Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 3337–3345

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Experimental characterization of stone masonry in shear and compression

G. Vasconcelos *, P.B. Lourenço
ISISE, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Shear and compressive mechanical properties are needed for the evaluation of the strength of masonry
Received 7 August 2008 shear walls by means of simplified methods or numerical analysis. This, in turn, allows to design or assess
Received in revised form 2 June 2009 masonry buildings subjected to combined vertical and horizontal loading. Even if many results on the
Accepted 18 June 2009
mechanical properties of modern brick and block masonry are available in the literature, only a few
results exist for stone masonry.
Here, the shear and compressive strength parameters of stone masonry using granite blocks are pro-
Keywords:
vided. In addition, a first aspect addressed is the shape of the shear stress–displacement diagrams under
Granite
Stone
monotonic and cyclic loading. A second aspect addressed is the influence of the surface roughness and of
Shear the bed joint material on the compressive behavior of masonry.
Compression Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Bed joint
Testing

1. Introduction of the masonry components: stone units and mortar, as well as

Ancient masonry is a non-homogeneous material, composed by
units and mortar, which can be of different types, with distinct
mechanical properties. Often in monumental buildings, and if
materials were available locally, bricks were used for vaults while
stone was used in the construction of walls.
The influence of mortar joints acting as a plan of weakness on
the composite behavior of masonry is particularly relevant in case
of strong unit–weak mortar joint combinations, which are charac-
teristic of ancient stone masonry [1]. Two basic failure modes can
occur at the level of the unit–mortar interface: tensile failure
(mode I) associated to stresses acting normal to joints and leading
to the separation of the interface, and shear failure (mode II) corre-
sponding to a sliding mechanism of the units or shear failure of the
mortar joint. In terms of the composite behavior of masonry, fail-
ure modes related to tensile splitting of the units and mortar
crushing need to be taken into account [2]. The preponderance of
one failure mode over another or the combination of various fail-
ure modes is essentially related to the orientation of the bed joints
with respect to the principal stresses and to the ratio between the
principal stresses [3].
Even if several results on the mechanical properties of brick and
block masonry assemblages are available in the literature [4–7]
scarce experimental data is available for stone masonry [8,9]. The
present work deals firstly with the mechanical characterization
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +351 253 510200; fax: +351 253 510217.
E-mail address: graca@civil.uminho.pt (G. Vasconcelos).
with the shear behavior of dry and mortar masonry joints (cohe-
sion, friction angle and dilatancy). Then, the compressive proper-
ties of the masonry composite (compressive strength and
modulus of elasticity) are addressed. In order to attain such a goal,
an experimental program was defined, including direct shear tests
conducted on dry and mortar masonry joints and uniaxial com-
pression tests carried out on a set of stone masonry prisms with
distinct types of bed joints. Besides providing mechanical proper-
ties for numerical simulations of the in-plane behavior of stone
masonry walls, the adopted testing program provides also the fun-
damental parameters required for the seismic assessment of ma-
sonry buildings based on simplified analytical models.
2. Shear behavior of stone masonry joints
Although several experimental studies have been carried out on
the bond shear strength of unit–mortar interfaces [4,5], limited re-
search is available on the shear behavior of dry masonry joints [8].
On the other hand, the knowledge gathered on rock joints under
shear behavior can be partly extended to dry masonry joints. The
shear behavior of rock joints plays an important role in rock
mechanics research, with several experimental and numerical
studies pointing out the role of the surface roughness on the cyclic
shear behavior of natural rock joints [9,10].
The relation between normal and shear stresses plays a major
role in the shear behavior of masonry joints, actually governing
its failure mode [11]. For pre-compression stresses above a certain
level, the shear strength decreases and a combined shear-splitting

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.06.045
3338 G. Vasconcelos, P.B. Lourenço / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 3337–3345

failure or splitting of the units occur. In case of joint shear failure The numerical assessment of test setup performed by Lourenço
by slipping of the units, an increase of the normal stress leads to and Ramos [8] indicates the adequacy of the proposed approach.
an increase of the shear strength. As has been widely reported In order to simulate typical normal stresses existing in ancient
[4,12], the shear strength of masonry under moderate normal masonry structures three distinct pre-compression stress levels
stresses, for which the non-linear behavior of mortar is negligible were considered, r = 0.5 N/mm2, r = 0.75 N/mm2 and r = 1.0 N/
and the friction resistance takes the central role, can be given by mm2. An additional pre-compression stress level equal to
the Coulomb criterion: r = 1.25 N/mm2 was adopted for the monotonic tests in mortared
assemblages. Three specimens were tested for each level of pre-
s ¼ c þ lr ð1Þ compression, and for dry and mortared joints. In addition, the
where c is the shear strength at zero vertical load stress (usually de- influence of the moisture content on the shear response of dry ma-
noted by cohesion) and l is the friction coefficient or tangent of the sonry joins was investigated by considering dry and saturated con-
friction angle. For dry joints, the cohesion is obviously zero. ditions. The relative horizontal displacement of the joint was
measured by the horizontal LVDTs placed at each side of the spec-
imen, see Fig. 1b. The vertical displacement of the joint was mea-
2.1. Test specimens and testing procedure sured by the LVDTs placed at the opposite corners of the
specimen, which enabled the assessment of possible dilatant
Although triplet tests have been adopted as the European stan- behavior of the joints. The cyclic tests were carried out under dis-
dard method [13] to perform shear tests in masonry joints, the placement control following the time-displacement history used in
strength properties of dry and mortar joints were obtained here [14].
by means of direct shear tests carried out on couplet specimens,
see Fig. 1, [14]. In fact, the triplet test is rather complex to analyze
and control after peak displacement due to the fact that two joints 2.2. Monotonic behavior of masonry joints
are tested simultaneously, see also [15]. The shear tests were car-
The shear load–displacement diagrams for distinct pre-com-
ried out in a servocontrolled universal testing machine CS7400S
pression stress levels resulting from the monotonic tests carried
composed by two independent hydraulic actuators used to trans-
out on dry and saturated specimens are displayed in Fig. 2. The
mit normal and shear loads, able to operate under force or dis-
shear displacement is the result of averaging the measurements re-
placement control. Both shear and normal stresses were
corded by the LVDTs placed at each side of the specimen. The shear
measured and recorded by horizontal and vertical load cells of
stress s and the normal stress r are obtained by dividing the shear
22 kN capacity. Due to the limited space between steel platens
the most suitable testing sample is composed by the two units
with geometry and dimensions indicated in Fig. 1a, similarly to a
[6] and [16]. The surface of the dry stone masonry units is rela-
tively smooth resulting from sawing, whereas the joint surface of
the units of the mortar assemblages presents the typical hand-
coursed roughness to achieve realistic bond conditions. The granite
used for the masonry units is a medium grained two-mica granite
[17–19]. The shear specimens were placed between two thick steel
plates and attached to the steel platens by steel bolts, so that shear
force could be transmitted, see Fig. 1b. Thin steel sheets were at-
tached to the steel plates to concentrate the shear load as close
as possible of the bed joint, aiming at providing a more uniform
shear stress distribution. In order to guarantee right angle surfaces,
the dry specimens were suitably ground using a rectifying ma-
chine. The specimens were properly attached for load reversal by
means of adjustable steel plates on both sides of the specimen.

a
b

Fig. 1. Masonry specimens: (a) dry joints and mortar joints and (b) arrangement of
the LVDTs for measuring the relative horizontal and vertical displacements. Fig. 2. Shear stress–displacement diagrams in dry joints: (a) dry specimens and (b)
Dimensions are in mm. saturated specimens.
 G. Vasconcelos, P.B. Lourenço / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 3337–3345
force H and the normal force N, recorded in vertical and horizontal
actuators, by the cross section of the joint A. It is observed that no
significant differences were detected between dry and saturated
specimens, apart from the slighter decrease on the peak stress in
saturated specimens. Besides, higher scatter was found when the
maximum pre-compression level (r = 1.0 N/mm2) was applied.
Three stages can be considered to describe the shear-displace-
ment diagrams. The pre-peak behavior is characterized by a linear
stretch for low levels of shear stress and by a clear non-linear
stretch before peak stress. A plateau is found after peak stress, rep-
resenting the considerable plastic deformations associated to
inelastic sliding. Similarly to what has been reported in the litera-
ture [10,20] no shear softening was recorded after peak stress, un-
like rough rock joints that exhibit remarkable lowering of the shear
resistance as the plastic shear displacement increases.
The shear stress–displacement diagrams of mortared joints are
shown in Fig. 3a. The general shape of the shear stress–shear dis-
placement is characterized by a sharp initial linear stretch. The
peak load is rapidly attained for very small shear displacements.
Similarly to what was reported for dry masonry joints, non-linear
deformations develop in the pre-peak regime. After peak load is at-
tained there is a softening branch corresponding to progressive
reduction of the cohesion, until reaching a constant dry-friction va-
lue. This stabilization is followed by the development of large plas-
tic deformations. The evolution of the vertical displacement with
the shear displacement is displayed in Fig. 3b, where in the major-
ity of the tests two distinct phases can be distinguished. Firstly, the
uplift of the joint is expressed by increasing positive vertical dis-
a diagrams indicated in Fig. 5b. A maximum value of vertical
b
Fig. 3. Shear behavior of mortared joints: (a) shear stress–displacement diagram
and (b) relation between vertical displacement and shear displacement.
3339
placement. It is observed that the non-linear evolution of the ver-
tical displacement provides variable dilatancy assuming
decreasing values as the shear displacement increases up to the
shear displacement corresponding to the stabilization of the shear
stress. During the subsequent regime of pure friction the vertical
displacement remains constant or progressively decreases, partic-
ularly when the level of pre-compression increases. The vertical
displacement exhibits even negative values in some specimens
submitted to pre-compression levels of r = 0.875, 1.00 and
1.25 N/mm2).
The dilatant behavior reflects, to great extent, the distinct shear
failure modes obtained in the specimens submitted to different
normal stresses. For low to intermediate levels of pre-compression,
shear failure occurs at the unit–mortar interface along one unit
face, or divided between two unit faces. For the larger normal
stress level (r = 1.25 N/mm2), failure is localized in the mortar.
2.3. Cyclic behavior of dry masonry joints
The typical shear stress–displacement diagrams obtained in di-
rect cyclic shear tests conducted in dry masonry joints, using dry
and saturated specimens, are displayed in Fig. 4 for the level of
pre-compression r = 0.75 N/mm2. Apart from the small difference
of the peak shear stress, no significant differences in the shape of
the diagrams were found. Minor differences were found in the
shear strength during the reversal cycles, see Fig. 5a, despite wear-
ing of the surface and degradation of rock forming minerals with
the accumulation of degraded material, similarly to what has been
pointed out by Lee et al. [9]. A very minor trend for compaction can
be seen from the normal displacement–shear displacement
b
Fig. 4. Shear stress–displacement diagrams for dry joints under cyclic loading
(r = 0.75 N/mm2): (a) dry specimens and (b) saturated specimens.
3340 G. Vasconcelos, P.B. Lourenço / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 3337–3345
b submitted to a normal stress r = 1.0 N/mm2.
Fig. 5. Characteristic aspects of the shear behavior of dry joints: (a) evolution of the
shear stress–displacement diagrams between the first and the last cycle of reversal
loading and (b) compaction due to the wearing of the joint surface.
displacement of ±0.06 mm was measured for the dry and saturated
tested specimens, indicating that dry granitic joints are non-dilat-
ant, which is in agreement with the findings of Lourenço and Ra-
mos [8] for sandstone dry joints and of Homand et al. [21] for
hammered granitic joints.
Other relevant aspect in the discussion is the comparison be-
tween the loading–reloading stiffness. The stiffness of the unload-
ing branches exhibits always higher stiffness than the stiffness
obtained in the reloading cycles. The effect of the elastic deforma-
tion of stone unit is assessed by removing the elastic deformation
of the unit:
s on the strength and composition of mortar and on the nature of
ujoint ¼ umeas  ð2Þ
ku
where umeas is the shear displacement given by the horizontal
LVDTs, s is the shear stress for a given displacement and ku is the
stiffness calculated in the unloading branches. It is possible to con-
firm that the elastic deformation of the units has a minor role in the
total shear displacement of dry joint, see Fig. 6.
Finally, it is observed that the shear cyclic behavior of dry joints
is characterized by non-linear deformations in the pre-peak stage
and perfect plastic deformations after peak stress resulting from
the characteristic sliding failure mode.
2.4. Shear strength parameters
Fig. 7 shows the linear relationships between the values of the
shear strength obtained in the monotonic tests and in the first
cycle of the cyclic tests for dry and saturated conditions and the
Fig. 6. Correction of the measured shear displacement for a saturated specimen
values of the normal stress, which confirm the assumption that
the shear strength is well described by Coulomb’s friction law.
The slight decrease in the shear strength obtained on saturated
specimens is reflected by a decrease of 5% on the friction coefficient
in saturated joints, being of 0.65 in dry joints and of 0.6 in satu-
rated joints. A range for the friction angle between 10° and 22.4°
for mudstone was pointed out by Geerstsema [22]. The friction
coefficient of dry granitic joints is similar to the values found by
Lourenço and Ramos [8] for sandstone units (l = 0.63), and by
Lee et al. [9] for granitic joints (l = 0.69). The narrow range of val-
ues found for the friction angle seems to indicate that no signifi-
cant differences are expected among distinct types of natural
stone under similar roughness surface conditions (sawn-cut
surfaces).
It is observed that, particularly in the case of dry specimens,
there is a small increase of the frictional coefficient with wearing.
Significant linear correlation coefficients between normal and peak
and residual shear stresses were also found in case of mortared
masonry joints with coefficients of correlation of r2 = 0.88, and
r2 = 0.81, respectively. A value of cohesion about 0.36 N/mm2 and
the tangent of the friction angle, tan /, equal to 0.63, corresponding
to a friction angle of 32.2°, were attained for the peak strength. The
residual shear strength can be calculated with reasonable accuracy
from a friction coefficient of 0.78.
Table 1 summarizes selected results published in the literature
referring to the shear strength properties, where very different val-
ues of the cohesion and friction angle are pointed out for distinct
unit–mortar assemblages. The shear strength parameters are
greatly dependent on the moisture content, porosity of the units,
the interface [23]. From the results of direct shear tests carried
out by Pluijm [6], the coefficient of internal friction ranges between
0.61 and 1.17, whereas cohesion varies from 0.28 up to 4.76,
depending on different types of units and mortar.
It is seen that the values of the shear strength parameters ob-
tained for assemblages of granitic stone and lime mortar presented
in this study are of the same order of the shear parameters pointed
out for assemblages of lime mortar and old bricks [4].
3. Compressive behavior of stone masonry
Several experimental, numerical and simplified analytical stud-
ies have been carried out in order to increase the knowledge about
the compressive behavior of masonry [7,27,28]. Being masonry a
composite material usually made of units and mortar, it has been
largely accepted that its failure mechanism is governed by the
interaction between the components.
 G. Vasconcelos, P.B. Lourenço / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 3337–3345
a 3.1. Experimental details
b The masonry prisms were made with three cubic stone units of
c between steel platens at each side of the specimen. The vertical
Fig. 7. Relationship between normal and shear stress: (a) dry specimens, (b)
saturated specimens and (c) mortared joints.
The experimental characterization of masonry under compres-
sion requires representative wallets, with geometry and dimen-
sions described in, e.g. the European Standard EN1052-1 [29],
including at least one head joint and three masonry courses. Due
to the very high strength of granite and the maximum capacity
of actuators available for testing, the compressive features of stone
masonry were obtained using prisms. According to Page and Shrive
[30], the prisms are adequate masonry assemblages that include
simultaneously the effect of bedding type, unit–mortar interaction
and workmanship.
3341
The present experimental program aims at obtaining data on
masonry compression for dry and low strength mortar, being the
latter more representative of ancient masonry structures. In addi-
tion, the tests aim also at providing insight about the influence of
the surface roughness and bed joint material on the compressive
strength and deformation characteristics of masonry. With respect
to dry masonry, both sawn (PR_S) and rough surface (PR_SR) joints
are considered. The rough surface is obtained by sand-blasting. For
mortared specimens, two types of interlayer material representa-
tive of ancient buildings are adopted, namely low strength lime
mortar (PR_SM) and dry clay from sieving granitic soil (PR_SS).
The compressive strength of masonry prisms is known to be af-
fected by several factors, such as size, height and end conditions
[30–32]. In order to reduce the platens confining effect, a height
to length ratio of three was adopted according to ASTM E447
[33], see Fig. 8.
150 mm length and two bed joint courses, as shown in Fig. 8. The
thickness of mortar or granitic soil placed in the bed joints was
10 mm. The dry stacked masonry prisms, PR_S and PR_SR, were built
at the testing location by simply laying the second and third unit on
top of the bottom unit in order to obtain vertical alignment of the
specimen. The contact dry bed joints were properly selected so that
maximum contact area between units could be attained. When mor-
tar bed joints were considered, the stone units were carefully cleaned
and wet to provide enough adhesion between units and mortar.
The testing equipment consisted of the three-dimensional stiff
steel frame used in [19]. Besides the large load capacity of the actu-
ator, its remarkable stiffness is useful when stable displacement
controlled failure is required. In order to induce uniform load dis-
tribution, a thick steel plate connected to a steel spherical seat was
located at the top of the specimen. The deformation of the speci-
men during the test was recorded by means of four LVDTs located
displacement of masonry prisms is defined by averaging the dis-
placements measured by the LVDTs. In a first stage, two specimens
of each masonry type were submitted to monotonic compression
under displacement control. In a second stage more five specimens
were tested under loading control and for cyclic conditions in the
pre-peak regime at three different load stages of 25%, 55% and
75% of the average compressive strength obtained in the two pre-
vious monotonic tests. After this, the test control was switched to
displacement control at a rate of 3 lm/s. The adoption of this
velocity aimed to follow the possible stable failure of the masonry
specimens and to obtain and characterize the post-peak behavior
of stone masonry under uniaxial compression.
3.2. Experimental results
3.2.1. Failure modes
The failure pattern of dry masonry prisms was difficult to mon-
itor due to the encasing added to avoid injuries. Given its brittle
behavior, most of the failures of the specimens PR_S were abrupt
and explosive, see Fig. 9a. No signs of micro-cracks were recorded
in the pre-peak regime. Micro-cracks become visible only after
peak load has been reached. For dry masonry specimens, failure
cracks usually develop along continuous shear bands that cross
the joints, with some specimens exhibiting even double shear
cracks. This suggests that after the initial adjustment of dry bed
joints, the prism behavior is homogeneous and appears to be
mostly determined by the compressive behavior of the granitic
units. No differences were introduced in the failure modes by
increasing the roughness of the bed joint surface. Abrupt failure oc-
curred also in two specimens of rough dry masonry prisms tested
3342 G. Vasconcelos, P.B. Lourenço / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 3337–3345
Table 1
Shear strength properties for different unit–mortar assemblages.
Source Units
Atkinson et al. [4] Old clay units
Old clay units
New clay units
Amadio and Rajgeli [23] Solid bricks
Magenes [24] Solid bricks
Binda et al. [25] Sandstone
Calcareous stone
Roberti et al. [26] Bricks
Lourenço et al. [15] Hollow bricks
This study Granitic units
Fig. 8. Typical geometry of the masonry specimens. Dimentions are in mm.
under monotonic compressive loading. For the remaining five dry
rough specimens, typical failures as the one exhibited in Fig. 9b
developed.
The failure of mortared masonry prisms was characterized by
vertical splitting cracks appearing firstly in the central unit and ex-
tended to the other stones as the compressive stress increases, see
Fig. 9c. This failure mode is mostly due to the lateral tensile stres-
ses of the granitic units induced by the composite behavior of units
and mortar with different elastic mechanical properties. Similar re-
sults have been reported by several authors [34]. On the other
hand, the failure of the specimens PR_SS with granitic soil in the
bed joints is more similar to the crack patterns exhibited by the
dry masonry specimens. This can be explained by the peculiar
trend for compaction exhibited by the granitic soil joints in con-
trast with the expansion of mortar [14].
3.2.2. Stress–strain relationship
For each specimen the corresponding value of the compressive
stress was obtained by dividing the compressive load by the aver-
age cross section. The deformation at a given stress level, e, was
calculated by dividing the vertical displacement by the height of
the specimen, since the vertical displacement was taken as the
average of the displacements recorded by the four vertical LVDTs.
For a comparative analysis, all stress–strain diagrams obtained
under monotonic loading are depicted in Fig. 10. The shape of the
stress–strain diagrams of sawn dry joint prisms PR_S is character-
ized by an initial upward concavity. Although sawn surfaces are
rather smooth and good adjustment of the stones was achieved
during the construction of the masonry prisms, the upward concav-
ity is in part due to the initial setting of the bed joints. After full con-
tact of the bed joints upon increasing compressive stress, the
behavior of masonry prisms depends mostly on the behavior of
the stone. All prisms exhibit reasonable linear behavior until a com-
pressive stress close to the peak strength. After the peak load is
reached, it is still possible to record a considerable stretch of the
Mortar c (N/mm2) l
1:2:9 (13) 0.127 0.695
1:2:9 (7) 0.213 0.640
1:1.5:4.5 0.811 0.745
Cement mortar 0.65 0.723
Lime–cement mortar
Hydraulic lime mortar 0.206 0.813
Lime mortar 0.081 0.652
Hydraulic lime mortar 0.33 0.74
Hydraulic lime mortar 0.58 0.58
Hydraulic lime mortar 0.23 0.57
Micro-concrete 1.39 1.03
Lime mortar 0.359 0.630
descending branch of the stress–strain diagrams in some speci-
mens, even if most of them failed in a brittle manner. The stress–
strain diagrams of rough dry joint prisms PR_SR show also an up-
ward concavity for low stress level but over a larger part of the
curve, leading to higher levels of deformation at peak load. As the
compressive load increases, the roughness of the contact surface
tends to break, leading progressively to partial leveling of the bed
joint and to the improvement of the surface contact. In this case,
the total deformation is the result of the deformation of the units
and the local deformation at the bed joints. On the contrary, lime
mortared masonry prisms PR_SM exhibit an initial stretch with
downward concavity due to the composite behavior of units and
mortar since early stages of loading. The role of the bed joint mate-
rial on the deformational behavior of the masonry prism is further
confirmed by the stress–strain diagrams obtained for the soil mor-
tared specimens PR_SS. These diagrams are characterized by a large
extent of the upward concavity from low to medium stress levels.
The large initial deformation is related to the compaction of the gra-
nitic clay at the bed joints. The bed joints with an initial thickness of
nearly 10 mm is at the end of the test a thin layer of compacted soil.
3.2.3. Pre-peak cyclic behavior
It is observed that significant higher stiffness in the reloading
cycles in the pre-peak regime was recorded comparatively to the
stiffness of the virgin stretch for dry masonry prisms PR_S and
PR_SR, see Fig. 11. This feature can be attributed to the fact that
the stiffness of the unloading–reloading branches involves perma-
nent deformations corresponding to a given stress level. This
behavior is also found in the compressive behavior of rocks [35].
Besides, higher permanent deformations are recorded in rough
specimens PR_SR with respect to the sawn prisms PR_S. This dis-
tinct behavior is the result of the continuous wearing of the higher
asperities during the loading process. For lime mortared prisms
PR_SM, unrecoverable deformations corresponding to the unload-
ing–reloading are even more remarkable than deformations of
dry rough specimens PR_SR, which should be attributed to the
mortar deformability, see Fig. 12. Unlike dry masonry prisms, sig-
nificant permanent deformations were recorded in the pre-peak
unloading–reloading cycles in soil mortared prisms PR_SS, due to
the compaction nature of the interlayer material [14].
3.2.4. Compressive strength parameters
A summary of average compressive parameters derived from
the stress–strain diagrams, namely the compressive strength, fc,
and the modulus of elasticity, Ec, is indicated in Table 2. Similarly
to what was indicated by Binda et al. [5], the modulus of elasticity,
Ec, was determined as the secant modulus in the range of 30% and
60% of the ultimate compressive strength in the ascending branch
of the stress–strain diagram.
 G. Vasconcelos, P.B. Lourenço / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 3337–3345
Fig. 9. Typical failure patterns of dry masonry prisms: (a) sawn dry joint specimen
PR_S, (b) rough dry joint specimen PR_SR and (c) mortared joint specimen PR_SM.
Dry masonry prisms exhibit the highest compressive strength
and modulus of elasticity and the lowest deformation at peak
stress, being the compressive strength similar to the compressive
strength of the units, which is equal to 69.2 N/m2 according to
Vasconcelos [14]. According to Hendry [36], the strength of stone
masonry built from dimensioned blocks with thin joints would
be close to stone strength, irrespectively of the mortar strength,
which is not clearly confirmed in the present study. The compres-
3343
Fig. 10. Stress–strain diagrams for monotonic tests.
Fig. 11. Typical stress–strain diagrams for cyclic tests: (a) specimen PR_S10 and (b)
specimen PR_SR7.
sive strength of rough prisms PR_SR undergoes a reduction of
approximately 29% with respect to prisms PR_S, whereas the mod-
ulus of elasticity is 46% lower. Since the units are of the same gran-
ite of specimen PR_S, the increase of vertical strain at peak stress of
approximately 27% is directly connected to the lower stiffness of
the bed joints. The higher scatter found in sawn prisms PR_SR is
attributed to the variability of the distribution of the roughness
at the bed joint surfaces.
3344 G. Vasconcelos, P.B. Lourenço / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 3337–3345

a and compressive loading is addressed, namely with respect to the

b plane lateral strength of masonry walls under in-plane loading.
Fig. 12. Typical stress–strain diagrams for cyclic tests: (a) specimen PR_SM7 and
(b) specimen PR_SS3.
Table 2
Mean values of the mechanical compressive properties of masonry prisms (seven
specimens). Coefficient of variation is indicated inside brackets (%).
shear behavior of dry and mortar masonry joints and to the uniaxial
compressive behavior of masonry prisms with distinct bed joint
materials and joint surfaces. It should be stressed that the shear
strength of the mortar–stone interface as well as the compressive
strength of masonry stone are basic mechanical properties when
design or numerical modeling of stone shear walls is required.
Concerning shear behavior of masonry joints, it is observed
that: (a) an elastic perfectly plastic shear stress–shear-displace-
ment diagram was found to characterize the monotonic and the
cyclic envelope of dry masonry joints, whereas post-peak strength
degradation and a consequent stabilization characterizes the
monotonic behavior of mortar joints; (b) the moisture condition
on the joints, from dry to saturated, seems to have a negligible ef-
fect on the friction coefficient; (c) no dilatancy was found to char-
acterize the shear behavior of dry masonry joints, whereas dilatant
behavior was found on mortared joints and (d) the shear strength
properties of masonry joints enables the assessment of the in-
With respect the compressive behavior of masonry it was ob-
served that: (a) the surface condition (smooth or rough) influences
the composite behavior of masonry under compression, mostly
with respect to the compressive strength, modulus of elasticity
and deformation at peak stress; (b) the material of the bed joints
(lime mortar or clay material) influences considerably the failure
mode and the compressive strength of stone masonry. The differ-
ent bed joint materials lead to clear distinct pre-peak regime
(stress–strain diagrams) resulting in very different modulus of
elasticity, compressive strength and permanent deformations after
loading-reloading cycles. The materials of the bed joints play a cen-
tral role on the deformation behavior of stone masonry under com-
pressive loading. (c) as the shear strength properties of masonry
joints, also the compressive strength of stone masonry represents
a valuable property for the assessment of the in-plane and out-
of-plane strength of masonry walls.
Finally, it should be stressed that the experimental results and
mechanical data on stone masonry pointed out in this work
contribute for the improvement of the knowledge on the mechan-
ics of stone masonry.

Masonry prism fc (N/mm2) Ec (N/mm2)

PR_S (sawn) 73.0 (9.1)
PR_SR (rough) 51.9 (16.2)
PR_SM (lime mortar) 37.0 (11.8)
PR_SS (soil mortar) 64.2 (13.5)
The reduction on the compressive mechanical properties with
respect to the reference masonry specimens (PR_S) is even more
significant in mortared specimens (PR_SM), with a reduction of
nearly 50% and 70% in the compressive strength and in the modu-
lus of elasticity, respectively. The reduction of the compressive
strength can be attributed to composite behavior of masonry with
the development of a compression–tension–tension triaxial stress
state for the units and a triaxial compression state for the mortar
[24,37]. The introduction of granitic soil instead of mortar in the
bed joints leads to an increase of 73% on the compressive strength
and an increase of 92% on the modulus of elasticity concerning
mortared prisms PR_SM. This is due to the compaction of the gra-
nitic soil and dilation of the mortar.
4. Conclusions
Aiming at obtaining reliable insight on the shear and compres-
sive strength properties of stone masonry an experimental
campaign for the characterization of stone masonry under shear
References
14,722 (19.0)
7934 (37.1)
[1] Bosiljkov V, Page A, Bokan-bosiljkov V, Žarnić R. Performance based studies of
4629 (17.5)
in-plane loaded unreinforced masonry walls. Mason Int 2003;16(2):39–50.
8920 (12.6)
[2] Lourenço PB. Computational strategies for masonry structures. PhD thesis,
Delft University of technology, Delft, The Netherlands; 1996. <http://
www.civil.uminho.pt/masonry>. ISBN: 90-407-1221-2.
[3] Drysdale GR, Khattab MM. In-plane behavior of grouted concrete masonry
under biaxial tension–compression. ACI Struct J 1995;92(6):653–64.
[4] Atkinson RH, Amadei BP, Saeb S, Sture S. Response of masonry bed joints in
direct shear. J Struct Eng 1989;115(9):2277–96.
[5] Binda L, Tiraboschi C, Abbaneo S. Experimental research to characterize
masonry materials. Mason Int 1997;10(3):92–101.
[6] Pluijm RVD. Out-of-plane bending of masonry, behavior and strength. PhD
thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology; 1999.
[7] Atkinson RH, Noland JL, Abrams DP. A deformation failure theory for stack-
bond brick masonry prisms in compression. In: Mathys JH, Borchelt JG, editors.
Proceedings of 3rd north American masonry conference, Arlington, Texas;
1985 [paper 18].
[8] Lourenço PB, Ramos LF. Characterization of cyclic behavior of dry masonry
joints. J Struct Eng 2004;130(5):779–86.
[9] Lee HS, Park YJ, Cho TF, You KH. Influence of asperity degradation on the
mechanical behavior of rough rock joints under cyclic shear loading. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 2001;38:967–80.
[10] Huang TH, Chang CS, Chao CY. Experimental and mathematical modeling for
fracture of rock joint with regular asperities. Eng Fract Mech
2002;69:1977–96.
[11] Hamid AA, Drysdale RG. Behavior of brick masonry under combined shear and
compression loading. In: Proceedings of 2nd Canadian masonry conference;
1980. p. 314–20.
[12] Riddington JR, Ghazali MZ. Hypothesis for shear failure in masonry joints. In:
Proc Inst Civ Eng; 1990. p. 89–102.
 G. Vasconcelos, P.B. Lourenço / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 3337–3345
[13] EN 1052-3. Methods of test for masonry: part 3 – determination of initial shear
strength; 2002.
[14] Vasconcelos G. Experimental investigations on the mechanics of stone
masonry: characterization of granites and behavior of ancient masonry shear
walls. PhD thesis, University of Minho; 2005. <http://www.civil.uminho.pt/
masonry>.
[15] Lourenço PB, Barros JO, Oliveira JT. Shear testing of stack bonded masonry.
Construct Build Mater 2004;18:125–32.
[16] Hansen KF. Bending and shear tests with masonry. SBI Bulletin 123, Danish
Building Research Institute; 1999. p. 36.
[17] Vasconcelos G, Lourenço PB, Alves CA, Pamplona J. Analysis of weathering and
internal texture on the engineering properties of granites preservation. In:
Proceedings of 11th international congress of the international society of rock
mechanics. Workshop W3 of natural stone and rock weathering; 2007. p. 75–
83.
[18] Vasconcelos G, Lourenço PB, Alves CA, Pamplona J. Experimental
characterization of the tensile behavior of granites. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci
2008;45(2):268–77.
[19] Vasconcelos G, Lourenço PB, Alves CA, Pamplona J. Ultrasonic evaluation of the
physical and mechanical properties of granites. Ultrasonics
2008;48(5):453–66.
[20] Misra A. Effect of the asperity damage on shear behavior of single fracture. Eng
Fract Mech 2002;69:1997–2014.
[21] Homand F, Belem T, Souley M. Friction and degradation of rock joint surfaces
under shear loads. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 2001;25:973–99.
[22] Geerstsema AJ. The shear strength of planar joints in mudstone. Int J Rock
Mech Min Sci 2002;39:1045–9.
[23] Amadio C, Rajgelj S. Shear behavior of brick–mortar joints. Mason Int
1991;5(1):19–22.
[24] Magenes G. Seismic behavior of brick masonry: strength and failure
mechanisms. PhD thesis, Department of Structural Mechanics, University of
Pavia; 1992 (in Italian).
3345
[25] Binda L, Fontana A, Mirabella G. Mechanical behavior and stress distribution in
multiple-leaf stone walls. In: Proceedings of 10th international brick block
masonry conference, Calgary, Canada; 1994. p. 51–9.
[26] Roberti GM, Binda L, Cardani G. Numerical modeling of shear bond tests on
small brick–masonry assemblages. In: Computer methods in structural
masonry – 4, Florence, Italy; 1997. p. 145–52.
[27] Naguib EMF, Suter GT. Stresses in a running bond brick masonry 3-D
finite element model under axial compression. Mason Int 1991;5(2):
48–54.
[28] Vermeltfoort A Th. Compression properties of masonry and its components. In:
Proceedings of 10th international brick block masonry conference, Calgary,
Canada; 1994. p. 1433–42.
[29] EN 1052-1. Methods of test for masonry: part 1 – determination of
compressive strength; 1999.
[30] Page AW, Shrive NG. A critical assessment of compression tests for hollow
block masonry. Mason Int 1988;5(2):64–70.
[31] Kingsley GR, Atkinson RH, Noland JL, Hart GC. The effect of height on stress–
strain measurements on grouted concrete masonry prisms. In: Proceedings of
5th Canadian masonry symposium, Vancouver, Canada; 1989. p. 587–
695.
[32] Khalaf FM, Hendry AW, Fairbairn DR. Study of the compressive strength of
blockwork masonry. ACI Struct J 1994;91(4):367–74.
[33] ASTM E447. Standard test methods for compressive strength of masonry
prisms. American Society for Testing Materials; 1992.
[34] Andreaus U, Ceradini G. Failure modes of solid brick masonry under in-plane
loading. Mason Int 1992;6(1):1–8.
[35] Goodman R. Introduction to rock mechanics. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley &
Sons; 1989.
[36] Hendry AW. Structural masonry. 2nd ed. MacMillian Press Ltd.; 1998.
[37] McNary WS, Abrams DP. Mechanics of masonry compression. J Struct Eng
1985;111(4):857–70.