buildings
Article
Development of Quality Assessment Criteria for Burnt Clay
Bricks of Different Ages Based on Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test
Rizwan Azam 1 , Muhammad Rizwan Riaz 1, *, Ehtasham Ul Haq 1 , Ayman Shihata 2 and Mohamed Zawam 3
Citation: Azam, R.; Riaz, M.R.; Haq,
E.U.; Shihata, A.; Zawam, M.
Development of Quality Assessment
Criteria for Burnt Clay Bricks of
Different Ages Based on Ultrasonic
Pulse Velocity Test. Buildings 2022, 12,
1069. https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings12081069
Academic Editors: Chisari Corrado
and Bartolomeo Pantò
Received: 26 May 2022
Accepted: 20 July 2022
Published: 22 July 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Buildings 2022, 12, 1069. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081069
1 Department of Civil Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore 54890, Pakistan;
azam.rizwan@uet.edu.pk (R.A.); ehtasham.uet2012.16@gmail.com (E.U.H.)
2 Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 22254, Saudi Arabia;
ashihata@kau.edu.sa
3 Faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, Giza 12613, Egypt; mzawam@eng.cu.edu.eg
* Correspondence: rizwan.riaz@uet.edu.pk
Abstract: Burnt clay bricks are widely used as a construction material in Pakistan, and their testing
for quality confirmation is frequently needed for new and old bricks used in existing structures. The
destructive testing methods are time-consuming and not always feasible for testing the bricks used in
existing structures. The current study investigated the feasibility of using the ultrasonic pulse velocity
(UPV) test as a non-destructive technique to assess the quality of both new and old bricks in masonry
structures. A relationship was developed after performing the UPV test followed by a compression
test on burnt clay brick samples of five different ages acquired from different sources. The acquired
brick samples ranged from new to a century old. Consequently, as a novel contribution, brick quality
assessment criteria based on UPV were proposed according to which a UPV value greater than
3000 m/s represents an excellent first-class brick whereas a UPV value lower than 2000 m/s shows a
second-class brick. Further, the effectiveness of the UPV test to assess the compressive strength of
old bricks was demonstrated with a case study of a 100-year-old masonry structure. The research
concluded with the remarks that the compressive strength of bricks can be assessed with reasonable
accuracy using the UPV test. The developed quality assessment criteria can be used to quickly check
the quality of new and old burnt clay bricks.
Keywords: burnt clay brick; compressive strength; non-destructive testing; ultrasonic pulse velocity;
regression analysis; quality assessment criteria
1. Introduction
Burnt clay bricks have largely been used in ancient construction practices and their
use is still frequent in building construction nowadays. Currently, 82.5 billion bricks are
being produced in Pakistan annually from more than 18,000 brick kilns and 90% of these
bricks are used for domestic consumption [1]. As a construction material in Pakistan
and many regions around the world, burnt clay bricks are commonly used to construct
residential buildings of three to four storeys high. Not only is the burnt clay brick the
common construction material for new construction, but for old structures, it has been a
major material of construction in Pakistan, and 62.38% of the total built environment in
Pakistan is currently comprised of burnt clay bricks [2]. Historically, other than their use
in the construction of residential, religious, and defense structures, burnt clay bricks have
been in use as a construction material for bridges, culverts, soling of roads, brick flooring,
and lining of water channels.
Locally, the bricks have been manually manufactured in brick kilns by laborers and
their properties are largely dependent on human factors, the type of clay, and the temper-
ature of the brick kiln [3,4]. This leads to the available bricks in the local market having
different properties and quality [5], for which testing of these bricks is generally needed to
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings
Buildings 2022, 12, 1069 2 of 17

ensure the required quality. Testing of the new bricks is also needed to ensure the specifi-
cation requirements. For this purpose, destructive testing of the bricks in material testing
laboratories is one option, but this is a time- and resource-consuming option [6,7] and
does not remain useful where a quick selection of required quality bricks is needed among
several available options. Moreover, the available destructive techniques are generally not
suitable for the existing structures [8], especially for the heritage masonry structures, which
often have significant heritage value, and acquiring brick samples from these structures for
destructive testing is not possible. To avoid the lengthy standard process of the compression
test for the bricks and the issue of the availability of test samples for the existing masonry
structures, non-destructive testing (NDT) is a useful option that can quickly assess the
quality of new as well as existing brick samples [9].
Several NDT techniques such as visual inspection, core cutting [10], rebound hammer
(RH) [11], XRD analysis [12], laser testing methods (LM) [13], infrared spectrometry [14],
and ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) testing [11,15,16] have been developed over the years
for testing both concrete and masonry structures. These techniques have been mainly used
for concrete [6,17]; however, they can provide an idea about the strength and quality of
bricks and masonry without any serious damage in a very short time. This study limits
its research radar to the UPV test because of the simplicity and user-friendly nature of the
test, the possibility of testing the brick as an individual unit as well as when it is part of
a structure, the possibility of testing a brick unit when only one of its faces is exposed by
using indirect transmission, and, more importantly, due to its wide-spread acceptance and
the availability of relevant equipment and expertise in the local construction industry as
compared to the other NDT techniques.
The UPV test is based upon the material’s density and elastic properties, which are
directly related to the material’s strength and quality. Several research studies have been
conducted on the utilization of the UPV test for checking the quality of bricks and for predict-
ing their compressive strength. Many researchers have exercised the UPV test on different
sorts of bricks available in their regions. From region to region, bricks vary in shape, size,
constituents of raw materials, and method of preparation. In 2012, Aliabdo et al. [17] tested
building stones and two types of brick (burnt clay bricks and lime sand bricks) with a
Schmidt hammer and UPV test. The relationship between non-destructive test results and
the compressive strength of bricks and stones was investigated. In this regard, both linear
and non-linear models were proposed. It was suggested that linear models offer results
close to reality, and they concluded that the evaluation of brick masonry using a Schmidt
hammer and UPV test in a combined test method was more reliable than using these
techniques alone. In a similar study, Brozovsky [11] concluded that the combination of
non-destructive techniques (UPV and Schmidt hammer) can provide more reliable results.
A combination of the UPV test and rebound hammer method was referred to as SonReb.
Calcium silicate bricks were tested. Combined non-destructive testing came out to be a
bit more accurate than sole NDT testing. In another study, Brozovsky et al. [18] used the
UPV test to evaluate the strength of bricks in historic structures in the Czech Republic.
When the direct transmission of UPV was not possible, a semi-direct transmission was
used. They concluded that the difference in UPV values in these two transmission versions
ranges from 3 to 5%. Koroth et al. [6] assessed the durability of burnt clay bricks using
the UPV test. Durable and non-durable bricks were identified in this way. Experimental
results were validated using a different set of bricks. Bricks with a UPV less than 1000 m/s
were referred to as non-durable bricks. In another study conducted in 2019, Noor-e-Khuda
and Albermani [19] investigated the mechanical properties of clay masonry units using the
destructive and UPV tests. Fifty-two bricks from different sources in Australia were tested,
and it was concluded that the UPV test can successfully differentiate between old and
new bricks. In 2017, Dizhur et al. [4] assessed both the mechanical and physical properties
of vintage burnt clay bricks using non-destructive techniques along with XRD analysis.
The relationship between the non-destructive technique and compressive strength was
explored. Brick samples were collected from 11 different field sites. An apparent porosity
Buildings 2022, 12, 1069 3 of 17

test, Schmidt hammer test, XRD analysis, scratch test, modulus of rupture test, modulus
of elasticity test, and a UPV test were performed on all samples. They concluded with a
good performance of the Schmidt hammer and UPV tests with the hindrance of the need
for surface preparation for these tests. Mesquita et al. [20] applied the UPV test for the NDT
of ancient clay brick walls using the indirect transmission of UPV and found the UPV test
to be useful for the health assessment of walls. Vasanelli et al. [21] tried to develop the UPV
and compressive strength of bricks’ relationships using the cross-validations procedures to
take the advantage of the simplicity of the UPV test for predicting the compressive strength
of bricks. In another study, Ozkan and Yayla [22] established a correlation between the
physical properties and UPV value of samples of brick-making clay, fired at temperatures
varying between 850 and 1100 ◦ C. They found the existence of a relationship between the
physical properties and UPV values of the fired clay samples. Similarly, in a recent study,
Araujo et al. [23] performed destructive and non-destructive tests on historical Brazilian
clay bricks and concluded that the UPV can be successfully used for the physical and
mechanical characterization of the Brazilian historical clay bricks. Other than burnt clay
bricks, the UPV test has also been used for assessing the compressive strength of different
types of masonry units, such as earth blocks [24,25], adobe bricks [26], autoclaved aerated
concrete units [27], etc.
The research studies mentioned above prove the usefulness of the UPV test for ascer-
taining the quality of masonry and for determining the compressive strength of new as
well as old bricks. Burnt clay bricks, historically as well as currently, are widely being used
as a construction material in Pakistan. There is also a common practice of reusing the bricks
obtained from the dismantling or upgrading of old masonry structures. A review of the
literature shows that the studies developing the correlations between the UPV value and
the brick compressive strength have been mainly limited to Europe [23], and there is a lack
of research on developing a relationship between the compressive strength of the burnt
clay bricks and their UPV value, especially for southeast Asia where burnt clay brick is a
widely used construction material. Moreover, there is no quality assessment criterion based
on UPV value that can be directly used for assessing the quality of the bricks of different
ages or during the selection of new bricks. Hence, the current study aims at developing a
relationship between the compressive strength of bricks, which can be used as a quick and
easy way of distinguishing different classes of bricks (first, second). To achieve the intended
purpose of NDT, UPV tests were performed on different brick specimens of different ages
and from various sources to find out their strength and determine a strength evaluation
criterion for the bricks used in existing structures. The limitations of this study are the
use of standard size bricks only and not investigating the effect of moisture content and
porosity of the bricks.
The content of this paper is as follows. Firstly, the materials and methods used are
discussed in detail. Then, the results of using both the UPV and compression tests are
presented for bricks of different ages collected from different sources, and correlations between
UPV and compressive strength are drawn. Based on the results, quality criteria for assessing
the first-class bricks based on the UPV test are presented. Lastly, the effectiveness of the
developed correlations is proven with the help of a case study of a 100-year-old building.

2. Materials and Methods

In this study, first-class brick samples of different ages were acquired and tested using
both UPV and compression testing to develop relationships for assessing the compressive
strength of bricks based on UPV value. Moreover, the limiting values of UPV are proposed
to categorize bricks based on the UPV value.

2.1. Materials
Burnt clay brick samples were collected from seven sources (three sources of new
bricks and four sources of old bricks). A total of sixty possibly first-class new bricks were
collected from three local brick kilns (20 bricks from each kiln). A total of 30 old bricks
 Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18

2. Materials and Methods

Buildings 2022, 12, 1069 2. Materials and Methods 4 of 17
2. Materials
In this study,and Methods
first-class brick samples of different ages were acquired and tested us-
2. In this study,
Materials and first-class brick samples of different ages were acquired and tested us-
Methods
ing both UPV
In this and compression
study, first-class brick testing
samplesto develop relationships
of different ages were foracquired
assessingand the tested
compres- us-
ing both
In UPV
this and compression
study, first-class testing
brick samplesto develop
of relationships
different ages wereforacquired
assessingand the tested
compres- us-
sive strength
ing both UPV and of bricks based
compression on UPV
testing value.
to developMoreover, the
relationships limiting values
for assessing of
the UPV are
compres-
sive
ing strength
both UPV of
and bricks based
compression on UPV
testing value. Moreover, the limiting values of UPV are
proposed to categorize bricks onto develop relationships for assessing
valuesthe compres-
sive
were
sive
strength
proposed collected
strength
of bricks
to categorize
of from
bricks fourbased
based
bricks
based
on
based
on
UPV
different
UPV
the
value.
on value.
UPV value.
Moreover,
the existing
UPV value.
Moreover,
the limiting
structures
the limiting(7 bricks
values
of
from
of
UPV are
UPVa are 25-year-old building,
proposed to categorize bricks based on the UPV value.
10 Materials
bricks
proposed
2.1. from a 35-year-old
to categorize bricks based on building,
the UPV value. 8 bricks from a 75-year-old building, and 5 bricks
2.1. Materials
from
2.1. a 100-year-old
Materials
Burnt clay brick samples building). Thesefrom
were collected bricks sevenwere collected
sources from different
(three sources of new parts of Lahore
2.1. Burnt
Materials clay brick samples were collected fromrenovation
seven sources (three sources of new of brick samples
bricks
city and
from
Burnt fourold sources
buildings
clay sources
brick samplesof old bricks).
going A total
through
were collected of sixty
from possibly
seven first-class
sources works. new
(threenew The bricks
sources numberwere
of were
new
bricks and four of old bricks). A total of sixtyseven
possibly first-class bricks
for Burnt
collected
bricks andfrom
old
collected
claythree
four
bricks
from
brick
sources
three
samples
local
depended
localof brick
old
brick
were
kilnscollected
bricks).
upon
kilns
(20
A how
(20
bricks
total
bricks
from
of
many sixty
from
eachsources
frombricks
possibly
each
kiln). A(three
first-class
were
kiln). A
allowed
total
sources
total new
of
of
30bricks
30
to
old
ofbricks
oldbe new
were
studied by the owner
bricks
bricks
were
collectedandfrom
collected fourfromsources
three four
localofdifferent
old
brickbricks).
kilns A total
existing
(20 bricksof sixty
structures
from possibly
(7 bricks
each first-class
kiln).from
A new
a 25-year-old
total of 30bricks
old were
build-
bricks
of
were the
collected
building.
collected
fromfrom from
threeafour
The
local
bricks
different
brick kilns
were
existing cleaned
structures
(20 bricks
and
fromfrom
the
(7 bricks
each
attached
from mortar
a 25-year-old
30 old build-
from the surface was
ing,
were10 bricks
collected from 35-year-old
four different building,
existing 8 bricks
structures akiln).
(7 bricks A total
75-year-old
from of
building,
a 25-year-old bricks
and 5
build-
ing, 10
removed. bricks from a 35-year-old building, 8 bricks from a 75-year-old × building, and 5
× 75 mm, which has
were
bricks
ing, 10collected
from
bricks a Allfrom the
afour
100-year-old
from
bricks
differenthad
building).
35-year-old
aThese
existing
building,
nominal
structures
bricks
8 bricks
size
were
from
of 228from
(7 collected
bricks mm
from
a 75-year-old
114 mm
a 25-year-old
different
building, build-
parts
andof
bricks
ing,
been 10 from
bricks
the a 100-year-old
from
common a building).
35-year-old
brick size Thesethe
building,
since bricks
8 bricks were
Britishfrom collected
a from
75-year-old
colonial different
period. building, parts
and
However, of55 the actual size of
Lahore
bricks city
from from
a old
100-year-old buildings going
building). through
These renovation
bricks were works.
collected The
from number
different of brick
parts of
Lahorefrom
bricks city afrom old buildings
100-year-old goingThese
building). through bricksrenovation
were works.from
collected The different
number of brick
parts of and compressive
samples
these city
Lahore for old
bricks from bricks
was depended
old measured
buildings upon how
andthrough
going used many
for bricks were
the calculation
renovation allowed
works. todensity,
Theofnumber be studied
of UPV,by
brick
samples
Lahore for
city old
from bricks depended
old buildings upon
going how
through many bricks
renovation wereworks.allowed
The to
numberbe studied
of by
brick
the owner
samples
strength. forof the bricks
old
For building.
this The bricks
depended
purpose, upon
threewerehow cleaned
many
independent and
bricksthereadings
attached
were allowedmortar
alongto be from the
studied
each of sur-
by three dimensions
the
the owner
samples ofold
thebricks
building. The bricks were cleaned and thewere
attached mortar from the sur-
face
the was for
owner removed.
of the All the
building. depended
bricks
The upon
had
bricks awerehow
nominal many
cleaned bricks
sizeandof 228
the mm ×allowed
attached mmto
114 mortar × 75be studied
mm,
from which
the by
sur-
face
of
the was
the removed.
brick were All the
taken bricks
and had a
their nominal
average size of
was 228 mm
used. × 114
Table mm 1 × 75
showsmm, which
the details of all the test
faceowner
has
has
been the of common
was removed.
been
the building.
the common Allbrick The
sizebricks
the bricks
brick size
since
since
were
had athe
the
cleaned
British
nominal size
Britishsize
and
colonial the
of 228
colonial mmattached
period.
period. 114 mortar
× However,
mm × the
However, 75from
the
the
actual
mm,
actual
sur-
size
which
size of the bricks was
face
of was
specimens,
hasthese removed.
beenbricks All
including
was measured
the common the bricks
their
brick sizeand had
used
since athenominal
dimensions
for andof
the calculation
British 228 mm
density × 114
of density,
colonial period. mm
values. ×
UPV, the
However, 75
Themm, which
density
andactual
compres-size
of
hasthese
been bricks was measured
the common brick and
size used
since thefor the calculation
British colonial of density,
period. UPV, the
However, andactual
compres-
sive
of strength.
determined
these bricks For
wasasthisperpurpose,
measured ASTM three
and C independent
67
used [28].
for the The readings
bricks
calculation along
of were each
density, of theand
firstly
UPV, three
dried insize
dimen-
compres- a ventilated oven at
sive
of strength.
these bricks For
was this purpose,and
measured three independent
used for the readingsof
calculation along eachUPV,
density, of theand three dimen-
compres-
sions
sive of
◦
110 ofCthethe
strength. brick
forbrickFor were
this
24 h.were taken
purpose,
After and their
three
drying, average
independent
theaverage
brickswas was used.
readings
were Table
along
allowed 1 shows
each
to of the
the
gradually details
three of
dimen-
cool all
to room temperature.
sions
sive strength. For this taken
purpose, and their
three independent used.
readings Table
along 1each
shows the three
of the details of all
dimen-
the
sionstest
of specimens,
the brick wereincluding
taken their
and dimensions
their average and
was density
used. Table values. The
1weighing
shows thedensity
details ofofthe
all
The
the
sions
bricks
test
of specimens,
the
were
brick were
then
including
taken
weighed
their using
dimensions a 0.5
and g accuracy
density values. The balance
density of and the density was
the
bricks
the test was determined
specimens, as
includingper and
ASTM their
their C average
67 [28]. The
dimensions was used.
bricks
and Table
were
density 1 shows
firstly
values. Thethe
dried indetails ofofthe
a ventilated
density all
bricks
the testwas
calculated determined
specimens, by dividing as per ASTM
including the
their C 67 [28].
weight
dimensions of The
the bricks
and bricks were
density by firstly
the
values. dried
volume
The in a ventilated
densitycalculated
of the by multiplying
oven
bricksat 110determined
was °C for 24 h.asAfter drying,C the
per ASTM bricks
67 [28]. The were
bricksallowed to gradually
were firstly dried incool to room
a ventilated
oven
bricks atwas
110determined
°C for 24 h.asAfter
per drying,
ASTM C the
67 bricks
[28]. The were
bricksallowed
were to earlier.
gradually
firstly dried incool
a to room
ventilated
temperature.
the average
oven at 110 °C The bricks
dimensions
forbricks were
24 h. After then
of weighed
the
drying, bricks, using
the bricks as a 0.5 g
mentioned
were accuracy
allowed weighing
to gradually balance
cool to roomand
temperature.
oven at 110 was °C The
for were then
24 h. After drying,weighed
the using a 0.5allowed
g accuracy weighingcool balance and
the density
temperature. The calculated
bricks by then
were dividing
weighedthebricks
weight
using were
aof thegbricks
0.5 accuracy to
bygradually
the volume
weighing to room
calculated
balance and
the density
temperature. was The calculated
bricks by
were dividing
then weighedthe weight
using aof the
0.5 g bricks
accuracy by the volume
weighing calculated
balance and
by
the multiplying
density
Table 1. was
Details the average
calculated
of test dimensions
by dividing
specimen. of
the the bricks,
weight of as
the mentioned
bricks by earlier.
the volume calculated
by
the multiplying
density wasthe averageby
calculated dimensions
dividing the of the bricks,
weight of as
thementioned
bricks by the earlier.
volume calculated
by multiplying the average dimensions of the bricks, as mentioned earlier.
by multiplying
Table 1. Details ofthe testaverage
specimen. dimensions of the bricks, as mentioned earlier.
Table 1. Details of test specimen. Dimensions (mm)
Brick Source/Age Representative Number of
Table 1. Details of test specimen. Density
Brick Source/Age Representative
Table 1. Details of testNumber of
specimen. Dimensions (mm) Density
Type Brick (Years)
Source/Age Representative
Sample Number of
Bricks Dimensions (mm) Width
Length Density
Thickness (kg/m3 )
Type Source/Age
Brick (Years) Sample
Representative Bricks of
Number LengthDimensions
Width(mm)Thickness (kg/m3)
Density
Type Source/Age
Brick (Years) Sample
Representative Bricks of
Number LengthDimensions
Width(mm)Thickness (kg/m3)
Density
Type (Years) Sample Bricks Length Width Thickness (kg/m3)
Type (Years) Sample Bricks Length Width Thickness (kg/m3)
KilnKiln
1 1 20 20 219.6 ±219.6
3.2 ±108.2
3.2 ± 2.1 108.2
73.6±
± 0.9
2.1 1760.5 ± 36.3
73.6 ± 0.9 1760.5 ± 36.3
Kiln 1 20 219.6 ± 3.2 108.2 ± 2.1 73.6 ± 0.9 1760.5 ± 36.3
Kiln 1 20 219.6 ± 3.2 108.2 ± 2.1 73.6 ± 0.9 1760.5 ± 36.3
Kiln 1 20 219.6 ± 3.2 108.2 ± 2.1 73.6 ± 0.9 1760.5 ± 36.3

New Kiln 2 20 220.4 ± 4.4 108.5 ± 3.3 73.1 ± 1.1 1782.2 ± 30.5
New New KilnKiln
2 2 20 20 220.4 ±220.4
4.4 ±108.5
4.4 ± 3.3 108.5
73.1±
± 1.1
3.3 1782.2 ± 30.5
73.1 ± 1.1 1782.2 ± 30.5
New Kiln 2 20 220.4 ± 4.4 108.5 ± 3.3 73.1 ± 1.1 1782.2 ± 30.5
New Kiln 2 20 220.4 ± 4.4 108.5 ± 3.3 73.1 ± 1.1 1782.2 ± 30.5

Kiln 3 20 223.5 ± 2.7 110.1 ± 2.0 73.3 ± 0.7 1762.6 ± 25.4

Kiln 3 20 223.5 ± 2.7 110.1 ± 2.0 73.3 ± 0.7 1762.6 ± 25.4
KilnKiln
3 3 20 20 223.5 ±223.5
2.7 ±110.1
2.7 ± 2.0 110.1
73.3±
± 0.7
2.0 1762.6 ± 25.4
73.3 ± 0.7 1762.6 ± 25.4
Kiln 3 20 223.5 ± 2.7 110.1 ± 2.0 73.3 ± 0.7 1762.6 ± 25.4

Old 25 7 220.5 ± 3.5 107.8 ± 1.7 74.0 ± 1.1 1785.9 ± 42.9

Old 25 7 220.5 ± 3.5 107.8 ± 1.7 74.0 ± 1.1 1785.9 ± 42.9
Old 25 7 220.5 ± 3.5 107.8 ± 1.7 74.0 ± 1.1 1785.9 ± 42.9
Old
Buildings 2022, 25x FOR PEER REVIEW
2512, 7 7 220.5 ±220.5
3.5 ±107.8
3.5 ± 1.7 107.8
74.0±
± 1.1
1.7 1785.9 ± 542.9
74.0 ±of 1.1
18 1785.9 ± 42.9
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 18

35 35 10 10 226.8 ±226.8
3.2 ±108.6
3.2 ± 3.5 108.6
70.1±
± 1.9
3.5 1848.7 ± 51.1
70.1 ± 1.9 1848.7 ± 51.1
35 10 226.8 ± 3.2 108.6 ± 3.5 70.1 ± 1.9 1848.7 ± 51.1
35 10 226.8 ± 3.2 108.6 ± 3.5 70.1 ± 1.9 1848.7 ± 51.1
Old

75 8 229.2 ± 4.8 116.6 ± 3.4 75.3 ± 1.7 1692.3 ± 56.0

75 75 8 8 229.2 ±229.2
4.8 ±116.6
4.8 ± 3.4 116.6
75.3±
± 1.7
3.4 1692.3 ± 56.0
75.3 ± 1.7 1692.3 ± 56.0
75 8 229.2 ± 4.8 116.6 ± 3.4 75.3 ± 1.7 1692.3 ± 56.0

100 5 225.1 ± 4.9 109.4 ± 2.9 71.2 ± 1.8 1823.2 ± 63.8

100 5 225.1 ± 4.9 109.4 ± 2.9 71.2 ± 1.8 1823.2 ± 63.8
100100 5 5 225.1 ±225.1
4.9 ±109.4
4.9 ± 2.9 109.4
71.2±
± 1.8
2.9 1823.2 ± 63.8
71.2 ± 1.8 1823.2 ± 63.8

2.2. Methods
2.2. Methods
2.2.1.
2.2. UPV Measurement
Methods
2.2.1. UPV Measurement
The
2.2.1. UPV UPV method has been successfully used to evaluate the quality of building ma-
Measurement
The
terials forUPV
over method has
50 yearshas been
[29]. Thissuccessfully
test method used to evaluatetothe
is applicable quality
assess of
the of building ma-
uniformity and
The
terials forUPV
over method
50 years been
[29]. Thissuccessfully
test methodused
is to evaluateto
applicable the quality
assess the building ma-
uniformity and
relativefor
terials quality
over of years
50 bricks,[29].
indicate
This the presence
test method ofapplicable
is voids andtocracks,
assessand
the evaluate
uniformitytheand
ef-
relative quality
fectiveness of bricks,
of crack indicate
repairs. the applicable
It is also presence oftovoids andchanges
indicate cracks, and evaluate
in the the ef-
properties of
relative quality
fectiveness of theof
crackbricks, indicate
repairs. the presence
It is also applicable oftovoids and
indicate cracks,
changes and evaluate the
in the properties ef-
of
bricks and, in
fectiveness of survey
crack of structures,
repairs. It is also to estimate to
applicable theindicate
severitychanges
of deterioration
in the or cracking.
properties of
bricks and, in the
An advantage of survey
this testofisstructures, to estimate
the flexibility the severityfor
in its application of deterioration or cracking.
existing structures using
bricks and, in the
An advantage of survey
this testofisstructures, to estimate
the flexibility the severityfor
in its application of deterioration or cracking.
existing structures using
 75 8 229.2 ± 4.8 116.6 ± 3.4 75.3 ± 1.7 1692.3 ± 56.0

Buildings 2022, 12, 1069 5 of 17

100 5 225.1 ± 4.9 109.4 ± 2.9 71.2 ± 1.8 1823.2 ± 63.8

2.2. Methods
2.2.1. UPV Measurement
2.2. Methods
The UPV method has been successfully used to evaluate the quality of building
2.2.1. UPV Measurement
materials for over 50 years [29]. This test method is applicable to assess the uniformity
The UPV method has been successfully used to evaluate the quality of building ma-
and relative quality of bricks, indicate the presence of voids and cracks, and evaluate the
terials for over 50 years [29]. This test method is applicable to assess the uniformity and
effectiveness
relative quality of crack repairs.
of bricks, indicate theIt presence
is also applicable
of voids andto indicate
cracks, changestheinef-
and evaluate the properties of
fectiveness
bricks and,ofincrack
the repairs.
surveyItofis structures,
also applicable to indicatethe
to estimate changes in theofproperties
severity of
deterioration or cracking.
bricks
An and, in the survey
advantage of thisoftest
structures,
is the toflexibility
estimate theinseverity of deterioration
its application or cracking.
for existing structures using
An advantage
different types of of
thistest
test arrangements
is the flexibility in
ofits
the application for existing
transmitter structures
and receiver, asusing
shown in Figure 1.
different types of test arrangements of the transmitter and receiver, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Test setup for UPV, (a) direct transmission; (b) semi-direct transmission; (c) indirect trans-
Figure 1. Test setup for UPV, (a) direct transmission; (b) semi-direct transmission; (c) indirect
mission.
transmission.
For this study, the UPV test was performed on all the brick samples following the
guidelines of ASTM
For this study,C597 [30],
the UPVwhere a smooth
test surface of the on
was performed specimens
all theisbrick
essential. Thus, following the
samples
the surfaces of
guidelines of all
ASTMthe samples were where
C597 [30], scrubbed, and the samples
a smooth surfacewith a scrubbed
of the specimens surface
is essential. Thus,
are shown
the surfacesin Figure
of all 2.
theA UPV test instrument
samples with twoand
were scrubbed, 55 kHz
thetransducers
samples with and standard
a scrubbed surface are
Cod. C 370-07 couplant gel was used for all the tests. The test setup is shown in Figure 3.
shown in Figure 2. A UPV test instrument with two 55 kHz transducers and standard Cod.
Before each series of UPV tests, the calibration of the instrument was checked using the
Cstandard
370-0742.5
couplant gel was
μs calibration rodused
alongfor allthe
with thesame
tests. The test
couplant gel setup
in orderistoshown
ensure intheFigure 3. Before
accuracy
each of all
series of the
UPV readings. The calibration
tests, the test was performed
of the by placing thewas
instrument transducers
checked onusing
the the standard
opposite
42.5 ends of the 228
µs calibration mm
rod dimension
along withofthe
thesame
bricks couplant
(Figure 3), and
gel the time of to
in order travel of the accuracy
ensure
of all
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW the readings. The test was performed by placing the transducers 6 of 18on the opposite
ends of the 228 mm dimension of the bricks (Figure 3), and the time of travel of the wave
between the two transducers was noted. The UPV values were then calculated by dividing
the wave
the lengthbetween the specimen
of each two transducers was
by its noted. The UPV values
corresponding travelwere
timethen calculated
reading and the values are
by dividing the
mentioned in length of each specimen
m/s throughout thisby its corresponding
study. Further, it travel time reading
was ensured thatand
thethetransducers were
values are mentioned in m/s throughout this study. Further, it was ensured that the trans-
placed below the depth of frog indentation for all the bricks.
ducers were placed below the depth of frog indentation for all the bricks.

Figure 2.2.Scrubbed
Figure surface
Scrubbed of new
surface ofbrick
newspecimens.
brick specimens.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1069 6 of 17

Figure 2. Scrubbed surface of new brick specimens.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. UPV
UPV test
test setup.
setup.

2.2.2. Uniaxial Compression

2.2.2. Uniaxial Compression Test
Test
After
After UPV testing, destructive testing
UPV testing, destructive testing was
was performed
performed on on all
all the
the bricks
bricks toto determine
determine
their
their compressive strength. The performed destructive test was the uniaxial compression
compressive strength. The performed destructive test was the uniaxial compression
test. The test samples were prepared and capped in accordance with ASTM C 67 [28]. All
test. The test samples were prepared and capped in accordance with ASTM C 67 [28]. All
the samples were first cleaned and then both their ends were capped with gypsum at least
the samples were first cleaned and then both their ends were capped with gypsum at least
one day before their testing. The capped bricks are shown in Figure 4. The compression
one day before their testing. The capped bricks are shown in Figure 4. The compression
test was performed using a 300-ton capacity compression testing machine with a 0.25-ton
test was performed using a 300-ton capacity compression testing machine with a 0.25-ton
accuracy. The test setup is shown in Figure 5. The load in tons was recorded as soon as the
accuracy. The test setup is shown in Figure 5. The load in tons was recorded as soon as
first crack appeared in the brick. The compressive strength was computed
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 18 by dividing this
the first crack appeared in the brick. The compressive strength was computed by dividing
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
load value by the area computed from the dimensions noted earlier. 7 of 18
this load value by the area computed from the dimensions noted earlier.

Figure 4.4.Capped
Figure Cappedbricks.
bricks.
Figure 4. Capped bricks.

Figure 5. Compressive testing setup of capped brick.

Figure
Figure5.5.
Compressive testing
Compressive setup of
testing capped
setup ofbrick.
capped brick.
3. Results and Discussion
3. Results and Discussion
Brick specimens were first tested for UPV and then for compressive strength. After-
ward,Brick
dataspecimens
from both were first tested
tests were for UPV
collected, and then
arranged, for compressive
and analyzed. strength.
Statistical After-
analysis, i.e.,
ward,
linear data from both
regression tests were
analysis, collected, arranged,
was performed andThe
on the data. analyzed. Statistical
correlation betweenanalysis, i.e.,
compres-
linear regression
sive strength andanalysis,
UPV was was performedand
developed, on curves
the data. Theplotted.
were correlation between
Through compres-
these curves,
sive strength and UPV was developed, and curves were plotted. Through these curves,
 Buildings 2022, 12, 1069 7 of 17

3. Results and Discussion

Brick specimens were first tested for UPV and then for compressive strength. After-
ward, data from both tests were collected, arranged, and analyzed. Statistical analysis, i.e.,
linear regression analysis, was performed on the data. The correlation between compres-
sive strength and UPV was developed, and curves were plotted. Through these curves,
equations were developed which in turn provided significant results, which are discussed
in the subsequent sections.

3.1. Correlations between Compression Strength of Brick and UPV Measurements

To assess the compressive strength of new as well as old bricks using the UPV test,
the correlations of compressive strength and UPV were developed as part of this study.
Such correlations have mainly been developed by several researchers for concrete and
some of the researchers have developed these for different types and ages of bricks in
their regions. Then, the relationship between the actual and the predicted compressive
strength using the developed correlations was developed to check the points within the
minimum and maximum limits (80 and 120%) of the compressive strength. This practice
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEWwas first performed for the new and old bricks separately and then a combined correlation 8 of 18

was developed for all the bricks of different ages considered in this study. Depending
on whether the compressive strength of new or old bricks is to be assessed using UPV,
the
theuse of the UPV
relevant test forcan
correlation selecting theFurther,
be used. new bricks for different
the separate projectsfor
correlation at site. This is
assessing the
currently not practiced as destructive testing is only used for this purpose and the UPV
compressive strength of new bricks developed in this study would be helpful in promoting
test
theis use
mainly used
of the UPVfor test
assessing the quality
for selecting and compressive
the new strengthprojects
bricks for different of old bricks,
at site.which
This is
are part of existing
currently masonry
not practiced constructions
as destructive only.
testing is only used for this purpose and the UPV test
is mainly used for assessing the quality and compressive strength of old bricks, which are
3.1.1.
partNew Bricks masonry
of existing from Kilns constructions only.
Obtained
3.1.1. values
New Bricks of UPV
from Kilnsand the corresponding compressive strength of 60 samples
are demonstrated in Figure 6, where a linear relation with a regression coefficient of R2=
Obtained values of UPV and the corresponding compressive strength of 60 samples are
0.7351 based upon the least-squares method of regression analysis is also shown. The R2
demonstrated in Figure 6, where a linear relation with a regression coefficient of R2= 0.7351 based
value indicates that 73.51% of the variation in compressive strength is explained by UPV
upon the least-squares method of regression analysis is also shown. The R2 value indicates that
and the obtained data fit to the model and all the variability of the response data around
73.51% of the variation in compressive strength is explained by UPV and the obtained data fit to
its mean.
the model and all the variability of the response data around its mean.

25

y = 0.0066x − 1.5519
Compressive Strength (MPa)

R² = 0.7351
20

15

10

5
1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
UPV (m/s)
Figure 6. UPV vs. compressive strength.
Figure 6. UPV vs. compressive strength.

Equation (1) shows the mathematical form of the linear relationship between UPV
value and compressive strength for the new bricks developed based on the data of 60 new
bricks. This equation can be used to find out the compressive strength of a new brick from
its UPV value in the future.
C = 0.0066V − 1.5519 (1)

where C is the compressive strength of new bricks in MPa and V is the pulse velocity in
Buildings 2022, 12, 1069 8 of 17

Equation (1) shows the mathematical form of the linear relationship between UPV
value and compressive strength for the new bricks developed based on the data of 60 new
bricks. This equation can be used to find out the compressive strength of a new brick from
its UPV value in the future.
C = 0.0066V − 1.5519 (1)
where C is the compressive strength of new bricks in MPa and V is the pulse velocity in m/s.
A detailed regression analysis was conducted for this model, giving a multiple R-value of
0.85, which indicates that there is a strong correlation between UPV and compressive strength.
Further, the standard error is 1.67, which indicates that observations are closer to the fitted
line and the average distance of the data points from the fitted line is 1.67 MPa strength.
The relationship between actual and predicted compressive strength is displayed in
Figure 7. This figure also shows the minimum and maximum limits (80 and 120%) of
compressive strength. Most of the points of the graph are within the limit lines. This
means that we can be 80% certain that it contains the true average value of the data of the
relationship and the confidence interval covers the true value in 80 of 100 tests performed.
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18
In short, Equation (1) is worthy to obtain the predicted compressive strength from the
obtained linear line for new burnt clay brick.

Figure
Figure7.7.Actual
Actualvs.
vs.predicted
predictedcompressive
compressivestrength.
strength.

The
Theabove-mentioned correlationsin
above-mentioned correlations inFigures
Figures6 6and and 7 are
7 are forfor
thethe 60 new
60 new brick
brick speci-
specimens
mens acquired from brick kilns. However, the difference between the actual value and
acquired from brick kilns. However, the difference between the actual value and thethe
predicted
predictedvaluevalueisiscalled
calledthetheresidual
residualin inregression
regressionanalysis.
analysis.TheThepoints
pointswill
willbe
beabove
abovethe the
regression
regressionlinelineififthe
theresidual
residualisispositive;
positive;the thepoints
pointswillwillbe
bebelow
belowthe theregression
regressionline
lineififthe
the
residual is negative; the points lie on the line if the residual is zero. Residuals offer an idea
residual is negative; the points lie on the line if the residual is zero. Residuals offer an idea
of
ofthe
thedifference
differencebetween
betweenthe theactual
actualandand predicted
predicted compressive
compressive strength.
strength. The
Themaximum
maximum
difference between actual compressive strength obtained from the compression test
difference between actual compressive strength obtained from the compression test of
of
burnt clay bricks and predicted compressive strength obtained
burnt clay bricks and predicted compressive strength obtained from the equation of the from the equation of the
regressionline
regression line lies
lies in
in the
the interval
interval of −4MPa
of −4 MPato to22 MPa.
MPa. The
Thesame
same compressive
compressivestrength
strength
differenceobtained
difference obtainedby byBrozovsky
Brozovsky[11] [11]isisshown
shownin inFigure
Figure88forforcalcium
calciumsilicate
silicatebricks
bricksandand
its difference lies in the interval of −
its difference lies in the interval of −9 MPa to 8 MPa. Hence, the presented model hashas
9 MPa to 8 MPa. Hence, the presented model a
a smaller
smaller difference
difference interval,
interval, which
which indicates
indicates a lesser
a lesser errorerror
in theinrelationship
the relationship
betweenbetween
com-
compressive
pressive strength
strength and UPV.
and UPV.

10
8
8
ctual and Predicted
Strength (MPa)

6
4
2
2
0
 burnt clay bricks and predicted compressive strength obtained from the equation of the
regression line lies in the interval of −4 MPa to 2 MPa. The same compressive strength
difference obtained by Brozovsky [11] is shown in Figure 8 for calcium silicate bricks and
its difference lies in the interval of −9 MPa to 8 MPa. Hence, the presented model has a
smaller difference interval, which indicates a lesser error in the relationship between com-
Buildings 2022, 12, 1069 9 of 17
pressive strength and UPV.

10
8
8

Difference b/w Actual and Predicted

Compressive Strength (MPa)
6
4
2
2
0
-2
-4
-4
-6
-8
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW -10 -9 10 of 18
Present Study Brozovsky, J. (2014)
Figure 8. Maximum difference between actual and predicted strength [11].
FigureOld
3.1.2. 8. Maximum
Bricks from difference
Existingbetween actual and predicted strength [11].
Buildings
3.1.2.
TheOld Bricks
same from Existing
procedure used for Buildings
the new bricks was repeated for the 30 old bricks of
four different ages collected from existing
The same procedure used for the newstructures
bricks waslocated
repeated in for
different parts
the 30 old of Lahore
bricks of four
city. Figures
different 9–12
ages show thefrom
collected correlation
existingbetween compressive
structures located instrength
differentand theof
parts direct
Lahoretrans-
city.
mission
FiguresUPV9–12 values
show the forcorrelation
the 25-, 35-, 75-, and
between 100-year-old
compressive bricks,and
strength respectively. The linear
the direct transmission
trend
UPVlines were
values for drawn
the 25-,for all75-,
35-, these
andcases and theirbricks,
100-year-old corresponding equations
respectively. and R
The linear 2 values
trend lines
2 values are also
are also mentioned in these figures. The residual compressive strength in an old brick that
were drawn for all these cases and their corresponding equations and R
has been part
mentioned inof an existing
these structure
figures. The for compressive
residual the last several years,inother
strength an oldthan
brickthethat
issues de-
has been
veloped in the brick at the time of its manufacturing, depends on several factors, such
part of an existing structure for the last several years, other than the issues developed in as
the
the load level to which the brick was subjected to, the location inside the existing structure,to
brick at the time of its manufacturing, depends on several factors, such as the load level
which
the the brick
exposure was subjected
to weathering to, the
action, thelocation
wetting inside the existing
and drying cycles,structure,
etc. This isthe exposure
also evidentto
weathering action, the wetting and drying cycles,
from the trends achieved for these bricks of four different ages etc. This is also evident from
where the R values for
2 the trends
the
achieved for these bricks of four different ages where the R 2 values for the linear trend lines
linear trend lines vary from 0.60 to 0.91.
vary from 0.60 to 0.91.

25
Compressive Strength (MPa)

y = 0.0038x + 5.6213
20 R² = 0.7346

15

10

5
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
UPV (m/s)
Figure 9. UPV vs. compressive strength of 25-year-old bricks.
Figure 9. UPV vs. compressive strength of 25-year-old bricks.

25

y = 0.0113x − 13.445
Strength (MPa)

20
R² = 0.6788

15
 5
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
UPV (m/s)

Buildings 2022, 12, 1069 10 of 17

Figure 9. UPV vs. compressive strength of 25-year-old bricks.

25

y = 0.0113x − 13.445

Compressive Strength (MPa)

20
R² = 0.6788

15

10

0
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 11 of 18
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18
UPV (m/s)
Figure 10. UPV vs. compressive strength of 35-year-old bricks.
Figure 10. UPV vs. compressive strength of 35-year-old bricks.
25
25
(MPa)
Strength(MPa)

y = 0.014x − 18.019
20 y = 0.014x − 18.019
R² = 0.6013
20 R² = 0.6013
CompressiveStrength

15
15
Compressive

10
10

5
5

0
0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
UPV (m/s)
UPV (m/s)
Figure
Figure 11.11. Compressive
Compressive strength
strength vs.vs.
UPVUPV of 75-year-old
of 75-year-old bricks.
bricks.
Figure 11. Compressive strength vs. UPV of 75-year-old bricks.
25
25
(MPa)
Strength(MPa)

20
20
y = 0.0029x + 4.5813
y = 0.0029x + 4.5813
CompressiveStrength

15 R² = 0.9128
15 R² = 0.9128

10
Compressive

10

5
5

0
0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
UPV (m/s)
UPV (m/s) .
.
Figure 12. Compressive strength vs. UPV of 100-year-old bricks.
Figure 12. Compressive strength vs. UPV of 100-year-old bricks.
Figure 12. Compressive strength vs. UPV of 100-year-old bricks.
Figure 13 shows the compiled data of all the old bricks for the sake of drawing a
Figurecorrelation
general 13 shows the compiled
between data value
the UPV of all and
the old
the bricks for the strength
compressive sake of drawing
for bricksa of
Figure 13 shows the compiled data of all the old bricks for the sake of drawing a
general correlation
different between
ages. From Figurethe
13,UPV value(2)
Equation and the compressive
is furnished strengthoffor
as the equation brickstrend
a linear of
general correlation between the UPV value and the compressive strength for bricks of
different ages. From Figure 13, Equation (2) is furnished as the equation of a linear trend
different ages. From Figure 13, Equation (2) is furnished as the equation of a linear trend
line. The R2 value of 0.4957 indicates that for old bricks with ages varying between 25 and
line. The R2 value of 0.4957 indicates that for old bricks with ages varying between 25 and
100 years, the developed linear correlation can predict the compressive strength of old
100 years, the developed linear correlation can predict the compressive strength of old
bricks with at least about 50 percent accuracy. This is lower than the 73% accuracy for the
bricks with at least about 50 percent accuracy. This is lower than the 73% accuracy for the
 Buildings 2022, 12, 1069 11 of 17

line. The R2 value of 0.4957 indicates that for old bricks with ages varying between 25 and
100 years, the developed linear correlation can predict the compressive strength of old
bricks with at least about 50 percent accuracy. This is lower than the 73% accuracy for
the case of new bricks. The higher accuracy of prediction for the new bricks is due to the
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
greater number of samples available to develop the correlation, better homogeneity, 12 ofand
18
reduced deterioration of the new bricks as compared to the old bricks.
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 18

C = 0.0061V − 0.9134 (2)

25
y = 0.0061x − 0.9134
Compressive Strength (MPa)

25 R² = 0.4957
20
y = 0.0061x − 0.9134
Compressive Strength (MPa)

R² = 0.4957
20
15

15
10

10
5

5
0
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0
1500 2000 UPV
2500 (m/s) 3000 3500

Figure 13. Old bricks combined data. UPV (m/s)

Figure
Figure 13.13.
OldOld bricks
bricks combined
combined data.
data.
Similar to Figure 7 for the new bricks, Figure 14 shows the actual compressive
strength of bricks
Similar against
to Figure 7 forthe
thepredicted equation
new bricks, strength
Figure 14 (theoretical)
shows the by offsetting
actual compressive max
strength
Similar
(120%) and to
minFigure
(80%) 7limits
for the
of new bricks,
strength. Most Figure
of the 14 shows
points in the actual
Figure 14 are compressive
within this set
of bricks against the predicted equation strength (theoretical) by offsetting max (120%) and
strength
of of bricks against the predicted equation strength (theoretical) by offsetting max
ranges.
min (80%) limits of strength. Most of the points in Figure 14 are within this set of ranges.
(120%) and min (80%) limits of strength. Most of the points in Figure 14 are within this set
of ranges.
25

25
20
Predicted Strength (MPa)

20
Predicted Strength (MPa)

15

15
10

10
5 Linear (Proposed Model)
Linear (Max limit of strength)
5 Linear (Proposed Model)
Linear (Min Limit of strength)
0 Linear (Max limit of strength)
0 5 10 15 20 (Min Limit25
Linear of strength) 30
0 Actual Strength (MPa)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure
Figure 14.
14. Actual
Actual vs.
vs. predicted
predictedequation
equation
Actualstrength.
strength.
Strength (MPa)
3.1.3. Combined
Figure Correlation for New and Old Bricks
3.1.3.14. Actual vs.Correlation
Combined predicted equation
for Newstrength.
and Old Bricks
Finally, the combined data of all 90 bricks (60 new and 30 old) of different sources
Finally, the combined data of all 90 bricks (60 new and 30 old) of different sources
3.1.3.
andCombined
ages were Correlation
compiled and foraNewfinaland Old
curve Bricks
was drawn, as shown in Figure 15, in order to
and ages were compiled and a final curve was drawn, as shown in Figure 15, in order to
Finally,
derive
derive the combined
a general
a general
correlation
correlationdataand
and of propose
all 90 bricks
propose (60 new and
an assessment
an assessment 30 old) It
criterion.
criterion. of isdifferent
It is clearly sources
observed
clearly observed
and
that the higher the value of UPV, the greater the compressive strength of bricks. ThetoR2
ages were compiled and a final curve was drawn, as shown in Figure 15, in order
derive
valueafor
general correlation
the linear andispropose
trend line an assessment
65.58 percent, criterion.
which shows that Itthe
is relationship
clearly observed
is not
that the higher the value of UPV, the greater the compressive strength of bricks.
very poor even if the data of all the bricks are presented together in one single curve. From The R2
value for the linear
the derived trend aline
correlation, is 65.58
brick’s percent, which
compressive shows
strength can bethat the relationship
estimated instantlyisinnot
situ
 Buildings 2022, 12, 1069 12 of 17

that the higher the value of UPV, the greater the compressive strength of bricks. The R2
value for the linear trend line is 65.58 percent, which shows that the relationship is not very
poor even if the data of all the bricks are presented together in one single curve. From
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of the
18
derived correlation, a brick’s compressive strength can be estimated instantly in situ or in
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
the laboratory with the help of Equation (3). 13 of 18

25 C = 0.0065V − 1.4754 (3)

y = 0.0065x − 1.4754
(MPa)
25 R² = 0.6558
20 y = 0.0065x − 1.4754
(MPa)

R² = 0.6558
Strength

20
15
Strength

15
Compressive

10
Compressive

10
5

5
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0
0 500 1000 1500UPV (m/s)
2000 2500 3000 3500

Figure 15. Compressive strength vs. UPV ofUPV (m/s)

all new and old bricks combined.
Figure 15. Compressive strength vs. UPV of all new and old bricks combined.
FigureFigure
15. Compressive
16 showsstrength
the datavs.ofUPV of all
all 90 new against
bricks and old bricks combined.and maximum limits
the minimum
(80 and 120%)
Figure 16of compressive
shows the datastrength.
of all 90 It can be
bricks observed
against that most of
the minimum themaximum
and data points are
limits
Figure
within the 16 shows
limit lines,the data
which of all
means 90 bricks
that against
even the the minimum
combined and
correlation maximum
for
(80 and 120%) of compressive strength. It can be observed that most of the data points arenew limits
and old
(80 and 120%)
bricks
within of of lines,
compressive
thedifferent
limit ages strength.
is about
which means that It
80% canthe
worthy
even be combined
observed that
for obtaining most offor
the
the predicted
correlation newdata points are
compressive
and old bricks
within the
strength. limit lines, which means that even the combined correlation for
of different ages is about 80% worthy for obtaining the predicted compressive strength. new and old
bricks of different ages is about 80% worthy for obtaining the predicted compressive
strength.
25

25
20
(MPa)

20
15
(MPa)
Strength

15
10
Strength
Predicted

10 Linear (Proposed Model)

5
Linear (Max Limit of Strength)
Predicted

Linear (Proposed Model)

5 Linear (Min Limit of Strength)
Linear (Max Limit of Strength)
0
0 5 10 15 Linear
20(Min Limit of
25Strength) 30
0 Actual Strength (MPa)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure
Figure 16.
16. Actual
Actualvs.
vs.predicted
predictedstrength in
inthe
Actual
strength case
caseof
Strength
the ofall bricks
bricks combined.
(MPa)
all combined.

Figure
3.2. 16. Actual
3.2. Brick
Brick vs.Assessment
Quality
Quality predicted strength
Assessment Criteriain the case of all bricks combined.
Criteria
ASTM C597
ASTM C597 [30]
[30]provides
provides guidance
guidance about
about the
thequality
qualityandandintegrity
integrityofofconcrete
concretebased
based
3.2. Brick
upon Quality
UPV. Assessment
However, Criteria
there is no such standard criteria or correlation that could give an idea
upon UPV. However, there is no such standard criteria or correlation that could give an
ideaASTM
about C597 [30]
andprovides guidance about ofthe
ofquality
bricks and integrity of concrete based
about the quality compressive strength bricks established from UPV. As mentioned
the quality and compressive strength established from UPV. As men-
upon UPV.
before However,
in the there
Introduction is no
section,such standard
different criteria
researchers or
havecorrelation
developedthat
tioned before in the Introduction section, different researchers have developed correla- could
correlationsgive
foran
the
idea about
brick unitsthe quality
used and
in their compressive
regions; strength
however, of
there are bricks
no suchestablished from
criteria developed
tions for the brick units used in their regions; however, there are no such criteria devel-UPV. forAs
themen-
burnt
tioned
oped forbefore in theclay
the burnt Introduction section, different
bricks in Pakistan based onresearchers have developed
which the bricks correla-
can be classified for
tions for the brick units used in their regions; however, there are no such
their compressive strength. Hence, based on this study, brick quality assessment criteria criteria devel-
oped
werefor the burnt
proposed clay bricks
based on theinobtained
Pakistanrelationship
based on which the bricks
between can be classified
compressive strength forand
their compressive strength. Hence, based on this study, brick quality
UPV. The UPV value ranges required to differentiate bricks based on these criteria assessment criteria
are
Buildings 2022, 12, 1069 13 of 17

clay bricks in Pakistan based on which the bricks can be classified for their compressive
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
strength.
Hence, based on this study, brick quality assessment criteria were proposed14 of 18
based on the obtained relationship between compressive strength and UPV. The UPV value
ranges required to differentiate bricks based on these criteria are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Proposed brick quality assessment criteria based on UPV.
Table 2. Proposed brick quality assessment criteria based on UPV.
UPV (m/s) Quality of Bricks
UPV (m/s) Quality of Bricks
>3000 Excellent
>3000
2000–3000 Excellent
Good
<2000
2000–3000 Poor
Good
<2000 Poor
According to different local standards, a first-class brick should have a compressive
strength greatertothan
According 10 MPa
different [31].
local In the developed
standards, model,
a first-class brickthe UPV corresponding
should have a compressive to 10
MPa compressive strength is 1800 m/s. Hence, in the proposed criteria,
strength greater than 10 MPa [31]. In the developed model, the UPV corresponding to 10 MPa a limit of 2000 m/s
is selected to differentiate between first and lower-class bricks. Further,
compressive strength is 1800 m/s. Hence, in the proposed criteria, a limit of 2000 m/s is among first-class
bricks, as
selected toisdifferentiate
evident from Figurefirst
between 15,and
a UPV value ofbricks.
lower-class 3000 means
Further,a minimum compressive
among first-class bricks,
strength of 15 MPa; hence, this limit of 3000 m/s is proposed to differentiate
as is evident from Figure 15, a UPV value of 3000 means a minimum compressive strength between good
of
and excellent first-class bricks. It is important to mention that all the samples
15 MPa; hence, this limit of 3000 m/s is proposed to differentiate between good and excellent for this study
were collected
first-class bricks.from
It is structures
important to made fromthat
mention first-class
all the bricks
samplesandforthis
thisisstudy
a reason
werewhy most
collected
of these samples are categorized as first-class samples according to the
from structures made from first-class bricks and this is a reason why most of these samples proposed criteria.
are categorized as first-class samples according to the proposed criteria.
4. Case Study—Brick Quality Assessment of a 100-Year-Old Building
TheStudy—Brick
4. Case developed correlations and criteriaofwere
Quality Assessment applied to aBuilding
a 100-Year-Old 100-year-old structure, i.e.,
Umar Hall
The of the University
developed of and
correlations Engineering andapplied
criteria were Technology, (UET) Lahore.
to a 100-year-old The five
structure, brick
i.e., Umar
samples
Hall of theofUniversity
100 years ofof Engineering
age mentioned and in previous sections
Technology, were retrieved
(UET) Lahore. fromsamples
The five brick the same of
building
100 during
years of its renovation.
age mentioned Umarsections
in previous Hall is were
a dormitory
retrievedlocated
from theinsame
UETbuilding
Lahore. during
It was
constructed
its renovation. in the
Umar 1920s
Halland
is awas recentlylocated
dormitory renovated
in UETin 2021.
Lahore. It isItawas
marvelous two-storey
constructed in the
building
1920s andthatwasisrecently
still serving its purpose.
renovated in 2021. Figure 17 shows two-storey
It is a marvelous the exteriorbuilding
front view
thatof this
is still
building.
serving its purpose. Figure 17 shows the exterior front view of this building.

Figure 17.
Figure 17. Elevation
Elevation view
view of
of Umar
Umar Hall,
Hall, aa 100-year-old
100-year-old building.
building.

A UPV
A UPV test
test was
was performed
performed in in situ
situ on
on the
the walls
walls of
of this
this structure,
structure, asas shown
shown inin Figure
Figure 18,
18,
using the
using the same
same equipment
equipment and and procedure
procedure as as described
described before
before for
for the
the testing
testing of
of individual
individual
brick units
brick units in
inthe
thelaboratory.
laboratory.OtherOther than
thanthethe
tests using
tests direct
using transmission
direct that were
transmission men-
that were
tioned before,
mentioned semi-direct
before, and and
semi-direct indirect transmissions
indirect transmissionswerewere
alsoalso
usedusedon the bricks
on the in the
bricks in
laboratory
the as well
laboratory as during
as well in situ
as during in testing. This was
situ testing. This performed
was performed to investigate the effec-
to investigate the
tiveness of the
effectiveness ofUPV test to
the UPV assess
test the compressive
to assess the compressive strength of a brick
strength unit unit
of a brick whenwhen
it is part
it is
of a of
part structure andand
a structure only oneone
only or or
twotwoof of
itsits
faces are
faces areexposed.
exposed.ForForthe
theindirect
indirecttransmission,
transmission,
the transducers were placed along the stretcher face of the same brick and the horizontal
distance between the transducers was used to calculate the UPV value. For the semi-direct
transmission, one transducer was placed on the header face while the other was placed
on the stretcher face and the shortest distance between the two points was used to calcu-
Buildings 2022, 12, 1069 14 of 17

the transducers were placed along the stretcher face of the same brick and the horizontal
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 18
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
distance between the transducers was used to calculate the UPV value. For15the of 18
semi-direct
transmission, one transducer was placed on the header face while the other was placed on
the stretcher face and the shortest distance between the two points was used to calculate the
late the UPV value. The correlations developed for the semi-direct and indirect transmis-
sions the
late are UPV value. The correlations developed
UPV value. The in
presented
correlations
Figure
developed
19, and these
forfor
were not the semi-direct
thepresented
semi-directbeforeand
and indirect
indirect
in the transmis-
transmissions
previous sec-
are
sions are
presented presented
in Figurein Figure
19, and 19, and
these these
were were
not not presented
presented before
before in in
thethe
tion for the sake of brevity. The correlation and trend line for direct transmission pre- previous
previous sec-
section for the
tion
sakefor
sented in the
of sake19The
brevity.
Figure ofare
brevity. The as
correlation
the same correlation
and trend
shown and
line trend
before line 12
forFigure
in direct for direct
transmission
for transmission
the five presented pre-
bricks taken in Figure 19
sented
from
are the in Figure
the same 19
samestructure.are the
as shownItbeforesame as
is evident shown before
from Figure
in Figure 12 for19 in Figure
thethat
fivethe 12 for the
transmission
bricks five
taken from bricks taken
arrangement
the same structure.
from
affects the
the same structure.
UPVfrom
It is evident value.FigureIt is
19evident
that thefrom Figure 19 that
transmission the transmission
arrangement affectsarrangement
the UPV value.
affects the UPV value.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 18.18.
Figure Performing in situ
Performing in UPVUPV
situ test on Umar
test on Hall building.
Umar Hall (a) Semi-direct
building. (a) transmission,
Semi-direct (b)
transmission, (b) indirect
Figure transmission.
indirect 18. Performing in situ UPV test on Umar Hall building. (a) Semi-direct transmission, (b)
indirect transmission.
transmission.

Figure 19. Compressive strength vs. UPV for Umar Hall.

Figure
Figure19.
19.Compressive
Compressivestrength vs. UPV
strength for Umar
vs. UPV Hall. Hall.
for Umar
Figure 19 also shows the in situ values that were recorded for the three transmission
Figure
cases and 19 corresponding
their also shows the compressive
in situ valuesstrength
that were recorded
values foron
traced thethe
three transmission
y-axis by using
cases and their corresponding compressive strength values traced on the y-axis by using
Buildings 2022, 12, 1069 15 of 17

Figure 19 also shows the in situ values that were recorded for the three transmission
cases and their corresponding compressive strength values traced on the y-axis by using
the developed linear correlations. The UPV and compressive strength values for the three
transmission cases are summarized in Table 3. It can be seen from Table 3 that the in situ
tested bricks had a compressive strength greater than 10 MPa for all three transmissions,
which complies with the results from the destructive testing of bricks of the same building,
as presented in Figure 12. Further, as per the proposed quality assessment criteria, all the
in situ tested bricks were first-class bricks of good quality. In a similar way, the proposed
criteria can be used to differentiate between new first- and lower-class bricks or for checking
the quality of old bricks in existing structures.

Table 3. In situ values of UPV for Umar Hall.

UPV Compressive Strength

Transmission
(m/s) (MPa)
Direct 2824.5 12.77
Semi-direct 5345.1 16
Indirect 3116.9 14.74

5. Conclusions
The main objective of this study was to estimate the compressive strength of bricks
using a familiar, user-friendly, and easily available non-destructive test method, i.e., the
ultrasonic pulse velocity method. An attempt was made to estimate the compressive
strength of bricks by detecting the link between UPV and the compressive strength of
bricks of different ages and sources. Ninety bricks of five different ages and from seven
different sources were tested for UPV and compressive strength. Only the standard-sized
bricks were considered, and the effect of moisture content and porosity of bricks were not
considered. The following conclusions can be drawn from this study:
• The UPV value has a direct relation with the strength of the burnt clay brick. A UPV
value of 2000 m/s is required to declare a brick as first class, i.e., minimum compressive
strength of 10 MPa. A UPV value greater than 3000 m/s indicates a brick with a
minimum compressive strength of 15 MPa.
• The UPV test can be used for assessing the compressive strength of new bricks with
an accuracy of more than 80%.
• The case study example of a 100-year-old structure shows that the proposed quality
assessment criteria based on UPV can be used to fairly assess the compressive strength
of old bricks used in existing structures.
Generalizing the proposed quality assessment criteria to differentiate second- and
third-class bricks, and considering the density, durability, and water absorption characteris-
tics in addition to the compressive strength of the bricks will be the focus of research in the
continuation of this study.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.A.; Data curation, E.U.H.; Formal analysis, E.U.H.;
Investigation, M.R.R., A.S. and M.Z.; Methodology, R.A., M.R.R. and E.U.H.; Project administration,
R.A.; Software, E.U.H.; Supervision, R.A., A.S. and M.Z.; Validation, M.R.R., A.S. and M.Z.; Writing—
original draft, M.R.R.; Writing—review & editing, R.A. and M.Z. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1069 16 of 17

Acknowledgments: The contributions of final year students Zaib un Nisa, Ayesha Siddiqa, Hammad
Yousaf, Mubushra Khalil, Mohammad Qasim, and Muhammad Umer Farooq in the experimentation
are highly acknowledged.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. ICIMOD. Fact Sheet: Brick Sector in Pakistan; International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2019.
2. Lodi, S.H.; Sangi, A.J.; Abdullah, A. Housing Report: Brick Masonry Construction in Pakistan. In World Housing Encyclopedia;
EERI: Oakland, CA, USA, 2013.
3. Mahmood, T.; Gulzar, S.; Awan, M.Y. An Analytical Study of Colonial and Contemporary Bricks from the Buildings of Lahore,
Pakistan. J. Res. Archit. Plan. 2018, 24, 26–33. [CrossRef]
4. Dizhur, D.; Lumantarna, R.; Biggs, D.T.; Ingham, J.M. In-situ assessment of the physical and mechanical properties of vintage
solid clay bricks. Mater. Struct. 2017, 50, 63. [CrossRef]
5. Tariq, A.R.; Nawaz, R.; Khan, M.S.; Ashraf, M.W.; Tayyaba, S.; Ahmad, N. Quality evaluation of bricks of different brick kilns in
Punjab Province (Pakistan). J. Food Agric. Environ. 2014, 12, 496–498.
6. Koroth, S.R.; Fazio, P.; Feldman, D. Evaluation of clay brick durability using ultrasonic pulse velocity. J. Archit. Eng. 1998, 4,
142–147. [CrossRef]
7. Debailleux, L. Schmidt hammer rebound hardness tests for the characterization of ancient fired clay bricks. Int. J. Archit. Herit.
2019, 13, 288–297. [CrossRef]
8. Papaniaros, P.A.K.; Baros, D.K.; Kalapodis, N.A.; Anifantis, N.K. Prediction of mechanical properties of thick concrete members
or masonaries utilizing ultrasonics. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference of the Greek Society of Experimental
Mechanics of Materials, Procedia Structural Integrity, Athens, Greece, 10–12 May 2018; Volume 10, pp. 311–318.
9. Schuller, M.P. Nondestructive testing and damage assessment of masonry structures. In Proceedings of the NSF/RILEM
Workshop, In-Situ Evaluation of Historic Wood and Masonry Structures, Prague, Czech Republic, 10–14 July 2006.
10. Pi, T.; Du, Z.; Zhang, H. Experimental Study on Basic Mechanical Properties of Core-Column Non-mortar Aerated Concrete Block
Masonry. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2021, 15, 18. [CrossRef]
11. Brozovsky, J. Determine the compressive strength of calcium silicate bricks by combined nondestructive method. Sci. World J.
2014, 2014, 829794. [CrossRef]
12. Ma, S.; Wu, Y.; Bao, P. Experimental study on the properties of modern blue clay brick for Kaifeng People’s Conference Hall. Sci.
Rep. 2021, 11, 20631. [CrossRef]
13. Napolitano, R.; Hess, M.; Glisic, B. Integrating Non-Destructive Testing, Laser Scanning, and Numerical Modeling for Damage
Assessment: The Room of the Elements. Heritage 2019, 2, 151–168. [CrossRef]
14. Laefer, D.F.; Zahiri, Z.; Gowen, A. Using Short-wave Infrared Range Spectrometry Data to Determine Brick Characteristics. Int. J.
Archit. Herit. 2018, 14, 38–50. [CrossRef]
15. Petro, J.T.; Kim, J. Detection of delamination in concrete using ultrasonic pulse velocity test. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 26, 574–582.
[CrossRef]
16. Saint-Pierre, F.; Philibert, A.; Giroux, B.; Rivard, P. Concrete quality designation based on ultrasonic pulse velocity. Constr. Build
Mater. 2016, 125, 1022–1027. [CrossRef]
17. Aliabdo, A.A.E. Reliability of using nondestructive tests to estimate compressive strength of building stones and bricks. Alex.
Eng. J. 2012, 51, 193–203. [CrossRef]
18. Brozovsky, J.; Zach, J.; Brozovsky, J., Jr. Determining the strength of solid burnt bricks in historical structures. In Proceedings of
the Paper Presented at the 9th International Conference on NDT of Art, Jerusalem, Israel, 25–30 May 2008.
19. Noor-E-Khuda, S.; Albermani, F. Mechanical properties of clay masonry units: Destructive and ultrasonic testing. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2019, 219, 111–120. [CrossRef]
20. Mesquita, E.; Martini, R.; Alves, A.; Antunes, P.; Varum, H. Non-destructive characterization of ancient clay brick walls by indirect
ultrasonic measurements. J. Build. Eng. 2018, 19, 172. [CrossRef]
21. Vasanelli, E.; Micelli, F.; Colangiuli, D.; Calia, A.; Aiello, M.A. A non destructive testing method for masonry by using UPV and
cross validation procedure. Mater. Struct. 2020, 53, 134. [CrossRef]
22. Ozkan, I.; Yayla, Z. Evaluation of correlation between physical properties and ultrasonic pulse velocity of fired clay samples.
Ultrasonics 2016, 66, 4–10. [CrossRef]
23. Araújo, E.; Sousa, I.; Paz, R.; Costa, C.H.; Mesquita, E. Physical and mechanical characterization of traditional Brazilian clay
bricks from different centuries. J. Build. Pathol. Rehabil. 2020, 5, 22. [CrossRef]
24. Kasinikota, P.; Tripura, D.D. Prediction of physical-mechanical properties of hollow interlocking compressed unstabilized and
stabilized earth blocks at different moisture conditions using ultrasonic pulse velocity. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 48, 103961. [CrossRef]
25. Galán-Marín, C.; Rivera-Gómez, C.; Bradley, F. Ultrasonic, Molecular and Mechanical Testing Diagnostics in Natural Fibre
Reinforced, Polymer-Stabilized Earth Blocks. Int. J. Polym. Sci. 2013, 2013, 130582. [CrossRef]
26. Kondekar, V.G.; Jaiswal, O.R.; Gupta, L.M. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Testing of Gadhi Soil Adobe Bricks. Int. J. Eng. Res. Mech.
Civ. Eng. (IJERMCE) 2018, 3, 467–473.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1069 17 of 17

27. Jasiński, R.; Drobiec, Ł.; Mazur, W. Validation of Selected Non-Destructive Methods for Determining the Compressive Strength of
Masonry Units Made of Autoclaved Aerated Concrete. Materials 2019, 12, 389. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. ASTM C67; Standard Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Bricks and Structural Clay Tile. American Society of Testing Material:
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2003.
29. Naik, T.R.; Malhotra, V.M.; Popovics, J.S. The Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Method. In CRC Handbook on Nondestructive Testing of
Concrete; Malhotra, V.M., Carino, N.J., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2004.
30. ASTM C597; Standard Test Method for Pulse Velocity through Concrete. American Society for Testing and Materials: West
Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
31. Waheed, A.; Azam, R.; Riaz, M.R.; Zawam, M. Mechanical and durability properties of fly-ash cement sand composite bricks:
An alternative to conventional burnt clay bricks. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2022, 7, 24. [CrossRef]