ᐅ Correctly Pointing a Natural Stone Wall / Expansion Joint in a Single-Family House
Created on: 17 Jun 2018 14:47
R
RoppoHello dear masonry experts,
to clear up any possible confusion right away – I have two different questions and decided to put them in one post to avoid flooding the forum...
1.) For our new house, we want to build a wall made of real solid fieldstones. This wall will basically lean against the neighboring property, which is between 20 cm (8 inches) and 1 m (3 feet) higher than ours over a length of 20 m (66 feet). Here we want to create a nice finish/transition. We thought it would look very nice if the fieldstones were pointed with mortar in between. Another advantage is that no annoying plants will grow from the joints.
Now, I want to build the wall myself and wonder what the best approach is, because I obviously don’t want to ruin the stones with concrete and want to build it properly.
So how should I proceed? Can I use regular concrete? Should I build the wall first and then point it? How can I best (as a layperson) get the concrete or mortar into the joints? etc...
2.) Our house will be clad in the next few days. We chose a Vandersanden facing brick, tumbled, in WDF size. Because this nicely fits the aged look of the bricks, we want to have small pillars built at the corners of the house (9 m x 10.70 m (30 feet x 35 feet 1 inch)). The facing bricks will be set out by about 1 to 1.5 cm (0.4 to 0.6 inches). However, these pillars will not be continuous; instead, blocks of four bricks will be set out alternately, with three bricks built normally in between, before the next block of four.
In our view, it looks by far best if the three bricks in between, which remain at the normal facing brick level, are built all around, which would make a continuous expansion joint impossible. However, if we look at other new housing developments, it seems common practice nowadays to always include expansion joints in masonry.
But is this mandatory, highly recommended, or can it be omitted for a house of this size? Of course, appearance is one thing, but we do not want to accept inferior construction quality. I have read various things about this already, but I am especially interested in what you all have to say here!
Many thanks in advance and have a nice Sunday!
Best regards
to clear up any possible confusion right away – I have two different questions and decided to put them in one post to avoid flooding the forum...
1.) For our new house, we want to build a wall made of real solid fieldstones. This wall will basically lean against the neighboring property, which is between 20 cm (8 inches) and 1 m (3 feet) higher than ours over a length of 20 m (66 feet). Here we want to create a nice finish/transition. We thought it would look very nice if the fieldstones were pointed with mortar in between. Another advantage is that no annoying plants will grow from the joints.
Now, I want to build the wall myself and wonder what the best approach is, because I obviously don’t want to ruin the stones with concrete and want to build it properly.
So how should I proceed? Can I use regular concrete? Should I build the wall first and then point it? How can I best (as a layperson) get the concrete or mortar into the joints? etc...
2.) Our house will be clad in the next few days. We chose a Vandersanden facing brick, tumbled, in WDF size. Because this nicely fits the aged look of the bricks, we want to have small pillars built at the corners of the house (9 m x 10.70 m (30 feet x 35 feet 1 inch)). The facing bricks will be set out by about 1 to 1.5 cm (0.4 to 0.6 inches). However, these pillars will not be continuous; instead, blocks of four bricks will be set out alternately, with three bricks built normally in between, before the next block of four.
In our view, it looks by far best if the three bricks in between, which remain at the normal facing brick level, are built all around, which would make a continuous expansion joint impossible. However, if we look at other new housing developments, it seems common practice nowadays to always include expansion joints in masonry.
But is this mandatory, highly recommended, or can it be omitted for a house of this size? Of course, appearance is one thing, but we do not want to accept inferior construction quality. I have read various things about this already, but I am especially interested in what you all have to say here!
Many thanks in advance and have a nice Sunday!
Best regards
1) Natural stone walls, especially those made from rubble stones or glacial erratics, are not suitable projects for beginners, even if they are not dry-laid. If you already refer to the joint material as concrete, you are basically an "unqualified non-specialist," and it would be best for you to consult a professional directory.
2) A picture or drawing might help clarify how to imagine these "columns" with the alternating pattern of four projecting courses and three aligned courses.
Could what was seen possibly be prefabricated brick veneer houses? In that case, this method would apply: the veneer is not integrated or "tied in" on-site but rather prefabricated and installed on each wall separately.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
2) A picture or drawing might help clarify how to imagine these "columns" with the alternating pattern of four projecting courses and three aligned courses.
Roppo schrieb:Expansion joints are necessary where building parts can move relative to each other (including settlement) or where different materials meet.
However, if we look at other new development areas, it seems that placing expansion joints has become standard practice in masonry today.
Could what was seen possibly be prefabricated brick veneer houses? In that case, this method would apply: the veneer is not integrated or "tied in" on-site but rather prefabricated and installed on each wall separately.
https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/
Similar topics