## 3 Results and Analysis
### Overall Compressive Performance  
The compressive performance of the specimen refers to the compressive stiffness, force-bearing performance and ductility (deformative resistance). As specimens deliver identical stiffness and bearing performance, better ductility promises better overall performance. Likewise, when stiffness and ductility stand on par, or when bearing performance and ductility are identical, force bearing performance and stiffness become the decisive factors. The axial loading (\(F\))-axial deformation (\(U\)) curve (see Figure 9) depicts the stiffness, force-bearing performance and ductility measured. Considering that the specimens vary with respect to all three parameters, the paper quantifies the process by using the product(s) of axial loading \(F\) and the corresponding axial deformation \(U\) to carry out integrated comparison of the compressive performance. Here, the product (\(E\)) reflects the work of force (\(F\)) amid the specimen's deformation. \(E\) equals the area between the \(F\)-\(U\) curve and horizontal coordinate measured. Please see Table 4 for the measured values of E for all specimens.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Group No.**} & **Specimen** & \multirow{2}{*}{\(f_{c}\)**(N/mm\({}^{2}\))**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(f_{u}\)**(N/mm\({}^{2}\))**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(f_{c}\)/\(f_{u}\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(f_{m}\)/MPa} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(f_{m}\) (Relative Values)} \\  & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Group One} & FCB1 & 150 & 251 & 0.60 & 4.36 & 1.00 \\  & FCB2 & 180 & 330 & 0.55 & 5.73 & 1.31 \\  & FCB3 & 430 & 830 & 0.52 & 14.41 & 3.31 \\  & FCB4 & 530 & 945 & 0.56 & 16.41 & 3.76 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Group Two} & RCB1 & 175 & 256 & 0.68 & 4.44 & 1.00 \\  & RCB2 & 210 & 346 & 0.61 & 6.01 & 1.35 \\  & RCB3 & 500 & 860 & 0.58 & 14.93 & 3.36 \\  & RCB4 & 700 & 968 & 0.72 & 16.81 & 3.79 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Group Three} & AFCB1 & 175 & 298 & 0.59 & 3.36 & 1.00 \\  & AFCB2 & 250 & 425 & 0.59 & 4.79 & 1.43 \\  & AFCB3 & 400 & 815 & 0.49 & 9.18 & 2.73 \\  & AFCB4 & 460 & 925 & 0.50 & 10.42 & 3.10 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Group Four} & ARCB1 & 165 & 308 & 0.54 & 3.47 & 1.00 \\  & ARCB2 & 250 & 435 & 0.57 & 4.90 & 1.41 \\  & ARCB3 & 425 & 845 & 0.50 & 9.52 & 2.74 \\  & ARCB4 & 475 & 950 & 0.50 & 10.70 & 3.08 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Split limit, loading limit and converted compressive strength measured for four groups of specimens.  
The following can be concluded from Table 4: Compared with a 240 mm \(\times\)240 mm clay-brick wall, a recycled-brick wall of the same dimensions promises a 15% increase in overall compressive performance, while a 240 mm \(\times\) 370 mm integrated wall of clay bricks and fly ash masonry blocks, 171%. A 240 mm \(\times\) 370 mm integrated wall of recycled bricks and fly ash blocks delivers 213% more in terms of overall compressive performance compared with the 240 mm \(\times\) 240 mm recycled-brick wall. That being said, the integrated wall structure of brick-stem-fly ash blocks delivers much better performance in this category. Note that with respect to the stem's contribution to compressive strength, circular steel pipe is highest, followed by square-shaped steel pipe and then square-shaped wood. Calculation shows a 16.53-fold difference in overall compressive performance between the integrated wall of clay bricks and fly ash blocks with stem support (square-shaped steel pipe) and that without, while the figure is 11.57-fold between the integrated wall of recycled bricks and fly ash blocks with square-shaped steel pipe embedded and that without.