November 8, 2013 at 5:28 pm #154027Doug DaviesParticipant
I am not a student any longer and have been in professional practice for over 4 years now in environmental planning and design, my fault for not updating my profile. However, I am still little bit offended by the tone of your message, the thanks at the beginning and end don’t make up for the tone of the rest of the article. The notion that I am defending this project is incorrect as well, there are ADA issues here, however your reporting on the story offered no context to the project, even including what you responded to me with would have been helpful in your discussion.
THe ICPI Design, Specifications, Construction, and Maintenance guide discusses this issue:
“An unacceptable opening is one that can receive insertion of a 1/2 in. (13 mm) steel sphere, PICP openings filled with small aggregate (typically to the bottom of the paver chamfers) comply with this design guideline.”
These are the things I do pay attention to and I don’t see how you could make the correlation that I don’t by anything that I wrote. The real issue here is should that be an accepted ADA practice to allow for the gravel to count towards compliance. There is no question that these pavers do not have enough gravel to be compliant, but the real criticism should be of ADA and not recognizing this as a potential for improperly or under maintained pavers. I too agree with your assertions about the inability to rely on maintenance, those points are quite valid.
Alan Ray, you are right, they don’t look very good at all. I would go for a Hydro-flow brick, no gaps at all!November 13, 2013 at 7:00 am #154026Kirsten A KatherineParticipant
It’s very pathetic. University should be more focused in maintenance and proper cleaning of paver.
____________________________________November 16, 2013 at 12:13 pm #154025Craig AnthonyParticipant
I’m not so sure Doug. They still look upside down to me. Where is the 9/32″ round on the edges of the brick? Also, the image in the brochure shows the spacing tabs ending 7/16″ from the walking surface of the brick. The photos of the installation shows squared off corners and spacers flush with the walking surface, please explain.November 16, 2013 at 4:08 pm #154024Alan Ray, RLAParticipant
You are correct, Sir!November 16, 2013 at 4:54 pm #154023Jason T. RadiceParticipant
This paver design comes in two varieties, molded and extruded. Molded is primarily for concrete pavers where a ‘dry’ concrete mix is vibrationally compressed to form the paver. That is the dimensioned drawing you show above. The other is an extruded brick, where the shale/clay is squeezed through a mold and then cut with a wire, thus the striated texturing in the face of the pavers shown in the lede photo. This manufacturer produced both.The extrusion process does not allow for the chamfers. It is akin to the play-doh thingie you had when you were a kid when you made noodles or star shapes where you put a blob of play-doh in, pressed down on the handle and it squeezed through a shaping die. It is also how certain delicious pastas are made. (Ziti, elbow macaroni, rigatoni, ditalini, manicotti, penne, rotini…etc.)
Here is a video showing ‘how the sausage’ is made. (What did we do before yins-tube? Oh yea…books). Anyway, please note that no less than three sides of the brick are handled by the equipment, and the people stacking the pallets are stacking the brick on its SIDE, and the weight is primarity borne by the sides, exactly where the spacer bar details are on this design. The ‘clay’ is still quite fragile before firing, which leads to damage to any detail on the sides. See in the large photo how the spacers are damaged by crushing or misalignment? That is a result of the manufacturing process.
This installation was of the extruded variety. I am still researching a response you may find suprising, hopefully I’ll not find what I am looking for in the literature I have located, and thus far, I have not. Stay tuned.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.