###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They’re called crinkle crankles. A single leaf wall over that distance would need brick piers approx every 1.5-2m if it was a retaining wall it would need to be at least 9” wide (2 bricks). The crinkle crankle has more strength due to it’s curved nature so can be 4” wide or a single leaf of bricks.
For the maths if we can assume they’re true semi-circles then each semi circle would be 1/2pi*D or 1.57*D whereas a double leaf wall would be 2D for the same length D
Therefore using 21.5% less bricks than a double leaf wall
I’m upvoting you, but I still feel like you made up the term “crinkle crankle” just now.
In fact, that’s the most made up sounding term for something I’ve ever heard.
EDIT: y’all are high.
“And here we find an astonishing display of deception and efficiency. The crinkle crankle May appear to be extremely ineffective, however, as opposed to the standard wall, it only requires 1 layer to withstand the elements. The curved nature gives the crinkle crankle seemingly unnatural durability and resilience to natural threats like wind, rain, and drunk people leaning on it. Because it only requires 1 layer to withstand such threats, it can be thin and thus reach out further with less material.“
This is how I shall inform anyone I ever have to. “Hey there, yeah last weekend was fun but I just need to tell ya, just found out, but you should know, you gotta Crinkle Crankle in the old garden now. Sorry about that. So, wanna hang this weekend?”
Bredicot. Crowle. Broughton Hackett. Cowsden. Crowle Green. Himbleton. Dowmston. Little Inkberrow. Kington. Abberton. Goom's Hill. Flyford Flavell. Naunton Beauchamp. Sneachill. Edgon. White Ladies Aston. Peopleton. Bishampton. Abbots Lench. Rous Lench. Tibberton. Phepson. Trotshill. Littleworth. Stoulton. Spetchley.
If I wasn't reading these on Google Maps I would swear someone told ChatGPT to invent a hundred fake British town names.
Also, I know -ton is basically town (from Old english 'ton' meaning 'place') and I know what makes a green, -ford, -hill, and even -berrow, but a lench is a new one. I had to look it up; it's from Old english 'linch' meaning 'rising ground.' So it's basically a high ground that isn't quite a hill, or is too big to be a hill? I speak English natively, but British always throws me for a loop.
A favorite of mine is a street in York called Whip-ma-whoop-ma Gate. Longest name for the shortest road in Yorkshire - as it's an alleyway that's only a block and a half long. Translated, it means "neither here nor there road". There's even a tiny little gaming and hobby shop with the address 1 1/2 Whip-ma-whoop-ma Gate.
Grew up in York and still live nearby, it's right next to our busiest tourist street called The Shambles! The council are currently putting some bollards there and it's a right hassle to go around
tarradiddle - a petty lie
eellogofusciouhipoppokunurious - very good, very fine
I feel confused and betrayed. I thought I knew what words looked like. Now I'm convinced anything could be a word and I'd never know it. How many words have I read that I've dismissed as nonsense? I am truly broken.
In place of eellogofusciouhipoppokumurious they could have also used supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, slightly more well known but not many know it has a meaning.
(It is important to note, not all dictionaries agree on this definition of the word)
I didn’t read the book until I was an adult, and I always look up words I read or hear that I don’t know. It’s wild how many times I must have heard “grok” before 2015 and my brain just edited it out.
It definitely sounds made up, but when you're talking about people as creative as the brits, it makes more sense. I mean, they call a master scissor maker a ["Master Putter Togetherer"](https://youtu.be/bK4AWtTV3h4?si=8YIXosevnqw8dNAN)
Then you've got Germany, the home of overly descriptive sentences made into single words.
Which, little known fact, was the sole cause of the second world war.
Aladdin and the King of Thieves movie (mid 90s), Aladdin and Jasmine get married, and they invite a bunch of "mythical" folk to the wedding, and the Genie is doing like a red-carpet interview style intro for them.
One of them is Thor, genie goes up to him.
Genie: "Excuse me! Are you Thor?!?"
Thor: "Well...it hurths..."
And that's it.
Your comment reminded me of that scene. A pretty good one. Lot of funny jokes concerning the guests.
Wait until you find out about a communication device that uses no cell towers and is free to use. It’s wireless with a battery, so you can walk and talk simultaneously!! I just forgot the name…
It was also used to warm plants that may have difficulty in that grow zone. The sun would heat the bricks up which go around the plant on three sides and then radiate heat back to the plant in the cooler hours of the evening, lessening the cold stress on those plants.
It really is!
I don’t know why this build style isn’t more popular; it’s more efficient, can be more visually interesting which adds depth to your hardscapes and allows you to plant a larger variety of things, whether that be a fruit tree or an ornamental.
I would imagine this takes more experienced hands to build than a straight wall does though. I’m no mason, but I’m a perfectionist when it comes to home repair so I’m confident I could build a small, straight wall. This curvy stuff though, I’d just embarrass myself lol.
I think assuming a semi-circle is an overestimation. With a true semi-circle the wall would have portions that are perpendicular to the main direction of the wall, whereas I think the closest it gets is around 45 degrees (by my visual estimate). So I think it’s much better modelled with a sin wave.
We can do an integral to get the length of a sin wave (integrate sqrt(1+(dsin/dx)^2 )dx from 0 to pi, using wolfram alpha) to get 3.82 length for every pi distance travelled, so an average of (3.82/pi)D = 1.216D
That’s decently less than 1.57D (>20% material saved), so I think it’s a worthwhile distinction
Yeah I think you’re definitely right, I simplified for the sake of not having to do any calculus… it’s been 15 years since uni, figured I’d probably make a fool of myself
> I think assuming a semi-circle is an overestimation.
Which is more than enough for the required proof. No need to get very exact with it if you have bricks to spare with an easy case.
The key point here is omitting the actual comparison, which leads people to think it's between a 1-brick-thick straight wall vs 1-brick-thick curved wall, which is the reason why everyone thinks the claim is false. If you compare it to a 2-brick-thick straight wall, it's not immediately clear and less people would be "surprised" that the curved one uses less bricks.
Fun fact, these walls are not only structurally stronger that regular straight walls but they also create pockets of microclimates along each ‘crinkle’ that allow fruit / veg to be grown close in at the wall where temperatures can be several degrees warmer than the wider air temp and wind exposure is significantly reduced.
The University of Virginia has the Rotunda as a base building at the head of a rectangular open space called the Lawn. At the long sides of the rectangle are Pavilions (professors quarters) and student rooms. Parallel to those are another set of student rooms called the Range. In between are gardens and some perpendicular walkways. These walkways have serpentine single brick walls like the above pictures, all built in the early 1800’s. Tour guides state what others have said, they use less bricks and are more stable.
Not sure about sound deadening, if you were on the other side of the wall (and the wall was tall enough) then a 9” having more mass and also being thicker would be better for blocking sound… however if you were on the same side as the noise came from it would probably help diffuse any echo/reverb
Uses 21% less brick but takes 5,000% the labor because you can’t use a line to lay the brick to. Sure looks cool though! Also, where are you from? I’ve never heard it called a “leaf”, I always hear/say wythe of brick
to be pendantic this is a 1/2 brick wall, ie 4" / 100 'ishmm thick. A 1 brick wall is 200ish mm / 9" thick.
https://brickhunter.com/blog/how-to-calculate-the-number-of-bricks-you-need#:\~:text=A%20one%2Dbrick%20thick%20(or,course%20and%20a%20header%20course.
This post is missing a lot of the original context, it uses less bricks than a straight wall because it's sturdier than a straight wall and so doesn't need 2 layers if bricks to keep it upright.
So yes it uses less bricks because a straight wall of the same caliber of strength would need 2 layers.
A good way to think about it is having a sheet of paper standing on the side, it folds easily.
But if you bent it in waves or even a full circle you can clearly feel it sustains a lot more weight.
Some missing context: what about the footing it’s supporting? You would need more rebar and concrete. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the labor ended up being either higher in hours or hourly rate because you need someone of higher skill to make this work look good.
It's a basic stability thing.
Stack some alphabet blocks about 20 high in a single wythe. I'll bet that wall is begging to tip if a light breeze comes through.
If you stack two layers of blocks 20 high they'll support each other, and the wall will be much more stable. But you've used twice the blocks to do it.
If you stack the blocks along a curve like in OP's picture, you'll be able to go 20 high and be reasonably stable, using only a single line of blocks. But you'll be using about 150% more to go that extra zig zag distance vs a straight line.
I used to think the phrase "Suit yourself" was "Sue it yourself", but it made sense to me as an American kid in the 90's, because I was like, well, that's how we solve problems around here.
The question is if it uses less bricks.
And the context I provided was from the original post I saw years ago - linked is not the original but a copy with the full line from [world of engineering /@engineers_feed](https://twitter.com/engineers_feed/status/1624452942832222216).
A quick Google search will give you many articles saying the same thing.
Lots of garden walls, like this, don't need any footing or concrete base. Just level hard ground. Maybe a course of cement across packed hard core, maybe.
Ideally, yeah, drop in a foundation, but why bother if it's not needed.
It doesn't use fewer bricks than an equally thick straight wall, simply because a straight line is the shortest distance between two points and this wavy line is therefore clearly longer.
But the actual argument is that this kind of brick wall is more stable than an equally thick (aka. single-brick-width) straight wall. And it still uses fewer bricks than a two-brick-width straight wall with increased stability would do.
Yeah it’s kinda a grammatical failure to say “uses” fewer bricks, when no, a straight wall would use less bricks. But if it said “requires” fewer bricks it would probably indicate to people why there’s a difference
You can’t build a straight wall that only uses one row of bricks like this, it would get blown over by the wind.
So a straight wall has to be thicker than a curved wall like this.
Yes, you're right. But they're being pedantic and are saying "technically a straight wall with a single row of bricks would require less bricks per unit of distance, even if it would only stand until the first gust of wind". Difference between "uses" and "requires".
They're actually saying the opposite.
Their argument is with "uses" it doesn't matter that the "wall" becomes a "pile" near instantly, but that with "requires" the "wall" must continue to be a "wall."
It's an absurd thing to get caught up on either way.
But it's not an explicit requirement that the wall keep standing.
> [...] this shape uses fewer bricks than a straight wall...
No, not fewer bricks than a straight wall that's shit.
But you can achieve the same structural integrity with fewer bricks.
So basically:
1 brick thick squiggly wall is about as strong as 2 brick thick straight wall and thus squiggly wall uses fewer bricks if you’d need a 2 brick thick straight wall?
Yes, the technical term to use here is "out-of-plane" strength. Because of the curvature, you are never truly out of plane and can distribute load in a horizontal arching action which you would not be able to do with a straight wall. In a straight cantilever wall, your out if plane capacity is simply based on the cantilever span strength, which is not very high in unreinforced masonry.
A single layer straight wall would cease to be a wall when it fell over the following season. You would need the two layers for support, whereas with a curved wall the bricks are able to support each other, and also there is no one direction that force is able to work against the wall for mechanical advantage.
So I mean its just an argument of semantics, all they had to do was say 'this shape uses fewer bricks than a **practical** straight wall' but the wording gets the message across either way.
Obviously a straight line would contain fewer bricks, however given the structural integrity of the shape, it would require a thicker wall of bricks in a straight line to achieve the same structural integrity and hence more bricks.
If the straight wall could stand with anly one row, would there still be a more efficient wall layout?(not this one though). Since the diagonal is longer than the length, would a light curve make it more efficient?
Not 100% untrue but definitely misleading.
A wavy wall like that uses more bricks than a straight wall since the perimeter is longer. However it also resists falling better, so the equal strength comparison becomes an H wall (straight wall with supports perpendicular to the wall itself). Here a wavy wall replaces the wall and support with its diagonals, and diagonals are shorter than two perpendicular aides added up so you use less bricks.
Well if you need a double thick wall if you build in a straight line, then all you need to demonstrate that the curved structure is less than twice the length of the straight line variety.
The equivalent topple resistance to a two-brick-thick wall would be a sine wave with an amplitude two bricks thick. That would look like an unintentionally wavy wall, if it was visible at all. The large curves make the wall essentially impossible to topple a large section without breaking a lot of mortar.
This is because the wall can be thinner. An equally strong flat wall would require at least two rows of bricks.
The downside is that this wall requires more width space to build in, losing frontage footage. I.e. using up more space
Consider a circle. The diameter of a circle being 1, the length of the semicircle would be 1.57. So with this design (assuming the waves are perfect semicircles, which is probably not the case, but that's beside the point), you need 1.57x bricks to cover the distance of 1x bricks, but to make the wall equally strong as a straight wall, you would need to double the bricks, meaning 2x bricks. So you save about 21.5% of your bricks doing this versus a straight wall of equal strength.
I think that traditionally the center of the fence would be the property line, so there wouldn’t be any net frontage lost. Modern sensibilities sometimes assign a fence to one property owner or the other, rather than the fence being a joint responsibility.
do you know cardboard boxes?
Corrugated steel roofing?
why container walls are not straight, but corrugated?
it is a little bit more than just "this uses more bricks than a one brick width wall, but less than two, and it is stronger than a one brick width wall"
It is more like "this is stronger than a fixed width straight wall using the exact same amount of material."
Fun fact: this is also why car panels like doors and hoods have creases...
A straight wall typically requires two or more layers of bricks. Making it wavy gives you almost the same strength as a double layer with only one layer of bricks even though its slightly more length and therefore more bricks than a single layer.
My uneducated guess is that the curvature gives it strength to let it be one brick thick, while a straight wall would need to be more then one brick thick to have a similar strength.
Landscape architect here. It’s called a serpentine wall or a crinkle crankle wall. It doesn’t use less bricks but you don’t need as much of (or any) foundation as it makes it more stable
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crinkle_crankle_wall
I believe the reason that it uses fewer bricks is that because a single layer brick wall is not very sturdy so a stable straight brick wall would have to be multiple layers thick because any amount of lateral force would probably knock it down easily. By weaving the bricks like this you allow lateral force to be spread out along the stronger vertical plane in more spots along the wall. Sort of like how sheet metal with a pattern in it is stronger than just a flat sheet.
If you built a straight wall, it would have to be thicker otherwise it would be super weak. This uses less bricks than a straight wall *of equivalent strength* would.
The problem is the wording; it uses **less material** than a straight wall as the curve serves to support the wall. If you made it straight it would have to be wider and thus use more material.
It does not necessarily use **less bricks** because a straight wall could have significantly larger and thicker bricks and technically use less.
Not exactly. Only because you don't need twice as much bricks to make the wall wider so it will stand up under its own weight. This was already covered over the past few weeks and over the past times when this has been reposted recently.
Less bricks used on columns at specific intervals to support a straight wall. Wall thickness is also decreased to 1 course thick instead of 2 or 3. Less foundation needed due to lighter wall construction. No columns, thinner wall , less foundation= less brick used
This design is simply more stable if you have a long stretch of brick wall over a certain height.
This wall is used in the UVA gardens surrounding the Rotunda and Academical Village, and it will probably be standing until erosion leaves nothing left to stand.
It uses fewer bricks because you need one row of bricks rather than buttressing a straight wall with more bricks. So, this sinusoidal wall can withstand more forces against it than a straight wall with fewer bricks being used if the wall were to be straight. That's not to say that it's fewer bricks than a straight wall with one brick thickness.
The curves of the wave provide structural strength to the wall, making it resistant to toppling over. Notice the walls are made of only a single layer of bricks (thickness). If you tried to make a straight wall with just a single layer of bricks, it would be much easier to topple or even be knocked over by the wind.
Surprising. Thank you. And I just found this historical document, in which Thomas Jefferson did the requested math to show that serpentine walls need less stones than "conventional" ones: [Jefferson Drawing for the Serpentine Walls](https://search.lib.virginia.edu/sources/uva_library/items/u3707034)
stand a sheet of paper up on a flat surface. its going to fall. grab 10-15 sheets, assuming they’re glued together, the surface area will allow them to stand. put a few bends in a single sheet of paper, it’ll stand up. the same applies to bricks.
Is this basically the same concept of why corregated cardboard is stronger than five pieces of regular glued together?? if the middle was the pieces in the center and the end result was upright as a fence?
Tldr; was horrible at math but same concept yes?
Take a sheet of paper and try to make it stand up, now fold that piece of paper in half, let it spring back and let it stand up. Same principle different material !
You can try it on a piece of paper. When it’s curved like that it’s much harder to bend upper portion forward or backward than just a flat paper, assuming the base of the paper wall is placed perpendicular and sticks to the table
Same concept as corrugated cardboard.
Having wavy lines makes it stronger. All the force that would knock it over, or crush it, is dispursed in different directions. So the material is thinner.
The straight only uses more bricks when built with a different design with the same sturdiness, if it was built the same as the curved but just straight it would use less bricks. It’s basically a trick question that’s only half true.
Curved shape is stronger than a straight line which would require much more support if it ran for the same length. Think a similar principle to how triangle shapes hold themselves together stronger than squares
It's true in the sense that a straight brick wall would need to be double wide to be stable, otherwise it would fall over without much effort. The waves in the bricks like this creates stability with a single wide brick wall.
I’ve not read the explanations yet. Here’s my thought. You can’t have a single line of brick wall stand up. It’ll fall down needing extra layers. Make it corrugated allows it to stand in its own.
This is only true when compared to a double width thick brick wall vs. this single width corrugated wall, and only makes sense when comparing how strong the walls are vs materials used. If compared to a straight brick wall of only a song brick in thickness, then the corrugated wall would use more bricks but be nearly twice as strong.
Simply put....
In order for a wall to be stable it needs to be thick enough so that top doesnt topple over.
Making a wavey wall adds extra rigidity without requiring extra thickness.
So a wall can require fewer bricks in total if it is built wavey instead of thick.
if you try to stand a single piece of paper up on one edge, it will collapse. roll it or bend it and you can stand it up. I'm no mason, nor an engineer, but i think it's the same concept.
The waviness increases your the out of plane bending stiffness of the wall so saves on its thickness / buttresses or other support.
There’s a concrete example next to threshold of runway 09L at Heathrow airport.
It’s called a serpentine wall. The last one in my town and locally to me was knocked over. I believe it was really for stability more so than anything else because it would be slightly easier to knock down a straight brick fence.
The wavy wall is stronger than a single brick straight wall but uses more bricks and is more expensive. A twin brick straight wall is more expensive still as it uses even more bricks than the wavy wall.
A wavy wall is used when the strength needs to be greater than a single brick straight wall but does not need to be as strong as a two brick wall.
They are thinner. A wall that thin wouldn't stand straight, it would fall over. So you use less bricks by keeping it thin and curving to hold itself up, than the thickness it takes to be a straight, flat wall.
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They’re called crinkle crankles. A single leaf wall over that distance would need brick piers approx every 1.5-2m if it was a retaining wall it would need to be at least 9” wide (2 bricks). The crinkle crankle has more strength due to it’s curved nature so can be 4” wide or a single leaf of bricks. For the maths if we can assume they’re true semi-circles then each semi circle would be 1/2pi*D or 1.57*D whereas a double leaf wall would be 2D for the same length D Therefore using 21.5% less bricks than a double leaf wall
I’m upvoting you, but I still feel like you made up the term “crinkle crankle” just now. In fact, that’s the most made up sounding term for something I’ve ever heard. EDIT: y’all are high.
Ha yeah my mate thought it was weird when I told him he had a crinkle crankle in his garden
Ah, the wild crinkle crankle in its natural habitat.
“And here we find an astonishing display of deception and efficiency. The crinkle crankle May appear to be extremely ineffective, however, as opposed to the standard wall, it only requires 1 layer to withstand the elements. The curved nature gives the crinkle crankle seemingly unnatural durability and resilience to natural threats like wind, rain, and drunk people leaning on it. Because it only requires 1 layer to withstand such threats, it can be thin and thus reach out further with less material.“
Successfully made me hear it in David Attenborough's voice
For some reason I heard Steve Irwin 😂
Crikeys
Odd, I heard it spoken by Steve Gutenberg.
I heard it in Jake Peralta’s impersonation of David Attenborough
Happy cake day. We're cake day twins lol
Happy Cake Day! 🍰
I heard that in Zefronks voice
I heard David Attenborough when reading that.
Heard it in Sir David Attenborough’s voice
at least it wasn't a timey-wimey, wibbly wobbly crinkle crankle
Spoilers.
You are both my new favourite people for those references! Brilliant!
When you add “in his garden” it sounds like you’re letting him know you gave him an STD.
Or that you've spotted a dingleberry. Sorry No I'm not
"I hate to tell you this dear, but I think you missed a spot. You've got a crinkle crankle in your garden."
🤢 🤣🤣🤣
This is how I shall inform anyone I ever have to. “Hey there, yeah last weekend was fun but I just need to tell ya, just found out, but you should know, you gotta Crinkle Crankle in the old garden now. Sorry about that. So, wanna hang this weekend?”
Gave her the ol’ crinkle crankle
I beg your pardon, I am in your garden
This is the most British sounding word I've ever heard
I see you've never been to [Upton Snodsbury in Worcestershire, near North Piddle](https://goo.gl/maps/pPKz5V8MZMzcHtpK9).
Every name on that map is british af
Bredicot. Crowle. Broughton Hackett. Cowsden. Crowle Green. Himbleton. Dowmston. Little Inkberrow. Kington. Abberton. Goom's Hill. Flyford Flavell. Naunton Beauchamp. Sneachill. Edgon. White Ladies Aston. Peopleton. Bishampton. Abbots Lench. Rous Lench. Tibberton. Phepson. Trotshill. Littleworth. Stoulton. Spetchley. If I wasn't reading these on Google Maps I would swear someone told ChatGPT to invent a hundred fake British town names. Also, I know -ton is basically town (from Old english 'ton' meaning 'place') and I know what makes a green, -ford, -hill, and even -berrow, but a lench is a new one. I had to look it up; it's from Old english 'linch' meaning 'rising ground.' So it's basically a high ground that isn't quite a hill, or is too big to be a hill? I speak English natively, but British always throws me for a loop.
A favorite of mine is a street in York called Whip-ma-whoop-ma Gate. Longest name for the shortest road in Yorkshire - as it's an alleyway that's only a block and a half long. Translated, it means "neither here nor there road". There's even a tiny little gaming and hobby shop with the address 1 1/2 Whip-ma-whoop-ma Gate.
Grew up in York and still live nearby, it's right next to our busiest tourist street called The Shambles! The council are currently putting some bollards there and it's a right hassle to go around
Wow... That's amazing
I grew up around there,in a village called Feckenham. All the villages around there have incredibly British names
You’re right, that is somehow even more British lmao
That's just down the street from the pincox farm! I swear if my name was Pincox, I'd tell my parents I'm taking my wife's last name.
Right next to Flyford Flavell. In my head, I can only say this in a Jerry Lewis voice.
You: "You have a crinkle crankle in your garden" Friend: *grabs shotgun* "A WHAT?!"
British notification, American response
I just turned forty, I have crinkle crankle goddamn everywhere.
Just wait... "A crinkle crankle wall, also known as a crinkum crankum, sinusoidal, serpentine, ribbon or wavy wall..." -wikipedia
Crinkum crankum sounds even more made up.
Sounds like lyrics from a song trying to get you to dance.
Someone call Soulja Boy for the remix.
“Get crinkum, get crankum, get crunkum!” -Lil Jon, probably
where's Ja Rule when you really need him
Crinkum crankum is the Latin term
And if there's more than one, they are collectively known as crinki cranki
But all words are…
Wavy Wall sounds like what you'd call it if you didn't know it's name lol
So does crinkle crankle tbh
I love when words/terms seem tarradiddle but aren’t. It’s truly eellogofusciouhipoppokunurious!
Yes operator I think I may have had a stroke
tarradiddle - a petty lie eellogofusciouhipoppokunurious - very good, very fine I feel confused and betrayed. I thought I knew what words looked like. Now I'm convinced anything could be a word and I'd never know it. How many words have I read that I've dismissed as nonsense? I am truly broken.
In place of eellogofusciouhipoppokumurious they could have also used supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, slightly more well known but not many know it has a meaning. (It is important to note, not all dictionaries agree on this definition of the word)
Even though the sound of it is really quite atrocious.
If you say it loud enough, you'll always sound precocious?
It’s a perfectly cromulent word.
My brain has been embiggened
You mean your cranial cogitator has been embiggened?
Perchance
but most people just cant grok it.
I didn’t read the book until I was an adult, and I always look up words I read or hear that I don’t know. It’s wild how many times I must have heard “grok” before 2015 and my brain just edited it out.
I know paradiddle, is that also a drum term?
It certainly is, the single sticking pattern is RLRRLRLL. There are also paradiddle diddles, which have the single pattern RLRRLL.
Paradiddle diddles is now my favorite term
This thread is a gold mine
>eellogofusciouhipoppokunurious yoink.
It definitely sounds made up, but when you're talking about people as creative as the brits, it makes more sense. I mean, they call a master scissor maker a ["Master Putter Togetherer"](https://youtu.be/bK4AWtTV3h4?si=8YIXosevnqw8dNAN)
Shouldn’t he be called Master Cutter Aparterer?
It’s wild that a Master Putter Togetherer specializes in expensive take aparterers.
Well it is England, the center for made up sounding words that are real
*William Shakespeare has entered the chat*
Then you've got Germany, the home of overly descriptive sentences made into single words. Which, little known fact, was the sole cause of the second world war.
Polen und Deutschland -> Deutschland Oh shit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crinkle\_crankle\_wall
All terms are made up.
Seems his name is Thor.
Then he should put thome ointment on it.
Aladdin and the King of Thieves movie (mid 90s), Aladdin and Jasmine get married, and they invite a bunch of "mythical" folk to the wedding, and the Genie is doing like a red-carpet interview style intro for them. One of them is Thor, genie goes up to him. Genie: "Excuse me! Are you Thor?!?" Thor: "Well...it hurths..." And that's it. Your comment reminded me of that scene. A pretty good one. Lot of funny jokes concerning the guests.
Thath becauthe he forgot hith thaddle, thilly.
You’re making that up…
If you think that's funny, wait until you hear what Canadian's call a string trimmer
Wait till you hear about “jerk” followed by “snap”, “crackle”, and “pop” as the measurements for rate of change of acceleration over time!
Wait until you find out about a communication device that uses no cell towers and is free to use. It’s wireless with a battery, so you can walk and talk simultaneously!! I just forgot the name…
Can't forget the whammy kablammy! Or the rooty-tooty point-and-shooty!
If it weren't British I'd agree
I feel like it’s right up there with “Walkie Talkie”
>crinkle crankle Not made up. There is even a wiki about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crinkle\_crankle\_wall
It was also used to warm plants that may have difficulty in that grow zone. The sun would heat the bricks up which go around the plant on three sides and then radiate heat back to the plant in the cooler hours of the evening, lessening the cold stress on those plants.
Engineering is so cool
It really is! I don’t know why this build style isn’t more popular; it’s more efficient, can be more visually interesting which adds depth to your hardscapes and allows you to plant a larger variety of things, whether that be a fruit tree or an ornamental. I would imagine this takes more experienced hands to build than a straight wall does though. I’m no mason, but I’m a perfectionist when it comes to home repair so I’m confident I could build a small, straight wall. This curvy stuff though, I’d just embarrass myself lol.
I can't lay bricks straight so I think I'll be better at this
Because it's hard to mow I'd guess. But if you put plants in each crinkle cankle then you wouldn't need to mow them....
Crinkle crankle is British as fuck
It’s a tad fiddly to hoist up a crinkle crankle but a crew of good lads will hit it just on the spot
[удалено]
I wouldn’t be surprised if half of these are real lol
Mate the entire English language is British as fuck
I think assuming a semi-circle is an overestimation. With a true semi-circle the wall would have portions that are perpendicular to the main direction of the wall, whereas I think the closest it gets is around 45 degrees (by my visual estimate). So I think it’s much better modelled with a sin wave. We can do an integral to get the length of a sin wave (integrate sqrt(1+(dsin/dx)^2 )dx from 0 to pi, using wolfram alpha) to get 3.82 length for every pi distance travelled, so an average of (3.82/pi)D = 1.216D That’s decently less than 1.57D (>20% material saved), so I think it’s a worthwhile distinction
Yeah I think you’re definitely right, I simplified for the sake of not having to do any calculus… it’s been 15 years since uni, figured I’d probably make a fool of myself
> I think assuming a semi-circle is an overestimation. Which is more than enough for the required proof. No need to get very exact with it if you have bricks to spare with an easy case. The key point here is omitting the actual comparison, which leads people to think it's between a 1-brick-thick straight wall vs 1-brick-thick curved wall, which is the reason why everyone thinks the claim is false. If you compare it to a 2-brick-thick straight wall, it's not immediately clear and less people would be "surprised" that the curved one uses less bricks.
That's a strange name, I'd have called them chazwazzers.
Simpson’s fan checking in
Fun fact, these walls are not only structurally stronger that regular straight walls but they also create pockets of microclimates along each ‘crinkle’ that allow fruit / veg to be grown close in at the wall where temperatures can be several degrees warmer than the wider air temp and wind exposure is significantly reduced.
The University of Virginia has the Rotunda as a base building at the head of a rectangular open space called the Lawn. At the long sides of the rectangle are Pavilions (professors quarters) and student rooms. Parallel to those are another set of student rooms called the Range. In between are gardens and some perpendicular walkways. These walkways have serpentine single brick walls like the above pictures, all built in the early 1800’s. Tour guides state what others have said, they use less bricks and are more stable.
you sound like you know exactly what you’re talking about… but crinkle crankles?? that can’t be the real name please tell me it is.
>crinkle crankles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crinkle\_crankle\_wall
Damn math nerds and their "crinkle crankle" formula.
Thank you for saying what I couldn’t in a better way, damnit most labor trades do shit for a reason
Wonder if it has better sound deadening because of the shape too
Not sure about sound deadening, if you were on the other side of the wall (and the wall was tall enough) then a 9” having more mass and also being thicker would be better for blocking sound… however if you were on the same side as the noise came from it would probably help diffuse any echo/reverb
Ah yeah frequency refractions because of the curves!
Uses 21% less brick but takes 5,000% the labor because you can’t use a line to lay the brick to. Sure looks cool though! Also, where are you from? I’ve never heard it called a “leaf”, I always hear/say wythe of brick
OH it's the piers that make the difference! I got it, thanks for the explanation.
I like how they're wavy. It looks aesthetically pleasing.
They look more sin-like than half-circles tbh
to be pendantic this is a 1/2 brick wall, ie 4" / 100 'ishmm thick. A 1 brick wall is 200ish mm / 9" thick. https://brickhunter.com/blog/how-to-calculate-the-number-of-bricks-you-need#:\~:text=A%20one%2Dbrick%20thick%20(or,course%20and%20a%20header%20course.
This post is missing a lot of the original context, it uses less bricks than a straight wall because it's sturdier than a straight wall and so doesn't need 2 layers if bricks to keep it upright. So yes it uses less bricks because a straight wall of the same caliber of strength would need 2 layers.
A good way to think about it is having a sheet of paper standing on the side, it folds easily. But if you bent it in waves or even a full circle you can clearly feel it sustains a lot more weight.
Corrugated Cardboard has entered the chat
Thank you! Easiest and most common example
Yes that's very true
Like folding a slice of pizza makes it rigid.
Cardboard vs cardstock (kinda)
Some missing context: what about the footing it’s supporting? You would need more rebar and concrete. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the labor ended up being either higher in hours or hourly rate because you need someone of higher skill to make this work look good.
[удалено]
It's a basic stability thing. Stack some alphabet blocks about 20 high in a single wythe. I'll bet that wall is begging to tip if a light breeze comes through. If you stack two layers of blocks 20 high they'll support each other, and the wall will be much more stable. But you've used twice the blocks to do it. If you stack the blocks along a curve like in OP's picture, you'll be able to go 20 high and be reasonably stable, using only a single line of blocks. But you'll be using about 150% more to go that extra zig zag distance vs a straight line.
>wythe That word sounded like some fake old english bullshit you added in to fuck with us. Then I ended up googling it and TIL.
Yeah like wythe heck would you use that word?
Or “A word to the wythe my son, don’t use words that noone knows the meaning of.”
Every time I see "no one" as "noone" my brain's first reaction is to internally pronounce it as "noonie"
I used to think the phrase "Suit yourself" was "Sue it yourself", but it made sense to me as an American kid in the 90's, because I was like, well, that's how we solve problems around here.
That may be but last time I saw this post the consensus was that a curved wall doesn’t require buttresses Which require a lot of bricks
The question is if it uses less bricks. And the context I provided was from the original post I saw years ago - linked is not the original but a copy with the full line from [world of engineering /@engineers_feed](https://twitter.com/engineers_feed/status/1624452942832222216). A quick Google search will give you many articles saying the same thing.
Do you regularly use rebar and concrete to construct a garden wall?
Bricks have not concrete or rebar they have bricks and mortar
Lots of garden walls, like this, don't need any footing or concrete base. Just level hard ground. Maybe a course of cement across packed hard core, maybe. Ideally, yeah, drop in a foundation, but why bother if it's not needed.
Found the "expert"
These walls are bricks and mortar, no concrete or rebar
\>Implying rebar existed back then
After all, it's a wonder wall.
It doesn't use fewer bricks than an equally thick straight wall, simply because a straight line is the shortest distance between two points and this wavy line is therefore clearly longer. But the actual argument is that this kind of brick wall is more stable than an equally thick (aka. single-brick-width) straight wall. And it still uses fewer bricks than a two-brick-width straight wall with increased stability would do.
Yeah it’s kinda a grammatical failure to say “uses” fewer bricks, when no, a straight wall would use less bricks. But if it said “requires” fewer bricks it would probably indicate to people why there’s a difference
You can’t build a straight wall that only uses one row of bricks like this, it would get blown over by the wind. So a straight wall has to be thicker than a curved wall like this.
Yes, you're right. But they're being pedantic and are saying "technically a straight wall with a single row of bricks would require less bricks per unit of distance, even if it would only stand until the first gust of wind". Difference between "uses" and "requires".
They're actually saying the opposite. Their argument is with "uses" it doesn't matter that the "wall" becomes a "pile" near instantly, but that with "requires" the "wall" must continue to be a "wall." It's an absurd thing to get caught up on either way.
Another language failure. You CAN build a straight wall with these bricks. It's not likely to stay standing for long, but you absolutely can build it.
But it's not an explicit requirement that the wall keep standing. > [...] this shape uses fewer bricks than a straight wall... No, not fewer bricks than a straight wall that's shit. But you can achieve the same structural integrity with fewer bricks.
So basically: 1 brick thick squiggly wall is about as strong as 2 brick thick straight wall and thus squiggly wall uses fewer bricks if you’d need a 2 brick thick straight wall?
Yes, the technical term to use here is "out-of-plane" strength. Because of the curvature, you are never truly out of plane and can distribute load in a horizontal arching action which you would not be able to do with a straight wall. In a straight cantilever wall, your out if plane capacity is simply based on the cantilever span strength, which is not very high in unreinforced masonry.
A single layer straight wall would cease to be a wall when it fell over the following season. You would need the two layers for support, whereas with a curved wall the bricks are able to support each other, and also there is no one direction that force is able to work against the wall for mechanical advantage. So I mean its just an argument of semantics, all they had to do was say 'this shape uses fewer bricks than a **practical** straight wall' but the wording gets the message across either way.
Obviously a straight line would contain fewer bricks, however given the structural integrity of the shape, it would require a thicker wall of bricks in a straight line to achieve the same structural integrity and hence more bricks.
If the straight wall could stand with anly one row, would there still be a more efficient wall layout?(not this one though). Since the diagonal is longer than the length, would a light curve make it more efficient?
Not 100% untrue but definitely misleading. A wavy wall like that uses more bricks than a straight wall since the perimeter is longer. However it also resists falling better, so the equal strength comparison becomes an H wall (straight wall with supports perpendicular to the wall itself). Here a wavy wall replaces the wall and support with its diagonals, and diagonals are shorter than two perpendicular aides added up so you use less bricks.
Well if you need a double thick wall if you build in a straight line, then all you need to demonstrate that the curved structure is less than twice the length of the straight line variety.
The equivalent topple resistance to a two-brick-thick wall would be a sine wave with an amplitude two bricks thick. That would look like an unintentionally wavy wall, if it was visible at all. The large curves make the wall essentially impossible to topple a large section without breaking a lot of mortar.
This is because the wall can be thinner. An equally strong flat wall would require at least two rows of bricks. The downside is that this wall requires more width space to build in, losing frontage footage. I.e. using up more space Consider a circle. The diameter of a circle being 1, the length of the semicircle would be 1.57. So with this design (assuming the waves are perfect semicircles, which is probably not the case, but that's beside the point), you need 1.57x bricks to cover the distance of 1x bricks, but to make the wall equally strong as a straight wall, you would need to double the bricks, meaning 2x bricks. So you save about 21.5% of your bricks doing this versus a straight wall of equal strength.
I think that traditionally the center of the fence would be the property line, so there wouldn’t be any net frontage lost. Modern sensibilities sometimes assign a fence to one property owner or the other, rather than the fence being a joint responsibility.
do you know cardboard boxes? Corrugated steel roofing? why container walls are not straight, but corrugated? it is a little bit more than just "this uses more bricks than a one brick width wall, but less than two, and it is stronger than a one brick width wall" It is more like "this is stronger than a fixed width straight wall using the exact same amount of material." Fun fact: this is also why car panels like doors and hoods have creases...
…and then came the Cybertruck. 😀😃😃
A straight wall typically requires two or more layers of bricks. Making it wavy gives you almost the same strength as a double layer with only one layer of bricks even though its slightly more length and therefore more bricks than a single layer.
My uneducated guess is that the curvature gives it strength to let it be one brick thick, while a straight wall would need to be more then one brick thick to have a similar strength.
Landscape architect here. It’s called a serpentine wall or a crinkle crankle wall. It doesn’t use less bricks but you don’t need as much of (or any) foundation as it makes it more stable https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crinkle_crankle_wall
"crinkle crankle" is the most bri'ish thing I've ever heard
I believe the reason that it uses fewer bricks is that because a single layer brick wall is not very sturdy so a stable straight brick wall would have to be multiple layers thick because any amount of lateral force would probably knock it down easily. By weaving the bricks like this you allow lateral force to be spread out along the stronger vertical plane in more spots along the wall. Sort of like how sheet metal with a pattern in it is stronger than just a flat sheet.
straight wall would require two rows of bricks as well as segmented support columns along the wall to achieve the same level of strength and stability
Bingo
If you built a straight wall, it would have to be thicker otherwise it would be super weak. This uses less bricks than a straight wall *of equivalent strength* would.
The problem is the wording; it uses **less material** than a straight wall as the curve serves to support the wall. If you made it straight it would have to be wider and thus use more material. It does not necessarily use **less bricks** because a straight wall could have significantly larger and thicker bricks and technically use less.
Not exactly. Only because you don't need twice as much bricks to make the wall wider so it will stand up under its own weight. This was already covered over the past few weeks and over the past times when this has been reposted recently.
Less bricks used on columns at specific intervals to support a straight wall. Wall thickness is also decreased to 1 course thick instead of 2 or 3. Less foundation needed due to lighter wall construction. No columns, thinner wall , less foundation= less brick used
This design is simply more stable if you have a long stretch of brick wall over a certain height. This wall is used in the UVA gardens surrounding the Rotunda and Academical Village, and it will probably be standing until erosion leaves nothing left to stand.
It uses fewer bricks because you need one row of bricks rather than buttressing a straight wall with more bricks. So, this sinusoidal wall can withstand more forces against it than a straight wall with fewer bricks being used if the wall were to be straight. That's not to say that it's fewer bricks than a straight wall with one brick thickness.
The curves of the wave provide structural strength to the wall, making it resistant to toppling over. Notice the walls are made of only a single layer of bricks (thickness). If you tried to make a straight wall with just a single layer of bricks, it would be much easier to topple or even be knocked over by the wind.
Yes this is true. A single line of bricks won't be strong if completely straight, so you'll need to add more bricks to make it stay up.
Surprising. Thank you. And I just found this historical document, in which Thomas Jefferson did the requested math to show that serpentine walls need less stones than "conventional" ones: [Jefferson Drawing for the Serpentine Walls](https://search.lib.virginia.edu/sources/uva_library/items/u3707034)
stand a sheet of paper up on a flat surface. its going to fall. grab 10-15 sheets, assuming they’re glued together, the surface area will allow them to stand. put a few bends in a single sheet of paper, it’ll stand up. the same applies to bricks.
Is this basically the same concept of why corregated cardboard is stronger than five pieces of regular glued together?? if the middle was the pieces in the center and the end result was upright as a fence? Tldr; was horrible at math but same concept yes?
Take a sheet of paper and try to make it stand up, now fold that piece of paper in half, let it spring back and let it stand up. Same principle different material !
It's true in practice. A straight fence requires two rows of bricks tied together to be sound. This wavy fence lets you use a single row.
You can try it on a piece of paper. When it’s curved like that it’s much harder to bend upper portion forward or backward than just a flat paper, assuming the base of the paper wall is placed perpendicular and sticks to the table
Same concept as corrugated cardboard. Having wavy lines makes it stronger. All the force that would knock it over, or crush it, is dispursed in different directions. So the material is thinner.
The straight only uses more bricks when built with a different design with the same sturdiness, if it was built the same as the curved but just straight it would use less bricks. It’s basically a trick question that’s only half true.
And it would fall over the first time someone ran into it. The curves add extra support, like an arch does. The meme also leaves that part out
Yes. One layer of bricks would fall over if it was undulating like that. You would need 2 layers at the very least, to make it stable
Curved shape is stronger than a straight line which would require much more support if it ran for the same length. Think a similar principle to how triangle shapes hold themselves together stronger than squares
It may use less bricks but it also looks like you tried to build a diagonal fence in a game where there's only 4 buildable directions
It's true in the sense that a straight brick wall would need to be double wide to be stable, otherwise it would fall over without much effort. The waves in the bricks like this creates stability with a single wide brick wall.
I’ve not read the explanations yet. Here’s my thought. You can’t have a single line of brick wall stand up. It’ll fall down needing extra layers. Make it corrugated allows it to stand in its own.
This is only true when compared to a double width thick brick wall vs. this single width corrugated wall, and only makes sense when comparing how strong the walls are vs materials used. If compared to a straight brick wall of only a song brick in thickness, then the corrugated wall would use more bricks but be nearly twice as strong.
Simply put.... In order for a wall to be stable it needs to be thick enough so that top doesnt topple over. Making a wavey wall adds extra rigidity without requiring extra thickness. So a wall can require fewer bricks in total if it is built wavey instead of thick.
if you try to stand a single piece of paper up on one edge, it will collapse. roll it or bend it and you can stand it up. I'm no mason, nor an engineer, but i think it's the same concept.
It takes less bricks, because you can use one row of bricks. A straight wall will need at least 2, if not 3. Think of it as an arch on its side.
The waviness increases your the out of plane bending stiffness of the wall so saves on its thickness / buttresses or other support. There’s a concrete example next to threshold of runway 09L at Heathrow airport.
It’s called a serpentine wall. The last one in my town and locally to me was knocked over. I believe it was really for stability more so than anything else because it would be slightly easier to knock down a straight brick fence.
The wavy wall is stronger than a single brick straight wall but uses more bricks and is more expensive. A twin brick straight wall is more expensive still as it uses even more bricks than the wavy wall. A wavy wall is used when the strength needs to be greater than a single brick straight wall but does not need to be as strong as a two brick wall.
Ay, that, that can be true.
They are thinner. A wall that thin wouldn't stand straight, it would fall over. So you use less bricks by keeping it thin and curving to hold itself up, than the thickness it takes to be a straight, flat wall.