-------------- - - - -- -- - - - -- - - --

ENGINEERS FILE NOTE NO .7 .

Published by the BrickDevelopment Association
CISfB' I I
I (21.9) I FG2 I
January 1988
7

A REINFORCED
BRICKWORK FREESTANDING
BOUNDARY WALL
By G.D. JohnsonBEng(Tech) phD MICeramMIStruetE C. Eng.
Consulting Engineer, Hertford.
This File Note describes the design and
construction of a "simple" garden wall
- a project which cost less than 4,000.
Nonethelesss, it is interesting for at least
two reasons. Firstly freestanding walls,
in perhaps too many instances, are not
designed by structural engineers.
Secondly the File Note describes how
tight cost constraints were fulfilledby
adopting a reinforced solution.

Fig. 1.
INTRODUCTION
B R I E F

--
c:
B
--
--
-
""/--
1....
--
--.. -..... __ -- -.l'-_
-- l.
-... -... -...-.....
A
Brickboundary walls are a common
feature of the built environment in Britain.
They not only enhance a property but
often provide an element of both security
and privacy. While much time will
undoubtedly be spent on the planning,
design and detailing of the dwelling,
freestanding walls are seldom subjected to
an engineering appraisal but are left to the
bricklayers to build.
However, attitudes are changing and
many more walls are now being designed
on sound engineering prindples. The BDA
Design Guide No 12"The Design of
Freestanding Walls" is a useful publication
in this regard.
As with any structure, economy of
design is of importance and this File Note
describes the design and construction of
one particular boundary wall, where
economics, aesthetics and engineering
considerations led to the adoption of a
fully reinforced brickwork solution.
The brief was to design and construct a
boundary wall between a public footpath
and a private garden to enhance the
property and to ensure privacy. Awall
height of at least 2m above footpath level
was therefore required. Cost was an
important consideration since the wall
was to be 25m long. The side of the wall
adjacent to the footpath had to present a
smooth, uninterrupted face free from piers
and obstructions. In addition, since part of
the garden was higher than the path, the
wall was required to act as a retaining wall
in places. Afurther consideration was that
disruption to the footpath should be
minimal during the construction process
as should any damage to the footpath's
surface if consequent expensive
reinstatement was to be avoided. Finally,
as a planning consideration, the brick to
be used for the wall was to blend and
complement the existing brickwork of the
property.
STRUCTURAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Thebrick chosen to complementthe

existing brickwork was inthe upper halfof
the pricespectrum. It was obviously
important to keepcosts to a minimumand
it was dedded to construct the wall, as far
as possible. as a singleleafwall,supported
at intervals by piers. The piersrequiredto
be on the garden elevation so as to leave a
smooth sideadjacent to the footpath.
Further economy ofmaterialscouldbe
made by adopting a reinforced brickwork
section for the piers. Thusfor the
freestandingwall all brickwork couldbe
constructed as a singleskinofstretcher
bond with intermediate 327.5mmsquare
hollow piers. At sections wherethe wall is
calledupon to retainsoil, a reinforced
CONCRETE BASE
A142 MESH
Ag. 2.
AA
grouted cavitysectionwas used. Typical
sections are shown inFig.2.
Somelight bed jointreinforcement was
to be includedinthe panels to enhance
the integrity ofthe wall under acddental
loads.
Theconcrete base was designed to
resist the appliedmoments from the piers
and to provide stabilityto the wall as a
whole.
Becausethere was to be nosignificant
intrusion intothe footpath - thus requiring
minimal reinstatment afterwards - the
foundations to the reinforced brick piers
wereextended to the rear ofthe wall to
provide the necessary stability.
CONCRETECAPI'lNG_ ,r-- ..,
STAINLESS STEEL '--1:0.1..1
MESH IN BED JOINTS -L..-4-
TOP. BOTTOM AND
MIDDlE OFWo\ll
A142MESHIN BASE 2112INWALLFOOTING
B B
MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The brick chosenwas a Waingroves
Muirfield Mixture Rustic - a dense
engineering brick suppliedby Butterley Brick.
Limited. Thenature ofthis brick is such
that bothsides ofthe wall could be
constructedto a fair-face finish. Thebrick
strength and water absorptionconformed
to the BS 3921 requirement fora Class A
Engineering Brick.
Consequently noOPC was necessaryat
the base ofthe wall sincea Class Aor B
brick provides a suitableOPC forfree -
standingwalls. Structurally this is
important With the momentfixity
available from a brickwork OPC the base of
the wall panel can be regardedas a
continuousedge. This reducesthe design
moment inthe centreofthe wall, hence
leadingto economy.
Themortar usedwas designation (i) -
a 1:3 cement: sand mix. Thedensest and
most durableofthe normal building
mortars,it isappropriateforthis form of
construction wherea thin, halfbrick wall
is exposedtothe rainfrom bothsides and
hencemaybesubject tofrostwhile
saturated. To lessenthe possibility oflime
staining(theleeching offree lime from the
Ag. 3.
mortarwithin unprotectedbrickwork
duringwet conditions) the mortar
purposely contained nolime. Aproper
coping placedona OPC was considered to
be essentialat the head ofthe wall to
protect the brickwork from water
percolating downwards ifa longmainten-
ance-free serviceable life is to be achieved.
The bed jointreinforcement was
spedfiedas stainlesssteel sincethe
author was not convinced that galvanized
mild steel would remain free ofcorrosion
ina situationwherethe coveris only
12mm. Furthermore, it is normal practice
tofind that the reinforcement is laiddry
ontop ofa courseand then mortar placed
ontop ofit - irrespective ofwhat the
spedfication calls for. This leads tothe
steel not beingtotallysurrounded and
embeddedinthe mortar and this leaves it
moreproneto corrosion. The use of
stainlesssteel inthis situationis now
required to conform withthe requirements
ofBS 5628Part 2 and Part 3.The major
reinforcement containedinthe pierswas
considered well protectedand ordinary
highyield steel reinforcement was
spedfiedhere.

T

tt---------'

J I--- - - - - - - ------i
MOVEMENT JOINT DESIGN

Normally, inwalling, movement joints are

positioned at 10 to 12m centres. Since the
brickwork is exposedon both sides and
the wall thicknessis one halfbrick
(102.Smm) it was felt that the thermal
changesmaybe particularly significant.
Although the useofbed joint reinforcement
is consideredtorestrainthe expansive
longtermmoisture movement ofbrick-
worksomewhat, it was nonetheless
decided to position the movementjoints
at approximately 8mcentres whichalso
suitedthe planofthe wall as influenced by
structural considerations. The maximum
movement which wouldreasonably be
expectedto occurat the jointwouldbe of
the order ofS/6mm, thus a 12mm joint
widthwas spedfied.

STRUCTURAL DESIGN
COSTINGS
CONSTRUCTION
Thebreakdownofcosts applicable to the
boundary wall was as follows:

When spedal situations prevail, the use of

reinforced brickwork inboundary walls
caneffect worthwhile economies. Half
brick thickwalls can be made to span
considerable distances ifsupported on 3
edges;the horizontal distance between
vertical supporting piersor buttresses
may be increasedfurther bythe use ofbed
joint reinforcement. (See BS 5628 Parts 1
and 2 forthe designofsuch panels).
As in this case some nominal bed joint
reinforcement is thought desirableinwalls
over about 1.2mhighto enhance the
overall integrityofconstructionand to
copewith 'accidental events'.
However as withall designit is
important to ensure that the material
spedficationand detailsare alsocarefully
considered. While the strength
requirementswerean area ofobvious
importanceinthe design, the nature ofthe
projectwas such that other material
properties- Le, frost resistanceofthe brick
and the mortar - wereofequal importance
if a sound longtermsolutionto the brief
wereto be achieved.
Finally, it isthe author's viewthat
unreinforced masonryfreestandingwalls
will continue to be used as a popular,
straight-forward solutionto the majority of
screenwalls. Thef1exiblity ofmasonry
bonding, however, and its abilityto
accomodatereinforcement can be used to
great advantage to provide a sound
economicsolutionwhen particular
constraints are present inthe brief.
CONCLUSIONS
reinforcement wouldbe avoidedand a
slight reductioninthe sizeofexcavations
be effected, such savingswouldnot
outweigh the extra cost oflabour and
materials. Using the Small Works Section
ofthe Building PriceBook, comparative
"base" pricesforthe reinforced - and a
suitable unreinforced - solutionshowthe
former to be 27%cheaper than the latter.
Of course, both cost figures generated by
the Price Book, exceedthe final cost ofthe
wall as constructed but it is believed that
the cost savingratiowouldhave been
similar. Thereinforced solution, therefore,
can be seen to be both technically sound
and economically viableforthe design
briefgiven.
1588.00
1223.00
704.00
211.00
3726.00(Ex VAT)
Design Data:
Brick: Crushing Strength80 N/mm
2
WaterAbs. 2-5%
1:3 sand:cement mix
Grade 25 to CP110
Basic windspeed 40m/sec.
Mortar:
Concrete:
Windload:
Thelight bed jointreinforcement was
'Bricktor' hightensilestainless steel, -
75mmwide.
An unreinforced wall to achievethe same
performance wouldbe expectedto use
about twicethe quantity ofbricks used in
this design. Even though the cost of
No particular difficulties werefoundwith
the construction. However, a few minor
points are worthyofnote.
(i) Stainless steel bedjointreinforcement,
although available, is not widely enough
used to be a stockitemat many Builders'
Merchants. Arrangements to supply this
weremade well inadvance.
(ii) Forthiswall a spedal copingwas made
whichfittedoverthe thickness ofthe wall
to ensure stabilitywith a correct overhang
and drip. It was placedovera dpc.
Thebricklaying was done by a normal
3 man gang. Although the use of
reinforcement inbrickwork inthis way
was newto themthey wereable to
construct the wall without difficulty
including handlingand fixing steel and
groutingthe steel inposition. Since free-
standing walls relyon goodmortar bond
to achieve structural stabilityit was
consideredessential to ensure that no
unapprovedadditiveswereallowed inthe
mortar and that all bed jointsand perpend
joints werefully filled.
Labour
Bricks
OtherMaterial
Equipment Hire

1, Deslgn Load.
p. - 0.5 kN/m' x 2 x 1.2 x 1.2
- 1.4 kN/m
Po = 1/ 2 x O. 33 x 20 x 11' x 1.6
- 6.4kN/m
CALCULATIONS
A - (2 x 2) +0.33 x 2 - 4.66m'
@ 0.5 kN/m' Therefore: LOAD - 2.33 kN
Therefore:
M
d
- (2.33 x (2 x 2/3 + 0.6) x 1.2)
- 5.4 kN.m/m
SecTiON
SecTiONTHRO' IlETAlNING WALL
<t.
330
Say lever arm - 0.9 x 2 - 149mm
I. I I_ ,I
330/2 330/2
SECTION THRO'
COlUMN THUS:
,----...,."
t1!t1
z
M _ 10' _ 36.3 kN
Therefore: 36 3 10' 115
A,REQD= . x x .
460
Use 1NO 112 - 113mm'
x x

3. Wind Panel.
UseA98 MESH (A, - 98mm' /m.)
Say lever arm = 0.95 x 150
= 143mm
- 0.17 N/mm'
= 1.77 x 1()6 (mm' /m) - 1/61000 x 103'
0.31 x 1()6
1.77 x 1()6
Z
M
z
"I, - 1.2 ; "Im- 3.5
W. - 0.5 kN/m'
- 0.35
h/L _ 0.50 Therefore: IX = 0.032
M - ex YrW
k
.l 2
- 0.032 x 1.2 x 0.5 x 4'
- 0.31 kN.m/m
AS TYPE D: BS5623 ParI 1.
FOR GROUTED
CAVITY WAll THUS:
...m
l00mm
M
u
= p. ( 2/2 + 1.1) +Po H/3
- 5.2 kN.m/m

36 x 10' x 1.15
'" eq 460
- 9Omm
2
/m

SHADED AREA = LOADTOREINFORCED BRICKWORK

COlUMN.
f.. 41EQD = 0.17 x 3.5 - 0.61 N/mm'

i
I
i
.
I
+----
I
I
I I
330mm
FOR BRICK OFWATER ABS < 7'1>
and In 1:1/4:3 MORTAR
I.. - 2.0 N/mm' > 0,6 N/mm'
Therefore: OK
Include some bed Joint reinforcement to assist
Integrity. (Accldenlal Damage and ResistThermal!
Moisture Expansion).
Concrete bases to suit ground condirlons and
for no tension under moment condlrlons.
It will be noled from Table 3 of BS 5628 Part 1
that ANYbrick would have been sarlsfactory. The
high strength In this case Is coincidental following
the aestherlc choice of the brick.
The Association would be interested to hear. from Engineers or Architects. of projects which they
consider worthy of inclusion in The BDA Engineers' FileNote Series . All initial submissions should
contain reference to the particular area of the design which, it is considered. would be of interest to
the design profession as a whole. All enquiries should be addressed to The Technical Editor.
JMorton B5cPhDCEng MICE MICeramMlnstM.
The views expressed in this FileNote are those of the Authors. Readers are expressly advised that they
do not necessarily reflect the views of the Association.
Todemonstrate the initial engineering decisions taken. scheme calculations have been included in the
Note. They are NOT intended to be full and detailed calculations and they should NOT be read as such.
THE ENGINEERS FILE NOTES SERIES BINDER
Aspecially designed binder has been produced to hold the FileNote series and is available from the
Promotional Manager, the BrickDevelopment Association,
woodside House, Winkfield, Windsor, Berkshire SL42DX.
Please enclose 2.50 remittance per binder to cover post and packing.
Readersare adVised that, whilst thecontentsof Hilspubbcauonart' beheved to besccurete. COI"red andcomplete. norelianceshould be placed uponits
conte-nls as bei"8appbcabletoanypIIrticularcirc\oImstanus Anyadvn, opinion Of llIformauoncont.tmed 15 publishedonfyonthe footi"i that thl!' Brick
Association, its servanlsor agentsandall contl1butorsto this pubiKalion shan beundft nobability whatSOl!'Yer In respectofitScontents
D6tgned andProducedforIhI!'Brick DewIopmml Association
W:Jodside House, Winkfield. Windsor. 51..4 2DX wltIkMId Row103441885651 byFrank Wllter Dnign Umitrd
C TheBriCk DNelopiltill Assodll bon