Brick Extending over Foundation beam wall

**Rick Hurst** · 01-04-2008, 07:58 PM

New home that has a curved wall on the rear of the den room had brick that was overhanging the foundation wall has me questioning whether it is excessive or not?

The lower course of brick has been installed end outward I think for a better appearance. These bricks I assume had to be broken off or cut to install as such.

Does this in your opinion have the risk of possible movement or stability issues with the above bricks?

Notice the nice "parge" coat on the foundation.

Thanks in Advance.

rick

Similar Threads:

Donald Merritt · 01-04-2008, 08:41 PM

Somebody forgot the brick ledge. The brickwork will move over time. I would write up and recommend that a brick ledge be installed for the brickwork.

Don Merritt

**Jerry Peck** · 01-04-2008, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by Rick Hurst

New home that has a curved wall on the rear of the den room had brick that was overhanging the foundation wall has me questioning whether it is excessive or not?

I would say yes, because masonry units are required to be fully bedded in mortar, which means the bed must be fully on the support, with the brick fully in the mortar bed.

The lower course of brick has been installed end outward I think for a better appearance.

Like the row locks in the window sill above. The bricks were installed that way so they could make the curve, little mortar space at the inside end of the row locks, more mortar space at the outside face of the wall.

Does this in your opinion have the risk of possible movement or stability issues with the above bricks?

Yes.

Because the exception to having the masonry units (bricks) fully bedded is corbeling, and corbeling requires a fully bedded first course then the wall thickness is maintained vertically up the inside face, with the wall getting thicker as the wall is corbeled out. This keeps the bricks from toppling over.

In the photo shown, it looks like row locks were laid, with the brick above laid on the ends of the row locks, which could cause the row locks to rotate and the wall to tip outward.

Are there weep holes in that brick?

**Rick Hurst** · 01-04-2008, 11:17 PM

Plenty of weep holes were present except with this curved area of the wall.

rick

**wayne soper** · 01-06-2008, 06:36 AM

Rick, Is that original equipmenet or sis they add a bay window? They meaning " Moe, Larry and Curley.

**Rolland Pruner** · 01-11-2008, 03:19 PM

I would report..The bick wianscot appears to not have sufficient support, this should be monitored in the comming years for movement. An allowance should be set aside for potential future repairs. It may be a good idea to contact the original installer (if possible) for further information if support is installed but not visible.

Another possible report.......The front brick wainscot does not appear to have sufficient support, I recommend having a brick mason evlaute and advise on and or if repairs are neded.

Rolland Pruner

**Eric Barker** · 01-13-2008, 11:10 AM

So, how do you guys deal with corbeled brick? Last I heard, it was allowed.

**Jerry Peck** · 01-13-2008, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Eric Barker

So, how do you guys deal with corbeled brick? Last I heard, it was allowed.

Eric,

Me thinks you may have missed something in the posts above ...

(I've added the underlining below.)

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Because the exception to having the masonry units (bricks) fully bedded is corbeling, and corbeling requires a fully bedded first course then the wall thickness is maintained vertically up the inside face, with the wall getting thicker as the wall is corbeled out. This keeps the bricks from toppling over.

The wall in that photo is not 'corbeled out', it is just 'set out part way', i.e., the first course is not fully bedded, leaving part of the wall unsupported and unbalanced.

**Michael Thomas** · 01-13-2008, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Because the exception to having the masonry units (bricks) fully bedded is corbeling, and corbeling requires a fully bedded first course then the wall thickness is maintained vertically up the inside face, with the wall getting thicker as the wall is corbeled out. This keeps the bricks from toppling over.

Jerry,

I'm a bit confused by that, all the examples I've seen of "corbelling" have a constant thickness wall with both an interior and exterior surface that "moves" in the direction of the corbelling. What am I missing here?

**Jerry Peck** · 01-13-2008, 06:21 PM

Michael,

From the Brick Institute of America: Technical Notes (scroll down to Fig. 8)

**Michael Thomas** · 01-14-2008, 09:01 AM

Humm... Looks like it may be a question of structural masonry vs. veneer walls. Also looks like many illustrations I've seen (like the one I posted above) are in incorrect.

Per the BIA at:

http://www.brickinfo.org/pdfs/Suppor...TOKEN=84881678

**Jerry Peck** · 01-14-2008, 09:09 AM

Michael,

Thanks for those, I also noted this on that page: (this contradicts ACI 530, which requires masonry to be fully bedded - except for corbelling, and this apparently lets the first course overhang its support by 1/3 ... as you said "Humm... ").

Recommended Bearing

The first course of brick should always have at least two-thirds (2/3) the thickness of the brick wythe (unit) bearing directly on its support. This keeps the weight of the brick masonry over the support. This limitation applies to foundations and shelf angles and is consistent with the corbelling requirements of the International Residential Code and International Building Code. Projecting more than one-third (1/3) the thickness of the brick wythe can lead to wall instability, cracking of the brick masonry and failure by collapse. Occasionally, the differing construction tolerances of various materials and errors in construction make achieving adequate bearing challenging.