Second opinion - knocking out old fireplace (pic in text)

Submitted by Winter_Stomach_5540 t3_yajc7q in DIY

Hi! I’m midway through a project to open up this (https://imgur.com/a/zA295iY) fireplace cavity. The house was previously a rental, so until last week this cavity and an old hearth was all boarded up.

I removed the boarding last week. Was expecting a lot worse, but it was actually a quick, tidy job to remove the skirting board and plasterboard to expose the brickwork, and the old cracked fireback. The fireback just lifted away. So far, I haven’t removed any brickwork.

The next stage is to reopen the cavity all the way back to the original. We’ll tidy, board, skim, tile, and make it a feature again. We won’t replace the stove itself (also needing a new boiler has seen to that!).

Before going further, I’m hoping for a second opinion on the highlighted corners of the cavity please.

It seems pretty clear where the original brickwork ends and the more recent stuff starts, but I’m surprised that there isn’t a clear lintel. The old brick arch ends where it meets the vertical edges of the cavity, so if I press ahead I’d be removing bricks that are, currently, under the arch. I’d be concerned, but then those bricks weren’t there to begin with?

I should also add that there’s no movement in the original brickwork (but plenty in the more recent bricks!). The horizontal bricks in the centre of the red area have a metal bar running below.

It seems odd that the horizontal brick just ends, with no brick beneath (highlighted in yellow). Is this normal? There’s no movement in the original brick at all (plenty in the more recent bricks!), but is there any reason to worry, or change our plan?

Thank you kindly!

18

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

WolfKnifeLaserTorch t1_itc0jp3 wrote

Check this out. It might answer your question. It also matters how the bricks are laid above the arch, which we can't see from your picture.

8

Winter_Stomach_5540 OP t1_itc24lh wrote

Replying to WolfKnifeLaserTorch (#178,121)

Very much obliged to you dear user, thats a really handy link

Very reassuring in terms of what I’m looking at already. A bit more work and I should have the info I need to continue - there is a steel form below the more recent brickwork, but I haven’t been able to locate an older form yet

3

Hagenaar t1_itc6t0h wrote

Replying to Winter_Stomach_5540 (#178,239)

Well laid arches are strong structures on their own.

It seems pretty clear the original arch was done without steel support. Obviously, most stone or brick arches throughout history were done this way. Steel support was a way provide a bit of insurance in case something failed - and possibly a crutch used by someone not doing their best work.

2

WolfKnifeLaserTorch t1_itc8aks wrote

Replying to Winter_Stomach_5540 (#178,239)

I don't think the original was made with a steel form. In fact, I think the lower arch is working as the form for the upper arch.

Remember that the force on an arch is going outwardly, not downwardly (like with the newer horizontal brick).

The top arch is doing most of the heavy lifting as far as supporting weight. It only needs help keeping the joints on its underside from pulling apart (outwardly force). This is where a steel form comes in, or in this case, the second arch.

The second arch is doing the job of a steel form by keeping the underside of the top arch from spreading. It also likely isn't supporting much weight. You should be fine with no support under the second arch as long as the mortar joints are strong on the underside and at the edges.

EDIT: I should note, I am not a mason, but my dad was. It couldn't hurt to get the opinion of a professional mason before you start pulling bricks.

2

DupontTyvek t1_itckwvr wrote

The arch looks solid judging from the picture. What does the brickwork look like above the fireplace? If there are any obvious cracks or empty joints I would get a mason in to take a look before doing anything. Otherwise the newer brick/lintel should come out pretty easily.

1