Learning

the lessons
from systemic
building failures
Learning
the lessons
from systemic
building failures

September 2008
NHBC Foundation
Buildmark House
Chiltern Avenue
Amersham
Bucks HP6 5AP
Tel: 01494 735394
Fax: 01494 735365
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.nhbcfoundation.org

This review was written by Keith Ross, BRE.

This review is available as a PDF download from: www.nhbcfoundation.org.

Printed on paper sourced from responsibly managed forests

© NHBC Foundation
NF10
Published by IHS BRE Press on behalf of NHBC Foundation
September 2008
ISBN 978-1-84806-046-3
 F O R E W O R D

At a time when UK house building is facing perhaps the fastest and most pronounced
changes (in terms of output, construction methodology and regulatory impact) in its
history, this review is a timely reminder of the need to keep sound design criteria at
the fore.

Within the past 30 years, a number of systemic building failures have come to light in
various countries. These include deterioration of pre-cast reinforced concrete, moisture
penetration of external insulation and failure of structural insulated panel roof systems.
Other problems, while not related to a particular building system, have arisen which
reflect systemic failure in design and construction standards. With conventional
construction, information is available from many sources, but with innovative
construction systems and materials new detailing has to be developed. If the design
is to be built successfully and to give satisfactory long-term performance it is important
to ensure that new, previously unproven, details are robust.

This review outlines some historic problems with house construction relating to
materials, moisture, design and detailing. Using examples to illustrate problems that
have arisen with innovative forms of construction, it identifies solutions as well as
exploring some of the reasons for the problems and issues that have arisen as a result.

There is little doubt that much change will take place in housing construction over the
coming few years as we respond to the challenges of, among other issues, raising
energy efficiency standards. I am confident that this review will help the industry to
avoid repeating the mistakes of the past and so ensure that the homes we will be
building will be robust and long lasting.

Rt. Hon. Nick Raynsford MP

Chairman, NHBC Foundation

Learning the lessons from systemic building failures iii

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank the following for permission to use their illustrations
in this publication.
Figure 7a: Katherine Adams, BRE.
Figure 7b: Taylor Lane.
Figure 25: Centre for the Built Environment, Leeds Metropolitan University.
Figure 29: James Jones and Sons Ltd.
Figure 30a-d: Unilin Systems.
Figure 30e: James Jones and Sons Ltd.
Figure 32: Peter White, BRE
Image on page 25: Taylor Lane

The author is grateful to Denys Stephens of Penwith Housing Association for

his kind assistance.

iv Learning the lessons from systemic building failures

 C O N T E N T S

1 Introduction 1

1.1 The role of moisture 2

1.2 The impact on the consumer 2

2 Housing construction problems 5

2.1 Poor design detailing 5

2.2 Moisture originating during the construction phase 7

2.3 Failure of rendered finishes 8

2.4 Underside corrosion of sheet metal roof coverings 10

2.5 Steel corrosion in Pre-cast Reinforced Concrete (PRC) dwellings 11

2.6 Moisture penetration through external wall insulation systems 12

2.7 Rot in SIP roof panels in Juneau, Alaska 19

3 Risk-based assessment of design details 23

4 Summary and conclusions 25

4.1 Dos and Don’ts 26

Appendix A: Factors contributing to the Leaky Condo Syndrome,

taken from the Barrett Report 27

The building process 27

Building science 27

Appendix B: City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska – Policy on Structural

Insulated Panel Roofs 29

Requirements for installation and repair of structural insulated panel roofs 29

References 31

Contents v
vi Learning the lessons from systemic building failures
 1 Introduction
Within the past 30 years a number of systemic building failures have come to light in
various countries, including:
. Failure of pre-cast reinforced concrete (PRC) houses in the UK
. Moisture penetration of external insulation finish systems (EIFS) in British Columbia,
Canada, the United States and New Zealand
. Failure of structural insulated panel (SIP) roof systems in Alaska, USA.
Other failures have also occurred that, while not related to a particular building system,
reflect systemic failure in design and construction standards. Designers who shun
traditional detailing (eg projections at eaves, drips on sills and the provision of
movement joints) because they detract from the visual impact of the building expose the
structure to a greater than necessary risk of failure. Similarly, operatives who use inferior
materials or cut corners in order to save time will expose the structure to unnecessary risk
of premature failure.
Historically, there has been a continuous cycle of
innovation in construction practice (Figure 1), and
unforeseen problems have inevitably arisen. Innovation
Refinement

However, for serious problems solutions have been

found, lessons have been learnt and improvements
have been made, often in an incremental way. As a
Problems

result, in parallel with continuous innovation there

has been continuous refinement in building
regulations and an increase in our overall
knowledge of what constitutes good practice.
Solution
Research has also enabled the development of
tools that allow performance to be predicted and
problems to be avoided as, for example, with Figure 1 A continuous cycle of
interstitial condensation calculations. innovation in construction practice.

Introduction 1
Although our overall knowledge has increased, it seems that our ability to pass that
knowledge on to successive generations of professionals has decreased. There may
be some understandable reasons for this. Training of designers and craft operatives
concentrates on what needs to be done, but does not always impart an
understanding of why it needs to be done in a certain way.
All too often the designer concentrates on the aesthetic appeal of the building and
leaves the builder to work out the detailed construction on site. With conventional
construction the operative has a large body of information from materials’ suppliers
and other sources, such as NHBC's Standards, that helps him or her choose an
appropriate solution. With innovative construction systems and materials, new
detailing has to be developed that allows the particular design to be built. In many
cases this leads to poor solutions, such as a reliance on sealants where, for example,
a properly detailed flashing might be more appropriate.
The purpose of this review is to briefly look back at some historic problems with
residential construction and remind the reader of the solutions, and also, by way of a
few examples drawn from the international community, to look at problems that have
arisen with innovative forms of construction. This review will describe the reasons for
the problems and the issues that have arisen as a consequence.

1.1 The role of moisture

Moisture is one of the main causes of deterioration in dwellings and can arise from a
number of sources:
. Rain penetration through the structural envelope
. Leakage from faulty services and appliances within the dwelling
. Condensation of moisture vapour in the air
. Groundwater via rising dampness
. Moisture resulting from the water used in the construction process, eg in plasters
and mortars, and from construction in wet weather
. Flooding.
During the life of a structure, it would be optimistic in the extreme to expect there to
be no instances of the fabric getting wet. It is essential that once the cause of the
problem has been addressed the fabric is able to dry out and that it should, if
necessary, be reparable at reasonable cost.
In modern construction, where innovative construction systems are beginning to
replace cavity masonry, the control of moisture is becoming ever more critical.
Increased levels of airtightness in dwellings mean that mechanical ventilation systems
are increasingly being specified to deal with moisture generated within the building
by occupants and their everyday activities such as cooking and bathing. If the
ventilation strategy is deficient in any way (poorly specified, poorly maintained or
prone to breakdown) then humidity levels will tend to rise, increasing the risk of
condensation. With construction systems that include a vapour control layer,
condensation may occur within the fabric of the external walls if it is faulty. This is
called ‘interstitial’ condensation.

1.2 The impact on the consumer

It is easy to look at systemic building failures as simply a technical problem that, when
properly investigated, will yield a technical solution. However, the impact on
homeowners can be devastating and can remain long after the technical issues have
been resolved.
PRC houses in the UK were built as part of a large programme of construction of
non-traditional houses after the Second World War, mainly by local authorities. Many

2 Learning the lessons from systemic building failures

of these dwellings were purchased under the ‘Right to Buy’ scheme introduced in the
1980s. Subsequently it became clear that many PRC homes were suffering severe
structural problems that the purchaser could not have been aware of at the time of
purchase. In all some 30 house types were designated ‘defective’ under the housing
defects legislation brought forward in 1984. This legislation empowered local authorities
to operate a Scheme of Assistance for affected homeowners, via either repurchase or
grants for repair.
In 1985 PRC Homes Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of NHBC) was established to license
repair systems developed for affected house types in order to assist private owners. For
houses repaired through the scheme, general ‘mortgageability’ on standard terms was
reinstated and there was the additional benefit of a 10-year warranty. For the many tens
of thousands of PRC houses that were not dealt with through the scheme, including
those that were not in private ownership at the time that they were designated defective,
mortgages are not generally available on standard terms.
A key impact on consumers, however, in addition to the financial burdens, even in those
homes that could be repaired, is the stress and disruption faced whilst repairs were
undertaken. This has also been true for consumers in British Columbia and the other
places where systemic failures of this type have occurred. As an industry we have a clear
obligation to seek to avoid re-creating problems of this nature at any time but there is
an increased need for care and robust risk assessment at times of rapid change and
innovation. It is hoped that this review will assist that process of protection for the end
users of our output – the home buyers and occupiers.

1 Introduction 3
4 Learning the lessons from systemic building failures
 2 Housing construction problems
2.1 Poor design detailing
There appears to be a belief on the part of some designers that ‘modern’ buildings do
not need ‘traditional’ detailing. Many traditional details, such as a projections at eaves
and verges (see Figure 2) and a drip on a window sill, were developed to protect the
structure from the weather by
providing a degree of shelter
and directing rainwater away
from the building.
Omitting a drip from window
subsills, as illustrated in Figure
3a, will increase rain absorption
of the wall below. With no
projection at the sill, water
streaming down the window will
be directed over the brickwork
below, increasing the risk of rain
penetration. This would have
been potentially quite serious
in the days of solid masonry
Figure 2 Generous overhangs at eaves and verge help to
construction, but now that
protect buildings from the weather.
cavity construction is the norm
the water can usually be safely discharged via weep holes. However, if there were to be
debris in the cavity (see Fig. 3b) or mortar accumulations on the wall ties the risk of rain
penetration would be increased by the omission of the drip on the sill.
Increased intensity and frequency of rainfall is predicted as a consequence of climate
change, and flooding events appear to be increasing in severity. These factors will place
greater requirements on the fabric of dwellings to resist moisture.

Housing construction problems 5

Figure 3a Flush brick-on-edge subsill.

Penetrations through claddings can be difficult to

seal properly. Figure 4 shows the attachment of a
substantial bracket for a mast to carry aerials and Figure 3b Debris in the cavity such as
a satellite dish. It will be difficult to get an mortar droppings can form a path for
effective seal around the bracket where it passes water to track across the cavity.
through the cladding (in this case a boarded finish
is to be used). Surface tension will encourage rainwater to track down the lower diagonal
brace, potentially allowing water to penetrate the structure. A more robust solution would
be to redesign the bracket so that the diagonal brace slopes downwards away from the
building. Alternatively, fixing blocks could be installed behind the cladding so that the
bracket could be fixed on the face of the cladding.

Figure 4 The bracket for aerials and satellite dishes has a lower brace that will encourage water to
track towards the building.

Figure 5 shows a roof abutting a wall where the detailing cannot manage rainwater
effectively. The problem is due partly to poor design and installation of the rainwater
goods, but the design of the flashing detail is also poor. At ‘A’ a piece of render stop
bead has been applied at the end of the flashing. This point will be vulnerable to the
entry of water behind the rendering. A ‘kick-out’ or ‘diverter’ flashing to deflect water
directly into the gutter would have been better.
Figure 6 shows a raised architectural feature around a window on the same development.
The green stain above is again the result of water over-topping a faulty gutter. It is
interesting to note that the stain stops when it meets the raised render but is visible on
the soffit immediately above the window. This indicates that some water may be passing
behind the raised render.

6 Learning the lessons from systemic building failures

 A

Figure 5 Poor detailing at junction. Figure 6 Water has penetrated behind the
raised decorative feature.

2.2 Moisture originating during the construction phase

During the construction phase the structure is particularly vulnerable to moisture from
adverse weather. During this phase partially built structures and components being
transported to site, or being stored on site ready to be used, can be exposed to large
amounts of rainwater. Steps can, and should, be taken to minimise the impact of bad
weather.
Perhaps the most obvious action that should be taken is to protect materials and
components during transit and storage. Many materials, such as bricks and blocks, are
often shrink wrapped by the manufacturer. This protection should be left in place as long
as possible prior to use. If materials are unprotected when delivered then protection
should be provided to prevent materials becoming saturated with rainwater. Figure 7a
shows poorly stored blocks on site. The blocks are totally unprotected, allowing them to
absorb large amounts of moisture which can lead to a number of adverse effects:
. Wastage of damaged or soiled materials increases
. The completed structure needs longer to dry out
. Surface staining and efflorescence
. Poor adhesion of mortar and renders to surfaces contaminated with mud
. Increased cracking of wet-applied plaster and render finishes
. Porous materials are more susceptible to frost damage in cold weather.

a Figure 7a Poorly stored blocks become saturated

with water in bad weather.

Figure 7b Prefabricated units protected from adverse

weather during transportation.

Figure 7c Timber framed panels awaiting installation.

They are stored in a purpose-made frame and
individually wrapped in polythene for protection.

b c

Housing construction problems 7

 d

Figure 7d Structures becoming wet during construction.

Problems may be more acute with materials that are sensitive to moisture, such as timber
components, which can warp making them more difficult or impossible to install properly.
Figure 7b shows prefabricated modular units fully protected for transportation, and
Figure 7c shows timber framed panels which are stored in a purpose-made stand to
prevent distortion and protected from the weather with polythene sheeting.
Materials and components remain vulnerable once they have been incorporated into the
structure as illustrated in Figure 7d.
Some structures are more resilient to permanent damage than others. The masonry
structure will be largely unaffected once the structure has dried out, but the timber frame
structure may suffer permanent damage if exposed to wetting for a prolonged period.
The problem may be more acute if the moisture is ‘locked in’ to the structure before it
gets a chance to dry out, as occurred recently in Hammarby Sjöstad, Stockholm.1 During
the summer and autumn of 2000 some apartments were constructed during a period of
very heavy rainfall. Their structures were poorly protected from the weather which
resulted in the closed timber frame panels which formed the external walls becoming
saturated. Before the walls had a chance to dry out they were directly clad with an
external insulation system which effectively trapped the moisture in the walls. As a result
the structure of some of the apartments suffered severe mould growth and blue stain
fungus attack. Remediation works were extensive, in some cases requiring the external
cladding, sheathing board from the timber frame walls and insulation within the panels to
be completely removed before the full extent of the problem could be determined. As a
result of the problems the construction company rethought its internal policy on quality
control to prevent further problems. They also developed new and improved working
practices such as:
. The introduction of a requirement that time was allowed in the schedule for the
drying process
. Installation of the outer envelope only to be carried out after the roof is sealed
. Walls to be protected immediately after installation
. Insulation, plastic film and internal plasterboard only to be installed after the wall
elements have been surveyed for moisture and accepted.

2.3 Failure of rendered finishes

Render has been used for decades as an effective way of reducing rain penetration in
areas exposed to severe weather. However, a poorly designed render system can result in
serious problems for masonry walls, especially those of solid construction. Figure 8 shows
a detached final coat of render that will encourage rain penetration and represents a
hazard to people passing by. The render mix incorporated a ‘soft’ building sand rather
than a well-graded sand.

8 Learning the lessons from systemic building failures

Strong renders tend to shrink and crack on
curing, as illustrated in Figure 9. If a strong
render is applied to a relatively weak background
it will detach, allowing water to penetrate behind
the render – see Figure 10. Because the render is
dense and impervious the rate of drying is very
slow, leading to a number of problems with the
fabric:
. In solid masonry construction, embedded
timbers such as wall plates and the ends of
joists that bear on them suffer from decay
. In cavity masonry, corrosion of wall ties can
lead to structural problems Figure 8 Poorly specified render with
.
detaching final coat.
Penetrating damp leads to damage to
internal decorative finishes and to mould
growth, potentially with associated health
problems for occupants in severe cases
. With some bricks bedded in cement mortar,
sulfate attack can occur if the masonry is
kept damp for prolonged periods. The
interaction of sulfates with the cement
mortar causes the mortar joint to expand,
further opening up cracks as in Figure 11. In
severe cases structural problems can ensue.
Figure 9 Cracking in render typical of a
Various solutions have evolved to deal with strong mix.
specific problems. Stainless steel wall ties
replaced galvanised steel ones, and the use of
joist hangers has reduced the amount of
embedded timber. However, in all cases the
problems would have been reduced if moisture
had been excluded in the first place. For
rendered finishes that means using a render that
is designed to exclude as much moisture as
possible but that allows any moisture that does
penetrate to dry out. A good render should have
the following attributes:
Low shrinkage Cracking in renders mainly results Figure 10 Cracks allow moisture to
from shrinkage of the render on curing or drying. accumulate in the walls, which can lead to
In order to minimise cracking the render should rotting of embedded timbers.
not be too strong and should be produced with
well-graded sands. Its moisture content should
not be too high, which implies the use of
plasticisers to make a workable mix. The
plasticiser can be a modern additive or the
partial replacement of cement by lime in the mix.
Vapour permeable The use of well-graded sands
and a plasticised mix will increase permeability.
Good adhesion Proper preparation of the
substrate is essential. Substrates should be clean
and free of dust and loose material. Backgrounds
of high or variable suction can be treated with a
spatter dash coat. Providing a mechanical key by Figure 11 Example of sulfate attack on
raking out mortar joints also improves adhesion. cement render on a parapet.

Housing construction problems 9

Appropriate strength Renders should be neither
too strong nor too weak. As a general rule, a
render should be weaker than the substrate.
However, if a render is too weak it will not be
durable.
More guidance on renders can be obtained
from BRE Good Building Guide 18.2
Modern polymer render systems are available
as one-coat decorative renders or multi-coat
weathering renders. The preparation and
application procedures for these renders can
be significantly different from those for
conventional sand/cement renders, and may
differ from system to system. Most manufacturers
issue detailed guidance on the use of their own
products and offer training courses for operatives.
Systems are normally covered by third-party
certificates such as those provided by BBA or Figure 12 Polymer render failure.
BRE certification, which have detailed
requirements for the installation of the product,
usually including the use of trained operatives.
Figure 12 shows bond failure of a polymer
render system. Although the operatives who
applied the render were competent with
conventional render systems, they were not
familiar with, or trained to apply, the polymer
render. Figure 13 shows cracking in newly
applied render over expanded polystyrene used
as external insulation. Investigation revealed
several poor workmanship issues including an
inadequate thickness of base coat and missing
reinforcement.
These two examples illustrate the importance
of proper training in the application of polymer Figure 13 Cracking in newly applied
renders. polymer render.

2.4 Underside corrosion of sheet metal roof coverings

Sheet metal has been used as a roof covering for centuries. Initially, cast lead was the
main material and it was used on many ancient buildings, but more recently other metals
such as copper, zinc, aluminium and stainless steel have been used, as in Figure 14.
Corrosion of the underside
of sheet lead roof coverings
has been known about for
centuries. In the 1970s it
was felt that the rate of
occurrence of severe cases
was increasing.3 A subsequent
study by the Ecclesiastical
Architects’ and Surveyors’
Association concluded that Figure 14 Copper-covered roofs on houses in open country.
These roofs were laid in 1947 and have given excellent service.
the reason was increased
condensation resulting from
heating, inadequate ventilation or insulation, and occupancy. The problem was
exacerbated by organic acids originating from timber deckings.

10 Learning the lessons from systemic building failures

Other metals are also prone to corrosion and should be protected when used on some
timber deckings, depending on the specific combination of metal and species of timber.
Some timber preservative treatments can also have a deleterious effect. On timber
deckings the underlay is normally Type 4A (ii) to BS 747 ‘Roofing felts (bitumen and fluxed
pitch)’ but this may not give complete protection over treated deckings. An impermeable
barrier such as 500 gauge polythene sheet beneath the underlay would be better. The
various parts of BS CP143 Sheet roof and wall coverings4 and BS 6915 Design and
construction of fully supported lead sheet roof and wall coverings – code of practice5
give more detailed and practical guidance.
Keeping moisture from the underside of a fully supported metal roof can be difficult
because there are a number of possible sources of moisture. The most obvious measure
would be to ensure that construction materials are not wet before the roof is installed, ie
installation should not be undertaken in wet conditions. It is worth remembering that
even apparently dry materials, especially porous materials such as timber, can contain
substantial amounts of moisture.
With cold roof constructions it is preferable to provide ventilation beneath the deck so
that any moisture vapour from the building itself can be rapidly ventilated away.
Moisture can also penetrate beneath the metal itself via a mechanism known as ‘thermal
pumping’. Solar radiation heats up the air immediately below the sheet metal, causing
the air to expand and be expelled. Subsequent rainfall causes the air to cool, creating a
partial vacuum that sucks in water flowing over any standing seams or laps that are not
completely airtight. Small shielded ventilators penetrating the roof covering can be used
to solve the problem.

2.5 Steel corrosion in Pre-cast Reinforced Concrete

(PRC) dwellings
In the early 1980s inspection of an Airey house revealed cracking to the structural PRC
columns. Figure 15 shows a recent image of cracking to a PRC column in an Airey house.
Subsequent investigations of other PRC
dwelling types revealed similar problems. The
cause of the deterioration was found to be
corrosion of steel reinforcement, resulting in
cracking of the concrete. The rate of
deterioration varied widely both between and
within different house types. Factors that
affected the rate of deterioration were:
. Location. The incidence and extent of
damage was generally higher and more
advanced in wetter, colder parts of the
country
. The rate of carbonation of the concrete.
Embedded steel in new concrete is
protected from corrosion by the alkalinity of
the cement paste in the concrete. Carbon
dioxide from the air reacts with the cement Figure 15 Cracking to PRC column in
paste and reduces the alkalinity – this is Airey house.
‘carbonation’. When the carbonation
reaches the steel reinforcement, the natural protection of the concrete is removed
and corrosion can occur. The rate at which carbonation occurs is influenced by the
quality of the concrete in terms of its permeability and the type of aggregate used
. The amount of cover to the reinforcement. In some cases cover was as little as 6 mm

Housing construction problems 11

. The level of chlorides in the concrete. Chloride ions have the effect of increasing the
rate of corrosion and were present from a number of sources. Chlorides were
sometimes incorporated into the concrete mix deliberately (ie ‘cast-in’) to speed up
the set of the concrete or to allow casting in colder weather. Other external sources
of chloride were from unwashed marine aggregates, from wind-driven sea spray in
coastal areas or from de-icing salts. Chlorides from external sources tend to be more
damaging than the ‘cast-in’ additives because the latter are chemically bound up in
the concrete structure.

2.5.1 Implications for UK practice

As a result of the investigations mentioned above, and other subsequent research, the
factors that affect concrete durability are now much better understood. Tests have been
developed to identify problem aggregates, factors (such as water : cement ratio;
compaction; and aggregate type) that determine the quality of concrete have been
identified and appropriate guidance documented, and the importance of good cover
(50 mm) to steel reinforcement is now well known. Where 50 mm cover is not practical,
stainless steel reinforcements can be specified.

2.6 Moisture penetration through external wall insulation systems

In British Columbia from 1985, reports of serious moisture penetration problems in
timber framed buildings that were clad with face-sealed external insulation finish systems
(EIFS) began to emerge (see Box 1). Large numbers of dwellings, in particular a large
number of apartments (condominiums), were affected by decay in the timber frame, with
associated problems resulting from mould growth. The problem became known as the
‘leaky condo syndrome’.

BOX 1

External insulation finish systems are the same as external insulation systems used in the UK.
They comprise slabs of an insulation material (eg polystyrene, phenolic foam, mineral wool)
fixed to the exterior of a building to provide thermal insulation. The insulation is protected by a
reinforced render system, which can be a conventional Portland cement render (often referred
to as ‘stucco’ in other countries) or a thin polymer render (also known as ‘synthetic stucco’).
There are two basic types of EIFS:
. Face sealed systems, which rely on the render itself and sealants around openings etc. to
keep water out of the structure.
. Drainable or ‘Water Managed’ systems, which incorporate a second line of defence
designed to direct any moisture that penetrates the render system to the outside.

By the late 1990s the problem had escalated to the extent that British Columbia’s New
Home Warranty Program (their equivalent of NHBC) collapsed. By 2002 some 50,000
affected homes had been identified.
The response to the problem in British Columbia was to establish a Commission of
Inquiry into the quality of condominium construction. The enquiry heard evidence from a
wide range of people. The enquiry did not find fault with external wall insulation systems
per se, but found that there was ineffective regulation of, and accountability for, the
building process and poor application of building science in the use of the systems. The
factors that contributed to the problem are reproduced from the Commission’s report in
Appendix A.7
In 1995 the Buildings Envelope Research Consortium (BERC) was formed via an initiative
of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). The purpose of BERC was
to facilitate research into the building envelope problems in the coastal climate of
British Columbia.
One of the first pieces of research conducted was a survey of 46 buildings of which
37 had problems, the other 9 being controls.8 The purpose was to compare problem

12 Learning the lessons from systemic building failures

buildings with the controls to determine what attributes of construction led to problems.
The key findings were:
. Problem buildings tended to have a higher exposure to wind
. The absence of overhangs above walls contributed to moisture damage
. The control buildings had fewer architectural features and details and more of the
details were provided with flashings
. Almost all the problems were associated with details such as windows (penetration
through both the frame joints and the interfaces with the wall), decks, walkways,
balconies and penetrations on walls
. All cladding types experienced performance problems, although the number of
problems reported on stucco walls was greater
. In the coastal climate area, face sealed wall assemblies were sensitive to design and
construction details, making it difficult to achieve acceptable performance.
Rainscreen wall assemblies were thought to offer the best opportunity to achieve
acceptable performance.
The study concluded that greater attention needs to be paid to water management
principles (associated with control of moisture entry, drying potential and drainage). It
concluded also that local climatic conditions need to be taken into account when
establishing effective water management strategies in construction.
Another major initiative was the Moisture Management for Exterior Wall Systems (MEWS)
project. Laboratory tests carried out by the National Research Council of Canada found
that significant amounts of water could penetrate the cladding through faulty seals.9 For
example, the amount of moisture penetrating a 90 mm portion of missing sealant on a
vertical window joint ranged from 0.1 to 0.4 litre/min depending on test conditions. Tests
also showed that EIFS claddings let through more water than other cladding systems. The
same laboratory also reports that moisture penetrating to the studwork is reduced by
90% if a drained cavity is included.10
The concept of the ‘4 Ds’ (deflection, drainage, drying and durability) was also developed
to summarise a strategy for moisture management. The principles are:
. Deflect moisture away from a building by the use of overhangs and other measures
such as flashings
. Drain moisture out of the structure if it gets past the cladding
. Dry the structure by providing ventilation
. Choose durable materials that will not degrade should they get wet.
Similar problems to those experienced in British Columbia have been reported in other
countries including the USA, Sweden and New Zealand, and the issues surrounding them
are broadly the same as in British Columbia. The response in the US was basically
regulatory in that some states have effectively barred the use of non-drainable systems,
whereas the response from New Zealand was that the Building Industry Authority
established an inquiry in the form of the Weathertightness Overview Group.
The report of the overview group identified deficiencies in the Building Act and the
Building Code.11 In order to address the latter a risk assessment approach based on the
‘4 Ds’ principles was developed and incorporated into the compliance document for the
New Zealand building code as ‘Acceptable Solution 1’. See Section 3 on Risk-based
assessment of design details.
In Sweden, following investigations into problems resulting from moisture ingress into
timber framed walls during construction (see section 2.2), problems were noted in timber
framed buildings directly clad with external insulation systems that could not be
explained solely by construction in wet weather. A report12 by SP Technical Research
Institute of Sweden states that damage was caused by water infiltration through defects
in the façade after completion of the house. Figure 16 shows a cross section of a

Housing construction problems 13

construction found to be
susceptible to damage.
Damage usually occurs in Render
the sheathing material and
Insulation attached to sheathing
the outer part of the wood
frame structure. Sheathing board
Framing studs with insulation between
In a number of surveys
undertaken by SP they have Polythene vapour control layer
found that construction Interior lining board
detailing around fastenings
and joints on the façade are
unsatisfactory from the
perspective of preventing Figure 16 Cross section of wall found to be susceptible to
moisture penetration in Sweden. Based on a diagram in
moisture entering the
reference 12.
fabric. In particular, cracks
have opened up at the side junctions of balconies, windows, terraces and canopy
attachments. Below these areas moisture contents in the sheathing board have been
found to exceed 28%.
The SP report points out that in most cases problems noted to date have been found
when the wall has been opened up for other reasons, giving reason to suspect that there
will be significantly more damaged houses as yet undetected. In June 2007 funding was
secured for a research project to undertake a comprehensive review of the extent of
moisture damage in rendered, undrained walls. The aims and methodology of that
project are detailed in a further SP report,13 which concludes that undrained constructions
such as that in Figure 16 represent a high risk from the point of view of moisture ingress
and should not be used.

2.6.1 Mechanisms for water to penetrate external wall insulation systems

There are a number of ways that moisture can penetrate external wall insulation systems,
either as a liquid through gaps in the system or as vapour. Rainwater running down the
face of a structure can be encouraged into the system by gravity, capillary action or
surface tension or by an air pressure difference. The air pressure difference can be caused
either by wind forces acting on the structure or, in unventilated systems, by thermal
pumping, as described in section 2.4.
Rain striking the face of a building can be driven into gaps under its own momentum,
and liquid water can also enter the system via leaking service pipes penetrating the
building envelope. Substantial amounts of moisture can be incorporated into the
structure by using building materials that are wet or working in wet conditions.
External insulation systems with thin reinforced render systems are generally regarded as
impervious to liquid moisture, but that is not necessarily the case. For certification
purposes the appropriate standard against which renders are assessed is MOAT 22.14
The water impermeability test subjects the render face of a sample to liquid water at a
pressure of 50 Pa (equivalent to a 5 mm head of water). The pass criterion is that the
render withstands the passage of water for two hours. Since the test is concluded at the
end of the two-hour period, it is not possible to say whether prolonged exposure to
water would result in liquid water passing through the render, but it is known that the
render can absorb water and in doing so may soften.15
Moisture in the vapour phase can get behind the insulation system from within the
building itself, as a result of either a missing or an ineffective vapour control layer or a
faulty installation of services (eg extract fans or tumble dryer vents improperly sleeved).
Also, if the render can absorb moisture in prolonged rain events, strong sunshine may
drive water through the render as moisture vapour.
Some insulation materials (phenolic foam, wood fibre and mineral wool) have the capacity
to hold substantial amounts of moisture. Manufacturers often claim that their materials
are water repellent, which may be the case for many. However, water repellence can be
overcome under certain conditions, such as when liquid water is forced in under pressure

14 Learning the lessons from systemic building failures

(which would be the case with a thermal-pumping mechanism) or if it were to condense
within the insulation from the vapour phase.
Phenolic insulation is known to release acidic compounds when it gets wet, and a number
of cases have been reported where galvanised steel roofing sheets have been corroded
as a result of contact with wet phenolic foam.16 There is therefore potential for galvanised
steel in contact with wet phenolic foam, or with moisture that has been in contact with
the foam, to corrode, although to date no instances of corrosion in external wall
constructions are known.
Unwanted gaps in the cladding can be classified into two types:
1. Those that relate to the cladding system itself, and are the result of either poor
workmanship, poor design of details or degradation of the system over time
2. Those that result from works undertaken by others, such as service penetrations, and
that cannot be attributed to the original installer.
Figure 17 shows cracks in a render that
have been made good with a sealant. The
photograph was taken in late November
after a few days of rain, although on the
day it was taken there was no rain. The
render immediately adjacent to the cracks
is darker in colour than the body of the
render, indicating that it is drying more
slowly than the rest.
Figures 18 and 19 show details from
external insulation applied to an existing Figure 17 Repaired cracks in external render.
masonry dwelling some 20 years earlier.
The insulation has given excellent service, with no problems of moisture penetration (this
would have been helped by the fact that the insulation was applied to previously
rendered walls). The images illustrate the effects of ageing on an installation. Figure 18
shows a vertical movement joint where the sealant is de-bonding from the render stops.
However, this is not the original sealant, which has already been replaced by the sealant
shown. Figure 19 shows gaps that have opened up around a window sill. The gaps are
3 to 4 mm wide and will allow moisture to penetrate.
The issue of systems ‘ageing’ highlights potential problems for the future. When referring
to durability one BBA certificate for external wall insulation systems states:
The system should remain effective for at least 30 years, provided any damage to the
surface is repaired immediately, and regular maintenance is undertaken including
checks on joints in the system and on external plumbing fitments to identify leakage
of rainwater into the system, enabling steps to be taken to correct the defects.17
Experience has shown that the average UK householder is unlikely to carry out (or pay for
others to carry out) regular inspections of the external fabric of their house. It is much

Figure 18 Movement joint with bond failure Figure 19 Gap around sill.
in mastic.

Housing construction problems 15

more common for householders to react to a problem once it manifests itself inside the
property, by which time considerable damage to the fabric may have occurred. They also
may not be made aware when purchasing the dwelling that the system requires such
inspections, and may not know how to go about finding a suitably qualified tradesperson
to undertake repairs.
Work undertaken by others
Work undertaken by other tradesmen after the insulation system has been installed is
normally related to the installation of services. Common examples are the fitting of boiler
flues, waste and other pipes, vents and cables, all of which pass through the cladding to
the outside. The trades involved may not be aware that the exterior of the building is
clad with external insulation, and may not know how it is built up.
In the majority of cases, the precise position for the penetration is determined inside the
building, and so the hole is started from inside. A great deal of damage can be done
where the cutting device breaks through on the outside, although this can be made good
using a variety of available materials.
Figures 20 to 22 show a variety of service penetrations. Figure 20 shows a boiler flue
shortly after installation but before the exterior was made good. The large amount of
damage to the external insulation system will be difficult to seal effectively. If it did not
have protection from the eaves, moisture ingress would be very likely. A cover plate
would improve the appearance but if poorly sealed might not keep out water in a more
exposed location. The cable in Figure 21 has sensibly been looped downwards to form a
drip for rainwater, but the hole it passes through is not sealed. In Figure 22 the vent cover
is sealed with a sealant (which may not be effective against such a rough background).
One of the pipe penetrations is not sealed at all and the other has been poorly made
good with a mortar. If the mortar used in the repair is stronger than the render or is
poorly bonded then it is likely to allow moisture into the fabric.

Figure 20 Extended boiler Figure 21 Cable penetration. Figure 22 Various service

flue. penetrations.

The original installer cannot be held accountable for these works since they were out of
his control. However, the system should be designed with such abuses in mind, so that
when moisture does penetrate it cannot do any damage.

2.6.2 Implications for UK practice

The construction of buildings in the UK is regulated by the building regulations. In
England and Wales the requirement under building regulations for resistance to moisture
is covered by requirement C2: Resistance to moisture, which states:
The floors, walls and roof of the building shall adequately protect the building and
people who use the building from harmful effects caused by:
a. Ground moisture
b. Precipitation and wind-driven spray
c. Interstitial and surface condensation
d. Spillage of water from or associated with sanitary fittings or fixed appliances.

16 Learning the lessons from systemic building failures

Approved Document C provides guidance on various wall construction/cladding
options, eg requiring a ventilated space between cladding and building on timber
framed structures. The Northern Irish and Scottish equivalents make similar
requirements. It is important to understand, however, that the scope of the
requirements in Part C is limited to “securing reasonable standards of health and safety
for persons in or about buildings” and does not seek to protect the building fabric for
its own sake.
NHBC Standards include detailed guidance to control the risk of rain penetration.
For example, they require that external insulation systems over timber frame include a
15 mm drained and ventilated cavity, and over light gauge steel frame a 15 mm
drained cavity.18
The consequences of moisture penetrating behind external insulation systems will
depend on:
. The detailed construction and materials used
. How easily the moisture can dry out
. The hygro-thermal conditions within the wall structure.
When deciding on the most appropriate design solution, it is prudent to assume that
water in one form or another will penetrate the system. With that in mind the potential
consequences in terms of the well-being of the occupants and the fabric should be
assessed and appropriate steps taken to minimise adverse consequences.
The number of possible combinations of construction and conditions within the
structure is large so a few basic construction types are discussed below.

2.6.3 Masonry construction

External insulation is normally applied directly onto masonry substrates, and the history
of performance as a retrofit measure is good. The dwellings in Figure 23 were externally
insulated some 20 years earlier and have performed very well in an exposed location in
Cornwall. The system used was conventional render over mineral wool batts applied as
a retrofit measure to previously rendered hollow blocks.
Sealants are approaching the end of their design life (some have already been
replaced), but as the substrate is rendered block no serious problems would be
anticipated.
Figure 24 shows a development of four flats built in 1999 with externally insulated solid
walls. The façade shown faces directly onto the sea in an exposed coastal location.
Careful attention to detailing around openings (eg the use of stainless steel render stop
beads to allow robust silicone sealant joints to be achieved against the window frames)
has contributed to the good performance.

Figure 23 Good performance of 20-year-old Figure 24 Careful detailing has given good
render over external insulation. performance in an exposed coastal location.

2.6.4 Timber frame construction

Timber frame construction in the UK is well established and in general has a good track
record. Some problems of timber decay have been noted in directly clad non-traditional

Housing construction problems 17

systems built up to the mid 1970s, but the extent of decay was modest compared to the
problems seen in other countries. Research into the problems by BRE found:
Instances of decay may be encountered in direct claddings, particularly on exposed
elevations at sites where the driving rain exposure is high. However, the decay is
usually localised and the weathered timber easy to cut out and replace.19
Where decay was found the four main sources of moisture are cited as:
. Rainwater penetration through the external envelope
. Condensation generated by water vapour from within the dwelling
. Rising damp, which occurs if the dpc is ineffective
. Leaking plumbing or domestic appliances.
Many of the dwellings involved in the study would
not have had a vapour control layer (the inclusion
of which only became common practice in the
1960s). Modern timber frame constructions should,
in theory, not suffer from interstitial condensation
resulting from moisture vapour generated within
the dwelling. However, as Figure 25 illustrates,
vapour control layers are often damaged, both
before occupation during the construction process
and after occupation, by follow-on trades installing
services.

2.6.5 Steel frame construction

Like with timber frame, older non-traditional steel
frame constructions also suffered from moisture
ingress, leading to corrosion of the steel. Again,
the water ingress was at vulnerable points of the Figure 25 Damage to vapour control
layer by ‘follow-on’ trade.
structure such as around openings. Investigations
by BRE found some cases of severe corrosion of the
steel frame, but in general corrosion tended to be superficial. The study concluded:
The majority of steel houses are expected to give good performance into the
foreseeable future, and should have a life on a par with rehabilitated dwellings in
conventional construction. 20
Modern (light gauge) steel frame construction differs from non-traditional constructions in
a number of ways:
. The steel is thinner and is galvanised
. Modern steel frame is insulated on the outside of the frame to create a ‘warm frame’
construction – non-traditional steel frame constructions were not insulated. Keeping
the frame warm reduces the risk of interstitial condensation
. Modern construction practice is to install a vapour control layer where a condensation
risk analysis indicates it is needed – systems built prior to the 1960s would not have
a VCL.
The Steel Construction Institute (SCI) quotes a design life of >200 years for galvanised
light steel sections in warm frame applications, provided there is no risk of water ingress
or condensation.21
The NHBC requirement for a 15 mm cavity on framed constructions is somewhat
contentious in that the external wall insulation industry believes that the cavity is not
always necessary. The industry acknowledges that in some cases a ‘second line of
defence’ against moisture penetration is needed; however, there are no recognised
methodologies to determine when such a system would be required. SCI has developed
a methodology for light steel frame construction, and while they acknowledge that the

18 Learning the lessons from systemic building failures

assessment process is ‘subjective’ and ‘relatively simplistic’ it could provide a basis for
assessing robustness, albeit on a relatively arbitrary scale.22
The external wall insulation industry also acknowledges that from time to time mistakes
will be made on site. With that in mind they have developed an insurance-backed
guarantee scheme (for up to 20 years) for systems covered by third party accredited
certificates (such as BRE or BBA certificates). However, since most certificates only apply
to masonry backgrounds, it will be some time before guarantees will be available for
framed structures.
As part of the process for issuing a guarantee, workmanship is much more closely
monitored than it would otherwise be and any alterations affecting the system would not
be covered unless they were undertaken in accordance with the system supplier’s
recommendations.

2.7 Rot in SIP roof panels in Juneau, Alaska

Juneau has a very moist climate with consistently high relative humidity (75% or more)
and rainfall (roughly 1500 mm per annum). As a consequence moisture-induced failures
are the most common.
In 1997 the roofs of a number of relatively new dwellings in Juneau showed problems of
rot in the oriented strand board (OSB) of the structural insulated panels (SIP) from which
they were made. By 2001 around 60 roofs required complete replacement, and the
number was still growing. While it would be easy to blame the climate for the problems,
the fact that many dwellings showed no problems indicated that other factors were the
main cause of the decay.
The problem tended to be concentrated in the upper surface of the panels at the
junctions between adjacent panels and at the ridge. Site investigations revealed a
number of inadequacies with installation of the panels, but found that inadequate sealing
between the panels was the main cause of the problem.
Opinions regarding the precise mechanism for the failure vary slightly. The most likely
explanation is that air leakage around the panels carries moist air between them,
resulting in condensation in the area of the upper OSB layer, causing it to rot.
A number of factors were at play in determining the extent of the problem. Where rot
was found, the overriding factor was inadequate sealing of the joints between panels. In
February 2002 a ‘Question and Answers’ article was posted on the SIPA (Structural
Insulated Panel Association) website that summarised the results of an investigation led
by Joseph Lstiburek of the Building Science Corporation. One of the conclusions of that
investigation was that:
If joints had been sealed at panel perimeters at the lower interior surfaces, failures
would not have occurred.24
Elsewhere in the report Lstiburek lists three categories of joint failure, which can be
summarised as:
1. No sealant was present in the joints
2. Sealant was present but was ineffective because it had been applied in a
haphazard manner
3. Sealant was applied but the sealant had failed in adhesion.
The first two categories were the result of poor workmanship, whereas the third was
attributed to the difficulty of applying sealants under typical weather conditions in
Juneau.
Andrews reports feedback from a builder, Bill Heumann, that the type of spline can also
influence the vulnerability to air leakage.21 According to Heumann roof systems
incorporating I-beam splines were much more vulnerable than systems using solid timber
or surface splines. Heumann is reported to have claimed that the pockets cut into the
foam to accommodate the splines were oversize and outside the tolerances given in

Housing construction problems 19

manufacturers’ literature. As a result the panels did not fit tightly. This view was backed
up by other builders and engineers quoted in the report.
Panels are joined together using splines, of which there are four types; I-beam, ‘2-by’
solid timber, surface splines (strips of OSB) and ‘block splines’ (which are effectively
smaller SIP panels). No reference has been found to the use of block splines in Juneau.
The various types of spline are illustrated in Figure 26.
Other details not
requiring a separate
spline are also
possible, such as that
illustrated in Figure 27. I beam spline ‘2–by’ timber spline

A typical roof
construction described
in the reports related
to Juneau is shown in
Surface spline Block spline
Figure 28.
Figure 26 Different types of spline for SIP roof panels.
If moist air leaks
between the panels,
condensation is very likely to occur on the underside
of the roofing felt. The lack of ventilation between
the SIP and the roofing felt means that any
condensed moisture will not be able to dry out and
moisture will accumulate. It is this fact that caused the Figure 27 Alternative jointing
panels in Juneau to rot. Reacting to the problem the method for SIP.
City and Borough of Juneau Building
Division issued a policy on SIP roof
panels (see Appendix B). In it they
listed the three most significant factors Roofing felt
contributing to the failure of SIPs as: Asphalt shingles
1. Lack of continuous vapour SIP panel
barriers
2. Failure of sealants in the panel
joints
3. Lack of ventilation above the
Wall board
panels.
Vapour barrier
They set out four requirements for the
use and repair of structural insulated
panels on roofs:
. The inclusion of a vapour barrier Figure 28 Typical SIP roof construction used in
on the warm side of the SIP Juneau.

. Ventilation of the cold face of the

SIP by provision of a ventilated air gap between the SIP and the roof covering
. Complete sealing of all voids and interfaces of SIPS including at joints
. An inspection regime to ensure good workmanship.
It should be noted that if SIP panels in Juneau had been installed according to the above
requirements there should not have been any problems.

2.7.1 Implications for UK practice

The use of roof cassettes has increased significantly in the UK over the past decade
because of the advantages they bring in terms of flexibility of design and increased
efficiency of the construction process. Roof cassettes can be designed to span large
distances, so room-in-the-roof construction can be achieved with much less structural

20 Learning the lessons from systemic building failures

timber than a standard roof, usually needing only purlins for intermediate support (see
Figure 29). This gives a space that is completely open, and simpler to detail in terms of
airtightness and thermal insulation. The speed of construction is also increased and it is
quite feasible for a watertight roof to be placed in a single day.
The detailed construction of
the roof panels in use in the UK
varies, and ranges from SIP
construction with no internal
structural timbers (similar to the
type used in Juneau) to panels
with structural timbers and only
the internal face of the panel
clad with a sheet material.
A range of constructions are
illustrated in Figure 30, all of
which are designed to create
a ventilated space above the
roof panel. Figure 29 Roof cassettes being installed.

The crucial issue is whether or

not the Juneau problem could
occur in the UK. The factors
that determine how panels will
Figure 30a Roof cassette with internal structural timbers.
perform are the same whether A sheet material is used on the underside only – the foam
the roof is constructed in insulation is recessed to form a ventilation gap.
Juneau or in the UK, namely:
. Control of moisture vapour
passing through the fabric
. Creating an airtight roof Figure 30b Roof cassette with internal structural timbers.
. Providing adequate Sheet materials are included on both faces.
ventilation above the
panels to safely disperse
any moisture that
accumulates. Figure 30c Roof cassette with no internal timbers – ie a SIP
panel.
One major difference between
the UK and Juneau is that
the climate is less severe in
the UK, so the risk will be
correspondingly lower. Current Figure 30d Roof cassette with structural timbers at the
UK building regulations, edge only.
standards and construction 9mm OSB sarking Roof shield Counter battens Insulation
practice deal well with all
Lap Lap
these factors but, as with any
construction, there is always
scope for things to go wrong. Filler

Install a vapour control layer JJI-Joist 9mm OSB Vapour check

Ready made service void
Manufacturers of roof cassettes
point out that the foam core is Figure 30e Roof cassette with structural timber I beams.
The panel is designed so that the lower flange of the beams
itself an effective vapour
form a service void.
barrier and does not readily
allow moisture to pass through. The critical areas, however, are the joints. As the
experience in Juneau has demonstrated, poor workmanship and a lack of site supervision
can lead to joints being created on site that are not effectively sealed. It is therefore
prudent to install an effective vapour control layer on the warm side of the panels as a
‘first line of defence’ against moisture vapour percolating through the roof.

Housing construction problems 21

Increase airtightness
Achieving a good seal between the panels and at other points in the structure (ie at the
eaves and ridge) reduces the amount of moisture-laden air able to leak through the roof.
Making sure that the vapour barrier is continuous would improve robustness and to some
extent guard against joints opening up as a result of movement of the structure or later
de-bonding of the sealant. Increasing standards of airtightness in the UK and greater use
of post-construction testing mean that poor practice will increasingly be spotted before
occupancy, allowing sufficient time for remedial action if necessary.
It is most important that the seal is achieved
on the lower side of the joint, is continuous
and extends as far as possible through the
panel (see Figure 31). If only the top side of
the joint is sealed, condensation could still
occur below the upper sheet of OSB,
leading to the possibility of rot.
The roof panels should be dry when sealed
A continuous seal in
(or at least meet with the sealant this area is critical
manufacturer’s recommendations) and the
Figure 31 Seal most critical in lower half
joint made before the sealant ‘skins’ over.
of panel.
Ventilate above the roof cassette
A continuous ventilation gap above the panels, open at eaves and ridge, will ensure that
any moisture that reaches the surface of the panels is effectively removed. Standard tiled
or slated finishes on battens and counter battens with a breather membrane will easily
achieve the necessary conditions to prevent condensation, but there are some roof
finishes (such as standing seam metal roofing) where there is the potential to create a
structure with no ventilation above the cassette. Such systems need to be specified
carefully.
Figure 32 shows two images of a plywood deck over a roof cassette with a standing seam
metal covering. There is no ventilation beneath the plywood deck. The integrity of the
vapour control and the airtightness measures is being relied upon to prevent
condensation on the
underside of the
plywood. Mounting the
plywood on counter
battens to create a
ventilation path would
have been preferable.

Figure 32 Plywood deck over a roof cassette with a standing seam

metal covering. A ventilation space beneath the plywood would be
more robust.

22 Learning the lessons from systemic building failures

 3 Risk-based assessment of design details
It may be feasible to use a risk-based methodology for design detailing with external wall
insulation systems on framed construction. However, before such a system can be
developed all risks must be understood. A few factors that would be relevant to UK
construction are illustrated in Figure 33.
In New Zealand a sophisticated system for assessing risk for timber frame construction
has been developed, following their review of moisture penetration problems. Several
risk factors are included:
. Wind zone
. Number of storeys
. Roof/wall intersection design
. Eaves width
. Envelope complexity
. Deck design.
Each external wall face or elevation is assessed and given a risk rating (from low to very
high) and a corresponding risk score for each of the six risk factors. The total risk score is
used to determine what types of cladding are permissible (note that the risk assessment
relates to timber framed structures). The maximum possible overall score is 28, but scores
above 20 are deemed outside the scope of the Acceptable Solution and a redesign of
the building may be needed to reduce risk. If the overall risk score is greater than 6,
external insulation systems (ie EIFS) must incorporate a 20 mm drained cavity. The full
methodology is described Clause E2 of the building code25 and detailed guidance on its
use is given in an accompanying guide to using the risk matrix.26
The factors listed above would be equally relevant in the UK, although the actual level of
risk may differ because of differences in climate. However, additional factors would need
to be taken into account. Different materials and material combinations may affect risk.
For example, steel frames may be more vulnerable in coastal areas because the presence

Risk-based assessment of design details 23

 of chlorides can accelerate decay in galvanised steel.27 Since phenolic foam insulation is
known to affect galvanised steel sheeting in roof construction, could it also affect light
steel frames in wall construction?
The level of maintenance of the systems will affect durability, and therefore risk. In many
cases the materials being relied upon to provide the weathertightness of a structure have
a limited life. Sealants may need to be replaced several times over the design life of a
system. Owner occupiers are much less likely to undertake the regular inspection and
maintenance requirements detailed in third party accreditation certificates than a housing
association with a comprehensive planned maintenance regime. Thus type of ownership
will itself affect risk.
Alterations to the fabric by third parties, such as the creation of penetrations for services,
can lead to problems. Low rise dwellings are more likely than high rise to have such works
carried out, so the built form may also affect risk.
The development of a comprehensive risk assessment methodology supported by good
evidence may be the ultimate goal. However, in the meantime, given the seriousness of
problems that have occurred around the world, the approach of managing the risk of
moisture penetration in framed construction by providing a drainage cavity is considered
wholly appropriate.

Shelter from Envelope/cladding

Number of storeys Exposure to driving rain
Increasing risk

architectural features complexity

Figure 33 Factors influencing the weather-tightness of dwellings.

24 Learning the lessons from systemic building failures

 4 Summary and conclusions
The problems described in this review were chosen to illustrate how a lack of
understanding of (or failing to adhere to) sound building science, poor design and/or
poor workmanship can lead to problems of moisture ingress and damage to the fabric.
The overriding assumption should be that moisture will penetrate the fabric and, with
that in mind, the designer and builder should take all reasonable steps to ensure that
moisture can safely be drained and/or ventilated to the outside before damage can
be done.
It should be recognised that materials and systems will degrade with age, and that
routine maintenance and inspections will not always be carried out. The PRC homes
problem also illustrates the importance of choosing durable materials for the structure,
particularly when it is not possible to inspect the structure without the removal of
claddings or lining materials. Buildings may undergo alteration within their lifetime,
and such alterations may compromise the ability of the cladding to keep the structure
dry. Thus it is prudent to incorporate some form of second line of defence, even if it is
regarded as ‘redundant’ at the design stage.
In practical terms, that means a robust approach to moisture management, both from
within the building and from the weather. Moisture vapour generated within the
dwelling is prevented from entering into the external wall structure by the provision of
properly detailed vapour control layers (VCL). To prevent any moisture that gets past
the VCL condensing within the wall, materials should be selected that allow moisture
vapour to pass easily to the outside. As a general principle, any individual layer within
the structure should have a higher vapour permeability than underlying layers, thus
making it easier for moisture to pass to the outside. Where a layer is specified that has
a lower vapour permeability than underlying layers, there is potential for condensation
to occur and a ventilated cavity should be provided at that point to ventilate away any
accumulated moisture.

Summary and conclusions 25

External moisture should in the first instance be deflected away form the building by the
provision of appropriate overhangs, flashings and claddings impervious to liquid water.
When water penetrates the cladding, the principle should be to make provision for it to
drain to the outside.

4.1 Dos and Don’ts

Do:
. Assume that water will find a route behind a cladding
. Build in ‘redundancy’
. Recognise that errors will be made during the construction process – defects will be
built in
. Remember that some materials deteriorate with age – especially sealants
. Adopt the 4 Ds principles (deflect; drain; dry; choose durable materials) when
designing dwellings
. Anticipate future work that may compromise the integrity of the cladding.
Don’t:
. Rely on sealants to keep water out indefinitely
. Assume that regular inspections of cladding and sealants will be undertaken
. Casually experiment with people’s homes in search of a short-term fix or an
unreasonable acceleration of change.

26 Learning the lessons from systemic building failures

 A P P E N D I X A

Factors contributing to the Leaky Condo

Syndrome, taken from the Barrett Report
The Renewal of Trust in Residential Construction: Commision of Inquiry into the
Quality of Condominium Construction in British Columbia (1998).
www.qp.gov.bc.ca/condo.

The building process

The residential building process operates within a set of complex business relationships,
statutes, and regulations. The Commission was presented with case after case of
ineffective regulation regarding responsibility and accountability at each stage of the
construction process. These included:
a) an inability on the part of municipalities to effectively monitor building quality; to
ensure inspectors play a meaningful role in maintaining building standards and in
enforcing building codes
b) a lack of provincial monitoring to ensure accurate interpretation of the building code,
as well as its performance requirements
c) a lack of developer, builder, and general contractor responsibility – often facilitated
through protective corporate structures
d) architects who have been unable to maintain professional responsibility in translating
designs into quality physical structures
e) engineers who have been unable to ensure their involvement in the process will lead
to quality construction of the building envelope
f) a lack of training, skills, and qualifications that have led to a deterioration in the
quality of worker performance
g) an inadequate home warranty program which, in the majority of cases, is faced with a
conflict of interest between its service to the homeowner and its obligation to the
developer
h) a mortgage guarantee system which tends to serve the interests of the residential
construction industry and financial institutions, without due regard to the consumer,
who buys its services
i) a lack of information from the builder to the strata council to facilitate its
responsibilities
j) a lack of understanding as to the roles and responsibilities of strata councils and
management companies, which has often left the homeowner confused and alone.

Building science
In addition to economic pressures, climatic conditions, and a systemic failure of the
building process, building science also played a role in bringing about this crisis of
confidence. The factors related to technology, or building science, include:
a) a poorly interpreted building code
b) municipal by-laws that can lead to inappropriate design, exacerbated by architects
who do not understand the implications of their designs
c) the use of new materials without an understanding of how they will be affected by
our climate

Appendix A 27
d) a loss of collective memory, and lack of conventional wisdom, among inspectors,
architects, engineers, developers, and contractors regarding the requirements for
effective building
e) ineffective communication and transfer of knowledge among the professionals
and business people (who understand the issues), to others involved in the
building process.

28 Learning the lessons from systemic building failures

 A P P E N D I X B

City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska – policy

on structural insulated panel roofs
(www.juneau.org/cddftp/bldghandouts2003/SIP_ROOF.pdf)

Structural insulated panels (SIP) are premanufactured construction materials used in place
of standard ‘stick-built’ construction techniques for walls and roofs of buildings. Recent
reports from engineers and observation by building inspectors indicate that these panels,
when used as roofing materials, have exhibited a very high failure rate in Juneau.
These costly and potentially dangerous failures are generally appearing in the top layer of
the panels which have rotted and sometimes deteriorated to an oatmeal consistency as
well as in the rotting of the wooden joint materials.
The top and bottom layers of SIPs usually consist of oriented strand board (OSB) which is
similar to plywood but with smaller pieces of wood veneer heated and pressed into
sheets with resin adhesives. In the panels, bonded between the OSB layers is a layer of
foam insulation. The edges of the panels usually contain wooden splines that slip
together to join the panels.
The most significant factors contributing to the panel failures in Juneau are the cool
temperatures along with the elevated relative humidity in Juneau as compared to other
locations. The extra moisture inside and outside our buildings makes the proper
installation of the panels more critical in our environment. The specific reasons for the
failures appear to be:
1) Lack of continuous vapour retarders (usually plastic sheathing often called ‘visqeen’)
on the warm side of the panels thus allowing moisture from the interior of the building
into panel voids and joints
2) Failure of sealants in the panel joints to adhere to the wood and foam (wet surfaces)
and thus failure to stop moisture from travelling through the joints to the top layer
of OSB
3) Lack of ventilation at the top layer of the panels to dispel the moisture.
In order to avoid future problems with SIPs used as roofs, the City and Borough of
Juneau Building Division has adopted the following requirements on the reverse side of
this sheet for the use and repair of SIPs in roofs.

Requirements for installation and repair of structural insulated

panel roofs
Installation or repair of SIPs used in roofs in the City and Borough of Juneau shall meet
the following requirements:
1. Vapour retarder. The installation or repair of SIPs in roofs shall include a properly
installed and sealed vapour retarder on the warm side of the SIP. The vapour retarder
shall be rated at no more than one tenth (0.10) perm by a recognised testing agency
2. Roof ventilation. SIPs used as roofs shall have a ‘cold roof’ installed over the panels
that provides not less than 1_ inches of air space above the top skin of the panel.
Such air space shall be continuous from top to bottom and open to the atmosphere
at the top and bottom. Other designs will be reviewed and may be approved on a
case by case basis
3. Sealants. All voids and interfaces in SIPs, including at joints, shall be completely
filled with approved adhesive sealant. Such sealant shall be firmly bonded to the
panel materials

Appendix B 29
4. Special inspection. SIPs shall be repaired or installed under an approved Special
Inspection Program as defined in the building code. The Special Inspection shall
cover the following areas:
a) Proper installation and sealing of the vapour retarder including continuous
installation across support elements
b) All material surfaces that receive sealants and adhesives shall be dry or meet the
manufacturer's specifications
c) All sealants and adhesives shall be applied within the temperature ranges
specified by the sealant or adhesive manufacturer
d) All surfaces to be adhered or sealed shall be in contact with the sealant within the
reaction time of the sealant. Surface skinning of the sealant shall not be allowed
before the panels are in their final position
e) All voids in the panel structure, including voids in connections, shall be completely
filled with adhesive sealant
f) All penetrations of the vapour retarder shall be properly sealed upon completion
of the work requiring the penetration
g) All connections to the structure shall be completed in accordance with the
manufacturer’s instructions and the approved plans for the structure.

30 Learning the lessons from systemic building failures

 R E F E R E N C E S

1 Samuelson, I. and Wånggren, B., Fukt och mögelskador i Hammarby Sjöstad (Moisture and
mould damage in Hammarby Sjöstad) SP Rapport 2002:15, SP Technical Research Institute
of Sweden

2 BRE (1994). Choosing external rendering, GBG18

3 English Heritage (1997). Lead roofs on historic buildings: an advisory note on underside
corrosion

4 BSI. CP143 Sheet roof and wall coverings:

Part 5 Zinc 1964
Part 12 Copper 1970
Part 15 Aluminium 1973

5 BS 6915: 2001. Design and construction of fully supported lead sheet roof and wall
coverings – code of practice

6 BRE (1984). The structural condition of prefabricated reinforced concrete houses designed
before 1960, IP10/84

7 Barrett D. The renewal of trust in residential construction: An inquiry into the quality
of condominium construction in British Columbia (The Barrett Report), 1998.
Downloadable from www.qp.gov.bc.ca/condo

8 See Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation research highlights technical series 98–102,
Survey of Building Envelope Failures in the Coastal Climate of British Columbia, 1999

9 Lacasse MA, O’Connor TJ, Nunes S. and Beaulieu P (February 2003). Report from Task 6 of
MEWS Project Experimental Assessment of Water Penetration and Entry into Wood-Frame
Wall Specimens – Final Report, IRC-RR-133

10 Lacasse MA (2004). IRC studies on the control of rain penetration in exterior wood-frame walls,
NRCC-46776

11 Report of the overview group on the weathertightness of buildings (Hunn Report), 31 August
2002. This report can be downloaded from www.dbh.govt.nz/whrs-publications-reports

12 Samuelson, I., Mjörnell, K., Jansson, A., Fuktskador i putsade, odränerade träregelväggar
– lägesrapport oktober 2007 (Moisture damage in rendered, undrained, well insulated stud
walls – progress report October 2007) SP Rapport 2007:36, SP Technical Research Institute
of Sweden

13 Samuelson, I., Mjörnell, K., Jansson, A., Fuktskador i putsade, odränerade träregelväggar
– lägesrapport oktober 2007 (Moisture damage in rendered, undrained, well insulated stud
walls – progress report October 2007) SP Rapport 2007:36, SP Technical Research Institute
of Sweden

14 European Union of Agrement, MOAT 22 1988. Assessment of external insulation systems for
walls – expanded polystyrene insulation faced with a thin rendering

15 EIFS Joint failure overview. Atlas Supply update 1st quarter 2003

16 See article at www.professionalroofing.net/article.aspx?A_ID=572

17 See for example BBA Certificate 05/4206 Envirowall external wall insulation systems. Similar
statements are made in other BBA certificates for external wall insulation systems

18 National House Building Council. NHBC Standards 2008, Section 6.9

19 Covington SA, McIntyre IS, Stevens AJ (1995). Timber frame housing 1920–1975: inspection
and assessment. BRE Report BR282

20 Harrison HW (1987). Steel framed and steel clad houses: inspection and assessment, BRE
Report BR113

21 Wright C, Gorgolewski MT, Couchman GH, Lawson RM. Insulated render systems used with
light steel framing. The Steel Construction Institute, SCI P343 2006; see Table 3.2, p17

References 31
22 Wright C, Gorgolewski MT, Couchman GH, Lawson RM. Insulated render systems used with
light steel framing. The Steel Construction Institute, SCI P343 2006, p18

23 Andrews S, Rotting SIP roofs in Juneau, Special edition of MONITOR, BuildCentral Inc.,
Massachusetts 2001. see www.sipweb.com/2001-10_juneau.pdf

24 See www.sips.org/content/technical/index.cfm?PageId=161

25 Department of Building and Housing (2006). Compliance Document for New Zealand
Building Code Clause E2 External Moisture

26 Department of Building and Housing (2005). External moisture – a guide to using the risk
matrix

27 Popo-Ola SO, Biddle AR, Lawson RM. Durability of light steel framing in residential building.
The Steel Construction Institute, SCI P262 2000; see Table 2.2, p 10

32 Learning the lessons from systemic building failures

 NHBC Foundation publications

A guide to modern methods of construction NF1, December 2006

Conserving energy and water, and minimising waste

A review of drivers and impacts on house building NF2, March 2007

Climate change and innovation in house building

Designing out risk NF3, August 2007

Risks in domestic basement construction NF4, October 2007

Ground source heat pump systems

Benefits, drivers and barriers in residential developments NF5, October 2007

Modern Housing
Households’ views of their new homes NF6, November 2007

A review of microgeneration and renewable

energy technologies NF7, January 2008

Site waste management

Guidance and templates for effective site waste
management plans
In partnership with WRAP, the NHBC Foundation has produced this
comprehensive guide to help the housebuilding and construction
industry to write and implement site waste management plans and to
take advantage of the benefits of putting these plans into practice
through more efficient sites and reduced waste. A CD-Rom with the
guide contains all the templates and checklists of job roles as PDFs
and Excel files.
NF8, July 2008

Zero carbon: what does it mean to

homeowners and housebuilders?
The largest body of work carried out by the Foundation since it began
involved more than 600 interviews, both individually and in focus
groups, in a market research survey of consumer and builder attitudes
and understanding of zero carbon. The consumer research focused on
ascertaining attitudes towards zero carbon issues and identifying
levels of understanding along with thoughts and feelings on the potential impact zero carbon homes may
have on lifestyles. The builder research portrays the views of the industry on the need for housebuilders to
have confidence in the implementation of technologies and strategies for carbon reduction, their views on
The Code for Sustainable Homes and how they believe their customers will react to new construction
methods and technologies.
NF9, April 2008

NHBC Foundation publications

in preparation
. The Merton rule: A review of the practical,
environmental and economic effects
. Hydraulic lime mortars www.nhbcfoundation.org
 Learning the lessons from
systemic building failures
Although there has been a continuous cycle of innovation in construction
practice over the past 30 years, and an increase in our overall knowledge
of what constitutes good practice, there have also been many systemic
building failures.
This review outlines some historic problems with house construction
relating to materials, moisture, design and detailing. Using examples to
illustrate problems that have arisen with innovative forms of construction,
it identifies solutions as well as exploring some of the reasons for the
problems and issues that have arisen as a result.
The review will help the house building industry to avoid repeating the
mistakes of the past to ensure that future homes will be robust and
long lasting.

The NHBC Foundation has been established by NHBC in partnership with the BRE Trust.
It facilitates research and development, technology and knowledge sharing, and the
capture of industry best practice. The NHBC Foundation promotes best practice to help
builders, developers and the industry as it responds to the country’s wider housing needs.
The NHBC Foundation carries out practical, high quality research where it is needed most,
particularly in areas such as building standards and processes. It also supports house
builders in developing strong relationships with their customers.

© NHBC Foundation
NF10
Published by IHS BRE Press on behalf of NHBC Foundation

10 September 2008
ISBN 978-1-84806-046-3