E N G I N E E R S F I L E N O T E N O . 7 .

7
Published by the Brick Development Association
January 1988

A REINFORCED
BRICKWORK FREESTANDING
B O U N D A R Y WALL
By G.D. Johnson B Eng(Tech) PhD MICeram MIStructE C. Eng.
Consulting Engineer, Hertford.

This File Note describes the design and in perhaps too many instances, are not
construction of a "simple" garden wall designed by structural engineers.
- a project which cost less than £4,000. Secondly the File Note describes how
Nonethelesss, it is interesting for at least tight cost constraints were fulfilled by
two reasons. Firstly freestanding walls, adopting a reinforced solution.

--``,,`,,,,``,`,,,,,,```,`,`,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright Brick Development Association

Provided by Accuris Licensee=EGNIOL ENVIRONMENTAL LTD/7147483001, User=Booth, Colin
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from Accuris Not for Resale, 11/24/2023 08:38:54 MST
 Fig. 1.

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 principles. 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. A wall
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. A further 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.
Copyright Brick Development Association
Provided by Accuris Licensee=EGNIOL ENVIRONMENTAL LTD/7147483001, User=Booth, Colin
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from Accuris Not for Resale, 11/24/2023 08:38:54 MST
 S T R U C T U R A L D E S I G N C O N S I D E R A T I O N S

The brick chosen to complement the grouted cavity section was used. Typical
existing brickwork was in the upper half of sections are shown in Fig.2.
the price spectrum. It was obviously Some light bed joint reinforcement was
important to keep costs to a minimum and to be included in the panels to enhance
it was decided to construct the wall, as far the integrity of the wall under accidental
as possible, as a single leaf wall,supported loads.
at intervals by piers. The piers required to The concrete base was designed to
be on the garden elevation so as to leave a resist the applied moments from the piers
smooth side adjacent to the footpath. and to provide stability to the wall as a
Further economy of materials could be whole.
made by adopting a reinforced brickwork Because there was to be no significant
section for the piers. Thus for the intrusion into the footpath - thus requiring
freestanding wall all brickwork could be minimal reinstatment afterwards - the
constructed as a single skin of stretcher foundations to the reinforced brick piers
bond with intermediate 327.5mm square were extended to the rear of the wall to
hollow piers. At sections where the wall is provide the necessary stability.
called upon to retain soil, a reinforced

CONCRETE CAPPING
DPC

DPC

GARDEN STAINLESS STEEL

MESH IN BED JOINTS
TOR BOTTOM AND
MIDDLE OF WALL

GARDEN
A98 MESH

PUBLIC FOOTPATH
1000

1 N ° T12 BAR

CONCRETE BASE
300

A142 MESH

Fig. 2. A142 MESH IN BASE 2T12 IN WALL FOOTING

AA BB
--``,,`,,,,``,`,,,,,,```,`,`,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright Brick Development Association

Provided by Accuris Licensee=EGNIOL ENVIRONMENTAL LTD/7147483001, User=Booth, Colin
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from Accuris Not for Resale, 11/24/2023 08:38:54 MST
 MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The brick chosen was a Waingroves mortar within unprotected brickwork
Muirfield Mixture Rustic - a dense during wet conditions) the mortar
engineering brick supplied by Butterley Brick. purposely contained no lime. A proper
Limited. The nature of this brick is such coping placed on a DPC was considered to
that both sides of the wall could be be essential at the head of the wall to
constructed to a fair - face finish. The brick protect the brickwork from water
strength and water absorption conformed percolating downwards if a long mainten-
to the BS 3921 requirement for a Class A ance-free serviceable life is to be achieved.
Engineering Brick. The bed joint reinforcement was
Consequently no DPC was necessary at specified as stainless steel since the
the base of the wall since a Class A or B author was not convinced that galvanized
brick provides a suitable DPC for free - mild steel would remain free of corrosion
standing walls. Structurally this is in a situation where the cover is only
important. With the moment fixity 12mm. Furthermore, it is normal practice
available from a brickwork DPC the base of to find that the reinforcement is laid dry
the wall panel can be regarded as a on top of a course and then mortar placed
continuous edge. This reduces the design on top of it - irrespective of what the
moment in the centre of the wall, hence specification calls for. This leads to the
leading to economy. steel not being totally surrounded and
The mortar used was designation (i) - embedded in the mortar and this leaves it
a 1:3 cement: sand mix. The densest and more prone to corrosion. The use of
most durable of the normal building stainless steel in this situation is now
mortars, it is appropriate for this form of required to conform with the requirements
construction where a thin, half brick wall of BS 5628 Part 2 and Part 3. The major
is exposed to the rain from both sides and reinforcement contained in the piers was
hence may be subject to frost while considered well protected and ordinary
saturated. To lessen the possibility of lime high yield steel reinforcement was
staining (the leeching of free lime from the specified here.

Fig. 3. 1200
700

1 N° T12 BAR IN
(PEA GRAVEL) INFILL CONCRETE
327.5
200
327.5
500

200

PLAN ON PIER

1200

MASTIC POINTING +
1200

SOFT BACKING

12mm

DOUBLE PIER AT MOVEMENT JOINT

--``,,`,,,,``,`,,,,,,```,`,`,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright Brick Development Association

Provided by Accuris Licensee=EGNIOL ENVIRONMENTAL LTD/7147483001, User=Booth, Colin
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from Accuris Not for Resale, 11/24/2023 08:38:54 MST
 M O V E M E N T JOINT D E S I G N

Normally, in walling, movement joints are work somewhat, it was nonetheless

positioned at 10 to 12m centres. Since the
brickwork is exposed on both sides and
the wall thickness is one half brick
(102.5mm) it was felt that the thermal
changes may be particularly significant.
Although the use of bed joint reinforcement
is considered to restrain the expansive
long term moisture movement of brick-
--``,,`,,,,``,`,,,,,,```,`,`,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
decided to position the movement joints
at approximately 8m centres which also
suited the plan of the wall as influenced by
structural considerations. The maximum
movement which would reasonably be
expected to occur at the joint would be of
the order of 5/6mm, thus a 12mm joint
width was specified.

Copyright Brick Development Association

Provided by Accuris Licensee=EGNIOL ENVIRONMENTAL LTD/7147483001, User=Booth, Colin
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from Accuris Not for Resale, 11/24/2023 08:38:54 MST
 STRUCTURAL
Design Data:
Brick: Crushing Strength 80 N/mm2
Water Abs. 2-5%
Mortar: 1:3 sand:cement mix
Concrete: Grade 25 to CP110
Windload: Basic windspeed 40m/sec.
The light bed joint reinforcement was
'Bricktor' high tensile stainless steel, -
75mm wide.
CONSTRUCTION
No particular difficulties were found with
the construction. However, a few minor
points are worthy of note.
(i) Stainless steel bedjoint reinforcement,
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) For this wall a special coping was made
which fitted over the thickness of the wall
to ensure stability with a correct overhang
and drip. It was placed over a dpc.
The bricklaying 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 handling and fixing steel and
grouting the steel in position. Since free-
standing walls rely on good mortar bond
to achieve structural stability it was
considered essential to ensure that no
unapproved additives were allowed in the
mortar and that all bed joints and perpend
--``,,`,,,,``,`,,,,,,```,`,`,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
joints were fully filled.
COSTINGS
The breakdown of costs applicable to the
boundary wall was as follows:
Labour
Bricks
Other Material
Equipment Hire
An unreinforced wall to achieve the same
performance would be expected to use
about twice the quantity of bricks used in
this design. Even though the cost of
Copyright Brick Development Association
Provided by Accuris
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from Accuris
DESIGN reinforcement would be avoided and a
slight reduction in the size of excavations
be effected, such savings would not
outweigh the extra cost of labour and
materials. Using the Small Works Section
of the Building Price Book, comparative
"base" prices for the 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, exceed the final cost of the
wall as constructed but it is believed that
the cost saving ratio would have been
similar. The reinforced solution, therefore,
can be seen to be both technically sound
and economically viable for the design
brief given.
CONCLUSIONS
When special situations prevail, the use of
reinforced brickwork in boundary walls
can effect worthwhile economies. Half
brick thick walls can be made to span
considerable distances if supported on 3
edges; the horizontal distance between
vertical supporting piers or buttresses
may be increased further by the use of bed
joint reinforcement. (See BS 5628 Parts 1
and 2 for the design of such panels).
As in this case some nominal bed joint
reinforcement is thought desirable in walls
over about 1.2m high to enhance the
overall integrity of construction and to
cope with 'accidental events'.
However as with all design it is
important to ensure that the material
specification and details are also carefully
considered. While the strength
requirements were an area of obvious
importance in the design, the nature of the
project was such that other material
properties - i.e. frost resistance of the brick
and the mortar - were of equal importance
if a sound long term solution to the brief
were to be achieved.
Finally, it is the author's view that
£1588.00 unreinforced masonry freestanding walls
£1223.00 will continue to be used as a popular,
£704.00 straight-forward solution to the majority of
£211.00 screen walls. The flexiblity of masonry
£3726.00(ExVAT) bonding, however, and its ability to
accomodate reinforcement can be used to
great advantage to provide a sound
economic solution when particular
constraints are present in the brief.
Licensee=EGNIOL ENVIRONMENTAL LTD/7147483001, User=Booth, Colin
Not for Resale, 11/24/2023 08:38:54 MST
 CALCULATIONS
1. Design Loads A = (2 x 2) + 0.33 x 2 = 4.66m 2
@ 0.5 kN/m 2 Therefore: LOAD = 2.33 kN
Pw = 0.5 kN/m 2 x 2 x 1.2 x 1.2 Therefore:
= 1.4 kN/m M d = (2.33 x (2 x 2/3 + 0.6) x 1.2)
= 5.4 kN.m/m
Pa = 1 / 2 x 0 . 3 3 x 2 0 x 1 . 1 2 x 1 . 6
= 6.4 kN/m
SECTION

SECTION THRO' RETAINING WALL

Say lever arm = 0.9 x = 149mm

SECTION THRO'
= 36.3 kN COLUMN THUS:

Therefore:
As REQD =

= 91 m m 2

Use 1 N° T12 =113mm 2

3. Wind Panels

--``,,`,,,,``,`,,,,,,```,`,`,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---
M xx = PW (2/2 + 1.1) + Pa 1.1/3
= 5.2 kN.m/m

Say lever arm = 0.95 x 150 FOR GROUTED

= 143mm CAVITY WALL THUS:

AS TYPE D. BS 5623 Part 1.

= 36kN

Therefore:
As Reqd =

= 90mm7m

Use A98 MESH (As = 98mm 2 /m.)

Z = 1 / 6 1000 x 1032 = 1.77 x 106 ( m m 3 / m )

2. Reinforced Brickwork
= 0.17 N / m m 2

SHADED AREA = LOAD TO REINFORCED BRICKWORK

COLUMN. *fkx REQD = 0.17 x 3.5 = 0.61 N / m m 2

FOR BRICK OF WATER ABS < 7%

a n d in 1:1/4:3 MORTAR

fkx = 2.0 N / m m 2 > 0.6 N / m m 2

Therefore: OK

Include s o m e b e d joint reinforcement to assist

integrity. (Accidental D a m a g e a n d Resist Thermal/
Moisture Expansion).
Concrete bases to suit g r o u n d conditions a n d
for no tension under m o m e n t conditions.
* It will be noted from Table 3 of BS 5628 Part 1
that ANY brick would have b e e n satisfactory. The
2.0m 2.0m high strength in this case is coincidental following
330mm the aesthetic choice of the brick.

Copyright Brick Development Association

Provided by Accuris Licensee=EGNIOL ENVIRONMENTAL LTD/7147483001, User=Booth, Colin
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from Accuris Not for Resale, 11/24/2023 08:38:54 MST
 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.
J Morton BSc PhD CEng MICE MICeram MInstM.
The views expressed in this File Note are those of the Authors. Readers are expressly advised that they
do not necessarily reflect the views of the Association.
To demonstrate 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.

T H E E N G I N E E R S F I L E N O T E S S E R I E S B I N D E R
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.

Readers are expressly advised that, whilst the contents of this publication are believed to be accurate, correct and complete, no reliance should be placed upon its
contents as being applicable to any particular circumstances Any advice, opinion or information contained is published only on the footing that the Brick
Development Association, its servants or agents and all contributors to this publication shall be under no liability whatsoever in respect of its contents.

Designed and Produced for the Brick Development Association

Woodside House, Winkfield. Windsor, Berkshire SL4 2DX Telephone: Winkfield Row (0344) 885651 by Frank Walter Design Limited
--``,,`,,,,``,`,,,,,,```,`,`,,``-`-`,,`,,`,`,,`---

Copyright Brick Development Association © The Brick Development Association.

Provided by Accuris Licensee=EGNIOL ENVIRONMENTAL LTD/7147483001, User=Booth, Colin
No reproduction or networking permitted without license from Accuris Not for Resale, 11/24/2023 08:38:54 MST