Masonry Walls Subjected to Vertical and
Lateral Loading in compliance with EC6
by
K F HANSEN1, C M PEDERSEN1 and L G HAGSTEN2
1
Danish Building Research Institute, DK-2970 Hørsholm, Denmark.
2
Engineering College of Aarhus, DK-8000 Aarhus, Denmark
Corresponding author: Klavs Feilberg Hansen, Department of Building Design and Technology,
Danish Building Research Institute, Dr. Neergaards Vej 15, DK-2970 Hørsholm, Denmark. E-mail: kfh@sbi.dk
ABSTRACT
This paper describes how the rules in EN 1996-1-1
Eurocode 6: 'Design of masonry structures' can be
implemented and used to verify the safety of load-bearing
unreinforced masonry walls.
The implementation described is based on a plastic
(calculation) model of the walls assuming that the tensile
strength of masonry perpendicular to bed joints is zero.
Using a plastic model makes it natural to replace the
specification of the eccentricity of the vertical load on the
wall, which defines the point where the vertical load acts,
with an eccentricity interval specifying all the points where
the vertical load can be transferred to the wall.
For walls subjected to mainly vertical loading, a beam
model of the wall is used. For walls subjected to mainly
lateral loading, a modified yield-line model is used. The main
problem of the approach described is the determination of
the eccentricity intervals. A more accurate determination of
these eccentricities than given in this paper requires more
research into the behaviour of the joints between walls and
floors either experimentally or by means of an advanced
finite element program that takes cracking in the bed joints
into account.
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper describes how the rules in EN 1996-1-1
Eurocode 6: 'Design of masonry structures' can be
implemented and used to verify the safety of load-bearing
unreinforced masonry walls.
The rules about how to take different geometrical lay-outs
and shapes of the walls into account, such as single-leaf
walls, double-leaf walls, wall openings and vertical chases or
recesses in the walls are straightforward and pose no
serious problems.
In contrast to this the code is not very precise about what
calculation model to use for the walls and their connections
to other walls and floors in a building. This ambiguity is
probably a deliberate choice by the code writers, because
little consensus exists about what calculation model to use.
Since the eccentricities of the vertical loads on the walls to
be used in a calculation depend on the assumptions made in
the calculation model, the ambiguity in the code about how
to determine this eccentricity follows from the ambiguity
about what calculation model to use.
The implementation described in this paper is based on a
plastic (calculation) model of the walls assuming that the
tensile strength of masonry perpendicular to bed joints is
zero. With these assumptions the safety of a wall is verified
if it is possible to find a stress distribution or distribution of
forces in the wall in equilibrium with the loads on the wall,
which can be transferred to adjacent walls and floors. The
distribution and magnitude of the forces should also meet
the condition that all normal stresses are compression
stresses not exceeding the compression strength of
masonry.
In this approach the specification of the eccentricity of the
vertical load on a wall, which defines the point where the
vertical load acts on the wall, is replaced by an eccentricity
interval specifying all the points where the vertical load can
be transferred to its supports and depends on how the
supports are shaped.
For small vertical loads this procedure results in very low
values for the ability of a wall to carry lateral loads. In such
cases one can either use an elastic model of the wall taking
into account the small tensile strength of masonry
perpendicular to bed joints, or one can use a more elaborate
plastic model of the wall in the form of a modification of the
yield-line theory. Only the latter approach will be described
and discussed.
2. ECCENTRICITY INTERVALS
Failure modes and transmission of vertical loads in a wall
between two stiff floors are shown in Figure 1. Depending on
the direction of the lateral load two similar failure modes can
develop.
An eccentricity interval for a wall indicates where forces
can be transmitted from adjacent walls or floors to the wall
either at the top or bottom of the wall. In Figure 1 the
eccentricity interval extend over the whole wall thickness at
both the top and bottom of the wall. Disregarding the effect
of slenderness and self-weight of the wall, the relation
between p, N and the compressive strength fc of masonry is
t N
p =8 2
(1 − ) N (1)
h tf c
where h is the height of the wall and t is the thickness. This
expression can either be found by using the work equation
on the failure mechanism HAGSTEN [1] or by expressing
moment equilibrium in the middle section of the wall in the
centre of the compression zone. In [1] Equation (1) is
compared with a large number of tests results reported in
WEST [2] and excellent agreement is found. Figure 2 shows
how the eccentricity intervals might be determined for
different support conditions.
In order to take construction imperfections into account an
initial eccentricity ei is introduced in EC6. In this
implementation this is done by narrowing the eccentricity
intervals as shown in Figure 3.
 N N
p

N N

Figure 1 Failure modes and transmission of vertical loads in a wall

(a) (c)
Eccentricity interval is thickness of wall
Eccentricity interval is breadth of head

Eccentricity interval is thickness of wall Eccentricity interval is thickness of wall

(b) (d)
Eccentricity interval is half the thickness of wall

Eccentricity interval is breadth of head

Eccentricity interval is half the thickness of wall Eccentricity interval is half the thickness of wall

Figure 2 Determination of eccentricity intervals for different support conditions for a wall. In (a) and (c) the
floors are stiff in relation to the wall. In (b) and (d) the stiffness of the floors is comparable to that of the wall

ei
Figure 3 Taking the initial eccentricity into account
3. SAFE DISTRIBUTION OF FORCES
The general case for determining the forces in a wall is
shown in Figure 4.
The bending moment Mx and normal force Nx in a
horizontal section x from the top of the wall is:
M x = ½ px ( h − x ) + N 1 t h (α ( h − x ) + β x − h 2) − ρ d lt 2 (½ − β ) x (2)
N x = N1 + ρ d ltx
To investigate whether a safe distribution of forces
corresponding to a given set of loads N1, p can be found, the
following procedure can be used:
1. Determine the eccentricity intervals in the top and bottom
of the wall depending on the shape of the supports of the
wall.
2. Narrow the eccentricity intervals in order to take
construction imperfections into account as shown in
Figure 3.
3. Determine α and β corresponding to the points of action
for the vertical load in top and bottom of the wall. The
determination of α and β is exemplified in Figure 5, which
shows how β is determined when the direction of the
lateral load is from left to right.
When α and β have been determined, the moments and
normal forces in all horizontal sections in the wall can be
calculated using Equations (2) and (3).
If the narrowed eccentricity intervals are wide enough to
allow the vertical forces to be transmitted to adjacent walls
and floors without exceeding the compression strength of
masonry, the requirements in EC6 at the top and bottom of
the wall are satisfied (Equations (6.4) and (6.5) in EC6). The
requirement in the middle of the wall is a function of the
eccentricity due to loads em in the middle of the wall, which
is
em = M h 2 N h 2
t x=Nx /f c
x
ei
narrowed interval
eccentricity interval
When this quantity is known, the verification of the safety is
straightforward taking creep, slenderness and eccentricity
into account by using Equation (6.8) and Annex G in EC6.
4. WALLS LOADED WITH SMALL VERTICAL LOADS
For small vertical loads the procedure described above often
(3) results in unrealistically low values for the ability of a wall to
carry lateral loads.
A reason for this is that in walls, stiffened at one or two
vertical edges, EC6 only takes this stiffening effect into
account by reducing the effective height of the wall so that
the effect of slenderness of the wall is reduced. However, a
major effect of stiffened edges, especially when the vertical
load is small, is that the wall cannot fail along a single line of
failure as shown in Figure 1, but oblique and in some cases
also vertical lines of failure have to form. This was also
observed in [2] when walls with returns were tested.
The obvious choice of calculation model in this case is the
yield-line theory which is also proposed (allowed) in EC6.
In EC6 it is suggested that the vertical load is taken into
account by using an apparent flexural strength fx1,app for
bending about a horizontal axis as
f x1,app = f x1 + σ
where fx1 is the flexural strength for bending about a
horizontal axis and σ is the compressive stress
perpendicular to bed joints. In this approach moments
originating from eccentric vertical loads must be treated as
loads on the wall contributing to the external work in the
work equations for the failure mechanism in the wall.
Instead of splitting the effect of vertical loads in two as
above, it seems more logical to treat all the effects of the
vertical loads as contributions to the external work in the
work equation. The failure mechanism in a rectangular wall
is shown in Figures 6 and 7.
 at
p N1

h
x

N 2=N 1+ rd lth

bt

Figure 4 Wall loaded with a lateral load p and a vertical load N1.
The length of the wall is l, the thickness is t and the height is h. ρd is the dry density of the wall

tx=N x /fc
x

e ei
i
t h/2

N2 =N1+ rd lth bt

narrowed interval

eccentricity interval

Figure 5 Determination of β when the lateral load acts from left to right
 1 2 1 2

u
u u

n m m

s s s

Figure 6 Failure mechanism in a rectangular wall. Two vertical cuts shown with exaggerated wall thickness

at at
p N1 N1

u
u
v2 v2
gt

x m

v1 v1 gt
s
s

N2 = N 1 + r lth N2 = N 1 + r lth

bt bt

Figure 7 Geometric quantities determining the internal and external energy in a failure mechanism
 The letters u, s, m and n designate the rigid bodies
participating in the failure mechanism.
The contributions to the internal and external energy in the
failure mechanism are:
Internal energy
1) From lines of failure as in usual yield-line theory.
2) From the horizontal line of failure between rigid bodies
u and s.
3) From the horizontal lines of failure at top and bottom of
the wall.
search procedure for minimizing p. Such a program could
easily be made by modifying an existing program based on
the yield-line theory.
In this course of action the slenderness of the wall is not
taken into account.
In order to take the effect of the slenderness into account
in a very approximate way, one can use the elastic solutions
given in TIMOSHENKO [3] and NIELSEN [4].
For walls stiffened on one vertical edge the lateral load p
determined according to the modified yield-line theory is
reduced with the factor

External energy Nh 2
F1 = 1 +
1) From the lateral load p. N cr − N h 2
2) From the vertical load N.
3) From the self-weight of the rigid bodies u, s, m and n. where Ncr is the Euler load for the wall determined as
π 2 EI
Only the contributions to the work equation that differ from N cr =
the normal use of yield-line theory will be described. h2
The values of α and β are determined as above. γ is where E is the coefficient of elasticity, I is the bending
determined as stiffness of the wall disregarding the stiffened edge and h is
Nx the height of the wall.
γ = 1− For walls stiffened on two vertical edges the lateral load p
ltf c determined according to the modified yield-line theory is
where Nx is determined from Equation (3). reduced with the factor
Nh 2
The contributions to the internal energy from the horizontal F2 = 1 +
lines of failure are 4 N cr − N h 2
E i
top
=½ f t v l
2
c top 2
5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Eibottom = ½ f c t bottom
2
v1l
The decisive issue in the methods described is the
Eim = ½ f c t m2 (v1 + v2 )l m determination of the eccentricity intervals. It follows from the
where requirements in EC6 that the largest intervals possible are
l is the length of the wall; intervals extending over the whole thickness of the wall. The
lm is the length of the horizontal line of failure in the middle of suggestions on how to determine the eccentricity intervals
the wall; given in Figure 2 represent only a rough estimate. A more
t top = N1 /(lf c ) is the thickness of the compression zone accurate determination requires test data on joint behaviour
as pointed out by SAHLIN [5]. Since such data do not exist
in the top of the wall; at present, this is not a practical solution. Another approach
t bottom = N 2 /(lf c ) is the thickness of the compression could be to model the joint between the walls and the floors
using an advanced finite element program, taking cracking
zone in the bottom of the wall;
into account. This last approach is also not a practical
t m = N x /(lf c ) is the thickness of the compression zone in solution unless someone makes a systematic investigation
the middle of the wall. using such a program.

The contribution to the external energy from the vertical load
N1 is
EeN = (v1 (γ − β ) + v2 (γ − α )) N1t
The contributions to the external energy from the weight of
the rigid bodies u, s, m and n are
E eu = (v1 (γ − β ) + v2 (γ − ½))twu
Ees = v1 (½ − β )tws
Eem = v1 (γ − β )twm
Een = v1 (γ − β )twn
where wu, ws, wm and wn are the weight of the rigid bodies'
u, s, m and n.
Setting the external energy equal to the internal energy,
an upper boundary for the lateral load p can be found. In
order to determine the least value of p, it is necessary to
build this procedure into a computer program containing a
REFERENCES
1. HAGSTEN, L G. Laterally loaded unreinforced masonry
wall stabilized by a vertical load or by arching action
between the restrains at the top and bottom of the wall
(in Danish). Bygningsstatiske meddelelser. Årgang
LXXIV, nr.4, December 2003, pp 95-102.
2. WEST, H W H, HODGKINSON, H R, WEBB, W F. The
Resistance of Clay Brick Walls to Lateral Loading. The
British Ceramic Research Association. Technical note
No. 176, 1971.
3. TIMOSHENKO, S P and WOINOWSKY-KRIEGER, S.
Theory of Plates and Shells. International edition,
McGraw-Hill, Singapore, 1970, pp 387-389.
4. NIELSEN, M P and PILEGAARD, H L. Mechanics 3.2.
Columns and Beam Columns (in Danish). Den private
Ingeniørfond ved Danmarks tekniske Højskole. Aalborg
1973, pp 86-91.
5. SAHLIN, S. Plea for an EN Standard Test of Floor/Wall
Joints. Masonry International. The British Masonry
Society. Vol 17, No 1, 2004.