See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229663747

Accelerated masonry construction: Review and future prospects

Article  in  Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials · January 2004

DOI: 10.1002/pse.162

CITATIONS READS

19 505

2 authors:

Ramamurthy K E. K. Kunhanandan Nambiar

Indian Institute of Technology Madras NSS College of Engineering
82 PUBLICATIONS   2,208 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   773 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Building Materials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ramamurthy K on 25 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Structural Masonry
Accelerated masonry construction:
review and future prospects
K Ramamurthy and E K Kunhanandan Nambiar
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, India
Summary
The limitations of conventional masonry cited
quite often with respect to constructional,
structural and functional performances are
summarized, along with attempts to overcome
these limitations through different methods of
accelerating masonry construction (increasing
size of masonry units, elimination of bedding
mortar through adoption of: (i) conventional
blocks using surface bonding or partial grouting;
and (ii) interlocking blocks using dry-stacking, or
surface bonding) developed and proof-tested or
Key words: masonry; interlocking block; mortarless masonry; productivity; structural performance; accelerated
construction
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2004; 6:1–9 (DOI: 10.1002/pse.162)
Introduction
In the developing world masonry is still the most
important material for housing, while in the
developed world it has attracted a renewed interest[1]
that has helped in transforming masonry into an
engineered material with a variety of structural
applications. Masonry performs simultaneous
functions of carrying load and enclosing space, while
possessing good degree of fire resistance, thermal and
sound insulation as well as exposure protection.
Hence masonry is considered as a cost-effective and
low-energy alternative when designed appropriately.
The limitations of masonry cited quite often are
summarized first in this paper. The attempts made
constantly to overcome these limitations, i.e. methods
of accelerating masonry construction developed and
proof-tested or adopted in practice are outlined.
Finally, a detailed classification of interlocking block
masonry systems is presented, along with a brief
review on the studies reported on the behaviour of
some of these systems.
Limitations of conventional masonry
CONSTRUCTIONAL PERFORMANCE
The main shortcoming is that the construction is
slower and labour intensive. Owing to manufacturing
Published online 16 January 2004
Copyright & 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
adopted in practice. The accelerated mortarless
masonry constructions developed or being used in
different countries and by various researchers
vary in material, geometry and interlocking
mechanism. A classification of interlocking block
masonry systems is made, along with a review on
the behaviour of some of these systems. The
issues to be addressed by researchers in order to
achieve a ‘High-performance masonry’ are
highlighted.
problems of improper drying and nonuniform
burning, the size of burnt-clay bricks has been
standardized. Smaller bricks lead to a large number of
mortar joints in masonry, thereby imposing
restrictions on the height of construction in a day, to
avoid out-of-plumb masonry caused by uneven
squeezing out of freshly laid mortar due to the self-
weight of the masonry.
STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE
Behaviour of masonry under compression is greatly
influenced by the presence of mortar bed joints. The
efficiency factor (masonry strength/ brick strength) is
very low, i.e. around 0.3–0.4. In addition,
uninspected/unskilled workmanship may result in
incompletely filled bed joints, deeply furrowed bed
joints, thicker mortar layers and deviations from
plumb, which further reduce the strength of
masonry[2].
FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE
It has been observed[3,4] that in conventional masonry,
most leakage occurs at the mortar joints. The mortar
joints in masonry (even in the case of inspected
workmanship) because of its porous nature, serve as
capillary wicks and become a source of moisture
penetration[5].
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2004; 6:1–9
2 STRUCTURAL MASONRY
The inclusion of mortar joints thus delays the rate of
construction, and also leads to functional problems
and structural compromises. The construction output
of brick masonry is not able to cope up with the
present day requirement of the construction industry.
The requirement of increased productivity stresses the
need for accelerated masonry construction
techniques. Hence a need was realized to accelerate
the masonry construction process and simultaneously
address the other limitations of conventional masonry.
Methods of accelerating masonry
construction
Several attempts have been made to accelerate the rate
of construction and to reduce labour intensiveness,
ranging from increasing the size of the masonry unit
to nonconventional methods.
INCREASING THE SIZE OF MASONRY UNIT
The early attempts were by using blocks, which have
dimensions greater than that of brick. Larger units
increase the area of wall completed per day, even
though the mason may lay fewer units because of the
higher weight[6]. The block can be manufactured in
different heights, widths and thicknesses to suit
requirements, thereby eliminating complex joints of
different brickwork bonding arrangement. The use of
block reduces the number of mortar joints (fewer joints
result in higher efficiency factor for block masonry, i.e.
0.60–0.75[7]) and hence mortar consumption, thereby
increasing the productivity. The use of bedding mortar
still imposes constraints on the number of layers that
can be constructed in a day and hence the overall
acceleration in construction is still limited.
ELIMINATION OF BEDDING MORTAR
Deviating from conventional methods, i.e. by
eliminating bedding mortar, the rate of construction
can be accelerated significantly. The efficiency factor
of dry-stacked (mortarless) brick masonry is reported
to be around 0.90[2]. This concept of bedding mortar
elimination led to the development of several non-
conventional methods of masonry construction.
NONCONVENTIONAL METHODS
The nonconventional techniques can be classified as
(i) surface-bonded masonry; (ii) partially grouted
masonry; and (iii) dry-stacked masonry. These
methods adopt conventional blocks and/or special
interlocking blocks as detailed below.
METHODS USING CONVENTIONAL BLOCKS
Surface-bonded masonry
The masonry units are dry-stacked and the surface is
plastered on both sides using alkali-resistant glass
Copyright & 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
fibre-reinforced cement mortar plastering[7]. The
surface bonding provides lateral stability, enhances
flexural strength and also eliminates water
permeation. As dry stacking and surface bonding
require less time and skill, the construction becomes
rapid. It is reported that surface-bonded concrete
block walls laid without bedding mortar had an
increased productivity of around 71% over
conventional block masonry[8]. Owing to either non-
affordability or non-availability of alkali-resistant
glass-fibre-reinforced cement, surface-bonded
masonry is not popular.
Partially grouted masonry
Partial grouting provides lateral stability, facilitates
reinforcing masonry and increases the load bearing
capacity. The extent of grouting (unreinforced or
reinforced) depends on the degree of lateral stability
required. External surface rendering is done to
eliminate moisture penetration.
METHODS USING INTERLOCKING BLOCKS
From a structural viewpoint, the search for masonry
which is less dependent on labour skill and
construction variation led to the use of prefabricated
masonry, with mechanically bedded masonry unit
walls from a central plant, and the use of epoxy glues
to replace cement and lime mortar[9]. As the products
were far more expensive, these efforts were not
popular. The alternative method was to use
dry-stackable masonry units, which could be laid
without mortar, thus reducing the construction
variability. The basic requirement for a dry-stackable
masonry unit is that it should be self-aligning, thus
allowing construction skill to be reduced drastically
and eliminating the need for levelling and aligning
instruments.
Dry-stacked masonry
Interlocking blocks differ from blocks used in
mortar-bedded masonry; the block configuration is
shaped to facilitate physical interlocking between
blocks. Dry-stacked interlocking block masonry,
which lacks stability or which is required to withstand
higher lateral (out-of-plane as well as in-plane) loads
is usually grouted or surface bonded.
Surface-bonded/grouted masonry
To enhance the lateral resistance of systems with
partial interlocking features, surface bonding/partial
grouting is adopted. Besides improving flexural
resistance, surface bonding also provides protection
against moisture penetration. Hollow interlocking
systems, are usually grouted after dry-stacking.
Grouting can be plain, reinforced or prestressed,
depending on the required lateral load
resistance.
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2004; 6:1–9
 ACCELERATED MASONRY CONSTRUCTION 3

Interlocking block/mortarless masonry Review of performance evaluation

systems
A few authors have reviewed some of the mortarless
masonry systems[10–12]. Accelerated mortarless
masonry constructions developed or being used in
different countries and by various researchers vary in
material, geometry and interlocking mechanism. A
classification of such systems along with the salient
features of each system is presented in Table 1.
STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE STUDIES
A classification of the structural performance studies
reported in the literature is presented in Table 2,
which shows that, even though several systems have
been reported in the literature, systematic behavioural
studies appear to have been undertaken only on these
limited systems.

Table 1 Classification of interlocking block/mortarless masonry systems

.......................................................................................................................................................
Name of system, country, Typical unit Block details
reference, geometry
material
.......................................................................................................................................................
Interlocking mechanism: projecting nibs/lugs in bed joint
.........................................................................................................................................................
Haener system, USA and Four nibs projecting above two webs to provide interlocking and control of
Canada[13–15] positioning
Hollow block, concrete Block placed above has four depressions on the under side of the same web
locations to receive the protruding nibs
Modified block has a tongue and groove fitted head joint with alternating male–
female matching on opposite face shells.

Etherington system, Manila Basic block is a closed-ended two-cell unit with a raised rim around each cell on
and Bangkok[16] the upper surface providing horizontal interlock
Hollow block, concrete Lower surfaces have matching recesses or depressions to receive the projecting
rims of the blocks below
Vertical interlocking by cement grouting of the small cells provided in the web
Jordanian block, Jordan[12] Three cell units with a raised lip around the cells which provides horizontal
Hollow block, concrete interlock; open ends with tongue and groove fit on the head joints
Units are arranged in stack bond pattern

TSZ block, Czechoslovakia[12,17] Laid without any mortar

Hollow block: light weight The interlocking elements are the rings on the top surface of blocks around the
no-fines concrete hollow core

Sinusat system, Berlin and Open-ended dry-stack system with a central cell
London[12] Basic blocks are in widths of 125, 175, 200 mm
Hollow block, concrete Interlocking mechanism consists of lugs placed on the face shells

Azar block, Canada[18] Interlocking is provided by three mechanisms

Hollow block: concrete
Key on top of the web fits into a recess on the web of the block above
Two levels of bearing surface along each face shell at the bed joint
Interlocking of adjacent blocks along the head joint by shiplap geometry.

Linkbloc system, South Africa[19] Projections and recesses in the bedding surfaces result in self–alignment, thus
Hollow block: concrete achieving horizontal interlocking
Blocks are stacked in stretcher bond

continued

Copyright & 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2004; 6:1–9
4 STRUCTURAL MASONRY

Table 1 continued
Name of system, country, Typical unit Block details
reference, geometry
material
.......................................................................................................................................................
Interlocking mechanism: tongue and groove arrangement in head/bed joint
.........................................................................................................................................................
McIBS Inc. mortarless system[12] Two-cell closed-end unit with a tongue and groove joint on the bed and head
Hollow block, lightweight concrete joint
Closed cells result in vertical threading over the reinforcement bars during
construction

Stepoc building system, UK[20] Single-cell unit with one open end laid dry in 1/3 running bond with standard
Hollow block, concrete width of 140, 190, 256 mm
Can be reinforced in vertical and horizontal directions

Modified H block, USA[21] Has grooved face shells on both the head and bed joints with completely self-
Hollow block, concrete aligning cores.
Open ends of the unit facilitate construction around the vertical reinforcement

German KLB system, Germany,[22] Partial interlocking with a tongue-and-groove arrangement on head joint
Solid block, lightweight, concrete

Soil-cement block, Thailand[23] Modification of soil cement block which rely on interlock laying and cement
Hollow block, Soil–cement grouting at the central hollow space instead of mortar bed

.........................................................................................................................................................
Interlocking mechanism: dovetail on head joint
.........................................................................................................................................................
Whelan block[24] Block with a dovetailed end joint and projections and recesses on the bed joints.
Hollow block, concrete Suitable for vertically reinforced construction, but closed cells result in vertical
threading over the reinforcement bars during constructions

Barlock system, Texas[12] Has dovetail lug with sharp corners on head joint for a snug fit.
Hollow block, concrete The units are 150 and 200 mm wide
Can be reinforced in the vertical and horizontal directions with a bond beam

WHD system, USA[22] Has more rounded dovetail lug on head joint
Hollow block, concrete Consists of stretcher, corner and half block units

.........................................................................................................................................................
Interlocking Mechanism: through geometry and stacking pattern
.........................................................................................................................................................
Sparlock system, Canada[26,27,28] Most intricate shaped interlocking blocks through geometry and stacking pattern
Hollow block, concrete with interlock both in vertical and horizontals directions
Consists of full and half course blocks for stretcher unit and end blocks
Masonry construction may by dry stacking, surface bonded or grouted
Suitable for vertically reinforced construction only, but closed cells result in
vertical threading over the reinforcement bars during construction

Copyright & 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2004; 6:1–9
 ACCELERATED MASONRY CONSTRUCTION 5

SILBLOCK/HILBLOCK, Simple shaped interlocking blocks through geometry and stacking pattern
India[29,30,31,32,33] without tongue-and-groove and without undercuts
Solid /hollow block, concrete Interlocking in both vertical and horizontals directions
Discontinuity of bed joint and cross joint from inner to outer face
System is comprised of three basic shapes stretcher, jambs, and corner blocks
with full and half-height units

.........................................................................................................................................................
Systems without geometric interlocking details: grouted system
.........................................................................................................................................................
Mecano system, Peru[34] Blocks are dry-stacked then reinforced and grouted
Hollow block Basic units are 150 mm high, 300 mm long and 120–150 mm wide
Can be reinforced in the vertical and horizontal directions

Faswall system, South Carolina[35,36] Can be reinforced and grouted to form a solid structural wall
Hollow block, composite of cement
and mineralized wood

Dry stacked clay masonry wall partially reinforced single-wythe wall

system, USA[37]

.........................................................................................................................................................
Systems without geometric interlocking details: surface bonded system
.........................................................................................................................................................
Sparfill system, Canada[38] Dry-stacked and surface-bonded with a matrix of glass fibre in Portland cement
Hollow block, lightweight polystyr-
ene aggregate concrete

.........................................................................................................................................................
Systems without geometric interlocking details: use of synthetic strip
.........................................................................................................................................................
Tasta system, Netherlands[39] Synthetic coupling strips shoved into the vertical grooves and H shaped strips,
Block with horizontal grooves, light- which are placed into the horizontal grooves in the blocks connected to the
weight cellular concrete coupling strips
Surface of the masonry is provided with glass fibre skin covered with plaster

.........................................................................................................................................................
Systems without geometric interlocking details: hybrid systems
.........................................................................................................................................................
German KS-R system, Germany[12] Interlocking at head joint and laid with mortar on the bed joints
Solid block, lightweight concrete

continued

Copyright & 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2004; 6:1–9
6 STRUCTURAL MASONRY
Table 1 continued
Name of system, country, Typical unit
reference, geometry
material
.......................................................................................................................................................
I-shaped blocks[40]
Hollow block, concrete
Domed block, Canada[41]
Hollow space for double-domed unit,
concrete
.........................................................................................................................................................
Interlocking blocks for blocks curved wall systems
.........................................................................................................................................................
Baker system, Australia[34]
Solid block
Structural block system,[12]
Hollow block
.......................................................................................................................................................
CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTIVITY STUDIES
Many of the interlocking block masonry systems are
stated to have enhanced construction productivity.
However, the methodology and conditions under
which the observations have been made are not
readily available in the published literature. This
section presents the data on some of the systems
reported. Studies on 1400-mm-square panels of
conventional block masonry and Whelan interlocking
block masonry have been reported[24]. The net time
spent for the conventional masonry as 3.5 h with a
crew of one mason and one helper, indicating a
production rate of approximately 1.7 m2/h. With a
crew of one person, the time spent for Whelan blocks
was 1.25 h, which indicates a production rate
approximately 4.1 m2/h, which indicate that
production rates for the system were approximately
2.5 times those of the traditional system.
Manufacturers of Haener blocks state that the system
allows block laying up to five times faster than
conventional block masonry, creating labour savings
up to 80%. VanderWerf[35] has reported that workers
with experience in Haener blocks stack more than 100
blocks per hour. Based on the design experience with
Haener block on a project site, it was estimated that
the time of completion would be reduced by 60% over
that of conventional masonry[27]. Reduction in labour
requirement by 65% is reported for TSZ block in
comparison to brickwork[1]. For soil–cement blocks a
reduction in construction time by 50% is stated
compared with that of the conventional blocks. With
AZAR block, unskilled workers routinely stack 100
Copyright & 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Block details
Mortar-laid masonry with blocks of special shape which may interlock together
Can be reinforced in vertical direction and grouted
Blocks can be dry-stacked as well as laid with mortar
Interlocking head joints by means of dovetail lugs without bed joint interlocking
Allows courses to be curved
Units have circular cores may be rotated at the interlock connection between
adjacent blocks to form curved walls
blocks each per hour, compared with 40 blocks per
hour for one mason and one helper for conventional
masonry, while with Sparlock system, a crew stacked
at a rate equivalent to the size of nearly 40
conventional block per worker per hour[35].
A laboratory-based relative productivity assessment
of conventional and interlocking block masonry
(SILBLOCK, HILBLOCK) was carried out[31], through
work sampling, adopting 5-min rating technique for
measurement of utilization of time by members of the
team. Productivity enhancement of 80 – 120% was
observed for dry-stacked masonry, and 60 – 90% for
thin-jointed and mortar-bedded interlocking block
masonry compared with conventional masonry.
Even though the manufacturing costs of
interlocking blocks are marginally higher than
conventional blocks, this is more than offset by the
reduction in labour, construction time and material
requirements. With sufficient early planning and
careful detailing, it is easier to overcome
(i) construction difficulties; (ii) the possible reduction
in strength and stiffness due to initial seating
deformation; and (iii) problems with stability during
erection against lateral loads.
Future prospects and conclusions
Mortarless/dry-stacked/interlocking block masonry
systems that have been developed and being used are
reviewed, which indicates a worldwide interest in
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2004; 6:1–9
 Table 2 Classification of structural performance studies
Name of Block material Experimental investigations Theoretical Salient observations
system and type studies
Reference
........................................................................................
Axial Eccentric Flexure Diagonal
compression compression tension (shear)
...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
I-shaped Concrete Hollow Mortar-bedded An increase in shear resistance and seismic resistance were obtained
block[40]
Sparlock Concrete Hollow Dry-stacked/ Dry-stacked Finite element Vertical compression test on ungrouted walls, face shell cracking
system[28] Partial-grout/ analysis occurred close to ultimate load but in grouted walls it occurred well
Fully grouted before ultimate load due to lateral tensile strains in grout, lateral load
capacities were much higher than that of vertical direction but panels

Copyright & 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

showed wide gaps at dry joints in both case.
Mecano Sand-lime, Hollow Fully grouted Fully grouted Compression tests on prisms showed 20% reduction in strength than
system[34] mortar-laid masonry, diagonal tension tests showed that horizontal
reinforcement increases diagonal tensile strength and provides
ductility.
Sparfill Light weight Surface bonded Surface-bonded/ Surface bonded Compressive strength is affected by individual block strength and
system[14,38] concrete Hollow reinforced surface bonding provides flexural resistance, walls with combined
surface bonding and steel reinforcement exhibited good initial stiffness
and significant ductility.
Haener Hollow, concrete Ungrouted, grouted Grouted Grouted Compressive strength higher than conventional masonry ungrouted
system[38] prism failed by splitting in the webs whereas grouted prism shear
failure; beneficial strain gradient effects were much greater
Modified Hollow concrete Ungrouted Grouted Grouted Hollow prism showed lower load bearing efficiency; higher flexural
H-block[12,21] grouted strength for grouted masonry; grouted specimens showed compar-
able shear strength to conventional mortared and grouted system
WHD Hollow concrete Ungrouted, grouted Ungrouted, Grouted Failure mechanism Axial compression tests indicated lower load bearing efficiency for
block[12,21] grouted through FEM hollow prisms than conventional prisms, but higher when grouted,
flexural resistance, both in vertical and horizontal directions, was
lower than conventional masonry and the improvement due to
grouting was not significant, diagonal tension test on reinforced
grouted specimen showed improved ductility.
Etherington Hollow concrete It has been reported that some of the buildings using this system have
system[16] survived very strong earthquakes.
Non-interlocking Calcium silicate/ Dry-stacked, Strength of dry-stacked structures does not depend only on the
blocks[42,43] aerated concrete post-tensioned strength of the bricks, but also on the quality of bed surfaces of bricks
laying one upon the other, post-tensioned masonry improves
ACCELERATED MASONRY CONSTRUCTION

serviceability by reducing or eliminating opening and early cracking

of bed joints. Equation to predict strains is proposed for estimating
loss in prestress.
SILBLOCK, Concrete, solid/ Ungrouted, Ungrouted Ungrouted, Axial and eccentric compression capacity was higher than conven-
HILBLOCK[29,31,32] hollow drystacked, grouted Surface grouted, surface- tional masonry. Unlike conventional brick/block masonry flexural
thin-jointed bonded bonded capacity is higher with loading parallel to bed joint than normal to bed
joint because of staggered bed joint.
7

Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2004; 6:1–9

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
8 STRUCTURAL MASONRY
mortarless masonry construction, demonstrated
through a broad range of types of interlocking blocks
with geometries varying from simple to complex. The
following are the issues to be addressed by
researchers in order to achieve a ‘high-performance
masonry’ which should overcome all the limitations
of conventional masonry, i.e. it should be lighter,
ductile, durable and faster to construct.
Tracing the development of interlocking blocks
reveals that many have complex shapes, which
appear to have been deliberate, and such intricacies in
block geometry (tongue and groove or undercut and
dovetail arrangement) necessitate mechanized
production methods. Some of these blocks are not
structurally efficient, as the web shells of successive
layers do not align fully. Hence there is a need to
standardize the block geometries to achieve
(i) simplicity of shape (interlocking without thin
tongue and groove or undercuts) and limited number
of basic block shapes; (ii) interlocking in horizontal
and vertical directions with discontinuity of bed joint
and cross joint from inner to outer faces; (iii) economic
production by conventional methods; and (iv) the
construction process should facilitate dismantling and
reusability of blocks. Systematic studies are needed on
partially reinforced and reinforced interlocking block
masonry subjected to vertical and lateral loading to
understand the behaviour and cost effectiveness of
the system and developing essential standards/codes
of practice for these systems.
References
[1] Peirs G. Masonry in the third millennium. Proceedings of the 5th
International Masonry Conference, London, 1998, 6–8.
[2] Hendry AW. Structural Masonry. London Macmillan. UK, 1990.
[3] Grimm CT. Water permeance of masonry walls: a review of the
literature. In: Borchalt JG. (ed.) Masonry: Materials, Properties and Performance, ASTM
STP 778, Philadelphia, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1982. 178–199.
[4] Ritchie T. Rain penetration of walls of unit masonry. Canadian Building
Digest CBD 6, National Research Council of Canada, Division of Building Research.
1960.
[5] Hines T & Mehta M. The effect of mortar joints on the permeance of
masonry walls. Proceedings of the 9th Brick/Block Masonry Conference, Berlin, 1991,
1227–1234.
[6] Beall C. Masonry Design, Detailing for Architects, Engineers and Builders. &;
McGraw Hill. 1993.
[7] Drysdale RG, Hamid AA & Baker LR. Masonry Structures–Behaviour
and Design. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1994.
[8] Grimm CT. Masonry construction operations. Journal of the Construction
Division (ASCE) 1974: 100(CO2): 171–185.
[9] Casabbone C. General description of systems, construction practices: In:
Abrams DP (ed.) Masonry in the Americas, ACI SP-147, American Concrete Institute,
1984.
[10] Beall C. New masonry products, materials. Progress in Structural
Engineering and Materials 2000: 2: 296–303.
[11] Crofts FS. State of the art of mortarless concrete masonry in South
Africa. Proceedings of the 6th North American Masonry Conference, Philadelphia, 1993,
875–884.
[12] Oh KH. Development and investigation of failure mechanism of
interlocking mortarless block masonry systems. PhD Thesis. Drexel University,
Pennsylvania, 1994.
Copyright & 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
[13] Drysdale RG & Gazzola EA. Strength and deformation properties of a
grouted, dry-stacked, interlocking, concrete block system. Proceedings of the 9th
International Brick/Block Masonry Conference, Berlin, 1991, 164–171.
[14] Drysdale RG & Gazzola EA. Racking strength of reinforced drystacked
surface bonded low density block masonry. Proceedings of the 6th North American
Masonry Conference, Philadelphia, 1993, 863–874.
[15] Technical brochure. Haener Block–The Mortarles Interlocking System.
Haener block Co., San Diego, California, 1998.
[16] Etherington BA. Interlocking cement and concrete components for low-
cost house construction: the building together experience in Thailand. Proceedings of
the Symposium on Appropriate Building Materials for Low-cost Housing, Nairobi, 1983,
236–243.
[17] Aadamus L & Spevak V. Drystone walling technology–manufacturing,
using building blocks without mortar. Proceedings of the 10th Triennial Congress of the
International Council for Building Research, Studies and Documentation, Washington,
1986, 2709–2716.
[18] Technical brochure. Azar Dry-stack Block. Azar group of companies,
Ontario, Canada, 1998.
[19] Technical brochure. Linkbloc. Linkbloc concrete products (Pty) Ltd,
Pretoria, South Africa, 1996
[20] Stepoc Building System. http://forticrete.co.uk/estepocl.html, visited 13
November 2000.
[21] Harris HG, Oh KH & Hamid AA. Development of new interlocking
block masonry units for efficient building systems. Proceeding of the 6th Canadian
Masonry Symposium, Saskatchewan, 1992, 723–734.
[22] Glitza H. State-of-the-art and tendency of development of masonry
without mortar. Proceedings of the 9th International Brick/Block Masonry Conference,
Berlin, 1991, 1028–1033.
[23] Technical Product Information. Soil–cement block. Journal of Ferroce-
ment 1987: 17(2): 176–177.
[24] Whelan L. Hollow concrete masonry unit shape modification to improve
productivity of placement: results of the preliminary research effort. Proceedings of the
3rd North American Masonry Conference, Arlington, Texas, 1985, 9.1–9.8.
[25] Oh KH, Harris KG & Hamid AA. New interlocking and mortarless
block masonry units for earthquake resistant structures. Proceedings of the 6th North
American Masonry Conference, Philadelphia, 1993, 821–836.
[26] Hines T. The use of mortarless, drystack, concrete masonry as a
contributor to affordable construction. Proceedings the of 4th International Seminar on
Structural Masonry for Developing Countries, Madras, 1992, 176–186.
[27] Hines T. Benefits of drystack interlocking concrete masonry as a
component of cost effective construction. Proceedings of the 6th North American
Masonry Conference, Philadelphia, 1993, 849–861.
[28] Hatzinikolas M, Elwi AE & Lee R. Structural behaviour of an
interlocking masonry block. Proceedings of the 4th Canadian Masonry Symposium,
Fredericton, 1986, 225–239.
[29] Anand KB & Ramamurthy K. Development and performance
evaluation of an interlocking block masonry construction. Journal of Architectural
Engineering (ASCE) 2000: 6(2): 45–51.
[30] Anand KB & Ramamurthy K. Influence of construction method on
water permeation of interlocking block masonry. Journal of Architectural Engineering
(ASCE) 2001: 7(2): 52–56.
[31] Anand KB & Ramamurthy K. Laboratory-based productivity study on
alternative masonry systems. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
2003: 129(3): 237–242.
[32] Anand KB, Vinod Vasudevan & Ramamurthy K. Water permeability
assessment of alternate masonry systems. Building and Environment 2003: 38: 947–957.
[33] Anand KB & Ramamurthy K. Development and evaluation of hollow
concrete interlocking block masonry system. The Masonry Society Journal under
review.
[34] Gallegos H. Mortarless masonry: the MECANO system. International
Journal of Housing Science and its Applications 1988: 12(2): 145–157.
[35] Vander Werf P. Mortarless block systems. Masonry Construction, 1999:
February: 20–24.
[36] Technical brochure. FASWALL building systems, K-X Faswall corporation,
Windsor, SC, 1999.
[37] McGinley. Development of dry stacked clay masonry wall systems.
Proceedings of the 7th Canadian Masonry Symposium, Hamilton, 1995, 147–159.
[38] Gazzola EA & Drysdale RG. Strength and deformation properties of
dry-stacked surface bonded low density block masonry. Proceedings of the 5th
Canadian Masonry Symposium, Vancouver 1989, 609–618.
Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2004; 6:1–9
 ACCELERATED MASONRY CONSTRUCTION 9

[39] Jasma PH. Tasta-Quick building system with cellular concrete blocks-
revolution or elementary way of thinking? Proceedings of the 9th International Brick/
Block Masonry Conference, Berlin, 1991, 1034–1041.
[40] Yongkong L & Peifing Q. NewI-shaped block sincrease earth quaker
esistant capability and economic efficiency. Building in China–Selected Papers, China
Building Technology Centre, Beijing, 1984, 12–18.
[41] Huizer A & Ward AA. A single wythe concrete masonry unit with good
resistance to wind driven rain. In: Borchelt JG (ed.) Masonry: Materials, Properties and
Performance, ASTM STP 778. American Society for Testing and Materials; Philadelphia
1982, 66–75.
[42] Marzahn G. Dry-stacked masonry in comparison with mortar jointed
masonry. Leipzig Annual Civil Engineering Report 1997: 2: 353–365.
[43] Marzahn G. Investigation on the initial settlement of dry-stacked masonry
under compression. Leipzig Annual Civil Engineering Report 1999: 4: 253–269.

Dr K Ramamurthy
Associate Professor
Building Technology and Construction Management Division,
Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras,
Chennai-600036, India
E-mail: vivek@civil.iitm.ernet.in

E K Kunhanandan Nambiar
Research Scholar
Building Technology and Construction Management Division,
Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras,
Chennai-600036, India

Copyright & 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 2004; 6:1–9
View publication stats