Face Sealed barrier wall

[FredSly]

FBC Residential 2004 Chapter 14: Does this code address "Face Sealed barrier wall systems". I cannot find anywhere, were it addresses this in particular other than 1404, thank you .

[Jerry Peck - Codeman]

Chapter 14 of the 2004 Florida Building Code, Residential, addresses Heating and Cooling Equipment.

Are you meaning EIFS systems?

There are two basic types of EIFS systems: a) drainage systems ... which work similar to Portland cement stucco systems in that there is (is supposed to be) a drainage plane behind the cladding system; b) barrier systems ... which are supposed to work by having a finish coating which is "the" "barrier" intended to stop water from getting past 'the barrier'.

[FredSly]

Jerry thank you for getting to this timely. No to EFIS. I have an engineering firm is stating that a "Face-sealed barrier wall" is an approved method for a wood frame wire lath and stucco assembly. This would be similar to an article by Stucco Institute found here: https://stuccoinstitute.com/sealed-stucco-system-3/ Hope this helps.

[Jerry Peck - Codeman]

No to EFIS. I have an engineering firm is stating that a "Face-sealed barrier wall" is an approved method for a wood frame wire lath and stucco assembly. This would be similar to an article by Stucco Institute found here: https://stuccoinstitute.com/sealed-stucco-system-3/

The "Stucco Institute" is Bob Koning's site and is his latest effort to justify installing stucco without a drainage plane, or as Bob refers to it 'as the old way'.

The 'old way' had many failures over the years, and Hurricane Andrew exposed some of those failures when the stucco was removed for repairs to the wall behind, and when wall sections were set aside and rebuilt.

This is from the Stucco Institute's link you posted: "Migrating water carries migrating salts and the migrating salts create rusting of the metal lath behind the stucco plane."

The metal lath is not supposed to be "behind" the stucco plane. The stucco is supposed to be applied such that the metal lath is fully encapsulated and embedded in the stucco as the metal lath is what 'holds the stucco up' as the stucco keys into and around the metal lath. I have not seen fully embedded metal lath rust, but it may be possible. All of the rusted/rusting metal lath I have seen was where the metal lath was "behind" the stucco (the metal lath was exposed and not fully encapsulated and embedded in the stucco.

Bob has been promoting that system (a barrier system) for a long time in defending contractors who had stucco issues from not doing stucco the 'old way with a drainage plane' as it was to have been done.

Bob has stated that his research shows validity for his barrier system, and it may, I am not disputing that it may.

However, that link also says "Accordingly, stucco systems in Florida need a “face barrier system” which includes proper sealants of all penetrations.", and when stucco is done the 'old way with a drainage plane with the metal lath is fully encapsulated and embedded in the stucco', those systems have not been proven to fail, and thus the use of the word "need" in that statement may not be the most accurate word or term to use. It may entirely be possible that both a properly done drainage system, and a properly done barrier system, will work.

The term “face barrier system” is nothing more than a "barrier" system in that the system has a "barrier" applied to the surface.

This part in that link says it all - keeping in mind that the link makes references to, and implications that quality application and that properly trained stucco contractors has declined over time:

"The details and protocols contained in the Sealed Cladding System Installation specifications restore the time-old traditions of quality installation. They require the elimination of plastic-type corner beads with inhibitive flange embedment properties. They require the stucco contractor to provide the waterproofing contractor the grooves and reliefs necessary to obtain a subsequent seal with a quality sealant. They require the coating to be installed to the proper thickness using proper methodology. They specify the sealant type and grade. But most importantly, they require the work be done by way of someone trained to either install or supervise the installation of the system to ensure uncompromising quality and performance."

The paragraph above emphasizes that the "Sealed Cladding System Installation specifications restore the time-old traditions of quality installation.", and that "most importantly, they require the work be done by way of someone trained to either install or supervise the installation of the system to ensure uncompromising quality".

My question becomes this: if stucco contractors must be properly trained and skilled to apply the "Sealed Cladding System", why not just go back to the referred to old ways and require stucco contractor be properly trained and skilled in the application of the traditional drainage plane stucco system?

If it is a matter of requiring skilled and trained contractors and workers, why try to re-train them in a new sysstem? Why not just mandate that stucco contractors and workers be trained, skilled, and licensed in the application of the stucco system they are installing and applying?

To me, the obvious result of requiring skilled and trained contractors and workers for a new "Sealed Cladding System" will end, over time, the same as happened with the old-fashioned drainage plane system ... the required training will diminish and the skills will diminish with each new way of wave or stucco contractors and workers, and any supposed 'advantage' of a new system will be lost in the same way that training and skills diminished with the drainage plane stucco system.

Relying a a "barrier" to 'stop all water from penetrating' may last until the very first fastener is put through that barrier; or the very first damage, cut, scratch; or the very first replacement of a penetrating item (hose bibb, lighting fixture, dryer vent, window or door, etc).

If the engineering firm signs and seals it, get a copy of their insurance, as that may be your first line of recourse; followed by the same for the contractor who is installing and applying the system - also have them provide a warranty bond (basically that they will come back and repair what needs to be repaired due to defects in material and workmanship), and a performance bond (basically that they will perform in accordance with the contract).

[FredSly]

Thank you Jerry for your answer much appreciated. I am aware of Bob K's position since his axe is ground in that way. Curiously however in his last paragraph Bob mentions the " Sealed Cladding System Installation Specifications". I would assume he is referring to his, "Sealed Cladding System" that has received Florida Product Approval FL# 30710. [url]FL30710_R2_II_UGL19001.2 2020 FBC Eval DRYLOK Extreme final.pdf[/url]. This system appears to be nothing more than a "Coating" and not a "System" , can you opine on that? Other than this approved method are you aware of any other reference in the 2004 FBC Residential Code that deals with "Sealed Systems" ? I hope I am articulating this in manner that is correct, if not my apologies, TY

[Jerry Peck - Codeman]

Fred,

First, a question: you've referred to the 2004 Florida Building Code, but are applying a newer method - if New work is being done, the current Florida Building Code Edition would be applicable.

[FredSly]

I have a 3 story, coastal constructed wood frame wire lath and stucco project done during the 2004 code cycle that has experienced sever water intrusion issues. The opposing party has had an engineering firm say that the reason for the damage was caused by the homeowner's neglect in maintaining a "barrier wall system". I personally have always understood a "barrier wall system" as one that would be similar to a granite or limestone cladding and or original EFIS style cladding, not a "wire lath and stucco" system.

[Jerry Peck - Codeman]

The opposing party has had an engineering firm say that the reason for the damage was caused by the homeowner's neglect in maintaining a "barrier wall system".

Ah ... your first step is to obtain a copy of the approve construction documents from the building department.

Those documents ... and only those documents ... state what was approved to have been done, and the "how" the building was required to have been constructed.

ANYTHING done differently than was approved on/in/by those documents is not in compliance with the code at the time as the code at the time basically says that any construction done not in accordance with the approved documents is required to have amended documents submitted for approval.

[FredSly]

This was a remodel/recladding of a wood sided structure. Unfortunately the only records that can be found by the AHJ are the permit application that says: EXTERIOR REMODEL- ADD NEW FACADE.

[Jerry Peck - Codeman]

Is it an older house with the stucco over the original wood exterior being done in 2004; or is it a 2004 house and the stucco was done later?

No other electronic or paper permit information, or older information on microfiche?

What city/county?

Have you brought out a stucco contractor to take core samples to show what was used and to identify each layer of the application? You may be equipped to take the core samples yourself, however, you will want a stucco contractor with you to make proper repairs where the core samples were taken.

You need to be able to document what the core samples show was done "on that specific" house, not set up a discussion about what was 'supposed' to be there or how it 'typically' was done at the time - you want to be able to show 'these are core samples from (give location on wall and which wall each sample was taken from), and the core samples show (what was found at each core sample location, and the consistency or inconsistency of what was found - inconsistency in core samples shows an inconsistency in the work, and inconsistency in the work is not good; consistency in the work can be used as an indicator of what was done ... whether done right or wrong).

If you find consistency in the core samples, then you can show that the core sample consistencies indicates the following system was installed (then describe the system), and that system is in compliance/not in compliance with the requirements stated in the code at the time of installation/application.

But there are a lot of unknowns right now.

[FredSly]

Jerry,

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). Remove's all spindle type exterior railings/balconies /stairways to stucco cladded knee walls. 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. The owner of the house at the time 2005 thru & 2014 had the house is painted twice 2010 and 2014 with some on crack repairs and repointing of sealants, resealing windows /doors and stucco delamination repairs reported by the neighbors. 2014 my client purchase property. 2 years later in 2016 client starts some remodeling work that uncovered severe water intrusion, wood rot with significant exterior wall structural damage. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

I hope this gives a clearer picture and thank you again for you very generous time.

[Jerry Peck - Codeman]

Fred,

I'll go through some of the items below.

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.

[FredSly]

Jerry,

Thank you so much for opining on this for me and being patient with my description. You area treasure trove of information.

Here is a web site that explains my reference to the term "Stucco Bucket" a vertical plane/horizontal plane intersection. https://www.jlconline.com/how-to/exteriors/avoiding-stucco-buckets_o

Again thank you for taking the time to respond, very much appreciated!