load-bearing properties of masonry made · pdf fileload-bearing properties of masonry made of...

15th International Brick and BlockMasonry Conference

Florianópolis – Brazil – 2012

LOAD-BEARING PROPERTIES OF MASONRY MADE OFDIFFERENT TYPES OF CERAMIC BLOCKS AND LIME-BASED

MORTARS

Santos, Mauro Joel Friederich1; Santos, Marcus Daniel Friederich2; Rizzatti, Eduardo3

1 Msc, Professor, University of Santa Cruz, Department of Architecture, [email protected] Msc, Professor, University of Santa Cruz, Department of Architecture, [email protected]

2 PhD, Professor, Federal University of Santa Maria, Civil Engineering Department, [email protected]

This work has as main objective to analyze the influence of the ceramic block geometry in themechanical performance of the structural masonry, under centered compression, whenmortars with resistance varied are used. Two types of ceramic blocks geometries are studied:one with drained walls (BPV) and the other with solid walls (BPM), possessing approximateresistances of 30MPa, in relation to their net and gross area; also four mortar types withresistances between 4MPa and 17Mpa were used. The experimental program includes thefollowing compression specimens: units, prisms and small walls. Also, the modulus ofelasticity, for the mortars, blocks and prisms, and for small walls was obtained. Among theseveral combinations tested, the variance of the samples submitted to the compression wasanalysed. Based on the analysis of the results, it may be concluded that the BPM block ismore efficient for the use in structural masonry than the BPV one, when an increment in thecompressive strength of the masonry is needed, increasing the mortar compressive strength;such efficiency can be defined in the relation of the compression strength of the prisms (twoand three blocks) and the small walls in relation to the resistance of the block. The small wallsbuilt with BPM blocks present a significant capacity to absorb strains, when high resistancemortar is used (the one used in this work); as for the BPV block, that difference was not soexpressive. Therefore, the use of bedding mortar with those compression strengths maypotentiate the masonry of ceramic blocks, depending on the geometry (BPV ou BPM) andmechanical properties of the applied blocks.

Keywords: structural masonry, ceramic block, geometry, small walls, modulus of elasticity.

INTRODUCTIONIn Brazil, the structural masonry has been underutilized for a long time due to the dominanceof the concrete and the little disclosure of this building system. However, from the sixties, thebuilding blocks of structural concrete began to be used. The first milestone, according toFranco (1987), was the Lapa Park Central Housing Complex (São Paulo, 1966) with fourfloors based on foreign standards, because Brazilian research and regulations were not yetavailable and only began to emerge, according to Camacho (1995), in the late 70s in SaoPaulo and in 1983 in Porto Alegre, whereas, ceramic blocks began to be used only in theeighties, with the installation of the first industries of ceramic blocks in Brazil.

With the evolution of technology and the improvement of the studies on the behavior ofstructural masonry, the latter has been gaining more and more space in the buildingengineering. Once the structural masonry construction system is streamlined, in which theelements that perform this structural function are designed according to predeterminedmathematical models, both in the structural calculation as well as in the modulation and theindustrialization of the entire system, such as doors, windows and floors, all properly




MORTARS











MORTARS










modulated. According to Santos (1998), the works are exploring only part of the constructivepotential of the system.

Within this context, due to the need to maintain the quality and rationality of projectsexecuted in structural masonry, this research took place, with contributions to the study ofcharacterization and behavior of materials, seeking a real potential of this system usingceramic blocks and industrialized lime mortar made of lime from southern Brazil.

1.2 PURPOSEThis study aims to examine the influence of the geometry of the ceramic block on mechanicalperformance of structural masonry under compression, when tested with mortars of variedcompressive strengths by using ceramic blocks and lime-based mortars, for preparation ofprisms and small walls; it is intended to:

Allow increase in load-carrying capacity, which can generate a height gain instructural ceramic masonry buildings;

Check the resistance gains to compressive load in mortar prisms with compressivestrength close to half the resistance of the block, adopted on the basis of compressivestrength of the block, considering its net area;

Check the failure mode of prisms and small walls. Obtain the mortar and small walls elasticity modulus in order to characterize its

behavior under load.

2 LITERATURE REVIEWThe blocks used in structural masonry must have the form of a parallelepiped rectangle, andcan have or not, hollows in their walls. They are classified into blocks of hollow walls, blockswith massive walls and perforated blocks. Their dimensions may vary according to what isdefined in the standard NBR 15270-2 (ABNT, 2005b).

The bedding mortar, according to NBR 13281 (ABNT, 2005) is a homogeneous mixture offine aggregate(s), binder(s), inorganic matter(s) and water with or without chemicaladmixtures and with adequate hardening and adhesive properties and can be dosed at work orin their own facilities (industrial mortars).

In structural masonry the mortar is designed to join the blocks together and to enablemonolithicity to the structure, and permit if present, small deformations. It is possible to findin the plastic state mortar the following properties: workability, water retention and beddingcondition (initial adhesion). In the hardened state predominates ductility, adherence andcompressive strength of masonry. It is noteworthy that, as Pozzobon (2003), it is not correctto make comparisons between concrete and mortar, because they have different roles andfunctions.Prism is defined as specimen of two or more blocks joined by mortar with thickness of 10 ± 3mm, designed to test the compressive strength of masonry. According to NBR 8215 (ABNT,1983), the result of this resistance should be the average results of the test in at least twoprisms. To Rizzato (2003), that goes against the safety specification of masonry, as it provideshigher values than the real ones, according to the author the ideal would be at least three



























overlapping blocks. In structural masonry, the element that best represents it in strength testsare the walls. A wall is the result of the union of blocks and mortar.

The prism / wall correlation is closer to real than the block / wall relation. Since these tests arefaster and more economical, and do not require sophisticated laboratory tests, they are,therefore, preferable, even knowing that the best way to enumerate structural value, would bethrough testing walls with real scale.

In the NBR 8949 (ABNT, 1985a) the test wall with the minimum of 1.20 m wide by 2.60 mhigh is specified. There is no Brazilian standard that covers the testing of small walls, but it isan usual test, as it provides a better response than the prisms and the equipment and theirhandling are easier than entire walls.

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGYThis paper discusses the testing of resistance to simple axial compression in blocks, mortar,prisms and small walls and the elasticity modulus in blocks, mortar, prisms of two and threerows, overlapping, and staggered-row small walls, besides the characterization testing ofcomponents, block and mortar, all performed at the Laboratory of Building Materials(LMCC) UFSM - Santa Maria – RS.

Five prisms of two or three overlapping rows and four small two and a half blocks walls of 4rows high were made . Along with the combination of four types of mortar and the two blockgeometries, the total amounted to 80 prisms and 32 little walls.

To obtain the modulus of elasticity was admitted as linear stretch the graph tension values fordeformation of 0.5 MPa in 30% of rupture tension, and with help of Microsoft Excel ®spreadsheet was linearized the average of the readings. This test is done on the same kind ofcompressive strength test, but to do that several load readings must be entered while thecompressive strength test is being done. More details further in the reading. For the othertests, the NBR 8522 (ABNT 2008) was used, regarding the procedure for applying loadingand unloading, as well as the parameters of data acceptance, as this is the norm in force duringthe tests.

The determination of elasticity modulus of the blocks was obtained through the use ofextensometers type PA-06-201BA-120L Strain Gages, a data receiver type 600 Spider, theCatman Programm and the WPM press, calibrated to scale 1.500kN.The determination of the modulus of elasticity of the prisms and small walls was realized onthe same specimens used for compression, with the equipment mounted on the LMCC, eachconsisting of three dial gauges fixed into a shaft, which is fixed at one end of the specimenand in the other end with a moveable base to allow free vertical movement of the specimenover the load. This movement was measured in three different positions in the prism, one oneach side of the specimen and the other on top of it. The three digital clocks, Mitutoyo brand,have 0.001 mm resolution.

3.1 BUILDING BLOCKStructural ceramic blocks were used, from two different companies: the hollow walls, fromSociedade Vicente Pallotti – Cerâmica Pallotti, (Pallotti Ceramics), located in Santa Maria























(RS) and those with massive walls, from the Pauluzzi Produtos Cerâmicos Ltda, from the cityof Sapucaia do Sul (RS). The two geometries are compared between the net area and grossarea of approximately 0.40 and 0.50 respectively. Figure 1 summarizes the relevantgeometries and symbology used for each one. The blocks, despite being from differentcompanies and having different geometries also have very similar resistance to compressionin relation to the net area.

Figure 1: Structural ceramic blocks geometry used

3.2 BEDDING MORTARThe lime-based and artificially cemented calcareous sand mortars, were obtained from theIrmãos Cioccari & CIA Ltda (FIDA) company and serve as a joint element in the manufactureof small walls and prisms. In tests were used four mixtures with compressive strengths ofapproximately 5MPa, 10MPa, 14MPa and 18MPa, the latter two made especially for theresearch. The properties studied were flexural tensile strength, compressive strength andelasticity modulus. Table 1 shows the total of mortar proof samples used for each test.

Table 1: Number of Mortar Tests samplesNumber of samples per mixture

Compression 6Bending 3Elasticity Modulus 4

3.3 PRISMSThe prisms were made with two and three blocks (two and three stack masonry prisms), notstaggered, from the two ceramic blocks geometries and four types of mortar, as directed byNBR 8215 of each type of block and mortar sample mixture, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: 2 and 3 blocks Prisms

BPV BPM










BPV BPM










BPV BPM



3.4 SMALL WALLSThe basic model of small walls, adopted for this research, consisted of four rows high and twoand a half blocks wide, with average dimensions of 74 cm in length, 14 cm wide and 79 cmhigh, as shown in Figure 3. For each type of block and mortar, 4 walls were made. Since thereare two geometries of blocks, four types of mortar, and there were made four walls of eachmortar, that totalized 32 small walls.The blocks bedding was next to total mortar on the bedding face and two small frames in thevertical joints.

Figure 3: Small Walls

4 RESULTS AND ANALYSISThe results below show the axial compressive strength and the elasticity modulus of theblocks, mortar, 2 and 3 blocks prisms and small walls.

4.1 BLOCKIn Table 1, the axial compressive strength of two types of blocks.

Table 1 – Compressive strength of blocksBPV BPM

Gross Area Net Area Gross Area Net AreaAverage Strength (MPa) 11,70 28,54 15,10 30,82Standard Deviation 1,15 2,81 1,82 3,72Coefficient of Variation 9,9 12,1

It should be noted that the compressive strengths of the blocks are similar, taking into accountthe net area, and the BPM approximately 8% higher than the BPVs. With regard to the blocksratio of the net and gross area, it is 0.41 and 0.49 for BPVs for BPMs. According to NBR15270-2 (ABNT, 2005e), o for the BPV is 10.6 MPa and 12.6 MPa for the BPM.

Table 2 shows the elasticity modulus of the tested blocks in relation to its net and gross area,respectively.

Table 2 - Secant modulus at 30% of breaking load, compared to net area for blocksBlock Position Average (GPa) Standard Deviation Variation Coef. (%)BPV Gross 10,0 1,6 15,7

Net 32,0 8,1 25,5

BPM Gross 12,4 3,1 25,4Net 42,5 22,7 53,5












Net 32,0 8,1 25,5

BPM Gross 12,4 3,1 25,4Net 42,5 22,7 53,5












Net 32,0 8,1 25,5

BPM Gross 12,4 3,1 25,4Net 42,5 22,7 53,5



4.2 MORTARTable 3 presents the results of compressive tests on mortars prisms.

Table 3 - Compressive strength of proof samples 4x4x16cm.

MortarsCompression

Average (MPa) Standard Deviation Variation Coef. (%)T1 4,4 0,2 4,8T2 8,7 0,9 9,9T3 13,9 0,9 6,3T4 16,8 0,5 2,9

For mortars, the behaviour of the average rate of the readings was linear, as expected;however the results of the module between the mortar T2 and T3, showed similar andunexpected values, largely for the T3, as shown in Figure 4, this is was due to the fact that theresistance was not of 13.92 MPa but 10.69 MPa.

Figure 4 – Elasticity modulus comparing to the mortar resistance 4x4x16

4.3 TWO-BLOCKS PRISMSThe compressive strength of two-stack prisms showed a growth following the increase of themortar strength, as shown in Table 4 and the variation coefficients of up to 11%, which is agood result for laboratory samples

Table 4 - Compressive strength in relation to the gross area of two-blocks prisms

Block Type MortarTwo-Blocks Prisms

Average(MPa)

StandardDeviation Variation Coef.

T1 4,61 0,32 6,9T2 5,84 0,48 8,3T3 6,48 0,72 11,1T4 6,77 0,21 3,1T1 6,32 0,63 10,0T2 8,80 0,44 5,0T3 9,33 0,11 1,2T4 10,11 0,62 6,1

In Table 5 are shown the values of the modules in relation to gross and net area of 2 blocksprisms. It was observed that their values did not correspond directly to the strength of themortar used, however there was a difference in the module, regarding the geometry used.

6,13

9,47 9,05

13,27

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

4,40 8,73 13,92 16,80

Mód

ulo

(GPa

)

Resistência (MPa)

4x4x16





MortarsCompression







Average(MPa)


T1 4,61 0,32 6,9T2 5,84 0,48 8,3T3 6,48 0,72 11,1T4 6,77 0,21 3,1T1 6,32 0,63 10,0T2 8,80 0,44 5,0T3 9,33 0,11 1,2T4 10,11 0,62 6,1


6,13

9,47 9,05

13,27

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

4,40 8,73 13,92 16,80

Mód

ulo

(GPa

)

Resistência (MPa)

4x4x16





MortarsCompression







Average(MPa)


T1 4,61 0,32 6,9T2 5,84 0,48 8,3T3 6,48 0,72 11,1T4 6,77 0,21 3,1T1 6,32 0,63 10,0T2 8,80 0,44 5,0T3 9,33 0,11 1,2T4 10,11 0,62 6,1




Table 5 - Elasticity modulus of 2 blocks prisms in relation to the gross area and net areaof the blocksBlock Type Mortar Gross area

module (GPa)Standarddeviation

Net areamodule (GPa)

Standarddeviation Var.Coef.

T1 5,23 1,70 12,57 4,08 32,5T2 3,88 0,73 9,33 1,74 18,7T3 3,52 0,58 8,45 1,40 16,6T4 3,73 0,61 8,96 1,48 16,5T1 6,72 0,48 13,63 0,97 7,1T2 6,19 0,86 12,55 1,75 13,9T3 7,03 1,12 14,24 2,26 15,9T4 5,60 0,84 11,35 1,71 15,1

4.4 THREE-BLOCKS PRISMSThe compressive strength of three-blocks prisms, also showed a growth with the increasingmortar strength, according to Table 6, and resistance values were close to the two blocksprisms, contrary to some authors who state that the two blocks prisms should have largervalues.

Table 6 - Compressive strength in relation to the total area of Three-Blocks Prisms

Block Type Mortar Strength – Three-Stacks PrismsAverage (MPa) Standard deviation Variation Coef.

T1 4,47 0,19 4,3T2 5,82 0,92 15,8T3 6,43 0,35 5,5T4 7,03 0,39 5,6T1 5,55 0,99 17,8T2 8,70 0,44 5,1T3 9,47 0,45 4,8T4 10,76 0,78 7,2

Table 7 shows the values of the modules in relation to the 3 blocks prisms gross and net area,values that did not correspond directly to the strength of the mortar used, which shows thedifference of the module, according to the geometry used, as shown in the 2 blocks prisms.

Table 7 - Elasticity modulus of 3 blocks prisms in relation to the gross area and net areaof the blocks

Block Type Mortar Gross areamodule (GPa)

Standarddeviation


Standarddeviation Var.Coef

T1 5,27 0,37 12,66 0,88 6,9T2 5,15 1,21 12,36 2,92 23,6T3 4,55 0,51 10,93 1,22 11,2T4 5,05 0,56 12,14 1,35 11,1T1 7,97 1,36 16,16 2,76 17,1T2 8,29 0,95 16,81 1,93 11,5T3 8,32 0,58 16,87 1,18 7,0T4 6,80 0,70 13,79 1,41 10,3

4.5 SMALL WALLS







T1 5,23 1,70 12,57 4,08 32,5T2 3,88 0,73 9,33 1,74 18,7T3 3,52 0,58 8,45 1,40 16,6T4 3,73 0,61 8,96 1,48 16,5T1 6,72 0,48 13,63 0,97 7,1T2 6,19 0,86 12,55 1,75 13,9T3 7,03 1,12 14,24 2,26 15,9T4 5,60 0,84 11,35 1,71 15,1




T1 4,47 0,19 4,3T2 5,82 0,92 15,8T3 6,43 0,35 5,5T4 7,03 0,39 5,6T1 5,55 0,99 17,8T2 8,70 0,44 5,1T3 9,47 0,45 4,8T4 10,76 0,78 7,2




Standarddeviation



T1 5,27 0,37 12,66 0,88 6,9T2 5,15 1,21 12,36 2,92 23,6T3 4,55 0,51 10,93 1,22 11,2T4 5,05 0,56 12,14 1,35 11,1T1 7,97 1,36 16,16 2,76 17,1T2 8,29 0,95 16,81 1,93 11,5T3 8,32 0,58 16,87 1,18 7,0T4 6,80 0,70 13,79 1,41 10,3

4.5 SMALL WALLS







T1 5,23 1,70 12,57 4,08 32,5T2 3,88 0,73 9,33 1,74 18,7T3 3,52 0,58 8,45 1,40 16,6T4 3,73 0,61 8,96 1,48 16,5T1 6,72 0,48 13,63 0,97 7,1T2 6,19 0,86 12,55 1,75 13,9T3 7,03 1,12 14,24 2,26 15,9T4 5,60 0,84 11,35 1,71 15,1




T1 4,47 0,19 4,3T2 5,82 0,92 15,8T3 6,43 0,35 5,5T4 7,03 0,39 5,6T1 5,55 0,99 17,8T2 8,70 0,44 5,1T3 9,47 0,45 4,8T4 10,76 0,78 7,2




Standarddeviation



T1 5,27 0,37 12,66 0,88 6,9T2 5,15 1,21 12,36 2,92 23,6T3 4,55 0,51 10,93 1,22 11,2T4 5,05 0,56 12,14 1,35 11,1T1 7,97 1,36 16,16 2,76 17,1T2 8,29 0,95 16,81 1,93 11,5T3 8,32 0,58 16,87 1,18 7,0T4 6,80 0,70 13,79 1,41 10,3

4.5 SMALL WALLS



With regard to compressive strength of small walls, it was lower than the prisms’, perhapsbecause they are counter-bedded and with more rows increasing its slenderness, butcontinued to present also a slight increase with increasing resistance shown in the mortarprisms. In Table 8, it is demonstrated that growth.

Table 8 - Compressive strength in relation to the gross area of the small walls

Block Type MortarStrength – Small Walls

Average (MPa) Standard Deviation Variation Coef.T1 2,54 0,58 23,0T2 2,77 0,47 16,9T3 3,59 0,20 5,5T4 4,19 0,31 7,3T1 3,22 0,45 14,0T2 4,86 0,43 8,8T3 6,34 0,89 14,0T4 7,35 0,16 2,2

In Table 9 are the values of the modules in relation to the gross area and net area of smallwalls, these values, besides not corresponding directly to the strength of the mortar used, alsorevealed no difference in the geometry module used unlike the prisms, this may be related tothe position and the number of rows analyzed for each test sample type to obtain the elasticmodulus and presented “self” variation coefficient, especially for T3 with BPV.

Table 9 - Small walls Elasticity modulus in relation to the gross area and net area of theblocks

Block Type Mortar Gross area module(GPa)

Standarddeviation

Net area module(GPa)


T1 4,08 0,85 9,79 2,05 20,9T2 2,69 0,11 6,45 0,27 4,2T3 4,43 2,84 10,65 6,83 64,1T4 3,03 0,80 7,29 1,92 26,3T1 3,84 1,12 8,04 2,75 34,2T2 5,06 0,72 10,46 1,18 11,3T3 4,34 0,33 9,03 1,07 11,9T4 4,09 1,18 8,58 2,97 34,5

4.5 RUPTURE FORMSAs in the of 2 and 3 blocks prisms and small walls, the rupture was similar among all types ofblocks and mortar, however, they manifested a random manner, but primarily with verticalcracks. Figure 5 shows the type of rupture mostly found in samples.

Figure 5: Rupture forms










Standarddeviation



T1 4,08 0,85 9,79 2,05 20,9T2 2,69 0,11 6,45 0,27 4,2T3 4,43 2,84 10,65 6,83 64,1T4 3,03 0,80 7,29 1,92 26,3T1 3,84 1,12 8,04 2,75 34,2T2 5,06 0,72 10,46 1,18 11,3T3 4,34 0,33 9,03 1,07 11,9T4 4,09 1,18 8,58 2,97 34,5












Standarddeviation



T1 4,08 0,85 9,79 2,05 20,9T2 2,69 0,11 6,45 0,27 4,2T3 4,43 2,84 10,65 6,83 64,1T4 3,03 0,80 7,29 1,92 26,3T1 3,84 1,12 8,04 2,75 34,2T2 5,06 0,72 10,46 1,18 11,3T3 4,34 0,33 9,03 1,07 11,9T4 4,09 1,18 8,58 2,97 34,5





5.2 CONCLUSIONSThe block type used in the composition of the masonry walls is of fundamental importance,because differences in shapes, sizes and material can generate a different behavior in thestructure when subjected to the action of compressive loads.

For the prisms, the two geometries had an increase in their resistance, but only the BPMblocks had a significant difference between each mortar resistance type.For BPV it was noted that increasing the strength of the mortar was linear with increasingstrength of the prisms and non-linear in the small walls. In the BPM, it was constant in threeevidence sample types, which indicates that the BPM has a geometry and mass adequateenough to handle the increased load when staggered row.

The efficiency factor1 of small walls, using BPV, was between 21.7% to 35.9% when themortar resistance was increased from 4.4 MPa to 16.8 MPA respectively. As for BPM, it wasbetween 21.3% and 48.7%, with the same increase of the compressive strength of mortar.

On compression of the prisms, the mortar used accounts for approximately 17% to 20% of theresistance of the prism to the BPV and between 28% to 38% for BPM, respectively, for the 2and 3 blocks prisms.

The elasticity modulus of 10.0 GPa was obtained for BPV and 12.4 GPa for the BPM for themortars, it was between 6.1 GPa and 13.3 GPa, in the prisms there was not a direct correlationwith the strength of the mortar, but with the geometry, with average values between 9.3 GPaand 11.6 GPa to 12.5 GPa between BPV and BPM to 14.81 GPa, whereas the small walls,presented to the BPV 7.1 GPa and 8.7 GPa for average value BPM analyzing your module onthe net area of the blocks, to blocks, prisms and small walls.

The prisms with weaker mortar break slowly, as weaker mortars are more ductile, with greatercapacity to absorb deformations. Since the prisms with stronger mortar, have explosiverupture, they cracks suddenly, however, this did not happen, because the rupture was notconsistent with the type of mortar applied, but had a rupture with predominantly verticalcracks.

The BPM has always shown a difference in compressive strength when the mortar wasaltered, which may indicate that for the BPM it is possible to use these more resistant mortarsthat masonry will have a tendency to increased carrying capacity, whereas in BPV that maynot always occur , which will prove only doing testing of walls.

According to the findings of this study, we conclude that there must exist a compatible use ofthe ceramic block type (geometry, elasticity modulus and resistance) so that the masonry maybe effective, used correctly, according to each type of mortar with mechanical characteristics.

The use of bedding mortar with greater resistance potentiate the masonry of ceramic blocks,depending on the shape and dimensions of the blocks adopted, it is also important to take into

1 Efficiency factor is the division of the resistance (in this case of the small wall) by the resistance of the block. Itis a factor widely used in Brazil



























account the small dimensions of the prisms and walls tested, among other factors, when youwant to compare this study with the methodology applied by other researchers.

6. BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES

ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR8215: Prismas de blocosvazados de concreto simples para alvenaria estrutural – Preparo e ensaio à compressão:Método de ensaio. Rio de Janeiro. 1983. 4p.

ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR8522: Determinação domódulo estático de elasticidade à compressão. Rio de Janeiro. 2008. 16p.

ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 8949: Paredes de alvenariaestrutural – ensaios à compressão simples: Procedimentos. Rio de Janeiro. 1985b. 7p.

ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 13281: Argamassa paraassentamento e revestimento de paredes e tetos - Requisitos. Rio de Janeiro. 2005. 9p.

ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. NBR 15270: ComponentesCerâmicos - Parte 2: Blocos cerâmicos para alvenaria estrutural – Terminologia e requisitos.Rio de Janeiro. 2005e. 11p.

CAMACHO, J.S. Contribuição ao estudo de modelos físicos reduzidos de alvenaria estruturalcerâmica. 1995. 157f. Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia Civil) - Escola Politécnica,Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, 1995.

FRANCO, L.S. Desempenho estrutural do elemento parede de alvenaria empregado naalvenaria estrutural não armada, quando submetido à esforços de compressão. 1987. 136 f.Dissertação (Mestrado em Engenharia Civil) - Escola Politécnica, Universidade de São Paulo,São Paulo, 1987.

GOMES, N.S. A resistência das paredes de alvenaria. 1983. 190p.. Dissertação (Mestrado emEngenharia Civil) – Escola Politécnica da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo-SP.

POZZOBON, M. A. O processo de monitoramento e controle tecnológico em obras dealvenaria estrutural. 2003. 305f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Engenharia Civil) – Pós-Graduação em Engenharia Civil – Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Santa Maria, 2003.

RIZZATTI, E. Influência da geometria do bloco cerâmico no desempenho mecânico daalvenaria estrutural sob compressão. 2003. 170f. Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia Civil) -Pós-Graduação em Engenharia Civil – Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis,2003.

SANTOS, M. D. F. Técnicas construtivas em alvenaria estrutural: contribuição ao uso. 1998.143f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Engenharia Civil) - Pós-Graduação em Engenharia Civil,UFSM, Santa Maria, 1998.































load-bearing properties of masonry made · pdf fileload-bearing properties of masonry made of...

Documents