Development of Solid, Foam Concrete Interlocking Blocks and Studies On Short Masonry Specimens
Development of Solid, Foam Concrete Interlocking Blocks and Studies On Short Masonry Specimens
Development of Solid, Foam Concrete Interlocking Blocks and Studies On Short Masonry Specimens
net/publication/283366778
CITATIONS READS
2 2,069
2 authors, including:
Ramamurthy K
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
89 PUBLICATIONS 4,110 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Ramamurthy K on 25 October 2017.
Table 1
Details regarding mix proportions and foam volume calculations
Water-Solid
Mix ratio Foam volume calculation
ratio
1250kg/m3 = 1250kg/m3 = (WTW + WC + WS/FA) / [(WTW /1000) +
(WC/(3.15 X 1000)) + (WS/FA/((2.6 or 2.4) X 1000)) + Va]
C:S:FA – 1:1:2
3
(cement:sand: 0.55 Va = (0.61WC + 0.52WS – 0.25WTW ) / 1250m
fly ash) Va = (0.61WC + 0.48WFA – 0.25WTW ) / 1250m3
3
Vf = 1000Va / (1000 – Wuf)/m
Where, Va - Volume of air, (m3), Vf - Volume of foam, (m3), WC - Weight of cement, (kg),
WS/FA - Weight of sand/fly-ash, (kg), WTW - Weight of total water including weight of foam, (kg),
Wuf – Density of foam, (kg/m3).
2.2 Identification of suitable foam concrete mixer density of foam in the designed mix and the density of the
Hand mixing of foam concrete is suitable only for small-scale foam concentrate.
requirements. Bursting of the foam bubbles during the
mixing process leads to an increase in density of the 2.5 Block production
concrete, especially when the foam density is low. Casting Though conventional normal weight concrete blocks have
blocks one full course high (Figure 2) requires 7.5 to 8.0kg been produced using mechanised block making machines
of foam concrete. To construct these blocks by hand mixing using dry concrete mixes for many years, foam concrete
would be tedious and time consuming for the required which is highly flowable, self-compacting and by nature
number of blocks. Hence it was decided to identify a suitable contains air bubbles cannot be pressed, compacted or
mixer which will produce foam concrete without disturbing vibrated in a similar block producing machine. Hence foam
the foam (bubbles) and also to achieve uniform mixing concrete needs to be cast in a mould. As the geometry of
characteristics through the study. The various mixers tried interlocking blocks is complex, a study to compare an acrylic
are presented in Figure 1 ((a)-(e)). and wooden mould was undertaken (Figure 3). The
Initially, a conventional mortar mixer with the blade rotating teakwood mould facilitated easier demoulding and hence
about the central axis (Figure 1(b)) was tried. Though the was used.
mixer had provision for varying the speed of mixing, the
foam was never mixed properly with the base mortar mix. 2.5.1 Process of block manufacture
Most of the foam was observed to float above the base mix. Based on an earlier study, 2 parts of Class-C fly ash was
The drum mixer (Figure 1(c)) provided better mixing but the added to a cement: sand mix of 1:1, to facilitate accelerated
water and foam required to achieve the design density were demoulding of the block [2]. The mixing of foam concrete
higher than the optimum mix. The use of pan mixer was undertaken in accordance with the recommendations of
(Figure 1(d)) with rotating drum and arms did not yield IS 2185 (Part 4) [9]. First, the required quantities of sand,
homogeneous mixing and the design density could not be Class-C fly ash and cement were mixed thoroughly, then
achieved. The Pan mixer with arms positioned at various water was added to the mix. Based on the desired design
angles and with the facility to rotate both in clock and anti- density, the correct amount of foam was produced and
clock wise directions with a stationary drum (Figure 1(e)), added to the base mix. During the addition of foam to the
was found suitable. This mixer gave the best mixing quality base mix, the foam was partially mixed into the base mix by
for the optimum mix achieved from the acceleration studies hand which helps to better blend the foam and base mix.
without altering the setting properties. Subsequently, machine mixing was undertaken until no
physical sign of foam was observed and a uniform mix
2.3 Manufacture of Interlocking Blocks achieved. The foam concrete was poured into well-oiled
The system of Solid Interlocking Block (SILBLOCK) moulds and levelled. After 30 minutes a template was fixed
developed by ANAND and RAMAMURTHY [1] comprising exactly on the top surface of the mould and the “removable”
stretcher, jamb and corner units, has been used in this part of the mould extracted. The outer part of the mould was
study. The full course stretcher unit is 200mm in height and removed after 90 to 100 minutes. After 24 hours the blocks
a half course stretcher unit is 100mm in height. The half were stored under shade (Figure 4) and curing was
course units are designed and used to facilitate the undertaken by spraying with water and covering with wet
staggering of horizontal joints from the inner and outer face. gunny bags for 28 days.
Hence a half course is laid as the first and final course. The
dimensions and details of the SILBLOCK are shown in 2.5.2 Details of cast blocks
Figure 2. The jamb unit is equivalent to a halved stretcher To study the structural performance of foam concrete
unit and is used at the beginning and end of the wall. interlocking block masonry, the required number of blocks
were manufactured based on the number of specimens for
2.4 Details of mix used for production of foam concrete compression tests on individual blocks, masonry prism
The light weight cellular concrete was designed to have a specimens to be tested under compression, specimens for
density of 1250kg/m3. Using the guidelines given in ASTM eccentric compression testing and wallette specimens to
C796-04 the foam volume was calculated and these details determine flexural strength. Accordingly, a total number of
are presented in Table 1. The foam volume depends on the 498 blocks were produced as presented in Table 2.
Masonry International, Journal of the International Masonry Society, Vol.26, Issue-1, 2013, pp 7-16
114
40
26 114
24
30
232
200 20
100
400
110
Full Course Jamb unit Half Course
Figure 2 Dimensional details of SILBLOCK (in mm) (ANAND and RAMAMURTHY, 2000)
Masonry International, Journal of the International Masonry Society, Vol.26, Issue-1, 2013, pp 7-16
Table 2
Details and number of specimens of SILBLOCK
Concrete mix Type of block
Cement: sand: Stretcher block Stretcher block Jamb block
Class-C Fly ash (full-course high) (half-course high) (full-course high)
1:1:2 202 196 100
Table 3
Density and strength of SILBLOCK
Failure compressive
Density 2
Unit 3 strength (N/mm )
(kg/m )
(average of 3 blocks)
Stretcher unit - 200mm 1258 2.72
Stretcher unit - 100mm 1280 2.54
Jamb unit 1286 5.21
Combined Block
(SILBLOCK assemblage with one stretcher unit 200mm 1275 3.53
high interlocked with two jamb units).
2.6 Physical and mechanical properties of blocks were studied using prism and wallette test specimens. Thin
Randomly sampled blocks were tested for their density and jointing techniques were adapted to ensure uniform seating
compressive strength. To find the compressive strength the of blocks between courses in the construction of prisms and
blocks were capped using a 1:3 cement:sand mortar in order wallettes. A thin layer of mortar slurry (cement, sand and fly
to ensure uniform distribution of load through the platens of ash in the ratio of 1:1:2 and water to form a slurry of a
the testing frame. The compressive strengths of individual flowing consistency) is applied with a scoop on the top
stretcher and jamb blocks were tested and are reported in surface of blocks already laid. When the next layer of blocks
Table 3. In addition, a combined block (one stretcher unit is interlocked in position, excess slurry is squeezed out
and two jamb units placed in interlocked position to automatically, resulting in a bed joint of 2 to 3mm thickness.
represent a layer removed from the wall), were also tested 2.7.1 Behaviour under axial compression
and facilitated uniform load distribution through the Masonry prisms of size 400mm x 600mm and of thickness
rectangular solid configuration formed. 150mm, with a height to thickness ratio of 4 were
constructed as shown in Figure 5. The specimens were
2.7 Masonry specimens capped with gypsum and tested under axial compression in
Behaviour under axial and eccentric compression and accordance with IS 1905 [10], in a universal testing machine
flexure test loading parallel and perpendicular to bed joints of 1000kN capacity.
Masonry International, Journal of the International Masonry Society, Vol.26, Issue-1, 2013, pp 7-16
The specimen was carefully aligned enabling application height to width ratios greater than 0.75, the basic
of load axially by controlling the rate of loading as per compressive stress needs to be enhanced by a shape
IS 2185 [9]. The typical failure under axial compression modification factor, to arrive at the permissible stress to
of the test prisms was by crushing as shown in Figure 6. facilitate rational comparison with the results of the present
Cracks were first observed along the joints in the prism. study.
With further increase in load, the joints opened up To determine the allowable stress in block masonry from
leading to the failure of the prism. The compressive the tests, IS 1905 specifies the use of masonry prism
strength of masonry prisms along with their companion specimens of minimum height to thickness ratio (h/t) of 2, if
block strengths and the corresponding prism to h/t is more than 2, the compressive strength needs to be
block strength ratio (efficiency factor) are presented in modified by a correction factor. In the present study, as the
Table 4. h/t ratio is 4 the correction factor is 1.30. Hence the
Comparison with conventional masonry. A comparison of corrected mean compressive strength of prisms is 1.3 x
the permissible stress of light weight SILBLOCK masonry, 1.3 = 1.69N/mm2. Then the permissible strength of the
after applying the appropriate modification factor, has been masonry is obtained by dividing with a factor of safety of 4
made with that of conventional mortar bedded masonry as (i.e.1.69/4 = 0.42N/mm2).
per IS 1905-1987 [10]. As thin mortar jointing with a mix ratio As per IS 1905-1987 [10], for H1 and M1 mortars the basic
of 1:1:2 was used, for the purpose of comparison, the compressive stress of brick masonry with an h/t ratio less
conventional mortar is regarded to be H1 and M1 as per than 0.75 is 0.35N/mm2. Foam concrete SILBLOCK
IS1905. IS 1905 specifies basic compressive stress of masonry is observed to exhibit higher permissible
mortar bedded masonry for bricks of different strength and compressive stress than those of conventional brick
with a height to width ratio of 0.75. For masonry units having masonry.
150
600
400
Table 4
Axial compressive strength of masonry prism
Block strength (fb) 2
2 Prism no. Failure stress (fmp) (N/mm ) fmp / fb
(N/mm )
1 1.30 0.37
3.53 2 1.22 0.35
3 1.39 0.39
Mean 1.30 0.37
Masonry International, Journal of the International Masonry Society, Vol.26, Issue-1, 2013, pp 7-16
2.7.2 Behaviour under eccentric compression e1 = t/3 and e2 = t/6. The typical failure mechanism for
The effect of load eccentricity on SILBLOCK masonry case-1 (i.e., e1 = t/6 and e2 = 0) was cracking and separation
prisms has also been investigated. The size of the of masonry units and joints at the tension face of the prism
prism used was similar to that for axial compression testing (Figure 8), while spalling was observed in the compression
having an h/t ratio of 4. Table 5 shows the number and face. In case-2 (e1 = t/3 and e2 = t/6), separation of masonry
details of specimens used for testing eccentric joints was observed on the tension side while surface cracks
compression. The top and bottom eccentricities chosen were observed on the compression face of the prism
represent different segments of prisms extracted from (Figure 9).
different heights of the wall subjected to eccentric On the basis of linear elastic behaviour, assuming the
compression. The loading arrangement is shown in Figure 7. section to be solid masonry with zero tensile strength [11],
Steel plates, 450mm long, 170mm wide and 20mm thick the compressive strengths f’me based on gross area were
were used to distribute the load from the 32mm diameter calculated using the formula (below Table 7) and are
rollers evenly across the capped length of the prism. To presented in Table 7 along with the ratio of compressive
prevent lateral movement of the rod, mild steel rod of 10mm strength to axial compressive strength f’m (i.e. K = f’me / f’m).
diameter was welded at the appropriate location. Because of the physical interlocking of the blocks an
The results for the two different eccentricity combinations increase in extreme fiber stress for eccentricities of e1 = t/6,
are tabulated in Table 6. The prism having eccentricity of e1 e2 = 0 and e1 = t/3, e2 = t/6 is about 160% higher as
= t/6 and e2 = 0 exhibited higher strengths when compared compared with a value of 43% for conventional solid
to the axially loaded prism and the prism with eccentricity of masonry [12].
Table 5
Number and details of specimens used for eccentric compression
Table 6
Eccentric compressive strength of masonry prism
Block Eccentric compression
Eccentric compression
strength Prism (e1=t/6;e2=0)
fmp / fb (e1=t/3;e2=t/6) fmp / fb
(fb) no. Failure stress (fmp) 2
2 2 Failure stress (fmp) (N/mm )
(N/mm ) (N/mm )
1 1.50 0.42 0.93 0.26
3.53 2 1.94 0.55 0.92 0.26
3 1.71 0.48 0.90 0.25
Average: 1.72 0.49 0.92 0.26
Table 7
Test results on eccentrically loaded prisms (Mean strength of block is 3.53N/mm2)
Eccentricity Ultimate load (kN)
S.No At top At bottom PU / PO f’me (N/mm2) K=f’me / f’m
Individual Mean
‘e1’ ‘e2’
1 0 0 78.00
1.30
2 0 0 73.00 PO = 78.07 - -
(f’m)
3 0 0 83.20
4 t/6 0 90.00
5 t/6 0 116.30 PU = 102.93 1.32 3.43 2.64
6 t/6 0 102.50
7 t/3 t/6 55.70
8 t/3 t/6 55.00 PU = 54.90 0.7 3.66 2.82
9 t/3 t/6 54.00
Note:
Figure 9 Typical failure of eccentrically loaded prism having e1 = t/3 and e2 = t/6
Masonry International, Journal of the International Masonry Society, Vol.26, Issue-1, 2013, pp 7-16
2.7.3 Behaviour under flexural loading the load parallel to the bed joints is shown in Figure 11.
Based on the support conditions and direction of span, walls For loading normal to the bed joint, tension occurs parallel
without pre-compression are classified as (i) spanning to the bed joint. Hence the failure crack occurred
vertically (failure due to tensile stress normal to the bed vertically up alternate perpend joints and blocks. The
joint) and (ii) spanning horizontally (failure due to tensile failure for loading normal to the bed joint is shown in the
stress parallel to the bedding plane). To assess the flexural Figure 12.
strength normal to the bed joint, load is applied parallel to The failure depended on the gross cross-sectional area of
the bed joint and to assess the flexural strength parallel to the failure plane of the wallettes. The flexural strengths are
the bed joint, load is applied normal to the bed joint. To presented in Table 9. Plastering with medium strength
overcome any possible damage due to self weight while mortar increased the flexural load carrying capacity of the
placing and testing horizontally, EN 1996 [13] has suggested wallettes when compared with wallettes with only pointed
testing wallettes in the vertical aspect. The view of the finish. This is due to the effect of the tensile strength of the
flexural testing frame as used in this programme is shown in surface bonding material, which is present at the extreme
Figure 10. fibre of the tension side. Of the two types of loading, loading
To assess the flexural strength normal to the bed joint normal to bed joint produced higher flexural strengths due to
(i.e. loading parallel to the bed joint), a specimen of size surface finish.
800mm x 800mm was used. To determine the flexural Comparison with conventional masonry: A comparison of
strength parallel to the bed joint (i.e. loading is applied allowable flexural stress of conventional masonry as per
perpendicular to the bed joint), specimens of size 1200mm x ACI 530[14] and IS 1905[15] with those of light weight
800mm were used. Thin jointing was utilised to bond SILBLOCK masonry is summarised in Table 10. The flexural
between successive courses. Two types of surface finish stress was obtained using a factor of safety of 3. For
have been studied for flexural behaviour; i) Pointing: To conventional masonry, the flexural capacity is higher for the
protect the joints from weathering action, the joints are filled failure due to tensile stress developed parallel to bed joint as
with mortar and finished flush with the face of the wall, which compared to failure due to tensile stress developed normal
also improves the aesthetic effect of the wall, and ii) to the bed joint. This is because in the former, the failure
Plastering: cement plastering (with cement-sand ratio of 1:5) depends on, (i) block flexural capacity, (ii) bond strength and
was applied in a single coat of about 10mm on both the (iii) torsional resistance of the bedding mortar. Whereas
surfaces of the wallette. The 10 mm thick plastering was failure due to tensile stress developed parallel to the bed
used as a surface finish. Details of the wallettes tested for joint depends only on the bond strength between the block
flexure are shown in Table 8. and mortar.
For loading parallel to the bed joint, tension occurs normal The lightweight solid interlocking block masonry of
to the bed joint. The horizontal joints are continuous comparable compressive strength results in higher
along the tension face and hence cracks opened in this permissible flexural strength as compared to the
area initially. But cracking ultimately extended from corresponding mean strengths of conventional mortar
the tension to the compression face. A typical failure with bedded masonry as per and ACI 530[14] and IS1905[15].
Tension Side
Compression side
Table 8
Details of specimens tested under flexure
Flexural loading
Type of bed joint Surface finish Loading parallel to the Loading normal to the
bed joint bed joint
Pointing 3 3
Thin joint mortar joints
Plaster 3 3
Table 9
Flexural strength oflight weight SILBLOCK
Ultimate flexural Mean flexural
Wallettes no. Loading type Surface finish 2
stress (N/mm ) strength (N/mm2)
1 1.44
Parallel to the bed
2 Pointing 1.34 1.28
joint
3 1.07
1 6.01
Parallel to the bed
2 Plastered 6.31 6.00
joint
3 5.68
1 2.46
Normal to the bed
2 Pointing 1.51 1.74
joint
3 1.24
1 8.11
Normal to the bed
2 Plastered 8.17 7.94
joint
3 7.55
Table 10
Comparison of flexural stresses – Conventional and SILBLOCK masonry