Jump to content

T-1-11 siding


Rocon
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am trying to nail down some questions for a litigation case. The project in question was built in 1973 . The project is located in California, 1997 CBC is identical to the 1973 UBC and states thatWRB can be ommited if the exterior covering is of approved weatherproof panels.

Is T-1-11 siding a weatherproof panel?

Was WRB required between t-1-11 siding and framing in 1973?

Does the paint constitute a barrier coating?

Is paint a weatherproof coating?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Les

For purposes of litigation: t-1-11 would not be an acceptable term. Unless it is actually product number T-1-11.

Define paint.

after definition of paint, then describe the "paint" used.

Good questions, but not definitive enough.

let me clarify Paint is a liquid solution of pigment in a suitable vehicle of oil,organic solvent, or water: liquid when applied but dries to form an adherant, protective, and decorative coating.

T-1-11 is not a product number it is a specification/ product type. It is an exterior grade plywood with channel grooves.

Really the paint would only be a component of an assembly. My main concern is t1-11 a weatherproof panel as is or does it need another component 'IE paint' to perform as a weatherproof panel and does it require a WRB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're involved in a construction defect case in which T-1-11 was installed in 1973? Sheeit man if you have T-1-11 that took 35 years to fail you should be writing to Ripley's Believe it or Not.

Just a word of advice: if you're an expert witness in future cases, it'd be prudent to phrase your questions in such a way that folks wouldn't be able to search them and use them against you during testimony. For example, if I felt the need to ask questions on a public forum, on the internet concerning a case where I was the expert witness, I'd use your name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ramon,

Did not mean to get nasty. Was the t-1-11 an indication of the configuration of the siding? What size are the panels? What kind of wood? Was it from USPly and pressed together with a urea-formeldhye glue? Was it produced in Grayling Mi? Was it plywood or plyscore? Etc.

Just a taste of how crazy it can get during deposition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pardon my jumping in, but I can't imagine that any expert could convince any judge or jury that Tee One Eleven should last more than 35 years.

That said, once the case is settled, I'd just love to hear the details...

One last thing: Digging up 35-year-old specs, performance standards and installation requirements forTee One Eleven will require many, many hours of hunting and deciphering. It would be a miracle for an expert to get the needed info from current home inspectors, who were probably teenagers or 20something non-HIs back in '73.

WJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Les

Ramon,

Did not mean to get nasty. Was the t-1-11 an indication of the configuration of the siding? What size are the panels? What kind of wood? Was it from USPly and pressed together with a urea-formeldhye glue? Was it produced in Grayling Mi? Was it plywood or plyscore? Etc.

Just a taste of how crazy it can get during deposition?

The issue I am really getting at is the WRB and wheather or not it was required. That is contingent on the plywood being a "weatherproof panel". I know how crazy it can get in depo. As you know an assertion has been made and I have to answer it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The primary problems I've seen with T1-11 are at the perimeters. Buckling, bad nailing and missing Z-flashing. Even if the product was installed and fastened properly moisture still gets behind and into the siding because it is never sealed on all six sides.

I would like to see how this stuff would hold up if it had a couple of real good coats of paint on all six sides, to keep moisture from penetrating into the material. Maybe it wouldn't buckle so much. But I have never seen that.

I inspected a 1970's vintage commercial building a couple of months ago with T1-11 and no WRB. The insulation and framing were completely saturated at every visible location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Quote: Originally posted by Les

For purposes of litigation: t-1-11 would not be an acceptable term. Unless it is actually product number T-1-11.

id="quoteN">

T-1-11 is not a product number it is a specification/ product type. It is an exterior grade plywood with channel grooves.

Texture 1-11 is a registered trademark of the APA. I would caution anyone using the term to be certain that the plywood is T1-11, especially in legal matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears Rocon, that your question in the OP may be in error, in that the terms WRB and 'weatherproof panel' didn't exist back then or were not commonly accepted terms. That would invalidate the question. Maybe take that back to the attorneys and let them chew on it.

Marc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears Rocon, that your question in the OP may be in error, in that the terms WRB and 'weatherproof panel' didn't exist back then or were not commonly accepted terms. That would invalidate the question. Maybe take that back to the attorneys and let them chew on it.

Marc

Actually if you read the code citation from 1971 the exception for weatherproof panel is there, and even though at the time WRB may not have been a "commonly accepted term" I was discussing in the present tense with current day industry professionals, about a current case that was being held to current day standards. I do not believe anyone did not understand what the meaning was when I use the phrase WRB, so how could it be an invalid question. The invalid statement was on behalf of the Plaintiff expert holding a 1973 building to current code.

IMHO

It would seem to me that the valid question after a year and a half would be; How did the case turn out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would seem to me that the valid question after a year and a half would be; How did the case turn out?

I think you answered that with this sentence: "The invalid statement was on behalf of the Plaintiff expert holding a 1973 building to current code."

Ramon, please correct me if I am wrong.

I would not think of correcting you Brandon. But the plaintiff expert... Oh Ya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...