Improper weep screed? - InspectionNews

Allen Lott · #1 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008, 06:08 PM

I am hoping someone here with a lot of experience with stucco can help. This house I inspected did not have the "normal weep screed" that I am accustomed to seeing. It does appear to have the proper drainage plain behind the OSB. As far as I could tell it appeared to have a TYVEC type wrap, a drainage plain and stucco over OSB. Would weep screed be required here?

Jerry Peck · #2 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008, 06:44 PM

Allen,

As best I can tell, that looks like a 'J' plaster ground.

They have limited (restricted) ability to weep with the upturned edge, and, even with weep holes pre-punched into the bottom, are not even truly considered 'foundation weep screeds'.

Also, looking at the photos as best I can, it looks like the WRB and paper are both *behind* the (what should be) weep screed and they should be *over* the wall flange of the weep screed. (I know, I am referring to that as a 'weep screed', but it is not. It's just easier to say 'weep screed' instead of 'plaster ground' and have people understand what I'm saying - although many of you would understand it.)

Jerry McCarthy · #3 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008, 06:54 PM

Concur with EC Jerry and could weep for such a mistaken application of installing a proper weepscreed. Wron is wrong, plain and simple and your intuition is on target.

Jerry Peck · #4 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008, 07:06 PM

(underlining is mine)
FOUNDATION WEEP SCREED (NO. 7)
This bead is now required by most building codes and by ASTM C1063 on all framed walls as part of a drainage system for exterior stucco applications. The 3½ inch nailing flange serves as a flashing when water resistant breathable building paper or paper backed lath is installed over the flange. The "V" stop is punched with holes primarily intended as keying mechanisms. These also offer minor moisture weeping capabilities. As stucco cures it will shrink slightly away from the "V" stop allowing moisture to flow down the building paper and exit down the sloped surface. Available in galvanized steel and zinc alloy (by special request) in 10 ft. lengths. Packaged 10 pcs. per bundle,100 bundles per pallet.

AMICO Metal Lath and Vinyl Bead Building Products > Foundation Weep Screed

I should have included the 'J' plaster ground link to, here it is: 3rd item down

AMICO Metal Lath and Vinyl Bead Building Products > Casing Beads

Allen Lott · #5 (**permalink**) 06-19-2008, 08:35 PM

Jerry and Jerry,

Thank you for the fast and very imformative replys! The additional diagrams and links will help to validate the in need of repair comment. Scary part is, I looked at several houses in the subdivision (probably the same builder) they were all done the same way. Again, thanks for you help.

Patrick McCaffery · #6 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008, 04:16 AM

Just wanted to say, that as a new inspector I really appreciate the comments from both Jerry Peck and Jerry McCarthy. Your combined knowledge on all these subjects is very helpful for someone who is trying to gain knowledge and experience.

William Coleman · #7 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008, 01:18 PM

I agree! The knowledge is invaluable from the MASTERS

John Carroll · #8 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008, 02:15 PM

Experts, huh....
While I do not disagree with the notion that this may be an improper application, the degree of the suggested remedy is a little overkill, don't you think?
There are some types of weep that are only perforated on 12" centers or so, these pictures show that there has been plaster smeared over the bottom, obscuring, possibly, any weep holes that may be there. I would have scrapped enough off for a definitive answer. It may be that casing was used, nevertheless, suggesting it all be torn off & replaced is totally unnecessary and poor analysis.

Number one, there are enough voids visable in these pictures to allow destructive (my emphasis) moisture to escape. Secondly, if there is evidence (again, my emphasis) of excessive moisture in the wall cavity, then the reasonable thing would be to employ an offset drill and make some additional holes in the existing screed. Simply taking the nuclear option of damning all the work, and telling a owner to spend tens of thousands of $$$ to replace it, borders on irresponsibility at the least. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to get the facts first?

J-metal weep screed may be used in applications where the designer doesn't want the bottom flange exposed to view, but it must be hung so the bottom at least 1" below the bottom plate. It must also have a 3-1/2" high back flange.

Experts?? I think not.

Jerry Peck · #9 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Carroll

While I do not disagree with the notion that this may be an improper application,

Thus, if I am understanding you correctly, you are agreeing that it an improper application.

Quote:

the degree of the suggested remedy is a little overkill, don't you think?

So, you would advise an improper repair to an already improper application?

Quote:

There are some types of weep that are only perforated on 12" centers or so,

Those holes are not for "weeping", they are there to key the stucco to the weep screed because of the angle of the weep screed.

Quote:

J-metal weep screed may be used in applications where the designer doesn't want the bottom flange exposed to view,

'J' plaster ground is not intended for, nor does it make for, a good weep screed as there is an upturned lip ... which prevents weepage/draining.

Ron Bibler · #10 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008, 04:26 PM

Allen in one of your photos you posted. it looks like you have a Fungus infection in the OSB. The Weep Screed may be a small issue if the complete wall is infected with a WOOD DESTROYING FUNGUS.

Further inspection item.

Best

Ron

Fritz Kelly · #11 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008, 09:36 PM

A fungus infection? Thats the first time I heard that one.

Billy Stephens · #12 (**permalink**) 06-20-2008, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fritz Kelly

A fungus infection? Thats the first time I heard that one.

Attached study is from living plants. Similar studies have been done on OSB, ( not sure if I could upload OSB study*size constraint. )

Michael Greenwalt · #13 (**permalink**) 06-21-2008, 02:50 PM

John,
So your saying that the use of the J - metal grounds, in conditions specifically against manufacture recommendations, is ok? Not to mention that I see the same thing in the photo Jerry pointed out, paper behind the screed plane, not over it.
If they can't even start the process right, what else lies behind, or above.
Failure to recommend further intrusive inspections to determine the total extent of the bad installation and what repairs are necessary for the client borders in irresponsibility at least. IMHO

John Carroll · #14 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 09:22 AM

Oh, lookey here, an actual manufacturer brochure page showing a J-Weep sill screed. My, oh my.

Jerry Peck · #15 (**permalink**) 06-23-2008, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Carroll

Oh, lookey here, an actual manufacturer brochure page showing a J-Weep sill screed. My, oh my.

Would you want to mistake that for this one?
J_Plaster_Grounds_not_weep_screed.jpg

"Lions, and tigers, and bears! Oh, my!"

John,

If you want to set yourself up fro cremation, please do so at your risk and, it is, after all, your choice.

John Carroll · #16 (**permalink**) 06-24-2008, 11:17 AM

Yes, it's true that it may not be "recommended" for 3-coat plaster, but is completely acceptable in thin coat applications. The proposed solution is still overkill, in both scope and method. Here in hybrid land, we often make use of items acceptable in one condition, acceptable in other, similar conditions.

Suppose your client wanted to install an additional layer of 1" T & G foam insulation on top of the sheathing and then cover that with 7/8" plaster. Nice design, well insulated. Well, there is not a commercially available weep that can be used in that scenerio, so we need to fab one. And the client also wants to use a topcoat finish that has color in it, but does not want to see the exposed flange nor does he want to have the added hassle of painting it.

So we make use of a perfectly acceptable design, j-metal with weep holes fabbed to the dimensions required. Installed properly, this will more than meet the requirements necessary to keep the design intent of the standard FHA type sill screed.

I know these new terms like "design intent" and "fabrication" may be confusing those who are locked into "what the book says", but you need to realize that that book was written 60 YEARS AGO. Believe it or not, the world is no longer flat, the sun doesn't revolve around us, and there are newer,more efficient, and better designs on the way, so get over it.

Regarding whether the VB is outside the weep flange or under it, it really doesn't affect its performance. Incidential water will drain off as long as there are weep holes present. In the absence of concrete evidence that there is moisture damage behind it, the stucco should be left in place.

I hope you are taking note of that concept, Direct Evidence. Because a system that is performing as designed should not be removed. If a concern is raised, like the exposed sheathing edge, or excessive cracking, they should be noted as areas to monitor, not destroy. Simply taking the nuclear response to any and all work that does not conform is irresponsible and you will not convince me otherwise, pithy comments or not.

Lastly, withoud DIRECT evidence of failure, this system should be modified only to prevent future problems regarding possible moisture intrusion, not removed and replaced to satisfy the "keying" element of the design.

My work is done here....moving on....

Jerry Peck · #17 (**permalink**) 06-24-2008, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Carroll

but is completely acceptable ...

So we make use of a perfectly acceptable design, ...

Your first error is stating "completely acceptable" and "perfectly acceptable".

Quote:

Regarding whether the VB is outside the weep flange or under it, it really doesn't affect its performance.

Your second error is stating the above "doesn't affect its performance".

The above three errors (the first error is two related errors, but still two different errors) combined with other errors shows the errors of your thinking quite clearly.

"Overkill"? To do it correctly?

I guess it's the difference in jumping out of a plane and wearing a parachute or not wearing one - the fall is basically the same, the parachute "does not its performance" (the fall) much at all.

Not until it is time to open the parachute does the parachute have any effect, at which time the parachute makes a significant contribution to the intended and designed outcome and performance.

John Carroll · #18 (**permalink**) 06-24-2008, 01:28 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you kill me, Jerry. Good luck at the flat earth society meetings.

John Carroll · #19 (**permalink**) 06-24-2008, 01:33 PM

By the way, only two errors in all that, you must be slowing down....