Corbelling for Masonry Veneer

mgratton · February 20, 2009, 8:09pm

In the pics attached, what would you say would happen if nothing is done to better support this wall and do you think it should be looked at further by an engineer? It was projecting 1 3/4 inches in some areas.

[FONT=Times New Roman]I wrote in the report to have a stuctural engineer investigate. [/FONT]

Below is what the code for my area reads:

****Masonry veneer resting on a bearing support shall not project more than 1 in. beyond the supporting base where the veneer is not less than 3½ in. thick, and ½ in beyond the supporting base where the veneer is less than 3½ in thick.

Thanks

wdecker · February 20, 2009, 10:52pm

Its wrong. I have seen them install angle irons under it as a fix.

Gee, ai’t it funny that the GC didn’t find this? Or the codie?

Richard_A.Hetzel · February 20, 2009, 11:23pm

What’s the problem? The bricks are tied back to the framing behind. Where are they going to go? Should there be less overhang? (It’s not exactly a corbel) Sure. Would I reject it or do something silly like stick an angle under it if it were on my job? Absolutely NOT.

dduffy · February 21, 2009, 1:41am

I wouldn’t make a deal out of it either Marcel…

mcyr · February 21, 2009, 4:01am

I agree with both Richard and Dale on this one Marcel, man all of a sudden, it sounds like I am talking to myself. :);):mrgreen:

mgratton · February 21, 2009, 4:08am

Thanks for the responses, these were my thoughts.

But one question, why would the National Building Code, which is the minimum requirements for my area, say that it should not project more than 1 inch?

What would be the rationale?

mcyr · February 21, 2009, 4:20am

This may help a little;

http://www.bia.org/pdfs/Supporting%20Brick%20Masonry.pdf

:)

Richard_A.Hetzel · February 21, 2009, 1:15pm

So, a projection of about an inch and a quarter is permissible according to Mr. Cyr’s link. The pictured brick misses that by a little in the worst spots. I don’t see it as a problem.

jfunderburk · February 21, 2009, 1:58pm

How old is the building?

mgratton · February 21, 2009, 7:56pm

Built in 2003.

kshepard · February 28, 2009, 4:29am

I’d mention in the report (CYA) that it doesn’t comply with modern requirements, but that it doesn’t appear to be a significant problem.