Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers
Construction Materials 162
August 2009 Issue CM3
Pages 105–112
doi: 10.1680/coma.2009.162 .3.105
Paper 800048
Received 21/10/2008
Accepted 21/01/2009 Andrew Heath Peter Walker Clyde Fourie Mike Lawrence
Keywords: Lecturer in Geotechnical Director, BRE Centre for Research Officer, BRE Centre Research Officer, BRE Centre
brickwork & masonry/materials Engineering, BRE Centre for Innovative Construction for Innovative Construction for Innovative Construction
technology/strength & testing of Innovative Construction Materials, Department of Materials, Department of Materials, Department of
materials Materials, Department of Architecture and Civil Architecture and Civil Architecture and Civil
Architecture and Civil Engineering, University of Engineering, University of Engineering, University of
Engineering, University of Bath, UK Bath, UK Bath, UK
Bath, UK

Compressive strength of extruded unfired clay masonry units

A. Heath MS, PhD, P. Walker BSc, PhD, MIEAust, CPEng, C. Fourie MSc and M. Lawrence MA, MSc, PhD

Interest in traditional unfired clay building materials has materials in appropriate situations is attractive. In addition,
grown in the UK in recent years. Although the use of unfired clay masonry has been shown to provide passive
traditional vernacular techniques, such as cob, adobe and environmental control in buildings by buffering both humidity
rammed earth, have raised the profile of earthen and temperature fluctuations,4,5 which results in reduced
architecture, wider impact on modern construction is heating, cooling and ventilation demands.
likely to come from modern innovations such as extruded
unfired masonry units. A large driver behind the move to This paper presents the results of investigations into the
unfired clay masonry is the significant reduction in compressive strength of unfired clay masonry. Other aspects
embodied energy when compared with fired bricks and that affect the use of unfired clay units are erodibility, abrasion
concrete blockwork, and the passive environmental resistance, shrinkage and flexural strength of panels and these
control provided by clay. This paper summarises the topics are discussed elsewhere5–7 and are beyond the scope of
results of extensive testing on commercial mass-pro- this paper. The unfired clay bricks tested as part of this research
duced extruded unfired clay bricks. The focus of this study are anticipated to be used for internal, non-load-bearing
was to investigate the properties affecting the compres- applications only.
sive strength of these building products. Both theoretical
models and test results demonstrate that the clay The bricks used for testing for the purposes of this study were all
content plays a large role in defining the compressive commercially produced, extruded bricks. Twelve different types
strength of these materials. The reduction in strength (labelled A–K in this paper) were used but, because of the
with increases in moisture content are similar for difficulty in producing consistent quality extruded bricks on a
different material sources and these strength reductions laboratory scale, each brick type was produced in a different
are unlikely to cause problems under normal operating brick plant as part of the normal production run. All materials
conditions, even at relative humidity levels up to 95%. are used commercially for fired bricks, and in most cases, were
taken off the production line after drying but before firing. Two
of the bricks (A and B2) are, however, produced specifically as
1. INTRODUCTION unfired bricks. For reasons of commercial confidentially, the
In 2002 the UK brick manufacturing industry used approxi- manufacturers of the different bricks are not identified.
mately 5?4 TWh of power,1 and approximately 85% of the
energy from the production of fired bricks goes into firing.2 Basic unfired clay unit properties are summarised in Table 1
With the increasing financial and environmental cost of energy below and additional properties are listed throughout the paper.
production, low-energy alternatives to conventional construc- The dimensions given are an average of six different samples as
tion materials are becoming increasingly popular. One potential required for in BS EN 772-16.8 The average variability across all
low-energy construction material is unfired clay masonry. sources was a standard deviation of 0?4 mm for length, 0?4 mm
for width and 0?5 mm for height. Even the sources with
Unfired clay masonry has been used in the construction of maximum variability (1?3 mm for length, 1?1 mm for width and
dwellings for thousands of years but has largely been replaced 0?9 mm for height) were well within the limits specified for all
by high-energy materials, particularly in developed countries. classes of high-density fired clay masonry units.9 As there was
Commercially produced extruded unfired clay units (bricks or no firing of the units, any distortion normally occurring during
blocks) have about 14% of the embodied carbon of fired clay the firing process is eliminated.
bricks and about 24% of the embodied carbon of lightweight
blockwork.3 Although there are advantages to using modern, 2. BASIC MATERIAL PROPERTIES
high-energy materials, which generally have a higher strength The basic material properties were determined according to BS
and water resistance than unfired clay, there are many situations 1377-210 and are summarised in Table 2. The liquid limit and
where these properties are not required and the cost and energy plasticity index indicate the predominant engineering behaviour
saving from using unfired clay masonry instead of high-energy is as either a low- or a medium-plasticity clay, as shown in

Construction Materials 162 Issue CM3 Compressive strength of extruded unfired clay masonry units Heath et al. 105

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [14/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Perforations: number
Unit code Length: mm Width: mm Height: mm and % of gross area Notes

A 226?5 106?8 66?2 3 holes, 6%

B1 218?0 105?0 66?5 10 holes, 21% Same material and plant but B2 has
B2 222?8 105?6 66?9 10 holes, 21% added wood fibre
C 225?2 107?6 67?0 3 holes, 19%
D 222?6 105?2 65?9 3 holes, 17%
E 218?8 105?1 66?5 3 holes, 15%
F 215?4 103?4 64?4 3 holes, 16%
G 227?0 108?2 68?6 0% Solid unit
H 221?8 105?2 68?1 3 holes, 23%
I 223?4 107?9 68?7 0% Solid unit
J 227?0 106?8 69?2 0% Solid unit
K 228?8 108?6 68?9 0% Solid unit

Table 1. Basic unfired brick properties (average of six samples)

Figure 1. In the figure the axes do not cover the full extent used In general three different curing conditions were used which
for conventional soils testing as none of the materials was high, were based on BS EN 772-1:2000.
very high or extremely high plasticity.
(a) Oven dry – the samples were dried to constant mass at 105 ˚C
The particle size distribution of the samples is summarised in and then left to cool to ambient condition (20 ˚C) before
Table 3 and the particle size limits are shown in Figure 2. testing.
The sizes of the particles were determined according to BS (b) Air-dry – samples stored in a controlled environment of
1377-2.10 20 ˚C and 60% relative humidity for a minimum of 14 days
before testing.
As can be expected, the samples are all below fine gravel in size (c) Applied moisture – moisture is added to samples so they are
because the extrusion process required fine material. Although tested at 2% (¡0?5%) above ambient moisture content. For
the plasticity limits (Figure 1) indicate the materials will behave this curing condition the water was added to the bricks with
as clays, in reality most of these brick ‘clays’ are actually a fine sprayer at a rate slow enough to prevent surface
predominantly silt sized. The clay content was between 20 and deterioration of the units. The bricks were then sealed in a
40% for all samples, which is considerably higher than that used polythene bag and stored at 20 ˚C for at least 7 days before
for other earth construction materials such as rammed earth, for testing. This time was sufficient to ensure moisture
which between 5 and 20% is recommended.11 equilibration throughout the samples.

3. COMPRESSIVE TEST PROCEDURES The bricks were tested in a conventional concrete/brick

The European standard for the compressive strength of masonry compression machine at a load rate of 0?05 N/mm2 until failure.
units is BS EN 772-1:2000.12 This standard specifies a number of This is the standard rate for masonry units with a peak
different conditioning procedures (air dry, oven dry, condi- compressive strength below 10 N/mm2 in BS EN 772-1:2000,
tioning to 6% moisture content and conditioning by immersion). but for consistency this rate was used even for the units which
Immersing unstabilised, unfired bricks is considered inap- had a strength slightly above 10 N/mm2.
propriate as provided the materials are handled correctly and a
building is detailed correctly, it is improbable that samples will The strengths presented in this paper are the net strength of the
ever achieve this condition in service. material (i.e. total load across the cross-section of the actual

Liquid limit: Plastic limit: Plasticity index: Linear shrinkage: Ambient moisture*: Net dry density:
Unit code % % % % % kg/m3

A 29 17 12 7?0 1?67 2021

B1 45 18 27 10?8 3?01 1793
B2 48 22 26 9?1 2?89 1597
C 34 19 15 7?2 1?51 1971
D 31 22 9 8?8 1?94 1937
E 34 22 12 9?4 2?03 2038
F 34 22 12 9?5 2?16 1974
G 33 18 15 8?9 2?12 2057
H 44 20 24 10?4 2?54 1972
I 36 17 19 9?0 2?18 2063
J 37 17 20 8?6 1?93 2060
K 37 18 19 8?9 2?06 2058

*Ambient moisture is equilibrium moisture content at 20 ˚C and 60% RH.

Table 2. Basic material properties

106 Construction Materials 162 Issue CM3 Compressive strength of extruded unfired clay masonry units Heath et al.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [14/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 35
CH
Predominant behaviour
30 (material < 0.425 mm):
M = silt B1
C = clay
25
H B2

Plasticity index: %
Plasticity: CI
L = low J
20
I = intermediate K
H = high I
G
15 V = very high
E = extremely high C
A F
10 E MH
CL D
'B' line 'A' line MI
5
ML
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Liquid limit (LL): %
Figure 1. Plasticity of samples

Unit code Gravel, 2–60 mm: % Sand, 0?06–2 mm: % Silt, 0?002–0?06& mm: % Clay, , 0?002 mm: %

A 9?5 31?7 33?8 25?0

B1 0?0 11?2 50?9 37?9
B2 0?5 13?1 49?0 37?4
C 0?2 34?1 45?5 23?0
D 5?2 35?1 36?2 27?5
E 5?1 42?7 28?2 26?0
F 1?2 23?9 47?3 34?0
G 0?7 26?3 34?9 38?1
H 1?0 23?6 41?2 34?3
I 7?7 34?1 32?0 26?2
J 5?8 35?4 33?8 25?0
K 0?3 36?6 38?0 25?0

Table 3. Particle size distribution

material) and no correction was applied for unit size. According relative humidity (RH) and unfired clay brick moisture content
to BS EN 772-1:200012 the strengths should be reduced by and demonstrated that RH levels of over 95% are required to
approximately 85% for a standard size brick (used for this achieve moisture contents over 5% by mass. This should be
research), but recent unpublished research has indicated this considered in the light of measurements by Morton et al.4 which
reduction factor could be influenced by the number and size of showed that the RH in houses constructed with unfired clay
voids in the unit and may not be appropriate for these materials. masonry remains fairly constant at approximately 60%
throughout the year. Although peaks of higher humidity levels
Hansen and Hansen13 investigated the relationship between are possible in bathrooms, the measurements by Morton

100

80
Cumulative percentage passing

60
Upper limit

Lower limit

40

20

0
Clay Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Fine Medium Coarse Cobbles
Silt Sand Gravel
0.0006 0.002 0.006 0.02 0.06 0.2 0.6 2 6 20 60 200
Particle size: mm
Figure 2. Limits of particle sizes

Construction Materials 162 Issue CM3 Compressive strength of extruded unfired clay masonry units Heath et al. 107

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [14/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 et al.4 demonstrated these are very short term (unlikely to purely empirical basis and the factors influencing this effect
significantly affect brick strength) and the long-term RH in the have not been established.
monitored bathroom remained below 65%. Unpublished test
data from isotherm tests performed on the bricks used for this Heath et al.15 demonstrated that the strength of compacted
research showed that none of them achieve moisture contents of unsaturated soils can be represented by Equation 1 if the
over 6% at RH levels up to 95% and the 6% maximum water frictional component of strength is linearly related to effective
content under normal operating conditions is therefore justified. confinement and there is no chemical bond between particles
Accidental wetting can be limited by appropriate detailing,7 (typical for newly deposited fine-grained soils, such as unfired
including inclusion of a few courses of fired bricks at the base clay masonry units)
of walls.
2sinw 0
1 fc ~ s ~ K s03
The moisture content at which the bricks will stabilise under 1 { sinw 3
conditions of 20 ˚C and 60% RH is presented in Table 2 which
appears to be related to clay content, as illustrated in Figure 3. where fc is the ultimate (confined) compressive strength in any
Although this is not a well-defined trend, it appears to show stress units, w is the effective friction angle for the soil in
increasing equilibrium moisture content with increasing clay degrees, K is a unitless constant and s93 is the effective
content. If a linear relation with normal distribution is assumed confining stress (sum of applied confinement and confinement
(not necessarily indicated by the data), the likely limits of from soil suction) in the same stress units as fc. In a standard
equilibrium water content at given clay contents is illustrated on masonry unit compression test there is no applied confinement,
the figure. so if end effects are ignored then only suction contributes to the
effective confinement. Geometrical effects including end effects
As shown, there is a general trend for increasing equilibrium during compression testing are beyond the scope of this paper,
moisture content with increasing clay content. This is most but can be addressed through geometrical correction factors.12
likely because of increased soil suction with finer-grained soils
which have smaller pore spaces.14 The maximum ambient For a sample at low to medium saturation levels (below
moisture content of approximately 3% would have to increase approximately 60% saturation), the effective confinement
by 3% to achieve the 6% upper limit used in this paper and this provided by suction can be described by a ‘limiting suction
would only occur with forced wetting (rather than from changes curve’,15 which is a modified form of the van Genuchten
in RH) under normal operating conditions. equation.16 This limiting suction curve has been shown to be
density independent at low to medium saturation levels.15
Provided detailing of a building is appropriate, the most likely
source of this wetting would be from the application of render to 2 s03 ðfrom suction at medium to low saturationÞ ~ cwB
an unfired clay brick wall. If 15 mm of render were added to a
wall with a moisture content of 20% (typical for clay renders),
where w is the gravimetric water content as a percentage, c is a
the increase in moisture content would be approximately 3% if
constant in the same stress units as s93 and B is a unitless
100% of the moisture is absorbed into the bricks (no
constant. The term c in Equation 2 is largely dependent on
evaporation). A 2% increase in water content during the short
particle size and increases for finer-grained soils as the pore size
term could be considered more likely if evaporation is taken into
decreases. In other words, as the clay content in a soil increases,
account. In order to ensure this is the maximum moisture
the parameter c should also increase.15
content achieved, appropriate detailing such as that in Morton7
should be used. This should limit damage from accidental
If only the low to medium levels of saturation are considered
wetting (e.g. from dripping water pipes).
and no external confinement is applied during testing,
Equations 1 and 2 can then be combined to give the following
4. THEORETICAL BASIS
The effect of moisture content on the strength of unfired clay 3 fc ~ KcwB ~ AwB
bricks has been previously reported,13 but this been done on a
where A 5 Kc is a constant with the same stress units as fc and
3.5
Water content at 20°C and 60% RH: %

the other terms are as previously described. Term A should

Test data increase with increasing clay content and increasing frictional
3.0 Mean
±1 std deviation angle for the material. At 6% moisture content (the maximum
assumed for this paper) the saturation is below 45% for all
2.5
samples. This decreases to below 10% saturation at 1% moisture
content and justifies the simplification used to combine
2.0
Equations 1 and 2 to obtain the simple exponential form of
1.5
Equation 3.

1.0 The inherent variability in suction measurements at low

20 25 30 35 40 saturation levels prevents their effective use for predicting
Clay content: %
performance. In the absence of accurate suction measurements,
Figure 3 Effect of clay content on moisture content at 20 ˚C and
empirical fitting of test data to Equation 3 meets both the
60% RH
theoretical and practical requirements for predicting the effect

108 Construction Materials 162 Issue CM3 Compressive strength of extruded unfired clay masonry units Heath et al.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [14/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 of moisture on the compressive strength of unfired clay bricks at resulted in a decrease in density of approximately 12%, but the
moisture contents below 6%. effect of moisture content on compressive strength was almost
identical. As shown in Table 2, the ambient moisture content
As the moisture content increases, Equation 3 will no longer be decreased slightly with the addition of wood fibre but the effect
valid as the suction and therefore effective strength of the on strength is negligible.
material will deviate from the simple exponential model until
the suction approaches zero at full saturation and in this case 6. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
the full form of the van Genuchten16 equation must be used. The exponents and coefficient of correlation from fitting
Equation 3 to the test data using the least squares method, and
5. TEST RESULTS the strength predicted at ambient moisture content are
The effect of moisture content on the strengths of units A–E and summarised in Table 4. The ambient moisture contents are
F–K are illustrated in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. As shown, presented in Table 2.
all units show a similar trend of increasing strength related to
decreasing moisture content. The solid lines indicate a curve The coefficient of correlation indicates good agreement between
with the exponential form of Equation 3. the theoretical model of Equation 3 and experimental data
within the range of moisture contents tested. The coefficient of
As shown in Figures 4 and 5, there is some variation in moisture correlation varied from 0?94 to 0?99 for the different material
content (and therefore strength) for samples subjected to the sources which illustrates that the theoretical model accurately
same environmental conditions, and it is therefore difficult to represents behaviour. The high coefficient of correlation also
produce a table with average strength or standard deviation in indicates that there is limited variability in the samples, and the
strength, and a table with the coefficients from Equation 3 and majority of the variability is from inconsistent moisture contents
the coefficient of correlation is more useful for describing the under given environmental conditions rather than from
material behaviour (see Table 4). inaccurate model predictions.

The excellent agreement between the curves for samples B1 and Although the data are not presented for all samples in this paper,
B2 in Figure 4 should be noted. B2 has added wood fibre, which additional test results indicated the correlation is not as good

16

14 A
B1
Compressive strength: N/mm2

12 B2
C
10 D
E
8

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Water content, W: %
Figure 4. Effect of moisture content on net compressive strength of units A–E

16

14 F
G
Compressive strength: N/mm2

12 H
J
10 K
L
8

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Water content, W: %
Figure 5. Effect of moisture content on net compressive strength of units F–K

Construction Materials 162 Issue CM3 Compressive strength of extruded unfired clay masonry units Heath et al. 109

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [14/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Coefficient A: Coefficient B: Coefficient of Strength at ambient Strength reduction for 2%
Unit code N/mm2 unitless correlation moisture: N/mm2 moisture increase: %

A 4?27 20?37 0?99 3?5 25

B1 5?18 20?44 0?94 3?2 20
B2 5?22 20?47 0?98 3?2 22
C 2?53 20?32 0?99 2?2 24
D 3?96 20?44 0?98 3?0 27
E 3?90 20?45 0?94 2?8 27
F 6?53 20?32 0?99 5?1 19
G 5?63 20?29 0?98 4?5 18
H 7?18 20?26 0?97 5?6 14
I 4?09 20?34 0?99 3?1 20
J 4?50 20?45 0?98 3?3 27
K 4?41 20?36 0?96 3?4 22

Table 4. Coefficients, coefficient of correlation and strength at ambient moisture content from Equation 1

with the model tending to overpredict strengths at higher The theoretical model did predict that increases in clay content
moisture contents where suction is likely to be lower than that would increase parameter A, and this is confirmed by the
predicted by an exponential model, as discussed earlier. These experimental model. As A is affected by both the particle size
more complete data are presented for one brick in Figure 6 and the frictional characteristics of the material, it is difficult to
below illustrating this trend. predict this parameter accurately, but clay content appears to
provide the best correlation. The mean relationship and ¡1
Coefficient A represents the compressive strength at a moisture standard deviation were determined assuming the relationship is
content of 1%. This coefficient appears to be largely related to linear and the error is normally distributed. Although there are
clay content where it increases with increasing clay content as insufficient data to confirm whether or not this is the case, the
shown in Figure 7. figure does give an indication of strength at 1% moisture

12

10 Original data
Compressive strength: N/mm2

Additional data at high moisture contents

8 Model predictions using original data only

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Water content, W: %
Figure 6. Deviation of model at high moisture contents

Test data
Mean
±1 std deviation

6
Coefficient A

2
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Clay content: %
Figure 7. Relationship between clay content and coefficient A

110 Construction Materials 162 Issue CM3 Compressive strength of extruded unfired clay masonry units Heath et al.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [14/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 content at a given clay content, and does indicate that increases occur during construction or operation of a building provided
in clay content are likely to result in increases in strength at 1% detailing and use are appropriate.
moisture content. However, as illustrated in Figure 3, the
equilibrium moisture content generally increases with increas- The strength at 1% moisture content is largely governed by the
ing clay content and as a result there is no well-defined clay content of the material with increasing clay content
relationship between strength at equilibrium moisture content producing increased strength. This is partially counteracted by
and clay content or any other material or brick parameter increased clay content also resulting in increased moisture
(e.g. density). content at given environmental conditions.

The coefficient B describes the reduction in strength with The percentage decrease in compressive strength with increase
increases in moisture content. As shown in Table 4, there is a in moisture content is similar for most bricks, with an average
very narrow range in this parameter, indicating that the decrease of approximately 50% as the moisture content
reduction in strength with changes in moisture content is very increases from 1 to 6%. A more practical consideration is the
similar for all the different extruded unfired bricks tested. If the decrease in strength of below 30% as the water content in a
strengths of all bricks are normalised by their strength at 1% brick increases by 2% above its equilibrium moisture content at
water content, the similarity between the relationships is clearly 20 ˚ and 60% RH. This increase of 2% is the maximum likely to
evident in Figure 8. There appears to be no correlation between occur during construction or operation and is related to
parameter B and material properties. rendering a wall. This decrease of less than 30% gives an
indication of an appropriate reduction factor to apply to test
As shown, there is little difference between the behaviour of the strengths at ambient moisture contents.
samples and there is an average reduction in strength of 51%
when the water content increases from 1 to 6% (standard The addition of wood fibre to one of the brick types resulted in a
deviation of 6% decrease in strength). As the equilibrium 12% reduction in dry density, but had almost no effect on
moisture content at 20 ˚C and 60% RH varies between strength or the strength–moisture relationship for the material.
approximately 1?5 and 3%, what is possibly more important This indicates the addition of wood fibre may have benefits for
is the reduction in strength with an increase in water handling or insulation purposes, but does not affect compressive
content. strength.

As shown in Table 4, this reduction varies between 14 and 27% The test data indicate that conventional brick clays are suitable
for an increase in water content of 2% above ambient water for manufacture of unfired units, but those that have a higher
content and does not appear to be closely related to material clay content generally give higher strengths. This is in contrast
properties. to observations with mass earth construction such as rammed
earth where higher clay contents are not recommended,
7. CONCLUSIONS although these recommendations are largely related to shrink-
This paper has demonstrated that an exponential function can age concerns. As unfired clay masonry is constructed at low
be used to represent the relationship between unconfined moisture contents, the higher clay content is unlikely to provide
compressive strength and water content for extruded unfired the same shrinkage problems observed in mass earth construc-
clay masonry units. This function has been shown to be tion which is constructed at much higher moisture contents.
theoretically correct at low to medium saturation levels and
accurately represents test data at moisture contents below 6%. This paper has described the compressive behaviour of
At higher moisture contents the exponential model will over- commercially produced extruded unfired clay masonry units.
predict the strength, but moisture contents over 6% should not Other aspects that affect the use of unfired clay units are

2.0
Strength normalised by strength at W = 1: %

1.5

Mean
±1 std deviation
1.0

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Water content, W: %
Fig. 8. Changes in strength with moisture content, normalised by strength at 1%
moisture content

Construction Materials 162 Issue CM3 Compressive strength of extruded unfired clay masonry units Heath et al. 111

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [14/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 erodibility and abrasion resistance if they are not rendered, and of a Sustainable Architecture. Birkhauser, Basel, Germany,
shrinkage and flexural strength of panels. These aspects are 2006.
beyond the scope of this paper and although some preliminary 6. HEATH A., WALKER P. and BURT J. Improving the bond strength
work has been performed, further research into these areas is of unfired clay masonry. Proceedings of an International
required. In the absence of long-term performance data under Symposium on Earthen Structures, Bangalore, India, 22–24
extreme conditions, it is intended that these units be used in August. Interline, Bangalore, India, 2007.
non-load-bearing indoor applications. Appropriate detailing7 7. MORTON T. Earth Masonry: Design and Construction
should limit damage from accidental wetting and should always Guidelines. BRE Press, Bracknell, 2008.
be used. 8. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Methods of Test for Masonry
Units. Part 16: Determination of Dimensions. BSI, London,
While unfired clay masonry is not appropriate in all masonry 2000, BS EN 772.
applications, the high strengths and water resistance provided 9. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Specification for Masonry
by high-energy products such as fired clay masonry or concrete Units. Part 1: Clay Masonry Units. BSI, London, 2003, BS EN
blockwork are not required in all indoor applications (e.g. for 771.
partition walls or framed structures). Although this effect has yet 10. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Methods of Test for Soils for
to be fully quantified, the use of unfired clay masonry could Civil Engineering Purposes. Part 2: Classification Tests. BSI,
reduce energy usage in buildings by providing passive humidity London, 1990, BS 1377.
and temperature control.4,5 11. WALKER P., KEABLE R., MARTIN J. and MANIATIDIS V. Rammed
Earth: Design and Construction Guidelines. BRE Bookshop,
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Bracknell, 2005.
The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the following 12. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. Methods of Test for Masonry
sponsors and partners: the Technology Strategy Board Units. Part 1: Determination of Compressive Strength. BSI,
Knowledge Partnership Programme and Knowledge Transfer London, 2000, BS EN 772.
Partnership Programme, Ibstock Brick Ltd, Hanson Building 13. HANSEN E. J. D. P. and HANSEN M. H. Unfired clay bricks—
Products, The Errol Brick Company, Lime Technology Limited, moisture properties and compressive strength. Proceedings
ARC architects, the Brick Development Association, Kingerlee of the 6th Symposium on Building Physics in the Nordic
Holdings Ltd, Natural Building Materials and Green Clay Ltd. Countries (GUSTAVSEN A. and THUE J. V. (eds)). Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway,
REFERENCES 2002.
1. BRICK DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION. A Sustainability Strategy for 14. VANAPALLI S. K., FREDLUND D. G. and PUFAHL D. E. Influence of
the Brick Industry. BDA, Winkfield, 2002, 12 pp. soil structure and stress history on the soil–water char-
2. BRITISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. Brick Clay—Mineral Planning acteristics of a compacted till. Geotechnique, 1999, 49, No. 2,
Factsheet. BGS, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 143–159.
London, 2005, 12 pp. 15. HEATH A. C., PESTANA J. M., HARVEY J. T. and BEJERANO M. O.
3. MORTON T. Feat of clay. Materials World, 2006, January, 2–3. Normalizing behavior of unsaturated granular pavement
4. MORTON T., STEVENSON F., TAYLOR B. and CHARLTON SMITH N. materials. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Low Cost Earth Brick Construction, 2 Kirk Park, Dalguise: Engineering, ASCE, 2004, 130, No. 9, 896–904.
Monitoring & Evaluation. Arc Architects, Auchtermuchty, 16. VAN GENUCHTEN M. T. A closed-form equation for predicting
Fife, 2005. the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soils Science
5. MINKE G. Building with Earth: Design and Technology Society of America Journal, 1980, 44, No. 5, 892–898.

What do you think?

To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers
should be 2000–5000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for author
guidelines and further details.

112 Construction Materials 162 Issue CM3 Compressive strength of extruded unfired clay masonry units Heath et al.

Downloaded by [ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY] on [14/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.