Upload
kemal
View
61
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Managing Rainwater at the Window-Wall Interface. Presented by : Michael Lacasse on behalf of: (M.M. Armstrong, S.M. Cornick, G. Ganapathy, A. Jacob, M. Nicholls, S. Nunes, M. Rousseau) Canadian Home Builders’ Association, Technical Research Committee Meeting, Ottawa, 28 May 2010. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
CMHC SCHL
Managing Rainwater at the Window-Wall Interface
Presented by :
Michael Lacasse on behalf of:
(M.M. Armstrong, S.M. Cornick, G. Ganapathy, A. Jacob, M. Nicholls, S. Nunes, M. Rousseau)
Canadian Home Builders’ Association, Technical Research Committee Meeting, Ottawa, 28 May 2010
CMHC SCHL
Introduction
• The problems – you know what they are but to summarise...Results from BE surveys
• Wall- Window interface details– Key elements from laboratory
studies• Thermal performance at the
interface
CMHC SCHL
• CMHC Surveys of Building Envelope Performance
• 1995 – Survey of Building Envelope Failures in the Coastal Climate of British Columbia
• 1999 – Wall Moisture Problems in Alberta Dwellings
• 2001 – Study of High-Rise Envelope Performance In The Coastal Climate of British Columbia
Introduction, cont’d
CMHC SCHL
The Survey - Why Did Walls Fail?• Inappropriate balance between wetting and
drying mechanisms– Exposure - walls got wet– Details - let water in– Sensitivity of assemblies - inability to
drain or dry
WettingDrying
Surveys of Building Envelope Performance
CMHC SCHL
Finding:• (at least) 25% of the moisture
problems associated with water ingress into wall assemblies were directly attributed to penetration through the windows or the window-wall interface
Surveys of Building Envelope Performance, cont’d
CMHC SCHL
Windows and the Building Envelope
“Rain penetration is a major problem with glazing and must be controlled….”
“Many inquiries concerning rain penetration of exterior wall are received by the B.C. Regional Station…. and are focused on window installation practices.”
Glazing Design - Canadian Building Digest #55 (CBD55) published in July 1964
Rain Leakage of Residential Windows in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia – Building Practice Note No. 42 (BPN42)
Division of Building Research, National Research Council of Canada
November 1984
“….reports on window performance problems in Atlantic Canada…..”
Building Research Note No. 210 (BRN No. 210) - 1984
CMHC SCHL
2002 Water Penetration Resistance of Windows
STUDY OF MANUFACTURING, BUILDING & INTERFACE DESIGN, INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE FACTORS
WINDOW TERMINOLOGY
SUMMARY OF STUDY
WINDOW INSTALLATION
GUIDE
RDH
STUDY OF CODES, STANDARDS, TESTING AND CERTIFICATION
CMHC SCHL
• Most frequent leakage path L5 (L5 : Through window-wall interface to adjacent wall assembly)
• L4 and L5 are considered “high” risk for consequential damage (L4 : through window to adjacent wall assembly)
• Minor variation exists between window types with respect to leakage paths
L3
L6
L1
L4
L5
L2
Partial Conclusions and Recommendations
CMHC SCHL
Partial Conclusions and Recommendations
• The CSA A440 B rating performance criteria does not address the current dominant leakage paths that are associated with installed windows
Leakage Paths Risk of Consequential
Damage Rating
Applicability of A440
Testing to Leakage Path
L1 - Through fixed unit to interior
Moderate Good
L2 - Around operable unit to interior
Moderate Good
L3 - Through window to wall interface to interior
Moderate Never
L4 - Through window assembly to adjacent wall assembly
High Sometimes*
L5 - Through window to wall assembly interface to adjacent wall assembly
High Never
L6 - Through window assembly to concealed compartments within window assembly
Minor Good
Depends on where window frame is attached to test frame
L3
L6
L1
L4
L5
L2
CMHC SCHL
CMHC SCHL
Partial Conclusions and Recommendations
• Manufacturers have to focus on the design of the entire installed window. This includes …the interface with the perimeter building walls.
• Windows need to be …installed with redundant assemblies.
• The addition of sub sill drainage to interface design would improve water penetration performance of installed windows
• Designers need “…to increase their focus on interface detailing, considering continuity of all of the critical barriers..”
• Installers need to have greater understanding of the manufacturing and building design strategy.
• The creation of a mandated or generally accepted certification protocol, would have a positive impact on quality control issues.
CMHC SCHL
e.g.
CMHC SCHL
Key Points
Test results indicate dominant water leakage paths as:
L4 : through window to adjacent wall assembly L5 : Through window-wall interface to adjacent wall
assembly– High frequency of occurrence and consequential damage – L4 & L5 not addressed by current window standards
CMHC-NRC (with industry partners) initiate WWI project to evaluate water management performance of various window installation details
• Possibility to evaluate different interface details and their ability to manage rainwater entry – evaluate robustness of design
• Development of a “standards” approach in a laboratory setting – precursor to a field certification protocol
• Benchmark “performance” of proposed designs
CMHC SCHL
NRC/IRC Research Program
Detail A Variation
• Develop procedure to assess rainwater ingress
• Evaluate specific window-wall interface details to determine how effective they manage rainwater intrusion
CMHC SCHL
Effectiveness of Seals at Window Frame/Sheathing
Membrane Joints• Several approaches to seal the joints between
the window and the wall against water ingress were examined:– Seal the back of the window flange against the
sheathing membrane
CMHC SCHL
– Strip of self-adhered flashing membrane over the joint between the window flange and the sheathing membrane (not at sill)
Self-adhered Membranes
CMHC SCHL
Large water accumulation on the
window head
Reverse lapping Shingle-lapping
Water accumulation at head
NO Water accumulation at head
Test Observations
CMHC SCHL
Sequencing is Critical
•Shingle lapping is essential– Rough sill flashing laps OVER the sheathing membrane – Sheathing membrane laps OVER the drip cap head flashing – Rough jamb membrane laps OVER the corner upstand of
the sill flashing
Reverse lapping can channel water behind the plane of water resistance, and risk of damage increases
CMHC SCHL
ROUGH SILL FLASHING SYSTEM
Lesson #1: Rough Opening Will Get Wet:
Drain it Out • Flash and drain the rough opening
– Protect moisture-sensitive materials from water absorption
– Provide a drainage path to the outside • Sloped rough sill• Back dam• Water impermeable rough sill; up 150 mm on the jambs• Ease of drainage out of rough sill, and out of wall assembly• Integration with other elements contributing to the control of
rainwater ingress (i.e. shingle lapping, sequencing)
CMHC SCHL
Ensure positive drainage:• Provide drainage at sill –
no seal along flange at sill• Do not tape front of flange
at sill joint• Can install window on
shims or furring strips to create a clear gap (plus enhanced venting)
Facilitate Drainage at Rough Sill of Flanged Windows
Shims created a gapWindow installed over furring strips
CMHC SCHL
Air Pressure Difference
• Effect on water accumulation on rough sill of:– Location of highest air pressure drop in relation to
location of plane of wetness– Air leakage rate
CMHC SCHL
Observations:• Typical technique for sealing perimeter of window flange to
sheathing membrane created plane of high resistance to air flow on exterior — however — at this interface, water could flow through small gaps - was not 100% watertight
• High pressure drop occurred across imperfect interface seal• Presence of film of water at this interface.
• Pressure difference drove water through interface seal• Resulted in higher water accumulation onto rough sill.
• Lower water accumulation on rough sill achieved when:• Resistance to air flow at interface seal lower as compared to
interior air barrier
Lesson #2: Location of Higher Pressure Drop in WWI should be DRY
CMHC SCHL
Pressure tap to measure air pressure in the cavity behind the siding (cavity)
Pressure tap to measure air pressurein the stud cavity (stud)
Interior
Exterior302 Pa
55 Pa
Self-adhered membrane
0 Pa
Bead of sealant at back of window flange
No venting or drainage at sill
Specimen B-W1 (V-side; ASTM): High pressure drop (P) across wetted airtight external plane
Tighter plane of the assembly
Intended interior air barrier leakier than exterior wet layers of wall specimen
Jamb detail (horizontal view)
Higher water deposition on the rough sill
P = 302 – 55 247 Pa
Observations – Effects of Air Pressure Distribution
CMHC SCHL
Pressure tap to measure air pressure in the cavity behind the siding (cavity)
Pressure tap to measure air pressurein the stud cavity (stud)
Interior
Exterior302 Pa
185 Pa
Self-adhered membrane
0 Pa
Intended assembly air barrier leaks as much as V-side
No seal behind flange
Vented and drained at the sill
Airtightness at this plane of wall assembly not as tight as V-side (ASTM method)
Lower water deposition on the rough sill
Specimen B-W1 (B-side): Lower pressure drop across wetted “vented” external plane
P = 117 Pa
Jamb detail (horizontal view)
Observations – Effects of Air Pressure Distribution
CMHC SCHL
Reservoir Water Entry - 08 ABS
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800Chamber Pressure (Pa)
Rat
e of
wat
er d
epos
ition
on
the
roug
h si
ll (m
l/min
)Observations – Effect of
Location of Plane of Airtightness
Airtight plane on exterior- WET
DRY- Airtight plane on interior of joint
Same rate of air leakage across
specimen, 2 different designs
CMHC SCHL
Lesson #3: Keep Air Barrier Tight and Dry
• Current practice aims at sealing joints that can get wet: joint between window frame (flange) and sheathing membrane
• Imperfect seals that got wet and were subjected to higher pressure difference sucked water through seal imperfections
• Plane of higher pressure drop (Air Barrier System) should be in a dry location, further inside and towards interior of joint
CMHC SCHL
Effect of Leakage Rate of Interior ABS
Rat
e of
wa t
er d
e po s
itio n
on
the
r ou g
h si
ll
Lower air leakage rate on interior ABS
Higher air leakage rate on interior ABS
Leakier intended air barrier system resulted in higher water deposition on rough sill (exterior plane was sealed)
700 Pa0 Pa
CMHC SCHL
Other Factors to Consider
• Location of window in relation to thermal plane of wall• Thermal effects of draining sill• Effect of placing insulation into wall-window joint
cavity on drainage capability
CMHC SCHL
• Location of window in relation to thermal plane of wall• Vancouver, -5°C outside; 20°C inside
3.0 C 7.0 C
Other Factors to Consider
CMHC SCHL
Points to Remember
• Rough opening should be protected with flashing to ensure water tightness at sill - Rough opening will get wet during service life– Ensure all elements are shingle-lapped to outside -
Ensure proper sequencing takes place. Review procedures with those responsible for installation
• Design sill at rough opening to facilitate drainage of incidental water entry from protected sill – sloped sill; drainage gap at sill; back dam
• Locate wall-window seal on interior of wall assembly– Ensure 1st and 2nd line of defense against water
penetration are not most airtight layers of wall. Rain screen principle applies to WWI too.
CMHC SCHL
Project literature
Trade journals:“Effective Sealing of the Wall-window Interface” ;
Home Builder Magazine, March / April 2010, Lacasse, M. A. and Armstrong, M.M.
CMHC SCHL
Project literature
Phase “A” — Interface details typical of Canadian practice
Phase “B” — Variations incorporating a drainage medium
Phase “C” — Use of flexible self adhered flashing membrane
Phase “D” — Installation variations for light commercial design
Further reading – Lacasse, M.A.; Rousseau, M.Z.; Cornick, S.M.; Plescia, S."
Assessing the effectiveness of wall-window interface details to manage rainwater," 10th Canadian Conference on Building Science & Technology (Ottawa, ON, May 12 2005), pp. 127-138, (NRCC-47685)
Lacasse, M.A. et al., Results on Assessing the Effectiveness of Wall-Window Interface Details to Manage Rainwater, 11th Canadian Conference on Building Science and Technology, Banff, Alberta, 2007
Cornick, S.M.; Lacasse, M.A. "A Review of climate loads relevant to assessing the watertightness performance of walls, windows and wall-window interfaces,"Journal of ASTM International, Vol. 2 (10), Nov/Dec 2005, pp. 1-16 (NRCC-47645)
CMHC SCHL
Project literature
• Lacasse M., Armstrong, M., Ganapathy, G., Rousseau, M., Cornick, S., Bibee, D., Shuler ,D., Hoffee, A., “Assessing the Effectiveness of Wall-Window Interface Details to Manage Rainwater—Selected Results from Window Installation to a Wall Sheathed in Extruded Polystyrene”, JAI (October 2009) Volume: 6, Issue 9, DOI: 10.1520/JAI101270
• Lacasse, M., Rousseau, M., Cornick, S., Armstrong, M., Ganapathy, G., Nicholls, M., Williams M., “Laboratory Tests of Water Penetration through Wall-Window Interfaces Based on U.S. Residential Window Installation Practice”, JAI (September 2009), Volume: 6, Issue 8; DOI: 10.1520/JAI101428
• M. A. Lacasse, S. M. Cornick, M. Rousseau, M. Armstrong, G. Ganapathy, M. Nicholls, and S. Plescia, “Towards Development of a Performance Standard for Assessing the Effectiveness of Wall-Window Interface Details to Manage Rainwater Intrusion”; JAI (October 2009) Volume: 6, Issue 9, DOI: 10.1520/JAI101446
Phase “B” — Variations incorporating a drainage medium
CMHC SCHL
The following video is courtesy of Mario Goncalves at Patenaude-Trempe and Air-
Ins Inc.Varennes, Québec.
Does this approach work? Visual evidence from the laboratory