Garden red brick wall, crumbling :(

simpywimpy

Approx 5yrs ago I had part of my garden wall rebuilt but over time the brick itself is crumbling. A builder told me that it was the brick quality that was at fault.

As I can't remember who built the wall, could I complain to the brick company itself? I think it's Accrington red brick...

If not, is it something I could claim for on the insurance? Originally I thought it was something to do with the weather but the builder thinks not.

ormus

your contract is with the builder. unless you yourself bought the bricks direct?
re the insurance company, very few house insurance policies cover any garden items, fences, sheds and walls etc...

MX5huggy

It is to do with the weather, the bricks are unsuitable for that application in those conditions.

I think you will find that the brick maker will say the wrong bricks were used or installed incorrectly not that they are defective.

Tucker

For a wet wall of this type you have to use a 'full frost' rated brick (I think it's type F2). If you don't, it's no fault of the brick itself. You need to check the brick rating and see which type was used. If it was F2 then you could approach the manufacturer, but this sounds unlikely.

Otherwise, the person that chose to use those bricks has used one that is not suitable for full frost conditions. Take it up with the trader.

With none full frost brick, the moisture content the brick hold is higher. The moisture in the brick freezes and blows the front of the brick off.

Your only solution is to re-build with an F2 rated brick.

simpywimpy

Thanks tucker that is exactly what is happening At least I know for sure now what it is and what to look for when I have it redone.

Tucker

No problem.
I made the same mistake myself years ago when I did some small walls in the garden. The bricks at the very bottom were OK because the retaining earth stopped the temp in them getting too cold. The ones higher up and those retaining no earth ended up a real mess.

I've just had some brick walling put in as I'm redoing the garden. This time the brick used will survive severe frost conditions.

You live and you learn.... Just don't make a mistake twice is the important thing!

Plasterer

It could also be that the mortar used is too strong. When sand/cement mixes can be stronger than the brick itself water can get in behind and can't get back out and forces itself back out through the brick itself.
See picture



Notice with this wall that where the bricks have been "defaced" there apears to be PORTLAND cement mortar around these (dark pointing)

Where the "light/white" pointing is appears to have been pointed using a lime mortar (much softer and breathable) and these bricks appear in better condition as the water is allowed to come and go more freely through the mortar.
Cement has only been used a 100 years or so and you can see this problem in lots of builds within this period. The reason that ancient builds have stood the test of time is that lime is a far superior product for building (with regards to longevity) although sand/cement is quicker setting and you don't have to "faf" about with it like lime.

ormus

cement was used by the romans!

james parker invented a new cement he called roman cement in the 1780s.

modern cement really stems from john smeatons work on the eddystone lighthouse.
he needed a cement which would set within 12 hours. ie between the tides.
c1750. it was the first time anyone did proper engineering tests on various cement mixtures and formulas etc...

then there was james frosts british cement in the 1820s.
and finally portland cement slightly later.

Plasterer

ormus wrote: »

cement was used by the romans!

james parker invented a new cement he called roman cement in the 1780s.

modern cement really stems from john smeatons work on the eddystone lighthouse.
he needed a cement which would set within 12 hours. ie between the tides.
c1750. it was the first time anyone did proper engineering tests on various cement mixtures and formulas etc...

then there was james frosts british cement in the 1820s.
and finally portland cement slightly later.

It was portland I was refering to, sorry should have made my post clearer.
Roman Formula

The secret of Roman success in making cement was traced to the mixing of slaked lime with pozzolana, a volcanic ash from Mount Vesuvius. This process produced a cement capable of hardening under water. During the Middle Ages this art was lost and it was not until the scientific spirit of inquiry revived that we rediscovered the secret of hydraulic cement -- cement that will harden under water

Lime pits were passed down generation to generation with the romans and would never even be used for at least 3 years after slaking

Yep - sorry for the way i put my last post


Although portland cement had been gaining in popularity in Europe since 1850, it was not manufactured in the US until the 1870s. Probably the first plant to start production was that of David O. Saylor at Coplay, Pa. In 1871, Saylor tried his hand at selecting and mixing different kinds of rock from his quarries to produce portland cement.
After initial difficulties, he succeeded, and at the Centennial Exhibition in Philadelphia in 1876, samples of Saylor's product and that made by John K. Shinn at Wampum, Pa., compared favorably with the best imported portland cements. While Saylor was perfecting his product in Pennsylvania, Thomas Millen and his two sons were experimenting with the manufacture of portland cement in South Bend, Ind. Their first portland cement was burned in a piece of sewer pipe (perhaps the first experimental rotary kiln used in America) and the resulting clinker was ground in a coffee mill.
A notable pioneer in the industry in America was Robert W. Lesley. In 1874, he founded the firm of Lesley &Trinkle, cement brokers, dealing in both natural and portland cements. This led to his entering the manufacturing business for himself in Egypt, Pa. From his previous sales contacts, he picked up some ideas for time- and labor-saving devices for manufacturing portland cement, most notable of which was a method for pressing the pulverized raw materials into "eggettes" for burning in the kiln.
In 1880, about 42,000 bbl. of portland cement was produced in the United States; a decade later, the amount had increased to 335,000 bbl. One factor in this tremendous increase was the development of the rotary kiln. In the early days, vertical stationary kilns were used and wastefully allowed to cool after each burning.
In 1885, an English engineer, F. Ransome, patented a slightly tilted horizontal kiln which could be rotated so that material moved gradually from one end to the other. Because this new type of kiln had much greater capacity and burned more thoroughly and uniformly, it rapidly displaced the older type. Thomas A. Edison was a pioneer in the further development of the rotary kiln. In 1902, in his Edison Portland Cement Works in New Village, NJ, he introduced the first long kilns used in the industry-150 feet long in contrast to the customary 60 to 80 feet. Today, some kilns are more than 500 feet long. Parallel improvements in crushing and grinding equipment also influenced the rapid increase in production.

maninthestreet

What's the point of bricks that disintegrate due to exposure to frost?
This is like a chocolate teapot, surely?

Plasterer

maninthestreet wrote: »

What's the point of bricks that disintegrate due to exposure to frost?
This is like a chocolate teapot, surely?

Cheaper to produce for internall walls?