fi. 111\'esfi!):lfit.11 illft.
file f:lihll-e
Illecll:lllislll t.f I..-icl( 111:ISt.III-\'
It.:ltletl ill :IXi:11
Pro! Hubert K. Hi/sdorf. Civil Engineering Dept., University
of minois
Inlroduction
Structural engineers often hesita te to employ reinforced or
unreinforced brick masonry as a structural material. This is nol
surprising. Despite lhe use af masonry over thousands af years ,
its potenlials hardly have been utilized and our knowledge of
its struclural behavior is still quite limited. The prediction of
masonry strength from known characleristics af bricks and
mortar used in a masonry unit is Tather unreliable. Therefore,
acceptance af brick masonry units aften require experimental
detennination af the compressive strength af a particular type
af masonry Talher lhan to predict it f TOm known properties af
its constituents. Because af these uncertainties, the allowable
stresses for masonry are Talher conservative ; lhus , lhe use af
brick mason ry as a load~bearing material may then become
uneconomical.
In previous investigations 1,2,for a given slenderness ratio of
the test piece and given coring paU em of the bricks, the
masonry strength increased as the standard compressive
strength of bricks and mortar increased. However. even if the
strengths of mortar and bricks are approximately equal. the
strenglh of the masonry is smaller than the strength of its
constituents. Poor workmanship and low workability of the
mortar generally result in masonry strength reduction.
Furthennore, thick mortar joints reduce the masonry strength,
and masonry strength is illtluenced by the water ahsorption of
lhe bricks. However. these relationships exhibit unusually
larger scattcr.
From observations of brick faiJure mode , il was concluded
that the failure of masonry loaded in compression is initiated
by vertical cracking or splitting of the bricks. Therefore ,
34
various attempts have been made to relate the compressiw
strength of masonry to the tensile strength of the bricks 3
Since a multitude of parameters govern the compressiw
strength of brick masonry , a reasonably accurate estimate ri
the masonry compressive strength is possible only if the.
parameters are considered simultanf',ously , and if the failuft
mechanism of masonry is taken into account. In the followin~
this failure mechanism will be studied and, based upon ti",
discussion, a procedure wilJ be developed which may enable tE
to predkt strength and behavior of masonry units from
characteristic properties of its constituents whieh ean be
determined in simple tests.
The Slress Slale in Brick Masonry
Subjecled to Uniaxial Compression
Brick masonry is a two-phase material , both phases 0Il
only have different strengths but also different deformati'"
characteristics. In general, the uniaxial compressive strengtll
and lhe modulus of elasticity of the morta r are considerab~
lower Ihan the corresponding values af the bricks. Therefo~
if the mortar could deform freely, ils lateral slrains would bI
Iarger than lhe strains in lhe bricks. This is especially true j
the externaI load approaches the uniaxial compressivc streng
of the mortaL However, because of bond and friction betWeef
brick and mortar, the mortar is confined. Thus, an interflol
state of stress is developed which consists ofaxial compressi~
and lateral tension in lhe briek and lriaxial eompression in t~
morta r (Figure 6-1). It is only beca use of Ihis triaxial stated
compression lhat a masonry unit eao be subjected to exter[l2l
stresses whkh exceed the uniaxial compressive strength oftbl
mortaL
Even if care is taken in laying bricks, not ali bricks will ~
evenly supported by their mortar bed. Then , in addition to ti><
externaI load and the internaI slress slate described above, t~
 Investigation into the Failure Mechanism of Brick Masonry 35

bricks are subjected to flexural and shear stresses. Insufficient

rUling of the mortar joints or varying thickness of bricks and
joints give rise not only to these flexuraI stresses , but they also See Delails 8elow
resuIt in an uneven distribution of the externaI load. Then,
stress concentrations are developed in the bricks which may be
c
considerably larger than the nominal average stress on which Specimen
aU calculations of masonry strength are generally based. Type A
'"
N

N
Results from an Experimental Investigation
Specimen
Type 8
With this concept in mind, the author has investigated the
failure mechanism of c1ay brick rnasonry units while working
at the Laboratory for Building Materiais at the Technical 9 .2 i
University of Munich. A delailed description of this investiga- Depfh: 4 .2 in.
tion is reported in Reference 4. Deplh: 9.2 in.
Most of the masonry specimens tested in this investigation
consisted of five layers of bricks (Specimen Type B in Figure
6-2). The thickness of lhe morlar joints was 0.47 inches and
0.24 inches, respectively. The bricks , 9.2 by 4.2 by 2.7 inches,
had a standard compressive strenglh of 5300 psi according lo ',7
'" '"
lhe German Specificalion DIN 105. The flexural slrength of
Arrangement
• • • • • • • • • --Tl
~• ~• ~• .~
the bricks was 780 psi, their lensile splitting strength

I .< S
Of Strain
amounted to 410 psi. The major parameters in this study were
Iype and strength of the joint mortar. Eilher lime mortars.
Iime-cement mortars or cernent mortars were used. Their
compressive strength was determined from prismatic speci-
Measurements

'"
• • • • •
f-2.0;,-1 "~14
.- J
o
N "
N

mens 1.6 by 1.6 by 4.1 in. and ranged fTOm 21 psi for lhe lime I, 9.2 In.
mortar lo 3500 psi for the high strenglh cemenl mortars.
Additional dala are summarized in Table 6-1.
Numerous strain measurements over a gage length of 2 in. Figure 6-2. Types oI specimens and arrangemenl oI slrain
at the surfaces of several bricks were carried out to study the measurements.

Latera l Slresses

"ITlI IIlll state af stress acting in the bricks if the masonry unit was
subjected lo an axial Ioad (Figure 6-2).
In evaluating the strain measurements it was assumed that
the stresses in the bricks acting in the horizontal x-direction
+
are line.rly distribu!ed over the height af the brick. Then the
anCk' < F==zzzzzj stress 0x can be separated into tWQ components: (a) the
flexural stresses a xM and the normal stresses 0xN which are
+ constant over the height of a brick. The stresses a x N can be
attributed to differences in lateral strains between the mortar
Mortar< and the bricks. The flexural slresses may be caused by an
Joints + uneven support of the bricks as described earlier.
For two specirnens the distribution af lateral stresses 0xN
~ZZZZZZzzzj and 0xM and of the longitudinal stresses 0y across the width
of a brick is given in Figures 6-3 and 64. These resuI!s confirm

J-..
the original concept af the stress state in masonry. Lateral
tension, whose magnitude increases as the externaI load is

! !! !
" f 1 I II
Longitud ina l Stresses, u-y
) "
Figure 6-1. Idealized slress dislribulion in a masonry unit
fUbjected to concentric compression.
increased, was observed in the bricks. Despite the extreme care
taken in manufacturing the masonry samples, the flexural
stresses and an almost random distribution of the stresses in
the direction of lhe externalload could nol be avoided.
Vertical cracking was observed in the bricks at loads
considerably below the failure load. In most cases initial
cracking occurred in sections in which the sum of the stresses
0x = 0xM + 0xN reached a maximum.
36 Designing, Engineering, and Constrncting with Masonry Products

Table 6-1
Summary of Test Results

Specimen Mortar Bricks Masonry Unil

Nr. Type Type f: Ej f'b fí" Eb f' f'm Calco Uu
J m

- - - psi psi psi psi psi psi psi

lfI A lime 410 5.1 x 105 5300 450 2_2 x 106 2210 - -
cement

1/2 2370 2250 1.63

2 B lime 410 5.1 x 10 5 5300 450 2_2 x 106 2930 2760 L58
cernent

3/1 3460 - -
3/2 B cemenl 2550 3.1 x 106 5300 450 2.2 x 106 3100 2860 L53

3/3 3290 2650 1.66

4/1 3600 - -
4/2 B cemenl 3500 3.5 x 106 5300 450 2.2 x 106 4850 3480 1.35

4/3 3320 3300 1.43

S/I 1060 - -
5/2 B lime 21 9.4 x 104 5300 450 2.2 x 106 1370 1610 2.18

5/3 1830 1870 1.88

6/1 1570 - -
6/2 B' lime 21 9.4 x 104 5300 450 2.2 x 106 1490 1910 1.85

6/3 1530 1790 1.95

joinllhickness: specimens A, B: 0.47 in.
specimens B' : 0.24 in.

To express analylically lhe nonunifonnily of lhe slresses in
lhe direclion of lhe exlernal load ay, lhe nonuniformily
coefficient , U, was introduced. This coefficient is the ratio
between the maximum normal stress observed within ooe
brick lo lhe average normal slress acling on lhe masonry. The
coefficienl of nonuniformily is a funclion of lhe applied load.
At low stresses, U decreases as the externaI load increases:
local "yielding" or crushing of lhe morlar ai poinls of high
stress concentration results in a more even distribution af
slresses. As failure appreaches, lhe nonunifonnily coefficienl
rapidly increases (Figure 6-5).
The coefficient of nonuniformity a1 failuTe is also a
funclion of slrenglh and workability of the mortar. As lhe
mortar strength increases lhe coefficient U decreases
6-6). It is likely thal U is also a function of the
the mortar. It should be larger for mortars with I'"
workabilily Ihan for mortars with high workability, si"~
workable mortars result in more uniform joints and, lhus, in'
more unifonn suppart af lhe brick. However, this tenden~
cannot be c1early deduced frem the available data.
lf the loca1 stress concentrations in the bricks were lhe on~
parameler affecting the compressive slrenglh of vari""
masonzy unils made frem lhe same Iypes of bricks,
[ailure should Dccur as soon as the maximum local stress
U • a x m exceeds lhe compressive strength of lhe brick, j<4
U is lhe nonuniformily coefficient and a ym is the appl
 lnvestigation into the Failure Mechanism of Brick Masonry 37

verage stress. In Figure 6-7 this maximum stress observed in

\as onIY units made af different types af mortar is given as a
~unction of the compressive strength of the mortaL Figure 6-7 z
shoWs , however, that as the compressive strength Df the mortar b
irtcreases , the maxirnum local stress in the brick at failuTe a150
Width of 8rick
increases. On a phenomenological basis this tendency can be
explained as follows: low strength mortars develop larger
lateral tensile stresses in the bricks than do the high-strength 200
I
Olortars. In general, the compressive strength of britlle I
~ ~ /
O -
materiaIs in a given longitudinal direction decreases as
------
7
w
/'
simultaneously acting tensile stresses in lateral directions
increase. Consequently. the maxirnum stress whlch the brick
cafl sustaio decreases as the mortal strength decreases.
~
b -200 -
w'

E
~
"'-
~
-400 --
Wldth of Brick
An AnaIytical Procedure to Predict the Strength
of Clay Brick Masonry Loaded in Compression
1500
Figure 6-8 shows the developrnent Df stresses as they may
oceur in a single brick within a masonry uoH subjected to axial
compression. It is assumed that the lateral tensile stresses in
lhe x and z directions, a x and azo are equa1. In Figure 6-8
these stresses are given as a function of the local maximwn
stresses, 0y' which act in the direction of the externalload.
1000

500 r--;,;
"" I'-.. ,./ r---...

- :; f- ,;'
1\1/ -----
"-
'\
J-
The stresses 0y can be computed from the average masonry E
g ~
o
Width of Brick
400

.~ / \ r---. Figure 6-4. Distribution of stresses in a brick within specimen

no. 5/3. Jaints are lime mortar. aym = 1220 psi.
• 200 r-- .
~

z
,"
E
~
V ""-..
--
o
-- -- / - 2.5
~

-200
Width of 8rick 1cim.n JWith
Lime Mortar

,
b
"''---- ~ /
/ )ceciCement
m.n Martar
2 Wlth
/'

Width of 8rick
~
I--- 7 ---
V
-3000 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000
O"ym , psi

-2000
/\ V ""-..
Figure 6-5. Nonunijarmity coefficient as functian af applied
average masonry stress, a ym'

o", -1000
r--;,; _ w
N - ~
w
;.-
E ...L!!l.. stresses, a ym , and the coefficient of nonuniformity U. Line A
g in Figure 6-8 represents the failure criterion for the triaxial
o
Width of 8r ick strength of bricks and indicates the combinations of com-
pressive stresses ar. and lateral tensile stresses 0x and a z which
Figure 6·3. Distribution of stresses in a brick within specimen will cause local failure or cracking Df the brick. For a x = a z =
no. 2. Joints are lime--cement morta,. 0ym = 2400 psi. O, 0y is equal to the uniaxial compressive strength of the
38 Designing, Engineering, and Constructing with Masonry Products

2 .5 stresses are represenled by Line C in Figure 6-S. With

r I I
MorlofS of LCM' 'tY<rlobilily
increasing externa110ad ar increasing local stress, the minimUtn
lateral tensile stress increases.
If the exlernal load is increased beyond lhe load aI fint
cracking, then stresses in an uncracked section af the brid
õ

"r'<"- ,
~
v- Mortors of HiQh
Workob~ity
may develop along Line B2 · As soon as line B2 inlersecl, Ih.
failure criterion Line A, the second crack is forrned. TI!>
process af cracking continues, and the brick may be split intn
• small elemeots. Excessive cracking also results in an increase of
~ lhe coefficienl of nonuniforrnily (see lesl results in Figure 6-5.
Under lhe best condilions, failure of lhe masonry oceu.
oo when the laleral lensile strength of lhe brick is smaller Ih"
KlOO 2000 3000 4000 5000 the stress which is necessary to sufficiently confine the mortar
Compressive Slrengh of Morlar, f'), psi
Therefore, the intersection of the faBure criterioo Line A and
lhe minirnum laleral stress Line C corresponds to lhe ultimal'
Figure 6-6. Variation of nonuniformity eoeffteient wilh type
load of lhe masonry uni!.
ofmorlar. In Figure 6-8 the paramelers which are known lo affecl I'"
compressive streogth of brick masoory are considered:
1. The uniaxial compressive slrenglh of lhe brick.
8000 2. The biaxial lensile slrenglh of lhe brick.
3. The failure crilerion for bricks under a Iriaxial slale <Í
, stresses as represenled by Line A.
b 4. The uniaxial compressive strenglh of lhe mortar whicl
,; 6000
1 corresponds lo lhe onsel of Line C in Figure 6-8.
'ª " , b
" S. The behavior of lhe mor lar under a slale of lriaxii
"'••
õ
400
'/
~ o
eompression, determining the shape and inclination of Line C.
6. The coefficient of nonuniformity.
•
in °f Failure of the masonry may oceur before Line A intersecu
wilh Lirte C: lhe stress si ale ai lhe surface of lhe brick and Ih<
"
u
o
-' 2000
6
mortar joints is only biaxial, so the mortar is not sufficientl)
,
E confined; therefore, spalling of lhe surface layers of lhe brickt
E may occur at lower stresses and may result in a rapidl)
~
00 1000 2000
i
3000 4000
progressing failure.
The following equation is an attempl lo express the failwr
Compressive Slrength of Mortor, t'j ,psi criterion described above in an analylical formo No informo
tion 00 the behavior of bricks under triaxial stresses WI
available. Therefore, il was assumed lha I lhe failure crileri'"
Figure 6-7. Maximum local stress in briek aI failure.
Line A as shown in Figure 6-S corresponds lo a slraighl !in<
Then, Line A can be expressed by lhe following equalion:

brick. The exacl shape of Ihis failure crilerion is plcscntly

unknown. If bricks follow Mohr's Iheory of failure assuming a
slraighl line envelope, Ihen lhis failure crilerion would
correspond lo a slraighl line as shown in Figure 6-8.
]f the masonry is subjected to externaI compression 0ym)
laleral lensile slresses 0x and a z are developed following lhe
dashed line B1 in Figure 6-8. If lhis line inlersecls lhe failure
criterion line A, local failure accurs; i.e., a crack is formed in
the brick in a direction parallel to the direction of lhe exlernal
load. This, however, does nol correspond to complele failure
of the masonry uni!. AI lhe cracked section the lateral slresses
dirninish , and part of lhe flexural stresses in lhe uncracked
seclions of lhe bricks are relieved. If lhe exlernal load is
already larger Ihan lhe uniaxial compressive slrenglh, Ihen the
mortar has lo be lalerally confined. Therefore, a cerlain
minimum lateral compressive stress has to act upon the
mortal. Thls stress is counterbaIanced by tensile stresses in the
uncracked sections af the bricks. These minimum tensile
in which a x ' azo ~ :::; stresses in x, y or z-direction
b uniaxial compressive strength of bric1
f bt strength of brick under biaxial tension.
ax = U z
Line C corresponds to the minimum lateral tensile str~
which has lo acl in lhe brick to sufficiently confine ti><
•
morlar. li depends on lhe behavior of lhe morlar und<'
triaxial compression. No corresponding tests have been ca~
out in this investigation. Thereforc , it was assumed that tlt
strength of the morta r under triaxial compression is similar I
the strength of concrete under triaxial compression. Rich~
Brandtzaeg and Brown in their investigation of the triaxJl.
 Investigation into the Failure Mechanism of Brick Masonry 39

strength of concreteS found that the triaxial strength of <, ' <,
concrete ean be approximated by the following expression:

Cf ac~ i n 9
(6 -2a)
f"Oilur e ( "'erlan 01 Sro ck-L ,n e A

In which fí = compressive strength of a laterally con-

/ Fa llu,e
fined concrete cylinder /
f~ = uniaxial compressive strength of concrete B,;/
_____ M,n'mum Lateral Ten s 'on
cylinder / In 8 roc ~ -Lln e C
02 ::;: lateral confinement af cylinder /
/
If Equation 6-2 is valid for mortars, then the minimum /
/

lateral confinement Df the mortar joint is:

Lo col Com pr ess lon

I (Gy
4.T - f).') (6-2b) Figure 6-8. Failure criterion of brick masonry.

In which 0xj ::;: lateral compressive stress in mortar joiot 4000,----,----,------r----c,-----,

a y ::;: local stress in y-direction
fj ' ::;: uniaxial compressive strength af mortar
For simplicity let us assume that the lateral stresses 0x in
bricks and morta r joints are uniforrnly distributed Dver the 3000
height of bricks and mortar. Then from the equilibrium
condition it follows that

(6-3) .. 2000

•,
__E ~ . -r~ '0 8 f~,m~~'
/'
~-
In which 0xb = lateral tensile stress in bricks 1000
Uxj = lateral compressive stress in rnortar joint
fi = height of brick
j = thickness of joint
I
Substituting Equation 6-3 in Equation 6-2a we obtain an 2000 3000 4000 5000
expression for Line C in Figure 6-8 f~ , measured

Figure 6-9. Comparison of measured and computed values of

(64) masonry strength.

From Equation 6-1 and 64 the magnitude of lhe maximum f'b f bt + a f'
J
local stress at failure, 0Y' ean be determined. It corresponds to f'=- (6-5)
lhe poinl af inlerseclion af lines A and C: m Uu f bt + a f'b

f bt + a f.'
)
This expression depicts the known relationships betwecn
the compressive strength af masonry and variaus pararneters:
f bt + a f b' masonry strength increases with increasing compressive
strength of bricks aod mortar, with increasing tensile strength
where a = j
4.1b of bricks, and with decreasing ratio of joiot thickness to height
of brick. It should be realized, however, that U u is not a
Using the nonuniformity coefficient at failure constant but depends on a number of pararileters including the
average masonry stress at failure ean be expressed as joint thickness and the mortar strength.

Conclusions

Equation 6-5 was used to evaluate the results of this

investigation. The biaxial tensile strength of the bricks Cf the
Then we obtain as a general exprcssion for the axial relationship between uniaxial tensile strength and biaxial
comprcssive strength af masonry: tensile strength were unknown. Therefore, it was assumed that
40 Designing, Engineering, and Constructing with Masonry Products

lhe biaxial lensile strenglh of lhe brick was equal lo ils
uniaxial tensile slrength. Furthermore, it was assumed that the
uniaxial compressive strength of the bricks is equal to its
standard strength. In Figure 6-9 the masonry strength com-
puted from Equation 6-5 is compared to the experiment al
results: the compressive strength of lhe test specimens could
be predicted within a range of ± 20% of the actual values. For
the higher strength mortars, lh~ l:omputed values generally
were too low; however. they were too high for the low-
strength mortars. This may be due to an erroneous assumption
of the failure crU.erion for bricks and mortar under triaxial
stress states. The relationship given by Richart , Brandtzaeg and
Brown is empirical and is not necessarily the s~me for ali types
of mortars. Nevertheless, this rati onal approach in the pre-
diction of the compressive strength of masonry units appears
to be promising. Before a general applicability of Equation 6-5
could be recommended, variaus characteristic properties of
masonry have to be established which were normally not
investigated in previous studies. These are:
I. The coefficient of non-uniformity , U, as a function of (a)
quality of workmanship, (b) type and compressive strength of
mortar, (c) type of bricks, (d) pattern of masonry unit and
coring of bricks, and (e) thickness of joints.
2. The behavior of bricks and mortars subjected to defined
triaxial stress states.
3. A relationship between the st rength of bricks under
biaxial tensian . uniaxial tensian and flexure . '
Then an approach as outlined in the foregoing may enable
us to safely predict lhe compressive strength af masonry from
praperties of its constituents which can be easily determined
in standard tests.
References
I. Monk, C. B., "A Historieal Survey and Analysis of the
Compressive Strength of Brick Masonry ," Structural Clay
Products Research Foundation , Geneva, Illinois Researeh
Reporl No. 12, 1967.
2. Graf, O., "The Load Carrying Capaeity of Masonry,
cspccially of One-Story High Walls ," Fortschritle und
Forschungen im Bauwesen, Reihe D, No. 8 , Stuttgart.
1952.
3. MeBurney, J. H., "The Effect of Strength of Brick on
Compressive Strength of Brick Masonry ," Proceedings.
American Society for Testing and MateriaIs . Vol. 28 , Part
li, 1928 , pp. 605-634.
4. Hilsdorf, H. , "Investigation into the Failure Mechanism of
Brick Masonry ," Material prufungsamt f.d. Bauwesen,
Technische Hochschule, Munich, Report Nr. 40, 1965.
5. Richart, F. E., Brandtzaeg, A., Brown , R. L., "A study of
the Failure of Concrete under Combined Compressive
Stresses," BuUetin 185, University of lllinois Engineering
Experiment Station , 1928.
I

Notations
/J
/
a Coefficient to evaluate Equation 6-5
b
E
Height of brick
Modulus of elasticity V
Ali
)
Uniaxia1 campressive strength af brick b
Biaxial lensile slrength of brick Tangent Modulus
Compressive strength of standard concrete cylin- Brick Only. (Marlor
"Infinitely· S'ift.)
der
I~ 1 I
' (,Tangent Madulus for Brick ond
Un iaxial compressive strength of joint mortar Transi l r Arei Mortor in UnioKiol Compress1on
Compressive strength of masonry unit ./

V/
~.
Compressive strength of standard concrete cylin-
der which is confined by a slress a2
Thickness of mortar joint /
a x ' a y , Oz Stresses in x, y and z-direction
Stress in brick acting in x-direction
V/
°xb
axj
a ym
Stress in mortar joint acting in x-direction
Average masonry stress in y-direction
/ Stroin {- - in./in.l
a2 Confining pressure of a concrete cylinder
U Nonuniformity coefficienl
Uu Nonuniformity coefficient at failure FIgure 6-A. Stress strain curoe.

•
 Investigation into the Failure Mechanism of Brick Masonry
Remarks
By Bob D. Campbel/
Bob D. Campbell & Company, Structural Engineers
I was impressed by lhe mulual supporl of papers 2 and 7 of
lhe Ihird session (chaplers 6 and 11). Professor Hilsdorfs
paper, "An Invesligalion Inlo lhe Failure Mechanism of Brick
Masonry Loaded in Axial Compression" clearly answered lhe
queslion of "Why" lhe langenl modulus of elasticily increased
with load 00 the stress-strain curve af "Experimental Investi-
galion on lhe Slruclural Performance of Brick Masonry
Prisms" by DT. Rao. This increase was not necessarily slackness
of experimental set up, oor was it densification af mortar, per
se, as Dr. Rao proposes. It more likely is a piclure of lhe
mortar shifting [ram uniaxial compression to the triaxial
compression condition reported by Professor Hilsdorf.
41
AI lhe slarl of lhe loading il appears lhe langenl modulus is
lhe resull of lhe combinalion of lhe shorlening of lhe brick
plus Ihal of lhe mortar in uniaxial compression. The final
Tangenl modulus is more nearly Ihal of lhe brick alone. Thal
is, with a true tTiaxial compression condition Poisson '5 fatio is
zero , and the mortar, so confined. i5 infinitely stiff. See Figure
6-A herewilh.
The curved transition between the two end conditions is
lhe inleresting part of lhe graph. It appears lo be a " piclure"
of Ihal which is laking place , and I feel il should be closely
analysed as future research in the interaction of brick and
mortar.
I would like lo commend lhe whole conference and Ihese
two authors in particular for the contribution to a more
complele underslanding by lhe practicing professions in
masonry construction of many of the actions of brick, mortar ,
concrete , etc. when combined.