225

The use of characteristic strengths in masonry design *

S Lawrence
Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability,
School of Engineering, University of Newcastle

SPL Consulting Pty Ltd, Sydney

SUMMARY: Despite recent advances in our understanding of masonry behaviour, the design of
masonry structures in Australia in accordance with AS 3700 is often problematic. The recommended
methods of calculation and the relevant material properties do not produce designs commensurate
with some common practices. These common practices have stood the test of time, but in some
cases cannot be justified by present design methods. In this respect, Australian design standards
are no different from their overseas counterparts. This paper examines the design approaches used
by AS 3700 for masonry bending and for wall ties. In particular, the use of characteristic strengths
and their validity in terms of the models of behaviour are examined. Alternative approaches are
proposed, which produce designs more commensurate with common practice and that, it is argued,
more accurately represent the actual structural behaviour.

1 INTRODUCTION
Like other structural materials, the design of masonry
in Australia in accordance with the Masonry
Structures standard AS 3700 (Standards Australia,
2001) follows a limit states approach and uses lower
five-percentile values of characteristic strengths. In
principle, this is intended to ensure an acceptably
low probability of failure and, by appropriate
choice of capacity reduction factors, some degree
of consistency between designs using the various
structural materials.
However, the approach taken can sometimes lead
to unintended conservatism, which affects the
economies of usage of masonry. It is commonly
acknowledged that there are problems justifying
by calculation some of the common forms of
construction used for masonry in houses and other
small buildings. Specifically, sections of unreinforced
masonry spanning one-way between top and bottom
supports, for example between the roof structure
and the supporting footing or slab, often cannot
be justified for even low wind loads using current
* Paper S07-963 submitted 8/02/07; accepted for
publication after review and revision 14/03/07.
Corresponding author Dr Stephen Lawrence can
be contacted at spl@bigpond.net.au.
methods of analysis and current assumptions about
material properties. These sections of masonry
appear to have adequate strength and do not exhibit
a history of failures, although it could be argued
that in some cases they have not been subjected to
their full design load. Similarly, common practice
for the installation of wall ties is difficult to justify
by calculation in accordance with the current
standard. These tie configurations have been in use
for some considerable time and, with the exception
of the Newcastle earthquake in 1989, where specific
installation and corrosion resistance faults were
identified, have not exhibited a history of failure.
These so-called common practices continue to
be used, either on the basis of deemed-to-satisfy
regulations or because of long-standing traditional
methods of construction.
It is suggested that one of the reasons for this
apparent conservatism of masonry design standards
is that we are too reliant on characteristic strengths
of individual components, particularly where our
behaviour models are somewhat uncertain. This has
led to a mismatch between (supposedly rational)
designs according to the standard and common
practice. This paper examines possible reasons for
this apparent conservatism in the current design
approach for two areas: bending of unreinforced

© Institution of Engineers, Australia 2007 Australian Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol 7 No 3

S07-963 Lawrence.indd 225 24/7/07 4:32:02 PM

 226 “The use of characteristic strengths in masonry design” – Lawrence
masonry and design of wall ties. It recommends
rational modifications that will lead to improved
design standards.
There are three areas where conservatism can enter
the design process. These are the assumed material
properties, the capacity reduction factor ( factor)
applied to the material properties and the method
of analysis or the assumptions about behaviour of
the structural element. The paper discusses these in
relation to design for simple vertical bending and
wall ties, and explores ways in which designs may
be made more realistic by using a design strength
that is no longer simply equal to the characteristic
strength of the material. These adjustments are based
on consideration of the structural behaviour models
for each type of action. Taking this approach avoids
the problems of redefining characteristic strengths,
for which a large amount of data are available,
and providing different factors for different
circumstances, such as vertical and horizontal
bending.
In the introductory sections, this paper gives
an outline of the historical development of the
current design regime for masonry bending and
wall ties in Australia. The factors contributing to
conservatism outlined above are then examined
and recommendations for changes to AS 3700 are
given.
2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES
2.1 Bending
The current level of flexural tensile strength assumed
for masonry in AS 3700 has been derived from the
British masonry standard that was current in 1964
(British Standards Institution, 1964). That standard
allowed a permissible stress in flexural tension of 10
pounds per square inch, which was adopted by the
first Australian brickwork code AS CA47 (Standards
Association of Australia, 1969) and subsequently
converted to metric units as 0.07 MPa in the
Brickwork Code AS 1640 (Standards Association of
Australia, 1974). This was a pragmatic decision at
the time and appears to ignore any differences in
masonry units, mortars and construction practices
between Australia and the United Kingdom. When
the bond strength of structural brickwork was to
be determined by testing of bond beams, AS 1640
required an average strength of 0.28 MPa to be
achieved, implying a factor of safety of four on the
permissible design stress.
When the first limit states masonry standard was
published (Standards Association of Australia,
1988), the test strength required by AS 1640 was
converted to an equivalent characteristic strength
of 0.20 MPa. The basis for this conversion was as
follows: tests were carried out on bond beams,
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
S07-963 Lawrence.indd 226
comprising eight individual masonry joints, and
the test result was the average strength of these
beams (0.28 MPa), whereas the strength adopted
for design was the characteristic value (lower five-
percentile) of individual joint strengths (0.20 MPa).
The relationship between beam and joint strengths
is set out in AS 3700 Clause D7.2 and the conversion
from mean to characteristic strength was based on
an assumed coefficient of variation (CV) for joint
strength of 0.30. The adjustment ensured that the
levels of design strength in the two codes were
equivalent. Subsequent developments have led to the
bond wrench test now used in AS 3700 to measure
the strengths of individual joints directly.
From the above it can be seen that the assumption of
a basic level of flexural tensile strength for individual
masonry joints equivalent to 0.20 MPa (characteristic)
has been in use in Australia since 1969. This strength is
supported as a minimum level by ample experimental
evidence (McNeilly et al, 1996; Lawrence et al; 2000).
Much masonry construction is known to have higher
strengths than this, and such variation and its effect
on the probability of failure should ideally be taken
into account in a rational analysis to determine the
factor for use in design. This work is planned as
an extension of recent work on compressive strength
design (Stewart & Lawrence, 2007). It is therefore not
considered appropriate at the present time to propose
any variation to the material strength for bending.
2.2 Wall ties
Wall ties for use in masonry structures in Australia
are referred to as Type A ties and must comply with
the wall tie standard AS/NZS 2699.1 (Standards
Australia, 2000). This standard contains a test
procedure (Appendix B) and requires that it must
be applied to all ties to determine a rating of light,
medium or heavy duty. This rating is required
to be stated on the packaging. Unfortunately,
this requirement is often not complied with
by manufacturers, leading to confusion in the
marketplace and a risk of non-compliance with the
standard.
Tests of wall ties were being carried out at the
Commonwealth Experimental Building Station in
Sydney at least as early as the 1950s (Love, 1952).
Further tests were carried out (Schneider, 1977) to
develop the test method and ratings, leading to the
initial publication of the Australian standard AS 2699
in 1984. This standard was superseded by AS/
NZS 2699.1 in 2000. The tests by Schneider established
the strength and stiffness of the commonly used ties,
and the ratings light, medium and heavy duty were
set to correspond with the practice that was current at
the time. When the ratings were first established, they
were based on lower 15% characteristic strengths in
tension and compression. The strength criteria were
adjusted when the standard was revised in 2000 to
Vol 7 No 3
24/7/07 4:32:03 PM
 “The use of characteristic strengths in masonry design” – Lawrence
Table 1: Characteristic strengths of Type A veneer
and cavity ties.
Characteristic strength (kN)
Rating
Tension Compression
Light duty 0.20 0.24
Medium duty 0.40 0.48
Heavy duty 1.00 1.20
values consistent with the lower 5% characteristic
strengths, ensuring that the product ratings of light,
medium and heavy duty remained unchanged since
the scheme was first implemented in 1984.
The test procedure used to establish tie ratings is
based on the worst case of loading that the ties will be
subjected to in service. Whereas ties are intended to
perform their function when aligned straight across a
cavity (and the water transfer test in AS/NZS 2699.1
ensures that they will not transfer water when aligned
horizontally), the strength test requires a relative
misalignment of the ends of the tie before load is
applied in tension or compression. This is intended
to cover an extreme case of misalignment and/or
relative movement between the leaf/frame on each
side of the cavity, arising from the effects of brick
expansion or shrinkage and timber frame shrinkage
(in the case of brick veneer). As a consequence, the
design strengths quoted in AS/NZS 2699.1 (see table
1) are lower 5% characteristic strengths determined
for the worst combination of in-service conditions.
It should be noted that, where relative movements
do occur between the ends of ties in a wall, the
movements are not uniform, but range from zero
at the base to a maximum at the top corners of the
wall. All ties are therefore rated according to the
Figure 1: Typical load-deflection plot for a face-fixed wall tie in tension.
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
S07-963 Lawrence.indd 227
227
conditions to which only very few ties in the wall
will be subjected.
A further important point about the tie rating system
is that the ratings are determined in most cases by
the stiffness of the tie, not by its pullout or buckling
strength. A typical load-deflection relationship
for a tie test shows an initial almost linear section,
followed by an extended non-linear section, with little
reduction in load (see figure 1). In the test, the load
corresponding to a deformation of 1.5 mm is taken
as the strength of the tie (shown by a dotted line in
figure 1). In other words, the tie is typically behaving
much like a spring and can withstand relatively large
deflections while maintaining a high proportion of
its load capacity. Note in relation to figure 1 that the
test was terminated at a deflection just greater than
1.5 mm, although the load capacity of the tie was still
below its ultimate strength. This behaviour provides
considerable scope for redistribution of load among
the ties present in a wall panel.
From the above discussion, it can be seen that the
tie ratings have remained essentially unchanged
since 1984. Because of the ramifications for the tie
manufacturing industry, it would be inappropriate
to propose to change this rating system (either the
criteria or the test procedure) in order to achieve more
realistic wall tie designs.
3 CAPACITY REDUCTION FACTORS
3.1 Bending
The design of masonry to AS 3700 involves the
application of (sometimes quite severe) capacity
Vol 7 No 3
24/7/07 4:32:04 PM
 228 “The use of characteristic strengths in masonry design” – Lawrence
reduction factors to the material properties. These
factors have a largely historical basis and have
not been calibrated to specific target reliabilities or
probabilities of failure. When the first Australian
limit states masonry code was produced (Standards
Association of Australia, 1988), the factors were
derived by a “soft” conversion tailored to give the
same results as the previous design code (Standards
Association of Australia, 1974) for a typical ratio of
live load to dead load. Some recent work is attempting
to redress this deficiency and provide a rational basis
for the factors in AS 3700. The extent to which this can
be achieved is dependent on the availability of good
experimental data on performance, but progress has
so far been made in relation to compressive strength
design (Stewart & Lawrence, 2007) and a trial study
has been made for bending (Stewart & Lawrence,
2002).
The current factor used in AS 3700 for bending is 0.6.
Until the proper reliability-based analysis mentioned
above has been completed, there is no proposal to
change this value. It is essential, in carrying out
this analysis to determine an appropriate factor,
that the best available model for bending behaviour
should be used. The approach discussed in this paper
(section 4) should be considered in this regard.
3.2 Wall ties
The current factor used in AS 3700 for design of
wall ties is 0.95. The current regime for wall ties
requires that the manufacturer test each type of tie
when it is developed, and establish a rating based
on the measured lower 5% characteristic value (see
section 2.2). The test results are interpreted by using
Appendix B of the standard AS/NZS 2699.1, which
is designed to ensure that the rated characteristic
strength would be exceeded by 85% of test samples.
This provides an additional margin to ensure that
the ties are at least as strong as they are intended to
be. As explained in section 2.2, The testing process is
also based on a worst case of tie alignment across the
wall cavity, providing a further conservative element.
If manufacturing processes are well controlled, this
rating will remain valid for continuing production.
It therefore seems appropriate for the factor used
for design to be close to one, and 0.95 appears not
unrealistic.
A rational analysis of reliability would allow the
current factor to be confirmed or varied, but such
an analysis could not be undertaken without an
improved understanding of the behaviour of a wall
incorporating ties, which is a complex analytical
problem. In the meantime, there is no proposal to
(a)
change the value of the factor for wall tie design.
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
S07-963 Lawrence.indd 228
4 BENDING BEHAVIOUR
4.1 Current basis of design
The current approach to bending design in AS 3700
uses separate expressions for vertical bending (where
the flexural stresses are normal to the bed joints),
horizontal bending (where the flexural stresses are
parallel to the bed joints) and two-way bending,
where the principal flexural stresses are at some
other angle to the bed joints. Vertical bending arises
in a panel that is supported only at its top and
bottom, horizontal bending arises in a panel that is
supported only at the sides, and two-way bending
arises in a panel that has supports at two or more
adjacent edges, for example the bottom and one or
both sides. Analysis of two-way bending strength
uses the virtual work method, which is based on the
three properties: vertical bending strength, horizontal
bending strength and diagonal bending strength, as
defined by AS 3700.
The fundamental basis of design is the flexural tensile
strength of the masonry, f ‘mt, which is the lower 5%
characteristic strength of individual bed joints (ie.
the joint formed between a single masonry unit and
the course below).
At the present time, vertical bending of masonry is
treated as a brittle phenomenon. Design is based on
simple bending moment expressions with the panel
considered as a beam, and failure of a complete bed
joint across the full width of the panel is assumed
to occur when a single individual bed joint fails.
However, while failure of a complete bed joint
across the full width will bring sudden failure of the
panel, the experimental evidence shows considerable
scope for redistribution of stresses between adjacent
masonry units along the bed joint prior to failure. Its
treatment as brittle behaviour may therefore be too
conservative.
For the cases of horizontal bending and diagonal
bending, where the latter can be considered a
combination of vertical and horizontal bending
actions, there is even greater scope for redistribution
of stresses. The analysis of horizontal bending action
is extremely complex and is less critical than vertical
bending for most common design cases. Diagonal
bending and its effect on two-way bending action
is treated in AS 3700 by an empirical fit to test data
and has been shown to give good agreement for
overall wall behaviour (Lawrence & Marshall, 2000).
Consequently, the current paper is confined to a
discussion of the potential for improving vertical
bending action only.
4.2 One-way vertical bending
As outlined above, the present approach to vertical
(b)
bending design incorporated in AS 3700 uses a
Vol 7 No 3
24/7/07 4:32:08 PM
 “The use of characteristic strengths in masonry design” – Lawrence
lower 5% characteristic flexural tensile strength
f ‘mt of 0.20 MPa and assumes that failure occurs
when the bed joint that is subjected to the greatest
bending moment reaches its capacity. The bending
moment is calculated based on simple bending
behaviour (usually wL2/8). Because the f ‘mt value
is a characteristic strength of individual bed joints,
this approach means that the capacity of the whole
bed joint across the full width of the section under
consideration is governed by the weakest individual
bed joint along its length.
There are three possible errors in this approach:
1. The maximum bending moment in a section
of masonry spanning one-way between a roof
or ceiling structure and a footing might be less
than that given by the simple bending formula
wL2/8. As a consequence of partial rotational
restraint at either top or bottom, or both, the
maximum bending moment might be closer to
wL2/10, which would indicate a conservatism
of up to 25% in the current approach. Even the
self-weight of the masonry will result in some
partial rotational restraint at the base, but this
is usually ignored.
2. It has been shown previously (Baker &
Franken, 1976; Lawrence, 1991) that a weakest-
link type of behaviour occurs in masonry
members subjected to simple vertical bending
across the bed joints. By this theory, it will
not be the weakest course that fails, unless
all courses are subjected to the same bending
moment. Rather, when the courses have
various levels of bending moment applied,
the one with the lowest ratio of strength
to applied bending moment will fail first,
causing failure of the whole member. This is
the basis of the correction factor applied to
the test strengths of bond beams in AS 3700
Appendix D. The effect of this phenomenon
would be to reduce the strength of a wall
panel below that calculated by the current
method of analysis.
3. It has been argued (Baker & Franken, 1976)
that sections of masonry subjected to bending
across the bed joints will fail at a stress level
corresponding to some degree of averaging
between adjacent masonry units. Values of
three or five adjacent units were suggested.
However, other work (Lawrence, 1991)
examined this approach using test results for
narrow sections of masonry and presented an
argument that the weakest of the individual
bed joints across the width of the section
would govern its strength. The results overall
are not conclusive and it remains likely that
some level of averaging will occur, especially
in sections of masonry with a width greater
than five masonry units. It is commonly
known that flexural tensile strengths in excess
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
S07-963 Lawrence.indd 229
229
of 1 MPa are possible in good quality masonry
and it could be argued that averaging is more
likely with lower strength masonry (which is
represented by an f ‘mt value of 0.20 MPa) than
with higher strength masonry, which would
behave in a more brittle way. The effect of any
averaging of the strengths of adjacent joints
would be to raise the strength of the panel
above that predicted by the current analysis
method.
It is proposed that the first two of these possible
errors are difficult to account for in design and
will counteract each other to some extent, and
they should therefore be ignored. In the case of the
first, it is difficult to quantify the possible extent of
rotational restraint at the ends in the large number of
possible configurations. Similarly, the second effect
depends on the height (number of courses) in the
masonry section and it would therefore be difficult
to implement in design.
The third effect, that of averaging adjacent masonry
joint strengths, is proposed as something that could
be easily considered in design, simply by using a
modified (equivalent) flexural strength, and that
this would go some way to provide a rational basis
to justify many common construction practices. The
following sections outline this proposal and the effect
it would have on design to AS 3700.
4.3 Effect of averaging
The effect of averaging adjacent bed joint strengths
can be assessed as follows:
1. Consider a population of individual joint
strengths with a lower 5% characteristic value
of 0.20 MPa and a coefficient of variation
(CV) of 0.30, corresponding to the generally
accepted level of variation in masonry bond
strength (AS 3700 Appendix B). The lower
5% characteristic value, assuming a Normal
distribution, is given by:
f ′ = X − 1.645σ (1)
where X is the mean and is the standard
deviation ( = X × CV ). Therefore, we can
derive X = 0.395 MPa and = 0.199 MPa.
2. For the average of three adjacent joint
strengths, the mean strength will also be
0.395 MPa but the standard deviation will be
given by:
0.119
σ3 = = 0.069 MPa (2)
3
The lower 5% characteristic strength for the
average of three joints will therefore be
f 3′ = 0.395 − 1.645σ3 = 0.282 MPa (3)
3. Similarly, for the case of averaging five
Vol 7 No 3
24/7/07 4:32:09 PM
 230 “The use of characteristic strengths in masonry design” – Lawrence
Figure 2: Arrangement and notation for engaged piers.
adjacent joints, we can derive a characteristic
strength:
f 5′ = 0.395 − 1.645σ5 = 0.307 MPa (4)
Baker and Franken (1976) suggested that the degree
of averaging of adjacent joints would extend
from three to five masonry units in width. It is
suggested that, to be conservative, and in view of the
uncertainty surrounding the extent of averaging of
adjacent joints, the case of averaging over three joints
should be taken. This would result in an equivalent
characteristic flexural tensile strength for vertical
bending design of 0.28 MPa.
4.4 Analysis of common cases
To explore the effects of this proposal, various cases
have been analysed for the effect of averaging three
adjacent joint strengths. The cases include those
permitted in the BCA Volume 2 for single leaf garage
walls with engaged piers (Australian Building Codes
Board, 2006).
The effect of engaged piers has been considered
by calculating a section modulus for the combined
section, based on the thickness, width and spacing
of engaged piers. The worst case, of tension on the
pier side, has been taken. The arrangement is shown
in figure 2. After finding the neutral axis position,
the extreme fibre tension stress at the face of the
piers governs the design. From the overall section
modulus, an equivalent thickness for a simple
rectangular section can be calculated and these have
been shown in table 2 for the cases examined.
The pressure capacity of the wall has then been
calculated using simple bending theory, taking
account of the self-weight at the mid-height of the
wall. The results are shown in table 2, with the
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
S07-963 Lawrence.indd 230
relevant wind class (Standards Australia, 2006). The
last column in the table shows whether the design is
justified (ie. extreme fibre stress under applied load
is less than factored strength). Each case has been
calculated for f ‘mt equal to 0.20 MPa (the AS 3700
default) and 0.28 MPa (the equivalent value proposed
in section 4.3). The latter results are shaded for ease
of comparison. The AS 3700 factor for bending (0.6)
has been used.
Table 2 shows that two cases currently included in
the BCA cannot be justified with f ‘mt equal to 0.20 MPa
and the AS 3700 factor of 0.6. A 90 mm thick wall
with 290 x 290 piers at 1650 mm centres, cannot be
justified for N3 wind. However, using f ‘mt of 0.28 MPa
this case can be justified. Similarly, the case of a
110 mm wall with 350 x 350 piers at 1800 mm centres
cannot be justified, with f ‘mt equal to 0.20 MPa, but
can be justified with f ‘mt of 0.28 MPa. The last row
in table 2 shows an additional case (not currently
in the BCA) that can be justified for N3 wind up to
a height of 3000 mm and would be useful in some
situations.
The cases included as deemed-to-satisfy solutions
in the BCA reflect common practice and are not
known to present a history of problems. Whereas
they cannot be justified by the approach taken in the
current AS 3700, the modified approach proposed
here allows them to be justified by calculation and
also allows other cases to be rationally designed.
The proposed change could easily be implemented
in AS 3700 Section 12 by permitting an equivalent
bending strength f ‘mt equal to 0.28 MPa for vertical
bending design in small buildings. At the time of
writing, a new standard (which is expected to be
designated AS 4773.1) is under development for
the design of masonry in small buildings and it is
proposed that this standard should also incorporate
the proposed approach.
Vol 7 No 3
24/7/07 4:32:11 PM
 “The use of characteristic strengths in masonry design” – Lawrence 231

5 BEHAVIOUR OF WALL TIES
In the design of wall ties, because of their spring-
like behaviour, there is considerable scope for
redistribution of stresses prior to failure. The
treatment of behaviour as a brittle phenomenon
may therefore be too conservative. Lateral load
testing of walls has shown (Lawrence, 1978) that
the ties in a typical cavity wall behave elastically as
springs throughout the load history until failure of
the wall. Testing of individual ties (see section 2.2)
shows that they retain a high load capacity through a
relatively high range of deformation, allowing them
to redistribute forces from the more heavily loaded
ties to those less heavily loaded.
Furthermore, an assessment of wall test results in the
UK (Edgell & West, 1985) showed that reducing the
number of ties in a cavity wall with a conventional
50 mm cavity did not significantly reduce the lateral
load capacity of the wall. The ties were found
to deform while still maintaining sufficient load
resistance to distribute load up to the complete failure
of the wall. By inference, the same would apply for
lighter grade ties used at the same spacings (for
example, substituting light-duty ties for medium-
duty ties at the same spacings).
There have been several investigations of wall tie
forces, both experimentally and by modelling,
most recently summarised by Yi et al (2003). Recent
experimental work aims to extend this understanding
(Page et al, 2007). However, these investigations have
generally not considered the ties as springs having
considerable deformation capacity and randomly
variable characteristics. It is suggested that full
consideration of this potential for redistribution of
load prior to failure will lead to more realistic tie
designs in the future.
5.1 Current basis of design
The basis for design of wall ties in AS 3700 is that
every tie is designed to resist a certain level of load.
This means that the strength of a wall containing
perhaps up to 40 or 50 ties is determined by the single
tie with the highest applied load. In other words, the
problem is treated as an elastic-brittle failure type.
Given the high level of variability in both tie strength
and loads to which the ties are subjected, this seems
unrealistic.
The current basis of design for wall ties in AS 3700 has
been based on research conducted at the University of
Newcastle (Page et al, 1996). For veneer walls, there
are two cases considered (see AS 3700 section 7.7).
The case of a veneer wall with a flexible backing is
the most common, where the frame supporting the
veneer is constructed of timber or metal framing. In
this case, it is assumed that the masonry veneer will
crack under load, as the framing deflects, and that as
a consequence, the highest tie forces will occur at one
or two rows of ties near mid-height. However, all the
ties in the wall must be designed to resist the same
force and no allowance is made for redistribution of
forces between ties as they deflect. Considering that
the ties behave as non-linear springs, with their rated
force capacity determined (usually) at a deflection
of 1.5 mm and having considerable further capacity
for deflection under load, this seems an extremely
conservative approach.
The second case for a veneer wall is with a stiff
backup. This applies to cases where the supporting

Table 2: Analysis of common cases of walls with engaged piers.

Wall Pier Pier Pier

Equivalent Wind
thickness thickness width spacing Height f’mt Justified?
thickness class
(T) (A) (B) (S)

90 290 190 1650 184.5 2400 0.20 N2 ü

90 290 190 1650 184.5 2400 0.28 N2 ü

90 290 290 1650 204.2 2400 0.20 N3 û

90 290 290 1650 204.2 2400 0.28 N3 ü

110 350 230 1800 228.4 2700 0.20 N2 ü

110 350 230 1800 228.4 2700 0.28 N2 ü

110 350 350 1800 252.3 2700 0.20 N3 û

110 350 350 1800 252.3 2700 0.28 N3 ü

110 350 470 1800 269.7 3000 0.28 N3 ü

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 7 No 3

S07-963 Lawrence.indd 231 24/7/07 4:32:12 PM

 232 “The use of characteristic strengths in masonry design” – Lawrence
wall is solid concrete or another masonry leaf (as,
for example, in a brick cavity wall). For this case, the
tie force is taken as 1.3 times the pressure acting on
the tributary area of the tie, representing the most
heavily loaded tie in the wall. In other words, the tie
force is based on the worst case for any tie in the wall,
and all ties are dimensioned to withstand the same
force with no allowance for any redistribution as the
ties deform. This is also an extremely conservative
assumption of behaviour.
The design rules for ties in cavity walls also make
provision for cases where both leaves are supported,
in which case the design tie force is that acting on the
tributary area for the tie. However, most cavity walls
have only the inner leaf supported, and therefore
design usually follows the approach for a veneer
wall with a stiff backup.
5.2 Wind forces
A further factor that must be considered in the design
of ties is the appropriate wind pressure to be applied.
Design wind pressures on walls are usually derived
from the most severe combination of internal and
external pressure or suction. For wall ties, ultimate
loads should be used rather than serviceability loads,
because tie failure is considered to be a structural
failure of a component and could result in collapse of
the wall or dislodgement of the outer leaf. However,
the combined effect of internal and external pressure/
suction is not necessarily appropriate.
For a cavity masonry wall, if both leaves were
supported in an identical way at their edges, the
average tie force would be determined by only the
difference between internal pressure and external
Figure 3: Variation of equivalent characteristic strength with number and COV of ties.
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
S07-963 Lawrence.indd 232
suction. In practice, the leaves are usually supported
in such a way that the inner leaf is firmly attached
to the building frame or cross walls, while the outer
leaf derives most of its support from the wall ties. A
similar situation exists for the veneer leaf in masonry
veneer construction. The pressure conditions in
the cavity are indeterminate, and it follows that a
conservative approach to determining tie forces is
to consider only the forces generated by positive or
negative pressure on the external leaf. Not only is the
effect of internal pressure on the inner leaf or backup
framework neglected in this approach, but also the
entire load applied to the outer leaf is considered to
be transferred through the ties. The capacity of the
outer masonry leaf itself to resist part of the applied
force by bending action and transferring reactions
to its supports is ignored in this approach. Both of
these factors introduce additional conservatism to
the design by leading to upper bound estimates of
tie forces.
A more detailed analysis of the interaction between
the leaves through the ties, with separately applied
internal and external wind pressures and appropriate
stiffness for each of the components, would be
required before a more accurate model could be
developed. Because tie strength ratings are lower
in tension than in compression, the governing case
for design is always suction on the external leaf
producing tension in the ties.
5.3 Design of ties for cavity walls
It is clear from the discussion in section 5.1 that
there is scope for load sharing or redistribution
between the ties in a wall as they deflect under
load. The use of a characteristic strength in these
Vol 7 No 3
24/7/07 4:32:13 PM
 “The use of characteristic strengths in masonry design” – Lawrence
circumstances is unnecessarily conservative. To
study the effect of various numbers of ties in the
wall, an analysis has been carried out for medium
duty cavity ties in tension. Table 3.6 of AS 3700
gives the characteristic strength of medium duty
ties in tension, as determined in accordance with
AS/NZS 2699.1, as F’t = 0.40 kN (see table 1). From
this, a mean strength can be determined, assuming
a normal distribution of strength, as follows:
Ft′
Ft =
(1 − 1.645Vt )
where V t is the coefficient of variation of tie
strengths.
If the strengths of n ties are assumed to average, then
the standard deviation will be reduced by a factor
1 of both cavity and veneer ties are illustrated in the
nand the equivalent characteristic strength of these
n ties, allowing for this averaging, becomes:
⎛ 1.645Vt ⎞
Ftn′ = Ft ⎜ 1 − ⎟ (6)
⎝ n ⎠
This expression allows an equivalent characteristic
strength to be calculated for a range of Vt and n, as
shown in figure 3.
Figure 3 shows that the equivalent characteristic
strength increases with the number of ties in a wall
and increases with the coefficient of variation of the
ties. The number of ties in a cavity wall depends upon
the horizontal and vertical spacing, as well as the
length and height of the wall. Allowing for the extra
ties required at supported edges, typical numbers are
shown in table 3 for cavity walls 3000 mm high and
a range of lengths and horizontal tie spacings. The
vertical tie spacing is taken as 600 mm.
The values of the asymptotes approached in figure
3, as the number of ties increases, are the mean tie
strengths for the various assumed coefficients of
variation. The default CV assumed in AS/NZS 2699.1
for the assessment of test results (in the absence of
sufficient data to make an accurate determination) is
0.20. This is also, in the author’s experience, a typical
value from tests.
It is proposed that, considering the typical numbers
of ties in a wall as shown in table 3, and in the light
Table 3: Typical number of ties in cavity walls of
various lengths.
Wall length Horizontal spacing (mm)
(mm) 300 450 600
3000 60 43 35
6000 110 77 60
9000 160 110 85
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
S07-963 Lawrence.indd 233
233
of other conservative factors, a balanced approach
would be to base design on the mean tie strength
derived from an assumed CV of 0.20 (that is, the
asymptote for the lowest curve in figure 3). This
approach is also intuitively appealing because it
means that the total applied load will be balanced by
the total average resistance of the ties in the wall, with
an appropriate capacity reduction factor applied.
Both the proportion of load transferred directly from
the outer leaf to its supports (other than the ties) and
(5) the effect of load applied directly to the inner leaf
are ignored, ensuring a degree of conservatism in
the approach.
The results for veneer ties will be the same as for
cavity ties, which have been discussed here as an
example. The effects of this approach for design
following section.
5.4 Proposed tie designs
Using the approach developed in section 5.3, the
required tie ratings are shown in table 4 for cavity
walls with vertical tie spacing of 600 mm, compared
with the current requirements outlined in Table 12.5
of AS 3700. In this table, L indicates light-duty ties, M
indicates medium-duty ties and H indicates heavy-
duty ties.
Similarly, for veneer walls, the proposed tie ratings
are shown in table 5, compared with the current
requirements outlined in Table 12.7 of AS 3700.
The proposed designs in tables 4 and 5 are more in
line with current practice than are the current AS
3700 requirements. The table cells where there is a
proposed decrease in the tie category, compared with
that currently required by AS 3700, are shaded for
ease of comparison. At the present time, it is common
in the lower wind areas (N1 to N3) to use light-duty
ties, and in the lower categories of cyclonic wind
area (C1 and C2) to use light or medium-duty ties.
The recommendations in tables 4 and 5 are in line
with that practice, which a strict application of the
current AS 3700 would not permit. Since no history
of failures has been demonstrated, it is suggested
that the proposed designs are more realistic, and that
they reflect the actual behaviour of ties in masonry
walls more accurately than the current provisions
do. It should be emphasised that the improved
design outcomes are based on consideration of the
tie properties and allowance for their spring-like
action in distributing load. They do not involve
any change to the current method in AS 3700 for
determining tie forces. Future research, involving
both experiments and mathematical modelling,
might well lead to changes in the way design tie
forces are determined.
Vol 7 No 3
24/7/07 4:32:16 PM
 234 “The use of characteristic strengths in masonry design” – Lawrence

Table 4: Current and proposed tie designs for cavity walls with 600 mm vertical tie spacing.

Current AS 3700 Proposed

Horizontal tie spacing (mm) Horizontal tie spacing (mm)

Wind
300 450 600 300 450 600
class
N1 L L M L L L
N2 L M M L L M
N3 M M H L M M
N4 M H H M M H
N5 H H H M H H
N6 H H H H H H
C1 M M H L M M
C2 M H H M M H
C3 H H H M H H
C4 H H H H H H

Table 5: Current and proposed tie designs for veneer walls with 600 mm vertical tie spacing.

Current AS 3700 Proposed

Height 2400 (mm) Height 3000 (mm) Height 2400 (mm) Height 3000 (mm)

Horizontal tie spacing (mm) Horizontal tie spacing (mm)

Wind
450 600 450 600 450 600 450 600
class

N1 L L L L L L L L

N2 L L L M L L L L

N3 L M M M L L L M

N4 M M M H M M M M

N5 H H H H M H H H

N6 H H H H H H H H

C1 M M M M L L L M

C2 M H H H M M M M

C3 H H H H M H H H

C4 H H H H H H H H

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 7 No 3

S07-963 Lawrence.indd 234 24/7/07 4:32:17 PM

 “The use of characteristic strengths in masonry design” – Lawrence
6 CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
It has been argued that the current design procedures
in AS 3700 for vertical bending and for wall tie
design are overly conservative, and that this arises,
in part, from the use of characteristic strengths
and the treatment of behaviour as elastic-brittle
(weakest-link) phenomena. Remedies are suggested,
which, if introduced into AS 3700, would make
designs more compatible with current practice and
the provisions of the BCA. There are two specific
recommendations:
1. It is recommended that an equivalent
characteristic flexural tensile strength f ‘mt
of 0.28 MPa should be adopted as a design
strength for one-way spanning unreinforced
masonry walls in houses and other small
buildings. This would have the effect of
permitting, among others, the cases shown in
table 2.
2. It is recommended that the design of ties for
cavity and veneer walls be based on mean
strength and use the worst case of pressure or
suction wind load on the external leaf only.
This would have the effect of permitting the
cases shown in tables 4 and 5.
If accepted, these recommendations would have
immediate effect in alleviating some of the difficulties
currently being faced by masonry designers in
complying with the BCA through the use of AS 3700.
However, further work is required in the following
areas:
1. Rational assessment of appropriate factors
for bending actions and for wall ties.
2. Detailed examination, by analysis and test,
of the behaviour of wall ties connecting two
masonry leaves and the interaction between
a single masonry leaf and its supporting
frame in a masonry veneer wall, leading to an
improved understanding of the appropriate
forces to be used to design the ties.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author represents the clay brick industry
(through Think Brick Australia) on the Australian
Standards committees responsible for AS 3700 and
AS/NZS 2699.
REFERENCES
Australian Building Codes Board, 2006, BCA
Volume 2, Class 1 and Class 10 Buildings – Housing
Provisions.
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
S07-963 Lawrence.indd 235
235
Baker, L. R. & Franken, G. L. 1976, “Variability aspects
of the flexural strength of brickwork”, Proceedings
of the 4 th International Brick Masonry Conference,
Brussels.
British Standards Institution, 1964, BS CP111 1964
Structural Recommendations for Loadbearing Walls.
Edgell, G. J. & West, H. W. H. 1985, “The effect of
wall-tie spacing on the strength of cavity walls: a
review”, Proceedings of the 3rd North American Masonry
Conference, Arlington, Texas, Paper 28.
Lawrence, S. J. 1978, “Behaviour of a brick cavity
wall under lateral load, including the effects of an
intermediate steel mullion”, Technical Record 441,
Experimental Building Station, Sydney.
Lawrence, S. J. 1991, “Stochastic analysis of masonry
structures”, Computer Methods in Structural Masonry,
Books and Journals International, pp. 104-113.
Lawrence, S & Marshall, R. 2000, “Virtual work
design method for masonry panels under lateral
load”, Proceedings of the 12th International Brick/Block
Masonry Conference, Madrid, pp. 1063-1073.
Lawrence, S. J., Page, A. W., Samarasinghe, W. &
Sugo, H. O. 2000, Masonry Bond Strength Research
Report, The University of Newcastle, l391 p.
Love, M. P. 1952, “Tension and compression
tests on wall ties”, Technical Record 45/47/106,
Commonwealth Experimental Building Station, 8
p.
McNeilly, T. H., Scrivener, J., Lawrence, S. J. &
Zsembery, S. 1996, “A site survey of masonry bond
strength”, Australian Civil/Structural Engineering
Transactions, CE38(2-4), pp. 103-109.
Page, A. W., Kautto, J. & Kleeman, P. W. 1996, “A
design procedure for cavity and veneer ties”, Masonry
International, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 55-62.
Page, A. W., Simundic, G. & Masia, M. 2007, “Wall
tie behaviour in cavity and veneer wall systems”,
10th North American Masonry Conference, St Louis,
Missouri, USA, pp. 323-334.
Schneider, L. M. 1977, “Compression and tension
tests on double-wire wall ties”, Unpublished Paper
440, Experimental Building Station, Sydney.
Standards Association of Australia, 1974, AS 1640
1974 Brickwork in Buildings (Metric units).
Standards Association of Australia, 1988, AS 3700
1988 Masonry in Buildings (known as the SAA
Masonry Code).
Standards Australia, 2001, AS 3700 2001 Masonry
Structures.
Standards Australia, 2006, AS 4055 2006 Wind Loads
for Housing.
Vol 7 No 3
24/7/07 4:32:18 PM
 236 “The use of characteristic strengths in masonry design” – Lawrence
Standards Association of Australia, 1969, AS CA47
1969 Brickwork in Buildings.
Standards Australia, 2000, AS/NZS 2699.1 2000
Built-in Components for Masonry Construction Part 1:
Wall Ties.
Stewart, M. G. & Lawrence, S. J. 2002, “Structural
reliability of masonry walls in flexure”, Masonry
International, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 48-52.
Australian Journal of Structural Engineering
S07-963 Lawrence.indd 236
Stewart, M. G & Lawrence, S. J. 2007, “Model error,
structural reliability and partial safety factors for
structural masonry in compression”, Masonry
International, (In Press).
Yi, J., Laird, D., McEwen, B. and Shrive, N. G. 2003,
“Analysis of load in ties in masonry veneer walls”,
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 30, pp.
850-860.
Vol 7 No 3
24/7/07 4:32:19 PM
 “The use of characteristic strengths in masonry design” – Lawrence 237

STEPHEN LAWRENCE

Dr Stephen J Lawrence is a consultant specialising in masonry structures. After

25 years experience in building research for the Experimental Building Station,
the National Building Technology Centre and the CSIRO, Stephen established
his own consulting practice in 1998. He continues active involvement in
masonry research and has been appointed a conjoint professor at the University
of Newcastle.
Stephen completed his ME degree at the University of Adelaide in 1971 and
his PhD at the University of NSW in 1984 on the resistance of non-loadbearing
brickwork panels to out-of-plane lateral loading. His main research interests
are the behaviour of unreinforced masonry structures, flexural behaviour, bond
strength and fire resistance of masonry. He has had a long involvement with the
development of codes and standards for masonry and chaired the committee
responsible for the Australian Masonry Code AS 3700 from 1987 to 1996. He
has written over 95 papers on masonry research and practice, prepared two
masonry teaching packages and a series of manuals for the Clay Brick & Paver
Institute, and is co-author of the Australian Masonry Manual.

Australian Journal of Structural Engineering Vol 7 No 3

S07-963 Lawrence.indd 237 24/7/07 4:32:19 PM