Tshwane University of Technology 6 Story Lecture Building Structural Masonry

Design Report

By

Nkosinathi Pholoba

Student No: 209038943

Department of Civil Engineering. Tshwane University of Technology

Mentored By

Floris Brand Pr Eng

Registration No: 940351

1|Page
Abstract

This report was undertaken upon the commissioning of a new 6 storey lecture
building by the Tshwane University of Technology for the Mbombela Campus.

The primary focus of this report is to provide Tshwane University of Technology with
the minimum structural masonry element requirements for the proposed 6 storey
lecture building. The structural masonry recommendations that are given in this
report are based on results obtained from the structural masonry design that was
undertaken for reinforced and unreinforced masonry structural elements.

This report aims to also provide a guide for the structural design of masonry
elements in buildings similar to the 6 storey lecture building commissioned by the
Tshwane University of Technology.

2|Page
Table of Content

1. List of tables Page 4

2. List of figures Page 22

3. List of symbols Page 23

4. Introduction Page 25

5. Results Page 27

6. Discussion Page 38

7. Conclusion Page 41

8. Recommendations Page 42

9. References Page 43

Appendices

A. Design for Wall A Page 44

B. Design for Walls B and G Page 45

C. Design for Wall C Page 46

D. Design for Walls D, E and F Page 47

E. Design for Wall H Page 48

F. Lintel design Page 49

G. Reinforced design Page 50

H. Design for Balustrade wall Page 51

I. Detailed drawings Page 52

3|Page
 1. List of Tables

Design tables from SANS Codes

Table 2 of SABS 0160-1 - Partial factors for action for the ultimate limit states
Table 4 of SABS 0160-1 - Intensities of nominal imposed floor loads for occupancies
other than industrial buildings and storage
Table 5 of SABS 0160-1 - Variation of characteristic wind speed with terrain, height
and class of structure
Table 6 of SABS 0160-1 - External Pressure coefficient C pe for the walls of
rectangular clad buldings
Table 3a of SABS 0164 - 1 - Characteristics compressive strength masonry f k,
constructed with normal bricks
Table 3b of SABS 10164 - 1 - Characteristics compressive strength masonry f k,
constructed with hollow and solid bricks
Table 4 of SABS 10164 - Characteristic flexural strength of masonry fk, MPa
Table 5 of SABS 10164 - 1 - Partial safety for materials
Table 6 of SABS 10164 - 1 - Stiffness coefficients for wall stiffened by piers
Table 7 of SABS 10164 - 2 - Spacing of ties
Table 8 of SABS 10164 - 1 - Capacity reduction factor
Table 9 of SABS 10164 - 2 - Characteristic strength of wall ties used as wall
supports
Table 10 of SABS 10164 - 1 - Bending moment coefficients for laterally loaded
panels
Table 17 of SABS 10164 - 2 - Classifications of exposure conditions
Table E.4 - SABS 10164 - 2 - Requirements of full vertical ties
Table 13 - SABS 10164 - 2 - Effective height of walls and columns
Table 18 - SABS 10164 - 2 - Minimum concrete cover for carbon reinforcement
Table 11 - SABS 10164 - 2 - Limiting ratio (span to effective depth) for laterally
loaded walls
Table 12 - SABS 10164 - 2 - Limiting ratio (span to effective depth) for beams
Table E.2 - SABS 10164 - 2 - Detailed accidental damage recommendations
Table E.3 - SABS 10164 - 2 - Requirements of full peripheral, internal, columns or
wall ties

4|Page
List of tables in design report

Table 5.1.1 nominal loads on walls A

Table 5.1.2. Axial compression design parameters for wall A

Table 5.1.3 Combined bending and axial loading for wall A

Table 5.2.1 nominal loads on wall B and G

Table 5.2.2 Design parameters for wall B and G

Table 5.3.1 nominal loads on wall C

Table 5.3.2 Design parameters for wall C

Table 5.4.1 nominal loads on walls D, E and F

Table 5.4.2 Axial compression design parameters for walls D, E and F

Table 5.4.3 Combined bending and axial loading for walls D, E and F

Table 5.4.4 Combined bending and axial loading for walls D, E and F

Table 5.5.1 nominal loads on wall H

Table 5.5.2 Design parameters for wall H

Table 5.6.1 nominal loads on the roof lintel

Table 5.6.2 nominal loads on the floor lintel

Table 5.6.3 Design parameters for brickwork lintel

Table 5.7.1. Reinforced design parameters for wall A

Table 5.7.2. Reinforced design parameters for wall H

5|Page
6|Page
7|Page
8|Page
9|Page
10 | P a g e
11 | P a g e
12 | P a g e
13 | P a g e
14 | P a g e
15 | P a g e
16 | P a g e
17 | P a g e
18 | P a g e
19 | P a g e
20 | P a g e
 2. List of Figures

Figure 3 of SABS 0160-1 - Regional basic wind speed

Figure 2(b) of SABS 0164 - 1 - Bearing type 2

Figure 1 Plan view of six storey building

Figure 2 Plan indicating walls

21 | P a g e
 3. List of Symbols
22 | P a g e
α Bending moment coefficient

β Capacity reduction factor

bp width of pier or thickness of intersecting wall

γc Importance factor for consequence of failure

γm Partial Safety factor for materials

γ mv Partial Safety factor for materials in shear

γi Partial load factor

Dn Nominal dead load

ex Eccentricity of design load

fk Characteristic compressive strength of masonry

fkx Characteristic flexural strength of masonry

Fn Nominal fluid load

fv Characteristic shear strength of masonry

ha Clear height of wall supported between immovable surfaces

hef Effective height

K Stiffness coefficient

kp Constant dependent on site altitude above sea level

kr Correction factor

kz Wind speed multiplier

lef Effective length

Ln Nominal live load

MR Moment of resistance

Mu Design moment

Wn Nominal wind load

qlat Design lateral strength per unit area of member

Q Design load

µ Orthogonal Ratio

23 | P a g e
V Regional wind speed

vh Shear stress produced by a horizontal load uniformly on the wall

Vz Nominal wind speed at height z above ground

qz Free stream velocity pressure

SR Slenderness ratio

t Overall thickness of wall

tef Effective thickness

tp Thickness of wall plus the projection of the pier

4. Introduction

24 | P a g e
The Tshwane University of Technology has commissioned the design of a 6 storey
lecture building, the information below regarding the lecture building was made
available by the client and the Architects:

 A plan view of the of the building, see figure 1

 The building is located at the Mbombela Campus of the Tshwane University of
Technology.
 The floor to floor height is 3.0 m
 The roof slab is accessible and carries 2 water tanks each with a capacity of
300 litres. The roof is also provided with a 1.75 m high balustrade wall.
 The thickness for the roof and floor slabs, staircase landings and waists will
be uniform and will be made from insitu reinforced concrete with finishing
adequate to satisfy environmental conditions and provide suitable fire
resistance.
 Non-structural glazing is provided between external columns on the North and
South sides of the building.
 The type of masonry units and mortar will selected by the designer
 A raft foundation resting on piles is used at ground level.

Figure 1 Plan view of six storey building

25 | P a g e
In order to facilitate a design the following assumptions have been made:

 The thickness for the roof and floor slabs, staircase landings and waists be
200 mm thick and will be made from 2% reinforced concrete.
 The roof slab will be finished with 10 mm Screed on the top and a 10 mm
cement sand plaster at the bottom.
 The floor slabs will be finished with a 10 mm granolithic screed on top and a
10 mm plaster underneath
 The load bearing walls and balustrade will be 190 mm thick collar joint walls
constructed from solid concrete masonry bricks that are 190x90x90 mm in
size and will be finished with a 10 mm plaster on both sides.
 Because a considerable amount of people with gather in the building strict
control measures must be enforced. As such γ m will be taken as 2.9 as the
supplier to be selected to supply the masonry blocks must operates a
quality control scheme and do quality checks on the work produced, a
suitably qualified QA/QC is to be appointed onsite to ensure that work is
carried out according to specifications.
 γ c will be taken as 1 because the building will be used by a considerable
amount of people
 All walls and their respective return/intersecting walls will be built
simultaneously and will be built into each other.
 The loads will be evenly distributed between the columns and walls, it is also
assumed that the slab has sufficient stiffness in areas where excessive
deflection will want to form.
 The water tanks will be centrally placed on the roof and the load will be
computed in terms on the overall area of the roof but the load will be
distributed over the surface area of the roof.

26 | P a g e
 5. Results

In order to maintain order the buildings masonry wall will be allocated as illustrated in
figure 2

Figure 2 Plan indicating walls

27 | P a g e
 5.1. Wall A

The full design of wall A can be found in appendix A

Loading for wall A

Type of Quantity
Load
Dn 139 kN/m
Ln 26 kN/m
Fn 0.22 kN/m
Wn 0.602 kN/m²
Table 5.1.1 nominal loads on walls A

From the nominal loads in table 5.1.1 an ultimate axial load (Q) was calculated to be
209kN/m

Design for axial compression (Unreinforced)

Standard parameters that governed the design for compression of wall A have been
summarized in the table bellow

Parameters Result
hef 2100mm
tef 190mm
SR 11
ex 0.167t
β 0.73
γm 2.9
fk req 4.37MPa
Table 5.1.2. Axial compression design parameters for wall A

Based on the results in table 5.1.2 it was decided that a brick with a 14MPa nominal
compressive strength and class II mortar (fk = 5.1 MPa) be used for wall A.

Combined bending and axial loading (unreinforced)

Parameters Results
Q 182 kN/m
Required Capacity 0.802kN/m²
qlat 12.15kN/m²
ha / t 15
Table 5.1.3 Combined bending and axial loading for wall A

Based on the results in table 5.1.3 it was concluded that wall A has adequate lateral
strength and slenderness requirements are adhered to.

28 | P a g e
 5.2. Wall B and G

The full design of wall B and G can be found in appendix B

Loading for wall B and G

Type of Load Quantity

Dn 139 kN/m
Ln 26 kN/m
Fn 0.22 kN/m
Table 5.2.1 nominal loads on wall B and G

From the nominal loads in table 5.2.1 an ultimate axial load (Q) was calculated to be
209kN/m

Design for axial compression (Unreinforced)

Standard parameters that governed the design for compression of wall B and G have
been summarized in the table bellow

Parameters Result
lef 1807.5mm
tef 235.6mm
SR 7.67
ex 0.167t
β 0.73
γm 2.9
Aspect ratio 2.05
fk req 4.37MPa
Table 5.2.2 Design parameters for wall B and G

Based on the results in table 5.2.2 it was decided that a brick with a 14MPa nominal
compressive strength in class II mortar (fk = 5.1 MPa) be used for walls B and G

29 | P a g e
 5.3. Wall C

The full design of wall C can be found in appendix C. The loading for wall C was
assessed under cases, namely case 1 and case 2 which have different tributary
areas as noted in figures 5.3.1 and 5.3.2 below.

Figure 5.3.1 Case 1 Figure 5.3.2 Case 2

Loading for wall C

Type of Magnitude (Case 1) Magnitude (Case 2)

Load
Dn 139 kN/m 157kN/m
Ln 26 kN/m 31.5kN/m
Fn 0.22 kN/m 0.58kN.m
Table 5.3.1 nominal loads on wall C

From the nominal loads in table 5.3.1 an ultimate axial load (Q) was calculated to be
209kN/m for case 1 and 240kN/m for case 2

Design for axial compression (Unreinforced)

Standard parameters that governed the design for compression of wall C have been
summarized in the table bellow

Parameters Result (case 1) Result (case 2)

hef 2100mm 2100mm
tef 190mm 190mm
SR 11 11
ex 0.167t 0.3t
β 0.73 0.44
γm 2.9 2.9
fk req 4.37MPa 8.33MPa
Table 5.3.2 Design parameters for wall C

Based on the results in table 5.3.2 it was decided that a brick with a 14MPa nominal
compressive strength in class II mortar (f k = 5.1 MPa) can be used for case 1 and a
brick with a 35MPa nominal compressive strength in class II mortar (fk = 9.3 MPa)
can be used for case 2.

30 | P a g e
 5.4. Walls D, E, and F

The full design of walls D, E and F can be found in appendix D. Please take note of
the following:

 Wall E is not carrying and axial loads other than its self-weight (including
finishes) but for uniformity it will be designed the same way as wall D which in
addition to its self-weight it is also supporting the staircase.
 Wall F is not exposed to any wind loading but for uniformity it will be designed
the same was as wall D, furthermore wall F will be subject to a dynamic load
arising from the movement of elevator in the lift shaft as such it if
recommended that dynamic load consultants be consulted with regards to the
suitability of the wall.

Loading for Walls D, E and F

Type of Load Quantity

UDL1 17.7 kN/m
UDL2 21.51 kN/m
Dn (self-weight of wall only) 4.64kN/m²
Wn 0.62kN/m²
Table 5.4.1 nominal loads on walls D, E and F

The ultimate reaction loads as a result of the staircase are R A = RA = 30kN and the
ultimate self-weight load (Q) is 117kN/m

Design for axial compression for self-weight only (Unreinforced)

Standard parameters that governed the design for compression of walls D, E and F
have been summarized in the table bellow

Parameters Result
hef 2100mm
tef 190mm
SR 11
ex 0.05t
β 0.949
γm 2.9
fk req 1.88MPa
Table 5.4.2 Axial compression design parameters for walls D, E and F

Based on the results in table 5.4.2 it was decided that a brick with a 7MPa nominal
compressive strength and a class II mortar (f k = 3.2 MPa) be used for wall D, E and
F.

31 | P a g e
Design for concentrated axial loading (unreinforced)

Parameters Results
Q 30 kN/m
Bearing type 1
fk 3.1MPa
Bearing resistance 444kN/m
hef 2100mm
tef 190mm
SR 11
ex 0.167t
β 0.73
γm 2.9
Q at 0.4h 137kN/m
Bearing resistance at 0.4h 161 kN/m
Q at h=2800mm 60kN/m
Bearing resistance at h=2800mm 161kN/m
Table 5.4.3 Combined bending and axial loading for walls D, E and F

Based on the results in table 5.4.3 it was concluded that a brick with a 7MPa nominal
compressive strength in class II mortar (fk = 3.1 MPa) is adequate for concentrated
loading

Combined bending and axial loading (unreinforced)

Parameters Results
Height x length 9.8x10⁶mm²
1500tef 54.15 x10⁶mm²
50tef 9500mm
Design wind load 0.803kN/m²
fkx par 0.3MPa
fkx perp 0.9MPa
µ 0.4
Aspect ratio h/l 0.8
α 0.033
Mu perp 0.326kNm/m
Mu par 0.13kNm/m
MR perp 1.867kNm/m
MR par 0.821kNm/m
Shear at each support 1.28kN/m
Vu 0.004MPa
fv 0.171MPa
Vh 0.069MPa
Table 5.4.4 Combined bending and axial loading for walls D, E and F

Based on the results in table 5.4.4 it was concluded that walls D,E and F is adequate
for combined axial load and bending.

32 | P a g e
 5.5. Wall H

The full design of wall H can be found in appendix E. The loading for wall H was
assessed under cases, namely case 1 and case 2 which have different tributary
areas as noted in figures 5.5.1 and 5.5.2 below.

Figure 5.3.1 Case 1 Figure 5.3.2 Case 2

Loading for wall H

Type of Load Magnitude (Case 1) Magnitude (Case 2)

Dn 186 kN/m 128kN/m
Ln 42 kN/m 21kN/m
Fn 0.77 kN/m 0.385kN/m
Table 5.5.1 nominal loads on wall H

From the nominal loads in table 5.6.1 an ultimate axial load (Q) was calculated to be
290kN/m for case 1 and 192kN/m for case 2

Design for axial compression (Unreinforced)

Standard parameters that governed the design for compression of wall H have been
summarized in the table bellow

Parameters Result (Case 1) Result (Case 2)

hef 2100mm 2100mm
tef 190mm 190mm
SR 11 11
ex 0.3t 0.3t
β 0.44 0.44
γm 2.9 2.9
fk req 10.06MPa 6.66
Table 5.5.2 Design parameters for wall H

Based on the results in table 5.6.2 it was decided that a brick with a 49MPa nominal
compressive strength in class II mortar (fk = 12.0 MPa) can be used for case 1 and a

33 | P a g e
brick with a 28MPa nominal compressive strength in class II mortar (fk = 8.0 MPa)
can be used for case 2.

5.6. Lintel Design

The full design of the lintel can be found in appendix F.

Loading for the lintel

Type of Load Quantity

Dn 5.67 kN/m²
Ln 2 kN/m²
Fn 0.22 kN/m²
Table 5.6.1 nominal loads on the roof lintel

Type of Load Quantity

Dn 5.46 kN/m²
Ln 2 kN/m²
Table 5.6.2 nominal loads on the floor lintel

Based on the information in the two table above it was decided to design all the
lintels in the building based on the nominal loading on the roof (table 5.7.1) because
they are higher and the following was calculated:

 ultimate load (Q) = 21 kN/m

 Shear force (SF) = 13.55 kN
 Design Moment (Md) = 4.4 kN.m

Design for brickwork lintel

It was decided to use the same bricks specified in the design for walls B and G which
will be supporting the lintel. Standard parameters that governed the design of
brickwork lintels have been summarized in the table bellow

Parameters Result
fk 5.1MPa
d 395mm
γ mm 2.3
γ ms 1.15
fy 485MPa
As 39mm²
Z 394mm
MR 6.15 kN.m
V 0.14MPa
γ
fbs / mb 1.07MPa
Table 5.6.3 Design parameters for brickwork lintel

From the results in table 5.7.3 it was decided to used 2 Y5 diameter hard drawn
prestraightend wire placed in the mortar.

34 | P a g e
 5.7. Reinforced design

The full reinforced design can the found in appendix G.

Walls A, B, C and G

These walls were exposed to the same load and the same material will be used for
all of them as calculated above only the design for wall A will be done and the results
will be replicated for the other walls.

Parameters Result
Design Load 209 kN/m
hef 2100mm
tef 190mm
SR 11
ex 0.167t
β 0.73
γm 2.9
fk req 5.1MPa
Q (without reinforcement) 244 kN/m
As (for Y6 bars) 141.5mm²
Q (with reinforcements) 341 kN/m
Table 5.7.1. Reinforced design parameters for wall A

From the results in table 5.8.1 it can be seen that the addition on reinforcements will
increase the load resistance capacity by 97 kN/m as such the a weaker brick can be
used (say fk = 3.1MPa in class II mortar) together with the reinforcements which will
give an overall load resistance of 220 kN/m

35 | P a g e
Wall H

These walls were exposed to the same load and the same material will be used for
all of them as calculated above only the design for wall A will be done and the results
will be replicated for the other walls.

Parameters Result
Design Load 290 kN/m
hef 2100mm
tef 190mm
SR 11
ex 0.3t
β 0.44
γm 2.9
fk req 12.0MPa
Q (without reinforcement) 345 kN/m
As (for Y6 bars) 141.5mm²
Q (with reinforcements) 456 kN/m
Table 5.7.2. Reinforced design parameters for wall H

From the results in table 5.8.2 it can be seen that the addition on reinforcements will
increase the load resistance capacity by 110 kN/m as such the a weaker brick can
be used (say fk = 9.3MPa in class II mortar) together with the reinforcements which
will give an overall load resistance of 358 kN/m

5.8. Balustrade Wall

Loading for Balustrade Wall

Type of Load Quantity

Dn (self-weight of wall only) 4.64kN/m²
Wn 0.62kN/m²
Table 5.8.1 nominal loads on Balustrade Wall

From table 5.8.1 above the ultimate self-weight load (Q) was calculated to be
12kN/m

36 | P a g e
Design for axial compression for self-weight only (Unreinforced)

Standard parameters that governed the design for compression of the balustrade
Wall have been summarized in the table bellow

Parameters Result
hef 1750mm
tef 190mm
SR 9.21
ex 0.05t
β 0.99
γm 2.9
fk req 0.19MPa
Table 5.8.2 Axial compression design parameters for Balustrade Wall

Based on the results in table 5.8.2 it was decided that a brick with a 3.5MPa nominal
compressive strength and a class II mortar (f k = 2.0 MPa) be used for the balustrade
wall

Combined bending and axial loading (unreinforced)

Parameters Results
Height x length 6.13x10⁶mm²
1350tef 48.74 x10⁶mm²
50tef 9500mm
Design wind load 0.803kN/m²
fkx par 0.3MPa
fkx perp 0.9MPa
µ 0.36
Aspect ratio h/l 0.5
α 0.063
Mu perp 0.62kNm/m
Mu par 0.22kNm/m
MR perp 1.87kNm/m
MR par 0.749kNm/m
Shear along vertical supports 0.308kN/m
Shear at base 0.35kN/m
Vu 0.004MPa
fv 0.16MPa
Vh 0.07MPa
Table 5.8.3 Combined bending and axial loading for Balustrade Wall

Based on the results in table 5.8.3 it was concluded that the balustrade Wall is
adequate for combined axial load and bending.

37 | P a g e
 6. Discussion

Tshwane University of Technology has commission the construction of a new lecture

building at the Mbombela campus and this report has been compiled to advise the
client of the structural masonry requirements.

Wall A

Wall A was designed for axial compression which warranted the use of a brick with a
minimums nominal compression strength of 14MPa in class II mortar, the result was
found to be adequate on the basis of the load it will be supporting.

Wall A is also precompressed and is exposed to a lateral wind load as such on that
basis it was also checked for combined bending and axial loading and it was found
that the wall has sufficient lateral resistance.

A reinforced design was also carried out on wall A and it was found that the strength
of the wall is increased by 40% with the addition of Y6 bars in the mortar, as such
the wall will exhibit an increased tensile and compression strength increase which
will further minimise the risk of failure. The only disadvantage with adding
reinforcements is that the will be cost escalations as a result

Wall B and G

Walls B and G are internal walls as such they were designed for axial compression
alone which warranted the use of a brick with a minimum compressive strength of
14MPa in class II mortar.

Wall G will further be exposed to a dynamic load due to the movement of the
elevator in the lift shaft as such further checks on the adequacy of the wall will have
to be done by the dynamic consultants.

A reinforced design was also carried out on walls B and G and it was found that the
strength of the wall is increased by 40% with the addition of Y6 bars in the mortar, as
such the wall will exhibit an increased tensile and compression strength increase
which will further minimise the risk of failure. The only disadvantage with adding
reinforcements is that the will be cost escalations as a result

It is advisable that the material recommended for wall C also be used in the
construction for wall G. The walls will be built into each other as such it is advisable
be to standardise the material for both walls to reduce the implications of improper
construction.

38 | P a g e
Wall C

Wall C is an internal wall as such is only exposed to an axial load which formed the
basis of the design. The wall was designed under two load cases; case 1 where the
wall is not supporting the restroom and case 2 where the load for the rest room is
evenly shared with wall H.

The results warranted a brick with a minimum of 14MPa nominal compressive

strength in class II mortar be used for case 1 and a brick with a 35MPa nominal
compressive strength in class II mortar be used for case 2.

Because case 2 yielded as higher ultimate load it warranted a stronger brick to be

used. The material required for case 2 is more than double than the requirements of
case 1, this is largely due to the fact that the eccentricity of the wall has increased
significantly due to the way the load is distributed over the wall.

A reinforced design was also carried out on wall C and it was found that the strength
of the wall is increased by 40% with the addition of Y6 bars in the mortar, as such
the wall will exhibit an increased tensile and compression strength increase which
will further minimise the risk of failure. The only disadvantage with adding
reinforcements is that the will be cost escalations as a result

Walls D, E and F

These wall were designed for axial compressing due to self-weight and a
concentrated point load due to the staircase reactions, this warranted the use of a
brick with a minimum compressive strength of 7MPa in class II mortar.

The walls were checked against lateral wind load and were found to be sufficient.
Due to the fact that the building and there will be a considerable amount of people it
is advisable to increase the strength of the wall to 14MPa in class II mortar and the
wall be reinforced with Y5 bars in the mortar to further increase resistance and
further minimise the risk of failure.

Wall H

Wall H is an internal wall as such is only exposed to an axial load which formed the
basis of the design. The wall was designed under two load cases; case 1 where the
wall is not supporting the restroom and case 2 where the load for the rest room is
evenly shared with wall C.

The results warranted a brick with a minimum of 49MPa nominal compressive

strength in class II mortar be used for case 1 and a brick with a 28MPa nominal
compressive strength in class II mortar be used for case 2.

39 | P a g e
Because case 1 yielded as higher ultimate load it warranted a stronger brick to be
used. The material required for case 2 is reduced because the ultimate load from
case 1 was less by 33%.

A reinforced design was also carried out on wall H and it was found that the strength
of the wall is increased by 32% with the addition of Y6 bars in the mortar, as such
the wall will exhibit an increased tensile and compression strength increase which
will further minimise the risk of failure. The only disadvantage with adding
reinforcements is that the will be cost escalations as a result.

Lintel

The building called for the inclusion of a lintel to span between wall B and G and will
support the floor and roof slabs also spanning between walls B and G. Through load
computation it was found that the nominal loads from the roof slab were higher than
those from the flor slabs as such the lintels were designed to using the nominal loads
from the roof slabs.

Because the lintels will be built into walls B and G for uniformity sake it was decided
to use the same material as specified in the designs for walls B and G (14MPa brick
in class II mortar) and it was decided that 2 Y5 diameter hard drawn prestraightened
wire placed in the mortar.

Balustrade wall

The Balustrade wall was designed for axial compression due to self-weight and it
was found that required a brick with a minimum compressive strength of 3.5MPa in
class II mortar. Due to the fact that it is only supporting its-self axial the material
strength requirements are not high.

The wall was also checked against the lateral wind load and was found to be
sufficient provided that full control joints be placed at 3500mm intervals.

It is advisable to increase the strength of the material due to the nature of the
building and the results of failure as such a brick with 14MPa compressive strength
can be used and the wall be reinforced with Y5 bars in the mortar to further increase
resistance.

40 | P a g e
 7. Conclusion

In conclusion the structural masonry requirements have been successfully

addressed and the selected material will be adequate for the building. The project
may advance to construction phase with the aid of the detailed drawings provided in
appendix I.

41 | P a g e
 8. Recommendations

Due to the nature of the building it is recommended that reinforcements be included

in all the masonry walls to provide and increase load resistance and to further reduce
the risk of failure.

It is further recommended that the results from load case 2 be adopted for wall C and
the results for load case 2 be adopted for wall H

42 | P a g e
 9. References

CROFTS, FS. & LANE, JW. 2011. Structural concrete masonry. 1st ed. Midrand:
Concrete Manufactures Association.

SABS 0160-1989: The general procedures and loadings to be adopted in the

design of buildings.

SABS 10164-1:1980 Unreinforced masonry walling

SABS 10164-2:2008 Structural design and requirements for reinforced and

prestressed masonry.

43 | P a g e
APPENDIX A

44 | P a g e
APPENDIX B

45 | P a g e
APPENDIX C

46 | P a g e
APPENDIX D

47 | P a g e
APPENDIX E

48 | P a g e
APPENDIX F

49 | P a g e
APPENDIX G

50 | P a g e
APPENDIX H

51 | P a g e
APPENDIX I

52 | P a g e