"exposed" masonry

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1477 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Saturday, September 19, 2015 - 08:18 pm:    An engineer was looking at my Concrete Unit Masonry spec and questioned a word in a paragraph from an old Masterspec entry, the verbage: "Single-Source Responsibility for Masonry Units: Obtain exposed masonry units of a uniform texture and color, or a uniform blend within the ranges accepted for these characteristics, from one source and by a single manufacturer for each different product required." The Engineer suggested I remove the word exposed from the spec section as there was no exposed masonry in the job. Does anyone agree with this engineer? I can't even begin to estimate how many jobs this paragraph has been used in and the use of the word "exposed" never came up? Liz O'Sullivan Senior Member Username: liz_osullivan Post Number: 197 Registered: 10-2011 Posted on Saturday, September 19, 2015 - 08:22 pm:    I'm not sure the engineer needs to be weighing in on color and texture. I also don't think you need to dictate color and texture of concealed masonry. If there's no exposed masonry, maybe consider deleting the entire provision. But deleting "exposed" changes the intent. Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: lazarcitec Post Number: 1478 Registered: 05-2003 Posted on Saturday, September 19, 2015 - 08:34 pm:    This is a spec section I prepared for the Engineer pro bono, the engineer doesn't provide specs but the bank wants specs, one of those deals, I've known the engineer for 20 years so I volunteered to assist. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: michael_chusid Post Number: 73 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Saturday, September 19, 2015 - 09:09 pm:    Variations in color and texture could indicate products with variations in performance characteristics such as strength. Hence, it is can be retained as a quality assurance measure. Michael Chusid, RA FCSI CCS www.chusid.com www.buildingproduct.guru Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 876 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Saturday, September 19, 2015 - 10:31 pm:    The engineer may have been going for "Obtain masonry units from one source and by a single manufacturer for each different product required." What is the value of such requirements? Assuming appearance is not a factor, if the products meet the specifications, what does it matter where they came from? William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 941 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Saturday, September 19, 2015 - 10:55 pm:    I agree with Sheldon and Liz here. With Sheldon in that if it is all concealed, single source is essentially irrelevant - if it preforms, who cares what color it is - and there are no issues that I know of where single source for concealed masonry would address. With Liz because the way this paragraph is worded, a note to the specifier should have stated, "Delete the paragraph below if there is no exposed unpainted masonry or where color control is of no importance." William William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, September 21, 2015 - 12:56 pm:    I only include this language for decorative CMU, not garden variety gray block - even if that garden variety gray block may be exposed in the finished work. Retaining this language for non-decorative CMU is over specifying. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1646 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, September 21, 2015 - 02:57 pm:    I don't think color or texture serves as a quality assurance measure for strength - that should be done by the manufacturer via a QC plan. A batch produced with aggregate from an alternative supplier may change color with no change in performance. I think this paragraph is intended solely for exposed, especially unpainted, CMU and can be deleted if not needed. It is arguable whether it is otherwise required to have a sole source clause.