u.s. - JAPAN COORDINATED PROGRAM

FOR

MASONRY BUILDING RESEARCH

III 11111111111 1111111111 1111111 PB93-212876

REPORT NO.1. 1-1

A COMPARISON OF THE BEHAVIOR OF CLAY AND CONCRETE MASONRY

IN COMPRESSION

by

R. H. ATKINSON

G. R. KINGSLEY

SEPTEMBER 1985

supported by:

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

GRANT NO, ECE-8412279

Atkinson-Noland & Associates

11111111111111 I1I1I111 II 1111111

A COMPARISON OF THE BEHAVIOR OF CLAY AND CONCRETE MASONRY

IN COMPRESSION

conducted by:

ATKI'NSON-NOLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2619 Spruce Street

Boulder, Colorado 80302 (303) 444-3620

Project Director and Principal Investigator: Richard H. Atkinson

Project Engineer: Gregory R. Kingsley

September 1985

PB93-212876

PREFACE

1 . 1 of the U. S. Coordina':ed P:;:oog:;:O:3.Jn for :'1a:::':lnry ;3ui Iding ~esearch. The program consti tntes the U:n::' t:;;:d S'~::,~~c-,,:; ;)c~rt C'f the United States - Japan. coordinated masonry r~search

program conducted under the auspices of and Seismic Effects of the U.S. - Japan Development Program (UJNR).

!~e Panel on Wind

!his material is based on work supported by the ~ation-al Science Foundation under Grant No. SEZ - 8412279, Pro-gram Director: Dr. A. J. Eggenberger.

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommenda­tions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundatiori and the United States Government.

ABSTRACT

Current design codes do not distinguish between clay and concrete masonry for purposes of design, assuming that both materials behave identically under load. The research com­munity has not, however, established that this assumption is justified, and, at great expense, continues to conduct sepa­rate research for each material. The primary objective of this project, then, was to investigate the extent to which clay and concrete hollow unit masonry have similar behavior­al characteristics.

Ten series of tests, each consisting of five clay and five concrete prisms were conducted to determine the influence of unit size, grouting, mortar strength, grout strength, bond pattern, load direction, and platen restraint on the rela­tive behavior of clay and concrete masonry. It was conclud­ed that, while clay and concrete prisms sometimes exhibited different failure mechanisms and responded differently to some parameter changes, the shapes of the compressive stress strain curves were consistently similar, and the two masonry types could therefore be considered as one material for purposes of design.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT 1.2 OBJECTIVE

2.

1.3 SCOPE

1. 3.1 1. 3.2 1. 3.3 1. 3.4 1. 3.5 1. 3.6 1.3.7

BACKGROUND

UNIT WIDTH UNGROUTED PRISMS MORTAR STRENGTH GROUT STRENGTH BOND PATTERN LOAD DIRECTION REDUCED PLATEN CONSTRAINT

iii

v

1

1 2 2

3 3 3 3 4 4 4

5

2.1 INTRODUCTION 5

3.

4.

2.2 HOLLOW OR GROUTED CONCRETE MASONRY RESEARCH 6

2 . 2 . 1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4

HAMID AND DRYSDALE HEGEMIER ET AL PRIESTLY AND ELDER MAURENBRECHER

2.3 HOLLOW OR GROUTED CLAY MASONRY RESEARCH 2.3.1 MILLER AND RIDINGER 2.3.2 BIA 2.3.3 BROWN AND WHITLOCK

MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND TEST PROCEDURES

3.1 INTRODUCTION 3.2 MASONRY UNITS 3.3 MORTAR 3.4 GROUT 3.5 PRISM CONSTRUCTION 3.6 PRISM INSTRUMENTATION 3.7 PRISM TRANSPORTATION 3.8 TEST MACHINE 3.9 INTERFACE FRICTION REDUCTION 3.10 PRISM TESTS 3.11 MODIFICATION OF STRESS/STRAIN DATA

TO ACCOUNT FOR MACHINE STIFFNESS

RESULTS OF PRISM TESTS

4.1 STRESS/STRAIN CURVES

7 7 8 9

9 10 11 11

13

13 13 15 17 23 24 26 27 28 28

29

33

33

5.

6.

4.1.1 4.1. 2

4.1. 3 4.1. 4 4.1. 5 4.1.6

ULTIMATE STRENGTH AND STRAIN SECANT MODULUS AND SLOPE OF FALLING BRANCH RESIDUAL STRENGTH TOUGHNESS POISSON'S RATIO COMPONENT MATERIALS

4.2 FAILURE MODES

4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3

4.2.4

GROUTED PRISMS UNGROUTED PRISMS PRISMS LOADED PARALLEL TO THE BEDJOINT PRISMS WITH REDUCED PLATEN CONSTRAINT

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12

INTRODUCTION EFFECT OF UNIT SIZE EFFECT OF GROUTING EFFECT OF MORTAR TYPE EFFECT OF GROUT STRENGTH EFFECT OF BOND PATTERN EFFECT OF LOADING DIRECTION EFFECT OF REDUCED PLATEN CONSTRAINT FAILURE MODES AGREEMENT OF RESULTS WITH PREVIOUS WORK SHAPE OF THE STRESS-STRAIN CURVES IMPLICATIONS ON DESIGN

5.11.1 WORKING STRESS DESIGN 5.11.2 ULTIMATE STRENGTH DESIGN

CONCLUSIONS

6.1 SUMMARY 6.2 CONCLUSIONS 6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES

REFERENCES

APPENDIX: INDIVIDUAL TEST RESULTS

ii

33

52 53 53 53 54

54

54 54

55 55

57

57 57 58 60 60 61 61 62 65 66 66 72

72 73

75

75 75 76

79

85

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE NO.

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6

Hollow unit dimensions Distribution of mortar strength Grout compaction in clay prisms Grout compaction in concrete prisms Mortared and grouted areas of prisms Prism instrumentation

14 17 21 22 24 25

3.7 Prism instrumentation for reduced platen

3.8 3.9 3.10

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16

4.17 4.18

4.19

4.20

4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24

4.25 4.26 4.27

4.28

5.1

restraint series Prism in place in test machine Uncorrected stress-st~ain data Corrected stress-strain data

26 27 32 33

Stress-strain data: Stress-strain data: Stress-strain data: Stress-strain data: Stress-strain data: Stress-strain data: Stress-strain data: Stress-strain data: Stress-strain data: stress-strain data: Stress-strain data: Stress-strain data: Stress-strain data: Stress-strain data: Stress-strain data: Stress-strain data: concrete Stress-strain data: Stress-strain data:

6" grouted - clay 35 6" grouted - concrete 35 4/1 grouted - clay 36 4" grouted - concrete 36 8/1 grouted - clay 37 8/1 grouted - concrete 37 6" ungrouted - clay 38 6" ungrouted - concrete 38 8" ungrouted - clay 39 8" ungrouted - concrete 39 running bond - clay 40 running bond - concrete 40 type s mortar - clay 41 type s mortar - concrete 41 high strength grout - clay 42 high strength grout -

42 load II to bedjoint - clay 43 load II to bedjoint -

concrete 43 Stress-strain data: reduced platen restraint-clay 44 Stress-strain data: reduced platen restraint-concrete Example of vertical strain gage data Example of horizontal strain gage data Example of external LVDT data Example of strain gage data from reduced platen constraint tests Clay prism failures Concrete prism failures Failure of clay prism with reduced platen constraint Failure of concrete prism with reduced platen constraint

Prism strength vs. unit size for grouted prisms and ungrouted prisms

iii

44 45 45 46

47 48 49

50

51

58

5.2 Distribution of secant modulus data for clay and concrete prisms 68

5.3 Distribution of peak strain data for clay and concrete prisms 69

5.4 Distribution of area-under-curve at 1.5 X Ep for clay and concrete prisms 70

5.5 Distribution of area-under-curve at 2.0 X Ep for clay and concrete prisms 71

iv

TABLE NO.

3.1

3.2

3.3

4.1

LIST OF TABLES

TITLE

UNIT PROPERTIES

SAND GRADATION

GROUT PROPERTIES

PRISM TEST DATA

v

PAGE

15

16

20

34

I. INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Masonry construction in seismic zones is usually

grouted hollow concrete block or grouted clay unit masonry.

Current building codes that include masonry design criteria

[39] do not differentiate between clay and concrete masonry

for purposes of design, assuming that the different mater­

ials behave identically under load. The research community

has not, however, established that this assumption is justi­

fied, and has typically considered clay and concrete to be

separate and unique materials. It is important, then, for

the efficient progress of future masonry research and the

subsequent development of design standards, to investigate

the extent to which the two distinct types of masonry mater­

ials have similar engineering behavior characteristics.

While numerous researchers have examined the behavior

of clay or concrete masonry [1-44], few have studied both

materials simultaneously under similar conditions

[26,22,12,42]. So despite the abundance of data available,

the inherent variability of masonry materials and the sensi­

tivity of test results to laboratory procedures [7] makes it

difficult to assimilate and compare the existing data. Fur­

thermore, there are few studies of clay or concrete masonry

so similar in scope that the effect of a single isolated

variable can be compared between two studies of different

materials.

Few researchers [19,35] have had the opportunity to

1

obtain stress-strain data beyond ultimate strength for high

strength masonry specimens. It is essential to obtain com-

plete post-peak stress-strain curves for both clay and con­

crete masonry for development of ultimate strength and

limit-states design standards.

1.2 OBJECTIVE

The objective of thi~ study was to conduct parallel

compression tests of clay and concrete masonry prisms under

essentially identical conditions, and to determine if the

two materials may justifiably be considered identical for pur­

poses of design. In addition, an effort was made to exercise

careful control of laboratory practices as a step towards

better standardization of laboratory procedures (The labora­

tory practices will be documented in separate reports).

1.3 SCOPE

Over one hundred four-unit high clay and concrete mas­

onry prisms were tested in uniaxial compression to strains

well beyond the strain at ultimate strength. Both clay and

concrete units were limited to nominally 16 11 long hollow

units; cavity wall construction was not within the scope of

this investigation. Ten series of tests, each including ten

prisms, (five clay and five concrete), were conducted, in

which one parameter was changed for each series. Most

series had counterparts in other research programs in order

to facilitate comparisons. The "baseline l' or control series

consisted of grouted stack-bond prisms, nominally 6 inches

2

in width, and constructed with type-N mortar. The remaining

nine series are described individually below. It should be

emphasized that each of the parameter studies was cursory in

nature; no attempt was made to conduct a comprehensive

study over a wide range of variable values, since this type

of study has been done elsewhere [6,8]. The purpose was to

observe the relative effect of each parameter on clay and

concrete prisms.

1.3.1 UNIT WIDTH

The effect of varying unit width was investigated by

including two additional series, one with nominal 4-inch

width units and the other with nominal 8 inch width units.

The changing unit size was also reflected in the increasing

ratio of grouted-to-gross area.

1.3.2 UNGROUTED PRISMS

Two series of ungrouted prisms were included, one with

nominal 6-inch width units and another with nominal 8-inch

width units.

1.3.3 MORTAR STRENGTH

One series of prisms was constructed with Type S mortar

rather than the standard Type N mortar used for all other

prisms.

1.3.4 GROUT STRENGTH

One series contained grout with doubled cement content

and reduced water-cement ratio in order to investigate the

effect of grout properties on prism behavior.

3

1.3.5 BOND PATTERN

One series of prisms was constructed in running bond

rather than stack-bond.

1.3.6 LOAD DIRECTION

It is well known that masonry does not behave isotrop­

ically for many types of stress states. The degree of

anisotropy displayed by the prisms was investigated by load­

ing one series in a direction parallel to the bed joints.

1.3.7 REDUCED PLATEN RESTRAINT

It has been proposed that masonry prisms be tested in a

manner such that the frictional restraint of the platens on

the prism ends he reduced such that the failure mechanism of

prisms would approximate that which occurs in full size

walls [30]. One series was tested with lubricated Teflon

sheets on prism ends in order to investigate the influence

of platen restraint on the relative lateral stress distribu­

tions and failure modes of clay and concrete prisms.

4

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 INTRODUCTION

A survey of published research studies of masonry be­

havior at the material level reveals that the majority of

work has been directed toward concrete block masonry. Con­

ventional clay solid-unit masonry has also been studied, but

relatively few studies have been directed towards hollow

clay unit masonry. The studies on concrete block masonry

have included concentric and eccentric axial loadings on

beth grouted and ungrouted specimens,[4,8,18,19,26,42] and

also shear strength, and direct and flexural tensile

strength studies on the same materials [9,14,15].

Most information on clay unit masonry has been limited

to conventional solid or cored-unit construction [6,12,42].

This type of masonry is not usually reinforced except when

it is employed in multiple-wythe construction with a grouted

reinforced core between wythes. Available data for hollow

unit clay masonry is generally limited to ungrouted masonry

[17,22,28,30,36] with very little data available on grouted

ur.it clay masonry [6].

A significant limitation for all of the studies listed

above is that no information on post-peak behavior is pro­

vided. Many studies provide only strength data while many

of those studies that did include deformation measurements

are of limited use, as often the researcher would remove the

deformation transducers (typically LVDT's) prior to the

brittle, explosive failures experienced to avoid damage to

5

the transducer.

To obtain the complete stress-strain curve for masonry

requires a large capacity, very stiff testing machine which

have only recently become available in the form of the most

recent generation of servo-controlled hydraulic testing ma­

chines. The only available results on the complete stress­

strain curve for masonry are from studies of New Zealand

concrete and clay unit masonry [34,35,38]. These studies

have noted the apparent similarity between the post-peak

response of masonry and plain concrete.

Most of the studies cited above have concentrated on a

single type of masonry with a limited range of variables

considered. Only a few investigators have tested a wide

range of masonry types, sizes and strengths in the same

study [12,22,26]. Thus, information on which to evaluate

the commonality of masonry behavior is quite limited.

A limited selection of recent, immediately pertinent

studies are briefly outlined in the following two sections.

They are presented in separate sections for clay and con­

cr~te, and are limited to hollow unit masonry studies.

2.2 HOLLOW OR GROUTED CONCRETE MASONRY RESEARCH

Concrete masonry has enjoyed significantly more atten-

tion than hollow clay masonry. Several studies covering

stress strain behavior under uniaxial compression and eccen­

tric compression are listed in the following sections.

6

2.2.1 HAMID AND DRYSDALE [7,8,10,16]

Hamid and Drysdale have investigated the influence of

many parameters on concrete block prisms under axial [8,16]

and eccentric [10J compressive loading. Results show that

the average compressive strength of grouted prisms (based on

the gross area) was less than for similar ungrouted prisms

(based on the net area). The authors emphasize that super­

position of grout strength and ungrouted prism strength is

not justified due to the incompatability of the block and

grout deformation characteristics. They suggest that the

lateral expansion of the grout induces increased tensile

stresses in the block that lead to splitting failure of the

block at lower axial compressive strains than for ungrouted

prisms. Also of interest ~s their finding that large in­

creases in mortar or grout strength result in relatively

small increases in prism strength. Mortar joint thickness

also had little significant effect on prism strength.

While some deformation data was recorded, most results

are presented only in terms of compressive strength.

2.2.2 HEGEMIER et.al [19]

Hegemier conducted a study to evaluate the effect of

various parameters on the results of grouted concrete prism

tests. In particular they investigated the influence of

prism height, platen restraint, mortar strength, mortar

joint thickness, bond pattern and bearing plate thickness.

Like Hamid and Drysdale, they observed that mortar joint

thickness and mortar strength had little influence on prism

7

strength. Bond pattern had a significant effect, as some

running bond prisms showed a 16% lower compressive strength

than stack bond prisms. Platen restraint was also shown to

have a significant effect on prism strength, yielding flm

values that were from 35 to 62 percent greater than for

prisms with reduced end restraint.

While deformations were measured in each test, and

tests were carried into the post peak region, the only

measure of performance presented is compressive strength.

2.2.3 PRIESTLY AND ELDER [35]

Priestly and Elder conducted a study of grouted con­

crete prisms in compression which, in addition to compres­

sive strength, measured stress-strain characteristics- such

as strain at maximum stress and slope of the post-peak

falling branch of the stress strain curve. Parameters in­

vestigated included masonry unit thickness, loading rate,

presence of flue (vertical) reinforcement and presence of

confining plates. Results showed that, with minor adjust­

ments, the Kent-Park stress-strain model for concrete [21]

predicted behavior of confined and unconfined prisms ade­

quately.

The presence of confining plates changed the failure

mode from vertical splitting to one involving a shear/com­

pression failure, and significantly increased the ductility

of the prisms. Block width and vertical reinforcement had

little influence on masonry behavior.

The nature of their study was preliminary and no at-

8

tempt was made to investigate a wide range of material

parameters or specimen configurations. still, this is the

most informative work to date covering the complete stress­

strain behavior of grouted hollow concrete masonry.

2.2.4 MAURENBRECHER [26,27]

Maurenbrecher has conducted investigations into the ef­

fect of test procedures on masonry prisms [27] and also the

effect of eccentric loading on prism behavior [26]. These

studies include both clay brick prisms and ungrouted con­

crete block prisms. However, the clay unit used is a small

modular brick while the concrete is a hollow masonry unit,

so geometric differences might render direct comparison of

data unjustified. Parameters considered in ref.[27] were

prism height-to-thickness ratio, capping, mortar bedding,

workmanship, loading rate, age, and bond pattern. For con­

crete block masonry, only capping techniques and mortar

bedding were investigated. Mortar bedding was shown to have

no effect on strength. Running bond brick prisms were 7-13%

weaker than stack bond. Deformation data were not reported.

2.3 HOLLOW OR GROUTED CLAY MASONRY RESEARCH

Compared to hollow concrete masonry, hollow clay mason­

ry is a relatively new structural material. According to

Miller [28], hollow clay units were first developed on the

East Coast in the 1950 ' s, but soon fell out of use. Then in

the early 1970 ' s, the hollow clay unit was revived in Color­

ado, and is now becoming more popular throughout the U.S ..

9

Relatively little research on hollow clay masonry behavior

has been done. Two projects of a preliminary nature were

done at the University of Colorado in 1979 [28,36]. A

fairly large scale project was carried out by the Brick

Institute of America [45], but the results from that study

were never published. In 1982, a thorough study of hollow

clay masonry prisms in compression was done at Clemson by

Brown and Whitlock [6]. These are briefly discussed below.

2.3.1 MILLER AND RIDINGER [28,26]

Two studies at the University of Colorado filled the

need for preliminary data on hollow clay masonry, providing

information on the compressive strength of hollow units, and

ungrouted hollow unit prisms. Prism parameters investigated

were mortar type, mortar bedding (faceshell or net area),

prism height, and prism end restraint. For end-restrained

prisms, faceshell capping resulted in a 13-22% decrease in

compressive strength from net area capped prisms [28]. A

1607% increase in mortar strength (from 317 psi to 5412 psi)

resulted in only a 55% increase in prism strength {from 4749

psi to 7351 psi).

Ridinger continued the study, concentrating on the

effect of mort~r and unit properties on prism behavior. In

his study, deformation measurements were made on units,

mortar, and prisms, and the results were used to develop a

simple, linear elastic failure criteria for ungrouted

prisms.

10

2.3.2 BIA [45]

In the early 70's, The Brick Institute of America (BIA)

undertook a large scale study of hollow clay masonry prisms

and walls in compression, flexure, and shear. The first

phase of that program, completed in January 1973, was limit­

ed to the testing of ungrouted hollow clay unit prisms in

compression. Parameters investigated were unit thickness,

prisms slenderness, mortar type, and mortar bedding. Com­

pressive strength and Young's modulus were recorded for each

prism. In all, 640 prisms were tested.

BIA reported no significant difference in compressive

strength between face-shell and net area mortar bedding,

when strength is based on the bedded area. Mortar strength

had a significant effect on'prism strength. Relative to

Type S mortar, Type N prisms had a relative strength of 0.81

and type M mortar had a relative strength of 1.14. The unit

strength is reported to have little correlation to prism

strength.

2.3.3 BROWN AND WHITLOCK [6]

This study is apparently the only previously available

source of information on grouted hollow clay masonry prisms.

The objective was to determine the factors that affect the

compressive strength of grouted hollow clay prisms and to

develop a model to predict the performance of such prisms

based on material properties. The following conclusions are

excerpted directly from the paper. It should be noted that

the term "compressive strength" refers to failure load, not

11

failure stress.

1. Grouting of a hollow brick prism will generally

increase its compressive strength, all other things being

equal.

2. Compressive strength of grouted hollow brick prisms

increases sharply with increased mortar compressive

strength.

3. Compressive strength of grouted hollow brick

prisms is improved significantly by grouting only if good

quality grout is used. Weaker grouts can result in a reduc­

tion of compressive strength.

4. Compressive strength of hollow brick prisms de­

creases approximately linearly with increasing coring per­

centage. Weaker grouts result in a greater reduction than

stronger grouts.

12

3. MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND TEST PROCEDURES

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The following sections describe the materials and pro­

cedures used throughout construction and testing of all

masonry prisms. Laboratory procedures were consistent and

easily repeatable. Given identical materials, and careful

construction, test results should be easily replicated in

other laboratories. Further details concerning construction

and testing of masonry specimens are provided in references

30, 46, and 47.

3.2 MASONRY UNITS

The clay and concrete masonry units were chosen such

that the unit dimensions would be as similar as possible,

thus eliminating unit size as a potential difference between

clay and concrete prism tests. Thus, a nominally 4 inch

deep concrete unit was used rather than the common 8 inch

deep unit. The one significant geometric difference between

the units was the central webs: the clay units had multiple

webs while the concrete units had only one. The clay units

were provided by the Atlas Brick Co. of Utah, and the con­

crete units were provided by the Concrete Masonry Associa­

tion of California and Nevada. Figure 3.1 shows the dimen­

sions of the units presented in the producer's literature.

Measured dimensions were within ± 1/16" of these values.

Table 3.1 gives values of material properties measured in

accordance with the given ASTM Standards.

13

-r4 l~ lYe ~ l~ lsi

li M ~ ~t A 0 ~ 'Zc

D ~r-~

<I'l "" L--

0 ~ 'S!:r-

"" 1....--

0 ".--:r-~ ~ CJ

""--"'.L I( 7% , I I ' Sl/z , I I 31,£ ~I

CLAY UNITS

r%, rl n I~ A 14 n ,6

I ~ -! ~ ..... 1---

-t

I. 7% . J

CONCRETE UNITS

FIGURE 3.1 HOLLOW UNIT DIMENSIONS

14

1

~

--r

'" <I'l ....

TABLE 3.1 UNIT PROPERTIES

1 2 3 ! UNIT MATERIAL fb ft IRA ABSORPTION ICORE AREA NOMINAL GROSS AREA WIDTH psi psi gm/30in2 % of UNIT WEIGHT -------- --------- ------ ----- --------- ---------------- ----------

4" CLAY 8974 - 15 9 0.28

6" CLAY 12936 585 26 10 0.32

8" CLAY 11344 - 25 10 0.44

4" CONCRETE 3904 - 61 9 0.30

6" CONCRETE 3583 300 55 10 0.37

8/1 CONCRETE 3125 - 59 12 0.45

-------- --------- ------ ---- --------- ---------------- ----------

1 Uniaxial Compressive Strength, measured according to ASTM C140-75

2 Splitting Tensile Strength, measured according to ASTM CI006-84

3 Initial Rate of Absoprtion, measured according to ASTM C67-78

4 Absorption (24 hour immersion), measured according to ASTM C67-78

3.3 MORTAR

The standard mortar mix, used, with one exception, for

all prism series was a Type N portland cement-lime mix with

volumetric proportions of 1:1:6 (cement:lime:sand). The

exception was for one series built with Type S mortar with

volumetric proportions of 1:1/2:4-1/2.

The cement used in this study was a Type I cement made

by Martin Marietta. Midway through the project, the cement

plant was sold, and the identical product was marketed under

the new name "Mountain states".

The lime was Type Sf and was manufactured by Genstar.

The sand used was a dried, bagged "all purpose sand"

manufactured by the Rio Grande Co. in Denver, Colorado. The

15

sand gradation, given in Table 3.2, shows that the sand

conforms to ASTM C144-76 gradation requirements.

Mortar mixing was done in accordance with ASTM C305-65.

One batch of mortar was made for each prism. The small

batches were used to prevent mortar from sitting too long on

the board.

Standard 2-inch mortar cubes (ASTM C109-73) were made

for every batch of mortar. Frey [13] found that mortar

mixed to a flow of 115 more closely matched the condition of

mortar after unit suction than mortar mixed to the more

workable flow of 130. In accordance with this finding,

mortar was mixed to a flow of 115 for making cubes, and

water was then added to bring the flow up to 130 for the

mortar used to build prisms. This was done in precisely the

SIEVE NUMBER

4

8

16

30

50

100

200

TABLE 3.2 SAND GRADATION

% PASSING

100

99.5

93.5

69.5

26.5

4.0

0.3

16

ASTM LIMITS (C144 AND C404)

100

95 - 100

70 - 100

40 - 75

10 - 35

2 - 15

same manner for each batch, resulting in a water/cement

ratio, for Type N mortar, of 1.2 for the cubes and 1.45 for

laying prisms.

Figure 3.2 shows the statistical distribution of the

strength for all Type N mortar cubes made in this project.

Over one hundred batches of mortar were made by two people

over a six month period. The coefficient of variation of

0.10 was considered to be satisfactory.

3.4 GROUT

The cement and sand used in the grout were the same as

those used in the mortar. Coarse aggregate was a pea gravel

with a maximum aggregate size of 3/8" in accordance with

ASTM C404-76. Grout conformed to ASTM C476-71, and was

14

12

10

~ 6

c:::i z: 4

2

1400 1600 1800

Mean = 1717 psi C.O.V. = .098

2000

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psi)

FIGURE 3.2 DISTRIBUTION OF MORTAR STRENGTH

17

mixed to a volumetric proportion of 1:3:2 (cement:sand:grav-

el), with a water/cement ratio of 0.75. One batch, for the

"strong grout" series, had mix proportions of 1:1.5:1, wlc =

0.44. In addition, all grout contained an admixture: SIKA

Grout Aid, Type II. It has been shown [1, 23, 24, 29, 44]

that including such an admixture in grout minimizes the

number of flaws and shrinkage cracks in the grout. The

admixture was considered to be necessary in order to insure

consistency and repeatability in prism construction.

Grout was mixed in a twenty gallon capacity Triumph

paddle mixer. There is no ASTM standard for laboratory

preparation of grout. The procedure for grout mixing was as

follows:

(1) Start with a clean, wet mixing bowl. Add all of re­quired water.

(2) Start mixer at slow speed, and add sand over a period of one minute.

(3) Add cement over a period of one minute.

(4) Add gravel over a period of one minute.

(5) Stop the mixer and add grout admixture. Mix for one minute.

(6) Stop the mixer and let it sit for one minute, use this time to scrape any material from the sides of the bowl.

(7) Mix for another two minutes.

Grout was poured immediately after mixing. Since the

admixture used contained expansive agents and super plastic-

izers that were time sensitive, no delay between mixing and

pouring was tolerated. All grout was poured in a single

lift to the top of the prism. A stinger-type mechanical

18

vibrator was then inserted to the bottom of the cavity, and

slowly drawn out with a side-to-side motion over 15 seconds.

Usually, settlement of the grout occurred, dropping the

level of grout down between 1/2 and a whole unit height

(i.e. 2 to 4 inches in a nominal 16 inch high prism). The

grout was then topped off, and the vibrator was inserted 1

or 2 inches into the grout for about 4 seconds. Finally,

the grout was struck off flush with the top of the unit.

Grout was struck off again, about 30 minutes after pouring,

if visible expansion occurred.

Time did not permit sampling and testing of every batch

of grout, but a representative sample of grout was poured in

both clay and concrete prisms for evaluation of grout prop­

erties. Kingsley [23] found that the UBC standard field

test for grout [40] did not represent the compressive

strength of grout in hollow clay masonry. Therefore, sample

cores (2-1/4/1 diameter x 4-1/2" long) for testing grout

compressive strength were removed directly from the cavities

of grouted prisms. Ends were milled smooth and parallel,

and cores were tested in uniaxial compression. Table 3.3

gives the results of those tests.

Examination of the grout strengths in Table 3.3 reveals

two important points. First, the strength of grout cast in

concrete prisms is not the same as for grout from the same

batch cast in clay prisms. Thus grout strength is dependent

on the masonry units it is cast against. Second, the small

strength increase from "normal" to "strong" grout -- 15% for

19

TABLE 3.3 GROUT PROPERTIES

------------ ------------ ------------- ----------GROUT UNIT MEAN NUMBER C.O.V.

MATERIAL COMPRESSIVE OF STRENGTH SPECIMENS

------------ ------------ ------------- ----------NORMAL CLAY 3205 3 0.02

NORMAL CONCRETE 4226 4 0.08

STRONG CLAY 3724 4 0.16

STRONG CONCRETE 4437 4 0.18

clay and 5% for concrete -- is not in keeping with the 100%

increase in cement content and the 41% decrease in water-

cement ratio. Experience with concrete and mortar [13J

suggests that a greater increase in strength might have been

expected. Thus the migration of water from grout to the

surrounding masonry units, and the resulting shrinkage and

decrease in grout water-cement ratio, have a profound effect

on grout properties [24,29,31].

In order to evaluate the thoroughness of compaction and

presence of flaws and shrinkage cracks in the grout cores,

representative prisms were cut vertically through the grout

cores. Figures 3.3-3.4 show photographs of representative

specimens. Figure 3.3 shows the shrinkage cracks visible

20

FIGURE 3.3 GROUT COMPACTION IN CLAY PRISMS

21

FIGURE 3.4 GROUT COMPACTION IN CONCRETE PRISMS

22

for the normal grout/clay specimens. The effect of these

cracks on compressive strength is reflected in the low

values for normal grout in clay, shown in Table 3.3.

It is important to note that the suction of water from

grout and mortar was not proportional to the IRA's of the

units [24]. While the concrete units had much higher IRA's

(see Table 3.1), the grout and mortar in contact with the

clay units lost water much more quickly than in the concrete

units. This was evident by the quick rate that mortar and

grout stiffened when in contact with the clay units. Grout

was too stiff to vibrate within 10 minutes after pouring in

the clay prisms, but grout from the same batch cast in

concrete prisms remained plastic up to 30 minutes after

pouring.

3.5 PRISM CONSTRUCTION

Prisms were constructed with the aid of a jig, which

was designed to insure consistent mortar joint thickness,

plumbness, and end parallelism. All prisms were four units

high and all had full mortar bedding. (Fig. 3.5).

Capping, was done on smooth glass plates using a high

strength gypsum plaster (US Gypsum Hydrostone). Prisms were

air-cured from 40-60 days at an average temperature of 71

degress Farenheit.

A detailed description of the prism building jig and

the procedures for construction and capping of prisms are

provided in reference [46].

23

MORTARED AREA

GROUTED AREA

FIGURE 3.5 MORTARED AND GROUTED AREAS OF PRISMS

3.6 PRISM INSTRUMENTATION

Each prism was instrumented as shown in Fig. 3.6. Four

LVDT's (Schaevitz HRDC 200) were mounted, with a 12" gage

length between the top and bottom units. The mounting

angles were epoxied in place using a spacer bar to insure

that a LVDT location was identical for all prisms.

Four strain gages, (Micro-Measurements Type EA-06-

250BB-120), two vertical a?d two horizontal, were mounted on

opposite sides of a middle unit as shown in Fig. 3.6. Be­

fore mounting the gages, the unit surface was coated with a

fast setting polyester resin compound (Celtite 21-05) and

ground smooth.

The prisms tested with reduced platen restraint had no

24

~3

TOP

rLVDT's (STRAIN GAGES

, i --,' r i

\ }=~ 1,211 ~3.4

I I ( ~

2 I

FRONT SIDE

FIGURE 3.6 PRISM INSTRUMENTATION

25

externally mounted LVDT's or vertical strain gages. In-

stead, a series of horizontal strain gages were fixed to the

top two units of the prism as shown in Figure 3.7. Gages 1-

5 were on the wide face and gages 6-10 were on the narrow

face. The different instrumentation for the reduced platen

constraint prisms was designed to determine how the reduced

restraint affected the relative lateral strain distribution

in clay and concrete masonry.

3.7 PRISM TRANSPORTATION

While the prisms were constructed in Boulder, Colorado,

they were tested 35 miles away at the Federal Bureau of

Reclamation Laboratory in Denver. In order to avoid speci-

men damage during transportation, the prisms were clamped,

10 at a time, between two foam padded wooden pallets

FIGURE 3.7 PRISM INSTRUMENTATION FOR REDUCED PLATEN RESTRAINT

26

specially constructed for the job. This insured that the

prisms would not slide, rock, or fall over during the trip.

The system was effective, as no prisms were damaged during

transportation throughout the project. Prisms were trans­

ported at least one week before testing so prisms were at

room temperature when tested.

3.8 TEST MACHINE

Prisms were tested in a 1,000,000 lb. capacity, servo­

controlled hydraulic testing machine (Figure 3.8.). The

hydraulic system was controlled by an MTS-443 controlling

system.

The platens are 21 inch square milled steel plates.

The bottom platen is four inches thick and rests on another

FIGURE 3.8 PRISM IN PLACE IN TEST MACHINE

27

steel plate 4" x 18" x 18". The top platen is two inches

thick and is suspended from a 12" diameter spherical head.

Originally, the bottom platen was only two inches thick, and

rested on a 4-7/8" diameter load cell. This platen was

found to be unacceptably flexible, and the results of five

prisms tests conducted with it were discarded. Previous

researchers [4,19,37] have also noted problems with platen

flexibility affecting test results.

The flexibility inherent in the machine was measured by

compressing a strain-gaged aluminum cylinder and comparing

deformations measured by the strain gages wi~h those mea-

sured by the machine's internal ram LVDT. The machine

flexibility so measured was 5.37 x 10-5 in/kip.

3.9 INTERFACE FRICTION REDUCTION

For the one series of prisms to be tested with reduced

platen restraint, an interface friction reduction system

(I.F.R.) was employed. The I.F.R. consisted of two sheets

of 0.005" thick teflon separated by a thin film of Mobil

axle grease. This system, placed between a smooth gypsum

plaster cap and a milled steel platen on both ends of a

prism, has been shown to have a coefficient of friction of

0.014 [2).

3.10 PRISM TESTS

For each test, the prism was carefully centered in the

machine, and preloaded to a load of 50 lb. At this point, a

zero reading was taken on all LVDT's (four mounted on

28

specimen and one internal ram LVDT), strain gages and the

load cell. A displacement was then applied to the specimen

using a standard ramp function at a rate of 25,875 ~in/min.

(approximate strain rate = .0017 in/in/min). At increments

of 1500 ~in, load and displacements were recorded by an HP

3497 data acquisition system, and an HP85 microcomputer.

The test was continued well beyond ultimate load, and termi-

nated when the load capacity of the prism remained relative-

ly constant with continuing displacement. Data were stored

and backed up on disks for plotting and printouts.

3.11 MODIFICATION OF STRESS-STRAIN DATA TO ACCOUNT FOR MACHINE STIFFNESS

Prism deformations were measured by an internal ram

LVDT and by four external LVDT's mounted directly to the

prism (Figure 3.6). Figure 3.9 is a sample of typical

stress-strain data from a prism test, showing both RAM and

external LVDT results. Large discrepencies exist between

the two curves. These are the result of the machine take-

up, reflected in the initial stiffening portion of the RAM

curve, and machine flexibility, which is reflected in the

softer loading curve and steeper falling branch on the RAM

LVDT stress-strain curves (35].

While the external LVDT's give a more accurate loading

curve than the RAM LVDT, cracking and spalling of the unit

faceshells at failure renders the external LVDT's useless

for measuring post-peak deformations. In order to take

advantage of the more complete data provided by the RAM

29

LVDT, a technique similar to that developed by Priestley and

Elder (35] was adopted to adjust the stress-strain curve for

machine take up and flexibility effects.

The corrected RAM LVDT displacement were calculated

using the following formula:

where:

~ pc = ~ p - ~ t - FmP

E = ~pc/h

~pc = corrected RAM displacement at

~p = uncorrected RAM displacement a

~t = machine take-up ( in. )

Fm = machine flexibilty = 5.37 x 10 P = load (kips )

E = strain at a load P (in/in)

h = prism height (in)

a load P ( in. )

load P (in. )

-5 in /kip

The machine take-up, ~ t, was determined for each curve

individually by extending the linear portion of the stress-

strain curve down to the horizontal axis and defining ~t as

the displacement at the intersection.

Priestley and Elder [35] also included the effect of

elastic unloading of the top and bottom units during the

falling branch of the curve. This effect was not included

here, as observed failures often included the end units.

Figure 3.10 shows the curve of Figure 3.9 corrected for

machine stiffness. The agreement between the LVDT curve and

the RAM curve was good for most cases, but for others the

corrected curve remained softer for the loading portion than

the external LVDT's showed. For this reason, measurements

30

of initial stiffness were taken from average external LVDT

plots while post peak data was taken from corrected RAM

plots.

31

~ . "-

III III w

'" t-III

6500

595e

5200

4550

~ 3900 ;; :!-III ,3250 III tJ

'" ... Ul 2600

1950

1300

6511

t jI f P

J! W / ~~

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

~ ~XTERNAl 'lilt! -.-

V / ! /

/

1£5T1 6-CLY-G-a SPECIMEN: 9-17-3

- ----- ---,----- -------

---- --

--Lvdt I

-- -- Lvd\ 2

--- -,- Lvdt 3 --- ----- Lvdt 4

/ -- Ulli:OB8EC~EILRAM .. lVDL_

/ .. _---_._- -- - f-----

/ -_.- ". --- '-

'I --- ---.- ._--- ----

---_._- ----

'---.e1l2 .004 .006 .010

. ---- --- --- ",,-------. .012 .014 .016 .01B .020

EXTERNAL LVOT'S (strain)

FIGURE 3.9 UNCORRECTED STRESS-STRAIN DATA

650a

595e

5200

'4~5e

i,

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIAT(S MASONRY PR~SH TESTS

-"- ---

C EXTERNAL

lVDT"3 ~---

V\ Il \ , -

ILST: 6-CLf-G-0 SPECIHlN: 9-17-3

L",,jt 1

- - - --~ Lvdt 2

Lvdt J Lvdt ...

3gee

32511 f L OBIl£CTE _ ijA M.lVD

26011

19511

1300

650

f \ - -

l \ .- .-

If! \ --

k \ Ii.' ~ I--

~.000 .002 .004 .006 .009 .0Ce I

• ~ I G L

.014 .01B

EXTERNAL LVOT'S (str.ln)

3.10 CORRECTED STRESS-STRAIN DATA

32

.020

4. RESULTS OF PRISM TESTS

4.1 STRESS-STRAIN DATA

The prism test results are summarized in Table 4.1 and

Figures 4.1 - 4.24. The RAM-LVDT stress-strain curves from

all of the prism tests, adjusted for machine error as des­

cribed in Section 3.11, are presented in Figures 4.1 - 4.20.

Representative data from the externally mounted LVDTls and

strain gages are presented in Figures 4.21 - 4.23. (See

Figure 3.6 for location of LVDTls and strain gages). Figure

4.24 shows example lateral strain data from the reduced

platen constraint tests. A complete listing of LVDT data is

given in Appendix A. Lateral strain data from the reduced

platen constraint tests are also given in Appendix A.

Strain gage data for the remaining prism tests are not

available at this time.

Table 4.1 contains a summary of important parameters

derived from Figures 4.1 - 4.20. The following sections

describe these parameters in more detail.

4.1.1. ULTIMATE STRENGTH AND STRAIN

The reported ultimate strength (flm) is the maximum

stress attained by a prism, calculated by dividing the

maximum load by the net loaded area. For grouted prisms,

the net area equals the gross cross-sectional area of the

units, and for ungrouted prisms the net area of the unit is

used.

The peak strain ( E p) is the strain corresponding to

the ultimate strength described above. The strain reported

33

TAB

LE

4.1

TE

ST

SE

RIE

S

MA

TE

RIA

L

UL

TIM

AT

E

STR

EN

GT

H

f'm

p

si

ST

RA

IN

AT

SEC

AN

T U

LT

IMA

TE

M

OD

ULU

S

Ep

in/i

n

Es

ksi

SLO

PE

OF

RE

SID

UA

L

TOU

GH

NES

S FA

LL

ING

ST

REN

GTH

A

T U

LT

. B

RA

NC

H

STR

AIN

fr

k

s!

% o

f f'

m

T

psi

TOU

GH

NES

S A

T 1

.5

Ep

% o

f T

TOU

GH

NES

S A

T 2

.0 E

p

% o

f T

Esec/f

'm

PO

ISS

ON

'S

RA

TIO

A

T 50

%

f'm

UN

IT

STR

EN

GT

H

psi

MO

RTA

R

CU

BE

STR

EN

GT

H

psi

GR

OU

T ST

RE

NG

TH

psi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.~----------------------------------_.

CL

IiI

57

65

.0

03

0

23

17

-3

19

0

0.0

7

11

.46

15

6%

16

6

40

2

0.4

42

1

29

00

1

67

1

32

00

6

" G

RO

UTE

D

CO

NC

. 4

08

4

.00

24

2

34

0

-25

30

0

.06

7

.64

1

53

1

68

5

73

0

.27

4

36

00

1

88

4

42

00

CLA

Y

39

46

.0

02

1

23

65

-1

96

0

0.0

6

5.1

4

16

6

19

7

59

9

90

00

1

60

2

32

00

4

" G

RO

UTE

D

CO

NC

. 3

03

7

.00

25

1

52

3

-21

10

0

.07

5

.04

1

51

1

67

5

02

3

90

0

1B

12

4

20

0

CLA

Y

45

23

.0

02

2

26

27

-2

66

0

0.0

7

9.3

1

15

1

16

8

58

1

0.3

60

1

13

00

1

70

9

32

00

B

" G

RO

UTE

D

CO

NC

. 4

04

0

.00

23

2

60

9

-21B

O

0.0

7

B.9

2

15

5

17

5

64

6

0.2

80

3

10

0

13

69

4

20

0

CLA

Y

57

04

.0

03

2

1B

37

-3

48

0

0.0

7

9.2

4

16

2

16

9

32

2

0.2

43

1

29

00

1

63

8

6"

UN

GR

OU

TED

----------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------

CO

NC

. 2

60

2

.00

27

1

42

9

-29

60

0

.05

4

.13

1

47

1

69

5

49

0

.26

6

36

00

1

70

9

CLA

Y

53

73

.0

02

8

21

67

-2

59

0

0.0

6

10

.27

1

50

1

68

4

03

0

.21

B

11

30

0

15

83

B"

UN

GR

OU

TED

--------------------------------------------------------.-

----------------------------------------------------------.-

--------------------------------

6"

RU

NN

ING

BO

ND

CO

NC

. 2

11

3

.00

28

1

23

4

-23

90

0

.07

3

.96

1

43

1

55

5

84

3

10

0

16

90

CLA

Y

47

45

.0

02

4

21

51

-2

55

0

0.0

6

9.3

1

15

6

17

6

45

3

12

90

0

18

72

3

20

0

------------~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CO

NC

. 3

62

2

.00

26

1

91

B

-23

10

!l

.06

7

.02

1

54

1

80

5

30

0

.23

9

36

00

1

75

4

42

00

--------------------------------------------------------------------------~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6"

TY

PE

S M

OR

TAR

C

LAY

CO

NC

.

55

95

.0

02

4

41

72

.0

02

5

23

52

-3

10

0

0.0

5

11

.97

23

34

-2

40

0

0.0

3

7.6

0

15

0

16

1

42

0

12

90

0

34

19

3

20

0

15

3

17

1

56

0

36

00

3

58

9

42

00

--

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

,---

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

---.

C

LAY

5

99

3

.00

30

2

24

9

-30

00

0

.05

1

2.8

4

15

2

16

2

37

5

0.2

83

1

29

00

1

68

9

37

00

6

" ST

RO

NG

G

RO

UT

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

-----

-----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

--.-

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

. C

ON

C.

42

01

CLA

Y

35

51

.00

25

.00

33

1

22

70

15

13

1

-26

00

0

.05

7

.89

1

53

-28

9b

0

.05

6

.82

1

44

16

9

54

0

0.2

87

3

60

0

17

27

4

40

0

15

7

42

6

0.2

53

1

29

00

2

00

4

32

00

6

" LO

AD

E:D

PA

RA

LL

EL

_

__

__

__

__

__

__

h _

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

__

--

----------------------------------.

TO

BE

DJO

INT

C

ON

C.

41

71

.0

02

0

22

39

-2

47

0

0.0

6

7.2

2

15

7

18

2

53

6

0.2

93

3

60

0

19

19

4

20

0

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

----

---

6"

RED

UC

ED

PLA

TE

N

CO

NST

RA

INT

1

CLA

Y

47

74

CO

NC

. 3

48

8

.00

30

1 1

96

31

-32

00

.00

25

1 1

91

01

-33

80

Th

ese

v

alu

es

tak

en

fr

om

RA

M

LVD

T d

ata

w

here

ex

tern

al

LVD

T d

ata

w

ere

in

ad

eq

uate

o

r in

co

mp

lete

.

LV

0+:>0

0.0

7

7.9

3

16

1

41

1

12

90

0

15

18

3

20

0

5.1

0

54

8

36

00

1

55

6

42

00

-. Q.

6500

saS0

S200

~SS0

3S00

nsa 1

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRV PRISH TESTS

~

!J f \ II

\ 1 6" GRaJTED CLAY

q f'm = 5765 psi

E = 2317 ksi

TEST: 6-CLY-G-ra

- ---- ._----

c.o.v. = 0.06

c.o~v. = 0.10 26'210 I s f---

/ c = 0.0030 c.o.v. = 0.13 P

lssa

l3aa

6sa

/ ~ _._._- ... --

I W G.

I ~ '-----.~

\1.a00 .002 ,em .. . a06 .008 .0l0 • eJ 12 .\3\4 .0 l6 .Ol9

RAH LVOT (strain)

FIGURE 4.1 STRESS-STRAIN DATA: 6" GROU'IED -- CLAY

6500

5850

5200

~551'1

- 391'10 . Q.

UJ 3250 UJ w ~ UJ 2600

1951'1

131'10

GS0

11.

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

f----- e--

--

--

~ ,1\'\\ 6" GRaJTED =

'I-/-~l\ f'm = 4084 psi

E = 2340 ksi s

c = 0.0024 P

V-r-~~l~ r.:-~ "-

a00 .002 .01'14 .00G .008 .0113 .1312

RAM LVDT estraln)

TEST. 6-CNC-G-2

c.o.v. = 0.06

e.o.v. = 0.11

e.o.v. = 0.11

.1'114 .1316 .1319

.020

FIGURE 4.2 STPillSS-STRAIN DATA: 6" GROUTED -- CONCRETE

35

213

6500

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

TESTI ~-CLY-G

5S50 f------f-- - ---+------1----1-----:----+----l----~---_l_--~

5200 /-------(.-----1------ ----- -------t----t---+----\-----f----1

45521

~ 3900

" a.

r.n 3250 Ul w

'" f0-Ul 2600

! 950

1300

650

(.----~'---- f----

4" = CLl\y

flm = 3946 psi

E = 2365 ksi s

€ = 0.0021 P

c.o.v. = 0.09

c.o.v. = 0.10

c.o.v. = Q.ll

--~------ ------- ----

-----+-----~---+----~-----I------

\1. 000--:002 ---- -.-004---. 00'''6---. -.l-OO"'SO---.-i0"1"0---.;\-0 "I 2'---.-!0"1·4---. ;\-0"1 6..----.-)0"1"9---,. 020

. a.

Ul U1 w a: f0-Ul

RAM LVOT (strain)

FIGURE 4.3 STRESS-STRAIN DATA: 4" GEOUTED -- c-;: "-y

6501'1

5951'1

521'10

4550

391'10

3250

261'11'1

1950

131'11'1

650

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

4"== flm = 3037 psi

E = 1523 ksi s

£ = 0.0025 P

- 1------

TESTI 4-CNC-G

e.o.v. = 0.12

c.o.v. = 0.18

c.o.v. = 0.03

J ____ ---h~~.=--;;-..---~-, .006 .00S :010 .1'112 .1'114 .1'116 .els

RAM LVDT (£tra!n)

.020

FIGURE 4.4 STRESS-STRAIN DATA: 4" GROUTED -- CONCRETE

36

6500

5850

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PR ISH TESTS

TESTI 8-CLY-G-0

<550 /\

~ 3900 ~\\ • I 8" GR(XJl'ED OJ('{

a. 3250 __ 'l~__ fOm = 4523 psi

2600 e--I/Jl1

, ~ __ ~I!'\_ -- Es = 2627 ksi

c.o.v. = 0.08

c.o.v. = 0.05

~ . a.

Lp = 0.0022 c.o.v. = 0.11

1950,-- -1 - - t\ ---+-----,-----,-----,---..,.-------1----1

""" 17-1 -. I\~-I-+---t----+------t---t------f m f;l--- : --- -II ---; ,_~~_-'-.c. _____ :::--~---+----+---.-+---j---t---1

~.'W02--~,00.-~-.-L,I;~~____:_t8 ,--- -.010 .012 ,01< .016 .018 .020

RRM LVDT (~traln)

FIGG"RE 4.5 STRESS-STRAIN DATA: 8" GROUTED - ClAY

ATK INSON-NOLAND AND ASSOC I ATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

TEST. 8-CNC-G-0

8500

5850

5200

-4550

3900

3250

260[3

1950

1300

650

13.

RAM LVDT (~tr.ln)

FIGURE 4.6 STRESS-STRAIN DATA: 8" GROUTED - CONCRETE

37

~

" 0-

In In w

'" f-

'"

6500

5950

5200

45se

3900

3250

2600

1950

13e0

650

1:1.000

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

I //J

6" UNGR01J!'ED CUW

.602

RnH LVDT (~tl"'l!.ln)

TESTs 6-CLY-NG-0

c.o.v. = 0.09

c.o.v. = 0.10

c.o.v. = 0.18

FIGURE 4.7 STRESS-STRAIN DATA: 6" UNGROUTED - ClAY

~ . 0-

In In w

'" f-In

6~00

5850

S200

<550

3900

nS0

2600

1950

1300

650

~.

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

TEST, 6-CNC-NG-0

6" UNGHDUTID CXJNC=

f'm = 2602 psi c.o.v. = 0.09

~ E = 1429 ksi c.o.v. = 0.24

~~ 5

;j £ = 0.0027 c.o.v. = 0.18 P

If ~. I !

I )\\ II ~

000 .002 .00< .006 .008 .010 .012 .01< .016

RAH LVOr (strain)

.018

FIGURE 4.8 STRESS-STRAIN DATA: 6" UNGROUTED - CONCRETE

38

6500

5850

5200

4550

~ 3900

"-

tl> 3250 tl> w

'" t-tl> 26130

1950

1300

550

\\ mm

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES HASONRY PRISH TESTS

TEST: 8-CLY-NG-e

]----

Ii I I

I

I .r1£H

BOO UNGROOTED GAY

flm = 5373 psi c.o.V. = 0.07

E = 2167 ksi c.o.v. = 0.17 5

E = 0.002B c.o.v. = 0.09 p

.-TF~t=j~~ ____ 1 _____ -j_~_=_±_-: -: I

.008 .010 .012 .014 .0-16---~018 .0213

f<nM LVOT (£traln)

FIGURE 4.9 STRESS-STRAIN DATA: 8" UNGROUTED - CLAY

6S00

5850

52130

4SS0

~ 39011 . "-

Ul 3250 Ul w 0: t-Ul 26130

1950

131313

6513

----

f----

f----

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES HASONRY PRISH TESTS

-1= ---- -- ----- ------

------ ~.----I .------ _._---

TESTa 9-CNC-NG-0

, BOO UNGroUTED =

-- ---- f'm = 2113 psi c.o.v. = 0.05

E = 1234 ksi c.o.v. = 0.22 5

E = 0.002B c.o.v. = 0.15

~ P

A W'l , -\ --

~ [l ~ i .004 .006 .008 .010 .012 .1314 .016

RAM LVnT (strain)

.019 .020

FIGURE 4.10 STRESS-STRAIN DATA: 8" UNGROUTED - CONCRETE

39

~ . "-

6500

5a50

52013

4550

3900

32513

2600

1950

1300

650

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

TEST. 6-CLY-G-R

---. ----+---+---+----l---........j

6" RUNNING BOND <::rAY

f'rn = 4745 ps1

E = 2151 ksi s

= 0.0024

c.o.v. = 0.13

c.o.v. = 0.08

1lt.0BB . 010.---.*B"12..---.*0'14.---. B-I-6--. 01·1~8--.--!02"

RAM LVDT (strain)

FIGURE 4.11 STRESS-STRAIN DATA: RUNNING BOND - CIAY

6500

5B50

520"

<550

~ 3900 . "-

til 3250 til w

'" ... til 2600

195"

1300

6SB

--

f----

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS·

.-1-----

TEST. 6-CNC-G-R

j~ 6" RUNNING BCND =

--- --.- f 1m = 3622 psi c.o.v. = 0.03

E = 1918 ksi c.o.v. = 0.05 l--- ----- s

-t\~ £ = 0.0026 c.o.v. = 0.15 P

-

~ ~ -----

'f\2 . -l--- +-- ~ ~ i

I -'-----~ ~.--~ -

.0B2 .004 .01l6 .008 .010 .012 .016

RAM LVDT (st"'llln)

---

.BIB .020

FIGURE 4.12 STRESS-STRAIN DATA: RUNNING BOND - CONCRETE

40

6500

5850

5200

4550

3900

"

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

TEST.

6" TYPE S I4lRrN! OJ\Y

6-CLY-G-S

"-

3250

2600

1950

I 650 ---I

~ ' ___ 1_ ?).f)Oe .m~2

f'm = 5595 psi

E = 2352 ksi s

Ep = 0.0024

c.o.v. = 0.08

c.o.v. = 0.06

c.o.v. = 0.16

- - -~~ ---+---I---+---+-~-j

.014 .016 .01B

RrlH LVOT (:i;tratnl

FIGURE 4.13 STRESS-STRAIN DATA: TYPE S MORl'AR - CIAY

6500 r

5e50

5200

04558

~ 3900 ;; !!;

3250

2600

1950

1300

6S0

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISH TESTS

~-L

TESTI 6-CNC-G-S

---

-

--

I

I

RAM LVnT (strain)

FIGURE 4.14 STRESS-STRAIN DATA: TYPE S HORl'AR - CONCREI'E

41

6500

~-----5850

5200

t 4550

3900 . I 0-

1 32513 L _ ~ _

i I

26£m I I

I 1950

130~

GS0

'0. ~[Je--

ATKINSON-NOLAND RND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PR I SH TESTS

TEST, 6-CLY-SG-0

I _I

,004 , r,~6 .-.C02

. ·I=F~L~-F+· i···· j····J-·F--i-t I - --t- --- --- -+--

I I I

.60B

6" HIGH STRENGlll GmUr ~1'Y ---·----··-tj1.=J E'm = 5993 psi C.O.v. = 0.08 I Es ::: 2249 ksi C.o.v. =;: 0.09 t

" • "OO~ i coe]."", I [ji

---- r-- --t --- [1_- ~-- I I I I- I

I

.6iil 1

.312

- I ----! ------ i--l I I I 1

____ 1 _______ 1 ______ 1 ___ ~I .014 .016 .01B .020

RRH LVDT (&tratnl

FIGURE 4.15 STRESS-STRAIN DATA: HIGH STRENGTH GROUT - CLAY

6500

5850

5200

<4550

~ 3900 . Q.

3250

2600

1950

1312113

650

f----

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

- +------------

TEST, 6-CNC-SG-0

f~\ 6" IlIQI S1'RlliGTIl Gl10ur CONCRETE

f- I! \\\ ! f'm = 4201 psi C.O.v. = 0.03

E = 2270 ksi c.o.v. = 0.08 s

£ = 0.0025 c.o.v. = 0.08 'i/ \ p

.~ I

l- ~ ~ ~

J ~ -

.0 02 . a04 . ea6 . aaB .Dla .012 .014 .016

RAH LvnT (stratn)

.018 .a20

FIGURE 4.16 STRESS-STRAIN DATA: HIGH STRENGI'H GROUT - CONCRETE

42

GS0a

sase

S200

<ssa

- 390a . "-

lO 32S0 lO w 0: f-lO 26eJ0

1950

1300

650

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISH TESTS

TESTI G-CLY-G-Sa

6" LOADED pl\RALIEL TO BEllJOINr ClAY

f'm = 3551 psi

Es = 1513 ksi

£ =0.0033 P

c.o.v. = 0.05

c.o.v. = O.OB

c.o.v. = 0.12 f---

--l--T I 1------1---I -·---j- ----1-

~ ;j~_-_----t_-~-J-'--I---I .0ea .£'110 .012 .014 .016 .018 .0213

RnH LVOT (strain)

FIGURE 4.17 STRESS-STRAIN DATA: LOAD I I TO BEDJOINT - CLAY

6500 1-- -sese

52013

4550

~ 3900

" "-

en 32S0 en

'" Q' >-co 260C

19S0

[3ee

6se

~ oee

FIGURE 4.18

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND RSSOCIATES MASONRY PR I 5H rES Ts

TEST: G-CNC-G-Se

- -- ---- -l------l ----l---l----- t-----

---j~---I----I----.j~--

6" lOADED PARALLEL TO BEllJOINr CCNCRETE

flm = 4177 psi c.o.v. = 0.03

E = 2239 5

ksi c.o.v. = 0.20

£ P

= 0.0020 c.o.v. = O.OB

~ -'_ =t-- ____ +---,-~ -) _=_t -___ L l~---!

.010 .012 .014 .016 .018 .0211

RAM LVOT (str~'n)

STRESS-STRAIN DATA: LOAD II TO BEDJOINT - CONCRETE

43

~

n "-

65~0

5850

5200

4550

3900

3250

2600

1950

1300

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

T--TEST.

I

6-CLY-Ir-R

I ,-

riction -r-----1-- -- -I~ i---T--

t --- 1- - -' no lnterface f reduction ---~ I=H=I t _-_f

lATEN RESTMINT = i c.o.v. = 0.03

i c.o.v. = 0.08 I I

0 c.o.v. = 0.04 1 -I J

~ I----r-- -- -~---- ---

-- 1-- 1----1 , I I 6" REDUCED P

1 - t- -- i- -- ~-\f~--- :~m: :::: : ~--- 1- ----- --I c = 0.003

p

~ -- -----j -~_=:~= __ i -

650 t --

I --h----

__ [1 _____ t----r_--t--=-r-" ______ J __ l_=t=t ~.000 .002 .004 .006 .008 .010 .012 .016 .018 .020 .014

RAM LVDT (ctraln)

FIQJRE 4 .19 STRESS-STRAIN DATA: REDUCED PLATEN RESTRAINT - CLAY

~

; ~

6500

5850

5200

4550

3900

3250

2600

1950

1300

650

,-----I

nTKINSON--NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

TEST, 6-CNC-IFR

r-- -r --l---r---r--T--T no in terface frictioIl rec1uctio~ - --

-I- !-!=~=1_'~~=1=-1----1- -1 I

1 6" REIlUCED PlATEN RESTMINr == ---'-j

--,---- -------1 f'm=3488psi c.o.v.=0.02 -

Iii -I ';: :::,~' ::: : ::H r - --- I -- I --- t -,-- - ----,-- - I H

--~t-- -I ! -I--q-~--t-~ ---! I - +-~--1---~I----I-~

" __ L ___ J ____ ~ ___ ~_LLJ__1_~ '1.000 .002 .O.H .006 .008 .010 .012 .014 .016 .018 .020

RAM LVDT (ctraln)

FIQJRE 4.20 STRESS-STRAIN DATA: REDUCED PLATEN RESTRAINT - CONCRETE

44

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DRTE. 11/07/B4

TEST. 6-CLY-G-0 SPECIMEN. 9-17-1

6500 r---T-------r- ---]-----[--r--- T -----1-- - -----5B50 ----1----- ---- ---- -- --- ------ ---- ----".. --if- --I-----~ ---I --Iso~n- :;~-I

: I , 1 ----, SOraln age 3 ; ::: I--fF-~ l-~-r=: ~~~-- -=r~~· t= ---l ::::i -r- -f ~ ~ -- -- - --~ ---'--r-~-I 1950

13B0

". I~--[~ 1=:1 ~~:~-=l~:j:~:i _ _=_j -~~-j-~i ~.0BB .B02 .0B4 .1l1l6 .IlIlB .1l11l .B12 .1l14 -:1l16 --:-B19-- -.021l

VERTICLE STRAIN GAGE9 1.0ra'n)

FIGURE 4.21 EXAMPIE OF \1ERTICAL STRAIN GAGE DATA

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE. 11/1l7/84

TEST. 6-CLY-G-1l SPECIMEN. 9-17-1

HORIZONTAL STRAIN GAGES 1.0raln)

FIGURE 4.22 EXM1PIE OF HORIZONTAL STRAIN GAGE DATA

45

:~ :llH' w :r 1; ?~!'If'"

ATI<HI!H1N-NOUlNO R'<O AS90CIAT[S MASOHRY "~ISH T[9T9

T£9T, 8-CL Y-ji-II SP£CIH£N, g-17-1

DATE, 11.'e7/a~ -- ---- -- r-- --1-- r-- -r ---l-----I-----l -- -- ------1- -+------1- --- f -- --·1 --i

'----=-d---l~~'-;-ti-----: ' -- - -- Lvdt 2

----.--_._----_ .. - ------ ---- ---- ------ ---.- Lvd\ 1 --- ----- Lvd\ -4

.- --- ----- --- --- ---- -----j------j

[xn:Pt-R.... LVDT'9 (.t,..tn)

FIGURE 4.23 EXAMPlE OF EXTERNAL LVIYr DATA

46

~ . ..

s~ee

5950

5ZM

155.

3998

325.

2S98

19'.

13ae

S,.

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES HASONRY PRISH TESTS

1£5T I 6-CNC-If"R SPECIMEN: 12-11-1

- ------

~- I-r ·l=-r-Ff -

+~. -Cag. I -- -- Ca,_ 2

-- r-'-- Gage 1

--- 1----- C., ... --f----

--- t---- Caa_ 5

f--- /~ ::-- -------'

'l ~-~-

_/

----- -

# y/ ~/

--r----

d ------~(/

f--

If ____ J ____ ---- ----- -----._1 ._2 ._3 .00&4 . B0Ir.! .0006 .0087 .0068 .~ .9818

GAGES I - 5 (.\raln)

ATKIN!IOH-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES P1A5ONItY PR 1st! TESTS

f[STI 5-CHC-[f"A SP£C II'€H I 12-11-4

65811 r----~-r_--- -- - ---r---,--- ---- - ._---- ------

'858 -- ---- -- --- --- --- --- --- 1--- - --- -----

'2l1li --- J---+-----4-- --- -----+---! Ga'_.

t-- Ca •• 1 .,~. --- ·----r-·--~---r_---+---r--

f---- G •••• ----- Ga •• ,

~ 39_ . ... /-- ,.::::;:;;.- ~ ---

/ - .......-:r:----::- ----

---- Ci ••••• ~~ .

- //-----

19'.

/ /~// -+---f---+--f---f----f

~--~~~~~--~~--~---

IlBB ;~'

._1 .BBB2 .- .iI "" .- .B11811 .B1'109

4.24 EXAHPLE OF STRAIN GAGE DATA FROM REDUCED PLATEN CONSTRAINT TESTS

47

._18

FIGURE 4.25 CLAY PRISM FAILURES

48

4.26 CONCRETE PRISM FAILURES

49

FIGURE 4.27 FAILURE OF CLAY PRISM WITH REDUCED PLATEN CONSTRAINT

50

FIGURE 4.28 FAILURE OF CONCRETE PRISM WITH REDUCED PLATEN CONSTRAINT

51

is the average of four LVDTs. In some cases, the value of

peak strain reported in Table 4.1 will be less than the

apparent value in Figures 4.1-4.20, since the average of the

external LVDT's was not always in exact agreement with the

corrected ram LVDT.

4 . 1 .2. SECANT MODULUS AND SLOPE OF FALLING BRANCH

The secant modulus Es is the slope of a line passing

through the origin and a point on the stress-strain curve

corresponding to 50% of the ultimate strength. The secant

modulus was taken from the average LVDT curves, not the RAM

LVDT curve. Also shown in Table 4.1 is the ratio of the

secant modulus to the ultimate strength (Es/f'm) which is

presented for comparison with code specified values of elas­

tic modulus for working stress design.

The slope of the falling branch was measured by visual­

ly estimating the best fit straight line on the falling

portion of the curves in Figures 4.1-4.20. The slope of the

falling branch on the uncorrected RAM LVDT curves was very

nearly vertical in many cases. As a result, the slope of

the falling branch on the corrected curves was often only

slightly less than the stiffness of the machine itself

(approximately 3400 ksi for a nominally 6 x 16 x ~6 inch

prism). It should be recognized that measurements of the

falling branch characteristics of a material are limited by

the deformation characteristics of the test machine itself,

and if a material has an unloading curve stiffer than that

of the machine, actual material behavior may be masked by

52

machine response. Specifically, the reported corrected

falling branch slope for such a material would be nearly

equal to the measured machine stiffness. Thus the values of

falling branch slope in Table 4.1 may, in some cases, under­

estimate the actual material properties.

4.1.3 RESIDUAL STRENGTH

The "residual strength" is a fictitious quantity sug-

gested by the shape of the stress strain curves: the slope

of the falling branch des creases as axial strain increases,

approaching, but never attaining, a level of constant

stress. A visual estimate of this constant stress is re-

ported here as the "residual strength". It is included for

purposes of comparison with the modified Kent-Park Model

[35], which includes a similar parameter.

4.1.4 TOUGHNESS

The "toughness" is the area under the stress-strain

curve at a specified level of strain. At peak strain, the

toughness (T) is reported in units of psi. The toughness

was also calculated at 150% of peak strain and 200% of peak

strain, and is reported here as a percent of T.

4.1.5 POISSON'S RATIO

The numbers reported as Poisson's ratio were arrived at

by taking the ratio of lateral to vertical strain, measured

by strain gages (see Fig.3.6), at 50% of the ultimate load.

The strains so measured represent strain " a t-a-point" in a

unit, and not global prism strain.

53

4.1.6 COMPONENT MATERIALS

The ultimate strengths of the units, mortar, and grout

are presented for ease of comparison. They are discussed in

more detail in Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4 respectively.

4.2 FAILURE MODES

4.2.1. GROUTED PRISMS

Grouted clay prisms developed vertical tensile cracks

on the wide and narrow faces throughout all four units,

though most prominantly in the middle units. In addition,

all grouted clay prisms had vertical cracks at the corners,

running from the interior corners of the grout core to the

exterior corner of the unit face (also noted by Brown [6]).

In most cases the faceshells debonded cleanly from the grout

core. The grout core itself failed in compression in a

manner typical of plane concrete cylinders. See Figure

4.25.

Grouted concrete prisms occasionally exhibited the same

vertical splitting behavior of the clay prisms, but in more

cases they failed in shear, with diagonal cracks crossing

grout and block alike. In general, the faceshells did not

split off from the grout core. See Figure 4.26.

4.2.2 UNGROUTED PRISMS

Ungrouted prisms failed with vertical tensile splitting

on the narrow face. In concrete prisms, failure was con-

fined predominantly to the middle two units.

54

4.2.3 PRISMS LOADED PARALLEL TO THE BED JOINT

Clay prisms loaded parallel to the bedjoint failed in a

brittle manner, with crushing confined to the unit faceshell

adjacent to the center, ungrouted core of the units. The

grout cores and the parts of the prism above and below the

central core remained undamaged.

The concrete prisms failed in the same manner as those

loaded normal to the bedjoint, except that the faceshells

consistently debonded from the horizontal grout cores.

4.2.4 PRISMS WITH REDUCED PLATEN CONSTRAINT

The clay prisms with reduced platen restraint failed by

uniform vertical splitting throughout the prism height. (Fig-

ure 4.27) Concrete prisms did not fail in shear, as did

their restrained counterparts, but vertical splitting was

not as uniform as in the clay prisms. Two concrete prism

failed primarily in the lower two units. (Figure 5.28). All

prisms, both clay and concrete, tested with reduced platen

restraint developed a single vertical crack in the center of

the wide face of the prism (Figure 4.28).

55

56

5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The prism test results given in Chapter Four reflect a

high degress of repeatability, with a minimum of variation

introduced by experimental error. The experimental methods

used, documented in Chapter 3 and references 30, 46, and 47,

are based on ASTM standards, but exercise further control in

critical areas to minimize errors introduced by workmanship.

The procedures were very successful in providing uniform

specimens, and were considered to be essential to maintain­

ing confidence in the test results.

The following sections 5.2 - 5.10, discuss the results

of each series of prism tests. Of primary importance is the

relative effect of different paramenters on clay and con­

crete masonry prism behavior. As stated in Section 1.3, an

exhaustive parameter study was not attempted here, as such

studies have already been undertaken separately for clay and

concrete masonry, and are available in the literature

[6,8,19]. In Sections 5.11 and 5.12, a general comparison

of the stress strain characteristics of clay and concrete

masonry is made, and the implications on design are discus­

sed.

5.2 EFFECT OF UNIT SIZE

The effect of unit size on ultimate strength of prisms

is illustrated in Figure 5.1 where the ratio of prism

strength to unit strength is plotted relative to unit width

(Fig. 5.1). Grouted and ungrouted clay unit prism strengths

57 Preceding page blank

2.0

• GROUTED CLAY

0 UNGROUTED CLAY

• GROUTED CONCRETE :::c: 0 UNGROUTED CONCRETE f-

1.5 t::1 :z: .... a:: f-en

f-

:z: ;:j 1.0

......

:::c: 0-f- -a t::1 :z: ....

0.5 a::

~ f- • ~ en

:;: en a:: "-

0.0

4" 5" 8"

NOMINAL UNIT WIDTH

FIGURE 5.1 PRISM STRENGTH VS. UNIT SIZE FOR GROUTED AND UNGROUTED PRISMS

were constant at an average of 44% of the unit strength,

regardless of unit size. Ungrouted concrete prism strength

was also virtually independent of unit size, with prism

strength averaging 70% of unit strength. G::-')11ted concrete

prism strengths, however, show a strong dependence on unit

size, increasing as unit size increases. For 6" and 8"

prisms, the prism strength actually exceeds the unit

strength. Table 3.1 shows that the ratio of grouted area to

gross area increases with unit size, suggesting a relation-

ship between grouted area and prism strength, however, the

relationship is not directly proportional.

5.3 EFFECT OF GROUTING

Figure 5.1 also illustrates the effect of grouting on

58

compressive strength of clay and concrete prisms. Grouting

had a minor effect on the strength of clay prisms. Six inch

prisms showed no change in strength due to grouting, and

eight inch prisms showed a 17% decrease in strength. Later­

al unit strains, as reflected by Poisson's ratio in Table

4.1, increased by 82% from ungrouted to grouted six inch

prisms strength. Results concur in part with those of Brown

and Whitlock [6] who found that for Type N mortar six inch

prisms showed no change in strength due to grouting and

eight inch prisms showed a 32% decrease in (net area)

strength. They also reported an increase in unit lateral

strain with the presence of grout. Concrete prisms showed a

dramatic increase in strength with the. addition of grout.

While ungrouted concrete prisms attained 70% of unit

strength, grouted 6" prisms attained 113% of unit strength

and 8" prisms attained at 130% of unit strength. These

results are not in agreement with the results of Hamid and

Drysdale [8] who reported a decrease in prism strength from

80% of the unit strength to 60% of the unit strength with

the addition of grout. Even when grout strength exceeded

unit strength, as was the case in this project, they report­

ed a loss of strength with grouting.

The conflicting results for concrete prisms suggest a

complex failure mechanism which is dependent on the relative

deformational properties of unit and grout. Apparently, the

combination of concrete unit and grout used in this study

was such that the tensile splitting failure mechanis~ no

59

longer applied, and the materials behaved more homogeneously

than in previous studies.

5.4 EFFECT OF MORTAR TYPE

The stress-strain curves for grouted prisms are identi­

cal for prisms constructed with Type N mortar and Type S

mortar. This was true for both clay and concrete prisms,

and agrees with more comprehensive tests reported by

Drysdale & Hamid [8] and Self [37]. While mortar strength

may have a significant effect on modular brick prism

strength, [3], it does not appear to be a significant para­

meter in the compressive behavior of grouted hollow unit

masonry.

5.5 EFFECT OF GROUT STRENGTH

A comparison of Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.15, and 4.16 shows

little difference in the behavior of prisms made with diffe­

rent grouts. The clay prisms showed a 4% increase in prism

strength for a 15% increase in grout strength. The concrete

prisms showed a 3% increase in prism strength for a 5%

increase in grout strength. Stiffness and peak strain were

unaffected.

The increase in concrete prism strength with increasing

grout strength, though slight, was more efficient than the

increase in clay prism strength. This is consistent with

the results discussed in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 which indicate

that the properties of the concrete prisms in this project

were much more dependent on grout properties than were the

60

clay prisms. However, it should be noted that while the

increase in prism strength relative to the increase in grout

strength was greater for concrete prisms, the 5% increase in

grout strength was attained at the considerable expense of

increasing the grout cement content by 100% (See Section

3 . 4 ) . In this light, increasing grout strength may not be

considered to be an efficient means of increasing prism

strength.

5.6 EFFECT OF BOND PATTERN

Resu{ts of the tests on running bond prisms show a

strength decrease from stack bond prisms of 18% for clay and

11% for concrete prisms. These results support the results

obtained by previous researchers. Maurenbrecher [27] tested

solid clay brick prisms, and reported strength reductions of

6% - 13% between running bond prisms and stack bond prisms.

Hegemler [19) reported a 16% strength reduction for running

bond grouted concrete block prisms.

Initial stiffness (secant modulus) was also less for

running bond prisms than for stack bond prisms, decreasing

16% for clay and 11% for concrete.

5.7 EFFECT OF LOADING DIRECTION

The behavior of the prisms loaded parallel to the

bedjoint was very different for the clay and concrete

prisms. The concrete prisms, like those loaded perpendicu­

lar to the bedjoint, failed in shear with the grout and unit

acting together as one material. Thus, for the combination

61

of materials and two loading direction investigated, con­

crete prisms behaved isotropically. Clay prisms loaded

parallel to the bedjoint showed a significant loss of

strength and stiffness, and failed in a more brittle, explo­

sive manner than those loaded perpendicular to the bedjoint.

Unlike the concrete units, clay units have three cavities:

two large grouted cavities and one smaller ungrouted cavity

in the center of the unit. (See Figure 3.1). When loaded

parallel to the bedjoint, failure occured in the brick

faceshells next to the central ungrouted core, leaving the

grout unloaded and unfailed. Stress-strain curves show a

jagged loading curve with a small step occurring between

1400 and 1800 psi for all prisms. The step may be the

result of one web failing before the other.

portion of the curve was also jagged.

5.8 EFFECT OF REDUCED PLATEN RESTRAINT

The unloading

It is well known that the lateral frictional restraint

of steel platens on prism ends confines the end units and

produces failure modes different from those observed in full

size walls [5,17,41]. Previous researchers [2,5,17,19,25

,41J have shown that reducing the frictional end restraint

can change the failure mode from shear to vertical tensile

splitting, and significantly reduce the ultimate load capa­

city of a prism. Theoretically, eliminating end restraint

should result in a more uniform stress state in the test

prism thus creating a better model of a masonry wall in

62

compression.

From each set of five clay or concrete prisms tested

with reduced platen restraint, four prisms were tested with

the greased teflon interface, and one control prism was

tested in the standard manner with no teflon interface. The

stress-strain curves are shown in Figures 4.19 and 4.20, and

the lateral strain measurements are shown in Figure 4.24 and

in Appendix A.

Comparison of the stress-strain curve for the control

prism with the others in Figures 4.19 & 4.20 shows the

reduction in ultimate strength that results from reducing

platen restraint. The ultimate strength was reduced 17% for

clay prisms and 15% for concrete prisms. Examination of the

stress-strain curves shows, however, that the peak strain

and secant modulus were unaffected by reduced platen re­

straint.

The stress-lateral strain curves for unrestrained

prisms do not indicate that the lateral strain distribution

in the end units is similar to the lateral strain distribu-

tion in the middle units. As in the case of the control

prism, the end units had less measured lateral strain at a

given load than the middle units.

In general, the stress-lateral strain curves were erra­

tic for the unrestrained prisms, a problem noted by previous

researchers [41]. However, a few trends were visible. The

stress-strain curves for the concrete prisms were generally

smoother and less erratic than for the clay prisms. Also,

63

all prisms displayed less lateral strain on the narrow face

than on the wide face at a given load.

Many of the lateral strain curves for both clay and

concrete indicated a short period of compressive straining

in the end-unit gages at low loads. (The plots show abso-

lute values of recorded data, so the compressive straining

looks like a relaxation of tensile strain followed by a

discontinuity in the stress-strain curve.) This behavior

has been recognized before by Lepetsos [25], who attributed

the compressive strain to the closing of diagonally oriented

microcracks under the gage. This does not explain why the

effect is isolated in the end unit. Both clay and concrete

control prisms displayed this behavior, so the effect is not

isolated to unrestrained prisms.

The unrestrained clay prisms exhibited another inter­

esting phenomenon. At about half of the ultimate load, the

stress-lateral strain diagrams have a short horizontal step,

indicating a sudden large lateral expansion. The step oc­

curred in a middle unit on three prisms and an end unit on

one prism. This behavior is observed in all lateral strain

gages attached to the unit and thus represents material

behavior rather than transducer produced effects. The step

was not isolated to either the wide or narrow face. The

concrete prisms exhibited no such behavior.

Several problems encountered in testing the unre­

strained prisms should be noted. The greased teflon sheets

have a coefficient of friction on the order of 0.014 [2], so

64

they are quite successful in reducing the frictional re­

straint of the platens. However, the loss of restraint

creates new problems. Despite good end-parallelism and

careful placement in the test machine, the greased-end

prisms slid sideways between the platens well before ulti­

mate load was reached. To prevent this, four steel bars

were bolted to the top platen leaving less than 1/1S" clear-

ance around the prism. This prevented major lateral move-

ment of the prism by restraining it along one edge after a

small slip occurred. The lateral forces generated by this

restraint were significant, as in- two cases the failure of a

clay prisms sheared off a 1/8" diameter steel bolt holding

the restraint bar in place. As a result of these problems,

the reduced friction prism tests took significantly more

time and effort than the restrained (normal) prism tests.

In addition, the slip~restraint bars introduced new unknowns

into the prism test. and may have had an undesirable effect

on the axial stress distribution.

5.9 FAILURE MODES

There was a significant difference in the failure modes

of the grouted clay and concrete prisms. In general. con-

crete prisms failed in shear with the grout and units acting

together, while the clay prisms failed by vertical tensile

splitting with the unit face shells separating from the

grout cores. This difference in failure mode is reflected

in the parameter studies discussed in the preceding sec­

tions. Figure 5.1 shows that for the clay prisms, ultimate

65

strength is directly proportional to unit strength, while

grouted concrete prism strength is more dependent on the

grouted area. While clay prisms fail at less than half of

their unit strength the concrete prisms exceeded their unit

strengths, depending primarily on the relatively high grout

strength. Thus unit properties governed clay prism failure

while grout crushing strength governed concrete prism behav-

ior.

5.10 AGREEMENT OF RESULTS WITH PREVIOUS WORK

In' general, observed prism behavior coincided with the

experience of previous researchers. The one significant

exception was the increase in strength attained by grouting

hollow concrete prisms. While previous work [8] has shown

that grouting can decrease the net area strength by increas­

ing the lateral strain in the unit, the concrete prisms in

this project showed no such increase in strain or decrease

in strength. It is suggested that the concrete units and

grout used in this study had very similar properties and

thus the failure mechanism, which is usually dependent on

the interaction of dissimilar materials, was different than

for previously tested prisms. Clay prisms, on the other

hand, behaved as expected, since grout strength and stiff­

ness did not match that of the units.

5.11 SHAPE OF THE STRESS-STRAIN CURVES

The parameters discussed in Sections 5.2 - 5.8 primari-

ly affected prism strength, flm; the shape of the stress-

66

The shape can be

ted in histograms for clay and concrete prisms together and

(Results from the rcduced-

~~proi:'s :::l:t'R not included.)

The el;lo;1 ic moduln~; iCc; cont;istent for the clay prisms, but

varies somewhat with flm for the concrete prisms, giving a flat

die; t r i hu t.-: on . '.::'he c~ic;tl'ib'...lti()n fa:!:' both materials is skewed,

with the relatively high coefficient of variation of 0.22.

distribution, and have a coefficic~nt of variation of O.lE.

F:'~rL1::.-es 5. ,1 Find 5.!l show the area under the stress--strain

curve at strain levels of 1-1/2 and 2 times the peak strain

respectively. The area is expressed as a percentage of the

area under the curve at peak strain. The histograms show that

the arpa 1lnder the curves is very consistent and is equivalent

In general, the stress-strairl characteristics of clay and

concrete masonry, when considered independently of tim, are

virtually identical.

67

en :!: en a:: c..

..... 0

0 z

10 _CLAY

n = 36 8 Mean = 2246

Std. dev. = 299

6 C.O.v. = 0.13

.. 2

o 5 10 15 20 25 30

10 CONCRETE

8 n = 36 Mean = 1953 Std. dev. = 540

6 C.O.v. = 0.28

.. 2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

10 CLAY & CONCRETE

n = 72 8 l-iean = 2098

~~~:v~'v. : :51'111

............. ;11) ...

6

o

4

2

5 10 15 20 25 30

-5 ES X 10 psi

FIGURE 5.2 DISTRIBUTION OF SECANT MODULUS DATA FOR CLAY AND CONCRETE PRISMS

68

en :E en

c: c..

'-c

c: I.o.J a:l

:E :::I z:

10 CLAY. n = 36

8 Mean = 0.0026 Std. dev. = 0.0005 C.O.v. = 0.19

6

2

o 15 20 25 30 35 40

10 CONCRETE n = 37 Mean = 0.0026

a Std. dev. = 0.0003 C.O.v. = 0.12

6

4

2 •••••••

0 15 20 25 30 35

10 CLAY & CONCRETE n = 73 ~ean = 0.0026

a Std. dev. = 0.0004 C.O.v. = 0.16

6

4

2

o 15 20 25 30 35

Ep X 104

in/in

FIGURE 5.3 DISTRIBUTION OF PEAK STRAIN DATA FOR CLAY AND CONCRETE PRISMS

69

40

l 40

10

8

6

4

2

10

en 8 :.;: en c::: 6 c..

..... 4 0

c:: ~ Z c::I :;; ;::)

z: 0

18

16

14

12

10

a

6

4

2

0

CLAY

140 160 180

CONCRETE

140 160 180

CLAY &.

CONCRETE

n = 35 Hean = 155 Std. dev. = 8.3 c.o.v. = 0.05

200 220

n = 37 1·;ean = 151 Std. dev. = 7.2 C.O.v. = 0.05

, 200 220

n =72 ~·lean = 153 Std. dev. = 3.~

c.o.v. = 0.05

140 160 180 200 220

AREA UNDER CURVE AT 1.5 x Ep

FIGURE 5.4 DISTRIBUTION OF AREA-UNDER-CURVE AT 1.5 X tP FOR CLAY AND CONCRETE PRISMS

70

<n :;: <n

c:: a..

....... CJ

c:: ...... a:J :;: ::J :z::

10 CLAY

8

6

4

2

o 140

10 CONCRETE

B

6

160 180

n = 31 Mean = 173 Std. dev. = 15.7 C.O.v. = 0.09

200 220

n = 31 ::ean = 172 S td. dev. = 13. 4

= 0.08

4

2

0

L m _ C.O.v.

................ <II~ll ............. . 140

10 CLAY &

CONCRETE a

6

4

2

140

160 180

160 180

200 220

n = 62 :·:ean = 1 i3 St:i. dev. = 14.6 C.O.v. = 0.08

200 220

AREA UNDER CURVE AT 2.0 X Ep

FIGURE 5.5 DISTRIBUTION OF AREA-UNDER-CURVE AT 2.0 X tp FOR CLAY AND CONCRETE PRISMS

71

5.12 IMPLICATIONS ON DESIGN

The parameter studies discussed in Sections 5.2-5.8

were directed primarily towards understanding how variations

in constituent materials and prism configuration could af­

fect masonry prism behavior. This is an important subject

which has been investigated in some detail, for concrete and

clay seperately, by previous researchers [6,8,19]. For

purposes of design, however, a designer need only know the

value of flm and enough about the stress-strain behavior of

masonry to derive the other parameters applicable to a

problem. The sections that follow discuss the implication

of the stress-strain relationships determined in this study

on assumptions used in working stress and ultimate strength

design.

5.12.1 WORKING STRESS DESIGN

Current design standards provide working stress design

methods for designing masonry buildings. The only material

properties required for designing masonry in compression are

the ultimate strength, flm, and the elastic modulus for the

linear portion of the stress-strain curve. In the code, the

quantity flm is supplied either by a table of unit strengths

and mortar types, or by laboratory tests of prisms. The

elastic modulus is then determined as a function of flm. (Em

= 1000 flm for inspected masonry and Em = 500 flm for un­

inspected masonry) .

Assuming that flm is known, it remains only to tind a

value for the elastic modulus. Figure 5.2 suggests that the

72

elastic modulus is relatively variable, (COV = 0.22), and

using a constant value for clay and concrete may not be

warranted. When the elastic modulus is considered to be a

function of f'm, (Es = kf'm), the correlation is improved.

The values of Es/f'm given in Table 4.1 show a mean value of

439 for clay prisms and 557 for concrete prisms. The com-

bined mean is 498 with a coefficient of variation of 0.18.

While there is some difference in the values of E /f'm for s

clay and concrete, using a single value for both clay and

concrete may be justified for design. Given the inherent

variability in each material a more accurate specification

would not be warrented. Thus, if a reliable means of ob-

taining flm is used, the assumption that clay and concrete

hollow masonry behave identically is justified for working

stress design of masonry in compression.

5.12.2 ULTIMATE STRENGTH DESIGN

Ultimate strength design methods require a more com-

plete understanding of material stress-strain behavior than

working stress design methods. In particular, the shape of

the stress-strain curve beyond ultimate strength and the

ultimate strain are required. In Table 4.1, the area under

the curve at three levels of strain is given to quantify the

shape of the stress-strain curve. The strain at ultimate

strength is also listed. The peak strain is relatively

consistent for both clay and concrete, with a mean value for

all prisms of 0.0026 in/in (cov = 0.16)(See Figure 5.4).

The area under the curve at peak strain varies directly with

73

the ultimate strength, but beyond peak strain the area

increases in the same proportions for both clay and concrete

prisms. (See Figure 5.5)

Before developing a stress block for masonry, the in­

fluence of other factors on the shape of the stress-strain

curve such as load rate and duration [11] and strain grad­

ient effects, must be understood. However, the data pro­

vided by this preliminary investigation suggests that clay

and concrete hollow unit masonry need not be differentiated

for purposes of developing the stress block for ultimate

strength design.

74

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 SUMMARY

The primary objective of this project was to investi­

gate the extent to which clay and concrete hollow unit

masonry have similar engineering characteristics. Parallel

groups of clay and concrete masonry prisms were tested in

uniaxial compression to evaluate the complete stress-strain

characteristics of the two materials. Ten series of tests,

each consisting of five clay and five concrete prisms, were

conducted to determine the influence of unit size, grouting,

mortar strength, grout strength, bond pattern, load direc­

tion, and platen restraint on the relative behavior of clay

and concrete masonry.

The effect of these parameters and the resulting impli­

cations on design methods for clay and concrete masonry are

summarized in the conclusions listed below.

6.2 CONCLUSIONS

(1) The clay and concrete prisms tested in this project did

not display the same type of failure mechanisms. While

clay prisms consistently failed as a result of vertical

tensile splitting, concrete prisms often displayed

shear failures.

(2) Although clay and concrete masonry prisms loaded in

compression may exhibit different failure mechanisms,

the shape of the complete stress-strain curves of these

two materials were essentially identical. This implies

that clay and concrete hollow unit masonry may

75

be regarded as one material for purposes of both work­

ing stress and ultimate strength design.

(3) The influence of bond pattern and mortar strength on

prism strength and stiffness was similar for clay and

concrete prisms.

(4) The influence of unit size (% grouted area), grouting,

and grout strength was different for clay and concrete

prisms, since the interaction of unit and grout was

different for each material.

(5) The influence of loading direction on prism behavior

was different for clay and concrete prisms, but result­

ed from differences in unit geometry rather than mater­

ial properties.

(6) The influence of reduced platen restraint on strength

and stiffness of clay and concrete prisms was the same,

however the lateral strain behavior of the clay units

differed somewhat from that in the concrete units.

6.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDIES

This study has provided a basis for the suggestion that

clay and concrete masonry behave as similar engineering

materials for purposes of design. However, further work

must be done to quantify this work and to extend conclusions

to other types of stress - states experienced by masonry.

Areas of possible concentration are suggested below.

(1) An analytical model for the curves in this and other

related studies should be developed. The applicability

76

of the Kent-Park model for concrete [21] and the modi­

fied Kent-Park model (35] for concrete masonry to both

clay and concrete masonry should be investigated.

(2) The effect of combined bending and axial load on the

stress strain curve should be quantified and compared

for clay and concrete masonry.

(3) Partially-grouted prisms should be investigated.

(4) A comparison of the behavior of clay and concrete shear

walls in shear. in-plane and out-of-plane bending

should be made.

77

78

REFERENCES

1. Anonymous, "Masonry Test of Grout Aid", M~~on!:y Indus­try, February 1967

2. Atkinson, R. H., Noland, J.L., Abrams, D.P., and McNary, S., "A Deformation Failure Theory for Stack-Bond Brick Masonry Prisms in Compression", Proceedings, Third North American Masonry Conference, Arlington, Texas, June 1985.

3. Baur, J., Noland, J. L. ,and Chinn, J., "COmpr,2:3S i on Tests of Clay-Unit Stackbond Prisms", Proc. 1st North American Masonry Conf., Boulder, Colorado, August 1978.

4. Becica, 1.J., and Harris, H.G., "Behavior of Hollow Concrete Masonry Prisms Under Axial Load and Bend­ing", TM§ ~Q~~~al, January-June 1983, pp. TI-T26.

5. Brown, R. H., "Prediction of Brick Masonry Prism Strength from Reduced Constraint Brick Tests", ~ Past ~ Present, ASTM, Philadelphia, 1975, 171-194.

Mason-----pp.

6. Brown, R. H. and Whitlock, A.R., "Compressive Strength of Grouted Hollow Brick Prisms", Masonry: Materials, Properties, and Performance, ASTM STP 778, J. G. Borchelt, Ed., American Society for Testing & Mater­ials, 1982, pp. 99-117.

7. Chuknunenye, A. 0., and Hamid A. A. "Behavior of Con­crete Block Prisms Under Concentric Loading: An Analytical Approach", structural Masonry Laboratory Report No. MS 85/1, Drexel University, 1985.

8. Drysdale, R.G. and Hamid, A.A., "Behavior of Concrete Block Masonry Under Axial Compression", ACI Journal, June 1979, pp. 707-716.

9. Drysdale, R.G. and Hamid, A.A., "Tension Failure Crite­ria for Plain Concrete Masonry", Proc. ASCE, Vol. 110, ST2 Feb. 1984.

10. Drysdale, R.G. and Hamid, A.A., "Capacity of Concrete Block Masonry Prisms Under Eccentric Compressive Loading", ACI Journal, March-April 1983, pp. 102-108.

11. Englekirk, R.E. ,and Hart, G.C., Earthguake Design of Concrete ~asonry Buildings: YQlume ~ Strength De­sign of One-to-Four Story Buildin~, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1984.

79

12. Fattal, S.G. and Cattaneo, L.E., "Structural Performan­ce of Masonry Walls Under Compression and Flexure", National Bureau of Standards Building Science Series No. 73, June 1976.

13. Frey, D.J., "Effect on Constituent Proportions on Uni­axial Compressive Strength of Two Inch Cube Specimens of Masonry Mortars", M.S. Thesis, University of Colo­rado, Boulder, 1975.

14. Hamid, A.A. and Drysdale, R.G., "Concrete Masonry Under Combined Shear and Compression Along the Mortar Joints", ACI Journal, Sept.-Oct. 1980, pp. 314-320.

15. Hamid, A.A. and Drysdale, R.G., "Proposed Failure Cri­teria for Concrete Block Masonry Under Biaxial Stres­ses", Proc. ASCE, Vol. 107, No ST8, Aug. 1981, pp. 1675-1687.

16. Hamid, A.A. and Drysdale, R.G., "Suggested Failure Criteria for Grouted Concrete Masonry Under Axial Compression", ACI Journal, Oct. 1979, pp. 1047-1061.

17. Hanada, K.T., "Effects of Height and End Lateral Res­traints on Clay Unit Prisms", M.S. Thesis, University of Colorado, 1978.

18. Hatzinikolas, M., Longworth, J., and Warwarak, J., "Failure Modes for Eccentrically Loaded Concrete Block Masonry Walls", ACI Journal, No. 77-28, July­August 1980, pp. 258-263.

19. Hegemier, G.A., Krishnamoorthy, G., Nunn, R.O., and Moorthy, T.V., "Prism Tests for the Compressive Strength of Concrete Masonry", Proc. First North American Masonry Conference, Boulder, Colorado, August 1978.

20. Hodgkinson, H.R. and Davies, S., "The Stress Strain Relationships of Brickwork when Stressed in Direc­tions Other than Normal to the Bed Face", Proceedings 6th IBMAC, Rome 1982.

21. Kent, P.C.,and Park, R., "Flexural Members with Con­fined Concrete", Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 97: ST7, 1969-1990, July 1971.

22. Khalil, M.R.A., "Stress-Strain Behavior of Clay and Concrete Masonry," M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Calgary, June 1979.

80

23. Kingsley, G.R., Tulin, L.G. ,and Noland, J.L., "Para­meters Influencing the Quality of Grout in Hollow Clay Masonry", Proceedings, 7th International Brick Masonry Conference, Melbourne, Australia, February, 1985.

24. Kingsley, G. R., Tulin, L.G. ,and Noland, J.L., "The Influence of Water Content and Unit Absorption Prop­erties on Grout Compressive Strength and Bond Strength in Hollow Clay Masonry", Proceedings Third NAMC, Texas, June 1985.

25. Lepetsos, G.N., "An Investigation into the Distribution of Strains of Masonry Prisms", Senior Project (Unpub­lished., University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 1984.

26. Maurenbrecher, A.H.P., "Compressive Strength of Eccen­trically Loaded Masonry Prisms", Proc. 3rd Canadian Masonry Symposium, Edmonton, Canada June 1983, pp. 10.110.13.

27. Maurenbrecher, A.H.P., "Effect of Test Procedures on Compressive Strength of Masonry Prisms", Proceedings: 2nd Canadian Masonry Symposium, Ottawa, Canada, 1980, pp. 119-132.

28. Miller, D.E., Noland, J.L. ,and Feng, C.C., "Factors Influencing the Compressive Strength of Hollow Clay Unit Prisms", Proc. 5th Int. Brick Masonry Conferen­ce, Washington, D.C., 1979.

29. Miller, M.E., Nunn, R.O., and Hegemier, G.A. ,"The In­fluence of Flaws, Compaction, and Admixture on Strength and Elastic Moduli of Concrete Masonry", National Science Foundation Report No. UCSD/AMES/TR-78-2, August 1978.

30. Noland, J.L., "Proposed Test Method for Determining Compressive strength of Clay-Unit Prisms", for West­ern States Clay Products Assoc. by Atkinson-Noland & Assoc., Inc., Boulder, Colorado, June 1982.

31. Nunn, R.O., Miller, M.E. ,and Hegemier, G.A., "Grout­Block Bond Strength in Concrete Masonry", National Science Foundation Report No. UCSD/AMES/TR-78001, March 1978.

32. Pedreschi, R.F. and Sinha, B.P., "The Stress/Strain Relationship of Brickwork" Proceedings 6th IBMAC, Rome, 1982.

81

33. Powell, B. and Hodgkinson, H.R., "The Determination of Stress/Strain Relationship of Brickwork", Proceedings 4th IBMAC.

34. Priestley, M.J.N.,"Ductility of Unconfined and Confined Concrete Masonry Shear Walls," The Masonry Society Journal, Vol. 1, No.2, July December, 1981, pp T28-T39.

35. Priestley, M.J.N. and Elder, D.M., "Stress-Strain Cur­ves for Unconfined & Confined Concrete Masonry", ACI Journal, No.80-19, May-June 1983.

36. Ridinger, W., "Effect of Unit and Mortar Properties on Compressive Strength of Hollow Clay Unit Prisms", M.S. Thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder, 1979.

37. Self, M.V., "Structural Properties of Load-Bearing Concrete Masonry", Masonry: Past & Present, ASTM STP 589, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1975, pp. 233-254.

38. Scrivener, J.C. and Williams, D., "Compressive Behavior of Masonry Prisms", University of Canterbury, New Zealand, 1971.

39. Uniform Building Code, 1985.

40. Uniform Building Code Standards, 1982.

41. Watstein, D., "Relation of Unrestrained Compressive Strength of Brick to Strength of Masonry", Journal of Materials, JMLSH, Vol. 6, No.2, June 1971, pp. 304-319.

42. Yokel, F.Y., Mathey, R.G. ,and Dikkers, R.D., "Strength of Masonry Walls Under Compressive and Transverse Loads", Building Science Series 34, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C., 1971.

43. Yokel, F.Y., Mathey, R.G. ,and Dikkers, R.D., "Compres­sive Strength of Slender Concrete Masonry Walls", National Bureau of Standards Building Science Series No. 33, December 1970.

44. Yong, P.M.F., "Grouting of Concrete Masonry" New Zea­land Ministry of Works and Development Report No. 5-83/7,1983.

45. Yorkdale, BIA Hollow Brick Masonry Testing Program, Unpublished, 1973.

82

46. "Construction of Masonry Prisms", Atkinson-Noland & Associates and the Dept. of Civil Engineering,Univer­sity of Colorado, Boulder, May 1985.

47. "Preparation and Testing of Two-Inch Mortar Cubes", Atkinson-Noland & Associates, and the Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, May 19iJ /1.

83

84

APPENDIX INDIVIDUAL TEST RESULTS

The stress-strain curves derived from the externally

mounted LVDT data are presented in Sections A.l - A.9 for

each prism tested. See Figure 3.6 for. the locations of

LVDT'g I, 2, 3, and 4. Section A.10 contains the lateral

strain data from the r~ducedpla~en constraint tests. See

Figure 3.7 for the location of the strain gages for the

reduced platen constraint tests.

85 Preceding page blank

86

A.I SERIES 1

UNIT WIDTH ~" "0

GROUT STANDAHD

MORTAR TYPE II

BOND PATTERN ST:\CK BOiTD

LOAD DIRECTION NORMAL TO BZDJOI~T

87 Preceding page blank

. Q.

2600

19S0

1300

650

6500

sase

S21l1l

4550

~ 3911"

III 32SIl III w

"' f-Ul 260e

195"

1300

SSIl

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES I1ASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE. 11/1!I7/8~

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (etraln)

CLAY 1

ATKINSON-NOLAND RNO ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

TEST. S-CLY-G-0 SPECIMEN. 9-17-1

TEST: 6-CLY-G-6 SPECIMEN, 9-17-]

~- --- --­

f--- -- ----- Lvdt I

Lvdt 2

-- --_._- Lvdt 3

Lvdt '"

EXTERNAL LVOT'S (~tr4In)

CIAY 2

88

" Q

6"i00

58'.30

5200

4550

39'10

II) 3250

'" ,.1 tr i­,n

1950

13110

58'50

4550

~ 3900

" a.

U1 3250 'n W

'" i-ttl 2600

1950

1300

650

[~~

FHKINSON-NOLAND ArID RSSOCIATES HHSONRY PRISM TESTS OF-HE:

"--. \1114 :m18

T[3T: 6-CLy-r,-A SPECIMEN: 9-17-4

---- ---- Lvdt 1 Lvdt 2

.nl~ i ,

"~ 12

Lvdt 3

Lvdt '"

ExrlRW1L LV[)T'S (strain)

ClAY 3

ATk I rJ501'1-~JOLAI'IO H~lO FISSI)C r AT£.S MHSONRY PRrSM TlST~

lJFHE) 11/117/114

rEST: 6-~L"(-G-0

SFlCU-1E11: g-I/-'j

,~18 " 02~

'.~-I---- --- ---- -----+----+---~,--f____-- -- ---

'---~/;Il 1---- __ '_'\--___ --_'-L-Y-dt-l-'---'--l---

f--- -- Lvdt 2

-----{ -~----------II----+i____------- Lvdt --- -'-

I-__ '~I-' \------ Lvdt •

1--/ -------- --'- ---- --- -----1-----+----1--

~/·----~---------l-~-------I - --- -- -~I-­I -----I------~-----I---4---~·---·-~-~--i______-· -----

1/1---I----~------_4,-------1--------+-----~,-------+------+-----+_----~

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

ClAY 4

89

~

" Q.

'" '" w 0: I-

'"

6500

5950

5200

~550

3900

3250

2600

1950

;,: --1---il

1300 b 650 J--

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE. 01/17/85

r! -

---.

---' . __ .-1------ ----

TEST: 6-CNC-G-2 SPECIMEN: 11-6-1

Lvdt 1 -- ~- L'Idt 2

-- c--._- Lvdt 3 --- r------- Lvdt 4

'-

------

----

"",.--~-~.000 .002 .004 .008 .010 .012 .014 .016 .018 .020

fi500

5850

5200

4550

~ 3900

" ~ In 3251'1

'" w 0: ,-'" 28p.a

1950

1300

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

CONCRETE 1

ATf(IN~iON-NOLRND AND RSSOCIATES I1ASONRY PRISM TE~TS DATE1 Al/14/85

rEST~ 6-CUC-G-2 SPECIHENI 11-6-2

Lvdt Lvdt

Lvdt

Lvdt '" I

1

/' I III .~ / I I, I] II .Il-Ll .... L~L-J'o--J,.~ .. ""l~ 1

ssa

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

CONCRETE 2

90

59SA

5200

455"

In 325H

" w lY I-m 2600

19513

1300

. "-

5A50

~550

UJ 325e U1 ,~

lY I­l1J

ATKINJ:ON-NOLflNO fHH.l ASSOCIATES HH~t)NR.Y ftR I:m n::::iTS IiHTE: A!/14/AS

-. ----.

TE~TI f)-CNC-G-2 ~f1ECHtE:Nt 11-fl-3

1

------+------- Lvdt

Exr~RN~L LVDT"S (5traln)

CONCRETE 3

RTKINSON-~MLAtID AND RS:;OCIFlTE:S r-Jn~j0NRY PRISl1 T!:..SrS IlfHt:1 AI/11/HS

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (Etraln)

CONCRETE 4

91

Lvdt

Lvdt 3

Lvdt "'

- --- j

TEST: R-CNI:-~-2

:-:i- ECIHErl! t! -li-4

I i

i j I I I I I I

___ ~ __ L __ ~_ j .016 .~19 .;J2~

~ . 0.

Ul Ul w

'" I-Ul

6501!1

5851!1

521!11!1

4551!1

3901!1

3251!1

2601!1

1951!1

1301!1

S51!1

,.-//

/jI)

/// 1//1 :/ II

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 01/17/85

[1

TESTt 6-CNC-G-2 SPECIMEN: 11-6-5

Lvdt 1 -- c---- - Lvdt 2

-- !----._- Lvdt 3 --- i----- Lvdt 4

i

I

I ~.01!11!1 .01!12 .1!I1!I4 .I!II!IS .010 .1!I12 . eJ \4

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

CONCRETE 5

92

.-

.018 .!!I21!1

A.2 SERIES 2

UNIT WIDTH

GROUT

MORTAR

BOND PATTERN

LOAD DIRECTION

4"

STANDARD

TYPE N

STACK BOND

NORMAL TO BEDJOINT

93

~ . a.

LJ1 LJ1 w

"' >-LJ1

6500

5850

5200

RTKINSON-NOLAND RND RSSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 2/26/85

TEST: 4-CLY-G SPECIMEN: 12-10-6

Lvdt \

Lvdt 2

-r---­~-~~-~--

4550 -------~. ---------"

3900

6500

5850

5200

45se

3900

3250

2600

1950

1300

650

CLAY 1

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND RSSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 2/27/85

Lvdt 3

Lvdt "

1<

TEST: 4-CLY-G SPECIMEN: 12--19-7

Lvdt 3

L ... dt 4

----~l----

---- ---- ---- - -~

.0-10~~~.eI2 .1314 ,1316 --.eI8~-.02e

EXTERNAL LVOT'S (strain)

ClAY 2

94

6S00

5850

5200

4550

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 2/26/85

f f

TEST: 4-CLY-G SPECIMEN: 12-19-8

-----,---,

-----'f-----i Lvdt

- -- Lvdt

-.-- Lvdt

~ 3900 ---I ~ _' _____ + ___ + ___ + ___ + ___ -+-_-_-__ ,+-L_v,_d_t_4-+ ___ --I ___ --+

; 3258 -1/;/ ------,I-----j----I----- ----t----I----+---+----1 w

~ 2600 M~ 1950 -h I~-- ----------t---+----j-----+----i---j---+----~

--- -----1--------1 ''"" If· -... ---- -,-.--------'"" t -- _.- ------- --------1----+----+-----1

~_0~0 -~002 -~004 --~006--.0jj8-- -:0T0---;-0~12OC----.-*0·1·4----.-.!0~1"'6---.0~-____:020

6500

5850

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

ClAY 3

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 2/26/85

r--- - r --- - r ---- ---

TEST: 4-CLY-G SPECIMEN: 12-19-9

------,--- ----

1----- ----- L ------- --f-----.-.-+----j----- ----1---- -----

5208 I--------t-----t----i----r---- ---- 1------+------1-

4550

---j------iLvdt f- Lvdt 2

j---j----I-----j-----+-----+-----i-----+----+----l---~

r-------- Lvdt --- ----- Lvdt ..

~ 3900 I----I----j----+----- ---- ------+---- ----j-----+------. "- (

~ 3250 I-----f rr---- ----1---'-- ------I---t----j

----.j------+--- t---- ----,-+---+------~ 2600 r--Il----: ::: ~j_--- -.--- ---- t------- ~~-_--+----.---:~~::~~~--t-=

1.000 .082 .004 .006 .008 .010 .012 .a14 .016 .018 .a20

EXTERNAL LVDT'S <5traln)

CLAY 4

95

~ . D.

m m w « >-m

65~m

5B5B

52BB

455B

3geB

3250

26B0

1950

1300

650

e--

---

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE, 2/26/85

~( II e---IH ~f;r >-Ij J~ ~-

TEST, 4-CLY-G SPECIMEN: 12-19-10

Lvdt I -- -f---- Lvdt 2

-- I-- Lvdt 3 --- e------ Lvdt 4

e----

~ --- I I ~.00B .002 .004 .006 .008 .010 .812 .014 . BI6

EXTERNAL Lvor's (Etr~ln)

CLAY 5

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATEI 2/26/85

TESTt ~-CNC-G SPECIMEN, 12-19-11

--

---.J ,01B ,820

6500

5a50

52BB

r----- -----r-·-- ,--- --- -1--r-l=J=:-~ f-----~----~--- -------1----- --- --- --- -

1----e------- ----1----l--- -- -- -j-l Lvdt t

4550

39B0

" 2-m 3250 m w « >-m 2600

1950

1300

550

-- ~-- Lvdt 2

r--' --. 1-- Lvdt 3 --- e------ Lvdt ..

--

--- I-- i 1---'1;-'-1---------\----- 1----+ --I

'-, ~-t

I-

W .BB2 .00~ .'ms

--f------ ------- '------ .. -

.B09 .01B .B12

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (st,olo) , CONCRETE 1

96

-- ----

--t--.

.B14 .BIS .019 .020

6500

5850

5200

4550

~ 3900

" ~ Ul 3250 Ul w

'" I-Ul 2600

1950

1300

650

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 2'27'85

TEST: 4-CNC-G SPECIMEN: 1-7-1

-~- ~--~~---~ -~--~----'--f-------.----.-. ... .~ -~~F = -----t------t-----I~- -1---- --- ------ ---- - f-------j----1

---f----ILvdt l '-- ~- Lvdt 2

--- ~-----1-~~+--~- -~-_+------ ------+----j--~~_1

--~- Lvdt 3

"----- Lvdt 4 ~~--r----- ---~- ~--f----- --- ---- r-----~j___---_1

-,; //'-;/~'~--j--------- --- ---------- j----

-/~ :-~-- -- --1/

11-r--~~ ---- --f-~-----j-------I- --- -----+----4-----j

-#-- -------+----+----- t---~-)____-- ----- -------

l ----------------

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

CONCRETE 2

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 2'26'85

TEST. 4-CNC-G SPECIMEN: 1-7-2

6500 ,------- ---- --- - ------ ---- r------

5850 r--- -----e---- ----- ----- ----f--- --~- j___-------- -----

5200 )------- c----~- ---- ----- -~-- ------~ ---- -- ----

4550

~ 3900 . a.

Ul 3250 Ul w

'" I-Ul 2600

1950

1300

650

Lvdt ! - ~- Lvdt 2

r-~-r--------f----- -----+----1----- -- -----~-----t_-__I

--~- Lvdt 3

----- Lvdt " j----+---~f---+_---'-_l----r__-- ---- ----- -----+-----j

-------r-----r­r/+--------f------- -

17----- --~-+--~-+-~---+---------j----+-~-+---~-I

I )------V

.002 .004 .006 .008 .010 .012 .014 .016 .018 .020

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (~tratn)

CONG.~TE 3

97

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 2/27/95

TEST, 4-CNC-G SPECIMEN: 1-7-3

6S0B r---------,-------,-------,--------,-------,,------,-------,--------r--------,-------,

S8SB f--~-_t----t_---+__----~-~ -- --- -----+__-----+----1

S20B C----- -----!------,r----- +-------j----+__-- ------+----1 ---t----ILvdt 1

4SSB 1---- r---- ---r- -- Lvdt 2

--- Lvdt r------ Lvdt ..

~ 39BB ~--------~-----j---- -----+-----~-----+-----4_-----t_--__1

" "-

Ul 32S0 ----- r-- ----- ------ ----~ I,

t;; 260B t-----/--- -------- -----t----t----t-----t-----+---~

19SB ~~--~----t-----r---~-----~----+----+----t----+---~

1300 --/i--- ----+------1----------+---,----1-----1-- ----"f-----t

"" ~-t-----+ ~.00~0-02----.004----~0n006----.~0;n0~8---.~0~lna,---.'0~1~2,---.ia~I~ • .----C.B~16,---.~0~18o---~.a20

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (stratn)

CONCRETE 4

98

A.3 SERIES 3

UNIT I'HDTH

GROUT

MORTAE

BOND PATTERN

LOli.D DIRECTION

8"

STANDARD

TYPE N

STACK BOND

NORMAL TO BEDJOINT

99

~

" "-

'" '" w '" >-III

"

ATKINSON-r~OLAND AND ASSOCIATES TEST, 9-CLY-G-1l MASONRY FRISM TESTS SPECIMEN, 9-25-6 DHTEI 11/15/94

SSEl0 ---- ----- ------ ------ ,.----- -------- ------ ---------,----_-,

5950 ----- --- -----t----+----- ----- ------- -----+------1

5200 ---- ----- ---------+---+-- ----,----- ----+----1 Lvdt 1

- -- Lvat 4550 -----1-----+----1----- --- ------

---- Lvdt ----. Lvdt 4

391"'" --------- -1--- -----------+----1

3250 --- 1----1------- --- --- -.---- -----

260'" -----1--------- --- ------ --

1950 ----- - ------ --- -- -- ---+---+----- -----

1300 --------f------. ------ f-------------- -----

---- ------ ------ ------ ---- ---

I ~_O?~---_lffi-2---_~~~~.---_-~~~O~6---_~0·n0m9~--_'0~ln0.---_'0~1~2,--~.1'I'14.-----.~0;ole6---.~~~1'I2'"

5950

5200

4550

3900

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (~traln)

CLAY 1

ATKIr~SON-NOLflND Af-lD HS::;OCIATES HH~nNRY PRISM rE~TS

DATEI 11/14/94

TEST, ~-CLY-G-0 SFECIHENI 9-2J-7

~_~ -~-r= __ ~~~=--d.== Lvdt 1

1--- -- Lvdt 2

!;

~~:I- ... -----~~~--~:I------------++------------+=------~-=-=---_- ~--~:--~I~~= __ -_-_ t----III 3250 ----+-----+------ ----j----1

UI w

'" >-UI 2600 ------ -----1--- --- ---- ----

1950 --+----- ----- - -- ---t-------

1300 --- r------ ---- ---- ----- ----

650

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (stratn)

ClAY 2

100

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES HA30NRY PRISH TESTS DATE. 11/14/84

TESTI 9-CLY-G-~ SPECIMENs 9-25-9

5950 ------ --- ------ -- --- --- ----- ----- ----- -----

5200

4550

~ 39~0 ! ~ 325~ { -- /

in 2600 \- /-

1950 11--1300 ~/j - ----650 V - - -

"

Ii.~,," .""2- ."'fl.--."~6~--:i0-8- .01~ .012

EXTERNAL LVDT~S (~tr~ln)

65~0

5850

ClAY 3

flTK INS ON-NOLAND AND RSSOC IATES 11RSl'1NRY PRISM TE~TS DHTEI 11/1S/R4

52'l0 ----------~-

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (~tr~ln)

CIAY 4

101

Lvdt 1 Lvdt 2

Lvdt 3 Lvdt ..

."16

TE~TI B-CLY-G-~ SPECIMEN: 9-25-10

ATKHlSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATEr 11/14/84

ssm, - ---- ----- ------ -------

TEST. 8-CNC-G-1l SPECIMEN, 9-25-1

5850 ------- ------- - ---- ----- -------- --- -------- -------- ------

5200 ---- ----- --- ------ ---- ------ --- - --- ---- -

4550 -------

3900

--->----1 Lvdt 1 -- Lvdt 2

Lvdt 3 Lvdt -4

!II 3250 !II w '" l-t/) 2600

1950

1300

650

S50"

5850

5200

4550

3900 . "-

!II 3250 'n w

'" I-!II 2S00

1950

1300

S50

-~--- -----.012 .014 .01S .IlIS .02"

EXTERNRL LVDT'S ($traln)

CONCRETE 1

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MRSONRY PRISH TESTS

TEST, 8-CHC-C,-e! SPECHIUI, 9-25-2

DATE, 11/3f1/84

Lvat 3 Lvdt ..

--- ----t------

-==~Jf= ___ _ .010 .012 .014 .016 .~18 .020

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (~traln)

CONCRETE 2

102

SAS0

4550

RTKHISNI-NOLAND mm ASSOCIRTES I1HSr)tlR'{ PRISM TESTS DATE: 11/!4/84

TEST: 8-CNC-G-\1 SPECIMEt'l: 9-2']-3

r- T .. [;. _. 1-1

. "- 325~ /'! --~--- ~---- -,- --l-~ ---~'-~-~--- -1-----1 ""' I f- _.I . 1_ I i]-I 19S0

130~

""' ~----- r-- i---l-ri 1-\l.~;;"---~~"2--:00'---.001i--~J0~8--.iT~" --:012--- Jl4 -- -.~ff,--

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (str~ln)

CONCEETE 3

ATKINSON-NOL.RND AtlD ASSOCIATES t-1fi3f)NRY PR I SH TES rs DATEI 11/14/84

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (~traln)

CONCRETE 4

103

TESTI R-CNC-(;-e SPECIHUJ; 9-25-4

- - ~

--- j 9 ,\J2~

104

A.4 SERIES 4

UNIT WIDTH

GIWUT

MORTAR

BOND PATTERN

LOAD DIRECTION

6"

NONE

TYPE N

STACK BOND

NORMAL TO BEDJOINT

105 Preceding page blank

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MRSONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 11/02/84

TEST: 8-CLY-NG-e SPECIMEN. 9-18-6

G5aa ----,-----r------,--- -- ,------- ------

585a f---~---f------+_---_+------+_-----~-----~----~-----~----

5200 -----~----ILvdt

Lvdt 71/ '55a -----4~-?---+----~-------~-----r_-----t------

V- i------- Lvdt f------ Lvdt ..

~ 390a ~-f - ---- ---I___~II_____1--t-__+-- I---j

~ 3250 -- -f ---- ----- -- ---- -------f----_1----- ----c------j,-----j

~ 2S01'lZ -/--+----+-----+---+--+--1------ .--

195a -1Y-- ---- ----- --- ------t-----+-------~------t-------r_---_1 130a 1-// - ------~------~----l_------ ------ ----- -----+-----+------1

'" {-~ --- ------ ---- --- -- ---------- ------

. 0.

Ul Ul w u: 0-Ul

~.0~0 .0"2 .0a •• 006 .008 .01a .012 .014 .018 .018 .020

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

CLAY 1

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATEI 11/02/84

TEST: 6-CLY-NG-e SPECIMEN: 9-18-7

G51'l1'l ------- ---- ----- ,-----,----- ----

5850 ---- r------ ----c-------

5200 ---~----ILvdt t

45se

391'la ---- --- ------+-----1----

3250 f-----+---- -- ---- ----- ------

2601'l

1950 ----- ------ ----------- ----

1300 --- ----- ------ ----~--- ------+----+------

650 -- ----- --- -----~-----j------, 1;'

~.e,,1'l .1'l02---. 00''---'. ";'''''''6---.0 !0~8~---.""'"'lI'~l--.-0,b12~---. ;';"-'174--. e j 6

EXTERNAL LVOT'S (~traln)

CLAY 2

106

~

" D.

Ul <n w

'" >-Ul

650~

585~

5200

.550

3900

325'"

2500

1950

1300

650

5850

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE I 1 I /~2/8 4

TEST, 6-GLY-NG-~

SPECIMEN: 9-18-8

1-----+------ ---- --------- ------

,

--- ----- Lvdt 1

Lvdt 2

.-- Lvdt 3 ---- Lvdt -4

.01R

EXTERNHL LVUT'S (strain)

CIAY 3

ATKIW~ON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES r-1H,"",;OHR Y PH I SM TESTS DHTE: 11/02/8-4

// 1/; -----f

--"1 I

----j

Tf:. '2T: fi -CL Y-~IG-A SFEJ~ H1EtJ: 9 - I H-9

---- T ._ -_0-

-----

520~ ------1/1; ---------- -----Lvdt I Lvdt 2

-----f--

. ::: _--/~r- -; 3250 ---/IJ ----- -­

---- ----------:f-----j .-- Lvcit 3

---- Lvdt -4 ---- ------- ---- ------l------j--.--

~ 2G00 --/~ -j------

--- --- --- -1------ ---- ---- ----1

--- ~I-------t-------f--------i 1950 -~i----t----t--

I~--L]~:= 650 ~t-- - --I

~.1l~-:002--. "-04---. 0116

~ =-J= - ---_-,f------i ____ _

.~08 .010 .012 .014 .016 .A18 .020

1300

EXTERNAL LVOT'S (str~ln)

CIAY4

107

. c.

6500

seS0

5200

4550

3900

Ul 3250 Ul

'" '" f-U1 2600

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES flASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 11/02/84

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (stral~)

ClAY 5

ATKINSON-/'IOLAtJD Af'JO ASSOCIATES HA'30~JR:Y PR I SH H .. 5 TS DATEI 11/9/84

TEST: S-CLY-NG-0 SPECIMEN: 9-\8-\0

TEST: 6 -OIC-tJG-A SPECIHEN; 9-1B-1

=----=-y Lvdt I

L'"dt 2

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

CONCRETE 1

108

L"dt 3

L"dt "

i-

.020

852121

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE ill /9/84

TEST. 8-CHC-NG-B SPECIMEN: 9-18-2

-- ------~----. ----- "---- -----.---~~- ----

58521 --------- _____________________________ ,._

S2BB ------- -----. .. ------t---+----4----+-----4 ---1-----1 Lvdt -- +--- Lvdt

~S5a -------- ----

~ 392121 ---- ---__ _

f----- Lvdt 1------ Lvdt ..

---.--1-----I------+----,f-----t------ .1--__ -' . ~ til tn w Il t-'n

" 0.

32SB

26021

19521

132121

6521

S8SB

--- ---- -----f-------'f----- ----- --- -_

- f' ---- ----- -+---~--- -1-----1----+---- -._

-f~--·-- ----- ---1---- ----1--.--- ----.-

-----1----- -----t---- - . -- --.-----. ~~2~·-__:_~~4 ------: mj6~-- ~ ~~9--. 010---. 0f2-~~0i-4--_:_016--, a-I 8---. 020

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

COHCPETE 2

ATKINSON-NOLAND RNO ASSOCIATES HHSmJRY PRISM TESTS DATEI 11/9/84

f------- ----- ------ 1-----

TEST I I;-CNC-~4G-0

SPECIHE..N: 9-\8-3

---- -~-.--.--.-- ------

-----~---j----j

52IlB f---- ---- ---- ---l_--f---- ---- LV:;-;-­

I-- -- Lvdt 2

--_._---

4SSB ---- ----I-----f----t-------- ---- ----- ---+-----1 --. 1---,-- Lvdt 3

Lvdt ~

---t---I------- ----- ------

In 32SB f-----I---- ----- ---U1 w Il t­In 262121 ----T~:--- -----f----·-f--·-t----t----- ---.-+-------+-----j

W 19SB 1---£ L __ --- -----jf----I----- -'--- f----i----- ---

II/? 131lB - '1/- ----f----+------1------I----- ----t----+------+----j

1/ 6SB ~/t--l----+--+ ----+---+---+---+--t----­

~: ~,0~e~0.---,'0ke~2,---,.B~i0>.4.---,~BB~6~-_,,~0~0R8--~,~0~1eB-,-~,10~122--~,~B~I~4~--,~B~lll6;_-~,018

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (&traln)

CONCREI'E 3

109

650~

585iJ

4550

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 11/9/84

T[STI 6-CNC-NG-~

SPECIMEN: 9-18-4

---.~ - .. - .. ---.-.r-.-.-- ---.... ---.

----t-------ILvdt 1 - -- Lvdt 2

-j----. ---.-. --- ---f---- ---- .---.- ---- - .. ----- Lvdt 3 ----- Lvdt 4

~ 3900 ----- -.----

(1J 32se In

----+-----t.-.-.-. -.-- .---w

'" I-(1J

. c.

2600 -.--~ ---~ ~-.--r---------+-.-------- .. -

--_ .. -- ---.-j----~----- ---_. ----:::: ~/,f/_ 650 f~·· -. -----,,1 l~--_±_c~-J--- __ _ ~. ~~~------:-~A2-----. ~~-. --. m~G---. 00-8----, 0 10--. 0 1 2 . ~ 1 4 . 0 16 . H t 8 . PJ2 ~

6500

SS5a

5200

4550

3900

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (str~tn)

CONCP£TE 4

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MtiSO~J~Y PRISM TESTS DRTEt 11/9/84

------ .---. - -_._._--- ----

TEST: 6-CNC-NG-~

SPEC I MEN: 9 -1 8-5

~---T-- -­-- - - t

Lvdt t Lvdt 2

Lvdt 3 Lvdt ..

T-·-

<n 3250 .---- 1-.---.. ----.+-.----+ en w

'" I-In 2600 ---..... -- --- - -.---- -------1----.

1950 ---r-------.-- --

1300 -- --.----~ -~.-r---- -----

6se --_._-- ._- -.-----.~-------..

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (~traln)

CONCRETE 5

no

A.5 SERIES 5

UNIT WIDTH

GROUT

MORTAR

BOND PATTERN

LOAD DIRECTION

8"

NONE

TYPE N

STACK BOND

NORMAL TO BEDJOINT

111

6500

[~-5850

5200

4550

~ 3900

" "-

Ul Ul w

'" >-Ul

3250

2600

1950 ~ 1300 I~ 650 ,&

" "-

1),.01j0

6500

5850

5200

4550

3900

Ul 3250 ~ tn W

'" >-tn 2600

1950

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 12/5/84

___ J .002 .004 .0mi

,-.0B8

t --

I

I i .B10 .012

EXTERNRL LVUr's (straIn)

CLAY 1

RTKINSON-NOLANil AND ASSOCIATES MHSONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 12/£;/84

TEST: B-CLY-NG-0 SPECIMEN: 10-2-1

Lvdt I Lvdt 2

Lvdt 3 Lvdt 4

.016 - -- .01B

rEST: 8-CLY-~~G-0

SPlC !MEtL 10-2-2

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

CIAY 2

112

.020

6500

5850

5200

4550

3900 -" "-

3250

2600

1950

1300

650

6500

5850

52!m

4550

~ 3900 -" "-

3250

2600

1950

1300

650

RTKINSON-NOLRND AND ASSOCIRTES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 12/6/84

i I

I - I ,~02

I

I .004

---1- --- . ',006' ,008 -, -:-010

--I ,012

EXTERNAL LVOT'S (straIn)

CLAY 3

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE; 12/5/84

T(ST: 8-CLY-NG-0 SPECIMEN: 10-2-3

TEST: 8-CLY-NG-0 SPECIMEN: 10-2-4

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

CLAY 4

113

. <L

" "-

6500

5850

5200

4550

3900

3250

26"0

19S0

1300

650

sso"

5a5~

521'!0

4550

39~i!

32S~

1950

I I

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 12/6/84

.002 . oms

TEST. 8-CLY-NG-0 SPECIMEN. 10-2-S

r --1

1- .--~ -r~-I

- i i

-I j _ • _ 1 __ _

.012 .014

I --- J I

. ___ --------.-J

I j

I t i I ___ L

.019

I I

-1 I I

--~1

I

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (~tr~!n)

ClAY 5

ATKINSON-NOLHNU fHSD R~jSOCIATI:::S

t1fj~OtJRY f'kISM TI:..~JTS

DHTEr 12/5/94

TEST I B-CNC-~JG-0

Sf--t::CIMt:I'J: 9-25-11

~~l------- --. ------- -- ~ -- -~' --- - ---- ~~ -~:::: 1- ---

-~ --- ---- -- ------- -~~ ___ ~~~~-!- r----~- ----~ --- -- -- - ---I~- --- -- ------1 ~---

J --I~=-~~f~l~ I

13<10 1- ______ ~ J--":.~---;..,-L--L -.1." -t-~0T'-.,,. -- ].;Ll

EXTI::F.;HAL LV1)f'S C .. tra.ln)

CONCRETE 1

114

S85~

hS"~

S8Sll

5200

4sse

39~0

" a

"' 3250

", w :< I-", 2600

flTKHEON-t'JOLHND AND ASSOCIATES M~I:.)f)Nf(y PRISM TES rs DATE: 11/31V84 -t -- ---

I I

CONCRETE 2

ATKINsnN-NOLmm AND ASSOCIATES t-1H:.:;OfJRY PRISM TESTS DATE, 12/5/ft4

TEST: 8-CNC-NG-0 SPECIMEN: 9-25-12

Lvdt Lvdt

Lvdt Lvdt 4

I 1

;[ -_ j _____ L ___ J ____ _ .• 114 .~16 .018 .Y!Zf!

TEST. 8-CNC-NG-0 SPECIHENI 9-25-13

I---~--

Ll,I'dt 1

Lvdt 2

Ll,I'dt 3 Lvdt 4

EXTERNAL LYDT'S (~~r~tn)

CONCRETE 3

115

5950

52'!0

4550

" u

Ul 3250 tn

'" tr f-tn 2t.i00

1~50

sss'!

455U

39<)"

" "-

", 3250 OJ w tr f-tn 2600

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MHJON~Y PRISM TESTS DATE: 11/30/94

TESTt B-CNG-NG-'! SPECIMEN. 9-25-14

..- -- === -==T~-I~- I T--] -- ~~ ___ = _=. __ .•. _~-= ·-=t~~ ~:::: ____ -=J

-. -~-- ----------~-~- ---r-----=--):~~~--------

.---.. ~ ----- ---- .----- ---~- 1------ ~ ----- ~----~ ----

I- --1=----

EXTERNHL LVDT'S (straIn)

CONCR...,T7'l'E 4

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES HfL"jOtSfd PfdSI1 TESTS liflT£1 11/313/84

£XT£RNHL LVOT'S (~traln)

CONCRETE 5

116

TEST: B-CNC-NG-B SPECIM(N: 9-25-15

: Ii ',\,1 i

, ::

.!

117

~ . a.

lJJ lJJ w 0: I-lJJ

~ . ~ lJJ Ul w '" I-Ul

65~1Il

585B

52B0

4550

3900

3250

2600

1950

1300

65a

650B

585B

52B0

4550

39B0

325a

26a0

195a

1300

650

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

TEST. 6-CLY-G-R SPECIMEN. 12-4-2

DATE. 1/30/85

r----; / '

I /1 f--f11 1-1/1 ~ ;//

WI-

-----,----,-----,------

--------- -------- -------+---~--- - ---- ---------+-----1

Lvdt r- Lvdt

+------f-----f---- r-------f----+--­--" 1---.-- Lvdt --- f------ Lvdt 4

----- ------------

-- ----- --- -- --- -- --- -I------i -------- ------ ---------t------l

------ 1---- ----- ---- ---------

-------- --- ----+-----1-----4

, ---- ---- f----+---f--------

__ .J .BB8 .B10 .B12 .014 .016 .018 .B20

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

CIAY 1

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

TEST. 6-CLY-G-R SPECIMEN: 12-4-4

DATE. 1/30/85

Lvdt I -- f--- Lvdt 2

~I --- t---- Lvdt 3 --- f------ Lvdt ..

/

--f--

--

I1l.B00 .0B2 .004 .006 .009 .01B .B12 r

. B 14 .016 .019

EXTERNAL LVDT'5 (strain)

CLAY 2

118

6500

sase

5200

4550

~ 3900 . 0.

tn 3250 U1 w

'" t-In 26e0

1950

6500

5a50

5200

4550

3900

" 0

lJl 3250 lJl

'" '" ,... U1 2600

1950

1300

650

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

TEST: 6-CLY-G-R SPECIHEtV 12-4-5

DATE: 1/30/85

V'

-------- '---r--- ----,---- -,-----,

- ---r------!------l----I---- ----

---t-----I Lvdt I

r-- -- Lvdt 2 -------- --- ------- - ----j------1

--- 1---- Lvdt 3

-- ,----t---- - ------~~~~ --- r----- Lvdt 1 =1

---- -----r-----I---------t---1-

----- -----t------t----i----t-----t-----j-----j

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (ctr.ln)

CIAY 3

8rI<I~JSOtJ-tlOl.RND mm R550C[RT[S l-1n~J0URY PRISM TEsrs Dnfl: 1/30/85

TEST: 6-CLY-G-R SPECIMEN: 12-4-6

Lvdt Lvdt

// Lvdt

Lvdt "

1/ /; f // !J I ' i // b

~ ! I' !

Ill. 000 :002

L~_l-~J .014 .016 .018

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (straIn)

CIAY 4

119

.020

. ,<; Ul IJ) w '" f0-Ul

6500

5950

5200

4550

39B0

3250

26B0

1950

1300

G50

6~00

5850

5200

4550

~ 3900 . Q.

Ul 3250 Ul w '" f0-Ul 2600

1950

1300

GS0

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE. 1/30/85

,----

---

I;~f If ~

,-/-f ---------

-

-I--r--I. ~--- --- ---

.002 .0B6 .008

TEST. 6-CNC-G-R SPECIMEN. 11-28-1

Lvdt 1

-- --- Lvdt 2

--- --- Lvdt 3 --- ----- Lvdt 4

---- c-----

.010 .012 .014 .016

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (.t~.fn)

CONCRETE 1

--

.018 .020

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

TEST. 6-CNC-G-R SPECIHEN. 11-28-2

DATE. 1/29/8~

--

Lvdt 1

-- c---- -- Lvdt 2

--- 1----- Lvdt 3 --- ~---- Lvd't 4

lL /) -7 /.

I/f •

~.000 .002 .004 .006 .008 .010 .012 .014 .016 .018 .020

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (stra.n)

CONCRETE 2

120

. 2-III III w

'" I-III

S5B0

5850

5200

4550

3900

3250

2600

1950

13B0

650

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE~ 1/29/85

TEST. S-CNC-G-R SPEC IMEN, 11-28-3

~ ____ I ________ ~ ______ T-__________ +-____ ~ ____ -t ____ ~

~----+---t---- -..f----t-----t----t---+-----t-----__ -/ ____ 1 Lvdt I

:-- -- Lvdt 2 1 _____ -+-___ -------- ----f------------I------i

f---.-- Lvdt 3 1----- Lvdt •

-----f------+.--------- -----+-----1

_ -----------+-------j------ ----- ----

1---+---- ---- -_._->--_.- ---- ----/------/

--__ .1---- I----i----l---I----t----.-~. .... . .--- ~---J==-t1-

!='---.-*0'0-2 ---.0'l' .006---,008 .BIB .012 .014----, 01-S--.'''-1-8---.02B

. a.

ssml

5850

455'l

In 325'l In w

'" I-In 26'l'l

1950

1300

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (.tr.ln)

CONCRETE 3

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES HASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE. 1/29/85

TEST. S-CNC-G-R SPECIMEN. 11-28-4

--r----- --- ---J--T ---- ----T-----t- - --I- ---- ----- - .---- ---J---

-- ___ . ____ 1-- __ ------ ____ 1---_.1. --- ---- Lvdt

/------/----- ----

----

r- --- Lydt

-.-- Lvdt 3 Lvdt ~

-=-T- -~ '~~-~- L=J~~+-

65'l j -- -- ---- - - -- -~rr~--+-10. B00---.'lB2 .B0' .0B-6--.B08 .B10 .012 .t. j-IS--~~20

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (E~rajn)

CONCRETE 4

121

.- ..........

122

A.7 SERIES 7

UNIT WIDTH

GROUT

MORTAR

BOND PATTERN

LOAD DIRECTION

6"

STANDARD

TYPE S

STACK BOND

NORMAL TO BEDJOINT

123 Preceding page blank

6500 1--- --5850 -- ----

5200

4550

3900

" "-

IJJ 3250 In w

'" .... IJJ 2600

1950

1300

650

650D

5850

5200

4550

~ 3900

" "-

(Jl 3250 (Jl w 0' >-U1 26D0

1950

1300

650

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MRSONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 01/18/85

TEST: 6-CLY-G-S SPECIMEN: 12-11-6

----l----r-~ r------ - r----l

--~ 1···· ..~=~- L ~,~,-, _~~_~II-=---

l ,. -- - -- Lvdt 2

--------- _.- - --- .--~-- - -- ~ - -- ~-- ~- ----

EXTERNAL LVOT'S (strain)

CIAY 1

ATKINSON-NOLAND RND RSSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DRTE: 2/8/85

Lvdt 3 Lvdt 4 I ----r-

--~=~~-=-

TEST: 6-CLY-G-S SPECIMEN: 12-11-7

--- -1------ ---

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

CIAY 2

124

Lvdt 1 Lvdt 2

Lvdt 3 Lvdt ~

.020

" "-

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 01/18/95

TEST: 6-CLY-G-S SPECIMEN: 12-11-8

6500 --

5850 -------I---------+-----r------t----+----j----+----~ -----~

f----- ---- ---

·550

If ,1 Lvdt

-t-. - Lvdt

.1.r--+--~----~---~----+----+---~----~--~

tn 3250 UJ

~ h~---~:::, --Ir!r -I ---#-1 - --- -----~- ------ 1

w

'" e-Ul 2600

1950

H~ ------- ----------- ---- ---------- ----- -----1--~--1

13013

If-- - ----~- --- --- ------ - - Ij J~ --- ----- f---- --- -- ----- - -- --= -1--

650 -- ---- -1------- 1 - -- -- - ~- 1- 1-

18.0'a0---:-00~:0"4----.~i'i6----.~~8--- - - - ~ ___ J __ -- L ___ J ___ J

. "-

UJ UJ w

'" .... UI

6500

5850

5200

4550

3900

3250

2600

1950

1300

650

u uu uu .010 .012 .014 .a16 .a18 .a2a

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

CLAY 3

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 2/25/85

-- - ---+----

TEST. 6-CLY-G-S SPECIMEN: 12-11-9

Lvdt Lvdt

-----~-+----+--Lvdt Lvdt ..

-+ _____ +--~= -== ==_-_ _~-_ ---I-----t--_-_-_-_-t--_~ ___ :=l ~----I-- --- ----t-------j

- -[ 18. 00ll- .002 ---:-0-0-.---. "0"'0"S----.-.\0-0-8---. 01-0---. "'12 --. 014--. 0~IS;:-----.-;!;"'-;-1"'8---.-;\"'20

EX TERNAL L VOT 'S (s t r al n )

CIAY 4

125

6500

5850

5200

4550

~ 3900

" "-U) 3250 U) w 0: .... til 2600

1950

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 2/8/85

TESTI S-CLY-G-S SPECIHEN: 12-11-10

----~--~----~---~----

----t-------- ----- ------- ----- -----

+----1----!----+---- ------ ---Lvdt I

f-- Lvdt 2 ----+-----1-----+----+----+---- ---- ---

-----

f------ Lvdt 3 1------ Lvdt 4

----~---_I__---- ---- -------I-----1---------l

-----/----- ------ ----- ~---1

--- --=-~ _._._- ~= --- ~-~-~- -~=-l--J

':::.---~ •. L2--- .--4 = ~- •• ----- -- ._J j-Jj " ~~~ ~~ ~~ .006 .008 .010 .012 .014 .016 . a 18 .020

6500

5850

5200

4550

3900

" "-

iii 3250 iii w 0: .... iii 2600

1950

1300

650

EXTERNAL LVDT'S ($tr~ln)

CIAY 5

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 2/8/85 ---1 -

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

CONCRETE 1

126

TEST, 6-CNC-G-S SPECIMEN I 12-11-\

. "-

tn tn W rr t--tn

6501"

5850

5200

4550

3900

3250

26'-lil

1950

1300

650

6500

58se

5200

4550

~ 3900 . "-

U) 3250 <n w

"' t--til 2600

1950

J300

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES HASotJRY PRISM TESTS

TEST, 6-CNC-G-S SPECIMEN, 12-11-2

DATE: 2/25/85 IT I--T-r 1-- ---r~-l----l

-- -- ,- -- - -- --- -- -- - -- -- 1 l

-'. -I ~~~I -- ~ +~l-~r:-r~~

.002

-----I--~ --L--~r 1--. - .... L. ·1 ---I· . -j ---1 - +-1

1- Jj=ljj~--t-j .004 ----.t]06~ --.m'lB .€n0 .012 .014 .016 .alB .020

EXTERNAL LVOT'S (strain)

CONCRETE 2

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 01/18/85

TEST, 6-CNC-G-S SPECIMEN, 12-11-3

~I ~ _ [~~I:~IJ~-- ----=l ------- --1----- -------1 --= -~--- ~g:-:- ------

--- ---- Lvdt .. - --- ------ ._._-- -,------ --- - ----- -------

., .. _' _ •.... _-(-.~-.L-~_[j~ __ I. -=1==1 -J . --,-~ ... + __ JI -~- L ----I

,,~~--l-n-2 ~-L--_L-- ~--.LI~ -~ ____ J_~ _____ J~ ''-uuu .uu .0u4 .006 .01l8 uu .1l12 .1l14 .016 .018 .020

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

CONCRETE 3

127

~

; ~

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 2/25/85

TEST. S-CNC-G-S SPECIMEN, 12-11-4

ssm'l ·_- ----- .-"-_ .. _ ..

S8se

52ee

4sse

3see

32se

2see

Isse

13ee

sse

ssm'l

58se

s2",e

4550

3se0 . "-

3250

2see

IS50

13ee

sse

'I\.e0"---

.-----~ -= l-r:l -- ••• =------ ~=;:- ~:~-:t- ~.-l-

___ ..1- ____ Lvdt 4

-.- --------- -------- 1----- ---- - --- - -

.- --- _._.

t i'!l i - l --. ml4 ---:-~e6-----j08 .t 0 -- -: ~I 2- -JI4- ---:016----: lTil-~2e

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

COKCPETE 4

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MRSONRY PRISM TESTS

TEST: 6-CNC-G··S SPECIMEN, 12-11-5

DRTE, 2/25/85

r I

--I

1 - r --- T r -l j .. 1 t--

-------~--- -~-~--fr~b:t~-J-= --- ----I Lvdt 4 I

-- - .... -:i -l :-1-:1···· ·l·.1 -----1- - i- ------- I -I - --I ----t- ---

r::j·· ·l-~I l~~r-L f~ J ______ L_t ____ L ____ L ___ J ___ L __ J __ L_ ~1 .m'l2 .~e4 .006 .e08 .ele .012 .e14 .e16 .e18 .e2e

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

CONCRETE 5

128

A.a SERIES a

UNIT WIDTH

GROUT

MORTAR

BOND PATTERN

LOAD DIRECTIUN

6"

HIGH STRENGTH

TYPE N

STACK BOND

NORMAL TO BEDJOINT

129

~ . "-

Ul Ul w

'" >-Ul

~ . "-

Ul Ul w '" >-Ul

RTKINSON-NOLRND RND RSSOCIRTES MRSONRY PRISM TESTS DATEI 12/7/84

TEST, 6-CLY-SG-0 SPECIMEN, 10-4-6

6500

~ .• 5850

----1-- 1

5200

455il

--- ----- Lvdt I -- - - -- Lvdt 2

Lvdt 3 Lvdt 4

-=-f--3900

3250

2600

1950

1300

650

\\.0~'"

I I J I I

L I, , . 002 .004 .006

t 'j j

.008

-- r-I I

-'f

I

I .01"'"

EXTERNRL LVDT'S

CLAY 1

\ I I

1 ____ 1. ... - J J _

.012 .014 .1l16

(st I'" a 1 n)

RTKINSON-NOLRND RND ASSOCIRTES MRSONRY PRISM TESTS

TEST: 6 -CLY-SG-0 SPECIMEN. 10-4-7

DATE, 12/7/84 6500

5850

52il0

4550

3900

3250 I i--' I

2600 I

1950

1301l

I I

650 I

" __ t __ ".000 .002

I !

j - r' I

,e".f ,1 ___

.006

II r

. ~ I

1- " "-i r -' , - -1- ~--~ I ~~-~::I ~::: ~

I ~-f~=~: ~::: ! -r -- - --- r-

I I r f-I I

I I

- , - -- f - - f

I . I T) 'j

I I - I I -., --! -- ,-.

"1

1

_ If· 1 -~ I i 'r ---- r-

__ j _. __ L ,

J I

t .008 .011l .1l12 .014 .016

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

CLAY 2

130

I

" a.

Ul Ul w 0: ,... U1

ATKHJSOfJ-NOLR>lD Afm ASSOCIRTES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 12/7/84

i I I i I

i I

-f I

---. -1- --I

-----~-i

----f I

I I L_

I

TEST: 6-CLY-SG-0 SPECIMEN: 10-4-8

I r---1-- --- !

f - - I - ------I~----l Lvdt 1 -=-- r _ -=1 Lvdt 2

'1--

--'i-'--'---l, Lvdt 3 ----'-----1 Lvdt <

- 1 ;-

I i - -

1

i-- - -! I

,-- l' 1 I I I _I _

.0114 I

.006 . 00lf .010 .012 I I

.01< .016

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (straIn)

CLAY 3

, I I _

, -~

I

---~ I I

ATKINSor~-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MRSONRY PRISM TESTS

TEST: 6-CLY-SG-O

DATEI 12 .... 18/84 6500

1-5850 ,

! 'I 5200

//;I 4550 tl 3900 /~ .

1;1 3250

;/jl 2600 , I

1950 I- I! / i 1

1300 IIi! 650 :;!~

~ ~- 1 1

-: 002 ~ __ __ l_

.m10 .004 -j .

.006 I

.008

i - f

SPECIMEN. 10-4-9

1 I i I

~-l--J Lvd~ , _._- -+ _.- --j Lvdt 2 ! - 1

----.-t- -·--1 Lvdt 3 -----+------1 Lvdt

I 1

1-

!

-1

I ' I

, L_ .012

I _I __ .014 .010

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (5traln)

ClAY 4

131

.1_. .018

-1

I j

.020

6Sm'l

5850

5200

4S50

3900 . Q.

iJl 3250 iJl w '" t-ill 2600

1950

1300

650

~

" Q.

ill ill w

'" t-ill

I I-

i !

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 12/7/84

I i f--

I I

I

.002 . Q04 .006

! i I

_I

I - L

i i

,

.OfJ8

EXTERNr4L

\

-, --1 ,

-- ! .010

LVDT'S

CLAYS

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 12/10/84

1

l

i -

_J .012

(str a j n)

TEST. 6-CLY-SG-0 SPECIMEN. 10-4-10

i -. ,

I

I I I " -,

I --t- --­

I

I .J I

f'--I

-+ ~ 1 !

1 I I I

.014 I

.01Ef .0ia

TEST. 6-CNC-SG-0 SPECIMEN, 10-4-1

_-l

i ,

.020

6500 ,----- --- --- ------,-----,----,----~---,_--___,

5850 f------ - ---- ----- l------f--------t------t---t---+---+-----i

5200 ---4----ILvdt I

4550 ~--- ------t----+-----j ___ -t ____ ~t---__ ~~~-t-L_V_d_t_2_+---+--_.__j

if- f.- -- Lvdt 3

I t----- w Lvdt 4 ---- -1' --- --+-----+----t---I----+-----I-----~-----1

---~fff-----~- Jf- --- ---- --- r-------t----+--+---+---t-----i

3900

3250

2600

t-l --~--i

1950

1300

650

.002 .004 .006 . 008 .010 . 012 .014 .016 .018 .020

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

CONCRETE 1

132

6500

5850

5200

4550

RTKH60N-NOLRND RND RSSOCIRTES HRSONRY PRISH TESTS DATE: 12/\0/94

TEST: 6-CNC-SG-0 SPECIHEN: 10-4-2

-~-- --~-------- --- ~----j----j Lvdt

- -- Lvdt

-------f-----r--------\----1----\ ----+---1 --- Lvdt

Lvdt 4 ~ 3900 ---- -------- ----f---+---+----t----t----. "-

III III w iO III

3250

2600

1950

1300

650

--- r-----f---+----t-----f---+---j

------ ---- ---c-----t---+---+---I----\

CONCRETE 2

ATKINSON-NOLAND mw ASSOCIATES MRSONRY PRISM TESTS DRTE: 12/\0/84

T[ST: 6-CNC-SG-0 SP[CIHEN: 10-4-3

5500 ,----- ------------,------ ---,--------,--- -----,------,.----

~ . "-

In In w

'" r-In

5850 ;------- ------j------I-----t----t----- -----j------\----i-----

5200 f----

4550

3900

3250

2600

1950

1300

650

---\----1 Lvdt r- -- Lvdt

------,---t----+-----I ---- Lvdt

--- ----- Lvdt -1

1,1 ----1- ----t---+--+---t----j---+----j---+------j

- V- -------i-----+----f----j----t------t----t-----j

---- -------+-----+---+----+----+---+---+----1

--t----1---------t----t------t----i-----i-----t

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

CONCRETE 3

133

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 12/10/94

TEST: 6-CNC-SG-0 SPECIMEN: 10-4-4

6500 ,-------

5950

5200

4550

~ 3900 . "-

to 3250 U1 w

'" t-V] 2600

1950

1300

---t----I Lvdt - -- Lvdt

r-----t--------- Lvdt

------- Lvdt 4

1----_ ~1

~ e---l- ------- ---1------ -------j---+-----r--------

---/- - ------- ------!---f--- ----- ---- -----+------1

J l - ~~ -~-- ---~-t---I----_+----t----+_-___t--____1

650 ------1------- -~ ~--- ----+---- +-----li-----+---+-------1

~ . "-

U1 U1 w

'" t-U1

~.00~0~----.~0~0~2---.~0·n0-4~---.~0~0~6---.'0b0~9~-~.0~1~0.--~.0~12,---.~0·14.----.~0'lr6---.~0"lo8---.~020

6500

5950

5200

4550

3900

3250

2600

1950

1300

650

-;; ---;h

'I-,

-II--/f! 'L

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (Etraln)

CONCRETE 4

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 12/10/8 .. -- -----,--

It/ ;-f--

-------

TEST: 6-CNC-SG-0 SPECIMEN: 10-4-5

Lvdt 1

t-- Lvdt 2

r---- Lvdt 3 1----- Lvdt ..

.002 .004 .006 .008 .010 .012 .014 .1'116 .019

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

CONCRETE 5

134

--

.020

A.9 SERIES 9

UNIT WIDTH

GROUT

MORTAR

BOND PATTERN

LOAD DIRECTION

6"

STANDARD

TYPE N

STACK BOND

PARALLEL TO BEDJOINT

135

6500

5850

5200

4550

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATEI 01/19/85

TESTI 6-CLY-G-9B SPECIMEN, 11-8-2

---1-----1 Lvdt

- -- Lvdt

---- Lvdt

----- Lvdt •

~ 3900

• I ; 3250 ~f!------r---- ---f------ --- ---1--~ 2600 r-~ LF ----f----------- ------- ---- ---------r----

195B f-l-*-- ----- -------- ----- ------- ---+----+----j

W/ 13BO f--~/---- -------f------

'" Vf-.... - ...- -- I

------1-----f----- ---

~ . ~ til til w '" I-til

~ _ ~----:_BB2 --. 00.---. 006--. 00"8"---. 0~1 0"---.;;-0 i2--~a'I''---.*0'1 "6---. ~T8---:-020

6500

5850

5200

.550

3900

3250

2600

1950

1300

650

EXTERNAL LVOT'S (straIn)

CLAY 1

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 01/18/85

TEST: S-CLY-G-90 SPECIMEN: 11-9-1 or 21st

,-----r----,----,----,---,-------r-----------,----,----,

--- ------I------j

---f-----I Lvdt I -- - -- Lvdt 2

f------i----t----t----t----t----'j----+--- -+-----+----f -- ---- Lvdt 3 --- ----- Lvdt ...

EXTERNAL LVDT'S <str.'n)

crAY 2

136

~

" 3-U1 U1 w '" I-U1

6500

5950 [--5200

4550

3900

3250

2600

fl .. .. t-- -

~<! T I

1950

1300 'iff

650 ~~

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES HASONRY PRISH TESTS DATE: 01/19/95

---- 1-------

----' ---

I---

TEST. 6-CLY-G-90 SPECIHEN: 11-9-3

Lvdt I

f-- Lvdt 2

f--.- Lvdt 3 1------- Lvdt 4

S, .002

·~~·---bo,----,,'---.006 .010 .00B .012 .014 .016 .01B

651il0

5950

5200

"550

~ 3900 . 3-U1 3250 U1 w

'" I-U1 2600

I II

~ / II {1

I

1950 , ,

1300

650 / V

~.00B

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

ClAY 3

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES HASONRY PRISM TESTS DArEt 01/17/85

.B02 .004 .00S .B09

--

--. ---

!

.01B

TEST. f 6-CLY-G-90 SPECIMEN: 11-9-4

Lvdt I f-- Lvdt 2

~.-- Lvdt 3 1------- Lvdt ..

I

.B12 .014 .01S

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (st,-aln)

ClAY 4

137

.019

-~ .020

.020

n

" a.

m m w

'" t-m

6500

r 5850

5200

4550

3900

3250

2600

19513

13130

65~

I

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 01/17/85

.. -

j I

!

TEST: 6-CNC-G-90 SPECIMEN, 11-7-2

. '8. """ .~(12 06 I

.m18

SS00

saSIl

S21l1l

<SSIl

~ 3S01l . a.

m 32S0

'" w

'" r

'" 2600

ISS0

1301l

6Sll

r-~--

1----

f-----

Mt 'r-+!1 rl-/-II-J 1/ / 'j 1/

CONCRETE 1

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 01/17/85

TEST, S -CNC-G-90 SPECIHEN, 11-7-3

----- --~--~ --~ ----- ~---- ,----,--

r----~-- -~---~-

Lvdt. I

-- --- Lvdt. 2 -----

--- '--.-- Lvdt 3 --- ----- Lvdt. <

¥ 1/

e----

c----

.002 .~e4 .1l0S .00B .1l11l .1l12 .1l14 .016

EXTERNAL LVDT'5 (~t.~&ln)

CONCRETE 2

138

-

.01B .1l20

" "-

In In w

'" t-In

~

" "-

"' In w Q' ~

In

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES TEST. 6-CLY-G-90 MASONRY PRISM TESTS SPECIMEN. 11-8-5 DATE. 01/19/95

6500 r-----,----,----- -----,------.------,------,-----,------,-----.

5950 f-------+-------t--- ---- -4-------~----_+------_4------+_-----+-------

5200 ------~------ILvdt

-- --- Lvdt 4550 f------- ------+-----+-----+------1------+----f-------+-------+----~

---- Lvdt ----- Lvdt

3900 ~)T--l----+--

3250 r-/- : --- -------- ---------------+--------1-------- ------+-----~I__-----+----____1

2600 ~!---- --------f---------- -------- ----- -------i------+----

~ f------ ----- - -----c------- --,------ -----------t-------+_------

f1- ------ ----- -------i------

1950

1300

----

650 i;-.... -----------c----- -~ ------- -=---~-~:~===:---~-+-j ~. mjjl---:-00~_:_0!i;j----:-01;s_-___:_008_______:_01~___:_012 .014 .018 .01 a .020

6500 r- -5850

5200

4550

3900

3250

2600

1950

1300

650

'8_000 -

(XTERNAL LVDT'S (£traln)

CIAY 1

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE: 01/14/85

_002

EXTERNAL LVOT'S (straIn)

CONCRETE 1

139

TEST: 6-CNC-G-90 SPECIMEN: 11-7-\

Lvdt !

Lvdt 2

- - I

~ . "-

til til w

'" t-til

6500

5850

5200

4550 --

3900

3250

2600

1950

1300

GS0

1/

~ . / >1§ I f-~t--

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE, 01/17/85

--

---~-

e---- ----

. -

-- .-"

TEST, 6-CNC-G-90 SPECIMEN: 11-7-4

L ..... dt I

-- f--- Lvdt 2

--' r----- Lvdt 3 --- r----- Lvdt <4

--

.002 .1'104 .006 .008 -----~-

.010 .1'112 .014 .0 I 6 .018 .020

~ . "-

til C1 w '" t-til

6500

5850

5200

4550

3900

3250

2600

1950

1300

650

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (strain)

CONCRETE 2

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS DATE' el/17/B5 --------.------

-- -----

----f--------

------- --'

------Ii ./ '(f

Hi! --

~I-!-IFI -----

// I; if V' I

I

TEST: 6-CNC-G-90 SPECIH(N:. t t-7-5

------ , I ----r---i ---i

~ ---,--I Lvdt I

-~.~ -- Lvdt 2

----- ----c----.- Lvdt 3

f----- Lvdt 4

~ I

-l- .J 1

J .016 .1'118 02e

.1'111'1 .1'112 .1'114 ---- 004 .006 .008 ~.e0e .002

EXTERNAL LVDT'S (~traln)

CONCRETE 3

140

A.10 SERIES 10

UNIT ~'1I:8TH

GROUT

£'10RTAR

BOND PATTERN

6"

STANDARD

TYPE N

STACK Bmm

LOAD DIRECTION NORMAL TO BEDJOINT

TESTED WITH REDUCED PLATEN RESTRAINT

141

. "-

TEST: 6-CLY"IFR ATK INSON-NOLRND AND ASSOC rATES MASONRY PRIS1"I TESTS SPECIMfN; 12-[8-jf) UIO IFR)

6501; -~

~ 1- [ - --1 5850

1

5200

4550

3900

--- ---I G~ge 5

~ - // -;:;-- --=--;; - ~ -~- ---2600 ~~ ~ - -- - <~ -~ 7' - - - - 1

'''': / /~~f - ... +1--'"00 1-- ... ~ /F . 1-·· 1 - :

'": ~!'f~, _.i _ _ [ .. ......1 J ,0000 ,0001 ,0002 ,0003 ,0004 ,0005 ,0008 0007

3250

GAGES 1 - 5 (£traln)

--- -,

i ----j

--1 -~ ----l

I !

-1

--j - -- I

I I

~--j

i I

.. --'-1 i I I

r -1

, - 0809 00! 0

ATKINSON-NOLAND Ano ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

TEST: 8-CLY-!FR SP(:CIMEN: 12-'18--10 (NO IFR.'

6500

5850

5200

~ ~- f1~~~ ~ ~ -~ -7 :;::::=.::-~ ~ ---

--r ---~~~-(/' =-4550

3900

3250

2600 --------1

1950

1300

650

~00ee

GAGES 6 - 10 (5traln)

nAY 1

142

" Q.

~

" Q.

6500

5850

52011

4550

3900

3250

2600

1950

1300

650

RTKINSON-NOLAND R~m ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

TEST, 6-CLY-IFR SPECIMEN: 12-IB-6

GAGES 1 5 (s: trill n )

ATKINSON-NOLAND RND ASSOCIATES TESTt 6-CLY-IFR MASONRY PRISM TESTS SPECIMEN: 12-18-6

. -l- [ l~~= =-~~ t - 1=.::J;;. ;- -- ··~-l

_~ I -=-= _ =-- ~'~_~ I 1----1 /' - -- G'B' 8 !

-- _;;L. 7~J---- - ~ -- - --- --- -- -- j -----1- ---' ; I 1 I I

I ' ;,T -~ --- -~-I------l~-

I/--_ - _j- ,L_ __ ____ ______ __ ____ ___ _ ____ _ i I '/

-~------

- 0002 _ 0003 _ 0004 _ 0005 _ 0006 _ 0007- ~:0008---:-ll009 -_ 00 10

GAGES 6 - 10 (strain)

CIAY 2

143

65,m

5850

5200

"'550

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

TEST: 6-CLY-IFR SPECIMEN, 12- I 8-7

~ 3900

" Q.

" a.

3250

2600

1950

1300

650

6500

5B50

5200

4550

3900

3250

r- .- J

.... 1

~

~ -

-------1--- j - ---( I

__ 1 __ J ____ L - - -' ---

.0006

GAGES 1 - 5 Cstral,..!>

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

.0007 .0008 .0009

TEST, 6-CLY-IFR spECIMEN: 12-18-7

----j .0010

-f-TI .. , 1.= L..--t--~-+-P:/~-4;--- ---- G.g. 9 j ,

-=-=~f-~=- -;'~;.-;-; ~--------: ~ ;:;> -- --- r --- ---:~ ~ --l

2600 I -!- -~- - _z ,~-+ -~ -t~- -1-- - r--i 1950

1300

650

.00eHl .0001 .0002 .0003 .000' .0005 .0006 .0007 .0008 .0009 .0010

GAGES 6 - 10 (s:traln)

CIAY 3

144

. 0.

Ul Ul w

'" I-Ul

6500

5850

5200

4550

~ 3900 . 0.

tJ) 3250 Ul W

'" I-U1 260e

1950

1300

650

6500

5850

5200

4550

3900

3250

2600

1950

1300

650

ATKINSON-NOLRND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

I--~~f--·-· ----

TEST: 5-CLY-IFR SPECIMEN! 12-18-8

Gage I Gage 2

f-~~-l--

.0001 .0002

GAGES 1 - 5 (s t r a In)

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

GAGES 6 - 10 (strain)

CIAY 4

145

Gage 3 Gage -4

TEST- 6-CLY-IFR SPECIHEN; 12-18-8

-. a.

3900

3250

261m

1950

AT!<INSON-NOLFIND RND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

----- --- -----+--

GAGES I - 5 (strain)

ATKHJSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES HHSONRY PRISM T[STS

TESTI 6-CLY-IFR SP€CrM£N~ i 2-18-9

TEST: 6-Cl.Y-IFR SPECIMEN: 12-18-9

:::: i . _.. -.. i-I . i-I JI . --r I~ 5200 I

t- _1 - ~ - --j- -- --- - - f- . --1----1

l I - --- Gage ~ I 1 .-- +- -I Gag" ' j I

4550 ,-._.-- ----- -- - -J2T. I -/"""-t.::: -=-=+=-=-I-;'-'-~:-B 1-- - - 1---1 ! , ---r----- Gage 9 I

~ 3900 r-

· :::: !i- /;/J1

/1 r -r i-~i I-~ / " I I ' I I

1950 1---/-/, ~>fl/-~---I - r- -1' i -1--- 1,--- -:--- ;

130°1;?t-~ - '---1 ----f=' --I ----; 1 1- - -J -~ '" ~~j-l--t--·--t---· --- --1--- [--1- -1 - ·1---1 e _ L __ -.---l~ ___ .. ____ ..L ___ l ___ _ .0000 .0001 . e0e2 .0003 .0004 .0005 .0006 .0007 . e00B .0009 • Bel e

GAG£S 6 - 10 (strain)

ClAYS

146

6500

5850

5200

4550

3900 . '" In 3250 U1 w :" In 2600

1950

! 300

bS0

6500

5850

5200

4550

~ 3900

RTKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

I _._1 ._

.0001 .8002 .0003 .13804

(~f1GE5 !

RTK lrlSOf'l-NOLRND mw f1SS0C rATES HFlSONRi PRISM fLSfS

5 (s t. r a 1 n )

TEST: S-CNC-IFR SPJ::CIHEN: lc-IB-\ (NO IFR)

T[ST: s-cnC-!FR SPt::CI.'1DJ 12-i8-i UlO J:FRl

i I t -

-I G.g. 6

--I Gag~ 7

I --- ~--: Gage 9

-- -I Gagel I

---~~-l Gag~--

GAGES 6 - 10 (s t raj n)

CONCPETE 1

147

I-i I

,0009

651313

58513

521313

4550

391313

U1 3250 Ul

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

--~-- --- -----I----+--

TEST: 6-CNC-IF"R SPECIMEN, 12-18-2

-----~------, Gag& I Gage 2

Gage 3 Gage 4

---- -~

+-------+~~g. 5 r-W

'" I-Ul

~~.--- ~-~ --- ------ ----1 1= -=--1--.

-=.=- ----=--t--- -~r-~~~ ": //. _LJ .-"nii5-- .<inn6 --jI8-J9-=~Jln

_ 0000 -. eJ001 .0002 ,0003 .0004 ,-,m:::; I::Jt:J~ .01'.107 . VI'.lt:J • 1'.I~.n:.J . 'U"O U

261313

19513

1300

651313

58513

521313

4550

~ 391313

til 3250 Ul W'

'" I-Ul 261313

1950

1300

6513

GAGES I - 5 (straIn)

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PR I SH TESTS

..------

GAGES 6 - Ie (s;'trllln)

CONCRETE 2

148

TEST: 6-CNC-IFR SPECIMEN: 12-18-2

5500

5850

5200

4550

3900 I " ! Q

tn 3250 In uJ

:>: U1 2600

1950

/ 1300 -/

650

5850

5213£1

4550

---. 3900

UJ 3250 U1 w 0: f­In 26013

1950

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS ----r

I . """2

I :0£103

GFlGES 1

ArK INSOt~- NOUHW flNU R5S0C rATES MflSONRY PRISM T[srs

--.m-,06

GRGES 6 - 10 (stralrd

conCRETE 3

149

TEST: 6-CNC-IFR SPECIMEN: 12-18-]

Gage

Gage

Gage 3 Gage 4

Gage 5

J .0001

n.:-)f: s-cuc rrR SPf."C I Mf ~J : 12 1 B-3

I i I -- =-~-1

----l­I

I -------J

I .0010

I 1 j

. "-

tJl tJl hJ

"' J-tJl

. "-

650~

5950

5200

~5sa

3900

3250

2600

19513

131313

650

6500

5850

5200

4550

3900 --

(1) 3250 tJl w

'" J-(1) 2600

1950

1300

650

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESfS

------1 t --I

.J_ I • £1004 . £100~r _. -". 0£106 .£1803

GflGES 1 - 5 (straIn)

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISM TESTS

GAGES 6 - 1121 (strain)

CONCRETE 4

150

TE.ST: 5-0IC-IfR SPEC IMEN: i 2- i 8-4

Gage I Gage 2

TEST: 6-CNC-IfR SPECIMEN: [2-18-4

. "-

6503

585~

5200

4550

ATKINSON-NOLAND. AND ASSOCIATES MASONRY PRISH TESTS

TEST, 5-CNC-IFR SPECIMEN! 12-18-5

GAGES I - 5 (strain)

ATKINSON-NOLAND AND ASSOCIATES TESTI 6-CNC-IFR MASONRY PRISM TESTS SPECIMEN, 12-18-5

--1-- --I -1- - -1-----1 ·-I-~+-~i";"- 1-1 --- --------- -r ~~=~ -- '-::::-;- --- t-- --~

------t----- Gage 9 ~ 3900 --

~ 325~

25~~

195~

-~/-:'V·- ~ - --- - . --c - ~--

-1-----I

13~e -~~ ----"

550 l ...... -(--------_.--+-=rJ ~ 0~0e • ,,~~ 1 .0002 :0e03 • ee~4 • 0~e5 • e00S .0007 .0eea • eees .001 e

GAGES 6 - 10 (.traln)

CONCRETE 5

151