Dry-Stacked Masonry Present Scenario

Upadhyay Tejas J
P.G. Student, CEPT University, Ahmedabad, 380015, Gujarat, India
E-mail: tejashupadhyay2004@yahoo.co.in
Harshad M. Patel
P.G. Student, Applied Mechanics Department, L.D.College of Engineering,
Ahmedabad, 380015, Gujarat, India
E-mail: harshad_patel5004@yahoo.co.in
Dr.N.K.ARORA
Assistant Professor, Applied Mechanics Department, L.D.College of Engineering,
Ahmedabad, 380015, Gujarat, India
E-mail: narendrakarora@gmail.com
Abstract:
Greater speed of construction and better dimensional stability has generated lot of research
interest in dry-stacked masonry. The absence of mortar in dry stacked masonry removes the
per day limitations of construction height. Tests performed on dry-stacked masonry shows
that the behavior of dry stacked masonry under gravity load is as good as or even better than
the conventional masonry. Researchers have also reported better structural response of drystacked masonry under lateral loads. It is a relatively new technology, not yet regulated in the
code of practices. In present work, an attempt has been made to make the people aware about
the different dry stacked masonry system used worldwide and present state of research.
Key words: Dry-stacked masonry, Constructability, Structural response
Masonry is very well known building material in construction industry since years. Drystacked masonry is fast becoming an accepted form of masonry construction worldwide as it
provides faster, easier and structurally sound construction. In this masonry system, masonry
units are assembled together using the geometric features without the use of mortar at the
joints. However, some systems use mortar as a base course whereas in few other systems
geometric assembly is grouted. These masonry units may have solid or hollow shape.
Historical Background:
The dry-stacked masonry is as old as human beings. The first shelter made by the mankind to
protect them was made by dry-stacking the stones. The use of interlocking bricks started in
the beginning of 20th century. The idea of interlocking the masonry unit was derived from the
toy blocks. In seventh decade of last century, construction industry started use of interlocking
mortarless bricks/blocks for house construction which were made from sand-cement,
stabilized soil and burnt/baked soil. Looking to the flexibility and ease in construction,
commercializing of the concept of mortarless interlocking masonry started in mid 80s. Few of
them got patented and are listed below,

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Haener Block (http://www.haenerblock.com)

Azar Block (http://www.azargroup.com)
Sparlock (http://www.sparlock.com)
Endura block system (http://www.endurablock.com)
Hydraform system (http://www.hydraform.com)

Though the above mentioned systems are in use for more than two decades, their performance
under various loading conditions are hardly been tested. Looking to the substantial increase in
its utilization, it has become imperative to adjudge the structural performance of these
systems. An excerpt of the research work carried out in this field is discussed under.
Hatzinikolas et al.1 studied the structural behavior of G. R. dry-stacked masonry system.
Authors made fifteen walls by stacking five vertical and three horizontal courses. These walls
were tested under axial compression with load applied normal to the bed joint. The load was
evenly distributed through the layer of compressible fiberboard and 130mm deep channel. At
ultimate load, cracks developed in vertical direction due to the lateral tensile stresses resulting
from the expansion of interior grout under compression.
An attempt was made to compare the response of interlocking masonry with conventional
masonry by Maszahn2. Tests were performed on dry stacked masonry, conventional masonry
jointed by mortar and conventional masonry without the use of mortar. The stress-strain curve
for the mortar jointed masonry walls was almost linear until failure suggesting nearly constant
modulus of elasticity. However, stress-strain curve of dry-stacked masonry showed large
initial strains. These strains got slowly stabilized with the increase in vertical load. The
compressive strength of dry stacked was in the range of 85 to 95 percent of the compressive
strength of thin mortar layered masonry. Furthermore authors observed that the strength of
dry-stacked masonry is not dependent only on the strength of the unit but also on the quality
of bed surfaces of units at their contacting plane.
Maszahn3 carried out short term test to investigate the initial settlement of the dry-stacked
masonry and compared with thin mortar layered walls under compression. The walls were
made up of two different types of material. The surfaces of the units were specially machined,
to create different bedding conditions. The load was applied to the walls at the rate of 0.01
mm per second and the deformation was monitored by six LVDTs. The ultimate capacities of
the dry stacked and mortar jointed walls were nearly same but their deformation
characteristics were different. The walls with mortar bed tended to have a nearly linear
relationship between stress and strain up to failure. However, the stress-strain behavior of dry
masonry was somewhat bi-linear. The first part of the curve showed large strains, resulted
from the initial settlement of uneven surfaces and block inaccuracies, while second part of the
curve was governed by deformation of the masonry units
Testing of mortarless SILBLOCK masonry wallettes under axial compression, eccentric
compression and flexural loading parallel and perpendicular to bed joints were carried out K.
B. Anand and K. Ramamurthy4. Ten wallettes with SILBLOCK-1 (Channel Shaped Blocks)
and five wallettes with SILBLOCK-2 (I-shaped blocks), were tested in compression. It was
observed that for a given block strength, the axial compressive stress for interlocking-block

masonry was higher than that of conventional masonry. For eccentric compression loading,
fifteen dry-stacked prisms with h/t ratio 4 were constructed with SILBLOCK-1. The results
showed that for an eccentricity of t/6, the capacity reduction in SILBLOCK masonry was
around 10% as compared to 29% in conventional solid masonry. SILBLOCK wallettes were
also tested perpendicular and parallel to the bed joints under flexure. The flexural strength of
masonry with SILBLOCK-2 was lower than that of masonry with SILBLOCK- 1 for both the
cases of loading due to the relatively un-confining nature of the interlocking mechanism of
SILBLOCK-2.
Gero Marzahn5 carried out shear test on dry-stacked masonry wherein a dry-stacked square
shaped wall was prestressed to generate the joint friction. The wall was then subjected to
diagonal directed shear force to determine characteristics of masonry under pure shear. The
applied load splitted up into horizontal and vertical compressive components and then
transferred to the masonry plane as pure shear. Tests showed that the tensile strength of units
and the effective friction between two unit layers were decisive parameters influencing the
shearing capacity of walls.
Gero Marzahn6 studied the creep behavior of dry-stacked masonry walls subjected to a
constant compression load under steady climate conditions. The study was to investigate the
influence of masonry unit characteristics on the development of long-term deformation, with
the main focus on the creep movement of dry-stacked masonry specimens. Different kinds of
units, calcium silicate blocks (CS) and autoclaved aerated concrete blocks (AAC), with
different strengths were subjected to variety of compression loads. The creep deformation was
found proportional to the applied stresses over a given period of time. The ratio of
instantaneous to long-term strength of masonry was up to 80 to 85 percent. Author reported
that type of material, its strength, climate and loading conditions have a strong influence on
creep deformation of dry stacked masonry.
Lateral loading test on dry-stack interlocking block masonry wall was carried out by
H.C.Uzoegbo7 to evaluate the effect of plaster on wall. The wall comprised of compressed
earth blocks, stacked in a stretcher bond without mortar. The structural behavior and
resistance of both plastered and un-plastered walls were studied and found that the plaster has
significant effect on behavior of this type of masonry system.
Water penetration resistance studies on conventional and dry stacked interlocking masonry
were carried out by K.B. Anand et al. 8 to determine the effect of variations in construction
type and materials. The influence of type of bedding (dry-stacking, thin-jointing, and mortarbedding), surface finishes were also investigated. Authors observed that both sides protection
reduces dampness considerably in comparison to the external face plastering for brick
masonry. With surface finishing on exposed face (test face), interlocking block masonrys
performance was comparable with respect to the leakage and better with respect to the
dampness than the conventional brick masonry.
The productivity aspects of dry stacked masonry systems versus conventional mortar jointed
masonry construction were discussed by Anand and Ramamurthy 9. The output of a masons
crew was evaluated for constructing different types of masonry walls. The efficiency and

productivity of these walls were studied. The author concluded that a crew can give
approximately 60% more output using interlocking dry-stacked blocks than with traditional
hollow block masonry.
Sittichai Seangatith10studied performance of mortarless reinforced concrete masonry wall
under concentrated axial and flexural loading. In order to compare the behavior and the
compressive strength of the mortarless and mortar jointed masonry prisms, two types of
prisms, partially and fully grouted, were tested for the concentrated load test. The axial
deformation at the loading point and the lateral deflection at the mid-height were monitored
by two dial gages. In the transverse load test, the specimens were supported by two rigid steel
beams, having the same length as the specimen width, and the lateral deflection at the midspan was measured by three dial gages; one at the center and one at each of the two edges.
Under concentric axial load, mortarless masonry wall specimens showed large initial
deformation upto about 35% of the compressive strength. The relationship of transverse load
to mid-span deflection was bilinear. The wall showed large deflection before failure caused by
the yielding of reinforcement. At ultimate load, the masonry units were crushed on the
compression face whereas large tensile cracks developed on the tension zone.
P.B. Lourenco et al11 used the triplet test to assess the shear behavior of micro-concrete bonded
stack masonry. The test specimens consisted of three masonry courses subjected to a vertical
pre-compression load and then a horizontal load is applied to the middle course of masonry.
The displacements of the panel were recorded with eight LVDTs, Four on the front of the
specimens in the horizontal direction, three on the back of the specimen for vertical
displacements and last one placed on the horizontal actuator for displacement controlled
testing. Typical failure modes were obtained and the shear strength was found to follow the
Coulombs friction law. The shear parameters cohesion (c) was 1.39N/mm2 and a tangent of
the friction angle (tan) was 1.03. The dilatancy of the masonry micro-concrete joints in the
stack bond configuration is similar to that of standard masonry.
Waleed et al.12 investigated twenty-one different block models with respect to weight, bearing
and shear areas, shape, ease of production, ability to accommodate vertical and horizontal
reinforcing stabilizing ties and efficiency of the interlocking mechanism under imposed loads.
Authors discussed the background, concept and procedure to be used in development of an
efficient interlocking hollow block system. Finally, a new interlocking block system named
Putra Block was proposed. The shape of these blocks is simple and hence easy to produce,
provides sufficient interlock in different directions, and has self-aligned construction systems
which ensure accurate and fast construction.
Anand and Ramamurthy13 developed a dry-stack interlocking masonry system called the
IITM-HILBLOCK system, made up of vertically and horizontally interlocking dry stack
concrete masonry blocks. Concentric and eccentric axial testing was carried out on both drystacked prisms as well as units stacked with a thin layer of mortar between blocks. The test
specimen consisted of both grouted and un-grouted walls. The results of the axial strength
tests indicated that the amount of grout used directly influences the axial capacity and failure
modes of the prisms. A 20-30% increase in prism strength was observed in case of thin

layered mortar specimens. Test results from the eccentric load testing showed decrease in
capacities associated with increase in eccentricities.
A series of full-scale wall panels were made using Hydraform blocks and were tested under
lateral as well as vertical static loads by Joseph Vincent Ngowi14, to investigate the mode of
failure and to establish the load carrying capacity of the system. Authors proposed load
prediction models for the system under vertical and lateral loading and, verified the same by
the test results. In the second phase, authors also investigated structural behavior and
performance of Hydraform system under seismic loading. A full-scale plain dry-stack
masonry and conventional masonry house was constructed on the shaking table and subjected
to seismic base motions. The plain dry-stack masonry failed at 0.3g and the conventional
masonry failed at 0.6g and finally it was recommended that further strengthening of system
may improve its lateral capacity.
Strength correlations between individual block, prism and basic wall panel for load bearing
interlocking mortarless hollow block masonry were studied by Mohd S Jaafar el at 15. The
study included stretcher, corner and half blocks of interlocking wall system. Forty individual
block units, ten prisms and four wall panels, each having dimensions of 1.2 m x 1.2 m was
assembled by stacking and tested under axial compressive loads. The average compressive
strength of the individual blocks was found to be 95118% of the cube strength. Authors also
proposed correlations between the compressive strength of the individual interlocking
masonry block (fcb), prism (fcp) and standard wall panel (fcw) as fcp = 0.47fcb, fcw = 0.83fcp and
fcw = 0.39fcb. Test results indicated that the interlocking mechanism and strength of the block
in the load-bearing wall was satisfactory.
Dr J Ingham el at16 prepared report on in-plane cyclic testing of the formblock mortarless
concrete masonry. Two Formblock mortarless concrete masonry walls were tested to
determine their in-plane cyclic performance. Lateral force was applied through a hydraulic
actuator mounted horizontally at the top surface of the wall. Out-of-plane movement was
restricted by two steel supports attached by pinned joints to the load applying channel and
support frame. Displacements at the serviceability limit state were insignificant indicating
satisfactory response.
Jaafar et al17 performed single joint test and multiple joint tests to observe the effect of
irregularities in interlocking mortarless block masonry. Single joint test was designed to
account the geometric irregularities and roughness of the bed faces, between two adjacent
courses whereas multiple joint test was designed to account these irregularities within one
course of masonry. In these tests, mechanical gauge demec points (DPs) were placed near the
block interfaces to measure the deformation caused by these irregularities. The results showed
low initial stiffness of wall. It was due to the settling of the blocks and closing of block
irregularities but with advancement in test stage, the stiffness got increased as the contact
block area got increased. Multiple joint test results showed large variation in displacement of
tested walls. Author attributed this disparity to the variation in heights of masonry blocks
within a course of masonry which caused small gaps between the interfaces.

Uzoegbo et al18 tested full scale walls made by Hydraform dry stacked masonry system. These
walls were classified by using Hydraform block units having different compressive strengths.
A long steel beam was used to distribute the applied compressive load evenly on 3 meters
wide and 2.5 meters long wall. Dial gauges were used to monitor the displacement of the wall.
Most of the tested walls failed by vertical cracking at the mid section. In case of walls made
by lower strength units, the top courses of block were crushed and the ratio of unit strength to
overall wall panel strength decreased. The results showed that the dry stack walls tended to
fail in shear and splitting at the head joints under compressive load. However, when the
mortar was used in the bed joints, the mortar also participated in resisted the shear resulting in
slight increase in the axial capacity of walls.
Maqsud E. Nazar et. al.19 generated loading - unloading curves of stabilized sand-fly ash
interlocking brick masonry under uniaxial compression. The test was conducted on 45
specimens under uni-axial cyclic compression. Five cases of loading at 0, 22.5, 45, 67.5
and 90 with the bed joints were accounted and in each load case, three type of the tests were
conducted. A mathematical model for the reloading and unloading curves of these cases was
also proposed. Comparisons of the model predictions with the experimental data showed good
agreement.
Eric B. Murray20 carried out testing dry-stacked surface bonded masonry made by ENDURA
blocks. Ten walls of ten feet high by eight feet wide, made using Endura blocks, were tested
under axial compression the walls were built by varying the configuration of block,
reinforcement spacing, and amount of grout. The axial capacity of walls having dry joints was
same as that of wall having thin mortar at bed joints. Authors suggested the need of research
to establish the effect of eccentrically placed rebars on the axial capacity of the wall.
A combined numerical analysis and experimental study was conducted by F.A. Zuccarello et.
al.21 to the predict strength of un-bonded masonry panels under out of plane loading. The tests
were designed to account the effect of constrains of edges of wall and eccentricity of out of
plane load. Three different series A, B and C of mortarless walls were tested under uniform
in-plane vertical axial compression and an out of plane horizontal concentrated load is applied
to the wall. In Series A, wall is restrained on two sides, at bottom and at one adjacent vertical
edge. The horizontal concentrated load is applied eccentrically. In Series B and C, walls are
constrained at all three sides, the base and on both vertical edges. Horizontal concentrated
load is applied eccentrically to the Series B wall whereas it is applied concentrically to the
wall of Series C. Two different numerical models based on upper bound heterogeneous FE
limit analysis and homogenized FE limit analysis were used to analyze experimental results.
The combined numerical and experimental results showed that the anisotropic behavior of
masonry and magnitude of vertical compressive loads are key aspects for reliable prediction
of both collapse loads and failure mechanisms.
Waleed et al22 carried out Finite element analysis of interlocking mortarless hollow block
masonry prism. An incremental-iterative finite element code is written to analyze the masonry
system till failure. The stressstrain relation obtained from test is employed and equivalent
uniaxial strain concept is used to account the material nonlinearity in the compression stress
field. The program was also capable of simulating the nonlinear progressive contact behavior

(seating effect) of dry joint taking into account the block bed imperfection. The comparison
showed a good agreement between the output of FE program and the experimental test results.
A nonlinear finite element analysis of grouted and un-grouted hollow interlocking mortarless
block masonry system was carried out by Waleed et al23. Tests were carried out to investigate
the characteristics of mortarless joints, which focus on the contact behavior of mortarless
joints due to the geometrical imperfection of the block beds. A finite element model which
includes the modeling of masonry materials, mortarless dry joint and blockgrout interface
behavior, was developed by the authors. The loaddeformations relations required for the FE
modeling of the joint was derived from the experimental results. Moreover, the proposed
model was capable of predicting the nonlinear response of the mortarless masonry system and
its failure mode. The proposed FE model predicted the cracking pattern of un-grouted prism
and blockgrout de-bonding of grouted prism alongwith their failure loads with acceptable
accuracy.
Conclusion:
Few of the conclusions drawn from the different research work done on the dry-stacked
masonry are as follows:
Dry stack masonry has several advantages over conventional mortar jointed masonry
including: faster construction, better productivity, lower construction costs, smaller
amounts of required wet material and no need of skilled masons.
The compressive strength of dry-stacked masonry is as good as that of the conventional
mortar jointed masonry.
Dry stacked walls tend to have large initial deflections under axial loading, which is due
to the initial settlement of blocks and closing of gaps caused by block surface
irregularities. However, after large initial deformation, the stiffness of wall increases due
to increase in contact area of blocks.
The amount of grout influences overall axial capacity of a wall. However, increase in the
strength of the grout does not have any significant influence.
When walls are loaded eccentrically, the capacity is decreased. However, the effect of
eccentricity is slightly lesser for dry stacked interlocking walls than for traditional block
masonry walls.
Dry stack walls tended to fail in shear and splitting of the head joints under axial
compression. However, when a very thin layer of mortar is used in the bed joints, the
mortar resists the shear, resulting in slightly improved axial capacity of walls.
Very few attempts have been made to study the behavior of dry stacked masonry hence an
urgent research attention is needed to popularize the concept.
There are numerous proprietary interlocking dry stacked masonry system and hence each
require individual testing.
Reference:
1. Hatzinikolas, M., Elwi, A. E., and Lee, R., Structural Behavior of an Interlocking
Masonry Block. Proceedings of the 4th Canadian Masonry Symposium (1986): 225-239
2. Gero Marzahn., Dry-Stacked Masonry in Comparison with Mortar Jointed Masonry.,
Leipzig Annual Civil Engineering Report 2 (1997): 353-365.

3. Gero Marzahn., Investigation on the Initial Settlement of Dry- Stacked Masonry under
Compression. Leipzig Annual Civil Engineering Report 3 (1999): 247261.
4. K. B. Anand and S Ramamurthy., Development and performance evaluation of
interlocking block masonry, Journal of Architectural Engineering Vol. 6, no. No. 2
(2000): 45-51
5. Gero Marzahn., The shear strength of dry-stacked masonry wall. Leipzig Annual Civil
Engineering Report 4 (2000):
6. Gero Marzahn ,A Study on the Creep Behavior of Dry-Stacked Masonry Walls and
Individual Masonry Units-2000
7. H.C. Uzoegbo, Lateral Loading Tests on Dry-Stack Interlocking Block Walls Structural
Engineering, Mechanics and Computation, 2001, Pages 427-436.
8. K.B. Anand, Vinod Vasudevan, K. Ramamurthy, Water permeability assessment of
alternative masonry systems Building and Environment 38 (2003) 947 957.
9. K. B. Anand and S Ramamurthy., Laboratory-Based Productivity Study on Alternative
Masonry Systems, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management Vol. 129, no.
No. 3 (2003): 237-242.
10. Sittichai Seangatith., Mortar-less reinforce concrete masonry wall under concentrated
axial load and transverse load.
11. P.B. Lourenco, J.O. Barros, J.T. Oliveira, Shear testing of stack bonded masonry
Construction and Building Materials 18 (2004) 125132.
12. Waleed A. Thanoon, Mohd Saleh Jaafar, Mohd Razali Abdul Kadir, Abang Abdullah
Abang Ali, D.N. Trikha, Amad M.S. Najm, Development of an innovative interlocking
load bearing hollow block system in Malaysia Construction and Building Materials 18
(2004) 445454.
13. Anand, K. B., and K. Ramamurthy. "Development and Evaluation of Hollow Concrete
Interlocking Block Masonry System. TMS Journal Vol. 23, no. No. 1 (December, 2005):
11-19.
14. Joseph Vincent Ngowi., Stability of dry-stacked masonry Ph.D. Thesis The University
of Witwatersrand 2005.
15. Mohd S Jaafar, Waleed A. Thanoon, Amad M.S. Najm, Mohd Razali Abdulkadir, Abang
Abdullah Abang Ali, Strength correlation between individual block, prism and basic wall
panel for load bearing interlocking mortar-less hollow block masonry Construction and
Building Materials 20 (2006) 492498.
16. Dr J Ingham, H Schofield & A Russell, Inplane cyclic testing of formblock mortatless
concrete masonry wall Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, The
University of Auckland, 2006.
17. Jaafar, M. S., Alwathaf, A. H., Thanoon, W. A., Noorzaei, J., and Abdulkadir, M. R.,
Behavior of Interlocking Mortar-less Block Masonry. 2006
18. Uzoegbo H. C., Senthivel R., and Ngowi J. V., Load Capacity of Dry-Stack Masonry
Walls 2007
19. Maqsud E. Nazar. S. N. Sinha. Loadingunloading curves of interlocking grouted
stabilized sand-fly-ash brick masonry Materials and Structures (2007) 40:667678.
20. Eric B. Murray., Dry-stacked surface bonded masonry Structural testing and
evaluation Thesis, Department of civil and environmental engineering, Brigham Young
University, December 2007.

21. F.A. Zuccarello, G. Milani, R.S. Olivito, A. Tralli, A numerical and experimental analysis
of un-bonded brickwork panels laterally loaded.2008.
22. Waleed A.M. Thanoon, Ahmed H. Alwathaf, Jamaloddin Noorzaei, Mohd. Saleh Jaafar,
Mohd. Razali Abdulkadir, Finite element analysis of interlocking mortar-less hollow
block masonry prism Computers and Structures 86 (2008) 520528.
23. Waleed A. Thanoon, Ahmed H. Alwathaf, Jamaloddin Noorzaei, Mohd. Saleh Jaafar,
Mohd. Razali Abdulkadir, Nonlinear finite element analysis of grouted and un-grouted
hollow interlocking mortar-less block masonry system Engineering Structures 30 (2008)
15601572.
24. Simion Hosea Kintingu., Design of interlocking bricks for enhanced wall construction
flexibility, alignment, accuracy and load bearing. Ph.D. Thesis The University of
Warwick, School of Engineering May 2009.
25. Pieter Vander Werf., Mortar-less blocks systems An analysis of the six systems on the
market. Masonry Construction Vol. 12, no. No. 2 (1999): 2024.
26. ICC-ES Legacy Report (2006) Azar Dry-Stack Block.
27. McGinley. (1995), Development of dry stacked clay masonry wall systems Proceedings
of the 7th Canadian Masonry Symposium, Hamilton, 147159.
28. Harris HG, Oh K, Hamid AA, Development of new interlocking and mortar-less block
masonry units for efficient building systems Proceeding of The Sixth Canadian Masonry
Symposium. Drexel University: Saskatoon, Canada, 1517 June 1992
29. Mirasa AK, Zakaria FHj, Fathi MS, The effect of the grout on mortarless interlocking
block masonry Conference on Industrialized Building Systems and Structures. World
Engineering Congress, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2023 July 1999.
30. Crofts FS, State of the art of mortarless concrete masonry in South Africa Proceedings
of the 6th North American Masonry Conference, Pennsylvania Philadelphia, June 6-9, vl.1
or 2, pp. 875884.