12th North American Masonry Conference

Masonry: Science • Craft • Art

Denver, Colorado May 17 – 20, 2015

A case-study of concrete masonry building

Poliana Bellei1, Ana Cláudia Akele Jantsch2, Aldo Leonel Temp3, Marcelo Dias de Oliveira4,

Gihad Mohamad5 and Eduardo Rizzatti6

Abstract
The main goal of this study was to evaluate the construction system of a concrete block
masonry building in Brazil. A nine-story tower built with hollow concrete blocks and air
entrained mortar was analyzed. During the inspections the main problems found were
incompatibilities between structural walls and water and gas pipes. In some cases these
pipes were inside structural walls, such option is forbidden in Brazilian codes. Horizontal cuts
that could produce instability on the masonry walls, and even failure, were found in the
kitchen and bathroom walls. Also, a difference between the dimensions of the window
opening and the modular blocks used in the wall, exposed the steel truss used to reinforce
the sill and generated a gap to be later filled with mortar. Amongst other issues, we can cite
that there was no execution management plan describing the procedures and priorities to be
adopted in the construction site, which lead to the various problems founds. Loadbearing
masonry is a widespread system in Brazil, but there is still a lack of knowledge about
structural safety principles that eventually causes rework, instabilities and cost increase.
Keywords: Masonry constructions, Project compatibility, Case study, Inspection.

1
Masters student in Civil Engineering, Federal University of Santa Maria, Civil Construction Department,
Roraima Avenue, 1000, Santa Maria, CEP 97105-900, Brasil, polianabellei@gmail.com
2
Masters student in Civil Engineering, Federal University of Santa Maria, Civil Construction Department,
Roraima Avenue, 1000, Santa Maria, CEP 97105-900, Brasil, akele.jantsch@gmail.com
3
Masters student in Civil Engineering, Federal University of Santa Maria, Civil Construction Department,
Roraima Avenue, 1000, Santa Maria, CEP 97105-900, Brasil, eng.aldotemp@gmail.com
4
Masters student in Civil Engineering, Federal University of Santa Maria, Civil Construction Department,
Roraima Avenue, 1000, Santa Maria, CEP 97105-900, Brasil, marcelod.oliveira@gmail.com
5
Doctor of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Santa Maria, Civil Construction Department, Roraima
Avenue, 1000, Santa Maria, CEP 97105-900, Brasil, gihad.civil@gmail.com
6
Doctor of Civil Engineering, Federal University of Santa Maria, Civil Construction Department, Roraima
Avenue, 1000, Santa Maria, CEP 97105-900, Brasil, edu_rizzatti@yahoo.com
 Introduction
Nowadays there is an increasing demand for velocity, good performance and low cost in
building constructions. [Fernandes and Silva Filho, 2010], [Alexandre, 2008] and [Tauil and
Nese, 2010] mentioned that the masonry constructive system is useful for lower and higher
income families, because its able to gather two important factors like cost reduction and
structural safety. By evaluating a case study, we can analyze the problems and
incompatibilities found between the project and the construction, and understand how
Brazilian companies work with the masonry constructive system.

A case study – characterization of the building

The object of this study is a nine-floor building with four apartments on each floor. The first
floor was built with reinforced concrete (car garage) and the other eight floors in concrete
block masonry. Single wythe walls (with load-bearing blocks) were use in a running bond
pattern. In all stories reinforce concrete slabs were used.

Figure 1. Apartment floor plan.

According to [Hendry, 2004] this building could be defined as a “cellular arrangement”,

meaning that external and internal walls are load-bearing walls. For Brazilian code it is not
possible to remove any wall without previous analysis by a structural engineer and also it is
not possible to pass any type of pipes under pressure as water and gas through structural
(load-bearing) walls.
The walls were built with hollow concrete masonry units with nominal size of 150 x 200 x 400
mm (5,5 x 7,5 x 15,4 in). Some special blocks were used as half blocks, sill and lintel blocks
and two types of non-modular blocks with nominal size of 150 x 200 x 350 mm and 150 x 200
x 550 mm. Table 01 shows the compressive strength of the blocks and of the mortar used on
each floor, it also shows the type of joint filling used (faceshell, cross joints).
 Table 1. Material characterization

Floor Block – fbk (MPa) Mortar – fam(MPa) Bedding mortar type

1º - - -
2º 9,0 10,0 Faceshell and cross webs
3º 9,0 10,0
4º 6,0 6,0
5º 4,0 6,0
Faceshell
6º 4,0 4,0
7º 4,0 4,0
Roof 4,0 4,0
Attic 4,0 4,0

As can be seen in Figure 2, the room dimension on the architectural project was not modular,
and it was necessary some adjustment for the spans to compensate the difference between
dimensions in relation to the unit adopted.

Figure 2. Apartment dimensions and its modular grid.

The figure above also shows that the original architectural project was not followed, mainly
because of the non-modular dimensions. To fit those dimensions, the blockwork would have
to use too many special blocks, increasing building costs. But the choice to chance the
project happened after the architectural project was approved, meaning that the apartment
sold to the buyers was slightly different from the one built.

Case study analysis

Masonry structures consists in laying individual block units with cement and lime mortar that
binds them together to create a wall. These masonry walls can carry horizontal and vertical
loads, as long as they are solid, even and regular enough to provide stability for the buildings.
In order to evaluate this masonry building, some aspects had to be analyzed such as modular
coordination of the blocks, compatibility between the architectural project, the structure, the
supplementary projects (e.g., electrical, gas, water and sewer pipes) and the execution plan
of the building.
The first thing observed on the ground floor was a large number of beams indicating that all
walls above were heavily loaded, as it is possible to see in Figure 3. The project designer
could have decreased the number of structural walls above the beams, considering some of
them as a fence (non-bearing walls), e.g., the bathroom walls depicted in Figure 3. This
numerous beams, all in different sizes, influence the buildings budget since it is necessary to
use more material like concrete, steel and wood forms. It can also be noticed in Figure 3, that
the sewer pipes had to be modified and prolonged in order to contour the beam. Such
adaptation was not found in the project details.

Figure 3. Beams found in the first floor.

Incompatibilities were observed between structural walls and plumbing installations.
Horizontal and vertical cuttings in the walls were made, therefore decreasing the strength
capacity of the masonry and creating localized instabilities. After cutting the blocks the
workers just filled the space with regular mortar. Structural safety of these modified walls was
not evaluated by the designers. In the worst case scenario, these choices could bring the
building to a progressive collapse, endangering lives. Aside from that, the construction waste
was disposed and left on the ground during the construction, interfering and slowing the
builders work, as seen in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Horizontal and vertical cuttings on walls

It was not observed uniformity in mortar joint thickness (bed and head joint), affecting the
modular layout of the walls and going against what Brazilian standard code defines, as it can
be seen in Figure 5. The designer should have set out masonry unit to full or half block length
in order to avoid unnecessary cutting of units on site or the need to increase the vertical joint
thickness. [Hendry, 2004] cited in his studies that mortar joints over 10mm thick can decrease
the compressive strength capacity of the wall up to 30%.
 Figure 5. Bed and head joint thickness variation

The architectural project did not previewed shafts in the bathrooms nor did it have details
about its execution. Still, it was decided that shafts should be built in the bathrooms in order
to embed the electrical conduits and water and sewer pipes as depicted in Figure 6.
Improvisations like these occurred because the project details, the ones that should describe
the procedures and the priorities adopted in the construction site, were nonexistent.

Figure 6. Bathroom shaft

Incompatibilities were also found between the block size modulation and the windows
dimensions adopted in the buildings. To resolve this problem the mason workers cut the U
block below the windows exposing the reinforced steel bar, as it can be seen in Figure 7. The
installation clip was very soft and did not fixed well and, because of this, it was not possible to
ensure the plumb, level and square of the windows.

Figure 7. Window with exposed reinforcing steel.

Conclusions
The main conclusions of this work was:
- No compatibilities were found between the architectural, structural and supplementary
projects, generating reworks and improvisation in the workspace. Examples of such
could be verified by the wall cuttings, poor execution of window openings and
construction of bath shafts that were not included in the original design;
- Uniform joint thickness of 10mm (bed and head joint), established by Brazilian
standards, were not an unanimity. This condition can affect not only the modular layout
of the wall, but also ease the water permeability and, in some cases, even influence
the strength of the wall.
- Horizontal and vertical cuttings in the walls were observed, decreasing the strength
capacity of masonry and producing localized instabilities;
- The designer should have set out masonry unit to full or half block length avoiding
unnecessary cutting of units on site or the need to increase the thickness of vertical
mortar joint;
- There was no execution management plan describing the procedures and priorities to
be adopted in the construction site, therefore easing the building process;
- Loadbearing masonry is a widespread constructive system in Brazil, but there is still a
lack of knowledge about structural safety principles that eventually causes rework,
instabilities and cost increase.

References
Alexandre 2008: Alexandre, I. F. "Manifestações patológicas em empreendimentos
habitacionais de baixa renda executados em alvenaria estrutural: uma análise da
relação causa efeito". Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2008.
Dalbone 2010: Dalbone, A. R. "Patologias em prédio de alvenaria estrutural - inspeção de
curta duração". Santa Maria, Brazil, 2010.
Fernandes 2010: Fernandes, M. J. G.; A. Silva Filho, "Estudo comparativo do uso da
alvenaria estrutural com bloco de concreto simples em relação ao sistema
estrutural em concreto armado". Salvador, Brazil, 2010.
Hendry 2004: Hendry, A. W.; B. P. Sinha; S. R. Davies, "Design of masonry structures"
3rd ed. London, UK, 2004.
Lund 1998: Lund, E.; M. Nowak; J. Crandell, "Building concrete masonry homes: Design
and construction issues". 1998.
Samara 2014: Samara, U.; G. Mohamad; D. Machado; C. Félix; A. Temp. "Problems
caused by design incompatibilities on masonry structural buildings in Brazil". 9th
international masonry conference, Guimarães, 2014.
Taly 2010: Taly, N., "Design of reinforced masonry structures" 2nd ed. New York, 2010.
Tauil 2010: Tauil, C. A.; M. Nese. "Alvenaria estrutural". São Paulo, Brazil, 2010.