45.

-The Stability of Load-bearing Brickwork Structures Following

Accidental Damage to a Major Bearing Wall or Pier
by J. MORTON, S. R. DAvlES and A. W. HENDRY
Dept. 01 Civil Ellgineerillg, University 01 Edinburgh

ABSTRACT La Stabilité des Constructions en Die Stabi/ital lastt/'agender Ziege/-

Maçonnerie en Brique Porteuse à la mauerwerk-Konstruktionen nacl, Be-
As a result of lhe Ronan Paim co/- Suite d'une Détério"ation AccidenteJle schãdigung eine,' wichtige"en last-
lapse, a number of ellgineers and Survenue à un Mur Principal Porteur tragenden Mauer bzw. eines Stütz-
designers of brickwork struclllres ou à un Pilier pfeilers dUl'c/r Unfallseinwirkung
became cOllcerned abour lhe possibility A la suile de I' eJJondremel11 de /nfolge eles Einslurzes l'on Ronan
of a similar Iype of col/apse ill brick ROl1an Paim , un cerlain nombre Paint wurde eine A nzahl von /n-
slrue/ures. The authors have ;11- genieuren und Konstrukteuren \lon
d' ingénieurs el de specialistes de la
vesligaled lhe possibility of such a COIlSlrUClial1 en maçonnerie en briques Ziegelmauenverk-Konslruktianen mil
col/apse ;n a Ilumher of high-rise Qlld se sont sentis coneern és par la pos- der Moglichkeil iilm/ich erfolgender
low-rise structures, selected so as to sibilité de pareils effondrements dons Zusammenstürze 1'011 Ziegelballten
be representative of modem building des cons/ructialls el1 briques. Les kon[ronlierl. Die Autoren haben die
designo The assessment Iras made auteurs ant examiné la possibilité d'un Moglichkeil eines solchen Einsturzes
on lhe basis Ihal, afler local failure tel effondrement dans !In eertain in einer A flzahl hoher und niedriger
af one load-bearing member, olher nombre de cOl1structians élel'ées ou de Baulell sludiert. Die A!lslVaM erfolgle
slrue/ural members must prol/ide an faible hauteur, ehoisies de façol1 à repriisenlativ für moderne Bauweisen.
alterna/ive pa/h of support. This étre représen ta/ives de la COllstructiol1 Mall ging I'on der Anna/une aus,
alternative palh brought imo play moderne. 011 a pris comme base da) nach ortlicher Beschiieligung eines
eilher lhe strellglh of lhe floor slab de I' él'alualioll le fail que, apres la lasllragenden Teiles alldere KOIl-
or lhe bearillg support supplied by rupture lacale de l'un des éléments slrllkliollsteile eillen lleUel1 Halt bello-
011 orthogonal 11'011. The assessmen!
porteurs, les mUres éléments de la tigell. Dadureh !Vird entweder die
of elel/ell major Mgh-rise (greater construetioll del'aient fournir /In effort Fesligkeil der SlocklVerksdecke oder
lhan six storeys) alld eight lo )t!-rise porteur sllpplém enlaire. Ce! effort elie AbsfülzlIlIg durch eine im rechten
load-bearing brickwork structures, supplémentaire mel en jeu, soit la Winkel dazu I'erlaufende Mauer ins
led to lhe identificotioll of a number résislal1ce de la dalle de plallel"r, Spiel gebrachl . Die Be!Ver/Ung l'on
of situations whieh eould be criticaI sait le supparl porleur [oumi par un el[ grossen (mit mehr aIs sechs
anel whieh 1I'0uld require investigation. mur orlhogonal. L'él'aluation de onze Stockwerken) ul1d acht kleinerel1
These criticaI situations are outlined construcliol1s en maçol1llerie en brique lasllragendel1 Z iegelmauerwerkbaUfen
alld melhods of calculalillg lhe slabilil)' porteuse de hauleur élevée (supérieure lie) eine Reihe 11011 Situationen
of lhe structure are described. à 6 élages) el de huil de faible hauleur erkennel1, elie kritisch sein konnten
a conduit à l'idenlifieatioll d'un certain tlnd darum unterstleht werden müjJten.
nambre de situatiolls qui pOlll'aient Diese kritischen Siluationen sinel
étre critiques et requéraient une étude . skizziert llnd Bereclllllmgsl'nethoden
Ces situatians critiques sont esquissées für die Stabilitãt der Konstrllktionen
el les méthodes de calcul de la sind beschrieben.
stobilité de la eOf1Sfrlle/ioll sont
décriles.

1. INTRODUCfION modern brickwork construction, were chosen as being a

The Ron an Point collapse brought into the philosophy representative sample.
of everyday design the concept of local failure of a load· 11 was hoped at the outset that it would be possible to
bearing wall or pier leading 10 general collapse. Such a identify a number of typical situatio ns which rnight be
local failure could result from a domestic gas explosion regarded as potentially dangerous and which would
or other accidentaI cause such as impact from a vehicle. require particular attention in structural designo
At the request of the Director of the Building Research
Station, the authors undertook an examination of a 2. BASIS OF ASSESSMENTS
number of high·rise* and low·rise load·bearing brick ln broad principie the standards set out in the Ministry
structures to assess their susceptibility to a partial col· of H ousi ng & Local Government circular 2 together
lapse of the type witnessed at Ronan Point ;1 eleven with the lnstitution of Structural Engineers note '
high-rise and eight lo w- rise structures, which were be- referring to precast concrete panel construction were
lieved to incorporate most of lhe design features found in initially taken by the authors as the basis of assessment
of actual designs.
• Defincd for the purpose or th is paper as being greater lhan six In these documents, two basic methods for avo iding a
storeys. partial collapse were suggested:
276
 J. Morton, S. R. Davies and A. W. Hendry 277
Method A: By providing alternative paths of support
to carry the load, assuming the removal af a criticai
,
section of the load-bearing wall.
Method B: By providing a form of construction of
5uch strength and continuity as lo ensure lhe stability
of the building against forces liable to damage the load-
supporting members.
The assessment was based wholly on Method A where
a criticai section Df a load-bearing wall was assumed to
have been removed by some accidental cause, and lhe
provision of an alternative path was necessary.
As lhe alternative palh of support, following lhe
removal of sections of load-bearing wall, frequenlly
depends on the strength of the fioor slab, yield-line
melhods were used lo assess the probable strength of
these elements. At the time these calculations were carried
oUl, the anly offieial guidance on increased permissible
stresses re!ating to a structure which has suffered acci-
dental darnage was lhat given in the Ministry circular 2
which prescribed allowable st resses of 1·75 times those
normally used in the design af reinforced concrete ele-
ments. Accordingly, this faclor was adopted although
it was recognized lhat this would be conservative in
relation to brickwork where the normal load factor is
of lhe order of 3·5 or more. Possible diaphragm or
arching effects in slabs were not , however, taken into (a) (h)
account. FIGURE l- Wall configurations liable to Case A failure: (a) with
small return wall; (b) without return wall.
lt was assumed lhal unsupported brickwork will span
an opening of the order of 10- 20 ft, provided that its Case C: Where the removal of a section of a wall
depth is at leasl equal to lhe span. lt was also assumed imposes high local bearing stresses on a return wall or
that brickwork will, under suitable conditions, cantilever walls.
or cor bel distances of this order; it is passible that in Typical illustrations of these cases are shown in
this case the brickwork below a line through the poinl Figures 1,2 and 3.
0
of supporl at an angle of 30°-45 may break away from In Case A (Figure I(a) and (b» the removal of a
the wall, although little information is available on this. panel of brickwork will leave the remaining sections of
The high-rise structures which were examined com- the wall suspended on the fioor slabs above. In Case B
prised solely fiats and student hostels; two blocks were (Figure 2(a) and (b» the walls above the damaged wall,
af ten storeys, three of twelve, two of thirteen, one of will have to be carried by the fioor slabs supported around
fourteen, two of fifteen and one af sixteen storeys. their perimeter by remaining walls. Case C (Figure 3)
The low-rise structures comprised fiats, student hostels arises where the unsupported brickwork spans ar canti-
and schools, and were all of four or five storeys in height. levers across the opening left by lhe removal of a wall
The procedure was to examine the wall la yout drawings panel, resulting in the application of a concentrated load
to identify situatians in which it seemed possible that on the return wall. It rra; also be necessary to examine
collapse might take place following the removal of a
section of laad-bearing wall. This section was taken to
mean the whole length of a wall which had no returns
or the section of a wall between returns or between a
free end and a returno Where the return end was small,
it was assumed to bc rcmoved with lhe main wall as
suggested in the ISE note.' A return end was deemed to
be small if it was less than 5 ft in length. The remova I of
sections of load-bearing wall at various storey leveis
(a)
was considered, as the lowermost wall in such structures
is not necessarily the most criticaI. This was particularly
noticeable in the high-rise structures where the wall
section, and the quality of both brick and mortar,
varied with heighl.
Examination of lhe buildings suggested that three
main situations exist which require invest igation in
relation to partial collapse:
Case A: Where lhere is an outside wall without
returns or only one internai returno
(b)
Case B: Where there is an internai wall without returns. FIGURE 2- Wall figurations liable to Case B failure.
278 Stability of Load-bearing Brickwork Structures Following Accidental Damage
J on each storey. Five of these eight cases did in fact
produce stresses in the floor slab higher than the in-
creased permissible and mUSI be deemed unsatisfactory.
Cases of possible collapse were identified in three of the
seven low-rise structures examined. This was due in the
main to tbe lack of ftoor cont inuity caused by using
precast beam- screed ftoor construction. These cases
could afTect up to 45 %of the ftoor area on each storey.
In certain instances where precast flooring was used,
the removal of a load-bearing wall would resul! in only
the ftoor, which it had been supporting, collapsing; the
rest of the structure remaining stable. In three of the
--

J- :
~ - >-- +--,--

~~,,;~ === ,,===--- í

~" " -'f.~~
" ..~.. "I
eleven high-rise structures examined, Case C was also
identified; and in two of these, stresses were evaluated

""
""
l
, I1

""
"'~"''''''~
-"

J which exceeded the increased permissible stress and were

therefore unsatisfactory.

~t
~ """ ,.
t: ::~: ",;=",===:: : " .... In such cases where the increased permissible st ress
" .,'. was exceeded, it does not necessarily follow that there
~,· · ' t~, will be collapse as the increased permissible is nOI
1 i! mml
I= ==.i - n
"
always the ultimate, and it is well known that concrete
I
~.:1
slabs can withstand very considerable deformation with-
I out actual fracture.
The remaining structures, which would appear to be
FIGURE 3-Wall configurations liable 10 Case C fai lu re. satisfactory, demonstrate that it is quite possible to
achieve a load-bearing structure which is not liable to
the stressing of a brickwork cantilever such as is shown collapse fo llowing the failure of one major load-bearing
in Figure 3, to ascertam whether Of not it can be assumed brickwork element withoul having to resort to special
to act as a unified element; ir not it must be considered measures.
under Case A.
In calculating the stability of the structure following 4. CONCLUSIONS
the removal of a section of wall the loads taken into Systematic and easily applied checks can be carried out
account were as follows: to guard against the liability of a partial collapse through-
(a) The dead load of the wall above the resulting out the height of a structure (Appendixes I and 2).
opening. The situations in which liability to such a collapse
requires to be investigated are:
(b) The dead load of tbe flOOL
(c) A uniformly distributed load of 10 Ibf/ft 2 on the (a) where there are isolated lengths of wall without
flOOL returns, or with small returos, particularly on the peri-
meter of a building ; or
The ultimate strengths of the floor slabs were then (b) where failure of a retum wall occurs due to exces-
calculated appropriate to the various loading conditions sive bearing stresses when it is called upon to support
using the yield-line method. 4•s an area ofwall spanning ar cantilevering over an opening
In cases where the support of walls above an opening created by accidental damage,
is dependent 00 a remaining return wall it was necessary There would appear to be little difficuJty in designing
to calculate the bearing in the brickwork. brickwork buildings to satisfy the requirements of the
ISE note" in regard to partial collapse.
3. DETAILED ASSESSMENTS Where precast floor units have been used, special
The floor slabs in ali high-rise structures were in siru consideration must be given, as they would not normally
and the increased permissible mornent was calculated be able to support sections of \Vali by bending act ion
assuming increased permissible stresses of 1·75 times the and \Vou ld be liable 10 drop if the section of wall sup-
normal working values as in the British Standards and porting them was accidentally removed, even ir the
Codes of Practice. As detailed information regarding brickwork did, in fact , span over the opening. 7
slab reinforcement was not available, calculations were These conciusions apply to buildings designed in
based on the assumption of 'criticaI' percentage of accordance with normal current practice for brickwork
reinforcement; the actual steel percentage may in prac- structures.
tice be sornewhat lower than this.
The floors in three of the low-rise structures were also REFERENCES
in situ, the remainder \Vere, however, of precast beam- 1. MI NISTRY OF HOUSING & LOCAL GOVERNMENT, RepOr! of the
Inquiry into the Collapse of Flats at Ronan Point , Canning
screed construction with, in certain cases, a limited amount T own. Londoo, H.M.S.O. , 1968.
of steel-framing support where large floor areas and 2. MI NISTRYOF HOUSING & LOCAL GOVER NMENT, FiaIs Conslructed
spans were required. with Precast Concrele Panels. Appraisal and Strengthening
of Existing High Block s : Dcsign of New Blocks. C ircular
In eight of the e1even high-rise structures examined, 62/68.
cases were identified in which there was possibility of 3. INSTITUTION OF STRUCTURAL ENGINF.ERS, Notes for Guidance
o n the Interpretation of Appendix I to Ministry of Housing
collapse under Case A or B. These cases could afTect & Local Govcrnment Circular 62j68. R .P.j68j02. London,
between 2 % and 7 % of the floor area of the structure r.S.E., t 968.
 J. Morton, S. R. Davies and A. W. Hendry 279
4. JOHA NSEN, K. W., Yicld Linc Theory. Lendon , Ccment & Brickwor k and Blockwork to A void Collapse Fo llowing an
Concrete Association, 1962. Internai Explosion. R.P./68j03 . Lendon, l.S.E., 1968 .
5. JONES, L. L. and WOOD. R. H., Yield Line Analysis af Slabs. 7. H ASE LTINE. B. A. and TIiOMAS, K. , Loadbearing Brickwork-
Landon, Thames & Hudson, Chatto & Windus, 1967. D esig n fo r Accidental Forces. C.r.T.B. Technica l Note.
6 . I NSTITUTION Of STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, Guidance 00 lhe Lendon, Clay Products Tech nical BlIreau, July, 1969.
Dcsign of Domestic A cco mmodation in Load-bcaring

Appendix I
CASE A OR B FAILURE

The part-strllcture shown in Figure 4 is to be ana lysed E- [f3U aU] P(2L - C)C
LO assess whether the externai wall can be supported, - p "6 +3 + 2L
were the wall directly beneath wall Z , accidentall y
removed . The strucLUre was approximated to that shown where E = work done by externalloads/llnit displacement
in Figure 5 with ali the internai supports assumed to be of mechanism ;
clamped, and the yield-line patlern shown in Figure 6(a) p = weight of ftoor slab/ft 2 ;
was tried . This calculation suggested, however, that lhe P = weight of wall /ft run.
two yield lines met before the free edge as in Figure 6(b). a, f3, C as in Figure 6.
Wilh thi s pattern and using the work method, p = 6-in. slab = 72 Ibf/ft 2
fini shes = 12 Ibf/ft 2
distributed load = 10 Ibf/ft 2

WAll Z

T
·0

~
P: li-in . cavity wall , 8-ft high: P = 660 Ib/ h run.
a=0 ·6 ; C = 8 fI.
1 Giving E = 6267f3+ 11 7441b ft

FIGURE 4-Parl struct ure to be examined for Case A failure . D = m[4a+ a~f3+4i, a + <x~f3]
with a= 0·6 I'=t, i, =t, i 2 =t
t - - 2" - - --J we evaluate D :

(2-4 ~4f3)]
P lbs.lunit l~n!i1th.

T
N
D = ml3+
where D = internal dissipation ofwork in lhe yie ld lines;
P Ibsl Ul"llt arca m = minimum designed mornent for slab.
1 Equating D and E we obtain express ion for IH
FIG URE 5- Jdealized par! Slructu re.
111 = f3 +..:,-1_I 7_44
_62_6_7,-
( I)
I
3+ (H - 4f3)

To find the minimum moment dM = 0

dB

giving f3=0·146, which when substituted in eqn. (I)

(a) gives m=42 800 Ib/ in .
Tbe slab, assuming the use of reinforced concrete Wilh
I-- c~ permissible stresses of 1000 Ibf/ in 2 for concrete and
20 000 Ibf/in 2 for steel, and assuming a criticai section
has a design moment gi ven by:
I
L
m .~~
M = 250 bd2 assuming 0·75-in. cover lO steel
-J'm = 250 x 12 x 5.25 2
= 82688 Ib/in .
--l
t-- 112 Permissible moment = 1·75M= 144700 Ib/ in.
f-.- - - Since the slab has been designed to take a moment
(b) greater lhan lhe minimum moment, wall B will be
FIGURE 6--Yield-line patterns for idealized part st ructu re. carried by the 600r slab and the part structure is safe.
280 Stability of Load-bearing Brickwork Structures F ollowing Accidental Damage
Appendix 2
CASE C FAILURE
In the majarity af high-rise structures, the starey height, This, plus the stress due to fioor loads, must not be
H (ft), and length af wall, L (ft), are constant throughout greater than the increased permissible stress for the type
the height. The wall thickness may be altered throughout of brickwork at the storey levei under consideration,
the height of the structure as may be the properties of
Example
the brick and mortar.
eonsidering the part-structure in Figure 9, with the
Considering a layout where
brickwork properties as shown, and aIternatively wall
the wall thickness 11 (in.) remains constant for PI storeys A or B removed, there are four cases to be considered.
t 2 (in.) remains constant for P2 storeys
el. Wall A removed aI ground levei
t} (in.) remains constant for P3 storeys
e2. Wall A removed at ninth storey
etc. the part of the structure under consideration, Figure e3. Wall B removed at ground levei
7, cao be idealized to a structure as in Figure :5. e4. Wall B removed at ninth storey
The volume of the wall to be supported is then given by
Case Cl
I
V=LH[P 11 + P 12 +.. 2
.]ft 3 Eleven storeys above; seven walls of 15'S-in, thickness
12 12 (13'5 in. of brickwork) and four walls of II·O-in. thick-
ness (9 in. of brickwork)
and the weight is given by
y= 110 Ib/ft 2
LHy[ Storey height =8ft
M= 12 Pl l á P ,I,+ ] Ib
Floor slab = 7-in. thickness
where y = density (lb/ft 3)
At the section under consideration the bearing area af Bearing pressure 110 x 8 x 8 (4 x 9+ 7 x 13'5)
brick on top of the fioar slab is lo /1 in', and assuming 12 x 13·5 x (13'5 + 7)
a 45" dispersion through the fioor slab, the bearing area = 277 Ibf/in 2
on the top of the brickwork is lo (I I + d) where d - depth
of slab. Floor loads: 7-in. slab = 84lbf/ft 2
The bearing pressure then becomes finishes= 121bf/ft 2
distributed load = 10 Ibf/ft Z
'" L~Hy. ,,[Pl l l+ P2 12+ ... ... ... .. ... .. ... ...... . " ,'+P nln]lbf/in 2
I06lbf/ft 2
where n refers _to the last storey set.
23 ' .1

f- •." --j 1--'" --I

WALL C WALl A
:

,,
,, t WAll B T.~

FIGURE 7-Part structure with wall configurations liablc to Case C

ir
1
'o
~
failure.

/~ -L
:lO
\..
T

/. -->- ~ 12 ....
Bt içk
Typ.
Crusning

f~~1in~i~'
Mortat

.!~
11
, 500 1:3
~..-4- I "
b 3 000 1: 3
T "

1
=~

l..
~
l y " t, ~ J:::tt: i .-;
'~ o
· U
:!\.
, .,;(,1%0;
T I o
t. -'- ~

êrick
----"+t, r'" T Yile

FIGURE 8-Idealized structure liable to Case C failure. FIGURE 9-Part strilcture analysed for Case C failure.
 J. Morton, S. R. Davies and A. W. Hendry 281
Wall B is assumed to carry one·third of the fioor load . IlOx8x 17 .
from spans on either side. Total load per storey carried Beanng pressure = 12 x 9 (9+ 7)(3 x 9) = 234 lbf/In 2
by wall B = 2 x 460/3 x 106 Ib = 32 507 Ibf
Wall B carries twelve storeys = 390 080lbf Wall A (and wall C together) carry four fioors; 10;ct=
130 028 Ibf
Stress in wall B due to fioor = 390 080 = 1421bf/in 2
17x12x13'5 Stress due to fioor loading= 130 028 =831bf/in 2
14'5x12x9
Total stress due to wall bearing pressure plus fioor
loading=419Ibf/ in 2 Total slress due to wall bearing pressure plus fioor
loading = 317 Ibf/in"
Case C2 The basic permissible slresses are taken from Table 3,
Three storeys above ali of II·O·in. wall thickness. CP 111 , allowing a 50% overstress according to Clause
315(e) (wall subjected lo concentrated loads), and this
IIOx8x8 (3 x 9) slress is then multiplied by a factor of 1·75 to obtain
Bearing pressure the increased permissible stress.
12x9x(9+ 7)
When this is done for the cases considered we arrive
= 110 Ibf/in 2 at permissible stresses of:
Wall B carries four fioors; load on wall B = 4 x 32 507 = 8271bf/in 2 for 4500 bricks with 1: 3 morlar.
130 028 Ibf. 630 Ibf/in 2 for 3000 bricks with I: 3 morta r.
130 028 As can be seen from Table 1, this part structure is safe
Stres. due to fioor loading 71 Ibf/in 2 in Case C failure.
17x 12x9
Total stress due to wall bearing pressure plus fioor T ABLE l - CASE C RESULTS
loading= 181 lbf/in"
Concentrated
stress in Increased
Case C3 Case under brickwork Permissible Remarks
Same storey arrangements as in Case 1 Consideratioll (illcludillg fiaor stress
loads)
. IIOx8 x 17 (Ibflin') (Ib/lin')
Beanngpressure= (4x9 + 7x 13,5)
12 x 13·5 (13,5 + 7)
C1 419 827 Safe
= 588 Ibf/in 2
C2 181 630 Safe
Wall A (and wall C together) carry twelve fioors ;
load=390 080 Ibf C3 754 827 Safe

C4 317 630 Safe

Stress due to fioor loading = 390 080 = 1661bf/in2
14·5 x 12 x 13·5
Should any of these cases under consideration have
Total stress due to wall bearing pressure plus fioor exceeded lhe increased permissible value the retum wall
loading= 754 lbf/in" could not be deemed to carry the unsupported wall,
and this would have had to be considered under Case
Case C4 A or B, where the fioor slab would then have been called
Same storey arrangernents as in Case 2 upon lo support lhe wall.