LATERAL RESPONSE OF CEMENT CLAY INTERLOCKING BRICK MASONRY ...

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Vol. 15, No. 6 (2020) 4320 – 4338 © School of Engineering, Taylor’s University

4320

LATERAL RESPONSE OF CEMENT CLAY INTERLOCKING BRICK MASONRY WALLS

SUBJECTED TO EARTHQUAKE LOADS

PANUWAT JOYKLAD1,*, QUDEER HUSSAIN2

1Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Srinakharinwirot University Thailand

2Center of Excellence on Earthquake Engineering and Vibration, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

Abstract

Cement clay interlocking (CCI) bricks are frequently used for the construction of residential and low-rise commercial buildings in many developing countries. The salient features of these bricks are low price, low weight and required less use of cement mortar during construction. In the past many studies have been published on axial compression of CCI brick walls. This study aims to investigate the lateral cyclic response of CCI brick masonry walls under earthquake loading. To achieve this, a comprehensive experimental program was established in which a total number of six large-scale CCI brick masonry walls were constructed and tested under lateral cyclic loading. Different types of walls such as solid walls and walls with window openings were constructed and tested. In addition, different construction methods such as dry stacking, use of cement sand grout and steel bars were exercised to evaluate their efficiency on strength and ductility of the CCI hollow brick masonry walls. The experimental results indicate that dry stacking method is very vulnerable against lateral loading. Use of cement sand grout and steel bars is found very effective to enhance strength of CCI brick masonry walls. The damage pattern of the CCI hollow brick masonry walls with openings is observed very destructive as compared with solid walls (walls without openings).

Keywords: Bricks, Cement, Clay, Grout, Lateral response, Masonry and walls.

Lateral Response of Cement Clay Interlocking Brick Masonry Walls . . . . 4321

Journal of Engineering Science and Technology December 2020, Vol. 15(6)

1. Introduction Earthquakes are among the most unpredictable and catastrophic natural hazards. Thousands of earthquakes occur every year due to ongoing seismic activity in the earth’s crust because of a sudden release of stored elastic strain energy in the Earth’s lithosphere. Great earthquakes with magnitude 8 and higher occur about once a year. Most of the earthquakes occur along the boundaries of the tectonic plates however, no region is free from the threat of earthquakes. Unlike most other natural disasters, it is not possible to predict the exact location, magnitude, range, intensity and consequences of earthquakes on human lives beforehand. Due to this unpredictable nature, sometimes earthquakes turn out to be extremely devastating and dreadful events claiming human life in massive numbers. In fact, among all-natural disasters, earthquakes claimed the highest number of lives in the last two decades. Earthquakes can cause tsunamis, liquefaction of ground, landslides, avalanches, damages to bridges, buildings etc. Building and bridges can suffer from either total collapse or partial deterioration that can put these structures at high risk of future collapse, hence making it impracticable to use these structures. Most number of causalities due to earthquakes are outcome of the total or partial collapse of structures [1, 2]. Therefore, construction practices play a remarkable part in the death toll of an earthquake. Masonry construction is very common across the world and both unreinforced and reinforced masonry is opted for construction purposes. Masonry structures are brittle in nature and most earthquake prone class of building particularly unreinforced masonry. Heavy damage to the existing structures, high death tolls, number of injured and displaced people in the case of masonry buildings during the past earthquakes verifies the vulnerability of this type of construction. In February 2011, a 6.3 magnitude earthquake that occurred approximately 10 kilometres away from the city centre hit Christchurch in New Zealand. Even though it was a moderate earthquake, smaller than a past earthquake of 7.1 magnitude of Sep 2010, the damage caused to the buildings was much devastating due to higher ground shaking levels in the city. Among all building types, unreinforced masonry buildings performed the worst and suffered the highest damages [3].

Although Thailand is in a region that is considered relatively safe from seismic activity, historical records indicate that a number of earthquakes have affected the region in the past. In 2004, an earthquake of gigantic magnitude of 9.1 on the Richter scale originated near the island of Sumatra. This powerful earthquake created tsunami that extended over the Indian Ocean, affecting many coastal islands and countries. Indonesia was the hardest-hit country, followed by Sri Lanka, India, and Thailand. The earthquake (followed by the tsunami) was felt in Bangladesh, India, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand, Singapore, Sri Lanka and the Maldives5. Thailand experienced the largest tsunami run-up height of any location outside of Sumatra, i.e., 19.6 m at Ban Thung Dap and the second highest at 15.8 m at Ban Nam Kim6. More than 5400 causalities were reported along with 3100 went missing. Tsunami waves propagated several hundred meters inland not only claiming human lives but also causing immense damage to several islands, villages, boats, agricultural lands, hotels, schools, residential buildings and other infrastructure. The repair and rehabilitation efforts stretched over months. Figures 11 and 12 depict the aftermath of 2004 tsunami and the damage that occurred to the existing structures in Southern Thailand [4, 5].

4322 P. Joyklad and Q. Hussain


In many countries including Thailand, masonry is an integral part of building construction for ages. Apart from residential facilities, masonry is commonly used for a wide range of buildings including educational, industrial and commercial buildings [6]. There are several benefits of masonry wall construction including load bearing, resistance to weather changes, fire protection, sound and thermal insulation [7]. Masonry construction is generally durable that stays serviceable for a long time, easy to work with and it can also be utilized for architectural and aesthetic purposes [8]. In rural areas, bricks are usually considered as low-cost material as they are manufactured by using natural soil. The technology uses the available soil on site, which can be stabilized with a small amount of cement or/and lime depending on the characteristics of the soil to improve the engineering properties of the produced bricks. Soil can be improved and used as a building material for various types of structures by adding substances known as stabilizers, and the product is called stabilized soil [9]. A properly stabilized, consolidated, well-graded soil that is adequately moisturized, mixed, and cured will provide a strong, stable, waterproof and long-lasting building bricks. Mortar is used in normal brick construction to create a continuous structural form and to bind together the individual units in brickwork. In normal bricks, mortar and bricks provide high strength in the brickwork system. Many studies have been done in perfecting the performance of the brickwork [10-13]. The high demand of construction of buildings gives reason to find ways to fulfil and to solve the problems related to the construction. Interlocking brick is an alternative system that is similar to the “LEGO blocks” that require very small amount of cement sand mortar during the construction. Interlocking bricks were introduced to reduce the use of manpower, hence fulfil the requirement of the Industrialized Building System (IBS). The interlocking brick system is a fast and cost-effective construction system which offers good solution in construction. In Thailand, CCI hollow bricks are also widely manufactured and used for construction. In addition to the cement, different types of admixtures are also used to ensure proper compaction and strength properties. These interlocking bricks are manufactured locally in small factories located in different regions of Thailand [14-17].

Although brick masonry is very effective is carrying compressive loads [18-19], its low tensile strength is a constraining feature particularly where significant lateral forces have to be resisted. Therefore, it is very important to improve the seismic behaviour of masonry buildings. A number of earthquake-resistant features can be introduced to achieve this objective. For instance, reinforced brick masonry can be taken into account for building to be constructed in seismic areas or where substantial wind loading is involved [20-24]. Seismic behaviour of conventional brick masonry is examined during the past [25, 26], there is an urgent need to investigate the behaviour of CCI brick masonry walls to ensure the safety of residential and other buildings. Panuwat and Qudeer [27, 28] has conducted large scale theoretical and experimental studies on the pure axial and diagonal compression response of the masonry walls made of interlocking bricks manufactured in Thailand. However, as per author’s information the performance of masonry walls of interlocking bricks manufactured in Thailand has not yet been studied against lateral loading. Moreover, the behaviour of interlocking bricks masonry walls with window openings is also not studied.

Thus the primary objective of this study is to evaluate the lateral behaviour CCI brick masonry walls. This study also aims to adopt different supplementary



interlocking methods such as use of cement grout and reinforcing steel bars to alter the performance of the cement-clay hollow interlocking brick masonry walls.

2. Details of Experimental Program and Test Specimen The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the lateral cyclic response of masonry walls made by using interlocking bricks under lateral loading. Locally available cement-clay hollow interlocking bricks were considered to build large scale masonry walls with and without openings. This study also aimed to adopt different supplementary interlocking methods such as use of cement sand grout with and without round steel bars to alter the seismic performance and lateral load carrying capacity of masonry walls built using interlocking bricks. To achieve these goals, a comprehensive experimental program was established in which full scale CCI hollow brick masonry walls (Figs. 1 and 2) were constructed and subjected to lateral loading. The details of experimental program are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Details of experimental program. Wall no. Wall type Construction type

Wall-01 Solid wall Dry stacking

Wall-02 Solid wall Cement-sand grout

Wall-03 Solid wall Cement-sand grout + steel bars

Wall-04 Wall with window opening Dry stacking

Wall-05 Wall with window opening Cement-sand grout

Wall-06 Wall with window opening Cement-sand grout + steel bars

Fig. 1. Typical details of CCI masonry wall

without window opening (units: meter).



Fig. 2. Typical details of CCI masonry wall with window opening (units: meter).

3. Construction Techniques Three different construction techniques, i.e., Type1, II and III, where adopted to construct CCI masonry walls (Fig. 3). Type-1 walls were made using interlocking bricks without filling any grout and/or steel bars in the holes as shown in Fig. 3(a). Type-I construction is basically adopted to represent existing construction practices in Thailand. Type-I construction is referred as dry stacking method. Dry stacking method is widely used in the villages and small towns to construct the partition and boundary wall. Type-2 walls were build using CCI hollow bricks, however, in both circular and square holes, grout made of cement and sand was filled as shown in Fig. 3(b). Type-3 walls were similar to Type-2, except steel bars (round bars RB9) were added in the circular holes because of uniform concrete cover around the steel bars as shown in Fig. 3(c).

(a) Type-1. Interlocking bricks wall without grout and steel bars.

(b) Type-2. Interlocking bricks wall with cement-sand grout.

(c) Type-3. Interlocking bricks wall with cement-sand grout and steel bars.

Fig. 3. Construction techniques of CCI masonry walls.



4. Material Properties In the experimental program, a total number of six CCI hollow brick masonry walls were prepared and subjected to lateral loading. The size of masonry walls were 3 m× 2 m (width × height). CCI hollow bricks were obtained from the local manufacturer in the Nakhon Nayok province of Thailand. These CCI bricks are usually made using locally available materials such as clay, sand and stone dust along with the cement as a binding agent to enhance the strength and durability of CCI bricks. The CCI bricks of this study are made from cement and red clay with a ratio of 1:10 (cement: red clay). The manufacturing process of CCI bricks is essentially comprised of three steps. In the first step, the large size clay boulders are broken into fine pieces by using mechanical grinding machine. In the second step, the fine-grained clay is mixed with cement and water using mechanical concrete mixer. In the final step, the cement-clay mix is placed into the aluminium moulds and pressed either by hydraulically or manually operated machines. A typical CCI brick sample is shown in Fig. 4. Different physical and mechanical properties of bricks are summarized in Table 2. The average compressive strength of CCI bricks is 6.74 MPa which is comparatively lower than the traditional fired clay bricks of class designations 10-35. Compressive and tensile strengths were determined by following ASTM standards ASTM C1314-14 and ASTM C1006-07, respectively. Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) cement manufactured by Siam Cement Public Company Limited was used to prepare the cement sand grout. The cement to sand proportion of 1:2 was used for cement grout. The compressive strength of cement sand gout was determined by testing six square prisms of standard size. The average compressive strength of cement sand grout was 5.0 MPa (Table 2). Round steel bars (smooth bars) of 9 mm diameter were used for reinforced masonry walls. Yield tensile strength and ultimate tensile strength tests values are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Material properties. Description Properties Units Length × Width × Height of bricks 250 ×120×100 mm Net bearing area 285 cm2 Compressive strength of bricks 6.74 MPa Tensile strength of bricks 0.22 MPa Flexural strength of bricks 0.85 MPa Water absorption of bricks 8.80 % Density of bricks 1.71 g/cm3 Compressive strength of grout 5.0 MPa Yield tensile strength of steel bars 350 MPa Ultimate tensile strength of steel bars 550 MPa

Fig. 4. Typical CCI hollow interlocking brick.



5. Construction of CCI Masonry Walls In the first step, masonry walls were built in a typical manner, i.e., using interlocking blocks without any grout or mortar to represent the existing construction practice in Thailand (Figs. 5(a) and 5(b)). In the next step, different supplementary interlocking methods (such as use of grout and steel bars in the holes of hollow bricks) were adopted to alter the performance of masonry walls made by using hollow interlocking bricks (Fig. 5(c)). Different steps to construct the CCI brick masonry walls are shown in Figs. 5(a)-5(f). A thin layer of white colour was applied to the face of CCI bricks prior to the test to clearly observed the crack initiation, propagation and widening during the lateral loading.

(a) Construction techniques of CCI masonry walls.

(b) Installation of steel bars.



(c) Grout filling.

(d) Typical CCI masonry wall without window opening.

(e) Typical CCI masonry walls with window opening.

(f) Construction of top beam.

Fig. 5. Construction of CCI brick walls.

6. Loading Setup In this study, all wall specimens were tested under lateral loading to simulate the effect of earthquake forces. Lateral loading setups are shown in the Figs. 6 and 7. This type of loading setup is frequently used in existing research for lateral loading [29]. In this experimental program, the quasi-static lateral cyclic loading history



(Fig. 8) was adopted to simulate the earthquake forces. In order to observe the stiffness degradation for each drift ratio, the cyclic loading was repeated at the same drift ratio. A typical loading setup in laboratory is shown in Fig. 9.

Fig. 6. Typical loading setup.

Fig. 7. Typical loading setup.

Fig. 8. Lateral load history.

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Drif

t (%

)

Number of cycles



Fig. 9. Typical loading setup in laboratory.

7. Experimental Results Experimental results in terms of ultimate lateral load and ultimate drift rations are summarized in Table 3 and graphically shown in Figs. 10-13. Ultimate drift ratio is defined as the ultimate loading point. It is evident from the experimental results that use of the cement sand grout and steel bars is very effective to alter the lateral response of the cement-clay interlocking brick masonry walls. There is increase in lateral load carrying capacity for all types of CCI brick masonry walls when the holes were filled with cement sand grout and steel bars. A detailed discussion on experimental results is provided in the following sections.

Table 3. Experimental results.

Walls Ultimate lateral load (kN)

Ultimate drift (%)

% Increase in ultimate load

% Increase in lateral drift

Wall-01 7.73 1.03 - - Wall-02 47.39 0.51 513 -51 Wall-03 83.20 0.76 976 -27 Wall-04 7.00 1.54 - - Wall-05 39.95 1.08 471 -30 Wall-06 69.88 1.02 898 -33

7.1. CCI masonry solid wall In this section experimental results of solid CCI masonry walls (i.e., wall 01, 02 and 03) are discussed in terms of lateral load versus drift rations. Experimental results of solid walls are summarized in Table 3 and graphically shown in Figs. 10-13. It is evident that CCI brick masonry wall (wall 01) resulted in very low lateral load carrying capacity as compared with cement sand grouted CCI brick masonry walls, i.e., wall 02 and wall-03. The CCI brick wall (wall 01) was failed at un ultimate load of 7.73 kN. The corresponding ultimate drift ratio was observed as 1.03%. The use of cement sand grout is found very effective to enhance the lateral load carrying capacity of the CCI brick walls. For example, in case of CCI brick wall 02, the ultimate load carrying capacity was increase by 513% as compared with the CCI brick wall-01. During the test, at large lateral drifts, slight slip of the



cement sand grouted wall, i.e., wall-02 was observed. This slip is supposedly related with the large stiffness of the wall-02. The use of cement sand grout is resulted into a very stiff wall as compared with the wall 01. Further, it is also observed that use of steel bars is also very effective to further enhance the lateral load carrying capacity of the CCI brick masonry walls. In case of CCI brick wall-03, the ultimate load carrying capacity was found 976% and 463% as compared with the CCI brick masonry walls 01 and 02, respectively. In contrast to the ultimate load carrying capacity, the ultimate drift ration of wall 01 in which CCI bricks were placed over each other in the manner of dry stacking is observed higher than the cement sand grouted masonry walls, i.e., wall 02 and wall 03. The higher ultimate drift ratio is mainly due to the sliding of the CCI bricks over each other.

Fig. 10. Load versus drift response (wall-01).


-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

-1.50 -1.25 -1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

Late

ral l

oad

(kN

)

Lateral Drift (%)

Wall-01

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

-1.50 -1.25 -1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

Late

ral l

oad

(kN

)

Lateral Drift (%)

Wall-02




Fig. 13. Load versus drift response (wall-01, 02 and 03).

7.2. CCI masonry wall with window opening In this section, experimental results of CCI brick masonry walls with window opening (i.e., wall 04, 05 and 06) are discussed in terms of lateral load versus drift rations. Experimental results of solid walls are summarized in Table 3 and graphically shown in Figs. 14-17. It is evident that CCI brick masonry wall (wall 04) resulted in very low lateral load carrying capacity as compared with cement sand grouted CCI brick masonry walls, i.e., wall 05 and wall 06. The CCI brick wall (wall 04) was failed at un ultimate load (UL) of 7.00 kN. The corresponding ultimate drift ratio was observed as 1.54%. The use of cement sand grout is found very effective to enhance the lateral load carrying capacity of the CCI brick walls. For example in case of CCI brick wall 05, the ultimate load carrying capacity was increase by 471% as compared with the CCI brick wall 04. Further, it is also observed that use of steel bars is also very effective to further enhance the lateral load carrying capacity of the CCI brick masonry walls. In case of CCI brick wall 06, the ultimate load carrying capacity was found 898% and 427% as compared with the CCI brick masonry walls 04 and 05, respectively. In contrast to the ultimate load carrying capacity, the ultimate drift ration of wall 04 in which CCI bricks were

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

-1.50 -1.25 -1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

Late

ral l

oad

(kN

)

Lateral Drift (%)

Wall-03

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

-1.50 -1.25 -1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

Late

ral l

oad

(kN

)

Lateral Drift (%)

Wall-01

Wall-02

Wall-03



placed over each other in the manner of dry stacking is observed higher than the cement sand grouted masonry walls, i.e., wall 05 and wall 06. The higher ultimate drift ratio is mainly due to the sliding of the CCI bricks over each other.




-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

-2.00 -1.75 -1.50 -1.25 -1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00

Late

ral l

oad

(kN

)

Lateral Drift (%)

Wall-04

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

-2.00 -1.75 -1.50 -1.25 -1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00

Late

ral l

oad

(kN

)

Lateral Drift (%)

Wall-05

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

-2.00 -1.75 -1.50 -1.25 -1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00

Late

ral l

oad

(kN

)

Lateral Drift (%)

Wall-06



Fig. 17. Load versus drift response (walls-04, 05 and 06).

7.3. Effect of Window Opening In this section, effect of windows opening on the lateral performance of CCI masonry walls is discussed. The experimental results (Table 3 and Figs. 10-17) indicate that lateral load carrying capacity of all types of CCI walls is highly effected due to the presence of the window openings. For example, in case of type 01 wall, the lateral load carrying capacity of CCI wall-04 is observed as 10% lower than the full wall, i.e., wall-01. Similarly, in case of type-2 walls in which circular and square holes were filled by using cement sand grout, the lateral load carrying capacity of CCI masonry wall with window opening, i.e., wall-05 is found 16% lower than the CCI masonry wall without window opening wall-02. Similar trend, i.e., reduction in lateral load carrying capacity for CCI masonry walls with window opening is also observed for type-3 CCI masonry walls. In this case, the lateral load carrying capacity of CCI masonry wall-06 is recorded as 16% lower than the CCI masonry wall-03. Reduction in the lateral load carrying capacity due to the presence of window opening can be more clearly seen in Fig. 18. The reduction in lateral load carrying capacity due to the window opening can be certainly related with the smaller area of the CCI masonry walls.

Fig. 18. Effect of window opening.

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

-2.00 -1.75 -1.50 -1.25 -1.00 -0.75 -0.50 -0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00

Late

ral l

oad

(kN

)

Lateral Drift (%)

Wall-04

Wall-05

Wall-06

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Wall-01 Wall-04 Wall-02 Wall-05 Wall-03 Wall-06

Lat

eral

load

(kN

)

Wall types



7.4. Failure modes The ultimate failure modes of CCI brick masonry solid walls are graphically shown in Figs. 19 and 20. The ultimate failure of the CCI brick masonry wall 01 was mainly due to the sliding and turning of the CCI bricks as shown in Fig. 19. In this wall, large vertical and horizontal openings were observed at the ultimate state. The ultimate failure of the cement sand grouted wall (wall-02) was mainly due to the upward lifting and lateral slip of the wall as shown in Fig. 20. Whereas, in case of reinforced CCI brick masonry walls, the ultimate failure was mainly due to splitting and crushing of the CCI bricks.

The ultimate failure modes of CCI brick masonry walls with window opening are graphically shown in Figs. 21-23. The ultimate failure of the CCI brick masonry wall 04 was mainly due to the sliding and turning of the CCI bricks as shown in Fig. 21. In this wall, large vertical and horizontal openings were observed at the ultimate state. Slight crushing of the CCI bricks were also observed at the corners of the window opening. The ultimate failure of the cement sand grouted masonry walls (i.e., wall-05 and wall-06) was mainly due to the splitting and crushing of the CCI bricks as different locations as shown in Figs. 22 and 23.

Fig. 19. Ultimate failure of wall-01.

Fig. 20. Uplifting of wall-02.






8. Conclusions



This study reported findings of an experimental program on lateral cyclic response of cement-clay interlocking (CCI) hollow brick masonry walls subjected to earthquake loads. The lateral response was investigated by performing laboratory tests on 06 large size (3000 mm x 2000 mm) CCI hollow brick masonry walls. CCI bricks in this study were collected from the Nakhon Nayok (NN) province of Thailand. CCI hollow brick masonry walls were constructed using different techniques to represent existing construction practice in Thailand. In the first technique, the layers of CCI hollow bricks were dry stack without using any mortar or grout. In the second technique, the wall specimens were grouted with ordinary Portland cement – sand grout. Whereas in the last technique, in the wall specimens, prior to the grout filling, round steel bars of diameter 9 mm were also inserted into the holes of CCI hollow bricks at different locations. Based on experimental results, following conclusions could be drawn;

• CCI masonry walls built without using cement-sand grout shows large deformation under lateral cyclic loadings.

• CCI brick masonry wall-01 showed very small peak load as compared with the other walls.

• CCI masonry walls built without using cement-sand grout shows very low lateral load carrying capacity under lateral cyclic loadings.

• The cement sand grouted masonry walls (unreinforced masonry walls) resulted in higher ultimate load carrying capacity and less deformation as compared with un-grouted masonry walls.

• It is observed that presence of opening had a significant effect on the lateral load carrying capacity of the CCI masonry walls. There is found considerable reduction in the load carrying capacity for CCI masonry walls containing window opening as compared with the full masonry walls or masonry walls without opening.

• Future research efforts should consider the effect of door opening and multiple openings on global lateral response of CCI masonry walls.

Acknowledgment The author of this research work is very grateful to the Faculty of Engineering, Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand, for providing research grant (Research Grant ID 100/2562) to carry out the research work. Thanks are also extended to Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) for supporting test facilities.

Abbreviations

AIT Asian Institute of Technology CCI Cement clay interlocking NN Nakhon Nayok UL Ultimate load

References 1. Senaldi, I.; Magenes, G.; and Ingham, J.M. (2015). Damage assessment of

unreinforced stone masonry buildings after the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 9(5), 605-627.



2. Sorrentino, L.; Cattari, S.; Da Porto, F.; Magenes, G.; and Penna, A. (2019). Seismic behaviour of ordinary masonry buildings during the 2016 central Italy earthquakes. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 17(10), 5583-5607.

3. Moon, L.M.; Griffith, M.C.; Dizhur, D.; and Ingham, J.M. (2012). Performance of unreinforced masonry structures in the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. Proceedings of 15th world conference on earthquake engineering (15WCEE), Lisbon, Portugal.

4. Ruangrassamee, A.; Yanagisawa, H.; Foytong, P.; Lukkunaprasit, P.; Koshimura, S.; and Imamura, F. (2006). Investigation of tsunami-induced damage and fragility of buildings in Thailand after the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Earthquake Spectra, 22(S3), 377-401.

5. Ruangrassamee, A.; Ornthammarath, T; and Lukkunaprasit, P. (2012). Damage due to 24 March 2011 M6. 8 Tarlay earthquake in Northern Thailand. Proceedings of 15th world conference on earthquake engineering (15WCEE), Lisbon, Portugal.

6. Hendry, E.A. (2001). Masonry walls: materials and construction. Construction and Building Material, 15(8), 323-330.

7. Hendry, A.W.; and Khalaf, F.M. (2010). Masonry wall construction. CRC Press. 8. Ahmad, Z.; Othman, S.Z.; Md Yunus, B.; and Mohamed, A. (2011). Behaviour

of masonry wall constructed using interlocking soil cement bricks. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 1263-1269.

9. Hendry, A.W.; Sinha, B.P.; and Davies, S.R. (2003). Design of masonry structures. CRC Press.

10. Lenczner, D. (1972). Elements of load bearing brickwork. Oxford, Pergamon Press. 11. Bakhteri, J.; and Sambasivam, S. (2003). Mechanical behaviour of structural

brick masonry: an experimental evaluation. Proceedings of the 5th Asia-Pacific Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 305-317.

12. Smith, R.C. (1973). Materials of construction. New York. 13. Haach, V.G.; Vasconcelos, G.; and Lourenço, P.B. (2013). Development of a

new test for determination of tensile strength of concrete blocks. 12th Canadian Masonry Symposium, Canada Masonry Design Centre.

14. Joseph, S.; McGarry, B.; Sajjakulnukit, B; and Sopchokchai, O. (1990). A study of brick production in Thailand. TDRI Quarterly Newsletter, 5(2), 11-15.

15. Moormann, F.R.; and Rojanasoonthon, S. (1967). General soil conditions. Land Development Department, Kasetsart University, the Applied Scientific Research Corporation of Thailand.

16. Chan, C.M. (2011). Effect of natural fibres inclusion in clay bricks: Physico-mechanical properties. Physico-Mechanical Properties. International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering,3(1), 51-57.

17. Shakir, A.A.; Naganathan, S.; and Mustapha, K.N. (2013). Properties of bricks made using fly ash, quarry dust and billet scale. Construction and Building Materials, 41, 131-138.

18. Sandoval, C.; Calderón, S.; and Almazán, J.L. (2018). Experimental cyclic response assessment of partially grouted reinforced clay brick masonry walls. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 16(7), 3127-3152.



19. Ravula, M.B.; and Subramaniam, K.V. L. (2017). Experimental investigation of compressive failure in masonry brick assemblages made with soft brick. Materials and Structures, 50(1), Article number: 19.

20. Sadek, D.M. (2012). Physico-mechanical properties of solid cement bricks containing recycled aggregates. Journal of Advance Research, 3, 253-260.

21. Kadir, A.A.; and Mohajerani, (2013). A physical and mechanical properties of fired clay bricks incorporated with cigarette butts: Comparison between slow and fast heating rates. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 421, 201-204.

22. Karaman, S.; Ersahin, S.; and Gunal, H. (2006). Firing temperature and firing time influence on mechanical and physical properties of clay bricks. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research, 65(2).

23. Binici, H.; Aksogan, O.; and Shah, T. (2005). Investigation of fibre reinforced mud brick as a building material. Construction and Building Materials, 19, 313-318.

24. Shakir, A.A.; and Mohammed, A.A. (2015). Durability property of clay ash, quarry dust and billet scale bricks. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 10(5), 591-605.

25. Okail, H.; Abdelrahman, A.; Abdelkhalik, A.; and Metwaly, M. (2016). Experimental and analytical investigation of the lateral load response of confined masonry walls. HBRC journal, 12(1), 33-46.

26. Hassanli, R.; ElGawady, M.A.; and Mills, J.E. (2016). Experimental investigation of in-plane cyclic response of unbonded posttensioned masonry walls. Journal of Structural Engineering, 142(5), 04015171.

27. Joyklad, P.; and Hussain, Q. (2019). Axial compressive response of grouted cement–clay interlocking hollow brick walls. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 20(5), 733-744.

28. Joyklad, P.; and Hussain, Q. (2019). Performance of Cement Clay Interlocking Hollow Brick Masonry Walls Subjected to Diagonal Compression. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 14(4), 2152-2170.

29. Theint, P.S.; Ruangrassamee, A.; and Hussain, Q. (2020). Strengthening of Shear-Critical RC Columns by High-Strength Steel-Rod Collars. Engineering Journal, 24(3), 107-128.

Date post:	13-Mar-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	15 times
Download:	0 times

LATERAL RESPONSE OF CEMENT CLAY INTERLOCKING BRICK MASONRY ...

Documents