Journal of Building Engineering 22 (2019) 429–438

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Correlation between the performance of solid masonry prisms and wallettes T

under compression
⁎
Julian Ajith Thambooa, , Manicka Dhanasekarb
a
Department of Civil Engineering, South Eastern University of Sri Lanka, 32360 Oluvil, Sri Lanka
b
School of Civil Engineering and The Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology, 4000 Brisbane, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Strength and deformation characteristics of masonry under uniaxial compression are researched over decades
Masonry using prisms and wallettes; however, correlation between these two common test methods is not firmly estab-
Compression lished. Masonry design standards provide expressions and tabulated data for the determination of the com-
Prism pression characteristics from either the prism or the wallette tests. Subsequently researchers compared the
Wallette
standards and made conclusions on their respective conservativism or otherwise, without any regard to the way
Brick
these provisions have been developed for these design standards. Hence an attempt was made to correlate the
behaviour of the solid masonry prism to the wallette compressive behaviour. Fifty prisms and forty wallettes
were constructed and tested using five different types of units and two mortar mixes. The test results have
revealed that the prism tests consistently provide higher compressive strength than that of the corresponding
wallettes specimens. A linear relationship between the compressive strengths of the prisms and the wallettes has
been found appropriate. For the deformation characteristics of masonry, simplified analytical model is proposed
to correlate the test data from the prisms and the wallettes.

1. Introduction Masonry design standards mainly state that the compressive

Masonry is a common construction option throughout the world due
to abundance availability of local materials and simple and well-es-
tablished construction processes. For structural design, compressive
strength of masonry is an important property; modulus of elasticity and
constitutive stress-strain relationship under uniaxial compression are
also essential where deformation and/or cracking of masonry structures
are of concern. The behaviour of masonry under axial compression is
influenced by parameters such as the relative strengths of masonry
units and mortar, the thickness of mortar joints, shape of the units,
mortar bedding methods (full or face-shell), type of testing (Prism or
wallette) and masonry specimen aspect ratio (Sarangapani et al. [1];
Barbosa et al. [2]; Thamboo et al. [3]; Thamboo and Dhanasekar [4];
Lumantarna et al. [5]; Fortes et al. [6]; Dhanasekar et al. [7]; Mohamad
et al. [8,9]; Knox et al. [10]). The compressive strength of masonry is
also affected by lateral confinement in [11–13]; the strength properties
described in this paper is more broadly described as unconfined com-
pressive strength in the testing of brittle material literature [14,15].
Therefore, several experimental studies on focused on assessing un-
confined compressive characteristics of historical and contemporary
masonry systems have been carried out in the past [16–20].
strength and modulus of elasticity can be determined through two
methods (1) using tabulated design values with unit and mortar
strength designations and (2) through experimental testing of masonry
specimens (AS 3700 [21]; CSA S304.1-04 [22],; EN 1996-1-1 [23],;
MSJC [24]). EN 1996-1-1 [23] stipulates wallette testing method and
rest of the standards recommend stack bonded prism testing to de-
termine the compressive strength of masonry. Further, the height to
thickness ratio of the prisms is treated differently in different standards.
With a view to understanding the effect of these inconsistent provisions
to the conservative design of masonry under compression, experimental
investigation was conducted in this research to correlate the results of
the prism tests to that of the wallette tests in this paper.
Even though numerous research studies have been conducted on the
axial compression behaviour of masonry, only limited research studies
have examined both the prisms and wallette specimens in a single in-
vestigation. Those examined, reported that the behaviour of masonry
prism and wallettes under compression are different in terms of
strength and deformability (Maurenbrecher [25]; Scrivener & Baker
[26]; Gumeste et al. [27]; Mohamad et al. [9]; Izquierdo et al. [28]). It
is evident that the masonry wallettes depicts lower strength than the
prism under compression although both have been constructed using

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: jathamboo@seu.ac.lk (J.A. Thamboo), m.dhanasekar@qut.edu.au (M. Dhanasekar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.01.007
Received 19 November 2018; Received in revised form 27 December 2018; Accepted 7 January 2019
Available online 10 January 2019
2352-7102/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J.A. Thamboo, M. Dhanasekar
the same unit and mortar configuration and tested under the same
condition. Prepend joints in the wallettes could have contributed to the
reduction in strength. To date there is no established relationship be-
tween the prism and the wallette compressive strengths. It is, therefore,
hypothesised that a correlation established between prism and wallette
compressive strength would be useful for comparing the predictions
across different design standards.
Several empirical stress-strain relationships of masonry under
compression have been proposed from the past studies. Priestley and
Elder [13] carried out an experimental investigation of the compression
stress-strain characteristics of grouted concrete masonry prisms and a
modified form of Kent-Park curve (Kent and Park [29]) for confined
reinforced concrete prisms was proposed; the stress-strain model in-
corporated an ascending parabolic curve and a descending linear
branch and normalised parabolic coefficients of 1.6, 0.6 and a strength
reduction factor Zm were proposed to solve the functions. Similarly,
Binda et al. [30] proposed an ascending parabolic curve and a des-
cending linear branch for the stress-strain curves for masonry wallette
specimens under compression using different unit and mortar char-
acteristics. The normalised parabolic coefficients of −2 and 7 were
proposed in their study. Dhanasekar and Shrive [12] investigated the
strength and stress-strain characteristics of confined and unconfined
grouted concrete masonry prisms; they also suggested simple and re-
fined forms of stress-strain constitutive relationship of the grouted
concrete masonry using several coefficients introduced in their equa-
tions to solve the stress-strain relationship. Further Ewing and Ko-
walsky [14] experimentally examined the stress–strain characteristics
of unconfined and confined clay brick masonry and compared with the
‘‘modified’’ Kent–Park stress–strain curve as earlier proposed by
Priestley and Elder [13].
Cavaleri et al. [31] proposed stress-strain constitutive relationships
obtained from wallettes tested under concentric and eccentric com-
pression. The parameters influencing the ascending and the descending
branches of the relationships were determined from an experimental
program. The coefficients A and D were proposed in their stress-strain
equation. Based on their experimental results, values 2.8 and 1.2 were
proposed to solve the stress-strain equation. Kaushik et al. [32] tested
masonry prisms under compression and used the modified Kent–Park
stress–strain curve [13] to propose the stress-strain relationship for clay
masonry prisms. Basha and Kaushik [33] suggested relationship to
predict the nonlinear properties of fly ash brick masonry wallettes
under compression. Zahra and Dhanasekar [34] examined the wallette
and prism strengths of masonry with and without mortar bed joint by
developing a theory of damage mechanics for the units, mortar and
their interfaces; they concluded that the strength and Young's modulus
predictions from the wallettes were lower than the predictions from
prisms by 15% and 33% respectively.
Therefore, it can be inferred that the stress-strain constitutive re-
lationships of masonry reported in the literature have been developed
from either prism or wallettes testing and not from both in a single
experimental investigation, except in some theoretical studies (for ex-
ample, Zahra and Dhanasekar [15]). Hence, this research study has
focused on experimentally examining the strength and deformation
characteristics of both the stack bonded masonry prisms and wallettes
under compression using the same materials. Experimental tests were
conducted on ninety specimens (50 prisms and 40 wallettes) with five
different units and two different mortars. The differences in compres-
sive strength, elastic modulus and stress-strain behaviour between
prism and wallettes test results are presented and discussed in this
paper. A generalised empirical constitutive relationship of masonry
prisms and wallettes under compression is proposed in this research
from the experimental results. The contribution of the paper is sum-
maries as below: Design standards specify either prism tests or wallette
tests to determine the compressive strength of masonry for wall designs.
This paper has established that wallettes are more representative of real
world walls and the strength data obtained from the wallette tests are
430
Journal of Building Engineering 22 (2019) 429–438
Fig. 1. Bricks used in this research.
more conservative than that obtained from the prism tests. A relation
between the wallette and prism strengths is provided in this paper with
a view to converting the prism strength to equivalent wallette strength
for incorporation into the design of real world structural walls.
2. Experimental program
2.1. Materials
Five different types of units and two different types of mortars were
used to build the prism and wallettes specimens. The bricks used in this
research are shown in Fig. 1. Out of five brick units, three were clay
bricks and two were compressed earth bricks. These masonry units were
purposely selected to cover the range of dimensions and compressive
strengths that are commonly used in the local construction in Oluvil, Sri
Lanka where the first author works. The geometrical and mechanical
properties of the units are presented in the Table 1. The density, com-
pressive strength, modulus of rupture and water absorption of the se-
lected units were determined as per ASTM C90-16a [35], ASTM C1314-
16 [36], ASTM C67-17 [37] and ASTM C1403-15 [38] respectively. The
clay and the compressed earth bricks are denoted as CLB and CEB re-
spectively followed by their serial number in the following discussions.
Six specimens were tested to determine the each property of the se-
lected bricks. The coefficients of variations of unit testing results are
given within the parentheses of Table 1.
Two types of mortars were used to construct the prisms and the
wallette in combination with five types of units in this study. The ce-
ment to sand ratios of 1:3 and 1:5 were used for mortar mixing. The 1:3
and 1:5 mix mortars are denoted as MO1 and MO2 respectively in the
following discussion. The mortars were mixed by volume proportions
and required water was added to prepare workable mix. The density,
water absorption, compressive strength and flexural strength of the
mortars were determined at 28th day of casting as per the relevant
standards and presented in Table 2. Six specimens were tested to de-
termine each property of the mortar mixes. The coefficients of varia-
tions of testing results are given within the parentheses of Table 2. The
elastic modulus of the mortar was determined using an empirical re-
lationship proposed in Haach et al. [39] and reported in Table 2.
2.2. Testing procedure
Totally 50 prisms and 40 wallettes specimens were constructed and
tested for the five different units and two mortars combination to assess
the strength and deformation behaviour masonry in this research. The
complete test matrix and the specimen dimensions are given in Table 3.
Five prisms and four wallettes were built per each unit to mortar
combination. The dimensions and number of courses between combi-
nations were varied as their unit dimensions were different. However,
the height to thickness ratio of the prisms and corresponding wallettes
were kept same for each combination.
The prisms were built and tested as according to ASTM C1314-16
[36]. AS 3700 [21] and CSA S304.1-04 [17] also outlines similar prism
testing method to evaluate the compressive strength of masonry. The
wallettes were constructed and tested as per BS EN 1052-1 [43]. All
J.A. Thamboo, M. Dhanasekar Journal of Building Engineering 22 (2019) 429–438

Table 1
Masonry unit properties.
Unit type Dimension (L × W × H) Density/ (kg/m3) Compressive strength/ (MPa) Modulus of rupture/ (MPa) Water absorption/ (%)
ASTM C90-16a [35] ASTM C1314-16 [36] ASTM C67-17 [37] ASTM C1403-15 [38]

CLB1 200 × 90 × 65 1732 (3.6) 3.8 (10.0) 1.26 (4.7) 12.9 (9.6)
CLB2 210 × 100 × 60 2015 (1.6) 15.8 (3.8) 3.66 (9.0) 4.5 (5.1)
CLB3 225 × 150 × 90 1918 (2.1) 5.3 (4.1) 1.83 (7.6) 10.6 (7.9)
CEB1 220 × 140 × 90 1925 (2.1) 6.5 (3.4) 1.96 (9.9) 9.8 (7.9)
CEB2 280 × 140 × 90 2164 (2.4) 7.9 (6.2) 2.45 (8.1) 8.4 (7.7)

specimens were constructed by an experienced mason and 10 mm Table 3

mortar joints were maintained. The constructed specimens were air Test matrix and dimensions of the specimens.
cured for 28 days prior to testing. Unit Specimen type Length × Width × Height/(mm)
The testing was carried out on a servo-controlled universal testing
machine (UTM) with a maximum loading capacity of 350 kN. The upper CLB 1 Prism 200 × 90 × 440
platen of the UTM was hinged to avoid loading misalignment. The Wallette 410 × 90 × 440
CLB 2 Prism 210 × 100 × 410
specimens were aligned carefully between the platens of testing ma- Wallette 430 × 100 × 410
chine to avoid eccentricity in loading. Further to reduce platen restrain CLB 3 Prism 225 × 150 × 490
effect between loading steel plate and masonry, 5 mm plywood capping Wallette 460 × 150 × 490
was placed on the top and bottom faces of the specimens. The com- CEB 1 Prism 220 × 140 × 490
Wallette 450 × 140 × 490
pression testing was carried out at constant displacement controlled
CEB 2 Prism 280 × 140 × 590
mode (0.25 mm/min) to capture the complete post-crack behaviour of Wallette 570 × 140 × 590
masonry specimen under axial compression. Displacement transducers
were attached on the specimens to capture the vertical deformation of
the prisms and wallettes under compression as shown in Fig. 2. For
prism specimens, one transducer was attached on the each face and for
the wallettes specimens two transducers were attached on the each face
at the mid-height. The average deformation measurement was taken to
eliminate any possible eccentricities in the height and thickness direc-
tions of the specimens. The loads and displacements were measured and
recorded using a synchronised data acquisition system. The deforma-
tion measurements were taken on the three specimens tested per each
unit to mortar combination.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Failure modes

The nature failure of solid masonry under compression is well un- Fig. 2. Prism and Wallette Compression Testing.
derstood from past studies. The incompatible elastic characteristics of
unit and mortar induce cracks in the masonry units or mortar parallel to
The mean compressive strengths of tested prisms and wallettes are
the direction of loading under compression. The typical failure modes
given in Table 4 with the coefficient of variations within the par-
of prisms and wallettes are shown in Fig. 3. All the prisms and wallettes
entheses. Obviously, unit strength has dominated the compressive
failed with vertical cracking parallel to the loading direction on the
strengths of masonry prisms and wallettes. However, change in mortar
front and lateral faces of the specimens. Mostly the cracks initiated at
strength affected only marginal increase (5–10%) to the compressive
the unit-mortar interfaces at around 70–85% of the ultimate failure of
strength of masonry prisms and wallettes. Therefore, the results confirm
the specimens. The testing was stopped after nearly 20–50% drop of the
that the mortar compressive strength has only a minor influence on the
peak load for the safety of the instrumentation as the specimens de-
masonry compressive strength, which is consistent with the results of
picted sever cracking.
previous studies (Binda et al. [30]; Lumantarna et al. [5]; Fortes et al.
[6]; Thamboo and Dhanasekar [4], Zahra and Dhanasekar [15,34],
3.2. Compressive strength Thamboo and Dhanasekar [44], Singh and Pankaj [45]). Further insight
into peak and post peak cracking in arbitrary shaped bodies using
The compressive strength of the prisms and wallettes were de- distributed dislocations is discussed in [46] and the effect of repetitive
termined as explained in Section 2.2 under uniaxial compression loading to such cracked bodies and the subsequent shakedown mode of
loading arrangement. The compressive strength was calculated by di- failure is described in [47,48].
viding the measured maximum load by loaded area of the specimens.

Table 2
Mortar Properties.
Mortar type (Cement: Sand) Density/ (kg/m3) Water absorption/ (%) Compressive strength/ (MPa) Flexural strength/ (MPa) Elastic modulus(MPa)
BS EN 1015-10 [40] ASTM C1403-15 [38] ASTM C109 [41] BS EN 1015-11 [42] Haach et al. [39]

MO1 (1:3) 1929 (0.5) 8.71 (0.9) 6.46 (2.7) 1.12 (7.7) 4572
MO2 (1:5) 1827 (0.4) 8.52 (1.6) 3.98 (4.7) 0.94 (12.4) 3537

431
J.A. Thamboo, M. Dhanasekar Journal of Building Engineering 22 (2019) 429–438

Fig. 4. Relationship between masonry prism and wallette compressive strength.

experimental data gathered in this research to establish a relationship

Fig. 3. Failure modes (a) Prisms and (b) Wallettes.
It is apparent that the prism compressive strength is higher than of
the wallette compressive strength in the tested combinations. The ad-
dition of prepend joints in the wallettes could have contributed to the
reduction in strength. The ratio of prism to wallette compressive
strength varies between 1.05 and 1.26 for different unit-to mortar-
combinations. The lowest and the highest ratios were reported for
CLB1-MO1 and CLB3-MO1 unit - mortar combinations respectively.
However, reason for the deviation between prisms to wallettes strength
ratios could not be explained as there can be inherent material varia-
tions in the unit and mortar assemblages.
While many research studies reported on evaluating the masonry
compressive strengths in the past, only limited studies were carried out
on both prism and wallettes testing methods in a single research pub-
lication. Authors were able to find only five such testing results from
the literature (Twenty data points) and used them along with the
between prism and wallette compressive strengths (Maurenbrecher
[25]; Scrivener & Baker [26]; Gumeste et al., [27]; Mohamad et al. [8];
Izquierdo et al., [28]). From the twenty data points gathered, the re-
lationship established between the prism and the wallettes compressive
strengths is given in the Fig. 4. It can be seen that a fairly linear re-
lationship exists between masonry prism and wallettes compression
strength with a fairly good coefficient of correlation (0.94). While more
data would be desirable to confirm this trend, the masonry wallette
mean compressive strength can be conservatively assumed as 0.75
times the mean corresponding prism compressive strength as shown in
Fig. 4.
The formulae used to predict the compressive strength of masonry
(fm) in EN 1996-1-1 [23] and AS 3700 [21] standards are given in Eqs.
(1) and (2) respectively. Whereas the CSA S304.1 [22] standard provide
tabulated values to predict the compressive resistance of masonry for
different unit and mortar combinations.
fm = Kfuα f jβ
(1)
Where K is the shape factor depends on the type of units and mortar, fu
is the compressive resistance of units, fj is the compressive resistance of
mortar, α and β are constants.
fm = kh km fu (2)
Where km is the correction factor and kh is the factor for aspect ratio of
unit to mortar joint thickness ratio. One should be noted that the AS
3700 [21] and CSA S304.1 [22] guidelines are based on prism test data
and the EN 1996-1-1 [23] is from wallette test data. The prediction of
masonry compressive resistance using these design standards for the
combinations tested are also given in Table 4. Mean compressive
strengths were back calculated by assuming 15% coefficient of variance

Table 4
Compressive Strength results of Testing.
Unit Test Specimens per each Specimen type Experimental compressive AS 3700 (2011)/ BS EN 1996–1-1:2005 / CSA S304.1 (2005)/
combination strength/ (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

MO1 (1:3) MO2 (1:5) MO1 MO2 MO1 (1:3) MO2 (1:5) MO1 (1:3) MO2 (1:5)
(1:3) (1:5)

CLB 1 5 Prism 1.41 (7.2) 1.36 (7.9) 3.58 2.5 1.91 1.65 2.22 1.90
4 Wallette 1.34 (5.2) 1.22 (10.1)
CLB 2 5 Prism 7.27 (8.7) 7.06 (7.1) 7.46 5.22 5.17 4.46 9.26 7.92
4 Wallette 6.80 (4.1) 6.51 (4.8)
CLB 3 5 Prism 2.30 (3.9) 2.08 (5.3) 4.83 3.38 2.52 2.17 3.11 2.65
4 Wallette 1.82 (4.9) 1.66 (5.3)
CEB 1 5 Prism 3.35 (6.5) 3.02 (4.6) 5.35 3.74 3.23 2.79 3.81 3.26
4 Wallette 2.74 (7.9) 2.65 (4.7)
CEB 2 5 Prism 4.26 (6.8) 4.04 (4.9) 5.9 4.13 2.51 2.40 4.63 3.96
4 Wallette 3.78 (7.3) 3.71 (9.1)

432
J.A. Thamboo, M. Dhanasekar
Fig. 5. Prediction of masonry compressive strength with different standards (a) Prism and (b) Wallette tests results.
for the CSA S304.1 [22] prediction. The mean normalised unit strengths
according to the BS EN 771-1 [49] were substituted for the prediction of
mean compressive resistance based on EN 1996-1-1 [18].
The model errors (ME), defined as the ratio between predicted and
experimental values. The variation of ME with masonry compressive
strength of prism and wallettes specimens are given in Fig. 5. It can be
seen that the CSA S304.1 [22] consistently overestimates the com-
pressive strengths of prism/wallettes with one exceptional data point
(CEB2-MO2). The AS 3700 [21] overestimates the masonry compres-
sive strengths with the expectation of CLB2-MO2 unit to mortar com-
bination. The EN 1996-1-1 [23] underestimates the compressive re-
sistance for the unit types CLB2, CEB1, and CEB2 and overestimate the
compressive resistance for the rest of the specimens. Comparatively the
ME of wallettes specimen results is higher as they depicted lower
strength than the prisms.
An interesting trend can be observed in the Fig. 5(a) and (b) that the
standards tend to be more conservative towards higher masonry
strengths and un-conservative for the lower masonry strength combi-
nations. This is because of these standards formulations were mostly
developed for units of strength more than at least 10 MPa. Therefore,
further research is needed to accurately predict the masonry compres-
sive resistance for lower strength unit-mortar combinations that are
commonly practiced in residential constructions in the developing
countries.
Data gathered in this research were used to predict the masonry
compressive strength. The prediction form of masonry compressive
strength was based on EN 1996-1-1 [23] as it had shown more con-
servative results in the previous analysis. A nonlinear regression ana-
lysis was carried out to determine the relationship between compressive
strengths of masonry constitutive materials (unit and mortar) from the
strength data gathered in this research (Separately for prisms and
wallettes). The predictive equations given in Eqs. (3) and (4) for prisms
and wallettes respectively are of similar form to the EN 1996-1-1 [23].
Fairly good agreement between the predictive equations and experi-
mental data are found with relatively higher coefficient of correlations.
fm, p = 0.2fu1.26 f j0.15
fm, w = 0.25fu1.09 f j0.12
The established relationships are presented in Fig. 6 as three-di-
mensional plot relating unit, mortar and masonry compressive
strengths. Expressions (3) and (4) exhibit low sensitivity to the strength
of mortar joints (exponents 0.15 and 0.12 respectively), which is also
evident from the results in Kaushik et al. [32].
3.3. Stress-strain curves of prisms and wallettes
The average measured stress-strain curves of the prisms and wal-
lettes under compression are presented in Fig. 7. The measured axial
Journal of Building Engineering 22 (2019) 429–438
displacements were divided by the gauge length (normally across one
third of the specimen height) to calculate the axial strain values and the
corresponding stress values from the load measurement were matched
to plot the stress-strain curves of the specimens. The both masonry
prims and wallettes exhibited quasi-brittle behaviour under uniaxial
compression. All the specimens exhibited nearly linear stress-strain
behaviour up to 30–50% of the ultimate strength and thereafter non-
linear behaviour was observed up to the failure. The nonlinear beha-
viour of the specimens was mainly associated with the initiation of
vertical cracks in the specimens (prisms and wallettes).
CLB1 (softer) and CLB2 (stiffer) brick specimens have shown the
lowest and the highest axial deformation respectively among the tested
combinations. The elastic moduli of the bricks were back calculated
from the masonry (reported in Table 5) and mortar elastic moduli using
the displacement compatibility. The formulation derived to determine
the brick elastic modulus is given in Eq. (5), in which “h” and “E” stand
for height and elastic modulus of the constituents or masonry. Subse-
quently the elastic modulus of CLB1, CLB2, CLB3, CEB1 and CEB2
bricks are 899 MPa, 5294 MPa, 1652 MPa, 2565 MPa and 3490 MPa
respectively.
Emasonry Emortar
Ebrick = ⎜⎛ ⎞
⎟ hbrick
⎝ Emortar h mortar − Emasonry h masonry ⎠ (5)
Therefore, it can be inferred that the brick strength and deformation
properties have greatly influenced the overall stress-strain behaviour of
masonry. Change in mortar type has affected the stress-strain curves of
the specimens; especially beyond the linear elastic regions of the
curves. It can be seen that the MO1 mortar (Higher Strength) specimens
depicted lower compressibility than the MO2 mortar (Lower Strength).
Further no clear distinction could be made in the descending portion of
the stress-strain curves between the specimens. Most of the instances
the tests were stopped after the specimens depicted sever cracking for
the safety of the instrumentation. Therefore the complete descending
portions of the stress-strain curves were not completely captured. It can
be seen that the compressibility of the wallettes is higher than the
(3) corresponding prisms. The presence of bed and prepend mortar joints in
the wallettes have increased the axial deformability, where the prisms
(4) are only stack bonded.
The average deformation characteristics of the specimens are (1)
Elastic modulus, (2) Elastic strain (3) Peak strain (4) Ultimate strain and
(5) Ductility; these are given in the Table 5. The coefficient of variations
of those parameters is given in the parentheses.
The elastic modulus of the prisms and wallettes were determined at
the one-third of the peak stress of the specimens. The elastic strain is the
corresponding strain measured at one-third of the peak stress. The peak
strain was determined corresponding to the peak stress of the tested
specimens. The ultimate strain was determined corresponding to the
80% of the post-peak stress. Further the ductility of the prisms and
wallette were determined as per the method proposed by Muguruma
433
J.A. Thamboo, M. Dhanasekar Journal of Building Engineering 22 (2019) 429–438

Fig. 6. Relationship between unit, mortar and masonry compressive strengths (a) Prism and (b) Wallette.

Fig. 7. Axial stress - strain curves of prisms and wallettes.

434
J.A. Thamboo, M. Dhanasekar Journal of Building Engineering 22 (2019) 429–438

Table 5
Deformation properties of tested specimens.
Unit Specimen type Elastic modulus (MPa) Elastic strain Peak strain Ductility Average ductility

MO1 (1:3) MO2 (1:5) MO1 (1:3) MO2 (1:5) MO1 (1:3) MO2 (1:5) MO1 (1:3) MO2 (1:5)

CLB1 Prism 1017 (7.9) 954 (5.5) 0.00048 (4.5) 0.0005 (4.2) 0.0030 (6.8) 0.0032 (6.2) 2.1 2.2 2.15
Wallette 703 (6.9) 518 (10.4) 0.00064 (5.5) 0.00082 (4.6) 0.0033 (3.8) 0.0035 (11.1) 2.0 1.4 1.70
CLB2 Prism 5182 (7.5) 5002 (4.8) 0.00043 (5.0) 0.00046 (6.2) 0.002 (6.1) 0.0021 (7.0) 1.6 1.40 1.50
Wallette 3951 (3.7) 3629 (5.5) 0.00054 (3.4) 0.0006 (4.2) 0.0023 (8.9) 0.0025 (8.6) 1.3 1.2 1.25
CLB3 Prism 1847 (6.3) 1567 (5.9) 0.00044 (5.3) 0.00047 (5.4) 0.0028 (7.9) 0.0028 (5.3) 1.9 1.6 1.75
Wallette 970 (10.9) 823 (11.3) 0.00063 (9.7) 0.00068 (10.3) 0.0030 (6.9) 0.0031 (2.5) 1.9 1.8 1.85
CEB1 Prism 2663 (11.2) 2544 (10.1) 0.00042 (9.9) 0.00044 (8.9) 0.0025 (4.0) 0.0026 (5.1) 2.0 1.7 1.85
Wallette 1560 (8.4) 1355 (7.3) 0.00058 (7.6) 0.00063 (7.1) 0.0027 (7.7) 0.0029 (8.8) 1.9 1.6 1.75
CEB2 Prism 3526 (8.0) 3527 (3.9) 0.0004 (8.2) 0.00042 (3.6) 0.0024 (5.9) 0.0025 (6.1) 1.6 1.6 1.60
Wallette 2377 (6.7) 2040 (9.8) 0.00054 (6.3) 0.00061 (8.3) 0.0026 (6.6) 0.0028 (8.5) 1.7 1.7 1.70

et al. [50], where the stress-strain curve was idealised as an elastic-
perfectly-plastic curve. The yield strain corresponds to the intersection
of the bi-linear approximation. The ratio between the ultimate and the
yield strain was defined as the ductility in Table 5.
The elastic modulus of the prisms varied between 954 MPa and
5182 MPa and the wallettes elastic modulus varied between 518 MPa
and 3951 MPa. Similar to the strength characteristics, the change in
mortar type does not significantly alter the elastic modulus of masonry
– especially for low strength mortar and brick combinations considered
in this research. The prism elastic moduli were higher than that of the
corresponding wallettes; therefore, the ‘yield’ strain of the bi-linear
approximation of the wallette was consistently larger than that of the
prism; similarly, the wallette specimens exhibited larger vertical strain
at 80% post peak load. As ductility is the ratio of the strain at ultimate
(80% post-peak load) and at yield, there has been no systematic var-
iation of ductility measured between prisms and wallettes; the ductility
values reported in Table 5 confirm this observation Therefore, the
ductility of masonry tested in this investigation under compression was
determined by averaging all ten combinations resulting in a value of
1.7.
Elastic modulus of masonry is correlated to compressive strength in
many international standards. MSJC [24] recommends that the elastic
modulus to be 700 times the compressive strength. CSA S304.1-04 [22],
AS 3700 [21] and EN 1996-1-1 [22] recommend ratios of elastic
modulus to compressive strength as 800, 1000 and 1000 respectively.
However, it should be noted that except the EN 1996-1-1 [23], all other
standard data are based on prism tests. Therefore, relationships be-
tween elastic modulus and compressive strengths of prisms and wal-
lettes are distinctly developed from this research data and presented in
Fig. 8. Fairly good correlations were obtained for both prism and wal-
lettes combinations. In general, the prism elastic modulus is nearly 34%
higher than corresponding wallettes elastic modulus.
Furthermore, the peak strain (εp) is one of the main parameters that
defines the stress-strain curve of masonry under compression. It can be
noted from Table 5 that the peak strain varies between 0.002 and
0.0032 for prisms and 0.0023–0.0035 for wallettes. Therefore, several
researchers have given formulations to derive peak strain in terms of
masonry strength, mortar strength and elastic modulus (Kaushik et al.
[32]; Lumantarna et al. [5]; Zhou et al. [51]). Similar approach was
followed to define the peak strength and given in Eqs. (5) and (6) for
prisms and wallettes respectively. Fig. 9(a) and (b) show the prediction
of Eqs. (5) and (6) with experimental results obtained in this research. It
can be clearly seen that the equations predict fairly well with agreeable
coefficient of variations.
0.0052
εp =
f u0.29 f j0.08 (5)
0.0043
εp =
f u0.15 f j0.05 (6)
Further, elastic strain is also an important point that can be used to
define the stress-strain curve of masonry under compression. Hence
linear relationships between elastic strain (εe) and peak strain (εp) are
proposed for prism and wallettes as given in Eqs. (7) and (8) respec-
tively from the data gathered in this research. The relationship is gra-
phically presented in the Fig. 10. Therefore from the masonry unit and
mortar strengths, one can determine peak and elastic strains using the
Eqs. (5)–(8).
εp, prism = 5.97εe, prism (7)
εp, wallette = 4.62εe, wallette (8)
4. Analytical stress-strain model for masonry in compression
Various stress-strain models have been proposed by researchers to
define the masonry under compression and they are briefly mentioned
in the introduction. In this research a simplified stress-strain model for
prism and wallette under compression is proposed based on second-
order polynomial function as given in Eq. (9) for ascending portion and
linear function as given in Eq. (10) for descending portion in this re-
search. Predicting the descending portion of the stress-strain curve of
masonry under compression is a challenge as many uncertainties in-
volved in it, therefore researches in the past have proposed mostly the
linear curves (Kaushik et al. [27]; Lumantarna et al. [5]; Zhou et al.
[43]). Therefore, similar strategy is followed to define descending
portion of stress-strain curves of prism and wallettes under compres-
sion.
f = aε 2 + bε (9)

f = cε + d (10)
Where, f and ε are the compressive stress and strain in masonry re-
spectively. The coefficients a, b, c and d are experimental constants. The
Fig. 8. Relationship between masonry strength and elastic modulus. current experimental data was used to analyse the proposed stress-

435
J.A. Thamboo, M. Dhanasekar Journal of Building Engineering 22 (2019) 429–438

Fig. 9. Prediction of peak strains (a) Prisms and (b) Wallettes.

combinations.

Hence the stress-strain curves for each combination was developed

Fig. 10. Relationship between elastic strain and peak strain.
strain model. Three control points are identified to solve the Eqs. (9)
and (10) and to develop the stress-strain curve of a given masonry
combination. They are (1) peak (fm, εp) (2) elastic (0.33 fm, εe) and (3)
residual stress (0.8fm, 1.2εp) points in a stress-strain curve. The proce-
dure to determine these control points are explained below:
• The Peak stress point of the curve is determined from Eqs. (3) and
(4) for prisms and wallettes respectively. The corresponding strain
values are calculated from Eqs. (5) and (6).
• The elastic control point is obtained by getting one third of the peak
stress value and the matching strain values are obtained from the
proposed in Eqs. (7) and (8) between elastic and peak strains.
• The residual control point of the curve is defined by calculating 0.8
times the peak stress value and the corresponding strain is de-
termined by assuming 1.2 times the peak strain values of each
by solving the Eq. (9) with peak and elastic control points and Eq. (10)
with peak and residual control points. The coefficients determined
through solving the Eq. (9) and (10) for the prisms and wallettes tested
in this research programme are given in Table 6.
Fig. 11 shows the comparison of stress-strain curves of experimental
and proposed analytical models of each unit-mortar combination. It can
be seen that the proposed analytical model demonstrates good ar-
rangement with the experimental curves. All the analytical models fit
with the experimental data with the coefficient of correlation (R2)
greater than 0.9. It should be stated that the parameters that needed to
define this proposed analytical model are only unit and mortar com-
pressive strengths. Therefore, the proposed analytical model can be
considered simple and suitable for defining stress-strain curve of ma-
sonry under compression either from prism or wallettes test.
5. Conclusions
This paper presents the experimental investigation of masonry
prisms and wallettes under uniaxial compression. Totally 50 prisms and
40 wallettes have been tested with five different unit and two mortar
types to examine the strength and deformation behaviour. The fol-
lowing conclusions can be drawn from the experimental data gathered
in this research:
• The empirical relationship developed through linear regression
analysis suggests that the prism compressive strength is approxi-
mately 25% higher than wallettes strength. However, considering
the characteristics factor, the wallettes compressive strength can be
conservatively assumed as 0.67 times the prism strength.

Table 6
Coefficients determined by solving Eqs. (9) and (10).
Unit Specimen type a b c d

MO1 (1:3) MO2 (1:5) MO1 (1:3) MO2 (1:5) MO1 (1:3) MO2 (1:5) MO1 (1:3) MO2 (1:5)

CLB 1 Prism − 201,333 − 179,861 1101 1010 − 500 − 438 3.0 2.8
Wallette − 118,599 − 97,967 809 694 − 422 − 296 2.7 2.2
CLB 2 Prism − 2,355,017 − 1,951,020 8565 7511 − 3050 − 2967 13.3 12.7
Wallette − 735,671 − 545,855 4371 3778 − 2540 − 2400 12.7 12.5
CLB 3 Prism − 326,389 − 307,602 1685 1588 − 768 − 667 4.3 4.0
Wallette − 143,583 − 125,686 1065 968 − 613 − 608 3.8 3.7
CEB 1 Prism − 510,443 − 492,383 2507 2224 − 1170 − 1007 6.1 5.6
Wallette − 169,266 − 162,557 1371 1304 − 863 − 817 5.2 4.9
CEB 2 Prism − 683,097 − 604,573 3312 2946 − 1600 − 1423 8.0 7.4
Wallette − 232,134 − 239,870 1813 1753 − 1138 − 1057 67.0 6.1

436
J.A. Thamboo, M. Dhanasekar
Fig. 11. Comparisons of Experimental and Analytical axial stress-strain curves.
• Provisions in masonry design standards overestimate the masonry
compressive strength, especially when low strength units (< 5 MPa)
are employed in the masonry.
• Formulations similar to EN 19961-1 [18] are proposed to predict the
compressive strength of masonry prism and wallettes from the lit-
erature and experimental data gathered in research.
• Relationships to predict the elastic modulus of prisms and wallettes
from their compressive strength are proposed. Further formulations
to forecast the peak strain of the prism and wallettes under com-
pression are offered from the unit and mortar compressive strengths.
• Simple analytical stress-strain model comprising second-order
polynomials function for ascending portion and linear model for
descending portion of masonry prism and wallettes under com-
pression are proposed. The proposed model only requires unit and
mortar compressive strengths to completely develop the stress-strain
curves.
The relation between the wallette and prism strengths provided in
this paper can be used to convert the prism strength to the equivalent
437
Journal of Building Engineering 22 (2019) 429–438
wallette strength and incorporated into the design of real world struc-
tural walls using the design standards. Such a conversion is only limited
to solid blocks and bricks as this research has not considered face-shell
bedded hollow block masonry.
Acknowledgment
The Authors thank the South Eastern University of Sri Lanka for the
financial support to this project (under the research grant of SEU/ASA/
RG/2016/01) and provided technical support. The technical assistance
provided by Mr. Jiffry, Mr. Farhan and Mr. Imthyas are greatly ap-
preciated.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest in this research.
J.A. Thamboo, M. Dhanasekar
References
[1] A. Costigan, S. Pavía, O. Kinnane, An experimental evaluation of prediction models
for the mechanical behavior of unreinforced, lime-mortar masonry under com-
pression, J. Build. Eng. 4 (2015) 283–294.
[2] C.S. Barbosa, P.B. Lourenco, J.B. Hanai, On the compressive strength prediction for
concrete masonry prisms, Mater. Struct. 43 (2010) 331–344.
[3] J.A. Thamboo, M. Dhanasekar, C. Yan, Effects of joint thickness, adhesion and web
shells to the face shell bedded concrete masonry loaded in compression, Aust. J.
Struct. Eng. 14 (3) (2013) 291–302.
[4] J.A. Thamboo, M. Dhanasekar, Characterisation of thin layer polymer cement
mortared concrete masonry bond, Constr. Build. Mater. 82 (2015) 71–80.
[5] R. Lumantarna, D.T. Biggs, J.M. Ingham, Uniaxial compressive strength and stiff-
ness of field extracted and laboratory constructed masonry prisms, J. Mater. Civil.
Eng. 26 (4) (2014) 567–575.
[6] E. Fortes, G. Parsekian, F. Fonseca, Relationship between the compressive strength
of concrete masonry and the compressive strength of concrete masonry units, J.
Mater. Civil. Eng. 27 (9) (2014).
[7] M. Dhanasekar, J.A. Thamboo, S. Nazir, On the in-plane shear response of the high
bond strength concrete masonry walls, Mater. Struct. 50 (2017) p214.
[8] G. Mohamad, P.B. Lourenco, H.R. Roman, Study of the compressive strength of
concrete block prisms: stack and running bond, Rev. do IBRACON De. Estrut. Mater.
4 (3) (2011) 347–360.
[9] G. Mohamad, F.S. Fonseca, A.T. Vermenltfoort, D.R.W. Martens, P.B. Lourenco,
Strength, behavior, and failure mode of hollow concrete masonry constructed with
mortars of different strengths, Constr. Build. Mater. 134 (2017) 489–496.
[10] M. Giaretton, D. Dizhur, F. Da Porto, F. Ingham, Constituent material properties of
New Zealand unreinforced stone masonry buildings, J. Build. Eng. 4 (2015) 75–85.
[11] T. Janaraj, M. Dhanasekar, Effectiveness of two forms of grouted reinforced con-
finement methods to hollow concrete masonry panels, J. Mater. Civil. Eng. 27 (12)
(2015), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001295.
[12] M. Dhanasekar, N.G. Shrive, Strength and stiffness of confined and unconfined
concrete masonry, Acids Struct. J. 99 (6) (2002) 819–826.
[13] M.J.N. Priestley, D.M. Elder, Stress-strain curves for unconfined and confined
concrete masonry, Acids J. 80 (3) (1983) 192–201.
[14] B.D. Ewing, M.J. Kowalsky, Compressive behavior of unconfined and confined clay
brick masonry, Journal of Structural Engineering, J. Struct. Eng. 130 (4) (2004)
650–661.
[15] T. Zahra, M. Dhanasekar, A generalised damage model for masonry under com-
pression, Int. J. Damage Mech. 25 (5) (2016) 629–660.
[16] A. Drougkas, P. Roca, C. Molins, Numerical prediction of the behaviour, strength
and elasticity of masonry in compression, Eng. Struct. 90 (2015) 15–28.
[17] J.A. Thamboo, M. Dhanasekar, Nonlinear finite element modelling of high bond
thin-layer mortared concrete masonry, Int. J. Mason. Res. Innov. 1 (1) (2016) 5–26.
[18] M.B. Ravula, K.V.L. Subramaniam, Experimental investigation of compressive
failure in masonry birck assemblages made with soft brick, Mater. Struct. 50
(2017) 19.
[19] J. Segura, L. Pela, P. Roca, Monotonic and cyclic testing of clay brick and lime
mortar masonry in compression, Constr. Build. Mater. 193 (2018) 453–466.
[20] C. Scuro, S. Tiberti, R. Codispoti, G. Milani, R.S. Olivito, Fictile tubules: a traditional
Mediterranean construction technique for masonry vaulted systems, Constr. Build.
Mater. 193 (2018) 84–96.
[21] AS3700, Australian Standards for Masonry Structures: Standards Australia, Sydney,
2011.
[22] CSA, Design of masonry structures. S304.1-04 (R2010), Mississauga, Canada, 2004.
[23] EN 1996-1-1, Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures—Part 1–1: General rules for
reinforced and unreinforced masonry structures. London: British Standards
Institution, 2005.
[24] Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC), Building code requirements for ma-
sonry structures. TMS 402/ASCE 5/ACI 530, New York, 2011.
[25] A.H.P. Maurenbrecker Effect of test procedures on compressive strength of masonry
prisms, in: Proceedings of the 2nd Canadian Masonry Symposium, Canada, 1980, pp
438
Journal of Building Engineering 22 (2019) 429–438
119–132.
[26] Scrivener. J. C, L.R. Baker, Factors influencing grouted masonry prism compressive
strength, in: Proceedings of the 7th Brick and Block Masonry Conference,
Melbourne, 1985, 874–883.
[27] K.S. Gumeste, B.V. Venkatarama Reddy, Strength and elasticity of brick masonry
prisms and wallettes under compression, Mater. Struct. 29 (2007) 241–253.
[28] O.S. Izquierdo, M. Corrêa, R.S. Soto, I. I. The Influence of mortar bedding on the
compressive strength of concrete block masonry structures. in: Proceedings of the
15th International Brick and Block Masonry Conference, Florianopolis, Brazil,
2012.
[29] D.C. Kent, R. Park, Flexural members with confined concrete, J. Struct. Div. 97 (7)
(1971) 1969–1990.
[30] L. Binda, A. Fontana, G. Frigerio, Mechanical behaviour of brick masonries derived
from unit and mortar characteristics, in: Proceedings of the 8th International Brick
and Block Masonry Conference, Dublin, Ireland. 1, 1988, pp.205–216.
[31] L. Cavaleri, A. Failla, L. La Mendola, M. Papia, Experimental and analytical re-
sponse of masonry elements under eccentric vertical loads, Eng. Struct. l27 (8)
(2005) 1175–1184.
[32] H.B. Kaushik, D.C. Rai, S.K. Jain, Stress-strain characteristics of clay brick masonry
under uniaxial compression, J. Mater. Civil. Eng. 19 (9) (2007) 728–739.
[33] S.H. Basha, H.B. Kaushik, Evaluation of nonlinear material properties of fly ash
brick masonry under compression and shear, J. Mater. Civil. Eng. 8 (2015).
[34] T. Zahra, M. Dhanasekar, Prediction of masonry compressive behaviour using a
damage mechanics inspired modelling method, Constr. Build. Mater. 109 (2016)
128–138.
[35] A.S.T.M. C90-16a, Standard Specification for Loadbearing Concrete Masonry Units,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
[36] ASTM C1314-16, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry
Prisms, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
[37] ASTM C67-17, Standard Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Brick and
Structural Clay Tile, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
[38] ASTM C1403-15, Standard Test Method for Rate of Water Absorption of Masonry
Mortars, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.
[39] V.G. Haach, G. Vasconcelos, P.B. Lourenco, Influence of aggregates grading and
water/cement ratio in workability and hardened properties of mortars, Constr.
Build. Mater. 25 (2011) (2011) 2980–2987.
[40] BS EN 1015-10, Methods of test for mortar for masonry. Determination of dry bulk
density of hardened mortar, BSI, 1999.
[41] ASTM C109/C109M-16a, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of
Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in. or [50-mm] Cube Specimens), USA, 2016.
[42] BS EN 1015-11, Methods of test for mortar for masonry. Determination of flexural
and compressive strength of hardened mortar, BSI, 1999.
[43] BS EN 1052-1, Methods of test for masonry. Determination of compressive strength,
BSI, 1999.
[44] J.A. Thamboo, M. Dhanasekar, Behaviour of thin layer mortared concrete masonry
under combined shear and compression, Aust. J. Struct. Eng. 17 (1) (2016) 39–52.
[45] S.B. Singh, M. Pankaj, Bond strength and compressive stress-strain characteristics of
brick masonry, J. Build. Eng. 9 (2017) 10–16.
[46] J.J. Han, M. Dhanasekar, Modelling cracks in arbitrary shaped finite bodies using
distributed dislocation, Int. J. Solids Struct. 41 (2) (2004) 399–411.
[47] D. Kreiser, S.X. Jia, J.J. Han, M. Dhanasekar, A nonlinear damage accumulation
model for shakedown failure, Int. J. Fatigue 29 (8) (2007) 1523–1530.
[48] K. Ding, M. Dhanasekar, Flexural behaviour of bonded-bolted butt joints due to bolt
looseness, Adv. Eng. Softw.: Incl. Comput. Syst. Eng. 38 (8-9) (2007) 598–606.
[49] BS EN 771-1, Specification for masonry units. Specification for masonry units. Clay
masonry units, 2015.
[50] H. Muguruma, M. Nishiyama, F. Watanabe, H. Tanaka, Ductile behavior of high-
strength concrete columns confined by highstrength transverse reinforcement, in:
Proceedings, of the ACI International Conference, Vol II, 1991,877– 891.
[51] Q. Zhou, F. Wang, F. Zhu, Z. Yang, Stress-strain model for hollow concrete block
masonry under uniaxial compression, Mater. Struct. 50 (2017) 106.