The UK loves a brick façade and buildings that exceed 3 floors or 9m whichever is less has a requirement to introduce horizontal movement joints by using masonry support. This means that quantity surveyors and buyers are often presented with evaluating masonry support proposals. To ensure that construction risks focused on cost certainty are mitigated effectively it’s important to understand the different options they have so they can ensure they’re getting the best deal.

If the building requires masonry support, then you have a few options available. I wrote a previous article on one storey versus two storey which is the first level decision as shown by the diagram below, the article can be found 

. For each of those options you have a decision between continuous and discrete. This article aims to highlight the key differences.

Continuous masonry support features a continuous steel angle and channel fixed along the structure, typically at the floor slabs or structural frame, to provide uninterrupted support and distribute the load evenly along its length.

Key considerations for quantity surveyors and buyers

When evaluating the cost implications of continuous and discrete masonry support systems, quantity surveyors and buyers should consider several key factors. Understanding these cost drivers will aid in making informed decisions that align with the project's budget and programme requirements.

It is crucial to consider these factors to ensure the best solution when evaluating the 8 factors listed above.

We worked on a large residential scheme las year where we have two different options between running continuous and discrete masonry support, as shown by the details below. The image on the left shows an inverted bracket option which is usually used for discrete masonry support picking up between the windows. The second option shows a standard masonry bracket running continuously around the perimeter of the building.

Key considerations from this project include:

Continuous support involved 66% more meterage.

Continuous support used approximately 10,000 brackets compared to 7,500 for the discrete option.

The discrete option required thicker, more expensive angles due to higher loads.

The discrete option needed a larger channel profile because of the increased load.

The discrete option required lintels, whereas continuous support did not.

The best option will depend on the specific project requirements. Ensuring that you are equipped with comprehensive information will support better decision-making.

For further assistance, contact our experienced Technical Team, who will be happy to help with your requirements.

Navigating the Choice: One-Storey vs. Two-Storey Masonry Support Systems in Construction 

Continuous versus discrete masonry support image

Options to consider for different masonry support strategies

What Every Quantity Surveyor and Buyer Should Know About Continuous and Discrete Masonry Support.

Amid the high-inflationary environment of the past two years, both design and commercial teams find themselves pondering a critical question: Will opting for support at every other level instead of at every floor offer a more economical solution? If so, what are the key factors I need to consider that could potentially escalate budget risks across the project?

Why masonry support is needed to start with?

Masonry support is required to introduce horizontal movement joints to prevent cracking in the façade due to several natural factors, such as heat and slab movement. The maximum gap between the vertical movement joints is 3 floors or 9m, whichever is less. In practice, this is not feasible because the weakest point in the system is the connection back to the main frame; typically into a concrete frame where the load cannot be transferred to the slab. Therefore, design teams are usually left with a decision between single storey support and double storey support.

Given that masonry support can typically be provided at a maximum of every two floors, there are two main options: supporting every floor or every other floor, as illustrated by the images below. We will explore the factors that govern these design choices and the variables that impact cost.

 Single-storey support typically utilises a 38/17 channel, offering a more economical option per meter of support. However, for two-storey support, an upgrade to a 49/30 channel is necessary, increasing costs by at least 30%. Opting for channels made from higher capacity steel, such as duplex, can mitigate this cost increase due to its 50% higher capacity compared to normal stainless steel.

Transitioning from two-storey to single-storey support results in reduced bracket centres. Single-storey supports typically have centres between 450 to 500, whereas double-storey support can vary between 200 to 400, depending on loads. Utilising stronger channels can help increase centre spaces and reduce overall costs.

 Single-storey supports usually employ a 5mm angle thickness. However, two-storey supports often require an increase to 8mm, resulting in a 30-40% rise in material costs.

Two-storey support may offer fewer options for channel placement and bracket bearing on the slab, potentially leading to clashes with fire barriers. This limitation could lead to program delays and increased costs.

 Two-storey support commonly encounters issues with corners due to the concentration of load in a small area and limited substrate for fixing. This may necessitate additional steelwork and pose unforeseen cost pressures.

Increasing cavity sizes, driven by enhanced thermal performance in buildings, present challenges in supporting masonry. With two-storey support, transferring loads becomes more challenging, potentially leading to increased costs.

These factors underscore the importance of carefully evaluating both single-storey and two-storey masonry support options to mitigate risks and ensure cost-effective solutions in construction projects.

As demonstrated above, numerous factors can impact the design process. To illustrate this, we present data from a previous project that sheds light on the complexities involved. In a scheme examined last year, two distinct proposals were considered. The key takeaway is that 

reducing support does not always result in significant cost savings.

Initial design: Providing support for every floor, the initial design was quoted at £209K. This design featured bracket centers at 500mm and utilised a smaller profile of channel.

Alternative approach: An alternative approach, offering support for alternate floors where feasible, was priced at £206K. Although there was a significant reduction in meterage, the increase in angle thickness and channel size meant the price came within 1.5% of the initial design cost.

The most important consideration is to make sure you’re getting the best advice early on. By evaluating both options from an early stage you can make sure there are no hidden surprises when it comes to build which can introduce major construction risks in costs and programme certainty.

For further insights and assistance on design of masonry facades please drop me an email on henry@cfsfixings.com.

Privacy Policy

Terms and conditions

Construction Fixing Systems Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 2567516.

VAT number: GB 531 3821 72

What Every Quantity Surveyor and Buyer Should Know About Continuous and Discrete Masonry Support.

An overview of the options you have

Key considerations for quantity surveyors and buyers

Insights from a previous project:

Navigating the Choice: One-Storey vs. Two-Storey Masonry Support Systems in Construction