Current State of Masonry Properties Material on
Emerging Zones in Lima CityPaper:

Current State of Masonry Properties Material on
Emerging Zones in Lima City
Luis Lavado, Jenny Taira, and Jorge Gallardo
Japan–Perú Center for Earthquake Engineering Research and Disaster Mitigation (CISMID)
Av. Tupac Amaru 1150, Lima 25, Peru
E-mail: lmlavado@uni.edu.pe[Received August 2, 2014; accepted September 18, 2014]

Masonry is one of the most common structural materials used to build houses in the city of Lima, Peru.
The structural features of this material and its components vary widely, however, due to the manufacturing
process, which uses bricks and aggregates and different levels of labor. This paper presents experimental
results realized using bricks, prism and wallettes to determine the mechanical properties of masonry.
Keywords:
bricks, tests

masonry, hand-made bricks, industrial

1. Introduction
Masonry units or bricks are structural elements usedin construction for the last 11,000 years. Pre-ceramic
Neolithic farmers were the first to do so in BC9500 in
the Levant, where they built circular homes and semiexcavated footings with stone and walls made of adobe.
Several archaeological sites in the city of Lima, Peru,
were built using adobe. These include Huallamarca,
which was probably a religious temple of traditional culture Pinazo (BC100 to AD200) and Huaca Pucllana,
which belongs to the Lima culture (AD200-700).
Buildings worldwide are built using masonry because
it is cheap, has good acoustic and thermal insulation, iseasily available and labor is easy to obtain.
Mathematical models of structures using masonrywalls require material properties and constitutive relationsof the masonry and the elements that comprise it, i.e.,
bricks and mortar. This information is, however, difficult
to obtain.
This paper, tests clay bricks and masonry specimens todetermine basic mechanical properties and to define thebehavior of masonry used in Lima.
Since 2010, surveys were conducted in Lima to build
a database of structural systems and structural materials
used in building. It showed that tubular bricks, called
pandereta are also often used in constructing masonry
housing walls, even if this is not permitted by the Peruvian Standard. Panderetas are recommended only forsecondary elements and partition walls. Panderetas arecheap, light-weight, and commonly used in the construction of masonry houses, which is why we have included
panderetas in this study.
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.9 No.6, 2014

2. BackgroundStudies at universities and research centers in Peru
have developed to determine the characteristics of masonry. Japan–Peru Center for earthquake for Engineering Research and Disaster Mitigation (CISMID) has performed full-scale tests using masonry specimens since1988. Studies on hand-made and industrially produced
clay bricks specimens were conducted in 1995 [1].
Several districts in Lima have been assessed for seismic
risk since 2010. These studies were conducted by CISMID after being requested by national government entities [2–6], with 25% to 30% of all blocks of district used
as representative samples. Table 1 shows the percentageof blocks built using masonry, beside the types of bricks
used in walls and Fig. 1 shows masonry houses in Lima.

3. Objectives• The objective of this study is to determine mechan-ical properties for defining the behavior of masonryused in Lima.
• Experiments include the testing of masonry bricks
and mortar. Masonry samples were tested under axial compression and wallettes were subjected to diagonal compression to induce shear failure. We thus,
analyzed the effects of parameters determining thecompressive strength of masonry walls. Parametersprovided by the Peruvian Standard we also comparedwith experimental results.

4. Test Program
Mechanical properties of bricks, mortar, and masonrywere tested based on the Peruvian Standard [7]. Eighttypes of clay bricks from six manufacturers (three handmade and five industrially produced) and two mortar
grade were tested to determine mechanical properties.
Fig. 2 shows hand-made bricks and Fig. 3 shows industrially produced bricks while Table 2 shows type and location of clay brick used in this study. Eighty prisms fortesting axial compression resistance and thirty six wallettes tested for diagonal tension tests.

1015

Lavado, L., Taira, J., and Gallardo, J.

Table 1. Representative samples from Lima, Peru, districts.
District

SampleLa Molina
Chorrillos
Villa El Salvador
Comas
Puente Piedra
San Juan de Lurigancho
Cercado de Lima
Ventanilla
BreñaCarabaylloEl Agustino
Independencia
Lurı́n

438
554
957
825
732
1271
403
1080
126
751
297
415
350

Masonry
houses (%)
95%
90%
89%
91%
80%
95%
75%
50%
68%
92%
93%
93%
86%

Hand-madebricks (%)
9%
26%
45%
60%
47%
44%
40%
13%
60%
56%
25%
69%
35%

Industrial
bricks (%)
65%
66%
41%
37%
36%
54%
39%
41%
15%
38%
74%
21%
44%

Tubularbricks (%)
49%
45%
27%
22%
20%
41%
21%
4%
13%
24%
0%
17%
19%

Table 2. Clay brick manufacture.
ID
Manufacturing – Location
IND-01
Industrial
IND-02
Industrial
IND-03
Industrial
ART-01
Hand-made – Lurigancho
ART-02 Hand-made – Puente Piedra, Carabayllo
ART-03 Hand-made – Puente Piedra, Carabayllo
PND-1
Industrial hollow brick
PND-1
Industrial hollow brickFig. 2. Hand-made bricks.
Fig. 1. Masonry houses in Lima.

4.1. Properties of Bricks
Based on standard the Peruvian Standard, masonrybricks did not have foreign matter, such as pebbles, smallshells, or calcareous nodules on the surface or inside. Individual bricks were thoroughly cooked clay, of a uniform
color and not exhibit vitrification. Those hit with a hammer or similar object produces a pinging. Masonry units
should have no cracks, fractures, fissures, or similar defects to degrade durability or resistance.
It was noted that some hand-made masonry units did
not meet all indications in the Peruvian standard. For this1016

Fig. 3. Industrial bricks.

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.9 No.6, 2014

Current State of Masonry Properties Material on
Emerging Zones in Lima City

Table 3. Sizes of masonry units.
Dimension (cm)Unit
Length Width Height
Industrial brick23.09 12.48
9.13
Hand-made brick19.97 11.74
9.00
Tubular brick22.00 11.11
9.18

reason, units selected, thus contained no deterioration thatmight distort results.
Table 3 lists average sizes of types of masonry units.

Table 4. Test of physical properties of brick.
ID
IND-01
IND-02
IND-03ART-01
ART-02ART-03
PND-1
PND-2

Suction(g/200cm2 )
40.56
46.75
42.69
80.70
36.76
99.39
22.72
23.40

Absorption
(%)
13.41
13.20
12.10
15.48
13.71
15.27
12.50
14.00

4.2. Physical Properties of Bricks
Suction and absortion tests are conducted to test thephysical properties tests of bricks.
4.2.1. Suction
Suction is related to the adhesion of bricks and mortar,
because excessive suction does not achieve a proper junction. This is because brick absorbs water from mortar sofast producing, instead, junctions having low resistance.
The Peruvian standard specifies that, based on weather
conditions under which work is done, bricks should bewatered for half an hour, between 10 and 15 hours before
seating them. It is also recommended that suction have tobe between 10 to 20 g/200 cm2 -min. In this study, results
showed that bricks have high suction values, so it is necessary to soak bricks before bedding them and to prevent
mortar from becoming dehydrated.
4.2.2. Absorption
The absorption of masonry units is directly related to its
resistance. While the unit is more porous it will be moreabsorbent; making it more vulnerable to moisture fromweathering. Units that are tested must meet absorption
requirements in the Peruvian standard. In other words,
based on the standard, the absorption of clay and silicocalcareous units must not exceed 22%.
Table 4 lists test results for physical properties ofbricks.

4.3. Mechanicals Properties of Bricks
4.3.1. Compressive Strength of Masonry Units
For each type of bricks, compression tests were performed on 10 units to determine compression strength f  band Fig. 4 shows compression test of bricks. Calculating
resistance must consider the gross area of brick. Values
between 12.6 and 1.9 MPa were obtained. Table 5 lists
test results for the compression strength of bricks.
4.4. Properties of Mortar
Two types of mortar were used in this study. The grain
size of sand curve does not fit between upper limit curveand lower limit curve given by Peruvian Standard (See
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.9 No.6, 2014

Fig. 4. Compression test of bricks.
Table 5. Compression test results of bricks.
ID
IND-01
IND-02
IND-03ART-01
ART-02ART-03
PND-1
PND-2

f  b (Mpa)
12.6
10.4
12.3
5.9
8.7
11.0
2.5
1.9Fig. 5). No corrections were made, however, to represent
actual construction conditions.
Parallel to the construction of prisms and wallettes,
samples were obtained for each type of mortar. Thesesamples were cured in water, aged for 28 days, then tested
for axial compression. Table 6 lists compression test results for mortar and Fig. 6 shows compression test of mortar.

4.5. Compressive Strength
Samples for determining the compressive strength ofmasonry consist of prisms made of 5 bricks. Four prisms
were prepared for each of 8 types of bricks using mortar
with a ratio of cement to sand of 1 : 3 and 4 prisms usingmortar with a ratio of cement to sand of 1 : 5. Fig. 7 shows
construction of prisms.
Horizontal mortar joints had a nominal thickness of1017

Lavado, L., Taira, J., and Gallardo, J.

Fig. 5. Grain size of sand.
Fig. 7. Prism construction.
Table 6. Compression test result for mortar.
Type of mortar
Mortar 1:3
Mortar 1:5

Compressive
E (MPa)strength (MPa)22.80 18603.7
9.30 13736.0

Fig. 8. Compressive strength tests.
Table 7. Compressive strength of masonry, f  m.

Fig. 6. Compression test of mortar.

1 cm. The slenderness of specimens varied between 4
and 4.7, so we made appropriate corrections.
Before testing, prism was capped using a mixture of cement and gypsum, applied on the bottom and top to correct any surface irregularity.
Tests started on specimen at the age of 28 days andcompression testing was done following NTP 399.605.
Test equipment consisted of a 300 ton compression machine and a data acquisition system. LVDT sensors wereused to measure deformation. Fig. 8 shows compressive
strength tests of specimen.
Inconsistent values were discarded previously for dataprocessing. The compressive strength of masonry, f  m,
was calculated for each set of prisms as calculated by theaverage values minus the standard deviation, based on thePeruvian Standard. The average compressive strength ofeach prism was calculated as peak load divided by thegross area of the prism.
As shown in Table 7, f  m for tubular brick is less thana minimum value of 3.4 MPa for compressive strength
indicated in the Peruvian Standard for hand-made bricks.
The relationship between elasticity modulus E and1018

ID
ART1-15
ART2-15
ART3-15
ART1-13ART2-13ART3-13
IND1-15
IND2-15
IND3-15
IND1-13
IND2-13
IND3-13
PND1-15
PND2-15
PND1-13
PND2-13f  m (Mpa)
5.77
6.02
9.57
6.15
6.57
9.98
8.42
6.83
8.28
9.56
8.08
8.31
1.89
1.22
2.58
2.80

compressive strength f  m of prisms was developed basedon regression analysis of data obtained from an experimental program. The correlation coefficient values fit between 0.6 and 0.75. This correlation has not, however,given good results for pandereta bricks prisms.
Figure 9 shows this relationship for industrial brickprisms, Fig. 10 that for hand-made brick prisms, andFig. 11 that for both types of prisms. Fig. 12 shows results
for tubular brick prisms. Fig. 13 shows types of failures
Journal of Disaster Research Vol.9 No.6, 2014

Current State of Masonry Properties Material on
Emerging Zones in Lima City
8000
7000

E(MPa)

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
002468101214Stress (MPa)Fig. 9. Variations in modulus of elasticity of masonry withcorresponding compressive strengths for industrial bricks
prism sets.

(a)

6000
5000

E(MPa)

4000
3000
2000
1000
002468101214Stress (MPa)Fig. 10. Variations in modulus of elasticity of masonry withcorresponding compressive strength for hand-made bricksprism sets.
8000

Fig. 13. Types of failures in prisms. (a) Vertical cracking,(b) vertical cracking and crushing.

Handmade
brick

7000
6000

in prisms due to compressive strength test.
For prisms made of hand-made bricks, the relationship between the modulus of elasticity and compressive
strength is as follows:

Industrial
brick

5000

E(MPa)

(b)

4000
3000

E = 377 f  m

2000

For prisms made of industrial bricks, the relationship is asfollows:

1000
00

2

468

101214Stress (MPa)Fig. 11. Variations in modulus of elasticity of masonry withcorresponding compressive strengths for all prism sets.

E = 532 f  m
The relationship for all sets of prisms, is as follows:
E = 439 f  mFig. 12. Variations in modulus of elasticity of masonry withcorresponding compressive strengths for tubular brick prism
sets.

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.9 No.6, 2014

4.6. Diagonal Tension Test
Diagonal tension tests were developed to measure diagonal tension as precisely as possible. Walletes wereloaded in compression along one diagonal causing diagonal tension failure if the specimen split apart parallel tothe load direction. Fig. 14 shows diagonal tension tests.
Wallettes consisted of six rows of 2.5 bricks each.
Inconsistent values for processing data were previously
discarded. Shear stress V  m for each set was calculated byusing the average values minus standard deviation. The
average shear stress for each specimen was calculated as
peak load divided by the gross area of the specimen.
1019

Lavado, L., Taira, J., and Gallardo, J.

• Results for tubular bricks indicated a potential dam-Fig. 14. Diagonal tension tests.
Table 8. Shear stress V  m.
ID
ART 1 15ART 2 15ART 3 15
ART 1 13ART 2 13ART 3 13
IND 1 15
IND 2 15
IND 3 15
IND 1 13
IND 2 13
IND 3 13V  m (MPa)0.520.80
—–
1.11
0.82
2.18
1.07
1.01
0.92
0.95
1.80
0.83

Table 8 lists shear stress values for the test data process. These values exceed those in the Peruvian Standard. According to this Standard, the minimum value is0.5 MPa for hand-made bricks and 0.8 MPa of industriallyproduced bricks.
The ART3-15 specimen could not be tested, because itwas damaged in handling before testing.

age risk during seismic events in houses built using
this type of brick.
• Experimental results must be used to calibrate models of elements that are able to simulate shear behavior in masonry. These studies will be enlarged withnumerical analysis.
• The compressive strength average of prisms madeof tubular bricks (or pandereta) for mortar 1 : 5 was
1.55 MPa and that for mortar 1 : 3 was 2.69 MPa.
These results are lower than those prescribed in thesection on hand-made bricks in the E070 Peruvian
Standard. Behavior during compressive tests wasbrittle. Based on our experimental results, tubularbricks should not be used in structural walls.
Acknowledgements
The authors express their great gratitude to the Ministry of Education of Japan, the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST)and the Japan International cooperation Agency (JICA) for theirsupport of the Japan-Peru SATREPS Project. Special thanks goto Dr. Fumio Yamazaki, Principal Researcher in the SATREPS
Project.
References:[1] T. Izquierdo, “Correlación para determinar las propiedades fı́sicas ymecánicas de unidades o especı́menes de albañilerı́a,” 1995.
[2] C. Zavala, M. Estrada, Z. Aguilar, and F. Lázares, “Estudio De Microzonificación Sı́smica y Vulnerabilidad en la Ciudad De Lima,”
Ministry of Housing, Construction and Sanitation, 2010.
[3] C. Zavala, M. Estrada, Z. Aguilar, and F. Lázares, “Estudio de Microzonificación Sı́smica, Mapas de Peligros Múltiples y Análisis
de Riesgo de los Distritos del Cercado De Lima, Ventanilla y delas Ciudades de Chincha y Contumazá,” Ministry of Housing, Construction and Sanitation, 2012.
[4] C. Zavala, M. Estrada, Z. Aguilar, and F. Lázares, “Evaluación delRiesgo Sismico del Distrito de Breña,” CENEPRED, 2012.
[5] C. Zavala, M. Estrada, Z. Aguilar, and F. Lázares, “Estudios deMicrozonificación Geotécnica Sı́smica y Evaluación del Riesgo
en Zonas Ubicadas en los Distritos de Carabayllo y El Agustino(Provincia Y Departamento De Lima); Distrito del Cusco (Provincia y Departamento del Cusco); y Distrito de Alto Selva Alegre(Provincia y Departamento de Arequipa),” Ministry of Housing,Construction and Sanitation, 2013.
[6] C. Zavala, M. Estrada, Z. Aguilar, and F. Lázares, “Reducción de
Vulnerabilidad y Atención de Emergencia por Desastres,” Ministryof Economy and Finance, 2013.
[7] Peruvian Standard NTE:070 Masonry, 2006.

5. Conclusions• Hand-made bricks presents a high level of suction,

Name:that must be considered during the seating of bricks
at constructions sites.

Luis Lavado

Affiliation:• For prisms consisting of hand-made bricks, the rela-Assistant Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, National University of Engineering
Research Assistant, Structures Laboratory, CISMID, National University of Engineering

tionship between the modulus of elasticity and compressive strength was as follows:
E = 377 f  m• For prisms consisting of industrial bricks, the rela-tionship was as follows:E = 532 f m• Experimental

results in diagonal tension tests
showed that values of shear stress (V  m) were greaterthan those prescribed in the Peruvian Standard.

1020

Address:
210 Tupac Amaru Avenue, Rimac, Lima 25, Peru

Brief Career:2000 Joined Structures Laboratory, CISMID, National University ofEngineering
2001-2009 Internship, Building Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan
2010 Internship Appliend Science University, Regensburg, Germany

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.9 No.6, 2014