ASTM C1394-98
(Guide)Standard Guide for In-Situ Structural Silicone Glazing Evaluation
Standard Guide for In-Situ Structural Silicone Glazing Evaluation
SCOPE
1.1 It is recommended to periodically evaluate the existing condition of structural sealant glazing (hereinafter called SSG) installations in situ to detect problems before they become severe or pervasive. Evaluation of existing SSG installations are required by certain building codes and local ordinances. This guide provides a program to evaluate the existing conditions, lists typical conditions which might be found, and suggests times when such evaluations are appropriate. The committee with jurisdiction over this standard is not aware of any comparable standards published by any other organizations.
General Information
Relations
Standards Content (Sample)
NOTICE: This standard has either been superceded and replaced by a new version or discontinued.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information.
Designation: C 1394 – 98
Standard Guide for
In-Situ Structural Silicone Glazing Evaluation
This standard is issued under the fixed designation C 1394; 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 (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
INTRODUCTION
SSG is popular because of its unique method of retaining glass or other panels in smooth exterior
walls, interrupted only by narrow sealant joints. The first four-sided SSG in commercial construction
is on the former corporate headquarters building of SHG Incorporated (formerly known as Smith,
Hinchman & Grylls) in Detroit, MI, built in 1971. Since then, buildings containing two- or four-sided
(or, occasionally, other numbers of sides of nonrectangular-shaped panels) SSG walls have been
constructed within most cities, some as tall as 80 stories.
While SSG popularity increases, the sealant industry remains concerned over potential failures due
to the increasing number of buildings containing structural glazing that are aging; unknown structural
sealant durability; and the level of understanding of the principles of SSG by glazers. This guide
addresses these concerns by providing suggestions for in situ evaluations of completed installations of
any age.
1. Scope 3. Terminology
1.1 It is recommended to periodically evaluate the existing 3.1 Definitions: The definitions of the following terms used
condition of structural sealant glazing (hereinafter called SSG) in this guide are found in Terminology C 717: structural
installations in situ to detect problems before they become sealant; structural sealant glazing; two-sided structural sealant
severe or pervasive. Evaluation of existing SSG installations glazing; four-sided structural sealant glazing; fluid migration.
are required by certain building codes and local ordinances. 3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:
This guide provides a program to evaluate the existing condi- 3.2.1 qualified person—one with a recognized degree or
tions, lists typical conditions which might be found, and professional registration and extensive knowledge and experi-
suggests times when such evaluations are appropriate. The ence in the field of structural sealant glazing, and who is
committee with jurisdiction over this standard is not aware of capable of design, analysis, evaluation, and specifications in
any comparable standards published by any other organiza- the subject.
tions.
4. Significance and Use
2. Referenced Documents
4.1 Guidelines are provided for the procedures to evaluate
2.1 ASTM Standards: existing SSG installations, including two- and four-sided
C 717 Terminology for Building Seals and Sealants installations. Due to the unlimited range of materials that may
C 1392 Guide for Evaluating Failure of Structural Sealant be used in a particular building, the information contained in
Glazing this guide is general in nature. For a discussion of new SSG
C 1401 Guide for Structural Sealant Glazing installations, refer to Guide C 1401.
E 122 Practice for Choice of Sample Size to Estimate a 4.2 Typical conditions are listed that might be discovered
Measure of Quality for a Lot or Process during, or suggest the need for, such evaluations. Guidelines
are also suggested for times to perform evaluations. These
guidelines are also necessarily general. Professional judgement
should be used in determining the appropriate time to perform
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee C24 on Building Seals
and Sealants and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee C24.10 on Specifi-
an evaluation on a particular building.
cations, Guides and Practices.
4.3 This guide should not be the only reference consulted
Current edition approved May 10, 1998. Published August 1998.
2 when determining the scope of a proposed evaluation. For
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 04.07.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 14.02. example, the local building code and the manufacturers’
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.
NOTICE: This standard has either been superceded and replaced by a new version or discontinued.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information.
C1394–98
product literature for the actual materials used (if known) lost its structural function—at least for part of its length.
should also be considered. Symptoms of air or water leakage include:
4.4 This document is not a substitute for experience and 6.1.2.1 Visible accumulation of liquid water during or
judgement in assessing the condition of the specialized types of
following storms;
construction discussed. 6.1.2.2 Wet insulation;
6.1.2.3 Organic growth;
5. Reasons to Perform an Evaluation
6.1.2.4 Water stains or salt deposits;
5.1 There are numerous reasons that a building owner or
6.1.2.5 Audible rattle or whistle;
manager (hereinafter “owner”) may choose to evaluate an SSG
6.1.2.6 Discoloration of laminated glazing;
system, whether discretionary or to comply with an ordinance.
6.1.2.7 Condensation or frost on glazing;
The recommended evaluation levels, as discussed in Section 7,
6.1.2.8 Fogging of insulated glass units;
are referenced for each situation. The findings from one level
6.1.2.9 Opacifier failure on spandrel glass—Moisture is a
of investigation may trigger the need for a more in-depth
factor in the failure of some opacifiers, and may indicate water
investigation. At a minimum, it is recommended that an
infiltration; and
existing SSG installation be evaluated when triggered by any
6.1.2.10 Visible sealant failures— Sealant failures may be
of the following events:
observed from inside or outside, depending on the design, and
5.1.1 After a natural disaster, such as an earthquake or major
may involve the weather-seal joint as well as the structural
wind storm, Level 2;
joint. Visible manifestations of sealant failures include:
5.1.2 After a recall or published concern over a specific
6.1.2.10.1 Intermittent loss of adhesion—Nonadhered seal-
product or system, Level 1;
ant may differ in iridescence or reflectivity compared to
5.1.3 Upon a change of property ownership, Level 1;
adhered sealant when viewed through the glass;
5.1.4 Before repeating a new design, Level 1;
6.1.2.10.2 Fluid migration or exudation— The accumula-
5.1.5 As dictated by government regulations, Level 1 or 2;
tion of a fluid residue on the sealant or glass may indicate a
or
chemical reaction between the sealant and an incompatible
5.1.6 When distress is discovered (see Section 8), Level 2,
adjacent material;
or, if prevalent distress is found, Level 3.
6.1.2.10.3 Discoloration of the sealant—A color change
5.2 In addition to event-triggered evaluations, it is recom-
may indicate a chemical reaction between the sealant and an
mended that proactive owners also perform periodic evalua-
incompatible adjacent material;
tions at the following intervals: (Note that some of these
6.1.2.10.4 Cohesive failure—Although difficult to observe
periods may overlap. If distress is found during any evaluation,
from inside or outside, cohesive failure could indicate over-
then more frequent and more in-depth evaluations should be
stressing of the sealant;
considered.)
6.1.2.11 Disengaged or nonaligned lites, or displaced spac-
5.2.1 When convenient, such as in conjunction with occa-
ers or setting blocks, which may indicate glass displacement;
sional glass replacement, or when access is available, Level 1;
and
5.2.2 Immediately after installation of a new system, Level
6.1.2.12 Poor dimensional control of a structural sealant
2;
joint—When viewed from inside or outside, the structural
5.2.3 Just before expiration of the warranty period, Level 2;
sealant should have uniform dimensions and full joints. Vary-
5.2.4 Between 1 and 2 years after substantial completion,
ing dimensions may indicate poor original installation prac-
Level 1;
tices.
5.2.5 After 5 years, Level 1;
5.2.6 After 10 years, Level 2;
7. Procedures for Evaluating Existing Conditions
5.2.7 After 15 years, Level 1 (if Level 2 was performed as
7.1 The following evaluation procedures are recommended
recommended after 10 years); and
to be performed in determining the condition of an SSG
5.2.8 After 20 years, and each successive 10 years, Level 2.
installation. Depending on the reason for the evaluation and the
6. Symptoms of Problems With SSG
type of installation, only certain procedures may be necessary;
for example, more scrutiny is warr
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.