Thread: Interesting video and site

Brick veneer drainage plane

Similar Threads:

• New to InspectionNews site
• Good web site for research
• Interesting day

Good video. Thanks for posting it.

Originally Posted by John Dirks Jr

Good video. Thanks for posting it.

John,

Be careful with the information that site provides, while it is a good video on laying up brick veneer, it treats one of the greatest causes of leaks through the brick veneer nonchalantly and does not address how it should be done during the brick laying, i.e., cutting off the excess mortar which is squeezed out to the inside of the brick. That mortar should be cut off with the trowel such that the mortar is kept on the trowel and is either reused on the next course of brick or is thrown outside the wall, the reason is to keep the mortar from bridging the air space and to keep the mortar from collecting in the bottom of the air space. That video addresses those issues 'by adding another layer of felt' over the building wrap, it does not address the fact that the mortar should be struck off and removed from within the air gap.

Other irregularities exist in the video too.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

John,

Be careful with the information that site provides, while it is a good video on laying up brick veneer, it treats one of the greatest causes of leaks through the brick veneer nonchalantly and does not address how it should be done during the brick laying, i.e., cutting off the excess mortar which is squeezed out to the inside of the brick. That mortar should be cut off with the trowel such that the mortar is kept on the trowel and is either reused on the next course of brick or is thrown outside the wall, the reason is to keep the mortar from bridging the air space and to keep the mortar from collecting in the bottom of the air space. That video addresses those issues 'by adding another layer of felt' over the building wrap, it does not address the fact that the mortar should be struck off and removed from within the air gap.

Other irregularities exist in the video too.

Jerry,

Do you think bulging mortar on the inside presents a problem? My concern with scraping off the inside bulge is that more will fall than not.

I agree there are things missing from the video; such as lintels and weeps at the bottom (just above grade), floor line weeps, etc.

Originally Posted by Steven Turetsky

Do you think bulging mortar on the inside presents a problem? My concern with scraping off the inside bulge is that more will fall than not.

Yes, but not just bulging mortar, if they don't strike the mortar off from the inside the mortar will bridge the air space, and at that point they might as well lay the wall up directly next to the substrate (because that is basically what they did anyway).

Many masons will use a margin trowel which has been cut down to less 1" so it fits in the air space, that allows them to cut the mortar off without having to worry about the mortar sliding off an angled trowel and fall into the bottom of the air space where the mortar builds up and blocks the weep holes along the bottom flashing.

Another thing many masons will do is to lay the brick veneer wall up with a 1-1/2" or 2" air space (1" is just the minimum, 4-1/2" is the maximum air space), that extra air space not only allows them more space to cut the mortar off, but it also allows some bridging and still meet the 1" minimum air space requirements.

That video also showed them installing the anchoring ties at 24" horizontally, presumably at 24" vertically also (which is also what the code allows for maximum spacing), however, there is another requirement for spacing: each anchor is only allowed to anchor 2.67 sq ft (and only 2.0 sf in higher seismic categories are areas with higher wind pressures). If the anchors are placed 2' horizontally and 2' vertically, each anchor is anchoring and area which is 2' x 2', or 4 sf.

This is like EERO sizes where the minimum height allowed is 24", the minimum width allowed is 20", but a 20" x 24" opening does not meet the required 5.7 sf opening (20 x 24 = 480 / 144 = 3.33 sf)

With only 2.67 sf allowed per anchor, that means the anchors need to be placed no more than 19.2" on centers (basically think 18"-19" on center).

With the reduction to 2.0 sf allowed per anchor in many areas, that means the anchors need to be placed no more than 16.9" on center (16"+ is the way I've always looked at it here in Florida as that covers the .9" extra allowed, less than 17 inches is going to be within the 16*.9* inches )

Thanks Steve.
Saved it for later tonight.
The mention about what we have been calling snot up here by Jerry is correct.
I think there is some kind of netting they can use also though as a General Home Inspector never see that end of it ..
Just finished a report where the homeowner had sent out a tuckpointer at some time who saw the weep holes and plugged them up.

What I always wonder is how the early brick veneer/60's / 70's often never has water intrusion issues with lack of proper flashing while the newer construction can have major issues if a flashing point is missed.


Had this for years now with no knowledge of the author.

(Brick Veneer)Any building constructed since 1970 should have rubber, plastic or metallic "flashing," a protective skirt that curves around joints to protect against moisture. When water does get through a wall, it collects on the flashing and is released through "weep holes," small openings in the masonry. These holes are most obvious at the top of the foundation wall.
3/16-inch-diameter weep holes every 33 inches at minimum, just above the flashing . Flashing, in turn, is recommended under the first course of masonry at ground level, above windows and doors, below window sills, and at any lintels and shelf angles

Originally Posted by Bob Elliott

The mention about what we have been calling snot up here by Jerry is correct.
I think there is some kind of netting they can use also though as a General Home Inspector never see that end of it ..

Bob,

I've seen this ( Mortar Net â„¢ | WIRE-BOND ) used on several brick veneer projects, I suspect this is what you are referring to.

While this is good stuff, it does allow the mason to become a bit sloppy because he knows the mortar net will catch his droppings. The problem with the mortar net is that the mortar which is caught on the either or both of the two levels of it now bridges the air space. Granted, there is a vertical height which still allows water to migrate between the mortar droppings, and while it is better than nothing, the best mason actually do their best to keep the mortar from dropping onto the mortar net (at least on the projects I was on because I would look down and see how much they dropped, and if the space was bridged they would have to reach down and remove the mortar droppings.

This shows what I am referring to about the mortar build-up on the netting - scroll down to page 648: http://www.pearsonhighered.com/asset...0132148692.pdf

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Yes, but not just bulging mortar, if they don't strike the mortar off from the inside the mortar will bridge the air space, and at that point they might as well lay the wall up directly next to the substrate (because that is basically what they did anyway).

Are you saying that if the mortar bulges out 1/4" (or whatever), effectively there will be less than 1" air space? I can't disagree with that, although I usually see larger gaps than 1", so effectively the 1" remains.

I think the additional moisture barrier is a good idea.

Originally Posted by Jerry

Many masons will use a margin trowel which has been cut down to less 1" so it fits in the air space, that allows them to cut the mortar off without having to worry about the mortar sliding off an angled trowel and fall into the bottom of the air space where the mortar builds up and blocks the weep holes along the bottom flashing.

That sounds like a very good idea, most of the jobs I see, the mason favors the front of the brick when laying the mortar.

Originally Posted by Jerry

Another thing many masons will do is to lay the brick veneer wall up with a 1-1/2" or 2" air space (1" is just the minimum, 4-1/2" is the maximum air space), that extra air space not only allows them more space to cut the mortar off, but it also allows some bridging and still meet the 1" minimum air space requirements.

Agree

Originally Posted by Jerry

That video also showed them installing the anchoring ties at 24" horizontally, presumably at 24" vertically also (which is also what the code allows for maximum spacing), however, there is another requirement for spacing: each anchor is only allowed to anchor 2.67 sq ft (and only 2.0 sf in higher seismic categories are areas with higher wind pressures). If the anchors are placed 2' horizontally and 2' vertically, each anchor is anchoring and area which is 2' x 2', or 4 sf.

This is like EERO sizes where the minimum height allowed is 24", the minimum width allowed is 20", but a 20" x 24" opening does not meet the required 5.7 sf opening (20 x 24 = 480 / 144 = 3.33 sf)

With only 2.67 sf allowed per anchor, that means the anchors need to be placed no more than 19.2" on centers (basically think 18"-19" on center).

With the reduction to 2.0 sf allowed per anchor in many areas, that means the anchors need to be placed no more than 16.9" on center (16"+ is the way I've always looked at it here in Florida as that covers the .9" extra allowed, less than 17 inches is going to be within the 16*.9* inches )

This makes sense (I only had to read it 173 times). Strange though, in the video the ties appear closer than 24" oc. Also, when he explains the ties; he say 24"oc or 16"oc respectively. I don't know what he means.


Regarding the rest; as I was watching it initially, there were a few things I would do differently.

I would have had (additional) provision for weepage closer to grade, and would have liked to have seen lintels, window/door tops, and parapet walls, etc. addressed.

I liked the demonstration showing the general principal for drainage (at window bottom) and thru wall flashing.

People vilify EIFS, yet rarely consider all the problems that can exist with all other claddings.

I liked the demonstration showing the general principal for drainage (at window bottom) and thru wall flashing.

All builders and masons should be required to watch this.

Around here there is an inspection required for the WRB, through wall flashing etc.. I assumed it was similar for all areas of the country.

My question is, are roofing nails acceptable fasteners for wall ties?

Originally Posted by Chris McIntyre

My question is, are roofing nails acceptable fasteners for wall ties?

Peck should be back shortly to tell us if roofing nails are acceptable. That's all I've ever used, in my limited brick-laying endeavors. However, the video nailing sequence is incorrect. I believe both holes in each tie should be nailed, and have done so with all the ties I've installed. The nail guy was using only one nail, in each tie's top hole. This will allow the tie to bend and rotate about the top nail when the brick veneer wants to move outward. If using only one nail is acceptable, it should be placed in the bottom hole of each tie (closer to the horizontal face of the tie), preventing or at least minimizing any outward movement of the veneer.

Originally Posted by Chris McIntyre

My question is, are roofing nails acceptable fasteners for wall ties?

According to the Brick Industry Association, Technical Note 28 ( http://www.gobrick.com/Portals/25/do...Notes/TN28.pdf ), Figure 1, the nail shown is a 1-3/4' galvanized roofing nail ... now, I am pretty sure that they did not mean a 1-3/4 FOOT galvanized roofing nail ... I am pretty sure that is a typo and they meant 1-3/4" INCH galvanized roofing nail ... but, hey, who am I to say they made an error ...

Steve
That is good info.
I just consulted on a 1M$ all brick 5yr old home that is having all of the brick removed and replaced due to missing flashing details. the window lintels were not protected with a thru wall so the windows leak, granted if the windows had the proper SAF at the exterior perimeter this would not be an issue.

The capillary action thru the WRB is a big problem over time. It is noticably a bigger problem on the sides where the sun shines directly on the brick due to solar vapor drive.

photos: from a 10 yr old home just reviewed.
1. mortar bridging to the WRB
2. Uncovered damage, water intrusion from above assembly and capillarity thru WRB
3. Water damage to interior surfaces.
4. All mortar joints were caulked over.
5. freeze damage to mortar

@Mark: Excellent pictures.

So do you think if they had invested a hundred bucks or so in flashing they would have saved a fortune?