Skip to main content
Provided example of alternate form
Source Link
Everyone
  • 4.7k
  • 5
  • 45
  • 70

Looking around it appears that bricks, through history, have been constructed in cuboid form i.e. with six faces at right-angles to each other. This is also apparently the case with stone construction too - six-sided volumes.

Is the cuboid form the most efficient form to bear load?

How do other form stack up?

EDIT: I would argue in favour of a shape such as a pyramid. It would take more effort to fabricate & work. But it may also be better able to bear load - perhaps because of the way the edges dovetail.

Does the cuboid form continue merely because of the psychological inertia that the term 'brick' induces the impression of a cuboid or near cuboid (as in ingots) form, and because the cuboid form is the easiest to grip/position by the mason/robot?

Why are bricks typically constructed to have six faces at, or near right-angles to each the other?

Looking around it appears that bricks, through history, have been constructed in cuboid form i.e. with six faces at right-angles to each other. This is also apparently the case with stone construction too - six-sided volumes.

Is the cuboid form the most efficient form to bear load?

How do other form stack up?

Does the cuboid form continue merely because of the psychological inertia that the term 'brick' induces the impression of a cuboid or near cuboid (as in ingots) form, and because the cuboid form is the easiest to grip/position by the mason/robot?

Why are bricks typically constructed to have six faces at, or near right-angles to each the other?

Looking around it appears that bricks, through history, have been constructed in cuboid form i.e. with six faces at right-angles to each other. This is also apparently the case with stone construction too - six-sided volumes.

Is the cuboid form the most efficient form to bear load?

How do other form stack up?

EDIT: I would argue in favour of a shape such as a pyramid. It would take more effort to fabricate & work. But it may also be better able to bear load - perhaps because of the way the edges dovetail.

Does the cuboid form continue merely because of the psychological inertia that the term 'brick' induces the impression of a cuboid or near cuboid (as in ingots) form, and because the cuboid form is the easiest to grip/position by the mason/robot?

Why are bricks typically constructed to have six faces at, or near right-angles to each the other?

Post Reopened by dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten
Post Closed as "off topic" by dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten
Source Link
Everyone
  • 4.7k
  • 5
  • 45
  • 70

Why are bricks typically constructed to have six faces at, or near right-angles to each the other?

Looking around it appears that bricks, through history, have been constructed in cuboid form i.e. with six faces at right-angles to each other. This is also apparently the case with stone construction too - six-sided volumes.

Is the cuboid form the most efficient form to bear load?

How do other form stack up?

Does the cuboid form continue merely because of the psychological inertia that the term 'brick' induces the impression of a cuboid or near cuboid (as in ingots) form, and because the cuboid form is the easiest to grip/position by the mason/robot?

Why are bricks typically constructed to have six faces at, or near right-angles to each the other?