MyFloridaCode.com

I find the title mis-leading. There are distinct differences between
"cementituous finishes" and stucco. You seem to be speaking of stucco which
is a three part application.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chandler Knowles" <chandlerknowles at att.net>
To: <codetalk at myfloridacode.com>
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 6:06 PM
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
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature database 3457 (20080919) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>