J. O . A.

KORFF BSc CEng FIStructE MICE e l/SfS' (21) ' F '

,

February 1984

DESIGNOrrREE
STANDINGWALLS
 THE Information notes prepared in August 1995 relevant to
BRICK
DEVELOPMENT
DESIGN OF FREESTANDING WALLS
By J . O. A. Korff
ASSOCIATION BDA Design Guide 12, February 1984
Introduction
The Des ign of Freestanding Walls DG12 was first
published by BDA in February 1983 and subsequently
revised and reprinted in February 1984. Due to its
popularity with designers and because much of the
guidance is still relevant , DG12 is being retained in the
BDA's Publications List.
Codes , Standards and other reference material have
changed during the intervening 12 years since the guide
was reprinted in 1984, and the purpose of these
information notes is to highlight those important
reference changes which have a significant influence
on the use of the guide. These updated references will
need to be fully considered by desig ners in the
interpretation and use of DG12.
It is not possible to issue a teJduralline-by-line addendum
sheet to the guide and no attempt is being made to do
this . In due course when all the essential Codes,
Standards and other referen ce sources which are
currently changing have come into effect, it is the
Association's intention to completely revise DG12.
Design for Expo sure/Dura b il ity
Pages 4 to 8 inclusive of DG12 provide advice on
exposure , durab ility and assoc iated detailing
considerations for the des ign of freestanding walls .
Some of this guidance has been superseded by more
up-to-date information and reference material. The
"special" and "ordinary" qualities classification of clay
bricks is now redundant and has been superseded.
Reference should be made to BS 39211'), BS 187(2),
BS 4729(3) and BS 6649 (1 3) and to BS 5628: Use of
Maso nry: Part 3: 1985:Materi al s an d components ,
design and w orkm an sh ip(14). Those clauses of BS
5628:Part 3:1985 which are of particu lar relevance to
brickwork masonry are : Clause 21 - Exclusion of
Mo is tu re (sub-clauses 21.2 and 21.7), Clause 22 -
Durability, Clause 23 - Selection of Mortars, and Table
13 - Durability of Masonry in Finished Construction .
A further source of information regarding durability of
brick masonry construction is BDA Design Note 7 -
Brickwork Durab ility(15).
W i n d L oad s
DG 12 derives wind load ings in accordance with BS
CP3:Chapter V:Part 2:1972:Wind Loads. At the present
time this Code is still relevant to wind loading derivation ,
although the current version has been amended from
the 1972 edition. Consequently figure 3 on page 11 of
DG12 - Bas ic wind speed In mls requires revising in
accordance with the latest amendment of CP3 .
During 1995 it is expected that BS 6399:Loadi ng fo r
Bulld ings :Pa rt 2: 1995 :Cod e of pract ice f o r w ind
lo ad s , will be published by the British Standards
Institution . This new wind load code will be a complete
revision of CP3. BS 6399:Part 2 is likely to coexist
alongside CP3:Chapter V:Part 2 for about 12 months,
after which time CP3 will be withdrawn . BS 6399: Part
2 will contain specific information for the derivation of
wind loads on freesta nding walls .
DG12 can be used in either the context of CP3:Chapter
V:Part 2 or BS 6399:Part 2. If wind loading derivation is
in accordance with BS 6399:Part 2 then Table 2 (page
12) of DG12 becomes redundant whilst Figure 7 (page
18) of DG12 continues to be relevant if "p., the design
wind pressure is derived fully in accordance with BS
6399:Part 2 and incorporates the appropriate partial
factor of safety for loading (YI) from BS 5628 (usually YI
= 1.2). This latter requirement also applies to DG12
guidance in respect of the use of "p". the design wind
pressure, referenced on pages 17, 18, 19,20,21 and
23 for unreinforced brickwork des ign and to similar
design wind pressure references for re info rced
brickwork, (pages 26 to 34 inclusive of DG12).
St ructural Masonry Design Codes
All references in DG12 to BS 5628:U se of Masonry:
Part 1:1978:St ructural use of unrel nforced masonry,
should be replaced by reference to BS 5628: Use of
Masonry:Part 1:1992:St ruct ural use of unreinforced
masonry. For brickwork freestanding wall design to
DG12 the 1992 version of BS 5628 :Part 1 is identical to
the 1978 edition with the exception that the characteristic
shear strength of unreinforced masonry in designation
iii) mortar is reduced to 0.15 N/mm 2 (from 0.35 N/mm2 ) .
Page 21 of DG12 shows a shear strength calculation
for piers and if the revised characteristic shear strength
of 0.15 N/mm2 is taken into account the pier design
demonstrated remains adequate.
Pages 26 to 34 inclus ive of DG 12 demonstrate
reinforced brickwork design using two alternative
methods. The first is a permissiblestress design method
based on CP 111 :Part 2:1970, while the second is limit
states based to SP91. Reference to SP91 should be
replaced by BS 5628 :Use of Masonry:Part
2:1985:Structural use of reinforced and prestressed
masonry. BS 5628:Part 2 becameavailableafter DG12
was published. The detailed design approach and
worked examples for limit states design shown in DG12
from pages 29 to 34 inclusive need to be modified in
respect of the recommendations of BS 5628: Part
2:1985 , although the basic principles of reinforced
masonry design using this Code remain the same as
those given in SP91 . SP91 was a forerunner to BS
5628:Part 2.
An amended version of BS 5628:Part 2 is expected to
be published in the Autumn of 1995. Upon publication
by the British Standards Institution this Code should be
substituted for the 1985 edition. Major changes will
include guidance on design for durability of reinforcing
steels (cover and infill concrete quality) and changes to
design methods for laterally loaded masonry panels
incorporating bed-joint reinforcement. References will
also be brought fully up-to-date.
References
The list of references on page 35 of DG12 should be
amended as follows (others not amended remain
current):
(1) BS 3921 :1985. Specification for clay bricks.
British Standards Institution.
(3) BS 4729:1990. Specification for dimensions
of bricks of special shapes and sizes . British
Standards Institution.
(4) Delete reference to BS 3798:1964 which is a
withdrawn standard and add in its place:
BS 5642:Sills and Copings:Part 2:1983:
Specification for copings of precast
concrete, cast stone, clayware, slate and
natural stone. British Standards Institution.
(6) Add additional reference to BS 6399:Loading
for Buildings:Part 2:1995:Code of practice
for wind loads, when available from the British
Standards Institution.
Note that in due course CP3:Chapter V:Part 2
is likely to be withdrawn.
(10) BS 5628:Use of Masonry:Part 1:1992:
Structural use of unreinforced masonry.
British Standards Institution.
(12) Replace reference to SP91 :1977 by:BS
5628:Use of Masonry:Part 2:1985:Structural
use of reinforced and prestressed masonry.
British Standards Institution.
Note that in due course BS 5628:Part 2:1995 will
supersede BS 5628:Part 2:1985.
Add new references:
(13) BS 6649:1985. Specification for clay and
calcium silicate modular bricks. British
Standards Institution.
(14) BS 5628 :Use of Masonry:Part 3:1985:
Materials and components, design and
workmanship. British Standards Institution.
(15) J R Harding & R A Smith. Design Note 7 •
Brickwork Durability. 1986. BOA.
(16) M Hammell & J Morton. The Design of Curved
Brickwork. 1991 . BOA.
(17) B A Haseltine & J N Tull. Handbook to BS
5628 :Part 2:Section 1:Background and
Materials. 1991. BOA.
(18) B A Haseltine & J N Tull . Handbook to BS
5628:Part 2:Section 2:Reinforced Masonry
Design. 1992. BOA.
The following two references may be of interest and
are published by BRE. They are compatible with DG12
and its recommendations.
(19) Good Building Guide 14. Building Simple
Plan Brick or Blockwork Freestanding Walls.
Revised May 1994. Building Research
Establishment.
(20) Good BUilding Guide 19. BUilding
Reinforced, Diaphragm and Wide Plan
Freestanding Walls. March 1994. Building
Research Establishment.
August 1995
e Brick Development Association Limited
First p ublished February 1983 Edited by J.Morto n liSe PhD CE ng M ICE l\lInstM
Revised and reprinted February 1984
(se e Editor's Note opposite)

Designof
fl'ee slanding
walls
J. o. A. KORFF BSc CEng FIStructE MICE
Deputy Structural Engineer. OLC Department of Ar chi te ctur e and Civic Design

The Brick Development Association

1
INTRODUCTION
I

This document. which has been pre pa red for the guidance of civil a nd structura l engineers. architects and
builder s. deals with the design a nd use of plain a nd reinforced free-sta nding brick walls not forming part
of a building.

Free-standing brick walls are widely used for bou nda ry demarcation. landscaping. screening. secur ity.
a nd noise barriers. When properly constr ucted . free-stan ding br ick walls have proved to be extremely
durabl e a nd pleasing in appeara nce. Th ere are ma ny examples of brick walls. hundreds of yea rs old .
which a pa rt from occasiona l point ing and a tte ntion to coping req uire no other maintenance. By
modern sta nda rds. most of these old walls. bu ilt by rule of th umb. a re clearly over-des igned .

However. since the turn of the cent ury. a nd pa rticula rly after the Second World Wa r. fina ncia l
con str aint s a nd th e phenomenal gro wth of mass hou sing esta tes produced some very unsat isfactor y
examples offree-sta nding wallin g. Strange as it may seem. walls are not subjected to stat utory control .
except in the Inn er Lond on Area where a pp rova l is requ ired when the height exceeds 1.83 m (6 ft )
above gro und level. It is. therefore. not surprising that in the major ity of cases walls a re put up rather
than designed . a nd all too frequently prema turely deter iorat e or blow ove r.

In most cases. a durabl e a nd stable wall will cost little more than a sub-sta ndard one. All that is
required is the selection of suita ble mat er ials co mbined with an efficient arrangement of brickwork.

I & 2 Free-standing wall screening a small mews development and reducing noise from a )'ery husy trunk road.

2
3 Staggered boundary wall enhances the roadside.
Desig n (Iffree slanc/in.tt walls 3
FACTORS AFFECTING DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION

EXPOSURE
More often than not . free-standing walls are exposed to the full effects of th e weather. Th e action of
wind. as a late ral force. is ca tered for by the strength design. But. the co mbined effect of rain and
dr iving wind requ ires the use of suitable materials and correct co nst ructiona l det ail s.

Figure I sho ws the driving rai n index ma p of the Un ited Kingdom which. at present . is the best publi shed
guide to the severity of weather condit ion s. In genera l. bricks for free-standing walls in the moderate and
sheltered zones should comply with the frost resistanc e requirement s (but not necessarily the other
requirements) for special quality brick s. However. wher e the wall is properly weathered (ie provided with
an overhanging coping) ordina ry quality brick s may be used if recommended by the manufacturers for the
particular circumsta nces. In a reas of severe expos ure. special qu alit y brick s to BS 3921 ( n . or other bricks
having a high fro st resistance, are recommend ed. Ca lcium silicate bricks Class 3 or st ro nger. in
accordance with BS 187.'" a re suita ble for a ll degrees of expos ure.

These are very general guide lines which may be mod ified in the light oflocal conditions. Users sho uld
co ntac t the manufacturers to con firm tha t thei r bricks are suita ble for the intended degree of expos ure.

It is also well worth while to exa mine existing walls in the neighbo ur hood and no te th e perfo rmance of
particular bricks after a few winte rs' service . The exposure of saturated bricks to frost or. eve n more
importantly. to th e freeze/th aw cycle ove r severa l winters gives a very useful guide to durabil ity.

Some of th e mor e econ om ical wa lls recommended in this guide inco rpo rate half-brick pan els. Th ese
walls a re particularl y vulnera ble to saturation in the winter months. but should perform satisfacto rily
provided they are con structed in acco rda nce with th e advice given in thi s guide and under competent
supervision.

COPINGS AND CAPPINGS

The fun ction of copings a nd ca ppings is aesthetic as well as pro tective. Th e a ppea ra nce of a wall may be
dram atically changed by a ltering the coping or capping.

Th e protective function is aga inst vertica l water pene tra tion a nd in sheddi ng rainwater clear of the face
as effectively as poss ible. The idea l copi ng sho uld be durabl e. waterproo f. weather the brickwork. a nd
con structed prefer abl y with interlocking un its. Th e ove rha ng sho uld include a th roating recess or a drip
not less than 13 mm wide. with the oute r dri p edge at least 40 mm from the face of the brickwork as
sho wn in Figure 2e. Different shapes and types of co pings a nd ca ppings a re sho wn in Figure 2.

For cappings of special brick shapes. refer ence sho uld be mad e to BS 4729.,,, and for copings of clayware,
concrete or stone. to BS 3798.... A minimum weight of 1.5 kN /m ' is preferred for copings with concrete
or stone unit s. Some brick manufacturers can supply the ir own capping system which incorporates a dpc.

In man y instances. for aesthetic or functi on al reasons. it is necessary to use a brick-on-edge capping.
Such a capping will perform reasonabl y well. provided that it is co nst ructed in acco rda nce with the
recommendation s of Table I. Suit abl e galvanised stee l. stai nless steel or non -ferr ou s metal anchors
4
1
Driving rain index

HY

NB

NF

2 TG

o
2

L:";«;',,,I severe
1>::» ::»1 moderate ! a
1 1 sheltered
3 4 7

5
may be used to preven t movement s of end unit s, Figure 2n. For best result s an overhang such as shown
in Figure 2 (f-i) sho uld be provided.

MORTARS
Free-stand ing walls derive part of their resistance to lateral forces fro m their flexural strength. Where
adhesion between bricks and mort ar is not achieved, or is lost due to deteriora tion of the mortar, the
stre ngth may be reduced by as much as 50%. It is therefore imperative to ensure permanent flexural
tensile ad hesion between the brick s a nd the mo rtar.

Th ere is some evidence that the presence of entrained air bubbles, due to the use of plasticisers, results
in a n inferio r ad hesion. Experience shows that plasticised or masonry cement mort ars may be perfectl y
workable when the cement content is as low as a half or a third of that specifi ed. Thus, a visual check
on mortar worka bility cannot indicate whether it has been correctly gauged.

The following recommendations sho uld ensure adeq uate and d urable adhesio n between bricks a nd
mortar :
(1) Cement /lime/sand or cement/sand mo rta rs should be used. Plasticised or mason ry cement mort ars
a re not recomm ended, but may be used with the permi ssion of the engineer and under close
supervision aimed at ensuring that:
(a) the mortar is correctly ga uged with adequate water content
(b) mixing is strictly co ntrolled to prevent excessive air entrainment
(c) part ially set mort ar (normally after two hours) is d iscard ed a nd not reconst itut ed
(d) the suction rate of unit s is adjusted by co ntrolled wetting.
In general, air-entrained mortars are much more pron e to site abuse, and circumstance s may arise
where adequ ate adhesion is not achieved.
(2) In dry , hot weather, bricks should be wett ed by lightly spraying stacks or docking individual units.
Alternatively, a wetter mort ar may be used.
(3) Where brick s conta in sulphates in excess of 0.5% (ie, where bricks do not conform to the maximum
allowable soluble sulphate con tent for special qua lity bricks to BS 3921) sulphate resisting Portland

2a 2b
castconcrete a stone copingS
as
to 3798. copings with a rrinirnm
",..;g,lof 1.5kNJm' are ~red

2 courses of s1ates.-<~~~~~
dpc 2 c:o..<sesof 10 BS 743. 1U1y half-
bridIs ., BS3921 & lapped ard bedded
743havrog ~ in 1:14. :3 mortar
not exceeding 7%. in
1: ~ : 3 morlar .....~--
.t.;~===:;r::~~

. 0 •
toundahon
'0 •
•

6
 2c 2d
---- •
dpc tof orm
dPCtoform--~~i"'75i==75i==9'!"'"
drip drip

2e 21 2g
-cioorsectco petered coping
attemative sector q,.:..'
b -ees 10
," .
., ...
iiEO
'," 854729
n,:;;.· ' ;,, '~' " ~ ." .. .'; '9'
(j .

dpc tof ormdrip ~

~~~

2h 2i 2 cour ses tile

brick on edge in creasingwit h
1:l4;3 mortar. cross joints ard
and 2 cou rses ridge tile in
tile creasilg 1:14 :3 mortar

2n 215x215x102.5
soc erd petered
2j non-ferrousor galvarised (without c

aJtemati've shape
brick on edge
capping
~cra~..< " ",,: ._ .."..",-,

2 cocrses
dpC toformdrip--~~l!o;~!":#t--_...t..rrinrron

d PC ~

2k 21 2m
c ut br1ck on end bull-nosed doUJIe p1inthstretdler
stretcher on flat

2coorses
rrinrron
aboe dpc

dpctofomj
drip

brick_ capping above dpc to be speciat QUalrty n t :~ : 3 mortar;

or class 4 calciLmsilicate bricks in 1)~ :4~ mortar.
see text a nd lable 1 for wall and foundations brickwork.and
rroverTB"lt joint requirements

Design offree standing walls 7

TaM. 1 Brick and mortar requirements and associated materials
Position in wall Bricks Mortar OPC Remark s
Fo undat io ns 10 Clay to 1:1 :3 SRPC ifsulphates Not esse ntial with No other formof
150mm above BS3921 in brick or soil, low abso rption dpc sho uld be used.
ground level ( fro st ot herwise 1:1:3 PC bricks, but if un less all owed for in
res istant), Where in dou bt desired pro vide two structural design.
Calc ium sulphate resisti ng coursesof bricks
Silicate cement should be having absorptio n
Class 3 10 used of not more than 7 %.
BSI87 or two courses of slates
to BS743 fully half-
lapped and bedded in
mortar

From 150mm Clay to M inimum 1:1 :6or I :1:3a nd I :1:41 are

above ground BS3921 1:1:4 ISRPCif more durable
level to u/s sulphates in bricks in
of coping excess ero.s %
otherwise 1:1:6 or
1:1:41 PC

Calcium l:l :6PC

Silicate
Class 310
BSI87

Coping or Clay Special 1:1:3 PC

Capping Qualit y to
BS3921 Flexible dpc to BS 473 To improve water-
below coping or proofing of coping
Calcium 1:1:4 IPC ca pping. Preferably aluminium stearate
Silicate Permagrip additive may be used
Class 4 10
BSI87

cement (SRPC) sho uld be specifi ed and the mortar strengt h mu st not be weaker than I : I :6. In cases or
near maximum permitted sulphate conten t a nd/o r severe exposure I :! :4!, or even 1: 1:3 SRPC, is
preferable - see Table I.

DAMP PROOF COURSES

The strength of unreinforced free- standing walls de scribed in thi s guide is dependent on their flexural
ten sile stress. Consequently, the use or any dpc near gro und level incapable or providing the nece ssary
adhesion across th e joint is not permitted unless th e ' No Tension - method or de sign is used , as explained
in 'Methods or Design' (page 20).

In practice. the only dpcs which meet thi s requiremenl are :

(a) two courses o r (engineering) brick s to BS 3921 or BS 743"! For free -standing wall s. specia l qu al ity
bricks with a water ab sorption or not more th an 7% are con sidered to be adeq uate;
(b) two courses or slat es fully half lapped and bedded in mortar to BS 743.
In both ca ses. 1:1:3 PC or SRPC mortar (as appro priate) sho uld be used . However, in many cases where
walls are constructed of fro st-resistant brick s, th e need for a dpc near ground level is questionable.

Below the coping o r ca pping, a suita ble flexible d pc should be provided, fully bedded on the underside
and o n top in a suita ble mortar (see Table I) an d project ing 10 to 15 mm from the race to form a drip.
Permagrip dpc is particularl y suitable fo r t his purpose beca use or its superio r adhesion to mortar.
Flexible dpc's mu st never be cut back or poi nted over.

M OVEMENT JOINTS
In common with other building materials. bri ckwork is not dimensionally stable, and both reversible
and irreversible changes occur. In the ca se of free sta nding walls. the following main factors must be
taken into account in deciding the frequency o r movement joints :
(1) mo ist ure expansion or clay brick s
(2) thermal expansion o r contraction
t3) drying shrinkage, applicable in practice to calcium silica te br icks only.

Movement joints sho uld be con structed so that , in effect. they int roduce a complete separation over the
8
 ._...
:...:-- --
~-~-
j

4.5& 6 Correctly d<'siglU'c/ II/(H', 'I1 1('1I1 joints.

7 & 8 Cappings carried across movemen t joints , Though a

newly construc te d ....·011. the b('gi" "ill KS of potential problems
{IN! already apparent,
9
full height of the wall , including the dpc a nd coping o r ca pping but not the foundations. Detailed
recommendation s for the de sign of mo vement joints a re give n in Sect ion 3.

FOUNDATIONS
The foundat ion requirements for free- standing wa lls may be less o nerous than th ose for buildings.

It is suggested th at , for free-standing wall s not fo rm ing part of a build ing a nd not exceeding 2.~ m in
height, a foundati on depth 01'0.5 rn, o n a sufficiently firm bottom in any type of so il, provid es a
reason able co mpromise between co st conside ra tions an d stability. For higher wall s in cohesive so ils, a
minimum 01'0.75 m is recommended . Wh ere m ixed mad e-up gro und is pre sent, it would be rea sonable
to assume an allo wa ble net bearing pressure o f 50 kN /m ' , pro vided no organic so il is pre sent and a
reasonable degree of con solidation ha s been attained o ver th e yea rs.

Fresh fill is not suita ble for an y foundation s unle ss mech anically compacted in thin layers. I n such
conditions, the all owable net bearing pre ssure should, however, be limited to 25 kN /m ' and the footings
should be rein fo rced.

For rea son s explained o n page 17 , th e d ept h of brickwork below gro und o ught not to exceed 200 mm .
Deta iled reco mmenda tions in respect of fo unda tions fo r various wa lls, a nd worked examples, a re
provided in Sect ion 3.

WIND LOADS
The de sign wind speed V. is calculat ed o n the ba sis ofC P 3, C ha pter V, Part 2''':
V, =VS,S ,S 3
where
V = ba sic wind speed in m/sec (see Figure 3)
S , = topogra p hic fact or. normally taken as I
S, = gro und roughness. size of st ructure and height facto r. 0.6 va lue a pplies to wall s of any length not
exceeding 3 m height a bov e ground level, located in th e co unt ry with many wind breaks, sma ll
towns o r outskirts of large citi es.
S3 = statistica l factor ta ken as I in all circ ums tances.
Therefore,
V. = 0.6V m/ sec.

Since th e limit state a pp roa ch is ado pted. th e d esign wind speed is redesignated V" th e cha racte ristic
wind speed, but not e tha t V. = V, =0.6V. T he design wind p ress ure ca n now be ca lculat ed :
p = KV . 'C,y, N/m '
where
p = design wind pressure, N/ m'
K = 0.6 13 universal coefficient fro m th e wind code
C, =force coefficient, assumed 1.2
Yr = partial safety fact or for laterally loaded free-stand ing wall s = 1.2.
Therefore,
p = 0.6 13 x (0.6V) , x 1.2 x 1.2
= 0.3 18V' N/m '
For other S , and S , factors, the formula may be written in a more genera l form :
p = 0.88 (S, x S, x V)' .

N o guidance is give n in C P 3, Ch apter V, Part 2 co ncerning the ap prop ria te force coefficient for
free-standing wall s but, in the W ind loading handbook '" the authors suggest that such wa lls should be
treated as mem bers of a n unclad st ructu re. A table is provided in the hand book , cov ering different
ca ses and showing th e force coefficient varying between 1.2 a nd 2.

However, if th e cases shown a re related to th e act ua l configura tio n o f bou nda ry walls, it becomes clear
that a coefficient o fless th an 2 ha rdl y eve r a pplies. Th e co ntention that a force coefficient o f 2 is
exceptionally high , a nd does not acco rd with th e history of se rvice beh av iour of garden wall s, may be
a
best illustrated by the fact th at. until 1973, such walls in th e a rea cov ered by th e l C By-laws were
designed to 6Ib/ft ' (290 N/m ' ). Th e current practice in th e Gl.C is to use C r = 1.2 which produces
8Ib/ft' (380 N/m '), a 33 % increase. But , if C r = 2, as suggested by the handbook. is assumed , the walls
will have to be de signed to with stand 13 Ib/ft ' (636 N/m ') - und oubtedly a very unreasonable proposition .

The formula derived above, p = 0.3 18V' , a pplies to gro u nd rou ghn ess Ca tego ry 3 which is defined as:
'Country with many windbreaks (hedges, copses, o rcha rds, ro ws of tre es, o r simila r), sma ll towns o r
o utskirts of large citie s'. This formula is likely to be appro pr iate in the majo rity o f cases but, in the
10
 3
Basicwind speeds in m/s

HY/ J
./~

NF I \1 ~~ 17 f <j;; NJ _ ~K
()
,..'0 0
IS,~ _! ~
A~rdeen , r., .·.
J" 48

Kilom etres
o 20 60 100 140
I I
I
I ! ! , , ! !
iii i
o 20 40 60 80 100
St atute miles

II
open country with only scattered wind break s (Categor y 2), equ ati on p = 0.396V' should be used. Where
there a re no windbreaks at all in open country (Categor y I), p = 0.537V' applies.

The relevant value s of design wind pres sure are given in Table 2. It should be no ted that the co rrec t
assessment of gro und roughness ca tegory is imp ortant because it makes a n app reciable difference to the
design pres sure. When in doubt, a higher category should be used. In unusua l circ umstances, when walls
are constructed on very exposed hill slopes and crests where aoceleration of wind is known to occur, or in
valleys shaped to produce funnelling effects, the values of pre ssure given in Table 2, should be increased
by 20% . The existence of these unusual local effects sho uld be checked with the nearest meteorological
office.

TaM, 2 Design wind pressure for walls ofany Im /(th not ex ceeding J m in height" (abov ground 1..,0
Basic Ground roughness Categor)· 3 Category 2 Open country Ca tego ry 1 Open country
Wind Cou ntry with many windbreaks, with scattered windbreaks with no obstructions
speed sma ll towns, outskirts of large cities p N/m' p N/m'
V mrsec p N/m'
38 459 572 775
40 509 634 859
42 561 699 947
44 61 6 767 1040
46 673 838 1136
48 733 912 1237
50 795 990 1343
52 860 1071 1452
54 927 1155 1566
56 997 1242 1684
»For walls between 3 & 4 m in height the values of the design wind pressure given in Table I should be increased by 5)0/0
and for walls between 4 & .'5 m the values in Table 2 should be increased by 20%

---
•

......- .~ -Jr._
:::-- -:
-. -~ ~ ...- -
12
--
 10

9, 10 & 11 Sa tisfac torily designed wall, with adequate movement joints, suitable overhang and drip 01/ tile-creased capping
(/ 0 ), and t wo-layer slate dpc (II) .

TYPE OF WALL
The ideal cha racteristics of free-standing walls a re :
(1) Strength a nd durability
(2) Economy
(3) Pleasing a ppea ra nce
(4) Simplicity

The wall co nfiguratio ns show n in Tables 3 and 4 conform to the se criteria. Tradit ionall y, the type of
wall frequently used by bu ilders a nd ar chitects comprises a 103* mm leaf with 215 mm squa re piers
at 2 m spac ing. Such a wall is at risk, even in a sheltered environment, a nd its strength is virtua lly the
same as that of a 103 mm wall with out piers when th e direction of th e wind is on the face conta ining the
piers. Piers ar c effective when the wind blows on the plain face but , clearl y, th ere is no way of ensuring
this permanently.

In genera l, 103 mm ca nt ilever walls - plain or with small piers - should never be m ore than 0.9 m high,
a nd sho uld be restricted to parts of the co untry where the design wind pressure does not exceed
appro ximately 500 Nfm' .

An imp roved type of 103 mm wa ll with a sma ll stagge r is show n in Figu re 4. T his may be used where th e
design wind pressure does not exceed approximat ely 500 Nfm ', provided th e wall is not higher th an
1.2m .

4 , collar joint.qalva nised

double triangle ties

l 03m~ ,._

I
ta m

Simple 103 mm walls a re frequ ently used as boundar y, sepa ration or decorative lan dscaping features.
However, it is impor tant to remember that timber, or even wire mesh fencing, mu st not be used to
extend th eir effective height.
Where screening to ensure privacy a nd security is required, or where walls a re used to provide a noise
barrier, th e useful ran ge of height s is 1.8 m to 5 m, altho ugh the vast maj ority of walls will be below 3 m.
* For simplicity, halfbrick walls are assumed to be 103 mm.
Design offr ee standing walls 13
Fo r walls higher than 5 m, diaphragm wall con struction may be more economical. Thi s is dealt with in
other BDA pub lication s'" 9} .

Table 3 shows walls of the same order of strength as a 215 mm solid wall. T he efficiency numbe r is
.
given by 100 x section. modulus m' an d iIS mten d ed to in
. direate t h e re ianon
' betwee n f1 exura I strengt h
cros s-sectional area m 2
and the volume of materials used. The higher the number, the more efficient the configu ration.

Table 4 shows walls of the same order of strength as a 328 mm solid wall which can be used for a height
of abo ut 3 m. Above this height consideration should be given to the use of reinforced masonry, which is
likely to be more economical.

However, if an unreinforced wall is preferred, the configuration shown in Figure 5, which has an average
Z value of 3.0 x IO-'m ' per m run , is suitable for height s 3.5 to 4.5 m.

It is not recommended that walls ab ove 3 m high sho uld be con structed witho ut advice from a n
engineer or other appropriately qualified person . Man y factors vitally affecting the strength may be quite
inadvertently overlooked by the architect or the contractor, and the consequences of a failure of a high
wall could be very serio us to life and property. When dea ling with high ,expensive walls, the selectio n of
a suitable configuration should be the subject of a close con sultation between the architect, the q uantity
surveyo r, and the engineer to arrive at an optimum solution. In the area covered by the GLC By-Laws,
any free-standing walls in excess of 1.83 m in height (from ground level) mu st be approved by the Distr ict
Surveyor.

Table 3 Walls which can be used f or a height of up to 1.15 m ( depending on location and subject to
design procedure)

Type of wall A vera ge cross-sectional Average section property Efficiency rating

area in m· per m run per m run of wall· [the higher the better)
Z mS I m'

Solid 215 mm , either bonded o r 0.215 0.77 x 10- ' 0 .83 x 10- ' 3.6
collar jo inted.

2 Staggered - G LC pallern 0 .129 0.79 x 10- ' 1.3 x 10- ' 6. 1

oFor wall type 2. the values for Z & I are calculated

on the basis of a restricted flange width in
acco rdance with BS 5628 : Part 1110 ) : clause 36.4 .3.

1·8m

3 With piers 0.184 0.92 x 10- ' 2.53 x 10-' 4.9

Piers need not be symmetrically
disposed in relation to wall.
Z and I values are based o n
piers alone.

1·8 m

14
Table 4 Walls which can be used for height of up to 3.25 m ( depending on location and subjec t to
design procedure)

Type of wall Average cross -sectlo na t Average sectio n propert y Efficiency rating
area in m I per m run per m ru n of wall " the higher the better

4 Soli d 328 mm 0.328 1.79 x 10- ' 2.94 x 10- ' 5.5

5 Staggered - GLC pattern 0.143 1.33 x 10- ' 2.93 x 10-' 9.3
' See wall type 6 below.

6 Staggered - G LC patt ern 0.156 1.93 x 10- ' 5_33 x 10- ' 12.3
215mrn * For walls type 5 & 6, the values for Z & I are
r-- calculated on the basis of a restricted Flange width in

~§
acco rda nce w ith as 5628 : Part 1 ( 10 1: cl au se 36 .4 .3.

1·8 m

7 With piers 0.206 1.34 x 10- ' 4.47 x 10-' 6.5

Piers need not be symmetrically
dispo sed in relation to wall.
Z and I valuesare based on
piers alone.
328mm
~ r-
~ ss \\ ~ ~5§~3mm
f l. 147m

I 1 8m
anyc nrre oson between 0 and56 2mm

12 A very old and tall wall at BSI Conference Centre.

Design of'free S!a1lCUIlX walls IS

DESIGN OF UNREINFORCED BRICK WALLS

Empirical selection procedur e

Whilst this guide deal s in full with the the oreti cal aspect s of the subj ect, and th us will allow professiona l
engineers to use its recommendatio ns for other wall configuration s, it is recognised that a rchitects,
surveyors and builders may wish to use it without havin g to produce lengthy calc ulations. To t his end,
th e guide prov ides tables and diagra ms which will allow a suita ble wall to be selected by ad o ptin g th e
proced ure illustrated in th e following exa mple.

EXAMPLE
Design a brick wall in the suburbs of Northampton, 2.2 111 high above ground level,
Procedur e
I. Locat e the site o f the pro po sed wall on the map ,
F igu re 3, an d obtai n the appropriate bas ic wind speed.
V (wind cont our) .
2. From Table 2. select the ground roughness catego ry
which best fits the environ ment of the wall , and determin e
the design wind pressure from the a ppropriate basic win d
speed (wind co nto u r)
3. Determine the effectiv e heigh t of wall req uired (sec
F igure 6).
4. From the graph s in Figure 7, or Ta ble 6. select type of
wall for the de sign wind pre ssure and the effective height.
S. From T ab les 3 & 4, select the type o f wall you prefe r.
bearing in mind the efficiency rat ing.
6. From trial holes on the site, determine the type o f so il
a nd . from Table 9, o bta in the va lue o f the allow able net
bearing pressure.
7. Fro m Tabl e 10. o btai n det ails of founda tion
co rresponding to a wall type 7 bea ring o n loose sa nd .
Exa mple
No rtha mpto n. fro m Figure 3. V = 42 m /sec.
Fro m Ta ble 2. o utskirts o f cities . gro und roughness
Ca tego ry 3.
Design wind pre ssure, p = 561 N /m ' .
2.2 m wa ll is required. Therefore, with 0.2 m o f wall below
ground (see note (a) below) . the effecti ve heig ht is 2.4 m.
Loca te po int on F igure 7 corresponding to wind pre ssure
560 n 'rn ' and effective height. 2.4 01 c urves to the right of
this po int ind ica te satisfacto ry wall type s. Or. from Table 6.
select nea rest grea ter height (2.5 01 ) . All wall types ca pa ble
o f resis ti ng pre ssures greater than 560 N /m ' a re suita ble.
T herefo re, wallstype 4 , 5, 6 & 7 (see Ta ble 4) a re a ll
sa tisfacto ry.
\Vall type 7 is selec ted . ot e that. in this exa mple. only
wa lls show n in Table 4 are su itable.
T rial holes ind ica te loose sa nd. therefore net bearing
pressure 100 kN 'm ' .
Fro m Ta ble 10. releva nt found at ion dimen sion s for wall
type 7, an d net bearing press ure o f 100 kN jm ' a re :
a - 0.5 m, b ~ 0.5 m, C - 0.8 m.

N ote the fo llowing :

(a ) The effe cti ve height of wall is measured/ rom the top ofthe fo undations , thus the 'b uried' part o[the wall should be kep t
to a minimum and. in general, should not exce ed 200 mm.
(b) The width and thickn ess 0/ the founda tions are the same [o r 01/ heigh ts of wall 0[ 0 given type in nnreinf orced brickwork .
(e) I" cohesi ve soils (clays), trees or very large shrubs should 110t be close to the wall. If this is impossible, a dep th of
embedment o[fo undations ofat/east / .5 m is recommended.
(d) In made-up soils (see Table 9). the use 0/ reinforced fo undations strips is recomme nded . These will ha w' to be designed by
a competent person .

M ETHODS OF DESIGN
Wh en considering th e sta bility offree-standing walls, the designer has three possible meth od s of a pproach :
16
(a) Flexural strength
(b) Notional rotation about one of the faces at the base, section virt ually full y crac ked
(c) Section und er compressio n th rou ghout

Th ese met hods a re illustrated in relation to a solid wall, but are equa lly a pplicable to staggered walls
an d walls with piers.

Hm

I I O-2m
reco i • i let ided
max.
00

(a) Design based on flexural strengtb (see Figure 6)

Th e flexural strengths of a wall is assessed in accordance with the masonry code, BS 5628" 0 , (see Tabl e
15). In the guide, for simplicity, the cha racteristic flexural strength of mason ry is taken as
f•• = 0.3 Njmrn' . T his represents the minim um valu e which applies to all clay and calcium silicate bricks
la id in a I : I :6 mortar, or stronger, see Table 15 (page 33).

In order to derive a simple relation between H (effective height) and p (design pre ssure), it is assumed that
the critical section occurs at founda tio n level. Wh ilst, in some insta nces, the wall may have significa nt
lat era l suppo rt fro m any well-compac ted soil over the base, such resistanc e is not always present , and
qui te difficult to q uan tify. For economical design, it is best to keep the depth of wall in the grou nd to a
minimum . Planting of grass or flowers will req uire a dept h of soil over the foundations of some 150 mm
but, in an y case, the soil cover should not exceed 200 mm .

Design parame ters and procedure

The self weight ofa masonry wall assists in its stability.
Weight of masonry, W m = 21000 N/m ' is assumed.
Where low den sity brick s are used, the weight of masonry ma y be as low as 18000 N/m ' . However , this
will have insignifica nt effect on the relation between p a nd H. It can be shown that for each 1000 N/m '
redu ction in the weight of masonry, the height of the wall, as ob tained from Table 5, will be reduced
by 1%.
wm , weight of masonry, = 21 kN /m '
y, for dead load = 0.9
r., = 0.3 N/m m' = 300000 N/m '
Ym = 3.1 (it is ass umed that brick s used in construction a re usua lly subject to special
manu facturing co nt rol)

Whilst the factor of 3.1 is conside red appropriate to the design of free-sta ndi ng walls, it is recognised that
some designers or regulat ory a uth orities may prefer to use Ym = 3.5. Accord ingly, values a nd formulae
are given in respect of bot h coefficients.
Z = 0.77 x 10- 'm ' per metr e run (for wall type I in Table 3).
Moment at base, M, = P ~ , per m ru n, where p is the design wind pressure in N/m ' , from Table 2, a nd

H is the height of the wall above the base in m.

I M
- f • • = Z - wmHy,
Ym
O".l ig n offree j'1uJI(/ing walls 17
 pH '
96800 19000H
x- :c:
- 1:-.5747- I O:-_-=-
·
pH ' - 293H - 1490 = 0, for Ym = 3.1
Similarly,
pH' - 293H - 1320 = 0, for Ym = 3.5
These expressions may also be assumed to apply to walls types 2 and 3 which ha ve a higher Z value.

The quadratic equation can be so lved with respect to H for d ifferent values of the design wind pressure,
p , obtained from Table 2. Similar qu adratic equation s ca n be derived for the wall s shown in Table 4
from the general expression , substituting appropriat e values of Z.

Table 5 Formulae for different types of wall

Type of wall Quadratic equation applicable Quadraticequationapplicable
(seetables3&4) Ym = 3.t Ym = 3.5
1, 2. 3 pH ' - 293H - 1490 ~ 0 pH ' - 293H - 1320 ~ 0
5.7 pH ' - 503H - 2580 ~ 0 pH ' - 50m - 2280 = 0
4. 6 pH ' - 677H - 3470 ~ 0 pH ' - 677H - 307P = 0

The solutions to th ese equations a re plotted in Figure 7 fo r valu es of the de sign wind pressure between
400 and 1500 N/m ·. Exam ple: a wall is req uired near Linco ln - basi c wind speed 44 ra]»- in th e open
co unt ry with sca tt ered windbrea ks. From Table 2. the design wind press ure is 767 N/m ' , and from the
graph in Figure 7 we read off th e limiting height s of di fferent types of wall for Ym = 3. 1:
1.6 m for types 1,2 & 3
2.2 m for types 5 & 7
2.6 m for types 4 & 6

(b) Design based on notional rotation about one of the faces at base level
Design parameters andprocedure:
De sign wind pre ssure p N/m ' (va lues fro m Tabl e 2)
Weight of masonry, Wm = 21 kN/ m'
Y, for dead load = 0.9

Assume width of stress block at po int X = 1~' see Fig ure 8.

(This assumpt ion is va lid fo r all strengt hs of brickwork)
t = thic kne ss of wall in m
pH '
Moment at base, M = - - Nm
2

7 E
J: \ 1\ I, I I
\
..
I I
W 325
"3
4 -
1" \ \'\ - ~
4- ~ -
~ \ ,\\ ...- ID
s: 3 ·
-, 1"- 4 - !> -
\ \ := ~ Hm -
\\
~<,
4- ~
... - c'
OlE -
275 -, -, .. - · ~
"' -
z
'0 0. -
'\ "- <, ~ ~

:: ' . ~
-l -
'\." ""'.. "
25
-. <, ;;j' ", -

2 25 r-,
1"-""-
<, <,
<, ........walllY!'
! m·3 5 ...... <,
d&6
Xmo31

I\. '\. ""......,

<,
wall type 5 7 ""'-.. <,
"\." ~" ' 3 1 <, I~

--
2
I"- !m 3 5'-...... <, <; ~

1-75

15
doo 500
""-"<,
!m.

600
waillype

~m .
5.............
1, 2& 3

r-,
1

...................... c-......
700 800
r-,

900 1000
;---......
,........,.

1100
--
...............
~

1200
---
-------- -
1300
---
iaoo
r-
1500
design 'Hindpressure p N1112

18
 8
--
Hm
.-
.-
-.--
x
0 . 0.

0
0
..
0

0
0

D 0
0

The wall is a ssumed to be rotating abo ut the centre of a very narrow stress block at X, with a tensile
crack extending over a lmos t the full width of the wall. In th is condition the use of Ymis inappropriate
and a gene ral fact or of safety YG = 1.2 is introduced which, together with partial fact ors for live a nd
dead load s, give a global factor of safety YGl related to the stability limit state :

YGl = YGYf(d~ad) x y,(wind)

I
= 1.2 x 0.9 x 1.2 = 1.6

Co nsider rot at ion of the wall abo ut th e mid-p oint of th e stress block at X, then ,
overturning moment x general factor = righti ng moment :
pH '
- 2- x YG = 0.45t x H x t x Wm x Y,

where the dista nce between the centre of the st ress block and the centre of the wa ll is :
t t
= 0.45t
2 20
0.6pH = 0.45t ' x 21000 x 0.9
Therefo re,
H = 142~ where H and t a re in metres and p in Nlm '.
p

EXA M PLE
Con sider 328 mm 11'011 (type 4),fronl the expression above:
H = 14200 X 0.328' = 1530
P P

pin Nlm ' 600 700 800 900

H inm 2.55 2.19 1.91 1.70

These result s are more con servative than those obtainable by the application of method (a) based on the
flexural strength. However, in some cases where the flexura l ten sion ca nnot be relied upon, this approach
will have to be adopted .

Th e meth od of notional rota tion ca n a lso be a pplied to staggered walls types 2, 5 & 6, but th ese
configura tions are very much less efficient (being co nsidera bly lighter) und er no-flexural -tension
co nditions. T his is particularl y tru e in th e case of wall type 2, but when the stagge r is greate r a quit e
reaso na ble moment of resistanc e is available. It can be shown that , in the case of wall type 6, th e
relation between wind pressure a nd height is H = 1275 giving result s some 45% lower than th ose ba sed
p
on met hod (a) - flexura l st reng th. In cases where flexural ten sion cannot be relied upon, this approach
will be useful. It is also reassuring to know that, if a wall loses its flexural strength d ue to deterioration
or impact, it will still retain over 50 % of its original moment of resistance.
Design 0/free standi"? walls 19
(c) Design based on section under compression tbrougbout (no tension method)
In thi s approach, it is a ssumed that flexural tension is not allowed . Thus, the compression due to self
weight, reduced by Yr, must equal the flexur al ten sion due to the design wind load. Consider a I m ru n
of wall H m high :
pH ' 6
H X Wm X Yr = -2 x -
t'
t'
H = 6300 -
p
By comparing thi s with design method (a) or even (b), it is clear that extremely con servative results would
be obtai ned. For example, if th e wall is 215 mm an d the design wind pressure 420 N/m', then
H = 0.7m.

Thi s design approach sho uld never be used becau se it lead s to ove r-co nservative results. It is mentioned
here because some designers have been known, qui te wron gly, to attempt to apply it to masonry walls,
and because it may be legitimately used in the design of dry ma sonry walls.

RECOM M END ED DESIGN

Comparison of the three method s of design , clearl y indicate th at an eco no mical solution should be
ba sed on method (a) - flexural strength. Walls mu st, therefor e, be built to ensure ten sile resistance, see
Table I and section on mortars.

The three sets of quadratic equations given in Table 5 can be solved fo r a given magnitude ofp (from
Table 2) thus obtai ning the appropriate value of height ; bu t a simpler way is to substitute values ofH at

0.25 m interval s and obtain the corresponding values of p. In general, p = bH ; c where band care
H
the coefficients of the appropriate quadratic equation from Table 5.

For example, if a wall type 4 or 6 is chosen and a height, H, of 3 m is required, the allowable design
wind pressure is given by:

p -_ 677 X 39 + 3473 -_ 612 N/ m,

'hw en Ym -- 3. I

Table 6 shows the compilation of the se result s for different type s of walls. The requi red values can be
obtained by interpolation, or from the graphs in Figure 7 .

Table 6
Maximum allowable design wind pressure, p, in N /m '
Hm Walls type 1,2,3 Walls type 5, 7 Walls type 4, 6
Ym = 3.t Ym = 3.5 Ym ~ 3.t Ym ~ 3.5 Ym = 3.1 Ym = 3.5
3.25 399 371 537 499
3.00 454 421 612 567
2.75 524 484 705 652
2.50 614 566 826 762
2.25 425 733 674 987 907
2.00 519 476 896 822 1207 1106
1.75 654 597 1130 1032 1521 1389
1.50 858 781 1482 1349 2000 1815
1.25 1188 1078 2050 1864

EXAMPLE: THE USE OF TA BLE6

A 2.4 m wall is required near Newcast le, in the open country with scallered wind break s. Wha t type of wall
would be selected?
Basic wind speed is 46 m/sec and Ca tegory 2 appli es.
From Table 2, the design wind pre ssure is 838 N/m ' . Clearly, wall type s 4 or 6 are suitable. Interpolation
of figures from Table 6 shows that a 2.4 m wall type 4 or 6 will ha ve a limit ing design wind pre ssure of
890N/m 'if Ym = 3.1 is chosen.

Flex ural strength of 103 mm wall between piers

In the case of walls type 2, 3, 5, 6, & 7, the st rength ofa 103 mm wall spa nning continuously between
piers mu st be checked. The flexural stress is parallel to the bed joint (bending about the vertical axis),
therefore from Table 15 (page 33) f•• has a minimum value of 0.9 Njmrn " (900 kN /m ' ) for clay and
calcium silicate bricks laid in a I: I :6 mortar.
20
Assume maximum spanmoment, M = PI~" where from Tables 3 & 4 span Lis 1.8 m.
p x 1.8'
M = 0.324p
10

0.103' x I
z = 1.77 x 10- ' m' per metre
6
I M
- x f., =z
'Ym
I 0.324p
x 0.9 x 10'
3.1 1.77 x 10- '

p =1.77 x 0.9 x 10' = 1586 N/m ' , say 1600 N/m '
3.1 x 0.324
Thus the wall is safe in a ll cases when p " 1600 N/m ' .

Shear strength of piers

Consider wall type 6, which gives the lowest shea r resistance (see Table 4).
When p = 2000 N/m '
Shear force on pier = 1.8 x 2000 x (1.5 - 0.2) = 4680N (see Table 6)
where 1.5 - 0.2 is the height of wall above ground .
4680
Avera ge shea r stress = 552 x 215 = 0.039 N/mm '

which is well below the minimum a llowable value of ~.~5 = 0. 14 N/mm 2

where 0.35 N/m m ' is the characteristic shea r strength of masonry la id in I : I :6 mortar a nd 2.5 is 'Y mv the
partial safety factor in shea r.

End Condition
Walls type I and 4 can be stopped at an y point, a nd walls type 3 and 7 will clearl y terminate at a pier.
But, in the case of walls type 2, 5 & 6 which deri ve their strength from the Z configuration , the end pier
has to be con siderably enlarged. In some instance s, a gate one metre wide may be attached to the pier

and thu s the total length of the wind face supported by the pier is ~8 + 0.5 = 1.4 m.

The requi red section modulus of the end pier, Z. = : :: x section modulus of 1.8 m run of staggered wall.

In the case of wall type 2, for exampl e, where the section modulus of 1.8 m run = 0.79 x 10- ' x 1.8
= 1.42 x IO- 'm ' :
Z. = ::: x 1.42 x 10-' = 1.1 x IO- 'm'
For a pier 328 mm deep ,
0.32~' x B __ 1.1 x 10- ' , see F'igure 9

I.I x 6
B = ':":3"".2"8'"""" = 0.61 m.
Or, if the pier is made 440 mm deep :
I.I x 6
B = 0.34 m (0.328 will do), see Table 7.
4.4 '
Desig n (Iffur .stiJJuliug walls 21
End co nditions for other staggered walls are shown in Table 7. In all cases a metre wide gate was
ass umed attached to t he end pier.

Table 7

Wall type Sect ion modulus End condition

of end pier
required in ma

2 J.1 x 10- '

or

5 1.87 x 10- '

6 2.1 x 10-'

Design of movement joints

As has already been sa id, masonry materials are subject to dimensional changes for a varie ty of causes,
t he most important of which relate to variations in moi sture content and temperature.

T he effect of mois ture expansion of clay bricks will be reduced by using mature bricks. Clay brick
masonry is hardly affected by drying shrinkage. It also ha s a low coefficient of t herma l expa nsion.

To accommodate movement in free-standing walls of clay brick s, it is recommended that, in the case of
staggered brick wa lls types 2,5 & 6,10 mm open join ts sho uld be provided in the middle of every sixth
bay (see Figure 10), and for straight walls type s I & 4, such joints should occur at abo ut 10 m centres.

10
lOnm
movement
joint \
r
I
joints at 10 ·4 m centres

&:::S0l , ~ \;
~ \\ \\ ItS \\ §~
1·4m 1·8m
leng th of bay containing
movementjoint

Where staggered walls are used, the bay conta ining the expan sion joint sho uld be red uced to 1.4 m. Thi s
is because the section modulus is 12% less due to the reductio n in the length of the effective flange, one
end of which is now free .

In the case of walls with piers, type s 3 & 7, the bay containing the movement joint may be of standard
length , ie, 1.8 m.

Where calcium silicate brick s are specified, movement joints at closer centres a re reco mmen ded to avoid
unsig htly cracking. A gap of between 5 & 10 mm in every fourth bay - ie, at approximately 7 m centres -
should be adeq uate for this purpose.

It may be advisable to increase the frequency of movement joints in capping s and copings.
22
Table 8 gives th e order of free movement that might be expected in a 10m length of wall.

Table 8
Ca use of movement Movement (mm)
in a to m length . fwall

Moisture expa nsion + J.5 to 5.5 (clay)

Thermal expansion 2.5 (clay) } . 50' C ..
or co ntraction 4.5 (calcium silicate) assummg a varration
Dry ing shrinkage - 2.5 (ca lcium silicate) ·

Where the provision of a movement joint cut s the leaf between piers, it s strength when acting a s a
cantilever sho uld be checked. Figure I I (a) shows such a movement joint in a wall type 7. Alt ern at ively,
in wall s type 3 & 7 o nly, a movement joint may be incorporated at a pier a s sho wn in Figure II (b).

11a r movement pm 12 ~----- interm ittent bead of

&§§ ~:§§§§§ 3~
acrylic mastic

215 mm ., ~ O·79m
~'"""'''''tr'''''-''\f- tolded neoprene bailie
I. 1·8 m ctrs. approx imately
2mm thick

, -movement joint l Qmm

'§]~'"
11b
-1Qmm~
&§§'§ §§§§i

1-.11..-.1
215 ~ 15
rrm rrm

To check th e strength of cantilever in Fig II (a) : M = O.7;'P = O.3lp N/m. This is, in fact , a smaller
moment than in th e case of a continuous span (see page 21) and the cantilever is clearly adequate for the
de sign wind pre ssure, p, of up to 1600 N/m ' .
Movement joints may be left open or, where pri vacy is required, pointed with acry lic ma stic of suitable
colour. Another usefu l detail, shown in Fig 12, inco rp o rates a folded neoprene baffle lightly tacked to the
ma sonry by a suitable ma stic such a s acrylic.
For neat appearance, a nd to facilitate sealing, movement joint s sho uld be formed using a sliding board
of appropriate thickness. For reinforced brickwork, mo vement j oints may be located and constructed as
recommended for unreinforced brickwork.

Design of foundations
Suitable foundations for walls up to 3 m high may, in general, be selected on the ba sis of Tables 9 & 10,
together wit h information from a trial hole inspection carried o ut by a competent per son . It is stro ngly
recommended, however, that for higher walls, advice should be obtained from an engineer. In certain
ca ses, the engineer may reco mmend a full ground inve stigation to establish t he soil properties, and to
confirm the ab sence of faults (eg, layers of o rganic soil or swallow holes) lo wer down and the stability of
sloping ground.
At the time of writing thi s guide, the limit state approach to foundation design has not been int roduced.
Thus, calc ulations will be ba sed on the followi ng parameters:
(i) Wind pre ssure related to height and type of wall, from Fig . 8 or Table 6, divided by 1.2
(ii) Actual weight of ma sonry, concrete and soil
(iii) Allowable net bearing pressures from Table 9, increased by 25 % for wind and by an appropriate
amount for depth effect (equal to density of soil x depth of embedment).

E XAMPLE
Design suitable foundations for a wall 2.5 m high, type 4, Figure 13, bea ring in :
(a) soft clay
(b) loose sa nd
Design data :
Density of ma sonry = 21 kN/m 3
Density of co ncrete = 23kN/m 3
Density of soil = 17 kN/m '
D t'S;)!1I oJji- c!' s({l/ u li l1,l,' walls 23
Wind pressure for foundation design = ~~~ = 690 N/m' (see Ta ble 6)

Assume that, in this case, the suitable formation level is 0.7 m below the surface.
Allowable bearing pressure (soft clay)
= 50 x 1.25 + 17 x 0.7 = 75 kN/m '
Allowable bearing pressure (loose sand)
= 100 x 1.25 + 17 x 0.7 = l37kN/m '
(a) Consider I m run of wall and assume 0.75 m width of foundation s.
Weight of stem = 2.5 x 0.328 x 21 = 17.2kN
Weight of base = 0.75 x 0.5 x 23 = 8.6 kN
Weight of soil = 0.75 x 0.2 x 17 = 2.5 kN
Total 28.3 kN
Wind moment at formation level
= 2.5 x 690 x (1.25 + 0.5) = 3020Nm
3020
e = 28300 = 0.107m
28.3 3.02 x 6
G round pressure = 0.75 ± 0.75' = 38 ± 32
= 70 or 6 kN/m' (see Figure 13)
Foundation is suitable for soft clay.

Table 9 Allowable net bearing pressure and other recommendations

G roup Type Mi nimum all owable NET Remarks

bearing pressure kN/rn ' •
Cohesive Stiff clay ISO Bottoms of trenches must be
so ils protected.
Fi rm clay 100 Concreting or blinding should be
carried out within 2 or 3 days after
Soft clay SO excavation

Non Loose gravel or ISOto 200 Waterlevel at least 0.5 m below

cohesive loose sand and bottom of foundation
so ils gravel
Loose sand 100

Roc ks Soft chalk 100tolSO Bottoms of trenches must be

(putty chalk) protected by early concreting or
Other rocks SOO blinding to prevent form ati on
of slurry

Made up Mature SO Local soft spots. pockets of organic

so ils (undisturbed soil etc should be removed and back
for several filled in lean concrete. Strips should
years)mixed preferably be reinforced
fill ofcohesive
and granular
soils

Made u p Newly placed 2S Suitable for foundations of walls not

soils mixed fill exceeding2 m in height if fill is
mechanically consolidated in layers
of 200 mm th ickness. Foundation
strips must be reinforced. Foundations
may not always be entirely trouble
free

Organic Peat and Not suitable for foundations but if

soils organic soils the layer of organicsoil or peat is at
least 2 m below the underside of
foundations, reinforced strip footing
designed to 2S kN lm' may be
installed in the overlaying suitable
soil. However, some risk of
settlement must be accepted

• For many soils higher values ofthe allowable net bearing pressure are appropriate. Ho wever, practical considerations
preclude the reduction offoundation dimensions below values given in Table 10.
24
(b) Now con sider founda tions in loose sand a nd assume a widt h of 0.5 m.
Total weight is now 24.6 kN because the strip is narrower.
Wind moment is unchanged at 3020 N/m
3020
= 0.123 rn, which is outside the midd le third of a 0.5 m strip
e = 24600
24.6
G roun d pre ssure = 0.5 x 0.38 = 130 kN /m ' (see Figure 14)
Foundation is suita ble for loose sand .

13 14
e
0 -127 0 -123
0 -5m

0
o.
o.
o o.
.
0
. .•
0
-. 0
. - o
g

.
_0

. l/V
• 0 .:> o
0

,3QkN,m
o .0
• 0

7OkN/m'~_
~ 6 kN/m'

I
V i 3 xO-'27 - 0 -38m

14 750mrn

Table 10 Recomm ended f oundations

Type Foundations M ax. bt. of Width of hase (m) Allowahle NET Mi nimum l\linimum
of wall measured bearing pressure from Table 9 thickness depth of
wall from top of (m) embedment (m)
base (m) 50 100 150
I
f § i} 2.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5

t I I
i 2.25 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5

: ~~
3
a ~0.5 a ~ 0. 5 a - 0.5
:a _ 1
2.25 b =0.5 b -0.5 b =0.5 0.3 0.5
c = 1.0 c = 0.75 c =0.75
J.-b-eJ

~ t
4
§ '\ ~ 3.25 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.5 0rO.75"

f II } 3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 or 0.75"

i H } 3.25 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.50rO.75"

I': ~~ '"bo-l
3
a =0.5
b =0.5
c ~1.2
a = 0.5
b =0.5
c ~ 0. 8
a =0.5
b =0.5
c -0.8
0.3 0.5 0rO.75"

• A minimum depth of embedment 0[ 0.75 m is recommended/or walls exceeding 2.5 m in height in cohesive soils.
Design of'free standing walls 25
REINFORCED BRICKWORK
4

METHODS OF DESIGN
Two methods of design of reinforced brickwork are currently in use:
(I) Permissible stress method, as given in CPI I I, Part 2, 1970(amended June 1971 )1111
(2) Limit state method, for which there is as yet no British Standard Code of Practice, but which is
covered by SP 91nil,

PERMISSIBLE STRESS DESIGN METHOD

Figure 15 shows a reinforced brickwork section in bending,
Where:
d ,,-effective depth a - Iever arm coefficient
z -lever arm Pmb-permissible bending stress in masonry
b -width of section POl - permissible tensile stress in reinforcement:
n -cornpression stress block coefficient 140 N/mm' for mild steel
210 N/mm' for high yield steel

15

Assume the stress ratio POI = r, and the modular ratio EEs = m, then from similar triangles the following
Pmb b

relationships are obtained:

I m n 2m + 3r
n = - - = - - - also a = I - - therefore a = ""3-m-+---=3:-r
I +!.. m +r' 3'
m

Moments of resistance of the section can now be derived .

M, = C x z = P~t na bd,,' = Qbd,,' is the moment of resistance based on masonry in flexure, and

M, = T x z = A..p.. x ad" is the moment of resistance based on tension in reinforcement.

In practice, the moment of resistance will be governed by the strength of masonry in bending, and

consequently for a particular masonry the required effective depth is given by d" =~ where Mis

26
the applied moment and Q is given in Table I I or in Fig 16.

The area of reinforcement is A .. = -;-

Pita er

Design parameters for the working stress method are given inTable 11.

Table /I
Crushing strength or
bricks in :"ljmml io.s 20.5 27.5 .34.5 52 69
CP It I, Table 3.
mort ar 1:1:3
Pmb N jmm ' 1.4 2.2 2.73 3.33 4.67 4.67
limit limit
p" ( H Y ) Nlmm ' 210.0 210 .0 210.0 210 .0 210.0 2 10.0
m (ta ble 6a of (he
E.
amendment) - ~ 33.0 27.0 24 .0 21.0 15.0 12.0

r ~-
p" 150.0 95.0 76.9 63. 1 45 .0 45.0
P m.
r
-
m
4.55 3.52 3.20 3.0 3.0 3.75

n 0. 18 0.22 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.21

a, lever arm factor 0 .940 0.92 7 0.920 0.9 17 0.917 0.930

Q Nlmm' (max .) 0 .118 0.224 0.301 0 .382 0.535 0.4 56

. I
E ro
~ HY steel
~ ~ 1: 1. :3 mortar

05 0 ·95

0 94
.k"1ll

/' ->
.-
- .....
---..
093
<.
:-... ./
-:
<,
/'"

o·1

o
0 ·92

0 ·9 1
/
V
• I.......
-- a
--- ---
»>

5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
crushing strength of bricks N mm"

!\Iortars
Cement mortars sho uld be specified in proportion s by the volume of the dry constituent s. as given below :
Grade Cement Hydrated lime Sand
(i) I } 3
(ii) I ~ 4~
Grade (i) is preferred.

Grout s
Grouts sho uld be one of the following mixes by volume o r dr y materia ls:
Cement Lime (optional) Sand 10 mm aggregat e
(a) 1 ':'-1 3
(b ) I ':' -i 3 2
Mix (a) must be liquid an d sho uld be used fo r grouting internal joi nts and cavities less than 50 mm wide.
Design of{n'(' S[llJldiJl.f! walls 27
 Mi x (b) sho uld ha ve a slump between 75 mm a nd 175 mm a nd sho uld be used to fill grout spaces whi ch
are 50- 100 mm wide.
No additives sho uld be used in mo rtar, gro ut o r concrete, but carefully controlled a mounts of co louring
agents may be used .

Minimum area of reinforcement

A lthough the Code (C PIII , Part 2) does not spec ify th e minimum percentage o f reinfo rce me nt in
flexura l members, the aut hor considers that 0.1 % of th e gross cross-sectional area of the member
sho uld be provided .

Reinforced Quetta bond, pocket & grouted cavity walls

EXAMPLE, PERMISSIBLE STRESS DESIGN METHOD
Design a free standing wall 3 m high, using three differ ent types of construction: Quetta bond, pocket and
grouted cavity. Basic wind speed is 50 mis, ground roughness Ca tegory I. Bricks with a crushing strength of
34.5 N/mm' in l: j:3 mortar are specified in all ca ses.

Pm. = 3.33 N/mm ' (see Table II ) .

m = 21 from Table 6a, C Pl lI, Pa rt 2 (Amendment)

P.. = 210 N/mm ' for h igh tensile steel (C PIII, Part 2)

r = 210 = 63
3.33

I
n = ~ = 0. 2 5
1+
21
a = 0.917
Q = 3.; 3 x 0.9 17 x 0.25 = 0.38 N/mm '
M, = 0.38bd,,'
Alt ernati vely, Q, may be o btained fro m the graph in Fig . 16, or Table I I.

From Table 2, fo r basic wind speed 50 mis, gro und roughness Ca tego ry I , we have:

Design wind pressure fo r limit state de sign = 1343 N/m '

Design pressure for permissible stress design = 1343 = 1120 1m'

1.2
· be n dimg moment, M = pH
D esign 2 '
M = 1120t 3 ' = 5040 Nm = 5.04 x 10 ' mm

The minimum required effect ive depth, d , ca n now be calculated :

d
"
= J5.04 x 10' = 115mm
10' x 0.38
The refo re, the wall section in Fig ure 17 is sa tisfac to ry a nd , becau se the actual d , is 164 mm, a brick of
lo wer cr ushing strength would have been adequate.

packets at 170mmYo:

A .. 5.04 x 10 ' _ 60 e 0 1% r . - 328 mm '

0.9 17 x 164 x 2 10 - I mm , o r . 0 0 gr o ss a rea -

Pro vide 12 mm H Y ba rs in alternate pockets, ie, at a pp rox ima tely 340 mm clc.
A.. provided = 332 mm '
28
 19

wallties ~

1m 1m

Pock et wall ( Figs, 18 & 19)

Use 21 5 mm overall thickness collar j ointed wall with 200 x 110 mm staggered pockets at about 2 m elc
on both sides of the wall. Bend ing moment is as in the previous example.
Q = bd,,'M = 5.0410' xx 160'
10' = 02. , t here,ore
r
proposed strengt h 0 f ma sonry .IS amp Ie.
z = 0.9 17 x I6O = 147 mm
5.04 x 10' x 2 _ 327 ' 2
A.. - 0.917 x 160 x 210 - mm per m run
o r,O. I %ofgrossarea = 2000 x 215 x 10- ' = 430mm ' .

Provide two 16 mm HY bars in eac h pocke t, A.. = 402 mm '.

. 402 x 100
percentage of remforcement = 1000 x 215 = 0.18

Shear stress = 11 20 x 3
= 10' x 160 x 0.917
= 0.023 Njrnrn", is satisfacto ry.

A suita ble arrangement of staggered pock ets at 2 m spacing, on alternate sides of th e wall , is sho wn
in Fig. 18.

Th e ap pearance of the wall will be considerabl y imp roved if the pocke ts are faced with bri ckwork,
attached to th e concrete by suita ble ties, a s shown in Fig. 19.
Grouted cavity wall (Fig . 20)
Th e wall con sists of two half-b rick leaves with a 100 mm grouted cavity.
Moment of resistance, M, ~ 0.38 x 1000 x 153' = 8.9 x 10' Nmm. But, since th e a pplied moment is
5.04 x 10' Nmm (see Quetta bond example) the wall is adequate.

5.04 x 10' _ 7 '

A.. 0.917 x 153 x 210 - I I mm
or, 0.1% of gross area = 306 x 10 ' x 10- ' = 306 mm ' .
Provide 12 mm HY bars a t 350 mm clc, A.. = 323mm ' .

Th e seconda ry reinforcemen t should be at lea st 0.05% of the gro ss cross-sectional a rea of the wall.
Area required = 306 X 10' x 5 x 10-< = 153 mm . Provide 10 mm bar s at 500 mm clc.
LIMIT STATE DESIGN METHOD
Principles
This design approach is ba sed on BeRA Special Pu blication 9 1"". The design moments of resistance a re
given below. T he lesser of the two values should be tak en as the resista nce of th e section in bending.
Md 0.3bd, , '1.5f" b ased on t h e strengt h 0 f'b ri
nck wor k 10
' bendi10 9
Ymm
or,
Md = A. f,z ba sed on the strength of reinforcement in ten sion
Y m.
where
Ymm)
z = d " (I -0.53A.
~ er
f,
x Yms
- x 1·5f k
095 d
" . ,r
T he expression in brackets is the lever arm coefficient, a, which has a ra nge of 0.8 " a ,, 0.95.
Design offree standing wafts 29
 MYms
As =---zr;-
M applied design moment
=
M, design mom ent of resistance
=
b width of section
=
d, = effective depth of sectio n
f, = characterist ic ten sile st rength of the reinforcement, give n in Table 14
f. = characteristic co mpressive st rengt h of brickwor k, given in Table 12
a = lever a rm coefficient (see a lso page 34 )
z = lever arm
Ymm = pa rtial safety fact or for brickw or k stre ngth, given in Table 13
Yms = partial safety fact or for reinfor cement strengt h which sho uld be taken as 1.15

Table 11 Characteristic compressive strength of

brickwork.A, normal to bed joints (Nlmm ') for the
design of reinforced masonry to limit state

Mortar Compressive strength of brick (N / mm l )

grade and mix 15 20 35 50 70 100

(i) I :1:3 6.0 7.4 11.4 15.0 19.2 24.0

(ii) 1:1 :41 5.3 6.4 9.4 12.2 15.1 18.2

Table IJ Partial safety factors (y m) * for

strength of brickwork in compression and flexure
applicable to reinforced and unreirforced masonry
designed to limit state

Ca tegory of
construction control
Normal S pecial

Ca tego ry o f Normal 3.5 2.8

manufac turing control
o f st ructural uni ts Spec ial 3.1 2.5

• For reinforc ed masonry this fa ctor is designated Ymm

Table 14 Characteri stic streng th of reinforcement

for limit state design

No mina l sizes Characteristic

De signation (m m) strength f r
(N /mm ' )
HOI-rolled mild steel A ll sizes 250
(BS 4449)
H OI-rolled high yield A ll sizes 4 10
(BS 4449)
Co ld-worked high yield Up 10 and inc!. 16 460
(BS 4461 )
Over 16 425
Hard-dr aw n stee l wi re Uploandincl.12 485
(BS 4482)

Th e shea r stress is given by:

V
v
bd"
where
V = shea r fo rce du e to de sign loads
b = width of sectio n
d , = effective depth

Th e shea r stress, v, should not exceed the characteristic shea r stre ngth of brickwork f, o = 0.35 N/m m '
divid ed by th e pa rtial safety fact or Ym v which is taken as 2.5.
Shea r reinfo rcement is most unli kely to be req uired, an d in any case its use is not recommended in
these simple structures.
30
S lenderness limits for reinforced ca ntilever wall s
The ra tio o f spa n to effective depth ofa cantilever wa ll, with up to 0.5 % reinforcement based o n gross
cross-sect io nal area, sho uld not normally exceed 18. However, where the load is transient (wind) , and
th ere is no danger of damage to finishe s, the slende rness ratio limit may be increa sed by 30 % to 23.4 .

Reinfor ced Qu etta bond wall

EXA M PLE
Design a reinforced free sta nding wall 3 m high const ruc ted in Qu etta bond, using limit sta te design meth od.
Basic wind speed is 56 mls, and gro und roughness Catego ry 1 a re ass umed.

Design moment M = p~ ' = 1684 x ~ = 7578 Nm. Thickness of wall in th is case is govern ed by th e

sle ndern ess lim it. Minimum d " = ~~ = 130 mm . Use 328 mm wall a s sho wn in Figure 21. The
effective depth o f 164 mm is sa tisfacto ry.

21J OD ODnC 1- '

It:fJ TI
LJEjU
r\\", l- .
t
,-,
0

~
d" = 1164
1
328mm

pockets at 17Qrrm St

Assume 20 Nlmm' bricks in l : j :3 mortar. f o = 7.4 Nlmm ' = 7.4 x 10' kN lm ' (see Table 12) and Ymm
= 3. 1 (see T abl e 13).

The maximum de sign moment of resistance can now be calculated :

= 0. 3 x 10' x 164' x 1.5 x 7.4 = 28900 Nm
M, 3. 1 x 10 ' .
wh ich is ample in relation to the applied moment.
"

Assuming MS reinforcement (f, = 250 N /mm ' . see Table 14), a nd z = 0.9 x 164 mm:
_ 7.58 x 10 ' x 1.15 _ 236 s
A, - 250 x 164 x 0.9 - mm
o r. 0. 1% of gross c ross-sectio na l area = 328 x 10' x 10-'
= 328 mm '
Provide 12 mm MS in a lterna te poc ket s. Sin ce t hc m inimum a rea of reinforcement governs. th e
a ssumption o f th e a pproxi ma te leve r arm as 164 x 0.90 has no practical significa nce .

Shear stress = 1684 x 3 = 0.03 Nlmm' . This is less th a n the de sign shea r st re ngth
10' x 164
whi ch is 0.35 = 0. 14 N /m m '.
2.5
'ote : The minimum percentage ofreinforcement recomm ended by ref erence CI ZI is 0.2 %ofthe gro ss
cross-sectional area. The authorfeels that this perc entage is rather highfo r simple boundar y walls and,
consequently, 0.1 %has been adopted throughout these ex amples .
Reinfor ced pocket wall
EXA M PLE
Design a 215 mm pock et wall of maximum height using limit sta te approach. Basic wind speed of56 mls,
a nd gro und ro ughness Category 1 a re ass umed as in previous ex a mple.

Referring to Figure 22, effective depth , d ., = 160 mm. Therefore maximum permitted hei ght =
23.4 x 0. 16 = 3.7 m. Therefore a 3.7 m wall will bc sa tis fac to ry.
pH ' 3.7 '
M = - - = 1684 x - = 11530Nm.
2 2
22 2m %

pockets at 201% on both

COllar joint faces staggered

DC!i;I!" offret' standing walls 31

20 N/mm ' bricks in I :1 :3 mortar a re specified (as in th e previou s example),
Ymm is taken as 3.1 (see Table 13).

Maximum design moment of resistance

M 0.3 x 10' x 160' x 1.5 x 7.4
d 3.1 x 10'
= 27500 Nm , which is ample.

A. 11 530 x 10' x 1.15 assuming HY reinforcement an d an approximate lever arm of 160 x 0.90 .
460 x 160 x 0.90
A. = 2oomm '
or, 0.1 % of the gross cro ss-sectional area
= 215 mm ' (all per m run).

Provide staggered pockets of 200 x 110 mm appro ximately, at a bo ut 2 m cic on each face as shown in
Figure 18. Area of reinforcement in each pock et = 400 mm', provide one 16 mm and two 12 mm HY
bars, A. = 427 mm ' . Th e co ncrete pockets can be faced with brickwork, as shown in Figure 19.
For 215 mm bonded walls, use I brick wide pockets at 9 br ick cent res.

Half brick wall stiffened with reinforced piers

EXAMPLE
Design a wall 4.25 m high with reinforced piers at about 2.5 m cleo Design wind speed is 46 mls, and gronnd
roughness Category 2.

Design wind pressure from T able 2 is 838 N /m ' but. because the wall is j ust 4 m high ab ove ground level.
th is pressur e sho uld be increased by 9% (see footnote to Table 2). Design wind pressure s =
838 x 1.09 = 9 13 N/m ' .
Co nside r 103 mm unreinforced brickwork spanning continuously between piers.
Clear span is 2.035 m, see Figure 23, and the effective span = clear spa n + thickness of wall = 2.14 m.

23 cover10 main bars 20mm

44Qmm

ef 310mm

'-;1:.=44~o:::m=m='~I .~mm ..
Clear span

Take:
M WL 913 x 2. 14 418 N m
10 10
103' x 1000 .
Z 6 = 1.77 x 10' mm ' for I m Widt h of wall

Y mm = is taken as 3.1 (see Table 13)

Flexural ten sion is pa rall el to the bed joint a nd therefore the two last columns in Table 15 apply.
= 418 X IO' x 3.1 = 0 73 NI '
ft. 1.77 x 10' . mm

From Table 15 (page 33), bricks with an a bso rp tion of over 12 % in at lea st grade (iii) mortar ( I : I :6) will
suffice. However, for reinfo rced piers, gra de (i) morta r ( I :1:3) is prefe rred. Thus, both the wall and the
piers will be con st ructed in th is mortar using bricks of20 N/m m' stre ngt h.

Slenderness ratio of pier = 4250 = 14

310
Load on pier = 913 x 2.5 = 2290N/m
2290 x 4.25'
M = 20682Nm
2
0.3 x 440 x 310' x 1.5 x 7.4 _ 45420 N hi h i I
3. I X 10' - m, w IC IS a mp e.
32
Assume a lever arm coefficientof 0.9.
A = My m. _ 2.07 X 10' x 1.15 = 185 mm'
• f, x Z 460 x 0.9 x 310
Provide four 12 mm HY bars, percentage of reinforcement = 452~,I OO = 0.23.
The lever ann coefficientcan now be verified using A. = 185 mm'
and f, = 460 N/mm ' :
a = (I _ 0.53 x 185 x 460 x 3.1 ) = (I _ 0.08) = 0.92.
440 x 310 x 1.15 x 1.5 x 7A
Therefore the lever ann coefficient of 0.9 is satisfactory .
Check shear stress, v = 2::;} : ;;~5 = 0.07 N/mm '. Section safe since the maximum

design shear strength = O~~; = 0.14 N/mm ' .

Table IS Charact"isticjfexural(temile) strength of mas onry , f ... N l m m ' for the design of
unreinforced masonry to limit state

Plane of failure Plane of failure

parallel to bed joints perpendicular to bed j oints

Mortar designation (i) (ii) and (iii) (i) (ii) and (iii)
1:1:41 1:1:41
M ortar proportion by volume I :1:3 1:1:6 1:1:3 1:1:6
Clay bricks having a water absorption
less than 7 % 0.7 0.5 2.0 I.S
between 7 % and 12% 0.5 0.4 I.S 1.1
over 12 % 0.4 0.3 1.1 0.9
Calcium silicate bricks 0.3 0.9

Simplified method for deriving lever arm coefficient in limit state design
The expression for the lever ann coefficient in limit state design :
a = ( I 0.53A.f, Ymm) .. 0.95
bd,rYm
.I .5f •
is rather cumbersome, and canno t be used directly to calculate the area of reinforcement from :
A• = MYm•
f,a d"
It can be shown that the lever arm coefficient lies between 0.8 and 0.95 hence, in practice, the best
procedure is to assume that a = 0.9 and calculate As on the basis of z = 0.9d" . The value of As th us
obtained can be substituted into the formula to verify the assumption.
A better method, however, is to express the moment of resistance in the form
M d = Q bd ' " where it can be shown that Q = 2.834 a (1 - a)~"
Ymm
The units of Q are dictated by f. and must be compatible with those of b and d".
The variable s in this expression have the following limits:
lever arm coefficient, a ' 0. 8;---~0.95
characteristic compre ssive strength, f. 5.3 24 N jmm"
partial safety factor, Ymm 2.5 3.5
..!i.. 1.5- - - '9 .6 Njrnm >
Ymm
Q 0.2 4,35 Njrnm"
For any particular value of ~ the maximum value of Q is obtained when a = 0.8 and equals 0.45~
Ymm Ymm
"The derivat ion oj this expression is beyond the scope oj this design guide.
Design 0/fr ee standing walls 33
Design procedure
(I) Obt ain Q design mom ent
bd , r'
f
(2) Select f, and Y m m so that Q .; 0.45 - '-
Ymm
(3) Subst itut e the o bta ined value of Q fro m ( I) and the selected value of~ fro m (2) int o
Ymm

Q =2.834 a ( I -a) ~ a nd hence by solving a simple qu ad rat ic equatio n fi nd a .

Y mm

The process is furth er simplifi ed by plotting and tabulating a ll th e var iables in their a ppro priate limit s
as shown in Fig 24 an d Ta ble 16. Th is allo ws the value ofa to be obta ined directly.

24 b

M = Qbd '
d el f
whereQ =2 '834 a(1 ' a) X':"
'<'%I~J et

10
a . O· 5 b9' 0 9 0 ·00 083 0" h
a. /

/ /
'" ./ V
./

./ / 1
./"
,......-
/ V i> 1,......- :.-' V V
V ./ / ./
1/ / ./ ./ /"" V
5 / / / V / 1,......-
,,/

/ ./ ,,/ /"" ~ V
1/ / 1/ . / :::-: -: V
/ I~ 0 ~y
1.5

2 3 4 5
Q N!mm'

Table /6 Vii/lie.• of Q {u nit s a.• fo,.f,)

<:
a :r~ 1.00 2.00 3.00 ~ .OO 5.00 6.00 7.00 H.OO 9.00 10.0

a
0.95 0.135 0.269 0.40~ 0.538 0.673 0.808 O.9~ 2 1.077 I. ~ 1~ 1..1 ~6
0.91 0.209 0.4 17 0.6.2 6 0 .8 3 ~ 1. ~3 1.25 1 IA60 1.669 1.877 .2.l)86
0.89 0.277 0.555 0 .832 1.110 1..187 1.665 1. 9~ 2 .2.120 2A97 2 . 77~
0.86 O .3~ 1 0.682 1.0.24 1..165 1.706 2.0ot 7 2.388 2.7JO 3.07 1 .t ot 12
0.83 OAOO 0.800 1.200 1.600 1.999 .2.3Y9 2.799 3.199 3.599 3.999
0.80 0.453 0.907 1.360 1. 81~ 2.267 2.72 1 3. 17~ 3.fl2H ~ .O8 1 ~ .53 ~

34
REFERENCES
5

(I) BS 392 I : 1974. Clay Bricks and Block s. Brit ish Standards Inst itu tio n.
(2) BS 187 :1978. Ca lcium silicate (san dlime and f1intlime) bricks. British Standards Institu t ion .
(3) BS 4729 : I 97 I . Sha pes and dimensions of special bricks. British Standard s Institu tio n.
(4) BS 3798: 1964. Co ping units (of c1aywar e, unr einforced cast concrete, unreinforced cas t sto ne, natural
sto ne a nd slate). Briti sh Standard s Inst it ut io n.
(5) BS 743: 1970. Materials for damp proof courses. Briti sh Standards Instit utio n.
(6) C P3 : C ha pter V : Part 2 : 1972. Wind loads. Briti sh Standard s Inst itut io n.
(7) C. W. Newberry & K. J. Ea ton. Wind loadin g handbook. Building Research Esta blishment Report,
HMSO.
(8) W. G . C ur tin & K. Al-Hash irni. Design ofhrickwork in industrial buildings. 1978. Brick
Development Association .
(9) W. G . Curtin. G . Shaw, J. K . Beck & W. A. Bray. Design of brick diaphragm walls. 1982. Brick
De velopment Associati on .
( 10) BS 5628 : 1978. S tructura l use of masonry. P art 1 : Unreinforced masonry. Brit ish Standards
Institutio n.
( I I) C P I I I : I970. S tructura l recommendations for load bear ing walls. British Standards Institutio n.
( 12) SP9 I : 1977. Design guide for reinforced and prest ressed clay brickwork. British Ceramic Research
Associat ion .

Design of f ree standing walls 35