2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 998

Steel Framing with Masonry Walls – An Historical Perspective

S. W. Walkowicz1
1
Principal, Walkowicz Consulting Engineers, LLC, 5870 Chartres Way, East
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 05/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Lansing, MI 48823; PH (517) 339-0314; email: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Prior to the development of framed structures, the primary building system

was loadbearing masonry. With the introduction of structural steel framing in the late
1800s, the logical tendency was to incorporate masonry into the building structures.
This resulted in several types of construction starting with caged construction and
progressing into transitional building construction. In 1940s, engineers and architects
began using veneer construction with steel frames. In each construction type, the
structural frame and the masonry interacted differently.
This paper will explain the progression of the development of structural steel
framing and the interaction of masonry walls. It will also describe how that
progression was a necessary step leading to the creation of the new system of hybrid
masonry and structural steel framing. Each hybrid type will be described.

INTRODUCTION

Building construction changed rapidly through the 19th and 20th centuries.
The price of downtown city property, in particular, drove development up into the
sky as traditional large footprint buildings became too expensive to develop.
(Rayfield, 1997) New mid- and high-rise design and construction allowed much
more efficient use of land and better returns on investments for developers and
owners. The new designs, however, were at first limited by available construction
techniques. Traditional construction in the 1800’s utilized multiple loadbearing
masonry walls and too much usable, leasable floor space was lost to both the
frequency and thickness of those walls both above grade and in the basements. A
new construction method was needed.
Iron bridge construction and design techniques began to be applied to early
tall building design. (Rayfield, 1997) Use of an iron or steel frame allowed for
thinner walls, didn’t require interior bearing walls, and ultimately provided for
greater height and greater fenestration of exterior facades. 19th Century buildings
quickly evolved from predominantly low or mid-rise buildings, typically 3 or 4
stories to 10 or more story buildings using iron or steel frames for part or all of their
structure. The height of buildings rapidly increased in the late 19th century and early
20th century with the advent of economically available steel framing members. As an
example, the New York Times reported 80 steel frame masonry clad buildings under
construction in NYC during 1895. (Landmark Preservation Commission, 1995) Late
19th century and 20th century construction saw the full development of skyscrapers

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 999

using iron and ultimately steel skeleton structures with the final development being
that the facades of masonry, metal and glass hung from the frame without being used
for support of the building or self weight.
Each step in the evolution of masonry wall design required innovative
thinking, application of current technology and materials and a willingness to step
forward into the unknown. This paper will trace the development of masonry wall
systems through the evolution of different wall types. It will discuss the merits,
weaknesses and other points of interest related to each wall type. Finally, a new
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 05/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

building system – Hybrid Masonry - will be discussed in similar terms.

COMMON WALL TYPE CLASSIFICATIONS

Masonry Bearing. No discussion of the evolution of masonry walls would be

complete without beginning at the origin – Masonry Bearing walls. This paper
addresses masonry bearing walls in terms of historical, multi-wythe brick or clay tile
construction which was the predominant building method until late 1800’s for low
and mid-rise buildings. The method continued to be used into early 1900’s for many
buildings outside of the larger city centers. (Fuss and O’Neill) Load bearing
masonry is the oldest method of construction known to man, whether it be in the form
of stacked and mudded stones, precisely cut and stack stones or dried, mudded and
stacked formed units. In the 1800’s, perimeter walls were often constructed of
loadbearing multi-wythe brick and utilized either interior loadbearing masonry walls
or heavy timber columns and beams to support interior portions of larger floor plates.
Masonry foundations were commonly used and required additional width beyond
even the wall requirements due to distribution of bearing loads based on soil capacity.
This resulted in broken and small basement spaces of little use. The loss of usable
basement and above grade floor space was the primary detrimental factor that limited
the long term application of this wall and building system. Ultimately limits of
material strength would also limit the use of loadbearing masonry systems, at least
with regard to tall buildings in urban areas.
The use of interior structures of iron or steel columns and beams also
developed during this period and as a sub-set of this wall type. Metallic columns and
beams allowed greater spans and more open floor space. This prolonged the use of
loadbearing masonry systems and was the first step toward the transitional building
systems to be discussed later. The 16-story Monadnock Building in Chicago is tallest
historical loadbearing masonry building in Chicago and is widely viewed as
penultimate masonry bearing building. Its perimeter walls were six feet thick at their
bases and were true loadbearing walls. It, however, employed advances in structural
technology for certain other aspects of its construction: it utilized steel and concrete
foundations rather than masonry foundations; it also used iron columns and beams as
support for its inner structure; and an innovative application of wind bracing became
a critical feature for future tall buildings. (Rayfield, 1997)
In bearing wall construction, the masonry walls provided both gravity and
lateral load resistance. Formal analysis was not often required due to the relatively
high compressive strength of brick combined with the heavy building weight and
short floor and roof spans. The impracticality of upper floor access allowed low-rise

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 1000

bearing wall buildings to flourish. The informal structural designs did not
specifically address load or stress requirements but codified height to thickness ratios
and empirical observations led to multitudes of well performing structures. The
masonry mass wall also functioned as a barrier wall system for water intrusion. They
had sufficient thickness and porosity to absorb and hold moisture while prohibiting it
from reaching interior finishes. (Searls and Bronski, 2000) Cement plaster was still
common and was not highly susceptible to moisture or vapor transmission related
deterioration. A final feature of this construction type is that in loadbearing masonry
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 05/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

structures, the floor and roof structures moved with the walls as thermal, moisture or
settlement movement occurred. (Searls and Bronski, 2000) There was no
opportunity for differential stresses to develop and the relatively soft mortars used to
set the bricks allowed modest movement to occur without damage.
It should be noted that loadbearing masonry remains a viable construction
method for buildings in excess of ten stories. Loadbearing masonry is still a fast to
construct, powerful, flexible and beneficial structural system when using modern
reinforced and grouted hollow block or brick construction. Buildings five to ten
stories or more are currently being built with wall thicknesses of as little as eight to
twelve inches while providing fire separation and protection, thermal mass, sound
detenuation and other positive attributes to the designer, constructer, owner and
occupants.

Wood Frames with Brick Infill – Nogging. (Biggs, 2006) Concurrent with the use
of Masonry Bearing walls was another construction technique that blended light
wood and timber framing with brick infill known as nogging. The method of
construction originated in Europe and Western Asia where it often performed well in
seismically active areas such as Yugoslavia, Greece, Turkey and Kashmir.
(Langenbach, 1989) It was brought to the United States in the early 1800’s. Photo 1
shows a multi-story European timber framed building with brick nogging. Classical
Tudor construction often employed plastered brick nogging between geometrically
placed timbers. Abundant wood resources led to much construction using post and
beam and light frame construction using round and sawn lumber. Wood framing with
brick nogging was most commonly used in the U.S. for residential or similar scale
low rise construction.
With nogging, the brick were used to fill the interstitial space between studs,
posts and other framing members and acted as a draftstop in addition to wood siding
or a finished brick veneer. The method was even employed in floor construction,
filling the spaces between wood floor joists, such as at Thomas Jefferson’s home,
Monticello. The baked or fired brick also provided some fire separation and provided
structural redundancy in the event of damage to or deterioration of the wood framing.
Much construction with nogging was done in European areas with seismic activities
and it was found that the soft lime mortar in oldest assemblies allowed somewhat
ductile behavior and reasonable seismic performance. Failures typically resulted
from the development of rigid compression struts which in turn led to the disruption
of timber or concrete frames in seismic events. Differential movement and wood
shrinkage also led to reduced performance, water intrusion and failures.

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 1001
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 05/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Photo 1 - European Timber Framed Building with Brick Nogging. Photo

courtesy of East Hertz Council, UK (2004)

Iron/Steel Caged and Skeletal Frames Construction. (Friedman, 2010) As noted

in the discussion of the Masonry Bearing Wall system above, the first step toward
Transitional Walls occurred with the inclusion of interior columns and beams rather
than interior bearing walls in Masonry Bearing Wall systems. A second step that
may have slightly pre-dated the Transitional Walls and occurred somewhat
concurrently was that of Caged Construction. This system was applied during the
mid- to late- 1800’s and extreme early 1900’s. It was marked most frequently by a
cast iron skeleton with conventional masonry cladding that bore its own weight but
not that of the building while being tied back to the structure. Wrought iron and
occasionally steel were also employed as the skeletal materials. Interior bearing
walls were rarely used. As a result of the masonry’s self weight, these buildings still
had a heavier, less open façade than later transitional or curtain wall systems and
appeared much more like a Masonry Bearing building but without the extreme wall
thickness found in those structures. The Rookery Building in Chicago and The
Ansonia as well as Post’s Produce Exchange Building, both in New York City, were
examples of this type of structure. (Friedman, 2010)
The driving force behind Caged Frame construction was that it, first and
foremost, allowed the masonry façade thicknesses to be dramatically reduced. Wall
thicknesses decreased from several feet to two feet or less. It also provided other
advantages. One nicety was that it allowed the skeletal frame to be repaired, painted
and maintained independently of the masonry. The lack of full or significant
embedment also precluded moisture from being held against the structural members
that led to corrosion issues in other systems. While the masonry was not necessarily
designed for lateral load resistance, it did provide lateral load capacity and
redundancy that proved beneficial. These early buildings frequently had inadequate
lateral load capacity because bracing or sufficiently analyzed moment connections
were not yet commonplace. Cast iron framing was also plagued by loose connections
and weak, brittle behavior under flexure and high axial load. Construction instability
due to loose connections and several prominent collapses led to end of cast iron caged
construction in the late 1890’s and early 1900’s. Wrought iron provided better

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 1002

strength and ductility but steel framing with tight, riveted connections ultimately
solved the problems associated with steel framed construction.

Transitional Buildings. These building systems were developed and utilized

concurrently with the Caged Frame systems and continued in use for a much longer
period of time, taking advantage of new steel framing technology. They formed the
predominant method of mid- and high- rise construction for the 1890’s through the
mid-1900’s. Early examples were found from as early as the mid-1800’s. Prior to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 05/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1900 and code developments, however, Transitional wall buildings varied more in
their systems and detailing and were somewhat experimental. (Friedman, 2005)
Transitional walls are characterized by perimeter walls of masonry laid tightly to the
steel structural frame with interior steel framing for floors and roof. They formed the
effective link between masonry bearing wall structures and later curtain wall or cavity
wall construction. Transitional wall systems maintained sufficient thickness and void
free construction so that they performed as mass wall construction with regard to
water intrusion. Like the Masonry Bearing building walls and even Caged Frame
building walls, they would absorb and hold moisture within their thickness to prohibit
it from reaching interior finishes. Cement plaster still common and not highly
susceptible to moisture deterioration. Figure 2 shows a common Transitional Wall
detail along with a current photograph from a 1913 Transitional Building still in
service in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Buildings greater than 1000 feet tall, such as the
Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building, in New York City, NY, were
constructed and remain beautiful Transitional building examples today. (Friedman,
2005) The Woolworth Building, at just under 800 feet tall is another Transitional
Building example in New York. (Friedman, 2010)
One of the key developments that led to widespread use of Transition Wall
systems was the need for fireproof buildings. The Chicago fire of 1871 (Rayfield,
1997) and later fires illustrated the need for protection not just for wood structures but
also for steel structures. So masonry was commonly applied to provide fire-proofing
to iron and steel columns and even beams. The 1885 Home Insurance Building in
Chicago utilized loadbearing masonry piers with buried iron columns and walls for
lower floors but transitioned to steel beams for upper floors. (Rayfield, 1997 and
Turak, 1985) The building, designed by Jenney, was a classic case where load
capacity was not required but where masonry was added specifically for fire
proofing. (Turak, 1985) There were some buildings where the masonry may also
have been designed to carry some part of the building perimeter load. Codes began to
recognize the steel frame as being an effective method for level-by-level support of
exterior walls. They allowed Transitional Building walls to become as thin as 12
inches rather than the 16 or 24 inch thicknesses that prevailed earlier in the movement
from masonry bearing to steel frame structures.
Typical construction consisted of masonry laid in full contact over steel
frames although some concrete frames were used. The masonry was laid
monolithically and without relief for the full height of the facades and utilized inner
wythes of brick masonry set upon spandrel beams or on slabs cast over the spandrel
beams. The walls were completed with an outer wythe of more decorative
brickwork, terra cotta or stone cladding compositely tied to the backing wythes with

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 1003

interlocking shapes, headers or metal ties. There was no independent movement

between the veneer and the backing wythes or between the masonry and the steel
frames. Metal ties and secondary steel members integral to the masonry became
more common later with thinner walls and terra cotta cladding. Loose lintels were
employed over small and moderate openings and were supported by the surrounding
masonry wall materials.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 05/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 1 - Perimeter Beam and Masonry Framing in a Transitional Building.

Pantlind Hotel, circa 1913. Designers were Warren & Wetmore, New York,
New York. Courtesy of Amway Grand Plaza Hotel, Grand Rapids, MI.
Although most designers didn’t appear to rationally design the masonry to
carry load, significant load sharing occurred for both gravity and lateral loads.
Moment connections became common for Transitional buildings although braced
connections were employed for taller buildings. Advances in analytical methods
allowed for consideration of both gravity and lateral loads and predictions of building
movement under load. Manual methods of analysis, however, still limited the extent
and precision of any such structural design. As a result, many of the early buildings
were not appropriately designed to address in-plane flexure and shear load carried
within the masonry wall components. The masonry was relatively stiff in plane when
compared to the steel frames and therefore attracted gravity and in-plane shear loads
but slipping and crushing occurred along interfaces when the attracted loads exceeded
the masonry’s capacity. The lack of consideration for lateral loads and movement
combined with a lack of movement detailing – no expansion joints were provided in
Transitional building walls – to create cracking in the facades. The wall constituents
were also subject to differential movement: exterior, exposed terra cotta or brick

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 1004

experienced more thermal and moisture driven changes than inner wythes and all the
masonry was subject to greater rates of change than the more stable and protected
steel members. Even the support of exterior wythes and ornamentation by the inner
wythes led to increased internal stress within the wall assemblies. The masonry wall
sections were also relatively flexible out-of-plane and may have developed regions of
high flexural stress at floor and braced column lines. Significant stresses, therefore,
resulted from building movement and differential movement within the facades. The
results ranged from nil to minor cracking to failure of significant components.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 05/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Headers and special shapes have been found to be sheared off. Failed headers
resulted in lack of composite action, increased out-of-plane flexibility, decreased in-
plane load capacity, increased cracking and localized to large scale veneer bulging
and failures.
In conjunction with the stress related failures is perhaps found an even more
negative attribute of Transitional building walls: progressive moisture intrusion and
corrosion. This problem led not only to progressive façade deterioration but also to
permanent deterioration of the structural frame. Transitional walls were again
expected to function as mass wall with no drainage potential. Because masonry is not
a waterproof assembly, moisture intrusion occurred through gaps, voids, cracks and
even through the pore structure of the masonry materials. In past wall assembly types
significant issues related to moisture intrusion did not develop because of the mass
nature of the walls. Transitional walls, however, threw a new element into the mix –
steel - which was the most common framing material for the Transitional building
system. (Dam, 2006) While the steel was commonly painted, many applications
were degraded by masonry movement and then left in contact with retained water for
long periods of time while the evaporative drying process occurred. Glazed terra
cotta assemblies were particularly sensitive to cracking and spalling due to their
pressed, thin sections in detail elements. Their cracks and spalls as well as their
naturally larger pore structure retained and passed greater water volumes and
magnified any developing problems. Moisture intrusion and corrosion developed
progressively – it started with mild corrosion on the steel closest to surface, became
near surface expansive corrosion and progressively opened greater avenues for more
water intrusion leading to deeper corrosion, and so on and so on…. Freeze thaw
expansive damage can also occur, especially after the outer wythe or wythes have
been disrupted by expansive corrosion or movement cracking or after jointing has not
been properly maintained. Many cities have now enacted façade inspection laws or
ordinances as a result of façade failures due to expansive corrosion or failed veneer
anchoring. New York, Chicago, Detroit and many other medium to large cities now
require regular inspection and maintenance or repair.

Cavity Walls. The next step in the development of masonry walls and steel framed
buildings was the Cavity wall system. This system first appeared in the 1940’s, was
common beginning in the 1950’s and remains the primary manner of construction
today. It resulted from a desire to address the problems associated with cracking and
corrosion in Transitional Buildings while creating an even lighter façade system to
reduce building weight and structural costs and maintaining a similar appearance to
traditional architecture when desired. Cavity Wall buildings are characterized by full

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 1005

steel or concrete frame which resist both gravity and lateral loads and completely
supported and was isolated from the façade materials. They typically employed
braced or moment frame design and, while early buildings were still analyzed using
primarily hand methods, advances in computer systems allowed greater analytical
capacity and more refined structural design as the Cavity Wall era progressed. Cavity
Walls are the masonry version of curtain wall type construction where a variety of
materials, including metal and other panel systems and glazing systems, are used to
act as the weather barrier. The masonry applied to these buildings acted as a thin skin
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 05/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

that provided the desired aesthetics combined with the first line of weather protection.
The masonry, being much thinner – nominally 4 inches thick or less – did not provide
the building with a mass wall able to act as a barrier system with moisture retention
capacity. The new system instead disconnected the veneer from the backing system
and employed drainage cavity behind the masonry veneer. A water resistant surface
was commonly applied behind the drainage cavity and over the backing system. This
separation isolated the structure and backing surfaces from moisture and was a key
factor in addressing the corrosion problems that plagued Transitional buildings.
Current developments in the Cavity wall type include rain screen systems where
design and details provide for controlled air pressure and ventilation of the cavity
space and much tighter control of air infiltration with air barriers behind the cavity.
Photo 2 shows typical Cavity Wall construction including a brick veneer, adjustable
ties, drainage cavity, insulation board with vapor barrier and back-up concrete
masonry.

Photo 2: Typical cavity wall construction.

In addition to providing for a drainage system the cavity allowed for isolation
of the veneer from the back-up system and building structure. Masonry veneers were
typically connected to a masonry back-up with flexible or adjustable ties that allowed
for differential movement between the veneer and everything behind it. The veneer
was supported vertically at or near each floor by structural framing, most frequently
from shelf angles. The angles were often located at window head levels and

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 1006

suspended from the floor framing above or they were connected directly to the floor
framing. Early designs did not employ relief for brick growth or façade movement
below the support angles but the need was quickly recognized and expansion joints
below the angles became common by the 1970’s. Early designs also did not
necessarily employ flashing and weep holes but they, also, were added as the system
matured. Vertical expansion or control joints were also incorporated into later
designs to add the final piece to the movement provision puzzle. The veneer now
acted in panels and was free from the influence of building and differential movement
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 05/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

concerns.
The masonry backing system in Cavity Walls was usually unreinforced and
used hollow clay tile early but transitioned to cinder or concrete masonry units fairly
rapidly. The infill, or backing, masonry was intended to provide only out-of-plane
support for the veneer. Modeling concepts anticipated full isolation of the infill
relative to the structural frame to allow the frame to move independently with regard
to gravity and lateral loads. Figure 2 shows the analytical intent of infill isolation
from a steel frame. Note that side interfaces, labeled Gap 1 and Gap 2 as well as the
top interface, labeled Gap 3, all were to be sized to allow for building frame
movement and member deflection. In practice, however, the infill walls were
commonly built tight to the frames and became unintentional participants in both
gravity and lateral load resistance. Interference with bracing members and
connections was common as was cracking of the infill system at points of contact and
also where its section thickness was reduced to clear structural frame members.

Figure 2: Cavity Wall/Infill Wall Structural Diagram. Courtesy of the

International Masonry Institute.

Masonry infill provided several other benefits to the building including

thermal mass, acoustical performance and fire separation and resistance. It also,
however, added appreciable weight to the building wall system and required framing
and foundations to be appropriately sized. Later Cavity Wall buildings began to

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 1007

employ, in some cases, light gage metal backing to reduce weight. Framing members
and foundations were able to be downsized but the advantages of masonry infill were
lost and problems with corrosion due to water infiltration or condensation occurred.
Detailing of the light gage metal infill also still had issues of interference with
bracing members and connections and interior finishes occasionally experienced
distress due to frame interaction.

Other Systems - Confined Walls. Although this building system slightly diverges
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 05/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

from the development of masonry walls interacting with steel frames, another system
worth mentioning is that of Confined Walls. The system was first used in the early
1900’s in certain areas and became more widely spread since the 1970’s. It continues
to be used today. It appeared with the development of concrete frame construction
technology. Confined wall building systems are used primarily for residential
construction and can be found in single story to low-rise multi-story construction
around the world. Instances are found in eastern European countries such as
Slovenia, Serbia and Montenegro; in Central American countries such as Mexico and
in South American Countries such as Chile, Peru and Argentina. (Rodriguez, 2007)
It is particularly popular in developing countries. It combines a reinforced concrete
frame with concrete or clay masonry infill built tight to the frames. Design
requirements are typically codified, prescriptive requirements and analysis is not
typically performed. Maximum spacing of tie columns and beams along with
minimum concrete reinforcement requirements are commonly specified by codes.
The frames provide confinement ductility for lateral loads and they also reduce out-
of-plane deflections by providing restraint against flexural rotation displacements.
(Rodriguez, 2007) The infill also provides closure for the envelope and out-of-plane
and in-plane lateral load resistance.
The author has designed buildings using this method in the Bahamas and
Cayman Islands and the system is widely employed throughout the Caribbean Sea.
Close inspection of photographs of structures damaged in the recent Haiti earthquake
will reveal many instances of Confined wall building construction. U.S. codes also
recognize the method. The Florida Building Code allows it, even in hurricane prone
regions, with specific provisions. The system, however, is frequently plagued by
poor construction and inspection in developing countries. The frames and infill are
often not properly designed or constructed for resistance to seismic events although
many do perform well during hurricanes.

Hybrid Building Wall Systems. The most recent development in building design
using masonry wall and steel frame construction originated in the mid-2000’s –
Hybrid Walls. David Biggs, P.E., first presented concept and classification in 2007 at
the 10th North American Masonry Conference in St. Louis, MO. (Biggs, 2007) His
concept of Hybrid Walls resulted from months of observation and reporting on his
participation in the post collapse investigation of the World Trade Center disaster.
He became aware of increased performance of Transitional wall buildings related to
direct impact and residual debris loads. The increased performance of the
Transitional wall buildings was due to apparent structural redundancy within the steel
frames and masonry surrounds and infill. Photo 3 shows an example of a significantly

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 1008

damaged beam in a Transitional wall building where the damage remained extremely
localized due to the redundant capacity and load redistribution afforded by the
masonry to the steel frame. Many similar observations led him to seek the means to
employ the positive attributes of Transitional wall construction with benefits of
modern Cavity wall construction. He wanted to engage the masonry infill for vertical
and lateral load resistance while maintaining the independent behavior of the veneer
and the drainage capacity of Cavity walls. Thus was born the Hybrid Building
Masonry Wall System.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 05/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Photo 3: Transitional façade showing load redistribution and damage limited to

impact locality at 140 West Street, Verizon Building. Photo Credit Ryan Biggs
Associates.

Hybrid walls buildings utilize modern reinforced masonry construction as the

infill system and rely on appropriate connection detailing for building and façade
movement while transferring out-of-plane and in-plane shear and gravity loads as
desired. Hybrid wall system design is based on shear wall behavior and may include
gravity loading as well. The shear design aspect may incorporate ordinary,
intermediate or special shear wall detailing and utilizes appropriate seismic
coefficients for each based on current building codes. Structural analysis of Hybrid
wall systems can be rather cumbersome because loads are shared between the steel
frame and masonry infill. Loads must be distributed based on relative member
stiffness and elastic or plastic behavior. The system is not, therefore, well suited to
hand calculations but they can be performed. Modern computers and software,
however, provide quick and efficient means to evaluate such walls through three-
dimensional, finite element analysis.
The system provides the broad benefits of masonry infill while alleviating
much of the wall weight concerns and providing a well performing lateral system
with more stiffness than a braced or moment connected frame. The concept relies on

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 1009

load sharing between the infill and frame to eliminate bracing and reduce frame steel
requirements. Gone are the days of “cutting in” masonry around knee or x-braces or
heavy, expensive moment connections. Hybrid walls can be used around a building’s
perimeter or within the building to receive lateral and/or gravity loads like any braced
or moment frame. Because the system employs both steel framing and engineered
infill, it provides the benefit of a redundant load path and progressive collapse
resistance. It allows steel frames to be designed for lower load levels because the
steel frames can distribute gravity loads from columns and isolated footing to more
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 05/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

moderate distributed walls and foundations in heavily loads structures resulting in

reduced steel tonnage and foundation concrete volume and, ultimately, cost savings.

HYBRID WALL TYPES

Hybrid wall buildings can employ any of three design concepts: non-
loadbearing shear wall, loadbearing shear wall or loadbearing shear wall with shear
transfer along column interfaces. The design concepts are segregated into Hybrid
Wall Types - Type I, Type II and Type III, respectively. While other papers have and
will discuss these wall types in more detail, an introductory summary is presented
here.

Type I Wall Systems. Type I walls are very similar to the infill walls discussed
above. The difference is in the nature of connections and expected behavior. Type I
Hybrid Walls use connections at the top of the masonry to the beam for transferring
both out-of-plane loads (like infill) AND in-plane shear (unlike infill). Also unlike
the infill walls, which were unreinforced, Hybrid Type I walls are vertically
reinforced and may be reinforced horizontally for higher shear levels. Gaps remain
on all three sides and must be sized for building movement and member deflection.
The base of the wall must be anchored to the frame or foundation to transfer loads
and the frame fully supports the weight of any walls above foundation level. Model
building codes cover the design requirements, including seismic provisions, through
building frame system with masonry shear wall provisions. Figure 3 shows a
common arrangement for a Type I Hybrid Wall including top and side gaps with
shear transfer along the wall top.

Type II Wall Systems. Type II Hybrid walls build on the basic provisions of the
Type I wall by adding gravity load sharing capacity to the masonry wall. The wall-
top gap is filled, by masonry, grout or other means allowing the beam to bear on the
masonry. The result is planned vertical load interaction between the frame and
masonry which can allow reductions in beam and column sizes, lighter connections
and reduced foundation size. The gaps along the columns are maintained and must
still be sized to accommodate building movement. Type II Hybrid wall systems have
two subsets that address base fixity requirements: Type IIa fully resists shear and
overturning at the wall base and typically require tension hold-down reinforcement
whereas Type IIb uses frame and connector detailing to resist overturning and
eliminates the tension hold down requirement. Like the Type I Hybrid walls, model
building codes again cover the design requirements for Type II Hybrid walls through

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 1010

building frame system with masonry shear wall provisions. Figure 4 shows the
general configuration of a Type II Hybrid wall. Look to other papers for more
information on Types IIa and IIb.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 05/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 3 - Hybrid Type I Structural Diagram. Courtesy of the International

Masonry Institute.

Figure 4 - Hybrid Type II Structural Diagram. Courtesy of the International

Masonry Institute.

Type III Wall Systems. Type III Hybrid walls take the final step of closing the
masonry-to-column gaps and providing connections along the interface. Full load
sharing and interactive behavior results in additional savings in frame and foundation

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 1011

construction. Software exists that can design Type III Hybrid Walls but it is
important to note that Type III walls are NOT currently covered in the model building
codes. Type III Hybrid walls have two subsets, IIIa and IIIb that mimic the
delineations noted above for Types IIa and IIb. Research is under way to study both
the behavioral aspects and connectivity requirements to properly utilize this structural
system. Figure 5 shows the configuration of a general Type III Hybrid wall. Look to
other papers for more information on Types IIIa and IIIb.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 05/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 5 - Hybrid Type III Structural Diagram. Courtesy of the International

Masonry Institute.

SUMMARY

Masonry wall systems continue to develop and evolve based on construction

and development needs as well as available technology for design. Long gone are the
days of low building heights and massive wall thicknesses. Also gone are the days of
inefficient or non-optimal backing systems for masonry veneer. There has been a
logical development from Masonry Bearing wall systems to Transitional buildings to
Cavity wall systems and now to Hybrid buildings. Hybrid walls incorporate the best
features of Cavity wall Construction with redundancy and redistribution benefits from
Transitional walls and restore all of the benefits of masonry backing to veneers.
Hybrid Walls are the next and a significant step forward in building design using
masonry walls and steel frames. Look for exciting wall solutions as the benefits of
participatory masonry backing is employed through Type I, II and III Hybrid Walls.

Structures Congress 2010

 2010 Structures Congress © 2010 ASCE 1012

REFERENCES

Biggs, D. (2006) “Brick Nogging, Historical Investigation and Contemporary

Repair”. The Construction Specifier. April 2006, pp. 40 – 47.
Biggs, D. (2007) “Hybrid Masonry Structures”. Proceedings of the Tenth North
American Masonry Conference. The Masonry Society, 2007.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by TEMPLE UNIVERSITY on 05/21/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Friedman, D. (2005). “Analysis of steel-structure / masonry-wall interaction in

historic buildings.” Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions – IV
International Seminar on Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions,
Padova, Italy. Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK.
Friedman, D. (2010) “Historical Building Construction. Design, Materials and
Technology”. Second Edition. W.W. Norton and Company, New York –
London.
Dam, J. (2006). “Heritage Building Envelope Restoration”. 2006 Symposium on
Building Envelope Technology, Washington, D.C.
http://www.rjc.ca/cms/files/RCI_Symposium_2006_Heritage_Building_Envel
ope_Restoration.pdf
Fuss and O’Neill. “Structural Considerations Affecting Adaptive Re-use of Historic
Mills and Other Similar Structures”.
http://www.fando.com/documents/Historic%20Mills1.pdf
Landmarks Preservation Commission. (1995). “Bowling Green Offices Building, 5-
11 Broadway”.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/downloads/pdf/reports/bgreenoffices.pdf
Langenbach, R. (1989) “Bricks, Mortar, and Earthquakes, Historic Preservation vs.
Earthquake Safety”. The Journal of the Association for Preservation
Technology, Volume XXI, No. 3 & 4, 1989, pp. 30-43.
Rayfield, J.A. (1997). “Tragedy in the Chicago Fire and Triumph in the Architectural
Response”. http://www.lib.niu.edu/1997/iht419734.html. Northern Illinois
University, Illinois Periodicals Online.
Rodriguez, M. (2007). “Confined Masonry Construction”. National Autonomous
University of Mexico.
http://www.world-housing.net/uploads/confined_masonry.pdf?pr=Array
Searls, C.L. and Bronski, M.B. (2000). “Early Twentieth Century Transitional
Facades in the United States: Common Maladies”. Proceedings of
UNESCO-ICOMOS Millenium Congress, Paris, France, 2000.
Turak, T. (1985). “Remembrances of the Home Insurance Building”. The Journal of
the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Mar. 1985) pp. 60-65.
East Herts Council. (2004). Guidance Notes - Historic Buildings and Conservation
Areas, Hertford, UK, 2004.

Structures Congress 2010