Case Studies in Construction Materials 11 (2019) e00243

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm

Case study

Study on the enhancement coefficient of the local compressive

strength improvement of masonry under a cantilever beam
Xiaolong Tong, Chucai Peng*, Jian Zhang
School of Civil Engineering, Hunan Institute of Science and Technology, Yueyang 414006, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Locally compressed masonry under a cantilever beam is restrained by the surrounding
Received 6 November 2018 masonry, resulting in improved local compressive strength. The code for design of masonry
Received in revised form 5 March 2019 structures stipulates that the enhancement coefficients of the local compressive strength
Accepted 16 April 2019
of masonry(g ) with single- and T-wall supporting cantilever beams are 1.25 and 1.5,
respectively; however, these two values, which stem from the material performance test of
Keywords: masonr’s local compressive strength, are not testified from the local compression of
Cantilever beam
masonry under cantilever beam. Further, the g of L-shaped wall supporting cantilever
Enhancement coefficient of local
compressive strength
beam is not presented in the Code. This study theoretically deduced the effective length of
Effective length of the masonry’s the masonry’s compressive stress distribution based on the elastic foundation beam theory,
compressive stress distribution obtaining the theoretical results in good agreement with the test values. The theoretical,
Masonry test, and code values of the effective length of the masonry’s compressive stress
distribution were adopted for calculating g with single- and T-wall supporting cantilever
beams, revealing the code value of g was relatively small. Herein, the enhancement
coefficient of the local compressive strength of masonry has been investigated using an L-
shaped wall supporting cantilever beam; according to the calculation results, an
enhancement coefficient of 1.4 is recommended for safety reasons.
© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

The reinforced concrete cantilever beam is a common component of masonry structures.The masonry under the beam is
subjected to local compression under load. Hence, calculating local compression is important to ensure structural safety.
Previously, the overturning load and failure mode of the reinforced concrete cantilever beam have been systematically
studied [1–3] through failure tests. Further, a design method is proposed for the anti-overturning load, and the stress
distribution length of the masonry under the cantilever beam has also been recorded; however, in all such studies, either the
single-wall or the T-wall supported the cantilever beam (see Fig. 1). A previous study [4] reported that setting up a rigid block
under a cantilever beam is an appropriate engineering measure to increase the local compressive bearing capacity of
masonry under that beam. Furthermore, a method for calculating the local compressive bearing capacity of a rigid-block
masonry structure under a cantilever beam is proposed in Reference [4] based on the results of the numerical analysis. Code
for design of masonry structures [5] provides the method and formula for obtaining their local compression under the
cantilever beam; however, the enhancement coefficients of the local compressive strength (g ) only describe the cases in

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: 24851979@qq.com (C. Peng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2019.e00243
2214-5095/© 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
2 X. Tong et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 11 (2019) e00243

Fig. 1. Local compression of the masonry under a cantilever beam: (a) single-wall supporting cantilever beam, (b) T-wall supporting cantilever beam, and
(c) L-shaped wall supporting cantilever beam.

which single- and T-wall supported the cantilever beams and are not applicable in case of an L-shaped wall supporting
cantilever beam (see Fig. 1), which leads to inconveniences in practical engineering design. In Reference [5], the particularity
of the cantilever beam is not considered, and the value of the enhancement coefficient of the local compressive strength with
respect to the material performance test of masonr’s local compressive strength is directly applied, which may affect the
accuracy of the results.
Based on Winkler’s theory of elastic foundation, the study theoretically researched the effective length of the masonry’s
compressive stress distribution under cantilever beams and compare with the existing test results. The objective of this
study was to examine the rationality of the enhancement coefficient of the local compressive strength of masonry reported
for single- and T-wall supporting cantilever beams in Reference [5] and to determine the enhancement coefficient’s value for
an L-shaped wall supporting cantilever beam to facilitate various engineering applications.

2. Effective length of the masonry’s compressive stress distribution under a cantilever beam

2.1. Theoretical derivation

In masonry-structure engineering, the cantilever beam is usually considered to be an elastic beam. The tests and analyses
[1] denote that the cantilever beam can be considered to be an elastic foundation beam based on masonry prior to failure.
Further, the vertical positive stress distributions of the upper and lower sections of the beam and wall under a vertical load
are depicted in Fig. 2, where the compressive stress is negative and the tensile stress is positive. The following basic
assumptions have been considered:
(1) based on Winkler’s hypothesis, the reaction between the beam and the masonry interface is proportional to the
vertical displacement at each point.
(2) the tensile stress between the beams and the masonry can be ignored.
Fig. 3 depicts the calculation diagram. The external load of the beam is simplified to the equivalent loads M0 and Q0 at the
wall edge; ac is the effective length of the compressive stress distribution; and l is the length of the cantilever beam that is
buried in the masonry wall. In general, the width of beam b is equal to the wall thickness, which can be obtained as follows
based on our mechanical knowledge:
4
d y
Eh J ¼ kby ð1Þ
dx4
Eq. 1 denotes the basic general equation that can be used for the calculation of ac, where Eh and J are the elastic modulus
and cross-sectional inertia of the concrete cantilever beam, respectively.
The reaction between the beam and the masonry interface is proportional to the vertical displacement, k is defined as the
ratio coefficient of unit deformation (N/m3); the value of k corresponds to the value of the elastic modulus of masonry.

Fig. 2. Vertical normal stress distribution at the interface between the beam and the wall.
 X. Tong et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 11 (2019) e00243 3

Fig. 3. Calculation diagram.

qffiffiffiffiffi
A power series of higher mathematics is adopted to solve Eq. 1.First, assuming a ¼ 4 kb
Eh J , where α is the flexibility
coefficient. Then, substituting α into Eq. 1 to obtain the following equation:
4
d y
þ a4 y ¼ 0 ð2Þ
dx4
Using the boundary conditions, this study obtains:
2 3
dy d y M0 d y Q
yðx¼0Þ ¼ y0 ; ¼ ’0 ; 2 ¼ and 3 ¼ 0
dxðx¼0Þ dx ðx¼0Þ Eh J dx ðx¼0Þ Eh J
Furthermore, the vertical deformation of the cantilever beam can be given as
’0 M0 Q0
y ¼ y0 A1 þ B þ C þ D ð3Þ
a 1 a2 Eh J 1 a3 Eh J 1
where
X1
1
A1 ¼ 1 þ ð1Þn ðaxÞ4n ð4Þ
n¼1
ð4nÞ!

X
1
1
B1 ¼ ax þ ð1Þn ðaxÞ4nþ1 ð5Þ
n¼1
ð4n þ 1Þ!

ðaxÞ2 X 1
1
C1 ¼ þ ð1Þn ðaxÞ4nþ2 ð6Þ
2 n¼1
ð4n þ 2Þ!

ðaxÞ3 X 1
1
D1 ¼ þ ð1Þn ðaxÞ4nþ3 ð7Þ
6 n¼1
ð4n þ 3Þ!

In general, the bending moment and shear force at the end of the beam are considered to be small and negligible.
Therefore, it can be assumed thatMðx¼lÞ ¼ 0,Q x¼l ¼ 0.
Substituting this into Eq. 3, the following equation is obtained:
Q0 M0
y¼ ðA1 A  B1 B þ D1 Þ þ ðA1 B  B1 C þ C 1 Þ ð8Þ
a3 Eh J a2 Eh J
where

B0 C 0  A0 D0
A¼ ð9Þ
C 0  B0 D0
2

B0  A0 C 0
2
B¼ ð10Þ
02
C  B0 D0
4 X. Tong et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 11 (2019) e00243

A0 B0 þ C 0 D0
C¼ ð11Þ
C 0  B0 D0
2

X1
1
A0 ¼ 1 þ ð1Þn ðalÞ4n ð12Þ
n¼1
ð4nÞ!

X
1
1
B0 ¼ al þ ð1Þn ðalÞ4nþ1 ð13Þ
n¼1
ð4n þ 1Þ!

ðalÞ2 X 1
1
C0 ¼ þ ð1Þn ðalÞ4nþ2 ð14Þ
2 n¼1
ð4n þ 2Þ!

ðalÞ3 X 1
1
D0 ¼ þ ð1Þn ðalÞ4nþ3 ð15Þ
6 n¼1
ð4n þ 3Þ!

In the above equations, A1, B1, C1, and D1 denote the functions of αx, whereas A, B, and C denote the functions of αl.
If Eq. 8 results in y = 0, x is the effective length of the compressive stress distribution ac.

2.2. Experimental study

In References [1] and [2], the effective length of the masonry’s compressive stress distribution under 14 cantilever beams
was investigated. Fig. 4 is the test diagram, where TL6-1 and TL6-2 are supported by a T-wall, and the other cantilever beams
are supported by a single wall. The cross-sectional widths of the reinforced concrete cantilever beams are 200 and 240 mm,
with the heights being 120, 180, 240, 300, 350, and 400 mm. To prevent the cantilever beams from damage before the brick
masonry failure, the design of the cantilever beams is inclined to safety. The strength grade of the bricks is MU7.5, and the
strength grade of the mortar is between M0.4 and M10. Table 1 presents the length of the cantilever beam that is embedded
into the masonry and the height of the masonry in the cantilever beam. Fig. 5 depicts the test scheme that is adopted to
determine ac. The vertical strain of the masonry was measured using a handheld strain gauge, and the deflection deformation
of the cantilever beam was determined using a dial gauge. Using a jack-applied concentrated load, the load at each stage was
maintained to be approximately 1/10th of the failure load. Table 1 presents the obtained test results.

2.3. Stipulations of the code for design of masonry structures

Based on the statistics of the test results and simplified calculations, a simplified formula proposed by code for design of
masonry structures [5]to determine the effective length of the masonry’s compressive stress distribution under a cantilever
beam is as follows:

ac ¼ 1:2hb ð16Þ
where hb is the section height of the cantilever beam.

Fig. 4. Test diagram of the cantilever beam.

 X. Tong et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 11 (2019) e00243 5

Table 1
Specimen parameters and test results.

Specimen b  hb(mm) l1(m) l(m) H Mortar Test value

number (m) strength ac(mm)
(MPa)
TL0-1 200  350 1.88 2.62 1.5 3.0 300
TL3-1 240  300 1.90 2.0 2.0 5.0 381
TL3-2 240  500 1.90 2.0 2.0 3.2 307
TL4-1 240  350 1.90 1.0 2.0 5.0 500
TL5-1 240  350 1.90 2.0 2.0 3.0 480
TL6-1 240  350 1.90 2.0 2.0 6.5 458
TL6-2 240  350 1.90 2.0 2.0 6.5 404
TL-1 240  400 1.90 2.0 2.0 2.5 365
TL-3 240  400 1.90 2.0 2.0 2.3 460
TL-5 240  400 1.90 2.0 2.0 5.5 370
TL-8 240  300 0.80 0.84 1.5 2.5 206
TL-9 240  180 0.69 1.0 1.7 5.0 188
TL-10 240  120 0.5 0.91 1.7 5.0 108
TL-11 240  240 1.12 2.48 2.0 5.9 275

Fig. 5. Arrangement of the test instrument.

2.4. Comparison of the ac results

ac was determined via both theoretical derivation and the Code; the obtained values were further compared with the test
results. The results of the comparison are presented in Table 2 and Fig. 6. As can be observed, our theoretical derivation is in
good agreement with the test values, whereas the deviation between the formula reported in the Code and the test values is
relatively large. Table 3 presents the statistical parameters, including the ratio between the theoretical and test values as well
as that between the code method and test values, for the 14 studied samples.

Table 2
Comparison of ac obtained using different methods.

Specimen number ac(mm)

Test value Theoretical value Code method value

(Theoretical value/ (Code method value/
Test value) Test value)
TL0-1 300 379(1.26) 420 (1.40)
TL3-1 381 348(0.91) 360 (0.95)
TL3-2 307 463(1.51) 600 (1.95)
TL4-1 500 391(0.78) 420 (0.84)
TL5-1 480 398(0.83) 420 (0.88)
TL6-1 458 382(0.83) 420 (0.92)
TL6-2 404 382(0.95) 420 (1.04)
TL-1 365 464(1.27) 480 (1.32)
TL-3 460 415(0.90) 480 (1.04)
TL-5 370 378(1.02) 480 (1.30)
TL-8 206 255(1.24) 360 (1.75)
TL-9 188 154(0.82) 216 (1.15)
TL-10 108 107(0.99) 144 (1.33)
TL-11 275 251(0.91) 288 (1.05)
6 X. Tong et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 11 (2019) e00243

Fig. 6. Comparison of the ac values.

Table 3
Statistical parameters for the studies of ac performed using different calculation methods.

Statistical parameter Theoretical value/ Code method

Test value value/Test value
Mean value 1.02 1.21
Variable coefficient 0.21 0.27

3. Enhancement coefficient of the local compressive strength g

The calculation formula of the enhancement coefficient of the local compressive strength g according to Code for design of
masonry structures is as follows:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
A
g ¼ 1 þ 0:35 0  1 ð17Þ
Al

where A0 is the influence area. Based on the test results, if the net distance between the adjacent beams is not less than 4b,
the influence area can be calculated as depicted in Fig. 7. Further, A0 can be represented as follows:
2
A0 ¼ ac b þ 4bb1 þ b ð18Þ
Al is the local compressive area and is given by Eq. 19.
Al ¼ ac b ð19Þ

Fig. 7. The A0 calculation diagram.

 X. Tong et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 11 (2019) e00243 7

In References [1] and [2], 12 cantilever beam specimens were supported on a single wall. Table 4 presents their
calculated g values. g te, g th, and g co, respectively, represent the calculation results when ac adopts the test value,
theoretical value, and code value. In general, the mean value of g te obtained for 12 specimens was 1.32, which was consistent
with the mean value of g th. The mean value of g co was the smallest, i.e., 1.29. Therefore, the code for design of
masonry structures stipulates that the g value of the cantilever beam supported on a single wall must be 1.25, which ensures
safety.

Table 4
g values obtained with the single-wall supporting cantilever beams.
Specimen number g te g th g co
TL0-1 1.29 1.25 1.24
TL3-1 1.28 1.29 1.29
TL3-2 1.31 1.25 1.22
TL4-1 1.24 1.27 1.26
TL5-1 1.25 1.27 1.26
TL-1 1.28 1.25 1.25
TL-3 1.25 1.27 1.25
TL-5 1.28 1.28 1.25
TL-8 1.38 1.34 1.29
TL-9 1.40 1.44 1.37
TL-10 1.52 1.52 1.45
TL-11 1.32 1.32 1.29
Mean value 1.32 1.32 1.29

TL6-1 and TL6-2 represent the cantilever specimens supported on a T-wall; their corresponding g values are presented
in Table 5. As can be observed, the g values obtained using the theoretically determined, test, and code ac values are all
close to each other; however, they are all slightly larger than the values contained in the code for design of
masonry structures, which stipulates that g should be 1.5 for the T-wall supporting cantilever beams that are inclined to
ensure safety.
Table 5
g values obtained with the T-wall supporting cantilever beams.
Specimen number g te g th g co
TL6-1 1.57 1.62 1.59
TL6-2 1.60 1.62 1.59

It is assumed that the 14 cantilever beams reported in References [1] and [2] are supported on an L-shaped wall, and the
thickness of the wing wall is assumed to be b. Table 6 presents the corresponding calculated g values. The mean value of g th
obtained for the 14 specimens using the theoretically determined ac value was consistent with the mean value of g te
obtained using the test ac value (both of them were 1.54). The mean value of g co obtained using the code ac value was the
smallest, i.e., 1.49. Hence, for safety reasons, it is recommended that the g value with the L-wall supporting cantilever beams
should be 1.4.

Table 6
g values obtained with the L-wall supporting cantilever beams.
Specimen number g te g th g co
TL0-1 1.49 1.44 1.42
TL3-1 1.48 1.50 1.49
TL3-2 1.54 1.44 1.38
TL4-1 1.42 1.47 1.46
TL5-1 1.43 1.47 1.46
TL6-1 1.44 1.48 1.46
TL6-2 1.47 1.48 1.46
TL-1 1.49 1.44 1.43
TL-3 1.44 1.46 1.43
TL-5 1.49 1.48 1.43
TL-8 1.65 1.59 1.49
TL-9 1.68 1.76 1.64
TL-10 1.90 1.91 1.78
TL-11 1.57 1.59 1.55
Mean value 1.54 1.54 1.49
8 X. Tong et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 11 (2019) e00243

4. Conclusions

(1) In this study, the effective length of the masonry compressive stress distribution was theoretically deduced and
compared with the test and code values based on the elastic foundation beam theory. The theoretical results are observed to
be in good agreement with the test values, whereas the deviation between the code and test values is relatively large.
(2) The value of the enhancement coefficient of local compressive strength determined by the code for design of masonry
structures for single- and T-wall supporting cantilever beams is biased to ensure safety.
(3) The value of g for the L-wall supporting cantilever beams was also studied; based on the results, a value of 1.4 is
recommended to facilitate engineering applications and to improve security.

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest to this work.
We declare that we do not have any commercial or associative interest that represents a conflict of interest in connection
with the work submitted

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.51708209), the Natural Science
Foundation of Hunan Province(No.2019JJ50209).

References

[1] S.O.N.G. Xiaohan, Z.H.A.N.G. Baoshan, Experimental study of cantilever beam, Annual Masonry Structure Committee of China Association for
Engineering Construction Standardization, (1988) , pp. 236–247 Liaoning, China.
[2] Z.H.A.N.G. Baoshan, S.O.N.G. Xiaohan, Study and suggestion on calculation method of cantilever beam in masonry, J. Zhengzhou Institute Technol. 12 (2)
(1984) 31–52.
[3] S.O.N.G. Xiaohan, Experimental study on overturning of beam in masonry, J. Zhengzhou Institute Technol. 12 (2) (1984) 103–114.
[4] L.I.U. Deliang, L.I.A.N.G. Xingwen, W.A.N.G. Qinglin, Local compressive bearing capacity of masonry structure with rigid cushion block under cantilever
beam, Building Structure 40 (11) (2010) 104–107.
[5] Ministry of Housing and Urban-rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, GB 50003—2011 Code for Design of Masonry Structures, China
Architecture & Building Press, Beijing, 2011.