Thread: Synthetic Stucco expansion joints

This place is new construction with synthetic stucco exterior. Install looks good, has metal flashing/weep screed installed at lower edges. However there are no expansion joints installed and there are small hairline cracks in few areas, they are barely noticeable. Also the stucco is in direct contact with the rear patio.

Similar Threads:

• Identifying hardcoat stucco & EIFS
• Stucco clearances
• Commercial: Stucco interface with flat work
• Stucco
• More Stucco question

Originally Posted by Trent Tarter

This place is new construction with synthetic stucco exterior. Install looks good, has metal flashing/weep screed installed at lower edges. However there are no expansion joints installed and there are small hairline cracks in few areas, they are barely noticeable. Also the stucco is in direct contact with the rear patio.

The patio is in contact because they placed it after the EIFS was on the home. As for expansion joints, that is not that big of an issue as long as you have proper flashing and proper sealants around the penetrations.

Curious as to how you could tell the slab was poured after the house was built from only the picture? Also metal weep screeds are not usually used with EIFS. Could be stucco, like he stated, yes? Why would you suggest EIFS? Could also be only synthetic finish over stucco as well. Minor cracking would suggest a form of stucco, as true EIFS usually doesn't crack like that.

Originally Posted by John Carroll

Curious as to how you could tell the slab was poured after the house was built from only the picture? Also metal weep screeds are not usually used with EIFS. Could be stucco, like he stated, yes? Why would you suggest EIFS? Could also be only synthetic finish over stucco as well. Minor cracking would suggest a form of stucco, as true EIFS usually doesn't crack like that.

It's all SWAG with the information and photos provided....

Originally Posted by John Carroll

Curious as to how you could tell the slab was poured after the house was built from only the picture? Also metal weep screeds are not usually used with EIFS. Could be stucco, like he stated, yes? Why would you suggest EIFS? Could also be only synthetic finish over stucco as well. Minor cracking would suggest a form of stucco, as true EIFS usually doesn't crack like that.

typical order of construction

Originally Posted by Robert Hronek

typical order of construction

Say what?? NO ONE, however obtuse, can make that statement based only on the picture provided. Where do you get these bozos?

"NO ONE, however obtuse, can make that statement based only on the picture provided."


John
There may be a few exceptions, but on the houses in my area, it is typical to pour patios, walkways, garage slab, and driveways after the siding is on the house.

"Where do you get these bozos?"
So if it's not done in a way you are familiar with, then it's done by Bozos?

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

"NO ONE, however obtuse, can make that statement based only on the picture provided."


John
There may be a few exceptions, but on the houses in my area, it is typical to pour patios, walkways, garage slab, and driveways after the siding is on the house.

"Where do you get these bozos?"
So if it's not done in a way you are familiar with, then it's done by Bozos?

Very common in my area as well.. They pour or place the porches, patios, walkways, A/C pads and driveways well after the foundation is in. Many times it is shortly before the home is finished.

"They pour or place the ... A/C pads ..."

Man, they use real concrete A/C pads there?
Here they use plastic pads.

I should get John to set these Bozos straight.

Originally Posted by John Carroll

Say what?? NO ONE, however obtuse, can make that statement based only on the picture provided. Where do you get these bozos?

Can I say for sure -no. What I can tell you is that I dont see builders pouring patios/drives till the end for a couple of reasons. For starters they have to remove the forms from the foundation and that doesnt happen right away. So the patio would not be poured at the same time as the foundation. Then as the exterior is going up you dont want the subs to damage the patio or drive. Also builders want to save interest expense so they save the flatwork. In years of doing construction draws for lenders I dont ever remember a drive or patio being installed till late in the construction phase.

My guess is the house was finished the grading was done and when the subs poured the patio they laid the forms out on the ground. There wasnt adequate clearance but they poured anyway.

Then please enlighten me, oh wise ones, how do they get around the code requirement of 2" clear space between weep screed and hardscape? Whatever your answer, run it by the head bozo first, will ya?

Originally Posted by John Carroll

Then please enlighten me, oh wise ones, how do they get around the code requirement of 2" clear space between weep screed and hardscape? Whatever your answer, run it by the head bozo first, will ya?

John,

Most AHJ's do not look at the cladding on a home and if they do it is as they are driving down the street. It could be that they do not even have code enforcement in that particular area. We see the non enforcement of codes all the time in our profession, I guess this is one reason I find more wrong with new construction homes.

John
In the OP, one thing he pointed out was
Also the stucco is in direct contact with the rear patio

Scott offered a reasonable explanation on why it might be like this
The patio is in contact because they placed it after the EIFS was on the home

Your comment was
Curious as to how you could tell the slab was poured after the house was built from only the picture

To which Robert said
typical order of construction

Thats when you start getting hostel
Say what?? NO ONE, however obtuse, can make that statement based only on the picture provided. Where do you get these bozos?

Thats when I said
There may be a few exceptions, but on the houses in my area, it is typical to pour patios, walkways, garage slab, and driveways after the siding is on the house.

Now you sarcastically ask
Then please enlighten me, oh wise ones, how do they get around the code requirement of 2" clear space between weep screed and hardscape? Whatever your answer, run it by the head bozo first, will ya?


No one said the siding was allowed to be less than 2".
Only that the patio slab was likely poured after the siding was on.

How is this for running it by the head Bozo.
People offer you good advice and you act like a Jerk.
Maybe if you were to drive by a few construction sites you would see what we're saying. You don't seem to believe it when your told.
Or better yet, go to the Nachi site. They most likely have training that will help you understand this.

PS I just noticed this
You are a good example of my tag line.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

No one said the siding was allowed to be less than 2".
Only that the patio slab was likely poured after the siding was on.

How is this for running it by the head Bozo.
People offer you good advice and you act like a Jerk.
Maybe if you were to drive by a few construction sites you would see what we're saying. You don't seem to believe it when your told.
Or better yet, go to the Nachi site. They most likely have training that will help you understand this.

PS I just noticed this
You are a good example of my tag line.

Please feel free NOT to quote what's already in the post, it's redundant and does nothing to address the point.
As you're well aware, I do use sarcasm to shine a light on the numbnuts posing on this site as experts. Sorry if that offends you. Maybe your time would be better spent addressing the lack of quality thinking that goes on by some of the "inspecters" posting here.
I don't need to do any more driving around construction sites than I already do. I know how things are supposed to be done. It doesn't really matter when the slab is poured, the point is that when it is done shifts the burden of code compliance from the Stucco/EIFS sub, to the concrete sub pouring the flatwork. Wrong is still wrong, it matters not who did it. In case you are still confused, the above sentence was the point.
Try a new tag line. Something self-deprecating might be appropriate. Your ego needs an adjustment.

Another one for the IGGY list!

Originally Posted by John Carroll

Please feel free NOT to quote what's already in the post, it's redundant and does nothing to address the point.
As you're well aware, I do use sarcasm to shine a light on the numbnuts posing on this site as experts. Sorry if that offends you. Maybe your time would be better spent addressing the lack of quality thinking that goes on by some of the "inspecters" posting here.
I don't need to do any more driving around construction sites than I already do. I know how things are supposed to be done. It doesn't really matter when the slab is poured, the point is that when it is done shifts the burden of code compliance from the Stucco/EIFS sub, to the concrete sub pouring the flatwork. Wrong is still wrong, it matters not who did it. In case you are still confused, the above sentence was the point.
Try a new tag line. Something self-deprecating might be appropriate. Your ego needs an adjustment.

Its more like you are an ass wanting to critize others.

IF you look at the photo the lawn looks very flat. It is hard tell the clearance between the ground and the siding but it only appears to be about 3 to 4 inches, about the thickness of a slab.

If you know the order of construction you would likely conclude that that patio was poured after the siding. I would think that if the patio was poured first a person would see some stucco dropping on the slab. None was mentioned by the op.

Put all the pieces together and most would conclude that the patio came after the exterior was finished. Obviously that wasn't evident to you and think you are superior and compensated by denigrating other posters.

If the slab was poured after the home was completed it would not have required an inspection.

I can see I am wasting my time trying to enlighten you as to the POINT, so I'll just leave it at this. I have a hard time putting up with "picture diagnosis", that is, pontificating what is exactly wrong, not might be, or could possibly be, but stating definite conclusions on what is going on from just a picture. I have railed about it on other posts, and will continue to do so, your lowbrow opinion of me notwithstanding. In my opinion, it's unproductive, and may well send some unsuspecting newby off on a wild goose chase. Why I care, I cannot say, it just bugs me that's all. Try and reply with something thoughtful, rather than name calling. I don't believe that's why we are here. Make it good, cause I won't be chasing this any more...

John
On a forum like this, people ask questions. They could be inspectors, trades people, DIY'ers, or ordinary homeowners seeking advice. Mostly they describe it the best they know how in a few words and pictures. From that they hope someone can help them. One of the constraints of an INTERNET forum is to offer an opinion with only limited information. All there is to go on is a few words and a picture.
Everyone messes up sometime. If you think someone is wrong, say something.
Heck, I've defended my position a few times when I was wrong. Most often someone would explain it to my understanding.

Anyhow, Friends?

Originally Posted by John Carroll

I have a hard time putting up with "picture diagnosis", that is, pontificating what is exactly wrong, not might be, or could possibly be, but stating definite conclusions on what is going on from just a picture.

I offered an opinion. We can only go off of what someone posts. Many times only 1 photo is offered and it doesnt show much detail. People post a number of opinions and the op might be enlightened. In this case the op never even posted a question. He just made some obervations that there not any expansion joints, patio was against house etc.

Things were fine until you had to find a use for your word of the day calander and had to start spounting vengence.

My 1st reply was in reference to Scott and I was bascally saying I agreed with him.