brick veneer issues

[mgbinspect]

And baby, it always seems to be about the head joints, doesn't it? I've got an awl that I jam in head joints.

That and, on buildings with some height, a broken bond between brick and mortar in a bed joint. Water can literally get drawn in, via the stack affect, in alarming quantities.

Where's Spiderman these days?... He was one of my instructors back at the Exterior Design Institute for the Moisture Analysis Training Class - crazy fellow, but he was decent at moisture intrusion.

[kurt]

Yup, capillarity and stack effect is amazing.........you couldn't have convinced me of how much water can get sucked into a building 10 years ago.

[ejager]

if the components that are necessary for the masonry to function as intended are not present, then there is the possibility for leaks and major problems that are extremely expensive to repair.

This sounds like the basis for great boilerplate.

Brick veneer\stucco\roofing\stairwell is not a simple stack of bricks, layer of cement, waterproof covering\bunch of treads and risers, but a system. If the components that are necessary for the to function as intended are not present, then there is the possibility for and major problems that are extremely expensive to repair.

[Jim Katen]

New home version:

Improperly Installed Brick Veneer

Like most brick veneer in our area, the brick on this house is improperly installed. There's no through-wall flashing at the first course above grade or at the underside of the rowlock courses. The rowlocks are not installed at a 15-degree slope, but at a 7-degree slope, which is more likely to allow water to run behind the brick. These issues can't be repaired without entirely removing the brick veneer and reinstalling it from the ground up. Sometimes, brick vener that's improperly installed like this does just fine; it doesn't lead to water intrusion or water damage. Other times, the improper installation leads to concealed decay that isn't discovered until significant damage has occured.

1. Either have the brick veneer reinstalled properly or accept the risk that the walls behind the brick veneer might someday develop concealed water damage.

Older home version with no evidence of problems:

Improperly Installed Brick Veneer

The brick veneer lacks weepholes, through-wall flashings, and a 3/4" gap at the rafter tails. To date, I see no evidence of problems associated with this improper installation. From the crawlspace, I see no staining or evidence of other damage to the floor structure. From the interior, the drywall looks and feels souind and there are no elevated moisture levels. At the indoor electrical receptacles behind the brick veneer, I detect no odor of mildew or decay. Despite this, there's a small risk of concealed damage behind the bricks. If you're unwilling to accept that risk, then open the walls behind the brick to determine with certainty whether or not damage is present.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[kurt]

That's pretty good.

Here's what might help improve onsite analysis.

Read up and try to ascertain the type of mortar that was used. So much gets written about flashing, but the stuff that's holding the bricks together (and holding them apart) is as important, or maybe more important, than flashing. Lime mortars work like a miracle, everything else does not work like a miracle.

After that, all the vapor impermeable building materials that define our age were not in wide use until the mid-late 60's. In the 40's and 50's, a little water gets in, and it breathes or evaporates itself back out. In the 60's and onward, a little water gets in, and it stays there.

Those two paragraphs are what folks should think about as they're looking @ brick veneer.

The masonry from the 40's-late 50's is always fine (at least in my 'hood), regardless of flashing or not. I have never seen any water problems with masonry from the 40's and 50's. Of course, we still had training back then, so anyone that called themselves a mason probably was one, as were all the other trades. And, there were no, or almost no, vapor impermeable materials. Again, this is in my region; your area may be different.

The stuff from the 60's might be OK, but you have to know what softer lime content mortar looks and feels like to know if it's OK. Problem there is, the 60's is when the first of the vapor impermeable materials got wide penetration, i.e., plywood and plastic stuff, and the old growth stuff started getting phased out.

If it's new masonry, meaning from the 70's on, it's about a 99.9% likelihood that it's straight Type N with little or no lime. This stuff can soak up water through little hairline cracks you can't even see. It gets in, and it stays in due to the vapor impermeable nature of our modern building materials.

The shift from old growth decay resistant materials to new tree farm punk is the final mess. The old stuff barely decayed, the new stuff goes to blazes if it gets spit upon.

So, all this talk about flashing is missing some large points. Try looking @ the masonry and the underlying building materials so you can know what it is you're talking about.

Also understand that the mere presence of visible flashing doesn't necessarily mean anything. If the installer didn't put in end dams and back dams, it's not going to do much of anything.

[Erby]

I use this as a starter and edit as necessary:

It's a two part comment as the first part is included in the summary.

+++++++++++

Proper weep holes (openings in the brick to let water out) are not present in the brick veneer at (LOCATION).

Water does get behind brick veneer through bad mortar joints, wind driven rain, solar driven moisture, capillary action, etc.. It needs a way out so it doesn't sit in the wall rotting the structural wood until it evaporates. Flashing is supposed to be installed behind the brick to direct water to the weep holes. I can't tell if flashing has been installed in the required areas behind the brick veneer.

There is no way to see into this space behind the brick without removing brick or opening the interior wall. That exceeds the scope of this general home inspection. However, if you can get written permission and are willing to pay for the additional time, I can conduct invasive inspection to determine if moisture problems are present inside the wall.

Read the below information and reference sources before determining a course of action.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Even though some local jurisdictions require it, I seldom see proper weep holes in brick veneer in recent construction in this area. For more information on brick systems on the internet see: http://www.bia.org/html/frmset_thnt.htm Look at Technical Note #7 for weephole information.

Weep holes are openings in the brick mortar that provide drainage for water that has penetrated (or condensed) into the space between the brick and the wall sheathing. When installed, these are combined with flashing (a piece of sheet metal or other similar water resistant material) between the sheathing and bricks which lead the collected moisture out the weep holes.

The Brick Industry Association (the people who make the brick and design installation requirements for it) recommend "weep holes should be located above all doors and windows, below all window sills, and above the ground at the base of the wall." Generally accepted nationwide building practices also call for proper weep holes in brick construction.

However, local generally accepted building practices usually lag behind nationally accepted practices and may not require weep holes.

Walls may be retrofitted with weep holes but without flashing to direct the water to the weep holes, retrofitting may be useless.

You may also want to review the following resources about the need for flashing and weep holes in brick walls.

a. The Brick Industry Association web site at www.bia.org.

b. An article on The Journal of Light Construction web site www.jlconline.com. The article is: Keeping water out of brick veneer, by Jerry Carrier. Great explanations, great pictures. Costs $5 to download if you're not a member.

c. The Building Science Corporation web site at Solar Driven Moisture

d. Construction books at your local library.

I recommend three courses of action:

1. Review the above resources to educate yourself about the need for brick weep holes and flashing.

2. Consult the local building inspector's office for local requirements.

3. Contact some knowledgeable qualified brick or masonry contractors to determine needed repairs and best repair methods, to estimate costs, and to perform the necessary repairs.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-

[mgbinspect]

On a side note, for anyone that had never heard of, Scott "Spiderman" Mulholland, he's one of the pioneers of moisture intrusion and forensics - making the ridiculous fees to find the stuff no one else can find, related to high rise buildings. I think he was an Army Ranger? or Marine? but his expertise was repelling, which he puts to good use use finding and problems. He's been all over the country and was one of our instructors at the Exterior Design Institute - Third Party EIFS Inspection and Moisture Analysis Training. the institute has been around for years and was the big in helping develop a lot of the changes in the way EIFS is/was installed. If you have any interest in becoming a Third Pary EIFS Inspector, that's a good place to go. I got the certification and decided there was just too much liability (mostly based upon trying to probe fo the unknown, base upon moisture testing). And, I was busy enough already. It was a great course though. A lot gets thrown at you in a short period of time and the test is tough. You really have to know a lot about synthetic stucco installations. I always refer folks to one of my fellow classmates that became an EIFS inspector, when EIFS is on a building.

I haven't actually seen him in years, but he's a character and a half. And, he could no doubt have retired many years ago at the fees he's been making for the last few years.

[Bain]

There's a problem, though, with everything that's been said. I don't disagree with one thing Kurt had to offer. He is, as my Dad used to say, a smart sumbitch. No weepholes = potentially big problems. But in real time, most of the houses I look at DON'T have weepholes. And when they do, they aren't flashed correctly or there's some other detail that's wrong.

So when I look at a house with no weepholes, the question becomes, what do I tell a client? Sure, there's the disclaimer, but that's actually a device with which to protect myself. A typical buyer doesn't know whether he should "accept the risk," and he certainly won't have time to perform any necessary research to form his own opinion in the three or four days he has to make a decision to move on, or present the seller with a repair-request form. He can call a mason, but that person can't see into the wall any further than I can. And as for invasive investigation, I can't imagine any seller who would allow a bunch of drywall to be removed to mollify a buyer so the house MAYBE will sell.

In the end, I'M the buyer's expert, and he no doubt will turn to me and ask, "Would YOU take the risk?" Or "Would you buy a house with no weepholes?" I haven't settled upon the correct answer. If I were really proactive, I would have buyers walking away from most of the houses I check out. Then again, it seems wimpy to plop in a disclaimer and recommend that the buyer solicit another opinion from someone who won't be able to offer any more insight than I'm capable of providing. Similar to Les, a lack of weepholes typically doesn't cause a lot of problems in my area. But of course they CAN, like Kurt's splooshy insulation example--though if that much water was in a wall cavity, I doubt the only problem was missing weepholes.

Again, what's the best advice to give our clients? I vacillate back and forth and still don't know. But like I said, I don't think it's fair to simply toss a disclaimer in a report and tell a buyer she's on her own. Protecting clients is the number one priority in our job description. What's the best method by which to provide that protection?

[mgbinspect]

Similar to Les, a lack of weepholes typically doesn't cause a lot of problems in my area. But of course they CAN, like Kurt's splooshy insulation example--though if that much water was in a wall cavity, I doubt the only problem was missing weepholes.

In the end, so much of what we decide to report is truly a judgment call. I know that here, in eighteen years now, no one has ever called to even ask about, let alone share some horror story as a result of no weep holes.

Similarly, while some areas of the country experience big problems with Polybutylene plumping pipes, it's never been much of a problem here. I've only seen or even heard of a handful of failures in my entire career here. The only time is becomes a big issue is when someone moves here from another part of the country or a relo company gets involved. Then, suddently the stuff is getting torn out problem or not.

Of course, in both cases I do inform my buyers that there could be a problem, but we need to decide, based upon real life experience and research if we're going to be reporters or chicken little declaring that the sky is falling.

I guess that's a part of what makes us professionals - making those calls...

[Marc]

There's a problem, though, with everything that's been said. I don't disagree with one thing Kurt had to offer. He is, as my Dad used to say, a smart sumbitch. No weepholes = potentially big problems. But in real time, most of the houses I look at DON'T have weepholes. And when they do, they aren't flashed correctly or there's some other detail that's wrong.

So when I look at a house with no weepholes, the question becomes, what do I tell a client? Sure, there's the disclaimer, but that's actually a device with which to protect myself. A typical buyer doesn't know whether he should "accept the risk," and he certainly won't have time to perform any necessary research to form his own opinion in the three or four days he has to make a decision to move on, or present the seller with a repair-request form. He can call a mason, but that person can't see into the wall any further than I can. And as for invasive investigation, I can't imagine any seller who would allow a bunch of drywall to be removed to mollify a buyer so the house MAYBE will sell.

In the end, I'M the buyer's expert, and he no doubt will turn to me and ask, "Would YOU take the risk?" Or "Would you buy a house with no weepholes?" I haven't settled upon the correct answer. If I were really proactive, I would have buyers walking away from most of the houses I check out. Then again, it seems wimpy to plop in a disclaimer and recommend that the buyer solicit another opinion from someone who won't be able to offer any more insight than I'm capable of providing. Similar to Les, a lack of weepholes typically doesn't cause a lot of problems in my area. But of course they CAN, like Kurt's splooshy insulation example--though if that much water was in a wall cavity, I doubt the only problem was missing weepholes.

Again, what's the best advice to give our clients? I vacillate back and forth and still don't know. But like I said, I don't think it's fair to simply toss a disclaimer in a report and tell a buyer she's on her own. Protecting clients is the number one priority in our job description. What's the best method by which to provide that protection?

There's always a measure of uncertainty with a home inspection because of it's limitations. That translates into a measure of risk for the client.

Want full protection? Call Holmes...if the seller will have him.

Marc

[mthomas1]

Perhaps it's a Chicago thing, but in the water intrusion end of my business I see the same things as Kurt: that in conventional brick veneer construction it's possible for there to be significant moisture intrusion through the veneer and sometimes the structural backing wall, causing damage to interior structures and finished surfaces, even when the veneer appears to be properly installed when closely observed at the exterior.

And the water intrusion can happen fast and in quantity, especially if there are missing or incorrect flashings and/or mortar bridging between the veneer and the structural wall:

I've had occasion to spray test such walls when they have been opened at the interior for investigation, and even when exterior RILEM spot testing appeared to demonstrate that at least a small section of the veneer's brick and mortar was adequately sealed and no gross defects were visible at the exterior, water passed through the entire wall to the interior.

At one test water was running down the interior of the veneer with 3 min of the start of spray testing (perhaps through minute cracks in the mortar, though I could not establish this cause as a fact) and rapidly penetrating across to the structural wall across mortar bridges, and then within 20 min through the mortar at the CMU's junctions and to the interior of the structural walls - where it was causing damage at the top floor baseboard level that was the original reason for the investigation. (The spray testing was performed with the wall tarped off to below the level of the parapet, to insure that the penetrations was in fact through the wall below this level).

So it's unquestionably the case that penetration through apparently intact veneer and then through structural backing walls is possible, and based on my experience IMO it's likely sometimes causing considerable "hidden" damage that cannot be observed at a non-destructive home inspections.

[mgbinspect]

Perhaps it's a Chicago thing, but in the water intrusion end of my business I see the same things as Kurt: that in conventional brick veneer construction it's possible for there to be significant moisture intrusion through the veneer and sometimes the structural backing wall, causing damage to interior structures and finished surfaces, even when the veneer appears to be properly installed when closely observed at the exterior.

IMHO, you've hit the nail on the head: 1. Poor installation practices. 2. Geography.

Here, we don't get a lot of rain per year and it gets as hot as Hades (a little patch of Florida on the east coast).

I gather Chicago gets a fair amount of wind driven rain (the windy city) and cool temps where masonry can remain perpetually damp and forever on the verge of full penetration? It seems be a real factor in some of the shocking damage Kurt's posted about brick parapets with membrane roofing up the back side and over the top of the parapet.

[mgbinspect]

Now that's funny... I know it's small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, but here you have through-wall flashing below a missing head joint in the blockwork. BRILLIANT!

On most government jobs, we were not only required to install brick with full head joints, but actually back-parge the brickwork. Then the block backup also had to have proper head joints. We'd pull up a little screed, which made sure the cavity remained clean as we went up. There are no masons anymore. They're all dead or retired.

[kurt]

If there's gotta be standard phrasing, I'd probably go with Erby's out of what's been presented so far.

For Bain, I've looked at enough of these that (OK, arrogance on parade), I can just tell. There's lots of little teeny indicators all over the place if you know what to look for.

If folks would stop thinking about flashing so much, and start focusing on how to identify mortar, there'd be a lot less confusion. Reason being, none of the flashing is ever installed correctly anyway. None of it.

The only jobs I see where the flashing is done right are brand new. If it's more than a year or so old, it's never right.

[Jim Katen]

. . . Again, what's the best advice to give our clients? I vacillate back and forth and still don't know. But like I said, I don't think it's fair to simply toss a disclaimer in a report and tell a buyer she's on her own. Protecting clients is the number one priority in our job description. What's the best method by which to provide that protection?

I think that the question is flawed. We can't provide protection; it's not possible. We can only provide information. With brick veneer the information that we can provide is particularly limited. There's no way around that.

The fact of the matter is that improperly installed brick veneer sometimes causes problems that can't be seen without tearing things apart. The customer has three choices. He can accept the risk, he can limit the risk by opening the walls, or he can walk from the house.

Without adequate data, we can't make a proactive recommendation. It just isn't possible. All we can do is inform the customer about the risk. You can say it in a few sentences or you can write an encyclopedia, but you're never going to come up with a rational basis for action without tearing into the wall.

Everyone wants a neat, tidy, answer to this issue. There isn't one.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

[Brandon Whitmore]

The fact of the matter is that improperly installed brick veneer sometimes causes problems that can't be seen without tearing things apart. The customer has three choices. He can accept the risk, he can limit the risk by opening the walls, or he can walk from the house.

A good start to some boiler plate for tomorrows 3500 sq. ft., 2 story brick veneer house.

[Bain]

. . . Again, what's the best advice to give our clients? I vacillate back and forth and still don't know. But like I said, I don't think it's fair to simply toss a disclaimer in a report and tell a buyer she's on her own. Protecting clients is the number one priority in our job description. What's the best method by which to provide that protection?

I think that the question is flawed. We can't provide protection; it's not possible. We can only provide information. With brick veneer the information that we can provide is particularly limited. There's no way around that.

The fact of the matter is that improperly installed brick veneer sometimes causes problems that can't be seen without tearing things apart. The customer has three choices. He can accept the risk, he can limit the risk by opening the walls, or he can walk from the house.

Without adequate data, we can't make a proactive recommendation. It just isn't possible. All we can do is inform the customer about the risk. You can say it in a few sentences or you can write an encyclopedia, but you're never going to come up with a rational basis for action without tearing into the wall.

Everyone wants a neat, tidy, answer to this issue. There isn't one.

- Jim Katen, Oregon

Truly.

[John Dirks Jr]

I'm blown away by the intelligence and effort that you all have put into this thread. I've learned so much from the things that were said. As a matter of fact, I need to go back and read it all again.

I can't imagine this type of information being presented at will in any other type of venue. I'll be using the knowledge gained in my business practice.

This goes as a call out to all those lurkers out there. You don't have to know alot to contribute. All you need is a will to learn. If you have that will, speak up and ask. You might be surprised that your efforts will help more than yourself.

BTW, how useful would a well qualified IR person be in determining if damage is present as a result of the lack of weeps/wicks and flashings on brick veneer?

[Darren]

"It's really easy and supportable to simply let the code decide this stuff. Why does anyone really want to apply their own "logic" to the question?"

The above is a quote from the 'I don't understand' thread by Kurt.

This is in response to the guys who do not call the missing weep holes and flashing out just because they have never seen a problem.

In my opinion, it's the same here. The code and BIA calls for weepholes and flashing. At the very least you need to say they are required by code and the BIA.