Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Conference
Masonry: Science Craft Art
Denver, Colorado May 17 20, 2015
Abstract
The possibility of using mortarless reinforced masonry walls made of concrete units in
seismic regions of Peru is examined through an experimental project. The absence of mortar
in the joints of the wall made of stacked units could reduce the seismic capacity; however,
such wall is built in less time than traditional walls. A comparison is done between two
reinforced walls, subjected to in plane cyclic lateral load tests. One wall was built in the
traditional way, while the second wall was built of stacked units without using mortar in the
joints. Control tests were also performed on the concrete block units and on masonry prisms.
All the construction and tests were done in the Catholic University of Peru.
The comparison also took into account the construction process, the construction time, as
well as the cost of the walls, in order to evaluate if the mortarless wall is economically and
structurally worth. The results indicate a similar behavior between the two types of masonry
(traditional and stacked units without mortar); only the cracks developed under very high
loads were different. Therefore, the mortarless masonry walls with stacked units could be
acceptable for seismic purposes.
Keywords: Experimental, mortarless, concrete blocks, lateral load, stacked units
Professor, Department of Engineering Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru, Av Universitaria 1801, Lima 32,
PERU, dquiun@pucp.edu.pe
2
Civil Engineer, ochavezl@pucp.pe
3
Civil Engineer, fseminario90@gmail.com
Introduction
The reinforced masonry walls made of stacked units without mortar in the joints can be built
very quickly. A previous work has been reported on the possibility of using this kind of
masonry [Casabonne 2007]. However, the absence of mortar could produce a lower seismic
load capacity of the wall. Most design Codes, including the Peruvian Masonry Code
[SENCICO 2006], do not include such kind of masonry.
For the purpose of this research, two masonry walls were built and tested under cyclic lateral
load. The same materials, hand labor, dimensions and reinforcement were used in the
construction. Wall W1 was mortarless, with only a thin cement paste to fill up the small
irregularities of the blocks; wall W2 used common mortar between masonry blocks. In this
way, only the effect of the mortar between the units in the seismic behavior is compared.
Also, complementary tests were performed on the block units, masonry prisms and wallets.
Producer Value
140x190x390 mm
46.5%
12.3 kg
less than 2.0 mm
7.0 MPa
Tested value
---------Less tan 2%
7.35 MPa
The collar beam had 140x200 mm cross section, with 4-95mm diameter longitudinal bars,
with 6mm stirrups, 1@50, 4 @100, and rest 200 mm. The nominal concrete strength was
specified as fc=17.15 MPa (2.5 ksi).
Other construction features that were followed include the following, as shown in Figure 4.
The blocks were used in their dried condition; for the blocks that would have the horizontal
bars, their lateral borders were opened with a cutting machine. The placement of the
mortarless blocks was done with a thin cement paste as a ribbon, only to cover the block
irregularities in the bed face. For the traditional wall, cleaning window openings were opened
for the blocks of the first layer, to take away the mortar debris. The blocks were placed in two
days so that the mortar joints could achieve resistance. Both walls were wetted with a hose
the day after their finishing.
After the walls reached 28 days old, they were moved from the construction yard to the test
area as shown in Figure 5 (left).
Figure 5. Masonry wall moved to the testing area and instruments used.
10
11
0.5
1.5
2.5
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5
20
25
The wall structural behavior is described as follows. In step 1, wall W1 did not have cracks,
while for Wall W2, horizontal flexural cracks started to appear. In Steps 2 and 3, cracks
started at the base of wall W1 and some other cracks in a stepwise pattern along the joints
from the wall base to mid height; wall W2 also had stepwise cracks and the horizontal cracks
at the wall base joined but no sliding occurred. In step 4, wider cracks in wall W1 and wall W2
go through a few blocks and the joints, which could mean the shear failure. In steps 5, 6 and
7, the diagonal cracks cut the blocks and joints in both walls and the horizontal base cracks
has a width of 2mm, but still without sliding. In step 8, wall W1 is cracked in all of its height
with some sliding; wall W2 had a similar behavior without sliding. In step 9 the sliding failure
could be seen in both walls, as well as the crushing of one border of wall W2. In step 10, both
walls had a sliding failure but the load remained without significant reduction from the
maximum. Step 11 for wall W1 featured a large crack at one border with block crushing; wall
W2 had a sliding failure with crushing of the borders.
The experimental initial stiffness of each wall was calculated using the lateral loaddisplacement relation. Figure 7 shows plots of both walls data, using the load and top
displacement D1, in the first cycle of step 1 of the tests. The linear relation was established
between the displacements of 0.05 and 0.25 mm for which the corresponding loads and
lateral stiffness is presented in Table 3. It may be observed that both walls have a similar
initial lateral stiffness, in which the traditional wall W2 value is 13.5% larger than the
mortarless wall W1.
Figure 7. Initial stiffness calculation for mortarless wall W1 and traditional wall W2.
Table 3. Experimental lateral stiffness
Wall
W1
W2
D (mm)
0.05
0.25
0.05
0.25
F (kN)
10.84
28.47
9.26
29.645
K (kN/m)
88150
101920
The first cracks due to tension by flexure caused by the applied lateral load, occur at the wall
borders. These cracks were obtained analyzing the plots of the load displacement relation
for each wall. For the mortarless wall, the tension crack appeared in the first cycle of step 2,
with a load of 61.7 kN. For the traditional wall, even though some thin cracks appeared in the
first cycle of step 1, the cracks were better defined in step 2, with a lateral load of 58.8 kN.
When the following load steps are applied, diagonal cracks appeared in the walls, due to
shear failure. There is a slight decay in resistance, because after the cracks occur, the
horizontal reinforcement in the walls start to deform and they take part of the load. The
instruments LVDT D5 and D6 were useful to determine the moment when these diagonal
cracks develop, and therefore find the corresponding loads. In both walls, these diagonal
shear cracks started in the first cycle of step 4 and became visible at eyesight during step 5.
The diagonal cracking load was found to be 112.7 kN for wall W1 and 137.2 kN for wall W2.
Afterwards, these cracks increased in width and length as the load-displacements steps were
increased, as it is displayed in Figure 8.
Figure 8. Load-displacement LVDT D5 for mortarless wall W1 and traditional wall W2.
Both walls were tested up to a lateral displacement of 25 mm, equivalent to a lateral drift of
0.01. To compare the overall structural behavior, an envelope of the lateral load vs.
displacement was prepared using the maximum values reached at each step in the third
cycle, in which the performance become stable (Figure 9).
mm (step 7 of the test) It could be obtained that the maximum load was reached for a lateral
displacement of 12.5 or 15 mm, which correspond to drifts slightly larger than 0.005. The
maximum loads reached were 157 kN for wall W1 and 186 kN for wall W2, a difference of
18%. However, this difference is relatively small, and we feel that the mortarless wall with
stacked units is viable for seismic purposes, given that the differences occurred for a drift
larger than the maximum allowed by the Code. On the other hand, the faster speed for
construction could be an important issue to be considered in accepting this kind of masonry
walls.
Placing Cost
Grout Cost
Total Cost
24.37
12.64
37.01
18.81
12.64
31.46
10.57
10.93
21.50
In table 4 it can be observed that the mortarless masonry is cheaper than the traditional
masonry, even with the use of the cement paste between the joints. The voids of the blocks
in the bed area make that part of the mortar fells and get loss; this amount has been
estimated in 5%, but can even be larger depending on the construction site conditions and
the skill of the mason worker.
Traditional reinforced masonry requires a form for block placement and an architectural way
to cover de area of cleaning windows of the first layer. This is a reason that increases the
cost of traditional masonry respect to mortarless masonry with stacked units.
Conclusions
The concrete blocks used in this research satisfied the Peruvian Masonry Code requirements
for bearing walls. In the case of the mortarless masonry, it would be helpful if the units had
some type of tooth for a better connection between the blocks during the stacking process.
The masonry prisms results for axial compression were similar to the values indicated in the
Code. Regarding the diagonal compression, the shear resistance was quite low in the
mortarless masonry due to a low bond between the units.
The cyclic lateral load tests showed a series of cracks along the joints in the mortarless
masonry wall (stepwise failure), and a rather mixed failure in the traditional masonry wall. In
a quantitative way, the maximum load for the mortarless wall was only 18% less than the
traditional wall. At the end of the test, some sliding was observed, with crushing of the wall
borders without the buckling of the reinforcing vertical bars, but this effect happened after
surpassing the limiting drift of the Seismic Code.
It can be concluded that the mortarless masonry wall with stacked units fulfilled the purpose
of this research in terms of structural behavior. The system could be used with a lowered
wall resistance, but it is has the advantage of the easiness of construction and the lower cost
as compared to the traditional masonry wall.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted mainly by professor Angel San Bartolom, who passed away in
February 2014. This paper is dedicated to his hard work and research in the field of
masonry. The construction and the tests explained in this paper were done in the Structures
Laboratory of the Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP). They provided technical
staff and equipment, so the authors are grateful to them.
References
Casabonne 2007: Ductile Reinforced Masonry Walls Built With Mortarless Blocks,
Proceedings of the 10th North American Masonry Conference. St. Louis, Missouri,
2007.
San Bartolom 2009: San Bartolom A., W. Silva, E. Melendez, G. Castro, D. Quiun
Experimental study to avoid the sliding failure in Reinforced masonry walls under
lateral loads, Proceedings of the 11th Canadian Masonry Symposium. Toronto,
Ontario, 2009.
Sencico 2006: Norma E.070 Albailera (Peruvian Masonry Code, in Spanish) Lima,
Per, 2006.
Sencico 2003: Norma E.030 Diseo Sismo Resistente (Peruvian Seismic Code, in
Spanish) Lima, Per, 2003.