Home Page link

Framing with ashlar masonry

Home| Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

Architecture and Design - Building design/construction and related topics. 

Page 2 of 2       << first < 1 2 Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Framing with ashlar masonry Tim 02-29-2008
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by RicodJour on March 1, 2008, 4:38 pm
> To any architects out there....
>
> I am curious about the type of framing used for multi-storey homes
> with ashlar stone masonry on the facades. I once read that large homes
> with ashlar stone walls had to be balloon-framed. I think that it had
> to do with the expansion and contraction of the frame. Is that true?
> Or may such structures be constructed using platform framing?

Stone veneer is not supported on wood framing. The veneer supports
itself and is attached to the framing.
http://www.stonelegends.com/howTo_Install_fasteners.asp

R

Posted by EDS on March 2, 2008, 11:22 am


>> To any architects out there....
>>
>> I am curious about the type of framing used for multi-storey homes
>> with ashlar stone masonry on the facades. I once read that large homes
>> with ashlar stone walls had to be balloon-framed. I think that it had
>> to do with the expansion and contraction of the frame. Is that true?
>> Or may such structures be constructed using platform framing?
>
> Stone veneer is not supported on wood framing. The veneer supports
> itself and is attached to the framing.
> http://www.stonelegends.com/howTo_Install_fasteners.asp
>
> R

As I previously said, going over 2 stories may require the veneer to be
supported from the structure and a "soft" joint below the support. This is
precisely because of the expansion coefficient differences. All tiebacks
must allow for vertical movement.

An example: I was the architect on a team investigating leakage in a
Federally owned building in the Boston area that had been built in 1968 with
185' high x 16" thick post tensioned brick piers supported at the base, with
no weep holes, tied back to a concrete frame. The concrete frame shrank 3"
in 185', and the brick did not. The tiebacks (4x6x1/2" with 1.5" slots) were
torn apart in the upper half of the building, and the flashing at the top of
the brick was shredded. Why the detailers of this architect's wet dream did
not understand differential shrinkage I do not know. $2,500,000 in repairs
for bad detailing.
EDS



Posted by Michael Bulatovich on March 2, 2008, 11:36 am
EDS wrote:
> 185' high x 16" thick post tensioned brick piers supported
> at the base, with no weep holes, tied back to a concrete frame.

I'm having trouble picturing this...they're freestanding? It sounds
bizarre.....



Posted by EDS on March 2, 2008, 5:03 pm



> EDS wrote:
>> 185' high x 16" thick post tensioned brick piers supported
>> at the base, with no weep holes, tied back to a concrete frame.
>
> I'm having trouble picturing this...they're freestanding? It sounds
> bizarre.....
>
It was bizarre! We consulted a prestressed masonry expert from England who
was amazed. The building was by Edward Durell Stone and was to be a cutting
edge design for NASA. NASA was moved to Huston after Johnson became
president and 120 million in buildings being constructed were left empty.
Eventually the Dept of transportation occupied the buildings (It is a
campus) and the labs were converted to offices with an increased building
occupancy load. After 1974 the building managers cut off the dehumidifying
systems to save fuel. This caused a positive vapor pressure into the
building walls, trapping moisture behind the brick glazing. As this metro
area has over 500 freeze-thaw cycles per year, the brick faces began to pop,
a lot. Especially where the sun hit, so the falling brick slices would work
around the tower, with the only safe side being North. That's when we got
brought in. A very very interesting job. BTW we spot inspected the post
tensioning cables and ends and they were in great shape. Major solutions
were dehumidifying the building, new flashing, tie backs to the concrete,
drilling new weeps, and applying EFIS over the upper third of the tower.
This was done 14 years ago and 2 years ago the EIFS was in excellent
condition. I've always felt that I improved Stone's building appearance a
lot.



Posted by Michael Bulatovich on March 3, 2008, 8:53 am
EDS wrote:
>> EDS wrote:
>>> 185' high x 16" thick post tensioned brick piers supported
>>> at the base, with no weep holes, tied back to a concrete frame.
>>
>> I'm having trouble picturing this...they're freestanding? It sounds
>> bizarre.....
>>
> It was bizarre! We consulted a prestressed masonry expert from
> England who was amazed. The building was by Edward Durell Stone and
> was to be a cutting edge design for NASA. NASA was moved to Huston
> after Johnson became president and 120 million in buildings being
> constructed were left empty. Eventually the Dept of transportation
> occupied the buildings (It is a campus) and the labs were converted
> to offices with an increased building occupancy load. After 1974 the
> building managers cut off the dehumidifying systems to save fuel.
> This caused a positive vapor pressure into the building walls,
> trapping moisture behind the brick glazing. As this metro area has
> over 500 freeze-thaw cycles per year, the brick faces began to pop, a
> lot. Especially where the sun hit, so the falling brick slices would
> work around the tower, with the only safe side being North. That's
> when we got brought in. A very very interesting job. BTW we spot
> inspected the post tensioning cables and ends and they were in great
> shape. Major solutions were dehumidifying the building, new flashing,
> tie backs to the concrete, drilling new weeps, and applying EFIS over
> the upper third of the tower. This was done 14 years ago and 2 years
> ago the EIFS was in excellent condition. I've always felt that I
> improved Stone's building appearance a lot.

So these things were like a super-tall, super-skinny collonade?



Page 2 of 2       << first < 1 2
Similar ThreadsPosted
engineering training materials with respect to concrete masonry March 30, 2007, 5:40 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap