MSJC TAC Responses 2013

2013 MSJC Committee Responses to the 2013 MSJC TAC Comments on Building Code Requirements and Specification for Masonry Structures & Commentaries

No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # C or S (P,S,E, L) 5 P General: A TAC comment from the GR The Committee agrees that further Y 2011 cycle (TAC Comment 7) adjustments could be made for greater suggested to the Committee that consistency between chapters such as Code chapters should be organized between ASD and SD or SD and in a logical and consistent manner so AAC chapters. The Committee also that a user does not need to ‘relearn’ agrees that certain provisions could be where provisions are located when moved from design chapters in Part 2 jumping between (say) ASD and SD. into Part 1. The Committee has The recently updated Committee proposed changes in an attempt to response to this previous TAC address the commenter’s intent. comment is that work on this is Those changes were balloted as part ongoing with the hopes of finishing of Main Ballot 2013-07-G-021. this effort in the next cycle. Taken Persuasive negatives were found. The by itself, this presents little problem, committee will continue to work on however, when coupled with the this. If possible the comments from major reorganization of the Code Bennett and Jaffe will be incorporated introduced in this cycle a significant and re-balloted at subcommittee and issue does arise. Effectively the then at Main 08. Committee is asking users to learn a new Code in 2013, with explicit Update from Chair: Proposed changes plans to do so again in the next received persuasive negatives at cycle. While never pleasant, most subcommittee ballot prior to Main 08. recognize the need for such No reballot on Main 08. reorganization every couple decades to maintain a user-friendly document. By the Committee’s own acknowledgement, however, this reorganization is only partially complete. To the extent possible, the committee is requested to address this issue. 1 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) #

As examples of needed reorganization, the committee should group common design provisions together rather than in separate locations (e.g., beams). Another need is to organize provisions similarly within chapters covering different engineering design methods (e.g., ASD and SD provisions). 6 S A comment submitted during the last FAS The subcommittee has had Y cycle asked that shear friction discussions on this item but due to provisions be considered. This was time constraints and other higher not completed in this cycle, which is priority items, no consensus at the unfortunate. The response indicates subcommittee level has been reached. that this was worked on, but not completed. If possible, consider The Committee prioritized the working on this now before the important Primary comments as well Public Comment period. It would be as numerous editorial comments nice to get it done. assigned to the FAS Subcommittee for consideration, ahead of this item and as such the Committee will carry it forward to the next cycle for consideration.

18 1.1 C-1 50 P Move first paragraph on the GR To be balloted on Main 08. Y commentary side down to parallel Update from Chair: The section 1.1.2 of the code side. This subcommittee was unable to prepare a paragraph reads like commentary to ballot for Main 08. Item will continue 1.1.2. as new business.

19 1.1 C-1 55- S Seems an odd place for structural GR The Committee prioritized the Y 65 integrity commentary. No code has important Primary comments as well been presented yet. Consider as numerous editorial comments creating nominal provisions for assigned to the General Requirements integrity and placing in the code. Subcommittee for consideration ahead Otherwise, find a more appropriate of this Secondary item and location. accordingly, the Committee will carry 2 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # it forward to the next cycle for consideration.

21 1.2.2 C-2 12 S Regarding the list of code-required GR The Committee prioritized the Y drawing items shown on the project important Primary comments as well drawings, I know that the quality as numerous editorial comments assurance program is typically laid assigned to the General Requirements out within the project specifications, Subcommittee for consideration ahead but would it be beneficial to list the of this Secondary item and Level (A, B, or C) of the required accordingly, the Committee will carry quality assurance program on the it forward to the next cycle for drawings as well? consideration. 27 1.2.1 C-2 50 S The following Commentary sentence GR The Committee prioritized the Y is unrelated to the discussion. Delete important Primary comments as well or relocate. as numerous editorial comments “A Commentary on TMS 602/ACI assigned to the General Requirements 530.1/ASCE 6 follows the Subcommittee for consideration ahead Specification.” of this Secondary item and accordingly, the Committee will carry it forward to the next cycle for consideration. 29 Comme C-2 60 S Change last sentence to read “While GR The Committee prioritized the Y ntary – load transfer usually involves non- important Primary comments as well 1.2.2 structural masonry…frames, to as numerous editorial comments structural and non-structural assigned to the General Requirements masonry should also…” Subcommittee for consideration ahead of this Secondary item and accordingly, the Committee will carry it forward to the next cycle for consideration.

32 Fig CC- C-3 66 S For the figure on veneer wythe wall GR The Committee prioritized the Y 1.2-1 anchorage details, not to be too self- important Primary comments as well promoting of masonry, but should as numerous editorial comments we also show a detail for veneer over assigned to the General Requirements masonry backup? This could help Subcommittee for consideration ahead drive home the idea that of this Secondary item and

3 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # accommodation for differential accordingly, the Committee will carry movement also needs to occur it forward to the next cycle for between masonry elements, and not consideration. just between masonry/steel or masonry/concrete.

40 2.1 C-7 6 S For the list of notations, has any GR The Committee prioritized the Y consideration ever been given to important Primary comments as well listing the code section where the as numerous editorial comments variable is used, similar to the format assigned to the General Requirements of the notation section in ACI 318? Subcommittee for consideration ahead of this Secondary item and accordingly, the Committee will carry it forward to the next cycle for consideration.

50 2.2 P Delete the following definitions from GR The committee agrees that definitions Y the Code and Spec outright: and the use of geometric requirements - Column in the definitions can be confusing - Foundation pier and restrictive. The Committee, - Pier however, feels that acceptable definitions provide value to the user - Wall and has crafted revised definitions for And any other configuration- ballot. New definitions were balloted dependent definition. These at subcommittee and an item definitions do more harm than good. addressing several items except for According to the Committee columns and piers was balloted as part responses to TAC comment from the of Main Ballot 2013-07. (Item 07-G- past two cycles, the Committee 005a) Persuasive negatives were recognizes the flaws in these found .Committee intends to continue definitions and has been attempting work on this item. to fix them for years. Don’t fix them, delete them. Because of the absolute nature of these definitions they override engineering judgment and are therefore unsafe. I have lost count of how many times I’ve spoken with engineers that intentionally make their columns a 4 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # little longer in one direction so they do not need to comply with the prescriptive column detailing requirements. 51 Code – C-14 5 S Delete “structural” before “support”. GR The Committee prioritized the Y 2.2 important Primary comments as well as numerous editorial comments assigned to the General Requirements Subcommittee for consideration ahead of this Secondary item and accordingly, the Committee will carry it forward to the next cycle for consideration.

53 Code – C-14 35 S Add “structurally” before attached in GR The Committee prioritized the Y 2.2 definition for Backing. important Primary comments as well as numerous editorial comments assigned to the General Requirements Subcommittee for consideration ahead of this Secondary item and accordingly, the Committee will carry it forward to the next cycle for consideration. 61 2.2 C-16 11 P The definitions and terms for GR Committee Response: The committee Y and ‘cavity’ and ‘collar’ and not used agrees that the definitions and use of 15 consistently throughout the Code and the terms ‘cavity’ and ‘collar’ are at Spec. The commentary times unclear and overlapping and differentiates between these two that greater clarity is required. spaces by their size. The Changes to the definitions were composite/non-composite provisions balloted as part of Main Ballot 2013- are slightly different yet. The veneer 07. Persuasive negatives were found. provisions use ‘cavity’ when the The committee will continue working backing is non-masonry (as opposed on this item. Also see response to to two wythes as defined here). The TAC Comment 51. Spec requires (not permits) collar joints to be filled with mortar when of a certain size. Be consistent throughout. 5 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # 62 2.2 C-16 17 P Delete “isolated”. Every engineer GR The committee disagrees that the Y understands what a column is. concept of isolated is understood by Isolated could have other meanings every engineer and has concern that as being not attached to anything deleting the term literally or including top and bottom. Does the conceptually would lead to greater code address attached columns confusion and possible mis- similar to boundary elements in RC application of the Code than would shear walls? better definitions for the members. Of particular concern is the case of slender portions of masonry within walls that may satisfy the geometric portions of the definitions while not being ‘isolated’ – research among crafters of the Code indicates strong consensus that masonry within a wall be designed under the wall provisions and only when the masonry is isolated should it be designed under the provisions for a column or a pier. Changes were balloted to clarify the members and their definitions as part of Main Ballot 2013-07. Persuasive negatives were found. The committee will continue working on this item. 68 2.2 C-17 27 E Revise as follows, waiting for all Pres Balloted on 07-P-006. Changes Y losses to occur could be time tress proposed consistent with TAC consuming: comment. Received one negative that Effective prestress — Stress was found persuasive. After further remaining in prestressing tendons discussion, the committee after all losses have occurred. recommends maintaining the current language and revisiting this item next cycle when PTI finalizes their definitions. 71 Code – C-19 10 P Change definition for Load, Service GR The Committee agrees that the Y 2.2 to “Load specified by the legally definition of Service Load could be adopted building code when the improved. Changes were balloted at structure is in service.” to match the subcommittee to revise the definition 6 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # commentary in 8.1.1. for Service Load and to create definitions for Nominal Load and Factored Load where a persuasive negative was received. The item was reworked and will be balloted as part of Main Ballot 2013-08, if the subcommittee ballot does not receive persuasive negatives. Chair Update: Persuasive negatives received at subcommittee. No ballot on Main 08. Work will continue next cycle. 72 2.2 C-19 11 P The Code uses the term ‘service GR The Committee agrees that the use of Y load’ both incorrectly and Service Load is neither consistent nor inconsistently, sometimes in the correct. Changes were balloted at context of serviceability and subcommittee to revise the use of sometimes for nominal design loads. Service Load to Nominal Load where The correct term here is ‘nominal appropriate and that ballot received a load’, which is the term used in persuasive negative. The item was ASCE 7 and the building codes. reworked and balloted as part of Main Search and replace correctly Ballot 2013-08 if persuasive negatives throughout. are not received at subcommittee. See also item 71 Chair Update: Persuasive negatives received at subcommittee. No ballot on Main 08. 83 Chapter C-23 13 E Chapter 2 (definitions) states tensile FAS Change Section 2.2 in Ballot 07-F- Y 2 C- 4 resistance of masonry exists. 018 consistent with the TAC 112 Chapter 8 (ASD) states tensile suggestion. A persuasive negative Chapter resistance of masonry is neglected. received. Main ballot 08-F-018 8 Improve wording to be clear on addresses the negative and the TAC meaning. comment. Negative was received. Item does not move into the working draft. Work will continue next cycle.

7 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # 89 3.1.2 C-26 5 S The single largest performance CR This item was balloted at Main 07-C- Y problem of contemporary masonry 033 and received several negative construction centers on masonry votes with 1 found persuasive. The veneers. Every investigation guidance of inspection requirements following every natural disaster has may extend beyond veneer which documented veneer failures; and in requires additional consideration. virtually every one of these cases the This item will be considered as new reports cite the lack of ties; the business in the next cycle. improper use of ties; ties bent up and not engaging the veneer; fasteners installed into sheathing and not studs; nails used as ties; and on and on. The problem isn’t with the provisions of the MSJC, but rather their execution in the field. The performance of masonry veneers would significantly improve with a very small amount of inspection. Require the equivalent of a Level B QA for the installation of masonry veneers in Risk Category II, III, and IV structures (possibly with an exception for one- and two-family construction). 95 Tables C-28 1-40 S I understand that it is the CR The CR Subcommittee understands Y 3.1.2 & to 30 responsibility of the designer to lay the quagmire presented by the TAC Comment. The term “Periodic 3.1.3 out the expectations for the QA Special Inspection” appeared in the program in the project documents. 1973 Uniform Building Code (Section However, the term “periodic” when 305 (c)) and since then, the Uniform describing inspection frequency is Building Code and the International very open-ended. Should the code Building Code has not quantified how provide some guidance, if not within much periodic special inspection is the code table then at least in the appropriate. commentary, on what the maximum and minimum reasonable Quantifying the appropriate amount of expectations are for periodic period inspection is complex since it inspection? It could be defined as a will vary with the type of building and building use, and other possible percentage of time onsite or review factors. In addition, the designer may 8 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # of a certain percentage of elements. require a level of inspection confidence that may vary between designers and also be contingent on the contractor performing the installation.

The CR Subcommittee will work on this item in the next cycle with a goal of quantifying how much is appropriate for periodic inspection. 10 3.2.2.1 C-32 50 S Add additional commentary GR The Committee prioritized the Y 0 discussion to clarify that ‘embedded’ important Primary comments as well and ‘encased’ materials are two as numerous editorial comments different details and that these limits assigned to the General Requirements do not apply to conduits, pipes, and Subcommittee for consideration ahead sleeves encased in masonry. of this Secondary item and accordingly, the Committee will carry it forward to the next cycle for consideration. 11 4.3.1 C-41 55 S Delete the following commentary GR The Committee prioritized the Y 5 statement. It is unclear what the user important Primary comments as well is being instructed to do or what this as numerous editorial comments minimum net section would be used assigned to the General Requirements for. Subcommittee for consideration ahead The designer may choose to use the of this Secondary item and minimum thickness of the face shells accordingly, the Committee will carry of the units as the minimum net it forward to the next cycle for section. consideration.

11 4.3.1 C-41 59 S Revise as follows. A few conditions GR The Committee prioritized the Y 6 are missing. important Primary comments as well For masonry of hollow, ungrouted as numerous editorial comments units laid in face shell mortar assigned to the General Requirements bedding, the minimum cross- Subcommittee for consideration ahead sectional area in both… of this Secondary item and accordingly, the Committee will carry it forward to the next cycle for

9 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # consideration.

11 4.3.1 C-41 66 S Revise as follows: GR The Committee prioritized the Y 7 Since the elastic properties of the important Primary comments as well materials used in members designed as numerous editorial comments for composite action may differ, assigned to the General Requirements equal strains produce different levels Subcommittee for consideration ahead of stresses in the components. To of this Secondary item and compute these stresses, a convenient accordingly, the Committee will carry transformed section… it forward to the next cycle for consideration.

12 4.3.4 C-43 4 S Change the phrase “The bearing F&S 0 The Committee balloted a change Y area, Abr, for concentrated loads shall not exceed the following:” to “The consistent (but not exactly the bearing area, A , shall equal the wording proposed in the TAC br comment) with the TAC Comment on lesser of:”. Rationale is that Abr is something that is calculated per the 07-Q-16. code for analysis purposes, not That ballot item received three something that is specified by the negatives that are unresolved. Item designer with “not to exceed” values. will continue to be discussed next cycle.

12 Comme C-44 41 S Does this first sentence refer to GR The Committee prioritized the Y 1 ntary – veneer only or all masonry? If important Primary comments as well 4.4 veneer only, it should say so. as numerous editorial comments Otherwise, change “curtain” to assigned to the General Requirements “infill.” Subcommittee for consideration ahead of this Secondary item and accordingly, the Committee will carry it forward to the next cycle for consideration.

12 4.4 C-44 70 S What does ‘embedded’ mean in this GR The Committee prioritized the Y 2 context? I’ve never heard of beam important Primary comments as well supporting masonry as being as numerous editorial comments ‘embedded’. assigned to the General Requirements Subcommittee for consideration ahead of this Secondary item and 10 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # accordingly, the Committee will carry it forward to the next cycle for consideration.

12 4.4 C-44 70 S Revise as: GR The Committee prioritized the Y 3 Beams or trusses supporting important Primary comments as well masonry walls are essentially as numerous editorial comments embedded, and their deflections are assigned to the General Requirements required to should be limited… Subcommittee for consideration ahead of this Secondary item and accordingly, the Committee will carry it forward to the next cycle for consideration.

13 5.1.3.2 C-51 11 S For clarity, revise as follows: GR The Committee prioritized the Y 0 5.1.3.2 For walls not laid in running important Primary comments as well bond, concentrated loads shall meet as numerous editorial comments the requirements of Section 5.1.3.1 assigned to the General Requirements and shall not be distributed across Subcommittee for consideration ahead head joints. of this Secondary item and accordingly, the Committee will carry it forward to the next cycle for consideration.

13 5.1.3 C-51 45 S Revise as follows to clarify for GR The Committee prioritized the Y 1 multi-story construction: important Primary comments as well Arora (1988) suggests that a as numerous editorial comments concentrated load can be distributed assigned to the General Requirements at a 2:1 slope, terminating at half the Subcommittee for consideration ahead wall height, where the wall height is of this Secondary item and from the point of application of the accordingly, the Committee will carry load to the foundation, not to be it forward to the next cycle for taken larger than the story height. consideration. 13 5.2.1.1. C-53 10 S This section addresses the span FAS Beams with fixed or partially fixed Y 7 1 length of beams not built integrally supports can be conservatively dealt with the supports – what about with using the current provisions. A beams built integrally with supports? ballot will be submitted to Main 08 to add commentary. 11 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # Chair Update – This item received a persuasive negative at Subcommittee (ballot 08-F-43) so it didn’t get balloted on Main 08. It will be considered in the next cycle. 14 5.2.2 C-55 50 S There was recently a paper in TMS FAS The Committee prioritized the Y 6 Journal related to deep beams by important Primary comments as well Fonseca, Mathew, and Bennett. If as numerous editorial comments appropriate, reference here. assigned to FAS Subcommittee for consideration, ahead of this Secondary item and as such the Committee will carry it forward to the next cycle for consideration.

14 5.2.2.4 C-56 11 P These provisions make masonry FAS The provisions mentioned in this TAC Y 8 beams unbuildable in many cases comment do require significant where shear reinforcement is amounts of shear reinforcing, but required. these provisions are based on the research cited in commentary. The last sentence of item (b) would However it should be noted that the require two legged stirrups (or steel shear reinforcing provisions only on both faces) for all beams wider apply to deep beams (Ones whose than 8 in. This is very difficult to do depths dv are at least ½ the effective in masonry due to constructability span) and do not have sufficient shear issue, congestion, etc. But item (c) is strength to resist the applied loads even more ridiculous. It requires the with the masonry alone. This is not shear steel (admittedly only when it very common. is required) at a maximum spacing of 1/5 the total deep depth. That means, The Committee prioritized other for typical concrete masonry, with important Primary comments, cores every 8 inches on center, all assigned to the FAS Subcommittee beams less than 40 inches deep for consideration, ahead of this item would require shear reinforcing (if it and as such, the Committee will carry is required) at a spacing of less than it forward for future consideration. our 8 inch module.

Because these restrictions are so excessive, it encourages designers to

12 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # use of deep beams without shear reinforcement. That is counter to what we want (that is, these provisions encourage the designer to make the beam deeper to give us more masonry shear resistance, so we don’t have to include shear steel – it just makes no sense, and it makes the beam “deeper”).

I think these provisions need a major overhaul to be reasonable and practical. They should not penalize a design that adds strength and ductility through the use of shear reinforcement. 15 5.3.1.4 C-57 15 P The requirements for an included R& The subcommittee agrees and balloted Y 4 angle of not more than 135 degrees” C changes via subcommittee ballot. in this section has been causing Item will be on Main 08 as item 08-R- confusion: 012. Negatives received. Item does (c) Lateral ties shall be arranged so not move into the working draft. that every corner and alternate Item will be carried over into the next longitudinal bar shall have lateral cycle. support provided by the corner of a lateral tie with an included angle of not more than 135 degrees. Please consider clarifying this section to make it clear the difference between the “included angle” for ties and a standard hook. That is, we want the longitudinal bars to be supported by a tie, and that tie is to be bent at that location. The angle formed by that bend is not permitted to exceed 135 degrees, so that rigidity is provided at the longitudinal bar. This requirement 13 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # does not pertain to the hooks at the ends of the ties.

ACI 318 has similar requirements and language. The ACI commentary includes a clarifying figure (right- hand figure). Consider adding a similar figure to our commentary.

15 6.1 C-61 15 P I would like to see consistent R& Several ballots in previous editions Y 9 requirements for reinforcement in C have tried to align the ASD to SD and ASD and SD (and prestress and AAC provisions relative to AAC as appropriate). This includes reinforcement requirements. These type and size of reinforcement previous ballots were not successful, permitted. Also whether bundled with a roughly 50-50 split. From bars are permitted or not. previous cycles, it was determined that:

As a practical matter, IBC over-rides 1. There is no data saying that the MSJC provisions on this issue. the maximum size of bars for ASD should be limited to #9 rebar. Larger bars have been used successfully when designed using ASD 14 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # procedures and there have been no reported failures associated with the larger bars. The consensus was that the large bars are limited by other factors and additional limits are really not needed. 2. We tried to increase the maximum bar size in Strength Design but could not find any data with larger bar sizes that could be used to confirm the strength equations are accurate enough for use with the larger bars. The current subcommittee considered several options to address this comment and was again unable to come to resolution on this issue in the absence of any new research. Consideration of this issue will continue in the next Code Development Cycle if new research develops. 19 7.3.2.6. C-80 30 P Unlike Section 7.3.2.6.1.2, Section Seis Although this comment refers to Y 1 1.1 7.3.2.6.1.1 does not limit this check mic several aspects of capacity design for to in-plane seismic loads. I put shear, its key request seems to be that myself into a straightjacket each time Code 7.3.2.6.1.1 be worded more like I attempt to comply with this Code 7.3.2.6.1.2. Because capacity provision for out-of-plane wind design is independent of loads, it uplift, in-plane seismic overturning, would be impossible to require and the myriad of other loads and capacity design for in-plane seismic load combinations for a single shear only. It is useful to insert the element. The only functional clarification that this is for design for 15 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # solution as written is to set Vn = 2.5 in-plane forces. The Seismic Vu and increase the thickness of the Subcommittee has balloted a change wall and/or add unnecessary bond to address this issue. The next request beams. is for clarification of the axial load at which the in-plane flexural and shear capacities are to be evaluated. In previous discussions of this issue, the Seismic Subcommittee has generally favored using the axial force from gravity loads alone in the governing seismic loading combination (usually the 0.9D from 0.9D + 1.0E). As an item of new business, the Seismic Subcommittee will consider developing formal language for this. 19 7.3.2.6. C-80 30 P Does the shear capacity check apply Seis As currently written, the shear Y 2 1.1 to a line of resistance, or to each mic capacity check applies to each element within a line of resistance? element (“When designing reinforced Clarify. masonry shear walls . . . of the element, . . .”). The Seismic Subcommittee believes that the present language is clear, and also proper. If capacity design is applied to a line of resistance, it would be possible to have individual wall segments in that line fail in shear. This would clearly be undesirable. The current requirement is intended to ensure that the capacity of each wall segment is governed by flexure. This will then apply to the entire line as well. As an item of new business, the Seismic Subcommittee will consider whether this requirement ought to be applied to each line of shear walls rather than each shear wall. 20 7.3.2.12 C-83 49 P This is confusing to refer to two Pres Y 1 different editions of ASCE 7 (two tress Balloted on 07-P-009. Changes 16 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # different tables from two different proposed were consistent with TAC editions of ASCE 7) are referred to), comment. One of three negatives was particularly when neither is listed in found persuasive. The prestressed the references at the end of the Code. subcommittee will continue to work Revise for clarity. Same issue on on this item next cycle to address Line 60 of the commentary as well. comments and negatives received on this item.

21 8.1.2 C-89 30 P In other sections of the Code, the GR The Committee agrees that the Code Y 6 user is required to use the loads from should consistently refer the user to ASCE 7 when not addressed by the ASCE 7, as in Section 9.1.2, rather building code. Add a similar than to the building official as is done requirement here as well. in this section. Changes were balloted as part of Main ballot 2013-07-G-019 to revise the language to be similar to the language in the strength design provisions of Chapter 9 with modifications for allowable stress design. This ballot item received a persuasive negative and the subcommittee has reworked the item and has brought it to Main 08 as item 08-G-019. Negatives received. Item does not move into the working draft. Work will continue in the next cycle 22 8.1.5 C-91 32 S Any technical reason that multi- FAS The committee agreed - See Ballot Y 7 wythe construction is not applicable 07-F-021. Persuasive negative. to strength design? Reballot 08-F-047. Negative received. No change made.

The item will be carried into the next cycle. 23 Chapter C-91 34 E Words “other than AAC or glass FAS Agreed – See Ballot 07-F-021. Y 2 8 units” added at end of Section Persuasive negative received. 8.1.5.1; ballot 05-F-014 Reballoted on 08-F-47 consistent with 17 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # TAC suggestion –and provisions were moved to Chapter 5 only (Chapter 8 is ASD and does not apply to AAC) Negative was received. Item does not move into the working draft. Item will be carried into the next cycle for consideration.

23 Chapter C-92 47 E Word “metal ties” replaced with FAS Agreed – See Ballot 07-F-021. Y 7 8 “headers”; ballot 04-F-014 Persuasive negative received. Reballotted on 08-F-047. Negative received. No change made. Item will be carried into the next cycle for consideration. 23 8.1.5.2 C-92 71 S I find commentary statements such GR The Committee prioritized the Y 8 as this perplexing. If the committee important Primary comments as well does not recommend a specific as numerous editorial comments detail, why is it permitted? assigned to the General Requirements Subcommittee for consideration ahead of this Secondary item and accordingly, the Committee will carry it forward to the next cycle for consideration. 24 8.1.7.2 C-96 29 P Equation 8-11 applies to the R& The subcommittee agrees. See Ballot Y 5 development of wires in tension, but C 07-R-019 and Ballot 08-R-019. there are no corresponding splicing Negative was received. Item does not requirements for wire. Is welding move into the working draft. permitted, and if so, what are the requirements? The 6 inch minimum Item will be carried into the next lap length cited in the Spec is cycle for consideration. inadequate for all wire diameters – being only half of what would be required for 0.25 inch diameter wire.

24 8.1.7.4 C-97 14 P The embedment requirements for R& The committee agrees with the Y 18 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # 7 ASD are largely those given in ACI C comment. However, the committee 318. Similar requirements are feels a comprehensive approach is absent for SD (Chap 9) and AAC required for this and other related (Chap 11). Why? items rather than to develop a piecemeal approach. This will be Add these reinforcement detailing taken up as a new item of business in requirements to Chapter 6 so that the next cycle. they apply to other design methods as well. 27 8.3.1 C- 5 S Chapter 2 has a definition for GR The Committee prioritized the Y 3 113 unreinforced masonry, but not for important Primary comments as well reinforced masonry. Having a as numerous editorial comments definition for reinforced masonry assigned to the General Requirements would save repeating charging Subcommittee for consideration ahead language such as this. of this Secondary item and accordingly, the Committee will carry it forward to the next cycle for consideration.

27 8.3.4.2. C- 15, P I would like to see the 0.25 factor in FAS The committee was not able to come Y 7 1 114 code equations 8-21 and 8-22 to consensus on the value to be used 20 changed to 0.33. This change can be for this compression stress factor. supported by the research and trial While the analysis used for the stress designs used when recalibrating recalibration showed that that the 0.25 other ASD allowable stresses during value was conservative, the the 2011 code cycle. Although this compression stress does not govern change may have been delayed often and due to time constraints and during the 2013 cycle due to other higher priority items, this issue concerns and/or coordination issues will continue to be discussed in the with unreinforced and prestressed next code revision cycle. masonry provisions, I believe it could still be made this cycle if limited to reinforced masonry only (Section 8.3.4.2.1) which should not adversely affect the unreinforced and prestressed code provisions. 27 8.3.4.4 C- 3 S Relocated this section to Chapter 7 FAS The Committee prioritized the Y 9 116 for seismic-specific requirements. important Primary comments as well 19 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # as numerous editorial comments assigned to the FAS Subcommittee for consideration ahead of this Secondary item, and as such, the Committee will carry it forward to the next cycle for consideration. 29 Chapter C- S Shear strength in multiwythe walls FAS This item was balloted on 04-F-014 Y 1 9 121 not noted; ballot 04-F-014 received and received persuasive negatives. It thru outstanding negatives. Committee was re-balloted on 05-F-014 which C- should continue working on the item. also had a persuasive negative. As the 148 committee agrees with the TAC comment this is being balloted on Ballot 07-F-021. Persuasive negative received. Reballotted on 08-F-047. Negative received. No change made. Item will be carried into the next cycle for consideration. 30 9.1.8.2 C- 70 S Previously, the modulus of rupture FAS The committee agrees but the Y 0 125 values were ‘directly proportional’ to statement is still true. The values of the allowable flexural tensile stress the MOR values are in flux and may values, but this proportionality is change further. The subcommittee becoming looser with each edition of discussions have not resulted in a the Code. Commentary should ballot that is ready for Main reflect this. committee but work will continue as time permits. 30 Table C- 10 P The MoR values are out of sync with FAS The Committee prioritized other Y 2 9.1.8.2 126 the flexural tension values of Table important Primary comments assigned 8.2.4.2. The Allowable values were to the FAS Subcommittee for increased during the last Code cycle. consideration, ahead of this item and But the MoR values were not as such the Committee will carry it adjusted similarly. Either increase forward for consideration. the MoR values, or move the allowable values back down. 32 9.3.4.1. C- 55 P The word “if present” at the end of F&S The Committee balloted a change Y 0 1 137 the sentence is confusing. It refers to consistent with the TAC Comment what? The element is prismatic, and ballot item 07-Q-13 that proposed simply supported, and the load is to delete the phrase in question. The 20 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # uniformly distributed. If there is a ballot items also made two case where the resultant deflection is grammatical corrections: a comma is not symmetric, then please list. inserted after “loading” and “results” is changed to “result”. 07-Q-13 received a persuasive negative and a new ballot item was presented on Main 08-Q-013. In addition, the committee will consider changing “element” to “member” consistently throughout the documents, as has been done by ACI 318, as new business for the next cycle. Item passed. 35 11.2 C- 3 S The chapter for strength design of AA The AAC subcommittee and Main Y 0 164 unreinforced conventional masonry C Committee did not consider the use of requires that P-Delta effects be P-Delta effects this cycle. The considered, per Section 9.2.4.3. comment is a good one, however Should they also be considered for looking at the provisions of Section unreinforced AAC masonry? 9.2.4.3, they are not directly applicable to AAC, in particular 9.2.4.3.3 and 9.2.4.3.4. We propose that this item be considered new business in the next cycle because this is not an issue that needs to be immediately addressed with respect to life safety.

36 Comme C- 60 S This graphic shows more VG Due to higher priority items, the Y 1 ntary – 179 information than the Code deals with E subcommittee has not resolved this 12.1.1 (beyond scope) and may be item, but it will stay on our agenda. misleading. Delete the reference to the overlap in the building paper. Delete the insulation (which does not meet IBC or IECC requirements in many jurisdictions) and state that insulation is not shown for clarity. 36 12.1.2 C- 46 S There are many sets of industry VG Due to higher priority items, the Y 5 182 recommendations to limit the E subcommittee has not resolved this 21 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # deflection of masonry veneers, not item, but it will stay on our agenda. all of which are consistent. As an item of new business review available recommendations and incorporate as a minimum requirement in the next edition of the MSJC.

Should the code provide a code- required deflection limit for out-of- plane deflection of backing for veneer, based on the recommendations made by the references listed in the commentary? There are limits for vertical deflections of veneer supporting elements to limit veneer in-plane deflection. Why not for out-of- plane?

Where does the basis for the deflection limit of L/720 come from? BIA Tech Note 28B only lists a deflection limit up to L/600. Is there another reference for L/720?

36 12.1.2 C- 49 S It would be beneficial for the VG Due to higher priority items, the Y 6 182 commentary to provide additional E subcommittee has not resolved this guidance on what wind load levels item, but it will stay on our agenda. should be used to calculate out-of- plane deflection, when evaluating backing stiffness against the industry-recommended deflection limits. Factored loads or service loads? What recurrence interval should the wind loads be evaluated at, the full design level or something less? Because the ASCE 7-10 22 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # calculations for design wind loads have changed to a “strength design approach” with a load factor of 1.0, the basic wind speeds and their recurrence intervals have all been increased. For example, in ASCE 7- 05 for a Risk Category II building in the Midwest, the basic wind speed was 90 mph and the recurrence interval was 50 years; for the same building in ASCE 7-10, the basic wind speed is now 115 mph and the recurrence interval is 700 years. This change blurs the concept of service level wind loads versus design level wind loads. IBC acknowledges the idea of reducing the recurrence interval for wind loads used to calculate wall deflection, by allowing the wind loads to be multiplied by 0.42, as done within IBC 2012 Table 1604.3 “Deflection Limits.” Is this something that might be beneficial to mention in the MSJC commentary? Otherwise, designers may get the impression that a backing needs to be designed to L/720 for a wind load that only happens once every 700 years, which seems too stringent.

36 12.1.2 C- 56 S There is a deflection limit listed at VG Balloted on Main 08-V-005A and 08- Y 7 182 the start of this paragraph which E V-005B consistent with the TAC reads “stud span length divided by Comment. Negatives received. Item 200 multiplied by the specified does not move into the working draft. veneer thickness.” Is it intended to Item will be considered in the next mean “stud span length divided by cycle. the product of 200 times the 23 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # specified veneer thickness?” If so, can it be written this way?

36 12.1.2 C- 63 S Is the referenced NCMA TekNote VG Balloted on Main 08-V-011A and 08- Y 8 182 16-3A an active TekNote? I’m E V-011B consistent with the TAC having trouble locating it. Has it comment. Negatives received. Item been superseded by another? does not move into the working draft. Item will be considered in the next cycle.

36 12.1.4 C- 7 S The limitation on the use of VG Due to higher priority items, the Y 9 183 dimension stone seems arbitrary. Is E subcommittee has not resolved this there a technical reason an anchored item, but it will stay on our agenda. veneer cannot be stone? If not, remove this limit. If so, state why. The IBC and IRC do not have such a limit. 37 12.2.1(c C- 10 E Correct the reference to Section 1.1.3 VG Due to higher priority items, the Y 2 ) 184 (which addresses SI info.) Same in E subcommittee has not resolved this Section 12.3.1(c) as well. item, but it will stay on our agenda. 37 12.2.1(e C- 16 S When designing an alternative- VG Due to higher priority items, the Y 6 ) 184 designed anchored veneer, is E subcommittee has not resolved this Paragraph 12.2.2.10.2.2 also item, but it will stay on our agenda. excluded from the requirements? This paragraph requires that in high- risk seismic areas D E F that the maximum wall area supported by each anchor be reduced by 75% when designing veneer anchors prescriptively. Is this extra factor of safety also expected when doing alternative-designed anchored veneer, or should this paragraph be listed as an exclusion under the alternative design section?

38 12.2.2.3 C- 7 P For the paragraph regarding vertical VG Balloted on Main Committee Ballot Y 0 .1.2 185 support of anchored veneer with 07-V-007 consistent with the TAC 24 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # wood backing, when the changes to E Comment. Persuasive negative was this paragraph were discussed in the found. TMS Spring 2012 Meetings, I Item will continue to be considered in believe it was mentioned that veneer the next cycle. on wood backing may be built taller than 30 feet if movement is accommodated and the veneer is supported at each story. If this is the case, can this paragraph be rewritten to follow the construction of 12.2.2.3.1.3 for cold-formed steel framing, which does allow this? If not, can an additional sentence be added to this paragraph to explicitly state that brick veneer on wood backing is not allowed above 30 feet (38 feet at a gable), regardless of what is supporting it?

38 12.2.2.3 C- 13- S Recommend moving these two VG Due to higher priority items, the Y 1 .1.4 & 185 22 paragraphs into subparagraphs of E subcommittee has not resolved this 12.2.2.3 12.2.2.3.2. The first paragraph item, but it will stay on our agenda. .1.5 addresses veneer used as an interior finish. The second paragraph addresses veneer supported on wood construction. Both seem more appropriately located within a section dealing with support at floor construction. If persuasive, then their references within Paragraph 12.2.2.3.1 should be deleted. 38 12.2.2.6 C- 6 E In the context of the wood and steel VG Due to higher priority items, the Y 6 .2 188 stud standards, ‘framing’ refers to E subcommittee has not resolved this the entire assembly of components. item, but it will stay on our agenda. This provision could be interpreted as permitting anchors to be attached to sheathing. Revise to clarify that veneer anchors are required to be 25 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # attached to studs. Same for Section 12.2.2.7.2.

39 12.3.2 C- 17 S Add deflection limits for adhered VG Due to higher priority items, the Y 4 191 veneer. E subcommittee has not resolved this item, but it will stay on our agenda. 39 13.2.1 C- 4 P The design figure for glass block VG Balloted on Main Ballot 07-V-013 Y 6 194 cites ‘factored’ wind pressure. Here E consistent with the TAC Comment. it is ‘design’ wind pressure. In Persuasive negative found. commentary Figure CC-13.2-1 is is Item will continue to be addressed in ‘ultimate’. Be consistent and clear the next cycle which load is correct. 39 13.2.1 C- 4 P As with other sections of the Code, VG (Note TAC comment 397 was Y 7 194 add requirement that the design loads E balloted concurrently with TAC be determined in accordance with the comment 396). Balloted on Main legally adopted building code, or Ballot 07-V-013 consistent with the ASCE 7. TAC Comment. Persuasive negative found. Item will continue to be addressed in the next cycle 40 13.3.2.1 C- 11 S Clarify what loads are considered in VG Due to higher priority items, the Y 1 196 calculating ‘total’ deflection. E subcommittee has not resolved this item, but it will stay on our agenda. 40 13.3.2.2 C- 15 S In addition to the 12 ft height limit VG Due to higher priority items, the Y 2 196 above support, add additional E subcommittee has not resolved this requirement for above grade plane. item, but it will stay on our agenda. 40 13.3.3.1 C- 27 S Is the 200 lb/ft load a factored or VG Due to higher priority items, the Y 3 196 unfactored load? E subcommittee has not resolved this item, but it will stay on our agenda. 41 14.2.3.1 C- 27 S Is the 200 lb/ft load a factored or VG Balloted on Main Ballot 07-V-026 Y 1 199 unfactored load? E consistent with the TAC Comment. Persuasive negative found. Item will continue to be addressed in the next cycle 41 14.2 C- 59 E Move “Design is based on the VG Due to higher priority items, the Y 4 199 condition that gravity loads are E subcommittee has not resolved this reasonably centered on the walls.” to item, but it will stay on our agenda. Commentary Section 14.2.3.1. 26 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # 41 14.2.3.5 C- 11 P ‘Service’ load is incorrect, I believe VG Balloted on Main Ballot 07-V-026 Y 8 200 this should be ‘nominal’ load. If E consistent with the TAC Comment. true, then this limit makes these Persuasive negative found. provisions almost useless as the 18% Item will continue to be addressed in of the MWFRS interior partition the next cycle pressure from ASCE 7 often will exceed 5 psf. 42 14.3.2 C- 7 P Delete Section 14.3.2. These VG Balloted response for the TAC Y 0 201 provisions were based on exterior E Comment on Main 08-V-007: walls subjected to out-of-plane wind pressures and are no longer “The Committee prioritized other applicable to interior partitions of primary comments as well as enclosed buildings. Instead, add a numerous editorial comments prescriptive minimum (such as the assigned to the VGE subcommittee vertical and horizontal distance for consideration, ahead of this item between openings shall not be less since the opening provisions in than 3t or 24 in., whichever is less) Chapter 14 were brought directly to prevent unrealistic opening over from the Empirical provisions spacings. and as such have been applicable to partition walls for many cycles. The Committee will add as new business in the next cycle, consideration of this section.” Item passed. 42 14.3.2 C- 23 S What is a ‘virtual opening’? VG Due to higher priority items, the Y 1 201 E subcommittee has not resolved this item, but it will stay on our agenda. 42 14.4 C- 10 S This section only addresses VG Due to higher priority items, the Y 6 203 anchorage for horizontally spanning E subcommittee has not resolved this elements – what about vertically item, but it will stay on our agenda spanning elements? 42 14.5.2 C- 31 E Delete reference to Section 9.3.4.2, VG Balloted on Main 08-V-008A and 08- Y 9 203 this is already covered by the E V-008B consistent with the TAC reference to Section 5.2 and implies comment. Negative was received on that ASD is not permitted. each item. Items do not move into the working draft. Item will continue to be addressed in the next cycle.

27 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # 43 A.1 C- 61 S Please confirm the reference to VG Due to higher priority items, the Y 7 205 Chapter 8 since other Chapters can E subcommittee has not resolved this be used for the design of lateral- item, but it will stay on our agenda force-resisting systems. 43 A.1.1 C- 45 S Revise as: VG Due to higher priority items, the Y 9 208 “Risk Category IV structures, or E subcommittee has not resolved this portions thereof, are not permitted to item, but it will stay on our agenda. be designed…” 44 A.2 C- 5 S Where is the 35 ft height measured VG Due to higher priority items, the Y 0 209 from? I assume grade plane? E subcommittee has not resolved this item, but it will stay on our agenda. 44 A.4 C- 65 P There are several requirements VG Balloted on Main Ballot 07-V-020A Y 3 211 discussed in this commentary section E consistent with the TAC Comment. that are not in the mandatory Item passed. Also balloted on Main requirements of the Code. If these Ballot 07-V-020-B - persuasive are required, add them to the Code. negative found. Reballot on 08-V- 010. Negative was received. Item does not move into the working draft. Work will continue next cycle on this item. 44 A.7.3 C- 38 S Wythes bonded by ties in accordance R& This item has had a fair amount of Y 7 217 with A.7.3 are by definition non- C discussion at recent subcommittee composite walls. Changes were meetings, and the subcommittee made in Main Ballot 06-R-009 that believed the issue was settled. The assumes detailing in accordance with comment indicates it is apparently A.7.3 provides composite action. A still not clear. negative was received on this ballot item, stating that this was incorrect. The subcommittee would like to Subsequent discussion suggests that revisit this topic and determine the Subcommittee should reconsider whether there is an underlying whether they wish to have this limit misunderstanding of what this section on adjustable ties applied to non- is about. We propose to keep it on the composite assemblies. Perhaps the list for further discussion. option to provide either adjustable or non-adjustable ties, provided the appropriate tie spacings are

28 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # provided. 47 1.1 S-3 1 S Additional requirements are needed CR This item was balloted on 07-C-036 Y 4 specific to the construction of and received one negative that was masonry infills in accordance with found persuasive. This item will be Appendix B. considered by both the Infill and Construction Requirements subcommittees as future business in the next cycle.

48 1.4 B S-15 9 S As an item of new business, I would CR This item was balloted on 07-C-037 Y 0 encourage the Committee to consider and received several negative votes. permitting (as an option) the use of One was found persuasive. As historical data or even the unit suggested by the TAC Comment, the strength method to provide committee will continue to consider preconstruction confirmation of the comment as new business in the

compliance with f’m when prisms are next cycle. specified on a job. Currently, in Quality Assurance Level C, compliance with f’m is required prior to and during construction. Many plans and specifications require similar compliance on other projects as well. If the prism test option for

verification of compliance with f’m is used, preconstruction prisms must be constructed, and the expectation would be that the results would be available prior to the actual construction - thus the prisms should be constructed at least 30 days prior to construction. Since materials are not typically on the jobsite that far in advance, this is very onerous, and often an unrealistic requirement. It seems that an acceptable alternative would be to allow, as an option, historical data, and/or the

29 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # unit strength method to be used for the preconstruction check. Then if prisms are desired for the actual construction, they can be constructed and tested. But at least the contractor would not be forced to try to make and test prisms before they typically have access to the actual materials. As a basis for such a change, (perhaps) recall that the UBC had permitted an option for historical data to be used to determine

compliance with f’m. One final point. We say the contractor has the “option” to use either the unit strength method or the prism test method, so some may question why this is needed. Increasingly however, designers are specifying the tests required on the job, often including prisms. In such cases, the contractor no longer has the option to use the unit strength method. In addition, in rare cases, the contractor may want to use prisms during construction to “maximize” the materials he is expecting. In this case, the unit strength may be too conservative, but historical data may support the contractor’s desire to use those materials to achieve the specified strength. As such, for these reasons, having this as an option, could give the contractor reasonable options that would be verified later by actual prism breaks. 48 1.4 S-18 1 P New research is available to update CR This item was balloted on 07-C-041 Y 30 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # 7 B.2.b Table 2 (Committee has been and received several negative votes. provided this research – The Construction Requirements “Recalibration of Unit Strength subcommittee will continue to work Method …”). Please review this on this complex item and attempt to research and revise Table 2 resolve. Balloted on Main 08-C- accordingly. 080A, 08-C-080B and 08-C-080C. Item 08-C-080A passed. Negatives received on 08-C-080B and 08-C- 08C. Item does not move into the working draft.

Note: A task group was established to continue work on this item in preparation for additional balloting opportunities if presented through public comment. If not, work will continue in the next cycle. 49 2.2 S-37 1 S I have recently become aware that CR In order to adequately address this Y 8 lightweight grout (containing natural TAC Comment, several items must be and manufactured lightweight carefully evaluated for possible aggregates) is being used with more structural implications. The TAC frequency. It is also my Comment suggests bond strength as a understanding that designers are not structural impact. The CR considering the potential structural Subcommittee is not aware of what impact (i.e., bond strength) that the appropriate bond strength (if any) should be considered when using is and what significant impact (if any) lightweight grout in masonry lightweight grout may have on the construction. Add design provisions bond strength. for lightweight grout (drawing on corresponding ACI 318 provisions as Should it be determined that the necessary) into the Code and structural implications are not Specification. significant, this item may be more effectively addressed within ASTM, specifically, referencing lightweight aggregates within ASTM C476.

The CR Subcommittee will work with the Main Committee to keep working 31 No. Section Page Line Classifi Comment Sub 2013 Committee Response Hold 2016 Committee or cation over Response Article (Y) # on this item in the next cycle. 51 2.6 B S-51 56 P Delete Table SC-8 and its reference CR The Committee can agree that the Y 2 here. This data is sufficiently old so information provided in Table SC-8 as to be no longer applicable to is historic, but it is applicable for contemporary materials or grout now more than ever. Many construction and provides people, particularly those associated information that is likely to be more with concrete, are thoroughly confusing than informative. convinced that water is always detrimental to a cementitious mixture and nothing could be further from the truth with respect to masonry grout. As anyone in the masonry industry knows, fluidity, typically provided by water, is essential for grout placement and the excess water dissipates into the masonry units. This table is a vital tool in educating the people unfamiliar with masonry grout and water content.

As a matter of new business, the CR Subcommittee will explore additional Commentary to address new materials and construction and attempt to develop language that addresses new materials that may be unfamiliar to the distributer or end user.