See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271508259

Effect of Void Area on Hollow Cement Masonry

Mechanical Performance

Article in ARABIAN JOURNAL FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING · November 2014

DOI: 10.1007/s13369-014-1325-y

CITATIONS READS

2 1,555

3 authors, including:

Sathiparan Navaratnarajah
University of Jaffna
66 PUBLICATIONS 113 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sathiparan Navaratnarajah on 29 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Effect of Void Area on Hollow Cement
Masonry Mechanical Performance
Navaratnarajah Sathiparan,

Anusari M.K.N.,

Samindika N.N.

Senior Lecturer, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University

of Ruhuna, Srilanka
Underdraduate Student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Ruhuna, Srilanka
Underdraduate Student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Ruhuna, Srilanka
+94-77-4929868
+94-(0)91-2245762
nsakthiparan@yahoo.com
http://www.eng.ruh.ac.lk/CEE/index.php/staff/academic-staff/23-staff/staff-cv/134
Effect of Void Area on Hollow Cement
Masonry Mechanical Performance
Abstract: Originally, brick/block was formed by placing moist clay/cement mortar in a mold by
hand. As modern industrial methods were implemented in the cement block manufacturing
process, the majority of production was changed from a molded process to an extrusion process.
Extrusion more easily accommodates the inclusion of hollow (void area) in a block unit, which in
turn can make the manufacture and use of block more cost effective and material efficient.
Although void area in block varies from place to place, hollow masonry unit standards are defined
by ASTM C90-11b and specifications are related to the minimum face shells and a web
requirement. This paper examines the effect of the void area on aspects of the performance of
hollow cement block masonry. The performance of five comparison sets of hollow cement
masonry was evaluated for different range of void area. Water absorption, compressive strength of
cement block, compressive, shear, and flexural tensile strength of masonry prism were measured
on each type of hollow block and used as indicators of potential performance in a masonry wall.

Keywords: masonry; hollow cement block; void area; mechanical performance;

face shell thickness

Introduction

Masonry is the building of structures from individual units laid in and bound
together by mortar, and the term "masonry" can also refer to the units themselves.
Masonry, through its long history, is widespread used around the world and still
remains as a main building material in many places especially in developing
countries. Masonry is generally a highly durable form of construction. However,
the materials used, the quality of the mortar and workmanship, and the pattern the
units are put in can strongly affect the durability of the overall masonry
construction. The common materials of masonry construction are brick, stone
such as marble, granite, travertine, limestone; concrete block, glass block, and tile.
Nowadays, cement/concrete hollow blocks have an important place in the modern
building industry. Higher void cement hollow blocks offer the potential for energy
savings, decreased raw material usage and reduced environmental impact. These
advantages are related to the movement toward “green” building materials. Also
hollow cement block will need a low maintenance, and it has good fire resistance.
The air in hollow of the block, does not allow outside heat or cold in the house. So
it keeps house cool in summer and warm in winter and provide natural thermal
insulation. These cement hollow blocks are often used as substitutes for
conventional bricks in the construction of buildings, as these cement hollow
blocks are lighter and more economical.
In today’s construction, the majority of hollow blocks produced are used in
reinforced or unreinforced single Wythe structural walls. Hollow block for this
type of use generally ranges in size from 200 to 400 mm in nominal length and
100 to 200 mm in nominal thickness with void ratios in the 25 to 65 range.
However, ASTM standards [1] contain minimum requirements that assure
properties necessary for quality performance. These requirements include items
such as conformance to specified component materials, compressive strength,
permissible variations in dimensions, and finish and appearance criteria. Table 1
shows the final approved minimum face shell thickness and web thickness
reflected in ASTM C90-11b [1]. But, mostly in developing countries, when in
case of selecting a void area percentage used in cement hollow block,
manufactures only consider the cost and compressive strength of the block units.
The importance of masonry mortar joint bond strength has been emphasized by
several authors [2, 3], and therefore considering shear and flexural tensile
strengths of cement hollow masonry are desirable. Specially nowadays due to
several conditions like ground movements, heavy floods, wind effects etc., there
is a tendency to consider the compressive, flexural bending and shear strength of
masonry rather than considering only the compressive strength of masonry unit
itself. In addition to that, in buildings, vertical load is mainly taken by the column
- beam frame rather than masonry walls. So the importance of compressive
strength of masonry is reduced.

Table 1 Minimum face shells and web requirement

Nominal block width (mm) Face shell thickness (mm) Web thickness (mm)
76.2 - 102 19 19
152 25 19
203 and greater 32 19

The objective of this research is to determine the effect of increasing or

decreasing of void area on aspects of the performance of hollow cement block
masonry. For this study, the performance of five comparison sets of hollow
cement masonry was evaluated for different range of void area. Each set of
comparison block was produced from the same raw material and the same process
in an effort to isolate the effect of void area on performance in the masonry. Water
absorption and compressive strength of cement block, compressive, shear and
flexural tensile strength of masonry prism are measured on each type of hollow
block and used as indicators of potential performance in a masonry wall.

Experimental program

As stated, the objective of this work was to study how changes in the void area
and face shell thickness of the cement block impact the performance of a wall
system. Since workmanship plays such an important role in masonry construction,
construction variables were controlled as much as possible. In addition to solid
brick and cement block, four sets of cement block made with different void ratio
were studied in this comparison. The two void holes were square shape for these
blocks. Void areas of 16, 24, 33 and 44 % with face shells of 35, 30, 25 and 20
mm respectively, were tested. The physical dimensions of the test brick and
blocks are reported in Table 2. The specimens were named as “CB-V” in which V
is the width of the hollow square.

Table 2 Details of masonry blocks prepared

Cement block
Brick
CB-00 CB-45 CB-55 CB-65 CB-75
Dimension (mm) 225×115×65
Face shell thickness (mm) - - 35 30 25 20
Web thickness (mm) - - 65 55 45 35
Void area (%) 0 0 16 24 33 44

For preparation of cement block, Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) as

described in Sri Lanka Standard SS855 [4] and clean, sharp river sand were used.
The sand was free from clay, loam, dirt and any organic or chemical matters.
Masonry blocks having the size of 225 mm x 115 mm x 65 mm were cast with
mix proportion 1:5 by volume of cement: sand. Cement-lime mortar of mix 1:1:6
(cement: lime: sand) by volume was used for joint mortar. Ordinary Portland
cement, commercial grade hydrated lime and river sand were used for the
preparation of joint mortars.
 Stress-strain relationships for the cement block and joint mortar were
obtained by testing mortar cylinder of size 150 mm diameter and 305 mm height
in displacement controlled testing machine. Stress-strain relationships for the
block and mortar are shown in Fig. 1. For cement block, mean compressive
strength and Poisson’s ratio (at 25% of peak strength) is 6.02 MPa and 29%,
respectively. For joint mortar, mean compressive strength and Poisson’s ratio (at
25% of peak strength) is 5.06 MPa and 29%, respectively.

Fig. 1 Stress-strain relationship for the block and mortar under uniaxial compression

Test Conducted

Compressive strength test

Solid masonry blocks, having the size of 225mm×115mm×65mm, were cast and
tested under axial loading. For each void area ratio, three identical specimens
were tested at the age of 28 days using compression testing machine under a
displacement control rate of 0.3 mm/min. Average compressive strength, at each
case of the blocks, was determined by averaging three corresponding strength
measurements. The gross and net area strength characteristics of cement block
with different void ratios were compared with the brick compressive strength
value. Gross and net areas for hollow masonry block were calculated as shown in
the Fig. 2.
 Fig. 2 Gross and net area of hollow cement block

Water absorption test

The water absorption test was carried out to investigate the water absorption
property of cement block with different void ratio. Three samples of brick, cement
solid block and each case of cement hollow blocks were used for the water
absorption test. First, the samples were kept in an oven, for a period of 24 hours
and the dry weight of the blocks was measured (Wd). Then the same blocks were
immersed in water for a period of 24 hours and the wet weight of the blocks was
measured (Ws). Saturated water absorption (SWA) was calculated by the Eq. (1):
(Ws  Wd )
SWA   100 (1)
Wd

Where, Ws is the weight of the specimen at fully saturated condition and Wd is the
weight of the oven-dried specimen. The porosity obtained from the absorption test
is designated as effective porosity. It is determined by using the Eq. (2);
Volume of voids
Porosity  (2)
Bulk volume of Specimen

The volume of voids was obtained from the volume of water absorbed by
an oven dry specimen. The volume of specimen is given by the difference in mass
of the specimen in air and it’s mass under the submerged condition in the water.

Test on masonry prism

Tests on masonry prism were concentrated on the evaluation of the masonry

parameters, i.e. compression, shear and flexural tensile strengths of masonry. The
variability of masonry properties is very high. Even if the same brick type and
mortar mix are used, differences in the construction procedure can lead to
masonry assemblies with considerably different properties. So, great care was put
into keeping identical conditions for brick and mortar during the construction.
Direct Compression, direct shear and flexural bond tests were carried out
to obtain these characteristic properties, similar to that shown in Fig 3. The test
was carried out under displacement control at a rate of 0.3 mm/min for direct
compression and 0.15 mm/min for direct shear and flexural bond tests.

Fig. 3 Layout of specimens used for direct compression, direct shear and flexural bending

Results and Discussion

Compressive strength

The average gross and net compressive strength of cement block with different
void ratio is shown in Table 3. As expected, both gross and net area compressive
strength were decreased with increase of void area. There is a 23 % reduction in
gross compressive strength as the void ratio increase from zero (solid) to 16%.
But, the gross area compressive strength was decreased rapidly by 45 and 48%,
when void increase from 16 to 24% and 24 to 33% respectively. When the void
area increase from 33 to 44%, compressive strength was a slightly reduced to 11%
drop. When void area equal to 24% of the total area, hollow cement block strength
almost equal to brick strength.
 Table 3 Comparison of brick/cement block compressive strength
Cement block
Brick
CB-00 CB-45 CB-55 CB-65 CB-75
Void area (%) - 0 16 24 33 44
Gross area (cm2) 258.75
2
Net area (cm ) 258.75 258.75 218.25 198.25 174.25 146.25
Gross strength (MPa) 2.15 4.96 3.83 2.12 1.21 1.00
Net strength (MPa) 2.15 4.96 4.54 2.76 1.80 1.77

Saturated water absorption and Porosity

The masonry unit (brick or cement block) capacity to absorb water largely affects
the masonry strength. If the brick absorb too much water from the mortar mix,
then water would be inadequate for cement hydration. On the other hand, the
mechanism of bond between mortar and brick heavily relies on the brick capacity
to absorb some mortar water, which carries cementitious materials dissolved in it.
Therefore, a balance should be attained. The average water absorption rate is
shown in the Table 4.

Table 4 Water absorption rate comparison

Cement block
Brick
CB-00 CB-45 CB-55 CB-65 CB-75
Void ratio (%) - 0 16 24 33 44
Dry weight (kg) 2.27 3.15 2.73 2.50 2.22 1.90
Wet weight (kg) 2.46 3.38 2.93 2.68 2.40 2.06
Saturated water absorption 8.30 7.30 7.60 7.20 8.10 8.42
Porosity (%) 11.3 13.7 14.1 14.0 15.9 16.8

Generally, all set of blocks exhibited same water absorption rate with
around 7 to 8%. From the results it is observed that the porosity value increases as
the percentage of void area increase. The porosity value at 0, 16, 24, 33 and 44 %
void ratio 13.7, 14.1, 14.0, 15.9 and 16.8% respectively, for cement block. When
comparing with brick, cement block shows higher porosity for all void ratios.
Fire Resistance

Concrete masonry is a noncombustible construction material possessing excellent

fire-resistive properties. The fire resistance of the hollow masonry wall can be
determined by calculating the equivalent thickness of the cement block. The
equivalent thickness of concrete masonry (Te) was calculated by Eq. (3).
Vn
Te  (3)
HL
where, Vn is the net volume of masonry unit (subtracting the volume of the void or
core from the total gross volume of the block), L is the specified length of
masonry unit and H is the specified height of masonry unit.
Table 5 shows the equivalent thickness comparison for each set of cement
blocks. The International building code [5] requires that for one hour fire
resistance rating, an equivalent thickness of 58 mm of hollow brick should be
provided and 85 mm and 108 mm for two hours and three hours respectively.

Table 5 Equivalent Thickness Comparison

Cement block
Brick
CB-00 CB-45 CB-55 CB-65 CB-75
Equivalent thickness (mm) 115 115 97 88 77 65
Fire resistance (hrs) - 3.0 2 .0 2.0 1.0 1.0

Masonry compressive strength

The prisms consisted of five bricks and four mortar joints and had a total height of
365 mm. Although the joints were intended to be 10mm thick, there was a
variation in the joint thickness, which resulted in some variation of the specimen
heights. The prisms were cured for a period of 28 days under moist burlap. The
specimen upper and lower faces were leveled with steel plate. The test was carried
out under displacement control at a rate of 0.3 mm/min. The gross and net
compressive strength was calculated using Eq. (4):
Ultimate load
Compressive strength  (4)
( grooss or net ) area of bed face

Figure 4 illustrates a typical crack pattern showing vertical splitting cracks

as observed in the experiments. As masonry prism were comprised of block unit
that were stronger than the mortar, compression failures were mostly initiated by
splitting failure of the brick units, followed by crushing of the mortar joints as the
loading continued.

Fig. 4 Compression test prism failure pattern of (a) Brick (b) Solid cement block (c)
Hollow cement block – void area ratio 0.24.

Fig. 5 Comparison of masonry prism compression strength

The gross and net area compressive strengths are summarized in Fig. 5.
The average masonry compressive strengths varied between 3.7 MPa to 1.18 Mpa.
There is a 50 % reduction in compressive strength as the void ratio increase from
zero (solid) to 16%. Although only an additional 18% reduction in strength as the
void ratio increase from 16% to 44%, it was noted that the compressive strength
of hollow cement block with 24% void less than brick compressive strength.
Masonry shear strength

The triplet shear test [6] was adopted for shear bond testing. The triplet shear tests
were performed whilst subjected to zero axial pre-compression loads. Three
prisms for each case were prepared to evaluate the shear strength of the masonry
units used in present testing program. The masonry prisms were aged for 28 days
prior to testing. The load was applied under displacement control at a rate of 0.15
mm/min and the peak load at failure was recorded. The direct shear strength was
calculated using Eq. (5):
(P  W )
Shear Strength  (5)
2A
where, P is the ultimate load, W is the weight of the cement block and A is the
area of the failure surface.

Fig. 6 Shear failure surface (a) Brick (b) Solid cement block and (c) hollow cement block

Almost the entire specimens experienced shear bond failures at block mortar
interface (Fig. 6), even though masonry prism investigated in this experimental
program were constructed using lime added mortar. The researchers [7, 8]
concluded that these failures mostly occurred when the brick/mortar interface
bond strength was lower than the mortar joint flexural strength. Therefore this
failure type was exhibited by almost all prisms that were constructed without bond
enhancement. Generally, bed joint shear strengths were influenced by the
brick/mortar interface bond characteristics instead of the mortar properties and
possibly related to the water absorption rate. Lime provides high water retention
that allows for maximum early curing of the cementitious materials and improves
the brick/mortar interface bond strength to hold the masonry units together.
The masonry shear strength of the different prism group at each void ratio
is shown in Fig. 7, with minimum of three specimens at void ratio. Results show
that the shear strength decreased with increasing void ratio, and there is a 40%
reduction in strength as the void ratio increases from solid to 44%. It was noted
that the shear strength of hollow cement block with higher void area still higher
than brick shear strength.

Fig. 7 Comparison of masonry prism shear strength

Masonry flexural tensile strength

Three prisms were constructed for each type of test block. The test prisms
consisted of five bricks and four mortar joints. The masonry prisms were aged for
28 days prior to testing. To determine the flexural tensile strength, the masonry
prisms were loaded in the testing machine under three pin loading method. An
eccentric line load was uniformly applied to the middle brick of the prism, and the
peak load at failure was recorded. The test was carried out under displacement
control conditions at a rate of 0.15 mm/min.
As it can be seen from Fig. 8, failure modes occurred at the interface
between the block and none failed due to tension within the mortar. Previous
studies [9] indicate that flexural bond failure depends on the brick/mortar interface
bond strength as well as on the relative comparison between the brick and mortar
compressive strength.

Fig. 8 Flexural bending test specimen failure surface (a) Brick (b) Solid cement block

The flexural bond strength was calculated using Eq. (6):

My
f  (6)
I
where:
σf: flexural tensile strength
M: maximum bending moment due to ultimate load and self weight of specimen
I: second moment of area
y: distance from neutral axis to the bottom of the specimen
Accounting for the two hollow squares and incorporating the Parallel-axis
theorem, the moment of area (I) for the block is found using Eq. (7):
1 3 1 
I bh  2 v 4  (7)
12  12 
where b, h are width and height of the masonry face respectively, and v is the
width of the hollow square.
Figure 9 presents the average gross and net flexural tensile strength of the
masonry prism. The average flexural tensile strengths were varied between 196
kPa to 80 kPa. There is 36% reduction flexural tensile as the void ratio increase
from zero (solid) to 16%. Additional 24% reduction in strength as the void ratio
increase from 16% to 44%, and it was noted that the flexural tensile strength of
hollow cement block with higher void area still higher than brick flexural tensile
strength.

Fig. 9 Comparison of masonry prism flexural tensile strength

Conclusions
Nowadays, cement hollow blocks have an important place in the modern building
industry. Higher void cement hollow blocks offer the potential for energy savings,
decreased raw material usage and reduced environmental impact. These
advantages are related to the movement toward “green” building materials. Also
hollow cement block will need a low maintenance, and it is a good fire resistance.
ASTM standards contain minimum requirements that assure properties necessary
for quality performance. These requirements include items such as conformance
to specified component materials, compressive strength, permissible variations in
dimensions, and finish and appearance criteria.
In this paper, it is discusses the performance of hollow cement blocks
having different void area ratios, compared with brick performances, in water
absorption and compressive strength of individual blocks and compressive,
flexural tensile and shear strength of masonry prisms. Five sets of the comparison
block were evaluated to determine what effects, if any, increasing void area and
decreasing face shell thickness might have on some important aspects of wall
system performance. Summarized details of the gross area strength reduction were
shown in the Fig. 10.

Fig. 10 Gross area strength variation with void ratio

Analysis of the test data yielded the following conclusions:

 The compressive strength of the individual block unit rapidly decreased
with increasing void ratio. Even at void area increase to 24%, hollow
cement blocks compressive strength reduced less than brick strength.
 Increasing the void area of a cement block did not contribute to
increased/decreased rates of water absorption. All set of blocks exhibited
water absorption rate with around 7 to 8%. But, when compared the
porosity, it was slightly increased with the increasing void area.
 Masonry prism compressive strength rapidly decreased with increasing
void ratio. Hollow cement block prism compressive strength values are
lower than brick ones, when the void ratio increases more than 16%.
 Flexural tensile strength of hollow cement block masonry decreased with
increasing void ratio. However hollow block with 44% void ratio showed
only 40% strength of solid block, but this value higher than corresponding
brick strength.
 Even though shear strength of hollow cement block masonry decreased
with increasing void ratio, still hollow block showed 60% strength of solid
 block at 44% void area and this value much higher than corresponding
brick strength.

Reference
1. ASTM standard C90 – 11b (2007) Standard Specification for Laboratory Concrete Units.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
2. Russell, A. (2010), “Characterisation and seismic assessment of unreinforced masonry
buildings”, Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
3. Venkatarama Reddy, B.V. and Gupta, A. (2006), “Tensile bond strength of soil cement
block masonry couplets using cement-soil mortars”, Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, 18(1), 36-45.
4. Specification for cement blocks: part 1: requirements SLS 855 (1989), Sri Lanka
Standards Institution, Colombo.
5. Fire-Resistance-Rated construction (2006), International Building code, International
Code Council.
6. Rilem., (1996), “MS-B.4 Determination of shear strength index for masonry unit/mortar
junction”, Materials and Structures, 29(8), 459-475.
7. Pavia, S., and Hanley, R., (2010), “Flexural bond strength of natural hydraulic lime
mortar and clay brick”, Materials and Structures 43(7), 913-922.
8. Sarangapani, G., Venkatarama Reddy, B.V. and Jagadish, K.S. (2005), “Brick-mortar
bond and masonry compressive strength”, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
17(2), 229-237.
9. Venu Madhava Rao, K., Venkatarama Reddy, B.V. and Jagadish, K.S. (1996), “Flexural
bond strength of masonry using various blocks and mortars”, Materials and Structures
29(2), 119-124.

View publication stats