Weep Holes Deficient?

Weep Holes Deficient?

3012010 (2)

More and more licensed home inspectors in Kentucky are reporting the lack or absence of weep holes in brick masonry construction as a deficiency per requirement under KRS 198B.700. (6).

The absence of weep holes is definitely not a “significantly deficient ” issue. A “home inspection” is defined in KRS198 B.700 and is to be performed per standards of practice adopted by the KBHI and selected by the home inspector. KRS 198B.706 (13) defines which standards of practice are acceptable to the board from the following organizations: American Society of Home inspectors (ASHI); National association of Home Inspectors (NAHI); and Inter-NACHI. In each of these standards there is language that states that the inspector is not required to determine compliance with past or present regulatory requirements (codes, regulations, laws, ordinances.)

1. The home inspectors I have spoken to defend the practice of reporting missing weep holes because they are an acceptable building practice.

Building practice is based on building codes. Therefore codes are the basis of all construction methods and if the home inspector feels that they are qualified to interpret codes then they can make that determination.

The standards only state that home inspectors are not required to determine compliance to codes. As a matter of fact, almost 100% of all technical classes taught to home inspectors utilize codes as the bench marks of what is right and wrong. Therefore home inspectors are being taught code by all class instructors and are aware that codes exist. How is the home inspector to apply this code knowledge to a home inspections?
The Kentucky home inspection license law states:
“Home inspectors, when acting in that capacity, are prohibited from indication orally or in writing that any condition is or is not on compliance with any building code enforced with the Kentucky Residential Code. KRS 198B .738. See also KRS 198B.700(4) (“Home inspection shall not include a cope compliance inspection….”).
Kentucky Residential Code is constantly changing. Only the code in affect at time of the date of the permit is applicable to the structure. This is a little known fact to most home inspectors. Even if you wish to address codes you have to apply the correct and applicable code. One code does not cover all construction.
Before we totally address the issue of missing weep holes we must first understand the function of a weep hole and what it is intended to provide.

Let’s start with Chapter 7 of the 2002 Kentucky Residential Code (KRC) applies to Wall Coverings. Section R701 General and R702 Interior Covering are not applicable to the issues.

Section R703.1 General states, “Exterior walls shall provide the building with a weather resistant exterior wall envelope ”
This statement is the intent of section 703 and all of its sub sections. However the code is not prescriptive enough to explain to the permit holder exactly how to build a “weather resistant exterior wall envelope.” The words “weather resistant ” are not specifically defined in the code. Based on my experience weather resistance is the ability to resist rain and water. The brick veneer itself is not water proof or weather resistant and was never intended to provide that function. That is why the word envelope is used which means an assembly including the outside surfaces are to be provided to resist water or provide a water resistant exterior envelope.

It is my position that water should never enter into the habitable living space of a residential house. If water does enter a habitable space through an exterior wall, then those locations are to be repaired to prevent water leakage through an exterior wall covering.

The Kentucky Building Code (KBC) and the Kentucky Residential Code (KRC) are both prescriptive and performance based codes. This means that codes are a combination of prescriptive requirements that spell out exactly how something is to be done and performance requirements which just outlines what is the required level of performance and the permit holder (builder) is permitted to determine how this is to be achieved.
Building codes have become very detailed and require a great deal of specialization to interpret the wording. Many words used in the code do not have official definitions and leave the permit holder in a quandary as to their meaning. If a house has indications of water penetration into habitable space (water stains) it needs to be corrected. If water stains are not observed inside the house it must be assumed that a weather resistant exterior envelope has been provided in every location except where the watermarks were present. This certainly meets the intent and performance of Chapter 7 of the KRC. To repeat, if weep holes are not present there is not enough evidence or proof to state that there is a significant deficiency present.

The absence of weep holes can only be a statement of a code violation. The absence of weep holes is not the cause of water stains.
Brick Veneer Construction
Air Gap – Ties
Brick veneer requires brick ties. (R-703.4) The permit holder is required to have 4 ties in about 3 feet square of brick. That means you have 266 wall ties in a 20′ x 40′ brick wall. These wall ties are about 1 inch wide and 6.5 inches long formed out of thin wavy metal.
Wall ties collect mortar dropped into air gap.

After buttering a mortar joint, masons place the new brick and mortar in the new exterior brick wall. The new brick is pushed downward to set. This causes the mortar to ooze into the air space, which can narrow or close the air space. The mason uses a trowel to remove excess mortar on the outside face of the brick and then strikes the joints. Nothing is done to the inside; therefore some mortar drops into the air space and catches on wall ties, prior oozed out mortar etc. The excess mortar is not removed from the air space. In 40 years of being involved in the single-family residential construction business I have never seen a smooth surface on the inside of a brick veneer wall during removal.

Every air space I have ever seen has been compromised by excess mortar in a brick veneer construction.

The partially filled air space does not affect the ability of the air space to function as a drain plane. If the drain plane/ air space were not functional, water would not be able to drain downward and come out onto interior surfaces to create a water stain. The air space is there to allow water to drain downward and enough air movement to dry out between rains. The code does not state that this is to be a clean, free of debris air space.
SECTION R703.7.4.3 states mortar or grout shall be permitted to fill the air space. This section does not state 100% or intentional filling from bottom course to top course is mandatory. The word “FILL” is not defined clearly in the code. The code does not state fill up; full fill; fill solid, fill 100 percent. Even if you tried to fill the air gap intentionally with mortar, how would you know or check if the space is 100% full without voids?
There will always be partially filled air gaps. So how can you enforce a section that is not specific in its requirements and almost impossible to achieve?

If a water resistant membrane per section R703.2 is in place on the exterior wall behind the brick veneer in the exterior wall envelope of a house. There is no code requirement for an air space. It does not matter if the air space is partially or solid filled. A home inspector cannot visually observe the air gap.

Weep holes
The absence of weep holes, section R703.7.6 of the 2002 KRC, is not the sole cause of water penetration through brick veneer.

Weep holes are to be present at the base of the exterior brick walls top and bottom of all openings of a masonry covered house. Section R703.7.6. The word “hole” is not clearly defined in the KRC. Hole in the dictionary means an opening through some thing. There is an opening through the brick mortar joint in which a rope or other items can be placed. These items prevent mortar from clogging the hole. The items can be removed when the mortar dries or in case of ropes wait until the rope rots and you have a hole. Weep rope, as a specific item, is not defined within the KRC but it has been used in brick construction for over 40 years in Kentucky.

Weep ropes are an acceptable alternate material (R-103.8) to weep holes, just like the new plastic cellular vents and louver type vents.

Flashings
The primary cause of water penetration in any house is the result of improperly placed or missing flashing.

Flashing is required at the top (heads) and bottom (sills) of all exterior openings and at the base of all walls. Flashing does not have to be metal. Flashing is defined as a thin impervious sheet of material placed in such a manner to prevent water penetration or direct water flow. Many products have been used and accepted as flashing per Alternate Materials (R103.8). Flashing cannot be visually observed by a home inspector.

Brick Sill Slope
Brick sills are to be installed at a minimum 15-degree slope with proper flashings and weep holes. When a sill is installed properly you should have a drop of about 1 to inches in 4.25 inches horizontal.

Two (2) weep holes are to be installed in each sill. Weeps are to be located approximately 3 inches from outside edge of sill. If sill is over 48 inches wide, then add one weep at the approximate center of the sill. The slope of sills is not outlined or described in detail in the KRC.

The low slope of a sill is not a significant deficiency.
Conclusion
There is no good reason to call out the absence of weep holes in a house as being defective or significantly deficient.
The primary function of a weep hole is to allow water to exit the masonry wall cavity. Without proper flashing the weep hole cannot function as required. This cannot be determined without destructive investigation of the brickwork. That is not the job of a home inspector.

To compound this problem the home inspector /builders and others believe that by drilling holes through the brick mortar joint in the window sill and head areas is a solution and correction to the problem of missing weep holes. Nothing could be more wrong.

First the weep hole can not function without proper flashings. Number two: When the hole is drilled, the bit would most likely ruin any flashing that may be present.
Some argue that by drilling holes you allow the wall to breathe, therefor allowing any moisture in the air gap to evaporate. Why do you think the top of the air gap is not sealed?

Then of course you have those who believe that the weep holes equalize the air pressure differential on the two sides of the brick. This equalization will supposedly reduce water penetration through the brick.

Even if you used the code as a basis of the requirement for weep holes, you would be surprised to learn that weep holes were nor mandated in the single family code until 1983 CABO, mandated by the 1985 Kentucky Building Code.
Home inspectors are calling out missing weep holed on house built before 1985.What a hardship on consumers and homeowners.

Why are home inspectors calling out missing weep holes? The main reason is to protect their own liability because other home inspectors are calling out missing weep holes.
Second is that a customer, such as a relocation company or appraiser, has demanded that they do so.

The Kentucky Board of Home Inspectors (KBHI) needs to address the issue of reporting missing weep holes in home inspections by enforcing the present regulations and statues.

Needless to say the defining of “significantly deficient ” would help. The adoption of a stricter standard would help. The presently adopted standards of practice were written to protect the home inspector not the consumer. The standard should be a standard not guide line.

There are many components to a brick veneer constructed house. I believe the calling out of missing weep holes is strictly a building code compliance issue. This is a violation of the license law. It is up to the KBHI to take action to stop this abusive practice.
Ralph J. Wirth

Editor’s Note:
Contributor Ralph Wirth is a practicing Kentucky home inspector and expert witness. He was the second chairman of the Kentucky Board of Home Inspectors (KBHI) and is a past president of the National Association of Home Inspectors (NAHI). Kentucky’s Court of Appeals cited him as “an expert in the building code” in an important decision, Hardesty v Scot-Bilt Homes, 2010, which also included a weep hole and flashing issue. He also served as a key expert in a recent Lexington lawsuit where damage alleged to have come from missing weep holes was a key issue. The case drew our attention not just because of the weep hole question, which is popping up more and more. There also was a star-studded roster of expert witnesses on both sides. After the case settled, unfortunately with no decision on the weep hole point, PLI asked Wirth to share his thoughts with home inspectors in the Newsletter. To report “no weep holes” in brick veneer sends agents ballistic, since most homes do not have them. Still, home inspectors get sued for leaving out “missing weep holes” in homes. Wirth was kind enough to share his thoughts in this article. Ralph also wrote “Code Violation or Not?” The article is posted on NAHI’s member-only site. As always, articles express the views of their authors and not necessarily those of PLI. If you have experiences or thoughts on the weep hole conversation, PLI welcomes your email, comments, or articles.

Call Now Button