CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

Loadbearing construction is most appropriately used for buildings in which

the floor area is subdivided into a relatively large number of rooms of small to
medium size and in which the floor plan is repeated on each storey throughout the
height of the building. These considerations give ample opportunity for disposing
loadbearing walls, which are continuous from foundation to roof level and, because
of the moderate floor spans, are not called upon to carry unduly heavy concentrations
of vertical load. The types of buildings which are compatible with these
requirements include flats, hostels, hotels and other residential buildings.
The form and wall layout for a particular building will evolve from functional
requirements and site conditions and will call for collaboration between engineer
and architect. The arrangement chosen will not usually be critical from the structural
point of view provided that a reasonable balance is allowed between walls oriented
in the principal directions of the building so as to permit the development of
adequate resistance to lateral forces in both of these directions. Very unsymmetrical
arrangements should be avoided as these will give rise to torsional effects under
lateral loading which will be difficult to calculate and which may produce
undesirable stress distributions. Stair wells, lift shafts and service ducts play an
important part in deciding layout and are often of primary importance in providing
lateral rigidity.
The great variety of possible wall arrangements in a masonry building
makes it rather difficult to define distinct types of structure, but a rough
classification might be made as follows:
• Cellular wall systems
• Simple or double cross-wall systems
• Complex arrangements.
A cellular arrangement is one in which both internal and external walls are
loadbearing and in which these walls form a cellular pattern in plan. Figure 1.1 (a)
shows an example of such a wall layout. The second category includes simple cross-
wall structures in which the main bearing walls are at right angles to the longitudinal
axis of the building. The floor slabs span between the main cross-walls, and
longitudinal stability is achieved by means of corridor walls, as shown in
Fig. 1.1(b). This type of structure is suitable for a hostel or hotel building
having a large number of identical rooms. The outer walls may be clad in
non-loadbearing masonry or with other materials. It will be observed that there is a
[1]
limit to the depth of building which effective day-lighting. If a deeper block with a
service core is required, a somewhat more complex system of cross-walls set parallel
to both major axes of the building may be used, as in Fig. 1.1(c).
All kinds of hybrids between cellular and cross-wall arrangements are possible, and
these are included under the heading ‘complex’, a typical example being shown in
Fig. 1.1(d).
Considerable attention has been devoted in recent years to the necessity for ensuring
the ‘robustness’ of buildings. This has arisen from a number of building failures in
which, although the individual members have been adequate in terms of resisting
their normal service loads, the building as a whole has still suffered severe damage
from abnormal loading, resulting for example from a gas explosion or from vehicle
impact. It is impossible to quantify loads of this kind, and what is required is to
construct buildings in such a way that an incident of this category does not result in
catastrophic collapse, out of proportion to the initial forces. Meeting this requirement
begins with the selection of wall layout since some arrangements are inherently more
resistant to abnormal forces than others. This point is illustrated in Fig. 1.2: a
building consisting only of floor slabs and cross-walls (Fig. 1.2(a)) is obviously
unstable and liable to collapse under the influence of small lateral forces acting
parallel to its longer axis. This particular weakness could be removed by
incorporating a lift shaft or stair well to provide resistance in the weak direction, as
in Fig. 1.2(b). However, the flank or gable walls are still vulnerable, for example to
vehicle impact, and limited damage to this wall on the lowermost storey would result
in the collapse of a large section of the building.
A building having a wall layout as in Fig. 1.2(c) on the other hand is clearly much
more resistant to all kinds of disturbing forces, having a high degree of lateral
stability, and is unlikely to suffer extensive damage from failure of any particular
wall. Robustness is not, however, purely a matter of wall layout. Thus a floor system
consisting of unconnected precast planks will be much less resistant to damage than
one which has cast-in-situ concrete floors with two-way reinforcement. Similarly,
the detailing of elements and their connections is of great importance. For example,
adequate bearing of beams and slabs on walls is essential in a gravity structure to
prevent possible failure not only from local over-stressing but also from relative
movement between walls and other elements. Such movement could result from
foundation settlement, thermal or moisture movements. An extreme case occurs in
seismic areas where positive tying together of walls and floors is essential.
The above discussion relates to multi-storey, loadbearing masonry buildings, but
similar considerations apply to low-rise buildings where there is the same
requirement for essentially robust construction.

[2]
Fig. 1.1: Typical wall arrangements in masonry
buildings

[3]
 (a) Crosswall without longitudinal wall : unstable

(b) Crosswall with service shaft: normally stable

(c) Crosswall with longitudinal walls and service shaft

Structural
walls
Non structural
walls
Fig.1.2: Liability of a simple crosswall structure to accidental damage

[4]
1.2 Advantages and development of loadbearing masonry

The basic advantage of masonry construction is that it is possible to use the

same element to perform a variety of functions, which in a steel framed building, for
example, have to be provided for separately, with consequent complication in
detailed construction. Thus masonry may, simultaneously, provide structure,
subdivision of space, thermal and acoustic insulation as well as fire and weather
protection. As a material, it is relatively cheap but durable and produces external
wall finishes of very acceptable appearance. Masonry construction is flexible in
terms of building layout and can be constructed without very large capital
expenditure on the part of the builder.

In the first half of the present century brick construction for multistorey buildings
was very largely displaced by steel- andreinforcedconcrete-framed structures,
although these were very oftenclad in brick. One of the main reasons for this was
that until around 1950loadbearing walls were proportioned by purely empirical
rules, whichled to excessively thick walls that were wasteful of space and material
and took a great deal of time to build. The situation changed in a numberof countries
after 1950 with the introduction of structural codes ofpractice which made it possible
to calculate the necessary wall thicknessand masonry strengths on a more rational
basis. These codes of practicewere based on research programmes and building
experience, and,although initially limited in scope, provided a sufficient basis for the
design of buildings of up to thirty storeys. A considerable amount ofresearch and
practical experience over the past 20 years has led to theimprovement and refinement
of the various structural codes. As a result,the structural design of masonry buildings
is approaching a level similarto that applying to steel and concrete.

1.3 project scope and objectives:

To provide directions for the project, the following three objectives were
formulated:
1. Analysis and design typical multi-storey masonary building using local
manufacuring clay brick.
2. Validate the ability and the accuracy of the local manufacturing clay bricks in
constructions of low rise multi-storey buildings.
3. Discover that the brickwork solution as compared with reinforced concrete
and steel-framed structures, is not only cheaper and considerably faster to
build but it is also likely to be equally capable of fulfilling the structural
function, and can eliminate the need for a structural frame.

[5]
The project efforts and the strategy for achieving these objectives were categorized
into the following tasks:

1. Conduct a literature review to establish the current state of knowledge in the

area of analysis and design of masonry buildings.
2. Perform analysis and design of typical three storeys cross-wall masonry
building using two types of local manufacturing clay brick.
3. Use the design results to check whether the design of the cross-wall masonry
building will withstand the applied loads conditions to verify the compressive
strength of the assembled materials, including masonry units and mortar to
evaluate the compressive strength of the local manufacturing clay bricks for
extend the design results of the cross-wall masonry building to other type of
masonry buildings.
1.4 Organization of project

The project was organized and presented in five chapters. This chapter
presented a general discussion on Loadbearing masonry walls, and described the
scope and objectives of the projects and the efforts and the strategy for achieving
these objectives. A literature review focuses mainly on the stability of cross-wall
masonry building is presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 contains the loading and
analysis of multi-storey masonry buildings. Chapter 4 presents the design procedure
for the design of the masonry walls. In chapter 5 analysis and design calculations of
typical case study of three storeys cross-wall masonry building using two types of
local manufacturing clay brick is performed. The case study results obtained from
the analysis and design are presented in chapter six. Finally, conclusions and future
work that were elaborated through the examination of the results of this study are
presented.

[6]