​“Best mud-set mortar system” is a red herring because you don’t "mud set" or grout pavers unless it is for looks – like a pedestrian path you want to look like a brick wall laying on the ground. For heavy traffic applications you place the pavers on a sand bed over a concrete or compacted road rock base. Then you fill the cracks between the pavers with sand. The shape of the pavers and the sand cause them to interlock (which is where the name “interlocking pavers” comes from). 

Grouts used in heavy traffic application are subject to crushing and subsequent failure so are avoided.

If you put the pavers over a solid concrete base you have to include weep holes to drain away the water. 

For circular patterns where you encounter radial forces you want good "in plain" interlocking to prevent shifting and a herring bone pattern is usually recommended.

​The Perm rating of stucco is a red herring. Climate zones 1 and 2 strictly LIMIT the perm rating of vapor barriers because you don’t want to trap moisture in the wall. Standard stucco is a Class III Vapor Barrier with a perm rating between 5 and 10 which would also make it a Vapor Permeable which is better yet in Florida. Stucco is accepted as a suitable weather barrier throughout the code – and that is what you are looking for in climate zones 1 and 2 – a weather barrier – not a vapor barrier. Check out 1405.3.1 and 1405.3.2. The code is RESTRICTING the perm rating of vapor barriers – not requiring low perm barriers. Stucco, and CMU, serves as a good weather and air barrier. If you are keen on low perm vapor barriers then move up North. We don’t need them in Florida.

​Your reviewing engineer is being a bit obsessive over a moot point. Table 721.3.2 in the 2007 FBC with 2009 revisions is EXACTLY the same table as 721.3.2 in the 2010 FBC which is EXACTLY the same table as 722.3.2 in the 5th Ed FBC which is EXACTLY the same table as 722.3.2 in the current 6th Ed FBC. And I do mean EXACTLY the same table. There have been no changes in this table for the past 30 years or more. 4 inch Eq Thickness of limestone agg gets you a 2 hour rating in 2007 and in 2019 - period, end of story. Additionally, the C140 testing procedures have remained exactly the same over the same 30+ years. The project was permitted under the 2010 FBC and thus is ALLOWED to be constructed under the requirements that governed at the time it was designed and reviewed (so you are not required to completely redesign the project under the current codes). It is my understanding that this does NOT mean that everyone supplying materials to the job have to climb into a time machine and retro backwards 10 years to resurrect and construct the job by historical - and out of date - standards. 

That being said, your standards in the certification are not correct either way (neither 2010 or 2017. My view is that you should be testing and certifying your product under the current code (2017) and that the engineer of record should accept the current codes and standards governing construction in Florida. The question is moot because the governing procedures, and tables, have not changed.

​As long a there is a full mortar joint the face shell thickness on both sides of the wall there should be no question about the overall fire rating of the wall. Consider that the entire wall is FILLED with joints filled with mortar the face shell thickness of the wall. The joint at the top of the wall would be no different.

Most of the energy lost in a home is through the infiltration of outside air into the house, the hot water heating system, the efficiency of the AC unit, heat gain through the ceiling from the attic space and through the windows. The opaque exterior walls really do not contribute that significantly to the heat gain/loss, usually in the range of 6% – 10%. That being said, a modest amount of well-placed insulation can pay for itself in 2 – 3 years of energy savings. 
​
The most common type of masonry insulation is foil backed paper stapled between the furring strips. This adds about an R3 of insulation and is the minimum amount recommended. The great thing about Florida is your temperature gradient is, by and large, small – usually less than 20 degF and for much of the year less than 5 degF. The maximum insulation recommended anywhere in Florida is ¾” Poly Iso with a foil backing. The non-foil side is glued or attached directly to the masonry and the furring strips go directly over the foil backing creating a ¾” reflective air space between the foil and the drywall. This arrangement gives you an approx. R7.8. You might want to use this on a large expanse of west facing wall where the heat gain in the afternoon can be more intense. 
Any more insulation than the R7.8 is a dead loss money wise and will NEVER pay for itself in energy savings. You can prove this to yourself by simply running the analysis in Comcheck or energy gauge software. You will quickly see that the exterior walls are not where your energy loss occurs.

A "compressible bond breaker" in a control joint, as shown in his detail, would mean a backer rod. The backer rod or "compressible bond breaker" is pushed or "compressed" into the joint prior to caulking the 3/8" joint. It's purpose is to control the amount of caulking that goes into the joint, but more importantly, to "break" the 3 point "bonding" that occurs in the back of the joint and thus prevents the caulking from tearing open at this location. 

The EOR is confused about the need for a COMPRESSIBLE material. He does want a fire rated system which is not what was called for either in the plans or in his response. His detail does not call out for a key way so that is clear. But it simply does not indicate what he is asking for. The language, as I have said, is simply another way of asking for a backer rod which he has already shown. He needs to go to https://submittalwizard.3m.com/# and pick a caulking that will give him the 2 hr rating he desires. A piece of "compressible rubber" does not carry a 2 hr fire rating. Whatever is in the control joint does NOT have to be compressible because the joint will never be compressed. Conc masonry walls shrink - always. He may be thinking about a clay brick product that would be EXPANDING and thus compressing the joint. You can fill masonry control joints with mortar if you want because they DON'T COMPRESS. Brick expansion joints have to be completely clean of mortar because the wall expands and the joint does get compressed. 

At this point he could solve the problem by simply changing to a fire rated caulking and eliminating the rubber filler. What he is asking for in his response carries no fire rating and is not what the words on the plans say.

Another solution would be to provide a min of a 2" deep mortar joint on each side of the wall. After raking out the mortar for your backer rod and caulking you would have the usual 1 1/4" of mortar left in the joint - the same as every other head joint in the wall. This would meet the 2 hr rating by simply matching the amount of mortar as every other joint in a typical 2 hr masonry wall with face shell bedding. You would not have to go to the extra expense of using a fire rated caulking.
​
I would be happy to discuss this with the EOR. Proper control joint construction is an area of common misunderstanding. It was nice to see that he had actually bothered to include control joints, an essential part of preventing random masonry cracking.

​I refer you to R302.2.1.1 linked below. In NE Florida you can still use the MAF Guide if you are nestled into an cozy residential development and can argue Cat B – but only up to 130 (see fig 301.2(4) below). 115 doesn’t hit the state at all and the only reinforcement provisions in the FBC Residential - Chapter 6 are for seismic cat C and D (and there is no seismic in Florida). The rest of the masonry stuff in Chap 6 is just spec stuff better left in TMS. So, for the rest of Florida your best guide is the ICC 600.

The salient code section governing this discussion is out of TMS 402-2016 Section 3.2.1 and TMS 602-2016 Section 3.5 D – Grout lift height. A copy of these code sections is attached to this blog (I hope). Since the 2008 TMS 402/602 we have been allowed to grout up to 12’ 8” in a single lift if three conditions were met: 1) the masonry was at least 4 hours old, 2) the grout was fluid – 10-11 inches and 3) there were no intermediate bond beams to be grouted where we would need the grout to flow horizontally to fill the bond beams.

The next section of the code (3.5 D.1.b) tells us that if the first 2 conditions are met and we have intermediate bond beams we can grout to the bottom of the lowest bond beam above 5’ 4”. In this case that would be 9’ 4” subtract 16” or 8’ of height. So, by the book, we would place an 8’ lift then come back with a second pass and grout the bond beam and the course above.

The normal spacing of vertical and horizontal bond beams is 48” oc throughout the seismic regions of the country. In Florida we do not have the minimum 48”x48” seismic grid requirement and our bond beams are normally at the top of the wall. Thus, the code is written to ensure that the grout will flow at least 24” into any horizontal bond beam. In this particular case the grout need only flow 4” horizontally into the horizontal bond beam (remember the poured cells are only 16” on center).

It would be my hope that in this particular case common sense would prevail and the inspector or EOR would ignore the intermediate bond beam realizing that 1) it is virtually at the top of the wall and 2) the horizontal flow is MUCH, MUCH less than the distance that the code is set up to accommodate.
​
Failing common sense, section 3.2.1 of TMS 402-2016 provides for a solution through the use of a demo panel showing that the variance from the code does not affect the ability of the contractor to solidly grout the spaces in the wall receiving grout. The commentary to Section 3.2.1 gives additional guidance on the demo panel.

Acceptable vertical tolerances in cmu and brick are covered in TMS 402/602 Building Code Requirements and Specification for Masonry Structures. The specific location is TMS 602 Part 3 paragraph 3.3 F.2.b. It allows for a +/-1/4" in 10 lf, +/- 3/8" in 20 lf and a 1/2" maximum. Remember when checking these tolerances that the TMS 402/602 may not be the best from an atheistic standpoint. The architect can put tolerances in the project specification that are more stringent than given in the code. They may also reference documents from BIA or NCMA. Read your specifications very carefully to insure that what is stated in the specifications won't require workmanship of a higher level (more costly). Brick workmanship should always be approved using a mockup.
Remember!! There is no ASTM standard for acceptable masonry workmanship.