Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 23–38

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

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

Case study

Behaviour and strength assessment of masonry prisms

T
⁎
Nassif Nazeer Thaickavil, Job Thomas
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, Cochin University of Science Technology, Cochin, Kerala, PIN 682 022, India

AR TI CLE I NF O AB S T R A CT

Keywords: This is a case study presenting the cracking behavior and assessment of the compressive strength
Prism strength of masonry prisms. The compressive strength of masonry was determined by performing la-
Stack bonded masonry boratory tests on 192 masonry prism specimens corresponding to 3 specimens each in 64 groups.
Running bonded masonry The variables considered in the experimental program are type of brick, strength of masonry and
Masonry unit strength
height-to-thickness (h/t) ratio of the prism specimen. Pressed earth bricks and burnt clay bricks
Cracking
were used for the preparation of masonry prisms. A mathematical model is also proposed for the
estimation of compressive strength of masonry prisms by performing a statistical multiple re-
gression analysis on 232 data sets, which includes 64 test data from the present study and 168
test data published in the literature. The model was developed based on the regression analysis of
test data of prisms made of a variety of masonry units namely clay bricks, pressed earth bricks,
concrete blocks, calcium silicate bricks, stone blocks, perforated bricks and soft mud bricks. The
proposed model not only accounts for the wide ranges of compressive strengths of masonry unit
and mortar, but also accounts for the influence of volume fractions of masonry unit and mortar in
addition to the height-to-thickness ratio. The predicted compressive strength of prisms using the
proposed model is compared with 14 models available in published literature. The predicted
strength was found to be in good agreement with the corresponding experimental data.

1. Introduction

Masonry is one of the oldest building materials known to man and is believed to have been in use for over 6000 years.
Construction using masonry remains relatively popular in many parts of the world and is practiced widely even today. Masonry is
composed of two different materials namely: the masonry units and the mortar phase. Masonry units may be either solid or hollow
and may be made of a wide variety of materials. Clay bricks, blocks of stone, concrete blocks, pressed earth bricks, calcium silicate
bricks, soft mud bricks etc. are some examples of masonry units used in masonry construction. The two material phases in masonry
are joined by a weak interface and hence masonry is generally weak in tension. Masonry structures are therefore expected to resist
only compressive forces [1]. The conventional design practice emphasizes that masonry structures are subjected to compressive
stresses alone [2] and hence an accurate determination of compressive strength is extremely important. Empirical values for the
masonry strength are suggested in SP: 20 [3] for the design of masonry based on the unit strength and properties of mortar. Al-
ternatively, masonry specimens can be tested to obtain a more accurate value of the compressive strength. In this paper, the effects of
joints and specimen geometry on the masonry strength are investigated by an experimental study on masonry prisms. The parameters
influencing the compressive strength of masonry were identified and a model to predict the compressive strength of masonry prisms
is proposed.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: job_thomas@cusat.ac.in (J. Thomas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2017.12.007
Received 31 October 2017; Received in revised form 2 December 2017; Accepted 12 December 2017
2214-5095/ © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
N.N. Thaickavil, J. Thomas Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 23–38

2. Literature review

The compressive strength of masonry is studied by testing prisms, wallettes or wall panels in the laboratory. Prisms are small
assemblages of masonry units having thickness of one to three units whereas masonry wallettes are short wall specimens of several
courses having width of three or more units. Masonry wall specimens are comparable to actual walls and have heights greater than
prisms and wallettes. However, testing of masonry wall specimens is quite expensive [4] and hence it is desirable to test prisms to
evaluate the strength of masonry. Prisms are a better representation of the actual masonry construction as it includes the effects of the
properties of the constituents of the masonry and the quality of workmanship. IS: 1905 [5] recommends a height-to-thickness (h/t)
ratio between 2 and 5 for the prism specimens and a minimum height of 40 cm. The American standard ASTM E447 [6] suggests that
the minimum height of the specimen should be fifteen inches. Drysdale and Hamid [7] found out that a 3-course prism better
represents masonry properties when compared to 2-course prisms. Francis et al. [8] proposed that prisms with height of five to six
brick units can be considered to be free from effects of end plates during testing. Ganesan and Ramamurthy [9] suggested that it is
desirable to test prisms having running bonds rather than stack bonds. Hence, it may be noted that the specimens tested are different
in different studies.
Singh and Munjal [10] studied the compressive strength behavior of 120 masonry prism specimens made with burnt clay bricks
and concrete bricks using three different types of mortars. The compressive strength of masonry was found to increase with the
increase in mortar strength and increase in compressive strength of brick. Ravula et al. [11] conducted an experimental investigation
of compressive failure in masonry made of soft clay bricks. For soft bricks the compressive strength of the masonry was found to be
lower than the strength of both brick and mortar regardless of the mortar strength. Localized crushing of bricks near the brick–mortar
interface initiated failure in prisms with high strength mortar, while spalling due to vertical cracking in bricks was the reason for
failure in prisms with low strength mortar. Wu et al. [12] studied the stress strain characteristics of traditional adobe masonry in
China and noted that the masonry strength is influenced by the ratio of mortar strength to block strength. According to Ganesan and
Ramamurthy [9], the type of bed mortar and vertical mortar joint properties have no significant influence on the behavior of prisms.
However, Francis et al. [8] observed that thinner joints make the brick work stronger and Lumantarna et al. [13] reported that the
presence of the vertical mortar head joints had minimal influence on the masonry compressive properties. Hamid et al. [14] sug-
gested that the effect of number of courses have to be considered rather than the height-to-thickness (h/t) ratio. The parameters
affecting the masonry compressive strength reported by various authors were identified from the literature study and this list is given
in Table 1.
Different models have been proposed to predict the compressive strength of masonry by researchers across the globe. Some of the
earliest formulae were proposed by Engesser [32] and Bröcker [33]. Mann [15] conducted tests on specimens with slenderness ratio
h/t = 5 using solid and hollow masonry units made of brick, concrete, lightweight concrete and calcareous sandstone. Based on this a
model was proposed to predict the compressive strength of masonry. Hendry and Malek [16] proposed a model to estimate the
compressive strength of masonry. Dayaratnam [17] suggested an equation giving equal importance to compressive strengths of brick
and mortar. A model proposed Rozza [18] incorporates the effects of relative volumes of masonry units and mortar. Bennett et al.
[19] conducted a series of tests on structural clay tile prisms and proposed an equation for estimating prism strength using strength of
masonry unit.
Dymiotis and Gutlederer [20] developed a series of second order polynomial equations after performing a regression analysis and
suggested a model accounting for the mortar and brick compressive strengths. Kaushik et al. [1] tested 84 masonry prisms using four
types of bricks and three types of mortar. A linear regression model was proposed accounting for compressive strengths of bricks and
mortar. Gumaste et al. [21] proposed models to estimate the compressive strength of brick masonry in India for stack bonded and
English bonded prisms. Christy et al. [22] derived a prediction model for determining the axial strength of brick masonry after
conducting experiments on reinforced and unreinforced masonry prisms made with clay brick and fly ash bricks. Garzón-Roca et al.
[23] performed a multiple linear regression analysis on 96 data sets from experimental studies on masonry with clay bricks and
cement mortar and proposed a new model. Lumantarna et al. [13] performed tests on 45 masonry prisms made with vintage clay
bricks extracted from existing buildings in New Zealand to study the compressive behavior of existing masonry buildings and a
regression model was proposed to predict the strength of three layer brick prisms accounting for the brick-unit and mortar strengths.
Kumavat [24] developed an analytical model based on results of tests on clay brick masonry. The various prediction models and the
parameters considered in each model are reported in Table 2. It can be noted that the parameters used in the prediction model of the
masonry compressive strength given by different authors [1], [8], [12–31] are different.

3. Need for study

Unreinforced masonry construction is the most widely adopted construction practice due to its inherent advantages which include
low maintenance, high degree of fire protection, good thermal and sound insulation and excellent durability [34]. Locally available
masonry units made with different materials and various manufacturing processes are being used for masonry construction [35]. The
dimensions of the masonry units are different in different parts of the world. The strength of the units, type of mortar, volume of
mortar and unit are some of the parameters influencing the strength of masonry.
Although construction using masonry has been practiced for long, the exact behavior of masonry structures has been studied since
the last four decades or so [36] and is yet to be understood completely. Masonry being made of two different materials is non
homogeneous and exhibits typical non elastic and anisotropic behavior. As a result, empirical formulae have been used for the design
of masonry structures. In India, the mortar used is generally stiffer than the masonry units. Singh and Munjal [10], Ravula et al. [11],

24
N.N. Thaickavil, J. Thomas Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 23–38

Table 1
Parameters reported by authors.

Parameter Considered Reference

Compressive strength of masonry unit Mann [15]

Hendry and Malek [16]
Dayaratnam [17]
Rozza [18]
Bennet et. al [19]
Dymiotis and Gutlederer [20]
Kaushik et al. [1]
Gumaste et al. [21]
Christy et al. [22]
Garzón- Roca et al. [23]
Lumantarna et al. [13]
Sarhat and Sherwood [24]
Costigan et al. [25]
Kumavat et al. [26]
Zhou et al. [27]

Compressive strength of mortar Mann [15]

Hendry and Malek [16]
Dayaratnam [17]
Rozza [18]
Dymiotis and Gutlederer [20]
Kaushik et al. [1]
Gumaste et al. [21]
Christy et al. [22]
Garzón- Roca et al. [23]
Lumantarna et al. [13]
Sarhat and Sherwood [24]
Costigan et al. [25]
Kumavat et al. [26]
Zhou et al. [27]

Mortar strength-to-block strength ratio Barbosa et al. [28]

Wu et al. [12]
Costigan et al. [25]
Ravula et al. [11]

Height-to-thickness ratio of prism Hamid et al. [14]

Dymiotis and Gutlederer [20]
Sarhat and Sherwood [24]
Zhou et al. [27]

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

Hamid et al. [14]

Thickness of joint Francis et al. [8]

Bakhteri and Sambasivam [29]
Reddy et al. [30]
Zahra and Dhanasekar [31]

Height of block-to-thickness of joint ratio Dymiotis and Gutlederer [20]

Zahra and Dhanasekar [31]

Relative volume of masonry unit Rozza [18]

Relative volume of mortar Rozza [18]

Balasubramanian et al. [37] and Nagarajan et al. [38] used mortar comparatively stiffer than bricks. However, in western countries,
the masonry unit used is usually stronger than the mortar [21]. Mohamed et al. [39] reported that mortar is largely responsible for
the non-linear behavior of masonry. Hence, brick strength, mortar strength and its volume has an influence on the strength of
masonry. The prediction models given by MSJC [40] and Euro code 6 [41] and literature by Engesser [32], Bröcker [33], Mann [15],
Hendry and Malek [16], Dayaratnam [17], Bennet et al. [19], Dymiotis and Gutlederer [20], Gumaste et al. [21], Kaushik et al. [1],
Christy et al. [22], Garzón-Roca et al. [23], Lumantarna et al. [13], and Kumavat [26] mainly account for the brick strength and
mortar strength. IS: 1905 [5] prescribes the basic compressive stress of masonry for only a limited set of brick and mortar combi-
nations. In this study, a model accounting for height-to-thickness ratio of prism (h/t), volume fraction of brick (VFb) and volume ratio
of bed joint to mortar (VRmH) in addition to brick strength (fb) and mortar strength (fm) is developed.

4. Experimental program

In this study, 192 masonry prisms were prepared and tested using two types of bricks and four grades of mortar. Two types of

25
N.N. Thaickavil, J. Thomas Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 23–38

Table 2
Models to predict masonry compressive strength from literature.

Sl. No. Reference Model Parameters

1. Engesser [32] fp =
1
fb +
2
fm
3 3
2. Bröcker [33] fp = 0.68 fb 1/2 fm 1/3
3. Mann [15] fp = 0.83 fb 0.66 fm.0.18
4. Hendry and Malek [16] fp = 0.317fb0.531 fm 0.208 fp = Strength of masonry
5. Dayaratnam [17] fp = 0.275 fb 0.5 fm 0.5 fb = Strength of masonry unit
6. Rozza [18] fp = (vu fb + 0.8 vm fm)/10 fm = Strength of mortar
7. Bennet et. al [19] fp = 0.3 fb vu=Relative volume of unit
8. Dymiotis and Gutlederer [20] fp = 0.3266 fb × (1-0.0027fb + 0.0147fm) vm = Relative volume of mortar
9. Kaushik et al. [1] fp = 0.317 fb0.866fm0.134
10. Gumaste et al. [21] fp = 0.63fb0.49fm0.32
11. Christy et al. [22] fp = 0.35fb0.65fm0.25
12. Garzón- Roca et al. [23] fp = 0.53fb+ 0.93fm-10.32
13. Lumantarna et al. [13] fp = 0.75fb0.75fm0.31
14. Kumavat et al. [26] fp = 0.69fb0.6fm0.35

bricks were used for preparing the prisms of various mortar joint configurations. The influence of various parameters such as brick
strength, mortar strength, height-to-thickness ratio of prism, volume fraction of brick and volume ratio of bed joint to mortar on the
prism strength was determined.

4.1. Materials

The constituent materials used to prepare masonry prisms were tested prior to the experimental program. Bricks of two different
types viz. cement stabilized pressed earth bricks and locally manufactured burnt clay bricks were used in this study. Cement sta-
bilized pressed earth bricks were designated as B1 and Burnt clay brick was designated as B2. Cement-sand mortar of four different
proportions; M1 (1:6), M2 (1:5), M3 (1:4) and M4 (1:3) were prepared using OPC cement and river sand conforming to Zone II of IS:
383 [42]. The compressive strength of mortar was determined by testing cubes of 50 cm2 face area as per IS: 2250 [43]. Details of the
test results on the constituent materials are furnished in Table 3.

4.2. Details of specimens

In this study, single wythe brickwork prism specimens two to six units high were prepared using stack bond and staggered bond
(running bond) in a total of eight configurations for testing the compressive strength of masonry. Fig. 1 shows the geometrical
configuration of the various specimens used in the present study. Three specimens were prepared for each of the eight configurations
using two types of bricks and four grades of mortar. A total of 192 brick masonry prisms were prepared and tested. A skilled mason
was employed for making the specimens and the thickness of the bed joint mortar was maintained approximately as 10 mm for all
joints using a template. Water content in the mortar mix was fixed based on trials. All the specimens were cured for 28 days by
spraying water at regular intervals. Standard test cubes were cast using the mortar prepared for making the prisms and cured in the
same condition as that of prisms. These comparison mortar cubes were tested on the day of testing of prisms to determine the strength
of mortar. The variables of the experimental study were type of brick, mortar strength and configuration of stacking of bricks in the
prism. Designations of the specimens were fixed in such a way that all the variables of the study are included. For example B1C1M1
indicates a specimen with brick type B1, mortar type M1 and configuration C1.

Table 3
Details of constituent materials.

Materials Description

Cement Type Compressive Strength

Ordinary Portland Cement (43 grade) 7thday–33 MPa; 28th day–45 MPa
Fine Aggregate River sand conforming to Zone II of IS 383
Bricks Designation Dimensions Compressive Strength
B1 (Cement Stabilized Pressed Earth) 190mm × 113mm × 100 mm 4.56 MPa
B2 (Burnt Clay) 210mm × 96mm × 50 mm 6.68 MPa
Mortar Designation Compressive Strength (50 mm2 cubes)
M1 (1:6) 35.513.6 MPa
M2 (1:5) 35.614.2 MPa
M3 (1:4) 35.717.5 MPa
M4 (1:3) 35.8MPa

26
N.N. Thaickavil, J. Thomas Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 23–38

Fig. 1. Geometrical configuration of prisms.

4.3. Testing

The prisms were tested at the laboratory after curing for a period of 28 days. Before testing, all prisms were capped with a thin
layer of dental plaster of 1–2 mm thickness to level the contact surface between the specimen face and platens of the testing machine.
The strength of the capping was higher than that of the mortar joints and it was assumed to have no effect on the results. The load was
applied in stages. The testing of specimen with designation B1C3M1 and B1C4M1 is shown in Fig. 2. The ultimate load (Pu_e) was
recorded and the strength of the prism (fp_e) was calculated.

5. Results and discussion

The compressive strength of masonry prism specimens (fp_e) is tabulated in Table 4. The designation, strength of brick (fb),
strength of mortar (fm), height-to-thickness ratio of the masonry prism (h/t), volume fraction of brick (VFb) and volume ratio of bed
joint to mortar (VRmH) are given in Table 4. The volume fraction of brick (VFb) and volume fraction of horizontal mortar joint (VRmH)
are calculated from Eq. 1 and Eq. 2 respectively.
Vu
VFb =
Vp (1)

27
N.N. Thaickavil, J. Thomas Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 23–38

Fig. 2. Testing of specimens.

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

VmH
VRmH =
VmH + VmV (2)

Where VmH is the volume fraction of mortar in horizontal joints and VmV is the volume fraction of mortar in vertical joints. The
volume fraction is obtained by dividing the respective volume with the corresponding total volume in the prism. Among the various
specimens tested in the study, the maximum compressive strength was found to be for specimen B2C2M4 and the magnitude is
3.15 MPa for specimen B2C2M4. The effect of strength of brick, strength of mortar and configuration of prisms are discussed in this
paper.

5.1. Effect of strength of brick

Prisms made of cement stabilized pressed earth bricks (B1) had lower strength when compared to prisms of locally manufactured
burnt clay bricks (B2). The variation of compressive strength of prism with brick strength is shown in Fig. 3. An average increase of
70% in prism strength was seen with the increase in strength of brick. The findings in the study corroborates with the observations of
Bennet et al. [19], Kaushik et al. [1], Gumaste et al. [21] and Lumantarna et al. [13]. Brick units occupy the bulk of the prism volume
and offer a direct path for the transfer of the load. In India, strength of the mortar used is generally greater than that of the brick and
the mortar is sufficiently strong for the direct transfer of this load. The increase in prism failure load with the increase in the strength
of brick may be attributed to this. The ratio of unit strength to masonry strength is generally expressed by the term masonry efficiency
(η) and it increases with brick strength.

5.2. Effect of strength of mortar

Fig. 4 shows the variation in strength of prism with the variation in compressive strength of mortar. It is observed that the
compressive strength of masonry prism increases with the increase in mortar strength. The observations of Ravula et al. [11] and
Nagarajan et al. [38] corroborates with the observations in the present study. The increase was found to be high over the mortar
strength range between 13.6–14.2 MPa. The increase in prism strength was found to be gradual when the mortar strength is greater
than 17.5 MPa. The mortar between the masonry units at the bed joint is in a triaxial state of stress. Lateral expansion of the mortar is
restricted due to frictional forces at the interface between the mortar layer and bricks. As a result, the mortar offers greater resistance
to direct load transfer. This may be the reason for the increase in the prism strength with increase in mortar strength. However, the
effectiveness of load transfer through the mortar layer will decrease with the separation or debonding at the brick-mortar interface.
The debonding stress at the interface depends on the roughness of the brick surface, mortar strength etc. It is expected that stronger
the masonry, higher will be the debonding stress. This is the reason for observing a gradual increase in prism strength beyond mortar
strength of 17.5 MPa.

28
N.N. Thaickavil, J. Thomas Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 23–38

Table 4
Results of test for compression on brickwork prisms.

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

1 B1C1M1 4.56 13.6 1.86 0.927 0.025 1.12

2 B1C1M2 4.56 14.2 1.86 0.927 0.025 1.27
3 B1C1M3 4.56 17.5 1.86 0.927 0.025 1.36
4 B1C1M4 4.56 35.5 1.86 0.927 0.025 1.43
5 B1C2M1 4.56 13.6 1.86 0.952 0.000 1.27
6 B1C2M2 4.56 14.2 1.86 0.952 0.000 1.46
7 B1C2M3 4.56 17.5 1.86 0.952 0.000 1.56
8 B1C2M4 4.56 35.5 1.86 0.952 0.000 1.69
9 B1C3M1 4.56 13.6 2.83 0.921 0.016 0.92
10 B1C3M2 4.56 14.2 2.83 0.921 0.016 0.96
11 B1C3M3 4.56 17.5 2.83 0.921 0.016 1.09
12 B1C3M4 4.56 35.5 2.83 0.921 0.016 1.18
13 B1C4M1 4.56 13.6 2.83 0.938 0.000 1.00
14 B1C4M2 4.56 14.2 2.83 0.938 0.000 1.08
15 B1C4M3 4.56 17.5 2.83 0.938 0.000 1.16
16 B1C4M4 4.56 35.5 2.83 0.938 0.000 1.22
17 B1C5M1 4.56 13.6 3.81 0.906 0.024 0.83
18 B1C5M2 4.56 14.2 3.81 0.906 0.024 0.90
19 B1C5M3 4.56 17.5 3.81 0.906 0.024 1.00
20 B1C5M4 4.56 35.5 3.81 0.906 0.024 1.11
21 B1C6M1 4.56 13.6 3.81 0.930 0.000 0.88
22 B1C6M2 4.56 14.2 3.81 0.930 0.000 0.93
23 B1C6M3 4.56 17.5 3.81 0.930 0.000 1.05
24 B1C6M4 4.56 35.5 3.81 0.930 0.000 1.16
25 B1C7M1 4.56 13.6 5.75 0.890 0.026 0.73
26 B1C7M2 4.56 14.2 5.75 0.890 0.026 0.82
27 B1C7M3 4.56 17.5 5.75 0.890 0.026 0.83
28 B1C7M4 4.56 35.5 5.75 0.890 0.026 0.93
29 B1C8M1 4.56 13.6 5.75 0.917 0.000 0.76
30 B1C8M2 4.56 14.2 5.75 0.917 0.000 0.85
31 B1C8M3 6.68 17.5 5.75 0.917 0.000 0.92
32 B1C8M4 6.68 35.5 5.75 0.917 0.000 1.04
33 B2C1M1 6.68 13.6 1.15 0.887 0.022 1.98
34 B2C1M2 6.68 14.2 1.15 0.887 0.022 2.38
35 B2C1M3 6.68 17.5 1.15 0.887 0.022 2.64
36 B2C1M4 6.68 35.5 1.15 0.887 0.022 2.94
37 B2C2M1 6.68 13.6 1.15 0.909 0.000 2.23
38 B2C2M2 6.68 14.2 1.15 0.909 0.000 2.56
39 B2C2M3 6.68 17.5 1.15 0.909 0.000 2.80
40 B2C2M4 6.68 35.5 1.15 0.909 0.000 3.15
41 B2C3M1 6.68 13.6 1.77 0.868 0.014 1.42
42 B2C3M2 6.68 14.2 1.77 0.868 0.014 1.76
43 B2C3M3 6.68 17.5 1.77 0.868 0.014 1.78
44 B2C3M4 6.68 35.5 1.77 0.868 0.014 1.96
45 B2C4M1 6.68 13.6 1.77 0.882 0.000 1.52
46 B2C4M2 6.68 14.2 1.77 0.882 0.000 2.13
47 B2C4M3 6.68 17.5 1.77 0.882 0.000 2.30
48 B2C4M4 6.68 35.5 1.77 0.882 0.000 2.51
49 B2C5M1 6.68 13.6 2.40 0.849 0.021 1.31
50 B2C5M2 6.68 14.2 2.40 0.849 0.021 1.54
51 B2C5M3 6.68 17.5 2.40 0.849 0.021 1.59
52 B2C5M4 6.68 35.5 2.40 0.849 0.021 1.71
53 B2C6M1 6.68 13.6 2.40 0.870 0.000 1.34
54 B2C6M2 6.68 14.2 2.40 0.870 0.000 1.64
55 B2C6M3 6.68 17.5 2.40 0.870 0.000 1.66
56 B2C6M4 6.68 35.5 2.40 0.870 0.000 1.80
57 B2C7M1 6.68 13.6 3.65 0.837 0.020 1.10
58 B2C7M2 6.68 14.2 3.65 0.837 0.020 1.19
59 B2C7M3 6.68 17.5 3.65 0.837 0.020 1.27
60 B2C7M4 6.68 35.5 3.65 0.837 0.020 1.55
61 B2C8M1 6.68 13.6 3.65 0.857 0.000 1.22
62 B2C8M2 6.68 14.2 3.65 0.857 0.000 1.30
63 B2C8M3 6.68 17.5 3.65 0.857 0.000 1.42
64 B2C8M4 6.68 35.5 3.65 0.857 0.000 1.61

29
N.N. Thaickavil, J. Thomas Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 23–38

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

Fig. 4. Variation of prism strength with mortar strength.

5.3. Effect of h/t ratio of prism

Fig. 5 shows the variation of prism compressive strength with the change in h/t ratio. It can be observed that the prism strength
decreases with the increase in the h/t ratio of specimens and similar variation was reported earlier by Hamid et al. [14] and Thomas
and Ansar [44]. When prisms are subjected to axial load there is a tendency to bulge laterally due to Poisson’s effect. However, the
top and bottom of the prism is restricted to bulge laterally due to the friction between the steel plates of the loading machine and the
surface of the specimen. As a result, the top and bottom of the prism specimen will be under compression with confinement pressure
and the middle zone will be under tension. The depth of the zone under compression will depend on the dimension of loading surface
and will be small as per St. Venant’s principle. Masonry is weak in tension due to the presence of weak links at the brick-mortar
interface. As the height of the prism increases, the zone subjected to lateral tensile stress increases. This tensile zone is vulnerable to
cracking and the decrease in strength due to the increase in height of specimen may be attributed to this. The strength of short prism

30
N.N. Thaickavil, J. Thomas Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 23–38

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

Fig. 6. Variation of prism strength with volume fraction of brick.

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

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

5.4. Effect of volume fraction of brick

Brick occupies about 80–95% of the volume in masonry and is the major constituent in masonry. The uniformity of masonry is
greatly influenced by the homogeneity of the monolithic bricks. The volume fraction of brick directly depends on the dimension of
the units used for masonry construction. The prism strength is found to increase with increase in volume of the brick from Fig. 6. In
this experimental study, the deformation and failure of prism is controlled by the bricks as bricks are the weaker constituent of
masonry when compared to mortar. The deformation and failure of brick causes the failure of prisms.

5.5. Effect of volume ratio of bed joint to mortar

The variation of prism strength with volume ratio of bed joint to total mortar (VRmH) is given in Fig. 7. The total volume of mortar

31
N.N. Thaickavil, J. Thomas Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 23–38

Fig. 8. Typical crack pattern in prisms as seen from experimental study for brick type B1 and mortar type M2 (1:5).

is about 4–20% of the volume of the prism. The volume ratio of bed joint mortar is 1.0 for stack bonded prism and it is about 0.6 to
0.8 for staggered bonded prisms. The prism strength increases with volume ratio of bed joint mortar. This is due to the fact that the
vertical joints are weak links in the prism when subjected to the lateral bulging force. Hence, the prisms having greater volume of bed
joint mortar contain lesser number of weak links. This attributes to the greater strength of prisms having greater volume ratio of bed
joint to total mortar.

32
N.N. Thaickavil, J. Thomas Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 23–38

Table 5
Results of test of parameters influencing masonry strength.

Parameter F- value P- value F-critical

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

5.6. Crack pattern

The crack pattern in the prism was recorded and is given in Fig. 8. Vertical cracks were formed at the middle of the specimens.
This is due to the outward bursting force developed in the composite specimen by Poisson’s effect. At the support, the resultant force
of the bursting force and frictional force between testing machine plates and specimen causes inclined cracks. In shorter specimens of
C1 and C2, inclined cracks were predominant because the zone of pure bursting force region spreads only over a small height. When
the cracks extended to vertical joints, further growth was found along the joint. This is due to the debonding at the weak vertical
interface between the masonry units and mortar. In bed joints, except in few regions, the cracks extend across the bed joint to the next
course. This indicates that the bed joint mortar and its interface are relatively strong. This is attributed to the increase in strength of
mortar mobilized through the confinement. The crack pattern was similar in other prisms made using M1, M3 and M4. The crack
pattern in prisms with Brick B2 was also found more or less similar to B1 as given in Fig. 8.

6. Proposed model

From the experimental study it has been observed that the strength of masonry prisms varies with the strength of the masonry unit
and the type of mortar. The strengths of masonry unit and mortar are believed to have a direct effect on the strength of the masonry as
suggested by Engesser [32], Bröcker [33], Mann [15], Hendry and Malek [16], Dayaratnam [17], Rozza [18], Dymiotis and Gu-
tlederer [20], Gumaste et al. [21], Kaushik et al. [1], Christy et al. [22], Garzón-Roca et al. [23] and Lumantarna et al. [13]. It is true
when the size of the prism and the size of the block are same. The sizes of the masonry blocks used in India vary. The sizes of burnt
clay bricks used in the Indian construction industry are 190 mm × 90 mm × 90 mm, 190 mm × 90 mm × 40 mm,
230 mm × 110 mm × 30 mm and 230 mm × 110 mm × 70 mm. However, it is also important to account for other parameters such
as mortar strength, h/t ratio etc. in the prediction of masonry strength. After reviewing various parameters reported in Table 1, the
parameters viz. compressive strength of masonry unit (fb), compressive strength of mortar (fm), height-to-thickness ratio (h/t), volume
fraction of masonry unit (VFb) and volume ratio of bed join to mortar (VRmH) have been identified in this study. Statistical F-test was
conducted to identify the significance of the identified parameters and the ANOVA results are given in Table 5.
From Table 5, it can be seen that F-value is greater than F-critical and P-value is less than 0.05 corresponding to all parameters.
Hence, it is established that all the parameters considered do have significant influence on compressive strength of masonry. The
parameters VFb and VRmH are found to have the maximum influence on the compressive strength. Statistical regression analysis was
carried out using 232 data sets and the details of the data are given in Table 6. Out of the 232 data, 64 test data were from the present
study and the remaining were taken from the published works of 20 authors. The type of brick, country of origin and range of values
of various parameters used for the analysis are presented in Table 6. Test data corresponding to masonry unit strength of 3.1 to
127.0 MPa, mortar strength of 0.3 to 52.6 MPa and h/t ratio of 1.15 to 5.75 were used in the regression analysis. A model developed
based on regression analysis on 232 experimental data is given by Eq. 3.

0.54 × f b1.06 × f m
0.004
× VFb3.3 × VR 0.6
mH
fp − p
h/ t 0.28 (3)
2
The R value corresponding to the equation is 0.88 which means that the proposed parameters are able to predict 88% of the
variation in the masonry prism strength.

7. Comparison of prediction with experimental data

The predicted strength of masonry is compared with the experimental data. The masonry prism strength prediction models
proposed by 14 researchers are given in Table 2. The comparison of predicted models with experimental data is given in Fig. 9. The
spread of the data points indicates the variation in the prediction. The data points aligned to the 45° solid line indicate that the
prediction is in good agreement with experimental data. The skewed spread of the data points in Fig. 9 indicates that the prediction is
having greater variation with the experimental results.
The mean and coefficient of variance of ratio between the predicted masonry strength to experimental data is given in Table 7. It
may be noted that the data points of the comparison graphs in Fig. 9 (a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (j), (k), (l) and (m) are skewed. However, the
data points of comparison graphs in Fig. 9(c), 9(g), (h), (i), (n) and (o) seem to be more or less equally spread on either side of the 45°
solid line. The spread of the graph is due to the variations in constituent materials, workmanship, speed of loading etc. The mean ratio

33
 N.N. Thaickavil, J. Thomas

Table 6
Data from experiments published in literature.

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

1 Present Study Pressed Earth Brick, Burnt Clay Brick India 64 4.6−6.7 13.6–35.5 1.15−5.75 0.837−0.952 0.655−1.000 0.7−3.2
2 Ravula et al. [11] Soft Clay Bricks (Wire Cut) India 2 14.0 9.4–30.0 3.90 0.897 1.000 5.8−8.0
3 Singh and Munjal [10] Burnt Clay Brick India 12 8.2–16.7 12.7–20.9 3.84−5.40 0.896−0.919 1.000 2.1–11.6
4 Zhou et al. [27] Hollow Concrete Blocks China 12 23.2–36.8 5.6–13.7 3.10−5.20 0.950−0.958 0.732−0.804 10.2–27.0
5 Balasubramanian et al. [37] Clay Bricks India 1 5.3 19.14 1.93 0.893 1.000 2.8
6 Vindhyashree et al. [45] Solid Concrete Blocks India 3 5.6 4.2 2.80 0.893 1.000 4.0−4.8
7 Lumantarna et al. [13] Vintage Solid Clay Bricks New Zealand 14 8.5–43.4 0.7–12.5 2.53 0.886 1.000 6.51−30.79
8 Nagarajan et al. [38] Burnt Clay Bricks (Handmade) India 3 3.6 11.8–18.2 2.45 0.918 1.000 1.9−2.4
9 Thamboo [46] Hollow Concrete Blocks Australia 4 12.7 3.6−4.8 4.06−4.33 0.923−0.984 1.000 6.9–10.1
10 Vimala and Kumarasamy Stabilized Mud Blocks India 6 3.1 0.3–6.4 2.13 0.902 1.000 0.7−1.6
[47]

34
11 Reddy et al. [30] Compressed Earth Blocks India 4 8.3 3.5 3.66−4.34 0.806−0.954 1.000 3.2–3.9
12 Kaushik et al. [1] Clay Bricks India 12 16.1–28.9 3.1–20.6 3.63 0.904 1.000 2.9−8.5
13 Gumaste et al. [21] Bricks (Table Mounted and Wire Cut) India 6 5.7–23.0 0.9–12.2 4.00−4.38 0.887 1.000 1.3–10.0
14 Mohamad et al. [39] Hollow Concrete Blocks Portugal 6 18.2–27.0 2.9–19.9 2.3 0.955 1.000 7.5–11.7
15 Brencich and Gambarotta Solid Clay Bricks Italy 2 18.7 11.4–14.7 2.46 0.815 1.000 3.9–13.5
[48]
16 Bakhteri and Sambasivam Solid Clay Bricks Malaysia 6 56.6 6.3 3.91−4.46 0.805−0.917 1.000 9.1–16.9
[29]
17 Ip [49] Flagstone, Solid Clay Bricks Australia 4 33.0−103.0 14.4–21.1 3.17−3.44 0.755−0.774 1.000 11.0−41.0
18 Hossein et al. [50] Burnt Clay Bricks Bangladesh 1 66.15 12.5 3.47 0.865 1.000 18.2
19 Vermeltfoort [51] Soft Mud Bricks, Perforated Soft Mud Bricks, Wire Cut The Netherlands 29 27.0−127.0 4.0- 48.0 3.40−5.00 0.853−0.949 1.000 3.9–39.8
Bricks, Calcium Silicate Bricks
20 McNary and Abrams [52] Standard Modular Paver, Modular Cored Unit USA 8 69.8–101.7 3.4–52.6 3.54 0.873−0.925 1.000 19.7- 48.2
21 Francis et al. [8] Solid Bricks, Perforated Bricks Australia 33 55.6–65.7 6.4 3.00−3.50 0.795−0.928 1.000 7.8- 21.9
Total 232 3.1–127.0 0.3–52.6 1.15−5.75 0.755−0.984 0.655−1.000 0.7–48.2
Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 23–38
N.N. Thaickavil, J. Thomas Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 23–38

(a) Engesser [32] (b) Bröcker [33] (c) Mann [15]

+ 20% + 20% + 20%
60 60 60

40 40 40
fp_p (MPa)

fp_p (MPa)

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

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

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

40 40 40
fp_p (MPa)

fp_p (MPa)

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

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

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

40 40 40
fp_p (MPa)

fp_p (MPa)

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

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

(j) Kaushik et al. [1] (k) Christy et al. [22] (l) Garzón- Roca et al. [23]
+ 20% + 20% + 20%
60 60 60

40
40 40
fp_p (MPa)

fp_p (MPa)

fp_p (MPa)

- 20% - 20% 20 - 20%

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

(m) Lumantarna et al. [13] (n) Kumavat [26] (o) Present Study
+ 20% + 20% + 20%
60 60 60

40 40 40
fp_p (MPa)

fp_p (MPa)

fp_p (MPa)

- 20% - 20% - 20%

20 20 20

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

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

35
N.N. Thaickavil, J. Thomas Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 23–38

Table 7
Comparison of prediction models.

Model fp_p/fp_e

Mean COV

Engesser [32] 4.50 1.13

Bröcker [33] 1.46 0.84
Mann [15] 1.73 0.64
Hendry and Malek [16] 0.53 0.76
Dayaratnam [17] 0.92 0.91
Rozza [18] 0.30 0.52
Bennet et. al [19] 0.99 0.41
Dymiotis and Gutlederer [20] 1.22 0.45
Kaushik et al. [1] 1.00 0.47
Gumaste et al. [21] 1.27 0.84
Christy et al. [22] 0.85 0.68
Garzón- Roca et al. [23] 3.13 1.53
Lumantarna et al. [13] 2.72 0.62
Kumavat et al. [26] 1.94 0.76
Present Study 1.00 0.36

Fig. 10. Influence of individual parameters on prism strength.

of the predicted strength to experimental strength is found to be 1.00 for the proposed model and the model by Gumaste et al. [21].
The coefficient of variance is found to be 0.36 for the proposed model and 0.47 for the model by Gumaste et al. [21]. This indicates
that the variation of predicted strength is lower in the proposed model when compared to other models in Table 2.

7.1. Influence of parameters on the predicted strength

The effect of the individual parameters on the strength of masonry is shown in Fig. 10. The variation in the prism strength (fp)
with the increase in masonry unit strength (fb) is almost linear and is shown in Fig. 10 (a). The variation of prism strength (fp) with the
mortar strength (fm) is non-linear and is shown in Fig. 10 (b). The non-linearity may be due to the triaxial state of stress induced in the
mortar layer. The strength of prism shows an inverse relationship with slenderness as seen from Fig. 10 (c). The volume fraction of
masonry unit (VFb) and volume ratio of bed joint to mortar (VRmH) have the greatest effect on the strength of prisms as seen from
Fig. 10 (d) and (e). This confirms that the terms volume fraction of masonry unit (VFb) and volume ratio of bed joint to mortar (VRmH)
have to be included in the prediction model to get accurate results.

36
N.N. Thaickavil, J. Thomas Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 23–38

8. Conclusions

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

1. The volume fraction of masonry unit (VFb), volume ratio of bed joint to mortar (VRmH) and height-to-thickness (h/t) ratio of the
specimen also influence the strength of masonry prisms significantly in addition to the masonry unit strength (fb) and mortar
strength (fm).
2. Unit strength, mortar strength, volume fraction of masonry unit and volume ratio of bed joint to mortar are directly proportional
to the prism strength and height-to-thickness ratio has an inverse relationship with the prism strength.
3. The F-test of 232 test data indicated that the volume fraction of masonry unit, volume ratio of bed joint to mortar and height-to-
thickness ratio of the specimen are more significant than the compressive strength of the masonry unit and the compressive
strength of the mortar.
4. The influences of masonry unit strength, volume fraction of masonry unit and volume ratio of bed joint to mortar are also found to
be significant in all the specimens tested.
5. The increase in the prism strength of the test specimens was found to be significant up to mortar strength of 17.5 MPa and there
after the increase was found to be gradual.
6. The average of the predicted to experimental prism strength is found to be 1.00 with a coefficient of variance (COV) of 0.36. This
indicates that the prediction based on the proposed model is in good agreement with the experimental data.
7. The model proposed in this study accounts for the wide range of mortar (0.3–52.6 MPa) and masonry unit strength (3.5–127 MPa).

In conventional masonry construction, the volume fraction of mortar is almost the same. It is expected that the proposed model is
useful for designers to assess the strength of the masonry when the mortar joints are increased for architectural purposes.

References

[1] H.B. Kaushik, D.C. Rai, S.K. Jain, Stress-strain characteristics of clay brick masonry under uniaxial compression, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 19 (9) (2007) 728–739.
[2] J. Thomas, Concrete block reinforced masonry wall panels subjected to out-of-plane monotonic lateral loading, Proceedings of National Conference on Recent
Advances in Structural Engineering, Hyderabad, India, February, 2006, pp. 123–129.
[3] SP 20 (S&T), Handbook on Masonry Design and Construction, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1991.
[4] K.S. Jagdish, B.V.V. Reddy, K.S.N. Rao, Alternative Building Materials and Technologies, New Age International, New Delhi, India, 2008.
[5] IS:, 1905 Indian Standard Code of Practice for Structural Use of Unreinforced Masonry, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1987.
[6] ASTM E447-97, Test Methods for Compressive Strength of Laboratory Constructed Masonry Prisms, American Society for Testing and Materials Pennsylvania,
USA, 2017.
[7] R.G. Drysdale, A.A. Hamid, Behavior of concrete block masonry under axial compression, ACI J. Proc. 76 (6) (1979) 707–722.
[8] A.J. Francis, C.B. Horman, L.E. Jerrems, The effect of joint thickness and other factors on compressive strength of brickwork, Proceedings of 2nd International
Brick Masonry Conference, Stoke-on-Trent (2017) 31–37.
[9] T.P. Ganesan, K. Ramamurthy, Behavior of concrete hollow-block masonry prisms under axial compression, J. Struct. Eng. 118 (7) (1992) 1751–1769.
[10] S.B. Singh, P. Munjal, Bond strength and compressive stress-strain characteristics of brick masonry, J. Build. Eng. 9 (2017) 10–16.
[11] M.B. Ravula, K.V.L. Subramaniam, Experimental investigation of compressive failure in masonry brick assemblages made with soft brick, Mater. Struct. 50 (19)
(2017) 1–11.
[12] F. Wu, G. Li, H.N. Li, J.Q. Jia, Strength and stress-strain characteristics of traditional adobe block and masonry, Mater. Struct. 46 (2013) 1449–1457.
[13] R. Lumantarna, D.T. Biggs, J.M. Ingham, Uniaxial compressive strength and stiffness of field-extracted and laboratory-constructed masonry prisms, J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 26 (4) (2014) 567–575.
[14] A.A. Hamid, B.E. Abboud, H.G. Harris, Direct modeling of concrete block masonry under axial compression, Masonry: Research, application, and problems,
ASTM STP 871, in: J.C. Grogan, J.T. Conway (Eds.), American Society for Testing and Materials Philadelphia, 1985, pp. 151–166.
[15] W. Mann, Statistical evaluation of tests on masonry by potential functions, Proceedings of the Sixth International Brick Masonry Conference, Rome, Italy, May,
1982, pp. 86–98.
[16] A.W. Hendry, M.H. Malek, Characteristic compressive strength of brickwork walls from collected test results, Mason. Int. 7 (1986) (1986) 15–24.
[17] P. Dayaratnam, Brick and Reinforced Brick Structures, Oxford & IBH, 1987.
[18] G.L. Apolo, A.L. Matinez-Luengas, Curso Técnicas de Intervención en El Patrimonio Arquitectonico, Consultores Tecnicos de Contstruccion, 1995.
[19] R. Bennett, K. Boyd, R. Flanagan, Compressive properties of structural clay tile prisms, J. Struct. Eng. 123 (7) (1997) 920–926.
[20] C. Dymiotis, B.M. Gutlederer, Allowing for uncertainties in the modelling of masonry compressive strength, Constr. Build. Mater. 16 (2002) 443–452.
[21] K.S. Gumaste, K.S.N. Rao, B.V.V. Reddy, K.S. Jagadish, Strength and elasticity of brick masonry prisms and wallettes under compression, Mater. Struct. 40 (2)
(2007) 241–253.
[22] C.F. Christy, D. Tensing, R. Shanthi, Experimental study on axial compressive strength and elastic modulus of the clay and fly ash brick masonry, J. Civ. Eng.
Constr. Technol. 4 (4) (2013) 134–141.
[23] J. Garzón-Roca, C.O. Marco, J.M. Adam, Compressive strength of masonry made of clay bricks and cement mortar: Estimation based on neural networks and
fuzzy logic, Eng. Struct. 48 (2013) 21–27.
[24] S.R. Sarhat, E.G. Sherwood, The prediction of compressive strength of ungrouted hollow concrete block masonry, Constr. Build. Mater. 58 (2014) 111–121.
[25] A. Costigan, S. Pavía, O. Kinnane, An experimental evaluation of prediction models for the mechanical behavior of unreinforced, lime-mortar masonry under
compression, J. Build. Eng. 4 (2015) 283–294.
[26] H.R. Kumavat, An experimental investigation of mechanical properties in clay brick masonry by partial replacement of fine aggregate with clay brick waste, J.
Inst. Eng. India Ser. A 97 (3) (2016) 199–204.
[27] Q. Zhou, F. Wang, F. Zhu, Estimation of compressive strength of hollow concrete masonry prisms using artificial neural networks and adaptive neuro-fuzzy
inference systems, Constr. Build. Mater. 125 (2016) 417–426.
[28] C.S. Barbosa, P.B. Lourenco, J.B. Hanai, On the compressive strength prediction for concrete masonry prisms, Mater. Struct. 43 (3) (2010) 331–344.
[29] J. Bakhteri, S. Sambasivam, Mechanical behaviour of structural brick masonry: An experimental evaluation, Proceedings of the 5th Asia- Pacific Structural
Engineering and Construction Conference, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, August, 2003, pp. 305–317.
[30] B.V. Reddy, C.V.U. Vyas, Influence of shear bond strength on compressive strength and stress-strain characteristics of masonry, Mater. Struct. 41 (10) (2008)
1697–1712.
[31] T. Zahra, M. Dhanasekar, Prediction of masonry compressive behaviour using a damage mechanics inspired modelling method, Constr. Build. Mater. 109 (2016)

37
N.N. Thaickavil, J. Thomas Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 23–38

128–138.
[32] F. Engesser, Über weitgespannte wölbbrücken, Zeitschrift für Architekturs und Ingenieurwesen 53 (1907) 403–440.
[33] O. Bröcker, Die auswertung von tragfähigkeitsversuchen an gemauerten wänden, Betonstein-Zeitung (1963) 19–21.
[34] J. Thomas, Effect of plastering on the out-of-plane flexural strength of single wythe masonry walletes, Proceedings of the First CUSAT National Conference on
Recent Advances in Civil Engineering, Kochi, India, March, 2004, pp. 144–149.
[35] K.O. Varghese, D.G. Nair, J. Thomas, Prospects of straw bale masonry in Kerala, Proceedings of CUSAT National Conference on Recent Advances in Structural
Engineering, Kochi, India, December, 2013, pp. 353–359.
[36] A.W. Page, Unreinforced masonry structures- An Australian overview, Proceedings of the Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Melbourne, Australia,
November, 1995, pp. 242–254.
[37] S.R. Balasubramanian, D. Maheswari, A. Cynthia, K.B. Rao, M.A. Prasad, R. Goswami, P. Sivakumar, Experimental determination of statistical parameters
associated with uniaxial compression behaviour of brick masonry, Curr. Sci. 109 (11) (2015) 2094–2102.
[38] S. Nagarajan, S. Viswanathan, V. Ravi, Experimental approach to investigate the behaviour of brick masonry for different mortar ratios, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Advances in Engineering and Technology, Singapore, March, 2014, pp. 586–592.
[39] G. Mohamad, P.B. Lourenço, H.R. Roman, Mechanics of hollow concrete block masonry prisms under compression: review and prospects, Cem. Concr. Compos.
29 (3) (2007) 181–192.
[40] American Concrete Institute (ACI), Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures, Masonry Standards Joint Committee, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005 (ACI
530-05/ASCE 5-05/TMS 402-05).
[41] EN1996-1 and 2, Eurocode 6- Design of Masonry Structures. Part1-1:- General Rules for Buildings—Reinforced and Unreinforced Masonry, Design of Masonry
Structures. Design Considerations, Selection of Materials and Execution of Masonry, European Committee for Standardisation CEN, Brussels, 2006.
[42] IS: 383, Indian Standard Specification for Coarse and Fine Aggregates from Natural Sources for Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1970.
[43] IS: 2250, Indian Standard Code of Practice for Preparation and Use of Masonry Mortars, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1981.
[44] J. Thomas, E.M. Ansar, Parametric study of the strength of brickwork prisms, Proceedings of the First CUSAT National Conference on Recent Advances in Civil
Engineering, Kochi, India, March, 2004, pp. 431–437.
[45] Vindhyashree, A. Rahamath, W.P. Kumar, M.T. Kumar, Numerical simulation of masonry prism test using ANSYS and ABAQUS, Int. J. Eng. Res. Technol. 4 (7)
(2015) 1019–1027.
[46] J.A. Thamboo, Development of Thin Layer Mortared Concrete Masonry (Ph.D. Dissertation), Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 2014.
[47] S. Vimala, K. Kumarasamy, Studies on the strength of stabilized mud block masonry using different mortar proportions, Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Adv. Eng. 4 (4)
(2014) 720–724.
[48] A. Brencich, L. Gambarotta, Mechanical response of solid clay brickwork under eccentric loading. Part I: Unreinforced masonry, Mater. Struct. 38 (2005)
257–266.
[49] F. Ip, Compressive Strength and Modulus of Elasticity of Masonry Prisms, Carleton University, Ottawa, 1999 (Master of Engineering Thesis).
[50] M.M. Hossain, S.S. Ali, M.A. Rahman, Properties of masonry constituents, J. Civ. Eng. Inst. Eng. Bangladesh 25 (2) (1997) 135–155.
[51] A.T. Vermeltfoort, Compression properties of masonry and its components, Proceedings of the 10th International Brick and Block Masonry Conference, Calgary,
Canada, July, 1994, pp. 1433–1442.
[52] W. McNary, D. Abrams, Mechanics of masonry in compression, J. Struct. Eng. 111 (4) (1985) 857–870.

38