Thread: Gap between stucco weep screed and concrete slab

In the course of inspecting stucco cladding, especially one-coat stucco on newer homes, I often find a gap between the metal stucco weep screed and the concrete slab or concrete foundation. The gap is usually large enough to view the exposed bottom surface of the wooden mud sill. I conclude that the gap exists because during the framing process, the mud sill was fastened onto the concrete slab such that the sill does not align vertically with the side wall of the slab (the framers build a mud sill footprint slightly larger than the footprint of the slab). Of course, when I report on this, the builder usually responds that the installation "meets code".

Question: Should this gap be filled? If so, are there any information sources ?that substantiate or justify that the gap should be sealed?

Similar Threads:

• Heating duct rusted out in slab
• Commercial: Stucco interface with flat work
• Concrete block
• Stucco
• More Stucco question

Originally Posted by Fred Waggoner

In the course of inspecting stucco cladding, especially one-coat stucco

One-coat stucco system?

I am aware of two-coat stucco systems on masonry, and three coat stucco systems on masonry, even three coat stucco systems on frame (as described and specified in the ASTM Standard C-926), but ... a one-coat system?

To what standard is it applied?

I report this as an avenue for pests to enter the home. I dont know of any code stating so, but I beleive the screed should be flush against the foundation stem wall. I guess it would be more of a generally accepted practice, since most applications dont have that gap.

On 1 yr warranties, I found AZ does not enforce large gaps.
I state sealing is needed to prevent rodent and scorpion entry.. That seems to have a little more effect with the customer when fighting with the builder to get it corrected.

A while back I tried for a customer to get it sealed in the bedroom wall for crickets... the builder didn't buy that one, guess he figured out they entered thur the weep holes.

The other thing that I found that helps get it sealed, if there is wood sheathing or if the bottom plate is exposed above the weep I state that they need to be protected from moisture and pest damage.

Jerry ..two or three coats on wood framed...Heck all they do here is apply just enought [sometimes] to cover the metal lathe.

Originally Posted by Dan Harris

Jerry ..two or three coats on wood framed...Heck all they do here is apply just enought [sometimes] to cover the metal lathe.

Dan,

Then that does not meet the requirements for stucco installations.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

One-coat stucco system?

I am aware of two-coat stucco systems on masonry, and three coat stucco systems on masonry, even three coat stucco systems on frame (as described and specified in the ASTM Standard C-926), but ... a one-coat system?

To what standard is it applied?

Standard F-666
AKA: As little as we can get away with around here

All the one-coat on wood frame that I see is 5/8", not stucco in my book or any other that I'm aware of.

Thom Walker gave me this tip and I've had occasions to use it.

When the builder/applicator asks, “Why are you making a big deal over 1/8”?”

Ask him/her to stretch their arm as far as they can across an island countertop or the hood of their truck.
Now here is the fun part.
Place a $100 bill 1/8” beyond their reach and ask, “What’s the big deal now?”
As they stutter and stammer for a reply mine is, “You’ve left hundreds of these off of this project.”

Clients love the fact that they just got caught and you very clearly made this point.

Dan and I both see a lot of different one coat stucco applications in Arizona. Most are install at a thickness of 3/8 inch if done correctly. Sometimes they install a 1/8 inch second coat over the base coat for decoration.

Western 1-Kote Stucco at Western Blended is one of the main companies out here. See ES-Report at http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_fi...BO-ES/3899.pdf

Stonewall One Coat Stucco is another one used out here: STONEWALL PRODUCTS

The UltraKote Stucco ES-Report makes reference to the gap Fred is talking about by saying: Exterior Sheathing Must Be Protected From The Elements By Whatever Means Is Deemed Adequate For Geographical Region By Design Professional http://www.ultrakoteproducts.com/reports/4658.pdf

We have one builder out here that will normally seal the gap at the weep screed. Another one charges extra to fill it in. The rest for the most part will not do anything.

Jeff Euriech
Peoria Arizona

Originally Posted by Jeff Euriech

Dan and I both see a lot of different one coat stucco applications in Arizona. Most are install at a thickness of 3/8 inch if done correctly. Sometimes they install a 1/8 inch second coat over the base coat for decoration.

Western 1-Kote Stucco at Western Blended is one of the main companies out here. See ES-Report at http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_fi...BO-ES/3899.pdf

Stonewall One Coat Stucco is another one used out here: STONEWALL PRODUCTS

The UltraKote Stucco ES-Report makes reference to the gap Fred is talking about by saying: Exterior Sheathing Must Be Protected From The Elements By Whatever Means Is Deemed Adequate For Geographical Region By Design Professional http://www.ultrakoteproducts.com/reports/4658.pdf

We have one builder out here that will normally seal the gap at the weep screed. Another one charges extra to fill it in. The rest for the most part will not do anything.

Jeff Euriech
Peoria Arizona

Jeff,

I see a lot of crap also.

Just like there is faux stone, brick...there is faux stucco; which IMHO one-coat is. Thin shet is not stucco and will/does not hold up. Every job I walk onto is cracked and leaks to hell before they sell. They finally find a sucker that buys the B.S. from the realtors and builders "All stucco cracks that's part of the appeal."

Correct Thickness of Stucco FAQ | Portland Cement Association (PCA)

I found it sad that HD is or will be marketing the product. Homeowners have their own button Western Blended On the next Barb the Builder Show we'll learn how to make any home stucco!

Sounds like Jerry & Barry need to move out of the State of DE Nile.
What is typically called "one-coat" stucco is and has been the standard of the production home industry for more than 20 years. As in hundreds of thousands of units.
Properly installed, it will hold up quite well, is an efficient and effective cladding for most locations here in the desert Southwest, where prolonged rain and moisture is much less an issue than Fla. or lately, TX.
I have for years advocated using the term Plaster to describe 3-coat work and Stucco for 1-coat just to avoid confusion, but have had little luck in convincing others to adopt this simple clarification.
While, you may not like 1-coat for personal reasons that have no bearing on the facts, you do a disservice to the uninitiated in promoting those views here.
Local codes here require caulking of all visible gaps at the sill/stem connection. Bugs are a fact of life that is not going away. Deal with it without advocating total sealing of the wall. this will lead to other structural and more serious problems in the long run.

Originally Posted by John Carroll

Sounds like Jerry & Barry need to move out of the State of DE Nile.
What is typically called "one-coat" stucco is and has been the standard of the production home industry for more than 20 years. As in hundreds of thousands of units.
Properly installed, it will hold up quite well, is an efficient and effective cladding for most locations here in the desert Southwest, where prolonged rain and moisture is much less an issue than Fla. or lately, TX.
I have for years advocated using the term Plaster to describe 3-coat work and Stucco for 1-coat just to avoid confusion, but have had little luck in convincing others to adopt this simple clarification.
While, you may not like 1-coat for personal reasons that have no bearing on the facts, you do a disservice to the uninitiated in promoting those views here.
Local codes here require caulking of all visible gaps at the sill/stem connection. Bugs are a fact of life that is not going away. Deal with it without advocating total sealing of the wall. this will lead to other structural and more serious problems in the long run.

John,

Only replying for Barry.

No denial here but we do have very expansive clay soil and a different climate to consider. Some of the most expansive in the country as a matter of fact and some of the heaviest rains also as of late. Nothing like where you're at.
A cheaper, thinner, faster wall does not work very well, here anyway.
If soil heave may be pulling gas line compression connections apart imagine what happens to a home with a one-coat system not properly installed.

I understand proper installation is the key to any system. Maybe proper is just a lost art.

Local codes here require caulking of all visible gaps at the sill/stem connection. Bugs are a fact of life that is not going away. Deal with it without advocating total sealing of the wall. this will lead to other structural and more serious problems in the long run.


John... Do you have a code reference for this?
The non- enforcement that I refered to was a complaint filed by a customer with the ROC.

Originally Posted by John Carroll

Sounds like Jerry & Barry need to move out of the State of DE Nile.
What is typically called "one-coat" stucco is and has been the standard of the production home industry for more than 20 years. As in hundreds of thousands of units.
Properly installed,

"Properly installed"

There is no "properly installed" to a stucco application which does not meet the minimum requirements of the standard to which it is supposed to be installed.

That's like saying that "properly driving at 90 mph on a 70 mph speed limit road is okay as most of the time, it works out okay".

I've got a news flash here, 90 mph is only "okay" and "properly driving" on roads with a 90 mph speed limit ... or on a race track. Otherwise, it's just a case of 'everyone does it' when you get stopped and are chatting with the officer.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

"Properly installed"

There is no "properly installed" to a stucco application which does not meet the minimum requirements of the standard to which it is supposed to be installed.

That's like saying that "properly driving at 90 mph on a 70 mph speed limit road is okay as most of the time, it works out okay".

I've got a news flash here, 90 mph is only "okay" and "properly driving" on roads with a 90 mph speed limit ... or on a race track. Otherwise, it's just a case of 'everyone does it' when you get stopped and are chatting with the officer.

Jerry,

I get your point but in the case of one-coat I think it would be 35 mph in a 70mph limit.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Dan,

Then that does not meet the requirements for stucco installations.

Jerry ...I'm sure it's installed properly..
The contractors fill out a form "certifing" that the stucco was installed in accordance to the manufactures instructions.

See following link for the National One Coat Stucco Association.
National One Coat Stucco Association

Seems to me that improper flashing details are the bane of all exterior claddings, stucco is not the exception.

Taking a little turn on this subject.

I am currently fighting a builder[ on a new home customers 1/2 ] where 20' of the stucco wall is installed directly on top of stem wall, all the other walls have the proper clearances with weep installed...

Three or four other times that I identified this the builder corrected it with no questions, by me simply stating the clearance requirements and the need for proper venting /drainage.

This builder is challanging this, and is refusing to make any correction with out code references..

I got a copy of clearance requirements, diagram showing 2" clearance from concrete , 4" form dirt, and the IRCcode [ 703.6.2.1 ] UBC 2506.5] references from another post here, are there any other references that can help on this with having to purchase an installation manual?

Originally Posted by Francis Primeaux

See following link for the National One Coat Stucco Association.
National One Coat Stucco Association

Seems to me that improper flashing details are the bane of all exterior claddings, stucco is not the exception.

Frank,

First off, using the name "one coat stucco" is a misnomer as "stucco" has a specific standard to which it is *required* to be applied, thus, apply anything called "stucco" to any other standard is incorrect.

One coat stucco should be called "one coat decorative cementitious coating", which has *no standard* to which it is applied in accordance with.

Then there is the problem with code approved wall coverings and weatherproofing. Does (I don't know and have not checked) this one coat decorative cementitious coating meet the requirements for impact resistance of the structural exterior walls, wind load resistance, water penetration resistance, et al?

I checked the link provided and noticed the following (see anything wrong?):

7. What are the components of the One-Coat System?

The components of a one-coat system always include a weather resistive membrane, metal reinforcement and the fiber reinforced or one-coat stucco. The product may be installed over a wide variety of substrates including foam plastic insulation board, exterior gypsum sheathing, oriented strand board (OSB), exterior plywood, asphalt impersonated sheathing and almost any other code approved exterior sheathing. A substrate is always required; it is not designed for installation over open framing. It may also be applied to concrete and concrete masonry units with or without metal reinforcement.

Then there was this, do you see anything wrong here?

One Coat Stucco

The term One Coat Stucco refers to a blend of Portland cement, sand, fibers, special proprietary chemicals and water. One Coat Stucco combines the scratch and brown coat into a single application of 3/8" to 1/2" thick.

Originally Posted by Dan Harris

where 20' of the stucco wall is installed directly on top of stem wall,

"directly on top of stem wall"?

As in "on the wall above" or "on the surface of" the stem wall?

I got a copy of clearance requirements, diagram showing 2" clearance from concrete , 4" form dirt, and the IRCcode [ 703.6.2.1 ] UBC 2506.5] references from another post here, are there any other references that can help on this with having to purchase an installation manual?

ASTM 1063, 7.11.5 Foundation Weep Screed should be the definitive word on that.
When a stucco plane continues onto a stem wall, there needs to be installed a transition metal weep/flashing that meets those requirements. The city of Scottsdale used to have a packet of diagrams of conditions that were acceptable and approved for use in Scottsdale. I'm not sure if they still use that but you might start there. Usually these are fabricated locally to meet site conditions. In any case if there is no provision made for weeping of incidential moisture at the sill plate, most likely it is out of compliance.
As to the request for citing the local code I mentioned above, This is a relatively new requirement from the cities around Phoenix, so it might take a little digging, as I said, it's a local code requirement.

Originally Posted by John Carroll

I got a copy of clearance requirements, diagram showing 2" clearance from concrete , 4" form dirt, and the IRCcode [ 703.6.2.1 ] UBC 2506.5] references from another post here, are there any other references that can help on this with having to purchase an installation manual?

ASTM 1063, 7.11.5 Foundation Weep Screed should be the definitive word on that.
When a stucco plane continues onto a stem wall, there needs to be installed a transition metal weep/flashing that meets those requirements.

Nope.

Not for masonry substrate.

If the wall above is frame, then yes.

A weep screed is to provide drainage for a drainage type system. Stucco on masonry/concrete/etc. is not a drainage type system, stucco on frame is, thus stucco on frame needs weep screeds.

Jerry.. The one I was asking about is wood framed construction.

John.. Thanks.. I used to have Scottsdale references, the last time I googled this, it was not there.
The only one that I found was from a Calif. city.

The ASTM standards.

FYI-Applications of ASTM documents regarding one-coat stucco systems are problematic, as they were written before the product became widely used. They were written and are for the application of traditional 3 and 2 coat work. They have been incorporated into ICBO literature on one-coat products simply because there was no other standard available that addressed their product. I believe there needs to be a standard package specifically for these systems that addresses their particular properties. Having said all that, the fact remains that they are what they are and we as a trade need to distinguish between them in areas of the country where they are both widely used. Education of inspection entities and builders is key to this. A strict application of existing standards to these products will only lead to millions of structures potentially out of compliance with current codes. That simply won't happen.

I don't know where Jerry got the description that says they are not for application over open framing, that is not the case. They cannot be installed over 24" O.C. framing, but are accepted over 16" O.C. open framing. All ER & ES Reports state this. Fully sheathed framing is common only on custom and commercial buildings out here, all production work is done over open framing with shear panels only where structurally necessary.

Products in wide use in southern Arizona area are a different animal, we don't have sustained hurricane winds, two week rain cycles, and a host of other high humidity conditions to deal with. Most of our problems come from leaky window installations and roofs. This is why, believe it or not, glue on EIFS is still permitted to be done here. No rainscreen or vapor barrier, over wood frame construction. We will be the last jurisdiction, I'm sure, to require EIFS drainage systems as a matter of course.

How do you think we keep home construction here so cheap?

Life is short, and you get what you pay for.

Originally Posted by John Carroll

I don't know where Jerry got the description that says they are not for application over open framing, that is not the case.

From the ASTM standard requiring 3 coat stucco work on frame. Again ... "STUCCO" work. If a product calls itself "stucco", and says it is "stucco", it needs to be applied to the standard for "stucco".

As simple as that.

Now, if the product called itself what it really is ... a "decorative cementitious coating", there is no standard for that application and it could be applied however anyone wanted to apply it.

Products in wide use in southern Arizona area are a different animal,

"a different animal"

Hmmmm ... if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck ... and *calls itself a duck* ... it's a duck.

It may not be a Mallard, it might be one of disgustingly dirty ones (i.e., Muscovy Ducks found all over South Florida) which do nothing but poop all over all year 'round, but it's still a "duck".

Life is short, and you get what you pay for.

More aptly put, I always say 'You *don't get* what you don't pay for.'

Hmmmm ... if it looks like a duct, walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck ... and *calls itself a duck* ... it's a duck.

Is that the same as duck tape?

Yeppers, it sure is.

I fixed it fer ye.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

From the ASTM standard requiring 3 coat stucco work on frame. Again ... "STUCCO" work. If a product calls itself "stucco", and says it is "stucco", it needs to be applied to the standard for "stucco".

As simple as that.

Now, if the product called itself what it really is ... a "decorative cementitious coating", there is no standard for that application and it could be applied however anyone wanted to apply it.



"a different animal"

Hmmmm ... if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck ... and *calls itself a duck* ... it's a duck.

It may not be a Mallard, it might be one of disgustingly dirty ones (i.e., Muscovy Ducks found all over South Florida) which do nothing but poop all over all year 'round, but it's still a "duck".



More aptly put, I always say 'You *don't get* what you don't pay for.'

I can see that we are never going to convince Jerry that there are gray areas within this discussion, so I'll leave it as agreeing to disagree...rigid applications of old standards to modern technologies will always result in misunderstandings, and dilute the quality of discussions such as these. Unfortunately, the process of regulation and certification, when faced with the new and different, falls back into old habits and known certainties, whether applicable or not. Our challenge is to educate the open minds and ignore the braying of the luddites...

Originally Posted by John Carroll

I can see that we are never going to convince Jerry that there are gray areas within this discussion, so I'll leave it as agreeing to disagree...rigid applications of old standards to modern technologies

Nope, that's not the problem.

The problem is "new technologies" using the terminology of the old standards to 'gain acceptance', then insisting that they (the new technology) is not the problem, that the problem is the old standard, when, in reality, the problem is the "new technology" using the old standard terminology.

The "new technology" should using "new terms" and "new standards.

I know, I know, it is harder to gain acceptance if you have to create everything new, but you do, because the "new technology" DOES NOT MEET the old terms or standards.

When computers came out, did they try to blame old standards and old terms for their problems? No. And I do hope you consider computers (when they came out) as "new technology". Computer terms and standards were new terms and standards, i.e,. "byte", etc.

Alas, and again, *one coat stucco* is not "stucco", it is a "decorative cementitious coating".

THIS is what "stucco" is: (from the ASTM standard) "3.2.23 stucco—portland cement-based plaster used on exterior locations."

THIS is what *one coat*'stucco' is: (also from the ASTM standard) "3.2.8 cementitious material—a material that, when mixed with water and with or without aggregate, provides the plasticity and the cohesive and adhesive properties necessary for placement and the formation of a rigid mass."

To try to pass *one coat stucco* off as "stucco", and then cop out by saying you agree to disagree instead of saying you are wrong is not acknowledging what "stucco" is, or how "stucco" is to be applied.

Call *one coat stucco* what it is ... a "decorative cementitious coating", just don't call it "stucco". Calling it "stucco" is like saying calling a blind man "sighted" simply because you cannot bring yourself to call him "blind" ... the man is still "blind".

[quote=Jerry Peck;12881]Nope, that's not the problem.

The problem is "new technologies" using the terminology of the old standards to 'gain acceptance', then insisting that they (the new technology) is not the problem, that the problem is the old standard, when, in reality, the problem is the "new technology" using the old standard terminology.

Semantics, see previous post.

The "new technology" should using "new terms" and "new standards.

AGREED,see previous post.

I know, I know, it is harder to gain acceptance if you have to create everything new, but you do, because the "new technology" DOES NOT MEET the old terms or standards.

Moot. Material is in use and accepted. 20+ years...

When computers came out, did they try to blame old standards and old terms for their problems? No. And I do hope you consider computers (when they came out) as "new technology". Computer terms and standards were new terms and standards, i.e,. "byte", etc.

HUH?

Alas, and again, *one coat stucco* is not "stucco", it is a "decorative cementitious coating".

Specified as stucco, defined as stucco, applied as stucco-see "walks like a duck" post above.

THIS is what "stucco" is: (from the ASTM standard) "3.2.23 stucco—portland cement-based plaster used on exterior locations."

THIS is what *one coat*'stucco' is: (also from the ASTM standard) "3.2.8 cementitious material—a material that, when mixed with water and with or without aggregate, provides the plasticity and the cohesive and adhesive properties necessary for placement and the formation of a rigid mass."

Sounds a lot like "portland based plaster used on exterior locations".

To try to pass *one coat stucco* off as "stucco", and then cop out by saying you agree to disagree instead of saying you are wrong is not acknowledging what "stucco" is, or how "stucco" is to be applied.

No cop out, just trying to "ignore the braying", see previous post.

Call *one coat stucco* what it is ... a "decorative cementitious coating", just don't call it "stucco". Calling it "stucco" is like saying calling a blind man "sighted" simply because you cannot bring yourself to call him "blind" ... the man is still "blind".

Again, you are using semantics to defend the undefendable, "decorative cementitious material" can also describe stucco, plaster, EIFS, hardcoat, etc...this has gone far astray from the original question that began this post. Maybe we should end it now. Let's just answer peoples' questions without all the falderall, shall we?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I know, I know, it is harder to gain acceptance if you have to create everything new, but you do, because the "new technology" DOES NOT MEET the old terms or standards.

Originally Posted by John Carroll

Moot. Material is in use and accepted. 20+ years...

Jerry: Obviously not a moot point, you are complaining that "new technology" which has been in use for 20 years is not included in the "old standard"

Originally Posted by John Carroll

"decorative cementitious material" can also describe stucco, plaster, EIFS, hardcoat, etc...

So true, but the term "stucco" CANNOT BE USED to describe *all types of* "decorative cementitious material" - "stucco" is ... well ... ONLY "stucco".

Now, you 'could' call "stucco" "exterior plaster", because that is what it is.

Just like the term 'baseball player' can used to describe a 'first baseman', but, describing someone as a "first baseman" when that person is actually the "catcher" just because that person is playing baseball is also incorrect.

I know where you stand - between a rock and a hard place - not an enviable place to be.

Wow!! I expect that most stucco cladding systems which specify metal weep screed at the foundation may have this type of installation flaw. I appreciate the varied opinions and references provided by members of this forum. I'll call out the gap as a defect and recommend repair as necessary.

Regarding the State of DE-NILE...it must be a state that is composed of mainly peat-moss. Certainly, here in the southwest where the environment is drier and less prone to sustained windforces, one-coat stucco has long been, and will continue to be a significant building technology. I'll continue to call it as it is and not worry about semantics. I give no allegiance to 1, 2, or 3 coat systems. BTW Here is a reference link National One Coat Stucco Association
You might want to take this windmill battle with them :>)

moving on.....

Originally Posted by John Carroll

moving on.....

Not so fast, I've got one more question to ask ...

Originally Posted by John Carroll

How do you think we keep home construction here so cheap?

What is the average cost of a typical house in your area? Say, a 2,500 sq ft house of average construction in an average subdivision?

Barry,
You make reference to stucco-cracking as a greater threat in areas that have more expansive soil conditions. You write, "If soil heave may be pulling gas line compression connections apart imagine what happens to a home with a one-coat system not properly installed."

Of course, I would agree that differential settlement is a great risk to many of a building's systems that are subject to such movement.

But I ask you, are you not required in your jurisdiction to replace or augment the soil on which the building bears when the existing soil conditions are not acceptable for the weight the building imposes? In other words, I assume there is a minimum soil bearing capacity required by your jurisdiction that would force a builder to make sure the soil has enough bearing capacity so as to avoid excessive differential settlement.

Once the soil meets such standards then the building should not be subject to the expansion and contraction that would otherwise pose such a risk to the stucco (and most everything else).

With all of that said, you can't possibly believe that even the best stucco application would not be subject to cracking if the structure were built on soil that did not otherwise meet such standards, do you?

Looks good from the road.

In this area almost all the "stucco" homes are done with one coat. The architects got smart a number of years ago and on all the typical wall sections, it says decorative cementitious coating, or words to that effect. You will not see the word "stucco" on any of the plans.

Originally Posted by Robert Sole

In this area almost all the "stucco" homes are done with one coat. The architects got smart a number of years ago and on all the typical wall sections, it says decorative cementitious coating, or words to that effect. You will not see the word "stucco" on any of the plans.

Infamously started by a company I used to work for when I moved and retired.

And incorrectly applied 99.9% of the time too.

The reason it is used is that if it says "stucco" then it is required to be installed/applied as specified in the building for for "stucco" and to the standard which is applicable: ASTM C 926.

Calling it a "decorative cementitious coating" means it no longer needs to comply with the standard for "stucco" as it is no longer "stucco".

Except that the Florida Building Code, Building and Residential, define "decorative cementitious coating" as follows:
- DECORATIVE CEMENTITIOUS COATING. A skim coat, as defined in ASTM C 926, of portland-cement-based plaster applied to concrete or masonry surfaces intended for cosmetic purposes.

Which takes us back to ASTM C 926, which defines "decorative cementitious coating" as follows:
- ... (you probably did not even see this coming) ... ASTM C 926 DOES NOT DEFINE "decorative cementitious coating".

Which leaves us with what the Florida Building Code calls it (underlining and bold are mine) ... "A skim coat, ..., of portland-cement-based plaster applied to concrete or masonry surfaces intended for cosmetic purposes".

Which leaves out "decorative cementitious coatings" applied to any substrate over framing.

And, the "decorative cementitious coating" DOES NOT MEET the empirical design construction of a masonry wall with "stucco" to meet the requirements for a weather resistant coating. A "decorative cementitious coating", after all, is "intended for cosmetic purposes".

Also note that it states "skim coat". A "skim coat" is a 'very thin coating', and what is being applied IS NOT a "skim coat".

I tried explaining this to them, but the owner (who initiated its use) could not back away from it because he spent so much effort promoting it as a way to get around the ASTM C 926 standard.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Except that the Florida Building Code, Building and Residential, define "decorative cementitious coating" as follows:
- DECORATIVE CEMENTITIOUS COATING. A skim coat, as defined in ASTM C 926, of portland-cement-based plaster applied to concrete or masonry surfaces intended for cosmetic purposes.

I got side tracked and forgot to finish my train of thought ... that happens sometimes ...

Now, if we look up "skim coat" instead of "decorative cementitious coating" and try to define the application by "thickness" instead of by "material", then we find there is an ASTM definition for the thickness of "skim coat": (underlining and bold are mine)'.
- skim coat—a thin finish coat applied to an existing plaster surface or other substrate to improve appearance.

Either way, the way "decorative cementitious coating" is being used is quite incorrect.

Sorry about that lost train of thought and having to pick it back up.

Don't misunderstand me. I did not mean to imply that anything about it was correct. I was simply stating that this is the way it has been done. In fact, the last time I saw someone around here actually do a 3 coat process for "stucco" was when I built my home in 1993. Almost all the applications I have seen since then has been one coat and following that up with a texture coat.

One of the local jurisdictions complained several years ago that "stucco" was not being applied according to the building code. That was when the description was changed on the plans. Then everyone was happy (except for the home buyers that found the finish on their walls cracking excessively).

When I was the Quality Control Manager at the last builder I worked for prior to beginning my home inspection business, I tried to get it installed properly. I didn't succeed but I got closer. To get a true stucco finish would have forced purchasing to raise the price too high. I was able to get them to apply one layer, let it dry and then finish off with another layer before applying the texture. I was also able to come pretty close to enforcing the 7/8" thickness. Still not exactly right but the second layer filled the cracks that formed in the first and made a much better product.

Who resurrected this corpse?

Originally Posted by John Carroll

Who resurrected this corpse?

Looks like it was the Chicago Bears ex-quarterback.

Could someone help me understand the gap between eifs siding and concrete surfaces such as patios and drives. I know 2inch gaps are required above shingles. From what i am reading minimum 2 inches is required everywhere except at areas such as porches.

Originally Posted by Harley110

Could someone help me understand the gap between eifs siding and concrete surfaces such as patios and drives. I know 2inch gaps are required above shingles. From what i am reading minimum 2 inches is required everywhere except at areas such as porches.

The problem is that if the EIFS is at or below the concrete you have no way of knowing how the base of that wall was finished, you can not see if any bugs(termites) are entering the wall and it can also lead to water wicking up that wall. I like to see a min of 2", I'm happy with 4" and ecstatic with 6"!

I don't know of any standard or manufacturers guideline that allows for the EIFS to be at or below a concrete patio/porch.

Thanks. Constantly seeing stucco and EIFS going all the way down and touching the concrete at porches, patios, aprons at garages, etc. I show this in my reports as improper clearances and recommend further investigation be done by qualified contractor(by the way this is new conrstruction homes as well as older homes). And i do get arguments that it is done correctly. Is there a link to go to that specifically says this is incorrect. would love to have that info. next time i send out a report.

Originally Posted by Harley110

Thanks. Constantly seeing stucco and EIFS going all the way down and touching the concrete at porches, patios, aprons at garages, etc. I show this in my reports as improper clearances and recommend further investigation be done by qualified contractor(by the way this is new conrstruction homes as well as older homes). And i do get arguments that it is done correctly. Is there a link to go to that specifically says this is incorrect. would love to have that info. next time i send out a report.

About all you can do is to site the manufacturers specifications or I think it might be addressed somewhat in the IRC.

Harley110, fill out your profile with your name and your location. TN is a big state! It helps folks to know who your are and your location. Most of us use our real name on the various discussion boards.

You should be seeing at least 6 inches between the bottom of the EIFS and exposed grade "and" earth. Now, what is "grade"?
- R320.5 Foam plastic protection. In areas where the probability of termite infestation is “very heavy” as indicated in Figure R301.2(6), extruded and expanded polystyrene, polyisocyanurate and other foam plastics shall not be installed on the exterior face or under interior or exterior foundation walls or slab foundations located below grade. The clearance between foam plastics installed above grade and exposed earth shall be at least 6 inches (152 mm).
- - Exceptions:

- - - 1. Buildings where the structural members of walls, floors, ceilings and roofs are entirely of noncombustible materials or pressure-preservative-treated wood.
- - - 2. When in addition to the requirements of Section R320.1, an approved method of protecting the foam plastic and structure from subterranean termite damage is used.

- - - 3. On the interior side of basement walls.

- GRADE. The finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls.

Tried my name. apparently someone else has same name. When registering it would not accept it. What else do you do?
Chuck Evans
Gallatin ,Tn

You are correct Scott. In the IRC it's says minimum 2 inch clearance above asphalt (i will assume that includes concrete).

Thanks Jerry
That is pretty much what thought. (WHAT IS GRADE)

Originally Posted by Harley110

Tried my name. apparently someone else has same name. When registering it would not accept it. What else do you do?
Chuck Evans
Gallatin ,Tn

You are correct Scott. In the IRC it's says minimum 2 inch clearance above asphalt (i will assume that includes concrete).

Thanks Jerry
That is pretty much what thought. (WHAT IS GRADE)

Chuck, good to see you posting on IN. It is a great resource.

R703.9 Exterior insulation finish systems, general. All Exterior Insulation Finish Systems (EIFS) shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions and the requirements of this section. Decorative trim shall not be face nailed through the EIFS. The EIFS shall terminate not less than 6 inches (152 mm) above the finished ground level.

Again, though, that refers to "ground level".