Evolution of EIFS

EVOLUTION OF EIFS
RYAN J. BARNES, EI
SBSA, INC.
4680 Table Mountain Drive, Suite 170, Golden, Colorado, 80403
Phone: 303-425-7272 • Fax: 720-345-0250 • E-mail: rbarnes@callSBSA.com
2 7 T H RC I I N T E R N A T I O N A L C O N V E N T I O N A N D T R A D E S H OW • MA R C H 1 5 2
0 , 2 0 1 2 B A R N E S • 9
ABSTRACT
First introduced in the U.S. over 40 years ago, exterior insulation and finish system
(EIFS) claddings have evolved, with code and industry standard modifications, to effectively
manage moisture. Following its initial use on commercial construction projects, costs
declined, and EIFS installation became viable in the residential market. Increased construction
errors fueled application and design changes to require compliant use of code-recognized
systems.
Barrier EIFS do not incorporate moisture-management components and rely fully on the
exterior surface—including all sealant joints—to be completely weatherproof. Damage
resulting from water infiltrating behind barrier EIFS arose in the 1990s due to improper
detailing and construction, lack of oversight, and absence of a moisture-managed system.
Code and industry standards evolved to prevent the damage associated with barrier system
failures over water-sensitive materials with the introduction of moisture-managed EIFS,
which incorporate a weather-resistive barrier and weep mechanisms to promote drainage.
A case study of the largest postlitigation construction repair project in Denver’s history
will illustrate common errors in EIFS application, effects on related systems, and challenges
encountered in transitioning from barrier systems to a moisture-managed façade. Firsthand
experience of forensic investigations, testing performed, repair design, and on-site quality
assurance will be provided.
SPEAKER
RYAN J. BARNES, EI — SBSA, INC. GOLDEN,
CO
Experienced in building design and construction, RYAN J. BARNES is particularly
knowledgeable in the area of building envelope systems. He provides forensic investigations
to evaluate existing residential and commercial buildings, determine the existence of noncompliant
construction that is in violation of applicable building code requirements and
industry standards, identify resultant damages, and provide repair recommendations for
property owners. Barnes is a certified third-party EIFS inspector (EI), and his areas of expertise
include exterior cladding materials, plaza deck and balcony waterproofing, window
assemblies, sealants, and related moisture-management materials. Ryan also provides
rehabilitation and new building design and consultation services, including development of
construction documents, design review, on-site quality assurance, and construction administration
services.
1 0 • B A R N E S 2 7 T H RC I I N T E R N A T I O N A L C O N V E N T I O N A N D T R A D E S H OW • MA R C H 1 5 2
0 , 2 0 1 2
EVOLUTION OF EIFS
MOISTUREMANAGEMENT
HISTORY
Back when castles were built using
masonry mass-wall construction, the performance
of larger buildings was not much
of an issue. However, in today’s construction,
water penetration resistance, air resistance,
and thermal performance are important
issues.
Castles utilized stone as the primary
building material. The physical characteristics
of stone were ideal for water management,
allowing the materials to behave as a
mass reservoir for the walls, preventing
damage to interior finishes. Stone inherently
has a high moisture storage capacity;
these walls are able to store moisture from
precipitation and then naturally dry out
without damage. One drawback was that
stone construction took significant time and
manpower, and it became costly to procure
and cut the stone, train masons, and construct
and maintain the buildings without
scaffolding.
The Industrial Revolution of the late
19th century produced technical advancements
that pushed the envelope of construction,
changing the face of architecture
forever. Previously understood only by the
trade master, the design of structural systems
advanced as civil engineering provided
a means of conducting precise calculations
to predict how a structure would react
under specific loads. A dramatic increase of
materials produced in mass quantity,
including reinforced concrete iron, steel,
aluminum, and glass, allowed for standardized
components to be manufactured and
assembled offsite. This led to a dramatic
increase in materials that could be procured
in mass quantity or industrialized for
mass production, including Portland
cement to create reinforced concrete.
Material uniformity and elemental repetition
became common in designs of large,
light, open structures that could be rapidly
constructed, overcoming the burdens associated
with the labor needed to process the
natural resources used in earlier times.
The late 19th century saw an increase
in populations, particularly in urban areas.
With more people, there was an increased
demand for buildings that cost less and
could be built quickly. Framed wall assemblies
were designed and built because they
could go up faster than traditional construction
methods and were cheaper than
the previously utilized materials. Early
methods of framed residential construction
utilized more consistent and durable materials,
such as sawn lumber and plywood.
Minimal insulation was placed within the
walls, and excess air infiltration and drafts
were not uncommon or unexpected. Unlike
the buildings commonly constructed today,
these types of buildings had an increased
moisture storage capacity and drying ability,
which resulted in high energy use at a
time when energy costs were relatively low.
As technology advanced and the construction
industry gained knowledge of how
buildings performed in response to the
weather, the industry realized that the energy
efficiency of buildings could be dramatically
improved by utilizing different construction
and materials. The use of these
materials resulted in lower construction
material and labor costs and lower energy
consumption. Some of the advancements
included using manufactured materials
such as engineered lumber, oriented strand
board (OSB) and gypsum sheathing,
asphalt-impregnated building papers and
felts, premanufactured house wraps, and
plastics such as vapor retarders. Protecting
these materials is particularly important
because many of them are cellulose-based.
Cellulose will lose structural properties
when exposed to increased moisture.
Additionally, increased moisture causes
biological growth; fungal attack causes
additional loss of structural integrity.
Construction utilizing these materials,
which are common today, resulted in a
reduced moisture storage capacity and,
thus, a lower drying ability in comparison
with previous practices. While this
improved energy efficiency and lowered construction
costs, an entire new set of concerns
arose in regard to proper management
of moisture in order to protect the now
increasingly water-sensitive building components.
The building materials changed
radically; the industry’s approach to water
control also had to change. The new materials
did not have the same properties as
stone and did not allow the systems to wet
and dry without an effect on their performance.
Because the buildings had to resist
moisture differently than the masonry mass
walls did, buildings were designed to accept
moisture, capture, and drain it. Otherwise,
without this means of capturing and draining
the moisture, the walls have to act as a
barrier and prevent water intrusion.
A common downfall of these new materials
occurred when the façade failed to act
as a barrier. When the moisture management
components are properly installed,
water is prevented from entering the wall
assemblies and it works well; however, if the
systems are installed incorrectly and if
water does enter the system, it’s less able to
get out and can seriously degrade the building
components. Designers, builders, and
manufacturers have all worked on improving
moisture management to address system
failures of modern buildings. To
address failures that were found in the
building façade, they implemented new
designs and devised ways to construct systems
that divert water toward the exterior,
protecting the moisture-sensitive building
components underneath the façade, as well
as the interior finishes.
Preventing water entry requires a system
of moisture management components
to be designed and constructed in a manner
that protects the water-sensitive building
materials for the life of the building. When
the moisture management components are
not installed correctly, water is able to enter
or form within these structures and cause
severe damage that requires repair.
Furthermore, controlling moisture within
buildings is also important for the building’s
energy efficiency. The exterior environment
varies greatly, depending upon the climate
and location of the building. These
exterior conditions can cause vapor drive to
the interior of buildings. Also, sources of
moisture that originate from the interior
must be considered. Everyday activities—
S Y M P O S I U M O N B U I L D I N G E N V E L O P E T E C H N O L O G Y • MA R C H 1 5 2
0 , 2 0 1 2 B A R N E S • 1 1
such as cooking, showering, and washing—
produce moisture that increases the indoor
relative humidity. Depending on the environment,
this interior moisture can be driven
to the exterior. Ventilation and vapor
retarders became more prevalent as a way
to control vapor drive and prevent moisture
from condensing within the wall assembly.
Many contractors installing systems
incorporating the new moisture management
components did not initially have the
training or knowledge of the systems,
including exterior insulation finish systems
(EIFS), to properly install all the required
components so as to prevent moisture
intrusion and damage to the buildings as a
result of that intrusion. The performance of
the building was no longer just shelter; it
was to be aesthetic, comfortable, structurally
sound, and provide protection from the
elements through all four seasons.
EVOLUTION OF EIFS
First installed in Europe in the 1940s,
EIFS were installed directly over existing
masonry structures that had high moisture-
storage capacities; water infiltration
behind the EIFS was of little or no consequence.
EIFS are composed of insulation
board—generally expanded polystyrene
(EPS)—attached to the underlying sheathing,
a cementitious base coat that is applied
to the insulation boards with embedded
fiberglass reinforcing mesh. An acrylic finish
coat provides the finish surface. The
thermal insulating characteristics of EIFS
result in a highly effective means of controlling
the transfer of heat through the exterior
walls.
Following its use on commercial properties
in the U.S. in the 1970s and 1980s,
EIFS costs declined, and barrier systems
became a prevalent cladding alternative in
the residential market in the early 1990s
due to the lower cost and thermal-resistance
benefits. Problems soon began to
arise as barrier EIFS were applied to woodframed
structures classified under Type V
construction, which allows buildings to be
constructed of any materials allowed by the
code.
Barrier EIFS do not incorporate an
underlying weather-resistive barrier, nor
are there any moisture management components
that would allow water to be discharged
from the systems. Instead, barrier
systems need the exterior surface—including
all sealant joints—to be 100% weatherproof
100% of the time. In order to maintain
the integrity and intended performance of
the barrier system, the sealant joints must
be maintained or replaced prior to failure of
the sealant. Sealants are a crucial piece of a
moisture management system. When properly
constructed, they keep water out of
junctures of building materials or where
fenestrations are installed. Despite
advancements in the physical performance
capabilities of sealants, all sealant joints
will eventually experience adhesive or cohesive
failure, leaving an opening for water to
get into the building. To combat this
inevitable failure, it is crucial that sealant
joints be properly designed and constructed
to last as long as possible and be able to be
maintained. Once the sealant fails, water
can enter the system where the underlying
water-sensitive sheathing and wood framing
are unprotected. Without a means for
the water to exit the system, damage will
occur to the water-sensitive building components
as a result of being exposed to
moisture for prolonged periods of time.
In the 1990s, it became apparent that
barrier EIFS were failing to keep water out
of buildings, and the trapped water was
causing significant damage to the watersensitive
components. Few in the industry
had experience installing EIFS, and this
lack of experience was evident in the
improper detailing and construction of
these systems, a lack of supervision during
installation, and the absence of a moisturemanaged
system offered by the manufacturers.
As a result, building code and
industry standards evolved to prevent the
damage associated with the barrier system
failures by introducing moisture-managed
EIFS in the mid-’90s. Moisture-managed
EIFS incorporate a weather-resistive barrier,
weep mechanisms, and related components
to address the problems found with
barrier systems.
Moisture-managed EIFS, in conjunction
with related flashing components, allow for
inevitable, unintended water that infiltrates
behind the exterior façade to be directed
down the weather-resistive barrier and
drained out of wall systems through weep
mechanisms. Various types of moisturemanaged
EIFS are available today, some of
which control the moisture more effectively
than others. For example, some systems
use preformed grooves on the backside of
the insulation boards, which help to direct
and drain water down the weather-resistive
barrier. Another alternative allows the insulation
board to be attached to a fluidapplied,
weather-resistive barrier. The
adhesive used to attach the insulation
board is applied vertically with a grooved
trowel to form voids that create channels
behind the board to direct water down the
weather-resistive barrier. Other systems
utilize a drainage medium between the
insulation board and underlying weatherresistive
barrier to create a drainage plane
capable of managing an increased amount
of water infiltration. This medium is often
an expanded metal lath fastened to the
underlying framing. The insulation boards
can be adhesively attached to the drainage
medium in a manner similar to the second
system discussed above. Given all the
options of the underlying components, the
end product always incorporates a base
coat with embedded reinforcing mesh and a
finish coat. Ultimately, the advancements
made with regard to the moisture-managed
EIFS have significantly improved system
performance if properly applied.
Until the release of the 2009 International
Building Code (IBC), EIFS were not
specifically recognized by building codes as
acceptable building materials. If a particular
building product, component, method,
or material—including EIFS prior the
release of the 2009 IBC–is not recognized by
the code, evaluation reports published by
the International Code Council (ICC) provide
supporting evidence and required testing
that allow for alternates to be used so
that they are in compliance with building
code requirements. Prior to 2003, four different
building-product evaluation services
existed in the United States (NES, ICBO,
BOCA, and SBCCI); in 2003, each combined
its operations to form the ICC Evaluation
Service. Acceptance Criteria (AC) reports
issued by the ICC (or other product-evaluation
service agency in the past) assist in the
development of evaluation reports by defining
performance and installation requirements
that alternate materials must comply
with in order for an evaluation report to be
published.
Between 1992 and 1997, barrier EIFS
were accepted by the ICBO Evaluation
Service per AC 24, which set required
installation and performance criteria for the
systems to be installed on any building type
at that time, if recognized by passing performance
tests that would allow the system
to be installed without a weather-resistive
barrier. To obtain this recognition, the EIFS
were to be subjected to a water-resistance
test that tested a sample measuring 2 by 4
1 2 • B A R N E S 2 7 T H RC I I N T E R N A T I O N A L C O N V E N T I O N A N D T R A D E S H OW • MA R C H 1 5 2
0 , 2 0 1 2
ft. No terminations or sealant joints were
required to be tested to pass the test. This
simple test was not representative of the
actual installation of a full EIFS, which
would include proper detailing and construction
at the system’s terminations to
dissimilar materials. These interfaces at
windows, doors, and other cladding materials
are, in fact, the most vulnerable areas of
any cladding system, especially barrier
EIFS and other claddings that do not have
the ability to properly control water intrusion
and protect the building’s water-sensitive
components.
In September 1997, AC24 was revised to
include “weather-resistive considerations”
that did not allow barrier EIFS to be
installed on Type V buildings. AC24 then
required all EIFS installed on Type V buildings
to comply with the requirements for
EIFS wall-covering assemblies with
drainage. A properly constructed moisturemanaged
EIFS must incorporate a weatherresistive
barrier and related flashings,
grooved insulation board, and weep mechanisms
that allow moisture to exit the system.
While this change to EIFS installation
requirements within the industry had good
intentions, poor detailing, improper construction,
and ineffective coordination of
trades to properly interface dissimilar
cladding system materials can still occur,
resulting in water intrusion.
The requirements set forth for EIFS in
the 2009 IBC state that a “water-resistive
barrier shall be applied between the EIFS
and the wall sheathing.” Based on the code
requirements, a successfully installed EIFS
essentially relied upon the product applicators
to install the product per the manufacturer’s
installation instructions. While the
contractors installing EIFS are generally
more than capable of following the required
installation instructions, unique conditions
often exist that are not detailed by the manufacturer’s
installation instructions. This
requires the designer of record to provide
appropriate details to ensure the system is
properly interfaced with adjacent components
in order to provide a weathertight
assembly.
BEAUVALLON CONDOMINIUMS
Located in downtown Denver, CO,
Beauvallon Condominiums is a mixed-use
development with 214 units and dual 14-
story towers that comprise the majority of
the residential units. Commercial space is
leased on the first and second floors, with a
below-grade parking garage under the poolarea
plaza deck. The project was originally
constructed between 2001 and 2003 and
incorporated multiple building-envelope
systems, including a low-slope EPDM roof;
copper and steel wall panels at the upper
two floors; polyurethane fluid-applied deck
coatings on covered decks; concrete pavers
on pedestals over EPDM waterproofing at
exposed residential decks; hot-applied,
built-up membrane over the community
plaza deck and parking garage; and stucco
and precast anchored stone on the first
level. A barrier EIFS was installed over
fiberglass-faced gypsum sheathing comprising
the majority of the façade. The primary
structure of the building is concrete slab
and columns with steel stud infill to transfer
lateral forces between the floors.
Following the completion of the initial
construction, the development was indicative
of past architectural principles from the
Baroque period that began in Rome in the
1600s. The bilaterally symmetric building
engaged observers with a sense of dynamic
activity that stemmed from the perceptive
forces of voids that define the shape of the
adjacent solid elements. While the building
evokes some sense of mass wall construction
similar, from a casual observer’s perspective,
to early architecture, the actual
performance of this turn-of-the-millennium
building was far from capable of controlling
moisture by means of reservoir storage.
Additionally, the building wasn’t constructed
in a way to properly control the moisture
from the outdoor environment in accordance
with the building codes or industry
standards. See Photo 1.
BEAUVALLON INVESTIGATION
In 2005, homeowners began to report
evidence of water intrusion adjacent to slider
doors. This intrusion was causing damage
to interior finishes. At that time, it was
decided by the property management company,
with input and consent from the
homeowners association’s (HOA) board of
directors, to engage in a preliminary investigation
to determine the cause of the
reported water intrusion. A forensic engineering
firm was hired to perform an initial
investigation of the building. Following this
investigation, the firm reported a multitude
of construction defects that could have been
causing the damage, and there was a possibility
that the problems with the system as
installed could lead to further damage.
Based on preliminary recommendations
provided to the HOA’s board of directors
and its property management representa-
Photo 1 – East elevation of Beauvallon Condominiums prior to repair.
2 7 T H RC I I N T E R N A T I O N A L C O N V E N T I O N A N D T R A D E S H OW • MA R C H 1 5 2
0 , 2 0 1 2 B A R N E S • 1 3
tive, the board engaged a law firm with
extensive experience in construction defect
law to pursue the claims related to defective
construction. SBSA’s staff would act as the
plaintiff’s primary expert. In the summer of
2006, SBSA’s staff performed a preliminary
investigation, knowing the deficiencies previously
reported by the initial forensic engineering
company. It became immediately
EIFS wasn’t properly
interfaced with
adjacent claddings,
fenestrations, and
other building components
and was
unable to control
water that had
infiltrated behind
Photo 2 – Copper panels removed. No weatherresistive
barrier or flexible flashings installed at
windowsill and slider door head, allowing water
to enter the wall cavity.
Photo 3 – The EPDM membrane waterproofing
at the penthouse deck is not shingle-lapped
with a weather-resistive barrier, allowing
water to enter behind the waterproofing.
evident that water was intruding into the
building’s exterior wall cavities because of
the defective construction of the cladding
and waterproofing systems. The barrier
the cladding.
A thorough investigation was initiated
in August of 2007, beginning at the penthouse
units located on the upper two floors
Photo 4 – Inside metal-framed wall assembly below penthouse concrete deck.
Water from under the deck waterproofing has entered the wall cavity at the edge
of the concrete deck.
1 4 • B A R N E S 2 7 T H RC I I N T E R N A T I O N A L C O N V E N T I O N
of each tower. SBSA’s staff determined the
low-slope EPDM roof was not causing problems;
however, the steel and copper panels
were not watertight, and significant
amounts of water were penetrating at the
perimeters of windows and slider doors. It
was discovered that the weather-resistive
barrier application was not provided underneath
the panels or was installed incorrectly.
Proper application of a weather-resistive
barrier would include integration with window
flashings. Flashings were either not
applied properly or were missing entirely
(Photo 2). This allowed water to get into the
framed wall assembly through penetrations
in the sheathing, particularly at the windows
and doors, as well as through
unsealed sheathing joints. The water
caused corrosion of the steel-framed wall
assemblies and was particularly severe
along the sill track where water was able to
collect and accumulate. The damage progressed
to the interior finishes within the
penthouse units, staining and deteriorating
drywall, causing biological growth behind
baseboards, and permanently deforming
the wood flooring.
This water intrusion through the steel
and copper panels was compounded by the
improper integration of the EPDM mem-
A N D T R A D E S H OW • MA R C H 1 5 2
0 , 2 0 1 2
brane that was installed on the penthouse plaza decks; worse, the installation
of the EPDM allowed water to infiltrate further into the building. The EPDM
membrane was not shingle-lapped with a weather-resistive barrier behind the
steel and copper panels (Photo 3), which allowed water to travel under the deck
waterproofing and saturate the rigid insulation installed on the concrete deck.
With water trapped below the impermeable EPDM membrane, after saturating
the insulation boards, the only place for it to travel was to the edge of the concrete
deck and into the steel-framed wall assembly below (Photo 4). Severe
damage resulted within the soffits covered with the barrier EIFS, as water was
able to travel a short distance from the deck edge above to where it accumulated
in and around the steel channel at the bottom of the soffit framing (Photo
5).
Not only were the framed wall assemblies installed behind the barrier EIFS
compromised by the intruding water from the penthouse units, but pan flashings,
which were required, were not installed to prevent water intrusion at windows.
Water was able to enter behind the barrier EIFS primarily through terminations
of the system, including the perimeter of the hundreds of windows
and slider doors installed in the system, causing further damage to the building
(Photos 6 and 7).
In addition to documenting the damages that resulted from the failed barrier
EIFS and other cladding materials, window assemblies were tested for both
installation and window weathertightness. The performance testing was performed
in general accordance with the protocols outlined in ASTM E1105,
Standard Test Method for Field Determination of Water Penetration of Installed
Exterior Windows, Skylights, Doors, and Curtain Walls by Uniform or Cyclic
Static Air Pressure Difference. As stated in the ASTM E1105 protocol, the test
is “intended primarily for determining the resistance to water penetration
through such assemblies for compliance with specified performance criteria,
but it may also be used to determine the resistance to penetration
through joints between the assemblies and the adjacent
construction.”
Water tests were made to determine (1) the exterior façade’s
ability to manage water penetration and prevent infiltration to
the interior and/or wall cavities, and (2) the window’s resistance
to water penetration. Following the tests, the façade material in
selected locations was removed to observe the installation
methods and techniques used, and to determine the cause(s), if
any, of failure during the tests. Failure is defined by ASTM
E1105 protocol as “penetration of water beyond a plane parallel
to the glazing (the vertical plane) intersecting the innermost
Photo 7 – Damage to framing and interior finishes
(removed) resulted from the water intrusion at windows
installed within the barrier EIFS.
Photo 5 – Behind the barrier EIFS, the steel soffit
framing had corroded, and water stains were
running down the wall sheathing.
Photo 6 – Typical failed sealant joint at a residential
window, allowing water to enter behind the barrier
EIFS. The slope of the EIFS at the sill also does not
provide the required slope to promote drainage away
from the window.
2 7 T H RC I I N T E R N A T I O N A L C O N V E N T I O N A N D T R A D E S H OW • MA R C H 1 5 2
0 , 2 0 1 2 B A R N E S • 1 5
Photo 8 – Water traveling behind barrier EIFS able to penetrate behind EPDM
membrane waterproofing installed over rigid insulation and concrete deck.
projection of the test specimen, not including
interior trim and hardware, under the
specified conditions of air pressure difference
across the specimen…. Failure also
occurs whenever water penetrates through
the perimeter frame of the test specimen.
Water contained within drained flashing,
gutters, and sills is not considered a failure.”
It was determined through a series of
tests that the residential vinyl windows
were not causing water infiltration, but
rather the installation and seals around the
window were the mode of failure.
The joints around the vinyl windows utilized
an open-cell backer rod behind the
sealant. Open-cell backer rods absorb moisture
within the cells of the material; the wet
backer rods were in prolonged contact with
the sealant, causing the sealants to fail prematurely.
As previously discussed, all
sealant joints will fail, even those that are
installed to maximize performance; also,
they must be maintained to provide a
watertight seal. It is vitally important for
these sealants to be functioning at terminations
of the barrier system, as they are part
of what protects the building from precipitation
and likely subsequent water intrusion.
The building, however, had no safe or
reasonable means of accessing the exterior
façade to inspect and repair the sealant
joints. There was no davit system installed
for swing stages or fall protection.
Furthermore, due to the tiered configuration
of the towers, there were areas that
could not be accessed by a typical roofmounted
davit system.
The EPS insulation boards installed as
part of the barrier EIFS were adhesively
attached to fiberglass-faced gypsum
sheathing with a notched trowel in vertical,
horizontal, and irregular swooping patterns.
This disorderly network of channels,
created by the adhesive application behind
the insulation board, created various courses
and directions for water to travel down
the wall. Water traveled throughout the wall
system, accumulating at various locations
and causing damage throughout the building.
As water travels down the walls behind
the barrier EIFS insulation board, it is able
to enter the wall cavity through terminations
of the sheathing panels and accumulate
at each horizontal deck projection.
Similar to decks at the penthouse level, the
EPDM membrane waterproofing at the projecting,
weather-exposed residential decks
also allowed water to enter behind the
membrane (Photo 8).
If the water intrusion into the wall cavities
wasn’t enough, a foil-faced vapor
retarder was installed at the interior side of
the exterior walls, exacerbating damage
because the moisture was trapped within
the wall assemblies. By installing the vapor
retarder on the inside of the wall, in combination
with the EPS insulation board on the
outside, moisture became trapped within
the wall cavity, creating a warm, humid
condition in these cavities. This caused
additional corrosion of the steel framing,
Photo 9 – Severe corrosion at the sill track of the steel framing occurred as a
result of water intrusion behind the barrier EIFS.
1 6 • B A R N E S 2 7 T H RC I I N T E R N A T I O N A L C O N V E N T I O N A N D T R A D E S H OW • MA R C H 1 5 2
0 , 2 0 1 2
Photo 10 – Multiple cornices create large projections of the façade. The cornices allowed water to be
discharged onto public sidewalks below. No structural support was installed within the EPS cornices to
support loads required by code.
and several of the
sill tracks were so
severely damaged
that pieces of the
steel could be removed
by hand
during the investigation
(Photo 9).
Not only did the
original construction
of the building
envelope components
fail to protect
the interior space
from the outdoor
environment, the
façade was also
unable to control
water draining
down the face of
the building in a
manner that would
have complied with
the building code.
The drainage
across the multiple
cornices was being
discharged onto
the sidewalks below
with no means
of directing the
water into a gutter
or downspout system
in order to discharge
the water to a safe location (Photo
10). The climate in Denver is unique in that
the city receives over 300 days of sunshine
on average every year. The sunshine is
prevalent, even in the winter months. This
creates conditions where snow can accumulate
during a storm, then melt away the
following day. During warmer days after it
snowed, surface drainage from the cornices
would flow onto the public walkways,
directly onto the sidewalks where customers
accessed retail establishments.
Before it could evaporate or be absorbed by
the concrete, this water would then freeze at
night as the temperature dropped drastically,
creating dangerously icy conditions.
Furthermore, the cornices were constructed
of mass amounts of EPS insulation adhered
to the sheathing and essentially held in
place by the EIFS lamina. As constructed,
the cornices were unable to withstand the
weight of the snow and ice or meet the codeprescribed
loads.
Following the extensive forensic investigation
performed by SBSA staff, which concluded
in the summer of 2008, reports were
compiled and submitted to the plaintiff’s
attorney. A settlement was reached between
the plaintiff and defense parties in early
2009 for an undisclosed amount; however,
it was the second largest construction
defect case award in the history of Colorado.
Given the extensive knowledge of the building
system failures identified during the
forensic investigation, SBSA was naturally
the best candidate to assist in the repair
design and provide owner representation
during construction. The construction
repair phase of the project allowed for SBSA
to provide ongoing support to the contractor
and owner to ensure that the finished product
has eliminated all issues associated
with the original noncompliant construction.
BEAUVALLON REPAIRS
Constituting the largest construction
defect repair project in the history of the city
and county of Denver, repairs at the
Beauvallon Condominiums began in mid-
2 7 T H RC I I N T E R N A T I O N A L C O N V E N T I O N A N D T R A D E S H OW • MA R C H 1 5 2
0 , 2 0 1 2
to-late 2009. Construction costs to repair
the multitude of issues, which existed from
the roof to the bottom floor of the parking
garage, totaled approximately $18 million.
Many challenges were presented
throughout the year-and-a-half construction
period. The team of contractors,
designers, consultants, and property managers
worked together to overcome these
challenges and minimize the impact on the
daily lives of the tenants, who remained in
the residences throughout the construction
repairs. Among the most intrusive aspects
of the construction repair was the interior
remediation that was performed in units
identified to have potentially harmful biological
growth. This multiple-day process in
each unit made certain that all wall assemblies
and interior finish materials in which
biological growth had manifested was properly
cleaned or replaced and that the areas
were subsequently verified by a certified
industrial hygienist to ensure proper remediation
protocols were followed.
Before repairs could commence, the
B A R N E S • 1 7
Photo 11 – Ongoing repairs at the east elevation of the Beauvallon Condominiums.
Repair work is complete on the upper portion and in progess on the lower floors
of the south tower (left). Repairs have commenced on the north tower (right).
design process had to be completed to
address all of the noncompliant construction
identified during the investigation and
keep within the allowable budget. Repair
recommendations developed during the litigation
phase allowed costs to be estimated
and included in the settlement. Final construction
documents were submitted for
permitting by the selected general contractor.
Contractor mobilization began shortly
thereafter as repairs began on the south
tower in late 2009. The repair plan scheduled
demolition and subsequent repair in
different phases of the building to maximize
the productivity of the work. At any one
time during the peak of the schedule, particular
areas were either fully repaired, in
the process of repair or demolition, or had
yet to be accessed at all (Photo 11).
Access to the areas around the entire
building and each tower was accomplished
with a network of scaffolding positioned
around the façade to provide workers with a
safe work area to perform the required
demolition and subsequent repairs. Tenting
was installed on the scaffolding to control
debris during demolition, as well as to protect
the building from weather during the
repair process. This inconvenienced the
residents, who lost the downtown and
mountain views they had become accustomed
to. The tenting also helped control
demolition debris, in particular the lightweight
beads that comprised the previously
existing EPS insulation board. Although the
tenting ruined the view for residents,
removing the EPS without protection would
make little white beads of foam fly around
the city like fresh, light snow regardless of
that day’s weather.
Building envelope repairs began by
removing the steel and copper panels on the
penthouse units to install a weather-resistive
barrier and flashings rated for the high
temperatures. These panels were properly
integrated with the windows and slider
doors, as well as the new application of
EPDM membrane waterproofing. The EPDM
membrane was installed continuously over
the cornice and terminated with a sheet
metal flashing drip at the leading edge to
promote the surface drainage away from
the exterior walls clad with a new moisturemanaged
EIFS below.
The failed barrier EIFS was removed,
exposing underlying damage. In order to
assess the integrity of the corroded steelframing
members, many of the exterior wall
cavities were exposed from the outside by
removing the existing sheathing. Corroded
steel framing was sealed with a product
that converted the rust into stable magnetite.
Deteriorated sheathing was replaced
following the treatment of the corroded steel
framing. The first component of the new
moisture-managed EIFS was the application
of corrugated housewrap that was
properly interfaced with all required weep
mechanisms and flashing materials. Weep
mechanisms were provided to allow the
water to be discharged from the system at
interfaces to deck surfaces, projecting cornices,
window heads, soffits, and other horizontal
terminations of the moisture-managed
EIFS.
Photo 12 – Full repair has been completed above the floorline. A weep mechanism
was incorporated into each floorline of the moisture-managed EIFS, and all new
windows provided water shedding and underlying moisture management performance
capabilities.
1 8 • B A R N E S 2 7 T H RC I I N T E R N A T I O N A L C O N V E N T I O N A N D T R A D E S H OW • MA R C H 1 5 2
0 , 2 0 1 2
Photo 13 – EPS insulation board applied to the
expanded metal lath installed over the weatherresistive
barrier. These underlying components of
the moisture-managed EIFS promote drainage
behind the EPS insulation boards.
Photo 14 – Prefinished standing-seam
roofing installed over projecting cornice
adjacent to residential deck area.
New, energy-efficient windows and
slider doors were installed to replace the
existing fenestrations. This upgrade to
the building was not part of the settlement
reached during litigation but was
decided upon by the HOA and property
management since it was an opportunistic
time with the scaffolding already in
place. The existing windows were still
serviceable and were donated to Habitat
for Humanity. The installation of the new
window units was a design challenge due
to the recessed configuration of the
openings.
To achieve a continuous air and
water barrier around the perimeter of the
windows and allow for effective surface
drainage off the recessed sills, a configuration
of self-adhered and rigid flashings
was utilized. The self-adhered flashing
was installed into the window opening at
the sill, with a formed back dam at the
backside of the window unit, and up the
jambs to form a three-sided pan flashing
that can effectively direct water onto the
weather-resistive barrier where it can be
discharged from the system. Expansion
joints were installed at each of the floor
lines where the steel framing was secured to
the concrete floor slabs. To promote the
drainage capability of the moisture-managed
EIFS, weep mechanisms at each floor
were installed that consisted of a shinglelapped
configuration of the drainage tracks,
weather-resistive barrier, and prefinished
sheet metal flashings to direct any water
out and away from the wall system (Photo
12). The existing EPDM membrane waterproofing
at the exposed residential decks
was replaced to provide proper integration
with the moisture-managed EIFS and to
improve the drainage capability below the
pedestal and paver walking surface.
Following the complete installation of
the weather-resistive barrier, associated
flashings, and weep mechanisms, the final
components of the moisture-managed EIFS
were installed, beginning with expanded
metal lath. EPS insulation boards were
adhered over the lath with a vertically oriented
groove application that provides additional
space for water drainage behind the
system and toward the weep mechanisms
installed at horizontal terminations (Photo
13).
Modifications to the projecting cornices
that surround the Beauvallon towers were
performed, beginning with the addition of
structural support within the large cornices,
which project out from the building
as much as 7 ft. The repairs included the
installation of custom-fabricated steel framing
to support the code-required loads
imposed upon the projections. Underlayment
rated for high-temperature applica-
2 7 T H RC I I N T E R N A T I O N A L C O N V E N T I O N A N D T R A D E S H OW • MA R C H 1 5 2
0 , 2 0 1 2 B A R N E S • 1 9
tions was applied under prefinished standing
steam roofing installed over cornices
(Photo 14). These projections away from the
building allow water to travel down the multitiered
façade and collect on the lowermost
tier, where it is directed into a gutter and
downspout system that discharges into the
storm sewer system (Photo 15). While highly
effective at controlling the water and
snow from draining onto the public walkway
below, the drainage system was
designed and constructed in a manner that
blends with the new façade of the
Beauvallon, seamlessly blending practical
engineering principles, architectural form,
and beauty.
The Beauvallon Condominiums was a
highly successful construction-defect-andrepair
project. The five-year process allowed
for the luxury residence to maintain its
prominent reputation. In the end, though
the residents were inconvenienced through
the investigation and repair phases of the
project, the final product was a completely
repaired building envelope that performs. In
September of 2011, Peter Manetti, HOA
board president, told SBSA that they had
not received a single complaint of water
intrusion during the previous two months
of heavy rain.
Photo 15 – East elevation of Beauvallon north tower following completion of repairs.
2 0 • B A R N E S 2 7 T H RC I I N T E R N A T I O N A L C O N V E N T I O N A N D T R A D E S H OW • MA R C H 1 5 2
0 , 2 0 1 2