Veneer Cavity, Flashing and Tie Deficiencies on a Five-Story Steel-Stud Backup
On a five-story brick veneer building, the backup is 6 in. cold-formed steel studs with exterior gypsum sheathing and a fluid-applied air barrier. The veneer is anchored with corrugated ties. During a walk-through at the third floor you observe: ties spaced 24 in. vertically and 32 in. horizontally, nailed through the sheathing into the studs; the air space between sheathing and brick varies from about 3/8 in. to 2 1/2 in.; four locations where mortar has been struck into the cavity and has bridged from sheathing to brick; at the relieving angle on level four, through-wall flashing is lapped only 2 in., stops about 1 in. back from the brick face, and has no end dams; weepholes are at 60 in. on center. The approved submittal shows ties at 16 in. vertically by 24 in. horizontally. The architect's answer to your earlier RFI says only 'provide per code.' The third, fourth and fifth floors are already laid up.
1. Rank the observed conditions by risk and identify which are nonconforming, with the basis for each.
Read the worked answer
Nonconforming, in ascending order of risk:
Ties at 24 in. vertically by 32 in. horizontally. They exceed both the approved submittal (16 x 24) and the maximum spacing normally permitted for anchored veneer (24 in. horizontal by 16 in. vertical for corrugated and similar ties, unless a specific tie's tested data and the design justify wider spacing). Ties are the wind load path, so this is a structural defect.
Air space below 1 in. and mortar bridging. Anchored veneer requires a minimum 1 in. clear, continuous air space so water that passes the brick drains to the flashing instead of reaching the sheathing and air barrier. Mortar fins wick water across the cavity and lock the veneer to the backup, concentrating differential movement and cracking brick.
Flashing with a 2 in. lap, stopped short of the face, no end dams, and weeps at 60 in. This is the highest-consequence defect. Laps must be continuous (6 in. minimum), end dams must terminate the flashing, the flashing must reach the face with a drip, and weeps at 60 in. cannot drain the cavity. Every one of these is concealed for the life of the building once the wall is closed.
2. Outline the repair and verification approach. Who is likely to pay, and how do you establish the scope before opening the wall?
Read the worked answer
Handle it as a nonconformance, not a punch item. Issue a written nonconformance report to the CM with photographs and exact locations, and get direction before you open the wall - you cannot know the extent until brick comes off, and a blind tear-out can become an unbillable argument.
Repair sequence: remove the brick and any mortar bridging in each affected area; where ties are spaced wrong, install supplemental adjustable ties anchored to the studs at the required spacing, or rebuild the panel; at level four, remove enough courses to replace the flashing with continuous material, 6 in. minimum laps, end dams at every termination, and the flashing carried to the face with a drip; reinstate weeps at not more than 24 in. on center. Rebuild with a maintained cavity using a cavity tool or board, and inspect the cavity before brick goes back.
Verify with photographs at each stage plus special inspection under TMS 602, and water-test a representative area before closing up. Because the work departs from the approved submittal, expect the cost to be yours unless you can show the architect's direction changed the requirement.
3. The architect's only direction is 'provide per code.' How do you proceed without absorbing an undefined scope?
Read the worked answer
'Provide per code' is not direction, and you should not treat it as one. Reply in writing: restate exactly what you found, restate what the approved submittal requires, and ask for a written determination of acceptable repair, with a response deadline tied to the schedule.
Practically, code is the floor, not the ceiling: the more restrictive of the code and the approved submittal governs, and where the two conflict the contract documents resolve it through the architect. The RFI answer cannot retroactively excuse work already installed.
Keep three items separate in the correspondence: (1) the code-compliant repair scope, itemized; (2) cost responsibility - normally yours, because you deviated from the approved submittal, unless the architect formally directs a different detail; (3) time impact, because tearing out three floors of veneer may affect the critical path, and any extension must be requested and documented rather than assumed. If the architect later directs a different detail, get a change order signed before proceeding.