Brick-Mortar Bond and Masonry Compressive Strength

G. Sarangapani1; B. V. Venkatarama Reddy2; and K. S. Jagadish3

Abstract: This paper focuses on some issues pertaining to brick-mortar bond and masonry compressive strength. Failure theories for
masonry under compression make the assumption that the bond between brick and mortar remains intact at the time of failure of the brick
or mortar. The influence of bond strength on masonry compressive strength is not fully accounted for in these failure theories. In this
investigation, the influence of bond strength on masonry compressive strength has been examined through an experimental program using
local bricks and mortars. Masonry prism compressive strength has been determined when the brick-mortar bond strength is varied over a
wide range without altering the strength and deformation characteristics of the brick and mortar. Brick-mortar bond strength has been
determined through flexure bond strength and shear bond strength tests. A relationship between the masonry prism compressive strength
and bond strength has been obtained. The results clearly indicate that an increase in bond strength, while keeping the mortar strength
constant, leads to an increase in the compressive strength of masonry.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0899-1561共2005兲17:2共229兲
CE Database subject headings: Bricks; Brick masonry; Compressive strength; Flexural strength; Bonding strength; Mortars.

Introduction sonry compressive strength is not reduced significantly even

A number of failure theories have been proposed for brick ma-
sonry in compression 共Hilsdorf 1969; Khoo and Hendry 1973;
Atkinson et al. 1982; McNary and Abrams 1985兲. These theories
are based on multiaxial stress-deformation characteristics of brick
and mortar. The theories make an assumption that the bond be-
tween brick and mortar remains intact at the time of failure of the
brick or mortar. However, the experiments on stack bonded
prisms by Matthana 共1996兲 and Sarangapani 共1998兲 seem to indi-
cate that, when the brick-mortar bond strength is poor, the prism
failure is also accompanied by a failure of the brick-mortar bond.
It is perhaps also obvious that the interaction between brick and
mortar can have characteristics independent of the deformation
characteristics of the brick and mortar per se. The bond is very
often influenced by factors such as the surface characteristics of
the brick, which may not have any bearing on the deformation of
the brick or mortar. It is hence interesting to explore the strength
of masonry when the brick-mortar bond strength is varied over a
wide range without altering the strength and deformation charac-
teristics of the brick and mortar. Venumadhava Rao et al. 共1995兲
made a preliminary study of the influence of bond strength on
compressive strength of masonry. The study showed that the ma-
1
Senior Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, National Institute of
Engineering, Mysore 570 008, India.
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore 560 012, India. E-mail: venkat@civil.iisc.ernet.in
共corresponding author兲.
3
AICTE Emeritus Fellow, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute
of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India. E-mail: jagadish@civil.iisc.ernet.in
Note. Associate Editor: Christopher K. Y. Leung. Discussion open
until September 1, 2005. Separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written re-
quest must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for
this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on July 15,
2003; approved on May 7, 2004. This paper is part of the Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 17, No. 2, April 1, 2005. ©ASCE,
ISSN 0899-1561/2005/2-229–237/$25.00.
when the mortar strength is reduced significantly if the brick-
mortar bond strength is not altered.
A large number of factors affect the interfacial brick-mortar
bond strength 共Groot 1993兲. The present investigation attempts to
vary brick-mortar bond strength through artificial methods to
study the implications of bond strength on the compressive
strength of masonry. Flexural bond strength as well as shear bond
strength have been explored.
Earlier Studies on Bond Strength of Brick Masonry
There are a large number of investigations on the bond strength of
masonry. Lawrence and Cao 共1987兲 attempted to understand the
mechanisms of bond development between mortar and brick.
These studies showed that the brick-mortar bond is due to the
network of cement hydration products deposited on the brick sur-
face and inside the brick pores as well. The initial moisture in the
brick has a role in the penetration of hydration products into the
brick pores. They conclude that the brick-mortar bond is essen-
tially mechanical in nature. Addition of lime appears to improve
the network of hydration products, but there is inadequate evi-
dence for bond strength improvement.
Scrivener et al. 共1992兲 studied the in situ bond strength of clay
brickwork in Australia. They used the bond wrench test at con-
struction sites for this purpose. It was found that the mean bond
strength varied from 0.21 to 0.85 MPa and the coefficient of
variation from 0.16 to 0.49. This showed that, under field condi-
tions with minimal supervision, the variation in flexural bond
strength could be quite large although the values appear to be
reasonably high.
Samarasinghe and Lawrence 共1992兲 examined the effect of
high suction rate low strength bricks of Sri Lanka on the brick-
mortar bond through a brick triplet shear test. They found that
partly wetted bricks showed greater bond strength than dry and
saturated bricks. The optimum shear bond strength was found to
vary over a wide range from 0.10 to 0.30 MPa. In general, the

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 229

Table 1. Properties of Bricks 关Coefficient of Variation 共%兲 in Parentheses兴
Type of brick
Compressive strength 共MPa兲
Water absorption 共by weight兲 共%兲
Initial rate of absorption 共IRA兲 共kg/ m2 / min兲
Flexure strength 共MPa兲
Secant modulus at 25% of ultimate stress 共MPa兲
shear bond strength increased as the compressive strength of mor-
tar is increased.
Sinha 共1967兲 was perhaps the first to examine the influence of
moisture content at the time of laying on the tensile bond strength
of brick masonry. Although the tensile bond strength of brickwork
is highly variable, saturated and completely dry bricks 共at the time
of laying兲 both show low bond strengths. The mean bond strength
reached its highest value when moisture in the brick was about
80% of the saturation value.
Grenley 共1969兲 studied the effect of various mortars on the
flexural and compressive strength of masonry and on the tensile
bond strength of crossed brick assembly. His test results showed
that, in general, flexural and tensile bond strengths increased with
the strength of brick and the strength of mortar. The masonry
compressive strength also showed a similar trend. The correlation
between bond adhesion and compressive strength of masonry
seems to suggest the importance of brick-mortar bond on masonry
compressive strength. However, the increase in bond strength is
also accompanied by an increase in mortar compressive strength.
Hence, the relative influence of the mortar-brick bond and mortar
compressive strength on the masonry compressive strength is not
clear.
A detailed study of the various factors affecting brick-mortar
bond was carried out by Groot 共1993兲. This study brings out the
importance of moisture transport between mortar and brick in
influencing hydration of cementation products. The rate of ab-
sorption in the brick and the moisture retention in the mortar seem
to play an important role in this behavior. He also concludes that
the bond problems in burnt clay brick masonry is caused prima-
rily by unfavorable cement to fine inert material ratio of the in-
terfacial zone.
Venumadhava Rao et al. 共1996兲 carried out extensive investi-
gations on the flexural bond strength of masonry using a bond
wrench test setup. The major conclusions of this study are:
1. Generally, the flexural bond strength increases with an in-
crease in mortar strength for cement mortar, irrespective of
the type of masonry unit.
2. Composite mortars such as soil-cement mortar and cement
lime mortar show better bond strength than cement mortars.
Brick strength did not have a significant effect on the flexural
bond strength.
3. Moisture content of the brick 共at the time of laying兲 had a
significant influence on the flexural bond strength. There is
an optimum moisture content leading to maximum bond
strength. Partly saturated bricks with moisture content values
close to saturation moisture content 共80–85%兲 yield the high-
est bond strength.
Earlier studies clearly indicate that 共1兲 the brick mortar bond is
mechanical in nature and is developed due to the interaction of
hydration products in the mortar and the brick surface; and 共2兲
moisture content of the brick at the time of construction has a
significant influence on brick-mortar bond strength. There are no
clear indications about the influence of bond strength on masonry
230 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2005
B1 B2 B3
10.67 共17.85兲 4.29 共40.08兲 3.17 共51.06兲
14.67 共4.18兲 14.77 共8.29兲 18.36 共3.38兲
2.86 共20.75兲 1.31 共32.20兲 3.53 共55.87兲
1.10 共16.13兲 0.39 共55.63兲 0.36 共14.24兲
509 467 485
compressive strength. The present investigation is an attempt to
understand the influence of brick-mortar bond strength on ma-
sonry compressive strength.
Scope of Present Study
In this study, the flexural bond strength and shear bond strength of
masonry using different types of local bricks and mortars have
been considered. Flexural bond strength is determined using a
modified bond wrench test, and shear bond strength is determined
with a test on a brick triplet. For a given brick and mortar type,
the brick-mortar bond has been altered by using bond-enhancing
methods such as modified brick frogs and coatings on the brick
surface. Bond-enhancing techniques have been adopted to evalu-
ate the effect of increased bond strength on compressive strength
of masonry prisms without altering the brick and mortar charac-
teristics.
Materials Used in Experimental Program
Burnt Clay Bricks
In India, burnt clay bricks are typically manufactured by employ-
ing a manual molding process and then are burnt in kilns. Locally
available burnt clay bricks of three different makes are used in the
experiments. They have been designated as B1, B2, and B3. De-
tails of the various properties of these bricks are given in Table 1.
The results given in the Table 1 represent the mean of 30 speci-
mens for compressive strength and 10 specimens for water ab-
sorption, initial rate of absorption 共IRA兲, and flexure strength. The
IS 3495 共Bureau of Indian Standards 1976兲 code procedure was
adopted for determining the compressive strength and water ab-
sorption values. IRA was determined using the procedure given in
ASTM C-67 共ASTM 1995兲. Flexure strength of the bricks was
determined by applying a single-point load on a brick over a span
of 200 mm.
Compressive strengths of the B1, B2, and B3 bricks were
10.67, 4.29, and 3.17 MPa, respectively. The coefficient of varia-
tion was large for the B2 and B3 bricks. Water absorption values
ranged between 14.67 and 18.36% with a reasonably low value of
coefficient of variation. IRA values for the 3 bricks varied be-
tween 1.31 and 3.53 kg/ m2 / min. Flexure strength values were in
the range of 0.36 to 1.1 MPa. Again, the coefficient of variation
was quite large for IRA and flexure strength values. Large values
of coefficient of variation can be attributed to a lack of quality
control during brick manufacture employing manual methods.
The secant modulus of these bricks, tested in compression along
the length, is also presented in Table 1. The extremely low values
of elastic moduli 共⬃500 MPa兲 for these bricks are to be noted.
Table 2. Properties of Mortar 共Cube Size= 70⫻ 70⫻ 70 mm兲
Mortar Secant modulus
proportion 28-day compressive at 25% of
共by weight兲, Mortar Water-cement strength ultimate stress
C:So:L:Saa designation ratio 共MPa兲 共MPa兲
1:0:0:4 CM1 0.56 10.57 8,997
1:0:0:6 CM2 0.80 7.32 5,766
1:1:0:6 CSM 0.76 4.20 8,666
1:0:1:6 CLM 1.05 4.11 5,117
a
C = cement; So= soil; L = lime; Sa= sand.

Mortars strength. In this study, largely flexural bond strength was deter-
mined for various combinations of bricks and mortars mentioned
Cement mortars and composite mortars, listed as follows, were
in the previous section. Shear bond strength was determined using
used in this study. The ratios of various materials shown are by
the B1 type of brick and the CM2 mortar for the purposes of
weight:
comparison. Compressive strength of the masonry prisms was
1. Type CM1: cement mortar; proportion= 1 cement:4 sand;
also determined for all the brick mortar combinations tested.
2. Type CM2: cement mortar; proportion= 1 cement:6 sand;
3. Type CSM: cement-soil mortar; proportion= 1 cement:1
soil:6 sand; and Flexural Bond Strength: Modified Bond Wrench Test
4. Type CLM: cement-lime mortar; proportion= 1 cement:1
Flexural bond strength of the brick masonry was determined by
lime:6 sand.
testing five-brick-high bonded prism stacks with a height to thick-
Ordinary portland cement was used for the preparation of mor-
ness ratio of 4. Flexural bond strength of the masonry prisms was
tars, conforming to IS 8112 共Bureau of Indian Standards 1989兲. A
determined using a modified bond wrench test. The bond wrench
natural soil containing 61.2% sand, 29.5% silt, and 9.3% clay
test as specified by the ASTM standard C-1072 is slightly modi-
fractions was used for the cement-soil mortar. Liquid limit and
fied. Fig. 1 shows the details of the modified bond wrench test
plasticity index for the soil were 39.9 and 10.9%, respectively.
setup. The prism was supported on a rigid bottom. The bottom-
Natural river sand having a fineness modulus of 3.05 was used for
most brick of the prism was fully clamped. The load was applied
the mortars. Cement-sand mortar containing an additional mate-
to the top-most brick of the prism through a pulley arrangement.
rial such as lime or soil has been termed as composite mortar.
This load causes a moment in the prism, which will further cause
Compressive strength and the corresponding water-cement
a flexure failure between the masonry unit and the mortar. In this
ratio of these mortars are given in Table 2. In order to maintain
test setup, only one value of flexural bond strength is obtained for
workability, the water-cement ratio for the mortars was kept con-
each prism, because once one joint fails 共generally the bottom-
stant, as indicated in Table 2. For maintaining a similar workabil-
most joint of the prism兲, the other joints of the prism 共already
ity, the water-cement ratio for the richer mortars was less than that
subjected to bending兲 are not tested. This approach is used be-
required for leaner mortars. CM1 mortar is a richer mortar, having
cause with the specimen gripped at a few discrete points 共as in the
a higher cube compressive strength when compared with CM2
standard ASTM bond wrench test兲, joints close to the grip may
mortar. CM2 is the most commonly used mortar for the majority
not be stressed uniformly. Hence, a single joint failure at some
of masonry construction in India. Cube strength of both the com-
distance away from the grips is preferred.
posite mortars 共CSM and CLM兲 was in the same range for dis-
An attempt was made to increase the flexural bond strength of
tinctly different water-cement ratios 共0.76 for CSM and 1.05 for
the masonry prisms using some bond enhancing parameters. Dif-
CLM兲. A composite mortar like CSM is also used for masonry
ferent types of prisms were built in each type of mortar using
construction 共especially for stabilized block masonry兲 in India;
bricks with and without bond-enhancing parameters. The bond-
hence, this mortar has been included in this study. Such mortars
have better workability and develop a better bond with the ma-
sonry units 共Venumadhava Rao et al. 1996兲.
The elastic moduli of the four mortars were also determined
by testing square mortar prisms 共size: 150⫻ 150⫻ 300 mm兲 in
compression. The elastic modulus values ranged between 5,000
and 9,000 MPa. It is useful to observe that the brick masonry in
such situation is very different from what happens in the Western
context, where the brick has a modulus that is much higher than
that of the mortar. Here, we have mortars whose moduli is an
order of magnitude larger than those of the bricks used. This
characteristic of South Indian brick masonry has implications on
the nature of stresses in the brick and mortar. This characteristic
of brick masonry in Bangalore 共South India兲 was also observed
by Matthana 共1996兲.

Experimental Program and Methods of Testing

Brick-mortar bond strength can be experimentally studied by de-

termining either flexural or tensile bond strength or shear bond Fig. 1. Modified bond-wrench test setup

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 231


Fig. 2. Details of Type C and Type D frogs
enhancing parameters were introduced for two reasons: 共1兲 to
understand simple ways of increasing the brick-mortar bond; and
共2兲 to study the effect of flexural bond strength on the compres-
sive strength of masonry prisms.
The following bond enhancing techniques were used in the
present study:
1. Type A: cement slurry coating 共1 cement:1 water, by weight兲
on both faces of the bricks;
2. Type B: epoxy resin coating on both faces of the bricks;
3. Type C: additional frog of 28 cm2 area in the form of holes
of 10 mm depth on the face of the brick where there was no
frog 共Fig. 2兲; and
4. Type D: additional frog of 56 cm2 area in the form of a
diamond shape of 10 mm depth on the face of the brick
where there was no frog 共Fig. 2兲.
Bricks of type B1 were tested with more mortar combinations
and bond-enhancing techniques, whereas the other bricks were
tested with one type of mortar and a bond-enhancing parameter.
Studies involving B2 and B3 bricks have been carried out mainly
for the purposes of comparison; hence, only a few tests were
planned using these types of bricks.
Shear Bond Strength of Brick Mortar Joints
Shear bond strength of the brick mortar joints 共without precom-
pression兲 was determined for brick type B1 and CM2 mortar 共1:6
cement mortar兲 along with bond-enhancing parameters. A brick
triplet specimen was used to obtain the shear bond strength of the
brick mortar joints. The test setup is shown in Fig. 3. It is clear
from the figure that the horizontal movement of the top and bot-
tom bricks was restrained and the middle brick was free to move
horizontally. Horizontal shear load was applied gradually using
the hydraulic jack till the bond between brick and mortar joint
failed and the shear bond strength could be estimated.
Compressive Strength of Brick Masonry
Compressive strength of the brick masonry was determined by
testing five-brick-high bonded prism stacks with a height to thick-
ness ratio of 4. Prisms with various combinations of bricks, mor-
tars, and bond-enhancing parameters were prepared and tested for
compressive strength.
232 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2005
Fig. 3. Shear-bond test setup
Casting and Curing of Prisms and Triplets
The bricks used for casting prisms and triplets were prewetted
before laying. The duration of prewetting of the bricks was
10 min for all cases except for prisms using CM1 type mortar
共1:4 cement mortar兲, where 20 min of prewetting was used. These
values of prewetting duration were chosen to maintain the water-
cement ratio in the mortar above 0.40 even after 1 h contact with
the bricks, so that adequate water was available for complete
hydration of the cement in the fresh mortar. More information on
the moisture transport in the bricks, mortars, and masonry and its
implications on mortar characteristics can be found in the studies
of Sarangapani et al. 共2002兲.
A mortar joint thickness of 10 mm was maintained for all the
cases. The prisms and triplets were cured for 28 days by keeping
the in moist condition under wet burlap. Six specimens were pre-
pared in each case. All specimens were tested in a saturated state,
achieved by soaking them in water for 48 h prior to testing.
Results and Discussion
Flexural Bond Strength
The flexural bond strength of the masonry was studied through
the modified bond wrench test for different combinations of
bricks, mortars, and bond enhancing techniques. The results of the
various tests are summarized in Table 3. The results given in
Table 3 represent the mean of six values. Results of the table
reveal some interesting characteristics of flexural bond. The flex-
ural failures of prisms under the flexure test could be classified
into three types:
• Type I: failure at the brick-mortar interface indicating bond
failure 共Fig. 4兲;
• Type II: failure of brick in flexure with the brick-mortar inter-
face intact 共Fig. 5兲; and
• Type III: a combination of Types I and II 共Fig. 6兲.
The three modes of failure clearly indicate that the mortar
present in the bed joint never failed in flexure. The flexural
strength of the mortar was clearly higher than the flexural strength
of the brick or the brick-mortar interface. If the brick-mortar in-
terface had good bonding, it led to either a failure of brick 共Type
II兲 or a combination of brick and bond failure 共Type III兲. When
the bond strength was poor, Type I failure could result, as is
evident from Table 3. In general, a high strength cement mortar
like CM1 using a rich mix also develops a good bond with the
brick. Use of bond-enhancing methods with a rich mortar like
CM1 can further increase the bond strength. In the case of CM1
Table 3. Flexural Bond Strength and Compressive Strength of Brick Masonry Using Different Mortars 关Brick Type B1; Brick Compressive Strength
= 10.67 MPa; Coefficient of Variation 共%兲 in Parentheses兴
Prism
Flexural compressive
Type of bond bond strength Type of strength
Mortar type enhancing parameter 共MPa兲 bond failure 共MPa兲
CM1 Nil 0.205 共14.1兲 4 prisms, Type I 3.20 共20.8兲
2 prisms, Type III
CM1 A 0.317 共9.6兲 1 prism, Type I 4.00 共21.6兲
1 prism, Type II
4 prisms, Type III
CM1 D 0.222 共19.8兲 6 prisms, Type III 5.24 共19.7兲
CM2 Nil 0.088 共14.8兲 6 prisms, Type I 2.15 共24.4兲
CM2 A 0.227 共25.6兲 4 prisms, Type I 3.43 共21.7兲
2 prisms, Type III
CM2 C 0.130 共22.6兲 6 prisms, Type I 2.34 共32.5兲
CM2 D 0.154 共18.3兲 5 prisms, Type I 2.82 共18.6兲
1 prism, Type III
CM2 B 0.387 共18.3兲 2 prisms, Type I 4.09 共16.7兲
4 prisms, Type II
CLM Nil 0.137 共18.8兲 5 prisms, Type I 2.89 共27.5兲
1 prism, Type III
CLM A 0.223 共10.5兲 4 prisms, Type I 3.83 共24.1兲
2 prisms, Type III
CLM D 0.158 共5.2兲 5 prisms, Type I 2.92 共10.8兲
1 prism, Type III
CSM Nil 0.164 共21.7兲 4 prisms, Type I 2.53 共26.1兲
2 prisms, Type III
CSM A 0.323 共28.7兲 1 prism, Type I 4.66 共18.0兲
3 prisms, Type III
2 prism, Type II
CSM D 0.230 共7.6兲 1 prism, Type I 3.22 共32.0兲
5 prisms, Type III

cement mortar, use of a better frog was not very effective, but a
coat of cement slurry yielded a 50% increase in bond strength.
Thus, use of a rich cement mortar such as CM1 seems to be
adequate in providing a good bond of about 0.20 MPa. When a
leaner cement mortar like CM2 is used, the bond strength falls to
0.088 MPa. For this mortar, any attempt at bond enhancement
provides dramatic results. Use of a bond-enhancing technique of
Types A, B, C, or D immediately led to better bond strength. Of
the two attempts at providing “frogs” on the brick surface, the one

Fig. 4. Bond failure at brick-mortar interface Fig. 5. Brick failure in flexure

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 233


Fig. 6. Combination of brick failure and bond failure in flexure
involving a series of holes 共Type C兲 was less satisfactory than the
one with a diamond-shaped depression 共Type D兲. Use of an epoxy
resin coat 共Type B兲 on the brick was, however, extremely effec-
tive and the bond strength was 0.387 MPa 共four times the value
for a plain brick-mortar interface兲.
It must also be pointed out here that, if there is a failure in the
brick 共whether partial or complete兲, the measured flexural
strength is mostly less than the actual bond strength. This means
that a large increase in bond strength is of little consequence if the
brick itself is weak.
Bond behavior with composite mortars involving additives
such as lime or soil 共CSM and CLM type mortars兲 along with
combinations of bond-enhancing techniques is also given in Table
3. This table readily reveals the fact that the composite mortars
共CSM and CLM兲 have better bonding with the brick when com-
pared with cement mortar CM2. The results for cement-soil mor-
tar 共CSM兲 are even marginally better than those for cement-lime
mortar 共CLM兲. It is well known that composite mortars using
cement-soil or cement-lime mortars have better water retention
and an improved contact area due to better flow properties. These
features have obviously led to the better bonding, although the
compressive strengths of these mortars are less than the compres-
sive strength of cement mortar CM2. This clearly shows that the
mortar adhesion to brick is more important than the mortar com-
pressive strength if improved bond strength is desired. These mor-
tars also respond to bond-enhancing techniques. Use of a coat of
Table 4. Flexural Bond Strength and Compressive Strength of Brick Masonry Using CM2 Type Mortar and B2 and B3 Type Bricks 关Mortar Compressive
Strength= 7.32 MPa; Coefficient of Variation 共%兲 in Parentheses兴
Brick
Compressive strength Flexural bond strength
Type 共MPa兲 Bond enhancing parameter
B2 4.29 Nil
B2 4.29 A 0.157 共35.9兲
B3 3.17 Nil
B3 3.17 B 0.216 共36.7兲
234 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2005
cement slurry 共Type A兲 seems to provide a significant improve-
ment. An additional frog 共Type D兲 is also helpful in bond en-
hancement. In general, an increase in bond strength yields more
examples of brick failure in flexure.
Table 4 shows some results of flexure bond strength using
brick types B2 and B3 with low compressive strength values of
4.29 and 3.17 MPa, respectively. Even here, results similar to
what was reported in Table 3 were discovered. Use of cement
slurry or epoxy coating 共Type A or B兲 did lead to better bond
strengths. Although the strengths of the bricks were quite low, the
bond strength was not reduced significantly. B2 and B3 type
bricks are quite weak as compared to the B1 type brick; hence,
there is a stronger tendency for the brick to fail in flexure. The
coefficient of variation 共17–37%兲 in this case is rather high when
compared to results for the B1 type brick 共5–27%兲 shown in
Table 3.
It is instructive to compare the brick-mortar bond strengths of
masonry using Indian bricks and mortars with the bond strengths
reported from other countries. Grenley 共1969兲 obtained modulus
of rupture values in the range of 0.10– 0.30 MPa using relatively
high strength bricks 共56– 150 MPa兲 and a range of mortar
strengths 共3.5– 40 MPa兲. Scrivener et al. 共1992兲 report in situ
bond wrench test results, and their values ranged from
0.21 to 0.85 MPa. It is now clear that the bond strengths in Indian
brick masonry, when no efforts are made to enhance bond, are
substantially less than the values obtained in developed countries.
The Indian situation is thus characterized by the use of low
strength bricks and high strength mortars, resulting in a masonry
with poor bond strength. It must also be pointed out here that the
bond wrench tests have been carried out after ensuring presence
of adequate moisture in the mortar through prewetting of bricks.
Because the construction practices in India rarely follow adequate
prewetting, the in situ bond strength can be substantially lower.
Studies by Venumadhava Rao et al. 共1996兲 showed that the flex-
ural bond strength could fall by 40–50% if the brick is completely
dry. This means that the in situ flexural bond strength of brick
masonry in India can be as low as 0.05 MPa when 1:6 cement
mortar 共Type CM2兲 is used.
Shear Bond Strength
Shear bond strength 共without precompression兲 of masonry triplets
was determined for B1 type brick and CM2 mortar with a com-
bination of various bond-enhancing techniques. The shear bond
strength values 共mean of six values兲 are given in Table 5. Shear
Prism compressive strength
共MPa兲 Type of failure 共MPa兲
0.098 共16.8兲 3 prisms, Type I 1.05 共40.6兲
2 prisms, Type III
1 prism, Type II
1 prism, Type I 1.36 共37.0兲
2 prisms, Type III
3 prism, Type II
0.128 共33.3兲 4 prisms, Type I 0.633 共30.1兲
2 prisms, Type III
2 prisms, Type I 1.05 共31.9兲
4 prisms, Type III
Table 5. Shear Bond Strength and Compressive Strength of Masonry
关Brick Type B1; Mortar Type CM2; Coefficient of Variation 共%兲 in Pa-
rentheses兴
Shear Prism
Bond bond compressive
enhancing strength strength
parameter 共MPa兲 共MPa兲
Nil 0.054 共25.4兲 2.15 共24.4兲
A 0.138 共34.5兲 3.43 共21.7兲
D 0.131 共19.8兲 2.82 共18.6兲
B 0.265 共19.0兲 4.09 共16.7兲

bond strength is about 60% of the flexural bond strength. There is

a drastic increase 共2.5- to 5-fold兲 in shear bond strength when
bond-enhancing techniques are used. For example, the shear bond
strength increases from 0.054 to 0.265 MPa when a bond-
enhancing technique such as epoxy coating is tried. Like flexural
bond strength values, shear bond strength values also have a large Fig. 7. Relation between flexural bond strength and compressive
coefficient of variation. strength of masonry

Brick-Mortar Bond Strength versus Masonry sive strength increase being higher at the low bond strength re-
Compressive Strength gion. On the whole, a four-fold increase in flexural bond strength
The bond between brick and mortar is critical for the composite resulted in a doubling of the compressive strength. A study of this
behavior between the two materials. The development of lateral graph also reveals several other features. The bond strength ap-
tension and compression in the brick and mortar 共or vice versa兲 is pears to have a stronger correlation with the compressive strength
based on the assumption that there is no bond failure at the inter- of masonry than the mortar strength. A plot of mortar strength and
face. It is hence useful to understand the correlation between bond masonry compressive strength 共Fig. 8兲 shows a complete lack of
and compressive strength. correlation. Fig. 8 again clearly shows that, for a given mortar, an
The nature of stresses in brick masonry under compression has increase in bond strength invariably increases the compressive
an important bearing on the interrelationship between bond and strength of the masonry. It is also to be noted that a weak mortar
compressive strength. As discussed earlier, the brick used here with a good bond can often perform better than a stronger mortar
has an elastic modulus that is about 15 times less than that of the with a poorer bond strength. Fig. 9 shows a correlation between
mortar in the joints. This means that, unlike in the discussions of masonry compressive strength and bond strength 共both shear
Hilsdorf 共1969兲, Francis et al. 共1971兲, and Totaro 共1994兲, the brick bond and flexural bond兲 using B1 type brick and CM2 type mor-
here will be in triaxial compression while the mortar will be in tar with various bond strengths. It is again clear from this figure
biaxial tension and compression. The horizontal compression in that there is good correlation 共nonlinear兲 between bond strength
the brick is the result of the stiffer mortar pulling it inwards for 共both shear bond and flexural bond兲 and compressive strength of
strain compatibility. The shear stress of the brick-mortar interface masonry. Comparison of all these results seems to indicate
will lead to horizontal compression in the brick. In the event of strongly that bond strength is of paramount importance in achiev-
bond failure at the brick-mortar interface, the horizontal compres- ing good compressive strength in masonry.
sion induced by the shear stresses will also vanish and the brick
will fail by lateral tension. Thus, one of the failure mechanisms in
soft brick–stiff mortar masonry is dependent on the shear bond
strength of the brick mortar interface. A higher bond strength
means that the brick will develop a large horizontal compression
as long as the high shear stress in the brick-mortar interface is
sustained.
Table 3 gives a comparison between flexural bond strength and
compressive strength of masonry for B1 type bricks using various
mortars and bond-enhancing treatments. For a given mortar, an
increase in bond strength invariably leads to an increase in com-
pressive strength of the masonry. For instance, when CM2 mortar
共1:6 cement mortar兲 is used, the bond strength of 0.088 MPa leads
to a masonry compressive strength of 2.15 MPa. However, when
the bond strength is raised to 0.387 MPa using an epoxy resin
coating 共Type B兲, the masonry compressive strength rises to
4.09 MPa. This trend is noticed in general for all mortars.
Fig. 7 shows a graph indicating the correlation between bond
strength and compressive strength for B1 type brick using four
types of mortars and bond-enhancing techniques. The figure Fig. 8. Relation between mortar compressive strength and masonry
shows that the correlation is nonlinear, with the rate of compres- compressive strength

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 235

Fig. 9. Relation between bond strength and masonry compressive
strength
The influence of bond strength can also be clearly seen in the
failure pattern of masonry prisms in compression. When bond
strengths are low, the masonry fails by vertical splitting cracks on
all four faces of the prism. Bond failures are also frequently as-
sociated with compressive failure, as it is possible to neatly sepa-
rate prism portions on either side of a joint, for low bond strength
mortars. Fig. 10 shows this type of masonry failure in compres-
Fig. 10. Bond separation failure during prism under compression
236 / JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2005
Fig. 11. Diagonal shear failure of masonry prism under compression
sion. As the bond strength is increased, failure of the masonry
prism takes place through the development of diagonal shear
cracks, as shown in Fig. 11. This failure is analogous to diagonal
failures in concrete cylinders under compression. It may also be
observed that, in such prisms, failure of the bond does not occur.
These failure patterns confirm the earlier indication that the
brick fails in horizontal tension when there is bond failure in the
brick-mortar interface. It must be pointed out here that the bond
failure here is a shear-bond failure and shear bond strength and
flexural bond strength are well correlated, as shown in Fig. 9. In
the case of a higher bond strength at the brick-mortar interface, as
in the case of an “epoxy” bonded joint, the brick does not fail by
lateral tension and the prism as a whole fails in shear.
Table 4 gives some more comparisons between flexural bond
strength and masonry compressive strength for B2 and B3 type
bricks. Improvement in compressive strength is noticed even
here, although the bricks are much weaker than the B1 type
bricks. The coefficient of variation is however very large in some
of the results.
The differences between brick masonry in Western countries
with high modulus bricks and brick masonry in India with low
modulus bricks need to be examined. In the case of brick masonry
with high modulus bricks, the brick is under lateral tension, in-
duced by shear stresses at the brick-mortar interface. An increase
in these shear stresses is likely to increase the lateral tension and
probably hasten brick failure. In the Indian brick masonry 共with
very low modulus bricks兲 the shear stresses at the interface, being
in the opposite direction, postpone the failure of the brick due to
the induced lateral compression.
Concluding Remarks
Bond strength of brick-mortar joints in masonry has been exam-
ined considering parameters such as mortar strength, effect of
plasticizing additives in mortar, effect of surface treatments on the
brick, and the influence of shape of frog. Correlation between the
brick-mortar bond strength and the compressive strength of ma-
sonry prisms has also been examined. The following broad con-
clusions emerge.
Use of cement mortars of 1:6 共cement:sand兲 proportion leads
to flexural bond strength often less than 0.10 MPa. Bond strength
of masonry using such lean mortars can be enhanced by using
bond-enhancing techniques such as coatings 共cement slurry,
epoxy resin兲 on the brick surface, increasing the area of frog, etc.
Epoxy resin coating gives the maximum bond strength. Addition
of plasticizing additives such as lime or soil to cement mortars
helps in increasing the bond strength. Rich mortars such as 1:4
cement mortar also provide higher bond strength.
The study shows the importance of using either a strong mor-
tar or a mortar with plasticizing additives to produce better bond-
ing. Although techniques such as cement slurry or epoxy coatings
are used to produce better bonding, these techniques are only of
academic interest and cannot be used in normal construction prac-
tices due to labor and material costs.
Increase in bond strength, while keeping the mortar composi-
tion and strength constant, leads to an increase in compressive
strength for masonry prisms. A four-fold increase in flexural bond
strength resulted in a doubling of the masonry compressive
strength. It is also to be noted here that, when the bond strength is
poor, the failure of a masonry prism is often accompanied by a
bond separation of one or more joints. However, when the bond
strength is rather high, the prism shows a diagonal failure with the
brick mortar intact.
The increase in masonry prism compressive strength is noticed
with both flexural bond strength improvement and shear bond
strength improvement. This study seems to suggest that the ma-
sonry prism compressive strength is more sensitive to brick-
mortar bond strength than the compressive strength of the mortar.
References
Atkinson, R. H., Noland, J. L., and Abrams, D. P. 共1982兲. “A deformation
theory for stack bonded masonry prisms in compression.” Proc., 7th
Int. Brick Masonry Conf., Melbourne University, Melbourne, Austra-
lia, 565–576.
ASTM. 共1995兲. “Standard test methods of sampling and testing brick and
JOURNAL OF MATERIALS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING © ASCE / MARCH/APRIL 2005 / 237
structural clay tile.” ASTM C-67, West Conshohocken, Pa.
Bureau of Indian Standards. 共1976兲. “Indian standard methods of test for
burnt clay building bricks.” IS 3495, New Delhi, India.
Bureau of Indian Standards. 共1989兲. “Specification for 43 grade ordinary
portland cement.” IS 8112, New Delhi, India.
Francis, A. J., Horman, C. B., and Jerrems, L. E. 共1971兲. “The effect of
joint thickness and other factors on the compressive strength of brick-
work.” Proc., 2nd Int. Brick Masonry Conf., H. W. H. West, ed.,
British Ceramic Association, Stoke-on-Trent, U.K., 31–37.
Grenley, D. G. 共1969兲. “Study of the effect of certain modified mortars on
compressive and flexural strength of masonry.” Designing, engineer-
ing, and constructing with masonry products, F. B. Johnson, ed., Gulf,
Houston, 28–33.
Groot, C. 共1993兲. “Effects of water on mortar brick bond.” PhD thesis,
Univ. of Delft, Delft, The Netherlands.
Hilsdorf, H. K. 共1969兲. “An investigation into the failure mechanism of
brick masonry loaded in axial compression.” Designing, engineering,
and constructing with masonry products, F. B. Johnson, ed., Gulf,
Houston, 34–41.
Khoo, C. L., and Hendry, A. W. 共1973兲. “A failure criterion for brickwork
in axial compression.” Proc., 3rd Int. Brick Masonry Conference, L.
Foertig and K. Gobel, eds., 139–145.
Lawerence, S. J., and Cao, H. T. 共1987兲. “An experimental study of the
interface between brick and mortar.” Proc., 4th North American Ma-
sonry Conf., Masonry Society, Boulder, Colo., 1–14.
Matthana, M. H. S. 共1996兲. “Strength of brick masonry and masonry with
openings.” PhD thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Science, Bangalore, India.
McNary, W. S., and Abrams, D. P. 共1985兲. “Mechanics of masonry in
compression.” J. Struct. Eng., 111共4兲, 857–870.
Samarasinghe, W., and Lawrence, S. J. 共1992兲. “Effect of high suction
rate in low strength bricks on brick mortar bond.” Proc., 4th Int.
Seminar on Structural Masonry for Developing Countries, Madras,
India, 43–50.
Sarangapani, G. 共1998兲. “Studies on the strength of brick masonry.” PhD
thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Banga-
lore, India.
Sarangapani, G., Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., and Jagadish, K. S. 共2002兲.
“Structural characteristics of bricks, mortars, and masonry.” J. Struct.
Eng. (India), 29共2兲, 101–107.
Scrivener, J., Zsembery, S., McNeily, T., and Lawrence, S. J. 共1992兲.
“In-situ bond strength of clay brickwork.” Proc., 4th Int. Seminar on
Structural Masonry for Developing Countries, Madras, India, 51–55.
Sinha, B. P. 共1967兲. “Model studies related to load bearing brickwork.”
PhD thesis, Univ. of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, U.K.
Totaro, N. 共1994兲. “A hybrid elastic theory for evaluation of compressive
strength of brick masonry.” Proc., 10th Int. Brick and Block Masonry
Conf., 1443–1451.
Venumadhava Rao, K., Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., and Jagadish, K. S.
共1995兲. “Influence of flexural bond strength on the compressive
strength of masonry.” Proc., National Conf. on Civil Engineering Ma-
terials and Structures, Osmania Univ., Hyderabad, India, 103–108.
Venumadhava Rao, K., Venkatarama Reddy, B. V., and Jagadish, K. S.
共1996兲. “Flexural bond strength of masonry using various blocks and
mortars.” Mater. Struct., 29, 119–124.