StevenT

The photos provoke more questions than answers. I see quite a bit of cold patches indicating crack "Repairs". So my first is were the cracks cut and repaired or simply smeared with "cream cheese" to hide the cracks. Look closely, cracks will reappear before long if not properly repaired. If the installation is 100 years old, We are looking at plank sheathing as compared to plywood. Plank sheathing can take more water than plywood. The amount of cracks bothers me, especially considering we are looking at a limited area. It is important to determine if the stucco is adequately adhered to the structure, or is the only thing holding the stucco to the structure; the stucco itself. I would suggest moisture content testing to determine if/how much water is getting behind the system, at the same time testing the resistance of the wood sheathing. Core tests would also let you know what is there, especially below that window. Regarding other details, sealants, etc... more information needed as well as up close examination. Structurally speaking, if you determine that all is strong and stable, that is great. Cosmetically speaking, I think the only salvation would be a fresh coat (with mesh) of stucco, or another cladding, possibly EIFS or another alternative. Included should be WRB, flashing, etc., I lean towards liquid applied.

I also thing it looks like cast cement, regardless, I would certainly plan on repair/replacement some time in the future, and would negotiate accordingly.

I see the open void you are referring to (at the secondary kickout). Is it a flashing issue or roofing issue? I believe a flashing issue is a roofing issue. At this point it is a sealing issue. I think it is really a job-site superintendent issue. If the super would have been on the ball, he would have caught it from the get-go. I see this condition quite often, regardless of the type of system.

There should be drainage at the bottom of the EIFS and a through wall flashing protecting the lintel.

Hats are okay. Panties are another story that gets a bit hairy.

Would this be double wythe? Click to Enlarge 82.43 KB Click to Enlarge 78.99 KB

steeping bathtub, used as Jim described.

Are you recommending the home be condemned?

Tomorrow's evaluation is even better. 3000 sf home on the beach (Long Island Sound). The new GC called me and explaind that the rear of the house (which overlooks the Sound has eroded and is taking in water. He added that 3 other... contractors ("experts") attempted to "fix" the problem and were unable to. Currently, someone installed vinyl siding over the EIFS to attempt (unsuccessfully) to keep the water out. I have been asked to evaluate the entire home and oversee the design and installation of the new watershed/system. Tomorrow the vinyl is being removed and if there is anything else I see. There will be people there to remove any portions I request. Today (3,000 sf, with a helper) took 9 hours.

Photo 1 is a one family home built in circa 1993. It was originally 100% EIFS (Barrier). As per homeowner, approx 8 years ago (approx) 50% of the EIFS was replaced with MSV.

Hi Erby, It's fine to disagree, and i don't doubt you since you looked at the entire site up close and I only see a few pics of what I assumed represented the troubled area. In the pics I see, I clearly notice a failed kickout being fed by quite a bit of roof and dead valley. It was wrong of me to assume that the photos were highlighting the troubled area. Sometimes it's quite tricky and almost impossible to confirm complete wrb(s). Sometimes it's easier to deny. Usually I find suggestions as to what is there, since my opinion is most often based upon a representative number of probes, and the declared assumption that what is found in one area is usually an indication of how the entire job was done. I usually take core samples (if helpful at various heights). This is today's evaluation. Click to Enlarge 75.4 KB This is one of today's core samples. What I confirmed at this location is a single layer of tarpaper. If I would have found two layers, I would have taken an additional sample at a different height to attempt to confirm or deny that I was (wasn't) on an overlap. Additionally, since I was near the bottom of the system, an overlap would have been less likely. Click to Enlarge 72.01 KB This is a second core sample that confirmed EPS adhesively attached directly on plywood (no wrb) Click to Enlarge 64.85 KB Here is another: Click to Enlarge 46.42 KB

MSV follows the same rules as Stucco. The primary point of failure is the missing kickout flashing. So whatever they do, if that is not corrected it will recur. A kickout flashing can be installed without ripping everything off. How is everything else? How many wrb(s) are there?

Wondering is good and promotes discussion. What do you think may go wrong? @Iowa- Regardless of if you are going over or installing new, a double barrier is needed to promote drainage. I like a primary liquid barrier because nothing will get behind it (if installed/prepared correctly). I don't like OSB so much. Bear in mind the further you get away from the tree; the more damage/effect less water will cause.

If... I were to attempt what you have in mind, and IF... the stucco is over wood lath, I would handle that as if it were a wood substrate and apply 2 new layers of moisture barrier. Perhaps the first would be a liquid applied, and then the second could be something like tar paper (etc). This would be to provide a drainage plane. The idea is that is you don't want the building to leak, make it waterproof before you apply the new cladding.

If there is no EPS, than it is not EIFS. It may be the same polymer base basecoat, mesh and finish coat used in EIFS, but without the EPS it is not EIFS. In which case the symptom seen is the cracking of the cmu(s). If there is EPS, my thoughts are that the EPS is adhesivly attached to the cmu(s), and once again the symptom we see is the cracking of the cmu(s).