Suppose you are building a brick structure. What would be the most optimum/cost effective size of block to use?
For example, a small brick is easily handled, but use use more mortar and labor time to set. Larger blocks go faster, but the size and weight slow things down.
Of course, you could do the same as the ancient Ethiopeans-use one BIG block.
Is this a problem that could be solved by linear programming.
Don’t forget to add another facet in your algorithm, structural integrity. Many of those smaller bricks you see lack the structural integrity to be load-bearing.
brick walls, that aren’t just decorative, are a couple of feet thick. bricks are laid tied into one another. smaller bricks could make a longer lived structure than larger blocks.
construction costs might be different from lifetime costs. a well made and maintained building could last centuries.
Smaller.
When doing anything with brick, stone and masonry products, you want the installer to move fast.
The materials are dirt cheap (pun intended). You take the labor hit when big pieces need to be handled, cut, set, etc.
The labor cranks it out much faster with smaller bricks.
Are “Roman” bricks more efficient than American or British standard-sized bricks?
The Romans used lots of brick-presumably their style was optimized.
Here’s an area you’d think I’d have all sorts of information on.
Sadly, I am completely useless here.
The Romans were, if nothing else, pragmatists.
Bolding mine
Hm.
So why are basement/foundation walls - where style doesn’t matter - generally made of the large, hollow cinder blocks (typically 8" x 8" x 16"), whereas above-grade/decorative walls are generally made of smaller bricks?
I went to Bali a couple years ago, where everything is built of brick, with decorative stone statuary. Temples that were hundreds of years old as well as newer construction were built of locally-produced red brick.
The bricks were about the same size as the bricks we build with here in North America.
basements now currently can be poured concrete or block depends on location and contractor.
basements made maybe 60 years and earlier could be small brick.
Obviously you don’t want to go too small. A bricklayer wont’ be very fast building a wall out of Legos ;). Or, more seriously, with really tiny bricks the wall isn’t much different from poured concrete with regularly placed and square aggregate.
So perhaps the optimum brick size would be the largest size that a reasonably fit person can move easily? Standard bricks are about the right size to move with one hand, and cinder blocks the right size to move with both hands.
Look at townhouses and small apartment buildings from the last 25 years. For some cost-saving reason, a lot of them are built with “big boy” bricks about 1.5 times the size of older bricks. Perhaps there’s been some shift in the ratio of labor to material costs.
Stuctural issues aside (and there are many associated with brick geometry.) It comes down to a question of handling efficiency.
Consider altering just one parameter of brick geometry – the length.
Make it too short and you have a large number of units to carry as well as a lot more mortar required.
Lengthen them too much and they become cumbersome and awkward to handle by one person. (Not to mention tiring.) Inefficiencies are also introduced where cutting and sizing is needed for the job at hand.
Between the two extremes is an optimum. With bricklaying being such an old construction method, I would guess that the standard sized bricks are close to optimum.
That said, changing the location, transport method, method for applying mortar, materials to labour cost ratio or any one of a huge number of things will alter the parameters of the most efficient brick.
Mostly brick is chosen because it has the desired aesthetic and physical properties. Standard sized bricks are chosen because they are mass produced cheaply. Any variations on that are either purely for aesthtic reasons or to achieve some sort of structural goal. You don’t change from the standard brick to reduce laying time or transport costs.