ASTM E2128-20

This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the
Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
Designation: E2128 − 20
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 Development of International Standards, Guides and Recom-
mendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical
1.1 This guide describes methods for determining and
Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.
evaluating causes of water leakage of exterior walls. For this
purpose, water penetration is considered leakage, and therefore
2. Referenced Documents
problematic, if it exceeds the planned resistance or temporary
2.1 ASTM Standards:
retention and drainage capacity of the wall, is causing or is
C1601 Test Method for Field Determination of Water Pen-
likely to cause premature deterioration of a building or its
etration of Masonry Wall Surfaces
contents, or is adversely affecting the performance of other
C1715/C1715M Test Method for Evaluation of Water Leak-
components. A wall is considered a system including its
age Performance of Masonry Wall Drainage Systems
exterior and interior finishes, fenestration, structural
E331 Test Method for Water Penetration of Exterior
components, and components for maintaining the building
Windows, Skylights, Doors, and Curtain Walls by Uni-
interior environment.
form Static Air Pressure Difference
1.2 Investigative techniques discussed may be intrusive,
E547 Test Method for Water Penetration of Exterior
disruptive, or destructive. It is the responsibility of the inves-
Windows, Skylights, Doors, and Curtain Walls by Cyclic
tigator to establish the limitations of use, to anticipate and
Static Air Pressure Difference
advise of the destructive nature of some procedures, and to
E631 Terminology of Building Constructions
plan for patching and selective reconstruction as necessary.
E860 Practice for ExaminingAnd Preparing Items ThatAre
Or May Become Involved In Criminal or Civil Litigation
1.3 The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as
E1105 Test Method for Field Determination of Water Pen-
standard. The values given in parentheses after SI units are
etration of Installed Exterior Windows, Skylights, Doors,
provided for information only and are not considered standard.
1.3.1 Exception—Solely inch-pound units are stated in and Curtain Walls, by Uniform or Cyclic Static Air
Pressure Difference
10.3.1, 10.3.2.1, X1.5.3.7, X2.5.1.3, X3.4.3.3, X5.1.2.2,
X5.5.5, X5.6.3, and X8.5.1.3. E1188 Practice for Collection and Preservation of Informa-
tion and Physical Items by a Technical Investigator
1.4 This practice does not purport to address all of the
2.2 AAMA Standards:
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. Establish
AAMA 501.2 Quality Assurance and Diagnostic Water
appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and
Leakage Field Check of Installed Storefronts, Curtain
determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to
Walls and Sloped Glazing Systems
use. Awareness of safety and familiarity with safe procedures
AAMA 511 Voluntary Guideline for Forensic Water Pen-
are particularly important for above-ground operations on the
etration Testing of Fenestration Products,Article 4.2.1.3.1
exterior of a building and destructive investigative procedures
Optional Sill Dam Test (This test method previously
which typically are associated with the work described in this
appeared in AAMA 502.)
guide.
1.5 This international standard was developed in accor-
3. Terminology
dance with internationally recognized principles on standard-
3.1 Definitions—Refer to Terminology E631.
ization established in the Decision on Principles for the
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
This guide is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E06 on Performance contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM
of Buildings and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E06.55 on Perfor- Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
mance of Building Enclosures. the ASTM website.
Current edition approved Dec. 1, 2020. Published December 2020. Originally Available from American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA),
approved in 2001. Last previous edition approved in 2017 as E2128 – 17. DOI: 1827 Walden Office Square, Suite 550, Schaumburg, IL 60173-4268, http://
10.1520/E2128-20. www.aamanet.org.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E2128 − 20
3.2 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard: resources applied to the task. The objective is to be as
3.2.1 incidental water, n—unplanned water infiltration that comprehensiveaspossiblewithinadefinedscopeofwork.The
penetrates beyond the primary barrier and the flashing or methodology in this guide is intended to address intrinsic
secondary barrier system, of such limited volume that it can leakage behavior properties of a wall system, leading to
escape or evaporate without causing adverse consequences. conclusions that generally apply to similar locations on the
building. Since every possible location is not included in an
3.2.2 water absorption, n—a process in which a material
evaluation program, it is probable that every leak source will
takes in water through its pores and interstices and retains it
notbeidentified.Leakagesourcesthatarelocalizedandunique
wholly without transmission.
may remain and may require additional localized evaluation
3.2.3 water infiltration, n—a process in which water passes
effort. The potential results and benefits of the evaluation
through a material or between materials in a system and
program should not be over-represented.
reaches a space that is not directly or intentionally exposed to
4.2 Thisguideisnotintendedasadesignguideorasaguide
the water source.
specification. Reference is made to design features of a wall
3.2.4 water leakage, n—water that is uncontrolled; exceeds
only for the purpose of identifying items of interest for
theresistance,retention,ordischargecapacityofthesystem;or
consideration in the evaluation process.
causes subsequent damage or premature deterioration.
4.3 This guide does not address leakage through roofs,
3.2.5 water penetration, n—a process in which water gains
leakage below grade, or water that accumulates due to water
access into a material or system by passing through the surface
vapor migration and condensation. It is not intended for use
exposed to the water source.
with structures designed to retain water, such as pools and
3.2.6 water permeation, n—a process in which water enters,
fountains.
flows, and spreads within and discharges from a material.
SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO AN EVALUATION
4. Significance and Use
5. Overview
4.1 This guide is intended to provide building professionals
5.1 The methodology presented in this guide is a systematic
with a comprehensive methodology for evaluating water leak-
approach to evaluating wall leaks and is applicable to any wall
age through walls. It addresses the performance expectations
system or material. It differs from other approaches that are
andservicehistoryofawall,thevariouscomponentsofawall,
materialspecificorcomponentspecificandwhicharebasically
and the interaction between these components and adjacent
adaptations of quality control procedures. The sequence of
construction.Itisnotintendedasaconstructionqualitycontrol
activities is intended to lead to an accumulation of information
procedure, nor as a preconstruction qualification procedure. It
in an orderly and efficient manner, so that each step enhances
is intended for evaluating buildings that exhibit water leakage.
and supplements the information gathered in the preceding
4.1.1 Qualifications—This guide requires the evaluator to
step.
possess a knowledge of basic physics and of construction and
5.1.1 Sequence of Activities—The recommended sequence
wall design principles and practices.
of activities, discussed in individual sections below, are:
4.1.2 Application—The sequential activities described
5.1.1.1 Review of project documents.
herein are intended to produce a complete and comprehensive
5.1.1.2 Evaluation of design concept.
evaluation program, but all activities may not be applicable or
5.1.1.3 Determination of service history.
necessary for a particular evaluation program. It is the respon-
5.1.1.4 Inspection.
sibility of the professional using this guide to determine the
5.1.1.5 Investigative testing.
activities and sequence necessary to properly perform an
5.1.1.6 Analysis.
appropriate leakage evaluation for a specific building.
5.1.1.7 Report preparation.
4.1.3 Preliminary Assessment—A preliminary assessment
5.1.2 The first four recommended activities, and their de-
may indicate that water leakage problems are limited to a
scriptions in the body of the guide, are: 6. Review of Project
specific element or portion of a wall. The preliminary assess-
Documents; 7. Evaluation of Design Concept; 8. Determina-
ment may also indicate that the wall is not the source of a leak
tion of Service History; and 9. Inspection. These activities
even though it is perceived as such by the building occupant.
intentionally precede 10. Investigative Testing because they
The presence of water might result from a roofing problem, a
facilitate a rational determination of the spectrum of
condensationproblem,aplumbingproblem,operablewindows
conditions, and are the basis for a rational selection of
or doors left opened or unlatched or some other condition not
investigative test locations and procedures.
directly related to water leakage through the building wall and
5.2 The protocol in this guide is not based on conventional
isoutsidethescopeofthisguide.Theevaluationofcausesmay
likewise be limited in scope, and the procedures recommended hypothesis testing and quantitative random sampling. The
herein abridged according to the professional judgement of the starting premise for the application of this guide is that the
evaluator.Astatementstipulatingthelimitsoftheinvestigation building is suspected or known to leak. The objective of this
should be included in the report.
4.1.4 Expectations—Expectations about the overall effec-
Haughton, L.L., and Murphy, C.R., “Qualitative Sampling of the Building
tiveness of an evaluation program must be reasonable and in
Envelope for Water Leakage,” Journal of ASTM International, Vol 4, No. 9, paper
proportion to a defined scope of work and the effort and ID JAI100815, 2007.
E2128 − 20
guide is qualitative, purposeful, and intended to address the criteria, the design intent, the required materials, and relation-
question of why, how and to what extent a building leaks. A ships among wall components.
statement stipulating the limits of the investigation and the
6.1.1.1 Documents may be revised or supplemented over
starting premise of the investigative program should be in-
the course of construction. Revisions to drawings are typically
cluded in the report.
recorded by number and date with a cross reference to other
accompanying documents. Reviewing all revisions and issu-
5.3 Scope of Investigation—It is not assumed or expected
ances of the documents, and understanding the differences
that all locations with similar design, construction and service
between them and the reason for the differences, is part of a
characteristics will be currently performing in precisely the
comprehensive evaluation.
same manner. Likewise, it is not necessary to establish such in
6.1.1.2 Documents with the most recent issue date and the
order to reach technically valid conclusions about why and
highest revision number establish the requirements for the
how a building leaks. The evaluation of water leakage of
project. Ideally, a set of documents marked “as-built” or
building walls is a cognitive process in which technically valid
“record set” intended to show the actual construction will be
conclusions are reached by the application of knowledge,
available.
experience and a rational methodology to determine the
following:
6.2 Referenced Codes and Standards—Project documents
5.3.1 The intrinsic properties of the wall.
usually contain references to regulatory codes and industry
5.3.2 The cause(s) and mechanism(s) of leakage.
standards. Standards and referenced codes often contain de-
5.3.3 Theapplicabilityoffindingstosimilarun-inspectedor
fault or minimum criteria that might have been relied upon to
un-tested locations on the building.
establish the performance criteria for the wall. Conflicting
5.3.4 And, if within the scope of the evaluation, to acquire requirements between referenced standards and codes, and
and report sufficient information to permit an assessment,
those explicitly stated in the project documents, should not be
within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, of the assumed to be a cause of leakage without further investigation.
likelihoodofadditionalwaterleakagetooccurarisingfromthe
6.2.1 Regulatory codes and industry standards change over
conditions identified and the conclusions reached as a result of
time. The version of regulatory codes and industry standards
the evaluation.
examined as part of the review of project documents should be
those listed with dates in the project documents, or if not listed
5.4 Sampling—The recommended sampling method for the
withdates,thoseineffectwhenthebuildingpermitwasissued.
application of this guide is to consider the spectrum of wall
Understanding the history and background of referenced codes
conditions from apparently performing to apparently non-
and standards is part of a comprehensive evaluation.
performing areas, and from un-deteriorated or un-damaged
areas to deteriorated or damaged areas. It is also important to
6.3 Submittals—Additional documents are generated after
distinguish between varying conditions which may result from
the award of contracts and are submitted to the design
prior modifications or attempted repairs, and to determine the
professional for review and inclusion in the project record.The
extent of sampling necessary to address and evaluate these
submittals usually apply to a specific material, component,
variations in conditions.
assembly, or installation method; and the information con-
tained will augment the project documents. There are often a
5.5 Analysis and Interpretation—The information system-
number of revisions to submittals prior to final approval. The
atically gathered during a leakage evaluation is analyzed as it
standardfortheprojectissetbythesubmittalsapprovedbythe
isacquired.Thesequentialactivitiesdescribedinthisguideare
design professional. Submittals include some or all of the
not intended to imply that analysis and interpretation of the
following: shop drawings, test reports, product literature,
information occurs only at the completion of all activities.
manufacturers’recommendations,installationandmaintenance
guidelines, warranties, etc.
6. Review of Project Documents
6.3.1 Test reports provided by manufacturers and suppliers
6.1 Ideally, project documents including wall component
should have been performed by an independent laboratory or
shop drawings will be available and accessible for review. The
witnessed by an independent agency. Review the test dates and
discussion in this section assumes that a project was organized
the description of what was tested to determine if and how the
on a conventional Owner/Architect/Contractor model. Build-
information actually applies to the project.
ing projects can be delivered in a variety of ways, and the
6.3.2 Manufacturers’ and suppliers’ information, and the
actual method used will dictate the appropriate organization of
exclusionary language in warranties, may suggest circum-
the project documents. Regardless of how a project is orga-
stances under which a component may not function properly.
nized and administered, the information discussed below
Project conditions should be evaluated to determine if an
should be available for review somewhere in the project
appropriate product selection was made.
documents.
6.3.3 Submittals should be reviewed for maintenance rec-
6.1.1 Design, Bidding, and Contract Documents—These
ommendations and guidelines.
documents include architectural and engineering drawings and
specifications and may also include calculations, wind tunnel 6.4 Pre-Qualification and Mock-Up Reports—Compliance
reports, correspondence, meeting minutes, addenda, substitu- with project requirements may have been demonstrated by a
tionproposals,productliterature,testreports,etc.Theycontain mock-up test. Mock-ups of complex wall systems rarely pass
the information necessary to understand the performance alltestsonthefirstattempt.Themock-upreportshouldcontain
E2128 − 20
a clear and complete description of changes necessary to pass weatherconditionsduringperiodsofleakage.Theseconditions
the test. Project documents should incorporate these changes, can be correlated with the service history, described in the next
and they should be reflected in the actual construction. Failure section, to help establish a protocol for the evaluation process.
toincorporatethesechangesshouldbeconsideredasapossible
cause of water leakage.
8. Determination of Service History
6.5 Additional Construction Documents—Additional con- 8.1 Gathering information on the service history related to
struction documents that record changes, decisions, and activi-
leakage problems serves several purposes. First, patterns in the
ties during the construction phase may include bulletins, observedleakageandvisibledamagecanprovideanindication
requests of information (RFI), clarifications, change orders,
of the cause(s) and where to focus an investigation. Second,
directives, progress photos, inspection and quality assurance and more importantly, the information provides a checklist
reports,testreports,meetingminutes,andcorrespondence.The
against which failure theories and conclusions can be evalu-
information in these documents may augment, modify, or ated. A comprehensive diagnostic program should result in an
supersede the design documents.
explanationformostifnotallaspectsoftheobservedleaksand
damage.
6.6 Local Practices—Knowledge of local and historical
8.1.1 Document Physical Symptoms of Leaks:
practiceswillpermitamorethoroughassessmentoftheproject
8.1.1.1 Make a detailed visual inspection of both the exte-
design and construction. The actual construction may be
rior and interior wall surfaces. Locations that should be
influenced in an undocumented manner by local practices.
checked for indications of leakage include but are not limited
6.7 Missing Documents—Project documents may be un-
to:
available or have missing parts. This unfortunate situation will
(1) Intersection of walls with floors and ceilings.
require the determination of existing and as-built conditions.
(2) Window, door, vent, and louver openings; particularly
Ratherthanverifyingtheinformationintheprojectdocuments,
at corners and mulled joints between units.
the information may need to be generated from observations
(3) Handrail connections.
and measurements of the building.
(4) Intersection of walls with exterior balconies. Balcony
features that can contribute to leakage problems are little or no
7. Evaluation of Design Concept
slope away from the wall, absence of a curb under the wall and
7.1 Performance Criteria—Review of the project docu-
door, little or no slope to drain grates or scuppers, or handrail
ments should reveal what, if any, water resistance performance
base which obstructs drainage.
requirements were specified for the wall. The required water
(5) Utility and building services penetrations.
infiltration resistance for manufactured wall components such
(6) Below setbacks, where an exterior wall on one floor is
as windows and curtain walls, expressed as a differential test
above an interior space of the floor below.
pressure across the wall to simulate the action of wind-driven
(7) Intersection of an exterior wall and a roof plane.
rain, is usually stated explicitly in the contract documents.
8.1.1.2 Note all indications of past and existing water
Alternatively, the required resistance may have been implied
damage including, but not limited to, the following:
through references to industry standards or local codes.
(1) Wet, damp, or water-saturated surfaces.
(2) Colordifferencescausedbyorganicgrowth,staining,or
7.2 Effıcacy of the Design—The wall design must be con-
corrosion.
sistent with the performance criteria so that the desired
(3) Surface deposits associated with recrystallization of
performancecanactuallybeachieved.Thedesignmustinclude
dissolved materials from within the walls. In masonry con-
properly selected components.The details must provide for the
struction this is commonly called efflorescence, but it can also
interfacing and integration of components so that each one can
occur in other wall types.
perform individually and so that the components can perform
collectively as a system. The details must also address issues (4) Staining indicating the flow or accumulation of water.
(5) Areas repaired or patched due to prior leakage.
such as construction tolerances, material compatibilities, vol-
ume changes, and movements. A careful evaluation of the (6) Blistering surface finishes that can indicate subsurface
wetting.
efficacy of the design relative to the performance criteria will
indicate inconsistencies that may contribute to leakage.
8.2 Interviews—Interview occupants, maintenance
7.2.1 The failure of a single wall component to perform at
personnel, subcontractors, tradesmen, or other first-hand ob-
the specified level does not automatically mean that it was the
servers. Obtain information that will help correlate leakage
cause of leakage, particularly if the performance requirements
with building features and other events, such as:
for the component were unnecessarily severe relative to other
8.2.1 The apparent origination point of a leak.
components. In evaluating the overall wall, it must not be
8.2.2 The exterior environmental conditions under which
assumedthatthecauseofleakageisasinglecomponentsimply
the leak occurs.
because it does not satisfy a performance requirement in the
8.2.3 The frequency of occurrence. Is the leak a one-time
project documents.
occurrence under exceptional or extreme conditions, or is it a
recurring problem? When was the leak first observed?
7.3 Exposure—Theperformancecriteriaintheprojectdocu-
ments will generally differ from actual exposure conditions. 8.2.4 For leaks that occur during rains, ascertain if a leak:
Based on an analysis of local weather conditions, and the 8.2.4.1 Occurs immediately after the onset of rain or after a
location and geometry of the building, identify the actual period of time.
E2128 − 20
8.2.4.2 Stops immediately when the rain stops or continues the wall. Evidence of leakage might be observed by the
for a period of time after the rain ends. evaluator at locations where an occupant has not observed or
reported a leak.
8.2.4.3 Occurs during every rain regardless of severity.
8.2.4.4 Occurs during every, rain regardless of wind 8.3.8 Evaluate the effect of attempted repairs on the original
direction, or only with wind from a certain directions.
design intent. Common but often ineffective repairs made to
8.2.5 Whether the leak occurs during or immediately after leaking walls include the application of additional sealant and
cold weather, with or without accompanying rain. If a leak
coating of exterior surfaces with clear water repellents or
occurs during cold weather without accompanying rain, it elastomericcoatings.Inappropriateuseoftheseprocedurescan
might be due to condensation rather than rain infiltration.
cause additional problems, for example:
8.2.6 The interior environmental conditions and the build-
8.3.8.1 Sealant installed at weep holes and other drainage
ingoperatingconditionsunderwhichtheleakoccurs.Weekend
paths can entrap water within the wall assembly. The applica-
and evening operating conditions may differ from weekday
tion of additional sealant should not be made prior to evalua-
business hour conditions.
tion of the total wall assembly except to correct obvious
8.2.7 Whether the leak appears to be related only to a
omissions.
particular feature or detail.
8.3.8.2 Water repellents can affect the performances of
8.2.8 The performance of the building piping system, in-
future repairs, such as the adhesion of sealants or the bond of
cluding water supply and drainage, heating and air condition-
repointing mortar. These materials can also reduce the water
ing supply and return, and roof drains. Leaks from the piping
vapor transmission rate of a wall assembly.
system might be misinterpreted as wall leakage.
8.3.8.3 Lowpermeancecoatingswillreducethewatervapor
transmission rate of the wall assembly and can increase the
8.3 Maintenance and Repair Records—Buildings with
time required for water-saturated walls to dry. The application
chronic leakage problems are often subjected to several at-
of these materials can increase the amount of entrapped water
tempts at remediation before a comprehensive evaluation is
if any other uncorrected deficiencies exist.
made. An effort should be made to understand the earlier
attempts at repairs because: (1) they may indicate a pattern of
8.4 Determine Extent of Leakage—Use the information
leakage; (2) although well-intended, repairs may be causing or
gained above to determine the extent of leakage.
contributing to current leakage; and (3) it will be necessary to
8.4.1 Attempt to correlate historical leak occurrences with
distinguishbetweenoriginalconstructionandattemptedrepairs
particular building features and details.
during the inspection and testing phases of a systematic
8.4.2 A graphical analysis is useful for correlation studies.
evaluation. Where appropriate and possible:
Leakoccurrencescanbesuperimposedonbuildingdrawingsto
8.3.1 Review the original project close-out comments or
help reveal patterns that might be traceable to potential leak
“punch list” if available. Water infiltration problems often
sources.
occurearlyinabuilding’slife,andstop-gaprepairsmighthave
8.4.3 Consider wall components that might act as conduits
been made in an effort to close out the project.
or channels for infiltrated water, such as furring strips, board
8.3.2 Review purchase orders or contracts, or both, for
joints, shelf angles, etc. They can cause interior manifestations
building maintenance and repair. Consider roofing, caulking
ofaleaktooccuratadistancefromtheexteriorpointsofentry.
and sealants, painting, waterproofing, removing efflorescence
orstaining,andotheractivitiesthatmayrelatetowaterleakage
8.5 Weather Records for the Vicinity
problems.
8.5.1 Detailed weather data for a specific time period,
8.3.3 Review maintenance work orders that deal repeatedly
typically recorded at major airports, can be obtained from the
with the same leakage problem.
National Weather Service. The data of particular interest for a
8.3.4 Evaluate the success of previous repair attempts.
leakage evaluation are: precipitation rate, wind speed during
8.3.5 Compareoriginaldetailstoactualconditionsobserved
precipitation, wind direction, and relative humidity.
to determine deviations from original construction intent or
8.5.2 Unusualeventsandsevereleakageoccurrencesshould
undocumented repair attempts.
be correlated and may require additional weather data for
8.3.6 Identify repairs that inadvertently seal weep holes or
specific times.
other openings and paths which are intended to dissipate or
8.6 Correlations—Correlate leak occurrence with other fac-
weep entrapped water. These might have been sealed in an
tors such as temperature, wind direction and speed, season of
attempt to stop leaks.
year, and building operations.
8.3.7 Interpretation—Information gathered while determin-
8.6.1 Temperature—Ambient air temperature and wall sur-
ing the service history of a building must be interpreted by the
face temperature can effect water leakage. Building joints and
evaluator. The information is usually gathered from occupants
material cracks are most likely at their widest when ambient
or personnel who are not trained or experienced in leakage
temperatures are low and at their narrowest when surface
evaluations. While their observations may be useful and
temperatures are high.
important, the actual presence or absence of a leak and their
interpretation of the observations must be considered by the 8.6.2 Wind Direction and Speed—A primary driving force
evaluator. For example, water dripping from a window head forwaterleakageofwallsiswind-drivenrain.Theseverityand
might have been interpreted and reported by occupants as a location of leakage can often be correlated to the direction and
windowleakwheninfacttheinfiltrationoccurredelsewherein speed of the wind.
E2128 − 20
8.6.3 Season of Year—Some buildings in northern climates from the service history of the wall in formulating a hypothesis
only leak during the winter months. The accumulation of ice on the cause(s) of leakage. Examples of information that
and snow on horizontal surfaces can feed water into a wall should be documented include:
assembly during clear cold sunny days even when the outside
9.3.1 Placement, condition, and resilience of sealants and
temperature stays below freezing.
gaskets.
8.6.4 Building Operations—Although most building HVAC
9.3.2 Functional aspects of drainage systems, such as end
systems operate at a positive pressure, parts of the building
dams, weeps, lap and splice configurations, placement of the
could be subjected to negative interior pressures when exposed
flashing relative to other components, and obstructions.
to certain wind conditions. Negative interior pressure might
9.3.3 Interfaces between wall components. Critical inter-
alsoresultfromthe“stackeffect”duetothedifferencebetween
faces include the integration of walls and windows, locations
interiorandexteriortemperatures.Portionsofawallmightalso
where wall materials or support conditions change, and where
communicate with return air plenums that are operated at a
prefabricated units of the wall are joined.
negative pressure. Negative interior pressure can allow water
9.3.4 Interface with other building components, such as
to enter walls through small openings that might otherwise
copings, penetrations by mechanical equipment or structural
resist leakage. Building operating pressures are usually very
supports, and foundations.
small compared to the effect of wind and are rarely the sole
9.3.5 Wall attachments and appurtenances such as signs and
cause of leakage in occupied spaces. However, in the vicinity
canopies, balconies, and handrails.
of louvers and equipment spaces, mechanically induced pres-
9.3.6 Location and size of drip grooves or drip edges at the
sures can be significant.
underside of horizontal surfaces.
9.3.7 Other possible mechanisms for water entry into a wall
9. Inspection
or migration within a wall, such as capillary action or air
9.1 Inspections complement and extend the information
movements causing percolation.
gathered from the review of project documents and the service
9.3.8 Material conditions, including symptoms of
history. The major objectives of an inspection program are: to
deterioration, freeze-thaw damage, prolonged saturation,
determine as-built conditions, to determine the current condi-
delaminations, adhesive or cohesive material failures,
tion of the wall including visible and concealed water damage
efflorescence, and water-related damage to finishes.
and apparent water paths, and to formulate initial hypotheses
9.3.9 Indications of wear and tear, maintenance, attempted
about cause.
repairs, damage from non-weather-related causes such as
9.2 Determine As-Built Conditions—The various compo-
impacts, unaccommodated volume changes, or structural
nents of the wall system, including the structural support
movements.
system, utilities within the wall, thermal and condensation
9.3.10 General assessment of workmanship and compliance
control systems, and the finishes, should all work together to
with specified installation and execution as it affects water
provide the desired wall performance. Project drawings rarely
penetration.
depict the relationship between all of these components of a
9.4 Determine Water Paths—Inspections produce informa-
wall completely and accurately. The inspection process should
tion on water paths resulting from the service conditions of the
result in a clear understanding of the relationship between all
building. The significance of water paths that are induced
the parts of a wall system.
during testing can not be properly evaluated without informa-
9.2.1 Presentation—Composite large-scale drawings are
tion about water paths from service conditions.
helpful in gathering and recording information about as-built
conditions. A composite drawing can begin with the best
9.5 Planning—Inspections conducted in a planned and or-
available information from the project documents, including
derly fashion are the most efficient and effective way to
pertinent information from the architectural, structural, me-
produce useful results. Planning is also necessary when con-
chanical and electrical drawings, and specifications, as well as
current sampling and testing are incorporated in the inspection
the structural and wall component shop drawings. The inves-
program. The inspection plan should addresses the following
tigator must correlate information from these sources based on
issues:
some reference such as the column centerlines or face-of-wall
9.5.1 Scope—Bothtypicalandatypicalconditionsshouldbe
dimensions. The composite drawing can serve as a form for
included.Itisparticularlyimportanttoincludetheterminations
recording actual field conditions. Differences between infor-
and interfaces of the components being inspected, such as
mation in the project documents and the as-built conditions
corners, ends, tops, bottoms, joints, transitions to other
should be anticipated, and discovery of differences does not
materials, or changes in geometry. The inspection should also
necessarily mean that a leak source has been identified. The
include both non-performing and properly performing
purpose of accurately determining the as-built condition is to
locations,ifanyexist.Thedifferencesbetweennon-performing
provide a rational basis for further inspection, testing, and
and properly performing locations can provide useful informa-
remedial recommendations.
tionaboutthecause(s)ofleaks.Theobjectiveoftheinspection
9.3 Determine Current Conditions—The physical condition program is to acquire information about the intrinsic properties
of wall components, and visible and concealed evidence of ofthewallsystemsothatconclusionsreachedareapplicableto
water infiltration, should be documented during the inspection all similar locations in the wall. A sufficient number of
process. This information is later correlated with information inspection locations must be selected to accomplish this
E2128 − 20
objective. If constraints on the inspection program preclude a 9.6.2 An inspection mirror with an adjustable head and a
sufficient number of locations, the results should be so quali- flashlight, are useful tools for viewing concealed conditions
fied.
through confined openings in much the same way that a dentist
9.5.2 Selection—It is normally not necessary to inspect an uses a mirror.
entire building facade except in special situations such as
9.6.3 A fiber-optic borescope makes it possible to observe
where safety is an issue. The selection of inspection areas is
and photograph concealed conditions while making only a
based primarily on the service history, review of project
small diameter hole in the outer layers of a wall. It is most
documents and accessibility. The scope of the inspection
useful where there is an empty cavity space in the wall so the
should encompass the spectrum of relevant current conditions.
light from the scope can disperse and the field of view can be
It may also be relevant to distinguish between areas where
targeted to items of interest.
prior modifications or attempted repairs were made and areas
9.6.4 Moisture detectors of the capacitance/impedance type
which are original construction, and to determine the extent of
and moisture meters of the resistance type make it possible to
inspection necessary for these conditions. Limitations of re-
estimate the moisture content of concealed wall materials.
sourceswilloftenrequiretheselectionofinspectionareasfrom
High moisture content can indicate proximity to a water entry
seemingly equal choices.Apreliminary inspection using rapid
point or location along a water migration path. Plotting the
methods of limited detail can help in the rational selection of
measured relative moisture content on a grid superimposed on
areas where more detailed methods are warranted.
a building drawing can provide a diagram of wetted area
9.5.3 Access—Both interior and exterior access for close-up
resulting from leak. Care must be taken in interpreting the
inspection should be pre-arranged with the building owner.
absolute values of readings reported by these instruments,
Interior access may require temporarily moving furniture,
since calibration and operating technique can affect the read-
removing interior finish materials, or relocating or suspending
ings.
the use of a space, and might have a significant temporary
9.6.5 Mechanical penetrators provide an indication of the
impact on use of the space. Exterior access will probably
extent of deterioration caused by prolonged exposure to water
require the assistance of a contractor to erect scaffolding and
by the way some materials, such as wood or gypsum board
walkwayprotection,provideaboomtruckorrigaswingstage.
products, resist penetration by a sharp object. The tactile
Possible damage to the building resulting from the access
resistance to penetration decreases as deterioration of these
equipment should also be considered, and either avoided or
corrected. materials increase.Any sharp object, such as a awl, ice pick, or
nail can be used. Some commercially available devices have a
9.5.4 Organizing Information—Acomprehensive inspection
calibrated spring that produces a consistent force at the tip of
will generate a large amount of data. Determining how the
the penetrator.
information will be recorded and organized is part of the
planning process. Building drawings can be made beforehand
9.6.6 Infrared thermography produces an image that, with
andusedtorecordobservations,therebymakingthelocationof
proper interpretation, can indicate conditions such as air
the information self-evident. Symbols and shorthand notations
movements through a wall, concealed water within the wall,
can be developed and tabulated beforehand. It is sometimes
and saturated wall materials. Infrared thermography is a
useful to establish a numbering system based on column lines,
specialized technology and should be performed and inter-
swing stage drops, floor number, wall component within a
preted with the assistance of a specialist knowledgeable in the
typical module, etc., rather than repeating lengthy location
technology.
identifications using words.
9.7 Documentation—Inspectionfindingsshouldberecorded
9.6 Methods—Inspection methods range from rapid visual
in writing, with clarifying sketches where appropriate. The
inspections using binoculars or a telescope, to close-up obser-
documentation should be supplemented graphically with
vations and inspection openings. The evaluator determines the
photographs, video, or dictated notes, but these should not
scope and number of inspection locations, the inspection
normally be relied upon as the sole record of the inspection
methods utilized, and the sequence of inspection activities to
process because of the risk of accidental erasure, undetected
provide the information required. Rapid methods are particu-
camera or recorder malfunctions or processing accidents.
larlyusefulforpreliminaryinspectionsandtonarrowthescope
9.7.1 Writtendocumentationshouldbecompleteenoughfor
of more detailed inspections. A comprehensive inspection
the evaluation process to be repeated, as well as for the
program will include some method for observing or evaluating
information gathered to be interpreted in determining the
concealed conditions, such as inspection openings, borescope
cause(s) of leaks. In addition to carefully recording
probes, moisture meters and detectors, mechanical penetrators,
observations,thefollowingshouldbeconsideredinmakingthe
or infrared thermography scans.
written documentation:
9.6.1 Inspection openings involve the progressive removal
9.7.1.1 The location of the observation should be clearly
of wall materials to reveal underlying, concealed conditions.
defined. References to column lines and floors can be used.
Each layer may be changed or destroyed during the process, so
9.7.1.2 Preliminary opinions formed and interpretations
it is desirable for the investigator to be present during the
operation and to document each step. Possible safety issues made during the inspection should be recorded separately from
the inspection notes and be distinct from observations of fact
such as the presence of asbestos, lead paint, and toxins must be
considered and the necessary precautions taken. and measurements.
E2128 − 20
9.7.1.3 Keys for codified shorthand notations and symbols provides the opportunity to recreate the leakage and water
should be given. Undefined cryptic shorthand should be migration paths under controlled and reproducible conditions.
avoided. The paths observed during testing should be compared to
9.7.1.4 If the procedure used is not self-evident, it should be evidence of water paths during actual leaks by assessing
existing concealed staining, damage, and residue accumula-
described in detail.
tion.
9.7.1.5 The sequence of the inspection process should be
clear from the written documentation. 10.1.1.3 Correlate Test Results with Observed Damage—
The test procedure should reproduce the observed in-service
9.7.1.6 The date, time, and name of the person(s) making
the observation, should be recorded for each data sheet. leakage behavior. Creating new leaks during a test may be
useful information, but it is not a valid assessment of the
9.7.2 Supplementary photographs and video are useful for
existing leakage problem.
informing others of the inspection procedures and observations
and provide an opportunity to reconsider or check findings at a 10.1.1.4 Verify Hypothesis—The controlled conditions dur-
ing a test are an opportunity to verify hypotheses about the
later date. In making photographs or video recordings, the
following should be considered: cause of leakage. If a theory on the cause of a leak cannot be
demonstratedbyareasonableandappropriatetest,thetheoryis
9.7.2.1 It should be possible to orient the pictures.This may
require a progression of photos from wide to narrow view or questionable. Remedial recommendations should not be based
on unverified theories.
zooming from wide to narrow view with a video camera.
Including something of known size in a photograph will help
10.2 Planning:
viewers determine the size of the object of interest. For
10.2.1 Service History—The service history of the building
example, a person or a piece of equipment such as a pocket
and the environmental exposure history of the site must be
knife can be used. For a more accurate reference, a ruler or an
considered in planning a testing program. To the extent
extended length of a carpenter’s tape can be included in the
practical, the selected test method should simulate the actual
picture.
conditions under which leakage has been observed.
9.7.2.2 Thelocationofapictureshouldbeidentified.Labels
10.2.2 Investigative testing is a diagnostic procedure, not a
in the picture, or markings directly on the wall, are useful for
quality assurance procedure. A distinction must be made
this purpose.
between leak causat
...