Investigations on the creep behaviour of unfired clay block masonry

IF 8.9 1区工程技术 Q1 CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY

Construction and Building Materials Pub Date : 2026-03-21 Epub Date: 2026-02-21 DOI:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2026.145675

Eline Vereecken , Hervé Degée , Erik Pelicaen , Rik Steensels , Elke Knapen , Bram Vandoren

{"title":"Investigations on the creep behaviour of unfired clay block masonry","authors":"Eline Vereecken , Hervé Degée , Erik Pelicaen , Rik Steensels , Elke Knapen , Bram Vandoren","doi":"10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2026.145675","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Unfired clay blocks offer a sustainable alternative to traditional masonry by reducing CO₂ emissions and raw material consumption. Despite these environmental benefits, detailed knowledge about their structural properties remains limited. To fill these knowledge gaps, this research focuses on the creep behaviour of unfired clay masonry by examining the creep deformation of unfired clay masonry under long-term loading. Test specimens made from various types and combinations of unfired clay blocks (Compressed Earth Blocks (CEB) and Moulded Earth Blocks (MEB)) and mortars (Earth Mortar (EM), Earth Adhesive Mortar (EAM) and Bastard Mortar with Earth adhesive (BME) were subjected to a constant compressive load for three months, during which deformations were measured. These tests are the first of their kind exploring the creep behaviour of unfired clay masonry. The results highlighted that MEB masonry has a 74–140 % higher creep deformation compared to CEB masonry (MEB-EM: 1692 µε; MEB-EAM: 1441 µε; CEB-EM: 705 µε; CEB-EAM: 830 µε), possibly due to their lower compressive strength (MEB: 4 MPa, CEB: 10 MPa). For CEB masonry, the mortar type did only influence the creep behaviour to a very limited extend, where for MEB masonry this influence was much more pronounced, with EM mortar showing 17 % higher creep deformations (1692 µε for EM compared to 1441 µε for EAM) and 203 % higher shrinkage (558 µε for EM compared to 184 µε for EAM). On the results of the tests, multiple models (Burgers, Lenczner, and Van Zijl) were fit and compared for their ability to predict the creep behaviour of unfired clay masonry. Here it was shown that the Burgers model provided the best fit if no correction for shrinkage is accounted for. If this correction is required, the Van Zijl model is the better choice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":288,"journal":{"name":"Construction and Building Materials","volume":"516 ","pages":"Article 145675"},"PeriodicalIF":8.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Construction and Building Materials","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950061826005763","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Unfired clay blocks offer a sustainable alternative to traditional masonry by reducing CO₂ emissions and raw material consumption. Despite these environmental benefits, detailed knowledge about their structural properties remains limited. To fill these knowledge gaps, this research focuses on the creep behaviour of unfired clay masonry by examining the creep deformation of unfired clay masonry under long-term loading. Test specimens made from various types and combinations of unfired clay blocks (Compressed Earth Blocks (CEB) and Moulded Earth Blocks (MEB)) and mortars (Earth Mortar (EM), Earth Adhesive Mortar (EAM) and Bastard Mortar with Earth adhesive (BME) were subjected to a constant compressive load for three months, during which deformations were measured. These tests are the first of their kind exploring the creep behaviour of unfired clay masonry. The results highlighted that MEB masonry has a 74–140 % higher creep deformation compared to CEB masonry (MEB-EM: 1692 µε; MEB-EAM: 1441 µε; CEB-EM: 705 µε; CEB-EAM: 830 µε), possibly due to their lower compressive strength (MEB: 4 MPa, CEB: 10 MPa). For CEB masonry, the mortar type did only influence the creep behaviour to a very limited extend, where for MEB masonry this influence was much more pronounced, with EM mortar showing 17 % higher creep deformations (1692 µε for EM compared to 1441 µε for EAM) and 203 % higher shrinkage (558 µε for EM compared to 184 µε for EAM). On the results of the tests, multiple models (Burgers, Lenczner, and Van Zijl) were fit and compared for their ability to predict the creep behaviour of unfired clay masonry. Here it was shown that the Burgers model provided the best fit if no correction for shrinkage is accounted for. If this correction is required, the Van Zijl model is the better choice.

查看原文本刊更多论文

未烧制粘土砌块砌体蠕变特性研究

未烧制粘土块通过减少二氧化碳排放和原材料消耗，为传统砌体提供了可持续的替代方案。尽管具有这些环境效益，但关于其结构特性的详细知识仍然有限。为了填补这些知识空白，本研究通过研究未烧制粘土砌体在长期荷载作用下的蠕变变形，重点研究了未烧制粘土砌体的蠕变行为。由各种类型和组合的未烧制粘土块（压缩土块（CEB）和模压土块（MEB））和砂浆（土砂浆（EM）、土胶粘剂砂浆（EAM）和土胶粘剂砂浆（BME））制成的试件承受恒定的压缩载荷三个月，在此期间测量变形。这些试验是首次探索未烧制粘土砌体的蠕变行为。结果表明，MEB砌体的蠕变变形比CEB砌体（MEB- em: 1692 μ ε; MEB- eam: 1441 μ ε; CEB- em: 705 μ ε; CEB- eam: 830 μ ε）高74-140 %，可能是由于其抗压强度较低（MEB: 4 MPa, CEB: 10 MPa）。对于CEB砌体，砂浆类型仅在非常有限的范围内影响蠕变行为，而对于MEB砌体，这种影响更为明显，EM砂浆的蠕变变形率高出17% % (EM为1692 μ ε，而EAM为1441 μ ε)，收缩率高出203 % （EM为558 μ ε，而EAM为184 μ ε）。根据试验结果，多个模型（Burgers、Lenczner和Van Zijl）拟合并比较了它们预测未烧制粘土砌体蠕变行为的能力。这里表明，如果不考虑收缩的修正，汉堡模型提供了最佳拟合。如果需要这种修正，Van Zijl模型是更好的选择。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Construction and Building Materials 工程技术-材料科学：综合

CiteScore

13.80

自引率

21.60%

发文量

3632

审稿时长

82 days

期刊介绍： Construction and Building Materials offers an international platform for sharing innovative and original research and development in the realm of construction and building materials, along with their practical applications in new projects and repair practices. The journal publishes a diverse array of pioneering research and application papers, detailing laboratory investigations and, to a limited extent, numerical analyses or reports on full-scale projects. Multi-part papers are discouraged. Additionally, Construction and Building Materials features comprehensive case studies and insightful review articles that contribute to new insights in the field. Our focus is on papers related to construction materials, excluding those on structural engineering, geotechnics, and unbound highway layers. Covered materials and technologies encompass cement, concrete reinforcement, bricks and mortars, additives, corrosion technology, ceramics, timber, steel, polymers, glass fibers, recycled materials, bamboo, rammed earth, non-conventional building materials, bituminous materials, and applications in railway materials.