10

Masonry: issues and solutions

Key reference: Masonry design for disproportionate collapse

requirements under Regulation A3 of the Building Regulations
(England and Wales)10.1. The Structural Masonry Designers
Manual10.2 provides useful advice and Eurocode 610.3 (EC6) and
BS 5628-110.4 are key references.

10.1 Introduction
Loadbearing masonry structures in brick or block
are widely used for low rise structures and to some
extent for higher rise structures such that any Class
up to Class 2B might be relevant. Masonry supports
are widely used within hybrid structures where the
horizontal elements are timber or precast concrete
floors. Dislodgement of the walls increases the
risk of precipitating collapse, so the floor survival
strategies discussed in Chapter 5 can be considered.
Most traditional masonry receives its stability by
being buttressed and by being loadbearing. High
compression provides for transverse shear/friction
resistance and high compression permits walls
to carry lateral bending utilising pre-compression
as a substitute for tensile strength or by facilitating
resistance by arching to a degree which can be
surprisingly high (always providing the arch lateral
forces can be resisted). Lateral bending resistance
in the transverse direction can be boosted by
incorporating bed joint reinforcement and this might
be used as an emergency span system to justify wall
survival.
Needless to say, non-loadbearing masonry is
potentially vulnerable to imposed lateral loads. Even
loadbearing masonry may be sensitive if eccentric
vertical loads are added as a result of poor bearing
details. A robustness strategy should render all walls
resistant to lateral loading for general reasons of safety
and to avoid the need to consider taking their weight
into account as debris should they be assumed to
fail. As many non-loadbearing walls are internal with
no defined horizontal wind loading, care should be
taken to comply with code rules about height to wall
thickness and to justify any structural assumptions
about end restraint and anchorage. Particular care is
required in the construction phase when all walls are
vulnerable to any lateral loading.
The traditional cellular plan form of masonry structures
offers inherent robustness if all the vertical and
horizontal elements are interconnected and if sensible
traditional practice with regard to wall end returns
is deployed. Hence, as with all materials, achieving
robustness starts with provision of a robust layout.
But modern demands for open space or for making
openings can inadvertently erode that traditional
benefit. Additionally, masonry structures generally
lack inherent tensile capacity (and ductility), and
so become vulnerable to significant collapse in the
event of accidental wall removal (see Box 4.1 of the
Copenhagen gas explosion in Section 4.3.2).

EN 1991-1-710.5 is the Eurocode which addresses

robustness issues (see Chapters 4 and 5). It gives
guidance for design for accidental damage using
similar terminology and principles to those used in
Building Regulations Approved Document A10.6 (AD-A).
The Eurocode for masonry design, EC610.3 refers to
EN 1991-1-7 but does not give any guidance on how
the requirements of AD-A and EN 1991-1-7 are to be
achieved. Such guidance is given in BS 562810.4. With
the replacement of British Standards by Eurocodes, this
guidance will be transferred into a non-contradictory,
complementary information (NCCI) document, so that it
will not be lost. Unfortunately, there is some confusion in
the published versions of the AD-A about the provision
of horizontal ties in Class 2B buildings (see Section 5.1).
It is understood that the need for horizontal ties in all
Class 2B buildings, except in timber frame buildings,
will be reinstated in the AD-A. In BS 5628 and other
masonry industry publications, only one of the options
for Class 2B buildings requires horizontal ties. Table 10.1
gives the BS 5628 recommendations. The NCCI will
provide the finalised guidance.
Practical masonry buildings can have varying numbers
of storeys or basements though the latter can be partly
excluded from the number of storeys considered for
classification (see Chapter 4 and Reference 10.7). There
are risks of inadvertently reducing inbuilt robustness
with change of use and with the modern trend of
adding storeys or basements to existing buildings. Such
changes potentially change the building classification
so requiring a change of detailing which can be hard to
implement.
New build loadbearing masonry buildings falling within
Classes 2A or 2B can be dealt with using the codified
prescriptive rules and the standard rules about tying in
horizontal and vertical directions apply as with all other
materials. But for Class 2B buildings, the alternative
of accepting localised damage or considering local
element removal may be found more useful since
the incorporation of vertical ties is often difficult (see
Section 10.4). Theoretically, the route of designing key
elements is available but is often impractical.

Table 10.1 Detailed accidental recommendations adapted

from Table 11 from BS 5628-1
Building class

Recommendations

Class 1

Provide robustness, interaction of components and containment of spread of

damage in accordance with the guidance in BS 562810.4 Clause 16

Class 2A

As for Class 1, and additionally provide effective anchorage of all

suspended floors to walls or effective horizontal ties in accordance with
33.4 and Table 12 of BS 5628

Class 2B

As for Class 1, and additionally:

Option (1) Provide (other than key
elements), supporting columns, beams
or slabs supporting one or more
columns or prove a loadbearing wall, or
loadbearing walls removable, one at a
time, without causing collapse

Option (2) Provide effective

horizontal ties in accordance
with 33.3 and Table 13, and
vertical ties in accordance with
33.5 and Table 12 of BS 5628

The Institution of Structural Engineers Practical guide to structural robustness and disproportionate collapse in buildings

Robust Pages.indd 63

63

02/11/2010 10:08