Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3 (1): 75-80

Scholarlink Research Institute Journals, 2012 (ISSN: 2141-7016)

jeteas.scholarlinkresearch.org
Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(1):75-80(ISSN: 2141-7016)

The Load Carrying Capacity of Hollow Sandcrete Blocks

J. C Ezeokonkwo and C. U Nwoji

Department of Civil Engineering,

University of Nigeria, Nsukka
Corresponding Author: J. C Ezeokonkwo
___________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
Compression tests on hollow sandcrete blocks are conventionally confined to the as-cast face neglecting the
other two orthogonal faces. Also uniaxial compressive strength of hollow sandcrete blocks is defined on the
basis of the apparent area of the as-cast face. The definition has made no distinction between hollow and solid
sandcrete blocks. In other to examine/investigate the consequences of the above, two-cell hollow sandcrete
blocks with 30%, 40.7%, 50% and 60% cavity volumes were subjected to compression test on as-cast face and
as-cast side. Sand/cement ratio of 6 and water/cement ratio of 0.7 were used. The blocks were hand compacted
and curing was by water sprinkling for 7 days according to Nigerian Industrial Specifications for sandcrete
blocks Compressive strengths were calculated based on the apparent and effective areas of the two
perpendicular surfaces. The results indicate that the effective strengths compare more favourably with the
control cylinder strength than the apparent strengths. Comparison between the two perpendicular surface
strengths showed a linear correlation. Therefore, the plane and smoothness of as-cast side made it a better face
to define the strength of blocks by correlating it to the as-cast face strength
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Keywords: hollow sandcrete blocks, effective strength, apparent strength, compressive strength, as-cast
surfaces web
__________________________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION decided to specify 2.10 N/mm2 as the minimum
Sandcrete blocks are available for the construction of compressive strength for load bearing walls of 2 or 3-
load bearing and non-load bearing structures (Hodge, storey building (RCRD, 1979). No distinction was
1971). They are the dominant wall construction made between hollow and solid blocks. This
materials for buildings in Nigeria and sandcrete definition agrees with that in other national standard
blocks are composite material made up of cement, specifications for concrete blocks (BS 2028, 1978;
sand and water, moulded into different sizes (Barry, ASTM C145-75 and ASTM C90-75).
1969). In accordance with ASTM C1232-10,
Standard Terminology of Masonry, the definitions for However, from ASTM C90 the compressive strength
hollow and solid masonry units are: requirements were converted from a minimum gross
Hollow masonry unit, nunit whose net cross- area compressive strength to a minimum net area
sectional area in any plane parallel to the surface compressive strength. Until this conversion was
containing cores, cells, or deep frogs is less than 75 made, ASTM maintained two different standards for
% of its gross cross-sectional area measured in the load bearing concrete masonry units: ASTM C90, for
same plane. hollow units, and ASTM C145, for solid units. The
Solid masonry unit, nunit whose net cross- requirements of these two standards were effectively
sectional area in any plane parallel to the surface identical, with the exception that the minimum
containing cores, cells, or deep frogs is 75 % or more compressive strength required was calibrated to
of its gross cross-sectional area measured in the same account for the units being either solid or hollow. By
plane. revising the minimum compressive strength
requirements to be based on the net area of the unit,
The Nigeria Industrial Standard (NIS 87: 2000) the need for two separate standards covering hollow
defined the compressive strength of a sandcrete block and solid units was no longer necessary and ASTM
as the load at failure in compression divided by the C145 was withdrawn. Today, ASTM C90 applies
apparent bearing area of the block. Nigerian equally to hollow and solid load bearing concrete
Industrial Standard (NIS 87: 2000) specified that the masonry units (NCMA, 2010). It has been argued that
lowest compressive strength of individual load it is the solid area of the block that actually sustains
2
and transmits the load (Uzomaka, 1977). Some
bearing blocks shall not be less than 2.5 N/mm and
design manuals (Curtin et al., 2006 and Schneider et
average compressive strength of five blocks shall not
2 al., 1980) have also criticized the computation of
be less than 3.45 N/mm . Federal Ministry of Works compressive strength of hollow block based on the
and Housing, during the Annual Conference in Kano apparent (gross) area. They have contended that
75
Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(1):75-80(ISSN: 2141-7016)
compressive strength should be calculated on the
basis of the solid bearing area of the hollow block,
except where they are filled with grout.
The rough and uneven as-cast face (the surface plane
parallel to the surface containing cells) of a hollow
sandcrete block causes reduction and inaccuracy in
the compressive strength. These defects are
minimized through treating of the as-cast face
(Thomas, 1964). Uzomaka (1977) has further drawn
attention to the tedious and costly test procedures for
determining before testing by capping, grinding or
packing with a bedding material. These treatments
are cumbersome, that Workers at Fourah Bay College
recommended the procedure of rubbing down the test
faces with carboradum plate to achieve the desired
even surface (Eze-Uzomaka, 1978). Elimination of
this tedious capping, grinding or packing processes
can also be done by testing the hollow blocks on the
sides that are smooth and plane (Ezeokonkwo, 1988).
DeBorde, et al. (2011) noted that it is important to
assess the compressive strength of bricks so that
buildings designed with masonry will perform
properly. Therefore, testing the bricks for
compressive strength is essential to assess the overall
behaviour of the material in construction (BIA 2004).
It is important to understand the behaviour of hollow
sandcrete blocks under different hollow (cavity)
configurations in order to properly define the
compressive strength of hollow blocks considering
the unevenness of the as-cast surface of the blocks.
The work of capping, grinding or packing processes
to obtain smooth and plane surface for testing hollow
sandcrete blocks is very tedious. Yet hollow
sandcrete blocks possess smooth and plane surfaces
that can be used to avoid capping, grinding or
packing processes.
The optimum value water/cement ratio of 0.7 has
been determined for cement/sand ratio of 6
(Uzomaka, 1977). Curing started 24 hours after
76
Consequently, this paper examines the variation in
compressive strength of different hollow block
configurations and to study the effect of different
hollow (cavity) blocks on the compressive strength.
To do this, compression test was carried out on the
plane parallel to the surface containing cells (as-cast
surface) and on the plane perpendicular to the
surface containing cells (as-cast side surface).
Compressive strengths were calculated based on the
apparent (gross area) and effective areas of the two
perpendicular surfaces. This is to establish the
relationship between the strength obtained by
carrying out compression tests on the two orthogonal
surfaces in order to reduce the effort involved in
capping to produce an even surface. Thus, the
definition and determination of the load carrying
capacity of sandcrete blocks have considerable cost
implications and are of great interest to the
construction industry.
TEST DETAILS
Specimen Preparation
The overall dimensions of all test specimens are
450mm x 225mm x 225mm.Fig. 1 shows the variety
of hollow blocks used in the study, with cavity
volume of 30%, 40.7%, 50% and 60%. In the
identification of the blocks, 30H25, for example,
represents a hollow block with 30% cavity volume
and end-web thickness of 25mm.the dimensions of
the cavity are given as (a x b), (c x d), (e x g), or (m x
n). The block specimens were prepared with wooden
moulds at the Department of Civil Engineering
Laboratory, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Compaction was done in three layers, each being
tamped 35 times with a standard wooden tamping
rod. Two samples of each block type were produced.
casting and was by water sprinkling once a day for 7
days, and then left to mature for another 7 days inside
the laboratory in accordance with NIS 87: 2000
Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(1):75-80(ISSN: 2141-7016)

specification for curing. Standard 150mm-cylinder

specimens were prepared for control. The procedure
of rubbing down the test face with carboradum plate
was used to achieve the desired even surface for the
as-cast face.

Test Procedure
Each block was tested in a 2000KN capacity Dension
testing machine at the Department of Civil
Engineering Laboratory, University of Nigeria,
Nsukka. No effort was made to produce frictionless
ends, in order to simulate as closely as possible the
actual procedure in practice.

COMPUTATION OF COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
Compressive strength was calculated on the basis of Fig. 2: Orientations and Dimensions of Hollow
the apparent and effective bearing areas of the two
perpendicular surfaces as shown in figure 2. The The compressive strength of hollow sandcrete blocks,
strength of hollow blocks, when as-cast when as-cast face was the bearing surface at test, is
calculated as follows:
Fza = Pz 1
Lx B
Fze = Pz 2
LB-2ab

The compressive strength when as-cast side was the

bearing surface at test is calculated as follows:
Fxa = Px 3
LH
Fxe = Px 4
Ae
Where Ae = H (2te + tc) 5
Z indicates that as-cast face was the bearing area at
test, while X indicates that as-cast side was the
bearing area at test

ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS

Variability of Compressive Strength
Table 1 shows the dispersion coefficients for the
strength of the various hollow sandcrete blocks. It
can be seen that the mean strength decreases with
increase in cavity volume, except for the

Table 1: Mean Strength, Standard Deviation and Coefficient of Variation for Hollow Sandcrete Block
Mean strength (N/mm2 ) Standard deviation (N/mm2)
Apparent area Effective area Apparent area Effective area Coefficient of variation
TYPE OF BLOCKS (%)
Face tested Face tested Face tested Face tested Face tested Face tested
Z X Z X Z X Z X Z X
30H12.5-30H60 4.8 6.2 3.4 2.6 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.3 11.92 11.61

40.7H12.5-40.7H60 4.5 4.5 2.6 1.5 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.3 4.95 17.90
50H12.5-50H60 4.0 4.5 2.0 1.2 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.2 11.49 18.09
60H12.5-60H45 3.9 5.8 1.6 1.2 0.4 1.1 0.2 0.2 10.10 19.32

effective strength of as-cast side, where the block
group 60H12.5 60H45 showed greater mean
strength over block groups: 50H12.5 50H60, and
40.7H12.5 40.7H60. This supports the observation
that the strength of small specimen is on the average
larger than that of the bigger specimens
77
(Ezeokonkwo, 1988 and Mirza et al., 1979). The
coefficient of variation has no defined trend, but
values of 4.95% - 11.92% and 11.61% - 19.32% were
recorded for the two perpendicular surfaces
respectively. This confirms previous investigations,
which indicate that the standard deviation and the
 Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(1):75-80(ISSN: 2141-7016)
coefficient of variation are not constant for different
strength levels Ezeokonkwo, 1988, Mirza, et al.,
1979, Ibeh, 1975 and Florek, 1985).
The Representative Strength for Hollow
Sandcrete Blocks
The best estimate of the compressive strength any
material is conventionally considered to be that
determined from testing a cylindrical specimen of the
material. Specimens of cubical or prismatic shapes
are normally used in practice for expediency.
Consequently, the representative compressive
strength of a hollow sandcrete block is defined in this
study to be the compressive strength value, which is
closest to the corresponding cylinder strength. The
control cylinder strength is 5.093 N/mm2 with
standard deviation of 0.821 N/mm2 and coefficient of
variation of 16.124%. Any difference between the
strength of hollow sandcrete block and the cylinder
strength of the same sandcrete mixture is due to the
effects of geometry, void cavity, direction of load
application and the area over which the load has been
transmitted.
Table 2 shows the results of t test analysis which
deals with the estimation of a true value from a
sample and the establishment of the confidence range
within which the value can be said to lie. The validity
that the various hollow block groups mean strength
could have come from a population with the cylinder
strength as mean strength lies within 0.02
significance level. With this confidence level, any
block group mean strength that has calculated t
value greater than the tabulated t value does not
belong to the population with the cylinder strength as
the mean strength. Results of the apparent strengths
on the two perpendicular surfaces of the blocks
indicate that they are not part of the block strength
population with the cylinder strength as their mean
strength. This means that the block mean value is far
less than the populations mean. Invariably, the
calculated t values for all the block types are less
than the tabulated t values
Table 2: t test results
Effective strength for Effective strength for
HOLLOW face (Z) face (X)
BLOCK TYPE
t t t t
calculated tabulated calculated tabulated
30H12.5 1.306 2.624 5.709 2.624
30H60
40H12.5 - 9.969 2.718 2.125
40.7H60
50H12.5 9.420 2.650 2.518 2.821
50H60
60H12.5 11.322 2.718 2.168 2.718
60H45
From Table 2, we conclude that the compressive
strength of 30H12.5 30H60 hollow sandcrete block
type is better calculated on the basis of effective
strength of as-cast face (Z). For 40.7H12.5
40.7H60, 50H12.5 50H60 and 60H12.5 60H45
hollow sandcrete block types, the compressive
strength is better calculated on the basis of effective
strength of the as-cast side (X). Generally, therefore,
compressive strength should be calculated on the
basis of effective strength of the as-cast side surface
(X). This is advantageous as most available
commercial hollow sandcrete blocks belong to the
groups. It further shows that the effective strength
rather than the apparent strength should be the true
representative compressive strength of hollow
sandcrete blocks.
As-Cast Face versus ASCast Side
The crushing load on as-cast face is greater than the
corresponding value on as-cast side. The load on as-
cast side is about 48.8%-80.6% of load on as-cast
face. This is due to the effective bearing area of the
as-cast face. In structural compression members
(masonry walls) the situation is similar to that
existing in blocks tested on as-cast face.
Consequently, using the as-cast face gives the
realistic results for hollow sandcrete blocks. The most
important factor militating against blocks tested on
as-cast face is lack of smoothness and plane ness.
Capping to achieve a smooth and plane surface
increases the strength by 12 15% and rubbing down
the test faces with carboradum plate to achieve even
surfaces was recommended (Eze-Uzomaka, 1978). In
order to overcome the extra work involved in the
capping operation, an attempt was made to correlate
the strengths on as-cast face (Z) and as-cast side (X).
Analysis of test data from four different block types
gave a linear correlation. The linear correlation
between strengths on the two perpendicular surfaces
was examined using individual slope for each block
type, single slope and pooled slope.
If the strength of individual block is to be determined
as specified in the NIS 87: 2000 then, correlation
between the as cast face apparent strength and as-cast
side apparent strength should be investigated. This
will eliminate the danger posse by the as-cast face
when used to determine the strength block. Linear
regression analysis between the as-cast face apparent
strengths (fza) and as-cast side apparent strengths (fxa)
based on the individual slope for each block type
indicated the following linear equations and are
shown in fig. 3.
For 30H12.5 30H60 blocks
2.821
fza = 0.5394fxa + 2.005 (r = 0.907 ) (1)
For 40.7H12.5 40.7H60 blocks
fza = 0.4211fxa + 2.0028 (r = 0.964) (2)
For 50H12.5 50H60 blocks
fza = 0.8558fxa + 0.9398 (r=0.855 ) (3)
For 60H12.5 60H45 blocks
fza = 0.4133fxa + 1.0858 (r=0.996 ) (4)
The correlation coefficients indicate that there is 95
percent certainty that there is a linear correlation
78
Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(1):75-80(ISSN: 2141-7016)
except in 50 percent cavity blocks types, which
indicates 90 percent certainty.
When all the individual slopes are pooled into a
single slope figure 4, the linear regression equation
between the strength fza and fxa becomes:
fza = 1.0174fxa + 0.7616 (r = 0.921) (5)
The correlation coefficient indicates that there is 95
percent certainty that there is a single slope linear
correlation. The sum of squares of deviation from the
best straight line through the set of data separately is
0.121797578, while the sum of squares of deviation
from the best straight line through all the data is
1.191389506. It can be concluded that the linear
correlation between fza and fxa can be best described
by straight lines with different slope. But on the other
hand, it has been shown that the effective strength of
the as-cast side is the true representative for the range
of commercial produced blocks. Then, correlation
between the as-cast face apparent strength (fza) and
as-cast side effective strength becomes necessary.
Correlation based on individual slopes between the
apparent strength (fza) of the as-cast face and the
79
effective strength (fxn) of as-cast side are shown in
figure 5 and have the following equations.
For 30H12.5 30H60 blocks
fza = 0.2280fxn + 2.0116 (r = 0.908) (6)
For 40.7H12.5 40.7H60 blocks
fza = 0.1405fxn + 2.0021 (r= 0.965) (7)
For 50 H12.5 50H60 blocks
fza = 0.2279fxn + 0.9416 (r = 0.855) (8)
For 60H12.5 - 60H45 blocks
fza = 0.0830fxn + 1.0849 (r = 0.996) (9)
The correlation coefficients shown in equations 6 - 9
are the same as that indicated in equations 1- 4, and
therefore the same probability level is maintained.
The F-test analysis (William, 1969) based on 3 and
11 degree of freedom with 95 percent confidence
level, showed that although pooled slope and single
slopes regression lines have moderate correlation
coefficients, a better linear correlation exists if the
individual line is drawn with own slope for every
sandcrete block group. The best straight line through
sets, each with its own slope, for correlation between
as-cast face crushing load (Pz) and as-cast side
crushing load (Px ) is the same as shown in figure 3.
The correlation coefficients are the same as that
shown by strength correlation. The only difference is
the absence of criss-crossing.
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions were reached from the
study:
a) The standard deviation and coefficient of
variation are not constant for different
strength levels.
b) The loading direction on the hollow
sandcrete block influences the standard
deviation and coefficient of variation of
strength.
c) The effective strength has lower coefficient
of variation than the apparent strength; i.e.
the effective strength has better uniformity.
Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(1):75-80(ISSN: 2141-7016)
d) The effective strength is more representative
of the true compressive strength of hollow
sandcrete blocks than the apparent strength.
Effective strength of as-cast side proved to
be better result for the blocks.
e) A linear correlation exists between strengths
determined for as-cast face and for as-cast
side. Individual lines best describe this linear
correlation with different slope for each set
of hollow blocks.
REFERENCES
ASTM Standard C145, 1975. Standard Specification
for solid LoadBearing Concrete Masonry Unit,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM Standard C90, 1975. Standard Specification
for hollow LoadBearing Concrete Masonry Unit,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM Standard C90, 2009. Standard Specification
for Load bearing Concrete Masonry Units ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA NCMA
Commentary Discussions to ASTM C 90-09, 2010.
Standard Specification for Load bearing Concrete
Masonry Units, http://www.ncma.org/resources
/design/Documents/ASTM%20C90%20Commentary
%20Last%20Revised%20June%209%202010.pdf
Barry, R. 1969. The Construction of Building.
Crosby Lockwood, London, England. Vol.1. pp 54-
55 & 94.
Brick Industry Association (BIA-2004).
Manufacturing of bricks. Technical Notes on Brick
Construction, Reston, VA, December 2006.
http://www.gobrick.com/BIA/technotes/t9.pdf?FID=
11055019&CFTOKEN=7219660. (Accessed May
27, 2010).
BS 2028, (1978) Precast Concrete Blocks: British
Standard Institution.
Curtin, W.G., Shaw, G., Beck, J. K., Bray, W. A. and
Easterbrook, D. 2006. Structural Masonry Designers
Manual. Granada Publishing, Froggmere, G.B.
DeBorde, J. L., Dawn, M. M., Magee, M. R. and
Ganzerli, S. 2011. Uniaxial Compressive Strength of
Bricks Subject to Different Temperatures, 11th
NAMC, Minneapolis USA. www.dist.unina.it/proc
/2011/NAMC11/data/papers/042.pdf
Ezeokonkwo, J.C. 1988. Unaxial Compressive
Strength of Sandcrete Hollow Blocks And its
Dependence on Geometry, M. Engr. Thesis,
University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
80
Eze-Uzomaka, O.J. 1978. Discussion of Reference 5:
Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2 , (
G.B ) Vol. 65 , June PP. 491 495 .
Florek, A. 1985. Quality of Sandcrete Hollow Block
Manufactured in Northern Nigeria, Proceedings of
Conference on Material Testing, Control and
Research, Federal Ministry of Works and Housing,
Lagos.
Ibeh, L.C. 1975. A Survey of Block-Making
Industries in some Urban Centres of East Central
State, B. Sc Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka.
Mirza, S.A., Hatzinikolas, M and MacGregor, J.G.
1979. Statistical Description of Strength of Concrete.
Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 105 No.
ST6, pp. 1021- 1037.
Nigerian Industrial Standard (NIS 87: 2000).
Specification for sandcrete Blocks. Standard
Organization of Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria.
Recommendation of Committee on Review of
Decision, (1979). Proceeding of the Conference on
Material Testing, Control and Research. Federal
Ministry of Works and Housing, Lagos, Feb. p. 102.
Schneider, R.R. and Dickey, W.L. 1980. Reinforced
Masonry Design, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Eagle Wood
Cliff N.J.
Thomas, K. 1964. Influence of the Curing Conditions
and Mix Proportions on the Compressive Strength of
Sandcrete Blocks, Bull. R.R.L.E.M, September, New
Series, No 24, pp. 149-155.
Uzomaka, O.J. 1977. Appraisal of Method of Testing
Some Physical properties of Sandcrete Blocks.
Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2,
(GB) Vol. 63. pp. 625- 639.
William, V. 1969. Applied statistics for Engineers,
McGraw Hill, New York, 2nd Edition.