Standard Guide for Evaluating Water Leakage of Building Walls

SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
This guide is intended to provide building professionals with a comprehensive methodology for evaluating water leakage through walls. It addresses the performance expectations and service history of a wall, the various components of a wall, and the interaction between these components and adjacent construction. It is not intended as a construction quality control procedure, nor as a preconstruction qualification procedure. It is intended for evaluating buildings that exhibit water leakage.
Qualifications—Use of this guide requires a knowledge of basic physics and of construction and wall design principles and practices.
Application—The sequential activities described herein are intended to produce a complete and comprehensive evaluation program, but all activities may not be applicable or necessary for a particular evaluation program. It is the responsibility of the professional using this guide to determine the activities and sequence necessary to properly perform an appropriate leakage evaluation for a specific building.
Preliminary Assessment—A preliminary assessment may indicate that water leakage problems are limited to a specific element or portion of a wall. The evaluation of causes may likewise be limited in scope, and the procedures recommended herein abridged according to the professional judgement of the investigator. A statement stipulating the limits of the investigation should be included in the report.
Expectations—Expectations about the overall effectiveness of an evaluation program must be reasonable and in proportion to a defined scope of work and the effort and resources applied to the task. The objective is to be as comprehensive as possible within a defined scope of work. The methodology in this guide is intended to address intrinsic leakage behavior properties of a wall system, leading to conclusions that generally apply to similar locations on the building. Since every possible location is not included in an evaluation program, it is p...
SCOPE
1.1 This guide describes methods for determining and evaluating causes of water leakage of exterior walls. For this purpose, water penetration is considered leakage, and therefore problematic, if it exceeds the planned resistance or temporary retention and drainage capacity of the wall, is causing or is likely to cause premature deterioration of a building or its contents, or is adversely affecting the performance of other components. A wall is considered a system including its exterior and interior finishes, fenestration, structural components, and components for maintaining the building interior environment.  
1.2 Investigative techniques discussed may be intrusive, disruptive, or destructive. It is the responsibility of the investigator to establish the limitations of use, to anticipate and advise of the destructive nature of some procedures, and to plan for patching and selective reconstruction as necessary.
1.3 This practice does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. Establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Awareness of safety and familiarity with safe procedures are particularly important for above-ground operations on the exterior of a building and destructive investigative procedures which typically are associated with the work described in this guide.

General Information

Status
Historical
Publication Date
31-Oct-2009
Current Stage
Ref Project

Relations

Buy Standard

Guide
ASTM E2128-01a(2009) - Standard Guide for Evaluating Water Leakage of Building Walls
English language
35 pages
sale 15% off
Preview
sale 15% off
Preview

Standards Content (Sample)


NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information
Designation:E2128–01a(Reapproved2009)
Standard Guide for
Evaluating Water Leakage of Building Walls
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2128; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope Air Pressure Difference
E631 Terminology of Building Constructions
1.1 This guide describes methods for determining and
E1105 Test Method for Field Determination of Water Pen-
evaluating causes of water leakage of exterior walls. For this
etration of Installed Exterior Windows, Skylights, Doors,
purpose, water penetration is considered leakage, and therefore
and Curtain Walls, by Uniform or Cyclic Static Air
problematic, if it exceeds the planned resistance or temporary
Pressure Difference
retention and drainage capacity of the wall, is causing or is
2.2 AAMA Standards:
likely to cause premature deterioration of a building or its
AAMA 501.2 Field Check of Metal Storefronts, Curtain
contents, or is adversely affecting the performance of other
Walls, and Sloped Glazing Systems for Water Leakage
components. A wall is considered a system including its
AAMA 502 Specification for FieldTesting ofWindows and
exterior and interior finishes, fenestration, structural compo-
Sliding Doors
nents, and components for maintaining the building interior
AAMA 503 Specification for Field Testing of Metal Store-
environment.
fronts, Curtain Walls, and Sloped Glazing Systems
1.2 Investigative techniques discussed may be intrusive,
disruptive, or destructive. It is the responsibility of the inves-
3. Terminology
tigator to establish the limitations of use, to anticipate and
3.1 Defintions—Refer to Terminology E631.
advise of the destructive nature of some procedures, and to
3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
plan for patching and selective reconstruction as necessary.
3.2.1 incidental water—unplanned water infiltration that
1.3 This practice does not purport to address all of the
penetrates beyond the primary barrier and the flashing or
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. Establish
secondary barrier system, of such limited volume that it can
appropriate safety and health practices and determine the
escape or evaporate without causing adverse consequences.
applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Awareness
3.2.2 water absorption—a process in which a material takes
of safety and familiarity with safe procedures are particularly
in water through its pores and interstices and retains it wholly
important for above-ground operations on the exterior of a
without transmission.
building and destructive investigative procedures which typi-
3.2.3 water infiltration—a process in which water passes
cally are associated with the work described in this guide.
through a material or between materials in a system and
2. Referenced Documents reaches a space that is not directly or intentionally exposed to
2 the water source.
2.1 ASTM Standards:
3.2.4 water leakage—water that is uncontrolled; exceeds
E331 Test Method for Water Penetration of Exterior Win-
theresistance,retention,ordischargecapacityofthesystem;or
dows, Skylights, Doors, and Curtain Walls by Uniform
causes subsequent damage or premature deterioration.
Static Air Pressure Difference
3.2.5 water penetration—a process in which water gains
E514 Test Method for Water Penetration and Leakage
access into a material or system by passing through the surface
Through Masonry
exposed to the water source.
E547 Test Method for Water Penetration of Exterior Win-
3.2.6 water permeation—a process in which water enters,
dows, Skylights, Doors, and CurtainWalls by Cyclic Static
flows, and spreads within and discharges from a material.
4. Significance and Use
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E06 on Performance
of Buildings and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E06.55 on Exterior
4.1 This guide is intended to provide building professionals
Building Wall Systems.
with a comprehensive methodology for evaluating water leak-
Current edition approved Nov. 1, 2009. Published January 2010. Originally
age through walls. It addresses the performance expectations
approved in 2001. Last previous edition approved in 2001 as E2128 – 01a. DOI:
10.1520/E2128-01AR09.
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM Available from American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA),
Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on 1827 Walden Office Square, Suite 550, Schaumburg, IL 60173-4268, http://
the ASTM website. www.aamanet.org.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.
E2128–01a (2009)
andservicehistoryofawall,thevariouscomponentsofawall, 5.1.1 Sequence of Activities—The recommended sequence
and the interaction between these components and adjacent of activities, discussed in individual sections below, are:
construction.Itisnotintendedasaconstructionqualitycontrol 5.1.1.1 Review of project documents.
procedure, nor as a preconstruction qualification procedure. It 5.1.1.2 Evaluation of design concept.
is intended for evaluating buildings that exhibit water leakage. 5.1.1.3 Determination of service history.
5.1.1.4 Inspection.
4.1.1 Qualifications—Use of this guide requires a knowl-
5.1.1.5 Investigative testing.
edge of basic physics and of construction and wall design
principles and practices. 5.1.1.6 Analysis.
5.1.1.7 Report preparation.
4.1.2 Application—The sequential activities described
5.2 Analysis and Interpretation—The information system-
herein are intended to produce a complete and comprehensive
atically gathered during a leakage evaluation is analyzed as it
evaluation program, but all activities may not be applicable or
isacquired.Thesequentialactivitiesdescribedinthisguideare
necessary for a particular evaluation program. It is the respon-
not intended to imply that analysis and interpretation of the
sibility of the professional using this guide to determine the
information occurs only at the completion of all activities.
activities and sequence necessary to properly perform an
appropriate leakage evaluation for a specific building.
6. Review of Project Documents
4.1.3 Preliminary Assessment—A preliminary assessment
6.1 Ideally, project documents including wall component
may indicate that water leakage problems are limited to a
shop drawings will be available and accessible for review. The
specific element or portion of a wall. The evaluation of causes
discussion in this section assumes that a project was organized
may likewise be limited in scope, and the procedures recom-
on a conventional Owner/Architect/Contractor model. Build-
mended herein abridged according to the professional judge-
ing projects can be delivered in a variety of ways, and the
ment of the investigator. A statement stipulating the limits of
actual method used will dictate the appropriate organization of
the investigation should be included in the report.
the project documents. Regardless of how a project is orga-
4.1.4 Expectations—Expectations about the overall effec-
nized and administered, the information discussed below
tiveness of an evaluation program must be reasonable and in
should be available for review somewhere in the project
proportion to a defined scope of work and the effort and
documents.
resources applied to the task. The objective is to be as
6.1.1 Design, Bidding, and Contract Documents—These
comprehensiveaspossiblewithinadefinedscopeofwork.The
documents include architectural and engineering drawings and
methodology in this guide is intended to address intrinsic
specifications and may also include calculations, wind tunnel
leakage behavior properties of a wall system, leading to
reports, correspondence, meeting minutes, addenda, substitu-
conclusions that generally apply to similar locations on the
tionproposals,productliterature,testreports,etc.Theycontain
building. Since every possible location is not included in an
the information necessary to understand the performance
evaluation program, it is probable that every leak source will
criteria, the design intent, the required materials, and relation-
notbeidentified.Leakagesourcesthatarelocalizedandunique
ships among wall components.
may remain and may require additional localized evaluation
6.1.1.1 Documents may be revised or supplemented over
effort. The potential results and benefits of the evaluation
the course of construction. Revisions to drawings are typically
program should not be over-represented.
recorded by number and date with a cross reference to other
4.2 Thisguideisnotintendedasadesignguideorasaguide
accompanying documents. Reviewing all revisions and issu-
specification. Reference is made to design features of a wall
ances of the documents, and understanding the differences
only for the purpose of identifying items of interest for
between them and the reason for the differences, is part of a
consideration in the evaluation process.
comprehensive evaluation.
4.3 This guide does not address leakage through roofs,
6.1.1.2 Documents with the most recent issue date and the
leakage below grade, or water that accumulates due to water
highest revision number establish the requirements for the
vapor migration and condensation. It is not intended for use
project. Ideally, a set of documents marked “as-built” or
with structures designed to retain water, such as pools and
“record set” intended to show the actual construction will be
fountains.
available.
6.2 Referenced Codes and Standards—Project documents
SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO AN EVALUATION
usually contain references to regulatory codes and industry
standards. Standards and referenced codes often contain de-
5. Overview
fault or minimum criteria that might have been relied upon to
5.1 The methodology presented in this guide is a systematic establish the performance criteria for the wall. Conflicting
approach to evaluating wall leaks and is applicable to any wall requirements between referenced standards and codes, and
system or material. It differs from other approaches that are those explicitly stated in the project documents, should not be
materialspecificorcomponentspecificandwhicharebasically assumed to be a cause of leakage without further investigation.
adaptations of quality control procedures. The sequence of 6.2.1 Regulatory codes and industry standards change over
activities is intended to lead to an accumulation of information time. The version of regulatory codes and industry standards
in an orderly and efficient manner, so that each step enhances examined as part of the review of project documents should be
and supplements the information gathered in the preceding those listed with dates in the project documents, or if not listed
step. withdates,thoseineffectwhenthebuildingpermitwasissued.
E2128–01a (2009)
Understanding the history and background of referenced codes as windows and curtain walls, expressed as a differential test
and standards is part of a comprehensive evaluation. pressure across the wall to simulate the action of wind-driven
6.3 Submittals—Additional documents are generated after rain, is usually stated explicitly in the contract documents.
the award of contracts and are submitted to the design Alternatively, the required resistance may have been implied
professional for review and inclusion in the project record.The through references to industry standards or local codes.
submittals usually apply to a specific material, component, 7.2 Effıcacy of the Design—The wall design must be con-
assembly, or installation method; and the information con- sistent with the performance criteria so that the desired
tained will augment the project documents. There are often a performancecanactuallybeachieved.Thedesignmustinclude
number of revisions to submittals prior to final approval. The properly selected components.The details must provide for the
standardfortheprojectissetbythesubmittalsapprovedbythe interfacing and integration of components so that each one can
design professional. Submittals include some or all of the perform individually and so that the components can perform
following: shop drawings, test reports, product literature, collectively as a system. The details must also address issues
manufacturers’ recommendations, installation and mainte- such as construction tolerances, material compatibilities, vol-
nance guidelines, warranties, etc. ume changes, and movements. A careful evaluation of the
6.3.1 Test reports provided by manufacturers and suppliers efficacy of the design relative to the performance criteria will
should have been performed by an independent laboratory or indicate inconsistencies that may contribute to leakage.
witnessed by an independent agency. Review the test dates and 7.2.1 The failure of a single wall component to perform at
the description of what was tested to determine if and how the the specified level does not automatically mean that it was the
information actually applies to the project. cause of leakage, particularly if the performance requirements
6.3.2 Manufacturers’ and suppliers’ information, and the for the component were unnecessarily severe relative to other
exclusionary language in warranties, may suggest circum- components. In evaluating the overall wall, it must not be
stances under which a component may not function properly. assumedthatthecauseofleakageisasinglecomponentsimply
Project conditions should be evaluated to determine if an because it does not satisfy a performance requirement in the
appropriate product selection was made. project documents.
6.3.3 Submittals should be reviewed for maintenance rec- 7.3 Exposure—The performance criteria in the project
ommendations and guidelines. documents will generally differ from actual exposure condi-
6.4 Pre-Qualification and Mock-Up Reports—Compliance tions.Basedonananalysisoflocalweatherconditions,andthe
with project requirements may have been demonstrated by a location and geometry of the building, identify the actual
mock-up test. Mock-ups of complex wall systems rarely pass weatherconditionsduringperiodsofleakage.Theseconditions
alltestsonthefirstattempt.Themock-upreportshouldcontain can be correlated with the service history, described in the next
a clear and complete description of changes necessary to pass section, to help establish a protocol for the evaluation process.
the test. P
...

Questions, Comments and Discussion

Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.