E3S Web of Conferences 156, 05016 (2020) https://doi.org/10.

1051/e3sconf/202015605016
4 th ICEEDM 2019

Experimental investigation on interlocking concrete block for

masonry wall of non-engineered earthquake resistant buildings
Mochamad Teguh1,*, Furqon Widi Rivai2, Novi Rahmyanti1, and Erik Wahyu Pradana3
1Department of Civil Engineering and Disaster Risk Management, Islamic University of Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
2MasterProgram, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
3Department of Civil Engineering, Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta, Indonesia.

Abstract. Most of the seismic damage of existing traditional buildings is due to the absence of practical
beam and column structures as the main reinforcement of the building. While a masonry wall as a structural
component is commonly negligible due to their relatively low strength in contributing to the frame structure.
As a result, when the earthquake struck, the building collapsed, and the ruins of building elements hit the
occupants seriously and caused many deaths. This paper presents the results of preliminary research on the
experimental investigation of interlocking concrete block for the masonry wall applied to non-engineered
earthquake-resistant buildings. The interlocking between concrete blocks is expected to contribute to the
strength of the masonry wall in resisting the loads, either in-plane or out-of-plane directions. The novelty of
this type of concrete block lies in the uniqueness of the interlocking shape, making it effective in withstanding
the earthquake load. This research focuses on the testing of interlocking concrete block units in withstanding
loads in the direction and perpendicular to the field and equipped with testing the compressive strength of the
wall and diagonal shear strength. The results produce interlocking models of concrete block contribute to
better strength than ordinary clay bricks for the masonry wall.

1 Introduction towards making masonry walls in non-engineered

earthquake-resistant houses.
Natural disasters with their diversity are quite common In reality, the building designer often ignores the
phenomena in all regions of Indonesia. This phenomenon contribution of masonry walls as a bracing system in the
is due to geographical, geological, and conditions of moment-resisting frame structure, and the masonry wall
Indonesian's relief. Geologically, Indonesia is also located is considered as a non-structural element that is weak in
on three main plates, namely Indo-Australia, Eurasia, and resisting force [7]. According to Teguh [8], the effect of
the Pacific [1]. The earthquakes that occurred in the past the strength and stiffness of a brick wall is often not taken
few years indicate that masonry walls without into account in the structural analysis due to the wall
reinforcement and reinforced concrete frames do not have function is considered as a non-structural component in
sufficient strength to withstand earthquake loads and Indonesian standard (SNI 2847-2013) [9]. In practice, the
cause very high human and economic losses [2]. This masonry wall contributes strength in withstanding loads
condition encourages technicians to develop and promote both in the direction of the wall (in-plane direction) and
innovation and technology in alternative building in the perpendicular to the wall (out-of-plane direction),
materials [2, 3]. This building material engineering is although its contribution is not too significant [7]. The
primarily intended to improve the seismic performance of masonry wall contributes to the frame system when it is
building structures by utilizing simple technology, which supported by the quality of the building materials, the
does not require a high level of construction skills and is installation method, the shape of the brick/concrete block
economically feasible. Building technology that is often unit, and the skills of the builder.
used in Indonesia is strongly influenced by the availability Previous researches on in-plane seismic behaviour and
of local materials and local masons. To build non- strengthening techniques of masonry walls were
engineered traditional houses, local building materials, extensively investigated [10-12, 26]; however, the
such as bricks, stones, mud, wood, are commonly used [4- research on out-of-plane masonry walls was still limited
6]. [24]. This research focuses on the innovation of
The need to increase the application of innovation and interlocking-models on concrete blocks to provide the
technology in building materials is very high for disaster wall strength, which results from interlocking capabilities
risk reduction (DRR) in line with the earthquake intensity and the compressive strength of the concrete block. The
recently increases. The results of the innovation and novelty of interlocking concrete block in this research is
technology of building material materials are oriented the ability to resist lateral forces in-plane and out-of-plane

*
Corresponding author: m.teguh@uii.ac.id

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
E3S Web of Conferences 156, 05016 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202015605016
4 th ICEEDM 2019

directions to the wall greater than ordinary brick or [3], the hook height was 3.5 cm, while in this study, the
concrete block. Some other advantages are the ability of hook was shortened to 2.5 cm. Shortened hooks aim to
the interlocking concrete block to withstand lateral forces, facilitate the process of making and installing concrete
which is strongly influenced by the quality of the mortar, blocks in the masonry walls more easily, as shown in Figs.
precision in installation, and builder skills. 1 and 2.

2 Material 2.2 Material Composition

The forming wall materials used in this study were A unique dimension of the concrete block used in this
concrete blocks, glass powder for mortar mixtures, and research is 100x400x100 (mm). For the walls with a
concrete. thickness of 100 mm, the cement-sand ratio for a masonry
wall can be used with a composition of 1:8. when it comes
to a higher compressive strength of the wall, the
2.1 Typical of interlocking Concrete block composition ratio can be made with 1:6 or lower.
Referring to Teguh [3], the composition of the cement-
sand for the concrete block used in this research was 1:8
producing sufficient compressive strength, but it still
fulfilled the A class criteria of the Indonesia National
Standard (SNI 03-6825-2002). The composition ratio is
based on a volume unit between Portland cement and
sand. In other words, when the higher proportion of sand
to cement, then inevitably, it produces a lower of
compressive strength.
On this basis, the composition of mortar in this
research adopts a previous study of mortar innovation
Fig. 1. The dimension of an interlocking concrete block. with glass powder mixtures [14-17]. According to
Sutrisno [13], substituting 5% sand with glass powder in
mortar mixes can increase up to 23.75% on average of the
compressive strength. In this case, an abrasion machine is
used for crushing waste bottles to produce the glass
powder. Then the rough glass powder is filtered with a
number 200 sieve to produce fine particles, and then the
glass powder is then heated to a temperature of 700 ⁰C.
Therefore in this research used mortar mixture with glass
powder as an innovation material [18]. Two different
mortar compositions utilized in this research were 1:4 and
1:5 with and without 5% of glass powder added as a fine
aggregate replacement, and used water-cement ratios of
0.5 and 0.75, respectively.

Fig. 2. The perspective of an interlocking concrete block. 3 Wall Construction Method

Post-earthquake evidence on residential houses showed
The shape of the concrete block in this study was that the number of conventional houses was severely
differently made from conventional concrete blocks [3- 4, damaged due to the performance of unreinforced masonry
19, 29-30]. In general, the traditional concrete block does wall and non-ductile Reinforced Concrete (RC) frame
not have a prominent part on one or the other sides. In this structure insufficiently resisted the seismic loads [7, 22].
study, an interlocking concrete block was made of This evidence encourages the development and promotion
ordinary concrete blocks having prominence on the sides. of building material as well as building technology for
This concrete block has a complicated hook model future works [2].
producing a better interlocking system in an attempt to Material innovations proposed in this research
resist earthquake loads. emphasize on enhancement of masonry wall performance
This research is intended to innovate an interlocking utilizing technologies, which require a lower-level of
connection between one concrete block and the other so construction skills and economically feasible.
that the concrete block contributes to an interlocking In recent years, there are two common types of
system. When concrete block units are mounted on a masonry wall construction methods, i.e., confined
masonry wall, they have the nature of locking each other. masonry and RC frame infill masonry [7]. In this case, the
The new innovative masonry wall, then, has greater ASTM E519-02-2002 [21] is adopted in the standard of
strength in resisting external forces, such as shear forces testing for reinforced and unreinforced interlocking
due to earthquakes. The proposed innovation in this concrete blocks in a masonry wall system. There are two
research lies in the models of the hook. In a previous study ways to install interlocking concrete block wall, i.e.,

2
E3S Web of Conferences 156, 05016 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202015605016
4 th ICEEDM 2019

confined masonry and RC frame infill masonry, as shown 5 Results and Discussion
in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, referring to Teguh [7].
In connection with the wall construction method, the
concrete block installation in a wall using the confined 5.1 Aggregate Properties
masonry method contributes higher strength, stiffness, Aggregate properties for the concrete block and mortar
and ductility than the RC frame infill masonry method in used in this research are essentially examined to
withstanding cyclic loads [8]. It should be emphasized determine the quality of the material, whether it meets
that both construction methods provide different specifications or not. This material is supplied from the
structural behavior and their impact on in-plane shear Kulonprogo River, which is located in the western of
failure and out-of-plane wall damage [24]. The masonry Yogyakarta town.
wall dimension of interlocking concrete block was Based on the test results of aggregate properties, it can
500x500x110 (mm), according to the European Standard be summarized as follows. Fine and coarse aggregates of
EN 1996-6. density are in the specification in a range of 2.5-2.7. The
bulk and solid mass are inclusive of the specification in a
variety of 1.2-1.6. Fine-grain modulus aggregate is in a
range of 1.5-3.8 and classifies as slightly rough sand.
Coarse aggregates are inside the criteria of 5.0-8.0 with a
maximum grain size of 40 mm. Percentage of fine and
coarse aggregates are specified in the clay fine aggregate
with a maximum of 5%, whereas for a coarse aggregate
maximum of 1%. The complete results are summarized in
Fig. 3. The construction method of a confined masonry wall. Table 1.
Table 1. A summary of the test for aggregate properties.

Experimental Fine Coarse Spec.

No range
testing aggregate aggregate
Specific gravity
1 2.632 2.677 2.5-2.7
(SSD) (gr/cm3)
Bulk density
2 1.284 1.265 1.2-1.6
Fig. 4. The construction method of the RC frame infill masonry (gr/cm3)
wall. Solid density
3 1.586 1.505 1.5-3.8
(gr/cm3)
Fineness
4 Experimental Setup 4
modulus
2.583 7.331 5.0-8.0

The initial test carried out in this study is a diagonal shear Clay
5 1.300 0.750 5.0-1.0
percentage (%)
test on the walls of an interlocking concrete block. The
procedure for the diagonal shear test was based on the
ASTM E519-02-2002 guidelines [21]. Fig. 5 presents an 5.2 Compressive Strength of Mortar
experimental setup for the specimen.
The typical wall specimen has a dimension of 1.2 x 1.2 Mortar in this research is functioned as an adhesive
(m), and it is set up to rotate by 45 degrees, then at one between the concrete block. Therefore, the experimental
end of the wall is applied a vertical load. In addition to the test of mortar compressive strength is required to
diagonal shear test as the initial test, other material determine the quality of the mortar used. Two different
characteristic tests of the interlocking concrete block were unit volumes of the mortar composition, i.e., 1:4 and 1:5,
conducted to examine the compressive strengths of mortar were conducted tests. The comparative test results
and concrete block, as well as the modulus of elasticity. between the ordinary mortar and mortar with glass
powder substitution are illustrated in Fig. 6.

Fig. 5. Experimental setup for the diagonal shear tests. Fig. 6. A variety of mortar compressive strengths.

3
E3S Web of Conferences 156, 05016 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202015605016
4 th ICEEDM 2019

The test result of an ordinary mortar with a ratio of 1:5 of various types of forming material. This damage pattern
produces the average compressive strength of 7.24 MPa, can be used as a reference in repairing damaged walls of
whereas another ratio of 1:4 provides higher average the non-engineered building after disasters [8].
compressive strength of 8.64 MPa. Unlike the mortar
admixture substituted with glass powder, both proportions
contribute significant compressive strengths of 9.21 and
11.62 MPa, respectively.
In general, the results of this test indicate that adding
the glass powder into a certain proportion can
significantly increase the compressive strength of mortar,
but the addition of glass powder has its optimum limit, as
suggested in the previous research [18]. The increase in
compressive strength of the mortar over 26% is more
dependent on the composition of the Portland cement
mixture, sand, and the addition of glass powder, as well Fig. 7. Load-displacement relationships utilizing three different
as the ratio of water and cement. construction methods of the masonry wall.

Fig. 7 presents the load-displacement relationships for

5.3 Diagonal Shear Stress and Ductility Capacity three different masonry walls that have been smoothed for
better representation. The three walls comprise RCFIM,
Referring to the experimental setup in the diagonal shear CMW, and W. It is clearly demonstrated in Fig. Seven that
test of the wall specimen as previously described, the test ordinary walls have no additional reinforcement except
was carried out by applying a gradual load to the the contribution of the interlocking system between
specimen. The load was applied vertically in the upper concrete blocks. Consequently, this wall provides the
and lower corners of the specimen and gradually lowest diagonal shear strength and ductility capacity
increased to achieve the maximum load. The wall started compared to the other two types of walls. The RCFIM and
to crack as the load, and vertical deflection increased until CMW walls confined with the RC frame system produce
the collapse occurred. All data were recorded and greater diagonal shear strength and vertical deflection. In
analyzed to define the value of the diagonal shear strength between the last two walls, the CMW wall contributes to
based on the ASTM formula of E519-02-2002 [21]. This higher strength compared to the RCFIM wall, but the
standard is commonly used to test the diagonal shear resulting displacement ductility is relatively the same. The
strength of ordinary masonry walls (without confined wall type of CMW has greater strength due to the
with the RC practical beam and column as a wall frame). excellent adhesion between the interlocking concrete
Due to the unavailability of a similar standard of the block and RC frame, so this type of wall is more suitable
Indonesian National Standard (SNI) at the moment, this for non-engineered earthquake-resistant buildings.
method is relevant and adopted in this study for Conversely, for mounting walls in high-rise engineered
conducting tests on three types of masonry walls that are buildings are not recommended to use this type of wall,
the same material but different construction methods. In but it is better to use RCFIM type walls.
addition to the use of E519-02-2002 ASTM standard, According to the formula in the ASTM standard of
Mahmood and Ingham [23] also investigated FRP- E519-02-2002 [21] in calculating the diagonal shear stress
retrofitted unreinforced clay brick masonry walls. The on a masonry wall, the shear stress on the net area can be
three specimens used in this study consist of (1) computed based on the applied vertical load divided by
reinforced concrete frame infill masonry (RCFIM), (2) the net area of the specimen. Thus, the diagonal shear
confined masonry wall (CMW), and (3) wall without stress in the wall is directly affected by the vertical load
reinforcement/ordinary wall (W). The test results are and net area of the specimen. In this research, the
presented in the form of graphs (Fig. 7) and the following interlocking and wall bracing system of the concrete block
Table 3. has significantly contributed to the wall strength.
This study discusses the test of partial material Table 2 recapitulates the performance of concrete
characteristics and the performance of the interlocking block for different construction methods on the wall
concrete block wall in line with the diagonal load systems. In line with the theoretical basis on the masonry
direction to determine the diagonal shear strength. This wall, the CMW demonstrates the highest diagonal shear
diagonal shear strength test was designed on phenomena strength of 0.607 MPa on average. While another two wall
to improve a non-engineered house to withstand types produce similar results of 0.459 and 0.462 MPa for
earthquake loads. The experience of the earthquake in the W and RCFIM wall types, respectively, but they are
Indonesia shows severe damage to the couple's wall with lesser shear stresses than the CMW wall.
a pattern of damage, such as crossing diagonal lines due In contrast, the RCFIM does not contribute
to the two-way earthquake load back and forth. In line significantly to the shear stress, although it has been
with the previous researches [24-26], the wall damage strengthened with the RC frame confinement system. In
occurs in-plane and out-of-plane directions of the wall. general, the construction method of CMW is used in the
The possibility of damage of this type occurs in the walls practical construction of masonry walls for non-

4
E3S Web of Conferences 156, 05016 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202015605016
4 th ICEEDM 2019

engineered buildings. The wall can be formed using clay block, and the experimental test of the wall can be
brick, ordinary concrete block, or interlocking concrete undertaken in such a manner [27, 28]
Table 2. Test results of the diagonal shear stress.

Dimension (mm) Average

Shear
Specimen Maximum An shear
No Width Height Thickness stress
type load (N) (mm2) stress
(w) (h) (t) (MPa)
(MPa)
1 RCFIM 1 76773.06 1205 1205 113 136165 0.399
2 RCFIM 2 87259.95 1210 1210 110 133100 0.464 0.462
3 RCFIM 3 100326.87 1208 1208 112 135296 0.524
4 CMW 1 117327.60 1217 1217 110 133870 0.620
5 CMW 2 130943.88 1215 1215 113 137295 0.674 0.607
6 CMW 3 103642.65 1210 1210 115 139150 0.527
7 W1 89741.88 1210 1210 110 133100 0.477
8 W2 75330.99 1200 1200 113 135600 0.393 0.459
9 W3 95363.01 1205 1205 110 132550 0.509

Table 3. Typical crack patterns on different wall types.

Construction Specimen number

Wall type
method 1 2 3

Reinforced
concrete frame RCFIM
infill masonry

Confined masonry CMW

Wall without
W
reinforcement

Table 3 summarizes the typical three-wall crack plane crack damage to the wall due to the only centric load
pattern at the end of the test that characterizes the sliding without any lateral or perpendicular load applied.
behavior in the wall tested in the diagonal direction. In The wall types of CMW and RCFIM were confined by
this study, each type of wall has three specimens to RC tie-beam and tie-column elements as a function of a
represent its performance. The test results seem to simple RC frame affecting the relatively same damage
confirm that after the earthquake, the masonry wall patterns. The dimension of 110x110 (mm) were used in
suffers crack damage that spreads out toward the diagonal the RC tie-beam and tie-column. The compressive
of the wall. Referring to Mahmood and Ingham's research strength of concrete was 25 MPa, and the tensile strength
[23], the test results have demonstrated that the crack of steel was 300 MPa. The rebars of 4Ø10 and Ø6-100
propagates vertically following the in-plane diagonal were utilized for the longitudinal reinforcement and
direction of the wall. It is observed that there is no out-of- confinement, respectively. Given this construction
method, the crack development pattern spreads out

5
E3S Web of Conferences 156, 05016 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202015605016
4 th ICEEDM 2019

progressively along with the increase of vertical Compressive

1.446 MPa
deflection of the frame. This phenomenon illustrates the strength (fk’)
crack pattern makes sense with the theoretical basis of Modulus of
1881.112 MPa
diagonal shear stress. Besides, the crack propagation was elasticity
not only occurred in the mortar but also in the concrete
block itself, showing that the interrelated effects of the
interlocking system perfectly worked. In contrast, the wall
type of W provides a slightly different failure mode,
where the wall starts cracking, not at the corner of the
wall, and propagates vertically following the loading
direction.

5.4. Compressive Strength of Concrete block

Wall
Fig. 8 presents a simple test of compressive strength on
Fig. 9. The stress-strain relationship.
the concrete block masonry to determine the modulus of
elasticity, and the test results are listed in Table 4.
The results of this modulus of elasticity have been
Referring to Table 4, the compressive strength (fk’) was
compared with similar research [4, 19]. According to
defined as follows, fk’ = (Pu + W)/(B.b) (MPa).
Anggraeni et al. [4] and Jonaitis and Zavalis [19], the
optimum values of elasticity modulus were 1248 and
1086.24 MPa, respectively. These results are smaller
compared with the modulus of elasticity of concrete
blocks resulted from this research. Although, the research
method used in the study is similar, however, the material
and its composition are the different sources, resulting in
dissimilar values of elasticity modulus.

5 Conclusion
Preliminary research on the experimental investigation on
(a) Sample (b) Crack pattern the interlocking concrete block for the masonry wall
applied to non-engineered earthquake-resistant buildings
Fig. 8. A compressive strength test of the masonry wall. was conducted. The research objective focuses on the
compressive strength of mortar, diagonal shear stress,
The recorded stress-strain of the concrete block is
ductility capacity, and modulus of elasticity of the wall.
shown in Fig. 9. The modulus of elasticity of concrete
Based on the results and discussion, the subsequent
block masonry is then calculated based on the second
conclusions can be drawn as follows.
strain divided by the second strain, as depicted in Fig. 9.
The second stress value is considered 40% of the
1. The ordinary mortar of 1:5 produces the average
maximum stress, and then the second strain value is
compressive strength of 7.24 MPa. Whereas another
adjusted to the stress value. The elastic modulus is written
ratio of 1:4 provides higher average compressive
in the following equation, E = σ2/ε2 (MPa). The computed
strength of 8.64 MPa. In contrast, the mortar with
modulus of elasticity 1881.112 MPa.
glass powder as a partial replacement on fine
Table 4. The compressive strength result of the concrete block aggregate, both compositions provide significant
masonry wall. compressive strengths of 9.21 and 11.62 MPa,
respectively.
Variable Value Units 2. Based on the diagonal shear test, the wall type CMW
produces the highest shear stress of 0.607 MPa
Maximum compared to the other two wall types, i.e., RCFIM and
79294.23 N
loads (Pu) W, resulting in lesser shear stresses of 0.462 and 0.459
Width (B) 500 mm MPa, respectively.
3. The CMW and RCFIM wall types give very close
Thickness (b) 110 mm values at each other, and the rest of the W wall type
has lesser ductility capacity.
Tool weight
236.42 N 4. The optimum compressive strength of the concrete
(W) block wall is 1.446 MPa resulting in the modulus of
Time 650 sec
elasticity of 1881.112 MPa.
5. The proposed interlocking models of concrete block
contribute to better strength than ordinary clay bricks

6
E3S Web of Conferences 156, 05016 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202015605016
4 th ICEEDM 2019

for the masonry wall, and the CMW is preferably used 13. Sutrisno, W., J. Rekayasa dan Inovasi Teknik 2 (2)
to install the typical masonry wall of non-engineered (2017)
earthquake-resistant houses. 14. Islam, S. G. M., Rahman, M. H., Kazi, N. Int. J. of
Sustainable Built Envt 6 37–44 (2017)
The authors would like to acknowledge the Directorate General 15. Du, H., and Tan, K. H., J. of Advd Concrete Tech. 12
of Higher Education, Ministry of Research and Technology and
468-477 (2014)
Higher Education, which granted a multi-year research project
under the Grant Competition Scheme (2019-2020), and the 16. Rahma, A., Naber, N. E., and Ismail, S. I., Cogent
Department of Civil Engineering and Disaster Risk Engg J. (2017)
Management, Islamic University of Indonesia, which supported 17. Elaqra, H. A., AbouHaloub, M. A., and Rustom, R.
utilization of all experimental devices. N., Const and Builg Mat. J. 203 (2019)
18. EN 1015-11:2007 Methods of Test for Mortar for
References Masonry. Part 11—Determination of Flexural and
Compressive Strength of Hardened Mortars; CEN
1. Martin, J. D., Indonesia Disaster Management (European Committee for Standardization):
Reference Handbook, Center for Excellence in Bruxelles, Belgium, (1999).
Disaster Management & Humanitarian Assistance, 19. Jonaitis, B., and Zavalis, R., 11th International
June 2018, 89 p. Conference on Modern Building Materials,
2. Arya, A. S., Boen, T., Ishiyama, I., Guideline for Structures and Techniques, MBMST, Elsevier,
Earthquake Resistant Non-engineered Construction, Lithuania, December 473 – 478 (2013)
the United Nations Educational Scientific and 20. Sorrentino, L.; Cattari, S.; Da Porto, F.; Magenes, G.;
Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, France, Penna, Bull. Earthq. Eng.1–25 (2018)
(2014).
21. American Society for Testing and Materials,
3. Teguh, M., Purnomo, A.D., Satria, S.P., Karakteristik Standard Test Method for Diagonal Tension (Shear)
Batako-Kait Sebagai Dinding Pasangan. Prosiding in Masonry Assemblages, ASTM designation: E 519-
Seminar Nasional Seri 7 “Menuju Masyarakat 02, USA, (2002).
Madani dan Lestari”, Direktorat Penelitian dan
Pengabdian Masyarakat, Universitas Islam 22. Pranata, Y.A., and Elvira, L., J. of Civil Engg. 12. (3),
Indonesia, Yogyakarta. 22 November 2017, (2017) 161-172 (2013)
(in Indonesian language). 23. Mahmood, H.; Ingham, J.M. Diagonal Compression
4. Anggraeni, M.Y., Sudarsana, I.K., dan Sukrawa, M., Testing of FRP-Retrofitted Unreinforced Clay Brick
J. Spektrans 3 (2) (2015) Masonry Wallettes. J. Compos. Constr. 15, (2011),
pp. 810–820.
5. Bennett, R.M.; Boyd, K.A.; Flanagan, R.D. J. Struct.
Engg., 123, (1997), pp. 920–926. 24. Willis, C.; Seracino, R.; Griffith, M. Eng. Struct. 32,
547–555 (2010)
6. Lourenço, P.B.; Vasconcelos, G.; Medeiros, P.;
Gouveia, J., Constr. Build. Mater. 24 2317–2330 25. Sisti, R.; Di Ludovico, M.; Borri, A.; Prota, A., Bull.
(2010) Earthq. Eng. 1–21 (2018)
7. Teguh, M., Int. J. of Engg Tech. Innov. 6 (2) 152-164 26. Gabor, A.; Ferrier, E.; Jacquelin, E.; Hamelin, P.
(2016) Build. Mater. 20 308–321 (2006)
8. Teguh, M., Procedia Engineering 171 191-200 27. Turnšek, V.; Cacovic, F. Proc. of the 2nd Int. Brick
(2017) Masonry Conf., Stoke-on-Trent, UK, 12–15 April,
(1970)
9. Anonim, Persyaratan Beton Struktural Untuk
Bangunan Gedung, SNI 2847-2013, Departemen 28. ASTM International. ASTM D638-14, Standard Test
Pekerja Umum: Jakarta, (2013) (in Indonesian Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics; ASTM
language). International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, (2014)
10. Lin, Y., Biggs, D., Dist. M., Wotherspoon, L., and 29. Corradi, M., Castori, G., Sisti, R., Borri, A., and
Ingham, J. M. J. of Struct. Engg (2014) Pesce, G. L., Materials 12, (2019)
11. Da Porto, F.; Guidi, G.; Garbin, E.; Modena, C. J. 30. Calderón, S., Vargas, L., Sandoval, C., and Araya-
Struct. Eng. 136 1379–1392 (2010) Letelier, G., 10th International Masonry Conference,
Milan, Italy, July 9-11, (2018)
12. Magenes, G.; Calvi, G.M. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn.,
26 1091–1112 (1997)