Strange location for expansion joint - InspectionNews

imported_John Smith · #1 (**permalink**) 01-04-2009, 10:12 AM

I was looking at some photos on the net, and came across this. I thought the location for the expansion joint was rather odd. Thoughts?

Jim Luttrall · #2 (**permalink**) 01-04-2009, 11:04 AM

I see what you are saying but where else would you put it?
This appears to be a shot just of the upper two stories and if looking from the ground perspective I would think their choice made the most sense since the joint is hidden hidden along side the middle story window and the fully exposed joint is on the upper story further away from the ground. Of course around here they would just leave it out and then let the brick make its own stress relief!

Richard Pultar · #3 (**permalink**) 01-04-2009, 11:39 AM

looks like a cable tv wire to me
I don't think it's solid brick and the line goes right through the rowlocky detail above the window and door
Bricks are next door...
The sills are not deep enough for brick
the windows are too close to the face of the wall

Jerry Peck · #4 (**permalink**) 01-04-2009, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Pultar

looks like a cable tv wire to me

.

Same here.

Besides, if those windows are 3 feet wide, no expansion joint is necessary on that face.

Ted Menelly · #5 (**permalink**) 01-04-2009, 05:33 PM

Looks pretty foolish to me. The only thing below is a garage door opening.

"If the windows are 2 feet wide there is no need for control joint"?

Don't know where that came from. It must have come from a book or something. Just cause it is in a book it does not mean one is required.

I probably would have run two joints and stepped them under the windows. There is no saying that the joint has to be one continuous vertical run.

Jerry Peck · #6 (**permalink**) 01-04-2009, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

.

Same here.

Besides, if those windows are 3 feet wide, no expansion joint is necessary on that face.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

Looks pretty foolish to me. The only thing below is a garage door opening.

"If the windows are 2 feet wide there is no need for control joint"?

Don't know where that came from. It must have come from a book or something. Just cause it is in a book it does not mean one is required.

I probably would have run two joints and stepped them under the windows. There is no saying that the joint has to be one continuous vertical run.

.

Ted,

Me thinks you must have either had: a) not enough coffee; b) too much coffee.

Go back and read my post and yours again, see if you can make more sense out of it than I did.

My comment about the 3 feet width of the windows was that, if the windows are 3 feet wide, then that face of the building is less than 20 feet, and, with multiple openings, expansion joints are only required every 20 feet.

All the above said, though, I also said (being in agreement with Richard P. on this):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Pultar

looks like a cable tv wire to me

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Same here.

Meaning ... that looks like a cable TV wires to me, not a control joint or expansion joint.

Ted Menelly · #7 (**permalink**) 01-04-2009, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

.

Ted,

Me thinks you must have either had: a) not enough coffee; b) too much coffee.

Go back and read my post and yours again, see if you can make more sense out of it than I did.

My comment about the 3 feet width of the windows was that, if the windows are 3 feet wide, then that face of the building is less than 20 feet, and, with multiple openings, expansion joints are only required every 20 feet.

I meant 3 feet and did not add the length of that face. I was just thinking control joint, not dimensions.

imported_John Smith · #8 (**permalink**) 01-04-2009, 06:08 PM

That would have to be the crappiest cable install job I have seen to date. It wouldn't make a bit of sense to do it that way. There's a perfectly good gutter on the side of the house for them to run the cable through. Oh wait thats the Dish Network/Direct TV guys.

imported_John Smith · #9 (**permalink**) 01-04-2009, 06:11 PM

I forgot, I know the area where this property is located at. I will try to swing by and get an upclose look/photo when I have my next inspection in this vicinity. 2009 has been pretty good so far, so hopefully it will be sometime in the next few weeks.

Vern Heiler · #10 (**permalink**) 01-04-2009, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imported_John Smith

I was looking at some photos on the net, and came across this. I thought the location for the expansion joint was rather odd. Thoughts?

Looking at some photos on the net! You've got it bad son! Sit down and have a few Yuengling, chill out!

Joe Klampfer · #11 (**permalink**) 01-04-2009, 10:39 PM

Amazing! Can they build those single family homes any closer ? It's like townhouse living with a 2' air gap between units. It's probably in Texas somewhere with miles & miles of bald ass prairie all around it.

How would you ever service the side walls ? I guess you need a window cleaners swing-harness off the roof. I'd hate to be there when a fire breaks out somewhere in the neighbourhood.

Jerry Peck · #12 (**permalink**) 01-05-2009, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imported_John Smith

I will try to swing by and get an upclose look/photo when I have my next inspection in this vicinity.

No need to go by there again.

Follow the line down from the top of the gable, there are several things you would not want to see if that was an expansion joint: (from the top down)
- the lintel on the right of the center window would not have but a half-brick bearing at most, that would not be any good
- the tip of the decorative piece above the lower right window is cut off by it, and, even worse, the line runs right down and through where the lintel would be bearing at the left end
- having an expansion joint alongside a window like that (left side of lower right window) would be difficult to flash and seal
- see above two items - same for the bottom left of that window
- that line runs right down through the lintel over the garage door at the bottom of the photo

That has to be either TV cable or phone cable (or some other cable we are not thinking of).

Jerry Peck · #13 (**permalink**) 01-05-2009, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Klampfer

I'd hate to be there when a fire breaks out somewhere in the neighbourhood.

Probably Zero Lot Line construction: no openings on either side (except the front doors which are located on the sides in this case and are set back to meet the required separation distance from the adjacent house).

I'm not even sure that the doors set back like that meet the separation distance between structures - still looks too close.

However, I *DO SEE* an opening through the right side wall of the building on the left, exhaust fan or something, and it looks like the edge of something large farther back on that wall in line with exhaust fan - neither are good things to do!

Don Murphy · #14 (**permalink**) 01-06-2009, 04:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Klampfer

Amazing! Can they build those single family homes any closer ? It's like townhouse living with a 2' air gap between units. It's probably in Texas somewhere with miles & miles of bald ass prairie all around it.

How would you ever service the side walls ? I guess you need a window cleaners swing-harness off the roof. I'd hate to be there when a fire breaks out somewhere in the neighbourhood.

...so close there is no eave/overhang on the left side of the house. Even the cornice detail is missing on the left!

Jerry Peck · #15 (**permalink**) 01-06-2009, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Probably Zero Lot Line construction:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Murphy

...so close there is no eave/overhang on the left side of the house. Even the cornice detail is missing on the left!

Don,

That is part of Zero Lot Line planning and construction. The lot line is next to the house on one side, goes under the house, to next to the house on the other side.

When they started building subdivisions like that in South Florida, I was in construction at the time, we had to make sure there were no receptacles, hose bibbs, etc., on that side as the owner would have no idea that his neighbor was stealing electricity or water. I also questioned about maintaining that side of your house while having to stand on their property to do so.

I kept questioning the latter part as a private inspector, eventually they adopted a 2 foot easement on the zero lot line side to allow the owner to maintain their house while on the other person's property ... *TWO* ... *FEET* ... that was all. You cannot do much with only two feet to stand on.

Of course, though, the difference between those down there and the ones in the photo was that there was 5-10 feet (varied) of land between the two buildings, not that 2+/- feet shown.

Jerry Peck · #16 (**permalink**) 01-06-2009, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Klampfer

I'd hate to be there when a fire breaks out somewhere in the neighbourhood.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Probably Zero Lot Line construction: no openings on either side (except the front doors which are located on the sides in this case and are set back to meet the required separation distance from the adjacent house).

.

I was expecting a question regarding the above, I will expand on the separation requirements here.

From the 2006 IRC.
- Table R302.1
- - Exterior Walls
- - - Exterior Wall Element
- - - - Walls - Fire resistance rated - 1 hour rating exposure both sides - 0 feet separation allowed
- - - - Walls - Not Fire resistance rated - 0 hour rating - 5 feet or more separation required
- - - - Projections - Fire resistance rated - 1 hour rating on underside - 4 feet separation required
- - - - Projections - Not Fire resistance rated - 0 hour rating - 5 feet or more separation required
- - - - Openings - Not allowed - N/A - with <3 feet separation provided
- - - - Openings - 25% maximum of wall area - 0 hours rating - with 3-5 feet separation provided
- - - - Openings - Unlimited - 0 hours rating - with 5 feet or more separation provided
- - - - Penetrations - All - Fire-resistance rating to comply with Section R317.3 - when <5 feet separation provided
- - - - Penetrations - All - No Fire-resistance rating Required - with 5 feet or more separation provided

The wall shown has a penetration and there is <5 feet separation provided, that means the fire-resistance rating needs to comply with Section R317.3.

- R317.3 Rated penetrations. Penetrations of wall or floor/ceiling assemblies required to be fire-resistance rated in accordance with Section R317.1 or R317.2 shall be protected in accordance with this section.
- - (then there is a long section for R317.3.1 Through penetrations.)

- - (then there is a long section for R317.3.1 Membrane penetrations.)

An exhaust duct is an example of a "through penetration" as the penetration (the duct) "goes through" the wall assembly.

A receptacle outlet is an example of a "membrane penetration" as it simply penetrates one side of the wall assembly, i.e., one "membrane" of the assembly.

Victoria Morris · #17 (**permalink**) 01-06-2009, 01:47 PM

The space between the buildings looks like the expansion joint.

Rick Hurst · #18 (**permalink**) 01-06-2009, 02:09 PM

How would it be possible to do any foundation repairs to a structure that close to one another. How about termite treatment? No way to get in there and trench that soil in that close proximity.

A little too close to the Jones for me.

rick

Ron Bibler · #19 (**permalink**) 01-06-2009, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Hurst

How would it be possible to do any foundation repairs to a structure that close to one another. How about termite treatment? No way to get in there and trench that soil in that close proximity.

A little too close to the Jones for me.

rick

Rick

Home in San Francisco have nothing but air between them. If you are going to inspect for termites in this area you had better be good. if you miss a drywood termite or beetles infestation you can not fume the complete city long block of home... like these. This city sucks.

Best

Ron

Joe Klampfer · #20 (**permalink**) 01-06-2009, 11:26 PM

This house is smaller & Tighter. Made the news up here a few years back

Smallest House In Toronto...

Brian Thomas · #21 (**permalink**) 01-08-2009, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Klampfer

This house is smaller & Tighter. Made the news up here a few years back

Smallest House In Toronto...

I remember seeing something on that house before. 179K for that house is a total rip off though.

It reminds me of the skinny house in boston...only 10 feet wide. I had never heard of that house until I was in boston on the freedom trail and saw it.

imported_John Smith · #22 (**permalink**) 01-10-2009, 01:40 PM

I confirmed without a doubt that this was indeed an expansion joint. See the attached photo.

Ted Menelly · #23 (**permalink**) 01-10-2009, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imported_John Smith

I confirmed without a doubt that this was indeed an expansion joint. See the attached photo.

Looks like something they may have been cut in after the fact. Especially through the angled soldier course. Kinda strange.

Jerry Peck · #24 (**permalink**) 01-10-2009, 03:49 PM

Truly weird.

By the way, that sealant application to the joint is, well, basically all incorrect.

imported_John Smith · #25 (**permalink**) 01-10-2009, 04:06 PM

I didnt see the cable behind the sealant, so that also rules out any theory the cable guys cut a joint down the brick for one of their typical high quality installs.

What would be the correct way to apply sealant to this crappy joint?

Dom D'Agostino · #26 (**permalink**) 01-10-2009, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imported_John Smith

I confirmed without a doubt that this was indeed an expansion joint. See the attached photo.

While this photo may indeed be an expansion joint, it is not the same house as the first photo you posted.

The first photo's expansion joint runs in a very specific location to the left side of the right hand window, adjacent to the shutter. The close up shows the joint in a totally different loaction.

imported_John Smith · #27 (**permalink**) 01-10-2009, 04:29 PM

You are correct about the photo being a different property, (same floorplan) however it was the exact same builder. All of the other properties in this "neighborhood" had similar expansion joint configurations. There is no doubt in my mind that the original photo for this thread contains an expansion joint similar to what was shown in the last photo. Given the fact this builder has several different "neighborhoods" in Houston, it would be practically impossible to find the exact same house as in the original photo.

The evidence looks pretty darn clear to me.

Jerry Peck · #28 (**permalink**) 01-10-2009, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imported_John Smith

What would be the correct way to apply sealant to this crappy joint?

For starters, see attached annotated photo.

You will notice one conundrum: if the minimum width of 1/4" is present, then the minimum depth of 1/4" would also be present, meaning the required 2:1 ration was not there - that is acknowledged and acceptable, however, on joints 1/2" and wider, the 2:1 ration can be meet or exceeded (i.e., a 2" wide joint with a 1/2" max depth would be a 4:1 ration, which is god).

imported_John Smith · #29 (**permalink**) 01-10-2009, 04:44 PM

For what its worth, heres the full photo of the joint shown from ground level today in the last post with photo. Note that they moved the joint from the left side of the right side second story window to the right side of the third story middle window.

Richard Pultar · #30 (**permalink**) 01-10-2009, 07:19 PM

I wonder why that cut was made ..
The posted photo shows one of my favorite misapplications of to 2/10 rule for vents being treated as if they are chimneys

Jerry Peck · #31 (**permalink**) 01-10-2009, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Pultar

The posted photo shows one of my favorite misapplications of to 2/10 rule for vents being treated as if they are chimneys

Richard,

Please explain.

Which photo? The original photo or the photo just above?

There is no "2/10 rule for vents".

There is a 3/2-10 rule for chimneys.
- 3 feet minimum, and 2 feet higher than any part of any structure within 10 feet.

There is a 1*-8/8-2-10 rule for vents.
- 1* foot high minimum (*higher for slopes steeper than 6/12) if not less than 8 feet from a vertical obstruction, or, if less than 8 feet from a vertical obstruction, 2 feet higher than any part of any building within 10 feet.

Yes, there is also a complication of 12" or less diameter and greater than 12" diameter, but most vents we see are 12" or less diameter. I'm just trying to keep the vent rule as simple as I can.

1*-8/8-2-10 for vents
*greater for slopes over 6/12

Richard Pultar · #32 (**permalink**) 01-10-2009, 09:50 PM

the first photo.. more bad advice from you.. this is a site that people in snow areas might actually believe you and follow your buffet style code referencing. your cavalier attitude might allow a blocked vent that might not cause a CO death.

Jerry Peck · #33 (**permalink**) 01-10-2009, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Pultar

the first photo.. more bad advice from you..

Please show me where my "bad advice" was.

Quote:

this is a site that people in snow areas might actually believe you and follow your buffet style code referencing.

Hopefully they will believe me before they believe you.

Quote:

your cavalier attitude might allow a blocked vent that might not cause a CO death.

Please explain.

You really need to get into the habit of making complete thoughts and sentences, then paragraphs, to allow us to understand what you are thinking - we cannot read your mind, and not sure that I would even want to.