Construction and Building Materials 15 Ž2001.

323᎐330

Review Article

Masonry walls: materials and construction

Emeritus A.W. Hendry U

Uni¨ ersity of Edinburgh, 146 r 6 Whitchouse Loan, Edinburgh EH9 2AN, UK

Received 25 May 2001; accepted 30 June 2001

Abstract

This paper offers a review of contemporary masonry wall construction beginning with a brief statement of the applications and
advantages of this form of construction. Masonry materials include clay, concrete and calcium silicate in which a wide variety of
unit sizes, forms and colours are produced. Mortars are usually cementrsand with either lime or a plasticiser added to improve
workability. In recent years new types of mortars have been developed including thin bed mortars for use with accurately
dimensioned units and mortars with improved thermal properties. Design considerations for load bearing and non-load-bearing
walls are summarised and construction methods and site practices, aimed at improved economy and productivity, are described. A
list of key references is included. 䊚 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Masonry; Walls; Units; Mortar; Construction

1. Applications and advantages of masonry construction
Although in the 20th century masonry was displaced
for many applications by steel and concrete, it remains
of great importance for load bearing walls in low and
medium rise buildings and for internal walls and
cladding of buildings where the structural function is
met by one or other of these newer materials. The
market for masonry construction may be divided into
housing and non-housing sectors w1x, the latter includ-
ing industrial, commercial and educational buildings in
addition to a wide variety of buildings used for adminis-
trative and recreational purposes. There is also a limited
use of masonry construction for infrastructure, e.g. for
retaining walls w2x. In all sectors there is a significant
requirement for masonry in the repair and mainte-
nance of existing buildings w3x.
For certain applications the low tensile strength of
masonry is a limiting factor in situations where con-
siderable lateral forces have to be resisted. Reinforced
U
Tel.: q44-131-447-0368.
masonry can be used to overcome this limitation in
buildings in seismic areas and generally where non-
load-bearing panels are subjected to substantial wind
loads. Walls of cellular or T cross-section are particu-
larly suitable for large, single cell buildings where the
adoption of such walls is greatly extended by post-ten-
sioning w4x.
Masonry wall construction has a number of advan-
tages w5x the first of which is the fact that a single
element can fulfil several functions including structure,
fire protection, thermal and sound insulation, weather
protection and sub-division of space. Masonry materi-
als are available with properties capable of meeting
these functions, requiring only to be supplemented in
some cases by other materials for thermal insulation,
damp-proof courses and the like.
The second major advantage relates to the durability
of the materials which, with appropriate selection, may
be expected to remain serviceable for many decades, if
not centuries, with relatively little maintenance. From
the architectural point of view, masonry offers advan-
tages in terms of great flexibility of plan form, spatial
composition and appearance of external walls for which

0950-0618r01r$ - see front matter 䊚 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 5 0 - 0 6 1 8 Ž 0 1 . 0 0 0 1 9 - 8
324 E.A. Hendry r Construction and Building Materials 15 (2001) 323᎐330
materials are available in a wide variety of colours and
textures. Complex wall arrangements, including curved
walls, are readily built without the need for expensive
and wasteful formwork.
The nature of masonry is such that its construction
can be achieved without very heavy and expensive
plant. Although dependent on skilled labour for a high
standard of construction, productivity has been main-
tained by the use of larger units, improved materials
handling and off-site preparation of mortar.
The advantages of masonry wall construction are
therefore considerable but, as with all materials, ap-
propriateness to the application has to be considered,
assuming acceptability from the architectural view-
point. For example, if the masonry is not to be load
bearing it will be necessary to consider the implications
of the weight of the masonry as it affects the support-
ing structure. If the walls are to be load bearing, it will
be important to ensure that their layout is consistent
with overall stability and with avoidance of failure in
the event of accidental damage. This implies that the
function of the building is such that there will be a
sufficient number of walls to meet this requirement, as
for example, is likely to be the case in a hotel or other
similar building. On the other hand, a requirement for
wide, open plan space is unlikely to be appropriate for
a load bearing wall structure although masonry may be
suitable in such a case as a cladding to a steel frame
building. From the construction point of view, availabil-
ity of the necessary skilled labour, the construction
time and its phasing with the overall building schedule
will also be relevant factors at the preliminary design
stage in deciding to use masonry walls.
2. Masonry units and mortar
Masonry walling units in the form of bricks and
blocks are produced from clay, concrete and calcium
silicate. Natural stone is also used but in current prac-
tice only to a limited extent and will not be discussed in
this brief review. All units have broadly similar uses
although their properties differ in important respects
depending on the raw materials used and the method
of manufacture. Bricks and blocks are produced in
many formats, solid, perforated and hollow. Bricks are
typically 215 = 102 = 65 mm Žlength = width = height.
whilst conventionally sized blocks are available in
lengths 400᎐600 mm, heights 150᎐300 mm and a wide
range of thicknesses between 60 and 250 mm.
The following physical and mechanical properties of
masonry units are relevant to their use in the construc-
tion of walls:
䢇 Colour;
䢇 Surface texture;
䢇 Weight;
䢇 Absorption and pore structure;
䢇 Thermal conductivity;
䢇 Thermal and moisture movement;
䢇 Fire resistance;
䢇 Compressive strength; and
䢇 Tensile strength.
Clay bricks w6,7x are produced in a variety of colours
depending on the mineral content and firing tempera-
ture, most commonly in shades of red but facing bricks
in yellow, buff and brown and with roughened surface
texture are frequently selected. Calcium silicate w8x and
concrete bricks are usually light grey and other paler
shades and tend to give a more uniform appearance to
a wall than clay bricks. Concrete blocks are normally
grey but if an enhanced appearance to exposed faces is
required this can be achieved by painting, plastering or
by the use of special blocks having a surface textured in
one of a number of possible ways in the course of
manufacture e.g. by tooling the surface or by exposing
the aggregate.
The density of clay, calcium silicate and concrete is
approximately 2 trm3 but the weight of units which is
of more importance in construction depends on their
size, shape and type i.e. whether solid, cellular or
perforated. Various lightweight materials are available,
in particular, aerated autoclaved concrete ŽAAC. w9x,
with a material density in the range 450᎐850 kgrm3
which enables quite large solid units to be handled
without mechanical assistance.
The absorption and pore structure of bricks and
blocks varies widely and is important in a number of
ways. Thus certain clay bricks which absorb between
4.5 and 7.0% of their weight can be used as a damp-
proof course material. Highly absorptive clay bricks, on
the other hand, may remove water from the mortar
preventing complete hydration of the cement. Absorp-
tion is of less relevance in the case of calcium silicate
and concrete units but pore structure affects resistance
to frost damage.
Thermal conductivity of units is of great importance
in satisfying design requirements. There is not a great
deal of difference between solid units in clay, calcium
silicate and dense concrete but lightweight aggregate
and AAC blocks have substantially lower thermal con-
ductivity than the heavier materials, typically 0.11 W
per meter thickness per degree Celsius ŽWrmK. as
compared to 0.84 WrmK for clay bricks. Hollow and
perforated clay and concrete units will have intermedi-
ate values depending on their characteristics. In prac-
tice, however, the insulating properties of complete
walls depend on a number of factors in addition to the
thermal properties of the units.
Thermal and moisture movements in masonry walls
require to be taken into account in design of walls and
 E.A. Hendry r Construction and Building Materials 15 (2001) 323᎐330
depend on the characteristics of the units w10x, thus clay
units tend to expand in service whilst concrete and
calcium silicate units shrink.
Masonry materials are inherently resistant to fire
and the critical factor, in this respect, lies in the detail
design of the construction w11x aimed at preventing fire
passing through defects in or finding a way around a
wall.
Having regard to the mechanical properties of ma-
sonry units, the most important is compressive strength
which, as well as being of direct relevance to the
strength of a wall, serves as a general index to the
characteristics of the unit. It is measured by a standard-
ised test, the result depending to some extent on the
conditions prescribed in the particular standard being
used. It is important to note also that the apparent
compressive strength obtained depends on the dimen-
sions and type of the unit. Thus, if a brick and a block
of larger overall dimensions but of the same material
were tested, a higher figure would be obtained for the
brick as a result of the ‘platen effect’ w12x. This results
from the restraint to lateral deformation by the testing
machine platens having more effect in a squat speci-
men like a brick than in a block which is taller in
proportion to its thickness. A recent code of practice,
Eurocode 6 w13x attempts to standardise unit strength
by adjusting the standard test value by a factor depend-
ing on the unit proportions.
Clay bricks are obtainable in strengths of up to 100
Nrmm2 but much lower strengths, say 20᎐40 Nrmm2
are generally sufficient for domestic buildings and for
cladding walls for taller buildings. Concrete blocks have
lower apparent compressive strengths ᎏ in the range
2.8᎐35 Nrmm2 ᎏ but the effect referred to above has
to be kept in mind in making comparisons. Further-
more, blockwork constructed from units of the same
nominal compressive strength will generally have a
higher strength than the corresponding brickwork.
The tensile strength of masonry units ᎏ both direct
and flexural ᎏ has an influence on the resistance of
masonry under various stress conditions but is not
normally specified except in relation to concrete blocks
used in partition walls where typically a breaking
strength of 0.05 Nrmm2 is required.
Although mortar accounts for as little as 7% of the
total volume of masonry, it influences performance far
more than this proportion indicates. Mortar requires to
have certain properties prior to setting, particularly
workability. Hardened mortar has to be sufficiently
strong and to develop adequate adhesion to the units
and also to set without excessive shrinkage which would
reduce the resistance of the masonry to rain penetra-
tion or even cause cracking of the units. It should also
be capable of accommodating some degree of move-
ment in the masonry resulting from creep or thermal
effects without cracking. Conventional mortar mixes
325
w14x are based on Portland cement, lime or plasticiser
and sand, and are graded according to compressive
strength. The stronger the mortar the less able it is to
accommodate movement so that it is inadvisable to use
a stronger mix than is necessary to meet structural
requirements. A compressive strength of 2᎐5 Nrmm2
is adequate for most low-rise structures. For special
purposes a type of cement other than ordinary Port-
land cement may be used, e.g. a sulfate resisting variety
for brickwork below damp-proof course level where
ground water is contaminated by sulfates.
A workable mortar has a smooth, plastic consistency
which is easily spread with a trowel and readily adheres
to a vertical surface. Well graded, smooth aggregates
enhance workability as do lime, air entrainment agents
Žplasticisers . and proper amounts of mixing water. Lime
imparts plasticity and ability to retain water in the mix
whilst plasticisers improve frost resistance. Thin bed
mortars w15x with a 1:2 cementrsand mix together with
water retaining and workability admixtures are increas-
ingly used with accurately dimensioned units.
In addition to units and mortar, masonry wall con-
struction requires the use of a number of subsidiary
components including damp-proof course material, cav-
ity trays, wall ties and fixings. Each of these must be as
durable as the masonry itself as well as meeting its
particular function. Suitable damp-proof course materi-
als w16x for general use include bitumen composites,
pitch polymer and polythene. Sheet copper or high
strength engineering bricks may be used in highly
stressed load-bearing walls. Pre-formed cavity trays and
roof flashings are available and are to be preferred for
ease and accuracy of installation.
In cavity wall construction, the leaves have to be tied
together with suitable wall ties w17x. Several types are
used and are made in galvanised or stainless steel. The
latter are more expensive but are far more durable so
that the extra cost, which is marginal in the cost of a
wall, is fully justified in external walls in exposed situa-
tions. Special ties are available for repairing walls in
which the ties have been incorrectly placed or omitted
or have become ineffective as a result of corrosion w18x.
Fixings are also required between masonry walls and
concrete or steel frames w19x which, as well as being
resistant to corrosion, must be capable of permitting
differential movement between the wall and the main
structure. Other components include light ties for con-
necting brickwork cladding to timber frames and for
supporting timber joist floors from masonry walls w20x.
3. Structural design
Structural design of masonry walls is carried out
according to national codes of practice, in the UK BS
5628 w21x or Eurocode 6 Žcurrently issued in the form of
326 E.A. Hendry r Construction and Building Materials 15 (2001) 323᎐330
ENV 1996-1-1 w13x.. Both these codes are based on
limit state principles, safety being assured by the use of
characteristic values of loads or actions and material
strengths together with partial safety factors, applied as
a multiplier to loads and as a divisor to strengths.
Characteristic values are intended to represent a 95%
confidence limit of not being exceeded in the case of
loads and of being attained in the case of strengths.
Partial safety factors are to allow for uncertainties in
estimating loads and material strengths including short-
fall of site from laboratory values. The system is in-
tended to achieve a low probability of failure, of the
order of 10y6 , and permits some differentiation
between load cases, materials and levels of workman-
ship. Other countries, including the US, continue to
use permissible stresses as the basis of design without
stated safety factors w22x. This leads to simpler calcula-
tions but without the facility to adjust the design to
accommodate perceived differences e.g. in load condi-
tions, material properties and workmanship levels.
Primary variables in the calculation of the compres-
sive strength of a masonry wall, in addition to the unit
strength, include the eccentricity of loading and the
slenderness ratio of the wall. Both of these are difficult
to assess on a theoretical basis depending as they do on
interaction between walls and floors w23x and on the
presence of interconnected walls. Allowance for eccen-
tricity and slenderness in design requires, in turn, the
availability of a capacity reduction factor and a variety
of theories on which to base this have been developed.
Further complications arise from imperfections in
construction such as lack of verticality, bowing and lack
of alignment of walls from one storey to the next.
Creep effects may be significant in some walls, in some
cases, this may increase the eccentricity at mid-height
of a wall but where there are interacting floor slabs the
eccentricity may reduce with time. Compressive
strength of walls is thus a complex problem w24x and a
considerable amount of research work has been carried
out on it over many years.
The shear strength of masonry walls has to be con-
sidered in the design of multi-storey buildings to resist
wind loads and in all situations where seismic effects
are encountered. Investigations have been undertaken
on large-scale structures w25x and on small specimens to
develop test methods for material strength w26x.
A further aspect of design which has received partic-
ular attention in the UK and Australia concerns the
lateral resistance of wall panels to wind loading and
also in relation to accidental damage. Although a con-
siderable amount of research has been reported on the
resistance of masonry walls to wind loads Žcf. w23x pp.
153᎐180. it has proved difficult to resolve and the
design method given in the British and European codes
is of a semi-empirical nature. Attention was first di-
rected to the problem of accidental damage as a result
of a gas explosion although this was not in a masonry
structure. In this context it was realised that if a
masonry wall carried a high enough compressive load
its lateral strength would be sufficient to resist the
pressure resulting from a domestic gas explosion and
could therefore be assumed to remain in place fol-
lowing such an event. Regulations were introduced to
ensure that in buildings of five or more storeys, damage
resulting from a gas explosion or any other accident
would not be disproportionate to the cause. A substan-
tial effort w27,28x was undertaken when these require-
ments were brought in to demonstrate that with ade-
quate design brick masonry buildings would comply. It
is, however, not possible to avoid extremely severe
damage to low rise buildings of whatever construction
from gas explosions although the risk of loss of life is
smaller than in multi-storey buildings.
4. Non-structural design factors
The following factors have to be taken into account
in the design of masonry walls:
䢇 Movement;
䢇 Moisture exclusion;
䢇 Durability;
䢇 Thermal and acoustic properties; and
䢇 Fire resistance.
Movement takes place in all masonry materials w29x
as a result of applied stress, moisture and temperature
change, chemical reactions. These effects, as well as
foundation movements, can lead to cracking of the wall
w30x. Movements due to loading may result from stress-
ing of the masonry, which may be significant in multi-
storey buildings, and may develop either immediately
after the application of the loads Želastic deformation.
or over a period of time Žcreep.. Movement in adjoin-
ing elements may affect masonry walls, for example,
the deflection of supporting beams may induce tensile
stresses in the supported wall or horizontal movements
in a beam or lintel supported by a wall may induce
cracking in the latter. Again, non-structural walls be-
neath beams or slabs, but not intended to support them
may become loaded as a result of the deflection of
these elements resulting in damage to the wall.
Thermal movements depend on the coefficient of
expansion of the material and the range of temperature
experienced. Coefficients of expansion for various ma-
terials are given in codes of practice but the tempera-
ture range to be assumed in design is more difficult to
establish since it depends on such things as colour,
exposure and orientation as well as climatic factors. In
the UK, the temperature range experienced by a heavy
exterior wall has been quoted as from y20⬚C to q65⬚C
 E.A. Hendry r Construction and Building Materials 15 (2001) 323᎐330
with a datum temperature from which movements are
assumed to take place of 10⬚C.
Dimensional changes take place after manufacture
of masonry units: expansion in the case of clay bricks;
and shrinkage in the case of concrete and calcium
silicate products. Dimensional changes also take place
in service following change of moisture content. If
movements are suppressed, very large forces can be set
up so that at the design stage provision has to be made
for them to take place without resulting in unaccept-
able cracking. This is achieved by the selection of
suitable materials and by careful detailing rather than
by calculation although it may be necessary to estimate
differential movement in multi-storey cavity walls w31x
and between masonry cladding and a steel or concrete
structure in a multi-storey building.
Although masonry materials are relatively stable,
some chemical conditions can affect dimensional stabil-
ity. Thus, under certain conditions carbonation of open
textured concrete products and mortar can result in
additional shrinkage to the extent of approximately
25% of the free moisture movement. Portland cement
mortar is subject to attack by dissolved sulfates result-
ing in disruption of the masonry.
Unsatisfactory foundation conditions are a common
cause of cracking in masonry walls which have a limited
tolerance for uneven settlement. Conditions requiring
particular care include shrinkable clay soils, mining
subsidence and filled ground w32x.
The prevention of moisture penetration is a critical
factor in the design of masonry walls requiring careful
selection of materials in relation to exposure condi-
tions, correct detailing and achievement of a good
standard of workmanship. Exposure conditions are
specified in national codes, for example, in the UK
these are given in six categories of severity which are
defined in BS 5628 Part 3 w33x and related to minimum
thicknesses of masonry walling. Certain architectural
features, such as overhangs and drips, are advanta-
geous in keeping water off a wall. On the other hand,
large areas of glazing or impermeable cladding can
lead to excessive quantities of rain water running on to
the masonry thereby increasing the possibility of rain
penetration. Inclusion of damp-proof courses is neces-
sary to prevent ground moisture from rising into a wall
and the penetration of rainwater at openings and at
roof level. Cavity wall construction requires the use of
cavity trays to prevent water, which may come through
the outer leaf from bridging the cavity. In some cases,
where a steel or concrete frame is clad in masonry, this
can give rise to complex details which are difficult to
build.
Durability may be regarded as the ability of a mate-
rial or construction to remain serviceable for an ac-
ceptable length of time without excessive or unex-
pected maintenance w34x. What constitutes an accept-
327
able period is not easily defined but the majority of
buildings are expected to have a life of many decades.
Factors which affect durability include: frost action;
salt crystallisation; and the effect of certain biological
agencies. Of these, frost damage is likely in most situa-
tions to be the most important and results from the
freezing of water in the pores of the material. Thus, ice
forming first at the surface of a masonry unit entraps
water in the sub-surface layers and as this freezes and
expands pressure is built up which may be sufficient to
cause spalling of the face of the unit. The mechanism
of failure is complicated and depends on a number of
factors including the pore structure of the material, the
degree of saturation and the rate of freezing. Repeated
freeze-thaw tests have been devised to give an indica-
tion of the resistance of masonry to frost damage but
experience is the most reliable guide for any given
location. Construction which is persistently wet and is
exposed, as for example, in a parapet or free standing
wall, is the most vulnerable.
Salt crystallisation is essentially a physical process,
somewhat analogous to freezing, whereby salt solution
is carried into the masonry from ground water or from
pollutants. In warm weather the moisture evaporates
and the dissolved salts crystallise in the pores below the
surface of the material to form a hard skin which may
then flake off to reveal a new surface to the same
process.
Atmospheric pollution, resulting from the burning of
fossil fuels, can result in masonry being exposed to
sulfur and nitrogen acids. Sulfur dioxide is a widespread
pollutant which combines with water to produce sul-
furous acid which attacks tricalcium aluminate in ce-
ment mortar. Certain types of natural stone which have
a pore structure comprising many pores of small di-
ameter are particularly susceptible to damage by pollu-
tion.
Many varieties of algae, lichens, mosses and even
bacteria w35x as well as higher plants can establish
themselves on the surface of a masonry wall and,
having penetrated the pores of the masonry can cause
damage by generating organic acids with similar effects
to atmospheric pollution.
Where metal components are used in masonry con-
struction careful selection in relation to exposure con-
ditions is necessary to avoid damage to the wall. A
frequent cause of premature failure of cavity walls is
the use of thin galvanised wall ties in situations of
severe exposure w36x. In such cases ties should be of
austenitic stainless steel. Similar considerations apply
where light gauge reinforcement is used for example, to
control cracking or to provide enhanced lateral resis-
tance to wind loads.
Thermal insulation of buildings is an increasingly
important factor in building design w37x. Masonry walls
built in conventional units of clay; concrete or calcium
328 E.A. Hendry r Construction and Building Materials 15 (2001) 323᎐330
silicate will usually require additional insulation al-
though lightweight materials such as AAC may be
adequate if sufficiently thick. If thin wall masonry is
used, the position of the insulation is important in
relation to the thermal behaviour of the wall. Thus, if
the insulation is internal the wall will be relatively cold
and will retain on average a higher moisture content
with reduced thermal resistance. External insulation on
the other hand, will result in the masonry being at a
higher average temperature and drier with correspond-
ingly better insulating properties. Cavity insulation w38x
offers a compromise in terms of thermal behaviour and
can be augmented by internal insulation in the form of
plasterboard. The most commonly used insulation ma-
terials include: extruded polystyrene; rigid poly-
urethane; and mineral fibre in sheet or roll form.
Cavity insulation can also be introduced in the form of
beads, fibre or foam.
Calculations relating to insulation are usually based
on the assumption of steady state conditions but ther-
mal mass has a significant effect on the response of a
masonry building to climatic conditions. Representa-
tion of dynamic thermal behaviour is possible and
could lead to economies in certain conditions w39x but
is not often attempted in practice.
Condensation in buildings, which may result in da-
mage to decorations and mould growth w40x, can be
caused by inadequate insulation and ventilation. As a
precaution against this it is normal practice to incor-
porate a vapour control layer in the form of a plastic
sheet on the warm side of the insulation and to avoid
thermal bridges through the insulation.
Masonry construction is generally effective in rela-
tion to sound insulation w41,42x between occupancies
and in reducing noise nuisance from traffic. This de-
pends essentially on mass but sound transmission is
complicated and careful attention to detail is required
to avoid the effectiveness of a wall being reduced by
flanking transmission. In certain spaces, such as assem-
bly halls, the reflective surface properties of masonry
walls may require treatment with absorbing material to
provide an acceptable acoustic ambience.
Masonry materials are incombustible and therefore
inherently effective in providing fire protection for the
periods of time specified in building regulations w43x.
Again care in detail design is essential, for example, in
providing fire stops in cavities, where services pass
through a wall and with perimeter details which must
be such that fire will not simply by-pass the wall.
5. Masonry wall construction
Conventional methods of masonry wall construction
remained virtually unchanged until quite recently, at-
tracting criticism that masonry buildings take too long
to construct and that it is difficult to find the necessary
skilled labour, partly because of unattractive working
conditions on site w44x. Efforts to improve the position
have centred essentially on the use of new types of
unit, innovations in site practice and pre-fabrication
w45x.
As already noted, many new types of units have been
developed in recent years with improved thermal
properties, greater uniformity in dimensions and in a
greater variety of sizes and types. Larger, dimensionally
accurate units together with the use of thin bed mor-
tars, which are spread more rapidly than by traditional
methods, permit significant improvements in productiv-
ity. The use of large units of dense concrete or calcium
silicate implies mechanical handling and the use of
small cranes for this purpose is common in a number of
European countries. It is now almost universal practice
for units to be delivered in polythene wrapped packs of
500 bricks or equivalent number of blocks which can be
moved from the delivery vehicle by crane or fork lift
truck close to where they are to be laid, thus saving
labour and avoiding damage or saturation by rain.
A further development in the supply of materials
offered by block manufacturers in Europe is to deliver
units as a package along with subsidiary materials
w46,47x for the construction of particular walls in a
building thus reducing site handling and storage. On all
but very small sites, mortar is delivered in pre-mixed
form, ensuring accuracy of gauging and avoidance of
waste.
In addition to these well established improvements
in construction methods, a research project w48x is in
hand in the UK aimed at ‘re-engineering’ or standard-
ising conventional bricklaying which will remain impor-
tant for building facing brickwork into the indefinite
future. The general aim is to improve productivity
which may also result from the introduction in the US
of self-raising work platforms w49x which offer an alter-
native to conventional scaffolding. It is claimed that
these devices save considerable construction time and
costs.
Attempts in various countries to effect improvement
by the use of pre-fabricated wall panels go back at least
to the 1960s w50x. These met with limited success but
pre-fabrication using mechanised brick laying is still
undertaken in Germany. The advantages include pro-
duction under factory conditions with consequent
achievement of a high standard of work with available
labour and acceleration of site construction. The disad-
vantages lie in the high cost of plant and factory space
leading to the requirement for long, continuous pro-
duction runs for economic viability. There are also
limitations in building design imposed by the size and
shape of the panels and the problem of making connec-
tions between them. The practical possibility of using
pre-fabricated brickwork columns rather than walls has
 E.A. Hendry r Construction and Building Materials 15 (2001) 323᎐330
been demonstrated w51x, overcoming the need for ex-
pensive, specialised plant and some of the other prob-
lems associated with this method of construction. A
system of on-site, automated block laying has been
devised in the USA and also marketed in Ireland under
the name EZ-BLOK w52x. Up to 11 hollow concrete
blocks are laid end-to-end on a roller staging table and
lifted simultaneously by crane using a device which
clamps them together. They are placed on the wall on
which a mortar bed has been pre-laid using a mortar
pump. A special applicator connected to the mortar
pump is used to fill the head joints. The system is
designed to eliminate heavy lifting and to improve
productivity.
6. Concluding comment
Masonry wall construction has undergone consider-
able change in the course of the last few decades with
the introduction or extended use of lightweight materi-
als and new types of units. The main objectives under-
lying these developments has been the need for im-
proved thermal insulation and increased rate of con-
struction whilst retaining the advantages of this form of
construction in terms of durability, appearance and
flexibility of application. Provided that economy in
comparison with alternative materials can be achieved
there would appear to be an excellent future for the
continued use of masonry construction.
7. General references
The books listed in Section 8 will be found useful for
general reference in the areas indicated by the titles.
Text references are identified where appropriate
through the review. A considerable number of these
are Building Research Establishment Digests which
give information in a form suitable for use by designers
as well as references to source publications. Attention
is also drawn to the proceedings of various internatio-
nal masonry conferences and to the journals of the
British Masonry Society, ŽMasonry International . and
The Masonry Society ŽUSA. which are primary sources
for research results.
8. Bibliography
Manual for the design of plain masonry in building
structures. Institution of Structural Engineers, London,
1997.
Amrhein J. Reinforced masonry engineering hand-
book 5th edition. The Masonry Society, Boulder Co.,
1995.
329
Curtin W.G., Shaw G., Beck J., Bray W.A. Structural
masonry designers’ handbook, 2nd edition, Blackwell
Science, Oxford, 1995.
Drysdale R.G., Hamid A.A., Baker L.R. Masonry
structures: behaviour and design, 2nd edition, The Ma-
sonry Society, Boulder Co., 1999.
Hendry A.W. Structural masonry, 2nd edition,
Macmillan, London, 1998.
Hendry A.W., Sinha B.P., Davies S.R. Design of
masonry structures, 3rd edition E. and F.N. Spon, Lon-
don, 1997.
Hendry A.W., Khalaf F.M. Masonry wall construc-
tion, E. and F.N. Spon, London, 2000.
Matthys J.E. editor, The masonry designers’ guide,
2nd edition, The Masonry Society, Boulder Co., 1999.
Orton A. Structural design of masonry, Longman
Scientific and Technical, Harlow, 1992.
Thomas K. Masonry walls. Butterworth-Heinemann,
London, 1997.
References
w1x Masonry 2007. Department of the Environment, London 1997.
w2x Thomas K. Masonry walls. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford
1996.
w3x Sowden AM. The maintenance of brick and stone masonry
structures. London: E. and F.N. Spon, 1990.
w4x Hendry AW, editor. Reinforced and prestressed masonry. Har-
low: Longman Scientific and Technical, 1991.
w5x Hendry AW, Khalaf FM. Masonry wall construction. London:
Spon Press, 2000.
w6x Bricks: note on their properties. Brick Development Associa-
tion. Publ. TIP 7.
w7x De Vekey RC. Clay bricks and clay brick masonry. Digest 441.
Watford: Building Research Establishment, 1999.
w8x Calcium silicate brickwork. Digest 157. Building Research Es-
tablishment, Watford 1992.
w9x Autoclaved aerated concrete. Digest 342. Building Research
Establishment, Watford 1989.
w10x Estimation of thermal and moisture movements and stresses.
Digests 227, 228, 229. Building Research Establishment, Wat-
ford 1979.
w11x Standard method for determining fire resistance of concrete
and masonry construction assemblies. ANSIrACI216.1-
97rTMS-0216-97. The Masonry Society, Boulder Co., 1997.
w12x Khalaf FM, Hendry AW. Masonry unit shape factors from test
results. Proc Br Masonry Soc 1994;6:136᎐9.
w13x Eurocode 6: design of masonry structures. Part 1-1 General
rules for buildings. Rules for reinforced and unreinforced ma-
sonry. ŽENV 1996-1-1. CEN Brussels, 1995.
w14x Building mortar. Digest 362. Building Research Establishment,
Watford 1991.
w15x Aircrete thin joint mortar building systems. Digest 432. Build-
ing Research Establishment, Watford 1998.
w16x Damp-proof courses. Digest 380. Building Research Establish-
ment, Watford 1993.
w17x de Vekey RC. Ties for masonry walls: a decade of develop-
ment. Watford: IP 11r00 Building Research Establishment,
2000.
w18x Installing wall ties in existing construction. Digest 329. Building
Research Establishment, Watford 2000.
330 E.A. Hendry r Construction and Building Materials 15 (2001) 323᎐330
w19x Ties for masonry cladding. IP 17r88. Building Research Es-
tablishment, Watford 1988.
w20x Joist hangers. BRE Publ. GBG 21. Building Research Es-
tablishment, Watford 1999.
w21x Code of practice for use of masonry. Part 1 Structural use of
unreinforced masonry. BS 5628 Part 1, British Standards Insti-
tution, London, 1992.
w22x MSJC Building code requirements and specification for ma-
sonry structures ŽACI 530rASCE 5rTMS 402 and ACI
530.1rASCE 6?TMS 602., The Masonry Society, Boulder Co.,
1999.
w23x Hendry AW. Structural masonry. 2nd edition London: Macmil-
lan Press Ltd, 1998:123᎐43.
w24x Hendry AW. Comments on the design of masonry bearing walls
according to ENV 1996-1. Proc Br Masonry Soc 1998;8.
w25x Sinha BP, Maurenbrecher AHP. And Hendry A.W. Model and
full-scale tests on a five storey cross-wall structure under lateral
loading. Proceedings of the Second International Brick Ma-
sonry Conference, Stoke on Trent 1971:201᎐208.
w26x Hendry AW. Shear strength criteria and related tests for brick
masonry. Adv Struct Eng 1997;1Ž2.:135᎐41.
w27x Astbury NF, West HWH, Hodgkinson HR, Cubbage PA, Clare
R. Gas explosions in load-bearing brickwork structures. Stoke
on Trent: British Ceramic Research Association, 1970.
Special Publication No. 68.
w28x Sinha BP, Hendry AW. The stability of a five-storey brickwork
cross-wall structure following the removal of a section of main
load-bearing wall. Struct Eng 1971;49:467᎐74.
w29x Grimm CT. Design for masonry volume change. The Masonry
Society, Boulder Co. 1999.
w30x Cracking in buildings. Digest 75 Building Research Establish-
ment, Watford, 1966.
w31x Hendry AW, Sinha BP, Davies SR. Design of masonry struc-
tures. 3rd edition London: E. and F.N. Spon, 1997.
w32x Site investigation for low rise buildings: the walk-over survey.
Digest 348. Building Research Establishment, Watford, 1989.
w33x British standard code of practice for use of masonry. Part 3.
Materials and components, design and workmanship. BS 5628
Part 3, British Standards Institution, London, 1985.
w34x Harding JR, Smith RA. Brickwork durability. BDA Design
Note 7. Brick Development Association, Windsor, 1986.
w35x Control of lichens, moulds and similar growths. Digest 370.
Building Research Establishment, Watford, 1992.
w36x Replacing wall ties. Digest 401. Building Research Establish-
ment, Watford, 1995.
w37x Energy efficiency in dwellings. Digest 355. Building Research
Establishment, Watford, 1990.
w38x Cavity insulation. Building Research Establishment, Watford,
1980.
w39x Abdou OA. The dynamic thermal performance of masonry wall
assemblies of similar thermal resistance. Proceedings of the 8th
International BrickrBlock Masonry Conference, Berlin, 1991.
w40x Surface condensation and mould growth in traditionally built
dwellings. Digest 297. Building Research Establishment, Wat-
ford, 1985.
w41x Sound insulation: basic principles. Digest 337. Building Re-
search Establishment, Watford, 1988.
w42x Sound insulation of separating walls and floors. Digest 333.
Building Research Establishment, Watford, 1988.
w43x De Vekey RC. The fire performance of insulated cavity walls.
Proc Br Masonry Soc 1998;8:234᎐9.
w44x Egan J. Rethinking construction. London: Department of the
Environment and the Regions, 1998.
w45x Hendry AW. Rationalisation of masonry construction. Masonry
Int 1993;7Ž2..
w46x Bau-Erfolg: mauerwerkesysteme. KLB Klimatleichtblock, An-
dernach, 1999.
w47x Berkers WGJ. Building with calcium silicate elements. Proc Br
Masonry Soc 1995;7:176᎐9.
w48x Fanning A, Hobbs B, Dawood N. Standardisation of brickwork
construction: business process re-engineering strategies for
conventional brickwork. Proceedings of the 12th International
Brick and Block Masonry Conference, Madrid, 2000.
w49x FRSM Trade brochure. FRACO, ST. Mathias-sur-Richelieu,
Quebec, 2000.
w50x West HWH. Industrialised building Žin six parts.. I, II Claycraft
37Ž1. & Ž12. 1964, III᎐VI Claycraft 38 Ž3., Ž6., Ž10., Ž12. 1965.
w51x Knight T. Fast track innovation. Brick Bulletin Autumn, 1995.
w52x On site automation EZ-block automated block-laying system.
Masonry Construction, Addison Ill. July, 2000: 42.