Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3 (1): 75-80 Scholarlink Research Institute Journals, 2012

2 (ISSN: 2141-7016) jeteas.scholarlinkresearch.org Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(1):75-80(ISSN: 2141-7016) Journal of Emerging Trends in

The Load Carrying Capacity of Hollow Sandcrete Blocks

J. C Ezeokonkwo and C. U Nwoji Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nigeria, Nsukka Corresponding Author: J. C Ezeokonkwo ___________________________________________________________________________
Abstract Compression tests on hollow sandcrete blocks are conventionally confined to the as-cast face neglecting the other two orthogonal faces. Also uniaxial compressive strength of hollow sandcrete blocks is defined on the basis of the apparent area of the as-cast face. The definition has made no distinction between hollow and solid sandcrete blocks. In other to examine/investigate the consequences of the above, two-cell hollow sandcrete blocks with 30%, 40.7%, 50% and 60% cavity volumes were subjected to compression test on as-cast face and as-cast side. Sand/cement ratio of 6 and water/cement ratio of 0.7 were used. The blocks were hand compacted and curing was by water sprinkling for 7 days according to Nigerian Industrial Specifications for sandcrete blocks Compressive strengths were calculated based on the apparent and effective areas of the two perpendicular surfaces. The results indicate that the effective strengths compare more favourably with the control cylinder strength than the apparent strengths. Comparison between the two perpendicular surface strengths showed a linear correlation. Therefore, the plane and smoothness of as-cast side made it a better face to define the strength of blocks by correlating it to the as-cast face strength __________________________________________________________________________________________ Keywords: hollow sandcrete blocks, effective strength, apparent strength, compressive strength, as-cast surfaces web __________________________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION decided to specify 2.10 N/mm2 as the minimum Sandcrete blocks are available for the construction of compressive strength for load bearing walls of 2 or 3load bearing and non-load bearing structures (Hodge, storey building (RCRD, 1979). No distinction was 1971). They are the dominant wall construction made between hollow and solid blocks. This materials for buildings in Nigeria and sandcrete definition agrees with that in other national standard blocks are composite material made up of cement, specifications for concrete blocks (BS 2028, 1978; sand and water, moulded into different sizes (Barry, ASTM C145-75 and ASTM C90-75). 1969). In accordance with ASTM C1232-10, Standard Terminology of Masonry, the definitions for However, from ASTM C90 the compressive strength hollow and solid masonry units are: requirements were converted from a minimum gross Hollow masonry unit, nunit whose net crossarea compressive strength to a minimum net area sectional area in any plane parallel to the surface compressive strength. Until this conversion was containing cores, cells, or deep frogs is less than 75 made, ASTM maintained two different standards for % of its gross cross-sectional area measured in the load bearing concrete masonry units: ASTM C90, for same plane. hollow units, and ASTM C145, for solid units. The Solid masonry unit, nunit whose net crossrequirements of these two standards were effectively sectional area in any plane parallel to the surface identical, with the exception that the minimum containing cores, cells, or deep frogs is 75 % or more compressive strength required was calibrated to of its gross cross-sectional area measured in the same account for the units being either solid or hollow. By plane. revising the minimum compressive strength requirements to be based on the net area of the unit, The Nigeria Industrial Standard (NIS 87: 2000) the need for two separate standards covering hollow defined the compressive strength of a sandcrete block and solid units was no longer necessary and ASTM as the load at failure in compression divided by the C145 was withdrawn. Today, ASTM C90 applies apparent bearing area of the block. Nigerian equally to hollow and solid load bearing concrete Industrial Standard (NIS 87: 2000) specified that the masonry units (NCMA, 2010). It has been argued that lowest compressive strength of individual load it is the solid area of the block that actually sustains 2 and transmits the load (Uzomaka, 1977). Some bearing blocks shall not be less than 2.5 N/mm and design manuals (Curtin et al., 2006 and Schneider et average compressive strength of five blocks shall not al., 1980) have also criticized the computation of 2 be less than 3.45 N/mm . Federal Ministry of Works compressive strength of hollow block based on the and Housing, during the Annual Conference in Kano apparent (gross) area. They have contended that
75

Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(1):75-80(ISSN: 2141-7016) compressive strength should be calculated on the basis of the solid bearing area of the hollow block, except where they are filled with grout. The rough and uneven as-cast face (the surface plane parallel to the surface containing cells) of a hollow sandcrete block causes reduction and inaccuracy in the compressive strength. These defects are minimized through treating of the as-cast face (Thomas, 1964). Uzomaka (1977) has further drawn attention to the tedious and costly test procedures for determining before testing by capping, grinding or packing with a bedding material. These treatments are cumbersome, that Workers at Fourah Bay College recommended the procedure of rubbing down the test faces with carboradum plate to achieve the desired even surface (Eze-Uzomaka, 1978). Elimination of this tedious capping, grinding or packing processes can also be done by testing the hollow blocks on the sides that are smooth and plane (Ezeokonkwo, 1988). DeBorde, et al. (2011) noted that it is important to assess the compressive strength of bricks so that buildings designed with masonry will perform properly. Therefore, testing the bricks for compressive strength is essential to assess the overall behaviour of the material in construction (BIA 2004). It is important to understand the behaviour of hollow sandcrete blocks under different hollow (cavity) configurations in order to properly define the compressive strength of hollow blocks considering the unevenness of the as-cast surface of the blocks. The work of capping, grinding or packing processes to obtain smooth and plane surface for testing hollow sandcrete blocks is very tedious. Yet hollow sandcrete blocks possess smooth and plane surfaces that can be used to avoid capping, grinding or packing processes. Consequently, this paper examines the variation in compressive strength of different hollow block configurations and to study the effect of different hollow (cavity) blocks on the compressive strength. To do this, compression test was carried out on the plane parallel to the surface containing cells (as-cast surface) and on the plane perpendicular to the surface containing cells (as-cast side surface). Compressive strengths were calculated based on the apparent (gross area) and effective areas of the two perpendicular surfaces. This is to establish the relationship between the strength obtained by carrying out compression tests on the two orthogonal surfaces in order to reduce the effort involved in capping to produce an even surface. Thus, the definition and determination of the load carrying capacity of sandcrete blocks have considerable cost implications and are of great interest to the construction industry. TEST DETAILS Specimen Preparation The overall dimensions of all test specimens are 450mm x 225mm x 225mm.Fig. 1 shows the variety of hollow blocks used in the study, with cavity volume of 30%, 40.7%, 50% and 60%. In the identification of the blocks, 30H25, for example, represents a hollow block with 30% cavity volume and end-web thickness of 25mm.the dimensions of the cavity are given as (a x b), (c x d), (e x g), or (m x n). The block specimens were prepared with wooden moulds at the Department of Civil Engineering Laboratory, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Compaction was done in three layers, each being tamped 35 times with a standard wooden tamping rod. Two samples of each block type were produced.

The optimum value water/cement ratio of 0.7 has been determined for cement/sand ratio of 6 (Uzomaka, 1977). Curing started 24 hours after
76

casting and was by water sprinkling once a day for 7 days, and then left to mature for another 7 days inside the laboratory in accordance with NIS 87: 2000

Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(1):75-80(ISSN: 2141-7016) specification for curing. Standard 150mm-cylinder specimens were prepared for control. The procedure of rubbing down the test face with carboradum plate was used to achieve the desired even surface for the as-cast face. Test Procedure Each block was tested in a 2000KN capacity Dension testing machine at the Department of Civil Engineering Laboratory, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. No effort was made to produce frictionless ends, in order to simulate as closely as possible the actual procedure in practice. COMPUTATION OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH Compressive strength was calculated on the basis of the apparent and effective bearing areas of the two perpendicular surfaces as shown in figure 2. The strength of hollow blocks, when as-cast

Fig. 2: Orientations and Dimensions of Hollow The compressive strength of hollow sandcrete blocks, when as-cast face was the bearing surface at test, is calculated as follows: Fza = Pz 1 Lx B Fze = Pz 2 LB-2ab The compressive strength when as-cast side was the bearing surface at test is calculated as follows: Fxa = Px 3 LH Fxe = Px 4 Ae Where Ae = H (2te + tc) 5 Z indicates that as-cast face was the bearing area at test, while X indicates that as-cast side was the bearing area at test ANALYSIS OF TEST RESULTS Variability of Compressive Strength Table 1 shows the dispersion coefficients for the strength of the various hollow sandcrete blocks. It can be seen that the mean strength decreases with increase in cavity volume, except for the

Table 1: Mean Strength, Standard Deviation and Coefficient of Variation for Hollow Sandcrete Block
Mean strength (N/mm2 ) Apparent area Effective area TYPE OF BLOCKS Face tested Z X 4.8 6.2 4.5 4.0 3.9 4.5 4.5 5.8 Face tested Z X 3.4 2.6 2.6 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.2 1.2 Face tested Z X 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.7 1.1 Face tested Z X 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 Standard deviation (N/mm2) Apparent area Effective area Coefficient of variation (%) Face tested Face tested Z X 11.92 11.61 4.95 11.49 10.10 17.90 18.09 19.32

30H12.5-30H60 40.7H12.5-40.7H60 50H12.5-50H60 60H12.5-60H45

effective strength of as-cast side, where the block group 60H12.5 60H45 showed greater mean strength over block groups: 50H12.5 50H60, and 40.7H12.5 40.7H60. This supports the observation that the strength of small specimen is on the average larger than that of the bigger specimens
77

(Ezeokonkwo, 1988 and Mirza et al., 1979). The coefficient of variation has no defined trend, but values of 4.95% - 11.92% and 11.61% - 19.32% were recorded for the two perpendicular surfaces respectively. This confirms previous investigations, which indicate that the standard deviation and the

Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(1):75-80(ISSN: 2141-7016) coefficient of variation are not constant for different strength levels Ezeokonkwo, 1988, Mirza, et al., 1979, Ibeh, 1975 and Florek, 1985). The Representative Strength for Hollow Sandcrete Blocks The best estimate of the compressive strength any material is conventionally considered to be that determined from testing a cylindrical specimen of the material. Specimens of cubical or prismatic shapes are normally used in practice for expediency. Consequently, the representative compressive strength of a hollow sandcrete block is defined in this study to be the compressive strength value, which is closest to the corresponding cylinder strength. The control cylinder strength is 5.093 N/mm2 with standard deviation of 0.821 N/mm2 and coefficient of variation of 16.124%. Any difference between the strength of hollow sandcrete block and the cylinder strength of the same sandcrete mixture is due to the effects of geometry, void cavity, direction of load application and the area over which the load has been transmitted. Table 2 shows the results of t test analysis which deals with the estimation of a true value from a sample and the establishment of the confidence range within which the value can be said to lie. The validity that the various hollow block groups mean strength could have come from a population with the cylinder strength as mean strength lies within 0.02 significance level. With this confidence level, any block group mean strength that has calculated t value greater than the tabulated t value does not belong to the population with the cylinder strength as the mean strength. Results of the apparent strengths on the two perpendicular surfaces of the blocks indicate that they are not part of the block strength population with the cylinder strength as their mean strength. This means that the block mean value is far less than the populations mean. Invariably, the calculated t values for all the block types are less than the tabulated t values Table 2: t test results
HOLLOW BLOCK TYPE 30H12.5 30H60 40H12.5 40.7H60 50H12.5 50H60 60H12.5 60H45 Effective strength for face (Z) t calculated 1.306 9.969 9.420 11.322 t tabulated 2.624 2.718 2.650 2.718 Effective strength for face (X) t calculated 5.709 2.125 2.518 2.168 t tabulated 2.624 2.821 2.821 2.718

strength of as-cast face (Z). For 40.7H12.5 40.7H60, 50H12.5 50H60 and 60H12.5 60H45 hollow sandcrete block types, the compressive strength is better calculated on the basis of effective strength of the as-cast side (X). Generally, therefore, compressive strength should be calculated on the basis of effective strength of the as-cast side surface (X). This is advantageous as most available commercial hollow sandcrete blocks belong to the groups. It further shows that the effective strength rather than the apparent strength should be the true representative compressive strength of hollow sandcrete blocks. As-Cast Face versus ASCast Side The crushing load on as-cast face is greater than the corresponding value on as-cast side. The load on ascast side is about 48.8%-80.6% of load on as-cast face. This is due to the effective bearing area of the as-cast face. In structural compression members (masonry walls) the situation is similar to that existing in blocks tested on as-cast face. Consequently, using the as-cast face gives the realistic results for hollow sandcrete blocks. The most important factor militating against blocks tested on as-cast face is lack of smoothness and plane ness. Capping to achieve a smooth and plane surface increases the strength by 12 15% and rubbing down the test faces with carboradum plate to achieve even surfaces was recommended (Eze-Uzomaka, 1978). In order to overcome the extra work involved in the capping operation, an attempt was made to correlate the strengths on as-cast face (Z) and as-cast side (X). Analysis of test data from four different block types gave a linear correlation. The linear correlation between strengths on the two perpendicular surfaces was examined using individual slope for each block type, single slope and pooled slope. If the strength of individual block is to be determined as specified in the NIS 87: 2000 then, correlation between the as cast face apparent strength and as-cast side apparent strength should be investigated. This will eliminate the danger posse by the as-cast face when used to determine the strength block. Linear regression analysis between the as-cast face apparent strengths (fza) and as-cast side apparent strengths (fxa) based on the individual slope for each block type indicated the following linear equations and are shown in fig. 3. For 30H12.5 30H60 blocks fza = 0.5394fxa + 2.005 (r = 0.907 ) (1) For 40.7H12.5 40.7H60 blocks fza = 0.4211fxa + 2.0028 (r = 0.964) (2) For 50H12.5 50H60 blocks fza = 0.8558fxa + 0.9398 (r=0.855 ) (3) For 60H12.5 60H45 blocks fza = 0.4133fxa + 1.0858 (r=0.996 ) (4) The correlation coefficients indicate that there is 95 percent certainty that there is a linear correlation
78

From Table 2, we conclude that the compressive strength of 30H12.5 30H60 hollow sandcrete block type is better calculated on the basis of effective

Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(1):75-80(ISSN: 2141-7016) except in 50 percent cavity blocks types, which indicates 90 percent certainty. When all the individual slopes are pooled into a single slope figure 4, the linear regression equation between the strength fza and fxa becomes: fza = 1.0174fxa + 0.7616 (r = 0.921) (5) effective strength (fxn) of as-cast side are shown in figure 5 and have the following equations.

For 30H12.5 30H60 blocks fza = 0.2280fxn + 2.0116 (r = 0.908) For 40.7H12.5 40.7H60 blocks fza = 0.1405fxn + 2.0021 (r= 0.965) For 50 H12.5 50H60 blocks fza = 0.2279fxn + 0.9416 (r = 0.855) For 60H12.5 - 60H45 blocks fza = 0.0830fxn + 1.0849 (r = 0.996)

(6) (7) (8) (9)

The correlation coefficient indicates that there is 95 percent certainty that there is a single slope linear correlation. The sum of squares of deviation from the best straight line through the set of data separately is 0.121797578, while the sum of squares of deviation from the best straight line through all the data is 1.191389506. It can be concluded that the linear correlation between fza and fxa can be best described by straight lines with different slope. But on the other hand, it has been shown that the effective strength of the as-cast side is the true representative for the range of commercial produced blocks. Then, correlation between the as-cast face apparent strength (fza) and as-cast side effective strength becomes necessary. Correlation based on individual slopes between the apparent strength (fza) of the as-cast face and the

The correlation coefficients shown in equations 6 - 9 are the same as that indicated in equations 1- 4, and therefore the same probability level is maintained. The F-test analysis (William, 1969) based on 3 and 11 degree of freedom with 95 percent confidence level, showed that although pooled slope and single slopes regression lines have moderate correlation coefficients, a better linear correlation exists if the individual line is drawn with own slope for every sandcrete block group. The best straight line through sets, each with its own slope, for correlation between as-cast face crushing load (Pz) and as-cast side crushing load (Px ) is the same as shown in figure 3. The correlation coefficients are the same as that shown by strength correlation. The only difference is the absence of criss-crossing. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions were reached from the study: a) The standard deviation and coefficient of variation are not constant for different strength levels. b) The loading direction on the hollow sandcrete block influences the standard deviation and coefficient of variation of strength. c) The effective strength has lower coefficient of variation than the apparent strength; i.e. the effective strength has better uniformity.
79

Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 3(1):75-80(ISSN: 2141-7016) d) The effective strength is more representative of the true compressive strength of hollow sandcrete blocks than the apparent strength. Effective strength of as-cast side proved to be better result for the blocks. e) A linear correlation exists between strengths determined for as-cast face and for as-cast side. Individual lines best describe this linear correlation with different slope for each set of hollow blocks. REFERENCES ASTM Standard C145, 1975. Standard Specification for solid LoadBearing Concrete Masonry Unit, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM Standard C90, 1975. Standard Specification for hollow LoadBearing Concrete Masonry Unit, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. ASTM Standard C90, 2009. Standard Specification for Load bearing Concrete Masonry Units ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA NCMA Commentary Discussions to ASTM C 90-09, 2010. Standard Specification for Load bearing Concrete Masonry Units, http://www.ncma.org/resources /design/Documents/ASTM%20C90%20Commentary %20Last%20Revised%20June%209%202010.pdf Barry, R. 1969. The Construction of Building. Crosby Lockwood, London, England. Vol.1. pp 5455 & 94. Brick Industry Association (BIA-2004). Manufacturing of bricks. Technical Notes on Brick Construction, Reston, VA, December 2006. http://www.gobrick.com/BIA/technotes/t9.pdf?FID= 11055019&CFTOKEN=7219660. (Accessed May 27, 2010). BS 2028, (1978) Precast Concrete Blocks: British Standard Institution. Curtin, W.G., Shaw, G., Beck, J. K., Bray, W. A. and Easterbrook, D. 2006. Structural Masonry Designers Manual. Granada Publishing, Froggmere, G.B. DeBorde, J. L., Dawn, M. M., Magee, M. R. and Ganzerli, S. 2011. Uniaxial Compressive Strength of Bricks Subject to Different Temperatures, 11th NAMC, Minneapolis USA. www.dist.unina.it/proc /2011/NAMC11/data/papers/042.pdf Ezeokonkwo, J.C. 1988. Unaxial Compressive Strength of Sandcrete Hollow Blocks And its Dependence on Geometry, M. Engr. Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Eze-Uzomaka, O.J. 1978. Discussion of Reference 5: Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2 , ( G.B ) Vol. 65 , June PP. 491 495 . Florek, A. 1985. Quality of Sandcrete Hollow Block Manufactured in Northern Nigeria, Proceedings of Conference on Material Testing, Control and Research, Federal Ministry of Works and Housing, Lagos. Ibeh, L.C. 1975. A Survey of Block-Making Industries in some Urban Centres of East Central State, B. Sc Thesis, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. Mirza, S.A., Hatzinikolas, M and MacGregor, J.G. 1979. Statistical Description of Strength of Concrete. Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 105 No. ST6, pp. 1021- 1037. Nigerian Industrial Standard (NIS 87: 2000). Specification for sandcrete Blocks. Standard Organization of Nigeria, Lagos, Nigeria. Recommendation of Committee on Review of Decision, (1979). Proceeding of the Conference on Material Testing, Control and Research. Federal Ministry of Works and Housing, Lagos, Feb. p. 102. Schneider, R.R. and Dickey, W.L. 1980. Reinforced Masonry Design, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Eagle Wood Cliff N.J. Thomas, K. 1964. Influence of the Curing Conditions and Mix Proportions on the Compressive Strength of Sandcrete Blocks, Bull. R.R.L.E.M, September, New Series, No 24, pp. 149-155. Uzomaka, O.J. 1977. Appraisal of Method of Testing Some Physical properties of Sandcrete Blocks. Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers, Part 2, (GB) Vol. 63. pp. 625- 639. William, V. 1969. Applied statistics for Engineers, McGraw Hill, New York, 2nd Edition.

80