# Why would these joints be left open?



## Michael Thomas (Feb 25, 2008)

Chicago condo, wall was opened to examine through wall flashing at 3rd floor level.

Is there a logical reason why the vertical joints were left un-mortared?

- Thanks


----------



## naptown CR (Feb 20, 2009)

Lazy masons?
head joints on 4" block are a PITA


----------



## Ashcon (Apr 28, 2009)

Foreman didn't check the work, guys didn't think anyone would ever see 

it. :whistlingOther than that I don't know why.

Good luck Chad


----------



## CJKarl (Nov 21, 2006)

Union hacker ?


----------



## cdkyle (Jul 12, 2009)

naptown CR said:


> Lazy masons?
> head joints on 4" block are a PITA


Are you kidding me? How exactly are head joints worse on 4" blocks than 6" or 8" blocks?


----------



## dakzaag (Jan 6, 2009)

Head joints on a backup wall are basically for looks. Very little strength is gained by filling them and the time to complete vs the cost is at best marginal. 

Is there a problem, or are you just wondering?


----------



## naptown CR (Feb 20, 2009)

on 6 or 8 inch blocks you have the ears that hold a limited amount of mortar. On a 4 inch block they tend to be flat on the ends and too much mortar sticks when applied and falls off when transitioning from the end being horizontal to vertical. 
It could just be me but I'm sure some brickies will offer their opinions also


----------



## Michael Thomas (Feb 25, 2008)

dakzaag said:


> Is there a problem, or are you just wondering?


The wall was opened to determine how (if) it was flashed at that location - there is water intrusion at the interior due to missing flashings at the top of the parapets, mortar bridging across the cavity, and through-wall flashings at the veneer which do not extend to the exterior.

I've never seen those open joints before, and I'm sure that at this wall they are not helping with the water intrusion problems.


----------



## NJ Brickie (Jan 31, 2009)

CJKarl said:


> Union hacker ?


Scab hacker?:whistling

In all seriousness. Was it a difficult place to lay the block? Is there a horizontal beam on the other side of the wall that we can not see? Or a large duct? Often times in commercial work you run into places that are very difficult to get the block into position or you can not get to the back of the block once it is laid to tool or fill the joints. Even if it was a difficult place it does not even look like an attempt was made to butter those joints in the first place. Or they could have filled them while doing the brick veneer. Looks like poor workmanship based on the picture.


----------



## Michael Thomas (Feb 25, 2008)

NJ Brickie said:


> In all seriousness. Was it a difficult place to lay the block? Is there a horizontal beam on the other side of the wall that we can not see? Or a large duct?


Nope. That flashing is at floor level, just above the truss pockets, there is nothing behind that wall at the interior at that level except 2"x firing to provide space for insulation and a place to hang the drywall.


----------



## NJ Brickie (Jan 31, 2009)

Michael Thomas said:


> The wall was opened to determine how (if) it was flashed at that location - there is water intrusion at the interior due to missing flashings at the top of the parapets, mortar bridging across the cavity, and through-wall flashings at the veneer which do not extend to the exterior.
> 
> I've never seen those open joints before, and I'm sure that at this wall they are not helping with the water intrusion problems.



The missing flashing at the parapets is most likely where most of the water is coming from. The through wall flashing is alittle short but I really doubt that is a major problem if at all. I noticed no mortar net was used. Why? could you find out if it was suppose to be installed? The mortar bridges could be choking off the flashing below them. But I would concentrate on figuring out why so much water is getting in the wall in the first place.


----------



## masonlifer (Jun 10, 2007)

Could you post a picture with a little more of the building showing? Too many variables here.


----------



## Michael Thomas (Feb 25, 2008)

masonlifer said:


> Could you post a picture with a little more of the building showing? Too many variables here.


Sorry, don't have a lot of establishing shots, here's one of the section that was opened at roof level:


----------



## Rockmonster (Nov 15, 2007)

As for the lack of mortarnet, this was probably built before that was widely used. So you _can_ get the 'wicking' from the mortar bridges, but I doubt that is the cause. Now, the lack of head joints, and the layout of that flashing, lead me to believe that that is the work of someone who just doesn't give a sh#@. And when that is the case, do not expect you are going to find perfect workmanship elsewhere. As commercial masonry has become more like factory work than high art, a lot of questionable practices are used in order to '_get the count_'......I have to agree with NJ, I'm thinking your main culprit is the missing parapet flashing.......


----------



## Tscarborough (Feb 25, 2006)

If it isn't going to be seen at least smear it up to seal the joint if not lay an actual headjoint in it. Pretty shoddy work overall in my opinion.


----------



## stuart45 (Oct 7, 2009)

Most of our houses are built using this method of construction, and damp penetration problems are quite common where the cavity has been bridged, especially in exposed areas. 
As well as the head joints being half empty the bed joint snots have been left. When both skins have the snots on the wall they can almost touch in a narrow cavity. Any droppings will often stick to them causing a bridge.
Running the trowel at an angle on the inside will angle the bed in slightly and prevent snots forming in the blockwork. Using tempory cavity battens hooked on to the other skin also helps catch any droppings.
I did see a video of an experiment by the Building Research Establishment where they built 2 cavity walls, one badly with half filled head joints and snots on the inside and one properly. When a sprinkler was put on the walls the badly built one took less than 20 minutes to let water through, and when it ran down the inside it ran off the snots and bounced off the wall ties onto the inside skin in places, causing damp inside.
The properly built one took longer for water to penetrate, and the water ran down the brickwork and out through the weeps.
Nowadays the new builds are air tested, and ones where the joints are not properly filled are more likely to fail the test.


----------



## Michael Thomas (Feb 25, 2008)

Thanks to you all for the responses so far. 

I do thermographic (infrared) inspections for leaks and moisture intrusion here in Chicago, and it's quite common for an investigation of a "minor" leak at cavity wall or split-face block properties to turn into the discovery of a major problem. A that point a masonry contractor is often called in to advise on repairs, and often "experienced masons" will have quite different opinions on the relative importance of the potential causes and the best method of repair, so I'm constantly trying to improve my understanding of these issues.

At this property the lack of parapet flashings is certainly a major contributing factor to the water intrusion, but 5 minutes of spray test of the area below the through wall flashing at roof level (with the exterior of the parapet wall tarped off) and the floor level flashing at the top floor below causes significant water entry.


----------



## dakzaag (Jan 6, 2009)

I would focus on the down spout junction to the left of the opening. I would also inspect the roof junction on the inside of the parapet wall. 

It appears that the wall is capped with ceramic tile copping that are usually very robust. They can leak, but I find them to normally be in excellent shape compared to the rest of the surrounding structure. I have seen 50 year old buildings almost falling down where the tile coping is as good as new. 

While the missing head joints are not ideal, I don't think they indicate any more than an aggressive supervisor looking to make production. The mortar bridges are a different story. They can cause moisture to pool and then wick into the building. You have to determine the location of the moisture intrusion and then address the repair. It is a little late to go back and fix the mortar problems, but I think you should be able to stop the water once you determine the source. 

If you can determine the water is wicking through the brick veneer, then a high quality sealer should cure the problem. (after repairing any cracks in the mortar or brick.)

I would bet a buffalo nickle that you have a leaking roof or down spout and the water is channeling over to the section torn out and then moving inside.

I repaired a similar leak in a building with limestone veneer and cmu backup. Once I stopped the water from penetrating the veneer, I didn't have to worry about the mortar bridges between the two walls that I couldn't do anything about anyway. I went over every square inch of the joints and replaced a bunch of poorly filled joints. They didn't look bad, but when I chiseled on them, they popped out like sand. Once I replaced all the bad spots the leaks went away.:clap:


----------



## Michael Thomas (Feb 25, 2008)

stuart45 said:


> I did see a video of an experiment by the Building Research Establishment where they built 2 cavity walls...


Do you know if it's on line anywhere? I GOOGLED, and looked around at the BRE site, but could not find it.


----------



## Michael Thomas (Feb 25, 2008)

dakzaag said:


> ... I repaired a similar leak in a building with limestone veneer and cmu backup. Once I stopped the water from penetrating the veneer, I didn't have to worry about the mortar bridges between the two walls that I couldn't do anything about anyway. I went over every square inch of the joints and replaced a bunch of poorly filled joints. They didn't look bad, but when I chiseled on them, they popped out like sand. Once I replaced all the bad spots the leaks went away.:clap:


Interesting. I had not realized that this sort of inspection of a visually "good" joint was required.


----------



## Michael Thomas (Feb 25, 2008)

dakzaag said:


> I would bet a buffalo nickle that you have a leaking roof or down spout and the water is channeling over to the section torn out and then moving inside...


In this case spray testing _below_ roof level causes rapid intrusion at the interior of the veneer wall, so (at least some of) the water intrusion is through the veneer itself. 

However RILEM testing indicates that both the brick and mortar are already well sealed.

So the mode of entry is a bit of a mystery...


----------



## Michael Thomas (Feb 25, 2008)

Wall cross section at this building:


----------



## Michael Thomas (Feb 25, 2008)

Moved to it's own thread.


----------



## Michael Thomas (Feb 25, 2008)

(I will link to a picture library for this property once I hit 15 posts, and can use URL's in posts.)


----------



## stuart45 (Oct 7, 2009)

Michael.
Not sure if it's on line anywhere. I saw it a few years ago at BRE in Watford, but it was on TV a few months ago on a Channel 4 programme called Help! My House is Falling Down.
You could try contacting BRE as they are usually really helpfull once you get through to the right people.


----------



## lukachuki (Feb 11, 2005)

Michael Thomas said:


> (I will link to a picture library for this property once I hit 15 posts, and can use URL's in posts.)


just PM me the link I will post it for you as this is interesting.


----------



## Michael Thomas (Feb 25, 2008)

I see a *lot* of (to me anyway) interesting problems at newer masonry buildings here in Chicago.

Would it be more appropriate for me to start a thread for each question/property, or to keep them all together here in one thread?


----------



## stuart45 (Oct 7, 2009)

Michael,
This is a link to one of 6 programmes of Help! My house is Falling Down.
I don't know which episope it was. You might have to register with Channel4 on Demand to view it. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/help-my-house-is-falling-down/4od#3132723


----------



## 6stringmason (May 20, 2005)

Michael Thomas said:


> I see a *lot* of (to me anyway) interesting problems at newer masonry buildings here in Chicago.
> 
> Would it be more appropriate for me to start a thread for each question/property, or to keep them all together here in one thread?


I would post them seperately. That way when someone is doing searches, its easier for them to find what they're looking for. A mod will let you know otherwise.

This is an interesting thread. Thanks for posting.


----------



## lukachuki (Feb 11, 2005)

6stringmason said:


> I would post them seperately. That way when someone is doing searches, its easier for them to find what they're looking for. A mod will let you know otherwise.
> 
> This is an interesting thread. Thanks for posting.


Ditto....keeps the discussion problem specific as well....much less confusing.


----------



## Michael Thomas (Feb 25, 2008)

stuart45 said:


> Michael,
> This is a link to one of 6 programmes of Help! My house is Falling Down.
> I don't know which episode it was. You might have to register with Channel4 on Demand to view it. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/help-my-house-is-falling-down/4od#3132723


Thanks for taking the time to hunt that up - I've long been impressed with some of the English masonry techniques (the wide use of through-wall flashings at chimneys, for example). However it's rather out of step with the recent US practice of rapid, low cost masonry construction - many of the problems I see at $500K + condos are the result of employing construction techniques intended for strip malls with a design life of 20 years. 

The owners are often *very* upset to discover the true nature of the "solid brick buildings" they purchased - especially when its a of $2-3M faux English manor or French chateau!


----------

