Pérez-Bella, J M; Domínguez-Hernández, J; Rodríguez-Soria, B; del Coz-Díaz, J J; Cano-Suñén, E and Navarro-Manso, A (2013) An extended method for comparing watertightness tests for facades. Building Research & Information, 41(6), pp. 706-721. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Watertightness tests for building facades attempt to simulate the most relevant climatic exposures for water penetration by reproducing standard conditions. Such conditions do not represent all possible climatic exposures, hence a new method was recently presented that relates test severity to watertightness performance of a facade under any operating conditions. In addition, test conditions vary for each regulatory framework (i.e.the results generated for one test cannot necessarily be extrapolated to other tests). A process is presented for considering the influence of exposure time. This allows a comparison of the severity of the conditions imposed by different watertightness tests independently of the exposure parameters. This comparison, which is based on a performance criterion, can enable a global certification of watertightness of any facade design under any operating conditions using results from only one watertightness test. The method developed herein was applied to facades under various operational conditions at a reference location, comparatively evaluating the conditions recreated by different international watertightness tests. The results suggest that American tests are more appropriate for recreating high climatic exposures, while European tests are more suitable for evaluating moderate and protected conditions of wind-driven rain and wind pressure.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building envelope; climate loads; facade design; test parameters; watertightness |
| Index terms: | test parameter, penetration, exposure, wind-driven rain, building envelope, wind pressure, certification |
| Subjects: | public and environmental health, architectural elements, structural engineering, administrative processes, market analysis, climate science, analytical methods |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Design Practice, Sustainability, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 1 C |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here