-11b [1]. But, mostly in developing countries, when in
case of selecting a void area percentage used in cement hollow block,
manufactures only consider the cost and compressive strength of the block units.
The importance of masonry mortar joint bond strength has been emphasized by
several authors [2, 3], and therefore considering shear and flexural tensile
strengths of cement hollow masonry are desirable. Specially nowadays due to
several conditions like ground movements, heavy floods, wind effects etc., there
is a tendency to consider the compressive, flexural bending and shear strength of
masonry rather than considering only the compressive strength of masonry unit
itself. In addition to that, in buildings, vertical load is mainly taken by the column
- beam frame rather than masonry walls. So the importance of compressive
strength of masonry is reduced.
Experimental program
As stated, the objective of this work was to study how changes in the void area
and face shell thickness of the cement block impact the performance of a wall
system. Since workmanship plays such an important role in masonry construction,
construction variables were controlled as much as possible. In addition to solid
brick and cement block, four sets of cement block made with different void ratio
were studied in this comparison. The two void holes were square shape for these
blocks. Void areas of 16, 24, 33 and 44 % with face shells of 35, 30, 25 and 20
mm respectively, were tested. The physical dimensions of the test brick and
blocks are reported in Table 2. The specimens were named as “CB-V” in which V
is the width of the hollow square.
Fig. 1 Stress-strain relationship for the block and mortar under uniaxial compression
Test Conducted
Solid masonry blocks, having the size of 225mm×115mm×65mm, were cast and
tested under axial loading. For each void area ratio, three identical specimens
were tested at the age of 28 days using compression testing machine under a
displacement control rate of 0.3 mm/min. Average compressive strength, at each
case of the blocks, was determined by averaging three corresponding strength
measurements. The gross and net area strength characteristics of cement block
with different void ratios were compared with the brick compressive strength
value. Gross and net areas for hollow masonry block were calculated as shown in
the Fig. 2.
Fig. 2 Gross and net area of hollow cement block
The water absorption test was carried out to investigate the water absorption
property of cement block with different void ratio. Three samples of brick, cement
solid block and each case of cement hollow blocks were used for the water
absorption test. First, the samples were kept in an oven, for a period of 24 hours
and the dry weight of the blocks was measured (Wd). Then the same blocks were
immersed in water for a period of 24 hours and the wet weight of the blocks was
measured (Ws). Saturated water absorption (SWA) was calculated by the Eq. (1):
(Ws Wd )
SWA 100 (1)
Wd
Where, Ws is the weight of the specimen at fully saturated condition and Wd is the
weight of the oven-dried specimen. The porosity obtained from the absorption test
is designated as effective porosity. It is determined by using the Eq. (2);
Volume of voids
Porosity (2)
Bulk volume of Specimen
The volume of voids was obtained from the volume of water absorbed by
an oven dry specimen. The volume of specimen is given by the difference in mass
of the specimen in air and it’s mass under the submerged condition in the water.
Fig. 3 Layout of specimens used for direct compression, direct shear and flexural bending
Compressive strength
The average gross and net compressive strength of cement block with different
void ratio is shown in Table 3. As expected, both gross and net area compressive
strength were decreased with increase of void area. There is a 23 % reduction in
gross compressive strength as the void ratio increase from zero (solid) to 16%.
But, the gross area compressive strength was decreased rapidly by 45 and 48%,
when void increase from 16 to 24% and 24 to 33% respectively. When the void
area increase from 33 to 44%, compressive strength was a slightly reduced to 11%
drop. When void area equal to 24% of the total area, hollow cement block strength
almost equal to brick strength.
Table 3 Comparison of brick/cement block compressive strength
Cement block
Brick
CB-00 CB-45 CB-55 CB-65 CB-75
Void area (%) - 0 16 24 33 44
Gross area (cm2) 258.75
2
Net area (cm ) 258.75 258.75 218.25 198.25 174.25 146.25
Gross strength (MPa) 2.15 4.96 3.83 2.12 1.21 1.00
Net strength (MPa) 2.15 4.96 4.54 2.76 1.80 1.77
The masonry unit (brick or cement block) capacity to absorb water largely affects
the masonry strength. If the brick absorb too much water from the mortar mix,
then water would be inadequate for cement hydration. On the other hand, the
mechanism of bond between mortar and brick heavily relies on the brick capacity
to absorb some mortar water, which carries cementitious materials dissolved in it.
Therefore, a balance should be attained. The average water absorption rate is
shown in the Table 4.
Generally, all set of blocks exhibited same water absorption rate with
around 7 to 8%. From the results it is observed that the porosity value increases as
the percentage of void area increase. The porosity value at 0, 16, 24, 33 and 44 %
void ratio 13.7, 14.1, 14.0, 15.9 and 16.8% respectively, for cement block. When
comparing with brick, cement block shows higher porosity for all void ratios.
Fire Resistance
The prisms consisted of five bricks and four mortar joints and had a total height of
365 mm. Although the joints were intended to be 10mm thick, there was a
variation in the joint thickness, which resulted in some variation of the specimen
heights. The prisms were cured for a period of 28 days under moist burlap. The
specimen upper and lower faces were leveled with steel plate. The test was carried
out under displacement control at a rate of 0.3 mm/min. The gross and net
compressive strength was calculated using Eq. (4):
Ultimate load
Compressive strength (4)
( grooss or net ) area of bed face
Fig. 4 Compression test prism failure pattern of (a) Brick (b) Solid cement block (c)
Hollow cement block – void area ratio 0.24.
The gross and net area compressive strengths are summarized in Fig. 5.
The average masonry compressive strengths varied between 3.7 MPa to 1.18 Mpa.
There is a 50 % reduction in compressive strength as the void ratio increase from
zero (solid) to 16%. Although only an additional 18% reduction in strength as the
void ratio increase from 16% to 44%, it was noted that the compressive strength
of hollow cement block with 24% void less than brick compressive strength.
Masonry shear strength
The triplet shear test [6] was adopted for shear bond testing. The triplet shear tests
were performed whilst subjected to zero axial pre-compression loads. Three
prisms for each case were prepared to evaluate the shear strength of the masonry
units used in present testing program. The masonry prisms were aged for 28 days
prior to testing. The load was applied under displacement control at a rate of 0.15
mm/min and the peak load at failure was recorded. The direct shear strength was
calculated using Eq. (5):
(P W )
Shear Strength (5)
2A
where, P is the ultimate load, W is the weight of the cement block and A is the
area of the failure surface.
Fig. 6 Shear failure surface (a) Brick (b) Solid cement block and (c) hollow cement block
Almost the entire specimens experienced shear bond failures at block mortar
interface (Fig. 6), even though masonry prism investigated in this experimental
program were constructed using lime added mortar. The researchers [7, 8]
concluded that these failures mostly occurred when the brick/mortar interface
bond strength was lower than the mortar joint flexural strength. Therefore this
failure type was exhibited by almost all prisms that were constructed without bond
enhancement. Generally, bed joint shear strengths were influenced by the
brick/mortar interface bond characteristics instead of the mortar properties and
possibly related to the water absorption rate. Lime provides high water retention
that allows for maximum early curing of the cementitious materials and improves
the brick/mortar interface bond strength to hold the masonry units together.
The masonry shear strength of the different prism group at each void ratio
is shown in Fig. 7, with minimum of three specimens at void ratio. Results show
that the shear strength decreased with increasing void ratio, and there is a 40%
reduction in strength as the void ratio increases from solid to 44%. It was noted
that the shear strength of hollow cement block with higher void area still higher
than brick shear strength.
Three prisms were constructed for each type of test block. The test prisms
consisted of five bricks and four mortar joints. The masonry prisms were aged for
28 days prior to testing. To determine the flexural tensile strength, the masonry
prisms were loaded in the testing machine under three pin loading method. An
eccentric line load was uniformly applied to the middle brick of the prism, and the
peak load at failure was recorded. The test was carried out under displacement
control conditions at a rate of 0.15 mm/min.
As it can be seen from Fig. 8, failure modes occurred at the interface
between the block and none failed due to tension within the mortar. Previous
studies [9] indicate that flexural bond failure depends on the brick/mortar interface
bond strength as well as on the relative comparison between the brick and mortar
compressive strength.
Fig. 8 Flexural bending test specimen failure surface (a) Brick (b) Solid cement block
Conclusions
Nowadays, cement hollow blocks have an important place in the modern building
industry. Higher void cement hollow blocks offer the potential for energy savings,
decreased raw material usage and reduced environmental impact. These
advantages are related to the movement toward “green” building materials. Also
hollow cement block will need a low maintenance, and it is a good fire resistance.
ASTM standards contain minimum requirements that assure properties necessary
for quality performance. These requirements include items such as conformance
to specified component materials, compressive strength, permissible variations in
dimensions, and finish and appearance criteria.
In this paper, it is discusses the performance of hollow cement blocks
having different void area ratios, compared with brick performances, in water
absorption and compressive strength of individual blocks and compressive,
flexural tensile and shear strength of masonry prisms. Five sets of the comparison
block were evaluated to determine what effects, if any, increasing void area and
decreasing face shell thickness might have on some important aspects of wall
system performance. Summarized details of the gross area strength reduction were
shown in the Fig. 10.
Reference
1. ASTM standard C90 – 11b (2007) Standard Specification for Laboratory Concrete Units.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
2. Russell, A. (2010), “Characterisation and seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry
buildings”, Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
3. Venkatarama Reddy, B.V. and Gupta, A. (2006), “Tensile bond strength of soil cement
block masonry couplets using cement-soil mortars”, Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, 18(1), 36-45.
4. Specification for cement blocks: part 1: requirements SLS 855 (1989), Sri Lanka
Standards Institution, Colombo.
5. Fire-Resistance-Rated construction (2006), International Building code, International
Code Council.
6. Rilem., (1996), “MS-B.4 Determination of shear strength index for masonry unit/mortar
junction”, Materials and Structures, 29(8), 459-475.
7. Pavia, S., and Hanley, R., (2010), “Flexural bond strength of natural hydraulic lime
mortar and clay brick”, Materials and Structures 43(7), 913-922.
8. Sarangapani, G., Venkatarama Reddy, B.V. and Jagadish, K.S. (2005), “Brick-mortar
bond and masonry compressive strength”, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
17(2), 229-237.
9. Venu Madhava Rao, K., Venkatarama Reddy, B.V. and Jagadish, K.S. (1996), “Flexural
bond strength of masonry using various blocks and mortars”, Materials and Structures
29(2), 119-124.