Structures 2 (2015) 17

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Analysis of brick veneer on concrete masonry wall subjected to

in-plane loads
Stephen A. Marziale, Elias A. Toubia
a
b

EIT, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH, United States

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 14 August 2014
Received in revised form 22 November 2014
Accepted 24 November 2014
Available online 2 December 2014
Keywords:
Seismic
Composite action
Shear-wall
Veneer
Wythe
Ties
Concrete masonry

a b s t r a c t
Brick veneers are commonplace in modern building construction. Current building codes require veneers to be
anchored to a structural backing in order to transfer out-of-plane loads. However, for in-plane loads building
codes assign brick veneers as nonparticipating elements. This study exploits an analytical method to examine
the in-plane coupling between brick veneers and concrete masonry shear walls. The amount of load transferred
through wall ties depends on factors such as tie spacing, tie stiffness, reinforcement, etc. Results indicate that
some degrees of composite action exist; around 12% to 37% of the applied shear load is transferred to the brick
veneer. Veneers should be isolated in their own plane from the seismic-force-resisting system. An optimum
location of the isolation joint is proposed to minimize the rocking behavior and limit design story drift.
2014 The Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Historically, masonry has been a reliable material for centuries and
still prevalent in modern construction. Some of the benets of masonry
include ease of construction, durability, and re resistance. Masonry
is also attractive as a sustainable building material that can earn significant credits in Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED).
Due to its high thermal mass and specic heat, masonry provides an
excellent insulation and thermal properties, which reduce the overall
heating and cooling loads of buildings [1].
Brick masonry is a common material for veneer walls. A veneer is a
wythe of masonry used as an exterior faade connected to a backing
material such as steel studs, wood, or concrete masonry. The veneer
can be anchored to the backing wall with metal ties, or adhered to the
backing with a bonding agent. The two walls are separated by an air
gap, typically 50 mm to 100 mm wide, allows moisture to drain from
the wall assembly without penetrating the backing material. This air
gap further enhances a veneer wall's thermal properties by allowing
heat to dissipate more quickly. A veneer wall is a type of cavity wall
that exhibits non-composite behavior. The veneer directly transfers
out-of-plane loads to the backing material without adding any strength
or stiffness to the wall system. However, the backing material is assumed to carry the entire in-plane load, and any transfer of in-plane

E-mail addresses: marziales@gmail.edu (S.A. Marziale), etoubia1@udayton.edu

(E.A. Toubia).

loads and stresses from the shear backing to the veneer is considered
negligible by most building codes, specically the Masonry Standards
Joint Committee (MSJC) code [2]. Fig. 1.1 visualizes a typical detail of
an anchored brick veneer connected to a backing of concrete masonry
units (CMUs).
In order to limit cracking and other failures in the veneer, the MSJC
requires designers to limit the deection of the backing wall but does
not specify an exact deection design limit. Instead, in the commentary
of Section 6.1.2 of the TMS 402-11 [2], the MSJC references limits
recommended by other organizations such as the Brick Industry Association (BIA) [3]. The BIA suggests that designers choose a backing
deection limit of either L/720 or L/600 [3]. Section 1604.3 of the
International Building Code (IBC) [4] recommends a deection limit of
L/240 for brittle exterior walls and interior partitions that utilize brick
masonry.
The TMS 402-11 [2] recognizes that nonparticipating elements
should be isolated from the seismic force-resisting system of a structure, but fail to specify a specic method for determining an appropriate width of isolation. Section 1.18.3.1 of the TMS 402-11 [2]
acknowledges the need for further research on design options that
allow non-isolated, nonparticipating elements with corresponding
checks for strength, stiffness, and compatibility. This paper presents
an analytical model to quantify and predict the degree of composite
action between the backup shear wall and the brick veneer facade
(non-isolated, non-participating elements). A rational design approach is also proposed to locate the isolation joints in the brick
veneer.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2014.11.001
2352-0124/ 2014 The Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

S.A. Marziale, E.A. Toubia / Structures 2 (2015) 17

Fig. 2.2.1. Load-displacement of various wall ties.

Fig. 1.1. Typical cross section of a brick veneer anchored to a CMU wall.

2. Background
2.1. Related code requirements
In addition to the aforementioned recommended deection limits,
the TMS 402-11 [2] sets forth other requirements for brick veneer
construction. The requirements pertaining to dimensions of adjustable
wire ties are presented in Table 1. This table compares the MSJC code requirements for tie spacing with the Canadian and New Zealand standard
tie spacings.
Section 7.1.1 of the Canadian Standards Association CAN/CSA-A37004 [5] limits maximum vertical spacing to 600 mm and horizontal spacing to 800 mm. Interestingly, the CSA [5] further reduces the limits for
the corrugated metal strip ties. Corrugated ties can be spaced at either:
600 mm vertically and 400 mm horizontally, or 400 mm vertically and
600 mm horizontally [5]. In Section 2.9.7.1 of SNZ HB 4236:2002 [6],
Standards New Zealand (SNZ) restricts tie spacing to 400 mm vertically
and 600 mm horizontally.
2.2. Related literature survey
Large scale experimental testing performed by Moore [7] showed a
signicant increase in the strength and stiffness of the walls with veneer,

which can be over 4 times the stiffness compared to the wood shear wall
without brick veneer. Additional testing done by Thurston [8] showed
that for an isolated wall panel with masonry veneer, the veneer wall
would continue to resist load until it would slide along the joint between
the brick mortar and the concrete foundation. Their testing also showed
that for walls with closed corners (no joint), the movement of the veneer
wall was caused entirely by the rocking of the wall and not sliding,
presumably due to the extra weight of the veneer from around the
corner. In all of their testing presented, no sliding occurred along the
horizontal cracks between brick rows. Full scale shake table testing
done by Okail [9] showed similar results to the testing done by Thurston
[8]. The movement of wall segments with closed corners and a large
height to length ratio was caused almost entirely by rocking instead of
sliding, while for other segments of the wall, deection was mainly due
to sliding. Zisi [10] found that the most important factors contributing
to the performance of the wall assembly were tie type and tie spacing.
Choi [11] tested small sub-assemblies of brick connected to wood with
22 gauge corrugated metal ties. They applied monotonic and cyclic loading patterns on the subassembly and determined that the ties deected
based on an initial stiffness, but after a certain deection the ties would
begin to twist and switch to a lesser secondary stiffness. Zisi [12] also tested the strength and stiffness of 22 gauge corrugated metal ties with brick
and wood subassemblies. They reported similar twisting tendencies as
Choi [11]; however, their values for initial and secondary tie stiffness
were far less than Choi's stiffness values.
Williams and Hamid [13] tested a variety of adjustable wire ties
connecting brick and a CMU backing. Two types of ties included in
their study are the eye & pintle tie, which restricts horizontal movement
but allows free vertical movement, and a slotted block tie, which allows
movement in both the horizontal and vertical planes. These adjustable
ties allow the brick and CMU walls to expand and shrink independently
while maintaining a reliable connection between the two walls.
Williams and Hamid [13] labeled the eye & pintle tie as T1 and the
slotted block tie as T2. The average stiffness values of both ties are
compared in Fig. 2.2.1.

Table 1
International building code standards for maximum tie spacing.
MSJC code Category
section

Requirement CAN/CSA-A370-04 Category

code section

6.2.2.5.6.3
6.2.2.5.6.3

Max. vertical spacing

635 mm
Max. horizontal spacing 813 mm

7.1.1 a.
7.1.1 b.

Max. vertical spacing

Max. horizontal spacing

6.2.2.5.6.1

Max. area per anchor

0.25 m2

10.5.1.4

Max. vertical spacing of

corrugated strip ties

10.5.1.4

Requirement SNZ HB 4236:2002 Category

code section
600 mm
800 mm

600 mm
or
400 mm
Max. horizontal spacing of 400 mm
corrugated strip ties
or
600 mm

2.9.7.1
2.9.7.1

Requirement

Max. vertical spacing 400 mm

Max. horizontal
600 mm
spacing

S.A. Marziale, E.A. Toubia / Structures 2 (2015) 17

Fig. 3.1. Diagram of model using springs to represent brick and tie stiffness (shown only top two tie rows).

Lintz and Toubia [14] created an analytical method to estimate the

amount of load transferred through ties and predicted the resulting reaction of the brick veneer. After analyzing a variety of wood shear wall
designs, they found that an unreinforced brick veneer can overturn or
slide along the ashing plane at the base of the wall before the wood
shear wall reaches its anticipated capacity. This conclusion is in parallel
with the experimental failure modes observed by Thurston [8] and Okail
[9]. To account for sliding and overturning, they proposed to develop
vertical steel reinforcements on each side of the thru-wall ashing
(See Lintz and Toubia [14]).

3. Analytical method
The method for calculating load transfer in brick veneer backed by
CMU is a slightly modied version of the method proposed by Lintz
and Toubia [14]. This model assumes that the ties and brick veneer
can be represented by springs. Since each tie is assumed to deect
horizontally (in-plane), ties located in the same horizontal row are
considered to act in parallel. Therefore, the total stiffness of a horizontal
row of ties is equal to the stiffness of an individual tie multiplied by the
number of ties in the row. Then, each tie row stiffness is placed in series

Fig. 3.1.2. Diagram showing details of CMU and brick reinforcements.

S.A. Marziale, E.A. Toubia / Structures 2 (2015) 17

with a corresponding brick stiffness at that level. Fig. 3.1 shows a simplied version of this method with two rows of ties.
The total stiffness of the effective spring at each row can then be
calculated using Eq. (1).
1
1
1

keff ktie row kbrick

Using superposition, the total deection of the spring equals the

deection caused by the applied load minus deection caused by the
resisting force of the ties and brick at each row. This principle is represented in Eq. (2).
T P F
T
P
F

2
Fig. 4.1.2. Deected veneer shape at 100% of CMU shear capacity CMU and brick
reinforced.

total deection of the spring

deection of the spring due to the applied load P
deection of the spring due to the force in the spring.

As more rows are added, the model becomes more complex since
the resisting force in the spring at one row will cause a deection at
every other row. Eq. (2) is applied at each row and modied to create
Eqs. (3) and (4), assuming two rows of springs.
T1 P1 F11 F12

T2 P2 F21 F22

T1
P1
F11
F12
T2
P2
F21
F22

total deection of the spring at row 1

deection of the spring at row 1 due to the applied load P
deection of the spring at row 1 due to the force in the spring
at row 1
deection of the spring at row 1 due to the force in the spring
at row 2
total deection of the spring at row 2
deection of the spring at row 2 due to the applied load P
deection of the spring at row 2 due to the force in the spring
at row 1
deection of the spring at row 2 due to the force in the spring
at row 2.

This process can be extrapolated for any number of rows to form a

system of linear equations that describe the total deection at each
row. These deections are calculated by combining traditional deection equations for a cantilever beam and specic deection equations
for masonry. Lintz and Toubia [14] used a modied version of Eq. 4.31 from the 2008 National Design Specication (NDS) Wind & Seismic
code [15] to describe the deection of a wood shear wall. The modied
equation is presented as Eq. (5). The rst term expresses deection due

Fig. 4.1.1. Load in tie rows at 100% of CMU shear capacity CMU and brick reinforced.

to bending, the second term expresses deection due to shear, and the
third term expresses wall deection due to anchor pullout as the base
of the wall.
sw

2PH3
PH
PH2 a
2

2
G
L
3EAL
L Tallow
a

Deection of masonry is dened by Eq. (6), where Av = (5/6) Ag

and Gm = (2/5) Em for clay brick masonry.
m

Ph3
Ph

3Em Im Av Gm

After developing the equations to represent the deection of the

brick and masonry walls at each row, the equations are substituted
into a linear system based on Eqs. (3) and (4), and the only unknown
variables remaining are the forces in each spring. Once the forces in
each spring are found, the deection of the brick veneer at each level
can be calculated. A more detailed explanation of this method can be
found in Lintz and Toubia [14].
Their proposed method is based on an unreinforced brick veneer
connected to a wood shear wall. In order to reduce the sliding of the
brick veneer, reinforcements are required to counter act this failure
mode. Such reinforcements are depicted in Fig. 3.1.2.
To account for steel reinforcement in the brick (proposed solution to
prevent sliding), the area of steel was transformed using the modular
ratio n (n = Es/Em) to create an equivalent area of masonry. The area
of transformed steel was then incorporated into the moment of inertia
of the wall, Im, as shown in Eq. (7).
Im

1 3
2
2
th thd1 nAs d2
12

Fig. 4.1.3. Percentage of applied load transferred to veneer CMU and brick reinforced.

S.A. Marziale, E.A. Toubia / Structures 2 (2015) 17

Table 2
Spacing cases for analysis using a CMU shear wall (Note: Sv = vertical spacing, Sh =
horizontal spacing).
Spacing case

A
B
C
D

Sv

Sh

mm

mm

406.4
406.4
609.6
812.8

406.4
812.8
406.4
406.4

where t = thickness of the masonry wall, h = length of masonry wall,

d1 = distance from centroid of masonry to neutral axis (N.A.), and
d2 = distance from centroid of transformed section to N.A. Additionally,
a term similar to the anchor pullout term in Eq. (5) was added to Eq. (6)
to simulate deection due to reinforcement pullout (acting as anchors
at each corner of the wall). The adjusted equation for masonry deection is shown in Eq. (8). The maximum tension force in the steel anchor,
Tallow, was controlled by the bond strength between the steel and grout,
assuming a bond strength of 1103 kPa according to Section 2.1.7.2 of the
TMS 402-11 [2]. The corresponding maximum allowable deection, a,
is the deection of the steel reinforcement at Tallow.
m

Ph3
Ph
PH2 a

2
3Em Im Av Gm L Tallow

Another modication incorporates the steel reinforcement anchors

into the equation for sliding along the ashing plane.
Eq. (9), proposed by Ahmadi et al. [16], is used to account for the
friction between the ashing and the veneer as well as the additional resistance provided by the steel reinforcement. Ahmadi et al. [16] determined an approximate coefcient of friction, , of 0.63 (reinforced
CMU and concrete foundation). The following analysis presents results
using coefcients of 0.35 and 0.65 to account for various ashing materials.


Vs As f y Pn

First, this method was used to analyze the effects of reinforcing a

brick veneer attached to the CMU shear wall. Then, tie spacing and tie
type were varied to develop an understanding of how inuential each
factor is to the overall strength and stiffness on the double-wythe wall
assembly. For each trial, load is applied to the shear wall in incremental
steps to account for the change in stiffness of the ties until the failure
modes are reached. The load step is relative to the total shear capacity
of the backing wall. This paper accounts for strength and serviceability
requirements. The Allowable Stress Design (ASD) directly addresses

Table 4
Adjustable wall tie stiffnesses.

kinitial
ksecondary
k change

T1
N/mm

T2
N/mm

54.25
21.70
0.0025

170.6
54.29
0.0118

these limit states. Consequently, all calculations of masonry wall

strength and serviceability use the Allowable Stress Design and conform
to Chapter 2 of the TMS 402-11 [2].
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Inuence of tie spacing
The wall used in this analysis is 2.44 m tall and 2.44 m long. The tie
used in this section features the T1 stiffness values found by Williams
and Hamid [12]. The baseline values for the specied compressive
strength were 13,790 kPa for CMU and 10,340 kPa for brick. These
values represent common masonry strength used for industrial and residential constructions. The tie spacing needs to reect the geometry of
the CMU which dictates vertical spacing of 203.2 mm intervals. Tie spacing cases B and D violate Section 6.2.2.5.6.1 of the TMS 402-11 [2], but
are included in this analysis to study any trends of increasing tie spacing.
For each tie spacing case, the wall assembly was studied with both
walls unreinforced, CMU reinforced and brick unreinforced, and both
walls reinforced. The CMU wall was reinforced with Grade 420 (Grade
60), no. 13 (no. 6 US bar) placed at 1220 mm on the center. The brick veneer was reinforced with one no. 10 (no. 3 US bar) bar at each edge of
the wall. Figs. 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 display the load transfer and veneer deection patterns at an applied load equal to the maximum shear capacity of
the CMU wall. These gures are taken from the case of both walls reinforced. Figs. 4.1.1 and 4.1.3 demonstrate that the closest tie spacing, case
A (horizontal and vertical), transfers the greatest load. Case B transfers
the lesser load due the large horizontal spacing of the ties and the effective stiffness exibility of the tie rows.
Fig. 4.1.3 shows how much of the applied load is transferred through
the ties to the veneer when both walls are reinforced. The brick resists a
signicant load immediately at low loads before settling to a constant
rate. This is due to the high initial stiffness of the wall ties (see
Fig. 2.2.1). After the ties begin to yield or locally deform, their secondary
stiffness will engage and less load is transferred to the brick.
Table 3. presents the applied load to failure for various tie spacing
and reinforcement cases. Although CMU shear failure and overturning
are possible failure modes, the model ignores any vertical axial load
on the CMU wall. In reality, the CMU wall would support the loads of

Table 3
Load to failure for various tie spacings.
Wall type (a)

2.44 m 2.44 m, all unreinforced

2.44 m 2.44 m, all unreinforced
2.44 m 2.44 m, all unreinforced
2.44 m 2.44 m, CMU reinf., brick unreinf.
2.44 m 2.44 m, CMU reinf., brick unreinf.
2.44 m 2.44 m, CMU reinf., brick unreinf.
2.44 m 2.44 m, CMU reinf., brick reinf.
2.44 m 2.44 m, CMU reinf., brick reinf.
2.44 m 2.44 m, CMU reinf., brick reinf.

Spacing
case

A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C

Brick sliding =
0.35 (b)

Brick sliding =
0.65

Brick
overturning

Load at = L/600
(c)

Load at =
L/240

kN

kN

kN

kN

kN

24.14
48.85
39.06
29.35
58.39
51.54
162.96
289.33
252.71

58.85
106.97
90.11
68.86
127.08
112.59
324.11
559.96
486.42

63.34
114.55
97.43
74.49
137.04
121.99
220.56
384.86
339.48

13.27
12.67
12.79
15.59
15.03
15.08
15.59
15.03
15.08

31.92
30.91
31.14
38.05
37.01
37.09
38.05
37.01
37.09

Max. % of load
transferred to
brick
19.16%
12.38%
14.03%
17.30%
10.83%
12.28%
17.30%
10.83%
12.28%

(a): Typical CMU construction: fm = 13,790 kPa ,thickness = 203.2 mm , reinforced at 1220 mm on center (o.c); Typical brick construction: 10,340 kPa , thickness = 101.6 mm , one no.
10 Grade 240 (no 3, Grade 60 US bars) bar at each end.
(b): = coefcient of static friction between the brick wall and the ashing material.
(c): = deection limit.

S.A. Marziale, E.A. Toubia / Structures 2 (2015) 17

4.3. Width of isolation

Fig. 4.2.1. Load in tie rows using T1 and T2 ties.

oors and roofs above its level which increases the CMU wall's ability to
resist overturning and shear (CMU-URM shear capacity of 130 kN).
Therefore, these CMU failure modes are unlikely. In most cases, the
brick veneer slides before it overturns; particularly if the brick is unreinforced (Table 3.). It is interesting from a design perspective to observe
that the L/600 limit governs the design, and the L/240 limit addressed
by the IBC code [4] is not conservative, since in most cases brick sliding
mode occurs before reaching this limit.

4.2. Inuence of tie stiffness

Using spacing case A as a baseline (Table 2), two of the adjustable
wall ties tested by Williams and Hamid [12] can be compared. The initial
and secondary stiffness of each tie are displayed in Table 4.
The T2 ties are far more rigid than the T1 ties, and therefore it is expected that the T2 ties transfer more load to the veneer. This is clearly
demonstrated in Fig. 4.2.1. This plot was generated with an applied
load equal to the shear capacity of the CMU wall.
Since a rigid tie forces more load on the brick, the veneer with the T2
ties carries a higher percentage of the total applied load (column 9,
Table 5). This justies the observation that the load to failure using a
rigid tie (T2) is much less than the load to failure of a exible tie (T1)
(Column 4 and 5, Table 5). Another interesting observation is the large
difference at load to failure in brick sliding mode at = 0.35 and =
0.65 for T1 and T2 ties. For the low coefcient of friction case ( =
0.35), as the shear load is applied at the CMU, the wall slides at approximate close values when using T1 or T2 ties (unreinforced case;
24.14 kN vs. 20.27 kN). However, for a rough ashing surface ( =
0.65), the T1 tie demands more load to slide the brick veneer than the
T2 tie (unreinforced case; 58.85 kN. vs. 37.65 kN), since the T2 tie offers
a rigid coupling connection between the backing and the brick veneer.

As discussed in the introduction section, there is no consensus method for calculating an appropriate width of isolation. It is understood that
non-isolated, nonparticipating elements can inuence a structure's
strength and stiffness. Therefore, placing the isolation joints close to
the corners of the brick veneer faade can prevent rocking behavior
under cyclic loading. Based on the results discussed in the previous sections, signicant amounts of load can be transferred through the ties.
If the width of isolation is too narrow, these transferred forces could deect the isolated section.
Using the model developed in Section 3, the loads in each tie row
were calculated at a certain applied load. For this example, a load
equal to 25% of the CMU shear capacity (within the elastic response
range) was imposed on a 2.44 m by 2.44 m reinforced shear wall with
a case A tie spacing. The loads in each tie row were then reduced by a
ratio of L1/L and applied to a brick wall with length L1 and height H,
where L1 is the length of the isolated section. A diagram of an isolated
wall section including applied tie row forces transferred to the brick
veneer is shown in Fig. 4.4.1.
The deection at each tie row was calculated based on the applied tie
row forces. This process was repeated for various widths of isolation.
Then, the loads in each tie row and the corresponding deections at
each row were plotted, and the result is shown in Fig. 4.4.2.
As L1 increases, H/L1 decreases, and the lines begin to converge toward a point where the isolated wall section does not deect due to
transferred forces. Investigating Fig. 4.4.2, one can notice that an optimum design target would consider a minimal deection (story drift)
and small load in the top tie row. A large deection will crack the bed
and head thin joints, causing the serviceability of the veneer to degrade.
Additionally, a large load transferred can locally deform the tie, or spall
off and break the interface bond between the mortar and the tie. This
will weaken the out-of-plane stiffness and affect the serviceability and
water tightness of the brick wall. Using this rational approach, a designer can choose an approximate width of isolation based on a H/L1 ratio
between 3 and 4. For example, for a 3-meter veneer wall, an isolation
joint should be placed at approximately 1 m from the edge of each
corner.

5. Conclusion
This research work presents an analytical method to calculate the inplane load transferred through wall ties as well as the deection of a
brick veneer caused by these forces. Using the model of a brick veneer
anchored to a CMU shear wall, tie stiffness and spacing were found to
signicantly inuence the failure modes of the brick veneer, whereas
CMU compressive strength and wall thickness had minimal effects.
Close tie spacing and stiff ties forms a rigid coupling between the CMU

Table 5
Load to failure for veneers with rigid adjustable wall ties.
Wall type (a)

Spacing Tie
Brick sliding = 0.35 (b) Brick sliding = 0.65 Brick overturning Load at
Load at
Max. % of Load
case
type
= L/600 (c) = L/240 Transferred
to Brick
kN
kN
kN
kN
kN

2.44 m 2.44 m, all unreinforced

2.44 m 2.44 m, all unreinforced
2.44 m 2.44 m, CMU reinf., brick unreinf.
2.44 m 2.44 m, CMU reinf., brick unreinf.
2.44 m 2.44 m, CMU reinf., brick reinf.
2.44 m 2.44 m, CMU reinf., brick reinf.

A
A
A
A
A
A

T1
T2
T1
T2
T1
T2

24.14
20.27
29.35
22.45
162.96
68.64

58.85
37.65
68.86
41.69
324.11
106.20

63.34
38.03
74.49
41.95
220.56
76.48

13.27
13.27
15.59
15.88
15.59
15.88

31.92
38.98
38.05
47.15
38.05
47.16

19.16%
37.35%
17.30%
36.43%
17.30%
36.44%

(a): Typical CMU construction: fm = 13,790 kPa , thickness = 203.2 mm , reinforced at 1220 mm ; Typical brick construction: 10,340 kPa , thickness = 101.6 mm , one no. 10 bar (no. 3
US bars) at each end.
(b): = coefcient of static friction between the brick wall and the ashing material.
(c): = deection limit.

S.A. Marziale, E.A. Toubia / Structures 2 (2015) 17

Fig. 4.4.1. Diagram of an isolated section of brick veneer.

Fig. 4.4.2. Width of isolation analysis for various H/L1.

and brick, and some composite action occurs. As shown in Table 4.,
a brick veneer anchored with rigid adjustable wall ties spaced at
400 mm horizontally and vertically, can be subjected to approximately
37% of the load applied to the shear wall. Using the largest tie spacing
permissible by the TMS 402-11 [2] (dened as case C in Section 4.2),
an unreinforced veneer will still resist approximately 12% of the applied
load. Since the veneer exhibits composite action, it is recommended that
brick veneers be isolated or include some form of reinforcement as a
precaution.
Designers should limit deection of the backing to L/600 when brick
veneer faade is used. This limit prevents sliding and overturning of the
brick veneer while maintaining the serviceability of the wall system.
The IBC's suggested limit of L/240 is not recommended, since in certain
cases, the brick failed due to sliding before reaching the L/240 limit.
In order to prevent the veneer from sliding, a ashing material with a
coefcient of friction of 0.65 should be used. In addition, in active seismic regions, the ends of the walls should be isolated at a length approximately H/3 or H/4 from the edge.
Notations and abbreviations
Ag
gross cross-sectional area of masonry
As
cross-sectional area of steel
Av
net shear area of masonry
ASD
allowable stress design
BIA
Brick Industry Association
CMU
concrete masonry unit
CSA
Canadian Standards Association
Es
modulus of elasticity of steel
Em
modulus of Elasticity of masonry
fm
specied Compressive strength of the masonry
fy
yielding stress of steel reinforcement
Ga
apparent wood shear wall stiffness
Gm
shear modulus of masonry

H
h
I
IBC
k
kbrick
keff
ktierow
L
L1
LEED
MSJC
NCMA
n
NDS
P
RM
Sh
Sv
SNZ
Tallow
TMS
URM
Vs
a
F
k change
P
T
sw

total vertical height of the wall

height from ground to tie row
moment of Inertia
International Building Code
stiffness
stiffness of brick veneer
net effective stiffness
total stiffness of all brick ties in a single row
total in-plane length of the wall
in-plane length of an isolated wall section
leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Masonry Standards Joint Committee
National Concrete Masonry Association
ratio of elastic modulus of steel and masonry, Es/Em
National Design Specication
applied in-plane load on the CMU wall
reinforced masonry
horizontal spacing between wall anchors
vertical spacing between wall anchors
standards New Zealand
maximum allowable tensile load of shear wall anchor
The Masonry Society
unreinforced masonry
frictional force
maximum allowable elongation of shear wall anchor
deection of the spring due to the force in the spring
deection at which ties switch from initial to secondary
stiffness
deection of the spring due to the applied load P
total deection of the spring at a tie row
deection of a wood shear wall
coefcient of static friction

References
[1] National Concrete Masonry Association. TEK 6-9C: concrete masonry & hardscape
products in LEED 2009. Herndon, VA: National Concrete Masonry Association; 2009.
[2] The Masonry Society. Building code requirements and specications for masonry
structures. (TMS 402-11/ACI 530-11/ASCE 5-11). Longmont, CO: The Masonry Society; 2011.
[3] Brick Industry Association. Technical note 18A: accommodating expansion of brickwork. Technical notes on brick construction. Reston, VA: Brick Industry Association;
2006.
[4] International Code Council. International building code. Country Club Hills, IL: International Code Council, Inc.; 2011.
[5] Canadian Standards Association. CAN/CSA-A370-04: connectors for masonry. Toronto, ON, Canada: Canadian Standards Association; 2006.
[6] Standards New Zealand. SNZ HB 4236:2002: masonry veneer wall cladding.
Wellington, New Zealand: Standards New Zealand; 2002.
[7] Moore JFA. Some preliminary load tests on brick veneer attached to timber-framed
panels. Proceedings of the British Ceramic Society Symposium; 1978.
[8] Thurston SJ, Beattie GJ. Seismic performance of brick veneer houses. 2008 NZSEE
conference. New Zealand: New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering.
Wairakei; 2008.
[9] Okail Hussein O, Shing P Benson, McGinley W Mark, Klingner Richard E, Jo
Seongwoo, McLean David I. Shaking-table tests of a full-scale single-story masonry
veneer wood-frame structure. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyna 2011;40(5):50930.
[10] Zisi NV. The inuence of brick veneer on racking behavior of light framewood stud
walls. Ph.D. thesis, Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, Knoxville; 2009.
[11] Choi YH, LaFave JM. Performance of corrugated metal ties for brick veneer wall system. J Mater Civ Eng May/June 2004:20211.
[12] Zisi NV, Bennett RM. Shear behavior of corrugated metal tieconnections in anchored
brick veneer-wood frame wall systems. J Mater Civ Eng February 2011:12030.
[13] Williams CR, Hamid AA. Plane stiffness and strength of adjustable wall ties. 10th Canadian Masonry Symposium; 2005.
[14] Lintz JM, Toubia EA. In-plane loading of brick veneer over wood shear walls. Masonry Soc J December 2013;31(1):1527.
[15] American Forest Paper Association. Special design provisions for wind and seismic.
Washington, D.C.: American Forest and Paper Association; 2011
[16] Ahmadi F, Hernandez J, Scheid G, Klinger RE. Sliding shear resistance of reinforced
masonry shear walls. Masonry Soc J December 2013;31(1):4557.