materials

Article
Derivation of Empirical Relationships to Predict Cambodian
Masonry Strength
Nurmurat Kandymov 1, * , Nor Fazilah Mohd Hashim 1, *, Syuhaida Ismail 1 and Serdar Durdyev 2

1 Razak Faculty of Technology and Informatics, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur 54100, Malaysia;
[email protected]
2 Department of Architectural and Engineering Studies, Ara Institute of Canterbury,
Christchurch 8011, New Zealand; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected] (N.K.); [email protected] (N.F.M.H.)

Abstract: Masonry material characteristics, such as compressive strength, and the relationship be-
tween brick, mortar, and masonry compressive strengths are required for the analysis and assessment
of masonry structures. This paper aimed to investigate the compressive strength relationship of Cam-
bodian masonry. A total number of 42 prisms were constructed in the laboratory using six different
brick/mortar combinations. Two brick types, solid and hollow, and three—1:3, 1:4, and 1:6—cement–
sand mortar combinations were used. The effects of brick and mortar strengths were analysed. Using
regression analysis, a simple empirical relationship was derived for masonry compressive strength as
a function of brick and mortar strength in the Cambodian context.

Keywords: brick; mortar; compressive strength; masonry; prism; Cambodia

1. Introduction
Citation: Kandymov, N.; Mohd Brick masonry is a common building construction option in the world due to the
Hashim, N.F.; Ismail, S.; Durdyev, S.
low cost of materials, good insulation, and a simple construction process. Masonry is
Derivation of Empirical Relationships
constructed using individual bricks and mortar; thus, assemblage properties are affected
to Predict Cambodian Masonry
by both brick and mortar properties [1]. Compressive strength of masonry is an important
Strength. Materials 2022, 15, 5030.
parameter for the structural design of masonry. The relative strength of units and mortar,
https://doi.org/10.3390/
shape of the units, mortar joint thickness, and testing type of specimen are factors that affect
ma15145030
the behaviour of masonry under an axial compression test [1–4]. Gumaste et al. [5] relate
Academic Editor: Łukasz Sadowski masonry strength to brick strength, directly stating that masonry strength is 25–50% of brick
Received: 1 June 2022
strength, while other researchers, namely Murthi et al. and Padalu and Singh [6,7] found
Accepted: 26 June 2022
that masonry compressive strength increases with increasing brick strength. Thaickavil and
Published: 20 July 2022
Thomas [8] found other additional parameters pertinent to masonry compressive strength,
slenderness ratio of prism, volume fraction of masonry unit, and volume ratio of bed joint
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
to mortar. In general, the strength of the brick masonry will increase proportionally with
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
brick/mortar strengths [5].
published maps and institutional affil-
There are different ways to obtain mechanical properties for existing masonry build-
iations.
ings: in situ field tests, laboratory tests on specimens extracted from the field, and testing
prisms constructed in the laboratory [9]. With flat-jack in situ tests conducted by re-
searchers [10], however, the results are generally not precise enough for structural design.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
It is not always possible to extract masonry prism samples to conduct compression tests
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. due to the structure type, function, and more importantly cost. Moreover, removing and
This article is an open access article transporting them to the laboratory without any damage constitute another challenge [7].
distributed under the terms and Therefore, researchers [1,5,8,11–14] attempted to develop an empirical relationship between
conditions of the Creative Commons brick, mortar, and masonry compressive strength to predict the compressive strength of
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// masonry by mortar and brick unit strengths. However, there is a significant difference, geo-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ graphically, in both material properties and proportion of the cement in mortars adopted in
4.0/). the construction industry. For instance, the compressive strength of bricks used in Western

Materials 2022, 15, 5030. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15145030 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials

Materials 2022, 15, 5030 2 of 11

countries’ brick masonry is between 15 and 150 MPa, while in India the value is between 3
and 20 MPa [6–8,11,12,14–23]. These differences in properties of brick and mortar indicate
the urgent need for the derivation of the empirical relationship for brick masonry regionally.
Therefore, this paper attempts to investigate properties of brick masonry prisms under
axial compression using the solid and hollow local bricks of Cambodia with different ratios
of mortars. Results of compressive strength will then be used to derive coefficients in order
to predict Cambodian brick masonry strength by brick and mortar strengths.

2. Past Studies on Coefficient Values for Masonry Strength

Compression testing of masonry prisms is not always practical; therefore, attempts
have been made in the literature for developing different empirical models to predict
masonry compressive strengths. One of the earliest prediction models was proposed by
Engesser [24], which suggested the algebraic sum of brick and mortar strengths with
certain proportions. Another unique prediction model was suggested by Roca et al. [25] in
which masonry strength depended more on mortar strength. Dymiotis and Gutlederer [26]
derived a second-order polynomial equation and suggested a formula after regression
analysis, which accounts for mortar and brick compressive strength. Dayaratnam [27]
suggested a model in which the same weightage was given to bricks and mortar with the
same constant parameters, while Roza [28] and Thaickavil and Thomas [8] proposed more
sophisticated models with more variables in which the relative volume of the unit, the
relative volume of mortar, and the slenderness ratio of the prism are considered, in addition
to brick and mortar strengths.
Most of the researchers [1,5,11,13,14,19,29–36] suggested a model based on brick and
mortar compressive strengths using the set of constants K, α, and β. The relationship is of
the form shown in Equation (1) [37]:

f’m = K fb α × fj β (1)

where K, α, and β are constants, and fb , fj , and f’m are masonry unit (brick), mortar, and
masonry compressive strength, respectively. Eurocode 6 [37] recommends a variety of K
values depending on the brick-unit properties and bond configuration, where α and β are
described as 0.7 and 0.3, respectively.
Lumantarna et al. [1] developed the coefficient to predict masonry compressive
strength from brick and mortar for New Zealand unreinforced masonry. They investi-
gated both existing masonry structures and laboratory-based constructed prisms. There
were 45 prisms extracted and 75 were built in the laboratory from 14 brick–mortar combi-
nations. Mortar grades consisted of cement, lime, and sand with different water ratios. The
highest compressive strength mortar was one with the highest cement proportions, where
five specimens were tested for each mortar grade. The field-extracted sample test results
were combined with laboratory-based samples, and nonlinear regression analysis was
carried out with DataFit 9.0 software (Oakdale Engineering 2010, Oakdale, PA, USA). The
software examiness the resemblance between the field-extracted and laboratory-constructed
samples and, according to the results of their study, they converged. The coefficients they
found for K, α, and β were 0.75, 0.75, and 0.31, respectively.
Kaushik et al. [14] investigated the stress–strain characteristics of clay bricks in the
Indian context. Prisms from combinations of four brick and three mortar types were
investigated, and each prism type tested seven specimens for the accuracy of the results.
Coefficient values for K, α, and β were found to be 0.63, 0.49, and 0.32, respectively.
Coefficient of determination (R2 ) and standard error for estimate (σ) were also calculated
for the derived empirical relationships. The coefficient of determination shows the reliability
of the relationship between experimentally obtained values and regression analysis. On
the other hand, the standard error for estimates provide an idea of the scatter of actual
data from the value estimated by linear regression analysis. For empirical coefficients, the
values R2 and σ were found to be 0.93 and 0.48 MPa, respectively.
Materials 2022, 15, 5030 3 of 11

In addition, Gumaste et al. [5] studied the empirical relationship with both prisms and
wallettes in the Indian context. Two types of bricks—table moulded and wire cut—and five
different mortar grades were used. Unlike other studies, [1,14,19], soil was also used in
some mortar grades. Combinations were used for stack and English bonded prisms and
wallettes. Coefficients were found to be 0.317, 0.866, and 0.134 for the stack bond, and 0.225,
0.855, and 0.146 for English bond-type walls for K, α, and β, respectively.
Christy et al. [13] studied short prisms of 3.63 h/t ratio under axial compressive test
for clay brick and fly ash brick. A weak mortar of a 1:6 ratio was selected and fine aggregate
was replaced with fly ash of 0, 10, and 20% in order to examine the effect of fly ash on
prism bond. Prisms were also reinforced with woven wire mesh at alternate bed joints, and
the results were compared among reinforced and unreinforced prisms. In all specimens,
reinforced prisms obtained greater compressive strength values compared to unreinforced
prisms, and those differences decreased while fly ash value in mortar increased from 0%
to 20%. Coefficients were derived to predict masonry compressive strength and E of the
prisms, and K, α, and β values were found to be 0.35, 0.65, and 0.25, respectively.
Thamboo and Dhanasekar [19] investigated correlations between the performance
of solid prisms and wallettes in the Sri Lankan masonry context. Five different clay and
compressive earth bricks and two mortar proportions were used to test 50 prisms and
40 wallettes under compression testing. Prism compressive strength was higher than
wallette compressive strength, but a linear relationship was found between prisms and
wallettes. Nonlinear regression analysis was conducted to predict the masonry compressive
strength for prism and wallettes separately. K, α, and β were found to be 0.2, 1.26, and 0.15,
and 0.25, 1.09, and 0.12 for prisms and wallettes, respectively.
Coefficients derived in the literature to predict masonry strength are provided in
Table 1. The common property of those studies is that the value of constant α is greater
than constant β, which means that masonry strength depends more on brick strength than
mortar strength. Only few researchers [12,30] found greater value for β, indicating that
the prism strength relies more on mortar strength. Only Dayaratnam [27] suggested equal
weights for both brick and mortar, while Basha and Kaushik [12] found very little effects of
brick and mortar strengths by suggesting a K value over 1.

Table 1. Coefficients for specific models in the literature to predict masonry compressive strength.

Research Year K α β
[19] 2019 0.2 1.26 0.15
[32] 2019 0.25 1.03 0.28
[30] 2018 0.1 0.34 1.93
[11] 2016 0.69 0.6 0.35
[12] 2014 1.34 0.1 0.33
[1] 2014 0.75 0.75 0.31
[13] 2013 0.35 0.65 0.25
[29] 2012 0.61 0.51 0.36
[14] 2007 0.63 0.49 0.32
[5] 2007 0.32 0.86 0.13
[5] 2007 0.22 0.85 0.14
[27] 1987 0.27 0.5 0.5
[33] 1986 0.32 0.53 0.21
[35] 1982 0.83 0.66 0.33
[34] 1973 0.9 0.67 0.33
[36] 1963 0.68 0.5 0.33

3. Experimental Programme/Laboratory Testing

3.1. Materials/Brick–Mortar Properties
Two types of masonry units and three types of mortar are used to build the masonry
prisms. The bricks used in this research are solid and hollow hand-moulded clay bricks,
as shown in Figure 1. The length and width are the same for both types, 170 and 75 mm,
 Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 12

3. Experimental Programme/Laboratory Testing

Materials 2022, 15, 5030 3.1. Materials/Brick–Mortar Properties 4 of 11
Two types of masonry units and three types of mortar are used to build the masonry
prisms. The bricks used in this research are solid and hollow hand-moulded clay bricks,
as shown in Figure 1. The length and width are the same for both types, 170 and 75 mm,
respectively, where the height is 75 mm for hollow and 30 mm for solid bricks. These bricks
respectively, where the height is 75 mm for hollow and 30 mm for solid bricks. These
are purposely
bricks are purposelyselected to cover
selected thethe
to cover compressive
compressivestrengths
strengthsof ofcommonly usedbrick
commonly used brick types in
types in the construction industry in Cambodia. The compressive strength of the units determined
the construction industry in Cambodia. The compressive strength of the units is is
as per BS EN
determined 772-1:2011
as per [38], and
BS EN 772-1:2011 10 and
[38], specimens were were
10 specimens tested to determine
tested to determinethethe
strength of
strength of each unit type. Some standards [39] do not allow an investigation of compres- strength
each unit type. Some standards [39] do not allow an investigation of compressive
in astrength
sive sampleinthat has an
a sample h/t
that ratio
has of ratio
an h/t less than
of less0.4,
thanand
0.4,solid and and
and solid hollow brick
hollow samples fit
brick
samples fit the requirement with ratios of 0.4 and 1, respectively. All specimens
the requirement with ratios of 0.4 and 1, respectively. All specimens are loaded on the are loaded
on the
170 mm 170× mm75×mm75 mm area.
area.

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure1.1.
(a)(a)
Solid clayclay
Solid brick; (b) hollow
brick; clay brick.
(b) hollow clay brick.

InInthis
thisstudy,
study,three types
three of mortar
types of mortarwith with
mix proportions are usedare
mix proportions to used
construct the
to construct the
prisms in combination with two types of brick units. Portland cement-to-sand
prisms in combination with two types of brick units. Portland cement-to-sand ratios ratios of of 1:3,
1:3,
1:4,1:4,
andand 1:6 1:6
werewere
usedused
forfor mortar
mortar mixing.Strong
mixing. Strongmix
mixmortar,
mortar,1:3,
1:3,isisdenoted
denoted asas A;
A; weak, 1:6,
weak, 1:6, is denoted as B, whereas the most-adopted ratio in the construction industry of
is denoted as B, whereas the most-adopted ratio in the construction industry of Cambodia,
Cambodia, 1:4, is denoted as type C in the following discussion. Dry sand and cement are
1:4, is denoted as type C in the following discussion. Dry sand and cement are mixed first,
mixed first, and then water is added to the dry mixture in the ratios of 0.7 and 1.1 for types
and then water is added to the dry mixture in the ratios of 0.7 and 1.1 for types A and B,
A and B, respectively. For type C, the ratio at which water is added is based on the expe-
respectively.
rience For type
of the mason who C, the ratioinatthe
is assisting which water is
preparation addedofiscubes.
process basedSix oncube
the samples
experience of the
mason
of 70 mmwho sizeiswere
assisting
taken in theeach
from preparation processand
mortar mixture of cubes. Sixfor
were left cube samples
28 days curing of at
70 mm size
weretemperature
room taken from in each mortar
order mixture
to prepare and were lefttesting.
for compression for 28The
days curing at room
compressive temperature
strength
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
inthe
order to prepare for compression testing. 5 of mortars
12
of mortars is determined as per the ASTM C109The
[40] compressive
standard (Figure strength
2). of the is
determined as per the ASTM C109 [40] standard (Figure 2).

Figure 2.
Figure 2.Mortar
Mortarcompression
compressiontest.test.

3.2. TestingProcedures
3.2. Testing Procedures
In
In this
thisstudy,
study,a atotal ofof
total 4242
prisms with
prisms 6 different
with brick/mortar
6 different combinations
brick/mortar were
combinations were
prepared with occasional assistance provided by an experienced mason,
prepared with occasional assistance provided by an experienced mason, and and they were
they were
cured for 28 days at room temperature before assessing the masonry strength. Length and
height conform to the ASTM standard, which are a minimum of 100 mm length and a
minimum of 2 units of height, with height in the lowest dimension between 1.3 and 5,
respectively [41]. Complete test matrix and specimen dimensions are provided in Table 2
below. Seven prisms were built for each of the six combinations. Four to seven bricks are
Materials 2022, 15, 5030 5 of 11

cured for 28 days at room temperature before assessing the masonry strength. Length
and height conform to the ASTM standard, which are a minimum of 100 mm length and
a minimum of 2 units of height, with height in the lowest dimension between 1.3 and 5,
respectively [41]. Complete test matrix and specimen dimensions are provided in Table 2
below. Seven prisms were built for each of the six combinations. Four to seven bricks are
used in each prism depending on the brick type (Figure 3), as the heights of solid and
hollow bricks are different.

Table 2. Test matrix and dimensions of the specimens.

Type Name Brick Type Mortar Type h (mm) l (mm) w (mm)

Prism S3 Solid A 360 170 75
Prism H3 Hollow A 370 170 75
Prism S4 Solid C 360 170 75
Prism H4 Hollow C 370 170 75
Prism S6 Solid B 360 170 75
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 12
Prism H6 Hollow B 370 170 75

Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 12

(a) (b)
Figure
Figure3. (a)
3. Solid brick brick
(a) Solid prism; prism;
(b) Prism(b)
failure.
Prism failure.
All bricks and prisms are capped using a gypsum plaster in order to make a smooth
Mortar thickness in both prisms is kept at a constant of 20 mm to replicate the common
surface so that the applied load can be distributed equally (Figure 4). In addition, speci-
Cambodia
mens unreinforced
were aligned carefully
(a) masonry
between platensconstruction (b)practice.
to avoid eccentricity All Prisms
in loading. brickswere
are kept in water for
10 min
tested before
in accordance construction, as
with ASTM C1314-16 suggested
[42] usingby
Figure 3. (a) Solid brick prism; (b) Prism failure.
theSarangapani et
2000 kN universal al. [18],
testing to avoid poor brick–
ma-
chine.
mortar bond because of dry bricks.
Allbricks
All bricksandand prisms
prisms are capped
are capped using plaster
using a gypsum a gypsum plaster
in order to makeina order
smoothto make a smooth
surface sosothat
surface thethe
that applied load load
applied can becan
distributed equally (Figure
be distributed equally4). (Figure
In addition,
4). speci-
In addition, specimens
mens were aligned carefully between platens to avoid eccentricity in loading. Prisms were
were aligned carefully between platens to avoid eccentricity in
tested in accordance with ASTM C1314-16 [42] using the 2000 kN universal testing ma-
loading. Prisms were tested
in accordance
chine. with ASTM C1314-16 [42] using the 2000 kN universal testing machine.

Figure 4. Capping of bricks.

4. Results and Discussion

The compressive strength of the bricks was determined as explained in the previous
section under uniaxial compression loading. In hollow bricks, fb varied from 8.7 to 12.1
MPa, with
Figure a meanofvalue
4. Capping of 10.2 MPa (COV 10.3%), while in solid bricks, the value varied
bricks.
Figure 4. Capping of bricks.
from 61.2 to 94.1, with a mean value of 77.8 MPa (COV 15%), as shown in Table 3. Differ-
ences in compressive
4. Results strength between the two brick types were enormous, and this could
and Discussion
be dueThe
to the physical properties
compressive strength ofand
theproduction
bricks wastechnology.
determined Height and h/tinratio
as explained are pri-
the previous
mary
section under uniaxial compression loading. In hollow bricks, fb varied from 8.7 to[43].
physical properties affecting the strength of units with an inverse relationship 12.1
The
MPa,height
with of the hollow
a mean value ofbrick
10.2was
MPa2.5 times10.3%),
(COV higherwhile
than in
thesolid
solid brick the
bricks, andvalue
h/t values
varied
were 1 and 0.4 for hollow and solid bricks, respectively. Moreover, holes in hollow bricks
Materials 2022, 15, 5030 6 of 11

4. Results and Discussion

The compressive strength of the bricks was determined as explained in the previous
section under uniaxial compression loading. In hollow bricks, fb varied from 8.7 to 12.1 MPa,
with a mean value of 10.2 MPa (COV 10.3%), while in solid bricks, the value varied from
61.2 to 94.1, with a mean value of 77.8 MPa (COV 15%), as shown in Table 3. Differences in
compressive strength between the two brick types were enormous, and this could be due
to the physical properties and production technology. Height and h/t ratio are primary
physical properties affecting the strength of units with an inverse relationship [43]. The
height of the hollow brick was 2.5 times higher than the solid brick and h/t values were
1 and 0.4 for hollow and solid bricks, respectively. Moreover, holes in hollow bricks are
another reason for the compressive strength difference between brick types, as the holes
cause lesser compressive strengths [43]. Another physical property for the compressive
strength difference is density. Solid brick density is almost twice the density of hollow
brick, and there is a direct relationship between the density and compressive strength of the
units [44]. The type of production and burning temperature are two factors affecting the
compressive strength in production technology. Extruded and moulded production types
were selected according to the plasticity of brick, and there is a strong relationship between
compressive strength and production type [43]. The burning temperature of bricks varies
between 700 and 1100 ◦ C, and it has strong relationship with the compressive strength of
the brick units [43,45]. The production type and burning temperature of the bricks during
the production process were not within the scope of the paper due to budget and time
constraints. Therefore, causes of these two properties in compressive strength difference
are not known. Loading area of the specimen and roughness of the surface are other factors
affecting compressive strength [43]. However, the loading area is the same for both units,
and they were capped with gypsum plaster.

Table 3. Brick unit properties (fb ).

Density/(kg/m3 ) Compressive Strength/(MPa)

Unit Type Dimension (L × W × H) (mm)
(ASTM C90-16a) (BS EN 772-1:2011)
Hollow (10 specimens) 170 × 75 × 75 1256 (10.4%) 10.20 (10.3%)
Solid (10 specimens) 170 × 75 × 30 2484 (7.7%) 77.75 (15%)

Table 4 shows the mortar unit properties for all three types of mortars: weak (1:6),
intermediate (1:4), and strong (1:3). For weak mortar, compressive strengths varied from
3.8 to 5.9 MPa, with an average strength of 4.81 (COV 14%). Intermediate mortar-type
compressive strength varied from 9.1 to 12.1 MPa, with an average compressive strength of
10.56 MPa (COV 12.4%). Strong mortar obtaineded the highest value, as was expected, rang-
ing from 12.3 to 15.3 MPa, with an average compressive strength of 13.8 MPa (COV 8.3%).
The highest compressive strength value of intermediate-type mortar was less than the
lowest value of strong mortar. In addition, the coefficient of variation was the lowest
in strong mortar specimens. The density of the mortar types also demonstrated a linear
relationship with the compressive strength of the respective types.

Table 4. Mortar unit properties (fj ).

Mortar Type Density/(kg/m3 ) Compressive Strength/(MPa)

(Cement: Sand) BS EN 1015-10 ASTM C109
A (1:3) 1895 (0.5%) 13.8 (8.3%)
B (1:6) 1783 (1.6%) 4.81 (14%)
C (1:4) 1870 (1.7%) 10.56 (12.4%)

Masonry prisms of six combinations from two brick and three mortar types were
tested for compressive strength. Table 5 shows the results for all combinations, which
Materials 2022, 15, 5030 7 of 11

were found to be in good agreement with studies from the literature [5,7,8,12,14,15,21,22].
The mean value of f’m was found to be 1.99 MPa (COV 11.9%), 2.01 MPa (COV 9%), and
2 MPa (COV 9%) for hollow brick prisms constructed with weak, intermediate, and strong
mortar, respectively. The coefficient of variation values was also around 10%, which is quite
acceptable. The mean value of f’m was found to be 4.31 MPa (COV 13%), 8.11 MPa (COV
10.7%), and 8.23 MPa (COV 12.9%) for solid brick prisms constructed with weak, intermediate,
and strong mortar, respectively. The coefficient of variation values for all three groups was
between 10.7% and 13%, which is good and acceptable. The lowest value for solid brick
compressive strength was obtained from weak mortar prisms, as expected, and the value
was twice that of the hollow brick prism strength. Padalu and Singh [7] illustrated, using a
graph, that the compressive strength of a prism increased with mortar strength. However,
hollow brick prisms demonstrated the same results for compressive strength for all three
mortar types. The reason for this observation may be due to the bond strength between
brick and mortar. The debonding of the brick–mortar interface decreases the effectiveness
of load transfers through the mortar layer [7], and the surface of the hollow brick is very
smooth, which significantly affects the brick–mortar bond. Moreover, prisms tend to bulge
laterally when the axial load is applied with the top and bottom parts of the specimen under
compression with confinement pressure, while the middle zone is subjected to tension [7].
Masonry is weak in resisting tension forces [46] and has poor brick–mortar bonding with
respect to hollow brick prisms due to the smooth surface; hollow brick prisms resulted in
poor performance with all three mortar ratios. Another reason for compressive strength
differences between brick and hollow prisms is due to the bricks’ unit strength, as Padalu
and Singh [7] found a clear relationship between brick unit strength and prism strength.
Additionally, the later expansion of mortar under compressive loading is restricted due to
the frictional forces at the brick–mortar interface, and mortar may resist direct load transfer
and attributes and increase in prism strength [7]. Prism compressive strengths, factored in
accordance with ASTM C1314 [42] based on the prism height to least lateral dimension, are
also provided in Table 5 below. The correction factors are calculated by linear interpolation
since the h/t ratio of the prisms lies between the given values in the ASTM standard [42].

Table 5. Summary of Test Results for Masonry Prisms (f’m ).

Brick Type f’m (MPa) Normalised f’m (MPa)

Prisms with weak mortar (1:6)
Hollow 1.99 (11.9%) 2.41
Solid 4.31 (13%) 5.19
Prisms with intermediate mortar (1:4)
Hollow 2.01 (9%) 2.44
Solid 8.11 (10.7%) 9.78
Prisms with strong mortar (1:3)
Hollow 2 (9%) 2.42
Solid 8.23 (12.9%) 9.92

Estimation of Prism Strength of Masonry

Compressive strength is the fundamental property of the masonry and is useful in a
variety of ways, including the design of masonry walls, the estimation of Em , and plotting
of stress–strain curves. Thus, f’m is the most essential property and must be always known
for masonry. Nevertheless, it is not always possible to conduct compression testing of
prisms due to feasibility or cost factors. On the other hand, compressive strengths of brick
and mortar are available in codes or can be easily conducted. Therefore, these three com-
pressive strengths can be efficiently related, as is performed in Eurocode [37] and in other
studies [1,5,11–14,19,29–36]. According to the regression analysis conducted with software
R and in agreement with previous studies [1,5,11–14,33,35,36], the α value (0.59) was found
to be greater than the β value (0.32), which implied that masonry compressive strength does
Materials 2022, 15, 5030 8 of 11

not depend as much on mortar strength as it does on brick strength. In other words, mean
mortar compressive strength had less influence on mean masonry compressive strength
compared to mean brick compressive strength. In addition, the K value was found to be
0.24. The derived coefficient values provided results similar to those of recent studies in the
literature [11,13,14,29]. The latest six studies’ [1,11,12,19,30,32] proposed coefficients were
applied to the present data, and masonry compressive strength was predicted with those
coefficients from the respective studies. The coefficient of determination was calculated for
each prediction, and the R2 results obtained were a very poor match, with values of −71,
−243, −79, −158, −12, and 0.29. The results support the objective of deriving the coeffi-
cients of empirical relationships for brick masonry regionally. Experimentally obtained
and predicted compressive strength values are depicted separately for each type of prism
in Figure 5.
R2 is the coefficient of determination between experimentally obtained values and the
Materials 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 12
value obtained by regression analysis, and the results, which are close to unity, indicate
a good fit for the obtained analysis. σ is the standard error of estimate that provides an
idea of the scatter of actual data from the value estimated by regression analysis. It is
desirable
with values that σ is −243,
of −71, at the−79,
minimum value,
−158, −12, andmeaning
0.29. Thethat scatter
results in the
support thedata with respect
objective of de-
to thethe
riving estimated value
coefficients is at the minimum
of empirical [14].forInbrick
relationships the masonry
present study, Equation
regionally. (1) had
Experimen-
a coefficient
tally obtainedof determination
and (R2 ) and standard
predicted compressive strength error
values ofare
estimate (σ)separately
depicted values of 0.94 and
for each
0.78 MPa, respectively,
type of prism in Figure 5. which were deemed satisfactory and acceptable.

Experimental and Predicted Compressive

Strength for Hollow Brick Prisms
Prism Compressive Strength (MPa)

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Prism Samples for weak (1:7), intermediate (8:14), and strong (15-21)
mortar
Experimental Predicted

Experimental and Predicted Compressive

Strength for Solid Brick Prisms
Prism Compressive Strength (MPa)

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Prism Samples for weak (1:10), intermediate (11:17), and

strong (18:24) mortar
Experimental Predicted

Figure
Figure 5. Experimental and
5. Experimental andpredicted
predicted compressive
compressive strength
strength values
values for hollow
for hollow andbrick
and solid solidprisms.
brick
prisms.

R2 is the coefficient of determination between experimentally obtained values and

the value obtained by regression analysis, and the results, which are close to unity, indi-
cate a good fit for the obtained analysis. σ is the standard error of estimate that provides
Materials 2022, 15, 5030 9 of 11

5. Conclusions
The compressive strength of masonry is an important parameter for the structural
design of masonry, and there are different methods for obtaining this property of masonry,
namely, in situ field tests, laboratory tests on specimens extracted from the field, and testing
prisms that are constructed in the laboratory [9]. However, there are some disadvantages
and limitations in the first two methods [7,10]. Therefore, researchers [1,5,11–14,19,29–36]
attempted to develop an empirical relationship to predict masonry strength from brick
and mortar strengths, However, there is considerable difference geographically in material
properties [5–8,11,12,14–23], and these differences indicate that there is a need of derivation
of these coefficients for each region. The objective of the study was to determine coefficients
to predict masonry compressive strength with masonry constituents of brick and mortar in
the Cambodian context. This paper presents the experimental investigation of masonry
prisms under uniaxial compression testing. In the laboratory, 42 prisms were constructed
using the six brick–mortar combinations. Two masonry unit types, solid and hollow, and
three mortar types were used for the prism construction. Experimental results were used
to develop empirical relationships to predict the compressive behaviour of brick masonry
using only brick and mortar compressive strengths in order to assist designers in detailed
analysis. The following summary can be drawn from this research:
• Significant variation has been observed in compressive strength of hollow and solid
bricks. Physical properties, such as hole, height, and density, and production technol-
ogy such as burning temperature could constitute the difference in variation of the
compressive strength.
• Mechanical properties of masonry and its constituent materials were obtained by uniax-
ial compression testing according to the respective standards. The average compressive
strengths of the masonry prisms constructed with 1:3, 1:4, and 1:6 cement-sand mortar were
found to be in good agreement with past studies in the literature [5,7,8,12,14,15,21,22].
• The mean masonry compressive strength was found to increase with the increase in
brick compressive strength, which was found to be in good agreement with previous
researchers [7].
• It has been observed that increase in mortar strength increases the masonry’s compres-
sive strength in solid bricks, in agreement with the literature [7]. However, that effect
could not been observed in hollow bricks, and this observation could be due to the
weak brick–mortar bond of hollow bricks, which has very smooth surfaces.
• A predictive equation relating brick and mortar compressive strengths with masonry
compressive strength in the form of the Eurocode 6 [37] expression was derived, and
constants were found to be 0.24, 0.59, and 0.32 for K, α, and β, respectively.
• Brick constant (α) in the prediction equation was found to be greater than the mortar
constant (β), in agreement with past studies [1,5,11–14,19,33,35,36], and it indicates
that the brick units have more influence on masonry compressive strength compared
to mortar strength.
Lastly, the bricks used in this study were only from two manufacturers, and both of
them are located in the capital city. More comprehensive research with different manufac-
turers from a variety of locations in the country is recommended, since the types of brick
production method, burning temperature, clay used as raw material, etc., affect the me-
chanical properties of the brick. Moreover, a limited number of samples were tested for the
compression test. Therefore, derived coefficients cannot be generalized to all Cambodian
masonry due to the limited number of samples and limited brick manufacturer variety.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.K. and N.F.M.H.; methodology, N.K.; software, N.K.
and S.D.; writing—original draft preparation, N.K. and S.I.; writing—review and editing, N.K. and
S.D.; supervision, N.F.M.H. and S.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Materials 2022, 15, 5030 10 of 11

Funding: The authors of this paper would like to acknowledge the Faculty of Technology and
Informatics Razak Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) for the support under research grant UTM
Encouragement Research Grant, Vot No. Q.K130000.2656.18J25.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Lumantarna, R.; Biggs, D.T.; Ingham, J.M. Uniaxial Compressive Strength and Stiffness of Field-Extracted and Laboratory-
Constructed Masonry Prisms. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014, 26, 567–575. [CrossRef]
2. Barbosa, C.S.; Lourenço, P.B.; Hanai, J.B. On the compressive strength prediction for concrete masonry prisms. Mater. Struct. 2009,
43, 331–344. [CrossRef]
3. Thamboo, J.A.; Dhanasekar, M. Characterisation of thin layer polymer cement mortared concrete masonry bond. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2015, 82, 71–80. [CrossRef]
4. Fortes, E.S.; Parsekian, G.A.; Fonseca, F.S. Relationship between the Compressive Strength of Concrete Masonry and the
Compressive Strength of Concrete Masonry Units. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2015, 27, 04014238. [CrossRef]
5. Gumaste, K.S.; Rao, K.S.N.; Reddy, B.V.V.; Jagadish, K.S. Strength and elasticity of brick masonry prisms and wallettes under
compression. Mater. Struct. 2007, 40, 241–253. [CrossRef]
6. Murthi, P.; Bhavani, M.; Musthaq, M.S.; Jauhar, M.O.; Devi, V.R. Development of relationship between compressive strength of
brick masonry and brick strength. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 39, 258–262. [CrossRef]
7. Padalu, P.K.V.R.; Singh, Y. Variation in compressive properties of Indian brick masonry and its assessment using empirical models.
Structures 2021, 33, 1734–1753. [CrossRef]
8. Thaickavil, N.N.; Thomas, J. Behaviour and strength assessment of masonry prisms. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2018, 8, 23–38.
[CrossRef]
9. Calvi, G.M.; Kingsley, G.R.; Magenes, G. Testing of Masonry Structures for Seismic Assessment. Earthq. Spectra 1996, 12, 145–162.
[CrossRef]
10. Carpinteri, A.; Invernizzi, S.; Lacidogna, G. Historical brick-masonry subjected to double flat-jack test: Acoustic emissions and
scale effects on cracking density. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 2813–2820. [CrossRef]
11. Kumavat, H.R. An Experimental Investigation of Mechanical Properties in Clay Brick Masonry by Partial Replacement of Fine
Aggregate with Clay Brick Waste. J. Inst. Eng. Ser. A 2016, 97, 199–204. [CrossRef]
12. Basha, S.H.; Kaushik, H.B. Evaluation of Nonlinear Material Properties of Fly Ash Brick Masonry under Compression and Shear.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2014, 27, 04014227. [CrossRef]
13. Christy, F.C.; Shanthi, M.R. Experimental study on axial compressive strength and elastic modulus of the clay and fly ash brick
masonry. J. Civ. Eng. Constr. Technol. 2013, 4, 134–141. [CrossRef]
14. Kaushik, H.B.; Rai, D.C.; Jain, S.K. Stress-strain characteristics of clay brick masonry under uniaxial compression. J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 2007, 19, 728–739. [CrossRef]
15. Kadam, S.B.; Singh, Y.; Li, B. Out-of-plane behaviour of unreinforced masonry strengthened using ferrocement overlay. Mater.
Struct. 2014, 48, 3187–3203. [CrossRef]
16. Kandymov, N.; Masha, A.; Durdyev, S.; Yardim, Y. Construction materials’ properties: Investigation of unreinforced masonry
buildings in the cities of Tirana, Durres and Elbasan. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2020, 13, e00395. [CrossRef]
17. Gumaste, K.S.; Venkatarama, R.B.; Nanjunda, R.K. Properties of burnt bricks and mortars in India. Mason. Int. 2004, 17, 45–52.
18. Sarangapani, G.; Reddy, B.V.V.; Jagadish, K.S. Brick-mortar bond and masonry compressive strength. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2005, 17,
229–237. [CrossRef]
19. Thamboo, J.A.; Dhanasekar, M. Correlation between the performance of solid masonry prisms and wallettes under compression.
J. Build. Eng. 2019, 22, 429–438. [CrossRef]
20. Singhal, V.; Rai, D.C. Suitability of Half-Scale Burnt Clay Bricks for Shake Table Tests on Masonry Walls. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2013,
26, 644–657. [CrossRef]
21. Singh, S.B.; Munjal, P. Bond strength and compressive stress-strain characteristics of brick masonry. J. Build. Eng. 2017, 9, 10–16.
[CrossRef]
22. Shermi, C.; Dubey, R.N. Study on out-of-plane behaviour of unreinforced masonry strengthened with welded wire mesh and
mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 143, 104–120. [CrossRef]
23. Ravula, M.B.; Subramaniam, K.V.L. Experimental investigation of compressive failure in masonry brick assemblages made with
soft brick. Mater. Struct. Constr. 2017, 50, 19. [CrossRef]
24. Engesser, F. Über weitgespannte wölbbrücken. Z. Archit. Ing. 1907, 53, 403–440.
Materials 2022, 15, 5030 11 of 11

25. Garzón-Roca, J.; Marco, C.O.; Adam, J.M. Compressive strength of masonry made of clay bricks and cement mortar: Estimation
based on Neural Networks and Fuzzy Logic. Eng. Struct. 2013, 48, 21–27. [CrossRef]
26. Dymiotis, C.; Gutlederer, B.M. Allowing for uncertainties in the modelling of masonry compressive strength. Constr. Build. Mater.
2002, 16, 443–452. [CrossRef]
27. Dayaratnam, P. Brick and Reinforced Brick Structures; Oxford & IBH Pub. Co.: Delhi, India, 1987.
28. Rozza, M.; Martinez-Luengas, G.L.; Pardo, A.L. Intervention Techniques in Architectural Heritage: Course. Restructuring
of Masonry Wall Buildings. Constr. Tech. Consult. 1995. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?
title=CursoTécnicasdeIntervenciónenElPatrimonioArquitectonico&author=G.L.Rozza&publication_year=1995 (accessed on
18 May 2022).
29. Nwofor, T.C. Experimental Determination of the Mechanical Properties of Clay Brick Masonry. Can. J. Environ. Constr. Civ. Eng.
2012, 3, 127–145.
30. Llorens, J.; Llorens, M.; Chamorro, M.A.; Soler, J. Experimental Behavior of Brick Masonry under Uniaxial Compression on
Parallel-to-Face Brick. Single-Leaf Case Study 2018, 14, 23–37. [CrossRef]
31. Sarhat, S.R.; Sherwood, E.G. The prediction of compressive strength of ungrouted hollow concrete block masonry. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2014, 58, 111–121. [CrossRef]
32. Sajanthan, K.; Balagasan, B.; Sathiparan, N. Prediction of compressive strength of stabilized earth block masonry. Adv. Civ. Eng.
2019, 2019, 1–13. [CrossRef]
33. Hendry, A.W.; Malek, M.H. Characteristic compressive strength of brickwork walls from collected test results. Masonry Int. 1986,
7, 15.
34. Rostampour, M. Aspects of the Design of the Multistory Buildings in Light-Weight Concrete. 1973. Available online: https:
//era.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/16928 (accessed on 29 October 2020).
35. Mann, W. Statistical evaluation of tests on masonry by potential functions. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Brick Masonry,
Rome, Italy, 16–19 May 1982; pp. 86–98.
36. Bröcker, O. Die auswertung von tragfähigkeitsversuchen an gemauerten wänden. Betonstein-Zeitung 1963, 10, 19–21.
37. European Committe for Standardization (CEN). Eurocode 6: Design of Masonry Structures–Part 1-1: General Rules for Reinforced and
Unreinforced Masonry Structures; European Committe for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2005.
38. BS EN 772-1:2011; BS EN 772-1:2011+A1:2015 Methods of Test for Masonry Units Determination of Compressive Strength-
European Standards. BSI Standards Limited: London, UK, 2011. Available online: https://www.en-standard.eu/bs-en-772-1-20
11-a1-2015-methods-of-test-for-masonry-units-determination-of-compressive-strength/ (accessed on 23 May 2022).
39. MSZ EN 772-1: 2011; Test Methods for Masonry Units. Part 1: Determination of Compressive Strength (Hungarian Standards
Board). 2011. Available online: http://www.mszt.hu/ (accessed on 22 May 2022).
40. ASTM International. ASTM C109/C109M-20b Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars
(Using 2-in. or [50 mm] Cube Specimens). 2008. Available online: https://www.astm.org/Standards/C109.htm (accessed on 10
November 2020).
41. ASTM International. ASTM C1314-03b Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry Prisms. 2003. Available
online: https://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/HISTORICAL/C1314-03B.htm (accessed on 10 November 2020).
42. ASTM International. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Masonry Prisms. 2016. Available online: https:
//www.astm.org/c1314-16.html (accessed on 23 May 2022).
43. Fódi, A. Effects influencing the compressive strength of a solid, fired clay brick. Period. Polytech. Civ. Eng. 2011, 55, 117–128.
[CrossRef]
44. Chapagain, Y.P.; Sapkota, S.; Ghale, D.B.; Bohara, N.B.; Duwal, N.; Bhattarai, J. A case study on mineralogy and physico-
mechanical properties of commercial bricks produced in Nepal. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 123AD. [CrossRef]
45. Karaman, S.; Gunal, H.; Ersahin, S. Assesment of clay bricks compressive strength using quantitative values of colour components.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2006, 20, 348–354. [CrossRef]
46. Yu, J.H.; Park, J.H. Compressive and Diagonal Tension Strengths of Masonry Prisms Strengthened with Amorphous Steel
Fiber-Reinforced Mortar Overlay. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 5974. [CrossRef]