International Journal of Advanced Technology and Engineering Exploration ISSN (Print): 2394-5443    ISSN (Online): 2394-7454 Volume-13 Issue-134 January-2026
  1. 4774
    Citations
  2. 2.8
    CiteScore
Experimental investigation on the structural behaviour of masonry with enhanced frog design and varying mortar thickness

H. G. Vivek Prasad1, D. B. Nirmala1 and Mangala Keshava2

Department of Construction Technology and Management,Sri Jayachamarajendra College of Engineering, JSS Science and Technology University, Mysuru,Karnataka,India 5700061
Department of Civil Engineering,B.M.S. College of Engineering,Bengaluru,India 5600192
Corresponding Author : H. G. Vivek Prasad

Recieved : 28-December-2024; Revised : 07-January-2026; Accepted : 18-January-2026

Abstract

The construction industry is undergoing a significant transition toward sustainable building materials, with compressed stabilized earth blocks (CSEBs) emerging as a promising alternative to conventional fired bricks. This study investigates the fundamental mechanical behavior of CSEB masonry, addressing a critical knowledge gap concerning the influence of block geometry and mortar characteristics on structural performance. A comprehensive experimental program was conducted involving conventional plain CSEBs and two novel modified block geometries. Stack-bonded masonry prisms were constructed using both conventional and reduced mortar thicknesses. The experimental investigation included systematic compression tests, detailed stress–strain measurements, and evaluation of elastic properties to characterize the mechanical response of the masonry assemblies. The experimental results revealed three key trends. First, modifications in block geometry combined with reduced mortar thickness led to a noticeable reduction in masonry compressive strength. Second, masonry constructed with reduced mortar thickness exhibited improved structural performance compared to assemblies with conventional mortar thickness. Third, the specialized block geometries demonstrated lower elastic modulus values, indicating altered load-transfer mechanisms within the masonry system. These findings establish a clear relationship between block geometry, mortar specifications, and the structural performance of deep-frogged CSEB masonry. The outcomes of this study contribute to the optimization of sustainable masonry design while maintaining essential structural requirements and provide valuable insights for researchers and practitioners pursuing environmentally responsible construction practices.

Keywords

Compressed stabilized earth blocks, Sustainable masonry, Block geometry, Mortar thickness, Compressive strength, Structural performance.

Cite this article

Prasad HGV, Nirmala DB, Keshava M. Experimental investigation on the structural behaviour of masonry with enhanced frog design and varying mortar thickness. International Journal of Advanced Technology and Engineering Exploration. 2026;13(134):19-35. DOI : 10.19101/IJATEE.2024.111102269

References
[1]
Riza FV, Rahman IA, Zaidi AM. Preliminary study of compressed stabilized earth brick (CSEB). Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences. 2011; 5(9):6-12.
[Google Scholar]
[2]
Sapna AA, Anbalagan C. Sustainable eco-friendly building material–a review towards compressed stabilized earth blocks and fire burnt clay bricks. In IOP conference series: earth and environmental science 2023 (pp. 1-11). IOP Publishing.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[3]
Bredenoord J, Kulshreshtha Y. Compressed stabilized earthen blocks and their use in low-cost social housing. Sustainability. 2023; 15(6):1-21.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[4]
Di GL, Guimarães G, Tenório M, Lima D, Haddad A, Danziger F, et al. The potential of CEB reinforced masonry technology for (Re) construction in the context of disasters. Materials. 2020; 13(17):1-32.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[5]
Bland DW. In-plane cyclic shear performance of interlocking compressed earth block walls. Thesis, Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering, California Polytechnic State University. 2011.
[Google Scholar]
[6]
Castro IG, Laursen PT, Jansen DC, Qu B. Performance of interlocking compressed earth block infill in confined masonry construction. In proceedings of the tenth us national conference on earthquake engineering, anchorage, AL, USA 2014 (pp. 21-5).
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[7]
Gharbage I, Benmahiddine F, Sebaibi N. Mechanical, thermal and hydric properties of compressed earth blocks: a review. Journal of Building Engineering. 2025; 125:1-19.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[8]
Wang T, Wang Y, Zeng G, Zhang J, Shi D. Stability coefficient of interlocking compressed earth block masonry under axial compression. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 2021; 48(4):389-98.
[Google Scholar]
[9]
Thamboo JA, Dhanasekar M, Yan C. Flexural and shear bond characteristics of thin layer polymer cement mortared concrete masonry. Construction and Building Materials. 2013; 46:104-13.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[10]
Thamboo JA, Dhanasekar M. Characterisation of thin layer polymer cement mortared concrete masonry bond. Construction and Building Materials. 2015; 82:71-80.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[11]
Thamboo JA. Material characterisation of thin layer mortared clay masonry. Construction and Building Materials. 2020; 230:1-10.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[12]
Manoharan A, Umarani C, Renuka SM. Revamp of masonry structures using bio-additive infused air lime mortar as an applicator. Materials Research Express. 2023; 10(6):1-14.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[13]
Sathiparan N, Jeyananthan P. Prediction of masonry prism strength using machine learning technique: effect of dimension and strength parameters. Materials Today Communications. 2023; 35:106282.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[14]
Forghani R, Totoev Y, Kanjanabootra S, Davison A. Experimental investigation of water penetration through semi-interlocking masonry walls. Journal of Architectural Engineering. 2017; 23(1):04016017.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[15]
Saari S, Bakar BA, Surip NA. Factors of non-uniform properties of interlocking compressed earth brick units. Developments in the Built Environment. 2021; 5:1-10.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[16]
Al-fakih A, Wahab MA, Mohammed BS, Liew MS, Zawawi NA, As'ad S. Experimental study on axial compressive behavior of rubberized interlocking masonry walls. Journal of Building Engineering. 2020; 29:1-11.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[17]
Mohamed NA, Moustafa A, Darwish EA. Structural, acoustical, and thermal evaluation of an experimental house built with reinforced/hollow interlocking compressed stabilized earth brick-masonry. Journal of Building Engineering. 2024; 86:1-29.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[18]
Govardhan L, Basutkar SM, Madhavi K, Renuka DMV. Studies on influence of variation in joint thickness on strength of masonry with the emphasis in bond characteristics. In advances in geotechnics and structural engineering: select proceedings of TRACE 2020 2021 (pp. 667-75). Singapore: Springer Singapore.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[19]
Kolawole JT, Olalusi OB, Orimogunje AJ. Adhesive bond potential of compressed stabilised earth brick. Structures. 2020; 23:812-20.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[20]
Venkatarama RBV, Lal R, Nanjunda RKS. Enhancing bond strength and characteristics of soil-cement block masonry. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. 2007; 19(2):164-72.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[21]
Reddy BV. Stabilised compressed earth block masonry. In compressed earth block & rammed earth structures 2022 (pp. 229-65). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[22]
Joyklad P, Waqas HA, Hafeez A, Ali N, Ejaz A, Hussain Q, et al. Experimental investigations of cement clay interlocking brick masonry structures strengthened with CFRP and cement-sand mortar. Infrastructures. 2023; 8(3):1-15.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[23]
Sarangapani G, Venkatarama RBV, Jagadish KS. Brick-mortar bond and masonry compressive strength. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. 2005; 17(2):229-37.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[24]
Bhatt TP. Compressive strength characteristics of compressed stabilized earth block (CSEB) units and walls. Journal of Engineering Technology and Planning. 2024; 5(1):61-70.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[25]
Murthy TS, Pandurangan K. Behaviour of compressed stabilised earth block masonry under compressive loading. International Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences. 2019; 6(1):12-7.
[Google Scholar]
[26]
Islam MS, Tausif-e-elahi, Shahriar AR, Nahar K, Hossain TR. Strength and durability characteristics of cement-sand stabilized earth blocks. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. 2020; 32(5):04020087.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[27]
Akshaya S, Serene S. Effect of mortar thickness on compressive strength of solid block masonry prisms prototyped using granite dust and M-sand. International Journal of Recent Engineering Science. 2020; 7(3):9-13.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[28]
Budiwati IA, Sukrawa M, Giri IB. Experimental study on the behaviour of various material of masonry. In AIP conference proceedings 2024. AIP Publishing LLC.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[29]
Caldeira FE, Nalon GH, De ODS, Pedroti LG, Ribeiro JC, Ferreira FA, et al. Influence of joint thickness and strength of mortars on the compressive behavior of prisms made of normal and high-strength concrete blocks. Construction and Building Materials. 2020; 234:1-12.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[30]
Murthi P, Akib M, Imran M, Ahmed S, Prasanna V. Studies on the strength variation of brick masonry using novel blended masonry mortar mixes and mortar thickness. Materials Today: Proceedings. 2021; 39:126-30.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[31]
Vimala S, Kumarasamy K. Studies on the strength of stabilized mud block masonry using different mortar proportions. International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering. 2014; 4(4):720-4.
[Google Scholar]
[32]
Obonyo E, Donkor P, Matta F, Erdogmus E. Challenges, opportunities, and solutions in low-cost building envelopes: a case study of low-strength masonry systems. In construction research congress: construction in a global network 2014 (pp. 564-73). ASCE.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[33]
IS: 2720-Part 4. Methods of test for soils: grain size analysis. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. 1985.
[Google Scholar]
[34]
BIS I. 2720 Methods of test for soils: part 5 determination of liquid and plastic limit. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. 1985.
[Google Scholar]
[35]
IS 12269. Specification for ordinary portland cement (First revision), New Delhi (India). Bureau of Indian Standards. 2013.
[36]
IS 2386 (Part-1): Methods of tests for aggregartes of concrete, part 1: particle size and shape, New Delhi (India). Bureau of Indian Standards. 1985.
[37]
IS 2250. Code of practice for preparation and use of masonry mortars, New Delhi (India). Bureau of Indian Standards. 1981.
[38]
BS 4551. British standard methods of testing mortars, screeds, and plasters. British Standards Institution, London. 1980.
[39]
IS 3495 (Part I- IV). Methods of tests of burnt clay building bricks. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. 1992.
[40]
IS 1905. Code of practice for structural use of unreinforced masonry. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. 1987.
[41]
BIS I. 1725: Specification for soil based blocks used in general building construction. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India. 1982.
[Google Scholar]
[42]
Gumaste KS, Venkatarama RB, Nanjunda RK, Jagadish KS. Properties of burnt bricks and mortars in India. Masonry International. 2004; 17(2):45-52.
[Google Scholar]
[43]
Venkatarama RBV, Gupta A. Strength and elastic properties of stabilized mud block masonry using cement-soil mortars. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering. 2006; 18(3):472-6.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]
[44]
Jayasinghe C, Mallawaarachchi RS. Flexural strength of compressed stabilized earth masonry materials. Materials and Design. 2009; 30(9):3859-68.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar]