Licensed copy from CIS: watermanpart, Waterman Partnership, 21/01/2017, Uncontrolled Copy.

A single copy of this document is licensed to

watermanpart

On

21/01/2017

This is an uncontrolled copy. Ensure use of the

most current version of the document by searching
the Construction Information Service.
 Structural fire engineering design: Digest 487
materials behaviour – masonry Part 3
R de Vekey PhD MRSC CChem DIC
digest
BRE Centre for Whole Life Construction and Conservation
Licensed copy from CIS: watermanpart, Waterman Partnership, 21/01/2017, Uncontrolled Copy.

This Digest is part of a suite of related documents containing guidance

for the construction industry on structural fire engineering design. The
intention is to produce performance based guidance that brings
together fire engineering and structural engineering providing a
framework within which designers are free to develop site specific
solutions based on real performance criteria. The Digests contain
information complementary to the existing and emerging fire
engineering codes and standards. Each Digest may be used in isolation
or as part of the full integrated suite.
In this Part, three broad design methodologies for masonry are described:
● traditional prescriptive, test based;
● simple performance based by combining test based and other data; Figure 1 Perforated building blocks with
● via modelling. mortarless interlocking vertical joints which
need rendering both sides to give optimum
fire insulation

Masonry is a very versatile material and, in all its
roles, may bear loads resulting from applied forces
such as wind, stacking forces, impacts and seismic
events. It may also provide sound insulation, fire
resistance, thermal insulation and security barriers
between the internal spaces and the external
environment or between two internal spaces.
External walls also provide barriers to snow, rain,
sun and wind, and all walls can provide attractive
and durable finishes internally and, more
commonly, externally. There are three broad
applications of masonry in modern construction.
● Complete loadbearing structures in which
masonry walls bear the vertical loads of the
walls above, the floors, roofs etc, occupancy
loads, and satisfy many other functions.
● As exterior cladding walls in which the
masonry resists the actions of rain, weather,
movement and any locally imposed vertical and
lateral loads while providing shear stiffness to
the overall structure.
● As infill walls in frames which divide up spaces
and provide sound insulation, fire resistance,
thermal insulation and security barriers
between them while providing shear stiffness to
the overall structure.
Masonry is inherently fire resistant and refractory
(ie heat resistant). It has moderately good thermal
insulation properties so that it can also be used as a
protective layer for other materials such as iron,
steel and timber used in structural roles. It can also
be used to form columns, piers and other vertical
loadbearing elements, and – when reinforced or
formed into arches – beams and floors.
Since the Great Fire of London, masonry party
walls have been accepted as one of the better ways
of providing fire barriers between adjacent
dwellings and for compartmentalising larger
buildings to prevent the spread of fire.
 2
Basic fire design principles for masonry
In the context of designing masonry structures to resist fire,
virtually all historical and contemporary design methods are
based on the performance of masonry elements and never on
the whole performance of complete masonry structures. One
of the reasons is that masonry is only very rarely the sole
material in a structure. It is almost always combined with
timber or concrete floors and roofs; timber or steel in internal
Licensed copy from CIS: watermanpart, Waterman Partnership, 21/01/2017, Uncontrolled Copy.
partitions; metal fixings and many other materials. This
diversity of materials complicates structures to the point
where it would not be economically feasible to consider
testing every material in a structure. It also makes calculation
methods for whole structures too complex to solve routinely.
As a result most design methods (in Codes and Standards)
are based on the performance of elements: for masonry,
usually panel walls. Three principle options have been
explored for design methods which are:
● design by worst-case testing of specific complete element
(usually panel) types and their tabulation. Times to failure
under a standardised test regime are tabulated. Most of the
available data only covers unperforated walls;
● design by synthesis of layer sub-elements, assessed either
by testing or on the basis of simplified models;
● full design, using theoretical models which take into
account all possible modes of failure.
All the alternative methods have to deal with three main
potential criteria, R, E and I (see below), for failure of
compartment separating barriers in fire (modes of failure),
and, in special circumstances, two further criteria, M and
spread of flame.
Stability (criterion R)
A wall acting as a fire barrier will be deemed to fail if it
collapses or is structurally damaged so that it no longer
supports an applied load or action. Typically, loadbearing
walls are tested with an applied vertical load. Non-
loadbearing walls, which just bear their own weight and that
of any applied finishes, are not usually judged under this
criterion. Loadbearing walls will, by definition of the test
methodology, have a restraint at the base and the top of the
wall but may not have restraints at the vertical edges. Some
tests on non-loadbearing panels are carried out between
vertical restraining reactions to evaluate the effect of
differential heating and expansion on bowing. Test methods
usually exclude support from other restraints such as floors or
roof structures or conventional masonry returns (which are
the most common supports in practice) but are carried out on
wall sizes which would normally span between such
restraints.
Integrity (criterion E)
A separating barrier wall will be deemed to fail if it allows
significant amounts of hot gases or flames to penetrate during
the test which ignite a standard cotton test sample.
Thermal insulation (criterion I)
A separating barrier wall will be deemed to fail if it allows the
temperature of the side opposite the fire face to exceed a
specified level. In EN 1996-1-2 the specific requirement is
that the average temperature of the face remote from the fire
should not rise by more than 140 ºC and that the temperature
rise at any point should not rise by more than 180 ºC.
Mechanical impact (criterion M)
The wall should resist a lateral horizontal impact load. In
EN 1996-1-2 the specific requirement is that the wall should
resist a horizontal load as specified in EN 1363-2.
Walls or elements not carrying out a separating function
(eg a masonry column within a room) are not judged by these
integrity and insulation criteria.
Spread of flame
Most conventional masonry elements do not contain
sufficient content of organic compounds to support surface
spread of fire, intrinsic conflagration or charring and
therefore will normally have a rating of A1 for the purposes
of classification without test. Some products are
manufactured incorporating integral layers of foamed
organic polymer, either within hollow cores on one surface or
in the form of a sandwich structure with an organic core. In
standard fire tests these have been shown to give no problem,
provided that the foam layer is contained within a masonry
cavity and layered elements are tied to prevent separation.
Clearly, if the foam layer is exposed within or without the
building, the products would have to be rated for surface
spread of flame.
Additionally, some masonry products incorporate organic
aggregates and if this content exceeds 1% they are required to
be assessed by test.

Fire performance of masonry materials
Firstly, masonry needs to be defined. It is an assemblage of
discrete pieces (units) of natural stone, clay, concrete,
calcium silicate, gypsum, glass etc, stabilised and sealed with
mortar. The mortar is an inorganic setting mastic usually
containing sand and a hydraulic binder. The units can be any
shape but are most effective when in the form of rectangular
prisms which naturally bond together to give optimum
Licensed copy from CIS: watermanpart, Waterman Partnership, 21/01/2017, Uncontrolled Copy.
stability and strength. Although unmortared (dry-stone)
walls exist, they would automatically fail the integrity and
insulation criteria and so cannot be considered. Some
products used in continental Europe have an interlocking
baffle in place of the vertical mortar joints (Figure 1, page 1)
and will only be satisfactory as a fire barrier if both masonry
faces are coated with a fire resistant finish such as render or
plaster.
Because of the wide range of masonry products, fire
performance is diverse. However, a number of basic rules
operate and determine the performance; these are that:
● all masonry materials are sufficiently refractory to prevent
wholesale melting or significant softening when subject to
normal building fires. Some surface melting may occur in
longer fires.
● most masonry materials are inherently completely non-
flammable.
● most masonry materials, in thicknesses exceeding
125 mm, have sufficient thermal resistance to prevent
failure by the insulation criterion for several hours.
● most masonry materials, even in dry conditions, contain
sufficient equilibrium moisture content within their pore
system to delay temperature rise above 100 ºC for a
considerable time.
● most masonry materials have a sufficiently open porosity
to allow the free escape of volatile components, so
preventing explosive spalling type failures.
● very low porosity masonry materials (eg engineering
bricks and granites) normally have a high tensile strength
and insufficient volatile content to suffer explosive
spalling type failures. However, some dense concrete
products may have sufficient combined water to be prone
to spalling.
● hollow and perforated masonry units may suffer
progressive spalling of the fire face due to shearing
of the cross webs by thermally induced
differential strains.
● while bowing of masonry is a potential
mechanism for failure and is discussed at
length by Cooke[1], it has not been the
predominant mode of failure in
simulation tests.
Figure 2 Typical positions for straps in loadbearing
domestic houses recommended in BS 8103-1
3
Ancillary materials used to improve the fire
resistance of masonry
Although masonry, in most of its forms, is intrinsically
resistant to the effects of fire, it depends on connections to
other stabilising elements to maintain its stability. Moreover,
many fire performance characteristics can be improved by
use of metal ties, reinforcement and surface coatings. Most
masonry contains openings to allow human access, service
penetrations, ventilation and natural light entry. Ancillary
materials may be required to prevent fire leakage via these
openings.
Stability ancillaries
Smaller masonry box structures are intrinsically stable if they
are masonry bonded at corners and junctions, and tied at the
intersections with floor and roof structures. In cases where
masonry bonding is difficult, or inadvisable due to
differential movement problems, metal ties may be used. The
two leaves of cavity walls act in common by using ties. In
longer, flatter structures, vertical movement joints become
necessary to protect against movement cracking. Some
continuity at joints can be provided by using slip ties at these
junctions; alternatively they may be located at vertical
intersecting walls and are independently tied. Horizontal
movement joints are also necessary at the heads of panels
requiring slip ties to stabilise the masonry and possibly some
form of movement-tolerant fire resistant sealing system such
as intumescent paint or sealants, or rolling seals.
Infill walls in frame structures need ties at their peripheries
to ensure that the walls are retained under a fire load.
Bed joint reinforcement is widely used for crack
prevention and may reduce the risk of failure due to bowing
in fires by acting as a catenary support while itself being
protected from the full effects of the fire by the masonry.
Floors and roofs are tied using straps complying with
prescriptive specifications given in Approved Document
A1/2 to the Building Regulations[2] or in the small building
code, BS 8103-1[3] (Figure 2).
* Strap only required
in special cases
*
*
*
*
 4
Surface coatings
The use of surface coatings on masonry to improve other
factors such as rain and air resistance, thermal resistance,
flatness and appearance is widespread. Most non-flammable
coatings will also improve the fire performance, particularly
of the fire-affected side, provided that they are well-bonded
and don’t suffer premature spalling. Incorporating light
reinforcement in these coatings (eg wire meshes, expanded
Licensed copy from CIS: watermanpart, Waterman Partnership, 21/01/2017, Uncontrolled Copy.
metals or fibrous additives such as glass or polypropylene)
may improve their resistance to spalling; insulating
aggregates (eg exfoliated vermiculite or perlite) can improve
their performance as thermal barriers.
Design using current Codes of practice
The main design method used is design-by-test of specific
complete elements (usually unperforated panel) types.
Times-to-failure under a standardised test regime are
tabulated. These methods are entirely prescriptive in function
and are based on assumed worst-case test scenarios where the
fire load is not limited and temperatures might reach between
1000 and 1100 °C.
The Standards (listed in ‘Further reading’ on page 12) are
generally descriptive methods of test. The tests are broadly
simulations of what has been observed to occur in real fires
but they are formalised and embody many assumptions about
support, restraint and wall size (about 3 x 3 m). Also, in most
cases, they only simulate the case of an infinite fire load. For
masonry they are almost invariably tests of panels either
regarded as non-loadbearing such as internal partition walls,
infill walls in frame structures, and cladding; or loadbearing
walls, most commonly used in small dwelling houses and
small-to-medium rise flats. Columns and piers can also be
tested but very little data exists in the public domain for
masonry elements other than plain unperforated walls. (The
bibliography at the end of this Digest contains a list of
appropriate national and international standards.)
Figures 3 and 4 opposite, based on the UK Code of
practice[4], give a graphic feel for the likely performance of
some typical walls; but for the full range of wall types and
detailed options and variations, it is essential to consult the
tables in the latest version of the appropriate Code[5] . See
also ‘Further reading’.
The test methods reflect the type of restraint conditions for
which there will be a reasonable body of data. For instance,
non-loadbearing walls may be tested with no top restraint
beyond a simple support. This means that any restraint
against vertical expansion that is likely to occur in infill
panels in frames during a fire will not be modelled in the test
data. However this support applies to any panel with a soft
joint or flexible fire stop at the top. Equally, test apparatus
may have no restraint against horizontal expansion although
this would be an unusual edge condition in real panels, either
infilled or spanning between walls at right angles. However,
many panels in modern buildings will have vertical soft
joints; these would usually provide simple support but offer
no restraint against horizontal expansion. Many tests are
recorded as restrained (ie where a panel is built into a frame);
the panel may self-load during a fire test due to expansion but
the resultant in-plane stresses are not measured.
In a test, a loadbearing panel will have a simple lateral
support at the top together with a load applied either to the top
using deadweights or hydraulic rams or to the bottom using
hydraulic rams. This means that there is no restraint against
vertical expansion beyond the reaction of the load.
Loadbearing test panels are not normally supported at their
vertical edges although this is an unusual support condition in
real walls.
All these restraint conditions are only usually important to
the mechanism if failure is due to structural collapse and only
affect integrity failure or temperature rise if they induce
cracking. This means that the bulk of the available fire testing
data cannot be used to develop structural behaviour models
since a structural failure will not have occurred.
On the basis of such testing and subject to factors of safety,
lists of wall types are drawn up in which each wall is defined
by material type (eg concrete); its geometrical form (eg
hollow block); the gross thickness of the wall; and the type,
thickness and number of layers of covering (eg gypsum
plaster). The slenderness ratio of walls is not covered
explicitly but is covered, in effect, by the thickness in relation
to the standard test wall dimensions. In UK codes, special
tabulations are provided for cavity walls but European codes
base performance on that of the fire affected leaf. Recent
work in Australia by Gnanakrishnan, Lawther et al [6,7] has
indicated that cavity walls may underperform single leaves in
some support circumstances due to a collapse mode which
results from bowing of tied leaves.
Design, then, is carried out simply by choosing a tabulated
wall format which meets the performance specification, in
terms of hours of resistance, demanded by the Building
Regulations for the position of the wall in the building and
subject to any other requirements such as structure,
appearance, sound insulation etc.
Other fire related factors (eg seals at junctions and where
the wall is penetrated for services or other reasons) are dealt
with by associated codes.
 5

200
Plastered perforated,
60% solid
180
Bare perforated, 75%
solid
Vermiculite plastered
160 perforated, 75% solid

Bare solid
140
Vermiculite plastered
Licensed copy from CIS: watermanpart, Waterman Partnership, 21/01/2017, Uncontrolled Copy.

solid
Minimum wall thickness (mm)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
6 4 3 2 1 0.5
Fire period (hours)

Figure 3 Performance measured by testing clay brickwork (Code of practice BS 5628-3)

Hollow block (dense

aggregate)
200 Solid brick (clay, calcil or
concrete)
Hollow block (lightweight
aggregate)
Solid block (dense
aggregate)

150 Solid block (lightweight

aggregate)
Minimum wall thickness (mm)

Solid AAC block

100

50

0
6 4 3 2 1.5 1 0.5
Fire period (hours)

Figure 4 Performance measured by testing a range of masonry walling (Code of practice BS 5628-3)
 6

Performance issues not necessarily More flexible methods in development

covered by existing simple rules
In a report to the UK government by de Vekey[8], a number of
new developments in masonry design and materials were
proposed for which there was no existing test data and for
which no calculation method was available. The
developments are listed in Table 1.
Licensed copy from CIS: watermanpart, Waterman Partnership, 21/01/2017, Uncontrolled Copy.
Over the last two decades there has been some attempt to
develop more flexible design methods for masonry which
eliminate the need to carry out individual tests on every minor
variant wall form and innovation. There are a number of
codes around the world which have either tentative or more
developed simple calculation methods for masonry. These
may be published by consortia of materials producers or by

standards-making bodies such as CEN and ASTM.

Two main approaches are in development:
● a calculated interpolation of the existing database of test
results covered later in this section;
● complete modelling of the fire process using fundamental
physical data which is covered, by reference to
publications, in the next section.

Table 1 New developments in masonry practice for which there is no fire test data
Development Possible implications in a fire event Possible design remedy

1 Insulated cavities
2 Cavity walls filled with combustible insulants
3 Structural grade polyurethane foam used as a
replacement wall tie system
4 Polymer foam faced concrete units with foam
face in a cavity
5 Polymer foam filled hollow concrete units
6 Polymer-foam sandwich concrete units
7 Polymer-foam insulation permanent shuttering
blocks for concrete walls
8 Glued special bricks
9 The use of units with high volume proportion of
perforations to construct fire walls
10 Cavity wall ties with either a plastic body or
bonding system (eg polymer plugs and screws)
expanders or resin-bonded ties
11 Cold-formed metal section framing backing
walls
12 Plastic cavity closer devices
13 Cavity walls with stiff ties, limited support at
vertical edges and a fire affecting the loaded
leaf (Gnanakrishnan et al [6,7])
14 Masonry units with >1% organic content (due
to the use of recycled waste materials)
The insulation may cause a more rapid
temperature rise of the hot leaf and thus
greater thermal shock
Insulants may ignite and spread fire
through the cavity (but limited air supply)
As 2 above
As 2 above
Insulants may ignite (but very limited air
supply)
Loss of bonding layer of foam may
destabilise the wall
There will be melting and possibly ignition
during a fire event
Debonding at the glue line may detach
return walls and reduce stability
May reduce the resistance to spalling
erosion and thus the overall fire
performance
Will be destroyed thus reducing stability of
cavity walls (may be advantageous in some
circumstances)
Could fail in a fire and destabilise outer leaf
cladding
May allow fire to jump either way between
an internal space and a cavity
Deflection of the loaded leaf can snap the
tied-on outer leaf and cause early structural
collapse of the whole wall
May compromise inherent resistance to
ignition of the masonry product
Limited research[9,10] suggested that there
was no significant problem§
Limited research[9,10] indicated that there was
no combustion in a closed cavity§
As 2 above§
Probably as 2 above§
Probably as 2 above§
Stiff non-flammable ties should be built into
the bed joints to ensure a post-fire connection§
Protective sheathing/coating should not rely
upon adhesion to the foam but should have
non-flammable ties to the concrete§
Some metal ties spanning the glue line should
be included within the mortar beds
It may be advisable to use a reinforced
plaster/render coat over this type of wall or
derate the fire period
A minimal level of fire resistant ties should
be used in addition to the plastic type where
the fire period exceeds 1/2 hour§
It is important to protect the framing against
fire
Use masonry closers or build- in a protected
layer
Ensure that all walls are tied at their vertical
edges. Check the potential bow of walls not
tied at their vertical edges (Cooke[1])
Requirement in EN 771 series of standards to
establish reaction to fire via a test

§ Many of these materials will be damaged or destroyed and may need reinstatement if a building is reused after a fire event. Some fire-resistant insulation materials may
markedly increase the fire period to insulation failure but polymer-based insulants should be neglected in this context.

A method derived from the German DIN standard is
embodied in the current draft code, EN 1996-1-2[5], which
involves a thermal transmission rate and surface erosion rate.
However, it is not clearly set out and implies much higher
rates of erosion than have been reported in fire tests. In the
USA the method developed by the Brick Institute of
America (BIA) and the National Concrete Masonry
Association (NCMA)[11] is based on the concept of the
‘equivalent thickness’ of the masonry material which is, in
Licensed copy from CIS: watermanpart, Waterman Partnership, 21/01/2017, Uncontrolled Copy.
7
were excluded so that any method based on this data set
would need some rules to deal with potential stability
failures. To match UK practice this data has been reanalysed
in two categories:
● lower density concretes (type 1 concretes in BS 5628-3)
with a density range up to around 1100 kg/m3;
● higher density concretes (type 2) denser than 1100 kg/m3.
Type 1 would include all aerated concretes and concretes

effect, the thickness of the solid material present averaged
over the face area of the unit or units. The American method
also involves a nationally accepted combination rule for
layers of different masonry types, voids and finishes in a
composite wall. This is shown as the formulae[12]:
R = (R10.59 + R20.59 + . . . Rn0.59 + As)1.7
where:
R = fire resistance of the whole assembly in hours
R1, R2 and Rn = resistances of individual layers of masonry
material (wythes) in hours derived from tabulated values
As = 0.3 factor for each continuous air space of between 12.6
and 88.9 mm width
A further plaster layer factor is included within the bracket
for gypsum-sand plaster finishes which is derived from a
further table based on thickness and the number of faces
covered.
The Australian draft code also uses parameters of wall
thickness, material and coating type but has some explicit
slenderness ratio limits included to control potential
stability problems.
A large body of test data from historical American tests of
concrete blockwork is available[13] which allows a sensible
statistical analysis of the fire resistance period (or rating)
versus the ‘equivalent thickness’. This body of data is
sufficiently large to tolerate the removal of misleading data
such as those from tests which are terminated before any
failure mode operates; also tests which failed due to stability
made with lightweight aggregates such as expanded clay
and foamed slag. Type 2 includes concretes made with
natural aggregates and blends. Additionally the smaller
body of data has been analysed for plaster or render coated
equivalent wall types. Figures 5 and 6 are simple linear
regressions forced through zero for the type 1 aggregate
wall tests, and Table 2 (page 8) presents the regression data
for all four groups analysed. The American method actually
employs four density categories and uses a non-linear curve
such as a parabolic fit, but this introduces more parameters
and complexity for only a small improvement in fit to the
data at the upper resistance levels.
As can be seen, the data is quite consistent for the main
case of bare walls and produces quite modest confidence
intervals. The rather limited data set for plastered walls
inevitably generates larger confidence bands.
In order to test the application of the principle to UK
materials, data from the somewhat limited published
database[14,15,16] has been obtained and the equivalent
thickness assessed from the recorded data. This data was
then superimposed over the confidence intervals produced
from the US data in Figures 5 and 6. The UK data shows
that, with odd exceptions, the UK trend line would give a
generally safe result. The few results outside the wider
confidence bands for individual points may be due to special
circumstances and might require further investigation. The
formulae could be varied to cover the effects of finishes
while multi-layer walls could be dealt with by using addition
rules with a further safety factor included if required.

8 8 Predicted Y with estimated 90% CIs for regression line

Predicted Y with estimated 90% CIs for regression line and and single points with 26 data points (crosses only)
single points with 106 data points (yellow triangles only)
7 7

6 6
Time to failure (hours)
Time to failure (hours)

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Equivalent thickness of the wall (mm) Equivalent thickness of the wall (mm)

Figure 5 Linear regression forced through zero for bare lower Figure 6 Linear regression forced through zero for plastered
density concrete blockwork data from the USA[14] with UK data concrete lower density blockwork data from the USA[13] with UK
superimposed (green triangles) data superimposed (red squares)
 8

Table 2 Linear regression results for concrete masonry walls based on data from USA
Linear regression data forced through zero: for time = constant (C) x equivalent thickness
Material Number Slope Standard Students t Regression Residual Probability Confidence intervals
of data† error coefficient standard level for slope
(C) (R) deviation (%) Lower Upper

Bare dense aggregate 94 0.022 4.64 47.0 0.98 0.56 90 0.021 0.023
concrete blockwork E-4
Plastered dense 19 0.027 23.8 11.3 0.93 1.26 90 0.023 0.031
Licensed copy from CIS: watermanpart, Waterman Partnership, 21/01/2017, Uncontrolled Copy.

aggregate concrete E-4

blockwork
Bare lightweight 105 0.026 6.41 41.2 0.97 0.77 90 0.025 0.027
aggregate concrete E-4
blockwork
Plastered lightweight 25 0.036 35.6 10.1 0.90 1.44 90 0.03 0.042
aggregate concrete E-4
blockwork
† Less 1 degree of freedom

For type 1 materials the formula for the line would be:
R = (0.026 + 0.1P) x TE
where:
R = fire resistance period in hours
TE = equivalent thickness in mm
P = coating factor which is zero for bare walls and 1 for
plastered or rendered walls with a minimum thickness of
layers of 12 mm. (This factor could be made more
intelligent if better input data could be located.)
For design purposes it would probably be simpler to regress
the data so as to give a thickness for a desired fire resistance
period. It would then be necessary to decide on a factor of
safety, either linked to the confidence limits for the data
points or as a reduction in the slope coefficient. A similar
approach has been adopted for fired clay masonry walls[17].
In Australia a similar approach has been adopted but using
a stepped graph of the fire period (equivalent to a tabulated
value) in relation to gross thickness. A further parameter, the
slenderness ratio, is used to ensure the stability of
loadbearing walls.
Figures 7 and 8, derived from Australian research [18,19] are
typical graphs showing the database of tests and the draft
Standards Association of Australia (SAA) code line.
A slenderness ratio limit method, along the lines of the
Australian proposal, is suggested to control stability failures
which would also take into account the loading, support and
restraint condition of the wall, and special cases such as
cavity walls.
Design by modelling: the future
Thermal insulation
Mathematical modelling of thermal conduction processes,
to indicate whether walls are likely to fail as a result of
temperature rise on the non-fire face, is fairly well
understood. In principle, to create a workable model only
requires information on the thermal conductivity versus
temperature characteristics, the heat capacity, and the area
proportions of the materials forming the wall. There are,
however, the following factors which must be taken into
account.
● Damp walls will release water by evaporation at
somewhere around 100 °C which will increase the
effective heat capacity until all the water is driven off.
● Any wall which contains a material which has physically
or chemically bound water as part of its constitution will
lose the water at a temperature between 100 and 800 °C;
this endothermic process will also increase the effective
heat capacity, delaying any rise in temperature. Typical
materials are concretes and mortars.
● Some radiation and convection will take place in hollow
and perforated masonry units, and partially bypass the
conduction paths.
● Metal ancillary products (eg wall ties) may yield local
areas of enhanced conduction which become significant
for very low conduction units (eg aircrete).

● Spalling of the fire face may reduce the effective thickness

during the course of a test.
 9
300

Wall failed Draft SAA code line

250 Test terminated Proposed code line

200
Time to structural failure (mins)
Licensed copy from CIS: watermanpart, Waterman Partnership, 21/01/2017, Uncontrolled Copy.

150

100

50

0
40 80 120 160 200 240
Wall thickness (mm)

Figure 7 Australian data for thermal (criterion I) failure of clay masonry in relation to gross wall thickness with a proposed code line

300

Draft SAA
Wall failed
code line

250 Test Proposed

terminated code line

200
Time to structural failure (mins)

150

100

50

0
10 15 20 25 30
Slenderness ratio

Figure 8 Australian data for stability (criterion R) failure of clay masonry plotted versus slenderness ratio with a proposed code line
 10
Because of these complicating factors and the dynamic
nature of fire development, it is not as simple as it would
first appear to predict, completely, performance using a
model. Relevant data, for the range of temperatures in fires,
on conductivity, specific heat, thermal expansion
coefficient, density, and strength are reported in various
publications[5,20,21].
Integrity
Licensed copy from CIS: watermanpart, Waterman Partnership, 21/01/2017, Uncontrolled Copy.
Penetration of walls by fire is a rare mode of failure for
masonry and therefore models, currently, do not cover such
failure events.
Structural failure
Most existing data supports models which predict thermal
behaviour but a separate model is required to predict
structural behaviour to be used in parallel with thermal
modelling. Where structural failure occurs, the picture
becomes much more complex because of the diversity of
walling materials, restraint conditions and potential failure
modes.
Solid, single leaf walls made with non-loadbearing solid
masonry units supported in restraining frames
These tend to bow towards the fire because of differential
thermal expansion restrained at the edge. Despite the bowing,
the stability endowed by the restraining frames normally
means that the overall failure is not structural (eg Davy and
Ashton[11]).
Solid, single leaf walls made with loadbearing solid
masonry units supported in restraining frames or at top
and base
These also bow but less due to the compression stress and
failure is rarely structural.
Solid, single leaf walls made with hollow or perforated
masonry units
These units increase the thermal insulation by introducing
partial air gaps but reduce the stability because they erode
more easily.
Very slender, solid, single leaf walls made with solid
masonry units supported in restraining frames
At least one example has been reported to have failed by
collapse (Davy and Ashton[14]).
Gnanakrishnan and Lawther [22] have published several
papers in which finite element modelling was applied to the
behaviour of walls and the results were compared to physical
testing. In their 1989 paper[7] they proposed a model for
single leaf walls based on a computation of bowing which, in
turn, was based on data for thermal gradients, thermal
expansion coefficients, strength and Young’s modulus over a
range of temperatures. They have also investigated several
examples of cavity walls and found that a wall with no
vertical edge supports – but vertically loaded on the inner, fire
resisting leaf – fails structurally; this is because the restrained
or loaded inner leaf bows and fails the cooler outer leaf by
loading it via the wall ties. The whole wall then fails when the
eccentricity of the now-unpropped inner leaf reaches the
critical level. A wall loaded on both leaves equally, or only on
the outer leaf, was much less affected by this mechanism.
Gnanakrishnan and Lawther have tried to use a bowing
model to predict structural failure of fire walls.
One of the main problems of many of the tests and the
associated mathematical models described in this Digest is
that they are based on traditionally accepted fire-test edge
conditions, particularly those of free vertical edges; these
are a long way away from the edge conditions present in
most real masonry walls. This means that both the tests and
the associated models may give erroneous predictions for real
walls.

References
[1] Cooke G M E. Thermal bowing in fire and how it affects building
design. BRE Information Paper IP 21/88. Garston, BRE Bookshop,
1988.
[2] Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office. The
Building Regulations 1991 Approved Document A1/2 (1992 edition).
London, The Stationery Office, 1991.
[3] British Standards Institution. Structural design of low-rise
buildings. Code of practice for stability, site investigation, foundations
Licensed copy from CIS: watermanpart, Waterman Partnership, 21/01/2017, Uncontrolled Copy.
and ground floor slabs for housing. British Standard BS 8103-1:1995.
London, BSI, 1995.
[4] British Standards Institution. Code of practice for use of
masonry. Materials and components, design and workmanship. British
Standard BS 5628-3:2001. London, BSI, 2001.
[5] European Committee for Standardisation. Eurocode 6. Design
of masonry structures. General rules. Structural fire design. prEN
1996-1-2:2001.
[6] Gnanakrishnan N, Lawrence S J and Lawther R. Behaviour of
cavity brick walls exposed to fire. Proceedings of 8th International
Brick/Block Masonry Conference, Dublin, 1988, pp981–990.
[7] Gnanakrishnan N and Lawther R. Some aspects of the
performance of single leaf masonry construction. International
Symposium on Fire Engineering for Building Structures and Safety,
Institution of Engineers (Australia), Melbourne, 1989, pp93–99.
[8] de Vekey R C. The performance of masonry in fires: a review. BRE
Client Report CR45/93. Garston, BRE, 1993.
[9] de Vekey R C. The fire performance of insulated cavity walls. BRE
Note N52/97. Garston, BRE, 1997.
[10] de Vekey R C. The fire performance of insulated cavity walls.
Procs of 5th International Masonry Conference, London, 1998 (British
Masonry Society Procs 8, pp229–234).
[11] National Concrete Masonry Association. TEK manual for
concrete masonry design and construction (CD-rom). Herndon (VA),
NCMA, 2001.
11
[12] Uniform Building Code Standard 7-7. Methods for calculating fire
resistance of steel, concrete, wood, concrete masonry and clay
masonry construction. International Conference of Building Officials,
1994. Part IV, pp3-115 to 3-119.
[13] National Concrete Masonry Association. A compilation of fire
tests on concrete masonry assemblies. SBCCI Public Safety Testing
and Evaluation Services Inc, June 1993, Vol 1-5. Herndon (VA), NCMA,
1991.
[14] Davey N and Ashton L A. Fire tests on structural elements.
National Building Studies Research Paper 12. London, The Stationery
Office, 1953.
[15] Fisher R W and Smart P M T. Results of fire resistance tests on
elements of building construction.
[16] Fisher K. Fire resistance of brickwork: Regulatory requirements
and test performances, Procs of British Ceramic Society (September
1982), No.30, pp65–80.
[17] Nunn M A. Calculated fire resistance of clay masonry assemblies
based on the equivalent thickness method. Procs of 7th North
American Masonry Conference, Notre Dame, 1996, 2 1033–1043.
[18] Lawrence S J and Gnanakrishnan N. Masonry: developments
in design for fire. Australian Institute of Building papers, Vol 2 (January
1988).
[19] National Building Technology Centre. The fire resistance of
masonry walls (a summary of Australian research and its relevance to
codes and regulations). Technical Record 531. Sydney, NBTC
(Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation),
1988.
[20] Edgell G J. The effect of fire on masonry and masonry structures.
A Review. British Ceramic Research Association Technical Note 333.
Stoke on Trent, British Ceramic Research Ltd, 1982.
[21] de Vekey R C. Best practice guide for fire engineering. Task 10 –
masonry. BRE client project report 80988. Garston, BRE, 2002.
[22] Gnanakrishnan N and Lawther R. Modelling the structural
behaviour of single leaf masonry walls exposed to fire, p124.
 12

Further reading
Fire test Standards (national)
BS 476-1:1953 Fire tests on building materials and structures
BS 476-8:1972 Test methods and criteria for the fire resistance of elements of building construction
BS 476-20:1987 Method for determination of the fire resistance of elements of construction (general principles)
BS 476-21:1987 Method for determination of the fire resistance of loadbearing elements of construction
BS 476-22:1987 Method for determination of the fire resistance of non-loadbearing elements of construction
E.119-81, 1981 Standard of fire tests of building construction and materials. Annual book of American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards, Part 18, pp879–964
Licensed copy from CIS: watermanpart, Waterman Partnership, 21/01/2017, Uncontrolled Copy.

CAN/ULC-S101-M89 Standard methods of fire endurance tests of building construction and materials. Ottawa,
Standards Council of Canada, 1989
AS 1530 - l985: Part 4 Fire resistance tests of elements of building construction. Sydney, Standards
Association of Australia, 1985
National Building Code of Canada (NBC): Part 3 Fire protection, occupant safety and accessibility) 1995
Appendix A, A-9.10.3.1 and Appendix D

Fire test Standards (international)

EN 1363-1 Fire resistance tests. General requirements
EN 1364-1 Fire resistance of non-loadbearing elements. Walls BRE is committed to providing
EN 1365-1 Fire resistance of loadbearing elements. Walls impartial and authoritative information
on all aspects of the built environment
EN 1366-2 Fire resistance tests on service installations. Dampers
for clients, designers, contractors,
EN 1366-3 Fire resistance tests on service installations. Penetration seals engineers, manufacturers, occupants,
EN 1366-4 Fire resistance tests on service installations. Linear gap seals etc. We make every effort to ensure
the accuracy and quality of information
and guidance when it is first published.
National fire codes and regulations giving tabulated fire periods for masonry walls
However, we can take no responsibility
BS 5628-3:1985 Code of practice for use of masonry. Materials and components, design and workmanship (and for the subsequent use of this
amendments) information, nor for any errors or
The Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1990, Statutory Rules of Northern Ireland 1990 No 59. Belfast, The omissions it may contain.
Stationery Office, 1990
BRE is the UK’s leading centre of
Technical Standards for compliance with the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations 1990. Edinburgh, The expertise on building and construction,
Stationery Office, 1990 and the prevention and control of fire.
The Building Regulations 1991 Approved Document A: Structure (1992 Edition). London, The Stationery Office, Contact BRE for information about its
services, or for technical advice, at:
1991
BRE, Garston, Watford WD25 9XX
The Building Regulations 1991 Approved Document B: Fire Safety (1992 Edition). London, The Stationery Office, Tel: 01923 664000
1991 Fax: 01923 664098
AS 3700 - 1988 Masonry Code. Sydney, Standards Association of Australia, 1988 email: enquiries@bre.co.uk
Website: www.bre.co.uk

Other BRE and FBE publications concerned with fire engineering and fire design Details of BRE publications are available
from:
Digest 462 Steel structures supporting composite floor slabs: design for fire
www.brebookshop.com
BR 128 Guidelines for the construction of fire-resisting structural elements or
BR 135 Fire performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi-storey buildings IHS Rapidoc (BRE Bookshop)
(2nd edition) Willoughby Road
Bracknell RG12 8DW
BR 368 Design methodologies for smoke and heat exhaust ventilation
Tel: 01344 404407
BR 459 Fire safety engineering. A reference guide Fax: 01344 714440
FB 5 New fire design method for steel frames with composite floor slabs email: brebookshop@ihsrapidoc.com

Published by BRE Bookshop

Requests to copy any part of this
Acknowledgement publication should be made to:
This Digest has been produced with the support of the Office of the BRE Bookshop,
Building Research Establishment,
Deputy Prime Minister Watford WD25 9XX
Tel: 01923 664761
Fax: 01923 662477
email: brebookshop@emap.com

© Copyright BRE 2004

July 2004
ISBN 1 86081 704 1

www.bre.co.uk