Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

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

Experimental and comparative study on hollow brick walls having truss

and ladder type reinforcement under axial loading
D. Ram Rahul ⇑, N. Lingeshwaran
Department of Civil Engineering, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation, Vaddeswaram, AP, India

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

Article history: Now-a-days, hollow bricks are used at various construction buildings and compound wall. Hollow bricks
Received 19 February 2020 are strong and cheap in cost and available everywhere. Generally, hollow bricks are used because it
Received in revised form 20 April 2020 reduces heat and make the building in cool. The objective is to investigate the engineering properties
Accepted 28 April 2020
of hollow brick masonry walls incorporated with reinforcement. This project involves material collection,
Available online xxxx
quantitative results, construction of hollow brick walls and testing of walls. The ultimate target is to iden-
tify the reasons of crack failure, to identify the strength and stiffness reduction, when truss and ladder
Keywords:
type reinforcement is placed in the wall.
Experimental
English Bond
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Hollow Brick Selection and Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-
Ladder type reinforcement ence on Future Generation Functional Materials and Research 2020.
Truss type reinforcement
Masonry Wall

1. Introduction
Hollow bricks are used at various construction buildings and
compound wall. These bricks are strong and cheap in cost and
available everywhere. Many people used these hollow bricks
because it reduces heat and make the building in cool. Hollow
brick is used for Quality, Strength and Economical purpose. In this
project, investigation is carried out on hollow brick walls to know
what type of reinforcement can be suitable to achieve good
strength. Hollow brick walls are incorporated with the truss and
ladder type of arrangement in reinforcement between the layers
of bricks. After the construction of the wall, it is carried for loading
frame test to know the strength of walls and its behavior.
Introduction of reinforcement in masonry increases ductility
and provides better energy dissipation capacity from the studies
of many researchers.
Thorat (2015) concluded that as HCB’s are light weight and they
provide design of sub-structure due to reduction of loads econom-
ically. Blocks having cavities helps in obtaining insulation of walls,
gives saving in energy for all times and voids results in sound insu-
lation [1].
Rafiq Ahmad and Mohammad Iqbal Malik (2014) concluded a
brick wall failure occurs on one side of the wall through a crack for-
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rahulram696@gmail.com (D.R. Rahul).
mation, only the upper layer failure occurs in the case of a hollow
block maceration. The concrete hollow construction of the
masonry reflects a quicker building method than the brick build-
ing. Block makers use less mortar than brick labyrinth due to their
thickness [2].
Kadam (2015) stated that, If the crack developed due to dowel
action steel flexural resistance is rapidly decreases and to protect
and hardening a large crack widths due to direct tension of hori-
zontal bar [3].
Maidiawati (2017), the diagonal shear crack pattern was found
on brick-masonry wall without opening, on other hand the various
crack patterns were seen on brick-masonry wall having openings.
Although the opening in the brick masonry infill reduced the lat-
eral strength and stiffness of the infilled RC frame, it was still stron-
ger and stiffer than the bare frame [4].
Lingeshwaran N (2019) showed the results of the merits and
demerits of the axial and lateral load reinforcement walls of differ-
ent types of aspect ratios from height to width, as shown in present
case studies, could give better results in the seismic performance of
buildings made of macerated material with an increase in struc-
tural security and competitiveness [5].
Gandhi (2014) stated that the need for further study is to
develop masonry walls with reinforcement, shear walls with edge
type minimum and maximum reinforcement on different materi-
als for the future seismic design on zone areas and experimental

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.860
2214-7853/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Future Generation Functional Materials and Research 2020.

Please cite this article as: D. R. Rahul and N. Lingeshwaran, Experimental and comparative study on hollow brick walls having truss and ladder type rein-
forcement under axial loading, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.860
2 D.R. Rahul, N. Lingeshwaran / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
analysis shows the enhanced capacity for the design of structural
members [6].
Mohammed A, A.Al-Amoudi, Dr.Ahmed H.Alwathaf. (2014). Con-
cluded that the behaviour of load bearing masonry walls built up
of hollow concrete block systems, loaded by axial compression
until failure. The test specimens consist of Wallette’s which built
in two types by a hollow concrete block. They also performed on
raw materials and on the masonry constituents such as block unit
and mortar. Characteristics of the masonry constituents are impor-
tant to be defined to conclude a complete description for the sys-
tem behaviour under loading [7].
2. Materials used
2.1. Cement
There are various types of cement in which ordinary portland
cement is most commonly used in construction. Cement binds dif-
ferent substances collectively. An ordinary Portland cement
53Grade K.C.P Cement is used in this investigation.
2.2. Fine Aggregate
The aggregate used is clean river sand. According to IS:2386–
1968(part iii) specific gravity, sieve analysis, and fineness modulus
tests were done on sand. Fine aggregates(10 mm) and fine sand
were purchased from an industry in Guntur. The aggregates are
considered as fine aggregates if its size is less than 4.75 mm. The
sand particles should be free from clay or organic materials.
2.3. Coarse Aggregate:
In this investigation, a size of 20 mm and less than 20 mm gran-
ite stone aggregates are used. By similar grit, sieve checking and
fineness section are the different tests performed on aggregates.
When they exceed a thickness of 4.75 mm, such aggregates are
considered as coarse as per IS 2386–1: 1963 [8].
2.4. Water
Potable water which is free from acids and impurities should be
used in concrete. The quality and quantity of water must be
checked compulsory.
2.5. Hollow bricks
Fig. 1 shows the 9  4  3-inch hollow clay bricks of wire cut
face with 5holes that are used. A brick with openings in it having
Fig. 1. Hollow brick.
Please cite this article as: D. R. Rahul and N. Lingeshwaran, Experimental and comparative study on hollow brick walls having truss and ladder type rein-
forcement under axial loading, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.860
at least 25% of its volume, the gaps being at least ¾ inch wide or
¾ sq. in. (4.84 sq. cm) in area.
2.6. Steel reinforcement
In this work, longitudinal and vertical reinforcement is provided
through the bricks. Longitudinal reinforcement having truss shape
in one specimen and ladder shape reinforcement in other specimen
is used on the joint beds of wall. The vertical spacing given for lad-
der type reinforcement is 100 mm. The reinforcement
used is 8 mm diameter bars. The reinforcement shapes are shown
in Fig. 2.
3. Experimental procedure
3.1. Material Properties
In this work, to find out the properties of the materials that are
used as per ASTM standards some tests were performed. Mortar
ratio of 1:3 was chosen for this investigation. Beams were casted
as per mix design followed by IS 10262:2009 and IS 456:2000.
With the help of mason, walls are constructed using brick size of
230 mm  105 mm  70 mm using 1:3 of mortar ratio. According
to ASTM C67-11, test for knowing compressive strength of the
brick is performed. Table 1 shows the compressive strength of
the brick.
3.2. Mix Proportions
Mix design for concrete followed by IS 10262:2009 and IS
456:2000 [9] were done and proportions were shown in Table 2.
3.3. Construction of beams
Beam is a structural feature that mainly resistant to the loads
applied laterally to the beam axis. deflection in beam is primarily
due to bending. The forces mounted on the beam results in impact
forces at the beam support levels. The ovverall impact of all the
loads acting on the beam is to create bending moments within
the beam and shear forces, in turn induce internal stresses, strains
and deflections of the beam. Beam having dimensions
230  230 mm of 1.5 m length is designed as per code IS:456–
2000 [10].
3.3.1. Reinforcement details
Fe 500 grade high yield strength deformed steel bars confirmed
to IS 1786:1985 are used. The below Fig. 3 shows the details of the
reinforcement provided.
3.3.2. Casting of beams:
Four beams have been casted for hollow brick wall and framed
structure wall, which is positioned bottom and pinnacle of the wall
support. For the bottom beam there will be an elongated bar verti-
cally provided through which bricks passes and the top beam sits
on the wall. Beams were casted into a mold size of
1.5mx0.23mX0.23 m as shown in the below Figs. 4a and 4b.
3.4. Construction of walls
To construct the brick wall the brick units have to be bonded
with cement mortar. Based on laying the construction of brick wall
is classified into various types , they’re
 Stretcher bond
 Header bond
 English bond
 D.R. Rahul, N. Lingeshwaran / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx 3

Fig. 2. Truss shape and Ladder shape reinforcement.

Table 1
Strength Properties.

S. No Property Tested as per Obtained Average

Paper Value (N/mm2)
1 Compressive strength ASTM C109-11 9.68
of brick

Table 2
Mix design Proportions.

S. No Materials Proportion (kg/m3)

1 Cement 358.05
2 Fine aggregate 702.10
3 Coarse aggregate 1290.48
4 Super plasticizer 3.69
5 Water 144.29 Fig. 4a. Bottom beam with vertical elongated bars.

 Flemish bond

3.4.1. Stretcher bond

If the face of the brick is narrow then it is called a stretcher. This
pattern is simple and easy to construct, all units in this course are
placed as stretchers. This is not suitable for high raise walls since it
won’t be stabke due to weak bonding between adjacent brick units.
Suitable to construct half brick wall and also outer facing walls.

3.4.2. Header bond

Shorter face of the brick is called as header. All units in this
course are placed as headers. It is suitable to construct a wall with
one brick thickness. Fig. 4b. Top beam which rests on wall.

3.4.3. English bond

English bond consists of one course with headers and one
course with stretchers, alternatively each course is laid one on one.

3.4.4. Flemish bond

It is the combination of both headers and stretchers in a course ,
one header and one stretcher is laid alternatively. The next course
is laid in such a way that header comes between the stretcher of
below course. It provides a thickness of one full brick.
In this work, English bond is taken into consideration because of
which it accessed the vertical reinforcement more easily at a con-
stant length. This bond essentially comprises of alternating courses
of headers and stretchers. A quoin closer is used at the starting and
ending of the wall after the first header to break continuousness of Fig. 5a. Ladder type reinforcement.

Fig. 3. Beam detailing.

Please cite this article as: D. R. Rahul and N. Lingeshwaran, Experimental and comparative study on hollow brick walls having truss and ladder type rein-
forcement under axial loading, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.860
4 D.R. Rahul, N. Lingeshwaran / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 5b. Truss type reinforcement.

Fig. 8. Load deflection curve for ladder type reinforced wall.

wall which is exactly at the center to the wall and at the point of
member displacement is measured [11]. Reinforced brick wall on
loading frame is shown in Fig. 7.

4. Results and discussion

Fig. 6. Reinforced brick wall.
In this study, experimental investigation was done on brick wall
under axial loading for both having ladder type and truss type rein-
forcement structures by determining load Vs deflection curves.

4.1. For hollow brick wall having ladder type reinforcement:

In reinforced brick wall having ladder type reinforcement, load

is applied for determining crack patterns. In this type of reinforced
wall first crack was observed at 230kN and load deflection curve
was obtained. The deflection tends to decrease after it reaches
maximum load of 410kN. Load deflection curve for ladder type
reinforced wall is shown in Fig. 8.

4.2. For hollow brick wall having truss type reinforcement:

In reinforced brick wall having truss type reinforcement, load is

applied for deterring crack patterns. In this type of reinforced wall
first crack was observed at 211kN and load deflection curve was
obtained. The deflection tends to decrease after it reaches maxi-
mum load of 384kN. Load deflection curve for truss type reinforced
Fig. 7. Reinforced brick wall on load frame.
wall is shown in Fig. 9.

joints. Ladder-type and truss-type reinforcement is shown in

Fig. 5a and 5b respectively. Reinforced brick wall is shown in Fig. 6.

3.5. Load frame test

Load frame testing generally utilizes a high stiffness supporting

structure against which the test forces can react. The load frame
comprises of two columns, a base beam and a moving crosshead
that is fitted with fixtures are capable of measuring different
mechanical properties that are related to displacement and
strength. Two brick walls were constructed of same size. One wall
consists of ladder type and other wall consists of truss type rein-
forcement placed alternatively by layer in the construction of wall.
These walls are tested on a loading frame of 200tons capacity.
Using compressive loading cell, the load was applied on the brick
wall and measured and LVDT was placed at side face of the brick Fig. 9. Load deflection curve for truss type reinforced wall.

Please cite this article as: D. R. Rahul and N. Lingeshwaran, Experimental and comparative study on hollow brick walls having truss and ladder type rein-
forcement under axial loading, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.860
 D.R. Rahul, N. Lingeshwaran / Materials Today: Proceedings xxx (xxxx) xxx
4.3. Crack formation on walls
 Potential shear crack observed at first and Crack propagation
was delayed due to the presence of horizontal reinforcement.
 The use of horizontal reinforcement saves the wall from failing
due a single fatal crack, and more distributed cracks were
observed for both walls.
5. Conclusion
In this experimental study, the brick wall behavior for having
ladder type and truss type reinforced masonry structures is
obtained. The following conclusions can be drawn from this paper
as
 The reinforced wall having ladder type reinforcement shows
greater advantages than wall having with truss type
reinforcement.
 Presence of the ladder-type and Truss-type horizontal rein-
forcement delayed crack propagation and led to distributed
shear crack formation.
 Steel reinforcement increases the flexural capacity of walls.
 Steel plays a major role in masonry structures.
 Horizontal ladder type reinforcement in brick wall gives better
results in load carrying capacity, with increase of both safety
and competitiveness of the construction.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
D. Ram Rahul, N. Lingeshwaran conceived the idea, conducted
the experimental part, and testing results. D. Ram Rahul, N.
Lingeshwaran discussed the results. The language correction,
proper discussion of results, and manuscript formatting were done
by N. Lingeshwaran. All authors of the article provided substantive
comments. (Supervision).
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Please cite this article as: D. R. Rahul and N. Lingeshwaran, Experimental and comparative study on hollow brick walls having truss and ladder type rein-
forcement under axial loading, Materials Today: Proceedings, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.04.860
5
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank my guide Mr. N. Lingeshwaran, Assistant
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Koneru Lakshmaiah
Education Foundation, for giving out his acquaintance and super-
vise me for conclusion of this paper. I am very thankful to Dr. Ch.
Hanumanth Rao, Professor and Head of the Department, Civil Engi-
neering, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation, for his support
and till completion of this project work. I also thank all the teach-
ing and non-teaching staff of civil engineering department for their
help provided to me in completing the project work.
References
[1] P. Thorat et al., Hollow concrete blocks-A new trend, in, International Journal of
Engineering & Research. (2015) 9–26.
[2] R. Ahmad et al., Brick Masonry and Hollow Concrete Block Masonry–A
Comparative Study, International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Research (IJCSER) 1 (1) (2014) 14–21.
[3] S.B. Kadam, Y. Singh, B. Li, Out-of-plane behaviour of unreinforced masonry
strengthened using ferrocement overlay, Mater. Struct. 48 (10) (2015) 3187–
3203.
[4] Maidiawati, J. Tanjung, and H. Medriosa. Experimental study on the influence
of the opening in brick-masonry wall to seismic performance of reinforced
concrete frame structures. in AIP Conference Proceedings. 2017. AIP Publishing
LLC.
[5] Lingeshwaran, N. and P. Poluraju, Experimental Analysis of Seismic
Performance on bed Joint Reinforced Solid Brick Masonry Walls–a State of
the Art, in International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering (ICACE-
2019). 2019. p. 23.
[6] R. Gandhi, A. Menon, Seismic performance of bed-joint reinforced solid brick
masonry walls, in Proceedings of the 9th International Masonry Conference,
Guimaraes, Portugal, 2014.
[7] M.A. Al-Amoudi, A.H. Alwathaf, The behavior of hollow concrete block
masonry under axial compression, Journal of Engineering Sciences 3 (2)
(2014) 32–53.
[8] IS:, Methods of test for aggregates for concrete–Part 1: Particle size and shape.
1963, Bureau of Indian Standard New Delhi.
[9] Nataraja, M. and L. Das, Concrete mix proportioning as per IS 10262: 2009–
Comparison with IS 10262: 1982 and ACI 211.1-91. The Indian Concrete
Journal, 2010: p. 64-70.
[10] BIS, I., 456,, Plain and reinforced concrete-Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India, 2000, p. 2000.
[11] M.M. Gram, Load frame crosshead construction, Google Patents, 1984.