EIFS - Worth the Risk?

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message Anonymous Posted on Monday, April 22, 2002 - 03:12 pm:    I have been asked to specify 1/2" plaster on an upcoming job because the contractor's insuror reportedly will not cover EIFS installation. And, in a recent court case, a judge made a statement strongly critical Dry-Vit's "Outsulation," calling it defective from the outset, if I recall correctly (or words to that effect). Has the time come when the potential risk of specifying EIFS is too great? David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Junior Member Username: David_axt Post Number: 7 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, April 22, 2002 - 05:33 pm:    Yes. Due to the tremendous amount of failures in the Northwest, the firm I work for does not allow EIFS on their projects. robin treston Unregistered guest Posted on Monday, April 22, 2002 - 06:28 pm:    Wow. I guess I had heard mumblings about this, but not to this extent. I do alot of work in Las Vegas, where EIFS appears on everything. What, specifically, have been the problems? David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Junior Member Username: David_axt Post Number: 8 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, April 22, 2002 - 07:53 pm:    The main problem is that EIFS is not a water managed system. Many of these systems are not designed to shed water ...i.e. rain screen principle. Once the water gets in it tends to find it's way into the build walls. These gypsum board walls then grow mold. Another problem is the use of urethane sealants instead of silicone sealants. Urethane will re-emulsify when it gets wet. Other problems include detailing and lack of proper flashing. Then, there is the lack of skilled labor installing these systems. In a drier climate and with proper design and installation, these systems may work out fine. But not in the soggy Seattle! John Bunzick New member Username: Bunzick Post Number: 1 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Tuesday, April 23, 2002 - 08:50 am:    If I remember correctly, there have been a string of disasters and law suits in North Carolina as well, and I believe the state has banned it's use altogether. Another technical problem, along the lines David Axt pointed out is that the acrylic coatings soften when wet. Thus, upward facing surfaces such as window sills, are particularly vulnerable. I think that this is the problem he's referring to-I don't believe that the urethane sealant re-emulsifies-but they are incompatible with EIFS. Some manufacturers have gotten out of the business altogether, and others are scrambling to redesign their systems to be a 'rain screen' type cladding. I would suspect the lack of rainfall in Las Vegas is a big help. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA Dave Metzger New member Username: Davemetzger Post Number: 8 Registered: 07-2001 Posted on Tuesday, April 23, 2002 - 10:38 am:    Most EIFS manufacturers will publish the sealants they approve for use with their systems. When we have to specify these systems, we usually use silicones. ASTM C1481 "Standard Guide for Use of Joint Sealants with Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems" has joint design and installation information, but does not discuss sealant type other than referencing ASTM C1382. It's not that polyurethanes will re-emulsify when they get wet. We use multi-component polyurethanes all the time in the DC area without problems. My understanding of the issue is that in hot climates, improperly formulated or mixed polyurethanes may re-emulsify; so when we have had projects in, say, Texas, we have specified silicones. Specifiers who do a lot of work in the south and southwest, what has your experience been with this issue? David E Lorenzini New member Username: Deloren Post Number: 6 Registered: 04-2000 Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2002 - 11:04 am:    With regard to sealants, you may want to check out a new product that is specifically designated for EIFS systems--Sonneborn Sonolastic 150 VLM. Laura Stevens (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 03:18 pm:    EIFS WINNDOW SILL Has anyone ever done a window sill in EIFS? We'd like to do it at a slope of 1:12 instead of 6:12(as recommended by Dryvit). A smaller EIFS company says it's ok but, I wonder what might happen if water accumulates on this horizontal surface. David R. Combs (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 05:06 pm:    Laura, I wouldn't do it. If there's ever a problem down the road and the system leaks, the manufacturer (and installer) walks away free and clear of any liability because their published recommendations weren't followed. Then the onus is on the Architect to prove that they know more than the manufacturer does about the system such that deviation from the published recommendations was justifiable. I certainly wouldn't want to plead THAT case! You might want to check out the EIMA (EIFS Industry Manufacturer's Association) website. They have some good info, and a design guide available that should prove to be very helpful. And I'd stay away from smaller manufacturers, especially if they are not members of EIMA. They may not have the same proven track record of the STOs and Dryvits out there, or the market share (and therefore the higher risk). Good luck! David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Member Username: David_axt Post Number: 120 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Thursday, April 10, 2003 - 06:13 pm:    Laura, I think the window sill application has the highest tendency to leak. Especially if you lower the slope to almost horizontal. I think this design is just asking for problems. John Bunzick, CCS, CCCA New member Username: Bunzick Post Number: 90 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Monday, April 14, 2003 - 10:02 am:    I just opened the April issue of Walls and Ceilings magazine, in which there is a reprint of an article from 9/97 by Robert Thomas. The article discusses the softening aspect of the acrylic finish, and mentions a couple of other problems I hadn't thought of. One is that the sealant joints associated with those upward slopes become that much more vulnerable when they fail. Two is that freeze-thaw (depending on climate, obviously) will deteriorate the finish. Three is that dirt becomes embedded in the softened finish, which then becomes bound into the matrix and is hard to remove (an aesthetic concern). Four is that the roughness of the surface can hold dirt which can be a source of mold/mildew growth. And finally, while it may seem a stretch, they point out that this surface may appear to be stronger than it is, with the result that maintenance personnel may expect it to hold their weight when stepped on - it won't and will probably break. Anne Whitacre Member Username: Awhitacre Post Number: 55 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 06:47 pm:    I can't believe people are still debating this product -- its not allowed in some northwest jurisdictions (Vancouver Canada, for example) and there are other local building codes that don't allow the product. No large firm in Seattle will take the liability if the owner insists on using EIFS, and I'm seeing project after project in Seattle being reskinned. It can be done properly -- but usually is not, which is the real problem. The workmanship on these systems is usually consistently shoddy, and as David says above, there are simply too many ways for water to get into the system. As for the window sills -- even my former clients who DID use EIFS never used it for horizontal surfaces, even in a 6/12 pitch. (I'm not certain I would even use sheet metal in a 1/12 pitch -- there's too much margin for error in a slope that shallow.) There have been billions of dollars of lawsuits regarding the use of EIFS, and if you use a search engine with "lawsuit" and "EIFS" you will find many of them. I had one building owner client who did use it for their walls... .and their maintenance practice was to strip out and reseal all the joints on the exterior of the building --- every single year. With that practice, they had no leaks. Also: a number of owners think that EIFS is "inexpensive". I can easily demonstrate that when properly reinforced and detailed, an EIFS exterior wall is the same cost as vinyl siding, brick veneer, or stucco. The key words are "properly detailed". If the contractor is consistently bringing EIFS in cheaper, ask to see how the corners are reinforced and detailed, plus all the openings, and then look at the manufacturer's recommended details. EIFS is cheaper, only because there are so many ways to "cut corners" in the installation.... which also makes the installation unstable and leaky. Alan Mays, AIA Member Username: Amays Post Number: 10 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 08:28 pm:    Anne, There is no debate in Las Vegas. You do EIFS. All of those casinos are EIFS. I understand what you are saying, but in some areas of the country it is an accepted construction method. Florida also uses a lot of it. I have recently talked with some of the larger plaster subcontractors here in Southern CA and they admit that it is a ever growing market here. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: Wpegues Post Number: 144 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Thursday, April 17, 2003 - 09:19 pm:    It is also a widely used system here in Washington, DC for high rise residential (condos and apartments). Here it is not a substiture for masonry, most of the buildings have more brick on them than they do EIFS anyway. Its used as a substitute for precast or stone. We would prefer not to use it, and we actually put forward the facade as precast and brick. We have in fact had some precast elements kept in the design. We detail our EIFS with a sealed air barrier system over all surfaces, drainage system of mechanically fastened extruded (not expanded) polystyrene.