Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/strength-enhancement-of-interlocking-hollow-brick-masonry-walls-with-4vYNiO55T6
References
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
- Publisher
- Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
- Copyright
- © 1996-2021 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer The statements, opinions and data contained in the journals are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
- ISSN
- 2412-3811
- DOI
- 10.3390/infrastructures6120166
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
infrastructures Article Strength Enhancement of Interlocking Hollow Brick Masonry Walls with Low-Cost Mortar and Wire Mesh 1 2 2 3 4 Panuwat Joyklad , Nazam Ali , Muhammad Usman Rashid , Qudeer Hussain , Hassan M. Magbool , 5 6 , Amr Elnemr and Krisada Chaiyasarn * Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Srinakharinwirot University, Nakhon Nayok 26120, Thailand; panuwatj@g.swu.ac.th Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Management and Technology, Lahore 54770, Pakistan; nazam.ali@umt.edu.pk (N.A.); usman.rashid@umt.edu.pk (M.U.R.) Center of Excellence in Earthquake Engineering and Vibration, Department of Civil Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 45142, Thailand; ebbadat@hotmail.com Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia; h.magbool@jazanu.edu.sa Civil Engineering Program, German University in Cairo, New Cairo City 11835, Egypt; amr.elnemr@guc.edu.eg Thammasat Research Unit in Infrastructure Inspection and Monitoring, Repair and Strengthening (IIMRS), Thammasat School of Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Thammasat University Rangsit, Klong Luang Pathumthani 12121, Thailand * Correspondence: ckrisada@engr.tu.ac.th Abstract: Cement–clay Interlocking Hollow Brick Masonry (CCIHBM) walls are characterized by poor mechanical properties of bricks and mortar. Their performance is observed to be unsatisfactory under both gravity and seismic loads. There is an urgent need to develop sustainable, environmentally Citation: Joyklad, P.; Ali, N.; Rashid, friendly, and low-cost strengthening materials to alter the structural behaviour of brick masonry M.U.; Hussain, Q.; Magbool, H.M.; walls in terms of strength and ductility. The results of an experimental investigation conducted on Elnemr, A.; Chaiyasarn, K. Strength the diagonal compressive response of CCIHBM walls are presented in this study. In this experimental Enhancement of Interlocking Hollow study, a total of six CCIHBM walls were constructed using cement–clay interlocking hollow bricks. Brick Masonry Walls with Low-Cost One was tested as a control or reference wall, whereas the remaining walls were strengthened using Mortar and Wire Mesh. Infrastructures cement mortar. In some walls, the cement mortar was also combined with the wire mesh. The 2021, 6, 166. https://doi.org/ research parameters included the type of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) (Type 1 and Type 2), 10.3390/infrastructures6120166 thickness of cement mortar (10 mm and 20 mm), and layers of wire mesh (one and three layers). The experimental results indicate that control or unstrengthened CCIHBM walls failed in a very brittle Academic Editor: Salvatore Verre manner at a very low ultimate load and deformation. The control CCIHBM wall, i.e., W-CON, failed Received: 25 October 2021 at an ultimate load of 247 kN, and corresponding deflection was 1.8 mm. The strength and ductility Accepted: 22 November 2021 of cement mortar and wire mesh-strengthened walls were found to be higher than the reference Published: 24 November 2021 CCIHBM wall. For example, the ultimate load and deformation of cement-mortar-strengthened wall were found to be 143% and 233% higher than the control wall, respectively. Additionally, the ultimate Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral failure modes of cement mortar and wire mesh strengthened were observed as ductile as compared with regard to jurisdictional claims in to the brittle failure of reference wall or unstrengthened CCIHBM wall, which increased by 66% and published maps and institutional affil- 150% as compared with the control wall. iations. Keywords: brick; cement; clay; strengthening; mortar; wire mesh Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. 1. Introduction This article is an open access article Natural disasters such as earthquakes, landslides, liquefaction of ground, and tsunamis distributed under the terms and cause widespread destruction and damage to infrastructure such as public and commercial conditions of the Creative Commons buildings, roads, and bridges. Among these natural disasters, the damage due to earth- Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// quakes is most common around the world. During earthquakes, the ground shaking may creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ cause complete or partial damage to roads, bridges, and buildings. Complete damage 4.0/). Infrastructures 2021, 6, 166. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures6120166 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/infrastructures Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 16 Infrastructures 2021, 6, 166 2 of 15 may cause complete or partial damage to roads, bridges, and buildings. Complete damage to buildings may result in the highest number of causalities compared to partial damage to buildings may result in the highest number of causalities compared to partial dam- [1,2]. An appropriate selection of material and proper design is vital to safeguard the in- age [1,2]. An appropriate selection of material and proper design is vital to safeguard the frastructure against all types of natural disasters, especially earthquakes. Brick and/or infrastructure against all types of natural disasters, especially earthquakes. Brick and/or block masonry structures (both un-reinforced and reinforced) are commonly constructed block masonry structures (both un-reinforced and reinforced) are commonly constructed throughout the world because of the wide availability of the construction materials and throughout the world because of the wide availability of the construction materials and comparatively low construction cost. In some countries, concrete blocks of different comparatively low construction cost. In some countries, concrete blocks of different shapes shapes are frequently used for construction. In Asian and Southeast Asian regions, clay are frequently used for construction. In Asian and Southeast Asian regions, clay brick brick masonry construction is very common. Different waste materials such as ceramics, masonry construction is very common. Different waste materials such as ceramics, fly ash, fly ash, and slags have been frequently used in the past to produce bricks [3–5]. However, and slags have been frequently used in the past to produce bricks [3–5]. However, there ar there are e few drawbacks few drawb ofamasonry cks of masonry c construction onstruction such as such a weak s joints, weakbrittle joints, bri natur ttl e, e nature, and insuf an fi- d insufficient lateral stability, especially in the case of un-reinforced masonry construction. cient lateral stability, especially in the case of un-reinforced masonry construction. As a rAs esult, a re widespr sult, widespre ead destr aduction destruction to th to the masonry e mastr son ur ctur y str es uctures was observed was observed in past in past earth earthquakes.- For quake example, s. For exan amearthquake ple, an earthqu of 6.3 ake of magnitude 6.3 magnoccurr itude occurred ed in Christchur in Christ ch, church New , New Z Zealand, ea- in 2011, which caused massive destruction. Although this earthquake was moderate, it land, in 2011, which caused massive destruction. Although this earthquake was moderate, caused devastating damage to the masonry structures and buildings because of the high it caused devastating damage to the masonry structures and buildings because of the high shaking of building levels in the city centre. In the damaged buildings, those that were shaking of building levels in the city centre. In the damaged buildings, those that were unreinforced masonry structures suffered the highest damage among other buildings in unreinforced masonry structures suffered the highest damage among other buildings in that earthquake [6]. Although Thailand is located in a low-seismic region in Southeast that earthquake [6]. Although Thailand is located in a low-seismic region in Southeast Asian and is far away from the sources that may case high intensity earthquakes, in the Asian and is far away from the sources that may case high intensity earthquakes, in the past, few devasting earthquakes have been recorded in the northern provinces of Thailand past, few devasting earthquakes have been recorded in the northern provinces of Thailand such as Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai. In 2004, a 9.1 magnitude earthquake was recorded such as Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai. In 2004, a 9.1 magnitude earthquake was recorded near the Island of Sumatra, Indonesia. This earthquake resulted in a devasting tsunami near the Island of Sumatra, Indonesia. This earthquake resulted in a devasting tsunami that killed almost 225,000 people in several countries such as Sri Lanka, Maldives, and that killed almost 225,000 people in several countries such as Sri Lanka, Maldives, and Thailand. After the earthquake, the water level was observed up to 19.6 m at Ban Thung Thailand. After the earthquake, the water level was observed up to 19.6 m at Ban Thung Dap and 15.8 m at Ban Nam Kim, Thailand. Damage to the infrastructure was mainly Dap and 15.8 m at Ban Nam Kim, Thailand. Damage to the infrastructure was mainly observed in two districts, i.e., Chiang-rai and Chiang-saen, as shown in Figure 1 [7]. observed in two districts, i.e., Chiang-rai and Chiang-saen, as shown in Figure 1 [7]. Figure 1. Damage of a building with small columns in Chiang-Saen District [7]. Figure 1. Damage of a building with small columns in Chiang-Saen District [7]. Brick masonry is vital part of construction in Thailand, along with other countries in Brick masonry is vital part of construction in Thailand, along with other countries the world. Different types of bricks are used for residential, commercial, educational, and in the world. Different types of bricks are used for residential, commercial, educational, and religio religious us infrast infrastr ructu uctur re [8– e1[3 8]–. The 13]. The salie salient nt advadvantages antages of br ofick m brick asonry con masonry constr structi uction on are ar high e high load load beabearing ring capcapacity acity, th,e the useuse of lo ofcal local mamaterials, terials, and and sup superior erior resi rst esistance ance again against st ex- extr treme weather conditions eme weather conditions [14] [14 . Addi ]. Additionally tionally, bri , cbrick k masonry constructi masonry constron i uction s usua is usually lly con- considered more serviceable, durable, and environmentally friendly [15,16]. However, Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16 Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 16 Infrastructures 2021, 6, 166 3 of 15 sidered more serviceable, durable, and environmentally friendly [15,16]. However, exist- sidered more serviceable, durable, and environmentally friendly [15,16]. However, exist- ing earthquakes have shown severe damage to masonry construction as shown in Figures ing earthquakes have shown severe damage to masonry construction as shown in Figures existing earthquakes have shown severe damage to masonry construction as shown in 2 and 3. 2 and 3. Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2. Diagonal cracks in a masonry wall [7]. Figure 2. Diagonal cracks in a masonry wall [7]. Figure 2. Diagonal cracks in a masonry wall [7]. Figure 3. Damage due to load transfer from masonry walls [7]. Figure 3. Damage due to load transfer from masonry walls [7]. Figure 3. Damage due to load transfer from masonry walls [7]. Therefore, there is an urgent need to enhance the lateral stability and load carrying Therefore, there is an urgent need to enhance the lateral stability and load carrying Therefore, there is an urgent need to enhance the lateral stability and load carrying capacity of brick masonry construction. Advanced Fibber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) capacity of brick masonry construction. Advanced Fibber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) com- capacity of brick masonry construction. Advanced Fibber-Reinforced Polymer (FRP) com- composites and other materials have been extensively utilized for the structural repair and posites and other materials have been extensively utilized for the structural repair and posites and other materials have been extensively utilized for the structural repair and strengthening of masonry walls [17–23]. FRP composites are lightweight and high in tensile strengthening of masonry walls [17–23]. FRP composites are lightweight and high in ten- strengthening of masonry walls [17–23]. FRP composites are lightweight and high in ten- strength. Tumialan et al., 2001, investigated the use of different FRP systems to enhance the sile strength. Tumialan et al., 2001, investigated the use of different FRP systems to en- sile strength. Tumialan et al., 2001, investigated the use of different FRP systems to en- strength of un-reinforced masonry walls. In their study, a total number of six block masonry hance the strength of un-reinforced masonry walls. In their study, a total number of six hance the strength of un-reinforced masonry walls. In their study, a total number of six walls were constructed and tested up to ultimate failure. The test results indicate that the block masonry walls were constructed and tested up to ultimate failure. The test results block masonry walls were constructed and tested up to ultimate failure. The test results use of FRP systems is very useful to alter the structural performance of the block masonry indicate that the use of FRP systems is very useful to alter the structural performance of indicate that the use of FRP systems is very useful to alter the structural performance of walls [24]. In another study, Iii et al., 2001 used glass FRP composites to alter the flexural the block masonry walls [24]. In another study, Iii et al., 2001 used glass FRP composites the block masonry walls [24]. In another study, Iii et al., 2001 used glass FRP composites capacity of concrete block walls. The glass FRP composites were applied in the vertical to alter the flexural capacity of concrete block walls. The glass FRP composites were ap- to alter the flexural capacity of concrete block walls. The glass FRP composites were ap- direction, i.e., perpendicular to the bed joints. Based on experimental results, the authors plied in the vertical direction, i.e., perpendicular to the bed joints. Based on experimental plied in the vertical direction, i.e., perpendicular to the bed joints. Based on experimental reported two types of failures, i.e., glass FRP fracture and combination of fracture and results, the authors reported two types of failures, i.e., glass FRP fracture and combination results, the authors reported two types of failures, i.e., glass FRP fracture and combination de-bonding. The flexural capacity of glass-FRP-strengthened walls was found to be higher of fracture and de-bonding. The flexural capacity of glass-FRP-strengthened walls was of fracture and de-bonding. The flexural capacity of glass-FRP-strengthened walls was than the control walls [25]. Bui et al., 2015, studied the behaviour of FRP-strengthened hollow concrete brick masonry walls. The masonry walls were strengthened using glass Infrastructures 2021, 6, 166 4 of 15 and textile FRP composites. A total of six walls were constructed and tested under lateral loading. The FRP composites were applied in different strengthening configurations. All types of FRP composites were found to be feasible to extend the structural integrity of the hollow concrete brick masonry walls. The performance of textile FRP composite was found to be lower than the glass FRP composite [26]. The use of FRP composites was also found effective to enhance the strength and ductility of solid and hollow clay brick masonry walls [27,28]. Hamoush et al., 2014, used carbon FRP composites to strengthen fired clay brick masonry walls. In their study, a total of fifteen walls were constructed and tested. Twelve walls were strengthened using carbon FRP composites and three were considered as control. The walls were tested under static load. The maximum load of CFRP strengthened wall was found to be 29.72 kPa, whereas the maximum load of control and/or unstrengthened masonry walls was found to be 1.43 kPa [29]. Although FRP composites are very beneficial to alter the load-carrying capacity of masonry walls, such FRPs are very expensive. There is a need is to explore the use of low- cost and locally available materials that can be used to alter the performance of brick walls. These materials are more efficient in terms of cost and strength. The total strengthening cost by FRP composites is usually 100–130% higher than the mortar or concrete jacketing [30]. In Thailand, the use of cement clay interlocking hollow bricks are very common for masonry structures due to their salient features such as light weight, durability, and cost-efficiency. Traditionally, CCIH bricks are staked over each other in such a way that interlocks are responsible for bond strength. Past studies have investigated mechanical properties of CCIH bricks [31,32]. Joyklad and Hussain (2018 and 2019) investigated the behaviour of CCIH brick masonry walls under diagonal and axial compression. The results indicate that the ultimate failure of CCIH brick masonry walls is very vulnerable, especially when CCIH brick masonry walls were construed in traditional manner [33–35]. Recently, Joyklad and Hussain, 2020, tested the performance of the CCIH brick masonry walls under earthquake loads. The results indicate that the lateral ductility of the CCIH brick masonry walls is very low [36]. A detailed review of the existing studies indicates that so far, no study has been conducted on the strengthening of the CCIH brick masonry walls by using low-cost and locally available materials such as cement mortar and wire mesh. Therefore, the current research work was mainly proposed to investigate the feasibility of the different traditional materials to alter the structure behaviour of the cement clay interlocking hollow brick masonry walls in terms of ultimate strength and deformation. 2. Details of Experimental Program In this study, a total number of six walls were constructed and tested. The research parameters included were the type of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) (Type 1 and Type 2), thickness of cement mortar (10 mm and 20 mm), and layers of wire mesh (one and three layers). The OPC Type 1 cement was ordinary Portland cement of Type 1, whereas the OPC Type 2 cement was high-performance non-shrink cement. The names of CCIHBL wall specimens, and research parameters are given in Table 1. The masonry wall W-CON was constructed in a traditional way, and holes in cement clay interlocking bricks were filled with the cement mortar of Type 1. The construction method of the second wall (W-OPC1-10) was also similar to the control wall; however, cement mortar was also applied on both external faces. The thickness of external cement mortar was chosen to be 10 mm. In the masonry wall W-OPC1-20, the thickness of external cement mortar was increased to 20 mm. In the masonry walls W-OPC2-20, the type of external cement mortar was changed to Type 2 and external mortar thickness was 20 mm. In masonry walls W-OPC1-10-1W and W-OPC1-10-3W, wire mesh was also attached to external surface of masonry walls prior to the external cement mortar. For each parameter a single was constructed and tested under axial compression. Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16 Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16 Infrastructures 2021, 6, 166 5 of 15 Table 1. Details of CCIHBM walls. Table 1. Details of CCIHBM walls. Table 1. Details of CCIHBM walls. Wall Specimen Strengthening Material Thickness (mm) Type of Cement Wall Specimen Strengthening Material Thickness (mm) Type of Cement Wall Specimen Strengthening Material Thickness (mm) Type of Cement W-CON - - - W-CON - - - W-CON - - - W-PC1-10 Cement mortar 10 OPC Type 1 W-PC1-10 Cement mortar 10 OPC Type 1 W-PC1-10 Cement mortar 10 OPC Type 1 W-PC1-20 Cement mortar 20 OPC Type 1 W-PC1-20 Cement mortar 20 OPC Type 1 W-PC1-20 Cement mortar 20 OPC Type 1 W-PC2-20 Cement mortar 20 OPC Type 2 W-PC2-20 Cement mortar 20 OPC Type 2 W-PC2-20 Cement mortar 20 OPC Type 2 W-PC1-10-1W Cement mortar + Wire Mesh 10 OPC Type 1 W-PC1-10-1W Cement mortar + Wire Mesh 10 OPC Type 1 W-PC1-10-1W Cement mortar + Wire Mesh 10 OPC Type 1 W-PC1-10-3W Cement mortar + Wire Mesh 20 OPC Type 1 W-PC1-10-3W Cement mortar + Wire Mesh 20 OPC Type 1 W-PC1-10-3W Cement mortar + Wire Mesh 20 OPC Type 1 3. Dimensional Details of Masonry Walls 3. Dimensional Details of Masonry Walls 3. Dimensional Details of Masonry Walls The size of CCIHBM walls was selected in such a way to accommodate the capacity The size of CCIHBM walls was selected in such a way to accommodate the capacity The size of CCIHBM walls was selected in such a way to accommodate the capacity and and si si ze ze of of re re act act ion ion fr fr am am ee in t in t hh ee l l aa bb oo rat rat oo ry. Th ry. Th e e leng leng th th of C of C CC IH IH BB M w M w aa lllsl 1 s 1 00 00 00 m m m m and and and size of reaction frame in the laboratory. The length of CCIHBM walls 1000 mm and height were also kept equal to the length, as shown in Figure 4, and the thickness of the height were also kept equal to the length, as shown in Figure 4, and the thickness of the height were also kept equal to the length, as shown in Figure 4, and the thickness of the walls was equal to the thickness of cement clay interlocking bricks, i.e., 125 mm. Locally walls was equal to the thickness of cement clay interlocking bricks, i.e., 125 mm. Locally walls was equal to the thickness of cement clay interlocking bricks, i.e., 125 mm. Locally available CCIH bricks were used. A typical sample of cement clay interlocking brick is available CCIH bricks were used. A typical sample of cement clay interlocking brick is available CCIH bricks were used. A typical sample of cement clay interlocking brick shown in Figure 5. The type of bond was considered as the running bond for the construc- shown in Figure 5. The type of bond was considered as the running bond for the construc- is shown in Figure 5. The type of bond was considered as the running bond for the titi on of on of the CCIHBM wal the CCIHBM wal ls ( ls ( FF igure igure 6) 6) , , and ci and ci rcula rcula r hol r hol ee s were fi s were fi llll ed wi ed wi th the cement mor- th the cement mor- construction of the CCIHBM walls (Figure 6), and circular holes were filled with the cement tar. This type of construction is very common in Thailand. tar. This type of construction is very common in Thailand. mortar. This type of construction is very common in Thailand. Figure 4. Dimensional details of wall specimens (units: mm). Figure 4. Dimensional details of wall specimens (units: mm). Figure 4. Dimensional details of wall specimens (units: mm). Figure 5. CCIH brick. Figure 5. CCIH brick. Figure 5. CCIH brick. Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16 Infrastructures 2021, 6, 166 6 of 15 Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 16 Figure 6. Typical construction of CCIHBM walls. Figure 6. Typical construction of CCIHBM walls. Figure 6. Typical construction of CCIHBM walls. 4. Materials 4. Materials 4. Materials In this study, two types of ordinary Portland cements, i.e., OPC Type 1 and OPC In In t this his s study tudy , ,two two types types of oor f o di rd nary inary Portland Portland cements, cements i.e., , i.eOPC ., OPT C ype Typ 1e and 1 aOPC nd OT Pype C 2, Type 2, were used to prepare cement mortar. The OPC Type 1 cement was ordinary Port- Type 2, were used to prepare cement mortar. The OPC Type 1 cement was ordinary Port- were used to prepare cement mortar. The OPC Type 1 cement was ordinary Portland cement land cement of Type 1, whereas the OPC Type 2 cement was high-performance non-shrink land cement of Type 1, whereas the OPC Type 2 cement was high-performance non-shrink of Type 1, whereas the OPC Type 2 cement was high-performance non-shrink cement. The cement. The compressive strength of cement mortar with OPC Type 1 was 25 MPa, and cement. The compressive strength of cement mortar with OPC Type 1 was 25 MPa, and compressive strength of cement mortar with OPC Type 1 was 25 MPa, and the compressive the compressive strength of cement mortar with OPC Type 2 was 50 MPa. For the con- the compressive strength of cement mortar with OPC Type 2 was 50 MPa. For the con- strength of cement mortar with OPC Type 2 was 50 MPa. For the construction of masonry struction of masonry walls, the CCIH bricks were obtained from the local manufacturers. struction of masonry walls, the CCIH bricks were obtained from the local manufacturers. walls, the CCIH bricks were obtained from the local manufacturers. Standard compression Standard compression and water absorption tests were performed to obtain the mechan- Standard compression and water absorption tests were performed to obtain the mechan- and water absorption tests were performed to obtain the mechanical properties of CCIH ical pica rop l p ert rop ieert s of ie C s of CI C H b CIr H b icks. The ricks. The aver aver age age com com press press ive st ive st ren ren gtg ht h was was 6.6. 74 7 4 MP MP aa , an , an d w d w a a tt e e r r bricks. The average compressive strength was 6.74 MPa, and water absorption capacity absorption capacity was 8.80%. absorption capacity was 8.80%. was 8.80%. 5. Strengthening of CCIHBM Walls 5. Str 5. ength Strengthening ening of CCIH of CCIHBM BM Walls W alls The strength enhancement of CCIHBM walls was performed by using cement mortar The strength The strength enhancement enhancement of CCIH of CCIHBM BM wallwalls s was perf was ormed performed by using cement by using cement morta mortar r with and without wire mesh to alter the structural behaviour of CCIHBM walls. The ce- with a with nd wi and thout wi without re mesh to wire mesh alter the stru to alter the ctu str ral uctural behavi behaviour our of CCIof HB CCIHBM M walls. Th walls. e ce- The ment mortar was prepared using ordinary Portland cement of Type 1 and Type 2 (PC1 cement mortar was prepared using ordinary Portland cement of Type 1 and Type 2 (PC1 ment mortar was prepared using ordinary Portland cement of Type 1 and Type 2 (PC1 and PC2) and sand. The CEMENT mortar was mixed by using a ratio of 1:2 (cement:sand) and PC2) and sand. The CEMENT mortar was mixed by using a ratio of 1:2 (cement:sand) and PC2) and sand. The CEMENT mortar was mixed by using a ratio of 1:2 (cement:sand) to achieve CEMENT mortar of maximum compressive strength. The CEMENT mortar to achieve CEMENT mortar of maximum compressive strength. The CEMENT mortar was to achieve CEMENT mortar of maximum compressive strength. The CEMENT mortar was applied to the CCIHBM walls by using a simple hand layup technique. The applica- applied to the CCIHBM walls by using a simple hand layup technique. The application was applied to the CCIHBM walls by using a simple hand layup technique. The applica- tion of CEMENT mortar on CCIHBM wall is shown in Figure 7. In CCIHBM wall speci- of CEMENT mortar on CCIHBM wall is shown in Figure 7. In CCIHBM wall specimens tion of CEMENT mortar on CCIHBM wall is shown in Figure 7. In CCIHBM wall speci- mens W-PC1-10-1W and W-PC1-10-3W steel wire mesh (Figure 8) were also fixed to the W-PC1-10-1W and W-PC1-10-3W steel wire mesh (Figure 8) were also fixed to the bricks mens W-PC1-10-1W and W-PC1-10-3W steel wire mesh (Figure 8) were also fixed to the bricks prior to the application of the CEMENT mortar. The installation of the wire mesh prior to the application of the CEMENT mortar. The installation of the wire mesh on the bricks prior to the application of the CEMENT mortar. The installation of the wire mesh on the CCIHBM wall is shown in Figure 9, and a typical CEMENT mortar strengthened CCIHBM wall is shown in Figure 9, and a typical CEMENT mortar strengthened CCIHBM on the CCIHBM wall is shown in Figure 9, and a typical CEMENT mortar strengthened CCIHBM wall is shown in Figure 10. wall is shown in Figure 10. CCIHBM wall is shown in Figure 10. Figure 7. The application of CEMENT mortar on CCI bricks. Figure 7. The application of CEMENT mortar on CCI bricks. Figure 7. The application of CEMENT mortar on CCI bricks. Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16 Infrastructures 2021, 6, 166 7 of 15 Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16 Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16 Figure 8. Typical view of wire mesh. Figure 8. Typical view of wire mesh. Figure 8. Typical view of wire mesh. Figure 8. Typical view of wire mesh. Figure 9. The attachment of wire mesh to the CCIH bricks. Figure 9. The attachment of wire mesh to the CCIH bricks. Figure 9. The attachment of wire mesh to the CCIH bricks. Figure 9. The attachment of wire mesh to the CCIH bricks. Figure 10. CCIH brick masonry wall with CEMENT mortar. Figure 10. CCIH brick masonry wall with CEMENT mortar. Figure 10. CCIH brick masonry wall with CEMENT mortar. Figure 10. CCIH brick masonry wall with CEMENT mortar. 6. Load and Instrumentation 6. Load and Instrumentation 6. Load and Instrumentation 6. Load The and I CCIH nstrum BM wa elntation ls were t ested in diagonal compression. A rigid steel reaction frame The CCIHBM walls were tested in diagonal compression. A rigid steel reaction frame The CCIHBM walls were tested in diagonal compression. A rigid steel reaction frame was used to apply the load at the top of the CCIHBM walls. The maximum capacity of The CCIHBM walls were tested in diagonal compression. A rigid steel reaction frame was used to apply the load at the top of the CCIHBM walls. The maximum capacity of was used to apply the load at the top of the CCIHBM walls. The maximum capacity of reaction frame was 2000 kN. The load was applied using a hydraulic jack as shown in was used to apply the load at the top of the CCIHBM walls. The maximum capacity of reaction frame was 2000 kN. The load was applied using a hydraulic jack as shown in reaction frame was 2000 kN. The load was applied using a hydraulic jack as shown in reaction frame was 2000 kN. The load was applied using a hydraulic jack as shown in Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16 Infrastructures 2021, 6, 166 8 of 15 Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 16 Figure 11. A pre-calibrated load cell of capacity 1000 kN was placed under the piston of Figur Figure e 11 11. A . A pr pre-calibr e-calibrated ated load cell of load cell of capacity capacity 100 1000 kN 0 kN was pla was placedcunder ed under the the piston piston of of the the hydraulic jack to record the load. A steel plate 20 mm in thickness was placed at the hydraulic the hydrau jack lic jack to recor to reco d the rd load. the lo Aad steel . A plate steel p 20lat mm e 20 in m thickness m in thicwas kness w placed as p at lace thedtop at tof he top of the CCIHBM wall to safeguard the uniform application of the load. A total of four the CCIHBM wall to safeguard the uniform application of the load. A total of four linear top of the CCIHBM wall to safeguard the uniform application of the load. A total of four linear variable differential transducers (LVDT) were installed at different locations to variable differential transducers (LVDT) were installed at different locations to measure the linear variable differential transducers (LVDT) were installed at different locations to measure the deformation of the CCIHBM walls under the applied load. The details of deformation of the CCIHBM walls under the applied load. The details of loading setup measure the deformation of the CCIHBM walls under the applied load. The details of loading setup and installation of LVDTs are shown in Figures 11 and 12. Additionally, and installation of LVDTs are shown in Figures 11 and 12. Additionally, during the test, the loading setup and installation of LVDTs are shown in Figures 11 and 12. Additionally, during the test, the appearance and propagation of the cracks was carefully marked and appearance and propagation of the cracks was carefully marked and captured by using during the test, the appearance and propagation of the cracks was carefully marked and captured by using digital cameras. digital cameras. captured by using digital cameras. Figure 11. Loading setup and instrumentation details (units in mm). Figure 11. Loading setup and instrumentation details (units in mm). Figure 11. Loading setup and instrumentation details (units in mm). Figure 12. Loading setup. Figure 12. Loading setup. Figure 12. Loading setup. 7. Results and Discussions 7. Results and Discussion 7. Results and Discussions 7.1. Axial Load Versus Deformation Responses 7.1. Axial Load versus Deformation Responses 7.1. Axial Load Versus Deformation Responses In this study, a total of six CCIHBM walls were constructed and tested under diago- In this study, a total of six CCIHBM walls were constructed and tested under diagonal In this study, a total of six CCIHBM walls were constructed and tested under diago- nal compression loading. Out of the six, five walls were externally strengthened using compression loading. Out of the six, five walls were externally strengthened using combi- nal compression loading. Out of the six, five walls were externally strengthened using combination of cement mortar and wire mesh, whereas one CCIHBM wall was tested nation of cement mortar and wire mesh, whereas one CCIHBM wall was tested without combination of cement mortar and wire mesh, whereas one CCIHBM wall was tested without any strengthening material to serve as control wall. The experimental results are any strengthening material to serve as control wall. The experimental results are given without any strengthening material to serve as control wall. The experimental results are Infrastructures 2021, 6, 166 9 of 15 Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16 Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 16 in Table 2. The experimental results in terms of diagonal load versus deformation are shown in Figures 13–16. From Figures 13–16, it can be noted that the strength and ductility given in Table 2. The experimental results in terms of diagonal load versus deformation given in Table 2. The experimental results in terms of diagonal load versus deformation of cement mortar and wire-mesh-strengthened walls were found to be higher than the are shown in Figures 13–16. From Figures 13–16, it can be noted that the strength and are shown in Figures 13–16. From Figures 13–16, it can be noted that the strength and reference CCIHBM wall. A linear response (load versus deflection) was noticed for the ductility of cement mortar and wire-mesh-strengthened walls were found to be higher ductility of cement mortar and wire-mesh-strengthened walls were found to be higher control wall specimen, i.e., W-CON. The crushing of the CCIH bricks was observed at the than the reference CCIHBM wall. A linear response (load versus deflection) was noticed than the reference CCIHBM wall. A linear response (load versus deflection) was noticed ultimate load following a sudden drop in the load. The initial stiffness of cement mortar for the control wall specimen, i.e., W-CON. The crushing of the CCIH bricks was observed for the control wall specimen, i.e., W-CON. The crushing of the CCIH bricks was observed and wire mesh strengthened walls were also found to be higher than the reference wall as at the ultimate load following a sudden drop in the load. The initial stiffness of cement at the ultimate load following a sudden drop in the load. The initial stiffness of cement shown in Table 2. mortar and wire mesh strengthened walls were also found to be higher than the reference mortar and wire mesh strengthened walls were also found to be higher than the reference wall as shown in Table 2. wall as shown in Table 2. Table 2. Summarized test results. Table 2. Summarized test results. Table 2. Test Sum W m alls arized test resuLoad lts. (kN) Deflection (mm) Initial Stiffness (kN/mm) W-CON 247 1.8 235 Test Walls Load (kN) Deflection (mm) Initial Stiffness (kN/mm) Test Walls Load (kN) Deflection (mm) Initial Stiffness (kN/mm) W-CON 247 1.8 235 W-PC1-10 278 4.0 295 W-CON 247 1.8 235 W-PC1-10 278 4.0 295 W-PC1-20 336 2.0 414 W-PC1-10 278 4.0 295 W-PC1-20 336 2.0 414 W-PC1-20 336 2.0 414 W-PC2-20 510 2.2 500 W-PC2-20 510 2.2 500 W-PC2-20 510 2.2 500 W-PC1-10-1W 410 4.5 498 W-PC1-10-1W 410 4.5 498 W-PC1-10-1W 410 4.5 498 W-PC1-10-3W 600 6.0 524 W-PC1-10-3W 600 6.0 524 W-PC1-10-3W 600 6.0 524 W-CON W-CON W-PC1-10 W-PC1-10 W-PC1-20 W-PC1-20 02 46 8 02 46 8 Axial deformation (mm) Axial deformation (mm) Figure 13. Experimental responses (Control and PC1 walls). Figure 13. Experimental responses (Control and PC1 walls). Figure 13. Experimental responses (Control and PC1 walls). W-CON W-CON W-PC2-20 W-PC2-20 02 468 02 468 Axial deformation (mm) Axial deformation (mm) Figure 14. Experimental responses (Control and PC2 walls without wire mesh). Figure 14. Experimental responses (Control and PC2 walls without wire mesh). Figure 14. Experimental responses (Control and PC2 walls without wire mesh). Load (kN) Load (kN) Load (kN) Load (kN) Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16 Infrastructures 2021, 6, 166 10 of 15 Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 16 W-CON 200 W-CON W-PC1-10-1W W-PC1-10-1W W-PC1-10-3W W-PC1-10-3W 02468 10 02468 10 Axial deformation (mm) Axial deformation (mm) Figure 15. Experimental responses (Control and PC1 walls with wire mesh). Figure 15. Figure 15.Ex Experimental perimental resp responses onses (C (Contr ontrol ol and PC1 walls and PC1 walls with wire mesh). with wire mesh). W-CON W-CON W-PC1-10 W-PC1-10 W-PC1-20 W-PC1-20 W-PC2-20 W-PC2-20 W-PC1-10-1W W-PC1-10-1W W-PC1-10-3W W-PC1-10-3W 02468 10 12 02468 10 12 Axial deformation (mm) Axial deformation (mm) Figure 16. Experimental responses of all CCIHBM walls. Figure 16. Figure 16.Ex Experimental perimental resp responses onses of of al all l C CCIHBM CIHBM wall walls. s. On the other hand, a gradual drop in the load carrying capacity was observed after On the other hand, a gradual drop in the load carrying capacity was observed after On the other hand, a gradual drop in the load carrying capacity was observed after the peak strength in CEMENT-mortar-strengthened CCIHBM walls such as W-PC1-10, the peak strength in CEMENT-mortar-strengthened CCIHBM walls such as W-PC1-10, the peak strength in CEMENT-mortar-strengthened CCIHBM walls such as W-PC1-10, W-PC1-20, and W-PC2-20. The use of wire mesh is found to be very effective to alter W-PC1-20, and W-PC2-20. The use of wire mesh is found to be very effective to alter the W-PC1-20, and W-PC2-20. The use of wire mesh is found to be very effective to alter the the diagonal load versus deformation responses of CCIHBM walls. In all cement-mortar- diagonal load versus deformation responses of CCIHBM walls. In all cement-mortar- diagonal load versus deformation responses of CCIHBM walls. In all cement-mortar- strengthened walls, W-PC1-10, W-PC1-20, and W-PC2-20 (without wire mesh), the load- strengthened walls, W-PC1-10, W-PC1-20, and W-PC2-20 (without wire mesh), the load- strengthened walls, W-PC1-10, W-PC1-20, and W-PC2-20 (without wire mesh), the load- versus-deformation responses were mainly linear up to the first peak, except the wall versus-deformation responses were mainly linear up to the first peak, except the wall versus-deformation responses were mainly linear up to the first peak, except the wall specimen W-PC1-10. However, in the case of CCIHBM walls W-PC1-10-1W and W-PC1- specimen W-PC1-10. However, in the case of CCIHBM walls W-PC1-10-1W and W-PC1- specimen W-PC1-10. However, in the case of CCIHBM walls W-PC1-10-1W and W-PC1- 10-3W (strengthened using cement mortar and wire mesh), the axial-load-versus-axial- 10-3W (strengthened using cement mortar and wire mesh), the axial-load-versus-axial- 10-3W (strengthened using cement mortar and wire mesh), the axial-load-versus-axial- deformation responses were tri-linear. In the tri-linear responses, the first part is identical to deformation responses were tri-linear. In the tri-linear responses, the first part is identical deformation responses were tri-linear. In the tri-linear responses, the first part is identical the load-versus-deformation response of the unstrengthened wall, i.e., W-CON. The second to the load-versus-deformation response of the unstrengthened wall, i.e., W-CON. The to the load-versus-deformation response of the unstrengthened wall, i.e., W-CON. The part represents the transition curve, and the third part is once again linear. However, the second part represents the transition curve, and the third part is once again linear. How- second part represents the transition curve, and the third part is once again linear. How- stiffness of the third part is much lower than that of the first part. This tri-linear behavior is ever, the stiffness of the third part is much lower than that of the first part. This tri-linear ever, the stiffness of the third part is much lower than that of the first part. This tri-linear an indication that the use of wire mesh is very suitable to provide the external confinement behavior is an indication that the use of wire mesh is very suitable to provide the external behavior is an indication that the use of wire mesh is very suitable to provide the external to the CCIHBM walls. confinement to the CCIHBM walls. confinement to the CCIHBM walls. 7.2. Load Behavior of CCIHBM Walls 7.2. Load Behavior of CCIHBM Walls 7.2. Load Behavior of CCIHBM Walls The load behaviors of the CCIHBM walls are shown Figure 17. The control CCIHBM The load behaviors of the CCIHBM walls are shown Figure 17. The control CCIHBM The load behaviors of the CCIHBM walls are shown Figure 17. The control CCIHBM wall, i.e., W-CON, failed at an ultimate load of 247 kN. The ultimate load-carrying capacity wall, i.e., W-CON, failed at an ultimate load of 247 kN. The ultimate load-carrying capac- wall, i.e., W-CON, failed at an ultimate load of 247 kN. The ultimate load-carrying capac- of the CEMENT mortar (Portland cement Type 1)-strengthened walls W-PC1-10 and W- ity of the CEMENT mortar (Portland cement Type 1)-strengthened walls W-PC1-10 and ity of the CEMENT mortar (Portland cement Type 1)-strengthened walls W-PC1-10 and PC1-20 was enhanced by 13% and 36% compared to the control wall, i.e., W-CON. The W-PC1-20 was enhanced by 13% and 36% compared to the control wall, i.e., W-CON. The W-PC1-20 was enhanced by 13% and 36% compared to the control wall, i.e., W-CON. The ultimate load carrying capacity of cement (Portland cement Type 2) was recorded higher ultimate load carrying capacity of cement (Portland cement Type 2) was recorded higher ultimate load carrying capacity of cement (Portland cement Type 2) was recorded higher than the walls W-PC1-10 and W-PC1-20. This phenomenon could be related to the higher Load (kN) Load (kN) Load (kN) Load (kN) Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16 Infrastructur es 2021, 6, 166 11 of 15 than the walls W-PC1-10 and W-PC1-20. This phenomenon could be related to the higher co compr mpresessive sive str str enength gth of t of he the Por Portland tland cem cement ent of Tof ypT eype 2 as2 co as mcompar pared to ed thto e cthe omp compr ressive essive strength of strength of PPortland ortland cecement ment Type 1. Th Type 1. The e ult ultimate imate load of w load of a wall ll W- W PC -PC2-20 2-20 was rec was ro ecor rded to ded to be be 10 106% 6% higher higher tha thann the the control control wall wall (W (W- -CON). CON).Further Further, , it itwas wasfound found tha thattthe the use use of wi of wirre e mesh mesh is also very effective to delay the cracking of the CCIHBM walls and to further en- is also very effective to delay the cracking of the CCIHBM walls and to further enhance the hance the ultimate load-carrying capacity of CCIHBM walls. In the case of CCIHBM walls ultimate load-carrying capacity of CCIHBM walls. In the case of CCIHBM walls W-PC1- W-PC1-10-1W and W-PC1-10-3W (strengthened with cement mortar and wire mesh), the 10-1W and W-PC1-10-3W (strengthened with cement mortar and wire mesh), the ultimate ultimate load-carrying capacity was increased by 66% and 143%, respectively, as com- load-carrying capacity was increased by 66% and 143%, respectively, as compared to the pared to the control wall, i.e., W-CON. control wall, i.e., W-CON. W-CON W-PC1-10 W-PC1-20 W-PC2-20 W-PC1-10-1W W-PC1-10-3W Load kN 247 278 336 510 410 600 Figure 17. Load of CCIHBM walls. Figure 17. Load of CCIHBM walls. 7.3. Ductility of the CCIHBM Walls 7.3. Ductility of the CCIHBM Walls The exp The experimental erimental resu results lts in t in erm terms s of u of ltiultimate mate defo deformation rmation again p again eak peak diagon diagonal al load load are g are r graphically aphically shown in shown in Figure Figur 18. It can be seen that e 18. It can be seen that the use of c the useeof ment mortar with and cement mortar with and wi without thout wi wir re mesh i e mesh s very is very effect efifective ve to enha to enhance nce the ulthe timaultimate te deforma deformation tion or ductilor ity of ductility the of CCIHBM wall the CCIHBMs.walls. The control The contr walol l, i.wall, e., W-CON, i.e., W-CON, failed at a failed n ul at tima ante ultimate axial def axial ormati deformation on of 1.80 mm. The ultimate axial deformation of cement (Portland cement Type 1)-mortar of 1.80 mm. The ultimate axial deformation of cement (Portland cement Type 1)-mortar strengthened walls W-PC1-10 and W-PC1-20 was enhanced by 122% and 11%, respec- strengthened walls W-PC1-10 and W-PC1-20 was enhanced by 122% and 11%, respectively, tively, compared to the control wall. The ultimate axial deformation of cement (Portland compared to the control wall. The ultimate axial deformation of cement (Portland cement cement Type 2) was recorded as higher than the walls W-PC1-10 and W-PC1-20. This phe- Type 2) was recorded as higher than the walls W-PC1-10 and W-PC1-20. This phenomenon nomenon could be related to the higher compressive strength of the Portland cement Type could be related to the higher compressive strength of the Portland cement Type 2 as 2 as compared to the compressive strength of Portland cement Type 1. The ultimate axial compared to the compressive strength of Portland cement Type 1. The ultimate axial deformation of wall W-PC2-20 was recorded as 22% higher than the control wall. Further, deformation of wall W-PC2-20 was recorded as 22% higher than the control wall. Further, it was found that the use of wire mesh is also very effective to further enhance the ultimate it was found that the use of wire mesh is also very effective to further enhance the ultimate axial deformation of CCI walls. In the case of CCIHBM walls strengthened with cement axial deformation of CCI walls. In the case of CCIHBM walls strengthened with cement mortar and wire mesh, i.e., W-PC1-10-1W and W-PC1-10-3W, the ultimate axial defor- mortar and wire mesh, i.e., W-PC1-10-1W and W-PC1-10-3W, the ultimate axial deformation mation was increased by 150% and 233% compared to the control wall, i.e., W-CON. was increased by 150% and 233% compared to the control wall, i.e., W-CON. 7.4. Failures of CCIHBM Walls 7.4. Failures of CCIHBM Walls The failures of CCIHBM walls are shown in Figures 19–22. In the case of the control The failures of CCIHBM walls are shown in Figures 19–22. In the case of the control wall, i.e., W-CON, the ultimate failure was mainly due to the splitting of the bricks at the wall, i.e., W-CON, the ultimate failure was mainly due to the splitting of the bricks at the middle of the CCIHBM wall, as shown in Figure 19. Prior to the ultimate failure of the middle of the CCIHBM wall, as shown in Figure 19. Prior to the ultimate failure of the control wall, slight splitting and cracking of cement clay interlocking bricks was observed control wall, slight splitting and cracking of cement clay interlocking bricks was observed at the bottom of CCIHBM wall. At that moment, severe crushing of the bricks was also at the bottom of CCIHBM wall. At that moment, severe crushing of the bricks was also observed at the bottom edge of CCIHBM walls. The ultimate failure modes of cement- observed at the bottom edge of CCIHBM walls. The ultimate failure modes of cement- mortar-strengthened walls (without wire mesh) were approximately similar to that of the mortar-strengthened walls (without wire mesh) were approximately similar to that of the control wall; however, compression crushing of the bricks was not observed due to the control wall; however, compression crushing of the bricks was not observed due to the presence of cement mortar. In these walls, the peeling of cement mortar was observed at presence of cement mortar. In these walls, the peeling of cement mortar was observed at the the bottom of the CCIHBM wall, as shown in Figure 20. In contrast to the walls strength- bottom of the CCIHBM wall, as shown in Figure 20. In contrast to the walls strengthened ened with cement mortar without wire mesh, the ultimate failure modes of CCIHBM walls with cement mortar without wire mesh, the ultimate failure modes of CCIHBM walls (strengthened using cement mortar with wire mesh) were less explosive and more ductile as shown in Figure 21. In these walls, fracture of wire mesh and peeling of cement mortar Load (kN) Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16 Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16 Infrastructures 2021, 6, 166 12 of 15 (strengthened using cement mortar with wire mesh) were less explosive and more ductile (strengthened using cement mortar with wire mesh) were less explosive and more ductile as shown in Figure 21. In these walls, fracture of wire mesh and peeling of cement mortar as shown in Figure 21. In these walls, fracture of wire mesh and peeling of cement mortar were observed at the middle of the CCIHBM walls as shown in Figure 22. The ultimate were observed at the middle of the CCIHBM walls as shown in Figure 22. The ultimate were observed at the middle of the CCIHBM walls as shown in Figure 22. The ultimate failure modes of CCI-IBM walls are inconsistent with the previous studies [29,37]. failure modes of CCI-IBM walls are inconsistent with the previous studies [29,37]. failure modes of CCI-IBM walls are inconsistent with the previous studies [29,37]. 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 W-CON W-PC1-10 W-PC1-20 W-PC2-20 W-PC1-10-1W W-PC1-10-3W W-CON W-PC1-10 W-PC1-20 W-PC2-20 W-PC1-10-1W W-PC1-10-3W Axial def. 1.84.0 2.02.2 4.56.0 Axial def. 1.84.0 2.02.2 4.56.0 Figure 18. Deformation of CCIHBM walls. Figure 18. Deformation of CCIHBM walls. Figure 18. Deformation of CCIHBM walls. Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVI Figure 19. EW Ultimate failure mode of wall (W-CON). 13 of 16 Figure 19. Ultimate failure mode of wall (W-CON). Figure 19. Ultimate failure mode of wall (W-CON). Figure 20. Failure of wall (W-PC1-10). Figure 20. Failure of wall (W-PC1-10). Figure 21. Failure of wall (W-PC2-20). Figure 22. Fracture of wire mesh. Deformation (mm)) Deformation (mm)) Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16 Infrastructures 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16 Infrastructures 2021, 6, 166 13 of 15 Figure 20. Failure of wall (W-PC1-10). Figure 20. Failure of wall (W-PC1-10). Figure 21. Failure of wall (W-PC2-20). Figure 21. Failure of wall (W-PC2-20). Figure 21. Failure of wall (W-PC2-20). Figure 22. Fracture of wire mesh. Figure 22. Fracture of wire mesh. Figure 22. Fracture of wire mesh. 8. Conclusions Based on experimental results, the following conclusions are derived: 1. The ultimate failure of control masonry wall was very brittle and sudden. The control CCIHBM wall, i.e., W-CON, failed at an ultimate load of 247 kN, and the corresponding deflection was 1.8 mm. 2. The ultimate failure modes of the CEMENT mortar with wire mesh strengthened CCIHBM walls were found to be ductile. 3. For the cement mortar and wire-mesh-strengthened walls, i.e., W-PC1-10-1W and W-PC1-10-3W, the ultimate axial deformation was increased by 150% and 233%, respectively, as compared to the control wall, i.e., W-CON. 4. The ultimate load carrying capacity of CCIHBM walls W-PC1-10-1W and W-PC1-10- 3W was increased by 66% and 143%, respectively, as compared to the control wall, i.e., W-CON. 5. Based on experimental results, it can be concluded that the use of CEMENT mortar and wire-mesh is practical. However, there is need to evaluate and compare the performance of this method with other techniques. Infrastructures 2021, 6, 166 14 of 15 6. Future studies also required to develop constitutive material models for CCIHBM walls strengthened with cement mortar and wire mesh using finite element analysis and analytical studies. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.J., N.A., M.U.R., Q.H., H.M.M., A.E., and K.C.; Project administration, Q.H.; Writing—original draft, P.J., N.A., M.U.R., Q.H., H.M.M., A.E., and K.C.; Writing—review & editing, P.J., N.A., M.U.R., Q.H., H.M.M., A.E., and K.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: The authors of this research work are very grateful to the Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand, for providing research grant (Research Grant ID 102/2563) to carry out the research work. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Acknowledgments: The authors of this research work are very grateful to the Srinakharinwirot University, Thailand, for providing research grant (Research Grant ID 102/2563) to carry out the research work. Thanks are also extended to Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) for supporting test facilities. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. List of Abbreviations CCIHBM Clay Interlocking Hollow Brick Masonry CCIHB Clay Interlocking Hollow Brick OPC Ordinary Portland Cement FRP Fibre Reinforced Polymers References 1. Senaldi, I.; Magenes, G.; Ingham, J.M. Damage assessment of unreinforced stone masonry buildings after the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2015, 9, 605–627. [CrossRef] 2. Sorrentino, L.; Cattari, S.; Da Porto, F.; Magenes, G.; Penna, A. Seismic behaviour of ordinary masonry buildings during the 2016 central Italy earthquakes. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2019, 17, 5583–5607. [CrossRef] 3. Ravindra, R.; Anand, K.B.G.; Santhosh, N. Behavior of Concrete Masonry Blocks with Ceramic Waste. Recent Trends Civ. Eng. Technol. 2015, 5, 35–40. 4. Riaz, M.H.; Khitab, A.; Ahmad, S.; Anwar, W.; Arshad, M.T. Use of ceramic waste powder for manufacturing durable and eco-friendly bricks. Asian J. Civ. Eng. 2020, 21, 243–252. [CrossRef] 5. Khitab, A.; Riaz, M.S.; Jalil, A.; Khan, R.B.N.; Anwar, W.; Khan, R.A.; Tayyab, S. Manufacturing of Clayey Bricks by Synergistic Use of Waste Brick and Ceramic Powders as Partial Replacement of Clay. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10214. [CrossRef] 6. Moon, L.M.; Griffith, M.C.; Dizhur, D.; Ingham, J.M. Performance of unreinforced masonry structures in the 2010/2011 Canterbury earthquake sequence. In Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (15WCEE), Lisbon, Portugal, 24–28 September 2012. 7. Ruangrassamee, A.; Ornthammarath, T.; Lukkunaprasit, P. Damage due to 24 March 2011 M6. 8 Tarlay earthquake in Northern Thailand. In Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (15WCEE), Lisbon, Portugal, 24–28 September 8. Ruangrassamee, A.; Yanagisawa, H.; Foytong, P.; Lukkunaprasit, P.; Koshimura, S.; Imamura, F. Investigation of tsunami-induced damage and fragility of buildings in Thailand after the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Earthq. Spectra 2019, 22, 377–401. [CrossRef] 9. Farzampour, A. Compressive behavior of concrete under environmental effects. In Compressive Strength of Concrete; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2019. 10. Farzampour, A. Temperature and humidity effects on behavior of grouts. Adv. Concr. Constr. 2017, 5, 659. 11. Chalangaran, N.; Farzampour, A.; Paslar, N. Nano silica and metakaolin effects on the behavior of concrete containing rubber crumbs. CivilEng 2020, 1, 264–274. [CrossRef] 12. Chalangaran, N.; Farzampour, A.; Paslar, N.; Fatemi, H. Experimental Investigation of Sound Transmission Loss in Concrete Containing Recycled Rubber Crumbs. 2021. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10919/103191 (accessed on 22 November 2021). 13. Mansouri, I.; Shahheidari, F.S.; Hashemi, S.M.A.; Farzampour, A. Investigation of steel fiber effects on concrete abrasion resistance. Adv. Concr. Constr. 2020, 9, 367–374. 14. Hendry, E.A. Masonry walls: Materials and construction. Constr. Build. Mater. 2001, 15, 323–330. [CrossRef] Infrastructures 2021, 6, 166 15 of 15 15. Hendry, A.W.; Khalaf, F.M. Masonry Wall Construction; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010. 16. Shakir, A.A.; Mohammed, A.A. Durability property of clay ash, quarry dust and billet scale bricks. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2015, 10, 591–605. 17. Deboucha, W.; Alachek, I.; Plassiard, J.P.; Plé, O. New Composite Material for Masonry Repair: Mortar Formulations and Experimental Studies. Materials 2021, 14, 912. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 18. Valluzzi, M.R.; Tinazzi, D.; Modena, C. Shear behavior of masonry panels strengthened by FRP laminates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2002, 16, 409–416. [CrossRef] 19. Turco, V.; Secondin, S.; Morbin, A.; Valluzzi, M.R.; Modena, C. Flexural and shear strengthening of un-reinforced masonry with FRP bars. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2006, 66, 289–296. [CrossRef] 20. Wahab, N.; Srinophakun, P.; Hussain, Q.; Chaimahawan, P. Performance of concrete confined with a jute–polyester hybrid Fiber reinforced polymer composite: A novel strengthening technique. Fibers 2019, 7, 72. [CrossRef] 21. Joyklad, P.; Suparp, S.; Hussain, Q. Flexural response of JFRP and BFRP strengthened RC beams. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2019, 11, 3. [CrossRef] 22. Chaiyasarn, K.; Hussain, Q.; Joyklad, P.; Rodsin, K. New hybrid basalt/E-glass FRP jacketing for enhanced confinement of recycled aggregate concrete with clay brick aggregate. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2021, 14, e00507. [CrossRef] 23. Hussain, Q.; Ruangrassamee, A.; Tangtermsirikul, S.; Joyklad, P.; Wijeyewickrema, A.C. Low-Cost Fiber Rope Reinforced Polymer (FRRP) Confinement of Square Columns with Different Corner Radii. Buildings 2021, 11, 355. [CrossRef] 24. Tumialan, J.G.; Morbin, A.; Nanni, A.; Modena, C. Shear Strengthening of Masonry Walls with FRP Composites. In Proceedings of the COMPOSITES 2001 Convention and Trade Show, Composites Fabricators Association, Tampa, FL, USA, 3–6 October 2001; p. 6. 25. Iii, H.R.H.; Dolan, C.W. Flexural capacity of glass FRP strengthened concrete masonry walls. J. Compos. Constr. 2001, 5, 170–178. 26. Bui, T.L.; Larbi, A.S.; Reboul, N.; Ferrier, E. Shear behaviour of masonry walls strengthened by external bonded FRP and TRC. Compos. Struct. 2015, 132, 923–932. [CrossRef] 27. Corradi, M.; Castori, G.; Sisti, R.; Borri, A.; Pesce, G.L. Repair of block masonry panels with cfrp sheets. Materials 2019, 12, 2363. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 28. Hernoune, H.; Benabed, B.; Kanellopoulos, A.; Al-Zuhairi, A.H.; Guettala, A. Experimental and numerical study of behaviour of reinforced masonry walls with NSM CFRP strips subjected to combined loads. Buildings 2020, 10, 103. [CrossRef] 29. Hamoush, S.A.; McGinley, M.W.; Mlakar, P.; Scott, D.; Murray, K. Out-of-plane strengthening of masonry walls with reinforced compo-sites. J. Compos. Constr. 2001, 5, 139–145. [CrossRef] 30. Bousias, S.; Spathis, A.L.; Fardis, M.N. Seismic retrofitting of columns with lap spliced smooth bars through FRP or concrete jackets. J. Earthq. Eng. 2007, 11, 653–674. [CrossRef] 31. Joyklad, P.; Nawaz, A.; Hussain, Q. Effect of fired clay brick aggregates on mechanical properties of concrete. Suranaree J. Sci. Technol. 2018, 25, 349–362. 32. Joyklad, P.; Hussain, Q.; Ali, N. Mechanical properties of cement-clay interlocking (CCI) hollow bricks. Eng. J. 2020, 24, 89–106. [CrossRef] 33. Joyklad, P.; Hussain, Q. Experimental study on axial and diagonal compressive behavior of brick masonry walls. Kasem Bundit Eng. J. 2018, 8, 2561. 34. Joyklad, P.; Hussain, Q. Axial compressive response of grouted cement–clay interlocking hollow brick walls. Asian J. Civ. Eng. 2019, 20, 733–744. [CrossRef] 35. Joyklad, P.; Hussain, Q. Performance of cement clay interlocking hollow brick masonry walls subjected to diagonal compres-sion. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2019, 14, 2152–2170. 36. Joyklad, P.; Hussain, Q. Lateral response of cement clay interlocking brick masonry walls subjected to earthquake loads. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2020, 15, 4320–4338. 37. Yardim, Y.; Lalaj, O. Shear strengthening of unreinforced masonry wall with different fiber reinforced mortar jacketing. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 102, 149–154. [CrossRef]
Journal
Infrastructures – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Published: Nov 24, 2021
Keywords: brick; cement; clay; strengthening; mortar; wire mesh