Notes On Reinforce 00 in Di Rich

NOTES ON REINFORCED BRICKWORK
A. Brebner, C.I.E.
SC
" " *
v
^sfcT**- -ly.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
DAVIS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Technical Paper
NOTES ON
REINFORCED BRICKWORK,
BY
A. BREBNER, C.I.E.,
Under Secretary, Government of India, Public Works Department.
(Patent No. 4288 of 14th March 1919)
VOLUME I.
Notes.
CALCUTTA'
SUPERINTENDENT GOVERNMENT PRINTING, INDIA
1923
PREFACE.
These notes are based on experience gained during the construction of the
New Capital at Patna, Bihar and Orissa.
I am much indebted to Messrs. Brij Narain, A. K. Datta, Eashid Ahmad
and A. Karim, who helped to conduct the experiments carried out and super-
vise the work done and to Mr, Brij Narain also for much assistance given in
the preparation of these notes.
Volume Volume II contains illustrations, experiment
I contains notes and
comparative tables, plates,
tables, curve tables and plans this arrangement being
;
adopted for facility of reference to any of the latter when reading the letterpress.
A. BEEBNEK,
SIMLA;
24th August 1922.
KY
LQKVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
DAVIS
TABLE OP CONTENTS.
VOL. I.
Section.
I. Introduction ........ 4
II.
Reinforced brick slabs
Reinforced brick
......
Description of the various forms of reinforced brickwork
beams, walls, columns and arches

.
.
4
7
lintels,
...
III.
Centering
Materials
........
Practical execution of reinforced brickwork
.... ....
10
10
11
Workmanship . . . . . . . .13
.15
IV. Results of experiments
Tests of slabs
Tests of cantilevers
.........23
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
Tests of lintels 23
Tests of R. B. rectangular beams . . . . . 24
beams and .24

Tests of T. girders
Tests of embedded rolled steel joists

.
....
.....
. . .
25
25
Tests of R. B. partition walls
Tests of slabs suitable for bridge decking ... 25
Adhesion tests .........26

Tests of lintels and slabs without reinforcement . . 25
26
Compression tests of
Special experiments .......

masonry
...
. . . .
28
V. Designs and calculations .......

Conclusions arrived at from experiments 29
30
Method ofdesigning an ordinary slab for roof or floor 31

supported on two sides.
Method of designing slab supported on all four sides reinforced 32
two
....
in directions.
Method of designing continuous slabs 32
Method of designing lintels, rectangular beams and cantilevers 32
Method of designing T. beams with slab continuous over 33
....
it .
Example No. 1 slab for a roof 5' span 34
Example No. 2 slab for a first floor 8' span ... 35
Example No. 3 slab for roof 11' span
slab for roof of

.... a room
37
Example No. 4 cross reinforced 87

15'xl6'.
Example No. 5 roof for a room 14' X 27'. ... 39
Example No. 6 T. beam joined to a 6" slab ... 42
VI. Costs, Rates, Cost analyses 4450
I. Illustrations .........
....
CONTENTS OF VOL. II.
II.
III. Comparative tables ........

Tables of experiments giving data of testa
IV.
V.
VI.
Plates
Curve tables ..;.,....

Plans of some buildings constructed showing how R. B. is used
in various ways.
NOTES ON REINFORCED BRICKWORK.
SECTION I.
INTRODUCTION.
Reinforced brickwork construction is in all essential features practically the
same as reinforced concrete construction save that brickwork in cement mortar
is substituted for cement concrete. The principles of reinforcement are similar
and steel is used in various ways where necessary, as in reinforced concrete, to
give the requisite strength to the material.
Structures of all descriptions have now for many years been built in rein-
forced concrete. This form of construction has long passed the experimental
stage and at the present time there is scarcely any project which has to be
tackled by civil engineers for which it cannot be usefully and economically
employed in some way. In India, however, it has not been as extensively used
as elsewhere and the reasons for this are not far to seek. In India the price of
cement is high as compared with what it is in other countries and the price of
bricks, tiles, etc., low, so that in the past it has almost invariably been found
when designing, that some other form of construction was cheaper, to
all intents and purposes as good, and had the further advantage of
being
comparatively simple and therefore more easily and cheaply supervised.
Another very great obstacle to the substitution of reinforced concrete for other
forms of construction in India is undoubtedly the fact that the Indian mason
(mistri) and labourer (coolie) cannot be trusted to do good concrete work, unless
constantly supervised by an efficient staff and to arrange for this, more especially
,
in out-of-the-way places is not always feasible. Every one who has experience
of reinforced concrete construction in this country knows the great difficulty
there always in in getting the labour to understand and put into practice the most
elementary principles of good concrete work, not to mention the various troubles
connected with the construction of centering and the correct placing of the
reinforcement, no matter what detailed drawings may be provided. In rein-
forced brickwork construction all these difficulties very largely disappear and it
will be found almost invariably that the cost of this form of construction is much
lower than that of any other form of construction of a more or less permanent
nature.
For some years now lintels over ordinary door and window openings have
been built of reinforced brickwork this method of construction being simpler,
cheaper, and neater than older methods such as arches and relieving arches, or
T and angles with tiles or bricks between them. Partition walls of brickwork
in cement suitably reinforced have also been used with certain limitations. It
is only recently, however, that reinforced brickwork has been used extensively in
other forms of construction, e.g., in floors, roofs, staircases, chhujjas, overhanging

cornices of all kinds, bridge-decking, etc.
The system was first introduced early in the construction of the New Capital
for Bihar and Orissa at Patna and soon proved so economical and successful
from every point of view that the Local Government decided to adopt it where
possible, not only throughout the whole of the work on the capital but else-
where in the province on all new7 construction. The Government of Bihar and
Orissa also brought the system to the notice of the Government of India and
the Government of Benga', and suggested that it would be very suitable for
2 NOTES ON REINFORCED BRICKWORK.
work at New Delhi and elsewhere. As a result of this recommendation rein-

forced brickwork has been used for roofs and floors in several buildings in
Bengal including the large hospital which was recently completed at Dacca.
It is being extensively used in Government House, the Secretariats and in all the
permanent residences being built for officials of the Government of India at

Delhi and has also been largely adopted in works constructed by private enter-
prise with which Government has had no concern, being used in the following
buildings among others :
Buildings in the new town being constructed by the Tata Iron and Steel
Company Limited at Jamshedpur.
The Hindu University at Benares.
Cotton mills, Improvement Trust, and other buildings, at Cawnpore.

The new Allahabad Bank buildings at Patna.
In all nearly 3,000,000 square feet have been laid in the last three years.
The advantages in the main of the system are :
Advantages over I Simplicity of construction.

other systems
II. Good, sound and permanent work involving very low repair charges.
III. Fireproof work.
IV. Neat and artistic appearance of the finished work, unlike that of jack
arching or other systems in common use.
V. Cool rooms.
VI. Low cost. It is cheaper than any other form of pakka roofing.
I. There is nothing in the construction which cannot be done by an

(1)
ordinary Indian mistri and, while all the advantages of reinforced concrete work
are retained so far as ordinary work is concerned, few of the difficulties inherent
in such construction are met with.
(2) No special materials of any kind are required, all that is wanted are :
(a) Bricks,
(6) Cement,
(c) Sand,
(d) Ordinary mild steel rods or bars.
There is, therefore, nothing used which any Indian bricklayer is not well
acquainted with, and there are no heavy charges for specially manufactured
materials or for freight in bringing the same to work site from the
factory.
(3) The centering may be of a rough description provided it is strong. It

need not be well finished as is essential in all reinforced concrete work and it
can be used repeatedly.
(4) There is no question of stale or half-set material being used as is

pos-
sible in reinforced concrete work since each mason is given the mortar
dry
and adds water to it as he proceeds with his work.
(5) The Indian bricklayer can do good brickwork though he cannot do good
concrete work, and therefore not only is less supervision required but a less
highly trained supervising staff is sufficient. It has been found that ordinary
bricklayers quickly become expert and can be trusted to do good and rapid work
after a week or ten days' practice.
(6) The reinforcement is inserted as the Work proceeds and experience shows
that it is not nearly so liable to displacement as it is in reinforced concrete
work.
NOTES ON REINFORCED BRICKWORK. 3
(7) There are not

the same transport difficulties to out-of-the-way places as
there are in the case of jack arch or T iron and tile roofs since there are no
heavy steel sections to handle or carry long distances.
II. (1) nothing about the work which can deteriorate or require
There is
attention of any kind. The repair charges are therefore very low, in fact, negli-
gible provided the brickwork is efficiently protected from weathering and from
damp by cement plaster or something similar. It has also been found that roofs
built of reinforced brickwork rarely, if ever, leak. In most cases they have a
through cement joint between the bricks which forms as it were, an efficient
rainproof course even if the terracing be not sound. Further there are no large
steel sections round which cracks are likely to be set up by variation in tempera-
ture as frequently happens in forms of roofing in which rolled steel joists are
commonly used.
can be constructed to take any load.
(2) Floors, roofs, etc.,
(3) After the work has set, holes of a fair size can be cut in it without
detriment.
III. The work is fireproof. This is more or less obvious, but a reference
to experiment 276, table XIX
will show exactly what happens when reinforced
brickwork is subjected to a fierce heat for many hours.*
IV. One of the main drawbacks to jack arch and T and tile floors and
roofs, is their unsightly appearance when viewed from the underside. This
is avoided entirely where reinforced brickwork is used. Ordinary sand lime
plaster adheres readily to the surface of the bricks and a clean plastered ceiling
is therefore easily obtained at a very low cost. This is clearly shown in the
photograph of work done in Patnaf. What is true of roof and floor slabs is
equally true of other work such as cornices, balconies, etc. The whole of
the steel reinforcement is completely concealed and no unsightly supporting
brackets of any kind are required.
V. When compared with roofs of ordinary T and tile or reinforced

concrete, a roof of reinforced brickwork is found to give a cooler room. This
is obvious from the fact that it is thicker ; as a rule the brickwork in cement
is 6" deep as against 2" for tiles in tile roofs and about 4" for concrete in rein-
forced concrete roofs the terracing in all cases being the same.
VI. The cost of the work varies not only with the market prices of steel,
cement, and bricks, but with varying conditions of design. In most cases it
is found that there are several alternatives, any one of which can be adopted,
and it is therefore not easy to give definite figures showing the extent of
the saving effected by substituting this form of construction for others. In
order to get accurate figures, each case must be considered separately. A
comparison of the cost of reinforced brickwork and other roofs is given in
Section VI. These figures are taken from notes kept of the cost of construction
in Patna and may be considered a fair guide.
* Vide
photograph, Vol. II, page 22.
f TiWe photograph. Vol. II, page 17.
B2
SECTION II.
DESCRIPTION OP THE VARIOUS FORMS OF REINFORCED BRICKWORK.
The similarity between reinforced brick and reinforced concrete structures

has already been referred to. The principles of reinforcement are identical in
both, the aim of the designer being to place the reinforcement in such a posi-
tion that it will take up certain stresses; for this purpose in reinforced brick-
work rods are well embedded in the mortar joints of the masonry in suitable
positions. Experiments have demonstrated that the steel and the masonry sur-
rounding it act as one compact mass in almost exactly the same way as the
concrete and reinforcement in reinforced concrete work.
At first sight it would seem that brickwork could not be a homogeneous
mass in the sense that concrete is, and that the regular joints in the Avork
would present planes of weakness along which failure would readily take place.
In practice, however, it has been found that this is not so. On the contrary it
has been proved that this factor is so insignificant that it can be neglected. It
has also been established that there is no reason why reinforced brick structures
should not be as successful as reinforced concrete ones of a similar nature, pro-
vided ordinary precautions are taken in designing and carrying out the work.
It is now proposed to describe some of the more common uses to which
reinforced brickwork can be put.
Reinforced brick slabs.
Reinforced brick slabs are eminently suitable for all kinds of floors, roofs
and staircases in buildings and for the decking of bridges. They are simply
and quickly constructed and can be designed to carry any load. In practice
they are supported either on two sides, four sides, or built in on one side
(cantilever).
Slabs constructed of ordinary bricks, which throughout this paper are
taken as nominally 10" X 5* x 3", are limited to certain definite depths,
namely 3", 5", 6" or combinations of these, i.e., 3" slabs are made by laying
bricks flat, 5" by laying bricks on edge, and 6" by laying two courses one
upon another in the ordinary manner. A flat course ^/MS a brick-on-edge course
can be used to make up 8* slabs, 9" to 10" slabs are made of three courses
flat while 10" slabs have also been constructed of bricks on end. Though very
satisfactory from the point of view of strength and appearance of the finished
work, slabs of greater thickness than 6" are generally too heavy and ex-
pensive for ordinary use.
In referring to the depth of slabs it is usual to give the thickness in terms
of brick dimensions neglecting the depth of horizontal mortar joints, e.g., a (>"
slab is made up of two courses of brick laid flat, each therefore 3" deep plus a
joint and has an actual depth of G" plus one joint. A
similar convention is
used as regards the spacing of reinforcing rods, thus the distance apart specified
indicates the brick intervals at which rods should be placed and does not take
into consideration the thickness of the mortar joints as will be seen from the
sketches in tables I to XX.
'-"> slabs support-

I n slabs freely supported on two sides and subjected to transverse loading,
*d on two sides the tensile stresses are developed in the lower fibres and therefore the steel is
embedded near the lower surface of the slabs. When slabs have their ends
fixed, there is tension in the upper fibres near each end and top reinforcement
is
necessary. Similarly cantilevers and continuous slabs require top reinforce-?
ment, the former throughout their length and the latter for some distance on
each side of every intermediate support* The amount of reinforcement at top
or bottom depends on the amount of bending moment, negative or positive,
respectively.
Roof slabs lime concrete terracing, and floor
are covered as a rule with
slabs with cement concrete stone, commonly called patent stone.
artificial It
is obvious that the
strength of such slabs is considerably increased by this sur-
facing, once it is set ; but it must be borne in mind that this strengthening of
the slabs only occurs when surfacing is on the compression side.
In 3" slabs, the reinforcement can be placed about 5 im-hes or 10 inches

apart, according to the arrangement of the bricks. Figures 1 and 2 show this
clearly. The distance apart of reinforcement will vary slightly according to
the actual size of bricks, as, in each case, it will be the width or the length of
the brick plus one mortar joint.
A
The reinforcement in 5" slabs, which consist of bricks on edge, can be

placed in any of the ways shown in the cross sections given in figure 3. The
arrangements shown in (a) and (b) are preferable to (c) as the reinforcement is
more evenly distributed, also since the bricks can be arranged so as to break
joint sideways as in sketch (d), thereby giving greater uniformity in the brick-
work.
Reinforcement every 3+fjo/W apart,
CROSS 'SECTION
Kfinforetmenf every 6'ljdiftts apart, about 6y
n
i*
cttoss -SECTION
Reinforcement every 10'ljomt apart,
to
CROSi -SECTION
PLAN
FIGURE 3.
The sketches in figure 4< illustrate various ways in which bricks can be
arranged for 6" slabs. There is a simple break joint between the upper and
lower layers and reinforcement can be spaced 5^" or 10j" apart (called for the
sake of convenience 5" or 10") as in the case of 3* slabs according to require-
ments.
PLAM
'Reinforce mcnf every 5 opart.
K-.o- 1|
UONGITOOINAU SECTION C. 0.
every S opart.
CROSS SCC.TIOM A B
FIGURE 4.
Pigure 4 shows bottom reinforcement every 5" apart, but if it is desired to

place it 10" apart, the arrangement of top and bottom courses can be inter-
changed. It is desirable, however, to break joint where possible between the
top and bottom layers.
Figures 5 and 6 below indicate how 8" and 9'' slabs may be laid, these in
practice will seldom be used except in special circumstances. They are not
as a rule economical to construct.
30
without, holding up the brickwork of the wall or in any way altering the
arrangement of the joints. If in such cases the centering can be conveniently
left up for any length of time, the lime masonry sets and will then act along
Avith the cement masonry, thus considerably increasing the strength of the lintel
and reducing the amount of steel required. Examples of this class of work are
given in plate 7, figures 1 to 4.
Reinforced brickwork beams are very convenient where the loads to be
dealt with are not heavy and AA'here a large number have to be made. Beams
for heavier loads such as may be met Avith in bridges can also be designed, but
they are heavy and somewhat clumsy though much less expensiA e than reinforced
r
concrete beams of similar strength would be. Many such beams, some car-
rying well over 100 tons, have been built and have proved entirely successful.
The results of tests carried out on a 40' span girder are shown in experiment
160, table XI.*
Ordinary rectangular and T beams of reinforced brick, and of combined
reinforced concrete and brick, have been successfully designed in many cases
and are easily constructed. In designing sxich beams ample provision should be
made against shearing stresses, and for this both stirrups, and rods inclined
near the ends, have proved efficient. Plate 5 gives a typical design of a T beam
of reinforced brick only, \vhile plate gives a design for a beam of reinforced
brick and concrete combined. It Avill be noticed that concrete is used only ir
the lower portion of the beam where most of the reinforcement is located, the
reason being that the reinforcement is much more easily arranged and securely
packed in concrete than in brickAVork in such cases. Except in this position
it is not, as a rule, economical to substitute concrete for brickAvork.
imbedded roiled When reinforced brick slabs run continuous over intermediate rolled steel
joist supports, it is possible to connect the joists and the slab rigidly by build-
ing the upper flange of the joists a feAV inches into the slab and casing the
rest of the Aveb and lower flange in cement concrete or cement brickAvork. If this
is done, stirrups, passing round the bottom flange of the
joists and having their
ends well anchored into the slab, should be provided. When so treated the
slab and joist form a sort of T beam. The carrying capacity of the joist
is thereby considerably increased, and hence in most cases a lighter section can
be used than would othenvise be possible. It will be seen from table XII,
experiments 102-103, which give figures of joists so treated, that the loads
carried at failure are in each case considerably in excess of the loads at failure
carried by a plain joist of the same section, vide experiment 101, table XII.
Partition walls. Reinforced brick partition Avails are already Avell knoAvn to most engineers
as a very useful type of structure. Not only are they light, cheap, and easily
constructed, but what is not so commonly kiiOAvn is that they can be made self-
supporting Avith very little extra expenditure. For instance a wall can be con-
structed in the first floor of a tA\ o-storied building Avithout any corresponding
r
supporting Avail on the ground floor .f Such a wall is self-supporting and is

merely hung from the side walls. It should be designed not so much to carry
a load as to stand a lateral thrust and accordingly should have reinforcement
near both the faces. When considered from the point of vievv of the vertical load to
be carried, it can be treated as a very deep beam and hence a comparatively small
amount of reinforcement in the bottom courses is enough, not only to make it
carry its OAvn weight but also that of a roof or floor supported on it. In prac-
tice such Avails have been made 3" or 5" thick, and it is not necessary to make
them any thicker. The former have been used successfully up to a 10' span,
and the latter up to a 20' span. There seems to he no reason Avhy they should
not be used on larger spans than these. Care must, however, be taken to see
that the shear stresses in such walls are not excessive.
Experiments tend to shoAV that partition wails constructed almost wholly
of lime masonry (only the courses containing reinforcement being constructed
in cement mortar) are also very successful, vide table XIII. In such AA'alls hoop
iron is ve7-y commonly used as reinforcement, but small round sections may
also be used and are probably better. One point to be borne in mind is that
the partition Avails should be carried well into the side walls, say at least a foot
so as to have ample bearing. They should also be bonded into the brickwork of
* Vide
photograph. A'ol. II, page 14.
t Vide plans, Ns. 2 and 3, VoL II.
the side walls. The sketches for experiments 167-172 in Table XIII show how
such walls are made and reinforced.*
Longitudinal reinforcement in reinforced brick
columns is of little use Columns,
alone, but when combined with hooping at close intervals it is most efficient.
In actual practice reinforced brick columns have not been much used as it has
generally been found simpler and not
much more expensive to construct either
reinforced concrete columns or to provide steel stanchions. The figures
shown in Table XVII(e), experiments 212-265, are, however, very interesting as
showing what can be done.
Arc
Reinf orced brick arches have been tried and tested in Patna and found
in compression but
very useful, not because of the fact that reinforcement aids
because it prevents cracking. If there is any bending action due to concentrated
or unsymmetrical loading in the arch or to an unequal settlement or yielding
in abutments, it is advisable to reinforce symmetrically near the intrados and
extrados and combine the reinforcement together at frequent intervals by
of interest in
hoops. The tests given in Table XVIII, experiments 266-269, are
this connection.
* ride Alto
photographs, Vol II, pago 15.
SECTION III.
PRACTICAL EXECUTION or REINFORCED BRICKWORK.

In the preceding sections a brief general description of reinforced
brickwork has been givea and it has be*ja claimed that it is easier and simpler
to construct than reinforced concrete work. It is now proposed to give,
in as concise a manner as possible, the main points which require careful
attention during construction, and to offer suggestions which are likely to be
found of practical use in carrying out work.
The main requisites of good reinforced brickwork are :
I. Sound centering.
II. Good materials,
III. Careful work.
Centering.
As in reinforced concrete work, some form of centering is required on
which the work can be constructed and supported, until such time as the mortar
has set. Elaborate and expensive centering and shuttering such as is essen-
tial in reinforced concrete work is, however, not required. In different localities
various suitable materials are available, and it is not proposed therefore to lay
down any hard and fast specification. Typical kinds of centering, which have
been extensively used with success, are illustrated in Plate 1, figures 1 to 5,
and anything of a similar nature will probably be found to serve the purpose
equally well.
The simplest type, and that which is most generally used, consists of a
platform composed of planking or sheeting at the required level, supported
on runners or beams and covered with a thin layer of well-beaten earth finished
off with a sprinkling of fine sand.*
It is essential that whatever centering be used it should possess the
following properties :
1. Rigidity.
2. Simplicity of construction, slackening and removal.
3. Asmooth surface on which to lay the slab.
Rigidity. The centering must be rigid. By this is meant that it should not sag
under the weight of the workmen constructing the slab. It should be tested
beforehand by being jumped on, and if there be anything very perceptible
"
in the nature of a give" about it further stiffening should be provided.
Simplicity of
construction
No special difficulties are likely to be met with in erecting centering.
and removal. The following points should, however, be noted at this stage :
(i) Care must be taken to see that all centering planking is kept clear
of the bearings for the slab and rests on cross beams only.
(ii) planks are used they should not be laid too close to each other
If
as they may jam and thare may 1)3 difficulty in removing them.
(Hi) All cross beams should be carried on the walls, supported at in-
tervals if necessary by rough timbering (bullahs) or temporary
dry brick pillars.
(iv) Cross beams should rest directly on wedges and not on the support-
ing walls themselves. This permits of the centering being easily
and rapidly struck and removed, and does away with any chance
of jarring the finished work.
The length of time for which centering should be left up after construction
depends on many conditions, such as the specification of mortar used, the
season of the year and the span of the beam or slab. It is therefore not possible
to lay down any hard and fast rules on the subject. The practice followed in
Patna, as noted below, may be taken as a guide :
(a) Centering for ordinary slabs from a minimum of about 5 days in

summer to a maximum of about 10 days in winter provided there
is no frost.
(b) Centering for specially heavily reinforced slabs from 7 days to 15 days.
ic) Centering for ordinary beams 10 to 15 days.
(d\ Centering for important beams carrying heavy loads 28 days.
* Thf:
top surface of the centering should be given a camber as below to allow for initial settlement.
Kor slabs. bout TV' for every foot of span up to a maximum of !'.
For beitms about up to a maximum of li ".
''
-ff for every foot of span

R. B. slabs are usually finished Avith lime concrete terracing for root's,
and patent stone for floors. The ten-acini;- may lie done after '21 days, but it
is better to wait fora month. Patent stone should b" done as soon after the
11. B. slab is finished as possible, preferably before removing the centering,
1
unless, perhaps, in the case of slabs continuous over beams, where it should be
laid as soon after the removal of the centering as possible. This aspect of the
question is more fully dealt with on pages 21 and 22. If in the case of continuous
slabs supported on intermediate II. S. joists, it be decided to use the joists them-
selves as supports for centering, care must be taken to see that they are propped
up to prevent excessive deflection during construction, otherwise on removal of
the load due to centering, the slab 'may be damaged when each or any joist
springs back to its normal position.
Where T beams B, are combined with the R. B. slab, several arrange-
of 11.
ments of centering are possible, but whatever arrangement is adopted, care

must be taken to see that it is possible to remove the slab centering without
interfering in any way with that for the beam. This is essential as the slab
centering is invariably removed some days before the rib centering.
In constructing R. B. ceilings below tile or other sloping roofs, the center-
r
ing may be very simply hung from the lower member of the supporting trusses
by means of specially constructed clips as show n in Plate 2, figure 6. This
r
method was very successfully employed during the construction of the Secre-
tariat building at Patna where 130,000 square feet of ceiling were laid in a
few months.
Suitable centerings for lintels, beams, and staircases, are illustrated in Plate
2. These are perfectly simple and straightforward and require no explanation.
"\Yhen the time comes to ease and remove centering great, care must be
taken to see that no jarring of any kind occurs. All wedges should first of all
be carefully drawn. This separates the supporting beams and planking from
the R. B. construction and readily permits of the removal of centering and
supports. In fact all operations in connection with the removal of centering
must be gently performed. It is desirable to impress this on everyone connected
with the work at the very outset, otherwise accidents may occur and in any
case centering is
needlessly damaged and
destroyed.
As has been explained above, the simplest and cheapest way to obtain a^^ 6 .
' surface
smooth surface is by spreading earth to a depth of about 1* over the planking requi
or sheeting, as the case may be. This is then beaten flat and finished off with
a thin sprinkling cf fine sand. The earth is required to level up the inequalities
in the planking, to help to distribute the weight of the workers and to admit
of the requisite camber being given, while the addition of sand gives a smooth
surface on which the bricks can be quickly and truly laid and prevents adhesion
of the clay to the bricks Avhich would otherwise occur. Care must be taken
to see that only a fine sprinkling of sand is given, since, if too much be given,
there is always risk of the bricks sinking into it when laid, and in any case
mortar may be sucked from the joints, an evil wluch cannot be over-exaggerated.
Materials.
The materials used in R. B. are :
() Bricks,
(b) Cement,
(c) Sand,
(d) Steel reinforcement.
Only the best bricks complying with the usual 1st class specifications Biicfrs:
should be used in R. B. Hardness is a desirable quality, but brit tie-

ness is not, while anything approaching a smooth glaze on the surface, such
as is sometimes observed in over-burnt (jhamci) bricks, is also undesirable as
mortar will not adhere well to bricks with such a surface.
The following qualities are also desirable :
(1) Low absorption. If nothing else is obtainable and porous bricks have
to be used working stresses must be correspondingly reduced.
(2) Freedom from saltpetre. Bricks having too much saltpetre are un-
suitable for R. B. and should not be vised.
c 2
It is also advisable to test specimens of the bricks intended to be used in

R. B. both in tension and compression.
Tension tests may be carried out by carefully cutting briquettes (similar
to cement briquettes used in testing cement and cement
mortars) out of the
bricks, and testing these in the ordinary manner in a cement-testing machine.
Bricks giving a tensile strength of about 200 Ibs. per square inch
may be accept-
ed with confidence.
For compression tests whole bricks may be tested in a Buckton machine,
but such bricks should not have any 'frog' as this would introduce irregularities.
If 'frogless' bricks are not available 2" cubes may be cut out of bricks and
tested. A breaking stress of about 1,200 Ibs. per square inch or over, indicates
sufficiently good bricks. Where a Buckton machine is not available rough and
ready tests may be made with a temporary apparatus similar to that illus^
trated below.
FIGURE 7.
Saru},
should be clean, well graded, i.e., there should be
particles of all size
from jVdiameter to the very finest grains, and if
possible sharp. Sharpness
is not
absolutely essential if the grading is good and the sand otherwise sound.
It should be free from
organic and vegetable matter, and should also be as
free from clay and mica as
possible. Although some authorities are of opinion
that the presence of small
quantities of clay actually improves cement mortar,
there is always the fear that if too much be allowed the mortar will be
weakened.
The presence of mica in the sand is
objectionable as a mioacious. sand
requires a greater proportion of cement to produce a mortar equal in strength
to mortar made from a sand free from mica and otherwise
equally good, tin-
fortunately, most sands are micacious and the only thing to be done is to deter-
mine by actual experiments the
proportion in which it has to be mixed with
cement to produce a suitable mortar.
Too fine sand should not be used as it
requires extra cement to be added
to produce good mortar.
Ganges sand which is both very fine and micacious was discarded in Patna
in favour of sand
dug from pits in the old bed of the river Son. The latter
was found to be clean,
fairly coarse, sharp and well-graded and entirely free
from mica. It gave
Cement. uniformly satisfactory results.
The cement used must comply in
every way with the standard cement
specification. Both Katni and Buiidi cement were used extensively in Patna
and gave excellent results. It must also be fresh
any cement which shows
signs of staleness should be rejected. Samples of all cement used should be
regularly tested.
Mortar. The mortar used should consist of cement and sand in
proportions varying
according to the quality of sand available. (Throughout work at Patna the
proportions used were 1 of cement to 3 of sand by volume, mixed dry, and
it was found that this
gave very satisfactory results.) Only enough water
should be added to make the mortar of such a
consistency that is easily work-
able, leaves the trowel clean, and can be
readily packed round the reinforce-
ment bars.
It will generally be found that 3:1 is a sufficiently rich mixture, hut the
best proportions should he found by experiment whenever possible. Propor-
tions which ensure that the following results are attained should he adopted :
(1) Mortar briquettes made in the usual way should give a breaking
tensile strength of 150 Ibs. per square inch when one week old and not less than
350 Ibs. per sq. inch at an age of six months.
(2) Short columns built of single bricks one upon another set in the mortal-
should have an ultimate breaking stress of not less than 1,200 His. per square
inch after 28 days.
(3) Adhesion sti-ess between bricks and mortar should not be less than 25
Ibs. per square inch. This can be tested by pulling apart bricks, set one upon
another crosswise, with a mortar joint between them. For this test the bricks
should be well soaked with water before the sample is made, and the sample
after being made should be kept under water until the time of test. If the
bricks are dry at the time of construction or soon after, the test is unfair.
(4) Bond stress between a round steel rod and mortar should be at least
about 400 Ibs. per sq. inch of the embedded surface of the rod after 28 days.
It will usually be found that a mortar satisfying the tension test satisfies
all other tests,
For beams and other heavily reinforced work, where the bond stress is
likely to be high, it may be advisable to use a mortar richer in cement than
the mortar usi-d for ordinary slabs where the bond stress is low.
All mortar used in work must first be thorough/ mixed dry and water
should on no account be added except by the masons employed on the work
and then only in small quantities. Too great stress cannot he laid on this
point. If these precautions be ignored there is every likelihood that stale
mortar will be used.
From long experience it has been found that the most suitable method is
to have the mortar mixed dry in some central position where this work can be
easily supervised, and then have it distributed. If this method be adhered to,
each mason need only add water in his iron pan (karai) and there is therefore
no fear that the mortar will be partially set when used. Needless to say, this
method can only be adopted when the sand is really dry. Only clean water
should be used.
Only the best mild steel should be used as reinforcement. As far as possi-
hie only steel of circular section shoiild be used. Square sections may also l>e
used but flats or angles should be avoided. If they have to be used care should
he taken to see that the bond stresses are kept very low.
In floor and roof slabs no section of greater diameter than -|" should he
" "
used, and as far as possible only small sections such as j", f-6 and f should he
xised. Sections in beams should not be larger than 1" diameter for main re-
inforcement and \" for shear reinforcement. Hoop iron although unsuitable
for slabs and beams is suitable for reinforcing partition walls.
A rust on the reinforcement is desirable as it ensures good adhesion,
little
but all loose and scaly rust should be removed prior to use. Hoop iron with a
bluish glazed surface should not be used ;
if it has to be, then it should be
immersed in water for a few days. This produces rusting and effectively
destroys the glaze on the surface.
The ends of all rods should be bent into semi-circular hooks of a diameter
at least six times the diameter of the rod itself with a short length of
straight rod beyond the bend.
As far as possible overlapping should he avoided by ordering rods of proper
lengths, but where this cannot he done and overlapping has to be resorted to, a
lap of 50 diameters should be given with proper hooks at the ends and the two
should be bound with wire along the lap.
Workmanship, etc.
The main points under this heading Avhich require careful attention are :
(a) That all bricks are thoroughly soaked before being used. This hardly
requires any comment ; dry bricks are sure to suck moisture out
of the mortar joints and thus interfere with setting. All bricks
should he soaked for at least six hours in a soaking vat before
being used.
(ft)
That bricks are properly arranged as they are laid. "Where possible,
the arrangement should he shown in drawings, hut it may he laid
down as a general principle that joint should be broken where-
ever possible as this gives increased strength.
(c) That reinforcement is
properly arranged. Before starting work all
rods should be prepared and bent to the correct lengths and shapes
shown in the drawings and where possible laid out in situ. It*
this is done difficulties will be anticipated and cutting and over-
lapping reduced to a minimum. Rods of the correct length shoulu
be used, but where this is not possible overlapping may be resorted
to as detailed above. Welding should not be permitted.
(d) That all joints are well filled and all reinforcement well surrounded
by mortar. This requires careful attention as workmen unless
watched are apt to scamp the work or grout the joints. Both
faults are objectionable and apt to lead to trouble unless checked.
All reinforcement must be thoroughly surrounded by mortar other-
wise slipping and rusting may take place and adhesion, on which
the strength of the structure depends, does not develop fully.
Care should be taken that the bottom rods in slabs have a real
cover of mortar under them and do not touch the centering surface.
The mortar used must be fresh and mixed w et only just before
r
using as described above. The importance of this cannot be over-

estimated.
The masons engaged on the work should w hen possible squat on a
r
plank and not on the centering itself. Planks should also be laid
so that it will never be necessary to walk over newly finished work.
(e) That the work after completion is properly looked after and watered.
All work should be kept moist by means of w et straw, wet sand,
r
or merely sprinkling water, for the first and part of the next day
after finishing. It should then be profusely watered and kept
Avet until one or two days before the removal of centering. A
low mortar wall or kiari might be made all round the slab to hold
about ^" depth of water on it. A clear day should be allowed
for dry setting before the centering is removed. The work should
be kept wet or moist until it is about a month old.
( /) As far as possible, each structure should be finished in one operation
and in one day, but there will be occasions when this is not
possible and in such cases the following hints may be of use :
() Ordinary slabs supported on two sides may be left after finish-

ing any layer of reinforcement.
(ii) Cross reinforced slabs, i.e., having reinforcement in tAvo direc-
tions may, if absolutely necessary, be left somewhere near the
middle, that is, when half the slab from one side is laid.
(Hi) Beams may be left near the centre (section of least shear and
maximum bending moment) but as far as possible, these
should be finished in one operation and as the size is seldom
very large this can nearly always be done. Ordinary T beams
with a continuous slab, in which all the shearing action has
been provided for in the shape of stirrups, may be left after
couipli a the rib portion provided the stirrups project from
the rib almost to the top of the slab. The slab should be built
over the rib not later than two days after completion of the
rib. lu all such cases the Avork on the remaining part of the
structure should be resumed very early, the next day if possi-
ble.
(ff) Careful removal of centering at the correct time and avoidance of

shocks when carrying out this part of the work.
This has already been dealt Avith on page 10 when discussing the
removal of centering. But it cannot be too often emphasized
that anything in the nature of shocks is bound to be distinctly
harmful.
SECTION IV.
RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS.
When the proposal that R. B. should be used for the floors and roofs
of new buildings under construction in Patna, was first put forward by the
Executive Engineer, the Local Government were somewhat averse to its accept-
ance, as they did not consider they were justified in adopting, on a large scale,
a system which had not been thoroughly tested. The rapid rise in the cost of
rolled steel joists and other steel work, however, left them no alternative but
that of stopping work altogether, a course which would have been disastrous
in view of the advanced stage which the work had reached. As the preliminary
experiments which had been carried out had proved successful and had estab-
lished beyond doubt the fact that the cost of work done in this system was
very considerably less than that of any other in common use, it was decided
to introduce it and at the same time to carry out a large number of experi-
ments with a view to testing it thoroughly in every way. Tests, extending over
a period of nearly two years, were accordingly made on practically every kind
of structure likely to be met Avith in ordinary building work, and the final
results of these are given in detail in Tables I to XX in Volume II. The
following are some of the types of structures experimented on
1. Roof and floor slabs of all kinds supported on two sides, generallv Typ es f struc-
*
c. , . ,. .. .,,, fyl . tures experiment-
,
reinforced in one direction only, with or without covering such as cement e a on.
concrete, patent stone, terracing, etc.
2. Roof and floor slabs supported on four sides, generally reinforced in
both directions.'
3. Lintels over doors, windows, etc.
4. Beams.
5. T beams and long-span beams suitable for bridge girders.
G. Brickwork beams reinforced with rolled steel joists.
7. Hanging partition walls with and without door or window openings.
8. Slabs capable of being used over culverts or as decking of road bridges.
9. Columns.
10. Arches.
11. Special experiments.
It was felt from the first that R. B. was a system more or less allied to
reinforced concrete, and the investigations therefore ran on somewhat similar
lines to investigations made in regard to the latter. Generally speaking, enough
steel was embedded in the joints of the brickwork to take the tensile stresses
while the brickwork was relied on to take up the compression. Local conditions
and the abnormal prices of some of the materials of necessity played a large part
in the evolution and development of the practical details.
In Patna the following conditions obtained :
(1) 1st class bricks suitable for the work cost Rs. 12 per thousand at site.
(2) Very good sand for cement mortar was available practically at the
site of the work and cost only about Rs. 2-8-0 per hundred c. ft.
(3) The price of cement varied, but most of it was obtained at Govern-
ment-controlled rates and cost about Rs. 3 per c. ft. at site.
Katni cement was principally used.
(1) The cost of steel rods for reinforcement averaged about Rs. 30 per
cwt.
As one of the chief objects in introducing the system was to effect economy,
the conditions influenced the designs and consequently the lines
above
on which the experiments Avere conducted. The following constructional
principles were evolved to ensure economy in cement and steel which were the
most expensive items :
(1) Mortar was made just rich enough in ceruent to give the requisite
safe adhesion with steel as well as brick.
(2) Joints in which there was no reinforcement were made as thin as
was consistent with strength and good work.
10 NOTES ONT REINFORCED BRICKWORK.
(3) Reinforcement was, as a rule, placed in the joints between the bricks
which therefore naturally ran straight without break. Much brick
cutting and consequent use of a large amount of excess mortar
was thus avoided. The only exception was in the case of heavily
reinforced beams with a lot of steel crowded together near the
bottom, where it was found easier and more economical to use con-
crete instead of brick work on account of the thickness of joints and
the extra labour required to fit the bricks in properly, in the latter.
(4) Joints containing reinforcement were only just thick enough to give
a sufficient coating of mortar all round the reinforcement rods,
i" to Y
depending on the diameter of the reinforcement.
In view high price of steel it was found that it often paid to increase
of the
the depth of the brickwork slightly and decrease the amount of reinforcement.
The experiments were conducted on the most practical lines possible in ;
fact with the exception of certain special tests which were carried out with
special objects in view, it may be said that all experiments carried out were
tests of designs about to be used in construction.
objects of - The main objects in view were :
(1) To find the most suitable type of structure and reinforcement for
roof and floor slabs, beams, walls, etc., on various spans, and
under different conditions of loading and fixing such as are met
with in ordinary practice.
(2) To determine the various constants required in analysing the
strength of structures, e.g., safe adhesion between mortar and
steel rods, between bricks and mortar, the tensile and shearing
strength of brickwork, and the compressive strength of brickwork
in slabs, columns, beams, etc. .
(3) To ascertain if a theory similar to that on which reinforced concrete
construction is based could safely be applied to R. B. structures

under suitable practical conditions.
(4) To devise safe rules for designing.
(5) To determine the best type of centering for various purposes and
the time it should be left in position before being struck.
(6) To determine other practical details essential to the execution of
good work, e.g.
(i) The camber to be given in structures under transverse stress to

allow for initial settlement during construction and immediate-
ly after the removal of centering.
(ii) The advantages, if any,
of introducing bonding in the brickwork.
(Hi) The best method of overlapping and hooking the ends of rein-
forcement rods.
Richness, strength and setting properties required in the mortar.
(iv)
() The best methods of joining up old to new work.
Before passing on to an examination of results of the tests as tabulated
in Tables I to XX, it may be explained that the results of all tests carried out
whatever the result was are incorporated in these tables. Many of them, more
especially those carried out in the early stages when information on the sub-
ject was distinctly limited, were not as successful as might have been, but as
failures are generally at least as instructive as successes, it has been decided
to include the results of all tests made.
Behaviour of An ordinary R. B. slab not too heavily reinforced on being tested to
a slab gradually destruction acts as follows :
loaded to
destruction. For some time the slab remains comparatively stiff and deflections are
small. The bending moment couple is resisted, the tension by the steel rods
and the brickwork below the neutral axis, and the compression by the brick-
work above the neutral axis. This goes on until the appearance of the first
minute crack in' brickwork which appears after the limiting stresses in
tension in the extreme fibres of the brickwork are passed. The position of
the neutral axis now rises. As the load increases more minute cracks appear in
the brickwork and eventually the stage is reached when practically all the
tension is taken up by steel and all the compression by brickwork. The rate
of deflection is now more thanit was when the hrickwork was acting in tension.
This stage continues until the steel has reached its yield point and in many cases
even much beyond it. The excessive stress tends towards the deformation of the
steel, but this is resisted by the adhesion between steel and mortar. Ultimate-
ly the stress reaches a point where the adhesion begins to fail. When this
occurs there is a sudden increase in the rate of deflection and soon afterwards
the slab fails.
The failure in ordinary circumstances is very gradual, the slab sinking
down. There is nothing in the nature of a regular collapse. The curve of
deflections if drawn accurately will usually be found to be of the shape
sketched below :
FlGUKE 8
The portion of the curve from A

to B represents the period before the
appearance of first crack, from B
to the period when cracks are appearing,
C
C being the limit after which practically very little tension is being resisted
by brickwork. The limit after the yield point of steel has been reached, when
the adhesion begins to fail and complete failure is not far off, is shown by the
point D. The cracks extend further and further up towards the compression
face and nearly reach the top when suddenly the remaining thickness of the
brickwork is crushed.
Whether any reinforcement reds are broken or not at failure depends on
the nature of the reinforcement and the stresses at which failure occurs. It is
found that in most cases where light section rods, say, up to f$" diameter are used
as reinforcement, they are broken at failure while in cases where larger sections
are used the rods are seldom broken. It is also found that the bigger the sec-
tion of the rod used, the lower the stress in steel at which failure occurs,
and vice versa. A. study of the results given in tables I to XX
will
make this very clear. The explanation evidently lies in the fact that rods
of smaller section have area for area a larger surface in contact with the mortar
"
than heavier rods, and consequently the bond strength is greater. Thus four
"
diameter rods and one diameter rod have equal sectional areas, but the former
has twice the surface of the latter.
In heavily reinforced slabs failure sometimes occurs through excessive
compression in brickwork and not by excessive tension in steel. In such cases
failure is apt to be sudden and accompanied by a cracking sound. Small
wedge-shaped pieces of brickwork separate from the slabs near the compression
surface, and there is usually no marked sudden increase in the rate of deflection.
Failure in slabs seldom occurs on account of shearing or slipping of rods
at the ends if the work is good because these stresses are generally very low.
In the tests made at Patna the loads were applied by piling up bricks, and Method of
in some cases sand, on slabs. When the load applied consisted of bricks care t
was taken to see that bonding did not occur.
Tests of slabs of various kinds.
Tables I to VIII and XIV give results of tests of slabs of all kinds,
and also give the calculated stresses at final failure both in masonry
and steel. These stresses have been calculated on the assumption that a theory
similar to that for reinforced concrete holds good for reinforced brickwork.
*
The modular ratio for steel and brickwork has been taken as 40 through-
out the tables and calculations based on experimental results. In all the
D
18 ON REINFORCED BRICKWORK.
tables the loads at failure are shown in Ibs. per square foot of the slab and are
external loads only. They do not include the weight of the slab. The dead
weight has, however, been taken into account in calculating the stresses.
Centerings were seldom removed before the sixth day and most of the tests to
destruction were carried out at the age of about three weeks.
On removal of centering there was usually a very slight deflection.
This varied in amount and had probably something to do with the hardness
of brickwork at the time of removal. In heavily reinforced slabs and slabs
with patent stone over them there was very little deflection and often none
at all. To allow for this settlement some camber was generally given in slabs
at the time of construction.
'
The ' first indication of failure which is also tabulated is somewhat difficult
to define, as failure is very gradual in normal circumstances. It may be
considered as the point at which definite signs of distress appear, e.g., sudden
increased deflection or many and extensive cracks.
Testa of 3* slabs. Table I shows experiments of plain 3" slabs, supported on two sides. The
results obtained are all satisfactory as will be seen from the table. The failures
occurred well after the point when the steel bad passed its elastic limit. The
stresses in steel at failure vary from 46,800 Ibs. per square inch to 55,100 Ibs.
per square inch. It will also be noticed that in experiments 2 and 3 where flat
reinforcement was used the failure stress is lower than in case of experiment 1
where round steel was used. Generally speaking, flat bar reinforcement was found
not to be so good as round bar, while heavier flat sections were proved to be
distinctly unsuitable. The depth to the centre of gravity of steel in 3" slabs is
small, and if big sections of steel are used this is still further reduced. This is a
point to be remembered in designing such slabs. The experiments carried out are
on an 8' span, but the loads taken are all low about 40 Ibs. per square foot being
the maximum. Such a slab would not do for roofs or floors, but makes a cheap
and useful ceiling under a tiled roof. In practice such a slab would only be
used for a floor or a roof on spans up to 5'.
Tests of 5" slabs Table II gives the results of tests of 5" slabs, supported on two sides. Such
with free ends.
slabs have been tried up to 12' span for floors and roofs but it has been found
that unless the ends are well fixed or an inordinate amount of reinforcement is
given the deflection in a span of more than 10' is excessive. The results of the
tests are all satisfactory, failure in most cases being due primarily to the steel
being stressed well beyond its elastic limit. In these cases the stresses in the
slab at failure vary from 43,000 Ibs. per square inch in experiment 12 to nearly
79,000 Ibs. per square inch in experiments 17 and 18. It will be noticed that
"
the stress is high where the steel section used is light, diameter round bar
"
for example, and low where the section is heavy fa" and diameter] round
bar. In experiments 20 and 21 the failure is due to the excessive
compressive stress in bricks. probable that excessive compression is also
It is
partly responsible for failurein experiments 9 to 12. The extreme

fibre compressive stresses at failure vary from about 1,100 to about 1,250 Ibs.
per square inch.

Experiment 23 is a case of a somewhat complex failure. The stress
in steel is 50,000 Ibs. per square inch which would explain the failure, but the
stress in masonry is 2,245 Ibs. per square inch which is very high, so that
probably the failure is due to both tension in steel and compression in masonry.
One unusual factor in this experiment is that the joints were about 2" thick
and were filled not with 3 1 qement mortar as usual, but with
: 1:2:4
cement
concrete. This may explain the high compressive stress taken.
Tests of 5" slabs Experiments 27 and 28 were of slabs which had their ends 'fixed',
with " fixed "
ends,
and were reinforced at the top near the ends to take up the tension in upper
fibres due to the negative bending moment. The ends were fixed by piling up
loads at the ends over the bearings.* The results of these and other experiments
referred to later show that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain
perfect fixing. In all cases the ends lifted slightly before failure, t The actual
bending moments at the ends and centre of the span are therefore uncertain.
* Tide
Photograph, Vol. II, pajre 6.
t > Pa 5.
External loads at failure of 165 and 151 Ibs. per square foot were taken,
vide experiments 27 and 28 respectively. A
comparison of the latter result
with that of experiment 13 on a slab containing practically the same amount
of reinforcement hut with free ends, which took only 25 Ibs. per square foot
external load at failure demonstrates the great advantage derived by having the
ends of a slab even partly fixed.
In 5" slabs the limit of steel sectional area per foot width of slab after
Mhich the failure occurs by crushing of bricks seems to be about '37 square
inch corresponding to about '75 per cent.
Table III gives tests of 6" slabs, supported on two sides. This particular type Tests of e- slabs
of slab has given the highest results in the matter of strength and should with free end8 '
be used in preference to a 5" slab provided it is not unduly extravagant to

do so.
The failure stresses in steel when small sections of reinforcement are used
vary from about 60,000 Ibs. per square inch to about 80,000 Ibs. per square inch.
"
A reference to experiments 2, 3 and 19 will show that where l"x r6 hoop iron
is used as reinforcement the fibre stress is a little lower than where a round rod
section of about the same area is used. Experiment 32 is on a slab rein-
forced with hoop iron laid flat and the failure stress in this case is 78,700 Ibs.
per square inch which proves that hoop iron when laid flat gives better results
than when placed vertically in the joints, the reason probably being partly that
flat sections when placed vertically show a tendency to buckle sideways when
the slab bends thus causing longitudinal cracks.
Experiments 33 to 37, table III were carried out with a view to deter-
mining the most efficient method of joining up rods to provide for cases where
single rods of adequate length are unobtainable. This is a very important
practical problem, as rods of the full length required cannot always be obtained
and some form of lapping has to be resorted to. The results of these experi-
ments prove that a lap joint of 40 diameters gives the full strength which
would be expected from a whole piece. Experiment 33 with whole rods took
109 Ibs. per square foot at failure while 34- with a lap of about 40 diameters and
suitable hooks at the ends took 114 Ibs. per square foot. Experiments 35 to 37
give relative strengths of a 40 diameter lap, a weld and a whole piece respectively.
Welding, however, cannot be recommended on account of its uncertainty. A lap
without hooks is evidently weaker than a whole piece, so that a lap of 40
diameters minimum with hooked ends is obviously the best solution.
These experiments together with two others, are separately tabulated for
the sake of comparison in comparative table 5.
Experiment 38 is in some ways a special test. The slab was loaded
and unloaded several times, all deflection disappearing each time the load was
removed, it was then subjected to load for a period of about 8 months during
which it was exposed to all sorts of weather conditions, and was ulti-
mately tested to destruction. The final test, however, gave satisfactory results
and the high stress developed in steel, viz., 64,800 Ibs. per square inch proves,
that there was no loss of strength. The same is true of experiment 42.
It will be noted in the case of 6" slabs, even where heavy sections of steel
were used, that the stresses developed in the steel were, usually over 50,000 Ibs.
per square inch before failure. In experiments 52 to 57 failure is due to
excessive compression in masonry. Experiments 52 and 53 give rather low
figures for the extreme compression stress at failure, i.e., about 970 Ibs. per
square inch, but this is explained by the presence of inferior bricks near the
centre of span, which shows how important it is that only first-class bricks
should be used, more especially where stresses are likely to be severest. Experi-
ments 54 to 57 give compressive stresses at failure varying from about 1,250
Ibs. per square inch to about 1,600 Ibs.
per square inch.
In 6" slabs if the steel per foot width is about 0'45 square inch or over,
corresponding to a percentage of about '7, failure is in all likelihood primarily
due to the crushing of bricks.
Experiments 62 to 67 are on 6" slabs fixed at the ends. More or less per- Tests of G" ef-
fect fixing was only obtained in the case of experiment 62 in all other cases wi "fixed-
it was not
;
e ' ^
perfect and the slabs failed quickly once the fixing was destroyed.
All the slabs, however, took very high loads and were very stiff; this altho'ugh
.
showing once more the difficulty of getting perfect fixing, demonstrates the
great increase in strength derived by even partially fixing the ends. If there-
fore moderately good fixing can be relied on, it is possible to use slabs on larger
spans than would otherwise be the case.
How easy it is to produce some fixing action is clearly indicated in experi-
ment 63. In this case one of the ends of the slab merely rests on a beam and
the other is butted closely against a wall, yet a very considerable fixing action
was noticeable and the slab took 126 Ibs. per square foot, while an exactly
similar slab with free ends, vide experiment 58, took only 49 Ibs. per square foot.
A
comparison of the loads taken by similarly reinforced free and fixed
slabs, e.g., 58, 61, 62, 64 and 65 further shows clearly the advantage of fixing.
Theoretically if the fixing at ends is perfect the B. M. in the centre of the span
should be -^ as against -^g- in case of free ends, but in practice such a value
cannot be adopted with safety.
S f 8
Table IV contains the results of tests of slabs thicker than 6". The
over e t S.
object in carrying out these tests was to see how far it is feasible to adopt plain
slabs for roofs or floors on biglspaus in cases where it is desirable to have an
absolutely flat ceiling. In actual practice they are not likely to be as economi-
cal as beams and lighter slabs, and will therefore seldom be used, except
possibly in square and approximately square rooms or in residences and offices.
where appearance is the main consideration.
Experiments 68 and 69 are on slabs 8" deep made up of one brick on
edge and one brick flat, the reinforcement being -|" diameter rod and l"x" flat
bar respectively. The results obtained in the case of the round bar are more
satisfactory than in the case of the flat, but both have given quite fair results,
^he steel having passed well beyond the elastic limit before failing.
Experiment 70 on a 9" slab with a span of 20' also gives a fair result, the
failure again being due to tension in steel. The stress at failure in this case is
only about 39,000 Ibs. per square inch. This is rather low compared with other
results obtained when \" diameter rods are used. At the same time it has to be
recognised that the brick stress is fairly high, and if this be limited to say, 300.
Ibs. per square inch, the permissible total load for this slab would be, as the total
weight of the slab is 90 Ibs. per square foot, I? g (258 + 90) about 110 Ibs. per
square foot total, i.e., 110 90=20 Ibs. per square foot external load. This
would correspond to a steel stress of f" X 38,400 or about 12,000 Ibs. per
square inch nearly, so that while bricks would be fully stressed the steel
would be understressed.
Experiment 71 gives figures of a test of a 165" deep slab on a 30' span.
The failure in this case is again due to crushing of bricks. The compressive
stress works out to 1,872 Ibs. per square inch. Here the dead load alone would
ensure a compression stress in the brickwork in the neighbourhood of 350 Ibs.
per square inch and to ensure the stress in the brickwork being kept within the
permissible limits the steel will have to be very much understressed. Another
solution would be to deepen the slab, but this would, of course, add considerably
to its weight.
9" slabs (composed of three courses of bricks laid flat reinforced in both
directions, vide pages 22 and 23) have been extensively used with excellent
results in rooms of large span in the new building for the Allahabad Bank
recently constructed at Patna.
Although more expensive perhaps than 6" slabs with beams at intervals,
9" slabs have undoubted advantages in that :
(*) they give a flat ceiling throughout,
(if) they give a very cool room,

(Hi] they make an absolutely water-tight roof as there are two through
cement mortar joints which prevent any possibility of leakage.
Tests showing Comparative table 2 gives detailed results side by side of experiments
f
TtfV'as com-
can e d out on similarly reinforced brick and concrete slabs. These prove
'i
pared with K. c. beyond doubt that both types of structure behave in a similar manner, the only
difference being that R. C. slabs are staffer owing to their higher modulus of
elasticity. This is what one would expect. It therefore follows that a theory
similar to reinforced concrete theory holds for R. B. structures.
Tests of R, B. slabs supported on two sides covered with 1" cement

concrete artificial stone, usually called patent stone, such as is commonly used on two ewes
in most buildings for floors are given in table V, experiments 72, 73 and 75 to gS* or
83. In all these tests the patent stone acted along- with the slab and increased ume concrete
*'
its strength immensely. This is only natural as, apart from the fact that the
effective depth of the slab is increased, the patent stone acts in compression and
as the compressive properties of cement -concrete are higher than those of brick-
work it adds considerably not only to the strength but to the stiffness of the
slab.
From the R
C. tests which are given side by side with R. B. in compara^
tive table 2 would appear that when the depth is not too great a R. B. slab
it
with patent stone finishing has exactly the same final strength as a reinforced
concrete slab of the same effective depth. A comparison of the results
obtained in experiments 79 and 87 shows that a R. B. slab finished with 1*
artificial stone takes 259 Ibs. per square foot as against a R. C.slab which
takes 2GO Ibs. per square foot, both baving practically the same reinforce-
ment and effective depth. These results are very close, and it is justifiable to
infer from them that the strengths are the same. The reason is obvious as in
both cases the steel takes the tension, while in the concrete slab all the com-
pression is taken by concrete and in the R. B. and patent stone slab nearly all
is taken
by the patent stone. A glance at the stresses will show that the
failures have all taken place well after the point of elastic limit of the steel and
the tests are therefore satisfactory.
In a similar manner lime terrace on a roof, once it has set also increases
the strength very much (owing to the increase in effective depth). Results of
tests on such slabs are given in table V, experiments 88 to 91. All experi-
ments carried out on slabs finished with lime concrete terracing show that the
slab and the terracing act together and not separately as might have been
expected. No tendency for the two to separate has ever been noticed.
The results of these experiments as noted above show conclusively that the
gain jn strength due to patent stone or terrace is very considerable, provided
always that the slab is not a continuous one. The following precautions are,
however, necessary if this gain is to be made use of in designing :
(1) Patent stone shoiild be laid along with or soon after the slab and
stirrup-shape bindings should be given to join the patent stone to
the slab. If the patent stone is done sometime after the slab is
constructed there is the possibility of the two separating in course
of time.
(2) Terrace takes a long time to set and should be allowed at least three
months before it is stressed ; even then it is not desirable to count
too much on the extra strength. It is better to look on it as in-
creasing the factor of safety. A
reference to experiment 91 table
V
will be of interest in this connection.
Comparative table 3 shows very clearly the advantages of a covering of

patent stone or terrace over slabs.
In calculating the stresses in the tables the lever arm of the moment of
resistance couple was taken as 0'9 d in case of slabs with patent stone, allowing
for a little extra stiffness due to patent stone and 0'8 d in case of terracing,
allowing for the softness of the terracing. Even for considerable variations
of the modular ratio =' or m the variation in the value of the ratio ~ is small.
-fcb d
Stresses in concrete slabs are calculated with m= 15.
Table VI experiments on slabs continuous over supports.
gives ^
The 7e of 8labs
8 **
results are satisfactory except for experiment 90 where large sections of supportf/
all
flat iron 2" X ^" and 1^" X J" were used as reinforcement. Here failure was
not due to excessive tension or compression, but to the disintegrating action of
the reinforcement on the slab when subjected to bending. It may here be noted
that it was clear to the observer on more than one occasion when tests of slabs
reinforced with large flat bar sections were being made, that such sections when
stressed tend to buckle and thus introduce a splitting action in the slab and
thereafter try as it were to kick the mortar out of the'joints and free themselves.
Por this reason large flat sections are quite unsuitable as reinforcement and should
not be used. from table XVI that their adhesion with

It will be seen besides
mortar is much
poorer than that of round bars of a similar area. This is of
more importance in case of beams where adhesion stresses are high. In slabs
such stresses are as a rule negligible.
Experiments 97 to 100 show that when continuous slabs have patent stone
or terracing laid on them before the removal of centering, or when the slab is
subjected to heavy loads, the patent stone or terrace tends (as is quite natural
owing to the negative bending moment) to crack over the intermediate
supports. This shows clearly that for continuous slabs it is best to remove
centering before laying patent stone or terracing in such cases, but if this be
not done then" some reinforcement should be embedded iu patent stone or
terrace near the top surface over the supports, say, for a distance of 3- span on
each side.
Experiment 101 is really a case similar to that of a cantilever bridge.

There are end spans of 10' and a central one of 15'. The slabs of the end spans
run into and form a small cantilever in the centre span taking the load of
the central slab, the span of which is thus reduced to 10'. This saves reinforce-
ment and would seem to be a possible solution for the roof of a long barrack
with verandahs on both sides.
Tests of Blabs
Table VII gives results of tests of a slab supported on all four sides and
supported on
four aides and reinforced in both directions, also results of two experiments, 110 and 111, of
reinforced in
both directions. slabs which were supported on four sides but had reinforcement only in one
direction. These slabs with the exception of the two referred to failed by sag-
ging and at failure exhibited cracks somewhat of the nature shown in figures
9 and 10.
SQUARE SLAB. RECTANGULAR SLAB.
FIGURE 9. FlGUEE 10.
In all cases when the slab deflected the corners only lifted slightly from the
bearings.*
The stresses have been calculated on the assumption that the theory adopted
by the French Government, which gives the bending moment reduction coeffici-
ents as -$for the shprt span and jpyj for the long span in the case of slabs
sp
reinforced in both directions is correct ; r being the ratio '." ^ t p n .
In view of the high failure stresses obtained in all these experiments it

would appear that the designer is at any rate on the safe side in applying this
formula and following French practice. It may also be mentioned that several
hundred thousand square feet designed on the above principles have been laid
with excellent results.
The fact that only the corners lift when the load is applied would seem to
indicate that the effective portion which deflects is approximately circular in case
of square slabs and elliptical in case of rectangular slabs. If this is assumed as
being correct and it is further inferred that the maximum B. M. in case of a
square slab is the same as that in case of a circular slab having a diameter
eqxial to the side of the square, the B. M. given by the above rules for the
square agrees exactly with the B. M. given by the ordinary theory for a
circular slab.
Experiments 102 and 103 are on 3" cross reinforced slabs on an

8' X room, and 104 to 106 on o" slabs up to 20' x
8' 20'. A
comparatively low result is obtained in
experiment 10G, but in this case it
is apparent that the depth was insufficient for the span and therefore the
deflection was unduly high, resulting in extensive cracks on the tension side in
* J'idt photograph, Vol. II, 8.
page
brickwork at an early stage. This probably affected the efficiency of steel as

tensile reinforcement and caused failure. It may be added that this test was
one of the earliest made before much was known about reinforced brickwork.
The results of tests 107, 108 and 109, on 6" cross reinforced slabs are ex-
cellent. A comparison between tests 107 and 109 will show that continuity
orer a support does not interfere with the strength of cross reinforced slabs pro-
vided top reinforcement is given over the support. In fact, the strength is
increased.
Experiments 110 and 111 show clearly the dangers of omitting to give cross
reinforcement when there are supports on four sides. Until the limit of tensile
strength of brickwork is reached nothing
happens, but as soon as this is passed
the slab cracks along the reinforcement and may separate into three parts A, B
and C as shown in sketch figure 11, the centre part B acting as an independent
slab supported on two sides only. This actually happened in experiment 110.
FlGUltE 11.
Up where the separation takes place, the strength and stiffness,

to the point
however, increased, as a comparison of experiment 110 with experiment 61, and
is
experiment 111 with experiment 18 will show.

The stresses in steel at failure except in the case of experiment 106 are
all above 60,000 Ibs. per square inch.
Tests of Cantilevers.
Table VIII gives results ot of cantilevers.

of tests ot These on the whole are ^ eetB
not so satisfactory as the results in the case of slabs, the failure stresses being
lower. Experiments 119, ] 21 and 122 are definite cases of early failures, the
first on account of imperfectly set mortar and the last two on account of other
causes, faulty construction in case of No. 122. Other results are fair, the stresses
in steel at failure varying from about 32,000 Ibs. per square inch to about 50,000
Ibs. per square inch.
Perhaps the lower resisting qualities of the cantilever are due to the com-
paratively excessive deflection which naturally takes place. This damages the
brickwork in tension. Although not recommended as a form of construction for
overhanging balconies likely to have to carry loads, it can be used very easily and
cheaply for chhujjas and cornices. Balconies if likely to have to sustain heavy
loads are best constructed by carrying an ordinary slab over B,. S. joists built
into the wall.
"
Experiments 123, 124 and 125 are on stepped" cantilevers the depth of
which increases towards the bearing. These have given good results.
Test s of lintels, beams, walls, etc.
Table IX Tests of lintel9

gives the results of tests of lintels. In experiments 126 and '
127 the results are rather low owing to the fact that an insufficient covering of
mortar was given to the reinforcement. Experiment 129 is a failure due to the
slipping of reinforcement at the ends, thus again showing that with hoop iron*
nud flat bars adhesion is low.
Experiments 132 to 135 are interesting as showing that brickwork in lime
over a lintel combines with the B. B., once it has set, and increases its strength
immensely, while experiments 136 and 137 show the dangers of relying too early
on the strength of lime mortar as this takes a long time to set.
Tests of R. B.
teams. Acomparison of experiment 138 (free ends) with experiments 139, 140 and
(butted ends) shows the advantages derived by butting which is partly
in the nature of fixing.
Failures of 11. B. beams when due to excessive tension in steel or exces-
sive compression in brick are very similar to slab failures. But there are two
other ways in which failure may occur in beams :
(i) By diagonal tension due to shear.

(ii) By the slipping of reinforcement at ends.
In both of these faihxre is apt to be sudden, in (1) it is accompanied by the

sudden appearance of diagonal cracks near the ends as shoAvn in lig. 12.*
FIGURE 12.
Tests of R. 3.
rectangular
Table X
gives results of tests of rectangular beams. These are all
beams. satisfactory, the failure stresses in steel varying from about 50,000 Ibs. per
square inch upwards.
Experiments 142 and 151 show examples of shear failure, the shear stress
in the case of the former being 78 and in the latter 66 Ibs. per square inch.
There was, however, very little shear reinforcement provided. Tests 146 and
147 are interesting 147 is of a beam entirely composed of R. C., while 146 is of
;
R. B. with 3" of concrete near the central portion longitudually about on

middle third and to full width. Compressive stresses are high. Both have
taken the same external load which indicates that concrete and brickwork act to-
gether and also that the laws governing R.B. are the same as those governing R. C.
Table XI gives results of tests of R. B. T beams and beams made of
R. B. which have their main reinforcement embedded in concrete for the
sake of convenience, to ensure correct spacing of the reinforcement and in
Tests of T.
beams and long- order to avoid wide joints and much cutting which would be inevitable if the
span beams reinforcement was laid in brickwork. The results are satisfactory and very
suitable for
instructive.
bridge girders.
The failure in experiments 152 and 153 was due to excessive compresion
in the brickwork, the stress.es, being respectively 1,775 and 3,664 Ibs. per
square inch The failure in experiment 153 was really a complex one being
partly due to shear, the shearing stress being 131 Ibs. per square inch. Shear
reinforcement was only partialJy provided.
Experiment 158 shows another case of shear failure, the final shear stress
at failure being 133 Ibs. per square inch. Here there was very little reinforce-
ment for shear. The failure in experiment 159 was due to tension in brickwork
and shear combined. The load it will be noticed was not put on the beam direct
but was suspended from R. B. hangers projecting out of the body of the beam, thus
causing direct tension stresses in horizontal planes. The shearing stress at failure
was 129 Ibs. per square inch. If the maximum direct tension stress be added to
this it would produce a total tension of about 170 Ibs. per square inch.
All the other tests failed primarily on account of tension in steel, the stress
varying from about 40,000 Ibs. per square inch upwards.
Experiment 160 is of exceptional interest. It is of a girderf on a 40'
span capable of taking heavy loads such as are common on road bridges. This
girder was fully reinforced for shear. The failure occurred on account of the
tension _of steel, but just at failure diagonal tension cracks also appeared, the
'
appro nate shearing stress being about 170 Ibs. per square inch. In other
cases where shear- reinforcement was less it may be noted that the failure due
to" shear occurred at about 130 Ibs. per square inch.
Test 154 is of an inverted T beam. This type of construction is sometimes
useful where flat ceilings are essential, and the result shows that it may be
relied on if proper allowances are made for shear and direct tension.
* Tide also photograph of experiment 142, Vol. II, page 11.

t Vide ulao photograph of expnriuieut 160, Vol. II, page 14
On the whole these "experiments show that stirrups are a sound type of
reinforcement againstSshear, and that if reinforcement has heen given to take
up the whole shear the beam may be relied on to take its full load. The shearing
stress must, however, not exceed about 60 Ibs. per square inch in the masonry.
Experiments 156 to 158 are all on T beams and the results show that
the slab acted along with the rib and that there was no tendency for it to
separate even in experiment 158 when there was a definite horizontal joint
between the slab and the rib.
Experiments 155, 159 and 160 all had bricks arranged in horizontal courses :
there was, however, no tendency towards cleavage. The beam acted as a whole
throughout.
Table XII gives the results of tests of R. S. joists embedded in brickwork. Tests of embed-
'
Joists are often embedded in masonry or concrete, generally for the sake
of appearance but also sometimes to prevent rusting. It is not always realized,
however, that if this be done carefully the strength of the joists is increased
very materially. For instance, if a slab is continous over a joist it increases
the strength of the joist very much if the upper flange is built 2 or 3 inches
into the slab, and its bottom flange covered over with cement concrete or brick-
work, adequate stirrups being also provided for additional binding. The
joist when in conjunction with the slab acts practically as a T beam and its
strength is thereby increased considerably.
Experiment 161 gives the deflections of a plain joist under certain loads.
The results may be compared with experiments ] 62 and 163 which have the
same section of joists boxed up and built into a slab.* The plain joist takes
only 3'39 tons at failure, whereas the structure in expei'iment 162, takes 9 tons
and in experiment 163, 13'65 tons. The load taken on test 162 being less
than that in test 163 shows that it is better to box up the whole joist than
leave the lower flange unboxed.
Other figures in the same table show the results of embedding joists of
larger sections and the loads actually taken when compared with those which
could be expected according to K. C. theory, both being tabulated, thus
showing clearly that the increase of strength is definite, determinable, and often
considerable.
The failures in the case of the lighter sections, viz., 4<" x 3", vide experiments
162 and 163 occur in the ordinary way by tension in steel, but when the section is
heavy there is a tendency for separation to occur between the slab and the joist.
Stirrups are therefore very necessary.
Table XIII gives the results of tests of R. B. partition walls suspended Tests of R.B.
from main walls. Experiments 167 and 168 are tests on 3" walls, the rest on 5* walu
'
avails. These walls were given reinforcement oh both sides to withstand lateral
thrusts, but were tested as beams. The failure in most cases is due to shear,
the great depth being enough to make the tension in the steel very low.
Failure stresses in shear vary from about 60 Ibs. per square inch, in experi-
ments 167 and 170 (not reinforced for shear) upwards. Diagonal rods appear
to play a considerable part in resisting shear action.
Table XIV gives the results of tests of heavily reinforced slabs suit- Tests of slabs
able for decking for road bridges. They have taken most of the customary brldg^'dccking.
road loads and failures have occurred at high stresses. The results are therefore
satisfactory.
Table XV gives the results of tests of lintels and slabs without reinforcement Tests of imtei-,
6
tested transversely. They bring out the general fact that by breaking joint o'n two'sWe's*
in the lower courses the tensile strength of brickwork is increased. The and of siabs
tensile strength of brickwork with straight joints according to the lowest foursiHes, an
results is about 50 Ibs. per square inch after 7 days, but other results give without run-
about 120 Ibs. per square inch after about three weeks, vide experiment 20 I .
The strength of brickwork with break joints is probably in the neigh-

bourhood of 150 Ibs. per square inch on the average, the highest result obtained
in these tests is 251 Ibs. per square inch after 53 days, vide experiment 179,
table XV.
* ride
Corrparativc Table 6, Yol, II.
Experiments 205 to 209 give some interesting results of tests of slabs

without reinforcement supported on four sides. These need no comment.
When such slabs are tested to destruction they fail suddenly, without much
warning, as opposed to reinforced slabs which, when properly reinforced,
fail very gradually and give plenty of warning for this reason, if for no other,
;
non-reinforced slabs are not suitable even for small spans as they might
very well collapse during a severe earthquake.
Adhesion tests. Experiments 210 and 211, table XVI, show the extent of adhesion existing
ordinarily between bricks and mortar. The results are quite low, the average
being about 25 Ibs. per square inch.
Experiment 212 gives the tensile strength of bricks tested like cement
briquettes, the average is about 171 Ibs. per square inch.
Experiment 213 shows the amount of adhesion between steel rods and
mortar. This is a most important point and one which deserves close study as
the whole action of reinforcement depends upon the existence of this adhesion.
The tabulated results show that round rods give better results than flat rods
and that 2 1 mortar gives slightly better results than 3 1 mortar. The
: :
adhesion between round bar and 2 1 cement mortar is 512 Ibs. per square
:
inch at 28 days. In 3 1 mortar it is 276 Ibs. per square inch at 7 days and
:
382 Ibs. per square inch at 28 days. In the case of flat bar the figures are
lower, the adhesion between 2 1 mortar being only 143 Ibs. per square inch
:
after 28 days.
Compression tests of masonry.

Experiments were carried out, vide tables XVII (a) to (e), to determine :
(1) The compressive strength of bricks alone.

(2) The compressive strength of lime concrete,
(3) The compressive strength of brick masonry in 3 1 cement mortar.
:
(4) The effect of reinforcement on the compressive strength of brickwork.
Only a portion of these tests, those of bricks alone shown in table XVII(a),
were carried out at Patua ; most of the others, those shown in tables XVII (b) to
(e) were carried out at Sibpur Engineering College, while some were made
at Delhi.
From most of the compression tests it appears that failure is generally due
to the tensile stresses developed in vertical planes owing to the tendency of the
specimen to bulge sideways when compressed. This was proved by the appear-
ance of vertical cracks at failure.
Tests of bricks In Patna the tests were made on small brick cubes about 2"x2"x2" cut
alone.
out of local first class bricks and although the contrivance employed, in the
absence of a testing machine, sketched on table XVII(a) was rather crude the
results show a surprising degree of uniformity. The tests give a crushing strength
varying from a minimum of about 1,100 to a maximum of about 1,600 Ibs. per
square inch. The actual average of fourteen tests is 1,331 Ibs. per square inch.
Some whole bricks were also sent to Sibpur College and tested there. The
results, although good, are not very uniform. This may be on account of the
irregularity due to the frog mark on the bricks. Experiment 241, table XVII(d),
gives 1,418 Ibs. per square inch as the crushing strength while experiments
239 to 241 and 265 give 2,128, 1,497, 1,418 and 838 Ibs. per square inch
respectively as strength at first sign of cracking and 2,850, 1,900, 1,418, 1,535
at final faikire. It must be admitted that 2,850 is unaccountably high while
838 is low.
In the caseof cubes tested in experiment 241 it was observed that the first
crack appeared at about 85 per cent, of the breaking load. The average crushing
strength of fourteen specimens at total failure was 1,331 Ibs. per square inch.
This would mean an average of 1,331 X $j 6
5
=
1,130 Ibs. per square inch at first
sign of cracking. Combining this result with the above we get an average of
1,172 Ibs. per square inch at first sign of cracking.
From these results it would appear that a good first class brick at Patna
has an average crushing strength of about 1,170 Ibs. per square inch at first sign
of cracking and about 1,400 Ibs. per square inch at final failure.
NOTES ON REINFORCED BRICKWGBK. 2?
Table gives three tests which give an average of 65G Ibs. per square
XVII (a)
inch as the comprcssive strength of lime concrete at six months. As noted
J ^^
e
e
lime
elsewhere, however, lime concrete takes a long time to develop its full strength.
T 8ts * t>ck
Compressive tests of brickwork in cement mortar give a wide range of ?
results. These are shown in tables XVII (b) to (e). Even similar mortlr wit^
reinforcement
specimens when tested gave considerably varying results. There is also a
considerable variation in the ratio of the loads at first sign of cracking to the
final breaking loads.
Tables XVII(b) and XVII(c) give results of tests on brick pillars without
reinforcement and as regards these, speaking generally, it may be said that single
brick pillars without any vertical joints, e.g., experiments 217, 218, 242
and 243 give the highest results. The average of these is 1,407 Ibs. per square
inch at final failure at an age of say, from ten weeks to three months and
about 1,000 Ibs. per square inch at first sign of cracking. The next best
results are given by columns which have vertical joints but in which
the joints are well broken. Experiments in table XVI t(b) give the average
strength of such pillars as about 574 Ibs. per square inch at the age of twenty
days. Experiments 244, 245, 248 and 259, table XVII(c), give the average
strength after ten weeks as 936 Ibs. per square inch at failure and 701 Ibs. per
square inch at first sign of cracking. Experiments
224 to 229 in table XVII (c)
give the strength of similar pillars at fourteen weeks, and here the averages work
out to 1,082 Ibs. per square inch at failure and about 629 Ibs. per square inch at
first sign of cracking. Experiments 230 and 231, table XVII (d), give the
compressive strength at the age of five mouths as about 1,240 Ibs. per square inch
and about 1,002 Ibs, per square inch respectively at failure and first sign of
cracking.
Pillars with unbroken joints give the lowest results in compression. Thus
experiments 246 and 247 give an average strength of 723 Ibs. per square inch at
final failure and 481 Ibs. per square inch at first sign of cracking.
I is evident from the above that in brick columns the real source of weak-
ness is the continuous vertical joint. The bond between brick and mortar is weak
in tension, vide experiments Nos. 210 and 211, table XVI, and columns having
vertical joints fail earlier OAving to the tension developed in vertical planes.
When the vertical joint is not continuous the column takes a somewhat larger
load because of the fact that the tensile strength of the bricks themselves
also comes into play and helps matters.
T BtB of m -
Experiments 255 to 258, Table XVII(e) give some results of tests of com- f
bined brick and cement concrete columns. They do not show any extra strength coScrete^ohf
due to the use of concrete. The explanation of this is again the weakness of the
vertical joint where concrete meets brick. The average strength at ten weeks
is 868 Ibs. per square inch and this is not appreciably higher than the strength
of ordinary columns of brick in cement.
Tables XVII (d) and (e) give some results of tests of reinforced columns. Tests of rein-
The reinforcement is of two kinds :
(i) Vertical.
(it) Spiral or hoops.

It will be observed that the vertical reinforcementis not of much use and
if used alone may even be dangerous on account of its tendency, unless

thoroughly bound by hoops to bend outwards under loads and thrust "out part
of the masonry. A reference to experiments 234 and 236, 253 and 254
will show how harmful such reinforcement can be without adequate hoops.
Horizontal hoops as might be expected are a very good form of reinforce-
ment as the results of experiments 232, 233, 250 to 252, and 260 to 264 all
show. They take up the horizontal tensile stress developed and prevent the
column from bulging. It will be seen from experiments 251 and 264 that
columns so reinforced have stood fairly high stresses even though there is no
break joint. Experiments 234 to 237 show that if anything in the nature of a
thick pasle is applied to the outside of the columns it 'very soon peels off under
stress and its strength cannot be relied upon.
E2
These experiments are enough to determine the safe compressive stress to be

allowed in various types of structures.
"With a factor of safety of between 3 and 4 the following may be taken :
Safe compressive stress when the compression is ") 350 to 400 Ibs. per
limited to the thickness of one brick > square inch.
Safe compressive stress when compression is not ~) 250 Ibs. per square
limited to one brick ) inch.
Lime concrete from 60 Ibs. at the age of one month to 150 Ibs. per square
inch at the age of 6 mouths.
Another constant which is the modulus of elasti-

it is necessary to ascertain
city of brickwork, t E
Unfortunately
. no experiments carried out with a view to
measuring this directly from compression tests on pillars have so far been
successful. Attempts have been made to derive its value from observations of
deflections of slabs and beams. From these it would appear that its value is IT
about TO of the modulus of elasticity for steel, E, i.e., the ratio 40 at ordi-
j^
fi
nary stresses. It also appears that is not a constant but varies with the in^
jj-
of 60 3ar the crushing
tensity of stress, its value being in the neighbourhood
point of brickwork. It is fortunate, however, that this unknown factor does not
variation in the value of calculated stresses as far as beams and
produce great
slabs are concerned. Even a
per cent, variation in the. value of -g does not
fifty
alter the stresses materially. In any case it does not seem that by adopting
the value m = 40, which appears to hold good for brickwork done at Patna,
calculations would be far out.
Tests of rein- The results of a few tests carried out of arches are shown in table XVIII.
forced arches.
The data obtained are not very valuable from the point of view of determining
the effect of reinforcement on an arch, but it shows the great strength of jack
arches and even of flat arches in lime mortar: The loads taken are high and yet
the failure is due to yielding of abutments, otherwise the loads carried would
have been higher still. Reinforcement is however very useful in places where
unequal settlement or any other action tending to produce bending
moments in the arch is feared.
certain qualities.
Special experiments carried out to test
Special tests. Certain special experiments were carried out to determine certain qualities.
These are referred to below as they do not properly fall under any of
briefly
the headings already discussed.
Table XTX contains tests which are mainly self-explanatory, the following-
deserve passing mention.
experiments in the table
271 shows that slabs may be usefully built of alight brickwork
Experiment
slab jointed to ribs of R. B. spaced at short intervals. The composite slab thus
hollows between ribs.
formed is lightened considerably by the
The application of R. B. walls and roofs as shown by experiment 273 gives
an earthquake-proof building.
Some successful methods of waterproofing R. B. slabs are given by ex-
with cement punning after
periment 274. Flushing the
slab just
is probably the most efficient. It is essential that the punning
completion
should be done at the same time as the construction of the slab, otherwise
off.
it may peel
is not harmful, vide experiment 275.
Exposure of R. B. slabs to the sun
Experiment 276 proves that R. B. slabs are fire-proof.
Shocks due to impacts of heavy weights falling on R. B. slabs are not
harmful, vide experiment 277.
Table XX, experiments 279 to 282, gives some tests which indicate how
illustrate are
failures might occur in practice, the features they
:
(a) Experiment
279 emphasises the dangers of using bad mortar.
Failure on account of non-provision of hooks at the end of lap lengths
(b)
is shown by results of experiment 280.
KOTES ON REINFORCED BRICKWORK. 29
Experiments 281 and 282 show failures due to bad alternatives for a lap
and hooks at ends.
of 50 diameters
Conclusions arrived at from experiments.
Summing up the results of experiments, we may say that the following

conclusions are justified :
() B. B. slabs may be designed according to reinforced concrete theory.

In the case of ordinary residences, offices and the barrack type
of building commonly met with in India, the limiting stresses
maybe taken as high as 20,000 Ibs. per square inch for steel in
tension, and 350 Ibs. per square inch for brick in compression
reduced to 300 Ibs. per square inch in the case of bigger slabs.
These stresses should be reduced in the case of buildings which
are likely to have any loads out of the ordinary.
(it) Patent stone may be considered to have a strengthening effect if

done along with, or soon after, the reinforced brickwork.
(Hi) Terracing may be considered to have a strengthening effect provided

sufficient time is allowed for it to set.
(io) The theory accepted by the French Government which gives the
amount of reinforcement, required in cross-miuforced concrete
slabs) may be taken as applying to cross-reinforced brick slabs.
(v) In cantilevers the stress in steel should not exceed 16,000 Ibs. per
square inch.
(vi) B. B. beams be designed according to reinforced concrete

may
theory. The limitingstresses should be 1(5,000 Ibs. per square
inch for steel in tension, 250 Ibs. per square inch for brickwork
in compression, 80 to 90 Ibs. per square inch for adhesion between
steel and mortar, and 60 Ibs. per square inch for shear in brick-
work.
(cii) combine B. C. with R. B. in the construction of beams.

It is best to
As a lower part of the beam in which the tensile
rule the
reinforcement is placed should be constructed entirely of
concrete.
(viii) Embedded may be designed to take an extreme

rolled steel joists
fibre stress of per square inch, but it is not advisable to
16,000 Ibs.
use sections greater than 10" by 5" in this way. Steel stirrups
should always be given.
(ix) Partition walls may be designed to carry loads allowing a maximum

shear stress of about 20 Ibs. per square inch.
(x) The value of m may be taken as 40.

(mi) Temperature stresses may be neglected in the construction of all ordi-
nary structures. This matter has not yet been fully investigated,
but practice shows that the stresses in ordinary work are generally
insignificant, provided slabs of a suitable depth are chosen having
regard to the span.
SECTION V.
DESIGNS AND CALCULATIONS.

The method adopted for designing is essentially one of trial and error, but
some rules have been arrived at as a result of experience from which an
approximate section for any ordinary conditions of loading can be quickly
found. The design so obtained is then tested by calculating stresses according
to the ordinary theory, care being taken to see that they are kept within
limits prescribed.
The notation used below and the method of designing adopted follow
closely that given by Messrs. Faber and Bowie in their book Reinforced Concrete
Design, 2nd edition, 1919.
It is assumed that the reader is conversant with the theory generally
accepted for reinforced concrete but if he is not he should refer to that or some
other treatise on the subject.
List of Symbols.
I Effective span in feet (of a beam or slab, or projection of a cantilever).
w Total load in Ibs. per square foot over a slab.
W Total load in Ibs. (over a beam or slab).
/( Tensile stress in steel in Ibs. per square inch.
A, Area of tensile steel (in a beam in square inches, or area of tensile

steel in 12" width of a R. B. slab in square inches).
d Effective depth, i.e., depth from the extreme compression fibre in

brickwork to the centre of gravity of tensile reinforcement.
'B. M. Bending moment in inch Ibs. of a beam or of 12" wide strip of a
slab.
M. R. Moment of resistance in inch Ibs. of a beam, or of 12" wide
strip of
a slab.
c^ Reduction factor for the B. J/. on long span of a cross reinforced
slab.
/3 Reduction factor for the B. M. in short span of a cross reinforced
slab.
L in feet of a rectangular cross reinforced slab.
Long span
.2? Short
span in feet of a rectangular cross reinforced slab.
JBM L Actual B. M. in inch Ibs. on 12" width of slab of a cross reinforced
slab on its long span.
B MB Actual B. M. in inch Ibs. on 12* width of slab of a cross reinforced
slab on its short span.
p Percentage of steel in a beam or slab section=

j~.
br Width of rib.
b. Width of slab acting with T beam.

/ The adhesion between surfaces in units of force per units of area.
r The ratio of long span to short span in a slab supported on four sides
and reinforced in both directions.
d, The thickness of slab in a T beam.
a Arm of couple formed by the compressive and tensile forces in a
beam.
a, The ratio 4-(t
t The tensile stress intensity.
t t
Ratio of stresses .
c
c Compressive stress intensity in

masonry.
n In beams, the distance of the neutral axis from the compression edge
of the beam.
n, The ratio ~ .
METHOD OF DESIGNING.
Design of an ordinary slab, for roof or floor, supported on two sides.

In designing a slab supported on two sides the following steps are taken :
(1) Consider a 12" wide strip of the slab.

(2) Calculate the total weight in Ibs. per sq. ft., to, on the slab. (This
will include weight of structure and all external loads).
(3) Calculate the maximum J5. M. at the centre of slab in inch Ibs.
S M= ml"
o~x 12 for freely supported slabs
or
-^ X 12 for slightly fixed slabs
or -75-
I <G
X 12 for well fixed slabs (not perfectly fixed slabs).
(4) Calculate the shearing force at ends in Ibs.
2 2
(5) Calculate the sectional area of steel required per foot width, A t
from the following :
A
'
_ B. M.
'
30,000 x 86 x d
v
Assuming d slabs, 4|" in case of 5" slabs and 5f" incase of 6"
Z^ in case of 3"
slabs provide suitable reinforcement near the bottom surface of the slabs allow-
ing a cover of about V" so that the area of steel, or as actually given in 12" A e,
width is approximately equal to A t as calculated.
At the top of the slab at each end give steel corresponding to an area :
-4 if the ends are free.
to -~ if the ends are partially fixed (this is a matter of

16 3
judgment).
A t
to
-JJ-'
if the ends are well fixed (this is a matter of
judgment).
We now proceed to test the design
and the following steps are taken :
Find p
(i) -JgjA.
(ii) From curve tables II and III find values of a, -and t, corresponding
to this value of p.
(Hi) Find the tensile stress in steel,/ from the following, ,
**,
This should be about 20,000 Ibs per sq. inch. If appreciably greater than
this, more steel should be provided.
y
=-~.
(iv) Find the maximum compressive stress c from c This should
be less than 350 Ibs. per sq. inch ; if more, the depth of the slab
should be increased.
*"
2
(T) Find s the shearing stress from a = ^g xa X(i this should not
exceed 10. If it does, the depth of the slab should be increased or

the slab reinforced for shear.
() Find the adhesion stress in Ibs. per sq. inch, fa , from
a
a x
Xfefimrter of rods in 12" width
t
(/
This should not exceed about SO. (It islusually very low.)
Tests (0) a;id (ci) are seldom necessary for slabs and are usually omitted.
Freely supported slalxs for any loading may also be designed directly from
curve tables V, VI and VII.
Design of slab supported on all four sides reinforced in two
directions.
In designing a slab supported on all four sides the following steps are
taken :
(1) Find the ratio r -^

Short span
or
B
-'
(2) From curve table IV find oC the factor for long span correspond-
ing to this value of r and also ft the factor for short span.
(3) Find the actual M. on the long span, JJML ,from the following
.
and the actual BM for short span from

BMs ~^j~ X12X/3.
(4) Find A t
for long span from formula,
'
20,000 x -85 xd
and for the short span from formula,
A <~ BM* '
-20,000 x -85 x d
(5) Provide steel according to the values of A determined in (4) on the t
long and short spans respectively.

(G) Test separately for long and short spans as for ordinary slabs, taking
the J331 as BM
L for long span and K for short span. BM
Design of continuous slabs.
Continuous slabs are designed in the same way as ordinary slabs. When
the spans are equal and the loads all uniformly distributed and all supports fair-
ly rigid, the negative B. M. over the intermediate supports may be taken as
brlow :
In case of three spans or more ^ x!2 for supports next to the ends, and
72 7 2
~j- X 12 for all others. Incase of two spans nX 12 for the only inter-
mediate support. If the supports are not quite rigid the B. M.. are less.
When R. B. beams (which are fairly wide in the rib) are used as intermediate
mpports it is usual to make the clear span from rib to rib equal. This further
reduces B. M,.
The positive B. M. in the centre of spans is generally taken as ^--XlS.
The reinforcement in the centre of the spans should be near the bottom
surface of the slab and over the intermediate supports near the top surface. It
is usual to provide top reinforcement at the ends to the extent of half of what is
provided in the middle of the spans even though the ends are supposed to be free,
as it has been found from practice that there is nearly always slight fixing.
If possible the bottom and top reinforcement should be connected to each
other.
Design of lintels, rectangular beams, and cantilevers.
"Unimportant should be designed in the same way as fixed slabs, and
lintels
important lintels as fixed beams, full shear reinforcement being provided.

The same applies to cantilevers, etc.
Eectaugular beams of reinforced brickwork are designed in the same way
as T beams, the method for which is detailed below, except that we take b instead
of b, or b,. Such beams are however seldom used, at any rate for heavy loads.
Design of T beam with slab continuous over it.
In designing a T beam carrying a continuous slab the following steps are

taken :
(1.) Decide upon the thickness of slab to be used, i.e., d,.
This should be 5" if the spans are up to about 11' centre to centre of
beams but 6" if
up to 14'. Spacing of more than 13' to 14' is
not economical.
(2.) Decide upon the depth of the beam, viz., from top of slab to bottom
of rib as far as the centre of gravity of the steel, i.e., d. This
should be about & of span of the beam but the total
depth
in inches of beam should be about d"+2" for cover.
FlGUKE 13.
(3.) Assume b r to be approximately ^ of spacing of T beams.

(4) Now everything is known, viz-,
1= span of beam.
d= depth of beam.
d, depth of slab.
br = the thickness of the projecting rib.

Froni this data calculate the total load on the beam= W Ibs.
1F1
(5.) Calculate BM = ~x!2.
S S=
W
(6.) Calculate shearing force at end, 5-.
ft
c
(7.) Calculate shear stress in brick at end from -~T 7;
'OOft X Of
this should
not exceed 60 Ibs per sq. inch. If it exceeds 60 Ibs increase b,

and bring 8 to below 60.
(8.) If b r is increased recalculate W as this will also be slightly increased
and again find S and satisfy yourself that s is below 60.
= j ^- x
(9.) Calculate total shear S
^ X | X 12 in one-half of the beam.
(10.) Calculate A = -^. ^^--o=-p.

t
x 'Sod 16,000
(11.) Calculate shear area to be given as stirrups in one-half of the beam.
~
11,000 x d
Now proceed to test the design as before.
(i) Calculate p --,

~ when 6,
=- 3
.
(if) From curve tables I to III find , a, and t,

for this value of p.
(ui) Calculate n =n t d, and a a, d.
(iv) Satisfy yourself that n = d, or at least is not greater than by more

than ~ .
(For explanation of this see p. 39, Vol. I, of
d,
Faber and
Bowie's Reinforced Concrete Design, 1919, 2nd Edition.)
(?/) Calculate
Iculate the stress in steel f t
=- *'lf X d
'
This should be about

16,000 Ibs. per sq. inch.
f
34 NOTES ON BEINFORCED BRICKWORK.
(vi) Calculate compression stress in brick, c, from c = J- 1

which should
*i
not exceed 250 Ibs. per sq. inch.

W_
9
(vii) Calculate shear stress in brick, * =- 7-. This should be below 60
UXllr
Ibs. per sq. inch.
W
(viii) Calculate adhesive stress in steel from
-^
X perimeter of steel in
tension reaching the bearing X a this should not exceed about ;
SO to 90 Ibs. per sq. inch for round steel and 50 Ibs. per sq. inch
for flat steel.
Some fully worked out examples of designs are given in the following
pages.
EXAMPLES IN DESIGN WITH CALCULATIONS.
Example No. 1.
A slab for a roof 5' span carrying 4" beaten lime concrete terracing and
subject to 25 Ibs. per sq. ft. live load,
supported on walls on both sides with-
out any parapets.
The clear span is 5' and the loads are ordinary and light ; therefore a 3"
slab will be suitable.
Design. Consider a strip of the slab 12" wide.

The loads are
(1) Weight of 3" slab . . . =29 Ibs.
per sq. ft.
(2) Weight of 4" terracing . . =37 Ibs.
per sq. ft.
(3) Live load = 25* Ibs. per sq. ft.
MJ, total load per sq. ft. = 91 Ibs.
say 90 Ibs.
The ends are free, therefore the maximum B. M. in centre of span
ml"
-Q-
X 12 inch Ibs.
= 90x5x5x1-5
= 3,375 inch Ibs.
-.*
-H
J ,
f\
r -*->*
* 6
LONltlTUOIMAL 6E.CTION. CROSS SECTION.
FIGURE 14.
Assume 2'5" as the effective depth, d, to the centre of steel and let A be the
t
area of steel which is required as tensile reinforcement in 12" width.

Then moment of resistance, M.
=-A, X f Xa JR. t
a may be assumed = '85 d nearly, without much error.

Allowing 20,000 maximum stress in steel
Ibs. per sq. inch as the
M. R, =A X 20,000 X -85 X d t
= A x 20,000 X 'S3 X 2-5 t
Equating the maximum bending moment to the moment of resistance,

we Jiave A x 20,000 X "85 X 5-y=3,375.
t
A =
" 3,375
'
20,000 x -85x2 -5
= '0794 sq. inch.
* This has been found
bji experiment to be the load of the coolies tamping a roof in the
ordinary manner.
In ordinary circumstances a 3" slab is suitable on spans up to 5' where the ends are freely supported
Ditto ditto 10' ditto
&' ditto 12 ditto
NOTES ON REINFORCED BRICKWOEK, 3."
Now reinforcement can only be arranged nl'trr every 5$"or 10$", termed for
convenience 5" or 10*, owing to the size of bricks, therefore the area required
0794x10-5
every 10$ width is
= ,
'070 sq. inch.
^ = .
From a reference to tables it will be seen that the sectional area of a ,"',
diameter rod is '076 sq. inch.

"
Hence a rod f6 diameter spaced every 10$", i.e., after every brick length,
will do.
Some reinforcement say up to J of the span may be given at ends at the
top to guard against cracks due to possible partial fixing action. For this
purpose it will be sufficient to bend up every alternate rod towards the end.
Figure 1, plate 3, gives the design.
Mathematical Test of the Design.
Testing the design mathematically we have :
B. M. = 3,375 inch Ibs. per ft. width.
b = 12"
d_ q
O /3" j_ & "\
\f TS2 )
3" _i| or 2-5" nearly.
A =
t
'076 X -^
= -0868 sq. inch.
. 100 A t
100 x -076
-
lit x 2 5
= 0-253.
For p = '253 from curve table II we have a, = 0'88.

and from curve table III we have t, = 72'0.
Actual stress in steel
n
= /, = ^ (X a x
837o'
0868x0-88x2-5.
= 17,676 Ibs. per sq. inch which is safe.
/* 17 fi7fi
Actual maximum stress in brickwork =c= f

=.- -'
9
= 2-16 Ibs. per sq.
inch which is within the safe limit for slabs.
Tests for adhesion and shear may be made as for beams but as the stresses
in ordinary cases are very low, such tests arc really unnecessary.
Example No. 2.
A slab tor a 1st floor, 8' span carrying 1" cement concrete (artificial stone)
and subject to 56 Ibs. per sq. ft. live load.
The clear span is 8' and the loads ordinary, therefore a 5" slab (brick on
edge) will be suitable.
Design. Consider a strip 12" wide.
The loads, are :
(1) Weight of 5" R.B. slab . . =48 Ibs. per sq. ft.
(2) Weight of 1* cement concrete . =12 Ibs. per sq. ft.
(3) Live load . . . . =56 Ibs. per sq. ff.
to, total load per sq. ft. = 116 Ibs.

rZ
36 NOTES OX REINFORCED BRICKWORK.
The ends will be built into the walls and partially fixed. We may take
the positive B. M. in the centre as an ^ the negative B. M. at the ends
-^-
IS
~2Q
.
(This is a matter of judgment. The positive B. J/. at the centre may be
anything from
~ to
-^ according to the efficiency of fixing. It is
-^
when the fixing is perfect and about
~ when
7*
the fixing is nominal. The
7<jf
negative B. M. at the ends is when the fixing is perfect, but

-jg practically
zero with the fixing
nominal.)
The maximum B. M. in the centre of the
span = *~ X 12 inch Ibs.
8x8
= 116 X-T<TX12
= 8,909 inch Ibs.
Assume d = 4'5" and let A
area necessary in 12 =^-width. t be as in Example I the tensile steel
Then M, E. =A Xf X a
t t
=A x 20,000 x -85d
t
=A x 20,000 X '85 X 4-5 inch

t Ibs.
Equating the maximum bending moment to the moment of resistance we

have
A X
t 20,000 X '85 X 4-5 = 8,909.
.
A _ 8,909
6 S( inch
au,OUO x -85 x 4-5
'
l-
Reinforcement can only be put in

every 3", every 6", or every 10" apart,
therefore the area required
every 10" apart is 116 X t* *097 so. inches- = =
From a reference to tables it will be seen that the area of two rods of I" diame-
ter is 2
X_049== -098 B q. inches hence two i" diameter rods every 10" apart
will do. Half of this may be allowed at the
top at ends. This will be near
enough as the negative B. M. at the ends is half of positive M. in the mid- B
span. Also of the two rods at the bottom
only one need be carried throughout
the full length of the
span and bearing, the other one may be a 6" piece in
the centre only. This can be done as the B.M. near the ends is
very small.
The sketches for this design are given in
plate 3, figure 2.

Testing the design mathematically, we have :
B. M. =
8,909 inch Ibs. per 12" width.
b = 12"
d = 4-4" (as actually
A,
- '098 x |g = '1176drawn).
sq. inch.
JW^_W)x-1176
6d 12lT4-2~"
= -223 from curve tables II and III we have
a,
= '887
t,
- 76-0
d( x a, x d
_~ 8,909
-11'.'6 x -887 x 4-4"
= 19,410 Ibs. per sq. inch, which is safe.
c __ ft_ _ 20,430
v
t
76
= 269 Ibs. per sq. inch which is within the safe limit
tor slabs.
NOTES OK REINFORCED BRICKWORK. 37
Example No, 3.
Aslab for a roof 11' spaa carrying 4" of lime concrete terracing and 25 Ibs.
as free.
per sq. ft. external live load, ends to be treated
The clear span is 11' and the loads ordinary, a 6" slab will be suitable.
Design. Consider a strip 12'' wide.
The loads are-
Weight of 6" slab . . . =58 Ibs. per sq. ft.
= 37 Ibs. per sq,
Weight
Live load ....
of 4" terracing .
= 25 Ibs. per sq.

ft.
ft.
10, total load per sq. ft.

= 120 Ibs.
wl*
The maximum IB, M. in the centre of the span= -g- X 12 inch Ibs.
120 x 11 x 11 x 12
8
= 21,780 inch Ibs.

Take d = 5'75"
Then as before A =- t
a
=
21,780
B,M.
20,000 x -85 x d
20,000 x -Ho x 5-75

= '223 sq. inch.
_
Reinforcement can be put in every 5|" : the reinforcement necessary in 5
is -223 xj| '

= '
102 B< 1
"
From a reference to tables it will be seen that the area of a f rod is '11 sq.
"
inch, hence a f diameter rod every 5|* apart will do. Allow of this at the top
at ends, as before.
The sketches for this design are given in plate 3, figure 3.

Testing the design mathematically we have
B.M. = 21,780 inch Ibs. per 12* width.
b = 12"
d = 5' 7" (as drawn).
A t
= -11 X 12 .- = -24
sq. inch.
k
- ~~~
100 A* 100 x -24
For P 351 from curve tables II and III we haye

a, =3 -865
t,
= 58-0
f_
it
B. M.
A t
X a, xd
~ '24 x21,780
-865x5-7
= 18,410 Ibs. per sq. inch which is safe.
^j~= "58 = 318 Ibs. per sq.

~ inch which is also
safe.
Example No. 4.
Across reinforced slab, i.e., a slab reinforced in both directions an4

stipported on all four sides, for the roof of a room 15'xl6' clear, carrying 4*
Jime concrete terracing and subject to 25 Ibs. per sq. ft. maximum live 'load.
For such a room a 6" slab is suitable.
The loadsare-
Weight of 6'slab . . . . 58 Ibs. per sq. ft.
Weight of 4" terracing . . . =37 Ibs. per sq. ft.

Live load = 25 Ibs. per sq. ft.
w, total load per sq. ft. = 120 Ibs.
From curve table IV we get (the factor for long span)

<L = 0-27
And/3 (the factor for short span) = 0'39
Consider a 12" wide strip of slab in each direction.
The maximum B. M. on long span =

_ X12X inch Ibs.
o
120 x 16 x 16
X 12 X '27
= 12,442 inch Ibs.
The maximum B. M. on short span
- in
X 12 X ft inch Ibs.
~g-
120 x 15 x 15
= g
-
X 12 X '39
= 15,795 inch Ibs.
Assume 5'3" as the effective depth on the long span and 5'6" as the effective
depth on short span, then
A t
on long span =
j d
___
"
12,442
^
20,000 x^ -85 x 6-3
= '139 sq. inch.
If reinforcement is
placed after every brick, the spacing centre to centre
will be about 10|".
-
'
9 10 5
Reinforcement required in 10|" width is -
^ -J2 sq. inch,
try
a I" diameter rod the area of which is '11
A t on short span = x x -
sq. inch.
%
-^
f t
_~ ___ 5,7 9 5
= 20,000
a,
J.
x^SSlT^G
'166 sq. inch.
,
(I
_
The joint m tWs case may be assumed f thick, hence area required in
lOf
which
is
is
'166
-jjp
'1503 sq. inch,
= -149 sq. inch. Try a & diameter rod, the area of
-
every 10f" apart.
Diagrams m plate 4 give the design.

Testing the design mathematically we have :
for long span,

L BM =
12,442 inch Ibs. per 12" width.
b == 12*
d = 5 -4" (as drawn).
A -11 x 12
10 '126 sq. inch.
.
100 A t _ -156x100
Td 12 x 5-4 '194
T '
from CurvR taWes II and III
we get
and = 83-0
X a, X d
~ 12,442
S'
= 20,500 Ibs. per sq. inch which is near enough to the allowable
stress to be accepted.
p = -"'
= 247 Ibs. per sq. inch, which is safe.
*t
For short span

We have i'.J/;, 15,795 inch Ibs.
b = 12"
el = 5'7" (as drawn).
A t
= '1503 X -TTvTT- = J.U /
'168 sq. inch.
1* M,
-At 100 x -108
12 x <r<
- -
'
for |j
= -240 from curve tables II and III we get
a = '882
and t,
- 72-0
f = - -M*- _ 15 795 '

_ = 18,700 Ibs. per sq.
t
x
^4, x<7, '/
7
-108 x -Ssi x 0-7
inch, which is safe
J-f 18 700
= 2GO
c
t
- = ',
i
,
-
Ibs. per sq. inch, which is also safe.
*<
Example No. 5.
A roof for a 14' X 27' with two intermediate T beams of R. B. and

room
n slab continuous over these, the roof carrying 4" lime terracing and subject to
25 11. per sq. ft. maximum live load.
Design of Slab.
The spans will be 9' continuous, henc.3 a 5" slab is suitable.
Consider a strip 12" wide.

The loads are
Weight of 5" K. B slab = 48 Ibs. per sq. ft.

Weight of 4" terracing = 37 Ibs.. per sq. ft.
Live load
= 25 Ibs. per sq. ft.
w, the total load per sq. foot

110 Ibs. =
If the spans are all uniformly
loaded as will practically be the case, the
"
maximum B. M. in the end spans will be about

12
X 12 inch Ibs.-
positive
inthe centre span much less and the negative B. Ms. over the intermediate
T beams will be between X 12 and X 12 inch Ibs. allowing-for some

^
-^-
vl 1
settlement in the beams themselves. (It is in most cases safe to take ^-)
Wo may take -jp- X 12 inch Ibs. in both cases.
The beams for the sake of appearance might be so arranged that the span*,
clear of the ribs, are equal. This slight alteration will tend to reduce the
B. 31. in the end spans and increase B. M. in the centre span and so will do no
"* '
*)
harm. The span of slab may be taken as _=9'.

B. M. = -J!j-
X 12
= 110 x 9 X 9
= 8,910 inch Ibs.
Assume 4'5" as the erfectivejlepth.
--=/n^l =20,000
40 NOTES ON REINFORCED BRICKTVORK.
Reinforcement can be placed every 3^" or 10" apart.
.'. A t required in 10" is '1105 X -~- = '097 sq. inch.
The area of two rods J" diameter is '098 sq inch. Hence these might lie
used. Top reinforcement over the T beams will have to be continued for | of
the clear span of the slab on each side of a rib. Top reinforcement at the ends
may also be given to the extent of a quarter of that in span.
The sketches for the slab are given in plate 5.
Design of T Beams.
Take depth of beam about ^ of the span, i.e.,and try a 15 \" deep T
1'4'
beam (including the slab) as it is
very easily made by one brick on end under the
slab.
For purposes of calculating the weight of the beam assume b r the width
of the rib to be about fj, of
spacing of beam, i.e., 11", say 12". The following
are the loads on the beams :
Slab, terrace, and live load =110 Ibs. per square foot, vide page 39 but as
the spans are continuous the actual slab load on the beam is
110 x 14 x 9 X 11 = 15,246 Ibs.
weight of rib 14 X 125 X \$= 1,458 Ibs.
W, total load = 16,704 Ibs.
say 16,700 Ibs.
.*. maximum shearing force at the ends = 8,350 Ibs.
and maximum B. M. in the centre (assuming free ends) = ''
8
= 350,700 inch Ibs,
Taking effective depth, d = total depth from top of slab to bottom of rib less
2", we get
ft x -85 x d
_= 350,700
16,000 x -85 x!3-5
= 1'91 square inches.
Try nine rods \" diameter, A, = 9 X '1963
= T767 square inches.
To take shearing stresses provide enough stirrups to take up all the shear
in the beam and turn up three of the tension rods towards each end at 45".
The total shear in each half span - 8 305 x7xl2

'
= 350,700 Ibs.
.
~ ^
350,700
''
'
11,000 x 13-5
= 2 '34 square inches.
Provide fortyeight verticals each J" diameter rod in each half span
Then A 48 x '49
s =
2'35, i.e., eight sets of 3 double stirrups of \* round sec-
tion, to be distributed as far as possible in accordance with
ordinary practice.
The bricks of the beams might be made to break joint laterally.
The drawings for the design are given in plate 5.
NOTES ON KEINFORCED BRICKWORK. 41
Mathematical Test of the Design of the Slab.

Testing the design of the slab mathematically we have
= 8,910 inch Ibs.
Z.U
= 12"
b
d. = 4-5"
1 9
A = -097 X
t
= '114 sq. inch ^

114 x 100
nence^j = = '211 square inch . ,
-
x lj}
iorp = -211 from curve tables II and III we get

at -888 =
=
t,
80-0
f
tt = .
--
A x t
B.
8,910
M.
,
x rf
,
'
-114 x -888 x 4-5

= 19,560 Ibs. per square inch, which is safe
~ =t 80~~
= 224'5 Ibs. per square inch, which is safe.
Mathematical Test of the Design of the Beam.
Testing the design of the beam mathematically we get from the actual drawings
br = 15"
d = 13-5"
-A t = 1'767 square inches.
bs = assumed | span, i.e., 56*.
Weight of slab
[on the beam]= 15,246 Iba.
Weight of rib= 1,458 Ibs.
W, total load = 16,70T3.bs., say 16,700 Ibs.
Shearing force at ends = 8,350 Ibs.
and 13. = 350,700 inch Ibs.
M.
_ 100 A f
_" 100 x 1-767

56 x 13-5"
= -243
from curve table I we get n = '355
n = d = -355 x 13-5
l
.-.
= 4'8 nearly.
,
Hence the neutral axis falls within the slab and all the ordinary rules apply.
a =d a ^
= 13-5 -jp
= 11-9
B. M.
'* At x x d
a,
350,700
'
1-767 x 11-9
= 16,678 Ibs. per square inch, which will do.
from curve table III *,= 72'0
c = -j ~ yg
= 230 Ibs. per square inch, which is also safe,
Shearing force
'" X a
perimeter of rods in tension available at end
8,350 .
= 74-5 Ibs. per square inch which is safe,
Shearing force
lr X a,
8,350
~J5 x 11-9
= 47 Ibs. per square inch, which is safe especially as
stirrups have been given, to take up all shear.
o
Example No. 6.
A
T beam joined to a 6" continuous slab to carry on 16' span, a load of
8 tons exclusive of the weight of the rib of the beam.
Take d = & of the span = $' = 20* say, total depth 22" approximately.
Assume 6,
= 10",
then the weight of the rib of the beam = if X if X 16 X 120 = 2,130 Ibs.
Load on beam = 8 tons = 17,920 Ibs.
W, total load = 20,050 Ibs.

Ibs.
say 20,000
.*.
Shearing force at each end =
10,000 Ibs.
In order that shear stresses may not exceed 60 Ibs. per square inch we must
have as a
,. .,
limit, mz.,
10,000
'.# /j~
CA
" or > "
, ,
= ,n
*""
,,
We have assumed d 20 and b =

10 /. bd 200, which is greater than = =
196, hence this section will do and our approximations are near enough.
J3. M. in centre of span = Wl g x 12

x 16
= -20,000
-g- X 12
= 480,000 inch Ibs.
'
B.M.
At 16,000 x -85d
480,000
"
16,000 x '85 x 20
= 1'765 square inches.
Give six rods of |" diameter each,

then A =
t 6 X '3067 = T840 square inches.
Total skear
A, =-
11,000 x d
_ 10,000 x 4 x 12
11,000 x 20
=
4Q,000
11,000 x 2-0
= 2 18 square
-
inches. Give seven rods of ^
diameter each, used as quadruple stirrups in each half span,
Then A, 7 X 4 X '0767 2*148 =
bend two rods near each end at 45 to ;
give additional shear strength. For simplicity of construction the bottom 4"
or 5" should be done in concrete.
Sketches are given in plate 6.
B. M. = 480,000 inch Ibs.

S. F. = 10,000 Ibs.
b, =4=48"
dr = 20"
A t
= 1'840 sq. inches.
100 A t
_
" -
_100_xJ/84_. ., Q, 7
S. x d 48 x 20
NOTES ON BKINFOBCED BRICKWORK. 43
For p = '1917 from curve table I we get

n, '322 and n = 6-4", hence the neutral axis falls just at the bottom surface
of the slab (which is about 6'4" deep) and the ordinary theory applies.
From curve tables II and III we have
a t
= '8925
* = 84-0
B. U.
I* A x
t a, x d
480,000
1-84 x -8925 x 20
= 14,614 Ibs. per square inch, which is safe,
4
n ^J- = '
^ = 174 Ibs. per sq. inch, which is safe,
t, 84
Shearing forte
8
a, Xd X bf
10,000
-S925 x 20 x 10
== 56 Ibs. per square inch, which is less than 60, and there-
fore safe, as stirrups have been provided to take up all the shear.
Shearing force
a, d x ptrimeter of the ban in tension at end.
10,000
-8925 x 20 x 4 X | x 3'14
= 72 Ibs. per square inch, which is less
k
than 90 Iba. per
square inch and therefore safe.

44 NOTES ON BEINFORCED BRICKWORK.
SECTION VI.
COSTS, RATES, COST ANALYSES, ETC.
During the construction of New Patna it was proved conclusively that

roofs and floors constructed of reinforced brick are cheaper than those
constructed on any other system, for example, jack arch, T and tile, reinforced
concrete or any of the tiled roofs of different kinds hitherto in common
use.
The saving effected by using it in place of any of these systems was
very marked during the war when the price of steel was high. Calculations
show, however, that, even if the price of steel again falls to Us. 10 per cwt.
and provided the prices of other materials vary only slightly, roofs and
floors built of R. B. would still be cheaper than those built on any other of the
systems mentioned above. On the score of cheapness alone, the system will
therefore command
preference so long as these conditions obtain.
An made in the following pages to compare the cost of roofs and
attempt is
floors constructed according to different specifications and to illustrate the saving
effected by using reinforced brickwork. Except where otherwise stated, the
figures given show the cost of work which has been actually constructed in
Patna. Ths buildings chosen are typical of what are met with everywhere
throughout India, and, although the cost of work is bound to vary in differ-
ent localities according to the cost of materials and rates for labour, some
idea of the savings resulting from the use of this system can be got from the
examples given.
At the time the work was done, the following were the average rates paid
for materials ;
,,.,,,.
........
First class bricks
Bs.
12 per 1,000
Cement
Steel ......... 3 per cubic foot.
30 per cwt.
......
4" beaten lime concrete
over roof slabs
1" cement concrete
terracing
artificial
(including materials)
stone (including materials)

15 per 100 s. ft.
over 1st floor slabs 21 per 100 s. ft.
The rates paid to petty contractors allowed 15 per cent, profit on

labour. Materials were supplied at cost price by the department*
81 P, W. D.
NOTES ON REINFORCED B'ilCKYTORK. ir,
Example I.
(I)
Power House. Battery room 50' x 20'.
Corresponding rou'hly to the usual type of room for class rooms, barracks aiid Lo.spit.ils commonly
met with in India.
Table of comparative cost in Us.
Type of roofing.
(Ill) Example III.
Medium sized, double storied house built for Excise Commissioner. Area of roof 3,037 eq. ft.
Table of comparative cost in Us.
Type of roofing, and flooring at

1st floor level.
(V). Example V.
Comparison of costs of roofs of various sized square rooms commonly met with in practice.
Table of comparative cost in Rs.
Size of room.
4.0 NOTES ON HEINFORCED BRICKWORK.
COST STATEMENT I,
COST OF CENTERING ?ER ICO SQ. FT.
21 a serf on cost of 10,029 sq.ft. of centering erected and dismantled at Patna showing quantities of material and
labour required and east per each 100 so. ft.
Ilttuils and items.

NOTES ON REINFORCED BBICKWOB.K. 49
COST STATEMENT II.
COST OF R. B. SLABS PER 100 sq. FT.
This table shows the cost of the brickwork portion of the slab onuMiny the cost of reinforcement which varies
with conditions of span loading, etc.
>
Materials.
COST STATEMENT III.
COST OF B. B. LINTELS AND BEAMS PER 100 C. FT.
This table shows the cost of lintels and learns omitting the cost of reinforcement which varies with conditions
of span, etc.
Details and items.

51
53
Oil
OOII
0001
oo e
oo
001
OOS
COS
00
oot
00 1
01
RETURN TO the circulation desk of any
University of California Library
or to the
NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
Bldg.400, Richmond Field Station
University of California
Richmond, CA 94804-4698
ALL BOOKS MAY BE RECALLED AFTER 7 DAYS
2-month loans may be renewed by calling
(510)642-6753
1-year loans may be recharged by bringing
books to NRLF
Renewals and recharges may be made 4
days prior to due date.
DUE AS STAMPED BELOW

3 1175 00995 8508
PSL Annex
Call Number:
725108 TA679
India. Public Works 152
Department.
Notes on reinforced
brickwork.
N9 725108
TA679
India. Public Works 152
Department.
Notes on reinforced
brickwork.
PHYSICAL
SCIENCES
LIBRARY
LIBRARY
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
DAVIS
33S
1 **> .-* .

Notes On Reinforce 00 in Di Rich

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notes On Reinforce 00 in Di Rich

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notes On Reinforce 00 in Di Rich

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTES ON REINFORCED BRICKWORK

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

(Patent No. 4288 of 14th March 1919)

Reinforced brick slabs

beams, walls, columns and arches

Tests of R. B. rectangular beams . . . . . 24

beams and .24

Tests of embedded rolled steel joists

Tests of slabs suitable for bridge decking ... 25

Adhesion tests .........26

Special experiments .......

V. Designs and calculations .......

Method ofdesigning an ordinary slab for roof or floor 31

Method of designing continuous slabs 32

Method of designing lintels, rectangular beams and cantilevers 32

Method of designing T. beams with slab continuous over 33

Example No. 1 slab for a roof 5' span 34

Example No. 2 slab for a first floor 8' span ... 35

Example No. 3 slab for roof 11' span

slab for roof of

Example No. 4 cross reinforced 87

Example No. 5 roof for a room 14' X 27'. ... 39

Example No. 6 T. beam joined to a 6" slab ... 42

VI. Costs, Rates, Cost analyses 4450

III. Comparative tables ........

Curve tables ..;.,....

other forms of construction, e.g., in floors, roofs, staircases, chhujjas, overhanging

work at New Delhi and elsewhere. As a result of this recommendation rein-

permanent residences being built for officials of the Government of India at

The Hindu University at Benares.

Cotton mills, Improvement Trust, and other buildings, at Cawnpore.

The advantages in the main of the system are :

Advantages over I Simplicity of construction.

I. There is nothing in the construction which cannot be done by an

(d) Ordinary mild steel rods or bars.

(3) The centering may be of a rough description provided it is strong. It

(4) There is no question of stale or half-set material being used as is

(7) There are not

V. When compared with roofs of ordinary T and tile or reinforced

DESCRIPTION OP THE VARIOUS FORMS OF REINFORCED BRICKWORK.

The similarity between reinforced brick and reinforced concrete structures

Reinforced brick slabs.

'-"> slabs support-

In 3" slabs, the reinforcement can be placed about 5 im-hes or 10 inches

The reinforcement in 5" slabs, which consist of bricks on edge, can be

Reinforcement every 3+fjo/W apart,

Kfinforetmenf every 6'ljdiftts apart, about 6y

Reinforcement every 10'ljomt apart,

Pigure 4 shows bottom reinforcement every 5" apart, but if it is desired to

supporting Avail on the ground floor .f Such a wall is self-supporting and is

PRACTICAL EXECUTION or REINFORCED BRICKWORK.

(a) Centering for ordinary slabs from a minimum of about 5 days in

-ff for every foot of span

ments of centering are possible, but whatever arrangement is adopted, care

The materials used in R. B. are :

should be used in R. B. Hardness is a desirable quality, but brit tie-

It is also advisable to test specimens of the bricks intended to be used in

using as described above. The importance of this cannot be over-