Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: stone veneer anchorage[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: stone veneer anchorage
- From: "Gordon Goodell" <GordonGoodell(--nospam--at)harmonydesigninc.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:22:14 -0600
Title: stone veneer anchorage
IBC 1405.6 seems to govern over MSJC, but I still think it makes a lot more sense for brick, where the mortar joints are straight, than for stones. It seems like those vertical and horizontal 0.1055” wires would want to straighten out during a significant seismic event.
I think the latest recommendations I’ve heard for stone veneer anchorage are still fairly similar to the brick requirements. The significant change for both in high-seismic regions is to use annular threaded/ring shank nails or screws to attach the tie to the backup. Recent seismic testing of masonry veneer assemblies shows that standard nails don’t have enough withdrawal strength to avoid pullout of the ties during out-of-plane shaking. With threaded nails or screws the tie remained attached to the backup; the brick eventually fell off the ties at SDC E level shaking.
GARY J. EHRLICH, P.E.
National Association of Home Builders
D 202 266 8545
I have 4” thick real (rubble) stone veneer on a CMU chimney in seismic zone D, and the architect tells me that the county is asking for an attachment detail. I know the anchorage requirements have changed and probably are still changing. Last time I dealt with it was several years ago and the MSJC requirements seemed like they were geared a lot more toward brick than stone (running wires through mortar joints between stones didn’t seem like a good idea to me). How is anyone dealing with this these days?
- Prev by Subject: RE: stone veneer anchorage
- Next by Subject: Strength of concrete by cube testing
- Previous by thread: RE: stone veneer anchorage
- Next by thread: Excel macros