Final Report - National Concrete Masonry Association

Transcription

Investigation of the Constructability and Water
Penetration Resistance of Concrete
Masonry/Polyurethane Foam Wall Systems
and Other Interior Applied Materials
Conducted by:
Project No. 2013BB
October 29, 2013
Investigation of the Constructability and Water Penetration Resistance of
Concrete Masonry/Polyurethane Foam Wall Systems and Other Interior Applied Materials
Page 1
This research was funded by:
Northwest Concrete Masonry Association
The NCMA Education and Research Foundation
B & B Tile and Masonry, Inc.
The following companies donated materials that were used in the construction of the test walls:
SR Contractors
PROSOCO
United Gilsonite Laboratories
VaproShield
Mutual Materials Co.
Willamette Graystone, Inc.
Page 2
NORTHWEST CONCRETE MASONRY ASSOCIATION
The Northwest Concrete Masonry Association (NWCMA) is a non-profit organization whose
mission is to support and advance the common interests of its members in the manufacture,
marketing, research, and application of concrete masonry products. The Association is an
industry leader in providing technical support, education, research and development, and
marketing programs for the construction industry in the Pacific Northwest.
16300 Mill Creek Boulevard, #208-C
Mill Creek, Washington 98012
(425) 697-5298  fax (425) 697-2679  www.nwcma.org
This publication is intended for use by professional personnel competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of the information provided
herein, and willing to accept total responsibility for the application of this information in specific instances. Results from tests may vary and the
Northwest Concrete Masonry Association (NWCMA) does not warrant the results contained herein for specific uses or purposes and the findings
are not a substitute for sound professional evaluations, judgment and opinions for specific projects or uses. The NWCMA is not responsible for
the use or application of the informa tion contained in this publication and disclaims all responsibility therefore.
Page 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Purpose.................................................................................................................................. 5
1.2 Background ........................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Scope ..................................................................................................................................... 6
2.0 MATERIALS ............................................................................................................................ 7
2.1 Concrete Masonry Units ....................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Mortar ................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Grout ..................................................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Polyurethane Foam ............................................................................................................... 7
2.5 Interior Applied Products ...................................................................................................... 7
3.0 CONSTRUCTION OF WALL PANELS ................................................................................. 7
4.0 TEST PROCEDURES ............................................................................................................ 10
4.1 Exposure to Northwest Environment .................................................................................. 10
4.2 Water Penetration Testing................................................................................................... 10
5.0 TEST RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS............................................................................ 11
5.1 Outdoor Weather Exposure................................................................................................. 11
5.2 Water Penetration Testing................................................................................................... 12
6.0 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................... 13
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................... 15
Page 4
Concrete Masonry/Polyurethane Foam Wall Systems and other Interior
Applied Materials
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report describes the results of the investigation to determine the constructability and water
penetration resistance of concrete masonry wall panels using polyurethane foam as an integral
component of the wall system. This field testing opportunity arose when a local mason
contractor decided to enclose his storage shed structures with block walls and was willing to
allow them to be used for experimentation. This research was conducted in two phases by the
Northwest Concrete Masonry Association and building envelope consultant Morrison Hershfield.
1.1 Purpose
Since polyurethane foam has been used successfully in the rehabilitation of unreinforced
masonry walls in the northwest, the primary test objective was to investigate its potential to
improve the performance of new concrete masonry unit (CMU) construction of both singlewythe and cavity walls. Constructability of the wall assemblies was also investigated.
A secondary objective of the test program was to evaluate the durability and water penetration
resistance of various materials applied to the interior side of a reinforced single-wythe CMU
wall.
1.2 Background
The single-wythe block wall market is very important to the masonry industry. It is the most
efficient, cost-effective wall system providing durable enclosure, structural support and
architectural finish. Despite all these benefits, historically there have been two primary reasons
why some building owners and designers do not choose single-wythe CMU walls for their
building projects. It is because they are concerned about water penetration and energy efficiency.
Using polyurethane foam with concrete masonry can potentially improve the performance of
these walls addressing the concerns of building owners and designers.
Other materials applied to the CMU wall interior may also help by adding another layer of
protection against water penetration. The negative side application of air barrier materials for this
purpose is worth investigating, especially since many energy codes now require air barriers for
improved energy efficiency. One benefit of interior applications is that the architectural concrete
masonry units can be exposed on the exterior. This allows the beauty of CMU to be seen and
gives designers numerous aesthetic choices.
Masonry cavity walls utilizing structural CMU back-up with a CMU or brick veneer facing are
excellent performing wall systems providing numerous benefits. Through the use of
polyurethane foam in the wall cavity a water barrier is provided and insulation added to meet
energy code requirements. Additionally, the potential to reduce the number of wall ties due to the
strong bond of the foam to the masonry units could make this masonry system more cost
competitive.
Page 5
1.3 Scope
Three block wall panels were constructed for application of the polyurethane foam. One was a
masonry cavity wall and the other two were single-wythe walls. One single-wythe wall was
partial-grouted and the other solid-grouted. For all these walls it was of interest to determine
some of their constructability issues for efficient field installation along with their water
penetration resistance.
Three additional single-wythe wall sections were constructed to test interior applied products for
water penetration resistance. Two air/water barrier membrane materials were used and one
latex-based masonry waterproof coating developed for this application. Air barriers are now
required by many energy codes and will therefore be used more frequently. It was of interest to
determine if these products would also provide additional water penetration resistance used in an
application different from what is typical. The fluid applied and sheet air barrier materials were
applied on the negative (back) side of the wall rather than on the normal positive side for
waterproofing.
One additional CMU wall section was constructed and
used as a test baseline. It was a partial-grouted singlewythe wall exposed on both sides without any interior
material additions.
All the block and mortar contained Dry-Block integral
water repellent admixture. There was no clear sealer
applied on the exterior. The walls were exposed to the
wet northwest weather for the majority of two winter
rain seasons. After this natural weather exposure they
were tested in accordance with ASTM E-1105. This
testing phase was performed by building envelope
consultant Morrison Hershfield. The results of this
portion of the research will be reported by Morrison
Hershfield in an accompanying report.
Page 6
2.0 MATERIALS
2.1 Concrete Masonry Units
Architectural split-face and ground-face concrete masonry units complying with ASTM C-90
were used for construction of the wall panels. The units were typical northwest medium weight
density and contained integral water repellent additive.
2.2 Mortar
Type S Portland cement-lime mortar was used. It contained an integral water-repellent admixture
although it was learned that only half the recommended dosage was used by the masons.
2.3 Grout
Conventional normal weight masonry grout was used. It exceeded the IBC minimum strength
requirement of 2000 psi.
2.4 Polyurethane Foam
The foam was supplied by SR Contractors and is a high density (2-2.5pcf) material which
functions as both an air and water barrier. It has a high insulating value of R = 7.0/inch and
provides a continuous insulation system in the manner it was installed. See the Appendix for wall
system R-values.
2.5 Interior Applied Products
Three different products were applied to the interior of single-wythe walls and all are vapor
permeable. They include:
1. R-Guard Cat-5 a fluid-applied air/water barrier membrane from PROSOCO.
2. Drylok latex masonry waterproof coating from United Gilsonite Laboratories.
3. WrapShield SA a self-adhered sheet air/water barrier membrane from Vapro Shield.
3.0 CONSTRUCTION OF WALL PANELS
All the concrete masonry walls were
constructed by professional masons. They
are used as enclosure walls for storage
sheds at a mason contractor’s office in
Vancouver, WA (see Figure 1). They are
reinforced with vertical bars at jambs and
4’-0” on center. They have two horizontal
bond beams in the wall height. All walls
are partial-grouted with the exception of
one solid-grouted single-wythe wall and
the cavity wall backup section near the
door opening.
Page 7
Type S mortar was used and conventional face shell bedding. Head joints were constructed using
a “double buttering” technique. Mortar joints were concave-tooled on both sides of the walls.
The 8 inch ground-face CMU wall panels are 8 feet high and were constructed in October 2011
and foamed in February 2012. These walls face south to provide heavy wind-driven rain
exposure. The polyurethane foam was placed in lifts to minimize the impact of curing pressure.
As seen in Figures 2 and 3, it was placed in a cavity between the single-wythe CMU wall and
gypsum board without the use of furring. A special “slip form” type system developed by SR
Contractors allowed for continuous insulation of the block walls.
The masonry cavity wall is 8 feet high and constructed of 6” CMU back-up with 4” CMU
veneer. It was foamed between the CMU back-up and veneer in November 2011. Due to
cracking of the CMU veneer from foam expansion forces it was removed in December 2011 and
reinstalled using an additional course of wall ties.
The 8 inch split-face CMU wall is 11 ft - 4 in high
and was constructed in March 2012. It is a partialgrouted, reinforced wall facing south. The interior
finish products were applied in April. They were
applied per manufacturer’s recommendations.
Figures 4-6 show material application and the
finished product. The wall with the fluid-applied
membrane was finished at the concrete slab base
with joint filler. The other two products were
turned out and bonded at the floor line.
Page 8
The test baseline single-wythe wall faces west and is partial-grouted and reinforced. There is no
interior product applied and it is exposed CMU on both sides. Table 1 lists the test panel
construction variables.
Wall
8” MW
CMU
8” MW
CMU
8” MW
CMU
8” MW
CMU
8” MW
CMU
8” MW
CMU
Cavity wall
(6”CMU/
4” Veneer)
Table 1. WALL TEST PANEL CONSTRUCTION
Integral
Clear
Wall/Panel Size
Grouting
Water
Sealer
(HxL)
Repellent
10’-8”x28’
Partial
Yes
No
8’x4’-8”
Partial
Yes
No
8’x4’
Solid
Yes
No
11’-4”x4’
Partial
Yes
No
11’-4”x4’
Partial
Yes
No
11’-4”x4’
Partial
Yes
No
8’x8’-8”
Solid and
Partial
sections
Yes
No
Interior Wall
Material
None
Polyurethane foam &
gyp board
Polyurethane foam &
gyp board
Fluid-applied
membrane
Masonry waterproof
coating
Sheet
membrane
None-cavity filled
with polyurethane
foam
Page 9
4.0 TEST PROCEDURES
4.1 Exposure to Northwest Environment
The first phase of testing involved exposing the
concrete masonry walls to the wet northwest
climate. (See Figure 7) All the walls were
exposed to the elements for over one year and
the polyurethane foamed walls for
approximately sixteen months. Table 2 lists the
rainfall amounts recorded during this period
and compares it to long term average rainfall
data.
Table 2. VANCOUVER, WA. PRECIPITATION DATA
Month
Actual
Normal
November 2011
6.65 in
6.51 in
December 2011
2.57 in
6.40 in
January 2012
6.61 in
5.92 in
February 2012
2.92 in
4.51 in
March 2012
7.81 in
4.21 in
April 2012
2.49 in
3.20 in
May 2012
3.15 in
2.71 in
June 2012
3.47 in
1.91 in
July 2012
0.24 in
0.69 in
August 2012
trace
0.74
September 2012
0.04 in
1.61 in
October 2012
4.43 in
3.38 in
November 2012
7.16 in
6.51 in
December 2012
7.67 in
6.40 in
January 2013
3.40 in
5.92 in
February 2013
1.16 in
4.51 in
March 2013
1.58 in
4.21 in
April 2013
2.20 in
3.20 in
May 2013
4.89 in
2.71 in
3.60 in
3.96 in.
AVG/Month
4.2 Water Penetration Testing
The second phase of testing involved subjecting the walls to a standardized ASTM testing
procedure. ASTM E-1105 was selected for this phase of the research. This water penetration test
procedure is one used frequently by building envelope consultants and laboratories in the
northwest.
Page 10
A more common masonry field test procedure, ASTM C-1601, was considered. In this test winddriven rain is blown on the wall surface from the exterior side (positive pressure) rather than
sucking air/water through the wall (negative pressure) as is done in E-1105. The water exposure
and air pressures are different in the two tests. Since C-1601 tests the water that penetrates past
the outer masonry wall surface and not just what penetrates to the interior, it was determined that
E-1105 would provide the desired data. Additionally, this test method is more closely aligned
with ASTM E-331 which is referenced in Section 1403.2 of the IBC for exterior wall
performance. It was decided to run a comparison test on the baseline wall varying the water
quantity and air pressure to match ASTM C-1601 requirements.
5.0 TEST RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS
5.1 Outdoor Weather Exposure
All the test walls were exposed to northwest weather for a minimum of fourteen months and the
polyurethane foamed walls for sixteen months. They were constructed to face south or west
which are the most severe wind-driven rain exposures. The west-facing baseline test wall did
have hairline cracks at the mortar head joints on the exterior. The performance of all the walls
was excellent under these natural weather conditions. There was no water penetration observed
to the wall interiors. There was also no efflorescence noticed which can indicate water
movement within a wall assembly. The tested products all remained adhered to the interior of the
block walls throughout this research phase.
It should be noted the walls were not constructed using the complete recommended northwest
rain-resistant system. They did have an integral water repellent in the block and mortar and were
medium weight density, however, no clear sealer was applied to the outside wall surface and
only one wall was solid-grouted. This was done to create a
more severe condition to evaluate the water resistant
performance of the interior applied materials.
From a constructability standpoint the polyurethane foam
installed easily in both the cavity wall and behind the singlewythe walls. In the cavity wall the foam was layered into the
cavity between the veneer and back-up. In the single-wythe
walls the foam was placed in the space between the block
walls and gyp board. All the products were fairly easy to
apply under the test conditions.
The cavity wall was built without wall tie anchorage as the
foam has excellent bond strength to adhere the veneer to the
backup. The foam was installed only two days later to
simulate field construction conditions. (See Figure 8) If the
foam can replace some or the majority of the veneer wall ties
currently required it has the potential to reduce wall costs. It
has a tensile strength of approximately 22 psi to bond the
veneer to the block backup wall. It also serves as an air and
Page 11
water barrier while insulating the wall. If the number of wall ties can be eliminated or reduced
the foam insulation can meet the energy code criteria for “continuous insulation” which would be
very beneficial.
In the foam curing process it does expand which caused the veneer to bow outward and crack. As
seen in Figure 9 a horizontal crack occurred in the veneer which was supported at the top of the
wall. The veneer was subsequently stripped off the wall, the foam removed, and the veneer relaid with wall ties installed one course down from the top. The second foam installation went
well with no cracking of the veneer noticed as previous. However, a crack was observed in the
veneer several months later.
Bowing of the gypsum board was observed on the single-wythe walls. One test section was
noticed about two months after foam installation and another area was noticed during the ASTM
testing process. It appears that the polyurethane foam curing process took longer than
anticipated. This will need to be modified if possible to improve the quality of the interior wall
finish with this system.
5.2 Water Penetration Testing
The details of this phase of research are documented in a separate report authored by building
envelope consultant Morrison Hershfield. It is a report for NWCMA dated October 28, 2013.
It should be noted that the ASTM testing procedure is a very severe water exposure. The test
walls are subjected to approximately 8 inches of rain per hour with a wind pressure of 49 miles
per hour. The test duration was two hours. Building walls exposed to the northwest climate are
not likely to ever experience such weather conditions. ASTM E1105 notes the greatest rainfall in
the contiguous 48 states for a 1-hour period is less than 5 inches.
In reviewing the ASTM test results reported by Morrison Hershfield some general observations
can be made. The baseline block walls had some water penetration to the interior without the use
of the complete northwest rain-resistant system developed from previous testing. The walls with
the additional interior material layers showed no evidence of moisture penetration to the interior.
Page 12
These walls all performed very well and the interior materials remained in place at the
conclusion of the testing. There was some slight bubbling of the sheet air barrier product but no
water was observed behind these spots.
The performance of the baseline walls may be attributed to the testing and wall construction
issues noted previously. Also, since mortar joints, especially head joints, tend to be the location
of any water penetration their construction is important. The head joints were “double-buttered”
with a mortar to mortar contact, however, only half the recommended mortar admixture dosage
was used. Additionally, exterior cracks were observed in the head joints of the baseline walls.
The fact that these walls were partial-grouted also increased the potential for some water
penetration to the interior. Water accumulated at the horizontal bond beams which obstructed
drainage of water that entered the wall and moved downward via gravity. A small head pressure
developed forcing water out at the mortar joint above the bond beam. However, it is unlikely
such water accumulation would occur under more typical conditions. If this issue was a concern
it could be avoided by using joint reinforcement rather than bond beams or constructing weeps to
the exterior in the mortar joints immediately above a bond beam. For reinforced single-wythe
walls with regularly spaced horizontal bond beams, incorporating flashing at each bond beam
location is often impractical. Solid-grouting the wall would be another option to mitigate this
situation as all the block cells would be filled.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
This report documents the water penetration resistance of reinforced single-wythe concrete
masonry wall assemblies with an interior material layer. The interior applied materials are an
addition to the typical northwest rain-resistant wall system. They may be used for situations
where an additional layer of water penetration resistance or system redundancy is required. Also,
if an air barrier or higher R-value is desired for increased energy efficiency these tested wall
assemblies will provide a quality design option.
During phase one all the test walls performed well. There was no evidence of water penetration
to the wall interior after many months exposure to the wet northwest environment. The materials
applied to the wall interior (negative side) remained properly bonded to the block wall over this
entire time period. There was no aging effect.
The ASTM water penetration testing phase is discussed in detail in the accompanying report by
Morrison Hershfield. As has been stated this is a severe wind-driven rain exposure for the
concrete masonry walls and highly unlikely to be experienced in service. With some exception,
the walls were built according to the typical northwest rain resistant system including medium
weight density units with an integral water repellent in the block and mortar. The use of a clear
water repellent and solid-grouting were omitted from the typical construction procedure to
provide maximum moisture exposure to the interior products for evaluation. Therefore, the fact
that the baseline test walls exhibited some water penetration wasn’t totally unexpected. See
Section 5.2 for more detail.
In briefly comparing results of this ASTM field testing with previous ASTM E-514 water
penetration laboratory testing, it was observed that the baseline medium weight CMU walls
Page 13
(without an additional material on the interior) were damper on the backside and had more
interior water penetration than previous test walls. Past similar test walls (with full mortar dosage
and without head joint cracks) exhibited no dampness or water penetration on the backside. This
would indicate that the ASTM E-1105 test procedure is equal to or more stringent than the
ASTM E-514 testing criteria which is also used in the ASTM C-1601 field test for masonry. This
idea was confirmed when a second baseline wall was tested using the C-1601 water and pressure
requirements and that wall section showed the same or less amount of dampness/leakage
compared to the original baseline wall. The higher water exposure rate of E-1105 (8 in/hr) seems
to be a controlling performance factor rather than the wind pressure difference. However, the
manner in which the air pressure differential is created (positive vs. negative pressure) may also
have an influence on the laboratory versus field test results.
The products tested provide an additional layer of protection against water penetration of singlewythe concrete masonry walls. They provide redundancy to the system. This is especially
beneficial for reinforced single-wythe block walls which are difficult to properly flash and weep.
They must normally serve as barrier walls rather than drainage walls.
The successful application of interior products to a single-wythe CMU wall allows additional
options for the architectural concrete masonry units to be exposed on the exterior. Attractive
appearance is a competitive advantage for masonry walls given the variety of block colors and
textures available.
The polyurethane foam provides several additional benefits to the masonry wall systems. It has
an R-value of 7.0/inch and acts as an air barrier for energy code compliance. (The Appendix lists
R-values for optional CMU/foam wall assemblies). Two other products tested function as air
barriers and offer the additional water penetration resistance even when applied on the negative
side of the wall. This combination of performance benefits helps to make concrete masonry
construction more competitive by providing quality design options and addressing the concerns
of building owners and designers.
Future testing might investigate additional detailing options at the base of a single-wythe CMU
wall. Also, the curing time required for the polyurethane foam needs to be studied further to
prevent potential damage to the wall system interior finish.
More research should be conducted on the masonry cavity wall assembly to determine the
adequate amount of wall ties necessary for constructability and structural performance when the
cavity is filled with polyurethane foam.
Page 14
Appendix –
R-Value Tables
Grout at 32 x 48 in. o.c.
R-value (hr.ft2.°F/Btu) for concrete conductivity of:
CMU
1
2
Thickness
kc = 5.415 Btu.in./hr.ft2.°F
8
13.03
13.09
10
13.17
13.22
12
13.28
13.33
CMU
1
2
Thickness
8
12.98
13.03
10
13.13
13.19
12
13.27
13.33
Add Polymaster foam (R=4.5/in) to the ungrouted cores above.
CMU
1
2
Thickness
8
14.17
14.32
10
14.66
14.83
12
15.19
15.38
CMU
1
2
Thickness
8
13.74
13.85
10
14.14
14.26
12
14.56
14.70
Page 15
R-Value Table
CMU
1
2
Thickness
8
12.79
12.85
10
13.02
13.08
12
13.24
13.30
R-Value Table
CMU
1
2
Thickness
8
16.25
16.31
10
16.48
16.54
12
16.70
16.76
1
2
Value from NCMA Thermal Catalog
Value from northwest material testing
Page 16
TEST REPORT
Report of Testing Single Wythe Concrete Masonry Wall with Negative Side Waterproofing for
compliance with the applicable requirements of: ASTM E1105-00(2008) Standard Test Method
for Field Determination of Water Penetration of Installed Exterior Windows, Skylights, Doors,
and Curtain Walls, by Uniform or Cyclical Static Air Pressure Difference
ISSUE DATE
October 28, 2013
EVALUATION CENTER
MORRISON HERSHFIELD CORPORATION
5100 SW Macadam Avenue, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97239
RENDERED TO
16300 Mill Creek Blvd. #208-C
Mill Creek, WA 98012
PRODUCTS EVALUATED
Spray Foam
STPE Coating
Latex Coating
Polypropylene Sheet
EVALUATION PROPERTY
Waterproofing integrity when used on interior side of single wythe CMU wall
Morrison Hershfield 5100 SW Macadam Avenue, Suite 500, Portland, OR 97239
Tel 503 595 9128 Fax 503 595 9136 | morrisonhershfield.com
Page 1
1
Table of Contents
1.
TABLE OF CONTENTS ………………………………………….. 2
2.
INTRODUCTION ………………….…………………….………… 3
3.
TEST SAMPLES …………………….……………………….…… 3
4.
5.
6.
3.1.
TEST WALL ASSEMBLIES ………………………………. 3
3.2.
MATERIAL SAMPLE SELECTION ………….…
3
TESTING AND EVALUATION METHODS ……………………. 4
4.1.
TEST STANDARD ……………………………………….
4.2.
CALIBRATION ………………………………..………….… 4
4.3.
TEST PROTOCOL ……………………………………….. 5
4
TESTING RESULTS …………………………………………..… 7
5.1.
RESULTS TABLE …………………………………….….
7
5.2.
SUMMARY……………………………………………….
8
CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………. 8
APPENDIX A – DIAGRAMS .…………………………………….10
APPENDIX B – PHOTOS …..…………………………………….13
Page 2
2
Introduction
Morrison Hershfield Corporation conducted testing on reinforced single-wythe concrete masonry (CMU) walls to
determine their effectiveness in resisting water penetration. To investigate the option of providing an additional
layer of protection, four different products were applied to the negative (interior) side of the CMU walls. The test
wall sections were constructed by professional masons (B&B Masonry). The wall construction details are
described in Appendix A. Testing was conducted by adapting the procedures of ASTM E1105-00(2008) Standard
Test Method for Field Determination of Water Penetration of Installed Exterior Windows, Skylights, Doors, and
th
Curtain Walls, by Uniform or Cyclical Static Air Pressure Difference. This evaluation began June 13 2013 and
th
was completed on June 14 2013.
3
Test Samples
3.1
TEST WALL ASSEMBLIES
The test wall assemblies were constructed at two buildings located at the B&B Masonry service yard in
Vancouver, WA.
Building #1 was constructed in October of 2011 and was enclosed with 8’ tall concrete masonry block test panels.
The wall panels were constructed of 8”x8”x16” ground-face concrete masonry units (CMU) with four courses of
half-height units—two CMU and two clay brick. The block contained Dry-Block integral water repellent additive
and the mortar had Dry-Block added as it was mixed on site. It should be noted that only half of the
recommended integral water repellent dosage was used in the mortar due to workability concerns of the masons.
Also, no water repellent sealer was applied to the walls. The masonry walls supported gabled roof trusses and a
corrugated metal roof. The south elevation of the building was utilized for this testing. It had an overhead door
centered in the elevation. To the east of the door, the wall was built in two sections with an open ½” joint between
the two sections. The left section was solid-grouted and the right section was partial-grouted with bond beams as
the sixth and top courses. Polyurethane foam and gypsum board were adhered to the wall interior.
Building #2 was constructed in March of 2012 and was located 30 yards north of Building #1. The building
structure consisted of timber post and beam frame and it was in-filled with 11’-4” tall concrete masonry walls of
red lava colored CMU block in standard size 8”x8”x16”. The block was split-faced on the exterior and smoothfaced on the interior. The block contained the same integral water repellent additive and the mortar had
admixture added as it was mixed on site. It should be noted that only half of the recommended integral water
repellent additive dosage was used in the mortar due to workability concerns of the masons. Also, no water
repellent sealer was applied to the test walls. Two partial-grouted walls in Building #2 with bond beams at the
sixth and fourteenth course were utilized for this testing. The west wall, with a 12” roof overhang, was used for
the baseline wall control tests. The south wall, with a 2” roof overhang, was used for the testing of three
waterproofing products applied to the wall interior.
3.2
MATERIAL SAMPLE SELECTION
Material samples were provided by the respective manufacturer’s representatives from off the shelf stock and not
specifically manufactured for testing purposes.
3.2.1 Elastomeric Membrane (STPE Coating): the product was ProSoCo Cat 5 and was provided by
ProSoCo in 1 gallon pails. The product was installed on the inward side of the south wall of test
building #2 on April 19, 2012, by a representative of ProSoCo. Cat 5 is a silyl-terminated-poly-ether
(STPE) elastomeric coating.
Page 3
3.2.2 Latex Masonry Waterproofer (Latex Coating): the product was UGL Drylok and was provided by
UGL in a one gallon can. The product was installed on the inward side of the south wall of test building
#2 on April 21, 2012, by an employee of B&B masonry. UGL Drylock is a latex based product.
3.2.3 Self-Adhered Membrane (Polypropylene Sheet): the product was VaproShield WrapShield SA SelfAdhered Membrane and was provided by VaproShield in a 59” x 164’’ roll. The product was installed
without any seams on April 25, 2012 on the inward side of the south wall of test building #2 by an
employee of B&B masonry. WrapShield SA is a vapor permeable spun-bonded polypropylene sheet.
3.2.4 Polyurethane Spray Foam (Spray Foam): the product was SR Spray Foam and was provided by SR
Contractors in a two component form. The product was installed on the inward side of the masonry on
the south wall of test building #1 on February 8, 2012 by SR Contractors. The installation method
utilized gypsum board as a form to ensure the foam was fully adhered to the entire surface of the CMU
wall.
It should be noted that only the latex coating is designed to be a negative (interior) side waterproofing. The
Polypropylene Sheet and STPE Coating are water resistive barriers designed to be applied to the positive
(exterior) surface of the substrate. The Spray Foam is not designed as a water barrier and its use was
investigational. At Building #2 each test sample was approximately 4ft wide by 10ft high (Photo 2.1). At Building
#1 the foam sample was installed on the wall in two areas, each approximately 4ft wide by 8ft high (Photo 3.3).
4
Testing and Evaluation Methods
4.1
TEST STANDARD
ASTM E1105 is a testing standard for measuring water infiltration resistance of windows, curtain walls, and other
glazing and door systems, which was adapted for use on this test. It provided a method for applying a known
calibrated wind pressure and rain quantity on the wall assembly. This test method was selected because of the
well understood relationship between test load and failure implications in windows. Applying this test protocol to a
masonry wall introduced some issues which are discussed below.
The use of ASTM C1601, Standard Test Method for Field Determination of Water Penetration of Masonry Wall
Surfaces was considered for this research project. The decision was made to use ASTM E1105 primarily because
ASTM C1601 evaluates the surface water penetration which is not the same as the desired through-wall water
penetration. The familiarity with ASTM E1105 testing and the availability of the proper testing apparatus were also
factors in this decision.
The water flow rate and air pressure are different for these two test methods. During this research a wall section
was tested using the ASTM C1601 water flow rate and air pressure criteria for comparison purposes. Note that
the water spray was applied utilizing the racks calibrated to ASTM E1105 in lieu of the spray configuration
required per ASTM C1601. Also, ASTM C1601 specifies a positive air pressure against the test wall while ASTM
E1105 allows either negative or positive pressure (interior or exterior chambers), and for this testing an air
pressure differential was accomplished by exhausting air from a chamber mounted on the inside of the test wall.
Interior chambers are easier to attach properly and seal. With everything considered it was felt that ASTM E1105
would provide the wall water penetration resistance information we were interested in obtaining.
4.2
CALIBRATION
Water spray testing was accomplished using the ASTM E-1105 rain rack. The rack was calibrated on June 10
2013 by Morrison Hershfield in compliance with ASTM E-1105-00(2008).
Page 4
th
4.3
TEST PROTOCOL AND OBSERVATIONS
4.3.1 Test 1 – Baseline #1
4.3.1.1 Description: Untreated, exposed single wythe wall (partial-grouted) at building 2 (Photo 1.1) The
wall assembly was inspected and cracks were noted at horizontal and vertical mortar joints (Photo
1.2).
4.3.1.2 Purpose: The wall assembly was tested for water penetration resistance (Photo 1.3) and was used
as baseline to establish a fail point.
4.3.1.3 Test Procedure: ASTM E1105 at 6.24 psf (300Pa) air pressure difference and water spray at 5
2
gal/ft /hr for 2 hours.
4.3.1.4 Test Area: The pressurized area was 3ft x 8ft. The chamber was mounted on the interior of the wall
1ft above the slab so that the bottom of the wall detail was not pressurized. The chamber was
centered so that it did not overlap the adjacent wall area (Photo 1.4).
4.3.1.5 Observations: Moisture was observed on interior of vertical mortar joint at 4 minutes (Photo 1.5).
Moisture was also observed at horizontal mortar joint immediately above the bond beam. Leaks
were observed at locations in the mortar joints with and without cracks and outside of the test area.
The test was terminated after one hour (Photo 1.6).
4.3.2 Test 2 – Polypropylene Sheet
4.3.2.1 Description: Polypropylene Sheet on interior of single wythe wall (partial-grouted) at building 2
(Photo 2.1). The wall assembly was inspected and no cracks were noted (Photo 2.2).
4.3.2.2 Purpose: The wall assembly was tested for water penetration resistance using a sheet weather
resistive barrier on the negative side of the wall (Photo 2.3).
4.3.2.3 Test Procedure: ASTM E1105 at 6.24 psf (300 Pa) air pressure difference and water spray at 5
2
gal/ft /hr for 2 hours (Photo 2.4).
4.3.2.4 Test Area: The waterproofed section was approximately 3.5 ft x12 ft. The pressurized test area
was 3ft x 8ft. The chamber was mounted on the interior of the wall 1ft above the slab so that the
bottom of the wall detail was not pressurized. The chamber was centered so that it did not overlap
the adjacent wall area. Only the testing area on the exterior side was wetted. The other sections
were covered with sheet plastic to prevent wetting of adjacent surfaces. (Photo 2.5).
4.3.2.5 Observations: No water was observed on the interior of the wall or between the sheet product and
the CMU.
4.3.3 Test 3 – Spray Foam/Solid-grouted
4.3.3.1 Description: Spray Foam on interior of single wythe wall (solid-grouted) at building 1 (Photo 3.1).
Gypsum wallboard interior finish over foam on interior side. The wall assembly was inspected and
no cracks were noted.
4.3.3.2 Purpose: The wall assembly was tested for water penetration resistance (Photo 3.2) using a spray
foam material on the interior side. The wall was solid-grouted for comparison with partial-grouted.
2
4.3.3.4 Test Area: The waterproofed section was approximately 4 ft x 8 ft. The pressurized test area was
3ft x 7.5 ft. The chamber was mounted on the interior of the wall 1ft above the slab so that the
bottom of the wall detail was not pressurized. The chamber was centered so that it did not overlap
the adjacent wall area. Only the testing area on the exterior side was wetted. The other sections
were covered with sheet plastic to prevent wetting of adjacent surfaces (Photo 3.2). An adjacent
control joint was taped watertight.
4.3.3.5 Observations: There was no water penetration through the wall (Photos 3.3 & 3.4) or between the
foam and CMU. Moisture shown in the photo at the base of the wall had traveled on the floor
through the wall opening.
4.3.4. Test 4 –STPE Coating
4.3.4.1 Description: STPE Coating liquid membrane on interior of single wythe wall (partial-grouted)
at building 2 (Photo 4.1). The wall assembly was inspected and no cracks were noted.
Page 5
4.3.4.2 Purpose: The wall assembly was tested for water penetration resistance using a fluid applied
weather resistive barrier on the negative side of the wall.
4.3.4.3 Test Procedure: ASTM E1105 at 6.24 psf (300 Pa) air pressure difference and water spray at
2
5 gal/ft /hr for 2 hours (Photo 4.2).
4.3.4.4 Test Area: The waterproofed section was approximately 3.5 ft x 12 ft. The pressurized test
area was 3ft x 8ft. The chamber was mounted on the interior of the wall 1ft above the slab so
that the bottom of the wall detail was not pressurized. The chamber was centered so that it
did not overlap the adjacent wall area. Only the tested area on the exterior side was wetted.
The other sections were covered with sheet plastic to prevent wetting of adjacent surfaces.
4.3.4.5 Observations: No water was observed on the interior of the wall or between the STPE coating
and the CMU (Photo 4.3).
4.3.5 Test 5 – Latex Coating
4.3.5.1 Description: Latex Coating on interior of single wythe wall (partial-grouted) at building 2 (Photo
5.1). The wall assembly was inspected and no cracks were noted.
4.3.5.2 Purpose: The wall assembly was tested for water penetration resistance (Photos 5.2 & 5.3) using
a latex coating, which is advertised for use on the negative side of the wall.
2
4.3.5.4 Test Area: The waterproofed section was approximately 3.5 ft x12 ft. The pressurized test area
was 3ft x 8ft (Photo 5.4). The chamber was mounted on the interior of the wall 1ft above the slab
so that the bottom of the wall detail was not pressurized. The chamber was centered so that it did
not overlap the adjacent wall area.
4.3.5.5 Observations: No water was observed on the interior of the wall or between the coating and the
CMU.
4.3.6 Test 6 – Baseline #2
4.3.6.1 Description: Untreated, exposed single wythe wall (partial-grouted) at building 2 (Photo 6.1).
Higher negative air pressure and less water on exterior were used in order to establish a fail point
at varied test conditions. The wall assembly was inspected and cracks were noted at horizontal
and vertical joints
4.3.6.2 Purpose: The wall assembly was tested for water penetration resistance (Photo 6.2) and was
used as a baseline for comparison to baseline #1 by varying the air pressure and water flow rate
to the requirement of ASTM C1601.
2
4.3.6.3 Test Procedure: ASTM E1105 at 10 psf air pressure difference and water spray at 3.4 gal/ft /hr
for 2 hours (Photo 6.3).
4.3.6.4 Test area: The pressurized area was 3ft x 8 ft (Photo 6.4). The chamber was mounted on the
interior of the wall 1ft above the slab so that the bottom of the wall detail was not pressurized. The
chamber was centered so that it did not overlap the adjacent wall area.
4.3.6.5 Observations: Moisture was observed on the interior of vertical mortar joint at 10 minutes (Photo
6.5). Moisture was also observed at the horizontal mortar joint immediately above the bond
beam. Leaks were observed at locations in the mortar joints with and without cracks. Moisture
was also observed outside of the test area at the mortar bed joint immediately above the bond
beam course at 11 minutes. The test terminated after one hour (Photo 6.6).
4.3.7. Test 7 - Spray Foam/Partial-grouted
4.3.7.1 Description: Spray Foam on interior of single wythe wall (partial grouted) at building 1 (Photo 7.1).
Gypsum wallboard interior finish over foam on interior side. The wall assembly was inspected and
no cracks were noted.
4.3.7.2 Purpose: The wall assembly was tested for water penetration resistance (Photo 7.2) using a
spray foam material on the interior side.
2
gal/ft /hr for 2 hours (Photo 7.3).
4.3.7.4 Test Area: The Waterproofed section was approximately 4 ft by 8 ft. The pressurized test area
was 3ft x 7.5 ft. The chamber was mounted on the interior of the wall 1ft above the slab so that
Page 6
the bottom of the wall detail was not pressurized. The chamber was centered so that it did not
overlap the adjacent wall area (Photo 7.4). An adjacent control joint was taped watertight.
4.3.7.5 Observations: There was no water penetration through the wall. No water was observed when
gypsum and foam were removed (Photo 7.5).
4.3.8. Test 8 – Baseline #3
4.3.8.1 Description: Untreated, exposed single wythe wall (partial-grouted) at building 2 (Photo 8.1). The
wall assembly was inspected and cracks were noted at horizontal and vertical joints.
4.3.8.2 Purpose: The wall assembly was tested for water penetration resistance to verify if the result
obtained for test 1 (baseline #1) was consistent at a different location of the wall.
2
gal/ft /hr for 2 hours (Photo 8.2 shows spray rack receiving 14 PSI water pressure as required by
rack calibration).
4.3.8.4 Test Area: The pressurized area was 3ft x 8 ft. The chamber was mounted on the interior of the
wall 1ft above the slab so that the bottom of the wall detail was not pressurized. The chamber was
centered so that it did not overlap the adjacent wall area (Photo 8.3).
4.3.8.5 Observations: Moisture was observed on the interior of the vertical mortar joint at 4 minutes.
Moisture was also observed at the horizontal mortar joint immediately above the bond beam.
Leaks were observed at locations in the mortar joints with and without cracks. The test was
terminated after one hour. The mortar joint was drilled and water emptied from the cavity above
the bond beam (Photo 8.4).
5
Testing Results
5.1
RESULTS TABLE
Test
Material
Building
Wall
Air Pressure
Water
Time
Result
Leak Notes
Leak at 9:48
Moisture in
vertical joint,
then running
water from bed
joint of bond
beam. Test
terminated at 1
hr.
Leaked in 4
minutes. Leaked
outside of
chamber in 45
minutes at 10:29
Water came in
around wall that
wet the interior
floor
June 13, 2013
west
14 psi,
16" away,
5 gal/ft2/hr
14 psi,
16" away,
5 gal/ft2/hr
11:121:12
(2 hours)
No leaks
1
Baseline #1
2
Polypropylene
Sheet
2
south
300pa/ 6.24psf/
1.198 in water
column
3
Spray
foam/Solid
Grouted
1
south
300pa/ 6.24psf/
1.198 in water
column
14 psi,
16" away,
5 gal/ft2/hr
12:462:46
(2 hours)
No leaks
4
STPE
Coating
2
south
300pa/ 6.24psf/
1.198 in water
column
14 psi,
16" away,
5 gal/ft2/hr
2:124:12
(2 hours)
No leaks
5
Latex Coating
2
south
300pa/ 6.24psf/
1.198 in water
column
14 psi,
16" away,
5 gal/ft2/hr
5:107:10
(2 hours)
No leaks
west
480pa/ 10psf/
1.905 in/water
column
14 psi,
25" away,
3.4 gal/ft2/hr
5:426:42
(1 hour)
Leak at 5:52 in
vertical joint.
Test terminated
at 1 hr.
6
Baseline #2
2
9:4410:44
(1 hour)
300pa/ 6.24psf/
1.198 in water
column
2
Leaked in 10
minutes. Leak
outside chamber
in 11 minutes at
5:53
Page 7
TEST REPORT
June 14, 2013
7
8
5.2
Spray Foam/
Partial
Grouted
Baseline #3
1
south
300pa/ 6.24psf/
1.198 in water
column
14 psi,
16" away,
5 gal/ft2/hr
2
west
300pa/ 6.24psf/
1.198 in water
column
14 psi,
16" away,
5 gal/ft2/hr
9:2911:29
(2 hours)
10:0711:07
(1 hour)
No leaks
Leak at 10:11
in vertical joint.
Test terminated
at 1 hr.
Leaked in 4
minutes
SUMMARY
The results of the ASTM E1105 water penetration testing for the concrete masonry walls are shown in the table
above. Water leakage to the wall interior was observed on all the baseline single wythe walls. These walls were
partial-grouted and did not have a water repellent sealer applied on the exterior. The leakage occurred at the
mortar joints. Hairline cracking of some mortar head joints was observed on the exterior of the baseline test wall;
however the cracks did not penetrate into the interior. There was no moisture observed penetrating the concrete
masonry units themselves.
The concrete masonry walls with waterproofing materials applied to the interior had no water leakage throughout
the testing. The applied materials all remained intact after the testing was completed. Similarly the walls with
spray foam insulation did not leak.
6
Conclusion
This report documents the water penetration resistance of reinforced single-wythe concrete masonry wall
assemblies. The walls were constructed using an integral water repellent additive in the block. Mortar was mixed
with one-half the recommended additive dosage. No water repellent sealer was installed, which is not consistent
with the industry convention for single wythe walls.
Water did penetrate the baseline test walls under the water flow rate requirement of ASTM E1105, which
represents about 8 inches of rainfall per hour and which is a severe testing condition. (It is noted in ASTM E1105
that the greatest rainfall for a 1-hour period in the contiguous 48 states is less than 5 inches). Water collected in
the open cells above the horizontal bond beams in the partial-grouted CMU wall. A small head pressure
developed and forced water through the horizontal mortar joint above the bond beam. There was also minor
water penetration observed at some mortar head joints. There was no moisture that penetrated directly through
to the masonry units, which is attributable to the fact that the integral water repellent additive in the block inhibited
wicking through the masonry units to the wall interior. Leakage of the baseline test walls through the mortar joints
may be attributed to the mortar additive dosage, absence of water repellent sealer, cracks in the head joints, or a
combination of these factors. The mortar joint cracks alone are not believed to be the sole reason for the wall
leakage.
The block walls with the additional interior material layer performed well and showed no evidence of leakage to
the interior. The interior applied products all remained in place, adhered to the block wall, throughout the testing.
These products appeared to provide an effective layer of protection against water penetration for single-wythe
concrete masonry walls.
Relative to the baseline walls, the simulated wind pressure across the wall may have had less impact upon wall
leakage than the quantity of water applied to the wall surface. The ASTM C1601 criteria of 10 psf and 3.4 gal/sf/hr
(5.5 in/hr rainfall rate) did not cause wall leakage as quickly as the ASTM E1105 criteria of 6 psf and 5.0 gal/sf/hr
(8 in/hr rainfall rate).
Page 8
The successful performance of the waterproofed assemblies may be because the additional interior materials
may have provided some air barrier resistance and contributed in minimizing the airflow across the wall. As a
result there may have been minimal driving wind force across the wall and penetration of water into the CMU wall
would have been primarily via capillary action rather than wind pressure. This testing revealed that an air barrier
material applied to a concrete masonry wall will help in reducing the potential for water penetration.
Yours truly,
MORRISON HERSHFIELD CORPORATION
Charles Halling, AIA
Claude Louvouezo, AIA, Architect AIBC
Page 9
APPENDIX A
Technical Drawings
Construction of Wall Panels
All the concrete masonry walls were constructed by professional masons. The concrete block units were typical
medium weight density and contained an integral water repellent admixture. No clear water repellent was applied
to the walls. They were reinforced with vertical bars at jambs and 4’-0” on center. They had two horizontal bond
beams in their height. All walls were partial-grouted with one solid-grouted exception.
Type S mortar was used with conventional face shell bedding. Head joints were constructed using a “double
buttering” technique. Mortar joints were concave tooled on both sides of the walls.
The 8 inch ground-face CMU wall panels were 8 ft high and were constructed in October 2011 and with interior
spray foam applied the following February. These walls faced south to provide high wind-driven rain exposure. In
Building 1, half of the wall tests were solid grouted and half were partial grouted. The polyurethane foam was
placed in lifts to minimize the impact of curing pressure. It was placed in a cavity between the single-wythe CMU
wall and gypsum board.
The 8 inch split-face CMU wall on Building 2 was 11 ft - 4 in high and was constructed in March 2012. It was a
partial-grouted, reinforced wall, facing south. The interior finish products were applied in April 2012 per
manufacturer’s recommendations. The STPE coated wall was finished at the concrete slab base with wet-flash
sealant. The other two products were turned out and bonded at the floor line.
The test baseline single-wythe walls faced west and were partial-grouted and reinforced. There was no interior
product applied and it was exposed on both sides.
Page 10
Figure 1. Partial-Grouted CMU Wall
Page 11
Figure 2. CMU Wall Assemblies Tested on Building #1
Figure 3. CMU Wall Assemblies Tested on Building #2
Page 12
APPENDIX B
Photographs
Page 13

Final Report - National Concrete Masonry Association

Transcription

Similar documents

German cushioning specialist Hukla is one of the

Home2_LuxuryHomeTour_Nor-Son

tarafından bu yıl ilk kez düzenlenen 1.Üniversitem Tan

Shouldice Install Guide

Products_files/6 (catalogo DECO PROJECTS.EN)

The Distinctive Corbel - Masonry Institute of Michigan

trader joe`s - EchelonMasonry.com

experimental analysis of mechanical behavior of lintels in structural

Visual Partner

the pure theatricality of marcel wolterinck