Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY, ZARIA
STRENGTH CHARACTERI STI CS OF
I NTERW OVEN SANDCRETE M ASONRY
BY
ADEDEJI, ABDULLAH ADEOLA
FEBRUARY 2000
1
Chapter 1
I NTRODUCTI ON
1.1 Background
I nt erwoven block walling is a syst em of wall erect ion whereby
one block is j oined to ot hers by vert ical and horizont al t ongues
and grooves insertion.
From a historical point of view, masonry has always been
a basic building mat erial. Building unit s, such as st ones, bricks
and blocks, have been in use from earlier primordial
t echnologies unt il our present t imes.
The int erwoven blocks (known as lockblocks in t he past )
have been put t o use in t he Pacific Nort hwest region. Most
houses and commercial buildings in t he region are st ill service,
but informat ion are not available regarding t heir struct ural
propert ies. Some product s produced, in t he past , under lock
blocks were claimed t o be inexpensive, st rong, crackfree
walls, wit h sufficient insulat ion quant it ies. Among ot her
advant ages of such wall, as claimed, over t he convent ional
blockwall (of unit mortar composit ion) include: flexibility of t he
wall crossj oint s; great er lat eral st rengt h of t he wall; reduct ion
in t ime and labour consuming during preparation and
placement of mort ar in t he cross j oint s; high insulation value
due t o a great er percent age of air space in t he wall.
This syst em of wall const ruct ion, which can be employed,
in some aspect, as an alt ernat ive met hod t o t he use of mort ars
in t he wall crossj oints, can save considerable amount of t ime,
labour, money and mat erial. Erection can cont inue t hrough
any weat her wit hout necessarily prot ect ing t he newly laid
unit s.
So far, dryj oint ed mode of laying blockwork does not have
usual accept ance under t he Nigerian I ndust rial st andard or
code of Pract ice. But any alt ernat ive met hods of masonry
const ruct ion such as t his I nt erwoven Sandcret e Blockwall (I SB)
is not discouraged eit her, provided t hat t he met hods of design
and const ruct ion are such as t o ensure st andard of st rengt h
and durabilit y at equal t o t hat recommended in t he code.
2
1.2 St at ement of t he Problems
As a result of low rat e of housing const ruct ion, in Nigeria and
ot her developing nat ions, t he problem of basic accommodat ion
was increasing rapidly leading t o scarce accommodation wit hin
t he rural and urban set ups. Apart from giving valuable
guidance for privat e and public housing developers, builders,
more at t ent ion should be focused on researching int o new
available building mat erials.
Sandcret e block is one of t he best walling mat erials due t o
it s bearing capacit y, durabilit y and st abilit y if compared wit h
ot her wall unit s, such as brick or stone. I n t his Count ry,
Nigeria as well as in ot her count ries of t he world, cement , is
one of t he maj or ingredient s used in sandcret e block. This
mat erial is expensive, and it needs t o be economically used by
all means. Joint mortars impair masonry st ruct urally and
aest het ically due t o carelessness in workmanship and improper
det erminat ion of adequat e st rengt h wit h respect t o wall
mat erial. Some of t hese physical problems induced by mort ar
t o wall body could also be minimized at minimum cost .
1.3 Obj ect ives of t he Research
The obj ectives of t his st udy include: 
(1) det erminat ion of bearing capacit y of t he Sandcret e
(int erwoven) Block and blockwork under vert ical load
(2) evaluat ion of performance and st rengt h of t he block
and blockwork wit h respect t o design procedure. The
I nit ial Design Concept is based on:
a) Mat erial charact erist ics (physical/ mechanical)
b) St rengt h predict ion due t o:
 horizont al and vert ical (axial and eccent ricit y)
load,
 det erminat ion of t he opt imal design
paramet ers (st ress and deflection) and
 minimizing t he size of block and its tongues
due t o impact load.
3
c) demand specificat ion
(3) Suggest ions and recommendat ions, for furt her st udies,
for t he blockwall for great er st rengt h, durabilit y and
st abilit y, in respect to t he results of t his st udy.
1.4 Scope of t he Research
This research work involves building ext ernal wall, built in
running bond, for one and t wost orey residential buildings. I t
also covers an investigation of compressive st rengt h and
st abilit y problems wit hin t he int erwoven blockwall as a result
vert ical (axial and eccent ricit y) and horizont al loads t hrough:
i. Laborat ory t est s for t he blockunit s, masonry prism and
wall.
ii. Predict ion and evaluat ion for t he wall performance and
durability.
1.5 Met hodology
a. A st eel diemould was designed for making block unit s
(450mm x 225mm x 225mm and halfunit or 225mm x
225mm x 225mm) and it was used t o test t he unit s at
t he pressure of 5N/ m
2
.
b. Trial product ion of model blockunit s was made for t he
block wall. This was followed by t he laying t rial.
c. The full size blockunit s (specimen) produced has
been t est ed for absorpt ion, moist ure cont ent s, densit y,
weight , dimensions and compressive st rengt h.
d. Second product ion of t he block was realized using t he
same mat erials and condit ion of product ion as in (c)
above. Masonry prisms and walls built from t hese have
been t est ed and analyzed for t he compressive
st rengt h.
1.6 Thesis Present ation and Organization
I n t he st udy, six main chapt ers have been present ed. Chapt er
one cont ains t he int roduct ion. I n Chapt er t wo, t here is t he
4
relat ed lit erat ure review and analysis, while Chapt er Three is
devot ed for experiment s which comprises t ests and dat a
acquisition. Chapt er Four cont ains t he mat erial propert ies,
st rengt h and modeling of block/ wall. Design examples as well
as discussion of t he results are found in Chapt er Five, while
Chapt er Six cont ains conclusions and recommendat ions.
Comput at ions and programming result s are placed in t he
Appendices.
5
Chapter 2
RELATED LI TERARATURE REVI EW AND ANALYSES
2.1 General
Not far West of Algiers, t here stands a monument al tomb of a
circular st ruct ure known as “ Tomb of Christian” (Tombeau de
la Chret ienne) Plat e I (Davidson, 1972). This is a st rongly
columned dome of masonry built of cut st ones. The ‘ashla’
st ones are laid on top of each ot her and sidebyside wit h no
t race of binder (if t here was any) to be seen. The t omb dat es,
in fact , back t o t he preChristian period.
Plat e I The Tomb of Christian
6
Lockblocks, in t he past , have been put t o use in
const ruct ion, especially in t he Pacific of Nort h West of Unit ed
St at es. I n t he pacific region, most buildings wit h t he lock
blocks are still in service, but very lit t le, if not at all,
informat ion are available regarding t heir st ruct ural propert ies.
Some of t he several st udies being conduct ed at various
inst it utions include t hat of t he University of Washingt on by
Ahmed and Terrel (1978). The results of t he st udy present ed
in 1978 include t he st ruct ural properties of mortarless (lock
block) heavy and light weight concret e blocks. The physical
propert ies of mort arless block unit s investigat ed sat isfied t he
American Societ y for Test and mat erials (ASTM, 1980a, 1980b,
198c) requirements for concret e masonry unit s based on t he
Nort h American mat erials.
Some product s produced, in t he past , under lock block
were claimed t o be inexpensive, st rong, crackfree walls, wit h
sufficient insulation quant it ies. I nt erwoven blocks used for
t emporary building could be reused for anot her building if
necessary.
I n a proj ect by Okunsanya et al (1991) lockblock vert ical
grooves, used t o const ruct “ t erraced house” makes it possible
for one block t o sit on anot her securely wit hout falling off. I n
t his const ruct ion, when t he wall reaches about five rows
upwards a row of special blocks are t hen placed on t he blocks
t o cement t hem t oget her before t he syst em cont inues. The
I SB block has been designed in such a way t hat no special
block is required in block laying.
Surface bonding of a wall by plast er, st ucco, sulphur or
any ot her mat erials, is a similar t echnique employed, wit hout
cross j oint s mat erial. Surface bonding was originat ed in
America and rapidly spreading in Europe, where it is more
widely used in agricult ural and domest ic buildings (Rut herford,
1980). However, st ruct ural behaviors of such walls are not
available. A makeshift building could be built and t he blocks
reused in fut ure,
Convent ionally, mort ar is used to fill int erst ices and as
masonry st ruct ures are primarily st resses in compression,
t here has been a concent rat ion of int erest in t he resist ance of
7
t he masonry t o t his loading and a lot of invest igat ions (Ahmed,
1978; Anderson, 1971; Biolzi, 1988; Cranston and Robert s,
1976; Francis et al, 1971; Haller, 1960; Lezner, 1972; ) have
been carried out t o est ablish t he relationship bet ween t he
available masonry unit s (nat ural stone, brick and block) and
variet y of mort ar mixes. These invest igations have formed t he
basis for masonry work st rengt hs employed in struct ural
design codes. I n an at t empt to reduce t he unlimit ed range of
unit mort ar combinat ion t o a manageable proportion, tables of
basic compressive st rengt h and t he mort ar mix were
produced. The st rengt hs of t hese component mat erials are
also designed by st andardized t est s many of which do not
necessarily reproduce t he st at e of st ress in t he mat erials,
especially in sandcret e block work, but which serves as index
values in t he selection of designed st resses.
I n a way, t his empirical approach, which provided an
accept able basis for t he st ruct ural design of masonry work,
gives lit tle insight int o t he act ual behavior for t he unit mort ar
composite. There is t he need t o look inward for profound
charact erist ics behavior of sancret e block work, especially t he
specially designed int erwoven sandcret e block which has no
head and bed j oint s for erection.
2.2 Masonry Unit Mort ar Composit ion
Masonry is a composit e st ruct ure made of units (such as
st ones, bricks or blocks) and mort ar (binder) mat erials, and
under compressive loading it s st rengt h would be expect ed t o
be influenced by t he st rengt h of bot h mat erials. There are t wo
possible t heories t hat have been put forward (Robert s et al,
1985): a) t hat bet ween bed (horizont al) j oint s (of unit mort ar
component s), all loads will effect ively be carried by t he block
unit s, while at t he bed j oints, all loads is carried by t he mort ar
so t hat t he wall st rengt h might be expect ed t o correspond t o
t he st rengt h of t he weaker mat erial, and b) t hat t he funct ion
of mort ar j oints is simply t o produce a good uniform bearing
bet ween t he unit s, and t hat provided t he mort ar is not so fluid
t hat it could squeeze out , its (mort ar) st rengt h is irrelevant .
8
The wall st rengt h, t herefore, corresponds t o t he st rengt h of
t he unit s. The second possibilit y is t he closest t o t he trut h, as
it would be shown later, t hough mort ar propert ies may have
some influence on t he st rengt h of t he wall.
Considering, closely, t he problem of t he bearing capacit y
of a masonry element subj ect ed t o compression, t he est imat es
which are adopt ed are based on an elastic analysis of the unit 
mort ar complex. Formulae based on elast ic behavior were
proposed by Francis et al (1971), Haller (1960), and Lenzner
(1971). The formula derived lat er by Francis et al (1971) is
present ed below.
Fig 2.1 Unit mort ar composition under vert ical load
u
c
m
u
c
c
d
c
c
c
9
I f we consider a unit mort ar prism subj ect ed t o an axial
compressive st ress σ
c
and st ress corresponding t o t ensile
failure of t he unit q, t he st rain in unit : (See Fig. 2.1, for t he
unit mort ar composit ion under compression).
c
c
u
u
u
u
E E
o
v
o
c + = (2.1)
St rain in mort ar
m
c
m
m
m
m
E E
o
v
o
c + = (2.2)
where: σ
u
, σ
m
= st ress in unit , mort ar respectively
v
m
, v
m
= Poisson’s ratio for unit and mort ar
respect ively
E
u
,E
m
= young modulus of elasticity for unit
and mort ar respect ively
The lat eral st rains in t he mort ar and unit are assumed t o
be uniform and equal. And from st at ical equilibrium, the t ot al
lat eral forces in t he mort ar and unit are equal and opposit e.
Hence:
σ
m
= d/t.σ
u
= r.σ
u
(2.3)
where: d = dept h of t he unit
t = t hickness of t he mort ar j oint
From equat ion (2.1) and (2.2):
)
1
(
c u
u
E
r
E
+ o = ) (
m
u
m
m
u
E E
v v
o + (2.4)
The limit ing compressive st ress is:
10
m r
m
u m
u
u
c
. 1
.
/
+
÷
+
=
v v
v
o
o (2.5)
I n which: m
E
E
m
u
= (2.6)
Comparing t he formula wit h experiment al results, using
j oint t hickness as a variable, indicat es t hat t he values of t he
normal modulus of elast icit y and of t ransversal const ruct ion
coefficient (Biolzi, 1988; Hendry et al, 1981 a) are
approximat ed, especially for mort ar which is not elastic up t o
t he point of failure
Hendry et al, (1981a) report ed Poisson’s rat io (u) for
mort ar of 0.20 near zero axial st rain and 0.5 or more near
crushing. Cheema and Klinger (1986) report ed values of .20 at
0.001 axial st rain, about 0.30 at 0.002 and more t han 1.0 near
crushing. A Poisson’s ratio of 0.28 for confined mort ar was
adopt ed. This value was adopted but exact value may not be
applicable t o all bricks and block works. This is because t his
value (0.28) is average for uniaxial compression and
compressive t ensile cases at a high value of st ress. I n a t hree
dimensional failure analysis of a composit e masonry wall,
Anand and Yalamanchili (1996) also assumed a Poisson’s
rat ion of 0.25 and 0.20 for block Wyt he and mort ar
respect ively. I n general, if t his value is limit ed to block alone,
t here will be reasonable and pract ical results for masonry.
Considering t he int eraction of unit and bed nat ural t he
elastic modulus of t he mort ar is commonly subst ant ially less
t han t hat of block, as a consequence, t he vert ical st rain under
axial load are great er. This in t urn implies a great er t ransverse
dilation due t o Poisson’s ratio. The cube crushing st rengt h of
mort ar is weakly relat ed to brick work st rengt h by a t hird t o
fourt h root relationship.
11
Assuming t hat bot h mort ar and block are elastic, t he
mort ar which is in t riaxial compression will be able t o
wit hst and a vertical st ress, f
vert :
vert
f =
'
c
f +
horz
f 4
(2.8)
where:
'
c
f = uniaxial compressive st rengt h
horz
f = applied horizont al st ress
The rest raint from t he unit s ensures t hat
horz
f can at t ain
what ever value is required t o sust ain t he applied vert ical load;
hence t he mort ar j oint cannot fail before t he block. This is
because all loads are not carried by t he mort ar to effect t he
init ial failure of t he wall. A complex sit uation arises when a
wall (of unit mort ar composition) has to resist an out of plane
horizont al load, and t he vertical mort ar j oint (as in a collar
j oint of a composite wall). Anand and Yalymanchili (1996), in
vigorous analytical approach for failure of masonry walls,
confirmed t hat magnit ude of a collar j oint shearst ress
normalized against inplane horizont al load on t he block Wyt he
is equal t o 1.123w (w is t he vert ical load int ensit y), while t he
value on t he brick Wyt he is 0.318w. This variation is att ribut ed
t o a much larger rigidit y (confine) in t he vert ical direct ion of
t he wall. This st udy (Anand, 1996) showed t hat a vert ical
failure load int ensit y of 389KN/ m on a 203mm t hick block wall
is much higher t han t he commonly applied load on load
bearing wall. Thus, det erminat ion at t he head mort ar j oint due
t o vertical loads is generally not of prime concern. This,
however, does not imply t hat t he st rengt h of a wall is t ot ally
unaffect ed by mort ar st rengt h. Also, t he apparent compressive
st rengt h of masonry unit s in a st andard crushing t est is not a
direct measure of t he st rengt h of t he unit in masonry work
(Biolzi, 1988; Francis et al 1971; Hendry et al,
1981; Lenzner,1972; and Robert s et al 1985; ). And t he
part icular combinat ion of t wo different mat erials generat es a
behavioural anisot ropy wit h dist inct propert ies t hat affect t he
rupt ure mode of masonry.
12
I n evaluat ing compressive st rengt h of masonry wall by limit
analysis Biolzi (1988) also confirmed t hat : collapse occurs due
t o t he compression of t he mort ar j oint s; t hat t he excessive
t hickness of mort ar j oint s considerably reduces t he masonry
st rengt h and t hat improvement of mort ar qualit y result s in
only limit ed variations of t he collapse load. And a series of
experiment s conduct ed by t he st ruct ural clay product s
research foundat ion in t he Unit ed St at es, using couplet
specimen, by Francis et al (1972) using brick prisms, indicat ed
t hat different j oint mat erials have not able effect s on t he
compressive st rengt hs of t he prisms. Table 2.1 shows t he
summary of t he t est result as present ed by Hendry et al
(1981a).
Table 2.1: Effect of different j oint mat erials on t he
compressive st rengt h of t hree brick st ack prisms
Joint Mat erial Compressive
St rengt h
(N/ mm
2
)
Rat io of Prism to
Brick St rengt h
St eel 56.48 1.40
Plywood 46.39 1.15
Hardwood 43.89 0.09
Polyt hene 16.99 0.24
Rubber wit h Fibre 11.71 0.29
Soft Robber 6.99 0.17
No Joint Mat erial 37.20 0.93
Mort ar (1: 1/ 4: 3) 14.00 0.35
I n t he case of rubber mat erial from Table 2.1, t he bricks failed
in t ension as a result of t ensile st ress induced st ress induced
by t he deformation of t he rubber, while st eel which records
highest compressive st rengt h for t he prism had effect of
rest raining lat eral deformation of t he bricks. This induces a
st at e of t riaxial compressive st ress in t he bricks making prism
t o fail by crushing. From Table 1.2, it is evident t hat t he non
j oint ed mat erial prism records a higher compressive st rengt h
t han mort ar (1: ¼: 3) j oint mat erial. Fig. 2.2 shows t he result s
13
of t est s on blockwork carried out by t he Cement and Concret e
Associat ion (Roberts et al, 1985) indicat ing t he minimum
influence which mort ar has on t he st rengt h of wall. I n t his
graph (Fig. 2.2), wall st rengt h has a negligible variation wit h
t he wide range of mort ar st rengt h.
Solid block
Cellular block
= 18.5N/ mm
2
= 14.0/ mm
2
MORTAR STRENGTH ( N/ mm
2
)
Fig. 2.2 Effect of mort ar st rengt h on wall st rengt h
(Robert s et al, 1985)
I n a solid blockwork t herefore, mort ar can be considered
t o be merely a bedding mat erial for t he unit s and as far as
axial loading is concerned, its st rengt h is largely irrelevant .
Test by Hamid and Chukwunenye (1986) shows t hat
mort ar t ype and unit size have no significant effect s on t he
elastic behaviour of hollow blockwork. However, t he act ual
relat ionship bet ween apparent unit st rengt h and aspect rat io
varies somewhat from one mat erial to anot her. For inst ance,
t he rat e of change of t he light weight aerat ed mat erial has
almost const ant crushing st rengt h (i.e. t he aspect ratio, which
is t he rat io of height t o t hickness, of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 have
5.5, 5.4, 5.0, 5.0 (N/ mm
2
) crushing st rengt h respect ively),
while crushing st rengt h of dense aggregat e mat erial varies
bet ween 90 and 40 N/ mm
2
for 0.4 t o 2.0 aspect rat io. And as
W
A
L
L
S
T
R
E
N
G
T
H
(
N
/
m
m
2
)
15
10
5
0
0 10 20 30
14
t he aspect rat io increases, t he rat io of wall st rengt h t o unit
st rengt h increases.
A poorly built wall due t o poor workmanship has some
effect s on t he masonry especially when t he cross j oints are not
evenly and adequat ely filled wit h mort ar. Biolzi (1988)
suggest ed t hat a very t hin layer of mort ar is adequat e t o fill
t he j oints of masonry. Though, t he effect of inadequacy of
mort ar is believed not to be large (Roberts et al, 1985). The
idea t hat in a plain sandcret e blockwall, mort ar j oint cracking
t ends t o st art in t he vert ical j oint s at t he ends of t he perpends
unt il t he familiar st epped cracks bring about failure, leaves one
in doubt if t his was not due to t he improper mut ualinteract ion
of t he unit mort ar composit ion.
The aforement ioned observat ions suggest t hat masonry
work problems could still be approached from anot her
different point of view, probably by eliminat ing t he head j oint
(which does not have any influence on t he struct ural
behaviour of masonry) as well as bed j oint material. As it will
be shown in t he t heory of masonry failure, t he vert ical split ting
of block is as a result of mort ar in t he head (vertical) j oint . An
import ant requirement for masonry buildings is t heir ability to
wit hst and lat eral loads by wind, eart hquake et c. I n most
cases, st ruct ural walls in buildings must carry out bot h load
bearing and st abilizing funct ions at one and t he same t ime.
Beside ot her fact ors, t he smallest deflect ion due t o horizont al
load by t he eccent ricit y and bending in relation t o t he vert ical
load bearing funct ion t hus increasing t he imposed st resses in
t he mat erial of t he wall. I n a short wall subj ect ed to eccent ric
load, ult imat e st ress obt ainable will be rat her less than unit
st rengt h due t o t he influence of mort ar st rengt h coupled wit h
workmanship, et c. in a slender wall eccent ric loading induces a
moment in t he wall which causes t he wall to deflect . To
est imat e t he reduct ion in t he capacit y of t he wall, it is
necessary t o know t he moment curvat ure relationship for t he
wall.
I n a unit mort ar masonry of t woblock under eccent ric
load, Cranst on (1976) report ed t hat at different levels of axial
load t he eccent ricit y increases, while t he wall st iffness
15
decreases. Fig. 2.3 indicat es t he behaviour of j oint under
eccent ricit y (Robert s et al, 1985). At low eccent ricities of load
(Fig. 2.3a) t he j oint is complet ely in compression and t he
rot at ion of t he j oint is indirect ly proportional to wall stiffness.
Fig. 2 Behaviour of j oint under eccent ricit y (Roberts et al,
1985)
Rot at ion of t he j oint u is expressed as:
u =
1
.
Ej
et p
j
(2.7)
where: P = vertical load
e = eccent ricit y load
j
t = t hickness of j oint
Spalling of
mortars on
compressed
edge
t Crack
Cmpression over
whole joint
(a) Low eccentricity (b) High eccentricity
16
J
E = modulus of elast icity of j oint
I = moment of inert ia
Tensile st ress t hat can develop bet ween t he block and
mort ar is very low and cracks will develop in t he j oints as soon
as any part of t he j oints goes int o t ension. The mort ar on t he
compressive face will st art t o spall. As a result of t his, load will
be carried by t he remaining small area of t he mort ar result ing
in an increase of eccent ricit y due t o large st ress and
deformat ions.
Since t he int erwoven sandcret e blockwall has no cross
j oint mat erial, it will be necessary t o est imate t he reduct ion in
capacit y of t he wall by obtaining an est imat e of deflect ions
necessary t o predict t he moment curvat ure relat ionship of t his
blockwork. This is as a result of t he successive uplift of t he
blocks at t he t ension side of t he wall due to t he eccent ric load.
2.3 Masonry Failure Theory
Considering t he influence of mort ar on blockunit of a wall
under compression, t he rest rain from t he unit ensures t hat
horizont al st ress can at t ain what ever value (Reference t o
Equat ion 2.8) t o sust ain t he applied vertical load, and hence
mort ar j oint cannot possibly fail before t he blockunit.
Fig. 2.4 Failure of wall by vert ical cracking
17
Compressive failure occurs when t he t ransverse t ensile st rain
produced by Poisson’s rat io effect s reaches t he limit ing value;
as such mat erial fails by vertical cracking. See Fig. 2.4 for t he
failure of wall by vertical cracking.
Failure t heories based on t he st rengt h of unit and mort ar
have been put forward by Hilsdorf (1986) based on assumed
linear relat ionship bet ween lat eral biaxial st rengt h and local
compressive st ress equal t o t he mean ext ernal compressive
st ress and multiplied by a ‘nonuniformity’ fact or. By
subsequent increase in load, general failure will occur when
t he wall unit can no longer provide biaxial st at e of st ress to
prevent failure in mort ar. Khoo and Hendry (1973)
represent ed t he biaxial compressiont ension st rengt h envelope
for brick unit s, while t riaxial t est cell was used for compressive
st rengt h of mort ars (in product ion: 1: 1: 4: and 1: 1: 6). On t he
basis of t his st udy, failure t heory for masonry has been
developed and t he assumed failure curve, shown in Fig. 2.5, is
est ablished for unit in biaxial compressiont ension n t he
masonry prism.
Fig. 2.5 Masonry t ypical failure curve
C
O
M
P
R
E
S
S
I
O
N
,
σ
c
Failure envelope
A
A’ B
B’
o
TENSI ON, σ
t
18
As t he vertical compression act ing on t he black work prism
increases, t he st at e of st ress in t he unit proceeds along t he
dashed line OA. When line OA int ersect s t he failure envelope
at A, failure occurs.
When superimposing on t he brick envelope, a curve
derived from t riaxial compressive st rengt h for t he mort ar,
which defines t he t ensile st ress induced in t he unit , t hen
failure occurs.
I n an elast oplastic buckling of a rect angular panel in
biaxial compression and t ension, Durban and Zuckkerman
(1999), cont rary t o t he earlier st udies on plast ic buckling in
which single load paramet er was employed, combined loads
effect s were examined. The result showed t hat t here exists
opt imal loading pat h for all boundary conditions examined and
t hat similar optimum loading pat h has found wit h flow t heory.
I n a single axial compression, load coefficient is zero, while t he
value is 1 for equibiaxial compression. This is t rue only for
mort ar but not for t he masonry unit .
Failure mode, for hollow block prism, t est ed by Cheema
and Klinger (1986) has been predict ed. I n t he block prism, t he
analysis of t he experiment shows t hat hollow prism, wit h
about 10 mm mort ar j oint s, failed at st resses higher than t he
mort ar st rengt h due t o confinement of t he j oints by adj acent
blockunit s. The confinement also causes t ransverse t ensile
st resses, near t he unit mort ar int erface, t o split t he block or
when compressive st resses crush t he confined mort ar.
Failure of t he unconfined prism t est ed by priestly and
Elder (1983) conformed t o a mechanism suggest ed by
Drysdale and Hamid (1979), which involves premat ure failure
of t he masonry prism by vert ical split ting init iat ed by high
lat eral expansion of t he crushing mort ar. Analyzing t he failure
of masonry st ruct ures, Lot fi and Shing (1994) used different
modeling met hod for mort arj oint and masonryunit s. Mort ar
j oint was modeled by int erface element approach using finit e
element met hod, while smeared crack element met hod was
employed for t he unit s. From t he analyses, failure of
unreinforced masonry st ruct ures, subj ect to lat eral load, is
19
dominat ed by t he fract ure of mort ar j oint s as well as t he
cracking and crushing of t he masonry unit s.
However, in int erwoven sandceret e blockwall, t he init ial
vert ical split t ing of a unit may be associat ed wit h t he fact t hat ,
each unit is rest rained by t he horizont al lockt ongues. The
effect of confinement by t hese tongues, on t he failure mode of
t he unit , was assumed to t ake place at t he initial st age of
failure. The t ongues are lat erally st ressed, due t o t he vert ical
compression on t he unit , which may first dilat e sideways t o
init iate cracks at t he lower head (side) of t he upper block. This
is immediat ely followed by t he Poisson’s rat io effect s produced
when t ransverse t ensile st rain reaches t he limiting value. The
final failure of t he block will t hen be by rupt ure.
2.4 St ability of Masonry
Masonry is basically a dead load st ruct ure and it is expect ed
t hat it should provide it s own inbuilt st abilit y t hrough it s
height .
A vert ical load is clearly a problem wit h low rise
const ruct ion. Such buildings commonly employ light weight
floors and roofs. Lack of subst antial vert ical loads gives rise t o
difficult ies when wind loads have t o be resist ed.
I f masonry does not indeed experience, in t his case, low
average values of st ress, t han t he whole t heory is maint ained
t hat t he shape of a const ruct ion will be maint ained by
int erwoven of t he element s. I n t he case of st one unit s wit h
square faces, assembled dry, frict ion forces must act on t hose
faces if any t endency for sliding should occur in its fabric. So,
t he int ernal compressive forces generat ed by gravit y act as a
kind of prest ressing of t he masonry t o be t ransmit t ed wit hout
causing eit her t ension or slip. Through inplain wall, such as
walls of lowrise building, t he forces, arising from wind and
roof or floorslab, acting on t he walls are relatively low. Such
walls are considered to behave as propped cant ilevers. Here
t he moment at t he base increases as t he prop deflect s;
By now mort ar which cannot be assumed t o add a
considerable st rengt h (Refer t o Fig. 2.2) t o masonry
20
const ruct ion could not be one of t he maj or fact ors for t he
st abilit y of t he masonry, because t he st abilit y of t he whole
const ruct ion is only assumed by t he compaction under gravit y
of t he various element s. A general st at e of compression can
exist but only feeble t ension can be resisted. This is because
t he value of compressive forces from t he selfweight of a
mat erial can be easily assessed. For inst ance if densit y of a
masonry (wall) is , it s cross sectional area is A
m3
t he weight
N at t he base of t he masonry is .A
m
.h, where h is t he height
of t he wall. The st abilit y moment M
s
is N.d/ 2, d is t he dept h of
t he masonry.
When Moroni al (1996) est ablished seismic force reduct ion
fact or (R
w
) and displacement amplification fact or (C
d
) for
confined masonry buildings, t he result s showed t hat as wall
densit y increases, R
w
value diminishes. This indicates t hat
minor nonlinear behaviour is required in building wit h high
densit y wall. This leads us to t he point t hat st one st ruct ures,
for inst ance, wit h t heir already decayed mort ar, cont inue t o
exist simply because a very small compressive prest ress (i.e.,
“ background st ress” according t o Heyman (1984)) is all t hat is
necessary t o avoid a danger of sliding due t o general loss of
cohesion of t he masonry. And provided t hat cont inous
movement does not occur due t o ot her over all geomet rical
changes by t hermal change or by repeat ed wind loading.
Generally, t he usual assumpt ions (such as dist ribut ion of
st resses on t he sect ion of a member and st ressst rain
relat ionship) of any simple st ruct ural t heory should be known.
Applying plast ic t heorems t o masonry, Heyman (1984)
st at ed t hat : if it is possible t o find a syst em of int ernal st resses
in equilibrium wit h t he ext ernal loading, and t he syst em is
sat isfactory in t he sense t hat t here is no danger of crushing of
t he mat erial, t hen t his gives complet e assuarance t hat t he
st ruct ure as a whole is safe. Therefore one does not seek t o
det ermine t he ‘act ual’ st at e of t he st ruct ure but only a simple
st at e of equilibrium should be looked for, such as one in which
st resses are assumed to be uniformly dist ribut ed t hroughout
t he masonry rat her t han be in places accompanied by peaks in
ot hers.
21
I n t his investigat ion, however, an approach t o t he analysis
of t he int erwoven sandcret e Blockwork will allow t he st rengt h
of block to appear as a paramet er. The essent ial st ability of
t his blockwork is t o be assessed by its correct overall geomet ry
in relation t o t he geomet ry of t he t hrust (due t o vert ical loads
as well as horizont al loads by floorslab or roof) that t he
st ruct ure is likely t o carry.
There are four recommendations by BS 5628 (1985) in
common wit h CP 110 (1972) applicable t o all masonry
buildings:
1. A layout should be chosen for t he st ruct ure t o ensure
‘a robust and st able design’.
2. The st ruct ure must be capable of resisting a horizont al
force equal t o 1.5% of t he t ot al charact eristic dead
load above t he level being considered.
3. Adequat e connect ions should be made bet ween walls
and floors and bet ween walls and roof.
4. I n regard t o accident al forces, t here should be ‘a
reasonable probabilit y’ t hat t he st ruct ure ‘will not
collapse cat ast rophically under t he effect of misuse or
accident ’ and t hat “ no st ruct ure can be expect ed t o be
resistant t o t he excessive loads or forces t hat could
arise due to an ext reme cause, but it should not be
damaged t o an extent disproportionat e t o t he original
cause” . Special recommendat ions for buildings of five
or more st oreys spell out ways in which condit ion (4)
above can be sat isfied. Conditions (1) and (2) are of
primary concern in t his investigat ion.
As it has already been explained, t hat lowrise masonry
building is almost always inherent ly st able. To ensure st abilit y,
it is necessary t o provide sufficient walls to resist lateral and
t orsional movement . Where t he more st able alt ernative cannot
be realized, ties at roof level bet ween walls can be provided.
I n t he case of horizont al load beside t he resist ance of such
load by wall t o a value of 1.5% of t he t ot al charact eristic dead,
horizont al load should be uniformly dist ribut ed in order t o
avoid t he concent rat ion of st ress above t he level under
consideration.
22
2.4.1 Wall Subj ect ed t o Eccent ric Load
For vertical loads in which t he masonry walls and floor slabs or
roof are effect ively int erconnect ed, t he forces from t he floor
are t ransmit t ed to t he walls eccent rically.
Concret e in compression may be considered t o be roughly
plastic and capable of sust aining a st ress of about 80% of t he
cube st rengt h, even for t he unit st rengt h correct ed for aspect
rat io (unit height : widt h) will also be about t his value, For t he
ult imat e st ress dist ribut ion in an eccent rically loaded block,
vert ical load on wall is expressed as:
u
f e
t
b N )
2
( 2 ÷ = = (
c
bf e t ) 2 ÷ (2.10)
(This relationship is shown in Fig. 2.6)
where: t = t hickness of block,
b = lengt h of block,
e = eccent ricit y of load,
N = vertical load,
f
u
= unit st rengt h adj ust ed for aspect
rat io.
Fig. 2.6 St ress in blockwork under ult imat e load
b
e
f
u
N
23
I n sect ion 2.2 for masonry, of a unit mort ar combination,
subj ect ed t o eccent ric load, it has been said t hat as a
consequence of t he lower st rengt h and st iffness of t he mort ar
t hat support s t he load, a large proportion of t he tot al rot at ion
t akes place. The proportion of such rot at ion occurs in t he j oint
as a funct ion of t he t ot al rot at ion for various sit uations of t he
wall. And as t he eccent ricit ies increase or t he axial load lowers,
t he behaviour of t he j oint begins to dominat e t he overall
behaviour of t he wall. See Fig. 2.7.
Fig. 2.7 Rot at ion of t he wall due t o eccent ricit y (Roberts et al,
1985)
R
O
T
A
T
I
O
N
n = 7.5 N/ mm
2
n = 10 N/ mm
2
n = 12.5 N/ mm
2
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
ECCENTRI CI TY
24
I n t he crit ical sect ion of wall, t here are t wo modes of
failure: 1) for relatively higher vert ical loads, failure will occur
in t he block when t he eccent ricit y reaches t he value given
below (derived from equat ion 10):
) (
2
1
c
bf
N
t ÷ = c (2.11)
and 2) for walls wit h relat ively light verticalload, t he mort ar in
t he j oint crushes. When considering t he I nt erwoven Sandcret e
Blockwal which can be assumed t o be light ly loaded at failure,
t he behaviour of such wall will be dominat ed by t he uplift of
blocks at t he t ension side and t he properties of t he blockunit
will be irrelevant . Though, t his is opposit e to t he heavily
loaded short wall. Really, t his wall behaves like a slender wall.
This is t reat ed special.
Under axial loading, design st rengt h of a wall which is
sufficient ly short , is simply t he charact erist ic st rengt h of a wall
divided by t he appropriat e part ial safet y fact or. As in the case
of wallfloor connect ion, t he eccent ricities are det ermined by
empirical rules, as in BS 5628, Part 1, (1985) for st ructural use
of masonry, and it suggests t hat a load from a single floor or
roof be considered t o act at onet hird of t he dept h of t he
bearing area from t he loaded face of t he wall or in t he case of
a cont inuous floor slab passing over a wall, t hat each side of
t he wall may be t aken as support ed on half of the t ot al
bearing area. The load, according t o BS 5628 (1985), from t he
floors above t he wall under consideration is assumed t o be
axial and corresponding t o t he eccent ricit y of loading at t he
lower end of t he wall section, and it is t aken as zero.
The above assumpt ion is very widely used in design but , it
is inherent ly inaccurat e because of t he large safet y fact ors
needed for prot ection. However, t he j oint s of wallfloor can be
t aken as fully rigid (Haller, 1960) and flexural rigidit y value for
wall and floor slabs must be known. Vahakallio and Makela
(1975) have developed a met hod for calculating eccent ricit ies
in t he basis of simplified elast ic analysis which assumes t hat
horizont al members have bending st rengt h and t hat vert ical
25
members have no t ensile st rengt h. They ext ended t his met hod
of analysis t o permit it s applicat ion t o cases which t he floor
slabs are support ed in variet y of possible ways. The met hod
uses st iffness coefficients for t he walls t hat are a funct ion of
eccent ricit y.
Many invest igators (Vahakallio and Makela, 1975; Sinha
and Hendry, 1980) confirmed t hat , wit h appropriat e
adj ust ment t o allow for cracking, it is possible to apply frame
analysis met hods t o masonry works t he wall compressions are
in excess of 0.3 Nmm
2
. A lack of full j oint st iffness will result in
an overestimat ion of load eccent ricity on t he walls and
correspondingly, slab moment be increased.
I n an eccent rically loaded cavit y wall, Wang and
Hat zinikolas (1996) observed t hat elast ic analysis shows t hat ,
wall component s behave nonlinearly wit h a large displacement
and small st rain charact erist ic deformat ion. The wall st iffness
rat io of 0.0524 is affect ed by t he early onset of cracks. I n t his
case such cracks may not occur in I SB masonry, because of
lack of j oint stiffness. I n t his case t he deflect ion will depend on
t he unit s uplift ment by large eccent ricit y of load.
2.4.2 Evaluation of eccent ricity of wall
Under t he approximat e met hod, t he load t ransmit ted by a
single floor is assumed to act at 1/ 3 of t he dept h of t he
bearing areas from t he face of t he wall as for t he case of an
ext ernal wall shown in Fig. 2.8a. I n calculating t he eccent ricit y,
t he load
From slab (P
2
) is assumed t o be act ing at a dist ance t / 3
from t he face of t he wall which is where t he result ant st ress is
considered t o be acting.
26
(a) I nt ernal wall (b) Ext ernal wall
Fig. 2.8 Wall eccent ricit y
Considering t he ext ernal wall shown in Fig. 2.8a, t he value
of t he eccent ricit y, e, is given as:
e = P
2
t / 6 (P
1
+ P
2
) (2.12)
where: P
1
= axial load on t he wall
P2 = load due t o eccent ricity
T = t hickness of wall
For a wall under a cont inuous slab (Fig. 2.8b), t he load
from each side is assumed t o act at one sixt h of t he thickness
of t he appropriat e face. As such t he eccent ricit y is evaluat ed
as:
e= p
3
p
2t / 3
(p
1
+ p
2
+ p
3
) (2. 13)
where: P
2,3
= Load due to eccent ricit ies
P
1
P
2
P
3
t/6 t/6
t
P
1
P
2
t/6 t/3
t
27
2.4.3 Wall Subj ect ed t o Vert ical and Horizont al Load
Most of t he loads on a wall are t ransferred t o it by t he floors
and roofs (Barrit , 1984). The wall t herefore must be able t o
wit hst and t he effect s of t he loads on t hem; hence t here is t he
need t o invest igat e t he effect of axial loading on t he walls. A
st rengt h requirement is t he maj or fact or for considerat ion in
t he design of lowheight st ruct ures (Bungale, 1988).
2.5 Limit St at e Design of Masonry Work
Limit st at e design est ablishes a much clearer relat ionship
bet ween t he performance requirement s for a st ruct ure and its
behaviour under ext reme and service loads, which is possible
wit h working st ress design. However in t he case of inadequat e
lat eral st rengt h of some st ruct ural members (such as masonry
wall), it is recommended (BS 5628, 1985; Sahlin, 1971) t hat a
st ruct ure should always be capable of desisting a lat eral force
not less t han 1.5% of t he t ot al charact eristics load act ing
t hrough t he cent roid of t he st ruct ure above any level
considered.
The basic aim of Limit St at e is t o ensure t hat a st ruct ure
should fulfill it s int ended funct ion, t hrough it s life span,
wit hout failure, excessive deflect ion or cracking wit h regard t o
economy. The effect of economy on t he const ruction indust ry
will be discussed in section 2.6.
Two cat egories of limit st at e normally have t o be
considered, namely: ult imat e limit st at e corresponding t o
failure or collapse in st rengt h (including general yielding,
rupt ure, bucking and t ransformation int o mechanism), st abilit y
against overt uring and sway, fract ures due t o fat igue and
brit t le fract ure; t he second cat egory is t he serviceabilit y limit
st at e for excessive deflect ion, vibrat ion and cracking.
For a probabilit ybased resist ance analysis, t he st eps are:
t o est ablish mat hematical models using principle of mechanical
and experiment al dat a t o predict t he behavior of masonry
walls subj ect ed t o various load conditions; t o est ablish
procedures, based on probability t heory for measuring
28
quant it at ively t he st ruct ural performance; t o specify t arget
reliabilit y measures by assessing reliabilities inherent t o
existing design t hat have performed satisfact orily and ot her
considerations; t o det ermine t he resist ance fact ors by ensuring
t hat t he performance obj ect ives of t he specifications expressed
in reliabilit y t erms meet relevant conditions..
I n most previous work, behaviour models for masonry
walls  a brit tle material  loaded in compression and out of
plane bending have been based on t he use of elast ic analysis
on t he assumpt ion t hat t he dist ribut ion of st resses on t he
crosssection of masonry wall at failure is linear. The
advant ages of elast ic design are obvious and applied equally
t o reinforced masonry for which ult imate st rengt h met hods
have been widely accept ed for t he t ow decades. Fact ors of
safet y against failure for members designed to elast ic t heory
vary considerably wit h sect ion shape and axial load level.
I n developing a model for ultimat e st rengt h as oft en t he
case in masonry panel, t he model of t ensile st rength of t he
masonry neglect ed. I n convent ional unit mortar masonry,
t here are t wophase mat erials consisting of linear elast ic unit s
embedded in t hin non linear elast ic layers of mort ar. Non –
linearity of masonry work is caused by mat erial non – linearity
and progressive cracking. Page (1979) report ed t hat the non
linearity caused by t he const it uent mat erial is significant
compared wit h t he result from progressive cracking, Phillips
and Zinekiewicz (1997) in a nonlinear analysis of reinforced
concret e also found elast ic crack formation. Rat her t han
concret e mat erials t o be t he predominat e cause of non linear
behavior. So t o simplify t he analysis t he act ual complex
dist ribution of st resses in t he compression zone of t he cross –
sect ion loaded in ending and axial compression is replaced by
a rect angular st ress block. And unless complex analysis are
made t o t ake into account t he effect s of shrinkage, creep or
t emperat ure change, t he st resses predict ed by t he elastic
analysis have lit tle resemblance t o t he t rue st ate of st ress.
The above analysis is typical of a convent ional unit mort ar
masonry considering t hat I SB masonry work is isot ropic
having linear elastic unit s, we can assume t hat t he dist ribut ion
29
of st resses on t he crosssect ion of t he wall at failure is linear.
Even t hough t he flexural rigidit ies of some past st ruct ures such
as lock–block has been claimed t o be high, t here is no
available dat a to st udy t hem, as a result of this, t he
assumpt ion on t he dist ribut ion of st resses in I SB will be based
on elast ic analysis, and t he analysis will be simplified by using
rect angular block.
2.5.1 Design of Wall under Vert ical load
The basic information required for t he design of a wall t o resist
a vert ical load (eccent ric or axial) is as follows:
1) The appropriat e loading t o t he ult imat e limit st at e which
consists of t he charact erist ic loads (dead or imposed) and
appropriat e partial safet y fact ors.
2) Charact erist ics compressive st rengt h for a particular type
of masonry being adopt ed and an appropriat e part ial
safet y fact or for reducing t he charact erist ics st rengt h t o a
design value.
3) Assessing t he effect s of slenderness and eccent ricity of
load, it is necessary t o estimat e t he effect ive height and
effect ive t hickness of t he wall.
4) An assessment is needed of t he effect ive eccent ricity of
t he loading at t he top of t he wall.
The advant age of limit st at e approach is t hat it permit s a
more rat ion t erm, t he flexible assessment of st ruct ural safet y
and serviceabilit y.
I deally, loadings and st rengt hs should be available in
st at ist ical t erms; t he charact eristic values have t o be
det ermined on t he basis of available evidence. I n t he case of
loads, t he evidence generally result s from surveys of buildings
in service, for which t here is no readily available evidence and
so far, for t he t ype of I SBmasonry work, t he charact erist ic
loads used in design are mult iplied by t he partial safety fact ors
and t hose which t ake t he account of possible unusual increase
in load beyond t he charact erist ic value. Possible inaccuracies in
30
assessment of load effect wit hin t he st ruct ure are t aken int o
account . For various combinat ions of load as in clause 22 of BS
5628, charact eristics st rengt h of mat erial, on t he ot her hand,
are derived from laboratory t est s t o provide a st atistical basis
for charact erist ic st rengt h. Hence design st rengt h is defined
as:

d
f =
m
t
f
¸
(2.14)
I n which s k f f
m k
. ÷ = (2.15)
This is t he charact erist ic st rengt h of mat erial.
Where: f
m
= mean st rengt h from t est result s
s = standard deviation
k = coefficient (1.64, relative index)
depending on probabilit y of obt aining
result s less t han
The design st rengt h of masonry is obt ain as shown in
equat ion (14) for ¸
m
(= 3.5 to 2.5) according t o BS 5628
(1985).
The effect ive height of a wall depends on it s end
condit ions. A wall can be enhanced by t he ground or placed
simply on a hard foundat ion. And in t he case of t he effect ive
t hickness it is convenient t o reduce all buckling problems t o
equivalent pin ended st rut s, using effect ive height . I n the case
of t he I SB masonry, t he effect ive t hickness equals t he act ual
t hickness.
2.5.2 Wall under Eccent ric Load
Once a load is applied eccent rically, however t he capacit y is
reduced. Appendix B of BS 5628 (1985) indicat es that t he
reduced capacit y may be calculat ed on t he assumpt ion t hat : at
ult imat e load a plastic dist ribut ion of st ress will act over t he
whole compression zone. Fig. 2.9 shows st ress dist ribut ion on
t he wall sect ion under eccent ric load.
31

.

\

÷
t
e
t
2
1
Fig. 2.9 St ress dist ribut ion of wall under eccent ric load
From Fig. 2.9: e
m
= eccent ricit y of load
y
n = vertical load per unit lengt h
= ( u .b.t .f
k
) y
m
(2.16)
t = t hickness of wall
f
k
= charact erist ic st rengt h of t he masonry
y
m
= partial safet y fact or of mat erial
u = reduct ion fact or capacit y is a funct ion
e
m
/ t ).
2.5.3 Wall under Vert ical and Lateral Loads
For a wall carrying a significant vert ical load, t he lat eral load
can be checked using t he expression below (BS 5628, 1985):
y
n
t
e

.

\

÷
t
e t 2
1
2
1.1f
k
/¸
m
32
q
lat eral
=
o
t n
Y H
2
8
y
(2.17)
where: H = height of wall
The lat eral loading t hat usually arises is wind pressure and
incident al loads. The lat eral load capacit y of a wall revolves
around t wo basis point s: t he flexural st rengt h of concret e
block masonry given in BS 5628 (1985) is relat ed t o t he
compressive st rengt h of t he unit s.
2.5.4 Det erminat ion of Effect ive Height
This is relat ed t o t he degree of rest raint imposed by the floors
and beams built into t he wall. Using Euler’s buckling t heory,
t he effect ive height s are evaluat ed. I n pract ice however, t he
end support s t o walls are adj ust ed to be pinned at bot h ends
so t hat t he effect ive height is equal t o 1.0H (H is t he height of
t he wall). I f a wall is in bet ween t he concret e floors, t he
effect ive height is t aken as 0.75H, whereby t he wall is
considered as part ially fixed at bot h ends.
2.5.5 Analysis and design
The reliabilit y of masonry walls can be expressed in t he form:
F (x
1…,,………
x
m
) = 0 (2.18)
where: x
1
= random variables.
Failure is said t o occur by convent ion when:
F(x
1
……..x
m
) (2.19)
Reliabilit y of I SBwalls:
¯
f
t
n s
¯
o (s
1
f
k
LF) (2.20)
where: n = load combinat ion
33
F
k
= int ernal force caused by t he
imposed charact erist ic load.
S = geomet rical charact eristics
f
y
= charact erist ics st rengt h
LF = service and partial safet y fact or
2.5.6 Economic aspect of I SBmasonry
A process of indust rializat ion in const ruct ion affect s economy.
The relationship between economy and const ruct ion is mut ual.
As such economy has a posit ive or negat ive influence on
const ruct ion.
Complicat ed sit uat ion develops in a case when t he
t echnological solution significant ly overst epped anticipat ed
social aspect s – economic realit ies and opport unities. I n many
cases, especially in Nigeria, fet ching for an entirely new
qualit ative solut ion which affect s t he economic realit ies are not
always prepared for in t erms of pract ical realit ies.
The most import ant aspects, in underst anding
cont emporary and perspect ive development t endency for
const ruct ion indust ry, is t he knowledge of relat ionship
bet ween t he increase in quant it y and qualit y of st ruct ure as
well as t he product ivit y of work.
I t is a fact t hat in const ruction indust ry, even in t his nat ion
(Nigeria), mat erial solutions form t he maj or basis in t he
product ion, erect ion t echnology, management and
ent erprising. So, t he relat ionship bet ween const ruct ion and
economy requires t he most essential and ext ensive changes,
especially, in t he area of developing locally available mat erials.
There is also t he influence of practical indust rial
t echnology, t ransport at ion problem, invest ment expenses in
const ruct ion indust ry. Const ruct ion solution and relat ed fact ors
should form conditions for t he at t ainment of indust rial
t echnology. Working wit h small numerous unit s (as in blocks)
or element s as operat ing product ive t echnology is one of t he
basis economy realizat ion.
Combinat ion of building const ruct ion and economy on t he
speed on t he const ruct ion is significant . I n May 1984, Wright
34
Mot t ershaw Part nership, as report ed by Curt in (1987) in t he
Unit ed Kingdom, were approached by Forticret e Lt d to check
t he feasibilit y of const ruct ing 19.1 m high walls, of a generat or
hall, using dryj oint ed masonry wit h reinforced concret e core.
The const ruct ion was to complet e wit hin t he very severe
const rains imposed by t he existing building, plant and services
(some of which were t o remain in operation unt il complet ion of
t he proj ect ).
I t was est imat ed t hat a scheme using steelwork
and t raditional blockwork infill panels would t ake about fift yix
days, a saving of sixt een days was realized by using dry
j oint ed concret e blockwork.
Longt erm const ruct ion has adverse effect s on t he working
forces; building mat erials (such as cement may loose its
st rengt h if kept for more t han necessary period); manufact ure;
equipment ; inflat ion et c, even if t he product st ruct ure will
provide ut ility value. This is t rue especially in a t hird world
count ry as Nigeria, where t he demand for every available
shelt er is in high and urgent demand.
Wit h good organizat ion, working period no doubt can be
minimized in const ruct ion, but what makes good organizat ion
includes t he availability of mat erials, met hod of manufact ure,
t ype of units to be assembled of such unit s or element s. Also
saving of working force can only be reasonable if t he effect on
economy per cert ain t ime must be higher t han invest ment
expenses.
From t he above views, t he int erwoven sandcret e block
masonry (I SB) is economically viable. Time saving wit h respect
t o workmanship in const ruct ion schedule is guarant eed using
t he I SB type of unit s. I t has been shown in t he above analyses
t hat maj or st ruct ure failure (such as collapse, cracking, and
poor aest et icit y) in masonry is at t ribut ed t o t he usual poor
placement of mort arj oint s by t he masons.
35
Chapter 3
EXPERI MENTAL PROGRAMME AND RESULTS
3.1 Preamble
This t est programme covered t he I nt erwoven Sandcret e Block
(I SB) units (sizes: 442mm x 230mm x 225mm for a full size,
hollow and 225mm x 230mm x 225mm for a halfsize, hollow).
The I SB full size block corresponds to a dense aggregat e block
of 440 x 215 x 215 mm (worksize) in accordance wit h BS
2028, 1364 (1968). Typical I SB block units are shown in Plat e
I I .
Plat e I I Typical I SB full and halfblock
3.2 Diemould, it s Design Concept and Assumpt ions
A st eel diemould was designed and fabricat ed for making t he
int erwoven sandcret e blockunit s, of sizes 450mm x 225mm x
225mm and 225mm x 225mm x 225mm.
36
The design of t he block making machine is such t hat it
could be operat ed, manually, by one person while someone
else can remove t he produced block for drying. The block
making machine produces one full block at a t ime, while t he
half block is produce by placing an auxiliary t hin plat e,
vert ically, in t he middle of t he diemould before t he freshly
mixed sandcret e is poured int o it.
The maj or parts of t he block making machine are: (a) t he
diemould hollowbox, which comprises of t wo header and t wo
st ret cher st eels and each of t hem bearing t wo vert ical st eel
t ongues, were welded t oget her. The hollowbox was screwed
t o a base plat e; (b) Base plat e. This is a plat e on which t wo
beveledst eel t ongues were welded. The t ongues are t o make
hollows in t he block; (c) Wooden plat en, wit h t wo holes
passing t hrough t he beveled t ongues (in b above) is placed on
t he base plat e. The plat en is used to carry off t he block from
t he mould, while block is left on it t o dry; (d) A rammer
(compact ion) plat e is t he diemould lid. The compaction plat e
was design t o slide up and down on four vert ical st eel rods.
(I nit ially, t he rammer was design t o compact t he green
sandcret e at an angle. This at t empt failed because the block
bot t omedge shell, of t he bot t om groove, sheared off as t he
lid was raised aft er compact ion.) The four vertical rods also
serve as alignment  guide for t he rammer. At t ached t o t he
rammer is a long flat t ongue for creat ing bott om groove for
t he block; (e) st and. This st and is a t opless st eel t able (of four
leg) on which t he diemould was screwed. The block ej ect ion
part s were designed t o work on lever (link) mechanism, which
could be easily replaced when necessary. The most prominent
part of t he ej ection is t he handle which prot ruding at t he side
of t he t able. This is t he pressed down during block ej ect ion
and raised t o posit ion by gravity.
The following assumpt ions were made t o facilit at e t he
compact ion design
(1) Concret e modulus of elasticit y, E
c
= 26 E3
(2) Height at which t he rammer plat e is released t o
compress t he block, h
r
= 300mm
37
(3) Densit y of t he mild st eel, p
s
= 77E6 N/ mm
3
I n Fig. 3.1, axomet ric diagram, by parts, of t he diemould
is shown, while an assembled diemould machine is shown in
Fig. 3.2. Plat e I I I shows an I SB block on diemould.
Fig. 3.1 axomet ric diagram of die mould by parts
38
Fig. 3.2 Assembled I SB diemould
39
Plat e I I I I SB block on its mould
3.3 Compact ion Pressure on I SBblock in Moulding
The compact ion pressure has been calculat ed as follows:
(1) Weight of st eel (W) = densit y x volume (
s
h
s
A
s
)
40
Where:
s,
h
s ,
A
s
densit y, height and sect ional area
of t he st eel
(2) Cross sectional area (gross) of t he block (Ag) is
calculat ed.
(3) Height h
r
t he rammer’s plat e is released and assumed.
(4) I n order to cause deformation in t he fresh sandcret e
block, t he stat ic vertical deformation is expressed as:
o
A E
= A
c
r
b
Wh
h (3.2)
where: W = weight of st eel
E
c
= modulus of elasticit y of
concret e
A
g
= gross sectional area
(5) Dynamic coefficient is calculat ed as:
)
2
1 ( 1
b
r
h
h
A
+ + = o (3.2)
(6) From t he weight of t he st eel t he equivalent force of
st at ic is expressed as:
Fst = o W (3.3)
7) Compact ion pressure t herefore:
p
c
=
o
A
st
F
(3.4)
Compact ion pressure (max) of 5.0MN/ m, at t he height of
300mm, was used t o compress t he sandcret e inside t he
mould. This is obt ained from t he t op plat e of t he mould
applied on t he specimen. Det ails of diemould parts are shown
in Table 3.1.
41
Table 3.1 I SB die mould specificat ion
Identification
No
Part
description
Material
specification
(mm)
Quanti
ty
Shape
description
Shape view
BP
TB
Base plate
Tongue on BP
305 x 9613
112.5x125x9
1
1
Flat
Hollow prism
P
SP
Wooden pellet
Seat for P
125x25475
75x25125
1
2
Perforated board
Solid board
R
TR
Rammer plate
Tongue on R
305x9613
125x9=375
1
1
Flat
Flat
P1
T1
Front plate
Tongue on P1
225x9225
225x25x25
1
2
Flat
Hollow rod
P2
T2
Right plate
Tongue on P2
275x9468
225x25x25
1
2
Flat
Hollow rod
P3
T3
Back plate
Tongue on P3
275x9468
225x25x25
1
2
Flat
Hollow rod
P4
T41
T42
Left plate
Tongue on P4
Tongue on P4
225x9468
225x25x25
225x75x25
1
2
1
Flat
Hollow rod
Hollow rod
LT
BL1
BL2
Table leg
Table legbrace
Tableleg brace
50x50x500
50x50x315
25x25500
4
4
2
“L”
“L”
Flat rod
H
SH1
SH2
SH3
LH
L
Lift handle
Handle support
Handle support
Handle support
Pivot brace
Lever
70x25=681
50x50x500
50x50x455
50x50x290
50x50x90
25x25227
1
2
2
2
2
2
Flat rod
L
L
L
L
Flat rod
F
BF
Lift plate
Lift for f
200x2300
25x25325
2
1
Flat
Flat rod
NT
BT
SR
BS
Nut
Bolt
Slide rod
Brace for SR


575
75x25120
12
12
4
2


Solid rod
Flat rod
HK
BH
Hook
Brace for HK
50x185
25x25200
1
1
Flat plate
Flat plate
42
3.4 Product ion of I SB BlockSpecimens
3.4.1 Part icle Size Dist ribut ion
Commercially available clean, nat ural, hard sand (free from
chalk and clay) of 100% passing sieve No.5mm and which
complies wit h BS 882: 1201 is employed in t he mix. The sand
was well graded t o conform to t he limit given in Table 1 of BS
882: 1201 for t he maximum size aggregat e t o t he sandcret e
mix.
The grading t est result s are shown in Table 3.2 for t he
det erminat ion of t he dist ribut ion for t he number of different
sized part icles present . Maximum sieve (BS 410, 1976) size of
5.00 mm was employed for t he product ion of t he block
specimens.
Table 3.2: Grading of sand for I SB block
sieve size
( mm) : \
weight of
sieve ( g) :
sieve +
ret ai
ned ( g) :
ret ained
weight ( g) :
percent age
Ret ained %
Cumulat i ve
% r et ained:
Cumulat i ve
% Passing:
5.0
1535




100
4.0
564
586
22.5
2.3
2.3
97.7
2.0
555
668
114
11.4
13.7
86.3
1.0
531
673
142
14.2
27.9
72.1
0.5
503
713
211
21.1
49.0
51.0
0.4
485
565
81
8.1
57.1
42.9
0.25
480
661
181
18.1
75.2
24.8
0.125
459
635
176
17.6
72.8
7.2
0.063
444
540
60
6.1
98.9
1.1
Weight of the pan = 267g Weight of pan + sample = 767g
Weight of sample = 500g Time for shaking = 20 min
43
3.5 Bat ching, Mixing, Moulding and Curing of Blocks
The sand was used wit h Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) wit h
clean, port able wat er t o mix t he sandcret e ingredient of rat io
of 1 part cement t o six (eight ) part s sand (1: 6, 1: 8 cement 
sand rat io). I n order to obt ain t he effect of mix proport ion on
t he block t ongues, as well as t he effect of what t he difference
in st rengt h will have on t heir masonry, t he above mixes were
adopt ed. Sufficient wat er was used for t he mixing of t he
sandcret e.
The bat ching was done by volume (of standard head pan
of 0.015m
2
). Mixing was done by hand, using shovel, before
molding. Using t he I SB diemould, t he green sandcret e was
compact ed by rammer plat e at t he value of 4.0N/ mm
2
. Aft er
compact ion, each moulded block was left for 1 minut e before
lift ing. This was to allow t he wat er to drain off t he block.
The specimen units were moist cured by wet t ing aft er t he
init ial set ting unt il sufficient st rengt h is gained for 28 days.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10
0
Fig. 3.3 Particle size dist ribut ion graph
44
3.6 I SB block dimensions, dryunit weight and densit y
Dry unit weight of sample blocks were det ermined in t he
process of det ermining in t he t heir densit ies. Weights of t hree
samples measured in t he and densit y obt ained in accordance
wit h BS 6073: part 2 (1981). Three full and halfsize block
specimen were measured for t heir dimensions. The
measurement s were recorded t o t he nearest millimeter. The
result s of block dimension are shown in Table 3.3 while Table
3.4 and 3.5 show t he result s of block weight and density.
Table 3.3: I SBBlock Dimensions
Specimen
No
( identi ty)
L
Mm
B
Mm
H
b
mm
h
t
mm
T
ts
mm
T
w
Mm
T
u
mm
T
s
Mm
C
vLc
B
c
Mm
A
g
10
3
( mm
2
)
A
n
10
3
( mm
2
)
M1 18
44 3
23 0
225
26
74
5 0
5 0
26
( 5 1)
( 70)
125
113
10 1.89 0
75.6 00
M2 18
44 1
23 1
225
25
75
5 0
5 0
26
( 5 1)
( 70)
125
114
10 1.4 00
75.500
M3 18
44 2
23 0
225
25
75
5 0
5 0
26
( 5 1)
( 71)
124
112
10 1.68 0
75.500
Aver age
44 2
23 0
225
25
75
5 0
5 0
26
( 5 1)
( 71)
125
113
10 1.65 0
75.03 0
M118= specimen No. 11: 8 (cement sand) mix,
L= lengt h, T
v
= upper t ongur breadt h,
H
b
= height , T
s
side t ongue breadt h
B= breadt h, C
v
= block cavit y (hollow),
h
t
= t hickness of upper t ongue, L
c
= cavit y lengt h,
T
f s
= face shell breadt h, B
c
= cavit y breadt h,
T
w
= web breadt h, A
g
= block gross sectional area,
A
n
= block net sect ional area.
45
Table 3.4: I SBblock weight and densit y
Specimen No
(I dent ification)
Dryweight , W
(Kg)
Densit y (D) x 10
3
(kg/ m
3
)
M118 28.0 1.320
M218 27.6 1.340
M318 27.6 1.310
Average 27.6 1.360
M118 = measurement for specimen No. 11: 8 mix
Average I SB model block densit y= 1520kg/ m
3
(Ej eh and
Adedej i, 1998)
Table 3.5 I SBblock weight and Density
Specimen No
(I dent ification)
Dryweight ,W
(Kg)
Densit y (D) x 10
3
(kg/ m
3
)
WD116 27.8 1.280
WD216 27.3 1.300
WD316 28.5 1.300
Average 26.8 1.293
WD116= weight / Densit y for specimen No. 11: 8 mix
Average I SB model block densit y = 1550kg/ m
3
(Ej eh and
Adedej i, 1998)
3.7 Absorpt ion Test s
3.7.1 24h Absorption wat er absorpt ion
Three halfblock specimens were immersed in wat er for 24
hours. Each specimen weighed while suspended by a met er
wire and complet ely submerged in wat er. The specimens were
t hen removed and aloe\ wed to drain for 1 minut e, t hereaft er
cleaned wit h damp wat er and weighed (W
w
). Subsequent t o
sat urat ion, all specimens were overdried at 105
0
c for 34
hours. Each sample was being weighed (W
f
) at 2 hours
int erval, unit t wo successive weighing gave an increment of
0.2% of t he last value. The result s which are shown in Table
3.6 were calculat ed as t he rat io of difference in weight s [ (W
w

W
f
): (W
w
W
s
)] , while t he percent age of absorpt ion was
calculat ed as t he ratio of weight (W
w
W
f
)
/
W
f
) by 100%.
46
Table 3.6: I SBblock 24 hours wat er absorpt ion
A118= absorption specimen No,11: 8 mix
W
s=
suspended immersed weight of specimen
W
w
= wet weight of specimen
W
f
= dry weight of specimen
Average wat er absorpt ion for I SB model block = 13.87%.
Sample No.
(ident ification)
W
s
(kg)
W
w
(kg)
W
f i
(kg)
W
f 2
(kg)
W
f 3
(kg)
Average
W
f
(kg)
Absorpt ion Absorpt ion
%
A118 16.700 17.670 17.450 17.460 17.450 17.453 0.22 10.2
A218 16.810 17.780 17.460 17.450 17.440 17.450 0.34 18.9
A318 16.800 17.720 17.440 17.460 17.440 17.451 0.30 15.4
Average 0.29 14.8
47
3.8 Moist ure Cont ent Test
This was det ermined by weighing using t he same result s
obt ained in sect ion 3.7 (24 hours absorpt ion t est ). The result s
obt ained is shown in Table 3.7. These result s were obt ained
by calculat ing t he moist ure cont ent %, as t he percent age of
difference in weight (w
b
w
f
) divided by difference in weight (w
w). I n which W is t he sample weight of t he unit .
Table 3.7: I SBBlock moist ure cont ent s
Specimen No.
(ident ification)
(w
b
w
f
)
Kg
(w
w
w
f
)
Kg
Moist ure
Cont ent %
MC118 1.217 02.227 5.36
MC218 1.330 0.330 4.03
MC318 1.269 0.329 3.86
Average MC 4.42
MC 118 = moist ure cont ent for specimen 11: 8 mix,
MC = moist ure cont ent
W
b
= sampled weight of t he specimen
Average moist ure cont ent s for I SB mode block = 6.43
3.9 Block Compressive St rengt h Test
To ensure uniform product ion of unit s and design purposes,
t he I SBblocks were t est ed (bedwise) for t he compressive
st rengt h t hat will meet t he quality and t he charact eristics
st rengt h.
Ten fullsize and t en halfsize specimens at t he age of 28
days are capped using 1 part of cement and 3 part s of sand
(falling wit hin 2  3 grading zone of BS 882: 1201) forming a
uniform layer of 20mm on bot h bed faces of each specimen.
The specimens before capping, were immersed in wat er at a
t emperat ure of 22
0
C for 24 hours, and were allowed t o drain
off for 30 minut es under damp sacking. Also before capping,
t he t wo upper t ongues on each specimen were sawn off.
48
Table 3.9 Compressive st rengt h Results for I SB block 1: 6
(1part cement t o 6 part s sand ) mix
Specimen
B16
Gross
sect ional area
(A
g
)
x 10
3
(mm
2
)
Crushing
load
(kN)
Compressive
st rengt h
(N/ mm
2
)
B116 101.720 270 2.60
B216 101.690 275 2.70
B316 102.010 280 2.74
B416 101.720 272 2.67
B516 101.790 275 2.70
B616 102.000 285 2.79
B716 102.000 285 2.79
B816 101.890 280 2.75
B916 101.790 275 2.70
B1016 101.785 275 2.70
Average 101.839 277.2 2.70
St andard deviat ion, s = 0.57, Coefficient of variation, v = 2.11
Compressive st rengt h, fu = 2.7
Table 3.10 Average compressive st rengt h result s for I SB
block 1: 6 (1 part cement t o 6 part s sand) mix
Specimen
( Block
Type)
No. of
Specimens
Mean Value
Sect ional Ar ea Crushing load Compressive
St rengt h
Ag
1
An
2
Ng
3
Nn
4
Gross Net
x10
3
mm
2
x10
3
mm
2
x10
3
N x10
3
N N/ mm
2
N/ mm
2
Fullsize 10 101 700 75 900 271 271 2.6 3.6
Half size 10 50 3000 36 700 140 140 2.8 3.8
1
Gross sectional area of t he block
2
Net sectional area of t he block
3
Crushing load on block gross area
4
Crushing load on block net area
 Average compressive strengt h for t he I SB block = 2.7 N/ mm
2
 Minimum compressive st rength for t he average of 10 blocks ( BS
5628) of worksize 440 x 215 x 215 = 2.8 N/ mm
2
 ( Nigerian I ndust rial Standards ( NI S) 74: 1972 for average
allowable strengt h = 2.1
N/ mm
2
49
Table 3.10 Average compressive st rengt h result s for I SB
block 1: 8 (1 part cement t o 8 part s sand) mix
Specimen
( Block
Type)
No. of
Specimens
Mean Value
Sect ional Ar ea Crushing load Compressive
St rengt h
Ag
1
An
2
Ng
3
Nn
4
Gross Net
x10
3
mm
2
x10
3
mm
2
x10
3
N x10
3
N N/ mm
2
N/ mm
2
Fullsize 10 101 700 75 900 221 221 2.2 2.9
Half size 10 50 3000 36 700 125 125 2.5 3.4
1
Gross sectional area of t he block
2
Net sectional area of t he block
3
Crushing load on block gross area
4
Crushing load on block net area
The result s of 10 specimens of convent ional sandcret e
block produced and cured as t he I SB –block specimens, are
shown in Table 3.12. This t able indicat es t he charact erist ic
st rengt h difference bet ween t he I SB and convent ional
sandcret e blocks.
Table 3.12 Compressive st rengt h comparison bet ween t he
convent ional and I SB blocks.
Block
Type
Mix No. of
specimen
P
ac
N x 10
3
f
ac
(N/ mm
2
)
F
bo
f
ac
Full size
hollow
(1: 6) 10 255 2.5 1.08
Full size
Hollow
(1: 8) 10 213 2.1 1.05
P
ac,
f
ac
= Axial ult imat e capacit y. Compressive st rengt h for
convent ional block respect ively f
bo
= St rengt h of I SB block.
3.10 Masonry Prism st rengt h Test s
Compressive st rengt h t est for I SB block work prism test was
conduct ed (ASTM C 14075 1980) t o st udy t he behaviour of
t he int erwoven sandcret e block masonry prisms (wit hout
mort ar bond) under axial compression load. The blocks of t he
same mix design for t he unit st rengt h t est are used in t his
experiment .
The samples built int o prisms are made t o undergo similar
condit ions as t he ones used for t he compressive st rengt h t est
for t he unit s, and t hey are t est ed aft er 28 days. Three t ypes of
prisms were produced:
50
i) A prism was made of t wo courses of fullblocks (i.e. one
block top of t he ot her). I t s slenderness rat io, h/ t = 2 in
which h and t are t he height and t hickness of t he prism
respect ively). This is represent ed in Fig. 3.4a.
ii) A t hree–course block prism was made of a fullblock on
t op, and anot her block at t he bot t om, while t wo halve
blocks are merged toget her in t he middle of t he prisms. its
slenderness rat io, h/ t = 3. This is shown in Fig. 3.4b.
iii) A t hree course block prism compress of t hree fullblocks,
one place on t op of t he ot her. I t s slenderness ratio, h/ t =
3. Fig 3.4c shows t his prism specimen.
Note: The (ii) above represent s t he effect of t he half blocks in
t he masonry st rengt h.
The t op and bot t om part of each specimen was capped
wit h a wooden board complies wit h BS1142, Part 3 (1972) on
t he upper and bot t om beds. Each prepared prism is subj ect ed
t o compression in a st andard compression machine. Three set s
of prisms are subj ect ed t o crushing. Dial gauges was mount ed
on t he prisms, so t hat t he vert ical st rains could be measured
and read at regular load increment s up t o approximately 90%
of t he failure load.
The compressive st rengt h f
m
(Nmm
2
) is found from t he
ult imat e load divided by t he axial and eccent rically loaded
prisms are shown in Fig. 3.5.
h/t = 3 h/t =3 h/t = 3
Fig. 3.4 Prism specimens
51
Fig. 3.5 Test arrangement for t he prism
The following equat ion was employed t o obt ain t he
compressive st rengt h of t he eccent rically loaded prisms.
) / 2 1 ( t e Lt
p
f
n
÷
= (3.5)
where: P = crushing load (kN),
L = lengt h of prism (mm)
t = t hickness of prism
e = eccent ricit y of t he load
Machine head wit h
spherical seat
St eel bar
Cappi ng
Full block
Half ( or f ull) block
Full block
Cappi ng
St eel beari ng plat e
St eel bar
Hinge
of specimen
of load
e
2
2
5
2
2
5
2
2
5
52
For a fully cracked face shell on t he compression side of
t he prism, t he charact erist ic st rengt h was comput ed using
equat ion (3.6)
)
*
2 1 (
fs
fs
n
T
e
LT
P
f
÷
= (3.6)
)
2
(
2
* e
t
T
e
fs
÷ = (3.7)
where: T
f s
= t hickness of t he block face shell.
Tests results of t he compressive st rengt h (N/ mm
2
), for t he
I SB prisms are shown in Tables 3.13 t o 3.20. I n Appendix VI I I ,
Tables VI I I 1 t o VI I I 4 show t he compressive st rengt h and
st rain result s for t he I SBprism) h/ t = 3, and h/ t = 2) for t he
1: 6 and 1: 8 (cement sand) mixes.
Table 3.13 Results of compressive st rengt h of I SB prism
(e= 0,h/ t= 3), 1: 8 (1 part cement t o 8 part s sand) mix
Specimen
BP18
Crushing
Load
kN
Compressive
St rengt h
N/ mm
2
Max, st rain
X10
3
181 214 2.1 0.50
182 214 2.1 0.50
183 244 2.4 0.55
184 215 2.1 0.50
185 224 2.2 0.53
186 256 2.5 1.2
187 234 2.3 0.54
188 225 2.2 0.53
189 214 2.1 0.50
1810 214 2.1 0.50
Mean st rengt h value, x = 2.223 St andard deviat ion, s = 0.03f
Coef f icient of vari at ion, v = 0.015, Prism compr essive st rengt h f
m
= 2.2
h/ t = slender ness r at io ( height / t hickness) , BP18 = block prim 1: 8 mix
53
Table 3.14 Results of compressive st rengt h of I SB prism
(e= 0,h/ t= 2), 1: 8 (1 part cement t o 8 part s sand) mix
Specimen
BP18
Crushing
Load
kN
Compressive
St rengt h
N/ mm
2
Max, st rain
X10
3
181 224 2.2 0.54
182 214 2.0 0.50
183 255 2.5 1.50
184 224 2.2 0.54
185 244 2.4 0.57
186 244 2.4 0.57
187 235 2.3 0.56
188 235 2.3 0.56
189 235 2.3 0.56
1810 235 2.4 0.56
Mean st rengt h value, x = 2.29 St andard deviat ion, s = 0. 27
Coef f icient of vari at ion, v= 11. 89 Prism compr essive st rengt h f
m
= 2.2
h/ t = slender ness r at io ( height / t hickness) , BP18 = block prim1: 8 mix
Table 3.15 Results of compressive st rengt h of I SB prism
(e= 0,h/ t= 3), 1: 6 (1 part cement t o 6 part s sand) mix
Specimen
BP16
Crushing load
KN
Compressive
st ress
(N/ mm
2
)
Max. st rain
x10
3
161 224 2.4 1.0
162 225 2.7 1.5
163 227 2.6 0.98
164 230 2.6 0.99
165 225 2.4 0.89
166 228 2.5 0.80
167 224 2.3 0.90
168 224 2.3 0.90
169 228 2.5 0.99
1610 229 2.6 0.89
Means st rengt h val ue, x = 2.49 St andard deviat ion’s = 0.150
Coef f icient of vari at ion, v = 6. 02 Prism compr essive st rengt h, f
m
= 2.5
h/ t = slender ness r at io ( height / t hickness) , BP16 = block prism1: 6 mix
The average values, for t he prim specimens of t wohalf
block in t he middle, are: Mean st rengt h value, x = 2.4,
st andard deviat ion, s = 0.104, coefficient of variat ion, v= 0.25
and prism compressive st rengt h = 2.4N/ mm
2
.
54
Table 3. 16 Results of compressive st rengt h of I SB prism
(e = 0 h/ t= 2) 1: 6 (1 part cement t o 6 part s sand) mix.
Specimen
BP16
Crushing load
KN
Compressive
st rengt h
(N/ mm
2
)
Max st rain
x 10
161 228 2.5 0.60
162 226 2.9 0.90
163 225 2.6 0.68
164 226 2.7 0.60
165 225 2.6 0.57
166 225 2.6 0.95
167 223 2.5 0.9
168 225 2.7 1.05
169 223 2.5 0.99
1610 225 2.6 0.85
Mean st r engt h value, x = 2. 62 St andard devi at ion, s= 0. 123
Coef f icient of vari at ion, v= 4.69 Prism compr essive st rengt h, f
m
= 2.6
h/ t = slender ness rat io ( height t o t hickness) . BP16 = block prism 1: 6 mix
55
Table 3.17 Results of compressive (crushing) st rengt h of I SB prism, 1: 8(1 part cement t o 8 part s sand mix
Block
t ype
Prism
specimen
h/ t e
mm
No. of
Specimen
P
e
Nx10
3
P
a
Nx10
3
P
e
/ P
a
f
m
N/ mm
2
f
me
N/ mm
2
Cov
%
F
m
/ f
me
Full
size
block
EP18 2 0
t / 6
t / 3
5t / 12
10
5
5
5
224
183
103
82
224



1.0
0.82
0.45
0.37
2.2



2.2
2.3
2.6
2.8
15.0
13.0
10.5
10.1
1.00
0.96
0.85
0.79
Full
size
block
EP18 3 0
t / 6
t / 3
5t / 12
10
5
5
5
214
180
99
69
214 1.00
0.80
0.44
0.30
2.1



2.1
2.1
2.4
2.7
16.1
13.1
10.5
10.4
1.00
1.00
0.88
0.78
e= eccent ricity, P
a
= Axial load, P
e=
eccent ricit y load, fm= charact erist ic st rengt h of masonry, f
me
= charact erist ics
st rengt h due t o eccent ricit y
,
EP18= eccent ricity load for
1: 8 (cement : sand rat io)
56
Table 3.18 Results of compressive st rengt h of cracked face shell of isb prism, 1: 8(1part cement t o 8 parts
Block
t ype
Prism
specimen
h/ t e
mm
e
*
mm P
e
Nx10
3
P
a
Nx10
3
P
e
/ P
a
F
m
N/ mm
F
me
N/ mm
COV
%
F
m
/ f
me
Full
size
block
EP18 2 0
t / 6
t / 3
5t / 12
0
46.7
8.3
10.8
224
160
110
65
224



1.0
0.71
0.49
0.30
2.2



2.2
2.4
3.6
3.9
9.0
6.0
6.0
6.1
1.00
0.96
0.69
0.56
Full
size
block
EP18 3 0
t / 6
t / 3
5t / 12
0
46.7
12.5
6.8
215
170
100
61
214



1.00
0.79
0.47
0.30
2.1



2.1
2.5
2.9
3.5
10.1
7.5
6.0
6.0
1.00
0.84
0.72
0.60
e
* =
eccent ricit y on t he block shell face; e
2
P
a
Pe f
m
2
f
me
are t he defined, respect ively,
57
Table 3.19 Results of compressive (crushing) st rengt h of I SB prism, 1: 6 (1 part cement t o 6 part s sand mix
Block
t ype
Prism
specimen
h/ t e
mm
No. of
specimen
P
e
Nx10
3
P
a
Nx10
3
P
e
/ P
a
F
m
N/ mm
F
me
N/ mm
COV
%
F
m
/ f
me
Full
size
block
EP18 2 0
t / 6
t / 3
5t / 12
10
5
5
5
224
186
135
100
224



1.0
0.76
0.55
0.41
2.3



2.3
2.7
3.0
4.8
10.0
10.0
6.1
6.0
1.00
0.85
0.77
0.48
Full
size
block
EP18 3 0
t / 6
t / 3
5t / 12
10
5
5
5
218
160
100
68
218



1.00
0.72
0.50
0.30
2.2



2.2
2.3
3.1
3.8
9.0
6.1
6.3
6.0
1.00
0.96
0.69
0.60
e
2
P
a2
P
e2
f
m2
f
me
are as defined, respect ively, as in Table 3.17.
58
Table 3.20 Results of compressive st rengt h of cracked face shell of I SB prism, 1: 6(1 part cement to 6 part s
Block
t ype
Prism
specimen
h/ t e
mm
e
*
P
e
Nx10
3
P
a
Nx10
3
P
e
/ P
a
F
m
N/ mm
F
me
N/ mm
COV
%
F
m
/ f
me
Full
size
block
EP18 2 0
t / 6
t / 3
5t / 12
0
46.7
8.3
10.8
224
186
135
100
224



1.0
0.76
0.55
0.41
2.2



2.2
2.3
2.6
2.8
10.0
9.0
6.0
7.0
1.00
0.96
0.85
0.78
Full
size
block
EP18 3 0
t / 6
t / 3
5t / 12
0
46.7
8.3
10.8
214
125
100
63
214



1.00
0.72
0.50
0.30
2.1



2.1
2.1
2.4
2.7
9.0
7.0
7.2
6.0
1.00
1.00
0.88
0.78
e
*
2
e
2
P
a2
P
e2
f
m2
f
me
are as defined, respect ively, in Table 3.9
59
Samples of 5 specimen blocks were picked at random from
a bat ch of 40 blocks, while 15 blocks were sampled t o build 5
prism specimens. A prism specimen was compressed. This was
followed immediat ely by t esting five block specimens in
compression. The values of t hese t est s were recorded in
Tables 3.21 t o 3.24. The last column of each of t hese Tables
was obt ained by t he prism mult iplication fact or of 0.84.
Table 3.21 PrismBlock relationships in compression, 1: 8
(1 part cement t o 8 part s sand) mix
Specimen Prism
Block
Prism
st rengt h f
m
N/ mm
2
Block
st rengt h f
u
N/ mm
2
Wall
st rengt h f
x
N/ mm
2
P1(h/ t = 3) 2.2  1.85
B1  2.3 
B2  2.6 
B3  2.3 
B4  2.2 
B5  2.2 
Mean, x 2.2 2.35 1.85
St andard deviat ion  1.02 
P1= prism, Bi= no of block (i= 1.3)
60
Table 3.22 PrismBlock relationships in compression, 1: 8
(1 part s sand to 8 part s sand) mix
Specimen Prism
Block
Prism
st rengt h f
m
N/ mm
2
Block
st rengt h f
u
N/ mm
2
Wall
st rengt h f
m
N/ mm
2
P1(h/ t = 2) 2.3  1.93
B1  2.5 
B2  2.3 
B3  2.6 
B4  2.6 
B5  2.5 
Mean, x 2.3 2.6 1.93
St andard deviat ion  1.3 
Table 3.23 PrismBlock relationships in compression, 1: 6
(1 part cement t o 6 part s sand) mixes
Specimen Prism
Block
Prism
st rengt h f
m
N/ mm
2
Block
st rengt h f
u
N/ mm
2
Wall
st rengt h f
m
N/ mm
2
P1(h/ t = 3) 2.5  2.0
B1  2.5 
B2  2.6 
B3  2.5 
B4  2.5 
B5  2.5 
Mean, x 2.5 2.52 2.0
St andard deviat ion  0.65 
61
Table 3.24 PrismBlock relationships in compression, 1: 6
(1 part cement t o 6 part s sand) mixes
Specimen Prism
Block
Prism
st rengt h f
m
N/ mm
2
Block
st rengt h f
u
N/ mm
2
Wall
st rengt h f
x
N/ mm
2
P1(h/ t = 2) 2.6  2.1
B1  2.6 
B2  2.5 
B3  2.6 
B4  2.5 
B5  2.5 
Mean, x 2.3 2.54 2.1
St andard deviat ion  0.05 
3.11 I SBPrism St ressst rain Relat ionship
The result s of obt ained from t he t ests of t he masonryprisms
are shown in Figs 3.6 t o 3.11. Tabulat ed values of t hese
graphs are present ed, wit h maximum st rain values at failure,
in Appendix VI I I .
62
Fig. 3.6 St ressst rain relationship
Fig. 3.7 St ressst rain relationship
63
Fig. 3.8 St ressst rain relationship
Fig. 3.9 St ressst rain relationship
64
Fig. 3.10 St ressst rain relationship
Fig. 3.11 St ressst rain relationship
65
3.12 Compressive St rengt h Test for I SB Wall
Compressive st rengt h t est was conduct ed for t he int erwoven
sandcret e block wall, using t he same block specimens of t he
same product ion and curing as in t he t est of blockwork
prisms.
Five wall panel specimens (of size: 0.66m wide by 1.32m
in height of t his t eat ), according t o Appendix A of BS 5628:
part 1 (1985) wit h ratio of widt h t o height = 1: 2, were t est ed.
A vert ical axial load was applied t o each wall specimen, by
means of a t est ing frame, which was sufficient ly stiff in flexure
t o ensure t hat t he t op and bot t om of t he panel are rest rained
against rot at ion. The magnit ude of t he axial load applied to
t he panel was read off t he pressure gauge on t he pump
cont rol unit .
I n each compressive t est, t he load was increased in stages
wit h measurement s been made during t he short periods when
loading condit ions were st atic. The load was increased unt il
t he specimen was no longer capable of supporting furt her
increase. The appropriat e value of t he wall charact erist ic
st rengt h was obt ained using gross sect ional area of t he wall.
The hollow blocks of t he wall specimens were not filled wit h
sandcret e. The appropriat e value of t he wall charact erist ic
st rengt h was obt ained using gross sect ional area of t he wall.
Fig. 3.12 shows I SBwall t est arrangement .
Tables 3.25 and 3.26 show t he result s of compressive
st rengt h of I SB wall at 28 days for 1: 6 cement sand ratios.
66
Fig.3.12 ISB wall test arrangement
Alignment
Connection to
cross head
Braced
Column
ISB
specimen
Bottom wooden
platen
Braced Isection
cross head
Compression rod
Wooden
platen
67
Table 3.25 Compressive st renght of I SB wall at 28 days old,
1: 6 (1 part cement t o 6 part s sand) mix
Specimen
W16
Plan Area
10x mm
2
Crushing
Load
x 10
3
N
Compressive
st rengt h
N/ mm
2
161 152.56 305 2.0
162 152.56 290 1.9
163 152.55 290 1.9
164 152.56 305 2.0
165 152.56 320 2.1
Mean st rengt h value x = 1.98 St andard deviat ion s = 0.14
Coefficient of variat ion v = 4.5, Wall compressive st rengt h f
x
= 2.0
W – 16 = wall of 1: 6 mix
Table 3.26 Compressive st rengt h of I SB wall at 28 days old,
1: 8(1 part cement t o 8 part s sand) mix
Specimen
W18
Plan Area
mm
2
x 10
3
Crushing
Load
x 10
3
N
Compressive
st rengt h
N/ mm
2
181 152.54 275 1.8
182 152.56 275 1.8
183 152.56 275 1.8
184 152.55 305 2.0
185 152.56 289 1.9
Mean st rengt h value x= 1.86 St andard deviat ion s= 0.118
Coefficient of variat ion v= 6.3, Wall compressive strengt h f
k
= 1.9
W 18= wall of 1: 8 mix
3.13 Compact ion Test for I SBBlock Tongue
This was carried out t o det ermine t he work (due t o impact
load) required t o cause det achment of t he t ongue from t he
mot her body of t he I SB block. The impact load, by a hammer
of t he I zod/ chapy impact t est er (AveryDenison, LS 102DE,
capacit y 150J/ 300J) was applied at right angle t o, and at
cent roid of, t he specimen t ongue.
A specimen for a compact ion t est comprised of a set of
t ongues. Prior to selling of t he t ongues, t hey were cut out in
port ions as shown in Fig. 3.13. Each set of t ongues was placed
68
firmly in an open wooden box. The box was t hen fixed int o t he
anvil. This arrangement is shown in Fig. 3.14.
Ten specimens each were test ed wet (soaked in wat er for
24 hours) and dry. I n each measurement t he hammer is raised
t o a specific level before it was released for an impact load on
t he specimen.
Fig.3.13 Types of block t ongues making a specimen
5
0
2
5
7
5
2
5
5
0
25 25 50 25 25 50 50 25
5
0
2
5
7
5
2
5
5
0
2
2
5
5
0
5
0
100 75 100
Block part
Upper t ongue
Side t ongue
69
Fig.3.14 Test arrangement for set of block t ongues
The energy (Joule and N/ m) was recorded for impact
when t he t ongue spalled. Displacement and rot ation of t he
block due t o impact were t hen obt ained by calculat ion using
equat ions of impact forces for t he wet specimens
(ident ification No. BI 100) and BI 200 series for dry
specimens.
A point dist ance of t he smallest part of t he shattered
t ongue, due t o impact load, were measured from t he cent re
line of t he tongues plane. Plat e I V shows t he impact machine
in act ion Tables 3.27 and 3.28 show t he results of t he impact
force on t he I SB t ongues.
Hammer
Specimen block
Distance of block split
R
70
Plate IV ISB tongues under impact force
70
Table 3.27 I mpact force t est results on wet I SBblock tongues
1: 8(1 part cement t o 8 part s sand) mix
Block
(BI 100)
series
Work done
N/ m Joule
Dist ance
Point
(m)
I mpact force on
t he t ongues (N)
5 1
BI 100 50 49.0 1.90 25.79 5.151
BI  101 53 51.9 1.98 25.75 5.15
BI  102 52 50.9 1.99 25.58 5.12
BI 103 52 50.9 1.99 25.58 5.12
BI 104 49 47.5 1.08 24.35 4.87
BI 105 50 4.9.0 1.99 24.62 45.92
BI  106 52 50.9 1.99 25.58 5.12
BI 107 51 49.9 1.98 25.20 5.05
BI 108 51 49.9 1.98 25.20 5.04
BI 109 50 49.9 1.98 25.20 5.04
Table 3.28 I mpact force t est results on dry I SBblock tongues
1: 6 (1part cement t o 6 part s sand) mix
Block
(BI 200)
series
Work done
N/ m Joule
Dist ance
Point
(m)
I mpact force on
t he t ongues (N)
5 1
BI 200 95 93.1 1.6 58.12 11.64
BI  101 90 88.2 1.4 62.93 12.59
BI  102 83 81.3 1.4 58.07 11.51
BI 103 88 86.2 1.5 57.47 11.47
BI 104 49 90.2 1.5 60.13 12.02
BI 105 95 93.1 1.5 62.07 12.40
BI  106 95 93.1 1.5 62.07 12.40
BI 107 93 91.1 1.4 65.07 13.01
BI 108 81 79.4 1.3 61.08 12.22
BI 109 83 81.3 1.5 54.2 10.84
Mean impact force value x = 5.06
Coefficient of variation v = 1.91
Standard deviation s 0.09
Mean characteristic force for 1 tongue =5.06
Mean impact force value x = 12.01
Coefficient of variation v = 5.4
Standard deviation s 0.65
Mean characteristic force for 1 tongue =12.01
71
3.14 Specification for int erwoven Sandcret e Block
The essent ial information for ordering sandcret e masonry
unit s, as recommended by BS 6073: part 2, is shown in Table
3.29
Table 3.29: Ordering specification for t he I SB block
I t em I nformat ion
Quantity
St rengt h
Type
Mat erials
Special
feat ures
Propert ies
Handing
BS 882
BS 6073
BS5638
No. required for the trial product ion is 300 unit size
work sizes ( cocoordinat ing sizes of unit s) required,
442mm x 225mm ( for t he full and halfblocks
respect ively
2.7Nmm
2
Hollow
Sand ( nat ural, hard, clean. BS 882 ordinary Portland
Cement ( OPC) NS No. 11( 1974)
Side and op tongues, sides and bott om grooves, half
block wit h one side with t wo vert ical tongues, one
cavity ( hollow), one t op t ongue and a bot tom and
side grooves
Whitishgrey colour, sandtext ured flat surface
Quality control Special quality control, requires a
second sample t o be tested should t he first not
provide sufficient evidence to eit her accept or rej ect
or rej ect t he products
Packing is done by insert ing one block on t he ot her
and sidebyside, making sure tongues are not
sheared off t he body of t he unit. I n removing or
picking t o posit ion t wo hands should be used at t he
bott om t o lift up t he unit. When transporting from a
place to anot her, t he bot tomlayer units should be
placed on flat surface.
Aggregat e ( sand) from nat ural sources for sandcret e
Precast concret e masonry unit s. Part 2: Met hod of
specifying masonry units
St ruct ural use of masonry. Unreinforced masonry.
72
Chapter 4
PROPERTI ES AND MODEL EQUATI ONS FOR
I NTERWOVER SANDCRETE BLOCKWALL (I SB)
4.1 Compressive St ress Regime
Masonry in a uniaxial st ress st at e exhibits nonunique
charact erist ics. I n a wall of unit and mort ar component s,
Poisson’s ratio being different for block unit and mort ar shows
t hat t he lat eral st rains developed in t he two mat erials will
differ. A block is in lateralt ension and axialcompression st at e,
whilst t he mort ar is set up in a t riaxial st ress st at e. I n t he
absence of mort ar in t he bed j oint , such as in I SBwall will
alt er deformational behaviour as well as failure charact erist ic
when st ress is applied. Mort ar in t he j oint s is rest rained from
flowing out by t he frict ional bond t hat has developed bet ween
it and t he unit s. The behaviour of block masonry wit hout
mort ar j oint has not been adequat ely verified experiment ally.
I n t he case of unit mort ar wall various failure t heories have
been proposed. Hilsdorf (1986) proposed a failure crit erion
based on st rengt h of brickunit and mortar. He measured,
using five layers of brick prism specimens, physical propert ies
of masonry and int roduced t he concept of nouniformit y
coefficient which average normal st ress act ion on t he masonry.
The st rengt h of mort ar under t riaxial compression was
assumed t o be similar t o t he t riaxial st rengt h of mat erial
(concret e). This approach was lat er developed by Khoo and
Hendry (1973) who invest igat ed t he behaviour of brick
mat erial under a st at e of biaxial compressiont ension and
mort ar under a st at e of mult iaxial compression. The failure
t heory was t hen based on biaxial st rengt h of bricks and
mort ar.
From t he failure t heories based on an elastic analysis, t he
formula proposed by Francis et al (1971) depends on t he
73
values of Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s ratio for a unit mort ar
combinat ion could not be uniquely defined. Though a non
linear analysis might be produced, but it would be difficult t o
det ermine t he necessary deformation charact eristics
experiment ally. Even wit h t his limit ation, fair agreement has
been demonst rat ed wit h t he experiment al results from t he
formulae derived, and some emphasis are laid on some fact ors
cont rolling, masonry st rengt h. Such fact ors include t he rat io of
j oint t hickness of brick dept h, which is very import ant in
relat ionship t o workmanship and which may not have advert
effect on t he st rengt h of t he int erwoven sandcret e block wall.
This is because of t he absence of mort ar j oint at bot h the head
and bed j oint s.
Consideration a unit mort ar prism subj ect ed t o an axial
compressive st ress and a st ress corresponding t o t ensile failure
of t he unit o’, t he limiting compressive st ress is expressed as:
σ
o
=
m r
v m v
v
u m
u
u
l
. 1 +
÷
+
o
(4.1)
where : v
u
s
v
m
= Poisson’s rat io for unit and
mort ar respect ively,
m = E
u
/ E
m
= rat io of Young’s
moduli of unit to mort ar,
r = σ
u
/ σ
m
= ratio of st resses of
unit t o mort ar
I n t he case of t he int erwoven sandcret e blockwall, m =
10, r = 1 and v
m
= v
u
, t hen equat ion (4.1) becomes
u
u
l
u
u
o
o = (4.2)
I n which: σ
l
x
= E
u
c
ult
(4.3)
I n which: σ
/
x
= E
u
є
ul t
. At failure crit eria of t he unit mat erial, t he
limit ing t ensile st rain:
74
c
ult
=
u
E
1
(σ
u
’ + v
n
σ
c
) (4.4)
4.2 Uniaxial Compression
4.2.1 St ress St rain Relat ionship
Experiment al test s (Hendry, 1981a; Hendry, 1987; Bangash,
1989) show t hat brickwork behaves in a highly nonlinear
manner in uniaxial compression. A t ypical st ress st rain of such
wall shows t ypical working diagram (st ress st rain) relat ionship
subj ect ed t o uniaxial compression. This is shown in Fig.4.1
Fig. 4.1 Dimensionless st ress–st rain relat ionship
This st ress – st rain curve is linearly elastic up t o 30% of t he
maximum compressive st rengt h. Above t his point t he curve
increases gradually up t o about 7090% of t he compressive
st rengt h (based on a dimensionless st ressst rain curves). And
immediat ely aft er t his peak value, t his curve descends. Aft er
t his point t he crushing failure occurs at an ult imat e st rain (σ
m
).
a dimensionless st ressst rain curve is represent ed in Fig. 4.1.
Numerical expression relat ing t o t he st ress and st rain is
given as:
S
T
R
E
S
S
(
σ
c
/
σ
o
)
c
c
/c
o
c
c
/c
sou
c
c
/c
2ou
STRAI N
σ
c
/σ
m
75
σ
o
= σ
o
[
002 . 0
2
c
c
– (
002 . 0
c
e
)
2
] (4.5)
At e < 0.002 = e
o
σ
c
= σ
o
[ 1.0 – z ( eo – 0.002)] (4.6)
At 0.002 < e
c
< e
2on
Where: z =
002 . 0
5
5
÷ e
on
(4.7)
and, e
5ou
=
1000 145
29 . 0 3
÷
+
c
o
f
f
(4.8)
where: e
c
, e
o
= equivalent st rain and st rain at
0.002 respect ively
e
5ou,
e
2ou
= st rains corresponding to
0.5f
c
and 0.2f
c
respect ively
f
c
= compressive (uniaxial) st rengt h
of sandcret e.
The knowledge of st ressst rain relationship for masonry in
compression is frequent ly required in st ruct ural design.
Measurement s (Aderson, 1971; Khoo and Hendry, 1973) have
been made on prisms and walls to est ablish t he nat ure of t he
st ressst rain curve and t he value of Young’s modulus.
Powel and Hodgkinson (1986) were able to use suitable
load cont rol t echnique t o det ermine t he st ressst rain
relat ionship pass t he maximum compressive st ress t o failure.
The following relat ionship was est ablished:
2
' '
2

.

\

÷

.

\

=
c
c
c
c
o
o
(4.9)
c =
'
2
o
o
(4.10)
I n t he case t he initial t angent modulus is given by:
E =
'
2
o
o
(4.11)
While t he secant modulus is:
76
E = 0.75σ’ (4.12)
4.3 Uniaxial Tension
Assuming t he t ensile behaviuor of t he int erwoven sandcret e
block masonry could be evaluat ed, it can be evaluat ed eit her:
a) by t he of block prism t est, or
b) by t he modulus of rupt ure or bending t est of t he prism.
For condition a) above:
σ
u
’= 0.55
c
f ’ (4.13)
For condition b) above:
σ
u
’ = 0.95
c
f ’ (4.14)
where: f
c
’ cylindrical st rengt h of sandcret e in
compression.
I t should be not ed t hat siliceous aggregat es decrease t he
t ensile st rengt h which is t he case wit h t he interwoven
sandcret e blockunit . The t ensile st rengt h of int erwoven
sandcret e blockwork built wit hout bed j oint material is
relat ively small or rat her zero. The t ensile st rengt h of masonry,
part icularly across t he bed j oints, is low and variable, as such,
it is not generally relied upon in st ruct ural design.
Tensile st resses in block work may arise as a result of
eit her inplane or t ransverse bending. I n t he case of an in
plane st ressing, t ension is developed bet ween t he unit and
mort ar, which could not be reckoned wit h in t he interwoven
sandcret e block wall (I SB). There is no adhesion bet ween t he
blocks. I n t he case of t he t ransverse bending, t he resist ance of
t he wall depends primarily on t he flexural st rengt h of
blockwork. For t he walls t hat are usually found in lowrise
buildings and t he upper floors of multist ory buildings, t he
lat eral loading on t hese usually arises from wind pressure or
ot her incident loads. Tensile st ress analysis for t he I SBwall is
based on t he t ransverse bending.
77
4.4 Dat a on poison’s Rat io and Young’s Modulus
Value of Poisson’s rat io v and Young’s modulus E in t he
direct ions of t he principal st resses varied. Bangash (1989)
report ed t hat , while assuming t he concret e surface at failure
t o be a cone in t ension and t runcat ed core in compression,
Hussain and Saugu arrived at a figure of 1.25 as t he rat io of
t he biaxial compressive st rengt h t o uniaxial compressive
st rengt h ( o
biax:
/ o
uniax:
)and v= 0.25.
Under monot onic loading in t ensiont ension and
compression, Poisson’s ratio of 0.2 is quit e effect ive. This is
adequat e for uniaxial compressive and compressivet ension at
very low value of st ress. Around 0.8f
c
/
, t he value of 0.2 is t oo
low and it should be comput ed (Bangash, 1989) as:
v = 0.2+ 0.6(
c
f
2
o
)
4
+ 0.4(
c
f
1
o
)
4
(4.15)
That is, for t he uniaxial compressive and compressive
t ensile cases. Aft er 28 day of sandcret e curing, in general,
about 86% of t he final value is reached. The value of E is
bet ween 400100 mult iplied by t he crushing st rengt h (f
c
’) or by
BS 8110, E = 5.5
c
f ’/ ¸
m
(¸
m
is t he fact or of safet y of
mat erial).
When considering t he int erwoven sandcret e block wall as
a st rip wit h a unit widt h and it is t reat ed t o be in a st at e of
plane st rain and as a nondimensional st ruct ure, i.e., its
const it ut ive relat ions of t he wall st rip, wit h t he roof/ floor
member, are floor member, are expressed in uniaxial form, t he
st at e of plane st rain effect in account ed for in modeling t he
compressive st ressst rain relationship by modifying t he init ial
t angent modulus (E) of t he masonry to become E
k
and f
m
t o σ
o
:
E
k
=
2
1 v
E
÷
= 2
) 1 ( '
2
v ÷ o
o
(4.16)
And
2
2
0
1 v
f
÷
= o (4.17)
78
where: f
m
= t he compressive st rengt h of masonry
0
o = t he masonry st rengt h account s for t he
plane st rain effect .
4.5 St ability of I nt erwoven Sandcret e Block (I SB)Wall
4.5.1 I SB Wall Displacement
Displacement of wall generally could be influenced by: (i) t he
t ype of unit, (ii) t he st rengt h of j oint mat erial, (iii) st atus (wet
or dry) of t he unit and (iv) normal st ress.
From t he aforement ioned, small or high suct ion capacit y
has no effect on t he ult imat e shear st ress in t he deformat ion
behavior of t he shearst ressed t ongue of t he bed j oint .
Alt hough high st rengt h of j oint mat erial increases t he st iffness
of a shearst ressed be j oint and deformat ion behavior, it is not
likely t hat t his will affect t he bed j oint t ongues of the I SB
block. I ncrease in normal st ress results in increase of ult imat e
shearst ressed bed j oint . This is not t he case for t he I SBwall
as t he normal st ress has no bearing on t he tongues of bed
j oint s. Floor slab or roof horizont al force will affect t he vert ical
displacement of t he wall due to uplift ment of t he blocks at t he
t ensile side of t he wall.
Two aspects of failure will be evaluat ed. These are t he
displacement of I SBwall due t o t he combined vert ical and
horizont al loads as well as t he wall inst abilit y as a result of t he
displacement of t he unit s by t he result s of failure of t he
t ongues.
4.5.2. Displacement of I SBwall due t o Horizont al Load
I n analyzing a singlest orey syst em for t he interwoven
sandcret e blockwall, t he slab or roof is considered as prop and
t he wall as propped cant ilever. The syst em consists of t wo
ext ernal load bearing walls wit h a span, and each wall having
equal height H and sect ional area A, wit h flexural rigidit y
(Ei,)
w
. Roof slab spanning in one direct ion is hingej oint ed at
t he upper end of t he wall panel. Each wall is loaded by a
concent rat ed live load P, on eccent ricity e and horizont al force
W(wind load). Each load at t he bot t om end is assumed fixed.
Wall disposit ion is shown in Fig 4.2.
79
Fig. 4.2 Wall disposit ion
Each wall panel is st ressed at t he eccent ricity e
i
where
load P, and horizont al force F, are act ing q
i
is t he weight per
unit lengt h of each wall panel. Fig 4.3 shows wall deformat ion
and t he loadings.
From Fig 4.3, horizont al force is expressed as:
F
hi
= N
1
+ W
i
– N
1+ 1
(4.18)
where: subscript I = number of wall panels.
P P
i
P
i+1
W N
i
N
i+1
e
i
e
i+1
H
P
W
L
80
Fig. 4.3 Wall deformat ion due t o horizont al and vert ical load
The bending moment at any sect ion x is expressed as:
M
i(x)
= P
i
(e
i
+ y
i
) + F
hi
x (4.19)
The deflect ion at t he upper end of t he wall panel relat ing
t o t he deflect ion at fixed end point .
ox = Y
2
H = + ÷ ) 1
cos
1
)( (
2
2
2 2
2
2
H k k p
q
e
)
tan
( )
2
tan
(
2
2
2 2
2
2
2
H
k
H k
p
F H
k
H k
p
H q
ni
÷ + ÷ + (4.20)
y
x
yi
P
F
i+1
yi
P
i
y
i+1
F
i+1
e
i
(b) Displacement and force
det ails
(a) Schemat ic diagram
q
81
:
w
EI
p
k
) (
= (4.21)
and in general t erm:
2 2 2
 o
h
F y + = (4.22)
I n a case when e
1
= 0, load P, exert s axially on t he wall and
horizont al force F
hi
due t o wind load W and t he wall flexural
rigidity; is expressed as:
)
/ 1
/ 1
(
22
1
1
2
¯
=
=
i
hi
W F


(4.23)
According t o equation (4.23), 1/ is t he flexural rigidity of
t he wall panel wit h vert ical load P. Equat ion (4.23) indicat es
t hat t he ext ernal force W is dist ribut ed into each wall in t he
rat io of flexural rigidit ies: And when t he wall is loaded by W,
and it is proportional t o t he rigidit y, t hen bet ween t he t wo
walls:
W,  ,= W
2

2
(4.23a)
At t he same t ime st rain c = 0 and eccent ricit y e = 0. From
equat ion (4.23a), horizont al force F
hi
can be obtained. As said
earlier if e = 0 and e = 0, t hen t he syst em is homogenous and
can only be zero if { N} = 0. t hen
F
hi =
W
i
(4.24)
Problem of st abilit y occurs when one looks for a vert ical
loading syst em which t he wall panel will maint ain even in
deformat ion. For a small value of N, i.e. of t he floor/ roof, t here
is no axial force along t he slab, hence t here is no interact ion
bet ween t he wall and t he roofslab. As such, no horizont al
force F
hi
. I n order t o prevent deformat ion of t he syst em y,= 0.
At k
i
H = r(t/ 2) (4.25)
82
t hen, (1/ r)k,H= t/ 2 (4.25a)
where: 1/ r is t he curvat ure, while r is t he radius of gyrat ion of
t he wall At t he maximum deflect ion, by load P,
y
1,max
= y
1(H/ 2)
(4.26)
I t should be not ed t hat t he equivalent slenderness rat ios
(effect ive height : effect ive t hickness of wall) in t erms of t he
least radius of gyrat ion r for a rect angular sect ion for values of
6, 12, 18 and 24 are 20.78, 41.56, 41.56, 62.35 and 83.13
respect ively (BS5628, 1985). These would be t he maximum
slenderness ratios based on t he radius of gyration. I n
dimensionless form (Pubal, 1982).
v i
i
i
i
EI
P
H
H
H
y
H
y
) (
) / (
) / (
2
2
÷
=
t
t
=
cr
i
i
P
P
H y
÷ 1
/
(4.27)
and
W i i
EI r P ) (
2 2
t = (4.28)
where: P
er
= critical load (Euler’s load)
The st at e of t his syst em will not exist, if each panel is
loaded only by a corresponding crit ical. The charact eristics
value due t o t he wall rigidit y will be low when t he top and t he
bot t om of t he wall are not rigidly rest rained and t heir effect ive
height will exceed 0.5H (H is t he wall height ).
Failure of I SB wall may not be st rict ly by buckling in t he
classical sense. Nevert heless, t he concept of effect ive height
remains useful. According t o BS 5628, clause 28.3.1.1 (1985):
(i) ¾ of t he clear dist ance bet ween lat erals supports where
some rot ation rest rains exist or (ii) t he clear dist ance bet ween
lat eral support when t he rest raint is only t o lat eral movement
and not t o rot at ion, should be t aken t o account for t he
effect ive height . I n equat ion (4.24) y
1
= 0. At P
1 =
P
cr
: y = 0,
wall panel remains in its posit ion.
83
Relat ionship between t he load and deflection, in
dimensionless forms, will be used t o predict t he variat ions of
deflect ions over t he height .
4.5.3 Det erminat ion of Crit ical Condition
The loadcarring capacity of sandcret e wall subj ect ed t o
eccent ric loading is affect ed mainly by not only t he
slenderness ratio of t he wall, but end eccent ricit y of t he
applied loads and t he condition of bond bet ween blocks of t he
wall.
Considered here are t he end eccent ricit y effect s wit h
respect t o t he uplift ment of each block in succession and
rot at ing of t he block at t he bot t om by t he compression side.
End condit ions are assumed t o be bot h hinged. Tensile
st rengt h is complet ely zero.
4.5.3.1 Combined Vert ical and Lat eral Load for I SBWall
The load capacit y of I SB wall carrying lat eral load can be
analyzed using direct met hod, by assuming t hat an arch t hrust
is developed in t he plane of t he wall.
4.5.3.2 Wall Model
I SB wall is modeled, in Fig. 4.4a as spanned vertically by a
floor slab at t he top and by a st iff foundat ion at t he bot t om.
This model is in line wit h t he concept of equivalent column
used by Salah et al (1990). Load P per unit dept h of t he wall is
act s at t he t op, at an eccent ricit y e, while wind load intensit y q
is acting horizont ally on t he height of t he wall. Assuming a
small deflect ion of t he support s, a maximum moment and
deflect ion at t he midspan and if we consider half of t he wall
height , as in Fig. 4.4c, t he int ernal moment of t he resist ance:
M
u
= P.y
a
(4.29)
84
Fig .4.4 I nst ability of wall pinned at support s
The int ernal compressive force P is equal to t he permit t ed
compressive st ress f by t he dept h d of t he compressive block.
Moment of resist ance in equat ion (4.29) becomes:
M = f d (t dy
a
) (4.30)
From BS 5628, charact erist ics st rengt h of masonry is mult iplied
by 1.5, ie 1.5f
k
(f
k
is t he st rengt h of masonry) and dept h of
compressive block d = 0.1t (t = t hickness of wall). And from
equilibrium, t he int ernal moment (equat ion (4.30)) is equal t o
t he ext ernal moment (due t o q and height H), hence:
= q
2
)] 9 . 0 ( 2 . 1 [
H
y t t
Yn
F
i
÷
(4. 31)
qH/2
P P
f
d
(a)
(b)
(c)
P P
qH/2
ӯ
y
a
q
85
at y = 0,
2
) (
H
t
Yn
F
q
i
= (4. 32)
From Fig 4.4c, t he deflect ion:
y= H
sht
H/ 8t (4. 33)
where: H
sht
= short ening under load
and shrinkage (about 2.4mm) in
sandcret e.
4.6 I SB wall under Horizont al I mpact Load on Block Tongue
I n t he mort arunit walls, shear behaviour of t he bed j oint has
been syst ematically st udied by ot her aut hors (Samarasingh et
al, 1981; Hendry,1981). Evaluat ion of shearst ressed
int erwoven sandcret e block wall could be relat ed t o the shear
st ress in t ongues and t he relative displacement of t he unit s,
when subj ect ed t o horizont al (impact ) loads.
Tensile st resses in t he blockwork may arise as a result of
eit her inplan or t ransverse bending. I n t he case of t he in
plane st ressing, t ension is developed across t he bed j oint s of
t he blockwork and t he st rengt h is dependent on t he adhesion
bet ween block and mort ars.
4.6.1 Analyt ical Models
A block in Fig.4.5 shows t he model of an int erwoven sandcret e
block, in it s wall, t o be subj ect ed t o an ext ernal impact force.
86
Fig.4.5 Geomet rical (model) posit ion of I SB block in t he wall
For t he I SB models of oscillation, t he dynamic
charact erist ics of each block were deduced from it s free
vibrat ions, t riggered by a sudden release or wit hdraw of
impact force of t he hammer or missile. This horizont al impact
force act s at an horizont al motion (assumed). I t could be
not ed t hat a dynamic horizont al force will t rigger incident al
B= t
h
1
=
t h L h
bt h L hT
b T T
t
+
+ ) ( 5 . 0
2 2
)
3 12
(
2
1
2
h t
m I
z
+ =
A2
h
b
A
1
L
t
h
T
y
b
h
h
1
Tu
L
87
horizont al oscillations. Such secondary modes were not
considered in t his case. I n a cracked body shake down, as
present ed by Melay’s met hod and employed by Belouchrami
and Weichert (1997), in a st atic shakedown t heorem for
inelastic cracked st ruct ures, plast ic flow ceases beyond a
cert ain t ime. The main concern of t his st udy involves a case of
st ress singularity in a sharp crack t ip t o failure. Using t he
met hod of elast ic const ant , by different ial equat ion, from t he
inert ial force of t he element of mass equat ed t o the force
applied, in vibrat ion form (Bat a, 1981):
[ m] { r” } + [ c] { r} = { F} (4.34)
or
m
2
2
) (
dt
t u d
+ C
11
u (t ) + C
12
E (t ) = F sinet
I
z
2
2
) (
dt
t d e
+ C
11
u (t ) + C
22
E (t ) = F y sinet
...(4.35)
where: m = weight of t he block (and tongue) act ed upon by
horizont al dynamic load
I
z
= moment of inert ial of t he block to t he axis of
rot at ion passing t hrough t he cent re of gravit y.
C
ik
= elastic const ant
F.y= Moment due t o vibrat ing force t o t he cent re of
gravit y perpendicular t o t he plane of rot at ion
F = amplit ude of t he act ing vibrat ing force
R = complex eigenvalues (= is, where i = (1), s =
2t f)
e = angular rot at ion
The mass of t he wall is divided into number of lumps (block
size). The elast icity of t he beam is represent ed as massless
st ruct ural element whose compliance corresponding t o
compliance of act ual wall, hence a part icular solut ion is
obt ained:
=
U(t)
c(t)
U
c
Sinet (4.36)
88
So t hat equat ion (4.35) becomes:
(C
11
– me
z
) u + C
12
c = F
(4.37)
C
12
+ ( C
22
– I
z
e
2
) = F.y
Maximum horizont al amplit ude of t he surface of t he block is
u
max
= u + h
1
. c (4.38)
where : c = nat ural frequency
Referring t o Fig 4.6 (Deformat ion of I SB – wall block due t o
ext ernal dynamic load), t he following t erms are defined:
C
11
= Horizont al force essential for t he horizont al displacement
(at u = 1). No rot at ion of t he block
C
12
= Moment which prevent s t he rot at ion of t he block due t o
horizont al displacement
C
22
= Moment essent ial for t he rot at ion of t he block (at t he
rot at ion, c = 1). No displacement at t he cent re of t he
gravit y of t he block
C
21
= Horizont al forces at t he gravit y t hat prevent s
displacement of t he
89
Fig. 4.6 Displacement of I SB—wall block subj ect ed
c (x) x
Fsinet
y
G G’
u(t)
(a)
0
G G’
C
11
C
12
y
t
u = 1
C
x
(b)
c=1
h
2
h
1
G ~ G’
C
22
C
21
y
t
Cxh
2
(c) C
c
90
t o ext ernal dynamic force
Defining t hese const ant s:
C
11
= K
x
A (4.39)
C
12
= C
21
= K
z
y
t
A (4.40)
C
22
= Kc I
o
+ k
z
y
t
2
A (4.41)
Where: I
o
= initial second moment of
area of t he block,
y
t
= position of neut ral axis
for t he block
The angular rot ation is expressed as:
W = (K
c
I
o
)/ I
z
(4.42)
Generally, k is assumed t o be t he densit y of t he mat erial in
rigid position. The bot t om of t he block wall is t aken t o be
part ially fixed wit h t he ground. The following terms in Fig 4.6
are defined as:
G(G’) = cent e of gravit y,
U = horizont al displacement ,
c = rot ation, h
1
, h
2
, and y
t
are self defined.
I t is import ant t o not e t hat a considerable amount of shear
can be t ransferred across t he surface of cracked sandcret e.
The shear t ransfer mechanism is t he aggregate int erlock which
depends on t he size and grading. I n t he case of t he I SB, t he
t ensile st rengt h of t he sandcret e is not import ant . So, st ress is
also having lit tle influence ion t he shearst ressed I SB masonry.
As a result of impact load due t o hammering or t hrowing of
missile against t he wall, I SB unit t ongues are shearst ressed.
The effect of normal st ress (σ
11
) in t he wall does not affect t he
t ongues, but t he horizont al load. A change in st ress occurs in
t he unit as a result of shear forces. This provides a rot at ional
balance of t he individual blocks subj ect ed t o shear st ress at
t he bed of t he I SB upper t ongue.
This is perpendicular t o t he shear force. The t ongue may
failed by spalling wit h an horizont al displacement . I n t his
analysis however, t he vert ical (head) t ongues are not t aken
int o considerat ion.
91
Compact ion of t he I SBunit during manufact ure could
improve t he mechanical bond bet ween t he mot herunit and its
t ongues. Wat er resist ivit y, cement cont ent could be fact ors
affect ing t he bond st rengt h bet ween t he unit and t he t ongues.
4.7 Triangular Syst em of Opt imization Met hod
A simplified and effect ive met hod for practical applicat ion of
opt imum design t echnique proposed by Sandor (1982), and
which does not require many design variables and complicat ed
descript ive funct ions, is employed here. I t is a graphical
met hod based on t riangular syst ems of coordinat es and it can
be applied direct ly for opt imizing cases where t he number of
decision or st ruct ural variables is t hree.
The t riangular syst em is usually an equilat eral; t riangle.
Each of t he t hree sides of t he t riangle is used as a coordinat e
axis for one variable in a suit able scale. I n Fig. 4.7, a t ypical
example of t riangular coordinat e is shown for a point P, where
b1 = 5, b2 = 1 and b3 = 4. The coordinat es are non
negat ive. Nonlinear relationships are represent ed by non
linear lines, such as a st raight line in a linear relationship.
Fig.4.7 Triangular coordinat es
P ( 5, 1, 4)
92
4.7.1 Triangular Met hod of Optimisat ion
1) Const ruct a t riangular coordinat e syst em, using a
suit able scale for each axis.
2) Est ablish t he axes (say, b1, b2, b3) combination t hat
complies wit h t he size of t he element (unit ) variable.
That is t he sum of t he variables should not be less
t han t he largest value of such variable (i.e. b1 + b2 +
b3 > b2, if b2 > { b1 and b3} ).
3) Assume t hat any of t he variables is not equal to null
(i.e. b1, b2, b3, + 0).
4) Derive cost funct ions t o be minimizing t he element
(unit ) size.
5) Est ablish t he variables (b1, b2, b3) combinat ions t hat
comply funct ional and const raint equat ions. Plot, as
indicat ed in Fig. 4.7, and superimpose such equat ions
t o est ablish a clear tot alit y of feasible area for solut ion.
Here t here will be numerous solut ions.
6) I t erat e for t he opt imum solution. This is done by
finding t he combinat ion of variables forms t he region
of feasible of feasible solutions t hat will and minimize
cost .
The conditions for solving opt imizat ion problem wit h t his
met hod are: 1) t he number of decisions or st ruct ural variables
is not more t han t hree regardless of t he number of const raint s
and 2) one of t he const raints should have t he form:
b1 + b2 + b3 = const ant (4. 43)
4.7.2 Dat a Base
I n realit y, block wall has unit s of distinct or discret e size. The
dimension of t he sandcret e block sect ion can be altered t o
obt ain t he required size. From a pract ical point of view, t he
problem may be defined as optimizing blockwall wit h
cont inuous one. The sect ion properties such as crosssect ional
area, sect ion modulus et c is comput ed t o const ruct t he dat a
Base for t he predet ermined wall sections. I n most common
discret e variable opt imization, Thanedar et al (1995)
discovered t hat : (i) branch and bond met hod of opt imization,
93
is t heoret ically ok for convex design t asks, but very cost ly t o
use, (ii) approximat e met hod provides efficiency but does not
guarant ee an opt imum discret e solut ion, while (iii) adhoc
met hod, i.e. simulat ed annealing and genet ic algorit hms solves
t he discret e variable problems wit hout result ing t o branchand
bond met hod. This last met hod cannot guarant ee an opt imum
solution eit her, but it gives accept able comput ational cost . The
common size of sandcret e blocks, for loadbearing wall
employed in Nigeria, include 140, 150, and 215 mm t hick.
The section, in t he dat a base are manipulat ed by one
variable (sect ion identificat ion number) which is linked wit h all
ot her design variables, such as: cost per unit lengt h, resist ance
capacit ies, sect ion and height .
I n t he design procedure, st ress, deformation const raint s
of t he sect ion are considered during t he const ruct ion of t he
dat a base. I SBwall design problem formulat ions are
considered as follows (sect ion 4.7.3):
4.7.3 I SBwall under Vert ical and Horizont al Load
I SB wall is modeled as a st ruct ural member t hat support s t he
vert ical and bending moment. The wall is designed on t he
basis of t he int eract ion bet ween bending and vertical load.
However, since t he axial and eccent ric load have direct
influence on t he moment capacity of t he wall and vice versa, it
may not be simple t o uncouple t he t wo effect s, t he wall size is
const rained so t hat it meet s t he requirement for st rengt h and
st abilit y. The const raint est ablishes t he minimum size of t he
wall by rest rict ing its behaviour t o a range of t he interact ion
diagram. Due t o lat eral load, uplift of t he wall will become
compression. Then t he compression const raint remain
applicable
As a result of bot h vertical and horizont al loads on t he
wall, bot h compressive and bending const raints are considered
design variables such as A, H and e are const rained wit h
respect t o design cost funct ions. The problems are to minimize
t he wall size (volume):
Z
max,c
= C H A (4.44)
94
Where: H = height of t he wall
A = Gross sectional area of
t he wall
C = unit cost (in Naira per
wall)
Equat ion (4 44) is subj ect to const rain:
(a) St ress (compressive and bending) const raints
0 s ÷ =
all i i
o o v (4.45)
A
P
Z
M
F
all
+ > o (4.45a)
where: σ
1
= design st ress due t o load
σ
all
= allowable st ress
M = moment due bending
along t he minor axis
Z
g
= wall gross sect ion modulus
= 1/ 6 ( Lt
2
) (4. 46)
L = widt h of t he block
P = vertical load
Equat ion (4.45) is expressed as:
A
P
PLe WH
A
all
+ + ÷ > ) 6 5 . 1 (
1
2
2
o (4. 47)
where: L = lengt h of t he wall
The allowable st ress due t o vert ical load:
) 2 ( e t L
P
all
÷
= o (4. 48)
Allowable st ress due to horizont al load, W = 6.1x10
4
H
2
95
From equat ions (4.47 and 4.48), t he const raint s equat ion
becomes:
0
825 . 0
)
1
2
1
( ) 6 5 . 1 ) (
2
3
2
1
s ÷ ÷
÷
÷ + =
Lt
qH
A Le A
P PLe NH x f
… (4. 49)
(b) St ress (compressive) Const raint
The const raint equation are expressed as:
0 ]
) 2 (
1 1
[
2
2
) ( s
÷
÷ ÷ =
e t L A A
Le
P f x (4.50)
0 ]
)
* 2
1 (
1 1
[
2
2
2
2
) ( s
÷
÷ ÷ =
f
f
x
T
e
LT
A A
Le
P f (4.51)
e* is defined in equat ion (3.7), T
t s
is t he block face shell.
Ot her relat ed const raint s (all in mm):
H = 500, A = 63000, e = 38.3 (4.52)
500 < H < 3600 (4.53)
6300 < A < 101250 (4.54)
e + A + H = 100 000 (4.55)
e, A, H ≠ 0 (4.56)
Assumpt ions considered for t he I SB wall model:
(i) No Deflect ion or bending of roof/ floor element
(ii) Wind load (W) is at t he roof/ floor level
(c) Deflect ion Const raint s
Assumpt ions are t he same as in (a) above. The equat ion is
expressed as:
v
i
= ӯ  y
all
< 0 (4.57)
96
ӯ
all
> N
P
H
+ e (4.58)
where t he allowable deflection :
ӯ
all
=
.
9 . 0
L
A

P
qH
8
2
(4.59)
I n t he case of t he I SBwall, st iffness is considered t o be
zero. Deflection is st rict ly due t o uplift ment of each block in
succession, as a result of vert ical and horizont al forces act ing
at t he t op of t he wall. The I SB wall is assumed to be part ially
fixed t o concret e foundat ion and t he roughness of ground i.e.,
t here is an enhanced resist ance. (There is some degree of
rot at ional rest raint at t he bot t om end.) The bearing of t he
roof/ floor beam is great er t han 90mm.
Assuming t hat I SB wall is a short wall, it s slenderness rat io
(= 0.75H/ t ) isles t han 12, while t he maximum permit t ed by BS
5628 is 27. I t is also assumed t hat maximum st rain (of 0.002)
occurs in t he out ermost fiber, of t he compression side, at
failure. This value is t aken as direct ly proport ional t o t he
dist ance from t he neut ral axis so t hat t he maximum st ress is
1.1 f
k
/ y
m
(f
k
is t he charact eristic st rengt h of wall, while t he
value 1.1 is for a uniform bearing st ress).
4.7.4 Damaged Condit ions of I SB blocks Due t o I mpact
The position and damage condit ions of a block in t he wall
impact force is illust rat ed in Fig.4.8.
From Fig. 4.8, t he following t erms are defined:
=
u
o Upper block face shell damaged by shear
=
bo
o Tongue of t he block obj ect damaged by
crushing/ cracking
=
L
o Lower block web damaged by crushing and
t ongue of t he lower block damaged by shear
variables: Cross sect ion A (area of t ongue)
and compact ion
d = number of damaged condit ions:
97
(1) shear (displacement , shear st ress
(2) crushing (displacement , rot ation, normal
st ress).
C = definit e wall stiffness (n x n positive mat rix
B
u
= upper block
B
bo =
block obj ect damaged by crushing/ cracking
Fig.4.8 Damage conditions of I SBblocks due to I mpact Loads
P
bo
B
u
α
u
α
bo
d = 2
d = 2
P
bo
B
u
α
u
α
bo
B
u
C
22
C
11
α
bo
α
L
(b)
B
bo
C
11
C
12
α
bo
α
L
B
L
(a)
98
4.7.5 Opt imal Design of t he I SB Block Tongue
The problem is t o maximize t he cross sectional area, of t he
upper t ongue of t he I SB block, subj ect ed t o horizont al impact
force.
The sect ional area to be minimized is expressed as:
Z = h
t
T
u
(4.60)
This is subj ect t o:
a) deformat ion (derived in Appendix V):
5 . 2 10 )
03 . 1 2 . 1
( 10 ) ( 99 . 27 ) (
2 3 2
1
+ + ÷ =
÷
u
t
T L
x h x f (4.61)
b) st ress (derived in Appendix V):
0 75 . 2
45 . 1332 06 . 158
) (
2
s + ÷ =
L T h
x f
u t
(4.62)
Ot her const raints are:
10 s h
t
s 25 (4.63)
45 s T
u
s 50 (4.64)
Ht + T
u
+ L= 450 (4.65)
h
t
T
u’
L > 0 (4.66)
4.7.6 Load Fact or and Correlation Coefficient of I SB
Compression
The st rengt h of unt est ed I SB wall is assessed for its st rengt h
in compression. The compressive st rengt h of block work varies
roughly as t he square root of t he nominal block crushing
st rengt h. A fact or of 0.9 is applied to a t est result of masonry
prism t o obt ain protot ype wall st rengt h (Hendry et al, 1981a).
However, since I SB wall is a new t ype of st ruct ure which is
not covered in t his count ry’s (Nigerian) code, t he correlat ion
99
bet ween t he prism t est ed and t he unt est ed protot ype is
formulat ed. Bayesian st atistical approach was used in t his
st udy according t o Geyskens et al (1998) where
comprehensive assessment s of previous dat a were employed.
A concept ual framework for assessing t he performance of
t he I SB wall is as follows: First approximation or prior st rengt h
of t he wall is obtain
From t he model of st rengt h post ulat ed from st ruct ural
charact erist ics, such as geomet ry, mat erial and it s st at ical
propert ies. I n ot her words, prior st rengt hs were obt ained by
knowing t he propert ies of block and masonry prisms. Load
fact ors were obt ained t o produce a prescribed reliability for t he
wall when put t o service in various pract ical cases.
4.7.7 St rengt h Model
Using Bayesian framework, t he post erior st rengt h, which is t he
updat ed improved approximat ion or prior st rengt h for t he
unt est ed wall is expressed as:
R
I =
M
H
+ Z
i
(4.67)
where: R
I
= post erior st rengt h of wall
M
H
= random variable
(st rengt h) relat ed t o
mat erial
Z
i
= zeromean uncorrelat ed
random sequence
Corresponding to fluct uat ion in t he st rengt h due t o
fabricat ion of wall and assuming known prior paramet ers
(f
ame
’s, o ): I n Gaussian sequence, t he post erior st rengt h:
) (
/ / /
mh mh mh
f x f f ÷ ± = o (4.68)
At
/ / /
0
mh mp mh
f f x f = ==> = = (4.69)
At x f f
mp mh
o = ==> =
/ /
0 (4.70)
100
The st andard deviat ion:
op ÷ = 1 B B
Bh
(4.71)
And t he correlat ion coefficient :
o p
o
p p
. 1
1
/
÷
÷
=
mp
(4.72)
where: =
/
mh
f prior mean st rengt h of t he
I SB prisms t est ed
=
/
mh
f Post erior mean st rengt h of
I SB wall (unt est ed)
S = st andard deviation due t o
st rengt h of prisms t est ed
P = correlation coefficient of t he
prior st rengt h
o = sample mean weight fact or
4.7.8 Load Fact or
The allowable mean load is expressed as:
P
a11
= Po (1+ v
s
V) (4.73)
P
o
=
LF
x
(4.74)
Where : po = allowable mean load
¯ x = sample mean
LF = t he load fact or
v
s
= coefficient of variation
V = st andard normal variable
independent of st ruct ural
st rengt h.
The load fact or is calculated from t he condition t hat probabilit y
of allowable load great er t han t he post erior probabilit y is equal
t o 1 and 10.
101
4.7.9 Prismwall St rengt h Relationship
The relationship bet ween t he prism (F
k
) st rengt h and t he wall
st rengt h (F
m
)
F
k
= 0.9 f
m
(4.75)
4.8. Opt imal Design for I SBwall
4.8.1 Analyt ical Formulat ion for t he I SBwall Design Safet y
A failsafe st ruct ure according t o Bangash (1989) is one t hat
cont inues t o perform satisfact orily even when any one of it s
members fails in t he I SBwall where t he bond is simply by t he
int erwoven of t he blocks, by t he t ongues and grooves t o t he
t ongues of main blocks. This fault could be at t ribut ed t o t he
impact by foreign obj ect s or missile or even t hrough
hammering on wall during const ruct ion work or inst allat ion of
appliances.
Crit ical definition or probable damage condit ions and
design is necessary t o ret ain t he int egrit y of t he I SBwall
panel.
4.8.2 Const raint s
Due t o physical limit s of mat erials or st ruct ural propert ies
required for a sat isfact ory performance, t he const raints for t he
failsafe design problem are generally writ t en as:
v
(o)(
b, o
(o)
, c
(o)
s 0 (4.76)
For all damaged conditions:
1. St ress const raint s
Due t o t he impact force condit ion, st ress must be wit hin t he
st rengt h limit s of t he sandcret e used:
σ
1
o
s σ
i,1
o
s σ
i
o
(4.77)
where: (o) = 0, 1, 2,…d
i = 1, 2,…NB (no. of blocks)
102
I = 1, 2,…NLC (no. of loading
condit ions due t o imposed
force)
2. Displacement const raint s
I n order t o limit t he displacement of t he t arget (block):
o
i
(o)L
s o
I ,1
(o)
s o
L
(o)U
(4.78)
Where i, I = 1, 2,…NLC
(o) = ), 1, 2,…d
o
i,l
= block displacement of t he it h degree of
freedom (DOF) under it h damage
condit ion induced by it h impact load
at t he block st ret cher load
perpendicular t o t he side
o
(o) L
, o
( o)U
= lower and upper limit s on t he it h
displacement
3. Nat ural frequency const raint s
This is obt ained by solving t he eigenvalue problems.
c
(o)
> c
(o)
(4.79)
where: (o) = ), 1, 2,…d
c, = smaller eigenvalue of t he block
under it h damage condit ions
c = lower bond
I n order to keep t he nat ural frequencies of t he wallblock in
an admissible frequency bonds, t he following const raints hold:
c
i
(o)U
> c
(o)
> c
(o)L
(4.80)
where: i = 1, 2,…Number of blocks
I = Point of impact load
4.9 Analysis of I SUwall Cost Est imat ion and Comparison
4.9.1 Cost Cont rol
Among t he uncert aint ies, in general, t hat influence
const ruct ion cost include: weat her condit ion; political and
economic variations; changing nat ure of const ruct ion
103
t echnology and costs; different maint enance t echnology;
differences in labour product ivity; mat erial and equipment
availabilit y; const ruct ion delays; supervision policies;
const ruct ion met hods; et c.
For a wall t o be built when using a special unit s, such as
I SBblocks, a maj or port ion of t he uncert aint y is resolved in
t he early st age of t he proj ect . The uncert aint ies t hat may likely
affect t he I SB wall are : a) economic variation (cost of
mat erial), b) nat ure of const ruct ion t echnology (wall must be
plast ered before roofing).
The resolution of t hese uncert aint ies may cause t he
cont ract or t o revise his estimat es. As t he wall const ruct ion
advances, t he uncert aint ies of t he remaining part s of t he wall
const ruct ion decreases as t he variance of t he est imat e.
Consider an I SB wall where t he manufact ure or purchasing
of blocks is n (= 1) operat ion complet ed by t he cont ract or and
m (= 1) operation t ransport at ion of t he blocks t o sit e) are
subcont ract ed. This estimat e can be expressed as:
¯ ¯
= =
= = =
n
i
i
n
i
i t
S e E Z
1 1
cos
(4.81)
where: S
J
= subcont ract or price for operation
e
I
= purchase price
E = est imat e
Cost of t he wall per m
2
:
b
b b b b
wall
W
H C n
C
p
= (4.82)
where: n
b
, C
b
, b, H
b
and W
b
= number, cost,
densit y, height and weight of block
respect ively.
4.9.2 Labour Cost Cont rol
The t ot al cost of labour is composed of t he following element s:
1) Man – hours per unit of work (product ivity), 2) price per
manhour (labour rat e) and 3) quant it y of work performed.
104
Product ivity of I SBwall may be enhanced due t o t he
simplicit y in t he const ruct ion of t he wall, any weat her or time
preferred by t he workers and t he management and few period
of supervision. Price per manhours, for t he I SBwall, is likely
favoured by t he following: short duration of work t hat reduces
escalation of rat es, shift pay and overtime.
4.9.3. Comparison for Economic Bases
Usually many alt ernat ive designs can perform t he same t ask.
Alt hough one of t he alt ernatives is t he best . Several fact ors
such as social environment , and est hetic, economic and
psychological values can influence t he final selection. The
measure value of capit al t o enable comparison of alternat ive
designs are discussed below.
I f we consider an invest ment 1
p
,
on a proj ect of sandcret e
walls, of t he [ resent t ime wit h an int erest (depreciat ion) rat e
of iNaira per period, so t hat t he amount of capit al at t he end
of first period is iI
p
. The original invest ment can increase t o
( 1+ i) I
p
. And if t his process cont inues for n (number of
int erest period, in t he mont h, year) period, and original capit al
I
p
will increase t o t he final sum:
Fs
(n)
= (1 + i)
n
I
P
= (spcaf(I ,n)] I
P
(4.76)
where: spcaf = single payment compound amount
fact or
There are ot her fact ors in Appendix I X
105
Table 4.1 Fact ors for initial/ final capit al (I P/ I fa(n) and series
of uniform payment ( R) (Arora, 1989)
S/ N Capit al Given Fact or
1 I
f a(n)
I
P
Single payment compound fact or
(spcaf), (1+ i)
n
2 I
P)
I
f a(n)
Single payment present wort h fact or
(spcaf), (1+ i)
n
3 I
f a(n)
R Uniform series compound amount fact o
(sfdf), (1/ i)[ (1+ i)
n
1]
4 R I
f a(n)
Sinking fund deposit fact or
(sfdf),1/ [ (1+ i)
n
1]
5 I
P
R Uniform series compound amount fact o
(sfdf), (1/ i)[ (1+ i)
n
1]
6 R I
P
Capit al recovery fact or(crf),
(1/ i)[ (1+ i)
n
)
106
Chapter 5
PRESENTATI ON AND DI SHCUSI ON OF THE RESULTS
5.1 Product s of St eel Die Moulding Machine
Due t o t he compact ion pressure applied during block
moulding, t he st andard int erwoven sandcret e blocks (I SB)
produced by t he st eel diemould have faceblock finish. Rat e
of block making, using t his moulding machine, was low in an
average of 25 blocks per hour as t he capacit y of t he machine.
This was due to t he fact t hat , one out of six blocks would have
one of it s vertical tongues damaged during ej ection of fresh
sandcret e block. The damage occurred if t he groove was not
properly rodded before compaction of t he block. However 95%
of t he blocks produced were regular in shape.
5.2 Propert ies of t he I SB Block
I n order t o compare t he effect of different mix proport ion for
t he I SB masonry, t he compressive st rengt h result s of t he I SB
unit are obt ained for a 1: 6 and 1: 8 (cement  sand ratio). High
cement cont ent in a mix, indicated high st rengt h of t he
masonry. The results obt ained for a 1: 6 mix maximum
compressive st rengt h of 2.7 N/ mm
2
for an axially loaded block
specimen. An average compressive st rengt h of 2.5 N/ mm
2
was recorded for t he 1: 8 mix. These values were based on t he
gross sect ional area of t he block and t he minimum value
complied wit h t he Nigeria indust rial st andard (NI S 74, 1972)
which st ipulat ed a unit minimum st rengt h of 2.1 N/ mm
2
.physical and compressive st rengt h properties t est s include t he
block average densit y of 1320 kg/ m
3
and weight of 27.55kg
specimen blocks subj ect ed t o a 24 hour absorpt ion has an
average value of 13.87% while block moist ure cont ent is 6.4
(1: 6 mix) and 1.48% for 1: 8 mix respectively. The preliminary
t est s (wat er absorption, moist ure cont ent s, dimensions, et c)
result s fall wit hin t he NI S stipulat ed values.
107
5.3 Physical and St rengt h properties of I SB Prism
The load carrying capacit y of sandcret e block prism subj ect ed
t o vert ical loading is affect ed mainly, by not only it s
slenderness rat io, but by t he eccent ricit y of vert ical load.
Numerical result s, were obt ained for 2 different values of
slenderness rat io (h/ t = 2 and 3.) t he graphs of prism st rengt h
versus eccent ricity, are shown in figs 5.1 for fully cracked face
shell on t he compressive side and t he crushed blocks
respect ively.
Fig 5.1 (a) Fully cracked face shell in t he compressive side
(h/ t = 2)
h/t = 2
0 t/ 6 t/ 3 5t/ 12
ECCENTRI CI TY, e ( mm)
108
Fig 5.1 (b) Fully cracked face shell in t he compressive side
(h/ t = 3)
Fig. 5.2(a) St rengt h vs eccent ricit y of crushed blocks
(h/ t = 3)
h/t = 3
0 t/ 6 t/ 3 5t/ 12
ECCENTRI CI TY, e ( mm)
h/t = 3
0 t/ 6 t/ 3 5t/ 12
ECCENTRI CI TY, e ( mm)
109
Fig. 5.2 (b) St rengt h vs eccent ricity of crushed blocks
(h/ t = 3)
From t he graphs, t he observed st rengt h was obt ained
from t he t est , while t he result s of t he predict ed st rengt h were
based on st atistical analyses t o fit new values. Refer t o
Appendix for t he st rengt h and eccent ricit y regression analysis
for 1: 8 (cement – sand ratio ) mix.
I n general masonry st rengt h deceases against t he
increasing values of eccent ricit y. I n Fig. 5.4 load decreases
wit h increase in eccent ricit y, while if as in Fig. 5.4 the load
decreases wit h increase in eccent ricit y for wall different
slenderness ratio, t he compression area on which t he l oad act s
decreases as t he masonry panel bends and t he load slides
t owards t he compressive side of t he panel. The minimum area
of t he end fibre, at t he comp0resion side, is assumed and as
recommended by BS 5628 (1985) to be 0.1t (where t is t he
t hickness of t he wall).
h/t = 3
0 t/ 6 t/ 3 5t/ 12
ECCENTRI CI TY, e ( mm)
110
Fig.5.3 I SB The masonry load eccent ricit y relationship
Fig .5.4 I SB masonry load –eccent ricit y relat ionship
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
ECCENTRI CI TY ( mm)
h/t = 2
h/t = 3
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
HEI GHT, H/ t
e = 0
e = t/6
e = t/3
e = 5t/12
111
5.4 I SB Prism failure modes
The vertical split ting of block webs was observed prior t o face
shell split ting at eccent ricit y of 0 and t / 6 for slenderness rat io
(h/ t ) of 3, while split t ing t ension occurred on t he compression
side, of t he prism, when t he eccent ricit y is t / 3 or 5t / 12.
Spalling of t he block was observed in each t ype of eccent ricit y
for t he slenderness rat io of 2.0 prior to compression failure,
cracking along t he j oint s, bet ween t he grooves and tongues,
occurred on t he t ension side of t he prism especially at t / 3 and
5t / 12 eccent ricit ies. Hollow prism behaves almost linearly for
h/ t of 3 at zero eccent ricit y, and failed suddenly by vert ical
split ting of t he face shell along t he lengt h of t he groove – j oint
and t he t ongue. I t was also observed t hat at t he eccent ricit y e
of t / 6, t he failure was slow and nonlinear. The st rain remains
const ant at almost t he maximum st ress. The failure pat t ern is
almost t he same for 1: 8 and 1: 6 of t he cement sand
composition, except t hat t he maximum st ress of 2.9 N/ mm
2
occurred at 0.001 st rain for t he 1 : 6 mix.
Plat es V t o VI I I show t he failure of I SB prism specimens
wit h bot h axial and eccent ric loads. Failure of convent ional
block prism at e = 0. Shown in Plat e VI I is also by vert ical
split ting prism failures in vertical split ting, t hough similar t o t he
convent ional prism, which indicat e t hat absence of mort ar
does not affect t he failure mode of t he masonry. The failure
crit erion for t he prism, under compression, is t he limit ing
t ensile st ress induced int o a unit by t he deformat ion of t he
immediat e unit s, t he immediat e unit s induce a stat e of t riaxial
com0prssive st ress in t he blocks making prism t o fail and
recording high compressive st rengt h for I SB t han t he
convent ional prism,.
The results of compressive t ests on prism specimens for
model I SBblocks and convent ional block prisms show t he
same failure pat t ern – generally by vertical split ting. The I SB
model prism has an average compressive st rengt h of
4.3N/ mm
2
(Ej eh and Adedej i, 1998.) t he high compressive
st rengt h value could have been due t o t he low height of t he
prism (225mm) in comparison wit h 675mm for the I SB
prot ot ypeblock prism.
112
Plat e V Failure of prism at e = 0
113
Plat e VI Failure of prism at e = t/ 6
114
Plat e VI I Failure of prism at e = 5t / 12
115
Plat e VI I I Failure of prism at e = 0
116
5.5 I SB Wall Failure Mode
All t he wall specimens failed due t o t he format ion of vert ical
cracks. At t he point of failure, however, cracks appeared on
t he faces and edges of each specimen. The cracks were
almost vert ical before split ting followed t he decrement of load,
which quickly reduced t o zero. I t was observed that t he
maximum midheight lat eral deflect ions were very small in
relat ion t o t he wall t hickness (about 0.33 to 4.0mm). This
effect was low for t he axially loaded specimens. As recorded in
prism t est specimens, t he failure mode of t he wall specimens
was almost t ensile split t ing, followed by inst ability and collapse
of face shells at t he higher level or t he applied load.
I SB wall failure mode is t he same as in t he case of
convent ional block walls. (Refer to sect ion 2.3, Fig. 2.4). in a
simple axial compression, load coefficient is zero, while it is 1
for an equibiaxial compression which is only applicable t o
mort ar (not present in I SB wall). I n a convent ional wall, lat eral
st rain in weak mort ars is grat er under load, t he failure st ress
pat h is t hen short , and hence failure load is low. I n case of I SB
wall all blocks are of t he same st rengt h, t he failure load is
hi8gher t han t he convent ional wall.
5.6 PrismWall Relationship
Applying probabilit y analysis of prior st rengt h for unt est ed
specimens are obt ained, and t he load fact or for t he improved
st rengt h obt ained. This fact or was t hen used t o obtain I SB
wall st rengt h. Average I SB wall load fact or is 1.42 t he result s
was obt ained wit h an assumed error (e) of zero and one . t he
relat ionship bet ween t he sample mean fact or(a) and
coefficient of correlat ion (p) for t he generalized error of 0 and
1 are shown in Fig. 5.5. This fact or (a) was used t o calculat e
t he post erior st rengt h of t he prisms.
117
Fig.5.5 Sample mean weight fact or,p
Figs. 5.6 t o 5.10 show t he I SB prism wall st rengt h
relat ionship for 1: 6 and 1: 8 mixes (at e of 0 and 1)
respect ively. The st rengt h mult iplicat ion fact or has an average
of 0.86. t his result shows t hat , t he effect iveness of t his
analysis is in t he t op priority of reliabilit y at o > 0.4 it could be
deduced, from t hese result s t hat wall const ant st rength is 1.3
N/ mm
2
wit h 0.32 of t he prism st rengt h. The dat abase and
t heir application is explained in Appendix I I (AI I 2 and AI I 3).
The result s obt ained from t he compressive t est of t he I SB
prot ot ype wall indicates t hat t he charact erist ic st rengt h of
2.0N/ mm
2
was obt ained. This gives t he fact or of 0.84 for t he
prism wall relat ionship t his result is about 2% less t han what
was obt ained in t he post erior st rengt h analysis. I t could be
not ed t hat t he st rengt h of prism wit h high slenderness rat io is
lower t han t he prism of low slenderness ratio. This could have
cont ribut ed t o t he low st rengt h values of t he wall.
0.0 0.5 1.0
CORRELATI ON COEFFI CI ENT,
Є = 0
Є = 1
n =
118
Fig. 5.6 Relat ionship bet ween I SB prism and wall st rengt h
Fig. 5.7 Relat ionship bet ween I SB prism and wall st rengt h
Є = 0, 1:6 (cement – sand ratio)
f
k
/f
m
= 0.81
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
PRI SM STRENGTH, f
m
( N/ mm
2
)
= 0.1, = 0.35
= 0.3, = 0.64
= 0.9, = 0.99
Є = 1, 1:6 (cement – sand ratio)
f
k
/f
m
= 0.85
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
PRI SM STRENGTH, f
m
( N/ mm
2
)
= 0.1, = 0.53
= 0.3, = 0.81
= 0.9, = 0.90
119
Fig. 5.8 Relat ionship bet ween I SB prism and wall st rengt h
Fig. 5.9 Relat ionship bet ween I SB prism and wall st rengt h
Є = 0, 1:8 (cement – sand ratio)
f
k
/f
m
= 0.85
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
PRI SM STRENGTH, f
m
( N/ mm
2
)
= 0.1, = 0.53
= 0.3, = 0.80
= 0.9, = 0.90
Є = 1, 1:8 (cement – sand ratio)
f
k
/f
m
= 0.83
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
PRI SM STRENGTH, f
m
( N/ mm
2
)
= 0.1, = 0.53
= 0.3, = 0.81
= 0.9, = 0.90
120
Fig. 5.10 WallPrism relationship
5.7 Load Fact or
I n Chapt er 4, t he I SB masonryprism st rengt h has been
proposed. Bayesian framework has been applied t o predict
updat ed and improved approximation st rengt h for unt est ed
wall. The load fact or was obt ained from t he condit ion that :
P (P
all
) > post erior probabilit y (st rengt h) (5.1)
P (P
all
) > P (f
mp
) = P
f .0
(= 10
3
) (5.2)
where: P
all
= allowable mean load
P
f .o
= t arget mean load.
Appendix I I defines t he allowable mean load and t arget mean
load. Prism load fact or of 1.57 was obt ained while t he value of
1.42 was recorded for wall .A t ypical example for det ermining
t he load fact or is also shown in Example A1 (Appendix I I ). The
concept of load fact or is essential in plast ic design and t he
value of 1.42 can replace t he safet y fact or of load used in
elastic design.
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
PRI SM STRENGTH, f
m
( N/ mm
2
)
1:6 (cement : sand)
1:8 (cement : sand)
121
5.8 St ressSt rain Relat ionship
The maximum st ress at t he st rain is 0.0014 for t he h/ t = 3,
while height st rain of 0.0021 was recorded for e = t / 6 at t he
st ress of 3.4/ mm
2
. The prism behaves almost linearly for h/ t = 3
for e = 0 and failed suddenly by vertical split t ing of t he face
shell along t he lengt h of t he groove j oint t ongue. The failure
for t he eccent ricit y et / 6 was nonlinear. The st rain remains
const ant at almost t he maximum st ress. The failure pat t ern
was t he same for 1: 8 and 1: 6 of cement send composition.
I n Figs 5.11 t o 14, t he upper (inital) bound, (secant ) and
lower bound modulus (E
k
) have been respect ively analysed.
The init ial modulus of elast icit y is t he slope of st ressst rain
curve at t he origin of t he cord, t he secant is t he slope of chord
drawn t hrough a point corresponds t o a given st ress, while t he
slope of cord drawn t hrough a point correspondent s to st ress
at failure is t he lower bound modulus.
The average secant modulus of elasticit y is 988f
k,
which
has t he value of 1877N/ mm
2
, while 604f
k
(1148) N/ m
2
m is for
lower bound modulus of elast icit y. I n a convent ional masonry
wall, BS 5628 recommends t he Evalue t o be bet ween 400 and
1000 multiplied by t he wall crushing F
k
. The Evalue for t he
I SB wall falls wit hin t his range.
Fi g. 5.11 Young modul us of el ast i ci t y
122
Fi g. 5.12 Young modul us of el ast i ci t y
Fi g. 5.14 Young modul us of el ast i ci t y
123
Fi g. 5.14 Young modul us of el ast i ci t y
5.9 LoadDeflect ion Analysis
5.9.1 Deflect ion due t o Vertical load
Deflect ion of t he I SB masonry prism due t o vert ical load. Has
been obt ained direct ly from t he t ests of mat erial. The result
shows, generally, t hat deflect ion increases wit h a nonlinear
increase in load, except in a case where t he eccent ricit y of
5t / 12 recorded a linear increment of load. I n Figs 5.15 t o 5.18
plot t ed values (of load ration vs deflect ion (wall drift )) are
shown t oget her wit h t he best fit lines. (The best fit lines were
obt ained front t he comput er Microsoft EXCEL.)
Deflect ion equat ion from t he best fit line for t he crit ical
value is expressed as:
0189 , 0 029 . 0 +


.

\

=
o
o
P
P
H
Y
(53)
where: P
01
P
a
= eccent ricity and axial load respect ively
From t his result maximum deflect ion y
max
, at t he I SB wall
height of 3000mm, is 35.4mm (3.54cm), while final deflect ion
124
of not specify t he wall height when recommending for t he final
deflect ion in t his case. As a result of t his, t he wall drift of
0.0118 (or 1/ 85) is also approximat ed t o 1/ 100.
Fig. 5.15 Loaddeflect ion relationship
Fig. 5.16 Loaddeflection relationship
125
Fig. 5.17 Loaddeflect ion relationship
Fig. 5.18 Loaddeflect ion relationship
126
5.9.2 Wall Deflect ion due t o Horizont al and Vertical Loads
Load increase wit h t he increase in deflect ion for t he
eccent ricit y of 5t / 12 and t / 3, while e = t / 6 increase in
deflect ion as t he horizont al load increase.
Lat eral loaddeflection graph is shown in Fig 5.19.
Predict ed equat ion (obt ained from t he dat abase, shown in
Appendix I I I of t he wall using equat ion (4.18) for t he
deflect ion is expressed as:
Y = 0.35e + 0.02F
n
(54)
where: e = eccent ricity of load
F
n
= horizont al load
The allowable eccent ricit y of 63cm was obt ained from t he
opt imum result s. This result correlat es wit h t he maximum
deflect ion y
max
is 22.1mm. The wall drift (y/ H) has t he value of
0.00611/65. The wall structural rigidity (1/β) is 50N/mm
2
.
This is very low if compared wit h t he e expect ed value of
436 N/ mm
2
. I t can be deduced from t he equat ion (5.4) t hat
horizont al deflect ion is a funct ion of eccent ricit y of load and
horizont al load.
Fig. 5. 19. Lat eral loaddeflect ion relationship
127
5.10 Cost Funct ion of I SB wall
Three design variable considered for t he I SB wall are:
sect ional area, height of t he wall and eccent ricit y due t o
vert ical load. Using t he bisection met hod for t he root, it erat ion
and est imated error have been det ermined while t he t riangular
(graphical) syst em has been used t o minimize t he volume of
t he wall for a cost effect ive design. The const raints include: 1)
st ress due to a vert ical and horizont al load wit h respect t o
eccent ricit y and 2) st ress due t o vert ical load only.
The opt imum solut ion for t he wall volume falls wit hin t he
segment line PQ. Any point on t hat segment yields volume
{ Z
V
) of 1.50E8mm
3
when t he necessary eccent ricit y of load e
is 25mm at a height H of 300mm. The sect ional area of t he
wall for t hese is 50000mm
2
. For Z
max
of 4.00E8mm
3
, e of
70m, h
w
of 5000mm, t he sect ional area A is 76000mm
2
.
Triangular met hod of optimizat ion is described in sect ion
5.11.
5.11 Triangular (Graphical) Met hod of Optimizat ion
This met hod has been employed t o find basic feasible solution
for t he I SB wall.
Procedure:
1) Const ruct ing a t riangular syst em coordinat es, using a
scale for each axis sides A (xaxis) from 010000, H
(yaxis) from 03000 and e (zaxis) from 0100. (See
Fig 5.20)
128
Fig 5.20 Superimposition of const raint s graph for optimizing A,
H, e of I SB wall
2) Est ablishing t he (A, H, e) combinat ion t hat comply wit h t he
block size, by det ermining t he int ersection of t he curves
represent ed. I n ot her words, t he cost funct ional equations are
plot t ed: f
(x)1
, f
(x)2
, f
(x)3
and ot her const raint equat ions are
plot t ed: such as 50000 s A s 100000, or s H s 3600 and so
on. Fig 5.21.
100
0
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
F(X)1
H= 5000
0
10
30
20
40
50
60
70
80
90
1
0
0
x
1
0
2
0
9
9
0
8
0
7
0
6
0
5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0
e
F(
F
F
(
X
)
3
F
(
X
)
2
SECTIONAL AREA, A (mm
2
)
e = 38.3
H=3600
129
3) The t ot alit y of feasible solution is t hem marked out as in t he
shaded area (PQRS) show in Fig. 5.22.
Fig. 5.21 Representation of constraints with feasible
zone for A H, e of ISB wall
SECTIONAL AREA, A (mm
2
)
0
0
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
H= 500
0
10
30
20
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1
0
0
x
1
0
2
9
0
8
0
7
0
6
0
5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0
0
f(X)1
Q
A
=
5
0
0
0
0
H=3600
e =38.3
p
f (X) 3
f (X()2
130
Fig.5.22 Tot alit y of feasible solution for A,H,e of I SB wall
4) find t he (A,H.e) combinat ions t hat comply wit h t he
dat abase of t he block/ wall size, such as funct ions: f
(X)1.
and t o obt ain feasible solut ions t hat will maximize t he
cost funct ion., This is shown in Fig. 5.22.
5) Opt imum solut ion is t hen obt ained for A,H, e t o obt ain Z
cost funct ion. This is indicat ed in t he shaded port ion, 12
3R, of Fig. 5.23, t he opt imum solut ion can be as
explained below:
SECTIONAL AREA, A (mm
2
)
0
0
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
0
10
30
20
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1
0
0
x
1
0
2
9
0
8
0
7
0
6
0
5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0
0
Q
p
131
Considering one storey building, having a height of 3000
or 3600 and built wit h I SB blocks. I f we consider a 3000mm
height , t here are t hree possible solut ions: An opt imal solution
is considered for point 1. t his is coded as 1A1H1e (ie.: point
1 t ouching Aaxis) reads 7000030000 (Area –Height 
eccent ricit y).
Fig. 5.23 opt imum solut ion (for wall volume)
When A is mult iplied by H, t he cost funct ions (Z
v
) is 2.10E8
mm
3
. Anot her possible solut ion is again in point 1 (1000000
300070) which result s t o 3.0 E8. The t hird solut ions, 2A2H
2e (50000300022) is on point 2, and it s cost funct ions value
is 1.50E8. t he t hird solut ion is economically viable wit h
minimum volume, but low admissible eccent ricity of load. This
solution may be adequat e for a st orey building. The second
1
0
0
x
1
0
2
100
0
SECTIONAL AREA, A (mm
2
)
0
0
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
0
15
10 20
30
20
40
50
60
64
70
80
90
9
0
8 0
7
0
6
0
5
0
4
0
2
0
1
0
4 3
1 2
3
0
3
6
Zv = 3.6 x E8
Zv = 3.0 E8
132
opt imum solut ion is not economical because of it s enormous
volume, but robust or st able for it s allowance for large
eccent ricit y. The first optimum solution is not realistic. This is
because it is not possible for a load bearing wall t o have a null
eccent ricit y of load. Dat a Base used in t he above met hod:
Wall of 1: 8 (cement : sand) mix Crushing st rengt h, f
k
= 1.9
Load, P = 284 000N,
Wind load= 0.551x10
3
N/ mm
2
),
1st floor
Wall t hickness, t = 230mm Wall lengt h, L = 660mm
Wall height , H = 3600mm Eccent ricit y, e = 38.3mm
Wall sect ional area, A = 10200mm
2
Ot her graphs in Figs 5.24 t o 5.27 show t he opt imization of
t he wall of blocks mix 1: 6(1 part of cement t o 6 parts of sand).
Fig 5.24 Superimposing of const raint s for opt imizing A,H,e of
I SB wall
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
F(X)1
H= 5000
0
10
30
20
40
50
60
70
80
90
1
0
0
x
1
0
2
0
9
9
0
8
0
7
0
6
0
5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0
e
F(
F
F
(
X
)
3
F
(
X
)
2
SECTIONAL AREA, A (mm
2
)
e = 38.3
H=3600
133
Fig.5.25 Represent ation of const raint s wit h feasible zone for
A,H,e of I SB wall
SECTIONAL AREA, A (mm
2
)
0
0
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
H= 500
0
10
30
20
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1
0
0
x
1
0
2
9
0
8
0
7
0
6
0
5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0
0
f(X)1
Q
A
=
5
0
0
0
0
H=3600
e =38.3
p
f (X) 3
f (X()2
134
Fig.5.26 Tot ality of feasible solution for A,H,e of I SB
wall
SECTIONAL AREA, A (mm
2
)
0
0
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20
10
0
10
30
20
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1
0
0
x
1
0
2
9
0
8
0
7
0
6
0
5
0
4
0
3
0
2
0
1
0
0
Q
p
135
Fig 5.27 Opt imum solut ion for I SB wall
I n order t o check t he result of t he wall sect ion from t he
opt imization met hod was used t o find t he roof for t he roof for
t he st ress sect ional equat ion only. Equat ion (4.44) in Chapt er
4 was used. Deflect ion equation was neglect ed. This is due t o
lit tle effect of t he horizont al load on a st orey resident ial
building. I n Appendix 1V, dat abase used t o calculat e t he root
using t he bisect ion met hod was given and t he result s obt ained
are t abulat ed (Table AI V5). Wit h a minimum specified error of
1.5%, t he minimum sectional area is 9950mm
2
.
100
0
SECTIONAL AREA, A (mm
2
)
0
0
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
0
15
10 20
30
20
40
50
60
64
70
80
90
9
0
8 0
7
0
6
0
5
0
4
0
2
0
1
0
4 3
1 2
3
0
3
6
Zv = 3.6 x E8
Zv = 3.0 E8
136
5.12 SafeSize Design of I SB Upper Tongue
Figs 5.28, 5.29, and 5.30 show t he represent at ion of
const raint s, t ot ality of feasible solut ion and t he opt imum
solution for t he safesize of t he block upper t ongue. The
opt imum solut ion indicat es t hat : for t he Z
max
which is 564mm
2
,
t he dept h (h
t
) of 12mm and t he upper t ongue t hickness (T
u
) of
47mm at 300mm block lengt h (L) are required. Triangular
met hod of opt imization (as in section 5.12) was also employed
here. I t could be not ed t hat , t he init ial block lengt h of 440mm
will be adequat e. Appendix V cont ains t he numerical
examples and t he results obt ained for minimizing t he sect ional
area of upper t ongue.
Fig 5.28 Represent at ion of const raints for block upper t ongue
Depth, h (mm)
0
0
25.0 22.5 20.0 17.5 15.0 12.5 10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 0.0
0
50
150
100
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
5
0
4
5
4
0
3
5
3
0
2
5
2
0
1
5
1
0
5
L = 250
f(x)2
f(x)1
h
1
=10
Tu = 45
137
Fig 5.29 Tot alit y of feasible solut ions for t he block upper
t ongue
Depth, h (mm)
0
0
25.0 22.5 20.0 17.5 15.0 12.5 10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 0.0
0
50
150
100
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
5
0
4
5
4
0
3
5
3
0
2
5
2
0
1
5
1
0
5
L = 250
f(x)2
f(x)1
h
t
=10
12
138
Fig 5.30 Optimum solut ion for t he block upper t ongue
5.13 Applicat ion of Result s
Validit y of t he result obtained from t his st udy, in general, holds
for a 1: 8 and 1: 6 (cement : sand) mix. For a short t erm design,
st ressst rain for a normalweight concret e, t he maximum
st ress, for bot h eccent ricities e= t / 6 when t he slenderness ratio
(h/ t ) = 3, is k
1
f
k
and modulus of elasticit y E
k
= k
2
(f
k
/ y
m
)
1/ 2
. The
design st ress obt ained is 0.625f
km
is t he modified st ress using
Poisson rat io of 0.25 at 0.002 st rain. The value, 0.625, was
again modified to 0.563 for an assumed error ( c ) = 1 for a 1: 6
Depth, h (mm)
0
0
25.0 22.5 20.0 17.5 15.0 12.5 10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 0.0
0
50
150
100
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
5
0
4
5
4
0
3
5
3
0
2
5
2
0
1
5
1
0
5
L = 250
f(x)2
f(x)1
h
t
=10
12
139
and 1: 8 mixes. This value, 0.563 (i.e. k
1
) account for t he
relat ionship bet ween t he prism st rengt h. This is not t he part ial
fact or (LF) estimat ed as 1.42.
Various formulas have been suggest ed for t he
det erminat ion of t he nominally ident ical specimens and as an
approximat ion, for I SB wall from result of t his st udy. The
average value of modulus of elasticit y of t he wall is:
E= 604f
k
(5.6)
From t he values given above, t he value of k
2
is 1.602. This
is illust rat ed in fig. 5.31.
Fact or of safely ¸
m
= 3.5 BS 5628, 1985) t akes t he account
of uncert aint y in t he st rengt h of mat erials and t he uncert aint y
in t he accuracy of t he met hod used t o predict t he wall as t he
various in t he wall sizes. The eccent ricit y t o t hickness (e/ t ), of
t he wall, is s 0.311 (i.e. e = 70mm).
Fig. 5.31 Short t erm design st ressst rain curve for t he I SB wall
f/
m
1602 (fk/
m
)
0.5
N/mm
2
140
5.14 WallBlock Relat ionship
I n BS 5628: Part 1 (1978) , t he fact or of safet y of 3.5
compensat e for t he excessive wall st rengt h. This approach is
conservat ive and may not be economically viable for a pat ent ic
nat ure of t he I SB charact erist ic st rengt h. The graph was
obt ained from t he st at istical analysis derived from Tables 3.21
t o 3.24. Reading from Fig.5.32, t he block aspect rat io (i.e.
block height t o t hickness) is 1 as in t he case of t he I SBunit ,
t he graph which is linear and st art ing from t he origin dat a, a
value when wall st rengt h is 0.85 of t he st rengt h.
Fig. 5.32 I SB WallBlock relationship
5.15 Numerical Example in Design
To verify t he effect iveness of t he dat a obt ained from t his
st udy, by means of comparison wit h previous st udies and
pract ical applications, t he I SBwall, of a t wo storey house was
chosen for design purposes using BS 5628 (1985).
The int erwoven sandcret e block wall is assumed t o be built
on a st iff concret e foundat ion. The wall has t hickness (t ) of
230mm, lengt h(L)= 400mm and height (H) of 3300mm. t he wall
141
is subj ect ed t o a Deed load of 70.95 kNm
1
and imposed Load
of 7.0kN/ m
1
. The plan wall considered has no plast er on it s
sides. Design of wall was based on BS 5628. The drawing of a
t wo st orey buildings plans and t he design, t he mat erial
propert ies, unit cost and ot her geomet rical condit ions are
shown in Table 5.1 and 5.2.
The result of t his design shows t hat t he proposed discret e
size of t he int erwoven sandcret e block is adequat e t o build a
load bearing wall for a t wo st orey building.
Table 5.1 Partial propert ies, unit cost and ot her geometrical
condit ions
Table 5.1 continued
I SB = I nt erwoven Sandcret e Wall
CW = conversional sandcret e wall
Fb = block charact erist ics strengt h
¸
m
= part ial fact or of safety for mat erial
e = eccentricit y
t , L,H = t hickness, lengt h, height of wall respect ively
Cost – cost ( N) per block, N= Nigerian Naira
T
u
= t wo upper tongues sect ion
M = t wo header mort arj oints
Trial T L H F
h
f
km
Data mm mm Mm N/ mm N/ mm
CW 225 4000 3300 2.3 2.01
I SB 230 4000 3300 2.7 2.08
Trial ¸
m
e T
u
M H/ t Cost
Data  mm mm
2
mm
2
 N
CW 3.5 70  22300 13.2 30
I SB 3.5 70 1124  13.2 30
142
Table 5.2 Unit price comparison bet ween I SB and sandcret e
walls
CW = Conventional sandcrete block wall
I SB = I nt erwoven sandcrete block wall
2
cost per 1 block ( N30/ block in 1998, N= Nigerian Naira)
3
number of workers per m
2
per min
4
cost of labour per 10hrs work
Wall
t ype
Wall mat erial Workmanship ( labour)
1
f
km
2
cost
3
NW
4
Cost
CW 2.01 30 5 1,500
I SB 2.08 30 1 300
143
Chapter 6
CONCLUSI ON AND RECOMMENDATI ON
6.1 Conclusions
As a result of t his work, t he following general conclusions and
recommendat ions may be made regarding t he behaviour of
t he int erwoven sandcret e block masonry (I SB).
Under axial, eccent ricit y and impact load:
1. Analyses and experiment s generally by split t ing of t he
blocks. I SB prism failure t akes t he same pat t ern as in
conat ional prism. The failure crit erion, for t he prism and wall,
under compression, is t he limit ing t ensile t ress induced (by t he
deformat ion of t he prism middle block)st at e of t riaxial
compressive st ress in t he blocks, making prism to fail by
vert ical split ting and recording high compressive st rengt h for
I SB t han t he convent ional prism.
2. The predict ed and observed (t est results) showed t hat t he
rat io of t he I SB wall compressive st rengt h t o it s prism st rengt h
is bet ween 0.80 and 0.84. Low slenderness rat io (= 3) of t he
prism, in comparison wit h t hat (= 6) of t he wall, could have
cont ribut ed t o t he high compressive value of t he prism. This
st rengt h prot ot ype wall, as t esting of prism, inst ead of wall, is
economical.
3. The ult imat e compressive st ress of 3.8N/ mm
2
was obt ained
for t he prism at t he eccent ricity of 3.8N/ mm
2
was obt ained for
t he prism at t he eccent ricit y of 5t / 12. Relative decrease in
bearing capacit y of t he wall is observed as t he eccent ricit y
increases.
4. Value wall drift (rat io of deflection t o height ) differs wit h
difference in eccent ricit y of load. For t he combinat ion of
lat erally and horizont ally loaded I SB wall, t he maximum
deflect ion is 22.1mm at a drift (deflect ion: height ) of 0.0061 0r
1/ 65. in t he case of wall loaded vert ically, due t o eccent ricit y,
t he maximum deflect ion is35.4 mm at adrift of 0.0118 or 1/ 85
value is less t han t he final deflection value of 40mm stipulat ed
by t he BS 5628Part 2.
5. Average axial compressive st rengt h for t he I SB wall is
higher t han t hat of convent ional sandcret e blockmort ar wall
144
subj ect ed t o t he same condition of product ion, curing and
t est ing. The st rengt h of t he I SB wall is 1.06 of t he
convent ional wall st rengt h, t he 6% increase has no much
effect in t he design of lowrise building.
6. The compressive st rengt h t est s performed on t he unit s and
t he masonry indicat ed t hat , t he ratio of wallblock is 0.83. t his
value id high if indicat ion t hat t he I SB wall st rengt h is higher
t han t hat of convent ional wall of t he same product ion.
7. The I SB wall best and least cost funct ion f1.80x10
8
mm
3
was obt ained at t he eccent ricit y of 15mm when t he wall height
is 3600mm.The obtained solution obt ained is economically
viable t he wall reduced t o 50% of it s initial cost  but low
admissible eccent ricit y, while t he wall maximum eccent ricit y is
0.303 t (where t is t he wall t hickness).
8. Due t o t he effect of impact force, t he cost funct ion of
564mm
2
(52% of t he initial cost ) was obt ained for t he upper
t ongue subj ect ed t o st ress and deformation.
9. The results of t he design, for a t wo st orey resident ial
building, using load bearing I SB wall, indicated that , t he
int erwoven sandcret e wall can st ruct urally replace t he
convent ional wall.
10. I n t he design of convent ional masonry wall, fact or of
safet y for mat erial ¸
m
compensat es for any excessive wall
st rengt h given. Recommended st rengt h int erpolat ion, by BS
5628, which produces t he charact erist ics st rengt h f
k
values for
wall built wit h blocks laid bed wise, are excessively
conservat ive. Any value obt ained by int erpolat ion may of be
accurat e in choosing an appropriat e st rengt h for I SB block, as
a result of t his, st rengt h mult iplication fact or of 0.83 is used
for t he block in order to obt ain t he wall design st rengt h.
11. The concept of load is essent ial in plastic design and t he
value of 1.42 can replace t he fact or of safet y used in elastic
design.
6.2 Recommendat ions
Based t he findings of t hese st udies, t he following
recommendat ions are made:
1. The t ype of manually operat ed block making machine, used
in t his work should be improved t o operat e elect rically, as t his
will enhance machine operat ion, improve qualit y and quant it y
145
of blocks, wall compact ed blocks will produce wall of beaut iful
faceblocks t hat may not require cement plast er.
2. During inst allation of elect rical and plumbing appliances,
workers t ap walls wit h heavy hammer, club and any ot her
similar obj ect s, as a result of which t he I SB t ongue may shear
off t he mot her block. Care should be t aken not to use a
t apping t ool t hat will be heavier t han 120 kg.
3. All specificat ions, as recommended t hese st udies, should be
st rict ly adhered to during blocks product ions, so as t o get
qualit y product s.
4. The int erwoven sandcret e block is a pat entic wallunit t hat
requires no special t raining for application. I t is selfaligned
when used for walling. As a result of t rial lying embarked upon
during product ion of model I SB blocks, t he following st andard
lying of t he blocks are given in Figs. 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3. it should
be not ed t hat vertical j oints laps only once in t he t hree basic
courses, as shown in Figs. 6.4 and 6.5. As such t here is no
danger of any part of t he wall sliding down.
5. An I SB wall should be enhanced by t he ground having it s
layer is bill on flat concret e blind on st rip foundat ion, to ensure
a vert ical, plumbed wall. At t he beam (lint el) level, t he wall
should be j oined t o t he beam wit h A cement mort ar round t he
block shell face. See Fig. 6.5.
6. Furt her st udies should look int o ways of reinforcing I SB
wall for t all building. Meanwhile, Vertical reinforcement could
be applied at int ervals of 3m t o enhance wall st abilit y for a
t wost orey resident ial building.
146
Fig. 6.1 Laying of I SB blocks (1
st
course)
A
147
Fig. 6.2 Laying of I SB blocks (2nd course)
A
148
Fig. 6.3 Laying of I SB blocks (3rd course)
A
149
Fig. 6.4 Laying of I SB blocks (isomet ric view)
150
Fig. 6.5 Laying of I SB block (side view)
7. An I SB block of unit aspect rat io should use Fig. 5.32 to
choose block st rengt h for design of wall, while furt her st udies
are embarked upon for blocks of aspect rat io ot her t han 1.
Fig .6.6 Position of a lint el in I SB wall
Lint el beam (on opening)
Cement
151
Fig.6.7 Typical I SB wall wit h vertical dummy reinforcement
DETAIL B
Dummy column
DETAIL A
3000 3000 3000
3
0
7
5
3
0
7
5
3
0
7
5
3
0
7
5
ISB wall
B A
152
REFERENCES
Ahmed, M. and Terrel, L. (1978), Mort arless Block
Const ruct ion for Developing Count ries in Building
Const ruct ion for developing count ry, by Amalyn Lt d, I ndia,
5(5): 651668. www.usmc.mil/ .../ FMFRP%200
63%20Troop%20Const ruct ion%20in%20t he%20Middle%
20East .pdf
Anand, C. S. and Yalamachili, K. K. (1996), Three
Dimensional Failure Analysis of Composit e Masonry wall,
Journal of St ruct ural Engineering, 2(9); 10311039.
www.3.int erscience.wiley.com/ j ournal/ 76500612/ art iclet ex
t ?DOI = 10...
Anderson, G. W. (1971), St ack Bonded Small Specimens as
Design and Const ruct ion Crit eria, H.W.H. West and K.H.
Speed (Ed), Brit ish Ceramic Research Associat ion, St roke
onTrent , pp. 3843.
Arora, J. S. (1989), I nt roduct ion t o opt imum Design,
published by McGrawHill. pp 1230.
www.khup.com/ .../ int roduct iont oopt imumdesignbyj s
arora.ht ml
Bangash, M. Y. H.(1989), Concret e and Concret e St ruct ures:
Numerical Modeling and Applicat ion” , 1st Edn., Elsevier
Science Publishers Lt d., London. pp. 211, 2224, 5154.
www.scialert .net / fullt ext/ ?doi= j as.2007.743.747
Barrit, C, M.H (1984). Advanced building const ruct ion. Vol .1,
pp 3456. Longman; New York Chudley, R. (1985),
www.scribd.com/ doc/ 27568230/ Unit 0
Bata, M. (1981), Dynamika St avebnich Konst rukce v
Prikladech, “ Dynamic of St ruct ure in Example”, Edit ion
Cent re, CVUT, Prague 1: 209221.
Bolouchrami, M.A. and Weichert,D. (1997), An ext ension
of t he St at ic Shakedown Theorem t o I nelast ic Cracked
St ruct ures, I nt ernat ional Journal of Mechanical Sciences,
41(2): 163177.
Biolz,L. (1988) Evaluat ion of Compressive St rengt h of Walls
by Limit s Analysis, Journal of St ruct ural Engineering, 114
(10): 21792189.
Brit ish St andard I nstit ut ion, BS 882” 1201, Aggregat ion from
Nat ural Sources for Concret e, Brit ish St andard House,
London, pp. 135.
153
Brit ish St andard I nst it ution, BS 1142, Part 3, (1972) Fire
Building Boards” , Part 3: I nsulat ion Board (Soft Board)
Brit ish St andard House, London, pp. 125.
Brit ish St andard I nstit ut ion, CP 110: Part 1 (1972), The
St ruct ural use of Concret e , Part 1: Design, Mat erial and
Workmanship. Brit ish St andard House London, pp. 130.
Brit ish St andard I nst it ut ion, BS 410: 1975, Specification for t est
Sieves, British St andard House, London, pp. 136.
Brit ish St andard I nst it ution, BS 5628 (1978) Code ofPpart icle
for use of manor, Part 1 St ruct ural Use of Uneinforced
masonry Brit ish St andard House, London, pp. 112.
Brit ish St andard I nst it ution, BS 6073: 1982, Precast Concret e
Masonry Units, Part 1: Specificat ion for precast masonry
unit s, Part 2: Met hod for specifying precast masonry unit s,
Brit ish St andard House London, pp. 129.
Bungale, S. T, (1988), St ruct ural Analysis and Design of Tall
Building,
www.khup.com/keyword/drbungalestaranath.html
Cheema, T, S, Klinger, R. E. (1986), Compressive St rengt h
of Concret e Masonry Prism”, Technical Paper. ACI Journal,
No.8311: 91.
Choi, C.K. and Kwak, H.K. (1990), Optimum RC Member
Design wit h Predet ermined Descret e sect ions, Journal of
St ruct ural` Engineering,116(10): 26342655.
www.3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112136369/articletext?D
OI=10..
Collville, J. (1977), Analysis and Design of Brick Masonry
Walls, Research Report , Dept . of Civil Engineering,
Universit y of Edinburgh.
Cranston, W. B. and Roberts, J. J. (1976), The Struct ural
Behavior of Concret e Masonryreinforced and
unreinforced, The St ruct ural Engineer, 54(11): 423436.
Curtin, W. (1987), practical design if Masonry St ruct ures, in
inst it ution of civil Engineers symposium (1987), of a paper
t it led: The compressive st rengt h of masonry built using
blocks laid flat ’ pp. 319336.
Davidson, B. (1972), African: Hist ory of a continent by
Hamlyn Publishing Group Lt d, Middlesex, England, pp. 66
69
Durban, D. and Zuckerman, Z. (1999), Elast oplast ic
Buckling of Rect angular Plat es in Biaxial
154
Compression/ Tension, I nt ernational Journal of Mechanical
Sciences, Oxford, 41 (7): 765.
www.linkinghub.elsevier.com/ ret rieve/ pii/ S0263823108001
195
Ejeh, S. P. and Adedeji, A. A. (1998),St rengt h Charact erist ic
of Dryj oint ed Sandcrest e Block Assemblies under Vert ical
Loads, Nigerian Journal of Const ruct ion Technology and
Management , NJCTM 1 (1): 102108.
www.unilorin.edu.ng/.../Academic%20Staff%20Publication%20
Web%20Pages_.
Francis, A.J. Horman,C. B Jerems, L .E. (1971), The effect
of Joint t hickness and ot her fact ors on t he compressive
st rengt h of Brickwork, H.W.H. West and K.H. Speed, Ed,
(British ceramic Research Associat ion, St okeon Trent, pp
3137.
Grogan, J. C. and Conway J. T. (1980a), Test for
Absorpt ion, American Societ y for Test ing and Mat erials,
ASTM C14075 (1980), pp.C140.
Grogan, J. C. and Conway J. T. (1980b), Test for Masonry
Prism America Societ y for Test ing and Mat erial, ASTM C90
(1980), pp.C90.
Grogan, J. C. and Conway J. T. (1980c), Requirement for
Concret e masonry unit, America Societ y for Testing and
Mat erials, ASTM C129 (1980), pp. C129.
Grogan, J. C. and Conway J. T. (1985), Test for masonry
unit s, America Societ y for t est ing and Mat erial, ASTM
STP871(1985) , pp. 167177.
Germanino, G., Macchi, G. (1995), Experiment al Research
of a Frame I dealizat ion for a Bearing wall of Multistorey
st ruct ure, Proceedings by t he Brit ish ceramic societ y, pp.
174175.
www.w3.disg.uniroma1.it / corsomurat ura09/ index.php?opt i
on=
Geyskens, p., Klureghian, A. and Monteiro, P. (1998),
Bayesian prediction of Elastic Modulus of Concret e, Journal
of St ruct ural Engineering, 124 (1): 8995.
www.ce.berkeley.edu/ ~ adk/ document s/ PUB.pdf
Haller, P. (1960), The Physics of t he Fire Brick, Part one,
St rengt h propert ies, Libr. Commun. Building Res., pp 929.
Hamed, A. A. and Drysdale, Robert, G. ( 1979), Suggest ed
Failure Crit eria for Grant ed Concret e Masonry Under Axial
155
compression. ACI Journal, proceedings 76 (10): 1047
1061.
Hammid, A. A. and Chukwunenye, A. O. ( 1986)
Compression Behavior of Concret e Masonry Prisms,
Journal of S t r u c t u r a l Engineering, 112(3), Paper No.
20452: 605612.
Hendry, A. W. Bradshaw, R. E., and Rutherford, D. J.
(1981). The St rengt h of Mat erial, St ruct ural Brickwork,
Hendry, A.W. (Ed), pp. 1255.
Hendry, A.W., Sinha, B.P. and Davies (1981) Struct ural
Brickwork, pp 1544.
Hendry, A.W., Sinha B.P. and Davies, S. R. (1987),
Loadbearing Brickwork Design, Second Edition, Ellis
Holwood Lt d Chichest er, pp. 5859.
www.alibris.com/.../Load%20Bearing%20Brickwork
%20Design
Heylman, J. (1984) The High Endurance or t he Masonry
St ruct ure, (Design Life of Building) and I nst it ut e. Of Civil
Engineering Symposium, Nov. 1984 pp. 8792.
Khoo, C.L. and Hendry, A.W. (1973), A Failure Cretarion for
brickwork in Axial Compression. “ Proceeding of t he third
int ernat ional Brick Masonry conference (Essen), pp. 130
145.
Lenzner, D. (1972), Element of Load Bearing Brickwork,
Pergamon, Oxford, London, pp. 155.
Lotfi, R.H. and Shing, P.B. (1994), I nt erface Model Applied
t o Fract ure of Masonry St ruct ure, Journal of st ruct ure
Engineering,120(1): 6380.
www.arch.virginia.edu/ st ruct / pompeii/ pompeiibib.ht ml
Moroni, M. O., Astroza, M. Gomez, J. and Guzman, R.
(1994). Est ablishing R
w
and C
d
factors for confined
Masonry Buildings. Journal of St ruct ural Engineering,
122(10): 12081215.
www.ingcivil.uchile.cl/ index.php?option= com...id...
Mosley, W. and Bungey, J. H. (1991), Reinforced Concret e
Design (Serviceability and St abilit y requirement ), pp. 145.
www.efka.ut m.my/ .../ vit hiawat hireddysx040114awj 04d09t
t t .pdf
Mottershaw, T. J. (1987), Merseyside Power St at ion for UML
Lt d, in Pract ical Design of Masonry St ruct ures, pp 101.
156
Okunsanya A.(1991), New House Wit hout Wet Concret e
Mort ar, African Science Monit or, Tunde Akingbade and
‘Biodun Denloye (Ed). 1(2): 26.
Olatunji, T. M., Warwaruk, J. and Longworth, J. (1984),
St iffness Dist ribut ion at a Wall/ slab Joint in Concret e
masonry walls : 3442
Page, A.W. (1979), A model for t he inplane Behavior of
Masonry and a Sensit ivit y Analysis of its Crit ical
Paramet ers, Brick inst it ut e of America, Mclean, pp 255.
Phillips, D. V. and Zienkiewic, O. C., (1997), Nonlinear analysis of
reinforced concrete slabs by a discrete., J. Jiang and F. A. Mirza
in Computers & Structures, Volume 65, Issue 4, November
1997,pp.585592
www.linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0045794994E0269\
Priestly, M. J. N. and Elder, D.M. (1983), St ressst rain
Curve for Unconfined and Confined Concret e t echnical
paper ACI Journal, 30(19: 192200.)
Pubal Z. (1982). “Teory a Vypocet Ramovych Konst rukci s
vyzt uznymi prickami” , Theory and Analysis of Frame
st ruct ure wit h infilled Element s SNTL Prague, pp ,104
110.
Risager, S. ( 1968 )St ruct ural Behavior of linear Elastic Walls
Having on Tensile st rengt h, Gulf publishing Co., pp.25 
266.
Roberts, J. J., Tokey, A. K., Cranston, W. B. and Beeby,
A.W. (1985) Concret e Masonry Designer’s Handbook,
Viewpoint publication Series pp. 777.
Rutherford, D. J. (1980), Surface Bonding Walls – a
challenge t o convent ional t echniques, Journal of Building
Technology and Management . 18(7) Buildg. Regs. R&D
(Ed): 53.
Sahlin, S. (1971 ). St ruct ure Masonry, Prent ice – Hall, Eagle
wood Cliffs N.J., pp 91116.
Salah, E. E., Ashraf, F. A. A and Chen, W.F. (1990)
I nst ability Analysis of Eccent rically Loaded Concret e Walls,
Journal of St ruct ural Engineering 116(10): 28622881.
Samarasinghe, W., Page, A. W., and Hendry, A. W.
(19981), Behaviour of Brick Masonry Shear Wall, Journal
of t he St ruct ural Engineer, 59B (3): pp 4348.
Sejnoha, J. (1979), Pruznost , Pevnost, Plast icit y I “Elast icit y
St iffness and Plasticit y I ”, Hosova 5, Prague 6, (6) 8693.
157
Sinha, B. P., Hendry, A.W. (1978), An I nvest igation int o t he
Behaviour of Brick Cross Wall St ruct ure, Proceeding of
Brit ish Ceramic Societ y 27, pp 6776.
Sandor Popovics, (1982), Graphical Met hod of Opt imization :
A short cut , Journal of Const ruct ion Division , proceeding
of t he American Societ y of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 108
(C02). 211218.
Thanedar, P.B . and Vanderplacets G.N. (1999), Journal
of St ruct ural Engineering ,,121(2): 301306.
Vahakallio. P. and Makela, K. (1975), Met hod of Calculat ing
Rest raining Moment s in Unreinforced Masonry St ruct ure,
Proceeding of t he British Ceramic Society 1975, pp.161
173..
Wang. R., Elwi, A.E. and Hatzinikolas, (1996), Numerical
St udy of Tall Masonry Cavit y Walls Subj ect ed t o Eccent ric
load. Journal of St ruct ural Engineering, 123 (10) 1287
1297.
ht t p: / / www.google. com.ng/ sear ch?hl= en&q= Wang. + R. %2C+ Elwi%2C+
A.E.+ and+ Hat zinikolas%2C+ %281996%29.+ Numerical+ St udy+ of + Tall+
masonr y+ Cavit y+ Walls+ subj ect ed+ t o+ Eccent ric+ load. + Jour nal+ of + st ru
ct ur al+ Engineeri ng%2C+ 123+ %2810%29+ 1287
1297.&bt nG= Search&aq= f &aqi= &aql= &oq= &gs_rf ai=
158
APPENDI CES
159
Appendix I
STRENGTHECCENTRI CI TY REGRESSSI ON ANALYSI S
(A) Failure due t o cracks at t he shell face
I SB Block Mix = 1.8
Prism slenderness ratio( h/ t ) = 2
Eccent ricit y e: 0.00 38.33 76.67 95.8
Observed st rengt h , f: 2.2 2.4 3.2 3.9
Where e is on xaxis and f
me
on yaxis
Sum x = 210.8, sum (x)
2
= 44436.64, sum (x)
2
= 16525.1,
sum y = 11.7, sum (xy) = 710.95
y
p
= a + bx + c
in which
2 ) 2
2
) ( ) (
) ( ) (
x sum x sum n
xy sum x sum x sum n
a
÷
= = 2.006
2 2
) ( ) (
) (
x sum x sum n
y sum x sum xy sum n
b
÷
÷
= = 0.0174
n = number of t rials = 4
Error : c = y
1
 y
pi
I = = individual result
y
i
2.2 2.4 3.2 3.9
y
pi
2.006 2.67 3.67 3.67
c 0.194 0.27 0.14 0.23
y
pi
= 2.006 + 0.0174 x + 0.014 = 0.0174x + 2.02
e 0.00 38.33 76.67 95.8
f
mp
/ f
mo
0.92 1.12 1.05 0.95
(B) Failure due t o cracks at t he shell face
I SB Block Mix = 1.8
160
Eccent rivity, e: 0.00 38.33 76.64 95.8
Observed st rengt h, f
mo
: 2.2 25 2.9 3.5
Sum x = 210,8, sum (x)
2
= 44436.64 sum (x)
2
= 16525.1,
sum y = 10.9, sum (xy) = 653.47 a = 1.97, b = 0.0146
y
i
2.2 2.5 2.9 3.5
y
pi
1.97 2.53 3.09 3.37
c 0.03 0.03 0.19 0.94
f
mp
/ f
mo
0.96 0.99 1.04 0.94
(C) Failure Due t o Crushing
I SB Block Mix = 1:8
Eccent ricit y, e : 0.00 38.33 76.64 95.8
Observed st rengt h , f
mo:
2.2 2.3 2.6 2.8
Where is on xaxis and f
mo
on yaxis
Sum x = 210.8
sum (x)
2
= 44436.64,
sum y= 9.9, sum (x)
2
= 16525.1,
Sum (xy) = 555.74
a = 2.14, b = 0.00063
y
i
2.2 2.3 2.6 2.8
y
pi
2.14 2.38 2.62 2.74
c 0.06 0.08 0.02 0.06
y
p
= 2.14 + 0.063x – 0.02 = 0.0063x+ 2.12
c 0.000 38.33 76.69 95.80
f
mo
/ f
mo
0.83 1.04 1.03 0.92
[ b] I SB block mix = 1.6
Eccent ricit y e, 0.00 38.33 76.69 95.80
Observed st rengt h , f
mo
2.1 2.1 2.4 2.7
161
Sum x = 210.8, sum (x)
2
= 44436.64, sum y = 9.3, sum (x)
2
=
16525.12
sum (xy) = 523.16
const ant s: a = 2.00, b = 0.0058
For t he Error c :
y
i
2.1 2.1 2.4 2.7
y
pi
2.10 2.22 2.44 2.56
c 0.000 0.012 0.04 0.14
y
p
= 2.0 + 0,0058x 0.19 = 0.0058x + 1.81
c 0.00 38.33 76.67 95.80
f
mo
/ f
mo
1.00 0.09 0.85 0.76
162
Appendix I I
PRI SMWALL RELATI ONSHI P (LOAD FACTOR AND
CORRELATI ON COEFFI CI ENT)
AI ( 1) Load Factor
All load fact or was calculat ed from t he condit ion t hat :
P [ Pall] > Position probabilit y ( St rengt h )
> P(f
mo
) = P(= 10
3
) (All.1)
where:
P(f
mp
) = p ( y<
mp
s
1
[
LF
f
mh
(1 + v
s
v) (AI I .2)
And
p
all
=
LF
r
(1 + v
s
v) (AI I . 3)
in which Y = st andard normal variation independent of V,V=
1.64, v
s
= 0.15 t o 0.3 is t he coefficient of variation (100s/ x, s
is t he st andard deviat ion and xx is t he mean value), r =
sample mean load, f
mh
(f
m
)= charact erist ics st rengt h of prism
(= 2.2 N / mm
2
for 1: 8 mix), f
mp
(f
k
) = charact eristics (post erior)
st rengt h of wall and S
mp
= st andard deviat ion (Refer t o
equat ion 4.71)
All (2) Example 1:
DATABASE FOR I SB PRI SM
Slenderness rat io (h/ t ) = 3
Charact erist ic st rengt h
(1: 8 cement – san ratio) 2.2N/ mm
2
eccent ricit y (e) = 0
Axial load = 225.8kN
Number of t est t rials (n) = 10
Coefficient of variat ion = 0.25
Relat ive error = 0
Correlation coefficient = 0.1
St andard weight fact or = 0.35
Target st rengt h probabilit y = 0.001
163
SOLUTI ON
All (3) prism load factor
P
all
=
LF
x ) 64 . 1 25 . 0 1 ( 800 225 +
=
LF
318378
Axial load:
p = 203 280 N
I f P = P
all
t hen: 203 280 =
LF
318378
>
280 203
378 318 = LF
57 . 1 =
All (4) Wall load factor
a) wall st rengt h ( when c = 0, p = 0.1, o = 0.3):
f
mp
= f
mh
+ o (x  f
mh
)
= 2.2 + 0.35 (2.2 – 2.2) = 2.2 – 0.011
= 2.18 N/ mm
2
I f P
t
= 0.001, t hen:
S
mp
= 0.029 (10.35 x 0.1)
= 0.029 = 2.9%
0.001 =
9 . 2
1
[
LF
2 . 2
( 1+ 0.25 x 1.64) – 2.18
0.001 =
LF
069 . 1
= 0.75
LF =
75 . 0
069 . 1
= 1.43
b) wall st rengt h (when c = 0, p = 0.3, o = 0,81.
S
mp
= 2.3
LP = 1.41
Average LP = 1.42
164
All (5) Correction coefficient
This was calculat ed as t he ratio of load fact or for t he wall to
prism:
P
W
LF
LF
=
57 . 1
42 . 1
= 0.90
Hence: The Charact eristic st rengt h of Wall: f
k
= 0.90f
m
Table All.1 Result s of analysis for prism – wall relationship
( c = 0, p = 0.1, o = 0.35, 1.8 ( cement : sand) mix,
f
m
= 2.2 N/ mm
2
)
Post erior st rengt h
Prior st rengt h + (f
mp
) (f
mp
) Error
(f
mh
)N/ mm
2
N/ mm
2
N/ mm
2
c (+ f
mp
) c (+ f
mp
)
0.01
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0.77
1.42
2.07
2.72
3.37
0.77
0.58
1.93
3.28
4.63
0.77
0.42
0.07
0.28
0.69
0.77
0.42
0.07
0.28
0.69
165
Table All.2 Result of analysis for prism – wall relat ionship
( c = 0 p = 0.3, o = 0.641.8(cement : sand) mix,
f
m
= 2.2 N/ mm
2
)
Not e: sum error = 0. t his is equation t oc
Table All.4 Result s of analysis for prism – wall relationship
( c = 0, p = 0.9, o = 0.99, 1: 8 (cement : sand )mix,
f
m
= 2.2 N/ mm
2
)
Not e: Sum error = 0.t his is equal toc
Prior st rengt h Post erior St rengt h Error
(f
mh
) N/ mm
2
+ ( f
mp
) ( f
mp
) c (+ f
mp
) c ( f
mp
)
N/ mm
2
N/ mm
2
0.01
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.140
1.076
2.123
2.488
2.848
1.14
0.232
1.872
3.512
5.152
1.14
0.076
0.123
0.215
0.152
1.14
0.08
0.13
0.51
1.15
Prior st rengt h Post erior St rengt h Error
(f
mh
) N/ mm
2
+ ( f
mp
) ( f
mp
) c (+ f
mp
) c ( f
mp
)
N/ mm
2
N/ mm
2
0.01
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
2.178
0.089
2.198
2.208
2.218
2.178
0.089
1.802
3.792
5.780
2.17
0.91
019
0.79
1.78
2,17
0.91
0.19
0.79
1.15
166
Table All.5 Result of analysis for prism – wall relat ionship
( c = 1, p = 0.9, o = 0.9,1: 8 (cement : sand )mix,
f
m
= 2.2 N/ mm
2
)
Table all. 6 Result of analysis for prism wall relat ionships
( c = 1, p = 0.3, o = 0.81,1: 8 (cement : st and) mix,
f
m
= 2.2 N/ mm
2
)
Not e: Tot al sum error = 0 t his is less t han 1 ( c = 1)
Prior st rengt h Post erior St rengt h Error
(f
mh
) N/ mm
2
+ ( f
mp
) ( f
mp
) c (+ f
mp
) c ( f
mp
)
N/ mm
2
N/ mm
2
0.01
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.980
2.080
2.180
2.280
1.380
1.980
0.080
1.820
3.070
4.670
1.98
1,08
1.18
0.82
2.02
1.97
0.92
0.18
0.07
0.68
Prior st rengt h Post erior St rengt h Error
(f
mh
) N/ mm
2
+ ( f
mp
) ( f
mp
) c (+ f
mp
) c ( f
mp
)
N/mm
2
N/mm
2
0.01
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.782
1.421
2.162
2.352
2.540
1.78
0.028
1.838
3.648
5.458
1.78
0.91
0.16
0.69
1.48
1.78
0.97
016
0.65
1.46
167
Apppendix I I I
CALCULATI ON EXAMPLE OF I SB WALLL DEFLECTI ON
Dat abase
For a part ially fixed wall at base:
Horizont al load int ensit y q = 0.551x10
3
N/ mm
2
Horizont al (wind ) load, W ( = F
h
) = 2.18N/ m
Effect ive height , H
e
= 0.75H
Maximum wall height H = 3600mm
Reduct ion fact or  = 0.75
H
e
= 0.75 x 3600 = 2700mm
Slenderness rat io = 2700/ 230 = 11.7 < 12
The wall is bread and st ocky
As expressed in equat ion in Chapt er 3, sect ion:
K
H
= rπ/ 2, for He/ f < 12, r = 26.78 (CP 111)
So t hat : K
H
= 42.06 > k = 0.012
Loads due t o eccent ricit ies ( e= 0,t / 6,5t / 12) are 215 ,170,
100and 61 x 10
2
N respect ively. Where e = t x 6 = 38.3
deflect ion, y :
y = ( 38.3 )
012 . 0 215000
00551 . 0
2
x
(
06 . 42 cos
1
 1) +
+
215000
3600 000551 . 0 x
( t + 2.18 [
215000
1
(
012 . 0
06 . 42 tan
 3600)
1
= 13.40.015 – 0.036 = 13.36mm
168
Appendix I V
ROOT: BI SECTI ON METHOD
Procedure:
Assuming funct ion of design variables, f(x) is real and
cont inous
PseudoCode:
1. Choose x
L
(lower value), x
u
(upper value ) and check
wit h t he product of t heir funct ions,
f(x
L
)F(x
R
) < 0
2. Estimat e root x
R,
ie x
R
= 0.5 ( x
L
+ x
u
)
3. Evaluate:
a) if f(x
L
)F(x)> 0. root lies in t he lower subint erval
t hen x
u
= x
R
or back t o 2
b) if f(x
L
) f(x
R
)> 0 root lies in t he upper subint erval,
t hen x
L
= x
R
c) if f(x
L
)f(x
R
)= 0, root equal x
R
Table A/ V 1.to A/ V.5 show t he result s of t he comput at ions.
The bisection estimat ed error c is calculat ed as:
c
a
=
New
R
old
p
new
p
x
x x
÷
100
%
(AI V.1)
Where: x
r
new
x
r
old
= root for t he present , previous it erat ion
respect ively
When c
a
becomes less t han a prescribed or prespecified
st opping crit erion c
s
, t hen t he comput at ion st ops. Evaluat ion
of I SB Wall sect ional Area By Blsect ion Met hod
I ) Compression and horizont al st ress (const raints) (Refer t o
const raint equat ions in Chapt er 4 section 4.7.2. subsect ion
4.7.2.1.(a)
Design Variables:
Prism sectional area, A
Prism Height, H
Eccent ricit y, e
169
Maximizing t he volume t o minimize t he cost :
A) Dat aBase:
Block mix: 1: 8 (cement : sand )
Slenderness rat io, h/ t = 3
Wind (horizont al ) load, W = 0.825 N/ mm
2
Lengt h of prism, L = 440mm
Axial(vert ical)load ),P
Eccent ricit y, e = 0mm
Height of prism, H = 750(t hree block
courses ) mm
Allowable st ress, o
all
= 2.2 N/ mm
2
St opping error, c = 1.5%(specified)
Table AV.1 result of I SB prism sect ional area root
(1.8, 1 part cement t o 8 parts sand)
Not e: t he result is linearly convergent to t he t rue value
B) Dat a Base:
Block mix; 1: B (cement : sand)
Slenderness rat io, h/ t = 3
Axial ( vert ical )load, P = 180 000 N
Allowable st ress, o
all
= 2.1N/ mm
2
Eccent ricit y , e = 38.33mm
Height , H = 675mm
Lengt h, L = 440mm
Iiteration
Number
0
1
2
3
4
5
Area, A (mm
2
)
0
85000
92500
96250
98750
99500
(% )
100
17.6
8.1
3.9
2.5
1.2
170
Table AV.2 result of I SB prism sect ional area root
( 1: 8, 1 part cement t o 8 part sand)
I t erat ion
Number Area A (mm
2
) Error c (%)
Not e: The result is convergent to t he t rue value
C) Dat a Base:
Block mix: 1: 8 (cement : sand )
Slenderness rat io, h/ t = 3
Axial load, P = 99.67mm
Eccent ricit y , e = 675 mm
Height , H = 440mm
Lengt h, L = 2.4N/ mm
2
St opping error c = 1.5%
Table AV.3 result of I SB prism sect ional area root
( 1; 8. 1 part cement t o 8 parts sand )
Not e: t he result is converging t o t he t rue value.
100
5.3
0.7
0
95 000
100625
0
1
2
0
1
2
3
4
Iteration
Number. Area A (mm
2
) Error c (%)
0
95 000
100000
113 125
115 357
100
5.5
2..2
2.1
1.3
171
The t rue value can be t oo large to t he available discrete size of
t he st andard sandcret e block
I I ) Compressive st ress (const raints)
(Refer t o const rain equation in Chapt er 4, sect ion 4.7
subsect ion 4, 782b)
A) Dat a Base:
Block mix: 1: 8 (cement : sand)
Slenderness rat io, h/ = 3
Axial load, P = 224 000N
Eccent ricit y, e = 0mm
Height , H = 675mm
Allowable st ress, o
all
= 2.2N/ mm
2
St opping error, c = 1.5%
Table AV .4 Result of I SB prism sect ional area root
( 1; 8, 1 part cement t o 8 parts sand)
Not e: The result is linearly convergent
B) Dat a Base:
Block mix: 1: 8 (cement : sand)
Slenderness rat io, h/ t = 3
Axial load, P = 180 000N
Eccent ricit y , e = 38.33mm
Height , H = 675 mm
Allowable st ress , o
all
= 2.1N/ mm
2
Lengt h, l = 440mm
St opping error, c = 1.5%
0
1
2
3
4
Iteration
Number. Area A (mm
2
) Error c (%)
0
95 250
98 750
100 000
100 625
100
3.9
2.5
1.3
0.6
172
Table AV .5 Result of I SB prism sect ional area root
(1: 8, 1 part cement t o 8 parts sand)
Not e: t he result is linearly divergent from t he t rue Value
0
1
2
3
Iteration
Number. Area A (mm
2
) Error c (%)
0
1006 25
105 000
110 000
100
0.6
4.1
4.3
173
Appendix V
I SBBLOCKWALL UNDER HORI ZONTAL I MPACT LOAD
Assuming a wet bloc in wet I SB wall, subj ect ed t o horizont al
force of 124.48kN at t he midheight of t he wall, was
considered for design safet y of it s dimensions.
DATA –BASE FOR I SB BLOCK UNDER I MPACT LOAD
Average weight of blocks ( 7 courses ) on t op of t he wet block
Under considerat ion = 192.85kg
Block breadt h (B) = 230mm
Block upper tongue widt h (T
u
) = 50mm
Block upper tongue t hickness ( h
t
) = 25,,
Block lengt h (L) = 440mm
Block height (H) = 225mm
Weight of block (m) = 27.55kg
Gross sect ional area of t he block (A) = 1.017 x 105 mm
2
AV ( 1) Elastic constants of the block
C
11
= kA = 13 x 10
8
x 1.017 x 10
5
= 104.63/ mm
C
12
= ky A =  13 x 10
6
x 106.37 x 1.017 x 10
5
=  140.631N
= C
21
C
22
= k
c
I
o
+ ky
2
A = 13 x 10
6
x 2.24 x 10
8
+ 13 x 10
6
x
209.62 x 1.017 x 10
5
= 5.8 x 10
6
Nmm
and
h
1
=
Ht T h
t h T h
U t
t U t
+
+ ) ( 5 . 0
2 2 2 2
= 15.9mm
so t hat t he moment of inert ial:
I
z
=
3
)
2
1
2
h t ÷
= 1.24 x 10
6
mm
4
Rotation
W = (kI
o
/ I
z
)
0.5
= 0.015 s
1
Frequency
F = w/ 2I I = 0.0024 Hz (for 6.98
~ 7min)
Force due t o vibrat ion at displacement u = 1
M
12
174
F =
Y C w I C
C w I C C
mw
12
2
22 22
2
12
2
2 22
11
) (
) ( ) (
2
÷ ÷
÷ ÷
÷
=
Y C K
C K K
I
12
2
12
÷
÷
(AV.2)
= 1.270N
force due t o vibration at nat ural frequency c = 1
F =
12
2
11
12
2
22
11
) (
) ( ) (
2
C mw C Y
C w I C C
z
mw
÷ ÷
÷ ÷
÷
=
12
12
C K Y
C K K
I
÷
÷
(AV. 2)
= 158.059N
AV ( 2) Safety of the Block Tongue in design
Graphical (t riangular )met hod of opt imization was also applied
as ment ioned in Appendix I I
The problem is to minimize
Z = h
t
Tu (AV.3)
Subj ect t o :
a)deformat ion:
F(x1) = 27.99(h
t
)
2
x 10
5
– (
L
2 . 1
+
U
T
03 . 1
) 10
2
+ 2.5 (AV.4)
b) st ress:
Deformat ion const raint due t o impact is expressed as:
U ÷ o
all
s 0 (AV.5)
u
all
= u + h
1 c ) 6 . ( AV
where; u
all
allowable displacement , h
1
= dist ance from t he t op
fibre of t he block t o it s neut ral axis and
c =
frequency of a
unit y value
175
L h
x F
n T
45 . 1332 06 . 158
) (
2
T
= + 2.75 s 0 (AV. 7)
Ot her const raints:
10 < h
t
< 25 (AV.10)
45 < T
u
< 50
(AV.11)
h
t
+ T
u
+ L = 500
(AV.12)
h
t
+ T
u
, L > 0
(AV.13)
Table V.1 Coordinat es for upper t ongue size
St ress const raint due t o impact is expressed as:
0 s ÷
all
o o (AV.8)
U t
h
F
T
+
B L
P
o
all
s0 (AV.9)
where: F = impact force due t o unit of rot at ion (158.06N), p –
load due t o 7 blocks and roof beam ( 306463n) and fk =
2.75N/ mm, B= const ant block wit h of 230mm
Tongue thickness
h (mm)
11.33
11.76
12.50
13.00
Tongue width,
Tu (mm)
50
48
45
40
Block length,
L (mm)
440
440
440
440
176
Table V.2 Coordinat es for upper t ongue size
Table V.3. Coordinat es for upper t ongue size
Tongue thickness
h (mm)
12.96
13.40
14.40
14.80
Tongue width,
Tu (mm)
50
48
45
40
Block length,
L (mm)
445
445
445
445
Tongue Thickness
h (mm)
14.95
15.59
16.65
16.90
Tongue width,
Tu (mm)
50
4
8
45
Block length,
L (mm)
450
450
450
450
177
Appendix VI
DESI GN EXAMPLE OF I SB WALL
I ) Desing for Compression. Figs. AI V.1 – AI V.3 show plan, and
sect ion of t he building
DOCUMENTATI ON
I SB safet y fact ors for loads (¸
f
I SB
) = 1.42
Part ial safet y fact ors of mat erial (¸
m
) = 3.5 (BS 5628, 1985))
Elst ic modulus (E) = 1.1 x10
3
(for t he sandscret e at 28 days)
Charact erist ies st rengt h (f
k
) of t he I SB wall = 2.2 N/ mm
2.
Fig. AVI .1 Pian of grounf floor
GROUND FLOOR
900
2325 1200
1200 925 1200 925 1000 900
Dinning
room
Kitchen
Room
Guest room
Bath
+ wc
Main living
room
600 1500 3250
1200
925
1200
925
1200
2825 900
14525
3
5
2
5
1
2
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
7
2
5
1
2
0
0
9
2
5
14645
1150 1150
178
FLOOR
Fig. AVI . 2 Plan of first floor
1
4
8
0
0
120
0
3000 925 120
0
1550
120
0 925
4800
1800 3625 1250
2150
2150 3600
Master
bedroom
bath
+
wc
Stair
case
Balcony
Bedroom
4
Bedroom 3
Bath
Family
lounge
B
a
l
c
o
n
y
250
250
14800
179
SECTI ON Y – Y
Fig AVI .3 longit udinal sect ion
The st ruct uralwWalll element s layout of t he bilding is shown in
Fig. AVI .4
DESI SGN DATABASE
Selfweight of 150mm t hick slab = 3.60kNm
2
Finishes = 0.025 x 24 = 0.60 kN/ m
2
Part it ions = 1.0kNm
2
Deadload of roof = 0.75kn/ m
2
I mposed load of floor = 1.5kN/ m
2
5
0
2
5
0
1
5
0
2
1
7
5
1
9
0
0
2
4
0
0
2
8
5
0
5
6
5
0
5
6
5
0
5
0
0
1
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
9
0
0
2
8
0
0
1
5
0
2
7
0
0
Family
lounge
Stair
well
Bedroom
3
Gu
est
Main
Living
room
180
Fig. AVI . 4 wal layout
Loading
Loading of t he wall is according to BS 5626
Dead + imposed load
Design dead load = 0.9G
k
or 1.4G
k
Design live load = 1.6Q
k
Dead + Wind Load
4
4
2
5
A
B
D
2
1
2
1
3
3
C
1
PANEL
PANEL
4
2
PANEL
PANEL
3
5
A B
C D
PANEL
6100 2375 3825
750
1
0
5
0
4
5
7
5
1050
181
Design dead load = 0.9g
k
or 1.4G
k
Design wind load = 1.4W
k
or 0.015G
k
(which
ever is large)
Accidental Damage
Design dead load = 0.95G
k
or 1.05G
k
Design live load = 0.35Q
k
Design Wind Load = 0.35W
k
Where: G
k =
t he charat erist ic dead load
Q
k
= t he charat eristic live load
W
k
= t he charat eristic wind load
W
k
is obt ained according t o BP3, CHP.V, Part 2
Dynamic wind load q = 0.613Vs 2
(= VS
1
S
2
S
33
V is t he speed
of wind
While: si are fact ors relat ing t o S
1
= S
2
= 1 and
S
3
= coefficient relat ed t o roughness of t he ground
= 0.613(50 X 1 X 0.6 X 1) / 10
3
= 0.551N/ mm2 x 10
3
The Wind Pressure W = C
1
q H
8
(N/ m)
Where: C
1
1.1
I I ) Compression Design Of I SB Wall
EXTERNAL LOABEARI NG WALL AB (SEE FI G AI V.2) 1
ST
FLOOR
Table AVI . 1 Load on wall
EXTERNAL LOABEARI NG WALL AB (See Fig AI V.2) 1
st
floor
Loading Dead Load
kN/ m
P1 Load from parapet wall
1/ 3(0.23x3.00x13.24x3)
P2 Load from the roof
1/ 2(1.41x0.5x0.75x5.25
2
P3 Self weight of wall
0.23x3x13.24x3
Total
Total Design Load
Live Load
kN/m
Load
¸
1
G
k
Load ¸
1
¸
k
9.13 1.4 12.78 2.2 1.6 3.5
9.14 1.4 12.79 2.2 1.6 1.6
27.40 1.4 38.36   
63.93 7.0
70.93
182
I I ) Compression Design Of I SB Wall
Eccent ricit y: (Refer t o Fig. AVI .2)
(p
1
+ p
2
+ p
3
)e = p
2
1/ 6
e = 0.088mm < 0.05t , t he ecent ricty can be neglect ed
or
3
2 1
P
P P +
< 2.33 so t hat e < 0.03t
ie:
9 . 63
21 3 . 33 +
= 0.84 ¸ < 2.33
P
2
Fig AVI .5 wall Ab
Slenderness Ratio ( SR)
Effect ive height (H
o
) = 0.75 x 3000 = 2250mm
Effect ive t hickness t
e
(= B ) = 230mm
Then, SR =
B
H
e
=
230
2250
= 9.78 ( fig. AI V .5 wall A –B )
P
2
P
3
183
Design Vert ical Load Resist ance
For e < 0.05t , SR = 9.78 Table (BS5628)
For t he reduct ion capacit y,  = 0.88
Design vert ical load =  f
k
t / y
m
=
5 . 3
230 0 . 2 88 . 0 x x
= 115. 66kN/ m
Therefore Desing is ok, since 115.66 kN/ N
Not e t hat t he horizont al sect inal area of t he wall is 0.69mmm
2
.
t his is more t han 0.2mm
2
modificat ion
Fact or (of 1.15) is not required
Desing for Horizont al load
Ultimat e lat eral load f
lat
= 0.021G
K
= 1.34N/ mm
2
horizont al load Resistance
q
lat
=
m
Y H
Pt
2
8
=
5 . 3 3
230 2 . 127 8
2
x
x x
= 7.43kn/ m
q
lat
= f
lat
.Desing load is ok
Dising moment :
m = Y
1
f
lat
H
2
(for t he wall vertically soanned
)
= 0.012 x 1.2 x 1.34 x 9 = 0.17 kNm
Ut imate moment or Resist ance
M
U
=
m
Y
ftH
6
2
=
5 . 3 6
9 233 . 0 0 . 2 x x
= 0.19kNm
I NTERNAL LOADBEARI NG WALL (A – B ) Fig AVI .6
Loading
K = l
y
I
x
= 1.33 and w = 1.4x 5.2 + 1.6 x 1.5 = 9.68kN/ m
184
Dead load:
Dead load from roof = 0.5[ k 0.5] w I
x
2
= 9.12 (fact ored )
Dead load from left Slab = 43.87kN
Dead load from rigt h slab = 20.90kN
Dead load of wall = 18.77kN/ m
Self load: = 14.40kN/ m
Live load:
Live load from left slab = 20.90kN
live load from right Slab = 19.51kN
t ot al dead load (G
k
) = 50.17kN/ m
Tot al live load (Q
k
) = 6.62kN/ m
Fig. AVI .6 wall AB
From Fig.AVI .6:
P
1
= 9.12 x 2/ 6.1 + 18.77 = 21.76kn/ m
P
2
= (43.84 + 20.9)/ 6.1 = 10.61 kN/ m
P
3
= (19.51 + 40.95 ) 6.1 = 9.91 kN/ m
Vert ical load Design
Tot al desig axial load = 1.4G
k
+ 1.6Q
k
= 80.83 kN/ m
Eccent ricit y of load = 0.01t
Capacit y reduct ion fact or  = 0.88(BS 5628, Table 7) in
Table 31 desing vert ical load resist ance,
N
r
= 976kN/ m
N
r
> ; Design load ok.
P
2
P
2
P
2
185
Horizont al load Design
Ultimat e load, f
lot
= 0.021Gk = 1.05 kN/ m
Horizot al load resist ance, q
lat
= 9.05kN/ m
Ultimat e moment, m = 0.12kNm
Ultimat e moment of resist ance of wall, M
u
= 3.18kNm
M
u
> m for t = 230 mm is adequat e
EXTERNWALL (12 ) Fig AVI .7
Fact ored Dead load from Roof = ¼ w I
k
2= 1.03kN/ m
P
3
= 1.03 + weight of t he wall at t he right slab = 19.0 kN/ m
Dead load of Right Slab = 3.54 kN/ m
Live load of Right Slab = 1.27kN/ m
P
2
= 19.80 + 3.54 + 1.27 = 24.61 kN/ m
Dead load from left Slab =
= 1.4 (0.2 x 1.0 + 0.15 x 0.9)
= 0.42kN/ m
Live load from left Slab = 1.35kN/ m
P
1
= 0.42 + 1.35 = 1.77kN/ m
Selfweigt h of wall = 14.4kN/ m
Dead load G
k
= 27.26 kN/ m
Love load Q
k
= 262kN/ m
Tot al load = 29.88kN/ m
Fig AVI .7 wall 12
P
4
P
1
P
2
P
3
186
Vert ical load Design
Design axial load = 1.4G
k
+ 1.6Q
k
Eccent ricit y of load e = 0.37t (refer t o Fig. VI I )
Capacit y reduct ion fact or  = 0.44(BS5628, Table 7)
Vert ical load resistance N
r
= 48.8kN/ m
Horizont al load Design
Ultimat e lat eral load f
lat
= 0.021G
k
= 0.57 kn/ m
Horizont al load resistance q
lat
= 4.53kN/ m
Moment of resist ance m = 0.064kNm
Ultimat e moment of resist ance M
u
= 3.18kNm
M
u
> m, for t = 230 mm
No furt her check required
187
Appendix VI I
Calculat ion for Economical Bases for Comparison
There aere t wo basic met hod t hat were employed here t o
made economic comparisons of alt ernat ives. The Annual cost
(AC) and t he present wort h (PW) met hods. The annual base
cmparison reduces all revenues and expendit ures over
select ed time to an equivat lent annual value, while t he present
wort h comparisons is when all ant icipat ed revenues and
expendit ures are expressed by t heir equvalent present values.
I n t he lat er t he vale life span for all t he opt ions must be used
for valid comparisons .
EXAMPLES
Annual Base Comparison
Adesing wall of t he t wo st orey building has t wio opt ions, A
(int erwoven Sandcret e Block, I SB,wall ) and B (Convent ional
wall, CW) opt ion A will cost N254,000.00 while option B cost s
N 265,000.00. using t he annual base met hod of comparison
wit h a 12% int erest rat e, which opt ion should be chosen, if
bot h walls will have a 100 years life span.
The init ial cost is convert ed t o equivalent yearly payment using
capit al recovery fact or (Refer t o Chapt er 4, Table 4.1)
Solut ion:
a) for I SB – wall (opt ion A )
Annul cost (AC)
I SB
= 254 000 crf ( 0.21 100 ) + 8 000
=
63 . 0
800 01 . 0 000 254 x
= N12,031.76
Not e t hat ; i = 0.12/ 12mont hs, n = 100years, so t hat crf =
0.63
b) for CW (opt ion B)
Annual Cost (AC)
cw
= 265 000 x 0.01 + 7900
= N 12,106.33
Opt ion A is Cheaper.
188
Present Wort h Comparison
Here t here is t h ned t o convert t he annual meaint ainance cost s
t o it s lpresent values, t hen t he unifom series woorth fact or,
uspwf (Refer t o Chapt er Three. Table 3.2 ) is employed.
Solut ion:
a) for I SB wall (option A)
present wort h of design (PW )
I SB
:
(PW)
I SB
= 254 000 + 8 000 uspwf (0.12,100)
= 254 000 + 8 000 x 63 .03
= N 758 240. 00
b) for CW (opt ion B)
present wort h of design (PW)
CW
(PW)
CW
= 3265 000 + 7 800 x 63.03
= N 762 937
Opt ion A is t he best alt ernative t o B
189
Appendix VI I I
Table AVI I I . 1 compresive st rengt h and st rain for isb prism
(h/ t = 3 , 1: 8(1part cement to 8 part sand )mix
Spacimen
I dent if icall
No
Sect ional
area x10
3
mm
2
Crushing
load kN
Compression
st rengt h
N/ mm
2
St rain Eccent ri
cit y
mm
Remark
1
2
186 3
4
5
101.670
101.670
101.670
101.670
101.670
163
214
244
275
255
1.6
2.1
2.4
2.7
2.8
0.25
0.40
0.70
1.00
1.20
0
Max,
st rain
1
2
183
4
5
69.050
69.050
69.050
69.050
69.050
62
68
109
137
152
0.9
1.0
1.6
1.9
2.2
0.30
0.50
0.90
1.20
1.53
t / 6
Max,
st rain
1.53
1
2
ECF 3
( 186) 4
5
20.010
20.010
20.010
20.010
20.010

42
54
56
58

2.1
2.7
2.8
29

0.25
0.40
0.70
1.00
t / 3
Max,
st rain
1.00
1
2
ECF 3
( 187 4
5
17.200
17.200
17.200
17.200
17.200
31
33
36
43
53
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.5
3.1
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.50
0.50
5t / 12
Max
st rain
0.50
ECF = eccent ricit y laod for 1: 8 mi, t = prism t hickness
190
Table AVI I I . 2 Compresive st rengt h and st rain for I SB prism
(h/ t = 3 , 1: 8(1part cement to 8 part sand )mix
Spaciemn
I dent if icall
No
Sect ional
area x10
3
mm
2
Crushing
load kN
Compression
st rengt h
N/ mm
2
St rain Eccent ri
cit y
mm
Remark
1
2
186 3
4
5
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
102.000
143
173
255
255
265
1.4
1.7
2.3
2.5
2.6
0.25
0.40
0.70
0.80
1.50
0
Max,
St rain
1.50
1
2
ECF183
4
5
70,000
70,000
70,000
70,000
70,000
98
119
161
175
217
1.4
1.4
2.3
2.5
3.1
0.15
0.25
0.40
0.60
0.90
t / 6
Max,
st rain
0.90
1
2
ECF 3
( 186) 4
5
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
26
34
44
48
58
1.3
1.7
2.2
2.3
2.9
0.20
0.25
1.75
0.83
1.05
t / 3
Max,
st rain
1.05
1
2
ECF 3
( 187 4
5
17.100
17.100
17.100
17.100
17.100
26
26
43
46
51
1.5
1.5
2.5
2.7
2.8
0.10
0.40
0.50
0.65
0.90
5t / 12
Max
st rain
0.90
ECF = eccent ricit y load for 1: 8 mi, t = prism t hickness
191
Table AVlll.3 compressive st rengt h and st rain for isb
prism(h/ t= 2) 1: 6 (1 part cement t o 6 part s sand) mix
Spaciemn
I dent if icall
No
Sect ional
area x10
3
mm
2
Crushing
load kN
Compression
st rengt h
N/ mm
2
St rain Eccent ri
cit y mm
Remark
1
2
161 3
4
5
101.680
101.680
101.680
101.680
101.680
122
193
244
285
275
1.2
1.9
2.4
2.8
2.7
0.25
0.51
0.80
1.25
1.50
0
Max,
St rain
1.5
1
2
ECF3
( 163) 4
5
69,003
69,003
69,003
69,003
69,003
83
124
152
166
186
1.2
1.8
2.2
2.4
2.7
0.18
0.30
0.60
0.71
0.85
t / 6
Max,
st rain
0.85
1
2
ECF 3
( 165) 4
5
19.165
19.165
19.165
19.165
19.165
23
36
46
56
60
1.2
1.9
2.4
2.9
3.1
0.15
0.25
0.51
0.75.0.
80
t / 3
Max,
st rain
0.8
1
2
ECF 3
( 188) 4
5
17.181
17.181
17.181
17.181
17.181
21.0
33
48
50
60
1.2
1.9
2.8
2.9
3.5
0.10
0.15
0.25
0.3
0.5
5t / 12
Max
st rain
0.35
ECF = eccent ricit y load for 1: 6 mix, t = prism t hickness
192
Table AVI I I 3 Compressive st rengt h and st rain for I SB
Prism(h/ t= 2) 1: 6 (1 part cement t o 6 part s sand) mix
Spaciemn
I dent if icall
No
Sect ional
area x10
3
mm
2
Crushing
load kN
Compression
st rengt h
N/ mm
2
St rain Eccent ri
cit y mm
Remark
1
2
161 3
4
101.720
101.720
101.720
101.720
142
203
254
285
1.4
2.0
2.5
2.6
0.25
0.40
0.51
0.57
0
Max,
St rain
0.57
1
2
ECF3
( 163) 4
5
69,200
69,200
69,200
69,200
69,200
104
130
160
187
180
1.5
1.9
2.4
2.7
2.6
0.18
0.28
0.40
0.55
0.55
t / 6
Max,
st rain
0.55
1
2
ECF 3
( 165) 4
5
19.170
19.170
19.170
19.170
19.170
29
38
48
52
63
1.5
2.0
2.5
2.7
3.2
0.15
0.25
0.36
0.51.0.
53
t / 3
Max,
st rain
0.53
1
2
ECF 3
( 188) 4
5
17.220
17.220
17.220
17.220
17.220
26
34
65
45
53
1.5
2.0
2.3
2.6
3.1
0.15
0.16
0.30
0.35
0.40
5t / 12
Max
st rain
0.40
ECF = eccent ricit y load for 1: 6 mix, t = prism t hickness
193
194
STRENGTH CHARACTERI STI S OF
I NTERWOVEN SANDCRETE
MASONRY
By
ADEDEJI, ABDULLAH ADEOLA
PHD/ENG/3918.89
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL
FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT
FOR THE AWARD OF DOCTOR OF
PHILOSOPHY (PHD) DEGREE IN CIVIL
ENGINEERING
in the
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY
ZARIA NIGERIA
February 2000
195
DECLARATI ON
I hereby declared t hat t his t hesis has been prepared by me
and t hat it is a record of my own research work. I t has not
been published in any publicat ion for a higher degree.
Adedej i, Abdullah Adeola
ii
196
CERTI FI CATI ON
iii
197
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I n t e, anime meus t emporal met ior…I n my Mind I Measure
Time.
My profound grat it ude t o Dr S P Ej eh, who supervised t his
work. He made t his work possible to mat erialise by making
himself available, accessible even during t urbulent times. His
direct approach t o academia provided me a highrise place t o
see furt her t han t his horizon. I appreciat e t his effort s.
There are t eachers and friends who cared: Prof O Adebisi
(ABU), Prof O A Adet ifa (Unilorin), Prof B F Sule (Unilorin), Prof
Bello Ochende (Unilorin), Dr K J Osinubi (member of
supervisory committ ee), Dr Osula (ABU), Dr J Afolayan
(member of supervisory commit t ee), Prof B M Adeyemi
(Unilorin), Dr S A Adedayo (Unilorin), Dr K Adeniran (unilorin),
Engr A A Jimoh (Unilorin, Engr A B I bitoye (Unilorin), Engr D J
Galega (Unilorin), Engr O Olu (Unilorin), Dr Y A Jimoh
(Unilorin), Dr Y A Abdulkareem(Unilorin)...
There are acquaint ances of large hearts: Messers Nj oku,
Mercus, I gwe and Moses, all of t he Cent ral workshop (ABU
Civil Engineering); Mr Salamu (UnilorinCent ral Workshop,
Facult y of Engineering), Mr Bala Achika (secret ary, Depart ment
of Civil Eng., ABU).
To my support ing wife, who stood patient ly t o see t he success
of t he work.
My sincere t hankfulness t o t he Aut horit y of t he Universit y of
I lorin for grant ing me t wo years st aff development during t he
course of t his st udy.
….Name no names. There are ot hers who sat quiet ly, read and
crit icised t his work t o fruition.
May you all be blessed.
Ogeshogun Samant ino.
A A Adedej i.
iv
198
ABSTRACT
The compressive st rengt h t est s performed on t he int erwoven
sandcret e block (I SB) unit s and it s masonry (prism and wall),
indicat ed t hat t he ratio of wall st rengt h t o block is 0.84. This is
reasonably very high when compared wit h t he convent ional
masonry wall of 0.35, indicating a high load bearing value for
I SB masonry. The I SB wall st rengt h is 1.06 of t he convent ional
sandcret e wall st rengt h. The minimum value for t he
eccent ricit y of load for I SB wall is 0.065t while t he maximum is
0.303t, if it is wall t hickness.
Dat abase, from t he physical and st rengt h propert ies of t he
I SB used in t he analyses of t he wall, complies wit h t he
referenced st andards [ BS6073(1981), BS 5628(1985). A st eel
diemould was fabricat ed for t he product ion of I SB block.
Special at t ent ion was paid t o t he opt imizat ion of t he masonry.
The cost funct ion was maximized subj ect t o st resses and
deformat ion. I SB wall cost is t wice t he cost of initial design,
wit hout optimizat ion. Triangular (graphical) method of
opt imization for 3 design variables (wall sect ional area, height
and eccent ricit y) was adopt ed being a very simple and
accurat e met hod. From t he above opt imization, feasible region
was ident ified and a best least design cost funct ion of
1.80E8mm
3
was generated at eccent ricity of 15mm, wall
height of 3600 mm and 50000 mm
2
sect ional areas.
I n order t o prevent t he effect of missiles or any ot her
impact force from damaging t he I SB block or direct ly on t he
t ongue, a design sect ion of t he block upper t ongue has been
opt imized. The result shows t hat , t he tongue sect ional area
(perpendicular t o t he direct ion of force) of 564mm2 will resist
maximum impact force of 12.02N.
The design of a t ypical residential building (t wo st orey)
using I SBwall as load bearing, show t hat , I SB wall can replace
t he convent ional wall st ruct urally.
This st udy has shown t hat j oint mort ar decreases,
adversely, t he compressive st rengt h of a masonry.
For fast t rack const ruct ion, met hods of laying block were
recommended, while a light weight t apping tool (not heavier
t han 120kg) is used during inst allation of elect rical and wat er
appliances.
v
199
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER Title Page i
Declarat ion ii
Cert ificat ion iii
Acknowledgement iv
Abst ract v
List of Figures x
List of Plat es xi
List of Tables xii
Not at ion xv
1. I NTRODUCTI ON 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 St at ement of t he Problem 2
1.3 Obj ect ive of t he Research 2
1.4 Scope of t he Research 3
1.5 Met hodology 3
1.6 Thesis Present ation and Organization 3
2. RELATED LI TERATURE REVI EW
AND ANALYSI S 5
2.1 General 5
2.2 Masonry Unit mort ar Composit ion 7
2.3 Masonry Failure Theory 16
2.4 St ability of Masonry 19
2.4.1 Wall Subj ect ed t o Eccent ricit y Load 22
2.4.2 Evaluation of Eccent ricit y of Wall 25
2.4.3 Wall subj ect ed t o Vert ical and
Horizont al Load 27
2.5 Limit St at e Design of Masonry work 27
2.5.1 Design of Wall under Vert ical Load 29
2.5.2 Wall under Eccent ric Load 30
2.5.3 Wall under Vert ical and Lateral Load 31
2.5.4 Det erminat ion of Effect ive Height 32
2.5.5 Analysis and Design 32
2.5.6 Economic Aspect of I SBmasonry 3
vi
200
3. EXPERI MENTAL PROGRAMME AND
RESULTS 35
3.1 Preamble 35
3.2 DieMould, it s Design Concept
and Assumpt ions 35
3.3 Compact ion Pressure on I SBBLOCK
in Moulding 39
3.4 Product ion of I SB Block specimens 42
3.4.1 Part icle Size Dist ribut ion 42
3.5 Bat ching, Mounding and curing of Block 43
3.6 I SB Block Dimensions, Dry Unit
weight and densit y 44
3.7 Absorpt ion Test s 46
3.7.1 24h Wat er Absorpt ion 46
3.8 Moist ure Cont ent Test 47
3.9 Block Compressive St rengt h Test 48
3.10 Masonry Prism St rengt h Tests 49
3.11 I SBPrism St ressSt rain Relationship 61
3.12 Compressive St rengt h Test for I SB Wall 65
3.13 Compact ion Test for I SBBlock Tongue 67
3.14 Specificat ion for I nt erwoven Sandcret e Block 71
4. PROPERTI ES AND MODEL EQUATI ONS FOR
I NTERWOVEN SANDCRETE BLOCK WALL (I SB) 72
4.1 Compressive St ress Regime 72
4.2 Uniaxial Compression 74
4.2.1 St ressSt rain Relat ionship 74
4.3 Uniaxial t ension 76
4.4 Dat a on Poisson’s Rat io and Young’s Modulus 77
4.5 St ability of I nt erwoven Sandcret e Block (I SB)
Wall 78
4.5.1 I SB Wall Displacement 78
4.5.2 Displacement of I SBwall due t o
Horizont al Load 78
4.5.3 Det erminat ion of Crit ical Condition 83
4.5.3.1 Combined Vert ical and Lat eral Load
for I SBwall 83
4.5.3.2 Wall Model 83
4.6 I SB Wall under Horizont al I mpact Load on
Block Tongue 85
vii
201
4.6.1 Analyt ical Models 85
4.7 Triangular Syst em of Opt imization Met hod 91
4.7.1 Triangular Met hod of Optimizat ion 92
4.7.2 Dat a Base 92
4.7.3 I SBWall under Vert ical and
Horizont al Load 93
4.7.4 Damaged Condit ions of I SB Block
due t o I mpact 96
4.7.5 Opt imal Design of t he I SB Block tongue 98
4.7.6 Load fact or and Correlat ion Coefficient of
I SB in compression 98
4.7.7 St rengt h Model 99
4.7.8 Load Fact or 100
4.7.9 Prismwall St rengt h 101
4.8 Opt imal design for I SBwall 101
4.8.1 Analyt ical Formulat ion for t he 101
I SBwall Design Safet y
4.8.2 Const raint s 101
4.9 Analysis of I SBwall Cost Est imation
and Comparison 102
4.91 Cost Cont rol 102
4.9.2 Labour Cost Cont rol 103
4.9.3 Comparison for Economic Bases 104
5. PRESENTATI ON AND ANALYSI S OF THE RESULTS
5.1 Product s of St eel Die Moulding Machine 106
5.2 Propert ies of t he I SB Block 106
5.3 Physical and St rengt h Properties of I SB Prism 107
5.4 I SB Prism Failure Modes 111
5.5 I SB Wall Failure Mode 116
5.6 PrismWall Relationship 116
5.7 Load Fact or 120
5.8 St ressSt rain Relat ionship 121
5.9 LoadDeflect ion Analysis 123
5.9.1 Deflect ion due t o Vertical Loads 123
5.9.2 Wall Deflect ion due t o Horizont al
and Vert ical Loads 126
5.10 Cost foundat ion of I SB wall 127
5.11 Triangular (graphical) Met hod of Opt imizat ion 127
5.12 Safesize Design of I SB Upper Tongue 136
5.13 Applicat ion of Result s 138
viii
202
5.14 WallBlock Relat ionship 140
5.15 Numerical Example in Design 140
6. CONCLUSI ON AND RECOMMENDATI ON 143
6.1 Conclusion 143
6.2 Recommendat ions 144
REFERENCES 152
APPENDI CES 158
Appendix I St rengt hEccent ricity
Regression Analysis 158
Appendix I I PrismWall Relat ionship 162
Appendix I I I Calculat ion Example of
I SB Wall Deflection 167
Appendix I V Root : Bisect ion Met hod 168
Appendix V I SBBlock wall under Horizont al
I mpact Load 173
Appendix VI Design example of I SB Wall 177
Appendix VI I Calculation for Economical Basis for
Comparison 187
Appendix VI I I Compressive St rengt h and St rain
Tables AVI I .1 to AVI I .4 189
ix
203
LI ST OF FI GURES
Fig.2.1 Unit mort ar Composition under Vert ical Load
Fig.2.2 Effect of Mort ar St rengt h on Wall St rengt h
Fig.2.3 Behaviour of Joint under Eccent ricit y
Fig.2.4 Failure of wall by Vert ical Cracking
Fig.2.5 Masonry Failure Curve
Fig.2.6 St ress in Block work under Ult imat e Load
Fig.2.7 Rot at ion of wall due t o Eccent ricit y
Fig.2.8 Wall Eccent ricity
Fig.2.9 St ress Dist ribut ion of Wall under Eccent ricity
Fig.3.1 Axomet ric Diagram of I SB Diemould by Part s
Fig.3.2 Assembled I SB Mounlding Machine
Fig.3.3 Part icle Size Dist ribut ion Curve
Fig.3.4 Prism Test Specimens
Fig.3.5 Test Arrangement for Prim Specimens
Loaded Eccent rically
Fig.3.6 St ressst rain Relationship
Fig.3.7 St ressst rain Relationship
Fig.3.8 St ressst rain Relationship
Fig.3.9 St ressst rain Relationship
Fig.3.10 St ressst rain Relationship
Fig.3.11 St ressst rain Relationship
Fig.3.12 Test arrangement for wall
Fig.3.13 Types of Block Tongues Making a Specimen
Fig.3.14 Test Arrangement for a Set of Block Tongues
Fig.4.1 Dimensionless St ressst rain Relat ionship
Fig.4.2 Wall Disposition
Fig.4.3 Wall disposit ion due t o Horizont al and Vert ical Load
Fig.4.4 I nst ability of wall Pinned at Support
Fig.4.5 Geomet rical (model) Posit ion of I SB Block in t he wall
Fig.4.6 Displacement of I SBwall Block Subj ect ed
t o External Dynamic Force
Fig.4.7 Triangular Coordinat es System
Fig.4.8 Damage Condit ions of I SBBlocks due t o I mpact Loads
Fig.5.1 Fully Cracked face shell on t he Compression Side
Fig.5.2 St rengt h/ Eccent ricit y for Crushed Blocks
Fig.5.3 I SB Prism LoadEccent ricit y Relationship
Fig.5.4 I SB Prism LoadEccent ricit y Relationship
Fig.5.5 Sample mean weight fact or
Fig.5.6 Relat ionship bet ween I SB Prism and
x
204
Wall St rengt h ( , 0 = c 1: 6 cement sand rat io)
Fig.5.7 Relat ionship bet ween I SB Prism and
Wall St rengt h ( , 1 = c 1: 6 cement sand rat io)
Fig.5.8 Relat ionship bet ween I SB Prism and
Wall St rengt h ( , 0 = c 1: 8cement sand rat io)
Fig.5.9 Relat ionship bet ween I SB Prism and
Wall St rengt h ( , 1 = c 1: 8cement sand rat io)
Fig.5.10 Wallprism Relationship
Fig.5.11 Young Modulus of Elast icity
Fig.5.12 Young Modulus of Elasticit y
Fig.5.13 Young Modulus of Elasticit y
Fig.5.14 Young Modulus of Elasticit y
Fig.5.15 LoadDeflect ion Relationship
Fig.5.16 LoadDeflect ion Relationship
Fig.5.17 LoadDeflect ion Relationship
Fig.5.18 LoadDeflect ion Relationship
Fig.5.19 Lat eral LoadDeflect ion Relationship
Fig.5.20 Superimposition of Const raints
Graphs for Optimizing A, H, e for I SB Wall
Fig.5.21 Represent at ions of Const raint s wit h Feasible
Zone for A, H, e for I SB Wall
Fig.5.22 Tot ality of Feasible Solut ions for A, H, e of I SB Wall
Fig.5.23 Opt imum Solut ion for A, H, e of I SB Wall
Fig.5.24 Superimposing of Const raints for Optimizing
A, H, e for I SB wall
Fig.5.25 Represent at ion of Const raint s wit h Feasible Zone
for A, H, e for I SB wall
Fig.5.26 Tot ality of Feasible Solut ion for A, H, e for I SB wall
Fig.5.27 Opt imum Solution for A, H, e of I SB wall
Fig.5.28 Represent at ion of const raint s wit h feasible Zone for
I SB block Upper Tongue
Fig.5.29 Tot ality of Feasible Solut ion for I SB Block Upper
Tongue
Fig.5.30 Opt imum Solution for I SB Block Upper Tongue
Fig.5.31 Short Time Design St ressst rain curve for I SB wall
Fig.5.32 WallBlock Relat ionship
Fig.6.1 Laying of I SB Blocks (1st course)
Fig.6.2 Laying of I SB Blocks (2nd course)
Fig.6.3 Laying of I SB Blocks (3rd course)
Fig.6.4 Laying of I SB Blocks (Side course)
xi
205
Fig.6.5 Laying of I SB Blocks (Axomet ric view)
Fig.6.6 Position of Lint el Beam in I SB Wall
Fig.6.7 Typical I SB Wall wit h Vert ical
Dummy Reinforcement
Fig.AVI .1 Plan of Ground Floor
Fig.AVI .2 Plan of First Floor
Fig.AVI .3 Longit udinal Sect ion
Fig.AVI .4 Layout St ruct ural wall Elements
xii
206
LI ST OF PLATES
Plat e I The Tomb of Christian
Plat e I I Typical I SB Fulland HalfBlock
Plat e I I I I SBBlock on t he DieMould
Plat e I V Block Tongues under I mpact Load
Plat e V Failure of Prism, e = 0
Plat e VI Failure of Prism, e = t / 3
Plat e VI I Failure of Prism, e = 5t / 12
Plat e VI I I Failure of convent ionalBlock Prism
xi
207
LI ST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Effect of Different Joint Mat erials on t he
Compressive St rengt h of t hree Brick St ack
Prisms
Table 3.1 I SB DieMould Specificat ion
Table 3.2 Grading of Sand for I SB Block
Table 3.3 I SB Block Dimensions
Table 3.4 I SB Block Weight and Densit y
Table 3.5 I SB Block Weight and Densit y
Table 3.6 I SB Block 24HRS Wat er Absorpt ion
Table 3.7 I SB Block Moist ure Cont ent
Table 3.8 Compressive St rengt h Results for
I SB Block, 1: 8 (1 Part Cement t o 8 Part s Sand)
Mix
Table 3.9 Compressive St rengt h Result s for I SB Block,
1: 6(1
Part Cement t o 6 Part s Sand) Mix
Table 3.10 Average Compressive St rengt h Result s
For I SB Block, 1: 6(1 Part Cement t o 6 Parts
Sand) Mix
Table 3.11 Average Compressive St rengt h Result s
For I SB Block, 1: 8(1 Part Cement t o 8 Parts
Sand) Mix
Table 3.12 Compressive St rengt h Comparison Bet ween
t he Convent ional and I SB Blocks
Table 3.13 Result s of Compressive St rengt h of I SB Prism
(e= 0, h/ t = 3) 1: 8 (1 Part Cement to 8 Part
Sand) Mix
Table 3.14 Result s of Compressive St rengt h of I SB Prism
(e= 0, h/ t= 2) 1: 8 (1 Part Cement to 8 Parts
Sand) Mix
Table 3.15 Result s of Compressive St rengt h of I SB Prism
(e= 0, h/ t= 3) 1: 8 (1 Part Cement to 6 Parts
Sand) Mix
Table 3.16 Result s of Compressive St rengt h of I SB Prism
(e= 6, t / 3, 5t / 12) 1: 8 (1 Part Cement t o 8
Part s Sand) Mix
Table 3.17 Result s of Compressive St rengt h of I SB Wall
(e= 0) 1: 8 (1 Part Cement t o 8 Parts Sand) Mix
Table 3.18 Result s of Compressive St rengt h of I SB Wall
xii
208
(e= 0) 1: 6 (1 Part Cement t o 6 Parts Sand) Mix
Table 3.19 I mpact Force Result s on Wet I SBblock
Tongues,
1; 8 (Part Cement t o 8 Part s Sand) Mix
Table 3.20 I mpact Force Result s on Dry I SBBlock
Tongues,
1: 6 (1Part Cement to 6 Parts Sand) Mix
Table 3.21 PrismBlock Relat ionship in Compression, 1: 8
(1 Part Cement t o 8 parts sand) Mix
Table 3.22 PrismBlock Relat ionship in Compression, 1: 8
(1 Part Cement t o 8 Parts Sand) Mix
Table 3.23 PrismBlock Relat ionship in Compression, 1: 6
(1 Part s Cement t o 6 Part s Sand) Mix
Table 3.24 PrismBlock Relat ionship in Compression, 1: 6
(1 Part s Cement t o 6 Part s Sand) Mix
Table 3.25 Compressive St rengt h of I SB Wall at 28 Days
Old,
1: 6 (1 Part Cement to 6 Parts Sand) Mix
Table 3.26 Compressive St rengt h of I SB Wall at 28 Days
Old,
1: 8 (1 Part Cement to 8 Parts Sand) Mix
Table 3.27 I mpact Force Test Result s on Wet I SBBlock
Tongues, 1; 8 (1 Part Cement t o 8 Part s Sand)
Mix
Table 3.28 I mpact Force Test Result s
On Dry I SBBlock Tongues, 1: 6 (1 Part
Cement t o 8 Part s Sand) Mix
Table 3.29 Ordering Specification for t he I SB Block
Table 5.1 Mat erial Propert y, Unit Cost and Ot her
Geomet rical Conditions
Table 5.2 Unit Price Comparison Bet ween I SB and
Convent ional Wall
Table A11.1 Result s of Analysis for Prismwall Relationship
( e= 0, p= 0.1,a= 0.35,1.8(Cement : Sand) Mix,
f
m
= 2.2N/ mm
2
)
Table Al l.2 Result s of Analysis for PrismWall Relat ionship
( e= 0, p= 0.3, a= 0.641: 8(Cement : Sand)
Mix,f
m
= 2.2N/ mm
2
Table Al l.3 Result s of Analysis for PrismWall
Relat ionship
xiii
209
( e= 0, p= 0.9, a= 0.99, 1: 8 (Cement : Sand)
Mix, F
m
= 2.2N/ mm
2
)
Table Al l.4 Result s of Analysis for PrismWall
Relat ionship ( e= 1, p= 0.9, a= 0.9, 1: 8
(Cement : Sand) Mix, F
m
= 2.2N/ mm
2
Table Al l.5 Result s of Analysis for PrismWall
Relat ionship ( e= 1, p= 0.3, a= 0.81, 1: 8
(Cement : Sand) Mix,
F
m
= 2.2N/ mm
2
Table Al l.6 Result s of Analysis for PrismWall
Relat ionship ( e= 1, p= 0.3, a= 0.81, 1: 8
(Cement : Sand) Mix,F
m
= 2.2N/ mm
2
Table Alv.1 Result s of I SB Prism Sectional Area Root
(1: 8,1 Part Cement t o 8 Part s Sand)
Table Alv.2 Result s of I SB Prism Sectional Area Root
(1: 8,1 Part Cement t o 8 Part s Sand)
Table Alv.3 Result s of I SB Prism Sect ional Area Root (1: 8,
1part Cement t o 8 Parts Sand)
Table Alv.4 Result s of I SB Prism Sect ional Area Root (1: 8,
1part Cement t o 8 Parts Sand)
TableAlv.5 Result s of I SB Prism Sect ional Area Root (1: 8,
1part Cement t o 8 Parts Sand)
TableAv.1 Coordinat es for Upper Tongue Size
TableAv.2 Coordinat es for Upper Tongue Size
TableAv.3 Coordinat es for Upper Tongue Size
TableAvl.1 Loading on Wall
TableAvll.1 Compressive St rengt h and St rain for I SB
Prism (h/ t = 3), 1: 8 (1 Part Cement t o 8 Part s
Sand)
TableAvll.2 Compressive St rengt h and St rain for I SB
Prism (h/ t = 3), 1: 8 (1 Part Cement t o 8 Part s
Sand)
TableAvll.3 Compressive St rengt h and St rain for I SB
Prism (h/ t = 3), 1: 6 (18 Part Cement t o 6 Part s
Sand)
TableAvll.4 Compressive St rengt h and St rain for I SB
Prism (h/ t = 2), 1: 6 (1 Part Cement t o 6 Part s
Sand)
xiv
210
NOTATI ON
A Cross Sect ional Area of t he Wall
A
b
Wat er Absorption of t he Block
A
f
Sect ional Area of Floor Slab
A
g
Cross Sect ional Area of Block
A
m
Sect ional Area of Masonry
A
n
Net Sect ional Area of Block
a
n
Span Bet ween t he Walls
B Wit h of t he Block
B
bo
Block Obj ect
B
l
Lower Block
B
u
upper block
b vect or mat rix for definit e st ruct ural stiffness
c Unit cost of block
c Definit e wall stiffness
c
i
Const ant of int egration
c
ik
Elast ic const ant
c
11
Horizont al force essent ial for horizont al displacement
c
12
Moment which prevents t he rot ation of t he block by
horizont al displacement
c
21
Horizont al force at t he cent re of gravit y of t he block
c
22
Moment essent ial for t he rotat ion of block
[ c] Compliance nonzero mat rix elements
c
x
Elast ic const ant along horizont al direction
c
y
Elast ic const ant along vertical direct ion
D Densit y of block
D Det erminant for rot at ion
D
u
Det erminant for displacement
D Damage number
d
c
Dept h of compression block due t o vert ical load
E Modulus of elast icit y
E
bs
Secant modulus for wall
E
j
Modulus for elast icit y of wall mort arj oint
E
k
Modulus of elast icit y for wall (masonry)
E
m
Modulus of elast icit y for mortar
E
u
Modulus of elast icit y of unit (block)
e Eccent ricit y
F Horizont al force
F Force mat rix represent s a reduced loading syst em on
t he damaged block
xv
211
F
hl
Horizont al force due t o slap / beam and wind
F Compressive st rengt h of block
F
c
i
Cylindrical (uniaxial compressive) st rengt h of
sandcret e
f
d
Design st rengt h
f
horz
Applied horizont al st ress
f
k
Charact erist ic st rengt h of wall (masonry)
f
km
Moderat ed charact eristic st rengt h of wall
f
m
Mean charact erist ic st rengt h
f
mc
Compressive st rengt h of sandcret e
f
me
Compressive st rengt h of prism due t o eccent ric load
f
mh
Prior mean st rengt h of prism
f
mo
Charact erist ic st rengt h of block
f
mp
Post erior st rengt h of wall
f
vert
Vert ical st ress in t riaxial compression of mort ar
G Gravit y cent re
H Height of wall
H
m
Random variable (st rengt h) relat ed t o materials
H
b
Height of block
h Height of masonry prism
h
b
Height of block (excluding t ongue)
h
t
Height of upper block t ongue
I Second moment of area
I
i
Second moment of area for number of walls
I
z
Second moment of area of block to t he axis of rot at ion
K Coefficient of compressibilit y for t he rot ating block
K
x
Coefficient of compressibilit y (bearing capacit y) of
rapid block due to its weight
K
y
Coefficient of compressibility of rigid body in vert ical
direct ion
L Lengt h of block
L
t
Lengt h of block upper t ongue
I Number (point ) of impact loading on block
M Bending moment
M
b
Maximum elast ic moment
M
s
St ability moment
M
u
(Ultimat e) moment (int ernal) of resist ance
m Mass of t he block
N Axial force in t he slab
o Weight fact or of masonry
( o ) Variables associat ed wit h damaged condit ions
xvi
212
bo
o Upper block face shell damaged by crushing/ cracking
ii
o Variables for damaged condit ions for it h degree of
freedom by I t h impact load
L
o Lower block web damaged by crushing and t ongue of
lower block damaged by shear
u
o Upper block face shell damaged by shear
 Reduct ion fact or capacit y
Y
t
Part ial safet y fact or for load
Y
m
Part ial safet y fact or for mat erial
II
o Block displacement of it h degree of freedom by it h
impact load
u I
o o
'
Lower and upper limit s on t he it h displacement
respect ively
c St rain (deformat ion)
c
c Equivalent st rain
i
c Slab st rain (volumet ric)
m
c Ultimat e st rain
o
c St rain at 0.002
I
c Maximum st rain on t he curve
ou 5
c St rain corresponding to 0.5fc
ou 2
c St rain corresponding to 0,2fc
p Correlation coefficient of t he prior st rengt h of prism
p Correlation coefficient of t he prior st rengt h of wall
Q Normal st ress
Q
all
Allowable normal st ress
Q
c
Equivalent (limiting) st ress
Q
m
Ultimat e st ress at crushing failure of mort ar
N
i
Axial force in t he slabs
N
g
Gross crushing load
n Load combination
P Axial (vert ical) load on wall
P
i
Axial loads on number of walls
P
all
Allowable charact erist ic load
P
cr
Eulers crit ical load
P
m
Allowable mean load
xvii
213
S Geomaet ricla charact eristics
S
mh
St andard deviat ion due t o st rengt h of prisms
T
f s
Face shell t hickness
T
u
Upper t ongue widt h
T
s
Side t ongue widt h
T
w
Web t hickness
t Wall (prism) t hickness
t
j
Wall mort ar j oint t hickness
u Horizont al displacement
V St andard normal variable independent of st ruct ural
st rengt h
W Wind (horizont al) load
w
b
Weight of block in measuring Elastic modulus
y Deflect ion of wall
Z
g
Gross sect ional modulus of t he wall
Z
I
Zeromean uncorrelat ed random sequence due t o
fluct uat ion in t he st rengt h
Z
max,c
Maximum cost
Z
min,V
Minimum cost
Q
o
Modified st rengt h due t o plane st rain effect
Q
o
Normal st ress at maximum point on curve
Q
u
Normal st ress of unit in crushing
Q
u
Limiting compressive st ress
xviii
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Use one of your book credits to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.