Eagleville Elementary School Facade Investigation August 2019 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Eagleville Elementary School Facade Investigation August 2019

Introduction Intent Eagleville Elementary School Eagleville Elementary School was originally constructed in 2002 / It was designed by Breslin Ridyard Fadero Architects of Allentown, PA, and constructed by E /R / First Floor Plan showing construction areas / Stuebner Construction, Inc / of Reading, PA / It is primarily a two-story brick CMU construction faced building with cast stone elements / The north side of the building includes Structural stud wall construction Facade Investigation the gymnasium/cafeteria, kitchen, mechanical spaces and music room that was constructed of concrete masonry units (CMU) with brick veneer / The south side of the building which includes the classrooms was constructed using structural steel studs with insulation, sheathing and brick veneer / According to the Facilities stafg for Methacton School District (MSD), water infjltration has been an issue in the building for some time. Investigation reports were completed in 2016 and again in 2017 by others to determine possible water Methodology Summary infjltration points. Once the previous reports, original construction drawings, and interior/ exterior The extensive probe program revealed that the detailing of the existing wall Insect infjltration, specifjcally bees, has also been an issue in the classrooms. conditions were reviewed specifjc probe locations were identifjed by SRE construction throughout the building varied at each location evaluated / There Bees have been seen in the building; however, no nests are observed around the where the existing brick veneer was to be removed to review the construction was no consistency in construction detailing per wall or even in the same area / building perimeter / conditions beyond / These areas included window heads, sills, jambs, vents, The only commonality between the probe locations is that no area met industry fmoor levels, weep vents and coping conditions. Areas were chosen on all four standards for veneer construction / Reportedly, roofjng work has been completed within the last fjve years to sides of the building to confjrm the consistency of construction. A total of 43 address roof leaks identifjed by others. It is believed that these issues have The mortar is difgerent each side of the building. Flashing materials and detailing probe locations were identifjed. been addressed and water infjltration through the roof has been remediated. changed from location to location / Brick ties were inconsistent in spacing Additionally, it was found by others that the gaskets around the windows were MSD hired a mason in July of 2019 to cut the openings in the wall and infjll and their connection into the structural wall behind it / The CMU portion of installed too short, creating areas of potential water infjltration. The gaskets them with a metal panel once the existing conditions were reviewed by SRE / the building does not sufger from the same poor installation of brick ties as were replaced in 2018 and water infjltration at these locations is believed to Openings were 16”x16” in order to salvage as much original brick as possible / the structural stud wall construction. However, the fmashing in the CMU wall have ceased / The mason was requested to save as many bricks as possible so they could be construction at the windows, doors and fmoor levels does not allow for water to re-installed during the repair program / A high reach was used to access the exit the wall construction / Shephard Restoration Engineers, Inc / (SRE) was engaged to build on the building facade above the fjrst fmoor level. previous reports and further investigate their fjndings. The intent of the Open plastic weeps were used on both portions of the building / Many locations investigation was: The openings were cut using a wet saw to minimize the amount of dust exhibited missing weeps that were seemingly never installed / The open weeps potentially blowing into the building The openings were infjlled with painted holes have allowed insects to enter the wall and make nests in the air-space X To determine if the fjndings from previous reports were localized at metal panels with a fmange around all sides allowing for sealant to be installed on cavity / Reportedly, live bees were often found in the classrooms during active test locations or if they are consistent throughout the building / the inside of the brick instead of on the face / Rigid insulation was also installed X To determine the location of insect infjltration. teacher and student times / behind the panels to prevent cold spots in the wall / The panels are estimated to X To determine if any previous water infjltration has resulted in mold The greatest concern documented regarding the existing construction was remain in place for the next year / conditions within the building wall cavities / the installation of the masonry ties at the stud wall construction portion of the X To determine what steps need to be done to make the building water The following report documents our fjndings. building / Many of the ties were found only to be anchored into the sheathing tight and insect free / 2

19 18 17 15.2 15.2 15 14.8 14.8 14 11.3 11.3 10.4 10.4 8 6 5 4 26 23 25 29 27 22 21 24 LEA LEARNING ARNING CARING PLAYING YING GROWING GROWING GROWING 28 20 43 40 19 39 5 4 6 6 West Elevation 11.3 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 9.3 10.4 14.8 15 15.2 12 13 14 16 14 42 E 38 15 13 E A G V I I L L E 33E 17 12 L E A 37 34 32 16 11 3 9 10 E A G L E V I L L E E L E M E N T A R Y 7 1 8 2 Eagleville Elementary School East Elevation B C D E F F.7 G G.7 H J E J.8 H.2 G.5 F.8 E.6 D.8 A.8 A Facade Investigation 17 36 33N 31 18 41 35 30 South Elevation North Elevation Legend: 1 Probe Location Number Mortar found to be too hard for brick construction. Missing mortar net. Masonry tie not secured. Ineff ective fl ashing found. 5