Seminrio sobre Paredes de Alvenaria, P.B. Loureno & H. Sousa (Eds.

), Porto, 2002

DEVELOPMENT AND POTENTIAL OF STRUCTURAL MASONRY

Braj P. SINHA Professor of Structural Engineering University of Edinburgh UK

ABSTRACT The paper briefly traces the history of the development of the modern structural masonry and illustrates the various advantages of this type of construction. The paper also records its further exploitation for some innovative large-scale structures. A comprehensive list of references is given at the end of the paper. 1. INTRODUCTION Masonry bearing - wall structures have been used for centuries for all types of buildings [1,2], from the small simple shelter to some of our magnificent monuments and public buildings. Some examples are: Temple at Gatewara in Mesopotamia Palaces and Pyramids of Egypt (4500 B.C.) (3500 B.C.)

Remains of Indus Valley Civilisation (2500 B.C.) and later Romans shopping centres.

Development and potential of structural masonry

The year 1891 witnessed the final triumph of traditional masonry construction in the 16storey high Monadnock Building (Fig. 1) designed by John Root in Chicago [2,3], with 1.82m thick walls at the base. It may be pointed out that the traditional bylaws and rule-of-thumb were the guiding factors of the structural design of the load-bearing elements of these buildings rather than the basic engineering principle which govern the structural design of steel, concrete or timber structures.

Figure 1: The Monadnock Building, Chicago (1891) 2. CAUSES OF DECLINE The two factors; huge rise in the cost of land and the bricklayers strike in Chicago, led to the development of the skeleton steel frame [3,7] as an alternative to load-bearing brickwork by William Le Baron Jenny (1893) for the construction of the Home Insurance Building. The development of the structural frame replaced the structural use of masonry in multi-storey buildings and limited its use to as a curtain wall to support its own weight or as one or two storey domestic buildings. The discovery of glass and lightweight partition in the middle of the 20th century both led further onslaught and replaced he use of masonry from many modern constructions. Thus the years between 1890-1950 can very well be called the era of the structural frame.

Braj P. Sinha

3. EMERGENCE OF STRUCTURAL MASONRY In comparison with masonry buildings, all glass buildings lack textural warmth, colour and are most unsatisfactory from the environmental point of view. During the 1960's, somewhat earlier in Switzerland [2,3] the architects and engineers again started using masonry for frame-less multi-storey buildings, utilising its structural strength and aesthetic qualities. The economic advantage of frame-less construction coupled with the revolt against the appearance of concrete helped multi-storey masonry to come back on the scene. The design of such buildings is no longer governed by the rule-of-thumb or bylaws, but is based upon sound structural analysis as followed in case of major structural materials. Switzerland, having no governmental bylaws or Codes, and no indigenous steel industry became the pioneer in the revival of brick masonry for multi-storey construction. Some 1600 wall specimen [4] were tested at EMPA, which helped in the design and construction of 13 storey apartment buildings in Basle (1951-53). Based on the test results, the tallest 18-storey load-bearing building (Fig. 2) supported on relatively thin walls (127 to 254mm) was built in 1957 in Switzerland and since then this type of construction has become the norm all over the world as a result of its flexibility, economy and speed of construction.

Figure 2: 18-storey load bearing building in Switzerland In the United Kingdom between 1926-34 intensive research [5] was carried out on square brick piers at the Building Research Station which apart from other things established that mortar strength does not significantly affect the brickwork strength. However, the potential of brickwork was not exploited to any appreciable extent until 1960. The construction of a 12storey flat [2,3] in Birmingham (Fig. 3) and the Swiss experience had great impact, which

Development and potential of structural masonry

resulted in the revision of the 1964 Code paving the way of more extensive use of structural brickwork in the U.K.

Figure 3: 12-storey block of flats in Birmingham, UK Denmark like Switzerland has no steel industry of its own; hence its building economy was also suited to the development of masonry. A large number of brick piers tests were done under the late Professor Svenson in the early 1930s which resulted in building of 9 and 10 storey apartments in Copenhagen (as early as 1943) in 210mm thick crosswalls. In 1965, a 16-storey building supported on 355-mm thick walls was built (Fig. 4). About the same time, Professor Onishchic [6] in the U.S.S.R. conducted a lot of tests on brick piers and walls and suggested empirical formulae based on brick strength to predict the compressive strength of brickwork. Most of the results of his investigations were published in a book form in 1937 and this record had a great influence in the past in the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, neither Svensons nor Onishchics work is available in English and thus did not get wide publicity.

Braj P. Sinha

Figure 4: 16-storey masonry building in Denmark Although experiments were carried out on walls and piers to establish the strength of brickwork as early as 1915 in the USA [7], nothing very much happened until 1951. Between 1944-195I, while construction cost rose by 43 %, there was an overall fall in the quality and comfort standards; living-room sizes were reduced from 14.5 to 13.5 m2 kitchen and dining rooms from 8.4 to 6.5 m2, and bedrooms from 11.6 to 11.3 m2. It became very clear that something needed to be done to arrest the rising cost of construction without further deterioration in the comfort and quality standards expected from houses and homes. Therefore, the Home and Housing Finance Agency sponsored a research project in the Illinois Institute of Technology to investigate the possibility of reducing the cost of construction without further fall in living standard. 4. NEW CONCEPT FOR DESIGN As a result of this investigation, Fisher and Associates [8] suggested that the houses should be built on a cross-wall principle with adequate shear walls, so that wind blowing from any direction can be resisted by all the walls present in the building (Fig. 5). This was a quite new concept compared with the principle on which the Monadnock building was built, where the exterior wall was designed on the middle third rule (Fig. 5) to resist the all wind loading with no co-action between the slabs and the walls present in the building. The additional advantage of this new concept was that masonry could be used both in compression and shear. A typical 16-storey building [3,7] built on this principle with 305 mm brick walls is shown in Fig.6.

Development and potential of structural masonry

Figure 5: Wind loading design and middle-third design rule

Figure 6: 16-storey masonry building

Braj P. Sinha

In the West, attempts are made to improve the quality of the houses by research and development whereas in the developing countries invariably by lowering the specifications and standards and cutting corners in the name of low cost or social housing. In India, the National Building Organisation (NBO) tried to use the structural masonry and in the early 70s persuaded some construction agencies to build experimental [9] 4 to 5- storey houses in 230mm thick walls.

Figure 7: Multi-storey masonry buildings in Brazil In recent years in Brazil [10], the use of structural masonry has spread like the wild fire. Five to fifteen storey buildings were constructed on relatively thin walls (Fig. 7). The structural design of some of the buildings was based on the BS 5628: Part 1 [11], but the requirements for accidental damage were completely ignored. It is well known that the workmanship affects the strength of masonry and it is doubtful that the site control and the workmanship can match the UK standard. In some parts of Brazil, the practice of not filling the vertical mortar joints in high-rise buildings is very common, which has a detrimental effect on strength and mechanical properties [10]. The author feels that this reduction in the cost of construction is achieved at the cost of structural safety in Brazil. 5. FURTHER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT The concept put forward by Fisher and associates [8] revolutionised the use of masonry and research since then moved to examine the strength in conjunction with the interaction of masonry with other elements of structure.

Development and potential of structural masonry

Figure 8: Full-scale tests at a disused quarry, University of Edinburgh In Edinburgh., a disused quarry was developed [12, 13], where a full-scale structure up to 5storey could be tested under every aspect of loading (Fig. 8). Between 1967-1979 numerous tests were carried out on multi-storey brick structures to study the effect of wind loading, lateral strength of panels with precompression, floor/wall interaction, accidental removal of members and many other factors, all under realistic conditions. Also, the British Ceramic Research Association extensively examined the lateral strength of masonry walls. The partial collapse of the Ronan Point large panel concrete building due to a gas explosion (Fig. 9) led the British Ceramic Research Association [12] to examine the problem in brick building under realistic situations. Several explosion tests on full-scale buildings were carried out in which rooms were filled with gas. Due to venting, the failure pressure recorded never reached 35 kN/m2 as now required for the design in the UK. It also demonstrated the ability of brickwork walls to sustain the lateral loading due to arching between the supports. Many of the research findings [12, 13] were incorporated in the limit state code BS 5628: Part 1: 1978[11]. This was the most advanced code of the time and some of its provisions have been incorporated in the EC 6[14]. Following the UK lead [15, 16], full-scale tests on masonry buildings were done in Italy and the USA.

Braj P. Sinha

Figure 9: The progressive collapse of Ronan Point 6. ADVANTAGES Structural masonry walls perform various functions, which for a framed structure need to be provided for separately. The walls provide structure, sub-division of space, thermal and acoustic insulation, and fire and weather protection. In addition to these environmental and functional advantages, it offers the following: 6.1. Design advantage Simplicity of detailing: The architectural and structural detailing and layout are simple due to repetitive floor arrangement. Freedom of architectural expression: The architect is free to treat the exterior as he desires, because the internal and the corridor walls carry entire vertical and wind loading. Foundation: The loads from bearing walls are distributed rather than concentrated as happens below column footing resulting in the use of ground with low bearing capacity without special foundation. This advantage is lost if the ground floor is framed construction to give open area.

10

Development and potential of structural masonry

Versatility of Texture and Pattern: There is unlimited choice of colour, texture and patterns of masonry units. Progressive collapse: With the proper care and design, the chance of progressive collapse is minimal. Savings in Energy: requires less energy during construction and occupancy of the building compared to frame construction.

6.2. Construction advantage This type of construction does not require large scaffolding. The completion time is about half of the framed buildings. The floor to floor height can be reduced compared to frame construction due to the elimination of beams. 6.3. Cost advantage The initial and maintenance costs are less than concrete and steel frame construction. As much as 10% saving in Europe over other forms, 7 to 9 % saving per sft. per floor over other structural forms, such as concrete or steel in the USA and 38% on structure only over concrete frame in the UK have been reported. 7. POTENTIAL OF MASONRY All these developments in the field of construction and research were mainly concerned with domestic buildings, schools and dormitories. Masonry is very strong in compression, but very weak in tension, hence it cannot be used for slender structures and members, which carry loads primarily due to bending. This deficiency can be overcome by reinforcing or prestressing to realise its full potential. A review of the research on reinforced and prestressed masonry is given elsewhere [17] 7.1. Reinforced and prestressed masonry Reinforced brickwork was first used in 1825 for the Thames Tunnel by Sir Mark Isambard Brunel [17] and since then very little was done except in areas subjected to seismic loads. In India in 1920 [18] it was extensively used for roof slabs, lintels and beams. Due to the short life of the structures and advent of concrete this type of construction suffered a complete decline.

Braj P. Sinha

11

Figure 10: Masonry water- tank and wind -mill in reinforced and prestressed brickwork In the UK, the pocket type reinforced retaining walls proved cheaper and more acceptable than concrete [12]. Its use is limited due to difficulty in reinforcing it against shear. This deficiency could be overcome by prestressing. Prestressed brickwork up until now has not been used as extensively as concrete. Some prestressing of brickwork by using threaded bar in the cavity has been used to enhance the wind resistance of walls in the UK. A prestressed circular water tank and windmill (Fig. 10) were built as demonstration models by Structural Clay products Ltd. of the UK. Some years ago a research and development project investigating the behaviour of prestressed brickwork beams was undertaken at the University of Edinburgh [19]. The beams were entirely made of brickwork and only nominal concrete core was used for grouting. These beams were 6m long and tested as simply supported (Fig. 11) to develop the theory and design method for their use in practice. A further extension of this work was to undertake a comparative study of the behaviour of similar beams made of brickwork and concrete [20]. It appears from the test results that prestressed beams made of brickwork and concrete fail at a similar ultimate moment and their load-deflection relationship is similar. As a result of this and other works, notably in BCRA [17, 20, 21], a limit state Code of Practice BS 5628: Part 2 [21] was issued in 1985 in the UK, which paved the way for the use of this technology. Very little was done in UK in this field except some enterprising engineers used reinforced and prestressed brickwork for the construction of office buildings (Fig. 12) and retaining walls for road and railway bridges (Fig. 13).

12

Development and potential of structural masonry

Figure 11: Prestressed masonry beam tests at the University of Edinburgh

Figure 12: The Armitage office building

Braj P. Sinha

13

Figure 13: Retaining wall for a railway bridge

Figure 14: A masonry water tower by E. Dieste While the west, specially Europe, was busy in drafting codes and harmonising the standards [14] and thus stifling innovation and creativity, an enterprising and innovative engineer, Dr. Dieste (1946-2000), was using indigenous, sustainable and low energy input bricks for designing and building aesthetically pleasing large scale reinforced and prestressed structures full of character all over the Latin American countries, without importing the western technology or equipment [22, 23]. These structural brick structures range from water and TV

14

Development and potential of structural masonry

towers (Fig. 14) to warehouses, churches, shopping centres and bus shelters (Figs. 15, 16). The creations of Dieste were far advanced and superior to anything known in structural masonry but did not get the same publicity in the west [23]. Although the church of Atlantida (Fig. 17) was mentioned in the first international masonry conference in 1967 [24], his work became well known and appreciated and duplicated in Europe only after 1990.

Figure 15: The Seagull petrol station, Salto, Uruguay, by E. Dieste

Figure 16: A shopping centre by E. Dieste The 19th century saw the triumph of traditional masonry in the shape of Monadnock Building. Similarly, the buildings designed and built by Dr. Dieste show the triumph of Structural Brickwork in 20th century.

Braj P. Sinha

15

Figure 17: The Atlantida church, by E. Dieste 8. REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] The Creolier Society Ltd. - Year Book 1966. Farrington Street, London, E.C.4. Cross, James C. Introduction to Contemporary Bearing Walls in Proc. National Brick and Tile Bearing Conference, Washington, 1965. Structural Clay Products Research Foundation. - European Clay Masonry Load-bearing Buildings, Geneva. Illinois, USA. Haller, P. - "The properties of load-bearing brickwork in perforated fired clay bricks for multi-storey buildings", Lib. Comm. 870, Garston, B.R.S., UK. Davey, N.; Thomas, F.C. - "The Structural Uses of Brickwork", Structural and Building Paper No.24, London, Inst. Civil Engineers, 1950. Onishchik, L. I. - Prohrost i ustoichivost kamennykh konstructsii (The Strength and Stability of Masonry Structures), O.N.T.L., USSR, 1937. Monk Jr., C. B. - Old and new research on clay masonry bearing walls, in Proc. National Brick and Tile Bearing Wall Conference, Washington, 1965. Davidson, Robert L.; Fisher, T. and Associates; Monk, C. B. - "The brickwalls are only support in a design for multi-storey buildings", Architectural Record, June, 1952. Mathur, D. C.; Berry, S. - "Role of Brickwork in Housing in Developing Countries like India; Case Studies" in Int. Seminar; Workshop on Planning, Design, Construction of Load-bearing Brick Buildings for Developing Countries, New Delhi, India, 1981. Santos, F. A.; Sinha, B. P.; Roman, H. R. - The effect of construction defect on the strength and behaviour of masonry structures in Creative Systems in Structural and construction Engineering. Ed. by A. Singh, AA Balkema, Rotterdam, 2001, pp 587-591.

[10]

16

Development and potential of structural masonry

[11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

BS 5628: 1978, Code of Practice for structural use of masonry, unreinforced masonry: Part 1, London, British Standards Institution. Sutherland, R. J. M. "Brick and Block Masonry in Engineering, Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers, London, 1985, pp 31-67. Sinha, B. P.; Hendry, A.W. - "Structural Testing of Brickwork in a Disused Quarry, Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers., Part 1, 1976, pp 153-162. Eurocode no 6 Unified Rules for masonry Structures, Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg, Report EUR 9888, 1988. Germanino, G.; Macchi, G. Experimental research of a frame-idealisation for a bearing-wall multi-storey structure, Proc. of the British Ceramic Society, Stoke-onTrent, December 1978. Gulkan, P.; Mayes, R. L.; Clough, R. W. - Response of a single-storey brick masonry house to simulated earthquake in Proc., Vth. International Brick Masonry Conference, BIA, Virginia, USA, 1979, pp 344-355. Sinha, B. P.; Pedreschi, R. F. - Reinforced and Pre-stressed Brickwork A study, Proc. of the Institution of Engineers, India, Vol. 72, May 1991, pp 1-12. Brebner, A. - Some notes on Reinforced Brickwork, Technical Paper 38, Vol 1& 2, Public Works Department, Government of India, 1919. Pedreschi, R. F.; Sinha, B. P. - Development and investigation into the ultimate load behaviour of post-tensioned brickwork beams, The Structural Engineer, Vol. 60B, No. 3, Sept. 1982, pp 63-67. Uduehi, J.; Sinha, B.P. - A comparative study of prestressed beam of brickwork and concrete, Proc. 1st Int. Masonry conference, London 1986, pp 92-94. BS 5628: 1985, Code of Practice for reinforced and prestressed masonry: Part 2, London, British Standards Institution. Pedreschi, R. F.; Sinha, B. P.; McLachlan, M. - The remarkable brick buildings of Eladio Dieste, Ibstock Design, Vol. 5, No. 8, July 1996, pp 12-16. Pedreschi, R. F. - The Engineers contribution to contemporary architecture, RIBA Publication, Thomas Telford, 2000. Mikluchin, P. T. Morphotonics of Masonry structures, Designing, Engineering, and Constructing with Masonry Products, Gulf Publication, 1969, pp 13-18.

[16]

[17] [18] [19]

[20] [21] [22] [23] [24]