FEATURE
Design of masonry support angles –
a review
John Veale
The design of masonry support angles requires as much detailed attention as the design of any other structural
element. In particular, consideration must be given to the span between fixings, the continuity of the angles, arching
action in the masonry, and the stiffness of the fixing detail. A suitable design method is proposed.
When steel angles were first used to support masonry cladding panels,
it was quite normal to design the angle by treating the horizontal leg as
a continuous cantilever subject to a constant line load. This approach
took no account of the span between support fixings. Alternatively,
designers who were aware of likely arching action within the masonry
panel could treat the support angle as a series of separate brackets,
thereby ignoring the continuity of the angle. In order to provide a
rational approach to the design of masonry support angles, taking all
relevant factors into account, the writer suggested a new method of
analysis (ref. 1). Subsequently, the Steel Construction Institute carried
out full-scale load tests in order “to develop a reasonably simple yet
accurate design method for predicting the behaviour of stainless steel
masonry support angles” (ref. 2). These tests formed the basis of an
empirical design method for continuous masonry support angles (ref. 3).
This method, however, is not intended for bracket angle systems. The
report on these tests (ref. 2) included a comparison of the test results
with two “rigorous methods for predicting the behaviour of masonry
support angles... reported in the literature”. Of these, “Veale’s method
proved to be more accurate in stress as well as deflection predictions”.
The availability of an empirical design method allows an assessment of
Veale’s method to be made over a wide range of support angle
arrangements and provides a means of checking its validity.
Veale’s method – an update
The design method suggested in 1988 (ref. 1) assumes that the masonry
panel is so stiff that the deflection of the support angle is constant along
its length. The angle stiffness under vertical load, however, is greater at
each support than at midspan. The load distribution must therefore
vary along the angle and is represented by a Fourier series. The
derivation of this series is described fully in the earlier article (ref. 1).
This derivation has now been developed to include bracket angles and
angles with the vertical leg pointing up or down. This has required a
detailed representation of the support stiffness for each type of angle
arrangement, resulting in a different load distribution for bracket and
non-bracket angles. All inverted angles (leg down), however, have the
same load distribution expressions (within the terms of the design
method), with or without brackets. This follows from the assumption
that the heel of an inverted angle cannot rotate at the support position,
because the support face prevents flexure of the vertical leg or bracket.
Veale’s method calculates the bending stress at the heel of the angle and
the toe deflection, at support, quarter span and midspan positions. For
design purposes, the maximum heel stress and the average toe
deflection should be used. (In some cases, the Fourier approximation
gives a higher load at the quarter span than at the support, although the
combined support and quarter span loadings still represent a
concentration of load near the support. The maximum stress should be
used for design purposes, whether it occurs at the support or the
quarter span.) The angle loading should be assumed to act at the
centreline of the masonry panel. The method can be summarised as
follows:-
Load/unit length at a distance, x, from a support,
Wx = W(k1 + k2.cos 2πx + k3.cos 4πx )
B B
where W is the average load/unit length.
Support load/unit length, WP = W( k1 + k2 + k3 )
Quarter span load/unit length, WQ = W( k1 – k3 )
Midspan load/unit length, WR = W( k1 – k2 + k3 )
The Fourier coefficients are given by:-
k1 = 1
k2 = T1 /R1 – (S1 /R1 ).k3
k3 = [ T1 /R1 – T2 /R2 ] / [ S1 /R1 – S2 /R2 ]
Expressions for R 1, S 1, T 1, R 2, S 2 and T 2 for upright or inverted
angles, with or without brackets, are given in Table 1. Dimensions are
defined in Figure 1 and Table 1.
The heel stress in the angle is given by 6.Wx(c + e – s – t/2)/t2 for
non-bracket angles, 6.Wx(c + e – s – bd – t/2)/t2 for bracket angles.
Wx is WP at the support, WQ at the quarter span and WR at midspan.
The expressions for toe deflections are given in Table 2.
Comparison of SCI and Veale’s methods
Maximum heel stresses and toe deflections have been calculated using
the SCI and Veale’s methods for a wide range of support angle
arrangements which may be summarised as follows:-
B = 300, 600, 900 and 1200 mm (c varies from 30 to 140 mm)
mw = 100 mm for W = 5.9 and 11.8 kN/m
mw = 140 mm for W = 8.4 and 16.8 kN/m
Veale’s method does not calculate the position of the line of action of the
masonry panel weight (i.e. the value of e). Several values of e were tried,
including e = mw/2, mw/3 and b/2. The empirical value of e from the
SCI method was also used. Of these, the SCI value of e produced the
closest agreement between the two methods. Using e = mw/2 also
produced generally good agreement, but Veale’s method gave higher
values of toe deflection in some cases. See Figure 2 for a graphical
comparison of the heel stresses and toe deflections calculated by the two
methods.
It appears that Veale’s method gives reasonable predictions of stress
and deflection for masonry support angles and can be used safely for
design purposes. Unfortunately, this validation exists only for upright
non-bracket angles, as covered by the SCI method. Veale’s method is
also applicable to inverted and/or bracketed angles, but there are no
readily available test results to validate this use of the method. Use of
this analysis for inverted and bracketed angles, however, indicates
clearly that variation in the support stiffness has a significant effect on
the load distribution along the angle. Inverted angles are inherently
more stiffly supported, because the vertical support face prevents
flexure of the vertical leg of the angle, or flexure of the bracket. More
load is attracted to the supports and the resulting stresses and
deflections are increased. A similar effect is apparent with bracket
angles, because of the bracket’s stiffening effect at the support. The
original version of Veale’s method has been available for many years as
a computer proforma (ref. 4). This proforma is currently being updated
FEATURE

Figure 1.Typical support angle details (Bracket angle dimensions as for non-bracket angles, except as noted)

(A) Upright angle, no brackets (B) Inverted angle, no brackets (C) Upright angle, with brackets (D) Inverted angle, with brackets

to cover bracket angles and to include the SCI method. It will enable
designers to investigate the effect of different angle arrangements and
the interaction between support stiffness and load distribution.
Veale’s method is being developed further, in order to predict the value
of e and to represent the support stiffness in such a way as to reproduce
the predictions of the SCI method more closely. If this can be achieved,
Veale’s method can be used with some confidence for support angle
arrangements beyond the limits of the SCI testing on which the
empirical method is based.
The need for a rigorous design method for
masonry support angles
The writer’s work to develop a design method for support angles was
triggered by irritation that such angles were designed by methods that
did not take into account factors that were clearly relevant, such as the
spacing between fixing bolts. But there are other reasons for needing a
rigorous design method! Load concentration at supports implies higher
stresses and deflections than are predicted by an assumption of
uniformly distributed loading. The maximum stress level is typically
the ruling criterion in the structural design of an element. In the case of
masonry support angles, the toe deflection is also critical because of its
effect on the width of the soft joint below the shelf angle. Sealant within
the joint must accommodate temperature and moisture movements in
the masonry panel. Its capacity to accommodate such movements is
dependent on the joint width, so a reduction of, say, 2 mm in a nominal
joint width of 10 mm is significant. The stresses and toe deflections of
the angles included as examples in the SCI method (ref. 3) are compared
with values calculated by assuming that the horizontal leg of each angle
is a cantilever subjected to a constant line load:-

Table 1: Calculation of Fourier coefficients

Upright angles Upright angles Inverted angles
(no brackets) (with brackets) (with or without brackets)
R1
6.kW2 .kH + 4.kx3 + 3.kk2 6.kW2 .kH + 4.kx3 + 3.kk2 6.kW2 .kH + 4.kx3 + 3.kk2
2π 2π 2π
S1 4.kW 2 .kH
6.kW2 .kH + 8.kx3 + 3.kk2 + 8.kx3 + 3.kk2 8.kW3 + 3.kk2
4π kP 4π 4π
T1 9.kk – 6.k 2 .k 2
9.kk – 4.kW .kH 9.kk
16 16 16
W H
kP
R2 4.kW 2 .kH
6.kW2 .kH + 8.kx3 + 3.kk + 8.kx3 + 3.kk 8.kx3 + 3.kk
π2 kP π2 π2
S2 4.kW 2 .kH
6.kW2 .kH 0
kP
T2 3.kk – 6.k 2 .k 2
3.kk – 4.kW .kH 3.kk
4 4 4
W H
kP

(1 + ν).kW 2 .kD2 kT = t/lh

Where: kk =
(1 + kL – kT)
kIR = ri/lh

kx = kW + (π/2 – 1).kIR – (1 – π4.kT) kD = B/lh

(bracket stiffness)
kP = kL = lv/lh
(lb.t3/6)
B = fixing bolt spacing kH = l/Ih

e = mw/2 (or SCI empirical value, Ref.3) ν = Poisson's Ratio

kW = (c – s + e)/lh (without brackets)

(c – s – bd + e)/lh (with brackets)
FEATURE

Figure 2. Comparison of SCI and Veales’ methods

(A) Heel stresses (N/mm2) (B) Toe deflections (mm)

+ denotes Veale’s method using SCI value for e
x denotes Veale’s method using e = mw/2
denotes that the two methods give the same value
*
Table 2: Calculation of toe deflections
Location Upright angles Upright angles Inverted angles
(no brackets) (with brackets) (with or without brackets)
Support 6.WP .kH.kW WP.kx2 [4.kx + 6(1 – kW)] 4.WP .kH.kW WP.kx2 [4.kx + 6(1 – kW)] WP.kx2 [4.kx + 6(1 – kW)]
+ +
E.kT3 E.kT3 E.kT3.kP E.kT3 E.kT3
Quar ter WQ.kx2 [4.kx + 6(1 – kW)]
span kθ(3/8 – k2 /π2 – k3 /2.π2) +
E.kT3
Midspan WR.kx2 [4.kx + 6(1 – kW)]
kθ(1/2 – 2k2 /π2)+
E.kT3

3.W(1 + ν).kW.kD2
Where: kθ = E = Young's Modulus
2.E(1 + kL – kT ).kT3

Example SCI stress SCI deflection UDL stress UDL deflection
1 94.9 N/mm2 1.53 mm 77.8 N/mm2 0.89 mm
2 142 N/mm 2
1.47 mm 122 N/mm2 0.87 mm
The assumption of uniformly distributed loading is clearly “unsafe”.
Notwithstanding the examples above, it is probably true to say that
most of the known problems arising out of the use of masonry support
angles have been the result of poor, or non-existent, detailing of angles
and fixings, rather than the use of undersized angles. There are various
ways in which a masonry support angle can redistribute its load
unobtrusively, if it is overloaded. There are other aspects of masonry
support angles which are more difficult to explain. For example, the
maximum live load deflection of a framed building edge beam is
typically Span/360, about 17 mm for a 6 metre span. Has anyone ever
experienced a masonry support problem as a result of live load
deflection of the edge beam supporting the shelf angle?
Conclusions
The design of masonry support angles requires as much detailed
attention as the design of any other structural element. Design advice is
readily available (e.g. ref. 3 and manufacturers’ literature) and should be
followed. The SCI design method provides a simple way of predicting
the behaviour of non-bracket angle systems, but does not extend to
bracket angles which offer significant advantages in many situations.
Veale’s method provides an alternative analytical model, which can be
applied to inverted and bracket angles as well as to non-bracket angles.
John Veale is a principal engineer with TPS Consult in Croydon.
E-mail: veale.john@tpsconsult.co.uk
References
1. Design of masonry support angles, Veale J.R.; Steel Construction
Today; 1988, 2; pp 81-88.
2. Joint Industry Project; Structural design of stainless steel angle
sections for masonry support; Document RT442 Version 02; May 1995;
The Steel Construction Institute.
3. SCI-P-157; Stainless Steel Angles for Masonry Support; 1995; The
Steel Construction Institute.
4. Proforma No.541; SCALE (Structural CALculations Ensemble);
Fitzroy Systems.