INVESTIGATIVE REPORT of the ROOF ASSEMBLY Messiah …

May 11, 2015

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT of the

ROOF ASSEMBLY Messiah Lutheran Church

7211 Stellhorn Road Fort Wayne, Indiana 46815

May 11, 2015

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT of the

ROOF ASSEMBLY Messiah Lutheran Church

7211 Stellhorn Road Fort Wayne, Indiana 46815

Prepared by

Luther C. Mock FOURSQUARE SOLUTIONS, INC.

Registered Roof Consultant #72

I affirm, under the penalties for perjury, that the opinions

and representations in this report are true.

Prepared for

Congregation Council

Messiah Lutheran Church

7211 Stellhorn Road

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46815 260-485-8716

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT Messiah Lutheran Church; Fort Wayne, Indiana Page 1 of 5

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT

Introduction:

The building address is 7211 Stellhorn Road, Fort Wayne, Indiana 46815. The purpose of this investigative report is to offer an assessment of roof and roof related conditions believed to be the source of continuing interior leaks. To the extent possible and appropriate for this investigative report, good commercial and customary practices identified in ASTM E 2018 – 08 Standard Guide for Property Condition

Assessments: Baseline Property Condition

Assessment Process were followed. The property condition assessment (PCA) process culminates with the development of this property condition report (PCR). In this case, the property condition assessment is limited to roof and contiguous roof interface conditions. For this report, it is important to recognize three noteworthy terms widely recognized in the roofing industry as documented in the glossary of the National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA); The NRCA Roofing and Waterproofing Manual:

Roof or Roof Covering: The exterior roof cover or skin of the roof assembly, consisting of

membrane, panels, sheets, shingles, tiles, etc.

Roof System: A system of interacting roof components, generally consisting of a membrane or

primary roof covering, and roof insulation (not including the roof deck) designed to weatherproof

and, sometimes, to improve the building’s thermal resistance.

Roof Assembly: An assembly of interacting roof components including the roof deck, vapor retarder

(if present), insulation and roof covering.

This report is organized into three sections with supportive documents and photos as follows:

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT 1. General Information 2. Observations & Assessments 3. Summary

APPENDIX:

• Photographs (#1-39, Photo Pages 1-10)


Supportive data for this report was reviewed and evaluated by Foursquare Solutions personnel from the following means, methods, and documents:

1. 1991 Original construction drawings prepared by Schenkel Shultz Architecture Engineering, Fort Wayne, Indiana bearing project number 90141 dated July 15, 1991

2. Telephone & in situ conversations with Don Smith, Parishioner; Messiah Lutheran Church 3. In situ conversations and investigation assistance from Clyde Simerman; Dahm Brothers Roofing,

Inc. 4. In situ observations performed by Luther Mock, Foursquare Solutions on September 17, 2014 and

May 8, 2015 5. Product manufacturer’s requirements 6. Industry standards of care 7. Code requirements

1. GENERAL INFORMATION:

The building consists of a single construction vintage. Building construction likely began 1991 and dedicated 1992. The building was designed by Schenkel Shultz Architecture Engineering. The general contractor is reported to be Huguenard Construction who has since gone out of business. The roofing sub-contractor is unknown. The facility has steep-slope, gable-style roofs with two different slopes; 4:12 and 8:12. The roof covering is glass-fiber-reinforced, three-tab asphalt shingles called “Fire-King” manufactured by Manville Roofing Systems (now known as Johns Manville). The shingles are installed over a #15 asphalt coated, organic reinforced underlayment. The 4:12 sloped, Gym/Office/Classrooms areas (west end) are wood truss-framed at 24-inches O.C. with 3/4-inch oriented strand board (OSB) sheathing. The north and south sides each have three wood, stick-framed, overbuild dormers with an 8:12 slope. All of the Gym/Office/Classrooms roof system areas

ROOF AREA IDENTIFICATION PLAN

GYM/OFFICE/CLASSROOMS NARTHEX/SANCTUARY

NORTH


have 6-inch (R-19) fiberglass batt insulation with a vapor retarder installed at the bottom chord of the trusses. The cold attic space is ventilated through perforated aluminum soffit vents, a gable end vent and multiple static roof vents in the roof. With the exception of the entrance canopies and the bell tower, the Narthex/Sanctuary roof assembly areas (east end) framing consists of steel rigid-frame, column/beam assemblies with open web steel joist at 72-inches O.C. at 8:12 slope. The decking is 1 1/2-inch, 22-gauge, wide rib (type B) metal deck. The interior cathedral space insulation is above the metal deck and consists of a 3-inch composite board of 2 1/2-inch insulation and 1/2-inch OSB wood sheathing as a nailable substrate for asphalt shingle attachment. The product is known as “nailbase”. The entrance canopies (north and south side) and bell tower are truss framed as aforementioned; however, the entrance canopies have no insulation when the structure extends beyond the Narthex/Sanctuary area exterior walls. All of the roof areas drain to brake-formed, prefinished, aluminum box gutters with downspouts that connect to leaders connected to the storm water sewer system at grade level or spill onto a lower roof level. Penetrations through the roof assembly are minimal. They include plumbing vents and exhaust vents. All of the valleys are fitted with prefinished metal liners. With the exception of the bell tower, the majority of the adjacent wall condition at the asphalt shingle roof assembly is an exterior insulation finish system (EIFS) cladding. EIFS is a lightweight, synthetic cladding material that resembles cement stucco. The material is usually installed over a fiberglass reinforcement mesh over rigid expanded polystyrene board. The asphalt shingle flashing at the bell tower consists of a prefinished steel counter flashing cut into the exposed split-faced concrete masonry unit (CMU) over the metal step and head flashings.

2. OBSERVATIONS & ASSESSMENT:

This section of the report will document my observations and assessment of the roof assembly and adjacent wall conditions that effect current and future performance. It is my opinion none of the deficiencies observed appear to be related to failure of any manufactured products. They are believed to be either workmanship deficiencies from the original construction period or deterioration/damage related to the end of expected useful life of the construction materials. One of the reported reoccurring leaks is below the bell tower structure. It is believed this leak could be the result of several conditions. The first is related to the installation of the counter flashing on the split-faced CMU over the shingle step and head flashing of the adjacent asphalt roof (photos #16-22 & 24). Ideally, the counter flashing should have been embedded within the coursing of the CMU (see adjacent illustration). Although the CMU used on this project most likely has in integral waterproofing in the concrete mix of the unit, a split-faced CMU is especially vulnerable to moisture infiltration. On this building, the counter flashing was either surface applied or installed in a shallow cut reglet in the CMU. Any moisture that might infiltrate the CMU can bypass the back side of the counter flashing and infiltrate the interior space as a leak.


A potential leak source at the bell tower is missing shingles below a head wall flashing condition (photo #22). A new shingle roof installation would solve this condition. However, in the interim, new repair shingles, properly flashed, should be installed. Another potential leak source at the bell tower is a large opening in the CMU wall (photos #17, 18, & 21). Based on review of the original construction drawings, this opening appears to be at an interior concrete floor slab. The wall condition below the opening is three wythe of CMU filled with concrete. Although one could reasonably conclude the mass of CMU and concrete would provide a sufficient barrier for water intrusion, there is still a possibility the trace water could find its way to the interior as a leak. Missing shingles or shingle tabs were observed throughout (photo #27). Those found within the field of the roof are likely damage from high winds where tabs were insufficiently sealed. Once wind gets under a few poorly sealed tabs, vulnerability of a larger area of damage increases. Some of the areas have been repaired while others still have missing shingle tabs. Other locations of suspected wind damage are near roof rake edges, predominately along the east side rakes of the sanctuary roof area (photos #24 & 25). This is not surprising since wind uplift forces can be two to three times that within the field of the roof. No shingles were removed at the rake conditions; however, there is suspect sheathing damage due to the deformation of the substrate. The immediate roof area near high wall dormers near the entrance canopies and gym window dormers appears to have damage from what we believe is snow and ice build-up (photos #29-31 & 36). These conditions are especially vulnerable to damage due to the flashing condition of the high wall EIFS cladding. It appears the EIFS cladding was originally installed after the installation of the shingle roof covering. The EIFS abuts directly onto the surface of the roof without sufficient height for a proper shingle flashing counter flashing (photos #29-39). In addition, this type of installation prevents the proper back wrapping and waterproofing of the bottom edge of the EIFS. There is evidence of improper EIFS edge treatment and damage from water infiltration throughout, especially on the north elevation where the condition does not receive the value of direct sunlight to assist with drying (photos #34-39). In one area near the south entrance canopy dormer, lifted shingles and deteriorated sheathing has prompted a squirrel to take up residency in the roof assembly (photo #29). No doubt the underlying insulation proved to be a snug home during the cold winter months. It appears properly installed shingle step and head flashings were used. However, the vertical leg of the shingle flashing is permanently buried under the EIFS cladding that makes a shingle reroof impossible to properly flash and assure waterproof performance. Unlike a vinyl siding or some other type of cladding, a shingle flashing could be fitted under the wall covering. That option is not available on this building. Other observations that may be affecting the performance and aesthetics of the roof assembly (and walls) involve fractured plumbing vent flashings (photo #26), exposed shingle flashings (photo #36), rusted exhaust flue flashing collars (photo #26), detached downspout (photo #28), and missing ceramic tile in the bell tower (photos #4, 5, & 11-15).


3. SUMMARY:

Predictable and successful performance in construction is the result of three factors; design, workmanship, and product. As it relates to your building, the overwhelming deficiencies found relate to natural product deterioration and poor workmanship decisions during original construction. Although the asphalt shingle roof covering is at the end of its expected useful life, it has performed admirably. Remedial repairs can be made that should extend the service life for a couple of more years to allow sufficient planning and project budgeting. The entire roof area, considering slope, is 30,336 square feet. My opinion of probable cost for a new high quality, asphalt shingle roof covering (removal of old) is $160,000 +/-. This amount should be a safe budget for a couple of years. My opinion of probable cost for remedial shingle repair work that should be performed this year is $10,000. Prior to a reroof project, it is my opinion EIFS work should be performed near the roof that will facilitate proper shingle flashing and eliminate deteriorated conditions observed. The old roof covering can be used as a work platform for this work. There is approximately 400 lineal feet of this condition. The EIFS cladding should be cut and removed approximately 12-inches above the roof surface. New backwrap reinforcement and a new prefinished steel drip/counter-flashing receiver should be installed that can accommodate a removable counter flashing cover over the shingle step and head flashings (see adjacent detail – similar). My opinion of probable cost for this work is $15,000. The Foursquare Solutions team is available for questions and comments regarding this report and to assist you with any of the remediation work.

Messiah Lutheran Church; Photo Page 1 of 10

1 South Elevation West End

2 South Elevation West End

3 South Elevation East End

4 South Elevation East End Bell Tower


5 South East Corner Bell Tower

6 Northwest Corner

7 North Elevation West End

8 North Elevation Entrance Canopy


9 North Elevation Entrance Canopy

10 North Elevation East End

11 Northeast Corner Bell Tower

12 Bell Tower South Elevation


13 Bell Tower Cross

14 Bell Tower Nortwest Corner

15 Bell Tower Northeast Corner

16 Bell Tower Flashing at Sanctuary Ridge


17 Bell Tower Base Flashing at Sanctuary





21 Bell Tower Drainage Opening


23 EIFS at CMU at Bell Tower

24 Bell Tower at Sanctuary


25 Missing Shingles at Sanctuary Rake

26 Fractured PV Flashing

27 Missing Shingles

28 Loose DS


29 EIFS Interface at Roof Assembly


31 Missing Shingles at Narthex Roof






36 Exposed Shingle Flashing





Documents

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT of the ROOF ASSEMBLY Messiah …