CHAPTER 2

Literature Review
2-1 Introduction
In many previous researches theoretical, analytical and experimental studies have
been conducted to investigate the stability of masonry building .The objectives of
this literature review were presented according to following areas of interest:
1. Typical applications for crosswall structures.
2. Common factors influencing design considerations of all forms of multi-
storey structures
2-2 Typical applications for crosswall structures
Typical applications for crosswall structures are office blocks, School
classroom blocks, bedroom blocks and low to medium-rise flats up to six storeys.
Layouts for offices and classrooms can vary greatly, but a typical plan shape is
shown in Figure (2-1). The crosswalls usually need to be 215 mm thick to carry the
loads. External walls are normally in 265 mm cavity brickwork. Corridor walls
should be at least 102.5 mm for acoustic and fire resistance. The external and
corridor walls, together with the staircase, are normally more than adequate to
provide longitudinal stability.

Fig. (2-1): typical plan shape for cross-wall structures

[7]
For office buildings where the room functions are accurately known in advance, the
crosswall centers can be predetermined. Where greater flexibility is required in some
areas, it is often possible to span the floor in the opposite direction onto the corridor
and external walls for that area of the layout, and to introduce demountable partitions
to suit requirements. However, where maximum flexibility is required, the crosswall
form of construction is more restrictive than the spine wall form, where the floors
span between external and corridor (or spine) walls throughout.
Figure (2-2) shows a typical basic floor plan of a bedroom block. Many buildings of
this type are three to five to ten storeys high. Floors are usually in-situ continuous
concrete slabs. Where the internal and external side walls and the corridor walls are
load bearing, the floor slabs may span two ways.

Figure (2-2): a typical basic floor plan of a bedroom block

[8]
Crosswalls usually need to be 102.5 mm thick in order to carry the loads and to
provide sound insulation. It is not uncommon to return the ends of the crosswalls, at
their junctions with the external and corridor walls, to improve their stability.
Crosswall structures can, of course, be built much higher than ten storeys. However,
as with all high-rise construction, the costs tend to increase faster than the increase
in height.
Other application of crosswall structures is low to medium-rise flats up to six storeys.
A typical floor plan is shown in Figure (2-3). The demand for high-rise flats which
were more suited to cellular masonry construction has waned, and there is now more
interest in medium rise blocks but low rise building up to four storeys is still used.
Floors are nearly always of in-situ concrete construction. Timber floors could be
used in low-rise construction.

Figure (2-3): A typical floor plan of low to medium-rise flats

[9]
2-3 Common factors influencing design considerations multi-storey structures
A resume of the more common factors which have to be considered when designing
crosswall and other multi-storey structures is given below.
2-3-1 Stability
A building must be stable under vertical and horizontal (wind) loads on both its
longitudinal and lateral axes. Consideration must be given to the effect of openings
in the walls on the stiffness of the building and the design of the
shear walls. Figure (2-4) shows the main forces acting on a structure.

Figure (2-4): The main forces acting on a structure

2-3-1-1 Vertical stability

It is rare for vertical instability, i.e., collapse or cracking of masonry under vertical
loads, to be a major problem - provided, of course, that the compressive stresses in
the brickwork are kept within the allowable limits, the necessary restraints to prevent
buckling are provided, and the walls are founded on adequate foundations.

[10]
2-3-1-2 Horizontal stability at right angles to the crosswalls
The wind acts on the external walls or cladding panels. These transfer the wind force
to the floors and roof which, acting as horizontal plates, in turn transfer the force to
the transverse walls as shown in Figure (2-5). The wind force creates racking in the
transverse walls (generally termed shear walls), as shown in Figure (2-6), but such
walls are highly resistant to racking stresses. The racking stresses are usually either
eliminated by the vertical compressive load on the walls, and/or resisted by the
allowable tensile stresses in the masonry. If the tensile stress should exceed the
allowable limits, consideration should be given to reinforcing or post-tensioning the
walls.
The stresses at the base of the wall are due to the combined effect of the vertical
loading and the moment induced by the wind force, and are determined using the
normal elastic stress distribution formula as shown in Figure (2-7). There is usually
little danger, in properly planned multi-storey masonry structures, of walls
overturning, or failing in horizontal shear, although this does depend on the
designer's skill in producing a suitable layout.
Multi-storey masonry structures tend to rely for their stability on their own weight
in resisting horizontal forces due to wind. They are not capable, as can be steel or
concrete frames, of being considered as fully rigid frames for design purposes.

Figure (2-5): transfer the wind force to the floors, roof and walls

[11]
 Figure (2-6): The transverse walls racking due to wind force

Figure (2-7): the combined effect of the vertical loading and the moment

[12]
2-3-1-3 Longitudinal stability

Unstiffened crosswall structures - i.e., crosswalls without stiffness at right

angles to the plane of the wall - may not be stable under longitudinal loading from
wind, and could collapse like a house of cards as shown in Figure (2-8). To prevent
such action, longitudinal bracing is necessary. This is usually provided as shown in
Figure (2-9) by either:
a) Corridor walls
b) Longitudinal external walls
c) Stiff vertical box sections formed by the walls to staircase, lifts and service
ducts, or
Cruciform, T, Y, L-shaped block plans, or other plan forms which provide
longitudinal stiffness.

Figure (2-8): crosswalls without stiffness

[13]
 Figure (2-9): Typical longitudinal bracing

2-3-2 Design for wind

In most brickwork crosswall structures, the stresses due to wind are insignificant
compared to those due to dead and imposed loading. In a steel or concrete frame, the
beams and columns are of relatively similar stiffness, rigidly connected, and are of
the same material. However, with a brickwork structure, it may not act as a
rigid frame because the walls are relatively sturdy and the floor slabs comparatively
flimsy. In a cross wall structure if both walls are of the same length, L, and thickness,
t, they share the wind force equally. When they are not of equal length, they then

[14]
share the wind force in proportion to their relative stiffness - if they deflect equally,
as they are likely to do, because of the floors' action in transferring the force. The
stiffness of a wall is relative to its second moment of area.

The distribution of wind forces, particularly on tall slender crosswall structures,

between walls of differing stiffnesses may need consideration. Some of the main
points are illustrated below.
In Figure (2-10), the floor plan of a block of flats shows walls of differing length
(and, therefore, stiffness) and of differing positions in relation to the wind. The main
wind force would be resisted by walls I, assisted by walls 2, with some help
from walls 3, and little help from walls 4. An experienced designer would probably,
at first, only check the effect of walls I and 2 in resisting wind,
and then , if they were inadequate, consider the assistance of walls 3. He would be
likely to ignore the minimal effect of walls 4 in resisting the wind forces.

Figure (2-10): walls of differing length (and, therefore, stiffness)

2-3-3 Walls of differing section
[15]
When external or corridor walls are bonded into crosswalls, they change the shape
of a crosswall from a simple rectangular 'plate' section into a T, I or Z section. This
can give the crosswall increased stiffness, and hence increased stability. In Figure
(2-11), the I and Z sections are stiffer than the T section which, in turn, is stiffer than
the rectangular section.

Figure (2-11): Shape of a cross-wall

2-3-4 Openings in walls

Intuitively, it can be seen that wall (a) in Figure (2-12) is stiffer than wall (b) which
is stiffer than wall (c). The gable wall (d), with small widely spaced windows, may
be considered to act similarly to wall (a) if the openings are relatively small.
However, if the windows were deepened, the wall would approach the condition of
wall (c). Only rarely do the calculations become very complex. If they do, however,
or if the designer is in any doubt as to the stiffness of the walls or
structure, he should either refer to one of the many computer programs on the
market, or carry out a model test. If a computer is used, the designer should satisfy
himself that the program is suitable and well founded, and that the results of the
analysis are reasonable.

[16]
 Figure (2-12): Openings in walls

2-3-5 Stability of shear walls

The stress condition for the design of shear walls has been briefly discussed, and is
based on the formula

Brickwork design involving flexural stresses is almost invariably limited by the

flexural tensile strength of the masonry. This is not surprising since the ratio of
compressive strength to tensile strength is in the order of 20 to 1. Occasionally, the
flexural compressive stresses can become significant, and limiting so far as the
strength of certain element s are concerned. Such elements include geometrical
sections such as shear walls. Flexural compressive stresses are not covered in
Eurocode, but the method of analysis which follows is believed to provide a safe and
reliable design, and is based on sound engineering principles. The maximum
compressive stress allowable in the wall section subject to purely axial loading, and
with no eccentricity of that load is limited by the masonry's tendency to buckle,
hence the inclusion of the capacity reduction factor

[17]
Eurocode does not differentiate between axial compression and flexural
compression. However, it is generally accepted that allowable flexural compressive
stresses may be higher than allowable axial compressive stresses. The flexural
tensile stresses will, as stated earlier, normally be the limiting factor. However, if
the axial compressive stresses already in the wall are added to the flexural
compressive stresses, as shown in Figure (2-13) this may produce a more critical
design condition. Consideration must be given to the need for limiting the flexural
compressive stresses, due to the possibility of the section buckling under the
application of such stress.
The wall should be checked for maximum axial loading in addition to compressive
stress resulting from the bending due to the lateral loading. The capacity reduction
factor applicable to the stage of the design, should be derived from the maximum
slenderness ratio which incorporates the effective thickness appropriate to the
direction of the buckling tendency (i.e., perpendicular to the direction of application
of the bending). The application of this proposed design will be demonstrated in the
case study in this project. It can be consider that this design method provides a safe
and practical solution.

Figure (2-13): Distribution of load along length of wall

2-3-6 External walls

[18]
 Walls. Support and restraint of the outer leaf is necessary, even where the wall
is non-Loadbearing. External walls can be solid or cavity as shown in Figure (2-14).
It is quite common for the outer leaf of a cavity wall, or the face of a solid wall, to
be in a different type of unit from the inner leaf or face. In cavity wall construction,
a very frequent example is the use of a clay facing brick externally and an insulating
block internally. Note that, in the case of a solid wall with different brick s on the
outer and inner faces, the bricks should have compatible movement characteristics.
Cavity walls are more popular than solid walls because they are more resistant to
rain penetration, and have better thermal insulation properties. However, care and
attention must be given to the choice and fixing of the wall ties. Often, the outer leaf
only helps to stiffen the inner loadbearing leaf- but this action is only possible
with sufficient, good and durable ties.
Advises that the external leaf of a cavity wall should be supported at least every third
storey, to reduce the effect of loosening of the wall ties owing to the differential
movement of the external and internal leaves. The Code allows an exception to this
rule for buildings not more than 4 storeys and 12 m in height, where the outer leaf
may be uninterrupted for its full height.
Whilst, to some extent, both leaves carry the wind load, in addition to carrying their
own weight, the inner leaf usually supports most of the floor load.
Where the outer leaf carries its self-weight only, the choice of facing brick is not
usually restricted by strength requirements.
The external walls may be subject to high lateral loads combined with only minimal
vertical loads. Such brick walls do not have a high resistance to bending
perpendicular to their plane. The wall panels in the top storey are most at risk,
because they are likely to be subject to the greatest wind pressure whilst the only
compensating precompression is the vertical loading from the roof and the wall’s
own weight. Generally, this is not a significant problem with loadbearing brickwork
-but it can be, if the brickwork is non-loadbearing and is used merely as a cladding
to a steel or concrete-framed structure.

[19]
 Figure (2-14): Solid and cavity walls

2-3-7 Concrete roof slab wall connections.

In-situ concrete roof slabs should not usually be cast directly onto masonry walls.
As the roof expands and contracts, due to thermal and other movements, the wall
will tend to crack, particularly at the connection. A sliding joint should be formed
between the walls and the roof slab.
In order to reduce this effect, the roof slab should be separated from the supporting
wall. An effective separation joint can be achieved by inserting two layers of
a proprietary jointing material as shown in Figure (2-15). It is essential that the joint
is flat, otherwise a slip plane will not be formed.

Figure (2-15): Slab wall jointing material

[20]
2-3-8 Choice of brick and mortar strengths
. Whilst it is quite simple to design every wall in every storey height with a different
brick and mortar, this increases the costs, planning and supervision of the contract.
On the other hand, although the use of only one brick laid in one class of mortar
simplifies planning and supervision enormously, it may not be the most economical
solution overall. Thus, before making a choice, the cost implications should be
carefully considered
Usually, the bottom storey masonry will be the most highly stressed. The stress
diminishes at each storey height, and the top storey is usually the most lightly
stressed.
Inevitably, within anyone storey height, some wall s will be more heavily stressed
than others. For example, the crosswalls may be 102.5 mm thick and the walls
surrounding the staircase may, for fire protection purposes, be 21 5 mm thick whilst
only carrying the same load as the crosswalls. Thus, it follows that every storey
height could be of a different strength of brickwork, and that, within any one
storey height, variations in brickwork strength could be employed. However, any
savings in material costs due to the widespread variation would be swallowed up by
the extra costs of organizing, sorting, stacking, supervising, etc.
It is generally advisable to use a maximum of only three mortar strengths, mortar
designation (i) below jointing material level and in extremely highly stressed work;
mortar designation (ii) for external and highly stressed work; mortar designation
(iv)for internal work.
It is difficult for administrative or supervisory staff to check the strength of the bricks
and the mortar mix by sight. Reducing the cement content of the mortar only
produces a minimal saving in the cost per m2 of the masonry. Every effort should be
made to keep the walls of a constant thickness throughout their height. It
should be kept in mind that a slender, highly stressed wall is usually cheaper than a
thick wall carrying a low stress. Brickwork strengths should generally be uniform
throughout any one storey and changes in strength should be limited to
approximately every three storeys. Note that a top storey wall, due to its small pre-
load, may have excessive flexural tensile stress resulting from wind forces, and may
require specific brick and mortar strengths to cope with this.

[21]