Strength Characteristics of Interwoven Sandcrete Block Masonry

0
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY, ZARIA
STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF
INTERWOVEN SANDCRETE MASONRY
BY
ADEDEJI, ABDULLAH ADEOLA
FEBRUARY 2000
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Interwoven block walling is a system of wall erection whereby

one block is joined to others by vertical and horizontal tongues
and grooves insertion.
From a historical point of view, masonry has always been
a basic building material. Building units, such as stones, bricks
and blocks, have been in use from earlier primordial
technologies until our present times.
The interwoven blocks (known as lock-blocks in the past)
have been put to use in the Pacific Northwest region. Most
houses and commercial buildings in the region are still service,
but information are not available regarding their structural
properties. Some products produced, in the past, under lock
blocks were claimed to be inexpensive, strong, crack-free
walls, with sufficient insulation quantities. Among other
advantages of such wall, as claimed, over the conventional
blockwall (of unit-mortar composition) include: flexibility of the
wall cross-joints; greater lateral strength of the wall; reduction
in time and labour consuming during preparation and
placement of mortar in the cross joints; high insulation value
due to a greater percentage of air space in the wall.
This system of wall construction, which can be employed,
in some aspect, as an alternative method to the use of mortars
in the wall cross-joints, can save considerable amount of time,
labour, money and material. Erection can continue through
any weather without necessarily protecting the newly laid
units.
So far, dry-jointed mode of laying blockwork does not have
usual acceptance under the Nigerian Industrial standard or
code of Practice. But any alternative methods of masonry
construction such as this Interwoven Sandcrete Blockwall (ISB)
is not discouraged either, provided that the methods of design
and construction are such as to ensure standard of strength
and durability at equal to that recommended in the code.
2
1.2 Statement of the Problems
As a result of low rate of housing construction, in Nigeria and

other developing nations, the problem of basic accommodation
was increasing rapidly leading to scarce accommodation within
the rural and urban setups. Apart from giving valuable
guidance for private and public housing developers, builders,
more attention should be focused on researching into new
available building materials.
Sandcrete block is one of the best walling materials due to
its bearing capacity, durability and stability if compared with
other wall units, such as brick or stone. In this Country,
Nigeria as well as in other countries of the world, cement, is
one of the major ingredients used in sandcrete block. This
material is expensive, and it needs to be economically used by
all means. Joint-mortars impair masonry structurally and
aesthetically due to carelessness in workmanship and improper
determination of adequate strength with respect to wall
material. Some of these physical problems induced by mortar
to wall body could also be minimized at minimum cost.
1.3 Objectives of the Research
The objectives of this study include:-
(1) determination of bearing capacity of the Sandcrete

(interwoven) Block and blockwork under vertical load
(2) evaluation of performance and strength of the block
and blockwork with respect to design procedure. The
Initial Design Concept is based on:
a) Material characteristics (physical/mechanical)
b) Strength prediction due to:
- horizontal and vertical (axial and eccentricity)
load,
- determination of the optimal design
parameters (stress and deflection) and
- minimizing the size of block and its tongues
due to impact load.
3
c) demand specification
(3) Suggestions and recommendations, for further studies,
for the blockwall for greater strength, durability and
stability, in respect to the results of this study.
1.4 Scope of the Research
This research work involves building external wall, built in

running bond, for one- and two-storey residential buildings. It
also covers an investigation of compressive strength and
stability problems within the interwoven blockwall as a result
vertical (axial and eccentricity) and horizontal loads through:
i. Laboratory tests for the block-units, masonry prism and
wall.
ii. Prediction and evaluation for the wall performance and
durability.
1.5 Methodology
a. A steel die-mould was designed for making block units

(450mm x 225mm x 225mm and half-unit or 225mm x
225mm x 225mm) and it was used to test the units at
the pressure of 5N/m2.
b. Trial production of model block-units was made for the
block wall. This was followed by the laying trial.
c. The full size block-units (specimen) produced has
been tested for absorption, moisture contents, density,
weight, dimensions and compressive strength.
d. Second production of the block was realized using the
same materials and condition of production as in (c)
above. Masonry prisms and walls built from these have
been tested and analyzed for the compressive
strength.
1.6 Thesis Presentation and Organization
In the study, six main chapters have been presented. Chapter

one contains the introduction. In Chapter two, there is the
4
related literature review and analysis, while Chapter Three is

devoted for experiments which comprises tests and data
acquisition. Chapter Four contains the material properties,
strength and modeling of block/wall. Design examples as well
as discussion of the results are found in Chapter Five, while
Chapter Six contains conclusions and recommendations.
Computations and programming results are placed in the
Appendices.
5
Chapter 2
RELATED LITERARATURE REVIEW AND ANALYSES
2.1 General
Not far West of Algiers, there stands a monumental tomb of a

circular structure known as “Tomb of Christian” (Tombeau de
la Chretienne) Plate I (Davidson, 1972). This is a strongly
columned dome of masonry built of cut stones. The ‘ashla’
stones are laid on top of each other and side-by-side with no
trace of binder (if there was any) to be seen. The tomb dates,
in fact, back to the pre-Christian period.
Plate I The Tomb of Christian

6
Lock-blocks, in the past, have been put to use in

construction, especially in the Pacific of North West of United
States. In the pacific region, most buildings with the lock-
blocks are still in service, but very little, if not at all,
information are available regarding their structural properties.
Some of the several studies being conducted at various
institutions include that of the University of Washington by
Ahmed and Terrel (1978). The results of the study presented
in 1978 include the structural properties of mortarless (lock-
block) heavy- and light-weight concrete blocks. The physical
properties of mortarless block units investigated satisfied the
American Society for Test and materials (ASTM, 1980a, 1980b,
198c) requirements for concrete masonry units based on the
North American materials.
Some products produced, in the past, under lock block
were claimed to be inexpensive, strong, crack-free walls, with
sufficient insulation quantities. Interwoven blocks used for
temporary building could be reused for another building if
necessary.
In a project by Okunsanya et al (1991) lock-block vertical
grooves, used to construct “terraced house” makes it possible
for one block to sit on another securely without falling off. In
this construction, when the wall reaches about five rows
upwards a row of special blocks are then placed on the blocks
to cement them together before the system continues. The
ISB block has been designed in such a way that no special
block is required in block laying.
Surface bonding of a wall by plaster, stucco, sulphur or
any other materials, is a similar technique employed, without
cross joints material. Surface bonding was originated in
America and rapidly spreading in Europe, where it is more
widely used in agricultural and domestic buildings (Rutherford,
1980). However, structural behaviors of such walls are not
available. A make-shift building could be built and the blocks
re-used in future,
Conventionally, mortar is used to fill interstices and as
masonry structures are primarily stresses in compression,
there has been a concentration of interest in the resistance of
7
the masonry to this loading and a lot of investigations (Ahmed,

1978; Anderson, 1971; Biolzi, 1988; Cranston and Roberts,
1976; Francis et al, 1971; Haller, 1960; Lezner, 1972;) have
been carried out to establish the relationship between the
available masonry units (natural stone, brick and block) and
variety of mortar mixes. These investigations have formed the
basis for masonry work strengths employed in structural
design codes. In an attempt to reduce the unlimited range of
unit-mortar combination to a manageable proportion, tables of
basic compressive strength and the mortar mix were
produced. The strengths of these component materials are
also designed by standardized tests many of which do not
necessarily reproduce the state of stress in the materials,
especially in sandcrete block work, but which serves as index
values in the selection of designed stresses.
In a way, this empirical approach, which provided an
acceptable basis for the structural design of masonry work,
gives little insight into the actual behavior for the unit-mortar
composite. There is the need to look inward for profound
characteristics behavior of sancrete block work, especially the
specially designed interwoven sandcrete block which has no
head and bed joints for erection.
2.2 Masonry Unit-Mortar Composition
Masonry is a composite structure made of units (such as

stones, bricks or blocks) and mortar (binder) materials, and
under compressive loading its strength would be expected to
be influenced by the strength of both materials. There are two
possible theories that have been put forward (Roberts et al,
1985): a) that between bed (horizontal) joints (of unit-mortar
components), all loads will effectively be carried by the block-
units, while at the bed joints, all loads is carried by the mortar
so that the wall strength might be expected to correspond to
the strength of the weaker material, and b) that the function
of mortar joints is simply to produce a good uniform bearing
between the units, and that provided the mortar is not so fluid
that it could squeeze out, its (mortar) strength is irrelevant.
8
The wall strength, therefore, corresponds to the strength of

the units. The second possibility is the closest to the truth, as
it would be shown later, though mortar properties may have
some influence on the strength of the wall.
Considering, closely, the problem of the bearing capacity
of a masonry element subjected to compression, the estimates
which are adopted are based on an elastic analysis of the unit-
mortar complex. Formulae based on elastic behavior were
proposed by Francis et al (1971), Haller (1960), and Lenzner
(1971). The formula derived later by Francis et al (1971) is
presented below.
c
cc
m
c
d
c
Fig 2.1 Unit-mortar composition under vertical load
9
If we consider a unit-mortar prism subjected to an axial

compressive stress σc and stress corresponding to tensile
failure of the unit q, the strain in unit: (See Fig. 2.1, for the
unit-mortar composition under compression).
u 
u   u c (2.1)
Eu Ec
Strain in mortar
m 
m   m c (2.2)
Em Em
where: σu, σm = stress in unit, mortar respectively

vm, vm = Poisson’s ratio for unit and mortar
respectively
Eu,Em = young modulus of elasticity for unit
and mortar respectively
The lateral strains in the mortar and unit are assumed to

be uniform and equal. And from statical equilibrium, the total
lateral forces in the mortar and unit are equal and opposite.
Hence:
σm = d/t.σu = r.σu (2.3)
where: d = depth of the unit

t = thickness of the mortar joint
From equation (2.1) and (2.2):
1 r  
u(  ) = u( m  u ) (2.4)
Eu E c Em Em
The limiting compressive stress is:

10
/
u
c  (2.5)
 m .m   u
u 
1  r .m
Eu
In which: m (2.6)
Em
Comparing the formula with experimental results, using

joint thickness as a variable, indicates that the values of the
normal modulus of elasticity and of transversal construction
coefficient (Biolzi, 1988; Hendry et al, 1981 a) are
approximated, especially for mortar which is not elastic up to
the point of failure
Hendry et al, (1981a) reported Poisson’s ratio (u) for
mortar of 0.20 near zero axial strain and 0.5 or more near
crushing. Cheema and Klinger (1986) reported values of .20 at
0.001 axial strain, about 0.30 at 0.002 and more than 1.0 near
crushing. A Poisson’s ratio of 0.28 for confined mortar was
adopted. This value was adopted but exact value may not be
applicable to all bricks- and block works. This is because this
value (0.28) is average for uniaxial compression and
compressive tensile cases at a high value of stress. In a three-
dimensional failure analysis of a composite masonry wall,
Anand and Yalamanchili (1996) also assumed a Poisson’s
ration of 0.25 and 0.20 for block Wythe and mortar
respectively. In general, if this value is limited to block alone,
there will be reasonable and practical results for masonry.
Considering the interaction of unit and bed natural the
elastic modulus of the mortar is commonly substantially less
than that of block, as a consequence, the vertical strain under
axial load are greater. This in turn implies a greater transverse
dilation due to Poisson’s ratio. The cube crushing strength of
mortar is weakly related to brick work strength by a third to
fourth root relationship.
11
Assuming that both mortar and block are elastic, the

mortar which is in triaxial compression will be able to
withstand a vertical stress, fvert :
f vert = fc' + 4 f horz (2.8)

'
where: f c = uniaxial compressive strength
f horz = applied horizontal stress
The restraint from the units ensures that f horz can attain
whatever value is required to sustain the applied vertical load;
hence the mortar joint cannot fail before the block. This is
because all loads are not carried by the mortar to effect the
initial failure of the wall. A complex situation arises when a
wall (of unit-mortar composition) has to resist an out of plane
horizontal load, and the vertical mortar joint (as in a collar
joint of a composite wall). Anand and Yalymanchili (1996), in
vigorous analytical approach for failure of masonry walls,
confirmed that magnitude of a collar joint shear-stress
normalized against in-plane horizontal load on the block Wythe
is equal to 1.123w (w is the vertical load intensity), while the
value on the brick Wythe is 0.318w. This variation is attributed
to a much larger rigidity (confine) in the vertical direction of
the wall. This study (Anand, 1996) showed that a vertical
failure load intensity of 389KN/m on a 203mm thick block wall
is much higher than the commonly applied load on load
bearing wall. Thus, determination at the head mortar joint due
to vertical loads is generally not of prime concern. This,
however, does not imply that the strength of a wall is totally
unaffected by mortar strength. Also, the apparent compressive
strength of masonry units in a standard crushing test is not a
direct measure of the strength of the unit in masonry work
(Biolzi, 1988; Francis et al 1971; Hendry et al,
1981;Lenzner,1972; and Roberts et al 1985;). And the
particular combination of two different materials generates a
behavioural anisotropy with distinct properties that affect the
rupture mode of masonry.
12
In evaluating compressive strength of masonry wall by limit

analysis Biolzi (1988) also confirmed that: collapse occurs due
to the compression of the mortar joints; that the excessive
thickness of mortar joints considerably reduces the masonry
strength and that improvement of mortar quality results in
only limited variations of the collapse load. And a series of
experiments conducted by the structural clay products
research foundation in the United States, using couplet
specimen, by Francis et al (1972) using brick prisms, indicated
that different joint materials have notable effects on the
compressive strengths of the prisms. Table 2.1 shows the
summary of the test result as presented by Hendry et al
(1981a).
Table 2.1: Effect of different joint materials on the

compressive strength of three brick stack prisms
Joint Material Compressive Ratio of Prism to
Strength Brick Strength
(N/mm2)
Steel 56.48 1.40
Plywood 46.39 1.15
Hardwood 43.89 0.09
Polythene 16.99 0.24
Rubber with Fibre 11.71 0.29
Soft Robber 6.99 0.17
No Joint Material 37.20 0.93
Mortar (1:1/4:3) 14.00 0.35
In the case of rubber material from Table 2.1, the bricks failed
in tension as a result of tensile stress induced stress induced
by the deformation of the rubber, while steel which records
highest compressive strength for the prism had effect of
restraining lateral deformation of the bricks. This induces a
state of triaxial compressive stress in the bricks making prism
to fail by crushing. From Table 1.2, it is evident that the non
jointed material prism records a higher compressive strength
than mortar (1: ¼: 3) joint material. Fig. 2.2 shows the results
13
of tests on blockwork carried out by the Cement and Concrete

Association (Roberts et al, 1985) indicating the minimum
influence which mortar has on the strength of wall. In this
graph (Fig. 2.2), wall strength has a negligible variation with
the wide range of mortar strength.
15
WALL STRENGTH (N/mm2)
10
5
Solid block = 18.5N/mm2
Cellular block = 14.0/mm2

0
0 10 20 30
MORTAR STRENGTH (N/mm2)
Fig. 2.2 Effect of mortar strength on wall strength

(Roberts et al, 1985)
In a solid blockwork therefore, mortar can be considered

to be merely a bedding material for the units and as far as
axial loading is concerned, its strength is largely irrelevant.
Test by Hamid and Chukwunenye (1986) shows that
mortar type and unit size have no significant effects on the
elastic behaviour of hollow blockwork. However, the actual
relationship between apparent unit strength and aspect ratio
varies somewhat from one material to another. For instance,
the rate of change of the lightweight aerated material has
almost constant crushing strength (i.e. the aspect ratio, which
is the ratio of height to thickness, of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 have
5.5, 5.4, 5.0, 5.0 (N/mm2) crushing strength respectively),
while crushing strength of dense aggregate material varies
between 90 and 40 N/mm2 for 0.4 to 2.0 aspect ratio. And as
14
the aspect ratio increases, the ratio of wall strength to unit

strength increases.
A poorly built wall due to poor workmanship has some
effects on the masonry especially when the cross joints are not
evenly and adequately filled with mortar. Biolzi (1988)
suggested that a very thin layer of mortar is adequate to fill
the joints of masonry. Though, the effect of inadequacy of
mortar is believed not to be large (Roberts et al, 1985). The
idea that in a plain sandcrete blockwall, mortar joint cracking
tends to start in the vertical joints at the ends of the perpends
until the familiar stepped cracks bring about failure, leaves one
in doubt if this was not due to the improper mutual-interaction
of the unit-mortar composition.
The aforementioned observations suggest that masonry
work problems could still be approached from another
different point of view, probably by eliminating the head joint
(which does not have any influence on the structural
behaviour of masonry) as well as bed joint material. As it will
be shown in the theory of masonry failure, the vertical splitting
of block is as a result of mortar in the head (vertical) joint. An
important requirement for masonry buildings is their ability to
withstand lateral loads by wind, earthquake etc. In most
cases, structural walls in buildings must carry out both load
bearing and stabilizing functions at one and the same time.
Beside other factors, the smallest deflection due to horizontal
load by the eccentricity and bending in relation to the vertical
load bearing function thus increasing the imposed stresses in
the material of the wall. In a short wall subjected to eccentric
load, ultimate stress obtainable will be rather less than unit
strength due to the influence of mortar strength coupled with
workmanship, etc. in a slender wall eccentric loading induces a
moment in the wall which causes the wall to deflect. To
estimate the reduction in the capacity of the wall, it is
necessary to know the moment-curvature relationship for the
wall.
In a unit-mortar masonry of two-block under eccentric
load, Cranston (1976) reported that at different levels of axial
load the eccentricity increases, while the wall stiffness
15
decreases. Fig. 2.3 indicates the behaviour of joint under

eccentricity (Roberts et al, 1985). At low eccentricities of load
(Fig. 2.3a) the joint is completely in compression and the
rotation of the joint is indirectly proportional to wall stiffness.
Spalling of
mortars on
compressed
edge
t Crack
Cmpression over
whole joint
(a) Low eccentricity (b) High eccentricity
Fig. 2 Behaviour of joint under eccentricity (Roberts et al,

1985)
Rotation of the joint  is expressed as:

p.et j
= (2.7)
Ej1
where: P = vertical load
e = eccentricity load
t j = thickness of joint
16
EJ = modulus of elasticity of joint

I = moment of inertia
Tensile stress that can develop between the block and

mortar is very low and cracks will develop in the joints as soon
as any part of the joints goes into tension. The mortar on the
compressive face will start to spall. As a result of this, load will
be carried by the remaining small area of the mortar resulting
in an increase of eccentricity due to large stress and
deformations.
Since the interwoven sandcrete blockwall has no cross-
joint material, it will be necessary to estimate the reduction in
capacity of the wall by obtaining an estimate of deflections
necessary to predict the moment-curvature relationship of this
blockwork. This is as a result of the successive uplift of the
blocks at the tension side of the wall due to the eccentric load.
2.3 Masonry Failure Theory
Considering the influence of mortar on block-unit of a wall

under compression, the restrain from the unit ensures that
horizontal stress can attain whatever value (Reference to
Equation 2.8) to sustain the applied vertical load, and hence
mortar joint cannot possibly fail before the block-unit.
Fig. 2.4 Failure of wall by vertical cracking

17
Compressive failure occurs when the transverse tensile strain

produced by Poisson’s ratio effects reaches the limiting value;
as such material fails by vertical cracking. See Fig. 2.4 for the
failure of wall by vertical cracking.
Failure theories based on the strength of unit and mortar
have been put forward by Hilsdorf (1986) based on assumed
linear relationship between lateral biaxial strength and local
compressive stress equal to the mean external compressive
stress and multiplied by a ‘non-uniformity’ factor. By
subsequent increase in load, general failure will occur when
the wall unit can no longer provide biaxial state of stress to
prevent failure in mortar. Khoo and Hendry (1973)
represented the biaxial compression-tension strength envelope
for brick units, while triaxial test cell was used for compressive
strength of mortars (in production: 1:1:4: and 1:1:6). On the
basis of this study, failure theory for masonry has been
developed and the assumed failure curve, shown in Fig. 2.5, is
established for unit in biaxial compression-tension n the
masonry prism.
COMPRESSION, σc
Failure envelope
A’ B
B’
o
TENSION, σt
Fig. 2.5 Masonry typical failure curve
18
As the vertical compression acting on the black work prism

increases, the state of stress in the unit proceeds along the
dashed line OA. When line OA intersects the failure envelope
at A, failure occurs.
When superimposing on the brick envelope, a curve
derived from triaxial compressive strength for the mortar,
which defines the tensile stress induced in the unit, then
failure occurs.
In an elastoplastic buckling of a rectangular panel in
biaxial compression and tension, Durban and Zuckkerman
(1999), contrary to the earlier studies on plastic buckling in
which single load parameter was employed, combined loads
effects were examined. The result showed that there exists
optimal loading path for all boundary conditions examined and
that similar optimum loading path has found with flow theory.
In a single axial compression, load coefficient is zero, while the
value is -1 for equibiaxial compression. This is true only for
mortar but not for the masonry unit.
Failure mode, for hollow block prism, tested by Cheema
and Klinger (1986) has been predicted. In the block prism, the
analysis of the experiment shows that hollow prism, with
about 10 mm mortar joints, failed at stresses higher than the
mortar strength due to confinement of the joints by adjacent
block-units. The confinement also causes transverse tensile
stresses, near the unit-mortar interface, to split the block or
when compressive stresses crush the confined mortar.
Failure of the unconfined prism tested by priestly and
Elder (1983) conformed to a mechanism suggested by
Drysdale and Hamid (1979), which involves premature failure
of the masonry prism by vertical splitting initiated by high
lateral expansion of the crushing mortar. Analyzing the failure
of masonry structures, Lotfi and Shing (1994) used different
modeling method for mortar-joint and masonry-units. Mortar
joint was modeled by interface element approach using finite
element method, while smeared crack element method was
employed for the units. From the analyses, failure of
unreinforced masonry structures, subject to lateral load, is
19
dominated by the fracture of mortar joints as well as the

cracking and crushing of the masonry units.
However, in interwoven sandcerete blockwall, the initial
vertical splitting of a unit may be associated with the fact that,
each unit is restrained by the horizontal lock-tongues. The
effect of confinement by these tongues, on the failure mode of
the unit, was assumed to take place at the initial stage of
failure. The tongues are laterally stressed, due to the vertical
compression on the unit, which may first dilate sideways to
initiate cracks at the lower head (side) of the upper block. This
is immediately followed by the Poisson’s ratio effects produced
when transverse tensile strain reaches the limiting value. The
final failure of the block will then be by rupture.
2.4 Stability of Masonry
Masonry is basically a dead load structure and it is expected

that it should provide its own inbuilt stability through its
height.
A vertical load is clearly a problem with low rise
construction. Such buildings commonly employ lightweight
floors and roofs. Lack of substantial vertical loads gives rise to
difficulties when wind loads have to be resisted.
If masonry does not indeed experience, in this case, low
average values of stress, than the whole theory is maintained
that the shape of a construction will be maintained by
interwoven of the elements. In the case of stone units with
square faces, assembled dry, friction forces must act on those
faces if any tendency for sliding should occur in its fabric. So,
the internal compressive forces generated by gravity act as a
kind of prestressing of the masonry to be transmitted without
causing either tension or slip. Through in-plain wall, such as
walls of low-rise building, the forces, arising from wind and
roof or floor-slab, acting on the walls are relatively low. Such
walls are considered to behave as propped cantilevers. Here
the moment at the base increases as the prop deflects;
By now mortar which cannot be assumed to add a
considerable strength (Refer to Fig. 2.2) to masonry
20
construction could not be one of the major factors for the

stability of the masonry, because the stability of the whole
construction is only assumed by the compaction under gravity
of the various elements. A general state of compression can
exist but only feeble tension can be resisted. This is because
the value of compressive forces from the self-weight of a
material can be easily assessed. For instance if density of a
masonry (wall) is , its cross sectional area is Am3 the weight
N at the base of the masonry is .Am.h, where h is the height
of the wall. The stability moment Ms is N.d/2, d is the depth of
the masonry.
When Moroni al (1996) established seismic force reduction
factor (Rw) and displacement amplification factor (Cd) for
confined masonry buildings, the results showed that as wall
density increases, Rw value diminishes. This indicates that
minor non-linear behaviour is required in building with high
density wall. This leads us to the point that stone structures,
for instance, with their already decayed mortar, continue to
exist simply because a very small compressive prestress (i.e.,
“background stress” according to Heyman (1984)) is all that is
necessary to avoid a danger of sliding due to general loss of
cohesion of the masonry. And provided that continous
movement does not occur due to other over all geometrical
changes by thermal change or by repeated wind loading.
Generally, the usual assumptions (such as distribution of
stresses on the section of a member and stress-strain
relationship) of any simple structural theory should be known.
Applying plastic theorems to masonry, Heyman (1984)
stated that: if it is possible to find a system of internal stresses
in equilibrium with the external loading, and the system is
satisfactory in the sense that there is no danger of crushing of
the material, then this gives complete assuarance that the
structure as a whole is safe. Therefore one does not seek to
determine the ‘actual’ state of the structure but only a simple
state of equilibrium should be looked for, such as one in which
stresses are assumed to be uniformly distributed throughout
the masonry rather than be in places accompanied by peaks in
others.
21
In this investigation, however, an approach to the analysis

of the interwoven sandcrete Blockwork will allow the strength
of block to appear as a parameter. The essential stability of
this blockwork is to be assessed by its correct overall geometry
in relation to the geometry of the thrust (due to vertical loads
as well as horizontal loads by floor-slab or roof) that the
structure is likely to carry.
There are four recommendations by BS 5628 (1985) in
common with CP 110 (1972) applicable to all masonry
buildings:
1. A layout should be chosen for the structure to ensure
‘a robust and stable design’.
2. The structure must be capable of resisting a horizontal
force equal to 1.5% of the total characteristic dead
load above the level being considered.
3. Adequate connections should be made between walls
and floors and between walls and roof.
4. In regard to accidental forces, there should be ‘a
reasonable probability’ that the structure ‘will not
collapse catastrophically under the effect of misuse or
accident’ and that “no structure can be expected to be
resistant to the excessive loads or forces that could
arise due to an extreme cause, but it should not be
damaged to an extent disproportionate to the original
cause”. Special recommendations for buildings of five
or more storeys spell out ways in which condition (4)
above can be satisfied. Conditions (1) and (2) are of
primary concern in this investigation.
As it has already been explained, that low-rise masonry
building is almost always inherently stable. To ensure stability,
it is necessary to provide sufficient walls to resist lateral and
torsional movement. Where the more stable alternative cannot
be realized, ties at roof level between walls can be provided.
In the case of horizontal load beside the resistance of such
load by wall to a value of 1.5% of the total characteristic dead,
horizontal load should be uniformly distributed in order to
avoid the concentration of stress above the level under
consideration.
22
2.4.1 Wall Subjected to Eccentric Load
For vertical loads in which the masonry walls and floor slabs or
roof are effectively interconnected, the forces from the floor
are transmitted to the walls eccentrically.
Concrete in compression may be considered to be roughly
plastic and capable of sustaining a stress of about 80% of the
cube strength, even for the unit strength corrected for aspect
ratio (unit height: width) will also be about this value, For the
ultimate stress distribution in an eccentrically loaded block,
vertical load on wall is expressed as:
t
N  2b(  e) f u = ( t  2e)bf c (2.10)
2
(This relationship is shown in Fig. 2.6)
where: t = thickness of block,
b = length of block,
e = eccentricity of load,
N = vertical load,
fu = unit strength adjusted for aspect
ratio.
N
e
fu
Fig. 2.6 Stress in blockwork under ultimate load

23
In section 2.2 for masonry, of a unit-mortar combination,

subjected to eccentric load, it has been said that as a
consequence of the lower strength and stiffness of the mortar
that supports the load, a large proportion of the total rotation
takes place. The proportion of such rotation occurs in the joint
as a function of the total rotation for various situations of the
wall. And as the eccentricities increase or the axial load lowers,
the behaviour of the joint begins to dominate the overall
behaviour of the wall. See Fig. 2.7.
100 n = 7.5 N/mm2

ROTATION
80
60 n = 10 N/mm2
40 n = 12.5 N/mm2
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
ECCENTRICITY
Fig. 2.7 Rotation of the wall due to eccentricity (Roberts et al,
1985)
24
In the critical section of wall, there are two modes of

failure: 1) for relatively higher vertical loads, failure will occur
in the block when the eccentricity reaches the value given
below (derived from equation 10):
1 N
  (t  ) (2.11)
2 bf c
and 2) for walls with relatively light vertical-load, the mortar in

the joint crushes. When considering the Interwoven Sandcrete
Blockwal which can be assumed to be lightly loaded at failure,
the behaviour of such wall will be dominated by the uplift of
blocks at the tension side and the properties of the block-unit
will be irrelevant. Though, this is opposite to the heavily
loaded short wall. Really, this wall behaves like a slender wall.
This is treated special.
Under axial loading, design strength of a wall which is
sufficiently short, is simply the characteristic strength of a wall
divided by the appropriate partial safety factor. As in the case
of wall-floor connection, the eccentricities are determined by
empirical rules, as in BS 5628, Part 1, (1985) for structural use
of masonry, and it suggests that a load from a single floor or
roof be considered to act at one-third of the depth of the
bearing area from the loaded face of the wall or in the case of
a continuous floor slab passing over a wall, that each side of
the wall may be taken as supported on half of the total
bearing area. The load, according to BS 5628 (1985), from the
floors above the wall under consideration is assumed to be
axial and corresponding to the eccentricity of loading at the
lower end of the wall section, and it is taken as zero.
The above assumption is very widely used in design but, it
is inherently inaccurate because of the large safety factors
needed for protection. However, the joints of wall-floor can be
taken as fully rigid (Haller, 1960) and flexural rigidity value for
wall and floor slabs must be known. Vahakallio and Makela
(1975) have developed a method for calculating eccentricities
in the basis of simplified elastic analysis which assumes that
horizontal members have bending strength and that vertical
25
members have no tensile strength. They extended this method

of analysis to permit its application to cases which the floor
slabs are supported in variety of possible ways. The method
uses stiffness coefficients for the walls that are a function of
eccentricity.
Many investigators (Vahakallio and Makela, 1975; Sinha
and Hendry, 1980) confirmed that, with appropriate
adjustment to allow for cracking, it is possible to apply frame
analysis methods to masonry works the wall compressions are
in excess of 0.3 Nmm2. A lack of full joint stiffness will result in
an overestimation of load eccentricity on the walls and
correspondingly, slab moment be increased.
In an eccentrically loaded cavity wall, Wang and
Hatzinikolas (1996) observed that elastic analysis shows that,
wall components behave nonlinearly with a large displacement
and small strain characteristic deformation. The wall stiffness
ratio of 0.0524 is affected by the early onset of cracks. In this
case such cracks may not occur in ISB masonry, because of
lack of joint stiffness. In this case the deflection will depend on
the units upliftment by large eccentricity of load.
2.4.2 Evaluation of eccentricity of wall
Under the approximate method, the load transmitted by a

single floor is assumed to act at 1/3 of the depth of the
bearing areas from the face of the wall as for the case of an
external wall shown in Fig. 2.8a. In calculating the eccentricity,
the load
From slab (P2) is assumed to be acting at a distance t/3
from the face of the wall which is where the resultant stress is
considered to be acting.
26
P1 P1
P2 P3 P2
t/6 t/6 t/6 t/3
t t
(a) Internal wall (b) External wall
Fig. 2.8 Wall eccentricity
Considering the external wall shown in Fig. 2.8a, the value

of the eccentricity, e, is given as:
e = P2 t/6 (P1 + P2) (2.12)
where: P1 = axial load on the wall

P2 = load due to eccentricity
T = thickness of wall
For a wall under a continuous slab (Fig. 2.8b), the load

from each side is assumed to act at one sixth of the thickness
of the appropriate face. As such the eccentricity is evaluated
as:
e= p3-p2t/3 (p1 + p2 +p3) (2. 13)
where: P2,3 = Load due to eccentricities

27
2.4.3 Wall Subjected to Vertical and Horizontal Load
Most of the loads on a wall are transferred to it by the floors

and roofs (Barrit, 1984). The wall therefore must be able to
withstand the effects of the loads on them; hence there is the
need to investigate the effect of axial loading on the walls. A
strength requirement is the major factor for consideration in
the design of low-height structures (Bungale, 1988).
2.5 Limit State Design of Masonry Work
Limit state design establishes a much clearer relationship

between the performance requirements for a structure and its
behaviour under extreme and service loads, which is possible
with working stress design. However in the case of inadequate
lateral strength of some structural members (such as masonry
wall), it is recommended (BS 5628, 1985; Sahlin, 1971) that a
structure should always be capable of desisting a lateral force
not less than 1.5% of the total characteristics load acting
through the centroid of the structure above any level
considered.
The basic aim of Limit State is to ensure that a structure
should fulfill its intended function, through its life span,
without failure, excessive deflection or cracking with regard to
economy. The effect of economy on the construction industry
will be discussed in section 2.6.
Two categories of limit state normally have to be
considered, namely: ultimate limit state corresponding to
failure or collapse in strength (including general yielding,
rupture, bucking and transformation into mechanism), stability
against overturing and sway, fractures due to fatigue and
brittle fracture; the second category is the serviceability limit
state for excessive deflection, vibration and cracking.
For a probability-based resistance analysis, the steps are:
to establish mathematical models using principle of mechanical
and experimental data to predict the behavior of masonry
walls subjected to various load conditions; to establish
procedures, based on probability theory for measuring
28
quantitatively the structural performance; to specify target

reliability measures by assessing reliabilities inherent to
existing design that have performed satisfactorily and other
considerations; to determine the resistance factors by ensuring
that the performance objectives of the specifications expressed
in reliability terms meet relevant conditions..
In most previous work, behaviour models for masonry
walls - a brittle material - loaded in compression and out-of-
plane bending have been based on the use of elastic analysis
on the assumption that the distribution of stresses on the
cross-section of masonry wall at failure is linear. The
advantages of elastic design are obvious and applied equally
to reinforced masonry for which ultimate strength methods
have been widely accepted for the tow decades. Factors of
safety against failure for members designed to elastic theory
vary considerably with section shape and axial load level.
In developing a model for ultimate strength as often the
case in masonry panel, the model of tensile strength of the
masonry neglected. In conventional unit-mortar masonry,
there are two-phase materials consisting of linear elastic units
embedded in thin non- linear elastic layers of mortar. Non –
linearity of masonry work is caused by material non – linearity
and progressive cracking. Page (1979) reported that the non-
linearity caused by the constituent material is significant
compared with the result from progressive cracking, Phillips
and Zinekiewicz (1997) in a non-linear analysis of reinforced
concrete also found elastic crack formation. Rather than
concrete materials to be the predominate cause of non- linear
behavior. So to simplify the analysis the actual complex
distribution of stresses in the compression zone of the cross –
section loaded in ending and axial compression is replaced by
a rectangular stress block. And unless complex analysis are
made to take into account the effects of shrinkage, creep or
temperature change, the stresses predicted by the elastic
analysis have little resemblance to the true state of stress.
The above analysis is typical of a conventional unit-mortar
masonry considering that ISB- masonry work is isotropic
having linear elastic units, we can assume that the distribution
29
of stresses on the cross-section of the wall at failure is linear.

Even though the flexural rigidities of some past structures such
as lock–block has been claimed to be high, there is no
available data to study them, as a result of this, the
assumption on the distribution of stresses in ISB will be based
on elastic analysis, and the analysis will be simplified by using
rectangular block.
2.5.1 Design of Wall under Vertical load
The basic information required for the design of a wall to resist

a vertical load (eccentric or axial) is as follows:
1) The appropriate loading to the ultimate limit state which

consists of the characteristic loads (dead or imposed) and
appropriate partial safety factors.
2) Characteristics compressive strength for a particular type
of masonry being adopted and an appropriate partial
safety factor for reducing the characteristics strength to a
design value.
3) Assessing the effects of slenderness and eccentricity of
load, it is necessary to estimate the effective height and
effective thickness of the wall.
4) An assessment is needed of the effective eccentricity of
the loading at the top of the wall.
The advantage of limit state approach is that it permits a

more ration term, the flexible assessment of structural safety
and serviceability.
Ideally, loadings and strengths should be available in
statistical terms; the characteristic values have to be
determined on the basis of available evidence. In the case of
loads, the evidence generally results from surveys of buildings
in service, for which there is no readily available evidence and
so far, for the type of ISB-masonry work, the characteristic
loads used in design are multiplied by the partial safety factors
and those which take the account of possible unusual increase
in load beyond the characteristic value. Possible inaccuracies in
30
assessment of load effect within the structure are taken into

account. For various combinations of load as in clause 22 of BS
5628, characteristics strength of material, on the other hand,
are derived from laboratory tests to provide a statistical basis
for characteristic strength. Hence design strength is defined
as:
 ft
fd = (2.14)
m
In which f k  f m  k .s (2.15)
This is the characteristic strength of material.
Where: fm = mean strength from test results

s = standard deviation
k = coefficient (1.64, relative index)
depending on probability of obtaining
results less than
The design strength of masonry is obtain as shown in

equation (14) for m (= 3.5 to 2.5) according to BS 5628
(1985).
The effective height of a wall depends on its end
conditions. A wall can be enhanced by the ground or placed
simply on a hard foundation. And in the case of the effective
thickness it is convenient to reduce all buckling problems to
equivalent pin ended struts, using effective height. In the case
of the ISB masonry, the effective thickness equals the actual
thickness.
2.5.2 Wall under Eccentric Load
Once a load is applied eccentrically, however the capacity is

reduced. Appendix B of BS 5628 (1985) indicates that the
reduced capacity may be calculated on the assumption that: at
ultimate load a plastic distribution of stress will act over the
whole compression zone. Fig. 2.9 shows stress distribution on
the wall section under eccentric load.
31
y
e t  2e 
1  
2  t 
1.1fk/m
 2e 
t 1  
 t 
Fig. 2.9 Stress distribution of wall under eccentric load
From Fig. 2.9: em = eccentricity of load

 y = vertical load per unit length
= (  .b.t.fk) ym (2.16)
t = thickness of wall
fk = characteristic strength of the masonry
ym = partial safety factor of material
 =reduction factor capacity is a function
em/t).
2.5.3 Wall under Vertical and Lateral Loads
For a wall carrying a significant vertical load, the lateral load

can be checked using the expression below (BS 5628, 1985):
32
8 y
qlateral = (2.17)
 2 
where: H =height of wall
The lateral loading that usually arises is wind pressure and

incidental loads. The lateral load capacity of a wall revolves
around two basis points: the flexural strength of concrete
block masonry given in BS 5628 (1985) is related to the
compressive strength of the units.
2.5.4 Determination of Effective Height
This is related to the degree of restraint imposed by the floors

and beams built into the wall. Using Euler’s buckling theory,
the effective heights are evaluated. In practice however, the
end supports to walls are adjusted to be pinned at both ends
so that the effective height is equal to 1.0H (H is the height of
the wall). If a wall is in between the concrete floors, the
effective height is taken as 0.75H, whereby the wall is
considered as partially fixed at both ends.
2.5.5 Analysis and design
The reliability of masonry walls can be expressed in the form:
F (x1…,,………xm) = 0 (2.18)
where: x1= random variables.
Failure is said to occur by convention when:
F(x1……..xm) (2.19)
Reliability of ISB-walls:
 ftn    (s1fkLF) (2.20)
where: n = load combination

33
Fk = internal force caused by the

imposed characteristic load.
S = geometrical characteristics
fy = characteristics strength
LF = service and partial safety factor
2.5.6 Economic aspect of ISB-masonry
A process of industrialization in construction affects economy.

The relationship between economy and construction is mutual.
As such economy has a positive or negative influence on
construction.
Complicated situation develops in a case when the
technological solution significantly overstepped anticipated
social aspects – economic realities and opportunities. In many
cases, especially in Nigeria, fetching for an entirely new
qualitative solution which affects the economic realities are not
always prepared for in terms of practical realities.
The most important aspects, in understanding
contemporary and perspective development tendency for
construction industry, is the knowledge of relationship
between the increase in quantity and quality of structure as
well as the productivity of work.
It is a fact that in construction industry, even in this nation
(Nigeria), material solutions form the major basis in the
production, erection technology, management and
enterprising. So, the relationship between construction and
economy requires the most essential and extensive changes,
especially, in the area of developing locally available materials.
There is also the influence of practical industrial
technology, transportation problem, investment expenses in
construction industry. Construction solution and related factors
should form conditions for the attainment of industrial
technology. Working with small numerous units (as in blocks)
or elements as operating productive technology is one of the
basis economy realization.
Combination of building construction and economy on the
speed on the construction is significant. In May 1984, Wright
34
Mottershaw Partnership, as reported by Curtin (1987) in the

United Kingdom, were approached by Forticrete Ltd to check
the feasibility of constructing 19.1 m high walls, of a generator
hall, using dry-jointed masonry with reinforced concrete core.
The construction was to complete within the very severe
constrains imposed by the existing building, plant and services
(some of which were to remain in operation until completion of
the project). It was estimated that a scheme using steelwork
and traditional blockwork infill panels would take about fifty-ix
days, a saving of sixteen days was realized by using dry-
jointed concrete blockwork.
Long-term construction has adverse effects on the working
forces; building materials (such as cement may loose its
strength if kept for more than necessary period); manufacture;
equipment; inflation etc, even if the product-structure will
provide utility value. This is true especially in a third world
country as Nigeria, where the demand for every available
shelter is in high and urgent demand.
With good organization, working period no doubt can be
minimized in construction, but what makes good organization
includes the availability of materials, method of manufacture,
type of units to be assembled of such units or elements. Also
saving of working force can only be reasonable if the effect on
economy per certain time must be higher than investment
expenses.
From the above views, the interwoven sandcrete block
masonry (ISB) is economically viable. Time saving with respect
to workmanship in construction schedule is guaranteed using
the ISB type of units. It has been shown in the above analyses
that major structure failure (such as collapse, cracking, and
poor aesteticity) in masonry is attributed to the usual poor
placement of mortar-joints by the masons.
35
Chapter 3
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME AND RESULTS
3.1 Preamble
This test programme covered the Interwoven Sandcrete Block

(ISB) units (sizes: 442mm x 230mm x 225mm for a full size,
hollow and 225mm x 230mm x 225mm for a half-size, hollow).
The ISB full size block corresponds to a dense aggregate block
of 440 x 215 x 215 mm (work-size) in accordance with BS
2028, 1364 (1968). Typical ISB block units are shown in Plate
II.
Plate II Typical ISB full and half-block
3.2 Die-mould, its Design Concept and Assumptions
A steel die-mould was designed and fabricated for making the

interwoven sandcrete block-units, of sizes 450mm x 225mm x
225mm and 225mm x 225mm x 225mm.
36
The design of the block making machine is such that it

could be operated, manually, by one person while someone
else can remove the produced block for drying. The block
making machine produces one full block at a time, while the
half block is produce by placing an auxiliary thin plate,
vertically, in the middle of the die-mould before the freshly
mixed sandcrete is poured into it.
The major parts of the block making machine are: (a) the
die-mould hollow-box, which comprises of two header and two
stretcher steels and each of them bearing two vertical steel
tongues, were welded together. The hollow-box was screwed
to a base plate; (b) Base plate. This is a plate on which two
beveled-steel tongues were welded. The tongues are to make
hollows in the block; (c) Wooden platen, with two holes
passing through the beveled tongues (in b above) is placed on
the base plate. The platen is used to carry off the block from
the mould, while block is left on it to dry; (d) A rammer
(compaction) plate is the die-mould lid. The compaction plate
was design to slide up and down on four vertical steel rods.
(Initially, the rammer was design to compact the green
sandcrete at an angle. This attempt failed because the block
bottom-edge shell, of the bottom groove, sheared off as the
lid was raised after compaction.) The four vertical rods also
serve as alignment- guide for the rammer. Attached to the
rammer is a long flat tongue for creating bottom groove for
the block; (e) stand. This stand is a topless steel table (of four
leg) on which the die-mould was screwed. The block ejection
parts were designed to work on lever (link) mechanism, which
could be easily replaced when necessary. The most prominent
part of the ejection is the handle which protruding at the side
of the table. This is the pressed down during block ejection
and raised to position by gravity.
The following assumptions were made to facilitate the
compaction design
(1) Concrete modulus of elasticity, Ec = 26 E3

(2) Height at which the rammer plate is released to
compress the block, hr = 300mm
37
(3) Density of the mild steel, s = 77E6 N/mm3
In Fig. 3.1, axometric diagram, by parts, of the die-mould

is shown, while an assembled die-mould machine is shown in
Fig. 3.2. Plate III shows an ISB block on die-mould.
Fig. 3.1 axometric diagram of die mould by parts

38
Fig. 3.2 Assembled ISB die-mould

39
Plate III ISB block on its mould
3.3 Compaction Pressure on ISB-block in Moulding
The compaction pressure has been calculated as follows:
(1) Weight of steel (W) = density x volume (shsAs)

40
Where: s, hs , A s density, height and sectional area

of the steel
(2) Cross sectional area (gross) of the block (Ag) is
calculated.
(3) Height hr the rammer’s plate is released and assumed.
(4) In order to cause deformation in the fresh sandcrete
block, the static vertical deformation is expressed as:
Wh r
hb  (3.2)
c 
where: W = weight of steel

Ec = modulus of elasticity of
concrete
Ag = gross sectional area
(5) Dynamic coefficient is calculated as:
2h r
  1  (1  ) (3.2)
h b
(6) From the weight of the steel the equivalent force of
static is expressed as:
Fst =  W (3.3)
7) Compaction pressure therefore:
F st
pc = (3.4)

Compaction pressure (max) of 5.0MN/m, at the height of

300mm, was used to compress the sandcrete inside the
mould. This is obtained from the top plate of the mould
applied on the specimen. Details of die-mould parts are shown
in Table 3.1.
41
Table 3.1 ISB die mould specification

Identification Part Material Quanti Shape Shape view
No description specification ty description
(mm)
BP Base plate 305 x 9-613 1 Flat
TB Tongue on BP 112.5x125x9 1 Hollow prism
P Wooden pellet 125x25-475 1 Perforated board
SP Seat for P 75x25-125 2 Solid board
R Rammer plate 305x9-613 1 Flat
TR Tongue on R 125x9=375 1 Flat
P1 Front plate 225x9-225 1 Flat
T1 Tongue on P1 225x25x25 2 Hollow rod
P2 Right plate 275x9-468 1 Flat
P3 Back plate 275x9-468 1 Flat
P4 Left plate 225x9-468 1 Flat
LT Table leg 50x50x500 4 “L”
BL1 Table legbrace 50x50x315 4 “L”
BL2 Tableleg brace 25x25-500 2 Flat rod
H Lift handle 70x25=681 1 Flat rod
SH1 Handle support 50x50x500 2 L
LH Pivot brace 50x50x90 2 L
L Lever 25x25-227 2 Flat rod
F Lift plate 200x2-300 2 Flat
BF Lift for f 25x25-325 1 Flat rod
NT Nut - 12 -
BT Bolt - 12 -
SR Slide rod 575 4 Solid rod
BS Brace for SR 75x25-120 2 Flat rod
HK Hook 50x1-85 1 Flat plate
BH Brace for HK 25x25-200 1 Flat plate
42
3.4 Production of ISB Block-Specimens
3.4.1 Particle Size Distribution
Commercially available clean, natural, hard sand (free from

chalk and clay) of 100% passing sieve No.5mm and which
complies with BS 882:1201 is employed in the mix. The sand
was well graded to conform to the limit given in Table 1 of BS
882:1201 for the maximum size aggregate to the sandcrete
mix.
The grading test results are shown in Table 3.2 for the
determination of the distribution for the number of different
sized particles present. Maximum sieve (BS 410, 1976) size of
5.00 mm was employed for the production of the block
specimens.
Table 3.2:Grading of sand for ISB block

sieve size
(mm):\ 5.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.25 0.125 0.063
weight of
sieve (g): 1535 564 555 531 503 485 480 459 444
sieve +
retai- - 586 668 673 713 565 661 635 540
ned (g):
retained - 22.5 114 142 211 81 181 176 60

weight(g):
percentage - 2.3 11.4 14.2 21.1 8.1 18.1 17.6 6.1

Retained %
Cumulative - 2.3 13.7 27.9 49.0 57.1 75.2 72.8 98.9

% retained:
Cumulative 100 97.7 86.3 72.1 51.0 42.9 24.8 7.2 1.1
% Passing:
Weight of the pan = 267g Weight of pan + sample = 767g

Weight of sample = 500g Time for shaking = 20 min
43
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10
0
Fig. 3.3 Particle size distribution graph
3.5 Batching, Mixing, Moulding and Curing of Blocks
The sand was used with Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) with
clean, portable water to mix the sandcrete ingredient of ratio
of 1 part cement to six (eight) parts sand (1:6, 1:8 cement-
sand ratio). In order to obtain the effect of mix proportion on
the block tongues, as well as the effect of what the difference
in strength will have on their masonry, the above mixes were
adopted. Sufficient water was used for the mixing of the
sandcrete.
The batching was done by volume (of standard head pan
of 0.015m2). Mixing was done by hand, using shovel, before
molding. Using the ISB die-mould, the green sandcrete was
compacted by rammer plate at the value of 4.0N/mm2. After
compaction, each moulded block was left for 1 minute before
lifting. This was to allow the water to drain off the block.
The specimen units were moist cured by wetting after the
initial setting until sufficient strength is gained for 28 days.
44
3.6 ISB block dimensions, dry-unit weight and density
Dry unit weight of sample blocks were determined in the

process of determining in the their densities. Weights of three
samples measured in the and density obtained in accordance
with BS 6073: part 2 (1981). Three full and half-size block
specimen were measured for their dimensions. The
measurements were recorded to the nearest millimeter. The
results of block dimension are shown in Table 3.3 while Table
3.4 and 3.5 show the results of block weight and density.
Table 3.3: ISB-Block Dimensions

Specimen L B Hb ht Tts Tw Tu Ts CvLc Bc Ag An
No 103 103
(identity) Mm Mm mm mm mm Mm mm Mm Mm (mm2) (mm2)
26
M1-18 443 230 225 26 74 50 50 (51) 125 113 101.890 75.600
(70)
26
M2-18 441 231 225 25 75 50 50 (51) 125 114 101.400 75.500
(70)
26
M3-18 442 230 225 25 75 50 50 (51) 124 112 101.680 75.500
(71)
26
Average 442 230 225 25 75 50 50 (51) 125 113 101.650 75.030
(71)
M1-18= specimen No. 1-1:8 (cement sand) mix,
L=length, Tv = upper tongur breadth,
Hb =height, Ts side tongue breadth
B=breadth, Cv = block cavity (hollow),
ht = thickness of upper tongue, Lc = cavity length,
Tfs= face shell breadth, Bc =cavity breadth,
Tw = web breadth, Ag=block gross sectional area,
An = block net sectional area.
45
Table 3.4: ISB-block weight and density

Specimen No Dry-weight, W Density (D) x 103
(Identification) (Kg) (kg/m3)
M1-18 28.0 1.320
M2-18 27.6 1.340
M3-18 27.6 1.310
Average 27.6 1.360
M1-18 = measurement for specimen No. 1-1:8 mix
Average ISB model block density=1520kg/m3 (Ejeh and
Adedeji, 1998)
Table 3.5 ISB-block weight and Density

Specimen No Dry-weight ,W Density (D) x 103
(Identification) (Kg) (kg/m3)
WD1-16 27.8 1.280
WD2-16 27.3 1.300
WD3-16 28.5 1.300
Average 26.8 1.293
WD1-16=weight/Density for specimen No. 1-1:8 mix
Average ISB model block density = 1550kg/m3 (Ejeh and
Adedeji, 1998)
3.7 Absorption Tests
3.7.1 24h Absorption water absorption
Three half-block specimens were immersed in water for 24

hours. Each specimen weighed while suspended by a meter
wire and completely submerged in water. The specimens were
then removed and aloe\wed to drain for 1 minute, thereafter
cleaned with damp water and weighed (Ww). Subsequent to
saturation, all specimens were over-dried at 1050c for 34
hours. Each sample was being weighed (Wf) at 2 hours
interval, unit two successive weighing gave an increment of
0.2% of the last value. The results which are shown in Table
3.6 were calculated as the ratio of difference in weights [(Ww-
Wf):(Ww-Ws)], while the percentage of absorption was
calculated as the ratio of weight (Ww-Wf)/Wf) by 100%.
46
Table 3.6: ISB-block 24 hours water absorption

Sample No. Ws Ww Wfi Wf2 Wf3 Average Absorption Absorption
(identification) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) Wf (kg) %
A1-18 16.700 17.670 17.450 17.460 17.450 17.453 0.22 10.2
A2-18 16.810 17.780 17.460 17.450 17.440 17.450 0.34 18.9
A3-18 16.800 17.720 17.440 17.460 17.440 17.451 0.30 15.4
Average 0.29 14.8
A1-18= absorption specimen No,1-1:8 mix
Ws=suspended immersed weight of specimen
Ww= wet weight of specimen
Wf=dry weight of specimen
Average water absorption for ISB model block =13.87%.
47
3.8 Moisture Content Test
This was determined by weighing using the same results

obtained in section 3.7 (24 hours absorption test). The results
obtained is shown in Table 3.7. These results were obtained
by calculating the moisture content %, as the percentage of
difference in weight (wb-wf) divided by difference in weight (w-
w). In which W is the sample weight of the unit.
Table 3.7: ISB-Block moisture contents

Specimen No. (wb-wf) (ww-wf) Moisture
(identification) Kg Kg Content %
MC1-18 1.217 02.227 5.36
MC2-18 1.330 0.330 4.03
MC3-18 1.269 0.329 3.86
Average MC 4.42
MC 1-18 = moisture content for specimen 1-1:8 mix,
MC = moisture content
Wb = sampled weight of the specimen
Average moisture contents for ISB mode block = 6.43
3.9 Block Compressive Strength Test
To ensure uniform production of units and design purposes,

the ISB-blocks were tested (bed-wise) for the compressive
strength that will meet the quality and the characteristics
strength.
Ten full-size and ten half-size specimens at the age of 28
days are capped using 1 part of cement and 3 parts of sand
(falling within 2 - 3 grading zone of BS 882: 1201) forming a
uniform layer of 20mm on both bed faces of each specimen.
The specimens before capping, were immersed in water at a
temperature of 220C for 24 hours, and were allowed to drain
off for 30 minutes under damp sacking. Also before capping,
the two upper tongues on each specimen were sawn off.
48
Table 3.9 Compressive strength Results for ISB block 1:6

(1part cement to 6 parts sand ) mix
Specimen Gross Crushing Compressive
B-16 sectional area load strength
(Ag) (kN) (N/mm2)
x 103 (mm2)
B1-16 101.720 270 2.60
B2-16 101.690 275 2.70
B3-16 102.010 280 2.74
B4-16 101.720 272 2.67
B5-16 101.790 275 2.70
B6-16 102.000 285 2.79
B7-16 102.000 285 2.79
B8-16 101.890 280 2.75
B9-16 101.790 275 2.70
B10-16 101.785 275 2.70
Average 101.839 277.2 2.70
Standard deviation, s = 0.57, Coefficient of variation, v = 2.11
Compressive strength, fu = 2.7
Table 3.10 Average compressive strength results for ISB

block 1:6 (1 part cement to 6 parts sand) mix
Specimen No. of Mean Value
(Block Specimens Sectional Area Crushing load Compressive
Type) Strength
Ag1 An2 Ng3 Nn4 Gross Net
x103mm 2 x103mm 2 x103N x103N N/mm2 N/mm2
Full-size 10 101 700 75 900 271 271 2.6 3.6
Half-size 10 50 3000 36 700 140 140 2.8 3.8
1
Gross sectional area of the block
2
Net sectional area of the block
3
Crushing load on block gross area
4
Crushing load on block net area
- Average compressive strength for the ISB block = 2.7 N/mm2
- Minimum compressive strength for the average of 10 blocks (BS
5628) of work-size 440 x 215 x 215 = 2.8 N/mm2
- (Nigerian Industrial Standards (NIS) 74: 1972 for average
allowable strength = 2.1 N/mm2
49
Table 3.10 Average compressive strength results for ISB

block 1:8 (1 part cement to 8 parts sand) mix
Specimen No. of Mean Value
(Block Specimens Sectional Area Crushing load Compressive
Type) Strength
Ag1 An2 Ng3 Nn4 Gross Net
x103mm 2 x103mm 2 x103N x103N N/mm2 N/mm2
Full-size 10 101 700 75 900 221 221 2.2 2.9
Half-size 10 50 3000 36 700 125 125 2.5 3.4
1
Gross sectional area of the block
2
Net sectional area of the block
3
Crushing load on block gross area
4
Crushing load on block net area
The results of 10 specimens of conventional sandcrete

block produced and cured as the ISB –block specimens, are
shown in Table 3.12. This table indicates the characteristic
strength difference between the ISB and conventional
sandcrete blocks.
Table 3.12 Compressive strength comparison between the

conventional and ISB blocks.
Block Mix No. of Pac fac Fbofac
Type specimen N x 103 (N/mm2)
Full size (1:6) 10 255 2.5 1.08
hollow
Full size (1:8) 10 213 2.1 1.05
Hollow
Pac, fac = Axial ultimate capacity. Compressive strength for
conventional block respectively fbo = Strength of ISB block.
3.10 Masonry Prism strength Tests
Compressive strength test for ISB block work prism test was
conducted (ASTM C 140-75 1980) to study the behaviour of
the interwoven sandcrete block masonry prisms (without
mortar bond) under axial compression load. The blocks of the
same mix design for the unit strength test are used in this
experiment.
The samples built into prisms are made to undergo similar
conditions as the ones used for the compressive strength test
for the units, and they are tested after 28 days. Three types of
prisms were produced:
50
i) A prism was made of two courses of full-blocks (i.e. one

block top of the other). Its slenderness ratio, h/t =2 in
which h and t are the height and thickness of the prism
respectively). This is represented in Fig. 3.4a.
ii) A three–course block prism was made of a full-block on
top, and another block at the bottom, while two halve-
blocks are merged together in the middle of the prisms. its
slenderness ratio, h/t = 3. This is shown in Fig. 3.4b.
iii) A three course block prism compress of three full-blocks,
one place on top of the other. Its slenderness ratio, h/t =
3. Fig 3.4c shows this prism specimen.
Note: The (ii) above represents the effect of the half blocks in
the masonry strength.
h/t = 3 h/t =3 h/t = 3
Fig. 3.4 Prism specimens
The top and bottom part of each specimen was capped

with a wooden board complies with BS1142, Part 3 (1972) on
the upper and bottom beds. Each prepared prism is subjected
to compression in a standard compression machine. Three sets
of prisms are subjected to crushing. Dial gauges was mounted
on the prisms, so that the vertical strains could be measured
and read at regular load increments up to approximately 90%
of the failure load.
The compressive strength fm (Nmm-2) is found from the
ultimate load divided by the axial and eccentrically loaded
prisms are shown in Fig. 3.5.
51
Machine head with

spherical seat
Steel bar
Capping
225
Full block
225
Half (or full) block
Full block
225
Capping
Steel bearing plate

Steel bar
Hinge
e of specimen
of load
Fig. 3.5 Test arrangement for the prism
The following equation was employed to obtain the

compressive strength of the eccentrically loaded prisms.
p
fn  (3.5)
Lt (1  2e / t )
where: P = crushing load (kN),

L = length of prism (mm)
t = thickness of prism
e = eccentricity of the load
52
For a fully cracked face shell on the compression side of

the prism, the characteristic strength was computed using
equation (3.6)
P
fn  (3.6)
e*
LT fs (1  2 )
T fs
T fs t
e*   ( e) (3.7)
2 2
where: Tfs = thickness of the block face shell.
Tests results of the compressive strength (N/mm2), for the

ISB prisms are shown in Tables 3.13 to 3.20. In Appendix VIII,
Tables VIII-1 to VIII-4 show the compressive strength and
strain results for the ISB-prism) h/t = 3, and h/t = 2) for the
1:6 and 1:8 (cement-sand) mixes.
Table 3.13 Results of compressive strength of ISB prism

(e=0,h/t=3), 1:8 (1 part cement to 8 parts sand) mix
Specimen Crushing Compressive Max, strain
BP-18 Load Strength X10-3
2
kN N/mm
18-1 214 2.1 0.50
18-2 214 2.1 0.50
18-3 244 2.4 0.55
18-4 215 2.1 0.50
18-5 224 2.2 0.53
18-6 256 2.5 1.2
18-7 234 2.3 0.54
18-8 225 2.2 0.53
18-9 214 2.1 0.50
18-10 214 2.1 0.50
Mean strength value, x = 2.223 Standard deviation, s = 0.03f
Coefficient of variation,v = 0.015, Prism compressive strength fm = 2.2
h/t = slenderness ratio (height/thickness), BP-18 = block prim- 1:8 mix
53

Specimen Crushing Compressive Max, strain
BP-18 Load Strength X10-3
2
kN N/mm
18-1 224 2.2 0.54
18-2 214 2.0 0.50
18-3 255 2.5 1.50
18-4 224 2.2 0.54
18-5 244 2.4 0.57
18-6 244 2.4 0.57
18-7 235 2.3 0.56
18-8 235 2.3 0.56
18-9 235 2.3 0.56
18-10 235 2.4 0.56
Mean strength value, x = 2.29 Standard deviation, s = 0.27
Coefficient of variation,v=11.89 Prism compressive strength fm = 2.2
h/t = slenderness ratio (height/thickness), BP-18 = block prim-1:8 mix

Specimen Crushing load Compressive Max. strain
BP-16 KN stress x10-3
2
(N/mm )
16-1 224 2.4 1.0
16-2 225 -2.7 1.5
16-3 227 2.6 0.98
16-4 230 2.6 0.99
16-5 225 2.4 0.89
16-6 228 2.5 0.80
16-7 224 2.3 0.90
16-8 224 2.3 0.90
16-9 228 2.5 0.99
16-10 229 2.6 0.89
Means strength value, x = 2.49 Standard deviation’s =0.150
Coefficient of variation, v = 6.02 Prism compressive strength, fm =2.5
h/t = slenderness ratio (height/thickness), BP-16 = block prism-1:6 mix
The average values, for the prim specimens of two-half

block in the middle, are: Mean strength value, x = 2.4,
standard deviation, s = 0.104, coefficient of variation, v= 0.25
and prism compressive strength = 2.4N/mm2.
54
Table 3. 16 Results of compressive strength of ISB prism

(e = 0 h/t= 2) 1:6 (1 part cement to 6 parts sand) mix.
Specimen Crushing load Compressive Max strain
BP-16 KN strength x 10
(N/mm2)
16-1 228 2.5 0.60
16-2 226 2.9 0.90
16-3 225 2.6 0.68
16-4 226 2.7 0.60
16-5 225 2.6 0.57
16-6 225 2.6 0.95
16-7 223 2.5 0.9
16-8 225 2.7 1.05
16-9 223 2.5 0.99
16-10 225 2.6 0.85
Mean strength value, x = 2. 62 Standard deviation, s= 0.123
Coefficient of variation, v= 4.69 Prism compressive strength, fm = 2.6
h/t = slenderness ratio (height to thickness). BP-16 = block prism 1:6 mix
55
Table 3.17 Results of compressive (crushing) strength of ISB prism, 1:8(1 part cement to 8 parts sand mix
Block Prism h/t e No. of Pe Pa Pe/Pa fm fme Cov Fm/fme
type specimen mm Specimen Nx103 Nx103 N/mm2 N/mm2 %
Full EP-18 2 0 10 224 224 1.0 2.2 2.2 15.0 1.00
size t/6 5 183 - 0.82 - 2.3 13.0 0.96
block t/3 5 103 - 0.45 - 2.6 10.5 0.85
5t/12 5 82 - 0.37 - 2.8 10.1 0.79
Full EP-18 3 0 10 214 214 1.00 2.1 2.1 16.1 1.00
size t/6 5 180 0.80 - 2.1 13.1 1.00
block t/3 5 99 0.44 - 2.4 10.5 0.88
5t/12 5 69 0.30 - 2.7 10.4 0.78
e= eccentricity, Pa= Axial load, Pe= eccentricity load, fm= characteristic strength of masonry, fme= characteristics
strength due to eccentricity, EP-18= eccentricity load for 1:8 (cement: sand ratio)
56
Table 3.18 Results of compressive strength of cracked face shell of isb prism, 1:8(1part cement to 8 parts
Block Prism h/t e e* mm Pe Pa Pe/Pa Fm Fme COV Fm/fme
type specimen mm Nx103 Nx103 N/mm N/mm %
Full EP-18 2 0 0 224 224 1.0 2.2 2.2 9.0 1.00
size t/6 46.7 160 - 0.71 - 2.4 6.0 0.96
block t/3 8.3 110 - 0.49 - 3.6 6.0 0.69
5t/12 10.8 65 - 0.30 - 3.9 6.1 0.56
Full EP-18 3 0 0 215 214 1.00 2.1 2.1 10.1 1.00
size t/6 46.7 170 - 0.79 - 2.5 7.5 0.84
block t/3 12.5 100 - 0.47 - 2.9 6.0 0.72
5t/12 6.8 61 - 0.30 - 3.5 6.0 0.60
e*=eccentricity on the block shell face; e2 Pa Pe fm2 fme are the defined, respectively,
57
Table 3.19 Results of compressive (crushing) strength of ISB prism, 1:6 (1 part cement to 6 parts sand mix
Block Prism h/t e No. of Pe Pa Pe/Pa Fm Fme COV Fm/fme
type specimen mm specimen Nx103 Nx103 N/mm N/mm %
Full EP-18 2 0 10 224 224 1.0 2.3 2.3 10.0 1.00
size t/6 5 186 - 0.76 - 2.7 10.0 0.85
block t/3 5 135 - 0.55 - 3.0 6.1 0.77
5t/12 5 100 - 0.41 - 4.8 6.0 0.48
Full EP-18 3 0 10 218 218 1.00 2.2 2.2 9.0 1.00
size t/6 5 160 - 0.72 - 2.3 6.1 0.96
block t/3 5 100 - 0.50 - 3.1 6.3 0.69
5t/12 5 68 - 0.30 - 3.8 6.0 0.60
e2 Pa2 Pe2 fm2 fme are as defined, respectively, as in Table 3.17.
58
Table 3.20 Results of compressive strength of cracked face shell of ISB prism, 1:6(1 part cement to 6 parts
Block Prism h/t e e* Pe Pa Pe/Pa Fm Fme COV Fm/fme
type specimen mm Nx103 Nx103 N/mm N/mm %
Full EP-18 2 0 0 224 224 1.0 2.2 2.2 10.0 1.00
size t/6 46.7 186 - 0.76 - 2.3 9.0 0.96
block t/3 8.3 135 - 0.55 - 2.6 6.0 0.85
5t/12 10.8 100 - 0.41 - 2.8 7.0 0.78
Full EP-18 3 0 0 214 214 1.00 2.1 2.1 9.0 1.00
size t/6 46.7 125 - 0.72 - 2.1 7.0 1.00
block t/3 8.3 100 - 0.50 - 2.4 7.2 0.88
5t/12 10.8 63 - 0.30 - 2.7 6.0 0.78
e*2 e2 Pa2 Pe2 fm2 fme are as defined, respectively, in Table 3.9
59
Samples of 5 specimen blocks were picked at random from

a batch of 40 blocks, while 15 blocks were sampled to build 5
prism specimens. A prism specimen was compressed. This was
followed immediately by testing five block specimens in
compression. The values of these tests were recorded in
Tables 3.21 to 3.24. The last column of each of these Tables
was obtained by the prism multiplication factor of 0.84.
Table 3.21 Prism-Block relationships in compression, 1:8

(1 part cement to 8 parts sand) mix
Specimen Prism Prism Block Wall
Block strength fm strength fu strength fx
N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2
P1(h/t=3) 2.2 - 1.85
B1 - 2.3 -
B2 - 2.6 -
B3 - 2.3 -
B4 - 2.2 -
B5 - 2.2 -
Mean, x 2.2 2.35 1.85
Standard deviation - 1.02 -
P1= prism, Bi= no of block (i=1.3)
60

(1 parts sand to 8 parts sand) mix
Block strength fm strength fu strength fm
N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2
P1(h/t=2) 2.3 - 1.93

B1 - 2.5 -
B2 - 2.3 -
B3 - 2.6 -
B4 - 2.6 -
B5 - 2.5 -
Mean, x 2.3 2.6 1.93

(1 part cement to 6 parts sand) mixes
Block strength fm strength fu strength fm
N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2
P1(h/t=3) 2.5 - 2.0

B1 - 2.5 -
B2 - 2.6 -
B3 - 2.5 -
B4 - 2.5 -
B5 - 2.5 -
Mean, x 2.5 2.52 2.0
61

(1 part cement to 6 parts sand) mixes
Block strength fm strength fu strength fx
N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2
P1(h/t=2) 2.6 - 2.1

B1 - 2.6 -
B2 - 2.5 -
B3 - 2.6 -
B4 - 2.5 -
B5 - 2.5 -
Mean, x 2.3 2.54 2.1
3.11 ISB-Prism Stress-strain Relationship
The results of obtained from the tests of the masonry-prisms

are shown in Figs 3.6 to 3.11. Tabulated values of these
graphs are presented, with maximum strain values at failure,
in Appendix VIII.
62
Fig. 3.6 Stress-strain relationship

63

64

65
3.12 Compressive Strength Test for ISB Wall
Compressive strength test was conducted for the interwoven

sandcrete block wall, using the same block specimens of the
same production and curing as in the test of block-work
prisms.
Five wall panel specimens (of size: 0.66m wide by 1.32m
in height of this teat), according to Appendix A of BS 5628:
part 1 (1985) with ratio of width to height = 1:2, were tested.
A vertical axial load was applied to each wall specimen, by
means of a testing frame, which was sufficiently stiff in flexure
to ensure that the top and bottom of the panel are restrained
against rotation. The magnitude of the axial load applied to
the panel was read off the pressure gauge on the pump
control unit.
In each compressive test, the load was increased in stages
with measurements been made during the short periods when
loading conditions were static. The load was increased until
the specimen was no longer capable of supporting further
increase. The appropriate value of the wall characteristic
strength was obtained using gross sectional area of the wall.
The hollow blocks of the wall specimens were not filled with
sandcrete. The appropriate value of the wall characteristic
strength was obtained using gross sectional area of the wall.
Fig. 3.12 shows ISB-wall test arrangement.
Tables 3.25 and 3.26 show the results of compressive
strength of ISB wall at 28 days for 1:6 cement-sand ratios.
66
Braced I-section Compression rod

cross head
Wooden
platen
Alignment
Connection to
cross head
Braced
Column
ISB
specimen
Bottom wooden
platen
Fig.3.12 ISB wall test arrangement
67
Table 3.25 Compressive strenght of ISB wall at 28 days old,

1:6 (1 part cement to 6 parts sand) mix
Specimen Plan Area Crushing Compressive
W-16 10x mm2 Load strength
x 103 N N/mm2
16-1 152.56 305 2.0
16-2 152.56 290 1.9
16-3 152.55 290 1.9
16-4 152.56 305 2.0
16-5 152.56 320 2.1
Mean strength value x = 1.98 Standard deviation s = 0.14
Coefficient of variation v = 4.5, Wall compressive strength fx = 2.0
W – 16 = wall of 1:6 mix
Table 3.26 Compressive strength of ISB wall at 28 days old,

1:8(1 part cement to 8 parts sand) mix
Specimen Plan Area Crushing Compressive
W-18 mm2 x 103 Load strength
x 103 N N/mm2
18-1 152.54 275 1.8
18-2 152.56 275 1.8
18-3 152.56 275 1.8
18-4 152.55 305 2.0
18-5 152.56 289 1.9
Mean strength value x=1.86 Standard deviation s=0.118
Coefficient of variation v=6.3, Wall compressive strength fk=1.9
W -18= wall of 1:8 mix
3.13 Compaction Test for ISB-Block Tongue
This was carried out to determine the work (due to impact

load) required to cause detachment of the tongue from the
mother body of the ISB block. The impact load, by a hammer
of the Izod/chapy impact tester (Avery-Denison, LS 102DE,
capacity 150J/300J) was applied at right angle to, and at
centroid of, the specimen tongue.
A specimen for a compaction test comprised of a set of
tongues. Prior to selling of the tongues, they were cut out in
portions as shown in Fig. 3.13. Each set of tongues was placed
68
firmly in an open wooden box. The box was then fixed into the
anvil. This arrangement is shown in Fig. 3.14.
Ten specimens each were tested wet (soaked in water for
24 hours) and dry. In each measurement the hammer is raised
to a specific level before it was released for an impact load on
the specimen.
Block part
Upper tongue
Side tongue
75 25 50
50
75 25 50
225
50 25
50 25
50
25 25 50 50 25 25 25 50
100 75 100
Fig.3.13 Types of block tongues making a specimen

69
Hammer
Specimen block
Distance of block split
Fig.3.14 Test arrangement for set of block tongues
The energy (Joule and N/m) was recorded for impact

when the tongue spalled. Displacement and rotation of the
block due to impact were then obtained by calculation using
equations of impact forces for the wet specimens
(identification No. BI-100) and BI-200 series for dry
specimens.
A point distance of the smallest part of the shattered
tongue, due to impact load, were measured from the centre
line of the tongues plane. Plate IV shows the impact machine
in action Tables 3.27 and 3.28 show the results of the impact
force on the ISB tongues.
70
Plate IV ISB tongues under impact force

70
Table 3.27 Impact force test results on wet ISB-block tongues

1:8(1 part cement to 8 parts sand) mix
Block Work done Distance Impact force on
(BI-100) Point the tongues (N)
series N/m Joule (m) 5 1
BI-100 50 49.0 1.90 25.79 5.151
BI- 101 53 51.9 1.98 25.75 5.15
BI- 102 52 50.9 1.99 25.58 5.12
BI-103 52 50.9 1.99 25.58 5.12
BI-104 49 47.5 1.08 24.35 4.87
BI-105 50 4.9.0 1.99 24.62 45.92
BI- 106 52 50.9 1.99 25.58 5.12
BI-107 51 49.9 1.98 25.20 5.05
BI-108 51 49.9 1.98 25.20 5.04
BI-109 50 49.9 1.98 25.20 5.04
Mean impact force value x = 5.06 Standard deviation s 0.09
Coefficient of variation v = 1.91 Mean characteristic force for 1 tongue =5.06
Table 3.28 Impact force test results on dry ISB-block tongues

1:6 (1part cement to 6 parts sand) mix
Block Work done Distance Impact force on
(BI-200) Point the tongues (N)
series N/m Joule (m) 5 1
BI-200 95 93.1 1.6 58.12 11.64
BI- 101 90 88.2 1.4 62.93 12.59
BI- 102 83 81.3 1.4 58.07 11.51
BI-103 88 86.2 1.5 57.47 11.47
BI-104 49 90.2 1.5 60.13 12.02
BI-105 95 93.1 1.5 62.07 12.40
BI- 106 95 93.1 1.5 62.07 12.40
BI-107 93 91.1 1.4 65.07 13.01
BI-108 81 79.4 1.3 61.08 12.22
BI-109 83 81.3 1.5 54.2 10.84
Mean impact force value x = 12.01 Standard deviation s 0.65
Coefficient of variation v = 5.4 Mean characteristic force for 1 tongue =12.01
71
3.14 Specification for interwoven Sandcrete Block
The essential information for ordering sandcrete masonry

units, as recommended by BS 6073: part 2, is shown in Table
3.29
Table 3.29: Ordering specification for the ISB block

Item Information
Quantity No. required for the trial production is 300 unit size
work sizes (co-coordinating sizes of units) required,
442mm x 225mm (for the full- and half-blocks
respectively
Strength 2.7Nmm2
Type Hollow
Materials Sand (natural, hard, clean. BS 882 ordinary Portland

Cement (OPC) NS No. 11(1974)
Special Side and op tongues, sides and bottom grooves, half

features block with one side with two vertical tongues, one
cavity (hollow), one top tongue and a bottom and
side grooves
Properties Whitish-grey colour, sand-textured flat surface

Quality control Special quality control, requires a
second sample to be tested should the first not
provide sufficient evidence to either accept or reject
or reject the products
Handing Packing is done by inserting one block on the other

and side-by-side, making sure tongues are not
sheared off the body of the unit. In removing or
picking to position two hands should be used at the
bottom to lift up the unit. When transporting from a
place to another, the bottom-layer units should be
placed on flat surface.
BS 882 Aggregate (sand) from natural sources for sandcrete

BS 6073 Precast concrete masonry units. Part2: Method of
specifying masonry units
BS5638 Structural use of masonry. Unreinforced masonry.
72
Chapter 4
PROPERTIES AND MODEL EQUATIONS FOR

INTERWOVER SANDCRETE BLOCKWALL (ISB)
4.1 Compressive Stress Regime
Masonry in a uniaxial stress state exhibits non-unique

characteristics. In a wall of unit and mortar components,
Poisson’s ratio being different for block unit and mortar shows
that the lateral strains developed in the two materials will
differ. A block is in lateral-tension and axial-compression state,
whilst the mortar is set up in a triaxial stress state. In the
absence of mortar in the bed joint, such as in ISB-wall will
alter deformational behaviour as well as failure characteristic
when stress is applied. Mortar in the joints is restrained from
flowing out by the frictional bond that has developed between
it and the units. The behaviour of block masonry without
mortar joint has not been adequately verified experimentally.
In the case of unit-mortar wall various failure theories have
been proposed. Hilsdorf (1986) proposed a failure criterion
based on strength of brick-unit and mortar. He measured,
using five layers of brick prism specimens, physical properties
of masonry and introduced the concept of no-uniformity
coefficient which average normal stress action on the masonry.
The strength of mortar under triaxial compression was
assumed to be similar to the triaxial strength of material
(concrete). This approach was later developed by Khoo and
Hendry (1973) who investigated the behaviour of brick
material under a state of biaxial compression-tension and
mortar under a state of multiaxial compression. The failure
theory was then based on biaxial strength of bricks and
mortar.
From the failure theories based on an elastic analysis, the
formula proposed by Francis et al (1971) depends on the
73
values of Young’s Modulus and Poisson’s ratio for a unit mortar

combination could not be uniquely defined. Though a non
linear analysis might be produced, but it would be difficult to
determine the necessary deformation characteristics
experimentally. Even with this limitation, fair agreement has
been demonstrated with the experimental results from the
formulae derived, and some emphasis are laid on some factors
controlling, masonry strength. Such factors include the ratio of
joint thickness of brick depth, which is very important in
relationship to workmanship and which may not have advert
effect on the strength of the interwoven sandcrete block wall.
This is because of the absence of mortar joint at both the head
and bed joints.
Consideration a unit-mortar prism subjected to an axial
compressive stress and a stress corresponding to tensile failure
of the unit o’, the limiting compressive stress is expressed as:
 lu
σo = (4.1)
v m  vu
vu  m
1  r .m
where : vus vm = Poisson’s ratio for unit and

mortar respectively,
m = Eu/Em = ratio of Young’s
moduli of unit to mortar,
r = σu/σm = ratio of stresses of
unit to mortar
In the case of the interwoven sandcrete blockwall, m =

10, r = 1 and vm = vu, then equation (4.1) becomes
 lu
u  (4.2)
uu
In which: σlx = Euult (4.3)
In which: σ/x = Euєult. At failure criteria of the unit material, the

limiting tensile strain:
74
1
ult = (σu’ + nσc) (4.4)
Eu
4.2 Uniaxial Compression
4.2.1 Stress Strain Relationship
Experimental tests (Hendry, 1981a; Hendry, 1987; Bangash,

1989) show that brickwork behaves in a highly non-linear
manner in uniaxial compression. A typical stress- strain of such
wall shows typical working diagram (stress strain) relationship
subjected to uniaxial compression. This is shown in Fig.4.1
σc/σm
STRESS (σc /σo)
c/o c/sou c/2ou

STRAIN
Fig. 4.1 Dimensionless stress–strain relationship
This stress – strain curve is linearly elastic up to 30% of the

maximum compressive strength. Above this point the curve
increases gradually up to about 70-90% of the compressive
strength (based on a dimensionless stress-strain curves). And
immediately after this peak value, this curve descends. After
this point the crushing failure occurs at an ultimate strain (σm).
a dimensionless stress-strain curve is represented in Fig. 4.1.
Numerical expression relating to the stress and strain is
given as:
75
2 c c 2
σo= σo [ –( ) ] (4.5)
0.002 0.002
At  < 0.002 =  o
σc = σo [1.0 – z ( o – 0.002)] (4.6)

At 0.002 <  c <  2on
5
Where: z= (4.7)
5 on  0.002
3  0.29 f o
and,  5ou = (4.8)
145 f c  1000
where:  c,  o = equivalent strain and strain at
0.002 respectively
 5ou,  2ou = strains corresponding to
0.5fc and 0.2fc respectively
fc = compressive (uniaxial) strength
of sandcrete.
The knowledge of stress-strain relationship for masonry in

compression is frequently required in structural design.
Measurements (Aderson, 1971; Khoo and Hendry, 1973) have
been made on prisms and walls to establish the nature of the
stress-strain curve and the value of Young’s modulus.
Powel and Hodgkinson (1986) were able to use suitable
load control technique to determine the stress-strain
relationship pass the maximum compressive stress to failure.
The following relationship was established:
2
    
 2     (4.9)
 '  '
2
= (4.10)
'
In the case the initial tangent modulus is given by:
2
E= (4.11)
'
While the secant modulus is:
76
E = 0.75σ’ (4.12)
4.3 Uniaxial Tension
Assuming the tensile behaviuor of the interwoven sandcrete

block masonry could be evaluated, it can be evaluated either:
a) by the of block prism test, or
b) by the modulus of rupture or bending test of the prism.
For condition a) above:
σu’=0.55 fc ’ (4.13)
For condition b) above:
σu’ =0.95 fc ’ (4.14)
where: fc’ cylindrical strength of sandcrete in

compression.
It should be noted that siliceous aggregates decrease the

tensile strength which is the case with the interwoven
sandcrete block-unit. The tensile strength of interwoven
sandcrete blockwork built without bed joint material is
relatively small or rather zero. The tensile strength of masonry,
particularly across the bed joints, is low and variable, as such,
it is not generally relied upon in structural design.
Tensile stresses in block work may arise as a result of
either in-plane or transverse bending. In the case of an in-
plane stressing, tension is developed between the unit and
mortar, which could not be reckoned with in the interwoven
sandcrete block wall (ISB). There is no adhesion between the
blocks. In the case of the transverse bending, the resistance of
the wall depends primarily on the flexural strength of
blockwork. For the walls that are usually found in low-rise
buildings and the upper floors of multi-story buildings, the
lateral loading on these usually arises from wind pressure or
other incident loads. Tensile stress analysis for the ISB-wall is
based on the transverse bending.
77
4.4 Data on poison’s Ratio and Young’s Modulus
Value of Poisson’s ratio v and Young’s modulus E in the

directions of the principal stresses varied. Bangash (1989)
reported that, while assuming the concrete surface at failure
to be a cone in tension and truncated core in compression,
Hussain and Saugu arrived at a figure of 1.25 as the ratio of
the biaxial compressive strength to uniaxial compressive
strength (  biax:/  uniax:)and v=0.25.
Under monotonic loading in tension-tension and
compression, Poisson’s ratio of 0.2 is quite effective. This is
adequate for uniaxial compressive and compressive-tension at
very low value of stress. Around 0.8fc/, the value of 0.2 is too
low and it should be computed (Bangash, 1989) as:
2 4 
 = 0.2+0.6( ) +0.4( 1 )4 (4.15)
fc fc
That is, for the uniaxial compressive and compressive-
tensile cases. After 28 day of sandcrete curing, in general,
about 86% of the final value is reached. The value of E is
between 400-100 multiplied by the crushing strength (fc’) or by
BS 8110, E = 5.5 f c ’/m (m is the factor of safety of
material).
When considering the interwoven sandcrete block wall as
a strip with a unit width and it is treated to be in a state of
plane strain and as a non-dimensional structure, i.e., its
constitutive relations of the wall strip, with the roof/floor
member, are floor member, are expressed in uniaxial form, the
state of plane strain effect in accounted for in modeling the
compressive stress-strain relationship by modifying the initial
tangent modulus (E) of the masonry to become Ek and fm to σo:
E 
Ek = =2 (4.16)
1 v 2
 ' (1  v 2 )
f
And 0  2 2 (4.17)
1 v
78
where: fm = the compressive strength of masonry

 0 = the masonry strength accounts for the
plane strain effect.
4.5 Stability of Interwoven Sandcrete Block (ISB)Wall
4.5.1 ISB Wall Displacement
Displacement of wall generally could be influenced by: (i) the

type of unit, (ii) the strength of joint material, (iii) status (wet
or dry) of the unit and (iv) normal stress.
From the aforementioned, small or high suction capacity
has no effect on the ultimate shear stress in the deformation
behavior of the shear-stressed tongue of the bed joint.
Although high strength of joint material increases the stiffness
of a shear-stressed be joint and deformation behavior, it is not
likely that this will affect the bed joint tongues of the ISB-
block. Increase in normal stress results in increase of ultimate
shear-stressed bed joint. This is not the case for the ISB-wall
as the normal stress has no bearing on the tongues of bed
joints. Floor slab or roof horizontal force will affect the vertical
displacement of the wall due to upliftment of the blocks at the
tensile side of the wall.
Two aspects of failure will be evaluated. These are the
displacement of ISB-wall due to the combined vertical and
horizontal loads as well as the wall instability as a result of the
displacement of the units by the results of failure of the
tongues.
4.5.2. Displacement of ISB-wall due to Horizontal Load
In analyzing a single-storey system for the interwoven

sandcrete blockwall, the slab or roof is considered as prop and
the wall as propped cantilever. The system consists of two
external load bearing walls with a span, and each wall having
equal height H and sectional area A, with flexural rigidity
(Ei,)w. Roof slab spanning in one direction is hinge-jointed at
the upper end of the wall panel. Each wall is loaded by a
concentrated live load P, on eccentricity e and horizontal force
W(wind load). Each load at the bottom end is assumed fixed.
Wall disposition is shown in Fig 4.2.
79
P P Pi Pi+1
W W Ni
Ni+1
ei ei+1
Fig. 4.2 Wall disposition
Each wall panel is stressed at the eccentricity ei where

load P, and horizontal force F, are acting qi is the weight per
unit length of each wall panel. Fig 4.3 shows wall deformation
and the loadings.
From Fig 4.3, horizontal force is expressed as:
Fhi = N1 + Wi – N1+1 (4.18)
where: subscript I = number of wall panels.

80
y yi yi
P Pi
yi+1
x Fi+1 Fi+1
ei
(a) Schematic diagram (b) Displacement and force

details
Fig. 4.3 Wall deformation due to horizontal and vertical load
The bending moment at any section x is expressed as:
Mi(x) = Pi (ei + yi) + Fhix (4.19)
The deflection at the upper end of the wall panel relating

to the deflection at fixed end point.
q2 1
x = Y2H = (e2 2
)(  1) 
p 2 k 2 cos k 2 H
q 2 H tan k 2 H H F tan k 2 H
 (  )  ni (  H) (4.20)
p2 k2 2 p2 k2
81
p
: k (4.21)
( EI ) w
and in general term:
y   2  Fh 2  2 (4.22)
In a case when e1=0, load P, exerts axially on the wall and

horizontal force Fhi due to wind load W and the wall flexural
rigidity; is expressed as:
1/ 2
Fhi  W ( 22
) (4.23)
 i 1
1 / 1
According to equation (4.23), 1/ is the flexural rigidity of

the wall panel with vertical load P. Equation (4.23) indicates
that the external force W is distributed into each wall in the
ratio of flexural rigidities: And when the wall is loaded by W,
and it is proportional to the rigidity, then between the two
walls:
W,  ,=W2  2 (4.23a)
At the same time strain  = 0 and eccentricity e = 0. From

equation (4.23a), horizontal force Fhi can be obtained. As said
earlier if e = 0 and e = 0, then the system is homogenous and
can only be zero if {N} = 0. then
Fhi = Wi (4.24)
Problem of stability occurs when one looks for a vertical

loading system which the wall panel will maintain even in
deformation. For a small value of N, i.e. of the floor/roof, there
is no axial force along the slab, hence there is no interaction
between the wall and the roof-slab. As such, no horizontal
force Fhi. In order to prevent deformation of the system y,= 0.
At kiH = r(/2) (4.25)

82
then, (1/r)k,H= /2 (4.25a)
where: 1/r is the curvature, while r is the radius of gyration of

the wall At the maximum deflection, by load P,
y1,max = y1(H/2) (4.26)
It should be noted that the equivalent slenderness ratios

(effective height: effective thickness of wall) in terms of the
least radius of gyration r for a rectangular section for values of
6, 12, 18 and 24 are 20.78, 41.56, 41.56, 62.35 and 83.13
respectively (BS5628, 1985). These would be the maximum
slenderness ratios based on the radius of gyration. In
dimensionless form (Pubal, 1982).
yi
( / H ) 2
yi H y /H
 = i (4.27)
H Pi P
( 2 / H )  1 i
( EI i ) v Pcr
and Pi  r 2 2 ( EI i )W (4.28)
where: Per=critical load (Euler’s load)
The state of this system will not exist, if each panel is

loaded only by a corresponding critical. The characteristics
value due to the wall rigidity will be low when the top and the
bottom of the wall are not rigidly restrained and their effective
height will exceed 0.5H (H is the wall height).
Failure of ISB wall may not be strictly by buckling in the
classical sense. Nevertheless, the concept of effective height
remains useful. According to BS 5628, clause 28.3.1.1 (1985):
(i) ¾ of the clear distance between laterals supports where
some rotation restrains exist or (ii) the clear distance between
lateral support when the restraint is only to lateral movement
and not to rotation, should be taken to account for the
effective height. In equation (4.24) y1= 0. At P1 = Pcr : y = 0,
wall panel remains in its position.
83
Relationship between the load and deflection, in

dimensionless forms, will be used to predict the variations of
deflections over the height.
4.5.3 Determination of Critical Condition
The load-carring capacity of sandcrete wall subjected to

eccentric loading is affected mainly by not only the
slenderness ratio of the wall, but end eccentricity of the
applied loads and the condition of bond between blocks of the
wall.
Considered here are the end eccentricity effects with
respect to the upliftment of each block in succession and
rotating of the block at the bottom by the compression side.
End conditions are assumed to be both hinged. Tensile
strength is completely zero.
4.5.3.1 Combined Vertical and Lateral Load for ISB-Wall
The load capacity of ISB wall carrying lateral load can be

analyzed using direct method, by assuming that an arch thrust
is developed in the plane of the wall.
4.5.3.2 Wall Model
ISB wall is modeled, in Fig. 4.4a as spanned vertically by a

floor slab at the top and by a stiff foundation at the bottom.
This model is in line with the concept of equivalent column
used by Salah et al (1990). Load P per unit depth of the wall is
acts at the top, at an eccentricity e, while wind load intensity q
is acting horizontally on the height of the wall. Assuming a
small deflection of the supports, a maximum moment and
deflection at the midspan and if we consider half of the wall
height, as in Fig. 4.4c, the internal moment of the resistance:
Mu = P.ya (4.29)
84
ӯ
P P
qH/2
q
ya
qH/2
f
d
P P (c)
(a) (b)
Fig .4.4 Instability of wall pinned at supports
The internal compressive force P is equal to the permitted

compressive stress f by the depth d of the compressive block.
Moment of resistance in equation (4.29) becomes:
M = f d (t-d-ya) (4.30)
From BS 5628, characteristics strength of masonry is multiplied

by 1.5, ie 1.5fk (fk is the strength of masonry) and depth of
compressive block d = 0.1t (t = thickness of wall). And from
equilibrium, the internal moment (equation (4.30)) is equal to
the external moment (due to q and height H), hence:
F i [1.2t (0.9t  y )]
q (4. 31)
Yn H2
85
at y = 0,
Fi t 2
q ( ) (4. 32)
Yn H
From Fig 4.4c, the deflection:
y= Hsht H/8t (4. 33)
where: Hsht = shortening under load

and shrinkage (about 2.4mm) in
sandcrete.
4.6 ISB wall under Horizontal Impact Load on Block Tongue
In the mortar-unit walls, shear behaviour of the bed joint has

been systematically studied by other authors (Samarasingh et
al, 1981; Hendry,1981). Evaluation of shear-stressed
interwoven sandcrete block wall could be related to the shear
stress in tongues and the relative displacement of the units,
when subjected to horizontal (impact) loads.
Tensile stresses in the blockwork may arise as a result of
either in-plan or transverse bending. In the case of the in-
plane stressing, tension is developed across the bed joints of
the blockwork and the strength is dependent on the adhesion
between block and mortars.
4.6.1 Analytical Models
A block in Fig.4.5 shows the model of an interwoven sandcrete

block, in its wall, to be subjected to an external impact force.
86
Lt
A1
hT
A2 h1
hb
h
yb
B= t
0.5(hT 2 L t  h 2 bt )
h1 =
hT L T h b t
Tu
t 2 h12
I z  m(  )
12 3
Fig.4.5 Geometrical (model) position of ISB block in the wall
For the ISB models of oscillation, the dynamic

characteristics of each block were deduced from its free
vibrations, triggered by a sudden release or withdraw of
impact force of the hammer or missile. This horizontal impact
force acts at an horizontal motion (assumed). It could be
noted that a dynamic horizontal force will trigger incidental
87
horizontal oscillations. Such secondary modes were not

considered in this case. In a cracked body shake down, as
presented by Melay’s method and employed by Belouchrami
and Weichert (1997), in a static shakedown theorem for
inelastic cracked structures, plastic flow ceases beyond a
certain time. The main concern of this study involves a case of
stress singularity in a sharp crack tip to failure. Using the
method of elastic constant, by differential equation, from the
inertial force of the element of mass equated to the force
applied, in vibration form (Bata, 1981):
[m] {r”} + [c] {r} = {F} (4.34)

or
d 2 u (t )
m + C11 u (t) + C12 E (t) = F sint
dt 2
d 2  (t )
Iz + C11 u (t) + C22 E (t) = F y sint
dt 2
...(4.35)
where: m = weight of the block (and tongue) acted upon by

horizontal dynamic load
Iz = moment of inertial of the block to the axis of
rotation passing through the centre of gravity.
Cik = elastic constant
F.y= Moment due to vibrating force to the centre of
gravity perpendicular to the plane of rotation
F = amplitude of the acting vibrating force
R = complex eigenvalues (= is, where i = (-1), s =
2  f)
 = angular rotation
The mass of the wall is divided into number of lumps (block

size). The elasticity of the beam is represented as mass-less
structural element whose compliance corresponding to
compliance of actual wall, hence a particular solution is
obtained:
U(t) U
Sint (4.36)
=
(t) 
88
So that equation (4.35) becomes:
(C11 – mz) u + C12  = F

(4.37)
C12 + ( C22 – Iz2) = F.y
Maximum horizontal amplitude of the surface of the block is
umax = u +h1.  (4.38)
where :  = natural frequency
Referring to Fig 4.6 (Deformation of ISB – wall block due to

external dynamic load), the following terms are defined:
C11 = Horizontal force essential for the horizontal displacement

(at u = 1). No rotation of the block
C12 = Moment which prevents the rotation of the block due to
horizontal displacement
C22 = Moment essential for the rotation of the block (at the
rotation,  = 1). No displacement at the centre of the
gravity of the block
C21 = Horizontal forces at the gravity that prevents
displacement of the
89
 (x) x
Fsint
y
G G’
u(t)
(a)
G G’
C11 C12
yt
u=1
Cx
(b)
=1
h2 h1
G  G’
C22 C21
yt
Cxh2
(c) C
Fig. 4.6 Displacement of ISB—wall block subjected

90
to external dynamic force

Defining these constants:
C11 = KxA (4.39)
C12 = C21 = KzytA (4.40)
C22 = K  Io + kzyt2A (4.41)
Where: Io = initial second moment of

area of the block,
yt = position of neutral axis
for the block
The angular rotation is expressed as:
W = (K  Io)/Iz (4.42)
Generally, k is assumed to be the density of the material in

rigid position. The bottom of the block wall is taken to be
partially fixed with the ground. The following terms in Fig 4.6
are defined as:
G(G’) = cente of gravity,
U = horizontal displacement,
 = rotation, h1, h2, and yt are self defined.
It is important to note that a considerable amount of shear
can be transferred across the surface of cracked sandcrete.
The shear transfer mechanism is the aggregate interlock which
depends on the size and grading. In the case of the ISB, the
tensile strength of the sandcrete is not important. So, stress is
also having little influence ion the shear-stressed ISB masonry.
As a result of impact load due to hammering or throwing of
missile against the wall, ISB unit tongues are shear-stressed.
The effect of normal stress (σ11) in the wall does not affect the
tongues, but the horizontal load. A change in stress occurs in
the unit as a result of shear forces. This provides a rotational
balance of the individual blocks subjected to shear stress at
the bed of the ISB upper tongue.
This is perpendicular to the shear force. The tongue may
failed by spalling with an horizontal displacement. In this
analysis however, the vertical (head) tongues are not taken
into consideration.
91
Compaction of the ISB-unit during manufacture could

improve the mechanical bond between the mother-unit and its
tongues. Water resistivity, cement content could be factors
affecting the bond strength between the unit and the tongues.
4.7 Triangular System of Optimization Method
A simplified and effective method for practical application of

optimum design technique proposed by Sandor (1982), and
which does not require many design variables and complicated
descriptive functions, is employed here. It is a graphical
method based on triangular systems of coordinates and it can
be applied directly for optimizing cases where the number of
decision or structural variables is three.
The triangular system is usually an equilateral; triangle.
Each of the three sides of the triangle is used as a coordinate
axis for one variable in a suitable scale. In Fig. 4.7, a typical
example of triangular coordinate is shown for a point P, where
b1 = 5, b2 = 1 and b3 = 4. The coordinates are non-
negative. Non-linear relationships are represented by non-
linear lines, such as a straight line in a linear relationship.
P (5, 1, 4)
Fig.4.7 Triangular coordinates

92
4.7.1 Triangular Method of Optimisation
1) Construct a triangular coordinate system, using a

suitable scale for each axis.
2) Establish the axes (say, b1, b2, b3) combination that
complies with the size of the element (unit) variable.
That is the sum of the variables should not be less
than the largest value of such variable (i.e. b1 + b2 +
b3 > b2, if b2 > {b1 and b3}).
3) Assume that any of the variables is not equal to null
(i.e. b1, b2, b3, +0).
4) Derive cost functions to be minimizing the element
(unit) size.
5) Establish the variables (b1, b2, b3) combinations that
comply functional and constraint equations. Plot, as
indicated in Fig. 4.7, and superimpose such equations
to establish a clear totality of feasible area for solution.
Here there will be numerous solutions.
6) Iterate for the optimum solution. This is done by
finding the combination of variables forms the region
of feasible of feasible solutions that will and minimize
cost.
The conditions for solving optimization problem with this
method are: 1) the number of decisions or structural variables
is not more than three regardless of the number of constraints
and 2) one of the constraints should have the form:
b1 + b2 + b3 = constant (4. 43)
4.7.2 Data Base
In reality, block wall has units of distinct or discrete size. The

dimension of the sandcrete block section can be altered to
obtain the required size. From a practical point of view, the
problem may be defined as optimizing blockwall with
continuous one. The section properties such as cross-sectional
area, section modulus etc is computed to construct the data
Base for the predetermined wall sections. In most common
discrete variable optimization, Thanedar et al (1995)
discovered that: (i) branch and bond method of optimization,
93
is theoretically ok for convex design tasks, but very costly to

use, (ii) approximate method provides efficiency but does not
guarantee an optimum discrete solution, while (iii) ad-hoc
method, i.e. simulated annealing and genetic algorithms solves
the discrete variable problems without resulting to branch-and-
bond method. This last method cannot guarantee an optimum
solution either, but it gives acceptable computational cost. The
common size of sandcrete blocks, for load-bearing wall
employed in Nigeria, include 140, 150, and 215 mm thick.
The section, in the data base are manipulated by one
variable (section identification number) which is linked with all
other design variables, such as: cost per unit length, resistance
capacities, section and height.
In the design procedure, stress, deformation constraints
of the section are considered during the construction of the
data base. ISB-wall design problem formulations are
considered as follows (section 4.7.3):
4.7.3 ISB-wall under Vertical and Horizontal Load
ISB wall is modeled as a structural member that supports the

vertical and bending moment. The wall is designed on the
basis of the interaction between bending and vertical load.
However, since the axial and eccentric load have direct
influence on the moment capacity of the wall and vice versa, it
may not be simple to uncouple the two effects, the wall size is
constrained so that it meets the requirement for strength and
stability. The constraint establishes the minimum size of the
wall by restricting its behaviour to a range of the interaction
diagram. Due to lateral load, uplift of the wall will become
compression. Then the compression constraint remain
applicable
As a result of both vertical and horizontal loads on the
wall, both compressive and bending constraints are considered
design variables such as A, H and e are constrained with
respect to design cost functions. The problems are to minimize
the wall size (volume):
Zmax,c = C H A (4.44)
94
Where: H = height of the wall

A = Gross sectional area of
the wall
C = unit cost (in Naira per
wall)
Equation (4 44) is subject to constrain:
(a) Stress (compressive and bending) constraints
 i   i   all  0 (4.45)
M P
 all   (4.45a)
ZF A
where: σ1 = design stress due to load

σall = allowable stress
M = moment due bending
along the minor axis
Zg = wall gross section modulus
= 1/6 (Lt2) (4. 46)
L = width of the block
P = vertical load
Equation (4.45) is expressed as:
1 2 P
 all   (1 . 5WH  6 PLe )  (4. 47)
A2 A
where: L = length of the wall
The allowable stress due to vertical load:

P
 all (4. 48)
L(t  2e)
Allowable stress due to horizontal load, W = 6.1x10-4 H2

95
From equations (4.47 and 4.48), the constraints equation

becomes:
2 1 1 0.825qH 3
f ( x)1  1.5NH  6PLe)  P(  ) 0
A  2Le A Lt 2
… (4. 49)
(b) Stress (compressive) Constraint

The constraint equation are expressed as:
2 Le 1 1
f ( x)  P[ 2
  ] 0 (4.50)
A A L(t  2e)
2 Le 1 1
f ( x)  P[   ] 0 (4.51)
A2 A 2e *
LT f 2 (1  )
Tf 2
e* is defined in equation (3.7), Tts is the block face shell.
Other related constraints (all in mm):
H = 500, A = 63000, e = 38.3 (4.52)
500 < H < 3600 (4.53)
6300 < A < 101250 (4.54)
e + A + H = 100 000 (4.55)
e, A, H ≠ 0 (4.56)
Assumptions considered for the ISB wall model:
(i) No Deflection or bending of roof/floor element

(ii) Wind load (W) is at the roof/floor level
(c) Deflection Constraints
Assumptions are the same as in (a) above. The equation is

expressed as:
i = ӯ - yall < 0 (4.57)
96
H
ӯall > N +e (4.58)
P
where the allowable deflection :
0.9 A qH 2
ӯall = - (4.59)
L. 8P
In the case of the ISB-wall, stiffness is considered to be

zero. Deflection is strictly due to upliftment of each block in
succession, as a result of vertical and horizontal forces acting
at the top of the wall. The ISB wall is assumed to be partially
fixed to concrete foundation and the roughness of ground i.e.,
there is an enhanced resistance. (There is some degree of
rotational restraint at the bottom end.) The bearing of the
roof/floor beam is greater than 90mm.
Assuming that ISB wall is a short wall, its slenderness ratio
(=0.75H/t) isles than 12, while the maximum permitted by BS
5628 is 27. It is also assumed that maximum strain (of 0.002)
occurs in the outermost fiber, of the compression side, at
failure. This value is taken as directly proportional to the
distance from the neutral axis so that the maximum stress is
1.1 fk/ym (fk is the characteristic strength of wall, while the
value 1.1 is for a uniform bearing stress).
4.7.4 Damaged Conditions of ISB blocks Due to Impact
The position and damage conditions of a block in the wall

impact force is illustrated in Fig.4.8.
From Fig. 4.8, the following terms are defined:
 u  Upper block face shell damaged by shear

 bo  Tongue of the block object damaged by
crushing/cracking
 L  Lower block web damaged by crushing and
tongue of the lower block damaged by shear
variables: Cross section A (area of tongue)
and compaction
d = number of damaged conditions:
97
(1) shear (displacement, shear stress

(2) crushing (displacement, rotation, normal
stress).
C = definite wall stiffness (n x n positive matrix

Bu = upper block
Bbo = block object damaged by crushing/cracking
Pbo
Bu
αu
α bo
Bbo
C11 C12
α bo
αL BL
(a) d=2
Pbo Bu
αu
α bo
Bu
C22 C11
α bo
αL
(b)
d=2
Fig.4.8 Damage conditions of ISB-blocks due to Impact Loads
98
4.7.5 Optimal Design of the ISB Block Tongue
The problem is to maximize the cross sectional area, of the

upper tongue of the ISB block, subjected to horizontal impact
force.
The sectional area to be minimized is expressed as:
Z = htTu (4.60)
This is subject to:
a) deformation (derived in Appendix V):
1.2 1.03 2
f ( x1 )  27.99(ht ) 2 x10 3  (  )10  2.5 (4.61)
L Tu
b) stress (derived in Appendix V):
158.06 1332.45
f ( x2 )    2.75  0 (4.62)
ht Tu L
Other constraints are:
10  ht  25 (4.63)
45  Tu  50 (4.64)
Ht + Tu + L= 450 (4.65)
ht Tu’ L > 0 (4.66)
4.7.6 Load Factor and Correlation Coefficient of ISB

Compression
The strength of untested ISB wall is assessed for its strength

in compression. The compressive strength of block work varies
roughly as the square root of the nominal block crushing
strength. A factor of 0.9 is applied to a test result of masonry
prism to obtain prototype wall strength (Hendry et al, 1981a).
However, since ISB wall is a new type of structure which is
not covered in this country’s (Nigerian) code, the correlation
99
between the prism tested and the untested prototype is

formulated. Bayesian statistical approach was used in this
study according to Geyskens et al (1998) where
comprehensive assessments of previous data were employed.
A conceptual framework for assessing the performance of
the ISB wall is as follows: First approximation or prior strength
of the wall is obtain
From the model of strength postulated from structural
characteristics, such as geometry, material and its statical
properties. In other words, prior strengths were obtained by
knowing the properties of block and masonry prisms. Load
factors were obtained to produce a prescribed reliability for the
wall when put to service in various practical cases.
4.7.7 Strength Model
Using Bayesian framework, the posterior strength, which is the

updated improved approximation or prior strength for the
untested wall is expressed as:
RI = MH + Zi (4.67)
where: RI = posterior strength of wall

MH = random variable
(strength) related to
material
Zi = zero-mean uncorrelated
random sequence
Corresponding to fluctuation in the strength due to

fabrication of wall and assuming known prior parameters
(fame’s,  ): In Gaussian sequence, the posterior strength:
f mh/  f mh/   ( x  f mh/ ) (4.68)
At f mh/  x  0  f mp/  f mh/ (4.69)
At f mh/  0  f mp/   x (4.70)

100
The standard deviation:

B Bh  B 1   (4.71)
And the correlation coefficient:
/ 1 
 mp  (4.72)
1   .
/
where: f mh  prior mean strength of the
ISB prisms tested
/
f mh  Posterior mean strength of
ISB wall (untested)
S = standard deviation due to
strength of prisms tested
P = correlation coefficient of the
prior strength
 = sample mean weight factor
4.7.8 Load Factor
The allowable mean load is expressed as:
Pa11 = P  (1+vs V) (4.73)

x
P = (4.74)
LF
Where : p  = allowable mean load

¯x = sample mean
LF = the load factor
vs = coefficient of variation
V = standard normal variable
independent of structural
strength.
The load factor is calculated from the condition that probability

of allowable load greater than the posterior probability is equal
to 1 and 10.
101
4.7.9 Prism-wall Strength Relationship
The relationship between the prism (Fk) strength and the wall
strength (Fm)
Fk = 0.9 fm (4.75)
4.8. Optimal Design for ISB-wall
4.8.1 Analytical Formulation for the ISB-wall Design Safety
A fail-safe structure according to Bangash (1989) is one that

continues to perform satisfactorily even when any one of its
members fails in the ISB-wall where the bond is simply by the
interwoven of the blocks, by the tongues and grooves to the
tongues of main blocks. This fault could be attributed to the
impact by foreign objects or missile or even through
hammering on wall during construction work or installation of
appliances.
Critical definition or probable damage conditions and
design is necessary to retain the integrity of the ISB-wall
panel.
4.8.2 Constraints
Due to physical limits of materials or structural properties

required for a satisfactory performance, the constraints for the
fail-safe design problem are generally written as:
()(b, (), ()  0 (4.76)
For all damaged conditions:
1. Stress constraints
Due to the impact force condition, stress must be within the
strength limits of the sandcrete used:
σ1  σi,1  σi (4.77)
where: () = 0, 1, 2,…d

i = 1, 2,…NB (no. of blocks)
102
I = 1, 2,…NLC (no. of loading

conditions due to imposed
force)
2. Displacement constraints
In order to limit the displacement of the target (block):
i()L  I,1()  L()U (4.78)
Where i, I = 1, 2,…NLC
() = ), 1, 2,…d
i,l = block displacement of the i-th degree of
freedom (DOF) under i-th damage
condition induced by i-th impact load
at the block stretcher load
perpendicular to the side
()L, ()U = lower and upper limits on the i-th
displacement
3. Natural frequency constraints
This is obtained by solving the eigenvalue problems.
()  () (4.79)
where: () = ), 1, 2,…d

, = smaller eigenvalue of the block
under i-th damage conditions
 = lower bond
In order to keep the natural frequencies of the wall-block in
an admissible frequency bonds, the following constraints hold:
i()U  ()  ()L (4.80)
where: i = 1, 2,…Number of blocks

I = Point of impact load
4.9 Analysis of ISU-wall Cost Estimation and Comparison
4.9.1 Cost Control
Among the uncertainties, in general, that influence

construction cost include: weather condition; political and
economic variations; changing nature of construction
103
technology and costs; different maintenance technology;

differences in labour productivity; material and equipment
availability; construction delays; supervision policies;
construction methods; etc.
For a wall to be built when using a special units, such as
ISB-blocks, a major portion of the uncertainty is resolved in
the early stage of the project. The uncertainties that may likely
affect the ISB wall are : a) economic variation (cost of
material), b) nature of construction technology (wall must be
plastered before roofing).
The resolution of these uncertainties may cause the
contractor to revise his estimates. As the wall construction
advances, the uncertainties of the remaining parts of the wall
construction decreases as the variance of the estimate.
Consider an ISB wall where the manufacture or purchasing
of blocks is n (=1) operation completed by the contractor and
m (=1) operation transportation of the blocks to site) are
subcontracted. This estimate can be expressed as:
n n
Z cos t  E  i 1 ei  i 1 S i (4.81)
where: SJ = subcontractor price for operation

eI = purchase price
E = estimate
Cost of the wall per m2:
nb C b  b H b
C wall  (4.82)
Wb
where: nb, Cb, b, Hb and Wb = number, cost,
density, height and weight of block
respectively.
4.9.2 Labour Cost Control
The total cost of labour is composed of the following elements:

1) Man – hours per unit of work (productivity), 2) price per
man-hour (labour rate) and 3) quantity of work performed.
104
Productivity of ISB-wall may be enhanced due to the

simplicity in the construction of the wall, any weather or time
preferred by the workers and the management and few period
of supervision. Price per man-hours, for the ISB-wall, is likely
favoured by the following: short duration of work that reduces
escalation of rates, shift pay and overtime.
4.9.3. Comparison for Economic Bases
Usually many alternative designs can perform the same task.

Although one of the alternatives is the best. Several factors
such as social environment, and esthetic, economic and
psychological values can influence the final selection. The
measure value of capital to enable comparison of alternative
designs are discussed below.
If we consider an investment 1p, on a project of sandcrete
walls, of the [resent time with an interest (depreciation) rate
of i-Naira per period, so that the amount of capital at the end
of first period is iIp. The original investment can increase to
(1+i)Ip. And if this process continues for n (number of
interest period, in the month, year) period, and original capital
Ip will increase to the final sum:
Fs(n) = (1 +i)n IP = (spcaf(I,n)] IP (4.76)
where: spcaf = single payment compound amount

factor
There are other factors in Appendix IX

105
Table 4.1 Factors for initial/final capital (IP/Ifa(n) and series

of uniform payment ( R) (Arora, 1989)
S/N Capital Given Factor
1 Ifa(n) IP Single payment compound factor
(spcaf), (1+i)n
2 IP) Ifa(n) Single payment present worth factor
(spcaf), (1+i)n
3 Ifa(n) R Uniform series compound amount facto
(sfdf), (1/i)[(1+i)n -1]
4 R Ifa(n) Sinking fund deposit factor
(sfdf),1/[(1+i)n -1]
5 IP R Uniform series compound amount facto
(sfdf), (1/i)[(1+i)n -1]
6 R IP Capital recovery factor(crf),
(1/i)[(1+i)n)
106
Chapter 5
PRESENTATION AND DISHCUSION OF THE RESULTS
5.1 Products of Steel Die Moulding Machine
Due to the compaction pressure applied during block

moulding, the standard interwoven sandcrete blocks (ISB)
produced by the steel die-mould have face-block finish. Rate
of block making, using this moulding machine, was low in an
average of 25 blocks per hour as the capacity of the machine.
This was due to the fact that, one out of six blocks would have
one of its vertical tongues damaged during ejection of fresh
sandcrete block. The damage occurred if the groove was not
properly rodded before compaction of the block. However 95%
of the blocks produced were regular in shape.
5.2 Properties of the ISB Block
In order to compare the effect of different mix proportion for

the ISB masonry, the compressive strength results of the ISB
unit are obtained for a 1:6 and 1:8 (cement- sand ratio). High
cement content in a mix, indicated high strength of the
masonry. The results obtained for a 1:6 mix maximum
compressive strength of 2.7 N/mm2 for an axially loaded block
specimen. An average compressive strength of 2.5 N/mm2
was recorded for the 1:8 mix. These values were based on the
gross sectional area of the block and the minimum value
complied with the Nigeria industrial standard (NIS 74, 1972)
which stipulated a unit minimum strength of 2.1 N/mm2
.physical and compressive strength properties tests include the
block average density of 1320 kg/m3 and weight of 27.55kg
specimen blocks subjected to a 24 hour absorption has an
average value of 13.87% while block moisture content is 6.4
(1:6 mix) and 1.48% for 1:8 mix respectively. The preliminary
tests (water absorption, moisture contents, dimensions, etc)
results fall within the NIS stipulated values.
107
5.3 Physical and Strength properties of ISB Prism
The load carrying capacity of sandcrete block prism subjected

to vertical loading is affected mainly, by not only its
slenderness ratio, but by the eccentricity of vertical load.
Numerical results, were obtained for 2 different values of
slenderness ratio (h/t = 2 and 3.) the graphs of prism strength
versus eccentricity, are shown in figs 5.1 for fully cracked face
shell on the compressive side and the crushed blocks
respectively.
h/t = 2
0 t/6 t/3 5t/12
ECCENTRICITY, e (mm)
Fig 5.1 (a) Fully cracked face shell in the compressive side
(h/t =2)
108
h/t = 3
0 t/6 t/3 5t/12

Fig 5.1 (b) Fully cracked face shell in the compressive side
(h/t =3)
h/t = 3
0 t/6 t/3 5t/12

Fig. 5.2(a) Strength vs eccentricity of crushed blocks
(h/t = 3)
109
h/t = 3
0 t/6 t/3 5t/12
Fig. 5.2 (b) Strength vs eccentricity of crushed blocks
(h/t = 3)
From the graphs, the observed strength was obtained

from the test, while the results of the predicted strength were
based on statistical analyses to fit new values. Refer to
Appendix for the strength and eccentricity regression analysis
for 1:8 (cement – sand ratio ) mix.
In general masonry strength deceases against the
increasing values of eccentricity. In Fig. 5.4 load decreases
with increase in eccentricity, while if as in Fig. 5.4 the load
decreases with increase in eccentricity for wall different
slenderness ratio, the compression area on which the load acts
decreases as the masonry panel bends and the load slides
towards the compressive side of the panel. The minimum area
of the end fibre, at the comp0resion side, is assumed and as
recommended by BS 5628 (1985) to be 0.1t (where t is the
thickness of the wall).
110
e=0
e = t/6
e = t/3
e = 5t/12
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
HEIGHT, H/t
Fig.5.3 ISB The masonry load- eccentricity relationship
h/t = 2
h/t = 3
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
ECCENTRICITY (mm)
Fig .5.4 ISB masonry load –eccentricity relationship
111
5.4 ISB Prism failure modes
The vertical splitting of block webs was observed prior to face

shell splitting at eccentricity of 0 and t/6 for slenderness ratio
(h/t ) of 3, while splitting tension occurred on the compression
side, of the prism, when the eccentricity is t/3 or 5t/12.
Spalling of the block was observed in each type of eccentricity
for the slenderness ratio of 2.0 prior to compression failure,
cracking along the joints, between the grooves and tongues,
occurred on the tension side of the prism especially at t/3 and
5t/12 eccentricities. Hollow prism behaves almost linearly for
h/t of 3 at zero eccentricity, and failed suddenly by vertical
splitting of the face shell along the length of the groove – joint
and the tongue. It was also observed that at the eccentricity e
of t/6, the failure was slow and non-linear. The strain remains
constant at almost the maximum stress. The failure pattern is
almost the same for 1:8 and 1:6 of the cement sand
composition, except that the maximum stress of 2.9 N/mm2
occurred at 0.001 strain for the 1 :6 mix.
Plates V to VIII show the failure of ISB prism specimens
with both axial and eccentric loads. Failure of conventional
block prism at e = 0. Shown in Plate VII is also by vertical
splitting prism failures in vertical splitting, though similar to the
conventional prism, which indicate that absence of mortar
does not affect the failure mode of the masonry. The failure
criterion for the prism, under compression, is the limiting
tensile stress induced into a unit by the deformation of the
immediate units, the immediate units induce a state of triaxial
com0prssive stress in the blocks making prism to fail and
recording high compressive strength for ISB than the
conventional prism,.
The results of compressive tests on prism specimens for
model ISB-blocks and conventional block prisms show the
same failure pattern – generally by vertical splitting. The ISB
model prism has an average compressive strength of
4.3N/mm2 (Ejeh and Adedeji, 1998.) the high compressive
strength value could have been due to the low height of the
prism (225mm) in comparison with 675mm for the ISB
prototype-block prism.
112
Plate V Failure of prism at e = 0

113
Plate VI Failure of prism at e = t/6

114
Plate VII Failure of prism at e = 5t/12

115
Plate VIII Failure of prism at e = 0

116
5.5 ISB Wall Failure Mode
All the wall specimens failed due to the formation of vertical

cracks. At the point of failure, however, cracks appeared on
the faces and edges of each specimen. The cracks were
almost vertical before splitting followed the decrement of load,
which quickly reduced to zero. It was observed that the
maximum mid-height lateral deflections were very small in
relation to the wall thickness (about 0.33 to 4.0mm). This
effect was low for the axially loaded specimens. As recorded in
prism test specimens, the failure mode of the wall specimens
was almost tensile splitting, followed by instability and collapse
of face shells at the higher level or the applied load.
ISB wall failure mode is the same as in the case of
conventional block walls. (Refer to section 2.3, Fig. 2.4). in a
simple axial compression, load coefficient is zero, while it is -1
for an equibiaxial compression which is only applicable to
mortar (not present in ISB wall). In a conventional wall, lateral
strain in weak mortars is grater under load, the failure stress
path is then short, and hence failure load is low. In case of ISB
wall all blocks are of the same strength, the failure load is
hi8gher than the conventional wall.
5.6 Prism-Wall Relationship
Applying probability analysis of prior strength for untested

specimens are obtained, and the load factor for the improved
strength obtained. This factor was then used to obtain ISB
wall strength. Average ISB- wall load factor is 1.42 the results
was obtained with an assumed error (e) of zero and one . the
relationship between the sample mean factor(a) and
coefficient of correlation (p) for the generalized error of 0 and
1 are shown in Fig. 5.5. This factor (a) was used to calculate
the posterior strength of the prisms.
117
n=
Є=0
Є=1
0.0 0.5 1.0
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT, 
Fig.5.5 Sample mean weight factor,
Figs. 5.6 to 5.10 show the ISB prism- wall strength

relationship for 1:6 and 1:8 mixes (at e of 0 and 1)
respectively. The strength multiplication factor has an average
of 0.86. this result shows that, the effectiveness of this
analysis is in the top priority of reliability at  > 0.4 it could be
deduced, from these results that wall constant strength is 1.3
N/mm2 with 0.32 of the prism strength. The database and
their application is explained in Appendix II (AII 2 and AII 3).
The results obtained from the compressive test of the ISB
prototype wall indicates that the characteristic strength of
2.0N/mm2 was obtained. This gives the factor of 0.84 for the
prism wall relationship this result is about 2% less than what
was obtained in the posterior strength analysis. It could be
noted that the strength of prism with high slenderness ratio is
lower than the prism of low slenderness ratio. This could have
contributed to the low strength values of the wall.
118
Є = 0, 1:6 (cement – sand ratio)
 = 0.1,  = 0.35
 = 0.3,  = 0.64
= 0.9,  = 0.99
fk /fm = 0.81
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
PRISM STRENGTH, fm (N/mm2)
Fig. 5.6 Relationship between ISB prism and wall strength
 = 0.1,  = 0.53
 = 0.3,  = 0.81
= 0.9,  = 0.90
fk /fm = 0.85
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
119
 = 0.1,  = 0.53
 = 0.3,  = 0.80
= 0.9,  = 0.90
fk /fm = 0.85
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
 = 0.1,  = 0.53
 = 0.3,  = 0.81
= 0.9,  = 0.90
fk /fm = 0.83
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
120
1:6 (cement : sand)

1:8 (cement : sand)
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

2
PRISM STRENGTH, fm (N/mm )
Fig. 5.10 Wall-Prism relationship
5.7 Load Factor
In Chapter 4, the ISB masonry-prism strength has been

proposed. Bayesian framework has been applied to predict
updated and improved approximation strength for untested
wall. The load factor was obtained from the condition that:
P (Pall) > posterior probability (strength) (5.1)
P (P all) > P (fmp) = Pf.0 (=10-3) (5.2)
where: Pall = allowable mean load

Pf.o = target mean load.
Appendix II defines the allowable mean load and target mean

load. Prism load factor of 1.57 was obtained while the value of
1.42 was recorded for wall .A typical example for determining
the load factor is also shown in Example A1 (Appendix II). The
concept of load factor is essential in plastic design and the
value of 1.42 can replace the safety factor of load used in
elastic design.
121
5.8 Stress-Strain Relationship
The maximum stress at the strain is 0.0014 for the h/t=3,

while height strain of 0.0021 was recorded for e = t/6 at the
stress of 3.4/mm2. The prism behaves almost linearly for h/t=3
for e = 0 and failed suddenly by vertical splitting of the face
shell along the length of the groove joint tongue. The failure
for the eccentricity e-t/6 was non-linear. The strain remains
constant at almost the maximum stress. The failure pattern
was the same for 1:8 and 1:6 of cement-send composition.
In Figs 5.11 to 14, the upper (inital) bound, (secant) and
lower bound modulus (Ek) have been respectively analysed.
The initial modulus of elasticity is the slope of stress-strain
curve at the origin of the cord, the secant is the slope of chord
drawn through a point corresponds to a given stress, while the
slope of cord drawn through a point correspondents to stress
at failure is the lower bound modulus.
The average secant modulus of elasticity is 988fk, which
has the value of 1877N/mm2, while 604fk (1148) N/m2m is for
lower bound modulus of elasticity. In a conventional masonry
wall, BS 5628 recommends the E-value to be between 400 and
1000 multiplied by the wall crushing Fk. The E-value for the
ISB wall falls within this range.
Fig. 5.11 Young modulus of elasticity

122

123
5.9 Load-Deflection Analysis
5.9.1 Deflection due to Vertical load
Deflection of the ISB masonry prism due to vertical load. Has

been obtained directly from the tests of material. The result
shows, generally, that deflection increases with a nonlinear
increase in load, except in a case where the eccentricity of
5t/12 recorded a linear increment of load. In Figs 5.15 to 5.18
plotted values (of load ration vs deflection (wall drift)) are
shown together with the best fit lines. (The best fit lines were
obtained front the computer Microsoft EXCEL.)
Deflection equation from the best fit line for the critical
value is expressed as:
Y  P  (5-3)
 0 . 029  o   0 , 0189
H  Po 
where: P01 Pa = eccentricity and axial load respectively
From this result maximum deflection ymax, at the ISB wall

height of 3000mm, is 35.4mm (3.54cm), while final deflection
124
of not specify the wall height when recommending for the final
deflection in this case. As a result of this, the wall drift of
0.0118 (or 1/85) is also approximated to 1/100.
Fig. 5.15 Load-deflection relationship

125

126
5.9.2 Wall Deflection due to Horizontal and Vertical Loads
Load increase with the increase in deflection for the

eccentricity of 5t/12 and t/3, while e = t/6 increase in
deflection as the horizontal load increase.
Lateral load-deflection graph is shown in Fig 5.19.
Predicted equation (obtained from the database, shown in
Appendix III of the wall using equation (4.18) for the
deflection is expressed as:
Y = 0.35e + 0.02Fn (5-4)
where: e = eccentricity of load

Fn = horizontal load
The allowable eccentricity of 63cm was obtained from the

optimum results. This result correlates with the maximum
deflection ymax is 22.1mm. The wall drift (y/H) has the value of
0.0061-1/65. The wall structural rigidity (1/β) is 50N/mm2.
This is very low if compared with the e expected value of
436 N/mm2. It can be deduced from the equation (5.4) that
horizontal deflection is a function of eccentricity of load and
horizontal load.
Fig. 5. 19. Lateral load-deflection relationship

127
5.10 Cost Function of ISB wall
Three design variable considered for the ISB wall are:

sectional area, height of the wall and eccentricity due to
vertical load. Using the bisection method for the root, iteration
and estimated error have been determined while the triangular
(graphical) system has been used to minimize the volume of
the wall for a cost-effective design. The constraints include: 1)
stress due to a vertical and horizontal load with respect to
eccentricity and 2) stress due to vertical load only.
The optimum solution for the wall volume falls within the
segment line PQ. Any point on that segment yields volume
{ZV) of 1.50-E8mm3 when the necessary eccentricity of load e
is 25mm at a height H of 300mm. The sectional area of the
wall for these is 50000mm2. For Zmax of 4.00-E8mm3, e of
70m, hw of 5000mm, the sectional area A is 76000mm2.
Triangular method of optimization is described in section
5.11.
5.11 Triangular (Graphical) Method of Optimization
This method has been employed to find basic feasible solution

for the ISB wall.
Procedure:
1) Constructing a triangular system coordinates, using a
scale for each axis sides A (x-axis) from 0-10000, H
(y-axis) from 0-3000 and e (z-axis) from 0-100. (See
Fig 5.20)
128
100x102
0
0
909
10
80
20
70 30
F(X)3
F(X)2
60
F 40
50
e = 38.3
50
40
H=3600 60
30
F( 70
F(X)1
e 20
80
10
H= 5000 90
100
0
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
SECTIONAL AREA, A (mm 2 )
Fig 5.20 Superimposition of constraints graph for optimizing A,

H, e of ISB wall
2) Establishing the (A, H, e) combination that comply with the

block size, by determining the intersection of the curves
represented. In other words, the cost functional equations are
plotted: f(x)1, f(x)2, f(x)3 and other constraint equations are
plotted: such as 50000  A  100000, or  H  3600 and so
on. Fig 5.21.
129
100x102
0
90
10
80 20
70
30
f (X()2
60
40
50
f (X) 3
A=50000
e =38.3 50
40
60
Q
H=3600
30
70
20
p f(X)1 80
10
H= 500 90
0
0
100
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Fig. 5.21 Representation of constraints with feasible

3) The totality of zone
feasible
forsolution
A H, e isofthem
ISB marked
wall out as in the
shaded area (PQRS) show in Fig. 5.22.
130
100x102
0
90
10
80
20
70
30
60
40
50
50
40
Q 60
30
70
20
p 80
10
90
0
0
100
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 100
Fig.5.22 Totality of feasible solution for A,H,e of ISB wall
4) find the (A,H.e) combinations that comply with the

database of the block/wall size, such as functions: f(X)1.
and to obtain feasible solutions that will maximize the
cost function., This is shown in Fig. 5.22.
5) Optimum solution is then obtained for A,H, e to obtain Z-
cost function. This is indicated in the shaded portion, 1-2-
3-R, of Fig. 5.23, the optimum solution can be as
explained below:
131
Considering one storey building, having a height of 3000

or 3600 and built with ISB blocks. If we consider a 3000mm
height, there are three possible solutions: An optimal solution
is considered for point 1. this is coded as 1A-1H-1e (ie.: point
1 touching A-axis) reads 70000-3000-0 (Area –Height-
eccentricity).
100x102
0
15
90 10 20
8
0
20
70
30
60
40
50
50
3640
Zv = 3.6 x E8 60
30
4 3 Zv = 3.0 E8 64
70
20
1 2
80
10
90
0
0
100
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Fig. 5.23 optimum solution (for wall volume)
When A is multiplied by H, the cost functions (Zv) is 2.10E8

mm3. Another possible solution is again in point 1 (1000000-
3000-70) which results to 3.0 E8. The third solutions, 2A-2H-
2e (50000-3000-22) is on point 2, and its cost functions value
is 1.50E8. the third solution is economically viable with
minimum volume, but low admissible eccentricity of load. This
solution may be adequate for a storey building. The second
132
optimum solution is not economical because of its enormous

volume, but robust or stable for its allowance for large
eccentricity. The first optimum solution is not realistic. This is
because it is not possible for a load bearing wall to have a null
eccentricity of load. Data Base used in the above method:
Wall of 1:8 (cement: sand) mix Crushing strength, fk = 1.9

Load, P = 284 000N,
Wind load=0.551x103N/mm2),
1st floor
Wall thickness, t =230mm Wall length, L = 660mm
Wall height, H = 3600mm Eccentricity, e = 38.3mm
Wall sectional area, A = 10200mm2
Other graphs in Figs 5.24 to 5.27 show the optimization of

the wall of blocks mix 1:6(1 part of cement to 6 parts of sand).
100x102
0
0
909
10
80
20
70
30
F(X)3
F(X)2
60
40
50
e = 38.3
50
40
H=3600 60
30
F( 70
F(X)1
e 20
80
10
H= 5000 90
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Fig 5.24 Superimposing of constraints for optimizing A,H,e of
ISB wall
133
100x102
0
90
80 10
20
70
30
f (X()2
60
40
50
A=50000
f (X) 3
e =38.3 50
40
60
Q
H=3600
30
70
20
p f(X)1
80
10
H= 500 90
0
0
100
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Fig.5.25 Representation of constraints with feasible zone for

A,H,e of ISB wall
134
100x102
0
90
10
80 20
70
30
60
40
50
50
40
Q 60
30
70
20
p 80
10
90
0
0
100
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 0
10
Fig.5.26 Totality of feasible solution for A,H,e of ISB
wall
135
0
15
90
10 20
8
0
20
70 30
60
40
50
50
3640
Zv = 3.6 x E8 60
30
4 3 Zv = 3.0 E8
64
70
20
1 2
80
10
90
0
0
100
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 100

Fig 5.27 Optimum solution for ISB wall
In order to check the result of the wall section from the

optimization method was used to find the roof for the roof for
the stress sectional equation only. Equation (4.44) in Chapter
4 was used. Deflection equation was neglected. This is due to
little effect of the horizontal load on a storey residential
building. In Appendix 1V, database used to calculate the root
using the bisection method was given and the results obtained
are tabulated (Table AIV-5). With a minimum specified error of
1.5%, the minimum sectional area is 9950mm2.
136
5.12 Safe-Size Design of ISB Upper Tongue
Figs 5.28, 5.29, and 5.30 show the representation of

constraints, totality of feasible solution and the optimum
solution for the safe-size of the block upper tongue. The
optimum solution indicates that: for the Zmax which is 564mm2,
the depth (ht) of 12mm and the upper tongue thickness (Tu) of
47mm at 300mm block length (L) are required. Triangular
method of optimization (as in section 5.12) was also employed
here. It could be noted that, the initial block length of 440mm
will be adequate. Appendix V contains the numerical
examples and the results obtained for minimizing the sectional
area of upper tongue.
0
50
45
50
40
100
35
Tu = 45
150
30
200
25
L = 250
250
20
300
15
f(x)2
f(x)1 350
10
400
h1 =10
5
450
0
0
500
25.0 22.5 20.0 17.5 15.0 12.5 10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 0.0
Depth, h (mm)
Fig 5.28 Representation of constraints for block upper tongue
137
50
45 50
40
100
35
150
30
200
L = 250
25
250
20
300
f(x)2
15
f(x)1 350
10
400
ht =10
5
450
12
0
0
500
25.0 22.5 20.0 17.5 15.0 12.5 10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 0.0
Depth, h (mm)
Fig 5.29 Totality of feasible solutions for the block upper
tongue
138
50
45
50
40 100
35
150
30
200
25
L = 250
250
20
300
f(x)2
15
f(x)1 350
10
400
ht =10
5
450
12
0
0
500
25.0 22.5 20.0 17.5 15.0 12.5 10.0 7.5 5.0 2.5 0.0
Depth, h (mm)
Fig 5.30 Optimum solution for the block upper tongue
5.13 Application of Results
Validity of the result obtained from this study, in general, holds

for a 1:8 and 1:6 (cement: sand) mix. For a short term design,
stress-strain for a normal-weight concrete, the maximum
stress, for both eccentricities e=t/6 when the slenderness ratio
(h/t) =3, is k1fk and modulus of elasticity Ek= k2(fk/ym) 1/2. The
design stress obtained is 0.625fkm is the modified stress using
Poisson ratio of 0.25 at 0.002 strain. The value, 0.625, was
again modified to 0.563 for an assumed error (  ) =1 for a 1:6
139
and 1:8 mixes. This value, 0.563 (i.e. k1) account for the
relationship between the prism strength. This is not the partial
factor (LF) estimated as 1.42.
Various formulas have been suggested for the
determination of the nominally identical specimens and as an
approximation, for ISB wall from result of this study. The
average value of modulus of elasticity of the wall is:
E=604fk (5.6)
From the values given above, the value of k2 is 1.602. This

is illustrated in fig. 5.31.
Factor of safely m = 3.5 BS 5628, 1985) takes the account
of uncertainty in the strength of materials and the uncertainty
in the accuracy of the method used to predict the wall as the
various in the wall sizes. The eccentricity to thickness (e/t), of
the wall, is  0.311 (i.e. e = 70mm).
f/m
1602 (fk/m )0.5 N/mm2
Fig. 5.31 Short-term design stress-strain curve for the ISB wall
140
5.14 Wall-Block Relationship
In BS 5628: Part 1 (1978), the factor of safety of 3.5

compensate for the excessive wall strength. This approach is
conservative and may not be economically viable for a patentic
nature of the ISB characteristic strength. The graph was
obtained from the statistical analysis derived from Tables 3.21
to 3.24. Reading from Fig.5.32, the block aspect ratio (i.e.
block height to thickness) is 1 as in the case of the ISB-unit,
the graph which is linear and starting from the origin data, a
value when wall strength is 0.85 of the strength.
Fig. 5.32 ISB Wall-Block relationship
5.15 Numerical Example in Design
To verify the effectiveness of the data obtained from this

study, by means of comparison with previous studies and
practical applications, the ISB-wall, of a two storey house was
chosen for design purposes using BS 5628 (1985).
The interwoven sandcrete block wall is assumed to be built
on a stiff concrete foundation. The wall has thickness (t) of
230mm, length(L)=400mm and height(H) of 3300mm. the wall
141
is subjected to a Deed load of 70.95 kNm1 and imposed Load

of 7.0kN/m1. The plan wall considered has no plaster on its
sides. Design of wall was based on BS 5628. The drawing of a
two storey buildings plans and the design, the material
properties, unit cost and other geometrical conditions are
shown in Table 5.1 and 5.2.
The result of this design shows that the proposed discrete
size of the interwoven sandcrete block is adequate to build a
load bearing wall for a two storey building.
Table 5.1 Partial properties, unit cost and other geometrical

conditions
Trial T L H Fh fkm
Data mm mm Mm N/mm N/mm
CW 225 4000 3300 2.3 2.01
ISB 230 4000 3300 2.7 2.08
Table 5.1 continued

Trial m e Tu M H/t Cost
2 2
Data - mm mm mm - N
CW 3.5 70 - 22300 13.2 30
ISB 3.5 70 1124 - 13.2 30
ISB = Interwoven Sandcrete Wall
CW = conversional sandcrete wall
Fb = block characteristics strength
m = partial factor of safety for material
e = eccentricity
t, L,H = thickness, length, height of wall respectively
Cost – cost (N) per block, N= Nigerian Naira
Tu = two upper tongues section
M = two header mortar-joints
142
Table 5.2 Unit price comparison between ISB and sandcrete

walls
Wall Wall material Workmanship (labour)
type
1 2 3 4
fkm cost NW Cost
CW 2.01 30 5 1,500
ISB 2.08 30 1 300
CW = Conventional sandcrete block wall
ISB = Interwoven sandcrete block wall
2
cost per 1 block (N30/block in 1998, N= Nigerian Naira)
3
number of workers per m2 per min
4
cost of labour per 10hrs work
143
Chapter 6
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
6.1 Conclusions
As a result of this work, the following general conclusions and

recommendations may be made regarding the behaviour of
the interwoven sandcrete block masonry (ISB).
Under axial, eccentricity and impact load:

1. Analyses and experiments generally by splitting of the
blocks. ISB prism failure takes the same pattern as in
conational prism. The failure criterion, for the prism and wall,
under compression, is the limiting tensile tress induced (by the
deformation of the prism middle block)state of triaxial
compressive stress in the blocks, making prism to fail by
vertical splitting and recording high compressive strength for
ISB than the conventional prism.
2. The predicted and observed (test results) showed that the
ratio of the ISB wall compressive strength to its prism strength
is between 0.80 and 0.84. Low slenderness ratio (=3) of the
prism, in comparison with that (=6) of the wall, could have
contributed to the high compressive value of the prism. This
strength prototype wall, as testing of prism, instead of wall, is
economical.
3. The ultimate compressive stress of 3.8N/mm2 was obtained
for the prism at the eccentricity of 3.8N/mm2 was obtained for
the prism at the eccentricity of 5t/12. Relative decrease in
bearing capacity of the wall is observed as the eccentricity
increases.
4. Value wall drift (ratio of deflection to height) differs with
difference in eccentricity of load. For the combination of
laterally and horizontally loaded ISB wall, the maximum
deflection is 22.1mm at a drift (deflection: height) of 0.0061 0r
1/65. in the case of wall loaded vertically, due to eccentricity,
the maximum deflection is35.4 mm at adrift of 0.0118 or 1/85
value is less than the final deflection value of 40mm stipulated
by the BS 5628-Part 2.
5. Average axial compressive strength for the ISB wall is
higher than that of conventional sandcrete block-mortar wall
144
subjected to the same condition of production, curing and

testing. The strength of the ISB wall is 1.06 of the
conventional wall strength, the 6% increase has no much
effect in the design of low-rise building.
6. The compressive strength tests performed on the units and
the masonry indicated that, the ratio of wall-block is 0.83. this
value id high if indication that the ISB wall strength is higher
than that of conventional wall of the same production.
7. The ISB wall best and least cost function f1.80x108 mm3
was obtained at the eccentricity of 15mm when the wall height
is 3600mm.The obtained solution obtained is economically
viable- the wall reduced to 50% of its initial cost- but low
admissible eccentricity, while the wall maximum eccentricity is
0.303 t (where t is the wall thickness).
8. Due to the effect of impact force, the cost function of
564mm2 (52% of the initial cost) was obtained for the upper
tongue subjected to stress and deformation.
9. The results of the design, for a two storey residential
building, using load bearing ISB wall, indicated that, the
interwoven sandcrete wall can structurally replace the
conventional wall.
10. In the design of conventional masonry wall, factor of
safety for material m compensates for any excessive wall
strength given. Recommended strength interpolation, by BS
5628, which produces the characteristics strength fk values for
wall built with blocks laid bed wise, are excessively
conservative. Any value obtained by interpolation may of be
accurate in choosing an appropriate strength for ISB block, as
a result of this, strength multiplication factor of 0.83 is used
for the block in order to obtain the wall design strength.
11. The concept of load is essential in plastic design and the
value of 1.42 can replace the factor of safety used in elastic
design.
6.2 Recommendations
Based the findings of these studies, the following

recommendations are made:
1. The type of manually operated block making machine, used
in this work should be improved to operate electrically, as this
will enhance machine operation, improve quality and quantity
145
of blocks, wall compacted blocks will produce wall of beautiful

face-blocks that may not require cement plaster.
2. During installation of electrical and plumbing appliances,
workers tap walls with heavy hammer, club and any other
similar objects, as a result of which the ISB tongue may shear
off the mother block. Care should be taken not to use a
tapping tool that will be heavier than 120 kg.
3. All specifications, as recommended these studies, should be
strictly adhered to during blocks productions, so as to get
quality products.
4. The interwoven sandcrete block is a patentic wall-unit that
requires no special training for application. It is self-aligned
when used for walling. As a result of trial lying embarked upon
during production of model ISB blocks, the following standard
lying of the blocks are given in Figs. 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3. it should
be noted that vertical joints laps only once in the three basic
courses, as shown in Figs. 6.4 and 6.5. As such there is no
danger of any part of the wall sliding down.
5. An ISB wall should be enhanced by the ground having its
layer is bill on flat concrete blind on strip foundation, to ensure
a vertical, plumbed wall. At the beam (lintel) level, the wall
should be joined to the beam with A cement mortar round the
block shell face. See Fig. 6.5.
6. Further studies should look into ways of reinforcing ISB
wall for tall building. Meanwhile, Vertical reinforcement could
be applied at intervals of 3m to enhance wall stability for a
two-storey residential building.
146
A
Fig. 6.1 Laying of ISB blocks (1st course)
147
A
Fig. 6.2 Laying of ISB blocks (2nd course)
148
A
Fig. 6.3 Laying of ISB blocks (3rd course)
149
Fig. 6.4 Laying of ISB blocks (isometric view)

150
Fig. 6.5 Laying of ISB block (side view)
7. An ISB block of unit aspect ratio should use Fig. 5.32 to

choose block strength for design of wall, while further studies
are embarked upon for blocks of aspect ratio other than 1.
Lintel beam (on opening)

Cement
Fig .6.6 Position of a lintel in ISB wall

151
DETAIL A DETAIL B
Dummy column
A B
3075
ISB wall
3075
3075
3075
3000 3000 3000
Fig.6.7 Typical ISB wall with vertical dummy reinforcement

152
REFERENCES
Ahmed, M. and Terrel, L. (1978), Mortarless Block

Construction for Developing Countries in Building
Construction for developing country, by Amalyn Ltd, India,
5(5): 651-668. www.usmc.mil/.../FMFRP%200-
63%20Troop%20Construction%20in%20the%20Middle%
20East.pdf
Anand, C. S. and Yalamachili, K. K. (1996), Three
Dimensional Failure Analysis of Composite Masonry wall,
Journal of Structural Engineering, 2(9); 1031-1039.
www.3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/76500612/articletex
t?DOI=10...
Anderson, G. W. (1971), Stack Bonded Small Specimens as
Design and Construction Criteria, H.W.H. West and K.H.
Speed (Ed), British Ceramic Research Association, Stroke-
on-Trent, pp. 38-43.
Arora, J. S. (1989), Introduction to optimum Design,
published by McGraw-Hill. pp 1-230.
www.khup.com/.../introduction-to-optimum-design-by-j-s-
arora.html
Bangash, M. Y. H.(1989), Concrete and Concrete Structures:
Numerical Modeling and Application”, 1st Edn., Elsevier
Science Publishers Ltd., London. pp. 2-11, 22-24, 51-54.
www.scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=jas.2007.743.747
Barrit, C, M.H (1984). Advanced building construction. Vol .1,
pp 34-56. Longman; New York Chudley, R. (1985),
www.scribd.com/doc/27568230/Unit-0
Bata, M. (1981), Dynamika Stavebnich Konstrukce v
Prikladech, “Dynamic of Structure in Example”, Edition
Centre, CVUT, Prague 1: 209-221.
Bolouchrami, M.A. and Weichert,D. (1997), An extension
of the Static Shakedown Theorem to Inelastic Cracked
Structures, International Journal of Mechanical Sciences,
41(2):163-177.
Biolz,L. (1988) Evaluation of Compressive Strength of Walls
by Limits Analysis, Journal of Structural Engineering, 114
(10): 2179-2189.
British Standard Institution, BS 882”1201, Aggregation from
Natural Sources for Concrete, British Standard House,
London, pp. 1-35.
153
British Standard Institution, BS 1142, Part 3, (1972) Fire

Building Boards”, Part 3: Insulation Board (Soft Board)
British Standard House, London, pp. 1-25.
British Standard Institution, CP 110: Part 1 (1972), The
Structural use of Concrete , Part 1: Design, Material and
Workmanship. British Standard House London, pp. 1-30.
British Standard Institution, BS 410:1975, Specification for test
Sieves, British Standard House, London, pp. 1-36.
British Standard Institution, BS 5628 (1978) Code ofPparticle
for use of manor, Part 1 Structural Use of Uneinforced
masonry British Standard House, London, pp. 1-12.
British Standard Institution, BS 6073:1982, Precast Concrete
Masonry Units, Part1: Specification for precast masonry
units, Part2: Method for specifying precast masonry units,
British Standard House London, pp. 1-29.
Bungale, S. T, (1988), Structural Analysis and Design of Tall
Building,
www.khup.com/keyword/dr-bungale-s-taranath.html
Cheema, T, S, Klinger, R. E. (1986), Compressive Strength
of Concrete Masonry Prism”, Technical Paper. ACI Journal,
No.83-11:91.
Choi, C.K. and Kwak, H.K. (1990), Optimum RC Member
Design with Predetermined Descrete sections, Journal of
Structural`Engineering,116(10):2634-2655.
www.3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112136369/articletext?D
OI=10..
Collville, J. (1977), Analysis and Design of Brick Masonry
Walls, Research Report, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
University of Edinburgh.
Cranston, W. B. and Roberts, J. J. (1976), The Structural
Behavior of Concrete Masonry-reinforced and
unreinforced, The Structural Engineer, 54(11): 423-436.
Curtin, W. (1987), practical design if Masonry Structures, in
institution of civil Engineers symposium (1987), of a paper
titled: The compressive strength of masonry built using
blocks laid flat’ pp. 319-336.
Davidson, B. (1972), African: History of a continent by
Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd, Middlesex, England, pp. 66-
69
Durban, D. and Zuckerman, Z. (1999), Elastoplastic
Buckling of Rectangular Plates in Biaxial
154
Compression/Tension, International Journal of Mechanical

Sciences, Oxford, 41 (7): 765.
www.linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0263823108001
195
Ejeh, S. P. and Adedeji, A. A. (1998),Strength Characteristic
of Dry-jointed Sandcreste Block Assemblies under Vertical
Loads, Nigerian Journal of Construction Technology and
Management, NJCTM 1 (1): 102-108.
www.unilorin.edu.ng/.../Academic%20Staff%20Publication%20
Web%20Pages_.
Francis, A.J. Horman,C. B Jerems, L .E. (1971), The effect
of Joint thickness and other factors on the compressive
strength of Brickwork, H.W.H. West and K.H. Speed, Ed,
(British ceramic Research Association, Stoke-on Trent, pp
31-37.
Grogan, J. C. and Conway J. T. (1980a), Test for
Absorption, American Society for Testing and Materials,
ASTM C140-75 (1980), pp.C140.
Grogan, J. C. and Conway J. T. (1980b), Test for Masonry
Prism America Society for Testing and Material, ASTM C90
(1980), pp.C90.
Grogan, J. C. and Conway J. T. (1980c), Requirement for
Concrete masonry unit, America Society for Testing and
Materials, ASTM C129 (1980), pp. C129.
Grogan, J. C. and Conway J. T. (1985), Test for masonry
units, America Society for testing and Material, ASTM
STP-871(1985) , pp. 167-177.
Germanino, G., Macchi, G. (1995), Experimental Research
of a Frame Idealization for a Bearing wall of Multi-storey
structure, Proceedings by the British ceramic society, pp.
174-175.
www.w3.disg.uniroma1.it/corsomuratura09/index.php?opti
on=
Geyskens, p., Klureghian, A. and Monteiro, P. (1998),
Bayesian prediction of Elastic Modulus of Concrete, Journal
of Structural Engineering, 124 (1): 89-95.
www.ce.berkeley.edu/~adk/documents/PUB.pdf
Haller, P. (1960), The Physics of the Fire Brick, Part one,
Strength properties, Libr. Commun. Building Res., pp 929.
Hamed, A. A. and Drysdale, Robert, G. (1979), Suggested
Failure Criteria for Granted Concrete Masonry Under Axial
155
compression. ACI Journal, proceedings 76 (10): 1047-

1061.
Hammid, A. A. and Chukwunenye, A. O. (1986)
Compression Behavior of Concrete Masonry Prisms,
Journal of S t r u c t u r a l Engineering, 112(3), Paper No.
20452:605-612.
Hendry, A. W. Bradshaw, R. E., and Rutherford, D. J.
(1981). The Strength of Material, Structural Brickwork,
Hendry, A.W. (Ed), pp. 12-55.
Hendry, A.W., Sinha, B.P. and Davies (1981) Structural
Brickwork, pp 15-44.
Hendry, A.W., Sinha B.P. and Davies, S. R. (1987),
Loadbearing Brickwork Design, Second Edition, Ellis
Holwood Ltd- Chichester, pp. 58-59.
www.alibris.com/.../Load%20Bearing%20Brickwork
%20Design
Heylman, J. (1984) The High Endurance or the Masonry
Structure, (Design Life of Building) and Institute. Of Civil
Engineering Symposium, Nov. 1984 pp. 87-92.
Khoo, C.L. and Hendry, A.W. (1973), A Failure Cretarion for
brickwork in Axial Compression. “Proceeding of the third
international Brick Masonry conference (Essen), pp. 130-
145.
Lenzner, D. (1972), Element of Load Bearing Brickwork,
Pergamon, Oxford, London, pp. 1-55.
Lotfi, R.H. and Shing, P.B. (1994), Interface Model Applied
to Fracture of Masonry Structure, Journal of structure
Engineering,120(1):63-80.
www.arch.virginia.edu/struct/pompeii/pompeii-bib.html
Moroni, M. O., Astroza, M. Gomez, J. and Guzman, R.
(1994). Establishing Rw and Cd factors for confined
Masonry Buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering,
122(10):1208-1215.
www.ingcivil.uchile.cl/index.php?option=com...id...
Mosley, W. and Bungey, J. H. (1991), Reinforced Concrete
Design (Serviceability and Stability requirement), pp. 145.
www.efka.utm.my/.../vithiawathireddysx040114awj04d09t
tt.pdf
Mottershaw, T. J. (1987), Merseyside Power Station for UML
Ltd, in Practical Design of Masonry Structures, pp 101.
156
Okunsanya A.(1991), New House Without Wet Concrete

Mortar, African Science Monitor, Tunde Akingbade and
‘Biodun Denloye (Ed). 1(2):26.
Olatunji, T. M., Warwaruk, J. and Longworth, J. (1984),
Stiffness Distribution at a Wall/slab Joint in Concrete
masonry walls :34-42
Page, A.W. (1979), A model for the in-plane Behavior of
Masonry and a Sensitivity Analysis of its Critical
Parameters, Brick institute of America, Mclean, pp 2-55.
Phillips, D. V. and Zienkiewic, O. C., (1997), Nonlinear analysis of
reinforced concrete slabs by a discrete., J. Jiang and F. A. Mirza
in Computers & Structures, Volume 65, Issue 4, November
1997,pp.585-592
www.linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0045794994E0269\
Priestly, M. J. N. and Elder, D.M. (1983), Stress-strain
Curve for Unconfined and Confined Concrete technical
paper ACI Journal, 30(19: 192-200.)
Pubal Z. (1982). “Teory a Vypocet Ramovych Konstrukci s
vyztuznymi prickami”, Theory and Analysis of Frame
structure with in-filled Elements SNTL Prague, pp ,104-
110.
Risager, S. ( 1968 )Structural Behavior of linear Elastic Walls
Having on Tensile strength, Gulf publishing Co., pp.25 -
266.
Roberts, J. J., Tokey, A. K., Cranston, W. B. and Beeby,
A.W. (1985) Concrete Masonry Designer’s Handbook,
Viewpoint publication Series pp. 7-77.
Rutherford, D. J. (1980), Surface Bonding Walls – a
challenge to conventional techniques, Journal of Building
Technology and Management. 18(7) Buildg. Regs. R&D
(Ed): 53.
Sahlin, S. (1971 ). Structure Masonry, Prentice – Hall, Eagle-
wood Cliffs N.J., pp 91-116.
Salah, E. E., Ashraf, F. A. A and Chen, W.F. (1990)
Instability Analysis of Eccentrically Loaded Concrete Walls,
Journal of Structural Engineering 116(10): 2862-2881.
Samarasinghe, W., Page, A. W., and Hendry, A. W.
(19981), Behaviour of Brick Masonry Shear Wall, Journal
of the Structural Engineer, 59B (3): pp 43-48.
Sejnoha, J. (1979), Pruznost, Pevnost, Plasticity I “Elasticity
Stiffness and Plasticity I”, Hosova 5, Prague 6, (6) 86-93.
157
Sinha, B. P., Hendry, A.W. (1978), An Investigation into the

Behaviour of Brick Cross Wall Structure, Proceeding of
British Ceramic Society 27, pp 67-76.
Sandor Popovics, (1982), Graphical Method of Optimization :
A short cut, Journal of Construction Division , proceeding
of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 108
(C02). 211-218.
Thanedar, P.B . and Vanderplacets G.N. (1999), Journal
of Structural Engineering ,,121(2): 301-306.
Vahakallio. P. and Makela, K. (1975), Method of Calculating
Restraining Moments in Unreinforced Masonry Structure,
Proceeding of the British Ceramic Society 1975, pp.161-
173..
Wang. R., Elwi, A.E. and Hatzinikolas, (1996), Numerical
Study of Tall Masonry Cavity Walls Subjected to Eccentric
load. Journal of Structural Engineering, 123 (10) 1287-
1297.
http://www.google.com.ng/search?hl=en&q=Wang.+R.%2C+Elwi%2C+
A.E.+and+Hatzinikolas%2C+%281996%29.+Numerical+Study+of+Tall+
masonry+Cavity+Walls+subjected+to+Eccentric+load.+Journal+of+stru
ctural+Engineering%2C+123+%2810%29+1287-
1297.&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
158
APPENDICES
159
Appendix I
STRENGTH-ECCENTRICITY REGRESSSION ANALYSIS
(A) Failure due to cracks at the shell face
ISB Block Mix = 1.8

Prism slenderness ratio( h/t) = 2
Eccentricity e: 0.00 38.33 76.67 95.8
Observed strength , f: 2.2 2.4 3.2 3.9
Where e is on x-axis and fme on y-axis
Sum x =210.8, sum (x)2 = 44436.64, sum (x)2 = 16525.1,

sum y = 11.7, sum (xy) = 710.95
yp = a + bx + 
in which
n sum ( x 2 ) sum x sum ( xy )
a = 2.006
n sum ( x 2 ) )  sum ( x ) 2
n sum ( xy )  sum x sum y

b = 0.0174
n sum ( x 2 )  sum ( x) 2
n = number of trials = 4
Error :  = y1 - ypi
I = = individual result
yi 2.2 2.4 3.2 3.9
ypi 2.006 2.67 3.67 3.67
 0.194 -0.27 -0.14 0.23
ypi = 2.006 + 0.0174 x + 0.014 = 0.0174x + 2.02
e 0.00 38.33 76.67 95.8

fmp/ fmo 0.92 1.12 1.05 0.95
(B) Failure due to cracks at the shell face

ISB Block Mix = 1.8
160
Eccentrivity, e: 0.00 38.33 76.64 95.8

Observed strength, fmo: 2.2 25 2.9 3.5
Sum x = 210,8, sum (x)2 = 44436.64 sum (x)2 = 16525.1,

sum y = 10.9, sum (xy) = 653.47 a = 1.97, b = 0.0146
yi 2.2 2.5 2.9 3.5

ypi 1.97 2.53 3.09 3.37
 0.03 -0.03 -0.19 0.94
fmp/fmo 0.96 0.99 1.04 0.94
(C) Failure Due to Crushing
ISB Block Mix = 1:8
Eccentricity, e : 0.00 38.33 76.64 95.8

Observed strength , f mo: 2.2 2.3 2.6 2.8
Where is on x-axis and fmo on y-axis
Sum x = 210.8
sum (x)2 = 44436.64,
sum y= 9.9, sum (x)2 = 16525.1,
Sum (xy) = 555.74
a = 2.14, b =0.00063
yi 2.2 2.3 2.6 2.8
ypi 2.14 2.38 2.62 2.74
 0.06 -0.08 -0.02 0.06
yp = 2.14 + 0.063x – 0.02 = 0.0063x+ 2.12
 0.000 38.33 76.69 95.80

fmo/fmo 0.83 1.04 1.03 0.92
[b] ISB block mix = 1.6
Eccentricity e, 0.00 38.33 76.69 95.80

Observed strength , fmo 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.7
161
Sum x = 210.8, sum (x)2 = 44436.64, sum y = 9.3, sum (x)2 =

16525.12
sum (xy) = 523.16

constants: a = 2.00, b = 0.0058
For the Error :

yi 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.7
ypi 2.10 2.22 2.44 2.56
 0.000 -0.012 -0.04 0.14
yp = 2.0 + 0,0058x- 0.19 = 0.0058x + 1.81
 0.00 38.33 76.67 95.80

fmo/ fmo 1.00 0.09 0.85 0.76
162
Appendix II
PRISM-WALL RELATIONSHIP (LOAD FACTOR AND

CORRELATION COEFFICIENT)
AI (1) Load Factor
All load factor was calculated from the condition that:
P [Pall] > Position probability ( Strength )

> P(fmo) =P(=10-3) (All.1)
where:
1 f mh
P(fmp) = p ( y< [ LF
(1 +  s v) (AII .2)
smp
And
r
pall = (1 + vsv) (AII. 3)
LF
in which Y = standard normal variation independent of V,V=
1.64, vs = 0.15 to 0.3 is the coefficient of variation (100s/x, s
is the standard deviation and xx is the mean value), r =
sample mean load, fmh (fm)= characteristics strength of prism
(= 2.2 N /mm2 for 1:8 mix), fmp(fk) = characteristics (posterior)
strength of wall and Smp = standard deviation (Refer to
equation 4.71)
All (2) Example 1:
DATA-BASE FOR ISB PRISM

Slenderness ratio (h/t) =3
Characteristic strength
(1:8 cement – san ratio) 2.2N/mm2
eccentricity (e) =0
Axial load = 225.8kN
Number of test trials (n) = 10
Coefficient of variation = 0.25
Relative error =0
Correlation coefficient = 0.1
Standard weight factor = 0.35
Target strength probability = 0.001
163
SOLUTION
All (3) prism load factor
225 800(1  0.25 x1.64) 318378

Pall = =
LF LF
Axial load:
p = 203 280 N
If P = Pall
318378 LF  318 378
then: 203 280 = >  1 . 57
LF 203 280
All (4) Wall load factor
a) wall strength ( when  = 0, p =0.1,  = 0.3):
fmp = fmh +  (x - fmh)

= 2.2 + 0.35 (2.2 – 2.2) = 2.2 – 0.011
= 2.18 N/mm2
If Pt = 0.001, then:
Smp = 0.029 (1-0.35 x 0.1)
= 0.029 = 2.9%
1 2.2
0.001 = [ ( 1+ 0.25 x 1.64) – 2.18
2.9 LF
1.069
0.001 = = 0.75
LF
1.069
LF = = 1.43
0.75
b) wall strength (when  = 0, p = 0.3,  = 0,81.
Smp = 2.3
LP = 1.41
Average LP = 1.42
164
All (5) Correction coefficient

This was calculated as the ratio of load factor for the wall to
prism:
LFW 1.42
= = 0.90
LFP 1.57
Hence: The Characteristic strength of Wall: fk = 0.90fm
Table All.1 Results of analysis for prism – wall relationship

(  = 0, p = 0.1,  = 0.35, 1.8 ( cement : sand) mix,
fm = 2.2 N/mm2)
Posterior strength
Prior strength + (fmp) -(fmp) Error
(fmh)N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2  (+fmp)  (+fmp)
0.01 0.77 -0.77 -0.77 0.77
1.0 1.42 0.58 -0.42 0.42
2.0 2.07 1.93 -0.07 0.07
3.0 2.72 3.28 0.28 -0.28
4.0 3.37 4.63 0.69 -0.69

165
Table All.2 Result of analysis for prism – wall relationship

(  = 0 p = 0.3,  = 0.641.8(cement: sand) mix,
fm =2.2 N/mm2)
Prior strength Posterior Strength Error

(fmh) N/mm2 +( fmp) -( fmp)  (+ fmp)  (- fmp)
N/mm2 N/mm2
0.01 1.140 -1.14 -1.14 1.14
1.0 1.076 0.232 -0.076 0.08
2.0 2.123 1.872 -0.123 0.13
3.0 2.488 3.512 0.215 -0.51
2.848 5.152 0.152 -1.15

4.0
Note: sum error = 0. this is equation to 
Table All.4 Results of analysis for prism – wall relationship

(  = 0, p = 0.9,  = 0.99, 1:8 (cement : sand )mix,
fm = 2.2 N/mm2)

N/mm2 N/mm2
0.01 2.178 -2.178 -2.17 2,17
1.0 0.089 0.089 0.91 0.91
2.0 2.198 1.802 -019 0.19
3.0 2.208 3.792 0.79 -0.79
5.780 1.78 -1.15

4.0 2.218
Note: Sum error = 0.this is equal to 

166
Table All.5 Result of analysis for prism – wall relationship

(  = 1, p = 0.9,  = 0.9,1:8 (cement: sand )mix,
fm = 2.2 N/mm2)

N/mm2 N/mm2
0.01 1.980 -1.980 -1.98 1.97
1.0 2.080 0.080 -1,08 0.92
2.0 2.180 1.820 -1.18 0.18
3.0 2.280 3.070 0.82 -0.07
4.0 1.380 4.670 2.02 -0.68
Table all. 6 Result of analysis for prism- wall relationships

(  = 1, p = 0.3,  = 0.81,1:8 (cement: stand) mix,
fm = 2.2 N/mm2)

N/mm2 N/mm2
0.01 1.782 -1.78 -1.78 1.78
1.0 1.421 0.028 0.91 -0.97
2.0 2.162 1.838 0.16 -016
3.0 2.352 3.648 0.69 0.65
4.0 2.540 5.458 1.48 1.46
Note: Total sum error = 0 this is less than 1 (  =1)

167
Apppendix III
CALCULATION EXAMPLE OF ISB WALLL DEFLECTION
Database
For a partially fixed wall at base:

Horizontal load intensity q = 0.551x10-3 N/mm2
Horizontal (wind ) load, W ( =Fh) = 2.18N/m
Effective height, He = 0.75H
Maximum wall height H = 3600mm
Reduction factor  = 0.75
He = 0.75 x 3600 =2700mm
Slenderness ratio = 2700/230 = 11.7 < 12
The wall is bread and stocky

As expressed in equation in Chapter 3, section:
KH = rπ/ 2, for He/f < 12, r = 26.78 (CP 111)
So that: KH = 42.06 > k = 0.012
Loads due to eccentricities ( e=0,t/6,5t/12) are 215 ,170,

100and 61 x 102N respectively. Where e = t x 6 = 38.3
deflection, y :
0.00551 1
y = ( 38.3 2
) ( - 1) +
215000 x0.012 cos 42.06
0.000551 x 3600 1 tan 42.06
+ ( t+ 2.18 [ ( - 3600)
215000 215000 0.012
1
= 13.4-0.015 – 0.036 = 13.36mm
168
Appendix IV
ROOT: BISECTION METHOD

Procedure:
Assuming function of design variables, f(x) is real and
continous
PseudoCode:
1. Choose xL (lower value), xu (upper value ) and check
with the product of their functions,
f(xL)F(xR) < 0
2. Estimate root xR, ie xR = 0.5 ( xL + xu)
3. Evaluate:
a) if f(xL)F(x)> 0. root lies in the lower subinterval
then xu = xR or back to 2
b) if f(xL) f(xR)>0 root lies in the upper subinterval,
then xL= xR
c) if f(xL)f(xR)= 0, root equal xR
Table A/V 1.to A/V.5 show the results of the computations.

The bisection estimated error  is calculated as:
new  old
xp xp
a= New
100% (AIV.1)
xR
Where: xrnew xrold = root for the present, previous iteration

respectively
When  a becomes less than a prescribed or pre-specified

stopping criterion  s, then the computation stops. Evaluation
of ISB Wall sectional Area By Blsection Method
I) Compression and horizontal stress (constraints) (Refer to

constraint equations in Chapter 4 section 4.7.2. subsection
4.7.2.1.(a)
Design Variables:
Prism sectional area, A

Prism Height, H
Eccentricity, e
169
Maximizing the volume to minimize the cost:

A) DataBase:
Block mix: 1:8 (cement :sand )
Slenderness ratio, h/t =3
Wind (horizontal ) load, W = 0.825 N/mm2
Length of prism, L =440mm
Axial(vertical)load ),P
Eccentricity, e = 0mm
Height of prism, H =750(three block
courses ) mm
Allowable stress,  all = 2.2 N/mm2
Stopping error,  = 1.5%(specified)
Table AV.1 result of ISB prism sectional area root

(1.8, 1 part cement to 8 parts sand)
Iiteration Area, A (mm2)  (% )

Number
0 100
0 85000 17.6
1 8.1
92500
2 3.9
96250
3 2.5
98750
4 1.2
99500
5
Note: the result is linearly convergent to the true value
B) Data Base:
Block mix; 1:B (cement: sand)
Slenderness ratio, h/t = 3
Axial ( vertical )load, P = 180 000 N
Allowable stress,  all = 2.1N/mm2
Eccentricity , e = 38.33mm
Height, H = 675mm
Length, L = 440mm
170

( 1: 8, 1 part cement to 8 part sand)
Iteration
Number Area A (mm2) Error  (%)
0 0 100
1 95 000 5.3
2 100625 0.7
Note: The result is convergent to the true value
C) Data Base:
Block mix: 1:8 (cement :sand )
Axial load, P = 99.67mm
Eccentricity , e = 675 mm
Height, H = 440mm
Length, L =2.4N/mm2
Stopping error  =1.5%

( 1;8. 1 part cement to 8 parts sand )
Iteration
Number. Area A (mm2) Error  (%)
0 0 100
1 95 000 5.5
2 100000 2..2
3 113 125 2.1
4 115 357 1.3
Note: the result is converging to the true value.
171
The true value can be too large to the available discrete size of
the standard sandcrete block
II) Compressive stress (constraints)
(Refer to constrain equation in Chapter 4, section 4.7
subsection 4, 782b)
A) Data Base:
Block mix: 1:8 (cement :sand)
Slenderness ratio, h/ =3
Axial load, P =224 000N
Eccentricity, e =0mm
Height, H = 675mm
Allowable stress,  all =2.2N/mm2
Stopping error,  = 1.5%
Table AV .4 Result of ISB prism sectional area root

( 1;8, 1 part cement to 8 parts sand)
Iteration
0 0 100
1 95 250 3.9
2 98 750 2.5
3 100 000 1.3
4 100 625 0.6
Note: The result is linearly convergent
B) Data Base:
Block mix: 1:8 (cement: sand)
Axial load, P = 180 000N
Eccentricity , e = 38.33mm
Height, H = 675 mm
Allowable stress ,  all = 2.1N/mm2
Length, l = 440mm
Stopping error,  = 1.5%
172
Table AV .5 Result of ISB prism sectional area root

(1:8, 1 part cement to 8 parts sand)
Iteration
0 0 100
1 1006 25 0.6
2 105 000 4.1
3 110 000 4.3
Note: the result is linearly divergent from the true Value

173
Appendix V
ISB-BLOCKWALL UNDER HORIZONTAL IMPACT LOAD
Assuming a wet bloc in wet ISB wall, subjected to horizontal

force of 124.48kN at the mid-height of the wall, was
considered for design safety of its dimensions.
DATA –BASE FOR ISB BLOCK UNDER IMPACT LOAD

Average weight of blocks ( 7 courses ) on top of the wet block
Under consideration = 192.85kg
Block breadth (B) = 230mm
Block upper tongue width (Tu) = 50mm
Block upper tongue thickness ( ht) = 25,,
Block length (L) = 440mm
Block height (H) = 225mm
Weight of block (m) = 27.55kg
Gross sectional area of the block (A) = 1.017 x 105 mm2
AV (1) Elastic constants of the block

C11 = kA = 13 x 10-8 x 1.017 x 105 = 104.63/mm
C12 = ky A = - 13 x 10-6 x 106.37 x 1.017 x 105 = - 140.631N
= C21
C22 = k  Io + ky2 A = 13 x 10-6 x 2.24 x 108 + 13 x 10-6 x
209.62 x 1.017 x 105 = 5.8 x 106 Nmm
and
2 2 2
0.5(ht TU  ht t 2 )
h1 = = 15.9mm
htTU  Ht
so that the moment of inertial:
2 2
M t  h1 )
Iz = = 1.24 x 106mm4
12 3
Rotation
W = (kIo/Iz)0.5 = 0.015 s-1
Frequency
F = w/2I I = 0.0024 Hz (for 6.98
~ 7min)
Force due to vibration at displacement u = 1
174
2
( C 11 2 ) ( C 22  I 2 w 2 )  C12
F=  mw
( C 22  I 22 w 2 )  C 12 Y
I 2
= K K  C 12
K  C12 Y
(AV.2)
= 1.270N
force due to vibration at natural frequency  =1
( C 11 2 ) ( C 22  I z w 2 )  C 12
F=  mw
Y ( C 11  mw 2 )  C 12
= K I K  C 12 (AV. 2)
Y K  C 12
= 158.059N
AV (2) Safety of the Block Tongue in design
Graphical (triangular )method of optimization was also applied

as mentioned in Appendix II
The problem is to minimize
Z = htTu (AV.3)
Subject to :
a)deformation:
1.2 1.03
F(x1) = 27.99(ht)2 x 10-5 – ( + ) 102 + 2.5 (AV.4)
L TU
Deformation constraint due to impact is expressed as:
 U all  0 (AV.5)
u all = u + h1  ( AV .6)
where; uall allowable displacement, h1 = distance from the top

fibre of the block to its neutral axis and  = frequency of a
b) stress:
unity value
175
158.06 1332.45
F (x 2 )  + 2.75  0 (AV. 7)
hT n L
Stress constraint due to impact is expressed as:
   all  0 (AV.8)
F P
+  all 0 (AV.9)
ht U L B
where: F = impact force due to unit of rotation (158.06N), p –

load due to 7 blocks and roof beam ( 306463n) and fk =
2.75N/mm, B= constant block with of 230mm
Other constraints:
10 < ht < 25 (AV.10)
45 < Tu < 50
(AV.11)
ht + Tu + L = 500
(AV.12)
ht + Tu, L > 0
(AV.13)
Table V.1 Coordinates for upper tongue size
Block length, Tongue thickness

Tongue width,
L (mm) h (mm)
Tu (mm)
440 50 11.33
440 48 11.76
440 45 12.50
440 40 13.00
176
Table V.2 Coordinates for upper tongue size

Block length, Tongue thickness
Tongue width,
L (mm) h (mm)
Tu (mm)
445 50 12.96
445 48 13.40
445 45 14.40
445 40 14.80
Table V.3. Coordinates for upper tongue size
Block length, Tongue width, Tongue Thickness

L (mm) Tu (mm) h (mm)
450 50 14.95
450 4 15.59
450 8 16.65
450 45 16.90
177
Appendix VI
DESIGN EXAMPLE OF ISB WALL
I) Desing for Compression. Figs. AIV.1 – AIV.3 show plan, and

section of the building
DOCUMENTATION
ISB safety factors for loads (f ISB) = 1.42
Partial safety factors of material (m ) = 3.5 (BS 5628, 1985))
Elstic modulus (E) = 1.1 x103 (for the sandscrete at 28 days)
Characteristies strength (fk) of the ISB wall = 2.2 N/mm2.
14645
900 2325 1200 1200 925 1200 925 1000 1150 1150 900
1725
Dinning Kitchen
room Room
1200
925 1200
2100
1200
Main living Guest room

room Bath
3525
+ wc
1200 1200
600 1500 3250 2825 900
925 925 1200
14525 GROUND FLOOR
Fig. AVI.1 Pian of grounf floor
178
14800
3000 120 925120 120 4800
0 0 15500 925
Balcony
bath Stair
Master
+ case
bedroom
wc
Bedroom
4
14800
Family Bedroom 3
lounge
Bath
Balcony
1800 3625 1250 2150 2150 3600
250 250
FLOOR
Fig. AVI. 2 Plan of first floor
179
1200
50
5650
1900
Stair Bedroom
250
2700
Family well 3
lounge
2400
Main
5650
1200
150
Living
2800 150
room Gu
2850
2175
est
900
500
SECTION Y – Y
Fig AVI.3 longitudinal section
The structuralwWalll elements layout of the bilding is shown in

Fig. AVI.4
DESISGN DATABASE
Selfweight of 150mm thick slab = 3.60kNm2
Finishes = 0.025 x 24 = 0.60 kN/m2
Partitions = 1.0kNm2
Deadload of roof = 0.75kn/m2
Imposed load of floor = 1.5kN/m2
180
A B C D
1050 6100 2375 3825 750
1
1
4575
PANEL PANEL 4
1
2 2
4425
PANEL
PANEL 2 3 PANEL 5
3
3
1050
A B C D
Fig. AVI. 4 wal layout
Loading
Loading of the wall is according to BS 5626
Dead + imposed load
Design dead load = 0.9Gk or 1.4Gk
Design live load = 1.6Qk
Dead + Wind Load
181
Design dead load = 0.9gk or 1.4Gk

Design wind load = 1.4Wk or 0.015Gk (which
ever is large)
Accidental Damage
Design dead load = 0.95Gk or 1.05Gk
Design live load = 0.35Qk
Design Wind Load = 0.35Wk
Where: Gk = the charateristic dead load
Qk = the charateristic live load
Wk = the charateristic wind load
Wk is obtained according to BP3, CHP.V, Part 2
Dynamic wind load q = 0.613Vs 2 (= VS1S2S33 V is the speed
of wind
While: si are factors relating to S1 = S2 = 1 and
S3 = coefficient related to roughness of the ground
= 0.613(50 X 1 X 0.6 X 1) / 103
= 0.551N/mm2 x 10 3
The Wind Pressure W = C1 q H8 (N/m)
Where: C1 -1.1
II) Compression Design Of ISB Wall

EXTERNAL LOABEARING WALL A-B (SEE FIG AIV.2) 1ST FLOOR
Table AVI. 1 Load on wall
Loading Dead Load Live Load

kN/m kN/m
Load 1 Gk Load 1 k
P1 Load from parapet wall
9.13 1.4 12.78 2.2 1.6 3.5
1/3(0.23x3.00x13.24x3)
P2 Load from the roof 9.14 1.4 12.79 2.2 1.6 1.6
1/2(1.41x0.5x0.75x5.252
P3 Self weight of wall

27.40 1.4 38.36 -- -- --
0.23x3x13.24x3
63.93 7.0
Total
EXTERNAL LOABEARING WALL A-B (See Fig AIV.2) 1st floor
Total Design Load 70.93
182
II) Compression Design Of ISB Wall
Eccentricity: (Refer to Fig. AVI.2)
(p1 +p2 +p3)e =p21/6
e = 0.088mm < 0.05t, the ecentricty can be neglected
P1  P2
or < 2.33 so that e < 0.03t
P3
33.3  21
ie: = 0.84 ¸< 2.33
63.9
P2
P2 P3
Fig AVI.5 wall A-b
Slenderness Ratio ( SR)

Effective height (Ho) = 0.75 x 3000 = 2250mm
Effective thickness te (= B ) = 230mm
He 2250
Then, SR = =
B 230
= 9.78 ( fig. AI V .5 wall A –B )
183
Design Vertical Load Resistance

For e < 0.05t, SR = 9.78 Table (BS5628)
For the reduction capacity,  = 0.88
Design vertical load =  fk t/ym
0.88 x 2.0 x 230

= = 115. 66kN/m
3. 5
Therefore Desing is ok, since 115.66 kN/N
Note that the horizontal sectinal area of the wall is 0.69mmm2.

this is more than 0.2mm2 modification
Factor (of 1.15) is not required
Desing for Horizontal load
Ultimate lateral load flat = 0.021GK

= 1.34N/mm2
horizontal load Resistance
8Pt 8 x127.2 x 230
qlat = 2
= = 7.43kn/m
H Ym 32 x 3.5
qlat = flat.Desing load is ok
Dising moment :
m = Y1flat H2 (for the wall vertically soanned
)
= 0.012 x 1.2 x 1.34 x 9 = 0.17 kNm
Utimate moment or Resistance
ftH 2
MU =
6 Ym
2.0 x 0.233 x9
= = 0.19kNm
6 3.5
INTERNAL LOADBEARING WALL (A – B ) Fig AVI.6

Loading
K = lyIx = 1.33 and w = 1.4x 5.2 + 1.6 x 1.5 = 9.68kN/m

184
Dead load:
2
Dead load from roof = 0.5[k -0.5]w Ix = 9.12 (factored )
Dead load from left Slab = 43.87kN
Dead load from rigth slab = 20.90kN
Dead load of wall = 18.77kN/m
Self load: = 14.40kN/m
Live load:
Live load from left slab = 20.90kN
live load from right Slab = 19.51kN
total dead load (Gk) = 50.17kN/m
Total live load (Qk) P2 P2 = 6.62kN/m
P2
Fig. AVI.6 wall A-B
From Fig.AVI.6:
P1 = 9.12 x 2/6.1 + 18.77 = 21.76kn/m

P2 = (43.84 +20.9)/6.1 = 10.61 kN/m
P3 = (19.51 + 40.95 ) 6.1 = 9.91 kN/m
Vertical load Design

Total desig axial load = 1.4Gk + 1.6Qk = 80.83 kN/m
Eccentricity of load = 0.01t
Capacity reduction factor  = 0.88(BS 5628, Table 7) in
Table 31 desing vertical load resistance,
Nr = 976kN/m
Nr >; Design load ok.
185
Horizontal load Design

Ultimate load, flot = 0.021Gk =1.05 kN/m
Horizotal load resistance, qlat = 9.05kN/m
Ultimate moment, m = 0.12kNm
Ultimate moment of resistance of wall, Mu = 3.18kNm
Mu > m for t = 230 mm is adequate
EXTERNWALL (1-2 ) Fig AVI.7

Factored Dead load from Roof = ¼ w Ik 2=1.03kN/m
P3 = 1.03 + weight of the wall at the right slab = 19.0 kN/m
Dead load of Right Slab = 3.54 kN/m
Live load of Right Slab = 1.27kN/m
P2 = 19.80 + 3.54 + 1.27 = 24.61 kN/m
Dead load from left Slab =

= 1.4 (0.2 x 1.0 + 0.15 x 0.9)
= 0.42kN/m
Live load from left Slab = 1.35kN/m
P1 = 0.42 + 1.35 = 1.77kN/m
Selfweigth of wall = 14.4kN/m

Dead load Gk = 27.26 kN/m
Love load Qk = 262kN/m
Total load = 29.88kN/m
P3
P4
P1 P2
Fig AVI .7 wall 1-2

186
Vertical load Design

Design axial load = 1.4Gk + 1.6Qk
Eccentricity of load e = 0.37t(refer to Fig. VII)
Capacity reduction factor  = 0.44(BS5628, Table 7)
Vertical load resistance Nr = 48.8kN/m
Horizontal load Design

Ultimate lateral load flat = 0.021Gk =0.57 kn/m
Horizontal load resistance qlat = 4.53kN/m
Moment of resistance m = 0.064kNm
Ultimate moment of resistance Mu = 3.18kNm
Mu > m, for t = 230 mm

No further check required
187
Appendix VII
Calculation for Economical Bases for Comparison
There aere two basic method that were employed here to

made economic comparisons of alternatives. The Annual cost
(AC) and the present worth (PW) methods. The annual base
cmparison reduces all revenues and expenditures over
selected time to an equivatlent annual value, while the present
worth comparisons is when all anticipated revenues and
expenditures are expressed by their equvalent present values.
In the later the vale life span for all the options must be used
for valid comparisons .
EXAMPLES
Annual Base Comparison
Adesing wall of the two storey building has twio options, A

(interwoven Sandcrete Block, ISB,wall ) and B (Conventional
wall, CW) option A will cost N254,000.00 while option B costs
N 265,000.00. using the annual base method of comparison
with a 12% interest rate, which option should be chosen, if
both walls will have a 100 years life span.
The initial cost is converted to equivalent yearly payment using
capital recovery factor (Refer to Chapter 4, Table 4.1)
Solution:
a) for ISB – wall (option A )

Annul cost (AC)ISB = 254 000 crf ( 0.21 100 ) + 8 000
254 000 x 0.01 800
=
0.63
= N12,031.76
Note that; i = 0.12/12months, n = 100years, so that crf =

0.63
b) for CW (option B)
Annual Cost (AC)cw = 265 000 x 0.01 + 7900

= N 12,106.33
Option A is Cheaper.
188
Present Worth Comparison

Here there is th ned to convert the annual meaintainance costs
to its lpresent values, then the unifom series woorth factor,
uspwf (Refer to Chapter Three. Table 3.2 ) is employed.
Solution:
a) for ISB wall (option A)

present worth of design (PW )ISB:
(PW)ISB = 254 000 + 8 000 uspwf (0.12,100)

= 254 000 +8 000 x 63 .03
=N 758 240. 00
b) for CW (option B)
present worth of design (PW)CW
(PW)CW = 3265 000 + 7 800 x 63.03

= N 762 937
Option A is the best alternative to B
189
Appendix VIII
Table AVIII. 1 compresive strength and strain for isb prism

(h/t = 3 , 1:8(1part cement to 8 part sand )mix
Spacimen Sectional Crushing Compression Strain Eccentri Remark
Identificall area x103 load kN strength -city
No mm2 N/mm2 mm
1 101.670 163 1.6 0.25
2 101.670 214 2.1 0.40 Max,
18-6 3 101.670 244 2.4 0.70 0 strain
4 101.670 275 2.7 1.00
5 101.670 255 2.8 1.20
1 69.050 62 0.9 0.30
2 69.050 68 1.0 0.50
18-3 69.050 109 1.6 0.90 t/6 Max,
4 69.050 137 1.9 1.20 strain
5 69.050 152 2.2 1.53 1.53
1 20.010 - - -
2 20.010 42 2.1 0.25
ECF 3 20.010 54 2.7 0.40 t/3 Max,
(18-6)4 20.010 56 2.8 0.70 strain
5 20.010 58 29 1.00 1.00
1 17.200 31 1.8 0.15
2 17.200 33 1.9 0.25
ECF 3 17.200 36 2.1 0.35 5t/12 Max
(18-7 4 17.200 43 2.5 0.50 strain
5 17.200 53 3.1 0.50 0.50
ECF = eccentricity laod for 1:8 mi, t = prism thickness

190
Table AVIII. 2 Compresive strength and strain for ISB prism

(h/t = 3 , 1:8(1part cement to 8 part sand )mix
Spaciemn Sectional Crushing Compression Strain Eccentri Remark
Identificall area x103 load kN strength city
No mm2 N/mm2 mm
1 102.000 143 1.4 0.25
2 102.000 173 1.7 0.40 Max,
18-6 3 102.000 255 2.3 0.70 0 Strain
4 102.000 255 2.5 0.80 1.50
5 102.000 265 2.6 1.50
1 70,000 98 1.4 0.15
2 70,000 119 1.4 0.25
ECF18-3 70,000 161 2.3 0.40 t/6 Max,
4 70,000 175 2.5 0.60 strain
5 70,000 217 3.1 0.90 0.90
1 20.000 26 1.3 0.20
2 20.000 34 1.7 0.25
ECF 3 20.000 44 2.2 1.75 t/3 Max,
(18-6)4 20.000 48 2.3 0.83 strain
5 20.000 58 2.9 1.05 1.05
1 17.100 26 1.5 0.10
2 17.100 26 1.5 0.40
ECF 3 17.100 43 2.5 0.50 5t/12 Max
(18-7 4 17.100 46 2.7 0.65 strain
5 17.100 51 2.8 0.90 0.90
ECF = eccentricity load for 1:8 mi, t = prism thickness
191
Table AVlll.3 compressive strength and strain for isb

prism(h/t=2) 1:6 (1 part cement to 6 parts sand) mix
Identificall area x103 load kN strength city mm
No mm2 N/mm2
1 101.680 122 1.2 0.25
2 101.680 193 1.9 0.51 Max,
16-1 3 101.680 244 2.4 0.80 0 Strain
4 101.680 285 2.8 1.25 1.5
5 101.680 275 2.7 1.50
1 69,003 83 1.2 0.18

2 69,003 124 1.8 0.30
ECF3 69,003 152 2.2 0.60 t/6 Max,
(16-3) 4 69,003 166 2.4 0.71 strain
5 69,003 186 2.7 0.85 0.85
1 19.165 23 1.2 0.15

2 19.165 36 1.9 0.25
ECF 3 19.165 46 2.4 0.51 t/3 Max,
(16-5)4 19.165 56 2.9 0.75.0. strain
5 19.165 60 3.1 80 0.8
1 17.181 21.0 1.2 0.10

2 17.181 33 1.9 0.15
ECF 3 17.181 48 2.8 0.25 5t/12 Max
(18-8) 4 17.181 50 2.9 0.3 strain
5 17.181 60 3.5 0.5 0.35
ECF = eccentricity load for 1:6 mix, t = prism thickness

192
Table AVIII3 Compressive strength and strain for ISB

Prism(h/t=2) 1:6 (1 part cement to 6 parts sand) mix
Identificall area x103 load kN strength city mm
No mm2 N/mm2
1 101.720 142 1.4 0.25
2 101.720 203 2.0 0.40 Max,
16-1 3 101.720 254 2.5 0.51 0 Strain
4 101.720 285 2.6 0.57 0.57
1 69,200 104 1.5 0.18

2 69,200 130 1.9 0.28
ECF3 69,200 160 2.4 0.40 t/6 Max,
(16-3) 4 69,200 187 2.7 0.55 strain
5 69,200 180 2.6 0.55 0.55
1 19.170 29 1.5 0.15
2 19.170 38 2.0 0.25
ECF 3 19.170 48 2.5 0.36 t/3 Max,
(16-5)4 19.170 52 2.7 0.51.0. strain
5 19.170 63 3.2 53 0.53
1 17.220 26 1.5 0.15
2 17.220 34 2.0 0.16
ECF 3 17.220 65 2.3 0.30 Max
(18-8) 4 17.220 45 2.6 0.35 5t/12 strain
5 17.220 53 3.1 0.40 0.40
ECF = eccentricity load for 1:6 mix, t = prism thickness

193
194
STRENGTH CHARACTERISTIS OF
INTERWOVEN SANDCRETE
MASONRY
By
ADEDEJI, ABDULLAH ADEOLA

PHD/ENG/3918.89
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL

FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT
FOR THE AWARD OF DOCTOR OF
PHILOSOPHY (PHD) DEGREE IN CIVIL
ENGINEERING
in the
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY
ZARIA- NIGERIA
February 2000
195
ii
DECLARATION
I hereby declared that this thesis has been prepared by me

and that it is a record of my own research work. It has not
been published in any publication for a higher degree.
Adedeji, Abdullah Adeola

iii
196
CERTIFICATION
iv
197
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In te, anime meus temporal metior…In my Mind I Measure

Time.
My profound gratitude to Dr S P Ejeh, who supervised this

work. He made this work possible to materialise by making
himself available, accessible even during turbulent times. His
direct approach to academia provided me a high-rise place to
see further than this horizon. I appreciate this efforts.
There are teachers and friends who cared: Prof O Adebisi

(ABU), Prof O A Adetifa (Unilorin), Prof B F Sule (Unilorin), Prof
Bello Ochende (Unilorin), Dr K J Osinubi (member of
supervisory committee), Dr Osula (ABU), Dr J Afolayan
(member of supervisory committee), Prof B M Adeyemi
(Unilorin), Dr S A Adedayo (Unilorin), Dr K Adeniran (unilorin),
Engr A A Jimoh (Unilorin, Engr A B Ibitoye (Unilorin), Engr D J
Galega (Unilorin), Engr O Olu (Unilorin), Dr Y A Jimoh
(Unilorin), Dr Y A Abdulkareem(Unilorin)...
There are acquaintances of large hearts: Messers Njoku,

Mercus, Igwe and Moses, all of the Central workshop (ABU-
Civil Engineering); Mr Salamu (Unilorin-Central Workshop,
Faculty of Engineering), Mr Bala Achika (secretary, Department
of Civil Eng., ABU).
To my supporting wife, who stood patiently to see the success

of the work.
My sincere thankfulness to the Authority of the University of

Ilorin for granting me two years staff development during the
course of this study.
….Name no names. There are others who sat quietly, read and
criticised this work to fruition.
May you all be blessed.

Ogeshogun Samantino.
A A Adedeji.
v
198
ABSTRACT
The compressive strength tests performed on the interwoven

sandcrete block (ISB) units and its masonry (prism and wall),
indicated that the ratio of wall strength to block is 0.84. This is
reasonably very high when compared with the conventional
masonry wall of 0.35, indicating a high load bearing value for
ISB masonry. The ISB wall strength is 1.06 of the conventional
sandcrete wall strength. The minimum value for the
eccentricity of load for ISB wall is 0.065t while the maximum is
0.303t, if it is wall thickness.
Database, from the physical and strength properties of the
ISB used in the analyses of the wall, complies with the
referenced standards [BS6073(1981), BS 5628(1985). A steel
die-mould was fabricated for the production of ISB block.
Special attention was paid to the optimization of the masonry.
The cost function was maximized subject to stresses and
deformation. ISB wall cost is twice the cost of initial design,
without optimization. Triangular (graphical) method of
optimization for 3 design variables (wall sectional area, height
and eccentricity) was adopted being a very simple and
accurate method. From the above optimization, feasible region
was identified and a best least design cost function of
1.80E8mm3 was generated at eccentricity of 15mm, wall
height of 3600 mm and 50000 mm2 sectional areas.
In order to prevent the effect of missiles or any other
impact force from damaging the ISB block or directly on the
tongue, a design section of the block upper tongue has been
optimized. The result shows that, the tongue sectional area
(perpendicular to the direction of force) of 564mm2 will resist
maximum impact force of 12.02N.
The design of a typical residential building (two storey)
using ISB-wall as load bearing, show that, ISB wall can replace
the conventional wall structurally.
This study has shown that joint mortar decreases,
adversely, the compressive strength of a masonry.
For fast track construction, methods of laying block were
recommended, while a lightweight tapping tool (not heavier
than 120kg) is used during installation of electrical and water
appliances.
vi
199
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER Title Page i
Declaration ii
Certification iii
Acknowledgement iv
Abstract v
List of Figures x
List of Plates xi
List of Tables xii
Notation xv
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem 2
1.3 Objective of the Research 2
1.4 Scope of the Research 3
1.5 Methodology 3
1.6 Thesis Presentation and Organization 3
2. RELATED LITERATURE REVIEW

AND ANALYSIS 5
2.1 General 5
2.2 Masonry Unit-mortar Composition 7
2.3 Masonry Failure Theory 16
2.4 Stability of Masonry 19
2.4.1 Wall Subjected to Eccentricity Load 22
2.4.2 Evaluation of Eccentricity of Wall 25
2.4.3 Wall subjected to Vertical and
Horizontal Load 27
2.5 Limit State Design of Masonry work 27
2.5.1 Design of Wall under Vertical Load 29
2.5.2 Wall under Eccentric Load 30
2.5.3 Wall under Vertical and Lateral Load 31
2.5.4 Determination of Effective Height 32
2.5.5 Analysis and Design 32
2.5.6 Economic Aspect of ISB-masonry 3
vii
200
3. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME AND

RESULTS 35
3.1 Preamble 35
3.2 Die-Mould, its Design Concept
and Assumptions 35
3.3 Compaction Pressure on ISB-BLOCK
in Moulding 39
3.4 Production of ISB Block specimens 42
3.4.1 Particle Size Distribution 42
3.5 Batching, Mounding and curing of Block 43
3.6 ISB Block Dimensions, Dry Unit
weight and density 44
3.7 Absorption Tests 46
3.7.1 24h Water Absorption 46
3.8 Moisture Content Test 47
3.9 Block Compressive Strength Test 48
3.10 Masonry Prism Strength Tests 49
3.11 ISB-Prism Stress-Strain Relationship 61
3.12 Compressive Strength Test for ISB Wall 65
3.13 Compaction Test for ISB-Block Tongue 67
3.14 Specification for Interwoven Sandcrete Block 71
4. PROPERTIES AND MODEL EQUATIONS FOR

INTERWOVEN SANDCRETE BLOCK WALL (ISB) 72
4.1 Compressive Stress Regime 72
4.2 Uniaxial Compression 74
4.2.1 Stress-Strain Relationship 74
4.3 Uniaxial tension 76
4.4 Data on Poisson’s Ratio and Young’s Modulus 77
4.5 Stability of Interwoven Sandcrete Block (ISB)
Wall 78
4.5.1 ISB Wall Displacement 78
4.5.2 Displacement of ISB-wall due to
Horizontal Load 78
4.5.3 Determination of Critical Condition 83
4.5.3.1 Combined Vertical and Lateral Load
for ISB-wall 83
4.5.3.2 Wall Model 83
4.6 ISB Wall under Horizontal Impact Load on
Block Tongue 85
viii
201
4.6.1 Analytical Models 85

4.7 Triangular System of Optimization Method 91
4.7.1 Triangular Method of Optimization 92
4.7.2 Data Base 92
4.7.3 ISB-Wall under Vertical and
Horizontal Load 93
4.7.4 Damaged Conditions of ISB Block
due to Impact 96
4.7.5 Optimal Design of the ISB Block tongue 98
4.7.6 Load factor and Correlation Coefficient of
ISB in compression 98
4.7.7 Strength Model 99
4.7.8 Load Factor 100
4.7.9 Prism-wall Strength 101
4.8 Optimal design for ISB-wall 101
4.8.1 Analytical Formulation for the 101
ISB-wall Design Safety
4.8.2 Constraints 101
4.9 Analysis of ISB-wall Cost Estimation
and Comparison 102
4.91 Cost Control 102
4.9.2 Labour Cost Control 103
4.9.3 Comparison for Economic Bases 104
5. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS

5.1 Products of Steel Die Moulding Machine 106
5.2 Properties of the ISB Block 106
5.3 Physical and Strength Properties of ISB Prism 107
5.4 ISB Prism Failure Modes 111
5.5 ISB Wall Failure Mode 116
5.6 Prism-Wall Relationship 116
5.7 Load Factor 120
5.8 Stress-Strain Relationship 121
5.9 Load-Deflection Analysis 123
5.9.1 Deflection due to Vertical Loads 123
5.9.2 Wall Deflection due to Horizontal
and Vertical Loads 126
5.10 Cost foundation of ISB wall 127
5.11 Triangular (graphical) Method of Optimization 127
5.12 Safe-size Design of ISB Upper Tongue 136
5.13 Application of Results 138
202
ix
5.14 Wall-Block Relationship 140

5.15 Numerical Example in Design 140
6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 143

6.1 Conclusion 143
6.2 Recommendations 144
REFERENCES 152
APPENDICES 158
Appendix I Strength-Eccentricity
Regression Analysis 158
Appendix II Prism-Wall Relationship 162
Appendix III Calculation Example of

ISB Wall Deflection 167
Appendix IV Root: Bisection Method 168
Appendix V ISB-Block wall under Horizontal

Impact Load 173
Appendix VI Design example of ISB Wall 177
Appendix VII Calculation for Economical Basis for

Comparison 187
Appendix VIII Compressive Strength and Strain

Tables AVII.1 to AVII.4 189
x
203
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig.2.1 Unit-mortar Composition under Vertical Load

Fig.2.2 Effect of Mortar Strength on Wall Strength
Fig.2.3 Behaviour of Joint under Eccentricity
Fig.2.4 Failure of wall by Vertical Cracking
Fig.2.5 Masonry Failure Curve
Fig.2.6 Stress in Block work under Ultimate Load
Fig.2.7 Rotation of wall due to Eccentricity
Fig.2.8 Wall Eccentricity
Fig.2.9 Stress Distribution of Wall under Eccentricity
Fig.3.1 Axometric Diagram of ISB Die-mould by Parts
Fig.3.2 Assembled ISB Mounlding Machine
Fig.3.3 Particle Size Distribution Curve
Fig.3.4 Prism Test Specimens
Fig.3.5 Test Arrangement for Prim Specimens
Loaded Eccentrically
Fig.3.6 Stress-strain Relationship
Fig.3.10Stress-strain Relationship
Fig.3.11Stress-strain Relationship
Fig.3.12Test arrangement for wall
Fig.3.13Types of Block Tongues Making a Specimen
Fig.3.14Test Arrangement for a Set of Block Tongues
Fig.4.1 Dimensionless Stress-strain Relationship
Fig.4.2 Wall Disposition
Fig.4.3 Wall disposition due to Horizontal and Vertical Load
Fig.4.4 Instability of wall Pinned at Support
Fig.4.5 Geometrical (model) Position of ISB Block in the wall
Fig.4.6 Displacement of ISB-wall Block Subjected
to External Dynamic Force
Fig.4.7 Triangular Coordinates System
Fig.4.8 Damage Conditions of ISB-Blocks due to Impact Loads
Fig.5.1 Fully Cracked face shell on the Compression Side
Fig.5.2 Strength/Eccentricity for Crushed Blocks
Fig.5.3 ISB Prism Load-Eccentricity Relationship
Fig.5.4 ISB Prism Load-Eccentricity Relationship
Fig.5.5 Sample mean weight factor
Fig.5.6 Relationship between ISB Prism and
xi
204
Wall Strength (   0, 1:6 cement-sand ratio)

Wall Strength (   1, 1:6 cement-sand ratio)
Wall Strength (   0, 1:8cement-sand ratio)
Wall Strength (   1, 1:8cement-sand ratio)
Fig.5.10 Wall-prism Relationship
Fig.5.11 Young Modulus of Elasticity
Fig.5.15 Load-Deflection Relationship
Fig.5.19 Lateral Load-Deflection Relationship
Fig.5.20 Superimposition of Constraints
Graphs for Optimizing A, H, e for ISB Wall
Fig.5.21 Representations of Constraints with Feasible
Zone for A, H, e for ISB Wall
Fig.5.22 Totality of Feasible Solutions for A, H, e of ISB Wall
Fig.5.23 Optimum Solution for A, H, e of ISB Wall
Fig.5.24 Superimposing of Constraints for Optimizing
A, H, e for ISB wall
Fig.5.25 Representation of Constraints with Feasible Zone
for A, H, e for ISB wall
Fig.5.26 Totality of Feasible Solution for A, H, e for ISB wall
Fig.5.27 Optimum Solution for A, H, e of ISB wall
Fig.5.28 Representation of constraints with feasible Zone for
ISB block Upper Tongue
Fig.5.29 Totality of Feasible Solution for ISB Block Upper
Tongue
Fig.5.30 Optimum Solution for ISB Block Upper Tongue
Fig.5.31 Short-Time Design Stress-strain curve for ISB wall
Fig.5.32 Wall-Block Relationship
Fig.6.1 Laying of ISB Blocks (1st course)
Fig.6.2 Laying of ISB Blocks (2nd course)
Fig.6.3 Laying of ISB Blocks (3rd course)
Fig.6.4 Laying of ISB Blocks (Side course)
xii
205
Fig.6.5 Laying of ISB Blocks (Axometric view)

Fig.6.6 Position of Lintel Beam in ISB Wall
Fig.6.7 Typical ISB Wall with Vertical
Dummy Reinforcement
Fig.AVI.1 Plan of Ground Floor
Fig.AVI.2 Plan of First Floor
Fig.AVI.3 Longitudinal Section
Fig.AVI.4 Layout Structural wall Elements
xi
206
LIST OF PLATES
Plate I The Tomb of Christian

Plate II Typical ISB Full-and Half-Block
Plate III ISB-Block on the Die-Mould
Plate IV Block Tongues under Impact Load
Plate V Failure of Prism, e = 0
Plate VI Failure of Prism, e = t/3
Plate VII Failure of Prism, e = 5t/12
Plate VIII Failure of conventional-Block Prism
207
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Effect of Different Joint Materials on the

Compressive Strength of three Brick Stack
Prisms
Table 3.1 ISB Die-Mould Specification
Table 3.2 Grading of Sand for ISB Block
Table 3.3 ISB- Block Dimensions
Table 3.4 ISB- Block Weight and Density
Table 3.5 ISB- Block Weight and Density
Table 3.6 ISB- Block 24HRS Water Absorption
Table 3.7 ISB- Block Moisture Content
Table 3.8 Compressive Strength Results for
ISB Block, 1:8 (1 Part Cement to 8 Parts Sand)
Mix
Table 3.9 Compressive Strength Results for ISB Block,
1:6(1
Part Cement to 6 Parts Sand) Mix
Table 3.10 Average Compressive Strength Results
For ISB Block, 1:6(1 Part Cement to 6 Parts
Sand) Mix
Table 3.11 Average Compressive Strength Results
For ISB Block, 1:8(1 Part Cement to 8 Parts
Sand) Mix
Table 3.12 Compressive Strength Comparison Between
the Conventional and ISB- Blocks
Table 3.13 Results of Compressive Strength of ISB Prism
(e=0, h/t=3) 1:8 (1 Part Cement to 8 Part
Sand) Mix
(e=0, h/t=2) 1:8 (1 Part Cement to 8 Parts
Sand) Mix
(e=0, h/t=3) 1:8 (1 Part Cement to 6 Parts
Sand) Mix
(e=6, t/3, 5t/12) 1:8 (1 Part Cement to 8
Parts Sand) Mix
Table 3.17 Results of Compressive Strength of ISB Wall
(e=0) 1:8 (1 Part Cement to 8 Parts Sand) Mix
Table 3.18 Results of Compressive Strength of ISB Wall
xiii
208
(e=0) 1:6 (1 Part Cement to 6 Parts Sand) Mix

Table 3.19 Impact Force Results on Wet ISB-block
Tongues,
1; 8 (Part Cement to 8 Parts Sand) Mix
Table 3.20 Impact Force Results on Dry ISB-Block
Tongues,
1:6 (1Part Cement to 6 Parts Sand) Mix
Table 3.21 Prism-Block Relationship in Compression, 1:8
(1 Part Cement to 8 parts sand) Mix
(1 Part Cement to 8 Parts Sand) Mix
(1 Parts Cement to 6 Parts Sand) Mix
(1 Parts Cement to 6 Parts Sand) Mix
Table 3.25 Compressive Strength of ISB Wall at 28 Days
Old,
1:6 (1 Part Cement to 6 Parts Sand) Mix
Table 3.26 Compressive Strength of ISB Wall at 28 Days
Old,
1:8 (1 Part Cement to 8 Parts Sand) Mix
Table 3.27 Impact Force Test Results on Wet ISB-Block
Tongues, 1;8 (1 Part Cement to 8 Parts Sand)
Mix
Table 3.28 Impact Force Test Results
On Dry ISB-Block Tongues, 1:6 (1 Part
Cement to 8 Parts Sand) Mix
Table 3.29 Ordering Specification for the ISB Block
Table 5.1 Material Property, Unit Cost and Other
Geometrical Conditions
Table 5.2 Unit Price Comparison Between ISB and
Conventional Wall
Table A11.1 Results of Analysis for Prism-wall Relationship
(  =0, p=0.1,a=0.35,1.8(Cement: Sand) Mix,
fm=2.2N/mm2 )
Table Al l.2 Results of Analysis for Prism-Wall Relationship
(  =0, p=0.3, a=0.641:8(Cement: Sand)
Mix,fm=2.2N/mm2
Table Al l.3 Results of Analysis for Prism-Wall
Relationship
209xiv
(  =0, p=0.9, a=0.99, 1:8 (Cement: Sand)

Mix, Fm=2.2N/mm2)
Relationship (  =1, p=0.9, a=0.9, 1:8
(Cement: Sand) Mix, Fm=2.2N/mm2
Relationship (  =1, p=0.3, a=0.81, 1:8
(Cement: Sand) Mix,
Fm=2.2N/mm2
Relationship (  =1, p=0.3, a=0.81, 1:8
(Cement: Sand) Mix,Fm=2.2N/mm2
Table Alv.1 Results of ISB Prism Sectional Area Root
(1:8,1 Part Cement to 8 Parts Sand)
Table Alv.2 Results of ISB Prism Sectional Area Root
(1:8,1 Part Cement to 8 Parts Sand)
Table Alv.3 Results of ISB Prism Sectional Area Root (1:8,
1partCement to 8 Parts Sand)
Table Alv.4 Results of ISB Prism Sectional Area Root (1:8,
1part Cement to 8 Parts Sand)
TableAlv.5 Results of ISB Prism Sectional Area Root (1:8,
1part Cement to 8 Parts Sand)
TableAv.1 Coordinates for Upper Tongue Size
TableAvl.1 Loading on Wall
TableAvll.1 Compressive Strength and Strain for ISB-
Prism (h/t=3), 1:8 (1 Part Cement to 8 Parts
Sand)
Sand)
Sand)
Sand)
210xv
NOTATION
A Cross Sectional Area of the Wall

Ab Water Absorption of the Block
Af Sectional Area of Floor Slab
Ag Cross Sectional Area of Block
Am Sectional Area of Masonry
An Net Sectional Area of Block
an Span Between the Walls
B With of the Block
Bbo Block Object
Bl Lower Block
Bu upper block
b vector matrix for definite structural stiffness
c Unit cost of block
c Definite wall stiffness
ci Constant of integration
cik Elastic constant
c11 Horizontal force essential for horizontal displacement
c12 Moment which prevents the rotation of the block by
horizontal displacement
c21 Horizontal force at the centre of gravity of the block
c22 Moment essential for the rotation of block
[c] Compliance non-zero matrix elements
cx Elastic constant along horizontal direction
cy Elastic constant along vertical direction
D Density of block
D Determinant for rotation
Du Determinant for displacement
D Damage number
dc Depth of compression block due to vertical load
E Modulus of elasticity
Ebs Secant modulus for wall
Ej Modulus for elasticity of wall mortar-joint
Ek Modulus of elasticity for wall (masonry)
Em Modulus of elasticity for mortar
Eu Modulus of elasticity of unit (block)
e Eccentricity
F Horizontal force
F Force matrix represents a reduced loading system on
the damaged block
211xvi
Fhl Horizontal force due to slap / beam and wind

F Compressive strength of block
Fci Cylindrical (uniaxial compressive) strength of
sandcrete
fd Design strength
fhorz Applied horizontal stress
fk Characteristic strength of wall (masonry)
fkm Moderated characteristic strength of wall
fm Mean characteristic strength
fmc Compressive strength of sandcrete
fme Compressive strength of prism due to eccentric load
fmh Prior mean strength of prism
fmo Characteristic strength of block
fmp Posterior strength of wall
fvert Vertical stress in triaxial compression of mortar
G Gravity centre
H Height of wall
Hm Random variable (strength) related to materials
Hb Height of block
h Height of masonry prism
hb Height of block (excluding tongue)
ht Height of upper block tongue
I Second moment of area
Ii Second moment of area for number of walls
Iz Second moment of area of block to the axis of rotation
K Coefficient of compressibility for the rotating block
Kx Coefficient of compressibility (bearing capacity) of
rapid block due to its weight
Ky Coefficient of compressibility of rigid body in vertical
direction
L Length of block
Lt Length of block upper tongue
I Number (point) of impact loading on block
M Bending moment
Mb Maximum elastic moment
Ms Stability moment
Mu (Ultimate) moment (internal) of resistance
m Mass of the block
N Axial force in the slab
 Weight factor of masonry
( ) Variables associated with damaged conditions
xvii
212
 bo Upper block face shell damaged by crushing/cracking

 ii Variables for damaged conditions for i-th degree of
freedom by I-th impact load
L Lower block web damaged by crushing and tongue of
lower block damaged by shear
u Upper block face shell damaged by shear
 Reduction factor capacity
Yt Partial safety factor for load
Ym Partial safety factor for material
 II Block displacement of i-th degree of freedom by i-th
impact load
 I ' u Lower and upper limits on the i-th displacement
respectively
 Strain (deformation)
c Equivalent strain
i Slab strain (volumetric)
m Ultimate strain
o Strain at 0.002
I Maximum strain on the curve
 5ou Strain corresponding to 0.5fc
 2ou Strain corresponding to 0,2fc
p Correlation coefficient of the prior strength of prism
p Correlation coefficient of the prior strength of wall
Q Normal stress
Qall Allowable normal stress
Qc Equivalent (limiting) stress
Qm Ultimate stress at crushing failure of mortar
Ni Axial force in the slabs
Ng Gross crushing load
n Load combination
P Axial (vertical) load on wall
Pi Axial loads on number of walls
Pall Allowable characteristic load
Pcr Eulers critical load
Pm Allowable mean load
xviii
213
S Geomaetricla characteristics
Smh Standard deviation due to strength of prisms
Tfs Face shell thickness
Tu Upper tongue width
Ts Side tongue width
Tw Web thickness
t Wall (prism) thickness
tj Wall mortar joint thickness
u Horizontal displacement
V Standard normal variable independent of structural
strength
W Wind (horizontal) load
wb Weight of block in measuring Elastic modulus
y Deflection of wall
Zg Gross sectional modulus of the wall
ZI Zero-mean uncorrelated random sequence due to
fluctuation in the strength
Zmax,c Maximum cost
Zmin,V Minimum cost
Qo Modified strength due to plane strain effect
Qo Normal stress at maximum point on curve
Qu Normal stress of unit in crushing
Qu Limiting compressive stress

Strength Characteristics of Interwoven Sandcrete Block Masonry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Strength Characteristics of Interwoven Sandcrete Block Masonry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

0

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

ADEDEJI, ABDULLAH ADEOLA

Interwoven block walling is a system of wall erection whereby

1.2 Statement of the Problems

As a result of low rate of housing construction, in Nigeria and

1.3 Objectives of the Research

The objectives of this study include:-

(1) determination of bearing capacity of the Sandcrete

1.4 Scope of the Research

This research work involves building external wall, built in

a. A steel die-mould was designed for making block units

1.6 Thesis Presentation and Organization

In the study, six main chapters have been presented. Chapter

related literature review and analysis, while Chapter Three is

RELATED LITERARATURE REVIEW AND ANALYSES

Not far West of Algiers, there stands a monumental tomb of a

Plate I The Tomb of Christian

Lock-blocks, in the past, have been put to use in

the masonry to this loading and a lot of investigations (Ahmed,

2.2 Masonry Unit-Mortar Composition

Masonry is a composite structure made of units (such as

The wall strength, therefore, corresponds to the strength of

If we consider a unit-mortar prism subjected to an axial

where: σu, σm = stress in unit, mortar respectively

The lateral strains in the mortar and unit are assumed to

σm = d/t.σu = r.σu (2.3)

where: d = depth of the unit

From equation (2.1) and (2.2):

The limiting compressive stress is:

Comparing the formula with experimental results, using

Assuming that both mortar and block are elastic, the

f vert = fc' + 4 f horz (2.8)

In evaluating compressive strength of masonry wall by limit

Table 2.1: Effect of different joint materials on the

of tests on blockwork carried out by the Cement and Concrete

Cellular block = 14.0/mm2

Fig. 2.2 Effect of mortar strength on wall strength

In a solid blockwork therefore, mortar can be considered

the aspect ratio increases, the ratio of wall strength to unit

decreases. Fig. 2.3 indicates the behaviour of joint under

(a) Low eccentricity (b) High eccentricity

Fig. 2 Behaviour of joint under eccentricity (Roberts et al,

Rotation of the joint  is expressed as:

EJ = modulus of elasticity of joint

Tensile stress that can develop between the block and

2.3 Masonry Failure Theory

Considering the influence of mortar on block-unit of a wall

Fig. 2.4 Failure of wall by vertical cracking

Compressive failure occurs when the transverse tensile strain

As the vertical compression acting on the black work prism

dominated by the fracture of mortar joints as well as the

2.4 Stability of Masonry

Masonry is basically a dead load structure and it is expected

construction could not be one of the major factors for the

In this investigation, however, an approach to the analysis

2.4.1 Wall Subjected to Eccentric Load

Fig. 2.6 Stress in blockwork under ultimate load

In section 2.2 for masonry, of a unit-mortar combination,

100 n = 7.5 N/mm2

In the critical section of wall, there are two modes of

and 2) for walls with relatively light vertical-load, the mortar in

members have no tensile strength. They extended this method