Removing some bricks from the outer skin of our cavity wall we discovered wall appears to be continuous runs of metal wire every few courses:
They look to be very similar gauge to the wall ties and so I am assuming they are performing a similar role, albeit laterally within the same wall as opposed to between each leaf. If this the case, why?
Apologies for the misleading subject; they are not rods but rather ~3mm diameter wires.
Looks like it must be some sort of reinforcing. But I've not seen it done in that way - and and struggling to see why they would one a lower course. On the top of a wall, I could see some point.
The lower thingy is of course a wall tie to the block skin.
Yes, and I think I've now found what appears to be what it is:
To quote: 'Where large format masonry units are stacked one above the other , the lack of bonding between them will greatly reduce the overall flexural strength of the panel and the ability of the wall to spread vertical loads . The use of Ancon reinforcement referenced AMR/S/D3.5/W60 is normally reco mmended at vertical centres no greater than 300mm, usually every course or every other course depending on the height of the masonry unit.'
As you can see from this picture I do indeed have 225mm high bricks in the wall:
Those look like sandstone 'bricks' which the local planning dept probably insisted on.
If that wall is going to be an internal wall and removed after an RSJ is inserted, you might as well try and remove them without damage. They are probably worth more than humble bricks and could be re-used to build your new outer wall skin.
Yes; that's the plan. If you notice on
My architect suggested using several courses of embedded expanded metal as having a load bearing performance similar to an RSJ. I actually used an RSJ but the idea stuck:-)
>Mathew Newton used his keyboard to write :
As a very amateur brick layer, decades ago, I built a brick BBQ. It didn't survive use and heat for long, before the upper bricks began to loosen. So I decided to rebuild it with some wire reinforcing between the course. That then lasted for decades until I decided we no longer had a use for it. It took a considerable amount of effort to demolish it.
I looked hard at those french doors and windows and wondered why they were 'inset' :-)
Don't quite follow. Was this spanning a gap? The usual use for expanded metal is to provide a key and some strength for rendering. Is that several layers of expanded metal in one layer of muck, or several brick courses each reinforced with a single layer? I can see that providing
*some* strength, but not really being a substitute for an RSJ.
The question arose over supporting a studwork gable over double garage doors. There is a central pier so I suppose the spans would have been around 8'0".
Each course reinforced. Top in compression, bottom tension.
We have a horizontal brick *arch* in the farmhouse with no visible strengthening. Used as a dairy at some time so wide enough to get the milk cart in. Look like Flettons so perhaps not that old. Pre-war to my knowledge.
>
So there is also a door-frame underneath the bottom course, providing some support? That does make a lot of difference.
Our local Victorian brewery has a stone roof to the cellar which has a very flat arch, I keep meaning to measure the ratio but to me it looks flatter than Brunel's brick railway bridge at Maidenhead.
There would have been but I chickened out and used an RSJ:-)
Umm.. I suppose you don't need much arch if the ends can't move.
but, does it have the span?
Well thank goodness for that. Intermittent Rod is bad enough, never mind continuous.
That's the important thing. There's a row of teraced houses near me, probably 1880's. They all have full height front bays with brick pillar corners and fairly shallow arched brickwork over the windows. Not surprisingly, all the arches are patched up with mortar repairs, because they just push the brick pillars outwards. They work fine when the wall either side provides substantial buttressing.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.