Tensile Bond Strength of Soil-Cement Block Masonry

Couplets Using Cement-Soil Mortars

B. V. Venkatarama Reddy1 and Ajay Gupta2

Abstract: Soil-cement blocks and cement-soil mortars are used for the load bearing masonry. The paper deals with the scantily explored
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

area of tensile bond strength of soil-cement block masonry using cement-soil mortars. Influence of initial moisture content of the block
and block characteristics 共strength, cement content, and surface characteristics兲 as well as composition and workability of cement-soil
mortar on direct tensile strength of masonry couplets has been explored. Major findings of this study are 共1兲 initial moisture content of the
block at the time of construction affects bond strength and use of partially saturated blocks is better than dry or fully saturated blocks; 共2兲
as the cement content of the block increases, its strength increases, and surface pore size decreases leading to higher bond strength
irrespective of the type of mortar; 共3兲 cement-soil mortar gives 15–50% more bond strength when compared to cement mortar and
cement-lime mortar; and 共4兲 bond strength of cement-soil mortar decreases with increase in clay content of the mortar. The study clearly
demonstrates the superiority of cement-soil mortar over other conventional mortar such as cement mortar. The results of this paper can be
conveniently used to select a proportion for cement-soil mortar for soil-cement block masonry structures.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0899-1561共2006兲18:1共36兲
CE Database subject headings: Soil cement; Masonry; Tensile strength; Bonding strength; Mortars; Blocks.

Introduction ing soil-cement block masonry residential building. Composite

mortars like cement-soil mortars are commonly used for such
A perfect bond between masonry unit and mortar is essential for constructions. There are only limited studies on bond strength of
the masonry to perform satisfactorily. Bond strength becomes sig- soil-cement block masonry using composite mortars like cement-
nificantly important when the masonry is subjected to in- and soil mortar. Hence an attempt has been made for a systematic
out-of-plane bending and in-plane forces, responsible for devel- study on the tensile bond strength of soil-cement block masonry.
opment of tensile and shear stresses. A large number of param- This study is focused on the tensile bond strength of masonry
eters pertaining to masonry units, mortars, and construction couplets using soil-cement blocks with cement-soil mortars. The
practices influence the bond strength development in masonry. cement mortar and cement-lime mortar have also been considered
Groot 共1993兲 lists a large number of parameters relating to the for the purpose of comparison.
masonry unit characteristics, mortar characteristics, and bond
morphology. Composition, water retentivity, workability, and
water content are some of the mortar related parameters respon- Earlier Studies and Scope of the Study
sible for bond strength of masonry. Similarly, surface characteris-
tics of bricks or blocks 共porosity, pore size, pore size distribution, A number of studies have been carried out to understand the bond
etc.兲, absorption characteristics, moisture content of the unit development between masonry unit and mortar. Most of the in-
during construction, etc., are the characteristics related to the ma- vestigations pertain to the bond strength development in fired clay
sonry units responsible for the bond development. Soil-cement bricks, and cement mortar or cement-lime mortar. There are only
blocks have been extensively used for the construction of load a couple of studies on bond strength of soil-cement block and
bearing masonry in India 共⬎12,000 buildings兲 and elsewhere cement-soil mortars. The results of some of the earlier studies are
共U.N. 1964; Houben and Guillaud 1994; Walker et al. 2000; highlighted below.
Venkatarama Reddy 2002兲. Figure 1 shows a 2 storey load bear- Sinha 共1967兲 investigated the influence of moisture content of
the brick at the time of casting on tensile bond strength of couplet
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of specimens. The results showed that there is an optimum moisture
Science, Bangalore 560012, India 共corresponding author兲. E-mail: content for the brick giving maximum tensile bond strength. Par-
venkat@civil.iisc.erent.in tially saturated bricks 共about 80%兲 give the highest bond strength
2
Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of whereas the dry and saturated brick results in poor bond strength.
Science, Bangalore 560012, India. E-mail: ajay@civil.iisc.ernet.in Lawrence and Cao 共1987兲 observed that the brick-mortar bond is
Note. Associate Editor: Christopher K. Y. Leung. Discussion open essentially mechanical in nature since there is movement and pen-
until July 1, 2006. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual
etration of hydration products into the brick pores during masonry
papers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must
be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper
construction.
was submitted for review and possible publication on March 15, 2004; Venu Madhava Rao et al. 共1996兲 found that higher values for
approved on February 1, 2005. This paper is part of the Journal of flexural bond strength of masonry could be obtained by using
Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 1, February 1, 2006. composite mortars like cement-soil and cement-lime mortar when
©ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/2006/1-36–45/$25.00. compared to pure cement mortar. The moisture content of the

36 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2006.18:36-45.

 comparison. The following parameters influencing interfacial ten-
sile bond strength have been investigated:
1. Initial moisture content of soil-cement block at the time of
casting the specimens;
2. Influence of soil-cement block characteristics 共strength, ce-
ment content, porosity, etc.兲 on bond strength;
3. Clay fraction and cement content of the mortars in case of
cement-soil mortars; and
4. Flow/workability characteristics of mortars.

Characteristics of Materials Used in the Study

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Characteristics of soil-cement blocks and the mortars used in this

program are highlighted below.
Fig. 1. Load bearing soil-cement block masonry residential building
Soil-Cement Blocks
Soil-cement blocks of size: 305⫻ 143⫻ 100 mm were used in this
masonry unit at the time of casting the masonry has a significant investigation. A manually operated block making machine was
influence on the flexural bond strength of masonry. Optimum employed to manufacture these blocks. Soil, sand, and cement
moisture content yielding maximum bond strength is about 75– were mixed in a mechanical mixer. The machine has fixed stroke
80% of saturated moisture content of the masonry unit. The study length such that blocks of constant thickness 共100 mm兲 are pro-
of Sarangapani 共1998兲 indicates that the composite mortars like duced. Weigh batching is adopted in order to control the block
cement-lime mortar of composition 1:1:6 and cement-soil mortar density. The blocks are cured for 28 days.
of composition 1:1:6 give better bond strengths than 1:6 cement A red loamy soil, sand, and ordinary portland cement were
mortar. Walker 共1999兲 examined the bond characteristics of earth used for the block production. The soil contains 23% clay size
block masonry. He varied the soil composition deliberately and fraction. The liquid limit and plasticity index of the soil used for
studied the characteristics of soil-cement blocks and flexural bond block production are 44.58% and 23.88, respectively. Highly
strength of soil-cement block prisms using cement-soil mortar. He sandy soils are used for the construction of soil-cement block
has concluded that as the clay content of the mortar increases buildings in the Indian context. Earlier studies 共Olivier and
bond strength decreases. The maximum bond strength is achieved Mesbah 1987; Heathcote 1991; Venkatarama Reddy 1991;
when the initial moisture content of the block is about half the Venkatarama Reddy and Jagadish 1995; Walker and Stace 1997;
saturated water content of the block. Walker did not control the Walker et al. 2000兲 indicate that sandy soils are best suited for
flow value 共workability兲 of mortars. Flow values for different soil-cement blocks. Hence a sandy soil mix was obtained by mix-
cement-soil mortar varied between 75 and 110%, which is a very ing red loamy soil and sand in the ratio of 1:2 共by weight兲 such
wide range. Flow of mortar 共workability兲 can affect the charac- that the resulting mix contains 9% clay, 17.7% silt, and 73.3%
teristics of mortar as well as bond strength. Also, the block dry sand size fractions.
density varies between 1,584 and 1,775 kg/ m3. Such wide varia- Generally, cement content in the range of 6–10% is used for
tions in dry density can lead to a considerable difference in the the manufacture of soil-cement blocks to be used for load bearing
block characteristics 共strength, porosity, etc.兲, which can affect buildings of 2 to 3 stories. The blocks used in the present study
bond strength. were manufactured by varying the cement percentage of the mix
From the limited number of earlier studies, it is clear that the in order to have a range of block strengths. Cement content of 6,
bond development between soil-cement blocks and composite 8, and 12% by weight of the mix were used for manufacturing of
mortar is not investigated in greater detail. There is no well- blocks having distinctly different strength characteristics. These
defined approach in varying the composition of cement-soil mor- blocks have been designated as SB1, SB2, and SB3 containing 6,
tars and soil-cement block characteristics to understand bond 8, and 12% cement, respectively. The dry density of the block has
strength development. In the present study, an attempt has been a controlling influence on strength as well as other characteristics
made to examine tensile bond strength of soil-cement block cou- of the block. Hence the dry density of the soil-cement blocks is
plet specimens using various combinations of blocks and mortars kept constant at 18 kN/ m3 for all three types of blocks used in
in a systematic manner. this study.
The wet compressive strength of soil-cement block is obtained
by testing it in a compression testing machine. Tensile strength of
Experimental Program the block is obtained by pulling it in direct tension with the help
of steel brackets in a universal testing machine. Blocks are soaked
Various parameters 共pertaining to block as well as mortars兲 influ- in water for 48 h prior to testing. The pore size and surface po-
encing the tensile bond strength of soil-cement block masonry rosity of soil-cement blocks is determined from the images ob-
have been examined through an experimental program by testing tained by scanning electron microscopy 共SEM兲. Samples cut from
couplets. Cement soil mortars, cement lime mortar, and cement the undisturbed block surfaces are used for SEM analysis.
mortar were used in combination with three types of soil-cement The characteristics of soil-cement blocks like compressive
blocks. The investigation is mainly focused on tensile bond strength, tensile strength, surface porosity, and surface pore size
strength of block couplets using cement-soil mortars. Cement are given in Table 1. The wet compressive strength of soil-cement
mortar and cement-lime mortar have been used for the purpose of blocks lie in the range of 3.13– 7.19 MPa for the cement content

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006 / 37

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2006.18:36-45.

 Table 1. Characteristics of Soil-Cement Blocks
Block designation

Block characteristics SB1 SB2 SB3

Cement content 共%兲 6 8 12
Compressive Mean value 3.13 5.63 7.19
strength 共MPa兲 Coefficient of 16.2 10.2 9.6
variation 共%兲
Number of 20 20 20
specimen
Mean value 0.18 0.29 0.46
Direct tensile Range 共0.17–0.22兲 共0.22–0.39兲 共0.36–0.55兲
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

strength 共MPa兲 Number of 6 6 6

specimen
Mean value 12.1 11.2 11.2
Water absorption Range 共11.5–12.9兲 共10.1–12.0兲 共10.3–12.3兲
共%兲 Number of 6 6 6
specimen
Major axis 0.28 0.22 0.12
Pore size 共mm兲 Minor axis 0.14 0.12 0.08
Number of 10 10 10 Fig. 3. Grain size distribution curves for natural soil, sand, and
pores reconstituted soils
Surface porosity 共%兲 14.8 14.1 14.9

variation of 6–12%. Compressive strength of the block increases varies with the cement content of the block. For example, there
with increase in cement content. As the cement content of the could be more number of pores of smaller size in the block hav-
blocks is doubled from 6%, the compressive strength increases by ing 12% cement as compared to blocks having 6% cement.
2.3 times. Direct tensile strength of soil-cement blocks is in the
range of 0.18– 0.46 MPa, which is about 5 to 6% of compressive Mortars
strength. The surface pores are irregular in shape. Fig. 2 shows a
typical surface pore size distribution for blocks having 12% ce- Properties of mortars greatly depend upon the water content of
ment content. The length of major and minor axes of pores differs the mix. Workability of the mortars can be quantified by conduct-
significantly. The mean size of the bigger pores lies in the range ing flow table tests. Mortars used for masonry construction will
of 0.08– 0.28 mm. The pore size of the block varies with the have a certain range of flow values indicating the workability of
cement content of the block. The blocks with 6% cement show mortar. Ajay Gupta 共2003兲 conducted flow table tests on samples
larger pore size as compared to blocks with 8 and 12% cement of fresh mortars collected from different construction sites and
content. Even though there is not much variation in surface po- their flow values were determined in the laboratory and reports
rosity 共14 to 15%兲 for different cement contents of the blocks, the flow values in the range of 86–119%. Comparing the results of
pore size decreases drastically with the increase in cement content flow values for mortars used in the field, a flow of 100% has been
of the block. Thus the number of pores and their distribution used to investigate various characteristics of mortars as well as
bond strength. The workability of mortars is maintained constant
by keeping the flow value fixed at 100%, except when flow itself
is a parameter to be varied.
For cement-soil mortars, local red loamy soil has been used.
This soil has 16% clay fraction containing predominantly kaolo-
nite clay mineral 共liquid limit= 35%, plasticity index= 15.7兲. The
clay fraction of the mortar mix is varied either by diluting with
natural sand or by removing a fraction of sand from natural soil.
Thus cement-soil mortars with four different clay fractions 共4, 8,
16, and 24%兲 were generated. The grain size distribution curves
for natural soil, river sand, and reconstituted soils are shown in
Fig. 3. Similarly, three different cement percentages 共5, 10, and
15%兲 are used.
Mortar designation, composition, flow value, water cement
ratio, and compressive strength of mortars are given in Table 2.
BS: 4551 共BSI 1980兲 guidelines are followed to carry out experi-
ments to determine the flow of mortars. Compressive strength of
the mortar was obtained by testing 70-mm size cube specimens
after 28 days curing period. The mean of six cubes tested is re-
ported as compressive strength of the mortar. Variation in com-
pressive strength of cement-soil mortar with clay fraction and
Fig. 2. Typical SEM image for soil-cement block with 12% cement cement content of the mortar mix is shown in Figs. 4 and 5,

38 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2006.18:36-45.

 Table 2. Properties of Mortars
Mortar proportions

Cement Clay Mortar Water Compressive

content 共% fraction flow cement strength Mortar
by weight兲 共%兲 共%兲 ratio 共MPa兲 designation
5 4 100 4.35 1.54 CSMA1
8 100 4.60 1.14 CSMA2
16 100 6.58 0.55 CSMA3
24 100 8.80 NIL CSMA4
10 4 100 1.96 3.42 CSMB1
8 100 2.41 2.70 CSMB2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

16 100 3.25 1.92 CSMB3

24 100 4.46 1.26 CSMB4
15 4 100 1.49 6.76 CSMC1
8 100 1.68 5.40 CSMC2
16 100 2.35 2.70 CSMC3
24 100 3.08 2.00 CSMC4
10 16 80 3.08 2.12 CSMB5
Fig. 5. Compressive strength of mortar versus cement content of the
15 16 80 2.13 3.19 CSMC5
mortar mix
1C: 6Sa 100 1.65 5.40 CM1
1C: 6Sa 80 1.50 6.00 CM2
1C: 1L: 6Sa 100 1.79 5.94 CLM1
1C: 1L: 6Sa 80 1.70 6.21 CLM2 cement-soil mortar having clay fraction less than 8% as com-
a
Mortar proportion by volume: C⫽cement; L⫽lime; and S⫽sand. pared to the other two mortar mixes having clay fraction of
16 and 24%. The percentage increase in strength with cement
content depends on clay fraction of the mortar mix. It is
respectively. The following points emerge from the results pre- noticed that there is a fivefold increase in compressive
sented in the table and these figures. strength as the cement content is increased by threefold from
1. The compressive strength of cement-soil mortar decreases 5%. The cement-soil mortars with high clay fraction of the
with the increase in clay fraction of the mortar mix for a order of 24% show zero wet compressive strength when low
given cement content 共Fig. 4兲. There is a linear relationship percentage of cement content 共5%兲 is attempted. For high
between compressive strength and clay fraction of the mortar clay fraction, the mix possesses a large number of finer par-
mix. As the clay fraction is increased by fourfold from 4%, ticles and hence a smaller quantity of cement 共5%兲 is totally
the compressive strength decreases by two- to three-fold for inadequate to stabilize, thus leading to zero wet strength.
a range of cement contents between 5 and 15%. 3. Compressive strength of cement-soil mortars increases when
2. Compressive strength increases with increase in cement con- the flow is reduced to 80% from 100%. For example, there is
tent of the cement-soil mortar irrespective of the clay fraction 10% increase in compressive strength for cement-soil mortar
共Fig. 5兲. The curves possess a steeper slope in the case of containing 10% cement content when flow is reduced to 80%
from 100%. On the other hand, an increase of 18% in com-
pressive strength is observed for mortars containing 15% ce-
ment for similar decrease in flow values.

Testing Procedure for Tensile

Bond Strength

The tensile bond strength of soil-cement block and mortar inter-

face is determined by adopting the guidelines outlined in ASTM C
952 共ASTM 1991兲. Cross couplet specimen are cast using soil-
cement blocks and various mortar compositions. The mortar bed
joint thickness of 12 mm is maintained in all the cases. Fig. 6
shows the soil-cement block couplet specimen. Mortar flow is
kept constant at 100% for casting the specimens, except when
flow itself is the parameter to be varied.
The couplets for studying the effect of moisture content of
block 共during casting兲 on tensile bond strength are prepared sepa-
rately. Moisture content of the block at the time of casting is
varied over wide limits 共0% to fully saturated state兲. The block is
oven dried at 60° C until it attains a constant weight to achieve
Fig. 4. Compressive strength of mortar versus clay fraction of the 0% moisture content. For fully saturated state the blocks are
mortar mix soaked in water for a period of 24 h prior to casting. In between

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006 / 39

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2006.18:36-45.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Soil-cement block couplet for tensile bond strength test

these two extreme moisture contents the block is soaked in water

for a definite period of time and the corresponding moisture con-
tent is calculated.
For obtaining tensile bond strength by varying other param-
eters the couplets were cast by soaking the dry blocks in water for
4 min prior to casting the couplets. It can be seen that by 4 min
soaking in water leads to a moisture content value of 11.5, 9, and
5.5% for SB1, SB2, and SB3 blocks, respectively. These moisture
content values are the optimum moisture content values corre-
Fig. 8. Variation in tensile bond strength with moisture content of the
sponding to maximum tensile bond strength as discussed in sub-
block at the time of casting 共SB2 block兲
sequent sections.

soil-cement block, and composition of cement-soil mortars on the

Results and Discussion tensile bond strength are examined for various block and mortar
combinations. Details of the test results are discussed below.
Parameters like influence of moisture content of the block at the
time of casting the specimens, flow of mortars, different types of
Influence of Moisture Content of the Block at the Time
of Casting Specimens on Tensile Bond Strength
Influence of moisture content of the block at the time of casting
the specimen, on tensile bond strength is examined using three
different blocks 共SB1, SB2, and SB3兲 with cement mortar,
cement-lime mortar, and cement-soil mortars. Variation in tensile
bond strength with the moisture content of the block at the time of
casting is shown in Figs. 7–9 for couplets using SB1, SB2, and
SB3 blocks, respectively. The following observations can be
made from the results shown in these figures.
1. The tensile bond strength for various combinations of mortar
and block lie in the range of 0.06– 0.25 MPa. The tensile
bond strength increases with the increase in moisture content
of the block 共starting from 0%, completely dry block兲,
reaches a peak value, and then decreases as moisture content
of the block approaches the saturated value for all three types
of soil-cement blocks. Thus the maximum bond strength is
achieved by using a partially saturated block irrespective of
the mortar type and the block type. However, the magnitude
of optimum moisture content of the block at the time of
casting resulting in highest bond strength varies with the
block type and its characteristics. For example, in case of
SB1 and SB2 blocks, the maximum bond strength is
achieved when the moisture content of the block at the time
of casting is about 75% of the saturated moisture content for
all the mortars tried, except in a couple of cases using SB1
Fig. 7. Variation in tensile bond strength with moisture content of the blocks with cement-lime mortar and cement-soil mortar.
block at the time of casting 共SB1 block兲 Whereas for SB3 blocks the optimum moisture content is

40 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2006.18:36-45.

 Table 3. Tensile Bond Strength for Various Mortar and Block
Combinations
Optimum tensile bond strength
共MPa兲

Range of values Type of

Mortar Block Mean failure
type type value Minimum Maximum pattern
CM1 SB1 0.09 0.04 0.13 A, D
CM1 SB2 0.16 0.04 0.23 C, D
CM1 SB3 0.18 0.15 0.21 C, D
CLM1 SB1 0.13 0.10 0.18 A, C
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

CLM1 SB2 0.18 0.14 0.25 A

CLM1 SB3 0.23 0.19 0.26 C, D, B
CSMB3 SB1 0.11 0.09 0.14 A, D
CSMB3 SB2 0.13 0.09 0.17 C
CSMB3 SB3 0.14 0.13 0.15 B
CSMC3 SB1 0.14 0.13 0.15 A, D
CSMC3 SB2 0.20 0.11 0.24 A, C
CSMC3 SB3 0.25 0.22 0.27 B, D

value of tensile bond strength, range of bond strength values, and

failure patterns. Fig. 10 shows the values of optimum tensile bond
Fig. 9. Variation in tensile bond strength with moisture content of the strength plotted against the compressive strength of the soil-
block at the time of casting 共SB3 block兲 cement blocks. The variation in optimum tensile bond strength
with the pore size of the blocks is shown in Fig. 11. The following
points emerge from the results shown in these figures and Table 3.
about 50% of the saturated moisture content. The study con-
1. Tensile bond strength increases with the increase in cement
ducted by Venu Madhava Rao et al. 共1996兲 also indicates that
content of the block 共i.e., compressive strength兲. The opti-
the optimum flexural bond strength of soil-cement block ma-
mum tensile bond strength values for various mortar and
sonry is achieved for partially saturated block. Walker 共1999兲
block combinations are in the range of 0.09– 0.25 MPa.
concludes that initial moisture content of 50% for the block
There is a linear relationship 共irrespective of mortar type兲
gives maximum bond strength.
between tensile bond strength and compressive strength of
2. Completely dry or fully saturated blocks, used at the time of
the block 共Fig. 10兲. The increase in tensile bond strength
casting the specimens, lead to low tensile bond strengths as
with the increase in cement content of the block is maximum
illustrated in Figs. 7–9. The magnitude of tensile bond
for cement mortar and cement-lime mortar when compared
strength at dry or saturated condition of the block is about
with cement-soil mortars. For example, in the case of cement
20–55% of the optimum bond strength values for various
mortar and cement-lime mortar, tensile bond strength almost
block and mortar combinations. The difference between the
optimum and least tensile bond strength values is maximum
for cement-soil mortars when compared with cement mortar
and cement-lime mortar. Low value of tensile bond strength
at dry condition of the block may be attributed to the fact that
the block in completely dry state can absorb more water from
the fresh mortar bed leading to a low water-cement ratio in
the fresh mortar causing improper hydration of cement in the
fresh mortar. This can impair proper bond development at the
block-mortar interface. On the other hand, when fully
saturated block is used, the block almost floats over the
water-rich fresh mortar bed thus reducing the chances of the
penetration of hydrated cement products into the pores of the
blocks. It is to be noted here that bond formation is purely a
mechanical phenomenon, thus lack of penetration of hy-
drated cement products can result in improper bond forma-
tion 共Lawrence and Cao 1987兲.

Influence of the Block Characteristics on Tensile

Bond Strength
The optimum tensile bond strength values for various mortar and
block combinations 共from Figs. 7–9兲 are tabulated in Table 3. Fig. 10. Tensile bond strength of masonry versus compressive
This table gives details of mortar designation, block type, mean strength of soil-cement blocks

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006 / 41

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2006.18:36-45.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 12. Tensile bond strength of masonry versus clay content of

Fig. 11. Tensile bond strength of masonry versus pore size of mortar mix
soil-cement blocks

mortars namely cement mortar, cement-lime mortar, and cement-

doubles with a 2.3 times increase in compressive strength of soil mortar containing 15% cement content have nearly similar
the block from 3.13 MPa. In the case of leaner cement-soil cement percentage in the mortar mix. Among these three mortars,
mortar 共containing 10% cement兲, there is an increase of cement-soil mortar possesses the maximum tensile bond strength
about one-third, whereas, for slightly richer cement-soil mor- as compared to the other two mortars irrespective of block type.
tar 共containing 15% cement兲, the increase in tensile bond Cement-soil mortar with 15% cement content gives 10–15%
strength is two-thirds for the similar increase in block com- higher tensile bond strength when compared to cement-lime mor-
pressive strength. tar. On the other hand, when compared with the values for cement
2. The increase in bond strength with compressive strength of mortar the increase in tensile bond strength lies in the range of
the block can be correlated to the pore size and its distribu- 25–50%.
tion on the block surface. Size of the pores on the block
surface reduces with increase in cement content of the block
Influence of Cement Content and Clay Fraction
共Table 1兲. The blocks with higher cement content 共12%兲 pos-
of the Mortar Mix on Tensile Bond Strength
sess a large number of smaller diameter pores as compared to
block with lower cement content 共6%兲 because the surface Influence of cement content and clay fraction of the mortar mix
porosity is same for both these blocks. Large numbers of 共in the case of cement-soil mortar兲 on the tensile bond strength is
pores encourage better mechanical interlocking of hydration examined using SB3 blocks. The variation of tensile bond
products at the block-mortar interface. Thus block with strength with clay fraction of the mortar mix is shown in Fig. 12.
higher cement content 共large number of smaller pores兲 leads There is a linear relationship between bond strength and clay
to better bond strength values 共Fig. 11兲. fraction of the mortar. The tensile bond strength decreases with
3. Table 3 gives the range of bond strength values as well as the increase in clay fraction of the mortar mix. There is a decrease
mean bond strength value. The ranges of values clearly indi- of about 20% in tensile bond strength when the clay fraction of
cate that the scatter in the tensile bond strength values is the mortar mix is increased by sixfold from 4% for cement-soil
more for cement mortar and cement lime mortar when com- mortar containing 10% cement. Whereas a decrease of 34% is
pared to cement soil mortar. Similarly the scatter is high for observed in the case of cement-soil mortar with 15% cement for
couplets with lower cement content blocks 共SB1 and SB2兲 similar increase in the clay fraction. The results show that the
when compared to the values of couplets using SB3 blocks tensile bond strength is more sensitive to the cement content of
共higher cement content兲. Higher cement content in block the mortar mix as compared to the clay fraction. For example,
leads to increase in strength and decrease in pore size and there is 50–60% increase in tensile bond strength when the ce-
increase in pore density. A greater number of smaller pores is ment content of the mortar mix is increased by 50% from initial
leading to less scatter in the tensile bond strength values. 10% 共Fig. 12兲. Highest individual value of optimum tensile bond
It should be noted here that wide scatter in the tensile strength is noticed for cement-soil mortar having 16% clay and
bond strength values have been reported by Sinha 共1967兲; 15% cement for the couplets using all three types of soil-cement
Venumadhava Rao et al. 共1996兲; and Groot 共1993兲. blocks.

Influence of Mortar Type on Tensile Bond Strength Influence of Flow of Mortars on the Tensile
Bond Strength
The optimum tensile bond strength values for various mortar and
block combinations are in the range of 0.09– 0.25 MPa and are Influence of flow of mortars on tensile bond strength of couplets
tabulated in Table 3. The results show that the composite mortars is examined for cement mortar, cement-lime mortar, and cement-
such as cement-lime mortar and cement-soil mortars have better soil mortar using SB3 blocks. A comparison of tensile bond
tensile bond strength as compared to cement mortar. The three strength values with flow of different mortars is shown in Fig. 13.

42 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2006.18:36-45.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 14. Complete block failure 共Type A兲

Fig. 13. Tensile bond strength of masonry versus flow of mortar of failure can be attributed to lower tensile strength of block when
compared with tensile bond strength of the interface and tensile
strength of mortar.
There is a decrease in tensile bond strength when the flow of
mortars is reduced to 80% from 100% in all three cases. The Complete Mortar Failure „Type B…
percentage decrease in tensile bond strength is maximum for
cement-soil mortar as compared to the other two mortars. Tensile Fig. 15 shows the failure of the joint in which mortar has failed
bond strength decreases by about 5–9% in the case of cement completely. This type of failure is common in soil-cement block
mortar and cement-lime mortar for a decrease in flow from 100 to couplets using SB3 blocks with the leaner cement-soil mortar
80%. On the other hand, for cement-soil mortar the tensile bond containing 10% cement. This may be due to superior bond
strength decreases by 26% for the similar reduction in flow. The strength of the interface as well as the tensile strength of block as
average value of flow used in the field for the construction of compared to the mortar tensile strength.
soil-cement block buildings is about 100%. As the flow is reduced
below 100%, the mortar becomes dry, which will reduce the mor- Complete Interface Failure „Type C…
tar workability and hence it will become difficult for the fresh
mortar to effectively penetrate the pores on the block surface, Fig. 16 shows the complete interface failure of block and mortar
leading to reduced bond strength. joint. These types of failures are observed mainly in soil-cement
block couplets using SB2 and SB3 blocks and in some cases
using SB1 blocks also. This type of failure can be attributed to
interfacial bond strength being lower as compared to tensile
Failure Patterns for the Couplets Under Direct
strength of block and mortar.
Tensile Bond Test

As expected joint failure in tension test was sudden and brittle. A Partial Interface Failure „Type D…
number of failure patterns are observed during testing of the soil-
In partial interface failure one can notice that a portion of either
cement block couplets. Failure of the block-mortar interface dur-
block or mortar will be sticking to one another. Fig. 17 shows the
ing direct tensile bond tests using couplets can take place in any
of the following patterns.
1. Complete block failure 共Type A兲;
2. Complete mortar failure 共Type B兲;
3. Complete block-mortar interface failure 共Type C兲; and
4. Partial block-mortar interface failure 共Type D兲.
The type of failure depends on the relative strength of block,
mortar, and bond between block and mortar in direct tension.
Details of these failure patterns are discussed below.

Complete Block Failure „Type A…

Fig. 14 shows complete block failure of the couplet specimen in
direct tension. In this type of failure, the block fails completely at
the interface due to direct tension. This type of failure is mainly
observed in soil-cement block couplets using SB1 blocks irre-
spective of the mortar type, also in a couple of cases using SB2
blocks with cement-lime mortar and cement-soil mortar. It is to be
noted here that the tensile strength of SB1 blocks is very low as
compared to other two blocks, SB2 and SB3 共Table 1兲. This type Fig. 15. Complete mortar failure 共Type B兲

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006 / 43

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2006.18:36-45.

 2. Completely dry or fully saturated blocks, used for casting the
specimens, lead to low tensile bond strengths. The tensile
bond strengths at dry or fully saturated condition of the block
are about 20–55% of the optimum bond strength values using
partially saturated blocks for various block and mortar com-
binations. The difference between the optimum and least ten-
sile bond strength values is maximum for cement-soil mor-
tars when compared with cement mortar and cement-lime
mortar.
3. The tensile bond strength results show that the composite
mortars like cement-lime mortar and cement-soil mortars
have better tensile bond strength as compared to cement mor-
tar. The cement-soil mortar 共with 15% cement兲 has 15–50%
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

higher tensile bond strength as compared to cement mortar

and cement-lime mortar.
Fig. 16. Complete interface failure 共Type C兲 4. Tensile bond strength increases with the increase in cement
content of the block irrespective of type of mortar. It should
be noted here that the pore size of block decreases with the
partial interface failure of the couplets. This is the most common increase in cement content, although the surface porosity re-
type of failure seen in maximum numbers of specimens. mains the same.
5. The tensile bond strength decreases with the increase in clay
fraction of cement-soil mortar. There is a decrease of about
Summary and Conclusions 20–34% in tensile bond strength when the clay fraction of
the cement-soil mortar is increased by sixfold from 4%. The
Tensile bond strength of soil-cement block couplets using cement results show that the tensile bond strength is more sensitive
soil mortars, cement mortar, and cement-lime mortar are studied to the cement content of the mortar mix as compared to the
using various combinations of blocks and mortars. Based on these clay fraction, when very low cement contents are tried.
experimental results, the following conclusions can be drawn. 6. There is a decrease in tensile bond strength when the flow of
1. The optimum tensile bond strength for various combinations mortars is reduced to 80% from 100%. The percentage de-
of mortar and soil-cement blocks lie in the range of crease in tensile bond strength is more for cement-soil mortar
0.06– 0.25 MPa. The tensile bond strength is sensitive to ini- as compared to cement mortar and cement-lime mortar.
tial moisture content of the block at the time of construction. 7. The failure of block-mortar interface can take place with the
Partially saturated blocks give higher tensile bond strength failure of block, mortar, complete interface, or partial inter-
when compared to dry or saturated blocks. The optimum face failure. The failure pattern depends on the relative ten-
moisture content of block at the time of casting resulting in sile strength of block, mortar, and block-mortar interface.
highest bond strength varies with the block type and its char- The study clearly indicates the use of cement-soil mortars
acteristics. Blocks with lower cement content 共having lower 共with 10–15% clay fraction and 15% cement兲 is preferable when
compressive strength兲 have optimum moisture content close compared to most commonly used 共Indian context兲 pure cement
to saturation value. As the cement content of the block in- mortars of 1:6 proportion. Also, cement content of the soil-cement
creases the optimum moisture content shifts towards the dry block plays a crucial role in controlling the pore size as well as
side. Optimum moisture content values for the soil-cement bond strength other than compressive strength. The results of this
blocks 共during construction兲 resulting in highest bond paper can be conveniently used to select a combination of cement
strength is 75% of saturated value for SB1 and SB2 blocks content for the block as well as proportion of cement-soil mortar
共cement content of block 6–8%兲, whereas for SB3 block 共ce- for any specific load bearing masonry structure.
ment content 12%兲 it is 50% of saturated value.

References

ASTM. 共1991兲. “Standard test method for bond strength of mortar to

masonry units.” ASTM C 952-91, American Society for Testing and
Materials, Philadelphia.
British Standards Institution 共BSI兲. 共1980兲. “British standard methods of
testing mortars, screeds and plasters.” BS 4551, London.
Groot, C. 共1993兲. “Effects of water on mortar-brick bond.” PhD
thesis, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Delft Univ. of Technology, The
Netherlands.
Gupta, A. 共2003兲. “Studies on characteristics of cement-soil mortars and
soil-cement block masonry.” MSc 共Engineering兲 thesis, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India.
Heathcote, K. 共1991兲. “Compressive strength of cement stabilized pressed
earth blocks.” Build. Res. Inf., 19共2兲, 101–105.
Houben, H., and Guillaud, H. 共1994兲. Earth construction—A comprehen-
sive guide, Intermediate Technology, London.
Fig. 17. Partial interface failure 共Type D兲 Lawrence, S. J., and Cao, H. T. 共1987兲. “An experimental study of the

44 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2006.18:36-45.

 interface between brick and mortar.” Proc., 4th N. Am. Masonry construction in India.” Proc., National Workshop on Alternative
Conf., Dublin, 194–204. Building Methods, Bangalore, India, 84–94.
Olivier, M., and Mesbah, A. 共1987兲. “Influence of different parameters on Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., and Jagdish, K. S. 共1995兲. “Influence of soil
the resistance of earth, used as a building materials.” Int. Conf. on composition on the strength and durability of soil-cement blocks.”
Mud Architecture, Trivandrum, India. Indian Concr. J., 69共9兲, 517–524.
Sarangapani, G. 共1998兲. “Studies on the strength of brick masonry.” PhD Venu Madhava Rao, K., Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., and Jagdish, K. S.
thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Banga- 共1996兲. “Flexural bond strength of masonry using various blocks and
lore, India. mortars.” Mater. Struct., 29, 119–124.
Sinha, B. P. 共1967兲. “Model studies related to load bearing brickwork.” Walker, P. 共1999兲. “Bond characteristics of earth block masonry.”J.
PhD thesis, Univ. of Edinburgh, U.K. Mater. Civ. Eng., 11共3兲, 249–256.
U.N. Report. 共1964兲. Soil-cement—Its use in building, Dept. of Economic Walker, P., and Stace, T. 共1997兲. “Properties of some cement stabilized
and Social Affairs, United Nations, New York. compressed earth blocks and mortars.” Mater. Struct., 30, 545–551.
Venkatarama Reddy, B. V. 共1991兲. “Studies on static soil compaction and Walker, P., Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., Mesbah, A., and Morel, J.-C.
共2000兲. “The case for compressed earth block construction.” Proc.,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/20/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

compacted soil-cement blocks for walls.” PhD thesis, Dept. of Civil

Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India. 6th Int. Seminar on Structural Masonry for Developing Countries,
Venkatarama Reddy, B. V. 共2002兲. “Progress of stabilized mud block Bangalore, India, 27–35.

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2006 / 45

J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2006.18:36-45.