This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Architecture Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Could someone address my edits on terminology and dimensioning such that they're in line with the images? I'm real busy right at the moment and don't have time to work out how to get them up from the base of the page, where they're lost at the moment.

There's also a spelling mistake in dimensioning, places should be placed.

I'm only a student of architecture, but wouldn't 3/4 of the bricks in an English bond be visible (one brick thick, one face visible)? The article says 3/4 of the bricks aren't visible. Atchius 19:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also we need to add stack bond. I don't know what it is. I'm using this article to study for a structures test. Atchius 19:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It actually says "If only one face of an English bond wall is exposed, three quarters of the bricks are not visible". It means that you only see one header or stretcher face of each brick - 1 of 4 sides hence 3/4 of each brick not visible in the wall. The same is true for any other bond I can think of, so not sure why it has been stated explicitly for English bond. SilentC 21:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply to you

stack bond is when the bricks arent in any pattern in all.

pretend the word "brick" is a brick:

brick brick brick brick brick

brick brick brick brick brick

and in between is the joints...

thats stack bond... NEVER MAKE A BUILDING WITH THIS.

purely for design

by the way, im 15 and i take masonry in high school

Haha, thanks for the pointer. It's unlikely that I would ever design a building that used bricks for structural purposes anyway. It's not done much anymore... but even brick veneer would look pretty silly with this layout. Don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes. Atchius 19:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a 15 year old, it looks like you're off to a good start! Stack bond of coarse encourages stress to run straight through the mortar lines. The same misalignment of seams that's used in bricklaying to add strength is used throughout industry, whether it's bricks, timber, steel, plasterboards or even turf. During the second World War (I think), a class of naval ship was designed in which the entire hull was plates stack welded together. That meant they could blast them out one every few days and it formed a big propaganda drive about the capacity of the US yards. The welds failed out at sea and the crack would run right across the hull. The problem was solved by riveting the plates as well as welding, with the rivets acting like anchors that would stop the stress running the entire length of a seam. You see the same riveting all over large steelwork now. Incidentally, this same riveting technique is now used at a molecular level in metal alloys themselves. By carefully heating and cooling metals, elements like carbon fall out of the metal crystals as they form and produce little pockets of tough carbon crystal; these act like molecular sized rivets that stop the stress splitting the metal crystals apart. It's called solution treatment, as the carbon behaves like a fluid as the metal it's self cools, moving between the metal crystals. The tiny carbon rivets are called 'cotrell atmospheres'. The way in which the metal crystals cool and form is critical to it's properties, particularly for things like titanium, where the different crystal structures are called alpha, beta and gamma phases (crystalline stages at which they solidifed). Thus ends my rambling for today, I hope you enjoyed it.

this article and 'masonry' are also being confused in the other languages wikis. if you go through all the language links in all the different wikis, you get either 'masonry', 'mason', 'brickwork' or 'bricklayer'. none are consistent with 'mason' to 'mason', 'brickwork' to 'brickwork', etc. examples: english 'masonry' links to portuguese 'brickwork'. spanish 'bricklayer' links to german 'mason' which links back to spanish 'masonry'. english 'brickworks' links to dutch 'mason' and back to english 'masonry'. and links to dutch and french wikis are half for 'mason' half for 'masonry' for both. and dutch 'mason' links to 'stone masonry' wikis. if the exact equivalent article doesnt exist, i understand the divergance, but when they do, i dont understand. someone should take the inititive and relink all 'mason's to each other, 'brickwork's to each other, etc. for all wikis. im sure users of all other wikis wont read this, so someone from here should do so, cuz english wiki has the most language links. anyone can do it using some logic: romance languages links starting with 'mam' go to masonry, starting with 'alb/alv' go to the person bricklayer, ending with 'eria' is the discipline 'brickwork'. germanic language links starting with 'mas/mat' go to masonry, ending with 'er' is the worker, ending in 'n' is the discipline, starting with 'ste/sto' go to stonemasonry. i prefer experts to do the languages they're sure of, but i'll do it if no one else does it soon. i've put the same comment in wikiproject architecture's "construction forum" and 'masonry's discussion, to alert users of those articles to move in the same direction.Ivansevil 03:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's stopping you then? SilentC 04:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain better what is the difference between Header bond and Stretcher bond? The pictures look structurally (although not dimensionally) identical. How can rows be "offset an entire brick"? Quirkie 22:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stretcher bond consists of bricks laid with the long side facing out (called stretcher). Header bond consists of bricks laid with end facing out (called header). So the difference between the two is the orientation of the brick within the bond, with header being at 90 degrees to stretcher. I don't think the photo is the best example of it because, if the bricks are headers, they must be very fat bricks. I changed the "offset entire brick" to "offset half a brick" because I believe that is the intention. SilentC 23:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Quirkie 18:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now changed to a picture with header bond (left part of the detail in the photo) where you also can see some stretchers to compare with. –Xauxa (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the left part of this photo shows stretcher bond, there's not a header in it. ??? Stephenjh (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 out of 3 sections in this talk page are about bonds (now 3 out of 4 with this). that could be cuz 1/2 of this article is about the different types of bonds. even the intro talks too much about types of bonds. the french and spanish wikis have separate articles for 'bonds' themselves. i propose we do the same for english wiki, and restore the old bond (masonry) article (undoing what was talked about in "masonry"s talk page. after all, cant bonds be used for materials other than just "brick" (although its the most common in modern construction)? Ivansevil 22:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We come from the same point: mozarabic art. Brick vs. ashlar (masonry?) bonds. How can we talk about bonds in old or medieval architecture (no bricks)? I was looking for an answer. Thanks for ya work, Ivansevil. --Owdki ^talk 20:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to touch somewhat lightly on brick as an structural construction technique (just that it has tensile issues and that it's rarely used today). The timber framing articles discuss actual height limitations and construction considerations/techniques, etc. I was wondering if someone knowledgable on the subject could do something similar here - even though it's historical in purpose. I live in a 100 year old brick factory converted into condos, and I'd be curious to know more about that construction design. The building is 6 stories of structural brick, which seems like a lot - but what's the maximum? The walls clearly are load-bearing, as the floor beams connect right into them, with iron supports between the beams at joints. It also seems like the brick between windows is much thicker than that above and under windows (sensible...) but I'd like to know more.

Thanks, CSZero (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Would this picture be of value to this article? http://home.comcast.net/~corey.sciuto/images/lowell14/canalplace.jpg CSZero (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between these two? That in the Flemish bond, the smaller bricks seem to be about half the size of the bigger ones, while in the Rat-trap bond, they seem to be only about a third the size? 62.152.162.199 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. It was explained in the article until an editor decided to take out all the photographs. Check out "Note the increased height of each course, compared with flemish or english bond, achieved by laying the bricks on their edges" here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why has the article got two pictures of Flemish bond? A photo and a graphic of the same bond don't improve on a single clear image. I'd ditch the top one, the photo.

Nuttyskin (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rat-trap bond (not mentioned in the text) looks superficially like Flemish but judging from the photograph it is made up of shiners and rowlocks (ie the shiners are laid on their edges, with the frog pointing away from the viewer, and the rowlocks are laid on their edges with the frog pointing to one side. But then I'm not a brickie! — Saltmarsh^talk 15:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone took it upon himself to delete huge swaths of this article on April 3. I've looked at the material he removed, and it's information that any bricklayer would know and concur with. His demand for verification is like demanding verification that the sky is blue. 24.6.159.76 (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The constructive way of doing this, respecting the work that has gone before, is to add a {{unreferenced}} tag, so that through teamwork the page can be improved. Mass deletion in a drive by edit is almost vandalism. Adding the tag after the deletion, as happened here, defeats its purpose. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Chzz' edit was preposterous. I suggest putting it all back in and addding tags where necessary, I'm amazed that edit was allowed to remain for so long. Stephenjh (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch I agree. It destroyed years of gradual wiki work. It should definitely be put back. • Anakin ^(talk) 16:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The German version of this article distinguishes these two as follows:

Dutch bond is alternate rows of all headers and all stretchers. Flemish bond is offset rows of alternate header and stretcher.

I have certainly seen both here (in the UK). Surely there is also a distinction in English? Myredroom (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the reference ([4] at the time of posting) from a UK source, the "Dutch" would be "English". You may have trouble reading it, though, as the new software release may have just fallen over and the refs aren't displaying properly (unless it's my browser not coping with it). --Old Moonraker 13:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: just changed browser and it's displaying again. --Old Moonraker 13:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble with refs or the PDF for me. Reading that document, "Dutch" would indeed be "English". But the confusion arises in the following sentence under the heading of "Flemish Bond":

"Flemish bond, also known as Dutch bond, has historically always been considered the most decorative bond, and....."

I think maybe this would be better if it read:

"Flemish bond (sometimes referred to as Dutch bond) has historically always been considered the most decorative bond, and......"

Of course that is assuming that people do commonly (and confusingly) refer to different things with the same term. I guess it would need a citation. Myredroom (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found a bit more: the "Dutch bond" is the same as "English cross bond", a variation.[1]. The difference is in the offset of the headers.

Off-topic and BTW: a change to the Wikipedia:Skin was needed, pending the "real-soon-now" software fix fix. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears then that Dutch Bond, in English at least, is a bit of a vague term which could refer to the same pattern as Flemish Bond, English Bond, English Cross Bond or Dutch Diaper Bond. Perhaps the article should reflect these (not uncommon in the arena of building/architecture) variations of meaning. Myredroom (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my ploy of hanging back hoping for somebody else to do this has failed. A short and simple edit to follow. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's good: it's all in already—thanks User:Karlwilcox. The terms are bolded, but aren't L3 headers. Do they need to be made more visible, or may we rely on other readers being more alert than we? --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:BrickWall.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start this morning trying to make this page a little healthier. There were -- and remain -- lots of unsourced claims, and many of the sources that were cited amount now to dead links. In addition there were many many good and worthy claims, but they are claims that do not really belong on this WP page. For example:

'There are at least 6 buildings built of Flemish Bond Brickwork in and around the Historic Village of Menangle in New South Wales, Australia. The buildings include the Anglican Church, the Historic Menangle School, Gilbulla and three houses on Station Street.'

... This claim is fine, but it probably belongs on a WP page about the Historic Village of Menangle in New South Wales, Australia, where the claim would be very relevant, rather than on this WP page where it is a bit esoteric. Such claims as I have excised, I will reapportion to the other WP pages -- I'm not just wanting to make massive info deletions folks!

I will be working heavily on this page for the next few weeks. I hope I have not ruffled any feathers here. New info to come, and sources to back up the claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanriley (talk • contribs) 05:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, and the illustrations are nicely integrated. 'The next few weeks' looks like it was an underestimate though.

Those first two photographs are misleading, since the article doesn't deal with decorative brickwork at all. Do you intend to add something about that?ProfDEH (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thrust of this article is not really about Brickwork generally, which should cover all aspects of construction in brick - it's mostly about bricklaying and methods of bonding walls, generally those used in the British Isles. I have no complaint about the quality of the information, which is very good, but I wonder if much of it should be put into a specialised article in its own right, and the Brickwork article be allowed to speak more generally about ways of using bricks as building materials. Peter Bell (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brickwork. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100607215144/http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Counties/Henrico/043-0085_Clarke-Palmore_2004_Final_Nomination.pdf to http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Counties/Henrico/043-0085_Clarke-Palmore_2004_Final_Nomination.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528025454/http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Counties/Henrico/Clarke-Palmore_photo.htm to http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Counties/Henrico/Clarke-Palmore_photo.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brickwork. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130921223500/http://www.ibstock.com/pdfs/get-it-right/get-it-right14-jun02.pdf to http://www.ibstock.com/pdfs/get-it-right/get-it-right14-jun02.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having defined 'beds', 'header faces' and 'stretcher faces' in the preceding section, Terminology, the Orientation section then ignores that terminology and refers confusingly to 'long narrow faces' and the like. Would anyone object if I edit the section? 108.171.128.180 (talk) 10:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the brick wall in this picture. It is typical of brick walls that you see in Guangdong Province in southern China (this scene was on Guangzhou's northeastern outskirts, near Longdong (龙洞) in the Tianhe District). Despite what you might think at first glance, all the bricks are the same size and shape. There seems to be an alternation between two courses of thin bricks on the one hand, and one course of thick bricks on the other, but the "thick bricks" are really "thin bricks" stood on their sides, and whichever of these two patterns you see on this side of the wall, you can be sure that the other can be seen along that same level on the other side. Shall we call it "Cantonese bond"? I have been to several parts of China, but I don't think that I have seen this style of brickwork outside Guangdong — and it may be a good job that I haven't, for it seems to me that walls built using this style of brickwork get blown down by the wind with annoying regularity. It was one such incident that occasioned this photo; I stepped through a yawning great gap in the school wall to take this shot. I otherwise seldom visited that spot out behind the school where I then worked.

Does anybody know about "Cantonese" bricklaying? Styles of bricklaying from outside the Western World don't seem to be given very much coverage in this article, and this "Cantonese bond" might be a good place to start on that.

Just an idea. Kelisi (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]