Building facades are expected to endure forces from nature for the service life of the building. However, increasing building complexity and intolerance for poor performance has led to more frequent facade failures. Common facade failures include water leaks, cracking, bulging, and deterioration. A variety of forces can cause failures, including wind, gravity, expansion of materials like ice and corrosion, and structural movements of the building. Proper investigation of failures requires understanding the facade system and forces it is subject to.
Building facades are expected to endure forces from nature for the service life of the building. However, increasing building complexity and intolerance for poor performance has led to more frequent facade failures. Common facade failures include water leaks, cracking, bulging, and deterioration. A variety of forces can cause failures, including wind, gravity, expansion of materials like ice and corrosion, and structural movements of the building. Proper investigation of failures requires understanding the facade system and forces it is subject to.
Building facades are expected to endure forces from nature for the service life of the building. However, increasing building complexity and intolerance for poor performance has led to more frequent facade failures. Common facade failures include water leaks, cracking, bulging, and deterioration. A variety of forces can cause failures, including wind, gravity, expansion of materials like ice and corrosion, and structural movements of the building. Proper investigation of failures requires understanding the facade system and forces it is subject to.
Senior Principal, Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Princeton, NJ, USA Building facades serve mainly to protect occupants and contents fromthe elements. Failure of the building envelope (i.e. walls, roof and windows) to function as intended usually has a significant impact on the serviceability of the building. Roofs and windows periodically fail and are replaced; however, the building facade is expected to endure the forces of nature for the service life of the building. The increasing complexity of modern buildings, combined with decreasing tolerance for undesirable performance of building systems, has resulted in an ever increasing frequency of building facade failures. This paper addresses common serviceability and performance problems associated with various types of building facades. Methods and tools useful for investigation of facade failures are discussed. The paper is not intended to be a comprehensive guide for the forensic investigator, but is offered as an aid to help recognise symptoms and evaluate conditions that underlie common building facade failures. The types of building facades and investigation methods discussed in this paper are primarily based on the authors experience within the USA. 1. Introduction Collapse of building walls usually makes the evening news. Less dramatic facade failures such as water leaks are less newsworthy but far more common. Such serviceability failures are also collectively far more costly than wall collapses. Physical evidence of building facade failures may often include cracking, bulging and deterioration of the building walls. These conditions may result from a wide variety of forces acting on or within the building walls, or from interactions between the facade and other building elements. A clear understanding of the characteristics and vulnerabilities of the facade system is needed to understand why it failed to perform as intended. 2. Types of facades Early buildings often employed massive masonry walls that carried structural loads to the foundation as well as enclosing the building. Within the last 150 years, the development of the skeleton frame structural system has resulted in exterior wall facades being physically and functionally separated from the main buildings structural system. Contemporary cladding systems, such as thin brick, metal, tile or stone veneers, are much lighter and thinner than traditional wall systems. These facades must be designed and connected to the back-up wall or building structure in a manner to support their own weight and to resist any imposed forces with an adequate factor of safety. Facade support systems may incorporate flexible connections that secure the facade to the structure without inadvertently imposing undesirable restraints against natural building or facade movements. Water leakage and condensation management systems vary depending on the wall and cladding system. Mass masonry walls are intended to absorb water before it reaches the interior and allow it to evaporate over time. Contemporary walls may deflect rainwater at the wall surface (surface barrier) or utilise an internal cavity and flashing system that provides two lines of defence against water infiltration. The contemporary rain screen wall system allows water through open joints in the facade where it is directed to the exterior by a membrane within the wall. 3. Forces of nature Building facades must resist a variety of externally and internally imposed forces. External forces include lateral loads from wind or earthquakes and vertical loads from the facades own weight. Internally imposed forces may result from expanding elements in the wall (e.g. ice formation or corrosion scale) or by restrained planar movements between the facade and the walls substrate or the buildings structural frame (e.g. thermal expansion or concrete shrinkage). External loads are usually well understood and the response of the facade to these forces is predictable. Wind, gravity and even earthquake loads can be quantified and analysed. The facade system should be designed to accommodate such forces. However, internal wall forces are more complex and may vary substantially from structure to structure and even within the same structure depending on the materials and component configurations. Internal wall and facade forces include restrained thermal expansion and contraction of the facade, or accumulated moisture expansion of fired-clay facade materials such as brick or tile following installation. Structural building movements can also impose unexpected forces on the wall or facades. Deflection of a relatively flexible steel building frame or creep shrinkage of the buildings Forensic Engineering Volume 165 Issue FE1 Building facade failures Beasley Proceedings of the Institution Civil Engineers Forensic Engineering 165 February 2012 Issue FE1 Pages 1319 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/feng.2012.165.1.13 Paper 1100020 Received 07/06/2011 Accepted 08/09/2011 Keywords: brickwork & masonry/buildings, structures & design/failures ice | proceedings ICE Publishing: All rights reserved 13 structural concrete frame can compress or pinch the facade at rigid connections or support points. Such internal wall forces are often overlooked or misunderstood during design and construction, leading to facades that are susceptible to failure. Failure can also occur from gradual loss of strength or erosion of materials used to support the facade. Figure 1 shows a building wall that collapsed from gradual erosion and displacement of a load-bearing wall. Water can be a formidable force of nature. While many exterior wall systems are designed to manage some water entry, excessive water penetration through the facade can cause a variety of problems. Aside from the obvious difficulties associated with water leakage to the interior, excessive water penetration and retention in the wall can lead to corrosion of embedded ferrous metal, which both reduces the strength of the metal element and produces corrosion scale that, if confined, can result in spalls, displacements or cracks in the surrounding masonry. When saturated with water and subjected to cyclic freezing and thawing temperatures, certain absorptive materials (e.g. concrete, mortar, fired-clay masonry) can deteriorate over time. Furthermore, pockets of water trapped in the wall can freeze, expand and crack or displace the adjacent masonry by a phenomenon known as ice lensing. Water trapped in the wall can deteriorate back-up sheathing materials and can reduce the effectiveness of fibre insulation. Figure 2 illustrates spalling of a concrete surface from expansive corrosion of embedded reinforcing steel. 4. Facade failures A building facade must perform a wide range of functions. It is required to control light entry and keep out rain, cold, heat and noise. It also must resist deterioration, cracking, detachment and various other mechanisms of distress. Facades also define a buildings architectural character, so they must retain their aesthetic qualities for the life of the building. Any facade that cannot perform all of these functions satisfactorily has failed. Failure is often a misunderstood term in the context of building walls. Collapse of a wall is an obvious failure. However, a facade that appears to be intact but would not be Figure 1. Building collapse from erosion and displacement of a load-bearing wall Figure 2. Concrete spalling from corroding reinforcing steel Forensic Engineering Volume 165 Issue FE1 Building facade failures Beasley 14 able to sustain normal wind loads because of missing or corroded anchors behind the surface has also failed. In fact, such latent facade failures can be more insidious because they are difficult to detect and may cause facades to detach and collapse without warning. Poor performance of building facades from water leaks or unsightly cracks is far more common than failures that result in a catastrophic collapse that claims life and damages property. Facades are subjected to a wide variety of forces and exposures that may lead to failure. Corrosion or deterioration of cladding or connection materials undermines the ability of the facade to resist normal loads. External forces of a magnitude or orientation not anticipated in design can damage the facade or its support system. Defects introduced during construction or prefabrication of a wall system may also affect the facades ability to perform as designed. Since most contemporary facades are considered non- structural building elements, the initial responsibility for design of a facade support system may be shared between a design architect and a structural engineer. Often, a project designer and project engineer will provide conceptual drawings for the facade support but rely on the contractors shop drawings to detail or refine the connections and supporting elements, which must accommodate wind and seismic loads as well as structural deflections. The facade attachment design responsibility may reside with the fabricators engineer who is engaged by the contractor. This fragmenting of responsibility and the resulting potential lack of coordination are also frequent indirect contributors to facade failures. Failure of a building facade to control water leaks is one of the most common building facade failures. With traditional masonry walls, water leakage to the interior is minimised because the solid masonry mass will absorb water and gradually expel it as vapour. With cavity wall systems, water that penetrates the facade must be conveyed to internal through-wall flashings and weep holes via wall cavities. Blocked or bridged wall cavities, breached or poorly config- ured flashings and clogged or incorrectly positioned weep holes may individually or collectively result in water leakage to the interior. Certain types of construction or architectural features create walls that are more vulnerable to water leakage. Walls that are positioned directly above occupied spaces (i.e. rising walls) tend to result in immediate water leaks if the through- wall flashings fail. Increased water exposure from poorly sloped window sills or from roofs or scuppers that pitch water onto wall surfaces create a greater potential for water leakage. Surface-sealed facades lack redundancy to protect against leakage. The primary water barrier in some rain screen wall systems is buried beneath the facade and cannot be easily accessed for maintenance or repair. Inappropriate, low vapour permeable water-resistive barriers behind the facade may result in wrong-side vapour barriers that lead to condensation within the wall or inhibit vapour transmission and facade drying. 5. Investigating facade failures Determining why a facade failure occurred requires knowledge of the facade system and its connection and support elements, the underlying structural system and the environment and forces acting on the facade. Information on the conditions surrounding the failure is gained from documents and research that describe design requirements, maintenance/repair history and loads at the time of failure. This information helps to establish the background circumstances leading to the failure. The type and scope of investigation performed depends on the nature, severity and consequences of the facade failure. Facade failure investigations often involve the fundamental steps of (a) gathering basic information on the circumstances sur- rounding the failure (b) conducting initial visual assessments of conditions at the site (c) collecting data on site through observations, measure- ments and testing (d) analysing data and developing failure hypotheses (e) reporting facts, methods, findings and opinions of the failure cause(s). 5.1 Data collection Acquiring information relevant to a facade failure usually requires a review of existing published materials and observa- tion of conditions at the failure site. 5.1.1 Document review Review of available relevant drawings, specifications, prior reports, photographs, media coverage, etc. can usually provide background information on the design of the facade system and conditions or exposure at the time of the failure. Since as- built construction often deviates significantly from the design documents, confirmation by direct observation is necessary. 5.1.2 Aerial and birds-eye satellite images Recent advancements in mapping websites such as Bing maps or Google street view can provide valuable tools for investigating facade failures. Detailed photographic images that may have been taken from a few months to several years ago can show the conditions of building facades and surrounding buildings prior to a failure or collapse. 5.1.3 Visual inspection and condition surveys Inspection methods can range from cursory visual and binocular surveys to detailed examination, probe openings and testing or monitoring. Inspection may help to identify and document the severity or nature of existing facade distress in Forensic Engineering Volume 165 Issue FE1 Building facade failures Beasley 15 order to assess possible causes of the failure. Facade cracking, bulging, delamination or leaking usually occurs with patterns or features that can offer clues to their causes. Periodic inspection can also serve to determine the rate of deterioration. A visual condition survey of building facades usually involves documenting conditions by annotating observations on build- ing elevation drawings and high-resolution photographs. The condition survey objectives often include determining the location and nature of distress, identifying patterns of deterioration, establishing potential scope and locations for repair work, and developing baseline conditions for compar- ison with subsequent inspections. Binoculars or telephoto equipment are useful to facilitate observation of facade conditions on tall buildings. The condition survey drawings offer a valuable method of identifying the nature and location of facade damage and visualising the overall patterns of distress and force paths. Conditions identified during a survey will usually help to determine the need for and type of additional studies and field or laboratory tests. 5.1.4 Detailed inspection Close-up visual examination of collapsed and damaged facades and adjacent areas is essential to gain knowledge of as-built construction. Safe access for such close-up examination may be from roof setbacks, balconies, swing or pipe scaffolding, bucket truck, personnel lift or rappelling. Examination of subsurface wall elements, facade connections and adjacent construction requires exploratory probe openings or inspec- tions via borescope or micro-miniature camera device (see Section 5.2). Contractor assistance is required for close-up wall access and for making and patching probe openings. Various measurements (dimensions of typical wall panels, masonry units, joint widths, displacements, crack widths, etc.) need to be taken in detailed inspections. Such measurements also help to confirm whether the original construction documents accurately represent as-built conditions. 5.2 Investigation tools A wide variety of simple, traditional or advanced new equipment is available to the investigator. The tools and equipment required to investigate facade failures vary with the type of failure being investigated. However, certain simple tools are common to most investigations; these include high- resolution digital cameras, tape measures, binoculars, flash- lights, mirrors, sounding hammers, etc. Tools that are more sophisticated, more accurate or dedicated to a specific purpose may also be used. These may include three-dimensional (3D) laser scanning, infrared thermography, strain relief testing, etc. 5.2.1 Measurements Simple measuring devices include tape measures, calipers, levels and optical crack comparators. Measurements of move- ment over time can be made using devices such as reticule gauges, scratch gauges or electronic displacement transducers. Figure 3 shows a common movement gauge device. A variety of devices is also available for temperature and moisture measurements. More sophisticated devices or systems may be used to measure precise relative positions of visible building facade areas relative to a reference point. Newer technologies Figure 3. Reticule gauge used to measure relative movement Forensic Engineering Volume 165 Issue FE1 Building facade failures Beasley 16 include global positioning, electronic distance measuring systems and laser scanning. 5.2.2 Photographic equipment A high-quality digital camera with an adequate optical zoom feature is an essential investigation tool; a video camera may be useful if conditions at the site are changing rapidly. A professional photography service may be needed for aerial views or specialised high-quality photography. 5.2.3 Laser scanning 3D laser scanning technology involves scanning the building facade surface from several vantage points with infrared and/or laser light. The precise position of discrete points on the facade surface is determined by combining the scans to produce a grid of measurements. The resulting high-resolution surface map is useful for identifying displacements, outlining facade features or establishing a baseline drawing for future surveys or comparative measurements. 5.2.4 Infrared thermography Under certain conditions, infrared thermography can be used to detect discontinuities or connection failures behind a building facade. Slight variations in the facade surface temperature measured via an infrared thermography camera may signify a decrease or increase in thermal conductivity of the wall. This variance can result from conductivity interrup- tions from delamination or dislocated facade attachments, or from increased conductivity from wet insulation that can cause thermal short circuits. 5.2.5 Borescope or micro camera A borescope or a micro-miniature camera can be used to view conditions behind a facade surface. A borescopes small- diameter (6 or 8 mm) metal tube or camera head is inserted through a small hole or joint. The device usually includes a light source and digital image capture feature. 5.2.6 Metal detection The location and size of embedded steel reinforcement and steel support or anchor elements beneath a wall surface may need to be known to fully evaluate the facade system. A conventional metal detector can detect the presence of metal and a pachometer can be used to measure the location, orientation, size or depth of underlying metal reinforcement or anchors. 5.2.7 Strain relief Strain relief testing can be used to measure compressive stresses locked into a masonry facade. Such testing involves adhering carbon-filament strain gauges to the wall surface (see Figure 4) and then releasing the in situ stress by saw cutting around the instrumented area of the facade. The strain value is measured before and after saw cutting and the in situ residual facade stress is computed by multiplying the modulus of elasticity of the facade material by the measured strain change. This technique is particularly useful to determine the potential for cracking or compression buckling failure of a masonry facade. 5.3 Field testing Testing representative building facade elements in place can provide an effective means of evaluating the physical char- acteristics and conditions of building facades. 5.3.1 Load testing The behaviour of facade or wall elements under controlled load application often helps to establish their strength, deflection characteristics or mode of failure. Point or uniform loads can be applied with hydraulic or pneumatic systems. Strains and deflections can be measured electronically and computerised data acquisition systems can collect, store and display load, stress and deflection data rapidly during a test. Figure 4. Carbon filament strain gauge adhered to a facade surface Forensic Engineering Volume 165 Issue FE1 Building facade failures Beasley 17 5.3.2 Models and mock-ups Construction and testing of models of the subject wall or facade system and repair mock-ups can help investigators understand the behaviour of complex building facade systems and evaluate the efficacy of repairs. Service loads can be duplicated while monitoring displacements and strains under controlled conditions. Loads can be increased to test the mode of failure. Forces may be focused on connections or facade components of concern. As an investigative tool, duplicating an actual failure with a mock-up of the as-built elements can also provide compelling verification of a failure hypothesis. 5.3.3 Water penetration testing Accurately identifying, tracking and quantifying water leakage into and through an exterior building wall requires a careful and systematic testing approach. Several standards provide controlled water penetration testing methods for diagnostic tools or proof testing to assess a facades compliance with project specifications, standards or codes. Among the standards commonly used for diagnostic water leak testing and assessment of water penetration resistance of wall and fenestration system joints, gaskets and sealant detailing are AAMA 501.2 (AAMA, 2003) and ASTM E1105 (ASTM, 2000). AAMA 501.2 is intended for testing newly installed operable windows and doors. AAMA 511-08 is used for systematically investigating and recreating known water leakage in a fenestration system (AAMA, 2008). 5.4 Laboratory testing Many laboratory tests are available to determine the properties of facade materials, the nature of deterioration and the effectiveness of remedial measures. The majority of the US standards cited in the following have similar or equivalent European standards such as those developed and maintained by the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN), the British Standards Institution (BSI) and the German Institute for Standardisation (DIN). 5.4.1 Physical testing Physical properties of facade materials can be approximated by load testing specimens representative of the subject wall in a controlled laboratory environment. These tests are generally used to establish strength and mechanical characteristics of the wall or facade materials. Compression or flexural testing can be performed on a statistically representative number of masonry, concrete or other samples removed from the building or supplied by a manufacturer to establish the potential strength range of the material. 5.4.2 Petrographic microscopy Petrography involves a standardised microscopic examination of stone, concrete, brick or mortar based on the methods outlined in ASTM C856 (ASTM, 2004a). The objectives of a petrographic examination are to gain information about the composition of the materials and to identify the presence of microscopic defects, visible indicators of deterioration, evi- dence of unsound or reactive aggregate or other deleterious components. Petrographic examination is also used to estimate the watercement ratio, percentage of entrained air or characteristics of the air void system in concrete. In general, petrography indicates the overall quality and soundness of stone, brick, concrete or mortar materials. Petrographic studies are often used in combination with chemical testing to obtain additional information about construction materials. 5.4.3 Chloride content The chloride ion content in concrete or mortar provides quantitative evidence of the potential for corrosion of embedded steel elements. Measurement of the chloride profile (variation in chloride concentration with distance from the surface) can help to establish if the chloride source is external (e.g. salt spray) or internal (e.g. accelerating admixture). The chloride content is determined by methods described in ASTM C1218 (ASTM, 2008) and ASTM C1152 (ASTM, 2004b). 5.4.4 Freezethaw testing The durability of masonry and concrete materials, specifically resistance to cyclic freezing and thawing, is measured by alternately exposing critically saturated samples to tempera- tures above and below freezing. The onset of freezethaw distress is measured by weighing samples periodically during a test to assess weight loss from fragmentation. A dynamic modulus test measures variations in the samples resonant frequency as an early detection of internal sample degradation. Procedures for freezethaw testing of prepared concrete prisms are provided in ASTM C666 (ASTM, 2003), while ASTM C67 (ASTM, 2007a) provides guidelines for freezethaw testing of brick samples. The ratio of cold water absorption to boiling water absorption (or saturation coefficient) is also an indicator of the potential freezethaw durability of brick. The saturation coefficient essentially quantifies the free pore space that is available to accommodate ice formation in a water-saturated brick body. The method of measuring the saturation coefficient is described in ASTM C67 and the criteria for evaluating brick performance are described in ASTM C216 (ASTM, 2007b). 5.4.5 WUFI analysis WUFI (Wa rme und Feuchtetransport Instationa r) analysis involves the use of a computer software program to assess multi-layered building enclosure systems (Kuenzel et al., 2001). This analytical method, which models 1D heat and moisture transport, is gaining popularity for optimising building envelope design and as a diagnostic tool for comparing actual and predicted performance of an enclosure system. 6. Organisation and communication of findings Most building facade failure investigations require conveying the findings to the interested parties in a written report. Depending Forensic Engineering Volume 165 Issue FE1 Building facade failures Beasley 18 on the goal of the investigation, the report may take a variety of forms. However, most investigation reports follow a logical sequence flowing from acquired information, to factual finding, to analysis and opinions, and then to recommendations. The report may start with an introduction and background section. Observations and factual information gained during the investi- gation are provided next, followed by analysis and discussion, which involves assessment and interpretation of verifiable facts. Finally, opinions and conclusions express the investigators determination of the cause of the failure based on the referenced background material and information presented in the report. Reports also often include recommendations for remediation. If a preliminary determination and early report are needed before an investigation is complete, all assumptions and limitations due to incomplete data that formed the basis of the report should be described. However, if further investiga- tions and evaluation of additional data later lead to opinions that differ substantially from the preliminary report, discre- pancies must be explained in a subsequent report. Litigation support cases often require verbal communication of the investigation findings prior to issuance of a written report. Depending on the clients needs, graphic presentations or the development of physical models and court exhibits may also be required. 7. Conclusions The scope and method of facade failure investigation, diagnosis and remediation will vary depending on the nature of the failure. The key objective is to collect sufficient reliable data to determine the underlying cause(s) of the failure. The tools and methods used for the investigation should be selected to provide the most useful and accurate information in order to understand the forces and conditions leading to the failure. Facade failures can result from a wide variety of circumstances. However, they occur most often through careless construction practices or in facade designs that employ overly complex features, especially where materials, connections and details lack redundant facade support mechanisms, fail to accommo- date movement or lack effective wall drainage systems. REFERENCES AAMA(American Architectural Manufacturers Association) (2003) AAMA 501.2-03: Quality assurance of diagnostic water leakage field check of installed storefronts, curtain walls, and sloped glazing systems. AAMA, Schaumburg, IL, USA. AAMA (2008) AAMA 511-08: Voluntary guidelines for forensic water penetration testing of fenestration products. AAMA, Schaumburg, IL, USA. ASTM (2000) ASTM E1105-00: Standard test methods for field determination of water penetration of installed exterior windows, skylights, doors, and curtain walls by uniform or cyclic static air pressure difference. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA. ASTM (2003) ASTM C666/C666M-03: Standard test method for resistance of concrete to rapid freezing and thawing. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA. ASTM (2004a) ASTM C856-04: Standard practice for petrographic examination of hardened concrete. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA. ASTM (2004b) ASTM C1152-04: Standard test method for acid-soluble chloride in mortar and concrete. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA. ASTM (2007a) ASTM C67-07a: Standard test methods for sampling and testing brick and structural clay tile. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA. ASTM (2007b) ASTM C216-07a: Standard specification for facing brick (solid masonry units made from clay or shale). ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA. ASTM (2008) ASTM C1218/C1218M-08: Standard test method for water-soluble chloride in mortar and concrete. ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA. Kuenzel HM, Karagiozis AN and Holm AH (2001) A hygrothermal design tool for architects and engineers. In Moisture Analysis and Condensation Control in Building Envelopes (Trechsel HR (ed.)). ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA. WHAT DO YOU THINK? To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as discussion in a future issue of the journal. Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineering professionals, academics and stu- dents. Papers should be 20005000 words long (briefing papers should be 10002000 words long), with adequate illustrations and references. You can submit your paper online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you will also find detailed author guidelines. Forensic Engineering Volume 165 Issue FE1 Building facade failures Beasley 19
The Modern Bricklayer - A Practical Work on Bricklaying in all its Branches - Volume III: With Special Selections on Tiling and Slating, Specifications Estimating, Etc
Tall Buildings: The Proceedings of a Symposium on Tall Buildings with Particular Reference to Shear Wall Structures, Held in the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Southampton, April 1966