Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Specifying CMU block weights

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Scott --

I believe the Type I/Type II designations were removed from the 2000
ASTM C90 standard.  I seem to recall reading something about the
moisture control requirements being of little value, because they only
limited the moisture content of the units when they left the plant.
After they had been shipped and sat on the site in uncontrolled
conditions for some time, there was little difference between the
in-place moisture content of the Type I and Type II units, so the
differentiation was eliminated.

-- Joel

--------------------
Joel Adair, P.E.
Halff Associates
Dallas, TX
--------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 8:34 AM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: Re: Specifying CMU block weights


Jim:

Lighter weight block is generally more absorptive and more permeable
than
normal weight block.  This is due to the use of less density lightweight
aggregates or due to the more porous structure if a foam agent is used
to
get the ligher weight.

Over all, the more absorptive nature of light weight block can affect
the
durability of the block.  So, if the block is going to be subjected to
many freeze/thaw cycles than you should use normal weight block.  Also,
if
moisture penetration is an issue, then normal weight is the way to go.

Light weight block will tend to shrink more than normal weight block,
but
to get really "accurate" you should get current shrinkage data from the
block manufacturer that is (potentially) supplying your project.

And if block strength is an issue, while you can get high strength light
weight block, generally normal weight high strength block will be more
economical.

I would say that if you are dealing with a cavity wall where the block
will largely be protected from moisture, then light weight block could
be
used as long as you account for the shrinkage issues.  The other thing
that you will likely want to think about is whether you want Type I
(moisture-controlled) or Type II (nonmoisture-controlled) block.  I
would
say for exterior applications (potentially including cavity walls
depending on your "warm fuzzy feeling" tolerance) you would want Type I.
It is used where you need higher strength, resistance to moisture
penetration, and resistance to severe frost action.  This would
generally
be things like retaining walls or basement walls or exterior walls where
the block is directly exposed, but could include exterior cavity walls.

HTH,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Jim Wilson wrote:

> What are the do's and dont's for specifying CMU block
> weights in the northeast?  I am under the impression
> that normal weight blocks are to be used for exterior
> exposed CMU walls due to water resistance.  Is water
> the governing factor, or are there other design
> components to this decision?
>
> Would medium weight or lightweight block then be
> specified only for interior partition walls, or would
> they also be specified for exterior walls that are
> protected behind a vapor barrier, such as behind a
> brick face?
>
> I am guessing that it would it be too confusing to mix
> block types on a project for interior and exterior
> walls?  Seems safer to use normal weight block unless
> medium or lightweight are explicitly required for some
> reason.
>
> TIA,
> Jim Wilson
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> *
> *   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> *   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> *   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> *
> *   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> *
> *   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> *   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> *   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> *   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>

******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ******** 


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********