Avert Holes in an Air Barrier Specification

1/1/2018

This brief article is directed to architects, specifiers, and consultants. The use and evolution of air barriers is very reminiscent of the growth of single-ply roofing technology. The larger corporate manufacturers are pouring tons of money into marketing and advertising and as I’m fond of saying, “all advertising is completely true but rarely truly complete”.

All too often, architects & specifiers rely heavily on the paid for mass produced specifications or a quick internet search and then dutifully download a set of specifications. This is okay, but they may not contain all the technical or QA items that may be needed for proper air barrier design and performance.

What follows are references (suggestions) that can lead to clarity of specification interpretation, design intent, proper bidding and installation. These are not an endorsement, just references.

After I have the building’s design, function and climatic conditions defined, I include the following in my specifications:

MATERIALS: I look at the Air Barrier Association of America (ABAA) web site (www.airbarrier.org) to ascertain whether my initial choices in air barrier technology are listed as an ABAA Evaluated Assembly. This listing means that your choice has undergone an extensive testing protocol which goes way beyond just air barrier properties. This listing will also give you thicknesses and coverage rates.
ADDITIONAL TESTING: An Atlanta based consultant gave me some great advice and food for thought. With that, I list in my specifications the requirement that the window flashing pass the ASTM E331, not at the minimum, but at 10 psf for 2 hours. Windows are a high potential leak area, so more rigorous testing should be required of the supplier.
CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS: Make sure that your contractor, at a minimum, is an approved contractor by the supplier but please know that this is a weak qualification. The vastly superior qualification is that they are an ABAA Certified Contractor listed at the ABAA web site and Certified for the application of a proposed type of air barrier like, such as self-adhered, fluid applied or spray foam. This is a robust & rigorous program that requires continuing education and recertification at various time periods. There are currently 278 ABAA Certified Contractors in North America, many with multiple offices, so getting someone to bid and install your project properly is not a problem, regardless of what a GC may say to you. The Certified person on your job site will have an ABAA photo ID and is required to have that on him/her at all times.
QUALITY ASSURANCE and AUDIT PROGRAMS: There are two ways to handle on-site inspections to ensure that you’re getting what you specified and your owner is paying for:
1. The ABAA has a Quality Assurance Program (QAP), through ABAA trained and certified third party independent auditors, that is based on a site visit frequency predicated on the size of the job. A variety of testing is involved and the auditors report is sent to the architect, building owner, GC, ABAA, the air barrier supplier and the air barrier contractor. Cost of this program is about $.085 per ft² of wall area. For your project, check the costing at the ABAA web site.
2. An independent third-party consultant that is a member of both RCI and ABAA to ensure that they are keeping up with technology changes, testing protocols and vast air barrier experience. Cost is dependent upon services requested.

While nothing is perfect, I’ve found the above to serve me well and I hope these items are of good use to you.

12 Comments

Cory Robbins link

1/2/2018 11:54:40 am

Hey Cherise,

I take issue with the ABAA Quality Assurance Program (QAP) from a simple perspective. (the installer) My company was ABAA certified, and we used to prefer the ABAA QAP, until one project leaked where my company was the installer of the ACM Panels, and another company was the installer of the AVB underneath.
The leak was discovered 3.5 years after the substantial date of completion, and the AVB installer went out of business/bankrupt and opened with new name.
When my company was brought to a meeting to figure out whom was at fault, and the AVB installer was missing, we called the ABAA. They stated that they "AUDITed and CHECKed" the work but had no liability of the work being correct, especially after the AVB was punctured by 50,000 holes. We asked, "What was the $0.085 for then?" Then they pointed us to their brochure where it read...

"Proceeds go towards marketing purposes"

So we were frustrated because we thought the ABAA had our backs, and they simply do not. Our company hopes the ABAA certifies it's installers more thoroughly, and then takes on the liability if something goes wrong, but it has been proven on several occasions NOT to do so.

Just a warning, that the ABAA will NOT help if a leak is found. They simply audit the work, the days they are present. Which is usually 1 visit every 25,000 sqft.

Other than the ABAA, I love the idea! ABAA is an educational entity and should stay that way. We feel the ABAA should audit work, but only if they take on liability.

Cory

Cherise Lakeside

1/2/2018 12:05:31 pm

Cory, thank you for your perspective and comments. The backbone of Let's Fix Construction is exactly this. To post common problems and issues in the industry and then have others from all disciplines chime in and share their knowledge, experiences and lessons learned related to that issue.

When everyone shares, we all come away with a better understanding and are better equipped to deal with these things BEFORE they become a problem.

I appreciate you taking the time to share!

Cherise

Ryan Dalgleish link

1/3/2018 10:39:27 am

Hi Cory,

I wanted to take this opportunity to respond to your post and the ABAA QAP. I am with the Air Barrier Association of America and want to clarify a few things in regards to the process.

The ABAA QAP program is a system that reduces risk and increases the proper application of air barrier materials. It is based on the principles of ISO 9000 quality management standards where the association puts forth processes and systems to ensure installation defects do not happen and the contractors and installers are provided the education and technical support to install the materials correctly and understand how to recognize and inspect and test the completed application.

Although we will never claim that the system is perfect and you will never have a leak, it significantly reduces the chance of poor installation. Unlike traditional site observation and inspection only, studies have shown that this is expensive and only deals with finding problems, rather that making sure you reduce the potential for problems. The focus is not on making sure a problem does not happen in the first place. An ASHRAE study into the airtightness of buildings with and without some form of quality assurance showed that the majority of projects that had no form of QA/QC failed to meet performance requirements for air leakage at a rate of 50 %. Those that did have QA/QC all met the performance requirement. While this is just a sampling of buildings, I believe it helps drive home the point that systems like this can be effective.

The ABAA audit process is there to ensure compliance to specifications and manufacturer installation instructions. It is done periodically based on the amount of square footage OR the requirements of the specifications that may require additional audits. There may also be additional building enclosure consultants that review the entire envelope in some projects that provide the budget for it.

The two largest insurance claims fall into 2 categories: moisture and workmanship. With an air barrier, you are dealing with both and it is covered with exterior cladding and hard to repair after the fact. That is why we feel it is extremely important to provide the tools during installation and have trained, qualified and certified trades do the work. This is still a pretty new industry and trade compared to other traditional trades and the industry has a lot of work to do to educate not only the sub-trades, but architects, general contractors, code officials and other industry stakeholders.

Without a lot of detail in regards to the job you specifically state, it is hard for me to respond without some assumptions, but there are a few comments I would like to make.

After the air barrier contractor has completed his work and is off the job site, most contractors would not want to assume liability for the damage causes by others. The same would apply to ABAA in assuming liability for things that occur after the installation has been completed and ABAA has completed their audits. ABAA reports on what it sees at the time of audit, much like a 3rd party consultant that is engaged periodically to do site review. The more inspections that take place will help reduce the risk, but is more expensive to the owner and still will not guarantee absolutely no issues with occur. Most, if not all 3rd party inspectors will not assume liability for things that occur after they inspect or after things are covered and they are unable to perform a review of the installation. The parties that have contracts to install the air barrier will always maintain liability for their work and I am not aware of a program that would absolve a contractors liability because one or more inspections took place.

One solution to this is to help educate other trades, general contractors, architects that perform site review and others involved in the construction process. Another solution is to require whole building airtightness testing after the air barrier is installed to provide an actual number of the amount of leakage and the opportunity to pinpoint area's that require re-work or repair.

The ABAA QAP does have a cost of $0.085 per square foot. This project registration cost covers the management, administration and tools and supports to the program. It is not revenue used for marketing. As you can imagine, their is a significant infrastructure to run a national quality assurance. The cost of the program can be calculated on the ABAA website which includes registration fees and the cost of doing 3rd party audits.(www.airbarrier.org)

The issue of liability is something that always comes up. No one wants any and everyone wants to download it onto other parties. The best we can do is to manage it, it will never go away. Another issue that comes up with any type of QA/QC is cost to the owner. This is not specific to the ABAA QAP, but any and all QA/QC and inspections. It is a balancing act and will depend on many factors in

1/3/2018 10:53:23 am

Hey Ryan! Sooooo nice to see you here. Thank you so much for offering your comments and knowledge. The more of us that come to the table on any given issue, the more each of us can learn and improve. Hope to see you at a conference or CONSTRUCT again this year!

1/3/2018 01:40:23 pm

Ryan,

I oversimplified the use of revenue for the QAP, and my ignorance showed in this and for that I apologize. The $.085 per square foot is an additional cost for some oversight, education, and additional tools and is applied to all projects. We are not privy to the exact accounting of how the ABAA calculates its expenses but we are deeply troubled by the impression of coverage that this program indicates to specifying architects. Our issue is that the exterior envelope consultant is a much more valuable expense due to their third party role. In addition, these exterior envelope consultants provide an error and omissions policy which shows a commitment to their work. We believe there is a better way.

The ABAA is an excellent educational organization that could be an even greater asset to this industry. Unfortunately, this industry has many unqualified installers due to the low investment to become an installer. The ABAA is a great place to help qualify and educate the air and vapor barrier installers. If this program was a certification program that charged a fixed fee and a qualification grade for this certification then it would be a tremendous step in the right direction. This certification could be good for two or three years and then require recertification. Or have several levels of certification depending on the type of project.

We believe the below is a better way:

• A certification Program for all Air and Vapor Barrier installers.
• An exterior envelope consultant to help ensure that all exterior aspects are integrated and properly engineered.
• The exterior envelope specification that makes the exterior product installer responsible for the air and vapor barrier system. Since the exterior product installer will be piercing the water integrity system with their system then this is a critical component of the rain screen system. This specification should require the exterior product installer to provide a 10 year water tightness warranty to confirm their commitment to the system.

We believe if the above are followed then all parties (owners, architects, construction managers, etc.) will have the most comprehensive coverage to allow for a leak free exterior façade. At the end of the day that is the desired outcome for everyone. This is the Better Way!!

P.S. I have spoken with your colleague Todd Parrott about this concept at length, and would be more than happy to speak to you as well. Feel free to reach out, and maybe our two points of view can find some SYNERGY and truly push the industry even further than ABAA has already done. Thank you for replying so eloquently and thoroughly. You gave me a lot to think about and I look forward to speaking with you soon.

Ryan Dalgleish

1/4/2018 11:48:50 am

Hi Cory,

Thank you for your response. I wanted to clarify one thing and I think it meets what you feel is a good solution.

Our auditors are some of the best and top building enclosure consultants in the industry and we have requirements for errors and omissions insurance. They perform the ABAA audit function, but most do building enclosure commissioning, whole building testing, thermography that looks at all the wall systems as a whole.

The scope of the enclosure consultant is very much dependent on the budget and resources put towards QA/QC for a specific project and what exactly their scope is. Sometimes it is doing some design review, sometimes it is site observation, sometimes it is testing the AVB, curtainwall, etc. We find a lot of times the QA/QC for a project is value engineered out (even for a couple of site observation inspections)

I think one of the challenges is the wall is made up of so many trades. With the wall, we have different types of structure (CMU, steel stud, poured concrete), lots of insulation products, myriads of exterior cladding (masonry, EIFS, stucco, metal panel systems, siding, etc). The concept of single source enclosure contractors is interesting and a number of contractors do this (EIFS is a good example).

We find most leaks happen at interfaces of window/wall and the roof/wall connection, which is a combination of a number of separate trades and responsibility for the final seal. It think this is almost as much of a challenge and any solution needs to take into account these interfaces.

Lots of good discussions and lots of things to think about. The industry has some work to do and hopefully we can slowly move in the direction of providing more robust and sustainable building for the building owners.

1/4/2018 12:32:34 pm

Ryan,

Your statement about a single source enclosure contractor is a great point and something to aim for in the future. But at this point in time, the gap in the warranty of AVB manufacturers is glaring and there is no clear view in sight for how this gap/loophole will be closed.

Adding the ABAA QAP is a start, but it does not close the gap. As you mentioned earlier, ABAA is not responsible for what happens after their LAST review of the work. Leaving that responsibility on the installing contractor. But, also as you mentioned, there are too many trades to point fingers at one another. (Blame Game)

We have found, from our experience, that the only legitimate solution is a motivated installer. A motivated contractor/installer will coordinate their shop drawings, patch holes in AVB created by other trades, QA/QC their own work! All of this is attainable through a WORKMANSHIP WARRANTY stuck on the Exterior Facade Installer.

Mix a motivated Exterior Facade Installer with an ABAA (PLATINUM) level AVB installer, and the job will be done right, the first time. If there is an error, it will be small and fixable quickly without any companies calling their lawyers.

This is what has been successful for us, and we recommend every architect to specify this WORKMANSHIP WARRANTY language, contracting the two trades together for a watertight wall.

After this becomes the new "Norm", THEN, we can tackle the leaks between trades and scopes. For example, the flashing into the Underground Waterproofing, the flashing into the Roof vapor retarder & most importantly, the flashing into the curtainwall. In theory, these other scopes will ALL be involved with ONE SuperSub, or, if there is a leak found, the testing will show which is at fault, and there will AT LEAST be less companies at the table when things go sideways.

I hope to speak with you soon Ryan, I really think that if the ABAA certified their installers with more stringent qualifications, and had TIERED levels on ABAA certification. And then, mix that with a 10-year workmanship warranty attached to the facade installer. That would truly be an unbreakable bond where coordination and installation care would increase by pure necessity.

Cory

Roy Schauffele FCSI FABAA CCPR LEED Green Assoc.

1/3/2018 08:34:55 am

Cory, I too have had this occur to me but on a non-ABAA project, everybody got sued based on the actions of the rain screen installer.
I have asked the executive management at ABAA to look at your comment in the desire that any confusion could be cleared-up.

Ellen Berky, AIA,CCS, LEED AP

1/8/2018 09:46:04 am

What sort of rainscreen ? Was an ASTM E 779 test performed? If so was this test performed before or after the rainscreen was installed?

Robert Aird link

1/3/2018 11:57:09 am

Hello all,
Cory's concern is legitimate, but ABAA is not an insurance company, only a trainer and monitor for proper installation of air/water barriers.
Aird, Inc. does and has for decades performed air/water barrier work.
Whenever a follow-on trade installs work over ours, there is a risk of damage and/or intentional penetrations of the barrier - especially when the finish is masonry or rainscreen with "50,000 penetrations".
In the current construction environment - and especially with untrained, unsupervised, uncaring piece workers doing the work, quality is not necessarily a priority. And the GC/CM has - in many cases - eschewed responsibility for observing - not to mention approving - work in place.
To that end, we always request a pre-construction meeting with all the players who are involved with the enclosure – the framer, sheather, window contractor, mason, rainscreen contractor, mechanical contractor, electrical contractor, waterproofing (flashing) contractor, architect, GC/CM, third-party inspector/engineer - to address any issues that might threaten the performance of the air/water barrier – before we start! These issues might include a request that all penetrations be installed through the exterior wall prior to the installation of the air/water barrier and the use of a rubberized peel and stick product behind any item that will be mechanically fastened through the air/water barrier for positive air sealing.
The converse is also true – when we’re installing a finish to the exterior of a building on which some other company has installed the air/water barrier, we do an inspection of it – with a third party – to ensure that it is done well. Otherwise, when the building subsequently leaks, we may be deemed culpable. Whole building air testing is a good investment.
We also always ask for third-party inspection of our work - by professionals knowledgeable of proper installation of the air/water barrier. They provide a second pair of eyes to assure that our work is done well and as Ryan indicates to "ensure compliance to specifications and manufacturer installation instructions" on which we stake our reputation. ABAA's mission is to do the same, but only as trainers and observers.
I greatly value these civil discussions of our issues rather than the all-too-common negative criticisms and threats. To quote Cherise, "The more of us that come to the table on any given issue, the more each of us can learn and improve".

Laverne Dalgleish link

1/4/2018 05:12:54 pm

Cory

We are talking about two different things here.
One is providing a warranty. Anybody can provide a warranty to cover whatever they want. Any contractor can propose to an owner or an owner’s representative that they will provide a labour and material, no limit warranty for all work that is given them. If you provide the warranty, you set the rules as to who and what will be part of that. You don't need anybody else involved. If you want to take on the liability of anybody putting holes in your work hours, days, weeks, years after you can do so.
I believe that owners do want a single person to blame and sue if something goes wrong. It keeps their legal costs low as they only must deal with one person who cannot pass the liability along to somebody else.
If I understand this is what your company does. I am guessing you want more people to do the same so that the costs for the work is equal. It is impossible to do a proper performance job for the same price as a contractor that will cheat and cut corners at every chance they get.
Bonding companies are in the business of providing protection through performance bonds. Keep in mind performance here simply means meeting the contract requirements not in providing a building that performs. A majority of contractors do not have the financial strength to obtain a bond of any significant amount.
Second is asking a third party to warrant your work. No organization will provide an unlimited, unsupervised, unmonitored warranty on work that they are not intimately involved with.
In providing a warranty, you need to have a risk management program in place. You need to reduce the risk in every step of the process. However even these warranties do not cover damage caused by other after the fact.
So, this issue that should be discussed here is how do we bring the industry together to provide a labor and material warranty that is cost effective.
There are some manufacturers that are starting to provide labor and material AND overburden warranties - some large limits and some no limits. I personally see this as a growth area.
The Army Corps of Engineers has been a leader in having a performance level for air leakage and every one of their buildings is blower door tested and inspected with infrared. Even these buildings can have damage done to the air and water resistive barrier after all the testing is complete.
I have seen some projects where the owner wants a single contractor to be responsible for the complete wall. From the drywall inside to the cladding system outside. Excellent idea. However, that is actually the job of the general contractor where many are interested in how do they reduce their costs and increase their profit. I have seen many good designs and materials valued engineered out to save some money. It does not seem to matter what the contract documents say. I have seen projects where even the trade contractor has said, I don't care what the contract says, I’m not doing it.
I do think ABAA should start discussion on an industry warranty program, it has the risk management part in place with evaluated materials, accredited contractors, trained and certified installers (with various levels) and a means to spot check that the work is being done as intended. This is needed as the cost to provide a warranty on projects that don't have this is cost prohibitive.

ABAA spends a tremendous amount of money (the $0.085/ft²) on research to better the industry, on developing test methods, material specifications, training programs, certification programs, on assisting contractors and installers sort out problem issues on a jobsite, on providing technical information on air and water resistive barriers, on representing the industry at code hearings, government regulators, standards development meetings, on educating building owners, design professionals, manufacturer representatives, consultants, on working to bring various industries together on many issues facing this part of the construction industry and to bring professionalism and pride to the industry – just to name a couple of things on ABAA’s plate.
Total warranties have been talked about for decades - time to start to do something about it.

2/19/2018 10:25:29 am

Regarding the topic of 'holes' in the air barrier membrane and pretty much any other construction material, please address the issue of masonry ties.
As a specific example, consider the classic gypsum sheathed metal stud wall which is to receive a fluid applied air barrier inside the masonry cavity.
The brick veneer is to be attached with a two-piece anchor system, also typical in the industry. Within the cavity wall is a 1" polystyrene board attached over the air barrier in some fashion. Here is the question:
Is it correct to screw attach the backer plate of the masonry tie through the insulation, air barrier, and sheathing? If so, what is the best way to seal the screws as they penetrate the 1" insulation? Alternatively, if the masonry tie manufacturer is not happy with the anchor plate being screwed through the insulation, what is the best way to attach the insulation to the air barrier to preserve thermal integrity over the masonry anchor plate?

Avert Holes in an Air Barrier Specification

Leave a Reply.

About

Get blog post notifications here

Archives

Categories