Você está na página 1de 16

Seminário sobre Paredes de Alvenaria, P.B. Lourenço & H. Sousa (Eds.

), Porto, 2002 1

DEVELOPMENT AND POTENTIAL OF STRUCTURAL MASONRY

Braj P. SINHA
Professor of Structural Engineering
University of Edinburgh
UK

ABSTRACT

The paper briefly traces the history of the development of the modern structural masonry and
illustrates the various advantages of this type of construction. The paper also records its further
exploitation for some innovative large-scale structures. A comprehensive list of references is
given at the end of the paper.

1. INTRODUCTION

Masonry bearing - wall structures have been used for centuries for all types of buildings [1,2],
from the small simple shelter to some of our magnificent monuments and public buildings.
Some examples are:

Temple at Gatewara in Mesopotamia (4500 B.C.)

Palaces and Pyramids of Egypt (3500 B.C.)

Remains of Indus Valley Civilisation (2500 B.C.)

and later Romans’ shopping centres.


2 Development and potential of structural masonry

The year 1891 witnessed “the final triumph of traditional masonry construction” in the 16-
storey high Monadnock Building (Fig. 1) designed by John Root in Chicago [2,3], with 1.82m
thick walls at the base. It may be pointed out that the traditional bylaws and rule-of-thumb
were the guiding factors of the structural design of the load-bearing elements of these buildings
rather than the basic engineering principle which govern the structural design of steel, concrete
or timber structures.

Figure 1: The Monadnock Building, Chicago (1891)

2. CAUSES OF DECLINE

The two factors; huge rise in the cost of land and the bricklayer’s strike in Chicago, led to the
development of the skeleton steel frame [3,7] as an alternative to load-bearing brickwork by
William Le Baron Jenny (1893) for the construction of the Home Insurance Building. The
development of the structural frame replaced the structural use of masonry in multi-storey
buildings and limited its use to as a curtain wall to support its own weight or as one or two
storey domestic buildings. The discovery of glass and lightweight partition in the middle of the
20th century both led further onslaught and replaced he use of masonry from many modern
constructions. Thus the years between 1890-1950 can very well be called the era of the
structural frame.
Braj P. Sinha 3

3. EMERGENCE OF STRUCTURAL MASONRY

In comparison with masonry buildings, all glass buildings lack textural warmth, colour and are
most unsatisfactory from the environmental point of view. During the 1960's, somewhat earlier
in Switzerland [2,3] the architects and engineers again started using masonry for frame-less
multi-storey buildings, utilising its structural strength and aesthetic qualities. The economic
advantage of frame-less construction coupled with the revolt against the appearance of concrete
helped multi-storey masonry to come back on the scene. The design of such buildings is no
longer governed by the rule-of-thumb or bylaws, but is based upon sound structural analysis as
followed in case of major structural materials.

Switzerland, having no governmental bylaws or Codes, and no indigenous steel industry


became the pioneer in the revival of brick masonry for multi-storey construction. Some 1600
wall specimen [4] were tested at EMPA, which helped in the design and construction of 13
storey apartment buildings in Basle (1951-53). Based on the test results, the tallest 18-storey
load-bearing building (Fig. 2) supported on relatively thin walls (127 to 254mm) was built in
1957 in Switzerland and since then this type of construction has become the norm all over the
world as a result of its flexibility, economy and speed of construction.

Figure 2: 18-storey load bearing building in Switzerland

In the United Kingdom between 1926-34 intensive research [5] was carried out on square brick
piers at the Building Research Station which apart from other things established that mortar
strength does not significantly affect the brickwork strength. However, the potential of
brickwork was not exploited to any appreciable extent until 1960. The construction of a 12-
storey flat [2,3] in Birmingham (Fig. 3) and the Swiss experience had great impact, which
4 Development and potential of structural masonry

resulted in the revision of the 1964 Code paving the way of more extensive use of structural
brickwork in the U.K.

Figure 3: 12-storey block of flats in Birmingham, UK

Denmark like Switzerland has no steel industry of its own; hence its building economy was
also suited to the development of masonry. A large number of brick piers tests were done under
the late Professor Svenson in the early 1930’s which resulted in building of 9 and 10 storey
apartments in Copenhagen (as early as 1943) in 210mm thick crosswalls. In 1965, a 16-storey
building supported on 355-mm thick walls was built (Fig. 4).

About the same time, Professor Onishchic [6] in the U.S.S.R. conducted a lot of tests on brick
piers and walls and suggested empirical formulae based on brick strength to predict the
compressive strength of brickwork. Most of the results of his investigations were published in a
book form in 1937 and this record had a great influence in the past in the Soviet Union.
Unfortunately, neither Svenson’s nor Onishchic’s work is available in English and thus did not
get wide publicity.
Braj P. Sinha 5

Figure 4: 16-storey masonry building in Denmark

Although experiments were carried out on walls and piers to establish the strength of
brickwork as early as 1915 in the USA [7], nothing very much happened until 1951. Between
1944-195I, while construction cost rose by 43 %, there was an overall fall in the quality and
comfort standards; living-room sizes were reduced from 14.5 to 13.5 m2 kitchen and dining
rooms from 8.4 to 6.5 m2, and bedrooms from 11.6 to 11.3 m2. It became very clear that
something needed to be done to arrest the rising cost of construction without further
deterioration in the comfort and quality standards expected from houses and homes. Therefore,
the Home and Housing Finance Agency sponsored a research project in the Illinois Institute of
Technology to investigate the possibility of reducing the cost of construction without further
fall in living standard.

4. NEW CONCEPT FOR DESIGN

As a result of this investigation, Fisher and Associates [8] suggested that the houses should be
built on a cross-wall principle with adequate shear walls, so that wind blowing from any
direction can be resisted by all the walls present in the building (Fig. 5). This was a quite new
concept compared with the principle on which the Monadnock building was built, where the
exterior wall was designed on the middle third rule (Fig. 5) to resist the all wind loading with
no co-action between the slabs and the walls present in the building. The additional advantage
of this new concept was that masonry could be used both in compression and shear. A typical
16-storey building [3,7] built on this principle with 305 mm brick walls is shown in Fig.6.
6 Development and potential of structural masonry

Figure 5: Wind loading design and middle-third design rule

Figure 6: 16-storey masonry building


Braj P. Sinha 7

In the West, attempts are made to improve the quality of the houses by research and
development whereas in the developing countries invariably by lowering the specifications and
standards and cutting corners in the name of low cost or social housing. In India, the National
Building Organisation (NBO) tried to use the structural masonry and in the early 70’s
persuaded some construction agencies to build experimental [9] 4 to 5- storey houses in
230mm thick walls.

Figure 7: Multi-storey masonry buildings in Brazil

In recent years in Brazil [10], the use of structural masonry has spread like the wild fire. Five to
fifteen storey buildings were constructed on relatively thin walls (Fig. 7). The structural design
of some of the buildings was based on the BS 5628: Part 1 [11], but the requirements for
accidental damage were completely ignored. It is well known that the workmanship affects the
strength of masonry and it is doubtful that the site control and the workmanship can match the
UK standard. In some parts of Brazil, the practice of not filling the vertical mortar joints in
high-rise buildings is very common, which has a detrimental effect on strength and mechanical
properties [10]. The author feels that this reduction in the cost of construction is achieved at the
cost of structural safety in Brazil.

5. FURTHER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The concept put forward by Fisher and associates [8] revolutionised the use of masonry and
research since then moved to examine the strength in conjunction with the interaction of
masonry with other elements of structure.
8 Development and potential of structural masonry

Figure 8: Full-scale tests at a disused quarry, University of Edinburgh

In Edinburgh., a “disused” quarry was developed [12, 13], where a full-scale structure up to 5-
storey could be tested under every aspect of loading (Fig. 8). Between 1967-1979 numerous
tests were carried out on multi-storey brick structures to study the effect of wind loading,
lateral strength of panels with precompression, floor/wall interaction, accidental removal of
members and many other factors, all under realistic conditions.

Also, the British Ceramic Research Association extensively examined the lateral strength of
masonry walls. The partial collapse of the Ronan Point large panel concrete building due to a
gas explosion (Fig. 9) led the British Ceramic Research Association [12] to examine the
problem in brick building under realistic situations. Several explosion tests on full-scale
buildings were carried out in which rooms were filled with gas. Due to venting, the failure
pressure recorded never reached 35 kN/m2 as now required for the design in the UK. It also
demonstrated the ability of brickwork walls to sustain the lateral loading due to arching
between the supports.

Many of the research findings [12, 13] were incorporated in the limit state code BS 5628: Part
1: 1978[11]. This was the most advanced code of the time and some of its provisions have been
incorporated in the EC 6[14]. Following the UK lead [15, 16], full-scale tests on masonry
buildings were done in Italy and the USA.
Braj P. Sinha 9

Figure 9: The progressive collapse of Ronan Point

6. ADVANTAGES

Structural masonry walls perform various functions, which for a framed structure need to be
provided for separately. The walls provide structure, sub-division of space, thermal and
acoustic insulation, and fire and weather protection. In addition to these environmental and
functional advantages, it offers the following:

6.1. Design advantage

• Simplicity of detailing: The architectural and structural detailing and layout are simple due
to repetitive floor arrangement.

• Freedom of architectural expression: The architect is free to treat the exterior as he


desires, because the internal and the corridor walls carry entire vertical and wind loading.

• Foundation: The loads from bearing walls are distributed rather than concentrated as
happens below column footing resulting in the use of ground with low bearing capacity
without special foundation. This advantage is lost if the ground floor is framed construction
to give open area.
10 Development and potential of structural masonry

• Versatility of Texture and Pattern: There is unlimited choice of colour, texture and
patterns of masonry units.

• Progressive collapse: With the proper care and design, the chance of progressive collapse
is minimal.

• Savings in Energy: requires less energy during construction and occupancy of the building
compared to frame construction.

6.2. Construction advantage

This type of construction does not require large scaffolding. The completion time is about half
of the framed buildings. The floor to floor height can be reduced compared to frame
construction due to the elimination of beams.

6.3. Cost advantage

The initial and maintenance costs are less than concrete and steel frame construction. As much
as 10% saving in Europe over other forms, 7 to 9 % saving per sft. per floor over other
structural forms, such as concrete or steel in the USA and 38% on structure only over concrete
frame in the UK have been reported.

7. POTENTIAL OF MASONRY

All these developments in the field of construction and research were mainly concerned with
domestic buildings, schools and dormitories. Masonry is very strong in compression, but very
weak in tension, hence it cannot be used for slender structures and members, which carry loads
primarily due to bending. This deficiency can be overcome by reinforcing or prestressing to
realise its full potential. A review of the research on reinforced and prestressed masonry is
given elsewhere [17]

7.1. Reinforced and prestressed masonry

Reinforced brickwork was first used in 1825 for the Thames Tunnel by Sir Mark Isambard
Brunel [17] and since then very little was done except in areas subjected to seismic loads. In
India in 1920 [18] it was extensively used for roof slabs, lintels and beams. Due to the short life
of the structures and advent of concrete this type of construction suffered a complete decline.
Braj P. Sinha 11

Figure 10: Masonry water- tank and wind -mill in reinforced and prestressed brickwork

In the UK, the pocket type reinforced retaining walls proved cheaper and more acceptable than
concrete [12]. Its use is limited due to difficulty in reinforcing it against shear. This deficiency
could be overcome by prestressing. Prestressed brickwork up until now has not been used as
extensively as concrete. Some prestressing of brickwork by using threaded bar in the cavity has
been used to enhance the wind resistance of walls in the UK. A prestressed circular water tank
and windmill (Fig. 10) were built as demonstration models by Structural Clay products Ltd. of
the UK.

Some years ago a research and development project investigating the behaviour of prestressed
brickwork beams was undertaken at the University of Edinburgh [19]. The beams were entirely
made of brickwork and only nominal concrete core was used for grouting. These beams were
6m long and tested as simply supported (Fig. 11) to develop the theory and design method for
their use in practice. A further extension of this work was to undertake a comparative study of
the behaviour of similar beams made of brickwork and concrete [20]. It appears from the test
results that prestressed beams made of brickwork and concrete fail at a similar ultimate
moment and their load-deflection relationship is similar.

As a result of this and other works, notably in BCRA [17, 20, 21], a limit state Code of Practice
BS 5628: Part 2 [21] was issued in 1985 in the UK, which paved the way for the use of this
technology. Very little was done in UK in this field except some enterprising engineers used
reinforced and prestressed brickwork for the construction of office buildings (Fig. 12) and
retaining walls for road and railway bridges (Fig. 13).
12 Development and potential of structural masonry

Figure 11: Prestressed masonry beam tests at the University of Edinburgh

Figure 12: The Armitage office building


Braj P. Sinha 13

Figure 13: Retaining wall for a railway bridge

Figure 14: A masonry water tower by E. Dieste

While the west, specially Europe, was busy in drafting codes and harmonising the standards
[14] and thus stifling innovation and creativity, an enterprising and innovative engineer, Dr.
Dieste (1946-2000), was using indigenous, sustainable and low energy input bricks for
designing and building aesthetically pleasing large scale reinforced and prestressed structures
full of character all over the Latin American countries, without importing the western
technology or equipment [22, 23]. These structural brick structures range from water and TV
14 Development and potential of structural masonry

towers (Fig. 14) to warehouses, churches, shopping centres and bus shelters (Figs. 15, 16). The
creations of Dieste were far advanced and superior to anything known in structural masonry
but did not get the same publicity in the west [23]. Although the church of Atlantida (Fig. 17)
was mentioned in the first international masonry conference in 1967 [24], his work became
well known and appreciated and duplicated in Europe only after 1990.

Figure 15: The Seagull petrol station, Salto, Uruguay, by E. Dieste

Figure 16: A shopping centre by E. Dieste

The 19th century saw the triumph of traditional masonry in the shape of Monadnock Building.
Similarly, the buildings designed and built by Dr. Dieste show the triumph of Structural
Brickwork in 20th century.
Braj P. Sinha 15

Figure 17: The Atlantida church, by E. Dieste

8. REFERENCES

[1] The Creolier Society Ltd. - Year Book 1966. Farrington Street, London, E.C.4.

[2] Cross, James C. – “Introduction to Contemporary Bearing Walls” in Proc. National


Brick and Tile Bearing Conference, Washington, 1965.

[3] Structural Clay Products Research Foundation. - European Clay Masonry Load-bearing
Buildings, Geneva. Illinois, USA.

[4] Haller, P. - "The properties of load-bearing brickwork in perforated fired clay bricks for
multi-storey buildings", Lib. Comm. 870, Garston, B.R.S., UK.

[5] Davey, N.; Thomas, F.C. - "The Structural Uses of Brickwork", Structural and Building
Paper No.24, London, Inst. Civil Engineers, 1950.

[6] Onishchik, L. I. - Prohrost’ i ustoichivost’ kamennykh konstructsii (The Strength and


Stability of Masonry Structures), O.N.T.L., USSR, 1937.

[7] Monk Jr., C. B. - “Old and new research on clay masonry bearing walls”, in Proc.
National Brick and Tile Bearing Wall Conference, Washington, 1965.

[8] Davidson, Robert L.; Fisher, T. and Associates; Monk, C. B. - "The brickwalls are only
support in a design for multi-storey buildings", Architectural Record, June, 1952.

[9] Mathur, D. C.; Berry, S. - "Role of Brickwork in Housing in Developing Countries like
India; Case Studies" in Int. Seminar; Workshop on Planning, Design, Construction of
Load-bearing Brick Buildings for Developing Countries, New Delhi, India, 1981.

[10] Santos, F. A.; Sinha, B. P.; Roman, H. R. - “The effect of construction defect on the
strength and behaviour of masonry structures” in Creative Systems in Structural and
construction Engineering. Ed. by A. Singh, AA Balkema, Rotterdam, 2001, pp 587-591.
16 Development and potential of structural masonry

[11] BS 5628: 1978, Code of Practice for structural use of masonry, unreinforced masonry:
Part 1, London, British Standards Institution.

[12] Sutherland, R. J. M. "Brick and Block Masonry in Engineering”, Proc. Inst. Civil
Engineers, London, 1985, pp 31-67.

[13] Sinha, B. P.; Hendry, A.W. - "Structural Testing of Brickwork in a Disused Quarry”,
Proc. Inst. Civil Engineers., Part 1, 1976, pp 153-162.

[14] Eurocode no 6 Unified Rules for masonry Structures, Commission of the European
Communities, Luxembourg, Report EUR 9888, 1988.

[15] Germanino, G.; Macchi, G. – “Experimental research of a frame-idealisation for a


bearing-wall multi-storey structure”, Proc. of the British Ceramic Society, Stoke-on-
Trent, December 1978.

[16] Gulkan, P.; Mayes, R. L.; Clough, R. W. - “Response of a single-storey brick masonry
house to simulated earthquake” in Proc., Vth. International Brick Masonry Conference,
BIA, Virginia, USA, 1979, pp 344-355.

[17] Sinha, B. P.; Pedreschi, R. F. - “ Reinforced and Pre-stressed Brickwork – A study”,


Proc. of the Institution of Engineers, India, Vol. 72, May 1991, pp 1-12.

[18] Brebner, A. - “Some notes on Reinforced Brickwork”, Technical Paper 38, Vol 1& 2,
Public Works Department, Government of India, 1919.

[19] Pedreschi, R. F.; Sinha, B. P. - “Development and investigation into the ultimate load
behaviour of post-tensioned brickwork beams”, The Structural Engineer, Vol. 60B, No.
3, Sept. 1982, pp 63-67.

[20] Uduehi, J.; Sinha, B.P. - “A comparative study of prestressed beam of brickwork and
concrete”, Proc. 1st Int. Masonry conference, London 1986, pp 92-94.

[21] BS 5628: 1985, Code of Practice for reinforced and prestressed masonry: Part 2,
London, British Standards Institution.

[22] Pedreschi, R. F.; Sinha, B. P.; McLachlan, M. - “The remarkable brick buildings of
Eladio Dieste”, Ibstock Design, Vol. 5, No. 8, July 1996, pp 12-16.

[23] Pedreschi, R. F. - The Engineer’s contribution to contemporary architecture, RIBA


Publication, Thomas Telford, 2000.

[24] Mikluchin, P. T. –“ Morphotonics of Masonry structures”, Designing, Engineering, and


Constructing with Masonry Products, Gulf Publication, 1969, pp 13-18.

Você também pode gostar