ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 99-S83

Strength and Deformation of Confined and Unconfined

Grouted Concrete Masonry
by Manicka Dhanasekar and Nigel G. Shrive
Although concrete masonry is a composite material, its gross
properties are used in structural design. It is well known that
under uniaxial compression, grouted concrete masonry fails under
stress levels lower than that of the hollow masonry blockwork. To
improve the compressive strength of masonry, the authors examined
the effectiveness of inserting rolled fine wire mesh or welded wire
mesh into the voids of the hollow concrete masonry prior to
grouting. This inexpensive method of confining the grout increased
the compressive strength of the masonry up to 38%. Simple and
refined equations have been fitted to the stress-strain data of the
masonry with the refined form of the equation being found more
appropriate. The stress-strain curves appear to predict the peak
and postpeak characteristics of the unconfined and confined
prisms accurately. The appropriateness of the refined equation is
demonstrated by predicting the moment curvature relations of
short masonry piers tested under axial and lateral loading.
Keywords: compressive strength; concrete; grout; strain; stress.

INTRODUCTION
Concrete masonry is a composite structural material that
does not resist even simple loads such as uniaxial compression
with a uniform state of stress. The reason for the complex
response of concrete masonry to such simple loading is
attributed to the varying geometry created by the face shells
and webs combined with the face-shell bedded mortar joints.
The response of concrete masonry to monotonic, axial loading
has been investigated in the past by several researchers
including Drysdale and Hamid;1 Hatzinikolas, Longworth,
and Warwaruk;2 Brown and Young;3 Shrive;4 SayedAhmed and Shrive;5 Ramamurthy and Ganesan;6 and
Colville and Wolde-Tinsae. 7 Through theoretical and
experimental investigations, they have found that under face
shell loading, the webs of hollow (ungrouted) concrete
masonry crack first as they act as deep beams spanning
between the face-shell mortar beds. This cracking leads to
loss of propping for the face shells that subsequently fail due
to instability often in combination with crushing of the mortar
bed. Full-bedded masonry, on the other hand, resists the
vertical compression more uniformly and fails due to the
formation of cracks in the face shells parallel to the direction
of the loading. These findings clearly illustrate the structural
advantages associated with full bedding. From the constructibility point of view, however, it is difficult to achieve full bedding due to the lack of vertical alignment of the webs of the
units in sequential courses. Given the dimensional issues, a requirement of full bedding would reduce the productivity of the
mason considerably.
Concrete masonry is often grouted, and there are many
situations where grouted concrete masonry is subjected to
concentrated loading. Grouted concrete masonry fails due to
a complex mechanism generated by the tendency of the grout
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002

to expand laterally (due to the formation of microcracks) and

the tendency of the shell to deform outward under the actions
of simple axial compressive loading. The vertical taper of the
face shells introduces an additional feature that the grout
core acts as a wedge inside the masonry shell, tending to
push the face shells out. Shrinkage of the grout on curing
may also prestress the masonry internally. The complex state
of stress and failure mechanism causes the masonry to fail at
stress levels much lower than those that occur in hollow
(ungrouted) concrete masonry under a similar state of
loading. The type and slump of the grout, its shrinkage, and
the type of loading are major factors that affect the failure of
the grouted masonry.8-10
The compressive strength of the grouted masonry is
sometimes estimated from the sum of the strength of the
hollow masonry and the square root of the strength of the
grout.10,11 Although this approach provided a conservative
estimate of the strength of grouted masonry for most grout
strengths, Kumar12 found through a series of experiments
that the approach resulted in unconservative values for very
high-strength grouts. He found that the grouted masonry
attained a maximum strength when the strength of the grout
was equal to that of the units from a study on the compatibility
of lateral expansion of the masonry shell and the grout.
Reinforcement is not usually provided to confine the grout
as it is difficult to detail such reinforcement within the limited
space available. Confinement of grout, however, would be
useful, particularly when the masonry is subjected to high
local compressive loads and/or cyclic loading. Examples are
the toe of shear walls, places where cross beams apply
concentrated loading, or the bearing ends of the prestressed
masonry walls. Priestley and Elder13 used a thin stainless
steel reinforcing plate in the mortar bed joints to confine the
grout. Kumar and Dhanasekar14 used triangular ties within the
grout. The authors of this paper inserted cages made from fine
wire mesh (FWM) or welded wire mesh (WWM) into the
voids prior to grouting of masonry for the same purpose. This
inexpensive method of confining the grout is described herein.
The failure of the grouted concrete masonry with and without
confining reinforcement subjected to monotonic and cyclic
compressive loading and the associated stress-strain relations
are also presented. The usefulness of the stress-strain curves in
predicting the moment-curvature relations of several piers
tested under vertical and lateral loading is also demonstrated.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 99, No. 6, November-December 2002.
MS No. 01-382 received November 8, 2001, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2002, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion will be published in the September-October 2003 ACI
Structural Journal if received by May 1, 2003.

819

Manicka Dhanasekar is Senior Lecturer in Structural Engineering of the Faculty

of Engineering and Physical Sciences, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton,
Australia. He received his PhD in structural masonry from the University of Newcastle
in 1986. His research interests include seismic response of concrete and masonry
structures, structural modeling, stress analysis, and contact mechanics.
Nigel G. Shrive holds the Killam Memorial Research Chair as a professor in the
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
His research interests include finite element modeling, masonry structures, and
biomedical engineering.

The model proposed by Kent and Park16 is also widely

used, as it provides a generalized stress-strain relation for
confined and unconfined concretes. An ascending part
(parabola) and a descending part (straight line) that typically
represent monotonic and cyclic-envelope curves are shown
in Eq. (2).
For the ascending portion
2

Grouted masonry exhibited greater initial stiffness and

improved postpeak characteristics compared with the faceshell bedded hollow masonry. The placement of FWM or
welded wire cage-type confining reinforcement within the
grouted cores increased the compression capacity of the
concrete masonry up to 38% over that of unconfined masonry.
The stress-strain curve of the confined masonry, however,
shows only a marginal improvement in strain-softening characteristics compared with the unconfined grouted masonry.
RESEARCH AIMS, SCOPE, AND SIGNIFICANCE
The aims of the research were: 1) to examine whether or
not some inexpensive methods of confining the grout would
enhance the strength and ductility of concrete masonry under
compressive loading; and 2) to provide a complete stressstrain curve for masonry that could be easily incorporated
into numerical models. The aims have been achieved
through systematic experimental investigation on concrete
masonry prisms. The scope of the investigation allowed for
monotonic and cyclic compression loading in the direction
parallel to grouting. Strain measurement, however, was
limited to the direction of loading (axial), with no lateral
strains measured. The potential of masonry to resist either
cyclic loading or concentrated compressive loading may
well be enhanced due to the findings of this research.
RESPONSE OF CONCRETE AND MASONRY
Concrete and masonry exhibit significant nonlinearity in
their stress-strain curves. The stress-strain behavior of concrete
under monotonic and cyclic loading has been studied since
the early 60s. Similar studies on masonry, however, are
scattered with wide gaps in knowledge. The reason for the
paucity of knowledge may be due to the wide variety in
geometric and material properties of the units from which
the masonry is constructed. For example, the shapes and
dimensions of solid and perforated clay units vary significantly
between countries.
Desayi and Krishnan15 proposed a stress-strain equation in
1964 for concrete subjected to monotonic compression. The
equation is still used and relates the stress to the strain as
a function of the strain at the peak stress 0, and a constant E
as shown in Eq. (1)
E = -------------------- 2
1 + ---0

(1)

Equation (1) describes both the ascending and descending

branches of the stress-strain curve and is easy to integrate in
the flexural design of reinforced concrete. Herein, this
equation is used as one of the two trial equations for the
stress-strain curves of concrete masonry.
820

= peak [ 2 0.002 [ 0.002 ] ]

(2a)

For the descending portion

= peak [ 1 Z [ 0.002 ] ]

(2b)

where
0.5
Z = ----------------------------------------------------------3 + 0.29 peak
---------------------------------------- 0.002
145 peak 1000

(2c)

The common point curve (the points that lie at the intersection
of the unloading and reloading paths of the cyclic stress-strain
curves) is related to the envelope curve through a reduction
factor of 0.9 for the stress in the Kent and Park equation.
Sinha, Gerstle, and Tulin17 reported polynomial functions
to define the cyclic stress-strain curves of concrete. The
polynomials for the curves were fitted with as many as seven
constants. Numerical values of the constants specific to their
concrete were reported in their paper. An exponential curve
was fitted to the envelope and common point data obtained
for solid clay brick masonry by Naraine and Sinha18 as
shown in Eq. (3)
( 1 + )

e
=
---------------------------------

(3)

in which and are the normalized strain and stress, and

and are constants.
Loov19 defined a single curve given in Eq. (4). This
equation fits the data of several concretes of different
strengths using only two constants, B and n. A modified form
of this equation is used (in addition to Eq. (1)) to fit the
envelope and common point curves for the masonry tests
reported herein

( 1 + B + ( 1 ( n 1 ) ) )
= peak -------------------------------------------------------n-

1 + B + ( 1 ( n 1 ) )

(4)

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Thirty-three, three-high stack-bonded prisms were
constructed from 390 x 190 x 190 mm (15.6 x 7.6 x 7.6 in.)
(length x height x width) hollow concrete blocks. Each block
had two symmetrically placed tapered hollow cores of average
dimension 140 x 120 mm (5.6 x 4.8 in.). The thickness of the
face shell varied from 30 mm (1.2 in.) on one end to 35 mm
(1.4 in.) on the other end. Ready-mix Type S (structural)
mortar (1.0:0.5:3.5 to 4.5cement:lime:sand by volume) was
used in the construction. A professional bricklayer constructed
all prisms with 10 mm (0.4 in.) thick mortar joints. During
construction, three 50 mm (2 in.) mortar cubes were sampled.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002

Table 1Experimental program

Item

Type of
specimen

Number of
Loaded area specimens Designation

Hollow prism

Face shell bed

5 (3 mono
FSPx-t#h
+ 2 cyclic)

Hollow prism

Full bed

8 (2 mono
HOPx-t#h
+ 6 cyclic)

Grouted prism

Full bed

8 (4 mono
GUPx-t#h
+ 4 cyclic)

Grouted prism with

fine wire mesh

Full bed

6 (2 mono
CMPx-t#h
+ 4 cyclic)

Grouted prism with

welded wire mesh

Full bed

6 (2 mono
GCPx-t#h
+ 4 cyclic)

Note: Symbol x stands for prism number; t stands for load typem for
monotonic and c for cyclic; and h stands for load history 0 for monotonic, 1, 2,
or 5 for cyclic, depending on number of load cycles used in each strain increment.

Grout was weigh-batched, mixed, placed, and vibrated.

Pea gravel aggregate (nominal dimension 6 mm [0.24 in.]) of
unit weight 1515 kg/m3 (94.4 lb/ft3) was used in the grout.
Cement and water were batched at 350 and 275 kg/m3 (21.8
and 17.1 lb/ft3), respectively. Three 150 mm (6 in.) diameter
x 300 mm (12 in.) high cylinders were sampled from each
mixture of grout for quality control. The prisms were grouted
7 days after construction. The prisms confined with FWM
and WWM were constructed by inserting the rolled cages
into the voids prior to grouting. Details of the prisms with
FWM and WWM confinement configuration are shown in
Fig. 1. The cover to reinforcement shown in the figure is
consistent with the method of measurement adopted in
Australian masonry design practice.
The prisms were covered under polythene sheets and allowed
to cure for 28 days prior to testing. All prisms were tested
under axial compression. A minimum of two specimens was
tested under monotonic compression, while other specimens
were tested under cyclic compression. Plywood capping 5 mm
(0.2 in.) thick was used at both ends of the prisms to accommodate the unevenness of the prism ends. Specimen designation is presented in Table 1.
Instrumentation, loading history, and testing
Two linear variable displacement transducers (LVDTs)
were placed on opposite sides of the prism to monitor the
average axial deformation of the prism. The LVDTs were
mounted on knife edges with a gage length of 300 mm (12 in.),
which incorporated two mortar joints. The prisms were tested
using an MTS 2000 kN (450 kip) capacity test machine with
capability of reverse cycling the stroke under displacement
control. Load was applied in stroke control to enable
monitoring of postpeak strains. Load was applied either
monotonically or cyclically. The cyclic loading history was
derived from the response of the monotonically tested
prisms. Face-shell bedded prisms were face-shell loaded and
the grouted prisms were full-bed loaded.
The prisms were positioned on the bottom platen of the
MTS testing machine. The LVDTs were hooked using a
spring assembly designed to minimize the placement and
removal time. The testing machine was programmed for a
constant rate of straining (approximately 6.67 m/s). For the
prisms tested monotonically, the experiments took approximately
10 min. Cyclic tests took from 30 to 110 min depending on
the capacity and ductility of the prisms and the number of
repetitions carried out for each cycle. As all tests were
completed within a calendar day, creep and shrinkage, or any
other long-term effects, are not considered in the analysis of
data. All specimens exhibited nonlinear responses from the
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002

Fig. 1Details of confining reinforcement placed within

cores of concrete masonry. (Note: Cross section of masonry
unit shown corresponds to section at midheight of unit.)

(a)

(b)
Fig. 2Typical stress-strain curves measured experimentally:
(a) monotonic; and (b) cyclic.
beginning of loading. Typical monotonic and cyclic stressstrain responses are presented in Fig. 2.
FAILURE OF MASONRY
Modes of failure
Hollow prisms failed depending on the bedding and loading
conditions. Face-shell loaded specimens failed due to the
821

Table 2Mean strength and strain for various

types of masonry
Maximum stress
Masonry type
Face-shell bedded (FSP)
Full bedded (HOP)

for confining grout. The durability of this system requires

further investigation.

Strain at maximum
stress

Mean
Mean 0,
6
MPa (psi) COV, % (0 10 ) COV, %
15.8 (2292) 15.8
3600
20.5
20.1 (2916)

18.4

4440

16.1

Grouted unconfined (GUP) 10.8 (1567)

13.7

2520

23.2

FWM confined (GMP)

13.9 (2016)

11.2

3020

10.7

WWM confined (GCP)

14.9 (2161)

7.2

3430

26.8

instability of the face shells triggered by the cracking of

webs and crushing of the mortar joints. This failure mode is
consistent with the mode described by Shrive.4
Full-bedded prisms under full-bedded loading failed
primarily due to cracking of the face shells parallel to the
direction of the loading. Drysdale and Hamid1 reported a
similar mode of failure.
Grouted prisms failed due to excessive cracking and
spalling of the face shells. This was typical for both confined
and unconfined grouted masonry prisms. After failure, the
confined and unconfined grout cores remained as a solid unit
in spite of significant cracking. They did not, however, exhibit
any reserve strength when reloaded. A similar observation
was reported by Kumar12 based on a series of experiments
on grouted clay block prisms.
Ultimate strength
The strength of the masonry prisms was evaluated from
the mortar bedded areas appropriate to each type of construction
(26,520 and 464,100 mm2 [41.1 and 719.3 in.2], respectively,
for face-shell and full-bedded prisms).
In addition to the ultimate strength, the strain corresponding
to the maximum stress is also extremely useful to obtain
understanding of the behavior of the various forms of masonry
construction. Hence, this strain was recorded from the
complete stress-strain curves.
The mean strengths in MPa (psi) and the corresponding
strains for the different types of masonry construction are
listed in Table 2 together with the coefficients of variation
(COV). From the data presented in Table 2, the maximum
stress can be seen generally as relatively less variable than
the strain corresponding to maximum stress. The COV for the
various groups of masonry is typical for masonry. A search for
systematic bias due to the type of loading (monotonic and
cyclic) was carried out with a view to finding some partial
explanation of the higher COV in the strain data. No significant
effect of cyclic loading was found. The values of mean stress
and strain exhibit the advantage of the full-bedded construction
in that the maximum values for both the ultimate strength and
strain are obtained with this form of construction compared
with all the others. Full-bedded hollow masonry, however, is
difficult to construct and hence uneconomical.
The lowest maximum stress was obtained with unconfined
grouted masonry (10.8 MPa [1567 psi]) with a corresponding
lowest strain of approximately 2520 microstrain. The FWM
and WWM confinement systems (GMP and GCP prisms)
have enhanced the strength by 29 and 38%, respectively; the
increases in the corresponding strains are 20 and 36%,
respectively. As the WWM is relatively more expensive than
the FWM, FWM appears to be a possible economic system
822

STRESS-STRAIN EQUATIONS
The stress-strain curves of the masonry exhibit significant
nonlinearity. The envelope curves of the cyclically loaded
specimens resemble the stress-strain curves of the monotonically
loaded specimens. For each type of masonry, the loci of the
common points form the common point curve that also
resembles the shape of the envelope curve for that masonry
with a shift in the stress ordinates.
Stress-strain data were normalized using the mean peak
stress 0 and the mean strain corresponding to the peak stress
0 , presented in Table 2. A program (PROCDATA) developed
in PEARL script on a SUN microsystem was used to scan the
normalized cyclic stress-strain data. The algorithm used in
the program examined the normalized strain data to decide
on the onset of load reversal. From the unloading and reloading
data, the program further evaluated the common points.
These points were interpolated from four very closely spaced
points, two each on the unloading and reloading curves. The
peaks of each reloading data set were stored as envelope data
points. The two data sets (namely, the envelope and common
points) were viewed graphically to ensure their integrity.
The normalized monotonic stress-strain data sets were
grouped under the envelope data curves.
Envelope and common point curves
Two equations (one simple and the other more refined)
were selected for fitting the envelope and common point data.
The simple equation follows Eq. (1) of Desayi and
Krishnan15 and the refined equation is based on the formulation
of Loov19 shown in Eq. (4). The equations are reformulated
as shown in Eq. (5) and (6). In these equations, x represents
the normalized strain (/0 ) and y represents normalized
stress (/0). The constants u0 and u1 are experimental
constants determined for each curve separately
u0
y = y max --------------u1
1+x

(5)

( 1 + u0 ( 1 + u1 ) ) x
-
y = y max ------------------------------------------------- u ( 1 + u x ) + x ( u0 + 1 )
0
1

(6)

The equations were then plotted for each group of the test
specimens (FSP, GUP, GMP, and GCP) using a curve-fitting
utility available in a commercial software, and the constants
were determined. Figure 3(a) to (e) shows the two curves
(simple and refined) with the envelope data for the FSP,
GUP, GMP, and GCP masonry types, respectively. From the
data presented in these figures, the monotonic stress-strain
data and the envelope data (extracted from the cyclic stressstrain curve) can be seen not to exhibit any significant systematic
variation. Grouping all the data together for the strength
(Table 2) and stress-strain equation is thus justified. As
shown in Fig. 3(a) to (e), the simple equation is as good as
the refined equation for all the grouted (confined or unconfined) masonry, but did not work well for the hollow masonry.
The refined equation is therefore used as the standard for
masonry stress-strain curves.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002

(a)

(b)

(d)

(c)

(e)

Fig. 3Envelope data points and fitted equations for: (a) FSP; (b) HOP; (c); GUP; (d) GMP; and (e) GCP.
The common point data were also fitted to the refined
equation using the approach used for the envelope curve. As
a final check, the fitted envelope and the common point
curves for each type of masonry were plotted together to
ensure that they do not cross each other for the full normalized
strain range. This check ensured that the initial slope of the
common point curve was not steeper than the initial slope of
the envelope curve, and that the slope of the descending part
of the envelope curve was not steeper than that of the common
point curve. Where such violation was observed, the process
of curve fitting (for envelope and common points) was repeated
until all anomalies were eliminated. A typical plot of the
envelope and common point curves to ensure consistency is
shown in Fig. 4.
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002

The constants (u0 and u1) evaluated for the envelope

curves of the four types of masonry (FSP, GUP, GMP, and
GCP) are presented in Table 3. These constants and the mean
peak stress 0 and the mean strain corresponding to the peak
stress 0 were used to transform the nondimensional equation
to dimensional form. The general form of the dimensional
stress-strain equation (refined) is as shown in Eq. (7)

( p )
-
= ------------------------------------------------( t )

( q ) + ( r ) + ( ( s ) )

(7)

in which and are stress (in MPa) and strain, respectively,

and (p, q, r, s, t) are the constants. The constants for each of
the four types of masonry are listed in Table 4.
823

Table 3Experimental constants (u0, u1) in nondimensional equations for various types of masonry
Simple equation
(Eq. (5))

Fig. 4Typical plot of envelope and common point curves

to ensure no violation.

Fig. 5Test setup for masonry pier under combined axial

and lateral loading.
APPLICATION OF STRESS-STRAIN EQUATIONS
The appropriateness of the stress-strain equation shown in
Eq. (7) is demonstrated by comparing the prediction of the
moment-curvature relations with the experimental results.
Experimental investigation
Cantilever piers were constructed and tested under
combined vertical and lateral load. The deformation of the
bottom-most mortar joint was monitored with LVDTs and
strain gages (on the vertical steel reinforcement), which
enabled the authors to calculate the curvature increment. A
typical test setup of a masonry pier is shown in Fig. 5.
Piers were constructed from stack bonded masonry using
the blocks from the same batch as that for the prisms. The
piers were reinforced with two 10 mm (0.4 in.) diameter bars
placed at the center of each void. The piers were grouted
with (FWM and WWM) or without confining reinforcement.
The mortar and grout were the same as used for the prisms.
The piers were loaded to a prescribed level of axial load
first, and then the lateral load was increased monotonically
824

Refined equation
(Eq. (6))

Masonry type

u0

u1

u0

u1

Face-shell bedded (FSP)

1.4

2.6

2.1

0.1

Grouted unconfined (GUP)

2.0

2.0

1.5

1.0

FWM confined (GMP)

2.0

2.4

2.0

1.2

WWM confined (GCP)

2.0

2.3

2.3

1.5

Full bedded (HOP)

2.0

2.2

2.0

1.5

Table 4Experimental constants (p, q, r, s, t ) in

dimensional equation (Eq. (7)) for various types
of masonry
Masonry type

FSP

14,543

2.1

58

278

3.1
2.5

GUP

17,156

1.5

596

397

GMP

24,821

2.0

794

331

3.0

GCP

29,306

2.3

1005

291

3.3

HOP

27,162

2.0

676

225

3.0

up to failure. The lowest mortar joint was instrumented to

monitor the curvature, as failure was generally expected to
occur over there. Failure was defined as when the crack at a
section had opened and extended such that the lateral
displacement exceeded the lateral drift requirement in design
(usually 0.015h to 0.025h, where h is the height of the pier).
Significant unloading was observed at the large lateral
displacement level.
Twenty-six piers were tested under various levels of axial load
ranging from zero (pure flexure) to a vertical compressive stress
level of 2.0 MPa (290 psi). Six piers, two each with GUP, GMP,
and GCP reinforcement type, tested under combined axial and
lateral load were selected to assess the suitability of the stressstrain equation to predict pier response.
The moment-curvature curves of the six piers are shown in
Fig. 6(a) and (b). In Fig. 6(a), the moment-curvature relations
of three piers tested under a vertical compression of 1.2 MPa
(174 psi) are shown, while the moment-curvature curves of the
remaining three piers are shown in Fig. 6(b). Not all the piers
shown in Fig. 6(b) were tested under the same level of vertical
compression; the piers with GUP- and GMP-type confinement
were tested under a vertical compression of 2.0 MPa (290 psi)
while the pier with WWM-type confinement was tested under
a vertical compression of 0.8 MPa (116 psi). The decision for
the reduction in the vertical compression for the pier with
WWM confinement was prompted by the noisy failure
exhibited by its counterpart when tested under 1.2 MPa
(174 psi). From Fig. 6(a) and (b), one may observe that the
piers containing WWM confinement, tested at vertical load
levels of 1.2 and 0.8 MPa (174 and 116 psi), respectively,
appear to exhibit negligible increase in curvature beyond the
peak moment. This is because the failure of these two piers
occurred in a plane below the mortar joint where the curvature
was being monitored. The data obtained from the two piers
were, therefore, not indicative of the full response and hence,
the behavior of these two piers was not modeled.
The effectiveness of the confining steel with the FWM
system is evident at higher vertical load levels as may be
observed in Fig. 6(b). The saw-tooth-like postpeak momentcurvature curve (experimental) for piers under the vertical
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002

(b)

(a)

Fig. 6Moment-curvature curves of cantilever piers: (a) piers tested under 1.2 MPa vertical compression; and (b) piers tested
under other than 1.2 MPa vertical compression.

(b)

(a)

Fig. 7Moment-curvature relations for piers under: (a) 1.2 MPa vertical compression; and (b) 2.0 MPa vertical compression.
compression of 2.0 MPa (290 psi) is due to discrete crack
extensions; such behavior is typical of masonry.
Numerical model
A layered line element developed for the flexural analysis
of reinforced concrete (RC) by Assa and Dhanasekar20 was
used to analyze the behavior of the masonry piers. The layered
line element was modified to account for the variation in the
materials of construction (from RC to reinforced masonry) in
addition to the change in the shape of the cross section. The
RC program employed the stress-strain curve proposed by
Kent and Park16 shown in Eq. (2). For the analysis of masonry
piers, the stress-strain equation developed in this paper (Eq. (6))
was used. As the stress-strain equation presented in this
paper was derived from axially loaded prisms, its application
to axially and laterally loaded piers required consideration of
the strain gradient effect. Strain gradient effect in grouted
masonry is described in detail by Drysdale, Hamid, and
Baker11 was adopted in the numerical model. Accordingly,
the term ymax in the stress-strain equation (Eq. (6)) was
multiplied by a factor of 1.75 (average of 1.5 and 2.0 given
in Drysdale, Hamid, and Baker11). The multiplier for ymax
accounts for the increase in the extreme compressive fiber
strength under the combined bending and axial loading
(strain gradient).
The cross section of the reinforced masonry pier was divided
into a number of layers to develop the moment-curvature
relations. The cross section was divided into layers (face
ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002

shell layers, grouted masonry [confined or unconfined] layers,

and steel layers) for the analysis.
The relation between the incremental axial load, moment,
axial strain, and curvature (N, M, 0, and ), shown in
Eq. (8) and (9), were used in the evaluation of the momentcurvature relation. The axial load and curvature increments
were the input parameters, and the axial strain and bending
moment increments were the calculated results

N
M

p q o
q r

(8)

in which

E sec i A i ], q = [ E sec i Ai yi ]
= [ E sec i A i y 2i + E tan i I i ]

p = [
r

(9)

where Ai = sectional area of i-th layer; Ii = moment of inertia

of i-th layer about its own centroid; and Etani = tangential
modulus at the current stage determined from the stressstrain relations of the material /. While the stress-strain
curves of the masonry shell and the grouted masonry were
used as determined herein, the stress-strain curve of the steel
has been taken from Yakoo and Nakamura.21
Four masonry piers (one with FWM confining the grout and
the other with no confining steel) tested under the vertical
stresses of 1.2 and 2.0 MPa (174 and 290 psi) were modeled.
825

The cross section of the pier with no confining steel was

modeled using 40 layers (20 in the grout and five each in the
two shells). The grout layers were assigned the GUP stressstrain curve, and the shell layers were assigned with the FSP
stress-strain curve.
The cross section of the pier with FWM confining steel
was also modeled with 40 layers as mentioned previously.
However, in addition to the central longitudinal steel (10 mm
[0.4 in.] diameter), the six longitudinal fine wires (1.2 mm
[0.05 in.] diameter with 320 MPa [46,417 psi] yield strength)
that formed the confining system were also modeled. The
grout layers were assigned the GMP stress-strain curve, and
the shell layers were assigned the FSP stress-strain curve.
The moment-curvature relations evaluated for the four
masonry piers and the corresponding experimental curves
are shown in Fig. 7(a) and (b) for the two groups of piers
tested under 1.2 and 2.0 MPa (174 and 290 psi), respectively.
In general, the average behavior of the cross section of the
four piers was predicted well by the computer model. It is
therefore concluded that the refined form of the stress-strain
equations presented in this paper for the different types of
masonry are reliable and could be implemented in any
numerical modeling of masonry.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Average properties of concrete masonry suitable for design
calculations and implementation in numerical modeling
have been evaluated experimentally and presented in this
paper. Hollow and grouted masonry prisms were studied.
Inexpensive methods of confining the grout with either
FWM or WWM were also examined. Some specific conclusions
for the types of concrete masonry investigated are:
1. It is possible to confine the grout with either FWM or
WWM;
2. FWM confined masonry is 29% stronger than the
unconfined masonry, and WWM confined masonry is 38%
stronger than the unconfined masonry;
3. Although the full-bedded hollow masonry construction
is structurally superior (higher strength and better postpeak
characteristics) than the face-shell bedded masonry, it would
not gain acceptance in the field due to constructibility and
economic issues;
4. All forms of grouted masonry (confined or unconfined)
exhibit better postpeak stress-strain characteristics than the
face-shell bedded hollow masonry;
5. A simple stress-strain curve, similar to the one that was
proposed for concrete by Desayi and Krishnan1 for concrete,
is suitable for grouted concrete masonry. The equation,
however, does not appear suitable for the hollow masonry. A
refined form of the equation, first proposed by Loov4 for
concrete, is suitable for both hollow and grouted masonry; and
6. The stress-strain equation (Eq. (7)) and the associated
constants (Table 4) represent the behavior of axially loaded
concrete masonry prisms with different levels of lateral
confinement. The stress-strain equation is capable of predicting
the structural response of the masonry piers subjected to
combined axial and lateral loading. Strain gradient effect in
such cases can easily be accounted by multiplying the factor
ymax by a constant 1.75.

826

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A part of the work reported in this paper was financed by the Australian
Research Council (ARC) small grants scheme and RAAS scheme administered
by the Central Queensland University (CQU). Other funding support came
from the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. The assistance and encouragement of R. Loov at the University of Calgary is thankfully
acknowledged. Concrete blocks were supplied by Calgary Masonry, and a mason funded by the Masonry Contractors Association of Alberta, Southern Division, constructed the masonry.

REFERENCES
1. Drysdale, R. G., and Hamid, A. A., Behaviour of Concrete Block
Masonry under Axial Compression, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 76,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1979, pp. 707-721.
2. Hatzinikolas, M.; Longworth, J.; and Warwaruk, J., Concrete
Masonry Walls, Structural Engineering Report No. 70, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 1978.
3. Brown, R. H., and Young, J. M., Compressive Stress Distribution of
Grouted Hollow Clay Masonry under Strain Gradient, Report 1.2(b)-1,
US-Japan Coordinated Program for Masonry Building Research, Clemson
University, S.C., 1988.
4. Shrive, N. G., Compressive Strength and Strength Testing of Masonry,
Proceedings of the 7th IBMaC, Melbourne, Australia, 1985, pp. 699-709.
5. Sayed-Ahmed, E. Y., and Shrive, N. G., A Model for Face Shell
Bedded Hollow Masonry Using 2D Finite Elements, Proceedings of the
6th NAMC, Philadelphia, Pa., 1993, pp. 419-430.
6. Ramamurthy, K., and Ganesan, T. P., Analysis of Concrete Hollow
Block Masonry Prisms Under Eccentric Compression, Magazine of
Concrete Research (London), V. 45, No. 163, 1993, pp. 147-153.
7. Colville, J., and Wolde-Tinsae, A., Compressive Strength of Hollow
Concrete Masonry, The Masonry Journal, V. 9, No. 2, Feb. 1991, pp. 89-91.
8. Page, A. W.; Simundic, G.; and Xie, H., A Study on the Relationship
between Unit, Prism and Wall Strength for Hollow Masonry in Compression,
Proceedings of the 9th IB2MaC, Berlin, 1991, pp. 236-243.
9. Khalaf, F. M.; Hendry, A. W.; and Fairbairn, D. R., Study of the
Compressive Strength of Blockwork Masonry, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 91, No. 4, July-Aug. 1994, pp. 367-374.
10. Scrivener, J. C., and Baker, L., Factors Influencing Grouted
Masonry Prism Compressive Strength, Proceedings of the 8th IB2MaC,
Dublin, 1986, pp. 875-883.
11. Drysdale, R.; Hamid, A. A.; and Baker, L. R., Masonry Structures
Behaviour and Design, Prentice Hall, N.J., 784 pp.
12. Kumar, M., Development of Reinforced Clay Block Masonry
Columns Subjected to Concentric and Eccentric Compression, Master of
Engineering thesis, Central Queensland University, Australia, 1995.
13. Priestley, M. J. N., and Elder, D. M., Stress-Strain Curves for
Unconfined and Confined Concrete Masonry, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
V. 80, No. 3, May-June 1983, pp. 192-201.
14. Kumar, M., and Dhanasekar, M., Effect of Lateral Reinforcement
Detailing on the Strength and Stiffness of Reinforced Clay Block
Masonry, Proceedings of the 5th EASEC, Gold Coast, Australia, 1995,
pp. 1005-1010.
15. Desayi, P., and Krishnan, S., Equation for the Stress-Strain Curve of
Concrete, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 61, Mar. 1964, pp. 345-350.
16. Kent, D. C., and Park, R., Flexural Members with Confined Concrete,
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 97, 1971, pp. 1969-1970.
17. Sinha, B. P.; Gerstle, K. H.; and Tulin, L.C., Stress-Strain Relations
for Concrete under Cyclic Loading, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 61,
Feb. 1964, pp. 195-211.
18. Naraine, K., and Sinha, S., Model for Cyclic Compressive Behaviour of Brick Masonry, ACI Structural Journal, V. 88, No. 5, Sept.-Oct.
1991, pp. 603-609.
19. Loov, R.E., A General Stress-Strain Curve for Concrete, Canadian
Society of Civil Engineering Conference, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada,
1991, pp. 302-311.
20. Assa, B., and Dhanasekar, M., A Layered Line Element for the
Flexural Analysis of Cyclically Loaded Reinforced Concrete Beam
Columns, Computers and StructuresAn International Journal, V. 78,
2000, pp. 517-527.
21. Yakoo, Y., and Nakamura, T., Non-Stationary Hysteresis Uniaxial
Stress-Strain Relations of Wide Flange Steel: Part II Empirical Formulae,
Transactions of Architectural Institute of Japan, V. 260, 1977, pp. 143-149.

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2002