INTRODUCTION Consider an apartment complex constructed circa 2002 in a city near San Francisco, CA, containing about 30 twostory wood-framed buildings clad with traditional three-coat exterior plaster cement (stucco; see Photo 1). Typical for many large-scale residential projects in California, the pump-applied stucco cladding system was applied to oriented strandboard (OSB) sheathing only at structural shear walls (Photo 2) and simply over steel line wire at the nonsheathed walls (Photo 3). As documented in Photos 2 through 7, moisture damage, wood decay, and organic growth were found behind the cladding and sheathing at certain ground-floor walls throughout the complex, particularly at bedrooms. (The general absence of similar damage at the same secondfloor bedroom walls was, of course, of great interest to the investigators.) The results of RA&A’s extensive investigation, evaluation, and testing processes did not credibly explain the localized extent and severity of the observed condensation damage at these walls. 8 • I n t e r f a c e J u l y 2 0 1 4 This case study uses photographs and data from an actual building envelope investigation to promote techniques and protocols for using humidity/temperature dataloggers to acquire new, vital information for the forensic team. (While the word “forensic” may have different meanings across North America, Richard Avelar & Associates [RA&A] defines it as: the puzzle-solving application of a broad spectrum of technical knowledge and expertise to answer questions of interest.) Photo 1 – Typical construction at stucco-clad apartment complex. Photo 2 – OSB sheathing supports the stucco cladding assembly. SUPPLEMENTAL INVESTIGATION WITH TEMPERATURE/HUMIDITY DATALOGGERS We therefore supplemented our investigation by positioning, within 23 of the occupied ground-floor apartments (distributed throughout the complex), about 100 dataloggers1 that measure temperature and relative humidity. In general, no prior destructive testing had occurred at any of the selected apartments. Typically, we positioned four loggers per apartment to record ambient conditions at: a) hallway ceilings, immediately adjacent to kitchens and bathrooms; b) bedroom closets; c) plenums above the gypsum board ceilings at the bedroom closets (i.e., below the subfloor of the second-floor units); and d) exterior wall cavities directly adjacent to these bedroom closets. These walls faced all quadrants of the compass. As demonstrated in Photo 7, the temperature and relative humidity (RH) sensors for the loggers are located at the ends of 6-ft. cables. This feature allowed us to record conditions within the plenums and exterior walls simply by inserting the sen- J u l y 2 0 1 4 I n t e r f a c e • 9 Photo 3 – Line wire provides support for the stucco cladding assembly. Photo 4 – Moisture damage, wood decay, and organic growth at backside of the OSB sheathing. Photo 5 – Moisture damage, wood decay, and organic growth at backside of the OSB sheathing. Photo 6 – Moisture damage, wood decay, and organic growth at backside of the OSB sheathing. sors through small holes drilled through the gypsum wallboard. The dataloggers were programmed to take simultaneous measurements every ten minutes (i.e., 144 readings per sensor per day). The accumulated data readily could be downloaded at any time with the optic scanners provided with these loggers, which will continue recording information until they are turned off (or when their batteries die after a year or two). The broad goal of deploying these loggers was to search the collected data for patterns that might explain why some of these ground-floor wall cavities were so much wetter than others. Beyond considering the typical construction defects often found at such large-scale residential projects, we believed that possible additional factors for these conditions might include relative exposure to the elements (rain, wind, sun, shade, and perhaps even night-sky cooling2); the presence or absence of wall penetrations (e.g., piping, conduit, and ducting); variable amounts of interior lifestyle moisture (perhaps due to differing occupant loads); varying moisture content of the on-grade concrete slabs; and multiple other localized construction, architectural, and mechanical system features. The purpose of this article is not to summarize RA&A’s findings for this ongoing litigation. Instead, we simply will demonstrate the firm’s process for evaluating the voluminous data produced by the loggers. In addition, this article documents and describes the daily solar-driven waves of water vapor that can occur within exterior wall cavities. THE HUMIDITY RATIO Once information was collected from these loggers, the provided software enabled us to convert the combined temperature and RH readings into the humidity ratio, which represents the actual ambient moisture content—measured by the total grains3 of water vapor per pound of dry air (GPP)— within each of the tested spaces at a particular point in time.4 1 0 • I n t e r f a c e J u l y 2 0 1 4 Photo 7 – Sensors at the ends of 60-in. cables were inserted into closet walls and ceiling plenums. Chart 1 – Simplified sea-level psychrometric chart (humidity ratio is derived from a nonlinear relationship between RH and temperature). Chart 1 is a very simplified “psychrometric chart” demonstrating that the humidity ratio is derived from a nonlinear relationship between temperature and RH. (Psychrometrics is the science of air/water interaction.) For example, if we know that the temperature is 80°F (at the vertical red line) and the RH is 20% (at the curved blue line), then the point where these two lines cross (at the horizontal green line) informs us that the approximate moisture content of the air is 30 GPP. Using the dataloggers, comparative analyses of such continually changing moisture loads can be highly informative.5 For example, Graphs 1 and 2 show 68 days of ambient moisture load data recorded 144 times per day (i.e., every ten minutes) during the winter months of 2013/2014 within two of the ground-floor apartments at this complex. We can see that the occupants of Apartment A live a relatively dry lifestyle (long-term average = 54 GPP), while the tenants in Apartment B generate 33% more ambient moisture (72 GPP) on average. It has been our experience with mass-produced residential units in the San Francisco Bay area that occupants who generate a long-term average moisture load greater than 60 GPP are increasingly prone to exhibiting mold and moisture problems at cold gypsum wallboard (i.e., at exterior walls and corners during winter months (see Photo 8). Further, these risks appear to increase exponentially with tenants who live “wet” (average GPP > 63) or “very wet” (average GPP > 67) lifestyles. We generally believe it unreasonable to criticize residents who choose to live wet J u l y 2 0 1 4 I n t e r f a c e • 1 1 Graph 1 – Apartment A tenants have a “dry” lifestyle (average GPP = 54) – 144 readings per day. * Make sure RCI has your current e-mail address. From the RCI home page (rci-online.org), click on the “Member Login” link on the right. To log onto your member account for the first time, click “Create Account” in order to create a user name and password. Do not create a new account, as members already have existing membership records. Under “Personal,” make sure you have not marked “exclude e-mail.” Now relax…it’s coming soon. Check your e-mail inbox* around the 20th of each month. Have you read tems lately? Missing Something? Graph 2 – Tenants at Apartment B live a “wet” lifestyle (average GPP = 72) – 144 readings per day. lifestyles.6 It is very important to note that all such wet versus dry assessments are highly relative and qualitative; in virtually all cases, the key factor for potential interior mold proliferation caused by condensation of ambient moisture was how poorly the exterior walls were insulated.7 The moisture spikes seen in Graphs 1 and 2 typically represent cooking and bathing activities. Similarly, it has been our experience that extended periods of low moisture load commonly correspond to occupant absences. For example, in Graph 1, we see that the tenants at Apartment A were not at home during a multiday period (the Christmas holiday) beginning at reading #7489 (Day 53). At Graph 3, we see that the moisture loads within the exterior walls at these various apartments also differ greatly. With the wall cavity at Apartment C (average GPP = 63), there is 75% more ambient water vapor than with the Apartment D wall (average GPP = 36). The forensic team obviously then focused extra attention in comparing the differences between these walls. Further, close consideration of Graph 3 leads to two other highly interesting questions: 1. What explains the daily cycle of increasing and decreasing moisture loads within these exterior walls? 2. What explains the dramatic reduction in the ambient moisture load occurring at reading #4753 (Day 33)? SOLAR HEATING AND SOLAR-DRIVEN DIFFUSION AT EXTERIOR WALLS At every cladding system that is “hygroscopic” (i.e., has an ability to absorb and desorb water), some of these water molecules will be driven inward into the wall assembly when this cladding material is heated by the sun. Sun-driven moisture is a phenomenon that occurs when walls are wetted and then heated by solar radiation. Upon solar heating, a large vapor pressure difference may occur between the exterior and interior leading to the inward diffusion of moisture.8 While some degree of solar-driven diffusion will occur at all hygroscopic cladding materials, its effects are most noticeable at reservoir systems (e.g., stucco and concrete) that can safely hold larger amounts of free water.9 Similarly, solar heating of exterior walls also will free some of the water molecules adhered to the surface of (or contained within) the hygroscopic wood framing and sheathing materials within the wall cavity: “It is clear that any wet material…that is heated by the sun will generate large inward vapor drives.”10 Then, at night, when these wall assemblies cool, this excess moisture will be adsorbed11 and absorbed12 into the solardried cladding, framing, and sheathing as the water vapor condenses. Further, during cold weather, even in the mild climate zones near San Francisco, this nighttime adsorption/absorption process also will be affected by an outward vapor drive from the heated interior: “The common assumption is that drying occurs predominately to the outside in cool and cold climates. …This assumption becomes less true as the climate becomes warmer and as the enclosure is exposed to more solar heating.”13 In short, the daily moisture cycles seen in Graph 3 simply document the effects of 1 2 • I n t e r f a c e J u l y 2 0 1 4 Photo 8 – Mold growth at poorly insulated exterior walls (at corner of building). Graph 3 – Why is the exterior wall cavity at Apartment C 75% wetter (on average) than Apartment D? solar heating and nighttime cooling on the ambient moisture loads within the exterior wall cavities. Proof of this concept is provided in Graph 4, which charts: a) Red dashed line: daily moisture load (GPP) within the stucco-clad exterior wall cavity at Apartment E, measured 144 times per day b) Black solid line: exterior temperature (°F), also measured 144 times per day (by a logger from a different manufacturer, positioned in a distant portion of the complex) The remarkably close correspondence between these two lines (which represent very different values) is strong evidence that the daily spikes of ambient moisture within this exterior wall are a function of solar heating of the exterior wall—which creates an inward vapor drive during the heat of the day that is countered at night by condensation (due to cooling) of excess moisture and by an outward vapor drive from the warmer apartment toward the colder exterior. The long-term average ambient moisture load (red dashed line) within the exterior wall cavity at Apartment E is 47 GPP. Now consider the solid blue line at Graph 5, which records the humidity ratio within a bedroom closet at Apartment E. Due to the tenants’ unusually wet lifestyle, the average ambient moisture load within the bedroom is 72 GPP. (Note: the hallway logger next to the kitchen and bathroom recorded a longterm average of 73 GPP.) From a forensic perspective, an interesting feature of Graph 5 is that the shape of the daily rise and fall (consistent with the effects of solar heating) of the ambient moisture load within the bedroom at Apartment E roughly corresponds to the shape of the solar-driven moisture load within the exterior wall (Graph 4), seemingly indicating a direct interaction (via vapor diffusion and/ or unintended air convection) between the two bodies of water vapor separated by a layer of gypsum drywall. One reason that the rough correspondence between the two moisture loads (within the bedroom closet and within the exterior wall cavity) strongly interests the investigative team is that it has been our experience at other stucco-clad projects that interior moisture loads have not exhibited the daily rise and fall of solar-driven vapor—perhaps due to the reasonably airtight barrier formed when the interior wallboard is installed in compliance with the California Energy Code. WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF LIFESTYLE MOISTURE? While it is reasonable to speculate that a primary source of the water vapor recorded within these various walls could be lifestyle moisture from tenant activities, Graph 6 demonstrates that vacating an apartment may not greatly impact the daily waves of solar-heated moisture within the exterior wall. Graph 6 summarizes 17 days of ambient moisture load data, recorded 144 times per day at Apartment F. As seen, the tenants vacated the unit midway through this testing period. There was no rain; every day was sunny. The sensor for Logger 1 (blue line) was inserted into the exterior wall cavity at the master bedroom closet. The sensor for Logger 2 (red line) recorded the ambient moisture load in the hallway (near the kitchen and bathroom). When the apartment was occupied, the average moisture load within the exterior wall was only 9% greater than when vacant, seemingly demonstrating that while lifestyle moisture may have contributed to the daily waves of solar-heated ambient moisture measured within this exterior wall, it was not the driving source. Further, after the apartment was vacat- 1 4 • I n t e r f a c e J u l y 2 0 1 4 Graph 4 – Exterior temperature (F°) at the residential complex and ambient moisture load (GPP) within the exterior wall at Apartment E; 144 readings per day. Graph 5 – Ambient moisture load (GPP) within bedroom (blue solid line) and exterior wall (red dashed line) at Apartment E; 144 readings per day. ed, the average moisture load within the exterior wall was 16% greater than the average moisture load within the unit, leading us back to a key forensic question: What are the sources of water vapor within the exterior wall cavity? STATIC “DEW POINT METHODS” ARE USELESS FOR MOST STUCCO CONDENSATION INVESTIGATIONS Despite the impressive advances in hygrothermal analysis made during the past two decades (e.g., WUFI14), many consultants still carry out forensic analyses of condensation damage with the static “dew point methods” detailed many years ago by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). Given specific interior and exterior temperatures, these ASHRAE procedures calculate a theoretical dew point within the wall assembly by analyzing each component’s vapor permeance and thermal resistance (R-value). However, it is clear that even the relatively simple processes of solar heating and solar-driven diffusion into and through stucco-clad walls are more than enough to render these static methods virtually useless. Consider that leading experts on such dew point analyses write: These methods are often misused, especially when condensation is present. Some people advocate abandoning these design tools because of J u l y 2 0 1 4 I n t e r f a c e • 1 5 Graph 6 – Red line is ambient moisture load (GPP) near kitchen, and blue line is ambient moisture load (GPP) inside stucco-clad exterior wall cavity at Apartment F — 144 readings per day. their severe limitations. …Another weakness is that these methods exclude all moisture transfer mechanisms other than [static] vapor diffusion and neglect moisture storage in the building materials. This severely limits the accuracy of the calculations, especially in the case of wet materials.15 Also: Furthermore, since the method only considers steady-state transport under heavily simplified boundary conditions, it cannot reproduce individual short-term events or allow for rain and solar radiation. It is meant to provide a general assessment of the hygrothermal suitability of a component, not to produce a simulation of realistic heat and moisture conditions in a component exposed to the weather prevailing at its individual location.16 It is RA&A’s opinion that these static methods are outdated and almost always useless for most forensic analyses of moisture condensation damage found within the existing building envelope. PRINCIPLES FOR INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION For building envelope investigations, determining the humidity ratio (ambient moisture load) is closely comparable to using a traditional meter to measure the moisture content ratio of wood framing and sheathing. In either case, a common goal for field-level professionals simply is to determine which components or areas are substantively wetter (or dryer) than others. The great value of these data loggers is that it can automate the moisture sampling process. The deployment of 100 loggers at this project enabled RA&A to collect 28,800 simultaneous readings (temperature and RH) every day over a five-month period. By the end, more than 2,000,000 humidity ratio (i.e., ambient moisture load) measurements were available for evaluation and processing with Microsoft’s Excel® program. As seen in the graphs for this article, highly informative patterns will emerge from wide variations in hourly and daily data. Our previously published principles for this process of investigation and analysis include:17 1) Find the location(s) of unexpectedly high quantities of water (including ambient moisture): Most moisture problems can be diagnosed by looking at the condition and asking how much water it took to create that problem. Solving the problem amounts to asking where that amount of water could have come from and where it should go.18 2) Consider the common origins of unintended water (vapor and liquid) accumulation within exterior walls and buildings. a. Liquid water from precipitation (rain and melting snow) b. Liquid water from plumbing leaks c. Water vapor from the exterior d. Water vapor from activities and processes within the building e. Liquid and vapor from the soil adjoining the building f. Moisture built-in with the materials of construction g. Moisture brought in with goods and people.19 3) Then, consider the two main mechanisms of ambient moisture transport into and through the building envelope: diffusion (higher concentrations of water vapor move toward lower concentrations) and convection (water molecules are transported by air movement created by pressure differentials). 4) Then, consider the potential routes of unintended moisture movement into and through the building envelope. For a moisture-related problem to occur, it is necessary for at least four conditions to be satisfied: 1) A moisture source must be available, 2) there must be a route or means for the moisture to travel, 3) there must be some driving force to cause moisture movement, [and] 4) the material(s) involved must be susceptible to moisture damage. 20 5) Don’t forget the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which requires, as a fundamental law of the universe, that when two unequal reservoirs of energy (including disparate concentrations of water vapor) are connected, the greater pool will flow into the lesser pool until equilibrium is reached. This process has been summarized by North America’s leading building science experts as: Moisture tends to move from warm to cold (driven by the magnitude of the thermal gradient) and from more to less (driven by the concentration gradient).21 6) Further, as demonstrated above, remember that daily waves or spikes of water vapor that tend to increase on hot sunny days and decrease during cool nights (or cloudy days) are caused by solar heating of moisture reservoir(s). 7) Finally, if the general timing, shape, and/or amplitude of ambient moisture loads recorded by one logger correspond to the cycles of moisture load (or temperature) from a separate logger within a different space, then very likely there is a close, direct relationship between the measured conditions. SUMMARY DISCUSSION As noted, a key purpose of this article is to introduce and discuss unseen effects of solar heating of hygroscopic cladding materials, including reservoir systems (such as stucco and concrete) that can safely hold large amounts of free water. Exterior wall assemblies with alternate claddings will perform differently on an hourly and daily basis due to varying material properties (e.g., permeability, absorptivity, and drainage/drying potential). From a general perspective, these differences do not mean that any particular system (e.g., stucco) is inherently better or worse than any other (e.g., fiber-cement lap siding). The varying degrees of solar-heated water vapor occurring within our traditional well-proven exterior wall systems are natural phenomena that, in and of themselves, are not problematic. Instead, the key to successful long-term performance of these walls is to prevent the accumulation of unintended moisture from atypical sources. However, if problematic condensation is discovered (perhaps years after original construction), then a full evaluation of these conditions might require consideration of the potential effects of solar-diffused vapor 1 6 • I n t e r f a c e J u l y 2 0 1 4 being added to an exterior wall’s existing moisture load. To this end, modern temperature/ RH loggers that can track minute changes to the humidity ratios within both the building and its envelope can be an invaluable addition to an investigator’s toolkit. While it is well beyond the scope of this article to identify specific design or construction deficiencies that may have contributed to the localized condensation damage seen at this project, we can report that our data analyses implicate air flow (convection) of warm humid air from the heated interiors into and through certain segments of the exterior wall system via unintended voids in the interior and exterior envelopes. REFERENCES 1. For this testing, we used the HOBO U23-002 Pro v2 data loggers manufactured by Onset Corporation (http://www.onsetcomp.com). 2. On cloudless nights, heat is radiated into space from the surface of the earth. At buildings, the magnitude of this nighttime heat-loss phenomenon from roofs and exterior walls is reduced when obstacles (e.g., other buildings and large trees) impede this night-sky radiation. 3. There are 7,000 grains in a pound. 4. Donald P. Gatley, Understanding Psychrometrics, Second Edition, ASHRAE, Inc., Atlanta, GA 2005: “Humidity ratios provide a simple, effective, and most convenient means of accounting for the mass of water vapour in a psychrometric process…by relating it to the nonvarying mass of dry air.” 5. Lonnie Haughton, “Using Humidity/ Temperature Loggers for Moisture Investigations – Case Studies,” http://www.rci online.org/interface/ 2009-BES-haughton.pdf. 6. Heinz R. Trechsel and Niklas Vigener, “Investigating Moisture Damage Caused by Building Envelope Problems,” Moisture Control in Buildings: The Key Factor in Mold Prevention, Manual 18. 2nd edition, Heinz R. Terchsel and Mark T. Bomberg, editors. ASTM International, 2009: “Requiring careful moisture management by the occupant is no substitute or excuse for inadequate moistureresistant design.” 7. Peter Trotman, Chris Sanders, and Harry Harrison, Understanding Dampness, BRE, Garston, Watford, UK, 2004: “In winter, the internal surfaces of external walls are colder than the air in the room, with the temperature drop depending on how well the wall is insulated. The relative humidity at the wall surface will, therefore, be higher than in the room.” 8. Wahid Maref et al, “Laboratory Demonstration of Solar-Driven Inward Vapour Diffusion in a Wall Assembly,” National Research Council Canada, 11th Canadian Conference on Building Science and Technology, Banff, Alberta, 2007. 9. Lonnie Haughton, “Buildings That ‘Leak’ Only On Sunny Days – Case Study and Investigative Guidelines,” http://www.rci-online.org/interface/ 2010CTS-Proceedings-haughton. pdf. J u l y 2 0 1 4 I n t e r f a c e • 1 7 Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Why are we still debating the merits of cool roofs? Thermoplastic white roofs have proven performance in all climates. Bust the myths: vinylroofs.org/cool-roofing-myths 10. John F. Straube, “The Influence of Low-Permeance Vapor Barriers on Roof and Wall Performance,” Proceedings of Thermal Performance of Building Envelopes VII, Clearwater, Beach, Florida, 2001 11. Adsorption is the process where some previously free-flying water vapor molecules stick to the surface of a material due to cooling temperatures. 12. Absorption is capillary movement of moisture within hygroscopic materials. 13. John F. Straube, “The Influence of Low-Permeance Vapor Barriers on Roof and Wall Performance,” Proceedings of Thermal Performance of Building Envelopes VII, Clearwater, Beach, Florida, 2001 14. http://web.ornl.gov/sci/btc/apps/ moisture/ 15. Anton TenWolde, “Manual Analysis Tools,” Moisture Analysis and Condensation Control in Building Envelopes, (Manual 40, Heinz R. Terchsel editor) ASTM International, 2001 16. http://btric.ornl.gov/wufi/tool. shtml 17. Lonnie Haughton, “Buildings That ‘Leak’…” 18. William A. Rose, Water in Buildings – An Architect’s Guide to Moisture and Mold, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2005 19. John F. Straube, “Moisture Control in Buildings,” ASHRAE Journal, January 2002. Also reference Section 11 of ASTM E 241, “Standard Guide for Limiting Water-Induced Damage to Buildings,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA 20. John F. Straube, “Moisture in Buildings,” ASHRAE Journal (January 2002), www.ashrae.org 21. Joseph Lstiburek, “Investigating and Diagnosing Moisture Problems,” ASHRAE Journal (December 2002), www.ashrae.org 1 8 • I n t e r f a c e J u l y 2 0 1 4 Lonnie Haughton, MCP, LEED AP, CDT, is a principal codes/construction consultant with Richard Avelar & Associates in Oakland, CA, and one of about 800 individuals nationwide who have been certified by the International Code Council as a Master Code Professional. He is the primary author of the seminal paper “Qualitative Sampling of the Building Envelope for Water Leakage,” published in 2007 in the Journal of ASTM International and now cited in ASTM E2128- 12, Standard Guide for Evaluating Water Leakage of Building Walls. Many of his published articles and papers since 2009 have advocated the use of temperature/RH data loggers for field-level evaluation of condensation damage found within the exterior envelope. Lonnie Haughton, MCP, LEED AP, CDT The RCI Foundation (U.S.) and the RCI Foundation Canada have agreed to donate $20,000 to the Single Ply Roofing Industry (SPRI) as part of an industry-wide research effort on 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) continuous air barrier requirements. The project is being funded by SPRI, the Canadian Roofing Contractors Association (CRCA), the National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA), and The Roofing Industry Alliance for Progress. The actual research work is being conducted by the National Research Council of Canada (NRCC). SPRI has agreed to contribute $100,000 with the help of industry partners like the RCI Foundations. The total cash cost for the program is to be $310,000, with SPRI donating an additional $100,000 of in-kind support, including materials and labor to be used in the test program. Effective with the 2012 edition of the IECC, a continuous air barrier around the entire building envelope is required, including the roof assembly, the connection between the roof and wall air barrier, and around all roof penetrations. The objective of the NRCC research program is to develop data and test procedures that can be used to demonstrate compliance with the air barrier requirements of the IECC for mechanically attached roof systems. Mechanically attached roof systems represent approximately 40% of the lowslope commercial roofing market. The NRCC’s research is expected to: 1. Develop test data for prescriptive construction details that would meet the air barrier requirements of the code 2. Develop an assembly test procedure and get it referenced in the code The RCI Foundation Board of Directors agreed to the funding during its March 22, 2014, meeting in Anaheim, CA. The U.S. Foundation’s support will be $15,000, and the Canadian Foundation is contributing $5,000. RCI Foundation Supports Air Barrier Research Guardian Fall Protection, Kent, Washington, has recalled certain self-retracting lifelines after discovering a potential performance problem in complying with ANSI/ASSE Z359.14-2012, Safety Requirements for Self-Retracting Devices for Personal Fall Arrest and Rescue Systems, for cold-conditioning tests. There have been no reported injuries resulting from the issue, but serious injury or death could result. Part numbers being recalled are #109010 (20-ft., 3/16-in. galvanized cable edge series self-retracting lifeline) and #109015 (30-ft., 3/16-in. galvanized cable edge series selfretracting lifeline). This recall does not affect other Guardian products. If a unit’s serial number starts with the letter “A” and there is not a stamped “G” on the front cover,” the unit must be returned. For more information, visit www.guardianfall.com. Self-Retracting Lifelines Recalled
