Thread: Stucco House

For you interest

Defective House

............I'm glad I didn't inspect it - and really glad I don't own it .......Greg

Originally Posted by Gregory Booth

............I'm glad I didn't inspect it - and really glad I don't own it .......Greg

Yeah, don't you know it.
When we were looking for a house 21 years ago, EFIS was the rage and my bride liked how they looked. I was skeptical so we got a brick house. I think I made the right choice. She doesn't remember wanting an EFIS house.

I have seen many like it. About a week ago I spend three days investigating bad stucco. Out of about 100 test cuts almost every one had damage. At about 20-30 the OSB looked like mulch-wet mulch.

I live less than 10 miles from that house-Eastern Pennsylvania-The Stucco Failure Capital, according to Joe Lstiburek.

I clicked through some of the photos (too much repetition to click through them all) but did not read the text (which means what I am going to say below may have been in there - if it is then someone will let me know ):

There are a serious lack of information in the cut-a-way sections and in the photos showing how the stucco SYSTEM was installed and applied ... stucco is a SYSTEM ... and the main thing I see (actually do not see) is that there was only one layer behind the stucco.

The cut-a-ways and photos should have shown the layers: painted stucco, leading down to stucco embedded in wire lath, leading down to the bond breaker paper, leading down to the drainage plane paper (often this is building wrap under the paper), leading down to the sheathing.

None of that detail is shown, and what I see in what is shown ... er ... what I do not see in what is shown ... is the drainage plane ...

... wait ... I DO SEE the drainage plane - the wood sheathing!

And someone is surprised that the wood sheathing rotted out? Why would anyone be surprised that would happen.

No home inspector should have had to worry about a defect like that as no home inspector is expected to do destructive investigation to determine if there is a bond breaker plane and a drainage plane behind the stucco.

Of course, though, there may have been enough clues to have recommended a contractor to go out and do some destructive investigation to determine just what it is the clues were trying to show, but I suspect that most buyers would not follow through with that recommendation, basing their decision on what the real estate agent likely would say "What problem, if there was a problem it would be showing through by now." (and the real estate agent would be the one buying that house and all of its problems ).

I probably should have read the text - I'll find out soon enough.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I clicked through some of the photos (too much repetition to click through them all) but did not read the text (which means what I am going to say below may have been in there - if it is then someone will let me know ):

There are a serious lack of information in the cut-a-way sections and in the photos showing how the stucco SYSTEM was installed and applied ... stucco is a SYSTEM ... and the main thing I see (actually do not see) is that there was only one layer behind the stucco.

The cut-a-ways and photos should have shown the layers: painted stucco, leading down to stucco embedded in wire lath, leading down to the bond breaker paper, leading down to the drainage plane paper (often this is building wrap under the paper), leading down to the sheathing.

None of that detail is shown, and what I see in what is shown ... er ... what I do not see in what is shown ... is the drainage plane ...

... wait ... I DO SEE the drainage plane - the wood sheathing!

And someone is surprised that the wood sheathing rotted out? Why would anyone be surprised that would happen.

No home inspector should have had to worry about a defect like that as no home inspector is expected to do destructive investigation to determine if there is a bond breaker plane and a drainage plane behind the stucco.

Of course, though, there may have been enough clues to have recommended a contractor to go out and do some destructive investigation to determine just what it is the clues were trying to show, but I suspect that most buyers would not follow through with that recommendation, basing their decision on what the real estate agent likely would say "What problem, if there was a problem it would be showing through by now." (and the real estate agent would be the one buying that house and all of its problems ).

I probably should have read the text - I'll find out soon enough.

Jerry,
The house has a felt paper WRB-you can see the deteriorated remains of it. Two layers were not required until the 2006 IRC. I don't think I have even seen two layers used before it was required.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

No home inspector should have had to worry about a defect like ...

Every HI should worry about a defect like that

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

there may have been enough clues to have recommended a contractor

Clue #1 Stucco

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

but I suspect that most buyers would not follow through with that recommendation,..

That should make no difference to the HI

By 2001 (when the house was purchased) every HI should already be aware of the potential problems with EFIS, even if they are not qualified to do an EFIS inspection.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

By 2001 (when the house was purchased) every HI should already be aware of the potential problems with EFIS, even if they are not qualified to do an EFIS inspection.

Just a clarification, this was masonry stucco, not EIFS.

Originally Posted by Mark Reinmiller

Jerry,
The house has a felt paper WRB-you can see the deteriorated remains of it. Two layers were not required until the 2006 IRC. I don't think I have even seen two layers used before it was required.

Mark,

That felt is not the WRB, that felt is the bond breaker, the wood sheathing is the drainage plane.

Two layers as always been "required" by all stucco standards - just no one enforced it ... other than the stucco contractors themselves as they knew it needed two layers, that one layer would not allow the drainage system to work.

The codes required it when they referenced the ASTM standards, which many did not (unfortunately).

Just like the codes not requiring a WRB behind cement-board siding until fairly recently - it was always "required" by the contractors who knew and cared, and ignored by those who found a way to save a few dollars ... until (er ... unless) they had to go back and make repairs, at which time the few dollars they saved was gone many-fold.

I know ... it is how one defines "required".

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

By 2001 (when the house was purchased) every HI should already be aware of the potential problems with EFIS, even if they are not qualified to do an EFIS inspection.

Rick,

You missed my point on my other points, but on the above - that didn't look like EIFS, looked like stucco - maybe I missed that in the photos?

My mistake, with that much water penetration, I just assumed it was EFIS

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Mark,

Two layers as always been "required" by all stucco standards - just no one enforced it ... other than the stucco contractors themselves as they knew it needed two layers, that one layer would not allow the drainage system to work.

What is your reference for saying that two layers have always been required?

I don't think there was much of a problem with drainage with older felt that has a higher rag content and more asphalt.

Originally Posted by Mark Reinmiller

What is your reference for saying that two layers have always been required?

I don't think there was much of a problem with drainage with older felt that has a higher rag content and more asphalt.

1) All the old stucco information I've read over the years - the old guys knew what needed to be done to avoid things like that.

2) Even old 30# or 43# felt did the same thing because it served as a bond breaker between the stucco and the drainage plane behind it. When applied over 1x sheathing, the 1x sheathing was a lot more tolerant and forgiving than plywood was/is, and plywood is a lot more tolerant and forgiving than OSB is. Now reduce the felt down to one layer of 15#, or even one layer of 30# ... that poor old cheap OSB does not stand a chance - kind of like Custer at Little Bighorn, or Paul Newman and Robert Redford at the end of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid ... ...

Wow!

The worst problem that I've heard about here was a fraction of that. Still, that's an eye opener.

I rarely see stucco applied properly around here, but our dry climate and low humidity allows poor practice to flourish.