J~I. Itesi!JII ell!Jilleel-~ S :lltltl-.
t:lcll fn
111:1 S.tlll-\' cnll s fl-IICfi.tll.
R. J. M. Sutherland, Harris and Sutherland, London, England
Introduction
This chapter , unashamedly related to personal experience,
deseribes lhe developing use of brickwork in a parlicular
design office in 8ritaio. It shows how brick compares with
other materiais here, what general designers still need to know
about it5 behaviour, and why and where we should use i1.
To mosl British engineers brickwork, like limber, is hardly
a slruclural malerial ai alI. However, il has lalely become
accepted in Britain as a major structural element by a handful
Df design firms and is now being used for quile lall buildings.
If this trend continues, in a few years high performance
brickwork may be understood and used as universally as
reinforced concrete i5 taday.
Qur first experiences with brickwork were 00 several
low-rise (up lo 6 slory) buildings where, for economic reasons,
we were forced to change the architect's schemes conceived in
exposed precast concrete to brick wall ones. In the process, we
found Ihal savings from lhe bearing walls made il possible lo
pay for moulded and expensively finished concrele cladding;
Ihus lhe greater pari of lhe original aeslhelic concepl was
maintained at much lower cost.
Another early experience arose out of the University Grants
Cornrnittee's invitation to take part in a practical develop-
ment exercise in student housing. Here , the economy of
brickwork became even more obvious. The resulting buildings,
using mainly 4-1/8" -Ihick cross-waUs in low-slrenglh bricks,
Was economical enough to justify the Committee fixing 10w
cOst limits which have since proved a rod for our own backs as
well as Ihose of olher designers.
The first real slruclural chaUenge (in 1963) was presenled
by the need for student accommodation at the new University
Df Essex. Here, lhe archilec!'s developmenl plan included a
series of over 20 slim residential towers, each fourteen storeys
*Kenneth Capon of Architects' Co-Partnership.
375
high 1. Our earlier experiences led us lo believe Ihal lhe
economy of brickwork on previous lower buildings with
similar sized rooms would also apply ai Ihese heighls. Evenls
have shown Ihis lo be correcl, bul il was only gradually , and
when fully commitled lo using brick waUs , Ihal lhe gaps in our
knowledge of lhe malerial and lhe weaknesses of accepled
design techniques became apparent. ] now propose to discuss
these, using the progressive development of the Essex tower
designs as the main example.
Economics
Where heavy walls are needed for sound insulalion , lhe
separale frame can do Jittle bul add lo lhe cosi of lhe overall
structure. Our experience shows that , where the layout
permits, it is almost always more economical to use the walls
slruclurally. The real problem is whelher lo use brick or
concrete.
A hislogram prepared from dala supplied by lhe Quantily
Surveyors , Monk and Dunslon (Figure 44-1) shows prices per
square foot for in situ concrete and brick walls from ten actual
contracts of comparable value. These prices are for rough walls
suilable for plaslering, and Ihey have all been adjusled for one
lime (Autumn 1965).
Using bricks ai 130/-per 1OOot, which are readily available
wilh slrenglhs of 3000 lo 4000 Ib./in 2 , lhe average COSi of an
8-5/8" brick wall is little over half Ihal of a 6" concrele
one** , and there is no sign of overlapping price ranges. With
s!ronger bricks ai 300/-per 1000, brickwork slill wins, bul
overlapping is imminent. Wilh bricks ai 600/-per 1000 (rarely
needed for slrength alone), brickwork shows no economic
advantage over concrete. Thus, it is particularly important to
use lhe cheapesl brick which will carry lhe load.
Once fair faced surfaces are demanded, suitable for use with
painl bul no plasler, lhe odds lend lo swing slill more in
t Thcse bricks prices are for bricks 8-5/8" X 4-1/8" X 2-5/8 ".
** ie., with comparablc sound insulation.
376 Designing, Engineering, and Constructing with Masonry Products

m~ , ,
~"::r-
r-
,

,
~
, eLe.:

,~~

,
~ 1m
q
,
I Ir I ,,-
-[-Li=!:
L

i+r -I - -
I.
-t~_
,

li'"i' i
,
~T I I -t ~~ -- ~- ': ' --~

Figure 44-1. Histogram sho wing relative COSIs or masonry and concrete load-bearing wal/s_

o~ , ....ou. mOl<>."\
'Y~' '"." ... 11 oli.
B
1J "00' "' ...." I"'
I"g.jl.....<"".
w l noows fo rm nuOu No 11.'01. , d
/ ".,qM_oi...00o O'lob.
.. uI . "" .ull

"'U~C .'" '"'Moi """ <"M"'"

<>I .," <oY l ly O~ 1100"
'hld ,
75"- 6~

\, r- -, I. I. /
-JI~
~

~t
I r'
I
SlUDY/a"O
~ ._,'" I
STuDY &E:D

-
~TUOY/.(o STuOv I.EO

/\ '<. , -< f::::

- -_"
I -

,-.- -)',
'},
;'-----'i:

-- " <1 SlUOY/.lO

lB:: E{~
.QjR. ~
STUOY/.r:o

,
ti. ,/\::::::
"L' __ ___
\----- --
l5<~
. 1 ____----7 o_o

STUoY/
KO
.1

fi> l1l1 " - \;::

-
OOCT q sruOY/
1E O
;t

,/ " - .
.", r;:::::J [(~_i~~~]J ~ .< --
',' '<
$TUOY/ . S TUOY'ItO
EO KI1CO<EN j Dt N I ND STUO'r/ .r:o sr UO'f/&E:D

(~""'H >1 .0 ," ,.1. reom ".,. I

Figure 44-2_ Essex Univer,ity: Typical floor plan or Towers 3 and 4,

 Design Engineer's Approach to Masanry Canstructian
/ "-
/
/
WALL No.Sl
(162 tbJin 2 )
favour of brickwork, lhe exlra cost of painling nearly always
being much less than Ihat of special formworktt. Prefabri-
eation wilh concrete , Ihough expecled to be economical , sliJI
tends to cost more than Iradilional building.
These compara tive costs not only make ao economic case
for brickwork but provide a foundation for my later remarks
00 structural designo
The economic argument for brickwork in Britain seems
indisputable , and it was only by using bricks Ihat wc were able
to build lhe first two Essex University Towers wilhin cosI
limits set for low-rise buildings. Since then , we havc had lo
refine Dur designs to meet rising cost by using fewer and
cheaper bricks. Towers No . 3 and 4 could nol have been buill
to the design used for the firsl two ; if lhe 51h and 61h are lo
go ahead. we must make further structural savings.
tt Unpaintcd brick walls used intcrnally are obviously lcss economical
on tal1 buildings ir, for appcarances, the same brick must be uscd at all
leveis.
377
c Figure 44-3. "Wa/llength" method af
e
calculating stresses due to vertical
laad.
/
/
/
/
/
/
,,
,,
,,
Design for Vertical Loads
Wilh lhe same wall arrangemenl aI ali leveis and a one-way
floor spanning syslem (as belween parallel cross-walls), wall
slresses due lo vertical loads presenl few design problems.
However, with more complex two-way spanning layouts, as
shown in Figure 44-2 (Towers No. 3 and 4 aI Essex
University), lhe calculalion of wall slresses becomes nol jusl
ledious bul virtually impossible lo do accuralely .
For lhe firsl four Towers, we divided lhe wall unils inlo
simple slraight lengths and assumed Ihat each supporled a
combination of mainly triangular floor areas , as one would
when calculaling beam loads in beam and slab conslruclion.
(Figure 44-3) Furlher, we assumed lha I lhe load on each wall
lenglh was uniforrnly dislribuled and Ihal walls exlending
higher Ihan the rest carried lhe ir full load right down lo lhe
foundations without spreading into those adjacent. Even with
Ihese simple assumptions, lhe calculation of slresses by lhis
wall lenglh melhod was a long-winded affair, and lhe resulting
378 Designing, Engineering, and Constructing wirh Masonry Products
Figure 44-4. "Wal/ unir" method or cal-
culating stresses due to vertical load.
stress distribution aften quite ilIogical as can be seeo in lhe
samples in Figure 44-3 .
A more exact but more complex assumption would be to
consider complele waU unils ralher Ihan wall lenglhs, lo find
the centroids of Ihese and of lhe noor areas supporled by
Ihem, and Ihus lo calculale lhe slress dislribulion across lhe
units.
An example of Ims is shown in Figure 444; Unit A,
symmelrical aboul one axis, is fairly simple lo check, bul unils
like B, symmelrical aboul neither axis, far less so. The more
uniform lhe waU slresses lhe belter''. Those calculaled by
lhe waU unil melhod will generally be more conslanl Ihan
Ihose derived from wall lenglhs, bul lhe exlra calculalion can
*** This is certain1y true with verticalload stresses, although cases can
occur where it is not 80 once wind stresscs are added.
Centroid of
floor load
re!i$ "in web' 01
nit varies linear"
Irom 150 Ib /l n1
to 162 Ib li n~
UNIT"A'
LL UNIT S"
be quile considerable , and lhe resulls slill far from correel
Arcmng lends to balance oul uneven slresses slill furlher.
With nearly symmelrical layouts of evenly spaced walls lik'
lhe one in Figure 44-2, il would be lempting lO assume lhe
same slresses due lo vertical loading in alI lhe walls aI any 011<
levei, bul Ihis, lhe grealesl simplifying assumption of an.
would be hard lo jUSlify, allhough by chance il may
some times be correel enough for praclical purposes. A1though
calculaling verlical loads may aI firsl seem simple, prese"1
melhods are far from ideal for load-bearing walls.
Assessment of Wind Stresses
If vertical loads present problems, wind forces offer sI ilI
more.
In Britain, the Iradilional way of calculaling wind stresses
in brickwork is to consider each wa11 unit as a separ3te
l
 Design Engineer's Approach to Masonry Construction 379

WIND
I WINO

- 'CS' - '[5'

; 01
eQrt~
,,' Q) @ Q)

F F
Y -II~====I --v

x
Figure 44-5. Essex University: Towers 3 and 4 walls taken as resisting wind on broad face (Independent Cantilever assumption).
Notes: (a) Flange widths Iimited to 5 ft. in ali cases. (b) This plan shows the finallayout which differs slightly in central core
area Irom that cu"ent when wind ana/ysis was dane; hence some apparent inconsistencies in assumptions on walls resisting wind.

rrect. cantilever, pin-jointed to the others at every Ooor leveI. The
wind momenl is then distributed between the units (whether
s Iike straight T, L or I shaped- see Figure 44-5) in proportion to
ethe Iheir stiffness. We used this method initially for the Essex
lone lowers because of the lrun concrete Ooor slabs with no door
r aU. Iinlels. Wind slresses were added lo dead plus reduced live load
may slresses and subtracted from dead load ones only to give
ough maximurn and minimum total wall stresses.
esent This method ignores the frame action wruch undoubtedly
lakes place . Although seemingly simple, calculalions with il
can lake a long time if the section properlies of the wall units
are very varied . Otherwise, the method is easily underslood ; il
errs on the safe side and is thus suitable for general office use ,
. slil! at least until it shows unacceptable stresses in a seemingly
stable slructure. This is exactly whal it did on our firsl towers .
'esses It was not the magnitude of the compressive stresses in the
arate WaUs which embarrassed us bul the exislence of large lensile
ones. Even Professor Hendry could not wholly reassure us
aboul Ihese unlil he and Df. Soane had done a model lesl and
then backed this up with a computer analysis, a superb piece
of work 2 , bul, alas, too late for the firsl lowersttt. An
unusual , valuable fealure of lhis analysis is that il can be
applied to irregular wall blocks connecled by broad slrips of
slab instead of jusl to pierced plane walls.
Afler proving his analysis againsl lhe model results for lhe
first two towers, Df. Soane used lhe same programme on the
revised layoul for the third and fourth . Here , for simplicily, he
considered only lhe Iwo waU groups shown in Figure 44-6 for
wind 00 lhe crilical broad face.
It is inleresling to compare wall slresses given by lhe
cantilever and frame methods. Due lo layoul changes, lhe
ttt For these we resortcd to the c1umsy expedient of thick ening and
vertically rcinforcing some criticai waUs for the bottom four storeys.
380 Designing, Engineering, and Constructing with Masonry Products
I Wl tlD O ' AEC TI ON
v r ~U I" ~
T--' ]r
ou c.
- xI
Figure 44-6. Essex University: Towers 3 and 4 walls taken as resisting wind on broad face Iframe action assumption).
connected cantilever analysis gave more favourable resuJts than
il did on lhe firsl lowers, allhough Ihere were slil! zero slresses
ar lensions of up lo 50 Ib./in 2 under wind load. By modifying
Qur canselVative assumptions , it might not have been difficult
to argue ourselves out af the tensioos ar into accepting them.
However. such reasoning can be rash when the stresses in
doubl are lhe small differenees belween appreeiably larger
ones. Whal if lhe wind exposure was undercslimaled? Should
we have considered other lateral forces than wind?**** What
about the accuracy af the stress ca1culations?
Ali these doubts pale into insignificance , when aoe coo-
siders lhe effeel of frame aelion even using only parI of lhe
slruclure; wilh Ihis lhe apparenl lensions are replaced by
substantial compressions at aO points, and thus doubts 00
verticalload distributioo immediately become less significant,
wind forces could be increased by 50 percenl (slil! wilh no
tension), and Ihere is a1so lhe consolalion Ihal lhe frame
action must extend through more of the structure than it is
convenient to assume in calculation. The frame analysis , which
incidenlally indicaled a very small wind defleclion, was lhe
final juslificalion for building lhe Ihird and fourlh Iowers
**** Earthquakes are not aUowed for in Brifain , but there is a move ,
and a good case can be madc for it , to include an arbitrary lateral
stability force in our building codes (apart from wind). This has already
been done in some European countries.
!
W'ND OIREC T ION
~ ~
e--
r
u q
~ "'A n
U
OUCI
j l' r!
~tl"n
1 v
h
. oue 1
wilh 8-5/8"-lhick inner walls and II "-Ihick cavily ou ler ones
for the full 14 storeys with no vertical reinforcement.
A slighl snag wilh frame aclion of Ihis Iype is lha I lo mak,
it work more reinforcement needs to be added to the flaar
slab Ihan would be needed for simple verlical loads. This
introduces an extra cost but not a very large one.
Perhaps 100 much lrusl should nol be pul on lesls on g1u,d
plaslic models. While doubtless reliable enough aI working
loads, lhe behaviour of such a plaslic, wilh comparabl'
strength in tension and compression, may give a misleading
idea of how brickwork behaves under overload when the joints
start to open up ; most theoretical frame analyses also stop
being applicable aI Ihis slage . Ihe plaslic model of lhe flrsl
Essex Iower showed Ihal small semi-independenl wall units
allracled large bending slresses due lo wind (see Figure 44-7)
which was encouraging although Ihis could lead lo 100 gre,1
generosity in assessing the shapes assumed to act as one in the
computer analysis.
We will know more of these relationships between the~'
relical, model, and full-scale aclion when Prof. Hendry s
full-sized lateral load Irials slart aI lhe Edinburgh UniversilY
quarry test site. In the meantime , if, as on our towcrs , simple
analysis shows a structure to develop only minor tensio ns
while a frame analysis more than eliminates these, then I aJll
reasonably happy aboul lhe safely of lhe final slruelure, bul
less so about the time spent in proving this!
 Design Engineer's Approach to Masonry Constmction
WIND 1 lension-L
~ rc~mpression
Figure 44-7. Plan of Perspex model of core area af Essex University Tower I showing wind stresses measured.
Assessment af Brick Strength Required
The method of slress analysis used on lhe Essex Universily
Towers proved Iricky and long-winded. This was partly due lo
the complex layouls , bul Ihese are jusl lhe arrangemenls on
which brickwork shows mosl advanlages. Further , if lhe
architect ar clieot cannot move a wall ar a couple af doors
without the engineer having to staft almost from scratch, then
high performance brickwork will nol find much favour in any
design office .
It is not that the engineering principies are different [rom
Ihose for olher malerials, bul Ihal brickwork's economy is so
closely dependenl on using lhe cheapesl brick . AIso wilh
negligible lensile slrength, slabilily can oflen be ensured only
by analysing lhe slruclure as a whole inslead of jusl adding a
nes couple more reinforcing bars . These rernarks may seem so
obvious as nol lo be worlh making, bul slruclural designers
ake nurtured 00 steel and concrete are aften quite unaware af
oor their significance. Those who claiffi that for high-rise stTUe-
'his tUTes, brick walls offer little ar no saving over concrete aoes
have probably never lried lo design for lhe cheapesl waU for
Jed any position; with concrete the variation af cost with strength
jng is small bul wilh brickwork il is very considerable as has been
blc shown in the section on economics.
ing If brickwork is lo beco me more popular, lhe firsl design
nls need is for a melhod of calculaling stresses due lo bolh verlical
lop loads and wind which is quick , cheap, and accurale enough for
irsl assessing two or three preliminary schemes ando with little
lits madificalion , for proving ali delails of lhe final one.
-7) Much can be dane by slreamlining exisling melhods, bul
eal POssibly lhe real solution is lhe fashionable one of making
lhe mOre use of computers and not just for frame analysis but also
to help one lo marshall lhe vertical loads and alI lhe slresses
co- more quickly. Definition of Ihis overaU problem for lhe
-y's Compuler would probably be quile a formidable lask, bul il
.ily should be no worse Ihan many solved in lhe pasl. Perhaps such
pie a prograrnme exists; certainly some minor work has already
,ns been done in this direction.
am In lhe firsl four Essex Universily Towers, we used a
lut COnstanl slrenglh of brick aI any one levei for ease of conlrol
On lhe sile. Changing one floor of one of Ihese lowers lo a
381
l WIND " "
Independent wall unit apparently atlracts
_______ almost as much of bending moment as
~ t hose with continuous webs.
}---'t --v
lower brick slrenglh produces a saving of [400- [ 500 and,if
tltis can be done several times, then quite an appreciable
percenlage of lhe wall cosls will be saved. The slrenglh needed
aI any slorey lends lO be dominaled by lhe requiremenls aI
only one ar Iwo crilical poinls. By usi ng high slrenglh bricks
aI Ihese, it should be possible lo down-grade lhe general run of
brick on several sloreys and save a large parI of lhe wall cosI.
We are carrying out studies on such a down-grading to make
lhe savings needed for lhe proposed fifth and sixlh Essex
Tower Blocks, and Ihese look promising. Given lhe same
morlar ai "ny levei (morlar has little effecl on cosI) and bricks
whose slre nglh can be identified by Iheir appearance, Ihere
should be lilUe difficully wilh sile eonlrol. Whal we do need is
quicker melhods of assessing slre~ses aI aU leveis.
The Cavily Wall and Relaled Problems
So far in considering wall stresses no mention has been
made of lhe effeels of slab defleclion , Ihermal ar moislure
movements, nor of the uneven distribution of load due to
differing elaslic and creep properlies. AU Ihese effecls are
known to exist, but there is surprisingly little information on
Ihem. Slruclural designers have no firm basis for deciding whal
allowance, ir any, to make for each.
The effecl of slab defleclion on inner walls can usually be
ignored , bul aI lhe building's perimeler il may well mean more
if lhe waU is a cavity one, il wil! be joined by several olher
effecls. In facl , differenlial loading and movemenl belween
lhe skins of lhe cavily wall is a real problem. The Swiss have
demonslraled one way of handling il in lall buildings, ar, more
exaeUy, of avoiding il by laking ali lhe floor loads down lhe
inner skin and making the outer one independent except for
flexible lies aI each floor leveI. In Brilain lhe Code (CPlll)
only allows this for a maximum of four sloreys. The permitted
alternative is to carry the ou ter skin at every Ooor, or at least
aI every fourlh. Then , nol only are lhe floor loads carried on
lhe inner skin, bul lhe weighl of lhe ouler skin is added as
well. Bolh Ihese arrangements lend lo be especially uneconom-
ic if the facing brick chosen is a strong one.
For lhe Essex Towers, with a blue engineering facing of aI
leasl 10,000 Ib./in 2 slrenglh , il seemed almosl criminal nol lo
382 Designing, Engineering, and Constructing with Masonry Products
use this structurally. Load sharing in cavity walls is nol
uncommon in medium rise buildings and the only question
was whelher it should be used for as many as 14 storeys wilh
the strength of lhe inner skin reducing upwards.
We set out lo calculate how the load would be shared and
failed miserably because no one oould teU us lhe basic
properties Df the materiais we were using.
If you ask lhe average Brilish brick maker for the Young's
modulus of one of his bricks not only doesn ' t he know but he
does not seem to wanl to know.tttt
No one seems to be able to do more Ihan guess the range of
creep movement with masonry. It is small compared with
concrete, Dr so the research mao say. How smal1? They don't
know.
Moisture movement is still the subject for research workers
on1y and in spite af some interesting publications 3 there seems
to be nothing for praclical designers lo use. Slab deflections
can be calculated theoretically bul creep will reduce their
effect on the walls. Wilh this paucity of informatiol1 , it was
obviously pointless lo try lo design on the basis of any definite
proportional sharing of load in lhe cavily wall. The only thing
to do was to find oul what would happen under timiling
conditions. We checked a typical independent section of wall
as possibly the most cri ticaI (e.g. wall marked A on Figure
44-2). In this case the outer leaf could carry (within the Code
stress limits) alI lhe loads at any leveI, a very unlikely
distribution. If, on the other hand, ali lhe load went down the
inner leaf (still more unlikely as most evidence pointed to
more load 011 the outer than lhe inner), lhe code stresses
would be exceeded by an amount which, while too greal for
use in designowas by no means ridiculous.
This check indicated Ihal at least for the independenl outer
wall sections the actual load distribution was not toa criticaI.
However. just as a precaution and in particular to Jimit any
lendency for the outer leaf lo altract large loads from adjacenl
inner cross-walls, a Ihin layer of slightly compressible
materia1***** was put in the Duter tear at each upper fIaor
leveI where the disparily of brick quality was grealest. This
was done for ali upper wall seclions in lhe first two Towers
but is being confined lO Ihose adjacent to cross-walls (e.g. as
wall B in Figure 44-2) in the case of Towers Nos. 3 and 4.
The firsl Tower has been complele for over Iwo years. and
the second Doe for more than aoe. So far we see no reasao to
regret the decision lo save cosI by assuming load sharing
belween lhe sleins of an I I" cavity waU. However. in our
altempt lo justify Ihis , we became well aware of two further
major design needs, namely:
I. More information 00 the thermal, moisture, elastic and ,
in particular, creep behaviour of ali c1ay materiaIs.
2. More case histories Df succcsses and troubles with load
sharing between brick unils of different quality under differ-
tttt An honourable exception is lhe London Brick Company who
answered our questions by measuring the modulus not on1y af their
bricks but also af the blue facings we intended to use with them.
***** This was done largely as a result af the London Brick Company's
tests.
eot conditions to exposure. There are quite a few recorded
cases of Irouble with brick c1ad reinforced concrele fram.,
(where lhe material disparities, are very real) but il is difficuJt
lo find any wilh clay brickwork used on their own.
Doe does not want thjs extra information just to be able lo
do more complex sums, but lo know which factors can ~
ignored and which musl be laken seriously.
Sound Insulation
With its large mass, brickwork is excellent for SOU,"
insulalion, bul waslefully thick walls are often called for iR
positions where openings and various forms of flankiq
transmission limit the attenuation to that of a 4"-thick waU. h
has been suggested that with lhe doors of adjacent TOOl1l
opening onto a common corri dor. as in the case Df hotels ali
hostels or within individual dwellings lhe altenuation betw,,"
the rooms will never exceed 4045 decibels; if Ihis is so Iherei ,
no point in using 8-or 9-inch-thick walls as is oflen do. '
(although slruclu rally not necessary) jusl on the grounds ~
better sound insulation.ttttt
Toa many Df our ideas on sound insulation derive frol"
laboralory tests on independent wall panels and not enoo~
from tests in actual buildings or even user's reports. J mwI
admil thal our early 4-1/8" waU design for lhe Unive",,!
Grants Committee (see Economics) got a poor press fr",
such tesls bul here the faults were shown to be mainly in '"
detailing of service holes, ele. rather than in the waU thick"",
As my fourlh design need, I suggest more research on soolll
insulation wilhin actual buildings, and a comparision oftht
insulating effects of walls of lhe same weight and Iype.
differenl forms of construction. Presenl indications point t
the same wall forming a more effective sound barrier
load-bearing than when supported by a slructural fra'"
doubtless lhis is due lo minor cracking the lalter case.
Site Control of Qualily
With lhe demand for increasingly higl' performance fror
brickwork, it becomes more and more essential to have 50
accepled melhod of site quality control equivalent lo lhe to!
cylinders and cubes used with concrete.
Checks on bricks a10ne are obviously not enough, i>l
opinion in England is divided on what further tests are "'"
appropriale. Some think that mortar tesls are good enOU
others thal cubes and brickwork (generally 8-5/8" x 8.S/SJl;'
8-5/8") are best while there are Ihose who would . r'
something nearer to lhe bending tesl used in Austr~~.
Mortar lests give no idea of bond bul are easy lo carrY"',
brickwork cube lests give a closer approx.imation lo "t~
conditions but are mosl costly, while bending tests defim t'
measure bond bul nothing else.
Wilh none of these melhods can one yet be whoIly su~ ~
the relationship belween lhe lesl results and the perfofl1ll1"
ttttt Thcsc remarks do not necessariJy apply to unpicrced party"
betwecn buildings.
 Design Engineer's Approach lo Masonry Construction
383

walls, but experience is growing. We have carried out
extensive mortar and brickwork cube testing pro-
on the Essex University Towers (and elsewhere) and
work has been done to isolate the factors affecting the
of brickwork cubes 5,6,7,8,9 ,lO For the present , [
ur the testing of brickwork cubes for site control , but in
fllOruture other methods may be proved superior.
tbeWhatever it is, there must be some site test , as universally
as concrete test cubes ar cylinders, which can
used with reasonable certainty as the basis for acceptance
rejection. Perhaps this should be given as my fifth design
or<d, although it is only indirectly connected with designo
One tlting which our experience has shown is that any
"""ar testing has a tonic effect on workmanship on the site.
Spanning WalIs
One Df the most obvious design Bmitations with canven-
",n~ brickwork is the [oss of the freedom of layout given by
frtmtd bundings. What is more, large spans over entrance areas
or the cantilevering of complete storeys, both of which are
easy with R. C. box construction, have to be abandoned Or
carried out with framing which destroys the simplicity , and a
large part of the economy, of the basic brickwork.
It occurred to us that by reinforcing the brick walIs these
could be made to act with concrete tloor slabs as deep box
beams with Iittle increase in cost Dver simple brick waUs and
slabs. Thus, one of brickwork's grealesl weaknesses would be
largelyeliminaled.
The work of R. H. Wood 11 and olhers showed Ihal the idea
was sound, but we could find no evidence of previous use to
justify its introduction, untested, on an actua! job (especially
in cantilever form). We were not sure how the reinforcement
should best be arranged; after alI reinforced brickwork is stil!
very much a rarity in Britain.
Structural Clay Products Limited, an enterprising consort-
ium of brick makers with an eye on the future , agreed to
sponsor some full-scale loading tests on story-height waUs
cantilevering 10 feel. These tests have been fully described
elsewhere 12 and aU one need to say here is that the results

lensian beam

'rier I
fra.. reacl ian beam

1
~ from ELEVATION SECTION A-A
~ SOITt
~~ G~

h, bul r.c.s lab

e ""'"
nougiL
.5/8".
dIa,
Iralial
ry Oul
actwl
inite!)

sure ci 10'-0
11 ! 10'_0
11

manct PLAN canlilevered lenglh scale: -::.....~~.....~ fi.

O 2 4 6

IY.'" F;
'8Ure 44-8. Spanning wall lesl rig.
384 Designing, Engineering, and Cons/rncting wi/h Masonry Produc/s
have been very encouraging, especially those on diagonally
reinforced walls. Figure 44-8 shows the arrangement of the
test rig.
Here is an obvious design need which has now been largely
met by the sort of investigation which should be much
commoner in the brickwork field.
Prefabrication
One big disadvantage which still offsets the economy of
brick structures is the time tak en to put them up. On the
Essex Towers a cycle of three weeks per story for the structure
is the best we have achieved with traditional methods,
although with a tracked tower crane serving two adjacent
towers, it has been possible to build lhe two in virtually the
same time as one. Rates of 14 days per 1100r or less have been
reported elsewhere but these still compare unfavourably with
building speeds using concrete 13 .
The only practicable way of reducing the building time
seems lo be by prefabricaling lhe 1100r slabs ar lhe waUs ar
both.
With small rooms as here it would be relatively easy to
make room-sized prefabricated 1100r panels which would slill
span two ways and be no thicker than the present in-situ ooes.
Soffil finishes would be belter ; there is no plaster on walls ar
ceilings in the Essex Towers and the horizontal pia te achoo af
lhe 1100rs could be maintained with bars or mesh in the screed
aI lhe slab edges. The only new problem, not already solved by
the concrete system builders, would be the mainlenance of
bending strength in the slabs if frame action is needed for
stability. Even ir in-situ concrete strips are essential in some
places lo gel in th e exlra top and bottom sleel, there could
still be an appreciable time saving.
With essenlially one way spanning 1100rs (as between simple
cross-walls in housing), there are a whole host of exisling
precast naor systems which can be used.
For the walls, there are grouting systems and mechanical
brick-Iaying ones by \Vhich brickwork panels can be prefabri-
cated. These may incorporale vertical lifting bars designed to
be left in, ar screwed out after erection for use over again.
Structurally, the best verlical joints between panels would
probably be narrow in-situ concrete ones, but toolhed panels
could doubtless be cobbled togelher \Vilh hand-Iaid bricks. In
many circumstances, a vertical shear connection between wall
units will be unnecessary.
High-bond mortars could hold the key lo really successful
prefabrication, but there has been virtually no experience yet
with these in Britain and aU information leads ooe to expect
high cosls.
The most annoying aspect af prefabrication i8 that it almast
invariably costs more thao traditionaJ building. This i5 certa in-
Iy the trouble wilh concrele systems, and there is little reason
to expect brickwork to be immune from it. Prefabrication may
well be justified in saving time ar avoiding labour shortages,
but at present these are likely to be the o nly ga ins.
More information i5 certainJy needed here , cspecial1y 00 the
cost af prefabricatio n. For instance how much would high
bond mortar increase the wall costs gjven in Figure 44-I?
Would it be reasonable to look forward to the day when large
T, I ar L shaped units say 4" thick can be made on the ground
using high-bond mortar and then lifted into place without the
need for propping ar vertical jointing? If so an appreciable
ex tra cost pe r square foot of wall might be justified .
Conclusion
Brickwork is cheap and, as long as it rernains 50 , engineers
should always consider using it, even sornctimes when at first
il looks only marginally appropriale.
Load-bearing walls limil freedom of layout but, by COOpero
atiol1, clicot, architect, and engineer cao often pia0 oul any
need for the flexibility of framcd construclion and thus build
more cheaply.
Brickwork 's limitations are less than they were a few years
ago. By meeling lhe design needs outlined in this chapter, and
others, its economy and range of application could be vastly
extended in the future .
References
I. Thomas, K, Technical Nole, Vol. 12, C. P.T.B., January
1967. (Describes Towers I and 20nly).
2. Soane, A. J. M., Resea rch Note, Vol. I, No. I , C.P.T.H.,
January 1967.
3. For example see:
Freeman , I. L. and Smith, R. G., "Moisture Expansion of
Structural Ceramics," Transactions, British Ceromic
Society, VOl. 66, No. I, January 1967,pp. 13-35.
ar
West, H. W. H., "Moisture Movemenl of Brick and
Brickwork," TransacUons, Britislt Ceramic Society, Vol
66, No. 4, Apri11967 , pp. 137-160.
4. "Australian Standard Rules for Brickwork," Draft, Stand
ards Association of Auslralia , July 1966.
5. Sledham, M. E. C., "Qualily Control for Load-Bearill8
Brickwork," Trallsactions, Brilish Ceramic Society, Vol. 64.
No. I , January 1965 , pp. 1-17.
6. Stedham, M. E. C., "Quality Contrai for Load-Bearill8
Brickwork," Proceedings, British Ceramic Society, No. 4.
July 1965 . .
7. Stedham , M. E. C., " Quality Control for Load-Beanllf
Brickwork ," Proceedings, Bri/ish Ceramic Society, No. 11.
July 1968, pp. 83-100.
8. West, H. W. H., Everill , J. B., and Bccch, D. G., "Develo~
ment of Standard 9-lnch Cube Test for Brickwor'.
Transac/iolls, Brilish Ceramic Society, VaI. 65, 1966. P
11I . ,
9. Wesl, H. W. H. , Everill , J . B., and Beech , D. G. , "Testi~
Bricks and Blocks for Load-Bearing Brickwork ," Pro
ings, 10th [ntemalional Ceramic Conference, June 1966,P
559. r
10. West, H. W. H., Everill. , J . B. , and Beech , D. G., "Exp'I~
imenl in Use of 9-lnch Brickwork Cube for Site Co" r
 5

ille
/
lnd 4
he
ble 3 / c /

/ /
~rs
irst 50 100 150 O
/ 50 100 150 O
O
~
,
50
,
100 150
x 10- 6 in./in. 110-6in.!10 . 110"6io./io.
ler 01 poinl : CD
my c::==~:::::j No reodings loken RECORDED CHANGE IN STRAIN IN I SI FLOOR WALL
,ild unlil 1st story
completed o. Linlel sponning Irom 'X' lO 'V'
wilh no lood being Ironslerred
:an
inlo sheorwoll 01 0 .
md
:t1y b. linlel delleclion increoses lo
o poinl where proping occurs
ond lokes subslontiol lood.
c. Above lhe 3rd Iloor virluolly no
12"
increase in sfress is occuring Of@.
Vibroting Wire
ary
L _______~==~~~S'ro'n Gouges
.B.,
4. WALL INSTRUMENTATION 5. ESTlMATED TRIBUTARY
(Some loyoul opposile lace) FLOOR AREA SUPPORTED

, of
Figure 44-A.
mie

Testing," Proceedings, British Ceramic SOciety, No. 11, pp. AJthough the study .was far from comprehensive, and much
13S-14L more work is required , the results do indicate that in the lower
and 11. IVood, R. H. , National Building Studies, Research Paper No. leveis of a tall (Ia stories plus) wall bearing high-rise ali walls
01. 13 , H.M.S.O. , 1962. may well have approximately the same unifonnn stress due to
12. Plowman, J. M., Sutherlaod, R. J. M., aod Couzeos, M. L. , verticalloadiog.
Ind Paper read at the lostitution of Structural Engineers. This appears to be due to arching action transferriog the
November 9, 1967. majority of stress to the most lightIy loaded portions of wall as
ring 13. Stockbridge , J. c., aod Heodry , A. IV., " Cast Studies and the relative deflection increases under the more heavily loaded
64, Criticai Evaluation of HighRise Load-Bearing Brickwork io parti0 os. Two examples of this phenomenoo are readily visual
Britain ," Chapter 5 I, Designing, Engineering and Construct- in Figure 44A.
ring ing with Masonry Products, Gulf Publishing Compaoy , In Figure 44-A3 it cao be seeo that as the height of the
.4, Houston,1969. crosswall increased above the 3rd floor most of the additional
load was transferred by the le" highly stressed areas of the
ring Remarks wall , not by the already higWy stressed end section , eveo
11. though the largest loads were being applied directIy above it.
By Jerry Stockbridge Ir two more stories were constructed and the same stress
101" Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Chicago, lIlinois distribution resulted as for the lower 5 stories, it appears
rk," reasonable to assume that a uniform state of stress would exist
" p. In part three of Mr. Sutherland's excelleot paper he brings io the wall.
up the important point that the present1y accepted methods From Figure 44AS it cao be seen that at the opposite end
g of for determining the distribution of vertical loads are far from of the crosswall a lower than average stress occurs due to 10ad
eed ideal. distribution from the floor slab into the exterior wall, but this
J, p. loading also was apparent1y evened out by archiog actioo
To develop some insight ioto this problem tllis writer. while
at the University of Edinburgh. carried out a study to measure because the comer straios (Figure 44AI) were found to be the
per' the distribution of vertical strains at the base of a crosswall in same as those recorded over the center portion of the wall
,trol a Sstory brickwork building as it was bcing coostructed. Figure 44A2.