01-10-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . 53807.0t-20t-43 Page 2 of 4 Results: Test Area A - East end conference room and hallway: Construction immediately above this area consisted of a sloping limestone masonry wall (see photo #1). The masonry was saturated using a spray nozzle water delivery system for a minimum of one hour, with continuous observations made to the interior for the presence of water entry. The spray rack was moved to various areas above Area A, each test area was sprayed for a minimum of one hour. No entry to the interior was observed. Upon completion of water spray testing, one of the parapet cap blocks was removed at the inside comer condition immediately above the hallway portion of Test Area A. The masonry cavity was visible and an end dam at the adjacent parapet was present. Water poured into the cavity space between the brick and back-up resulted in immediate entry to the interior. The leakage noted closely matched the staining pattern present in the hallway portion of Area A. Water was not introduced into the masonry cavity, nor was entry noted above the conference room portion of Test Area A. Test Area B - Vaulted ceiling area in main lobby: Construction immediately above this area consisted of a sloped roof and projecting column of limestone masonry containing air intake and exhaust vents (see photos #2 and #3). The east side of the masonry column was exposed to gravity water spray with no pressure difference. Observations to the interior were made through an observation hold cut into the vaulted ceiling. Within 30 minutes of starting the water spray, leakage to the interior was noted. Water followed a complex arrangement of structural steel and bar joists, eventually dropping onto the sheetrock ceiling. Water then migrated down the sloped sheetrock until it was stopped by a strut supporting the ceiling. The strut, which was perpendicular to the slope of the vaulted ceiling, caused the water to accumulate and migrate towards the vertical wall where staining and water pockets behind paint have been observed. Using start-and-stop water spray application procedures, we were able to confirm entry through the masonry. This same testing procedure was utilized on the west side of the masonry column, with similar results. During testing of the masonry portion of the west side column, the fireplace exhaust was shielded from exposure to water spray. After testing of the masonry was completed and after the area dried, water was directed at the fireplace exhaust for a minimum of one hour, with no entry to the interior being observed (see photo #4). Upon completion of testing, a test cut was made at the southeast comer of the masonry column above Area A (see photos #5, #6 and #7). Several deficiencies in the flashing system were observed, as follows. 1. Primer was not utilized at the bond surface and the peel-and-stick membrane was not well adhered. 2. Seams in the peel-and-stick membrane were not sealed overlapping folds, specifically at outside comer laps, creating the risk for water entry. 3. The top edge of the peel-and-stick membrane was not sealed or mechanically attached, creating a vulnerable upturned seam. 4. The peel-and-stick membrane was cut short and did not overlap the metal roof flashing. This condition could allow water form the masonry cavity to travel behind the roof flashing. 5. The flashing was not installed as architecturally detailed (see photo #8).