Air Permeance Testing of Concrete Masonry Wall … · Air Permeance Testing of Concrete Masonry ......

Air Permeance Testing of Concrete Masonry

Wall Assemblies Including Assessment of Mortar Joints and Latex Paint Coating

on Assembly Air Permeance

Research Conducted by:

Report and Analysis by: David T. Biggs, P.E., Ryan-Biggs Associates, P.C.

Project No. 05-313 Date: January 17, 2008

Air Permeance Testing of Concrete Masonry Wall Assemblies Including Assessment of Mortar Joints and Latex Paint Coating on Assembly Air Permeance

of 55

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY The NCMA Research and Development Laboratory is devoted to the scientific research and testing of concrete masonry products and systems. The Laboratory is staffed by professional engineers and technicians with many years of experience in the concrete masonry industry. The Laboratory is equipped to perform nearly any physical research or testing of concrete masonry units and assemblages. The Laboratory performs research and development work for all public and private entities interested in the advancement and use of concrete masonry products and systems.

Research and Development Laboratory Staff Jeffery S. Stein, P.E., Manager, Research and Development Laboratory Nicholas R. Lang, Research Engineer M. Douglas Luttrel, Laboratory Technician Michael A. Maroney, Production Technology Specialist Douglas H. Ross, Laboratory Supervisor Sumner W. Svensson, Materials Research Assistant

NATIONAL CONCRETE MASONRY ASSOCIATION

The National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) is a non-profit organization whose mission is to support and advance the common interests of its members in the manufacture, marketing, research, and application of concrete masonry products. The Association is an industry leader in providing technical assistance and education, marketing, research and development, and product and system innovation to its members and to the industry.

NCMA Technical Staff Robert D. Thomas, Vice President of Engineering Jason J. Thompson, Director of Engineering Dennis W. Graber, P.E., Director of Technical Services Rodger R. Prunty II, P.E. Manager of Engineered Landscape Products Gary R. Sturgeon, P. Eng. Technical Services Engineer Michael F. Werner, P.E., Engineering Projects Manager

National Concrete Masonry Association Research and Development Laboratory

13750 Sunrise Valley Drive Herndon, VA 20171

(703) 713-1900 www.ncma.org

This publication is intended for use by professional personnel competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of the information provided herein, and willing to accept total responsibility for the application of this information in specific instances. Results from tests may vary and the National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) does not warrant the results contained herein for specific uses or purposes and the findings are not a substitute for sound engineering evaluations, judgment and opinions for specific projects or uses. The NCMA is not responsible for the use or application of the information contained in this publication and disclaims all responsibility therefore.


of 55

Table of Contents

1.0—INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................5 2.0—MATERIALS..........................................................................................................................5

2.1 Concrete Masonry Units ......................................................................................................5 2.2 Mortar ..................................................................................................................................7 2.3 Latex Paint Coating .............................................................................................................7

3.0—CONSTRUCTION AND CURING OF WALL ASSEMBLIES............................................7 4.0—TEST PROCEDURES AND RESULTS ................................................................................8

4.1 Testing Procedure ................................................................................................................8 4.2 Air Permeance Test Results – Phase 1...............................................................................10 4.3 Air Permeance Test Results – Phase 2...............................................................................13

5.0—OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................................................17 5.1 Observations from Phase 1 ................................................................................................17 5.2 Observations from Phase 2 ................................................................................................18

6.0—CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................23 6.1 Phase 1 ...............................................................................................................................23 6.2 Phase 2 ...............................................................................................................................24 6.3 Testing Procedures.............................................................................................................24 6.4 Additional Research...........................................................................................................25

7.0—REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................25 APPENDIX A—Concrete masonry unit reports ...........................................................................26 APPENDIX B—Paint technical data bulletin ...............................................................................29 APPENDIX C—Phase 1 Air permeance measurements ...............................................................31 APPENDIX D—Mortar joint area calculation ..............................................................................37 APPENDIX E—Phase 2 Wall Assembly Results after Non-Incidental Area Sealing ..................38 APPENDIX F—Dry-film Paint Thickness Measurements............................................................41 APPENDIX G—Phase 2 Individual Wall Assembly Air Permeance Results...............................42 APPENDIX H—Phase 2 Wall Assembly Combined Results .......................................................52


of 55

This research was funded through the financial contribution of the NCMA Research and Education Foundation.

NCMA Education and Research Foundation 13750 Sunrise Valley Drive

Herndon, VA 20171 877.343.6268

www.ncma.org/foundation/index.html The following companies donated materials used in the research investigation. Their support and contributions are gratefully acknowledged. Carolina Stalite Company P.O. Box 1037 Salisbury, NC 28145

Piedmont Block Company 106 Old Davidson Place Concord, NC 28027

The review, feedback, and oversight of this research project that was provided by NCMA’s Air Barrier Testing Task Group are greatly appreciated. Ed Freyermuth, Masonry Technical Committee Chair Steve Hunt, Energy Subcommittee Chair Dave Dimmick, Air Barrier Testing Task Group Chair Scot Brown Kevin Cavanaugh Tony Darkangelo Don Foster Paul Grahovac Larry Hilldore Bob Howell

Peter Janopaul Andrew Mackie Lee McClinton Dana Morse Charles Ostrander Paula Pearson

Bryan Powers John Swink Kerry VonDross Darryl Winegar Lloyd West Rob Zobel


of 55

Air Permeance Testing of Concrete Masonry Wall

Assemblies Including Assessment of Mortar Joints and Latex Paint Coating

on Assembly Air Permeance

1.0—INTRODUCTION This report describes testing performed on single-wythe concrete masonry unit assemblies to measure their resistance to air leakage through each assembly. The testing was performed at the Research and Development Laboratory of the National Concrete Masonry Association. Ryan-Biggs Associates compiled the report and performed the data analyses. Fifteen wall assemblies were constructed from three different sets of concrete masonry units and tested for their resistance to air leakage under defined pressures. The nominal thickness of all the concrete masonry units was 12 inches (305 mm). The assemblies were initially tested without coatings or sealants to obtain a baseline datum of the air permeance. Following the initial testing, the mortar joints were coated with silicon sealant and the assembly was retested to measure any difference in air permeance through the assembly. From this testing, it was hoped that the influence of the mortar joints on the air permeance of concrete masonry assemblies could be gauged. Results and observations relating to initial testing and mortar joint sealing are referred to as Phase 1 of this project. After assessing the effects of sealing the mortar joints in Phase 1, the walls were coated with commercially available latex paint, and the dry-film thickness of paint needed to comply with proposed code requirements was determined. The latex paint coating portion of this project is referred to as Phase 2. The concrete masonry unit strengths were tested using procedures defined within ASTM C 140, Standard Test Methods of Sampling and Testing Concrete Masonry Units and Related Units (Ref. 1). The air permeance testing was performed in accordance with ASTM E 2178, Standard Test Method for Air Permeance of Building Materials (Ref. 2). 2.0—MATERIALS 2.1 Concrete Masonry Units The concrete masonry units were delivered in ready-to-build condition. Three aggregate types in different proportions were used to manufacture the concrete masonry units, which included two different granite screenings and a lightweight expanded slate aggregate. The mix designs used to manufacture the three different units are summarized in Table 1. The aggregate gradations of these materials are shown in Figure 1. Noted in the legend of Figure 1 is the fineness modulus of each aggregate.


of 55

Table 1 – Concrete Masonry Unit Mix Designs Component Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Cement, lbs (kg) 950 (431) 925 (420) 975 (442) Fly Ash, lbs (kg) 50 (23) 50 (23) ---- Lightweight Aggregate, lbs (kg) ---- 2600 (1179) 6000 (2722) Granite Screenings No. 1, lbs (kg) 3400 (1542) 3800 (1724) 200 (91) Granite Screenings No. 2, lbs (kg) 4900 (2223) ---- ----

Aggregate Gradation

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

3/8 4 8 16 30 50 100 Pan

Sieve Size

Perc

ent P

assi

ng

Lightweight Aggregate FM = 3.50

Granite Screenings No. 1 FM = 2.69

Granite Screenings No. 2 FM = 3.41

Figure 1: Aggregate Gradations

The physical properties of each unit type were evaluated in accordance with ASTM C 140 (Ref. 1). Results of the unit tests are summarized in Table 2. Each unit type met the physical, absorption, and compressive strengths requirements of ASTM C 90, Standard Specification for Loadbearing Concrete Masonry Units (Ref. 3). The detailed reports are shown in Appendix A.


of 55

Table 2—Properties of Concrete Masonry Units Physical Property

(Average of 3 Units) Set 1 Set 2 Set 3

Width, in (mm) 11.64 (295.7) 11.63 (295.4) 11.65 (295.9) Height, in (mm) 7.66 (194.6) 7.61 (193.3) 7.66 (194.6) Length, in (mm) 15.58 (395.7) 15.57 (395.5) 15.60 (396.2) Minimum face shell thickness, in (mm) 1.51 (38.4) 1.51 (38.4) 1.51 (38.4) Minimum web thickness, in (mm) 1.27 (32.3) 1.26 (32.0) 1.26 (32.0) Percent solid 47.2% 46.8% 42.7% Density, lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 126.3 (2023) 107.2 (1717) 93.9 (1504) Absorption, lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 10.1 (162) 11.9 (191) 13.4 (215) Allowable Absorption, lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 13.0(208) 15.0(240) 18.0(288) Net compressive unit strength, lb/in.2 (MPa) 2810 (19.4) 2770 (19.1) 2740 (18.9) 2.2 Mortar Type S masonry cement mortar supplied by the laboratory was used in the construction of the test wall assemblies. The mortar was batched in accordance to the proportion specification of ASTM C 270, Standard Specification for Mortar for Unit Masonry (Ref. 4). 2.3 Latex Paint Coating The paint used was a commercial grade latex paint with 28.4% solids content by volume. A detailed technical data bulletin on this paint is included in Appendix B. 3.0—CONSTRUCTION AND CURING OF WALL ASSEMBLIES The 15 wall assemblies were constructed using standard construction techniques in accordance with ACI 530.1/ASCE 6/TMS 602 Specification for Masonry Structures (Ref. 5). The overall nominal dimensions of the finished wall assemblies were 64 inches (1626 mm) in height, 56 inches (1422 mm) in length, and 12 inches (305 mm) in thickness. Five assemblies were constructed from each of the three sets of concrete masonry units. Each assembly was designated 1A through 1E for the wall assemblies constructed with the units in Set 1; 2A through 2E for the wall assemblies constructed with the units in Set 2; and 3A through 3E for the wall assemblies constructed with the units is Set 3. Each wall assembly was constructed using a running bond pattern. The concrete masonry units were laid using face shell bedding except at the ends of each assembly where mortar was also placed on the end webs of the units. The mortar joints on both faces were struck and tooled concave when the mortar became thumbprint hard. Furthermore, the cells along the tops, bottoms and sides of the assemblies that were outside of the test area were fully grouted to isolate the path of airflow through the assemblies. The remainder of each wall assembly was left ungrouted to evaluate the air permeance of the assembly. The wall assemblies were cured under laboratory conditions for 28 days. Figure 2 shows a representative sketch of a typical wall assembly.


of 55

4.0—TEST PROCEDURES AND RESULTS 4.1 Testing Procedure The wall assemblies were tested in accordance with ASTM E 2178 (Ref. 2). The test method uses a sealed cabinet with a nominal testing surface area of 1.0 m2 (10.8 ft2), which is attached to the wall assembly. A pressure differential is applied to the assembly by means of either a low flow or a high flow air pump, depending upon the air permeance of the assembly. The range of the low flow pump is 0 to 150 standard liters per minute (SLPM) and the high flow from 0 to 750 SLPM. The negative pressure differential created inside the cabinet is measured via a digital pressure gage in units of Pascal (Pa). Once the specified pressure differential across the wall assembly is achieved, the air flow required to maintain this pressure differential is measured in SLPM. This SLPM measurement is then correlated to the calibration of the cabinet as described in the following paragraph, becoming the air permeance measurement of the assembly. Figure 3 shows the pressure cabinet attached to a wall assembly.

Figure 2. Wall Assembly Configuration for Air Permeance Testing

Test Area


of 55

ASTM E 2178 specifies the pressure differences to evaluate the air permeance of air barrier assemblies or materials. In accordance with the standard, air leakage measurements are to be taken at the specified pressure differentials of 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, and 300 Pa (0.52, 1.04, 1.57, 2.09, 3.13, and 6.27 lb/ft2) and then repeated for 100, 75, and 50 Pa (2.09, 1.57, and 1.04 lb/ft2) to determine the accuracy and repeatability of the airflow measurements. These measurements are then corrected to account for air leakage that may have occurred through joints or connections in the testing equipment. The procedure found in ASTM E 2178 for determination of system leakage is to enclose the test specimen in polyethylene film and perform the permeance test. The values obtained will show the system leakage. This calibration procedure is not practical for concrete masonry wall assemblies, so an alternative procedure was developed. The system air leakage was determined by measuring the air permeance of a ¾ inch (19 mm) sheet of Plexiglas at the specified pressure differentials stated above. The Plexiglas is considered to be impermeable to air leakage, so any leakage is attributed to cabinet leakage at connections and seals. The calibrations were determined many times during the course of the testing and had some variations. The most recent calibration at the time of testing was used to determine actual permeance values.

Figure 3. Vacuum cabinet attached to wall assembly


of 55

It is important to note that ASTM E 2178 was developed to measure the air permeance of flexible sheet or rigid panel-type materials, not for evaluating building assemblies. At the time of this research, however, there was no standardized test method available to evaluate such assemblies. The application of this test method to measuring the air permeance of concrete masonry wall assemblies may not produce accurate, consistent, or repeatable results. Furthermore, in order to use this test method in this research project, necessary modifications were introduced in the test set-up in an attempt to inhibit unintended flow of air from entering through the sides, top, and bottom of the wall assembly by grouting the hollow cells around the periphery of the test surface. As discussed later, irregularities in the measured results indicate that more reliable methods need to be developed to accurately measure the air permeance of masonry. 4.2 Air Permeance Test Results – Phase 1 A discussion of the results and observations made during the course of the air permeance testing is included in this section. For each wall assembly, specified system pressure was attempted and the flow was measured. None of the wall assemblies were able to support the specified pressure differentials described above. In these cases, the maximum pressure differential was determined and then increments of this pressure were measured. Wall assemblies were tested first in an untreated condition (without sealant on the mortar joints) and then retested with the mortar joints sealed with silicon sealant. The sealant was applied using a caulk gun and smoothed into the mortar joint using a gloved finger. Full results for each assembly before and after mortar joint sealing can be found in Appendix C. 4.2.1 Air Permeance of Wall Assemblies in Untreated Condition (without Sealed Mortar Joints) The air permeance values obtained for each of the wall assemblies are shown in Tables 3, 4, and 5. Table 3 is for Set 1 assemblies, Table 4 is for Set 2 assemblies, and Table 5 is for Set 3 assemblies. Average values and standard deviations are shown at pressures where each of the five assemblies had a valid data point.


of 55

Table 3: Set 1, Uncoated, Air Permeance Results Pressure,

Pa Air Permeance, CFM/ft2 Average,

CFM/ft2 Standard Deviation

1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 20 0.230 0.195 0.266 0.142 0.119 0.191 0.060 40 0.308 0.276 0.390 0.194 0.171 0.268 0.088 47 --- --- 0.452 --- --- --- --- 60 0.383 0.354 --- 0.253 0.223 --- --- 80 0.444 0.428 --- 0.304 0.291 --- --- 81 0.444 --- --- --- --- --- --- 87 --- 0.454 --- --- --- --- --- 100 --- --- --- 0.363 0.340 --- --- 135 --- --- --- 0.450 --- --- --- 144 --- --- --- --- 0.457 --- ---




2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 20 0.191 0.397 0.387 0.247 0.155 0.275 0.111 27 --- 0.455 --- --- --- --- --- 30 --- --- 0.471 --- --- --- --- 40 0.373 --- --- 0.448 0.347 --- --- 43 --- --- --- 0.468 --- --- --- 54 0.464 --- --- --- --- --- --- 60 --- --- --- --- 0.455 --- --- 62 --- --- --- --- 0.464 --- ---




3A 3B 3C 3D 3E 2 --- --- --- 0.205 --- --- --- 4 --- 0..468 --- 0.364 --- --- --- 5 0.462 --- 0.455 --- --- --- --- 6 --- --- --- 0.413 0..465 --- --- 8 --- --- --- 0..459 --- --- ---


of 55

As seen from these tables, all sets had a great deal of variation in performance between wall assemblies. For Set 1, only two data points (at 20 and 40 Pascals) were obtained for all five assemblies. For Set 2, only one point (at 20 Pascals) was obtained. For Set 3, no common data points were recorded. In addition, for those common data points, the standard deviations indicate that the results obtained varied significantly between assemblies in a given set. 4.2.2 Air Permeance of Wall Assemblies with Sealed Mortar Joints (Treated Wall Assemblies) Following the testing of the untreated wall assemblies, the mortar joints were sealed with a silicon sealant and retested for air permeance. The surface area of the mortar joints was calculated to be approximately 100 in2, which is approximately 7 percent of the total tested wall area (see Appendix D). Tables 6, 7, and 8 list the air permeance measurements for the wall assemblies with the sealed mortar. Average values and standard deviations are shown at pressures where all five assemblies had a valid data point.

Table 6: Set 1, Mortar Joints Sealed, Air Permeance Results Pressure,



1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 20 0.132 0.094 0.168 0.061 0.064 0.103 0.046 40 0.207 0.178 0.298 0.119 0.123 0.185 0.074 60 0.285 0.259 0.432 0.174 0.177 0.266 0.105 64 --- --- 0.455 --- --- --- --- 80 0.357 0.334 --- 0.226 0.229 --- --- 100 0.431 0.412 --- 0.274 0.281 --- --- 111 0.464 --- --- --- --- --- --- 116 --- 0.463 --- --- --- --- --- 169 --- --- --- --- 0.456 --- --- 170 --- --- --- 0.446 --- --- ---


of 55




2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 20 0.178 0.214 0.208 0.175 0.152 0.185 0.025 40 0.331 0.380 0.380 0.380 0.282 0.351 0.044 49 --- 0.445 --- --- --- --- --- 50 --- --- 0.448 0.458 --- --- --- 57 0.448 --- --- --- --- --- --- 60 --- --- --- --- 0.419 --- --- 68 --- --- --- --- 0.448 --- ---




3A 3B 3C 3D 3E 2 0.198 0.231 0.231 0.146 --- --- --- 4 0.286 0.319 0.266 0.231 --- --- --- 6 0.357 0.358 0.341 0.292 0.475 0.364 0.067 8 0.459 0.390 0.468 0.449 --- --- --- 10 --- 0.455 --- --- --- --- --- All wall assemblies showed some decrease in measured air permeance and an increase in maximum pressure differential obtained after sealing. 4.3 Air Permeance Test Results – Phase 2 Following the testing above, the non-incidental surfaces of the wall assemblies were sealed with one part epoxy paint with the front and back test surface left uncoated. This type of paint is normally used on concrete floors. This operation was performed to try to eliminate air leakage around the sides of the test frame. The wall assemblies were tested again. The intent was to determine if air was leaking into the test specimen from surfaces other than the test area. There was a marginal decrease in the air permeance of the walls, and an increase in the maximum pressure differential reached for the walls, with one specimen, 1A, reaching the full 300 Pa pressure required for the E 2178 test. This shows that the edge conditions were not dominating the test results and that the primary air permeance of the wall assemblies was through the 1 m2 (10.8 ft2) test area. However, the results indicate that sealing the walls outside of the test area is necessary for obtaining consistent results and that there was some benefit to eliminating the air leakage around the frame. Detailed results for the walls after this sealing are found in Appendix E.


of 55

The wall assemblies were coated for Phase 2. Each wall assembly was painted on the side that had the mortar joints sealed. Latex paint was roller-applied. During the application of the paint, the uniformity of the coating application was monitored using a wet-film thickness gauge. In addition, nine steel tags were placed adjacent to the surface of the wall assembly that was tested and painted simultaneously with the wall assembly. Once the paint dried, these tags were used to determine the dry-film thickness of the paint on the wall. Following each coat, the dry-film thickness was measured using an Elcometer thickness gauge. The dry-film thickness reading was taken on each tag, and the thickness of each coat was determined as an average of the nine readings. The wall assemblies were tested and the air permeance was measured following each coat of paint. This process was continued until each wall assembly had an air permeance of less than 0.04 CFM/ft2. During the course of the project, three of the wall assemblies made using the Set 1 units were inadvertently broken. The following results only include two Set 1 wall assemblies. Table 9 shows the results for each wall assembly for each coat of paint applied. The measurement of dry-film paint thickness shown is the average of each of the nine readings taken on each wall assembly. Also shown is the maximum pressure as well as the flow at maximum pressure up to 300 Pa, which is the maximum pressure required to perform the ASTM E 2178 test. For the wall assemblies that did not hold 300 Pa of pressure, the maximum flow is shown at the highest pressure recorded. For the wall assemblies that did reach 300 Pa, the flow at that pressure is shown and also the calculated pressure at 75 Pa. After each reading, another coat of paint was applied and the dry-film paint thickness measurements and air permeance measurements were repeated until the results at 75 Pa for each wall assembly was below 0.04 CFM/ft2. Table 10 shows the same data organized by wall assembly number. The individual paint thickness measurements are shown in Appendix F. Detailed results for each wall assembly are included in Appendix G.


of 55

1A 1 1.3 300 80.75 0.2649 0.07251B 1 1.9 300 68.66 0.2253 0.06942A 1 2.0 300 124.98 0.4100 0.12712B 1 2.1 300 119.38 0.3917 0.11722C 1 2.0 251 141.80 0.4652 ----2D 1 2.3 300 122.30 0.4012 0.12982E 1 1.3 223 144.80 0.4751 ----3A 1 1.6 32 146.80 0.4816 ----3B 1 2.0 25 146.86 0.4818 ----3C 1 2.1 30 146.48 0.4806 ----3D 1 1.7 21 146.22 0.4797 ----3E 1 2.6 25 147.28 0.4832 ----1A 2 4.1 300 24.50 0.0804 0.02301B 2 5.2 300 9.13 0.0300 0.00802A 2 5.0 300 18.42 0.0604 0.01812B 2 5.4 300 20.66 0.0678 0.01902C 2 6.1 300 28.55 0.0937 0.02792D 2 5.2 300 15.71 0.0515 0.01322E 2 4.6 300 26.75 0.0878 0.02713A 2 5.2 198 142.89 0.4688 ----3B 2 5.8 116 145.21 0.4764 ----3C 2 5.3 95 145.85 0.4785 ----3D 2 4.2 100 147.19 0.4829 ----3E 2 5.7 150 144.53 0.4742 ----3A 3 8.3 300 77.60 0.2546 0.09233B 3 7.9 150 145.51 0.4774 ----3C 3 8.8 226 145.42 0.4771 ----3D 3 7.6 287 143.84 0.4719 ----3E 3 8.7 288 144.14 0.4729 ----3A 4 12.5 300 19.49 0.0639 0.02363B 4 11.5 300 65.02 0.2133 0.08333C 4 11.9 300 65.90 0.2162 0.08343D 4 10.6 300 38.90 0.1276 0.04753E 4 12.0 300 53.92 0.1769 0.06703B 5 13.6 300 42.22 0.1385 0.05423C 5 15.0 300 36.60 0.1201 0.04643D 5 14.6 300 19.35 0.0635 0.02333E 5 14.0 300 29.43 0.0966 0.03683B 6 15.6 300 22.52 0.0739 0.02673C 6 18.5 300 18.01 0.0591 0.0230

Table 9 Phase 2 Air Barrier Results - By Coats of Paint

SpecimenCoats of Paint

Calculated Flow at 75 Pa (CFM/ft2)

Average Mil thickness

Max Pressure (Pa)

Flow at Max Pressure (SLPM)

Flow at Max Pressure (CFM/ft2)


of 55

1A 1 1.28 300 80.75 0.2649 0.07251A 2 4.14 300 24.50 0.0804 0.02301B 1 1.93 300 68.66 0.2253 0.06941B 2 5.18 300 9.13 0.0300 0.00802A 1 2.01 300 124.98 0.4100 0.12712A 2 5.03 300 18.42 0.0604 0.01812B 1 2.08 300 119.38 0.3917 0.11722B 2 5.42 300 20.66 0.0678 0.01902C 1 2.04 251 141.80 0.4652 ----2C 2 6.09 300 28.55 0.0937 0.02792D 1 2.32 300 122.30 0.4012 0.12982D 2 5.15 300 15.71 0.0515 0.01322E 1 1.34 223 144.80 0.4751 ----2E 2 4.63 300 26.75 0.0878 0.02713A 1 1.62 32 146.80 0.4816 ----3A 2 5.23 198 142.89 0.4688 ----3A 3 8.3 300 77.60 0.2546 0.09233A 4 12.5 300 19.49 0.0639 0.02363B 1 2.04 25 146.86 0.4818 ----3B 2 5.81 116 145.21 0.4764 ----3B 3 7.9 150 145.51 0.4774 ----3B 4 11.5 300 65.02 0.2133 0.08333B 5 13.6 300 42.22 0.1385 0.05423B 6 15.6 300 22.52 0.0739 0.02673C 1 2.13 30 146.48 0.4806 ----3C 2 5.34 95 145.85 0.4785 ----3C 3 8.8 226 145.42 0.4771 ----3C 4 11.9 300 65.90 0.2162 0.08343C 5 15 300 36.60 0.1201 0.04643C 6 18.5 300 18.01 0.0591 0.02303D 1 1.68 21 146.22 0.4797 ----3D 2 4.22 100 147.19 0.4829 ----3D 3 7.6 287 143.84 0.4719 ----3D 4 10.6 300 38.90 0.1276 0.04753D 5 14.6 300 19.35 0.0635 0.02333E 1 2.57 25 147.28 0.4832 ----3E 2 5.65 150 144.53 0.4742 ----3E 3 8.7 288 144.14 0.4729 ----3E 4 12 300 53.92 0.1769 0.06703E 5 14 300 29.43 0.0966 0.0368

Table 10 Phase 2 Air Barrier Results - By Specimen

Calculated Flow at 75 Pa (CFM/ft2)Specimen

Flow at Max Pressure (SLPM)

Average Mil thickness

Coats of Paint

Max Pressure (Pa)

Flow at Max Pressure (CFM/ft2)


of 55

ASTM E 2178 requires five wall assemblies for a complete test. Because of breakage, Set 1 did not have the required number of wall assemblies available. Both Set 2 and Set 3 had the required number of wall assemblies. For the Set 2 wall assemblies, the data obtained after two coats of paint was compiled and the air permeance at 75 Pa was determined to be 0.021 CFM/ft2. For Set 3, the data from Wall Assembly 3A was used after four coats of paint, 3D and 3E after five coats of paint, and 3B and 3C after six coats of paint. The permeance of this set of wall assemblies was found to be 0.026 CFM/ft2. Combined results for each set can be found in Appendix H. 5.0—OBSERVATIONS 5.1 Observations from Phase 1 In this section, air permeance from the untreated wall assemblies will be compared with the air permeance of wall assemblies where the mortar joints were sealed with silicon sealant. The purpose is to provide a quantitative measurement of the relative performance of these two types of wall assemblies and ascertain the impact of the mortar joints on the overall air leakage of a concrete masonry assembly. For Set 1, average values were determined for 20 and 40 Pa pressure difference for both the unsealed and the sealed wall assemblies. Other averages could not be calculated since the five wall assemblies in this set did not have any other common data points. The average permeance for the unsealed assemblies was 0.191 CFM/ft2 at 20 Pa and 0.267 CFM/ft2 at 40 Pa. After sealing the mortar joints, the averages were 0.104 CFM/ft2 and 0.185 CFM/ft2. This was a decrease of 46% and 31%, respectively. This reduction is much greater than the 7% area contribution of the mortar joints. For Set 2, both the sealed and unsealed assemblies had an average value determined at 20 Pa. For the unsealed specimens, the average permeance was 0.275 CFM/ft2. After sealing, the average was 0.185 CFM/ft2. This is a reduction of 33%, which again far exceeds the 7% area of the mortar joints. Set 3 did not have average values before sealing, so direct comparison between averages is not possible. These reductions in averages show that sealing the mortar joints did improve the permeance of the wall specimens at the pressure differentials measured. This is expected since the mortar in the joints is not airtight and sealing of the joints would also reduce the air voids at the block-mortar interface. Table 11 shows the percentage change for the Set 1 wall assemblies. The average percentages of the wall assemblies at 20, 40, 60, and 80 Pa are also shown graphically in Figure 4. Average values at 60 and 80 Pa are for four wall assemblies. The table and graph show that there were significant reductions in permeance when the mortar joints are sealed, but also show the diminishing returns as the pressure differential increases. In addition, even after sealing, the maximum pressure differentials obtained still did not reach the 300 Pa required for taking all measurements for a full ASTM E 2178 test.


of 55

Table 11: Set 1 Percentage Change in Permeance After Sealing

Pressure,

Pa Percentage Reduction in air Permeance Average,

%

1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 20 42% 52% 37% 57% 46% 47% 40 33% 35% 23% 39% 29% 32% 60 26% 27% --- 31% 20% 26%* 80 20% 22% --- 26% 21% 22%* 100 --- --- --- 24% 17% --- *Average determined from values for four wall assemblies.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Pressure Differential, Pa

Perc

enta

ge R

educ

tion

in A

ir

Per

mea

nce

Figure 4: Percentage Reduction in Air Permeance, Set 1 Wall Assemblies vs.

Pressure Differential For Sets 2 and 3, there were not enough common data points to make comparisons regarding trends. However, the wall assemblies for all sets reached slightly higher maximum values after sealing. None of the wall assemblies were able to hold the required pressure for a full ASTM E 2178 test. 5.2 Observations from Phase 2 Tables 9 and 10 show that air permeance values of 0.04 CFM/ft2 and less can be achieved by applying multiple coats of latex paint. The wall assemblies constructed using units from Set 1 and Set 2 took two coats of paint to achieve the specified values. This equated to an average dry-film paint thickness of 5.1 mils for those seven wall assemblies. The wall assemblies constructed using the Set 3 units required between 4 and 6 coats of paint with an average dry-film thickness of 14.9 mils of paint to achieve the required air permeance.


of 55

This difference in the amount of paint needed is most likely due to the surface texture of the concrete masonry units. Referencing Table 2 on page 7, the percent solid for the units varied based on the set used. Set 3 units had a percent solid of 42.7%, Set 2 units of 46.8%, and Set 1 units of 47.2%. Set 3 had a significantly smaller percentage solid, which would correspond to more voids within the unit. More voids in the units most likely also correspond with a rougher surface with more pores to fill and bridge with a coating. Since the paint was commercial quality with low solids content (28% by volume), several coats are needed to produce the defect-free surface necessary for significant reduction in air permeance. It is possible that higher solids paint or a block filler-type coating (which usually has at least 50% solids by volume) would require fewer coats to produce a continuous coating and to achieve the same dry-film thickness. The units from Set 1 and Set 2 had similar percent solids and correspondingly needed a similar amount of paint to achieve permeance below 0.04 CFM/ft2. This tends to suggest that the higher the percent solid of the unit, as well as the smoother the surface texture, the less material and effort is needed to achieve the specified permeance values. The surface texture is normally a function of the aggregate type and the concrete mix. It also is evident that a uniform coating with few imperfections (holes, etc.) is most critical to reducing the air permeability of the wall assemblies. Tables 12, 13, and 14 show the results for each wall assembly at 75 Pa, once the full ASTM E 2178 test was able to be performed. To complete the test, the wall assemblies must be able to obtain a pressure differential of 300 Pa. Table 12 shows the results for the Set 1 wall assemblies, Table 10 shows the Set 13 wall assemblies, and Table 14 shows the Set 3 wall assemblies.

Table 12 Air Permeance Values for Completed Tests, Set 1 Wall Assemblies Wall Assembly Coats of Paint Average Dry-Film

Thickness 75 Pa Air Permeance, CFM/ft2

1A 1 1.3 0.0725 1B 1 1.9 0.0694 1A 2 4.1 0.0230 1B 2 5.2 0.0080


of 55


Thickness, mil 75 Pa Air Permeance, CFM/ft2

2A 1 2.0 0.1271 2B 1 2.1 0.1172 2D 1 2.3 0.1298 2A 2 5.0 0.0181 2B 2 5.4 0.0190 2C 2 6.1 0.0279 2D 2 5.2 0.0132 2E 2 4.6 0.0271


Thickness, mil 75 Pa Air Permeance, CFM/ft2

3A 3 8.3 0.0923 3A 4 12.5 0.0236 3B 4 11.5 0.0833 3C 4 11.9 0.0834 3D 4 10.6 0.0475 3E 4 12.0 0.067 3B 5 13.6 0.0542 3C 5 15.0 0.0464 3D 5 14.6 0.0233 3E 5 14.0 0.0368 3B 6 15.6 0.0267 3C 6 18.5 0.023 These tables show there is a fairly linear correlation between increasing paint thickness and decreasing air permeance. This correlation is less evident in the Set 3 wall assemblies, which had a larger spread of paint thickness required to reach an air permeance value below 0.04 CFM/ft2. Figures 5, 6, and 7 shows the air permeance at 75 Pa plotted as a function of the average mil thickness for the wall assemblies when a maximum pressure of 300 Pa was obtained. Figure 5 is for the Set 1 wall assemblies, Figure 6 is for the Set 2 wall assemblies, and Figure 7 is for the Set 3 wall assemblies.


of 55

y = -0.0177x + 0.0985R2 = 0.9873

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Dry Film Paint Thickness, mil

Air

Perm

eanc

e at

75

Pa, C

FM/ft

2

Figure 5: Air Permeance, Set 1 Wall Assemblies vs. Dry-film Paint Thickness

y = -0.0308x + 0.1859R2 = 0.9129

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7


Air

Perm

eanc

e at

75

Pa, C

FM/ft

2



of 55

y = -0.0072x + 0.1453R2 = 0.554

00.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.1

0 5 10 15 20


Air

Perm

eanc

e at

75

Pa, C

FM/ft

2


These plots show the linear relationship between the air permeance and the paint thickness. It is also evident that there is much higher correlation in the data for Set 1 and Set 2 wall assemblies. This shows that the effect of surface texture is important, since the units with the rougher surface texture had higher variation in the amount of dry-film paint thickness necessary to create a continuous coating surface. Also shown in these plots is the best fit linear trend line fitted to this data. Table 15 summarizes the equations of these trend lines and their R2 values. The low correlation on the Set 1 wall assemblies (0.554) again shows the variation in the results for these wall assemblies. Also shown in this table are the results of inputting 0.04 CFM/ft2 as the permeance value in this equation and solving for the dry-film paint thickness. This calculation gives the required dry-film paint thickness to comply with the proposed code requirements. It is evident that more paint is needed when the surface roughness increases.

Table 15 Summary of Linear Best Fit Lines, Coated Wall assemblies Set Identification Slope Intercept R2 Dry-film Paint

Thickness Required for 0.04 CFM/ft2 Permeance, mil

Set 1 -0.0177 0.0985 0.9873 3.3 Set 2 -0.0308 0.1859 0.9129 4.7 Set 3 -0.0072 0.1453 0.554 14.6


of 55

6.0—CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Phase 1 This study measured the air permeance, or air leakage rate, of concrete masonry walls subject to an applied air pressure differential. The testing protocol was in accordance with ASTM E 2178. A total of 15 concrete masonry walls were tested, and the air permeance rating in cubic feet per minute per square foot of wall area was measured. Wall assemblies were constructed with three different sets of concrete masonry units and identified as Set 1, Set 2, and Set 3, with five wall assemblies in each set. Air permeance was measured for untreated and uncoated wall assemblies, and the permeance rating was determined at the prescribed pressure of 75 Pa (1.57 lb/ft2). Airflow measurement for the wall assemblies was attempted at prescribed pressure differentials stipulated by ASTM E 2178. Additional tests were performed on wall assemblies with treated mortar joints to assess the contribution to air permeance by the mortar. 6.1.1 Wall Assemblies in Untreated Condition When tested without sealing the mortar joints or coating the surface, none of the wall assemblies tested was able to support pressures up to 300 Pa, the maximum pressure differential required by ASTM E 2178. 6.1.2 Wall assemblies with Sealed Mortar Joints An aspect of this study included determining the relative contribution to air permeance by the mortar joints versus the masonry units. This was done by testing the wall assemblies without and with the mortar joints sealed and measuring the air permeance After sealing, the wall assemblies had reduced air permeance. In all tests, the percent reduction in air permeance was greater than the area of the mortar joints relative to the total tested area of the wall assembly. None of the assemblies were able to support the 300 Pa maximum differential required by ASTM E 2178. As pressure differentials increased, the reduction in permeance decreased. This suggests that there is a reduced benefit to mortar joint sealing as the pressure differential gets larger. Stated differently, this would also indicate that at larger pressure differentials, sealing only a portion of the surface has diminishing returns.


of 55

6.2 Phase 2 The wall assemblies were subsequently tested to determine the effects of commercial grade latex paint on air permeance values. It was determined that painting the wall assemblies resulted in reduced air permeance values. The wall assemblies were tested after each coat of paint was applied and continued until a permeance of 0.04 CFM/ft2 or less was measured. The average value for dry-film paint thickness required for the wall assemblies to have an air permeance of 0.04 CFM/ft2 was determined. For the wall assemblies using Set 1 units, this thickness was 3.3 mils; for the wall assemblies using Set 2 units it was 4.7 mils; and for the wall assemblies using Set 3 units, it was 14.6 mils. The latex paint used in this project had lower solid content than other commercially-available coatings, including different paints or block filler. It is assumed that a higher solids volume coating would achieve the required dry-film thickness in fewer applications than the paint used here. It is expected that the type of coating used is less important than achieving a satisfactory dry-film thickness. This data shows that wall assemblies made with Set 3 units required more coating to achieve specified air permeance values. These units had a lower percent solid than Sets 1 and 2. This is most likely because of increased pore structure, with more pathways for air movement through the assembly. It is also possible that surface texture plays a significant role in the effects of coatings. The Set 3 units in this project had a rougher surface texture than the Set 1 and Set 2 units. 6.3 Testing Procedures During the course of the project, it was recognized that the ASTM E 2178 test does not have specific provisions for testing masonry wall assemblies. Certain procedures were developed to attempt to obtain more consistent results. The following issues were encountered during this project:

• Air leakages around the edges of the testing area. The non-incidental areas of the wall assembly were coated with an epoxy paint to reduce extraneous air leakage.

• System leakage calibration. Provisions currently in ASTM E 2178 are not practical for masonry wall assemblies. An alternative procedure was developed.

• Untreated assemblies could not attain maximum required pressure. A re-evaluation of the required pressure at which to take leakage readings may be necessary for masonry wall assemblies.


of 55

6.4 Additional Research Additional research into the procedures of the test method and their applicability to evaluating masonry wall assemblies should be investigated. Separate provisions or a new test method for the evaluation of masonry walls for air permeance may need to be developed. More research is also necessary to determine the effects of CMU surface texture on coating efficiency to reduce air permeance. Since the aggregate gradation can affect the porosity of the units, additional research is also necessary as to the affect of gradation on air permeance. Finally, other types of paints and coatings, such as high solids content paints, block fillers, and water repellent coatings, should be evaluated to determine their effect on masonry wall assembly air permeance. 7.0—REFERENCES

1. ASTM C 140-07, Standard Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Concrete Masonry Units and Related Units, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007.

2. ASTM E 2178-03, Standard Test Method for Air Permeance of Building Materials, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003

3. ASTM C 90-06b, Standard Specification for Loadbearing Concrete Masonry Units, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2006

4. ASTM C 270-07, Standard Specification for Mortar for Unit Masonry, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007

5. ACI 530.1/ASCE 6/TMS 602, Specification for Masonry Structures, as reported by the Masonry Standards Joint Committee, Boulder, CO, 2005.


of 55

APPENDIX A—Concrete masonry unit reports ASTM C 140 Test Report Job No.: 05-313-01

Report Date: 6/10/2005 Revised Date: 4/25/2006

Client: Ryan-Biggs Associates Testing Agency: National Concrete Masonry AssociationAddress: 291 River Street Research and Development Laboratory

Troy, NY 12180 Address: 13750 Sunrise Valley DriveHerndon, VA 20171-4662

Unit Specification: ASTM C90-05 Sampling Party: National Concrete Masonry Association

Unit Designation/Description: Job No./Description: 05-313-0112 inch Concrete Masonry UnitStretcher ConfigurationMarked with Green Dot, Set 1

Summary of Test ResultsAverage Average

Specified Test Specified TestPhysical Property Values Results Physical Property Values ResultsNet Compressive Strength 1900 min 2810 psi Min. Faceshell Thickness (tfs) 1.5 min 1.51 in.Gross Compressive Strength **** 1330 psi Min. Web Thickness (tw) 1.13 min 1.3 in.Density **** 126.3 pcf Equivalent Web Thickness 2.5 min 2.9 in.Absorption 13 max 10.1 pcf Equivalent Thickness **** 5.5 in.Percent Solid **** 47.2 % Max. Var. from Spec. Dimensions .125 max 0.125 in. Net Cross-Sectional Area **** 85.5 in2

Gross Cross-Sectional Area **** 181.4 in2

Individual Unit Test Results Cross-Sectional Compressive

Received Area * Max. StrengthSpecimen Wt, WR Gross Net Load Gross Net

No. lb in2 in2 lb psi psiCompression #1 48.76 181.40 85.55 280940 1550 3280Units #2 48.70 181.40 85.55 231460 1280 2710

#3 48.08 181.40 85.55 208020 1150 2430Average 48.51 181.40 85.55 240140 1330 2810

* Unit areas determined as the average of the three absorption units and are assumed to be the same as those units tested in compression.

Avg Avg Avg Avg./Min. Min.Specimen Width Height Length tfs** tw

No. in. in. in. in. in.Absorption #4 11.67 7.75 15.60 1.51 1.27Units #5 11.63 7.64 15.59 1.51 1.26

#6 11.64 7.60 15.55 1.51 1.27Average 11.64 7.66 15.58 1.51 1.27

**Where the thinnest point of opposite face shells differ in thickness by less than 0.125 inches, their measurements are averaged.

Received Immersed Saturated Oven-Dry Net PercentSpecimen Wt, WR Wt, WI Wt, WS Wt, WD Absorp Density Volume Solid

No. lb lb lb lb pcf pcf ft3 %#4 50.74 29.14 53.20 49.49 9.6 128.4 0.3856 47.2#5 48.18 27.42 50.92 46.95 10.5 124.7 0.3766 47.0#6 48.26 27.70 51.16 47.37 10.1 126.0 0.3760 47.2

Average 49.06 28.09 51.76 47.94 10.1 126.3 0.3794 47.2

Comments: These tested properties meet the compressive strength, absorption and dimensional requirements of ASTM C 90-05.


of 55

ASTM C 140 Test Report Job No.: 05-313-02

Report Date: 6/10/2005 Revised Date: 4/25/2006

Client: Ryan-Biggs Associates Testing Agency: National Concrete Masonry AssociationAddress: 291 River Street Research and Development Laboratory



Unit Designation/Description: Job No./Description: 05-313-0212 inch Concrete Masonry UnitStretcher ConfigurationMarked with Red Dot, Set 2







#3 40.66 181.02 84.76 216960 1200 2560Average 41.12 181.02 84.76 234640 1300 2770




#6 11.62 7.61 15.55 1.50 1.26Average 11.63 7.61 15.57 1.51 1.26




Average 41.03 21.15 44.45 40.02 11.9 107.2 0.3733 46.8



of 55

ASTM C 140 Test Report Job No.: 05-313-03 Report Date: 6/10/2005 Revised Date: 4/25/2006

Client: Ryan- Biggs Associates Testing Agency: National Concrete Masonry AssociationAddress: 291 River Street Research and Development Laboratory



Unit Designation/Description: Job No./Description: 05-313-0312 inch Concrete Masonry UnitStretcher ConfigurationMarked with Blue Line, Set 3







#3 33.17 181.67 77.56 192930 1060 2490Average 33.34 181.67 77.56 212760 1170 2740




#6 11.65 7.65 15.59 1.50 1.27Average 11.65 7.66 15.60 1.51 1.26




Average 33.17 15.43 36.90 32.29 13.4 93.9 0.3440 42.7



of 55

APPENDIX B—Paint technical data bulletin


of 55


of 55

APPENDIX C—Phase 1 Air permeance measurements Set 1: Initial, no sealant or coating

Atmospheric Readings Set 1, Initial - No sealer or coating

Sample: 1A 1B 1C 1D 1EDate Tested 7/19/2005 7/19/2005 7/19/2005 7/19/2005 7/19/2007Time 9:00 AM 10:30 AM 11:30 AM 1:30 PM 3:00 PMTemperature (F) 82 82 82 82 82Relative Humidity (%) 56 56 56 56 56

Sample Pressure Motor Flow % error Theo. Loss Net Flow(pa) (Hz) (SLPM) (SLPM) (SLPM)

0 0.0 0 0 0.001A 20 28.1 77 6.2881 70.71

40 38.1 101 6.3821 94.6260 48.1 124 6.4761 117.5280 48.1 143 6.5701 136.43

maximum 81 60.0 143 6.5748 136.4380 59.6 142 6.5701 135.4360 49.3 124 6.4761 117.5240 38.9 101 6.3821 94.62

----- ----- ----- ----- -----0 0.0 0 0 0.00

1B 20 24.7 66 6.2881 59.7140 34.3 91 6.3821 84.6260 44.4 115 6.4761 108.5280 54.9 138 6.5701 131.43

maximum 87 60.0 146 6.603 139.4080 54.6 137 6.5701 130.4360 44.0 113 6.4761 106.5240 32.1 85 6.3821 78.62

----- ----- ----- ----- -----0 0.0 0 0 0.00

1C 20 33.8 88 6.2881 81.7140 49.9 126 6.3821 119.62

maximum 47 60.0 145 6.415 138.5940 52.9 132 6.3821 125.62

----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----

0 0.0 0 0 0.001D 20 19.2 50 6.2881 43.71

40 24.7 66 6.3821 59.6260 31.7 84 6.4761 77.5280 38.2 100 6.5701 93.43

100 45.9 118 6.6641 111.34maximum 135 60.0 145 6.8286 138.17

80 38.2 100 6.5701 93.4360 31.7 83 6.4761 76.5240 24.7 65 6.3821 58.620 0.0 0 0 0.00

1E 20 17.3 43 6.2881 36.7140 22.0 59 6.3821 52.62

60 28.2 75 6.4761 68.5280 36.4 96 6.5701 89.43

100 42.6 111 6.6641 104.34maximum 144 60.0 147 6.8709 140.13

80 36.1 95 6.5701 88.4360 28.9 77 6.4761 70.5240 22.0 59 6.3821 52.62


of 55

Set 1: Mortar Joints Sealed

Atmospheric Readings Set 1, Mortar Joint Sealed

Sample: 1A 1B 1C 1D 1EDate Tested 7/26/2005 7/26/2005 7/26/2005 7/26/2005 7/26/2005Time 10:30 AM 11:05 AM 12:50 PM 1:50 PM 2:45 PMTemperature (F) 83 83 84 84 85Relative Humidity (%) 52 52 51 50 50


0 0.0 0 0 0.001A 20 18.2 47 6.2881 40.71

40 25.7 70 6.3821 63.6260 34.8 94 6.4761 87.5280 43.5 116 6.5701 109.43

100 53.5 139 6.6641 132.34maximum 111 60.0 149 6.7158 142.28

80 44.1 116 6.5701 109.4360 35.5 94 6.4761 87.5240 26.7 72 6.3821 65.620 0.0 0 0 0.00

1B 20 13.9 35 6.2881 28.7140 22.3 61 6.3821 54.6260 31.6 86 6.4761 79.5280 41.0 109 6.5701 102.43

100 50.9 133 6.6641 126.34maximum 116 60.0 149 6.7393 142.26

80 41.2 110 6.5701 103.4360 31.6 86 6.4761 79.5240 22.3 61 6.3821 54.620 0.0 0 0 0.00

1C 20 22.3 58 6.2881 51.7140 37.6 98 6.3821 91.6260 55.4 139 6.4761 132.52

maximum 64 60.0 146 6.4949 139.5160 56.9 141 6.4761 134.5240 39.3 102 6.3821 95.62

----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----

0 0.0 0 0 0.001D 20 10.2 25 6.2881 18.71

40 17.2 43 6.3821 36.6260 22.7 60 6.4761 53.5280 28.8 76 6.5701 69.43

100 35.0 91 6.6641 84.34maximum 170 60.0 144 6.9931 137.01

80 28.8 76 6.5701 69.4360 22.7 61 6.4761 54.5240 17.2 44 6.3821 37.620 0.0 0 0 0.00

1E 20 9.8 26 6.2881 19.7140 16.9 44 6.3821 37.62

60 22.5 61 6.4761 54.5280 28.6 77 6.5701 70.43

100 34.9 93 6.6641 86.34maximum 169 60.0 147 6.9884 140.01

80 28.7 77 6.5701 70.4360 22.2 60 6.4761 53.5240 16.9 43 6.3821 36.62


of 55

Set 2: Initial, no sealant or coating

Atmospheric Readings Set 2, No sealer or coating

Sample: 2A 2B 2C 2D 2EDate Tested 7/20/2005 7/20/2005 7/20/2005 7/20/2005 7/20/2005Time 1:40 PM 10:10 AM 11:05 AM 12:35 PM 2:25 PMTemperature (F) 82 82 82 82 82Relative Humidity (%) 54 54 54 54 54


0 0.0 0 0 0.00

2A 20 23.0 65 6.2881 58.7140 45.8 121 6.3821 114.62

maximum 54 60.0 149 6.4479 142.5540 45.9 121 6.3821 114.62

----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----

0 0.0 0 0 0.002B 20 50.4 128 6.2881 121.71

maximum 27 60.0 146 6.321 139.68----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----

0 0.0 0 0 0.002C 20 47.3 125 6.2881 118.71

maximum 30 60.0 151 6.3351 144.66----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----

----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----

0 0.0 0 0 0.002D 20 28.5 82 6.2881 75.71

40 55.4 144 6.3821 137.62maximum 43 60.0 150 6.3962 143.60

40 55.4 144 6.3821 137.62----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----

0 0.0 0 0 0.002E 20 20.3 54 6.2881 47.71

40 42.8 113 6.3821 106.62

60 55.0 146 6.4761 139.52maximum 62 60.0 149 6.4855 142.51

60 58.2 146 6.4761 139.5240 39.4 105 6.3821 98.62

----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----


of 55


Atmospheric Readings Set 2, Mortar Joints Sealed

Sample: 2A 2B 2C 2D 2EDate Tested 7/27/2005 7/27/2005 7/27/2005 7/27/2005 7/27/2005Time 10:10 AM 9:20 AM 10:55 AM 12:45 PM 1:30 PMTemperature (F) 87 87 87 87 88Relative Humidity (%) 55 58 53 51 50


0 0.0 0 0 0.002A 20 22.6 61 6.2881 54.71

40 42.2 108 6.3821 101.62maximum 57 60.0 144 6.462 137.54

40 42.2 108 6.3821 101.62----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----

0 0.0 0 0 0.002B 20 28.0 72 6.2881 65.71

maximum 40 48.3 123 6.3821 116.6249 60.0 143 6.4244 136.5840 48.3 123 6.3821 116.62

----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----

0 0.0 0 0 0.002C 20 26.3 70 6.2881 63.71

maximum 40 49.3 124 6.3821 117.6250 60.0 144 6.4291 137.5740 49.3 124 6.3821 117.62

----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----

0 0.0 0 0 0.002D 20 26.3 60 6.2881 53.71

40 49.3 123 6.3821 116.62maximum 50 60.0 147 6.4291 140.57

40 49.3 124 6.3821 117.62----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----

0 0.0 0 0 0.002E 20 19.8 53 6.2881 46.71

40 35.2 93 6.3821 86.62

60 53.4 135 6.4761 128.52maximum 68 60.0 144 6.5137 137.49

60 53.4 134 6.4761 127.5240 35.2 93 6.3821 86.62

----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----


of 55

Set 3: Initial, no sealer or coating

Atmospheric Readings Set 3, No Sealer or Coating



0 0.0 0 0 0.00

3A maximum 5 60.0 148 6.2176 141.78----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----

0 0.0 0 0 0.003B maximum 4 60.0 150 6.2129 143.79

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----

0 0.0 0 0 0.003C maximum 5 60.0 146 6.2176 139.78

----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----

0 0.0 0 0 0.003D 2 25.1 69 6.2035 62.80

4 44.8 118 6.2129 111.796 51.4 133 6.2223 126.78

maximum 8 60.0 147 6.2317 140.774 47.0 123 6.2129 116.792 27.0 74 6.2035 67.80

----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----

0 0.0 0 0 0.003E maximum 6 60.0 149 6.2223 142.78

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----


of 55


Atmospheric Readings Set 3, Mortar Joints Sealed

Sample: 3A 3B 3C 3D 3EDate Tested 7/28/2005 7/28/2005 7/28/2005 7/28/2005 7/28/2005Time 8:05 AM 9:10 AM 10:00 AM 11:05 AM 1:35 PMTemperature (F) 84 84 85 85 85Relative Humidity (%) 49 48 47 47 47


0 0.0 0 0 0.003A 2 23.7 67 6.2035 60.80

4 34.0 94 6.2129 87.796 43.3 116 6.2223 109.78

maximum 8 60.0 147 6.2317 140.77----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----

0 0.0 0 0 0.003B 2 27.7 77 6.2035 70.80

4 38.6 104 6.2129 97.796 43.9 116 6.2223 109.788 48.5 126 6.2317 119.77

maximum 10 60.0 146 6.2411 139.768 48.0 127 6.2317 120.776 41.1 111 6.2223 104.784 38.6 105 6.2129 98.79

----- ----- ----- ----- -----0 0.0 0 0 0.00

3C 2 27.2 77 6.2035 70.804 31.4 88 6.2129 81.796 41.0 111 6.2223 104.78

maximum 8 60.0 150 6.2317 143.77----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----

0 0.0 0 0 0.003D 2 18.2 51 6.2035 44.80

4 27.8 77 6.2129 70.796 36.0 96 6.2223 89.78

maximum 8 60.0 144 6.2317 137.77----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----

0 0.0 0 0 0.003E maximum 6 60.0 152 6.2223 145.78

----- ----- ----- ----- -----

----- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ----- -----


of 55

APPENDIX D—Mortar joint area calculation Number of bed joints = 5 @ 39.625 inches long = 198.125 inches Number of full head joints = 8 @ 8 inches = 64 inches Number of partial head joints = 4 @ 4 inches = 16 inches Total linear feet of mortar joints = 278.125 inches Assume 0.375 thickness; therefore area of mortar joints = 104.3 in^2 Total wall area subject to pressure differential = 1550 in^2 Mortar joint area = 6.7 percent of total area

Test Area

64 inch

56 inch

Grouted Cells


of 55

APPENDIX E—Phase 2 Wall Assembly Results after Non-Incidental Area Sealing Set 1 with Non-Incidental Area Sealing Atmospheric Readings Set 1, Non-incidental sealing

Sample: 1A 1BDate Tested 11/3/2006 11/2/2006Time 10:55 AM 4:25 PMTemperature (F) 63 68Relative Humidity (%) 41 45


0 0.0 0.00 0 01A 25 8.1 17.80 8.5695 9.23

50 12.3 30.80 MUST 8.5145 22.2975 15.5 39.39 Be less 8.4845 30.91

100 19.5 53.23 than 10% 8.4795 44.75150 27.1 75.39 8.5445 66.85300 51.0 137.63 9.3395 128.29100 19.7 54.28 -1.93 8.4795 45.8075 15.9 42.22 -6.70 8.4845 33.7450 12.8 31.19 -1.25 8.5145 22.68 Reported Value at 75 Pa 0.0981 CFM / ft^2

0 0.0 0.00 0 01B 25 10.7 27.13 8.5695 18.56

50 16.7 47.82 8.5145 39.3175 22.7 64.20 8.4845 55.72

100 28.8 80.98 8.4795 72.50150 40.9 113.91 8.5445 105.37218 60.0 154.56 9.3395 145.22

Pressure Differential vs. Net Flowy = -4E-05x2 + 0.4404xR2 = 0.9991

0

50

100

150

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Pressure Differential (Pa)

Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


of 55

Set 2 with Non-incidental area sealing Atmospheric Readings Set 2, Non-incidental Sealing

Sample: 2A 2B 2C 2D 2EDate Tested 11/3/2006 11/3/2006 11/2/2006 11/3/2006 11/3/2006Time 10:25 AM 1:25 PM 2:55 PM 7:50 AM 10:55 AMTemperature (F) 60 64 70 64 63Relative Humidity (%) 41 41 45 42 41


0 0.0 0.00 0 02A 25 15.5 42.06 8.5695 33.4905

50 28.0 80.19 8.5145 71.675575 39.9 112.57 8.4845 104.0855

100 53.8 146.06 8.4795 137.5805108 60.0 156.53 8.48318 148.04682

0 0.0 0.00 0 02B 25 17.5 51.20 8.5695 42.6305

50 30.2 88.55 8.5145 80.035575 44.6 128.01 8.4845 119.525598 60.0 159.29 8.47898 150.81102

0 0.0 0.00 0 02C 25 17.6 47.42 8.5695 38.8505

50 31.4 87.05 8.5145 78.535575 46.7 127.38 8.4845 118.895592 60.0 153.93 8.47838 145.45162

0 0.0 0.00 0 02D 25 20.7 59.95 8.5695 51.3805

50 37.2 107.69 8.5145 99.175575 55.6 154.09 8.4845 145.605579 60.0 160.87 8.48202 152.38798

0 0.0 0.00 0 02E 25 16.1 43.48 8.5695 34.9105

50 28.2 79.96 8.5145 71.445575 41.1 115.17 8.4845 106.6855

100 54.9 148.26 8.4795 139.7805105 60.0 156.06 8.4815 147.5785


of 55

Set 3 with Non-incidental area sealing Atmospheric Readings Set 3, Non-incidental Sealing

Sample: 3A 3B 3C 3D 3EDate Tested 11/3/2006 11/3/2006 11/3/2006 11/3/2006 11/3/2006Time 2:05 PM 8:40 AM 2:35 PM 11:35 AM 12:50 PMTemperature (F) 63 64 64 64 64Relative Humidity (%) 41 42 41 41 41


0 0.0 0.00 0 03A 12 60.0 159.97 8.60798 151.36202

0 0.0 0.00 0 03B 16 60.0 161.42 8.59542 152.82458

0 0.0 0.00 0 03C 12 60.0 159.29 8.60798 150.68202

0 0.0 0.00 0 03D 8 60.0 158.19 8.62118 149.56882

0 0.0 0.00 0 03E 14 60.0 160.87 8.60162 152.26838


of 55

APPENDIX F—Dry-film Paint Thickness Measurements 1 coat of paint

Specimen 1A 1B 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 3A 3B 3C 3D 3E0.64 1.30 2.19 1.58 1.68 2.11 1.57 1.87 1.54 2.10 1.55 1.700.90 2.53 1.92 3.55 2.25 2.17 0.68 1.91 2.83 1.53 1.72 3.901.07 2.30 1.78 1.63 1.32 2.42 1.14 1.59 1.63 1.27 1.34 2.283.30 1.57 2.68 1.69 2.07 1.95 1.32 1.97 1.50 1.78 1.85 2.690.85 2.72 2.28 1.87 2.22 2.91 1.06 0.93 2.08 2.64 2.07 3.121.83 1.60 1.70 2.79 1.45 2.57 1.47 1.48 3.55 1.77 1.71 3.010.85 1.86 2.61 1.81 2.00 1.75 1.33 1.57 1.39 2.83 1.49 2.880.82 1.42 1.43 1.95 2.23 3.52 1.04 2.42 2.41 3.01 2.03 1.391.28 2.04 1.47 1.81 3.16 1.44 2.41 0.88 1.41 2.24 1.39 2.20

Average 1.3 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.3 1.3 1.6 2.0 2.1 1.7 2.6Stdev 0.834 0.504 0.461 0.659 0.544 0.629 0.482 0.494 0.756 0.601 0.264 0.770

2 coats of paint

Specimen 1A 1B 2A 2B 2C 2D 2E 3A 3B 3C 3D 3E4.1 4.4 4.6 5.0 4.6 4.1 4.7 6.2 5.4 4.4 3.4 4.33.6 5.2 5.1 7.1 6.0 4.8 3.1 4.7 5.8 3.8 4.8 5.72.4 5.1 9.0 6.1 6.7 4.6 4.5 4.9 7.1 6.0 5.1 5.35.3 5.3 4.9 4.7 6.5 5.1 6.1 6.8 5.8 5.3 4.1 6.74.3 7.0 4.2 4.5 5.4 5.0 4.7 4.0 5.2 7.0 5.0 6.24.8 5.5 4.9 6.2 5.5 5.6 5.2 5.0 7.4 4.9 4.5 5.84.4 5.5 4.0 4.7 4.8 5.4 5.0 4.9 5.3 5.6 4.2 5.55.4 3.9 3.8 5.0 8.3 5.1 3.8 5.2 5.5 6.0 3.8 4.73.2 4.7 4.9 5.5 7.0 6.7 4.7 5.3 4.8 5.0 3.1 6.6

Average 4.1 5.2 5.0 5.4 6.1 5.2 4.6 5.2 5.8 5.3 4.2 5.6Stdev 0.985 0.869 1.556 0.874 1.169 0.723 0.847 0.824 0.875 0.947 0.691 0.802

3 coats of paint 4 coats of paint

Specimen 3A 3B 3C 3D 3E Specimen 3A 3B 3C 3D 3E6.8 9.6 8.9 6.8 9.4 11.1 12.9 11.7 10.9 12.28.1 7.4 7.6 7.9 9.5 13.9 10.4 10.3 9.8 13.09.0 8.2 9.0 8.1 8.6 12.7 13.8 12.5 10.2 11.98.4 8.4 7.8 6.4 8.5 12.5 11.2 11.3 10.4 11.88.1 6.9 8.9 8.9 8.0 10.8 11.7 11.4 10.9 12.28.5 8.7 6.6 8.4 8.8 12.0 11.8 10.5 10.5 12.18.2 8.0 11.5 8.2 9.5 11.1 10.8 12.5 10.1 13.08.8 7.1 9.3 7.5 7.4 15.4 10.3 12.1 12.4 11.69.1 6.9 9.5 6.1 8.5 13.3 11.0 15.0 10.6 10.6

Average 8.3 7.9 8.8 7.6 8.7 Average 12.5 11.5 11.9 10.6 12.0Stdev 0.686 0.920 1.386 0.960 0.711 Stdev 1.504 1.164 1.394 0.750 0.728

5 coats of paint 6 coats of paint

Specimen 3B 3C 3D 3E Specimen 3B 3C14.5 15.3 15.6 13.3 17.1 18.312.2 13.2 14.2 15.4 15.3 17.314.3 15.2 13.1 14.6 15.9 19.013.8 14.4 13.0 14.8 16.0 19.813.6 16.5 16.1 16.9 14.1 19.513.7 13.7 13.5 11.6 15.8 17.214.8 16.1 14.7 13.4 15.5 16.612.4 15.7 17.1 13.3 15.4 18.912.7 14.5 13.8 12.8 15.5 20.2

Average 13.6 15.0 14.6 14.0 Average 15.6 18.5Stdev 0.934 1.096 1.428 1.578 Stdev 0.785 1.263


of 55

APPENDIX G—Phase 2 Individual Wall Assembly Air Permeance Results One Coat of Paint – Set 1 Wall Assemblies Atmospheric Readings Set 1, 1 Coat of Paint

Sample: 1A 1BDate Tested 6/1/2007 6/1/2007Time 12:19 PM 1:01 PMTemperature (F) 85 85Relative Humidity (%) 54 53


0 0.0 0.00 0 01A 25 7.7 8.19 0.909425 7.280575

50 11.2 15.91 MUST 1.0238 14.886275 14.9 23.69 Be less 1.134425 22.555575

100 18.2 30.29 than 10% 1.2413 29.0487150 25.5 44.47 1.4438 43.0262300 47.4 82.71 1.9613 80.7487100 19.2 32.40 -6.51 1.2413 31.158775 15.8 25.74 -7.96 1.134425 24.60557550 12.3 18.19 -12.53 1.0238 17.1662 Reported Value at 75 Pa 0.0725 CFM / ft^20 0.0 0.00 0 0

1B 25 7.8 8.64 0.909425 7.73057550 11.0 15.64 MUST 1.0238 14.616275 14.3 22.58 Be less 1.134425 21.445575


Pressure Differential vs. Net Flowy = -0.0001x2 + 0.3044xR2 = 0.9999

020406080

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


0

20

40

60

80

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


of 55

One Coat of Paint – Set 2 Wall Assemblies Atmospheric Readings Set 2, 1 Coat of Paint



0 0.0 0.00 0 02A 25 8.3 21.74 8.5695 13.1705

50 13.1 35.61 MUST 8.5145 27.095575 16.7 48.05 Be less 8.4845 39.5655


2B 25 8.8 19.69 8.5695 11.120550 13.5 33.32 MUST 8.5145 24.805575 17.2 45.29 Be less 8.4845 36.8055


2C 25 10.1 24.50 8.5695 15.930550 15.5 42.30 MUST 8.5145 33.785575 21.2 58.77 Be less 8.4845 50.2855

100 26.7 74.52 than 10% 8.4795 66.0405150 37.1 102.41 8.5445 93.8655251 60.0 150.78 8.98082 141.7991810075500 0.0 0.00 0 0

2D 25 9.1 23.31 8.5695 14.740550 13.5 36.23 MUST 8.5145 27.715575 17.2 48.60 Be less 8.4845 40.1155


2E 25 10.4 28.63 8.5695 20.060550 16.5 48.68 MUST 8.5145 40.165575 22.9 66.96 Be less 8.4845 58.4755

100 28.8 83.19 than 10% 8.4795 74.7105150 40.3 113.20 8.5445 104.6555223 60.0 153.62 8.81898 144.801021007550


0

50

100

150

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


0

50

100

150

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


0

50

100

150

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


of 55

One Coat of Paint – Set 3 Wall Assemblies

Atmospheric Readings Set 3, 1 Coat of Paint

Sample: 3A 3B 3C 3D 3EDate Tested 6/1/2007 6/4/2007 6/1/2007 6/4/2007 6/1/2007Time 4:30 PM 1:40 PM 3:55 PM 9:35 AM 2:45 PMTemperature (F) 85 80 85 76 85Relative Humidity (%) 50 56 50 66 50


0 0.0 0.00 0 03A 25 46.9 130.30 8.5695 121.7305

32 60.0 155.35 MUST 8.55158 146.7984275 Be less

100 than 10%15030010075500 0.0 0.00 0 0

3B 25 60.0 155.43 8.5695 146.860550 MUST75 Be less

100 than 10%15030010075500 0.0 0.00 0 0

3C 25 51.8 141.88 8.5695 133.310530 60.0 155.04 MUST 8.5565 146.483575 Be less

100 than 10%15030010075500 0.0 0.00 0 0

3D 25 60.0 154.80 8.5695 146.230550 MUST75 Be less

100 than 10%15030010075500 0.0 0.00 0 0

3E 25 60.0 155.85 8.5695 147.280530 MUST

75 Be less100 than 10%1503001007550


of 55

Two coats of paint – Set 1 Wall Assemblies Atmospheric Readings Set 1, 2 Coats of Paint

Sample: 1A 1BDate Tested 6/5/2007 6/5/2007Time 2:17 PM 3:58 PMTemperature (F) 82 82Relative Humidity (%) 45 45


0 0.0 0.00 0 01A 25 5.8 3.36 0.909425 2.450575

50 7.1 5.74 MUST 1.0238 4.716275 8.3 8.11 Be less 1.134425 6.975575


1B 25 5.1 1.66 0.909425 0.75057550 6.0 2.66 MUST 1.0238 1.636275 6.8 3.54 Be less 1.134425 2.405575


Pressure Differential vs. Net Flowy = -5E-05x2 + 0.098xR2 = 1

0

10

20

30

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


02468

10

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


of 55

Two Coats of Paint – Set 2 Wall assemblies Atmospheric Readings Set 2, 2 Coats of Paint

Sample: 2A 2B 2C 2D 2EDate Tested 6/5/2007 6/7/2007 6/5/2007 6/7/2007 6/5/2007Time 11:12 AM 3:19 PM 4:20 PM 9:54 AM 1:31 PMTemperature (F) 80 84 83 77 81Relative Humidity (%) 50 46 44 51 45


0 0.0 0.00 0 02A 25 5.8 2.94 0.909425 2.030575

50 6.8 4.96 MUST 1.0238 3.936275 7.8 6.84 Be less 1.134425 5.705575


2B 25 5.6 2.87 0.909425 1.96057550 6.9 5.11 MUST 1.0238 4.086275 7.9 7.04 Be less 1.134425 5.905575


2C 25 6.0 3.96 0.909425 3.05057550 7.6 7.15 MUST 1.0238 6.126275 9.0 9.92 Be less 1.134425 8.785575

100 10.2 12.38 than 10% 1.2413 11.1387150 12.7 17.21 1.4438 15.7662300 19.8 30.51 1.9613 28.5487100 10.2 12.52 -1.12 1.2413 11.278775 8.9 9.81 1.12 1.134425 8.67557550 7.4 6.89 3.77 1.0238 5.8662 Reported Value at 75 Pa 0.0279 CFM / ft^20 0.0 0.00 0 0

2D 25 5.8 2.07 62723.1387 -62721.068750 6.6 3.59 MUST 250438.8887 -250435.29975 7.4 5.18 Be less 563154.6387 -563149.459

100 8.2 6.66 than 10% 1000870.389 -1000863.73150 9.8 9.57 2251301.889 -2251292.32300 14.1 17.67 9002596.389 -9002578.72100 8.3 6.91 -3.62 1000870.389 -1000863.4875 7.6 5.48 -5.47 563154.6387 -563149.15950 6.8 3.87 -7.24 250438.8887 -250435.019 Reported Value at 75 Pa 0.0132 CFM / ft^20 0.0 0.00 0 0

2E 25 6.2 4.06 0.909425 3.15057550 7.6 6.89 MUST 1.0238 5.866275 8.9 9.62 Be less 1.134425 8.485575



0

5

10

15

20

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


05

10152025

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


0

10

20

30

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


0

5

10

15

20

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


05

1015202530

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


of 55

Two Coats of Paint – Set 3 Wall Assemblies

Atmospheric Readings Set 3, 2 Coats of Paint

Sample: 3A 3B 3C 3D 3EDate Tested 6/6/2007 6/5/2007 6/6/2007 6/6/2007 6/6/2007Time 3:28 PM 3:26 PM 4:30 PM 2:54 PM 1:15 PMTemperature (F) 80 82 83 79 78Relative Humidity (%) 40 45 40 41 42


0 0.0 0.00 0 03A 25 14.6 38.92 8.5695 30.3505

50 22.1 62.00 MUST 8.5145 53.485575 28.9 81.22 Be less 8.4845 72.7355

100 35.3 98.39 than 10% 8.4795 89.9105150 47.4 128.57 8.5445 120.0255198 60.0 151.59 8.70098 142.88902

0 0.0 0.00 0 03B 25 19.4 56.17 8.5695 47.6005

50 30.9 88.62 MUST 8.5145 80.105575 40.7 115.02 Be less 8.4845 106.535595 51.2 139.91 than 10% 8.4785 131.4315

116 60.0 153.70 8.48942 145.210589.3395 -9.3395

0 0.0 0.00 0 03C 25 23.9 69.80 8.5695 61.2305

50 38.4 109.42 MUST 8.5145 100.905575 48.1 133.31 Be less 8.4845 124.825595 60.0 154.33 than 10% 8.4785 145.8515

0 0.0 0.00 0 03D 25 20.7 60.74 8.5695 52.1705

50 34.1 97.92 MUST 8.5145 89.405575 46.5 130.22 Be less 8.4845 121.7355

100 60.0 155.67 than 10% 8.4795 147.1905

0 0.0 0.00 0 03E 25 16.1 42.85 8.5695 34.2805

50 25.9 72.04 MUST 8.5145 63.525575 34.6 95.87 Be less 8.4845 87.3855

100 42.9 117.69 than 10% 8.4795 109.2105150 60.0 153.07 8.5445 144.5255


of 55

Three Coats of Paint – Set 3 Wall Assemblies Atmospheric Readings Set 3, 3 Coats of Paint

Sample: 3A 3B 3C 3D 3EDate Tested 6/13/2007 6/11/2007 6/13/2007 6/13/2007 6/11/2007Time 10:11 AM 9:03 AM 10:56 AM 9:20 AM 11:46 AMTemperature (F) 80 81 80 80 82Relative Humidity (%) 59 56 58 56 53


0 0.0 0.00 0 03A 25 9.5 13.72 0.909425 12.810575

50 13.6 22.96 MUST 1.0238 21.936275 17.3 30.82 Be less 1.134425 29.685575


3B 25 16.9 49.63 8.5695 41.060550 25.2 73.89 MUST 8.5145 65.375575 34.6 99.97 Be less 8.4845 91.4855

100 42.5 120.22 than 10% 8.4795 111.7405150 60.0 154.06 8.5445 145.5155

0 0.0 0.00 0 03C 25 13.9 40.42 8.5695 31.8505

50 23.7 69.27 MUST 8.5145 60.755575 29.3 85.08 Be less 8.4845 76.595595 34.6 99.52 than 10% 8.4785 91.0415

150 44.4 123.92 8.5445 115.3755226 60.0 154.25 8.83482 145.41518

0 0.0 0.00 0 03D 25 12.8 34.19 8.5695 25.6205

50 18.5 52.45 MUST 8.5145 43.935575 23.9 68.30 Be less 8.4845 59.815595 28.9 81.89 than 10% 8.4785 73.4115

150 37.6 105.17 8.5445 96.6255287 60.0 153.07 9.23498 143.83502

0 0.0 0.00 0 03E 25 12.9 35.45 8.5695 26.8805

50 18.2 52.70 MUST 8.5145 44.185575 23.6 67.90 Be less 8.4845 59.415595 28.5 81.61 than 10% 8.4785 73.1315

150 36.7 103.44 8.5445 94.8955288 60.0 153.38 9.24278 144.13722


020406080

100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


of 55

Four Coats of Paint – Set 3 Wall Assemblies Atmospheric Readings Set 3, 4 Coats of Paint

Sample: 3A 3B 3C 3D 3EDate Tested 6/14/2007 6/14/2007 6/14/2007 6/14/2007 6/14/2007Time 1:52 AM 8:40 AM 2:23 PM 10:14 AM 9:09 AMTemperature (F) 74 73 74 73 73Relative Humidity (%) 55 61 56 59 61


0 0.0 0.00 0 03A 25 6.3 4.06 0.909425 3.150575

50 7.4 6.42 MUST 1.0238 5.396275 8.4 8.49 Be less 1.134425 7.355575


3B 25 9.2 13.07 0.909425 12.16057550 12.5 20.66 MUST 1.0238 19.636275 15.7 27.64 Be less 1.134425 26.505575


3C 25 9.1 12.74 0.909425 11.83057550 12.4 20.13 MUST 1.0238 19.106275 15.8 27.63 Be less 1.134425 26.495575


3D 25 7.2 7.32 0.909425 6.41057550 9.2 12.05 MUST 1.0238 11.026275 11.1 16.34 Be less 1.134425 15.205575


3E 25 8.1 10.34 0.909425 9.43057550 10.9 16.90 MUST 1.0238 15.876275 13.4 22.47 Be less 1.134425 21.335575



05

10152025

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


0

20

40

60

80

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


0

20

40

60

80

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


01020304050

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


0102030405060

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


of 55

Five Coats of Paint – Set 3 Wall Assemblies Atmospheric Readings Set 3, 5 Coats of Paint

Sample: 3B 3C 3D 3EDate Tested 6/15/2007 6/15/2007 6/19/2007 6/15/2007Time 2:02 PM 4:11 PM 4:45 PM 2:46 PMTemperature (F) 74 74 86 75Relative Humidity (%) 50 50 57 50


0 0.0 0.00 0 03B 25 7.7 8.66 0.909425 7.750575

50 9.9 13.95 MUST 1.0238 12.926275 12.0 18.68 Be less 1.134425 17.545575


3C 25 7.1 7.35 0.909425 6.44057550 9.4 12.28 MUST 1.0238 11.256275 11.2 16.09 Be less 1.134425 14.955575


3D 25 5.8 3.68 0.909425 2.77057550 7.3 6.31 MUST 1.0238 5.286275 8.5 8.38 Be less 1.134425 7.245575


3E 25 7.0 6.26 0.909425 5.35057550 8.6 10.03 MUST 1.0238 9.006275 10.1 13.26 Be less 1.134425 12.125575



01020304050

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


0

10

20

30

40

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


05

10152025

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


0

10

20

30

40

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


of 55

Six Coats of Paint – Set 3 Wall Assemblies

Atmospheric Readings Set 3, 6 Coats of Paint

Sample: 3B 3CDate Tested 6/19/2007 6/19/2007Time 5:20 PM 5:43 PMTemperature (F) 86 86Relative Humidity (%) 55 55


0 0.0 0.00 0 03B 25 6.3 4.54 0.909425 3.630575

50 7.9 7.51 MUST 1.0238 6.486275 9.2 9.96 Be less 1.134425 8.825575


3C 25 6.0 3.89 0.909425 2.98057550 7.3 6.19 MUST 1.0238 5.166275 8.5 8.26 Be less 1.134425 7.125575



05

10152025

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


0

5

10

15

20

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


of 55

APPENDIX H—Phase 2 Wall Assembly Combined Results Set 2 Wall Assemblies ASTM E 2178 - 01 - Standard Test Method for Air Permeance of Building Materials

Results SummarySample set:

Flow range: Low

tion Curve: System Leakage= -0.000003 0.0048 *Pressure Differential + 0.7913 Calibration: 6/6/2007

Atmospheric Readings

Sample: 2A 2B 2C 2D 2EDate Tested 6/5/2007 6/7/2007 6/5/2007 6/7/2007 6/5/2007Time 11:12 AM 3:19 PM 4:20 PM 9:54 AM 1:31 PMTemperature (F) 80 84 83 77 81Relative Humidity (%) 50 46 44 51 45

75 Pa Flow Calculation to Power Regression FitRegression equation: Net Flow = -0.00006 * Pressure Differential^2+ 0.0905 * Pressure Differential

Interpolated 75 Pa Flow: 6.4500 SLPM (Net Flow in 1 m x 1 m test area)Conversion to CFM: 0.2277 CFM (Net Flow in 1 m x 1 m test area)Reported Value: 0.0210 CFM / ft^2

Reference Values1/2" Sheetrock: 0.0034 CFM / ft^2Massachusetts Code: 0.0040 CFM / ft^2Wisconsin Code: 0.0600 CFM / ft^2

*Pressure Differential2


0

5

10

15

20

25

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


of 55

ASTM E 2178 - 01 - Standard Test Method for Air Permeance of Building Materials

Experimental resultsFlow Readings were taken at : 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, 300, 100, 75, and 50 paMotor Speed is 60 Hz Maximum. Above that is untestable.


0 0.0 0.00 0 02A 25 5.8 2.94 0.909425 2.030575

50 6.8 4.96 MUST 1.0238 3.936275 7.8 6.84 Be less 1.134425 5.705575

100 8.7 8.44 than 10% 1.2413 7.1987150 10.5 11.76 1.4438 10.3162300 15.3 20.38 1.9613 18.4187100 8.8 8.63 -2.20 1.2413 7.388775 8.1 7.10 -3.66 1.134425 5.96557550 7.1 5.19 -4.43 1.0238 4.16620 0.0 0.00 0.7913 0

2B 25 5.6 2.87 0.909425 1.96057550 6.9 5.11 MUST 1.0238 4.086275 7.9 7.04 Be less 1.134425 5.905575

100 8.9 8.91 than 10% 1.2413 7.6687150 10.8 12.58 1.4438 11.1362300 16.1 22.62 1.9613 20.6587100 8.9 8.99 -0.89 1.2413 7.748775 8.0 7.28 -3.30 1.134425 6.14557550 7.0 5.41 -5.55 1.0238 4.38620 0.0 0.00 0.7913 0

2C 25 6.0 3.96 0.909425 3.05057550 7.6 7.15 MUST 1.0238 6.126275 9.0 9.92 Be less 1.134425 8.785575

100 10.2 12.38 than 10% 1.2413 11.1387150 12.7 17.21 1.4438 15.7662300 19.8 30.51 1.9613 28.5487100 10.2 12.52 -1.12 1.2413 11.278775 8.9 9.81 1.12 1.134425 8.67557550 7.4 6.89 3.77 1.0238 5.86620 0.0 0.00 0.7913 0

2D 25 5.8 2.07 0.909425 1.16057550 6.6 3.59 MUST 1.0238 2.566275 7.4 5.18 Be less 1.134425 4.045575

100 8.2 6.66 than 10% 1.2413 5.4187150 9.8 9.57 1.4438 8.1262300 14.1 17.67 1.9613 15.7087100 8.3 6.91 -3.62 1.2413 5.668775 7.6 5.48 -5.47 1.134425 4.34557550 6.8 3.87 -7.24 1.0238 2.84620 0.0 0.00 0.7913 0

2E 25 6.2 4.06 0.909425 3.15057550 7.6 6.89 MUST 1.0238 5.8662

75 8.9 9.62 Be less 1.134425 8.485575100 10.1 12.05 than 10% 1.2413 10.8087150 12.5 16.77 1.4438 15.3262300 18.9 28.71 1.9613 26.7487100 10.2 12.20 -1.23 1.2413 10.958775 9.1 9.97 -3.51 1.134425 8.83557550 7.9 7.38 -6.64 1.0238 6.3562


of 55

Set 3 Wall Assemblies


Results SummarySample set:

Flow range: Low

tion Curve: System Leakage= -0.000003 0.0048 *Pressure Differential + 0.7913 Calibration: 6/6/2007

Atmospheric ReadingsCoats of Paint 4 coats 6 coats 6 coats 5 coats 5 coatsSample: 3A 3B 3C 3D 3EDate Tested 6/14/2007 6/19/2007 6/19/2007 6/19/2007 6/15/2007Time 1:52 PM 5:20 PM 5:43 PM 4:45 PM 2:46 PMTemperature (F) 74 86 86 86 75Relative Humidity (%) 55 55 55 57 50

75 Pa Flow Calculation to Power Regression FitRegression equation: Net Flow = -0.0002 * Pressure Differential^2+ 0.1212 * Pressure Differential

Interpolated 75 Pa Flow: 7.9650 SLPM (Net Flow in 1 m x 1 m test area)Conversion to CFM: 0.2812 CFM (Net Flow in 1 m x 1 m test area)Reported Value: 0.0259 CFM / ft^2

Reference Values1/2" Sheetrock: 0.0034 CFM / ft^2Massachusetts Code: 0.0040 CFM / ft^2Wisconsin Code: 0.0600 CFM / ft^2

*Pressure Differential2


0

5

10

15

20

25

0 50 100 150 200 250 300


Net

Flo

w (S

LPM

)


of 55


Experimental resultsFlow Readings were taken at : 25, 50, 75, 100, 150, 300, 100, 75, and 50 paMotor Speed is 60 Hz Maximum. Above that is untestable.


0 0.0 0.00 0 03A 25 6.3 4.06 0.909425 3.1505754 coats of paint 50 7.4 6.42 MUST 1.0238 5.3962

75 8.4 8.49 Be less 1.134425 7.355575100 9.3 10.27 than 10% 1.2413 9.0287150 10.9 13.46 1.4438 12.0162300 15.1 21.45 1.9613 19.4887100 9.4 10.68 -3.84 1.2413 9.438775 8.7 9.23 -8.02 1.134425 8.09557550 7.8 7.09 -9.45 1.0238 6.06620 0.0 0.00 0.7913 0

3B 25 6.3 4.54 0.909425 3.6305756 coats of paint 50 7.9 7.51 MUST 1.0238 6.4862

75 9.2 9.96 Be less 1.134425 8.825575100 10.2 11.81 than 10% 1.2413 10.5687150 12.3 15.63 1.4438 14.1862300 17.4 24.48 1.9613 22.5187100 10.2 11.91 -0.84 1.2413 10.668775 9.2 9.98 -0.20 1.134425 8.84557550 7.9 7.57 -0.79 1.0238 6.54620 0.0 0.00 0.7913 0

3C 25 6.0 3.89 0.909425 2.9805756 coats of paint 50 7.3 6.19 MUST 1.0238 5.1662

75 8.5 8.26 Be less 1.134425 7.125575100 9.5 10.03 than 10% 1.2413 8.7887150 11.2 12.93 1.4438 11.4862300 15.4 19.97 1.9613 18.0087100 9.5 10.14 -1.08 1.2413 8.898775 8.5 8.41 -1.78 1.134425 7.27557550 7.4 6.38 -2.98 1.0238 5.35620 0.0 0.00 0.7913 0

3D 25 5.8 3.68 0.909425 2.7705755 coats of paint 50 7.3 6.31 MUST 1.0238 5.2862

75 8.5 8.38 Be less 1.134425 7.245575100 9.5 10.17 than 10% 1.2413 8.9287150 11.4 13.48 1.4438 12.0362300 16.0 21.31 1.9613 19.3487100 9.6 10.29 -1.17 1.2413 9.048775 8.7 8.65 -3.12 1.134425 7.51557550 7.5 6.61 -4.54 1.0238 5.58620 0.0 0.00 0.7913 0

3E 25 7.0 6.26 0.909425 5.3505755 coats of paint 50 8.6 10.03 MUST 1.0238 9.0062

75 10.1 13.26 Be less 1.134425 12.125575100 11.4 15.91 than 10% 1.2413 14.6687150 13.7 20.49 1.4438 19.0462300 19.5 31.39 1.9613 29.4287100 11.4 16.08 -1.06 1.2413 14.838775 10.3 13.64 -2.79 1.134425 12.50557550 8.9 10.91 -8.07 1.0238 9.8862

Air Permeance Testing of Concrete Masonry Wall … · Air Permeance Testing of Concrete Masonry ......

Documents

Transcript of Air Permeance Testing of Concrete Masonry Wall … · Air Permeance Testing of Concrete Masonry ......