Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT
Senior Member
Username: rliebing
Post Number: 1244
Registered: 02-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2011 - 08:26 am: |    |
110615
WHO’S RIGHT?
by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT, Cincinnati, OH
This ought to be good ! The question of the moment is:
Should bed joints of brick work be furrowed? No? Slightly [define]? Deeply [define]?
No matter what you use here, this is a point where we easily see that bricklayers, architects, engineers and spec writers often do not agree. But what or who is right? ALL OF THESE criteria are in frequent use, and no real explanation is offered. One reason is that design professionals are educated using one criteria, and the brick masons are trained to another, but not necessarily to the same standard, direction, instruction, etc. All of these concepts are from an “industry standard” [one of many sources and not the same-- who’s right?] And perhaps though you feel or see no “big deal” here, this is a point that could be fodder in a law suit regarding leaking walls, etc.
Technical Note #7B from the Brick Industry Association notes on the first page “minimize furrowing” [again we need to define the parameters of that]; and a page 4 note directs, “…and furrowed lightly [?], if at all”. Look at the wiggle room in this, for the bricklayers. Other sources want the furrow “slight”…..etc. …………………….. But all of these are far too subjective, variable and inconsistent and should not [cannot!] be left to the whim of the individual mason [good as they may be]. Besides, these words are virtually so subjective as to be unenforceable-- which serves no good purpose.
You may find this a petty and silly discussion, but there are two points: first, who really is right? Masonry is a mass construction and needs to be thoroughly bound together to ensure its strength in mass and water tightness. Water is its nemesis and a continuing problem-- so why allow voids to be built into the wall, which actual degrades it?
Second, this is about industry standards, so multiple in source and number [and content!], Vague, conflicting and with varied rationales—and often deemed to be more than they are and mandatory???? Who says? You may say, “Who cares?” In which case, why do we address any such thing[s] that are really inconsequential [?]
Conclusion-- every manual, handbook, how-to-book, instructional text and prevailing system, etc. is NOT an industry standard and are not necessarily exclusively “right”; flexibility and adaption to changed circumstances still are vital. Like in this instance-- what, exactly is the applicable “industry standard”?
It is true that we can and do set the contractual obligation for the work. We can also cite a supposedly creditable and definitive criteria to assess the work, but we do not; then set an industry standard into motion-- the mason may well have his industry standard [!] in his back pocket which is at odds with ours.
Observation: we should not just specify [particularly using very subjective terms] and expect things to happen “our way”. Others [particularly the trades and professionals trained with other instruction resources] have different training and values which conflict with ours— and they may be valid. Our obligation is to set terms, observe the compliance, and deliver full established value to the owner.
Oh yes, we quibble over “furrow” here-- what about “industry standard”? And a zillion other such glitches?
You may have seen some indications about that could mean I’m retiring; truth is, I am NOT. |
4specs.com Home Page