You are on page 1of 16

Ser

THl

no. 1405
c. 2 BLDG

N21d

1+

National Research Council Canada
Institute for Research in Construction

Conseil national de recherches Canada
Institut de recherche en construction

Compressive Strength of Hollow Concrete Blockwork
by A.H.P. Maurenbrecher

Appeared in Proceedings 4th Canadian Masonry Symposium Department of Civil Engineering University of New Brunswick June 2, 3, 4, 1986, Vol. 2, p. 997 -1009 (IRC Paper No. 1405)

ANAL YZED

NRC

- CISTI

Reprinted with permission

LIBRARY

BLDG. RES.

86- la- 1 n
Price $2.00 NRCC 26362

BI9110TH[QUE
.;: •"'C - ICIST

Canada

~ 77// ce

On a donc dQ modifier ces valeurs pour determiner la resistance a la compression des ouvrages en blocs de beton. . est par consequent reduite. La surface de la section utile de blocs creux.l RESUME La nouvelle edition de la rtorme canadienne relative au calcul de la mac. jointoyes au mortier seulement Le long des parois de face.:onnerieutilise la surface de 1'assise de mortier plut5t que la surface nette pour calculer la force portante des murs en blocs creux. et la force portante se trouve alors diminuee si les contraintes admises sont basees sur les valeurs tabulaires existantes.

.

"Building code requirements for reinforced masonry" [6}.2-1960. This value. see Figure 1). 1:0. the NCMA [5] show that the values for blockwork USing M or S type mortars were obtained from ASA A41. depending on the shape of the block (the face-shell width varies along the length of the block. limited to concrete blockwork. usually quoted in test results./1 I I I MORTAR ON FACE-SHELL AREA ILZ1 _ MORTAR-BEDDED AREA MORTAR NOT IN CONTACT WITH BOTH BLOCKS Figure 1. PRISK TEST DATA Appendix 1 provides test data on the axial compressive strength of small masonry specimens made of M and S type mortars or N type mortars (equivalent to 1:0. In a commentary.998 than the block failure stressl Wider blocks were. strictly speaking./. This gives one set of tabular values for masonry using solid or hollow clay or concrete units up to a strength of 83 MPa (12 000 psi). . a decrease varying from 5% for 90-mm blocks to 38% for 290-mm blocks. The use of mortar-bedded area is more logical./2 I MORTAR ON FUll AREA 1/'////. The commentary does not state how values were obtained ·for blockwork using type N mortar. it is not. For prisms with face-shell mortar bedding the area is an estimate based on the minimum face-shel1 width plus an increase of up to 20%.5 and 1:1:6 cement:lime:sand mixes by volume). therefore.5:4. but means a significant decrease in load capacity for face-shell bedded blockwork if the existing tabular values are retained. The strength of the prisms is based on the mortar-bedded area. FACE-SHELLS I \ m: 1::.25:3. therefore. the minimum cross-sectional area should be used (the difference is of the order of 5%). '/ :] r: :: //7/. gives a conservative estimate of the failure stress since. . indirectly allowed higher stresses. EXISTING TABULAR VALUES The tabular values for concrete blockwork in the 1978 Canadian design standard and the ACI code are the same as those in the National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) specification. The average net area of the blocks was used with prisms having full mortar bedding and aligned cross-webs. This reduction has prompted a review of the tabular values for the strength of concrete blockwork. Stack bond prism The values for the compressive strength of the block given in Appendix 1 are based on net cross-sectional area (ratio of net volume to gross volu~) of air-dry blocks with a hard capping [7]. The NCMA adopted these values for unit strength up to 41 MPa (6000 psi). :LL Z :/. It includes specimens in both stack and running bond up to a height-to-thickness ratio of 10.LI. Example of mortar-bedded area. apart from minor differences [2-4].

88-0.94 [13].24]. height-to-thickness ratio and capping.85 for fibreboard to plaster-capped block [16]). cross-sectional area. Sand N mortars did show a large decrease in strength with type N mortar. Sand N) have little effect on blockwork strength. Ratios of height-to-thickness up to 10 are assumed to affect the axial strength of hollow blockwork by less than 10% [1. Blocks can increase in strength with age [8. but part of the difference may be due to the value for mortar-bedded area. The strength of prisms with soft cappings such as fibreboard have been found to give the same (or lower) results as those with hard cappings such as dental plaster: ratios of 0.00 [16]. surface of the block (rough surfaces give rise to stress concentrations when a soft capping is used).34 to 0.40 had been used throughout. 0. If the minimum instead of the average net area were used for prisms with full mortar bedding. A soft capping has a larger effect on the compressive strength of the block (e. partly from a gain in the strength of the concrete with time. showing 18% higher results. it is probable that they were tested earlier than the prisms and thus may underestimate block strength. One reference not included in the test results contradicts this. for face-shell bedding [21]. Mortar mixes normally used for structural masonry (types M. This still needs to be explained. The selection of data was based on the following criteria: 1) no ratios of prism-to-block strength greater than one. the ratio would be even less. The small effect of mortar on blockwork strength implies that any increase in strength with age is mainly due to the block. For example. wider blocks giving relatively higher strengths [23].92-1. the results would be 8% instead of 18% higher. Slockwork with face-shell mortar bedding has been assumed to fail at significantly higher stresses than blockwork with full bedding [14]. The difference may be explained by the failure mode (less difference if failure is initiated at the mortar joint).9]). moisture content. if a value of 0. The strength of the block itself can be affected by its height-to-width ratio. but results from individual references vary.g. but the strength of that mortar was already much lower than normal [10].12.00 [9. The overall results in Appendix 1 follow this trend. it implies that the wider the block the lower the ratio of prism-to-block strength.39.11].999 DISCUSSION OF TEST DATA Factors that may affect the reliability of the test data in Appendix 1 include mortar strength. COMPARISON OF PRISM DATA WITH TABULAR VALUES The strength of 71 sets of prisms using M and S mortars is plotted against block strength in Figure 2. on average. [8. If this is true for hollow blocks. the effect becoming larger with increasing block strength (Appendix 1. One set of tests using M. and different test dates. these show that face-shell bedding gives values about 2% higher (average of eight values ranging from -11 to +10%) [15-20]. age. It is therefore important that blocks be tested at the same time and under the same atmospheric conditions as the corresponding prisms to obtain an accurate relation between block and prism strength. The number of blocks and the variablity in the block strength will probably be the main reason for reductions in strength over this range [22]. 2) where . The assumed ratios of mortar-bedded to gross area ranged from 0. the actual areas are probably closer to the higher assumed value for all the tested prisms. 0.13]. This is not confirmed by the results in Appendix 1.68-1. Most recent test programs do not state at what age the blocks were tested.3. but also from the drying of the block [12.16]. giving artificially high ratios of prism-to-block strength. a ratio of 0.

. ..... 60 MPa 70 80 Figure 2...t+ . < (.... 30 MPa 40 Figure 4... .. Prism strength: N versus M and S mortar .. Basis for new tabular stresses in S304-M84 (M and S mortar) 30 e.. 0:: LLI :E V'> 10 ! .!) 30 Z .... ... --- a::: 0" 0 ..... 50 + :E :%:..... V'> .. + :E 40 : ..1-" ~~ _.. . (. ... Z + +tt + + .--- 10 BLOCK STRENGTH 20 (NET AREAl... . . 0:: V'> LLI 20 :E V'> a.---. 0 ...1000 e. + M & S MORTAR c N MORTAR + ++ + + :E .-. ell: < :i! 0 0 + 10 20 BLOCK 30 STRENGTH 40 (NET 50 AREAl. 0 • +t fI'I'If .!)LLI 40 zO:: LLI< .!) :%:. 60 MPa 70 80 Figure 3. A -a-- S304-M78 ----------------... 0:: 10 10 20 BLOCK 30 STRENGTH 40 (NET 50 A REA I.... Prism versus block strength (M and S mortar) 50 e. (.. V'> 30 0::0 LLI V'>eD :Eo ° I LLI 20 0::0:: - a.

0 22.3 10. especially for higher strength blocks. a further increase will probably be in order when more test data become available.5 14. this change will not be made until more information is available on the strength of high-strength blockwork and on that of hollow b10ckwork under varying eccentric loads (a check on the shear strength of the webs). 3.225 to 0. next.1 7.8 7% level 3.0 7% level. to the one with the most test replicates.5 30. This interim approach was adopted for the new edition [1] of the Canadian masonry design standard (see Table 1 and Figure 3). Nevertheless.5 22.4 29.9 24.8 was adopted. approach is to apply a reduction factor to a best-fit curve passing through the origin.0 11.8 9.8 6. . The decrease is partly offset in the new edition of the Canadian standard by changing the allowable axial stress reduction factor from 0. An arbitrary reduction factor of 0.7 10 12 15 16 16 6.3 -.8 13 17.25 to conform to the factor already used for brickwork.8 Mean x 0. applied to a cross-sectional area based on the mortar-bedded area. A second-order polynomial curve based on a least-squares fit is shown in Figure 2 together with a lower bound curve below which only 7% of the results fall (the characteristic strength level used in the Canadian masonry design standard). These indicate that tabular values are too liberal for low block strengths and conservative for higher ones.3 14.8 ACI 79 7.5 9.1001 there was a choice of specimens within a test program.1 9.5 24.8 27. Allowable values in the ACI code and the 1978 Canadian standard are also shown.9 17.S304 -78 84 7. mean an increased ultimate load capacity for most blockwork with full mortar bedding and a decreased capacity for face-shell mortar bedding (Table 2). less severe. The low values in Figure 4 are probably the result of a lower than expected mortar strength [10]. priority was given to prisms with harder capping.1 15.2 11.9 21.5 34. the collected data suggest that the existing tabular values can be considerably increased to give values the same as those for low-strength blocks using M and S mortars and gradually reduced values with higher-strength blocks (see Figure 4 and Appendix 1).9 17.6 7.5 30. The use of the lower bound 7% curve as a basis for new tabular values would severely reduce the existing permissible load capacity of b10ckwork with low-strength blocks. The new tabular values for the Canadian standard are shown graphically in Figure 4. Although higher tabular stresses seem justified for high block strengths.9 11.1 35. An alternative. The new tabular stresses.3 16.9 28.6 11. so that the resulting curve will also pass through it. CONCLUSIONS Existing tabular values for concrete blockwork in the ACI [3] and Canadian masonry [2] codes are not directly based on tests on concrete blockwork. TABLE 1 Comparison of Tabular and Prism Data (M and S Mortar) Prism Strength (MPa) Best-fit Curve Block Strength (MPa) 10 15 20 30 40 50 Through Origin Mean 6.1 18.8 Mean 7.5 22 22 Tabular Strength (MPa) More data are needed for prisms using type N mortar. then to the largest prism.8 1l.3 16.

When testing concrete blockwork prisms. ACI 531-79(rev 83). For example. 1984. care must be taken to ensure that the mortar-bedded area is accurately determined and that the blocks from which the prisms are mad~ are tested at the same time and under the same atmospheric conditions as the prisms. The use of mortar-bedded area instead of net area will mean a significant reduction in the ultimate axial load capacity for face-shell bedded blockwork. 1978. a value based on the minimum face-shell width plus 20% would apply to many of the standard two-core blocks in Canada. This can be compensated for by increasing the tabular values and decreasing the reduction factor for the allowable axial stress. A more detailed safety study is required to determine whether further changes can be made. the tabular values for blockwork with M or S mortar are conservative for high-strength blocks and too liberal for low-strength blocks. using existing tabular values. Building code requirements for concrete masonry structures. Masonry design and construction for buildings. American Concrete Institute. 190-mm Concrete Blockwork (M or S Mortar) Change in Load Capacity (%) Block Strength (MPa) 10 15 20 30 40 Face-shell Area* Ult -37 -27 -19 -12 +3 Allow -30 -19 -10 -3 +14 Ult -16 -2 +8 +17 +38 Full Area Allow -6 +9 +20 +30 +53 *Area based on minimum face-shell width + 20% REFERENCES 1 2 3 4 Canadian Standards Association. National Concrete Masonry Association. Specification for the design and construction of load-bearing concrete masonry.1002 Compared with results from prism tests. CAN3-S304-M78. . but there is still a significant reduction in allowable axial load for face-shell bedded blockwork using lower-strength blocks. Canadian Standards Association. Masonry design for buildings. In future the block manufacturers will probably suggest values on their data sheets. 1983. on the values to be used for mortar-bedded area. TABLE 2 Change in Axial Load Capacity (CAN3-S304-M84 [1]). CAN3-S304-M84. 1970. Guidance is needed. too. The new edition of the Canadian masonry design standard [1] has taken this approach.

NBSIR84-2993. J. Warwaruk. NBS. Compressive strength of composite brick and concrete masonry walls. p. 551-562. and A. ACI Journal. of Illinois. A. of Civil Engineering. Axial compressive tests on masonry walls 'and prisms. R. 16 Maurenbrecher. ASTM.1003 5 National Concrete Masonry Association. Proceedings. Vol. Compressive strength of eccentrically loaded prisms. 195-232. in Compressive strength of concrete 15 Hatziniknolas. G. 1984..H. Proceedings.2-1960. Third North American Masonry Conference.M.H. STP 589. - 9 .. 1983. NBS Handbook 74. Method of sampling and testing concrete masonry units. 119-132. Univ. J. 6 7 8 Copeland. Tek 15. Woodworth.B. Structural Engineering Report 70. Third Canadian Masonry Symposium. K. M. C140-75. Influence of aspect ratio on shear resistance of concrete block masonry walls.LO 11 Sturgeon. Roberts. Rankin. 233-254. Longworth and J. University of Alberta. and F. 1932. p. Report 91. 1985. Edmonton. 14 National Concrete Masonry Association. Second Canadian Masonry Symposium. p.. 1976. ASTM. 1932. Ottawa. Allen. 1985. 1980 12 Maurenbrecher. F. An investigation of reinforced concrete block masonry columns. Moorman and P. Proceedings. STP 589. Calgary. Warwaruk. Structural properties of loadbearing concrete masonry. Bulletin 251. ASA41. University of Alberta. . A. 20 Ibid. Concrete masonry walls. First Canadian Masonry Symposium. R. Building code requirements for reinforced masonry. Research data with commentary in support of: Specification for the design and construction of load-bearing concrete masonry. p . 1975. 10-1 to 10-13 18 Richart. NBSIR84-2929.P. masonry. Strength and stability of concrete masonry walls. Dept.B. National Bureau of Standards. 17 Maurenbrecher. 1975. in Masonry: Past and present. Effect of mortar strength and strength of unit on the strength of concrete masonry walls. 19-1 to 19-14. Structural Eng. Effect of test procedures on compressive strength of masonry prisms. J. Proceedings.W. Masonry: Past and present. 1969. 19 Woodward. 1975.J. USA. 28. M. 1980.H. and M.E. NBS. p .P. Timms. Longworth and J.. p. ASTM. 13 Self.E.P. The effect upon the indicated strength of concrete blocks in compression of replacing mortar with board capping. The Masonry Society. NCMA.G. T. p. 1978. Texas.B. A. Influence of vertical compressive stress on shear resistance of concrete block masonry walls. 22-38 • Redmond.H.R.

USA. Magazine of Concrete Research.J.1004 21 22 Nacos. C. W. 87-98. 25. Roberts. Roberts. J. et a1. Vol. Comparison of fully bedded and face-shell bedded concrete block. Viewpoint Publications. pp. No. Nov. England.J. The effect of different test procedures upon the indicated strength of concrete blocks in compression. Vol. 423-436. 11. Colorado State University. CE-495.B. J. 1983. The structural behaviour of concrete masonry . 83. and J. Roberts. No. 272 p. The Structural Engineer. 54. June 1973. 23 24 .J. Eyre & Spottiswoode. pp. Cranston. 1980.J. 1976. Concrete masonry designer's handbook.reinforced and unreinforced.

.. hit (0 10) Mortar Type N M&S N Ref.05 2.. .54 0.4 9.44 0.98 3.8 6 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 6 Age(d) 14 28 Ratio Prism/Block 0.42 .11 10.82+ 0. 3 5 29-43 .7 23.0 19.75+ 0. .86+ 0. .74* 0.50 7.6 17.3 13.6 16. M&S N .25 15.6 9.99+ 0.82 15.41 4.. 9 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 .70 0.80 9.54 5.3 6.02 4.1 20.63 18.44 20.45 7.3 20.57* 0.8 20.4 15..60* 0. .70 0..0 21. fb 0.59 0.64 0..02 5 Size 3s 6r2 Bedding Am/Ag Prism Strength (MPa) v(%) P/Ab n 12.8 5.... ..9 2. ..7 32.7 45.7 3.8 10.74 0..83+ 6 fs 0.62 fb fb fb fb fb fb fs fs 0. 9.63 M&S N .71*1 0. .64+ 0.83+ 0.0 15. M&S N M&S N ..78* 0.4 27.46+ 0.69 0. M&S N .44 7.66* 0. 00 .. .86+ 0. M&S N I-' V1 0 0 .81+ 0. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF HOLLOW CONCRETE BLOCKWORK PRISMS (An/Ag (0 0. .59+ 0.A2 0.1 25.85+1 0.73 12.9 16. 5 M&S 4 4 7 4 6 5 6 8 S N S .74+ 0.0 15.81+ 0.53* 0.88+1 0.. A3 S 3rO.61+ 0.82+ 0.2 22.73* 0.....APPENDIX 1...6 18.69 0...0 17.59 0.2 25. . . .2 3.61 0.5 .83* 0. ..1 M&S N .66 10. M&S N .1 12.69 3..62 0. . Al 8 Size (mm) 1x h x t 395x194x194 400x197x203 x203 x203 x203 x203 x203 x203 x203 x203 x203 x203 x203 178x194x143 x143 140x194x143 x143 x143 x143 x143 x143 200x190x140 x190 x190 x190 Block An/Ag Strength (MPa) v(%) PIAn n 0. 6r .75.5 . ..32 7. No.5 25.59+2t3 0. 3s0..71* 0.92+ 0..61 ? ? ? ? ..50 7.40 fb 0.81+ 0.58* 0. 28-56 7 .1 20. .4 17.19 17.50+ 0.61+ 0.2 18...74 0.13 2.7 19.64 0. . ..56+ 0.

3 13.6 37.68+ 0.60 0.D 3 3 3 5 3 10 2 12 12 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 20 20 10 12 12 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 10 10 10 10 11 14 18 4 4 5 14 10 5 4 4 7 10 7 9 5 6 6 12 5 35-38 48-49 )28 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 13-15 28 7 28 7 7 28 20 8 N 391x188x140 17 12 391xl90x 140 391x191x140 x140 10 397x194x 92 x 92 x143 x143 x194 x194 A6 A7 9 24 397x194x194 x194 x194 0.53 0.2 15.72 0.4 60.1 7.54 fb 0.9 14.9 22.75+ 0.67+ 0.4 23.9 16.61 0.74+1 0.6 27.44 fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb fb 0.55* 0.68* 0.3 15.55 0.6 14.69 0.77+ 0.8 6.56 0.5 20.5 2s 5s 2s 2s 4s fs 0.40* 0.66*4.61 I-' 0 0 0'\ .68+7 0.89+ 0.2 13.2 23.78+ 0.8 14.44 0.46 .3 11.46 0.7 21.3 15.1 37.57 0.9f 13.68 0.74 0.57 0.29* 0.75 0.70 0.8 9.68 0.39 fs 0.1 36.75 0.56 0.9 10 10 40 12 3 4 8 11 N .69 0.3 10.54 0.76+ 0.53 fb 0.0 22. fb fs fb fs fs fb fs 0.5 18.0 11.4 0.9 12.. 7 S M&S N 7r3 2s 2s fs 0.6 14.54 21.74 0.54 0.2.0 5 S S 38 3r2 2s 5r2.55 0.75 0.2 10.54 0.68+1 0.44 0.A4 AS 16 x190 x190 200x194x240 396x193x142 397x194x194 397x193x194 0..0 22.45* 0.54 0.57 0.4 0.57 0.65* 0.54 0.73+ 0.80+6 0.5 12.9 12.8 6.55 ? ? 27.39 24.6 13.74 0.2 17.52 M&S N M&S N 7 9 .0 55.81+ 0.69 0.58 fs 0.57 0.8 13.56 0.77+ 0.3 14.63 0.4 15.65* 0.1 15.39* 0.61*2.8f 41.4 20.1 12.54 fs 0.7 36.2 17.54 fb 0.54 0.55 0.3 18.83+ 0.8 15.77+1 0.45 fb 0.9 28.7 11.7 13.75 0.56 0..55 0.9 12. M&S N M&S N 6 M&S N 7 11 6 8 5 15 10 28 7 28 7 10 9 8 8 6 M 2s fb 0.44 20.751.35 fs 0.7 14.45* 0.61 0.2 11.90+ 0.5 0.2 26.80 0.9 19.52 0.

68 6..55+ 0. .6 25.5f 4.63 0.57 .62 0.4 12...1f 14.1f 15.97 5 to to .3f 10.2 4 11 fb 0.63 0.. to .60+ 0.56+8 0.8f 24.55 fb 0. 11..92+ 0.13 25.9 21.52 4. .87+ 0.087 0.1 to to 16 12 9 4 " M&S N M .3 0.14 5. " ...72+ 0.05 10.57 0.0 13..4f 24.7 8.52 13 51 S " 5 7 S 11 0..52 14.9 18. to to 0.5 . .46 8. " .6 6.7f 23.. . 6r2 fb fs fb fs fb fs fb 0.2 18.0 10.41 j-J • --. to .. 2s 3s 28 38 48 98 fb 0. ..94+ 0. fb 0.0 51..95 6.2f 31.73 0. 10 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 28 7 32 .18 5.3 38. .6 13.0 18.83 0.59 1.3 4..63+ 0. ..46+ 0.61+ 0.46 5.. .1 35.8f 31.77 7.6 5 4 .1£ 18.74+ 0.83+ 0.1 6.9f 14.67+ 0.4f 10 10 10 10 100 50 10 10 10 6 13 5 10 10 6 6 6 15 10 9 10 8 6 4 7 8 28 7 28 7 28 28 7 28 7 28 28 7 28 . 40.63 0.71+ 0.51+ 0.0 25.60+8 0.1 51.50 0.f .73 0.2f 17.3f 29.58+8 0.39 46..26 5.61 fb 0.74 0.02 17.71 0.95 4.1 35.9 28.61 0.522.98 0.41+ 0.51 6.61 0.54 fb 0.0 15.55 0.1 14.2 19.59+ 0. 397x194x 92 x101 447x220xlOl 18 406x203x203 x203 x203 x203 x203 x203 x203 x203 x203 x203 x203 406x203x305 x305 406x203x203 397x194x194 x194 x194 x194 395x194x395 0.52 to " " .92 5..55+ 0.3 19. .57 10.74 .57 27..50 0.77 5.39 fb 0.63 0.03 6.63 0.74 23.75 0.64.J 0 0 .017 0.63 9.. M&S .5 24.69+ 0...7f 24. to 2 4 2 4 5 2 14 5 9 281 0...4 15.6 397x194x143 x143 x143 0. to .67+ 0.34 7.52+ 0.72* 1.50 0.16 6.56+ 0.

60 fb 0.0 16.72 0.6 19.ng test values increased by 18% .50 397x193x194 -0.65 0. tests 6low strength for N mortar O.62* 0.3MPa. for blocks with two roughly pear-shaped cores.5 18.lf 12.2 5 3 6 6 5 10 7 s s 3s0.60 0.59*9 0.2 14. 5author's.52 0.5 14.56 26.95+4 0.8 17. moist cure) 7assumed value for An/Ag Bbedded area based on minimum face-shell width + 14% 9bedded area.52 5 N N 61 6 S 15.1 14.59 9.70*9 0.609 0.06f 12. based on minimum face-shell width + 5% NOTATION Ag Am An f fb fs h ~ o o co = = = = gross area mortar bedded area net area fibreboard capping full bedding face-shell mortar bedding = height 1 p n r s t v = number of replicates = failure load length running bond stack bond thickness coefficient of variation .52 0.2 8.7 19.63+4 0.81+ Hard capping (plaster. webs align in wall '+block tested with fibreboard cappf.lues used in Figure 4 Prism size: initial number gives course height of prism following number gives length of prism in terms of block length (if different from 1) Ibedded area.4 29.65 fs 0.20 NOTES: 397x194x194 0.77+9 0.A8 A9 390x190x240 x190 x190 396x194x194 397x194x143 0.37 fs fb fs fb fs 0. for stack bond pr_lsms usd ng blocks with two square cores.509 0.37 0.lf 13. where noted + Values used in Figures 2-4.6 3 7 7 7 7 5 11 45 15 30 19 13 9 13 6 3 6 33-38 34-35 33-35 11-28 11-31 11-31 11-29 37-180 66-180 1 86-168 28-185 0.5 2s 3s 2s 3s 3s 3s 3s 3s fb 0.51+ 0.61+ 0. cement) sulfur •••) except.7f 14. 28 d.2 28.8 18.34 0.7 15.36 fs 0.36 AI0 All 19. based on minimum face-shell width + 20% 2blocks tested at same time as prisms 3three oval cores.57+4 0.72 398x192x195 0. * Va.52 397x194x 94 0.2 24.

3-20.D. Ultimate strength behaviour of hollow concrete masonry prisms under axial load and bending. ACI Journal. Field measurements of deformations on a loadbearing masonry highrise structure./Apr. Ottawa. North American Masonry Conference.473. A2 A3 A4 AS Fattal. and H. p. Hatzinikolas M. Phase II: A6 A7 Cement A8 A9 A1D All Suter-Keller Inc. The strength of concrete block walls. Mathey and R. F. BSS 73. and L. and A.G. J. p. R.G.A. Harris. Mathey and R.G. Drysdale. 1982.G.B. 1978.518. and F. National Bureau of Standards. Behaviour of concrete block masonry under axial compression. Phase III: Effects of workmanship. Effect of joint reinforcement on vertical load carrying capacity of hollow concrete block masonry.G. p.W. 1972. and S.W.D. Under uniaxial loading. Woodward K. Hamid.. Structural performance of masonry walls under compression and flexure. 1976.. Clements. p. Compressive strength of slender concrete masonry walls. Capacity of concrete block masonry prisms under ACI Journal. Longworth and J.E. Cement and Coqcrete Association. Proceedings.Y. 1970. 1971. Yokel. Cattaneo. 707-721. Dikkers. Strength of masonry walls under compressive and transverse loads. Drysdale. 1984.J. F. 16-1 . June 1979. Clements. 102-108. mortar strength and bond pattern.16-16. Read.G. eccentric compressive loading. J. Rankin. 3-1 . BSS 34. and Concrete Association. I. The strength of concrete block walls. R. 2nd North American Masonry Conference.1009 REFERENCES Al Becica. Dikkers.A. Contract Report SR81-00073. Warwaruk. and A. BSS 33. NBSIR 83-2780. Yokel. Mar.B. 1983. S. and S. National Bureau of Standards. Hamid. National Bureau of Standards. Behaviour of concrete block masonry walls subjected to repeated cyclic displacements. J. Technical Report 42. R. R. Proceedings. 1977. 1983.Y. . National Bureau of Standards. Technical Report 42. Read..

KlA OR6. On peut obtenir une l1ste des publications de l' lnstitut portant sur 1es techniques ou 1es recherches en mati~re de bltiment en ~crivant 1 La Section des publications. Ontario. . National Research Council of Canada. Ce document est distribu~ sous forme de tir~-a-part par l'lnstitut de recherche en construction. Institute for Research in Construction. Ottawa (Ontario). Conse11 national de recherches du Canada.This paper is being distributed in reprint form by the Institute for Research in Construction. KlA OR6. Ottawa. A list of building practice and research publications available from the Institute may be obtained by writing to the Publications Section. Institut de recherche en construction.