MyFloridaCode.com

Bob is making a very good point.  A number of expert will advise using the term "decorative cementitious coating" rather than "stucco" for the very reasons he lists.  That hasn't caught on yet, but someone only needs to get sued once.

Lee Martin
Gobbell Hays Partners, Inc.
407 276-2852 
-------------- Original message from "Bob Koning" <Bob at ContractorsInstitute.com>: -------------- 


> Jack, the situation you have encountered is all too familiar with many 
> of us. The question however is complicated in its scope. 
> 
> First, the water intrusion problem the owner is experiencing relates to 
> violations of the code concerning interstitial water intrusion - rather 
> than improper stucco application and I believe the owner should seek 
> primary recourse along that path (secondary recourse is the stucco and 
> waterproofing issues). 
> 
> As to your question, I have been in many court cases where this issue 
> has been litigated, and there are no exact answers. Yes, if stucco is 
> applied according to the Florida building code then it must meet the 
> requirements of ASTM C-926. But what if the stucco is not being applied 
> pursuant to code requirements, i.e., it is simply being applied as a 
> decoration? Herein lies the problem. 
> 
> If stucco is a being applied for fire resistance value, or is being used 
> for its shear value, or is being applied over "open" framing members, 
> then it must meet that requirement. If it is not used for any of these 
> purposes - then it falls outside of the code requirements. It is 
> decoration. (read the 553 mandate for the code and the purpose of the 
> code) 
> 
> Consider the requirements over masonry block. The code requirement 
> would mandate a minimum of 1/2" thickness. Blocks however need 
> absolutely no stucco requirement in order to attain C/O. Then why 1/2" 
> thick? Absence the requirement for additional wall shear, or fire 
> resistance value there is no reason for such thickness. Therefore the 
> code defined a "decorative cementitious coating" to eliminate this 
> requirement since it was being applied by people in the field who failed 
> to understand that the ASTM documents are not Florida specific. They are 
> meant to be read by technical trades who interpret them. 
> 
> Likewise goes the argument for a fully structurally sheathed frame wall 
> in Florida. You could simply paint a plywood exterior sheathed wall, 
> and receive the certificate of occupancy. All shear value, fire value, 
> and water resistant value being attained without any other product 
> (other than the required coating or stain for waterproof integrity). At 
> this point all code requirements have been met. So what if the owner did 
> not like painted plywood, or painted OSB? We could simply nail some 
> vinyl siding over a waterproof underlayment and pass inspection. Or we 
> could simply trowel some stucco for cosmetics over the plywood. But of 
> course, stucco does not stick to plywood and it is not watertight. 
> Therefore we need an effective water management barrier and metal lath 
> to serve as a mechanical "key" to hold the stucco on. At this point it 
> matters not (with this specific wall framing condition) the thickness of 
> the stucco. By the nature of its installation it will be approximately 
> half an inch thick. So if a product is being applied for cosmetics, and 
> not subject to the requirements of the code, does it need to follow the 
> code reference document? The argument continues. 
> 
> What is a fact is that either an effective water management system such 
> as 15 pound felt, stucco wrap, peel and stick must be used under the 
> stucco, and a means of letting the water drain out once the water 
> management system carries it down to its termination (this is what is 
> missing in your application, along with I am sure insufficient or 
> nonexistent window flashing) or the other option of a face barrier 
> system. This system prevents any water from getting behind the stucco. 
> Obviously this is a far more complex system and must employ correct 
> coating materials as well as correct sealants. Any windows will probably 
> need to be pulled and reset with a proper pan. 
> 
> There are thousands and thousands of houses in Florida that perform 
> perfectly well with stucco over these fully sheathed frame walls. Most 
> were painted to the correct mil thickness by painters with rollers and 
> brushes (not airless sprayers) and many have been painted several times. 
> Either way there is a quasi face barrier system created. These houses 
> have performed without the weep screed's or expansion joints. 
> Nonetheless your house is not quite one and not quite the other. 
> 
> (note; I am not against air-less sprayers used by a competent painter. 
> The fact remains however, that if you test many new homes in the field, 
> it is not un-common to find 1/2 to 2/3 of the required mill thickness 
> missing) 
> 
> As for expansion joints, they are required by the ASTM documents, 
> "unless otherwise specified". We always make sure to specify them out. 
> They cause far more harm than good and if you think about it cannot 
> provide any expansion mechanism when the metal lath is nailed 7 inches 
> vertically - 16 inches horizontally on center. The available panel for 
> expansion could not exceed 16 inches in width. 
> 
> What we need to do in our Florida environment is mandate the requirement 
> of peel and stick on all residential exterior wall and roof areas that 
> have wood sheathing that is to be covered with any other material. 
> 
> IMHO, 
> 
> R.J.Koning - Director 
> Contractors Institute 
> rjkoning at contractorsinstitute.com 
> 8301 Joliet Street 
> Hudson, Fl 34667 
> 727-863-5147 
> 
> 
> 
> -----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/20080919/1f74b75 
> f/attachment.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 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://myfloridacode.com/pipermail/codetalk/attachments/20080925/76fc10f7/attachment.html