Construction and Building Materials 54 (2014) 421–431

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Determination of shear strength of historic masonries by moderately

destructive testing of masonry cores
Claudio Mazzotti a,c,1, Enrico Sassoni b,c,⇑, Giulia Pagliai a
a
Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of Bologna, via Risorgimento 2, 40136 Bologna, Italy
b
Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and Materials Engineering, University of Bologna, via Terracini 28, 40131 Bologna, Italy
c
Centro Interdipartimentale di Ricerca Industriale (CIRI) Edilizia e Costruzioni, Università di Bologna, via Lazzaretto 15/5, 40131 Bologna, Italy

h i g h l i g h t s

 Assessing the seismic vulnerability of historic masonry buildings is an urgent task.

 A novel method to determine masonry shear strength by using cores is here presented.
 Purposely constructed reference masonry panels were tested to shear–compression.
 Masonry cores were subjected to splitting test with various mortar layer rotations.
 Results found for reference masonry panels and cores exhibit very good agreement.

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

Article history: To determine masonry shear strength, which is a fundamental parameter for evaluating the seismic vul-
Received 15 July 2013 nerability of existing masonry buildings, several experimental techniques can be adopted. A promising
Received in revised form 12 December 2013 method is subjecting cores, easily core-drilled from masonry buildings, to splitting test with mortar layer
Accepted 16 December 2013
rotation, so that in the centre of the mortar joint a mixed compression–shear stress state is present. To
Available online 23 January 2014
investigate the actual suitability of testing cores for determining masonry shear strength, in this study
a systematic comparison between reference masonry panels, subjected to shear-compression test, and
Keywords:
cores, subjected to splitting test with different mortar layer inclinations, was performed. Ten masonry
Masonry
Seismic vulnerability
panels were constructed using fired-clay solid bricks and a mixed lime-cement mortar with poor
Shear strength mechanical properties, with the aim of resembling materials used in historic buildings. After curing for
Cylindrical cores 28 days, nine masonry panels were tested, compression stress being kept constant at a fixed value and
Mohr–Coulomb criterion shear stress being increased until failure. By plotting shear stress against compression stress and per-
forming linear regression, the initial shear strength and the angle of internal friction of the masonry were
obtained. The tenth masonry panel was core-drilled to obtain cylindrical cores (10 cm diameter, 25 cm
length) with a central diametric mortar joint. The cores were then subjected to splitting test with mortar
layer inclinations of 0°, 15°, 30°, 40°, 45° and 50° with respect to the horizontal. While cores tested at 15°
and 30° exhibited a splitting failure mode, cores tested at higher mortar layer inclinations exhibited a
sliding failure mode, which was considered as the most representative one for evaluating masonry shear
resistance. By plotting the shear stress against the compression stress for cores tested at 40°, 45° and 50°
and then performing a linear regression, the initial shear strength and the angle of internal friction were
derived. As results found for reference masonry panels and for cylindrical cores exhibit very good agree-
ment, the proposed methodology seems like a very promising technique, which has the advantage of
requiring only moderately destructive samples that can be easily core-drilled from existing buildings.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Recent earthquakes that in the last decades struck Southern

⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Civil, Chemical, Environmental and
Materials Engineering, University of Bologna, via Terracini 28, 40131 Bologna, Italy.
Tel.: +39 051 2090363; fax: +39 051 2090322.
E-mail addresses: claudio.mazzotti@unibo.it (C. Mazzotti), enrico.sassoni2@
unibo.it (E. Sassoni), pagliai.giulia@gmail.com (G. Pagliai).
1
Tel.: +39 051 2093251; fax: +39 051 2093236.
Europe and Asia clearly showed the sensitivity of masonry build-
ings to this type of dynamic actions. In an effort to limit the dam-
ages from future earthquakes, the definition of the structural
capabilities of this type of buildings has become a really actual
and urgent task [1]. In this framework, evaluating the seismic

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.12.039
422 C. Mazzotti et al. / Construction and Building Materials 54 (2014) 421–431
vulnerability of historic masonry buildings, with the aim of pre-
dicting the damage level for a certain earthquake intensity, is a
challenging task that structural engineers are often asked to deal
with. For instance, recent studies have been aimed at evaluating
the seismic vulnerability of masonry towers [2], masonry churches
[3], masonry monumental palaces [4] and monumental building in
general [5]. In particular, in Italy, after the Emilia earthquake of
2012, an increasing number of existing buildings has been sub-
jected to seismic vulnerability analysis.
To assess the structural response of masonry buildings, ma-
sonry mechanical properties need to be first determined. Several
methods have been reported in the literature for the assessment
of the load bearing capacity of existing masonry constructions,
including monumental buildings, towers, bridges, etc. [6–10]. As
far as resistance to seismic actions is concerned, masonry shear
strength is the most important parameter to be evaluated. Accord-
ing to Eurocode 6 [11], as well as Italian Code for constructions
[12], the masonry characteristic shear strength (fvk) for new
constructions can be defined following the well-known Mohr–
Coulomb failure criterion fvk = fvk0 + 0.4 rn, where fvk0 is the
characteristic shear strength with zero compression stress and
rn is the average compression stress owing to vertical loads.
A number of methods and techniques have been proposed so far
to define the characteristic shear strength fvk0 and they will be dis-
cussed in the next section. Among them, masonry shear strength
determination by testing of cylindrical cores seems like a promis-
ing technique, which has the advantage of causing limited damage
to the building and allowing to obtain information on shear
strength for different compression values. Nonetheless, the studies
that have been carried out so far to evaluate the suitability of using
masonry cores were based on either empirical formulas or experi-
mental data obtained from samples coming from actual historical
buildings [13–15]. In the latter case, test results exhibit significant
dispersion, which can be attributed to the variability of both bricks
and mortars used in historical buildings. To the authors’ best
knowledge, no experimental study for evaluating the suitability
of testing cores, making use of purposely constructed and con-
trolled masonry samples, has been carried out so far.
Therefore, in this study a systematic comparison between shear
strength values obtained from reference masonry panels, subjected
to shear-compression test according to EN 1052-3 [16], and values
obtained from cores, core-drilled from analogous panels and sub-
jected to splitting test with various mortar layer inclinations, was
performed. For interpreting the results of the splitting tests on
cores, a novel methodology was used, which is here presented
and discussed.
2. Existing methods to define shear strength
When dealing with new masonry, Codes allow two possibilities
to be followed for the definition of shear strength without axial
force fvk0: (a) direct experimental measurement by performing
shear tests on masonry units with different axial load or (b) its
indirect estimation by making use of tables or empirical expres-
sions contained inside those same Codes [11,12], correlating fvk0
with brick and mortar compressive strength. Only the second
method can be applied also to existing masonry but with a
reduced reliability. For a more accurate estimation, in situ
direct measurement of masonry shear strength, either with
or without compression stress, has to be preferred. To this
purpose, several techniques can be adopted, differing for their
destructiveness, expensiveness, technical challenge and signifi-
cance of results.
The most direct technique for in situ shear strength determina-
tion is performing a shear-compression test on a large masonry
portion (about 90  180 cm2), disconnected from the rest of the
masonry wall and loaded both horizontally and vertically by
means of hydraulic jacks [6]. This method has the advantage of
allowing to evaluate shear resistance for different compression
levels. Moreover, the evaluation of test results is quite straightfor-
ward, as masonry shear resistance with or without vertical loads is
directly measured. However, this method has the strong limitation
of being highly destructive, so that its actual applicability is limited
to a very few cases.
An alternative in situ testing procedure is subjecting a masonry
portion (larger than 120  120 cm2, according to ASTM E519/
519M-10 [17]) to a diagonal compression test [6,18]. This method,
which is highly destructive as well, has also the limitation of not
allowing compression stress to be applied independently from
shear load. According to the standard interpretation, from in situ
diagonal test the masonry shear strength with zero compression
stress is obtained, since the centre of the panel is assumed to be
subjected to pure shear [17,18]. However, further interpretations
have been proposed so far, based on masonry panel modeling as
an isotropic and homogeneous material. According to these inter-
pretations, the centre of the panel is not subjected to pure shear,
and different formulas for masonry shear strength calculation have
been alternatively proposed [18].
A less invasive technique for estimating masonry shear strength
is subjecting triplets (made of three brick courses and two mortar
joints in-between) to a shear test, as described in EN 1052-3:2007
[19]. This method requires relatively small test specimens, and has
also the advantage that triplets can be tested by either applying or
not axial force to bricks, so that masonry shear strength with or
without compression loads can be estimated. However, while in
the case of new masonries testing triplets is a simple and straight-
forward method, in the case of existing masonries its applicability
is rather limited [18,20].
A semi-destructive method that can be successfully performed
in situ is measuring masonry mortar joint shear strength, according
to ASTM C 1531-09 [21]. The idea is determining the horizontal
force required to produce the relative slip of a brick with respect
to the rest of the panel. This is possible since adjacent bricks along
the same course have to be removed. This in situ testing technique
has the advantage of being less destructive, less time-consuming
and more economical than direct shear-compression or diagonal
compression tests on masonry portions. However, its suitability
is limited to those cases where masonry wall shear strength is gov-
erned by shear strength of the mortar joints rather than shear
capacity of the bricks [21]. As pointed out in the cited standard,
the proposed method for measuring mortar joint shear strength
tends to overestimate the actual masonry wall shear strength,
which can be derived from the former by making use of an empir-
ical relationship [21].
An alternative technique, requiring only moderately destructive
samples that can be easily core-drilled from existing masonries
[6,8,10], consists of subjecting to splitting test masonry cores with
a rotated mortar joint [13,22,23]. The method is based on the idea
that in a core (made of two bricks and a central diametrical mortar
joint) subjected to a splitting test, with the mortar layer rotated by
45° with respect to horizontal, the stress state in the centre of the
mortar joint will be a mixed compression–shear stress state, which
resembles that of a masonry panel subjected to a diagonal com-
pression test [13,22]. Then, by projecting the failure pressure (ob-
tained by dividing the failure load by the mortar layer area) in the
two directions orthogonal and parallel to the mortar layer, the
respective stress states can be derived.
The first experimental studies, aimed at evaluating the suitabil-
ity of using splitting test on cores with a rotated mortar layer for
evaluating masonry shear strength, pointed out that the nominal
shear strength of cores was about 1.5–1.9 times the nominal shear
 C. Mazzotti et al. / Construction and Building Materials 54 (2014) 421–431
strength of reference masonry panels, tested by diagonal compres-
sion [22]. The difference between the cores and the panels was
found to vary as a function of the mortar type, the curing time
and the failure mode. This was explained considering that, even
if the load that first initiates the crisis is basically the same for
cores and panels, the failure loads are different. In the panels, the
failure load is practically the same as the load initiating the crisis,
while in the cores the peripheral zones of the mortar layer are
characterized by a stress state that is far from the one leading to
failure. As significant reserves of resistance are present in these lat-
eral parts of the cores, a significant load increase after crisis initia-
tion is possible before failure is reached [22,23].
Further studies were aimed at generalizing the results that can
be obtained by performing the splitting test on cores with a rotated
mortar layer [14,15]. Indeed, by testing multiple cores with differ-
ent mortar layer inclinations (e.g., 30°, 45° and 60°), different com-
pression–shear stress states of the central mortar layer can be
defined. Once different compressions stress/shear stress coordi-
nates are available, the Mohr’s circles corresponding to the differ-
ent inclinations can be defined and the interpolating failure
envelope can be determined [14]. In this way, it is in theory possi-
ble to predict the masonry shear strength for each value of com-
pression stress, including the case when no compression stress is
present.
When cores with the central mortar layer rotated by different
inclinations are tested, the stress state in the center of the mortar
layer is generally assumed as being shear-compression in the
Fig. 1. Masonry panels used for shear-compression test: (a) scheme of panel geometry and (b) photo of a panel at the end of construction.
Fig. 2. Masonry panel used for core-drilling: (a) scheme of panel geometry and core-drilling points and (b) photo of the panel at the end of construction.
423
planes parallel to the mortar layer and pure shear in the orthogonal
planes (shear and compression values varying as a function of mor-
tar layer inclination) [13,14]. However, along the direction perpen-
dicular to the joint, where pure shear is assumed, the confinement
exerted by the surrounding mortar is neglected. Consequently, for
a more accurate estimation, the mortar confining effect has
recently been investigated [15]. By finite element modeling, the
confinement was estimated, for different inclinations of the mortar
layer, as a function of Poisson’s ratio. As confinement reaches
remarkable values (about 20–30% of the compression stress,
depending on mortar layer inclination), the resulting Mohr’s circles
are reduced in dimension and shifted in the direction of the max-
imum compression stress, compared to Mohr’s circles neglecting
the confining effect [15]. However, what value of Poisson’s ratio,
that changes during compression test, should be used for assessing
the confining effect of the mortar layer is still matter of
investigation.
3. Materials and methods
In the present investigation, the following materials and methods were used.
3.1. Bricks
Fired-clay solid bricks, having 25  12  5.5 cm3 nominal dimensions, were
used. The bricks were selected because of their relatively low mechanical proper-
ties, suitably resembling the characteristics of bricks used in historical buildings.
424 C. Mazzotti et al. / Construction and Building Materials 54 (2014) 421–431

Fig. 3. Photos of (a) the masonry panel after rotation and (b, c) an example of cylindrical core.

Fig. 4. Shear-compression test: (a) scheme of the testing equipment; (b) photo of a panel ready for testing; (c) detail of the shear loading point and (d) detail of a LVDT used
for measuring horizontal displacement.

3.2. Mortar 3.3. Masonry samples

A ready-mixed lime-cement mortar (classified as M5 according to EN 998-2
[24]) was used. The mortar was selected because its binder/aggregate ratio (about
1:6 in weight) and the water/binder ratio recommended in the technical data sheet
(about 1.3 in weight) are such as to achieve poor mechanical properties, in agree-
ment with mortar characteristics reported in the literature for historical buildings
[25].
In order to carry out a systematic comparison between masonry shear strength
measured with destructive techniques and from cores, nine masonry panels for
shear-compression test and one masonry panel for core-drilling were constructed,
using bricks and mortar described above. All the panels were constructed on the
same day by expert workmanship, employing traditional construction techniques.
In particular, the bricks were immersed in water for 10 min before they were used

Fig. 5. Splitting test with mortar joint rotation: (a) core with 45° and (b) core with 15° rotation.
 C. Mazzotti et al. / Construction and Building Materials 54 (2014) 421–431 425

for masonry construction, with the aim of avoiding that dry bricks absorb water
from the fresh mortar, thus significantly altering its water/binder ratio. After
10 min of immersion, the average brick water absorption was 13.9 wt%, which
was about 80% of the average water absorption after complete saturation, that is
17.9 wt%.

3.3.1. Masonry panels for direct-shear test

The nine panels had nominal dimensions 51.0  31.5  12.0 cm3
(length  height  thickness), corresponding to a two-brick length, five-brick
course height and one-leaf thickness, considering 10 mm thick nominal mortar
joints (Fig. 1a). The measured final thickness of the mortar joints actually ranged
between 10 and 15 mm. The dimensions of the panels were designed to fulfill the
requirements of EN 1052-3 [16]. For ensuring, during the tests, a good stress distri-
bution and a good contact between the panels and the platens of the loading ma-
chine used for applying compression load (cf. Section 3.4.2), two steel plates
(5 mm thickness) were placed under and above the masonry panels, a mortar layer
being inserted between the panel and the plates (Fig. 1b). The nine masonry panels
were cured under laboratory conditions (approximately 20 °C and 50% RH) for
28 days before testing.

3.3.2. Masonry panel for core-drilling

The tenth masonry panel was purposely constructed for core-drilling. The panel
had nominal dimensions 103  129  25 cm3 (length  height  thickness), corre-
sponding to a four-brick length, twenty-brick course height and two-leaf thickness,
considering 10 mm thick nominal mortar joints; it was constructed according to the
Ancient bond (Fig. 2a). Also in this case, the measured final thickness of the mortar
joint was between 10 and 15 mm. To facilitate the core-drilling operation, it was
planned to rotate the masonry panel by 90° before proceeding with the extraction
of cores. To avoid cracking, a pre-compression stress was applied to the panel be-
fore rotation. Once in the horizontal position (Fig. 3a), the wall was core-drilled
according to the scheme reported in Fig. 2a. Thirty-six identical cores (10 cm diam-
eter, 25 cm length), having a central diametric mortar layer only, were core-drilled
(Fig. 3b); in particular, each core was composed by a continuous element on one
side of the horizontal mortar layer and by two half elements on the opposite side
of the same layer, mutually facing a thin vertical mortar layer (Fig. 3c). The curing
conditions of the masonry panel, before core-drilling, and those of the cores, after
core-drilling, were exactly the same as those of the panel described in the previous
section. All the cores were tested 28 days after the construction of the original
panel.

3.4. Testing procedures

3.4.1. Bricks and mortar

The brick compressive strength (fbc) was measured according to European Stan-
dard EN 772-1 [26] on 6 cubic samples (50 mm side), obtained from 3 bricks by
sawing. The specimens were tested using an Amsler universal machine (load capac-
ity 120 kN), by loading them along the same direction as bricks are loaded inside
the walls.
The mortar flexural strength (fmf) and compressive strength (fmc) were mea-
sured according to EN 1015-11 [27] on 6 prismatic samples (40  40  160 mm3
– width  height  length), prepared during the construction of the masonry

Table 1
Results of brick and mortar mechanical characterization (fbc = brick compressive
strength; fmf = mortar flexural strength; fmc = mortar compressive strength;
C.o.V. = coefficient of variation). The values are averages for 6 samples.

Bricks Mortars Fig. 6. Graphs illustrating shear load against horizontal displacement of the nine
masonry panels, tested for different nominal compressive stress values: (a) 0.2 MPa,
fbc (MPa) C.o.V. (%) fmf (MPa) C.o.V. (%) fmc (MPa) C.o.V. (%) (b) 0.6 MPa and (c) 1.0 MPa.
19.3 6.1 2.8 6.7 7.8 5.1
panels. After curing for 28 days in a climatic chamber (20 °C and 98% RH), mortar
prisms were tested in flexure (three point bending) and compression using an Ams-
ler universal machine (load capacity 100 kN).
Table 2
Results of the shear-compression tests on the nine masonry panels (Fc = compression
load; Fv = shear load; A = cross section; rc = compressive stress; fv = shear stress). 3.4.2. Masonry panels
The nine masonry panels were subjected to shear-compression test according
2
Panel name Fc (kN) Fv (kN) A (mm ) rc (MPa) fv (MPa) to EN 1052-3 [16]. Compression axial load was applied and kept constant using a
P1 12.9 36.0 58812 0.22 0.31 Metrocom loading machine (maximum load 4000 kN); three specimens were tested
P2 16.1 49.4 58140 0.28 0.42 for each of the following compression axial stress values: 0.2 MPa, 0.6 MPa, 1.0 MPa,
P3 11.1 35.6 58928 0.19 0.30 according to cited standard. Shear load was applied by means of a purposely
P4 36.9 79.5 59787 0.62 0.66 designed loading equipment (Fig. 4a), composed of a ribbed steel plate (20 mm
P5 38.5 80.6 59160 0.65 0.68 thick) at one side of the specimen, two steel plates (20 mm thick) at the other side
P6 37.8 84.2 58075 0.65 0.73 of the specimen, four threaded steel rods (20 mm diameter) connecting the plates at
P7 61.0 115.9 58650 1.04 0.99 the two sides of the specimen and a hydraulic ram between the ribbed plate and the
P8 61.0 111.9 58650 1.04 0.95 masonry panel (Fig. 4b–c). The hydraulic ram was positioned so as to load exclu-
P9 59.9 95.6 58650 1.02 0.82 sively the central brick course, a 30 mm thick steel plate being inserted between
the ram and the brick to properly distribute the load (Fig. 4c). The two plates at
426 C. Mazzotti et al. / Construction and Building Materials 54 (2014) 421–431

the other side of the panel acted as contrasts, being anchored to the upper and low-
er brick courses and leaving the central course free to slip horizontally. The horizon-
tal displacement of the central brick course, with respect to the lower one, was
measured by means of two displacement transducers, one at each side of the panel
(Fig. 4d). The shear-compression test was articulated as follow: in the first phase
the compression axial stress was applied and kept constant at the prescribed level
then, in the second phase, the shear load was increased at a prescribed rate of
2 kN/s up to failure, due to relative slip of a brick course with respect to the others
(above and below).

3.4.3. Masonry cores

The masonry cores were subjected to splitting test using an Amsler universal
machine (load capacity 120 kN, adopted loading rate 0.2 kN/s). To apply the load
along two opposite longitudinal lines and prevent possible irregularities on core lat-
eral surface from causing stress accumulation, two wood stripes (5 mm thick,
15 mm width) were inserted between the loading platens and the cores (Fig. 5).
Twenty-two cores were tested in total. The cores were rotated so that the mortar
joint was inclined by the following angles, with respect to the horizontal reference:
0° (3 specimens), 15° (5 specimens), 30° (5 specimens), 40° (2 specimens), 45° (5
specimens), 50° (2 specimens).
Fig. 8. Graph illustrating shear strength against compressive stress of the nine
masonry panels: by linear regression, the masonry initial shear strength (fv0) and
4. Results and discussion the angle of internal friction (u) were obtained.

4.1. Bricks and mortar

have medium compressive strength (fbc = 19.3 MPa), which is
The results of brick and mortar mechanical characterization (at however significantly higher than that of mortar (fmc = 7.8 MPa).
the time of masonry panels testing) are reported in Table 1. Bricks Materials used for masonry panels construction hence proved to

Fig. 7. Photos of four representative masonry panels after shear-compression test at different nominal compressive stress: (P1 and P2) 0.2 MPa; (P4) 0.6 MPa and (P9)
1.0 MPa.
 C. Mazzotti et al. / Construction and Building Materials 54 (2014) 421–431 427

be suitable for resembling bricks and mortar used in historical

buildings, where masonry shear strength is usually limited by shear
strength of mortar, which is the weakest constitutive material.

4.2. Masonry panels

The results of the shear-compression tests of the nine masonry

panels (labeled P1 to P9) are reported in Table 2; while the com-
pressive axial stress (rc) was computed according to the conven-
tional approach, the shear strength (fv) was calculated according
to the formula:
fv ¼ F v =2A
where Fv is the shear load and A is the cross section of the specimen;
introduction of twice the cross-section is necessary since the sliding
brick course is supposed to have relative displacement with respect
to both the lower and upper courses. The graphs showing the shear
load against the horizontal relative displacement are reported in
Fig. 6a–c, respectively for the three axial stress levels considered
(in growing order).
In all the cases, failure occurred at the brick–mortar interface, as
bricks slid over the mortar layer, while no horizontal cracking
within the mortar layer or in the bricks occurred. In most cases,
the central brick course slid horizontally with respect to the adja-
cent mortar layers (P1 in Fig. 7), but in some cases the mortar lay-
ers slid together with the central brick course (P2 in Fig. 7). In
almost all the cases, independently of the compression level, the
mortar joints adjacent to the central brick course were affected
by vertical cracks that crossed the mortar layer, so that the loss
of adhesion between bricks and mortar started at one interface
of the mortar layer (e.g. the lower interface), then a vertical crack
formed across the mortar and the loss of adhesion continued on
the other interface of the mortar layer (e.g. the upper interface)
(P1, P4 and P9 in Fig. 7).
In the case of P1, after the first horizontal displacement of the
central brick course, an increase of the compression load was reg-
istered, which caused a corresponding increase of the shear load.
However, for evaluating the shear resistance of the panel, the com-
pression and shear loads corresponding to the first horizontal dis-
placement only were considered (Table 2).
Fig. 9. Scheme illustrating how the compressive stress (fc) and shear stress (fv) have
been calculated, for different angles of mortar layer inclination (a), by dividing the
failure load (F) by the mortar layer area (A) and projecting along the directions
ð1Þ
parallel and perpendicular to the mortar layer.
According to the method described in EN 1052-4 [16] and by
considering a Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion, from the results of
the shear-compression tests of the nine masonry panels the shear
strength without axial force (fvo) and the angle of internal friction
(u) of the masonry were derived. In particular, by plotting the
shear capacity fv of each panel as a function of the prescribed axial
stress rc (Fig. 8) and then performing a linear regression of the
corresponding points, the following results were obtained:
fvo = 0.20 MPa and u = 36°. The correlation index R2 = 0.95 is very
high, confirming the good quality and repeatability of results.
4.3. Masonry cores
The results of the splitting tests on cores with different mortar
layer inclinations are reported in Table 3, where the axial stress at
failure rc and the shear capacity fv have been calculated according
to the formulas:
rc ¼ ðF=AÞ  cos a ð2Þ
fv ¼ ðF=AÞ  sin a; ð3Þ
where F is the failure load, A is the area of the mortar layer and a is
the mortar layer inclination, with respect to the horizontal reference
(Fig. 9). The proposed approach derives from some simple hypothe-
ses: (a) the failure mode is supposed to be a sliding movement at
the brick-mortar interface, (b) the applied concentrated force F can

Table 3
Results of splitting tests on cores with different mortar layer inclination (F = failure load; A = mortar layer area; rc = compressive stress; fv = shear stress).

Mortar layer rotation Core name F (kN) A (mm2) rc (MPa) fv (MPa) Failure mode
0° C1 41.0 23,655 – – Splitting
C2 48.0 23,406 – – Splitting
C3 55.6 23,250 – – Splitting
15° C4 50.0 23,688 2.04 0.55 Splitting (+sliding)
C5 48.8 23,406 2.01 0.54 Splitting
C6 47.5 23,250 1.97 0.53 Splitting
C7 40.0 23,312 1.66 0.44 Splitting
C8 48.5 23,312 2.01 0.54 Splitting
30° C9 44.0 23,312 1.63 0.94 Sliding
C10 45.0 23,312 1.67 0.97 Splitting (+sliding)
C11 41.5 23,655 1.52 0.88 Splitting (+sliding)
C12 34.5 23,406 1.28 0.74 Splitting (+sliding)
C13 53.5 23,064 2.01 1.16 Splitting (+sliding)
40° C14 50.7 23,360 1.66 1.40 Sliding (+splitting)
C15 47.3 22,506 1.61 1.35 Sliding (+splitting)
45° C16 31.8 23,406 0.96 0.96 Splitting
C17 23.8 23,218 0.72 0.72 Sliding (+splitting)
C18 33.0 23,500 0.99 0.99 Sliding
C19 35.0 23,406 1.06 1.06 Sliding
C20 27.0 23,406 0.82 0.82 Sliding (+splitting)
50° C21 12.7 23,406 0.35 0.42 Sliding
C22 11.5 23,406 0.32 0.38 Sliding
428 C. Mazzotti et al. / Construction and Building Materials 54 (2014) 421–431

Fig. 10. Photos of six representative cores (one for each mortar layer inclination), where different failure modes can be observed: splitting is the essential failure
mechanism for cores tested with mortar layer inclinations of 0°, 15° and 30°, while sliding becomes significant and progressively predominant for cores tested at 40°, 45°
and 50°.
 C. Mazzotti et al. / Construction and Building Materials 54 (2014) 421–431
be uniformly distributed along the whole interface, (c) the obtained
stresses do not describe the internal state of stress of the mortar but
they are strictly related and applied to the interface.
As reported in Table 3 and shown in Fig. 10 (where a represen-
tative case for each mortar layer inclination is illustrated), cores
tested with increasing inclination exhibited a progressive decrease
in the failure load and a modification in the failure mode. In partic-
ular, as far cores tested at 0°, 15° and 30° are concerned, a reduc-
tion of the average failure load from 48.2 kN to 43.7 kN was
observed. As a consequence of the increasing mortar layer rotation,
compressive and shear stress components at failure were modified
as well: shear stress, which is absent in the case of 0° rotation, in-
creased to 0.52 MPa and 0.94 MPa for inclinations of 15° and 30°;
correspondingly, compressive stress decreased from 2.06 MPa for
0° rotation to 1.94 MPa and 1.62 MPa for 15° and 30° rotations.
All the cores tested with the horizontal mortar layer exhibited a
typical splitting failure mode (vertical crack), as expected in the
case of a standard tensile splitting test (Fig. 10). Because of the
increasing mortar layer rotation, cores tested with a = 15° and
30° exhibited a progressive modification of the failure mode to-
wards sliding, even though splitting remained the main failure
mechanism. As illustrated in Fig. 10, cores tested at 15° and, to a
larger extent, at 30° exhibited, on the one side of the core, a partial
sliding at the brick-mortar interface, and, at the opposite side of
the core, a semi-vertical crack, typical of the splitting failure mode.
This type of failure has been classified as mix-mode failure.
As mortar layer inclination increases to 40°, 45° and 50°, the
shear stress component becomes progressively predominant over
the compression one (Table 3). It is noteworthy that the average
failure load at 40° (49.0 kN) is higher than that at 30° (43.7 kN),
so that also the resulting compressive and shear stress components
are higher at 40° (1.64 and 1.37 MPa, respectively) than at 30°
(1.62 and 0.94 MPa, respectively). This is due to the different fail-
ure mechanisms leading to crisis in the two cases: while for mortar
layer rotation of 30° the failure mode is mainly splitting, which in-
volves tensile strength of materials, for cores tested at 40° sliding
at the interface level is predominant (Fig. 10). As mortar layer is
further rotated, the failure load progressively decreases, while
the shear component equals the compression one at 45° and then
becomes predominant at 50° (Table 3). All these cases presented a
failure mode characterized by the sliding of most of the brick-mor-
tar interface, as observed during the shear-compression tests on
masonry panels.
For every test, the corresponding axial and shear stresses at fail-
ure were reported in the r–s plane (Fig. 11), as already done for
Fig. 11. Graph illustrating shear strength against compressive stress of the twenty-
two cores: points corresponding to different mortar layer inclinations a are aligned
along straight lines, whose slope corresponds to the tangent of a.
429
Fig. 12. Graph illustrating the mean values of shear strength and compressive
stress of cores tested with mortar layer inclinations of 40°, 45° and 50°: by linear
regression, the masonry initial shear strength (fv0) and the angle of internal friction
(u) were obtained.
masonry panels. Since the stress components in this case are not
independent but come from the projection of a unique force onto
an inclined plane and onto its normal, all data coming from speci-
mens tested according to the same inclination of the mortar layer
belong to the same straight line (dashed lines in Fig. 11); this
means that the ratio s/r would be constant for all these points
and it also represents the angle of rotation of the mortar layer.
The data points corresponding to cores tested according to an
inclination of 50°, 45° and 40° exhibit a progressive increase of
both shear and compression components, while cores tested at
30° and 15° layer inclination exhibit only a slight increase in com-
pression stress, together with a decrease in shear stress. This is the
direct consequence of the different failure mode (splitting instead
of sliding). Because of the different failure mechanism, cores tested
at 30° and 15° layer inclination were considered as not fully signif-
icant for evaluating masonry shear resistance. Indeed, since failure
occurs because of brick and mortar splitting, as a consequence of
the tensile stresses that arise in the materials, no significant infor-
mation can be obtained about the shear strength of the brick-mor-
tar interface or of the mortar layer itself. For this reason, to
determine masonry shear strength, in the present work only cores
tested with 40°, 45° and 50° mortar layer inclination were taken
into account. In particular, the mean value for every considered
angle was reported in Fig. 12 and a best fit procedure allowed to
Fig. 13. Graph illustrating the match between results obtained from reference
panels and cores.
430 C. Mazzotti et al. / Construction and Building Materials 54 (2014) 421–431
Fig. 14. Scheme and detail photo illustrating the possible failure mode, character-
ized by brick wedge detachment, occurring for 60° rotation.
obtain the governing parameters of the Mohr–Coulomb failure
criterion, namely fv0 = 0.18 MPa and u = 37°. The obtained
values exhibit a very good agreement with those determined from
the masonry panels through direct compression–shear tests
(Fig. 13).
In the light of the results coming from the best fit process, the
suitability of taking into account only cores tested at 50°, 45° and
40° is confirmed and circumstantiated by the following consider-
ations. For each mortar layer inclination a, the points in the r–s
plot are aligned along a straight line r, whose slope corresponds
to the tangent of a (Fig. 11). This line r intersects the Mohr–Cou-
lomb failure criterion calibrated with data coming from direct
shear-compression tests on masonry panels (taken as reference)
in one point, near which the data points corresponding to cores
tested for that mortar layer inclination a are expected to be found
(Fig. 13). As the mortar layer inclination a decreases, the intersec-
tion point has r–s coordinates that become higher and higher, un-
til the limit angle of mortar layer inclination a0 = u is reached. For
this limit case, no intersection point exists, since the mortar layer
inclination line and the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion line com-
ing from the panels are parallel. In the present study, the angle of
internal friction found by shear-compression tests on masonry
panels is u = 36° (Fig. 8). Therefore, no cores tested with a mortar
layer inclination a lower than 36° can be useful for evaluating ma-
sonry shear resistance, as the corresponding r–s coordinates do
not intersect the failure line of the panels. In the light of the above
reported considerations, the opportunity of not taking into account
results obtained for cores tested at 30° and 15° layer inclination,
after the failure mode remarks (splitting in place of sliding), is con-
firmed also in terms of mechanical aspects. As a general remark,
based also on other similar on-site experiences not reported here,
a minimum mortar layer inclination of 40° is always suggested. As
for the upper limit, tests with a mortar layer inclination larger than
60° exhibited a failure mode driven by the detachment of a brick
wedge just below the strip where the force was applied, more than
due to sliding (Fig. 14). With so large inclination, in fact, forces are
applied very near to the edges of the bricks portions, producing
strong localization of stresses.
More complex, and out of the scope of the present paper, is the
definition of a suitable range of mortar layer inclinations for those
methods [13–15] that propose using force values obtained from
cores tested at various inclinations (including mortar compressive
strength, i.e. 0°) to define shear/axial compression stresses inside
the mortar layer along different orientations; in those cases, the
corresponding Mohr’s circles can then be used to derive a general
linear or non-linear failure envelope.
From the experience gained from the present experimental
campaign, some important remarks can be done, to be carefully
considered for further applications:
(i) Since all the cores tested for a given mortar layer rotation a
are aligned along a straight line (on the r–s plane), that has
a slope corresponding to tan a and crosses the origin, at least
three different mortar layer inclinations should be consid-
ered and tested, so that the corresponding points on the
r–s plane cover a sufficient range of compression and shear
stress;
(ii) In order to ensure that results are statistically significant,
several cores should be tested for each mortar layer rotation,
so that the natural scattering of results could be controlled;
moreover, only the mean values for each inclination should
be used.
(iii) Since masonries subjected to shear loads may exhibit differ-
ent failure modes (i.e., sliding at the brick-mortar interface,
cracking and sliding within the mortar layer or cracking of
the bricks), further experimental studies in laboratory condi-
tions seem necessary to evaluate whether different failure
mechanisms may influence the capability of the proposed
methodology to suitably predict masonry shear resistance.
5. Conclusions
In the present study, the suitability of using results obtained
from splitting tests on cores with an inclined mortar layer for
determining masonry shear strength was evaluated. In this frame-
work, the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion was considered as a cri-
terion able to describe the shear failure of the masonry, which
would be then characterized by the initial shear strength without
axial stress fv0 and by the angle of internal friction u. Reference
values of these parameters were obtained by subjecting reference
masonry panels to shear-compression test, according to EN 1052-
4 [16]; at the same time, a number of masonry cores were tested
with mortar layer inclinations of 40°, 45° and 50°. By plotting shear
stress against compression stress for each tested core and then per-
forming a linear regression, the initial shear strength and the angle
of internal friction of the masonry were derived. A very good agree-
ment between results obtained from the reference masonry walls
and those obtained from the cores was found, which suggests that
the proposed methodology is a very promising technique for
assessing masonry shear strength by means of moderately destruc-
tive testing.
As masonries subjected to shear loads may experience different
failure modes, depending on the mechanical characteristics of the
bricks and mortar, as well as on the adhesion at the brick-mortar
interface, further experimental studies employing different consti-
tuting materials seem necessary, to evaluate whether different fail-
ure mechanisms may influence the suitability of the proposed
methodology. Such work is currently in progress.
Acknowledgements
The financial support of Emilia-Romagna Region (POR-FESR
funds) is gratefully acknowledged. The technicians of the Labora-
tory of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering (LISG), especially
Mr. Davide Betti, are gratefully acknowledged for collaboration.
References
[1] Grasso S, Maugeri M. The road map for seismic risk analysis in a mediterranean
city. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2009;29(6):1034–45.
[2] Casolo S, Miliani G, Uva G, Alessandrini C. Comparative seismic vulnerability
analysis on ten masonry towers in the coastal po valley in Italy. Eng Struct
2013;49:465–90.
 C. Mazzotti et al. / Construction and Building Materials 54 (2014) 421–431
[3] Lourenço PB, Roque JA. Simplified indexes for the seismic vulnerability of
ancient masonry buildings. Const Build Mater 2006;20:200–8.
[4] Mallardo V, Malvezzi R, Milani E, Milani G. Seismic vulnerability of historical
masonry buildings: a case study in Ferrara. Eng Struct 2008;30:2223–41.
[5] Augusti G, Ciompoli M, Giovenale P. Seismic vulnerability of monumental
buildings. Struct Saf 2001;23:253–74.
[6] Binda L, Saisi A, Tiraboschi C. Investigation procedures for the diagnosis of
historic masonries. Const Build Mater 2000;14:199–233.
[7] Corradi M, Borri A, Vignoli A. Experimental study on the determination of
strength of masonry walls. Const Build Mater 2003;17:325–37.
[8] Brencich A, Sabia D. Experimental identification of a multi-span masonry
bridge: the tanaro bridge. Const Build Mater 2008;22:2087–99.
[9] Sassoni E, Mazzotti C. The use of small diameter cores for assessing the
compressive strength of clay brick masonries. J Cult Herit 2013;14S:e95–e101.
[10] Sassoni E, Mazzotti C, Pagliai G, Comparison between experimental methods
for evaluating the compressive strength of existing masonry buildings,
submitted to Materials and Structures.
[11] Eurocode 6, UNI ENV 1996-1-1, Design of masonry structures – Part 1-1:
General rules for buildings – rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry;
1998.
[12] D.M. 14/01/2008 (Decreto del Ministero delle Infrastrutture 14 gennaio 2008),
Approvazione delle nuove norme tecniche per le costruzioni; 2008 [in Italian].
[13] Benedetti A, Pelà L, Aprile A. Masonry properties determination via splitting
tests on cores with a rotated mortar layer. In: Proceedings of ‘‘8th international
seminar on structural masonry’’, Istanbul (Turkey); 5–7 November 2008.
[14] Benedetti A, Pelà L. Experimental characterization of mortar by testing on
small specimens. In: Proceedings of ‘‘15th international brick and block
masonry conference’’, Florianòpolis (Brazil); 13–16 May 2012.
[15] Pelà L, Benedetti A, Marastoni D. Interpretation of experimental tests on small
specimens of historical mortars. In: Proceedings of 8th international
conference on structural analysis of historical construction, Wroclaw
(Poland); 15–17 October 2012.
431
[16] EN 1052-4, Methods of test for masonry – Part 4: determination of shear
strength including damp proof course; 2001.
[17] ASTM E519/519M-10, Standard test method for diagonal tension (shear) in
masonry assemblages; 2010.
[18] Alecci V, Fagone M, Rotunno T, De Stefano M. Shear strength of brick masonry
walls assembled with different types of mortar. Const Build Mater
2013;40:1038–45.
[19] EN 1052-3, Methods of test for masonry – Part 3: determination of initial shear
strength; 2007.
[20] Gentilini C, Franzoni E, Bandini S, Nobile L. Effect of salt crystallization on the
shear behaviour of masonry walls: an experimental study. Const Build Mater
2012;37:181–9.
[21] ASTM C1531-09, Standard test method for in situ measurement of masonry
mortar shear strength index; 2009.
[22] Braga F, Dolce M, Masi A. Interpretazione statistica di prove sperimentali per
l’accertamento della resistenza a taglio della muratura di edifici esistenti, 6°
Convegno Nazionale ‘‘L’ingegneria sismica in Italia’’; Perugia (Italy); 13–15
Ottobre 1993 [in Italian].
[23] Filardi B, Liberatore D. Una nuova prova di carico per determinare la resistenza
a taglio della muratura: modellazione e analisi parametrica, Atti del Convegno
Nazionale ‘‘La meccanica della muratura tra teoria e progetto’’, Messina (Italy);
18–20 Settembre 1996 [in Italian].
[24] EN 998-2, Specification for mortar for masonry – Part 2: masonry mortar;
2010.
[25] Augenti N. Il calcolo sismico degli edifici in muratura, UTET, Torino; 2004 [in
Italian].
[26] EN 772-1, Methods of test for masonry units - determination of compressive
strength; 2002.
[27] EN 1015-11, Methods of test for mortar for masonry – Part 11: determination
of flexural and compressive strength of hardened mortar; 2007.