> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gabriel Orgrease
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 3:02 PM

> 
> 1955, brick church, Mineola, LI. <snip> Brick walls 
> approx 25' in height in 1950's colonial motif architecture.
> 
> We noticed in the field of the wall horizontal mortar joints 
> deteriorated and repointed (hard mortar shell repointing) 
> that were in an odd location, one line below the arched windows, 
> one line above. Not in any location that made sense for 
> spandrel steel and the usual suspect of rust jacking to push out 
> the mortar... and in some areas displacement of a course of 
> brick (but no more than that in height of  displacement). 
> On review of 1955 blueprints (real blue prints, blue with 
> white lines)  discovered that for the full circumference 
> of the building that there was a detail for 2 - #2 rebar 
> set parallel to each other in the bed of the brick joint. 

> We are not sure what structural use this detail provides, if 
> any

Nobody has responded to this query, so I'll play. And play it is. Not
licensed.

Steel is a tension element. Why would the designer propose a tension
element in this location? If I read it right, this is two continuous
bands: one above the window openings (how many courses above?) and one
below (same question of proximity). 

They must have felt there was some force in that area that required a
tensile treatment. What were they trying to hold together? In analogy it
strikes me like two giant rubber bands around the building horizontally
flanking the window openings holding the "box" together. They must have
felt for some reason the window openings would introduce a "stretching"
or "sagging" or "bowing" force that needed to be counteracted by a
tension element.

If the brick is a veneer, what is the structural frame of the building
and walls? Steel? Wood? What structural system is it that the windows
are punching a hole through, introducing some force that they felt that
the brick veneer needed a tensile element to resist or counteract? Brick
veneer is not structural; this is not a reinforced masonry system we're
talking about, so why add reinforcement? 

I agree it is very weird, and stainless is a wise replacement. I
wouldn't take them out without a better understanding of why they are
there. It's possible since they are so odd that they were somebody's
stupid bright idea and do not serve any real purpose, taking care of
some imagined problem, but you never know.

Anybody like Ralph got a 1950s-era Architectural Graphic Standards
laying around that can be looked at to see if it has a standard detail
for this?

Would Tom Jester's Twentieth Century Building Materials book shed any
clues?

Let no serious question go unanswered, even if it is a useless answer.
Seriously useless.

Cheers,
Dan

__________________________________________________
Dan Becker,  Exec. Dir.        "Oh joy!  Rapture!  
Raleigh Historic               I've got a brain!"
Districts Commission                  - Scarecrow
[log in to unmask]  
919/516-2632


“E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina  Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized City or Law Enforcement official.”

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>