BS 5628: The Structural Use 01 Masonry: , I

Par11 : Unreinforced Masonry

ellslS'
, Fg2

May 1985
Amended and Reprinted
November 1996

Accidental damage
robustness
& stability

Prepared by
J. Morton BSe PhD CEng MICE MlnstM

Based on independent presentations given at BOA seminars by J . O. A. Korff BSe CEng

FIStruetE MICE R. J . M. Sutherland BA FICE FISTRuetE FIHE MConsE . J . Morton BSe
PhD CEng MICE MINstM
 THE

BRICK
DEVELOPMENT
ASSOCIATION
 as 5628: The Structural U se of Ma sonry : Part 1: Unreinforced Masonry

Accidental damage
robustness & stabiIity

Prepa red by
J. Morton BSe PhD CEng MICE MlnstM
Based on independent presentations given at BDA seminars by
J.OA Korff SSe CEng FIStructE MICE
R.J.M. Sutherland SA FICE FIStructE FIHE MConsE
J. Morton SSe PhD CEng MICE MlnstM

FOREWORD

'" This
~
~
document supersedes all previous BDA publications on
the subject of Accidental Damage and the 5th Amendment, in
studied in isolation; robustness and stability also need to be
considered. It is, therefore, a blend of masonry design
~ particular Technical Note No 1, Vol 3, July 1971 and Its philosophy combined with the detailed provisions to meet
!" forerunners.
This new publication results from three independent
Parliament's requirements.
Being based on three different presentations by three
~ presentations which were originally given during a series of authors, it is inevitable that within the document certain of the

I
" seminars on BS 5628: Structural use of masonry: Part 1 in late

~
1978 and subsequently.
The aim is both to cover the thinking behind accidental
~ damage analysis and to explain the basis used in the Code to
~ fulfil the requirements of the Building Regulations. Because of
!I the nature of the subject, accidental damage cannot be
views expressed represent the opinion of a particular author
rather than of all three. In this way a blend of views are
recorded wh ich represent an up to the minute approach to
accidental damage, robustness and stability which, not being
an exact science. is based on reasonable assumptions
combined with engineering judgement.
 CONTENTS

1. I NTRO DUCTIO N ........................................ . 2 Peripher.,ties 9

Scope ............................................................................................... . 2 Inlern.llr.nsverse & longiludin.lties 9
Background ................. . 3 W.II & column ties 9
The B uildi ng Regulalions 3 Option 3 10
Vertical lies......... . 10
2. CODE PREAMBLE 3
Summary of options 11
Strudural slabilily & 10rm . 3
Design philosophy 11
Veh ic u lar im pad 4
H ig h ris k silualio ns ..................... . 4 4. BACKGROUND PRINCiPLES 11
Damage proportionate to cau se _ 4 Horizonlalties 11
The effed of ve nting . 4 Contain ing Ihe damage 12
Responsibilily for overall slabilily . 5 5. ROBUSTNESS 12
M in imum st iffness req ui rem ent __ __ ,5 Strudural synthesis 13
3. THE DETAILED REQUIREMENTS 5 Connedorslslrapslties 13
The lhree options . 5 Lateral movement. 13
Horizontal ly ing force . F, . 5 Uplift . 14
Protected members . 6 Wa U layout & lIoor sy st ems 14
Option 1 6 Precasl floors 14
Notional removal of members 6 Save or sacrifice? 15
Definition of members _6 Di.crete blocks 15
Containing the damage 6 Vertical tie. ............................................ . 15
Case 1: Inlersecling & return walls 6 Non-cellular plan forms ...... . 15
Cese 2: Inlersecling substsntiet partitions 7 Diaphragm walls . 16
Cese 3: Piered w.lls 7 Fin walls .......... . 16
Recognisable situations _............................. . 7 6. MAKING SENSE OF THE FACTS 16
&lern.1 wstts. . 7 Frequency of damage ..16
tntemel w.lls 8 Permitted damage level ......................................................... ........17
Resultsn! high locst slresses 8
Option 2. . 8 7. CONCLUSiONS 17
Horizontal ties . 8 8. REFERENCES back cover

1 INTRODUCTION

Scope
This publication is concerned WIth the subject of robuslness
and the avoidance of excessive accidental damage in retat.oo
to the sl ructure of masonry buildinqs, It deals Wllh the
provisions contained in Part 1 of BS 5628:The Structural Use
of Masonry: and m particular w ith Section 5 of the Code which
gives detailed recommendations for controlling and limiting

2
accidental damage. The subject is dealt with in its widest
sense to give the reader an understanding of what the Code
recommends and, more importantly, why the Code
recommends it.
Background
The accidental damage provisions in BS 5628 stem from the
partial collapse of a block of flats in North London, Ronan
Point. in 1968" ', As can be seen in Figure 1, the amount of
damage appears fo be out of proportion to the cause - a gas
explosion in one of the flats. Questions were raised in the
House of Commons. The relevant govemment department. at
that time, was the Ministry of Housing & Local Government.
and they issued many circulars'" as a result of the collapse.
The Insfitution of Structural Engineers naturally became
involved and issued its own circulars'", These. together with
the circulars from the Ministry, resulted in the Building
Regulalions being arnended by the addition of the Fifth
Amendment. This Fifth Amendment was later incorporated in
the 1976 Building Regulalions as requirements D17 and D18
which limit the spread of darnage permitted following an
accidental event:
017 'Further requirements for the structure of certain
buildings'.
018 D eemed-to-setisiy provisions for localisation of structural
failure',
Structural stability & form
In the Code, the main section on accidental damage is
Section 5. But there is an earlier section in the Code on
stability (clause 20) where several important points are made
which are relevant to accidental damage and stability.
These are:
1, Robustness and containment of damage;
2. Resistance to a prescnbed horizontal force;
3. Prevention of vehicular impact:
4, Special hazards related to service use.
The members of the Technical Comrnittee responsible for
The Building' Regulations
Section D of the Building Regulations, which deals with the
structural aspects of buildings, contains the following
requirement: 'The structure of a building above the
foundations shall safely sustain and transmit to the
foundations the cornbined dead load, irnposed load and wind
load without such deflection or deforrnalion as Will impair the
stability, or cause damage to, the whole or any part of the
building. This provision. clause 08, is a legal requirement for
I
all structures.
For buildings with 5 or more storeys, however, D17 and D18
also apply. Broadly speaking, D17 and D18 ensure that the
sort of collapse that occurred at Ronan Point does not happen
again.
However, because it is recognised that design for nil
collapse is often not possible, the Regulations D17 and D18
specify the limits of permissible damage as follows:
The darnaged area within each storey must not exceed 70rn2
or 15% of the plan area whichever is the lesser, Vertically,
failure is acceptable if it occurs within the storey where the
incident took place and may also involve the storey next above
and next below.
This was scarcely the first occasion in history when
regulations were introduced to govern the design and
performance of buildings. Hammurabi, a great law maker,
who was king of Babylon from 2067 to 2025 BC, introduced a
law preserved for posterity on a clay tablet. The translation
runs as follows:
If a builder builds a house for a man and does not make its
construction firm and the house collapses and causes the
death of the owner of the house - that builder shall be put to
death. If it causes the death of a son of the owner - they shall
put to death a son of that builder, If i t causes the death of a
slave of the owner - he shall give to the owner a slave of equal
value. If J/ destroys property - he shall restore whatever it
destroyed and because he did not make the house firm he shall
rebUild the house which collapsed at his own expense. If a
builder builds a house and does not make its construction meet
the requirements and a wall falls in - that builder shall
strengthen the wall at his own expense.
The Babylonian approach makes the present accidental
damage provisions in BS 5628 seem eminently reasonable.
CODE PREAMBLE 2
drafting the Code felt that the designer should be reminded of
the way in which forces can best be carried in rnasonry
structures. Applied loads are best resisted by walls lying
parallel to the direction of the applied force. Wind force A can
successfully be carried by the cross walls lying parallel to the
applied force. These are the walls which point into the wind.
There are no spine walls along the centre of the building
aligned parallel to force B. The structure could therefore
'sway' in this direction - It would be 'floppy' in direction B,
So, the plan form at the top is not at all stable in the
longitudinal direction, Whereas the bottom two plan forms,
with walls in both directions are stable in direction A as well
as in direction B. 3
 This, of course, leads to a cellular type of bUilding for between masonry walls and other parts of the structu re,
which masonry offers an excellent structural solution. These points will be considered in greater depth later.

Vehicular impact
Where vehicular impact may prove a problem, the Code
suggests that attempts should be made to isolate the
structure from the vehicles. This could be achieved using
earth banks, boltarcs. etc, .
In Figure 8, the columns just visible on the right are being
protected from a run-away vehicle. This technrque can equally
well be used to safeguard masonry bUildings.
The high nse blocks of flats In Figure 9 were desiqned for
accioental damage and are structurally safe. Subsequent to
their completion. however, bonards and a crash barrier were
Installed to protect them from run -away vehicles on the steep
road behind them.

The Code suggests that the layout is considered for

cellulanty, Interaction between intersecting walls, and

H igh risk situations

The Code also suggests that special precautions should be
taken where there are particular hazards such as chemical
plants or flour mills. This may result in accidental damage
concepts being a primary consideration at the initial design
stage.

Damage proportionate to cause

The total collapse of the end bay of the Danish block
Illustrated resulted from damage to only part of the ground
floor gable wall. The damage that follovved was out of all

,.
~
;;:

proportion to the cause, and to avoid trus sort of situation ~"

arising, the Code lays down the guideline that the damage [
should not be disproportionate to the cause. -
A gas explosion at Clarkston Toll, on the outskirts of ~
Glasgow, could arguably be placed in the same category as ~
the Danish block. The picture, Figure 11 shows all that was ~
4 left of a heavily reinforced concrete wall after the event. ~
 or all of the desion and details are not made by the same
designer.' The need for overall responsibility is clearly
extremely important.
Minimum stiffness requirement

Another point in clause 20 - referred to ea rlier - concerns the

The void in which the explosion took place did not have any
substantial areas of weakness . Thus, it was effectively an
explosion within a uniformly strong pressure vessel wh ich.
unfortunately, was not quite strong enough . Had an end wall
or part of a side wall been designed to be specifically weak
against lateral pressure, the terocity and effect of the
explosion could have been much reduced. This would have
resulted from the weak area failing at a relatively low pressure
and allowing the hot gases to escape. This escape at high
energy gases is called venting. It is not mentioned in the
Code, but It is of great importance.
'unsbffened' structure. Stiff and stable in direction A, but
lacking stiffness in direction B. This structure would require
some spine walls to sbffen it agarnst force B. But. because of
its geometry, not much wind may act on the narrow end wall ,
resulting in only a little spine wall being incorporated from
structural necessity. This could still be thought of as lacking
stiffness in direction B, even w hen a small amou nt of spine
wall has been incorporated. To avoid this situation occurring,
the Code recommends that the building should be designed
for either the wind force or ' ,5% of the total characteristic
dead load above any level, wh ichever is the greater. This ' ,5%
represents the force wh ich mu st be resisted to achieve the
minimum acceptable am ount of stiffness in the building.

Responsibility for overall stability

The Code also includes a paragraph dealing with the Question
of who is responsible for overall stability. This is aimed at
avoiding situations where the masonry is designed by one
consultant and the timber roof by another. Each designer may
think that the other is dealing with the way the roof is fixed to
the top of the walls. Consecuently, the building may be
completed without this detail being constructed or even
considered in the design. To avoid this situation arising. the
Code states that 'The designer responsible for the overall
stability of the structure should ensure the cornpatitnhty of the
design and details of parts and components. There should be
no doubt of this responsibility for overall stability when some

THE DETAILED REQUIREMENTS 3

The foregoing commentary, covers the general preamble
contained in clause 20. We now turn to the specific DesiSJIforrobusb ass
requirements of Section 5 of the Code.
. .
The three options
There are three routes through the accidental damage clauses
- options 1. 2 and 3, as shown in Figure 14. However, these
only apply to buildings of 5 or more storeys. If the building is 4
storeys or less, there are no specific requirements. This
. ..
~ presupposes that low -rise buildings will be designed 'robustly'
I
-e
and comply with clause 20 of the Code.
The first route. option 1, requires fundamental thought -


!" little If any thought and is simply a matter of following specific
the thinking man's route. The third route, option 3, requires
I
14 a*I
~ rules. Option 2 is a blend of options ' and 3 in that although
.. the rules need only be followed in part. fundamental thought lesser of 60 kN or 20 kN + 4Ns where Ns is the number of
~ is also required. storeys.
~ Before considering any of the options in detail, two This means that the maximum value for F, is 60 kN. The
]; definitions must be established: minimum value - for a 5 storey structure - is 40 kN. Ft.
j
,
Hor izontal tying force, F,
The first definition is the horizontal tying force. F,. This is the
therefore, has a value which lies between 40 and 60 kN. F, is a
value that is constantly required. 5

Prot ect ed Mem ber s
If a structural' elemen t is designed to ca rry. wi thout failure.
both:
(a) the reduced design load - de rived f rom the reduced V,'s
and Ym's for accidental damage analysis;
and
(b) 34 kNlm' . applied uniforml y to Itself and othe r elements
attached to it, it is designated a protected member.
In other words. protected members remain intact after an
accidenta l event. They are regarded as being st ructu rally
unaffected by It. This is clearly im portant wh en suc h members
are indispensable to the stability of the structure.
When adjusting VI values for acc idental damage. VI for O,
become s 105 whe re the imposed load is of a permanent
nature, such as storage areas, computer room s, etc.
The calculation for a protected m ason ry m ember IS based
on a three pinned arch model. From tests. this has been
fou nd to correlate well with what actually happens when a
w all is laterally loaded. The formu la giving the lateral fai lu re
load, Qlal' is:
~ lateral supports
Qlat = - where ha * and t are the height and thickness 0 f
h;
the wall respeclt vely. and n is the precompression on the wa ll
per unit length. It must be remembered that for arching action
to be effective. adequate abutments in the form of concrete
surfaces or other construction capable of providing sufficient
resistance against rotation. lateral and axial movements are
necessary. In this Situation Ym becomes 105, which
represents the overall factor of safety. Normally. of cou rse.
6 ~~
Wit h acci dental damage. the materia ls safety tactors such as
Ymand Ymll are halved.
Having estab lished the se two defmitions - the hor izont al tying
force. F,. and the protected member - It is now possible to
lookat option 1 in more detail.
Option 1
VERTICAL & HORIZONTAL ELEMENTS. UNLESS
PROTECTED. PROVED REMOVABL E. ONE AT A TIME.
WITHOUT CAUSING COLLAPSE
This clearly indicates that all st ructural members. un less
designed to be protected members. are at risk and mu st be
assu med to be lost following an accidental event.
Notional removal of members
The Code on ly requires one member at a time to be lost or
'notionally removed', Following the notional removal of a
member. the structu re mu st be anafysed to pred ict the extent
of collapse. If volume is lost and if it exceeds that perm itted by
the Bu ild ing Regulaltons. the member in question must be
st rengthened to become a protected member. or the structu re
of the building improved to eliminate or reduce the extent of
predicted collapse. When this has been done . the member is
notionally replaced and the next m em ber is notiona lly removed
and the structure re -enalysed. This process continues until all
the non- protected horizontal and vertica l members have been
removed one at a time and the consequences assessed.
Theoretically . this is a very good and basically sound
approach. It does. howe ver. require som e farruliarity With the
technique. Once experience has been gained, dangerous
situations can read ily be spotted. On the other hand. it may
not commend itself to those unfamiliar with the process.
Definition of members
Irrespective of the degree of familiarity, what constitutes a
member for this type of analysis? Table 11 ot the Code
provides the necessary guidance and is reproduced below
Type of Extent
load bearing
element
Beam Clear span betvveen supportsor between a
support and the extremity of a member
Column Clear height between horizontal lateral supports
Slab or other Clear span between supports and/or temporary
floor and roof supportsor betweena suppo rt and the extremity
construction ot a member
Wall inco rporat- l ength between lateral supportsor length
109 one or more between a lateral support and the end of the wall
lateral supports
(note 2)
Wall without l ength not exceeding 2'25 h anywhere along the
wall (for internal walls)
Full lengt h (for external walls)
(h is the clear height of a wall or column
between lateral supports)
NOTE t, TemfXJrary supports to slabs can be provided by substantIal or
otheradequate partitions capable of carrying the required load.
NOTE 2. Lateral supports to walls can be provided by mtersecting or
return walls. piers. stJIfened sectJCN1S of wall, substantial non-
Ioadbeaflng partdions in accordance with (a). (b) and (c) of clause 37-5.
or purpose-designed structural elements.
Contain ing the damage
Thus. a member is defined as a beam, a column, a slab or a
wall. Beams. columns and slabs are fairty straightforward, but ~
walls are not. If a wall is not a protected member, what
am ount of the wall shou ld be deemed to be removed follow ing
i
;::
an Incident? The Code gives guidance on thi s by suggesting Ii}
three specific cases where the spread of damage is limited by j
the provision of vertical bracing in the form of intersecting or !b
return walls, substantial partitions or piers. ~
Case 1: Intersecting &: return walls ~
The first instance is where there is an intersecti ng or return :.
~
*See the Code definitions for the specific difference between h ~
~
 wall which has a minimum length of ~, average weight not
2 removed from anywhere Within the wall length.
less than 340 kglm' , and a connection (bonded or tied) to the
wall being braced which is capable of transmitting a tensile
force of F{ m height. This wall will limit the spread of damage
and, If an explosion occurs, the length of the wall lost will be
reduced to the distance between vertical braces or between a
vertical brace and the free end of a wall, To realise 340 kglm' ,
a 215 mm wall or a 170 mm heavy calculon brick wall with
plaster would be required,
Case2: Inlersecting substantial partitions
The spread of damage can also be limited when the inter-
sectinq wall is a substantial partition. This is a special
instance of the previous case. In order to fulf il the Code
requirements, the partition must intersect with the wall at right
angles. It must have an average weight of not less than 150
kglm' . A halt-brick wall would be adequate here. The junction
must be capable of transmitting a tensile force of 0-5 F{m
height or greater, The Code suggests that the partition need
not be straight but It should in effect divide the bay into
compartments. It may be interrupted by door openings,
However, the Code does not give any definitive guidance on
the details, The Greater London Council have decided that an
important factor is the portion of partition abutting the wall,
and they believe that this should not be less than 1 m.
I"
~
~
~ Both the wall (fig 22) and Its short return (fig 23) will
f recognises this by stipulabng that the length of the return
"~ Where intemal walls do not have any stiffening effect from
, return walls or intersecting walls, one should assume that a
portion of wall equal in length to 2-25 x height is deemed to be
In the case of long external walls Without intersecting or
return walls to provide vertical bracing, the total length of wall
must be assurned to be removed.
Case 3: Piered walls
The Code recognises that a substantial pier will stiffen a wall
and contain the spread of damage, The guidance limits the
length of pier to 1 m, and the pier section should be adequate
to resist. in bending or arching a force of l '5F/ m run of
height. The choice of 1-5F, is quite logical. and is based on the
fact that the pier would carry the 34 kNlm' load over its full
area and a triangular area either side - this area being ha +
h'
....!.. If the lateral pressure is 34 kNlm2 , the load/unit
2
height becomes 76.5 kNlm. This is roughly the mean of 90 kN
and 60 kN. which is 1-5 times the 60 and 40 kN values which
are the maximum and minimum Fl values. It is on this basis
that the pier strength cnterion of ' ,5 F{ m height is suggested.
To reiterate the requirements of option 1 - walls. or parts of
walls. floors, beams or columns are removed one at a time
(unless they are protected members) and the building is
analysed to predict the extent of damage. As noted earlier.
this is the thinking engineer's approach. It is not particularly
difficult.
Recognisable situations
In the aftermath of Ronan Point. although bnckwork was not
involved in that collapse. a study was made to tty to establish
the susceptibility of loadbearing brickwork structures to partial
collapse follOWing the removal of a major wall or pie~51. Three
areas were identified which required special consideration.
External walls
The first subject was an external wall Without return s. and a
similar external wall With short returns. as shown in Figures 22
& 23.
disappear following an internal explosion, The Code
must be 'Y.! - say 125 m for a standard domestic. clear storey
height. If it is longer than this. It is deemed to remain even if
the main wall is demolished.
Considering both situations, each floor must be capable of 7
 shown In Figure 26 can be thought of as a floor encastre along
all ItS Internal ecges - as shown in Figure 27.

cantilevering back to the undamagec part of Ihe building if it IS

10 remain stable. It must be capable of carrying all the
reduced design loads plus the weight of the wall standing on
It. If each floor can carry Its own wall. there is no spread of
collapse.
Inlernal walls

Trus will not be far from the truth, and IS a convenient

engineering approximation.
The strength of the floor can then be ascertained using
standard yield line techniques.

The second condition which may require further Investigation

IS similar to the first - namely. short Internal wall s (5 . 6m)
without vertical bracing from returns. piers or Intersecting
walls. If one of the internal walls shown in Figure 24 were
removed, the floors above must span twice the length . at least
In part. and must stili be capable of carrying Ihe dead weight
of the wall immediately above - plus. of course. any imposed
loads. This extra dead load will act at or near mid span.
Because of considerations like this. care must be taken with
large span buildings.

Resullanl high local stresses

So mu ch for option 1. Fundamentally, It is based on the

concept of tran sfernng the loads of the unsuppo rtec part of
the structure. following an accident, back to the foundations
via another route with minimal damage. For that reason, It is
often called the 'atternative path' approach.

Option 2
The second option may be summarised as follows:

PROVIDE FULL HORIZONTAL TIES CHECK VERTICAL

MEMBERS PROTECTED OR REMOVABLE
It requires all horizontal ties to be present In the building. ?i
which is then examined for the effects of the removal of f_
The third situat ion that requ ires special consideration is where vertical members fa predict the extent of damage .
the removal of a wall may place hig h local stresses on other 1/'
walls. In this case. Ihe removal of the ground floor wall w ill Horizonta l ties ~
.~
result in all the walls above It being carried by the structure in Three types of horizontal lies are usee in option 2:
such a way that overstressing mayoccur at the intersection of 1. Peripheral ~
the remaining ground floor walls - at point A in Figure 25. 2. lnternal lonqttudmal and transverse -
The checks necessary for stability in the first two cases 3. Wall and column ties m
were on the strenglh of the floor slab. It has to be strong Vertical ties will be covered laterbut. for the moment. they can :-
enough to carry back Into the core of the structure the dead be ignorec because under Option 2 they are assumec to be ~
~
8 weight of the floor and the wall . A part structure. such as that absent. -:<
 In addition to peripheral ties. internal longitudinal (in direction
*tIDIII . . of span) and internal transverse (in direction perpendicular to
_ --"""vc span) ties are required. The magnitude of the force for which
internal longitudinal ties are to be designed is given by the

-- .."'-
Ib

- -
..
- formula shown in Figure 32. Normally. in domestic
construction. La is 5 m or less and Gk+ Ok is of the order of 75

- .........
p-

-c.=:,
~
kN/m' . Therefore. F, usually suffices. Beyond the domestic
scale, for example in a warehouse type of building with 10 m
spans. the force required may well be 4F, or more. The
magnitude of the force for which internal transverse ties are to
be designed is F, in all cases.
The internal ties in Figure 32 are evenly spread. Of course,
the peripheral steel is also required.

Honzontal ties are designed on the basis of the

characteristic tensile strength of the material in question, and
may be provided by the elements of construction already fully
stressed in their normal service function.
Peripheral ties
Peripheral ties must be capable of carrying a force of F,kN,
and the steel must lie within a 1200 mm zone from the
periphery of the structure.

The internal ties can be concentrated into beams or

similar, and need not always be evenly spread. However, the
spacing for these concentrated tie zones must not exceed
6m.

The ability to carry F,kN is also required at anchorages and

re-entrant corners. This, of course, is provided mechanically
or by bond length.

The internal ties can also be positioned in the lower and

upper 05 m of walls - again with a 6 m maximum spacing. In
Figure 34. the longitudinal ties are shown evenly spaced for an
insitu slab. As before. peripheral steel is required.

A more straightforward case is shown in Figure 31.

Internal transverse &. longitudinalties

With precast floors. the steel already present at the

junctions of the slabs can be used for ties. This will be
discussed later. Again, peripheral steel is required.
So much for the internal ties. Now. the wall and column
ties must be considered.

Wall ,( column lies

Wall and column ties hold the top and bottom of external 9

walls into the structure. The force which the horizontal wall or
column bes should be designed to carry is the lesser of 2F, or
~" For domestic constructon, h is normally approximately
25
25 m, and the tie force usually approximates to F,.
Wall and column ties can be provided by fricbon or shear
between the masonry and the concrete slab. as illustrated in
the left hand wall In Figure 37.
By reinforcement: In certain instances. It may be possible to
use steel and. in such an event, the force may be provided in
concentrated pockets as shown in the right hand wall. The
maximum soacnq IS 5 rn, and when this spacing is used the
force Will be 5F,. Ties should not be further than 25 m from a
free or unrestrained edge. Columns should have a junction
strength of F, and. of course. for corner columns this is
required in both directions and the vector sum of the two
forces IS F, '</2.
By frict ion/shear: Conbnuing With the way that fncbon/shear
forces can be mobilised - the concept is that when a gas
explosion occurs. a pressure of 34 kNlm 2 is assumed to be
generated.
The pressure of 34 kNlm' acting on the wall Will produce a
~=
force shown as F,'m , equal to 34x
2
425 kNim width,
assuming a normal storey height. (Remember that the
accidental pressure can only occur in the upper or in the lower
10 compartment at any one bme.) Although the force is
generated either above or below the slab. It is assumed that it
is resisted by the joints at the head of the wall below the slab
and the base of the wall abcve the slab, This assumption is
quite reasonable since the upper and lower inner leaves are
connected by the same outer leaf.
This type of wall connection can be justified by either shear
or friction (the factors of 2 are for double shear or fricbon)'"), In
the case of shear. F, per m run must be less than 035 (the
minimum value for shear) dwided by Y~ . multiplied by the
area of 1m run of wall multipl ied by 2 for double shear. Note
that Y~ becomes 125 for accidental damage analysis.
For the friction case, F, must be equal to or less than IJ- (the
coefficient of friction between brickwork and concrete)
multi plied by n (the least favourable vertical load per unit
length of wall) divided by Ym (the overall factor of safety equal
to 1'05) multiplied by 2 (the factor which takes account of the
two fnction surfaces). The value of IJ- between bnckwork and
concrete is taken as 0 6.
Incidentally. when using the shear resistance calculanon.
035 can be enhanced by the precompression on the wall. The
basic shear equation is F = 035 + 06 QA for mortar
designations (i). (ii) and (iii) - the mortars which are normally
used for loadbearing bnckwork,
Thus. option 2 uses peripheral and internal ties plus wall
and column ties - but no vertical bes. The structural adequacy
of the vertical members is then checked. They must either be
protected members (ie. able to carry 34 kNlm') or they must
be capable of notional removal. one at a bme. Without undue
damage resulting.
Option 3
Option 3 is the fully tied solution. and involves the full
horizontal tying, just descnbec, plus vertical ties. The object is ,.
to ensure that the vertical members remain after an accident. ~
In other words. with the level of vertical tying prescribed. the >:
vertical members are deemed to behave as protected "-
members. j
~
PROVIDE FULL HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL TIES NO
REMOVAL CHECKS REOUIRED
Vertical ties ~
::
Vertical ties are either vertical wall ties. Vw, or vertical column :
ties. Vc. These are contained Within the walls or columns of ~
the building, '<
 .......
--"'"
......__vc
whi ch offers a more practical approach . When vertica l ties are
concentrated in poc kets at 5 m centres, the use of horizontal
wall ties sim ilarly concentrated become s clearer. As With the

.............
Ir--
horizonta l case. vertica l wall ties, etc, should not be posit ioned
further than 25 m from a free or unrestra ined edge.

- ...--
--w.-
c.=-
p-

Such vertically t ied eleme nts wi ll remain structurally inta ct

follow ing an accide ntal event. To achieve th is. the Code gives
the follow ing gu idance:
A . Ties shou ld extend from roof to either:
(i) foundation level
or The tension requirement, T. also applies to columns. But.
(ii) a level below whic h the vertica l eleme nts are protected. since T is an axial tensile force, there is obviously no \/2
B. The loadbeari ng leaf must not be less than 150 mm. requ irement for corner columns as in the case of horizontal
C. The mo rtar should be 1:1:6 or better. column ties.
That, in essence, is the th ird optio n wh ere, by following the
D. The masonry should have a minimum characteristic
rules. all will be well. There is a school of thought which
com pressive strength of 5N1mm' .
woul d agree wi th this sentime nt. Equally, a school of thought
E. The ratio of heig ht to thiCkness( h; ) must not exceed exists whi ch sees this approach as having potentia l dangers if
it is applied blindly and wi thout thought.
20.
F. The tie force is given by: Summary of options
T 34A (h)'
= aooo f N or 100 kN per m or per colu mn whichever These requ irem ents of Section 5 of the Code can be satisfied
by followi ng one of thr ee rou tes:
is the greater. In this formula, A is the horizontal cross- Option 1 - the aiternative path approach .
sectional area (mm') of the column or wall including piers. but Opti on 2 - the partially tied solution com prising full horizontal
excludi ng the non -loadbearing leaf. if any. of an externa l wa ll ties, followed by an alternative path analysis
of cavity construct ion . limi ted to vertica l members.
Option 3 - the fully tied solutio n which requ ires full horizontal,
and vertical ties.
Design ph ilosophy
The deSign procedure relies on three principal tools (singly or
IS150mm
Ignore outer_ in combination):
1. Removal of member analysis to predict the consequences.
2. Design of protected members.
RIilIo I .20 3. Triorth ogonal tying (tying wit hin the th ree major axes of the
UNb.SN mort.. 1 1 6 building).
Rem ember that the use of these too ls depends on certain
assum ptio ns autho rised by Parli ament. The thr ee princ ipal
roelcn:e <n. N t ones are:
or 100kN
wIIich_ - " " 1. The pressure wi ll not exceed 34 kNlm'.
1A_a1 _ _ mrnI
2, Only one mem ber w ill fail at a time.
3. A certain definable volu me of a build ing is allowed to
The vertical steel bars needed for the vertical ties can be collapse.
di st ributed . in theory . th roughout the length of the wall. In Remem ber also that the accidental damage ana lysis is not
practice. it is hard to see how this could be achieved. based on any exact science. It is a rational prediction of the
Alternat ively. they can be concentrated at 5 m max centres. probable consequences related to the assu mptions made.

BACKGROUND PRINCIPLES
4
~ To better app reciate some of the princi ples embodied in the
~ Code, it is useful to consider a few examples of damaged
"ffi buildinqs,
"0

" Horizontal ties

~ The illustration shows a reinforced concrete beam, with
icups tand . w hich is acting as a catenary. It is we ll beyond its
design condition. With an excessive deflection - yet it has not
~ failed . This was a local autho nty tenants' store, fu ll of sma ll
~ cubicles. The tenants decided to make it into a community

!
~ cent re, and began to knock down all the partition walls. After
many of the supporting walls had been demol ished. the beam
, suddenly lu rched into the deflected shape shown. 11
 The fact that the beam did not collapse has more to do with
catenary action than with the flexural strength of the beam.
The concept of horizontal ties is similar to this. Even when
floor slabs are taken beyond their safe strength limit. It ISlikely
that the floors will span any external gaps in a catenary mode.
The floors may deflect excessively. but should not collapse.
Transverse & longitudinal ties
The concept of lateral supports limiting the spread of damage
is illustrated in Figure 46. The end wall has been blown out -
but only up to the stlHened section provided by the chimney
breast.
The stiffened section restricted the damage to the outer wall
in a similar manner to the pier discussed earlier. It
demonstrates the way in which piers. substantial crosswalls
and partitions can limit the spread of damage.
The same house again is seen in Figure 47, in more detail.
Notice the damaged partition. At the instant of the explosion.
It had equal pressure on both sides due to the door being left
open. So. although cracked. the partition remained in position
relatively undamaged.
This was not true of the external wall which completely
disappeared up to the chimney breast - as shown in the
previous illustration. Thus, external walls are vulnerable
because the pressure cannot be equalised on both sides. It is
this reasoning which precludes unbraced external walls from
having a limit on the length of wall to be removed. The
building also provides an example of the alternative path
approach - but the Code does not recommend reliance on
wardrobes to prop up roofsl

The picture above shows a timber floor cantilevenng in both

directions. Main beams in one direction. with the decking
spanning in the other - similar to the principles of internal
transverse and longitudinal ties. Although it has deflected well
beyond the service condition. the floor has not collapsed and
is cantileve ring from the two remaining walls.

Containing the damage

5 ROBUSTNESS

Buildings can. of course. fall down through not being

robust enough to carry their own weight. The illustrations
show the Campanile In St Mark's Square. Venice. which
collapsed in 1902. In fairness to the mason who designed It.
the Campanile was built rn 1329 - SO It lasted a long time. It
was rebuilt in 191 2 (Figure 50).
Another building that fell down was the gymnasium at Rock
Ferry School (7), There was no gale, no explosion, no impact.
Luckily. it was empty at the time and no one was hurt. Fig ure 51.
[
~
~
~

12
- - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- -
I
 capable of suppo rting the tops of the wall s, If this is done, the
force from wall C whi ch is transferred into the roof w ill then be
transmitted into the end gab le wa lls - walls A and B, Since
these end gable walls are the stiff shear wal ls, when the wi nd
is blow ing as shown, they w ill resist the applied wind load, In
order to achieve th is effect, the roof may need to be stiffened,
It also require s care in the way that the roof is connected to
the walls ,

Connectorslstrapslties

--- ==-
Lateral movement

54 -

-
I*:i<F4l

-- j,--- -- --
=ii, .~.
_I,' ,'
8lrIp

-- --
_ :, .:!'

- bIocIUng. 8lrIp

...A _ _ 8"
Deta ils of some of these connectio ns are provided in Append ix
C of the Code, Figure 54 illustrates the principles required in
any detail whose purpose is to hold a gable wall into a timber
Structural synthesis floor,
Straps, bent Into the shape of an L, are fixed to the floor

i.c In order to get a feel for robustness, it is necessary to

unde rstand the way in wh ich masonry structures are made to
work. Consider a simple box structure such as the small
-e
!
~
flat -roofed domestic un it shown in Figure 52. There is a front
doo r, a back door and two wi ndow openings. When the ~ i nd
15 blows on wall C (or D), half the lateral pressure IS transmitted
~ down to the foundations and the other half up to the roof,
~ Considering Section A, the flat roof has no moment
:? capacity at Its junction with the wall. So, under the loading
~ shown, the wall s, acting as cantilevers, would simply rotate
~ through the dotted position to fa ilure .
~ To avoid th is, the roof m ust be made to act as a stiff plate
and extend into the cavity. These prevent the wa ll moving in
directi on A. By fixing packing between the first joists and the
wal l, movement in direcli on B can be restricted, But, all th is
presupposes that the floor is acting as a stiff plate and , to
achieve this, blocking or herringbone strutting is introduced
between the first two or th ree joists, as shown , This should be
placed at the strap posit ion,
These principles are shown over the page in a real
building at roof level. The L-shaped straps are positioned
where the ceiling diaphrag m has been sliffened - not. th is
time , by blocking or strutt ing but by triangu lar type bracing
trusses runn ing longitudinally along the roof, There is no 13
 evidence of packing to stop the wall moving inwards.
However. closer examination reveals that the longitudinal roof
bracing actually abuts the wall and prevents It from moving
inwards.

Wall layout & floor systems

Sutherland has suggested,9, th at the robustness of a structure,
and Its ability to sustain accidents with minimum damage. is
directly related to the layout of the walls and the type of floor
Uplift used. These can be combi ned to give the desired degree of
robustness . Korff argues that It is also greatly dependent on
the fort uitous interactions of elements in an emergency(lO).
This can be defined as a likely combined behaviou r of
components w hereby their aggregate strengt h greatly exceeds
their individual strengths.

The principle of holding down roofs subject to net uplift is

shown in Figure 56. Both the roof trusses and the wall plate
must be held down onto the wall with a factor of safety of 14
against uplift .

It is, of course, essentially a comparison table. and is not

intended to be used as a fine design tool. Nevertheless, the
table Illustrates how an irutral deSign might be improved by
optinq for a somewhat more robust combination of wall layout
and floor system .

Precast floors

Above . the principle is demonstrated in practice. The roof

trusses are held down to a wall plate by proprietary fixing
clips . These can be seen on the two lefthand trusses above
the window lintol. The wall plate IS held down onto the wall by
10 mm diameter galvanised steel bars which have a pre-bent
hooked end. The hooked end is lowered down the cavity and
IS caugh t on a solid vertical twist tie. The upper end of the bar
is then bent over the wall plate. The connection IS made tight
by pushing the top of the bar sideways, as far as It wi ll go,
and then holding It in position with staples. Finally, the end of
i
;;:
the bar is tr im med (Figure 58). The details shown In Figures 57 In themselves, precast units are acceptable, although care ~
& 58 are qurte different from that shown In Figure 56, but they should be taken with the jointin g and tying. A mechanical ~
contain all the principles of holding down a roof, locked loop type of joint should be used, as shown in Figure
Appendix C of the Code gives details of some fixings, 00. ~
although those provided only apply to lateral restraint. For Tests carned out at the Bu ilding Research Establishment -
holding-down details and a fuller treatment of strapping and have shown this type af joint to be as strong. and even ~
::
tying, reference should be made to the 'Design guid e for stronger, than the concrete units themselves. Note that the ~
strapping and tying of loadbearing brickwork in low-rise panels have failed while the joint (centre) rema ins ~
14 construction'!", undamaged . Figure 61. ~
 Another idea would be to buttress both ends of the build,ng -
leaving the centre portion untied to collapse, in part, as It may
- although, of course, this may not satisfy the Building
Regulations as currently drafted.

Save or sacrifice?
The same paper by Sutherland' ) also drscusses the concept
of dividing the structure into component blocks, each stable
on its own but with definitive breaks to limit the spread of
Pursuing this argumen t to its logical conclusion, stability
could be achieved by using buttressed and independent
blocks to get the best of both worlds. Where there is a
buttressed block at one end only, the other blocks would need
to be tied back to it - thus becoming tied blocks.

Verlicalties

damage. Perhaps this is suggested because of the duel

uncertainty ot either not having enough tying or, on the other
hand, having too much .

Both Korft 's and Sutherland's papers express some concem

about the use of continuous vertical ties. It is argued that an
explosion could have the effeel of dragging out the elements
above and below the member forcibly removed by the
incident. Indeed, this is what happened durin g a test on a
model concrete panel highrise block at the Building Research
Establishment' ".

A fully tied solution (Figure 63) might result in an explosion

causing damage which would then spread because of the tied
nature of the building. It the building we re split into
independently stable parts, this spread of damage would not
-
--
occur.

Discrete blocks -
--
A suggestion, which has much to comme nd it, is to
stagger the vertical ties' ) or anchor them independently in the
top and bottom of the floor slab" O). The building would still be
fully tied vertically, but the ties wo uld be discontinuous.

Non-cellular plan forms

Thus tar, the discussion of accidental damage and robustness
has been primarily concerned with cellular form s of
construction, for wh ich loadbearing brickwork offers such an
effective and economicsolution.
However, tall single-storey open plan buildings mu st also be
considered. Such structures work in the same way as the 15
 simple box building illustrated earlier. Diaphragm wall construction has been widely used. and
Sbff plate acbon of the roof is important to transfer the top With a vanety of elevanonal treatments. for many different
half of the wall loads Into the shear walls. The design should types of buildings including sports halls. SWimming pools
be based on sound engineering princtples(11.12). In such (Figure 69). industrial buildings. garages. theatres. churches.
bUildings. walls will doubtless span vertically due to the etc.
presence of movement joints.
Fin walls
For many years now. two efficient and economical forms of
Fin wall constructk>n is structurally Similar to diaphragmwalls
construction have been very successfully used In practice.
One uses cellular or diaphragm wall construction (11). while rn as much as the heavily piered caVity walls have a large I
value in bending. Wide span buildings enclosing large open
the other exploits the structural lo rm of piered walls known as
fin .......alls(121. spaces can be safely built when the design is based on sound
engineering principles. A great many fin wall structures have
been budt for a wide vanety 01 purposes. over a considerable
Diaphragm wall s
number of years. and all are performing well.
A diaphragm wall IS an extra-wide cavity wall - so wide that
normal metal ties can no longer be used in a structural sense.
The ties across the cavity are, therefore. short brick walls.
These can be bonded into the inner and outer leaves. or
butted up to the external leaves and bed to them . There must
always be a verncal shear resistance at the junction of the
crosswall and the flanges. If the crosswalls are not bonded to
the outer leaves. metal ties must be placed across the
junction, Within the bed joints. to give the junction the ability
to resist vertical shear.

Clearly visi ble in Figure 68 are the vertical movement joints

which effectively place the walls into pu rely vertical bending .

6 MAKING SENSE OF FACTS

Frequency of damage Deaths of occupants

Returning to the subject of accidental damage. It IS revealing of dwellings due
to look at the frequency of explosions occurring in buildings. to vehicle impact
Consider the statrstics for the penodl g71 .1977.
1971 7 4
Explosions Total
causing death deaths Road deaths per annum

1971 2 10 34 1960's aporox 6CXX)-8XXl

19723 8 8
19734 8 9 As can be seen, there are approximately 10 explosions a
19745 15 17 year. and each tends to claim at least one life, The tragic loss
1975-& 12 13 of life at Clarkston Toll (22) makes the 1971 2 figures untypical.
19767 10 10
16 Deaths 01 occupants of dwellings resulting from vehicular
impact are considerably less than one per annum. Compared Permitted damage levels
to road deaths, the effect of accidental damage is very small
indeed.

S ignificant accident damag e

(dwellingslp.a,)

Explosions: pipedgas 33
cylinder gas 3
other 4
total 40
Vehicle impacts 27
overall total 67

Furthermore, looking at the combined statistics for

explosions and vehicular impact. including those which do not
result in deaths, it can be seen that there are just over one per Certainly, it is true to say that the border line between success
week. and failure is very thin. This can be appreciated by comparing
the collapse at Ronan Point with the permitted damage levels
Explosions in dwellings allowed under 0 18 of the Building Regulations. It must, of
(pe r annum)
course, be pointed out that 0 18 refers to three storeys only -
Incidents Dwellings the storey above and below the incident and, of course, the
aHected storey in which the incident occurs,
Ronan Point involved failure of one corner of the block
4 storeys or less 38 57 throughout the total height of the structure. Nevertheless, the
5 storeysor more 1.5 3 narrowness of the divide between success and failure can be
- - demonstrated by considering the volume of structure lost.
total 39.5 00
According to 0 18, to succeed, the volume permitted to fail at
Ronan Point should have been restricted to 2%. Yet 6%, which
If the statistics for explosions in buildings are broken down was the volume of structure actually lost, was considered to
into categories: (a> buildings of 4 storeys or less, and (b) be a national disaster. However, it can be shown that in a 5
buildings of 5 storeys or more, it can be seen that only 15 storey building the permitted volume of lost structure may be
incidents per annum (affecting 3 dwellings per annum) fall as high as 9%.
into category (b). The probability of an accidental event Consideration of these points can help to put the topic of
occurring in a build ing or 5 or more storeys is, therefo re. very accidental damage into perspective. It must be dealt with, but
small. Whilst the recuirements for accidental damage are set there is only a very small possibility of the measures taken to
out in the Code, it is extremely unlikely that the required safeguard the structure being put to the test in an accidental
measures will ever be called upon to work. incident.

That properly designed buildings can withstand gas
explosions was demonstrated in a seriesof tests(13) carried out
in the aftermath of Ronan Point. The tests were conducted in
a building designed to simulate the top 31'1 storeys of a
modern masonry structure.
. wall was blown out by the explosion and no partial collapse
CONCLUSIONS 7
The effect of venting, mentioned earlier, can clearly be seen
in the illustration. When the air/gas mixture is ignited,
pressure builds up very rapidly indeed. At a pressure of about
7 to 14 kNlm2 (12 psi) the windows blow out. allowing much
of the unignited mixture to be expelled. This can be seen
'exploding' harmlessly outside the building.
Whilst the walls were damaged in this series of tests, no
occurred. When this evidence is viewed in the context of
current legislation, the guidance available within the Code of
Practice, and the basic principles involved, the engineer
should have every confidence in the inherent ability of well
designed masonrystructures to withstand unforeseen events.

17
 8 REFERENCES

1. Repo rt of the Inqui ry Into the co llapse of flats at
Ronan Po int, Cann ing Town, London. Ministry of
Housing & Local Government. HMSO 1968.
2. Flats constructed with precast concrete panels:
Appra isal and strengtheni ng of ex isting high blocks.
Design of new blocks. Ministry of Housing & Local
Government Circular 62/68.
3. Notes for gu idance on the Interp retati on of Appendix
I to Min istry of Hou sing & Local Govern ment Circular
62/68. Institution of Structural En9ineers RP/68102. 1968.
Guidance on the design of domestic accommodation in
loadbearing brickwork and blockwork to avo id collap se
following an Internal explosion. Institution of Structural
Engineers RP/68/03. 1968.
4. Th e Bu ild ing Regulations 1976 No. 1676. HMSO.
Reprinted 1978.
5. J . Morton. S. R. Davies & A. W. Hendry. The stability of
loadbearing br ickwork structures following accident al
damage to a major bearing wall or pier . Proceedings of
2nd International Brick Masonry Conference, edited West &
Speed. 1970.
6. J . O. A. Korff. Accidental loading - Part II, Application.
Proceedings of symposium on the struclu ral use of
masonry. The Institulion of Structural Engineers . 1974.
7. J . B. Menzies & G. D. Grainger. Report on th e collapse
of the sports hall at Rockferry Comprehens iv e School,
Blrkenhead. Building Research Establishment Current
Paper 69/76. 1976.
8. Design Guide for strapping and tying of loadbearing
brickwork in low rise construction. British Ceramic
Research Association SP93: 1977.
9. R. J . M. Sutherland. Principles for ensuring stability.
Proceedings of symposium on stability of low rise buildings
of hybrid construction . Institution of Structural Engineers.
1978.
10. J . O. A. Korff. The overall appraisal of brickwork
buildings. Paper read at the Conference for Engineering
Tutors, Maidenhead 1978. Brick Developmen t Association.
11. W. G. Curtin, G. Shaw, J . K. Beck & W. A. Bray. Design
of brick diaphragm walls. Brick Development Associatio n.
Revised 1982 (Reprinted 1990).
12. W. G. Curtin, G. Shaw, J . K. Beck & W. A. Bray. Design
of brick fi n walls in tall single-storey buildings. Brick
Development Association . 1980.
13. N. F. Astbury et al. Gas explosions in loadbearing
brick structures. British Ceramic Research Association
SP68: 1970.
Additional References (1996)
14. The Building Regulations 1991. Approved Document
A Structure A3 & A4 (1992 edition). HMSO.
15. BS 5628. Use of Masonry: Part I: 1992. Stru ctural
use of unre inforce d masonry. SSI Standards.
16. BS 5628. Use of Mas onry: Part 2: 1995. Stru ctural
use of re inforced and prestressed masonry. BSI
Standards.

The Building Regulations have been amended since the issue of the 1976 edition referenced in lhis publicalion, although the
requirements for accidental damage for five or more storey buildings have not altered significantly. The guidance given in BS 5628: Part
1: 1992 has not altered from the provisions in the 1978 version of that Code in respect of design for accidental damage. BS 5628: Part
2 was first published in 1985 and amended in 1995 and includes guidance for the selection of partial safety factors for material strength
for the accidental damage design of reinforced and prestressed masonry structures.

ReadfHS 8re expressly 8dvisfld thst whilst 1116 contents of this publication 8re believed to be BCCUrst9, correct and complete, no relisncfI should be placed upon its contents 8$ being
applicsbltt to any particulafCirCumstances. Any advice, opinionor information contained is publishedonly on the footing that the Brick Development Association. its servants or agents snd
sl1contributors to this pUblicstion shsll be under no liability whstsooll$f in respectof its contents.
Designed and produced to( the Brick Development Association, Woodside House, Winkfield, Windsor, Berkshire Sl 4 2DX. Tel. Winkfield Row (01344 885651)
Printed in England by P.L Blake l td.. Perivale. Middlesex