Defective expansion joint in clinker facade

Hello dear forum members.

We are currently building our dream house with a general contractor and I would like to ask for your advice on one of the remaining problems. The single-family house measures 14m x 8m and is fully faced with bricks. During an inspection by our independent surveyor, he criticized the lack of expansion joints. These were apparently not included in the planning by our GC and the bricklayer therefore did not implement them. After a thorough examination of the matter by the GC and bricklayer, it was decided to cut the total of 4 joints afterwards. Unfortunately, we are more than disappointed with the result – my wife cried when she saw the joints for the first time. In contrast to the approx. 1.5 cm width of all other joints, the cut expansion joints measure almost exclusively more than 3 cm. If a regular joint happens to be next to a cut joint, the widths add up accordingly – visually quite a disaster (see photos).

The site manager gave us hope that the appearance would improve with grouting, but unfortunately this is not the case (in our view). Our surveyor also says he has never seen anything like this. And since the final acceptance is approaching quickly, we are wondering what we should do. Of course, we have already informed the site manager that the execution of the joints is, in our opinion, faulty. At the moment we are planning to somehow conceal the joints after handover. Either by matching the color to the bricks or with a cover. But at least I would hope for a substantial credit from the GC. This can't be acceptable, can it? If not, how do you assess the damage? Do we have "only" a visual defect here or is this also a functional problem? Could we theoretically demand that this part of the facade be renewed?

I would be very happy about your expert assessment. If I have forgotten any important details, please let me know briefly.

Thanks in advance and best regards from the North,
Simon

Uh, why did you have an expansion joint made? As far as I know, according to DIN, it is no longer up-to-date and therefore unnecessary for smaller single-family houses? But I only have a rough estimate of 10-12m wall length in mind.

An improvement in appearance will not be possible. For a subsequent installation, I even find it successful. I do not see a substantial credit. For what reason?

Hi Nordanney,

thank you for your message. Our expert was of the opinion that an expansion joint is necessary at 14 meters and we relied on his judgment. Ultimately, the general contractor and the mason also assessed it this way. But unfortunately, it is too late for this consideration.

We were told before the cuts that the joint would have the same width as the other joints. Therefore, we were so upset when we saw the execution. Maybe we will just have to get used to the appearance.

Best regards,
Simon

What for?

Optical defect due to appearance. Design defect due to the very likely unnecessary nature. And probably also an execution defect, because the expansion joint in its current, filled form very likely no longer does what it is supposed to do.

And presumably also a construction defect, because the expansion joint in its current, filled form very likely no longer does what it is supposed to do.

I had also wondered why it was grouted – that contradicts the purpose of the expansion joint. I only know it to be sealed with compressible tape. And why in the middle of the wall? Isn’t the expansion joint normally located in the corner between individual walls?

1.
This expansion joint according to the pictures is not filled with mortar, but sanded (which is usually more aesthetically pleasing, but washes out over time – doesn’t matter, still better than without sand!). Expansion joints must be permanently elastic sealed with suitable sealing materials (e.g., with polyurethane, polysulfide, compression tape). So polymer sealants like SikaFlex or similar, but not silicone.

2.
The arrangement next to the front door (?) is, of course, a complete failure both visually and in planning; according to the guidelines, the arrangement at corners is actually sufficient.

[ATTACH alt="Unbenannt1.JPG" type="full"]40718[/ATTACH]
3.
Much more important, however, is the additional installation of expansion joints at prefabricated lintels – regardless of length.
Unfortunately, I speak from experience as the lack of these in our case after two years is causing demolition and rework needs on (large) corner windows. We are currently having our fun with this.

So I can confirm that facing shells move and expansion joints are necessary and sensible. Exactly for this reason, they are also mandated.

From the Brick (Komm) page, 2.6 Facing lintel, to picture 17 / Search: expansion joint, facing brick, lintel:

"To avoid cracks caused by stresses in the facing shell, all prefabricated lintels fixed to the backing masonry must be separated from the adjacent masonry by arranging vertical expansion joints (picture 17), because the deformation characteristics of the two shells of a cavity wall are completely different. While the load-bearing inner shell is subject to creep and shrinkage depending on the masonry units used, the facing shell must be expected to undergo thermo-hygrometric length changes."