vegas paul
Silver Member
Well, the plans weren't very specific and they indicated that the glass masonry walls would be "subject to owner choice". Well, the first time we had any specific idea of the design was when they were built.
Anyway, this is a fitness center that used a glass masonry separating wall for semi-privacy in the locker rooms/restrooms between the locker area and the lavatories. It is 8' tall, about 15' long, and is curved (kind of pretty!) in a "lazy" S pattern. The wall intersects a CMU wall at one end (presumably with anchors/channel, but who knows?), but is "penninsula" in nature, meaning it doesn't have any support at the other end. No column, wall, or any other visible structural support. It just ends with a vertical edge of end blocks. Seems to me that it violates several code items.
Violates 2010.4.3 for lateral support on the free end, and 2110.3.5 for lack of support at the inflection point of the lazy S. Also 2110.3 indicates max. dimension between structural supports, so if there is support only on one end, I assume this is non-compliant also.
Too bad, as I said it's kind of pretty...
Would you make them take it down, get an engineer to cerfity it as meeting code, or submit revisions to add support?
Anyway, this is a fitness center that used a glass masonry separating wall for semi-privacy in the locker rooms/restrooms between the locker area and the lavatories. It is 8' tall, about 15' long, and is curved (kind of pretty!) in a "lazy" S pattern. The wall intersects a CMU wall at one end (presumably with anchors/channel, but who knows?), but is "penninsula" in nature, meaning it doesn't have any support at the other end. No column, wall, or any other visible structural support. It just ends with a vertical edge of end blocks. Seems to me that it violates several code items.
Violates 2010.4.3 for lateral support on the free end, and 2110.3.5 for lack of support at the inflection point of the lazy S. Also 2110.3 indicates max. dimension between structural supports, so if there is support only on one end, I assume this is non-compliant also.
Too bad, as I said it's kind of pretty...
Would you make them take it down, get an engineer to cerfity it as meeting code, or submit revisions to add support?