"Perhaps so, but BA's point remains: if you don't suspend something above your head in the first place then it can't fall on your head."
I wasn't attempting to contradict that. But, not everything is solely about functionality; if it were, the world would resemble a Brutalist architecture catalog. My house, on the other hand, has decorative rock work panels that are glued on and goes up the walls to the bottom of the 2nd floor.
TTFN
faq731-376
Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529
>>>I don't really see how this is any different than any other structural component<<<
It's not a structural component...at least, the stone isn't. The epoxy anchors arguably are, I suppose. But therein lies the rub. For a structural component such as a column or beam to fail it likely means that there has been dramatic design or construction incompetence or oversight, and even then there are often warning signs before it occurs. Epoxy anchors, on the other hand, only require a little bit to go wrong (dust in hole, water intrusion, etc.) for one of them to fail and then they do so with no warning. Add to that that in the scenario under discussion there could be hundreds or even thousands of them installed, and all it takes is for one of them to go wrong...a la the Boston tunnel incident. It's a lot of risk to take for a simple avoidable architectural element, in my opinion. We can't build things without structural components but we don't have to glue heavy stones above our heads.
But, at some point it comes down to our respective levels of risk aversion. I'm of the philosophy that I won't have a skydiving accident if I don't go skydiving. For others that particular adrenaline rush is worth the risk. We each make our own choices.
I can agree that, if this were considered just an architectural finish and no structural design was done, then I would definitely be uncomfortable with it. I would hope somebody (architect, contractor, building safety department) might bring this up as a critical item specifically.
I guess to answer the original question as written: I wouldn't just blindly trust the adhesive, I would want the hard testing data to back it up before I, as a structural engineer, gave the OK.
In order to use the "lick and stick" method of Thin stone veneer, the stone can only have a max thickness and weight/sf. Otherwise it should not be done. There are industry standards for this method. I believe the weight limit is 15 psf or up to 1-1/4" thick max down to 3/4" thin. I can sleep at night knowing the mortar bed will hold this. The typical "adhesive" is usually basic mortar. Thin stone veneers are very common and when installed properly are just fine. Thin stone should only be installed in a vertical position. Most stone cutters will only supply the proper material. Read the specs.
I would not rely on adhesive to hold material weighing 15 psf on a wall, particularly if it was high above occupied space. If the adhesive fails for any reason, the falling material has the potential to cause serious injury or death.
What if you use pure A & B epoxy adhesive in attaching the 15 psf stone to the wall of the second floor above the entrance of ground floor? Would it attach better as bond strength is supposed to be on the order of above 2000 psi?
Stone veneer should be supported at the bottom. Suggest providing a shelf angle. Tile adhesive can be used to support the veneer against lateral movement, but I don't agree that tile adhesive is "basic mortar".
