Technical Note

Effect of Brick Prewetting on Masonry Bond Strength

Santosini Sahu 1; Peri Raghava Ravi Teja 2; Pradip Sarkar 3; and Robin Davis 4

Abstract: Masonry walls resist both in-plane and out-of-plane forces through the bond between the brick unit and mortar. Moisture content
or saturation level of the brick unit at the time of construction is one of the key contributing factors in bond strength. Absorption of water from
mortar by brick alters the development of a mechanical key that establishes the bond strength. In this study, the effect of the moisture content
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of bricks, at the time of construction, on shear and tensile bond strength is investigated for fired clay and fly ash bricks. The results of this
study indicate that around a 75% saturation level of the brick unit yields the highest values of shear and tensile bond strength of clay and fly
ash brick masonry with cement mortar. Adequate prewetting of brick units at the time of construction will ensure the desired moisture content
and subsequently help to achieve a good bond strength. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002866. © 2019 American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Author keywords: Shear bond strength; Tensile bond strength; Moisture content; Brick masonry.

Introduction both experimental and analytical results. These studies indicated

Masonry construction is considered a primitive and one of the most
common types of building components in the world. Masonry
houses constitute 84.7% of the total housing units in India (Banthia
2001). In addition, masonry is used as infill material in reinforced
concrete or steel framed buildings. Masonry is an indispensable
construction component because of its low cost, easy accessibility
of raw materials, good strength, ease of construction, less supervi-
sion, and excellent sound and heat insulation properties. Strength of
a masonry structure is typically characterized by its compressive
strength, shear bond strength, and tensile bond strength. Shear bond
strength is a measure of the capacity of the brick–mortar joint to
resist in-plane shear loading, while tensile bond strength indicates
its ability to withstand flexural tension.
Many studies are available on the various experimental studies
of the bond behavior of brick masonry. Sarangapani et al. (2005)
have focused on the relationship between shear bond strength and
masonry compressive strength. Reddy and Vyas (2008) have exam-
ined the impact of the bond strength of brick masonry on its stress-
strain characteristics. The study reported that lower bond strength
causes the failure of brick masonry under compression. Earlier
studies (e.g., Thomas 1953; Wood 1958; Mainstone 1962; Liauw
and Kwan 1983; Mehrabi and Shing 1997; Al-Chaar 2002) speci-
fied different failure modes of masonry infilled frames based on
1
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technol-
ogy Rourkela, Rourkela, Odisha 769008, India. Email: santosinisahu62@
gmail.com
2
Formerly, M.Tech. Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National
Institute of Technology Rourkela, Rourkela, Odisha 769008, India. Email:
prraviteja04@gmail.com
3 clay brick (CB) masonry has been investigated (Sathiparan and
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Institute of
Technology Rourkela, Rourkela, Odisha 769008, India (corresponding
author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1031-4479. Email: sarkarp@
nitrkl.ac.in; sarkar.pradip@gmail.com
4
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Institute
of Technology Calicut, Calicut, Kerala 673601, India. Email: robin@
nitc.ac.in
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 8, 2018; approved
on April 15, 2019; published online on July 22, 2019. Discussion period
open until December 22, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This technical note is part of the Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561.
that the bond strength at brick–mortar joints significantly influen-
ces the failure of masonry infilled frames. Numerous experimental
works (e.g., Singh and Munjal 2017; Vermeltfroot 2012; Christy
et al. 2012; Venkatarama Reddy et al. 2007; Venkatarama Reddy
and Gupta 2005; Sarangapani et al. 2005; Taha et al. 2001; Palmer
and Hall 1931) have been conducted on the enhancement of the
flexural, tensile, and shear bond strength of load-bearing brick
masonry by improving the brick and mortar properties. Various
techniques, for example, varying the dimension and shape of frogs,
making the bed surface texture rough, and applying special surface
coatings, have been used to improve brick properties. Similarly,
materials and their mixing proportion have been altered for mortar
strength improvement. The initial rate of absorption of brick units
and the water retentivity of mortar were found to have a significant
impact on the bond strength of brick masonry. The experimental
investigation done by Samarasinghe and Lawrence (1992) shows
that triplets prepared with prewetted brick units have higher bond
strength than those prepared with dry brick units. The effect of
brick prewetting time on the tensile bond strength of masonry
has been reported in many studies (e.g., Venkatarama Reddy and
Gupta 2005; Sinha 1967). Pavia and Hanley (2010) examined the
impact of hydraulicity, water content, workability, and water reten-
tion of lime mortar to achieve higher flexural bond strength. Forth
et al. (2000) investigated the effect of brick unit water absorption on
long-term movements of masonry. Franzoni et al. (2014, 2015) in-
vestigated the compressive strength and shear strength of masonry
prisms with cement and lime-based mortar subject to dry and wet
states. Outcomes demonstrate that moisture condition and mortar
type have a significant effect on masonry compressive and shear
strength. The effect of moisture condition on the strengths of fired
Rumeshkumar 2018; Amde et al. 2007) and a significant reduction
in the compressive, shear, and bond strength of brick masonry spec-
imens subjected to a wet state was observed in comparison with the
air-dry state. A study conducted by Yorkdale (1982) revealed that
mortar type has a greater effect on the flexural bond strength than
the initial rate of absorption of a clay brick.
It is clear from the foregoing discussion that the brick saturation
level at the time of masonry construction plays a vital role in the
development of bond strength. The necessity of prewetting bricks
before masonry construction is mentioned in some studies. All of

© ASCE 06019009-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2019, 31(10): 06019009

 Table 1. Physical properties of clay brick (CB) and fly ash brick (FAB)
Compressive
IRA (kg=m2 =min) WA (%) Dry density (kN=m3 ) strength (MPa)
Statistic CB FAB CB FAB CB FAB CB FAB
Mean 3.84 4.97 16.69 16.79 15.39 15.39 7.61 5.45
Standard deviation 1.30 1.24 1.75 2.87 0.66 0.83 1.49 1.49
Coefficient of variation 0.34 0.25 0.11 0.17 0.04 0.05 0.19 0.28
Note: IRA = initial rate of absorption; and WA = water absorption.

the studies on masonry bond strength reported here considered fired (eastern India) and used in the present study. Fly ash bricks were
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

clay brick masonry. An extensive literature review revealed no prepared based on Indian industry practices using fly ash, sand, and
similar studies for fly ash brick (FAB) masonry. Palmer and Hall cement at a proportion of 60∶30∶10 (fly ash:sand:cement) by
(1931) studied compressed clay block–lime mortar masonry and weight. The physical properties of both the CB and the FAB used
reported superior durability of the bond at 80% block saturation. in the present study are evaluated and presented in Table 1. The fine
However, no conclusive results were obtained by Palmer and Hall aggregate used in this study was natural river sand with a specific
(1931) on the bond strength. Rao et al. (1996) and Venkatarama gravity of 2.68, a fineness modulus of 2.2, and water absorption
Reddy and Gupta (2005) showed a relation between flexural of 0.8% (by weight). The particle size gradation of the natural sand
bond strength of fired clay brick and soil–cement block masonry conforming to ASTM C144-18 (ASTM 2018) is presented in
specimens with the moisture content of masonry units based on Table 2. Portland slag cement with a specific gravity of 2.95 was
experimental studies. A similar investigation for shear bond used to prepare the masonry mortar. Three different grades of the
strength—the most critical masonry property—for fired clay and mortars CM1 (weak mortar with a cement-to-sand ratio of 1∶6),
fly ash brick masonry is not reported in the published literature. CM2 (medium mortar with a cement-to-sand ratio of 1∶4.5), and
Therefore, the main objective of this paper is to study the influence CM3 (strong mortar with a cement-to-sand ratio of 1∶3) were used
of brick saturation level, during construction, on the shear and ten- in this study. The mortar compressive strength was obtained by test-
sile bond strength of fired clay and fly ash brick masonry forms. ing standard 50-mm cubes as per ASTM C-109 (ASTM 2016), as
shown in Table 3.
Stack bonded masonry triplets were used for the shear bond
Research Significance test, while cross-shaped masonry couplets were used for the tensile
The moisture content in brick at the time of construction depends bond test. The specimens were made using three grades (CM1,
on various factors, including weather conditions. The moisture con- CM2, and CM3) of mortar and two types of brick variant (CB,
tent or saturation level of a brick unit at the time of construction FAB). The bricks were joined by a uniform mortar layer of thick-
plays a key role in brick–mortar interactions, which significantly ness 8–10 mm.
affects the development of bond strength. Dry bricks are likely The moisture content of the brick unit prior to construction is
to absorb more water from the mortar, disturbing its hydration the factor of importance in this experiment. The brick units were
process, which will cause a reduction in mortar strength and, ulti- soaked in water for different durations to attain a different percent-
mately, a loss in bond strength. On the other hand, saturated bricks age of saturation moisture content. The saturation moisture content
block pores and prevent water absorption from mortar. This ham- of clay brick and fly ash brick was found to be 16.69% and 16.79%,
pers the establishment of the mechanical connection between brick respectively. Based on the percentage of saturation, the brick units
and mortar, eventually reducing the bond strength. Also, it is a
common practice in the construction industry to use dry bricks
Table 2. Grading of natural sand used to prepare masonry mortar
without prewetting them. Because bond strength is the governing
property that determines the safety of any masonry structure, it is Percentage passing
essential to develop guidelines for appropriate brick saturation or Sieve size (mm) Test result ASTM C144-18 requirements
prewetting level to achieve the desired bond strength. Although a
4.75 100 100
few published studies report on the effects of brick moisture content
2.36 96.3 95–100
on the flexural bond strength of fired clay bricks and soil–cement 1.18 75.5 70–100
blocks, similar studies on shear bond strength and fly ash brick 0.6 44.9 40–75
masonry have not received adequate attention. Shear bond strength 0.3 20.6 10–35
is considered to be the single most important parameter that con- 0.15 3.4 2–15
trols the behavior of brick masonry structure, especially under lat- 0.075 0 0–5
eral load. This paper is the first attempt to quantitatively correlate
shear bond strength with the moisture content of masonry units,
including the properties of fly ash brick masonry.
Table 3. Compressive strength of mortar after 28 days of curing
Mortar grades
Specimen Preparation Property CM1 CM2 CM3
Bricks, cement, and sand are the primary materials used for Cement∶sand 1∶6 1∶4.5 1∶3
the preparation of the masonry specimens used in the experiment Water/cement ratio 0.8 0.55 0.45
here. The constituent materials were tested before preparation of Mean (MPa) 6.96 11.18 22.54
the masonry specimens. Commercially available fired CBs and Standard deviation (MPa) 1.03 1.60 3.19
Coefficient of variation 0.15 0.14 0.14
FABs (230 × 110 × 75 mm) were obtained from Rourkela, Odisha

© ASCE 06019009-2 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2019, 31(10): 06019009

 are categorized into four sets, A, B, C, and D. Each of the sets is
described as follows. Set A represents brick units that are generally
used at a construction site. These bricks are taken directly from a
brick lot and used in masonry construction work without any prior
soaking in water. The moisture content of clay and fly ash bricks in
this set is found to be 4.16% and 4.21%, respectively, which is
around 25% of the saturation moisture content. The source of this
moisture content in brick is possibly the absorption of moisture
from the atmosphere when kept in an open area. Set B represents
brick units with 50% of saturation moisture content. The moisture
content maintained in this set is 8.34% and 8.39% for clay and fly
ash bricks, respectively. The brick units in this set are prewetted to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
using Sets A, B, C, and D of brick units, designated as TA, TB, TC,
and TD, respectively. Immediately after construction, the masonry
triplets were sealed with a moisture-tight bag, and a precompres-
sion force was applied by placing a unit brick on each specimen
(Fig. 2) to help in building better bond strength. After the initial
48 h, the triplets were cured by covering them with wet burlap
at 24°C  8°C. Two days prior to testing, the wet bags were re-
moved and the specimens stored in a dry place. Visible moisture
should not be present on the surface of the specimens at the time of
testing.
Similarly, a total of 72 masonry couplets were made for the ten-
sile bond strength test as per ASTM C952 (ASTM 2012). Masonry

obtain the moisture level. In the case of Set C, the brick units are couplets were prepared using Sets A, B, C, and D bricks, desig-
presoaked in water, and the moisture level is maintained at 75% of nated as CA, CB, CC, and CD, respectively. The couplets were
saturation moisture content (moisture content of 12.52% for clay enclosed by an airtight covering immediately after construction and
brick and 12.58% for fly ash brick). Set D represents fully saturated kept covered for 7 days. The covers were then removed, and the
brick units with 100% saturation moisture content. The duration of couplets were stored in laboratory air at a relative humidity of at
prewetting required to achieve a different level of saturation mois- least 50%. Fig. 3 shows the fly ash masonry specimens constructed
ture content is calculated statistically and presented in Table 4. for the experimental investigation of shear and tensile bonds. Fig. 4
Fig. 1 shows a typical photograph of brick prewetting before speci- shows a schematic representation of the test setup for shear and
men preparation. The prewetting duration and the level of moisture flexural bond testing.
content are not precisely controlled because these are challenging
to follow at a construction site. Also, the prewetting duration de-
termined in this study may vary depending on the level of initial
moisture content and other intrinsic properties of the selected brick,
although the initial moisture content varies based on the weather
and other factors. The procedure adopted in this study is simple
and can be used at a construction site without sophisticated
instruments.
Three masonry specimens were prepared for each combination
of brick variant (CB and FAB), mortar grade (CM1, CM2, and
CM3), and saturation level of bricks (A, B, C, and D). In total,
36 clay brick triplets and 36 fly ash brick triplets were prepared
for the shear bond strength test. Masonry triplets were prepared

Table 4. Mean prewetting duration (in minutes) for different sets of

masonry triplets
Brick saturation level (%) Clay brick Fly ash brick
25 (A) 0 0
50 (B) 5 4
75 (C) 12 8 Fig. 2. Masonry triplet covered by moisture tight bag immediately after
100 (D) 1,440 1,440 construction.

Fig. 1. Brick prewetting before construction: (a) clay brick; and (b) fly ash brick.

© ASCE 06019009-3 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2019, 31(10): 06019009

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Masonry specimens before testing: (a) masonry triplets; and (b) masonry couplets.
Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of masonry specimens with loading and
support condition: (a) shear bond test; and (b) tensile bond test.
Experiment Procedure
Shear Bond Test
Initial shear bond strength was evaluated using the stack bonded
masonry triplet as per BS EN 1052-3 (BSI 2002) without any pre-
compression. The test setup for the shear bond test is shown in
Fig. 5. The vertical movement of the two outer bricks was re-
strained, and the middle brick was unsupported. Vertical force
was applied gradually through a plunger on the central brick by
a universal testing machine until the central brick separated from
the triplet. The point of loading at which the central brick separates
from the triplet is known as failure load. The shear bond strength
was determined by dividing the failure load by twice the surface
area of the brick mortar joint.
Tensile Bond Test
The tensile bond test was conducted using crossed-brick couplets
conforming to ASTM C952. The couplets were tested using a
© ASCE
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2019, 31(10): 06019009
displacement controlled flexure-testing machine with a displace-
ment rate of 1 mm=min. The top brick is supported from the bot-
tom, and the load is applied on both sides of the bottom brick. The
load at which the bottom brick separates from the top brick is noted
as failure load. The testing arrangement is shown in Fig. 6. The
tensile bond strength of the masonry specimen was determined
by dividing the failure load by the contact area of both bricks.
Test Results
The shear bond strength values of the laboratory-constructed CB
and FAB masonry assemblages are presented in Tables 5 and 6 re-
spectively for different sets of brick saturation level. The data are
also presented in Figs. 7 and 8 in the form of bar charts. The result
shows that the shear bond strength of triplets constructed with
CM3 mortar is highest, followed by CM2 and CM1 mortar grades.
The observed result supports the accepted fact that the higher the
strength of the mortar, the higher the shear bond strength of the
masonry. As the brick saturation level increases, the shear bond
strength of both CB and FAB masonry triplets is found to increase
up to the saturation level of 75% (Set C). Further increase of the
brick saturation level results in a decrease of the shear bond
strength of both CB and FAB masonry triplets. It can be seen from
Table 5 that if the saturation level of the clay brick units increases
from 25% to 50%, the shear bond strength values increase by 27%–
35%. The shear bond strength values further increased by around
25% for the increase of brick saturation level from 50% to 75%.
A decrease in shear bond strength values is observed for further
increase in brick saturation level. The shear bond strength values
of FAB masonry triplets also followed a similar trend as depicted in
Table 6 and Fig. 8. The variation of shear bond strength with the
moisture content of unit brick at the time of construction is pre-
sented in Figs. 9 and 10 for CB and FAB masonry triplets,
respectively.
The tensile bond strength values of the laboratory-constructed
CB and FAB masonry assemblages are presented in Tables 7 and 8
respectively for different sets of brick saturation level. The data are
also presented in Figs. 11 and 12 in the form of bar charts. The
trend of the tensile bond strength results is observed to be similar
to that of shear bond strength results. The tensile bond strength in-
creases with increases of mortar grade (in terms of strength). As the
brick saturation level increased, the tensile bond strength of both
CB and FAB masonry couplets increased up to the 75% saturation
level (Set C). Further increases of the brick saturation level resulted
in a decrease of the tensile bond strength of both the CB and FAB
06019009-4 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Masonry triplet positioned in testing machine: (a) before failure; and (b) after failure.

Fig. 6. Crossed-brick test assembly positioned in testing machine: (a) before failure; and (b) after failure.

Table 5. Mean shear bond strength (MPa) of clay brick masonry triplets Table 6. Mean shear bond strength (MPa) of fly ash brick masonry triplets
Mortar grade Mortar grade
Brick saturation level (%) CM1 CM2 CM3 Brick saturation level (%) CM1 CM2 CM3
25 (A) 0.082 0.097 0.127 25 (A) 0.075 0.088 0.118
50 (B) 0.111 0.129 0.162 50 (B) 0.112 0.133 0.171
75 (C) 0.118 0.162 0.204 75 (C) 0.129 0.168 0.232
100 (D) 0.065 0.078 0.085 100 (D) 0.068 0.082 0.092

© ASCE 06019009-5 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2019, 31(10): 06019009

 0.25 Table 7. Mean tensile bond strength (MPa) clay brick masonry couplets
CM1 CM2 CM3
Shear Bond Strength (MPa) 0.20 Brick saturation
Mortar grade
level (%) CM1 CM2 CM3
0.15 25 (A) 0.062 0.081 0.095
50 (B) 0.075 0.090 0.106
0.10 75 (C) 0.083 0.108 0.131
100 (D) 0.058 0.064 0.076
0.05

0.00
A B C D Table 8. Mean tensile bond strength (MPa) fly ash brick masonry couplets
Specimen Set
Mortar grade
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Brick saturation
Fig. 7. Mean shear bond strength of clay brick masonry triplets. level (%) CM1 CM2 CM3
25 (A) 0.060 0.078 0.091
50 (B) 0.071 0.080 0.106
0.25
75 (C) 0.081 0.092 0.122
CM1 CM2 CM3
Shear Bond Strength (MPa)

100 (D) 0.054 0.061 0.072

0.20

0.15
0.15

Tensile Bond Strength (MPa)

0.10 CM1 CM2 CM3

0.05 0.10

0.00
A B C D
0.05
Specimen Set

Fig. 8. Mean shear bond strength of fly ash brick masonry triplets.
0.00
A B C D
Specimen Set
0.25
CM1
Shear Bond Strength (MPa)

Fig. 11. Mean tensile bond strength of clay brick masonry couplets.
0.20 CM2
CM3
0.15
0.15
0.10
Tensile Bond Strength (MPa)

CM1 CM2 CM3

0.05
0.10
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
Moisture content (%) 0.05

Fig. 9. Variation of shear bond strength of clay brick triplet with brick
moisture content.
0.00
A B C D
Specimen Set
0.25
CM1
Shear Bond Strength (MPa)

Fig. 12. Mean tensile bond strength of fly ash brick masonry couplets.
0.20 CM2
CM3
0.15
masonry couplets. The variation of tensile bond strength with the
0.10 moisture content of the unit brick at the time of construction is pre-
sented in Figs. 13 and 14 for CB and FAB masonry couplets,
0.05 respectively.
When fresh mortar is laid on a brick surface, capillary suction
0.00 occurs, transmitting water from mortar to brick. This results in an
0 5 10 15 20 inadequate amount of water available for hydration, affecting bond
Moisture content (%) strength development in the brick–mortar interface. The hydration
process of the cement compounds in the mortar leads to the forma-
Fig. 10. Variation of shear bond strength of fly ash brick triplet with
tion of calcium-silicate-hydrate gel products, which develop bond
brick moisture content.
strength at the brick–mortar interface. If the brick units are too dry

© ASCE 06019009-6 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2019, 31(10): 06019009

 0.14
poor bond strength in brick and mortar joints. The experimental
Tensile Bond Strength (MPa)
0.12 results show that the highest shear and tensile bond strength is
0.10 accomplished by masonry triplets of Set C (when the moisture con-
tent of the brick units is maintained at approximately 75% of the
0.08 saturation moisture content) among the four sets of specimens.
0.06 Thus, it can be concluded that superior bond strength can be
CM1 achieved at around 75% of the saturation moisture content for both
0.04 CM2 CB and FAB units.
0.02 CM3
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 Failure Patterns
Moisture content (%)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Variation of tensile bond strength of clay brick couplets with Shear Bond Test
brick moisture content. Different failure patterns of masonry triplets were observed during
the testing period. According to previous studies [Lumantarna et al.
2014; Pavia and Hanley 2010; Venkatarama Reddy and Gupta
0.14 2005; Sarangapani et al. 2005; BS EN 1052-3 (BSI 2002)], a test
CM1 specimen should have one of the following different types of fail-
Tensile Bond Strength (MPa)

0.12 ure: (a) within brick and mortar bond areas, either on one or divided
CM2
0.10 CM3 between two brick faces; (b) within the mortar; (c) within the brick;
and (d) crushing and splitting failure of the brick through the mortar
0.08
joint. The failure pattern in a triplet depends upon the brick
0.06 strength, mortar strength, and the interlocking bond strength be-
0.04 tween brick and mortar.
The failure patterns observed in the present study were limited
0.02 to the first three types. Failure within the brick and mortar bond
0.00 areas was the most common type of failure observed. A typical
0 5 10 15 20 example of this type of failure mode is shown in Fig. 15. Inadequate
Moisture content (%) bonding within the brick and mortar is the primary cause of this
kind of failure. Such a failure pattern mostly occurs in the case
Fig. 14. Variation of tensile bond strength of fly ash brick couplets
of specimens prepared using brick units of Set D. Also, the triplets
with moisture content.
prepared with some of the other sets of brick and lower-grade mor-
tar (CM1 and CM2) results in this type failure mode.
Failure within mortar joints was observed in most of the triplets
(as in the case of Set A), the pore structure of the brick tends to prepared with Set A bricks and the lowest-grade mortar (CM1).
extract moisture from adjoining mortar, causing dewatering of the This may be attributed to the decrease in strength of the mortar
mortar. When the saturation level increases in Sets B and C, the due to the high capillary suction of dry bricks, resulting in a low
transfer of moisture from mortar to brick also decreases. As a result, moisture content available in mortar for hydration. Fig. 16 shows a
the amount of cement hydration increases, enhancing the bond typical failure pattern of a mortar joint.
strength. For brick saturation level beyond this point (as in the case A few instances of failure were observed within the brick units
of Set D), the pores of the bricks are entirely occupied with water, of specimens with brick from Set C and a higher grade of mortar
leaving no chance for bricks to interact with mortar, which leads to (CM3). Optimum moisture content and strong mortar result in a

Fig. 15. Failure within brick and mortar bond area: (a) on one brick face; and (b) divided between two brick faces.

© ASCE 06019009-7 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2019, 31(10): 06019009

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 16. Failure within mortar joint.
Fig. 17. Failure within brick unit.
strong interfacial bond with brick. If the combined bond and mortar
strength exceeds the brick strength, then failure will take place
within the brick. Fig. 17 shows a typical such failure pattern.
Tensile Bond Test
Two different failure patterns are observed in the masonry couplet
during the tensile bond test. Failure within the brick and mortar
bond area was found to be the most common type of failure, as
shown in Fig. 18. Inadequate bonding within the brick and mortar
is the chief reason for this kind of failure. Such a failure pattern was
common in all specimens prepared using bricks of Set D. A few
specimens made of bricks from other sets and a lower grade of mor-
tar (CM1 and CM2) were also found to have this failure mode.
Failure within the brick unit is observed in some of the couplets
made of Set C bricks, as shown in Fig. 19. This type of failure is
attributed to the weak brick and strong bond combination. Because
Set C bricks offer a strong bond and do not interfere with the
© ASCE
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2019, 31(10): 06019009
Fig. 18. Bond failure within brick mortar interface.
Fig. 19. Direct tensile or splitting tensile failure in the brick.
development of mortar strength, the failure occurred through weaker
brick units.
Conclusion
In this study, several experiments were conducted to investigate the
influence of moisture content in unit bricks at the time of construc-
tion on the shear and tensile bond strength of brick masonry. The
brick units were soaked in water to achieve different levels of sat-
uration (25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%). The test specimens were pre-
pared using both clay and fly ash bricks with three grades of mortar.
From the results it can be concluded that the moisture content of the
bricks at the time of construction along with the mortar strength and
brick strength significantly affected the bond strength of the ma-
sonry. Specimens constructed using strong mortar showed better
bond strength than specimens with weak mortar. The variation
in the moisture content of the brick units directly impacted the bond
strength of the brick masonry. The test results revealed that at
around 75% saturation level of the brick units, the highest shear
and tensile bond strength was achieved among all sets of specimens
06019009-8 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 considered. Thus, it can be concluded that superior bond strength
can be achieved at around 75% of the saturation moisture content
for both fired clay and fly ash brick units. The failure pattern of
masonry specimens was studied during both shear and tensile bond
tests. Inadequate prewetting resulted in the failure of masonry spec-
imens in the brick-to-mortar joint area.
References
Al-Chaar, G. 2002. Evaluating strength and stiffness of unreinforced ma-
sonry infill structures. Washington, DC: US Army Corp of Engineers,
Engineer Research and Development Centre.
Amde, A. M., J. V. Martin, and J. Colville. 2007. “The effects of moisture
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 07/22/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
on compressive strength and modulus of brick masonry.” TMS J. 25 (1):
31–40.
ASTM. 2012. Standard test method for bond strength of mortar to masonry
units. ASTM C952. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2016. Standard test method for compressive strength of hydraulic
cement mortars. ASTM C109. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2018. Standard specification for aggregate for masonry mortar.
ASTM C144. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Banthia, J. K. 2001. Census of India, 2001. New Delhi, India: Controller of
Publications, Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner.
BSI (British Standards Institution). 2002. Methods of test for masonry.
Determination of initial shear strength. BS EN 1052-3. London: BSI.
Christy, C. F., R. M. Shanthi, and D. Tensing. 2012. “Bond strength of the
brick masonry.” Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 3 (2): 380–386.
Forth, J. P., J. J. Brooks, and S. H. Tapsir. 2000. “The effect of unit water
absorption on long-term movements of masonry.” Cem. Concr. Compos.
22 (4): 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-9465(00)00027-5.
Franzoni, E., C. Gentilini, G. Graziani, and S. Bandini. 2014. “Towards the
assessment of the shear behaviour of masonry in on-site conditions: A
study on dry and salt/water conditioned brick masonry triplets.” Constr.
Build. Mater. 65 (Aug): 405–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.2014.05.002.
Franzoni, E., C. Gentilini, G. Graziani, and S. Bandini. 2015. “Compressive
behaviour of brick masonry triplets in wet and dry conditions.” Constr.
Build. Mater. 82 (May): 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat
.2015.02.052.
Liauw, T. C., and K. H. Kwan. 1983. “Plastic theory of infilled frames with
finite interface shear strength.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 75 (2): 707–723.
Lumantarna, R., D. T. Biggs, and J. M. Ingham. 2014. “Compressive, flexu-
ral bond, and shear bond strengths of in situ New Zealand unreinforced
clay brick masonry constructed using lime mortar between the 1880s
and 1940s.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 26 (4): 559–566. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000685.
Mainstone, R. J. 1962. “Discussion on steel frames with brickwork and
concrete infilling.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. 23: 94–99.
Mehrabi, A. B., and P. B. Shing. 1997. “Finite element modeling of
masonry-infilled RC frames.” J. Struct. Eng. 123 (5): 604–613.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:5(604).
© ASCE 06019009-9
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2019, 31(10): 06019009
Palmer, L. A., and J. V. Hall. 1931. “Durability and strength of bond
between mortar and brick.” Bur. Stand. J. Res. 6 (3): 473–492.
Pavia, S., and R. Hanley. 2010. “Flexural bond strength of natural hydraulic
lime mortar and clay brick.” Mater. Struct. 43 (7): 913–922. https://doi
.org/10.1617/s11527-009-9555-2.
Rao, K. M. V., B. V. V. Reddy, and K. S. Jagadish. 1996. “Flexural bond
strength of masonry using various blocks and mortars.” Mater. Struct.
29 (2): 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02486202.
Reddy, B. V. V., and C. V. U. Vyas. 2008. “Influence of shear bond strength
on compressive strength and stress strain characteristics of masonry.”
Mater. Struct. 41 (10): 1697–1712. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527
-008-9358-x.
Samarasinghe, W., and S. J. Lawrence. 1992. “Effect of high suction
rate in low strength bricks on brick mortar bond.” In Proc., 4th Int.
Seminar on Structural Masonry for Developing Countries, 43–50.
North Ryde, Australia: Division of Building, Construction and
Engineering.
Sarangapani, G., B. V. Venkatarama Reddy, and K. S. Jagadish. 2005.
“Brick-mortar bond and masonry compressive strength.” J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 17 (2): 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899
-1561(2005)17:2(229).
Sathiparan, N., and U. Rumeshkumar. 2018. “Effect of moisture condition
on mechanical behavior of low strength brick masonry.” J. Build. Eng.
17 (May): 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.01.015.
Singh, S. B., and P. Munjal. 2017. “Bond strength and compressive stress-
strain characteristics of brick masonry.” J. Build. Eng. 9 (Jan): 10–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.11.006.
Sinha, B. P. 1967. “Model studies related to load bearing brickwork.”
Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Engineering, Univ. of Edinburgh.
Taha, M., M. R. A. S. El-Dieb, and N. G. Shrive. 2001. “Sorptivity: A
reliable measurement for surface absorption of masonry brick units.”
Mater. Struct. 34 (7): 438–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02482291.
Thomas, F. G. 1953. “The strength of brickwork.” Struct. Eng. 31 (2):
44–46.
Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., and A. Gupta. 2005. “Tensile bond strength
of soil-cement block masonry couplets using cement-soil mortars.”
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 18 (1): 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899
-1561(2006)18:1(36).
Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., R. Lal, and K. S. N. Rao. 2007. “Enhancing
bond strength and characteristics of soil-cement block masonry.”
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 19 (2): 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0899-1561(2007)19:2(164).
Vermeltfroot, A. T. 2012. “Shear strength variation due to mortar strength
variation and the use of a triplet shear test set-up” In Proc., 15th Int.
Brick and Block Masonry Conf. Florianópolis, Brazil: Federal Univ. of
Santa Catarina.
Wood, R. H. 1958. “The stability of tall buildings.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.
11: 69–102.
Yorkdale, A. H. 1982. “Initial rate of absorption and mortar blend.” In
Masonry: Materials, properties and performance: ASTM STP 778,
91–98. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.