See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/250073003

Behaviour of interlocking mortarless block masonry

Article in Construction Materials · January 2006

DOI: 10.1680/coma.2006.159.3.111

CITATIONS
READS
19
2,956

5 authors, including:

Ahmed Hasan Alwathaf Waleed Thanoon

Sana'a University University of Nizwa
26 PUBLICATIONS 120 CITATIONS 74 PUBLICATIONS 659 CITATIONS

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Structural Investigation of Masonry Used in Yemen View project

Pre-stressed Concrete behavior View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmed Hasan Alwathaf on 16 September 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil
Engineers Construction
Materials 159 August
2006 Issue CM3
Pages 111–117

Paper 14228
Received 04/05/2005
Accepted 24/08/2006
Keywords: M. S. Jaafar Ahmed H. Alwathaf Waleed A. Thanoon Jamaloddin Noorzaei Mohd. Razali
brickwork & Abdulkadir Civil Engineering Department, Civil Engineering Department, Civil Engineering Department, Civil
masonry/concrete Engineering Department, Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
structures/strength and Faculty of Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Sana’a University,
testing of materials Petronas University of Universiti Putra Malaysia, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Malaysia Yemen
Technology, Malaysia Malaysia Malaysia

Behaviour of interlocking mortarless block masonry

M. S. Jaafar, A. H. Alwathaf, W. A. Thanoon, J. Noorzaei and M. R. Abdulkadir

Various types of interlocking mortarless (dry-stacked) using

block masonry system have been developed worldwide.
However, the characteristics of dry joints under
compressive load, and their effect on the overall
behaviour of the interlocking mortarless system, are still
not well understood. This paper presents an experimental
investigation into the dry-joint contact behaviour of
masonry and the behaviour of interlocking mortarless
hollow blocks for grouted and ungrouted prisms under
compression. Two experimental test set-ups are proposed
to evaluate the contact behaviour of dry joints,
considering the geometric imperfections in the contacting
faces. The results show that the contact behaviour of a
dry joint is highly affected by geometric imperfections in
the block bed. Different patterns of deformation are
distinguished in mortarless hollow (ungrouted) and
grouted prisms. Dry joints predominantly affected the
hollow prism deformation until the compressive load
reaches 0$57 of the
maximum load. However, this behaviour is not common in
grouted prisms, because noticeable deformation
commences after 0$38 of the maximum load.
Furthermore, the variations of strength and
deformation
in grouted specimens are diminished compared with
those in ungrouted specimens.

1. INTRODUCTION
Interlocking mortarless (dry-stacked) block masonry offers
great advantages in masonry construction. The main feature of
the interlocking hollow block system is the elimination of
mortar layers: the blocks are interconnected through
interlocking keys (protrusions and grooves). The goal in any
interlocking system is to ensure efficient construction formation
with well-aligned masonry structures, even without skilled
masons. There have been several attempts to develop
interlocking hollow blocks in various parts of the world.1–5
However, these blocks vary widely in their dimensions, shapes
and interlocking mechanisms. There is much evidence that
mortarless masonry will be as good as traditional masonry, and
a competitive alternative to it, if its peculiarities are taken into
account.

Among the unconventional masonry systems, Putra Block has

been developed recently in Malaysia as a load-bearing
interlocking mortarless hollow block system.6 Extensive
research has been carried out to investigate the compressive
strength of the system under concentric and eccentric loading
Construction Materials 159 Behaviour of interlocking mortarless Jaafar et al.
Issue CM3 Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com
block masonry to: 111
IP: 119.40.118.198
On: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:22:34
individual blocks, prisms and walls.7 The shear
characteristics of the system have been investigated
using a modified triplet test set-up under different pre-
compression loads.8 The dry joint (block-to-block
interface) characteristic and its influence on the
deformation and failure mechanism of the interlocking
mortarless block masonry system under compression still
require more study, not only on the Putra Block system
but also on other systems. This matter has not received
sufficient attention in various studies.5,9–11

When concrete blocks are stacked without filler or

bonding material, they are still in contact via virtual
filler (roughness, texture, etc.) rather than via the
material properties of the block units themselves. A
close-up photograph of a mortarless (dry) bed joints is
shown in Fig. 1. The absence of the filler material
(mortar) in the block beds and head joints creates a
problem of geometric imperfection in the dry joint,
which is the main shortcoming of the system. This
phenomenon needs to be investigated in terms of its
effect on the joint contact behaviour. Oh12 presented
an experimental test procedure that can estimate the
dry joint contact behaviour, including the geometric
imperfection effects. However, that test is appropriate
only for simple cases and for specimens of limited
size.

In this paper, an experimental investigation is presented

for the characteristics of dry joints and the behaviour of
mortarless masonry under compression load. Single- and
multiple-joint test set-ups have been developed to
evaluate the contact behaviour of dry joints, taking into
consideration the influence and variation of the
geometric imperfection of the block beds arising from
different causes. The essential load–deformation curves
of the dry joints that are required for future use in
numerical modelling of the system are also described.
Furthermore, the characteristics of

Dry bed joint

Fig. 1. Mortarless (dry) masonry bed joint

Construction Materials 159 Behaviour of interlocking mortarless Jaafar et al.

Issue CM3 Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com
block masonry to: 111
IP: 119.40.118.198
On: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:22:34
 variationof the heightof the adjacent blocks. This is the second
type of imperfection. Verification of the dimensions of a batch
of blocks showed that differences in the block heights were
G0$25 mm. The actual measurement of the variety of
imperfections of dry joint in a wall is quite difficult. Therefore a
contact test is required to study the geometric imperfection of
the block bed arising from different sources.

Two contact behaviour test set-ups were used to explore these

two effects: single- and multiple-joint contact tests. In the single-
joint contact test, the closure deformation of block bed interfaces
is investigated under uniaxial compressive load as affected by
the irregularity and roughness of the contact interfaces (Fig. 3).
In the multiple-joint test (Fig. 4), the interface closure is
investigated as affected both by the same irregularity and
roughness and by the variation of the height of the adjacent
blocks (multiple effects). A face-shell bedded joint is considered
in the study because compressive load is transferred by this joint.

Fig. 2. Details of interlocking block unit (dimensions in mm) 2.1.1. Test specimens.

(a) Single joint. In this test, 10 identical small prisms (SPR1

an interlocking mortarless masonry system are investigated from to SPR10) having a single joint formed between two block
the first application of the load to final failure using hollow quarters were used, as shown in Fig. 3(b). The top quarter
(ungrouted) and grouted prisms. Results for deformation was cut from the lower block half and the bottom quarter
characteristics, failure mechanism, and compressive strength are from the upper block half. These parts are actually the
presented and discussed. region located between two block heads, as shown in Fig.
3(a). The specimen dimension was reduced to minimise
2. EXPERIMENTAL any undesirable effects caused by different type of
TEST PROGRAMME imperfection.
The block units used in the
test specimens have been
produced especially for the
current study using a semi- 7575
automatic
block-making machine on the
university campus. The DPs
interlocking block unit used in Joint
the study is shown in Fig. 2. 200 50
More details of the developed
block system can be found
elsewhere.6
(a)
Fig. 3. Contact test of single joint (dimensions in mm)
2.1. Contact behaviour test
of bed joint
Contact behaviour is a
complex property in the 225 300 300 75
mortarless joint, and becomes (b) (c)
more sophisticated with the
unevenness of the contacted DPs1 DPs2 DPs3
interfaces. This unevenness is
called the geometric 50 50 50
imperfection of the block bed. Top and bott joint
Two types of geometric 600
imperfection of the block bed om s
50 50 50
were observed in the
mortarless walls. The first type
is caused by the variation of DPs4 DPs5 DPs6
regularity and roughness of
the block bed interfaces. After
stacking blocks in a wall, an 900
imperfection in the dry bed
(a) (b)
joint can be observed due to
the Fig. 4. Contact test of multiple joints (dimensions in mm)

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

112 Construction Materials 159 Issue CM3 Behaviour of interlocking mortarless block masonry Jaafar et al.
IP: 119.40.118.198
On: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:22:34
 2.2. Compression test of
prisms
This test aims to find the
PRG1 deformation and failure
L1 Front face
mechanisms of interlocking
L2
mortarless hollow and grouted
prisms under uniaxial
600 250 250 compression load until failure.
DP1 DP2
The test is important to
evaluate the characteristics of
a masonry system that has
various masonry constituents
(block, grout and joints)
interacting together as a
composite structure.
DP3 DP4
2.2.1. Test specimens. Two
300 different types of prism
(ungrouted and grouted) were
fabricated, as shown in
(a) (b) (c) Fig. 5(a). For each type, three
identical prisms were constructed to confirm the test results.
Fig. 5. Compression test of hollow and grouted prisms (dimensions in mm)
(b) Multiple joints. Fig. 4(a) shows a the small test wall used The hollow prism specimens were designated PR1, PR2 and
PR3 and the grouted prism specimens PRG1, PRG2 and PRG3.
in the second contact test set-up. The blocks were stacked
A prism consists of two blocks in the top and bottom and two
in a running bond utilising the interlocking system
saw-cut halves in the middle course to reflect the actual block
provided by the blocks. Two joints were formed between
arrangement in a real wall, where the webs of the hollow units
three block courses in the test wall. The block arrangement do not align vertically in successive courses. This yields a
allows every block bed interface to be shared by two realistic behaviour. The central core of the grouted prisms was
blocks in which the effect of block height differences is filled, and the prisms were tested after 28 days.
included. Three identical test walls were used to verify the
test results (W1, W2 and W3). Two saw-cut halves of 2.2.2. Test set-up and test procedure. The axial deformation
blocks were used at the ends of the middle course to of the prisms was measured using a gauge length of 250 mm
complete the course. The top projections of the top course across two bed joints on both sides (L1 and L2) as well as on
were removed to allow the top-loaded steel block to be the front and back faces, as shown in Fig. 5. Grinding and
placed. capping were used on the face-shell bed at the top and bottom
of the specimen surfaces to obtain smooth and plane surfaces
2.1.2. Test set-up and test procedure. Direct measurement as after removing the top projection of the top block unit. Vertical
close as possible to the joint is necessary to reduce the compressive load was applied by means of a vertical hydraulic
undetermined contribution of the material deformation. Pairs of jack with a maximum loading capacity of 500 kN.
mechanical gauge Demec points (DPs) with a small gauge
length of 50 mm were installed across the masonry joints to 3. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
measure the normal displacement (closure) of the joints, as
shown in Fig. 3 and 4. The DPs were installed at the mid length Table 1 shows the properties of the blocks and grout used in the
of the single joint near the web, and the same location was used experimental work.
in the multiple joint to trace the behaviour of the joint at the
same point on the block face-shell to obtain consistent results 3.1. Joint contact behaviour results
for the two specimens. Lateral deformation was not measured
because its effect on the axial deformation can be neglected. 3.1.1. Single joint. Figure 6 shows typical normal
This is because most of displacement of the mortarless single joint under axial
the head joint interfaces are not in contact owing to a small, compressive load
visible gap arising from casting demands to facilitate Compressive Modulus of Splitting
production of the blocks. tensile Type of strength, f 0 c : elasticity,
Ec: strength, f 0 t : specimen N/mm2
Grinding and capping were used on the top and bottom of N/mm 2
N/mm 2

specimen surfaces of the face-shell bed to obtain smooth and

plane surfaces. The single-joint specimens were tested by a Block unit 23$ 9605 2$09
compression machine with a capacity of 3000 kN (Fig. 3(c)). 4
For the test wall specimens, vertical compressive load was COV* 15$ 10$2 8$1
8
applied by means of a vertical hydraulic jack with a maximum Grout 20$ 8462$0 2$51
loading capacity of 500 kN. The load was distributed uniformly 4
using a spreader UB beam and steel block, as shown in Fig. cylinders
4(b). For both set-ups, vertical load was applied incrementally COV* 6$9 7$7 14$
to allow measuring of closure displacement of the joint during 3
the tests. *
COV is coefficient of variation.

Construction Materials 159 Issue CM3 Behaviour of interlocking mortarless block masonry Jaafar et al. 113
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 119.40.118.198
On: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:22:34
 350
80
0·12 mm
0·9 mm
300
70
Compressive load: kN

250

Compressive load: kN
60

50 200
PR1
40
150 PR2
Upper bound
30 PR3
Lower bound 100
20 Upper bound
Average
10 50 Lower bound
0 0·2 0·4 0·8
0 0·6
Normal displacement: mm 0 1·0 1·5 2·0
0 0·5
Axial deformation: mm

Fig. 6. Load–displacement curves in a single joint
measured at the DPs (see Fig. 3). This displacement represents
the joint closure at the measuring points (also shown in the
figure) after removing the contribution of the material
deformation. Non- linear gradual closure of the contact
interfaces (or seating) under compressive loading is observed in
all joints. The initial increase in the contact stiffness appears to
be due to settling of the blocks and increase of the areas that
come into contact. Once the slope of the curve approaches a
high value, this means that the joint interfaces have become
almost in full contact.
Increasing the stiffness during loading is a significant difference
between the dry joint and the conventional mortared joint. The
solid line in Fig. 6 represents the average displacement
measured under increasing load with the variation in the
observed values represented by the upper and lower bounds.
The maximum difference in the joint displacement within the
range was
0$12 mm at maximum load. All the contact curves in the single
joint lie between these limits owing to the variation of
roughness and irregularity of the block beds.
3.1.2. Multiple joints. Contact test results of multiple joints in
the test walls are shown in Fig. 7. The contact behaviour curves
measured at different locations (DPs are shown as dots on the
specimen in Fig. 7) lie between the upper and lower bounds,
which indicates high variations in the normal displacement
(closure) in the multiple joints. The high normal displacement
value in some joints is believed to be due to the undesirable
differences of the height of adjacent blocks due to the casting
process. This type of imperfection sometimes causes very small
visible gaps between
160 0·55 mm
140
Fig. 8. Load–axial deformation curves of ungrouted
prisms
the interfaces. Although large differences in normal
displacement were measured at different locations in the test
walls (as indicated by the upper and lower bounds in Fig. 7),
the average normal displacement, calculated by using all the
measurements at the specified location, indicates near identical
behaviour for all walls, as can be observed by the solid lines in
Fig. 7. The maximum difference in the joint displacement
within the upper and lower bounds (shown in Fig. 7) was 0$55
mm at the maximum load, which is 3$7 times greater than the
measured value in the single joint at the same stress level.
3.2. Compression test results of prisms
3.2.1. Deformation and strength. The ungrouted prisms
showed extensive axial deformation at lower load levels due to
the initial seating deformation (the seating was defined in the
contact test results of the joints) at the dry bed joints, as shown
in Fig. 8. Similar observations were made by Oh12 and
Marzahn.13 High variation in the prism displacement was
observed at different locations (the gauge lengths L1 and L2 are
shown in Fig. 5, and are also shown as vertical lines on the
prism sketch in Fig. 8). The maximum difference in the prism
displacement within the range was around 0$90 mm at the
higher loads. This behaviour occurred mainly because of
variation in the contact behaviour of dry joints, which was
affected by the geometric imperfection caused by block bed
irregularity and variation of block height (Section 3.1.2). Fig. 8
also shows the curves for load against axial deformation for the
three ungrouted prisms, calculated as the average of
measurements at the earlier specified gauge lengths that fell
within the average range. In general, all hollow prisms revealed
almost similar behaviour under axial compression, and the dry
joints predominantly affected the prism deformation until 0$57
of the average maximum load.

120 A summary of the compression test results for ungrouted prisms

is shown in Table 2. The average stress was calculated by
Compressive load: kN

100 dividing the load by the face-shell bedded area, and the strain
80 was calculated by dividing the measured longitudinal
W1
deformation by the gauge length of 250 mm. The ungrouted
60 W2 prisms showed an average compressive strength ( fm) of 11$2
40 W3 N/mm2, and the average stress at which web cracks were
Upper bound initiated ( fwc) was 6$4 N/mm2.
20
Lower bound
0 0·2
0
0·4 0·6 0·8 The grouted prisms showed completely different behaviour
Normal displacement: mm from that of the ungrouted system, as shown in Fig. 9. The
initial large deformation at the lower loads disappears, and also
the variation
Fig. 7. Load–displacement curves of multiple joints
in a test wall Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

114 Construction Materials 159 Issue CM3 Behaviour of interlocking mortarless block masonry Jaafar et al.
 Compressive Web splitting Web splitting
load: stress,
Type of prism Specimen Maximum load: strength, fm: kN fwc: N/mm2
kN N/mm2
Ungrouted PR1 216$1 9$0 122$8 5$1
PR2 299$5 12$5 171$9 7$2
PR3 289$6 12$1 164$1 6$8
Ave. 268$4 11$2 152$9 6$4
COV* % 13$9 14$1
Grouted PRG1 402$7 11$8 270$1 7$9
PRG2 383$0 11$2 270$1 7$9
PRG3 392$7 11$5 272$5 8$0
Ave. 392$8 11$5 270$9 7$9
COV* % 2$0 0$4
*
COV is coefficient of variation
Table 2. Test results of compressive strength and web splitting loads of prisms

average stress at which cracks in the web were initiated ( fwc) was
450
7$9 N/mm2. The concrete grout core area was added to the
400 face-shell’s bedded area to find the total loaded area in stress
350 calculation of the grouted prisms. Because the effect of the dry
joint is reduced in the grouted prisms, the variation in their
Compressive load: kN

300
strength becomes less than in the ungrouted prisms, as can be
250 seen in the coefficient of variation (COV) in Table 2.
200 PRG1
PRG2 3.2.2. Web splitting and mode of failure. In the ungrouted
150
PRG3 prisms, before failure, cracks were observed at webs in the
100 Upper bound
50 Lower bound 3500
0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0
Axial deformation: mm

Fig. 9. Load–axial deformation curves of grouted

3500
prisms

in the displacement at different locations is diminished. This

behaviour is attributed to the grouted core, which has now
affected the overall deformation of the grouted prism. Unlike
the block assemblages, the concrete grout in the cores has no
discontinuity planes. Furthermore, closure of the contacted
interfaces here depends strongly on the bond between the grout
and the surrounding block shells. Curves of load against axial
deformation for all the grouted prisms are also depicted in Fig.
9, using the average of measurements at the specified gauge
lengths (L1 and L2). In the grouted prisms, noticeable
deformation started after 0$38 of the average maximum load. Fig. 10. Web splitting of an ungrouted prism; the
numbers represent the level of applied load in lb/in2
Front face
2 2
In the initial stage, loads were resisted by the grout together (1 lb/in Z6$89 kN/m ) at which the crack(s)
appeared
with the surrounding block shells that were bonded to the 2700
grout. As a result, the closure deformation of bed joints was
small compared with that for the hollow prism. This can
explain the higher slope of the load–axial displacement curves DP1 DP2
at low loading level, as can be seen in Fig. 9. As the axial
compression load increased, bilateral deformation of the grout
also increased, as well as the longitudinal deformation. When
the stress in the grout reached a certain level, the bond
between the grout and the surrounding block shell started to
break, which in turn allowed perceptible closure in the joints.
As a result, large deformation in the prism occurred at high
load levels. This deformation increased according to the degree
of grout debonding.
Fig. 11. Face-shell cracking of an ungrouted prism;
the numbers represent the level of applied load in
As shown in Table 2, the grouted prisms showed an average lb/in2 (1 lb/in2Z6$89 kN/m2) at which the crack(s)
compressive strength ( fm) of 11$5 N/mm2, and the load and appeared

Construction Materials 159 Issue CM3 Behaviour of interlocking mortarless block masonry Jaafar et al. 115
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
 Back face
2700
2500
Concrete
crushing
DP1 DP2
Fig. 12. Mode of failure of ungrouted prism PR1; the
numbers represent the level of applied load in lb/in2
(1 lb/in2Z6$89 kN/m2) at which the crack(s)
appeared
5500
4700
Fig. 13. Web splitting of grouted prism; the
numbers represent the level of applied load in
lb/in2 (1 lb/in2Z6$89 kN/m2) at which the crack(s)
appeared
4800
DP1 DP2
Fig. 14. Face-shell cracking of grouted prism; the
numbers represent the level of applied load in lb/in2
(1 lb/in2Z6$89 kN/m2) at which the crack(s)
appeared
plane of the prism, as shown in Fig. 10. At the first appearance
of web cracks, the bed joints at the contacted interfaces tended
to resettle for a new contacted state. Web splitting in the plane
of the wall has also been observed in conventional mortared
masonry, which occurred via a mechanism similar to deep
beam bending.14–17 Although the webs of the block cracked,
failure occurred after face-shell cracking at one or more blocks,
as shown in Fig. 11. The failure was sudden and explosive for
all test prisms.
Premature failure occurred for specimen PR2 (PmaxZ216$1 kN:
see Table 2) because of the bed unevenness of the two halves in
the
Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
116 Construction Materials 159 Issue CM3 Behaviour of interlocking mortarless block masonry
Fig. 15. Block shells debonding in grouted prism
middle course, which caused a small visible gap at one half
joint. This induced an additional flexural stress as a cantilever
action in the block that was not fully in contact. Fig. 12 shows
the concrete crushing at the bottom of the top block. The crack
did not extend to the top because of the end plate restraint.
In the grouted prisms, cracking of the web started at higher
loads than in the hollow prisms (see Table 2) and occurred near
the junction of webs and face-shells, as shown in Fig. 13. In a
different mechanism from that for the hollow prisms, web
splitting occurred because of lateral deformation of the grout
rather than a flexural effect. Final failure occurred after
face-shell cracking at one or more blocks, as shown in Fig. 14.
As shown in Fig. 15, some face-shell parts were debonded from
the grout. This observation occurred mostly in specimen PRG2,
which had the lowest strength.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The proposed contact tests of dry joints were used successfully
to assess the contact behaviour of mortarless joints and to
determined the ranges of contact variation due to different types
of geometric imperfection of block beds for single and multiple
joints. Non-linear gradual closure of the contact interfaces
(or seating) under compressive loading is observed in dry joints.
The results show that the contact behaviour of dry joints is
strongly affected by the geometric imperfection of block beds,
and especially by the imperfection caused by differences in the
heights of adjacent blocks in a wall.
The results indicate that the overall behaviour of the mortarless
system is strongly affected by dry joint behaviour. Two different
patterns of deformation were observed in ungrouted and grouted
masonry. In ungrouted masonry prisms, high initial axial
deformation (seating deformation) takes place until the
compressive load reaches 0$57 of the maximum load. In grouted
masonry this behaviour is not common, because high axial
deformation at the higher load levels depends on the degree of
grout debonding, and noticeable deformation occurred after 0$38
of the maximum load. In grouted prisms, the structural
performance is enhanced because the effect of dry joints is
reduced. The undesirable high initial deformation disappears in
Jaafar et al.
the grouted prisms, and the variation in their strength becomes
less than in the ungrouted specimens.
Similar to conventional mortared masonry, web splitting takes
place in the mortarless masonry. Web splitting occurs at higher
stress in grouted prisms than in ungrouted prisms. In ungrouted
prisms web splitting occurs via a mechanism similar to deep
beam bending, whereas in grouted specimens it occurs as a
result of lateral expansion of the grout.
REFERENCES
1. THALLON R. Dry-tack block. Fine Homebuilding Magazine,
1983, August, 50–57.
2. HAENER. Stacking mortarless block system. In Engineering
Design Manual, Atkinson Engineering, Inc., Hamilton,
Ontario, 1984.
3. GALLEGOS H. Mortarless masonry: the Mecano system.
International Journal of Housing Science and its
Applications, 1988, 12, No. 2, 145–157.
4. HARRIS H. G., OH K. and HAMID A. A. Development of new
interlocking and mortarless block masonry units for efficient
building systems. Proceedings of the 6th Canadian Masonry
Symposium, Saskatoon, 1992, pp. 15–17.
5. ANAND K. B. and RAMAMURTHY K. Development and performance
evaluation of interlocking block masonry. Journal of
Architectural Engineering, ASCE, 2000, 6, No. 2, 45–51.
6. THANOON W. A., JAAFAR M. S., ABDULKADIR M. R., ALI A. A.,
TRIKHA
D. N. and NAJM A. M. Development of an innovative
interlocking load bearing hollow block system in Malaysia.
Construction and Building Materials, 2004, 18, No. 6, 445–
454.
7. JAAFAR M. S., THANOON W. A., NAJM A. M., ABDULKADIR M. R. and
ALI A. A. Strength correlation between individual block,
prism and basic wall panel for load bearing interlocking
mortarless hollow block masonry. Construction and
Building Materials, 2006, 20, No. 7, 492–498.
View
publica
tion
stats
8. ALWATHAF A. H., THANOON W. A., JAAFAR M. S., NOORZAEI J. and
ABDULKADIR M. R. Shear characteristic of interlocking
mortarless block masonry joint. Masonry International,
2005, 18, No. 3, 139–146.
9. DRYSDALE R. G. and GAZZOLA E. A. Strength and deformation
properties of a grouted, dry-stacked, interlocked concrete
block system. Proceedings of the 9th International
Brick/Block Masonry Conference, Berlin, 1991, pp. 164–
171.
10. OH K., HARRIS H. G. and HAMID A. A. New interlocking and
mortarless block masonry units for earthquake-resistant
structures. Proceedings of the 6th North American
Masonry Conference, Philadelphia, 1993, pp. 821–836.
11. MARZAHN G. Dry-stacked masonry in comparison with mortar
joint masonry. Leipzig Annual Civil Engineering Report,
1997, (2), 353–365.
12. OH K. Development and Investigation of Failure
Mechanism of Interlocking Mortarless Block Masonry
System. PhD thesis, Department of Civil and Architectural
Engineering, Drexel University, Philadelphia, 1994.
13. MARZAHN G. Investigation on the initial settlement of dry-
stacked masonry under compression. Leipzig Annual Civil
Engineering Report, 1999, (3), 247–261.
14. SHRIVE N. G. The failure mechanism of face-shell bedded
(ungrouped and unreinforced) masonry. International
Journal of Masonry Construction, 1982, 2, No. 3, 115–
128.
15. BECCIA I. J. and HARRIS H. G. Behaviour of hollow concrete
masonry prisms under axial load and bending. The Masonry
Society Journal, 1983, 2, No. 2, T1–T26.
16. HAMED A. A. and CHUKWUNENYE A. Effect of type of
mortar bedding on the behaviour of axially loaded
hollow block masonry prism. Proceedings of the 3rd
North American Masonry Conference, Arlington, TX,
1985, pp. 16-1–16-11.
17. XIE H., PAGE A. W. and KLEEMAN P. W. An investigation of the
compressive failure mechanism for face-shell bedded hollow
masonry. Proceedings of the 6th Canadian Masonry
Symposium, Saskatoon, 1992, pp. 97–108.
What do you think?
To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 word
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sen
academics and students. Papers should be 2000–50
references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals
I
P
:
1
1
9
.
4
0
 .
1
1
8
.
1 Construction Materials 159 Issue CM3 Delivered
Behaviour of interlocking mortarless block masonry Jaafar et al. 117
9 by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
8
O
n
:
W
e
d
,
1
3
O
ct
2
0
1
0
1
0
:
2
2
:
3
4