MyFloridaCode.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Olds" <rolds at bellsouth.net>
To: "Mark Cramer" <mcramer1 at tampabay.rr.com>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Florida Code Talk] Cementitious Finish


> The FBCR does not address stucco or cementitous coating. Nor does it list
as
> a reference the ASTM concerning the coating. Simply put, do not apply
stucco
> over wood frame residences. The residential code is silent for this
reason.
> In chapter 1 of the FBC one and two family residences are referred over to
> the FBCR. Changing back and forth between the 2 is not in the sprit of the
> code and I believe would not be defendable if ever challenged. Once
referred
> into the FBCR, one must remain there. As for the FBC concerning commercial
> buildings stucco and ASTM  is referenced. Different ball game.....
> Richard Olds
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Cramer" <mcramer1 at tampabay.rr.com>
> To: <codetalk at myfloridacode.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 6:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [Florida Code Talk] Cementitious Finish
>
>
> > You misunderstood what I was attempting to say, which is, you can't
apply
> a
> > "decorative cementitous coating" as defined in the FBC over wood. I
DIDN"T
> > say you can't apply stucco over wood.
> >
> > The contractor in original question is maintaining that what he applied
> over
> > wood framing is a decorative cementitous coating, not stucco, and
> therefore
> > doesn't have to meet code requirements for stucco.
> >
> > Mark Cramer
> > Mark Cramer Inspection Services, Inc.
> > 492 20th Ave.
> > Indian Rocks Beach, FL 33785
> > 727-595-4211
> > http://www.BestTampaInspector.com
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com
> > [mailto:codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com] On Behalf Of Chandler
Knowles
> > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 6:07 PM
> > To: codetalk at myfloridacode.com
> > Subject: Re: [Florida Code Talk] Cementitious Finish
> >
> > Sorry, but I beg to differ.  You can't SUPPORT concrete or masonry with
> > wood -- only masonry, concrete or steel.  But stucco is not a structural
> > element.
> >
> > Cement stucco is applied all the time over wood framed walls on metal
> lath.
> > Stucco is exterior plaster.  Unfortunately, there is not as much in the
> > Codes as there is in manuals of good practice.  I always reference the
> > standards (and suggestions) of the Portland Cement Association for
stucco
> on
> >
> > plans and in contracts.  BTW, EIFS is not stucco.
> >
> > I don't use OSB or Tyvex/housewrap for, what I believe to be, good
reasons
> > so I think the basics of your problem start there (only plywood and
> > asphaltic felt or a butyl based peel and stick).  If the house isn't
> > moisture proof before the stucco goes on, it won't be after the stucco
is
> > applied.
> >
> > The most "dangerous" areas of a stucco job are the openings in the walls
> and
> >
> > where it joins dissimilar surfaces.  These places have to be handled
> > properly or the system will leak.  I wouldn't dream of using cement
stucco
> > without using expansion joints and other stucco accessories but their
> > placement requires some consideration and it is difficult to have hard
and
> > fast rules for locations.  A general rule is no more than 600 SF without
> > expansion joints.  The lath at opening corners must be butterfly
> reinforced
> > or cracks will happen there too.
> >
> > There is a lot of ignorance in our industry about cement products of all
> > kinds and stucco is right up there at the top of the list.
> >
> > Chandler Knowles
> > Construction Manager
> > Pensacola, FL
> >
> >
> > .  ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mark Cramer" <mcramer1 at tampabay.rr.com>
> > To: "'codetalk'" <codetalk at myfloridacode.com>
> > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 4:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Florida Code Talk] Cementitious Finish
> >
> >
> > > You can't apply a decorative cementitous finish over wood framing.
Only
> > > over
> > > masonry.
> > >
> > >>From the 2001 code: DECORATIVE CEMENTITIOUS COATING. A skim coat, as
> > >>defined
> > > in ASTM C 926,
> > > of portland cement based plaster applied to concrete or masonry
surfaces
> > > intended for cosmetic purposes.
> > >
> > >
> > > BOAF interpretations:
> > >
> > > BOAF #2290
> > > Date: Fri Feb 28 2003
> > > Report #: 2290
> > > Code: Building
> > > Section: 2504
> > > Question:
> > > Is it the intent of 2504, by its reference to ASTM C926 - Table 1, to
> > > require 7/8" thickness, for stucco
> > > applied over wood framing, even if elastomeric paint is applied on top
> of
> > > the stucco?
> > > Answer:
> > > Yes, and it is required to be three coat work.
> > > Commentary:
> > > ASTM C926 is the application standard for stucco, with or without an
> > > elastomeric paint topcoat.
> > >
> > >
> > > BOAF Report #: 4198
> > > Code: Building
> > > Section: R703.1, R703.6
> > > Question:
> > > Is it the intent of sections R703.1, 703.6 and the 2005 Supplement
> section
> > > 703.11 to disallow Decorative
> > > Cementitious Coatings other than official cement plaster (stucco)
> compling
> > > with ASTM C 926?
> > > Answer:
> > > Decorative Cementitious Coatings, as defined in Section R202, are skim
> > > coats
> > > and would not meet any of
> > > the standards found in 703.1 or Table 703.11 of the 2005 Supplement.
> > > Commentary:
> > > The building official may accept the manufacturer's specifications and
> > > installation instructions for other
> > > coatings provided they are equivalent (or greater) in weather
resistance
> > > to
> > > those items specified.
> > >
> > >
> > > It's stucco. Even if it wasn't, it's a moot point as it's failed to
keep
> > > water out of the wall.
> > >
> > >
> > > Mark Cramer
> > > Mark Cramer Inspection Services, Inc.
> > > 492 20th Ave.
> > > Indian Rocks Beach, FL 33785
> > > 727-595-4211
> > > http://www.BestTampaInspector.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com
> > > [mailto:codetalk-bounces at myfloridacode.com] On Behalf Of Jack Wingo
> > > Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 4:20 PM
> > > To: codetalk
> > > Subject: [Florida Code Talk] Cementitious Finish
> > >
> > > Hello To All,
> > > A 2 story house built in 2002 after the 2001 FBC became effective.
> > > First floor walls are poured concrete and second floor walls are frame
> > > with OSB sub-siding, Tyvek, wire lath with an under coating of what
> > > appears to be 1 or 2 coats of plaster.  Both 1st and 2nd floor walls
> > > have what appears to be a stucco finish, that was painted.  The 2nd
> > > floor walls have no expansion joints and no weep screed.  The
homeowners
> > > have complainted to the builder about water intrusion from wind driven
> > > rains.  After tropical storm Fay, stalled in our area for several day,
> > > while dumping several inches of rain, the homeowner removed some
> > > sections of drywall on the 2nd floor exterior walls.  There is
extension
> > > water damage to the sub-siding and damage to some wall studs.
> > > During a meeting with the builder and the homeowner, I handed the
> > > builder a copy of code 2504.2 Exterior Lathing and Plastering, a copy
of
> > > ASTM C 926 and ASTM C 1063, and some pages from the Portland Cement
> > > Association's "Plaster/Stucco Manuel".  The builder stated he was not
> > > obligated to the ASTM requirements because he applied a decorative
> > > cementitious finish in lieu of stucco.  I ask for the name of
> > > manufacturer, but he refused to provide that information.  He simply
> > > stated he was not require to install expansion joints and weep screed,
> > > although he is now on homes he is presently building.
> > > My questions include, what or who determines if a product is stucco or
> > > decorative cementitious finish and no matter what the exterior finish
> > > may be, wouldn't the requirements of expansion joints and weep creed,
> > > still be required?
> > > Your assistance will be greatly appreciated.
> > > Jack Wingo
> > > Melbourne Beach, FL
> > > -------------- next part --------------
> > > A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> > > Name: wing6790.vcf
> > > Type: text/x-vcard
> > > Size: 166 bytes
> > > Desc: not available
> > > Url :
> > >
> >
>
http://myfloridacode.com/pipermail/codetalk/attachments/20080919/1f74b75f/at
> > > tachment.vcf
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CodeTalk mailing list
> > > CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
> > > Unsubscribe or change your options at:
> > > http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > CodeTalk mailing list
> > > CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
> > > Unsubscribe or change your options at:
> > > http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CodeTalk mailing list
> > CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
> > Unsubscribe or change your options at:
> > http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CodeTalk mailing list
> > CodeTalk at myfloridacode.com
> > Unsubscribe or change your options at:
> > http://myfloridacode.com/mailman/listinfo/codetalk
>