Need help with Stucco again!

[Vern Heiler]

Where the stucco over wood sheathing steps down to follow a slopping grade, the plywood sheathing is exposed. What should be used to seal the exposed plywood. I am going to recommend clearing the soil and mulch back to give a 4" clearance.

I also have the same problem I had with the EIFS roof to wall abutment, no gap!

[Jerry Peck]

Where the stucco over wood sheathing steps down to follow a slopping grade, the plywood sheathing is exposed. What should be used to seal the exposed plywood. I am going to recommend clearing the soil and mulch back to give a 4" clearance.


Clearing the soil back will only create a swale and trap water, the stucco and plywood needs to be cut back a minimum of 6" above the soil line - unless the structure does not allow for that, in which case your client is in deep doo-doo.

Covering up the plywood will only prevent the next inspector from seeing the not-allowed construction method used, it will not do any good whatsoever.

[Vern Heiler]

Clearing the soil back will only create a swale and trap water, the stucco and plywood needs to be cut back a minimum of 6" above the soil line - unless the structure does not allow for that, in which case your client is in deep doo-doo.

Covering up the plywood will only prevent the next inspector from seeing the not-allowed construction method used, it will not do any good whatsoever.

How was that step down edge supposed to be covered?

The soil/mulch has been built up to touch the siding, why can't it be removed now?

[Scott Patterson]

How was that step down edge supposed to be covered?

The soil/mulch has been built up to touch the siding, why can't it be removed now?

The OSB sheathing should have stopped at the sillplate and should have never been installed so that it hangs down on the foundation. If they did not want the exposed concrete foundation and this is why the extended the stucco, the builder had other options to camouflage the concrete.

If the foundation is not high enough for that step down to provide a proper clearance and the soil/mulch can be pulled back and removed to provide a proper slope, I see no reason that it can't be done.

[Vern Heiler]

Thanks Scott.

[Steven Turetsky]

It looks like the EIFS was cut back after the fact. You could also mention the lack of clearence above the roof surface.

[Vern Heiler]

It looks like the EIFS was cut back after the fact. You could also mention the lack of clearence above the roof surface.

I'm pretty sure it is a hard coat. Not sure how many coats, but the only EFIS is the trim. I did mention in the second paragraph the lack of a gap at the roof abutment. (refrenced another thread I started earlier, shouldn't have done that)

[Steven Turetsky]

It's hard to tell from the pics, but I thought I saw raw EPS in the foundatioin picture. OK, maybe not.

The clearence I speak of is along the roof line.

[Bud Rutherford]

I agree with Scott. Mulch must be removed at least 4" below the weep screed per the ASTM Specifications. A slope can be acheived by moving the top soil out accordingly.

The vertical return that is exposed could have used a Universal Weep Screed (Long Return Leg) to encapsulate the wood sheathing properly. The Plaster could have been returned to the concrete as well on that vertical return to cover up the sheathing.

[John Carroll]

The vertical return that is exposed could have used a Universal Weep Screed (Long Return Leg) to encapsulate the wood sheathing properly.

(long sigh)
Weep Screed does not "encapsulate" anything. Try reading a dictionary before using a $15 word to convey a ten cent thought. The wood will still be exposed to weather and thus, rot whether it is hidden from view or not. Extending the stucco to the stem with casing and cornerbead might have worked when the house was built, but at this point is little better that covering it up with a weep screed.
The sad fact is that a proper repair will entail removal of the plaster back to the point where there is no more deterioration in either the wood subframing or stem wall concrete, and then rebuilding the damaged area properly. At that point you can talk about returning the stucco to the stem and installing a sealant joint which will have to be inspected after every season. Of course, the grade will have to be changed to meet code, blah, blah blah...:cool:

[William Brady]

Wrong install plus what about the pest issue. I think in your area that may be a big problem. Cutting it back as was said is my recommendation. It should have been that way from the start. Get a good stucco guy in and let him advise this homeowner. It may be that regrading around the home is not possible in every case. Take a look at the property next door is your home low. If so then what.

[Bud Rutherford]

John, maybe you are not familiar with the Universal Weep Screed. I would agree, a "standard" weep screed would not "encapsulate" anything, but a long return leg on the weep screed would.

Keep in mind this is the way it should have been done. You would need to remove the plaster and get to the subframing in order to correct the problem now. By the way, $15 words are worth the money when you do use them properly.

[Jerry Peck]

How was that step down edge supposed to be covered?

Based on your photo, the construction chosen by the contractor created a problem which would only have been overcome by constructing a concrete curb along that step down area, unless ...


The soil/mulch has been built up to touch the siding, why can't it be removed now?

... unless the soil can be removed to provide 8" below the framing AND still have a positive slope out to 10 feet from the structure, and any swale created is then drained away from that point.

Being as I doubt the above it likely to be able to happen I gave the answer that removing the soil would not correct it.

WOULD one be able to remove the soil to a point 8" below the framing AND STILL create a positive drainage to a point 10 feet out?

[Vern Heiler]

Based on your photo, the construction chosen by the contractor created a problem which would only have been overcome by constructing a concrete curb along that step down area, unless ...



... unless the soil can be removed to provide 8" below the framing AND still have a positive slope out to 10 feet from the structure, and any swale created is then drained away from that point.

Being as I doubt the above it likely to be able to happen I gave the answer that removing the soil would not correct it.

WOULD one be able to remove the soil to a point 8" below the framing AND STILL create a positive drainage to a point 10 feet out?

I think so!

[Jerry Peck]

I think so!


Vern,


Sure would have been nice to have had that photo at your FIRST post instead of hiding it until the end. :D

But even come in THAT photo looks like it would not be possible for that. :p

[Vern Heiler]

Vern,


Sure would have been nice to have had that photo at your FIRST post instead of hiding it until the end. :D

But even come in THAT photo looks like it would not be possible for that. :p

What, and kill all the good posts right off the batt!:D

BTW it is a repo so there won't be any repairs done by the owner.

[John Carroll]

Bud,
Yes I am familiar with "universal weep screed". It may be used as an EIFS weep component with some manufacturers. The system in the photo does not appear to be EIFS. Therefore, your theory about the possibility that this may be an appropriate remedy is all wet. Thank you for your kind attention.:cool: