See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283366778

Development of solid, foam concrete interlocking blocks and studies on short

masonry specimens

Article  in  Masonry International · March 2013

CITATIONS READS

2 2,069

2 authors, including:

Ramamurthy K
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
89 PUBLICATIONS   4,110 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Building Materials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ramamurthy K on 25 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Masonry International, Journal of the International Masonry Society, Vol.26, Issue-1, 2013, pp 7-16
Development of Solid, Foam Concrete Interlocking
Blocks and Studies on Short Masonry Specimen
by
J. SATHYA NARAYANAN(1), and DR. K. RAMAMURTHY(2), FIMS
(1)
Researcher. Building technology and Construction Management Division,
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras 600036, India
(2)
Professor. Building Technology and Construction Management Division,
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras 600036, India
ABSTRACT
This paper combines two technologies, viz,, interlocking
blocks and foam concrete to study and develop solid foam
concrete interlocking block masonry. Various aspects of the
manufacture of foam concrete interlocking blocks are
discussed. The density of foam concrete blocks ranges
3
between +/-50 and 1250kg/m . Class-C fly ash was used as
set-accelerator to facilitate early demoulding. Masonry
prisms were tested under axial and eccentric compressive
loads and the permissible stresses obtained were compared
with those applicable for conventional brick/block masonry.
Flexural behaviour both parallel and normal to the bedding
plane has been studied with and without plastering. The test
results were compared with IS and ACI standards, and the
results indicated that the allowable stress levels for light
weight SILBLOCK masonry are higher than that of
conventional brick masonry.
Key-words: foam concrete, interlocking block; accelerator,
masonry prism, wallette; compression, flexure.
1. INTRODUCTION
Traditional load-bearing masonry is slower, more time
consuming and labour intensive to construct than reinforced
concrete and steel frame construction. Using interlocking
blocks the speed of masonry construction can be
accelerated. To capitalise on this a simple solid interlocking
block geometry was designed and developed by ANAND
and RAMAMURTHY [1] and used to manufacture normal
weight concrete interlocking block masonry. Short masonry
prisms and wallettes with thin-bed joints were tested for their
structural, functional and constructional performance.
Following on from this research into making use of light
weight concrete blocks for wall construction has
commenced. Lighter materials are beneficial in earthquake
areas and they improve the thermal comfort of buildings.
Traditional lightweight aggregate concrete, however, results
in only a marginal reduction in density. Both aerated and
foam concrete would contribute to significant reductions in
density but still satisfy the strength requirements. Aerated
concrete is suited for factory production where solid blocks
would be made. Foam concrete, however, is most-suited to
the production of light weight interlocking blocks as it is
always used at a flowing consistency, fills up the moulds
easily and self-levelling is achieved without any vibration. In
the present study, these two technologies have been
combined i.e. interlocking block masonry and foam concrete,
to develop light-weight interlocking blocks.
Since the foam concrete is extremely fluid and contains air
bubbles once it is in the mould it cannot be compacted or
vibrated as is the case with normal weight concrete blocks.
Obviously to produce blocks, the foam concrete needs to be
cast in a mould. Normal foam concrete when cast in a mould
can be demoulded after several hours, typically the following
day. This imposes some constraints on the productivity of
the block manufacture, demands a large number of moulds,
and a large space with associated cost implications. If the
de-moulding could be undertaken rapidly reducing the cycle
time between block casting and demoulding, the block
production rate could be increased. To enable this initially a
study to identify suitable set-accelerators for foam concrete
was undertaken using different alternatives including alum,
calcium chloride, tri-ethanolamine, calcium nitrate and
class-C fly ash. It has been identified that class-C fly ash is
the appropriate accelerator for foam concrete with sodium
lauryl sulphate as the optimum foam agent [2]. The mix ratio
of 1:1:2 (cement:sand:Class-C fly ash) facilitated early
demoulding of blocks at 90 minutes from the casting time.
Once the appropriate material for the foam block was
established, a study on the behaviour of short masonry
specimens made with foam concrete interlocking blocks was
undertaken. This paper discusses a suitable mix for foam
concrete, the casting of foam concrete blocks termed
SILBLOCKS (Solid Interlocking Blocks) and the construction
of short masonry specimens with mortar joints. The study
included two types of surface finishes; an un-plastered and a
plastered finish. The results from the experimental
investigations into the structural behaviour of SILBLOCK
masonry under axial and eccentric compression and flexural
loading are discussed. The design provision for conventional
masonry has been compared with the BIS standard and ACI
codes.
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
2.1 Foam concrete
The present study utilises an indigenous foam generator [3].
Based on earlier studies Sodium Lauryl Sulphate [4] had
been identified as a suitable synthetic foaming agent. A
“Pre-foamed” foaming technique was adopted to produce a
foam concrete mix based on extensive studies carried out
on the fresh state properties of this foam concrete using the
developed foam generator [5]. The fresh state properties of
foam concrete are reported to vary with the type of filler
used [6]. The foam generation parameters recommended by
RANJANI and RAMAMURTHY [4,7] which optimised the
foam generator pressure and surfactant concentration are
115kPa and 2% respectively, were adopted. Based on the
guidelines of ASTM C796-04 [8], the quantity of foam
required to be added, was arrived at using the formula given
in Table 1, to achieve the design density of 1250kg/m3. The
water-solid ratio required to achieve the design density was
determined by the stability test. At lower water-solid ratios,
the mix will be too dry and at higher water contents the mix
will be too thin to hold the bubbles resulting in segregation.
To determine the optimum water content, water-solid ratios
are varied at small intervals keeping other constituents in
the mix the same.
 Masonry International, Journal of the International Masonry Society, Vol.26, Issue-1, 2013, pp 7-16

Table 1
Details regarding mix proportions and foam volume calculations
Water-Solid
Mix ratio Foam volume calculation
ratio
1250kg/m3 = 1250kg/m3 = (WTW + WC + WS/FA) / [(WTW /1000) +
(WC/(3.15 X 1000)) + (WS/FA/((2.6 or 2.4) X 1000)) + Va]
C:S:FA – 1:1:2
3
(cement:sand: 0.55 Va = (0.61WC + 0.52WS – 0.25WTW ) / 1250m
fly ash) Va = (0.61WC + 0.48WFA – 0.25WTW ) / 1250m3

3
Vf = 1000Va / (1000 – Wuf)/m
Where, Va - Volume of air, (m3), Vf - Volume of foam, (m3), WC - Weight of cement, (kg),
WS/FA - Weight of sand/fly-ash, (kg), WTW - Weight of total water including weight of foam, (kg),
Wuf – Density of foam, (kg/m3).

2.2 Identification of suitable foam concrete mixer
Hand mixing of foam concrete is suitable only for small-scale
requirements. Bursting of the foam bubbles during the
mixing process leads to an increase in density of the
concrete, especially when the foam density is low. Casting
blocks one full course high (Figure 2) requires 7.5 to 8.0kg
of foam concrete. To construct these blocks by hand mixing
would be tedious and time consuming for the required
number of blocks. Hence it was decided to identify a suitable
mixer which will produce foam concrete without disturbing
the foam (bubbles) and also to achieve uniform mixing
characteristics through the study. The various mixers tried
are presented in Figure 1 ((a)-(e)).
Initially, a conventional mortar mixer with the blade rotating
about the central axis (Figure 1(b)) was tried. Though the
mixer had provision for varying the speed of mixing, the
foam was never mixed properly with the base mortar mix.
Most of the foam was observed to float above the base mix.
The drum mixer (Figure 1(c)) provided better mixing but the
water and foam required to achieve the design density were
higher than the optimum mix. The use of pan mixer
(Figure 1(d)) with rotating drum and arms did not yield
homogeneous mixing and the design density could not be
achieved. The Pan mixer with arms positioned at various
angles and with the facility to rotate both in clock and anti-
clock wise directions with a stationary drum (Figure 1(e)),
was found suitable. This mixer gave the best mixing quality
for the optimum mix achieved from the acceleration studies
without altering the setting properties.
2.3 Manufacture of Interlocking Blocks
The system of Solid Interlocking Block (SILBLOCK)
developed by ANAND and RAMAMURTHY [1] comprising
stretcher, jamb and corner units, has been used in this
study. The full course stretcher unit is 200mm in height and
a half course stretcher unit is 100mm in height. The half
course units are designed and used to facilitate the
staggering of horizontal joints from the inner and outer face.
Hence a half course is laid as the first and final course. The
dimensions and details of the SILBLOCK are shown in
Figure 2. The jamb unit is equivalent to a halved stretcher
unit and is used at the beginning and end of the wall.
2.4 Details of mix used for production of foam concrete
The light weight cellular concrete was designed to have a
density of 1250kg/m3. Using the guidelines given in ASTM
C796-04 the foam volume was calculated and these details
are presented in Table 1. The foam volume depends on the
density of foam in the designed mix and the density of the
foam concentrate.
2.5 Block production
Though conventional normal weight concrete blocks have
been produced using mechanised block making machines
using dry concrete mixes for many years, foam concrete
which is highly flowable, self-compacting and by nature
contains air bubbles cannot be pressed, compacted or
vibrated in a similar block producing machine. Hence foam
concrete needs to be cast in a mould. As the geometry of
interlocking blocks is complex, a study to compare an acrylic
and wooden mould was undertaken (Figure 3). The
teakwood mould facilitated easier demoulding and hence
was used.
2.5.1 Process of block manufacture
Based on an earlier study, 2 parts of Class-C fly ash was
added to a cement: sand mix of 1:1, to facilitate accelerated
demoulding of the block [2]. The mixing of foam concrete
was undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of
IS 2185 (Part 4) [9]. First, the required quantities of sand,
Class-C fly ash and cement were mixed thoroughly, then
water was added to the mix. Based on the desired design
density, the correct amount of foam was produced and
added to the base mix. During the addition of foam to the
base mix, the foam was partially mixed into the base mix by
hand which helps to better blend the foam and base mix.
Subsequently, machine mixing was undertaken until no
physical sign of foam was observed and a uniform mix
achieved. The foam concrete was poured into well-oiled
moulds and levelled. After 30 minutes a template was fixed
exactly on the top surface of the mould and the “removable”
part of the mould extracted. The outer part of the mould was
removed after 90 to 100 minutes. After 24 hours the blocks
were stored under shade (Figure 4) and curing was
undertaken by spraying with water and covering with wet
gunny bags for 28 days.
2.5.2 Details of cast blocks
To study the structural performance of foam concrete
interlocking block masonry, the required number of blocks
were manufactured based on the number of specimens for
compression tests on individual blocks, masonry prism
specimens to be tested under compression, specimens for
eccentric compression testing and wallette specimens to
determine flexural strength. Accordingly, a total number of
498 blocks were produced as presented in Table 2.
 Masonry International, Journal of the International Masonry Society, Vol.26, Issue-1, 2013, pp 7-16

(a) Hand-held stirrer (b) Conventional mortar mixer

(c) Drum mixer (d) Pan mixer with rotating drum

(e) Pan mixer with rotating arms

Figure 1 ((a)-(e)) Mixers tried for foam concrete

114
40
26 114
24
30
232

200 20
100
400

110
Full Course Jamb unit Half Course

Figure 2 Dimensional details of SILBLOCK (in mm) (ANAND and RAMAMURTHY, 2000)
 Masonry International, Journal of the International Masonry Society, Vol.26, Issue-1, 2013, pp 7-16

Figure 3 SILBLOCK mould-fabricated using Acrylic sheet and Teak wood

Figure 4 Sample blocks kept in the yard for curing

Table 2
Details and number of specimens of SILBLOCK
Concrete mix Type of block
Cement: sand: Stretcher block Stretcher block Jamb block
Class-C Fly ash (full-course high) (half-course high) (full-course high)
1:1:2 202 196 100

Table 3
Density and strength of SILBLOCK
Failure compressive
Density 2
Unit 3 strength (N/mm )
(kg/m )
(average of 3 blocks)
Stretcher unit - 200mm 1258 2.72
Stretcher unit - 100mm 1280 2.54
Jamb unit 1286 5.21
Combined Block
(SILBLOCK assemblage with one stretcher unit 200mm 1275 3.53
high interlocked with two jamb units).

2.6 Physical and mechanical properties of blocks
Randomly sampled blocks were tested for their density and
compressive strength. To find the compressive strength the
blocks were capped using a 1:3 cement:sand mortar in order
to ensure uniform distribution of load through the platens of
the testing frame. The compressive strengths of individual
stretcher and jamb blocks were tested and are reported in
Table 3. In addition, a combined block (one stretcher unit
and two jamb units placed in interlocked position to
represent a layer removed from the wall), were also tested
and facilitated uniform load distribution through the
rectangular solid configuration formed.
2.7 Masonry specimens
Behaviour under axial and eccentric compression and
flexure test loading parallel and perpendicular to bed joints
were studied using prism and wallette test specimens. Thin
jointing techniques were adapted to ensure uniform seating
of blocks between courses in the construction of prisms and
wallettes. A thin layer of mortar slurry (cement, sand and fly
ash in the ratio of 1:1:2 and water to form a slurry of a
flowing consistency) is applied with a scoop on the top
surface of blocks already laid. When the next layer of blocks
is interlocked in position, excess slurry is squeezed out
automatically, resulting in a bed joint of 2 to 3mm thickness.
2.7.1 Behaviour under axial compression
Masonry prisms of size 400mm x 600mm and of thickness
150mm, with a height to thickness ratio of 4 were
constructed as shown in Figure 5. The specimens were
capped with gypsum and tested under axial compression in
accordance with IS 1905 [10], in a universal testing machine
of 1000kN capacity.
 Masonry International, Journal of the International Masonry Society, Vol.26, Issue-1, 2013, pp 7-16

The specimen was carefully aligned enabling application
of load axially by controlling the rate of loading as per
IS 2185 [9]. The typical failure under axial compression
of the test prisms was by crushing as shown in Figure 6.
Cracks were first observed along the joints in the prism.
With further increase in load, the joints opened up
leading to the failure of the prism. The compressive
strength of masonry prisms along with their companion
block strengths and the corresponding prism to
block strength ratio (efficiency factor) are presented in
Table 4.
Comparison with conventional masonry. A comparison of
the permissible stress of light weight SILBLOCK masonry,
after applying the appropriate modification factor, has been
made with that of conventional mortar bedded masonry as
per IS 1905-1987 [10]. As thin mortar jointing with a mix ratio
of 1:1:2 was used, for the purpose of comparison, the
conventional mortar is regarded to be H1 and M1 as per
IS1905. IS 1905 specifies basic compressive stress of
mortar bedded masonry for bricks of different strength and
with a height to width ratio of 0.75. For masonry units having
height to width ratios greater than 0.75, the basic
compressive stress needs to be enhanced by a shape
modification factor, to arrive at the permissible stress to
facilitate rational comparison with the results of the present
study.
To determine the allowable stress in block masonry from
the tests, IS 1905 specifies the use of masonry prism
specimens of minimum height to thickness ratio (h/t) of 2, if
h/t is more than 2, the compressive strength needs to be
modified by a correction factor. In the present study, as the
h/t ratio is 4 the correction factor is 1.30. Hence the
corrected mean compressive strength of prisms is 1.3 x
1.3 = 1.69N/mm2. Then the permissible strength of the
masonry is obtained by dividing with a factor of safety of 4
(i.e.1.69/4 = 0.42N/mm2).
As per IS 1905-1987 [10], for H1 and M1 mortars the basic
compressive stress of brick masonry with an h/t ratio less
than 0.75 is 0.35N/mm2. Foam concrete SILBLOCK
masonry is observed to exhibit higher permissible
compressive stress than those of conventional brick
masonry.

150

600

400

Figure 5 Prism assemblage pattern for compression (Dimensions in mm)

Figure 6 Typical failure pattern under axial compression

Table 4
Axial compressive strength of masonry prism
Block strength (fb) 2
2 Prism no. Failure stress (fmp) (N/mm ) fmp / fb
(N/mm )
1 1.30 0.37
3.53 2 1.22 0.35
3 1.39 0.39
Mean 1.30 0.37
 Masonry International, Journal of the International Masonry Society, Vol.26, Issue-1, 2013, pp 7-16

2.7.2 Behaviour under eccentric compression
The effect of load eccentricity on SILBLOCK masonry
prisms has also been investigated. The size of the
prism used was similar to that for axial compression testing
having an h/t ratio of 4. Table 5 shows the number and
details of specimens used for testing eccentric
compression. The top and bottom eccentricities chosen
represent different segments of prisms extracted from
different heights of the wall subjected to eccentric
compression. The loading arrangement is shown in Figure 7.
Steel plates, 450mm long, 170mm wide and 20mm thick
were used to distribute the load from the 32mm diameter
rollers evenly across the capped length of the prism. To
prevent lateral movement of the rod, mild steel rod of 10mm
diameter was welded at the appropriate location.
The results for the two different eccentricity combinations
are tabulated in Table 6. The prism having eccentricity of e1
= t/6 and e2 = 0 exhibited higher strengths when compared
to the axially loaded prism and the prism with eccentricity of
e1 = t/3 and e2 = t/6. The typical failure mechanism for
case-1 (i.e., e1 = t/6 and e2 = 0) was cracking and separation
of masonry units and joints at the tension face of the prism
(Figure 8), while spalling was observed in the compression
face. In case-2 (e1 = t/3 and e2 = t/6), separation of masonry
joints was observed on the tension side while surface cracks
were observed on the compression face of the prism
(Figure 9).
On the basis of linear elastic behaviour, assuming the
section to be solid masonry with zero tensile strength [11],
the compressive strengths f’me based on gross area were
calculated using the formula (below Table 7) and are
presented in Table 7 along with the ratio of compressive
strength to axial compressive strength f’m (i.e. K = f’me / f’m).
Because of the physical interlocking of the blocks an
increase in extreme fiber stress for eccentricities of e1 = t/6,
e2 = 0 and e1 = t/3, e2 = t/6 is about 160% higher as
compared with a value of 43% for conventional solid
masonry [12].

Table 5
Number and details of specimens used for eccentric compression

Thin jointing Eccentricity

technique
e1 = e2 =0 e1=t/6; e2=0 e1=t/3; e2=t/6
No. of prism 3 3 3

Table 6
Eccentric compressive strength of masonry prism
Block Eccentric compression
Eccentric compression
strength Prism (e1=t/6;e2=0)
fmp / fb (e1=t/3;e2=t/6) fmp / fb
(fb) no. Failure stress (fmp) 2
2 2 Failure stress (fmp) (N/mm )
(N/mm ) (N/mm )
1 1.50 0.42 0.93 0.26
3.53 2 1.94 0.55 0.92 0.26
3 1.71 0.48 0.90 0.25
Average: 1.72 0.49 0.92 0.26

Table 7
Test results on eccentrically loaded prisms (Mean strength of block is 3.53N/mm2)
Eccentricity Ultimate load (kN)
S.No At top At bottom PU / PO f’me (N/mm2) K=f’me / f’m
Individual Mean
‘e1’ ‘e2’
1 0 0 78.00
1.30
2 0 0 73.00 PO = 78.07 - -
(f’m)
3 0 0 83.20
4 t/6 0 90.00
5 t/6 0 116.30 PU = 102.93 1.32 3.43 2.64
6 t/6 0 102.50
7 t/3 t/6 55.70
8 t/3 t/6 55.00 PU = 54.90 0.7 3.66 2.82
9 t/3 t/6 54.00
Note:

Where, b – breadth of the prism, t – thickness of the prism, and e – eccentricity.

Masonry International, Journal of the International Masonry Society, Vol.26, Issue-1, 2013, pp 7-16

Figure 7 Test setup for eccentric load of masonry prism

Figure 8 Typical failure mode for eccentric loading e1 = t/6 and e2 = 0

Figure 9 Typical failure of eccentrically loaded prism having e1 = t/3 and e2 = t/6
 Masonry International, Journal of the International Masonry Society, Vol.26, Issue-1, 2013, pp 7-16
2.7.3 Behaviour under flexural loading
Based on the support conditions and direction of span, walls
without pre-compression are classified as (i) spanning
vertically (failure due to tensile stress normal to the bed
joint) and (ii) spanning horizontally (failure due to tensile
stress parallel to the bedding plane). To assess the flexural
strength normal to the bed joint, load is applied parallel to
the bed joint and to assess the flexural strength parallel to
the bed joint, load is applied normal to the bed joint. To
overcome any possible damage due to self weight while
placing and testing horizontally, EN 1996 [13] has suggested
testing wallettes in the vertical aspect. The view of the
flexural testing frame as used in this programme is shown in
Figure 10.
To assess the flexural strength normal to the bed joint
(i.e. loading parallel to the bed joint), a specimen of size
800mm x 800mm was used. To determine the flexural
strength parallel to the bed joint (i.e. loading is applied
perpendicular to the bed joint), specimens of size 1200mm x
800mm were used. Thin jointing was utilised to bond
between successive courses. Two types of surface finish
have been studied for flexural behaviour; i) Pointing: To
protect the joints from weathering action, the joints are filled
with mortar and finished flush with the face of the wall, which
also improves the aesthetic effect of the wall, and ii)
Plastering: cement plastering (with cement-sand ratio of 1:5)
was applied in a single coat of about 10mm on both the
surfaces of the wallette. The 10 mm thick plastering was
used as a surface finish. Details of the wallettes tested for
flexure are shown in Table 8.
For loading parallel to the bed joint, tension occurs normal
to the bed joint. The horizontal joints are continuous
along the tension face and hence cracks opened in this
area initially. But cracking ultimately extended from
the tension to the compression face. A typical failure with
Figure 10 Flexural testing setup
the load parallel to the bed joints is shown in Figure 11.
For loading normal to the bed joint, tension occurs parallel
to the bed joint. Hence the failure crack occurred
vertically up alternate perpend joints and blocks. The
failure for loading normal to the bed joint is shown in the
Figure 12.
The failure depended on the gross cross-sectional area of
the failure plane of the wallettes. The flexural strengths are
presented in Table 9. Plastering with medium strength
mortar increased the flexural load carrying capacity of the
wallettes when compared with wallettes with only pointed
finish. This is due to the effect of the tensile strength of the
surface bonding material, which is present at the extreme
fibre of the tension side. Of the two types of loading, loading
normal to bed joint produced higher flexural strengths due to
surface finish.
Comparison with conventional masonry: A comparison of
allowable flexural stress of conventional masonry as per
ACI 530[14] and IS 1905[15] with those of light weight
SILBLOCK masonry is summarised in Table 10. The flexural
stress was obtained using a factor of safety of 3. For
conventional masonry, the flexural capacity is higher for the
failure due to tensile stress developed parallel to bed joint as
compared to failure due to tensile stress developed normal
to the bed joint. This is because in the former, the failure
depends on, (i) block flexural capacity, (ii) bond strength and
(iii) torsional resistance of the bedding mortar. Whereas
failure due to tensile stress developed parallel to the bed
joint depends only on the bond strength between the block
and mortar.
The lightweight solid interlocking block masonry of
comparable compressive strength results in higher
permissible flexural strength as compared to the
corresponding mean strengths of conventional mortar
bedded masonry as per and ACI 530[14] and IS1905[15].
 Masonry International, Journal of the International Masonry Society, Vol.26, Issue-1, 2013, pp 7-16

Tension Side

Compression side

Figure 11 Typical failure for Figure 12 Typical failure for

loading parallel to bed joint loading normal to bedding plane

Table 8
Details of specimens tested under flexure
Flexural loading
Type of bed joint Surface finish Loading parallel to the Loading normal to the
bed joint bed joint
Pointing 3 3
Thin joint mortar joints
Plaster 3 3

Table 9
Flexural strength oflight weight SILBLOCK
Ultimate flexural Mean flexural
Wallettes no. Loading type Surface finish 2
stress (N/mm ) strength (N/mm2)
1 1.44
Parallel to the bed
2 Pointing 1.34 1.28
joint
3 1.07
1 6.01
Parallel to the bed
2 Plastered 6.31 6.00
joint
3 5.68
1 2.46
Normal to the bed
2 Pointing 1.51 1.74
joint
3 1.24

1 8.11
Normal to the bed
2 Plastered 8.17 7.94
joint
3 7.55

Table 10
Comparison of flexural stresses – Conventional and SILBLOCK masonry

Mean Allowable flexural stress (MPa)

Type of flexural Conventional brick/block masonry
Light weight SILBLOCK masonry
loading IS 1905 ACI 530
Pointed Plastered M2 Grade mortar Type N mortar
Loading parallel to
0.43 2.00 0.05 0.207
bed joint
Loading normal to
0.58 2.65 0.10 0.414
bed joint
 Masonry International, Journal of the International Masonry Society, Vol.26, Issue-1, 2013, pp 7-16

3. CONCLUSIONS 6. NAMBIAR, E.K.K. and RAMAMURTHY, K. Influence of

The light weight solid interlocking block masonry is a
potential alternative to mortar-bedded masonry as it
accelerates the construction process. It exhibits comparable
or better structural performance than the normal weight
masonry of comparable block strength. There is scope for
enhancing the strength of foam concrete interlocking block
of similar density.
REFERENCES
1. ANAND, K.B. and RAMAMURTHY, K.
Development and performance evaluation of
solid interlocking block masonry construction,
Journal of Architectural Engineering, ASCE (6), 45-51,
2000.
2. SATHYA NARAYANAN, J. and RAMAMURTHY, K.
Identification of set-accelerator for enhancing the
productivity of foam concrete block manufacture,
Construction and Building Materials, 37 (December),
144–152, 2012.
3. NAMBIAR, E.K.K. Influence of composition and pore
parameters on properties of preformed foam concrete,
Ph.D. Thesis, IIT Madras, India, 2006.
4. RANJANI, I.S. and RAMAMURTHY, K. Analysis of
foam generated using surfactant sodium lauryl sulfate,
International Journal of Concrete Structures and
Materials (4), 55-62, 2010.
5. NAMBIAR, E.K.K. and RAMAMURTHY, K. Fresh
state characteristics of foam concrete, Journal
of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, 111-117,
2008.
filler type on properties of foam concrete, Cement and
Concrete Composite (28), 475-480, 2006.
7. RANJANI, I.S. and RAMAMURTHY, K. Relative
assessment of density and stability of foam produced
with four synthetic surfactants, Materials and
Structures (43), 1317-1325, 2010.
8. AMERICAN STANDARD FOR TESTING MATERIAL
(ASTM), Standard Test method for foaming agents for
use in producing cellular concrete using prefoamed
foam, ASTM C796, US, 2004.
9. BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS (IS), Concrete
masonry units – specifications part 4 pre-foamed foam
cellular concrete blocks, IS 2185 – part 4, India, 2008.
10. BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS (IS), Code of
practice for structural use of unreinforced masonry, IS
1905, India, 2002.
11. DRYSDALE, R.G., HAMID, A.A. and BAKER, L.R.
Masonry structures: Behaviour and design. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood cliffs, N.J, 1994.
12. DRYSDALE, R.G. and HAMID, A.A. Capacity of
concrete block masonry prism under eccentric
compressive loading, Journal of the American
Concrete Institute 80(11), 102-108, 1983.
13. EN 1996, Eurocode 6 Design of masonry structures -
Part 1-1: Common rules for reinforced and
unreinforced masonry structures, London, 2005.
14. AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE (ACI), Building
code requirements for masonry structures, ACI 530,
Michigan, 2005.
15. BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS (IS), Code of
practice for structural use of unreinforced masonry, IS
1905 – 1987.

View publication stats