Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers
Construction Materials 159
August 2006 Issue CM3
Pages 111117
Paper 14228
Received 04/05/2005
Accepted 24/08/2006
Keywords:
brickwork & masonry/concrete
structures/strength and testing of
materials

M. S. Jaafar
Civil Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering,
Universiti Putra Malaysia,
Malaysia

Ahmed H. Alwathaf
Civil Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering,
Sanaa University,
Yemen

Waleed A. Thanoon
Civil Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering,
Petronas University of
Technology, Malaysia

Jamaloddin Noorzaei
Civil Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering,
Universiti Putra Malaysia,
Malaysia

Mohd. Razali Abdulkadir

Civil Engineering Department,
Faculty of Engineering,
Universiti Putra Malaysia,
Malaysia

Behaviour of interlocking mortarless block masonry

M. S. Jaafar, A. H. Alwathaf, W. A. Thanoon, J. Noorzaei and M. R. Abdulkadir
Various types of interlocking mortarless (dry-stacked)
block masonry system have been developed worldwide.
However, the characteristics of dry joints under
compressive load, and their effect on the overall behaviour
of the interlocking mortarless system, are still not well
understood. This paper presents an experimental
investigation into the dry-joint contact behaviour of
masonry and the behaviour of interlocking mortarless
hollow blocks for grouted and ungrouted prisms under
compression. Two experimental test set-ups are proposed
to evaluate the contact behaviour of dry joints, considering
the geometric imperfections in the contacting faces. The
results show that the contact behaviour of a dry joint is
highly affected by geometric imperfections in the block
bed. Different patterns of deformation are distinguished in
mortarless hollow (ungrouted) and grouted prisms. Dry
joints predominantly affected the hollow prism
deformation until the compressive load reaches 0$57 of the
maximum load. However, this behaviour is not common in
grouted prisms, because noticeable deformation
commences after 0$38 of the maximum load.
Furthermore, the variations of strength and deformation
in grouted specimens are diminished compared with those
in ungrouted specimens.

1. INTRODUCTION
Interlocking mortarless (dry-stacked) block masonry offers great
advantages in masonry construction. The main feature of the
interlocking hollow block system is the elimination of mortar
layers: the blocks are interconnected through interlocking keys
(protrusions and grooves). The goal in any interlocking system
is to ensure efficient construction formation with well-aligned
masonry structures, even without skilled masons. There have
been several attempts to develop interlocking hollow blocks in
various parts of the world.15 However, these blocks vary widely
in their dimensions, shapes and interlocking mechanisms. There
is much evidence that mortarless masonry will be as good as
traditional masonry, and a competitive alternative to it, if its
peculiarities are taken into account.
Among the unconventional masonry systems, Putra Block has
been developed recently in Malaysia as a load-bearing
interlocking mortarless hollow block system.6 Extensive research
has been carried out to investigate the compressive strength of
the system under concentric and eccentric loading using
Construction Materials 159 Issue CM3

individual blocks, prisms and walls.7 The shear characteristics of

the system have been investigated using a modified triplet test
set-up under different pre-compression loads.8 The dry joint
(block-to-block interface) characteristic and its influence on the
deformation and failure mechanism of the interlocking
mortarless block masonry system under compression still require
more study, not only on the Putra Block system but also on other
systems. This matter has not received sufficient attention in
various studies.5,911
When concrete blocks are stacked without filler or bonding
material, they are still in contact via virtual filler (roughness,
texture, etc.) rather than via the material properties of the
block units themselves. A close-up photograph of a mortarless
(dry) bed joints is shown in Fig. 1. The absence of the filler
material (mortar) in the block beds and head joints creates a
problem of geometric imperfection in the dry joint, which is
the main shortcoming of the system. This phenomenon needs
to be investigated in terms of its effect on the joint contact
behaviour. Oh12 presented an experimental test procedure
that can estimate the dry joint contact behaviour, including
the geometric imperfection effects. However, that test is
appropriate only for simple cases and for specimens of
limited size.
In this paper, an experimental investigation is presented for the
characteristics of dry joints and the behaviour of mortarless
masonry under compression load. Single- and multiple-joint test
set-ups have been developed to evaluate the contact behaviour of
dry joints, taking into consideration the influence and variation
of the geometric imperfection of the block beds arising from
different causes. The essential loaddeformation curves of the dry
joints that are required for future use in numerical modelling of
the system are also described. Furthermore, the characteristics of

Dry bed joint

Fig. 1. Mortarless (dry) masonry bed joint

Behaviour of interlocking mortarless block masonry

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 119.40.118.198
On: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:22:34

Jaafar et al.

111

variation of the height of the adjacent blocks. This is the second type
of imperfection. Verification of the dimensions of a batch of blocks
showed that differences in the block heights were G0$25 mm. The
actual measurement of the variety of imperfections of dry joint in a
wall is quite difficult. Therefore a contact test is required to study the
geometric imperfection of the block bed arising from different
sources.

10
0

eb

15

20
e
ac

ll

he

-s

66

Two contact behaviour test set-ups were used to explore these

two effects: single- and multiple-joint contact tests. In the
single-joint contact test, the closure deformation of block bed
interfaces is investigated under uniaxial compressive load as
affected by the irregularity and roughness of the contact
interfaces (Fig. 3). In the multiple-joint test (Fig. 4), the interface
closure is investigated as affected both by the same irregularity
and roughness and by the variation of the height of the adjacent
blocks (multiple effects). A face-shell bedded joint is considered
in the study because compressive load is transferred by this joint.

20

200

0
30

2.1.1. Test specimens.

Fig. 2. Details of interlocking block unit (dimensions in mm)

an interlocking mortarless masonry system are investigated from
the first application of the load to final failure using hollow
(ungrouted) and grouted prisms. Results for deformation
characteristics, failure mechanism, and compressive strength are
presented and discussed.
2. EXPERIMENTAL TEST
PROGRAMME
The block units used in the test
specimens have been produced
especially for the current study
using a semi-automatic
block-making machine on the
university campus. The
interlocking block unit used in
the study is shown in Fig. 2.
More details of the developed
block system can be found
elsewhere.6

(a) Single joint. In this test, 10 identical small prisms (SPR1 to

SPR10) having a single joint formed between two block
quarters were used, as shown in Fig. 3(b). The top quarter
was cut from the lower block half and the bottom quarter
from the upper block half. These parts are actually the region
located between two block heads, as shown in Fig. 3(a).
The specimen dimension was reduced to minimise any
undesirable effects caused by different type of imperfection.

75

DPs
200

(a)

2.1. Contact behaviour test

of bed joint
Contact behaviour is a complex
property in the mortarless joint,
and becomes more sophisticated
with the unevenness of the
contacted interfaces. This
unevenness is called the
geometric imperfection of the
block bed. Two types of
geometric imperfection of the
block bed were observed in the
mortarless walls. The first type is
caused by the variation of
regularity and roughness of the
block bed interfaces. After
stacking blocks in a wall, an
imperfection in the dry bed joint
can be observed due to the
112

75

Joint
50

(b)

(c)

Fig. 3. Contact test of single joint (dimensions in mm)

225

300

DPs1

300

DPs2

50

50

75

DPs3
50
Top
and
bottom
joints

600
50

50
DPs4

50
DPs5

DPs6

900
(a)

(b)

Fig. 4. Contact test of multiple joints (dimensions in mm)

Construction Materials 159 Issue CM3

Behaviour of interlocking mortarless block masonry

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 119.40.118.198
On: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:22:34

Jaafar et al.

2.2. Compression test of

prisms
This test aims to find the
deformation and failure
mechanisms of interlocking
mortarless hollow and grouted
prisms under uniaxial
compression load until failure.
The test is important to
evaluate the characteristics of
a masonry system that has
various masonry constituents
(block, grout and joints)
interacting together as a
composite structure.

PRG1
L1

600

Front face

L2

250

DP1

250

DP3

DP2

DP4

300

2.2.1. Test specimens. Two

different types of prism
(a)
(b)
(c)
(ungrouted and grouted) were
Fig. 5. Compression test of hollow and grouted prisms (dimensions in mm)
fabricated, as shown in
Fig. 5(a). For each type, three
identical prisms were constructed to confirm the test results. The
(b) Multiple joints. Fig. 4(a) shows a the small test wall used
hollow prism specimens were designated PR1, PR2 and PR3 and
in the second contact test set-up. The blocks were stacked in
the grouted prism specimens PRG1, PRG2 and PRG3. A prism
a running bond utilising the interlocking system provided
consists of two blocks in the top and bottom and two saw-cut
by the blocks. Two joints were formed between three block
halves in the middle course to reflect the actual block
courses in the test wall. The block arrangement allows every
arrangement in a real wall, where the webs of the hollow units do
block bed interface to be shared by two blocks in which the
not align vertically in successive courses. This yields a realistic
effect of block height differences is included. Three identical
behaviour. The central core of the grouted prisms was filled, and
test walls were used to verify the test results (W1, W2 and
the prisms were tested after 28 days.
W3). Two saw-cut halves of blocks were used at the ends of
the middle course to complete the course. The top
projections of the top course were removed to allow the
top-loaded steel block to be placed.
2.1.2. Test set-up and test procedure. Direct measurement as
close as possible to the joint is necessary to reduce the
undetermined contribution of the material deformation. Pairs of
mechanical gauge Demec points (DPs) with a small gauge length
of 50 mm were installed across the masonry joints to measure the
normal displacement (closure) of the joints, as shown in Fig. 3
and 4. The DPs were installed at the mid length of the single joint
near the web, and the same location was used in the multiple joint
to trace the behaviour of the joint at the same point on the block
face-shell to obtain consistent results for the two specimens.
Lateral deformation was not measured because its effect on the
axial deformation can be neglected. This is because most of
the head joint interfaces are not in contact owing to a small,
visible gap arising from casting demands to facilitate production
of the blocks.
Grinding and capping were used on the top and bottom of
specimen surfaces of the face-shell bed to obtain smooth and
plane surfaces. The single-joint specimens were tested by a
compression machine with a capacity of 3000 kN (Fig. 3(c)). For
the test wall specimens, vertical compressive load was applied by
means of a vertical hydraulic jack with a maximum loading
capacity of 500 kN. The load was distributed uniformly using a
spreader UB beam and steel block, as shown in Fig. 4(b). For both
set-ups, vertical load was applied incrementally to allow
measuring of closure displacement of the joint during the tests.

Construction Materials 159 Issue CM3

2.2.2. Test set-up and test procedure. The axial deformation of

the prisms was measured using a gauge length of 250 mm across
two bed joints on both sides (L1 and L2) as well as on the front
and back faces, as shown in Fig. 5. Grinding and capping were
used on the face-shell bed at the top and bottom of the specimen
surfaces to obtain smooth and plane surfaces after removing the
top projection of the top block unit. Vertical compressive load
was applied by means of a vertical hydraulic jack with a
maximum loading capacity of 500 kN.
3. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 1 shows the properties of the blocks and grout used in the
experimental work.
3.1. Joint contact behaviour results
3.1.1. Single joint. Figure 6 shows typical normal displacement
of the mortarless single joint under axial compressive load

Type of
specimen
Block unit
COV*: %.
Grout
cylinders
COV*: %
*

Compressive
strength, f 0 c :
N/mm2
23$4
15$8
20$4
6$9

Modulus of
elasticity, Ec:
N/mm2
9605
10$2
8462$0
7$7

Splitting tensile
strength, f 0 t :
N/mm2
2$09
8$1
2$51
14$3

COV is coefficient of variation.

Table 1. Block and grout properties

Behaviour of interlocking mortarless block masonry

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 119.40.118.198
On: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:22:34

Jaafar et al.

113

80

350

012 mm

09 mm

300

60

Compressive load: kN

Compressive load: kN

70

50
40
30
Upper bound
20

Lower bound

10

250
200
PR1

150

PR2
100

PR3
Upper bound

50

Average

Lower bound

0
0

02

04

06

08

0
0

Normal displacement: mm

Increasing the stiffness during loading is a significant difference

between the dry joint and the conventional mortared joint. The
solid line in Fig. 6 represents the average displacement measured
under increasing load with the variation in the observed values
represented by the upper and lower bounds. The maximum
difference in the joint displacement within the range was
0$12 mm at maximum load. All the contact curves in the single
joint lie between these limits owing to the variation of roughness
and irregularity of the block beds.
3.1.2. Multiple joints. Contact test results of multiple joints in
the test walls are shown in Fig. 7. The contact behaviour curves
measured at different locations (DPs are shown as dots on the
specimen in Fig. 7) lie between the upper and lower bounds, which
indicates high variations in the normal displacement (closure) in
the multiple joints. The high normal displacement value in some
joints is believed to be due to the undesirable differences of the
height of adjacent blocks due to the casting process. This type of
imperfection sometimes causes very small visible gaps between

055 mm

140
Compressive load: kN

15

20

Fig. 8. Loadaxial deformation curves of ungrouted prisms

measured at the DPs (see Fig. 3). This displacement represents the
joint closure at the measuring points (also shown in the figure)
after removing the contribution of the material deformation. Nonlinear gradual closure of the contact interfaces (or seating) under
compressive loading is observed in all joints. The initial increase in
the contact stiffness appears to be due to settling of the blocks and
increase of the areas that come into contact. Once the slope of the
curve approaches a high value, this means that the joint interfaces
have become almost in full contact.

the interfaces. Although large differences in normal displacement

were measured at different locations in the test walls (as indicated
by the upper and lower bounds in Fig. 7), the average normal
displacement, calculated by using all the measurements at the
specified location, indicates near identical behaviour for all walls,
as can be observed by the solid lines in Fig. 7. The maximum
difference in the joint displacement within the upper and lower
bounds (shown in Fig. 7) was 0$55 mm at the maximum load,
which is 3$7 times greater than the measured value in the single
joint at the same stress level.

3.2. Compression test results of prisms

3.2.1. Deformation and strength. The ungrouted prisms showed
extensive axial deformation at lower load levels due to the initial
seating deformation (the seating was defined in the contact test
results of the joints) at the dry bed joints, as shown in Fig. 8.
Similar observations were made by Oh12 and Marzahn.13 High
variation in the prism displacement was observed at different
locations (the gauge lengths L1 and L2 are shown in Fig. 5, and
are also shown as vertical lines on the prism sketch in Fig. 8). The
maximum difference in the prism displacement within the range
was around 0$90 mm at the higher loads. This behaviour occurred
mainly because of variation in the contact behaviour of dry
joints, which was affected by the geometric imperfection caused
by block bed irregularity and variation of block height (Section
3.1.2). Fig. 8 also shows the curves for load against axial
deformation for the three ungrouted prisms, calculated as the
average of measurements at the earlier specified gauge lengths
that fell within the average range. In general, all hollow prisms
revealed almost similar behaviour under axial compression, and
the dry joints predominantly affected the prism deformation until
0$57 of the average maximum load.

120
100
80
W1

60

W2

40

W3
Upper bound

20

Lower bound
0
0

02

04
06
Normal displacement: mm

Construction Materials 159 Issue CM3

A summary of the compression test results for ungrouted prisms is

shown in Table 2. The average stress was calculated by dividing the
load by the face-shell bedded area, and the strain was calculated by
dividing the measured longitudinal deformation by the gauge
length of 250 mm. The ungrouted prisms showed an average
compressive strength ( fm ) of 11$2 N/mm2, and the average stress
at which web cracks were initiated ( fwc) was 6$4 N/mm2.

08

Fig. 7. Loaddisplacement curves of multiple joints in a test wall

114

10
Axial deformation: mm

Fig. 6. Loaddisplacement curves in a single joint

160

05

The grouted prisms showed completely different behaviour from

that of the ungrouted system, as shown in Fig. 9. The initial large
deformation at the lower loads disappears, and also the variation

Behaviour of interlocking mortarless block masonry

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 119.40.118.198
On: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:22:34

Jaafar et al.

Type of prism

Specimen

Maximum load: kN

Compressive
strength, fm : N/mm2

Web splitting load:

kN

Web splitting stress,

fwc: N/mm2

Ungrouted

PR1
PR2
PR3
Ave.
COV* %
PRG1
PRG2
PRG3
Ave.
COV* %

216$1
299$5
289$6
268$4

9$0
12$5
12$1
11$2

122$8
171$9
164$1
152$9

5$1
7$2
6$8
6$4

11$8
11$2
11$5
11$5

270$1
270$1
272$5
270$9

Grouted

13$9
402$7
383$0
392$7
392$8

14$1

2$0

7$9
7$9
8$0
7$9
0$4

COV is coefficient of variation

Table 2. Test results of compressive strength and web splitting loads of prisms
average stress at which cracks in the web were initiated ( fwc) was
7$9 N/mm2. The concrete grout core area was added to the
face-shells bedded area to find the total loaded area in stress
calculation of the grouted prisms. Because the effect of the dry
joint is reduced in the grouted prisms, the variation in their
strength becomes less than in the ungrouted prisms, as can be
seen in the coefficient of variation (COV) in Table 2.

450

Compressive load: kN

400
350
300
250
PRG1

200

PRG2

150

PRG3

100

Upper bound

50

Lower bound

3.2.2. Web splitting and mode of failure. In the ungrouted

prisms, before failure, cracks were observed at webs in the

0
0

05

10

15

3500

20

Axial deformation: mm

Fig. 9. Loadaxial deformation curves of grouted prisms

in the displacement at different locations is diminished. This
behaviour is attributed to the grouted core, which has now
affected the overall deformation of the grouted prism. Unlike the
block assemblages, the concrete grout in the cores has no
discontinuity planes. Furthermore, closure of the contacted
interfaces here depends strongly on the bond between the grout
and the surrounding block shells. Curves of load against axial
deformation for all the grouted prisms are also depicted in Fig. 9,
using the average of measurements at the specified gauge lengths
(L1 and L2). In the grouted prisms, noticeable deformation started
after 0$38 of the average maximum load.
In the initial stage, loads were resisted by the grout together
with the surrounding block shells that were bonded to the
grout. As a result, the closure deformation of bed joints was
small compared with that for the hollow prism. This can
explain the higher slope of the loadaxial displacement curves
at low loading level, as can be seen in Fig. 9. As the axial
compression load increased, bilateral deformation of the grout
also increased, as well as the longitudinal deformation. When
the stress in the grout reached a certain level, the bond
between the grout and the surrounding block shell started to
break, which in turn allowed perceptible closure in the joints.
As a result, large deformation in the prism occurred at high
load levels. This deformation increased according to the degree
of grout debonding.
As shown in Table 2, the grouted prisms showed an average
compressive strength ( fm ) of 11$5 N/mm2, and the load and
Construction Materials 159 Issue CM3

3500

Fig. 10. Web splitting of an ungrouted prism; the numbers

represent the level of applied load in lb/in2 (1 lb/in2Z6$89 kN/m2)
at which the crack(s) appeared

Front face
2700

DP1

DP2

Fig. 11. Face-shell cracking of an ungrouted prism; the numbers

represent the level of applied load in lb/in2 (1 lb/in2Z6$89 kN/m2)
at which the crack(s) appeared

Behaviour of interlocking mortarless block masonry

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 119.40.118.198
On: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:22:34

Jaafar et al.

115

Back face

2500

2700
Concrete
crushing
DP2

DP1

Fig. 12. Mode of failure of ungrouted prism PR1; the numbers

represent the level of applied load in lb/in2 (1 lb/in2Z6$89 kN/m2)
at which the crack(s) appeared

5500

Fig. 15. Block shells debonding in grouted prism

middle course, which caused a small visible gap at one half joint.
This induced an additional flexural stress as a cantilever action in
the block that was not fully in contact. Fig. 12 shows the concrete
crushing at the bottom of the top block. The crack did not extend to
the top because of the end plate restraint.
4700

Fig. 13. Web splitting of grouted prism; the numbers represent

the level of applied load in lb/in2 (1 lb/in2Z6$89 kN/m2) at which
the crack(s) appeared

In the grouted prisms, cracking of the web started at higher loads

than in the hollow prisms (see Table 2) and occurred near the
junction of webs and face-shells, as shown in Fig. 13. In a
different mechanism from that for the hollow prisms, web
splitting occurred because of lateral deformation of the grout
rather than a flexural effect. Final failure occurred after
face-shell cracking at one or more blocks, as shown in Fig. 14. As
shown in Fig. 15, some face-shell parts were debonded from the
grout. This observation occurred mostly in specimen PRG2,
which had the lowest strength.

4800

4. CONCLUSIONS
DP1

DP2

Fig. 14. Face-shell cracking of grouted prism; the numbers

represent the level of applied load in lb/in2 (1 lb/in2Z6$89 kN/m2)
at which the crack(s) appeared
plane of the prism, as shown in Fig. 10. At the first appearance
of web cracks, the bed joints at the contacted interfaces tended
to resettle for a new contacted state. Web splitting in the plane
of the wall has also been observed in conventional mortared
masonry, which occurred via a mechanism similar to deep
beam bending.1417 Although the webs of the block cracked,
failure occurred after face-shell cracking at one or more blocks,
as shown in Fig. 11. The failure was sudden and explosive for
all test prisms.
Premature failure occurred for specimen PR2 (PmaxZ216$1 kN: see
Table 2) because of the bed unevenness of the two halves in the
116

Construction Materials 159 Issue CM3

The proposed contact tests of dry joints were used successfully to

assess the contact behaviour of mortarless joints and to
determined the ranges of contact variation due to different types
of geometric imperfection of block beds for single and multiple
joints. Non-linear gradual closure of the contact interfaces
(or seating) under compressive loading is observed in dry joints.
The results show that the contact behaviour of dry joints is
strongly affected by the geometric imperfection of block beds,
and especially by the imperfection caused by differences in the
heights of adjacent blocks in a wall.
The results indicate that the overall behaviour of the mortarless
system is strongly affected by dry joint behaviour. Two different
patterns of deformation were observed in ungrouted and grouted
masonry. In ungrouted masonry prisms, high initial axial
deformation (seating deformation) takes place until the
compressive load reaches 0$57 of the maximum load. In grouted
masonry this behaviour is not common, because high axial
deformation at the higher load levels depends on the degree of
grout debonding, and noticeable deformation occurred after 0$38
of the maximum load. In grouted prisms, the structural
performance is enhanced because the effect of dry joints is
reduced. The undesirable high initial deformation disappears in

Behaviour of interlocking mortarless block masonry

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 119.40.118.198
On: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:22:34

Jaafar et al.

the grouted prisms, and the variation in their strength becomes

less than in the ungrouted specimens.
Similar to conventional mortared masonry, web splitting takes
place in the mortarless masonry. Web splitting occurs at higher
stress in grouted prisms than in ungrouted prisms. In ungrouted
prisms web splitting occurs via a mechanism similar to deep
beam bending, whereas in grouted specimens it occurs as a result
of lateral expansion of the grout.

REFERENCES
1. THALLON R. Dry-tack block. Fine Homebuilding Magazine,
1983, August, 5057.
2. HAENER. Stacking mortarless block system. In Engineering
Design Manual, Atkinson Engineering, Inc., Hamilton,
Ontario, 1984.
3. GALLEGOS H. Mortarless masonry: the Mecano system.
International Journal of Housing Science and its
Applications, 1988, 12, No. 2, 145157.
4. HARRIS H. G., OH K. and HAMID A. A. Development of new
interlocking and mortarless block masonry units for efficient
building systems. Proceedings of the 6th Canadian Masonry
Symposium, Saskatoon, 1992, pp. 1517.
5. ANAND K. B. and RAMAMURTHY K. Development and performance
evaluation of interlocking block masonry. Journal of
Architectural Engineering, ASCE, 2000, 6, No. 2, 4551.
6. THANOON W. A., JAAFAR M. S., ABDULKADIR M. R., ALI A. A., TRIKHA
D. N. and NAJM A. M. Development of an innovative
interlocking load bearing hollow block system in Malaysia.
Construction and Building Materials, 2004, 18, No. 6, 445454.
7. JAAFAR M. S., THANOON W. A., NAJM A. M., ABDULKADIR M. R. and
ALI A. A. Strength correlation between individual block,
prism and basic wall panel for load bearing interlocking
mortarless hollow block masonry. Construction and Building
Materials, 2006, 20, No. 7, 492498.

8. ALWATHAF A. H., THANOON W. A., JAAFAR M. S., NOORZAEI J. and

ABDULKADIR M. R. Shear characteristic of interlocking
mortarless block masonry joint. Masonry International,
2005, 18, No. 3, 139146.
9. DRYSDALE R. G. and GAZZOLA E. A. Strength and deformation
properties of a grouted, dry-stacked, interlocked concrete
block system. Proceedings of the 9th International
Brick/Block Masonry Conference, Berlin, 1991, pp. 164171.
10. OH K., HARRIS H. G. and HAMID A. A. New interlocking and
mortarless block masonry units for earthquake-resistant
structures. Proceedings of the 6th North American Masonry
Conference, Philadelphia, 1993, pp. 821836.
11. MARZAHN G. Dry-stacked masonry in comparison with mortar
joint masonry. Leipzig Annual Civil Engineering Report,
1997, (2), 353365.
12. OH K. Development and Investigation of Failure Mechanism of
Interlocking Mortarless Block Masonry System. PhD thesis,
Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Drexel
University, Philadelphia, 1994.
13. MARZAHN G. Investigation on the initial settlement of drystacked masonry under compression. Leipzig Annual Civil
Engineering Report, 1999, (3), 247261.
14. SHRIVE N. G. The failure mechanism of face-shell bedded
(ungrouped and unreinforced) masonry. International
Journal of Masonry Construction, 1982, 2, No. 3, 115128.
15. BECCIA I. J. and HARRIS H. G. Behaviour of hollow concrete
masonry prisms under axial load and bending. The Masonry
Society Journal, 1983, 2, No. 2, T1T26.
16. HAMED A. A. and CHUKWUNENYE A. Effect of type of
mortar bedding on the behaviour of axially loaded
hollow block masonry prism. Proceedings of the 3rd
North American Masonry Conference, Arlington, TX,
1985, pp. 16-116-11.
17. XIE H., PAGE A. W. and KLEEMAN P. W. An investigation of the
compressive failure mechanism for face-shell bedded hollow
masonry. Proceedings of the 6th Canadian Masonry
Symposium, Saskatoon, 1992, pp. 97108.

What do you think?

To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers
should be 20005000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for author
guidelines and further details.

Construction Materials 159 Issue CM3

Behaviour of interlocking mortarless block masonry

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:

IP: 119.40.118.198
On: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:22:34

Jaafar et al.

117