88 Ocean Boulevard 15-ZVAR-1035 ReportBuilding Envelope Evaluation
Ferrigno &Roy Residence
88 & 90 Ocean Boulevard
Jacksonville, Florida 32233
August 27, 2012
alta
engineering company
www,altaengineeringco.com
D I t CA
engineering company
www.altaengineedngco,com
August 27, 2012
Mr. Saswata Roy
Mr. Vincent Ferrigno
C/o: Christopher M. Cobb, Esq.
Jlmerson & Cobb, P.A.
701 Riverside Park Place
Suite 302
Jacksonville, Florida 32204
via electronic mall; ccobb�)imersoncobb.com
Visual Building Envelope Evaluafion Report
Ferrigno & Roy Residence
88 & 90 Ocean Boulevard
Jacksonville, Florida 32233
As requested, we have completed a building envelope evaluation of the subject residence In
Jacksonville, Florida. The purpose of our evaluation was to visually and destructively Identify con-
structlon related defects which may result In premature material failure or water or air Intrusion and
related microblal growth, The Intent of the evaluation was not to Identify every existing defect, but
rather to Identify apporently systemic, globally occurring Issues and provide general recommen-
dations for repair or further Investigation, where warranted. This report includes a summary of the
project Information, our observations and subsequent general recommendations for repair.
This report
is Intended for the exclusive use of Alta Engineering Company (Alta), Jimerson &Cobb,
P.A., Saswata Roy and Vincent Ferrigno, Use of this report or reliance upon Information contained
In this report by any other party acts as an agreement by that party to the terms and conditions of
the contract under which the work was performed, Any use of this report by a party for purposes
beyond those Intended by Alta, Jimerson & Cobb, P.A., Saswata Roy and Vincent Ferrigno will be
at that party's sole risk.
We appreciate the opport
unity to provide our professional services. Please contact us If there are
any questions concerning this report.
Sincerely,
crltci Engineering company
Florida Board olProlwwonal Engineers Certificate ofAuthorkofion No. 29095
Brett D, Newkirk, P,E,
Licensed, Florida 62476
Principal
alta enS7lneeriny company
6223 cherry lake drive north
Jacksonville, Florida 32258
904-880-0301
Butiding Envelope Evaluation
Roy A FeMgno Residence
YABLE OF CONTENTS
CoverPage...................................................................................... 1
CoverLetter..................................................................................... 2
Tableof Contents............................................................................. 3
Summaryof Scope............................................................................... 4
Manifest of Documents Revlewed............:.........................................4
Buliding Construction Overview...........................................................6
Building Envelope Design plscusslon....................................................5
Observations..................................................................................... 7
A. Stucco............................................................................... 8
B. Fenestrations.......................................................................18
C. Balconies, I s a I I I a a, 1 0 1
D. Roofs...................................................................................23
E. Structure................................................................................25
Interior, . 0 0 0 1 6 a a 1 0 1 0 a I I I 1 0 0 am 1 5 6 4 6 0 a 1 9 1 9 6 t 6 Is 0 a 48 1 9 1 a 0 4 f I a 0 a a a a 1 0 1 1 1 1 008 0 A 4 0 9 go 0 go I a I r * 9 28
Repair Recommendations.................................................................30
ugust 27, 2012
Page 3
Bullding Envelope Evaluatlon
Roy & Fenlgno Residence
GENERAL
Summary of Scope:
Augurf 27, 2012
Page 4
Alta Engineering Company has been contracted to perform a visual and destructive condi-
ion evaluation of the building envelope systems at the subject residence In general accord-
ance with applicable portions of ASTM E 2128 The Standard Guide for Evaluating Water Leak-
age of Building Walls, Systems Included In our evaluation are as follows: Visually accessible
exterior wall finishes, roofs, and fenestrations. Our services have been completed In general
accordance with our proposal to you dated April 231 2012 and Its attached terms and conclk
tIons,
Limitations:
Generally, we have pertormed visual observations of accessible and readily visible Bullding
exteriors from the ground level, roof surface, ladders and Interior areas, Observations were
completed by trained professionals, however, deficiencies may be present which were not
readily accessible, visible, or otherwise Inadvertently overlooked, It was not the Intent of this
study to perform an exhaustive survey to document every existing defect or to create a
punch list of all defective or distressed Items. Furthermore, this evaluation does not include
commentary regarding cosmetic or oesthetic Issues. The findings in this report are relevant to
the time of our site visits and should not be relied upon to represent conditions at substantially
later dates,
Manifest of Documents Reviewed:
The following documents pertalning to the subject site were provided or obtained for our re-
view:
1. Report of Findings prepared by Rlmkus Consulting Group, Inc„ titled Report of Flnings—
Atlas Construction Group, LCC Moisture Intrusion Evaluatlon Claim No; GLP001171127,
dated April 12, 2012.
2, Report
prepared by House Authority Inspection Service, LLC, titled Property Inspection
Report 88-90 Ocean Boulevard, dated February 28, 2011,
3. Permitted architectural drawings on record at the Atlantic Beach Building Department
prepared by MJ Thiele Architect, tltied Two Unit Townhouse Building 88 & 90 Ocean
Boulevard, dated February 22, 20060
4. Permitted structural drawings on record at the Atlantic Beach Building Department
prepared by Lou Pontlgo and Associates, Inc., titled Fasanelll88-90 Ocean, dated May
15, 2006.
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW
AuguN 27, X12
Page 6
A review of the provided documents in conjunction with our site observations idenflfled the
following building construction information;
fie provided drawings were dated February 22, 2006, Accordingly, the design and construc-
tion of the buildings would have been governed under the 2004 Florida Building Code, with
2005 Additions (2004 FBC),
fie subject residential building Is a 3 -story duplex, The bullding Is supported by a convention-
ally reinforced concrete shallow strip foundation. The first floor structural building walls are
constructed of reinforced concrete masonry units (CMU), while the walls above the second
floor line are wood framed with oriented strand board (OSB) sheathing, The flrewall separa-
tion between units Is constructed with CMU, The roof and floor structures are framed with pre-
engineered open -web wood trusses and decked with oriented strand board (OSB) sheath-
ing,
Exterior walls are clad with Portland cement Plaster (stucco) with aworm-groove textured
acrylic modified (synthetic) finish coat, Stucco is directly clad to the CMU walls, while It Is ap-
plied over a synthetic weather resistant barrier (WRB) and adhered to paper backed metal
lath over the wood framed walls, Windows are Series 500 single -hung vinyl frames with double
-pane Insulated glass Iites manufactured by PGT according to the American Architectural
Manufacturer's Association Institute (AAMA) label affixed to the window frame, Windows are
installed In both Independent and mulled arrangements, Sliding doors are also vinyl frames
with Insulated glass Iftes,
The roofs are clad with a liquid applied polyurethane deck coating appl(ed over a sloped
cement board substrate, Wood framed, stucco clad parapet walls surround the roof perime-
ter, Drainage Is provided by through -wall metal scuppers on the north and south walls and
the east roof edge,
The front exterior balcony decks are waterproofed with a liquid applied polyurethane deck
coating and Gad with ceramic tile, Rear balconies are cantilevered with exposed wood
framing projecting from the rear wall, The balconies are constructed with open Jointed pre-
servative treated wood boards,
Building Envelope Evaluation
Roy & Fenigno Residence
BUILDING ENVELOPE DESIGN DISCUSSION
August 27, 2012
Page 6
A cursory discussion of the function of the building wall envelope system Is prudent for the sa-
ke of understanding the following list of deficiencies, Generally, the building walls were de-
signed as a veneered water management system. This system Is designed such that the exte-
rior surface of the wall cladding (stucco) acts as a rain screen, whereby most of the water
that Impacts Its surface Is Immediately shed to the base of the wall and onto the pervious
ground area beyond. However, the system assumes that some water will enter behind the
cladding through cracks, separations, penetrations and fenestrations In the veneer. Penetrot-
Ing moisture Is prevented from contacting the structure by a weather resistive barrier (WRB),
which Is Installed between the veneer and the exterior wood sheathing, Grade D paper Is
placed atop the WRB In stucco assemblies to create a separation (or capillary break) be-
tween the backside of the stucco and the front side of the WRB, This space essentially ellmk
nates the capacity for water to saturate and absorb through the WRB, The gap between the
stucco and the WRB also facilitates the unencumbered flow of penetrating water down the
back surface of the stucco to the base of the wall. Once penetrating moisture travels down
the face of the WRB, It Is directed to the exterior via flashing, strategically positioned over
penetrations by weeps at the base of the wall, The veneered water management system re-
quires that the WRB be properly shingled and flashed or effectively sealed at all openings to
promote efficient drainage and to force moisture to the exterior, thus preventing contact
with the wall sheathing,
Conversely, the stucco applied to the CMU wall Is Intended to function as a barrier system,
The theory behind such systems Is that all water Is stopped at the exposed exterior surfaces of
the building, Based on this theory, there are no provisions for drainage of water that might en-
ter behind the exterior paint, sealants or fenestrations, Consequently, It is critical that all pene-
trations, cracks, volds or dissimilar material separations In the building shell be sealed to pre-
vent any water from breaching the exterior surface. It should be noted that concrete ma-
sonry unit (CMU) walls have a fairly significant absorbent capacity, Accordingly, CMU walls
may provide some reservoir capacity for water which breaches the external barrier, The CMU
must not become saturated and must be permitted to adequately dry between wettings to
prevent moisture problems and associated microbial growth on the back side of the Interior
finishes, Barrier systems with reservoir capacity are typically not recommended for climate
zones In which annual rainfall typically exceeds 40 -Inches. The average annual rainfall In Du-
val County Is approximately 50 -Inches,
Building Envelope Evaluation
Roy 8 Fentgno Resldenee
OBSERVATIONS
August 270 2012
Page 7
The following pages contain narratives describing and photographs depicting the visually ob-
served deficiencies, The discussion Is Itemized by building component, Within each compo.
nent, specific defects are identified and compared to the applicable code or Industry stand=
ard requirements, If In conflict with the referenced pians, the drawing detail and sheet refer-
ence numbers are noted,
Where Identtfled In this report, deficient conditions were generally observed or apparently
present at many building locations, unless otherwise Indicated, Similarly, photographs includ-
ed In this report are Intended to depict representative typical conditions, unless otherwise
noted. We performed our observations on May 31, 2012 and July 13, 2012,
Building Envelope Evaluation
Roy & Ferrigno Residence
A. STUCCO
August 27, 2012
Page 8
1. PARAPET WALL: The parapet wall enclosing p of the roof area is clad with
stucco over PBL without a WRB and without rubberized asphalt flashing protection over
the horizontal portion of the wall below the stucco cap. (Photographs Al -A3) Water
which migrates through cracks In the stucco parapet wall cap comes Into contact with
the wood wall sheathing and framing by saturation of the Grade D paper underlayment
or bypassing Its open, unsealed laps, Because the WRB presumably begins at the 3rd floor
line, water which migrates through the parapet's stucco wall cladding may be conduct-
ed behind the open top edge of the WRB thus prompting water Intrusion and subsequent
damage to the entire height of the wall, The omisslon of a WRB constitutes a violation of
2004 FBC Section 1404.2.1 which states: Where cement plaster (stucco) Is to be applied to
lath over frame construction, measures
shall be take to prevent bonding be-
tween the cement plaster and the wa-
ter resistive barrier. A bond break shall
be provided between the water resistive
barrier and the cement plaster (stucco)
conslsting of one of the following: (1)
1•wo layers of an approved water re.
sistant barrier. , .
Photograph A2: Removal of stucco from atop the
cap reveals only PBL is provided to protect the wood
f
Photograph A 1: Wood framed parapet vralls above
Unit B8.
Photograph A3: A WRB is not provided on the exterior
side of the parapet wall, The OSB wall sheathing has
experienced
raming.
full section loss due to decoy,
Building Envelope Evaluation
Roy & Fenigno Residence
A. STUCCO
Augus127I 2012
Page 9
2, ELEVATED WALL BASES; Stucco walls are terminated at the second and third floor Ilnes
along the front balconies, (Photograph A4) The elevated wall bases do not have any
provision for drainage of the WRB, Evidence of cracking, efflorescent and `tea" colored
staining noted at the wall base are symptoms of water attempting to escape from within
the wall system, (Photograph A5) The lack of a drain provision at the base of the elevat-
ed wall terminations causes water to become trapped against the framing and sheathing
components at Its base and subsequently results In their deterioration, The obstruction of
drainage from the WRB is a violation of 2004 FBC Section 1403,2, which states (In
part),,, The exterior wall envelope shall be designed and constructed In such a manner as
to prevent the accumulation of water wlthln the wall assembly by providing a water resls-
flve barrier behind the exterior veneer, as described In Section 1404,2 and a means for
draining water that enters the assembly to the exterior of the veneer.. , The lack of a drain
In this location Is a violation of ASTM C 926-98o Standard Specification for Application of
Portland Cement Based Plaster, Section A2.2.2, which states; At the bottom of exterior
walls, where the wall Is supported by a floor or foundation, a drip screed and through wall
flashing or weep holes or other effective means to droln away any water that may be be-
hind the plaster shall be provided, The lack of a drain Is also a violation of ASTM C926 -98a
A2.2.3, which states; Where vertical and horizontal exterior plaster surfaces meet, both
surfaces shall be terminated with casing beads with the vertical surface extending at least
1/44nch below the Intersecting horizontal plastered surface, thus providing a drip edge,
The casing bead for the horizontal surface shall be terminated not less than 1/41nch from
the back of the vertical surface to provide drainage,
Photograph A4: Elevated wall base.
Photograph A5: Staining at underside of elevated
wall base between Units 88 & 91).
Bullding Envelope Evaluation
Roy & Ferrlgno Resldance
A. STUCCO
gra
ii t'rIry1
if
,
r
li C7 �✓
Al
Photograph A6: The walls are wood framed above
the red line and CMU below the red line,
August 27, 2D12
Page 10
Photograph A7: 5tucco removed from transition of
the second floor line reveals that the WRB has no
mechanism to drain to the exterior,
3, CMU TO FRAMED WALL TRANSITION: fie framed walls above the second floor Ilne have a
weather barrier behind the stucco cladding. The base of the WRB (at the second floor
line) does not have a provision for water draining on Its surface to escape, (Photographs
A6 -A8) The lack of a drain provision at this location forces water draining on the WRB to
saturate the CMU, decay the lower portion of the wood wall sheathing and/or migrate
Inside the building. Evidence of water Intrusion at the walls and window heads of the first
floor are Indicative of this distress, The obstruction of drainage from the WRB Is a violation
of 2004 FBC Sectlon 1403,2, which states On part),,, The exterior wall envelope shall be de-
signed and constructed /n such a manner as to prevent the accumulotlon of water within
the wall assembly by providing a water reslstive barrier behind the exterior veneer, as de-
scribed In Section 7404,2 and a means71% VOIf, fat
for dralning water that enters the assem-
bly to the exterior of the veneer.., fie
lack of a drain In this location Is a vlola-
tion of the Intent of ASTM C926 -98a.
Standard Specification for Application of
Portland Cement Based Plaster, Section
\222, which states, At the bottom of ex
terlor walls, where the wall Is supported
by a floor or foundation, a drip screed
and through wall flashing or weep holes
or other effective means to draln away
any water that may be behind the plas-
tershall be provided,
71 V4
14
IF
Ia
f•'Y s� � C 'S S� � � K �
r�� s
rs 3 .K 3
Y. ) V fW
fI
Photograph A8: Removal of the control Joint and
WRB reveals full section loss of the OSB due to decay.
Building Envelope Evaluotlon
Roy & Fenlgno Residence
A, STUGCO
Photograph A9; Wall terminations at the balcony sur-
face,
Photograph A 1 I: Full Section loss of the OSB due to
decay where water was trapped of the base of the
wall,
August 27, 2012
Page 11
Photograph A10; Balcony waterproofing Is sealed to
the face of the PBL forward of the WRB.
4, WALL TERMINATION AT BALCONY; Drain-
age of the WRB at the base of the walls over
the second floor balconies Is completely ob-
structed by the application of liquid applied
balcony waterproofing material onto the
face of the PBL, (Photographs A9 -A11) The
lack of a drain provision at this location forces
water draining on the WRB to migrate Inside
the building, Also, the stucco wall base was
terminated without Incorporation of a drain-
age accessory, fie obstruction of drainage
from the WRB Is a vloiatlon of 2004 FBC Sec-
tion 1403,2, which states (In part),,, The exterior
wall envelope shall be designed and construct-
ed In such a manner as to prevent the accumulation of water within the wall assembly by
providing a water resistive border behind the exterior veneer, as described In Section
1404,2 and a means for draining water that enters the assembly to the exterior of the ve-
neer,,,The lack of a drain In this location Is a violation of the Intent of ASTM C926-98a—
Standard Specification for Application of Portland Cement Based Plaster, Section A2,2.2,
which states, At the bottom of exterior walls, where the wall Is supported by a floor or
foundation, a drip screed and through wall rlashing or weep holes or other effective
means to drain away any water that may be behind the plaster shall be provided,
s
y_L
BWlding Envelope Evaluation
Roy & Ferrlgno Residence
August 27, 2012
Page 13
A. STUCCO
7, PARAPET CRACKING: Stucco applied to the parapet wall extension of the firewall be-
tween units contains cracking approximately 4 -Inches above the roof surface,
(Photograph A15) This crack Is due to the transition of stucco directly applied to CMU to
application over the metal base flashing to which It cannot adhere, The application of
stucco across a substrate transition without the use of lath or a transition joint Is a violation
of ASTM C 926 Section A2.13, which states: Where dissimilar base materials abut and are
to receive a continuous coat of plaster: (7) or two-piece expansion Joint, casing beads
bock -to -back, or premanufoctured control expansion joint member shall be Installed; or
(2) the Juncture shall be covered with a 6 -In, (152 -mm) wide strip of galvanized, self -furring
metal plaster base extending 3 In. (76 mm) on either side of the juncture; or (3) where one
of the bases Is metal plaster base, self -furring metal plaster base shall be extended 4 In.
002 mm) onto the abutting base,
Photograph A15: Cracking at the base of the para-
pet extension of the demising wall,
Photograph A16: Red Ilne Indlcales location of omit-
ted control Joint on the south wall,
8, CONTROL JOINT OMISSION: Vertical control Joints were omitted from the west portion of
the north and south side walls and the front (east) wall, (Photograph A16) The lack of con-
trol joints may prompt the stucco to crack In an un -controlled, less easily sealed and aes-
thetically desirable configuration, Per ASTM C 1063 Section 7,11 A control Joints are re-
quired to be installed to partition stucco panels exceeding 144 SF and at a maximum dls-
tonce of 18 -feet apart. The rear walls contain stucco panels that exceed this area allow-
ance and therefore constitute a violation of this requirement,
Building Envelope Evaluation
Roy & Ferrlgno Residence
A. STUCCO
Photograph A17: Control Joint is stapled to the wall.
Augus1274 2012
Page 14
Photograph A18: Full section loss of loth due to corro-
slon below 2nd floor hall window of Unit 88.
9, CONTROL JOINT INSTALLATION; fie one-piece "W" shape control Joint accessories were
attached to the OSB substrate with staples, (Photograph A) 7) Attachment In this manner
precludes the Joint from expanding and contracting with the abutting stucco panel In
"accordion" style as Intended, Subsequenfly, thermal strains in the stucco panels cause
cracks to occur alongside the Joints rather than the control Joint absorbing the Imparted
strains. ASTM C 1063 Section 7.10,1,4 states; Loth shall not be continuous through control
Joints but shall be stopped and tied at each side, The purpose of tying the lath Is to permit
the plastic accessory to move, Further, the PBL was Installed atop the control joint acces-
sory, thus precluding the stucco from bonding to the accessory's perforated flanges, This
condition prevents the control Joint accessory from performing as Intended and cons$
tutes a violation of ASTM C 1063 Section 7,8,3,1 which states,.,,On walls, the backing shall
be lapped so water will flow to the exterior. Backing shall not be placed between the
plaster base (lath) and the flanges of the accessories, .
10, LATH; The metal lath supporting the stucco veneer has become corroded and experi-
enced section loss due to the severe and chronic Introduction of water behind the stucco
cladding, (Photograph A18) The lath is no longer structurally adequate to support the
stucco In some of the areas observed, As a result, the stucco may become detached
from the wall.
Building Envelope Evaluation
Roy & Fenlgno Residence
A. STUCCO
Augual 270 2012
Page 15
11, FENESTRAl1ON PERIMETER SEAL: A durable perimeter sealant was nofi Installed between the
windows/doors and their perimeter stucco bands, (Photographs A19 -A21) Sealant was
either entirely omitted or was Installed as a pencll4hln detail bead. This condition has re-
sulted In crack separations that have allowed water entry behind the stucco cladding.
The cohesive and adhesive sealant failures observed are a result of Inadequate bond
face and Ineffective Joint profile, Most sealant manufacturers require a minimum Joint
width of 1/4 -Inch and minimum depth of 1/4 -Inch. The as -bulli Joints are not compliant
with this requirement. Further, the sealant Joint profile Is not compliant with ASTM C 1193—
rhe Standard Gulde for Use of Joint Sealants, which provides an Industry standard guide
for sealant Installatlon, and ASTM E2112 - The Standard Proctice for the Installatlon of Win-
dows, Doors and Skylights, which provides a Industry standard guide for fenestration Instal-
latlon.
Photograph A19: Crack separation the second floor
hallway window at Unit 88,
Photograph A21: Crack separation of sealant at a
second floor window of Unit 90,
Photograph A20: Sealant was not Installed between
fhe stucco band and the rear sliding door of Unit 88.
Building Envelope Evaluallon
Ray & Ferrlgno Residence
A, STUCCO
Photograph A22: Rear balcony beam penetration
Through stucco.
Photograph A24; Unsealed beam penefrotlon
through the WRB and white VSM on OSB.
Augusl 279 2D12
Page 16
`.?.
T. i
sy �.
1 Cori+;
Photograph A23: Copper pocket flashing
Is face
mounted to the PBL and not Integrated with the PBL.
Photograph A25: Scupper is face seoled to the P$L,
The surrounding OSB contains full sect(an loss due to
decay.
12. WALL PENETRATIONS; Penetrations through the stucco clad walls, including the cantile-
vered support for the rear wood balconies and balcony and roof scupper;, are not Inte-
grated with the WRB. The copper pocket flashing provided at the rear balcony penetra-
tions Is situated on the face of the PBL, thus allowing any water draining on the WRB to en-
ter directly Into these wall penetrations. (Photographs A22 -A23) Significant air leakage
and mold was noted at the excavated location. (Photograph A24) The through -wall scup-
pers were face sealed to the PBL similarly encumbering the WRB's ability to drain.
(Photograph A25) The lack of appropriately configured flashing Is a violation of 2004 FBC
Section 1405.3, which states; Flashing shall be installed In such a manner so as to prevent
moisture from entering the wall or to redirect It to the exterior. Flashing shall be Installed at
the perimeters of....penetratlons and terminations of exterior wall assemblles....
Building Envelope Evolualion
Roy & Ferrlgno Residence
A. STUCCO
August 27, 2D12
Page 17
13, WALL TO ROOF ABUTMENTS: Sealant was not provided between the fascia and soffit to
wall abutments or at some light fixtures, (Photographs A26 -A27) These abutments are vuk
nerable points of water entry, The lack of sealant at this location Is a violation of 2004 FBC
Section 13-406,1,ABC, 1,2 which requires sealing of Junctions between .,,walls and roof or
wall panels. , t
Photograph A26: Rear Ilght Fixture is not sealed to the
wail surface.
Photograph A27: Fascia fo wall abutment fs not
sealed,
Building Envelope Evaluation August 27, 2012
Roy & Ferrlgno Residence Page 18
B. FENESTRATIONS
1. WINDOW FRAME LEAKS: A total of (4) windows ((2) within each unit) were sill dam tested to
determine If the window frame might be a source of water Infiltration. SIII darn testing is
conducted In accordance with AAMA Test Standard 511-08 —Voluntary Guldeline for Fo-
rensic Water Penetration Testing of Fenestration Products, The "Optional Snl Dam Test" Is
conducted by creating a false wall and blocking dralnage of the weeps along the front
of the sill, The enclosed area Is then filled with water to a height equating to the water
test pressure, For the 4-PSF field water test pressure derived from the windows' 60 PSF de-
sign pressure rating, the equivalent static water head equates to 1,152 -Inches, As such,
the enclosed sill was filled with water to a height of approximately 1 -Inch and observed for
leakage. The test revealed that the Internal Jamb to sill joints of the window frames leaked
at less than the windows' rated water infiltration pressure at (2) of the (4) locations.
(Photographs B1 -B3) Further, leakage through the window frames at less than the design
pressure constitutes a violation of the rem
qulrements of HAMA 101 Section
2.1.3,
Photograph B2: SIII dom test at 2nd Hoor window
of Unit 88.
Photograph a l: Hydrlon paper Indicates a leak be-
low east Jamb of first floor window of Unit 88 during
sill dam testing.
Photograph B3: Hydrlon paper Indlcotes teak through
window frame at the second floor window of Unit 88.
Building Envelope Evaluallon
Roy 6 Ferrlgno Residence
B. FENESTRATIONS
2, SILL FLASHING COMPONENTS; SIII flashing
at the window openings was completed
with straight foll-faced self-adhesive rub-
berized asphalt flashing tape, This tape
must be cut to wrap onto the face of the
wall at the lower corners of a window
rough opening, The requirement for
stretching and cutting the flashing tape
often results In breaches In the sill flashing
corners, For this reason, a diagonally orl-
ented segment of tape Is typically applied
to mask this cut, No such diagonal tape
was observed at the excavated area,
(Photograph B4) These vulnerable comers
Augusl 27, 2012
Page 19
Photograph 64; Exposed sill clashing tape below Un(t
BB second floor hallway window, Note the lack of
diagonally configured tape,
were concealed by the window fin at the locations observed. Subsequently, we could
not observe If a Vold was actually present. However, the substantial decay of the OSB be-
low the corner suggests this defect may be present, Most manufacturers recommend the
use of a flexible flashing tape or pre -molded 3-dimenslonol plastic corner pieces to pro-
tect the sill flashing corners, precluding this vulnerability,
Building Envelope Evaluaflon
Roy & Ferrlgno Residence
August 27, 2012
Page 20
B. FENESTRATIONS
3, SILL FLASHING INSTALLATION: The self adhesive rubberized asphalt flashing tape was ob-
served to be displaced and stretched at (2) of the (4) windows exposed for water testing,
(Photographs B5 -B6) The displacement of the flashing compromises Its Integrity and will
allow water Intrusion Into the wall cavity when the window frame leaks, The defective
flashing Installation Is a violation of the WRB manufacturer's Installation Instructions, To the
extent that this defect Is allowing water penetration Into the wall cavity, It Is a violation of
2004 FBC Section 14032, which states; Flashing shall be provided as necessary to prevent
the entrance of water at openings In or projection through veneered walls,,,
Photograph B5; SIII flashing tape Is stretched at the
west comer of Unit 90 second floor hallway window,
4. SLIDING DOOR PAN FLASHING; Pan flash-
ing did not appear to be Installed at any
of the observed door openings,
(Photograph 137) Pan flashing Is a second-
ary means of protection against water
Intrusion at the window openings. Such
flashing Is even more crltical In barrler-
type wall systems, as no leaks at the fen-
estration openings can be tolerated, This
omisslon reduces the capacity of the sys-
tem to resist water penetration over the
long term. Pan flashings are recommend-
ed by ASTM E 21121
Photograph 86; Floshing tape is disploced at the
west corner of Unit 88 second floor hallway window,
Photograph B7: Rear sliding door threshold of Unit 88
does not hove an exposed sill pan.
Building Envelope Evaluation
Roy & Ferrigno Residence
August 27, 2012
Page 21
C. BALCONIES
1. BASE FLASHING: As mentioned In Item A4, the liquid applied deck coating was Improperly
applied over the PBL at the walls, thus creating a reverse shingled condition with the WRB,
In addition, the metal base flashing used along the balcony to wall termination Is only 2 -
inches above the file surface, which is less than that recommended by most deck coating
manufacturers. (Photograph C1) The "short" flashing height has resulted In an open vold
between the top of the flashing and the base of the bands at the sliding doors, as well as
the doors themselves. This condition Is a violation of 2004 FBC Section 1403.2 and the in-
dustry standard practice established by The Construction Waterproofing Handbook,
Photograph C1: Base (lashing height Is Indicated
by probe location. Note the open crack separa-
tion between the base flashing and door.
Photograph C2: Location of omitted diverter
flashing.
2. DIVERTER FLASHINGS: "Kick out" or diverter flashings
were not provided at the front balco-
ny edge to wall Interfaces, (Photograph C2) The lack of a diverter flashing will allow water
draining off of the horizontal waterproofing to discharge into the wall cavity below, rather
than direct It to the exterior, Integration of the WRB below balcony corners Is difficult and
therefore susceptible to errant Installation. If Imperfect, water will contact and deteriorate
the wood sheathing and framing beyond. The lack of flashing and sealant at this location
has resulted In exposed wood framing and sheathing at this transition, (Photograph C3)
To the extent that the lack of diverter flashings allow water Intrusion behind the WRB, their
omisslon constitutes a violation of Building Code Section 1403.2, which states: Flashing shall
be Installed In such a manner so as to prevent moisture from entering the wall or to redl-
rect It to the exterior, Flashing shall be Installed at,...exterlor wall Intersections with..,
porches, decks and balconies.... The lack of WRB coverage of the exposed wood struc-
ture Is a violation of 2004 FBC Section 1404.2 which states: Water-reslstive barrier ,..shall be
attached In such a manner as to provide a continuous water resistive barrier behind the
exterior wall veneer,
Building Envelope EvoluaHon
Roy & Fenigno Residence
C. BALCONIES
Photograph C3: Exposed 058 at void between
balcony and stucco wall.
August 27, 2012
Page 22
Photograph C4: Coating failure on spiral stair
steps.
3, SPIRAL STAIR COATING: The paint applied to the spiral stairs has delaminated from the sub-
strate In several locations, (Photograph CQ The coating failure Is due to the lack of ap-
propriate priming and coating product selection for the subject salt-alr environment,
Building Envelope Evaluation
Roy & Ferslgno Residence
D. ROOFS
August 27, 2012
Page 23
1, SCUPPERS: The through -wall scuppers do not contain mounting flanges which could be
Integrated with the veneered wall system, (Photographs D1 -D2) Instead, the rectangular
scupper penetration was sealed to the face of the WRB, This reverse lapped configuration
results In water penetration at the scupper penetration, Further, sealant has adhesively
failed along the side walls of the scupper due to Improper surface preparation and seok
ant application,
2,
Photograph D1: Typical roof scupper.
Photograph D2: Scupper wall Is sealed to the face
of the PBL, Also, sealant has adhesively fulled
along the side wall of the scupper,
membrane has experienced laminar failure
MEMBRANE FAILURE: The liquid applied roof
between Its base and finish coats in areas of ponding between roof crickets, (Photograph
D3) The membrane has also cohesively failed across numerous butt Joints In the cement
board substrate, (Photographs D4 -D5) The failures Indicate Installation that Is not in ac-
cordance with the manufacturer's require-
ments, The failures are also a result of the
short life span of the selected roof cover-
ing material, Polyurethane deck coatings
are typically less than 40 mlis thick and are
vulnerable to UV degradation, Further, the
coatings are completely reliant on single
sealant Joint transitions and lack reinforce-
ment across substrate transitions and Joints,
These coatings typically require top coat-
ing every five to seven years, when proper-
ly applied,
Photograph D3: Close view of laminar (allure of
membrane.
gg {�u� rano Bu�puod }o soapy :�Q ydoi6o{oyd 'pb ��uq rano �a}on� Bu�puod {o oe�y ;qa ydo�6o{oyd
's8ull000 loop papddo pinbp
sol adols.lool-L of 4oufWl L o saAlnbej 4olgm 9l1091 uolloeS X83 b00Z to uollololn o sl adois
�o >1001 04L (LO=9(3 sydni6olo4d) 'uol}oaolaalap sll se}olala000 yolyM euojgwew;ooi e41
uo ja}oM 6ulpuod ul Bu4insei siaddnos a4t ol. pedols �ilalonbapoul song;oa auj :3dOlS
•}u�o(}{nq �auod a}o�}sgns o do}o 6u�}000 soap •Bup000 �aep yBnay} pa�aa�}
u� Bu��oo�o ani}oa�{a� {o �ne�n eso�� :94 ydo�6o{oyd -ei ego s}u�o(}}nq �auod a}o�{sgng :qp ydo�Bo}oyd
'E
vL e6od e°uep�sab ou6�Ue� � Roa
ZIOL 'LZ IsnBny uoN°n�ong edo�anu3 BulPlin9
Building Envelope Evaluation
Roy & Ferrigno Residence
August 27, 2012
Page 25
E. STRUCTURE
1. WATER DAMAGED FRAMING & SHEATHING: Water Intrusion through the building envelope
has resulted In substantial decay to the structural framing and sheathing. Full section loss
due to decay of the OSB sheathing was observed at each of the (10) locations from
which we removed small areas of stucco, Decay and subsequent strength loss of the
wood framing was also noted In some of the destructively observed locations, The severk
ty of damage observed constitutes "Substantlal Structural Damage" as defined by the
2010 Florida Building Code for Existing Buildings and has compromised both the structure's
vertical and lateral load carrying capacities,
2, REAR BALCONIES; The rear balconies are cantilevered, (Photograph E1) Framing details
for balconies are not depicted on the structural drawings, However, the drawings do
show concrete foundation below the balcony footprint Implying that the engineer ex.
pected columns to support the exterior edge of the conventionally framed balconies, The
lack of structural drawings raises concern as to the stability of the structure, Further, the
lower cantilevered balcony supports a spiral stair case which provides access to the roof,
(Photograph E2) The deck structure Is Insufficient to support the load of the spiral stair
case's center column, The Installed condition of the stairs represents a violation of 2004
FBC Section 1604,2 which states: Buildings and other structures and part thereof, shall be
designed and constructed to support safely the factored loads In load combinations de-
fined In this code without exceeding the appropriate strength limit states for the materials
of construction, , ,
Photograph E 1: Rear cantilevered balcony wlih
spiral stair support In center of balcony,
Photograph E2: 5upport column bearing on
wood deck for rear spiral stairs.
Building Envelope Evaluotlon
Roy & Ferrlgno Residence
Auguc127I 2012
Page 26
E. STRUCTURE
3. ENTRY CANOPIES: The eyebrow roof structures over the front entries are detaching from
the face of the building due to Inadequacies In the originally Installed attachment,
(Photographs E3 -E4) The framing and connection of the roof structures to the building
was not contemplated In the structural design for the building, A drawing prepared by
Lou Pontlgo & Associates for the remedial attachment of the structure was generated on
March 8. 2012 to address this defect, The roofs are currently supported with shoring posts
to prevent collapse. The Installed condition of the roof represents a violation of 2004 FBC
Section 1604,2 which states; Buildings and other structures and part thereof, shall be de-
signed and constructed to support safely the factored loads In load combinations de-
fined In this code without exceeding the appropriate strength limit states for the materials
of construction,.,.
Photograph E3: Front entry canopy.
4. UPLIFT STRAPS; Light gage metal uplift
straps are Installed at the subJect bulld(ng
to resist uplift and overturning forces Im-
parted on the building structure by wind
events, These straps were positioned out-
board of the WRB at the subject site,
(Photograph E5) This configuratlon ren-
ders the straps vulnerable to corrosion
from contact with liquid water and vapor
expected to be present on the exterior
side of the WRB. Straps should have been
Installed prior to the WRB, The as -
Photograph E4: View of canopy roof framing wh(ch
has no substantial connection to the building wall,
Photograph E5: Steel uplift straps are Installed out-
board of the WRB.
Building Envelope Evaluation
Roy & Ferrigno Residence
E. STRUCTURE
August 27, 2D 12
Page 27
constructed condition Is contrary to Industry standard practices and wll( render the struc-
ture less stable over the long-term, Further, the straps Induce a myriad of nail holes
through the WRB, thus detrimentally affecting Its performance,
5. PERGOLA; The wood pergola located over the second floor east balconies contain trellis
members that are insufficiently secured to withstand code required wind loads and may
result In detachment of the components during a wind storm, (Photograph E6) As con-
structed, the pergola cannot resist the minimum design loads required by 2004 FBC Sec-
tion 1604,
Photograph E6; Wood pergola over east balco-
nies.
Building Envelope Evaluaflon
Roy & Fentgno Residence
Augusl 27, 2012
Page 28
F. INTERIOR
1. The Interiors of both units contain significant and pervasive evidence of chronic water In-
truslon In the form of stains on Interior gypsum wall board finishes, base board separation
and "visual mold growth (VSM), (58) Individual locations of water staining on the Interior
finishes were observed, Mold growth Is both visible and palatable In the air. Because of
the water Intrusion and related mold growth, the buildings may not be suitable for occu-
pancy for individuals with sensitivity to mold spores. Examples of evidence of Interior water
penetration are depicted In Photographs FT -F10,
Photograph F1: E(1lorescent water stains Indicating
water entry Into the elevator shaft of Unit 68.
Photograph F3: Water stain at head of rear flrsf floor
window at Unit 88.
Photograph F2: Mold behind removed baseboard at
the first floor soulh wall of Unit 88,
Photograph F4: Rust colored staining anddecay of
Inlerior trim around the rear second floor sliding door
of Unit 88.
Bu(Iding Envelopo Evaivallon
Roy & Ferrfgno Residence
F. INTERIOR
Photograph F5: Stain in ceiling below roof of Unit 88.
Photograph F7: Water stain on ceiling of Unit 88.
Photograph F9: Water stain at head of window In Unit
90.
August 27, 2012
Page 29
411ij
UN I
` ' y y `or
'r'
Photograph F6: Mold and water staining on the first
floor south wall of Unit 88.
Photograph F8: Cracking and staining above rear first
floor windows of Un(t 90.
Photograph F10: Gelling stain below roof of Unit 90.
Bulldlnp Envelope Evaluaflon
Roy & Fenlpno Residence
REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS
Aupusf 27, 2012
Pape 30
fie following general repair recommendations should be Implemented to address the con-
cerns raised In this report, Please note that these recommendations are Intended to be a
general guideline and are not Intended to serve as specification for the repair or for use In
obtaining building permits,
A. EXTERIOR WALL CLADQING
1, Remove entirety of stucco from all wood framed exterior surfaces, Install new WRB,
properly Integrated at all openings and with drainage at the wall base, Apply stucco
In accordance with ASTM C926 and ASTM C1063 and per NWWCB details, Provide
through -wall flashing over all penetrations and atop the CMU at the second floor line,
2. Replace ail exterior wall Insulation wffh un -faced baits,
3, Seal ail penetrations In exterior walls.
4. Paint exterior walls so that the new and existing stucco surtaces will match,
B. FENSTRATIONS
1. Remove and replace all windows and sliding doors with kind vinyl assemblies manu-
factured by WlnDor or approved equivaient,
2. Install new sliding doors over sill pans.
C. BALCONIES
l . Remove all balcony the and exlsflng membrane.
2. install appropriate base flashing extension along all wall abutments and dlverter flash-
ings at all edge terminations.
3. Replace scuppers with stainless steel assemblies with flanges. Instal( new polyurethane
deck coating and cover with Schluter Ditra or equivalent uncoupling membrane and
equivalent ceramic tile,
Buliding Envelope Evaluation
Roy & Fenigno Residence
REPAIR RECOMMENDATI%jIVS
D, ROOFS
Augusf 27, 2012
Page 31
1. Remove and replace existing scuppers with new stainless steel assemblies Inclusive of
mounting flanges,
2, Remove existing roof covering, Install new modified bitumen built-up roof membrane.
3, Install new synthetic deck boards over wood sleepers on new roof deck,
E. STRUCTURE
1. Replace all damaged wall and floor sheathing In kind. Minimum repair width shall be
32",
2, Replace all damaged wood framing with full length members,
3, Re -attach uplift straps per the original structural drawings. Increase nail length to ac-
commodate the thickness of the OSB sheathing,
4, Install pipe column support and foundation below the spiral stair,
5. Evaluate the cantilevered wood deck members and connections and Improve as
necessary, or Install foundatlon and support the cantllevered balconies with wood col-
umns,
b. Secure the entry eyebrow roofs per the drawing prepared by Lou Pontigo.
7. Install stainless steel uplift straps at each trellis member.
Building Envelope Evcluclion
Roy & Ferrlgno Residence
REPAIR RECOMMENDATIONS
F, INTERIOR
1, Remove and replace and store all interior contents from units.
Augusf 27, 2012
Pcge 32
2. Temporarily displace all Interlor cabinetry and other appurtenances mounted to the
interior face of exterior walls,
3, Remove all Interlor gypsum wall board and wood trim elements that are common with
exterior walls and roof, Contain per IICRC S-520 Guidelines, using containments with
negative air machines and air scrubbers.
4, Replace all tack strips common with exterior walls, Clean all Interlor floor coverings with
HEPA filter vacuum. Replace carpet pads as required,
5, Clean HVAC air handling unit to clear all VSM,
6, Perform clearance air testing for mold upon completion of the abatement,
7. Paint entirety of Interior
walls.
8, Reinstall all removed appurtenances and contents.
Please note that there may be defects associated with other building systems, such as electri-
cal, plumbing and mechanical systems, which were not observed or reported, The evalua-
tion of any components aside from the building envelope are expressly excluded from our
scope of services,