Materials and Structures (2017) 50:106

DOI 10.1617/s11527-016-0975-5

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Stress–strain model for hollow concrete block masonry

under uniaxial compression
Qiang Zhou . Fenglai Wang . Fei Zhu . Xu Yang

Received: 15 June 2016 / Accepted: 21 November 2016 / Published online: 24 November 2016
Ó RILEM 2016

Abstract Accurate evaluation of the stress–strain
relationship of hollow concrete block masonry is
essential for the detailed analysis and reliable design
of hollow concrete block masonry structures. This
paper presents the results of an investigation of the
compressive stress–strain behavior of hollow concrete
block masonry. Testing was carried out on 23 masonry
wallettes constructed in the laboratory using four
different block/mortar combinations. The failure
mechanism and characteristics of stress–strain curves
were studied. Simple relationships between the elastic
modulus and corresponding compressive strength
were identified. The mortar compressive strength,
masonry compressive strength, and masonry elastic
modulus were used to predict the peak strain. Finally, a
new model for the stress–strain behavior of hollow
concrete block masonry was developed and was found
to yield predictions in good agreement with the
Electronic supplementary material The online version of
this article (doi:10.1617/s11527-016-0975-5) contains supple-
mentary material, which is available to authorized users.
Q. Zhou  F. Wang (&)  F. Zhu  X. Yang
School of Civil Engineering, Harbin Institute of
Technology, Harbin 150090, China
e-mail: fl-wang@hit.edu.cn
F. Wang
Key Lab of Structures Dynamic Behavior and Control of
the Ministry of Education, Harbin Institute of Technology,
Harbin 150090, China
experimental results and better than the predictions
of other models.
Keywords Hollow concrete block  Masonry
wallettes  Compressive test  Elastic modulus  Stress–
strain relations
1 Introduction
Hollow concrete block masonry structures are widely
used in many parts of the world in place of traditional
clay brick masonry because of their many advantages,
such as its low cost, high bearing capacity, and energy
efficiency [1]. Because masonry structures are pri-
marily subjected to compression loading, assessment
of the compressive behavior of concrete block
masonry plays an essential role in the analysis and
design of masonry structures [2].
In the past few decades, numerous research studies
have been carried out to characterize the mechanical
properties of hollow concrete block masonry prisms
under axial compression. The failure mechanism,
stress deformation behavior, and strength prediction
methods of the prisms have been established in both
experimental and numerical studies. Cheema and
Klingner [3] described the failure criterion curve for
hollow concrete block masonry prisms using the
secant modulus ratio between the mortar/block and the
failure type. Ramamurthy et al. [4] studied the axial
106 Page 2 of 12
compression capacity of hollow block masonry
prisms, considering the influences of the mortar
bedding, block–mortar strength combinations, block
geometry, height-to-thickness ratio of the block, and
thickness of the mortar joint. Köksal et al. [5] proposed
a nonlinear three-dimensional finite element model to
study the compression behavior and failure mecha-
nisms of concrete masonry prisms. Mohamad et al. [6]
found that the Poisson’s ratio of masonry prisms near
failure is strongly dependent on the mortar type. More
recently, Sarhat and Sherwood [7] conducted a
thorough review of research on compressive tests of
ungrouted hollow concrete block masonry and devel-
oped a formula for predicting the compressive strength
of ungrouted masonry. Fonseca et al. [8] assessed the
deformation and failure mode of masonry through an
experimental program. Zahra and Dhanasekar [9]
investigated the behavior of masonry using a damage
mechanics-inspired modeling method.
A comprehensive understanding of the stress–strain
behavior is essential in designing and analyzing hollow
concrete block masonry structures to take full advan-
tage of the material. However, because of the brittle
failure behavior of hollow concrete block masonry in
compression, stress–strain curves are not easy to
develop without sufficient controlled experimental
equipment [10, 11]. To the best of the authors’
knowledge, little research has been performed on the
stress–strain behavior of hollow concrete block
masonry [12–14]. Although many types of empirical
constitutive models have been developed for clay brick/
block masonry [15–19] and tuff masonry [20], a review
of the literature reveals that the failure behavior of
hollow concrete block masonry is completely different
from that of solid brick masonry [10, 21]. Therefore, it
is of fundamental importance to develop a constitutive
model for the stress–strain relationship of hollow
concrete block masonry in compression.
In this study, the existing stress–strain models for
various types of masonry were reviewed. Experimen-
tal tests were then performed on twenty-three speci-
mens of masonry wallettes consisting of combinations
of three types of blocks and two types of mortars. The
failure mechanism, stress–strain behavior, compres-
sive strength, elastic modulus, and peak strain char-
acteristics of hollow block masonry were reviewed.
An analytical model was developed for the nonlinear
stress–strain relationship of hollow block masonry.
The performance of the model was evaluated by
Materials and Structures (2017) 50:106
comparison with other existing models on the basis of
experimental stress–strain curves obtained in the
current study and further research literature.
2 Existing stress–strain relationships for masonry
A variety of stress–strain relationships have been
proposed for different types of masonry subjected to
axial compressive loading. These models have
different features in terms of hardening and soften-
ing branches. In general, the existing empirical
models can be classified into four categories based
on their mathematical forms, i.e., parabolic, frac-
tional, logarithmic, and multi-part types. The differ-
ent types of stress–strain relations collected from the
literature are briefly described in the following sub-
sections. The values proposed by the original authors
were used for the numerical parameter in the
corresponding analytical models. To ensure simplic-
ity and consistency, axial stresses and strains were
normalized to the peak compressive stress r0 and
corresponding strain e0 i.e., r ¼ r=r0 and e ¼ e=e0 ,
respectively The ratio of ultimate strain to peak strain,
namely, the ductility factor, l ¼ eu =e0 , may be used as
a measure of the compressive deformation capacity of
masonry.
2.1 Polynomial type of constitutive law
Turnšek and Čačovič [15] proposed a model based on
regression analysis of the results of tests on fifty-seven
brick masonry walls under axial compression. The
model describes the nonlinear behavior of both the
hardening and softening stages and is represented by
Eq. (1):
r ¼ 6:4 e1:17 :
e  5:4 ð1Þ
The fourth-order polynomial constitutive model
developed by Nazar and Sinha [22] for interlocking
grouted stabilized sand–flyash brick masonry is as
follows:
e4 þ b
r ¼ a e3 þ c
e2 þ d
e; ð2Þ
where a, b, c, and d are the coefficients for the
envelope, common point, and stability point curves.
The values of the four coefficients derived for the
envelope curve were estimated as a = -0.1394,
b = 0.9480, c = -2.4224, and d = 2.6158.
Materials and Structures (2017) 50:106 Page 3 of 12 106

2.2 Fractional type of constitutive law accurate modeling of the ascending branches of the
stress–strain curves. Based on the general expression
The constitutive model developed by Sargin [23] for developed by Kent and Park [26] for concrete,
concrete was modified by Cavaleri et al. [24] to charac- Priestley and Elder [27] proposed a stress–strain
terize the compressive behavior of calcarenite block model for unconfined concrete masonry in compres-
masonry. The model has the following general form: sion. This model incorporates a rising parabolic curve
followed by a falling linear branch and a final
e2
e þ ðD  1Þ
A
r ¼ ; ð3Þ horizontal plateau (representing constant stress) at
1 þ ðA  2Þ
e þ De2
20% of the peak compressive stress. The model can be
where A and D, the values of which are to be expressed as follows:
determined from experimental results, are the two (
parameters affecting the ascending and post-peak 1:6005 e2 if e 2 ½0; 1
e  0:6002
r ¼ ; ð6Þ
descending branches, respectively. In general, for 1  Zm ð
e  1Þ if e 2 ½1; l
masonry, the first parameter falls in the range of [2, 3],
while the second parameter falls in the range of [0, where Zm is a strength decrease factor that is defined
2(A-1)]. Based on experimental test results, values of as:
2.8 for A and 1.2 for D seemed to be appropriate to 0:00075
characterize the constitutive model. Zm ¼ 3þ0:29r0
:
 0:002
145r0 1000
2.3 Logarithmic type of constitutive law Kaushik et al. [17] used the Kent–Park model to
develop a parabolic stress–strain model for clay brick
Shi [16] used the results of tests on clay brick masonry masonry in uniaxial compression. The model, which
specimens in axial compression to propose a constitu- describes the ascending branch and the part of the
tive model of the following general logarithmic form: descending branch that corresponds to a 10% strength
1 decrease, can be expressed as follows:
e ¼  pffiffiffiffiffi lnð1  rÞ;
 ð4Þ
n r0
e  e2 if e 2 ½0; e0:9 ;
r ¼ 2 ð7Þ
where n is a coefficient to be calibrated using
where e0:9 is the normalized strain corresponding to
experimental data and is assumed to be 460 for clay
90% of the peak stress on the descending branch. The
brick masonry. However, this model is defined in terms
remaining part of the descending branch can be
of stress control; the post-peak softening behavior of
simplified as a straight line up to 20% of the peak
masonry in compression cannot be simulated.
stress, according to the following equation:
2.4 Multi-part type of constitutive law
0:7
r ¼ 0:9  ð
e  e0:9 Þ if e 2 ½
e0:9 ; l; ð8Þ
l  e0:9
A multi-part model consists of two or three equations
that describe the ascending and descending branches where the ductility factor l is assumed to be 2 for
of stress–strain curves separately. Arya and Hegemier mortar without lime and 2.75 for mortar with lime.
[25] proposed the following two-part model for the
stress–strain response of concrete block masonry. The
3 Experimental program
model contains a linear branch up to the peak
compressive stress and an upward parabolic branch
3.1 Material properties
with a ductility factor l of 2.56.
8
< e if e 2 ½0; 1
> 3.1.1 Hollow concrete block
 
r ¼ e  1 2 : ð5Þ
>
:1  if e 2 ½1; l The specimens were constructed using hollow con-
l1
crete full and half blocks, the dimensions of which
In later studies, the various stress–strain relationships were 390 mm 9 190 mm 9 190 mm and 190 mm 9
proposed for masonry were improved by more 190 mm 9 190 mm (length 9 height 9 thickness),
106 Page 4 of 12
respectively. Figure 1 illustrates the dimensions of the
blocks. The end webs and face shells were approxi-
mately 30 mm thick. The core percentage of the
blocks was approximately 46%. Blocks of three
different strength grades were used. To ensure
consistency in the strength of the blocks, the half
blocks were made using the same mix proportions as
the full blocks. The specimens were cured before
testing in a standard curing room at a temperature of
20 ± 5 °C and 50 ± 15% humidity. To evaluate the
compressive strength of the block, five full blocks and
five half blocks were tested by means of a hydraulic
press under force control with a loading rate of 4.0 kN/
s for each block grade, in accordance with the Chinese
Standard GB/T 4111 [28]. The mean block strength
was computed by averaging the strengths of the two
types of blocks geometries. The mean compressive
strengths of block I, block II, and block III were
14.08 MPa with a coefficient of variation (COV) of
4.71%, 25.72 MPa with a COV of 9.91%, and
31.18 MPa with a COV of 8.83%, respectively.
3.1.2 Mortar
Two different types of ordinary cement mortar were
used in the tests. Mortars I and II were mixed from
Portland cement, sand, and water in proportions by
weight of 1.00:5.53:0.89 and 1.00:4.52:0.73, respec-
tively. Each type of mortar was characterized by
Fig. 1 Dimensions of blocks (all dimensions are in mm)
Materials and Structures (2017) 50:106
compressive tests on three cubic specimens with 70.7-
mm edge dimensions. The specimens were cured
before testing in a standard curing room at a temper-
ature of 20 ± 5 °C and 95% humidity. The compres-
sive strength tests on the mortar specimens were
conducted in accordance with the experimental pro-
cedure given in the Chinese Standard JGJ/T 70 [29].
The mean compressive strengths of mortar I and
mortar II were 6.31 MPa with a COV of 10.67% and
15.55 MPa with a COV of 5.84%, respectively.
3.2 Specimens
Four different combinations of blocks and mortars
(designated as SS1, SS2, SS3, and SS4) were used to
assess the stress–strain behavior of hollow block
masonry in compression. In accordance with the
Chinese Standard GB/T 50129 [30], the test masonry
wallettes were 590 mm in length, 990 mm in height,
and 190 mm in thickness. These wallette dimensions
corresponded to five courses of blocks vertically, one
and a half blocks horizontally, and one block trans-
versely. The specimens were constructed in running
bond with full bedding. The head and bed joints were
10 mm thick (Fig. 2).
Six specimens were cast for each combination. To
improve the surface evenness and ensure a uniform
distribution of axial load during the compression
testing, each specimen was capped with a layer of
Materials and Structures (2017) 50:106
high-strength gypsum. Because the strength of the
gypsum capping was greater than that of the mortar
joints, the capping was expected to have no effect on
the uniaxial deformation behavior of the specimens.
All of the specimens were constructed by a profes-
sional mason and cured in a laboratory environment
for 28 days prior to testing.
3.3 Test set-up and instrumentation
The specimens were tested in uniaxial compression
using a 10,000-kN electrohydraulic servo–controlled
machine. To capture the post-peak behavior of the
masonry wallettes, the loading was conducted under
displacement control at a constant displacement rate
of 0.003 mm/s. As Fig. 2 shows, two 25-mm-thick
steel plates were used to produce similar boundary
conditions for the upper and lower faces of the
specimens. Six linear variable displacement trans-
ducers (LVDTs) with gauge lengths of 400 mm were
used to measure the axial deformation and two
LVDTs with gauge lengths of 300 mm were used to
measure the lateral deformation. The vertical LVDTs
were attached at the mid-height on each specimen to
eliminate the restraint effect of the plates. The
average measured value was determined to eliminate
any potential eccentricities in the height and thick-
ness directions of the specimens. The loads and
displacements were measured and recorded using a
data acquisition system.
Fig. 2 Test set-up and instruments (all dimensions are in mm)
Page 5 of 12 106
4 Results and discussion
The tests conducted in this study were carried out to
determine the masonry specimens’ (1) compressive
failure patterns, (2) stress–strain curves, (3) compres-
sive strengths, (4) elastic modulus–compressive
strength relations, and (5) peak strains. The key test
results for the masonry wallettes are summarized in
Table 1 in terms of the compressive strength (fm0 ),
elastic modulus (Em), and peak strain (e0m ). It should be
noted that one specimen in group SS1 was broken
during the testing.
4.1 Failure pattern
In general, the failure modes were similar for all
specimens. Figure 3 illustrates the typical failure
pattern of a hollow concrete block masonry wallette
subjected to axial compression. Cracking began
mainly at the interface between the blocks and the
head joint mortar. The reason for this is that the lower
elastic modulus of the mortar resulted in it being more
deformable than the blocks. The lateral expansion of
the mortar induced high tensile stresses in the masonry
blocks. The initial cracks were fine and short. During
the loading process, the cracks in the frontal face
propagated vertically along the head joint and through
the top and bottom full blocks (Fig. 3a). In the lateral
face, cracking also appeared in the middle of the
transverse web and extended through the height of the
masonry wallette (Fig. 3b). However, vertical cracks
developed soon after the maximum bearing capacity
was reached. Finally, face-shells detached from the
transverse webs in some specimens. During the face-
shell and web cracking that occurred as the load
magnitude approached the peak load, mortar crushing
was also observed at the head joints of the masonry
wallettes. This confirmed that the predominant failure
mode of the hollow concrete block masonry wallettes
was vertical cracking of the blocks and crushing of the
mortars.
4.2 Stress–strain characteristics
The compressive stress–strain curves of the masonry
wallettes are shown in Fig. 4. These curves represent
the behavior of the wallettes to the point of conven-
tional failure, i.e., when the compressive strength
106 Page 6 of 12 Materials and Structures (2017) 50:106

Table 1 Compression test results for the specimens

Specimens fb/MPa fj/MPa fm0 =MPa Em/MPa e0m

SS1 14.08 6.31 8.63 (0.11) 8000 (0.21) 0.00152 (0.18)

SS2 25.73 6.31 13.97 (0.08) 14,200 (0.13) 0.00183 (0.19)
SS3 25.73 15.55 14.17 (0.07) 14,333 (0.14) 0.00132 (0.21)
SS4 31.18 15.55 19.71 (0.11) 22,037 (0.20) 0.00143 (0.15)
Numbers in parentheses are coefficients of variation, Em was evaluated using the secant modulus at 40% of the ultimate strength

steeper and could not be fully determined for

specimens with higher peak strengths.

4.3 Compressive strength

The results of the compressive strength tests (the

Fig. 3 Typical failure pattern of masonry wallettes. a Cracking
in frontal face, and b cracking in lateral face
decreased to approximately 30% of its maximum
value. The following observations were made:
(1) The stress–strain behavior was very similar for
each set of specimens in the ascending branch,
whereas there was some scatter in the descend-
ing branch.
(2) The specimens exhibited linear stress–strain
behavior up to approximately 80% of the peak
stress. Thereafter, nonlinear behavior was
observed up to the peak stress, which may have
been due to the expansion of a large number of
micro cracks inside the specimens.
(3) After the peak load, sudden vertical cracking
caused the load capacity to decrease dramati-
cally, and the masonry wallettes exhibited
brittle failure behavior with little deformation.
(4) The wallettes exhibited more brittle failure as
the peak strength increased, so the descending
branches of the stress–strain curves became
mean values for the six specimens in each group) are
summarized in Table 1. The results show that an
increase of approximately 80% in the block com-
pressive strength corresponded to an increase of
approximately 60% in the masonry compressive
strength. On the other hand, an increase of approx-
imately 150% in the mortar compressive strength
corresponded to an increase of only approximately
2% in the masonry compressive strength. These
results indicate that the mortar compressive strength
has only a slight effect on the masonry compressive
strength, which is consistent with the results of
previous studies [10, 11].
To predict the compressive strength of masonry, the
Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC) [31] and
CSA S304.1 [32] codes use tabulated values to
estimate the compressive strength of hollow concrete
block masonry from the block strength and mortar
type. The Eurocode 6 [33] code presents the following
formula for the characteristic compressive strength of
masonry as a function of the block and mortar
compressive strengths:
fm0 ¼ Kfbla fjb ; ð9Þ
where K, a, and b are constants. The K value depends
on the shape of the concrete block and is equal to 0.52
when the void ratio of the blocks is within the range of
20–60%. The values of a and b are 0.7 and 0.3 for
masonry constructed with typical mortars. fbl is the
normalized mean block compressive strength.
Moreover, in order to transform the characteristic
compressive strength into the mean compressive
Materials and Structures (2017) 50:106
Fig. 4 Observed stress–strain curves for specimens
strength, the characteristic compressive strength was
multiplied by 1.2 as suggested by the European law
EN 1052-1 [34].
Based on a large database of axial compressive
experimental results for hollow concrete block
masonry prisms collected from the literature, Sarhat
and Sherwood [7] determined values for the constants
K, a, and b from regression analysis and proposed the
following model:
fm0 0:886fb0:75 fj0:18 : ð10Þ
Figure 5 illustrates the relations between the
experimental and predicted compressive strength
values. As the figures shows, the MSJC model
overestimates the average compressive strength of
the masonry wallettes, whereas the CSA S304.1 and
Eurocode 6 models underestimate the strength to
different degrees. The formula proposed by Sarhat and
Page 7 of 12 106
Sherwood yields the most accurate predictions of
compressive strength for hollow concrete block
masonry.
4.4 Relationship between elastic modulus
and compression strength
The elastic modulus of masonry is typically deter-
mined from the secant modulus of the linear part of the
compressive stress–strain curve, which is typically
defined at a stress level equal to 40% of the ultimate
compressive strength. Alternatively, the masonry
elastic modulus can be evaluated using the chord
modulus of elasticity taken between 5 and 33% of the
ultimate compressive strength, in accordance with the
prism test method. For the sake of convenience in
design, a predictive expression relating the elastic
modulus to the compressive strength of masonry was
106 Page 8 of 12 Materials and Structures (2017) 50:106

Table 2 Masonry elastic modulus–strength models of various

forms and their coefficients of determination
Masonry elastic modulus–strength model R2

Em ¼ 872fm0 0.76
0
Em ¼ 53fm2 þ 2335fm0  8820 0.72
0
Em ¼ 1410fm0:8 0.69

obtained using the MSJC and CSA S304.1 models are

non-conservative, whereas the predictions obtained
using the Eurocode 6 model are conservative.

4.5 Peak strain

Fig. 5 Comparison of compressive strengths from analytical
models and experimental results The peak strain corresponding to the peak stress is an
essential parameter in the determination of a stress–
derived. Although the relationship between the two strain curve. Table 1 shows that the peak strain for
material parameters is theoretically irrelevant, it does masonry lies between 0.001 and 0.002. In general, the
have some practical value. In general, the elastic peak strain is considered to be constant for conve-
modulus and compressive strength of masonry are nience of use [36]. However, as Table 1 shows, the
linearly related. The MSJC [31] suggests that the specimens in group SS2 exhibited mean compressive
elastic modulus be estimated as 700 times the strengths similar to those in group SS3 but more
compressive strength, while the Canadian masonry ductile behavior. The peak strain was observed to
code CSA S304.1 [32] and Eurocode 6 [33] recom- increase as the mortar compressive strength decreased.
mended ratios of the elastic modulus to the compres- This indicates that the deformation characteristics of
sive strength of 800 and 1000, respectively. Some masonry are strongly influenced by the mortar prop-
authors [6, 16] have proposed nonlinear relationships erties, which contradicts the findings of Mohamad
between the elastic modulus and compressive strength et al. [6] and Haach et al. [11].
of masonry. The equation proposed by Kaushik et al. [17] was
Additional data regarding the elastic modulus of adopted for prediction of the peak strain. This model
hollow concrete block masonry was also gathered predicts the peak strain as a function of the mortar
from the literature [6, 10, 14, 35] (see Online compressive strength, the masonry compressive
Appendix A). These data were used in a regression
analysis to assess the relation between the elastic
modulus and the compressive strength. Various linear,
multiple linear, and power model forms were used to
obtain representative formulas. The adequacy of these
models was assessed on the basis of the coefficient of
determination (R2). Table 2 shows various formulae
obtained via regression and their R2 values. Because of
the limitations of the data available for analysis, the
following linear model was judged to perform better
than the other models.
Em ¼ 872fm0 : ð11Þ
Figure 6 shows a comparison between Eq. (11) and
other popular models (MSJC, CSA S304.1, and Fig. 6 Predictions from proposed equation versus predictions
Eurocode 6). The results show that the predictions from code equations
Materials and Structures (2017) 50:106
strength, and the masonry elastic modulus. The
function can be expressed as follows:
Kfm0
e0m ¼ : ð12Þ
fj a Emb
0
Regression analysis was used to determine the
values of the constants K, a, and b. In addition to the
experimental results obtained in this study, data from
other experimental tests [10, 14] (see Online Appendix
A) were included in the analysis. The following
equation was obtained via nonlinear regression:
0:21fm0
e0m ¼ 0 : ð13Þ
fj 0:2 Em0:8
Figure 7 presents a comparison between the exper-
imental results and predicted values. It can be seen that
Eq. (13) provides predictions of masonry peak strains
with an R2 of 0.67.
5 Proposed stress–strain model
5.1 Development of the model equation
Various mathematical forms for constitutive models to
describe the stress–strain behavior of masonry were
reviewed in the previous section, including single-part
nonlinear model forms and multi-part model forms
with various linear and nonlinear components. After
careful examination of the different forms of these
models, a two-part constitutive law was adopted for
hollow concrete block masonry. The constitutive
model was developed primarily on a curve fitting
Fig. 7 Comparison of predicted and experimental peak strains
Page 9 of 12 106
basis to satisfy the following boundary conditions: (1)
when e¼0 and r¼0,  the stress–strain curve passes
through the origin, and the initial tangent elastic
modulus E = dr/de; (2) when 0\ e\1 and
2 2
 e  0, the slope of the ascending branch
d r=d
remains constant or decreases monotonically, and
there is no inflection point; and (3) when e ¼ 1 and
 e ¼ 0, the curve reaches the maximum strength
dr=d
point and is unimodal.
In the present study, the parabolic expression
proposed by Kent and Park [26] was used as a basis
for describing the nonlinear behavior of the ascending
branch. Considering the brittle failure behavior of this
type of masonry, a simple linear relation was adopted
to describe the softening behavior of the descending
branch. The model can be expressed as follows:
e  e2 if e 2 ½0; 1:
r ¼ 2 ð14Þ
ð1  gÞ
r ¼ 1  ð
e  1Þ if e 2 ½1; l; ð15Þ
l1
where g is the ratio of the residual stress to the
compressive stress. In this study, after calibration with
experimental results, the values of g and l were
obtained as 0.2 and 2, respectively, i.e., the descending
branch was truncated at 20% of the compressive stress
with a ductility factor l of 2.
5.2 Comparison with other models
and experimental results
To verify the applicability of the proposed constitutive
model to the prediction of hollow concrete block
masonry stress–strain behavior in axial compression,
the proposed model was compared with: (1) experi-
mental curves obtained in the present study, (2)
experimental curves proposed in the published liter-
ature [14], and (3) existing analytical models
[15–17, 22, 24, 25, 27].
Figure 8 shows a comparison of the dimensionless
results obtained with the proposed model and existing
analytical models. For most of the cases considered,
the model proposed by Shi [16] for clay brick masonry
does not yield satisfactory agreement with the exper-
imental data at a given strain because the compressive
stress is greatly overestimated in comparison with the
measured value. This model also cannot predict the
descending-branch behavior because the strain tends to
infinity when the normalized stress is equal to 1.
106 Page 10 of 12
Fig. 8 a Comparison of the proposed model with the present experiments. b Comparison of the proposed model with experimental
results [14]. c Comparison of the proposed model with the models from literature
The other models yield fairly good predictions of the
stress–strain behavior up to the peak load. However,
because the descending branches of the stress–strain
curves for different types of masonry are quite different,
the existing models yield poor predictions for the
descending branches of the stress–strain curves. These
models are unable to accurately predict the relatively
limited deformation exhibited by hollow concrete block
masonry beyond the peak load. By using the sets of
experiments from both the present study and Mohamad
[14], the values of R2 for the models proposed by
Turnšek and Čačovič [15], Kaushik et al. [17], Nazar
and Sinha [22], Cavaleri et al. [24], Arya and Hegemier
[25], and Priestley and Elder [27] are 0.541, 0.701,
0.221, 0.243, 0.442, and 0.676, respectively.
The analytical model proposed in the present study
yields good agreement with the experimental results
Materials and Structures (2017) 50:106
and with the other models along the ascending branch.
Because the proposed model describes the softening
behavior for a low level of strain ductility in a different
way, it fits the experimental data better (R2 = 0.818)
than the analytical models from literature. Therefore,
the proposed analytical model is considered suit-
able for use in the design and numerical analysis of
hollow concrete block masonry structures.
6 Conclusions
This paper presents the results of an experimental and
analytical investigation of the compressive behavior
of hollow concrete block masonry. A total of 23
masonry wallettes with four different block/mortar
combinations were tested under displacement control
Materials and Structures (2017) 50:106
to assess pre-peak and post-peak behavior. The
observed compression behavior of hollow concrete
block masonry was investigated in terms of its failure
pattern, elastic modulus, peak strain, and stress–strain
behavior. The following conclusions can be drawn
from the experimental results:
The masonry wallettes subjected to axial compres-
sion exhibited damage patterns consisting predomi-
nantly of scattered vertical cracking. After the
maximum compressive stress was reached, the
masonry wallettes experienced brittle failure with
small deformation.
Based on regression analysis of the experimental
results obtained in this research and other studies, an
accurate prediction model was developed to charac-
terize the relationship between masonry compressive
strength and elastic modulus.
The peak strain increases as the mortar compressive
strength decreases. This indicates that the mortar has a
significant effect on the deformation of the masonry.
Based on the predictive expression proposed by
Kaushik et al., a regression equation was derived for
accurate prediction of the peak strain for hollow
concrete block masonry.
A simplified analytical model is proposed in this
paper for prediction of the compressive stress–strain
behavior of hollow concrete block masonry. The
proposed model yields reasonably good agreement
with the experimental results, having better perfor-
mance than existing constitutive models.
Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the
financial support from the National Science & Technology Pillar
Program-China (Grant No. 2013BAJ12B03).
References
1. Zhao Y, Wang FL (2015) Experimental studies on behavior
of fully grouted reinforced-concrete masonry shear walls.
Earthq Eng Eng Vib 14(4):743–757. doi:10.1007/s11803-
015-0030-5
2. Drougkas A, Roca P, Molins C (2016) Compressive strength
and elasticity of pure lime mortar masonry. Mater Struct
49(3):983–999. doi:10.1617/s11527-015-0553-2
3. Cheema TS, Klingner RE (1986) Compressive strength of
concrete masonry prisms. ACI J Proc 83(1):88–97
4. Ramamurthy K, Sathish V, Ambalavanan R (2000) Com-
pressive strength prediction of hollow concrete block
masonry prisms. ACI Struct J 97(1):61–67
5. Köksal HO, Karakoç C, Yildirim H (2005) Compression
behavior and failure mechanisms of concrete masonry
Page 11 of 12 106
prisms. J Mater Civ Eng 17(1):107–115. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0899-1561(2005)17:1(107)
6. Mohamad G, Lourenço PB, Roman HR (2007) Mechanics
of hollow concrete block masonry prisms under compres-
sion: Review and prospects. Cem Concr Compos
29(3):181–192. doi:10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.11.003
7. Sarhat SR, Sherwood EG (2014) The prediction of com-
pressive strength of ungrouted hollow concrete block
masonry. Constr Build Mater 58:111–121. doi:10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2014.01.025
8. Fonseca FS, Mohamad G, Roman HR, Vermeltfoort AT,
Rizzatti E (2015) Deformation and failure mode of
masonry, in: 12th North American Masonry Conference,
17–20 May, Denve, http://repository.tue.nl/838245
9. Zahra T, Dhanasekar M (2016) Prediction of masonry
compressive behaviour using a damage mechanics inspired
modelling method. Constr Build Mater 109:128–138.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.01.048
10. Barbosa CS, Lourenço PB, Hanai JB (2010) On the com-
pressive strength prediction for concrete masonry prisms.
Mater Struct 43(3):331–344. doi:10.1617/s11527-009-
9492-0
11. Haach VG, Vasconcelos G, Lourenço PB (2014) Assess-
ment of compressive behavior of concrete masonry prisms
partially filled by general mortar. J Mater Civ Eng
26(10):04014068. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.00
00956
12. Knutsson HH (1993) The stress–strain relationship for
masonry. Masonry Int 7(1):31–33
13. Dhanasekar M, Loov RE, McCullough D, Shrive NG (1997)
Stress-strain relations for hollow concrete masonry under
cyclic compression. In: 11th international brick/block
masonry conference, 14–16 October, 1997, Shanghai,
pp 1269–1278
14. Mohamad G (2007) Mechanism failure of concrete block
masonry under compression. PhD Dissertation, University
of Minho, Guimarães
15. Turnšek V, Čačovič F (1971) Some experimental results on
the strength of brick masonry walls. In: Proceeding of 2nd
international brick masonry conference, British Ceramic
Society, Stoke-on-Trent, pp 149–156
16. Shi CX (1984) Analysis of the strength for compressive
members of brick masonry under eccentric loads. In: 3rd
international symposium on wall structures, Warsaw
17. Kaushik HB, Rai DC, Jain SK (2007) Stress–strain char-
acteristics of clay brick masonry under uniaxial compres-
sion. J Mater Civ Eng 19(9):728–739. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:9(728)
18. Lumantarna R, Biggs DT, Ingham JM (2014) Uniaxial
compressive strength and stiffness of field-extracted and
laboratory-constructed masonry prisms. J Mater Civ Eng
26(4):567–575. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000
0731
19. Costigan A, Pavı́a S, Kinnane O (2015) An experimental
evaluation of prediction models for the mechanical behavior
of unreinforced, lime-mortar masonry under compression.
J Build Eng 4:283–294. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2015.10.001
20. Augenti N, Parisi F (2010) Constitutive models for tuff
masonry under uniaxial compression. J Mater Civ Eng
22(11):1102–1111. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.00
00119
106 Page 12 of 12
21. Wong HE, Drysdale RG (1985) Compression characteris-
tics of concrete block masonry prisms. In: Grogan JC,
Conway JT (eds) Masonry, research, application, and
problems (ASTM STP 871). ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, pp 167–177
22. Nazar ME, Sinha SN (2007) Loading–unloading curves of
interlocking grouted stabilised sand-flyash brick masonry.
Mater Struct 40(7):667–678. doi:10.1617/s11527-006-9177-x
23. Sargin M (1968) Stress–strain relationship for concrete and
analysis of structural concrete sections, PhD Dissertation,
University of Waterloo, Waterloo
24. Cavaleri L, Failla A, La Mendola L, Papia M (2005)
Experimental and analytical response of masonry elements
under eccentric vertical loads. Eng Struct 27(8):1175–1184.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.02.012
25. Arya SK, Hegemier GA (1978) On nonlinear response
prediction of concrete masonry assemblies. In: Proceedings
of the 1st North American masonry conference, The
Masonry Society, 14–16 August, Boulder, pp 1.1–1.24
26. Kent DC, Park R (1971) Flexural members with confined
concrete. J Struct Div 97(7):1969–1990
27. Priestley MJN, Elder DM (1983) Stress–strain curves for
unconfined and confined concrete masonry. ACI J Proc
80(3):192–201
28. GB/T 4111 (2013) Test methods for concrete block and
brick. China Standardization Administration, Beijing (in
Chinese)
Materials and Structures (2017) 50:106
29. JGJ/T 70 (2009) Standard test method for performance of
building mortar. China Ministry of Construction, Beijing (in
Chinese)
30. GB/T 50129 (2011) Standard test method for basic
mechanical properties of masonry. China Ministry of Con-
struction, Beijing (in Chinese)
31. MSJC (2011) Building code requirements and specification
for masonry structures: containing building code require-
ments for masonry structures (TMS 402-11/ACI 530-11/
ASCE 5-11), specification for masonry structures (TMS
602-11/ACI 530.1-11/ASCE 6-11), and companion com-
mentaries. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston
32. CSA S304.1 (2004) Design of masonry structures. Canadian
Standards Association, Toronto
33. EN 1996-1-1 (2005) Eurocode 6—design of masonry
structures—Part 1–1: general rules for reinforced and
unreinforced masonry structures. British Standards Institu-
tion, London
34. EN 1052-1 (1999) Methods of test for masonry—Part 1:
determination of compressive strength. British Standards
Institution, London
35. Gayed Y, Korany Y (2012) Modulus of elasticity prediction
for hollow concrete masonry. Masonry Chair Report No.
106-2012, University of Alberta, Edmonton
36. Liu GQ (2005) Research on the basic mechanical behavior
of masonry structure. PhD Dissertation, Hunan University,
Changsha (in Chinese)