Thread: chicken any one

I'm a newbie, especially to commercial stuff, i was asked to look at a franchise chicken place thats wall paper is peeling on all exterior walls. My guess is that there is no where for moisture to go once penetrated behind the stucco coating. Decorative CMU's are at the base of the exterior and I cant figure out how moisture would escape in this scenario. How do i write this up? Do you think they forgot a moisture barrier???

The photos are of 1, peeling paper and rusted corner guard. 2 Drywall above drop ceiling. 3, Exterior. 4, Siding below chair rail.

I don't use moisture meters, but guessing I don't need one here!

Probably vinyl wallpaper.

That puts the moisture barrier at the inside surface of the wall. All moisture being driven into the wall by wind, weather, air pressure differences, etc., ends up "in the wall"m which is also most likely filled with batt insulation.

I'm going to guess that the batt insulation is saturated with water. (I've seen it.) Do you have a hygrometer ( Thermo Hygrometers ) to read humidity with?

If so, make a small hole in the wall and insert the end or your hygrometer into the wall cavity. I've found as much as 99.9% RH (the maximum the meter can read).

The problem likely comes down to building science and dew point in the wall.

The outside is warm, the inside is cold, somewhere between there is where the dew point will be. If the dew point is at the outside of the wall, the condensation will drain down the outside of the wall and not be a problem. If the dew point were on the interior surface of the wall, the condensation would be collecting on the interior surface of the wall and would drain down the face of the wallpaper.

However, the dew point is likely "within" the wall, and is likely near the back of the gypsum board behind the wallpaper. That means all the condensation is collecting in the insulation, which becomes saturated, gets the gypsum board wet, and gets the paper facing on the gypsum board wet (both sides of the gypsum board).

In all likelihood you will find that moisture is penetrating through the wall more than it is intended to. If it is a metal or wood stud wall, with DensGlass Gold sheathing, covered with stucco, it is quite possible that the systems were not installed properly, possibly even that the wrong lath was used. Possibly used standard paper-backed metal lath when they should have used either furring strips or self-furring paper backed metal lath.

Also likely that the DensGlass Gold is not installed and sealed up properly. When done properly, it does not (per the manufacturer) require a building wrap. Being as no one ever 'does it properly' a building wrap is really needed over the DensGlass Gold before the paper-backed metal lath, self-furring type, is installed.

Hard to know what the real problem is, but those are some guess of things I've found.

If it is just that wall I would say the mpounting bolts for the sign were not sealed and or that piece of trim is not flashed and you have water getting guided right into the wall cavity.

The paper is vinyl. The condition is present on all exterior walls in the dining area. The vinyl paper has been replaced before in 2003. They are using silicone sealant at the seams and edges as a temp repair, but it's bubbling every where. All framing and sheathing appears to be wood. Some tiles have popped off the chair rail as well. It appears that bugs are having there chicken here too...

Thanks for all the feedback. It's greatly appreciated

Originally Posted by SAL IACONO

All framing and sheathing appears to be wood.

I would recommend they take two areas, one of the worst areas and one of the best areas, remove the gypsum board from inside, remove the insulation, then check the condition of the wood framing and wood sheathing. There may be significant wood decay going on.

With the sheathing being wood, they may have a stucco problem in that they likely did not use a WRB behind the paper-backed metal lath, if they even used paper-backed metal lath and not 'just metal lath against the wood sheathing'.

With all those exhaust fans they surely have running, they may be depressurizing the interior, which would draw moisture laden air through the walls (if they do not have enough fresh air return to equalize the pressure).

Do you have a manometer to measure pressure differentials? It does not take much pressure differential to create a driving force for that moisture.

OFF THE SUBJECT HERE BUT HAVE YOU GUYS NOTICED HOW EXPENSIVE CHICKEN HASS GOTTEN HERE LATELY? USED TO BE THE CHEAPEST THING TO FEED YOUR FAMILY. NOT ANYMORE.

MAMA MOUNT

The walls will be to have a remediation. In Texas it has to be filed with the state and done by a licensed mold remediator. Once the rock is removed, then you can do an assessment. The studs will have to be treated. The restaurant is at a high risk right now. I do not recall the sq ft. of mold required to be removed, but I would have it done before there are respitory problems or lawsuits.

There could be roofing problems as well. It is not accepted practice to hand wall vinyl on exterior walls,

Is this in a city or rural. Rural does not have in the most part inspection programs by the county. You could obtain the construction docs as well.

This appears to be a good example of poor EIFS install....

Originally Posted by SAL IACONO

This appears to be a good example of poor EIFS install....

Sal,

If that is an EIFS on the exterior walls, then my comments regarding the insulation in the stud cavity would not apply as the insulation would be on the exterior of the walls.

That would solve one set of problems while opening up another set of problems.

Whatever the cause is, that vinyl wallpaper on the inside of the exterior walls is making the problem worse.

Another possible scenario could be long time exposure from formaldehyde fumes? You do know that they infuse their poultry with formaldehyde to prevent premature decomposition?

Jerry,
It may be a combination of both as I found some outsulation at the roof top (3/4" foam with nylon weave holding about 1/8 to 1/4"" coating). My inspection is non destructive so I am not going to remove any rock at the interior. I am going to leave that up to contractor that hired me to investigate the scenario. Looks like he is going to have a big job. He sounded pleased about the findings. Like I stated earlier I'm a newbie especially on commercial stuff.

I was really under the impression that all of these systems should have some way for the moisture to escape. Apparently not! The resturant opened so I cut it short, but will return this weekend to view the underside of the roofing system.

You obviously have a wealth of knowledge and I greatly appreciate your input...regards

Roof top photos.....I understand both are used together with outsulation used for decorative trim/ribbons etc.

Would'nt the fact that the doors are opened/closed all day equalize pressures?...maybe they leave some exhaust fans on over night. I'll ask the mngr....

Originally Posted by Stephen Meyer

The walls will be to have a remediation. In Texas it has to be filed with the state and done by a licensed mold remediator. Once the rock is removed, then you can do an assessment. The studs will have to be treated. The restaurant is at a high risk right now. I do not recall the sq ft. of mold required to be removed, but I would have it done before there are respitory problems or lawsuits.

There could be roofing problems as well. It is not accepted practice to hand wall vinyl on exterior walls,

Is this in a city or rural. Rural does not have in the most part inspection programs by the county. You could obtain the construction docs as well.

Why would you say the walls need "remediation" when nothing has been said about a mold problem? Just curious?

Heck, have a contractor or the owner open a wall and take a look. If it has mold, then seal that sucker back up and proceed with the remediation. I know, chances are great that it will be a mushroom farm.

Originally Posted by SAL IACONO

Roof top photos.....I understand both are used together with outsulation used for decorative trim/ribbons etc.

Would'nt the fact that the doors are opened/closed all day equalize pressures?...maybe they leave some exhaust fans on over night. I'll ask the mngr....

Think about how the doors are. Does the exterior door go directly into the store or into an entry way and then another door into the store.

When you open the door to the store did you feel air rushing onto your face or being sucked in? If air is being pushed out the open door then the building has a positive pressure. This is what you want.

Oh and I did see batt insulation above the sheetrock in the area above the drop ceiling.It appeares to continue down the wall..does this mean stucco clad?

There are 3 exits in the dining area 2 single doors that lead to the exterior and then 1 set of double that has a walk that leads to 2 more. I also noted that the kitchen (back door) is left ajar most of the time.

Originally Posted by SAL IACONO

It may be a combination of both as I found some outsulation at the roof top (3/4" foam with nylon weave holding about 1/8 to 1/4"" coating).

"Outsulation" is the brand name DryVit uses for their EIFS system.

That nylon weave is applied all around the edges to protect the edges and allow for the edges to allow for the EIFS finish coat to be applied to, and adhere to, the EIFS foam. That mesh tape is applied to the front, then wrapped over the edge, then up the back side.

I was really under the impression that all of these systems should have some way for the moisture to escape. Apparently not!

You are correct by stating "should have" in that all those systems *SHOULD have* a means by which to allow moisture vapor to flow through the wall. However, putting up vinyl wallpaper is akin to putting plastic sheeting on the wall and taping and sealing it up - *NO* moisture vapor will go through a wall with that covering it, either from outside to inside, or from inside to outside.

Regarding pressure differences on your other post, the only way to equalize the pressure is to leave all of the doors open all of the time. Opening a door will temporarily equalize the pressure if open long enough, but when the restaurant is in operation, their exhaust fans will also be in operation, and as soon as the door closes ... the exhaust fans will create more negative pressure.

If I recall correctly, and maybe Scott can correct this if this is not right, the pressure of a structure should be no more than 0.5 to 1.0 pascals negative (maximum negative pressure) to a positive pressure.

Too much positive pressure is also not good, it simply drives all the conditioned air out, which means that air must be replaced with air from someplace, and that new air must then be conditioned. A big waste of energy.

I believe the recommended state for a structure is either neutral pressure or slightly positive, many 1 to 2 pascals positive pressure.

Scott explained a giveaway sign very well: the doors should open outward, thus, it should be easy to open the door and you will feel a slight breeze if the structure has a positive pressure, however, the doors will be difficult to open under negative pressure as the negative pressure is literally sucking the door closed, and, when you do open the door, you will fell the door being sucked back in - that's not good and it indicates a negative pressure is inside.

If you are not sure, tape a sheet of plastic over the exterior side of one door, then, from inside, slightly open the door. A positive pressure will blow the plastic away from you, a negative pressure will suck the plastic in toward you.

3 of the 4 photos indicate mold. If you look at the photo of the cove base, you will see the spots.

As to the comments about weather barrier and other EIFS related comments, you can get information at each manufacturer website. I am a certified eifs inspector in San Antonio.

2003 and IBC and 2006 IBC require inspections during the installation process. The building class and use dictate the type of system to use, but of course the drainage system is the best.(These are done by 3rd party, required under section 1704 of 2006, 1714 for 2003. All R1 through R4 must have a weather barrier and drainage system as part of the wall assembly.

Dryvit has several systems as well as the other major manufacturers. STO, Synergy, TEIFS, Parex.

The wrapping of the edges is called backwrapping. The backwrapping, cementious base coat, mesh and 2nd coat if less than 1/16 in, is what give the wall it fire resistance properties.

The only buildings that require a weather barrier, (when eifs is the cladding), either liquid or fabic is R1 to 4. This building is not a R 1 - 4, probably a type V, m. The eifs can be applied directy to the substrate with the adhesive. The eifs performs as the weather barrier. You can get information of this testing criteria at the ES reports website, division of the ICC. It will give you an idea of all thoe components that have been tested for the "system."

Better photos of the exterior with the window, doors and other fenestrations would give a better idea of the moisture penetration possibilities, which I would be glad to comment.

Steve

Originally Posted by Stephen Meyer

2003 and IBC and 2006 IBC require inspections during the installation process. The building class and use dictate the type of system to use, but of course the drainage system is the best.(These are done by 3rd party, required under section 1704 of 2006, 1714 for 2003. All R1 through R4 must have a weather barrier and drainage system as part of the wall assembly.

Steve

The problem with using the code for EIFS is that the manufacturers guidelines always trump the code. The codes are great, but I would bet that 90% of the EIFS clad structures in the US were not built to a code, in fact I would bet that 95% were not even done to the manufacturers standards!

Jerry, Yes, it is 0.5 to 1.0 pascals negative pressure as the max.

Originally Posted by Stephen Meyer

The only buildings that require a weather barrier, (when eifs is the cladding), either liquid or fabic is R1 to 4.

Steve,

You've lost me on that.

Please show me in the following section from the 2006 IBC where that is stated. (underlining is mine)
- 1403.2 Weather protection.Exterior walls shall provide the building with a weather-resistant exterior wall envelope. The exterior wall envelope shall include flashing, as described in Section 1405.3. The exterior wall envelope shall be designed and constructed in such a manner as to prevent the accumulation of water within the wall assembly by providing a water-resistive barrier behind the exterior veneer, as described in Section 1404.2, and a means for draining water that enters the assembly to the exterior. Protection against condensation in the exterior wall assembly shall be provided in accordance with the International Energy Conservation Code.
- - Exceptions:

- - - 1. A weather-resistant exterior wall envelope shall not be required over concrete or masonry walls designed in accordance with Chapters 19 and 21, respectively.
- - - 2. Compliance with the requirements for a means of drainage, and the requirements of Sections 1404.2 and 1405.3, shall not be required for an exterior wall envelope that has been demonstrated through testing to resist wind-driven rain, including joints, penetrations and intersections with dissimilar materials, in accordance with ASTM E 331 under the following conditions:
- - - - 2.1. Exterior wall envelope test assemblies shall include at least one opening, one control joint, one wall/eave interface and one wall sill. All tested openings and penetrations shall be representative of the intended end-use configuration.
- - - - 2.2. Exterior wall envelope test assemblies shall be at least 4 feet by 8 feet (1219 mm by 2438 mm) in size.
- - - - 2.3. Exterior wall envelope assemblies shall be tested at a minimum differential pressure of 6.24 pounds per square foot (psf) (0.297 kN/m2).
- - - - 2.4. Exterior wall envelope assemblies shall be subjected to a minimum test exposure duration of 2 hours.
- - - - - - The exterior wall envelope design shall be considered to resist wind-driven rain where the results of testing indicate that water did not penetrate control joints in the exterior wall envelope, joints at the perimeter of openings or intersections of terminations with dissimilar materials.

Have those EIFS systems been tested to, and passed, ASTM E 331?

The application of EIFS varies in that there two approved methods of review by the code The IBC contains
prescriptive methods on the use/application of EIFS (IBC section 2603). The ICC ES reports vary from the IBC in
certain areas, but are still approved if applied according to their testing. The ES reports are geared towards
specific applications while the IBC is a general application.
With this in mind I offer the following. If the ICC ES report is being applied the assembly is required to comply with
all aspects. Any deviation from the ES report will require compliance with the prescriptive methods of the IBC. One
of the elements required for the installation of EIFS per the IBC is a water-resistive barrier, unless an exemption is
give by section 2603. These exceptions are also noted in the special inspections program, section 1704.12.
In section 1402 and section 1404.2 you will find the definition and minimum requirements of a water resistive barrier.
In chapter two of the IBC you will find the definition of a vapor retarder and the testing requirements. Based on the
ASTM standards you will find that the testing for each use differs. In reading ASTM E96 you will find that a vapor
retarder tested and approved in accordance with this standard will not necessarily pass the testing for a water
resistive barrier. The testing for a water-resistive barrier is dependent on the material. For example section 1404.2
states that if applying No. 15 asphalt felt testing shall be in accordance with ASTM D 226 for type I felt. If the
proposed proposed vapor retarder has also been tested and approved as a water-resistant barrier only then will the
exception under 1704.12 be applied. Please check the manufacturer's specifications and testing data to verify.

Here is an example of an ES report for application use:

The file is large so I have a link: Criteria List

This link is of a specific manufacturer:

http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_fi...S/ESR-1547.pdf. The report states the type of wall system and building it can be applied.

I have a report for a job that I had to stop that was not current with the ICC. I will include that in another post as soon as I find it tonight.

Steve

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

The problem with using the code for EIFS is that the manufacturers guidelines always trump the code. The codes are great, but I would bet that 90% of the EIFS clad structures in the US were not built to a code, in fact I would bet that 95% were not even done to the manufacturers standards!

Jerry, Yes, it is 0.5 to 1.0 pascals negative pressure as the max.

That is why the 2003 and 2006 code has the special inspections programs, but the big crack is that the installers do not include all the components of a drainage system, and since drainage systems do not require inspections, too often get sloppy work, untrained installers, GC that do not care and then once a leak is detected, the manufacturer is not responsible since their warranty is only for product failure, not workmanship. If for example Tyvek is contacted early on, they have a program for a 10 year warranty for water intrusion, but then again, all components of the system have to be in place.

sm

Originally Posted by Stephen Meyer

The application of EIFS varies in that there two approved methods of review by the code The IBC contains prescriptive methods on the use/application of EIFS (IBC section 2603). The ICC ES reports vary from the IBC in certain areas, but are still approved if applied according to their testing. The ES reports are geared towards specific applications while the IBC is a general application.

Which is why I posed my question as I did. You said:

Originally Posted by Stephen Meyer

2003 and IBC and 2006 IBC require inspections during the installation process. The building class and use dictate the type of system to use, but of course the drainage system is the best.(These are done by 3rd party, required under section 1704 of 2006, 1714 for 2003. All R1 through R4 must have a weather barrier and drainage system as part of the wall assembly.

The IBC and the IRC have those same allowances, you stated they did not, and that the IRC does not allow it without a WRB.

If the Product Approval, be it ES Reports, FM, Miami-Dade NOA, as long there is a legitimate product approval for the system, the system is allowed to be installed according to the requirements for that system. Whether the exterior wall is being constructed under the IBC or the IRC.