Thread: EIFS install query with pics

Hey there,
This is a 2 year old house. My query relates to the EIFS install - the bottom of the columns in particular.

q1. Although the bottom of the columns are off grade, but only 2" off the concrete porch separated flashing (factory painted aluminum), should there have been a drip screed installed? If so, since adding this is not practical, should it be caulked?

q2. It appears the brick veneer was installed prior to installing the EIFS columns. I think the wall/column intersection should be caulked as this is vulnerable to water penetration, especially on the outside intersection near the downspout. Correct?

Thanks,
Jim

Similar Threads:

• Identifying hardcoat stucco & EIFS
• bad install?
• strange furnace install
• Funny Pics
• Trained Chimpanzees Install Flue Pipe

I could not tell on the photo of the brick and the column butting, dis-similar materials require backer rod and sealant for movement.

Looks like stand pb installation on the columns. Since it is not part of the house envelope, it does not require drainage, could split hairs on that tho...Eifs is to terminate 2" above concrete. The ledge should have a slope where water cannot pond.

Thanks Stephen,
You're right, the ledge should have a slope and it does not.

q1. Although the bottom of the columns are off grade, but only 2" off the concrete porch separated flashing (factory painted aluminum), should there have been a drip screed installed? If so, since adding this is not practical, should it be caulked?

JR: Drip screed is for Portland cement stucco, not EIFS. It should, however have been backwrapped at the termination of the insulation bard.

q2. It appears the brick veneer was installed prior to installing the EIFS columns. I think the wall/column intersection should be caulked as this is vulnerable to water penetration, especially on the outside intersection near the downspout. Correct?

JR: SM is correct about the need for backer rod and sealant, but incorrect about the lack of canted horizontal surfaces. These are required on the support posts because they are indeed a part of the house, but more importantly because they are a part of the EIFS system.

I see that this stupid spell check software thinks that Shakespeare and board are synonyms.

What do you mean about the canted?

If you look at the 3rd pic, you can see the mesh and base, indicating it has been backwrapped. I had to enlarge the photo (ctrl +(+) numerous times.

Originally Posted by Stephen Meyer

If you look at the 3rd pic, you can see the mesh and base, indicating it has been backwrapped. I had to enlarge the photo (ctrl +(+) numerous times.

SM: If it were properly backwrapped you would not see the mesh.

Originally Posted by Stephen Meyer

What do you mean about the canted?

SM: The tops of the decorative bands must be canted (slanted) in order to shed water.

Originally Posted by Stephen Meyer

If you look at the 3rd pic, you can see the mesh and base, indicating it has been backwrapped. I had to enlarge the photo (ctrl +(+) numerous times.

Tell me more about that enlarge function. I tried using CTRL and + with no luck.

The base can be applied with one or two coats. Two coat is recommended if the mesh shows through on the first. We look for 1/16th covering. Not to clear on the photo, but it appears to backwrapped and covered. Do not use the word canted in my business. ADA uses the word slope or percent of grade. Now i know where the "Cant" is for the roofing term came from.

thanks

The required run:rise slope is 1:2, where the rise is twice the run. If the foam is 2" thick, the slope is sloping vertically down 4" in that 2" wide foam. That is a 27 degree angle.

Originally Posted by Stephen Meyer

Now i know where the "Cant" is for the roofing term came from.

A "cant" is typically 6" run and 6" rise with the diagonal at 45 degrees. It is used to be placed into the 90 degree inside corners where a roof meets a parapet wall and changed the 90 degree angle ( which would cause/allow roofing to tear/crack) to the two 45 degree angles far enough apart to avoid those dangers of tearing or cracking the roof covering.

Use of the enlarge key stroke. Hold down the ctrl key, depress the (+) key. Each time you press it, the image or screen will grow. To reduce, ctrl plus the (-). Works with xp and vista.

Sorry for the late post.

sm

I must not be holding my mouth right, I can't get it to work on either of my XP Pro systems. Thanks, though.

Originally Posted by Stephen Meyer

Use of the enlarge key stroke. Hold down the ctrl key, depress the (+) key. Each time you press it, the image or screen will grow. To reduce, ctrl plus the (-). Works with xp and vista.

Sorry for the late post.

sm

.
I think this method is for Firefox Web Browser ( not sure about Explorer.)
( works on my Firefox.)

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

.
I think this method is for Firefox Web Browser ( not sure about Explorer.)
( works on my Firefox.)

Only works in Internet Explorer 7, which you can also click the zoom button down in the lower right corner.

Attached initial EIFS installation on a commercial building. This is only for the gc and the building owner to identify with. the sub contractor is met with and those items are to be corrected going forward with more install. As with all trades, the staff are not trained as they should be and the owner talks a lot of trash to get and bid the job. The GC site super know nothing about the trade and made some decisions that had to be corrected. You will note some of the items we talk about in this site.

sm

ooppps, here we go

Yep, got it to work with FireFox, but not with IE 7.0.
I am not a big fan of FF but it may be worth it to have that feature.
Maybe I just need to update to a more current IE version.
Thanks for the help.

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

Yep, got it to work with FireFox, but not with IE 7.0.

Maybe I just need to update to a more current IE version.

Jim,

Does you IE show you the zoom setting at the bottom right?

If not, update to the new version which has that. It allows zooming from 50% to 400% to custom zooming.

I just upgraded to IE 8.0 and no dice, no zoom feature is visible and the ctrl + function has no effect.
I did a quick search and recent MS IE chat is that the zoom was part of IE 7 beta and IE 8 beta. Since I use the mainstream IE through my AT&T / Yahoo I doubt that it would be worth the effort to try and get the beta version. I can easily switch to FireFox if need be.
Thanks for the help.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

A "cant" is typically 6" run and 6" rise with the diagonal at 45 degrees. It is used to be placed into the 90 degree inside corners where a roof meets a parapet wall and changed the 90 degree angle ( which would cause/allow roofing to tear/crack) to the two 45 degree angles far enough apart to avoid those dangers of tearing or cracking the roof covering.

JP: You and SM evidently do not own dictionaries, or if you do, you can't or won't read them. The term "cant", according to Webster's has been used since 1543 to mean to give an oblique edge to, bevel, to set at an angle, to tilt, to pitch to one side, to lean, to slope.

It is not, by any stretch of your warped imagination, exclusively a roofing term. And, if it has been hijacked by roofers to indicate this or that, why do I give a crap? I was not discussing roofs, but rather decorative bands on poorly-installed EIFS cladding.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

JP: You and SM evidently do not own dictionaries, or if you do, you can't or won't read them. The term "cant", according to Webster's has been used since 1543 to mean to give an oblique edge to, bevel, to set at an angle, to tilt, to pitch to one side, to lean, to slope.

It is not, by any stretch of your warped imagination, exclusively a roofing term. And, if it has been hijacked by roofers to indicate this or that, why do I give a crap? I was not discussing roofs, but rather decorative bands on poorly-installed EIFS cladding.

Obviously ... you spent more time reading the dictionary than reading and paying attention to what was written here.

I don't recall anyone above saying that a "cant" was "exclusively a roofing term", on the other hand, I do recall someone describing what a cant in roofing is.

Likewise, it you had spent more time reading the installation guides for some of the various EIFS manufacturers, you would have understood that they say "slope" and not "cant".

But, alas, you went to read the dictionary instead.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Obviously ... you spent more time reading the dictionary than reading and paying attention to what was written here.

I don't recall anyone above saying that a "cant" was "exclusively a roofing term", on the other hand, I do recall someone describing what a cant in roofing is.

Likewise, it you had spent more time reading the installation guides for some of the various EIFS manufacturers, you would have understood that they say "slope" and not "cant".

But, alas, you went to read the dictionary instead.

JP: Sorry, but I forgot more about EIFS while reading your post than you know.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

JP: Sorry, but I forgot more about EIFS while reading your post than you know.

"but I forgot"

Why do you think I and the others are REMINDING YOU?

Sorry to jump into this pissing match about cant...Just so you guys know, the required 2:1 slope on EIFS slope conditions is just required whenever standard base coat is used, if the waterproof base coat is used, then the slope is allowed to be less than 2:1.
Just keeping you guys honest...

Originally Posted by John Carroll

Sorry to jump into this pissing match about cant...Just so you guys know, the required 2:1 slope on EIFS slope conditions is just required whenever standard base coat is used, if the waterproof base coat is used, then the slope is allowed to be less than 2:1.
Just keeping you guys honest...

JC: Never hesitate to intrude into these discussions. They need fresh outlooks from time to time.

John,

where are you getting the information about the base coat.

Originally Posted by Stephen Meyer

John,

where are you getting the information about the base coat.

I don't know, but this is what I received from Sto a while back answering a question elsewhere.

1) Yes, a 1:2 slope is recommended. From our specifications:
- G. Trim, Projecting Architectural Features and Reveals
- - 1. All trim and projecting architectural features must have a minimum 1:2 [27 degree] slope along their top surface. All horizontal reveals must have a minimum 1:2 [27 degree] slope along their bottom surface. Increase slope for northern climates to prevent accumulation of ice/snow and water on surface. Where trim/feature or bottom surface of reveal projects more than 2 inches (51 mm) from the face of the EIFS wall plane, protect the top surface with waterproof base coat. Periodic inspections and increased maintenance may be required to maintain surface integrity of EIFS on weather exposed sloped surfaces. Limit projecting features to easily accessible areas and limit total area to facilitate maintenance and minimize maintenance. Refer to Sto details 1.04a and 1.04b.


He did not offer an option for whatever different base coat may be used.

Originally Posted by John Carroll

Sorry to jump into this pissing match about cant...Just so you guys know, the required 2:1 slope on EIFS slope conditions is just required whenever standard base coat is used, if the waterproof base coat is used, then the slope is allowed to be less than 2:1.
Just keeping you guys honest...

Hi John,

Can you cite the source for this so I can get a copy? I wonder if this is just in your area or a particular manufacturer?

Originally Posted by John Carroll

Sorry to jump into this pissing match about cant...Just so you guys know, the required 2:1 slope on EIFS slope conditions is just required whenever standard base coat is used, if the waterproof base coat is used, then the slope is allowed to be less than 2:1.
Just keeping you guys honest...

JC: I, like SP, would like to know the source of your information. I have much of the literature for all of the major manufacturers' products. I do not find any language that indicates the use of water-resistant base coats like Dryvit's Dryflex®, et al., obviates the installers responsibility to "slope" or "cant" or "bevel" (whatever term it takes to please the Flahidian) the top edges of horizontal surfaces.

Hey Jim!
Good to see a fellow Canadian. From Toronto myself.

Judging by the blue mesh - they are Dryvit products. As has been said in this thread, a 1:2 slope (not 2:1) is what is required by manufacturers for trim and horizontal surfaces. I have had a manufacturer's sales rep tell me that there is a water-sealing product that can be used over top of the basecoat if the horizontal surface doesn't meet the 1:2 requirement, though you won't find this anywhere in their specifications

In Canada, the slope is described as a 6:12 (same as 1:2). You can find the details in the Dryvit system specifications: http://www.dryvit.com/fileshare/doc/...ion/dsc136.pdf
Section 1.2.4 Detail Treatment
I am not 100% sure this is the "infinity system" that was installed, however all systems have a similar requirement, even from the other manufacturers with regards to slope.

As far as the joint between the column and the stone -- The finish coat terminates right up against stone, providing some sort of a seal. A low-modulus sealant/caulking wouldn't be a bad idea, and is likely listed in the system specification I linked to (dissimilar substrates). However, at this point the finish coat has been applied, and you are not *supposed* to put caulking on finish coat, as they claim it doesn't bond to it very well. That being said, I've seen caulking on finish coat on jobs 5+ years old and it's still in fine condition. Caulking should be replaced every 5-10 years anyways. I don't forsee there being any problems with water/moisture infiltration, even if the post on the inside was wood, it's supposed to be *pressure treated exterior grade* wood, and there is still styrofoam separating the post from the elements.

The bottom of the column should have been properly terminated -- that is, with basecoat. The applicator skimped a bit and the blue dryvit mesh is showing. It's fine if it shows a little, as long as there is basecoat over it. A GOOD JOB would have included putting a basecoat, then finish coat over it, or even using starter strips (pre-backwrapped pieces of insulation).

Is that a crack I see on the back of the column in the 4th picture?

edit: oh yes, and the top of the trim around the bottom of the column should have been sloped, as has been said. What can be done about it now? Well, not much, aside from cutting it at the 30 or 45 degree angle, but that would require redoing at least a portion of the column. An alternative suggestion I would provide, is to install a small moulding (similar to a cap) with a properly sloped top. You can find something 2" in depth, 4" in height and with a sloped top at a moulding manufacturer. I the exact profile in mind actually if you are in the Toronto area.

Originally Posted by Jim Schwarz

As has been said in this thread, a 1:2 slope (not 2:1)

Hey!

Wait just a dang gum minute now!

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

The required run:rise slope is 1:2, where the rise is twice the run.

It was the "expert" who said 2:1.

Jim,

Not sure where the note was from, however you mentioned in a drainage system that even with a starer track you backwrap. Here is a link to STO that details the starter track. No backwrapping.......

Sto EIFS detail drawings include repair products, stucco products, coatings products, exterior insulation and finish products and systems and waterproof membrane products for commercial and residential buildings.

sm

Originally Posted by Stephen Meyer

Jim,

Not sure where the note was from, however you mentioned in a drainage system that even with a starer track you backwrap. Here is a link to STO that details the starter track. No backwrapping.......

Sto EIFS detail drawings include repair products, stucco products, coatings products, exterior insulation and finish products and systems and waterproof membrane products for commercial and residential buildings.

sm

Hey Steve,

Not sure what note you're referring to?

You're right, that Sto detail doesn't show any backwrapping. I would have had my guys backwrap it anyways. Just to clarify - when I say backwrapping I don't mean stapling the mesh onto the substrate then wrapping it around the styrofoam, I mean simple wrapping mesh around the bottom of the styrofoam, and embedding it with base coat. Once you let it dry, you can apply the vertical channels of adhesive and still have drainage channels. I have seen some queer pictures of installations where some people staple the mesh to the substrate THEN wrap it around the base of the styrofoam, not sure if that's what you think of when someone mentions "backwrapping".

A more typical system is the Adex-rs from ADEX enduits architecturaux, Architectural coatings.

At any rate, starter strips are weird things. I have had architects change them to having nothing at all aside from a proper backwrap similar to: http://www.durabond.com/WallSystems/...DH_Details.pdf
As well as just including a flashing with backer rod, drainage vent @ 24" on centre and caulking.
See detail on page 2: http://www.durabond.com/WallSystems/...7S_Details.pdf

The reason that the starter track foam is not backwrapped is that it is protected by the starter track itself. The main reason for backwrapping is to protect the exposed edge of the foam board.

Jim,

As Scott mentioned, that is the standard with the drainage systems for sto, dryvit, synergy, and parex. The product you refer to is listed in the ES reports by Omega. It does mention backwrapping the foam board. When inspecting EIFS applications, I always refer to manufacturer standards, since my report is part of the warranty program as a 3rd party inspector. My truck carriers all the books and on my laptop in the field. Do not see any of your products in this area. Residential application is not a required inspection, but would like to get into more QC aspects. Still lots of sloppy installers.

sm

Still lots of sloppy installers.

SM: Here in White Glove City, those are the only kinds of installers.

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

The reason that the starter track foam is not backwrapped is that it is protected by the starter track itself. The main reason for backwrapping is to protect the exposed edge of the foam board.

Interesting idea, I have never used it or run into it here, I can't say it doesn't make me uneasy though. Does the starter track typically have drainage holes in the bottom to allow the water to run out?
http://www.stocorp.com/webfiles.nsf/htmlmedia/1010c+term+at+grade+.jpg/$file/1010c+term+at+grade+.jpg
In this picture, there is backwrapping anyways on the styrofoam that conceals it, what is the point of going through the effort of adding a starter track if you have to backwrap anyways?

Originally Posted by Stephen Meyer

Jim,

As Scott mentioned, that is the standard with the drainage systems for sto, dryvit, synergy, and parex. The product you refer to is listed in the ES reports by Omega. It does mention backwrapping the foam board. When inspecting EIFS applications, I always refer to manufacturer standards, since my report is part of the warranty program as a 3rd party inspector. My truck carriers all the books and on my laptop in the field. Do not see any of your products in this area. Residential application is not a required inspection, but would like to get into more QC aspects. Still lots of sloppy installers.

sm

Agreed, go by whatever the manufacturer specifies. It keeps the liability off of you, even if there is a better method of doing things

Durabond, Durock and Adex are all manufacturers native to Canada. We have Dryvit, Senergy and Sto (not so much Parex) up here as well but they're not as popular.

Looks like there should be kickout flashings where the roof and EIFS interface also.

Ok, after doing some new research, it is appears the wording of most manufacturers product literature has been updated to delete any reference to low slope conditions, therefore, according to the new literature, installers are still required to maintain the 1:2 slope requirement. Mea culpa for not being current.
They used to allow low slope conditions within their specifications, but after the lawyers got done with them, it has been removed.
Dryvit has expanded their clearance requirement at the bottom to 6" above finish grade. Also, OSB is no longer an approved substrate, and plywood sheathing must be 1/2" nom. thickness minimum.
Sto states that OSB is acceptable, and plywood can be 3/8" thick.
Point being, manufacturers differ in what is an acceptable practice, substrate, and a host of other conditions attached to the use of their product. Those conditions are also subject to change without notice. So what was acceptable years ago, may not be now. Since most inspections are conducted on existing buildings, it would be prudent to know what was acceptable when, and for how long. Not a base of knowledge one can comfortably keep in ones’ head. Therefore, without exact knowledge of what manufacturer installed the system you are looking at, the most any inspector can do is adhere to general comments about the condition of the system as it exists, not specific warnings about how it was installed. Otherwise, you may be setting yourself up for a counterclaim from the original manufacturer or installer.
No one is perfect, and I misspoke, as I sometimes do, but let's try to use this as a learning experience, shall we?

John,

Thank you for that information.

Since most inspections are conducted on existing buildings, it would be prudent to know what was acceptable when, and for how long.

JC: Fairly impossible considering that, at least in my area, most pre-existing systems are not identifiable. There is lots of system component mixing around here. Even if you use the right parts, you cannot always tell whose system you are looking at.

Not a base of knowledge one can comfortably keep in ones’ head.

JC: Agree. Impossible for anyone other than a true polymath.

Therefore, without exact knowledge of what manufacturer installed the system you are looking at, the most any inspector can do is adhere to general comments about the condition of the system as it exists, not specific warnings about how it was installed.

JC: Like the manufacturers' lawyers I always look to cover all bases and use best practice installation information for my clients.

[QUOTE]
Otherwise, you may be setting yourself up for a counterclaim from the original manufacturer or installer.

JC: With proper word-smithing, I don't believe so.

No one is perfect

JC: Damn, just go ahead and spoil JP's day.

How can one use "There is lots " and word-smithing in the same post?

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

How can one use "There is lots " and word-smithing in the same post?

I was wondering the same thing as I red ( ) your post.

That and not even being able to use the quote feature properly, ... I mean, what you come from - a barn?

I mean, what you come from - a barn?

JP: I'm in Texas. What can more can you expect!