Challenges, Opportunities and Solutions in Structural Engineering

and Construction Ghafoori (ed.)

2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-56809-8

Seismic analysis of interlocking block in wallfoundationsoil system

M.S. Jaafar, F. Hejazi, A.A. Abang Ali & J. Noorzaei

Universiti Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia

ABSTRACT: An interlocking mortar less concrete masonry block is a innovative structural component for
masonry building construction. In this study an attempt was made to analyse a special interlocking mortarless
hollow concrete block system which was developed by the Housing Research Center of University Putra Malaysia.
The system was subjected to earthquake loading using the finite element method. An analysis was conducted on
the hollow block wall, foundation and soil interaction. For this purpose, a finite element program was developed
to analyze the masonry system under earthquake excitation. In order to account for the dry joint contact between
the blocks, foundation and soil mass, an interface element was used. The response of the mortarless block
wall with respect to displacement, stress and acceleration subjected to earthquake was studied and the effect of
applying dry interlocking joints for connection of the block on seismic response of the system investigated.

1 INTRODUCTION The complex interaction between block units, dry

An interlocking mortar less concrete masonry block
building system was developed as a new structural
component for masonry building construction. The
interlocking mortar less block system will reduce con-
struction time and cost of construction. Interlocking
mortar less load bearing hollow block system is dif-
ferent from conventional mortared masonry system as
the mortar layers are eliminated and instead the block
units are interconnected through interlocking protru-
sions and grooves. Numerous analytical models have
been developed to simulate the behaviour of the dif-
ferent types of structural masonry systems using the
finite element (FE) technique.
Two main approaches have been employed in the
masonry modelling depending on the type of the prob-
lem and the level of accuracy required. The macro-
modeling approach intentionally makes no distinction
between units and joints but smears the effect of joints
through the formulation of a fictitious homogeneous
and continuous material, equivalent to the actual one
which is discrete and composite (Lotfi & Shing 1991;
Cerioni & Doinda 1994; Zhuge et al. 1998). The alter-
native micro-modeling approach analyzes the masonry
material as a discontinuous assembly of blocks, con-
nected to each other by joints at their actual positions,
the latter being simulated by appropriate constitutive
models of interface (Suwalski & Drysdale 1986; Ali &
Page 1988; Riddington & Noam 1994). An extensive
critical review of the analytical models of differ-
ent masonry systems can be found in the literature
(Alwathaf et al. 2003).
joint and grouting material (if any) has to be well
understood under different stages of loading; i.e.
elastic, inelastic and failure.
For interlocking mortarless masonry system, a very
limited number of FE analyses have been reported in
the literature (Oh 1994; Alpa et al. 1998).
However, the characteristics of dry joints under
seismic excitation, and their effect on the overall
behavior of the interlocking mortarless wall
foundationsoil system, are still not well understood.
This paper covers the analysis of a special interlock-
ing mortar less hollow concrete block system devel-
oped by the Housing Research Center of Universiti
Putra Malaysia, subjected to earthquake loads using
finite element method, to study the effect of using dry
interlocking joints for connection of blocks under seis-
mic loading of the hollow block wall. The interface
element is used for modelling of these joints. Also an
attempt was made to model the foundation and soil and
a seismic analysis of overall system was carried out.
2 PUTRA BLOCK BUILDING SYSTEM
The traditional masonry construction method which
requires the use of mortar is labor intensive, and hence
slow, due to the presence of a large number of the mor-
tar joints. Therefore, there have been several attempts
to develop interlocking mortarless hollow blocks in
different parts of the world in the recent years. These
blocks vary widely in dimension, shape and interlock-
ing mechanism. In Malaysia, the Putra interlocking

351
 (a)
Figure 2. Parabolic interface element.

Also it can be write:

(b) (c) ua = u1T u1B and va = v1T v1B
Figure 1. (a) Stretcher block , (b) Corner block, (c) Half ub = u2T u2B and vb = v2T v2B (6)
block.
uc = u3T u3B and vc = v3T v3B

mortar less load bearing hollow concrete block system u1T , u1B , v1T , v1B , u2T etc, are the nodal displacements
has been developed recently by the Housing Research in x and y directions, and the indices T and B indi-
Centre (HRC) of Universiti Putra Malaysia. (Thanoon cates top & bottom continuum respectively. The above
et al. 2004; Saleh Jaafar et al. 2006; Thanoon et al. relationship can be expressed as.
2008). T
This building system as seen in Figure 1 consists of
u1
three types of blocks: Stretcher block, Corner block    
v T


ua 1 0 1 0 1
and Half block. {a } = =
va 0 1 0 1 u1
B
The Putra block building system does not require

the mortar layer, but is capable of withstanding the ver- B
v1
tical and horizontal loads; it also eliminates the need
for steel reinforcement and therefore is very effective = [T ] {a } (7)
in reducing both cost and time of construction.
Similar expression can be written for b , c

3 INTERFACE ELEMENT {} = {a b c }T = [T ]612 {}121 (8)

A typical curved parabolic interface element which Here again [T] is transfer matrix.
is sandwiched between two continuums, as shown in As in the case of isoparametric elements, the rela-
Figure 2, the pair of nodes 11, 22, 33 and the tive displacement
middle line nodes a, b, c are defined by the same
coordinates respectively. Brief descriptions on the for- ua



mulation of the interface element are presented herein:
va



   


u Na 0 Nb 0 Nc 0 u b
x= Ni xi (1) =
v 0 Na 0 Nb 0 Nc
vb




u

y=

c
Ni yi (2) v
c

u= Ni ui (3) (9)
  
v= Ni i u
(4) = [N ]26 {}61 (10)
v
Where Na , Nb , Nc are the shape function at nodes
as follows: By substituting Equation 8 into Equation 10 to get
the following equation:
1 1  
Na = ( 1), Nb = (1 2 ), Nc = ( + 1) u
2 2 = [N ] [T ] {} = [N ] {} (11)
(5) v

352
 The strain at any point in the joint defined by the Wall
local coordinate system: 5m
Foundation Soil
    0.3m
t 1 u 1
=  = [R] [N ] {} = [Bi ] {} (12)
n t v t 5m

 
where u , and v are the displacements in the local
co-ordinate and directions respectively. t and n
are the tangential and normal strains respectively at 5m

the point, [R] is a rotation matrix and transfers global

strains to local strains, (t) is the thickness of the ele-
ment and [B] is the straindisplacement matrix of the 5m 5m 3m 5m 5m
joint.
The stiffness matrix of the interface element can be
Figure 4. Geometry of considered wall, foundation and soil
written as: system.

[K] = [Bi ]T [Di ] [Bi ] ds (13)
Table 1. Wall, foundation and soil properties.

where [Bj ] is the strain displacement matrix, [Di ] is the Modulus of Poissons Density
elasticity matrix for the joint and ds is a small length elasticity (kN/m2 ) ratio (kg/m3 )
of the joint and
Wall 1.4285e7 0.3 2000
  Foundation 1.4285e7 0.3 2000
Soil 5e4 0.2 1500
[ ] = = [Di ] {} (14)
n
 
Kss 0
[D] = (15)
0 Knn
element has been used for modelling of connection
where Kss, and Knn are the shear and normal stiffness between wall and foundation.
respectively. The material properties for the modeling of the wall,
foundation and soil are summarized in Table 1.
The two models prepared to investigate the effec-
4 FINITE ELEMENT MODEL tiveness of the interlocking system for connecting the
block prisms are as follow:
In the present study the hollow prisms modelled using
an eight-node isoparametric element to simulate the 4.1 Model 1
masonry constituents Figure 3-a and six-node isopara-
metric interface element of zero to model the inter- In this model, the wall was modelled without consid-
face characteristics of the dry joint and bond between ering the interlocking joints between prisms and the
blocks Figure 3-b. An eight-node isoparametric ele- blocks directly connect to each others from their nodes.
ment is also used for modelling of foundation and soil
Figure 3-c. 4.2 Model 2
Figure 4 shows the finite element model of the wall-
foundationsoil system. In this model an interface The wall was modelled by considering dry joints
between blocks. As explained earlier, the interface
element was used for modeling of these joints. During
the first step, this analysis was carried out under static
Foundation loading with self weight of blocks and loads coming
Hollow Interface & from the roof and the resulting stresses were treated
Block Soil as initial stresses which were then imposed on the
structure during seismic analysis.
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 3. (a) 8-noded elements used for modelling of hol- 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
low block prism, (b) 6-noded elements used for modelling
of the interface, (c) 8-noded elements used for modelling of Both models were subjected to earthquake in the form
foundation and soil. of ground acceleration time series previously recorded

353
 2
Acceleration (m/s^2)

1.5
1

0.5
0
-0.5
-1
0 5 10 15 20
Time (Sec)
(a) Model 1

Figure 5. Earthquake acceleration record for Malaysia

(PGA = 0.15 g).

(b) Model 2

Figure 7. Displacement of top node of the wall in Y direc-

tion (m).

(a) Model 1
(b) Model 2
Figure 6. Displacement of top node of the wall in X direc-
tion (m).
in Malaysia as shown in Figure 5 and the response
of the wall was evaluated in terms of displacement,
stresses and accelerations.
Figure 6 shows the time history displacement of the
top node of the wall in X direction during earthquake
excitation. Response of both models in the X direc-
tion are plotted in Figures 6-a and 6-b respectively.
As seen in these figures maximum displacements of
models (1) and (2) were about 0.06 and 0.025 meters
respectively. The displacement of model (2) in X direc-
tion was almost 55% less than model (1) during the
imposed earthquake.
It was seen that the interlocking dry joints for con-
necting the block prisms can effectively reduced the
horizontal displacement of the wall.
The displacement of model (2) in X direction was
almost 55% less than model (1) and it was shown that
the interlocking dry joints for connecting the block
prisms can effectively reduce the horizontal displace-
ment of the wall.
The permissible displacement value for the horizon-
tal movement of the wall was about 0.03 meters, and
the displacement of the model (2) wall in X direction
with the interlocking joints was less than the permis-
sible amount.
Figure 7 shows the displacement of the top node of
both models in the Y direction subjected to earthquake
load. It was clear from these figure that the amount of
displacement in Y direction was very small.
The time history for principle stresses (S1) and (S2)
at the nearest gauss point at the bottom of both model
walls are shown in Figures 8 and 9 during earthquake
loading. Maximum principal stress variation in the ele-
ment at the bottom of the wall subjected to earthquake
are plotted in figures (8-a) and (8-b) in model (1) and
model (2) wall respectively. As seen in the figures
the maximum nominal stress in model (1) was 84 Mpa
and for model (2) was 8 Mpa. Therefore the maximum
principal stress was reduced to about 90% in model (2)
compared with model (1) due implementation of the
dry joints for connecting the block prisms.
The compressive strength of Putra block was about
23 Mpa, therefore model (2) shows it can resist the
imposing earthquake because the stress was only
8 Mpa and less than the ultimate compression strength
of the block of 23 Mpa; so it is in an acceptable range
of stresses. But the stresses in model (1), exceeds the
permissible strength of block and will lead to failure.
Also Figure 9-a and 9-b show the minimum princi-
pal stresses in the same element for Model (1) and
model (2), respectively. The minimum nominal stress
in model (1) was about 82 Mpa and in model (2) is

354
 (a) Model 1
(b) Model 2
Figure 8. Principal stress of bottom element of the wallS1
(MPa).
(a) Model 1
(b) Model 2
Figure 9. Principal stress of bottom element of the
wallS2 (MPa).
8.1 Mpa. It was clear that the amount of minimum
stress is about 90% smaller than that in model (1) in
most time step of earthquake excitation.
Therefore, the use of dry interlocking mechanism
for connecting of the blocks leads to reduced stress in
the wall. The tensile strength of the block was about
2.06 Mpa. So the minimum stress in model (2) was
more than the tensile strength of the blocks and it would
fail. As observed the use of interlocking dry joints for
connecting the blocks effectively reduce the amount
of minimum stress in the wall but again it is more than
tensile strength of the block.
Thus it is necessary to provide some additional
strengthening system such as reinforcement for increas-
ing the tensile strength of the wall to resist tensile
stress. Time series acceleration of the top node of
355
(a) Model 1
(b) Model 2
Figure 10. Acceleration of top node of the wall in X direc-
tion (m/s2 ).
the wall as shown in Figure 10-a subjected to earth-
quake were plotted in Figure 10-b for model (1) and
Figure 10-c for model (2) wall.
From these plots it was obvious that the maximum
acceleration was about 17 g for model (1) and 26 g for
model (2).
The acceleration was increased by about 50% in
some time steps of load excitation (Earthquake accel-
eration) on model (2) wall compared with that in
model (1). Therefore from the results it was obvi-
ous that the interlocking wall system was suitable for
low earthquake area by just adding some strengthening
system to resist the tensile stresses as mentioned above.
But in high intensity earthquake area this system is
not recommended.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the foregoing analysis and discussions on
the test results from this investigation, several conclu-
sions can be drawn as follows:
1. The finite element model of the mortar less block
masonry wall-foundation-soil system has been
successfully developed and includes the modelling
of masonry materials, mortarless dry joint and
block-grout interface behaviour.
2. The interlocking keys provided for the building
system were able to integrate the blocks into a
sturdy wall and can replace the mortar layers that
are used for conventional masonry construction in
low seismic area.
3. Application of dry interlocking joints for con-
necting the blocks effectively reduces the seismic
response of the system. Maximum displacement of
 the wall is reduced by about 50% in the X direc-
tion. Also the maximum and minimum principal
stresses were reduced by about 90%.
4. The results show that the interlocking hollow block
wall system displacement subjected to earthquake
was within acceptable range.
5. The maximum stress in the model (2) wall was less
than the compressive strength of the block prism
and it was within an acceptable margin of com-
pressive strength but the minimum stress exceeded
the tensile strength of the block, and hence some
reinforcement need to be provided for this.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The financial support granted by the Academy of Sci-
ences, Malaysia through the Housing Research Center
of Universiti Putra Malaysia is gratefully acknowl-
edged.
REFERENCES
Ali SS, Page AW. 1988. Finite element model for ma-sonry
subjected to concentrated loads. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE; 114(8): 176184.
Alpa G, Gambarotta L, Monetto I. 1998. Dry block as-sembly
continuum modeling for the in-plane analysis of shear
walls. In: Proceeding of the 4th international symposium
on computer methods in structural masonry. E & FN,
Spon; pp. 1118.
Alwathaf AH, Thanoon WAM, Noorzaei J, Jaafar MS,
Abdulkadir MR. 2003. Analytical models for different
masonry systems: Critical review. In: Proc. of IBS2003
conf.
356
Cerioni R, Doinda G. 1994. A finite element model for the
nonlinear analysis ofreinforced and prestressed masonry
wall. Computer and Structures; 53: 1291306.
Lotfi H, Shing P. 1991. An appraisal of smeared crack model
for masonry shear wall analysis. Computer and Structures;
41: 41325.
Oh K. 1994. Development and investigation of failure mech-
anism of interlocking mortarless block masonry system.
Ph.D. thesis. Philadelphia: Drexel University.
Mohd Saleh Jaafar , Waleed A. Thanoon, Amad M.S. Najm,
Mohd Razali Abdulkadir, Abang Abdul-lah Abang Ali.
2006. Strength correlation between individ-ual block,
prism and basic wall panel for load bear-ing interlocking
mortarless hollow block masonry. Journal of Construction
and Building Materials. Vol. 20; p. 492498.
Riddington JR, Noam NF. 1994. Finite element predic-tion of
masonry compressive strength. Computer and Structures;
52(1): 1139.
Suwalski P, Drysdale R. 1986. Influence of slenderness on
the capacity of concrete block walls. In: Proceed-ing of
4th Canadian masonry symposium; p. 12235.
Thanoon, W.A., Jaafar M.S., Abdul Kadir, M.R., Ali, A.A.,
Trikha, D.N. and Najm, A. M. 2004. De-velopment of
an Innovative Interlocking Load Bear-ing Hollow Block
System in Malaysia, Construction and Building Materials,
18: 445454.
Waleed A.M. Thanoon, Ahmed H. Alwathaf, Jamaloddin
Noorzaei, Mohd. Saleh Jaafar, Mohd. Razali Abdulkadir.
2008. Finite element analysis of inter-locking mortarless
hollow block masonry prism. Journal of Computers and
Structures. 86: 520528.
Zhuge Y, Thambiratnam D, Coreroy J. 1998. Nonlinear
dynamic analysis of unreinforced masonry. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE; 124(3): 2707.