Implications of the Use of This Practice

C24 Representative #2—C1736 has two main procedures; Section 7.3 is most appropriate to in-depth analysis by an expert; Section 7.4 is more tuned to 100% evaluation for continuity of joint seal. In some cases, systemic issues are the most important thing to determine, served well by expert analysis of a discrete area. At other times it may be critical to achieve continuity of seal, meaning a 100% test and repair becomes the preferred usage of the standard. Both of these

Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Tue May 6 12:07:08 EDT 2014

Downloaded/printed by

Rochester Institute Of Technology pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

procedures have a focused purpose, and the new standard reflects the flexibility needed in the industry.

Applicator—I have a concern that this methodology could be used inap­propriately to create more problems that it can resolve. For example, what is to prevent a building owner from taking his 20-year sealant warranty, commis­sioning a 100% analysis on the 19th year of the warranty period, and then go back to the warranty issuer with a demand for a new sealant installation? For another example, there are 20-year sealant warranties that have been written for substrates that has a 1-year warranty. How are these types of potential mis­chief and conflict to be resolved?

C-24 Representative #2—‘What is best for the building is what is best for everyone connected to it, whether they realize it or not’. For example, two 40- foot [12.192 m] lengths of metal panel wall sections spontaneously fell from a building during a wind storm. This building was 30 years old, standing in the dry air of the Sonoran Desert in Phoenix Arizona, yet when investigated, what was found was rust rot throughout the building facade, caused by failed sealant joints leaking water for 30 years. The danger came from the fact that the seal leaks went unrecognized because the building did not leak to the inside where folks could observe it. So, for 30 years the rust rot did damage with the building owner completely unaware. We need to make sure that seal systems are truly sealed for the sake of the building first, in the interest of the public health and welfare, and then we can figure out how to pay for it. Whatever the cost, we know it will be less than the cost of a human life.

C-24 Representative #1—I agree with The Applicator that training and edu­cation for failure prevention should come first. It has been my experience that all too often the applicator/mechanic does not know why he is told to do a cer­tain procedure. The Applicator may ignore or modify a procedure out of simple preference or ignorance, not simply as a time saving measure. I have found that when applicators fully understand the why of a certain procedure, they become very motivated to do it the right way. Why does the joint design need a certain profile; why is there a need for bond breaker tape to prevent three sided adhe­sion; why is primer needed on this substrate but not on that one; when Applica­tors understand the whys’, they are most times very willing to comply with the procedural mandates. Education of field personnel to a high professional level is problem prevention; however, the fact that the testing of C1736 now exists should encourage better installation practices through better training. The two can peacefully coexist and promote each other.

C24 Representative #2—We have to remember that this is a field practice, not a laboratory test. All we are trying to do is find out whether or not we have adhesion, in a sampling or as continuity of seal in a 100% evaluation. Quantifi­cation of the results is called out in the reporting section 8 of C1736 as a ratio of failure against the total amount tested. This is written into the standard as a

Copyright by ASTM Int’l (all rights reserved); Tue May 6 12:07:08 EDT 2014

Downloaded/printed by

Rochester Institute Of Technology pursuant to License Agreement. No further reproductions authorized.

protection to everyone involved. For example, when properly reporting results per the standard, a hypothetical 0.5% failure rate may occur. That may mean there are enough seal breeches to warrant a full scale test and repair program, because it can mean a considerable number of potential air and water leaks in a seal grid of miles of field applied sealant; but on the other hand, it also means that the sealant was applied at and is performing at the rate of 99.5%. This is not a negative for the sealant producer or installer; it is simply the as-built degree of total continuous seal achieved within the limits of human capability. When the adhesive failures are identified, they can be repaired without replac­ing the entire installation. For years we have been relying on a single bead of sealant to perfectly seal buildings, when that is simply not possible in the real world of construction, unless there is an accompanying 100% test program. Now, with the methods of this new standard, we have a mechanism to test and repair those unavoidable adhesive failures, meaning we can now produce truly sealed buildings with a single sealant bead.

Applicator—I see a potential danger that a pre-existing prejudice will be label all of the problems found as “applicator error", and the whole industry will become litigious, with applicators taking the brunt of the cost and blame. I hope that the adversarial aspects of the industry can change so that we can all work together to resolve these problems without unduly placing the financial burden on applicators, sealant producers, and insurance policies.