Materials and Structures (2016) 49:3831–3845
DOI 10.1617/s11527-015-0757-5
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Suitability of fly ash brick masonry as infill in reinforced
concrete frames
Syed Humayun Basha . Hemant B. Kaushik
Received: 10 October 2014 / Accepted: 23 November 2015 / Published online: 27 November 2015
Ó RILEM 2015
Abstract Past experimental studies have shown that
fly ash bricks are softer and weaker in comparison with
burnt clay bricks and mortar generally used on site.
Thus, mechanics of masonry under compression is
altered such that the softer bricks are under tri-axial
compression and mortar is under bilateral tension. An
experimental study was carried out to understand the
lateral load response of reinforced concrete (RC)
frame infilled with fly ash brick masonry. Results
showed that the frame provided reasonably good
results in terms of lateral strength, stiffness, deforma-
tion, and energy dissipation. Using an analytical
model developed from the experimental results a
parametric study was carried out to compare the
influence of using both fly ash and burnt clay brick
masonry as infill in RC frames. Though frames infilled
with fly ash brick masonry exhibited slightly lesser
lateral strength and stiffness, the degradation in lateral
load carrying capacity in post peak regime was
significantly more gradual due to soft nature of fly
ash bricks. Finally, to understand the possible reasons
for the weak and soft nature of fly ash bricks, three
S. H. Basha  H. B. Kaushik (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Guwahati, Guwahati 781039, India
e-mail: s.basha@iitg.ac.in
H. B. Kaushik
e-mail: hemantbk@iitg.ac.in
types of analyses were carried out to evaluate their
chemical and mineralogical composition: X-ray fluo-
rescence analysis, scanning electron microscope asso-
ciated with energy dispersive spectrometer, and
powder X-ray diffraction technique. It was concluded
that due to incomplete pozzolanic reaction, fly ash
bricks exhibited weak and soft nature. Addition of
activators was recommended to improve their stiffness
and compressive strength, in case it is required.
Keywords Fly ash bricks  Reinforced concrete
frames  Microstructure  Masonry Infill
1 Introduction
Beneficial as well negative effects of presence of
masonry infills in reinforced concrete (RC) frames has
been demonstrated from various past earthquakes [21,
27, 28, 46, 54]. The positive effects include enhanced
lateral strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation, and
further infills act as first line of defense under
earthquake loading. Negative effects of masonry infill
may induce captive column effect, soft-storey effect,
torsion, and out-of-plane collapse if they are not
properly placed or designed. Various types of masonry
[solid clay bricks, AAC (autoclaved aerated concrete)
blocks, hollow clay blocks (adobe), reinforced con-
crete, etc.] were used as infills in RC and steel frames
in the past studies [2, 24, 31, 36, 42, 45, 47, 57]. The
3832
utilisation AAC blocks as infill material has been
increased in the recent times [49, 55] due to their
lightweight and large-scale utilisation of industrial
wastes (pulverised fuel ash). Fly ash is also a by-
product generated from thermal industries and its
disposal has been a serious environmental problem.
Fly ash bricks are gaining more prominence in
building construction due to their energy efficient
production process, preservation of cultivable land
needed for the production of burnt clay bricks, and
cutting down on greenhouse gases from firing of
bricks. Apart from social benefits, it is also essential
that engineering properties of such by-products not be
overlooked. Based on the engineering properties,
especially the non-linear stress–strain characteristics
under compression, effectiveness of using fly ash brick
masonry as structural material can be established. In
the past, a few studies [32, 33] discussed the functional
use of fly ash lime phosphogypsum blocks as partition
walls. One of the better ways of broadening the
utilisation of fly ash bricks may be as infill material in
RC or steel frames as these forms the major building
typology around the world including India. In the
current study, sun dried fly ash bricks (non-autoclave
aerated) were used to examine their suitability as infill
material. Fly ash bricks obtained from the local
resources were manufactured by mixing homoge-
neously the proportioned raw materials (fly ash, lime,
cement and stone dust) and were auto moulded and
finally dried under the sun. Engineering properties of
fly ash brick masonry needs to be estimated, so as to
evaluate the lateral load response of masonry infilled
RC frames. This article attempts at investigating the
behaviour of RC frames infilled with fly ash bricks and
burnt clay bricks both experimentally and analytically,
using the established engineering properties. Some
structural applications require different material prop-
erties of bricks than that required for using the bricks
in infill walls. From the past literature [34, 43], it was
also observed that the durability and mechanical
properties of bricks are also dependent on their
microstructure due to the variation in materials and
the type of manufacturing process employed. There-
fore, microstructural study was also carried out to
understand the internal structure of the fly ash bricks in
comparison with burnt clay bricks to evaluate the
variation of mechanical properties. Output of such a
study will provide an insight to the possible methods
of improving the material properties of fly ash bricks.
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:3831–3845
2 Engineering properties of fly ash brick masonry
Basha and Kaushik [10] carried out a comprehensive
experimental study to establish the engineering prop-
erties of about an year old fly ash brick masonry under
compression and shear. Tests were carried out on fly
ash bricks, 50 mm mortar cubes of three grades (1:3
strong, 1:4 intermediate, and 1:6 weak; ratio repre-
sents cement:sand), five brick high stack bonded
masonry prisms using the three mortar grades, and
1200 9 1200 9 110 mm3 masonry wallettes. Com-
pressive material properties of fly ash bricks were
determined following ASTM C67-13 [7] and IS 3495
[15] standards, whereas mortar properties were deter-
mined following ASTM C109/C109 M-13 [8] and IS
2250 [13], and ASTM C1314-12 [6] and IS 1905 [16]
was followed for masonry prisms. Modulus of elas-
ticity for fly ash bricks, 50 mm mortar cubes and fly
ash brick masonry prisms was calculated as the slope
of the secant connecting 5–33 % of the maximum
compressive strength of the specimens according to
MSJC [40]. Servo controlled hydraulic actuator was
used to apply displacement controlled monotonic
loading on all specimens. Average compressive
strength of fly ash bricks was reported as 5.7 MPa,
and of three grades of mortars as 21.6 MPa (strong),
17.3 MPa (intermediate), and 6.9 MPa (weak). Modu-
lus of elasticity was found to be 3878 MPa for fly ash
bricks, and 7591, 7403, 4361 MPa for strong, inter-
mediate, weak mortars, respectively. It is clear from
the stress strain curves (Fig. 1) that fly ash bricks
exhibit weaker and softer behavior in comparison with
that of the three grades of mortar used in the study. The
average compressive strength of fly ash brick masonry
Clay Brick
20
Compressive Stress (MPa)
15
Mortar1:3
10 Mortar1:4
5
Fly ash
Brick Mortar1:6
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Strain
Fig. 1 Compressive stress–strain curves obtained for brick
units and mortar cubes
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:3831–3845
prisms constructed with strong, intermediate, and
weak mortar was found to be 4.6, 3.9, and 3.1 MPa,
respectively. Modulus of elasticity was calculated as
2830, 2667 and 1457 MPa, respectively, for the three
mortar grade masonry prisms. The stress–strain curves
obtained for fly ash bricks, mortar cubes and fly ash
brick masonry prisms are compared in Fig. 2. Due to
the intricate behavior exhibited by the fly ash bricks,
masonry prisms also exhibited lower strength and
stiffness compared to that exhibited by both fly ash
bricks and mortar.
Shear strength and shear modulus of masonry
panels of size 1200 9 1200 9 110 mm3 constructed
using 1:4 mortar grade was determined from diagonal
compression tests following ASTM E519/E519M-10
[5], and RILEM [50]. A brief review of different
diagonal compression tests carried out in the past has
been reported by Mahmood and Ingham [37]. Basha
and Kaushik [10] conducted the tests by applying
displacement controlled loading using servo con-
trolled hydraulic actuator along the diagonal. The
state of stress at the center of the panel was assumed to
be of pure shear as recommended in past literature [5].
Shear strength and shear strain of masonry wallettes
were determined using the equations proposed by
ASTM [5], and it was found to be about 0.14 and
728 MPa, respectively.
3 Fly ash versus burnt clay brick masonry
Engineering properties of fly ash brick masonry
obtained by Basha and Kaushik [10] were compared
with that obtained for burnt clay brick masonry by
Kaushik et al. [29]. Burnt clay bricks exhibited very
strong and stiff behavior compared to fly ash bricks
Fig. 2 Comparison of
stress–strain curves
obtained for fly ash bricks,
mortar cubes and masonry
prisms for three grades of
mortar: a strong (1:3);
b intermediate (1:4); and
c weak (1:6)
3833
(Fig. 1). The average compressive strength and mod-
ulus of elasticity of burnt clay bricks was reported as
20.8 MPa (3.6 times more) and 6095 MPa (1.6 times
more), respectively. Similarly, compressive strength
and stiffness of fly ash brick masonry prisms was also
significantly lower compared to that of burnt clay
brick masonry prisms (Fig. 3). The average compres-
sive strength of clay brick masonry prisms constructed
with strong and weak mortar was found to be about 1.6
times (7.5 MPa) and 1.3 times more (4.1 MPa), than
that of the corresponding fly ash brick masonry prisms.
Modulus of elasticity of strong and weak burnt clay
brick masonry prisms was found to be about 1.5 times
(4200 MPa) and 1.6 times (2300 MPa) that of fly ash
brick prisms. But the post-peak reduction in strength in
case of fly ash brick prisms was more gradual due to
their soft nature. The strain corresponding to prism
strength was about 0.0039 and 0.0052 for strong and
weak fly ash brick masonry prisms, whereas, corre-
sponding strain was about 0.0025 and 0.0036 for
strong and weak burnt clay brick prisms, respectively.
Failure strain in case of fly ash brick prisms, consid-
ered as the strain at which the specimen was found to
be damaged irreparably during testing, was about
0.0122 (for 80 % drop in strength) for strong mortar
prisms and 0.0116 (for 50 % drop in strength) for
weak mortar. Kaushik et al. [29] reported that the
failure strain for burnt clay brick prisms was about
0.0053 (for 80 % drop in strength) for strong mortar
prisms and 0.0059 (for 50 % drop in strength) for
weak mortar prisms. Clearly, fly ash brick masonry
prisms exhibited significantly more deformable
behavior (failure strain was about twice) when com-
pared to burnt clay brick masonry, highlighting their
gradual dropdown in strength after peak.
3834
Fig. 3 Compressive stress–
strain curves for masonry
prisms constructed with fly
ash and burnt clay bricks
with: a strong mortar (1:3);
and b weak mortar (1:6)
4 Failure mechanism of masonry
under compression
Nature of stresses introduced in bricks and mortar
plays a vital role in failure mechanism of masonry
prisms under compression. Generally, masonry is
composed of stronger and stiffer bricks and relatively
weaker and softer mortar joints as observed in several
past studies (e.g., [9, 23, 29, 41]). Therefore, free
lateral expansion of mortar in masonry prism under
compression will be higher compared to that of the
brick units. However, lateral expansion in mortar is
inhibited by the stiffer bricks due to friction and bond
at the brick mortar interface. Therefore, brick units and
mortar joints are subjected to tri-axial stress state in
which brick is under bilateral tension and uniaxial
compression, and mortar is under tri-axial compres-
sion (Fig. 4b). Failure in stiff brick-soft mortar
Fig. 4 a Masonry prism
under compression; b state
of stress for stiff brick-soft
mortar combination; and
c state of stress for stiff
mortar-soft brick
combination
(a)
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:3831–3845
combination generally initiates by tensile splitting of
bricks (vertical splitting) followed by mortar joint
failure. But in the study carried out by Basha and
Kaushik [10], relatively weaker and softer fly ash
bricks were employed. Therefore, the stress state in the
masonry was such that tri-axial compression devel-
oped in bricks along with bilateral tension and axial
compression in mortar joints (Fig. 4c). Due to the
different tri-axial state of stress, failure in masonry
prisms constructed with fly ash brick masonry was
found to have initiated by tensile splitting of mortar
joint. Subsequently, the lateral confining pressure on
brick units vanished and finally masonry failed by
vertical splitting and crushing of bricks as shown in
Fig. 5. Sarangapani et al. [51, 52], Gumaste et al. [22]
from their study on the relatively weak and soft
table moulded and wire cut burnt clay bricks also
reported development of triaxial compression in
Free expansion of mortar
Compressive
strain in mortar
Free expansion Tensile strain
of brick in brick
(b)
Free expansion Tensile strain
of mortar in mortar
Compressive
strain in brick
Free expansion
of brick
(c)
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:3831–3845
Fig. 5 Vertical splitting failure mechanism in fly ash brick
masonry prisms
bricks and horizontal tension in mortar leading to the
failure of mortar joints.
5 Functional use of fly ash bricks
According to IS 1077 [17], bricks are classified based
on compressive strength; fly ash bricks used in the
current study falls under the class 7.5-5 (compressive
strength & 5.7 MPa). As per IS 2212 [18], bricks can
be used in construction of external walls only if they
confirm to class higher than 7.5 and if water absorption
is less than 20 %. It was reported by Basha and
Kaushik [10] that fly ash bricks exhibited water
absorption capacity of 18.3 % and dry density of
1564 kg/m3. On the other hand, burnt clay bricks used
by Kaushik et al. [29] had a compressive strength of
20.8 MPa, water absorption of 12.3 %, and dry
density of 1660 kg/m3. Therefore, fly ash bricks
exhibited considerably lower compressive strength
and higher water absorption. Use of fly ash bricks may
also result in slight reduction in the mass of the
structure as their dry density was about 6 % less than
the dry density of burnt clay bricks. Similarly, Fig. 3
shows that the fly ash masonry prisms are more
deformable and flexible compared to burnt clay brick
masonry prisms. Although, fly ash brick masonry
cannot be used as load bearing external walls owing to
their low strength, it will interesting to observe the
lateral behaviour of RC frames with fly ash brick
masonry used as infills. Because of high lateral
3835
stiffness, masonry walls used as infills in RC frames
attract large lateral loads, which cause cracking in
infills dissipating large amount of energy. Subse-
quently, the infill walls fail suddenly due to brittle
nature damaging the RC columns. Therefore, when fly
ash bricks are used as masonry infill walls in RC
frames, the flexible compressive behavior of fly ash
brick masonry may help in improving the lateral load
response of masonry infilled RC frames. In order to
evaluate the influence of fly ash brick masonry as
infills an experimental study was carried out and
results are discussed in the following sections.
6 Lateral load response of RC frames infilled
with fly ash brick masonry
A half-scale model of exterior ground-storey frame of
a building in India was considered in the current study.
Two frames (bare frame, and frame infilled with fly
ash brick masonry) designed and detailed in accor-
dance with relevant Indian standards were tested under
lateral loads (Fig. 6). Details of the RC frame and the
experimentally determined material properties are
given in Table 1 and Fig. 7, respectively. The rein-
forcement detailing in the frame was carried out
following the guidelines of IS 456 [14] and ductile
detailing requirements of IS 13920 [12]. Members
framing into joints were detailed as continuous
members, wherein longitudinal reinforcement of
beams and columns were taken through the columns
and beams to take care of stress reversal under seismic
loading. Similarly, transverse reinforcement of col-
umns was also continued through the joint as per the
ductile detailing provisions of the code. The columns
of the model were constructed on a RC beam of size
400 9 350 mm2, and therefore, columns were
assumed to be fixed at the base. Effect of RC slab
was considered in the study by constructing a 100 mm
thick RC slab extended over a width of 400 mm on
both sides of top beam. Both columns and beams were
extended by a length of 300 mm from the joints to
maintain a more realistic behavior and to assist in
reinforcement detailing. Vertical loads were applied
on the specimen by placing RC plates and concrete
cubes on the slab. The specimens were lightly loaded
with an axial load ratio (P/fckAg) of about 1 % acting
on each column, where P, fck and Ag represent the axial
load, compressive strength of concrete cubes at
3836
Fig. 6 Experimental set-up for lateral load testing of RC frame infilled with fly brick masonry
28 days, and gross area of column section, respec-
tively. Fly ash brick infill wall was constructed using
1:4 (cement:sand) mortar with a water cement ratio of
0.6 under skilled supervision. The specimen was cured
for 28 days after the construction of the masonry infill
wall. Servo controlled hydraulic actuator of 250 kN
capacity was used to apply slow cyclic displacement
controlled lateral loading. The response was recorded
using load cell and displacement transducer of the
actuator arm, and displacement transducers and strain
gauges fixed on the specimen at various locations
(Fig. 6). Three linearly varying displacement trans-
ducers were placed at 180, 750 and 1260 mm above
the top of the base beam along the length of the
columns to record the deformation during lateral
loading. One displacement transducer was also placed
at 70 mm below the top surface of bottom beam to
monitor the support movement.
Figure 8 shows the lateral load response of both
bare and infilled RC frame in the form of hysteresis
loops. Envelop curve was plotted by connecting the
points of maximum load corresponding to each
displacement level. Figure 8b shows that the loops
were closely spaced and lateral strength and stiffness
of the frame was highest in the initial stages due to
presence of infill which is a commonly observed
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:3831–3845
feature in infilled frames in past studies as well [2, 42].
Initial lateral stiffness of the infilled frame was about
35.7 kN/mm (12 times that of the bare frame),
whereas, the lateral load carrying capacity was about
106 kN (2.5 times that of the bare frame) and the
cumulative energy dissipation calculated as the area
under the hysteresis loops considering all the dis-
placement cycles applied was found to be 78,200
kNmm (1.7 times that of the bare frame).
In case of bare RC frame, flexure cracks parallel to
the direction of loading were initiated near left side
beam-column joint at a drift level of 0.62 % (Fig. 9a).
With increase in drift levels (1–2 %) similar flexural
cracks developed along the length of both columns.
Spalling of cover concrete was observed near the
beam-column junctions at a drift level of 3 %. The
failure mechanism may be characterized as flexural
failure, and the test was terminated at 6.15 % drift
when the capacity of the frame was reduced to 75 % of
its maximum (Fig. 9b). In case of infilled frame,
initially most of the cracks were generated along the
infill-frame interface at a drift level of 0.15 %,
followed by diagonal stepped cracks at a drift level
of 0.46 % in both push and pull directions (Fig. 9c).
With increasing drift level, diagonal cracks also
formed on either side of the stepped cracks formed
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:3831–3845 3837

Table 1 Properties of masonry infilled RC frame tested

Material properties (MPa) RC frame parameters

Compressive strength of concrete cube (fck) 24 Column 115 9 175 mm2

Elastic modulus of concrete (Ec) 24,546 Beam 115 9 175 mm2
Compressive strength of fly ash brick (fb) 5.7 Column longitudinal 4–12u at corners
reinforcement 2–8u at middle
Compressive strength of 1:4 grade mortar 17.3 Column transverse 6u–3 legged stirrups at
cube (fj) reinforcement 90 mm c/c till 500 mm from
the face of top and bottom
beam; and remaining
110 mm c/c
Compressive strength of 1:4 fly ash brick 3.9 Beam longitudinal
masonry prism (fm0 ) reinforcement
At support
2–10u at bottom
3–8u at top
At mid-span
2–10u at bottom
2–8u at top
Yield strength of reinforcing bars (fy) 520 (6u) 570 (8u) 507(12u) Beam transverse 6u–2 legged stirrups at
reinforcement 90 mm c/c till 500 mm from
the face of columns; and
remaining 120 mm c/c

initially, leading to the formation of diagonal strut.
Similar observation was reported in the past studies
[36, 49], where weaker AAC blocks and high strength
mortar joints were used. At a drift level of 0.76 %,
cracks in frame elements were initiated in the form of
diagonal tension cracks near corners of the columns.
Weakened interface connection between the frame
and infill near column critical sections lead to the
formation of diagonal tension cracks near the column
ends due to captive column effect. Later on, at a drift
level of 0.92–1 %, flexural cracks were initiated in the
columns. With further increase in drift level, intense
crushing of both mortar joints and bricks was
observed, and out-of-plane failure of the infill was
observed at a drift level of 4.61 %.
It was observed that capacity of infilled frame (106
kN) reached at a drift level of 0.5 %, and the capacity
reduced to 75 % of its maximum corresponding to a
drift level of about 2.5 %. The test was terminated at a
drift level of 5.8 % when crushing of concrete and
buckling of longitudinal reinforcement in column was
observed (Fig. 9d). From the observed drift levels
(0.5–2.5 %), it can be ascertained that the gradual
degradation of capacity is not only due to effect of
ductile detailing of RC frame, but also due to the
gradual failure of infill in the post peak regime owing
to its soft nature. It can be ascertained that when
frames are subjected to seismic excitations, behavior
of frame system is not only dependent on compressive
and shear strength of masonry but also on the non-
linear deformable behavior of masonry to dissipate
energy that plays a vital role in avoiding catastrophic
brittle failure of infilled frames. No damage was
observed in beam and slab elements in both bare and
infilled frame highlighting the T-beam (stiffening)
action provided by the slab. Failure mechanism of
infilled RC frames is a complex phenomenon as it
depends on large number of parameters (e.g., aspect
ratio, relative strength and stiffness of infill and RC
columns, ductility of RC frame, thickness and strength
of mortar joints etc.). Therefore, in order to get a
greater insight, a detailed experimental study is
required to be carried out by varying different
parameters.
7 Analytical estimation of lateral load behaviour
To assimilate the influence of fly ash brick masonry in
RC frames analytically, non-linear static analysis of
3838 Materials and Structures (2016) 49:3831–3845

Fig. 7 Modelling details of 300 175 1500 175 300

RC frame and location of
plastic hinges
lp/2 300
115 A
175 175
115 lp/2
3-8 A

175 6 @ 90
ws
2-10
Section AA
B B 1500
175 6 @ 110

115 2-8
15
12 @ 4 Plastic Hinges
corners
Section BB

infilled frame was carried out using SAP2000 [19].

Pull (+) Push (-)
From the current and past experimental studies [11,
42], it was observed that the mode of failure of infilled
frames does not vary when fly ash bricks were used
instead of burnt clay bricks. As discussed in the crack
formation and failure mechanism (Fig. 9c), diagonal
strut formation was observed in the masonry infill.
Therefore, in order to compare the global response of
the infilled frames, the simple equivalent strut model
was used in the current study. Column and beam
elements were modeled as 2-noded frame elements
with column ends fixed at the bottom (Fig. 7). As
already discussed in the current experimental study, no (a)
damage was observed in the top beam and the slab due
to the stiffening (T-beam) action provided by the slab. Pull (+) Push (-)
Therefore, linear elastic shell elements were used to
model the RC slab. Non-linearity in frame elements
was modeled using lumped plasticity approach at
specified hinge locations. Flexural hinge properties in
columns were defined using axial force-bending
moment interaction (P–M) as the failure envelope,
and bending moment-rotation (M–h) was used as the
corresponding load deformation relation for defining
flexural hinge properties in beams and columns. Force
controlled shear hinge properties involve specification
of shear capacity of the sections. Non-linear material
properties were defined to evaluate the plastic hinge
(b)
properties of frame elements. Mander confined con- Fig. 8 Hysteretic and envelop response curve of: a bare frame;
crete model [39] was used to define the concrete b infilled frame with fly ash brick masonry
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:3831–3845
Fig. 9 Crack pattern and
failure mode of: a, b bare
frame; c, d frame infilled
with fly ash bricks
(displacement shown in mm
are the inter-storey
displacements)
(a)
(c)
stress–strain characteristics and the non-linear model
for rebar was defined from the uniaxial stress–strain
curves obtained from tension tests conducted in
laboratory. The ultimate strain in steel was found to
be about 16 % and the ultimate tensile strength was
about 1.3 times the yield stress.
In the current study, global response of the infilled
frame was evaluated by modelling the infill as
equivalent diagonal strut. The basic parameter that
affects the strength and stiffness of the strut is their
equivalent width which depends on the relative infill-
frame stiffness. Various formulations were proposed
in the literature to calculate the relative stiffness
parameter, but ASCE 41 [3] recommends using the
equation proposed by Mainstone [38] as it provides
lower bound value for the width of the strut, and found
to be popular over the years and has been implemented
by many researchers. Width of the diagonal strut
calculated using Mainstone [38] equation was found to
be about one-tenth of the diagonal length of the
member. Non-linear material property of the equiva-
lent diagonal strut was modelled using the compres-
sive stress–strain curves obtained for masonry prisms
as also done in several past studies [25, 30, 44, 55].
Axial plastic hinges in infill were modelled using the
3839
2.5-10 mm
12.5-15 mm
17.5-20 mm
22.5-35 mm
40-50 mm
>55 mm
(b)
2.5-10 mm
12.5-15 mm
17.5-20 mm
22.5-35 mm
40-50 mm
>55 mm
(d)
stress–strain curves developed for 1:4 mortar grade
masonry prisms (Fig. 2b). Hinges were assumed to be
developed at the center of the strut and the length of
the hinge was about three-fourth of the diagonal length
of the infill wall.
The analytical model of bare frame without infill
walls was first calibrated with the experimental results
of a bare frame. The lateral load response of bare
frame is shown in Fig. 10, and it can be observed that
both experimental and analytical results, in terms of
initial stiffness and the lateral load capacity, matched
very well. Experimental results show that the failure of
bare frame was primarily due to the formation of
flexural hinges in columns and no damage occurred in
the beam due to the stiffening action provided by the
slab. Similar observation was made from the analytical
model as well, as flexural hinges were concentrated
only in columns and no hinges were formed in beams.
The same analytical model was then updated to
include the effects of masonry infills and the updated
model was calibrated with the experimental results.
Figure 10 shows the lateral load response of RC
frame infilled with (1:4) fly ash brick masonry. From
the figure it can be observed that the initial stiffness
and the lateral load carrying capacity of both the
3840
experimental and analytical models matched quite
well. Degradation in lateral load carrying capacity of
the analytical model was also found to be gradual and
in good agreement with the experimental results.
Therefore, from the analytical model it was ascer-
tained that the global response of the infilled frame can
be simulated using the equivalent diagonal strut
model.
To understand the lateral load behavior of RC
frames infilled with masonry of different compressive
strength, a parametric analytical study was undertaken
in which the infill was modelled as equivalent diagonal
strut. Four types of masonry infills were considered:
that used fly ash bricks (weak) and burnt clay bricks
(strong) with two mortar grades (cement: sand), i.e.,
strong (1:3), and weak (1:6). Non-linearity in infill was
defined using the compressive stress–strain curves
defined in the previous section (Fig. 3) for both mortar
grade infills. As expected, frame infilled with stronger
and stiffer burnt clay bricks with strong and weak
mortar grades observed significantly higher strength
and stiffness when compared to the corresponding
frames with weaker and softer fly ash bricks (Fig. 11).
It was also observed that the lateral load carrying
capacity of infilled frame and its post peak degradation
also varied with the grade of mortar; burnt clay brick
masonry (strong and stiff brick) with 1:3 mortar
(strong) exhibited highest strength and rapid degrada-
tion. On the other hand, fly ash brick masonry (weak
and soft brick) with 1:6 mortar (weak) exhibited least
strength, but the rate of degradation was very less.
From the results, it is clear that both infill and frame
contributed to lateral load carrying capacity of the
Fig. 10 Comparison of lateral load response of fly ash brick
masonry infilled RC frame
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:3831–3845
system. It was also observed that the failure of the infill
takes place at the maximum lateral load level.
Subsequently, the lateral load is transferred to the
RC frame leading to a drop-down in the capacity,
which occurs at a faster rate in case of clay brick
masonry due to their higher compressive strength.
Whereas, in case of frames infilled with fly ash bricks,
it was observed that after the capacity of the system
reached, drop-down in capacity was gradual. From
degradation point of view, it can be ascertained that
employing relatively weak and soft masonry may be
beneficial in order to avoid/delay catastrophic sudden
failure of infilled frames. From the past earthquakes, it
was also observed that large deal of building damage
and cost was constituted by damage in infills [4]. In
order to reduce the damage at least up to the desired
performance level, use of soft masonry may be an
alternative solution by which extensive damage to
both infill and RC frame may be minimized without
significant reduction the lateral strength and stiffness
parameters.
The compressive strength of fly ash bricks was
found to be too less to be used in structural applica-
tions, for example, in load bearing unreinforced
masonry buildings. Therefore, methods are required
to be developed for improving the compressive
strength of fly ash bricks, which can then be utilized
in other structural applications. In order to understand
possible reasons for the weaker and softer compressive
behavior of fly ash bricks, internal structure of fly ash
bricks is required to be studied in detail. This was done
by finding out the mineralogical and chemical com-
position of fly ash and burnt clay bricks.
Drift (%)
0.000 0.984 1.968 2.952 3.936 4.920
180
Burnt Clay Brick 1:3
Burnt Clay Brick 1:6
Base Shear (kN)
Fly Ash Brick 1:3
120
Fly ash Brick 1:6
60
0
0 16 32 48 64 80
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 11 Comparison of lateral load response of RC frame
infilled with fly ash and burnt clay brick masonry
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:3831–3845
Table 2 Mineralogical composition of burnt clay and fly ash bricks using XRF (values in % weight)
Sample SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MnO
Clay brick 66.68 15.34 7.08 0.131
Fly ash brick 53.98 14.51 3.85 0.058
8 Mineralogical and chemical composition study
Three different techniques were employed in the
current study to determine the chemical and miner-
alogical composition of burnt clay and fly ash bricks.
Initially major elements present in the brick sample
were identified and semi quantified using X-ray
fluorescence (XRF) analysis. Subsequently, the
microstructure that shows the spatial distribution of
specific chemical elements on a sub-micron scale and
chemical spectra were identified using scanning
electron microscope associated with energy dispersive
spectrometer (SEM–EDS). Finally the compounds
formed in the samples were ascertained and identified
using powder X-ray diffraction (XRD) technique.
Clay used in brick production is a mixture of plastic
(phyllo-silicates like montmorillonite, vermiculite,
chlorite, illite, and kaolinite), and non-plastic minerals
(feldspars, quartz, and carbonates), and few impurities
usually made of iron oxy-hydroxides. When molded
clay is fired at high temperatures (850–1000 °C),
quartz remains constant, feldspars evolves to sanidine,
and decomposition of phyllosilicates leads to the
formation of hematite [20]. From XRF analysis
(Table 2), it was observed that burnt clay brick sample
consists of large amount of quartz (SiO2), alumina
(Al2O3), and ferric oxide (Fe2O3) and small percent-
age of manganese oxide (MnO), magnesium oxide
(MgO), calcium oxide (CaO), sodium oxide (Na2O),
and titanium oxide (TiO2). When fired at higher
temperatures, calcite present in calcium rich clays
decomposes into calcium oxide by releasing carbon
dioxide leading to more porous structure [20]. As the
percentage of calcium oxide in burnt clay bricks was
very low, it can be ascertained that calcium poor clays
were used in brick production and the same was
confirmed from SEM image and EDS spectrum
(Fig. 12). From the SEM image (Fig. 12a) it was
observed that the layers of burnt clay brick were
bonded together very strongly making the clay body
impervious and representing very high mechanical
3841
MgO CaO Na2O K2O TiO2 P2O5
0.28 1.04 2.23 3.84 1.05 0.146
0.81 12.34 2.75 1.5 1.3 0.121
resistance. XRD analysis results (Fig. 13) show that
hematite was present in the microstructure of burnt
clay bricks; therefore, it appears that the clay bricks
were subjected to high firing temperature ([850 °C).
Quartz, feldspar, and hematite are the major minerals
identified from XRD patterns, and absence of calcite
confirmed that calcium poor clays were employed in
brick manufacturing. More than 60 % of silica
(Table 2; Fig. 12b) was present in burnt clay brick
sample, which proves that burnt clay bricks to be of
good quality [48]. Finally it can be established that due
to the presence of high amount of silica, use of calcite
poor clay (less porosity), and presence of hematite
(molded clay fired at higher temperature) are the
primary reasons for significantly better compressive
strength and stiffness burnt clay bricks.
On the other hand, from XRF analysis of fly ash
brick sample, it was observed that major constituents
of fly ash bricks were quartz, alumina, and calcium
oxide, with minor percentages of oxides of iron,
sodium, potassium and magnesium (Table 2). The
glassy (siliceous) materials of fly ash and alumina
react with the calcium hydroxides to form the
cementitious calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) gel and
calcium alumino hydrate (CAH) [56]. It is a well-
established philosophy [43] that volume of solids in a
completely hydrated cement paste contains about
50–60 % of CSH gel, 20–25 % of CH (calcium
hydroxide), 15–20 % CAH and minor percentage of
unhydrated residue. Therefore, it can be ascertained
that CSH, CAH and CH are the main compounds
responsible for imparting compressive strength to fly
ash bricks. The elemental composition of fly ash bricks
obtained from XRF analysis was confirmed from
SEM–EDS analysis. From the SEM image (Fig. 14a),
it was observed that large amount of unreacted glassy
siliceous compounds were present in fly ash brick
sample, highlighting incomplete pozzolanic reaction
that resulted in porous matrix (and hence softer
bricks). The compounds formed in hydrated fly ash
brick sample were confirmed using XRD technique as
3842 Materials and Structures (2016) 49:3831–3845

Fig. 12 Microstructure of burnt clay brick: a SEM image; and b EDS spectrum

Fig. 13 XRD pattern of

burnt clay brick sample

Fig. 14 Microstructure of fly ash brick: a SEM image and b EDS spectrum
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:3831–3845
Fig. 15 XRD pattern of fly
ash brick sample
shown in Fig. 15, where it was observed that the width
of the peaks of CSH, CAH, CASH (Calcium alumino
silicate hydrate) were very small signifying very low
percentages of hydrated compounds. Presence of CH
(Portlandite) shows incomplete pozzolanic reaction
[26] which lead to porous matrix and is generally
responsible for lower strength of fly ash bricks.
The incomplete pozzolanic reaction may be
attributed to the low reactivity of fly ash. Chemical
activation is frequently recommended for increasing
the reactivity of fly ash due to advantages in terms of
low cost, attaining high strength in early as well later
stages, and simple production process [1, 35, 53]. It is
carried out by adding activators, such as, sulfate
activators (gypsum CaSO42H2O, sodium sulfate
Na2SO4, calcium chloride CaCl2), and alkali activa-
tors (sodium hydroxide NaOH, calcium hydroxide
Ca(OH)2) to fly ash. Therefore, chemical activation
technique may be used during manufacturing of bricks
in order to assist in completing the pozzolanic
reaction, and hence to improve the compressive
strength of fly ash bricks, in case it is required.
9 Summary and conclusions
Fly ash bricks have been reported to be significantly
softer and weaker compared to mortar generally used
in masonry construction. Further, it has been observed
that commonly used burnt clay bricks are stiffer and
stronger than fly ash bricks under compression.
Therefore, fly ash brick masonry prisms exhibit
weaker, more flexible, and more deformable behavior
under compression. It was also observed that fly ash
bricks exhibit lower density, and higher water
3843
absorption and porosity compared to that of burnt
clay bricks. Due to these limitations, functional use of
fly ash bricks, as per the relevant Indian standards on
load bearing structures, is in the construction of
internal or partition walls only. Though, use of fly ash
bricks in masonry may slightly reduce the mass of the
structure owing to their lower density, their compres-
sive strength is required to be enhanced for improving
the compressive behavior of load bearing buildings.
On the other hand, use of weaker and softer bricks
may help in improving the lateral load behavior of
masonry infilled RC frame buildings. From the
experimental study, it was observed that the frames
infilled even with softer and weaker fly ash brick
masonry exhibited significantly higher lateral
strength, stiffness, and energy dissipation compared
to the corresponding bare frame. Due to gradual
failure of infill, a significant difference was observed
in lateral drift corresponding to lateral load carrying
capacity (0.46 % drift) and that corresponding to 75 %
of maximum in post peak zone (2.5 % drift). From the
analytical parametric study of RC frames infilled with
various types of infills, it was ascertained that use of
fly ash bricks as infill material may be advantageous
even though the frames observed slightly lesser
strength and stiffness in comparison with those infilled
with burnt clay brick masonry. The primary advantage
is the gradual drop-down observed in lateral load
carrying capacity of frames infilled with fly ash bricks
that plays a major role in delaying/preventing sudden
failure of infilled frames.
To understand the possible reasons for the soft and
weak nature of fly ash bricks when compared to burnt
clay bricks, microstructural study (XRF, SEM–EDS,
and XRD tests) was carried out for estimating their
3844
mineralogical and chemical composition. It was
ascertained that due to the use of low calcium clays
and firing at higher temperatures, burnt clay bricks
attained denser structure, and therefore, higher com-
pressive strength and stiffness. Whereas, the lesser
compressive strength and stiffness of fly ash bricks
was recognized due to the incomplete pozzolanic
reaction during manufacturing process. As recom-
mended in the past studies, chemical activation
techniques may be used to enhance the mechanical
properties of fly ash bricks so that they can be used as
primary members in load bearing structures in which
higher compressive strength of bricks is desirable.
Acknowledgments Authors acknowledge the financial
assistance provided by the Ministry of Human Resource
Development (MHRD), and research grant (No. SR/FTP/ETA-
22/08) provided by Department of Science and Technology,
Government of India, under Fast Track Young Scientist
Scheme. Assistance received from Sophisticated Analytical
Instrument Facility (SAIF) at Guwahati University in carrying
out XRF analysis is gratefully acknowledged.
References
1. Aimin X, Sarkar SL (1991) Microstructural study of gyp-
sum activated fly ash hydration in cement paste. Cem Concr
Res 21:1137–1147
2. Al-Chaar G, Issa M, Sweeney S (2002) Behavior of
masonry–infilled nonductile reinforced concrete frames.
J Struct Eng (ASCE) 128(8):1055–1063
3. ASCE (2013) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing
buildings. ASCE/SEI 41-13, Reston
4. Asteris PG (2008) Finite element micro-modeling of infilled
frames. Electron J Struct Eng 8:1–11
5. ASTM (2010) Standard test method for diagonal tension
(shear) in masonry assemblages. ASTM E 519/E519M-10,
ASTM International, Materials Park
6. ASTM (2012) Standard test method for compressive
strength of masonry prisms. Masonry test methods and
specifications for the building industry. ASTM C1314-12,
ASTM International, Materials Park
7. ASTM (2013) Standard test methods for sampling and
testing brick and structural clay tile. Masonry test methods
and specifications for the building industry. ASTM C67-13,
ASTM International, Materials Park
8. ASTM (2013) Standard test method for compressive
strength of hydraulic cement mortars using 2-in or 50-mm
cube specimens. Masonry test methods and specifications
for the building industry. ASTM C109/C109 M-13, ASTM
International, Materials Park
9. Atkinson RH, Noland JL (1983) A proposed failure theory
for brick masonry in compression. In: Proceedings of 3rd
Canadian Masonry Symposium, Edmonton, Alta, Canada,
5.1–5.17
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:3831–3845
10. Basha SH, Kaushik HB (2015) Evaluation of nonlinear
material properties of fly ash brick masonry under compres-
sion and shear. J Mater Civil Eng (ASCE) 27(8):04014227.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001188
11. Blackard B, William K, Mettupalayam, S (2009) Experi-
mental observations of masonry infilled reinforced concrete
frames with openings. ACI Special Publication. SP-265-9;
199–222
12. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) (1993) Indian standard
ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected
to seismic forces—Code of practice. IS 13920, New Delhi,
India
13. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) (2000a) Indian standard
code of practice for preparation and use of masonry mortars,
IS 2250, 1st Revision, New Delhi, India
14. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) (2000b) Indian standard
plain and reinforced concrete–Code of practice, IS 456, 4th
Revision, New Delhi, India
15. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) (2002a) Indian standard
methods of test of burn clay building bricks—Part 1:
Determination of compressive strength, IS 3495, 3rd Revi-
sion, New Delhi, India
16. Bureau Indian Standards (BIS). (2002b) Indian standard
code of practice for structural use of unreinforced masonry,
IS 1905, 3rd Revision, New Delhi, India
17. Bureau Indian Standards (BIS) (2002c) Indian standard
common burnt clay bricks–specification, IS 1077, 5th
Revision, New Delhi, India
18. Bureau Indian Standards (BIS) (2005) Indian standard brick
works–code of practice IS 2212, 1st Revision, New Delhi,
India
19. CSI (2013) Structural Analysis Program (SAP2000)—ad-
vanced, static and dynamic finite element analysis of
structures. Computers and Structures Inc, Berkeley
20. Cultrone G, Sebastiàn E, de la Torre MJ (2005) Miner-
alogical and physical behavior of solid bricks with addi-
tives. Constr Build Mater 19:39–48
21. Fardis MN (2000) Design provisions for Masonry-Infilled
Rc Frames. In: 12th world conference on earthquake engi-
neering, vol. 2553, pp. 1–8
22. Gumaste KS, Nanjunda Rao KS, Venkatarama Reddy BV,
Jagadish KS (2007) Strength and elasticity of brick masonry
prisms and wallets under compression. Mater Struct
40:241–253
23. Hilsdorf HK (1969) An investigation into the failure
mechanisms of brick masonry loaded in axial compression.
In: Johnson FB (ed) Designing, engineering and construct-
ing with masonry products. Gulf Pub Company, Houston,
pp 34–41
24. Kakaletsis DJ, Karayannis CG (2008) Influence of masonry
strength and openings on infilled R/C frames under cycling
loading. J Earthq Eng 12(2):197–221
25. Kalman T, Sigmund V, Žarnić R (2010) Evalaution of
masonry panel models for nonlinear analysis of infilled R/C
frames. In: 14th European conference on earthquake engi-
neering, Ohrid, Macedonia, vol. 4, pp. 3071–3078
26. Katsioti M, Gkanis D, Pipilikaki P, Sakellariou A, Pap-
athanasiou A, Teas Ch, Chaniotakis E, Moundoulas P,
Moropoulou A (2009) Study of the substitution of limestone
filler with pozzolanic additives in mortars. Constr Build
Mater 23:1960–1965
Materials and Structures (2016) 49:3831–3845
27. Kaushik HB, Dasgupta K (2013) Assessment of seismic
vulnerability of structures in Sikkim, India, based on dam-
age observation during two recent earthquakes. J Perform
Constr Facil (ASCE) 27(6):697–720
28. Kaushik HB, Jain SK (2007) Impact of great December 26,
2004 Sumatra earthquake and tsunami on structures in Port
Blair. J Perform Constr Facil (ASCE) 21(2):128–142
29. Kaushik HB, Rai DC, Jain SK (2007) Stress-strain charac-
teristics of clay brick masonry under uniaxial compression.
J Mater Civil Eng (ASCE) 19(9):728–739
30. Kaushik HB, Rai DC, Jain SK (2009) Effectiveness of some
strengthening options for masonry-infilled RC frames with
open first story. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 135(8):925–937
31. Klingner RE, Bertero VV (1976) Infilled frames in earth-
quake resistant construction. Earthquake Engineering
Research Centre, University of California at Berkeley,
Report No. EERC 76-32
32. Kumar S (2002) A perspective study on fly ash–lime–gyp-
sum bricks and hollow blocks for low cost housing devel-
opment. Constr Build Mater 16:519–525
33. Kumar S (2003) Fly ash–lime–phosphogypsum hollow
blocks for walls and partitions. Build Environ 38:291–295
34. Kutchko BG, Kim AG (2006) Fly ash characterization by
SEM-EDS. Fuel 85:2537–2544
35. Lee CY, Lee HK, Lee KM (2003) Strength and
microstructural characteristics of chemically activated fly
ash–cement systems. Cem Concr Res 33:425–431
36. Liu Y, Li G (2005) Experimental and theoretical research on
lateral load resistance of steel frames with infilled walls.
Jianzhu Jiegou Xuebao (J Build Struct) 26(3):78–84
37. Mahmood H, Ingham JM (2011) Diagonal compression
testing of FRP-retrofitted unreinforced clay brick masonry
wallettes. J Compos Constr 15(5):810–820
38. Mainstone RJ (1971) On the stiffnesses and strengths of
infilled frames. Proceedings of Institute of Civil Engineer-
ing, Thomas Telford, pp 57–90
39. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical
stress-strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng
(ASCE) 114:1804–1826
40. Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC) (2011)
Building code requirements for masonry structures. Amer-
ican Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills
41. McNary WS, Abrams DP (1985) Mechanics of masonry
in compression. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 111(4):857–870
42. Mehrabi AB, Shing PB, Schuller MP, Noland JL (1996)
Experimental evaluation of masonry-infilled RC frames.
J Struct Eng (ASCE) 122(3):228–237
43. Mehta PK, Monteiro PJM (2006) Concrete microstructure,
properties, and materials. Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi
3845
44. Meslem A, D’Ayala D (2012) Toward worldwide guideli-
nes for the development of analytical vulnerability functions
and fragility curves at regional level. In: 15th world con-
ference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 1160
45. Moretti ML, Papatheocharis T, Perdikaris PC (2014) Design
of reinforced concrete infilled frames. J Struct Eng (ASCE)
140(9):04014062(10)
46. Murty CVR, Jain SK (2000) Beneficial influence of
Masonry Infill Walls on seismic performance of RC frame
buildings. In: 12th world conference on earthquake engi-
neering, vol. 1790, pp. 1–6
47. Preti M, Bettini N, Plizzari G (2012) Infill walls with sliding
joints to limit infill-frame seismic interaction: large-scale
experimental test. J Earthq Eng (Taylor and Francis)
16:125–141. doi:10.1080/13632469.2011.579815
48. Rai DC, Dhanapal S (2013) Bricks and mortars in Lucknow
monuments of c.17–18 century. Curr Sci 104(2):238–244
49. Ravichandran SS, Klinger RE (2012) Behavior of steel
moment frames with autoclaved aerated concrete infills.
ACI Struct J 109(1):83–90
50. RILEM (1994) LUM B6 diagonal tensile strength of small
wall specimens, 1991. RILEM technical recommendations
for the testing and use of constructions materials. E & FN
SPON, London, pp 488–489
51. Sarangapani G, Venkatarama Reddy BV, Jagadish KS
(2002) Structural characteristics of bricks, mortars and
masonry. J Struct Eng 29(2):101–107
52. Sarangapani G, Venkatarama Reddy BV, Jagadish KS
(2005) Brick–mortar bond and masonry compressive
strength. J Mater Civil Eng (ASCE) 17(2):229–237
53. Shi C (1998) Pozzolanic reaction and microstructure of
chemical activated lime-fly ash pastes. ACI Mater J
95(5):537–545
54. Sucuoǧlu H (2013) Implications of masonry infill and parti-
tion damage in performance perception in residential build-
ings after a moderate earthquake. Earthq Spectra
29(2):661–667
55. Sucuoǧlu H, Siddiqui UA (2014) Pseudo-dynamic testing
and analytical modeling of AAC infilled RC frames.
J Earthq Eng (Taylor and Francis) 18:1281–1301. doi:10.
1080/13632469.2014.932723
56. Turgut P (2012) Manufacturing of building bricks without
Portland cement. J Clean Prod 37:361–367
57. Zovkic J, Sigmund V, Guljas I (2013) Cyclic testing of a
single bay reinforced concrete frames with various types of
masonry infill. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42:1131–1149