'

' ' •

' ' •

• \

'* DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON

ELIMINATION OF WASTE SERIES

RECOMMENDED MINIMUM

REQUIREMENTS FOR MASONRY WALL

CONSTRUCTION

REPORT

OF BUILDING CODE COMMITTEE

WM.

' ‘ - ''’i ' -

: v •

'

.. -r.

'•*/. BUREAU OF STANDARDS

WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1925

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

HERBERT HOOVER, SECRETARY ELIMINATION OF WASTE SERIES RECOMMENDED MINIMUM

REQUIREMENTS FOR MASONRY WALL

CONSTRUCTION

REPORT OF

BUILDING CODE COMMITTEE

JUNE 28, 1924

IRA H. WOOLSON, Chairman EDWIN H. BROWN

WILLIAM K. HATT

ALBERT KAHN

RUDOLPH P. MILLER JOHN A. NEWLIN

JOSEPH R. WORCESTER

FRANK P. CARTWRIGHT, Technical Secretary

JOHN M. GRIES, Chief, Division of Building and Housing

BUREAU OF STANDARDS

PRICE, 15 CENTS

Sold only by the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office Washington, D. C. WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1925
MEMBERSHIP OF THE BUILDING CODE COMMITTEE

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Ira H. Woolson, consulting engineer National Board of Fire Underwriters, New York, N. Y., chairman ; member American Society of Mechanical Engineers, American Society for Testing Materials, National Fire Protection Association, American Concrete Institute. Edwin H. Brown, architect, Minneapolis, Minn.; secretary American Institute of Architects. William K. Hatt, professor of civil engineering, Purdue University; member American Society of Civil Engineers; American

Concrete Institute. Albert Kahn, architect, Detroit, Mich. ; fellow American Institute of Architects. Rudolph P. Miller, consulting enginer, New York, N. Y. ; presi- dent Building Officials Conference; ex-superintendent of buildings, New York, N. Y. ; member American Institute of Consulting

Engineers, American Society of Civil Engineers, American Society

for Testing Materials. John A. Newlin, in charge of section of timber mechanics Forest Products Laboratory, Forest Service, United States Department

of Agriculture, Madison, Wis. ; member American Society for Testing Materials, American Society of Civil Engineers, associate member American Railway Engineering Association. Joseph R. Worcester, consulting engineer, Boston, Mass.; member

American Society of Civil Engineers, American Institute of Consulting Engineers.

Frank P. Cartwright, technical secretary.

ii
CONTENTS

PART I.—INTRODUCTION

Page Acknowledgment of assistance 2 Scope of report . 3 PART II.—RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR MASONRY WALL CONSTRUCTION

Article I.—Definitions 4

Sec. 1. Definitions 4

Article II.—Solid brick walls 5

Sec. 2. Quality of materials 5

Sec. 3. Lateral support i 6

Sec. 4. Working stresses 6

Sec. 5. Thickness of exterior walls 7

Sec. 6. Bond 8

Sec. 7. Piers ' 8

Sec. 8. Chases and recesses ; arches and lintels^ 9

Article III.—Walls of hollow tile, concrete block or tile, and hollow walls

of brick 9

Sec. 9. Quality of materials 9

Sec. 10. Lateral support 10

Sec. 11. Working stresses 10

Sec. 12. Thickness and height of exterior walls 10

Sec. 13. Bond ; 11

Sec. 14. Beam supports ., 11

Sec. 15. Piers 11

Sec. 16. Chases and recesses ; arches and lintels 11

Article IV.—Walls of plain concrete 12

Sec. 17. Concrete materials 12

Sec. 18. Lateral support 12

Sec. 19. Working stresses 13

Sec. 20. Thickness of walls 13

Sec. 21. Reinforcement 14

Sec. 22. Piers __ 14

Sec. 23. Chases and recesses 14

Article V.—Stonewalls . — 14

Sec. 24. Working stresses 14

Sec. 25. Lateral support and thickness 14

Sec. 26. Bond 15

Sec. 27. Chases and recesses 15

Article VI.—Veneered walls 15

Sec. 28. Quality of materials 15

Sec. 29. Working stresses 15

Sec. 30. Attachment of veneering 15

Sec. 31. Height of veneered walls 15 in
IV CONTENTS

Page

Article VII.—Faced walls ! 15

Sec. 32. Quality of materials 15

Sec. 33. Working stresses 16

Sec. 34. Thickness 16

Sec. 35. Bond Sj 16

Article VIII.—Fire walls and fire division walls and partitions 16

Sec. 36. Brick and plain concrete fire walls 16

Sec. 37. Fire walls of hollow tile, concrete block or concrete tile, or

of hollow wall construction 17

Sec. 38. Fire division walls 17

Sec. 39. Alternate requirements for fire and fire division walls 17

Sec. 40. Parapet walls 18

Sec. 41. Bearing partitions 18

Sec. 42. Nonbearing partitions : 18

Article IX.—Foundation walls— . 18

Sec. 43. Foundation walls 18

Article X.—Skeleton construction 19

Sec. 44. Panel and inclosure walls ^

Article XI.—New types of masonry construction 19

Sec. 45. New masonry construction 19

Article XII.—Miscellaneous requirements 20

Sec. 46. Anchoring walls 20

Sec. 47. Use of existing walls j 2®

Sec. 48. Corbeling of chimneys 20

Sec. 49. Cornices 20 PART III.—APPENDIX

Par. 1. Purpose ; 21

Par. 2. Justification for requirements, and influence of building inspec- tion 21

Par. 3. Status of the committee’s recommendations 22

Par. 4. Function of walls 23

Par. 5. Variation in code requirements 23

Par. 6. Walls in skeleton construction 25

Par. 7. Fire and fire division walls 26

Par. 8. Concrete considered as masonry 28

Par. 9. Quality of brick 28

Par. 10. Mortar materials 30

Par. 11. Tests of compressive strength of brick masonry 31

Par. 12. Lateral support of walls 12^-———. 32 Par. 13. Elements affecting strength of brickwork 34

1. Strength of individual brick — 34

2. Mortar, materials, and proportions 36

3. Ratio of height to thickness 36

4. Bond and jointing 37

5. Workmanship — 37

6. Age of masonry I --- 38

7. Manner of loading —— 38

Par. 14. Factors of safety for brickwork 38

Par. 15. Stresses in brickwork , k—JO 39

Par. 16. Thickness of brick walls -- — 41

Par. 17. Heat transmission of masonry walls 42
CONTENTS V

Page Par. 18. Factors affecting stability of walls 44

1. Foundation conditions 44

2. Vibration 44

3. Height and width of buildings 44

4. Methods of anchorage ' 44

5. Rigidity of floors 44

6. Influence of span 45

7. Fire exposure 45

8. Wind pressure—— 45

9. Percentage and arrangement of openings in walls 45

Par. 19. Bond for hrick walls 45

Par. 20. Height of brick piers 46

Par. 21. Height of masonry walls . 46

Par. 22. Lining existing walls . 46

Par. 23. Lintels 46

Par. 24. Quality of hollow tile and concrete block or concrete tile 46

Par. 25. Working stresses for hollow walls 48

Par. 26. Support for slabs, beams, and girders 49

Par. 27. Concrete walls—solid and hollow 49

Par. 28. Walls and piers of stone masonry.

Par. 29. Parapet walls

Par. 30. Foundation walls

Par. 31. New masonry construction Par. 32. Anchorage of walls : 51

Par. 33. Professional assistance rendered 52

Par. 34. Bibliography 52 FIGURES

1. Desirable methods of bonding brick walls of various thicknesses and types ;—||| 2 8

2. Compression test of 8-inch solid wall of brick. Note failure due to breakage of headers. Bureau of Standards,Washington, D. C_ Facing 44

3. Compression test of 8-inch hollow wall of brick. Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C ! Facing 45

4. Compression test of large brick pier in 10,000,000-pound machine. Bureau of Standards laboratory at Pittsburg Facing 46

gg

§§
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL

Washington, October 1 , 192If.. Hon. Herbert Hoover,

Secretary of Commerce, Washington, D. C. Dear Sir : Under instruction from the Building Code Committee,

appointed by you for the purpose of standardizing and simplifying

building laws, I have the honor to submit herewith a report cover- ing Recommended Minimum Requirements for Masonry Wall Construction. If this report meets with your approval, the committee recommends that it be printed for public distribution. The same plan followed in preparing the committee’s report on small dwelling construction was employed in drafting this re- port, namely, to collect data, prepare a tentative report, solicit cooperative criticism from every available source, and then draft

a final report based upon the weight of accumulated opinion, bal- anced by the committee’s best judgment. The details of this pro- cedure are described in the introduction. The committee believes that an application of its recommendations in building code practice

will result in material reduction in building costs without impair- ment of safety or permanency. In this report, as in our first report, the Appendix forms a major

portion of the publication. It contains a digest of data used as a

basis for the requirements of Part II and considerable other matter

of an educational character. The committee is confident that, al- though this material is not adapted for inclusion in a building

ordinance, except in an appendix, it is nevertheless a very important part of the report and should be recognized as such. Yours very truly, Ira H. Woolson, Chairman Building Code Committee, Department of Commerce.

VI
LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE

Department of Commerce,

Office of the Secretary, Washington, October 23, 1924-. Mr. Ira H. Woolson, Chairman Building Code Committee

Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C. Dear Mr. Woolson : I have received with great satisfaction the Recommended Minimum Requirements for Masonry Wall Construction, prepared by the Building Code Committee. This report I know represents a great deal of painstaking labor on the part of yourself and the other members of the committee. Your work has been especially valuable, since it was on problems

that would otherwise have remained without comprehensive, sys- tematic efforts at solution. This has been accomplished by further cooperation between the Government and the public. The recom- mendations are of great importance from the point of view of elimi- nation of waste, and should result in greater returns to the public

for money spent on construction. I have no hesitation in thanking you all in behalf of the American

public, and I hope that the advantages of your recommendations

will be quickly availed of by our municipalities, and the construc- tion industries generally. Yours faithfully, Herbert Hoover.

RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR MASONRY

WALL CONSTRUCTION

Report of the Building Code Committee of the Department of Commerce

This report is divided into three general headings, as follows

Part I.

Introduction:

Describes briefly the organization of the committee and its method

in preparing and presenting the recommendations. Part II.

Minimxim requirements for safe and economical construction of masonry walls

These are briefly stated in the form of recommendations suitable for State or municipal adoption. Part III.

Appendix:

Contains material not suited for incorporation in a building law, but which is explanatory of the requirements recommended in Part

II and descriptive of good practice. PART I.—INTRODUCTION

Several independent analyses have indicated forcefully that pres- ent municipal code requirements for masonry wall construction are, in general, unnecessarily restrictive of building enterprise, often re- quire uneconomical construction, and are lacking in the uniformity

desirable for convenience of designers and builders. The follow- ing report summarizes some of these analyses, describes investigations of the factors affecting masonry wall essentials, and presents recommendations for uniform code practice. The building code committee of the Department of Commerce

was organized early in 1921, in response to a generally expressed

public demand for greater uniformity and economy in building code

requirements. Its first work concerned regulations affecting construction of small dwellings and the final report on that subject was

published in January, 1923.1

1 Recommended Minimum Requirements for Small Dwelling Construction; a. 100-page

report obtainable from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., at 15 cents per copy. 28934°—25 2 1
2 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

Following its organization the committee made an extensive canvass of professional opinion as to what parts of building codes most urgently needed revision and standardization. This showed

that masonry wall regulations differ widely in various cities; that allowable masonry stresses and fire resistance requirements are based on inadequate knowledge of service under loading and fire exposure

and that as a result there is lack of safety in some localities and

unnecessary use of materials and labor in others. It was decided to collect all reliable data available for guidance

of those drafting masonry wall provisions and to prepare recom- mendations representing the best information obtainable on the subject. An investigation of fire resistance of masonry walls had been

instituted at the Bureau of Standards and has since been completed, and the results made available for this committee. Tests were made

upon solid and hollow brick walls 11 by 16 feet in area and built with different varieties of brick and mortar. In the meantime all available data on the compressive strength of masonry were correlated, with especial care to evaluate the effects of differing conditions on strength and stability. These include results from an elaborate

investigation of the compressive strength of brick walls in the largest units adapted to the 10,000,000-pound testing machine at the Bureau of Standards’ former Pittsburgh laboratory. The advice of many experienced masonry builders was also obtained. With this information in hand the committee prepared a tentative draft of code requirements regulating masonry wall construction in all types of buildings, together with an appendix explanatory

of these requirements and including certain valuable material which had resulted from the investigations mentioned. Over 800 copies of

this draft in mimeographed form, were submitted to architects, engineers, building officials, contractors, insurance adjusters, and others, whose experience and interest qualified them to discuss the subject with authority. The tentative draft was thoroughly reviewed. Over 150 letters were received presenting the well-considered opinions of about 200

experienced observers. These were summarized in form for ready

reference and several meetings of the committee held for their consideration in connection with preparation of this report. SCOPE OF REPORT

This report deals with exterior and interior masonry walls for all buildings. Walls for small dwellings are included, but are treated more specifically in the report on Recommended Minimum Require- ments for Small Dwelling Construction, previously mentioned.

Note.For reasons given in the Appendix, paragraph 8-3, reinforced concrete walls have been omitted.
MASONRY WALL CONSTRUCTION 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ASSISTANCE The committee desires to express its appreciation of the cooperation extended by Bureau of Standards officials. S. H. Ingberg, of

the bureau staff, rendered valuable assistance by compiling data, making available results of fire tests, by working with the committee

at several meetings, and by supplying a discussion ,of bending

stresses in walls due to wind loads and floor reactions. The

unequaled research facilities of the bureau have been freely employed, and the results of numerous investigations made by the bureau in the field of masonry construction have been most helpful. The committee also acknowledges the invaluable cooperation

received from the great number of architects, engineers, building

inspectors, fire chiefs, and others with whom it has been in contact. Their prompt and well-considered response to requests for information has greatly facilitated the work and has been much appreciated.

It has been impracticable to report to each commentator the disposition of his suggestions. Many of the more important questions

raised have been discussed in the Appendix.
PART II.—RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

FOR MASONRY WALL CONSTRUCTION

ARTICLE I.—DEFINITIONS

Section 1. Definitions.For the purposes of this code the terms

here defined shall have the following meanings.

1. Bearing wall.—A wall which supports any vertical load in addition to its own weight.

2. Nonbearing wall.—A wall which supports no load other than

its own weight.

3. Panel wall.—A nonbearing wall in skeleton construction, built between columns or piers and wholly supported at each story. (See Appendix, par. 6-1.)

4. Inclosure wall.—An exterior nonbearing wall in skeleton construction anchored to columns, piers, or floors, but not necessarily

built between columns or piers. (See Appendix, par. 6-2.)

5. Curtain wall.—A nonbearing wall between columns or piers and

which is not supported by girders or beams.

6. Party wall.—A wall used or adapted for joint service be- tween two buildings.

7. Fire wall.—A wall which subdivides a building to restrict the spread of fire, by starting at the foundation and extending con- tinuously through all stories to and above the roof. (See Appendix,

par. 7.)

8. Fire division wall.—A wall which subdivides a fire resistive building to restrict the spread of fire, but is not necessarily continu- ous through all stories nor extended through the roof. (See Appendix, pars. 7 and 17.)

9. Veneered wall.—A wall having a masonry facing which is not attached and bonded to the backing so as to form an integral part

of the wall for purposes of load bearing and stability.

10. Faced wall.—A wall in which the masonry facing and back- ing are so bonded as to exert common action under load.

11. Masonry.—Stone, brick, concrete, hollow tile, concrete block or

tile, gypsum block, or other similar building units or materials or a combination of same, bonded together with mortar to form a wall,

pier, or buttress. (See Appendix, par. 8.) 12. Piers.—All bearing walls having a horizontal cross section of

4 square feet or less and not bonded at the sides into associated masonry shall be considered as piers.

13. Portland cement mortar.—A mortar composed of 1 part Port- land cement to not more than 3 parts of sand, proportioned by

volume, with an allowable addition of hydrated lime not to exceed

4 /
MASONRY WALL CONSTRUCTION 5

15 per cent of the cement by volume. (See Appendix, par. 10-4; and 13-2.)

14. Cement-lime mortar.—A mortar composed of 1 part Portland

cement, 1 part hydrated lime, and not more than 6 parts of sand, proportioned by volume.

15. Lime mortar.—A mortar composed of 1 part slaked lime (lime putty) or dry hydrated lime and not more than 4 parts of sand, pro- portioned by volume. (See Appendix, par. 13-2.)

16. Natural cement mortar.—A mortar composed of 1 part natural cement to not more than 3 parts of sand, proportioned by volume.

17. Ashlar masonry.—Masonry of sawed, dressed, tooled, or quarry-faced stone with proper bond.

18. Ashlar facing.—Sawed or dressed squared stones used in facing masonry walls.

19. Random ashlar facing.—Sawed or dressed squared stone of

various sizes properly bonded or fitted with close joints used for the facing of masonry walls.

20. Coursed rubble.—Masonry composed of roughly shaped stones

fitting approximately on level beds and well bonded.

21. Random rubble.—Masonry composed*of roughly shaped stone

laid without regularity of coursing, but fitting together to form

well-defined joints. 22. Rough or ordinary rubble.—Masonry composed of unsquared

or field stones laid without regularity of coursing.

23. Rubble concrete.—Portland cement concrete in which the finer materials form a matrix for large stones and bowlders, sometimes termed cyclopean concrete.

Notes.—1. Unless otherwise stated the word “ concrete ” for the purposes

of this code is understood to mean Portland cement concrete.

2. Unless otherwise stated units of materials other than burned clay, having

the same general shape and size of brick, are for the purposes of this code

considered as brick. (See Appendix, par. 9-1.)

3. Unless otherwise stated the term “ hollow tile ” used without a qualifying

adjective, is understood to mean clay hollow tile. ARTICLE II.— SOLID BRICK WALLS

Sec. 2. Quality of materials.—Brick, and sand-lime brick, used

for bearing walls or piers shall be of quality at least equal to the

“ medium brick ” described by the Standard Specifications for Building Brick of the American Society for Testing Materials, except that when the average compressive strength of brick grading “ soft ” by

the absorption test, is more than 2,500 pounds per square inch, the requirements as to absorption may be waived. When used for nonbearing purposes and not exposed to the weather, brick may be of

quality not inferior in any respect to the “ soft ” brick described in the above specifications. (See Appendix, pars. 9-2 and -3.)
6 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS The average compressive strength of concrete brick 28 days after being manufactured or when delivered on the job, shall be not less than 1,500 pounds per square inch of gross cross-sectional area tested

in the position as laid in the wall, and the compressive strength of any individual brick thus tested shall be not less than 1,000 pounds

per square inch. (See Appendix, par. 9-4.) Concrete brick subjected to a 24-hour immersion test shall absorb not more than 12 per cent of their dry weight, except that for such

brick weighing less than 125 pounds per cubic foot the average ab- sorption in per cent by weight shall be not more than 12 multiplied 'by 125 and divided by the unit weight in pounds per cubic foot of the concrete under consideration. (See Appendix, par. 9-5.) All cements and limes used in mortar shall conform to the require- ments of the standard specifications for these materials issued by the American Society for Testing Materials. (See Appendix, par. 10-2.) Sand used in mortar shall be clean and free from animal or vegetable matter. (See Appendix, par. 10-1.) (For precautions neces- sary in laying brickwork in freezing weather or in warm dry

weather see Appendix, par. 13-5.) Sec. 3. Lateral Support.—Solid brick walls shall be supported

at right angles to the wall face at intervals not exceeding eight- een times the wall thickness in the top story or twenty times

the wall thickness elsewhere. Such lateral support may be obtained by cross walls, piers, or buttresses, when the limiting distance is measured horizontally, or by floors when the limiting distance is measured vertically. Sufficient bonding or anchorage shall be pro- vided between the wall and the supports to resist the assumed vfind

force, acting in an outward direction. Piers or buttresses relied upon

for lateral support shall have sufficient strength and stability to transfer the wind force, acting in either direction to the ground.

When walls are dependent upon floors for their lateral support, provision shall be made in the building to transfer the lateral forces

resisted by all floors to the ground. (See Appendix, par. 12.)

Sec. 4. Working Stresses.—The maximum allowable compressive

stresses in brick masonry due to combined live and dead loads shall not exceed the following limits. (See Appendix, par. 9-2.) Brick masonry stresses Maximum unit working stresses (pounds per square inch) Unit Portland cement

mortar

Natural cement or cementlime mortar

Lime

mortar

Brick (clay) medium grade 170 130 90 Sand-lime brick 170 130 90 Concrete br c

170 130 70'
MASONRY WALL CONSTRUCTION 1 Where the effects of eccentric loading and lateral forces are fully analyzed and allowance made for them in the design, or under local concentrated loads applied to a limited proportion of the total area of the wall, the working stresses in this table may be increased by

50 per cent. (See Appendix, par. 15.) Note.—See Appendix, paragraphs 13 and 14, respectively, for effect of dif- ferent factors on strength and stability of masonry. Sec. 5.—Thickness or Exterior Walls Other Than in Skele- ton Construction.2—-The thickness of solid brick bearing walls

shall be sufficient at all points to keep the combined stresses due to

live and dead loads for which the building is designed within the

limits prescribed by section 4. (See Appendix, par. 15.) The minimum thickness for solid brick exterior bearing or party

walls shall be 12 inches for the uppermost 35 feet of their height, and shall be increased 4 inches for each successive 35 feet or frac- tion thereof measured downward from the top of the wall ; except

that the top story exterior bearing wall of a building not exceeding

three stories or 40 feet in height, or the wall of a one-story commercial or industrial building may be 8 inches thick, provided that such

8-inch wall does not exceed 12 feet unsupported height and that the roof beams are horizontal; and except that exterior solid brick bear- ing walls of one and two family dwellings may be 8 inches thick when not more than 30 feet in height. When gable construction is used for such dwellings, an additional 5 feet is permitted to the peak

of the gable. (See Appendix, par. 16.) Where solid brick exterior bearing or party walls are stiffened at distances not greater than 12 feet apart by cross walls, or by internal or external offsets or returns, at least 2 feet deep, they may be 12

inches thick for the uppermost 70 feet, measured downward from

the top of the wall, and shall be increased 4 inches in thickness for each successive 70 feet or fraction thereof. Note.—

ee Appendix, paragraphs 2-2 and 13-5 for influence of workmanship ; paragraph 21, for discussion of wall heights. See Part II, section 3, and

Appendix, paragraph 12, for lateral support of walls. The minimum thickness of solid brick exterior nonbearing walls

shall be 12 inches for the uppermost 70 feet of their height, and

shall be increased 4 inches for each successive 35 feet or fraction

thereof, measured downward from the top of the wall, except that

the top story wall of a building not exceeding three stories or 40

feet in height, or the wall of a one-story commercial or industrial building may be 8 inches thick, provided that such 8-inch wall does not exceed 12 feet unsupported height, and that the roof beams are

2 For thickness requirements for walls in skeleton constructed buildings, see Part II, sec. 44. For discussion on allowable percentage of openings, see Appendix, par. 18-9.
zo

8 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

horizontal ; and except that solid brick nonbearing walls of one and two family dwellings may be 8 inches thick when not more than 30

feet in height. When

gable construction is used

for such dwellings an additional 5 feet is permitted to the peak of the gable. (See Appendix, pars. 16 and 18. For interior wall require- ments, see Part II, secs. 36

to 39, also 41 and 42.) Sec. 6. Bond.

In all brick walls at least every

sixth course on both sides of the wall shall be a header course or there

shall be at least one full length header in every 72

square inches of each wall

surface. In walls more

than 12 inches thick the inner joints of header

courses shall be covered with another header

course which shall break

joints with the course below. (See fig. 1 and

Appendix, par. 19.) Where running bond is used, every sixth course on each face shall be bonded into the back- ing by cutting the face brick course and using

diagonal headers behind it or by using a split brick.

Note.—For requirements ap- plying to veneered walls, see Part II, Article VI. Sec. 7. Piers.

The un- supported height of piers shall not exceed ten times

their least dimension.

(See Appendix, par. 20.)

rgr: :|t:

ir Iff It W

Jt; m .11
MASONRY WALL CONSTRUCTION 9

Sec. 8. Chases and Eecesses.—There shall be no chases in 8-inch walls or within the required area of any pier, and no chase in any

wall or pier shall be deeper than one-third the wall thickness. No horizontal chase shall exceed 4 feet in length, nor shall the horizontal projection of any diagonal chase exceed 4 feet. Eecesses for stairways or elevators may be left in walls, but in no case shall the walls at such points be less than the required

thickness of walls of the fourth story above the ground floor unless reinforced by additional piers, by steel or reinforced

concrete girders, or steel or reinforced concrete columns and girders, securely anchored to the walls on each side of such recesses. Eecesses for alcoves and similar purposes shall have not less than 8 inches of material at the back. Such recesses shall be not more

than 8 feet in width and shall be arched over or spanned with lintels. The aggregate area of recesses and chases in any wall shall not exceed one-fourth the whole area of the face of the wall in any

story. No chases or recesses shall be permitted in fire or fire division walls that will reduce the thickness below the minimum specified in

this code. (See Part II, secs. 86 to 39.) Openings for doors and windows shall have well-buttressed arches or lintels of masonry, or of metal with bearing at each end of not

less than 4 inches on the wall. On the inside of openings less than 4

feet wide, in which the thickness of arches and lintels is less than that of the wall supported, timber may be used, which will rest at each end not more than 2 inches on the wall and be chamfered or cut to serve as arch centers. (See Appendix, par. 18-4, and par. 32 for

discussion of anchorage.) ARTICLE III.—WALLS OF HOLLOW TILE, CONCRETE BLOCK OR

TILE, AND HOLLOW WALLS OF BRICK

Sec. 9. Quality of Materials.—Hollow tile.—Hollow tile used for

exterior bearing walls or piers or for party walls shall be of quality at least equal to the “ medium class ” as prescribed by the Tentative

Specifications for Hollow Burned-Clay Load-Bearing Wall Tile of the American Society for Testing Materials. (See Appendix, par. 24-1 and -2.) When used for nonbearing purposes and not exposed to the

weather, hollow tile may be of quality not inferior in any respect to the “ soft class ” described in the above specifications. Note.

For quality of tile used in partitions, see Part II, sections 41 and 42. Concrete block or concrete tile.—The average compressive strength of concrete block or tile used for exterior or party walls or piers

shall be not less than 700 pounds per square inch of gross sectional area tested in position as used in the wall. The absorption of con289340—25—
10 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS'

Crete block or tile shall not exceed 10 per cent under a 24-hour im- mersion test, except that where concrete block or tile have an average compressive strength of over 1,200 pounds per square inch gross

area, or where they are not exposed to dampness, or where they are coated with stucco, the requirement as to absorption may be waived. For block or tile made of concrete weighing less than 140 pounds per

cubic foot, the average absorption in per cent by weight shall be not more than 10 multiplied by 140 and divided by the unit weight in pounds per cubic foot of the concrete under consideration. (See Appendix, par. 9-5.) Tests on concrete block shall be conducted in accordance with the Standard Specifications of the American Concrete Institute. (See Appendix, par. 24-3.) Brick. —Brick for hollow walls shall conform to requirements of Part II, section 2. Mortar. —Either Portland cement mortar as defined in section 1, or a special cement-lime mortar mixed in proportions of 1 part Portland cement, 1 part slaked lime (lime putty) or dry hydrated

lime, and not more than 4 parts sand, shall be used for walls of hollow unit construction or hollow walls of brick. Sec. 10. Lateral Support.—Walls of hollow tile or of concrete block or tile, and all hollow walls of brick shall be supported at right angles to the wall face at intervals not exceeding sixteen times

the wall thickness in top stories, or eighteen times the wall thickness

elsewhere. Such lateral support may be in the form of cross walls,

piers, or buttresses when the limiting distance is horizontal, or by

floors when the limiting distance is vertical. Sufficient bonding or anchorage shall be provided between the wall and the supports to

resist the assumed wind force acting in an outward direction. Piers

or buttresses relied upon for lateral support shall have sufficient strength and stability to transmit the wind force, acting in either

direction, to the ground. When walls are dependent on floors for

their lateral support provision shall be made in the building to transfer the lateral force resisted by all floors to the ground. (See Appendix, par. 12.) Sec. 11. Working Stresses.—The maximum allowable compressive stresses in masonry of hollow tile, concrete block or concrete

tile, or hollow walls of brick, due to combined live and dead loads,

shall not exceed 80 pounds per square inch of gross sectional area, when laid with Portland cement mortar, and 70 pounds per square inch of gross sectional area when laid with special cement-lime

mortar. (See section 9, Mortar. See also Appendix, par. 25-1.) Sec. 12. Thickness and Height of Exterior Walls Other Than

in Skeleton Construction.3—Walls of hollow tile, concrete block or

3 For thickness requirements for walls in skeleton constructed buildings, see Part II, sec. 44. For discussion on allowable percentage of openings, see Appendix, par. 18-9.
MASONRY WALL CONSTRUCTION 11

tile, or hollow walls of brick shall not exceed 50 feet in height above

the top of foundation walls. The thickness of walls of the above materials and types shall be

sufficient at all points to keep the stresses due to combined live and

dead loads for which the building is designed within the limits prescribed by section 11. The minimum thickness of exterior walls of hollow tile, or concrete block or tile, or of hollow-wall construction shall be 12 inches

for the uppermost 35 feet of their height, and at least 16 inches

for the remaining lower portion; except that the top story wall

of a building not exceeding three stories or 40 feet in height, or the wall of a one-story commercial or industrial building may be 8 inches thick, provided that the roof beams are horizontal; and

except that exterior walls of one and two family dwellings may

be 8 inches thick for the uppermost 20 feet. When gable construction is used for such dwellings an additional 5 feet is permitted to the peak of the gable. (See Appendix, par. 16-6.) Where walls are stiffened at distances not greater than 12 feet by cross walls or by internal or external returns at least 2 feet deep, the thickness may be 12 inches throughout, except that the

top story, or for one and two family dwellings the uppermost 20 feet, may be 8 inches as previously provided. (See Appendix, par. 16-1 and -4. For interior wall requirements see Part II, secs. 36 to 39, also 41 and 42.) Sec. 13. Bond.

-Where two or more hollow units are used to make up the thickness of a wall, the inner and outer courses shall be bonded at vertical intervals not exceeding three courses by lapping

at least one cell completely over a cell of the unit below.

Sec. 14. Beam Supports.

Suitable provision shall be made at each line of floor beams in hollow walls or walls of hollow units, to shut off the spaces above from those below, and to ensure good

bearing for beams and uniform distribution of loads. (See Appendix, par. 26.) Sec. 15. Piers.—Hollow tile or hollow concrete block or tile shall not be used for isolated piers unless solidly filled with concrete. The

unsupported height of such piers shall not exceed 10 times their

least horizontal dimension. (See sec. 1, definition 12, and Appendix, par. 26.) Sec. 16. Chases and Recesses.—Chases and recesses in walls of hollow tile, hollow concrete block or tile, or in hollow walls of

brick shall not exceed in extent those permitted for solid brick

walls under the same conditions. Chases and recesses shall not be

cut in walls of the above types, but may be built in. No chases
12 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

or recesses shall be permitted in fire walls that will reduce the

thickness below the minimum specified in this code. Openings for doors and windows shall have well-buttressed arches or lintels of masonry or metal with bearing at each end of not less than 4 inches on the wall. On the inside of openings less than 4

feet wide, in which the thickness of arches and lintels is less than

that of the wall supported, timber may be used, which will rest at each end not more than 2 inches on the wall and be chamfered

or cut to serve as arch centers. ARTICLE IV.—WALLS OF PLAIN CONCRETE

Sec. 17. Concrete Materials.—Monolithic concrete construction containing not more than two-tenths of 1 per' cent of reinforcement

shall be classed as plain concrete. Materials for bearing walls and piers of plain concrete shall be mixed in proportions of 1 part of Portland cement to not more than

3 parts of sand and 5 parts of coarse aggregate, by volume, or a mixture of fine and coarse aggregates giving an equivalent strength and

density. Coarse aggregate shall consist of crushed stone, gravel, or crushed

slag, 85 per cent of which is retained on a No. 4 screen, and shall be graded in size from small to large particles. The particles shall be

clean, hard, durable, and free from deleterious material. (See Appendix, par. 27.) Cement for plain concrete shall conform to the requirements of the Standard Specifications and Tests for Portland Cement of the American Society for Testing Materials. Fine aggregate shall consist of sand, washed stone screenings or

other similar inert materials, or a combination thereof, having clean, hard, strong, durable uncoated grains and free from injurious amounts of dust, lumps, soft or flaky particles, shale, alkali, organic

matter, loam or other deleterious substances; and shall range from

fine to coarse. Not less than 95 per cent shall pass a No. 4 sieve, and

not more than 30 per cent shall pass a No. 50 sieve, when tested according to standard practice prescribed by the American Society

for Testing Materials. Sec. 18. Lateral Support.—Plain concrete walls shall be sup- ported at right angles to the wall face at intervals of not exceeding twenty times the wall thickness. Such lateral support may be in the form of cross walls, piers, or buttresses when the limiting spacing is horizontal, or by floors when the limiting distance is vertical. Sufficient bonding or anchorage shall be provided between the wall and

the supports to resist the assumed wind force acting in an outward

direction. Piers or buttresses relied upon for lateral support shall
MASONRY WALL CONSTRUCTION 13

have sufficient strength and stability to transfer the wind force, act- ing in either direction, to the ground. When walls are dependent upon floors for their lateral support provision shall be made in the building to transfer the lateral force resisted by all floors to the ground. (See Appendix, par. 12.) Sec. 19. Working Stresses.—The maximum allowable stresses in masonry of plain concrete of the proportions specified in section 17

as a minimum due to combined dead and live loads shall not exceed 400 pounds per square inch in compression, 35 pounds per square

inch in tension or diagonal tension ; or 90 pounds per square inch in punching shear. When plain concrete of greater strength is used the foregoing stresses may be increased to 20 per cent of the ultimate compressive strength for concrete in compression, 2 per cent in ten- sion or diagonal tension, and 4*4 per cent in punching shear. Sec. 20. Thickness of Walls.

The minimum thickness of plain

concrete bearing walls shall be 10 inches for the uppermost 35 feet of their height and shall be increased 4 inches for each successive 35

feet or fraction thereof, measured downward from the top of the

wall, except that the top-story wall of a building not exceeding

three stories or 40 feet in height, or the wall of a one-story commercial or industrial building may be 8 inches thick, provided that such

8-inch wall does not exceed 12 feet unsupported height and that the roof beams are horizontal, and except that exterior bearing walls of one and two family dwellings may be 6 inches thick when not more

than 30 feet in height. When gable construction is used for such

dwellings an additional 5 feet is permitted to the peak of the gable. (See Appendix, par. 16.) When plain concrete bearing walls of buildings more than three

stories high are stiffened at points not more than 12 feet apart by

cross walls, or by internal or external offsets or returns at least 2 feet deep, they may be 10 inches thick for the uppermost 70 feet of their

height- and shall be increased 4 inches in thickness for each successive 70 feet or fraction thereof. The minimum thickness of plain concrete exterior nonbearing walls

shall be 10 inches for the uppermost 70 feet of their height, and

shall be increased 4 inches for each successive 35 feet or fraction

thereof, measured downward from the top of the wall; except that

the top story wall of a building not exceeding three stories or 40

feet in height, or the wall of a one-story commercial or industrial building may be 8 inches thick, provided that such 8-inch wall does

not exceed 12 feet unsupported height, and that the roof beams are horizontal ; and except that exterior nonbearing walls of one and two

family dwellings may be 6 inches thick when not more than 30 feet in height. When gable construction is used for such dwellings an
14 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

additional 5 feet is permitted to the peak of the gable. (For dis- cussion of heights, see Appendix, par. 21.) Hollow monolithic walls of plain concrete shall have the same net

cross sectional area of material, irrespective of the space within the

wall, as required for solid walls. The inner and outer parts of such

walls shall be securely braced and tied together with noncorrodible

ties or other means to bring them into common action. Where floor and roof systems are carried by such walls, provision shall be made

for the distribution of these loads to the full cross section of the wall. (See Appendix, par. 27.) For interior wall requirements, see sec- tions 36 to 39, also 41 and 42. Sec. 21. Reinforcement.—Reinforcement, not less than twotenths of 1 per cent computed on a vertical height of 12 inches, shall be placed over all wall openings and at corners of the structure to prevent cracks. Floor and roof connection details shall be designed

to transmit safely the vertical and horizontal loads imposed.

Sec. 22. Piers.—The unsupported height of isolated piers of plain

concrete shall not exceed ten times their least dimension. (See sec.

1, definition 12.) Sec. 23. Chases and Recesses.—Chases and recesses in plain concrete walls shall not exceed in extent those permitted for solid brick

walls under the same conditions. (See Part II, sec. 8.) article v.—stone walls

Sec. 24. Working Stresses.—The maximum allowable compressive

stresses in rubble stonework due to combined live and dead loads

shall not exceed 140 pounds per square inch when laid in Portland cement mortar, 100 pounds per square inch in natural cement or ce- ment-lime mortar, and 70 pounds per square inch in lime mortar. The maximum allowable compressive stress in ashlar masonry due

to combined live and dead loads shall not exceed the following limits

Maximum unit working stresses (pounds per square inch) laid in—

Unit

Portland cement

mortar

Cementlime or natural cement

mortar

Lime

mortar

Granite 800 640 400 Limestone 500 400 250 Marble 500 400 250 Sandstone 400 320 160

Sec. 25. Lateral Support and Thickness.—Rubble stone walls

shall be 4 inches thicker than is required for solid brick walls of the same respective heights, but in no part less than 16 inches.
MASONRY WALL CONSTRUCTION 15 The minimum thickness for walls or piers of ashlar masonry

properly bonded shall be the same as required for solid brick walls and piers under similar conditions. The lateral support for stone walls shall conform to the same

requirements specified for solid brick walls, Part II, section 3. (For discussion of heights, see Appendix, par. 21.) Sec. 26. Bond.

Bond stones extending through the wall and

uniformly distributed shall be provided to the extent of not less than 10 per cent of the area, and there shall be at least one bond

stone for every eight stretchers. Sec. 27. Chases and Recesses.

Chases and recesses in stone walls

shall not exceed in extent those permitted for solid brick walls under

the same conditions. (See Part II, sec. 8.) ARTICLE VI.—VENEERED WALLS

Sec. 28. Quality of Materials.

Materials used in the backing and veneering of veneered walls shall conform in all respects to the requirements prescribed for such materials in Part II, sections 2, 9, and 17. Stone or architectural terra-cotta ashlar, or other approved masonry material used for veneering, shall be not less than 3 inches

thick. In stone ashlar each stone shall have a reasonably uniform

thickness, but all stones need not necessarily be the same thickness. Sec. 29. Working Stresses.

The maximum allowable compressive

stresses on the backing of veneered walls, due to combined live and

dead loads, shall not exceed those elsewhere prescribed for masonry

of the type which forms such backing. In no case shall the veneer- ing be considered a part of the wall in computing the strength of bearing walls, nor shall it be considered a part of the required

thickness of the wall. Sec. 30. Attachment of Veneering.—When walls are veneered with brick, terra cotta, stone or concrete trim stone the veneering

shall be tied into the backing either by a header for every 300 square inches of wall surface, or by substantial noncorrodible metal

wall ties spaced not farther apart than 1 foot vertically and 2 feet horizontally. Headers shall project at least 3% inches into the backing, and anchors shall be of substantial pattern. When veneer- ing is used special care shall be taken to fill all joints flujsh with! mortar around wall openings. (See Appendix, par. 32-8.) Sec. 31. Height of Veneered Walls.—Veneered walls shall not

exceed 40 feet in height above foundations. article vii.—faced walls

Sec. 32. Quality of Materials.—Materials used in the backing and facing of faced walls shall conform in all respects to the require- ments prescribed for such materials in Part II, sections 2, 9, and 17.
16 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

Materials used for facing shall be not less than 3% inches thick, and

in no case less in thickness than one-eighth the height of the unit, excepting that spandrel and other recessed panels, when approved,

may be higher than eight times their thickness, provided they are of the minimum thickness required. Sec. 33. Working Stresses,—The maximum allowable compressive stresses on faced walls due to combined live and dead loads

shall not exceed those elsewhere prescribed for masonry of the type which forms the backing. Where bonded to the backing as pro- vided in section 35 the full cross section of the facing may be considered in computing bearing strength. Sec. 34. Thickness.—Faced walls shall be not less in thickness than is required for masonry walls of the type which forms the

backing. Where bonded to the backing as provided in section 35

the facing may be considered a part of the wall thickness. Sec. 35. Bond.—Brick facing shall be bonded to walls of brick or

of hollow tile, or of concrete block or tile with at least one header

course in every six courses, or there shall be at least one full length header in every 72 square inches of wall surface. Stone ashlar facing shall have at least 20 per cent of the superficial area not less than 3% inches thicker than the remainder of the facing to form bond stones, which shall be uniformly distributed throughout the wall. When some stone in every alternate course are at least 7% inches

thick, bonded into the backing at least 3% inches, and at least 20

per cent of the superficial area of the wall is constituted of such bond stone uniformly distributed, the ashlar facing may be counted

as part of the wall thickness. Every stone not a bond stone and

every projecting stone shall be securely anchored to the backing with

substantial noncorrodible metal anchors. (See Appendix, par. 32-8.) ARTICLE VIII.—FIRE WALLS, FIRE DIVISION WALLS, AND

PARTITIONS

Sec. 36. Brick and Plain Concrete Fire Walls.—Solid brick or

plain concrete fire walls shall be not less in thickness than required

for exterior bearing walls of corresponding height, but not less than

12 inches, except that solid brick fire walls for buildings of residential occupancy shall be not less than 8 inches thick for the uppermost

20 feet of height and shall be at least 12 inches thick for the remaining lower portion ; and except that plain concrete fire walls for such

structures may be 8 inches throughout. No 8-inch fire wall shall be broken into, subsequent to building, for the insertion of structural members. (See Appendix, par. 7-6, -8, and -9, and par. 17. For

definitions of fire and fire division walls, see Part II, sec. 1.) Party walls which function also as fire walls shall conform to re- quirements for fire walls.
MASONRY WALL CONSTRUCTION 17 A separation of at least 4 inches of solid masonry shall be pro- vided in all fire and party walls between combustible members which may enter such walls from opposite sides. Sec. 37. Fire Walls of Hollow Tile, Concrete Block or Concrete Tile, or of Hollow Wall Construction.—Fire walls of hol- low tile or concrete block or concrete tile shall be not less than 16

inches thick in any part, except that for residental buildings they

may be not less than 12 inches thick throughout. Hollow walls of

brick used as fire walls shall be not less than 12 inches thick throughout. No fire walls of the above types shall be broken into, subse- quent to erection, for the insertion of structural members. (See Ap2iendix, par. 7-5 and -6, and par. 17.) Where combustible or unprotected steel building members frame

into hollow party or fire walls of thickness not greater than 12

inches, they shall not project more than 4 inches into the wall and

shall be so spaced that the distance between embedded ends is not

less than 4 inches. The space above, below, and between them shall be filled solidly with burnt-clay materials, mortar, concrete, or equivalent fire-resistive material, to a depth of not less than 4 inches on all sides of the members.

All open cells in tile or blocks occurring at wall ends shall be

filled solid with concrete for at least a depth of 6 inches, or closure

tile set in the opposite direction shall be used. Party walls which function also as fire walls shall conform to requirements for fire walls. Sec. 38. Fire Division Walls.

Fire division walls of solid brick or plain concrete shall be not less than 8 inches thick. Fire division walls of hollow tile, or of concrete block or tile, shall be not less than 12 inches thick in any part, and for buildings of storage and heavy manufacturing occupancy they shall be not

less than 16 inches thick throughout. Hollow walls of brick used

as fire division walls shall be not less than 12 inches thick throughout. (See Appendix, pars. 7 and 17.) Sec. 39. Alternate Requirements for Fire and Fire Division Walls.—Wall constructions that in fire tests conducted according to accepted standards develop safe fire-resistance periods of one and

one-half hours may be permitted for fire walls and fire division walls between residence occupancies, if otherwise adequate in point

of strength and stability. For general mercantile and manufacturing occupancies, excluding buildings or portions of buildings used

for storage, wall constructions developing, on the same basis, a safe

fire-resistance period of three hours shall be similarly permitted.

Note.—For requirements for lateral support of walls, see Part II, sections

3, 10, and 18. 28934°—25 4
18 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

Sec. 40. Parapet Walls.—In commercial or industrial buildings and in residential buildings over three stories high, all fire or party- walls shall project above the roof as parapets. Where not otherwise specified parapet walls shall be at least 32

inches high, but not higher than four times their thickness unless

laterally supported. They shall be at least as thick as the top story

wall, except that they need not in any case be more than 12 inches

thick. In residential buildings not more than three stories high parapet

walls shall extend through combustible roofs to a height of at least 12 inches above the roof. All parapet walls shall be coped. (See Appendix, par. 29.) Sec. 41. Bearing Partitions.

All interior bearing walls, except

fire walls, fire division walls, and party walls, are considered as bear- ing partitions. For bearing partitions, materials meeting the ordinary accepted

local standards for the purpose may be used. Where not utilized as party, fire, or fire division walls solid brick bearing partitions shall be not less than 8 inches thick, and those of hollow tile, concrete block or concrete tile, or hollow walls of brick

shall be not less in thickness than one-eighteenth of the height be- tween floors or floor beams. (For conditions governing concentrations see sec. 4.) Sec. 42. Nonbearing Partitions.—For nonbearing partitions, materials meeting the ordinary accepted local standards for the purpose may be used. Brick nonbearing partitions shall be not less than 3% inches thick for a height not exceeding 12 feet between floors or floor beams and

for a length not exceeding 20 feet between vertical supports. Nonbearing partitions of hollow tile, concrete block or concrete tile,, hollow walls of brick or of gypsum block or other similar materials

shall be built solidly against floor and ceiling construction below and

above, and shall not exceed the following unsupported heights

Thickness

exclusive ofplaster Maximumunsupported

height

Thickness

exclusive

of plaster Maximum

unsupported

height

Inches Feet Inches Feet

2 6 20

3 12 8 25 4 15 ARTICLE IX.—FOUNDATION WALLS

Seo. 43. Foundation Walls.Foundation walls for solid-wall construction shall be of stone, solid brick, concrete (plain, rubble,, or reinforced), or concrete block. Solid brick foundation walls
MASONRY WALL CONSTRUCTION 19 and those of concrete block or coursed stone shall be not less in thickness than the walls immediately above them and in no case

less than 12 inches thick, except that when the inclosure is not ex- cavated, they may be 8 inches thick if included within the allowable height of 8-inch walls. When built of concrete cast in place, foundation walls shall be at least as thick as the walls supported, but in no case less than 8 inches. When built of rubble stone, they

shall be at least 16 inches thick. Rough or random rubble without bonding or level beds shall not be used as foundations for walls exceeding 35 feet in height nor shall coursed bonded rubble walls be used as foundations for walls exceeding 75 feet in height. (See Appendix, par. 18-1.) Foundation walls for hollow tile, concrete block or tile, hollow

walls of brick, or frame construction, shall be of the same thicknesses, respectively, as required in the paragraph above, and shall be built of brick, stone, concrete (plain, rubble, or reinforced), hol- low tile, concrete block or tile, or hollow walls of brick. Tile foundation walls shall be not less than 12 inches thick. When the stresses due to earth pressure and superposed building

load exceed the maximum working stress elsewhere specified for brick masonry, and the additional stresses are not otherwise pro- vided for, the wall thickness shall be increased to bring them within these limits. (See Appendix, par. 30.) Foundation walls for frame construction shall extend at least 8

inches above the adjoining ground surface. All foundation walls shall extend below the level of frost action. Materials for foundation walls shall be equal in quality in all respects to those required for exterior bearing walls, except that mortar containing lime in greater proportions by volume than 1 part to 1 part of cement and 6 parts of sand shall not be used for

exterior foundation walls below grade. (See Appendix, par. 30-2.) ARTICLE X.—SKELETON CONSTRUCTION

Sec. 44. Panel and Inclosure Walls.—Panel walls in buildings of skeleton construction shall be not less than 8 inches thick if of solid brick, hollow tile, concrete block or tile, plain concrete, or hollow walls of brick. Inclosure walls shall be not less than 8 inches thick nor less in thickness than one-twentieth the horizontal

distance between anchors. (See Appendix, par. 6-2.) ARTICLE XI.—NEW TYPES OF MASONRY CONSTRUCTION

Sec. 45. New Masonry Construction.—The use of new or im- proved masonry materials or methods not covered by this code may
20 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

be permitted, providing that they conform to specifications insur- ing reasonable uniformity of the product; and that the stability and durability of such construction, and its resistance under fire exposure shall have been satisfactorily demonstrated. Working

stresses shall be fixed at not more than 20 per cent of the average

ultimate strength of masonry walls constructed of such materials, as determined by responsible authorities. (See Appendix, par. 31.) ARTICLE XII.—MISCELLANEOUS REQUIREMENTS

Sec. 46. Anchoring Walls.

All walls shall be securely anchored and bonded at points where they intersect. (See Appendix, par.

32.)Sec. 47. Use of Existing Walls.

An existing brick wall may be used in the renewal or extension of a building; or may be increased

in height beyond that allowed by this code for walls of its existing thickness and materials of construction, provided that such wall is structurally sound or can be made so by reasonable repairs. Walls

increased in height shall be at least 4 inches thicker than is re- quired by this code for newly constructed walls of such increased

height, and in no case shall linings be less than 8 inches thick and

laid in Portland cement mortar. The foundations and lateral sup- port shall be equivalent to those elsewhere required for newly constructed walls under similar conditions. All linings shall be thor- oughly bonded into existing masonry by toothings of brick or stone

to assure combined action of wall and lining. Such toothings shall be distributed fairly uniformly throughout the wall and shall ag- gregate in vertical cross-sectional area not less than 15 per cent of

the total vertical area of the lining. (See Appendix, pars. 22 and

32-1.) No existing wall shall be used for renewal or extension of a building, or increased in height without special written permission from

the building official. Sec. 48. Corbeling of Chimneys.—No brick wall less than 12 inches thick shall be used to support a corbeled chimney. Such

corbeling shall not project more than 6 inches from the face of the

wall, and in all such cases the corbeling shall consist of at least

five courses of brick. No chimney shall be corbeled from a wall

built of hollow tile, hollow concrete block, concrete tile, or hollow

walls of brick. Sec. 49. Cornices.—The centers of gravity of stone cornices shall be inside of the outer wall face. Terra cotta or metal cornices shall be structurally supported from the roof of the building.
PART III.—APPENDIX

PARAGRAPH i. PURPOSE

The Appendix consists of explanatory matter referring to Part

II and is a vital part of this report. The committee believes that every building code should be accompanied by an appendix which

should contain sufficient explanation of the code requirements to make them easily understandable and such other information on

good practice as is not easily obtainable elsewhere in concise form. PARAGRAPH 2. JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUIREMENTS, AND INFLU- ENCE OF BUILDING INSPECTION

1. It is recognized that the requirements recommended in Part II

constitute in some particulars relaxations from those in force in cer- tain cities and parts of the country. These modifications of existing practice are justified by the facts developed through the committee’s

investigations. In addition to the test data discussed in the follow- ing pages the experience has been noted of several large cities which

for many years have utilized wall heights, thicknesses, and stress limits fully as liberal as those recommended in Part II. The success resulting with these moderate requirements in many places and

under varied circumstances is the most satisfactory answer to the

objections to their adoption in localities where present requirements

are more conservative. The recommendations are 'predicated on the assumption that good

materials and workmanship will be used and all necessary care taken

in assembling the various parts of the structure. Certain existing code provisions applying to walls and other structural details, which might be classified as extreme, reflect in part the purpose of their writers to offset poor design or workmanship by a greater factor of

safety. In effect such codes penalize the builder, by requiring additional material and labor because of a city’s failure to provide, or compel the provision of adequate and competent supervision of

building operations. It is felt that the extra expense thus caused more than warrants energetic measures to insure such supervision, and that it is the duty of all concerned with planning and supervising building construction, both to the public and to their clients, to use every influence toward securing it. 2. Where responsible supervision can be assured the code require- ments recommended in this report are believed safe. Where inspec- tion is of uncertain character relaxation of more restrictive or ex- pensive existing requirements is not advocated. In modifying their code provisions to reduce cost, local authorities should insist upon

supervision of construction by an adequate experienced personnel. At the same time, city building inspectors should avoid the other extreme. There is a tendency for the building inspection depart- ments of municipalities to forget that theirs is primarily a police function, concerned only with public safety, and to lay too much

stress on matters which are good building practice, but have nothing

to do with the police power. This is reflected to a considerable

extent in some recent building codes, and in preparing these recom- mendations the effort has been made to keep them within the bounds

of simplicity necessitated by safety considerations alone. 21
22 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

3. The committee for the most part has confined itself to structural requirements and has avoided matters of administration. The public discussion of the tentative report, however, discloses a strong sentiment for placing greater responsibility on those charged with

building construction, and a few remarks on this subject seem

desirable. The municipal building inspector is not and should not be held wholly responsible for safety of buildings. His duty, like that of

the policeman, is to prevent dangerous conditions, so far as his

facilities will permit, but reasonable precautions having been taken, he is no more responsible for failures than the policeman for crimes. The builder or his accredited representative, having undertaken

erection of the structure, is responsible for safe prosecution of the work. Building erection, especially of the large structures now

prevalent, is an operation of great complexity involving numerous

possibilities of mishap, both to those engaged in the work and to future occupants. The risks involved and the knowledge demanded

of those in charge are far greater than in the case of many trades or occupations now rigidly controlled. Nevertheless, such work is frequently undertaken by those having practically no experience and often assuming an antagonistic attitude toward the building

inspector’s efforts to insure safety. In view of these facts some discretion should be accorded building

officials as to who may be granted permits. The committee does not

necessarily advocate licensing of builders, but does hold that local practice should strongly favor the issuance of permits only to responsible individuals experienced in building work and competent

to assume responsibility for their employees and subcontractors; and that building officials should be empowered to refuse permits to those known to be unfit for the work proposed or who have failed formerly to cooperate sufficiently with municipal inspection to insure reasonable safety. This means that permits would be issued only

to the builder, architect, or person who is responsible for erection of

the building, and not necessarily to the owner. PARAGRAPH 3. STATUS OF THE COMMITTEE’S RECOMMENDATIONS

1. It has been called to the committee’s attention that some mis- understanding exists regarding the legal status of its recommendations. It should be recognized that the committee’s functions are purely advisory. Its recommendations can not be considered in any

sense as obligatory, but are issued to make available to those locally responsible for exercise of the police power the latest and most

reliable information obtainable on building regulations.

2. The recommended code requirements are in all cases the mini- mum consistent with safety predicated upon proper design and

good workmanship. The scope of the police power, upon which

all such ordinances depend for authority, does not justify require- ments which are merely good building practice, and where such

requirements are included in codes they are apt to be found unenforceable. When two or more materials or methods of construction are mentioned in this report as satisfying a certain requirement, it does not follow that they are considered on a par in all desirable respects,
APPENDIX 23

but merely that they meet the standards of performance regarded

as essential.

3. It is not intended that these recommendations shall be regarded

as fixed. Building laws can continue to be of the highest usefulness only when they reflect progress in the art of building construction. Many of the injustices and discrepancies of existing building codes

result from delay in their revision to meet changing conditions. It is planned that these recommendations shall be amended at intervals, keeping pace with changes in building art. In this way it is hoped

that best assistance may be rendered those responsible for revision and enforcement of building ordinances. PARAGRAPH 4. FUNCTION OF WALLS

Under prevailing interpretations of the police power there are certain definite requirements which masonry walls in buildings must

meet.

1. They must not fail structurally under loads or conditions in- cidental to the building’s occupancy.

2. They must resist moisture penetration to an extent which will insure sanitary living or working conditions, and the permanency of

the wall itself or of members framing into it. 3. Under fire exposure their stability must be such as to avoid premature collapse endangering firemen, and they must discharge the functions of support and heat insulation, necessary to prevent undue fire loss.4 PARAGRAPH 5. VARIATION IN CODE REQUIREMENTS

So far as can be determined from an examination of present municipal regulations, experience in satisfying these requirements has not resulted in uniform practice. The committee had reference to four independent investigations on this subject.

1. An analysis by the Bureau of Standards of the requirements of 134 building codes, representing all parts of the country, disclosed the following facts. Average requirements and limitation's of 13Jf codes for brick foundations and

solid exterior walls for dwellings THICKNESS WITHIN FIRE LIMITS ONLY

Foundation,

in inches

Stories Limits of

First Second Third Fourth Height Length Width Area

12.5 Inches

9.7

11.0

13.1 16.0

Inches Inches Inches Feet

15.5 28.7

41.5 53.7

Feet

65.9

69.8 80.2

80.6

Feet23.7

24.3

24.4

Si. ft.

1, 311

13 7 9.7 1, 311 11.8

13.6

16.2 10.5

18.5 — 12.3 11.2 24.9 THICKNESS WITHIN OR OUTSIDE OF FIRE LIMITS

12.5

13.6 16.2

18.5

). 2 12.8

14.4

15. 9.2

11.5 10. 2 13.2 12.0 11.0

28.5 41.5 54.0

* The protection of stored, commodities or prevention of interior deterioration is also an important function of walls and should be considered. It does not come within the

police power.
24 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

Among the 134 codes there were 3 different minimum thicknesses prescribed for one-story residential buildings, 4 for two-story dwellings, 8 for three-story dwellings, and no less than 12 different mini- mum thickness arrangements allowable for the different stories of

four-story buildings. Other conditions being equal the thickest fourstory wall contained 125 per cent more brick than the thinnest. A

similar situation was found to exit in regard to walls of hollow tile and hollow concrete block.

2. A compilation by the Common Brick Manufacturers’ Association of America of the allowable thicknesses of solid brick exterior walls of dwellings as given in 113 building codes and summarized as follows

Minimum, allowable thickness of solid, brick exterior walls for dwellings according to building codes of 113 cities

Dwellings Walls Cities

One-story 8-inch.. 88 Do Over 8-inch 25 Two-story 8-inch, both stories 44 Do Over 8-inch, first story 38 Do Over 8-inch, both stories 31 Three-story 8-inch, all stories Do Over 8-inch, first story 17 Do Over 8-inch, first and second stories 30 Do Over 8-inch, all stories 53

3. An investigation was made by the committee of code require- ments for panel walls supported at each story, with the following

results

Of 84 municipal building codes examined, 30 do not distinguish between panel walls supported at every story and bearing walls or nonbearing walls not thus supported. Six codes recognize panel walls as a separate class, but require that their thickness for the lower stories be increased with the height of the building in the same manner as for walls not thus

supported. Forty-eight ordinances specify minimum allowable thicknesses for brick panel walls : Of these, 18 call for 8-inch thickness, and 30 call for 12 or 13 inch thickness in such walls. Thirty-three codes specify thicknesses for tile panel walls as fol- lows: 14 require 8-inch thickness, and 19 call for 12 or 13 inch

thickness. In 39 cases specific requirements for thickness of reinforced concrete panel walls are given, namely: 2 require 4-inch thickness, 4

require 6-inch thickness, 16 require 8-inch thickness, 12 require 12- inch or 13-inch thicknesses. Only one code specifically mentions the use of concrete units for panel walls, the thickness required being 12 inches. Fourteen codes make no difference between the various masonry

materials, merely stating the thickness. Of these, six call for an

8-inch wall and eight call for a 12-inch wall. Two codes forbid such walls to be thinner than one-sixteenth or one-twentieth of their height between horizontal supports.
APPENDIX 25 One code specifies that panel walls shall not be longer than 20

feet between vertical supports, but does not limit their height. Nine codes limit the height between horizontal supports, requir- ing that the thickness be increased if the limits are exceeded. These

limits vary between 10 and 20 feet. In some cases they apply to

specific materials only and in other cases their application apparently is general. Ten codes limit both height and length of panel walls supported

at each story, the limits varying from 12 by 12 feet to 14 by 30 feet. In most cases the larger limits are for the thinnest walls. Two codes regulate thickness on basis of square feet of wall

surface. Three codes require party wall panels to be 4 inches thicker than

exterior walls. Omitting from consideration the codes which require increased

thickness with increasing height of building, the average of the panel wall thicknesses specified in the 84 codes was 10.86 inches for

brick, 10 inches for hollow tile, and 8.57 inches for reinforced

concrete.

4. An analysis of requirements regarding necessary thickness of

brick bearing walls for eight-story structures in 20 codes chosen at random disclosed 18 different sets of requirements, and doubtless further investigation would have discovered others. These variations, furthermore, bore no particular relation to requirements gov- erning other factors which should affect the wall thickness. Variation, such as demonstrated above, arises in part from the

fact that standards of performance are unequal; that exposures and allowable working stresses vary; and that materials and work- manship differ widely in different localities. It also is due in very

large measure to local custom, unchecked by adequate knowledge

of construction practice elsewhere, and to slavish copying of other ordinances without due regard for the circumstances attending their adoption. In theory, at least, minimum standards of performance

should be uniform, irrespective of location and other conditions, except, perhaps, those due to climate, and when departure is made

from minimum standards scientifically determined the reasons for such departure should be carefully considered. Part II of this report presents all the requirements which the Building Code Committee considers essential to meet such uniform

standards of performance, and states these recommended require- ments in the minimum terms considered necessary for protection of

the public health and safety. PARAGRAPH 6. WALLS IN SKELETON CONSTRUCTION

1. In skeleton construction that portion of a panel wall between window sill and floor is sometimes called an apron wall. The portion between the window top and the floor construction above is occasionally designated as a spandrel wall.

2. In view of some confusion which exists in use of the terms

“ panel wall ” and “ curtain wall,” their definition in a code is con289340—25 5
26 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

sidered necessary. Inclosure walls, as defined in Part II, section 1, refer only to nonbearing walls inclosing a structure, but not necessarily built between columns or piers and only sufficiently anchored

to them or to floors to insure stability against lateral forces. They may be supported at each story or at intervals of two or more stories, as best suits the design.

3. Several critics of the tentative draft of this report suggested

that the definition of “ panel wall ” be expanded to include those sup- ported at every second or third floor line, or at intervals of 20 or 30

feet. It was evident, however, that several of these criticisms re- ferred to a, somewhat different method of construction. The committee has included these other types of walls under the term “ in- closure walls.”

4. The tentative draft of this report permitted the use of metal

fabric and cement plaster, or “ gunite ” walls. The consensus of opinion obtained indicated that such walls do not properly belong under the heading of masonry. The committee, therefore, has

omitted them.

5. Some existing codes regulate the thickness of walls in skeleton construction according to the length, height, or area in square feet between columns and floors. If the limitations on spacing of lateral supports recommended in Part II are observed, this will be unnecessary. It is established, in fact, that the expansion of such walls under

intense heat is less destructive, and the deformations are less, if the panels are long, than if they approach a square in shape. PARAGRAPH 7. FIRE AND FIRE DIVISION WALLS

1. In order adequately to discharge its functions, a fire wall must

be thick enough to prevent communication of fire by heat conduction.

It must have such stability as to remain intact after complete combustion of the contents of the building on one side of the wall ; and

its structural integrity must be such as to be not seriously affected by

any wreckage resulting from the fire or its extinguishment.

2. It is no longer customary in steel and reinforced concrete construction to build self-supporting fire walls up through a structure independently of the floors, even though such walls are sometimes

specified in codes. The walls are supported by the structural frame

or floor system in each story, and usually divided into moderately

small panels built between piers or columns. In case of fire, this method of restrained construction serves to limit the heat deformation

in a single unit to an amount which does not endanger the integrity of the wall. Such walls are termed “ fire division walls ” in this re- port to distinguish them from the walls commonly known as “fire walls.”

3. Exhaustive tests under severe conditions at the Bureau of Standards indicate that well-built 8-inch solid brick walls supported at each story with no combustible members framing into them are re- liable as fire stops, and that so long as the floor and roof construction maintain their integrity, a safe fire barrier exists between buildings

or parts of buildings separated by such walls. (See also Appendix,

par. 17.)
APPENDIX 27

4. The type of wall defined in Part II, section 1, as a “ fire wall ” is the result of experience antedating successful fire resistive skeleton

construction. Walls of considerable mass and stability, extending unbroken from foundations to parapet, were and are necessary in “ ordinary ” and “ mill construction,” where floors can not be de- pended upon to resist the full duration of a fire and are liable to

collapse, or where beams and girders depend on such walls for

support. The modem method of skeleton construction provides

floors, girders, and columns which support the walls and partitions instead of being supported by them. Experienced observers hold that high independent fire walls be- tween buildings or parts of a building of ordinary construction are

as apt to fail in event of a severe fire as the floors or roofs of well-built

fire-resistive skeleton structures, even though the fire walls conform

to the usual rigid requirements. Consequently the panel wall be- tween floors in buildings of fire-resistive skeleton construction is an

adequate alternative for the old type of fire wall. With these considerations in mind the committee has provided for two types of fire-resistive walls, the first corresponding to existing standards, to be required for “ mill construction ” buildings and

those of “ ordinary ” or wood joist construction; the second to be per- mitted wherever fire barriers are necessary within or between build- ings of skeleton construction. (See also Appendix, par. 17.) To prevent a fire lapping around the ends of a fire wall or fire division wall the committee recommends that no openings be per- mitted in the exterior walls of a building within five feet of their

intersection with fire walls. For the same reason, fire walls in frame

construction should be built with wings at each end where they

intersect the exterior walls. Such wings should be the full height

of the fire wall and extend at least five feet on each side of the fire wall in the plane of the exterior wall.

5. The requirements of Part II for hollow fire and fire division

walls, or those of hollow units, recognize the possibility of their remaining unplastered. Such walls usually are plastered and an

extra element of safety is thus introduced, as observation of such

walls under fire exposure discloses that plaster applied to both

surfaces is of considerable value in delaying transmission of dangerous temperatures and in preventing damage to the units. Plaster

also adds to the stability of thin tile walls, though not in proportion

to the additional thickness. Its use on tile and concrete-block walls

is strongly advocated, especially in the case of party and fire walls.

6. The intent of Part II, section 36, is that no attempt shall be made to break into an 8-inch party wall for insertion of building

members, subsequent to its erection. It was felt that if joists or other timbers were installed at the time of erection with ends staggered and

the masonry joints between them carefully filled with mortar, such minimum thickness might be safely employed. Where members are

inserted subsequently, it is very difficult to be sure that joist ends are properly staggered and that no dangerous crevices are left in the wall

at the floor line. A similar but more drastic requirement was made

for walls of hollow units because of the greater danger that breakage

of such units will open communication between opposite sides of

the walL
28 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

7. The requirements of Part II, section 36, permit the uppermost

20 feet of a fire wall in a building for residential purposes to be 8 inches thick with joists inserted. This, of course, does not mean

that such walls will occur in the upper stories of high buildings, for codes do not, in general, permit the use of joisted or mill construction

in buildings over five stories in height. Exterior walls receive sup- port from but one direction and the use of 8-inch thickness, therefore, was limited to the top stories of buildings not over three stories high, with further restrictions as to support and roof framing. (See Part II, sec. 5.)

8. Kequirements for control of fire-wall openings are not con- sidered within the scope of this report.

9. The suitability of lime mortar for fire and fire division walls has been questioned, but there appear to be no positive data indicat- ing that it is unsafe for solid brick walls. Hollow walls or those of hollow units are required to be laid with cement or cement-lime

mortar, whether or not functioning as fire walls. (See Part II,

sec. 9.) (See also Appendix, par. 17-2, for discussion of mortars in

fire walls.) PARAGRAPH 8. CONCRETE CONSIDERED AS MASONRY

1. Strictly speaking the term “ masonry ” is limited to the use of

stone units. In the early history of building trades, a mason was a workman who dealt with stone work only. A mason, which also implied stonecutter, was a somewhat different type of mechanic

than he who now builds with brick and tile. These terms, together with that of plasterer, have come down to us from the ancient guilds, but have gained recently a more general application.

2. Modern practice has developed the wall of mass concrete, and

that of rough stone grouted with mortar, having the same functions and general requirements as masonry of the older types. It was

decided that these should be termed masonry and treated in the same

report with walls laid up with masonry units.

3. Walls of reinforced concrete owe their strength and stability largely to factors other than those governing masonry walls and

therefore have been omitted from the scope of this report. PARAGRAPH 9. QUALITY OF BRICK

1. The requirements of many building codes date from a time when

burned clay units were practically the only materials classed as brick. In order to prevent any misunderstanding of its recommendations,

therefore, the committee believes it best to point out specifically as in Part II, section 1, note 2, that for the purposes of this report, unless otherwise stated, units of other materials having the same

general shape and size as brick are included with those of clay, it being understood that all units shall meet the test specifications provided herein.

2. The Building Code Committee has adopted the standard specifi- cation of the American Society for Testing Materials for medium

brick as the basis of a minimum requirement for clay and sand-lime
APPENDIX 29

building brick used in load-bearing masonry. On account of practical code enforcement difficulties, no provision has been made for

recognition of several grades of building brick as described in the

society’s standard specification. It is reported, however, that several

localities are using successfully a thoroughly burned brick with high

compressive strength and absorption considerably exceeding the American Society for Testing Materials limits for “ medium ” brick. No undesirable weathering of such brick is reported, though used in some cases under extremely adverse conditions, and the 2,500 pound

alternative requirement, therefore, has been inserted to permit their

use.Where a particular make of brick has been in general local use

for a period of years and has shown satisfactory service and weather

resistance ; or where such brick have demonstrated satisfactory durability when tested by not less than 100 alternate freezings and

thawings, or where climatic conditions make absorption limits unimportant, the absorption requirements may be waived for all ordinary

purposes, subject to supervision by the building officials having

jurisdiction. Where it is established to the satisfaction of those in authority

that the quality of brick available for load-bearing masonry is uni- formly higher in compressive and transverse strength than the medium grade described by the American Society for Testing Materials standard, it is recommended that reasonable increases based on

compressive strength of the units, be allowed in the unit working

stresses recommended in Part II, section 4. The use of so-called “hollow brick” also should be permitted if they meet the requirements of Part II, section 2. The following classification of brick is taken from the Standard

Specifications for Building Brick of the American Society for Test- ing Materials:

Name of grade

Absorption limits Compressive strength on edge Modulus of rupture Mean of Indi- vidual maxi- mum

Mean of 5 tests Indi- vidual

mini- mum

Mean of 5 tests Indi- vidual mini- mum

Vitrified brick Hard brick

Per cent

5 or less... 5-12

Per cent6

1524 No limit.

Pounds

per square inch

5.000 or over...

3,500 or over

2.000 or over

1.000 or over

Pounds

per square

inch

4,000

2,500

1, 500 800

Pounds

per square

inch

1,200 or over... 600 or over

450 or over

300 or over

Pounds

per square

inch

800 400

300

200 Medium brick 12-20.. Soft brick 20 or over. The standard specifications of the American Society for Testing

Materials represent an agreement of manufacturers and producers

as to standards of quality. They are the best available at the present time and the standards for structural materials are recommended for the general purposes of those drafting or revising building codes.

3. Careful provision should be made for utilization of masonry

building materials or methods not included in this code, or which may hereafter be developed, by regulating their use on a performance basis similar to that which underlies the requirements of Part

II for those already well known. (See also Appendix, par. 31.)
30 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

4. Much consideration was given to the requirements for concrete

brick. It was at first decided that all brick should be tested on edge

in accordance with the -specification of the American Society for Testing Materials for building brick. However, in view of the fact that both that society and the American Concrete Institute have

issued tentative specifications permitting concrete brick to be tested

flatwise, these recommendations were finally changed accordingly.

Specifications for concrete brick should be set high enough so that they will not be unduly friable in handling. (See also Appendix,

par. 13-1.)

5. The modification for light concrete is made necessary by the increasing manufacture of units made from light aggregates. PARAGRAPH io. MORTAR MATERIALS

1.

Sand varies widely in its characteristics and may seriously

affect the strength of mortar. Where masonry is stressed to the utmost, or where materials are of doubtful character the mortar

should be tested, and should develop a compressive strength not less than the following:

Strengths of mortars under typical field conditions

Aggregates, by volume Water

Compressive strength

at 28 days. Average of

five 2-inch cubes or cylinders

stored in air

1 : 3 Portland cement and sand . Per cent 1 22

25

25

30

Pounds per

square inch 500

200 300

30 1:1:6 Portland cement, hydrated lime and sand... 1:1:4 Portland cement, hydrated lime and sand

1 : 3 Hydrated lime and sand

1 Percentages in terms of total weight of dry materials. The water proportions giv,en are those ordi- narily used for mortar for laying brick; not those necessarily resulting in the greatest mortar strength. 2. There are not, at present writing, sufficient data on the performance of proprietary mortar cements by which to judge their suit- ability for load-bearing masonry. Where such cements have been used for some time successfully there is no reason why their use should be prohibited. The influence of small proportions of clay and loam on strength of mortar is so irregular it was felt unwise to set a permissible limit on their presence. The requirement that sand be clean permits exaction of a high standard where considered necessary by the authorities and makes for ease of enforcement under practical working

conditions.

3. No quality requirement for mixing water was given in Part II, as recent extensive investigations apparently show that the kinds and amounts of impurities carried in solution or suspension in water from even the most doubtful sources have no particular effect on

the strength of concrete. The same is assumed to be true of mortar. (See par. 13-5, Workmanship, for discussion of retempered mortar.)
APPENDIX 31

4. In proportioning cement and lime for mortar it is convenient

to remember that a bag of Portland cement equals about 1 cubic

foot, and a bag of hydrated lime equals about l1/^ cubic feet; also that 1 cubic foot of stiff lime putty is approximately equal to a bag

of dry hydrated lime. The limiting proportions of sand and cement

specified in Part II, section 1, are based on the assumption that damp

sand will ordinarily be used. If sand is thoroughly dry, a slightly smaller relative volume is advisable. PARAGRAPH n. TESTS OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF BRICK MASONRY

In recommending maximum working stresses for brick masonry

the commmittee had reference to a number of test series, which are here listed. These tests included in all 637 piers and 81 short walls, and constitute the greater part of data on this subject, published in English.

1. Tests of 33 brick piers at Watertown Arsenal in 1884, under

supervision of J. E. Howard.

2. Tests of 53 brick piers at Watertown Arsenal in 1886 and 1891, under supervision of J. E. Howard.

3. Tests of 14 brick piers at University of Toronto in 1918, under

supervision of P. Gillespie in interest of Toronto Building Department.

4. Tests of 50 brick piers at Bureau of Standards laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pa., in 1915, under supervision of J. G. Bragg.

5. Tests of 14 brick piers with special reinforced joints at Cornell

University, in 1898 and 1899, under supervision of E. J. McCaustland.

6. Tests of 70 brick piers at Columbia University under supervision of James S. MacGregor, in 1914 and 1915.

7. Tests of 54 brick piers made at Technical High School in Stockholm sometime previous to September, 1916, under direction of H. Kreuger.

8. Tests of 26 brick piers at Watertown Arsenal in 1904, under

supervision of J. E. Howard.

9. Tests of 13 brick piers at Watertown Arsenal in 1905, under

supervision of J. E. Howard.

10. Tests of 15 brick piers at Watertown Arsenal in 1906, under

supervision of J. E. Howard.

11. Tests of 32 brick piers at Watertown Arsenal in 1907, under

supervision of J. E. Howard.

12. Tests of 17 brick piers at laboratory of School of Practical

Science, 1895 and 1896, under supervision of J. Keele.

13. Tests of 59 brick piers conducted under supervision of Committee of Koyal Institute of British Architects, 1895 to 1897.

14. Tests of 16 brick piers at University of Illinois Engineering

Experiment Station in 1907, by Arthur N. Talbot and Duff A. Abrams.

15. Tests of 4 brick piers cut from masonry of wrecked building

16 years old in New York City, made at Columbia University in 1922 under supervision of R. P. Miller.
32 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

16. Tests of 135 clay, sand-lime and concrete brick piers at Columbia University in 1921 and 1922, under supervision of A. H. Beyer and W. J. Krefeld.

17. Tests of 12 thin brick walls in 1920 by Dr. Oscar Faber in

interests of British Government.

18. Tests of 33 brick walls at Bureau of Standards laboratory in Pittsburgh in 1920 and 1921, under supervision of A. H. Stang.

19. Tests of 32 piers and short columns of clay and sand-lime

brick, made by senior classes at Purdue University in 1906 and 1907.

20. Tests of 32 brick piers at Bureau of Standards laboratory in Washington in 1922 and 1923, under supervision of S. H. Ingberg.

21. Tests of 18 large and 18 small walls of sand-lime brick at Bureau of Standards laboratory in Washington in 1924, under su- pervision of A. H. Stang. The widely different circumstances under which these walls and

piers were built and tested preclude a general summary or average

of results in arriving at unit working stresses for masonry. It was

possible, nevertheless, by segregating groups of experiments, alike except in one particular, to trace with some certainty the effects of

various conditions on compressive strength, and to obtain light on

desirable factors of safety and working stresses. (See Appendix,

pars. 13 and 14.) PARAGRAPH 12. LATERAL SUPPORT OF WALLS

1. Part II, section 3, means in brief that if vertical supports, such, as columns, piers, or cross walls, are provided not more than twenty

times the wall thickness apart, there need be no limits to the distance between floors; or that when floors are spaced not over twenty wall

thicknesses apart the support of piers or other vertical members is not required.

2. Spacing of Pilasters, Cross Walls, and Other Vertical Supports.

The nature and necessary frequency of vertical supports, matters commonly specified in building codes, depend on a number of

factors. In small residential buildings the walls are short, and the support afforded by closely spaced partitions and floors is sufficient to make buttresses or pilasters unnecessary. In commercial or industrial buildings the heavier floor construction and loading assist in giving

the necessary stability. When floors are relied upon to support walls

against lateral forces the accumulated wind force will generally be

transferred to the end or cross walls by means of the floors, acting as horizontal beams ; though partial assistance is sometimes effected by

stairway or elevator inclosures, chimneys, etc. The distance which

floors can safely be depended upon to transfer the lateral forces is influenced by the width of the floor and also by the material of which

it is composed. A slab of concrete is much more rigid than a floor of frame construction, and properly can be counted upon for a greater length than the latter. The committee suggests as suitable limits of

distance of transfer for buildings of ordinary width the following

allowable lengths, with the understanding that in exceptionally nar- row buildings these lengths should be reduced, while in very wide

buildings they may be increased. For wood joist construction, sixty times the minimum wall thickness ; for steel frame, fire resistive construction, or mill or slow burning construction, ninety times the
APPENDIX 33 minimum wall thickness; for reinforced concrete construction one hundred and twenty times the minimum wall thickness.

3. Story Heights.—The story height or the unstayed height is recognized as having an important influence on the stability of

walls. Experimental data on safe limits are insufficient for conclusions, but a wide survey of results in practice indicates that for

solid brick and plain concrete walls the slenderness ratio of 20 adopted in Part II, section 3, is the maximum reasonably consistent with the thickness requirements adopted. A slightly lower

limit was placed on hollow walls or those of hollow units because such walls are of lighter weight, mortar beds are narrower, and re- sistance to heat effects less certain. Consideration was given to the use of stories as units of wall height, but in view of the variation

in story heights employed in different parts of the country the committee decided this method of stating minimum requirements is not sufficiently definite. The permissible spacing of supports, however, is thought to be such as will allow economical utilization of

wall height in any region.

4. The critical tension in walls generally occurs in the top story of nonbearing walls, since the direct load is here the least1 and the wind force the greatest. The following stresses were computed for the midstory section of such walls assumed of full section without openings and with full support, but no continuity at the floor and

roof lines. The assumed wind pressure was 30 pounds per square

foot. Computed tension in top-story nontearing walls of full section

Ratio of height to thickness (t)

Tension

8-inch walls 12-inch walls

Solid brick Hollow

tile Solid brick Hollow

tile

20t

Pounds

per square

inch

57

45

36

Pounds

per square

inch

60

48

39

Pounds

per square

inch

54

43

Pounds

per square

inch

58 18t 47

16t The stresses are in all cases computed on the full gross section of the wall. This assumption approximates the actual condition at

all mortar joints of well-Wd solid brick walls and hollow tile walls with tile laid on side or edge. For hollow tile walls laid with cells vertical and cross webs not in alignment the actual stresses at the mortar joints will be about 125 per cent higher than given in the

table, although the adhesion of extruded mortar to the vertical surfaces and the upsetting of wire-cut tile may increase the ten- sional resistance above that computed on the net bearing area. Where cross webs are in perfect alignment the stresses will be about 75 per cent higher. Openings in the wall will increase the stresses about in ratio of total horizontal cross section to the remaining net wall section. Where walls are attached or built into rigid floor or roof construction above and below there is an additional element of strength since before the wall can fail by overturning it must in
34 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

tipping lift the construction above, thereby increasing the direct load assumed by the wall from the floor construction, thus increasing

the stability of the wall. There is little experimental data available on the transverse strength of brick and tile masonry as limited by the tension in horizontal

joints. Tests made at various times at the Bureau of Standards on

nine walls of side construction tile tested under center or 2-point

lateral load and a small direct load (5 to 20 pounds per square inch) gave an average value of 92 pounds per square inch outer fiber stress in tension, with a range from 40 to 252 pounds per square inch. The

mortar proportions varied from 1 : 3 Portland cement and sand, to

1 : y2 :

y2 Portland cement, hydrated lime, and sand, all measure- ments by volume. Similar tests of two solid brick walls gave tension values of 173 and 124 pounds per square inch and for a hollow brick

wall (Ideal all-rowlock) 136 pounds per square inch as computed for the gross wall section, and 151 pounds per square inch as computed

for the net bearing section, the mortar being 1 : 3 Portland cement and sand. It is apparent that the tensional stress can not exceed the

tensional strength of the mortar and may be less due to lack of

perfect adhesion between the mortar and masonry units.

5.

In general, a 4-inch increase in wall thickness is not consid- ered adequate as a substitute for the independent support prescribed in Part II. It is strongly recommended where exposures

are extreme or high winds prevail that long bearing walls be broken as often as possible by angles or cross walls, and that chimneys, elevators, and stair shafts be so placed as to reinforce such

long walls whenever possible. PARAGRAPH 13. ELEMENTS AFFECTING STRENGTH OF BRICKWORK

Following is a list of the factors affecting brick masonry strength which through study of the experiments mentioned in paragraph

11, it is possible to evaluate.

1. Masonry strength as related to strength of individual brick.

2. Mortar, materials and proportions.

3. Ratio of height of wall or pier to its thickness.

4. Bond and jointing.

5. Workmanship.

6. Age of masonry.

7. Manner of loading.

1. Masonry Strength as Related to Strength of Individual

Brick.—Practically all the test series studied indicate that, other

conditions being equal, the compressive strength of brick masonry

is roughly proportional to that of single brick. Recent experi- ments seem to indicate that the ratio of wall strength to brick

strength is considerably greater for clay brick of low compressive

strength than for those of medium grade or better. Apparently

the ratio between strength of masonry and that of individual brick

increases as the brick strength decreases, at least down to a strength approximately equivalent to the “ medium grade ” of the A. S. T. M.

specifications. Experiments at Columbia University (see item 16, par. 11) indi- cate that when laid in Portland cement mortar, concrete brick
APPENDIX 35

averaging from 1,500 to 2,500 pounds per square inch compressive

strength tested flatwise, will make a wall about as strong as one

built of clay brick averaging 3,000 to 5,000 pounds per square inch

tested edgewise.

Tests recently made at the Bureau of Standards on piers and

walls laid in cement-lime mortar also indicate that masonry of concrete brick has -greater strength than that of clay brick having

equal unit strength tested individually. Test data furnished by the Bureau of Standards indicate that, in general, the compressive strength of brick walls built of several

varieties of brick, all laid in cement-lime mortar, varies from 15

to 40 per cent of the strength of the individual brick when the latter are tested flatwise, with the range running considerably higher when compared with the compressive strength edgewise. Tests on concrete brick piers in the investigation at Columbia

University mentioned above showed ratios of pier strength to brick

strength tested flatwise ranging from 43 to 95 per cent when 1 to 3 Portland cement mortar was used. These results were exceptionally high and have been the subject of much discussion. The various investigations to which the committee had access indicate that for any particular variety of brick the actual strength

of masonry is dependent upon other properties than strength of

the uni ts alone. Undoubtedly quality of the mortar and the ef- fectiveness of the bond between brick and mortar are important

factors in the problem. The latter, in turn, is influenced by the percentage and rate of absorption of the brick and particularly by the degree of roughness of the brick surface. The tests give

evidence that masonry built of rough-surfaced brick has higher

relative strength to the individual units than develops with smoothsurfaced brick. This may be responsible to some extent for the good showing made in tests of concrete and sand-lime brick of low

compressive strength and rough surface texture. For further in- formation on compressive strength ratios of brick masonry to in- dividual units and their relation to the factor of safety, see para- graph 14, experimental data.

Sufficient data are not available on the ratio between modulus

of rupture of single brick and the compressive strength of piers to

afford a good basis for code requirements, and the variations thus

far disclosed are so wide, for clay brick at least, that no useful

ratio can be said to exist. Concrete brick, on the other hand, showed a fairly definite ratio in the tests at Columbia University

(see item 16, par. 11). Indications are that the different processes used in making clay brick influence its modulus of rupture more

strongly than its crushing strength. In the course of recent compressive tests on brick walls the headers broke first in almost every

case, indicating that the modulus of rupture is an important ele- ment in determining the strength of brick masonry. For ease of

code enforcement, however, it seems that the crushing strength is a better criterion and more easily interpreted than the modulus of

rupture. No attempt, therefore, has been made to base working

stresses on the modulus of rupture of brick, although it is admitted

that the transverse test is a better indication of quality than has

generally been held.
36 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

2. Mortar, Materials, and Proportions.

Customs regarding the composition and proportions of mortar vary in different localities, but it was considered by the committee that sufficient guidance to those drafting building codes would be afforded if recommendations were made for five types of mortar, proportioned by volume, as follows : 1 part Portland cement to not more than 3 parts sand, with per- missible addition of lime not to exceed 15 per cent of the cement.

1 part natural cement to not more than 3 parts sand.

1 part Portland cement, 1 part lime, and not more than 6 parts sand.

1 part Portland cement, 1 part lime, and not more than 4 parts sand.

1 part lime to not more than 4 parts sand. Some question was raised by critics of the tentative report as to the desirable richness of lime mortar. Limes vary in their sand- carrying capacity, but general experience is that proportions of 1 to 4 are adequate for all demands likely to be made on lime mortar

masonry. The addition of a certain percentage of lime to Portland cement mortar is much preferred to its substitution for part of the cement,

as being easier to control and resulting in better mortar. Addition

rather than substitution is recommended by the manufacturers of both cement and lime. Investigation of numerous test series showed that with conditions otherwise equal the strength of masonry laid with 1 to 3 or 1 to 4

lime mortar did not in any case average more than 70 per cent of

that laid with Portland cement mortar, and in certain cases fell as low as 30 per cent. In assigning lime mortar masonry a working

stress slightly more than one-half that for cement mortar masonry,

the committee is influenced rather by long experience with its suc- cessful use under moderate loading than by its performance in comparative tests. Lime mortar is known to increase in strength more

slowly than cement mortar, and tests soon after laying probably are not a fair indication of bearing strength. Masonry in a building, on the other hand, is likely to be subjected to full load within two or three months and dependence on possible future strength is unjustifiable. The data available indicate that masonry built with cement-lime

mortar, as defined in Part II, varies in strength from 70 to 85 per cent of that laid with cement mortar to which a small percent- age of lime has been added. The limits on working stresses, therefore, have been placed approximately at 80 per cent of those for cement mortar masonry. There are no data available on the strength of masonry laid with natural cement mortar in which the cement is known to have

complied with American Society for Testing Materials specifications. Many early tests, however, were made with natural cement

mortar, and the results indicate that so far as strength is concerned

the material is adequate for all ordinary purposes.

3. Ratio of Height to Thickness.—Neither observation of the behavior of masonry under practical conditions nor study of comparative test, records indicates that the strength of brick masonry
APPENDIX 37

is affected to any extent by increases of the slenderness ratio be- tween 4 and 20. The headers of walls recently tested in compression gave way fmst, the circumstances indicating failure in tension or transverse bending, and the ultimate compressive strength of the specimen is about coincident with this point of failure. The ratio of height to thickness of the wall is less important apparently than

the spacing of headers. (See Appendix, par. 19.)

4. Bond and Jointing.—In spite of the foregoing, proof is not conclusive that, within the limits set in Part II, the frequency of headers determines the strength of masonry. The limit set in section 6 is based on standards of general practice rather than on experimental

investigations. The tests on brick walls mentioned above indicate the

advisability of closer header spacing in thin sections where compressive strength is important. Special bonding stones or metal mesh) between courses have proved ineffective unless placed in every course, when they improve the strength considerably. The disadvantages

of bond stones spalling under heat exposure more than offset the

additional strength supplied, and the practical difficulties of plac- ing metal mesh in masonry joints greatly limit its usefulness. For

load-bearing masonry, joints should preferably be as thin as is consistent with full bedding of the brick, but they apparently may be

as much as three-eighths inch without affecting compressive strength.

5. Workmanship.—The recommendations of Part II are based on

the understanding that supervision or inspection will be such

as to insure good workmanship and utilization of materials. (See. also Appendix, par. 2.) The following suggestions as to what should be considered good

practice in brickwork have been received from various authorities; on the subject: Care should be taken to insure even and complete bedding of the masonry units, and joints should be of sufficient thickness to permit

this. Vertical joints of exterior face courses should be buttered and bricks carefully shoved to place. Mortar should not be placed on the beds with a shovel or from the hod, but may, if desired, be

placed with special spreading devices. End joints of interior face

courses should also be carefully filled if the wall is to be furred. Where dryness is more important in brickwork than compressive

strength no particular attempt to fill interior vertical joints by shov- ing or slushing in mortar is necessary. During warm and dry weather all brick should be thoroughly wet just previous to being laid in order that good adhesion may be obtained between brick and mortar and so that sufficient water will be left in the mortar to permit its acquiring full set. Brick should be thoroughly dry when laid in cold weather, and

for best results both bricks and mortar should be warm, so that the

latter may obtain at least a partial set before it is frozen. The tentative draft offered opportunity for report of experience with retempered mortar. Such data as were obtained indicate that mortars of hydraulic cement lose considerably in strength if retem- pered after initial set, but that these losses are not sufficient seriously

to affect the strength of masonry not stressed near the working

limits. Except under experienced supervision and for nonbearing masonry it is recommended that use of retempered mortar be for- bidden.
38 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

6. Age of masonry.—Working stress requirements, and, in fact,

all recommendations of Part II, are based on the assumption that brick masonry is not unlikely to be loaded within a period of two months to the full extent contemplated in the design. No provision

is made in the recommended working stresses for construction loads, as it is considered that builders should not be penalized to provide

insurance against careless construction practice. It is doubtful if reduction in working stresses for this reason would be effective if made.

7. Manner of loading.—Experimental data indicate a sharp decrease in bearing capacity when loading is eccentric. This decrease ranges from 25 to 50 per cent in different series of experiments with

solid walls loaded one-fourth their width off center, but was only 7.3 per cent for hollow walls of brick, due probably to the large number

of headers and the greater proportion of solid material near the wall

surfaces. Available data are not complete enough to justify detailed conclusions, but indicate strongly that eccentricity must be considered and that its influence may be computed quite closely by

accepted rules of mechanics. PARAGRAPH 14. FACTORS OF SAFETY FOR BRICKWORK

Working stress requirements for brickwork determined by inter- pretation of test data on compressive strength of walls and piers depends on whether the ultimate compressive strength, or the load

at which cracks, snapping sounds, or other test phenomena occur, is chosen as the point of failure. It is established, however, that in individual cases the relation between the stress causing initial signs of failure and the maximum

stress is less certain and the human element more influential on

observation than in the case of recorded maximum stresses. For

this and other reasons the committee has based its requirements on a study of ultimate compressive stresses. It has been customary in building code practice to consider that

established stress limits represented a “ factor of safety ” of 10 based on crushing strength of the units used in the wall or pier. This, to a certain extent, is unlike practice with other materials, such as steel, concrete, and lumber, where the unit strength of the whole structural member is practically the same as that of small

specimens. If, in masonry, the factor of safety were applied to the wall or pier as a whole, it would be comparable to the factor used with other materials and would be much less than 10. The committee has followed this policy and has chosen its factor of safety with relation to the ascertained stresses at failure of brick masonry

rather than the crushing strength of individual units. A factor of safety should be increased with the number or importance of unregulated or uncontrollable elements affecting the strength of a material. Conversely, as conditions of use and stand- ards of quality are better defined and controlled the factor of safety may be reduced. There has been some attempt in the past to regulate quality of brick, but for the most part it appears that safety of brick masonry has resulted rather from design for fictitious floor loads and from empirical thickness requirements than from any considerable margin of compressive strength over permissible working
APPENDIX 39

stresses. Certain occupancies, especially warehouses, support their

full assumed live loads, but in most cases brick walls are never ac- tually subjected to the live loads they are assumed to carry. In arriving at its recommendations for maximum working stresses the committee has had reference both to careful investigation of

test data bearing on the subject and to successful practice in cities, such as New York and Boston, where the quality of materials and

the conditions of use are known to have been fairly well controlled. Experimental data.—Examination of a large group of test data, including practically all series of importance which have been made

in this country in recent years, shows an average ratio of 25 per

cent between the strength of masonry and that of brick from which

it is built, when tested on edge. This ratio applies only for brick within the lower ranges of strength ordinarily used for building

purposes. It increases for brick testing below 2,000 pounds per square inch and decreases for brick averaging above 3,500 pounds

per square inch. If brick averaging 2,400 pounds per square inch

tested on edge are accepted as representative of the more unfavorable conditions, the average ultimate compressive strength of bear- ing masonry as regulated by Part II would be about 600 pounds

per square inch. This affords a factor of safety of about 3.5 over

the maximum unit working stress provided by Part II, section 4, for piers of medium brick loaded concentrically and 2.4 for piers on which the stress due to all factors approaches the maximum

allowed in Part II. To show the possibility of strength variation of piers' built of

the same grade of materials under similar conditions, 85 small groups were selected, alike in all particulars so far as could be dis- covered from the reports. The maximum individual variation from

the average strength of each group was computed and was found to be less than 25 per cent in all except four cases, which ranged from

27 to 35 per cent. In 42 groups the variation was less than 10 per cent. Variations above and below the average were about equally

balanced. These experiments as noted were all upon masonry piers. Comparison of results from the tests of masonry walls (see par. 11, item

18) shows that variations in strength between similar specimens and

variations in the ratio of masonry strength to strength of individual

brick are as great for walls as for piers, thus indicating that the

influence of workmanship and of variation in strength of materials

is not necessarily better compensated throughout the length of a wall than in piers. PARAGRAPH 15. STRESSES IN BRICKWORK

1. Though brick work is very old, its design to any appreciable

extent on a working stress basis is comparatively recent. Walls and

piers for many years were proportioned on an empirical basis entirely, and inspection of old structures indicates that most errors were well on the side of safety. Working stresses as first established

reflected this prevailing spirit of caution, and have since increased

considerably. The figure of 250 pounds per square inch for good

brick in Portland cement mortar was first written into the code of New York City in 1898 and has been widely copied.
40 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

Coincidently with increase of working stresses the number and

extent of windows in certain types of buildings increased also. Steel and reinforced concrete construction permitted this without risk and

there was a strong tendency for brick bearing wall structures to compete. It results that much modern brickwork approaches the maximum allowable working stresses prescribed in codes, and that, careful analysis of the factors involved is necessary to make sure

these stresses are not exceeded. The requirements advocated in Part

II are predicated on the assumption that stress computations will take into account the effects of eccentric loading, the local reactions of lintels or spandrel arches, the possibility of lateral forces due to merchandise within or wind pressure without, and of any other unusual conditions affecting stress distribution.

2. In computing stresses in bearing walls it is usual to include

those due to the total amount of dead loads above the level in question plus the full live loads for the roof and uppermost floor, and

certain arbitrary percentages of the live loads on floors below the upper, except in buildings used for storage or warehouse purposes where no reduction in the floor live loads should be made. Wind

forces should be considered as producing bending from floor to

floor, and also for high narrow buildings, as producing overturning moments on the building as a whole. Further bending stresses are produced by eccentric bearing of the

floor system on the wall. A safe assumption for the latter condition

is to assume an effective moment at the floor line equal to the floor reaction on the wall of the given story times the distance of the

center of application of this reaction from the center of the wall,, neglecting all bending effects from the floors above and below ; and

at the center of the story height, a moment one-half of that at the

floor lines. This assumes the wall supported against lateral move- ment at the floor lines, but otherwise not continuous. Investigations postulated on continuity of the wall throughout its height indi- cate somewhat lower moments than those resulting with the assumption made.

Stresses in walls are further increased above those computed for the

full wall area, by openings and chases in the walls, and by concentrated loads, such as floor beam and lintel reactions. The loads on

an arch or lintel are generally considered as those of the wall and

Avail bearings coming within an equilateral triangle having the width of the opening as base. The stress produced by heavy beam

reactions, particularly where the end of the beam is built solidly into the masonry should be taken into account, in computing maxi- mum wall stresses. The reactions immediately under light closely- spaced joists need, be added only to the general wall load for the purpose of determining direct stresses, since they are distributed into

the masonry within a comparatively short distance below the bearings, adding in all cases bending stresses produced by eccentric bearings. The eccentricity of the loads is usually increased by the

deflection of the floors, producing maximum pressures at the inner

face of the wall. Computation of stresses for typical buildings indicates that with

the given limitations on story heights, the thinnest wall thicknesses permitted by the recommendations of Part II, section 4, are ade-
APPENDIX 41

quate for the relatively light loads involved in residence occupancy, hut that for heavier floor loads and floor constructions it will fre- quently be necessary to increase thicknesses beyond these minima. PARAGRAPH 16. THICKNESS OF BRICK WALLS

1. Wall thicknesses specified in Part II are nominal, referring to the minimum thickness obtainable with building units of standard

size. It is common in some parts of the country to designate brick

walls as 9, 13, and 17 inches in thickness, but with the standardization of brick and tile sizes now becoming general, it is more correct

to express the dimensions as 8, 12, and 16 inches.

2. The difference in treatment of residential and commercial

buildings less than 30 feet in height is based in part on the results of a series of questionnaires, submitted to building inspectors, in- surance rating organizations, and fire chiefs. These returns may be summarized as follows: Building inspectors. —Of about 80 building inspectors who ex- pressed their opinions on this subject, 75 per cent approved the use of 8-inch walls for two-story residences and 15 per cent considered them adequate for three-story buildings. These replies were con- cerned only with one and two family dwellings. For light commercial occupancies 7 respondents only would allow 8-inch walls up

to three stories, 30 would permit them two stories in height, and 14 would confine them to one story. Thirteen inspectors consider that commercial occupancies demand a 12-inch wall under all circumstances, 5 would make the first story of a three-story commercial

structure 12 inches ; and 2 would require the lower two stories to be

12 inches or thicker. Insurance organizations. —Through their work in adjusting claims

these have much experience with the relative stability of 8 and 12 inch walls, as affected by fires. The consensus of opinion among the 37 reports received strongly supported the 12-inch wall as having

greater resistance to bulging and collapsing under heat effects; against damage from falling timbers; and as providing a superior

fire stop between small buildings. Its salvage value also is greater, though this, of course, is an item with which a building code is not concerned. Fire chiefs and fire marshals. —Practically all of the 55 respondents who had fought fires in buildings with 8 and 12 inch walls favor the

latter as less likely to collapse under a hot fire or the action of floor beams, with resultant danger to firemen. In view of the above consensus of opinion and of considerations elsewhere mentioned, and of the heavier floor loads and hotter fires to be expected in commercial buildings, the committee decided to limit 8-inch walls for these occupancies to one story.

3. In permitting the same minimum wall thickness for commercial

or industrial buildings as for* the larger residential buildings, the committee had reference to the following considerations. Commercial occupancies which involve vibration likely to affect wall stability will, in practically all cases, involve live loads which

necessitate a wall thicker than the minimum. The effects of even the hottest fires on 12 and 16 inch solid brick

walls were shown by the Bureau of Standards’ tests to be unimpor-
42 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

tant as regards transfer of heat through the walls or their deformation within the period of exposure to be expected with residential occupancy. Heavier floor loads, where not exceeding the allowable unit

stresses, increase the vertical components of the applied pressure and add to the stability of walls against lateral forces, thereby

giving the industrial building an advantage as compared to the

residential building. Within the economic height limits of buildings with brick bear- ing walls the industrial or commercial building is more apt to have

a rigid interior framework than the residential building.

4. In arriving at the minimum wall thicknesses prescribed in Part II the committee had in mind the usual heights to which bear- ing walls are erected under present economic conditions. When

such walls are used for buildings over seven stories in height, special conditions may affect considerably the desirable thickness, and competent professional authority should be consulted.

5. Critics of the tentative draft of this report have suggested that

the 12-inch thickness provided in Part II, section 5, might extend down to the nearest line of floor beams in case the 35-foot limit fell between floors. The 35-foot height, however, allows space for three

fair height stories. A 12-inch wall four stories in height is believed undesirable under the circumstances, and three very high stories at the top of a building are likewise considered inadvisable. With

these restrictions in mind the 35-foot limit without modification is seen to involve no particular hardship.

6. In stating that roof beams must be horizontal where 8-inch walls are used for top stories, it was the intention merely to distin- guish between so-called flat roofs and those where lateral thrust may

be developed by the roof beams. PARAGRAPH 17. HEAT TRANSMISSION OF MASONRY WALLS

1. Experiments at the Bureau of Standards with brick masonry

walls of various thicknesses and types of construction have shown

that an 8-inch solid wall properly restrained, will prevent heat

transmission to an extent threatening combustion of inflammable

materials in contact with the wall for a period considerably greater than the duration of the average fire. The walls were tested ac- cording to the fire test specifications tentatively approved by the American Engineering Standards Committee and adopted by other

organizations; the test conditions being probably equivalent in in- tensity and duration to the general maximum fire conditions obtain- ing in buildings. Temperatures on the outside of the 8-inch solid clay brick walls did not rise to a point threatening combustion of inflammable material resting against them on the opposite side until from five to six hours after the tests were started, and heat trans- mission through a 12-inch wall was even slower. Walls of sandlime or concrete brick transmitted heat less readily than walls of

clay brick. Dangerous temperatures 5 on the outside of 4-inch brick

6 Combustible material is liable to begin to char at a temperature of 375 to 425° F. de- pending upon conditions. In fire tests 300° is assumed as the permissible temperature on the side of a wall opposite to that exposed to the fire, before the wall is considered

to have reached the danger point as a reliable fire barrier.
APPENDIX 43

walls were reached in from one and one-half to two hours, but dis- tortion due to unequal expansion was such as to indicate the

probability of undesirable cracks in less time. Eight-inch hollow

walls of brick afforded less insulation than solid walls ; temperatures

of 300° F., on the outer surfaces being reached in from two and

one-half to three hours. Temperatures on the outside of 12 and

13 inch hollow walls of brick were only 200° F. after six hours’

test, indicating their reliability as fire walls where 8-inch hollow

walls are inadequate. Temperatures in the interiors of walls increase more rapidly than on the outside surfaces and the results indicate that 8-inch party walls having wood or unprotected metal joists inserted are unwise where fires of long duration are probable.

2. Deflections of 1 to 5 inches occurred in the walls exposed to the

fire test at the centers of the panels. Unrestrained walls deflected at the top more than restrained walls at the center and were found less likely to come back to the original position after cooling. Twelveinch restrained walls recovered practically all deformation on cool- ing and 8-inch walls from one-half to two-thirds. More cracking

occurred in brickwork with cement and cement-lime mortar than

with lime mortar, but the greater strength and resistance to lateral forces and erosion obtained with the cement mortars indicate these advantages outweigh the consideration of cracks. Furthermore, the lime mortar disintegrated badly under heat action causing considerable loss in masonry strength. The results indicate that so far as

distortion is concerned, 12-inch restrained walls would be usable after a fire of average severity, and 12-inch unrestrained walls in some

cases; while 8-inch walls, either solid or hollow, are apt to show

permanent distortion unfitting them for further use after severe

fires. 3. The point has been raised that if a satisfactory contact is not

secured at the top of division walls built between fire-resistive floors or beams they will be unstable under fire conditions. Experience with such walls under test shows that the heat expansion forces them

tightly against the floors or girders at the top long before much

deflection can take place. Due to deflection which always occurs toward the fire, the upper edge of the unexposed side of an 8-inch wall will be parted from the under surface of the floor above, after two or three hours’ exposure, but observation of several cases has

disclosed no heat transmission at this location greater than may occur

at any crack in the wall surface. There is small chance, further- more, that combustible material will be stored close to the openings

thus caused. Care should be taken to ensure that spaces at the tops of all such

walls are completely filled with mortar, and the walls tightly wedged.

Twelve-inch walls under similar circumstances do not part from

the floor surface above to an appreciable extent. In view of the foregoing, the committee has decided that walls

thick enough to meet the general requirements for stability and compressive strength will be of sufficient thickness to withstand ordi- nary fire exposures and that except in the case of fire walls between

buildings or parts of buildings where very hot or long continued fires may be expected, no account need be taken of resistance to heat
44 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

transmission in deciding upon the necessary thickness of walls. (See

also Appendix, par. 18-7.) The proper protection of openings of every character in such walls is much more vital than the consideration of wall thickness. PARAGRAPH 18. FACTORS AFFECTING STABILITY OF WALLS

Consideration was given to a number of factors, which by affect- ing the stability of walls, exert an influence on thiclmess requirements

additional to that of unit working stresses. Building codes fre- quently recognize the importance of these factors by calling for greater wall thickness or other precautions where their influence is thought to be dangerous, and it is believed that a statement as to their relative effects on stability will be useful.

1. Foundation Conditions.—The stresses and wall thicknesses recommended in Part II are based on the assumption that foundations will be sufficient to prevent settlement threatening the integrity of the wall. For the purposes of wall design it should be assumed

that foundations are adequate and the wall is a unit.

2. Vibration.—Ordinarily vibration due to street or railway traffic or to machinery within a building does not seriously affect good

brickwork. Where such vibration is excessive, additional wall thick- ness is of doubtful value. Where there is possibility of earthquake

shocks extra care should be taken to anchor intersecting walls to- gether, and to tie the structural frame of the building to the walls. Observations made after the recent earthquake in Japan are to the

effect that high masonry walls should not be built in localities subject to earth shocks. 3. Height and Width or Buildings.—From a structural viewpoint no limits are recommended affecting the relation of height

to width of buildings built with brick or plain concrete bearing

walls. Under present conditions such buildings are scarcely ever

built over six stories and for walls of this height the effects of greater or less width on stability is usually unimportant. For

extremely high and narrow buildings increased wall thickness will not generally confer the additional stability required.

4. Methods of Anchorage.—Regulations affecting the methods

of supporting or anchoring floor timbers, or of attaching walls

to intersecting walls or partitions, are considered outside the scope of Part II of this report. In general, such connections should be rigid in nature; adequate to transmit such lateral forces as may occur and to develop the full supporting effect between struc- ture and wall; and of a design which admits release of the floor beam or slab in case of fire without serious resulting damage to the wall. If these conditions are met the wall thicknesses per- mitted in Part II will be found sufficient so far as this factor is concerned. Nonbearing as well as bearing walls should be anchored into the floor construction since they are in themselves

less stable. (See Appendix, par. 32.) 5 . Rigidity of Floors.—The question has been raised as to whether, other conditions being equal, the rigidity of fireproof or monolithic or mill constructed floors does not differ sufficiently from

that of joisted floors to justify different wall thicknesses for build-
Minimum Masonry Wall Requirements

Fig. 2.

Compression test of 8-inch solid wall of brick. Note failure due

to breakage of headers. Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C.
Minir Masonry Wall Requirements

Fig. 3.

Compression test of 8-inch hollow wall of brick. Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C.
APPENDIX 45

ings of these types. The committee has received no evidence tend- ing to establish the importance of this difference.

6. Influence of Span.—Many building codes establish limits of span for floors supported by bearing walls, requiring a greater wall

thickness where such limits are exceeded. This practice is believed

to date back to the era when working stresses for masonry were

not limited directly, but by controlling the live loads likely to come

upon the walls. Where masonry stresses are kept within the limits prescribed in Part II, the span of floor beams should not affect the required thickness of masonry walls.

7. Fire Exposure.-—Results of a fire-test series at the Bureau of Standards, made with 11 by 16 foot wall panels of various thickness, indicate clearly that if sufficient provision is made, as in Part

II, for bearing strength and structural stability and for joist release, fires of the usual duration and intensity will not seriously displace 12-inch brick walls. In the case of the 8-inch exterior walls permitted for one and two family dwellings three stories high and

top stories of other low buildings, the consequences are considered

to be relatively unimportant, even if failure should occur.

8. Wind Pressure.

In some places which are subject to high

winds, trouble is experienced with thin masonry walls, but no evi- dence has been received indicating that where the structural frame- work of a building affords reasonably rigid support to the inclosing

walls, the pressure resulting from maximum wind velocities in most

parts of this country is an important factor in wall design. Neither an 8-inch nor a 12-inch wall of any considerable height has the

inherent stability to resist high wind pressures, but if the building

inclosed possesses sufficient mass and stiffness to resist collapse as a whole, it appears that, so far as wind pressure is concerned, even

the lesser wall thicknesses may be employed freely within the limits prescribed in Part II.

9. Percentage and Arrangement of Openings in Walls.—It is customary in about one-third of existing codes to require that bear- ing walls be increased 4 inches in thickness when a certain per- centage of the wall section (varying in different codes from 25 to 55 per cent) in any horizontal plane is removed for openings. This

practice is a survival from the period when maximum masonry

stresses were not prescribed and the increase of thickness was re- quired to take care of possible excessive stresses in walls thus re- duced in section. If the compressive stresses in masonry walls and

piers are kept within the limits prescribed in Part II, and if serious

eccentricity in loading of piers and short wall sections is avoided, it is believed unnecessary to require increases in wall thickness on

account of openings. PARAGRAPH 19. BOND FOR BRICK WALLS

Recent tests on brick walls and piers show that failure usually

occurs through breaking of the headers and indicates the need of a g

reater proportion of these than is generally customary in load- earing masonry. (See figs. 2, 3, and 4.) A lesser ratio of headers to

stretchers is permissible for nonbearing brick walls or for the attach- ment of brick veneer.
46 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS PARAGRAPH 20. HEIGHT OF BRICK PIERS

1. The tests of brick masonry piers (see Appendix, par. 11) dis- closed very little difference between the strength of piers five and

ten times their least dimension in height, other conditions being

equal. Not enough data are available by which to establish the rela- tive strength and stability for piers of greater slenderness ratio. In the tentative draft of this report recommendations allowing wall

sections an unsupported height of twenty times their thickness and

piers only ten times their least dimension were strongly criticized, and it was apparent that the line between piers and walls must be drawn more definitely than is now customary code practice. The

limit established in Part II, section 7, will not cause hardship with

ordinary window and story heights, but will avoid very thin wall

sections where stories are high and openings closely spaced.

2. Bond stones at intervals in the pier section are not advocated. They provide opportunity for concealing poor workmanship; they do not add materially to the bearing capacity of brickwork; and

they are apt to split under fire exposure, causing failure of the pier. PARAGRAPH 21. HEIGHT OF MASONRY WALLS

In view of the liberal requirements recommended for solid brick,

stone, and plain concrete walls, consideration was given to the question whether they should be limited in total height. There are certain types of structures, however, for which such limitations are unnecessary and in fact undesirable. In general, economic factors will influence choice of steel or reinforced concrete for buildings over 75 feet high. Where brick or plain concrete bearing or nonbearing walls are used for greater heights they should receive very

careful inspection, both as to design and workmanship. Foundation and footing design should also be carefully investigated. PARAGRAPH 22. LINING EXISTING WALLS

Old walls should be cleaned of all plaster or other coating before

the lining is built in order to afford good bond for the mortar. In

addition to toothing, it is well to provide anchorage by suitable wrought iron or steel anchors placed in staggered rows not more

than 2 feet apart vertically and horizontally. Such anchors may be

attached to the old wall by through or expansion bolts, or by other approved methods. PARAGRAPH 23. LINTELS Arch lintels may be constructed successfully of hollow tile, but

the most practical form of tile lintel is made by butting a sufficient number of tile end to end, filling the cells completely with concrete, and inserting reinforcement rods in the lower tier of cells, thereby obtaining the effect of a reinforced concrete beam. The coarse aggregate for such filling should not exceed one-half inch diameter. PARAGRAPH 24. QUALITY OF HOLLOW TILE AND CONCRETE BLOCK

OR CONCRETE TILE

1. During the last two years compression and absorption tests of hollow tile from 28 representative sources have been made by the Bureau of Standards. Freezing tests are also being made on tile
Minimum Masonry Wall Requirements

Fig. 4.

Compression test of large brick pier in 10,000,000-pound machine. Bureau of Standards laboratory at Pittsburgh

APPENDIX 47

from 18 sources. Basing judgment on structure, strength, and freez- ing effects tile from all but four sources could be used in a wall exposed to the weather. The absorption of each of these four lots of tile was above 16 per cent. All of these absorption figures were based on determinations with

specimens which had been saturated by boiling 5 hours, but comparative tests at the bureau have shown that the differences in ab- sorption indicated by 1 and 5 hour boiling tests are not signifi- cant. Due to the thinness of material tile differ in this respect from clay brick, for which a 5 -hour test is advisable. The bureau’s experience is that the determination of absorption by

boiling is preferable, as it requires less time and gives more definite and conclusive results. For sampling, the method given in the

tentative specifications for Hollow Burned-Clay Load-Bearing

Building Tile of the American Society for Testing Materials is recommended. Tile having an average absorption greater than 16 per cent should not be used in a wall exposed to the weather, or in foundation walls unless it shows adequate resistance in freezing

tests.6 As different types of clays are used in the manufacture of hollow building tile, color should not be taken as indicative of per- centage absorption or quality.

2. Tentative specifications for quality and testing of clay hollow

load-bearing wall tile have been adopted by the American Society

for Testing Materials. The following are excerpts from these tentative standards:

According to the result's of physical tests, tile shall be classified as hard, medium, soft, on the basis of the following requirements

Class

Percentage absorption Compressive strength based on gross area

Mean of 5 tests Indi- vidual maxi- mum

End construction Side construction Mean of 5 tests Indi- * vidual

mini- mum

Mean of 5 tests Indi- vidual mini- mum

Hard Medium

12 or less 12 to 16... 1519

28

1,800 or more

1,800 to 1,400

1, 400 to 1,200

1,400

1,000

700

1,000 or more

1,000 to 700

700

500

Soft 16 to 25... 700 to 500 350 Where end construction tile are used on side, they must meet the require- ments of that construction, and vice versa. Tile under these specifications shall have the following dry weights deter- mined as hereinafter specified

Size of unit (in inches) Number

of cells Standard weight

Z

z/i by 12 by 12, end construction 3 Pounds

20

6 by 12 by 12, end construction 6 30

8 by 12 by 12, end construction 6 36

10 by 12 by 12, end construction. 42

12 by 12 by 12, end construction 6 48

3 by 5 by 12, side construction 1 •9 8 by 5 by 12, side construction. _ .. _ 16

8 by 5 by 12 (L shaped), side construction _ 4 16 8 by by 12 (t shaped) , side construction 4 16

8 by 7^4 by 12 (square), side construction __ 24

8 by 1034 by 12 (H shaped), side construction 7 32 A tolerance of 5 per cent from the standard weights and a variation of not

to exceed 3 per cent in the standard sizes is permitted.

6 See Appendix, par. 9-2, for freezing test requirements for building brick.
48 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

3. For purposes of code enforcement it has been found desirable that concrete units be marked with the manufacturer’s distinctive brand, and that the product be tested from time to time by a reliable laboratory. Specifications for testing concrete blocks can be obtained from the secretary of the American Concrete Institute.

4. The crushing strength required for acceptable concrete block and tile is justified as being within the average demonstrated strength

of the material, also by the fact that the comparatively thick shells and webs of the former afford a better distribution of stress in the mortar joints. PARAGRAPH 25. WORKING STRESSES FOR HOLLOW WALLS

1. After thorough consideration, the working stresses for tile laid with cells vertical and those with cells horizontal have been made the same. Tile laid with cells horizontal has the same net bearing area

in the wall as it has when tested individually in that position. With

end construction tile, some or all of the vertical cross webs may not

be vertically aligned as set in the wall, thereby reducing the effective bearing area below that in tests of individual units. It is believed that this condition, together with the somewhat more uniform bed- ding of tile laid horizontally offsets the difference in strength be- tween individual units tested with cells vertical and horizontal. The

stresses given in Part II, section 11, will in almost all cases permit

utilization of tile to the full limits of height and thickness permitted, and the factor of safety involved is considered adequate. When walls of hollow tile are built entirely with cells vertical and

with webs carefully superposed their strength is materially increased, and may in some cases be 50 per cent greater than when tile are laid horizontally.

2. The committee’s investigations have shown the desirability of thorough tests by responsible authorities to determine the relative strength of tile walls laid both with cells horizontal and vertical. An extensive series of tests is now in progress at the Bureau of Standards, but will not be completed in time to utilize results in this report.

3. It is the committee’s belief that tile units should not be used having a thickness greater than 814 inches, measured at right angles

to the wall face. For walls over 8 inches thick, more than one emit should be used to make up the thickness, and bond should be provided.

4. Recent tests by the Bureau of Standards indicate that hollow

walls of brick laid in all-rowlock bond (see fig. 3) have practically the same compressive strength as solid walls of the same thickness when loads are applied concentrically, and somewhat greater strength

if loaded eccentrically. In the absence of fuller experience with its possibilities of adaption to various building details, and for large

buildings, the committee hesitates to approve its use for heights or stresses exceeding those prescribed in Part II. The committee limits its recommendations for use of hollow walls of brick to the type built with alternate headers and stretchers in each

course and known as “ all-rowlock bond,” until it obtains sufficient in- formation on the merits of other types to justify their recognition. (For discussion of hollow concrete walls, see Appendix, par. 27-2 and -3.)
APPENDIX 49 PARAGRAPH 26. SUPPORT FOR SLABS, BEAMS, AND GIRDERS The requirements of Part II assume that adequate measures will be taken to distribute local reactions of beams and heavy girders throughout the wall. Hollow walls or those of hollow units should have two or three* solid courses of brick beneath the joists, or the

course of hollow units on which the joists rest should be filled solid with concrete. The filling of isolated piers of hollow units with concrete is believed to add to their stability and to increase their

serviceability under fire exposure. No increase in loading is warranted because of the filling. PARAGRAPH 27. CONCRETE WALLS—SOLID AND HOLLOW

1. Materials.—The maximum permissible size of large aggregate

for thin walls should be governed by the thickness of the smallest construction member in which the concrete is placed, in general not more than one-third of such least dimension. In the process of manufacturing aggregate there often are small amounts of grits or coarse sand that come over the screens with the

coarse aggregate. A tolerance of 15 per cent of such material speeds up production, lowers prices, and does not appreciably affect results with plain concrete. For the purposes in mind it is of little importance whether the screen prescribed for separating coarse aggregates has round or square holes. Where crushed slag is used as an aggregate for building construction it should meet the requirements of the tentative specifications for concrete aggregates of the American Society for Testing Materials. The admixture of lime in volume not to exceed 10 per cent of the volume of cement may safely be permitted for plain concrete walls. (See Appendix, par. 10-4.) Where walls of plain concrete exceed 35 feet in length, expansion joints should be provided to prevent

unsightly cracks in the structure.

2. Several systems of construction are used which produce hollow

or double walls of plain concrete. Usually there are two shells, each 3 or 4 inches thick, with an air space between. The inner and

outer parts of such walls generally are tied together with wires or metal strips sufficient for stability in small dwellings, but if the area

of both walls is needed for compressive strength and stability, positive means is required to bring them into common action. Unless some device or method adequate to do this is provided, the use of such walls for commercial structures over two stories in height or

residences more than three stories is not advocated.

3. It is recognized that a hollow wall of plain concrete having

the same net cross sectional area as one of concrete block would be somewhat thicker. It may be said, however, that concrete block are

better controlled as to quality, and their action under load is better known at this time than that of hollow concrete walls.

4. Attention is especially directed to the fact that quartz gravel or

other gravel having high siliceous content is a poor fire resistive aggregate, and should not be used in concrete liable to be subjected

to fire, unless adequately protected.
50 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS PARAGRAPH 28. WALLS AND PIERS OF STONE MASONRY

1. Where cut or squared stone of small size, such as quarry wastes, are used to lay up solid walls of moderate height the thickness need

not be greater than that required for solid brick walls.

2. The tentative draft of this report restricted stone piers to open

or unexcavated places on account of their tendency to spall under

heat exposure. This requirement has been omitted as too stringent. Piers in unexcavated spaces are apt to be poorly constructed. Those

in monumental buildings and other similar locations are seldom ex- posed to intense heat until the building has reached a state of destruction which renders their failure unimportant. PARAGRAPH 29. PARAPET WALLS

1. To satisfy architectural considerations and eliminate expense

the requirements for parapet walls have been omitted wherever possible. When not provided along the edges of flat roofs on high

building, iron railings or other suitable barriers should be furnished

for protection of firemen and safety of occupants.

2. Unless carefully moisture-proofed with stucco or other protective material, clay hollow building tile are undesirable for parapet

walls in parts of the country where freezing conditions occur. When

not thus protected they are apt to become filled with water, which may freeze and break the tile. PARAGRAPH 30. FOUNDATION WALLS

1. It has been customary to require that foundation walls be made

thicker than those immediately above them. The committee does not

believe this necessary in all cases. A foundation wall acts both as a bearing wall and a retaining wall. As a bearing wall it has few

or no openings compared to the walls above it, and its unit compressive stresses are usually lower. As a retaining wall it owes practically all its stability to the weight resting upon it, and except in very thin walls the addition of 4 inches of thickness increases its resistance to side thrust very little. Where analysis of the forces acting upon it discloses combined stresses greater than those provided

in Part II, sections 4, 11, and 19, or where such forces may cause

tension in the masonry, the thickness should be increased.

2. Foundation walls should be waterproofed with cement plaster, or other effective means, and unless surrounded by sand or gravel, or otherwise naturally drained, should have open tile drains around

the footings on the outside discharging into an outfall at a lower

level. PARAGRAPH 31. NEW MASONRY CONSTRUCTION

1. A building code should encourage progress in the art of construction, and to this end should provide for approval and utiliza- tion of new materials or methods immediately on demonstration that they meet the requirements of the situation under which it is proposed that they be used. Two sections therefore have been in- cluded in Part II (No. 39 on alternate requirements for fire and

division walls, and No. 45 on new masonry construction) and several minor references made which provide for such action.
APPENDIX 51

2. The adequacy for fire and fire division walls of a special grade

of cinder concrete blocks of less thickness than prescribed in sections

37. and 38 for such walls of hollow units has already been demonstrated, and other similar possibilities are now under investigation. The successful use of gypsum masonry units, properly protected

against moisture, for exterior walls is reported in several localities, and specifications for quality of structural gypsum products are under consideration by a subcommittee of the American Society for Testing Materials. Commercial production of hollow units of lime is also understood to be contemplated. A somewhat greater, factor of safety is recommended for masonry

of such new materials, or constructed by novel methods until such

time as it has demonstrated continuing strength and integrity under

service conditions. PARAGRAPH 32. ANCHORAGE OF WALLS

• 1. The following is a description of what is considered good practice in satisfying the requirements of Part II, section 47. Where

walls are not built at the same time, the perpendicular joint should

be regularly toothed with 4-inch offsets, and the joint should be pro- vided with anchors not less than 2 by % inch metal, with bent up

ends or cross pins to form anchorage; such anchors should be not

less than 3 feet long, extending 18 inches on each side of the joint and spaced not more than 3 feet apart in height.

2. Each tier of floor joists should be securely anchored to masonry

walls with T-shaped steel anchors at intervals of not more than 6

feet. Anchors should be attached in a way to afford easy release in

case of fire burning through the joists.

3. The ends of lapped joists resting upon girders or bearing parti- tions should be securely spiked. When abutted they should be connected with steel straps or dogs.

4. Joists running parallel to masonry inclosing walls should be anchored to the walls at least once between bearings with steel anchors. Such anchors should extend back and engage at least three

joists.

5. Girders should be anchored to the walls and fastened to each

other in suitable manner with steel straps.

6. When inclosing walls are of wood, each joist, beam, and girder

entering same should be securely spiked or anchored to the wall construction. Where joists rest upon ledger or ribbon boards they should be securely spiked to the studs.

7. The roof structure where resting on masonry walls should have

steel anchors not less than four-tenths square inch in cross section, ex- tending down into the wall not less than 2 feet, and spaced not over

6 feet apart.

8. Anchors for attachment of facing or veneering to the backing,

as required in Part II, sections 30 and 35, should be not less than

three-sixteenths by 1 inch in cross section, and should either be bent

or of sufficient length to develop their full strength in bond. Such

anchors should be thoroughly protected from moisture, or should be

of noncorrodible metal.
52 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS PARAGRAPH 33. PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE RENDERED

Representatives of the following organizations cooperated in preparation of this report. Their suggestions were not in all cases adopted, and their complete indorsement of the report is not implied, but the committee wishes to acknowledge their helpful interest and assistance: American Concrete Institute. American Face Brick Association. American Institute of Architects. American Institute of Consulting Engineers. American Institute of Steel Construction. American Society of Civil Engineers. American Society of Safety Engineers. American Society for Testing Materials. Associated Engineers of Spokane.

Associated Metal Lath Manufacturers.

Builders Exchange of Norfolk. Building Officials Conference. Building Trades Employers’ Association of the city of New York.

Detroit Engineering Society. Engineering Association of Nashville. Engineering Society of Western Massachusetts.

Engineers’ Club of Minneapolis. Florida Engineering Society. General Contractors of San Francisco. Indiana Engineering Society. Indiana Limestone Quarrymen’s Association. National Board of Fire Underwriters. National Brick Manufacturers’ Association. » National Fire Protection Association. National Lime Association. National Sand and Gravel Association. New York Board of Fire Underwriters.

Office of Supervising Architect, United States Treasury Department. Oregon Chapter, American Association of Engineers. Portland Cement Association. Rochester Engineering Society Safety Institute of America. The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. The Cleveland Engineering Society. The Common Brick Manufacturers’ Association of America. The Connecticut Society of Civil Engineers. The Gypsum Industries. The Hollow Building Tile Association. PARAGRAPH 34. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF INFORMATION ON MASONRY CONSTRUCTION

GENERAL Standards of the American Society for Testing Materials, 1924. (Published triennially by the society, 1315 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, Pa.) Proceedings of the American Society for Testing Materials. (Published annually by the society, 1315 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, Pa.) Proceedings of the American Concrete Institute. (Published an- nually by the institute, 1807 East Grand Boulevard, Detroit, Mich.) Proceedings of the Building Officials’ Conference. (Published annually by the conference.)
APPENDIX 53

la. Brick: Quality of Materials.—Brick, cement, lime, etc.

Standards of the American Society for Testing Materials. Issued

triennially by the society. Present issue 1924, pages 578-583. Also

Tentative Standards, issued annually.

lb. Brick Masonry.—Working stresses.—1. Tests of eight brick

piers at Watertown Arsenal in April, 1882, under supervision of

F. E. Kidder, in the interests of the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association. Variables.—Mortars. Tests.—Compressive

strength of bricks and piers. Kidder, F. E., crushing strength of

bricks and of brick piers, (1) American Architect and Building News, vol. 11, pp. 256-258; June 3, 1882. (2) The Architect’s and

Builder’s Pocket-Book, by F. E. Kidder, 1st ed., pp. 169-173; 1885.

(3) Abridged in Kidder’s The Architects’ and Builders’ Handbook,.

17th ed., pp. 271-272; 1921.

2. Tests of 12 brick piers at Watertown. Arsenal for the city of

Philadelphia in 1883. Variables.—Four kinds of bricks, two kinds

of mortars. Piers live courses high. Tests.—Strength and compression of piers. McArthur, John, jr., “Tests of building material made at the Watertown Arsenal, Mass., by the United States Ordnance Department, at the request of the commissioners for the erec- tion of the Philadelphia public buildings.” Tests of Metals, etc.,. 1884, p. 501, United States Ordnance Department, Watertown Arsenal, Mass. Published in part in Trans. Am. Soc. of Civil Engineers,

vol. 15, pp. 718-722 ; October, 1886.

3. Tests of 33 brick piers at Watertown Arsenal, etc. Variables.—

Bricks, mortars, breaking of joints, bricks flat and on edge, height and cross section of piers solid and hollow, and age. Tests.—Compressive strength of bricks, mortars, and piers ; compression of mortars and of piers. Tests of Metals, etc., pp. 69-124; 1884. Trans. Am. Soc. of Civil Engineers, vol. 18, p. 274; June, 1888. Royal Institute British Architects, Report on Brickwork Tests, pp. 138-139

1905 (abridged).

4. Tests of 53 brick piers at Watertown Arsenal, in 1886 and 1891, under supervision of J. E. Howard. Variables.—Bricks, height and

lateral dimensions of piers, bondstones, grouting, solid and hollow

piers, one without mortar, and age of piers. Tests.—Strength and

compression of bricks and of brick piers. (1) Tests of Metals, etc., pp. 1138-1161; 1885. Tests of strength and compression of bricks same as used in pier tests reported in 1886 and 1891. (2) Tests of

Metals, etc., pp. 1691-1742; 1886. (Tests on 48 piers 21 months old.) (3) Tests of Metals, etc., pp. 739-745; 1891. (Tests on five piers of same series six and one-half years old.)

5. Tests of six brick piers at Watertown Arsenal in 1893. (Piers exhibited at World’s Columbian Exposition.) Variables.—Lime

mortar and neat Portland cement, solid and hollow cores, bricks on

edge in one pier. Tests.—Strength and elasticity of piers. Tests of

Metals, etc., pp. 323-334; 1893.

6. Tests of 17 brick piers at laboratory of School of Practical

Science, University of Toronto, 1895-96. Variables.—Bricks, mortars, and height of piers. Keele, Joseph, Brickwork Masonry, (1) Engineering Society of the School of Practical Science, University

of Toronto, Papers and Transaction No. 9, pp. 153-160; 1895-96.

(2) Digest of Physical Tests, vol. 1, p. 219; July, 1896. (3) Re-
54 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

published with Gillespie’s report at the University of Toronto in “ Applied Science,” vol. 2, p. 69, December, 1908.

7. Tests of 59 brick piers conducted under supervision of Committee of Royal Institute of British Architects, 1895-1897. (1) Street and Clarke, Brickwork Tests. (Report on first, second, and third

series of tests.) Journal, Royal Institute of British Architects, third series, vol. 3, p. 333; April 2, 1896; vol. 4, p. 73; December

17, 1896; vol. 5, p. 77; December 18, 1897. (2) Royal Institute of

British Architects, Report on Brickwork Tests, 1905. (Republication of Street and Clarke’s reports in book form.)

8. Tests of 18 brick piers at Cornell University in 1897-98, under

supervision of E. J. McCaustland. Variables.—Bricks, height of

piers, and age. Trans. Assn, of Civil Engineers of Cornell University (The Cornell Civil Engineer), vol. 6, 1897-98. (Abstracted by Talbot & Abrams, in Bulletin 27, University of Illinois, Eng. Exp. Sta., September 29, 1908.)

9. Tests of 14 brick piers at Cornell University in 1898-99, under

supervision of E. J. McCaustland. Variables.—Bonding devices in horizontal joints. Trans. Assn, of Civil Engineers of Cornell University (The Cornell Civil Engineer), vol. 8, p. 22, 1899-1900. (Abstracts: (1) Burr’s Elasticity and Resistance of the Materials of Engineering, 6th ed., p. 424, 1903. (2) Talbot and Abrams, in Bulletin 27, University of Illinois, Eng. Exp. Sta., September 29, 1908.

(3) Bragg, in Bureau of Standards’ Technologic Paper No. Ill, September 20, 1918.)

10. Tests of 26 brick piers at Watertown Arsenal, in 1904, etc. Variables.—Bricks, mortars, and age. Tests.—Strength and elasticity, Tests of Metals, etc., pp. 421-449 ; 1904. (Tests on Bricks, pp. 453-455.)

11. Tests of 14 piers (13 of clay brick, 1 of sand-lime brick) at Watertown Arsenal, in 1905, etc. Variables.—Bricks, mortars, solid and hollow cores, and age. Tests of Metals, etc., pp. 393—413 ; 1905. (Tests on bricks used, pp. 453—455, 1904, and p. 269, 1907.)

12. Tests of 15 piers (12 of clay brick, 3 of sand-lime brick) at Watertown Arsenal, in 1906, etc. Variables.—Bricks and mortars. Tests.—Strength and elasticity of piers, with compressive

strength of the cement-lime mortar. Tests of Metals, etc., pp. 577-

599; 1906. (Tests of clay bricks given in 1904, p. 453; tests on

sand-lime bricks in 1906, p. 617.)

13. Tests of 32 piers ;Ind short columns of clay and sand-lime

brick at the laboratory for testing materials. Purdue University,

in 1906-7. Tests.—Compression of piers and strength of indi- vidual brick and of mortar. Engineering News, February 25, 1909. (Abstract by H. H. Scofield presented at the annual meeting of the Indiana Engineering Society at Indianapolis in January, 1909.)

14. Tests of 32 piers (30 of clay brick, 2 of sand-lime brick) at Watertown Arsenal, in 1907, etc. Variables.—Bricks, mortars, hol- low and solid cores, bricks flat and on edge, breaking joints, and age. Tests of Metals, etc., pp. 291-351 ; 1907. (Tests on sand-lime used,

p. 617, 1906; paving bricks, p. 270, 1907.)

15. Tests of 16 brick piers at University of Illinois Engineering

Experiment Station, 1907, by Talbot and Abrams. Variables.—

Bricks, mortars, workmanship, concentric and eccentric loading, and

age. Tests.—Strength and elasticity. Talbot and Abrams, Tests
APPENDIX 55

of brick columns and terra cotta block columns. University of

Illinois, Eng. Exp. Sta., Bulletin 27, September 29, 1908.

16. Tests of brick piers at University of Toronto, by P. Gillespie, in 1908. Gillespie, Peter, Notes on brick and brick piers, Applied

Science, vol. 2, p. 58, December, 1908.

17. Tests of two brick piers at Bureau of Standards Laboratory in Pittsburgh in 1913, under supervision of J. E. Howard. Variables.—Mortars. Tests.—Strength and elasticity. Howard, James

E., Tests of two brick piers of unusual size, Eng. Record, vol. 67, p. 332; March 22, 1913. Clay Worker, vol. 59, p. 420, March, 1913.

18. Tests of 70 brick piers at Columbia University, 1914-15, under supervision of James S. Macgregor. Variables.—Mortars,

bricks, and age of piers. Tests.—Strength of bricks, mortars, and

piers; and elasticity of piers. Macgregor, James S., “Report of a

series of tests conducted to determine the compressive strength and

elastic properties of brick piers laid up in cement and cementlime mortars.” Bulletin J of the Hydrated Lime Bureau of the National Lime Association, Pittsburgh, Pa., pp. 9-32; June 1, 1916. Reproduced in Bulletin 300, National Lime Association, 1st ed., pp. 6-29 ; 1920. Abridged report in Bulletin 300, 2nd ed., pp. 8-12

1921.

19. Tests of 50 brick piers at Bureau of Standards laboratory, Pittsburgh, Pa., under supervision of J. G. Bragg. Variables.—

Bricks, mortars, bond, wire mesh in horizontal joints. Tests.—

Strength and elasticity of piers. Griffith & Bragg, Some tests upon

large brick piers, Clay-Worker, Yol. 63. p. 367 ; March, 1915. Bragg, J. G. Compressive Strength of Large Brick Piers, Bureau

of Standards, Tech. Paper No. Ill; September 20, 1918.

20. Tests of 54 brick piers made at technical high school in Stockholm, sometime previous to September 1916, under direction of H. Kreuger. Variables.—Bricks, mortars, age, wire mesh in horizontal joints, thickness of mortar joints, height of pier, centric and eccentric loading of piers. Kreuger, H., Die Festigkeit des Ziegelmauerwerks, Tonind, Ztg., vol. 40, pp. 597, 602, 609, 615, 621,

627, 633; September 9-21, 1916. Kreuger, H., Brickwork tests and

formulas for calculation, Clay-Worker, Yol. 68, pp. 42, 126; July and August, 1917. (Abstract in Bureau of Standards Tech. Paper

No. Ill, p. 8; September 20, 1918.)

21. Tests of 14 brick piers at University of Toronto in 1918, under supervision of Peter Gillespie, in interest of Toronto Building Department. Variables.—Mortars and height of piers. Tests.

Strength and elasticity. Pearse, W. W., Strength of Brickwork,

Proc. Fifth Annual Meeting of the Building Officials’ Conference,

pp. 25-38; February 7, 1919. Contract Record (Toronto), vol. 33, pp. 151-155; February 19, 1919.

22. Tests of 12 thin brick walls in 1920 by Oscar Faber, in interests of British government. Variables.—Bricks, mortars, thickness of

walls. Tests.—Compressive strength and resistance to lateral pull. “Stability of thin walls” (British Government), Department of

Scientific and Industrial Research Building Research Board, Special Report No. 3; October, 1921. (Reproduced in part; Carver, William, The actual strength of brickwork and its relation to code
56 RECOMMENDED MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

allowances, Proc. Eighth Annual Meeting of the Building Officials’ Conference, pp. 27-29; April 25, 1922.)

23. Tests of 33 solid and hollow (ideal) brick walls at Bureau of Standards laboratory in Pittsburgh, in 1920 and 1921. Stang, A. H., Concentric and eccentric loading tests made by the United States Bureau of Standards on brick panels for Common Brick Manufacturers’ Association, Brick and Clay Record, vol. 62, pp. 312-314; February 20, 1923.

24. Tests of 131 clay, sand-lime, and concrete brick piers at Columbia University in 1921 and 1922. Beyer and Krefeld, Comparative tests of clay, sand-lime, and concrete brick masonry, Bulletin 2, Department of Civil Engineering testing laboratories, Columbia University ; April, 1923.

25. Tests of four brick piers cut from masonry of wrecked building, 16 years old, in New York City, made at Columbia University

in 1922, under supervision of R. P. Miller. Miller, R. P., Brickwork from buildings, stronger than laboratory specimens, Eng. NewRecord, vol. 89, p. 354; August 31, 1922.

26. Tests of 18 large and 18 small walls, of sand-lime brick, at the Bureau of Standards, 1924. Variables.—Mortars and thickness of

walls. Tests.—Strength and elasticity. Stang, A. H., Compressive

strength of sand-lime brick walls. (1) Bureau of Standards, Technical News Bulletin, No. 83, p. 4; March 10, 1924 (progress report)

(2) Reproduced in Concrete Products, vol. 24, No. 4, p. 58; April,

1924. (Complete report to be published shortly as a Technologic

Paper of the Bureau of Standards.)

lc. Brick Masonry.—Fire resistance.—1. Fire tests of sand-lime and clay brick walls, Ira H. Woolson, Proc. of the Sand-Lime Brick

Association; 1905.

2. The fire-resistive properties of various building materials, R. L. Humphrey. See fire tests of common clay, hydraulic-pressed and sand-lime brick walls, pp. 37, 39, 61, and 77. Bulletin 370, United States Geological Survey, 1909. (Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C., 30 cents per copy.)

3. Fire tests of brick walls, Bureau of Standards, under supervision of S. H. Ingberg. Tests of solid and hollow walls and partitions of clay, shale, concrete, and stand-lime brick, 1921-23. The

American Architect and Architectural Review, September 26 and

October 10, 1923.

l d. Brick Masonry.—Workmanship.—1. Seasonal Operation in the Construction Industries, The Facts and Remedies: Report and Recommendations of a Committee of the President’s Conference on Unemployment. (McGraw-Hill Book Co. (Inc.), 370 Seventh Avenue, New York, N. Y.

2. Directions for Construction in Cold Weather (a summary of

the report, item Id, 2). (Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. G., 5 cents per copy.)

3. Discussion of the “Ideal” Wall. Proceedings of the Building

Officials’ Conference, eighth meeting, 1922.

2a. Concrete Units.—Quality of materials.—1. Proceedings of the American Concrete Institute, vol. 19, 1923, pp. 376-386. (Published by the institute, 1807 E. Grand Boulevard, Detroit, Mich.)
APPENDIX 57

2. Tentative Standards of the American Society for Testing Materials. (Published annually by the society, 1315 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, Pa.)

3. Portland Cement Mortars and Their Constituent Materials, by

Richard L. Humphrey and Wm. Jordan, 1905. Tests upon cements,

aggregates, and mortars, Bulletin No. 331, United States Geological Survey. (Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C.)

4. Hollow Concrete Building Units. Retardant Report No. 1555. Issued by the Underwriters’ Laboratories. An investigation of the

effects of fire exposure upon hollow concrete walls, conducted at the Underwriters’ Laboratories, September, 1922, to May, 1924, jointly for the American Concrete Institute, Concrete Products Association, and Portland Cement Association.

2b. Concrete Units.—Working stresses.—1. Resultant strength

tests after fire tests upon Portland cement mortar and concrete

blocks. Richard L. Humphrey. See item lc, 2.

2. Strength tests of hollow concrete block used in construction of walls submitted to fire tests. See item 2a, 4.

3. Concrete Brick. See Brick Masonry, item lb. Test No. 24.

2c. Concrete Units.Fire resistance.—1. Fire tests on 18 cement

block panels, pages 17-35 and 42-59. See item lc, 2.

2. Fire tests on 19 concrete block panels. See item 2a, 4.

3. Fire tests on 3 concrete brick walls. See item lc, 3. 2d. Concrete Units.—WorJcmanship.—1. Specification of materials and construction, description of assembly, of hollow concrete block walls submitted to fire tests. See item 2a, 4. 3a. Hollow Building Tile.—Quality of materials.—1. Tentative

definitions of terms relating to hollow building tile. Serial designation C-43-23T. Proc. of the 26th Annual (1923) Meeting, American Society for Testing Materials ; also Tentative Standards issued annually.

3b. Hollow Building Tile.

Worhimg stresses.—1. Tests of 16

terra-cotta block columns by Talbot and Abrams, 1908. See item

lb, 15.

2. Tests of Hollow Building Tiles, by B. D. Hathcock and E. Skillman; 250 strength tests at Pittsburgh, Pa., 1919. Technologic

Paper No. 120, Bureau of Standards. (Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C., 5 cents per copy.)

3. Some Compressive Tests of Hollow Tile Walls, H. L. Whitte- more and B. D. Hathcock, 1923. Technologic Paper No. 238, Bureau

of Standards. (Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C., 5 cents per copy.)

3c. Hollow Building Tile.—Fire resistance.—1. Fire tests of

three hollow building tile panels, Richard L. Humphrey. See pages

41, 64, and 81. Item lc, 2.

2. Fire resistance of clay hollow wall tile, Bureau of Standards

Letter Circular LC-113, February 27, 1924.



PUBLICATIONS IN RELATION TO HOUSING AND

MUNICIPAL REGULATION

[These publications may be obtained from the Superintendent Of Documents, Govern- ment Printing Office, Washington, D. C„ payments to be made by money order or New

York draft ; currency at sender's risk, Postage or foreign money not accepted.] Recommended Minimum Requirements for Small Dwelling Construction. By the Building Code Committee: Ira H. Woolson, chairman; Edwin H. Brown, William K. Hatt, Rudolph P. Miller, J. A. Newlin, Ernest J. Russell, and Joseph R. Worcester. 30 illustrations. 108 pages. Government Printing

Office, Washington. Price, 15 cents. Recommended Minimum Requirements for Plumsing in Dwellings and Simi- lar Buildings. By the Subcommittee on Plumbing : George C. Whipple, chair- man : Harry Y. Carson, William C. Groeniger, Thomas F. Hanley, and A. E. Hansen. 100 illustrations. 250 pages. Government Printing Office, Washington. Price, 35 cents. A Zoning Primer. By the Advisory Committee on Zoning: Edward M.

Bassett, Irving B. Hiett. John Ihlder, Morris Knowles, Nelson P. Lewis, J. Horace McFarland, Frederick Law Olmsted, and Lawrence Veiller. 12 pages. Government Printing Office, Washington. Price, 5 cents. A Standard State Zoning Enabling Act. under which municipalities may

adopt zoning regulations. By the Advisory -Committee on Zoning. 12 pages. Government Printing Office, Washington. Price, 5 cents. How To Own Your Home. By John M. Gries and James S. Taylor, with a foreword by Herbert Hoover, viii plus 28 pages. Governmant Printing

Office, Price, 5 cents,MIMEOGRAPHED MATERIAL

A list of zoned municipalities and references to State laws relating to zoning

is kept by the Division of Building and. Housing. Department of Commerce,

Washington, and copies may be obtained on application.
' - 1ES% c^3§B ,

5 flBi NfPS?

*W^ '. life*

'