1 May 13, 2020

BETHEL POLICE STATION – FIRING RANGE

CMU Insulated Single Wythe Construction Judd Road – Bethel, Connecticut

MAY 13, 2020

National Consulting Group, Inc.

Richard Filloramo - President

90 South Mill Drive

South Glastonbury, CT 06073

860-202-8444

rfilloramo@ncg-ct.com

2 May 13, 2020

BETHEL POLICE STATION – SHOOTING RANGE CMU Insulated Single Wythe Construction

Judd Road – Bethel, Connecticut GENERAL DESCRIPTION This review is limited to the 8” CMU Insulated Single Wythe Construction at the Firing Range at the Bethel Police Facility. I visited the project site on Saturday, May 9, 2020 and met with Sal Indomenico at 10 am. Sal logged in at the front desk and an officer escorted us into the interior. In order to submit a precise and timely report, general building elements and construction are not repeated and can be found on the project drawings and other related reports. The exterior is constructed of single-wythe, 8” heavyweight CMU, dense profile exterior mix with integral water repellent (IWR) between June and August 2018. It was reported that the owner and architect accepted Westbrook Block’s Certification that the CMU were compliant with ASTM C-90 and contained the code and industry required IWR. The CMU were not tested for IWR. The cores are insulated with Polycore inserts as shown in photo 1 except in reinforced cells. Westbrook Block reported to Connecticut Mason Contractors that CMU production took place May 13 and 14, 2018 and the blocks were shipped June 4, 7, 12, 18 and 21, 2018. Therefore, given the time of year and time between production, delivery and actual installation, the CMU had sufficient time to cure and dry. All cells are grouted 100%. It was reported there is only one reinforced bond beam at the top of the wall. Reinforcing is noted on the structural drawings as 1 - #5 at 48” o.c. The mortar is Spec-Mix Type S (PCL) pre-blended with IWR in accordance with ASTM C-270. It was reported the owner would not accept certification, and the mortar was tested and found to have the required IWR. The architect of record is Jacunski Humes Architects and the Structural Engineer was Richard M. Szewczak, P.E. Plans are dated May 19, 2017. The referenced code is the 2016 CT State Building Code which uses the 2012 IBC and TMC/ACI/ASCE 2011. Drawing A-4.1 indicates the Firing Range Walls - 8” Nom. Grout-Filled Insulated Split-Face CMU - Exterior Block Sealer. It was reported no block sealer was specified and the IWR in the CMU was considered the water resistance element for the single wythe CMU wall. No exterior CMU sealer was post-applied to the CMU walls. Connecticut Masons reported they recommended this application during previous communications. The Firing Range building was originally 12’-0” high (Plank bearing - West Elevation) with sloping, load-bearing roof plank to 11’-4” high (east elevation). The high wall consisted of a 4” CMU in front of the plank and an 8” parapet block as shown on 3/A4.10. The low wall was detailed as shown in detail 4/A4.10. The base of wall was flashed with an accepted change to a single piece of metal flashing that returned up on the interior face and cut-out for vertical rebar. It should be noted, the control joints (CJ) are spaced at 20’-0” o.c. and would not meet industry standards for a 12’-0” CMU wall. In general, the NCMA recommends a prescriptive height to length of 1.5 thus requiring CJ spacing of 18’. The bearing walls were extended in height to 14’ -8” on the West Elevation and 14’-0” on the East Elevation. The original CJ spacing of 20’-0” meets the NCMA prescriptive height to length of 1.5 (21’-0’).

3 May 13, 2020

GENERAL DESCRIPTION The CMU walls were constructed in the summer of 2018 and the building remained unheated until January of 2019. The Hoffman Architects Facade Report, dated September 30, 2019, was received and reviewed along with various emails. OBSERVATIONS AND REVIEW It was reported an observed that moisture is penetrating the 8” single wythe, Split-Face CMU walls and there are areas of efflorescence on the exterior and interior sides of the wall. The Hoffmann Report noted that Downes Construction reported evidence of moisture infiltration soon after the exterior shell was completed. No exact date, nor completed elements (roof, facia, gutters, etc.) were indicated. The report also noted the Police Department added an electric heater in January of 2019 for temporary heat. Downes reported that frost was visible on the exterior face of the CMU approximately 3 weeks after the installation of heat. The inside temperature and exact frost locations were not indicated. The report also noted Downes conducted water spray testing from 10 feet and dampness and some water dripping was observed. There was no indication of compliance with ASTM or industry standards for exterior CMU walls. On 5/11/20, NCG requested, via Connecticut Masons, additional information and locations of these informal water tests. Connecticut Masons did not receive any information from Downes Construction. See next page. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My observations, and the Hoffman report, notes there are areas of efflorescence, hairline cracked mortar joints, some minor discoloration of mortar joints and only a few defective mortar joints. It is agreed the efflorescence appears at both mortar joints and split face CMU. Report content continues in email which follows:

4 May 13, 2020

OBSERVATIONS AND REVIEW ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Email of 5-11-20 to John Civitillo, I am working on the report and will need a few days to compile the information and complete the report regarding the 8” CMU at the Firing Range. I did meet Sal there on Saturday, May 9, 2020 to review the walls. It is my recommendation NOT proceed with any repointing or remedial work until I complete this report and you submit it to the Construction Manager and all parties review. It is important to note that some or many of the hairline cracks observed are just that – hairline and of minimal thickness and depth, not even measurable in some cases and barely visible to the human eye. I did drill near one of these hairline cracks that was marked by Hoffman. There was negligible depth to the crack. Some or many of these hairline cracks may NOT be contributors of moisture infiltration since their depth is insignificant. Repointing will only create inconsistencies in the final appearance of the building and may not be required in all areas. I am reviewing other potential related causes of infiltration and a step by step procedure to determine the cause or causes and best remedial solutions. Sal and I did see water dripping from the gutter / fascia system on the rear elevation directly onto the CMU wall. These details will also be covered in the report. Please request and send any and all information including original pictures (if any) of the informal water testing Downes performed. If the location of testing is available that would be very helpful. The water testing is considered informal only as it did not seem to follow any ASTM guidelines. End of email ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Photos on the following pages. It is important to remember that split face CMU have irregular edges from the splitting process in manufacturing and differ from standard CMU. These irregular edges and differential absorption rates of the exposed aggregates are can cause surface hairline cracks in the adjacent mortar joint. In general, only wider cracks that have more deeply penetrated the joint will cause debonding and may permit moisture filtration into the wall system. This incidental moisture is drained in the open cells to the flashing at the base of the wall. Unfortunately, there are no open cells in the 100% grouted CMU in this building and, therefore, there is no drainage. The interior of the building had limited light. Moisture migration and efflorescence was not always consistent with exterior hairline cracked mortar joints but do regularly appear at 100% solid grouted reinforced cells. This suggests moisture migrates, as noted, because there are no open cells in the system, there are potential other sources of moisture (roof edge construction) and direct moisture migration through the CMU because additional water repellent is required. See report sections - CAUSES OF MOISTURE AND WATER INFILTRATION and RECOMMENDATIONS, TEST PANELS AND REPAIRS. Although there was limited light from cell phones, it should be noted that there was very little, if any, noticeable hairline cracking of the mortar joints on the interior. This supports the reasoning the irregular edges of the exterior split face CMU are more prone to minor hairline cracking and drying shrinkage, if any, was minimal.

5 May 13, 2020

Drilled on 05/09/20 near marked hairline crack – no appreciable depth observed.

An example of a marked deficient cracked joint with no visible crack to the human eye.

6 May 13, 2020

Another example of marked joint with hairline crack barely visible to the eye near the irregular edge of the CMU.

Another example of marked joint with hairline crack barely visible to the eye near the irregular edge of the CMU.

7 May 13, 2020

Example of no crack observed.

Example of no crack observed.

8 May 13, 2020

Moisture migration is not always consistent with hairline cracked mortar joints but do regularly appear at 100% solid grouted reinforced cells. This suggests moisture migrates, as noted, because there are no open cells in the system, there are potential other sources of moisture (roof edge construction) and direct moisture migration through the CMU because additional water repellent is required. IMPORTANT NOTE The Hoffman report is well-written and I am very familiar with this well-respected firm and staff. I have worked with them for many years as Director of Market Development and Technical Services for the International Masonry Institute. The report documents and Hoffman indicates by crayon markings on the CMU walls the location of hairline cracks and some larger cracks. I am NOT disputing these hairline cracks exist. Perhaps it is an interpretation and understanding of normal superficial hairline cracking and larger/deeper cracks that can lead to moisture migration. In this case, I feel most of them are minor hairline cracks that may NOT be contributing to moisture migration and the only way to determine this is by the Testing Method on page 15. I have also worked with the well-established architect and structural engineer on this project in the same capacity and the drawings and masonry details are well done. There are a few architectural masonry detail that could use improvements as noted in this report. Report Continues:

9 May 13, 2020

OBSERVATIONS AND REVIEW The Hoffman report notes bond failure. I did not observe this reported deficiency at ground level. There was one cracked CMU as noted on the West Elevation. The Hoffman report notes spalling of CMU. There was one CMU where the split face was protruding more so than others and it separated. This separation is NOT spalling of masonry. Spalling occurs when multiple units exhibit surface failure due to water infiltration or a non-breathable sealer or surface paint is applied. This spalled unit may actually have been caused by a roof/gutter/fascia leak allowing water to directly drip on the unit. See next section of the report. Hairline cracking and larger cracking in mortar joints and CMU are generally caused by initial drying shrinkage of the CMU. Westbrook Block reported to Connecticut Mason Contractors that CMU production took place May 13 and 14, 2018 and the blocks were shipped June 4, 7, 12, 18 and 21, 2018. Therefore, given the time of year and time between production, delivery and actual installation, the CMU had sufficient time to cure and dry. (From Page 2). There was also sufficiently spaced control joints to accommodate initial drying shrinkage and normal movements. The Hoffman Report (page 16) confirms the depths of the tested mortar joint was within the code and industry standards which is about 1 3/8” to 2” or the face shell thickness (1 3/8” minimum). The Hoffman report notes there are extensive workmanship issues (Page 19) with the mortar joints, especially on the West Elevation. Extensive is not correct, since most of the cracks are hairline as noted. While there are mortar joint color variations, some within normal parameters, I did observe a few areas in which the mortar joint color varied. It is important to remember that the West Elevation is in direct sunlight and ASTM C-90 requires CMU and workmanship be viewed from 20 feet with diffused lighting. Variation in mortar joint color does not contribute to moisture penetration. On page 19, third paragraph, the Hoffman report notes that the cracks and the bond failures of the mortar joints are caused by insufficiently filled mortar joints. Then also states their testing indicated the mortar joints were sufficiently filled, as noted above. This is a contradiction and, therefore, nullifies there are deficient mortar joints. While warm temperatures can contribute to mortar joint shrinkage, it is generally only seen as minor surface cracking and, as noted, is more prevalent with the irregular edges of Split Face CMU. Report Continues:

10 May 13, 2020

CAUSES OF MOISTURE AND WATER INFILTRATION First, it is very important to note that the roof to wall interface is contributing to the water infiltration within the wall. On the West Elevation, the modified Detail 3, as shown below, is recommended by the International Masonry Institute, NCMA and other industry organizations. A smooth top course CMU is recommended, as a split face CMU has an irregular surface creating large gaps for wind-driven water infiltration. Flashing as shown would also have been helpful. At this point, add sealant at metal facia and split face CMU interface. Water test before and after remedial work.

Detail 3/A-4.10 – Alternate No. 1 Roof Edge Section at Ridge (High Point) of Firing Range See International Masonry Institute Detail on the next page:

11 May 13, 2020

CAUSES OF MOISTURE AND WATER INFILTRATION

12 May 13, 2020

CAUSES OF MOISTURE AND WATER INFILTRATION On the East elevation, we did observe on 05/09/20 water was dripping from the gutter / fascia assembly directly onto the Split Face CMU. Water infiltration was observed at the interior near these locations. Note this was a dry day and there could be other locations during rain or rain/wind-driven events. See photos below.

13 May 13, 2020

CAUSES OF MOISTURE AND WATER INFILTRATION It is very important to note that the roof to wall interface is contributing to the water infiltration within the East wall. On the East Elevation, the modified Detail 4, as shown below, is recommended by the International Masonry Institute, NCMA and others. A smooth top CMU is recommended, as a split face CMU has an irregular surface creating large gaps for wind-driven water infiltration. Flashing as shown would also have been helpful. At this point, add sealant at PVC facia and split face CMU interface. Water test before and after remedial work.

Detail 4/A-4.10 – Alternate No. 1 Roof Edge Section at Ridge (High Point) of Firing Range

14 May 13, 2020

CAUSES OF MOISTURE AND WATER INFILTRATION CMU single-wythe walls are water-resistant – not waterproof. They do NOT contain an open air / drainage space like cavity walls. In this case, there are insulation inserts and 100% grouting, therefore, eliminating any open cells for drainage and thus causing direct flow of moisture to the interior and efflorescence. Moisture, and even grouting moisture, can become trapped between the insulation insert and face shell of the CMU. See picture below.

While integral water repellent reduces the flow of moisture, it does NOT eliminate it completely. The makers of IWR (Dry block)and other manufacturer’s recommend an additional post-construction sealer be applied to the face of the CMU to achieve a higher degree of water resistance. This recommendation is also supported by IMI, NCMA and other industry organizations. Additionally, ASTM C-90 recommends that all units manufactured under C-90, that are intended for use above grade, be coated with a clear water repellent. I have seen similar moisture infiltration on other 100% grout filled CMU single wythe walls. There may be another potential cause of hairline CMU mortar joint cracking from deflection. I did not review any data if the reinforcing was increased or needed to be increased due to the increased vertical span (height) of the CMU walls. It may also be prudent to review Korfil literature on any potential structural loss with the reduced size of the insulated grouting core. I was informed that NO insulation inserts were used at vertical and steel horizontal reinforcing. As noted, some moisture may be entering from larger cracks in mortar joints, and may NOT be entering from the hairline cracks. See next report section.

15 May 13, 2020

RECOMMENDATIONS, TEST PANELS AND REPAIRS As noted, it may NOT be necessary to cut out and repoint all the joints that Hoffman has marked on the CMU walls as some or many of them are hairline cracks of minimal thickness and depth, not even measurable in some cases and barely visible to the human eye. I did drill near one of these hairline cracks that was marked by Hoffman and there was negligible depth to the crack. Some, or many, of these hairline cracks may NOT be contributors of moisture infiltration since their depth is insignificant. Repointing will only create inconsistencies in the final appearance of the building and may not be required in all areas. Test Panels A post-applied compatible water-repellent NEEDS to be applied to the exterior of the CMU to provide added water resistance, as noted above, especially with 100% solid grouted walls with NO drainage. ProSoCo Ultra Block Guard and Graffiti Control has been proven to be effective on past similar projects. Have the mason submit product literature from ProSoCo. Sal Indomenico noted that this was previously recommended. As the Hoffman report noted, water repellents do NOT span cracks, and although not stated, ProSoCo Ultra may be effective in spanning some minor hairline cracks. It may be irrelevant, as the hairline cracks are most likely not causing the majority of the water infiltration and efflorescence. Select and tape out an area or areas of about 4’ x 4’ where there are marked joints for removal and replacement. Informally water test the areas or select an area that was previously tested by Downes that had moisture infiltration. Have ProSoCo, or self-perform, a Rilem Tube test on the CMU and mortar joint, noting these are not industry standard tests or accurate, especially with split face CMU. DO NOT repoint very small hairline cracks. If there are any large cracked mortar joints or defective joints, repoint these joints only. Determine with all parties, those joints that do need repairs and rake out and repoint only those joints. Wait 7 to 10 days. Apply one or two coats of the Prosoco Ultra. Wait 5 to 7 days to dry or as recommended by ProSoCo. Water test the area and compare. If moisture infiltration is significantly reduced or eliminated, this can be the repair for the CMU exterior. This would support the need for a post-applied water repellent. It would NOT be necessary to cut out and repoint all the joints that Hoffman has marked on the CMU walls. As noted, most of these are minor hairline surface cracks. Determine with all parties, those joints that do need repairs and rake out and repoint those joints. Clean off efflorescence by dry brushing or as required. Make repairs to existing roof/gutter/fascia detail as noted. Although not anticipated, if moisture is NOT significantly reduced or eliminated, gather information from the water test to determine further remedial action.

16 May 13, 2020

National Consulting Group, Inc. 90 South Mill Drive, S. Glastonbury, CT 06073 Phone: 860-202-8444 // rfilloramo@ncg-ct.com

Biography – Richard Filloramo (See attached for additional information)

Richard (Rick) Filloramo is president of National Consulting Group, Incorporated. He holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Architecture from Ohio State University and an Associate’s Degree in Construction Technology from Wentworth Institute of Technology. He has more than 44 years of experience in the construction industry, primarily the masonry industry, as a mason contractor, technical consultant, masonry expert, exterior facades expert, property manager, Clerk of Works Director and technical drafter. He served as the IMI national liaison for building codes and standards and also served on the SEC committee to review the Connecticut State Building Code. Richard Filloramo was an officer, estimator, project manager and technical expert for the family owned masonry construction firm that employed up to 200 workers for 7 years from 1977 to 1983. Mr. Filloramo was Director of the Masonry Institute of Connecticut for 10 years from 1983 to 1993 before merging with the International Masonry Institute (IMI) in 1993. On December 31, 2018, Mr. Filloramo retired after 26 years of service from the International Masonry Institute (IMI) where he served as Director of Industry Development and Technical Services for Connecticut and Rhode Island and assisted with other states. Mr. Filloramo served as a member of the Masonry Standards Joint Committee, the code writing body responsible for the Masonry 530 Code. He has served on numerous committees and has been a member of The Masonry Society, American Institute of Architects, US Green Building Council, CEFPI, National Concrete Masonry Association, Brick Institute of America, Construction Specification Institute, Building Safety Seismic Committee of NEHRP, American Society of Civil Engineers, American Concrete Institute, ASTM, ICC, USGBC, CTGBC and several other national and regional organizations. Mr. Filloramo has been involved with the design, construction and inspection of more than 5,000 building projects. He has written many technical papers, spearheaded efforts to educate the industry and has lectured across the country. Mr. Filloramo presented on masonry details, energy, movement joints, design, specifications, flashing, moisture control, and just about every aspect of masonry construction. He presented up to 40 presentations a year to all the major architectural firms, engineering firms and other industry related firms in the area reaching nearly 1000 attendees a year. He was also a national speaker at AIA, CSI and other National Organizations. Mr. Filloramo is a national expert in exterior facades and elements and was, or is a member of many national organizations including several code groups. He was awarded the Technical Excellence Award from the Construction Specification Institute and was a finalist as Educator of the Year in the Associated General Contractors of CT Recognition Awards.

Masonry Consulting Division