EIFSFACTS.ORG
The Real Facts About EIFS
EIFS and the Building Code
By Hank Sullivan
I keep reading that homebuilders are to blame for not installing EIFS according to some "manufacturer’s specifications." In this article, I will explore the concept of "manufacturer's specifications" and how they interact with the written words and underlying logic of our building code. (When I refer to "the building code," I am referring specifically to the CABO One and Two Family Dwelling Code which was adopted in my home State of Georgia in 1991.)
My underlying question is this: Is a builder merely required to install materials as per a "manufacturer’s specification" in order for these materials to, in fact, be approved for use on residential structures? Taking this question a logical step further, let’s say I have decided to become a manufacture. And let’s say that I have devised a method of constructing paperclips, oily rags, fish netting, water, and scotch tape. When I get done with my construction methods, what’s left is an exterior cladding that appears for all purposes to be a brick wall. I, however, know from my testing that these materials constructed by the methods in my specifications do not perform or behave like a brick wall. By virtue of the fact that I am a "manufacturer," and I have devised a "manufacturer’s specification" for these materials, am I free to sell these materials to be used with my specifications for the installation of these materials on residential structures? Along the same line, if I do sell these materials on the open market to be used as the exterior cladding on residential structures, doesn’t the buyer have the right to believe that these materials and their specs have passed some kind of scrutiny? Don’t these materials and specifications have to be fit for the use of which they are intended? Do they not have to conform to some existing standard? Finally, don’t I, as the manufacturer, have to prove the worthiness of my materials and specifications to somebody before I can be allowed to sell them for these purposes? Let’s see what the building code says:
Under CABO, there are three manners in which materials may be held as "in conformance" with the building code. The first acceptable method is the installation by "specific prescription." In many instances, the code prescribes directly the method in which "approved" materials may be installed in a residential structure. All such materials, when installed in such a fashion as to conform to the specific instructions related by the words and details published in the code are, thereby, "in conformance with the code." CABO Fig. 703.7, for example, depicts a cross section of a masonry-veneered wall. Therefore, all masonry-veneered walls that are built to accurately represent this detail conform to code by "specific prescription."
The second method under which materials may be held "in conformance" with the building code is judgement based upon "specific performance." These materials are referred to as "Alternate Materials and Systems" (CABO Section 108). Under this judgement criteria, if it can be determined that an "alternate material or system" performs in an equivalent manner as an "approved material" referred to by "specific prescription," then the code judges this "alternate" to be suitable for installation in a residential structure and "in conformance" with the code.
Finally, materials that are, in fact, innocuous to the structure may be installed at will. These types of materials are either minor structural elements of the home or decorative in nature.
At this time, I must require the reader to verify the information I have provided above by reading section 108.1 of the CABO One and Two Family Dwelling Code. It is important that each individual with interest in this subject, actually read, reread, digest and interpret these passages for themselves before we go any further. Feel free to go to the local library and read the whole thing if you like. It is vital that each reader forms his own conclusions as to the meaning and logic of the words written in these passages. If, after reading these passages you think I’m all wet, then just hit the "back" button on your browser and have a good life!
___________________
Section 108- Alternate Materials and Systems
108.1 Alternate materials, methods and equipment. The provisions of this code are not intended to limit the appropriate use of materials, appliances, equipment or methods of design or construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that the building official determines that the proposed alternate materials, appliances, equipment or methods of design or construction are at least equivalent (underline added by author) of that prescribed in the code in suitability, quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, dimensional stability, safety and sanitation. Compliance with the specific performance-based provisions of the BOCA National Codes, ICBO Uniform Codes or SBCCI Standard Codes, as adopted by the jurisdiction, in lieu of a prescriptive requirement of this code shall also be permitted as an alternate.
__________________
Well, you’re back, so either this is making some sense to you or you’re just not quite sure. Next, let’s go directly to CABO Chapter 7- Wall Covering. This chapter of CABO prescribes the acceptable materials, methods and systems of cladding the interior and exterior faces of walls constructed as per Chapter 6- Wall Construction. According to CABO, Chapter 7:
Section 701- General
701.1 Application. The provisions of this chapter shall control the design and construction of the interior and exterior wall covering for all buildings. The use of materials or methods of construction not specified in this chapter accomplishing the purposes intended by this code (underlines added by author) and approved by the building official in accordance to section 108 (see above) shall be accepted as complying with this code.
Section 701 continues by "specifically prescribing" all of the exterior claddings that are "approved" by CABO. CABO also specifically prescribes the standards by which each material must be judged in order to be defined as one of these "approved" materials. For example, just any old "hardboard siding" is not accepted as an "approved" material unless it does, in fact, comply with industry standard AHA A135.6 (whatever that is). This means that, legally, any manufacturer that markets their hardboard sidings to be used as an exterior cladding for use in residential construction must warrant that the materials do, in fact, comply with standard AHA A135.6. In the past several years, the courts decided that certain manufacturer’s hardboard sidings had an "inherent flaw" and, therefore, those manufacturers were held liable for the damage caused by this flaw. The "inherent flaw" they are talking about is the siding’s de facto non-compliance with AHA A135.6. It’s one thing for a manufacturer to portray and convince builders, homebuyers and building officials that a material is in compliance with building code standards, it is another thing for these materials to actually perform as materials that actually do comply with approved standards. Either way, the courts determined that a manufacturer is liable for the actual compliance of their materials to the acceptable standard even if it has been previously accepted by a building official. The "proof is in the pudding," so to speak.
The only materials specifically prescribed by CABO Chapter 7, as "approved" are the following:
According to CABO, Section 108, alternate materials may, however, be used as exterior wall coverings as long as they actually perform, relative to the structure, in an "equivalent" manner as the materials specifically prescribed above. Well, which one of these materials does EIFS perform like? Does EIFS perform like:
By now, it should be evident that CABO only specifically prescribes exterior wall coverings that allow for moisture to dissipate directly into the atmosphere. It is a widely known fact and admitted by EIMA and EIFS manufacturers that typical EIFS systems sold now for decades throughout America do not allow for moisture to dissipate into the atmosphere. It should be evident now that EIFS does not perform in an "equivalent" fashion as any "approved" material specifically prescribed in the code.
EIFS, THEREFORE, DOES NOT NOW, NOR HAS IT EVER, CONFORMED TO THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CODE!
As hard as it may be to believe that hundreds of thousands of homes have been built and approved under the presumption that EIFS conformed to the building code, we now know through simple analysis of the words in the code and the (now widely known) behavioral characteristics of the EIFS system, that this system has an inherent flaw with respect to the approved standards and specific prescriptions in our building code.
Now let’s go back to my new construction technique with the paperclips, oily rags, fish netting, water, and scotch tape. All is not lost for me to be able to market these products along with my specifications for use in residential construction. Though I know that my technology does not conform to any existing specifications, I am free to test my specifications against the conditions they will rightfully endure on residential structures and present my findings in order to pursue the "codification" of my specifications. The codification of my new technology’s "manufacturer’s specifications" would then allow for me to sell my paper clips, oily rags, fish-netting, water (well, they can get their own water), and scotch tape to be used as the exterior cladding on houses. I may have to try that…it just might work.
Every reader should now verify everything that I have stated in this article. I certainly do not profess to be a "code expert." I am merely a homebuilder (a mad one at that). I can read, comprehend, think logically, interpret and form sound judgements based upon the facts. I think most people are like me. You be the judge.
In my next installment, I will explore how these materials, which do not pass code, could have been allowed for so long, on so many homes, in so many places and cause so much destruction.
Thanks to NOVASHOC for allowing us all this forum for the presentation of alternate viewpoints!