With strength design
you can now build tall,
slender walls
Using this new procedure,
8-inch-thick load-bearing walls can be more than 30 feet high
I
n California, where seismic forces
control wall design, 8-inch-thick
block walls rise 28 feet. The walls
are fully grouted and reinforced with
two #6 rebars per cell at 16 inches on
center. In Utah, under moderate seis-
mic and wind forces, 6-inch-thick hol-
low brick walls rise 25 feet. The brick
walls are partially grouted and rein-
forced with a #6 bar at 48 inches on
center. And in Illinois, in the tornado
alley, 12-inch reinforced masonry cav-
ity walls rise more than 42 feet. What
do these walls have in common? Econ-
omy, strength, and ductility, courtesy
of the growing use of strength design.
No longer are walls controlled by
arbitrary height-to-thickness ratios
(h/t). Using grout, steel reinforcement,
and the ultimate strength design proce-
dure, engineers and architects are de-
signing masonry walls that are tall,
slender, and economical. Both the Ba-
sic Building Code (BOCA) and the
Uniform Building Code (UBC) recog-
nize the strength design procedure
(Refs. 1 and 2). Previously, codes lim-
ited exterior reinforced load-bearing
walls to a maximum h/t ratio of 25.
This limitation didnt use the full
strength potential of masonry, making
designs overly conservative and ex-
pensive.
To change from working stress de-
sign and arbitrary h/t ratios to ultimate
strength design required an extensive
testing program (Ref. 3). And although
the testing was done in 1980, it wasnt
By James E. Amrhein
Under a lateral load of 56 psf and a
vertical load of 225 plf, a 4-inch clay
brick wall with an h/t of 57 deflects 17
incheswithout failing. Tests like this
on 20 walls with h/t greater than 25
convinced UBC and BOCA to approve
the use of ultimate strength design.
until 1984 and 1986 that UBC and
BOCA issued technical reports on the
new design method.
The tests that crumbled h/t
limits
The 1980 tests were done by the
Structural Engineers Association of
Southern California (SEAOSC), the
American Concrete InstituteSouth-
ern California Chapter (ACI-SC), and
the Masonry Institute of America
(MIA). The goal was to demonstrate
what we all knew, that masonry walls
are strong and ductile.
Twenty masonry test walls were
built: ten were constructed of concrete
block, six of clay brick, and four of
clay block. All test panels, except one,
were 24 feet, 8 inches high and 4 feet
wide. They were completely grouted
and reinforced with five #4 bars,
Grade 60. The h/t ratios ranged from
30 to 57, far exceeding the 1982 UBC
h/t limit of 25.
The panels were loaded in a test
frame built to simulate vertical roof or
floor loads and wind or seismic lateral
loads. The vertical and lateral loads
were applied slowly in increments.
This method of loading, called static
loading, is much more severe than dy-
namic loading, where the loads are ap-
plied quickly.
Bragging rights
The tests demonstrated that mason-
ry walls had far more load capacity
 For Architects and Engineers

A PEEK AT MASONRY STRENGTH DESIGN

The ultimate strength design procedure for reinforced
masonry parallels that of reinforced concrete. There are
minimum and maximum reinforcement ratios, maximum
allowable deflection requirements under service load, and
an ultimate moment capacity that must be greater than the
applied moment. Also, as in reinforced concrete, the ap-
plied dead and live loads are multiplied by 1.4 and 1.7, re-
spectively, to provide a safety margin. In addition, the
nominal moment capacity, Mn, is multiplied by a strength
reduction factor, _, which accounts for inspection and
variations in reinforcement location and material
strength.
To show how similar masonry strength design is to re-
inforced concrete strength design, the procedure for cal-
culating the resisting moment capacity of a tall, slender
wall is shown here. Also shown are the linear strain dia-
To calculate the resisting moment capacity, Mn:
gram and the rectangular stress block used to calculate
the internal stresses and forces in the masonry and steel.
The procedure is based on the 1988 Uniform Building
Code (Sec. 2411).
Although strength design of reinforced concrete and
masonry are similar, there are a few differences. One is in
how the required moment is calculated. For this calcula-
tion, an iterative procedure is used to account for the P-
delta effect caused by the applied roof or floor loads and
weight of the wall. This simple procedure, however, typ-
ically converges after three iterations.
Computer programs are available that perform all the
calculations of the strength design procedure. See Why
a structural engineer should use a computer to design ma-
sonry walls, The Magazine of Masonry Construction,
January 1989, page 18.
Forces, Strains, and Stresses on a Masonry Wall

Mn = [Asefy (d - a/2)]
Ase = Asfy + Pu
fy
a = Pu + Asfy
0.85fm b
Where: Ase = effective area of steel
a = depth of stress block due to
factored loads
fy = specified yield strength of
reinforcement, psi
d = distance from extreme compression
fiber to centroid of tension
reinforcement, inches
As = area of tension reinforcement,
square inches
Pu = required axial strength
fm = specified compressive strength of
masonry at the age of 28 days, psi
b = effective width of wall, inches
= strength reduction factor (obtain
from table)

STRENGTH REDUCTION FACTOR,

Special Inspection
Yes No
Concrete block and hollow brick 0.8 0.5
(6-inch thickness or greater and two-
wythe brick masonry)
Hollow brick masonry 0.6* 0.4* a = .85c
(5-inch thickness or less) c = distance from extreme compression fiber to
* Exception: = 0.8 for special inspection and = 0.5 for neutral axis
no inspection when vertical rebars are held in position at the s = strain in the reinforcing steel
top and bottom and at intervals not farther apart than 200 mu = maximum usable compressive strain of
bar diameters. masonry (0.003 inch/inch)
Cm = compressive force in masonry
T = tensile force in reinforcing steel
 RESULTS OF TESTS ON TALL SLENDER WALLS

Thickness fm psi h/t Ratio Vertical Lateral Deflection Lateral Maximum

in. Load, plf Load at Yield,in. Load at Max. Lateral
Steel Yield, Deflection, Deflection,
psf psf in.
Single-wythe Walls of Concrete Masonry Units
5.63 3185 51.2 320 46 9.0 62 17.7
7.63 2595 38.0 320 71 5.8 118 14.8
7.63 2595 38.0 860 73 6.5 92 11.2
9.63 2460 30.0 320 94 5.5 100+ 17.1
9.63 2460 30.7 860 73 6.3 100 19.0
Two-wythe Walls of Brick
7.50 3060 30.3 320 66 10.5 79 14.8
9.60 3060 30.3 320 89 9.3 162 16.8
Single-wythe Hollow Brick
3.50 6000 57.0 225 47 10.0 56 17.0
5.50 6243 52.4 320 57 8.0 87 19.3
In load tests on 20 masonry walls with h/t from 30 to 57, the walls deflected as much as 19 inches without failing. All
test walls were completely grouted and reinforced with five #4 Grade 60 rebars. Results from 10 of the tests are shown
here. Source: Ref. 3.

than anyone realized (see table). Ma-
sonry walls originally were assumed to
fail after a few inches of lateral deflec-
tion. Instead they deflected as much as
19 inches and still supported vertical
loads of 320 to 860 pounds per lineal
foot. At the maximum deflection,
many walls carried a lateral load of
more than 100 pounds per square foot
(psf).
An opportunity thats knocking
Under previous h/t limits, 8-inch-
thick masonry walls couldnt be built
higher than 16 feet, 8 inches. Under
the strength design procedure, they
can exceed 30 feet. Thats more than
an 80% increase in wall height. More-
over, tall, thin walls weigh less so
foundations can be smaller. And be-
cause the units are lighter, the masons
can work faster. For some jobs,
strength design may eliminate pi-
lasters, resulting in smooth, unob-
structed walls that are easier to finish.
Because walls are thinner, they also
provide more floor space.
Masonry can now reclaim an old
market. Exterior walls for schools,
warehouses, retail stores, and other
low-rise buildings can now be built
economically with reinforced masonry 6. Amrhein, J. E., and D. Lee, Slender
wallswalls that provide both enclo- Wall Design for Los Angeles and 1988
sure and structural support. The UBC, Masonry Institute of America.
strength design procedure can give ar-
chitects and engineers the competitive James E. Amrhein is the executive di -
edge. Its easy (see box). And it saves rector of the Masonry Institute of
money. So dont ignore this knock on America, Los Angeles, the current pres -
the doorsomeone else may answer ident of The Masonry Society, and the
it. author of Reinforced Masonry Engi -
neering Handbook, now in its 4th edi -
References tion.
1. Building Officials and Code Admin-
istrators, Research Report No. 86-
51, 4051 W. Flossmoor Rd., Country
Club Hills, IL 60477.
2. International Conference of Building
Officials, Uniform Building Code, 1988
Edition, 5360 S. Workman Mill Rd.,
Whittier, CA 90601.
3. Test Report on Slender Walls, Struc-
tural Engineers Association of South-
ern California, 2550 Beverly Blvd., Los
Angeles, CA 90057.
4. Amrhein, J. E., Design of Reinforced
Masonry Tall Slender Walls, Masonry
Institute of America, 2550 Beverly
Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90057.
5. Amrhein, J. E., and D. Lee, Tall
PUBLICATION #M890518
Slender Masonry Walls, Estimating
Copyright 1989, The Aberdeen Group
Curves for Area of Steel (1985 UBC),
All rights reserved
Masonry Institute of America.