Sie sind auf Seite 1von 41

w. G.

CURTIN FICE FIStructE MConsE PhD MEng CI/SfB (21) I F I


G. SHAW CEng FIStructE MConsE
J. K. BECK CEng MIStructE
W . A. BRAYBEng CEng MICE MIStructE
April 1983

LOADBEARING BRICKWORK
CROSSWALLCONSTRUCTION
Front cover MEDICAL RESIDENTS' HOME,
TEACHING HOSPITAL, LIVERPOOL

This is one of the tallest halt-brick slender crosswall ~ - ---------~


struc tures in Europe.
There were two main restrictions on this project site
area and construction costs . The cost of the hospital
had already exceeded the budget, and this block had
to be a no- frills bui ld",g. Loadbeanng brickwork was
chosen for the opti mum economy and relia bility,
The struc tu ra l design uses ha lf-b rick (102.5 mm)
internal loadbea ring wa lls throughout, except whe re
soun d o r fire req utatrons de manded thicker walls, eg,
around staircases and lill shaf ts. External walls are
simple cavi ty walls with ha lf-b rick thick leaves. Floo r
slabs a re solid reintor ced conc rete, 150 mm thi ck,
pa rtia lly precasf to minimise shuttering ope rations on
Site, and compnse 65 mm thick prestressed planks
wilh an 85 m m fhick insrtu topping.
The maximum designed masonry strenqtn in the
lyptCal upper ltoor plan
lowest storeys required bricks with a crushing strength
of 50 N mm 2 set In a designation (ii) (1 :t:4,D mortar.
To achieve a satisfactory compromise between For co nstructio n purposes, the buildinq was divided
economy and unnecessary and counter-productive Into two halves. At each level, when the bricklayers had
confusion for the contractor, the masonry completed o ne half, they moved imo the other while
specification was reduced at three levels In the height the concrete floors were constructed", the first half. In
of the structure. The bottom three storeys were th is way. continuity of work was maintained at all
cons truc ted in engineering bricks. the top storeys In times for the retatively small work terce.
commons. and the Inte rmediate floors in medium Architects Wilham Holford & ASSOCIates
strength bricks. Structural eng ineers W . G . Curtin & Partners.

Price £4 .00
W. G. CURTIN FICE FISlruclE MConsE PhD MEng
G. SHAW CEng FISlru clE MConsE
] . K. BECK CEng MISlru clE
W. A. BRAY BEng CEng MICE MISlruclE

Loadbeal'ing
brickwork crosswall
conslruclion
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 3
Crosswall Construction 3
Typical applications 4
Common factors influencing design co nsidera tions of a ll fo rms of multi -sto rey struct ures 5
Stability 6
Accide nta l damage 10
External walls 10
Co ncrete roof slab /loadbearing wall co nnection 12
Choice of brick and mortar strengths 12
Movement joints 12
Provision for services 13
Vertical alignment of loadbearing walls 13
Foundations 14
Flexibility 14
Elevational treatment of crosswall structures 15
Speed of erection 15
Podium construction 15
Partitions 15
References 15
2. DES IG EX,\;\ IPLE I 21
Hostel building 9-store)s high 21
Building geometry 21
Characteristic loads 21
Design of typical internal crosswall 21
Design of external cavity wall for wind 25
Overall stability 28
Accidental damage design 29
3. DESI GN EX,\;\ IP LE 2 31
Commercial office development 4-storeys high 31
Building geometry 31
Characteristic loads 32
Design of typical internal crosswall 32
Design of externa l cavity wa ll for wind 33
Ove ra ll stabi lity 36
Accide nta l damage 36
Other applications 36

The Brick Development Association


1
ST JOHN RIGBY SCHOOL ,
ORRELL , LANCS
This was the job (1958) tha t was to herald a new era in
structural brickwork design . The original design was
for a steel frame with 4in breeze block classroom
sepa rating wa lls. For acoustic reasons, the clien t then
changed the br ief from 4in breeze block partitions to
9in brickwork. This meant massively heavier loads on
beams and columns. Thus, all the steelwork sections
would ha ve to be increased in size - a nd cost.
The first cost-saving solution was to pin each floor lift
of brickwor k tightly up against the soffit of the steel
beams over, so that, in effect, the 4-storey height walls
wou ld be virtua lly self-supporting and not impose
extra loads on the steel frame. The stress in the
brickw ork, due to its self-weight, at the base of the
walls was checked and found to be insignificant.
A ch eck was then made to determine whethe r the walls
could possibly ca rry the 7.5 m spans of floors and roof .
They could - and the struc tura l steel frame was
redundant.
Engineering bricks were used at the projec ting ends of
the crosswa lls to prevent damp penetration - a
vertica l dpc being ruled out because of the danger at
the projecting ends peeling off fro m the internal
crosswalls.
The fina l surprise to the structu ral designers was to
discover that as co mpa red with reinforced conc rete
and steel-framed structu res, the brickwork solution
was not only chea per but considerably faster to build .
Architects Weightman & Bullen
Structural engineers W, G, Curtin & Partners.
2 more than adequate to prov ide longitudinal
stability, which is discu ssed in more detail later.

8
I
~oces
"'''Ii
. fIocw ,
soan
8I For office bu ildings where the room functions
are accurately known in ad vance, the cro sswall
centres ca n be predetermined. Where greate r

EJ I ftoor ;
soan
~
"'0:r'"
i I I
EJ flexibility is requ ired in some a reas, it is often
possible to span the floor in the opposite direction
onto the corrido r and external walls for that
area of the layout, and to introduce dem ountabl e
glazed elevations 6-8m
partitions to suit requirements. However, where
maximum flexibility is required, the cro sswall
3 form of co nstr uction is more restrictive tha n the
spine wall form, where the floor s spa n between
external a nd corridor (or spine) walls throughout.
This latter form of co nstruction will be the
subject of a future BOA Design Gu ide.

In many cases, the long floor spa ns a re most


_8-8 economically formed in precast prestressed
concrete un its, seate d about 100 mm onto the
I v / /1 B-, I walls. To give some continu ity an d resistance to
insitu intiU
: • the negative moments which will occur in practice
,eon (even though, in theory, the units a re 'simply'
I V I~ I supported), it is ad visable to use a n rc in-situ in-fill
, , I floOr units within the pc floor over the wall support. Thi s will
assist in providing a rob ust floor slab, bett er
d V ~ B'" 1M Crosswall equipped to resist forces d ue to accide ntal dam age
I !
(see Figure 3). It is necessar y to comply with the
longitudinal
I / , I reinlorcement Building Regulati on covering pro gressive collapse
plon from accidenta l damage when the building is five
or more storeys in height.
bedr ooms. (It is, perhaps, regrettable that there
is no simila r requ irem ent for hotel bedrooms). Where wide-span units are used to provide a
A half-brick wall has an average sound reduction fairfaced soffit, the in-situ in-fill shown in Figure 4
of 42 dB and, if plastered both sides, 50 dB . should still be provided.
(b) Party walls - Building Regulation s require
4
21 5 mm bric k, or similar, between adjace nt
dome stic units.
(c) Fire barriers - in many insta nces, Building
Regulati ons require 215 mm th ick brick, or similar,
around stai rcases, lift shafts, vertical service
ducts, etc, in additio n to compartmenting fire The 'alternate spa ns loaded ' conditio n, an d the
breaks alo ng the length of the building - 102.5 mm resulting bending moments a nd eccentricity of
th ick clay brickwork provides 2 ho urs fire loading induced into the walls due to deflection of
resistance. the floor units and rotation at the supports, are
rarely critical. Nevertheless, the effect of
These functio nal dema nds dictate the need for eccentricity on the bea ring stresses should be
walls which, if checked, are likely to be equally taken into account. The reinforcement in the in-fill
capa ble offulfilling the struct ural function , th us tends to reduce the effect of eccentricities and
eliminati ng the need for a stru ctural frame. distribute the uneven stresses. Many schoo l
buildings were erected in the late '50s to ear ly '70s
Typical applications using high alumina cement in the precast floor
Office blocks and School classroom blocks units. Subseq uently, all these build ings had to be
Layout s for offices an d classroom s ca n vary investigated and, so fa r as the authors' experience
greatly, but a typical plan shape is sho wn in and knowledge are concerned, none of the walls
Figure 2. showed a ny d istress due to eccentric load ing.

The crosswalls usually need to be 215 mm thick Bedroom block s


to carry the load s. Gable and externa l walls a re Figure 5 shows a typical basic floor plan of a
normally in 265 mm cavity brickwork. Co rridor bedroom block. Man y build ings of thi s type a re
walls should be at least 102.5 mm for aco ustic five to ten sto reys high, and need to be checked for
and fire resistanc e. T he external and corridor accidental da mage under Building Regulation
walls, togeth er with the stai rcase, are no rma lly 017. Floors are usually in-situ co ntinuous
4
2 more than adequate to prov ide longitudinal
stability, which is discu ssed in more detail later.

8
I
~oces
"'''Ii
. fIocw ,
soan
8I For office bu ildings where the room functions
are accurately known in ad vance, the cro sswall
centres ca n be predetermined. Where greate r

EJ I ftoor ;
soan
~
"'0:r'"
i I I
EJ flexibility is requ ired in some a reas, it is often
possible to span the floor in the opposite direction
onto the corrido r and external walls for that
area of the layout, and to introduce dem ountabl e
glazed elevations 6-8m
partitions to suit requirements. However, where
maximum flexibility is required, the cro sswall
3 form of co nstr uction is more restrictive tha n the
spine wall form, where the floor s spa n between
external a nd corridor (or spine) walls throughout.
This latter form of co nstruction will be the
subject of a future BOA Design Gu ide.

In many cases, the long floor spa ns a re most


_8-8 economically formed in precast prestressed
concrete un its, seate d about 100 mm onto the
I v / /1 B-, I walls. To give some continu ity an d resistance to
insitu intiU
: • the negative moments which will occur in practice
,eon (even though, in theory, the units a re 'simply'
I V I~ I supported), it is ad visable to use a n rc in-situ in-fill
, , I floOr units within the pc floor over the wall support. Thi s will
assist in providing a rob ust floor slab, bett er
d V ~ B'" 1M Crosswall equipped to resist forces d ue to accide ntal dam age
I !
(see Figure 3). It is necessar y to comply with the
longitudinal
I / , I reinlorcement Building Regulati on covering pro gressive collapse
plon from accidenta l damage when the building is five
or more storeys in height.
bedr ooms. (It is, perhaps, regrettable that there
is no simila r requ irem ent for hotel bedrooms). Where wide-span units are used to provide a
A half-brick wall has an average sound reduction fairfaced soffit, the in-situ in-fill shown in Figure 4
of 42 dB and, if plastered both sides, 50 dB . should still be provided.
(b) Party walls - Building Regulation s require
4
21 5 mm bric k, or similar, between adjace nt
dome stic units.
(c) Fire barriers - in many insta nces, Building
Regulati ons require 215 mm th ick brick, or similar,
around stai rcases, lift shafts, vertical service
ducts, etc, in additio n to compartmenting fire The 'alternate spa ns loaded ' conditio n, an d the
breaks alo ng the length of the building - 102.5 mm resulting bending moments a nd eccentricity of
th ick clay brickwork provides 2 ho urs fire loading induced into the walls due to deflection of
resistance. the floor units and rotation at the supports, are
rarely critical. Nevertheless, the effect of
These functio nal dema nds dictate the need for eccentricity on the bea ring stresses should be
walls which, if checked, are likely to be equally taken into account. The reinforcement in the in-fill
capa ble offulfilling the struct ural function , th us tends to reduce the effect of eccentricities and
eliminati ng the need for a stru ctural frame. distribute the uneven stresses. Many schoo l
buildings were erected in the late '50s to ear ly '70s
Typical applications using high alumina cement in the precast floor
Office blocks and School classroom blocks units. Subseq uently, all these build ings had to be
Layout s for offices an d classroom s ca n vary investigated and, so fa r as the authors' experience
greatly, but a typical plan shape is sho wn in and knowledge are concerned, none of the walls
Figure 2. showed a ny d istress due to eccentric load ing.

The crosswalls usually need to be 215 mm thick Bedroom block s


to carry the load s. Gable and externa l walls a re Figure 5 shows a typical basic floor plan of a
normally in 265 mm cavity brickwork. Co rridor bedroom block. Man y build ings of thi s type a re
walls should be at least 102.5 mm for aco ustic five to ten sto reys high, and need to be checked for
and fire resistanc e. T he external and corridor accidental da mage under Building Regulation
walls, togeth er with the stai rcase, are no rma lly 017. Floors are usually in-situ co ntinuous
4
5 6
lighlWeig'" 275 mmcavitywall
partman

IMngroom
bed bed
room room

bed bed
room room

krtchen dining han bath

,102.5mm service and


Ioadbearing ventilahonducts
division walls

102,Smmcrosswalls seMceduets
•1-- - --
2 15 mm party walls
•1
co ncrete slabs. Where the external side walls a nd Designers' Manual '). Ca re sho uld be taken to
the corridor walls a re load bea ring, the floor slabs ensure tha t the floor co nstruction forms an
may spa n two ways. Som e minor increase in efficient acoustic barrier.
reinforcement is all that is usually necessar y to
co pe with the accide nta l dam age provisions. Common factors influencing design considera tions
of all forms of multi-storey str uctures
Crosswalls usually need to be 102.5 mm thick in A resume of the mor e common factor s which have
orde r to ca rry the loads a nd to provide sound to be considered when de signing crosswall and
insulati on . It is not uncomm on to return the ends other multi-storey structures is given below, and
of the crosswalls, at their j unctions with the each item is then con sidered in greater detail.
externa l a nd cor rido r walls, to imp rove their
sta bility. 1. S tability, A building mu st be stable under
verti cal and horizontal (wind) load s on both its
Crosswa ll structures can , of course, be bu ilt much longitudinal and lateral axes. Co nsideratio n must
higher tha n ten sto reys. However, as with a ll be given to the effect of openings in the walls on
high-rise co nstruction, the costs tend to increase the stiffness of the bu ilding and the design of the
faste r than the increase in height. shea r walls.
2. Accidental damage. The design sho uld take
Lo ...to medium-risefiat stup to six storeys} account of good engineering practice, an d for
A typica l floor plan is show n in Figu re 6. bui ldings of 5 or more storeys comply with D 17
of the Building Regulatio ns.
The demand for high-rise flats (which were more J . External ...alls. Support and restraint of the
suited to cellular masonry construction) has outer leafi s necessary , even where the wall is
waned, and there is now mo re interest in medium- non -Ioadbearing. Th is shoul d not be confused with
rise blocks. These are a hybrid form of the design agai nst acciden tal da mage.
classroom an d bedroom blocks, d iscussed ear lier,
4. Concrete roofslab]...all connections. In-situ
in that they tend to comprise a mixt ure of2 15 mm
concrete roo f slabs sho uld not usually be cast
an d 102.5 mm crosswalls. T he party walls, spaced
directly onto masonry walls. As the roof expands
at abo ut 12 m centres, need to be 21 5 mm th ick
and contracts, due to therm al a nd other
to comply with the sound requirements of the
movement s, the wall will tend to crac k,
Building Regulations, a nd the intermed iate
pa rticular ly at the co nnection. A sliding joi nt
crosswalls 102.5 mm thick to give good acoustic
should be form ed between the walls an d the roof
performan ce. Co rrido r walls a nd externa l walls
slab.
are generally of mason ry construction a nd a re
used to provide longitud inal sta bility. Th ey may 5. Choice of brick and mortar. Whilst it is qu ite
also be subject to the requirements of the Building simple to design every wall in every storey height
Regulat ions for flanking sound tran smission. with a different brick and morta r, thi s increases
the costs, planning and supervision of the
Floo rs ar e nearly always of in-situ concrete con- contract. On the other hand, although the use
struction. Timber floors could be used in low-rise of only one br ick laid in one class of mortar
constru ction , if/ire regulation s permit. It sho uld be simplifies planning a nd supervision enormo usly.
remembered that the requirements for the strap- it may not be the most economical solutio n
ping a nd tying of timber floors are different from overall. Thus, before mak ing a choice, the cost
and greater than those for concrete floors (see impl icat ions sho uld be carefully co nsidere d .
Appendix C, BS 5628', and Structural Masonry 6. Move ment joints, As with other str uctural
l.oacIlJ('ar;n.1t I"·;CJ..H'O,./" crosswall construction 5
materials, movement joints must be incorporated Vertical stability
in the structure. Whilst brickwork structures can It is rare for vertical instability, ie, collapse or
provide a certain a mount of resistance to damage cracking of masonry under vertical load s, to be a
due to movement, it is still necessary to install major prob lem - provided, of course, that the
movement joints. compressive stresses in the brickw ork are kept
7, Provisionfor services. Early planning of service within the allowable limits, the necessary
runs is necessary, so that openings in brickwork restrain ts to prevent bucklin g are provided, and
frames can be built in. the wa lls a re founded on adequate foundations.
8. Vertical alignment ofloadbearing walls, For
Horizontal stability ( at right angles to the
simplicity. speed of constructio n and cost
crosswalls}
considera tions, walls sho uld remain in the same
The win d acts on the externa l walls or cladding
vertical plane from founda tions to roo f. Where,
panels. These tran sfer the wind force to the
for special reaso ns, the occas iona l wall cannot be
fl oor s a nd roof which, acting as hor izont al
lined up, it is not difficult to acco mmoda te such
plates, in turn transfer the force to the transverse
plan changes - though it does tend to increase
walls (see Figure 8). The wind forc e creates
costs. racking in the transverse walls (generally termed
9. Foundations. T he founda tions for load bea ring shear walls), as shown in Figure 9, but such walls
brick structures are generally simpler than those a re highly resistant to rack ing stresses. Th e
for structural frames. Th e loads are spread along racking stresses a re usually either eliminated by
the walls, founded on strip foot ings, so that the vertical co mpressive load o n the walls, and/o r
contact pressures a re low. In framed structures, resisted by the allowab le tensile stresses in the
load s a re often co ncentra ted at the colum n points, masonry. If the tensile stress sho uld exceed the
so that contact pressures are high. allowab le limits, con sideration sho uld be given
10. Flexibility. Occasionally, over a period of to reinforcin g or post-tensioning the walls.
time, there is a need to alter a structure to meet
changed funct ional requirements. In many The stresses at the base of the wall are du e to the
situations, brickw ork structures are more readil y combined effect of the vertic al loading a nd the
adaptable to alteration than steel or concrete moment induced by the wind force, a nd a re
frame s. determined using the normal elastic stress
distribution formula (see Figure 10) :
Stability f= W± M
Figure 7 shows the main forces acting on a A Z
structure.
There is usually little danger, in properl y plann ed
7 , - - - -- vertical loadlng
multi-storey masonry structures, of walls
(dead and supenmposed)

r---""-,,- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - floor actingas horizontal plate


(or beam) translening WInd forces
as reactionsto -

~--- transverse walls. (ie: oossweus .


shear walls. pemtcos . etc)

eJdemal wanOf
" -ngpane!
spanning between
f\oor'plates'

6
overturning, or failing in hori zont al shear, beams. However, th is is very rare ly a di ffi cult
a lthough this does depend on the designer 's skill pro blem to overcome if sufficient foret ho ught is
in produ cing a suitab le layout. given to the plan form and the str uctura l layou t.

Multi-store y masonry structures tend to rely for Longitudinal stability


their stability on their own weight in resisting Unstiffened crosswall structures - ie, crosswalls
horizont al forces due to wind . Th ey are not witho ut stiffness at right angles to the plane of
capa ble, as can be steel or concrete fra mes, of the wall - may not be stable under longitudinal
being conside red as fully rigid frames for design load ing from wind, a nd co uld collapse like a
purposes. In steel or concrete structures, rigid- hou se of ca rds (Fig ure I I).
jointed fra mes tend to be necessa ry to resist
lateral wind load ing. It is not usually poss ible to To prevent such actio n, longitudinal bracin g is
develop as m uch rigidity at the jun ction s of br ick necessary. Th is is usually provided (see Figure 12)
walls an d conc rete floor sla bs as there can be, for by either :
example, between in-situ conc rete colu mns and (a) corr idor walls
(b) longitudi nal externa l walls
10
(c) stiff vertical box sections formed by the walls
to staircase, lifts a nd service ducts, or
(d) crucifor m, T, Y, L-shaped block plans , or ot her
plan forms which provide longitudinal stiffness or
robu stne ss.

~~=P~~+ _M_
wind
terce P {
lever arm h Designfor wind
" ja x d" bx d2
In most bri ckwork cros swall struct ures, the
A =b xd 6 stresses du e to wind are insignificant compared
to th ose du e to dead a nd imposed loadin g, as
+ z "~'
CCJ f = ~- ~­
A Z
the worked exam ples will show later.
In a steel or concrete fram e, the beams and
co lumns ar e of relatively similar stiffness, rigidly
11 co nnected , a nd are of the same ma terial. However,
r-r
with a brickwor k struc ture, it may not act as a
"" rigid frame becau se the walls are relat ively sturdy
"II ;<J--
I
wind a nd the floor slabs comparative ly flimsy. For
instan ce, in a cross wall structure with a n internal
",
I
cor rido r, the walls, being stiff, act as sepa rate
vertical can tilevers, and the corr ido r floor s tend to

(aj corridor walls ..1 (b) external face walls - -.Y (e) vertical box sections

crucjorm T plan lplan Yplan

(d) plan forms givingstiffness in two directions

l.oadbearing brick work cross wall cons truc tion 7


13 pin-jointed props
I
,I ,
,,
,,
I
I
,
I
7

I
I
I
I

I
I
,-
• • __1 I
._ .f

I
I
- - -/

I
I
I
,
I /
~ /
I I I
I f ]
I I I
I f f I I
I f I I I
I
I I I I I

corridor
crosswall structure without
corridors; acting as solid,
I. c ol I. 1 ,I
single vertical cantilever
doub le cantilever 8(.100 ~
act as pin-jointed props (see Figure 13). If bot h

n 6m
14
walls a re of the same length , L, a nd thickness, t,
they share the wind force equally. When they a re I' 'I
not of equal length , they then share the wind force
in prop ortion to their relat ive stiffness - if they I
w;1I 1 wall
y

deflect equally, as they a re likely to do, becau se


of the floors' actio n in transferring the force. II floor slabs

T he stiffness of a wall is relative to its second I : corridor

tL '
mome nt of ar ea, I, = 12'
In the cro sswall structure shown in Figure 14 : - r-e-
wall x ha s an I value prop ortional to 3' = 27,
wall y has a n I value proportional to 6' =2 16.
Thus, wall y is eight times as stiff as wall x. Since
=4
3~ = 4
3~
2
the walls a re tied together by floor slabs, they are
likely to deflect equa lly, and wall y can be
assumed to car ry eight times the wind force of - ~ ~ '--
wall x.

The d istribution of wind forces, pa rticul arl y on


tall slende r crosswall structures, between walls of
t, direction 15

differing stiffnesses ma y need considerati on . Some


of the main po ints are illustrated below. =

In Figure 15, the floor plan of a block of flat s


shows walls of differing length (and, therefor e,
stiffness) and of differing positions in relation to
the wind. The main wind forc e would be resisted
by walls I, assisted by walls 2, with some help
from walls 3, and little help fro m walls 4. An rectangular T z
experienced designer would probably, at first, only
corridor wall
check the effect of walls I a nd 2 in resisting wind, 16
and then , if they were inad equate, consider the
assistan ce of walls 3. He would be likely to is stiffer than wall (b) which is stiffer than wall (c).
ignore the min imal effect of walls 4 in resisting The gable wall (d), with small widely spaced
the wind force s. The use of walls 1 only, would windows , may be considered to act simila rly to
necessitat e a long spa n for the plate action of the wall (a) if the open ings a re relati vely small.
roof or floor s. However , if the windo ws were deepen ed, the
wall would approach the condition of wall (c).
Walls ofdiffering section
When externa l or corridor walls are bond ed into Only rar ely do the calcul ati ons become very
cro sswalls, they change the shape of a cross wall complex. If they do, however, or if the designer
from a simple rectangular 'plate' section into a is in any doubt as to the stiffness of the walls or
T, I or Z section. This can give the crosswall struct ure, he sho uld either refer to one of the
increased stiffness, and hence increased stability. ma ny computer pr ogramme s on the market, or
carry out a model test. If a computer is used, the
In Figure 16, the I and Z sectio ns ar e stiffer tha n designer sho uld satisfy himself that the programme
the T section which, in turn, is stiffer than the is suitable and well founded, and that the results
rectangular section. of the a nalysis a re reasonable.

Opening s in walls Stability ofshear walls


Intuitively, it can be seen that wall (a) in Figure 17 T he stress condition for the design of shear walls
8
17
0 0
---{> ---{> ---{> ---{>
0 0
0 0
0 0
wall with no wall w ith gable wallwith gable wall with
openings coroor 'slot'window small windows
(a) (bl (el (d)

18 19
p
~ BM

(a) load ing


(a)loading

"'fk [~]~~
"'&n
.
flexuraltensile
stress
flexuralcompressive
(b) stress block stress
(b) stress block

stressblock under axial loading stress block under flexural loading

has been briefly d iscussed, and is based on the BS 5628 : Part I does not different iate betwee n
W M axial compression and flexural compression.
formula :f = A ± Z However , it is genera lly accepted that allowable
flexural compressive stresses may be higher than
Brickwor k design involving flexural stresses is allowable axia l compressive stresses. The flexural
almost inva riably limited by the flexural tensile tensile stresses will, as stated ea rlier, normally
strength of the mason ry. T his is not sur prising be the limiting factor . However, if the axia l
since the ratio of compressive strength to ten sile compressive stresses already in the wall are added
strength is in the order of 20 to 1. Occasionally, to the flexural compressive stresses, th is may
the flexural compressive stresses can become pr oduce a more critical design co ndition.
significa nt, a nd limitin g so far as the strength of Considera tion mu st be given to the need for
certain element s a re concerned . Such elements limitin g the flexural compressive stresses , due to
include geometr ical sections such as the d iaphragm the possibility of the section buckling und er the
wall 3 and the fin wall ' , as well as shea r wa lls application of such stress (see Figure 20).
which are discussed in detail here, and fully
analysed in Str uctural Masonry Designer s' Th e autho rs consider tha t the following design
Manual ' , Flexural compressive stresses are not meth od provides a safe a nd practical solution :
covered in BS 5628, but the method of a nalysis (a) In the first instance , the wall should be
which follows is believed to provide a safe a nd checked for ma ximum a xial load ing only, using
reliable design, and is based on sound engineerin g the design principles given in BS 5628, cla use 32.
principles. The capacity reduction factor, p, applicable to
this stage of the de sign, sho uld be derived from
Figure 18 shows the stress block across a wall the maximum slenderness ra tio. The maximum
subject to purely axial loadin g, a nd with no a llowable stress und er thi s loadin g conditio n is :
eccentricity of that load . Th e maximum Pf,
compressive stress allowabl e in the wall section
is limited by the masonry's tendency to buckl e, Ym
hence the inclu sion of the cap acity redu ction (b) The addition al compressive stress resultin g
facto r, p. from the bending du e to th e lat eral loading is then
cons idered, and the maximum allowable
Figure 19 shows the stre ss block across a wall
subject to purely flexural loading conditions.
combined compressive stress is l.l fk X 1.
Ym'
in

LIJllc/he//rillg hrickl1'(Jrf.. crosswall construction 9


which a 10% increase has been applied to the stability of the struct ure sho uld ensure that the
flexural aspect of the stress, in a simila r manner design, det ails, fixing, etc, of elements or parts
to Appendi x B of BS 5628. The capacity reducti on of the structure a re co mpatible, whether or not
fact or, p, sho uld be deri ved fro m the slenderness the design and details were made by him. All too
rati o, which incorporates the effective thickness often, the design of a buildin g comprises a series
appropri ate to the direc tion of the bucklin g of element designs, carri ed out by the respecti ve
tendency (ie, perp endicular to the direction of suppliers of precast floor s, timber trussed rafter
application of the bend ing) as shown in Figure 20. roofs , stee l floor beams, etc, and no one is
appoin ted to be respon sible for the overall
The stress blocks for the two stages of the design sta bility. A situation which has, upon
are shown in Figure 21 . T he a pplication of this investigation by the a uthors, been respon sible for
proposed design will be demon strat ed in the numero us disastrou s consequences in the past,
worked examples which follow. an d one which sho uld not be a llowed to prevail
in the future.
Accidental damage (2) The designer should con sider the plan layout
Design for accident al dama ge is a subject in of the structure, return s at the end s of walls,
itself, and to provid e a thorough commentary on interaction between intersecting walls, slabs,
a ll aspects of it would require a documen t as tru sses, etc, to ensure a sta ble and robu st design.
large again. Read ers a re aga in referred to T he collapse of an y part of a structure should not
Structural Masonry Designers' Manu al', in be out of prop orti on to the cau se of the collapse,
which a whole chapter has been devoted to th is as was the case in the Ronan Point disaster of
important subject, and to BS 5628 2 , cla use 37. 1968. Progressive collap se is far less likely to
occur in properly designed a nd det ailed brickwork
Th e design exa mples which follow will also structures than the untied indu strialised precast
briefly consider the implicat ion s of accidenta l walling systems of that era .
damage , but it is worth repeating here the
(3) Th e designer sho uld check that lateral forces
general recommendati ons of BS 5628, which may
acting on the whole structure a re resisted by the
be interpreted as follows :
walls in the plane s parallel to those force s, or a re
(I) The designer responsible for the overa ll
tran sferred by them by plate action of the floor s,
roof, etc, or that the force s are resisted by bracing
20 or ot her mean s.

floors can offer It' wall


The structure mu st ha ve adequate residual
restraint to 't' sta bility not to collapse completely, and the
shearwall-- , '
Code further advises that the designer should
~ -----1------ satisfy himself that ' . . . further collap se of any
.'~ - ---T-- ---- <}-- wind load
significant proportion or the structure is unlikel y

extra tendency of
------~------
j'
to occur' . T he structure is not necessarily
required to be serviceable after the event , but
wall to buckle at
this end owing to collapse should be limited to provid e a mean s of
combination of axial
and flex ural
"/ (,<"-"v.( / /
elevalton on ,hear wall escape for the occupa nts a nd adequate stability
compressive I to faciiltate its demoliti on or reh abilitati on .
..
stresses - - - -..·~t::;~;::::~ :a i -i tef

axia l compressive, + [
flexural compreesrve
stresses
{,plan
,., - on ~h••r WIll T

. 1~~~r~~~~~,~Sive
aire•• In,he.r WIll
stresses
- External walls
Exte rna l walls can be solid, cavity, d iaphragm,
fin, or have piers . It is quite common for the outer
leaf of a cavity wall, or the face of a solid wall,
to be in a different type of unit from the inner
leaf or face. In cavity wall construction, a very
IhNr WIU, bending ,bout major nl, 01' wall frequ ent example is the use of a clay facing brick
externa lly and a n insulating block internally.

21

axialloadplus
bending movment

(a) load ing (b ) stress block under axial loading (c) stress block under combined axial and lateral loading

10
Note that , in the case of a solid wall with different
22
brick s on the outer a nd inner faces, the brick s
sho uld have com pat ible movement ' - ' '-J

charact eristics. BE ------- metetcramos


dpc

~
'O
Cavity walls are mor e popular than solid walls brick ' , . _"'
-----
' -_ ,Bend /or adhesive
slip •
becau se they are more resistant to rain _ concrete slab

penetrati on , and have bett er thermal insulation


compressible .Il[ _
sea l a n l - - - - O D
properties. However, care a nd attention mu st be
given to the choice and fixing of the wall ties. DO
Often , the outer leaf only helps to stiffen the inner
00
......., .......,
loadbearin g leaf - but thi s action is only possible
with sufficient, good a nd durable ties. BS 5628
ad vises that the external leaf of a cavity wall
should be suppo rted at least every third sto rey, 23
to reduc e the effect of loosening of the wall ties ,~:.1JA----== outer leal of clayfacing bricks .
owing to the differential movement of the extern al " L_ - - - - - - innerinsulating
leaf
blockworx
01lightw eight
and internal leaves. Th e Code allows an except ion
to thi s rule for bu ildings not more than 4 sto reys
an d 12 m in height , where the outer leaf may be . - floorslab spanning
ontoexternalwall
uninterrupted for its full height.

Whilst, to some extent, both leaves carry the wind - - - - -- - compressible filler at
load , in addition to car rying their own weight , the head of inner leafto
permitdeflection of
inner leaf usually supports most of the floor load . floor slab
Where the outer leaf carries its self weight only,
the cho ice of facing brick is not usually restricted
by strength requ irements.
24
For mult i-storey structures with large are as of LJ LJ

floor spa nning onto externa l walls, the load s on 00


~ ,Q
the walls may be very high. Th eir strength an d
thermal requirements may appea r to conflict.
stainlesssteel
I ~~";
orother durable
metal angle ~ j!!
t.; ;t:====----- dpc

There ar e at least two possible solutions to this compressible == -


searanl ---~=!.J';:=;-----
_ concreteslab

problem : ..... 0
(a) carry the floor load s on a dense inner leaf, 00
using insulat ion in the cavity ;' , 00
(b) car ry the floor load s on the outer leaf, its
...... ,.....,
specification unchan ged if appropriate, so makin g
the insulat ion independ ent of the structure.
to minimi se the effects of cold brid ging at the
When using a non-structural block for the inner floor/wall junction s.
leaf, co nside ratio n should be given to providing a
flexible jo int to prevent load s being transferred Th e externa l walls in Figure 12(b) may be subject
into it. to high lateral load s combined with on ly minim al
vertical load s. Such brick walls do not have a high
When the floor slab bear s o n a half-b rick outer resistance to bending perpendicular to the ir plan e.
leaf, it is prefera ble to ca rry it across to the Th e wall pa nels in the top sto rey a re most at risk,
outside face. If it is conside red necessar y to mask becau se they a re likely to be subject to the
the slab, this may be achieved with brick slips. grea test wind pre ssur e whilst the only
Details of types, fixings, etc, can be fou nd in compensating precomp ression is the vertical
modern text book s on build ing co nstruction. A loadin g from the roof a nd the wall' s own weight.
typical detail is shown in Figure 22. If the floor If a lightw eight tim ber roof is used , there could be
slab bea rs on a one brick or thicker wall, the wind uplift forces, which would have to be
floor slab ca n be masked by a course of bric ks, counteract ed by strap ping the roo f down to the
see Figure 23. walls. Th ere would then be no vertical
precompression in the top sto rey walls.
Engineers tend to prefer bricks rather than slips,
and to anch or them (and thu s restrain the outer Generally, thi s is not a significa nt problem with
leaf) to the slab by ancho r ties or steel angles, as loadbearing brickw ork - but it can be, if the
sho wn in Figure 24. brickwork is non-load bearing and is used mer ely
(and wastefully) as a cladding to a steel or
With current therm al requirement s, insulation concrete-fram ed structure. However, where
will usually be within the cavity, Ca re sho uld be load bearin g pan els do lack sufficient
taken, when carrying the floor on the out er leaf, precompression , the problem can be overcome by
LoadlwuriuK brick work crosswu ll com /ruction II
st rengt h of br ickw ork, and th at , within an yone
r;ij~=======-_--nJdlensioned
j.., -1onlUO
spanner
25 sto rey height, va ria t ions in brickwork strength
co uld be employed. Howe ver , a ny savi ngs in
material cos ts du e to the widesprea d va ria tio n
wo uld be swa llowed up by th e extra costs of
organising, so rt ing, sta cki ng, supervising, etc .

It is generally advisable to use a maximum of o nly


three mortar strengt hs: I :1:3 below dpc level a nd
in extremely high ly st resse d wo rk; 1:1 :6 (or 1:1:4)
for external a nd highl y stresse d wo rk; I :2: 9 for
internal work (ie, BS 5628 morta r designat ion s
(i), (iii) an d (iv) respective ly).

QT1 It is d ifficult for ad ministrative o r supervisory


post-tenaklnlng pnnclpte In top storey of multHtorey ttrueture staff to check the stre ngt h of th e br icks a nd the
mo rtar mix by sight. Reducing th e cement
po st-tensioning the wall (Figure 25). The co nte nt of th e mortar o nly pr oduces a minimal
relatively sma ll diameter rods can be ancho red savi ng in the cost pe r m ' of the ma son ry. Every
int o the floor slab below, at regular, designed effort should be mad e to keep the walls of a
centres, an d ext end up the wall panel through the constant thick ness throughout their height. It
ca vity, where the y sho uld be provided with so me sho uld be kept in mind that a slende r, highl y
form of corrosion protection , preferably a stresse d wall is usuall y cheaper th an a th ick wall
pr oprieta ry tape. The rod s a re anchored again carrying a low stress. Brickwork stre ngths sho uld
at the head of th e wall pan el, possibly o nto a gene rally be un iform througho ut a nyo ne sto rey,
concrete ring beam, roof slab o r pad ston e, and cha nges in st re ngth sho uld be lim ited to
through a steel bea ring plate. By mean s of nuts app roxi ma tely eve ry three sto reys.
on their thread ed end s, th e rod s can be ten sion ed
to a de signed value, using a simple torque No te tha t a top sto rey wall , due to its sma ll
wre nch, with du e a llowa nces be ing mad e for the pre-loa d, may have excess ive flexural tensile
va rio us forms of losses. In th is way, the stress resul ting fro m wind forces, a nd may
previously ina deq uate preco mpression can be req uire specific br ick an d morta r st rengt hs to
increased to assis t the wall's sta bility. cope with this.

Concrete roof slab/loadbearing wall connection M ovement joints


Whilst it is good prac tice, a nd structurally On lon g crosswall st ructures, it is esse ntia l to
ben eficial, to cast floo r slabs o nto t he wall s, it is insert movem ent joi nts to counter th e effects of
inadv isable to cas t the roof sla b d irectly on the thermal a nd moisture movem ents. They a re also
top of the upper storey wal l. T he roof slab will advisable on str uctures liabl e to und er go excess ive
tend to expand an d contract with temperature differential settleme nt and mining subs ide nce.
va ria tions, and if it is restrained by the slab/wall Movement joints sho uld also be used to br ea k up
connection, either it or the wall will crack. Land T plan shapes, an d o ther simi lar build ing

In o rder to reduce this effect, the roof slab should 26 - - - - -: . -_ _ ooncrete roof
be separated from the supporting wall. An

~
sIab
effective separation joint can be achieved by
- - - , - - sIip plane
inse rting two layers of dpc (see Figure 26) or a (2 1aye<s'" dpc )
proprieta ry jointing material. It is essen tial that
the joint is flat , otherwise a slip plane will not be
formed.

Choice of brick and mortar strengths 27 .....",

Us ually, the bott om sto rey ma son ry will be the


out~ leaf
most highl y stressed. The stress dimini shes at
eac h sto rey height , a nd th e to p sto rey is usuall y U M W --'h'
the most lightl y st ressed .
oom~~i::(
metener _
Inevitably, within anyone sto rey height , some
wall s will be more heavily stressed than others.
For example in, say, a six-sto rey hostel block , th e
crosswalls ma y be 102.5 mm thick and the wall s
surroundi ng the sta ircase may, fo r fire protection
W;.- double
crosswalls

pu rp oses, be 215 mm thick whil st o nly carryi ng


th e same loa d as the crosswalls. Thus, it follows ?
»
22
»
22
;;
2?
Jffl
21· a
22
22
22
V
22
d
?
gap throug h
fIootslab

th at every storey heigh t could be of a d ifferent


12
configurations, when they are sensitive to leaving out bricks when bu ilding the wall. If the
movement. A typical meth od of achieving this , in openings ar e large , or could cau se over-stressing
crosswall structures, is shown in Figure 27. or undesirable stress concent rati on in the
surro unding masonry, reinforcement can be laid
Services, finishes, etc, which have to cros s the in the bed joints ab ove the openings - and
mo vement gap should be pr ovided with flexible a round , if necessar y - to distribute the stress.
conn ections, as in concrete or steel-framed Detailed dr awings of service holes and cha ses
structures. The spacing of movement joints mu st should be given to the contract or before the
relate to their function, and there are no rigid commencement of building opera tions. A
rules applicable to the dete rmination of spacing. typi cal builders-wor k dr awing is shown in
For example, to provide for moi sture and thermal Figure 28.
mo vement of the masonry, 12 m spacing of
control joints is usually adequate for clay Chases sho uld be sawn out to the depth agreed by
brickwork, wherea s much closer spacing, say the structural designer, and not be hacked out
5 m or 6 m, is necessary for calcium silicate by hammer and chisel except in special cases.
brickwork. Further advice is given in CP 121. Horizontal or dia gonal chases are rar ely
Settlement a nd mining movement joint cent res permi ssible in highly-stressed zones, since they
can only be assessed from a con siderati on of the tend to redu ce the effective cross-sectional a rea
relevant sub- soil and mining information. and increa se the buckling tendency of the wall.
Nor ar e vert ical cha ses usually permi ssible in
Provision for services half-brick thick walls ( 102.5 mm ) without careful
Inevitably , pipes for hot and cold water supply, design check s, since they can induce vertical
conduits for electrical cables, a ir-co nditioning splitt ing in the masonry.
ducts, etc, have to pass through load bearing brick
walls. The openings or holes for these services Holes for vertical service run s th rough floor slabs
mu st always be pre-plann ed. Services engineers form a very useful site aid in sett ing out a nd
are accusto med to ind iscriminate breaking out checking the vertical alignment of walls. Vertical
ofla rge holes and cutting cha ses in relat ively ducts can easily be formed by making min or
th ick walls of tradition al br ickwork con struction, adjustments to the wall layouts (see Figure 29).
when upgrading or changing the services in
existing bu ilding s. The y do not always appreciate Vertical alignment of loadbearing walls
that ad hoc alterations cannot be permitted in Whilst engineers a nd architects have long
modern , slender, highly stressed walls. Holes a nd accepted the need for column grid layouts, and
chases sho uld not be cut without the prior are well aware of the need to line-up column s
approva l of the structural designer. from foundation s to roof (ie, co lumn position s
sho uld , where possible, remain co nsta nt), they
Pre-formed openings can easily be arranged by do not, at first, readily accept the same discipline

28 111
1I d
1I 17'
1I 1-
external
cav ity wall 1I 25mm wide x 10 mm deep
chase f()( conduit
1I 11 '/

11 1I :f
75 mmT r:: openirlQ for

'~'"--]a~
400mm ~ light SWItch
l 00mm

l00 mm 1200 mm 11
opening for
sevcee
H
T75 mm
11
1I A :""1 75mm Ih'

1I ~
mm ~
29

V 2<

holes inslab
); 22 2 2 ;; & '

corridor
« 22 " 22 U~~::Z::=22= 22 ?2 ;

timber

~~i~
for se rvices- - - ---j cover
2< « «
" " " " U

service
L . - -- - - duct

Loadbcaring brick work crosswall construction 13


. in brickwork structures - no doubt becau se they
have been used to placing non-Ioadbear ing walls
30
w .
orpartition s a nywhere. ~
No n-Ioadbearing partitio ns can still be placed l/ Ioadbearingwen Ioon'ng
compression liange o'
pra ctically anywhere in a loadbearing brickwo rk W composite mason<y
fra me. Nevertheless, as with steel or concrete h beam
co lumns. it is desirabl e that the load bea ring
wa lls are lined up. Th ey can , of course, be moved
r oo o I shallowrc 100tong
forming tension flange

out of line - but this may mean expensive and ",Ie


complex beam an d bea m-sup port layouts. T his
facto r, more than any ot her, has tended to
militate agai nst the use ofl oadbea ring brickwork, L.,
especially in situations where the ground floor
layout differs from the upper floors. For example.
31
in a hot el bedroo m block, the gro und floor may
requ ire lar ge open spaces for restau rant, receptio n
]-- - - wi"""'"
are as, etc. Th e co nflicting needs of the ground ~-- bands of brickwofX of
differentcolourbricks
floor a nd the upper floors ca n easily be reconciled and mortar Of variation
in bonding
by pod ium constructio n (see lat er).

Th e a uthors' experience has shown that designers


qu ickly adapt to the need for planning discipline,
a nd welcome the benefits of repetiti on of floor , -- - - - windows
layouts, windows, doors and other furniture ,
service run s, finishes, etc, with the accompanying
savings in cost and erection time, and the
simplicity of con struction.
crossweus

Brickwork structures can accommodate a wide


range offunctional requ irements. It is simply a external walls alternate bays
question of choosing the form best suited to the steppedback
functi on .

Foundations
The nar rowest strip foot ing that can be
conveniently du g by a n exca vator usually result s
in a founda tio n area such that the soil con tac t
pressur es a re low. For example, a nine-sto rey
hostel block with 102.5 mm crosswalls, founded
on a 600 mm wide concrete strip footi ng, would
have a contac t press ure of only ab out 325 kN /m' .
When the ground bea ring cap acity is so low that
piling is necessar y, the wall itself ca n be treate d
as the compression flange of a composite
reinforced concrete/masonry grou nd bea m, with
attendant savings in founda tio n costs (see
Figure 30). It sho uld be not ed , however , that the crosswans pm;eeted
beyond face 10
use of a wall as a composi te beam may part ially 'express the structure',
limit its ada ptability sho uld it become necessar y
to cha nge the str ucture at a later dat e.

Becau se bric k walls a re pliant, compar ed to


structural steel or rc frame s, they a re particularly
economical on sites subject to minin g or other
subsidence. Reinforcing the lower and upper plans
bed joints at each storey height results in a wall L..- ...J
that is highly resistant to differential settlement,
32

rmrn mr
typical crosswall building plan showing key activities
although care must be tak en to ensure full and
adequat e cover to the reinforcement. o.O O·'·'O,D
O.aoo: o::1' "
o·0:"._00·"
" ''oQ
0
Flexibility ) 0,.., o C . ' ~ steel fixe r
ccncretor fixing shurterer brick layer
Man y designers think that brickwork structures castingslabs reinlorcement erecti~ building walls
are inflexible - that it is difficult to alter them , I 2 3 tormwo

once the y ar e buil t. Th is is not so. Fo r example,
14
one of the authors' most interesting change-of-use 33
projects was the successful conversion of a j crosswans
Victorian ice-cream factory into an old people 's
home .

The spate of conversion , alteration and - f------ I - - f------ ----


r--
rehabilitation of brickwork structures in the '70s
- f------ I - - f------
gave ma sonry designer s the opportunity to prove
that it is often easier to alter a brickwork concrete deck
structure th an a steel or concrete struct ure. It is
often easier to dem olish a brick wall than a steel
or concrete column . And it is far simpler to form :- r- f- f- ~ !-...
,/ podium
an opening in a brick wall than in a reinforced V
concrete wall. G enerally, it is cheaper to bond in,
thicken, br ace, or otherwise strengthen a brick
wall than a steel column. It is often easier and 34

===:JI~
reinfor cement
quicker to repair an overloaded brick wall or arch
_ __ _ flexible joint
than th e equivalent in steel or concrete.

Although alterations to modern, highl y-stre ssed,


~ -- ----d-eb:=
rc deck from wall
load bearing brickwork structures require careful
attenti on , it is onl y on rar e occasions, when
wholesale altera tions are required for a radical
change of use, that br ickwork struct ures become podium with steel, concrete or brickwork columns
inflexible. suppo rting a concrete deck, as shown in Figure 33.
Depending on the load from the cro sswalls, th e
Elevational treatment of cross wall structures deck can be of plat e or waffle slab con struction ,
Long side walls pierced by hole-in-the-wall diagrid or T-beam . Th e deflection of the deck
wind ows can be visually dull. There a re many und er the cro sswalls sho uld be a ssessed, even
ways of overcoming this - for example by using th ough clay brickwork oft en has an inherent
decor ative brickwork a nd/or modelling the flexibility that enables it to adj ust to the deflect ion
elevation (see Figur e 31 ). of a concrete beam.

Speed of erection Partitions


Th e speed of con struction of crosswall buildin g Where non-l oad bearing brick partition s are built
is very impressive, particularly if the plan form par allel to lon g span floor slabs, particularly
a nd size of th e str ucture allow it to be con stru cted where prestr essed concrete floor s are empl oyed,
in qu arters, using the sequential meth od whereby th e deflection of th e floor ma y be of such
the tr ade s can follow each ot her aro und the magnitude as to ca use crac king in th e ma sonry.
build ing fro m one quarter to the next a s the y Thi s is generally ca used by the brickwork
complete th eir section of the work (see Figure 32). atte mpting to a rch ove r th e deflected floor - which
problem can be minimi sed by the introdu ction of
Fr om the stages indicat ed in the diagram , the a dp c membrane beneath th e par titi on , a nd the
bri cklayer s on co mpletion of Bay 4 would move addition of bed joint reinforcement in lower
up to th e next floor and sta rt work in Bay I. The co urses, as indicated in Figu re 34.
other trad es, ie, shutte rers, steel fixers a nd
concreto rs, would all move on one bay - the References
construction continuing to spira l up the building, (I) Structural Masonry Designers' Manual,
keepin g all trades co nsta ntly empl oyed. Curtin, Shaw, Beck & Bray, Gran ada Publi shing
Technical Division , 1982.
Podium construction (2) BS 5628: Part I : 1978: The structural use of
A common objection to the use of cross wall masonry , British Standard s Institution .
co nstruction is that th e gro und floor planning (3) CP 121: Part I: 1973. Walling: Brick and block
requi rement s often demand more open space than masonry, British Standards Institution .
crosswalls permit. Typical examples a re reception (4) Design of brick diaphragm walls, Curtin, Shaw,
are a s and restaurants in hotel s, car parking for Beck & Bray, Brick Development Associati on ,
flat s, recreation areas and sho ps in st udent 1979, revised ed. 1982.
hostels. But the floors abov e, with regular wall (5) Design of brick lin walls in tall single-storey
layouts, are ideal for crosswall con struction . buildings, Curtin, Shaw, Beck & Bray , Brick
Development Associ ati on , 1980.
Frequently, there is no need to frame the whole
structure, merely becau se of the ground floor
planning requirements. A different structural
form can be used for the ground storey, and a
common solution to the problem is to form a
L Olll /f" 'lI l'illg In-:j(:k worl: crosswoll construction 15
Above WOMEN'S HALL OF RESIDENCE ,
BANGOR UNIVERSITY
By the time this design was started (1960) and following
the experience at St John Rigby (page 2) and
subsequent loadbearing brickwork schools , the
designers were sufficiently experienced in structural
brickwork design to be confident that 9in and 6in
(Calculon) walls were unnecessa rily thick, and that
4tin thick walls would be adequate.

However, no test data on such slender crosswalls was


available. Calculations and design assumptions were
checked and re-checked , and compression tests
ca rried out by Professor A. W. Hendry on storey-height
panels at Liverpool University confirmed expectations.
Later, after completion of the building , a full -scale
model of the structure was built and tested by
Professor Hendry at Edinburgh University.

A major problem at the start of the cont rac t was in


achieving the standa rd of brickwork specified . Neither
the site agent nor the clerk of works could convince
the ope ratives of the more exacting standards of
brickwork required . Finally W. G. Curtin tried with
slides of research work calculations, specification
clauses, and a cardboard model which showed how
the structur e woul d wo rk. The message got throu gh .
The standar d of work shot up, and the turnover ot
labour ceased. So good was the standard of
brickla ying, that the client agr eed to the erection of a
panel of brickwor k carrying the initials ot the
bricklayers.

Arch itects Colwyn Foulkes & Partners


Structural engineers W. G. Curtin & Partners

16
Above LINNET LANE
SHELTERED HOUSING, LIVERPOOL
A single block of 32 flats. visually divided by a recess
on the fron t elevation to give the appearance of two
do mestically-scaled units. Half-brick and one-brick
thick crosswatls support precast concrete floors . with
local insitu areas giving support to cantilevered
balconies. Reinforced concrete footings on
vibro -compacted sub-strata.
Architects Build ing Design Group
Structural enginee rs W. G. Curtin & Partners

Right CHRISTOPHER GRANGE BLIND


INSTITUTE , WEST DERBY , LIVERPOOL
An early use of podium cons truction. Ground floor is
an open plan rc framed a rea providing reception,
meeting . occupational therapy areas. chapel . etc.
There was no need to carry the frame through to the
bedroom and flat block over - as is usually done .
Loa dbea ring brick crosswalls built ott the rc podiu m
provided a much more econo mica l solution.
Traditional strip and pad foundations.
Arch itects Roy Cro ft & Partners
Structural engineers W. G. Curtin & Part ners.

Left ST PETER'S COURT SHELTERED


HOUSING, ROCK FERRY
An extensive thr ee-storey scheme for Merseyside
Improved Housing Associa tion . Structure incorporat es
half-brick and one-brick thick crosswalls, short span
preca st co ncrete floors, and rc stai rcases.
Fou ndations incorp orate vibro -co mpacted g round in
association with reinforced strip footings.
Arch itects Merseyside Improved Housing Architec ts
Struc tura l engineers W. G. Curtin & Partners

l.oadbraring "rieJ.. work cross wall construction 17


sectton

Above MULBERRY COURT ,


OXFORD STREET , LIVERPOOL
Requirements were for a development providing
premises for the Midland and National Westminster
banks and three shop units, premises fo r the Joint
Service Units, and residential accommodation for
students in such a form as to be suitable for use by
either undergraduates, postgraduates, married
students and staff.
The site lies between buildings diverse in form and
character, and thus posed difficult problems in the
creation of a good visual relationship between the new
buildings and their existing neig hbours . To deal with
the problem of scale, the two lower storeys were
visually combined into one thus helping to achieve a
transition from the large scale of Mount Pleasant on
one side and the smaller one of the precinct on the
other .
The structural form is podium construction with a
conc rete frame up to first floor level and loadbearing
brickwork above. Allowance was made for differen tial
movement between the grou nd floor framed structure
and the brick struc ture by dividing the residentia l
block into units and providing movemen t joints across
the building.
Architects Manning Clamp & Partners
Struc tural engin eers W. G. Curtin & Partners

18
Left and above SUB-DIVISION POLICE
HEADQUARTERS , ELLESMERE PORT
Loadbearing brick columns (some backed by internal
crosswalts) with rc edge beam s spanning between.
Half-brick and one -bric k thick internal crosswa lls.
Acco m mo da tion incorporat es large open area s.
A simila r sized steel-tramed structu re was sta rted
nearby at the same time. By the time the steel trame
ha d been encased in conc rete, the police were moving
into their load bearing brick structu re.
Architects Paterson Macaulay & Owens
Struc tural engineers W. G. Curtin & Partners
Below and left below BAPTIST MEN'S
MOVEMENT SHELTERED
ACCOMMODATION , PRINCES AVENUE,
LIVERPOOL
A five- and four-storey block with a mansard roof .
built in a conse rvation area and desig ned to blend
with the adjacent properties. lnsitu concrete floors
ca rried on load bea ring brick crosswalls. Can tileve red
window details. Provisions for vertica l expa nsion
incorporated in externa l wa lls. Reinforced footings on
vibro-co mpac ted fill to old chu rch basemen t.
Arch itects David Parry, OUigg in & Gee Assoc iates
Structura l engineers W. G. Curtin & Partners

second floof plan

Lllat/hearing hl'icJ,. l\'o,.J.. crosswoll cvnstrnction 19


D D
ground 'Ioor plan

Left and above BLAIR COURT,


BIRKENHEAD
A six-storey block of flats at the edge of Birkenhead
Park for Merseyside Improved Housing Associa tion.
Built on a sloping site, the front entrance is at ground
level, with a basement opening out to a lower level at
the rear of the building. Loadbear ing half-brick and
one-brick thick crosswalls support insitu rc fioors .
Common room in the basemen t area incorpora tes rc
frames . Mansard roof at top level to conform to
adjacent bUilding heigh ts.
Architects Paterson Macaulay & Owens
Structural engineers W. G. Curtin & Partners

Above and right GAMBIER TERRACE, restored facade to it. Scheme co mp rises a four- and
LIVERPOOL six-storey block of sheltered housing , with serni-insitu
Part of a fine Rege"cy terrace overlooking the fioors spanning onto loadbearing brick crosswatls.
Anglican cathed ral. Unfortunately, the building was Original facade was temporarily propped - final
crumbling and pract ically beyond repair . It was restraint being provided by the six-storey element.
decided to preserve the facade, demolish the rest of Archifects David Parry, Quiggin & Gee Associates
the building, erect a new structure and pin the Structural engi neers W. G. Curtin & Partners

20
DESIGN EXAMPLE 1

HOST EL BUILDING 9-STOREYS HIGH


Building geometry (see Figures 34 & 35)
Overall heig ht = 24.30 m
Overall length = 32.00 m
Overall width = 14.00 m
Floor to floor heigh t = 2.70 m
Span of rc floor s = 4.00 m ( 150 mm thi ck in-sit u co ncrete).
Assum e : ma so n ry den sity = 19.ookN/m '
co ncre te density = 24.00 kN /m '

Roof a nd floor slabs are 150 mm thick in-situ reinforced concrete. Exte rnal faci ng br icks selected ha ve
a wa te r absorptio n of 7 %, a nd a co mpressive strength of 35 N/m m '. Designati on (iii) morta r ( I :1 :6)
will be used exte rn ally th rou ghou t. Extensive q uality co ntrol and testin g of material s will be ca rried
o ut, a nd supervisio n of the reputabl e con tracto r will be maintained a t a ll times .

Characteristic loads
Roof: dead loa d, G•• 150 mm slab = 3.60
1.00
screed to falls , say = .:..:..=,.::-..,...,...,.;--:
4.60 kN/m '
imposed loa d, Q. , (no direct acce ss) 0.75 kN /m '
Floors: dead load , G •• 150 mm slab = 3.60
partitio ns = 0.90
services. etc = 0.20
finishes, etc = 1.30
7
6.7
oo~k:-:NC:-/:m
--:'
im posed load , Q. , (bedroo ms) 2.00 kN /m '
Wind loading: is ass umed to have been ca lculated on th e ba sis of CP 3: Chapter V : Part 2 : 1972, to
give a maxim um character istic wind pre ssure on the walls of + 0.90 kN/m ' , an d a maximu m gro ss
characteri stic wind up lift o n the flat roof of + 1.25 k N/m ' .

Desig n of typical internal crosswall


Loading
Characteristic Characteristic Imposed
dead loads imposed load less
floor s & roof kNfm loa d reduct ions kNfm
roof
8th
(4 x 4.6)
18.4 + (4 x 6.0)
18.4
42.4
(4 x 0.75)
3 + (4 x 2.0)
-
-
3.0
11.0
0%
10 %
3.00
9.90
7th 42.4 + 24.0 66.4 II + 8 = 19.0 20% 15.20
6th 66.4 + 24.0 90.4 19 + 8 - 27.0 30% 18.90
5th 90.4 + 24.0 114.4 27 + 8 = 35.0 40 % 21.00
4th 114.4 + 24.0 138.4 35 + 8 - 43.0 40 % 25.80
3rd 138.4 + 24.0 162.4 43 + 8 - 51.0 40 % 30.60
2nd 162.4 + 24.0 186.4 51 + 8 = 59.0 40% 35.40
1st 186.4 + 24.0 210.4 59 + 8 - 67.0 40% 40.20
From pr eviou s experience it is expected that a 102.5 mm thi ck wall will be adequate for the full height
Loadbearing brickwork crass wall construction 21
of the int ern al crosswalls. Less expe rienced designers a re referred to Structural Ma sonry Designers'
Manual' for guidance o n obta ining tr ial wall sections, and for table s of design loads for solid walls.
The mas onry strengths required will be ca lculated at the fo ur levels marked with an asteri sk in
Figure 35 (ie, lowest, fourth and seventh sto reys).

typical floor ~an 35


32 0 ~
5.0 -r- 4.0- r-- 4 _0~ 4.0 -r- 4.O.,.. 4 .0~ 4.0 -,.3.0

~ ~ i IT±Tl~]
6 .2S E6 11-1T11:1_
14 .0

root

81h

7th

6th

51h

41h 2.70 24.30

3rd

2nd

lsi 2 .70
A' ground 2.70
t....:J .. -

typical section

The design vertical strength of the internal crosswalls will be assessed initially and, for thi s, th e loading
combination of dead plus imp osed will be con sidered :
hence , y, = 0.9 G, or 1.4 G ,
and = 1.6 Ok(BS 5628, clau se 22).

Design /oads(inc/uding own weight ofmasonry}


At level A :
dead load , floors & roof = 210.4 x 1.4 = 294.56
imposed load = 40.2 x 1.6 = 64.32
dead load ma sonry = 0.1025 x 19 x 24.3 x 1.4 = 66.25
total n; = 425. 13 kN/m
At level B:
dead load , floor s & roof = 138.4 x 1.4 = 193.76
imposed load = 25.8 x 1.6 = 41.28
dead load ma sonry = 0.1025 x 19 x 16.2 x 1.4 = 44.17
tot al nw = 279.2 1 kN /m
At level C :
dead load, floor s & roof = 66.4 x 1.4 92.96
impo sed load = 15.2 x 1.6 24.32
dead load masonry = 0.1025 x 19 x 8.1' x 1.4 22.08
total n; = 139.36 kN /m

Capacity reduction/actor
The in-situ con crete floor slab can be assumed to provid e enhanced resistance to lat eral movement.
Hence, the effective height of the wall may be tak en as 0.75 times the clear height (BS 5628, clau se
28.3.1.1).
Therefore ,
effective height = (2.70 - 0. 15)0.75 = 1.91 m
and
. h, 1.91
slenderness rauo = t:" = 0.1025 = 18.6
22
Th e p ropo rt ion of dead load to imposed load in this exa mple will en sure th at th e resultant ecce nt ricity ,
of th e loadin g syste m will be within 0.05t, an d therefore will no t influence th e capacit y reduction facto r.
This can be ver ified by a simple calcula tio n of th e th eoreti cal posi tio n of th e res ulta nt load , ba sed o n the
ass um ptio ns give n in BS 5628 , clau se 3 1.

The dead an d imposed load s a bove th e sla b level und er co nsiderat io n may be tak en as axia l, and th e
alternate spa ns loaded sit uatio n will be ana lysed . Thus, the load ing a rra nge me nt show n in Figure 36
is a pp ropriate to th e max imum possible ecce ntr icity of load.

calculation of eccentricity of load


36
axial /oad from walls
and floors over O,9G,

dead only
(O,9G,)

I' - 5 1 ·'I- 51· I'


masonry specifications shown on typical sec tion

C heck th e condition at level A .


R 1 = (1.4 x 6 x 2) + (1.6 x 2 x 2)
= 16.8 + 6.4 = 23.2 k N jrn
R 2 = (0.9 x 6 x 2) = 10.80 k N/m .
M inim um load in wa ll a bove I st floo r slab
= 0.9 (186.4 -+- 0. 1025 x 19 x 2 1.6)
= 205.62 kN /m .
Result ant positi on fro m left ha nd face of wa ll
(205.62 x 0.05 1) + (23.2 x 0.017) + (10.8 x 0.0 85)
205 .62 + 23.2 + 10.8
= 0.0493 m .
Th erefor e, ecce ntrici ty fr om <I.. at to p of wa ll
= 0.05 1 - 0.0493 = 0.0017 m
ex = 0.0 171. ie, less tha n 0.051.
C heck the co nd itio n at level C.
R 1 = (1.4 x 6.0 x 2) + ( 1.6 x 2.0 x 2)
= 16.8 + 6.4 = 23.2 k N jrn
R 2 = (0.9 x 6 x 2) = 10.80 k N jrn.
M inimu m load in wa ll a bove 7th floor slab
= 0.9(66 .4 + 0. 1025 x 19 x 5.4)
= 69.22 k N rrn.
Resultant po sition fro m left hand face of wall
(69.22 x 0.051) + (23.2 x 0.0 17) + (10.8 x 0.08 5)
69.22 + 23.2 + J 0.8
= 0.0 469 m.
T herefo re, ecce ntricity fr om <I.. at top of wall
= 0.05 1 - 0.0469 = 0.004 1
ex = 0.004 1t, ie, less tha n 0.051.
Then , at a ll levels up to level C :
wit h slende rness ra tio = 18.6
a nd ex = 0 to 0.05t,
fro m BS 5628 , ta ble 7, ~ = 0.749
(A bove level C, ass ume a n eccentricity of 0. 11.)

Partial safety f actorf or material streng th


F ro m BS 5628 , clau se 27, both ma nufactu ri ng and co nst ruction control can be cla ssed as 's pecia l' fo r
Loodbearini: bricl: work crosswall construct ion 23
37 R aJl loadbearing walls

8 bricks with a compressive


extemal lacing 7 strength of 20 N/ mm' sel
bfid<wor1( to have in designation (iii) mortar
a comp<essove 6
s.engthof 5
35 Nfrrvn2 and bncks with a compressive
ewete- 4 strength of 27.5 N/mm' set
in a designation (ii) mortar
~C~
3
a designation 2 bricks with a compressive
(iii) mortar 1 or
strength SON/rrm' set
G in a designation (iii) mortar

aa ~anngwaJIs lO have awaler absorption of 7%to 12%

the condition s de scribed at the beginning of th is de sign example. Thus. from BS 5628. Table 4. Ym = 2.5.

Th is value mu st be as sessed by the de signer. based up o n the co nditio ns prevailing. for each ind ividu al project.

Masonry strengths r~quiud


From BS 5628. clause 32.2.1 :
de sign vertica l load resistance = /3tf. .. n;
Ym
Therefore. characteristic strengt h of mas on ry required. f••
O. Ym
= Jjt.
For narrow brick walls. BS 5628 permits a stress increase factor of 1.15 (see BS 5628. clause 23.1.2).
Therefore. characteristic strength of ma sonry required. f••
n.,¥m
= 1.15/31"
At level A :
characteristic st rength of masonry req uired, f••
425.13 x 2.5 x 10'
1.15 x 0.749 x 102.5 x 1000
= 12.04 N/mm '.
Use bricks with a compressive strength of 50 N/mm '. set in a de signation (ii) mortar.
At level B:
characteristic strength of ma sonry required. f••
279.21 x 2.5 x 10'
""' x:":"::0'::.7=47:9;-:'-x=7I0"'2::':.~
= 71'.1-::5-' 5 :":x'---;I"'OOO
=
= 7.9 1 N/mm ' .
Use bricks with a co mpressive strength of 27.5 N/ mm ' . set in a de signation (ii) mortar.
At level C:
characteristic st rength of ma sonry required . f••
139.36 x 2.5 x 10'
= 71.'""'1-::5-x:"::":'0'.7;;
:: 47:9;-:'-
x=7I0"'2::'."5-'
: x--;I"' OOO=
= 3.95 N/mm ' .
Use bricks with a compressive str ength of 10 Njmrn ", set in a designation (iii) mortar.

It ma y be noted that the majority of bricks classified as 'commo ns' have a compressive strength of at
least 20 N jrnm ", although some ca lcium silicate bricks can be oflower st rengt h. In practice. th erefor e. it may
be considered that the req uired compressive strengt h of 10 N/mm ' is an unreason ably low spec ifica tio n.

Check characterist ic wall strength above level C :


with slenderness ratio = 18.6
and e, = 0.1t.
from BS 5628. Table 7./3 = 0.682.
Design loads at level D :
dead load. floors & roof = 42.4 x 1.4 = 59.36
imposed load = I I.Ox I.6 = 17.6
dead load ma sonry = 0.1025 x 19 x 5.4 x 1.4 = 14.72
91.68
Characteristic strength of masonry required. f••
91.68 x 2.5 x 10'
= '71'".\-:
"' 5,.....:.
x-'0=-.'=
68"'2=--x::.;..;;.10
"'2"'.-=5-'x----:I-=O=OO
= 2.85 N /mm '.
Therefore. brick and mortar strength specified for level C is adeq uate. The masonry specificatio n.
reducing in the upper sto reys. is shown in Figure 37.
24
37 R aJl loadbearing walls

8 bricks with a compressive


extemal lacing 7 strength of 20 N/ mm' sel
bfid<wor1( to have in designation (iii) mortar
a comp<essove 6
s.engthof 5
35 Nfrrvn2 and bncks with a compressive
ewete- 4 strength of 27.5 N/mm' set
in a designation (ii) mortar
~C~
3
a designation 2 bricks with a compressive
(iii) mortar 1 or
strength SON/rrm' set
G in a designation (iii) mortar

aa ~anngwaJIs lO have awaler absorption of 7%to 12%

the condition s de scribed at the beginning of th is de sign example. Thus. from BS 5628. Table 4. Ym = 2.5.

Th is value mu st be as sessed by the de signer. based up o n the co nditio ns prevailing. for each ind ividu al project.

Masonry strengths r~quiud


From BS 5628. clause 32.2.1 :
de sign vertica l load resistance = /3tf. .. n;
Ym
Therefore. characteristic strengt h of mas on ry required. f••
O. Ym
= Jjt.
For narrow brick walls. BS 5628 permits a stress increase factor of 1.15 (see BS 5628. clause 23.1.2).
Therefore. characteristic strength of ma sonry required. f••
n.,¥m
= 1.15/31"
At level A :
characteristic st rength of masonry req uired, f••
425.13 x 2.5 x 10'
1.15 x 0.749 x 102.5 x 1000
= 12.04 N/mm '.
Use bricks with a compressive strength of 50 N/mm '. set in a de signation (ii) mortar.
At level B:
characteristic strength of ma sonry required. f••
279.21 x 2.5 x 10'
""' x:":"::0'::.7=47:9;-:'-x=7I0"'2::':.~
= 71'.1-::5-' 5 :":x'---;I"'OOO
=
= 7.9 1 N/mm ' .
Use bricks with a co mpressive strength of 27.5 N/ mm ' . set in a de signation (ii) mortar.
At level C:
characteristic st rength of ma sonry required . f••
139.36 x 2.5 x 10'
= 71.'""'1-::5-x:"::":'0'.7;;
:: 47:9;-:'-
x=7I0"'2::'."5-'
: x--;I"' OOO=
= 3.95 N/mm ' .
Use bricks with a compressive str ength of 10 Njmrn ", set in a designation (iii) mortar.

It ma y be noted that the majority of bricks classified as 'commo ns' have a compressive strength of at
least 20 N jrnm ", although some ca lcium silicate bricks can be oflower st rengt h. In practice. th erefor e. it may
be considered that the req uired compressive strengt h of 10 N/mm ' is an unreason ably low spec ifica tio n.

Check characterist ic wall strength above level C :


with slenderness ratio = 18.6
and e, = 0.1t.
from BS 5628. Table 7./3 = 0.682.
Design loads at level D :
dead load. floors & roof = 42.4 x 1.4 = 59.36
imposed load = I I.Ox I.6 = 17.6
dead load ma sonry = 0.1025 x 19 x 5.4 x 1.4 = 14.72
91.68
Characteristic strength of masonry required. f••
91.68 x 2.5 x 10'
= '71'".\-:
"' 5,.....:.
x-'0=-.'=
68"'2=--x::.;..;;.10
"'2"'.-=5-'x----:I-=O=OO
= 2.85 N /mm '.
Therefore. brick and mortar strength specified for level C is adeq uate. The masonry specificatio n.
reducing in the upper sto reys. is shown in Figure 37.
24
Design of external cavity wall for wind
The critical design case will occur on the top sto rey at the gab le, where the minimum compression on
the wall is further reduced du e to wind uplift pressur es on the roof slab. Walls subject to high lateral
load ing, a nd low compress ive load , a re more likely to fail du e to flexural tensile stresses, rather than
axial compressive stress or buckling.
Consider roofuplift
minimum roof dead load = 0.9 x 4.6 = 4. 14 kN /m '
maximum wind up lift o n roo f = 1.4 x 1.25 = 1.75 kN/m '
nett roof dead load (afte r uplift) = 4.14 x 1.75 = 2.39 kN /m '
nett roof dead load on wall = 2.39 x 2 = 4.78 kN jm
Design method
BS 5628 ac knowledges that there is not a precise design method for such walls, but suggests two
approxima te method s:
(a) designing as a wall pa nel supported on a num ber of side s;
or,
(b) designing as an a rch spanning between suppo rts.

Rega rd ing the second option, for the wa ll under con siderati on there is insufficient dead load ava ilable
to resist a n arch thrust in the vertica l plane. In an y case, the autho rs co nsider that the op tio n of
designing as an a rch ca n be difficult to j ustify, an d should not generall y be used.

Tak ing the first option, BS 5628, clause 36.4.3, gives the flexura l strength of vertica lly loaded pane ls as:
h
-f • Z, were
k

1m
fk • is the characteristic flexura l strength.
1m is the pa rtia l safety factor for materials,
Z is the section modu lus.
No account is tak en of the con siderab le ass ista nce to this resista nce moment that is provided by the
vertical compressive loads.

T he authors con sider that the following design method, in which the applied bending moments a re
assessed fro m basic pr inciples an d the compre ssive load s in the brickwork are exp loited , provides a
safe and practica l design based on so und a nd reliable engineerin g principles.

Stability moment of resistance


C lause 36.5.3 of BS 5628 gives the design moment of resistance for free-standing walls as :
(f1m + gd )
k
• X Z,
in which the assistance provided by the axial co mpressive stress, gd, is exploited. However, this formula
is based on elastic an alysis, a nd is limited by the flexural tensile resistance which may, in fact, be zero
at the base of the wall if a felt dpc is present.

T he stability mom ent of resistance concept exploits the gravitati onal mass of the brickwork , plus any
nett roof loads, to generate a resistance momen t. Under lateral wind pressure loading, the wall will
tend to rota te at dpc level on its leeward face, a nd 'crack' at the same level on the windward face, as
indicated in Figure 38.

38

<J-- - - - - - --'--"""
I I '- w all rotat es
",ack -{ I f+. about this
al dpc 2 po int

Loatlhearillj! brick work cross wall construction 25


In limit state design, the previo us knife-edge concept of the poi nt of rota tion is replaced with a
rectan gular stressed a rea, in which th e minimum width of br ickwork , w., is st ressed to the ultimate to
produce th e maximum lever arm for th e ax ial load to generate the maximum stability mom ent of
resistance MR •. Th e ultim at e st ress applied to th is minimum width of brickwork is termed th e
'allowabl e flexural co mpressive st ress', P ub"
I.If. l3 . hich
P ubc = - - - , In W rc
Ym
1. 1 is the st ress increase factor to take acco unt of the flexural aspect of f.,
f. is the cha racteristic comp ressive stres s,
Ym is the pa rtial safety factor for materials,
13 is the capacity redu ction facto r which, owing to the restraint a vaila ble a t floor level, is taken as
1.0.

For this design example, the axia l load differs in each leaf of the cavity wall, and the total sta bility
moment of resista nce will be equ al to the sum of the sta bility moment s of resistance of the two leaves,
provided they are tied in accorda nce with th e provisions of BS 5628, clau se 36.4.5. This is con sidered
accept abl e, since the resistance moment is genera ted by the rota tion of th e lea ves a nd, once it has
reach ed its full value, does not reduce significantly th rou gh furthe r rotation.

Allowa ble flexural compressive st resses:


oute r Iea f , Pub< = 1.1 2.5 . desi
x 8.5 (35 N{10m' b n.c k s 10 esignau.on (...)
III mortar )

= 3.74N{mm ' ,
.
inner Iea f , P ub' = x 5.8 (20 N{10m' b ric
1.1 2.5 . k s 10
. desi . (iii)
esignatron III mortar)

= 2.552 N{mm ' .


Minimum axial load in leaves :
outer leaf = 0.9 x 19 x 0.1025 x 2.7
= 4.732 kN{m,
inner leaf = 4.78 + 4.732 (roof dead - roof uplift + ow brickwork)
= 9.512 kN{m.
Minimum width s of stress block s:
axial load,
w.
P ub<
4.732 x 10'
outer lea f, w.
3.74 x 1000
= 1.26 1010,
102.5 - 1.26
lever a rm
2
= 50.621010(see Figure 39),
9.512 x 10'
inner leaf, WI = 2.552 x 1000
= 3.72 1010,
102.5 - 3.72
lever a rm = 2
= 49.39 10m(see Figure 39).

outerleaf; inner leal; 39


102 .5
1, 102 5 "I

~. ~.
-n ---';74 Nlmm'

o
~ ::J2.552 Nlmm '

rJ l
SO.62 mm
' 26 mm

49.39 mm -
l 3 72mm

MR . a4 .732 x 0.05062 -0.24 kN.m MR. "'9 .512 x 0.04939 ..0.47 kN.m
total MA . .. 0 .24 + 0 .47 .. 0 .71 kN.m

stability rncMnt.nt or ,..Iatllnce

26
Stabilit y moments of resista nce :
outer leaf, MR. = 4.732 x 0.05062
= 0.24 kNm,
inner leaf, MR. = 9.512 x 0.04939
= 0.47 kNm,
total M R. = 0.24 + 0.47
= 0.71 kN m.

T his stability moment of resista nce is now co nsider ed to provide pa rtial fixi ty to the base of the wall span.
Design bending moment
Calculate position of maximum spa n moment by locating zero shear position:
y,W. h MR.
shear at roof pro p = - 2- - - h-
1.4 x 0.9 x 2.55 0.7 1
2 2.55
= 1.329 kN/m,
point of zero shea r from 1.329
roo f prop 1.4 x 0.9
= 1.055 m,
max imum wall moment = (1.329 x 1.055) - (1.4 x 0.9 x 1.055 'J
2
= 1.402 - 0.70 1
M ; = 0.70 1 kNm

It is considered that , if the stability moment of resistance at the base of the wall should exceed
y, ~ •..1:: - that of a propped cantilever - the a pplied moment should be limited to this value, and the

.
wall designed as a true proppe d ca nt,"Iever In
. whiICh t he maximum
. wa II moment wou Id be 9y,W.
128 h'
The bending moment diagra m for this example is show n in Figure 40.

40 <)- prop force 1.329 kN/ m

1.055 m

~---- maximu m wall


momen10 .701 kN .m

~ Slat>"ly momenl o,
resistance - 0.71 kN.m

des~n bending moment diegr.m

Check stres ses at level ofM w


The stresses at the level of the maximum wall moment, M , ; will be calculated using the formula
CY"m+ gd) Z, given in BS 5628, clau se 36.5.3.
Hence, design mome nt of resistance = ( f•• + gd) Z, where :
Ym
f.. is the characteristic fl exural strength (tensile),
Ym is the partial safety facto r for mat erials,
gd is the design vert ical dead load per unit a rea,
Z is the section modu lus of wall section.
For both leaves,
Z _ 1000 X 102.5'
- 6 = 1.751 x IO 'mm 3 •
For outer leaf,
gd = 0.9 x 19 x 1.055 = 0.018 N/mm '.
For inner leaf,
4.78
gd = O0. 18 + 102.5 = 0.0646 N/mm ' .

Loadbearing brick work crosswotl construction 27


As, at the level of M w , the two leaves deflect by the same amount and their stiffnesses are equal, the
bending moment at thi s level will be shared equally between them .
Hence , BM per leaf = 0.701 x 0.5
= 0.35kNm,
design M R of outer leaf
(7% water ab sorption brick s
in designation (iii) mortar) = (~:; + 0.018) 1.751 x 106
= 0.382kNm.
Thi s is satisfactory as it exceed s the applied bending moment of 0.35 kNm.

Now calculate the characteristic flexural strength required for the inner leaf brickwork :
0.35 x 10' = (~·.5 + 0.0646 ) 1.751 x 10' ,
0.35 x 10' )
required f.. = 2.5 ( 1.751 x 10' - 0.0646
= 0.338 N/mm '.

Then, from Table 3 ofBS 5628, the inner leaf bricks are required to have a water abso rption of between
7% an d 12%, and be set in a designation (iii) mortar. This compares with the require ment for 20N/mm '
bricks, set in a designation (iii) mortar, from the compressive strength part of the calculatio ns. The fina l
choice of bricks must balan ce these requ irements.

41
shear walla proyktlng0Yef'II1I a bility

O verall stabili ty
In line diagram form , Figure 41 shows the main walls which will provide overall sta bility to the
struct ure. The numbered walls provi de stiffness to the narrow axis, whilst the lett ered walls provide
stiffness to the longer axis of the bu ilding. The unmarked walls, although capable of offering some
resistance to the wind forces, are ignored to simplify the calculations.

Most of the walls, particularly the main crosswalls numbered 3 to 16 inclusive, intersect with ot her
walls to form T, L, and Z-shapes on plan - thu s providing extremely stiff sections to act as shear walls.
However, and again for simplicity of calculation , only the stra ight rectangular sections of these walls
will be considered as effectively resisting the lateral wind moments on the bui lding as a whole. If this
proved to be insufficient, a calculation based on the actual number and geometric sha pe of the shear
walls would be carried out, shari ng the wind load in accorda nce with the loaded co nditio n and shear
wall stiffness.

Relative stiffness ofshear walls


T he total wind moment acting on the building will be shared between the shea r walls resisting that
moment, in proportion to thei r stiffnesses and the load and spa n configurat ions. For simplicity, th is will
L'
be considere d as equating to ~ L '

Longitudinal walls (see Figure 41) :


wall letter length, L, L' No of wind moment share
(m) leaves L ' t :!:L '
B,K.N.P,Q 2.5 15.6 ( x6) 93.6 0.0093
C.D. S,T.U.V 3.5 42.9 (x 12) 514.8 0.0255
A,F.RtE 4.0 64.0 ( x 7) 448.0 0.038 1
G.H.J.L, M 5.0 125.0 ( x 5) 625.0 0.0743

1681.4
28
Lat itudinal walls (see Figure 41) :
wall number length, L, L' No ef wind moment share
(m ) leans L ' ! l: L '
1, 2,17 5.0 125.0 ( x 5) 625.0 0.034
3 to 16 inclusive 6.0 216.0 ( x 14) 3024.0 0.059

3649.0
Note th at in calculating th e relati ve stiffness, the externa l cavity walls (A, B, C, D, E, R, S, T, U, V,
I , 17) a re each considered to provide two leaves of 102.5 mm brickwo rk to resist the wind moment.

Design wind moments on building


Longitudinal direction :
1.4 x 0.9 x 14 x 24.3 x 12.15 = 5208 kNm .
Latit udinal direct ion:
1.4 x 0.9 x 32 x 24.3 x 12.15 = 11 904kNm .

These a re th e maximum tot al wind moments acting in each direction , which th e shea r walls are req uired
to resist within th e lowest sto rey height of the building.

Con sider typical cross wall ( 7) in ground storey


Share of total wind moment = 0.059 x 11904
= 702.3 kN m.
Mi nimum dead load in wall = (0.9 x 210) + (0.9 x 19 x 0. 1025 x 24.3)
= 23 1.6 kN/m .
23 1.6 x 10'
Therefore, gd
102.5 x 1000
= 2.259 N/mm ' ,
102.5 x 6000'
andZ
6
= 6.15 x 10' mm'.
Design moment of resista nce = (~: + gd) Z

= (~:; x 2.259) 6.15 x 10'


= 15123 kNm at ba se of wall.
Which exceeds th e a pplied wind moment of 702.3 kNm, thus ju stifying th e simplifica tio n of the
calcu lations, mad e earl ier, in assessing th e relat ive stiffnesses.

Thi s design momen t of resistan ce has been calculated on the assumption th at full restr aint aga inst
buckling is provided by th e gro und floor slab and, th erefore, no stress reduction factors are app licable -
which is a perfectly rea sonable prop osition. However, at mid-storey height , the buckling tend ency of
the length of shear wall und er flexur al compressive st ress can have an effect on the allowable stres ses,
a nd the design meth od described ea rlier in 'Stabil ity of shear walls' will be applied as follows :
· 1.1 ~fk
allowabIe flexuraI compressive stress, Pu be , = - -
Ym
1.1 x 0.749 x 12.2
2.5
= 4.021 Njmm >

231.6 x 10' 702.3 x 10 '


design flexural compressive stress,fub" = 102.5 x 6000 + 6.15 x 10'
= 0.38 + 0.114
= 0.494 N/mm'.
Ot her shea r walls provi di ng overall sta bility to th e building shou ld be checked using the same ba sic
prin ciples but, by inspection , these also should prove to be comfo rtably withi n the allowa ble stresses
given in BS 5628.

Accidental damage design


The perfo rmance par ameters for de signing buildings to with stand accidental damage are set out in
sectio n 5 of BS 5628, a nd und er Building Regulation D 17. Int erpretation of th e wording of both these
documents can be complex a nd confl ict ing. T he main objective of th e rules fo r accidenta l damage
desig n is to produce a sufficiently rob ust st ructure to withs ta nd damage of limited proport ions. He nce,
the design techniqu es sho uld be a comb inatio n of stress calcul at ions and descriptive reasoning to
demonstrate, beyond reason able doubt , th e inherent robustness of th e structure und er various dam age
situations.
Loadbearing brickwork crosswall construction 29
T his bui ld ing. be ing over 5 storeys in height. is classed as a Catego ry 2 b uildi ng. Ta ble 12 o f 13S 562H
gives three options for designing and detailing such a str ucture for accidental damage. Option I. in
which vertical a nd horizontal elemen ts (un less 'protected ') arc to be proved removable. one at a time.
without ca usi ng co llapse. is considered most appropriate for this type of building.

Cross walls removed


The normal span of the in-s itu concrete 11001' is perpendicular to the line of the c rosswa lls. If a crosswa ll
is removed. the slab is de signed 10 spa n in the o pposi te direction onto the corridor and e1evational
walls using. if necessary. increased distribution reinforcement designed on the appropriately reduced
partial safety factors. In addition. the slab would tend to hang. in a catenary. between the crosswalls
either sid e of the removed wall.

Ca lculations could be prepared for either of these alternative means of support. and should be
accompanied by a commentary on the as sumptions made for the design method chosen.

Gahle wall remo ved


13S 562Hsta tes that for walls without vertical lateral suppo rts . the whole length of ex terna l wall s
must be considered removable. whilst for simila r internal wall s. only 2.25h need be considered a s the
removable length . The Bu ild ing Regula tio ns do not differentiate between interna l and ex ternal walls,
hu t limit the removable length to 2.25h for all walls. II seems to the authors partic ularly ha rsh to
consider. say . in a spine wall stru ct ure of 30 m o r more in length . the po ssibi lity of an inci dent capable
of removing such a disproportionate length of external wall. II is sugg este d . t herefore. that in certain
circ umsta nces th e designe r sho uld use his d iscret io n in assessing a realistic but reaso nable len gth fo r
rem oval.

Ha ving ass essed th e rem o vable le ngth of gable wa ll. co nsidera tio n ca n now be g iven to the a lte rna tive
mea ns of support fo r th e st ruct ure, following its removal. If the le ngth removed is not excessive,
co nsidera tio n may be give n to co mposite ac tio n of th e masonry over ac ti ng with the 11 0 01' slab
immediately abov e th e rem o ved len gth of wa ll. T his. toge the r with th e archi ng effect of the ma sonry to
sprea d the load s over 10 th e other sid e of th e removed len gth of wa ll. may be a ll th at is necessar y. with
the add itional reinforcement . if any. being added periphera lly in thc in-s itu 1100 1' slab .

A mo re complex ana lysis might consider two adjacent 11 0 0 1' sla bs acting a s the flange s of deep I-bca rns
with the corridor and eleva tional walls between th em acting as the webs o f the same beam . These
co mposite sections may be used to ca nti lever from the last crosswall and could support , at the end of the
can tilever . a similar I-sha ped composite beam uti lising the gable wall as the web . Thu s. a framework of
composite beams is provided . and reinforced acc ordingly. to su ppo rt the structure over (see Figure 42).

42
8Ssessment of des 6gntor acc klental damage

e1evational composrteI sectlOt'lS


wan ","""","ng lXl<rido<wall,
.,....------
/' ;:;dfloor slabs cantlievet'
out from last c:rosswan

gable wall
removed - - - - '

wall rotenon under I.tltfalload

It may well be thai . in th e lo wer storeys of a m ulti-s torey load beari ng brick str ucture, th ere is e no ugh
co mp ress ive load from a bo ve to e na ble th e wa lls to be design ed to withstand the lateral force o f 34
k N/m ' . th us d efining th at wa ll as a ' p ro tected' me mber which d oes no t ha ve to be co nside red rem ovable.

Th e relat ive simplicity with whi ch th e requi remen ts fo r acc ide nta l damage ca n be met in loadbearing
b rickwork design is indicative of the general robustness of thi s for m of co nstr uctio n. T his ro b ustness
was d rama ticall y d emo nstrat ed du ring the last war, when nume ro us maso nry struct ures, with a la rming
portion s a nd co rne rs b lo wn o ut thro ugh bomb da mage, rem ained sta ble. Many were simp ly
st reng thened locally to continue their useful life.
311
DESIGN EXAMPLE 2

CO M MERCIAL OFFICE DEVELOPM ENT 4-STOREYS H IGH


Building geometry (see Figures 43 & 44)
Overall height = 13.6 m
Overall length = 46.0 m
Overall width = 46.0 m
F loor to floor height = 3.2 m
Span of precast floors = 7.0 m
Assum e : ma sonry density = 19.0 kN fm 3
preca st floors = 2.75 k Nf m' .

70 7.0 70
43
r r r r-~~"""'Ii----",-r-----''';'rri''l'''''

8.0 office office


.----> .---->

I
18 .0
:l-
2.0t - otnce
.---->

80 office office
.----> .---->

LI 1- _~_ ..... _~_ ~ _~ ,

46 .0

office office 7.0

1 1
o"oce o"oce 7.0

1 1
typica l floor plan
office 1 70

!.-----------,,~---------
46.0

31
44 0.80
flat roof U
A
1-
[OJ IT:]] IT:]] [0] office office 3 .20
(L
[OJ IT:]] IT:]] [0] office office 3 .20
I~
[OJ IT:]] [0] [0] off~ office 3 .20
IL
0=0 [OJ [OJ rr::::::Il office office 3 .20

.... .....
G

Ro of and floor slabs are 225 mm th ick prestressed co ncrete units. External facing bricks selected have
a wat er abso rp tion of 6.5% a nd a co mp ressive stre ngt h of 50 N/mm '. and are to be set in a designation
(ii) mortar. Exte nsive qu alit y control and testing of ma terials will be exercised throughout. and strict
supervision will be permanen tly employed.

Characteristic loads
Roof dead load, G. , PC units = 2.75
scree d to falls 1.25 =
4.00kN/m'
imposed load . Q•• (with direct access) = 1.50 kN/m'
Floors dead load . G., PC units = 2.75
part ition s = 1.85
finishes = 1.35
services = 0.30
6.25 kN /m'
imp osed load , Q•• (offices) = 2.50kN/m'

Wind loading
Is assumed to have been calculated on the basis of CP 3 : Cha pte r V: Part 2: 1972. to give a maximum
cha ract eristic wind pressure on the wa lls of + 0.70 kN /m ' . and a maximu m gross characteristic wind
uplift on th e flat roof of + 1.05 kN /m ' .

Design of typical internal crosswall


Loading
Characteristic Characteristic Imposed
dead loads imposed load less
floors & roof kN jm load reductions kN jm
roof (7 x 4) 28.00 (7 x 1.5) = 10.5 0% 10.50
th ird 28 + (7 x 6.25) 71.75 10.5 + (7 x 2.5) = 28.0 10% 25.20
second 71.75 + 43.75 = 115.50 28.0 + 17.5 = 45.5 - 20 % 36.40
first 115.5 + 43.75 159.25 45.5 + 17.5 = 63.0 - 30 % 44.10

With a floor to floor height of3.20 m , a half brick thick wall would be app roaching the limit of
maximum slende rness ra tio , and would therefore require a relat ively high strength brick. In addition , a
bearing width of 102 mm is not adeq uate to receive long-s pan prestressed co ncrete units fro m either
side . Hence, 215 mm th ick walls will be adopted for the main load bearing walls.

De sign wall in the lowest storey for the loa ding combination of dead plu s imp osed. Thus, the partial
safety fac to rs will be:
"(to dead load = 0.9 G. or 1.4 G.
and imposed loa d = 1.6 Q. (BS 5628, clause 22).

Design loads
dead = 159.25 x 1.4 = 222.95
imposed = 44.10 x 1.6 = 70.56
mason ry = 0.215 x 19 x 12.8 x 1.4 = 73.20
total n, = 366.71 kN /m .

Capacity reduction factor


As for th e previou s design example, the co ncrete floor slabs can be ass umed to provide enhanced
resistance to lat eral moveme nt. Hence :
32
- - - - - -- - - - - -- -- -

effective height = 0.75 x clea r height


therefore, h" = (3.20 - 0.225) 0.75 = 2.23
. h" 2.23 04
slende rness rat io = t:;" = 0.215 = I . .

The calculation of the eccentricity of the load is carried out in a similar ma nner to the previous design
example, and from Figure 45 the following values can be calculated :

45
c.lculMton of eccentrtctty of Io.ct
axial load rrom walls
and floots over 0.90_

.n. I. , I,
107.5 107.5
.1

R, = 40.425 kN
R, = 19.69 kN
minimum loa d in wall above first floor = 139.24 kN
resultant position from left hand face = 100 mm
eccentricity about il. at top of wall = 7.5 mm,
therefore,
e, = 0.035t (which is less than 0.05t).
Thus, from as 5628, Table 7:
with slende rness ratio = 10.4
and e, = 0.035t
P= 0.962.
Partial safe ty factorf or material strength
Similar conditions exist to those applicable in th e previous design example. Hence, fro m as 5628,
Ta ble 4 :
Ym = 2.5.

Ma sonry strength required


Characterist ic strength of ma sonry required , f. , = niJ; m

366.71 x 2.5 x 10'


0.962 x 215 x 1000
= 4.43 N/mm '.
Use bricks with a compressive str ength of 15 Njmrn ", set in a designation (iv) mortar.

Design of ex ternal cavity wall for wind


The design principles will be simila r to th ose used in the previous design example. Considera tion will
also be given to th e walls running parallel to the span of th e pc units and, for th ese, a 215 mm thick
inner leaf will be checked. In both ca ses, the wall in the topmost storey will be designed .

Case I , wall supporting roof units


Consider roofuplift
minimum roof dead load = 0.9 x 4.0 = 3.60 kN/m '
ma ximum wind uplift on roo f = 1.4 x 1.05 = 1.47 kN/m '
nett roof dead load (after upl ift) = 3.60 - 1.47 = 2.13 kN/m '
nett roof dead load on wall = 2.13 x 3.5 = 7.455 kN/m '
Loadbearing hricJ.. work crosswall construction 33
Calculate stability moment of resistanee
Assume 102.5 thick brickwor k for both leaves.
Allowable flexural compressive stresses:
1.1 0 x 10.60
outer leaf, P ube = 4.664 N jmm'
2.5
1.10 x 4.40
inner leaf, Pu b c = 1.936 N jmm'
2.5
Minimum axial loa ds in leaves:
outer leaf = 0.9 x 0.1025 x 19 x 4.0 = 7.011 kN/m
inner leaf = 7.011 + 7.455 = 14.466 kN /m
Minimum widt h of stress block s:
7.011 x 103
outerleaf, w. =
4.664 x 1000
== 1.5 mm
102.5 - 1.5
lever arm = 50.5 mm
2
14.466 x 10 3
inner leaf, W s = 1.936 x 1000
= 7.5 mm
102.5 - 7.5
lever a rm = 2
= 47.5mm

Stability moment ofresistance


outer leaf = 7.0 I I x 0.0505 = 0.354
inner leaf = 14.466 x 0.0475 = 0.687
to tal MR. = 1.041 kNm
The stability moment of resistance is show n diag rammatically in Figure 46.

46 47
out er leaf: Inner leal :
prop f0f'C:8 1.243 kN /m
1"'02.5 'I ' I 102.5 _I
[0height
1 to top

~. ~.
1.268m parape t wall ]
"" 1.268 + 0.8 - 2.068m
]

11 J 664 N/mm'
~=:Il .938N/mm,

CJ ~75mm
---- - - - maxlmum wall
moment M.. - 0 .788 kN.m

lJ~1 5mm
SO.5mm 47 .5 mm

MR,. 7.011 )(0.0505 - 0.354 kN.m MR• • , • .466 )(O.0475 - O.687kN.m


total MA. - 0.354 +0.687 - 1.04 1 kN.m

It8blltty moment of ,,"INne.

This stability moment of resistance is less than the design bending moment at the base of the wall which
would be applicable to a true pr opped ca ntilever. Hence, the stabi lity moment of resistance is
considered as a partially fixed base, and the maximum design bending moment in the height of the wall
is calculat ed to coincide with the level of zero shear.

Maximum wall moment


y,W. h MR .
Shear at roof prop = - 2 - - - h-
1.4 x 0.7 x 3.2
2
- -1.041
-
3.2
= 1.243 kN jm .
Point of zero shear from 1.243
roo f prop - 1.4 x 0.7
= 1.268 m.
1.268')
Maximum wall mom ent, M; = (1.243 x 1.268) - (1.4 x 0.7 x - 2 -
= 1.576 - 0.788
= 0.788 kNm.
The design bend ing moment d iagram is shown in Figure 47.
34
The two lea ves of the cavity wall deflect, under wind load, by the same am ount a nd are of equal
stiffness. Therefore, the maximum wall moment will be sha red equally between two leaves.
Thus, M; per leaf= 0.394 kNm .

Now calculate the characteristic strengths required for the brickwork in the two leaves to withstand
th is design bending moment.

From f.. required = (~w - gd). as in the previous design example:


1000 x 102.5'
outer leaf,Z 6 = 1.751 x lO' mm '
gd = 0.9 x 19 x 2.068 = 0.035 N/mm '
inner leaf, Z = as above = 1.751 x 10' mm '
7.455
gd = 0.035 + 102.5 = 0.108 N/mm ' .

Characteristic streng ths required

Outer leaf, f•• requ ired = (~:~~~ : :~: - 0.035) 2.5


= 0.475 N/mm' .
Which is less than the f•• provided of 0.5 N/mm' for the facing bricks a nd mort ar specified.
Inner leaf, f•• required = G:~~~ : : ~: - 0. 108) 2.5
= 0.292 N/mm '.
Therefore, use bricks with a water a bsorption of between 7% and 12% set in a designation (iv) mort ar
for the inner leaf.

Case 2, check the non-loadbearing external walls


S tability moment of re.,i.,tance(215 thick inner leaf )
Allowable flexural compressive stresses. as calculated for load bearing external wall.
Minimum axia l load in leaves :
outer leaf = as for previou s wall = 7.011 kN /m
inner leaf = 0.9 x 0.215 x 19 x 4.0 = 14.706 k /m
Minimum width s of stress blocks
outer leaf, w. = as for previou s wall = 1.5mm
lever arm = 50.5mm
14.706 X 10'
inner leaf, w. = 7.6mm
1.936 x 1000
215 - 7.6
lever a rm - 2
= 103.7 mm

Stabiiity moments ofresistance


o uter leaf = 7.011 x 0.0505 = 0.354
inner leaf = 14.706 x 0.1037 = 1.525
total M R. 1.879 kNm

The stability moment of resistance exceeds the applied design bending moment appl icable to a true
propped cantilever, which is calculated as:
Yr W•h ' = 1.4 x 0.7 x 3.2' = 1 254 kN
8 8 . m.
Hence, the wall will be designed as a propped cantile ver, a nd the condit ion at i h down from the
roofwill be examin ed.

Maximum wall moment s


= 9Yr W• h ' = 9 x 1.4 x 0.7 x 3.2' = 0 706 kN
M; 128 128 . rn,
T he two leaves will deflect eq ually under wind loadin g, but they a re not of equal stiffness, hence the
maximu m wall moment will be shared between the two leaves in proportio n to their stiffnesses.

Thu s:
1000 X 102.5'
ou ter leaf, I = - --:-;:-- - = 89.7 x lO'mm'
12
l.oa dbearing brickwork crosswall construction 3S
1000 X 21 5 '
inner leaf, 1 = = 828.2 x 10' mm'
12
Th erefore. sha re of M.

out er leaf, M. = 0.706 ( 89.78: ~28.2) = 0.069 kNm

inner leaf, M. = 0.706 ( 89.7 8~8~~8.2) = 0.637 kNm

Characteristic strengths required


From :
requ ired f•• = (~. - g.) r;
1000 x 102.5'
outer leaf, Z = 6 = 1.751 x 10'mm '
g. = 0.9 x 19 x 2.068 = 0.0354 Nlmm '
. 1000 x 215'
Innerleaf,Z = 6 = 7.70x IO' mm '
g. = 0.9 x 19 x 2.068 = 0.0354 Nlmm '

Therefore :
outer !caff•• req uired = (~:~~~ : :~: - 0.0354) 2.5
= 0.010 Nlmm '
. f . d ( 0.637 x 10 ' 003 )
Inner leaf •• require = 7.70 x 10' - . 54 2.5
= 0. 12 Nlmm'

Each of these requ ired values is less tha n those calculated for the load beari ng external walls, hence the
same brickwork specificatio ns will be adequate.

In each of these external wall designs, con sideration must also be given to the effect of window
openings. and for a suggested design method for dealing with such a perforated wall, reader s arc
referred to Structural Masonry Designer s' Manual.

The requirements for supporting the outer leaf of cavity walls in tall buildings have been discu ssed
ear lier under External Walls. Whilst this structure is of four storeys only it is 13.2 m high. Thu s, a
support is necessary, and it should preferably be introd uced at second floor level.

Overall stability
By con sidering the plan shape of the whole building, and the disposition of the sub stantial cro sswalls
and corridor spine walls, it can be stated that 'by inspection ' the overall stability of the bui lding docs
not require to be ju stified by calculation . The previou s design example, on a very much more slender
structure employing narrower crosswall s, dem on strated that the stre sses in the shea r walls resisting
lateral wind loading were relati vely insignificant.

Accidental damage
The building is four sto reys high and, therefore , does not come under the requi rements of D 17 of the
Building Regulations. As such, the building does not require any additional preca utions to be ta ken
with regard to accidental damage, other than those generall y provided for in cla use 2 of BS 5628 and
summarised earlier in this publication. Tying of the adjacent spa ns of precast concrete units. as shown
in Figures 3 & 4, can provide an effective and inexpensive means of alternative suppo rt in a co llapse
situation, and is, perhaps. the least that the designer may con sider to be warra nted.

Other application s
The building considered has been described as an office building, providi ng a number of adeq uate ly
sized roo ms between the widely-spaced crosswalls. The design would require little altera tion to suit the
functions of a school classroom bu ilding , in which the room sizes a re co mpa tible, a nd only a sma ll
increase in the imposed load , with possib ly a compen sating reduc tion in the pa rtitions load . being all
tha t is necessa ry.

Similarl y, small four or six bed wards in modern hospita l developments would be ad mira bly suited to
this form of con struction , with the applic ati on of an almo st identical design process.
36
Above NURSES ' HOSTEL, OXFORD STREET Back cover BLAIR COURT . BIRKENHEAD
MATERNITY UNIT , LIVERPOOL see page 20.
Twin six-storey units with insitu co ncrete floor s carried
on half -brick thick crosswans. Provisions for vertical
expan sion incorporated in external walls.
Archite cts Ormrod & Partners
Structural engineers W. G . Curlin & Partn ers.

Rradrrs arl' f'xprl'uly Qd~/J,.d ,hat, whifst th.. ro"t,."u of t his pub/if"ul;orl 0" bt-fi,~,.d to ~ aU"Ho lr. correct Gffd complru. "0 ,,.llallet' $llDuld IN p lacrd Ilf'Olt Its
ro.. t,.,,/S as bt-ift6 applirablf' 10 afly /NI',ir"1a, rirrUmSlaftCf's. All)' odvier. opi"io" or in/ormolloff ('o " IQ;/" d if ,publishrd o"ly (}If til, /oot'''' ,114' , II,. B';ck.
lH",lop"',.", AuOC"iatiQ" , /U Sf" "'''''1 or OKl',ds ,,,, d all u m tribut," s to 'his ".,blit'Qtlon shall '" lIt1lh, ItOliabIlity wha tMW""" i" rrlpHl 01 Its COII,,.,,U.
Dffiped and produced for The 8rick De~dopmenl AMOCialion . WOO<bide Hocse , Winkf~ld . Windsor , Berkshire SU 2DX. Tc:kphone Winkf>eld Row (0J4.4)
try ROIUI ld Adams Associates. Printed by Rollkecp Ltd .
AA.~5 1
Loadbea..ing bdckwol'k
c..os~llconsll'uclion