Stone Veneer over Brick

**Donal Hughes** · 11-05-2013, 08:11 PM

The front façade of this house has a new stone veneer adhered to the original brick which I believe is adhered to cinderblock cmus. There are no weepholes at the base of the stone or at the base of the original brick. I cannot find any evidence of metal lathe having been used (see pic. of missing window sill.. Since this is in the Chicago area, we have a large temp. differential. Anyone out there know if this is a good system? Should a metal lathe/scratch coat have been used? Should the stone be sealed? Any help appreciated. (I've been trying to add pics, but cannot get them to upload - Sorry)

**Scott Patterson** · 11-06-2013, 06:35 AM

I agree that is difficult to put photos on this site, it has not always been that way. I stopped trying to upload early this year after the changes were made....

Back to your question.... Is this faux stone? If so you can download install guidelines from any of the faux stone manufacturers and they will show how it should be installed. I think you will find that what you are describing will not be addressed and you will need to call their technical desk and see what they say. My guess is that they will say it is wrong.

Weep holes are not needed with the brick if it is flush to the CMU and faux stone does not have weeps except along the bottom in the form of a weep screed.

**Donal Hughes** · 11-06-2013, 07:06 AM

Thanks, Scott. This is real limestone, nominal 2" thick. I can tell by the cut edges at windows. I'm thinking it should at least be sealed.

**Scott Patterson** · 11-06-2013, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by Donal Hughes

Thanks, Scott. This is real limestone, nominal 2" thick. I can tell by the cut edges at windows. I'm thinking it should at least be sealed.

It sounds like it is a problem waiting to rear it's ugly head.... I would get a local inspector with experience in CMU and masonry products in the area to help you with this. Kurt Mitenbuler Kurt Mitenbuler | Home would be my first choice in your area to give a call for some local advice and help.

**Donal Hughes** · 11-06-2013, 09:52 AM

Thanks again Scott. Just talked to Kurt. (great resource to have). He agrees with you that this could be a problem waiting to happen.

**Raymond Wand** · 11-06-2013, 09:54 AM

This link may be of value.

http://ixlmasonry.com/uploads/files/...guidelines.pdf

**Markus Keller** · 11-06-2013, 06:29 PM

A couple thoughts ...
- if limestone its going to suck up water for sure and should be sealed
- this type of work is usually done because the original install is garbage; lets put something over the wall and then the water can't get in
- the big problem area on these deals is the top end, and window sills; they usually leave the garbage defective capping on top of the wall, don't install flashing under any limestone capping at the top of the wall, or deal with the parapet attachments
- it is highly unlikely this isn't a problem waiting to happen
- on something on like this always ask for manufacturer, brand, etc of product so you can look it up; from what you've said its unlikely but depending on type of stone and attachment it may need a compliant footing underneath
- also great easy ding is to take your torpedo level and set it on the sills to show they are back pitched; I state that as an obvious since its so rare I find sills pitched out

**Donal Hughes** · 11-06-2013, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by Markus Keller

A couple thoughts ...
- if limestone its going to suck up water for sure and should be sealed
- this type of work is usually done because the original install is garbage; lets put something over the wall and then the water can't get in.
- the big problem area on these deals is the top end, and window sills; they usually leave the garbage defective capping on top of the wall, don't install flashing under any limestone capping at the top of the wall, or deal with the parapet attachments.
- it is highly unlikely this isn't a problem waiting to happen
- on something on like this always ask for manufacturer, brand, etc of product so you can look it up; from what you've said its unlikely but depending on type of stone and attachment it may need a compliant footing underneath
- also great easy ding is to take your torpedo level and set it on the sills to show they are back pitched; I state that as an obvious since its so rare I find sills pitched out

Judging by the rest of the house the rest of the brick was just fine (about 50 yrs old), they added the stone to "fancy it up".
They actually left the old sills in place and installed stone around them - this results in the stone actually protruding beyond the sills by up to an inch; creating another problem.

**Mark Reinmiller** · 11-06-2013, 09:23 PM

Originally Posted by Donal Hughes

The front façade of this house has a new stone veneer adhered to the original brick which I believe is adhered to cinderblock cmus. There are no weepholes at the base of the stone or at the base of the original brick. I cannot find any evidence of metal lathe having been used (see pic. of missing window sill.. Since this is in the Chicago area, we have a large temp. differential. Anyone out there know if this is a good system? Should a metal lathe/scratch coat have been used? Should the stone be sealed? Any help appreciated. (I've been trying to add pics, but cannot get them to upload - Sorry)

Masonry veneer over other masonry is common practice and can work fine. Lath is typically not used and neither are weep holes. Limestone can be a good veneer or junk, depending upon the particular qualities of the stone.

**Donal Hughes** · 11-06-2013, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by Mark Reinmiller

Masonry veneer over other masonry is common practice and can work fine. Lath is typically not used and neither are weep holes. Limestone can be a good veneer or junk, depending upon the particular qualities of the stone.

OK so here is my best guess as to wall section starting with the inside: 1/2" gypsum, 2x2 furring (may or may not have insulation in cavities), cmu (4"?), face brick (adhered to cmu and resting on same concrete foundation wall), 2" limestone adhered to brick (no evidence of lathe, no brick ledge and limestone unsealed). This creates a single, 3 layered masonry mass. Acceptable? Acceptable under certain conditions?

**Bob Elliott** · 11-08-2013, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by Donal Hughes

OK so here is my best guess as to wall section starting with the inside: 1/2" gypsum, 2x2 furring (may or may not have insulation in cavities), cmu (4"?), face brick (adhered to cmu and resting on same concrete foundation wall), 2" limestone adhered to brick (no evidence of lathe, no brick ledge and limestone unsealed). This creates a single, 3 layered masonry mass. Acceptable? Acceptable under certain conditions?

Hi Donal
If that was just done I would worry about future issues with adhesion and trapped water slipping in.
You already stated you discovered ledge issues so defer it to a Mason if unsure to be on the safe side as he needs to make those ledge corrections any how.

Water intrusion is a positive from what you describe.

**Donal Hughes** · 11-08-2013, 10:33 PM

Originally Posted by Bob Elliott

Hi Donal
If that was just done I would worry about future issues with adhesion and trapped water slipping in.
You already stated you discovered ledge issues so defer it to a Mason if unsure to be on the safe side as he needs to make those ledge corrections any how.

Water intrusion is a positive from what you describe.

Thanks Bob, I agree. I already referred them to a structural engineer. I never like it when the buyer asks me questions like "Would you buy the this house?" I would never answer such a question. Rather, I like to give them as much information as possible. This forum certainly helps.