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

ENGINEERS FILE NOTE NO .7 . CISfB' I

I (21.9) I FG2
I
I
7

• Published by the Brick Development Association

January 1988

A REINFORCED
BRICKWORK FREESTANDING
BOUNDARY WALL
By G.D. Johnson B Eng(Tech) phD MICeram MIStruetE 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 fulfilled by
adopting a reinforced solution.

•
 Fig. 1.

A
""/--
1....
--.. -..... __
-- -- -.l'-_
B
•
-- -- - --c:
- - -... -... l. -...-.....

INTRODUCTION
Brick boundary 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.

BRIEF
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 in the upper halfof
the pricespectrum. It was obviously
important to keep costs to a minimumand
it was dedded to construct the wall, as far
as possible. as a singleleafwall,supported
at intervals by piers.The piers required to
be on the garden elevation so as to leave a
smooth side adjacent to the footpath.
Further economy ofmaterialscould be
made by adopting a reinforced brickwork
section for the piers. Thusfor the
freestanding wall allbrickwork couldbe
constructed as a singleskin ofstretcher
bond with intermediate 327.5mmsquare
hollow piers. At sections where the wall is
calledupon to retain soil, a reinforced
•
• STAINLESS STEEL ' --1:0.1..1
CONCRETE BASE
A142 MESH
•
Ag. 2.
AA
grouted cavitysection was used. Typical
sections are shown in Fig.2.
Somelight bed jointreinforcement was
to be includedin the panels to enhance
the integrity ofthe wall under acddental
loads.
Theconcrete base was designed to
resist the applied moments from the piers
and to provide stability to the wall as a
whole.
Becausethere was to be no significant
intrusion into the footpath - thus requiring
minimal reinstatment afterwards - the
foundations to the reinforced brick piers
were extended to the rear ofthe wall to
provide the necessary stability.
CONCRETECAPI'lNG_ ,r -- ..,
MESH IN BED JOINTS -L..-4-
TOP. BOTTOM AND
MIDDlE OF Wo\ll
A142MESH IN BASE 2112IN WALL FOOTING
BB
 MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The brick chosenwas a Waingroves
Muirfield Mixture Rustic - a dense
engineering brick suppliedby Butterley Brick.
Limited.Thenature ofthis brick is such
that both sides 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 no OPC was necessaryat
the base ofthe wall sincea Class Aor B
brick provides a suitableOPC forfree -
standing walls. 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
momentin the centre ofthe wall, hence
leadingto economy.
Themortar used was 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 exposedto the rainfrom both sides and
hence may be subjectto frostwhile
saturated. To lessen the possibility oflime
staining(the leeching offree lime from the
Ag. 3.
T
~
t
§
t---------'
J I--- - - - - - - ------i
mortarwithin unprotected brickwork
duringwet conditions) the mortar
purposely contained no lime. Aproper
coping placedon a 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
spedfied as stainlesssteel sincethe
author was not convinced that galvanized
mild steelwould remain free ofcorrosion
in a situationwherethe coveris only
12mm. Furthermore, it is normal practice
to find that the reinforcement is laiddry
on top ofa courseand then mortar placed
on top ofit - irrespective ofwhat the
spedfication calls for. This leads to the
•
steel not beingtotallysurrounded and
embedded in the mortar and this leaves it
moreproneto corrosion. The use of
stainlesssteel in this situation is now
required to conform with the requirements
ofBS 5628 Part 2 and Part 3.The major
reinforcement containedin the pierswas
considered well protectedand ordinary
highyield steel reinforcement was
spedfied here.
 MOVEMENT JOINT DESIGN
Normally, in walling, movement joints are worksomewhat, it was nonetheless

• 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
changesmay be particularly significant.
Although the use ofbed joint reinforcement
is consideredto restrain the expansive
longterm moisture movement ofbrick-
decided to position the movementjoints
at approximately 8m centres whichalso
suited the plan ofthe 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
Design Data:
Brick:
Mortar:
Crushing Strength 80 N/mm 2
WaterAbs. 2-5%
1:3 sand:cement mix
Concrete: Grade 25 to CP110
Windload: Basic windspeed 40m/sec.
Thelight bed jointreinforcement was
'Bricktor' high tensilestainless steel, -
75mmwide.
CONSTRUCTION
No particular difficulties werefound with
the construction. However, a few minor
points are worthy ofnote.
(i) Stainless steel bedjointreinforcement,
although available, is not widely enough
used to be a stock item at many Builders'
Merchants. Arrangements to supply this
were made well in advance.
(ii) Forthis wall a spedal copingwas made
whichfitted overthe thickness ofthe wall
to ensure stabilitywith a correct overhang
and drip. Itwas placedovera dpc.
Thebricklaying was done by a normal
3 man gang. Although the use of
reinforcement in brickwork in this way
was new to them they were able to
construct the wall without difficulty
including handlingand fixing steel and
groutingthe steel in position. Since free-
standing walls relyon good mortar bond
to achieve structural stabilityit was
consideredessential to ensure that no
unapproved additiveswere allowed in the
mortar and that all bed jointsand perpend
joints werefully filled.
COSTINGS
Thebreakdown ofcosts applicable to the
boundary wall was as follows:
Labour £1588.00
Bricks £1223.00
OtherMaterial £704.00
Equipment Hire £211.00
£3726.00(Ex VAT)
An unreinforced wall to achievethe same
performance would be expected to use
about twicethe quantity ofbricks used in
this design. Even though the cost of
reinforcement would be avoidedand a
slightreduction in the size ofexcavations
be effected, such savings would not
outweigh the extra cost oflabour and
materials. Using the Small Works Section
ofthe Building PriceBook, comparative
"base" pricesforthe reinforced - and a
suitable unreinforced - solution show the
•
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 savingratio wouldhave been
similar. Thereinforced solution, therefore,
can be seen to be both technically sound
and economically viableforthe design
briefgiven.
CONCLUSIONS
•
When spedal situations prevail, the use of
reinforced brickwork in boundary walls
can effect 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 by the use ofbed
joint reinforcement. (See BS 5628 Parts 1
and 2 forthe design ofsuch panels).
As in this case some nominal bed joint
reinforcement is thought desirable in walls
over about 1.2m high to enhance the
overall integrityofconstructionand to
copewith 'accidental events'.
However as with all design it is
important to ensure that the material
spedfication and details are also carefully
considered. While the strength
requirementswere an area ofobvious
importancein the design, the nature ofthe
projectwas such that other material
•
properties- Le, frost resistance ofthe brick
and the mortar - were ofequal importance
if a sound longterm solutionto the brief
were to be achieved.
Finally, it is the author's view that
unreinforced masonry freestanding walls
will continue to be used as a popular,
straight-forward solutionto the majority of
screen walls.Thef1exiblity ofmasonry
bonding, however, and its abilityto
accomodatereinforcement can be used to
great advantage to provide a sound
•
economicsolutionwhen particular
constraints are present in the brief.
 CALCULATIONS

• 1, Deslgn Load.

p. - 0.5 kN/m' x 2 x 1.2 x 1.2

- 1.4 kN/m
A - (2 x 2) + 0.33 x 2 - 4.66m'
@ 0.5 kN/m'
Therefore:
Therefore: LOAD - 2.33 kN

M d - (2.33 x (2 x 2/3 + 0.6) x 1.2)

- 5.4 kN.m/m
Po = 1/ 2 x O.33 x 20 x 11' x 1.6
- 6.4kN/m SecTiO N

SecTiON THRO' IlETAlNING WALL 330

Say lever arm - 0.9 x 2 - 149mm
<t. SECTION THRO'
M _ 5.~~ 10' _ 36.3 kN COlUMN THUS:
z ,----...,."

Therefore: 36 3 10' 115

A,REQD= . x
460
x .

t1!t1
I. I I_ ,I

•
x 330/2 330/2
x
Use 1NO 112 - 113m m'

3. Wind Panel.

M u = p. (2/2 + 1.1) + Po H/3

- 5.2 kN.m/m

Say lever arm = 0.95 x 150 FOR GROUTED

...
= 143mm CAVITY WAll THUS:

~l~
AS TYPE D: BS 5623 ParI 1.
m "I, - 1.2 ; "Im - 3.5
W. - 0.5 kN/m'
:h~ef~e~ 36 x 10' x 1.15
l00mm ~150-.l ~ - 0.35
'" eq 460 h/L _ 0.50 Therefore : IX = 0.032

- 9Omm2/m M - ex YrWk .l 2
- 0.032 x 1.2 x 0.5 x 4'
Use A98 MESH (A, - 98mm' /m.) - 0.31 kN.m/m

• 2.~_

SHADED AREA = LOADTO REINFORCED BRICKWORK

Z
M
z
- 1/61000 x 103'

0.31 x 1()6
1.77 x 1()6
= 1.77 x 1()6 (mm' /m)

- 0.17 N/mm'

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

FOR BRICK OF WATER ABS < 7'1>

and In 1:1/4:3 MORTAR

i I.. - 2.0 N/mm' > 0,6 N/mm'

I Therefore: OK

.i Include so me bed Joint reinforcement to assist

I Integrity. (Accldenlal Damage and ResistThermal!
+----
I
Moisture Expansion).
Concrete bases to suit ground condirlons and
I for no tension under moment condlrlons .

•
• It will be noled from Table 3 of BS 5628 Part 1
that ANY brick would have been sarlsfactory. The
I I high strength In this case Is coincidental following
330mm 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' File Note 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 B5cPhD CEng 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.
To demonstrate the initia l engineering decisions ta ken. 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

A specially designed binder has been produced to hold the File Note series and is available from the
Promotional Manager, the Brick Development Association,
woodside House, Winkfield, Windsor, Berkshire SL4 2DX.

•
Please enclose £2.50 remittance per binder to cover post and packing.

Readersare e xpr~sly adVised that, whilst the contentsof Hilspubbcauon art' beheved to besccurete. COI"red and complete. noreliance should be placed upon its
conte-nls as bei"8appbcable to any pIIrticularcirc\oImstanus Anyadvn, opinion Of llIformauoncont.tmed 15 publishedonfyon the footi"i that thl!' Brick
~Iopment Association, its servanlsor agents and all contl1butorsto this pubiKalion shan beundft nobability whatSOl!'Yer In respectof itScontents

D6tgned and ProducedforIhI!'Brick DewIopmml Association

W:Jodside House, Winkfield. Windsor. ~kshlre 51..4 2DX ~: w ltIkMId Row103441885651 by Frank Wllter Dnign Umitrd
C The BriCk DNelopiltill Assodll bon