Accepted Manuscript

Title: BEHAVIOUR AND STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF

MASONRY PRISMS

Authors: Nassif Nazeer Thaickavil, Job Thomas

PII: S2214-5095(17)30226-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2017.12.007
Reference: CSCM 132

To appear in:

Received date: 31-10-2017

Revised date: 2-12-2017
Accepted date: 12-12-2017

Please cite this article as: Thaickavil Nassif Nazeer, Thomas Job.BEHAVIOUR AND
STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF MASONRY PRISMS.Case Studies in Construction
Materials https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2017.12.007

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
 BEHAVIOUR AND STRENGTH ASSESSMENT OF

MASONRY PRISMS

Nassif Nazeer Thaickavila and Job Thomasb

T
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, Cochin University of Science and

IP
Technology, Cochin, Kerala, India, PIN 682 022

R
SC
GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

Prism Making Testing of Prism

U 64 Test Data 168 Data from
N
Literature
A
Model Variables
Prediction Model
M

1. Unit Strength
2. Mortar Strength
3. Volume Fraction
ED

of Unit
Cracking Behaviour 4. Volume Ratio of
Bed Joint to
Test Variables Mortar
PT

1. Brick Type Validation of Model 5. Height-to-

2. Mortar Strength 60
(o) Present Study
+ 20%
Thickness Ratio
3. Prism Joint Configuration 40
fp_p (MPa)

- 20%

20
E

0
0 20 40 60
fp_e (MPa)
CC
A

Parametric Study
(a)
50
40
fP (MPa)

30
h/t = 3
20 VFb = 0.837
10 VRmH = 0.875
fm = 35.5 MPa
0
0 30 60 90 120 150
fb (MPa)

1
HIGHLIGHTS
 Tested 192 masonry prism specimens corresponding to three specimens each in 64
groups.
 Test variables are Masonry units (two types), Mortar strength (four types), Joint
configurations (eight types).
 Reported strength and cracking pattern of prisms.
 Developed prediction model accounting for Unit strength, Mortar strength, Volume
fraction of unit, Volume ratio of bed joint to mortar and Height-to-Thickness ratio.
 Carried out regression analysis of 232 data which include 64 test data of present study

T
and 168 data reported in the literature.


IP
Performed Validation and Parametric study of the model.

R
Abstract

SC
This is a case study presenting the cracking behavior and assessment of the compressive

strength of masonry prisms. The compressive strength of masonry was determined by

U
performing laboratory tests on 192 masonry prism specimens corresponding to 3 specimens
N
each in 64 groups. The variables considered in the experimental program are type of brick,
A

strength of masonry and height-to-thickness (h/t) ratio of prism specimen. Pressed earth
M

bricks and burnt clay bricks were used for the preparation of masonry prisms. A
ED

mathematical model is also proposed for the estimation of compressive strength of masonry

prisms by performing a statistical multiple regression analysis on 232 data sets, which
PT

includes 64 test data from the present study and 168 test data published in the literature. The

model was developed based on the regression analysis of test data of prisms made of a variety
E

of masonry units namely clay bricks, pressed earth bricks, concrete blocks, calcium silicate
CC

bricks, stone blocks, perforated bricks and soft mud bricks. The proposed model not only
A

accounts for the wide ranges of compressive strengths of masonry unit and mortar, but also

accounts for the influence of volume fractions of masonry unit and mortar in addition to the

height-to-thickness ratio. The predicted compressive strength of prisms using the proposed

2
model is compared with 14 models available in published literature. The predicted strength

was found to be in good agreement with the corresponding experimental data.

Keywords: Prism strength; stack bonded masonry; running bonded masonry; masonry unit

strength; cracking;
a
Research Scholar

T
b
Associate Professor, Corresponding author, Email: job_thomas@cusat.ac.in, Mobile: 0091

IP
9846545824

R
SC
INTRODUCTION

U
Masonry is one of the oldest building materials known to man and is believed to have
N
been in use for over 6000 years. Construction using masonry remains relatively popular in
A
many parts of the world and is practiced widely even today. Masonry is composed of two
M

different materials namely: the masonry units and the mortar phase. Masonry units may be

either solid or hollow and be made of a wide variety of materials. Clay bricks, blocks of
ED

stone, concrete blocks, pressed earth bricks, calcium silicate bricks, soft mud bricks etc. are

some examples of masonry units used in masonry construction. The two material phases in
PT

masonry are joined by a weak interface and hence masonry is generally weak in tension.

Masonry structures are therefore expected to resist only compressive forces [1]. The
E
CC

conventional design practice emphasizes that masonry structures are subjected to

compressive stresses alone [2] and hence an accurate determination of compressive strength
A

is extremely important. Empirical values for the masonry strength are suggested in SP: 20 [3]

for the design of masonry based on the unit strength and properties of mortar. Alternatively,

masonry specimens can be tested to obtain a more accurate value of the compressive strength.

In this paper, the effects of joints and specimen geometry on the masonry strength are

3
investigated by an experimental study on masonry prisms. The parameters influencing the

compressive strength of masonry were identified and a model to predict the compressive

strength of masonry prisms is proposed.

1. LITERATURE REVIEW

The compressive strength of masonry is studied by testing prisms, wallettes or wall

panels in the laboratory. Prisms are small assemblages of masonry units having thickness of

T
one to three units whereas masonry wallettes are short wall specimens of several courses

IP
having width of three or more units. Masonry walls specimens are comparable to actual walls

R
and have heights greater than prisms and wallettes. However, testing of masonry wall

SC
specimens is quite expensive [4] and hence it is desirable to test prisms to evaluate the

U
strength of masonry. Prisms are a better representation of the actual masonry construction as
N
it includes the effects of the properties of the constituents of the masonry and the quality of
A
workmanship. IS: 1905 [5] recommends a height-to-thickness (h/t) ratio between 2 and 5 for
M

the prism specimens with a minimum height of 40 cm. The American standard ASTM E447

[6] suggests that the minimum height of the specimen should be fifteen inches. Drysdale and
ED

Hamid [7] found out that a 3-course prism better represents masonry properties when

compared to 2-course prisms. Francis et al. [8] proposed that prisms with height of five to six
PT

brick units can be considered to be free from effects of end plates during testing. Ganesan and

Ramamurthy [9] suggested that it is desirable to test prisms having running bonds rather than
E
CC

stack bonds. Hence, it may be noted that the specimens tested are different in different

studies.
A

Singh and Munjal [10] studied the compressive strength behavior of 120 masonry prism

specimens made with burnt clay bricks and concrete bricks using three different types of

mortars. The compressive strength of masonry was found to increase with the increase in

mortar strength and increase in compressive strength of brick. Ravula et al. [11] conducted an

4
experimental investigation of compressive failure in masonry made of soft clay bricks. For

soft bricks the compressive strength of the masonry was found to be lower than the strength

of both brick and mortar regardless of the mortar strength. Localized crushing of bricks near

the brick–mortar interface initiated failure in prisms with high strength mortar, while spalling

due to vertical cracking in bricks was the reason for failure in prisms with low strength

mortar. Wu et al. [12] studied the stress strain characteristics of traditional adobe masonry in

T
China and noted that the masonry strength is influenced by the ratio of mortar strength to

IP
block strength. According to Ganesan and Ramamurthy [9], the type of bed mortar and

R
vertical mortar joint properties have no significant influence on the behavior of prisms.

SC
However, Francis et al. [8] observed that thinner joints make the brick work stronger and

U
Lumantarna et al. [13] reported that the presence of the vertical mortar head joints had
N
minimal influence on the masonry compressive properties. Hamid et al. [14] suggested that

the effect of number of courses have to be considered rather than the height –to-thickness
A
M

(h/t) ratio. The parameters affecting the masonry compressive strength reported by various

authors were identified from the literature study and this list is given in Table 1.
ED

Different models have been proposed to predict the compressive strength of masonry

by researchers across the globe. Some of the earliest formulae were proposed by Engesser
PT

[32] and Bröcker [33]. Mann [15] conducted tests on specimens with slenderness ratio h/t= 5

using solid and hollow masonry units made of brick, concrete, lightweight concrete and
E
CC

calcareous sandstone. Based on this a model was proposed to predict the compressive

strength of masonry. Hendry and Malek [16] proposed a model to estimate the compressive
A

strength of masonry. Dayaratnam [17] suggested an equation giving equal importance to

compressive strengths of brick and mortar. A model proposed Rozza [18] incorporates the

effects of relative volumes of masonry units and mortar. Bennett et al. [19] conducted a

5
series of tests on structural clay tile prisms and proposed an equation for estimating prism

strength using strength of masonry unit.

Dymiotis and Gutlederer [20] developed a series of second order polynomial equations

after performing a regression analysis and suggested a model accounting for the mortar and

brick compressive strengths. Kaushik et al. [1] tested 84 masonry prisms using four types of

bricks and three types of mortar. A linear regression model was proposed accounting for

T
compressive strengths of bricks and mortar. Gumaste et al. [21] proposed models to estimate

IP
the compressive strength of brick masonry in India for stack bonded and English bonded

R
prisms. Christy et al. [22] derived a prediction model for determining the axial strength of

SC
brick masonry after conducting experiments on reinforced and unreinforced masonry prisms

U
made with clay brick and fly ash bricks. Garzón-Roca et al [23] performed a multiple linear
N
regression analysis on 96 data sets from experimental studies on masonry with clay bricks
A
and cement mortar and proposed a new model. Lumantarna et al. [13] performed tests on 45
M

masonry prisms made with vintage clay bricks extracted from existing buildings in New

Zealand to study the compressive behavior of existing masonry buildings and a regression
ED

model was proposed to predict the strength of three layer brick prisms accounting for the

brick-unit and mortar strengths. Kumavat [24] developed an analytical model based on results
PT

of tests on clay brick masonry. The various prediction models and the parameters considered

in each model are reported in Table 2. It can be noted that the parameters used in the
E
CC

prediction model of the masonry compressive strength given by different authors [1], [8],

[12]-[31] are different.

A

2. NEED FOR STUDY

Unreinforced masonry construction is the most widely adopted construction practice due

to its inherent advantages which include low maintenance, high degree of fire protection,

good thermal and sound insulation and excellent durability [34]. Locally available masonry

6
units made with different materials and various manufacturing processes are being used for

masonry construction [35]. The dimensions of the masonry units are different in different

parts of the world. The strength of the units, type of mortar, volume of mortar and unit are

some of the parameters influencing the strength of masonry.

Although construction using masonry has been practiced for long, the exact behavior of

masonry structures has been studied since the last four decades or so [36] and is yet to be

T
understood completely. Masonry being made of two different materials is non homogeneous

IP
and exhibits typical non elastic and anisotropic behaviour. As a result, empirical formulae

R
have been used for the design of masonry structures. In India, the mortar used is generally

SC
stiffer than the masonry units. Singh and Munjal [10], Ravula et al. [11], Balasubramanian et

U
al. [37], Nagarajan et al. [38] used mortar comparatively stiffer than bricks. However, in
N
western countries, the masonry unit used is usually stronger than the mortar [21]. Mohamed
A
et al. [39] reported that mortar is largely responsible for the non-linear behavior of masonry.
M

Hence, brick strength, mortar strength and its volume has an influence on the strength of

masonry. The prediction models given by MSJC [40] and Euro code 6 [41] and literature by
ED

Engesser [32], Bröcker [33], Mann [15], Hendry and Malek [16], Dayaratnam [17], Bennet et

al. [19], Dymiotis and Gutlederer [20], Gumaste et al. [21], Kaushik et al. [1], Christy et al.
PT

[22], Garzón-Roca et al. [23], Lumantarna et al. [13], and Kumavat [26] mainly account for

the brick strength and mortar strength. IS: 1905 [5] prescribes the basic compressive stress of
E
CC

masonry for only a limited set of brick and mortar combinations. In this study, a model

accounting for height-to-thickness ratio of prism (h/t), volume fraction of brick (VFb) and
A

volume ratio of bed joint to mortar (VRmH) in addition to brick strength (fb) and mortar

strength (fm) is developed.

3. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

7
 In this study, 192 masonry prisms were prepared and tested using two types of bricks and

four grades of mortar. Two types of bricks were used for preparing the prisms of various

mortar joint configurations. The influence of various parameters such as brick strength,

mortar strength, height-to-thickness ratio of prism, volume fraction of brick and volume ratio

of bed joint to mortar on the prism strength was determined.

4.1 Materials

T
The constituent materials used to prepare masonry prisms were tested prior to the

IP
experimental program. Bricks of two different types viz. cement stabilized pressed earth

R
bricks and locally manufactured burnt clay bricks were used in this study. Cement stabilized

SC
pressed earth bricks were designated as B1 and Burnt clay brick was designated as B2.

U
Cement-sand mortar of four different proportions; M1 (1:6), M2 (1:5), M3 (1:4) and M4 (1:2)
N
were prepared using OPC cement and river sand conforming to Zone II of IS: 383 [42]. The

compressive strength of mortar was determined by testing cubes of 50 cm2 face area as per
A
M

IS: 2250 [43]. Details of the test results on the constituent materials are furnished in Table 3.

4.2 Details of specimens

ED

In this study, single wythe brickwork prism specimens two to six units high were

prepared using stack bond and staggered bond (running bond) in a total of eight
PT

configurations for testing the compressive strength of masonry. Fig. 1 shows the geometrical

configuration of the various specimens used in the present study. Three specimens were
E
CC

prepared for each of the eight configurations using two types of bricks and four grades of

mortar. A total of 192 brick masonry prisms were prepared and tested. A skilled mason was
A

employed for making the specimens and the thickness of the bed joint mortar was maintained

approximately as 10 mm for all joints using a template. Water content in the mortar mix was

fixed based on trials. All the specimens were cured for 28 days by spraying water at regular

intervals. Standard test cubes were cast using the mortar prepared for making the prisms and

8
cured in the same condition as that of prisms. These comparison mortar cubes were tested on

the day of testing of prisms to determine the strength of mortar. The variables of the

experimental study were type of brick, mortar strength and configuration of stacking of bricks

in the prism. Designations of the specimens were fixed in such a way that all the variables of

the study are included. For example B1C1M1 indicates a specimen with brick type B1,

mortar type M1 and configuration C1.

T
4.3 Testing

IP
The prisms were tested at the laboratory after curing for a period of 28 days. Before

R
testing, all prisms were capped with a thin layer of dental plaster of 1-2 mm thickness to level

SC
the contact surface between the specimen face and platens of the testing machine. The

U
strength of the capping was higher than that of the mortar joints and it was assumed to have
N
no effect on the results. The load was applied in stages. The testing of specimen with
A
designation B1C4M1 is shown in Fig. 2. The ultimate load (Pu_e) was recorded and the
M

strength of the prism (fp_e) was calculated.

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

ED

The compressive strength of masonry prism specimens (fp_e) is tabulated in Table 4. The

designation, strength of brick (fb), strength of mortar (fm), height-to-thickness ratio of the
PT

masonry prism (h/t), volume fraction of brick (VFb) and volume ratio of bed joint to mortar

(VRmH) are given in Table 4. The volume fraction of brick (VFb) and volume fraction of
E
CC

horizontal mortar joint (VRmH) are calculated from Eq. 1 and Eq. 2 respectively.

Vu
VFb = (1)
Vp
A

Where Vu is the volume of masonry units and Vp is the volume of prism.

VmH
VRmH = (2)
VmH +VmV

Where VmH is the volume fraction of mortar in horizontal joints and VmV is the volume

fraction of mortar in vertical joints. The volume fraction is obtained by dividing the

9
respective term with the strength of the prism. The maximum compressive strength was

found to be for specimen B2C2M4 and the magnitude is 3.15 MPa for specimen B2C2M4.

The effect of strength of brick, strength of mortar and configuration of prisms are discussed

in this paper.

5.1 Effect of strength of brick

Prisms made of cement stabilized pressed earth bricks (B1) had lower strength when

T
compared to prisms of locally manufactured burnt clay bricks (B2). The variation of

IP
compressive strength of prism with brick strength is shown in Fig. 3. An average increase of

R
70% in prism strength was seen with the increase in strength of brick. The findings in the

SC
study corroborates with the observations of Bennet et al. [19], Kaushik et al. [1], Gumaste et

U
al. [21], and Lumantarna et al. [13]. Brick units occupy the bulk of the prism volume and
N
offer a direct path for the transfer of the load. In India, strength of the mortar used is
A
generally greater than that of the brick and the mortar is sufficiently strong for the direct
M

transfer of this load. The increase in prism failure load with the increase in the strength of

brick may be attributed to this. The ratio of unit strength to masonry strength is generally
ED

expressed by the term masonry efficiency (η) and it increases with brick strength.

5.2 Effect of strength of mortar

PT

Fig. 4 shows the variation in strength of prism with the variation in compressive strength

of mortar. It is observed that the compressive strength of masonry prism increases with the
E
CC

increase in mortar strength. The observations of Ravula et al. [11] and Nagarajan et al. [38]

corroborates with the observations in the present study. The increase was found to be high
A

over the mortar strength range between 13.6 -14.2 MPa. The increase in prism strength was

found to be gradual when the mortar strength is greater than 17.5 MPa. The mortar between

the masonry units at the bed joint is in a triaxial state of stress. Lateral expansion of the

mortar is restricted due to frictional forces at the interface between the mortar layer and

10
bricks. As a result, the mortar offers greater resistance to direct load transfer. This may be the

reason for the increase in the prism strength with increase in mortar strength. However, the

effectiveness of load transfer through the mortar layer will decrease with the separation or

debonding at the brick-mortar interface. The debonding stress at the interface depends on the

roughness of the brick surface, mortar strength etc. It is expected that stronger the masonry,

higher will be the debonding stress. This is the reason for observing a gradual increase in

T
prism strength beyond mortar strength of 17.5 MPa.

IP
5.3 Effect of h/t ratio of prism

R
Fig. 5 shows the variation of prism compressive strength with the change in h/t ratio. It

SC
can be observed that the prism strength decreases with the increase in the h/t ratio of

U
specimens and similar variation was reported earlier by Hamid et al. [14] and Thomas and
N
Ansar [44]. When prisms are subjected to axial load there is a tendency to bulge laterally due

to Poisson’s effect. However, the top and bottom of the prism is restricted to bulge laterally
A
M

due to the friction between the steel plates of the loading machine and the surface of the

specimen. As a result, the top and bottom of the prism specimen will be under compression
ED

with confinement pressure and the middle zone will be under tension. The depth of the zone

under compression will depend on the dimension of loading surface and will be small as per
PT

St. Venant’s principle. Masonry is weak in tension due to the presence of weak links at the

brick-mortar interface. As the height of the prism increases, the zone subjected to lateral
E
CC

tensile stress increases. This tensile zone is vulnerable to cracking and the decrease in

strength due to the increase in height of specimen may be attributed to this. The strength of
A

short prism specimens is found to decrease with increase in slenderness ratio (h/t).

5.4 Effect of volume fraction of brick

Brick occupies about 80-95% of the volume in masonry and is the major constituent in

masonry. The uniformity of masonry is greatly influenced by the homogeneity of the

11
monolithic bricks. The volume fraction of brick directly depends on the dimension of the

units used for masonry construction. The prism strength is found to increase with increase in

volume of the brick from Fig. 6. In this experimental study, the deformation and failure of

prism is controlled by the bricks as bricks are the weaker constituent of masonry when

compared to mortar. The deformation and failure of brick causes the failure of prisms.

5.5 Effect of Volume Ratio of bed joint to mortar

T
The variation of prism strength with volume ratio of bed joint to total mortar (VRmH) is given

IP
in Fig. 7. The total volume of mortar is about 4-20% of the volume of the prism. The volume

R
ratio of bed joint mortar is 1.0 for stack bonded prism and it is about 0.6 to 0.8 for staggered

SC
bonded prisms. The prism strength increases with volume ratio of bed joint mortar. This is

U
due to the fact that the vertical joints are weak links in the prism when subjected to the lateral
N
bulging force. Hence, the prisms having greater volume of bed joint mortar contain lesser
A
number of weak links. This attributes to the greater strength of prisms having greater volume
M

ratio of bed joint to total mortar.

5.6 Crack Pattern

ED

The crack pattern in the prism was recorded and is given in Fig.8. Vertical cracks were

formed at the middle of the specimens. This is due to the outward bursting force developed in
PT

the composite specimen by Poisson’s effect. At the support, the resultant force of the bursting

force and frictional force between testing machine plates and specimen causes inclined
E
CC

cracks. In shorter specimens of C1 and C2, inclined cracks were predominant because the

zone of pure bursting force region spreads only over a small height. When the cracks
A

extended to vertical joints, further growth was found along the joint. This is due to the

debonding at the weak vertical interface between the masonry units and mortar. In bed joints,

except in few regions, the cracks extend across the bed joint to the next course. This indicates

that the bed joint mortar and its interface are relatively strong. This is attributed to the

12
increase in strength of mortar mobilized through the confinement. The crack pattern was

similar in other prisms made using M1, M3 and M4. The crack pattern in prisms with Brick

B2 was also found more or less similar to B1 as given in Fig. 8.

6 PROPOSED MODEL

From the experimental study it has been observed that the strength of masonry prisms

varies with the strength of the masonry unit and the type of mortar. The strengths of masonry

T
unit and mortar are believed to have a direct effect on the strength of the masonry as

IP
suggested by Engesser [32], Bröcker [33], Mann [15], Hendry and Malek [16], Dayaratnam

R
[17], Rozza [18], Dymiotis and Gutlederer [20], Gumaste et al. [21], Kaushik et al. [1],

SC
Christy et al. [22], Garzón-Roca et al. [23] and Lumantarna et al. [13]. It is true when the size

U
of prism and size of the block is same. The sizes of the masonry blocks used in India vary.
N
The sizes of burnt clay bricks used in the Indian construction industry are 190mm × 90mm ×
A
90mm, 190mm × 90mm × 40mm, 230mm × 110mm × 30mm and 230mm × 110mm ×
M

70mm. However, it is also important to account for other parameters such as in mortar

strength, h/t ratio etc. in the prediction of masonry strength. After reviewing various
ED

parameter reported in Table 1, the parameters viz. compressive strength of masonry unit (fb),

compressive strength of mortar (fm), height-to-thickness ratio (h/t), volume fraction of

PT

masonry unit (VFb) and volume ratio of bed join to mortar (VRmH) have been identified in this

study. Statistical F-test was conducted to identify the significance of the various parameters
E
CC

and the ANOVA result is given in Table 5.

From Table 5, it can be seen that F-value is greater than F-critical and P-value is less than
A

0.05 corresponding to all parameters. Hence, it is established that all the parameters

considered do have significant influence on compressive strength of masonry. The parameters

VFb and VRmH are found to have the maximum influence on the compressive strength.

Statistical regression analysis was carried out using 232 data sets and the details of the data

13
are given in Table 6. Out of the 232 data, 64 test data were from the present study and the

remaining are taken from published works of 20 authors. The type of brick, country of origin

and range of values of various parameters used for the analysis are presented in Table 6. Test

data corresponding to masonry unit strength of 3.1 to 127.0 MPa, mortar strength of 0.3 to

52.6 MPa and h/t ratio of 1.15 to 5.75 were used in the regression analysis. A model

developed based on regression analysis on 232 experimental data is given by Eq. 3.

T
0.54×fb 1.06 ×fm 0.004 ×VFb 3.3 ×VRmH 0.6

IP
fp-p = 0.28 (3)
h⁄t

R
The R2 value corresponding to the equation is 0.88 which means that the proposed parameters

SC
are able to predict 88% of the variation in the masonry prism strength.

7 COMPARISON OF PREDICTION WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA

U
N
The predicted strength of masonry is compared with the experimental data. The masonry
A
prism strength prediction models proposed by 14 researchers are given in Table 2. The
M

comparison of predicted models with experimental data is given in Fig 9. The spread of the

data points indicates the variation in the prediction. The data points aligned to the 45˚ solid
ED

line indicate that the prediction is in good agreement with experimental data. The skewed
PT

spread of the data points in Fig. 9 indicates that the prediction is having greater variation with

the experimental results.

E

The mean and coefficient of variance of ratio between the predicted masonry strength to
CC

experimental data is given in Table 7. It may be noted that the data points of the comparison

graphs in Fig. 9 (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (j), (k), (l) and (m) are skewed. However, the data points
A

of comparison graphs in Fig. 9(c), 9(g), (h), (i), (n) and (o) seem to be more or less equally

spread on either side of the 45˚ solid line. The spread of the graph is due to the variations in

constituent materials, workmanship, speed of loading etc. The mean ratio of the predicted

strength to experimental strength is found to be 1.00 for the proposed model and the model

14
by Gumaste et al. [21]. The coefficient of variance is found to be 0.36 for the proposed model

and 0.47 for the model by Gumaste et al. [21]. This indicates that the variation of predicted

strength is lower in the proposed model when compared to other models in Table 2.

7.1 Influence of parameters on the predicted strength

The effect of the individual parameters on the strength of masonry is shown in Fig. 10.

The variation in the prism strength (fp) with the increase in masonry unit strength (fb) is

T
almost linear and is shown in the Fig. 10 (a). The variation of prism strength (fp) with the

IP
mortar strength (fm) is non-linear and is shown in Fig. 10 (b). The non-linearity may be due to

R
the triaxial state of stress induced in the mortar layer. The strength of prism shows an inverse

SC
relationship with slenderness as seen from Fig. 10 (c). The volume fraction of masonry unit

U
(VFb) and volume ratio of bed joint to mortar (VRmH) have the greatest effect on the strength
N
of prisms as seen from Fig. 10 (d) and (e). This confirms that the terms volume fraction of
A
masonry unit (VFb) and volume ratio of bed joint to mortar (VRmH) have to be included in the
M

prediction model to get accurate results.

8 CONCLUSIONS
ED

Based on the present study, the following conclusions have been arrived at:

1. The volume fraction of masonry unit (VFb), volume ratio of bed joint to mortar (VRmH)
PT

and height-to-thickness (h/t) ratio of the specimen also influence the strength of masonry

prisms significantly in addition to the masonry unit strength (fb) and mortar strength (fm).
E
CC

2. Unit strength, mortar strength, volume fraction of masonry unit and volume ratio of bed

joint to mortar are directly proportional to the prism strength and height-to-thickness ratio
A

has an inverse relationship with the prism strength.

3. The F-test of 232 test data indicated that the volume fraction of masonry unit, volume

ratio of bed joint to mortar and height-to-thickness ratio of the specimen are more

15
 significant than the compressive strength of the masonry unit and the compressive

strength of the mortar.

4. The influences of masonry unit strength, volume fraction of masonry unit and volume

ratio of bed joint to mortar are also found to be significant in all the specimens tested.

5. The increase in the prism strength of the test specimens was found to be significant up to

mortar strength of 17.5 MPa and there after the increase was found to be gradual.

T
6. The average of the predicted to experimental prism strength is found to be 1.00 with a

IP
coefficient of variance (COV) of 0.36. This indicates that the prediction based on the

R
proposed model is in good agreement with the experimental data.

SC
7. The model proposed in this study accounts for the wide range of mortar (0.3-52.6 MPa)

and masonry unit strength (3.5-127 MPa).

U
N
In conventional masonry construction, the volume fraction of mortar is almost the same. It is
expected that the proposed model is useful for designers to assess the strength of the masonry
A
when the mortar joints are increased for architectural purposes.
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

16
REFERENCES

1. H. B. Kaushik, D. C. Rai, S. K. Jain, Stress-strain characteristics of clay brick masonry

under uniaxial compression, J. Mater. Civ. Eng 19(9) (2007) 728–739.

2. J. Thomas, Concrete block reinforced masonry wall panels subjected to out-of-plane

monotonic lateral loading, in: Proceedings of National Conference on Recent Advances in

Structural Engineering, Hyderabad, India, February, 2006, pp. 123-129.

T
3. SP 20 (S&T), Handbook on Masonry Design and Construction, Bureau of Indian

IP
standards, New Delhi, India, 1991.

R
4. K. S. Jagdish, B. V. V. Reddy, K. S. N. Rao, Alternative Building Materials and

SC
Technologies, New Age International, New Delhi, India, 2008.

U
5. IS: 1905, Indian standard code of practice for structural use of unreinforced masonry,
N
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1987.
A
6. ASTM E447-97, Test methods for compressive strength of laboratory constructed
M

masonry prisms, American Society for Testing and Materials, Pennsylvania, USA.

7. R. G. Drysdale, A. A. Hamid, Behavior of concrete block masonry under axial

ED

compression, ACI J. Proc. 76 (6) (1979) 707–722.

8. A. J. Francis, C. B. Horman, L. E. Jerrems, The effect of joint thickness and other factors
PT

on compressive strength of brickwork In: Proceedings of 2nd International Brick Masonry

Conference, Stoke-on-Trent, pp. 31–37.

E
CC

9. T. P. Ganesan, K. Ramamurthy (1992), Behavior of concrete hollow-block masonry

prisms under axial compression, J. Struct. Eng. 118 (7) (1992) 1751-1769.
A

10. S. B. Singh, P. Munjal, Bond strength and compressive stress-strain characteristics of

brick masonry, J. Build. Eng. 9 (2017) 10-16.

11. M. B. Ravula, K. V. L. Subramaniam, Experimental investigation of compressive failure

in masonry brick assemblages made with soft brick, Mater. Struct. 50:19 (2017) 1-11.

17
12. F. Wu, G. Li, H. N. Li, J. Q. Jia, Strength and stress-strain characteristics of traditional

adobe block and masonry, Mater. Struct. 46 (2013) 1449–1457.

13. R. Lumantarna, D.T. Biggs, J.M. Ingham, Uniaxial compressive strength and stiffness of

field-extracted and laboratory-constructed masonry prisms, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 26 (4)

(2014) 567–575.

14. A. A. Hamid, B. E. Abboud, H. G. Harris, Direct Modeling of Concrete Block Masonry

T
Under Axial Compression, Masonry: Research, Application, and Problems, ASTM STP

IP
871, J. C. Grogan and J. T. Conway, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials,

R
Philadelphia, 1985, 151-166.

SC
15. W. Mann, Statistical evaluation of tests on masonry by potential functions, in:

U
Proceedings of the Sixth International Brick Masonry Conference, Rome, Italy, May,
N
1982, pp. 86-98.
A
16. A.W. Hendry and M. H. Malek, (1986), Characteristic compressive strength of brickwork
M

walls from collected test results, Mason. Int. 7 (1986) 15–24.

17. P. Dayaratnam, Brick and Reinforced Brick Structures, Oxford & IBH, 1987.
ED

18. G. L. Apolo and A. L. Matinez-Luengas, Curso técnicas de intervención en el patrimonio

arquitectonico, Consultores Tecnicos de Contstruccion, 1995.

PT

19. R. Bennett, K. Boyd, R. Flanagan, Compressive properties of structural clay tile prisms, J.

Struct. Eng. 123(7) (1997) 920–926.

E
CC

20. C. Dymiotis, B. M. Gutlederer, Allowing for uncertainties in the modelling of masonry

compressive strength, Constr. Build. Mater. 16 (2002) 443–452.

A

21. K. S. Gumaste, K. S. N. Rao, B. V. V. Reddy, K. S. Jagadish, Strength and elasticity of

brick masonry prisms and wallettes under compression, Mater. Struct. 40(2) (2007) 241–

253.

18
22. C. F. Christy, Tensing D., Shanthi R., Experimental study on axial compressive strength

and elastic modulus of the clay and fly ash brick masonry, J. Civ. Eng. Constr. Techn.4(4)

(2013) 134-141.

23. J. Garzón-Roca, C. O. Marco, J. M. Adam, Compressive strength of masonry made of

clay bricks and cement mortar: Estimation based on neural networks and fuzzy logic,

Eng. Struct. 48 (2013) 21–27.

T
24. S. R. Sarhat, E. G. Sherwood, The prediction of compressive strength of ungrouted

IP
hollow concrete block masonry, Constr. Build. Mater. 58 (2014) 111–121.

R
25. A. Costigan, S. Pavía, O. Kinnane, An experimental evaluation of prediction models for

SC
the mechanical behavior of unreinforced, lime-mortar masonry under compression, J.

Build. Eng. 4 (2015) 283–294.

U
N
26. H. R. Kumavat, An experimental investigation of mechanical properties in clay brick
A
masonry by partial replacement of fine aggregate with clay brick waste, J. Inst. Eng. India
M

Ser. A, 97(3) (2016) 199-204.

27. Q. Zhou, F. Wang, F. Zhu, Estimation of compressive strength of hollow concrete

ED

masonry prisms using artificial neural networks and adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference

systems, Constr. Build. Mater. 125 (2016) 417–426.

PT

28. C. S. Barbosa, P. B. Lourenco, J. B. Hanai, On the compressive strength prediction for

concrete masonry prisms, Mater. Struct. 43 (3) (2010) 331–344.

E
CC

29. J. Bakhteri, S. Sambasivam, Mechanical behaviour of structural brick masonry: An

experimental evaluation, in: Proceedings of the 5th Asia- Pacific Structural Engineering
A

and Construction Conference, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, August, 2003, 305-317.

30. B.V. Reddy, C. V. U. Vyas, Influence of shear bond strength on compressive strength and

stress-strain characteristics of masonry, Mater. Struct. 41 (10) (2008) 1697–1712.

19
31. T. Zahra, M. Dhanasekar, Prediction of masonry compressive behaviour using a damage

mechanics inspired modelling method, Constr. Build. Mater. 109 (2016) 128–138.

32. F. Engesser, Über weitgespannte wölbbrücken, Zeitschrift für Architekturs und

Ingenieurwesen 53 (1907) 403-440.

33. O. Bröcker, Die auswertung von tragfähigkeitsversuchen an gemauerten wänden,

Betonstein-Zeitung (1963) 19-21.

T
34. J. Thomas, Effect of plastering on the out-of-plane flexural strength of single wythe

IP
masonry walletes, in: Proceedings of the First CUSAT National Conference on Recent

R
Advances in Civil Engineering, Kochi, India, March, 2004, pp. 144-149.

SC
35. K. O. Varghese, D. G. Nair, J. Thomas, Prospects of straw bale masonry in Kerala, in:

U
Proceedings of CUSAT National Conference on Recent Advances in Structural
N
Engineering, Kochi, India, December, 2013, pp. 353-359 .
A
36. A. W. Page, Unreinforced masonry structures- An Australian overview, in: Proceedings
M

of the Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Melbourne, Australia, November,

1995, pp. 242-254.

ED

37. S. R. Balasubramanian, D. Maheswari, A. Cynthia, K. B. Rao, M. A. Prasad, R.

Goswami, P. Sivakumar, Experimental determination of statistical parameters associated

PT

with uniaxial compression behaviour of brick masonry, Curr. Sci. 109(11) (2015) 2094-

2102.
E
CC

38. T. Nagarajan, S. Viswanathan, S. Ravi, V. Srinivas, P. Narayanan, Experimental

approach to investigate the behaviour of brick masonry for different mortar ratios, in:
A

Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Engineering and

Technology, Singapore, March, 2014, pp. 586-592.

20
39. G. Mohamad, P. B. Lourenço, H. R. Roman, Mechanics of hollow concrete block

masonry prisms under compression: Review and prospects, Cem. Concr. Compos. 29(3)

(2007) 181–192.

40. American Concrete Institute (ACI), ACI 530-05/ASCE 5-05/TMS 402-05 Building Code

Requirements for Masonry Structures, Masonry Standards Joint Committee, Farmington

Hills, MI, 2005.

T
41. EN1996-1 and 2, Eurocode 6- Design of masonry structures. Part1-1:- General rules for

IP
buildings—reinforced and unreinforced masonry, Design of masonry structures. Design

R
Considerations, Selection of Materials and Execution of Masonry. European Committee

SC
for Standardisation CEN, Brussels, 2006.

U
42. IS: 383, Indian standard specification for coarse and fine aggregates from natural sources

for concrete,” Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi, India, 1970.

N
43. IS: 2250, Indian standard code of practice for preparation and use of masonry mortars,”
A
M

Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi, India, 1981.

44. J. Thomas, Ansar E. M., Parametric study of the strength of brickwork prisms, in:
ED

Proceedings of the First CUSAT National Conference on Recent Advances in Civil

Engineering, Kochi, India, March, 2004, pp. 431-437.

PT

45. Vindhyashree, A. Rahamath, W. P. Kumar, and M. T. Kumar, Numerical simulation of

masonry prism test using ANSYS and ABAQUS, Int. J. Eng. Res. Techn. 4(7) (2015)
E
CC

1019-1027.

46. J. A. Thamboo, (2014), Development of thin layer mortared concrete masonry (Ph.D.
A

Dissertation), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 2014.

47. S. Vimala, K. Kumarasamy (2014), Studies on the strength of stabilized mud block

masonry using different mortar proportions, Int. J. Emerg. Techn. Adv. Eng. 4(4) (2014)

720-724.

21
48. A. Brencich, L. Gambarotta, Mechanical response of solid clay brickwork under eccentric

loading. Part I: Unreinforced masonry, Mater. Struct. 38 (2005) 257–266.

49. F. Ip, Compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of masonry prisms (Master of

Engineering Thesis), Carleton University, Ottawa, 1999.

50. M. M. Hossain, S. S. Ali, M. A. Rahman, Properties of masonry constituents, J. Civ. Eng.

Inst. Eng. Bangladesh. 25(2) (1997) 135-155.

T
51. A. T. Vermeltfoort, (1994), Compression properties of masonry and its components, in:

IP
Proceedings of the 10th International Brick and Block Masonry Conference, Calgary,

R
Canada, July, 1994, pp. 1433-1442.

SC
52. W. McNary, D. Abrams, Mechanics of masonry in compression, J. Struct. Eng. 111(4)

(1985) 857–870.
U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

22
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig. 1 Geometrical configuration of prisms
Fig. 2 Testing of specimens
Fig. 3 Influence of brick strength on compressive strength of masonry prisms
Fig. 4 Variation of prism strength with mortar strength
Fig. 5 Variation of prism strength with h/t ratio
Fig. 6 Variation of prism strength with volume fraction of brick
Fig. 7 Variation of prism strength with volume ratio of bed joint to total mortar

T
Fig. 8 Typical crack pattern in prisms as seen from experimental study for brick type B1 and

IP
mortar type M2 (1:5)

R
Fig. 9 Comparison of predicted compressive strength of prisms with corresponding
experimental data

SC
Fig. 10 Influence of individual parameters on prism strength

U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

23
 (a) Configuration 1 (C1) (b) Configuration 2 (C2)

T
R IP
SC
(c) Configuration 3 (C3) (d) Configuration 4 (C4)

U
N
A
M

(e) Configuration 5 (C5) Configuration 6 (C6)

ED
E PT
CC
A

(f) Configuration 7 (C7) (g) Configuration 8 (C8)

Fig. 1 Geometrical configuration of prisms

24
 T
R IP
SC
U
N
(a) Specimen B1C3M1 (b) Specimen B1C4M1
Fig. 2 Testing of specimens
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

25
 3 B1 (fb = 4.56 MPa)

B2 (fb = 6.68MPa)
2.56

2.56
2.13
1.64
1.30

2
2.56 Mortar M2 (14.2 MPa)
2.56
f p_e (MPa)

2.13 2.13 2.56 2.56

2.13 2.56
2.13 2.56
1 1.64 1.64 1.64
2.13 2.13 2.56
2.13
1.64 2.13
1.64 1.64
1.64

T
1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30
1.64
1.30 1.30

IP
0
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8

R
Fig. 3 Influence of brick strength on compressive strength of masonry prisms

SC
U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

26
 B1C1 B1C2
B1C3 B1C4
3.60 B1C5 3.60 B1C6
3.00 B1C7 3.00 B1C8

fp_e (MPa)
fp_e (MPa)

2.40 2.40
1.80 1.80
1.20 1.20

T
0.60 0.60
2010 30 40 20 10 30 40

IP
fm (MPa) fm (MPa)
(a) Staggered bond prism with B1 (b) Stack bond prism with B1

R
B2C1 B2C2
B2C3 B2C4

SC
3.60 B2C5 3.60 B2C6
B2C7 B2C8
3.00 3.00
fp_e (MPa)

fp_e (MPa)

2.40
U
2.40
N
1.80 1.80
1.20
A
1.20
0.60 0.60
M

10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40
fm (MPa) fm (MPa)
ED

(c) Staggered bond prism with B2 (d) Stack bond prism with B2
Fig. 4 Variation of prism strength with mortar strength
E PT
CC
A

27
 2.7 Mortar M2 (14.2 MPa) 2.7 Mortar M2 (14.2 MPa)
C2
2.4 2.4
Staggered C1 Staggered
2.1 Bond 2.1 C4 Bond
fp_e (MPa)

fp_e (MPa)
1.8 Stack Bond 1.8 Stack Bond
C3 C6
1.5 C2 1.5 C5
1.2 C4 C8
1.2
C1 C6 C7
0.9 C3 C8 0.9
C5 C7
0.6 0.6
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6

T
h/t h/t

IP
(a) Prisms using brick B1 (4.46 MPa) (b) Prisms using brick B2 (6.68 MPa)

R
Fig. 5 Variation of prism strength with h/t ratio

SC
U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

28
 3.00 Mortar M2 (14.2 MPa) 3.00 Mortar M2 (14.2 MPa)

2.40 C2
h/t 2.40 C1 h/t
1.86 C4 1.15
1.80 1.80 C3
C2

fp_e
fp_e

2.83 C6 1.77
C1 C5
1.20 3.81 2.40
C3 C4 1.20 C7 C8
C5 C6 5.75 3.65
C7 C8
0.60 0.60
0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
VFb VFb

T
IP
(a) Prisms using brick B1 (4.46 MPa) (b) Prisms using brick B2 (6.68 MPa)
Fig. 6 Variation of prism strength with volume fraction of brick

R
SC
3.00 Mortar M2 (14.2 MPa) Mortar M2 (14.2 MPa)

2.50 h/t
3.00

2.50 U C2 h/t
N
1.86 C1 C4 1.15
2.00 2.00 C3
2.83 1.77
C6
A
C2
fp_e
fp_e

1.50 C1 3.81 C5 2.40

1.50
C4 5.75 3.65
C3 C7
M

1.00 C6 C8
C5 1.00
C7 C8
0.50 0.50
0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10
ED

VRmH VRmH

(a) Prisms using brick B1 (4.46 MPa) (b) Prisms using brick B2 (6.68 MPa)
PT

Fig. 7 Variation of prism strength with volume ratio of bed joint to total mortar
E
CC
A

29
(a) B1C1M2 (b) B1C2M2

T
IP
(c) B1C3M2 (d) B1C4M2

R
SC
U
N
A
(e) B1C5M2 (f) B1C6M2
M
ED
E PT
CC

(g) B1C7M2 (h) B1C8M2

Fig. 8 Typical crack pattern in prisms as seen from experimental study for brick type B1
A

and mortar type M2 (1:5)

30
 (a) Engesser [32] (b) Bröcker [33] (c) Mann [15]
+ 20% + 20% + 20%
60 60 60

40 40 40
fp_p (MPa)

fp_p (MPa)

fp_p (MPa)
- 20% - 20% - 20%

20 20 20

0 0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
fp_e (MPa) fp_e (MPa) fp_e (MPa)
( d) Hendry and Malek [16] (e) Dayaratnam [17] (f) Rozza [18]
+ 20% + 20% + 20%
60 60 60

T
40 40 40
fp_p (MPa)

fp_p (MPa)

fp_p (MPa)
- 20% - 20% - 20%

IP
20 20 20

0 0 0

R
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
fp_e (MPa) fp_e (MPa) fp_e (MPa)

SC
(g) Bennet [19] (h) Dymiotis and Gutlederer [20] (i) Gumaste et al. [21]
+ 20% + 20% + 20%
60 60 60

40 40 40
fp_p (MPa)

fp_p (MPa)

fp_p (MPa)
20
- 20%

20
- 20%

U 20
- 20%
N
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
A
fp_e (MPa) fp_e (MPa) fp_e (MPa)
(j) Kaushik et al. [1] (k) Christy et al. [22] (l) Garzón- Roca et al. [23]
+ 20% + 20% + 20%
M

60 60 60

40
40 40
fp_p (MPa)

fp_p (MPa)

fp_p (MPa)

- 20% - 20% 20 - 20%

ED

20 20
0
0 20 40 60
0 0 -20
fp_e (MPa)
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
fp_e (MPa) fp_e (MPa)
PT

(m) Lumantarna et al. [24] (n) Kumavat [25] (o) Present Study
+ 20% + 20% + 20%
60 60 60

40 40 40
fp_p (MPa)

fp_p (MPa)

fp_p (MPa)
E

- 20% - 20% - 20%

20 20 20
CC

0 0 0
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
fp_e (MPa) fp_e (MPa) fp_e (MPa)
Fig. 9 Comparison of predicted compressive strength of prisms with corresponding
A

experimental data

31
 (a) (b) (c) Staggered
50 1.56 2.00 Bond
Stack Bond
40 1.55 1.80
fP (MPa)

fP (MPa)
1.54

fp (MPa)
30 1.60
h/t = 3 h/t = 3
20 VFb = 0.837 1.53 VFb = 0.837 1.40
VRmH = 0.875 VRmH = 0.875
10 1.52 fb = 6.68 MPa 1.20 fb = 6.68 MPa
fm = 35.5 MPa
fm= 35.5 MPa
0 1.51 1.00
0 30 60 90 120 150 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
fb (MPa) fm (MPa) h/t

T
(d) 1.70 (e)
2.60

IP
1.60
1.50
fP (MPa)

2.10
fP (MPa)

1.40

R
h/t = 3 h/t = 3
1.60 VRmH = 1 1.30 VFb = 0.837

SC
fb = 6.68 MPa 1.20 fb = 6.68 MPa
fm = 35.5 MPa fm = 35.5 MPa
1.10 1.10
0.7 0.8 0.9 1 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
VFb
Fig. 10 Influence of individual parameters on prism strength
VRmH

U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

32
Table 1 Parameters reported by authors
Parameter Considered Reference
Mann [15]
Hendry and Malek [16]
Dayaratnam [17]
Rozza [18]
Bennet et. al [19]
Dymiotis and Gutlederer [20]
Kaushik et al. [1]
Compressive strength of masonry unit Gumaste et al. [21]
Christy et al. [22]

T
Garzón- Roca et al. [23]

IP
Lumantarna et al. [13]
Sarhat and Sherwood [24]
Costigan et al. [25]

R
Kumavat et al. [26]

SC
Zhou et al. [27]
Mann [15]
Hendry and Malek [16]
Dayaratnam [17]

U
Rozza [18]
Dymiotis and Gutlederer [20]
N
Kaushik et al. [1]
Gumaste et al. [21]
A
Compressive strength of mortar
Christy et al. [22]
Garzón- Roca et al. [23]
M

Lumantarna et al. [13]

Sarhat and Sherwood [24]
Costigan et al. [25]
ED

Kumavat et al. [26]

Zhou et al. [27]
Barbosa et al. [28]
Wu et al. [12]
PT

Mortar strength to block strength ratio

Costigan et al. [25]
Ravula et al. [11]
Hamid et al. [14]
E

Dymiotis and Gutlederer [20]

Height-to-thickness ratio of prism
Sarhat and Sherwood [24]
CC

Zhou et al. [27]

Francis et al. [8]
Number of courses of masonry unit
Hamid et al. [14]
A

Francis et al. [8]

Thickness of joint
Height of block-to-thickness of joint ratio
Relative volume of masonry unit
Relative volume of mortar
Bakhteri and Sambasivam [29]
Reddy et al. [30]
Zahra and Dhanasekar [31]
Dymiotis and Gutlederer [20]
Zahra and Dhanasekar [31]
Rozza [18]
Rozza [18]

33
Table 2 Models to predict masonry compressive strength from literature

Sl. Reference Model Parameters

No.

1. Engesser [32]
1 2
fp = fb + fm
3 3

2. Bröcker [33] fp = 0.68 fb 1/2 fm 1/3

fp = 0.83 fb 0.66 fm.0.18

T
3. Mann [15]

IP
4. Hendry and Malek [16] fp = 0.317fb0.531 fm 0.208

5. Dayaratnam [17] fp = 0.275 fb 0.5 fm 0.5 fp = Strength of masonry

R
fb = Strength of masonry unit

SC
6. Rozza [18] fp = (vu fb + 0.8vm fm)/10

7. Bennet et. al [19] fp = 0.3 fb fm = Strength of mortar

8.
Dymiotis and fp= 0.3266
U
fb×(1- vu=Relative volume of unit
N
Gutlederer [20] 0.0027fb+ 0.0147fm) vm =Relative volume of mortar
A
9. Kaushik et al. [1] fp = 0.317 fb0.866fm0.134
M

10. Gumaste et al. [21] fp = 0.63fb0.49fm0.32

11. Christy et al. [22] fp= 0.35fb0.65fm0.25

ED

12. Garzón- Roca et al. [23] fp = 0.53fb+ 0.93fm-10.32

PT

13. Lumantarna et al. [13] fp = 0.75fb0.75fm0.31

14. Kumavat et al. [26] fp = 0.69fb0.6fm0.35

E
CC
A

34
Table 3 Details of constituent materials

Materials Description

Type Compressive Strength

Cement
Ordinary Portland Cement (43 7th day-33 MPa
grade) 28th day-45 MPa
Fine Aggregate River sand conforming to Zone II of IS 383

T
Compressive
Designation Dimensions
Strength

IP
B1
(Cement Stabilized 190mm×113mm×100mm 4.56 MPa

R
Bricks Pressed Earth)

SC
B2
210mm×96mm× 50mm 6.68 MPa
(Burnt Clay)

Designation U
Compressive Strength (50 mm2 cubes)
N
M1 (1:6) 13.6 MPa
A
Mortar M2 (1:5) 14.2 MPa
M3 (1:4) 17.5 MPa
M

M4 (1:3) 35.5MPa
ED
E PT
CC
A

35
Table 4 Results of test for compression on brickwork prisms

Sl. No. Designation fb fm h/t VFb VRmH fp_e

(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
1 B1C1M1 4.56 13.6 1.86 0.927 0.025 1.12
2 B1C1M2 4.56 14.2 1.86 0.927 0.025 1.27
3 B1C1M3 4.56 17.5 1.86 0.927 0.025 1.36
4 B1C1M4 4.56 35.5 1.86 0.927 0.025 1.43
5 B1C2M1 4.56 13.6 1.86 0.952 0.000 1.27
6 B1C2M2 4.56 14.2 1.86 0.952 0.000 1.46

T
7 B1C2M3 4.56 17.5 1.86 0.952 0.000 1.56

IP
8 B1C2M4 4.56 35.5 1.86 0.952 0.000 1.69
9 B1C3M1 4.56 13.6 2.83 0.921 0.016 0.92

R
10 B1C3M2 4.56 14.2 2.83 0.921 0.016 0.96
11 B1C3M3 4.56 17.5 2.83 0.921 0.016 1.09

SC
12 B1C3M4 4.56 35.5 2.83 0.921 0.016 1.18
13 B1C4M1 4.56 13.6 2.83 0.938 0.000 1.00
14 B1C4M2 4.56 14.2 2.83 0.938 0.000 1.08
15
16
B1C4M3
B1C4M4
4.56
4.56
17.5
35.5
2.83
2.83 U 0.938
0.938
0.000
0.000
1.16
1.22
N
17 B1C5M1 4.56 13.6 3.81 0.906 0.024 0.83
A
18 B1C5M2 4.56 14.2 3.81 0.906 0.024 0.90
19 B1C5M3 4.56 17.5 3.81 0.906 0.024 1.00
M

20 B1C5M4 4.56 35.5 3.81 0.906 0.024 1.11

21 B1C6M1 4.56 13.6 3.81 0.930 0.000 0.88
22 B1C6M2 4.56 14.2 3.81 0.930 0.000 0.93
ED

23 B1C6M3 4.56 17.5 3.81 0.930 0.000 1.05

24 B1C6M4 4.56 35.5 3.81 0.930 0.000 1.16
25 B1C7M1 4.56 13.6 5.75 0.890 0.026 0.73
PT

26 B1C7M2 4.56 14.2 5.75 0.890 0.026 0.82

27 B1C7M3 4.56 17.5 5.75 0.890 0.026 0.83
28 B1C7M4 4.56 35.5 5.75 0.890 0.026 0.93
E

29 B1C8M1 4.56 13.6 5.75 0.917 0.000 0.76

CC

30 B1C8M2 4.56 14.2 5.75 0.917 0.000 0.85

31 B1C8M3 6.68 17.5 5.75 0.917 0.000 0.92
32 B1C8M4 6.68 35.5 5.75 0.917 0.000 1.04
A

33 B2C1M1 6.68 13.6 1.15 0.887 0.022 1.98

34 B2C1M2 6.68 14.2 1.15 0.887 0.022 2.38
35 B2C1M3 6.68 17.5 1.15 0.887 0.022 2.64
36 B2C1M4 6.68 35.5 1.15 0.887 0.022 2.94
37 B2C2M1 6.68 13.6 1.15 0.909 0.000 2.23
38 B2C2M2 6.68 14.2 1.15 0.909 0.000 2.56
39 B2C2M3 6.68 17.5 1.15 0.909 0.000 2.80

36
Sl. No. Designation fb fm h/t VFb VRmH fp_e
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa)
40 B2C2M4 6.68 35.5 1.15 0.909 0.000 3.15
41 B2C3M1 6.68 13.6 1.77 0.868 0.014 1.42
42 B2C3M2 6.68 14.2 1.77 0.868 0.014 1.76
43 B2C3M3 6.68 17.5 1.77 0.868 0.014 1.78
44 B2C3M4 6.68 35.5 1.77 0.868 0.014 1.96
45 B2C4M1 6.68 13.6 1.77 0.882 0.000 1.52
46 B2C4M2 6.68 14.2 1.77 0.882 0.000 2.13
47 B2C4M3 6.68 17.5 1.77 0.882 0.000 2.30

T
48 B2C4M4 6.68 35.5 1.77 0.882 0.000 2.51

IP
49 B2C5M1 6.68 13.6 2.40 0.849 0.021 1.31
50 B2C5M2 6.68 14.2 2.40 0.849 0.021 1.54

R
51 B2C5M3 6.68 17.5 2.40 0.849 0.021 1.59
52 B2C5M4 6.68 35.5 2.40 0.849 0.021 1.71

SC
53 B2C6M1 6.68 13.6 2.40 0.870 0.000 1.34
54 B2C6M2 6.68 14.2 2.40 0.870 0.000 1.64
55 B2C6M3 6.68 17.5 2.40 0.870 0.000 1.66
56 B2C6M4 6.68 35.5 2.40
U
0.870 0.000 1.80
N
57 B2C7M1 6.68 13.6 3.65 0.837 0.020 1.10
58 B2C7M2 6.68 14.2 3.65 0.837 0.020 1.19
A
59 B2C7M3 6.68 17.5 3.65 0.837 0.020 1.27
60 B2C7M4 6.68 35.5 3.65 0.837 0.020 1.55
M

61 B2C8M1 6.68 13.6 3.65 0.857 0.000 1.22

62 B2C8M2 6.68 14.2 3.65 0.857 0.000 1.30
ED

63 B2C8M3 6.68 17.5 3.65 0.857 0.000 1.42

64 B2C8M4 6.68 35.5 3.65 0.857 0.000 1.61
E PT
CC
A

37
Table 5 Results of test of parameters influencing masonry strength

Parameter F- value P- value F-critical

fb 95.12 1.49×10-20 3.86
fm 17.10 4.22×10-05 3.86
h/t 116.91 1.91×10-24 3.86
VFb 218.29 1.06×10-40 3.86
VRmH 214.10 4.14×10-40 3.86

T
R IP
SC
U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

38
 R I
SC
Table 6 Data from experiments published in literature
Number
Sl. Country of

U
Reference Type of unit of fb (MPa) fm (MPa) h/t VFb VRmH fp_e (MPa)
No. origin
datasets
Pressed Earth

N
Brick, 0.655-
1 Present Study Burnt Clay Brick India 64 4.6-6.7 13.6-35.5 1.15-5.75 0.837-0.952 1.000 0.7-3.2

A
Soft Clay Bricks
2 Ravula et al. [11] (Wire Cut) India 2 14.0 9.4-30.0 3.90 0.897 1.000 5.8-8.0

M
Singh and Munjal
3 [10] Burnt Clay Brick India 12 8.2-16.7 12.7-20.9 3.84-5.40 0.896-0.919 1.000 2.1-11.6
Hollow Concrete 0.732-
4 Zhou et al. [27] Blocks
ED China 12 23.2-36.8 5.6-13.7 3.10-5.20 0.950-0.958 0.804 10.2-27.0
Balasubramanian
5 et al. [37] Clay Bricks India 1 5.3 19.14 1.93 0.893 1.000 2.8
Vindhyashree et Solid Concrete
6 al. [45] Blocks India 3 5.6 4.2 2.80 0.893 1.000 4.0-4.8
PT
Lumantarna et al. Vintage Solid
7 [13] Clay Bricks New Zealand 14 8.5-43.4 0.7-12.5 2.53 0.886 1.000 6.51-30.79
Nagarajan et al. Burnt Clay Bricks
8 [38] (Handmade) India 3 3.6 11.8-18.2 2.45 0.918 1.000 1.9-2.4
E

Hollow Concrete
9 Thamboo [46] Blocks Australia 4 12.7 3.6-4.8 4.06-4.33 0.923-0.984 1.000 6.9-10.1
CC

Vimala and Stabilized Mud

10 Kumarasamy [47] Blocks India 6 3.1 0.3-6.4 2.13 0.902 1.000 0.7-1.6
Compressed Earth
11 Reddy et al. [30] Blocks India 4 8.3 3.5 3.66-4.34 0.806-0.954 1.000 3.2-3.9
A

12 Kaushik et al. [1] Clay Bricks India 12 16.1-28.9 3.1-20.6 3.63 0.904 1.000 2.9-8.5
Bricks (Table
Gumaste et al. Mounted and
13 [21] Wire Cut) India 6 5.7-23.0 0.9-12.2 4.00-4.38 0.887 1.000 1.3-10.0
Mohamad et al. Hollow Concrete
14 [39] Blocks Portugal 6 18.2-27.0 2.9-19.9 2.3 0.955 1.000 7.5-11.7
Brencich and
15 Gambarotta [48] Solid Clay Bricks Italy 2 18.7 11.4-14.7 2.46 0.815 1.000 3.9-13.5
Bakhteri and
16 Sambasivam [29] Solid Clay Bricks Malaysia 6 56.6 6.3 3.91-4.46 0.805-0.917 1.000 9.1-16.9

39
 R I
SC
Number
Sl. Country of
Reference Type of unit of fb (MPa) fm (MPa) h/t VFb VRmH fp_e (MPa)
No. origin
datasets

U
Flagstone, Solid
17 Ip [49] Clay Bricks Australia 4 33.0-103.0 14.4-21.1 3.17-3.44 0.755-0.774 1.000 11.0-41.0

N
18 Hossein et al. [50] Burnt Clay Bricks Bangladesh 1 66.15 12.5 3.47 0.865 1.000 18.2
Soft Mud Bricks,
Perforated Soft

A
Mud Bricks, Wire
Cut Bricks,

M
Calcium Silicate The
19 Vermeltfoort [51] Bricks Netherlands 29 27.0-127.0 4.0- 48.0 3.40-5.00 0.853-0.949 1.000 3.9-39.8
Standard Modular
McNary and Paver,
ED Modular
20 Abrams [52] Cored Unit USA 8 69.8-101.7 3.4-52.6 3.54 0.873-0.925 1.000 19.7- 48.2
Solid Bricks,
21 Francis et al. [8] Perforated Bricks Australia 33 55.6-65.7 6.4 3.00-3.50 0.795-0.928 1.000 7.8- 21.9
0.655-
PT
Total 232 3.1-127.0 0.3-52.6 1.15-5.75 0.755-0.984 1.000 0.7-48.2
E
CC
A

40
Table 7 Comparison of prediction models
fp_p/fp_e
Model
Mean COV
Engesser [32] 4.50 1.13
Bröcker [33] 1.46 0.84
Mann [15] 1.73 0.64
Hendry and Malek [16] 0.53 0.76
Dayaratnam [17] 0.92 0.91
Rozza [18] 0.30 0.52

T
Bennet et. al [19] 0.99 0.41
Dymiotis and Gutlederer [20] 1.22 0.45

IP
Kaushik et al. [1] 1.00 0.47
Gumaste et al. [21] 1.27 0.84

R
Christy et al. [22] 0.85 0.68
Garzón- Roca et al. [23] 3.13 1.53

SC
Lumantarna et al. [13] 2.72 0.62
Kumavat et al. [26] 1.94 0.76
Present Study 1.00 0.36

U
N
A
M
ED
E PT
CC
A

41