Loading...
38B-029 123 South TSE Field ReportsToce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net Field Report-01 Site Visit Date: August 1, 2012 Report Date: August 2, 2012 Time: 3:00 PM - 4:30 PM Location: Mayfair Manor 123 South Street Unit No. 2 Northampton, MA 01060 Present: David Toce PE Toce Structural Engineering LLC Melissa Frydlo Mayfair Manor Representative David Osiecki Western Mass Masons Items Reviewed: Review Existing Rear Addition Structural Conditions General Information The reason for this site visit was to review some questionable existing structural conditions as found by the mason contractor while trying to patch the exterior cement plaster façade of the rear addition to the building at the above mentioned location. Based upon the building construction type and materials used it is thought that this building was constructed in the mid 1900’s. At this time this building has 10 units with 2 units per floor. The rear enclosed stairway and tenant sunroom structure appear to have been an addition on to the existing building at some time after the original building was constructed. There is also a possibility that this structure was once an exterior deck and stair addition that was enclosed to make permanent all year round rooms. The existing construction of the rear addition consists of masonry foundation with load bearing wood floor and roof framing. The walls are finished on the inside with a plaster type board that is painted and the exterior has a metal lath and ¾”-1” thick natural color concrete plaster finish. The concrete plaster system is attached back to the structure with intermediate wood stud nailers. From what is visible at this time it doesn’t appear that there is any wood sheathing or moisture/vapor barrier between the back of the concrete finish system and the back of the interior wall board. In a few locations there was fiberglass insulation that was stuck in the air space void however that was not the normal condition. When viewing the rear façade of the building it is clear based upon the color and texture change at the lower level that the lower level had been patched and or repaired at one time in the past. Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net Structural Items At this time a portion of the southern corner of the existing concrete plaster façade had been removed along with a 10 sf area on the southern wall where the addition meets the old brick building wall. It was observed that the condition of the wood wall framing in the corner is highly deteriorated and in extremely poor condition. The wood framing as viewed in the area adjacent to the existing brick building at the wood framing tie in is in good condition with no signs of rot or deterioration. The corner of the building the comprised of built-up wood stud framing and all the plys area deteriorated and will require full replacement. Based upon the condition of this lower corner it is a very good assumption that this wood deterioration also occurs at the upper floor levels. Although given the water infiltration travels downward to the ground the upper levels would most likely be less deteriorated the higher you go up in the building. When viewing the wall area under the window in the wall cavity that is visible at this time the wall area and framing under the windows looks good with no signs of deterioration. The northeastern corner exterior concrete plaster is cracked in similar form as the southwestern corner that was exposed. At this time it would be a very good assumption that there is a high level of deterioration in this corner as well. This assumption is based upon the visual clues and similarities on the exterior and on the interior finishes which is very much like the southwestern corner. Conclusion From a structural performance point of view the existing deteriorated wood stud framing must be replaced. The overall exterior wall system that exists is a hybrid type wall system. There are numerous factors that contributed to the wall framing and exterior finish system to get to this level of deterioration. These factors are: 1. The existing concrete plaster finish system doesn’t have any expansion or contraction joints anywhere on the three sides of the building. This creates stress risers in the corners of the windows and the corners of the building when the outside temperature goes up in the summer and down in the winter. The skin as it exists tries to act as one large rigid element and over the large change in temperatures that exist in the north east cracking of the concrete exterior finish system occurs. When the concrete plaster finish system cracks water has a path to get in and behind the concrete plaster system. This leads into the second item. 2. The structural wood wall framing as mentioned previously consists of vertical stud and beam framing with an interior wall board finish. Exterior plywood sheathing or horizontal planking sheathing boards do NOT exist in this wall system. The concrete plaster system is simply attached to the vertical stud framing. 3. Given that there isn’t any exterior sheathing boards or plywood also means that there isn’t any vapor/moisture barrier between the back face of the concrete plaster finish system and the interior wall cavity. This allows any water that gets behind the concrete plaster to migrate directly into the wall cavity and or living space as it has been doing in the past. Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net 4. From the exposed area that was visible at this time there isn’t any insulation in the existing wall cavity. Remediation Measures Without question the existing deteriorated wood framing should be replaced in kind and the exterior finish system repaired. Based upon the level of deterioration and that the performance of the existing concrete plaster finish system doesn’t perform as it should there are a few possible solutions that would yield a long lasting repair that would outperform the existing system by a large margin. Repair Type I matches the existing look while the Type II repair better matches the look and feel of the homes around the area. The possible repair solutions are as follows: Repair Type I Match Existing Steps 1. Remove all of the concrete plaster system. 2. Replace all the deteriorated wood framing. 3. Repair any window trim. 4. Insulated the existing wall cavity with either spray foam or batten insulation. 5. Sheath the wall with ¾” plywood. 6. Install a self adhering Grace waterproofing membrane on the plywood. 7. Install the concrete plaster system and adding control joints to allow for thermal movement in the exterior finish system. Repair Type II Wood Siding 1. Remove all of the concrete plaster system. 2. Replace all the deteriorated wood framing. 3. Repair and window trim. 4. Insulated the existing wall cavity with either spray foam or batten insulation. 5. Sheath the wall with ¾” plywood. 6. Install 30 lb tar paper or building wrap over the entire plywood wall area 7. Install wood siding and wood trim boards. Repair type I would match the existing building however I believe would be more expensive than the Repair type II. The Repair Type II would better match the look and feel of the area and surrounding homes. Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net Rear façade elevation Photo 1 Areas of previous repair & patching Photo 2 Photo 3 Exterior concrete plaster finish system 1980’s concrete plaster repair area 1980’s concrete plaster repair area Apartment sun rooms Common stairs Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net High level of wood deterioration Photo 3 Wood framing at the rear addition to original brick main building Photo 4 Highly deteriorated wood stud framing Existing concrete plaster had been removed to review the condition of the wood in this zone Existing wood framing as it meets the brick main building Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net Extreme level of wood deterioration Photo 5 Knife used to penetrate the deteriorate wood Photo 6 Highly deteriorated wood stud framing Highly deteriorated wood stud framing Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net The knife shown in photo 6 completely penetrates into the existing wood Photo 7 Deteriorated wood at the third floor level (Unit 5) Photo 8 Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net Existing wall cavity Photo 9 Interior deterioration Photo 10 Concrete lath and plaster system varies in thickness from ¾”-1” Highly deteriorated wood framing and interior finishes Photo 11 Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net Interior deterioration close up Photo 11 Interior water infiltration at the building interface Photo 12 Highly deteriorated wood framing and interior finishes Water infiltration paint staining Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net Signs of water infiltration damage Photo 13 If there are any questions regarding this field report or any of the assessments made above please contact me for further discussion. Sincerely, David J. Toce PE, SECB Water infiltration paint staining and paint peeling/cracking Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net Field Report-02 Site Visit Dates: June 7, 2013, June 24, 2013 Report Date: July 2, 2013 Time: 4:00 PM - 5:45 PM, 4:00 PM - 5:30 PM Conditions: June 7, 2013, Raining, 75 degrees, damp June 24, 2013, Sunny 88 degrees, humid Location: Mayfair Manor 123 South Street Unit No. 2 Northampton, MA 01060 Present: David Toce PE Toce Structural Engineering LLC Melissa Frydlo Mayfair Manor Representative Mark Turcotte Unit 4 Owner (Board of Trustees) Victor Katz Unit 6 Owner Items Reviewed: Review Existing Rear Addition Structural Conditions General Information The reason for these two site visits was to review some existing structural conditions at predetermined test cut observation holes to better quantify the existing wood framing conditions at the above mentioned building location. Based upon the building construction type and materials used it is thought that this building was constructed in the early 1900’s. At this time this building has 10 units with 2 units per floor. The rear enclosed stairway and tenant sunroom structure appear to have been an addition on to the existing building at some time after the original building was constructed. There is also a possibility that this structure was once an exterior deck and stair addition that was enclosed to make permanent all year round rooms. According to the Mark Turcotte the last repairs that were done on the north side were most likely completed in the 1980’s. The existing construction of the rear addition consists of masonry foundation with load bearing wood floor and roof framing. The walls finishes on the inside vary per unit as some units have been renovated in the past. Typical interior finishes are drywall or a plaster type board that is painted. The exterior is a metal lath and ¾”-1” thick natural color concrete stucco plaster finish. The concrete plaster system is attached back to the structure with intermediate wood stud nailers and metal lath. Based upon the various test cut holes in every area except the areas that were repaired in the 1980’s there is no exterior wall sheathing or vapor barrier behind the exterior stucco finish system. In other words in the majority of this portion of the building the concrete stucco finish system is attached directly to the wall stud framing with no vapor barrier, sheathing or insulation. Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net An example of the type of repairs that were completed in the 1980’s is visible in Unit 4. This unit is in the process of a renovation and all of the interior finishes have been removed. What is visible is the installation of new wood stud framing and plywood sheathing along with insulation. Then poly vapor barrier, metal lath and concrete stucco finish was then applied to the sheathing. When viewing the rear façade of the building it is clear based upon the color and texture change at the lower level that the lower level had been patched and or repaired at one time in the past. The lighter color concrete stucco finish is the 1980’s repaired area where the darker color area is assumed original concrete stucco area. Refer to photo 25 for additional information. Structural Items June 7, 2013 Unit 9: A single test cut was located in the southwest corner of the sunroom at the ceiling to wall interface. In this test hole the ceiling joists and the roof rafters were visible. The roof rafters and ceiling joists appeared to be in good condition with little to no signs of rot or deterioration. There appeared to be some minor leaking at some point but no water infiltration was present at this time. Refer to photos 1-4 for additional information. June 7, 2013 Test cut in common stairway wall: This test cut wall opening indicates that there isn’t any header over the existing window unit only a 2x continuous plate to create the window rough opening. Looking up into the wall cavity the wood wall framing looked good with no signs of deterioration. As a side note in some locations there is a small gap between the top of the window and rough opening as daylight is visible from the inside thus there is a gap between the window frame and the exterior which could lead to future air and water infiltration. Refer to photos 5-7 for additional information. June 7, 2013 Unit 5: A single test cut was located in the southwest corner of the sunroom at the ceiling to wall interface. In this test hole the wall studs and back face of the concrete stucco was visible. The wood framing in this area is highly deteriorated and was wet. Water from the rain on the outside could be visibly seen seeping down the wall cavity. Based upon the highly deteriorated condition of the wood water has been infiltrating inside this wall cavity for a long time. The wood around this area is in very poor condition and is in need of replacement. When looking up (toward Unit 7) inside the wall cavity was also showing signs of water infiltration. Refer to photos 8-11 for additional information. June 7, 2013 Unit 4: At this time as described previously the entire room has been stripped of all the interior finishes thus the entire wood wall framing and ceiling joists which are also Unit 6 floor joists are visible. This exterior stucco and wood wall framing has been previously repaired and renovated back in the 1980’s. Some of the wood wall stud framing was replaced along with a new window header. The wall construction differs with the original construction in that plywood wall sheathing was used to sheath the wall studs, which then provides a surface to attach the concrete stucco wire lath to. There is also the presence of a clear poly vapor barrier on top of the plywood sheathing prior to the installation of the metal lath and stucco. This unit also was insulated with fiberglass insulation in the1980’s when the repairs were done. The condition of the wood framing in this unit is very good as all of the deteriorated wood framing was replaced in the 1980’s. Some of the new wood framing that was used to reconstruct this unit is Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net pressure treated which was most likely done to prevent any future water deterioration. Refer to photos 12- 15 for additional information. June 24, 2013 Unit 6: Two test cuts were located in the north corners of the sunroom at the ceiling to wall interface. One test cut is located at the existing brick wall interface where the other is at the corner of the addition. Upon reviewing the exterior corner there is newer 2x wood wall framing that indicates that deteriorated wood was removed and replaced in similar fashion as the repairs that were visible in Unit 4 below. Plywood was used and stops approximately 16” past the corner of which is the extent of the concrete stucco repair that is visible on the exterior of the building. There was also fiberglass insulation present in this test cut also. The wood is in good condition at these two test cuts. Refer to photos 16-19 for additional information. June 24, 2013 Unit 8: A single test cut was located in the northwest corner of the sunroom at the ceiling to wall interface. Upon reviewing the test cut there is newer 2x wood wall framing that indicates that deteriorated wood was removed and replaced in similar fashion as the repairs that were visible in Units 4 and 6 below. Plywood was used and stops approximately 16” past the corner of which is the extent of the concrete stucco repair that is visible on the exterior of the building. There was also fiberglass insulation present in this test cut also. The wood is generally good condition however there is an area where the existing wood is very soft and deteriorated to the point where a screwdriver can be plunged into the side of the wood 2x. Refer to photos 20-22 for additional information. June 24, 2013 Unit 10: A single test cut was located in the northwest corner of the sunroom at the ceiling to wall interface. Upon reviewing the test cut there is newer 2x wood wall framing that indicates that deteriorated wood was removed and replaced in similar fashion as the repairs that were visible in Units 4, 6 and 8 below. The wood is in good condition at this location. Refer to photos 23-24 for additional information Conclusion From a structural performance point of view the existing deteriorated wood stud framing must be replaced. The overall exterior wall system that exists is a hybrid type wall system. There are numerous factors that contributed to the wall framing and exterior finish system to get to this level of deterioration. These factors are: 1. The existing concrete plaster finish system doesn’t have any expansion or contraction joints anywhere on the three sides of the building. This creates stress risers in the corners of the windows and the corners of the building when the outside temperature goes up in the summer and down in the winter. The skin as it exists tries to act as one large rigid element and over the large change in temperatures that exist in the north east cracking of the concrete exterior finish system occurs. When the concrete plaster finish system cracks water has a path to get in and behind the concrete plaster system. This leads into the second item. 2. The structural wood wall framing as mentioned previously consists of vertical stud and beam framing with an interior wall board finish. Exterior plywood sheathing or horizontal planking sheathing boards do NOT exist in this wall system. The concrete plaster system is simply attached to the vertical stud framing in most locations. However plywood does exist at the areas where the 1980’s repairs were completed. Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net 3. Given that there isn’t any exterior sheathing boards or plywood over the majority of the building also means that there isn’t any vapor/moisture barrier between the back face of the concrete plaster finish system and the interior wall cavity. This allows any water that gets behind the concrete plaster to migrate directly into the wall cavity and or living space as it has been doing in the past. 4. From the exposed area that was visible at this time there isn’t any insulation in the existing wall cavity except where the 1980’s repairs have been completed. Remediation Options Without question the existing deteriorated wood framing should be replaced in kind and the exterior finish system repaired. Based upon the level of deterioration and that the performance of the existing concrete plaster finish system doesn’t perform as it should there are a few possible solutions that would yield a long lasting repair that would outperform the existing system by a large margin. Repair Option Type A and Repair Option Type B. A description of the possible repair solutions are as follows: Repair Option Type A 1. Remove all of the concrete plaster system on the entire sunroom addition. 2. Replace all the deteriorated wood framing. 3. Sheath the wall with plywood. 4. Repair and or replace rotted windows, associated trim and flashings. 5. Insulate the existing wall cavity with either spray foam or batten insulation. 6. Install building vapor barrier wrap over the entire plywood wall area 7. Install wood siding and wood trim boards. Repair Option Type B 1. Remove all of the concrete plaster system in the areas where there is deteriorated wood framing that will be repaired or replaced. 2. Replace all the deteriorated wood framing. 3. Repair or replace rotted windows, associated trim. 4. Sheath the areas of wall repair with plywood and building vapor barrier wrap. 5. Install the concrete lath stucco system and adding control joints to allow for thermal movement in the exterior finish system. 6. At the two building corners install Asek pilasters. 7. Grind down the existing concrete stucco cracks and caulk. It should be noted that in Option Type B that it will be impossible to flash around the new or repaired existing windows as there isn’t any plywood sheathing to attach the flashings. This will prove to be a challenge to be able to achieve a totally weatherproof condition at the windows. Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net Photos from June 7, 2013 Site Visit Unit 9 observation hole Photo 1 Unit 9 roof rafter ceiling space area Photo 2 Test cut location Roof rafter Ceiling joist Ceiling Exterior wall studs and stucco Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net Unit 9 roof rafter ceiling space area Photo 3 Unit 9 wood framing at test cut area Photo 4 Ceiling Roof rafters Ceiling joists Roof rafter Ceiling joist Exterior wall studs and stucco Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net Test observation hole in stair area Photo 5 Test observation hole in stair area Photo 6 Test cut location Exterior wall studs and stucco No header just framed opening Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net Test observation hole in stair looking up in the wall cavity Photo 7 Test observation hole in Unit 5 Photo 8 Exterior wall studs and stucco Test cut location Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net Unit 5 water infiltrating leaking inside the wall cavity Photo 9 Unit 5 wood framing deterioration Photo 10 Water infiltration on the inside of the wall cavity Highly deteriorated wood framing Water infiltration on the inside of the wall cavity Highly deteriorated wood framing Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net Unit 5 water inside the wall cavity (looking up) Photo 11 Unit 4 interior structure Photo 12 Water infiltration on the inside of the wall cavity Exterior wall studs and stucco Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net Unit 4 interior structure Photo 13 Unit 4 interior structure Photo 14 Newer repair plywood wall sheathing Newer repair wall stud framing Newer repair plywood wall sheathing Newer repair wall stud framing and header Wall insulation Wall insulation Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net Unit 4 exterior wall joist bearing Photo 15 Photos From June 24, 2013 Site Visit Unit 6 test observation holes Photo 16 Signs of water infiltration at the exterior wall interface Test cut locations Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net Unit 6 test observation hole at existing building interface Photo 17 Unit 6 test observation hole at corner Photo 18 Newer repair plywood wall sheathing Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net Unit 6 test observation hole at corner Photo 19 Unit 8 test observation hole at corner Photo 20 Newer repair plywood wall stud framing Newer repair plywood wall stud framing Very high level of wood deterioration Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net Unit 8 test observation hole at corner Photo 21 Unit 8 test observation hole at corner Photo 22 Newer repair plywood wall stud framing Very high level of wood deterioration Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net Unit 10 test observation hole at corner Photo 23 Unit 10 test observation hole at corner Photo 24 Newer repair plywood wall stud framing Wall insulation Poly vapor barrier Toce Structural Engineering LLC 114 Lepage Drive, Southington, Connecticut, 06489 860-538-3914, DaveTSE@cox.net Exterior elevation Photo 25 If there are any questions regarding this field report or any of the assessments made above please contact me for further discussion. Sincerely, David J. Toce PE, SECB The lighter colored stucco is the newer area of repair 1980’s +/- The darker stucco is the original exterior finish