Influence of the Blocks and Mortar’s

Compressive Strength on the Flexural

Bond Strength of Concrete Masonry

Gustavo H. Nalon, Rita de C. S. S. Alvarenga, Leonardo G. Pedroti,

Marcelo A. Alves, Roseli O. G. Martins, Carol F. R. Santos,
Igor K. R. Andrade and Beatryz C. Mendes

Abstract This work presents an experimental investigation of the influence of

concrete blocks and mortar’s compressive strength on the flexural bond strength,
normal to the bed joints, of concrete structural masonry. Third-point beam tests
were performed on concrete prisms, considering two different kinds of concrete
blocks (compressive strength of 5.9 and 8.2 MPa) and six different cement-lime
mortar compositions (compressive strength around 30, 70, and 120% of the blocks’
net area compressive strength). Units’ absorption and mortar’s initial flow and
water retentivity were not varied, but remained within the suitable range for use in
structural masonry. For both types of concrete blocks, it was observed an increase
on the prism’s flexural bond strength with the increase of the mortars’ compressive
strength. A lower mortar’s water-cement ratio led to higher bond strength. When
fixing the ratio between mortar’s and concrete block’s compressive strength, it was

G. H. Nalon (&)
R. de C. S. S. Alvarenga
L. G. Pedroti
M. A. Alves
R. O. G. Martins

I. K. R. Andrade
B. C. Mendes
DEC—Civil Engineering Department, UFV—Federal University of Vicosa,
Av. PH Rolfs, S/N, Vicosa, Minas Gerais 36570-900, Brazil
e-mail: [email protected]
R. de C. S. S. Alvarenga
e-mail: [email protected]
L. G. Pedroti
e-mail: [email protected]
M. A. Alves
e-mail: [email protected]
R. O. G. Martins
e-mail: [email protected]
I. K. R. Andrade
e-mail: [email protected]
C. F. R. Santos
EESC—Sao Carlos School of Engineering, USP—University of Sao Paulo,
Av. Trabalhador São-Carlense, 400, Parque Arnold Schimidt, São Carlos,
São Paulo 13566-590, Brazil
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 2018 565

B. Li et al. (eds.), Characterization of Minerals, Metals,
and Materials 2018, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72484-3_60
566 G. H. Nalon et al.

noticed that the increase on the blocks’ strength contributed to a slight increase on
the masonry’s flexural bond strength, except when using high strength mortar, in
which the increase was significantly greater.

Keywords Masonry structures
Mortar properties
Concrete blocks properties

Flexural bond strength

Introduction

Structural masonry is a construction system in which blocks, mortar, and, even-

tually, grout, are responsible for supporting the acting loads and transferring them
to the foundation elements. Then, this kind of structure is constructed with different
components, each one with its own mechanical and elastic properties. Therefore,
the masonry’s strength, deformability, and failure mode are directly related to the
properties of its basic components. Moreover, all of the masonry’s components are
considerably heterogeneous, so that their mechanical behavior also depends on the
properties of the cement, lime, and aggregates used in their production.
At this point, it is possible to understand the difficulties of correctly predicting
the overall behavior of structural masonry from simplified analytical and numerical
models. Laboratory experimentation is also necessary in order to verify the influ-
ence of the properties of each component on the behavior of the whole structure.
Concrete blocks have a primordial function in the behavior of the structural
masonry. According to Ramalho and Correa [1], the units are the main responsible
for the strength of masonry elements. On the other hand, the main functions of the
mortar are the union of the units, the uniform transmission of loads, and the
accommodation of small deformations, as the same authors point out. The Brazilian
Standard NBR 15961-1:2011 [2] requires that the mortar compressive strength
should be at most 70% of the concrete blocks’ net area compressive strength.
ASTM C 1329 [3] and C 270 [4] classify mortars in various types (M, S, N, and O),
which have different kinds of application.
Masonry elements are not subject only to vertical actions, but also to the lateral
pressure of the wind and earthquakes, or to the effect of eccentric loads. These types
of actions mobilize the elements’ bending and shear strength. Many authors already
studied the occurrence of masonry’s bending due to horizontal actions, which are
responsible for the development of tensile stresses in different directions. According
to Brown and Melander [5], the direction of the stresses (parallel or normal to the
bed joints) determine the failure mechanism of masonry walls. Testing solid clay
masonry walls, the authors found that the flexural strength parallel to bed joints
depends mainly on the shear strength of the bed joints. On the other hand, the
flexural strength normal to the bed joints is very dependent of the bond between
blocks and mortar.
In this respect, Parsekian, Hamid, and Drysdale (2012) [6] state that the flexural
bond strength is related to the block/mortar adhesion mechanism, which depends on
Influence of the Blocks and Mortar’s Compressive … 567

the chemical adhesion and mechanical interlocking between these components.

Lumantarna et al. [7] tested unreinforced clay brick masonry of existing buildings
in New Zealand, and also concluded that almost all of the field samples presented
bond failures on the mortar joints.
Different properties of blocks and mortar can affect the masonry’s flexural bond
strength. According to Rao et al. [8], increases in the cement mortar’s compressive
strength contribute to increases in the masonry’s flexural bond strength, irrespective
of the kind of block. Low cement content leads to lower values of flexural bond
strength. The same authors also verified that units with higher roughness and
greater wall thickness led to greater masonry’s flexural bond strength. Yuen and
Lissel [9] investigated how the bond strength depends on the bricks’ absorption,
construction methods, and curing methods, and stablished correlations between
these factors. Ajith et al. [10] investigated the flexural bond strength of concrete
masonry with 2 mm polymer glue mortar. They concluded that the flexural bond
strength depends on the type of mortar, the techniques of dispersion, and the
roughness of the blocks. They found that thin bed masonry presents better flexural
bond strength than the conventional masonry.
Flexural tests with simply supported beams or vertical walls can be performed in
order to determine the masonry’s flexural bond strength, normal to the bed joints.
This work aims to experimentally evaluate elements of concrete structural masonry
submitted to flexural stresses. Using different types of concrete blocks and
cement-lime mortar compositions, an experimental program was developed in order
to verify the influence of the concrete blocks and mortar’s mechanical properties on
the masonry’s flexural bond strength.

Materials and Methods

Two different concrete block strength levels were selected for this study. All of the
blocks were produced in Contagem, Minas Gerais, Brazil, and had a nominal size of
(140  190  390) mm. Experimental tests were conducted in order to determine
concrete blocks’ actual dimensions, water absorption, initial rate of absorption, net
area and compressive strength, as prescribed by NBR 12118: 2013 [11]. The
splitting tensile strength was determined as recommended by the ASTM C1006—
07 [12]. To determine the static modulus of elasticity of the blocks, the Brazilian
standard NBR 8522: 2008 [13] was used. The longitudinal deformation of the
blocks was measured by electrical strain gauges positioned at two points of the
block’s longitudinal walls. The load was applied by an EMIC hydraulic press,
PCE200PLUS model, and recorded by the machine’s load cells. The modulus of
elasticity was calculated between the points of compressive stress of 0.5 MPa and
30% of the estimated blocks’ compressive strength. Images of some of these tests
are presented in Fig. 1.
Different cement-lime mortar compositions were produced, which had com-
pressive strength close to 30, 70, and 120% of the concrete blocks’ net area
568 G. H. Nalon et al.

Fig. 1 Characterization of the concrete blocks

compressive strength. Thus, one of them would have compressive strength close to
the maximum limit stipulated by the Brazilian standard for structural masonry,
another below and the other above this limit. To produce the mortar, the following
construction materials were used: natural sand from Porto Firme, Minas Gerais,
Brazil; Portland cement CP II E-32, produced by Tupi; and hydrated lime CHIII
Supercal, produced by Ical.
The preparation of each mortar composition started by mixing sand, lime, and
water in the appropriate proportions. The mixture was then weighed and allowed to
mature for approximately 24 h. After this time, the cement and the amount of water
lost by evaporation were added, following a new mechanical mixing. The tem-
perature and humidity of the environment at the time of mixing were recorded.
After preparation, the mortar was submitted to experimental tests to determine the
consistency index, according to NBR 13276:2016 [14], and water retentivity,
according to NBR 13277:2005 [15]. The goal was to maintain the mortar’s flow in
the range of (230 ± 10) mm, which is recommended for structural masonry,
according to Parsekian and Soares [16]. As the same authors state that high water
retentivity is desirable, this parameter was maintained in the range of (90 ± 5)%.
Four-block prisms were produced with each kind of block and mortar, according
to the recommendations of NBR 15961-2: 2011 [17], and using full mortar bedding
and joint thickness of (10 ± 3) mm. The production steps of these specimens are
presented in Fig. 2. Before placing the mortar, the concrete blocks were moistened,
since the water retentivity of the mortars was high. For each batch of prisms, six
(40  40  160) mm mortar prisms and four (50  100) mm cylindrical speci-
mens were cast to be tested after 28 days of cure. Table 1 summarizes a couple of
specific characteristics of the batches of prisms. Each batch had three specimens.
The prisms were kept immobile for 28 days, and protected from heat and wind.
The mortar specimens were left inside the environmental room for the same period.
After this time, mortar flexure and compression tests were conducted, according to
NBR 15961-2: 2011 [17]. Mortars` modulus of elasticity was determined with the
cylinder specimens, which was calculated between the points of compressive stress
of 0.5 MPa and 30% of the mortar’s estimated compressive strength. Mortar
characterization tests are shown in Fig. 3.
Influence of the Blocks and Mortar’s Compressive … 569

Fig. 2 Four-block prisms production

Table 1 Characteristics of the batches of prisms

Name of the prisms Block’s net area compressive Mortar’s compressive
batch strength strength
B1 M < 40 B1
fbk fa  0:40fbk
B1

B1 M70 fa  0:70fbk
B1

B1 M > 100 fa  1:00fbk

B1

B2 M < 40 B2
fbk fa  0:40fbk
B2

B2 M70 fa  0:70fbk
B2

B2 M > 100 fa  1:00fbk

B2

Fig. 3 Characterization of cement-lime mortars

In order to determine the flexural bond strength, normal to the bed joints,
third-point beam tests were performed on the concrete prisms. The prisms were
horizontally placed under the movable plate of an EMIC universal testing machine,
model 23-600, supported on steel rollers in the positions shown in the diagram if
the Fig. 4. The diagram also shows the position of two other rollers on the central
570 G. H. Nalon et al.

Fig. 4 Third-point beam tests

blocks of the prism. These rollers work as a support for a plate centralized in the
load axis of the testing machine. The load was applied by displacement control, at a
speed of 0.01 mm/s, until the rupture of the prism.

Results and Discussion

Table 2 shows the properties obtained from the characterization tests of the con-
crete blocks. The net area compressive strength of B2 blocks was 36.7% greater
than that of the B1 blocks. Both types of blocks had a water absorption lower than
the maximum value suggested by the Brazilian standard, 10%. The strongest block
showed a lower water absorption and initial rate of absorption. Splitting tensile
strength was around 15% of the compressive strength of the blocks.
Table 3 summarizes, for each mortar composition, the proportions between
cement, lime, sand, and water; its consistency index and water retentivity. Flow and
water retentivity were within the ranges recommended by Parsekian and Soares
[16].
The flexural bond strength ft of the masonry, normal to the bed joints, was
determined based on the results of the third-point beam tests, with the following
equation:
 
6 ðW=H Þ  L2 P  b
ft ¼ þ
l  t2 8 2

In this equation, W and H are the prism’s weight and height, respectively; l and
t are the concrete block’s length and width, respectively; P is the failure load; and
L is the distance between the support rollers.
Influence of the Blocks and Mortar’s Compressive … 571

Table 2 Characterization of the concrete blocks

Property B1 blocks B2 blocks
Average width (mm) 138 140
Average length (mm) 390 390
Average height (mm) 190 190
Water absorption (%) 6.2 5.5
Initial rate of absorption (IRA) [(g/193.55 cm2)/min] 8.27 7.09
Ratio of An/Ag (%) 0.54 0.55
Gross area average compressive strength (MPa) 7.6 9.4
Gross area characteristic compressive strength (MPa) 5.9 8.2
Net area characteristic compressive strength (MPa) 10.9 14.8
Splitting tensile strength (MPa) 0.83 1.28
Modulus of elasticity (MPa) 7,310 15,769

Table 3 Mortar compositions, flow and water retentivity

Mortar Used in the Mix proportions (by mass) Flow Water
prisms Cement Lime Sand Water (mm) retentivity
(%)
M1 B1 M < 40 1.00 2.20 8.50 2.25 232 94
M2 B1 M70 1.00 0.39 6.44 1.32 230 91
M3 B1 M > 100 1.00 0.25 4.22 0.90 226 89
M4 B2 M < 40 1.00 0.45 7.48 1.49 218 85
M5 B2 M70 1.00 0.32 5.25 1.07 212 92
M6 B2 M > 100 1.00 0.20 3.39 0.74 231 86

Table 4 presents the properties obtained from third-point beam and mortar tests.
The third-point beam tests presented a large dispersion of results, so the use a
greater number of specimens is a suggestion for these types of tests. Despite this, it
was still possible to verify interesting trends in the masonry behavior, which will be
discussed below. All of the batches of prisms presented the desired values for the
ratio between mortar’s compressive strength and block’s net area compressive
strength. The modulus of elasticity of the mortar increased with the increase of its
compressive strength, in proportions similar to those reported by some of the works
cited by Brooks [18].
For any kind of prism, the rupture occurred in a brittle and sudden manner, due
to the loss of adhesion between the face of the block and the mortar joint, most
often in just one of the prism joints. Figure 4 represents this failure mode. It was
noted that the blocks were practically intact at the end of the tests. The factors that
interfere in the adhesion between block and mortar deserve, therefore, more
attention. Comparing all of the prism batches, mortar’s flow and water retentivity
did not change significantly. The AAI of B1 blocks was slightly smaller than the
AAI of B2 blocks. Labor and type of cure also did not vary between the batches.
572 G. H. Nalon et al.

Table 4 Results of the third-point beam and mortar tests

Prisms Average Mortar fm /fbk fm /fbk Modulus of
flexural bond strength Net Area (%) Gross Area (%) elasticity of the
strength fm (MPa) mortar Em (MPa)
ft (MPa)
B1 M < 40 0.147 3.9 35.8 62.7 5,506
B1 M70 0.210 7.5 68.8 118.6 13,575
B1 M > 100 0.279 14.3 131.2 208.5 17,649
B2 M < 40 0.149 4.3 29.0 52.4 8,145
B2 M70 0.218 10.2 68.9 124.4 14,745
B2 M > 100 0.408 18.4 124.3 224.4 19,769

Then, the main parameters varied were the compressive strength of mortar and
concrete blocks.
The prisms’ flexural bond strength, normal to the bed joints, increased signifi-
cantly when the mortar’s compressive strength increased, either when using the
weakest blocks (B1 blocks) or the strongest blocks (B2 blocks). The use of mortar
compositions with greater amount of cement, in comparison to the other compo-
nents, provided a better mechanical interlocking of the suctioned paste into the
pores of the concrete. When the mortar compressive strength increased by about
four times, the average flexural bond strength increased by 90% when using B1
blocks and 174% when using B2 blocks.
In general, prisms with high strength mortar presented the best performance in
the third-point beam tests. However, it is worth remembering that mortars with very
high compressive strength do not give the masonry a good structural performance in
compression. The experimental results of Alvarenga et al. (2017) [19] showed that
the use of low-strength mortars prevents an excessively brittle rupture of the
masonry under compression, and does not compromise the masonry’s compressive
strength and stiffness. Therefore, it is desirable to choose a mortar that provides a
good structural performance of the masonry under both vertical and lateral actions.
The increase of the blocks’ compressive strength did not increase the flexural
bond strength of the masonry in the prisms whose mortar’s compressive strength
complies with the maximum limit stated by the Brazilian standard (70% of the
block’s net area compressive strength), that is, the batches B1 M < 40, B1 M70,
B2 M < 40, and B2 M70. When the maximum limit is extrapolated (B1 M > 100
and B2 M > 100), a significant increase of the flexural bond strength is verified
when stronger concrete blocks are used. In fact, when using mortars with com-
pressive strength greater than the blocks’ net area compressive strength, there was a
nearly 50% gain in the flexural bond strength of the masonry by increasing the
blocks’ compressive strength by about 40%.
Influence of the Blocks and Mortar’s Compressive … 573

Conclusions

In conclusion, the masonry’s flexural bond strength, normal to the bed joints, is
directly related to both the characteristics of its basic components, and the complex
interaction between them. Third-point beam tests were satisfactory to evaluate the
influence of blocks and mortar’s compressive strength on the structural behavior of
masonry subjected to lateral actions. The failure mode typically verified in these
tests was the breaking of adhesion between block and mortar. The use of stronger
mortars ensured better bonding of the mortar’s binder components in the masonry
units. Then, the masonry’s flexural bond strength increased with the increase of the
compressive strength of the mortar, regardless of the block’s compressive strength.
Since the low strength mortars presented a lower flexural bond strength, they should
not be used for structural masonry. The Brazilian standard stablishes a minimum
compressive strength of 1.5 MPa for mortar’s structural masonry. Despite the gains
of flexural bond strength with the increase of the mortar’s compressive strength, it is
not advisable to use very high strength mortars, as they can cause a very brittle
failure of the masonry when it is subjected to compressive stresses. Therefore, the
prisms whose mortar had a compressive strength close to 70% of the concrete
blocks’ net area compressive strength (B1 M70 and B2 M70), presented the
structural behavior that seems to be the most suitable for the concrete structural
masonry subjected to flexure or compression. When the mortar’s compressive
strength is lower than 70% of the block’s net area compressive strength, the
experimental results showed that the use of stronger blocks did not significantly
contribute to the increase of the masonry’s flexural bond strength

Acknowledgements The authors would like to express gratitude to the agencies: National
Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq), Research Support Foundation of
Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG), and Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel
(CAPES), for the great support to this research.

References

1. Ramalho MA, Correa MRS (2003) Projeto de edifícios de alvenaria estrutural. Pini, São
Paulo, p 169
2. Brazilian Association of Technical Norms. NBR 15961-1 (2011) Structural masonry—
Concrete blocks Part 1: Design. Rio de Janeiro, p 42 www.abntcatalogo.com.br
3. ASTM C1329/C1329 M-16 (2016) Standard specification for mortar cement. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org
4. ASTM C270-14a (2014) Standard specification for mortar for unit masonry. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org
5. Brown RR, Melander J (2015) Flexural bond strength of mansory parallel to the bed joints.
9th Canadian mansory symposium, p 12
6. Parsekian GA, Hamid AA, Drysdale RG (2012) Comportamento e dimensionamento de
alvenaria estrutural. EdUFSCar, São Carlos, p 625
574 G. H. Nalon et al.

7. Lumantarna R, Biggs DT, Ingham JM (2014) Compressive, flexural bond, and shear bond
strengths of in situ New Zealand unreinforced clay brick mansory constructed using lime
mortar between the 1880s and 1940s. J Mater Civ Eng 26(4)
8. Rao KVM, Reddy BVV, Jagadish KS (1996) Flexural bond strength of mansory using
various blocks and mortars. Mater Struct 29:119–124
9. Yuen CG, Lissel SL (2007) Flexural bond strength of clay brick masonry. WIT Trans Eng Sci
57. doi:10.2495/MC070251
10. Ajith TJ, Dhanasekar M, Cheng Y (2012) Characterization of flexural bond strength in thin
bed concrete masonry. 15th international brick and block masonry conference, florianopolis
11. Brazilian Association of Technical Norms (2013) NBR 12118: Hollow concrete blocks for
concrete masonry—Test methods. Rio de Janeiro, p 14 www.abntcatalogo.com.br
12. ASTM C1006-07 (2013) Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of masonry units.
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. www.astm.org
13. Brazilian Association of Technical Norms (2008) NBR 8522: Concrete—Determination of
the elasticity modulus by compression. Rio de Janeiro, p 16 www.abntcatalogo.com.br
14. Brazilian Association of Technical Norms (2016) NBR 13276: Mortars applied on walls and
ceilings—Determination of the consistence index. Rio de Janeiro, p 2 www.abntcatalogo.
com.br
15. Brazilian Association of Technical Norms (2005) NBR 13277: Mortars applied on walls and
ceilings—Determination of the water retentivity. Rio de Janeiro, p 3 www.abntcatalogo.com.br
16. Parsekian GA, Soares MM (2010) Alvenaria estrutural em blocos cerâmicos—projeto,
execução e controle. Telo Melo, São Carlos, p 234
17. Brazilian Association of Technical Norms (2011) NBR 15961-2: Structural masonry—
Concrete blocks Part 2: Execution and site control. Rio de Janeiro, p 35 www.abntcatalogo.
com.br
18. Brooks JJ (2015) Concrete and masonry movements. Elsevier, Waltham, p 599
19. Alvarenga RCSS, Nalon GH, Fioresi LAF, Pinto MC, Pedroti LG, Ribeiro JCL (2017)
Experimental evaluation of the influence of mortar’s mechanical properties on the behavior of
clay masonry. Charact Miner Met Mater 2017:671–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
51382-9_74