4specs.com    4specs.com Home Page

STUCCO CONTROL JOINTS ON SOLID SURFACES Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

4specs Discussion Forum » Archive - Product Discussions #5 » STUCCO CONTROL JOINTS ON SOLID SURFACES « Previous Next »

Author Message
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec

Post Number: 1025
Registered: 05-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 08, 2014 - 11:34 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

ASTM C926 REFERS TO CONTROL JOINTS OVER LATH INSTALLATION, FOR SOLID SURFACES ASTM C1063 IS REFERENCED, ARE THERE ANY OTHER WRITTEN REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTROL JOINTS OVER SOLID SURFACES IN REGARDS TO THE APPLICATION OF STUCCO, I CAN FIND NONE.
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg

Post Number: 674
Registered: 12-2006


Posted on Wednesday, January 08, 2014 - 12:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Always found these folks to be handy

http://www.tlpca.org/technical_resources0.aspx

Usually find that no matter how many you put in, you need more.
Liz O'Sullivan
Senior Member
Username: liz_osullivan

Post Number: 120
Registered: 10-2011


Posted on Wednesday, January 08, 2014 - 01:02 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

And architects LOVE them, Ken. ; )
Bryan Stanley (Unregistered Guest)
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, January 08, 2014 - 01:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Ken, you may find Technical Bulletins 60.155,60.160 and 60.210 Helpful. Below is the link to our Website.http://www.tsib.org/technical.shtml# You can also find our "online plaster manual" on our site. A third source is at
http://www.naamm.org/emla/emla_technical_literature.aspx


Bryan Stanley
Technical Advisor
Technical Services Information Bureau
Nina Giglio
Senior Member
Username: ngiglio

Post Number: 9
Registered: 01-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 08, 2014 - 02:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Jerome,

ASTM C926 in A2.3.1 indicates that stucco over solid plaster bases are exempt from the control joint criteria indicated in C1063 - which includes expansion joints in the base and or where dissimilar materials occur
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg

Post Number: 677
Registered: 12-2006


Posted on Wednesday, January 08, 2014 - 02:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Nina, that's true, but I've found that stucco often needs more control joints than those found in solid backing materials, especially in the case of substrates such as concrete and engineered/reinforced CMU. Unfortunately, ASTM doesn't address that reality.

Bryan, thanks for those resources. I look forward to having time to review them and hope to add them to the arsenal.
Nina Giglio
Senior Member
Username: ngiglio

Post Number: 10
Registered: 01-2006
Posted on Wednesday, January 08, 2014 - 03:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Best practices vs "requirements" . While I agree that it is better practice to include control joints, Jerome's question indicated "requirements" which many times are different.
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg

Post Number: 678
Registered: 12-2006


Posted on Wednesday, January 08, 2014 - 03:22 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Sad but true.
What's a Specifier to do (other than post questions here)?
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec

Post Number: 1026
Registered: 05-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 08, 2014 - 04:00 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

The question came up on a CBS construction 3-4 story apartment project currently under construction where the architect does not call for control joints and the GC wants to install them. The Architect has had a history of stucco accessory failures and has recently requested we no longer specify stucco accessories. On this particular building there are no long expanses of walls, the exterior wall goes in and out along the façade. The GC has argued that installing control joints is an Industry Standard and a Requirement of the ASTM Standards typically addressed for this work.
Being that this is a long time client with repeat work each year for the past 12, I find the need to prepare a modified stucco spec section void of accessories, to suit their needs for all their upcoming work. Perhaps I should talk to a much older specwriter with experience writing specs before accessories became so prevalent as I am uncertain of how to prepare this spec without preparing DIY text.
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg

Post Number: 679
Registered: 12-2006


Posted on Wednesday, January 08, 2014 - 04:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Just curious as to types of accessories the architect has had issues with (zinc, plastic, other), including which configurations (one-piece vee, two piece, etc) and how they were implemented in relationship to the backup. Lots of good reasons why accessories fail.

One thing I'm not sure about is if placement of accessories in stucco are similar to other types of masonry products in terms of corners and changes in plane. In most forms of masonry that I'm aware of, you still need to maintain your control joint spacing. The other concern occurs where you have 'natural' breaks such as openings in your wall.

Just because you don't put in a control joint accessory doesn't mean that nature won't put in a control joint for you later.
Dave Metzger
Senior Member
Username: davemetzger

Post Number: 487
Registered: 07-2001
Posted on Wednesday, January 08, 2014 - 04:09 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Who's going to admit to being "a much older specwriter"?

Without including myself in that group, I'd hazard a guess that pre-accessories stucco had a higher lime and lower cement content than is used today. What was the root cause of the stucco accessory failures your client has experienced? Were the accessories galvanized? PVC? Both of which I could see issues with in south Florida.

Frankly Jerome, I agree with the contractor in this case. I'd recommend zinc control joints. But then I'm not a much older spec writer.
Jerome J. Lazar, RA, CCS, CSI, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: lazarcitec

Post Number: 1027
Registered: 05-2003
Posted on Wednesday, January 08, 2014 - 04:46 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

perhaps the use of the term older was inappropriate, hell I just hit 60 and I feel like an old F___t...still writing specs probably until the day I die...pathetic I know. Dave at least you are retired to some extent, enjoying your senior years...so perhaps I should changed the word "older" to 'super-senior"
Lynn Javoroski FCSI CCS LEED® AP SCIP Affiliate
Senior Member
Username: lynn_javoroski

Post Number: 1739
Registered: 07-2002


Posted on Wednesday, January 08, 2014 - 04:59 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

"more experienced" "elder" "venerable" "revered" "supreme" "distinguished" "more advanced" "more skillful" "senior" "more expert" just to choose a few other words we could use...
John Hunter
Senior Member
Username: johnhunter

Post Number: 111
Registered: 12-2005
Posted on Wednesday, January 08, 2014 - 05:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

It would be interesting to know the architect's definition of "failures."
Mark Gilligan SE,
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan

Post Number: 629
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Wednesday, January 08, 2014 - 06:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

If the stucco is directly adhered to concrete it is not clear how the strain can be accumulated at the joints. If you are worried about cracks in the concrete then you need to not adhere the stucco directly to the concrete.
ken hercenberg
Senior Member
Username: khercenberg

Post Number: 680
Registered: 12-2006


Posted on Wednesday, January 08, 2014 - 06:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

That's part of my point Mark. Stucco has its own properties. It's a thin film of mortar-like material applied to the substrate and will tend to crack no matter how high the quality and the amount of tensile-adding-reinforcement (even horse hair) or modifiers like so-called one-coat systems.

Even in regions where workers understand the product like Florida and Texas, there seem to be designers who don't understand the need to design stucco in square-shaped panels typically not exceeding about 20 feet in both directions, and that's presuming that you've designed the entire system properly. From what I've seen, mirroring the joints in the substrate has been a serious cause for failure. It's just asking too much of a material that's not designed for that use.
Mark Gilligan SE,
Senior Member
Username: mark_gilligan

Post Number: 630
Registered: 10-2007
Posted on Wednesday, January 08, 2014 - 11:49 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post

Cracks in stucco applied directly to concrete will not be prevented by installing joints every 8 feet.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration