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).

Disconnect, wrap with black tape, reconnect.

Shark bites are great and I've used them quite a bit. I'm able to remove them by hand and without the special tool. The only thing to bear in mind when using Sharkbites is that they do not conduct electricity, so if applicable they must be bonded over to maintain continuity..

I regularly inspect MSV. Its installation and evaluation is similar to stucco, so when evaluating it, look for the same. Like Mark, I seldom (occasionally) find signs of water damage when evaluating MSV, which may be because MSV usually covers less area as compared to EIFS (or other claddings). Most water infiltration originates at penetrations and transitions. Windows are the most frequent penetrations. More area usually means more windows to allow for water intrusion.

I have the same ladder and I don't like it at all. I find it difficult to open to full extension unless it's on the ground, and then it is a two man job to tilt it up. It's also difficult to adjust to lesser heights while standing. I much prefer a traditional extension ladder with a rope, that can be easily adjusted while standing. Maybe I'm using it wrong. Did you extend yours in place or did you extend it and then tip it up?

I sympathize with your knee jerking and it was the same jerking that drove me to learn about EIFS. In the early 90's, even before I considered becoming an inspector I was involved in a construction company and we began using EIFS. It was amazing! Cheap, fast, and hid a ton of sins. I thought it was the greatest invention since sliced bread. After the problems caused by installing it directly onto wood began to develop we stopped using it and my new feeling was that I wouldn't use it to clad a dog house [even]. When I began inspecting houses I would get an occasional call to identify EIFS or inspect an EIFS house. I found myself in a peculiar position. Was I going to condemn a house or houses as I was pulled into the driveway before I even stepped out of my truck! Was I supposed to tell my client upon arrival that the house "failed" and they should run away? [And please pay me for the inspection] Or should I keep my opinion to myself, do a dog and pony show inspection and then tell them to run away? (And please pay me for the inspection). I knew that I could not operate this way. I also considered being sued by an irate seller for killing the sale of his home simply based upon feelings with nothing to back it up. Remember; not every EIFS system fails and with new installation techniques, and if installed properly, EIFS is a good, energy efficient watershed. I decided that I had to be fair and that I would have to evaluate each home based on its own merit. A couple of years ago during an EIFS litigation I was hired by a Homeowner's Association at the expense of the developer to evaluate a building. As soon as I arrived at the building I realized what the EIFS problem was. (There were also water infiltration problems that were not EIFS related, although everything was being blamed on the EIFS.) This building had vertical planks installed over the EIFS. Each plank was attached to the building with a bracket held off the EIFS approx. 6". Each with a 3/4" rod penetrating the EIFS. In addition to other penetrations there were approx. 800 bolt penetrations, some were sealed, most were not, some were poorly sealed. Feeling like the hero, I immediately told the developer my opinion. I was amazed when he responded that he "was not interested in my opinion" and "wanted proof". I developed an appliance and began my testing. Anyway, as I said, my goal is to base my evaluations (and opinions) upon proof (actual testing) whenever possible. My experience has taught me; 1. The least important part of an EIFS inspection is the visible EIF itself. It is much more important to determine the effect that the "S" (system) is having on the structure. 2. Not everything done "wrong" fails and not everything done "right" does not fail. 3. Not every Barrier system fails and not every Drainable system does not fail. 4. When a EIF System fails, it is rarely the entire system that fails, but rather some individual areas that are effected, which in many cases can be corrected. 5. In many cases when EIFS is repaired, the repair is limited to the cosmetic/surface, with little to no attention given to the cause of the failure. So many times the symptoms recur. 6. A reliable EIFS evaluation is based upon moisture content testing. Evaluations based upon thermal imaging are not reliable and have little value. When I include thermal imaging when doing an evaluation, it is normally from the inside out. When I scan from the outside, I perform the scans well after sundown. I also realize: 1. Every cladding system has installation specifications. 2. Any cladding system that is installed "wrong" can fail. 3. Many of the same conditions that plague EIFS also plague other cladding systems. Actually, my knees jerk more when I see a brick veneer system than when I see EIFS. How many of us look for weep holes? How many times do we see a BV wall missing weep holes? And from those that have weep holes, how many are missing through wall flashing? The list goes on? I have a question. Since I almost never see a failure in the middle of an EIF wall, and since most failures occur at a transition; If there is a failure due to what I call a "non EIFS specific" reason. For instance lack of a kickout flashing (the same thing that would cause many systems to fail), Is it the EIF that failed? If it seems I am defending EIFS, I am not. I just want to bring to your attention that the devil is not limited to EIFS. Each and every cladding system has its installation specifications and failures. EIFS is by far the most famous but does not stand alone. Where EIFS does stand alone is that it is the most energy efficient system. Some new building codes require a continuous layer of outsulation. Isn't that essentially what makes EIFS EIFS? Actually, I do not like EIFS, but my reason is different. I do not care for the hollow sound. But I also do not like vinyl siding, metal roofs, etc. for the same or similar reasons. They may work very well but I just don't like them. I also don't like cars with so many plastic parts, plastic bottles, silicone implants, etc. They may look nice but just don't feel right. It is a pity that EIFS has this stigma and I believe it is due to problems it had in the past when it first began to be used on wooden buildings. By the way, masonry building with EIFS also have problems if not installed properly. Here's another tidbit to think about; The outer walls and roof of Joe Lstiburek's home are continuously covered with 2 layers (staggered seams) of EPS outsulation. Hmmm? OK, I'm done... for now.

I agree with Scott about the improper preparation of the fasteners. They could have been set too deep and or the basecoat was improperly applied. Maybe they tried to apply the basecoat and cover the fasteners in one coat. I also see improperly painted EIFS quite often. When painting EIFS it should be properly prepared and elastomeric paint should be used.

Kickouts are a pain in the ass and you can't be too careful when preparing the detail. As stated, there is lack of clearance between the cladding and roofline. There should be approx. 2" to allow for maintenance, removal of debris and free flow of water. The best money will be spent on the internal moisture barrier. I would recommend self stick all the way down to the bottom of the cladding. If you make it waterproof before you install the cladding and it can drain safely, any incidental water that gets behind the system will be managed. The diverter flashing looks field fabricated and it is impossible from the photo to determine mow the top is done. Click to Enlarge 12.39 KB

By your description alone it would be impossible to determine cause or action needed. But in my opinion I don't think it is necessary and I would simply state that water damage was noted and add the disclaimer. If you are trying to figure out what was wrong, I would look at the entire area. probe various locations and if necessary I would remove a portion of the system.

Mark is a good friend and a good guy.

During this inspection, water damage was noted ((where?) / in various locations.). This type of cladding consists of components that cannot be evaluated without specialized testing beyond the scope of this inspection. There may be additional damage that was not detected. I recommend a full Certified Stucco Inspection and evaluation by a Building Envelope Inspector / Moisture Analyst. or Although during this inspection no indication of water intrusion was noted, this type of cladding consists of components that cannot be evaluated without specialized testing beyond the scope of this inspection. There may be damage that was not detected. I recommend a full Certified Stucco Inspection and evaluation by a Building Envelope Inspector / Moisture Analyst. You could also warn your clients to beware of stucco inspections based on thermal imaging [mainly]. It is not reliable .