Materials and Structures (2012) 45:995–1006

DOI 10.1617/s11527-011-9812-z

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Experimental study of traditional stone masonry

under compressive load and comparison of results
with design codes
David Garcı́a • José T. San-José •
Leire Garmendia • Rosa San-Mateos

Received: 16 February 2010 / Accepted: 4 December 2011 / Published online: 12 January 2012
 RILEM 2012

Abstract This study addressed the mechanical
behaviour of a natural stone masonry typical from the
Spanish Romanesque, both in Heritage and conven-
tional buildings. The objective of this research was to
provide new data about the mechanical properties,
especially the compressive strength values. The char-
acterisation of the basic materials and different stone
masonry prisms is presented. Sandstone and low
strength lime-cement mortar were used for this exper-
imental work, because of their availability and simi-
larity with the masonry found in many historic
buildings from the north of Spain. The morphological
characteristics of the original ancient walls were also
taken into account, in order to manufacture prism
specimens that were as representative as possible of the
Spanish Romanesque typology (i.e. in terms of its
geometry, composition of the internal core, relative
size, etc.). Additionally the experimental values were
D. Garcı́a (&)  L. Garmendia  R. San-Mateos
Tecnalia Research Centre, Tecnalia, Spain
e-mail: david.garcia@tecnalia.com
URL: www.tecnalia.com
L. Garmendia
e-mail: leire.garmendia@tecnalia.com
R. San-Mateos
e-mail: rosa.sanmateos@tecnalia.com
J. T. San-José
Department of Science of Materials, UPV-EHU,
Bilbao, Spain
e-mail: josetomas.sanjose@ehu.es
compared with the analytical ones provided by the
main recommendations and standards. The analysis of
the results permits a better understanding of these
materials and a reliable source of data for the validation
of the existing structures.
Keywords Stone masonry  Ashlar  Rubble 
Mortar  Prism  Strength  Standards
1 Introduction
Masonry is the building of structures from individual
units that are usually laid in and solidly bound together
by means of mortar or just friction forces between the
blocks. Masonry was the most durable architectural
form until nineteenth century, before the development
of the concrete. However, the used materials, the
quality of the workmanship and the pattern the units
are laid in can strongly affect the durability of the
overall masonry construction [1].
There are numerous parameters involved in the
resistance of the masonry: component materials, the
more or less regular geometry of the units, the way in
which these are placed, the thickness of the mortar
joints, the connectivity between the different leaves of
a masonry element, etc. [2, 3]. The definition of each
particular typology is based upon the geographic
location, period, original purpose and economic power
996
of its owners. Thus, the different masonry construction
techniques present various factors that may either
enhance or weaken the structure.
During the last decades, some simplified equations
have been proposed to obtain the compressive strength
of masonry. In most cases, these equations were
developed for application on ceramic brick or concrete
block masonry, assuming a periodic pattern [2, 3, 4].
They can be transferred with relative success only to
regular ashlar stone masonry, where the units have a
well-defined form and a constant size, but not to rubble
or irregular masonry.
Standards and codes set out tables for masonry
strength values and design criteria from a safety
perspective, which are used to erect buildings. How-
ever these regulations provide little or no insight into
the behaviour of these structures.
Many researchers have sought to quantify the
relation between the compressive strength of masonry
and the compressive strength of its single components;
units and mortar. In the theory proposed by Khoo and
Hendry [5], this question is approached by considering
a limit-strain criterion based on the lateral strain
exhibited by units at failure. Another relevant contri-
bution was made by Ohler [6], who proposed a
formula that is in broad agreement with experimental
data on brick masonry panels.
Despite all these efforts to estimate the ultimate
strength and the deformability of the masonry, which
is certainly very difficult in the case of irregular stone
masonry, more exact values can only be obtained from
tests on significant and representative volumes of the
specific masonry, with the same disposition and
geometric ratios [7, 8]. Full-size testing could be
performed to obtain these data, however, full-size
testing programs are usually too expensive to be
conducted, and in some cases, impractical because of
other limitations. The extraction of larger-sized sam-
ples is usually very difficult, even impossible in case
of heritage monuments. In the past, prism testing has
been proven to be cost-effective and to provide a
degree of correlation with full-size testing. The
European Standards [9] also specifies that this test
method reflects the compressive strength and the
modulus of elasticity of the masonry element.
There are several ways in which the behaviour of
complete masonry walls may be evaluated in the
laboratory by means of destructive tests. Large
samples or cores cut from the original structure,
Materials and Structures (2012) 45:995–1006
samples of re-constituted masonry walls, stack bond
prisms, and/or scaled walls built in the laboratory were
and are used as specimen wallets. Both material and
structural tests may be performed on such samples,
using monotonic or cyclic loads, monitoring either the
axial displacement or the load, and applying different
boundary conditions [10]. All of these possibilities,
together with the masonry properties, will define a
failure mode.
Compressive strength experiments on masonry
prisms are easily conducted. Stack bond prisms or
wallets, such as the RILEM test specimen [11], are
frequently used to assess the uniaxial compressive
strength of masonry. In a stacked-bond prism loaded in
uniaxial compression, the mortar tends to expand
laterally more than the stone, due to their respective
elastic properties. The continuity between stones and
mortar, assured by cohesion and friction, leads to the
lateral confinement of the mortar. As a result, shear
stresses develop at the mortar-stone interface, produc-
ing a tri-axial compressive stress state in the mortar
and bilateral tension coupled with uniaxial compres-
sion in the stone. As a consequence, failure generally
occurs due to the development of cracks in the stones,
parallel to the loading direction [12]. Both strength and
cracking behaviour are influenced by the boundary
conditions. Usually, both top and bottom units remain
undamaged when standard steel plates are used as an
interposition material, due to the confinement effect.
This work sets out to contribute to and to extend the
experimental data on the mechanics of traditional
stone masonry structures and their behaviour under
compressive loads, especially considering rubble
masonry with low strength mortars.
2 Materials
Two kinds of stone and a lime-cement mortar were
selected as representative materials of the analysed
masonry. The goal was to obtain masonry assemblies
from available materials similar to the ancient ones
found in heritage buildings.
2.1 Stone units
The stone used in this research was quarried at Aguilar
de Campoo, in the province of Palencia, North-central
Spain. Two types of stone were selected:
Materials and Structures (2012) 45:995–1006
• Sandstone1. An abundant sandstone type was used
for the ashlar units. It was quarried at Quintanilla
de las Torres (Spain). It is a uniform, fine-grain,
yellowish-grey sandstone rock with light rose-
coloured tones that is somewhat weak to the touch.
It is made up of 85% quartz grains and also
contains philo-silicates (clays and muscovite) and
a few iron oxides. This stone is currently used for
substitutions in real interventions. The stone used
for the ashlar masonry was delivered as large
blocks and samples were then cut using a Diamant
Boart TS 600 M cutting machine, equipped with a
U600 mm diamond disc, to obtain prismatic units
for the prisms specimens.
• Sandstone2. A darker rock, extracted from Cordo-
villa de Aguilar (Spain), was used for the rubble
masonry. It is a dendrite rock with a predominantly
reddish colour that is found in natural layers. The
stone was received as irregular blocks that were
manually broken up for the construction of the
prisms specimens.
Sandstone1 is a detrital rock composed of grains of
quartz, kaolinite, muscovite, fragments of rock (prin-
cipally quartzite) and opaque iron minerals. The colour
of the rock is predominantly light brown, with a natural
layering and alternating millimetric red and orange
bands that are rich in iron hydroxides. Sandstone1 may
be classified as a sublitharenite—a sandstone with less
than 15% clay matrix, very rich in quartz, with rock
fragments of below 25% in its structure.
Sandstone2 is a detrital rock composed of grains of
quartz (&55%), feldspar (&25%), muscovite (&10%),
opaque grains of iron oxide, and heavy minerals (rutile,
zircon and tourmaline). It is predominantly of a red
colour, with a natural layering that alternates with sub-
millimetric reddish layers rich in iron oxide. Sandstone2
can be classified as a subarcose—a sandstone with less
than 15% clay matrix, very rich in quartz, with feldspar
in the structure below 25%.
Table 1 Mineralogical
Mineral phase
characterisation of
sandstones Quartz
Calcite
Muscovite
Black dots indicate the Potassium feldspar (Microcline)
relative abundance of the Haematite
mineral
997
The properties of these materials show considerable
disparity due to their different nature, as showed in
Table 1. Knowledge of the physical properties of
rocks helps to understand the variations in their
mechanical properties [13]. Cores with diameters of
50 mm and heights of between 115 mm and 150 mm
were extracted from the selected stones. The com-
pression tests were performed on an Ibertest servo-
controlled machine with fixed-end platens. This
equipment has a load cell connected to the vertical
actuator with a maximum capacity of 200 kN, and is
particularly appropriate for mortar specimens (40 mm
cubes) and stone cores (U50 mm). Loading misalign-
ment was avoided by the hinge of the upper platen of
the testing machine. A cardboard sheet was placed
between the machine platens and the specimen, in
order to avoid stress concentrations during the com-
pressive stress.
The stone exhibits a typical ceramic behaviour: low
tensile strength and high compression strength with
plastic deformation. The elastic modulus may be
estimated by considering the slope of the straight line
portion of the stress–strain diagram. In this research, a
deformability modulus was estimated by considering
the stress-deformation from 0 to 40% of the maximum
stress. The strain was measured with strain gauges in
line with standard specifications contained in UNE
83316 [14]. ASTM (1999) proposes a similar method
for estimating the elastic modulus of intact rock core
specimens under uniaxial compression, by consider-
ing the deformation-stress relation within the 30–60%
stress interval. In this work, the first option was used in
accordance with internal lab procedures.
The variability of results for each test and stone
type was evaluated by determining the coefficient of
variation. The scatter in these coefficients observed in
this study is due to the difference in the rock
lithology of tested samples. In spite of the remarkable
disparity of the results, typical of these natural stones,
the values will be taken into account for estimating
Sandstone1 Sandstone2
SiO2 ••••• •••••
CaCO3 •
KAl2(AlSi3O10)(OH)2 • ••
KAlSi3O8 ••
Fe2O3 •
998
the compressive strength of the masonry prisms and
as input parameters for future numerical models.
With regard to the above tests, between six and nine
cores of each stone were used. Average values for the
results are presented in the Table 2. The coefficient
of variation is given between brackets (%).
2.2 Mortar
The characterization of an ancient mortar, used
hundreds of years ago in a masonry construction, is a
very complicated task. In many cases, the possibility
of extracting reliable samples is very expensive and
sufficient material to constitute an experimental series
is not always available.
Mechanical parameters, such as compression
strength, are difficult to obtain, because the sample is
not sufficiently large to serve as a specimen. In
general, an out-of-standards load test is used to obtain
approximate values. Previous studies developed in
Tecnalia on mortars used in Romanesque buildings in
the province of Palencia show very low strengths, of
between 0.2 and 0.5 MPa. It is also of great interest to
evaluate the deformability or the elastic modulus of
the masonry, although precise results are also difficult
to obtain for the same reasons.
The heterogeneity of the constituents adds further
difficulties. In some cases, small pieces of wood, and
carbon and lumps of lime were found inside the
specimens. Current techniques are unable to identify
the original composition of these mortars. X-ray
diffraction test indicates that all they have lime
(CaCO3), but at present the only way of clearly
identifying the original materials is through the study
of specialised historical references.
Preliminary research involved the extraction of
mortar samples from a number of Romanesque
religious buildings. These mortars were in the bed
and head joints of the inner leaf of load-bearing stone
masonry walls and in other masonry elements (vaults
and domes). The size of the samples restricted the
available mechanical tests to the point load test: an
accepted rock mechanics testing procedure used for
Table 2 Mechanical properties of sandstones
q (kg/m3) fc (N/mm2) E (GPa)
Sandstone1 2,090 40.0 (34.02) 10.46 (12.58)
Sandstone2 2,066 64.6 (24.33) 10.62 (24.72)
Materials and Structures (2012) 45:995–1006
the calculation of a rock strength index. This index can
be used to estimate other rock strength parameters.
Thus, the point load test index (Is50) may be correlated
with the uniaxial compression strength, taking account
of the overall geometry of the sample (UNE 22 [15], as
presented in Table 3. High levels of degradation were
observable in many of the samples. In some cases, the
mortar crumbled to the touch and could be reduced to a
handful of sand.
The Table 4 presents the mineralogical analysis of
the ancient mortar samples. It demonstrates the different
compositions of mortars from a single building. This
might be caused by the different stages of the construc-
tion process and later interventions. Besides masons
were able to modify the composition depending on their
location in the building (e.g., light mortars in vaults).
Previous studies on ashlar and rubble masonry
indicate that ancient mortars are lime based, have very
low compression strength, and have clearly been
affected by degradation processes at different levels.
Due to the slow development of lime mortars, which
require centuries to reach full strength, cement was
added to the mortar for the experimental campaign.
Another option could have been the addition of a
curing accelerating agent, but this option was dis-
missed so as not to introduce any further variables into
the problem.
A dosage of 0.5–1.5–19 by volume (lime–white
cement–sand), similar to the ones used in historical
buildings rehabilitation, was considered representative
of the original ancient mortars. Total water/binder ratio
(including water absorbed into the fine aggregates) was
equal to 1. It was selected for the construction of the
mortar specimens and masonry prisms.
These specimens were stored at a controlled
humidity and temperature (RH 60% and 20C) over
the first 28 days. They were then stored inside, in a
draft-free area, close to the masonry prism specimens.
The hardened mortar was characterised by means
of compression and flexural [16] tests at different
ages, using cylindrical (U100 9 200 mm) and pris-
matic (40 9 40 9 160 mm) specimens respectively
(Table 5), taken from different mixes during the
construction of the prisms.
2.3 Masonry prisms
A total of 16 stone masonry prisms and four mortar
prisms were constructed and tested under compression
Materials and Structures (2012) 45:995–1006 999

Table 3 Point load test results of ancient mortars

Specimen Width (cm) Height (cm) Load (kp) De2 (cm2) Is F Is(50) Compressive
strength (MPa)

M-1 4.9 2.2 30 13.73 2.18 0.87 1.91 4.12

M-2(1) 6 3.9 21 29.81 0.7 1.04 0.73 1.57
M-2(2) 6 3.4 22 25.99 0.85 1.01 0.85 1.86
M-3(1) 3.6 2.8 5 12.84 0.39 0.86 0.34 0.69
M-3(2) 6.5 5.8 20 48.03 0.42 1.16 0.48 1.08
De = Equivalent core diameter. D2e = 4A/p, where A is the minimum area of the transversal sections which contain the vertical axle
of the loading points
Is = P/D2e , where P is the maximum applied load and De the equivalent diameter
F = (De/50)0,45 is a size correction factor
Is50 = FIs

Table 4 Mineralogical
Mineral phase Mortar M-1 Mortar M-2 Mortar M-3
characterization of ancient
mortars Calcite CaCO3 •• ••• ••••
Kaolinite Al2Si2O5(OH)4 • •
Quartz SiO2 •••• ••• •••
Microcline KAlSi3O8 • • •
Portlandite Ca(OH)2 ••
Black dots indicate the Muscovite KAl2(AlSi3O10)(OH)2 • •
relative abundance of the Gypsum CaSO4*H2O •
mineral

Table 5 Average values for flexural and compressive strength testing machine. Special care was taken to ensure
at different ages parallel ends during the construction of the prism
Age (days) 28 45 90 180 240 365 specimens and furthermore, some specimen tops were
suitably covered with a thin layer of mortar to obtain a
Flexural strength 0.05 0.10 0.11 0.14 0.13
smooth surface.
(MPa)
The stone/mortar volumetric ratio in the rubble
Compressive 0.16 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.28
strength (MPa) masonry prisms was roughly 3/1. The prisms that were
constructed to represent the inner cores were com-
posed of low-strength mortars, small stone pieces and
load. The specimen sizes were defined, bearing in a significant percentage of voids (&5%). In the case of
mind the restrictions of the testing equipment, as well the ashlar masonry prisms, the bed mortar joints were
as the manufacturing restrictions relating to the stone about 15 mm. They were stored in draft-free area, at
specimens. Prismatic specimens of 400 mm in height, normal temperature and humidity conditions.
500 mm in length and 300 mm in width were prepared The previously prepared prisms were tested at
(Fig. 1), bearing in mind the maximum distance 120 days, under uniaxial compression with load
between the press platens. velocity control (100 N/s for the masonry and 10 N/s
The prisms were cast according to the composition for the inner mortar prisms). An AMSLER universal
of the leaves of a typical Romanesque wall: rubble compression test machine with a maximum load of
masonry, inner core of low strength mortar and ashlar 5.106 N was used. The upper platen of the testing
masonry. In addition, four dry-joint ashlar masonry machine was hinged to avoid loading misalignment.
prisms were constructed as references for the rest. Load history and crack developments were recorded.
They were all built over steel plates to facilitate Displacement was measured by means of four digital
transport and to assure a flat surface on the universal- LVDTs. These devices can measure within a range of
1000
Fig. 1 Masonry prisms: ashlar masonry prism during construction (a), finished rubble masonry (b) and inner core prisms at testing (c)
30 mm and have a 5-digit LCD display. The LVDT
sensors were fixed to an external and still part of the
testing machine, meanwhile the plungers were in
contact with the moving lower platen. A deformability
value E* was estimated by considering the displace-
ment between platens. This value does not exactly
coincide with the real Elastic Modulus of the masonry
(1.1–1.2 times higher). Nevertheless, it will be used
for a comparison between the deformability of the
different masonry assemblages.
3 Test results
The complete load–displacement diagram that charac-
terises the behaviour of all tests is the result of average
displacement measured by four displacement transduc-
ers. The normal stress is calculated as the ratio between
the applied vertical load and the initial cross section.
All the diagrams exhibited the common initial
adjustment between the specimen and the machine
platens (usually termed as ‘‘locking’’), which is
initially reflected on the stress–strain graph as a curve
followed by a linear portion.
Fig. 2 Detail of crack propagation in two masonry specimens
Materials and Structures (2012) 45:995–1006
Some of the cracks in the stone units appeared suddenly
and, in some specimens, were accompanied by a clear
cracking sound (Fig. 2). The stress corresponding to the
first crack in the stone units is noted as fM0 in Table 6. The
ratio between this parameter and the maximum load could
be an attempt to estimate the remaining resistance in a
masonry element, despite the presence of cracks due to
compression. The strain at maximum stress (emax) has
been included too (Tables 7, 8).
In line with the ASTM specification, Young’s
modulus can be defined as the average slope of the
linear portion of the stress–strain diagram. Taking into
account that the straight-line portion is located in the
(30–60%) stress interval, the deformability in this
interval, using linear least-square regression, are
presented in Table 6. It should be noted that, even if
stones from the same delivery were used, different
deformability from the prism specimens was observed.
The disparity in the test results of the ashlar
masonry specimens is a consequence of the variations
in the preparation of the specimens and the execution
of the tests. The first group of ashlar specimens was
made of the same mortar as that used in the construc-
tion of the rubble ordinary masonry and inner-core
Materials and Structures (2012) 45:995–1006 1001

Table 6 Results of masonry prism testing testing, specimen PA2 was subjected to two load
Material fM0 fM emax E*(30–60%)
cycles of approximately 40% and 30% of the test
specimen (MPa) (MPa) (mm/m) (MPa) failure load that was considered valid.
Despite the previous problem, a clear softened
Dry joint ashlar masonry S form was observed in load–displacement graphics
PdA1 3.20 13.13 2.59 1,055 obtained from the tests. The values of the final load
PdA2a 1.20 4.71 2.07 246 and the modulus of elasticity are higher than those of
PdA3a 0.31 3.52 2.53 412 the rubble masonry prisms. The curves of the rough
PdA4a 0.35 7.47 2.88 515 masonry prisms show less disperse results, as the four
Average values 1.27 7.21 2.52 557 specimens were constructed and tested in the same
b
Ashlar masonry way, and their behaviour is more linear from start to
PA1 2.09 4.54 3.28 151 failure. In contrast, the specimen representing the
PA5 2.29 8.18 1.96 461 inner filling of the wall presented two very different
PA6 2.62 7.85 2.08 504 sections during testing: a first pseudo-linear portion,
PA7 3.92 9.81 2.51 628 and a second portion that showed deformation under
PA8 1.96 9.99 2.68 486 maintained load with rapid extension of cracking.
Average values 2.58 8.07 2.50 446 No direct comparison may be made between the
Ashlar masonryc resistance values and the elastic modulus obtained
PA2d – 8.16 1.24 1,220 from these tests and those presented in Sect. 2.2. In the
PA3 – 11.25 2.74 458 first place, small pieces of stone and air pockets are
PA4 – 10.39 3.46 323 present in the prismatic specimen, despite it being the
Average values – 9.93 2.48 667 same mortar. The so-called ‘‘specimen effect’’ should
Rough masonry also be considered, as they are specimens of a different
PR1 – 2.83 4.35 79 geometry and size. Nevertheless, the proximity of both
PR2 0.39 1.66 4.24 52 results confirms the characterization of this material.
PR3 0.36 1.10 2.77 49 The following conclusions may be drawn:
PR4 0.36 1.76 3.74 69 • The masonry strength is strongly affected by the
Average values 0.37 1.84 3.78 62 quality of the mortar and workmanship.
Inner core/filling • Both ashlar (with bed-mortar joints) and rubble
mortar
masonry exhibit uniform behaviour, with a strain–
PM1 – 0.16 2.65 15
stress slope that is practically constant.
PM2 0.12 0.20 2.34 16
• The deformability is greatly influenced by the
PM3 0.13 0.18 1.34 13
previous load history.
PM4 0.12 0.22 2.14 18
• The results for the ashlar masonry prisms show
Average values 0.12 0.19 2.12 15.5 greater variation. Further tests are needed for them
Not registered result to be developed in the future; nevertheless, the
a
Specimens built by non-expert masons tendencies are sufficiently well defined to be able
b
Specimens with low strength mortar (white cement–lime– to compare the load bearing capacities of three leaf
sand: 1.5–0.5–19, by volume and total water/binder ratio = 1) walls (ashlar blocks/inner core/rubble masonry).
c
Specimens with a stronger mortar [fck & 1 MPa] (white
cement–lime–sand: 1.5–0.5–10 and total water/binder ratio = 1)
d
Specimen preloaded 2 times before the final up-to-failure test
4 Comparison of experimental results
with standards and recommendations

prisms. A mortar with higher binder content was used The following equations present a number of simple
in the three remaining specimens, similar to the one calculations based on the fundamental properties of
used for rendering in real interventions in heritage the materials that are used to predict the compressive
buildings. Due to a problem that occurred during strength fc of masonry prisms.
1002 Materials and Structures (2012) 45:995–1006

(a) Equation proposed by Engesser in 1907 and    2

1 3 1
reviewed by Huerta [17]: A ¼ 0:2487ftu þ 0:0018a ð4aÞ
fcu fcm
1 2  2  
fc ¼ fcu þ fcm ð1Þ 1 1
3 3 B ¼ 1:2781ftu 0:05290a ð4bÞ
fcu fcm
where fc, compressive strength of the masonry;  
fcu, compressive strength of the (stone) units; fcm, 1
C ¼ 2:0264ftu 0:1126a ð4cÞ
compressive strength of the mortar fcu

(b) Design values proposed by Segurado [18] have
been summarised in Table 7.
(c) PIET [19] proposed the compressive strength
values presented in Table 8 for different stone
masonries, for design purposes.
(d) C. Rozza [20] proposed a method, widely distrib-
uted in Italy, for the calculation of stone and
brick masonry load-bearing walls. The estimated
strength of the masonry is later reduced by the
corresponding eccentricity, slenderness and wall-
framework connection dependant coefficients. The
simplified equations for ashlar and rubble masonry
compressive strength are presented below.
Ashlar and brick masonry: fc
0:8mu fcu þ 1:2mm fcm
¼ ð2aÞ
10
mu fcu þ 0:8mm fcm
Rubble masonry: fc ¼
12:5
ð2bÞ
where vu, relative volume of (stone) units; vm,
relative volume of mortar.
(e) Equation proposed by Francis et al. [2]
1 mortar.
fc ¼ f
a/ðbmm mu Þ cu
1þ bð1mm Þ
where the parameters a, b and / read:
hm Eu fcu
a¼ b¼ /¼ ð3aÞ
hu Em ftu
where hm and hu, height of the stone units and
mortar horizontal joint thickness; Eu and Em,
stone and mortar elasticity modulus; ftu, stone
units tensile strength
(f) Equation proposed by Khoo and Hendry [5]
Afc3 þ Bfc2 þ Cfc þ D ¼ 0
where the parameters A, B, C and D read:
D ¼ 0:9968ftu þ 0:1620afcm ð4dÞ
(g) Equation proposed by Ohler [6]
sfcu  fcm
fc ¼ fcm þ thm fcu
ð5Þ
1 þ mh u ftu
where the parameters s and t define the unit
failure envelope, and m is the slope of the mortar
failure envelope. The values presented by Ohler
[6] for these parameters are given in Tables 9
and 10, respectively.
The last three equations stem from equilibrium
methods under the assumption that units are uniaxially
compressed—biaxially tensioned while mortar is
triaxially compressed. For this reason, these equations
are only applicable when the unit stiffness exceeds the
mortar stiffness.
However, the existence of a very large ratio
between the mortar and the unit strengths precludes
the application of the equations proposed by Khoo
and Hendry [5] and Ohler [6], since their formu-
lation only explicitly considers mortar strength
rather than the elastic properties of the mortar. On
the contrary, the equation proposed by Francis
[2] only considers the elastic properties of the
ð3Þ
(h) Equations provided by Eurocode 6, CEN [9] and
Spanish Technical Building Code CTE [21],
0:7 0:3
Eurocode 6: fc ¼ Kfcu fcm ð6Þ
0:65 0:25
CTE 2008 : fck ¼ Kfcu fcm ð7Þ
where K is a constant depending on the quality of
the masonry units. These equations can be used
where the thickness of the mortar joints, both
horizontally and vertically, is between 8 and
15 mm. A value of K = 0.44 was estimated for
the specimens of this research.
ð4Þ
(i) Equation provided by ACI Specification for
Masonry Structures [22],
Materials and Structures (2012) 45:995–1006 1003

joint
Table 7 Masonry compressive strength by Segurado [18]

Dry

0.7

0.6

0.5
Masonry Design compression
strength (MPa)

minimum mortar type

Rubble stone masonry with lime mortar
High-strength stone 3–6

Coursed with
Strong stone 1.5–3
Semi-strength stone 1–1.5

M-5

0.8

0.6
Soft stone 0.8–1

1
Ashlar masonry with lime mortar 1–2
Ordered masonry 0.5–1

minimum mortar type

Brick masonry with lime mortar

Rubble masonry
Normal brick 0.6–0.8

Squared stone,
High-strength brick 0.8–1
Brick masonry with cement mortar 1–1.5

M-40

2.5

1.2

0.8
Observations Lime mortar has 3 parts of sand and 1 part of
aerial lime, design tensile strength is estimated as 10% of the
design compression strength, design tensile strength decreases

hu \ 30 cm, minimum
with height of the structural element. Values between 0.25 and
0.5 of those under consideration must be applied for heights
over 20 times the length of the base, and the safety strength

Ashlar blocks
under consideration corresponds, more or less, to 1/10 of the

mortar type
failure strength

M-40
fc ¼ Að2:758 þ Bfcu Þ ð8Þ

1
where A = 1 for inspected masonry and B = 0.2
hu C 30 cm, minimum

for type N Portland cement-lime mortar or

B = 0.25 for type S or M Portland cement-lime
mortar.
Ashlar blocks

mortar type

Experimental and analytical results with the calcu-

lated ones provided by the equations and tables from
M-80

1.5
bibliography are compared just to have a qualitative
6

idea about the possible disparity between the obtained

Ashlar masonry

data and the predicted values (Table 11).

Dry cut ashlar
Table 8 Masonry compressive strength by PIET [19]

Results from recommendations have been obtained

just for the masonry material itself, and not for full
blocks

structural elements (pillars, walls, arches, etc.), where

8

boundary conditions have a big influence on the final

values.
strength (MPa)

On the basis of these values, the following obser-

Compression

vations may be made:

C100

C30

C10

• Estimates of masonry resistance vary greatly

according to the method used. It should be
remembered that the various formulae were devel-
Quartzy sandstone

oped in a specific manner for particular materials

Lime-sandstone
Hard limestone

Soft limestone

and geometric forms, which is why any attempt to

use them as values for masonry with such a weak
of stone

Granite
Syenite

Marble
Basalt

mortar will lead to erroneous results. For instance,

Type

it was found that the Khoo and Hendry equation,

1004 Materials and Structures (2012) 45:995–1006

Table 9 Values for the

0 \ fc/fcu \ 0.33 0.33 \ fc/fcu \ 0.67 0.67 \ fc/fcu \ 1.0
parameters s and t
S 0.662 0.811 1.000
T 0.662 0.960 2.218

Table 10 Values for the parameter m rough masonry) is taken into account, then the
fc,u (MPa) 31.6 21.4 15.4 6.4
resistance values of the ashlar units are greater than
m (-) 5.3 3.6 2.4 2.1
those of the rough masonry.
• In the case of the ashlar units, it was found that
the results given by the Eurocode equation EC-6
Table 11 Theoretical and experimental compressive strength adapted to the Spanish ‘‘Código Técnico de la
of masonry prisms Edificación [Technical Building Code]’’ were
PdA PA PA’ PR closest to those of the test results. This norm
(MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) specifies the conditions to be considered
Yvon Villarceau [23] 4.00 4.00 4.00 6.46
(thinness, eccentricity) when using the afore-
mentioned values to test walls and other struc-
Engesser (1907) 13.33 13.53 15.33 21.73
tural elements.
Segurado [18] – 1.50 0.80 0.90
• In the case of rough masonry, none of the
PIET [19] 2.00 0.8 1.00 0.5
equations came close to the values obtained in
Francis et al. [2] 40.00 35.30 35.45 46.35
the laboratory tests. The general value recom-
Khoo and Hendry [5] – – – –
mended by Segurado [18] is the closest and could
Ohler [6] 32.44 32.46 32.66 52.42
serve as a starting point when testing ordinary
Rozza [20] 3.20 2.91 2.94 4.50
masonry structures that have very degraded
Eurocode 6 [9] – 5.53 11.03 7.73
mortars. Nevertheless, due to the extreme com-
ACI [22] 10.76 10.76 10.76 15.68
plexity presented by these constructions, labora-
BS 5628-1 [24] 14.00 14.00 14.00 11.31
tory testing is recommended in order to obtain
Spanish CTE [21] – 4.88 8.69 6.67
more detailed results.
Experimental values 7.21 8.07 9.93 1.84

with resistance in compression ratios of over 10 for 5 Conclusions

masonry units and mortar, failed to provide an
acceptable estimate.
• Within the range of responses, it was found that the
equations in standards and specifications that refer
to ashlar units all provide similar results.
• The values fail to comply with current standards,
as an extremely poor mortar was used to simulate
ancient degraded mortar.
• If, in the method for estimating the resistance of
the masonry, the resistance value of the stone
material is used, without taking account of the
bond, then the resistance values obtained for the
rough masonry units are, in general, higher than
those obtained for the ashlar units, given that the
resistance in compression of the former is greater
than the latter.
• If, in the method for estimating the resistance of
the masonry, the type of masonry (ashlar units or
Stone masonry is a highly complex material. From the
constituent components to the geometric arrange-
ments in real structures, there is a huge number of
parameters involved in its behaviour.
Two kinds of sandstone were used during the
presented experimental tests. In spite of the same
origin of the stone specimens, petrographical differ-
ences were found among of them. It results in high
variation coefficients for their mechanical properties,
as previously expected.
Mortars found in many historic constructions
present very low resistance values, even as much as
below 0.5 MPa. In some cases, the mortar crumbled to
the touch and could be reduced to a handful of sand.
The low adherence values confirm the hypothesis of
zero tensile strength when undertaking analytical and
numeric calculations.
Materials and Structures (2012) 45:995–1006
The enormous difference between the resistance of
stone as opposed to mortar means that the majority of
the existing equations, which are used to estimate
resistance on the basis of the masonry components and
their properties, do not square with reality. In any case,
it has been shown how current standards do not set out
calculations for the design or verification of structural
elements made with irregular masonry blocks. It is
recommended that in these cases, and on the basis of
the observed results, laboratory testing should be
performed with masonry prisms made of similar
materials and configuration.
In the case of rough masonry, none of the
consulted equations came close to the values
obtained in the laboratory tests. Only values from
traditional tables [18, 19] are close to the obtained
results and could serve as a starting point when
testing ordinary masonry structures that have very
degraded mortars. Nevertheless, due to the extreme
complexity presented by these constructions, labora-
tory testing is again recommended in order to obtain
more detailed results.
Dry joint masonry prisms show a slightly lower
compressive strength than those built with mortar
joints. This can be explained by the lack of interlayer
material, which promoted stress concentrations in a
few discrete contact points, leading to the formation of
vertical cracks in the stones. However, since ashlar
units were prepared with common dimensions, when
the contact is through a smooth surface, the ultimate
compressive load could be higher than the same with
mortar, as obtained in one of the dry joint prisms.
The influence of the mortar strength on the modulus
of elasticity of prisms is very small. The masonry
prisms had virtually the same initial tangent modulus
of elasticity for both medium and low strength mortars
or dry joint. Nevertheless, the ratio mortar/stone
volume has an important role in the deformability of
the structure, as observed in the average values.
The modulus of elasticity is influenced by the
load history. After a few cycles, the deformability
decreases. Future results about long term loading and
cyclic loading will help to improve the knowledge
about this matter. Another interesting point is the
study of the post-peak behaviour of masonry, still
insufficiently characterized. In that case, the tests must
be carried out under displacement control, as pre-
sented in [8]. Authors are currently working in a
1005
similar line, extending the results data base with local
materials and masonry typologies.
Acknowledgements This research was made possible thanks
to a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Education and Culture
(BES-2006-12635) and the financial support provided by the
European Commission and the Basque Government (programs
OPERHA-517765 and NUCLEO-Emaitek 2008).
References
1. Heyman J (1966) The stone skeleton. Int J Solids Struct
2:249–279
2. Francis A, Horman C, Jerrems L (1971) The effect of joint
thickness and other factors on the compressive strength of
brickwork. In: Proceedings od second international brick
and block masonry conference. Stoke-on-Trent, UK,
pp 31–37
3. Binda L, Tedeschi C, Baronio G (1999) Influence of thick
mortar joints on the early and late mechanical behaviour of
byzantine constructions. In 6th international conference on
structural studies, repairs and maintenance of historical
buildings, STREMAH 99, Dresden, Germany, pp 211–220
4. Binda L, Fontana A, Frigerio G (1988) Mechanical behav-
iour of brick masonries derived from unit and mortar
characteristics. In: 8th IBMaC, Dublin, vol 1, pp 205–216
5. Khoo C, Hendry A (1973) A failure criterion for brickwork
in axial compression. In: Proceedings of 3rd international
brick and block masonry conference, Essen, Germany,
pp 139–145
6. Olher A (1986) Calculation of masonry compressive
strength considering the multi-axle states of stress in units
and mortar. Bautechnik 5
7. Oliveira DV (2000) Mechanical characterization of stone
and brick masonry. Report 00-DEC/E-4. University of
Minho
8. Oliveira DV (2003) Experimental and numerical analysis of
blocky masonry structures under cyclic loading. PhD
Thesis. Escola de Engenharia Universidade do Minho
9. CEN (2003) Eurocode 6: design of masonry structures. EN
1996-1-1:2003, CEN, Brussels, Belgium
10. Ip F (1999) Compressive strength and modulus of elasticity
of masonry prisms. Master Thesis. Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa,
Canada
11. RILEM (2004) Masonry durability and on-site testing.
RILEM TC 177-MDT
12. Oliveira DV, Lourenço PB, Roca P (2006) Cyclic behaviour
of stone and brick masonry under uniaxial compressive
loading. Mater Struct 39(2):219–227
13. Folk RL (1974) Petrology of sedimentary rocks. Hemphills
14. UNE 83316 (1996) Ensayo de hormigón. Determinación del
módulo de elasticidad en compresión
15. UNE 22.950—Part 5 (1996) Resistencia a Carga Puntual
Rocas. Point Load Test for Rocks
16. UNE EN 1015-11 (2000) Methods of test for mortar for
masonry—Part 11: determination of flexural and compres-
sive strength of hardened mortar
1006
17. Huerta S (2004) Geometrı́a y equilibrio en el cálculo
tradicional de estructuras de fábrica. Instituto Juan de Her-
rera. ETSAM, Madrid
18. Segurado J (1908) Alvenaria, cantaria e betão. Biblioteca de
Instrução Profissional, Livraria Bertrand, Lisboa
19. PIET (1970) Prescripciones técnicas del Instituto Torroja.
Technical requirements from the Torroja Institute
20. Lozano G, Lozano A (1995) Curso ténico de intervenciones
en Patrimonio (II)
Materials and Structures (2012) 45:995–1006
21. CTE (2008) Spanish Technical Building Code
22. ACI (2004) Commentary on specification for masonry
structures. ACI 530.1-02, Manual of Concrete Practice,
Detroit, USA
23. Villarceau AY (1854) Memoires Presentes par Divers
Savants, vol 12, Academie des Sciences, Paris, p 503 (in
French)
24. BS5628-1 (2005) Code of practice for the use of masonry.
Part 1: Structural use of unreinforced masonry