Masonry cavity drainage mat

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

Author Message John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1076 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 - 02:04 pm:    Does anyone have a recommendation for products to use in a masonry cavity to maintain drainage. We have some limited conditions where we cannot maintain recommended cavity size, so I want to use a composite or "spaghetti" product to keep them clear. This would be a continuous product, not just at the flashing. I've found three so far: Keene, Driwall; Archovations, CavClear; and Sandell, Rainscreen. I think one could probably use a drainage composite intended for waterproofing. In fact, I did this more than 15 years ago in a second story addition that had to match the first floor. But, I'd like to use a product where the manufacturer says "Yep, you can use it there." Short of calling all the waterproofing accessories folks, I thought someone on this board might have an idea. Brett M. Wilbur CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: brett Post Number: 177 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 - 02:18 pm:    1. York Mfg. makes flash-vent which is a copper flashing laminated to a thin drainage/weep material which is installed under the facing. No need for weep holes. 2. Mortar Net Total Flash includes a thin drainage/weep material and flexible flashing attached to a termination bar and drip edge all in one. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 244 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 - 02:21 pm:    Try MTI: Masonry Technology Inc. http://www.mtidry.com/ John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1077 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 - 02:41 pm:    Thanks. I found the MTI product, though it's quite different in construction--I'm not sure yet if that matters to me. York's product and Mortar Net's Total Flash are both flashings. I have separate flashing and am looking for a product only to keep the entire cavity clear. Brett M. Wilbur CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: brett Post Number: 178 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 - 02:58 pm:    You can just use the regular Mortar Net. It comes in 1 inch and 2 inch thick by whatever height you need. It has the trapezoidal teeth design so that mortar is directed at 2 levels. There is also Advanced Building Products "Cavity Catch": www.advancedflashing.com/commercial-mortar-catch.cfm Brett M. Wilbur CSI, CCS, AIA Senior Member Username: brett Post Number: 179 Registered: 12-2004 Posted on Tuesday, August 04, 2009 - 03:04 pm:    Whoops, I overlooked the part about it having to be full height. I'm just curious, why is that? John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1078 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 - 08:12 am:    Brick veneer on steel studs--we have a condition around windows where the brick is recessed from the remaining face by about 1/2 inch. (We are also using 3 inches of foam in the cavity.) As a result, our cavity depth is under an inch in those locations. I want to make sure that we have a well-drained wall. Brad Jones (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 - 07:49 am:    Maybe CavClear Masonry Mat. Comes in 8' wide rolls and various thicknesses for full height applications Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 779 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 - 11:06 am:    ACI 530/ASCE 5/TMS 402, also known as the MSJC (Masonry Standards Joint Committee), requires a 1-inch minimum air space between the masonry veneer and solid sheathing or studs. The MSJC--specifically Section 6.2 for anchored veneers--is referenced by the IBC. Applicable references are 6.2.2.6.3 for veneer over solid sheathing and 6.2.2.7.4 for veneer over steel framing. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1080 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 - 11:18 am:    I'm familiar with the MSJC requirements, which are overly restrictive (prescriptive) in a few areas. We're looking at our strategy for that now. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 185 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Wednesday, August 05, 2009 - 12:38 pm:    ACI 530 is one of those standards that while generally considered to be "structural" have a number of requirements that the structural engineer considers outside of his scope of work. For example consider Chapter 13 of ASCE 7 which has provisions related to ceiling systems and anchoring of equipment. These directly impact the architect and MEP consultants yet most architects would say, ASCE 7 what. ACI 530/ASCE 5/TMS 402 and the IBC requires that you use ACI 530.1/ASCE 6/TMS 602. This is a construction specification. Because the construction specification for masonry is codified it is not clear that you have any option. It is my opinion that everybody has decided to participate in some civil disobediance because I have yet to see any masonry project specification that is compatible with ACI 530.1. Brian E. Trimble, CDT Senior Member Username: brian_e_trimble_cdt Post Number: 24 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Thursday, August 06, 2009 - 09:08 am:    Mark, I beg to differ a little on your response. A lot of the requirements found in the TMS 602/ACI 530.1/ASCE 6 are typically found in many project specifications. In fact, MasterSpec has written their section around the requirements in the TMS Spec. So I think many projects ARE built to the MSJC requirements. Think about cold weather protection requirements. They're in the MSJC Spec, and those are the same that people have been using for decades. And even though the MSJC Code says a 1" minimum, I think most people design for a 2" cavity because that is what BIA recommends. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1082 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, August 06, 2009 - 01:37 pm:    The 2 inch cavity "rule" is the one hardest to maintain, (as I will explain) and I think the rationale for it is virtually gone. Our typical wall construction is to put an air barrier/vapor on the sheathing, all insulation outboard of the air barrier, and then brick veneer. As demand for thermally efficient buildings has grown, we are now designing two buildings with 3 inches of foam. Now cast your mind back to the way it used to be done. Insulation in the studs, but more importantly the "weather barrier" (if it even deserved to be called that) was asphalt felt, lovingly called "tar paper." This stuff couldn't stop the water dripping off a cold beer bottle. By maintaining a minimum cavity size, we were sure that mortar wouldn't bridge the cavity and saturate the paper and the sheathing. This is no longer an issue when the air barrier/vapor retarder is nearly a waterproofing membrane, though we still need the drainage plane for liquid water. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 246 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Thursday, August 06, 2009 - 02:12 pm:    The 2" design "rule of thumb" will respond to out of tolerance construction behind the insulation better than 1". The air cavity may vary less than and greater than 2". I have seen the starting honch in the foundation formed too shallow, violating the max permitted cantilever for the brick veneer. Hence, the brick will take up some of the 2" air space. 1" was chosen because masons have really thick fingers that get stuck in anything less. I say this in partially in jest but wholly in ernest. The same screwed up tolerances may exist creating an air cavity less than 1" or too narrow to remove the excess mortar with the trowel that squeezes out the back of the joint and clogs the air space. Do you specify the mason apply a bevelled mortar bed joint to prevent this squeeze out? Do you specify the mason use a suspended piece of lath to catch the mortar droppings? This is an old school technique that has disappeared from the job site. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: bunzick Post Number: 1086 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, August 10, 2009 - 08:56 am:    Wayne-good points. I think we'll be okay with tolerances because the cold-formed framing backup can be erected with tighter tolerance that the primary steel frame. But I will look more closely at that. Fortunately, this tight condition is very limited in scope. We specify the beveled bed joint but not the snot-stick. I've never been able to get anyone to do it, and as a practical matter, with veneer anchors and slightly irregular surface of spray-applied foam, I don't see how it can work. Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 186 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 12:48 pm:    Brian There is a difference between fully complying with TMS 602/ACI 530.1/ASCE 6 and incorporating "a lot of the requirements" in our project specifications. I would appreciate seeing a sample project specification section that fully complies with ACI 530.1. Based on my familiarity with specifications and with ACI 530.1 I believe that such a project specification section is not possible without significant variations from Section Format and Master Format. I also find it disturbing that ACI 530.1 incorporates contractual terms in the standard that may not be always compatible with the desires of our client. I have previously requested such a sample from the ACI 530 committee and have had no response. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 783 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 01:41 pm:    Keep in mind that not all of the MSJC content is included by reference in the IBC. In the 2009 IBC, ACI 530.1-08 is referenced only 18 times. Of those 18 instances, only one reference has a vague, broad scope application, and that is Section 2104.1, which states: "Masonry construction shall comply with the requirements of Sections 2104.1.1 through 2104.4 and with TMS 602/ACI 530.1/ASCE 6." My interpretation of that reference, which uses the word "construction," means the installation of the masonry, or Part 3 of the specification--not Parts 1 and 2. This interpretation is based on the content of Section 2104 and that the previous section, Section 2103, is titled "Masonry Construction Materials." Parts 1 and 2 are only applicable when specific articles and paragraphs are referenced by other sections of the IBC. The content of 530.1, when referenced by the IBC, should be treated like any other code requirement that is incorporated into the project specifications; it doesn't need to be included verbatim, as long as the requirement remains the same, regardless of how it is paraphrased. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 188 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 02:27 pm:    Ron While your interpretation gives some room to argue I suggest that ACI 530 has the last word. The IBC invokes ACI 530 which in turn states in section 1.4 that ACI 530.1 is "declared to be part of this code as if fully set forth in this document" If you reference ACI 530.1 by reference then you would have very little content in your construction specification. I would suggest that you go through your specification section and remove all of the items that are addressed in ACI 530.1. The reference of ACI 530.1 also creates the situation where adhered veneer is automatically a portion of your CMU specification section. The authors of ACI 530/530.1 did not appreciate the differences between a design specification/Standard and a construction specifiction section. Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1038 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 02:52 pm:    I would think that if the IBC references the ACI 530.1 document 18 times, that document is ONLY applicable in those specific instances. This is clarified in Section 102.4 of the IBC which prescribes the exact context of referenced standards. ACI, no matter its desire, thinking, concept, or statement cannot overrule, supplant or countermand enacted law, which is what the building code becomes when adopted by a jurisdiction. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 784 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 03:13 pm:    Mark: I have to disagree with the first part of your post. Like ACI 530.1, ACI 530 is only made a part of the code to "the prescribed extent of each such reference" (IBC Section 102.4). If you look at each of the references in the IBC to ACI 530, you'll notice that each one is preceded by a specific reference within ACI 530. There are only four instances in the IBC (2009)where Chapter 1 of ACI 530 is referenced: - for allowable stress design; - for strength design of masonry; - for strength design of AAC masonry; and, - for design of prestressed masonry. Notice that all of these make reference to the "design" of masonry. Some sections of ACI 530, Chapter 1, have nothing to do with the design, and, therefore, are not made a part of the reference. If the complete content of ACI 530 were made a part of the building code, much of Chapters 17 and 21 would be eliminated by a single reference to that document. I agree with the last part of your post. Making a construction specification a part of a standard is not appropriate. The specification should be treated as a guide specification, and any requirement within the guide specification should be backed up by a requirement in the standard. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 189 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 04:28 pm:    I will accept that the applicability of ACI 530.1 is defined by how it is referenced. Thus the problem is not necessarily how it is directly referenced from the IBC but rather from ACI 530. Follow the path listed below. This is a classic example of the MOP warning about understanding the contents of the standards you referenced. IBC 2101.2.4:- Empirical design invokes chapter 5 of ACI 530 which in turn invokes Chapter 1 of ACI 530 from ACI 530 Section 5.1.1.1. IBC 2101.2.5:- Glass unit masonry invokes chapter 7 of ACI 530 which in turn invokes Chapter 1 of ACI 530 from ACI 530 Section 7.1.1.1. IBC 2101.2.6:- Masonry veneer invokes chapter 6 of ACI 530 which in turn invokes Chapter 1 of ACI 530 from ACI 530 Section 6.1.1.1. Section 1.4 of ACI 530 invokes ACI 530.1. Note that they diverge from good specification writing practices by invoking all of the reference standards from the list of references. In each of these sections (5.1.1.2, 7.1.1.2, and 6.1.1.2) ACI 530 indicates that a portion of ACI 530.1 is not applicable which would not be necessary if ACI 530.1 did not apply. The complete content of ACI 530 is part of the building code and is only superseded by the specific provisions in the body of the IBC. While each reference only indicates a specific part of ACI 530 when taken together the whole document is applicable. Where a provision in the IBC differed from ACI 530 or 530.1 the IBC provision would govern. The problem is that slight difference in wording may make it difficult to resolve the differences. This is the result of poor code drafting practices. What I would like to see is a sample project specification from the committee that developed ACI 530 or from the industry that is fully compatible with ACI 530.1. This sample project specification could then be reviewed by members of this forum to determine whether it is consistent with good specification writing practices. Ultimately this sample project specification could be used to guide development of project specifications. Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP Senior Member Username: specman Post Number: 785 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 04:45 pm:    Quote - "The complete content of ACI 530 is part of the building code and is only superseded by the specific provisions in the body of the IBC." While I disagree with the above, I do agree that poor code drafting leads to issues such as this. I don't believe the intent of ICC was to incorporate the entire content of the MSJC into the IBC. Many times references within references within references are not tracked through to termination to find out the full extent or implications when the code references a specific portion of a standard. Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP www.specsandcodes.com Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 193 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 05:19 pm:    Poor Code Drafting: Plan check last month for a hospital in California included a comment to "conform to CBC Standard 1507.11.2". The entire text of 1507.11.2 is as follows: 1507.11.2 Material standards. Modified bitumen roof coverings shall comply with CGSB 37-GP-56M, ASTM D 6162, ASTM D 6163, ASTM D 6164, ASTM D 6222, ASTM D 6223 or ASTM D 6298. After some back and forth, California OSHPD graciously agreed that we did not need to conform to CGSB 37-GP-56M, as in "Canadian General Standards Board". Mark Gilligan SE, CSI Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 191 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Friday, August 14, 2009 - 06:02 pm:    I had similar discussions with the chairman of the ACI 530 committee and it is my understanding that it was their intent that ACI 530 and ACI 530.1 are a part of the code. Determining the intent of ICC is more difficult to devine since the code changes are authored by the proponents and ICC does not typically make any statements regarding intent. Maybe Brian Trimble, who commented above, can help us to understand what formal positions ACI 530 has expressed on this matter. Mr. Trimble works for the brick industry and is apparently active in standards dealing with grout and mortar.