Verification of the fire resistance of clay brick masonry – hints for efficient design

In Germany, structural fire design of masonry is carried out in a simplified way using tabulated minimum wall thicknesses depending on the loading level in fire. Against this background the procedure of structural fire design is shown briefly before two approaches for a more efficient verification of the fire resistance are explained. The first possibility is to determine the reduction factor for the design value of the actions in fire more precisely and thereby reduce the loading level. Secondly, a design methodology is presented which can be applied in case of masonry walls with low vertical load but a large load eccentricity at mid‐height of the wall. Finally, the verification of the fire resistance of masonry according to national technical approval is discussed with an explanation how to obtain the same loading level in fire if the design is based on DIN EN 1996‐3/NA as when it is based on DIN EN 1996‐1‐1/NA.     

Minimum surcharge load of URM walls under flexure and axial force / Mindestauflast bei Biegung mit Normalkraft

This paper suggests a detailed parametric study, which has been drawn up in connection with the question of the necessity of verification of masonry wall by a minimum vertical load subject to bending and normal force by the author and his team [7]. It assumes the actual eccentricities from supporting due floors and takes into account the second order theory in middle of wall according to DIN EN 1996‐1‐1 or the German NA. In some cases, the model is derived for very high wind loads to its limits. Using the arch model which is introduced in DIN EN 1996‐1‐1 and may be applied by NA, is helpful and effective. This method may provide higher capacity rather than for example, with the bar or plate model. In this article the verification by means of the arch model will be presented and discussed. It is also shown that, forming an arch opposing to the horizontal wind load and low vertical loads may not come to a stability failure.     

Reinforced bending load‐stressed masonry – Suggestions for future designs / Bewehrtes biegedruckbeanspruchtes Mauerwerk – Vorschläge für zukünftige Bemessungen

European standardization bodies are currently working on the amendment to EN 1996‐1‐1, which will also affect the evaluation of reinforced masonry in Germany. For that reason, discussion suggestions are being made here for revisions to lay the groundwork for building materials evaluations and especially, evaluations of bending load‐stressed masonry walls or beams at their serviceability limit state (SLS) for load‐bearing capacities. Information already presented in E DIN 1053‐3:2008‐03 [N3] is being incorporated as well. Characteristic values for the compressive strength of the masonry parallel to the bed joints f_k,∥ are essential for the design of reinforced masonry, although they are currently not included in national application documents for Germany. For the time being, they can be mathematically calculated using conversion factors for the characteristic compressive strength values vertical to the bed joints f_k or by using the declared axial compressive strengths of the masonry units. The ultimate strains for masonry in general should be set consistently at ?_mu = ∣–0.002∣ as several masonry types do not exhibit higher compressive strain values. The use of steel strains higher than ?_su = 0.005 does not change any measurement results. Varying stress‐strain curves of the constitutive equations on masonry under compressive strain (parabolic, parabolic‐rectangular, tension block) lead to differing values of recordable bending moments despite having the same mechanical reinforcement percentage at higher normal forces. Therefore, clear guidelines should be made for the type of applicable constitutive equation for masonry walls under compressive strain. With the introduction of a tension block, the number values of the reduction factors λ for the compression zone height x, which is dependent on limit strains, and where applicable, reduced compressive strength, need to be determined, as with reinforced concrete construction. A modification of the bending moment based on the second order theory according to [N4] is presented for the calculation of reinforced masonry walls in danger of buckling. The use of reduction factors for the load capacity of the masonry cross section, such as for unreinforced masonry, does not appear to be appropriate as buckling safety evidence because here, the design task is the determination of a required reinforcement cross section.     

Tragfähigkeitstafeln für unbewehrtes Mauerwerk nach DIN EN 1996‐3/NA:2019‐12

Load‐bearing capacity tables for unreinforced masonry according to DIN EN 1996‐3/NA:2019‐12 Practical design aids are important tools in the day‐to‐day business of structural design. The design of primarily vertically loaded masonry walls in usual building construction can be carried out with the help of so‐called load‐bearing capacity tables. A table value is read off exclusively as a function of the geometric conditions, which – multiplied by the masonry compressive strength – results in the load‐bearing capacity of the wall for cold design and in case of fire. By comparing the acting and resisting force, the verification of structural design can be provided in a simple and yet economical form. The bearing capacity tables based on the simplified calculation methods according to DIN EN 1996‐3/NA:2019‐12 [1], [2] and DIN EN 1996‐1‐2/NA:2013‐06 [3], [4] are presented in this paper. Compared to the previous edition of Part 3 of Eurocode 6, the extended scope of application is taken into account, as well as the normative changes to the construction method with partially supported slabs.     

Out‐of‐plane bending moments in masonry walls – Analysis of different calculation methods

In the course of the revision of EN 1996‐1‐1, a new proposal has been made for the calculation of internal forces in frame‐type structures for the determination of bending moments due to slab rotation. In addition to a stiffness reduction for masonry walls in conjunction with the special features of partially supported slabs, which is already usual in Germany, the calculated ever‐present minimum loadbearing capacity of a wall is also increased due to a reduction of the maximum applied load eccentricity. Another major change is the direct implementation of wind loads in the method to determine the internal forces. To ensure that these changes do not lead to a safety deficit or an uneconomic reduction of the loadbearing capacity compared with the current situation, the results of extensive comparative calculations are presented. In addition, it is examined whether the proposal could conflict with further investigations to extend the conditions for application of the simplified design procedures according to EN 1996‐3. It is shown that the new draft provides similar results to the current method and that there are no concerns about its application. Also, the investigations to extend the conditions for application of the simplified calculation methods can be based on the new proposal without concerns.     

Extended conditions of application of DIN EN 1996‐3/NA for high walls

According to Eurocode 6, unreinforced masonry walls can be designed using different verification methods, whereby the simplified calculation methods are contained in Part 3 of DIN EN 1996 [1]. If the associated application limits and boundary conditions are fulfilled, a large part of the usual problems occurring in masonry construction can be dealt with without great effort. A limiting condition for the application of the simplified calculation methods is a maximum clear wall height of h = 2.75 m or h = 12 ? t. Changes in user requirements for modern buildings with masonry walls nowadays often require greater wall heights, wherefore a verification according to the general rules from DIN EN 1996‐1‐1/NA [2] is necessary. This means a considerably higher effort for the structural engineer. A considerable amount of calculations was done to verify whether the results of the simplified calculation methods are also valid for greater wall heights. The results were transferred into a consistent standardization proposal with regard to extended application limits of DIN EN 1996‐3/NA, which is contained in a new draft Amendment A3 for the National Application Document for Germany.     

Extension of the conditions for application of the simplified calculation methods according to DIN EN 1996‐3/NA for the design of unreinforced masonry walls

Dedicated to University Prof. Dr.‐Ing. Carl‐Alexander Graubner for his 60th birthday The simplified calculation methods for unreinforced masonry structures given in DIN EN 1996‐3/NA are an easily applicable design standard for an efficient and fast verification of the resistance of mainly vertically loaded masonry walls. However, the design rules are not based on mechanical models. Instead, they are empirical approaches for a simplified estimation of the load bearing capacity. For this reason, the range of application of DIN EN 1996‐3/NA is limited by several conditions to ensure a sufficient safety of this design procedure. With regard to extending the conditions for application, extensive comparative calculations were carried out. Thereby, considering clearly defined boundary conditions, the load bearing capacity according to DIN EN 1996‐3/NA was compared to that according to DIN EN 1996‐1‐1/NA. It was the aim of this comparison to identify load bearing reserves of the simplified calculation methods to point out potential for an extension regarding the maximum permissible clear wall height and the slab span. As a result, it can be stated, that an increase of the maximum wall height up to 6.0 m and the maximum slab span of 7.0 m is possible in certain cases.     

Shear resistance verification of late 19th century masonry according to EC 6 – State of the art

A large part of buildings in Central European cities like Vienna was built in the Gründerzeit period between about 1840 and 1918 [1]. These buildings were constructed according to traditional rules. Current urban development requires historic buildings to be structurally adapted, which requires retroactive analysis of the masonry walls; in Austria according to ÖNORM EN 1998‐3 [2] and ÖNORM EN 1996‐3 (EC 6) [3]. Here, special focus is on the load transfer of horizontal earthquake loads, i. e. the shear strength of masonry walls. This paper describes the verification of historic masonry in detail and discusses individual components. Initial shear strength, load‐influenced friction and the length of the compressed part of the wall are first determined using results from experimental testing and relevant literature and then compared to the approaches in EC 6. Based on this analysis, recommendations are provided to make theoretical approaches more realistic.     

Veneer walls of masonry as specified in EC 6 (DIN EN 1996‐2/NA) / Zweischaliges Mauerwerk nach EC 6 (DIN EN 1996‐2/NA)

This article deals with the production of veneer walls as specified in DIN EN 1996‐2/NA [3]. Against this background of the extensive revision of the section for veneer walls an exposition in accordance with the previous requirements as specified in DIN 1053‐1 can hardly be recommended. The necessity for a basic revision of the section for veneer wall construction has already been discussed in detail and justified in several technical articles published in previous years, see [4] to [7]. With many changes and corrections in the section for veneer walls in the National Annex of DIN EN 1996‐2 [8] it is certainly not a question of new rules for this method of building, but an adjustment of the requirements in the previous standard on the basis of the practical experience gained over several years. The new requirements for the execution of cavity facing masonry enable a simple and economic implementation of this external wall construction.     

Reinforced masonry beams under shear load – Proposals for future designs / Bewehrte schubbeanspruchte Mauerwerksbalken – Vorschläge für zukünftige Bemessungen

This article is written against the backdrop of the work of the European standardisation committees on the amendment of EN 1996‐1‐1 [N 4] which will also exert an influence on the design of reinforced masonry in Germany. This paper focusses on the design approaches of DIN EN 1996‐1‐1 for untensioned reinforced masonry beams under shear load in the ultimate limit state (ULS). Proposals are made to discuss their revision. The contents of E DIN 1053‐3 [N 3] and of the final draft of the guideline ”Flat Lintels” [7] are taken into account.     

Proposal for the simplified design of basement walls under lateral earth pressure

This paper deals with the design of basement walls subjected to lateral earth pressure. The current simplified calculation method according to DIN EN 1996‐3/NA only covers active earth pressure, which is the lower limiting value of the earth pressure. Designing according to DIN EN 1996‐1‐1/NA, higher coefficients of earth pressure (like earth pressure at rest) can be considered, with an additional verification of the shear resistance being necessary. This paper presents a theoretical model, which forms the basis for an analytical derivation of the loadbearing capacity, and explains the required minimum values of the acting normal force to ensure sufficient resistance to cover bending and shear. Based on these results, a simplified equation is proposed for the determination of the required minimum normal force, based on the design according to DIN EN 1996‐3/NA and providing identical values in case of an earth pressure coefficient of 1/3. The required minimum load resulting from this approach fulfils the described requirement to cover bending and shear. The presented solution is verified and the conditions for application are defined. Finally, the minimum required normal forces are evaluated and tabulated for common cases relevant to building practice.     

Minimum reinforcement of beam‐type reinforced masonry constructions – proposals for future regulations

The minimum reinforcement of reinforced masonry under bending should according to DIN EN 1996‐1‐1:2013‐02 [N 1], Section 8.2.3(1), be not less than ρ_min = 0.05 % of the effective masonry cross‐section for building elements, in which the reinforcement makes a contribution to the loadbearing capacity of the section, with the effective masonry cross‐section being the product of the effective width (b_ef) and the usable height d of the building element. In order to limit cracking and increase the ductility of the element, the reinforcement area should according to [N 1], Section 8.2.3(3), be not less than 0.03 % of the gross cross‐sectional area (of a wall). Other regulations ([1], [N 2], [N 3], [N 4], [N 5], [N 6], [N 7]) also prescribe minimum reinforcements in order to avoid brittle behaviour of the building element when the first crack forms or to limit cracking. In this specialist article, the figures given in [N 1] for the minimum reinforcement of reinforced masonry beams, like flat lintels or prefabricated lintels, are checked. The work concentrates on avoiding brittle failure when the first crack forms. In addition to geometrical requirements, the amount of minimum reinforcement depends on the tensile strength of the masonry f_t,m. Values of ρ_min vary considerably depending on the magnitude of the tensile strength of the masonry that can be assumed. For lintels over openings in facing brickwork facades, the height of any capping or soldier courses under the reinforcement layer also has an enlarging influence on the value of ρ_min. With regard to future regulations in standards or Allgemeine bauaufsichtliche Zulassungen (national technical approvals), it is recommended not to give lump sum values for ρ_min but to undertake a calculation like for reinforced concrete, using the algorithms given in this article.     

Design aids for unreinforced masonry under bending compression – Part 2: Application of design aids for structural design according to DIN EN 1996‐1‐1/NA

The semi‐probabilistic safety concept of divided safety factors for action and resistance of DIN EN 1990 [1] in combination with the structural design codes DIN EN 1996‐1‐1 [2] and DIN EN 1996‐1‐1/NA [3] include the requirement that acting normal forces N_Ed may not exceed the normal force resistances N_Rd for the structural design of masonry under bending compression. According to [3], fully plastic material behaviour can be assumed and the stress block used as the material law for masonry. Building on this, design aids and their theoretical basis were presented in Part 1 of this scientific paper [4], which are comparable with the ω tables (called the ? table here) and the general design diagram for massive construction. The application of the design aids is described in this second part of this scientific paper through calculation examples and the connection with the calculation approaches of [3] is made clear. The relation to the reduction factor ?_m, which covers effects of 2^nd order theory, is also obtained. With known values of the load eccentricities according to 1^st and 2^nd order theory, the design task becomes the analysis of the loadbearing capacity of the masonry section at half wall height. Knowing ?_m, the load eccentricity e₂ and the additional moment according to 2^nd order theory can subsequently be determined, which does not ensue from the calculation equations of [3]. With the general design diagram, the values of compression zone height and the assumed load eccentricities of the acting normal forces, which result from the reset rule for masonry sections with high load eccentricities, can be directly read off, greatly improving the clarity of this procedure.     

Design according to Eurocode 6 in practice

For the structural design of masonry according to Eurocode 6 with the associated German national annex, the simplified method and the further simplified calculation method in Annex A are available. These procedures provide tools that can be used in practice to design standard cases quickly and easily. One feature of the verification of masonry walls under compressive loading is that no bending moments in the walls have to be determined as part of the determination of section forces and moments since the verification of the load‐bearing capacity of the wall is based solely on the acting vertical force. The effects of floor end restraint and buckling are dealt with by simple equations. One new feature of verification according to Eurocode 6 is that the effect of partially supported floors on the load‐bearing capacity of the wall can be included directly. The code is compact and simple to use and the further simplified calculation method is predestined for verification by manual calculation.     

Textile reinforcement in the bed joint of basement masonry and infill walls subjected to high wind loads

The successful structural verification of basement walls under earth pressure loading with light vertical loading is often difficult. This situation is often encountered for external basement walls under terrace doors, stairs, masonry light wells, etc., where the vertical loading that is theoretically necessary is absent. This makes it impossible to resist the acting flexural forces from earth using a vertical arch model alone. In such cases the basement wall must also resist the earth pressure in a horizontal direction. However, due to the fact the bending moment capacity of unreinforced masonry parallel to the bed joint is low you have the option here of using a textile‐reinforced bed joint with longitudinal fibres of alkali‐resistant glass or carbon fibre. With an appropriately adapted textile reinforcement in the bed joints, the masonry can fulfil the requirements for load‐bearing capacity against earth pressure with a horizontal load transfer, even under a small vertical load. The same applies to infill walls subjected to high wind loads the bending moment capacities of which are also slightly parallel to and vertically to the bed joint and cannot be provably demonstrated on large infill surfaces and strong wind loads. The load‐bearing can also be increased by improving the flexural strength parallel to the bed joint. The Chair of Structural Design in the Faculty of Architecture of the Technical University (TU) Dresden was carrying out extensive numerical and experimental studies for this purpose. In the journal Mauerwerk 01/2018 [1] first findings from small trial series have already been presented. In the meantime, a series of large‐scale tests have additionally been performed to check the promising results of the small‐scale tests with respect to their real applicability. This report should provide a combined insight into the work of the concluded research project.     

Analysis of rectangular cross sections under double eccentric compression stress

Double eccentrically loaded cross‐sections with failing tension zone occur both in foundation engineering and in masonry building. The case of walls or columns loaded with double eccentricity by a normal force was no longer covered under the global safety concept of DIN 1053‐1 and is thus not normally considered in practice. With the transition to the semi‐probabilistic safety concept, verification of the cross‐section at the limit state of loadbearing capacity is performed near or at the failure state. This also made it necessary as part of the introduction of EN 1996‐1‐1 to introduce a verification for double eccentrically loaded cross‐sections. The present article considers the non‐linear stress distribution in double eccentrically loaded cross‐sections and the resulting position of the neutral axis. The described process is numerically robust and can be implemented with little effort for the analysis of masonry as an Excel spreadsheet.     

Deflection limitation of beam‐type reinforced masonry constructions – proposals for future requirements

Deflection limitation of reinforced masonry building elements under bending is undertaken according in DIN EN 1996‐1‐1:2013‐02, Section 5.5.2.6, Table 5.2 [N 4], by limiting the span l _ef or the ratio of l_ef to the effective depth d, for example l_ef/d ≤ 20 for simply supported beams. A further requirement in DIN EN 1996‐1‐1:2013‐02, Section 7.3, states that reinforced masonry elements should not deflect excessively under serviceability loading conditions. For reinforced masonry with dimensions, which are within the limits stated in clause 5.5.2.6 [N 4], acceptable vertical deflection of a beam can normally be assumed. In this scientific paper, the figures stated in [N 4] for the limitation of the bending slenderness l _ef/d of reinforced masonry beams like masonry or prefabricated lintels are checked by calculation with the ”ζ procedure“ from reinforced concrete theory. The suitability of this procedure was first demonstrated by comparing calculated and experimentally obtained values. It was determined that maintenance of the bending slenderness ratio l_ef/d ≤ 20 for the tested calcium silicate masonry lintels does not always lead to deflection values w/l_ef ≤ 1/250. For prefabricated straight (flat arch) calcium silicate lintels and horizontal aerated concrete lintels with limit slendernesses of l_ef/d ≤ 15 and calcium silicate masonry lintels with l_ef/d ≤ 10, w/l_ef ≤ 1/250 was fulfilled. With regard to future requirements for the tested reinforced masonry constructions, a method is proposed for the calculation of the limit slenderness ratio l_ef/d, which leads to maintenance of w/lef ≤ 1/250. Furthermore, the presented ”ζ procedure“ enables reliable calculation of deflection figures at the serviceability limit state considering long‐term effects.     

Simplified design concept for slender masonry walls / Vereinfachter Stabilitätsnachweis knickgefährdeter Mauerwerkswände

The verification of safety against buckling of unreinforced masonry walls according to the accurate design procedure of EN 1996‐1‐1 Appendix G is based on semi‐empirical approaches, which do not always realistically describe the load‐bearing behaviour. This statement is also supported by an objection of the country Denmark concerning the load capacity function which is regulated in Appendix G. Using new findings about the effects of non‐linear material behaviour in case of stability failure this article investigates fundamental questions about the buckling behaviour of masonry walls and transfers these into a simple practical structural design proposal. As a result, the load capacity function can be considerably simplified, the influence of creep can be integrated and the number of input parameters can be reduced.     

Spannungs‐Dehnungs‐Linien von Porenbeton bei hohen Temperaturen: ein erster Schritt zur versuchsbasierten Bemessung gemäß EN 1996‐1‐2

Stress‐strain curves of AAC at high temperatures: a first step toward the performance‐based design according to EN 1996‐1‐2 In this paper, the performance‐based approach for the design of autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) masonry walls subjected to fire is presented. The problems associated with the calculation methods in the current version of EN 1996‐1‐2 for the assessment of AAC loadbearing walls are explained. The current version of EN 1996‐1‐2 offers only tabulated data as a reliable method for structural fire assessment. The content of current Annex C and D is generally considered as not being reliable for design because of the absence of an adequate validation by experimental tests. For this reason, a proposal is made for the improvement of the input parameters for mechanical models based on experimental tests on AAC masonry. On this basis, new stress‐strain curves as a function of temperature are proposed here and then compared with the stress‐strain curves currently included in the Annex D of EN 1996‐1‐2. The comparison results point out that the current curves do not correspond to the effective behaviour of AAC masonry under fire conditions. The proposed curves can be used as base to be implemented in the new version of EN 1996‐1‐2.     

Numerical investigation of lateral earth pressure for unreinforced masonry walls

For the design of unreinforced masonry walls under lateral earth pressure according to DIN EN 1996‐3 [1], the active earth pressure is used, which is less than the earth pressure at rest. For the consideration of active earth pressure, a sufficient deflection of the wall is needed. It is unknown whether the deflections in reality are large enough to justify a reduction of the active earth pressure. Therefore a numerical model has been developed which considers the load‐bearing behaviour of masonry walls, with several boundary conditions being considered to estimate the effective earth pressure.