OUT-OF-PLANE BENDING OF CONCRETE BLOCK WALLS 8

By Robert G. Drysdale' and Ahmed S. Essawy2

ABSTRACT: The test results for 21 full-scale concrete block walls sub-
jected to uniformly distributed loading normal to the surfaces of the
walls are reported. The variables included in this experimental study
include three wall lengths of 6.0 m (19 ft, 8 in.), 5.2 m (17 ft, 1 in.), and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/06/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3.6 m (11 ft, 10 in.) with a constant 2.8 m (9 ft, 2 in.) wall height. In
addition, tests were performed with simple support conditions on all
four boundaries, on the bottom and two sides, on only the two sides, and
on only the top and bottom of the wall. Also, one series of tests was
done with precompression loading in the vertical direction. Three
repetitions for each combination of parameters were performed to
provide a better statistical sample. The test results were compared with
both elastic-plate and yield-line analyses. In these analyses, the bending
strengths used were taken from tests of masonry assemblages con-
structed to allow testing of individual joints under bending normal to the
bed joint and parallel to the bed joint. Both the load forfirstcracking and
the failure load were investigated. A general evaluation of the compa-
rable allowable wind loadings permitted by current building codes is also
included.

INTRODUCTION

The general lack of sufficient experimental and analytical research may

explain the great differences that exist in design provisions for masonry
walls subject to uniformly distributed pressure normal to the surface of the
wall. In North America (ACI1983; CSA 1984), design for this out-of-plane
bending condition is governed by specified allowable tension stresses with
the designer being responsible for performing an appropriate analysis.
However, flexural tensile strengths obtained from bending tests of small
masonry assemblages often do not provide justification for the compar-
atively high allowable tensile stresses (Anderson 1976; Baker 1981; Cajdert
1980; deVeckey and West 1980; Drysdale and Hamid 1980; Essawy and
Drysdale 1983; Gairns 1983). Nonetheless, there is no indication that any
significant number of block walls have collapsed under wind pressure after
completion of construction. This fact tends to support the adequacy of the
current design procedure.
The apparent discrepancy between observed wall strengths and tensile
strengths from tests of small specimens was accounted for in the British
code (BSI1978) by using a design procedure based on moment coefficients
derived from yield-line analysis. In this way, the effects of the substantially
"Presented at the October 1-5, 1984, ASCE Convention held at San Francisco,
CA.
•Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg. and Engrg. Mech., McMaster Univ., Hamilton,
Ontario,
2
L8S 4L7, Canada.
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civ. Engrg. and Engrg. Mech., McMaster Univ.,
Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L7, Canada.
Note. Discussion open until June 1, 1988. To extend the closing date one month,
a written request must befiledwith the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript
for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on January 30,
1985. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 1,
January, 1988. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/88/0001-0121/$1.00 + $. 15 per page. Paper
No. 22116.

121

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:121-133.

 lower characteristic tensile strengths were partially compensated for by
empirical use of plastic analysis. While true yield-line behavior cannot be
theoretically justified, a substantial body of data (Haseltine 1975; Hendry
and Kheir 1976; West et al. 1973a, 1973b) confirms use of these moment
coefficients. Analysis of recent tests on concrete block walls have also
tended to support use of this analytical tool.
The blockwork code in Australia (SAA 1977) incorporates very low
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/06/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

allowable tensile stresses comparable to those adopted in the British code

(BSI 1978). However, researchers in Australia have rejected the theoret-
ically incompatible yield-line approach. Baker (1977, 1979, 1980, 1981) has
developed sets of design curves based on analyses of large numbers of
brick walls generated from a statistical distribution of tensile strengths.
The provision of some load sharing between adjacent regions resulted in
quite reasonable predictions of the mean and the variability for flexural
strengths of brick walls. While this approach seems to provide a rational
foundation upon which to develop design provisions, lack of success to
date in applying the same techniques to blockwork precludes further
discussion in this paper. It is worthwhile noting that while Lawrence (1978,
1980) has suggested other alternatives, his research results tend to support
Baker's conclusions and to cause additional concern regarding universal
adoption of the yield-line basis for design.

WALL TEST PROGRAM

Wall Test Facility

Details of the wall test facility are shown in Fig. 1. It was constructed to
accommodate testing of full-scale walls up to 6.0 m (19 ft, 8 in.) long by 3.6
m (11 ft, 10 in.) high. The supporting frame was bolted to the strong floor
of the structural testing laboratory and was designed (Essawy and Drys-
dale 1983) to accommodate various locations and combinations of edge
VARIABLE UP TO 6.0m
T

1 I 1 X~
SECTIONAL PLAN FOR EXPERIMENTAL
SETUP

i J.
ELEVATION OF SUPPORTING FRAME

II II I J LC
ELEVATION OF BACKUP WALL

FIG. 1. Test Facility for Out-of-Plane Lateral Loading

122

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:121-133.

 supports for the test walls. The basis for the design of the heavy steel
reaction frame was to limit differential deflection betv/een any two points
on the wall supports to less than 1 mm (0.04 in.) at a lateral pressure of 12.5
kN/m2 (260 psf). A backup wall composed of a plywood covering on a steel
grid framework was tied back to the support frame to enclose the air bag
placed between it and the test wall. The air bag was fabricated to cover the
entire area of the wall. The 100-mm (4-in.) side pieces of the air bag
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/06/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

matched the standard distance between the test wall and the backup wall.
The air bag was inflated using a 100-psi (690-kPa) supply incorporating a
pressure reduction valve and low pressure regulator on the intake.
Manometers using water columns were located at the intake and at the far
end of the air bag to serve as the accurate measure of air pressure.
For this wall test program it was decided not to try to simulate actual
edge conditions for block walls in buildings. Rather it was decided to
provide well-defined support conditions in order to facilitate the develop-
ment and verification of analytical models. Therefore simple support
conditions were chosen. At the bottom of the wall, individual steel plates
for each block transferred the reaction from the wall to a 40-mm diameter
(1-5/8 in.) roller located along the mid depth of the wall. The steel plate
under each block had a milled slot with a 20-mm radius to permit rotation
while a shear key prevented lateral displacement. The simple supports for
the sides and top of the walls consisted of 25-mm (1-in.) steel rods welded
to elements of the supporting frame. Lateral load was transferred to these
reactions through 5 mm (3/16 in.) thick, 25 mm (1 in.) wide steel strips
which were held against the rods while plaster of Paris was placed in an
approximate 6-mm (1/4-in.) gap between these strips and the wall. This
eliminated the effects of any imperfections in the initial alignment of either
the wall or the reaction supports.

Fabrication of Test Specimens

The walls were built by an experienced mason using type-S mortar and
standard 190-mm (nominal 8-in.) two-cell concrete blocks. Walls WI-1 and
WIII-1 were constructed during 1982 using autoclaved block, whereas the
remainder were constructed during 1983 using bubble-cured concrete

LOAD BY
SAND BIN
BLOCKS OR JACK
=990

390
(a)

(b)

FIG. 2. Flexure Normal to Bed Joint: (a) Specimen; (b) Bond Wrench Test Setup

123

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:121-133.

 1590

400

PF UJ UJ
z
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/06/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

z z
o
oaat
IK
O
§ 0.
o. r _i
, Q.
Z>
3 CO
10

(*)

-HYDRAULIC JACK
-LOAD CELL
-SHIMS
160 -LOAD DISTRIBUTION
115 BEAM
-BALLS ROLLER
215 -SPREADER BEAMS
-PLYWOOD STRIPS
190 -SPECIMEN
115 jvQ/t
400,| 300, 300 1 400
US -ROLLERS

95 1400 95
1590

(b)
FIG. 3. Flexure Parallel to Bed Joint: (a) Specimen; (b) Test Setup

block. 100-lb (45-kg) mortar batches were proportioned by weight for

better quality control, and any mortar not used within a half hour was
discarded rather than permit retempering. All mortar joints were tooled
with a 15-mm (5/8-in.) diameter jointer. Standard truss-type joint reinforce-
ment was placed in every second course. The mortar flow was measured
and three 2-in. (51-mm) cubes were taken for each mortar batch.
Auxiliary test specimens to determine flexural tensile strength normal
and parallel to the bed joints were constructed at the same time as the
walls. Fig. 2 shows the stack-bonded prism for flexural tests normal to the
bed joint. Fig. 3(a) shows the two-block high beam specimen used to
determine flexural strength parallel to the bedjoint.
Wall Test Procedure
Each wall was carefully picked up at four points and positioned over the
individual bearing plates corresponding to the blocks on the bottom
course. They were carefully lowered on to a full bed of type-S mortar
which was allowed to harden for several days prior to testing. Where top
and bottom reactions were present, the 2.8-m (9 ft, 2 in.) vertical span was
kept equal to the wall height by positioning the top roller a distance below
the top of the wall equal to the distance from the bottom of the wall to the
center of the 40-mm (1-5/8 in.) bottom support rollers. To accommodate
124

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:121-133.

 bearing for the side supports, the horizontal spans were made 200 mm (8
in.) less than the nominal length of the walls.
During testing, deflections were recorded using dial gages positioned in
vertical lines at the midlength and quarter points of the wall. Deflections of
the support frame were also monitored at the corners and midlength of all
four sides of the test wall. Mechanical strain gage points were positioned
in the central regions of the panels. Deflection and strain readings were
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/06/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

taken after each regular increase in air pressure and the wall surface was
checked for cracks.
The mortar cubes belonging to each wall were tested on the day
following the wall test. Tests to determine block properties and flexural
strengths were performed at representative ages.
WALL TEST RESULTS
Block and Mortar Strengths
Table 1 contains a summary of the 21 wall test results. Walls WI-1 and
WIII-1 were preliminary tests done using autoclave cured 190-mm blocks.

TABLE 1. Wall Test Results

SUPPORT CONDITIONS

Bottom and Two Top and

Top and Botton and Two Sides Two Sides Sides Bottom
Wall
Description Number Wl Wll Will WP a WF WH WV
(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Wail dimen- — 2.80 x 3.60 2.80 X 5.20 2.80 x 6.00 2.80 X 5.20 2.80 x 5.20 2.80 X 5.20 2.80 x 5.20
sions (m)
(height x
length)
Span lengths — 2.80 X 3.40 2.80 X 5.00 2.80 X 5.80 2.80 X 5.00 5.00 5.00 2.80
(m) (vertical
x horizon-
tal)
Aspect ratio — 1.21 1.79 2.07 1.79 — — —
(horizontal
span 4- ver-
tical span)

Age on test 1 358 88 253 96 113 115 126

date (days) 2 53 85 86 109 116 126 132
3 64 90 92 108 116 126 138

Mortar cube 1 20.5 26.5 16.9 22.7 21.9 24.3 18.5

Strength b 2 22.4 24.4 21.8 25.3 25.2 21.6 20.0
(MPa) 3 22.5 24.4 28.7 22.3 26.7 21.6 22.9

First crack 1 5.50 5.10 2.35 5.59 _ _ —

pressure 2 3.14 4.32 2.16 5.59 — — —
2.55 4.41
(kPa) 3 3.14 3.53
2.35 5.20
— — —
Mean 3.93 4.32 — — —
Failure pres- 1 11.0 6.67 5.30 9.42 3.97 2.04 2.84
sure (kPa) 2 10.99 6.73 4.32 8.75 3.79 2.10 3.38
3 8.63 7.06 4.70 8.24 3.95 1.96 3.09
Mean 10.21 6.82 4.77 8.80 3.90 2.03 3.10
a
A concentric compression load providing a pre compression of 0.20 MPa (29 psi) was applied to the tops of these
walls.
b
The number of mortar cubes per wall ranged between 25-33 except for series WI where only 14-19 cubes were
tested.

125

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:121-133.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/06/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(t)

FIG. 4. Typical Crack Patterns j

;
Using hard capping, the mean compressive strength was 19.2 MPa (2,780 ;
psi). The flexural tensile strength of the block for out-of-plane bending was (
found to be 2.9 MPa (420 psi). The bubble-cured blocks used for the >
remainder of the walls had comparable compressive and flexural tensile j
strengths of 22.7 MPa (3,290 psi) and 2.5 MPa (360 psi), respectively.
The type-S mortar had proportions by weight of portland cement: lime:
sand: water of 1:0.21:4.24:0.90. This resulted in a mortar flow that '
averaged 122%. Despite care in the batching procedure and the large
number of cubes tested per wall, the mean mortar strengths listed in Table
1 show considerable variation. While differences between mortar strengths ,?
for walls WI-1 and WIII-1 and those for the other walls could be attributed
to changes in sand and cement, the overall scatter appears to be inherent
for this material. For individual walls, the coefficient of variation of mortar
cube strengths ranged from 4.2-17.0%.

Cracking Patterns and Failure Modes

Fig. 4 shows photographs of typical cracking patterns that developed at /
the failure pressures. Typical center deflections for each of the seven series
of wall tests were plotted in Fig. 5. These will be used to describe the
failure modes and the progression of cracking leading to failure.
Wall test series WI, WII, and Will were designed to have different
aspect ratios which yield-line analyses predicted would result in different
cracking patterns. These walls were similarly supported along all four
edges and exhibited the following behaviors:
1. Series WI: The predicted cracking pattern at failure for this series was
the formation of a vertical crack over the midheight region of the panel
near the middle of the horizontal span. This would be followed by
development of diagonal cracks extending from the top and bottom of this
vertical crack to the respective corners of the panel. In fact, as is shown in
126

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:121-133.

 PANEL CENTRE DEFLECTION (in.)
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
r — — r - _ _ _ _ .,___ .—, ; .—r —
•="

10.00

- **>^ -
s
/'&*?.—"
Q
'.•*-•
s **'
Q-
/ / .
- I50«.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/06/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

*: ,Ss" bVWj^——
hi 6.00
t£ /.S
.-••rs>"*-" ^"^
^ S ^
CO
- l00 3
CO
UJ ': / ^ - l ^ #•"'" co

#IlS<S**
a. 4.00 UJ
Q:
a. Q.

2.00
- 50

^&;•"»«•""'*
V i
«"«ar-'-" i i i i
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
PANEL CENTRE DEFLECTION (mm)

FIG. 5. Midpanel Deflection versus Lateral Pressure

Fig. 4(a) for wall WI-2, that is what occurred. However, what had not been
expected is the initial formation of a horizontal crack running nearly the
full length of the panel along a bed joint near midheight of the panel. The
sharp change in slope in curve (a) in Fig. 5 corresponds to the formation of
this initial horizontal crack.
2. Series WII: For the combination of flexural tensile strengths, the
aspect ratio for this series was expected to produce an X-shaped cracking
pattern composed of two diagonal cracks joining opposite corners of the
wall panels. However, again the initial crack was a horizontal crack
running nearly the full length of the panel along a bed joint near midheight.
The collapse mechanism was formed when additional cracks extended at
roughly 45° from this horizontal crack to the corners of the panel. A very
good example of this type of crack pattern is shown in Fig. 4(b). Deflection
curve (b) in Fig. 5 is also typical for this test series. The plateau
corresponds to the development of the horizontal crack.
3. Series Will: This series was expected to and did produce cracking
patterns similar to that which occurred for series WII. Again the plateau in
deflection curve (c) in Fig. 5 corresponds to the development of the initial
horizontal crack.
The results of these first three test series are consistent in that first crack
and failure pressures decreased with increasing horizontal span. Also the
amount of deflection that occurred during formation of the horizontal crack
increased with increased horizontal span and length of horizontal crack.
Test series WP was similar to test series WII except that the precom-
pression loading indicated in Table 1 was added. Since this precompres-
sion should delay the development of cracking stresses, the higher first
cracking and failure pressures would be expected. The crack pattern
shown in Fig. 4(b) was for this test series. Curve (d) in Fig. 5 shows the
typical deflection behavior where the precompression also seems to result
in a stiffer wall prior to formation of the first horizontal crack.
127

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:121-133.

 Test series WF was similar to series WII except that there was no
support along the tops of the panels. The cracking pattern shown in Fig.
4(c) is consistent with yield-line predictions. The nearly linear pressure
versus deflection relationship in curve (e) in Fig. 5 is consistent with the
observation of very little increase in pressure between initial cracking and
formation of the failure mechanism. As expected, the failure pressures
were lower than for similar walls supported along all edges.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/06/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Test series WH comprised tests of walls supported only along the sides.
The photograph in Fig. 4(d) shows the typical vertical crack located near
the middle of the horizontal span. As can be seen, the crack alternately
passed through head joints and blocks in a nearly straight line. Deflection
curve (f) in Fig. 5 shows the typical nearly linear pressure versus deflection
relationship that is consistent with the sudden propogation of this crack to
form the collapse mechanism. Test series WV is the final series listed in
Table 1 and contains the failure pressures for the walls spanning vertically
between top and bottom supports. The observed cracking pattern consist-
ing of a horizontal crack along a bed joint near midheight of the wall panels
is obvious and has not been reproduced here. However deflection curve (g)
in Fig. 5 is the typical linear relationship up to the pressure producing the
horizontal crack.

PREDICTION OF WALL CAPACITIES

The mean pressures for first cracking and for failure have been repro-
duced in Table 2 to facilitate comparison with predicted results. However,
to be able to predict the strengths of the block walls, it was necessary to
provide data for individual tensile strengths for bending both normal and
parallel to the bed joints.
Fig. 2 shows the bond wrench (Hughes and Zsembery 1980) apparatus
used to determine flexural tensile strengths normal to the bed joints. For
the specimens made with autoclaved blocks, the mean tensile strength was
0.372 MPa (54 psi) and the coefficient of variation was 24% for the ten
joints tested. Similar tests of 86 joints in specimens made with the
bubble-cured blocks gave a mean of 0.471 MPa (68 psi) and a coefficient of
variation of 37%.
For flexural tension parallel to the bed joints, the beam test shown in
Fig. 3(b) provided a region of constant bending moment in which all
failures occurred. For the autoclaved blocks and the bubble-cured blocks,
the mean tensile strengths were 1.32 MPa (191 psi) and 1.54 MPa (223 psi),
respectively. Also the corresponding coefficients of variation were 8.5%
and 7.2% for the respective groups of 20 and 14 tests.
For the following discussion it should be noted that all of the predicted
values given in Table 2 were based on results for the bubble-cured blocks.
This procedure was adopted because 19 of the 21 walls were made using
this type of block and also because it would be confusing to incorporate
changing material properties when discussing trends observed from the
analytical results. Because the properties were reasonably similar, neglect-
ing to account for the effects of having two walls made using the
autoclaved block does not significantly affect the overall comparison.
However, for completeness, the appropriate predicted pressures for walls
WI-1 and WIII-1 are included in the discussion of test series WI and Will.
128

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:121-133.

 TABLE 2. Comparison of Experimental and Predicted Wall Capacities: Mean Pres-
sure Values (kPa) and (Ratio of Predicted to Test Value)

Yield Line Analysis

Experimental Results Elastic Plate Analysis Assuming Without

continuity continuity
First First along center along center
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/06/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Series cracking Failure cracking Failure crack crack

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
WI 3.93 10.21 4.71 9.44 10.05
(1.20) (0.92) (0.98)
WII 4.32 6.82 3.00 5.88 6.55 5.99
(0.70) (0.86) (0.96) (0.88)
Will 2.35 4.77 2.69 4.93 5.71 4.95
(1.15) (1.03) (1.20) (1.04)
WP 5.20 8.80 4.19 6.46 7.83 6.73
(0.81) (0.73) (0.89) (0.76)
WF 3.90 3.75 3.80
(0.96) (0.97)
WH 2.03 2.11
(1.04)
WV — 3.10 2.26 — — —
(0.73)

Briefly the basis for the prediction of cracking and failure pressures are
as follows:

1. Elastic-plate analysis: Linear-elastic finite-element analyses have

been performed to predict first cracking pressure and, where applicable,
additional pressure to failure conditions. The values given in Table 2 were
calculated using a Poisson's ratio of 0.15. Additional calculations using a
value of 0.20 indicated that the results were not very sensitive to this
parameter. In addition, it is worthwhile noting that moment coefficients
such as those provided in textbooks (Timoshenko 1959) may not provide
the critical condition. Specifically, the maximum moment in either the
horizontal or vertical direction may not correspond to the maximum
principal moment. In addition, because of the orthotropic nature of
masonry, the maximum principal moments are not necessarily the control-
ling moments. It should be noted that after initial horizontal cracking of a
wall supported on four sides, the analysis for failure considered each half
of the wall to be unsupported along the midheight crack line.
2. Yield-line analysis: Where applicable, two versions of yield-line
analysis were performed. The first was the standard analysis assuming
continuity and therefore full moment capacity along the "yield lines." The
second yield-line analysis was performed for those walls that developed a
horizontal crack at pressures considerably lower than the failure pressure.
For this analysis, the continuity and thus the "yield moments" were
considered to have been destroyed by this precracking. Naturally the
strengths predicted by the latter analysis are always lower than when
continuity was assumed to be preserved.

129

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:121-133.

 For both the elastic analysis and the yield-line analysis, the flexural
strengths normal and parallel to the bed joints were assumed to be
unaffected by moments in the perpendicular direction.

COMPARISON OF PREDICTED WALL CAPACITIES

Series WI
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/06/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

For the elastic prediction of first cracking, the correlation with test
results would be improved if the 3.79-kPa (79-psf) value obtained using the
correct strengths for wall WI-1 were included. However, similar inclusion
of the predicted 7.94-kPa (166-psf) failure pressure would make the
predicted values more conservative than the 0.92 ratio shown. Similarly,
for the yield-line analysis, weighting the predicted pressure to account for
the lower calculated failure pressure of 9.53 kPa (199 psf) for wall WI-1
would make this slightly more conservative.

Series WII
The wall dimensions for this series were also used for most of the other
series. Elastic analysis predicted the formation of the horizontal crack but
at a much lower load than was observed. Part of this difference may be
attributable to the very high variability of tensile strength normal to the bed
joints. The elastic and yield-line predictions of failure pressures are slightly
conservative but, as was the case for series WI, are remarkably close to
each other. Retesting of series WV walls supported on all four sides after
failure along bed joints for the original vertical bending gave a mean
capacity of 7.06 kPa compared to the 6.82 kPa capacity for the similar WII
series. Also the stiffnesses after horizontal cracking were very similar.

Series Will
For this largest wall, all predictions overestimated the mean test results.
However if the predicted values were weighted to take into account the
different flexural strengths for wall WIII-1, better agreement would be
achieved. Using flexural strengths from the autoclaved block specimens,
elastic analysis predicted first cracking and failure at pressures of 2.17 kPa
(45 psf) and 4.14 kPa (86 psf), respectively. For the yield-line analysis, the
calculated failure pressure assuming continuity across the horizontal crack
was 4.73 kPa (99 psf), whereas the value was 4.14 kPa (86 psf) with no
continuity at the horizontal crack.

Series WP
The analytical results shown in Table 2 take into account the increased
flexural strength for bending in the vertical direction (tension normal to the
bed joints) that resulted from the precompression. The strength ratios
indicate that this approach is relatively conservative. The reason for this
conservative prediction may be explained by examination of Fig. 4(b). The
fact that the diagonal failure cracks tend to follow a stepped pattern around
the blocks rather than cracking through the blocks means that precom-
pression will also increase the cracking resistance in these regions through
increased friction. Rather than omitting this effect, flexural tensile strength
parallel to the bed joints could be arbitrarily assumed to be increased by
vertical precompression in the same proportion as for tension normal to
130

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:121-133.

 the bedjoints. For such conditions, the strength ratio for the elastically
predicted failure pressure would increase to 1.01. For yield-line analysis,
the corresponding ratios would be 1.10 and 1.01, respectively, where
continuity at the horizontal crack is first included and then neglected.
These results seem to indicate that the precompression does have some
influence on nexural tensile strength parallel to the bedjoints.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/06/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Series WF
For these walls supported on three edges, both the elastic and the
yield-line analyses provide very good estimates of the essentially simulta-
neous first cracking and failure pressures.

Series WH
For those walls subject to simple horizontal bending, the elastic and
yield-line predictions are equal and provide a very good estimate of the
identical first cracking and failure pressure. The relative low variability
found from tests of small specimens to determine flexural tensile strength
parallel to the bed joints is an argument for expecting very little influence
of specimen size.

Series WV
The wall capacity for this final series of tests was controlled by the
formation of a single horizontal crack along a bed joint near midheight of
the wall. Therefore, the first cracking and failure pressures are identical,
and the elastic and yield-line analyses predict the same capacity. The
relatively conservative ratio of predicted failure pressure versus the
experimental results may simply be a result of the very high variability for
tension normal to the bedjoints. In fact, similar vertical bending tests on
undamaged parts of the previously tested horizontal bending walls from
series WH gave a strength ratio of 1.00. When these three tests were
combined with the WV series, the mean capacity of 2.68 kPa resulted in a
ratio of 0.84. These latter tests are not recorded here because they were
not complete walls.

CONCLUSIONS

1. A general observation is that both the elastic finite-element plate

analysis and the yield-line analyses provide quite good predictions of
failure pressure. However, the yield-line analysis, which includes conti-
nuity across the early developed horizontal crack, tends to be slightly
unconservative. Both the elastic analysis and the yield-line analysis
excluding continuity across the early horizontal crack are generally slightly
conservative. Therefore use of either approach is suggested as an adequate
analytical method.
2. Since initial cracking of the walls seems to be highly variable, it
perhaps is not surprising that prediction of first cracking is subject to
significant scatter. Nonetheless the comparisons indicate that the elastic
finite-element plate analysis technique provides reasonable predictions.
3. For walls supported on four sides, it is questionable if the allowable
stresses specified in the North American codes provide adequate safety
against first cracking. For instance, the ratios of the mean first-cracking test
131

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:121-133.

 loads to allowable loads controlled by first cracking calculated using
elastic-plate analysis and the ACI (1983) allowable stresses ranged from
1.87-3.22. However, if a characteristic strength defined by the mean minus
1.645 standard deviations (95% confidence level) is used with a typical
coefficient of variation of 20%, the ratio or safety against cracking ranges
from 1.28-2.17 for the walls in series WI, WII, Will, and WP. For safety
against failure, design according to the ACI code may be more than
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/06/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

adequate for walls supported on four sides. In this case, the ratio of the
mean failure test loads to allowable loads controlled by diagonal cracking
ranged from 3.57-4.55. Use of the characteristic failure test loads as
described previously reduced the ratio to values from 2.44-3.03. For other
support conditions, particularly where a wall is supported only at the top
and the bottom, the justification for these provisions is marginal as the
previously defined ratio or safety factor was 2.63 using mean load and 1.79
using characteristic load.
4. It is suggested that current practice for the design of masonry walls
subject to out-of-plane bending should be reviewed. In this regard the dual
objectives of assuring adequate safety and maintaining or improving the
economic position for this type of construction may not be opposing
directions. The linking of design stresses, method of structural analysis,
and construction (support) conditions can result in walls that are not only
very safe but have considerable margin for additional economic advantage.
The retest of the series WV walls as walls supported on all four sides
clearly demonstrated the applicability of considering the initial horizontal
crack as a free edge for failure prediction of these types of walls.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was funded through operating grants from the Natural
Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Masonry
Research Foundation of Canada. The authors appreciate the contribution
of the mason's time made available through the Ontario Masonry Contrac-
tors Association and the Ontario Masonry Industry Promotion Fund, and
we thank the Ontario Concrete Block Association for their donations of the
blocks. The test data and analytical results form part of the second
author's doctoral dissertation.

APPENDIX. REFERENCES

Anderson, C. (1976). "Lateral loading tests on concrete block walls." Struct.

Eng., 54 (7), 239-246.
Baker, L. R. (1977). "The lateral strength of brickwork—an overview." Report
CEI, 1977 School of Engineering and Architecture, Deakin University,
Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
Baker, L. R. (1979). "A failure criterion for brickwork in bi-axial bending." Pro-
ceedings of 5th International Brick Masonry Conference, Washington, D.C.,
Oct., 41-43.
Baker, L. R. (1980). Lateral loading of masonry panels. Structural Design of
Masonry, Cement and Concrete Association of Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Baker, L. R. (1981). "The flexural action of masonry structures under lateral
load," thesis presented to Deakin University, at Geelong, Victoria, Australia,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philoso-
phy
132

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:121-133.

 "Building code requirements for concrete masonry structures." (1983). ACl 531-
83, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Mich.
Cajdert, A. (1980). "Laterally loaded masonry walls." Publication 80:5, Chal-
mers University of Technology, Division of Concrete Structures, Goteborg,
Sweden.
Code of practice for structural use of masonry. Part 1—Unreinforced masonry.
(1978). British Standards Institution, London, U.K.
deVeckey.R. C , and West, H. W. H. (1980). "The flexural strength of concrete block-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Monash University on 09/06/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

work." Mag. Concr. Res., 32 (113), 206-218.

Drysdale, R. G., and Hamid, A. A. (1980). "Influence of block properties on the
flexural strength of concrete masonry." Seventh Australian Conference on the
Mechanics of Structures and Materials, University of Western Australia,
Perth, Australia, May, 179-184.
Essawy, A., and Drysdale, R. G. (1983). "Capacity of block masonry under uni-
formly distributed loading normal to the surface of the wall." Proceedings of
the Third Canadian Masonry Symposium, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, Paper
No. 39, Jun., 39-1-39-16.
Gairns, D. A. (1983). "Flexural behavious of concrete blockwork panels." thesis
presented to the University of Melbourne, at Melbourne Australia, in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Building Science.
Haseltine, B. A. (1975). "Design of laterally loaded wall panels." Proceedings of
the British Ceramic Society, Loadbearing Brickwork, 5 (24), Stoke-on-Trent,
U.K., 115-126.
Hendry, A. W., and Kheir, A. M. A. (1976). "The lateral strength of certain brick-
work panels." Proceedings of the Fourth International Brick Masonry Con-
ference, Brugge, Belgium, 4.a.3.1^l.a.3.4.
Hughes, D. M., and Zsembery, S. (1980). "A method of determining the flexural
bond strength of brickwork at right angles to the bed joint." Proceedings of
the Second Canadian Masonry Symposium, Ottawa, Canada, 73-86.
Lawrence, S. J. (1978). "The flexural behaviour of brickwork." Proceedings of
First North American Masonry Conference, Boulder, Colo. 20-1-20-18.
Lawrence, S. J. (1980). "Design of masonry panels for lateral loading—some in-
terim recommendations." Technical Record 460, Experimental Building Sta-
tion, Chatswood, N.S.W., Australia.
"Masonry design and construction for buildings. (1984). CAN3-S304-M84, Cana-
dian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario, Canada.
"S.A.A. blockwork code, Part 1 .—unreinforced blockwork. (1977). AS 1475,
Standards Association of Australia, North Sydney, N.S.W., Australia.
Timoshenko, S. (1959). Theory of plates and shells. 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill Book
Co., New York, N.Y.
West, H. W. H., Hodgkinson, H. R., and Webb, W. F. (1973a). "Lateral
loading tests on walls with different boundary conditions." Proceedings Third
International Brick-Masonry Conference, Essen, West Germany, 180-186.
West, H. W. H., Hodgkinson, H. R., and Webb, W. F. (1973b). "The resistance
of brick walls to lateral loading." Proceedings of the British Ceramic Society,
Loadbearing Brickwork, 4 (21), Stoke-on-Trent, U.K., 141-164.

133

J. Struct. Eng. 1988.114:121-133.