2nd Historic Mortars Conference HMC2010 and RILEM TC 203-RHM Final Workshop

22-24 September 2010, Prague, Czech Republic

II.14
Problems in the Assessment of the Stress-Strain
Relationship of Masonry

Claudia Neuwald-Burg1 and Matthias Pfeifer1

1
Karlsruher Institut fr Technologie, MAI, Germany, claudia.neuwald@t-online.de,
matthias.pfeifer@kit.edu

Abstract In restoration or repair of old buildings the correct estimation of the

stress-strain-relationship of the existing structure is an important task. Masonry
stiffness is crucial for the load bearing behaviour of a structure. It is common
practise to evaluate the masonry stiffness from the compressive strength in lack of
detailed investigations. This paper illustrates the danger of this approach in two
case studies. The first example is a stone bridge upon the main. The thickness of
the mortar joints in this construction allowed sampling of mortars suitable for
direct testing of the stress-strain-relationship under uniaxial compression. Thus it
was possible to calculate the masonry stiffness from the measured elastic modulus
of stone and mortar. It became evident, that a first rough estimation according to
the building standard would not have been safe. In a second case study dealing
with masonry pillars it is shown that the quality of mortar samples is influenced by
the situation of the specimen in the section.

1 Introduction

Refurbishment often implies the occurrence of a change of load. Constructions

built with slim pillars and old stone bridges subjected to dynamic loads are very
susceptible to modifications of this kind. Stiffer parts of the building attract
stresses and therefore underestimation of stiffness can be harmful. Medieval or
baroque masonry with small units of different stone is often too heterogeneous for
in-situ tests by flat jacks or by sonic tests [1]. The elastic modulus is then
evaluated from the moduli of stone and mortar prisms. The modulus of mortar can
be derived either from the ultrasonic pulse velocity or from cube strength if
suitable mortar prisms for direct determination of stress-strain-curves cannot be
obtained in sufficient number. Another reliable method for the indirect testing of
masonry strength is the method of bed joint drill cores. The ratio of the splitting
tensile strength of bed joint drill cores and homogeneous stone cores is

537
 2nd Historic Mortars Conference HMC2010 and RILEM TC 203-RHM Final Workshop
22-24 September 2010, Prague, Czech Republic

approximately equal to the ratio of stone crushing strength and masonry strength
[2]. Thus the influence of the mortar joint is taken into account.
Combining these methods the elastic modulus of historic masonry can be
assessed with sufficient accuracy for most cases of restoration work, provided that
the correlations between the investigated parameters are clearly understood.

2 Case study: stone bridge

The remaining piers and vaults of the medieval stone bridge upon the Main at
Ochsenfurth (Southern Germany) date from three different building periods, the
Middle Ages, Baroque and 19th century. The arches span is between 13 and 16
meters. Although the parts in the waterway are missing today, this bridge
preserves important information for building history and therefore is protected as a
historic monument. Plans to reuse the old structure and rebuild a carriageway
raised the question of their strength and deformation properties. Due to the
heterogeneity of this masonry and the multitude of stone varieties used,
investigations by non destructive testing methods appeared not to be promising
[1]. It was decided to refer to mechanical tests on stone and mortar. These
investigations were carried out at the Institute of load bearing structures at the
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT).

2.1 Sampling

Samples were taken as drill cores with diameters of 93 millimetres. The

relatively large size was chosen in order to gain bed joint drill cores.
The sampling locations were chosen after diligent visual examination from
places which from their exposure were most suspected of being damaged [3].
Reference samples from healthy masonry served to understand and calibrate the
results.
The oldest parts of the bridge, three vaults on the southern side of the river,
date back to the 12th and 15th centuries. Various sizes of roughly carved or
chopped stone (average 30x25x50cm) are still assembled in a good and regular
rubble bond. The mortar and limestone has suffered from freeze/thaw and salt
degradation due to a dense cement rendering. Endoscope investigation of
boreholes however proved that the bed joints were thoroughly filled and that the
mortar in the interior of the piers was well preserved. The drill cores contained
large pieces of mortar with a good bond to the limestone and surprising strength.
The thickness of the mortar joints permitted sampling of mortar for direct
mechanical tests.
On the northern side of the river two vaults from the baroque period and three
arches from the 19th century are preserved (Fig. 1). The baroque arches were built
with small rubble material (25x15x30 cm) and were in a poor condition. Similar

538
 2nd Historic Mortars Conference HMC2010 and RILEM TC 203-RHM Final Workshop
22-24 September 2010, Prague, Czech Republic

to the medieval vaults, mortar was severely damaged at the surface and large parts
of the vault had been repaired with brick masonry fillings. The drill cores
contained pieces of mortar that were extremely hard and very irregularly shaped.
Most of these samples could not be cut into cubes or prisms for mechanical tests.
Strength and modulus values were therefore assessed using ultrasonic pulse
velocity (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1 Northern vaults of the bridge Fig. 2 P-wave velocity measurement on mortar

The vaults erected in the 19th century consist of massive limestone ashlars
(30x48x60-80 cm) with thin bed joints. Some of the cores presented a very hard
mortar up to a depth of 5-10 centimetres while the material behind was completely
frozen (Fig. 3). The loose mortar material was washed out during drilling. Mortar
deterioration here was induced by a dense repointing mortar (20th century repair)
which retained water in the inner section. Cutting mortar prisms or cubes was not
possible in this case but the regular shape of the ashlars allowed the assessment of
masonry strength by the bed joint drill core method (Fig.4).
The amount of mortar, its state of conservation and the composition varied not
only with the construction phase but also within the same section. A repair mortar
that could chemically and mechanically match with the original mortar inside the
pillars was needed; as was the identification of the mechanical properties of the
existing mortar in order to determine its elasticity.

Fig. 3 Drill core with various mortar types Fig. 4 Bed joint drill core (brick repair)

539
 2nd Historic Mortars Conference HMC2010 and RILEM TC 203-RHM Final Workshop
22-24 September 2010, Prague, Czech Republic

2.2 Mechanical tests

The mortars from the drill cores were cut into regular cubes and prisms
(thickness between 3cm and 5cm) whenever possible. Although the mortars were
of good quality, many of the specimens cracked during cutting. A total of 9 prisms
and 30 cubes were obtained. After drying, the prisms were tested under uniaxial
compression. Load was applied and displacement controlled with a speed of 0.1
mm/min (fig. 5). Fig. 6 shows the stress strain curves of each kind of mortar.

Fig. 5 Displacement transducers at mid height of the prism on opposite faces; Sample size
approximately 20 to 20 to 80 mm.

Fig. 6 Stress-strain-relationship of medieval (M1, M3) and 19th century mortars (M9) compared
to a pure cement 20th century repair mortar.

540
 2nd Historic Mortars Conference HMC2010 and RILEM TC 203-RHM Final Workshop
22-24 September 2010, Prague, Czech Republic

Typical for the old lime mortars, in M1 and M3, is the concave shape or the
rising branch and a long yielding plateau after reaching the crushing strength.
Compared to line M3 (repair), which was a brittle cement repair mortar, the old
lime mortars are significantly more ductile. In spite of the low modulus, they
present an astonishing uniaxial compressive strength of more than 5 N/mm.
The 19th century mortars (example M9) equally showed a concave rise of
strain, but once they reached the crushing strength there was complete rupture.

2.3 Ultrasonic tests

Since no direct measurement was possible on the mortar from the baroque
masonry, the modulus was obtained by ultrasonic tests. From the ultrasonic pulse
velocity v the dynamic modulus, or P-wave modulus, is calculated with the
density as
Edyn = .v 2 (1)
Table 1 compares moduli obtained by direct testing to those calculated from the
pulse velocity. For concrete or cement mortar the dynamic modulus is about 30%
higher than the static modulus. Here the difference seems to be larger; 50% were
measured in this series but the coefficient of variation is too important to permit a
generalisation; however it was shown qualitatively that the baroque mortars
behave similar to those of the older part of this building (Table 2). Chemical and
mineralogical investigations confirmed that mortars of both building periods were
very similar.

Table 1 Relation between dynamic and static modulus Edyn / Estat

sample Edyn Estat Edyn/Estat

[N/mm] [N/mm] [N/mm]
M1.1.2 4640 2443 1.90
M3.2.7 6698 3225 2.08
M3.5.1 9924 8021 1.24
M9.3.3 4694 3548 1.32
M9.3.4 5705 2260 2.52
M9.3.5 6577 5768 1.14
M9.3.6 7492 5785 1.30
M9.3.7 8026 6819 1.18
M11.12 5678 6819 0.83
Average 1.50
Standard deviation 0.51
Coefficient of variation [%] 34

541
 2nd Historic Mortars Conference HMC2010 and RILEM TC 203-RHM Final Workshop
22-24 September 2010, Prague, Czech Republic

Table 2 Evaluation of Edyn (P-wave modulus) for the main building periods
sample building period
1
n Edyn n1 n2 Edyn1
[N/mm] [N/mm]
1.1 8 4403 middle ages
2 2 5354
3.2 6 5816 16 3 5052
3.5 3 10204 repair mortar
9.2 5 4960 19th century
9.3 7 6358
11.1 8 7519 20 3 6473
12.3 7 5772 baroque
12.1* 2 2883 9 2 5130
1
n number of samples
n2 number of sampling locations
Edyn1 average value

Ultrasonic tests could also be adopted to assess the compressive strength if a

reliable correlation between the dynamic modulus and strength was known. In Fig.
7 the elastic modulus is compared to the compressive strength measured in direct
compression tests on cubes (edge length between 15 an 35 mm) of medieval
mortars and on samples from the 19th century masonry. This is plotted against the
empirical relation that was established for new masonry mortars by Schubert [7].

Em = 2100. f m0.7 (2)

It becomes evident, that the behaviour of old mortar cannot be determined from
property relations found in modern material without adaption. A similar problem
has been observed in trying to establish shape factors for compression tests on
weak mortars with different lime binders [5]. Test methods need individual
calibration.
After investigation of the stone properties and the geometric parameters the
masonry strength was calculated using the following: the German national
standard (DIN 1053) method of bed joint drill cores, and through analytical
models [6]. While allowable stresses according to the design standard would have
been between 1.7 N/mm for the weaker masonry bond and 2.3 N/mm for the
ashlar masonry, stresses from of 3.1 to 3.9 N/mm could be allowed according to
the results of the analytical approach. Bed joint drill cores proved that these values
are sufficiently safe.

542
 2nd Historic Mortars Conference HMC2010 and RILEM TC 203-RHM Final Workshop
22-24 September 2010, Prague, Czech Republic

In masonry design the elastic modulus Ema is evaluated from the design
strength fd as:

Ema = 3500. f d (3)

For the older parts of the bridge this would have given a value of 6000 N/mm
and 8000 N/mm for the ashlar masonry. It is clear that the 19th century masonry
built with large blocks of limestone must be more rigid; however the modulus of
the older parts was underestimated by this approach, in spite of the important
amount of mortar in these piers. Calculated from the material properties using the
elastic models described by Anzani et al. [8], values of 15000 N/mm for the
rubble masonry and 23000 N/mm for the ashlar bond were obtained.

Fig. 7 Relationship of mortar strength and elastic modulus

3 Case study: baroque masonry pillars

In refurbishing the Historic Museum in Frankfurt the architects intend to

increase the load on the pillars of a three storey baroque facade (Fig. 8). A first
rough estimation, according to the German masonry standard, indicated that
already the existing load exceeded the allowable stresses at least twice.
Nevertheless the pillars showed neither cracks nor crushed joints nor any other
signs of overloading. A more precise analysis based on material tests and the
recalculation of masonry strength using more accurate material models indicated
that the higher loads could be allowed for under the condition that the slots and
voids discovered in the piers were repaired to allow the section to act as one

543
 2nd Historic Mortars Conference HMC2010 and RILEM TC 203-RHM Final Workshop
22-24 September 2010, Prague, Czech Republic

material. It was therefore vital that the repair masonry must have the identical
deformation properties as the original masonry.
Investigations of the material properties here served to assess masonry strength
and stiffness in as accurate a manner as possible and to determine the stone and
mortar properties necessary for appropriate materials for repair. Initially the
thickness of the joints seemed large enough to allow the removal of mortar prisms
with a hammer and chisel. It was then observed that the mortar samples close to
the surface showed poor cohesion whereas the bed joints in the inner section
showed no decay (Fig. 9). Inside of the building this could not be explained by the
effects of weathering. On mortar cubes from the inner section of the pillars an
average compressive strength of 1.85 N/mm was measured. The strength, as
determined by ultrasonic tests, corresponded very well with this result (1.90
N/mm). Mineralogical analyses confirmed that the mortars were pure lime
mortars without hydraulic additives. From earlier research it is known that these
mortars plastify at the outer rims of a masonry section at a rather low stress level,
up to a depth of some centimetres [4]. The sections of the masonry pillars in this
case are large in relation to the plastification zone. Masonry stiffness therefore is
not influenced but mortar sampling here needs drill cores.

Fig. 8 Baroque masonry pillars Fig. 9 Mortar samplesinner section

The stone and masonry bond differed throughout the different pillars; tests on
stone and mortar lead to an estimation of the masonry strength between 1.1 and
2.3 N/mm, depending on the bond. The elastic modulus calculated from stone and
mortar properties and the geometric relations again exceeded the first estimations
with values between 8000 and 9500 N/mm being determined.

544
 2nd Historic Mortars Conference HMC2010 and RILEM TC 203-RHM Final Workshop
22-24 September 2010, Prague, Czech Republic

4 Conclusions

When assessing the elastic behaviour of old lime mortar masonry the
correlations determined empirically on modern material should be handled with
care.
Strength of existing masonry is usually underestimated for reasons of safety.
Evaluating the elastic modulus from this value leads to an underestimation of
stiffness.
The better the properties of stone and mortar investigated, the more accurate
the assessment of the load bearing behaviour of old masonry is. Combining
direct tests on stone and mortar prisms or on bed joint drill cores allow the
calibration of ultrasonic measurements. Masonry properties can then be
calculated from analytical models.
Stress distribution in masonry with very strong stone units and weak joints is
not uniform. The quality of mortar samples is influenced by the situation of the
specimen in the section. This observation is not to be neglected when choosing
representative sampling points.
In calculating the modulus of thin masonry sections from the elastic properties
of stone and mortar under uniaxial compression, the plastification of mortar has
to be taken into account.
Due to weathering, salts, inappropriate repointing or dense renderings bed joint
mortars frequently show signs of deterioration. The depth of deterioration
influences the masonrys strength and elastic properties. Careful visual
investigations in some cases are even more important for a correct assessment
of the mechanical behaviour of masonry than sophisticated material models.

5 References

1. Binda L et al (2000) Investigation procedures for the diagnosis of historic masonries.

Construction and Building Materials, Volume 14, Issue 4, 12 June 2000, Pages 199-233,
doi:10.1016/S0950-0618(00)00018-0 |
2. Wenzel F (ed) (2000) Historisches Mauerwerk, Untersuchen, Bewerten und Instandsetzen.
Erhalten historisch bedeutsamer Bauwerke - Empfehlungen fr die Praxis, Karlsruhe
3. Hughes JJ, Callebaut K (2002) In-situ visual analysis and practical sampling of historic
mortars. Materials and structures/ Matriaux de Constructions, Vol. 35, March 2002, pp 70-
75.doi: 10.1007/BF02482103
4. Neuwald-Burg C (1998) Investigations into the stress strain relationship of old brickwork. In:
Proceedings of the 5th int. Masonry Conference, London, pp. 301-309
5. Drdck M et al (2008) Compression tests on non-standard historic mortar specimens
http://web.natur.cuni.cz/uhigug/masin/download/DMMS_HMC08.pdf Accessed 15.10.2009
6. Pschel G, Sabha A (1996) Ein theoretisches Modell zum Tragverhalten von
Elbsandsteinmauerwerk. In: Wenzel F., Erhalten historisch bedeutsamer Bauwerke, Jahrbuch
1993 des SFB 315, pp. 111-118

545
 2nd Historic Mortars Conference HMC2010 and RILEM TC 203-RHM Final Workshop
22-24 September 2010, Prague, Czech Republic

7. Schubert P (2005) Eigenschaften von Mauerwerk, Mauersteinen und Mauermrtel. In:

Irmschler H-J, Schubert P, Jger W (eds) Mauerwerkkalender 2005, Berlin, pp 3-27
8. Anzani A, Binda L, Fonta A, Henriques P (2004) An experimental investigation on multiple-
leaf stone masonry. Proc. 13th Int. brick/block masonry conference, July 4-7, Amsterdam

546