Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: brick monuments

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Very true...there are clay masonry hollow units (brick actually kind of
implies a solid unit [to me at least], which is considered more than 75%
solid).  These would be somewhat like CMU units except that the material would be clay
masonry (what people commonly refer to as brick)...and the sizes/dimension
could be different.  There are not nearly as common as your standard solid
(cored or froggerd or actually 100% solid) clay masonry (aka brick) unit.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Paul Crocker wrote:

> Another option might be to use Kla-All or similar brick masonry unit.  They look like brick, but they can be grouted and reinforced like CMU.  I used them once to build a free-standing elevator tower next to another building.
>
> Paul Crocker, PE, SE
>
>
> >>> Scott Maxwell <smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu> 03/24/05 02:04AM >>>
> Mark,
>
> I will ask the dumb question...from a structural point of view
> (discounting things like water penetration/trapping of moisture, other
> architectural reasons, etc), is there really a need to put ANYTHING in the
> middle of the brick pier?  In otherwords, why not just do a hollow brick
> monument (i.e. a single width of brick with a 24"x24" hollow center)?
>
> A quick calc (unless I screwed something up - nah...can't happen <grin>)
> would seem to indicate that unreinforced brick under the worst case the
> MSJC (masonry cement or air entrained portland cement/line mortar that was
> type N) would result in an allowable surface pressure (i.e. wind pressure)
> on the momument of about 74 psf (this is based upon 9 psi allowable
> tension in the unreinforced, ungrouted masonry with "worst case" mortar
> per the MSJC).  This neglects the benefitial effect that you would get
> from the self-weight (which effectively increasing the allowable tensions
> stress by basically providing some "pre-compression"/prestressing force).
> I doubt that you will have a wind pressure that gets that high, and even a
> equivalent seismic load would be more than likely be lower that than 74
> psf.  And this assumes worst case mortar.  To do, really worst do a worst
> case, consider it as the above worst case but per the 97 UBC with no
> inspection.  The permitted value with full inspection is still 9 psi, but
> I believe per the 97 UBC if there is no inspection you use half the
> value...thus 4.5 psi.  If so, then you still end up with an allowable load
> of 37 psf.
>
> Now, your biggest problem will be overturning.  Since you are likely using
> solid brick or at best brick with cores, you likely will not be able to
> dowel the brick to the fountation with reinforcing if you do not provide
> anything in the center of monument.  But, this still checks out.  Using
> the maximum allowable load determined from above (74 psf) and checking
> against overturning due to self-weight resisting the overturning, you
> still end up with a FS of about 1.7.
>
> The point is that it seems that structurally you could get a hollow,
> unreinforced brick monument to work.
>
> Now, this does not account for whether or not code might require you to
> grout it solid (i.e. for seismic reasons) nor does it account for other
> reasons such as possible water intrusion and trapping or just a hollow
> "dead" spacing that could create other non-structural problems.
>
> If for what ever reason, you don't want to use the brick as the structural
> element (i.e. hollow, unreinforced), then I think Harold's suggestion is a
> good one...use a CMU core.  This leaves everything under one trade (other
> than the foundation).  Of course, you could do a reinforced concrete core
> that is formed (either as a square with wood or metal forms or maybe as a
> circle with sonotubes...although, I don't know if a sonotube form will
> hold a 8 ft column of wet concrete without blowing out since you will not
> have earth to help confine it unless it is "reinforced" in some
> manner)...this would be done by the same trade that does the foundation
> work most likely.  You could pontentially build up the hollow brick
> monument and then grout solid the inner core (with some bars in it that
> are dowelled into the foundation), but care would have to be taken with
> the grout mix (i.e. you may not want to use a typical masonry grout [i.e.
> really high slump] but instead use something more in between a masonry
> grout slump and a concrete slump).
>
> HTH,
>
> Scott
> Adrian, MI
>
>
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Mark Pemberton wrote:
>
> > Would there be any problem with using a hollow sonotube core?  I could reinforce the portion of concrete between the brick and sonotube (vertical bars at interior corners?) creating a boxbeam, and include brick ties extending into this grouted area.  This would reduce the amount of concrete fill by over 50% and no forming would be required.  Does anyone see any problems with this configuration?  Thanks.
> >
> > Mark Pemberton, S.E.
> > Pemberton Engineering
> > Davis, CA
> >
> > Harold Sprague <spraguehope(--nospam--at)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Build a 16" square CMU pedistal with cavity wall ladder reinforcement in the
> > bed joints. Check out Hohman and Bernard's web site
> > http://www.h-b.com/home/index.html. It is the same as the reinforcement you
> > would use for a standard cavity wall with 2" rigid insulation and 2" air gap
> > except you don't need the insulation. Do not forget the drainage and the
> > weeps. I prefer Mortar Net drainage and head joint weeps.
> > http://www.mortarnet.com/
> >
> > I do not liike to mix trades if possible. Everything should be installed by
> > the masonry trade above the foundation. Carpenter trade installs stud
> > walls.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Harold Sprague
> >
> > >From: Mark Pemberton
> > >Reply-To:
> > >To: SEAOC
> > >Subject: brick monuments
> > >Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:11:45 -0800 (PST)
> > >
> > >I'm doing some brick monuments that are about 32" square and 8' tall. I
> > >was thinking of doing a standard brick exterior and filling with reinforced
> > >concrete, but that seems overkill. I'm worried about using a metal stud
> > >wall framework because of some really cracked up site walls around here
> > >that used metal studs (although these used a stucco finish), and I'm not
> > >sure how to transfer the overturning with that configuration. Any
> > >suggestions?
> > >
> > >Mark P.
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
> > http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> >
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> > *
> > * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> > * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> > * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> > *
> > * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> > *
> > * Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> > * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> > * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> > * site at: http://www.seaint.org
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> >
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********