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