Originally Posted By: gortiz
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Guys, Thanks for the information. It was helpful in making my decision.
Guys, Thanks for the information. It was helpful in making my decision.
Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Try this, from the Brick Industry Association and the Brick Institute of America. BIA
Their standards are what many (most?) codes refer to.
Brick Veneer on wood frame
Scroll down to here.
DESIGN AND DETAILS
Foundations for Brick Veneer
Brick veneer with wood frame backing must transfer the weight of the veneer through the veneer to the foundation. Typical foundation details for brick veneer are shown in Fig. 2. It is recommended that the foundation or foundation wall supporting the brick veneer be at least equal to the total thickness of the brick veneer wall assembly.
Not just me "speculating", I know what they specify.
As Jeff R. said "I like to quote printed material from the industry rather than speculate.", so read to your hearts content. Then go look at the drawings in the IRC, they like the drawings in the BIA Technical Notes.
You code may offer a lesser quality construction, but check your code for drawings as well. Maybe you will find a conflict, maybe not.
--
Jerry Peck
South Florida
Originally Posted By: jremas
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Good find Jerry, nothing wrong with the overhang at all/ The corbel is allowed 2" total on the inside and does not specify load bearing or not. If it is ok for figure 2C then to the outside is not a problem in my book. A solid concrete or block foundation is still better than a bolted angle iron any day. Both hold up well though if properly installed.
–
Jeff Remas
REMAS Inspections, Inc.
Northeastern PA & the Poconos
www.NEPAinspector.com
570-362-1598
Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| jremas wrote: |
| The corbel is allowed 2" total |
Do you know how to corbel a brick wall out?
Do you stack the brick out over the edge with the inner edge of the brick not supported, or does the inside of the wall stay plumb and the corbelled wall get thicker, thus applying weight to the back of the corbelled out brick?
The bottom of the first course must be fully bedded, the corbelled out brick simply makes the veneer thicker, it does not make the veneer "lean".
--
Jerry Peck
South Florida
Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I do not see a problem with standard width brick veneer projecting out beyond the foundation by 1" maximum, and would agree with Paul and Jeff (and the referenced they quoted as a “guide”). Yes, it is “recommended” that brick veneer have full bearing, but I dont see an issue with the situation posted as long as it’s not a bearing wall.
–
Robert O’Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: jremas
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I guess the key word is “recommended”. I as a code enforcement person do not have a problem with it and apparently Robert O as an engineer has no problem with it either so it appears as though this would pass with flying colors. Right or wrong, I still can’t see any detrimental effects from this installation. It is a veneer and not weight bearing, plus in most cases in residential it is limited in vertical footage.
We could probably hash this out for a few months and not agree to disagree so I will just agree to disagree. Do I like the projection? "NO" but do I think there will be any negative consequences due to that type of installation? "NO".
A bigger problem and more prevelent problem is the lack of the 1" airgap with no weep holes OR the presence of the 1" -"spacing" and weep holes but those areas filled with mortar. More common than anything.
--
Jeff Remas
REMAS Inspections, Inc.
Northeastern PA & the Poconos
www.NEPAinspector.com
570-362-1598
Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| jremas wrote: |
| A bigger problem and more prevelent problem is the lack of the 1" airgap with no weep holes OR the presence of the 1" -"spacing" and weep holes but those areas filled with mortar. More common than anything. |
Now that is something we can agree on. Except instead of "OR" I would use "AND". Does that mean we agree on this or disagree on this???? 
--
Jerry Peck
South Florida
Originally Posted By: Larry L Leesch
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
The number one thing that sticks out to me is the grade is set too high on the slab. IRC requires 8" exposeure on the slab from floor height to grade. This appears to be about 3". I don’t see the brick hanging over an issue.
Originally Posted By: jonofrey
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
The problem and reference should be with the foundation and not the brick veneer. Personally, and no offense intended, I wouldn’t rely on a mason to tell me how to build a house.
The brick veneer walls do not appear to be completely supported by the foundation brick ledge. The construction does not provide a complete load path capable of transferring all loads from their point of origin through the load-resisting elements to the foundation.
Here's your reference:
IRC R401.2
I've had brick sitting 2/3rds off the brick ledge and the builder try to tell me the friggin brick ties suffice. BS! They ended up extending the foundation to accommodate the load. 
--
Inspection Nirvana!
We're NACHI. Get over it.
Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| jremas wrote: |
| I as a code enforcement person do not have a problem with it |
You bet you don't as a CEO, because that would not be a code violation in your neck of the woods or mine (as a CEO also). Hmmmmm ... did I mention "code violation" on an HI site ... have my girlfriend whip me with a wet noodle ... 
| jremas wrote: |
| We could probably hash this out for a few months and not agree to disagree so I will just agree to disagree. |
Awwwwww ... come on ... just when I was having some fun disagreeing with Jerry. He is a knowledgeable opponent, and I occasionally like disagreeing with him when I do not share the same opinion just because it ends up it in a really good debate (which we all learn from ... )
In this case I respectfully disagree with Jerry that a 1" overhang on non-load bearing brick veneer is an issue.
--
Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: bbadger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I will just add that many of the steel frame buildings I work in have a brick veneer.
Not once can I remember a time where the steel brick ledges where flush with the brick veneer. The brick ledges are always short of the brick and yes that is with the air gap behind them. 
I wish I could remember what the brick ledges at the foundations look like but that is usually below grade here. 
--
Bob Badger
Electrical Construction & Maintenance
Moderator at ECN
Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| jonofrey wrote: |
| The problem and reference should be with the foundation and not the brick veneer. |
John,
Without further details, I cannot make that decision.
Is there at least a 1" air gap? Is there enough foundation for the brick veneer to be properly and fully supported? Did the mason just lay it up wrong? If the preceding is true, it's the mason.
Is three at least a 1" air gap? Is there NOT enough foundation for the brick veneer to be properly and fully supported? Did the mason lay it up as best they could to allow for the 1" air gap? If the preceding is true, then it's the foundation.
Either way, the EASY correction is the steel angle, without laying blame on either party.
Robert and I disagree more than we agree, and I believe we both learn from it. Just because I am always right and he is always wrong (  ) does not mean that I do not respect his very informed and knowledgeable opinions and statements ( ). Sorry Robert, couldn't resist .
--
Jerry Peck
South Florida
Originally Posted By: jonofrey
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| jpeck wrote: |
|
Either way, the EASY correction is the steel angle, without laying blame on either party. |
That is correct! The steel then becomes an element of the structural foundation.
Score one for me! 
Yee ahhh! (my best crazy Dean impression)  
--
Inspection Nirvana!
We're NACHI. Get over it.
Originally Posted By: jpeck
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| jonofrey wrote: |
| That is correct! The steel then becomes an element of the structural foundation.
Score one for me!  Yee ahhh! (my best crazy Dean impression)   |
John,
Go back and read my third post on this thread.
--
Jerry Peck
South Florida