Original Research

Advances in Structural Engineering

1–16
Compressive performance of new Ó The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
types of load-bearing horizontal-hole sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1369433218813472

interlocking concrete hollow blocks journals.sagepub.com/home/ase

Shen Liu1,2,3, Jingshu Zhang1,4, Le Liu1,5, Hang Guo1,4 and Bo Wang1,4

Abstract
Two series of load-bearing horizontal-hole interlocking hollow concrete blocks, referred to as H-shaped series and cross-shaped
series, were developed, including three geometric types: type BH-290 (H-shaped), type BH-240 (H-shaped), and type BC-240 (cross-
shaped). The research presented in this article investigated the compressive behavior of the proposed load-bearing horizontal-hole
interlocking hollow concrete blocks and aimed at analyzing the influence of geometric parameters on the block capacity. First, com-
pressive tests of the horizontal-hole interlocking hollow concrete blocks were carried out. The compressive strength, elastic modulus,
and compressive failure mechanism were analyzed. Second, the feasibility of the finite element analysis model was verified by experi-
mental results presented in this article, as well as by available test data from other researchers. The influences of vertical ribs, horizon-
tal ribs, and concrete strength on the compressive strength of horizontal-hole interlocking hollow concrete blocks were investigated.
Ultimately, based on the numerical modeling results, linear equations were proposed to predict the compressive strength of H-shaped
series and cross-shaped series blocks. The results show that the compressive strengths of types BH-240, BH-290, and BC-240 are
15.9, 13.4, and 13.0 MPa, respectively. For the H-shaped series, the core horizontal rib is the key part that can significantly constrain
the vertical ribs so that the block can achieve higher compressive bearing capacity. For the cross-shaped series, core horizontal ribs
cannot improve the compressive strength of the block because core horizontal ribs and joints near them become damaged early.
Improving the concrete strength and the width of the vertical rib can effectively improve the compressive bearing capacity for both H-
shaped and cross-shaped series blocks. The accuracy of the proposed equations for predicting the compressive strength of H-shaped
and cross-shaped blocks is acceptable, according to the current verification.

Keywords
compressive strength, finite element model, horizontal-hole interlocking concrete hollow block

Introduction HHIBs and studied the structural performances. To

In the vast rural areas of China, masonry structures
are used in most residential houses. At present, the
common masonry units used in China are concrete
and earth blocks. The traditional concrete block gener-
ally adopts the vertical-hole form. The vertical-hole
concrete block requires construction methods that are
not suitable for inexperienced workers. The earth
block, which was widely used in the last century, has
gradually been prohibited by the Chinese government
because of the environmental destruction during the
manufacturing process.
In view of the above problems, Fangbo Wu (2005)
developed the first nonbearing horizontal-hole inter-
locking hollow concrete block (HHIB) in 2006. This
type of HHIB was in a box shape and designed as an
infilled wall material. Since then, Wu and colleagues
(2010, 2011) developed more box-shaped nonbearing
date, the HHIBs have been popularized in many
Chinese provinces and widely used in the cities and vil-
lages. The building area of structures with HHIBs
1
School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Lanzhou University,
Lanzhou, China
2
The Key Laboratory of Concrete and Prestressed Concrete Structures
of the Ministry of Education, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
3
School of Civil Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
4
Key Laboratory of Mechanics on Disaster and Environment in Western
China of the Ministry of Education, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China
5
Gansu Provincial Transportation Research Institute Co., Ltd., Lanzhou,
China
Corresponding author:
Jingshu Zhang, School of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Lanzhou
University, Lanzhou 730000, China.
Email: jshzhang@lzu.edu.cn
2 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
Figure 1. Block geometries (mm) and masonry wallettes of (a) BC-240, (b) BH-290, and (c) BH-240.
consisted of more than six million square meters by
2012 (He, 2012).
Based on Wu’s blocks, our team developed two
H-shaped blocks and one cross-shaped load-bearing
HHIB (Zhou et al., 2012a; Zhou et al., 2012b). To
increase the bearing capacity and to be used as load-
bearing masonry units, these blocks contain more
vertical and horizontal ribs. The geometries and con-
struction of the proposed load-bearing HHIBs are
shown in Figure 1.
The load-bearing HHIB has the following advan-
tages. (1) Blocks are convenient and quickly used in
construction. The upper and bottom surfaces of the
blocks can be easily aligned by the interlocking keys of
the blocks, which lower the skills required of workers.
Moreover, using type BH-290 (290 mm 3 240 mm
3 190 mm) as an example, one HHIB is equivalent to
nine ordinary earth bricks in volume, so the time
required to retrieve bricks and apply mortar is signifi-
cantly reduced in construction. One HHIB may have a
volume similar to the volume of a vertical-hole block,
but it is more convenient to apply mortar on interlock-
ing keys than on face shells of vertical-hole blocks. (2)
HHIBs exhibit excellent thermal insulation. H-shaped
series blocks have a longer heat transfer path than
vertical-hole blocks, and a better heat insulation per-
formance will be obtained if insulation materials are
placed in horizontal holes (Figure 1) (Zhang et al.,
2015). (3) Compared with the ordinary earth brick
masonry, the amount of masonry mortar can be
reduced by more than 50% under the same conditions.
Due to the flatness of the HHIB wall surface, the
amount of plastering mortar is lower for the HHIB
than for the vertical-hole block and earth brick
masonry.
According to the previous studies of other research-
ers, failure of masonry structures mainly includes kine-
matic mechanisms and material crushing (Blasi and
Foraboschi, 1994). For brickwork and stonework
structures, the compressive stress is drastically lower
than the crushing strength because the masonry cross
sections are large to shelter a building and to separate
one internal area from another. Because masonry can-
not fail by crushing, failure occurs only when the
masonry structure becomes an unstable kinematic col-
lapse mechanism (Foraboschi, 2013, 2016, 2017;
Liu et al. 3

Foraboschi and Vanin, 2014). Different from brick

and stone masonry, the masonry made of load-
bearing HHIBs is designed to exploit the structural
materials (only the vertical ribs bear the compressive
load, and the hollow ratios range from 30% to 41%
for different types of blocks), and the stresses of the
concrete are higher than those of the solid brick.
Hence, the masonry made of HHIBs has a greater
risk of triggering crushing failure, and the study of
the compressive performance of a single block is
necessary.
Many scholars have studied the compressive perfor-
mance of concrete blocks. Morel JC et al. (2007) out-
lined current methodologies used to determine
compressive strength of earth blocks and also dis-
cussed the influence of block geometry, test procedure,
and basic material parameters. Dı́az et al. (2011) used
the finite element method to calculate the compressive
resistance of different concrete block designs and to
choose the optimum hollow block from the handling
and structural points of view. Various light and easy-
to-handle designs that maintain structural resistance
were identified. Barbosa and Hanai. (2009) carried out
a study to correlate mechanical properties of hollow
concrete blocks and mechanical properties of the con-
crete that constitutes hollow concrete blocks. The ratio
between the compressive strength of blocks and cylind-
rical samples was determined to be 0.81, and an
empirical method for estimation of compressive
strength of blocks was also established. Javidan et al.
(2014) studied concentric and eccentric compressive
failure of different hollow concrete blocks using the
Lattice Discrete Particle Model (LDPM). Although
the ultimate strength of the simulated blocks was not
sensitive to their shapes, blocks with more (smaller)
holes are beneficial in terms of dissipation capacity
when compressed concentrically.
In this study, uniaxial compressive tests of type
BH-290, BH-240, and BC-240 blocks were carried
out. The compressive strength, modulus of elasticity,
and failure mechanism were analyzed. A finite ele-
ment model was used to discuss and optimize differ-
ent types of transformed blocks. A method for
calculating the compressive strength of HHIB was
established. The proposed load-bearing HHIBs are
novel block types and were designed for structural
walls. Compressive tests and numerical analyses were
carried out to study the compressive performance of
these types of blocks for the first time. This article
contains initial research on masonry made of load-
bearing HHIBs. In addition to compressive behavior,
shear and seismic behavior are the essential proper-
ties that influence the system and will be studied in
the following research.
Figure 2. Blocks (a) BH-290, (b) BH-240, and (c) BC-240 after
leveling, and (d) cylinder specimen of core drilling.
Experimental study
Test description
Three types of HHIBs, referred to as types BH-290,
BH-240, and BC-240, were analyzed with compression
tests. Five specimens for each type of block were tested.
The compressive strength, stress–vertical strain curves,
and material properties of the blocks were determined.
Concrete strength. Because the blocks were manufac-
tured in a factory, there is no reserved concrete sample.
To determine the strength of block concrete, a core
drilling test was carried out in accordance with Chinese
Standard (JGJ-T 384-2016, 2016). A total of 13 cylind-
rical specimens were obtained. The sampling location
and the cylindrical specimens are shown in Figure 2.
The compression test of the cylindrical samples was
carried out in accordance with Chinese Standard (GB
50010-2010, 2010). The average compressive strength
of the cylinder samples is 29.67 MPa, with a standard
deviation of 1.64.
Since the size of the concrete cylinder from the drill-
ing core was smaller than that of the standard cylinder,
the compressive strength of the samples was converted
to the compressive strength of a standard cylinder
according to equation (1) established by Neville (1966).
equation (1) shows the relationship between the cylind-
rical specimens with different sizes and the compressive
strength of the standard cube
fcu 0:697
= 0:56 + V h
ð1Þ
f 6hd + d
4 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
where f is the compressive strength of the concrete
cylinder specimen, fcu is the compressive strength of the
concrete cube, V is the volume of the concrete cylinder
specimen, h is the height of the cylinder specimen, and
d is the diameter of the cylinder specimen.
For 13 cylinder specimens, the average height

h = 90:59 mm(3:57 in), average diameter d = 46:61mm
(1:83 in), and average compressive strength f = 29:67
MPa were entered into equation (1) to give fcu = f =
0:878 = 33:78 MPa. The standard cylinder geometry,
h = 300 mm, d = 150 mm, yielded the standard
cylinder compressive strength fc = 0.811 3 fcu=
27.41 MPa via equation (1).
Block leveling. There are interlocking keys on the upper
and lower surfaces of the HHIBs, and the blocks can
be interlocked and automatically aligned. In the single-
block compression test, the upper and the lower sur-
faces should be leveled by mortar to simulate the
actual compression state of the block in the masonry.
Considering the object of this article is the compressive
performance of the individual block, the strength of
mortar was selected to be similar to the strength of
concrete to eliminate the influence of mortar strength.
The Portland cement of strength grade 42.5 MPa was
adopted in the mortar, and the cement:sand:water
ratio of 1:1.6:0.5 was selected as the mixture ratio that
would make the compressive strength of mortar no less
than 24 MPa according to the Chinese code (GB/T
4111-2013, 2013). The strength of mortar cubes (side
length 100 mm) measured at 3 days was 30.2 MPa.
The blocks after leveling are shown in Figure 2. The
test was carried out after curing for 3 days.
Experimental method. The compressive tests were con-
ducted by a 1000 kN electrohydraulic servo universal
machine. Due to the large size of the block, the rigid
platens did not completely cover the block. Therefore,
according to the Chinese code (GB/T 4111-2013,
2013), 2-cm-thick steel plates were placed between the
upper and lower surfaces of the block and rigid platen
of the compression machine, and the side length of the
steel plates grew 2 cm by the side length of the blocks,
which will ensure a uniform stress in the steel plates.
The blocks were subjected to axial compression in a
linearly controlled displacement mode at a speed of
0.1 mm/min. The controlled displacement mode
allowed acquisition of force–displacement graphs,
including the softening branch. An extensometer was
placed between the upper and lower platens to mea-
sure the axial deformation of the block. The test appa-
ratus is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Scheme of compression test.
Experimental results and discussion
Compressive mechanism. During the loading process, the
HHIBs exhibited brittle failure, and collapse occurred
suddenly at the end. The failure process can be divided
into an elastic stage, fracture development stage, and
collapse stage. The elastic stage starts from the test
beginning and ends when the initial crack is observed,
and the relationship between the compressive force and
vertical deformation is linear. In the fracture develop-
ment stage, the initial cracks develop, and new cracks
are observed during the loading process. During the
collapse stage, the blocks lose most of their bearing
capacity. Typical crack patterns in the three types of
blocks are shown in Table 1.
The damage patterns of the H-shaped series (type
BH-240 and type BH-290) were similar. When the
H-shaped series block reached approximately 80%
ultimate compressive capacity, a small crack, BH1, in
the direction of the horizontal hole appeared at the
side horizontal ribs of the block. With the increase in
the load, the initial crack BH1 gradually extended out-
ward, and diagonal cracks, BH2, also occurred in the
side vertical ribs, as shown in Table 1. When the ulti-
mate compressive capacity was reached, the side verti-
cal ribs could not bear the load any more, leading to
failure of the blocks. The block was damaged mainly
on the side horizontal ribs and side vertical ribs, while
the core horizontal rib and core vertical ribs were rela-
tively undamaged.
When the type BC-240 block reached approximately
70% ultimate compressive capacity, a series of cracks,
BC1, was generated on the inner surface of the block
horizontal hole in the direction of the hole. Then,
cracks, BC1, extended outward from the inner surface
of the hole, and at the same time, vertical cracks, BC2,
Liu et al.
Table 1. Typical crack patterns and failure modes of blocks.
Block type Initial cracks Developing cracks
BH-290
BH-240
BC-240
were found in the core horizontal rib. As the load
increased, the block failed when cracks, BC1, extended
outward through the horizontal and vertical ribs, as
shown in Table 1.
The compressive failure mechanism of the two series
of blocks was analyzed according to the test observa-
tions. For the H-shaped block, the side vertical ribs
deformed outward at the elastic stage. Consequently,
tensile stress and initial cracks at the side horizontal rib
were generated. Subsequently, the initial cracks devel-
oped, and the constraint of side horizontal ribs on ver-
tical ribs was significantly reduced. As the axial load
continuously increased, two side vertical ribs collapsed
first, and the block reached the ultimate bearing capac-
ity. The test results show that the core vertical ribs were
slightly damaged, while the side vertical ribs were seri-
ously damaged because the side horizontal ribs and the
core horizontal rib restrained the core vertical ribs. The
core horizontal rib improved the compressive bearing
capacity of the block by limiting horizontal deforma-
tion of core vertical ribs.
For the cross-shaped block, the side vertical ribs
also deformed outward at the elastic stage.
Consequently, tensile or compressive stress and initial
cracks at the inner surface of the block horizontal hole
5
Failure cracks Failure pictures
were generated. As the axial stress increased, tension
stress was generated in the core horizontal ribs, caus-
ing the damage in the core horizontal rib and joints
near the core horizontal ribs, and then the constraint
of the core horizontal ribs basically vanished. After the
initial cracks extended outward and cut through the
vertical ribs, type BC-240 failed. Core horizontal ribs
in type BC-240 did not improve the compressive
strength of the block considering that the core hori-
zontal rib and joints near them were damaged early.
Compressive strength. The results of the compressive
strength of blocks are shown in Table 2. Type BH-240
had the greatest compressive strength, and types BH-
290 and BC-240 had comparable compressive
strengths. The compressive strength of type BH-290
and type BC-240 was 84.3% and 81.8% of the com-
pressive strength of type BH-240, respectively.
The most essential value of concrete blocks is com-
pressive strength: fb = F/A, where F is the ultimate
force and A is the section area of blocks, as defined in
Figure 4. However, when studying the compressive
performance of HHIBs, comparing only fb values is
not enough because the horizontal ribs restrain the
6 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)

Table 2. Test results.

Block Compressive fb SD Elasticity E SD

type strength (MPa) modulus (MPa)
fb (MPa) E (MPa)

BH-290 14.2 13.4 0.66 9003 11,603 2026

12.8 8851
13.7 0.66 11,634
13.5 13,612
12.6 9781
BH-240 15.3 15.9 0.47 11,978 11,199 1167
15.5 12,183
16.1 0.47 9435
16.2 12,163
16.4 11,161
BC-240 13.5 13.0 1.18 16,300 11,579 3038
11.1 10,779
13.4 1.18 14,394
12.5 9310
11.1 9981

SD: standard deviation.

Figure 4. Definition of A and Av for (a) traditional block,

vertical ribs but do not directly bear the vertical pres-
sure. To study the compressive performance of vertical
ribs and measure the effect of the horizontal rib
restraint on the vertical ribs, fv is defined as the average
compressive strength of vertical ribs, fv = F/Av. Av is
defined as the area corresponding to the vertical ribs
that are depicted in the shaded area shown in Figure 4.
Hence, the compressive strength of blocks can also be
defined as fb = F/A = fvAv/A. Then, fv and Av/A can
both influence the compressive strength of blocks. In
addition, the compression efficiency Eff is defined as
Eff = F/V, where V is the volume of blocks after level-
ing. The compression efficiency was proposed to evalu-
ate the blocks from the structural point of view and
select the most effective block types.
According to Table 3, Vh of type BC-240 was 1.6
times than that of type BH-240 and 1.16 times than
that of type BH-290. However, fv of type BH-290 and
type BH-240 (29.8 MPa, 31.8 MPa) was greater than
that of type BC-240. Therefore, the block design of the
H-shaped block was more efficient because for the
cross-shaped series, the core horizontal ribs did not
constrain the vertical ribs as expected and could not
improve the compressive bearing capacity of the block
(b) BH-290, (c) BH-240, and (d) BC-240.
because the core horizontal rib and joints near them
were damaged very early. For the H-shaped blocks,
the compressive bearing capacity was significantly
improved because of the restraint of the core horizon-
tal, which limits horizontal deformation of the two
vertical ribs.
The compression efficiency of type BH-240 was 1.35
times than that of type BC-240, and the compression
efficiency of BH-290 was 1.21 times than that of BC-
240. Therefore, H-shaped blocks had the highest com-
pression efficiency.
Stress–strain curves and elastic modulus. Stress and
strain curves of the three types of blocks are shown in
Figure 5 and are used as the benchmark for the finite
element model results. The stress–strain behavior was
roughly similar for each type of specimen in both
ascending and descending branches. Most of the speci-
mens exhibited linear stress–strain behavior up to
approximately 70%–80% of the peak stress.
Thereafter, nonlinear behavior was observed up to the

Table 3. Comparison of compressive performance of blocks.

Block type F (kN) fb (MPa) Av (mm2) V (mm3) Vh (mm3) fv (MPa) Eff (MPa/mm)

BH-290 930.2 13.4 31,200 8,287,200 1,735,200 29.8 11.22

BH-240 915.4 15.9 28,800 7,303,200 1,255,200 31.8 12.53
BC-240 748.8 13.0 28,800 8,057,520 2,009,520 26.0 9.29

Vh is the volume of horizontal ribs.

Liu et al.
Figure 5. Observed compressive stress–strain curves for (a) BH-240, (b) BC-240, and (c) BH-290.
peak stress, when the initial cracks occurred. Strains
corresponding to peak stress were different and mostly
in the range of 0.001–0.003. Some descending branches
were not obtained due to the sudden collapse of some
blocks.
Differences among the three types of blocks in
ascending branches of stress–strain curves are not sig-
nificant, but descending branches show that the resis-
tance of BC-240 decreases more slowly than the
resistance of H-shaped series blocks, though the com-
pressive bearing capacity of BC-240 is lower. This
could be because the width of vertical rib of BC-240 is
larger than that of H-shaped blocks. After the blocks
damaged, the vertical rib with lower aspect ratio may
have a better post-damage performance.
The elastic modulus of masonry is typically deter-
mined from the secant modulus of the linear part of
the compressive stress–strain curve, which is typically
defined at a stress level equal to 40% of the ultimate
compressive strength elsewhere (Barbosa and Hanai,
2009; Zhou et al., 2017). Table 2 shows that the aver-
age elastic modulus of types BH-290, BC-240, and
BH-240 is similar at 11,603, 12,131, and 11,199 MPa,
respectively. The modulus of elasticity of types BH-
290 and BC-240 was slightly larger than that of type
BH-240.
Numerical analysis
Finite element analysis model
The analysis was conducted in ABAQUS/Standard
module (Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen, 2001). Both
the material and geometric nonlinearities were consid-
ered in the calculation, and the Newton–Raphson
incremental iteration method was used in the solution.
Five concrete blocks were simulated, including three
types of proposed load-bearing HHIBs, traditional
hollow blocks from Barbosa’s research (Barbosa and
Hanai, 2009), and box-shaped HHIBs presented by
7
Wu (He, 2012). In this section, we use three types of
proposed load-bearing HHIBs as examples to present
the modeling method.
The model consists of two parts: block and rigid
platen. After leveling, the whole block was assumed to
be made of concrete, considering the mortar used in
the test had strength and mechanical properties similar
to concrete. HHIBs, after leveling, were symmetric
along the X-, Y-, and Z-axes. Hence, only 1/8 of the
block was modeled by imposing suitable boundary
conditions along the symmetry axes. The finite element
models of three types of blocks are shown in Figure 6.
Element types and meshes. An eight-node three-dimen-
sional (3D) solid element with reduced integration
(C3D8R) was applied for modeling the concrete. The
rigid platen was also meshed with C3D8R elements. A
medial axis algorithm and a global mesh size of 5 mm
were applied for the block and platen. The total num-
ber of elements is 11,640, 12,560, and 13,272 for types
BH-240, BH-290, and BC-240, respectively.
Boundary conditions and interaction. Considering that the
HHIBs were symmetric along the X-, Y-, and Z-axes,
only 1/8 of the block was modeled, and the corre-
sponding symmetry boundary conditions in the sym-
metry surface of type BH-240 are shown in Figure
6(d). Surface A is the symmetry face of BH-240 in the
Z-axis; hence, a Z-axis symmetry boundary condition
was applied in Surface A. The displacements in the Z-
direction and rotations around the X- and Y-axes are
all constrained, that is, Uz = URx = URy = 0.
Similarly, the X-axis symmetry boundary condition
(Ux = URy = URz = 0) and the Y-axis symmetry
boundary condition (Uy = URx = URz = 0) were
applied to Surface B and Surface C.
The side length of the rigid platen was 2 cm longer
by the side length of the blocks, which was consistent
with the experiment. The prescribed compressive
8 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
Figure 6. A general view of the FEA model for (a) BH-290, (b) BH-240, and (c) BC-240, and (d) symmetry boundary conditions for
type BH-240.
displacement of the platen was 0.4 mm to obtain the
descending branch of blocks with an initial and maxi-
mum time step of 0.01. During the loading process, all
degrees of freedom of the rigid platen were restricted.
In this model, special attention was devoted to the
problem of platen–concrete contact, considering the
effect of end friction confinement on the compressive
strength of the specimen (Indelicato and Paggi, 2008). A
penalty method was used for the contact between the
steel plates and the concrete block. The coefficient of sta-
tic friction between steel plates and concrete was selected
as 0.6, according to the studies of other researchers
(Indelicato and Paggi, 2008; Rabbat and Russell, 1985).
Material modeling of concrete. The concrete damage plas-
ticity model in ABAQUS was adopted to simulate the
concrete material. The yield function was proposed by
Lubliner et al. (1989) and elaborated by Lee and
Fenves (1998). This model uses the flow potential func-
tion, which is a non-associated Drucker–Prager hyper-
bolic function. Isotropic damage was also assumed in
this model.
Ultimate uniaxial compressive strength is taken as
the cylinder compressive strength fc. Elasticity modulus
is determined by E = 4700fc0:5 (MPa), Poisson’s ratio is
selected as 0.2, and ultimate uniaxial tensile strength is
determined by ft = 0:21fc2=3 (MPa) according to the
ACI code (ACI 318-08, 2008) and Neville’s (1995)
study. Ratio of the tensile to the compressive meridian
Kc = 0.667, ratio of biaxial compressive strength to
uniaxial compressive strength is taken as 1.16, eccentri-
city is taken as 0.1, viscosity parameter v = 0.0005,
and dilation angle is selected as 30° according to the
default values provided in the ABAQUS/Standard
user’s manual (Hibbitt et al., 2001). The stress–strain
relationship proposed by Sargin (1971), which has been
widely used, was applied for concrete in this model
 2
A eec + (D  1) e
ec
s = fc  2 ð2Þ
1 + ðA  2Þ eec + D eec
where A = E/Es, E is the initial elastic modulus; the
secant elastic modulus is defined as Es = fc =ec ; fc is the
Liu et al.
Figure 7. Stress–strain and damage parameters–strain relation for concrete.
ultimate uniaxial compressive strength; and ec is the
corresponding strain. D is the parameter that affects
decreasing domain, and D = 0.5 is used in this model.
The uniaxial stress–strain response of concrete
under tension is linearly elastic up to its tensile
strength. After cracking, a simple descending line is
also used in tension stiffening. The default value of the
strain, at which the tension stiffening is reduced to
zero, is 0.001.
Damage parameters for compression and tension
were also introduced. The compressive damage para-
meter is defined in equation (3) (Li and Han, 2011)
s + nc f c
dc = 1 
E(nc fc =E + e)
In addition, through extensive finite element analysis
(FEA) trials, nc = 1 was the accepted value of uncon-
fined concrete (Li and Han, 2011).
We assumed the tension damage occurred in the
softening range and then decreased linearly. The ten-
sion damage parameter (dt) was equal to 0.9 when the
tension strain reached 0.001. The stress–strain relation-
ships for concrete are illustrated in Figure 7 using fc =
27.4 as an example.
Verifications
Failure modes. Comparisons between the experimental
and simulated failure modes are shown in Figure 8.
The left part of each figure is the block tension damage
factor nephogram (tensile cracking generally occurs in
areas with large tensile damage), and the right part is
the crack patterns in the test.
For the H-shaped block, the simulated result indi-
cates that region 1 in the core horizontal rib and region
2 in the side vertical rib were greatly damaged, which
9
shows that tension cracks occurred in these two areas.
For the cross-shaped block, the simulated result shows
that the damage occurred at region 1 in the horizontal
rib and regions 2 and 3 in the vertical ribs. For the
box-shaped block, the simulated result shows that the
damage occurred at regions 1 and 2 in the joints of the
vertical and horizontal ribs. In summary, generally
good agreement was achieved between the failure
modes simulated by the current model and those
observed in the test.
Load versus displacement relations. The stress and strain
relations of the blocks calculated by the FEA model
ð3Þ are compared with the measured curves in Figure 9.
We found that the stress–strain curves were basically
consistent with the experimental results. We again
found that generally good agreement was obtained
between the measured and simulated compressive
strength. The errors of compressive strength between
the calculated values and experimental results are in
the range of 29% to 2%. Therefore, this finite element
model is on the safe side and can be used as the basis
of subsequent parameter analysis.
Parameter analysis
The influencing factors of the compressive strength of
the block are material properties and block geometries.
The geometrical parameters of blocks are shown in
Figure 10. Geometries of the blocks must satisfy the
Standard for Modular Coordination of Building (GB/
T 50002-2013, 2013). Hence, the height of the blocks
must be an integral multiple of 100 mm. For the
HHIBs proposed, the height should maintain 200 mm
(l1 should be 200 mm before block leveling). In addi-
tion, the radius of the round edge of the hollow holes
10
Figure 8. Comparison of observed and predicted failure modes for (a) BH-290, (b) BH-240, (c) BC-240, and (d) box-shaped block
(He, 2012).
should be larger than 20 mm. Therefore, w2 and w3
should be larger than 40 mm.
Based on the consideration above, a numerical
simulation method was used to analyze the main influ-
encing factors of compressive properties of HHIBs
and to optimize the best block type from the compres-
sive efficiency point of view.
Effect of horizontal rib. The horizontal ribs of the HHIBs
were divided into the side horizontal rib and the core
horizontal rib. We choose the type BH-240 and type
BC-240 as the benchmarks and side horizontal ribs and
core horizontal ribs of type BH-240 and type BC-240
were adjusted in the numerical analysis.
Side horizontal rib. For H-shaped blocks, 0.15, 0.175,
0.2, 0.225, and 0.25 were selected for w2/l1 (w2 = 30–
50 mm and l1 = 200 mm) and 0.2, 0.25, and 0.3 were
selected for l2/l1 (l2 = 40–60 mm and l1 = 200 mm).
For cross-shaped blocks, 0.1, 0.125, 0.15, 0.175. 0.2,
and 0.225 were selected for w2/l1 (w2 = 20–40 mm and
l1 = 200 mm) and 0.3, 0.35, and 0.4 were selected for
Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
l2/l1 (l2 = 60–80 mm and l1 = 200 mm) in the numer-
ical simulation.
According to Figure 11(a), the length of side hori-
zontal rib has almost no effect on vertical ribs. Hence,
we chose the ratio of width of side horizontal rib and
length of the vertical rib (w2/l1) as the parameters eval-
uating the influence of side horizontal ribs.
The fv of the H-shaped block increased with increas-
ing w2/l1 and fv of the cross-shaped block increased
first then decreased with increasing w2/l1, as shown in
Figure 11(a). During the selected range of w2/l1, the
variation of fv of H-shaped blocks was 1.63 MPa,
which is approximately 5.6% of type BH-240, and the
variation of fv of cross-shaped blocks is 2.04 MPa,
which is approximately 8.6% of type BC-240.
Therefore, the geometry of the side horizontal ribs did
not significantly influence the compressive strength of
the H-shaped and the cross-shaped blocks.
According to Figure 11(b), the Eff of blocks
decreased with increasing w2/l1. Eff with larger l2/l1 is
smaller because the more weight will be gained with
the same increasing w2/l1. Although it seemed that the
blocks with smaller side horizontal rib are more
Liu et al. 11

Figure 9. Comparison of experimental and predicted stress–vertical strain curves for (a) BH-24, (b) BH-290, (c) BC-240, and
(d) vertical-hole block (Barbosa and Hanai, 2009).

Figure 10. Modified variables of (a) BH-240 and (b) BC-240.

efficient, the side ribs should not be too thin consider- Hence, the design of horizontal rib of proposed
ing the other mechanical properties of the blocks. HHIBs was reasonable.
12
Figure 11. Relationship between (a) w2/l1 and fv, (b) w2/l1 and Eff, (c) w3/l1 and fv, and (d) w3/l1 and Eff.
Core horizontal rib. For H-shaped blocks, 0, 0.05, 0.1,
0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, 0.35, and 0.4 were selected for w3/l1
(w3 = 0–80 mm and l1 = 200 mm) and 0.2, 0.3, and
0.4 were selected for l3/l1 (l3 = 40–60 mm and
l1 = 200 mm). For cross-shaped blocks, 0, 0.05, 0.1,
and 0.15 were selected for w3/l1 (w3 = 0–30 mm and
l1 = 200 mm) and 0.3, 0.35, and 0.4 were selected for
l3/l1 (l3 = 60–80 mm and l1 = 200 mm) in the numer-
ical simulation.
According to Figure 11(c), the length of core hori-
zontal rib has almost no effect on vertical ribs. Hence,
we chose the ratio of width of core horizontal rib and
length of the vertical rib (w3/l1) as the parameters eval-
uating the influence of core horizontal ribs.
The fv of the H-shaped block increased with increas-
ing w3/l1, while fv of the cross-shaped block exhibited a
descending trend, as shown in Figure 11(c). After w3/l1
exceeded 0.05, fv of the H-shaped block became higher
than the fv of cross-shaped blocks. During the selected
range of w3/l1, the variation of fv of H-shaped blocks
Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
was 8.6 MPa, which is approximately 30% of type
BH-240, and the variation of fv of cross-shaped blocks
is 2.7 MPa, which is approximately 11% of type BC-
240. The core horizontal rib, as a key part of H-shaped
and cross-shaped blocks, played an important role in
restraining the vertical ribs and improving fv.
According to Figure 11(d), the Eff of H-shaped
blocks increases with increasing w3/l1. Eff with l3/
l1 = 0.2 is larger than Eff with l3/l1 = 0.3 because the
more weight will be gained with the same increasing
w3/l1. When w3/l1 increased from 0 to 0.15, Eff
increased significantly. The growth rate slowed down
when w3/l1 exceeded 0.15, and Eff tended to become
constant after w3/l1 exceeded 0.3, which showed that it
is less efficient if w3/l1 is larger than 0.3. Therefore,
the design of core horizontal ribs of type BH-240
(w3/l1 = 0.3, l3/l1 = 0.2) is reasonable.
The Eff of cross-shaped blocks decreases distinctly
with increasing w3/l1 because the fv decreases, while the
weight increases with increasing w3/l1. The Eff is lower
Liu et al.
Figure 12. Relationship between (a) w1/l1 and fv of blocks, (b) w1/l1 and Eff of blocks, and (c) concrete strength and fv and Eff of
blocks.
with higher l3/w3 because more weight will be gained
when w3/l1 increases. Considering the core horizontal
ribs may have a good influence on vertical ribs when
horizontal impact is applied during the interior decora-
tion, the core horizontal ribs of the type BC-240 should
remain unchanged or thinned to 10 mm. The horizon-
tal ribs can also be removed if only the compression
performance is taken into consideration.
Vertical ribs. The values 0.1, 0.125, 0.15, 0.175, and
0.2 were selected for the w1/l1 of vertical ribs (w1=20–
40 mm and l1 = 200 mm) in the numerical simulation.
The results are shown in Figure 12(a) and (b).
Figure 12(a) shows that the average compressive
strength of the vertical rib of both types of blocks
increased with increasing w1/l1. When w1/l1 is in the
range of 0.125–0.175, increasing w1/l1 can significantly
improve fv. After w1/l1 reaches 0.175, the growth
becomes slow. In the range of selected w1/l1, the change
in the average compressive strength of the vertical rib
for H-shaped blocks was 5.92 MPa, which was approx-
imately 20% of the average compressive strength of the
vertical rib of type BH-240. The change in the average
compressive strength of the vertical rib for cross-
shaped blocks was 6.02 MPa, which is approximately
25% of the average compressive strength of the vertical
rib of type BC-240. Therefore, w1/l1 had an obvious
improvement in fv of HHIBs.
According to Figure 12(b), the compressive effi-
ciency increased with increasing w1/l1, and the Eff of
H-shaped blocks is 1.6–1.9 times than that of cross-
shaped blocks. Hence, the H-shaped blocks have a bet-
ter compressive efficiency than cross-shaped blocks.
When w1/l1 of the H-shaped and cross-shaped blocks
was 0.1, fv was 25.51 and 17.65 MPa, which are 93%
and 64%, respectively, of the cylindrical compressive
strength fc (27.41 MPa). The Eff was 15.56% and
8.15%, which are 77% and 55.4% of the Eff of types
13
BH-240 and BC-240, showing that w1/l1 should not be
too low, otherwise, strength will be compromised.
However, the w1/l1 cannot be increased immoderately
because when the vertical rib is too thick, the block
will be too large for workers to carry. Considering the
two aspects above, the current w1/l1 of the vertical rib
of HHIBs is reasonable.
Effect of concrete compressive strength. The selected com-
pressive strengths of the concrete cylinder in the
numerical simulation were 20, 30, 40, and 50 MPa,
and the results are shown in Figure 12(c). According
to Figure 12(c), the fv and Eff of H-shaped and cross-
shaped blocks increased linearly with the increase in
the concrete strength. Therefore, fv/fc was mostly
related to the geometrical shape of blocks.
Compressive strength prediction of load-bearing
HHIBs
An equation for determining the compressive strength
of HHIB is shown in equation (4)
F Av
P= = fv  ð4Þ
S A
Define
Av
a1 =
A
ð5Þ
fv
a2 =
fc
Substituting equation (5) into equation (4) gives
P = a1 a2  f c ð6Þ
where fv is the average compressive strength of the ver-
tical rib, Av is the compression area of the vertical
rib, A is the compression area of the block, a1 is the
14 Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)

Figure 13. Relationship between w1/l1 and a2 for (a) H-shaped blocks and (b) cross-shaped blocks.

compression area factor, and a2 is the vertical rib

Table 4. Comparison between predicted and experimental
strength factor. After the block geometry and com- results.
pressive strength of concrete are identified, a1 and fc
are easy to calculate. Hence, a2 is the essential para- Predicted Experimental Error rate (%)
meter for the prediction of the compressive strength results (MPa) results (MPa)
of HHIBs.
BH-290 13.26 13.40 21.04
According to previous studies in sections ‘‘Effect of BH-240 14.39 15.90 29.50
horizontal rib,’’ ‘‘Vertical ribs,’’ and ‘‘Effect of concrete BC-240 12.31 13.0 25.31
compressive strength,’’ the potential variables for a2
are concrete strength, vertical ribs, and horizontal ribs.
Since fb/fc remains constant for different concrete
strengths, fc had no effect on a2. In addition, the side compared with horizontal rib for blocks. Hence, for
horizontal rib had a slight effect on fv, so the effect of simplicity, the dependent factor of core horizontal rib
a2 from the side horizontal rib was eliminated. Finally, width was eliminated using the average results of the
the vertical ribs (w1/l1) and core horizontal ribs (w3/l1), series of different core horizontal rib widths to plot an
which played more important roles, were considered to additional line (shown as a red solid) in the figures.
calculate a2. The average correlation of the vertical rib strength
Figure 13 shows the relationship between the verti- factors for H-shaped blocks a2BH and cross-shaped
cal rib strength factor of blocks and the w1/l1 of the blocks a2BT is given in equations (7) and (8),
vertical rib for different core horizontal ribs. The respectively
blocks used in the figures were transformed by types
2:40w1
BH-290, BH-240, and BC-240, and the concrete a2BH = + 0:69 ð7Þ
strength was selected to be 27.41 MPa. l1
For H-shaped blocks, 0.15, 0.25, and 0.35 were 1:75w1
selected for w3/l1 in Figure 13(a). For cross-shaped a2BC = + 0:55 ð8Þ
l1
blocks, 0 and 0.1 (same as type BC-240) were selected
for w3/l1 in Figure 13(b). Substituting equations (7) and (8) into equation (6)
A straight line was adopted to fit the data with dif- gives the calculating formula of compressive strength
ferent core horizontal rib widths for a simple form of of H-shaped blocks and cross-shaped blocks
the formula. The coefficient of determination of the
lines varied from 0.92 to 0.95, which shows good PBH = a1 a2BH  fc ð9Þ
agreement. PBT = a1 a2BT  fc ð10Þ
As shown in Figure 13, the dependency of the simu-
lated results on w3/l1 is generally smaller than that on Table 4 shows the comparison between the pre-
w3/l1. Also, the vertical rib is a more basic parameter dicted values of equations (9) and (10) with the
Liu et al.
experimental results. Error rate is in the range of
21.04% to 29.50%, which shows an acceptable accu-
racy. In addition, the predicted values were found to be
smaller than the experimental result, which makes for a
conservative and safer design. Thus, the accuracy of
this method for predicting the compressive strength of
H-shaped and cross-shaped series blocks is good so
far. After more types of load-bearing HHIBs are man-
ufactured, this model needs to be verified further.
Conclusion
Based on the experimental and numerical analyses of
the compressive behavior of the three types of HHIBs,
the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The average compressive strengths of types
BH-240, BH-290, and BC-240 are 15.9, 13.4,
and 13.0 MPa, respectively. The average elastic
modulus of types BH-240, BH-290, and BC-
240 are 11,199, 11,603, and 11,579 MPa,
respectively.
2. The compressive mechanism of H-shaped
blocks was superior compared to that of cross-
shaped blocks. The core horizontal ribs of
H-shaped blocks can restrain the two vertical
ribs and restrict lateral deformation to
improve the compressive bearing capacity.
For the cross-shaped blocks, core horizontal
ribs cannot improve the compressive strength
of the block because the core horizontal rib
and joints near them are damaged early.
3. The variations of fv of simulated H-shaped
blocks and cross-shaped blocks with different
side horizontal ribs are 1.86 and 2.04 MPa,
respectively, which is 5.6% of type BH-240 and
8.6% of type BC-240. Hence, the geometry of
the side horizontal ribs only has little influence
on the compressive strength of blocks.
4. For H-shaped blocks, the core horizontal rib
significantly increases the fv with the variation
of 8.6 MPa, which is approximately 30% of
type BH-240. For cross-shaped blocks, the core
horizontal rib decreases the fv with the varia-
tion of 2.7 MPa, which is approximately 11%
of type BC-240.
5. The w1/l1 significantly increases the fv of
HHIBs. An increase in 5.92 MPa for H-shaped
blocks and 6.02 MPa for cross-shaped blocks is
obtained from w1/l1 = 0.1 to w1/l1 = 0.2,
which is approximately 20% and 25% of type
BH-240 and type BC-240, respectively.
6. A method for calculating the compressive
strength of the HHIBs is proposed in this arti-
cle. The accuracy of this method is good so far
15
with the error rate in the range of 21.04% to
29.50%.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This work was financially supported by The National
Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 51678283) and
New Building Materials and Construction Energy
Conservation Key Laboratory Open Foundation of Gansu
Provence (GSJC2016-2).
References
ACI 318-08 (2008) Building code requirements for structural
concrete and commentary.
Barbosa CS and Hanai JB (2009) Strength and deformability
of hollow concrete blocks: correlation of block and cylind-
rical sample test results. IBRACON Structures and Mate-
rials Journal 2(1): 85–99.
Blasi C and Foraboschi P (1994) Analytical approach to col-
lapse mechanisms of circular masonry arch. Journal of
Structural Engineering 120(8): 2288–2309.
Dı́az JJC, Nieto PJ, Rabanal FP, et al. (2011) Design and
shape optimization of a new type of hollow concrete
masonry block using the finite element method. Engineer-
ing Structures 33(1): 1–9.
Foraboschi P (2013) Non-linear static analysis of masonry
buildings based on a strut-and-tie modeling. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 55: 44–58.
Foraboschi P (2016) The central role played by structural
design in enabling the construction of buildings that
advanced and revolutionized architecture. Construction
and Building Materials 114: 956–976.
Foraboschi P (2017) Specific structural mechanics that
underpinned the construction of Venice and dictated
Venetian architecture. Engineering Failure Analysis 78:
169–195.
Foraboschi P and Vanin A (2014) Experimental investigation
on bricks from historical Venetian buildings subjected to
moisture and salt crystallization. Engineering Failure Anal-
ysis 45: 185–203.
GB 50010-2010 (2010) Code for design of concrete structures
(in Chinese).
GB/T 4111-2013 (2013) Test methods for concrete block and
brick (in Chinese).
GB/T 50002-2013 (2013) Standard for modular coordination
of building (in Chinese).
He K (2012) Experimental study and FEM analysis of new
horizontal-hole hollow block masonry on local compression.
Master Thesis, Hunan University, Changsha, China (in
Chinese).
16
Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen (2001) ABAQUS/standard
user’s manual. Providence, RI: Hibbitt, Karlsson &
Sorensen.
Indelicato F and Paggi M (2008) Specimen shape and the
problem of contact in the assessment of concrete com-
pressive strength. Materials and Structures 41(2): 431.
Javidan F, Shahbeyk S and Safarnejad M (2014) Lattice
discrete particle modeling of compressive failure in hol-
low concrete blocks. Computers and Concrete 13(4):
437–456.
JGJ-T 384-2016 (2016) Technical specification for testing
concrete strength with drilled core (in Chinese).
Lee J and Fenves G (1998) Plastic-damage model for cyclic
loading of concrete structures. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics 124(8): 892–900.
Li W and Han L (2011) Seismic performance of CFST col-
umn to steel beam joints with RC slab: analysis. Journal
of Constructional Steel Research 67(1): 127–139.
Lubliner J, Oliver J, Oller S, et al. (1989) A plastic-damage
model for concrete. International Journal of Solids and
Structures 25(3): 299–326.
Morel J, Pkla A and Walker P (2007) Compressive strength
testing of compressed earth blocks. Construction and
Building Materials 21(2): 303–309.
Neville AM (1966) A general relation for strengths of con-
crete specimens of different shapes and sizes. ACI Journal
Proceedings 63(10): 1095–1110.
Neville AM (1995) Properties of Concrete. London: Longman.
Advances in Structural Engineering 00(0)
Rabbat BG and Russell HG (1985) Friction coefficient of
steel on concrete or grout. Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing 111(3): 505–515.
Sargin M (1971) Stress-strain relationship for concrete and the
analysis of structural concrete section. Master Thesis, Uni-
versity of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
Wu F (2006) A new type of hollow block. Patent CN1827972,
China (in Chinese).
Wu F, Chen W, Han H, et al. (2010) Research on the com-
pression behavior of a new type of concrete horizontal-
hole hollow block masonry. Journal of Hunan University
(Natural Sciences) 37(11): 1–5 (in Chinese).
Wu F, Fu F, Han H, et al. (2011) Seismic behavior on cross
bore chain block dry walls confined concrete frame. Jour-
nal of Building Structures 32(1): 37–42 (in Chinese).
Zhang J, Zhang WP, Zhao J, et al. (2015) Technical features
and application prospects of horizontal-hole interlocking
concrete hollow blocks. China Concrete and Cement Prod-
ucts 12: 71–74 (in Chinese).
Zhou Q, Wang F, Zhu F, et al. (2017) Stress–strain model for
hollow concrete block masonry under uniaxial compres-
sion. Materials and Structures 50(2): 106.
Zhou X, Zhang J, Dong Q, et al. (2012a) A new type of load
bearing interlocking block. Patent CN102653966A, China
(in Chinese).
Zhou X, Zhang J, Zhang Y, et al. (2012b) An H-shaped
horizontal-hole interlocking block. Patent CN102330482A,
China (in Chinese).