Fred,
I'll go through some of the items below.
FredSly wrote:House constructed in 1983 with what appears to be T-1-11 4X8 siding over wood frame with 1/2 CDX substrate. In 2005 the owner of the house has the home re-sided with paper back WL&S. applied directly over old T-1-11 siding with plastic beading used at corners (not rodded at corners).
Your description of installation of the stucco on paper-backed metal lath is typical of how many contractors installed that system in years past ... installed incorrectly ... but it was a common incorrect installation error.
Installing paper-backed metal lath directly over the substrate results in water/moisture getting where it was not intended to get: to the substrate. The paper-backing of the metal lath serves as a bond breaker between the stucco and the drainage plane, with the drainage plane being behind the paper-backing ... except that no drainage plane is installed when the paper-backed metal lath is installed directly on the substrate. The substrate, the T-1-11 plywood, becomes the drainage plane, and using wood as the drainage plane results in the wood rotting out.
The lack of a drainage plane may be why the engineer is referring to it as a surface barrier system; however, you need to refer to it as is an incorrectly installed drainage plane system (installed without a drainage plane).
The first reply to the engineer calling it a surface barrier system is to have the engineer provide a product approval, submitted and approved in 2004 as meeting the 2004 Florida Building Code (not a product approval submitted and approved retroactively as meeting the 2004 Florida Building Code) and for that product approval to specifically address "that specific system" (paper-backed metal lath with stucco, and the thickness of each of the stucco coats, a 3-coat system, and which specifies the "barrier coating" to be used, and the wet mills thickness of that coating, with the resulting dry mills thickness of the coating, and all details regarding the installation of each part of that "barrier" system).
IF ... a big IF ... if the engineer can produce a properly dated Florida product approval for that "barrier" system, then ... and only then ... can one determine if the initial installation of the "barrier" system was installed in accordance with that product approval. No properly submitted and approved in 2004 Florida product approval and what you have is an incorrectly installed drainage plane stucco system. If the initial installation did not meet or exceed all of the requirements in a Florida product approval, then there is no case for "owner maintenance" as an owner cannot "maintain" 'what is not there'.
I.e., a 2020 Florida product approval does not apply to a 2004 Florida Building Code installation.
Remove's all spindle type exterior railings/balconies /stairways to stucco cladded knee walls.
I'm not following the above part?
But ... "stucco cladded knee walls" ... I am envisioning what could also be described as a parapet wall, with stucco up one or two sides and with stucco on the top ... stucco is not a 'roofing material', those walls need to have a coping over the top of them, without a proper coping on those walls, water will go through the stucco and rot the wall framing out.
Horizontal/Vertical plane intersections have no weep for stucco buckets conditions, no weep screeds/expansions joints/ dissimilar material interfaces etc. or a complete disregard for typical ASTM C926 & C1063 requirements.
I'm not completely following the "Horizontal/Vertical plane intersections" - stucco is not suitable for exposed up horizontal use (see the above regarding knee walls/parapet walls); stucco is suitable for horizontal ceiling surfaces and the like (such as the bottom/underside of arches and openings. No weep screed is needed there as the water/moisture is weeping down the drainage plane behind the stucco on the vertical surfaces, and continues to weep down and out the bottom horizontal surface.
Weep screeds are needed where stucco system with a drainage plane ends and transitions to a different system, such as the bottom of a wall at the foundation (foundation weep screed); ends above a roof (foundation weep screed); at a transition to a storage system such as where a frame second story is over a masonry first story (a special mid-wall weep screed which weeps out and also provides a control joint -
https://amicoglobal.com/wp-content/uplo ... ochure.pdf - scroll down to page 8, document page 10/20, top figure).
... 2 years later in 2016 client starts some remodeling work that uncovered severe water intrusion, wood rot with significant exterior wall structural damage.
That is because, per your description of the paper-backed metal lath having been applied directly to the substrate (the wood T-1-11 siding).
Client has filed a failure to disclose lawsuit against seller for the water intrusion/structural issues. Sellers experts claim (engineering company) that stucco system applied in 2006 is a “Face Sealed Barrier Wall System” and that during the time that that the client owned the home they failed to maintain the structure in a manner outlined in the Florida Lath & Plaster Bureau Technical Bulletin TB-ST-04-12 “Stucco Building Maintenance” and not performing crack repairs.
What date is on TB-ST-04-12? The Technical Bulletin is TB-ST #4, the "12" is the date (the is still listed as TB-ST-04-12 for the Spanish language bulletin; the English language bulletin is now shown as TB‐ST‐#04‐03.21 - meaning it has been updated since 2012). They are trying to apply a 2012 technical bulletin to a time before 2012? That's like trying to apply a 2020 Florida product approval to a 2004 installed system.
The above said, though, what I stated previously still applies: "Stucco & Building Exterior Maintenance" one can only "maintain" what was there initially, if something or some part of the system was not there, or was there improperly (i.e., "not there"), then one cannot "maintain" what is not there.
Since there is no permit/design drawings/specifications/NOA etc. for the new façade in 2006 (2004 code in affect) for the so called “Face Sealed barrier Wall” how do I determine if this “system” is an approved method.
"You" don't have to show that was an approved method, the engineer has to show that what he/she is referencing was (first and foremost) a Florida product approved system; (and second) that the system they are stating was there ... was actually there ( in all of its details and requirements). Otherwise, the default system as stated in the code is what should have been installed at that time.
2004 Florida Building Code, Residential, see R703.6 Exterior Plaster, that is the code default stucco system. For other systems, see 104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment, including 104.11.1 Research reports. and 104.11.2 Tests.
A footnote; the last paragraph of the aforementioned “Stucco Institute’s” Sealed Cladding Article that these systems “require the elimination of plastic type corner beads with inhibitive flange embedment properties” , plastic corner beads were used everywhere as well as horizontal plastic M style expansion joints.
That does not prohibit the use of plastic accessories, just plastic accessories "with inhibitive flange embedment properties" (such as solid flanges and perforated flanges with holes too small for the stucco to fully key into and through).
It as also states; “stucco contractor to provide the waterproofing contractor the grooves and reliefs necessary to obtain a subsequent seal with a quality sealant”. No grooves were presented.
I suspect that is referring to providing 'gaps' for the sealant where dissimilar surfaces meet, such as stucco at windows, doors, and other penetrations. Dissimilar surfaces need to have a gap/space suitable for the sealant to be used, many/most likely require a 1/4" gap, and as with all sealants ('caulks' is the general term used, but 'cheap caulks' do not really seal anything, they just 'fill gaps'), sealants have limited elasticity, and should be applied such they the sealant only adheres to two surfaces, with a bond breaker tape of other bond breaker means at the back of the joint. If a "gap" is filled with sealant, the sealant will adhere to both sides AND the back, and with the sealant adhered to the back of the gap, the elasticity of the sealant to move between the two sides of the gap is now stopped, the sealant simply pulls loose from one or both sides of the gap, making the sealant ineffective (like a 'cheap caulk' just filling the gap).
It is also goes on to mention coating which I assume are the coating mentioned in aforementioned “Stucco Institutes” NOA for their “Sealed Wall System”. The paint applied appears to be regular exterior latex grade coatings without doing an lab tests or deposing painting contractor.
Further reason that the Florida product approval for the system is required as it would clearly state what type of coating is required to be used for the "barrier", and its applied wet mills thickness and ultimate dry mill thickness. Applying a specified coating 'too thin' is essentially little different than not applying the coating at all.
If the engineer wants to hang their hat on the "barrier" system aspect, then the engineer must ... MUST ... must provide the Florida product approval for that system, otherwise the code's default "Exterior Plaster" applies. The Florida product approval is typically what the Building Official would use to determine that the 104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment meets the requirements of the code. No product approval and the Building Official typically goes to the following code sections: 104.11.1 Research reports. and 104.11.2 Tests ... keeping in mind that 104.11.2 Tests states "... the building official shall have the authority to require tests evidence of compliance to be made at no expense to the jurisdiction." Alternative materials, means and methods are allowed, but the cost burden in on the contractor/owner/specifier/etc ... NOT on the jurisdiction.