Unusual Construction?

[GJH]

Just stripped off some heavy layers of concrete render and gypsum and exposed this rather jumbled wall. The house is timber framed and the remainder sits on the soleplate as you would expect. It’s got me wondering why this wall is different and if this has always been the case…The wall is north west facing and part of the kitchen.

Not really an advice matter but thought it may interest the house detectives among you!

 

[stuart45]

Inside walls often were used to get rid of old, chipped, inferior masonry units. Sometimes this meant a mixture of brick and block etc. Nowadays it wouldn't be allowed on the inner skin of the external walls.

 

[GJH]

Yes, that may explain the haphazard mix of clay lump and brick! I could understand that as infill but I wonder why no timber or sole plate in this part to begin with…

 

[Stevers]

The column of bricks going up the wall could be the remains of a flue, hence use of masonry around it.

 

[GJH]

Hadn’t thought of that but it does go as far as the ceiling. Quite a hotchpotch. I removed quite a few old nails and supposed it may have been wainscoted at some time.

Anyway, concrete is all gone now.

 

[Kearn]

I my initial though was flue also, but I’d assumed it was flanked by stone not clay lump.

There will be tell tale signs of it once was a deeper chimney stack & hearth. But probably wouldn’t reveal without destruction.

Timber frame though can be more easily read via pegs/mortices and general construction to understand what went where historically.
how sure are you there wasn’t timber here before? We’ve an entire flank of our building which has been fully replaced in brick many centuries ago, but only on the ground floor. And there isn’t a logical answer as to why even after almost 2 years investigating as we work through the place…

Equally, if it was a chimney stack it could’ve been built with the cottage, such that the frame wouldn’t have been needed there. I’d expect the frame to leverage the big anchor though if that were the case.

 

[Stevers]

More the sort of flue that a wash copper would need rather than a full blown fireplace.

 

[aockenden]

What is “clay lump”? Are those the larger grey-colored units of masonry visible above the red bricks?

 

[Kearn]

More the sort of flue that a wash copper would need rather than a full blown fireplace.

Yup, similar to these two flanking the inserted fireplace in our brewhouse/bakehouse/washhouse or basically ultra utility room for the last few centuries! Brick inserted flues, into a 2ft stone gable end …

 

[GJH]

I like the wash copper theory. Fits with the construction and the fact that it wouldn’t have interfered with the thatched roof!

 

[GJH]

What is “clay lump”? Are those the larger grey-colored units of masonry visible above the red bricks?

Close up of the lump! Mixture of clay, stone, straw etc. The grey bits are painted timbers. Pine above which differs from the oak timbers forming most of the construction.

 

[aockenden]

Close up of the lump! Mixture of clay, stone, straw etc. The grey bits are painted timbers. Pine above which differs from the oak timbers forming most of the construction.View attachment 14170View attachment 14170

ah excellent, it’s like a stand-alone block of cob which can be used like a brick. I assume they wouldn’t have been fired in any kind of kiln? I learn new stuff here regularly. I didn’t know they did this.

 

[GJH]

ah excellent, it’s like a stand-alone block of cob which can be used like a brick. I assume they wouldn’t have been fired in any kind of kiln? I learn new stuff here regularly. I didn’t know they did this.

Yes, not fired just mixed and moulded. Not something that I was expecting. I think it’s rather brilliant.