Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Behaviour of Masonry Wall Constructed Using Interlocking Soil Cement Bricks
Behaviour of Masonry Wall Constructed Using Interlocking Soil Cement Bricks
Behaviour of Masonry Wall Constructed Using Interlocking Soil Cement Bricks
1263
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 60 2011
1264
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 60 2011
TABLE I
SPECIFICATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF INTERLOCKING BRICK WALLS
Sample Dimension: Eccentricity, e
Labels Length x Height x (mm)
Width(mm)
ILBW1 1000 x 1300 x 125 0
ILBW2 1000 x 1300 x 125 6.25
ILBW3 1000 x 1300 x 125 12.5
ILBW4 1000 x 1300 x 125 25
ILBW5 1000 x 1300 x 125 50
1265
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 60 2011
(a) (b)
Fig. 5 Test set-up for ILBW; (a) schematic diagram and (b) actual test set-up
TABLE II
PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF THE INTERLOCKING BRICK
Physical and mechanical properties
Unit Compressive Moisture Compressive
Length Width Height
Weight Strengtha [N/mm2] absorption Strengthb
[mm] [mm] [mm]
[kg/m3] Mean COV (%) [%] [N/mm2]
249.2 125 98.8 1603.2 7.5 13 18.8 3.5
50.0 50.0 50.2 - 13.6 8
a
compressive strength before soaking
b
compressive strength after soaking
From Table II, it can be seen that the compressive strength 5N/mm2 and based on ASTM C129 standard, the minimum
of the brick is 7.5 N/mm2 with low variations. According to requirement for compressive strength is 2.5 N/mm2.
British Standard (BS 3921:1985), the minimum requirement Therefore, the compressive strength determined from the
for compressive strength of non-load-bearing masonry units is testing is above the minimum requirement for bricks. Based
1266
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 60 2011
on BS 3921:1985, the results is less than 50 N/mm2, so this To determine the moisture absorption characteristic of the
brick is categorized as common brick. bricks, the water absorption tests were conducted and the
For comparison of the obtained values for compressive results were compared with the specification in accordance
strength, another set of tests on cube samples with dimensions with ASTM C62 as shown in Table 3.
50x50x50 mm extracted from the actual bricks was performed. From the water absorption tests, the water absorption in
The results from these tests are presented in Table 2. It can be cold water for 24 hours is 8.5% and 17% when immersed in
seen that cube samples has strength 1.8 times higher than the 24 hours boiling water. Therefore the saturation coefficient is
interlocking brick. The lower strength in interlocking brick is 0.5 which is less than 0.80 and hence this bricks met the
mainly due to the presence of frogs on the surface and hole ASTM C62 specification for the severe weathering (SW)
through the bricks. grade.
TABLE III
WATER ABSORPTION CAPACITY OF THE BRICKS WITH RESPECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR WATER ABSORPTION FOR BUILDING BRICKS (ASTM C62)
Maximum 24-h cold water absorption, 8%*
C. Compressive Strength of Masonry Walls Constructed Therefore in this case, the characteristics compressive
Using Interlocking Brick strength, fk is taken as 3.0 N/mm2.
The compression tests were conducted on a series of The compressive strength properties of the masonry walls
interlocking brick wall (ILBW) for different eccentricities with slenderness ratio < 20 with different eccentricities are
according to the procedures in EN 1052. Since the masonry tabulated in Table 5. In most cases, the load is basically
walls are constructed using interlocking bricks, therefore no applied at certain eccentricity to the center of the bed member.
mortars are used as the joint. In order to determine the From Table V, it can be seen that the value of the stresses
compressive strength of the wall, the calculation of the were reduced accordingly to the eccentricity of the load
compressive strength of wall with e=0 is used as an example. applied on the walls.
The maximum value of stresses was found when e = 0 with
TABLE IV the value of 3.56 N/mm 2 . It is also can be seen that the
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF ILBW1 ultimate applied compression load is higher than ultimate
Sample Maximum Compressive strength design load based on BS 5628: Part 1: 1992 (Section 8.4.6 and
load f (N/mm2) 8.4.7) except for ILBW5. According to the practice standard,
(kN) it is not necessary to consider the effects of eccentricities up to
1 443.1 3.54 0.05t where t is thickness. Normally, wall will collapse when
2 458.6 3.67 the eccentricity is more than 0.3t.
3 433.3 3.47 The lateral displacements, stresses and crack patterns of the
Average 3.56 walls have been investigated and compared. Figure 6 shows
the typical load displacement curve for the wall. Transducer
Using the clauses in EN 1052-1, since the mean f is T2 which is located at the middle of wall recorded the
3.56N/mm2 and differ more than 25% of the compressive maximum displacement at ultimate load of 443.05 kN for
strength of brick units (7.5N/mm2) then the value need to be sample ILBW1. Sample ILBW2, ILBW3 and ILBW4 shows
modified. Therefore the characteristic compressive strength fk the maximum displacement at transducer T5 which is located
of the wall is taken as follows; at 135 mm from the left.
The last brick wall tested in this section is ILBW5 that
fk = f /1.2 = 3.0 N/mm2 or shows ultimate testing load of 6.03 kN and maximum
fk = fmin = 3.47 N/mm2 whichever is the smaller. displacement at transducer T2 which located at brick layer
number 8 measured from the wall base.
1267
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 60 2011
TABLE V
SUMMARY OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH PROPERTIES OF MASONRY WALLS (SLENDERNESS RATIO < 20) WITH DIFFERENT ECCENTRICITIES
Sample Ultimate Ultimate Compressive Characteristics Maximum Location of the
Testing load design load strength, f compressive Displacement displacement
(kN) (kN) (N/mm2) strength, fk (mm)
(N/mm2)
ILBW1 443.05 131.35 3.56 3.0 5.79 T2
ILBW2 348.42 131.35 2.79 2.3 7.95 T5
ILBW3 271.63 108.36 2.17 1.8 7.18 T5
ILBW4 239.94 105.08 1.92 1.6 6.58 T5
ILBW5 6.03 32.84 0.048 0.04 11.63 T2
500
4.0
sg1
400 3.5
sg2
t1 3.0
Load (kN)
300 sg3
t2 2.5
sg4
200 t3 2.0
sg5
t4 1.5 sg6
100 t5 1.0
0.5
0
0.0
-2 3 8
Displacement (mm) -1000 -500 0 500 1000
(a) (b)
Fig. 6 Typical graph for ILBW1: (a) load versus displacement and (b) stress versus strain
The failed wall specimens were investigated in terms of through the units in the direction of the applied load as shown
cracks formation. For eccentricity loading, global buckling in Figure 6a. Since there was no mortar, this crack was caused
occurred where the wall bent, cracked and broke. For ILBW5, by secondary tensile stresses resulting from the restrained
when the sample reached the ultimate load, the wall began to deformation of the frogs in the bed joints of the brickwork.
bend and cracked until it reached the ultimate load and after Once the wall buckled this induced flexural tension and the
that the wall collapsed. For other samples, the mode of failure contact between the bricks loosen as can be seen in Figure 6c.
more to the bearing mode in which the skin wall crushes under In general, all samples have similar patterns of crack which
the top plate where the load was applied to the wall. The is combination of shear and compression failure with bed and
cracks can be seen on the brick walls from the loaded point to head joint failure, brick failure or movement in the bed and
downwards. The cracks are tensile crack which propagates head joint. The difference is the intensity of the cracks. The
details of cracking of each sample are shown in Figure 7.
1268
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 60 2011
IV. CONCLUSION [10] Lenczner, D., Elements of load bearing brickwork, Oxford, Pergamon
Press, 1972.
The behavior of wall constructed using interlocking soils [11] Bakhteri, J., Sambamivam, S., “Mechanical behaviour of structural
bricks was investigated and encouraging results were reported. brick masonry: An evaluation”, Proceedings of 5th Asia-Pasific
Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, Malaysia, pp.305-
• The physical properties of the laterite soil are
317, 2003.
categorized as very clayey sand (clay of low [12] Smith, R.C., Materials of construction. New York, McGraw-Hill Inc,
plasticity). Lack of clay particles in this type soil is 1973.
overcome by the addition of the cement particles [13] Graham, C.W., and Burt, R., “Soil block home construction”,
Proceedings of Building Technology (BTEC) Sustainable Buildings III
which can play their roles to strengthen the bonding Conference, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 2001.
between particles.
• The average of compressive strength of single unit
bricks is 7.5 N/mm2. The brick is categorized as
common brick (BS 3921:1985) and severe
weathering grade (ASTM C62).
• The compressive strength of interlocking soil bricks
is reduced from a single unit bricks (f = 7.5 N/mm2)
to a member such as wall, which is much higher than
compressive strength of the wall (f = 3.56 N/mm2).
• In the masonry interlocking brick walls, the
eccentricity of the loading influenced the value of
strength of the wall. The strength is reduced when
the eccentricity is away from the center.
• In general, all samples have similar patterns of crack
which is combination of shear and compression
failure with bed and head joint failure, brick failure
or sliding in the bed and head joint. The difference is
the intensity of the cracks.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work reported here was financially supported by IBS
Interlocking Brick Sdn. Bhd. We wish to thank technical staff
in the materials engineering group at the Universiti Teknologi
Mara for their assistance and support.
REFERENCES
[1] Venkatarama Reddy, B.V., Lal, R., and Nanjunda Rao, K.S., “Influence
of joint thickness and mortar-block elastic properties on the strength and
stress developed in soil-cement block masonry”, ACSE Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, vol. 21, pp. 535-542, 2009.
[2] Walker, P.J., “Strength, durability and shrinkage characteristics of
cement stabilised soil blocks”, Cement Concrete Composites, vol. 17,
pp. 301–10, 1995.
[3] Reddy, B.V., “Steam-cured stabilised soil blocks for masonry
construction”, International Journal Energy Building, vol. 29, pp. 29–
33, 1998.
[4] Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., and Gupta, A., “Characteristics of soil-
cement blocks using highly sandy soils”, Materials and Structures,
vol.38, no. 6, pp. 651-658, 2005.
[5] Kwon, H.M., Le, A.T., and Nguyen, N.T., “Influence of soil grading on
properties of compressed cement-soil”, KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering, vol.14, No.6, pp. 845-853, 2010.
[6] Venkatarama Reddy, B.V., and Prasanna Kumar, P., “Cement stabilised
rammed earth. Part A: compaction characteristics and physical
properties of compacted cement stabilised soils”, Materials and
Structures, vol.44, no.3, pp. 681-693, 2011.
[7] Kenai, S., Bahar, R., and Benazzoug, M., “Experimental analysis of the
effect of some compaction methods on mechanical properties and
durability of cement stabilized soil”, Journal of Materials Science,
vol.41, no.21, pp. 6956-6964, 2006.
[8] Walker, P.J., and Stace, T., “Properties of some cement stabilized
compressed earth blocks and mortar”, Materials and Structures, vol.30,
no.9, pp. 545-551, 1997.
[9] Henry, A.W., Sinha, B.P., and Davies, S.R., Design of masonry
structures, London, E&FN Spon, 1987.
1269