Enhancing Bond Strength and Characteristics of

Soil-Cement Block Masonry

B. V. Venkatarama Reddy1; Richardson Lal2; and K. S. Nanjunda Rao3

Abstract: Soil-cement blocks are used for the load bearing masonry of 2–3-story buildings. Flexural and shear strength of such walls
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

greatly depend upon the bond strength between the block and the mortar. This paper deals with the methods of improving the shear-bond
strength of soil-cement block masonry 共without altering the mortar characteristics兲 and the influence of shear-bond strength on masonry
compressive strength. Altering the texture of bed faces of the block, size and area of the frog, and certain surface coatings have been
attempted to enhance the shear-bond strength. The results indicate that: 共1兲 rough textured bed face of the blocks yields higher shear-bond
strength than the plain surface; 共2兲 use of fresh cement-slurry coating on the bed faces improves the shear-bond strength considerably; 共3兲
no significant changes are noticed in the compressive strength and stress-strain characteristics of soil-cement block masonry due to
changes in shear-bond strength; and 共4兲 masonry has a higher straining capacity than that of the block and the mortar.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0899-1561共2007兲19:2共164兲
CE Database subject headings: Soil cements; Masonry; Bonding strength; Blocks; Stress strain relations; Mortars.

Introduction
A perfect bond between the masonry unit and the mortar is essen-
tial for the masonry to perform satisfactorily. Bond strength be-
comes significantly important when the masonry is subjected to
in-plane and out-of-plane bending. Development of bond between
the masonry unit and the mortar is controlled by a large number
of parameters pertaining to masonry units, mortar, and construc-
tion practices. Groot 共1993兲 lists a matrix of parameters relating
to the masonry unit characteristics, mortar characteristics, and
bond morphology influencing interfacial brick-mortar bond devel-
opment. Characteristics of bedding surfaces of bricks or blocks
共surface texture, pore size, pore size distribution, etc.兲, absorption
characteristics, moisture content of the unit at the time of con-
struction, etc., play a major role in the development of bond
strength between the masonry unit and the mortar. Brick-mortar
bond development is generally attributed to the mechanical inter-
locking of products of cement hydration into the surface pores of
the bricks 共Grandet et al. 1972; Lawrence and Cao 1987, 1988;
Groot 1993兲. Binda and Baronio 共1988兲 mention that there is a
contribution from a pozzolanic reaction between the burnt clay
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore 560012, India 共corresponding author兲. E-mail:
venkat@civil.iisc.erent.in
2
Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore 560012, India. E-mail: lalrichardson@hotmail.com
3
Principal Research Scientist, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian
Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India. E-mail: ksn@civil.
iisc.ernet.in
Note. Associate Editor: Kiang Hwee Tan. Discussion open until July
1, 2007. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted
for review and possible publication on June 1, 2005; approved on August
30, 2005. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil Engi-
neering, Vol. 19, No. 2, February 1, 2007. ©ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/
2007/2-164–172/$25.00.
brick surface and the lime, to the bond development when rich
lime mortars are used.
Soil-cement blocks also known as compressed earth blocks or
stabilized mud blocks have been used for load bearing masonry
buildings in India and many other countries 共Fitzmaurice 1958;
UN 1964; Theunissen 1985; Jagadish 1988; Houben and Guillaud
1994; Walker et al. 2000兲. Fig. 1 shows a typical two-story soil-
cement block masonry building in India. More information on the
characteristics of soil-cement blocks can be found in the investi-
gations of Lunt 共1980兲, Olivier and Mesbah 共1987兲, Heathcote
共1991兲, Venkatarama Reddy and Jagadish 共1995兲, Walker and
Stace 共1997兲, Walker 共2004兲, Gupta 共2003兲, Venkatarama Reddy
and Gupta 共2005b兲, Venkatarama Reddy and Walker 共2005兲, Ven-
katarama Reddy and Gupta 共2006兲, and many others. There are
limited studies in understanding the influence of surface charac-
teristics of soil-cement blocks on the bond strength of block-
mortar interface. Hence, the present study is focused on the meth-
ods of improving the shear-bond strength of soil-cement block-
mortar interface and the influence of shear-bond strength on
masonry compressive strength.
Earlier Studies on Bond Strength of Masonry and
the Scope of This Study
A number of investigations addressing various aspects of the bond
development between the masonry unit and the mortar can be
found in the literature. Most of these investigations pertain to the
bond strength of fired clay bricks using cement and cement-lime
mortars. There are limited studies on the bond strength of soil-
cement block masonry. The results of some of these studies are
summarized in the following.
The surface texture of brick is a major factor controlling the
brick-mortar bond. Groot 共1993兲 reports some of the earlier stud-
ies done on the influence of the surface texture of bricks on bond
strength. These studies show that rough surface texture gives bet-
ter bond strength than smooth surfaces. Ground surfaces 共sanded兲
of bricks can reduce the brick-mortar bond strength 共BIA 1989兲.

164 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007.19:164-172.


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Typical two story load bearing soil-cement block masonry
building
The study by Sarangapani et al. 共2005兲 shows that increasing the
frog area on the brick surface leads to improved bond strength.
The study of Grandet et al. 共1972兲 throws light on the micro-
structure changes at the interface of cement paste and the brick.
They observe that the pore size on the brick surface influences the
bond development and the pore size should be greater than
0.05 ␮m for bond development. Generally, coarser pores give
better bond strength and bond development is due to the mechani-
cal interlocking of hydrated cement products into the pores of the
brick. Lawrence and Cao 共1987兲 examined the brick-mortar inter-
face bond strength and attempted to understand the mechanism of
bond development using fired clay bricks with cement paste and
cement-lime paste. They observed that the network of cement
hydration products deposited on the brick surface and inside the
brick pores helps in brick-mortar bond formation. They have con-
cluded that the brick-mortar bond is essentially mechanical in
nature as there is movement and penetration of hydration products
into the pores of the brick.
A study conducted by Sinha 共1967兲 showed that the highest
tensile bond strength is achieved when the bricks are saturated to
approximately 80% at the time of construction, whereas use of
dry and completely saturated bricks lead to poor bond strength.
He also found that there is large scatter in the experimental re-
sults. Tests by Lawrence and Cao 共1988兲 reveal that the bond
strength decreased as the initial water content 共during construc-
tion兲 of the brick increased. Venu Madhava Rao et al. 共1996兲
carried out studies on flexural bond strength of masonry using
fired clay bricks and soil-cement blocks with cement mortar,
cement-soil mortar, and cement-lime mortar. The major observa-
tions of this study are: 共1兲 fllexure bond strength increases with
the increase in cement content in the case of pure cement mortars
irrespective of masonry unit type; 共2兲 composite mortars like
cement-soil and cement-lime mortars show better bond strength
as compared to pure cement mortars; 共3兲 masonry units with
wider and deeper frogs give higher flexural bond strength; and 共4兲
partially saturated 共⬃75% 兲 units yield maximum bond strength.
Walker 共1999兲 examined the flexural bond strength of soil-
cement block masonry. His major observations are: 共1兲 for weaker
soil-cement blocks, bond strength using cement-soil mortars with
10% cement is generally higher than that attained with cement-
lime mortar; 共2兲 in the case of cement-soil mortars, the bond
strength is closely related to the clay content of the mortar mix, as
the clay content of the mix increases the flexural bond strength
decreases; and 共3兲 the block moisture content at the time of con-
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007 / 165
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007.19:164-172.
struction is the most important factor on resultant bond strength.
Venkatarama Reddy and Gupta 共2006兲 examined the influence of
various parameters affecting the tensile bond strength of soil-
cement block masonry by testing couplets. They have concluded
that the tensile bond strength is sensitive to the initial moisture
content of the block, partially saturated blocks give higher bond
strength and cement-soil mortar leads to better bond strength
when compared to cement mortar and cement-lime
mortar.
Some of the major conclusions from the earlier studies on
bond strength of masonry are:
1. The bond development between the masonry unit and the
mortar is purely mechanical in nature.
2. Composite mortars like cement-soil mortar and cement-lime
mortar lead to a higher bond strength as compared to pure
cement mortars.
3. Moisture content of the masonry unit at the time of laying is
the most important factor influencing the bond development.
The optimum moisture content of the masonry unit is ap-
proximately 75% of the saturation value. Dry or fully satu-
rated blocks result in poor bond strength.
4. For cement-soil mortars, the bond strength is a function of
clay and cement content of the mortar mix.
Earlier investigations indicate that there are limited studies on
bond strength of soil-cement block masonry. Bond development
between the soil-cement block and the mortar is not investigated
in greater detail. In this study, an attempt has been made to ex-
plore different methods of enhancing the shear-bond strength.
Generally, cement-soil mortars are used for the construction of
soil-cement block masonry 共Mukerji 1994; Houben and Guillaud
1994; Walker and Stace 1997; Walker 1999, 2004; Venkatarama
Reddy and Gupta 2005a兲. The shear-bond strength was deter-
mined using cement-soil mortar and cement-lime mortar with one
type of soil-cement block. Apart from altering the surface charac-
teristics of the block, size, and shape of the frog, certain surface
coatings like cement slurry and epoxy coatings have also been
explored to enhance the shear-bond strength. Influence of shear-
bond strength on compressive strength and stress-strain relation-
ships of soil-cement block masonry have also been examined.
Materials Used in the Investigation
Details of the soil, sand, reconstituted soil, cement, and lime used
for the manufacture of soil-cement blocks and preparation of the
mortar are given in the following.
Soil
A locally available red loamy soil 共designated as RS兲 is used for
the manufacture of soil-cement blocks and for the cement-soil
mortar. Grain size distribution curve for the soil is shown in Fig.
2. Various properties of the soil are given in Table 1. The soil
共RS兲 contains 30.4% clay fraction 共predominantly kaolinite兲. The
liquid limit and plasticity index of the soil are 40% and 21, re-
spectively. The soil belongs to class SC in the USC classification
system. The pH and organic matter of the soil are 7.3 and 0.46%,
respectively.
Sand
Natural river sand 共designated as S兲 is used for the preparation of
mortars and reconstituting the soil for soil-cement block produc-
 Table 2. Details of Mortar Proportion
Proportion 共by volume兲 Water-
Type of Designation Flow cement
mortar Cement Lime Soil Sand of mortar 共%兲 ratio
Cement-soil 1 0 2 5 CSM 100 1.85
mortar
Cement-lime 1 1 0 6 CLM 100 1.87
mortar

0.19%, respectively. Generally, 6–10% cement is used for the

manufacture of soil-cement blocks depending upon the strength
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

requirement. Hence, the RS1 soil mixed with 8% Portland cement

Fig. 2. Particle size distribution curves for sand, soil, and
reconstituted soil
tion. Grain size distribution curve for the sand is shown in Fig. 2.
Properties of the sand are given in Table 1. Fineness modulus of
the sand is 3.1.
共by weight兲 was used for the manufacture of soil-cement blocks
共of size: 305⫻ 143⫻ 100 mm兲 using a fixed stroke length manu-
ally operated machine. Density of the block significantly affects
the strength and other characteristics of the soil-cement block.
Hence, dry density of the block was controlled by resorting to
weigh batching during the production and is maintained at
18 kN/ m3, such that the interference of block density on strength
and other characteristics of the block and masonry are avoided.

Cement and Lime

Mortars
Ordinary Portland cement conforming to Indian Standards code
共1989兲 was used for the manufacture of blocks as well as for the Two types of mortars viz. cement-soil mortar 共CSM兲 and cement-
mortars. Locally available commercial grade calcium hydroxide lime mortar 共CLM兲 were used for determining various character-
was used for cement-lime mortar. istics of soil-cement block masonry. Table 2 gives the details of
proportion, mortar designation, flow value, and water-cement
ratio for these two mortars. Natural soil 共RS兲 and river sand 共S兲
Soil-Cement Blocks were used for the mortar preparation. Properties of mortars
Earlier studies 共cited in the previous sections兲 suggest that the greatly depend upon the water content or water-cement ratio of
clay fraction of the soil-sand mixture should be in the range of the mix. Workability of the mortar can be quantified by conduct-
12–16% for better strength and durability characteristics of soil- ing flow table tests. Flow values 关determined as per BS:4551
cement blocks. The natural soil 共RS兲 used for the block produc- guidelines 共BSI 1980兲兴 of fresh cement-soil mortars used for the
tion contains 30.4% clay fraction and hence this soil was diluted soil-cement block masonry in the field were measured by Gupta
with river sand 共S兲 in the ratio of 5 soil: 7 sand 共by weight兲 thus 共2003兲 and he has reported an average flow value of approxi-
the resulting mixture contains 12.7% clay. Grain size distribution mately 100%. Hence, the flow of mortar while casting the ma-
curve for the reconstituted soil 共RS1兲 is shown in Fig. 2. Proper- sonry triplet and prism specimens is kept at 100%. To achieve
ties of the RS1 soil are given in Table 1. The liquid limit and 100% flow the water-cement ratio required was 1.85 and 1.87 for
plasticity index of the reconstituted soil are 36.3% and 16.1, re- CSM and CLM mortars, respectively.
spectively. The soil belongs to class SC in USC classification
system. The pH and organic matter of the RS1 soil are 7.18 and
Procedure for Obtaining Different Surface Texture
and Frogs on the Soil-Cement Block Surface
Table 1. Properties of Soil, Sand, and Reconstituted Soil
Various techniques were attempted to improve the shear-bond
Type of soil/sand strength of block-mortar interface. Characteristics of bedding sur-
faces of brick/block 共like pore size/pore size distribution and
Properties RS S RS1
porosity兲 play a crucial role in controlling the interlocking of
1. Textural composition 共%兲 hydration products into the brick/block pores. It is easy to alter
Sand 共4.75– 0.075 mm兲 49.3 99.9 78.8 the surface texture of the soil-cement block and also, altering frog
Silt 共0.075– 0.002 mm兲 20.3 0.1 8.5 shape and size. Two major steps followed in the soil-cement
Clay 共⬍0.002 mm兲 30.4 0 12.7 block production process are: 共1兲 filling the metal mold with the
2. Atterberg limits requisite quantity of soil-cement mixture 共at optimum moisture
Liquid limit 共%兲 40.0 — 36.3 content兲; 共b兲 compacting into a dense block through a piston
Plastic limit 共%兲 19.0 NP 20.2 movement. These two operations are illustrated schematically in
Plasticity index 21.0 — 16.1 Fig. 3. Top and bottom surfaces of the block 共during the compac-
3. USC classification SC SW SC tion process兲 are in contact with the surfaces of the lid and the
4. Predominant clay minerals Kaolinite — Kaolinite
bottom plate 关Fig. 3共b兲兴. The following types of blocks can be
obtained during the block compaction process.
5. Chemical properties
1. When the lid and the bottom plate surfaces are plain, the
pH 7.30 7.10 7.18
soil-cement block will have plain surfaces at the top and
Organic matter 共%兲 0.46 Nil 0.19
bottom 共bed faces兲 共shown in Fig. 5兲.

166 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007.19:164-172.

 Fig. 3. Soil-cement block production: 共a兲 mold filled with requisite
quantity of soil-cement mixture; 共b兲 compacting the mixture into
dense block
2. Welding a protruded mild steel piece on the top of bottom
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
plate and lower face of the lid gives a soil-cement block with
top and bottom surfaces having frogs 共shown in Fig. 5兲. The
size and number of frogs can be easily varied by varying the
size and number of protruded mild steel pieces. Thus two
different types of frog surfaces were generated.
3. Rough surface texture for the top and bottom surfaces of the
soil-cement block can be obtained by adopting the following
process.
• First fill the mold by pouring a layer 共⬃6 mm兲 of gravel-
cement mixture into the mold 关Fig. 4共a兲兴.
• Now pour the soil-cement mixture 共at OMC兲 into the
mold such that there is still a gap of 6 mm at the top of
the mold 关Fig. 4共b兲兴. Then fill the remaining gap with
gravel-cement mixture, close the lid, and complete the
compaction process 关Figs. 4共c and d兲兴.
• This process gives a block with rough textured bottom
and top surfaces for the block 共Fig. 5兲.
Scanning electron microscope images are not possible for the
rough textured surface. Therefore, center line average 共CLA兲
index was obtained to quantify the surface roughness. The CLA
index for the plain block surface and the rough textured surface
was measured using a profilometer technique. The CLA index
consists mainly of two parameters Ra and Rq. Ra is universally
Fig. 4. Soil-cement block production process to obtain rough
textured surface: 共a兲 partially filled mold with gravel-cement mixture;
共b兲 mold filled with soil-cement and gravel-cement mixture with
6 mm gap at the top of the mold; 共c兲 mold filled with soil-cement
mixture and 6 mm thick layers of gravel-cement mixture at top and
bottom; and 共d兲 compacting the mixture into a dense block through
piston movement
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007 / 167
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007.19:164-172.
Fig. 5. Soil-cement blocks 共left to right: plain surface, rough textured
bed face, and frogs on the bed face兲
recognized and most used as an international parameter of rough-
ness. It is the arithmetic mean of the absolute departure of the
roughness profile from the mean line. Whereas Rq⫽RMS param-
eter corresponding to Ra. The values of Ra are 6.4 and 29.5 ␮m
and Rq are 9.2 and 34.4 ␮m for the plain surface and rough tex-
tured surface respectively. Figs. 6共a and b兲 show profiles of the
plain and the rough textured surfaces of the soil-cement blocks,
respectively.
Experimental Program and Experimental
Methods
Exploring different methods of improving the shear-bond strength
of the block-mortar interface was the major focus of the investi-
gation. As mentioned in the scope of the study various
bond-enhancing methods listed in Table 3 were considered for
enhancing the shear-bond strength. Soil-cement blocks of Types
A, B, C, and D were prepared using the procedure mentioned in
earlier sections. Tests were conducted for obtaining compressive
strength, flexural strength, saturated water content, initial rate of
absorption, and stress-strain relationships for soil-cement blocks.
Shear-bond strength, compressive strength, and stress-strain rela-
Fig. 6. Surface profiles of the soil-cement blocks: 共a兲 soil-cement
block with plain bed surface; 共b兲 soil-cement block with rough
textured bed surface
 Table 3. Details of Bond-Enhancing Methods
Type of bond-enhancing method Designation
Plain soil-cement block surface 共Fig. 5兲 A
Rough textured block surface 共Fig. 5兲 B
Two frogs of size: 共90⫻ 60 mm兲 on each bed face of C
the block 共Fig. 5兲
Five frogs of size: 共90⫻ 30 mm兲 on each bed face of D
the block 共Fig. 5兲
Fresh cement slurry coating on the plain block E
surfaces while casting the triplet specimen
Epoxy coating on the plain block surfaces while F
casting the triplet specimen
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tionships for soil-cement block masonry was obtained for various

combinations of block, bond-enhancing techniques, and two types Fig. 7. Details of triplet specimen for shear-bond strength
of mortars.

Compressive Strength and Flexural Strength of Blocks

on bond and compressive strengths of masonry is eliminated. In
The frogs on the bed surfaces of the blocks were filled with rich
this investigation cement-soil mortar as well as cement-lime mor-
cement mortar. The blocks were soaked in water for 48 h prior to
tar was used. Flow value of both the mortars was maintained at
the testing. Indian Standards code 共1992兲 guidelines were fol-
100% while casting the specimens. The specimens were cured for
lowed for determining the compressive strength. Blocks 共without
28 days under wet burlap. Prior to testing the triplets were soaked
filling the frogs兲 were soaked in water for 48 h prior to test and
in water for 48 h.
then flexural strength of the block was determined by testing the
block as a beam with a three point bending test. ASTM 共1994兲
code outlines procedure for determining flexural strength of brick. Compressive Strength of Masonry and Stress-Strain
A similar procedure was adopted to determine flexure strength of Relationships
soil-cement block.
Saturated water content and IRA: Saturated water content The compressive strength of soil-cement block masonry was de-
for the blocks was determined using a 24-h immersion cold water termined by testing the five-block high stack bonded masonry
test as per the guidelines of Indian Standards 共1992兲 code. ASTM prisms 共Fig. 8兲. The procedure outlined in Indian Standards
共1994兲 code guidelines were followed to determine the initial rate 共1987兲 and ASTM 共1992兲 was adopted for casting and testing of
of absorption for soil-cement blocks. masonry prisms. The mortar joint thickness of 12 mm is main-
tained for all the prisms. The initial moisture content of the block
at the time of casting was kept constant at 75% saturation value
Stress-Strain Measurements for Soil-Cement Blocks by soaking them in water for a definite period of time. Mortar
and Mortars flow was kept constant at 100% for casting the specimens. The
Prior to testing, the specimens were soaked in water for 48 h. Two prisms were cured for 28 days under wet burlap. Prior to testing,
demec points were fixed on the longitudinal face of the block to the prisms were soaked in water for 48 h. The longitudinal strains
measure longitudinal strains over a gauge length of 200 mm. Lat- were measured using a 200 mm demec gauge.
eral expansion of the block was measured over 143 mm gauge
length using a digital dial gauge clamped onto the block faces and
then the lateral strains were estimated.
Stress-strain relationships for the two mortars were obtained
by testing mortar prisms of size: 150⫻ 150⫻ 300 mm in a com-
pression testing machine. Mortar prisms were cast by keeping the
flow value at 100%. After 28 days of moist curing the prisms
were soaked in water for 48 h prior to testing. Longitudinal
strains were measured using a 200 mm demec gauge and the lat-
eral strains were calculated from the lateral expansion values
measured using a digital dial gauge fixed onto the clamps on the
prism faces.

Masonry Triplet Tests

The shear-bond strength of masonry joints was measured using
masonry triplets. Fig. 7 shows the details of the triplet specimen.
Initial moisture content of the masonry unit affects the bond
strength and hence, moisture content of the blocks is kept at a
75% saturation value while casting the triplet specimens. Thus the
interference of initial moisture content of the block during casting Fig. 8. Soil-cement block masonry prism

168 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007.19:164-172.

 Fig. 10. Stress-strain relationship for the soil-cement block

Fig. 9. Stress-strain relationships for cement-soil mortar and cement-

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

lime mortar
Results and Discussion
Properties of Mortars
Keeping the flow of mortars at 100%, strength and stress-strain
relationships for CSM and CLM mortars were determined. Fig. 9
shows the stress-strain relationships for these mortars. Mortar
compressive strength was determined from 70 mm cubes. A 28-
day compressive strength is 3.45 and 2.93 MPa for CSM and
CLM mortars, respectively. Initial tangent modulus values for the
CSM and CLM mortars are 6,574 and 6,285 MPa, respectively.
Poisson’s ratio 共at 25% peak stress兲 is 0.19 and 0.16 for CSM and
CLM mortars. Thus the strength and modulus are in the same
range for both these mortars. The strain at peak stress for CSM
mortar is 0.0019, which is approximately 50% more than that for
CLM mortar.
Strength and Absorption Characteristics of
Soil-Cement Blocks
The results of compressive strength, flexural tensile strength,
water absorption, and IRA for soil-cement blocks are given in
Table 4. Table 4 gives mean values, ranges of values, and the
number of specimens tested. Dry density of the soil-cement
blocks is kept constant at 18 kN/ m3. Wet compressive strength of
the soil-cement block is 8.34 MPa, whereas the flexural strength
is 1.21 MPa 共i.e., approximately 15% of compressive strength兲.
Saturated water content of the block is 12.02% and IRA is
3.21 kg/ m2 / min. Generally, soil-cement blocks have higher IRA
when compared to burnt clay bricks 共Walker 1999; Venkatarama
Reddy and Gupta 2005a兲.
Stress-Strain Relationship for Soil-Cement Blocks
Stress-strain relationship for the soil-cement block tested in satu-
rated condition is shown in Fig. 10. Fig. 10 shows curves for both
lateral as well as longitudinal strains with the compressive stress.
Initial tangent modulus for the block is 8,000 MPa and the strain
at peak stress is 0.0017. Stress-strain relationship shows that 85%
of peak stress is required to reach half of the value of strain at
peak stress 共0.0008兲. Later on the curve becomes almost flat and
parallel to the horizontal axis until the strain at peak stress is
reached. Poisson’s ratio of the block at 25% of the peak stress is
0.08.
Poisson’s Ratio and Stress Intensity
Variation in Poisson’s ratio with the stress intensity is shown in
Fig. 11. The stress intensity on the block or mortar specimen has
been normalized by taking the ratio of vertical compressive stress
to peak stress. Fig. 11 clearly shows that Poisson’s ratio increases
with an increase in stress intensity for both the block and the
mortars and the relationship is linear. As the stress intensity on the
specimen increases by 4 times from 0.10, Poisson’s ratio in-
creases by 3 times in the case of the soil-cement block and more
than 4 times in the case of the cement-lime mortar, whereas in the
case of the cement-soil mortar the increase is approximately 1.8
times. Neville 共1973兲 reports that for concrete, Poisson’s ratio
remains constant up to a stress level of 30% of peak stress and

Table 4. Strength and Absorption Characteristics of Soil-Cement Blocks

Number of
Properties of the block Mean values specimens
Wet compressive strength 共MPa兲 8.34 10
共7.86–8.87兲
Wet flexural tensile strength 共MPa兲 1.21 6
共1.18–1.24兲
IRA 共kg/ m2 / min兲 3.21 15
共2.47–3.91兲
Saturated water content 共%兲 12.02 6
共11.6–12.7兲
Fig. 11. Variation in Poisson’s ratio of the soil-cement block and the
Note: Dry density of the block: 18 kN/ m3; values in parentheses indicate
the range. mortars with the stress intensity

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007 / 169

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007.19:164-172.

 Table 5. Shear-Bond Strength, Compressive Strength and Elastic Properties of Soil-Cement Block Masonry
Cement-soil mortar Cement-lime mortar

Type of Initial Strain Initial

bond Shear-bond Prism tangent at Shear-bond Prism tangent Strain
enhancing strength strength modulus peak strength strength modulus at peak
technique 共MPa兲 共MPa兲 共MPa兲 stress 共MPa兲 共MPa兲 共MPa兲 stress
A 0.14 3.66 7,185 0.0029 0.04 3.64 7,101 0.0024
共0.12–0.16兲 共3.04–4.05兲 共0.03–0.05兲 共3.21–3.92兲
B 0.18 3.50 7,178 0.0025 0.10 3.61 7,105 0.0024
共0.15–0.23兲 共3.18–3.94兲 共0.07–0.13兲 共3.48–3.71兲
C 0.16 3.48 7,663 0.0030 0.07 3.60 7,198 0.0026
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

共0.13–0.22兲 共3.19–3.87兲 共0.07–0.08兲 共3.12–3.94兲

D 0.16 3.49 7,214 0.0026 0.07 3.50 7,119 0.0027
共0.14–0.17兲 共3.29–3.70兲 共0.05–0.08兲 共3.44–3.62兲
E 0.24 3.45 7,523 0.0028 0.17 3.49 7,417 0.0026
共0.22–0.25兲 共3.25–3.57兲 共0.10–0.20兲 共2.75–3.99兲
F 0.24 3.68 7,217 0.0027 0.22 3.65 7,067 0.0028
共0.23–0.25兲 共3.39–4.08兲 共0.21–0.24兲 共3.44–3.92兲
Note: Values in parenthesis indicate the range.

then it increases slowly. At higher stress intensities the specimens
crack and the lateral strain will be large due to interference of
growing cracks.
Shear-Bond Strength of Masonry Triplets
Shear-bond strength of the block-mortar interface was varied by
using different bond enhancing methods explained earlier. In all
these cases the mortar proportion and other parameters like water-
cement ratio, flow value and strength are kept constant. Thus
without altering the mortar characteristics the shear-bond strength
is varied by manipulating the surface characteristics and by using
surface coatings. The results of the shear-bond strength of triplets
共mean of five specimens and the range of values兲 using CSM and
CLM mortars are given in Table 5. The following observations
can be made from these results.
1. The shear-bond strength of triplets varies between 0.14 and
0.24 MPa for cement-soil mortar using various bond enhanc-
ing techniques, whereas for cement-lime mortar bond
strength varies between 0.04 and 0.22 MPa.
2. CSM mortar gives a higher bond strength than CLM mortar,
irrespective of the surface treatment and surface characteris-
tics of the soil-cement blocks. In the case of the CSM mortar,
rough textured surface gives 30% more bond strength when
compared to plain block surface. For CLM mortar the in-
crease is 150%.
3. The actual difference in shear-bond strength between plain
surface and the surface with frogs is in the range of 0.02–
0.03 MPa for both CLM and CSM mortars, whereas the per-
centage increase in shear-bond strength for CLM mortar
appears larger at 75% between the plain surface and the sur-
face with frogs.
4. When the number of frogs 共2–5兲 and frog area is increased
共from 10,800 to 13,500 mm2兲 there is no change in the shear-
bond strength values for both mortars.
5. Plain block surface with a coat of fresh cement slurry 共Type
E兲 on the block surface leads to a 1.7 times increase in bond
strength for CSM mortar. For CLM mortar the increase is
fourfold. Plain surface with epoxy coating 共Type F兲 leads to
a 1.7 times increase in bond strength for CSM mortar and a
5.5 times increase for CLM mortar.
6. There is no difference in shear-bond strength values for treat-
ments using cement slurry coating 共Type E兲 and epoxy coat-
ings 共Type F兲 on plain block surface in the case of CSM
mortar. For CLM mortar epoxy coating leads to a 25% in-
crease in bond strength when compared to cement slurry
coating.
These results clearly indicate that the rough textured bedding
face of the block and surface coatings lead to considerable in-
crease in shear-bond strength when compared to a plain bed sur-
face, except for the introduction of frogs on the bed faces of the
blocks. Frogs are not as effective as other methods in enhancing
the shear-bond strength. Bond enhancing methods improve the
shear-bond strength significantly in the case of CLM mortar when
compared to CSM mortar. Even though use of epoxy coatings
may not be economical and practically feasible, other methods of
enhancing the bond strength can be practiced in the field for
achieving better bond strength for the masonry. The failure pat-
terns of the triplets tested for shear-bond strength indicate that the
failure is due to either separation at the block-mortar interface
共interface failure兲 or predominantly interface failure with traces of
block or mortar sticking to the failed surface.
Influence of Shear-Bond Strength on Compressive
Strength of Masonry
Improvement in shear-bond strength between the block-mortar
interfaces can enhance the shear strength and flexural strength of
masonry. For a masonry prism under compression, the nature of
stresses developed in the block and the mortar will depend upon
the relative modulus of the masonry unit and the mortar. When
the modulus of the block 共Eb兲 is more than that of the mortar
共Em兲, the block will be under biaxial tension and the mortar will
be under triaxial compression 共Hilsdorf 1969; Francis et al. 1971;
Hendry 1998兲. Sarangapani et al. 共2005兲 conducted detailed ex-
periments to establish a correlation between bond strength and
compressive strength of masonry. Their experiments were focused
on cases for very low modulus bricks 共Eb兲 in combination with
high modulus mortar 共Em兲, 共Em / Eb = 12兲. In such a situation brick
will be in triaxial compression and mortar under biaxial tension
and uniaxial compression. In this kind of masonry they found that
as the bond strength increases, masonry compressive strength in-

170 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007.19:164-172.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Masonry compressive strength versus shear-bond strength

Fig. 13. Stress-strain relationships for soil-cement block, cement-soil

creases. They noticed a 90% increase in compressive strength as
the bond strength is increased 5 times. The present investigation
attempts to examine the influence of the shear-bond strength on
the compressive strength of the masonry prism for the case where
the mortar modulus 共6,500 MPa兲 is less than that of the block
modulus 共8,000 MPa兲.
Masonry prism strength was obtained using CSM and CLM
mortars, and for a range of shear-bond strengths. In each mortar
category, the shear-bond strength of masonry was varied by
adopting the bond enhancing techniques 共Types A–F兲 as ex-
plained earlier. Thus we have six different shear-bond strength
values for each mortar combination. Results of masonry compres-
sive strength using different bond enhancing methods for both the
mortars are given in Table 5. Table 5 gives the details of the bond
enhancing parameter, mean values 共mean of five specimens兲 of
prism strengths, and the range of values for the two types of
mortars. Fig. 12 shows a plot of shear-bond strength versus com-
pressive strength of masonry.
The compressive strength of prisms varies in a narrow range of
3.5–3.7 MPa for both the mortars even though there is a consid-
erable difference in the shear-bond strength values
共0.04– 0.24 MPa兲. Fig. 12 shows that the compressive strength of
a prism is insensitive to the shear-bond strength variation for both
types of mortars. Even though there is a considerable difference
in shear-bond strength 共which was varied deliberately by bond
enhancing techniques兲 there is hardly any variation in the ma-
sonry compressive strength. For example, using CSM mortar
when shear-bond strength is increased by 70%, there is hardly any
variation in compressive strength of the prism. Similarly in the
case of CLM mortar, prism compressive strength does not vary
even when the shear-bond strength goes up by nearly six fold.
These results clearly show that the masonry compressive strength
is not sensitive to the variation in the shear-bond strength of the
block-mortar interface when the modulus of the masonry unit is
more than that of the mortar. Further studies are required to shed
more light on the influence of bond strength on masonry compres-
sive strength. Even though increasing the shear-bond strength did
not significantly affect the masonry compressive strength, but it
can significantly influence the behavior of masonry under shear
and flexural stresses.
mortar, and their masonry
mortars and soil-cement blocks were discussed in earlier sections.
Stress-strain relationships for mortar, block, and masonry using
CSM and CLM mortars are shown in Figs. 13 and 14, respec-
tively. Elastic properties of masonry using both mortars are given
in Table 5.
The stress-strain curve for the masonry is between the mortar
curve and the block curve, until it intersects the soil-cement block
curve. Then it rises and attains a higher value of strain at peak
stress than those for blocks and mortars. This type of masonry
behavior occurred for masonry using both mortars 共Figs. 13 and
14兲. Strains at peak stress for the soil-cement block masonry are
0.0029 and 0.0024 for masonry using CSM and CLM mortars,
respectively. Strain at peak stress for the block is 0.0017, whereas
it is 0.0019 and 0.0013 for CSM and CLM mortars, respectively.
Thus it is clear that the soil-cement block masonry has a higher
straining capacity than that of the block and mortars. Initial tan-
gent modulus of masonry is approximately 7,200 MPa and the
strain at peak stress hovers around 0.003, irrespective of shear-
bond strength and mortar type.
Summary and Conclusions
The study was focused on 共1兲 exploring different methods of en-
hancing the shear-bond strength of soil-cement block triplets
using two types of mortars; and 共2兲 influence of shear-bond
strength on compressive strength and stress-strain relationship of

Stress-Strain Characteristics of Soil-Cement Block

Masonry
Stress-strain relationships were generated for prisms using both
mortars 共cement-soil and cement-lime兲 and using various bond Fig. 14. Stress-strain relationships for soil-cement block, cement-
enhancing techniques 共Types A–F兲. Stress-strain characteristics of lime mortar, and their masonry

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007 / 171

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007.19:164-172.

 soil-cement block masonry. Cement-soil mortar has comparable
or superior characteristics in terms of strength and elastic proper-
ties with a higher straining capacity when compared to cement-
lime mortar. Also, soil-cement block masonry using cement-soil
mortar shows a higher shear-bond strength when compared to the
masonry with cement-lime mortar.
The shear-bond strength of soil-cement block masonry can be
varied without altering the mortar characteristics by manipulating
the surface characteristics and by using surface coatings. Rough
textured surface gives a higher shear-bond strength when com-
pared to the plain block surface. Use of surface coatings, like
cement slurry coating and epoxy coating, on the bed faces of the
block significantly increases the shear-bond strength. The intro-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/19/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
duction of frogs on the bed faces of the blocks is not as effective
as other methods in enhancing the bond strength. Bond enhancing
techniques such as rough textured bed faces and cement slurry
coating can be easily adopted for the soil-cement block masonry
construction.
In situations where the masonry unit modulus is greater than
that of the mortar, compressive strength and stress-strain charac-
teristics of soil-cement block masonry are not significantly af-
fected by the variations in shear-bond strength. But the enhanced
shear-bond strength will be beneficial when the soil-cement block
masonry is subjected to shear and tensile stresses due to the hori-
zontal forces.
References
ASTM. 共1992兲. “Standard test methods for compressive strength of ma-
sonry prisms.” ASTM E 447-92b, Philadelphia.
ASTM. 共1994兲. “Standard test methods of sampling and testing brick and
structural clay tile.” ASTM C 67-94, Philadelphia.
Binda, L., and Baronio, G. 共1988兲. “Survey of brick/binder adhesion in
powdered brick mortars and plasters.” Masonry Int., 2共3兲, 87–92.
Brick Institute of America 共BIA兲. 共1989兲. “Mortars for brick masonry.”
Technical notes on brick construction.
British Standards Institution 共BSI兲. 共1980兲. “British standard methods of
testing mortars, screeds, and plasters.” BS:4551, London.
Fitzmaurice, R. F. 共1958兲. Manual on stabilised soil construction for
housing, UN Technical Assistance Program, New York.
Francis, A. J., Horman, C. B., and Jerrems, L. E. 共1971兲. “The effect of
joint thickness and other factors on the compressive strength of brick-
work.” Proc., 2nd Int. Brick Masonry Conf. (Stoke-on-Trent), H. W.
H. West, ed., British Ceramic Association, 31–37.
Grandet, J., Javelas, R., Perrin, B., and Thenoz, B. 共1972兲. “Rôle de
l’ettringite dans la liaison de type mécanique entra la terre cuite et la
pâte de ciment-portland.” Revue Terre Cuite, No. 48, 21–28 共in
French兲.
Groot, C. 共1993兲. “Effects of water on mortar-brick bond.” Ph.D. thesis,
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Delft Univ. of Technology, Delft, The
Netherlands.
Gupta, A. 共2003兲. “Studies on characteristics of cement-soil mortars and
soil-cement block masonry.” MSc 共Engineering兲 thesis, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India.
Heathcote, K. 共1991兲. “Compressive strength of cement stabilized pressed
earth blocks.” Build. Res. Inf., 19共2兲, 101–105.
Hendry, A. W. 共1998兲. Structural masonry, Macmillan, New York.
Hilsdorf, H. K. 共1969兲. “An investigation into the failure mechanism of
brick masonry loaded in axial compression.” Designing, engineering,
and constructing with masonry products, F. B. Johnson, ed., Gulf,
Houston, 34–41.
172 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2007
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2007.19:164-172.
Houben, H., and Guillaud, H. 共1994兲. Earth construction—A comprehen-
sive guide, Intermediate Technology Publications, London.
Indian Standards. 共1987兲. “Code of practice for structural use of unrein-
forced masonry.” IS:1905–1987 共reaffirmed in 1998兲, Bureau of In-
dian Standards, New Delhi, India.
Indian Standards. 共1989兲. “Specification for 43 grade ordinary portland
cement.” IS:8112–1989, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi,
India.
Indian Standards. 共1992兲. “Methods of tests of burnt clay building
bricks.” IS:3495–1992, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
Jagadish, K. S. 共1988兲. “The progress of stabilised soil construction in
India.” Proc., National Seminar on Stabilised Mud Blocks for Housing
and Building, Vol. 1, Bangalore, India.
Lawrence, S. J., and Cao, H. T. 共1987兲. “An experimental study of the
interface between brick and mortar.” Proc., the 4th North American
Masonry Conf., Los Angles, 1–14.
Lawrence, S. J., and Cao, H. T. 共1988兲. “Microstructure of the interface
between brick and mortar.” Proc., 8th. Int. Brick/Block Masonry
Conf., Dublin, 194–204.
Lunt, M. G. 共1980兲. “Stabilised soil blocks for buildings.” Overseas
building notes, No. 184.
Mukerji, K. 共1994兲. Stabilisers and mortars for compressed earth blocks,
GATE-ISAT, Eschborn, Germany.
Neville, A. M. 共1973兲. Properties of concrete, Pitman.
Olivier, M., and Mesbah, A. 共1987兲. “Influence of different parameters on
the resistance of earth, used as a building materials.” Int. Conf. on
Mud Architecture, Trivandrum, India.
Sarangapani, G., Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., and Jagadish, K. S. 共2005兲.
“Brick-mortar bond and masonry compressive strength.” J. Mater.
Civ. Eng., 17共2兲, 229–237.
Sinha, B. P. 共1967兲. “Model studies related to load bearing brickwork.”
Ph.D. thesis, Univ. of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, U.K.
Theunissen, Ph. 共1985兲. “Building with earth.” Dimension 3, bimonthly
review, Information Service of the Belgian Administration for Devel-
opment Cooperation, No. 4.
United Nations 共UN兲. 共1964兲. “Soil-cement—Its use in building.” UN
Rep., Dept. of Economic and Social Affairs, New York.
Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., and Gupta, A. 共2005a兲. “Characteristics of
cement-soil mortars.” Mater. Struct., 38共280兲, 639–650.
Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., and Gupta, A. 共2005b兲. “Characteristics of
soil-cement blocks using highly sandy soils.” Mater. Struct., 38共280兲,
651–658.
Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., and Gupta, A. 共2006兲. “Tensile bond strength
of soil-cement block masonry couplets using cement-soil mortars.” J.
Mater. Civ. Eng., 18共1兲, 36–45.
Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., and Jagadish, K. S. 共1995兲. “Influence of soil
composition on the strength and durability of soil-cement blocks.”
Indian Concr. J., 69共9兲, 517–524.
Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., and Walker, P. 共2005兲. “Stabilised mud
blocks: Problems, prospects.” Proc., Int. Earth Building Conf.—Earth
Build 2005, Sydney, Australia, 63–75.
Venu Madhava Rao, K., Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., and Jagadish, K. S.
共1996兲. “Flexural bond strength of masonry using various blocks and
mortars.” Mater. Struct., 29共3兲, 119–124.
Walker, P. 共1999兲. “Bond characteristics of earth block masonry.” J.
Mater. Civ. Eng., 11共3兲, 249–256.
Walker, P. 共2004兲. “Strength and erosion characteristics of earth blocks
and earth block masonry.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 16共5兲, 497–506.
Walker, P., and Stace, T. 共1997兲. “Properties of some cement stabilized
compressed earth blocks and mortars.” Mater. Struct., 30共11兲, 545–
551.
Walker, P., Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., Mesbah, A., and Morel, J.-C.
共2000兲. “The case for compressed earth block construction.” Proc.,
6th Int. Seminar on Structural Masonry for Developing Countries,
Bangalore, India.