9th International Masonry Conference 2014 in Guimarães

Differences brick facade design to horizontal loads between the

Spanish and European standards

ADELL, JOSEP1, MENCÍAS, DAVID2

ABSTRACT: Brick facades are a construction type, strongly linked to local construction
characteristics and methods. In Spain, particularly in Castilla, the facades have been built since the
'80s with Castilian half foot (11.5 cm), resting on the edge of slabs. The design of these facades, to
horizontal loads from wind, depending on the codes used, can lead to completely different valid
solutions. Applying same loads, the facades studied with current European standard (Eurocode 6),
have a maximum length of 7.1 m between supports, while the Spanish code, Technical Building Code
- Structural Safety Masonry, (CTE SE-F), 8.4 m can be achieved. This represents an increase of
flexural strength, depending on the calculation model used, which can reach until 8 times. This is due
to the difference of the calculation method and the structural model in one and another standard,
depending on if this facade is analyzed as a vertical or horizontal beam or by formation of a vertical or
horizontal archh. This paper analyzes the constructive solution of the brick facades that results from
applying Spanish or European standards and how it affects the model applied in the safety of the
resulting facade.

Keywords: Masonry Facades, Wind, Horizontal loads, brick, EC-6 standard

NOTATION
 compliance coefficient;
MEd1 / MEd2 moment applied parallel / perpendicular to bed joints
MRd1 / MRd2 moment of resistance parallel / perpendicular to bed joints

1 INTRODUCTION

In the last 20 years, structural codes about structural brickworks have evolved very significantly.
Supranational and European legislation inclusion into national codes has been a very important fact to
achieve criteria and calculation bases harmonization, in order to establish structural requirements.
Facades are often the most forgotten structures. Usually, architects, structural consultants, builders
and even offices for technical control and quality companies define them as not "structure”. While not
being considered main structure plays a central role in the transmission consisting of horizontal wind
load to this main structure, except in some cases such as bearing wall structure).

However, international structural evaluation models employment should be aware of local

heterogeneity, and to transpose European standards at national but keeping the same criteria as
regards to structural requirements, regardless of the local building tradition. Models and formulations

1
PhD Architect, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid - ETSAM, Department of Architectural Construction, josep.adell@upm.es
2
Architect, PhD Candidate, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid - ETSAM, Department of Architectural Construction, dameca@gmail.com

th
9 International Masonry Conference, Guimarães 2014 1
Adell, J.; Mencías, D.

in the European and Spanish regulations about ceramic unreinforced masonry are showed in this
paper, since the beginning of the development of the Eurocodes program to date. Also those strength
evaluating models are applied to different geometries of masonry structures, in order to estimate the
importance of proportional in the strength mechanism.

Apparent discrepancy of these models and formulations has been studied previously [1] and the
process of adaptation of masonry structures Eurocode to Spanish legislation have been explained.
There are studies about how the integration of both the Spanish version of Eurocode and own
Spanish legislation (as in the case of the Technical Building Code (CTE onwards) in its basic
document of Structural Safety – Masonry) was made. To investigate this issue, this paper
comparatively shows, both view such the model as a numerical approximation the validity of the
solution studied under various rules.

2 FIELD OF STUDY. EUROPEAN AND SPANISH CODES

The Eurocodes program stars with the assignment of the European Commission to the European
Committee for Standardization that provides common methods for collecting all Member States of the
European Union to the calculation and dimensioning of structures and structural precast products. In
1990 created the CEN Technical Committee, the CEN/TC250 “Structural Eurocodes” to carry out this
purpose. Spanish member organization CEN standardization (AENOR), created the Committee
AEN/CTN140 as CEN/TC250 mirror committee. At that time, the Spanish code for brick masonry was
the NBE FL -90, which has been structural masonry code during the next 16 years. This code
replaced the NTE Technology Standards, which have been voluntary application.

Since 1996 document “Design of Masonry Structures” is within the Eurocodes program, the type of
structures devoted to the subject of this study. The transposition of this legislation and national annex
translation is performed by different national standards committees. The final Spanish transposition
where realize by UNE-EN 1996-1-1:2011 [5] while the British standard committee (British Standard)
was transposed by BS EN 1996-1-1:2006 [6], several years earlier.

Between the final Eurocode draft and adaptation to UNE (Spanish code) was published the
Building Code in 2006 as a basic document replacing NBE FL -90. A several revisions, amendments
and corrections of errors of various basic documents, leave the current edition of the document in
April 2009, replacing the previous 2006 [8]. The chronological order of the documents studied is
expressed in Table 1. This time schedule is essential to understand the inclusion or not of certain
expressions in one or other documents.

Table 1. Chronological order of documents and codes studied in the present paper

Year Code / Document Scope Situation Application

1997 UNE-ENV 1996-1-1:1997 [2] EU Repealed No

2004 prEN 1996-1-1:2004:E [3] EU Draft No

2005 EN 1996-1-1 (2005) [4] EU In force Voluntary

2006 BS EN 1996-1-1:2006 [6] UK In force Voluntary

2006 CTE SE-F [7] ES Repealed Required

2009 CTE SE-F [8] ES In force Required

2011 UNE EN 1996-1-1:2011 [5] ES In force Voluntary

th
2 9 International Masonry Conference, Guimarães 2014
 Differences brick facade design to horizontal between the Spanish and European standards

3 STATEMENTS AND STARTING POINTS

3.1. Main structural system

Parallel or perpendicular to front facade frames and horizontal slabs of reinforced concrete or grid
steel or concrete columns has been considered that the main building structure.

These starting points (otherwise, they are structures that are built in almost all residential building
and are a great percentage of non-singular building) can ignore the effects of excessive deformation
in wrought that the facade can be transformed into supporting structure. It assumes that main building
structure is enough rigid, and therefore it is designed with structural and construction criteria that
avoid this effect.

It has not been estimated that the facade has a structural function in any case. This discards that it
is a load bearing wall. In this way, the analysis is greatly simplified due to resistant evaluation is no
depending of structure span, and therefore, it is also no depending of the use and charges of
belonging in each studied case.

3.2. Geometry

Continuous wall without windows, are the type of facade studied without vertical or horizontal
movement joints. This can allow establish a continuity of effort that lets the models studied direct
application. It has been considered that the masonry facade walls are contained between two
consecutive floors in height between them ranging from 2.4 m to 4.0 m, 0.2 m increments. Thus there
are 9 different heights considered. Moreover it has taken wall length from 3.0 m to 8.0 m, increasing
by 0.5 m. Therefore there are 11 different horizontal dimensions.

All masonry thickness is always constant and it is set to Castilian midfoot, which has the
dimensions are 240 x 115 mm normalized by UNE EN 771-2003 Consequently, masonry consists of
11.5 cm thick stretched bricks.

3.3. Materials

Materials used in the analysis are made with brick to coat or face side brick. However, some
considerations to take decision under the rules had to be made. The manufacturing category is I
according to the CTE and group 2 according to EC-6. Compression strength selected by ceramic
piece characteristics is fb = 10 N / mm².

Moreover, masonry studied was estimated built with a regular prescribed rate mortar type M-5. It
has a compression strength characteristics fn = 5 N / mm². In order to determine execution safety
factor, the building type is defined as A category extended joints masonry set by CTE. Therefore, the
corresponding safety factor of the material is M = 1.7, which is established in both the CTE IS-F as in
EC-6.

3.4. Boundary and constructive conditions

Masonry has three hinged sides has been estimated to determine analysis boundary conditions. In
that way, lower end and both sides are hinged while upper side is free. This supporting mechanism is
the most likely to executed, and a specific detail it is not needed for loads transmission.

The masonry lower end rests directly on the floor edge while both sides are situated on elements
where can rotate. These supports may be either the main structure or secondary structure. The upper
edge is more likely to be a free end (Figure 1). In that way, the floor headroom has not been

th
9 International Masonry Conference Guimarães 2014 3
Adell, J.; Mencías, D.

performed taking into account the modulation of the brickwork and also allows some independence
from the top edge of the slab.

Figure 1. Explanatory diagram about supporting conditions to determine bending moment by

CTE

However, to estimate arch model and to compare the result, it has been assessed that masonry
wall supports both the top edge and the bottom and on the sides. This fact must be specifically
checked when facade is building and rethink model using strength capacity evaluation. Therefore the
way of build very significantly determines the model applied. Although in this study have been a
number of considerations performed so it can be thought that the building details will fulfil these
requirements.

Moreover, the current study was also performed for conditions of the four edges hinged so that it
can establish that in every situation, facade can lean into its perimeter. No such results have been
incorporated into this paper not to increase its size, since, as demonstrated in the following section;
comparison does not affect the determination of stresses model chosen.

3.5. Loads

In order to establish horizontal loads a continuous area load has been set across all masonry wall
surfaces. Load evaluation was made according to CTE SE-AE criteria in paragraph 3.3 where value
of the load is specified. This decision is due Eurocode left open to national documents to establishing
specific values of certain actions that should be subject to detailed study because of its local features.

The wind load is evaluated according to the following expression, set out in paragraph 3.3.2 of
CTE SE-F:

q e = q b · ce · c p
(1)
.
Therefore, wind loads characteristic value is set as wind pressure W Ek = 0.80 kN/m² and wind
suction W Ek = 0.70 kN/m². Defining as safety factor for variable actions (defined in CTE SE) and Q =
1.5, the design loads used in the analysis are WEd = 1.20 (wind pressure) and W Ed = 1.05 (wind
suction).

3.6. Strength and elastic values

Compressive strength
The compressive strength is defined from the article 3.6.1.2 of EC-6. Masonry built with group 2
cooked clay and ordinary mortar, the value set s K = 0.45. Therefore characteristic compressive
strength are fk = 3.66 N / mm².

th
4 9 International Masonry Conference, Guimarães 2014
 Differences brick facade design to horizontal between the Spanish and European standards

CTE expression has an immediate determination of the characteristic compressive strength

expressed in Table 4.4. Compressive strength is found directly from brick type and mortar type.
Estimating a perforated brick with fb = 10.00 N / mm² value and a mortar M-5 with fm = 5.00 N / mm²,
a value of fk = 4.00 N / mm² is obtained. Moreover Annex C, proposes a methodology similar to EC-6,
but using differs parameters and  and  values (are 0.65 and 0.25). Anyway this method value is
very similar to the assessed through EC-6.
Flexural strength
Flexural strength depends on the studied direction due to masonry behavior is quite differently
when the bending direction studied is parallel or perpendicular to bed joints as shown in Figure 3.
Thus two different directions resistances are established. Those values are applicable when normal
loads are taking action: fxk1 = 0.1 N/mm² and fxk2 = 0.4 N/mm²

The CTE provides masonry flexural strength according to Table 4.6. Estimated values depend on
the workpiece material and strength and type of mortar used. Characteristic masonry flexural strength
factory matching established by the EC-6 in materials studied.

Modulus of elasticity
Article 4.6.5 of CTE define instantaneous secant modulus, E, as a value that can be taken as
1000fk. Therefore, the value set is E = 3673.7 N / mm².

4 CODES COMPARATION

All standards studied are based on the verification of the structural requirements through the
principle of ultimate limit states, where a solicitation or effort applied against a response of the
structure is compared.

SEd ≤ SRd ; MEd ≤ MRd ; Ed ≤ Rd

(2)
.
Moreover, when studying the other fundamental model (the wall behavior as an arch) lateral load
bearing capacity is compared with loads. In this case, bending moments are not compared, but the
loads so wind load is must be less or equal than the resistance to lateral loads.

WEd ≤ qlat
(3)
.
4.1. Moment applied

As final draft (UNE - ENV 1996-1-1:1997) as Eurocode 6 and national transpositions (prEN 1996-
1-1:2004 / BS 1996-1-1:2005 / UNE - EN 1996-1-1:2011) continues the same model expressed in the
experimental phase, as shown in the expressions (4) and (5):

MEd1 = 1 W Ed l² (4)
.
MEd2 = 2 W Ed l² (5)
.
To determine moment applied by CTE 2006 SE-F moves rectangular walls Eurocode. Differences
between two directions are kept, with the nomenclature of span long, indicating that the direction
parallel to the bed joints is the horizontal and is perpendicular to the vertical [9].

th
9 International Masonry Conference Guimarães 2014 5
Adell, J.; Mencías, D.

Figure 2.  values in Annex E of EC-6 (left) and Annex G of CTE SE-F(right)

As shown in figure 2, Annex G is copied directly from Annex E of Eurocode. It does suffer no
alteration from the previous version, so the analysis values are exactly the same. Regardless of the
rules used, because if the model is used the results are the same for all standards. CTE DB-F 2009
errata corrects about exchange coefficients being equivalent to bending Eurocodes expressions.

4.2. Lateral moment of resistance

Standards based on Eurocode 6, continue the same pattern of the experimental version (UNE -
ENV 1996-1-1:1997), except using characteristics values. It also makes explicit reference (as in the
previous case was implied) to the two directions of flexure resistant capabilities of the plant.

Mrd1 = fxd1 Z (6)

.

Mrd2 = fxd2 Z (7)

.

CTE SE - F 2006 section 5.4.3 shows various mechanisms to determine resisting moment. It is
supposed that if facade has moment of resistance then it has flexural strength. So, models expressed
in this code are used to determine facade bending or lateral moment resistant. The first one is the
flexural compression is exactly transposed from EC – 6.

However, the import difference is found in moment of resistance as arch (equation 8), depending
on arch height and maximum thrust.

MRd = Nad · r / 2 (8)

.
This expression assumes the great change of the CTE approach compared to other standards. In
fact a bending moment of resistance can be obtained from arch thrust. As discussed below both arch
height as maximum thrust coincides with the arch EC-6 approach, but without obtaining a bending
moment of these hypotheses.

This procedure justification can be found in the text of C del Rio [10] where it is said that to avoid
additional justifications, we have followed the criteria outlined in Article 4.1.5 in that procedure
"Checking walls arch effect between underpinnings "of the EC-6 Parts 1-3, which as mentioned is
also not incorporated into the final document part 1-3. It also provides as a great innovation, a model
to evaluate the performance and vertical beam loads applicable to walls (not the subject of this
research) but that its use reflects the document published by Hyspalit [11] (national brick producer
association) and exemplifies its application.

th
6 9 International Masonry Conference, Guimarães 2014
 Differences brick facade design to horizontal between the Spanish and European standards

CTE SE – F 2009 keeps EC – 6 flexural model approach, as CTE SE – F 2006. However, arch
resistant expression changes drastically. The first distinction refers to the slenderness of the factory,
using different expressions is greater or less than 35.

L / t > 35 MRd = E · (td³ /L²) · r/8 (9)

.
L / t < 35 MRd = (fd · td - fd²L² / td E) · r/2

The dimension of the effective lever to determine resisting section incorporates the second order
effect. According to [11] “slenderness analysis must be done when a certain value exceeded." It
follows that the analysis for reduced slenderness is first order and for higher slenderness, a second-
order analysis is performed.

This analysis depends on constitutive equations in terms of the elastic modulus and slenderness
calculation instead of geometry and thrust at supports. This model has important changes from
Eurocode due to determine wall stability not based on resistance. As shown, this model is in
contradiction with the value obtained by EC - 6 as arch.

4.3. Lateral loading resistance

European standards remain the same hinged arch model of the EC-6 experimental version. In the
final document, horizontal arch is always arisen when the support are resist enough. In practice, the
slabs supports (provided the support is constructively designed for this purpose), will be able to resist
these thrusts.

Figure 3. Arch model as shown in EC – 6 European Code

Lateral loading resistance will be compared with wind load, and it can be calculated as show in
equation (9), depending on . Design compressive stress could be more than 0.1 N/mm² (in fact, it is
only possible to apply in structural walls) and slenderness less than 20 in considered direction. In fact,
11.5 cm – bricks walls (half feet) will have slenderness less 20 only when length is less than 2.30 m
(impossible to build rooms high enough to required minimum high codes).

qlat,d = fd (t/la)2 (10)

.

CTE SE - F 2006 model differs from EC – 6 in the wind loading scheme. Resistance arch is
different depending wind is pressing or sucking (Figure 4), and consequently arch width is different.

th
9 International Masonry Conference Guimarães 2014 7
Adell, J.; Mencías, D.

Figure 4. Arch model as shown in CTE SE – F Spanish Code

Equations about how to calculate thrust force in supporting and lateral loading resistance is very
similar to EC – 6. However the radical different appears in CTE SE – F 2009 updating. Arch width is
reducing from 0.9 td – d to 2/3 td – d, apparently in favor of security. Nonetheless lateral loading
resistance is completely different; appearing elastic modulus due to a second order analysis is done
equation (11). There is no code explanation about this model change.

(11)
.

5 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS RESULTS

This comparative analysis was performed from the assumptions made above. Coefficient  is
established as compliance coefficient, ratio between the applied moment and resistance moment in
design values (equation (12)). It really show how many times the wall is strength from the required
moment due to wind loads.

(12)
.

Therefore, a lower value of coefficient than one indicates that the strength requirement is not
fulfilled and a higher value indicates the number of times is more strength than necessary.

5.1. Vertical bending

The difference between  using EC – 6 and CTE SE – F is clear, so that has been modified
according to the formulation and introduced the arc model has increased significantly the rate of
compliance. Directly has also increased masonry resistance since solicitation has not changed since
the analysis model is the same in all cases.Variation in the compliance ratio is shown following, which
also indicates that it is the change in resistance between CTE SE-F from EC-6.

th
8 9 International Masonry Conference, Guimarães 2014
 Differences brick facade design to horizontal between the Spanish and European standards

One of all studied structure (the one that has a 6 meters long) is shown in Figure 5. In this
graphics, the different compliance coefficient can be compared between EC – 6, CTE SE – F 2006
and CTE SE – F 2009.

Figure 5. 6 meters long masonry wall compare using EC- 6 model, CTE SE-F 2006 and 2009

In Table 2 are show all the ratios obtained dividing compliance ratio using CTE SE – F 2009
equations (nowadays required in Spain) and ratio using EC – 6 equations (required around European
Union).

Table 2. Ratio of compliance coefficient () obtained as a vertical bending structure using EC-6 and
CTE SE-F 2009 in percent.

L\h 2,40 2,60 2,80 3,00 3,20 3,40 3,60 3,80 4,00

3,00 813% 804% 795% 786% 777% 769% 760% 751% 742%

3,50 813% 804% 795% 786% 777% 769% 760% 751% 742%

4,00 813% 804% 795% 786% 777% 769% 760% 751% 742%

4,50 813% 804% 795% 786% 777% 769% 760% 751% 742%

5,00 813% 804% 795% 786% 777% 769% 760% 751% 742%

5,50 813% 804% 795% 786% 777% 769% 760% 751% 742%

6,00 813% 804% 795% 786% 777% 769% 760% 751% 742%

6,50 813% 804% 795% 786% 777% 769% 760% 751% 742%

7,00 813% 804% 795% 786% 777% 769% 760% 751% 742%

7,50 813% 804% 795% 786% 777% 769% 760% 751% 742%

8,00 813% 804% 795% 786% 777% 769% 760% 751% 742%

th
9 International Masonry Conference Guimarães 2014 9
Adell, J.; Mencías, D.

5.2. Horizontal bending

Data obtained by evaluation as horizontal bending are shown following. In EC-6 experimental draft,
this is the only way that could form an arch, and instead, as [13], is the most improbable situation that
masonry can work. The different compliance coefficient in the same wall long is) is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. 6 meters long masonry wall compare using EC- 6 model,

In Table 3 are shown all the ratios obtained dividing compliance ratio using CTE SE – F 2009 and
ratio using EC – 6 equations.

Table 3. Ratio of compliance coefficient () obtained as a horizontal bending structure using EC-
6 and CTE SE-F 2009 in percent.

L\h 2,40 2,60 2,80 3,00 3,20 3,40 3,60 3,80 4,00

3,00 197% 197% 197% 147% 147% 147% 147% 147% 147%

3,50 191% 191% 191% 143% 143% 143% 143% 143% 143%

4,00 185% 185% 185% 139% 139% 139% 139% 139% 139%

4,50 180% 180% 180% 135% 135% 135% 135% 135% 135%

5,00 174% 174% 174% 131% 131% 131% 131% 131% 131%

5,50 169% 169% 169% 127% 127% 127% 127% 127% 127%

6,00 163% 163% 163% 122% 122% 122% 122% 122% 122%

6,50 158% 158% 158% 118% 118% 118% 118% 118% 118%

7,00 152% 152% 152% 114% 114% 114% 114% 114% 114%

7,50 146% 146% 146% 110% 110% 110% 110% 110% 110%

8,00 141% 141% 141% 106% 106% 106% 106% 106% 106%

th
10 9 International Masonry Conference, Guimarães 2014
 Differences brick facade design to horizontal between the Spanish and European standards

6 CONCLUSIONS

Studying named standards and codes, as well national and international level and analyzing
models present in these codes, specific model for the comparison and comparative evaluation of the
influence on the strength, following conclusions can be set:

- Since the beginning of the Eurocodes program, masonry model defined in international codes
remains unchanged. That is, to determine the bearing capacity of masonry walls with horizontal
actions. Both initially in the experimental UNE-ENV 1996:1997, in the final draft prEN 1996-1-1:2004,
as transposition to UK national standards BS EN 1996-1-1:2006 and Spanish UNE EN 1996-1 -
1:2011, model and evaluation mechanism is unchanged, both in determining the resisting moment as
when applied.

- CTE SE-F 2006 Spanish standard and its update CTE SE-F 2009, move the model for
determining the applied moment defined in Eurocode. That includes bending moment coefficients
(depending on the boundary conditions and the slenderness of the factory), and coping the equivalent
schedules.

- CTE SE-F 2006 Spanish standard model includes determining the flexural strength, a first-order
model, based on arch working method. This type did not exist in previous standards but does not
change the structural scheme arch and the height of the arch and thrust on the supports. Although
Spanish rule was not published transpose (this will take five years later), with the final drafting
Eurocode yes it was from the previous year.

- Update CTE SE-F 2009 modify the behavior model as arch introducing a scheme of second-order
analysis based on the slenderness. The wall height happens to occupy a wall thickness of 0.90 to
0.67 is also modified.

- Masonry evaluated bending strength element matches both the European and Spanish rules, as
it employs the same model without modification in expressions.

- The compliance factor in masonry as vertical bending scheme defined in CTE SE-F 2006
(influenced by the resistance moment of the masonry since the moment applied matches) is more
than 300 % than Eurocode, so safety masonry facades evaluated in this model is one-third of
European standards. This is reduced up more than 800% when the CTE SE-F 2009 is updated.
Nowadays this code is required in Spain.

So, application of the current Spanish standards to evaluate the resistance of unreforced masonry
facade walls to wind actions reduces security to a greater or lesser extent in all cases studied with
respect to European standard, can be concluded. So, Spain codes no required with European
Standard.

REFERENCES
[1] Adell J.M., Causas de patología: normativa, cálculo, construcción y experimentación de las
fachadas de ladrillo españolas.
[2] UNE-ENV 1996:1997. Eurocódigo 6: proyecto de estructuras de fábrica. Comité Europeo de
Normalización (Bruselas) and Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación, 1997.
[3] prEN 1996-1-1:2004. Eurocódigo 6: proyecto de estructuras de fábrica. Comité Europeo de
Normalización (Bruselas), 1997.
[4] EN 1996-1-1:2005. Eurocódigo 6: proyecto de estructuras de fábrica. Comité Europeo de
Normalización (Bruselas), 2005.
[5] UNE EN 1996-1-1:2011 Eurocódigo 6: proyecto de estructuras de fábrica. Comité Europeo de
Normalización (Bruselas) and Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación,2011.

th
9 International Masonry Conference Guimarães 2014 11
Adell, J.; Mencías, D.

[6] BS EN 1996-1-1:2006. Eurocode 6: design of masonry structures. British Standard

Institution,2006.
[7] CTE DB SE-F. España. Ministerio de la Vivienda. Código técnico de la edificación (CTE).
Seguridad estructural, fábricas. 2006
[8] CTE DB SE-F. España. Ministerio de la Vivienda. Código técnico de la edificación (CTE).
Seguridad estructural, fábricas. 2009
[9] J. Estévez Cimadevila y D. Otero Chans. Cálculo de muros de fábrica sometidos a cargas
laterales de viento. Hormigón y acero Nº 240. Págs. 55-62. 2006
[10] C del Rio. Métodos de análisis para verificar la estabilidad y resistencia de los cerramientos de
ladrillo. Conarquitectura nº 10. Págs.1-24. 2003
[11] Aplicación del Código Técnico de la Edificación DB SE-F a una estructura con muros de carga
de ladrillo. Hyspalit. 2007

th
12 9 International Masonry Conference, Guimarães 2014