Common Deficiencies with Public School Building Envelopes

Comm on Deficiencies With Public Sch ool
Building Envelopes
Thomas M. Gernetzke , FRCI, RRC, RWC, REWC, RBEC, RRO
Facility Eng ineering , Inc .
101 Dempsey Road, Madison, Wisconsin, 53714
Phone: 608-240-9110 • Fax: 608-240-9112 • E-mail: tom@facilityengineering.com
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 • No v e m be r 2 0 1 5 G e r n et z k e • 3 3
ABSTRACT
During 2014 and 2015, building envelope and cladding assessments were completed
on 54 K-12 public school buildings in Wisconsin. Assessments were conducted to identify
building envelope defects, needed repairs and maintenance, and opportunities for energyefficiency
improvements. Multiple cladding and wall systems, fenestrations, and roofing
systems were assessed. Observed deficiencies included components reaching the end of
their service life, deterioration or failure as a result of improper design, and deterioration
or failure as a result of improper installation and construction. The photograph-intensive
presentation will identify and analyze observed trends occurring across cladding types and
ages of construction.
SPEAKER
Thomas M. Gernetzke, FRCI, RR C, RWC, RE WC, RBE C, RRO — Facility Eng ineering , Inc .
Tom Ger netzke is a project manager for Facility Engineering, Inc., in Madison, WI.
FEI provides professional building envelope services, including analysis and design of roofing,
waterproofing, fenestration, and masonry/cladding systems. He specializes in roofing
and waterproofing systems and has successfully performed roofing and waterproofing
assessment, analysis, design, and construction administration for rehabilitation of roofing
systems, horizontal and vertical waterproofing systems, below-grade structures, cladding
and wall systems, and parking structures. Gernetzke performs hygrothermal analysis, peer
review, and related services for new construction products and has led multidisciplinary
design and construction teams in the completion of complex and atypical projects.
3 4 • Ge r n et z k e 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 • No v e m be r 2 0 1 5
INTRODUCTION
Wisconsin public school facilities face
a daunting task: Construct and maintain
facilities that are often intended for indefinite
service with capital budgets barely
adequate for structures intended for very
short-term use. In an effort to maximize
interior space and amenities, building envelope
components are often short-changed
during the design and construction process.
This position was readily apparent during
multiple public school building envelope
system assessments conducted between
2014 and 2015. Approximately 60 school
building envelopes were assessed in an
effort to identify deficiencies requiring repair
or rehabilitation and to prepare budgets in
preparation to fund and execute this work.
Although the sample size of schools
assessed is small in comparison to the total
number of public schools in Wisconsin, this
paper will focus on identifying initial trends
observed during these assessments. When
available, data obtained from follow-up
investigation and repair will be presented.
DISTRICT/SCHOOL DEMOGRAPHICS
There are 424 public school districts in
Wisconsin serving approximately 875,000
students. These districts include 511 high
schools, 23 junior-high schools, 353 middle
schools, 1,238 elementary schools,
and 70 combined elementary/secondary
schools. Wisconsin public school funding
for 2012-2013 was estimated at $10.71
billion—44.9% from state aid, 43.4% from
local property taxes, 7.8% from federal aid,
and 3.9% from other local revenue sources.
For comparison, 17 school districts are
represented in this paper. In 2011-2012,
these districts served 30,562 students on
budgets totaling $383,533,000. Of these 17
districts, approximately four could be considered
urban districts, with the remaining
being rural districts.
The state of Wisconsin has enacted
“open enrollment” options, allowing parents
the option to send their children to
school districts other than those in which
they reside. To determine if there was a
relationship between open enrollment and
building envelope conditions, this author
looked at open enrollment data. Of the 17
districts represented, seven districts had
“negative” open enrollment (more students
left the district than chose to come into the
district from other districts); two districts
were “neutral” open enrollment (the number
of students leaving the district was offset
by the number choosing to enter); and the
remaining eight districts had “positive” open
enrollment (more students chose to enter
the district than the number choosing to
leave). This author did not observe a relationship
between open enrollment desirability
of a school district and building envelope
conditions.
GENERAL ASSESSMENT
DISCUSSION
The building envelope assessments were
primarily conducted in an effort to develop
budgets for repairs, rehabilitation, and
other deferred maintenance needs. Some
of the assessments were conducted at the
request of districts to identify and assist
with remediating specific issues of concern.
The scope of these assessments generally
fell into the following categories:
• “Complete building envelope” assessments
included accessible roofing
systems, cladding and wall systems,
fenestration, and hardscaping/landscaping
that could impact building
envelope performance.
• “Building-envelope-only” assessments
included cladding and wall
systems, fenestration, and hardscaping/
landscaping that could
impact building envelope performance.
These assessments were
requested when the district was
already utilizing roofing system data
and recommendations provided by
other consultants, manufacturers,
or contractors.
• “Roofing-only” assessments were
conducted to evaluate roofing and
“above-roof” building envelope systems
that could impact the performance
and longevity of the roofing
system. It should be noted the
majority of these initial “roofingonly”
assessments eventually developed
into involvement with otherthan-
roof building envelope efforts.
Many of these assessments were completed
in response to districts desiring to
utilize recent Wisconsin legislation creating
funding mechanisms for school districts
to fund deferred and other capital maintenance
projects without the requirement
to pass a referendum for approval. While
this mechanism has been a boon to school
maintenance funding, strict requirements
for expending funds are in place. These
requirements often shorten time frames for
assessment, design, and construction. As
a result, many of these assessments were
conducted in inclement winter weather.
Projects that proceeded into design and construction
were often completed within less
than 30-day design windows and shortened
bidding periods, which led to construction
occurring while school was in session.
For assessment purposes, the ages of
the facilities are categorized as 2010-2015,
1990-2010, 1970-1990, 1940-1970, and
<1940. Many of these facilities have multiple
additions constructed over multiple
age periods. A summary of facility ages is
in Table 1.
Based on the efforts described in Table
1, the following was observed.
SEALANTS
Building sealant deficiencies were readily
apparent. Thirty-six school buildings had
some observed sealant defect or deficiency.
The predominant use of sealants occurred
at masonry and EIFS control or expansion
joints and at fenestration-to-cladding
interfaces. The primary modes of failure
observed are inadequate joint width, inadequate
joint design, cohesive sealant failure,
and adhesive failure. Sealant deficiencies
were not limited to one or two age periods;
even the newest of construction had sealant
deficiencies. See Table 2.
Comm on Deficiencies With Public Sch ool
Building Envelopes
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 • No v e m be r 2 0 1 5 G e r n et z k e • 3 5
3 6 • Ge r n et z k e 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 • No v e m be r 2 0 1 5
School ID District ID Age Period Assessment
1 1 1940-1970, 1970-1990, 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration, Roofing
2 1 1990-2010, 2010-2015 Cladding, Fenestration, Roofing
3 3 1970-1990, 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration, Roofing
4 4 1940-1970, 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration
5 5 1940-1970, 1970-1990, 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration, Roofing
6 6 1970-1990 Cladding, Fenestration, Roof Cladding
7 6 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration, Roof Cladding
8 6 <1940, 1940-1970 Cladding, Fenestration, Roof Cladding
9 6 1970-1990, 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration, Roof Cladding
10 6 1970-1990, 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration
11 6 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration, Roof Cladding
12 13 1970-1990, 1990-2010, 2010-2015 Cladding, Fenestration
13 13 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration
14 14 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration
15 14 1940-1970, 1970-1990, 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration
16 14 1970-1990, 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration
17 18 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration, Roofing
18 18 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration, Roofing
19 17 1970-1990 Cladding, Fenestration, Roofing
20 17 1970-1990, 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration, Roofing
21 17 <1940 Cladding, Fenestration, Roofing
22 17 1940-1970 Cladding, Fenestration, Roofing
23 24 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration, Roofing
24 24 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration, Roofing
25 24 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration, Roofing
26 24 <1940, 1970-1990, 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration, Roofing
27 24 1940-1970 Cladding, Fenestration, Roofing
28 21 1940-1970, 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration, Roof Cladding
29 21 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration
30 21 <1940, 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration
31 21 1970-1990 Cladding, Fenestration
32 21 1940-1970 Cladding, Fenestration, Roof Cladding
33 21 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration
34 21 <1940, 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration, Roof Cladding
35 21 1970-1990, 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration
36 21 <1940, 1970-1990 Cladding, Fenestration
37 21 1940-1970, 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration
38 21 1940-1970 Cladding, Fenestration
39 21 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration
40 21 1940-1970, 1970-1990 Cladding, Fenestration
41 21 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration, Roof Cladding
42 21 1970-1990 Cladding, Fenestration, Roof Cladding
43 20 1970-1990, 1990-2010 Roof Cladding, Roofing
44 20 1970-1990, 1990-2010 Roof Cladding, Roofing
45 19 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration, Roofing, Structural
46 19 1970-1990 Cladding, Fenestration, Roofing
47 19 1940-1970, 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration, Roofing
48 27 1990-2010 Cladding, Fenestration, Roofing
49 22 1940-1970, 2010-2015 Roof Cladding, Roofing
50 22 1940-1970, 2010-2015 Roof Cladding, Roofing
51 22 1940-1970, 2010-2015 Roof Cladding, Roofing
52 22 1940-1970, 2010-2015 Roof Cladding, Roofing
53 22 1940-1970, 2010-2015 Roof Cladding, Roofing
54 22 <1940, 1970-1990, 2010-2015 Roof Cladding, Roofing
55 22 1940-1970, 1970-1990 Roof Cladding, Roofing
56 22 1940-1970, 1970-1990, 2010-2015 Roof Cladding, Roofing
57 22 2010-2015 Roof Cladding, Roofing
58 22 1970-1990 Cladding, Fenestration, Roofing
59 22 1940-1970, 1970-1990, 1990-2010, 2010-2015 Cladding, Fenestration, Roofing
60 23 1940-1970, 1970-1990, 1990-2010 Roof Cladding, Roofing
Table 1 – School ages and assessment types.
Based on the author’s previous experience, significant
use of improper or inadequate materials such as acrylic
residential bathroom sealant was expected. However, this
was only observed in remedial repairs attempted by district
personnel themselves.
Much of the new construction sealant failure was a result
of defective workmanship (Photo 1). While no further study
was conducted, it is believed these failures are attributable
to improper preparation, lack of primer, lack of backer rod,
and lack of adequate tooling.
Observed masonry control joint failures were significant.
In addition to routine cohesive and adhesive sealant failures
and age, many masonry control
joints were of inadequate
width to support a properly
performing sealant joint
(Photo 2). Multiple instances
of joint widths of 1/8 in. were
observed.
EIFS system joints will be
discussed in the EIFS section.
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 • No v e m be r 2 0 1 5 G e r n et z k e • 3 7
ID Age Deficiency
1 1990-2010 Cohesive failure, improper joint width
2 1940-1970, 1990-2010 Adhesive failure, improper joint width, improper use
3 1990-2010 Cohesive failure, improper joint width
4 <1940, 1990-2010 Cohesive failure, improper joint width
5 1970-1990 Cohesive failure, improper joint width, improper use
6 1940-1970 Cohesive failure, improper joint width, improper use
7 1990-2010 Improper use
8 1970-1990, 1990-2010 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure, improper joint width, improper use
9 <1940, 1970-1990 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure
10 1940-1970, 1990-2010 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure, improper joint width
11 <1940, 1990-2010 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure, improper joint width, improper use
12 1940-1970 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure, improper joint width
13 1990-2010 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure, improper joint width
14 1940-1970, 1970-1990 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure, improper joint width
15 1970-1990 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure, improper joint width
16 1990-2010, 2010-2015 Improper use
17 1990-2010 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure, improper joint width
18 1970-1990 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure, improper joint width
19 1940-1970, 1990-2010 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure, improper joint width
20 1970-1990, 1990-2010 Abuse, vandalism, Adhesive failure, cohesive failure, improper joint width
21 1940-1970, 1990-2010 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure, improper joint width
22 1990-2010 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure, improper joint width
23 1990-2010 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure, improper joint width
24 1940-1970, 1970-1990, 1990-2010 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure
25 1970-1990 Adhesive failure
26 1990-2010 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure, improper joint width
27 <1940, 1940-1970 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure
28 1970-1990, 1990-2010 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure, improper joint width
29 1990-2010 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure, improper joint width
30 1990-2010 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure, improper joint width
31 1940-1970, 1970-1990, 1990-2010 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure, improper material
32 1970-1990, 1990-2010 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure, improper joint width
33 1990-2010 Adhesive failure, cohesive failure
Table 2 – Observed sealant deficiencies and age of school.
Photo 2 – Inadequate sealant
Photo 1 – Adhesive joint width.
sealant joint failure.
MASONRY
With the exception of
all but two of the observed
schools, all of the assessed
schools utilized masonry to
some extent. While brick
masonry is the most common,
split-faced concrete
masonry unit (CMU), ashlar
stone, and precast masonry
elements were also present at
many schools. The predominant
failure or deficiency with
all these masonry systems was failure and/
or lack of proper masonry control joints.
There were at least three instances
where the number and location of installed
joints did not equal the locations indicated
on the construction documents. Many
instances of corner and pilaster corner
cracking were attributable to improper control
joints. In one instance, a random
sample of joints was selected for additional
scrutiny. Each randomly selected joint was
found to be sealant-applied over a mortar
joint with no mechanism for expansion/
contraction or long-term masonry growth.
The use of CMUs at schools is becoming
more popular. However, based on observations
conducted through these assessments,
use of CMU can be problematic.
With one exception, all split-faced and
fluted-face CMU applications were found
to have uncontrolled or unintended mortar
joint cracking and unit failure. While no
investigation was conducted of these specific
instances, it is believed the cracking is a
result of the lack of masonry control joints.
In addition to control joint-related failures,
failure or complete lack of proper
through-wall flashings is apparent (Photo
3). Fortunately for many schools, many of
these deficiencies did not appear to result
in significant leaks to the interior. However,
schools that are experiencing leaks to the
interior appear to be suffering from systemic
and consistent through-wall flashing
failures. A related observed trend is the
complete lack of through-wall or related
masonry moisture-management flashings
in ancillary structures such as trash
enclosures, seating walls, and greenhouse
support structures. This observed trend
appears to be limited to structures built
since 1990.
Precast concrete architectural elements
have been utilized in masonry systems for
many years. While most of the instances
of these elements were observed to be performing
well, there were multiple buildings
less than 20 years of age with widespread
failure. The most egregious of these is a very
large school less than 10 years old with evidence
of failure occurring at every precast
element. The severity of these failures varies
from minor cracking to near-complete
disintegration. The other precast mode of
distress observed is a result of use of mortar
joints in a skyward condition at sills and
coping.
Masonry chimneys appear to be the victim
of energy efficiency and modernization.
Masonry chimneys associated with heating
plants that have been converted to cooler,
more efficient hot water or other “efficient”
systems have exhibited considerable distress
(Photo 4). In addition to remaining
cooler and not having the ability to “burn
off” excess moisture accumulations in the
masonry, much of the combustion gas
produced is more caustic than traditional
combustion smoke and gas.
EIFS
Although not a predominant cladding in
educational environments, the use of EIFS
has become more popular, especially at
“nonaccessible” elevations. Unfortunately,
if an elevation can be seen from grade, it is
likely an accessible target for high school
kids with golf balls, arrows, and rocks.
Although damage and abuse of EIFS
are common, the primary modes of failure
are surface cracking, finish failure (Photo
5), and joint failure. These failures are
directly attributable to improper installation
techniques. Where observed during
invasive analysis, failed EIFS systems were
not back-wrapped, requirements for the use
and location of reinforcement mesh were
not followed, and transitions to adjacent
construction were not considered. Similarly,
failed EIFS sealant joints appeared to be
directly correlated to a lack of applied base
coat into the joint and other requirements
in preparation to receive sealant (Photos 6
and 7).
3 8 • Ge r n et z k e 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 • No v e m be r 2 0 1 5
Photo 5 – Observed EIFS finish failure.
Photo 3 – Masonry
deterioration due to lack
of proper flashing.
Photo 4 – Typical
masonry chimney
deterioration.
PRECAST CONCRETE
TILT-UP PANELS
The use of precast concrete tilt-up panels
is becoming more prevalent in school
construction. Theoretically, these systems
are economical
to construct and
maintain; however,
their construction
is not
without concern.
It is significant
that in every
assessment or
investigation of
insulated tilt-up
panels (each constructed
since
1990), cracking
was observed
(Photos 8 and 9).
Given this
widespread phenomenon,
our general approach to these
panels is simple. Cracking that occurs on
panels extending to grade does not typically
need to be addressed if it does not contribute
to interior building leakage. Cracking
that occurs on panels terminating above
finished space without through-wall flashing
or other moisture-management provisions
should be addressed due to potential
contributions to interior building leakage.
For example, cracking of panels above a
roof area where the roof utilizes a surfacemounted
flashing transition to the concrete
panel could potentially leak and should be
addressed.
FENESTRATION
Windows and doors contribute
significantly to overall
building envelope system performance.
Primary deficiencies
observed include thermal inefficiency,
insulated glass unit
(IGU) failure, glazing failure,
seal and gasket failure, operator/
mechanism failure, frame
and finish failure, and abuse
(Photo 10).
Although often a contentious
issue, it is widely accepted
in Wisconsin that singlepane,
nonthermally broken
metal-frame window and door
assemblies are deficient. The
other contentious issue is use
of operable
windows in
schools. A
careful balance
must
be struck
between teachers and school safety personnel
desiring the ability to open their
windows and HVAC engineers desiring to
maximize mechanical equipment and avoid
unbalanced conditions any time a window
is opened.
Regardless of the political positions
staked out during these debates, window
(and door) operator mechanisms that create
conditions where a window cannot be closed
are clearly deficient. During a very memorable
assessment, the author observed multiple
operable window units open approximately
½ in. or more that could not be
closed. The exterior air temperature during
this assessment averaged 15ºF.
Window and doorframe finish failures
and gasket/seal failures were observed.
Given the quantity of deicing material
applied at school entrances, doorframe finish
corrosion and finish failures are common.
Although not frequent, the incidence
of window seal and gasket failures observed
in recently constructed schools is somewhat
disturbing.
Aluminum-clad, wood-framed windows
are also popular in Wisconsin schools. When
assessed, these windows were performing
very well or were completely rotted and
failed; no middle ground seemed apparent.
An interesting
lesson
learned during
these assessments
and
subsequent
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 • No v e m be r 2 0 1 5 G e r n et z k e • 3 9
Photo 7 – Failed EIFS
repair attempt.
Photo 6 – Significant biological
growth on EIFS finish.
Photo 8 – Typical
precast concrete
wall panel
cracking.
Photo 9 – Typical
precast wall panel
cracking. This photo
was taken on a new
school that had
not yet opened to
students.
window replacement designs was the presence
of a “behavior room” in most elementary
schools. These rooms often benefit
from the use of fixed, security-grade window
assemblies with translucent daylighting or
opaque, light-transmitting glazing to conceal
the visibility of anybody using the room
from the public.
ROOFING
In general, roofing assessments were
seemingly unremarkable. The majority of
systems assessed were ballasted EPDM,
mechanically attached (MA) and fully
adhered (FA) ethylene propylene diene
monomer (EPDM), granule-surfaced modified
bitumen, and gravel-surfaced built-up
roofing (BUR). New school additions are
beginning to utilize MA/FA thermoplastic
polyolefin (TPO). Without exception, all roofing
systems met or exceeded their warranty
periods with (reported) satisfactory performance.
Nuclear scans were conducted on
many of the ballasted EPDM roofing systems,
confirming lack of moisture present.
Roofing-related deficiencies largely
involved interfaces to adjacent systems.
Transitions to masonry, precast, and EIFS
wall systems were particularly difficult.
When investigated, these deficient
transition details were
often found to be a result of
improper construction phasing
and lack of adequate
flashing details. Further, in
all leak conditions investigated,
the roofing system
was found to be performing
well while the wall cladding
assembly was leaking.
While single-ply roofing
has dominated the
Wisconsin roofing market,
concern often exists regarding
potential abuse from the
ground. Multiple schools
were observed with debris
thrown onto the roof from
adjacent at-grade surfaces.
One interesting school roofing
design guideline used by
a large Wisconsin school district:
If you can throw something
onto a roof, install bituminous.
If you can’t throw
something onto the roof,
install single-ply.
Transitions to roofing
systems of different vintages are often also
problematic. One district in particular has
experienced significant difficulty
transitioning new TPO systems
to existing gravel built-up roofing
(GBUR) systems (Photo 11).
In addition to system considerations,
simple maintenance and
cleaning were found to be lacking in
many cases.
RETROFITS
Besides the transitional lowslope
roofing systems, two standingseam
low-slope retrofit systems were
assessed. Often touted as “the last
roof you’ll ever need,” these systems
were not without their difficulties.
Both systems were reported to
be leaking. One utilized a simple
geometry draining to the exterior/
building perimeter; the other used a
more complex geometry draining to
internal drains, which utilized the
original roof drain locations.
In addition to suffering from
complex geometry and poor drainage
conditions, the system with the complex
geometry was damaged by an HVAC
contractor during a previous mechanical
upgrade. This system also utilized 45-mil
EPDM flashing at every roof-to-wall transition.
In addition to becoming brittle, incompatible
“repair” coatings were applied in
many locations, further exacerbating the
deteriorating conditions.
STRUCTURAL
Although structural issues were typically
not assessed, one district requested we
review an interesting condition. The district
had constructed a field house utilizing loadbearing
CMU supporting long-span steel
structural members. Students had damaged
the CMU by throwing shot-put indoors
against the wall.
OTHER CLADDING
In addition to the systems listed previously,
other cladding systems were assessed.
Most noteworthy were vinyl siding, vertical
wood siding/cladding, and wood trims and
fascia. All instances of vinyl siding exhibited
some distress, such as unhooked/
unsecured laps and inadequate transition
to adjacent envelope components.
In general, wood cladding used to cover
larger surface areas either required painting
or was experiencing finish deterioration;
4 0 • Ge r n et z k e 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 • No v e m be r 2 0 1 5
Photo 10 – Wood window frame and interface sealant
joint failure.
Photo 11 – Inadequate GBUR to single-ply
transition. Note drains on single-ply area;
GBUR is up-slope of single-ply roofing.
wood trims and fascia were typically in better
condition.
CONCLUSIONS
The building envelope assessments and
analysis of the collective results support the
following conclusions:
1. While not readily apparent, observed
building envelope trends are not
necessarily indicative of a school district’s
size, budget, or other demographic
factors.
2. While newer school construction utilizes
less expensive cladding materials,
the use of these materials
does not necessarily equate to more
required maintenance. Further,
while not specifically studied,
required repairs on cladding materials
considered to be more durable or
time-tested are often more expensive
to repair than materials considered
less-durable.
3. Regardless of cladding, the primary
factors for building envelope deficiencies
are improper workmanship
and lack of maintenance.
4. Districts with buildings 20 years old
or newer often considered them to be
“new” and not requiring any maintenance
to cladding components.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on observations and conclusions,
the following points are recommended to
improve long-term durability and performance
for Wisconsin public school building
envelopes:
1. School districts should directly retain
and utilize a qualified third-party
building envelope quality assurance
consultant/observer. Where original
construction documents were available
for review during assessment,
installed conditions often did not
match design requirements.
2. School districts should directly
retain and utilize a third-party building
envelope consultant to provide
peer review, building envelope commissioning,
or similar services from
initial design through construction
closeout.
3. School districts should be required
to include projected maintenance
and repair funds in their initial
referendum requests. These funds
should be held in escrow, only to be
spent on building envelope maintenance
and repair. The amount of
these funds should be determined
by a qualified third-party cost and/
or building envelope consultant during
referendum preparation.
4. School districts should develop
building envelope maintenance programs
that begin no later than one
year following construction.
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 • No v e m be r 2 0 1 5 G e r n et z k e • 4 1