<%BANNER%>

Record for a UF thesis. Title & abstract won't display until thesis is accessible after 2011-08-31.

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024976/00001

Material Information

Title: Record for a UF thesis. Title & abstract won't display until thesis is accessible after 2011-08-31.
Physical Description: Book
Language: english
Creator: Vasconi, Sarah
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Statement of Responsibility: by Sarah Vasconi.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.
Local: Co-adviser: Muszynski, Larry C.
Electronic Access: INACCESSIBLE UNTIL 2011-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024976:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024976/00001

Material Information

Title: Record for a UF thesis. Title & abstract won't display until thesis is accessible after 2011-08-31.
Physical Description: Book
Language: english
Creator: Vasconi, Sarah
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Building Construction -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Building Construction thesis, M.S.B.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Statement of Responsibility: by Sarah Vasconi.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.B.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Issa, R. Raymond.
Local: Co-adviser: Muszynski, Larry C.
Electronic Access: INACCESSIBLE UNTIL 2011-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024976:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

FLUID APPLIED WATERPROOFING SYSTEMS: A CASE STUDY OF KILEY GARDENS By SARAH VASCONI A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Sarah Vasconi

PAGE 3

3 To my parents, especially my mother for all the love and support she has given me over the years. I know that she is proud of me, and in whatever I choose to do in life I know I will have success because I have her behind me. To Thomas, because my accompli shments never quite my dog Molly, f or she will always look adoringly up at me and was there every day s itting at my feet while I wrote this.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my supervisory chairs and lab technicians for all their help in this tedious thesis process. In addition, my work would not have been able to be completed without the help of the mples of waterproofing products. I know that in the course of their work, they did not need to help me out so selflessly, and it shows me that in this business it is better to make friends, because you never know what type of favor you might need to ask

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 12 2 OVERVIEW OF WATERPROOFING ................................ ................................ .................. 14 Generic Sealants ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 14 Generic Type and Cost ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 15 Movement Capability ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 15 Curing Mecha nisms ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 15 Recovery Properties ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 17 Waterproofing Membrane Systems ................................ ................................ ........................ 17 Positive vs. Negative Side ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 21 Advantages and Disadvantages of Fluid Applied Waterproofing Systems ........................... 23 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 25 4 KILEY GARDENS: BACKGROUND ................................ ................................ .................. 27 Historic Site Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 27 Current Si te Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 29 Final Site Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 36 5 KILEY GARDENS: WATERPROOFING ISSUES ................................ .............................. 38 Issue1: Waterproofing Membrane ................................ ................................ .......................... 38 Issue 2: Drains and Plumbing ................................ ................................ ................................ 41 Issue 3: Overall Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 44 Issue 4: Lack of Responsibility ................................ ................................ ............................... 49 6 WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE COMPONENTS ................................ .......................... 50 Synthetic Rubber ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 53 Asphalt ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 54 Carbon Black ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 55 Styrene ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 55

PAGE 6

6 Volatility ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 55 Acute Inhalation Toxicity ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 56 7 TESTING PROCEDURE AND ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ........ 58 Volatile Content ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 59 Volatile Organic Compound Content ................................ ................................ ..................... 63 Volatile Organic C ompound Emissions ................................ ................................ ................. 65 8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ..................... 68 9 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 70 APPENDIX A MAT ERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS (MSDS) ................................ ................................ 71 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 95 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 98

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Typical Application Areas for Generic Sealants (Panek and Cook 1991, 19) ................... 16 2 2 Comparison of Waterproofing Membranes (Compiled from Monroe 1990, p. 8 9) ......... 19 2 3 Physical Properties of Coal Tar Elastomeric Waterproof Membrane (Source: Maslow 1974, p. 47) ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 20 2 4 Properties of Fluid Applied Systems (Source: Kubal 1993, p. 23) ................................ ... 23 6 1 Manufacturer's Comparison of Liquid Applied Waterproofing Systems (Source: Compiled from Buildsite) ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 51 6 1 Continued ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 52 6 2 Different Type s of Synthetic Rubber (Source: Wikipedia) ................................ ............... 54 6 3 Toxicity Classes: Hodge and Sterner Scale (Source: Canadian Centre for Occupationa l Health and Safety 2005) ................................ ................................ .............. 57 7 1 Product Composition of Samples used for Testing ................................ ............................ 58 7 2 Determination of Volatile Content of Coatings ................................ ................................ 60 7 3 Determination of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content ................................ ........ 64

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4 1 Satellite image of 400 N Ashley Street (Source: Google 2009) ................................ ........ 27 4 2 Photo circa 1996 (Source: The Cultural Landscape Foundation 1996) ............................. 28 4 3 Missing historic features of Kiley Gardens (Pressley Associates 2007) ........................... 30 4 4 Highlighted non historic additions to the site (Pressley Associates 2007) ........................ 31 4 5 Kiley Gardens as of year 2007 (Pressley Associates 2007) ................................ ............... 32 4 6 View from on top of the amphitheatre ................................ ................................ ............... 33 4 7 Extent of neglect after crape myrtles were removed ................................ ......................... 33 4 8 Amphitheatre ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 34 4 9 Portion of the plaza not owned by the City of Tampa and maintained as a part of the towers grounds. Rest of neglected Kiley Gardens shown in the distance ......................... 34 4 10 Kiley Gardens once the latest renovations are completed ................................ ................. 35 5 1 Modified Bituminous Membrane Sheet Bituthene from Kiley Gardens (10 10 2009) ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 40 5 2 Bituthene from Kiley Gardens with clear root penetration and deterioration ................ 40 5 3 Removal of a metal ceiling panel at the amphitheatre ................................ ....................... 41 5 4 Detail of a welded seam at the amphitheatre ................................ ................................ ..... 41 5 5 Unearthed fountain feature from Kiley Gardens ................................ ............................... 42 5 6 Efflorescence present on B14 column as well as A14 ................................ ....................... 43 5 7 Extraneous drain installed after structure was completed ................................ .................. 43 5 8 Significant plumbing leak location just below the amphitheatre ................................ ....... 44 5 9 Ever present water sitting on the parking garage lower level floor ................................ ... 44 5 10 Water sitting in cells for 25 years ................................ ................................ ...................... 46 5 11 Installation of Styrofoam blocks to raise the finished elevation ................................ ..... 46 5 12 Styrofoam installation complete with new slope shown ................................ ................ 47

PAGE 9

9 5 13 ................................ ................................ ... 47 5 14 Rainwater entering via stairwell ................................ ................................ ........................ 48 5 15 Rainwater reaching smooth finished concrete flooring ................................ ..................... 48 7 1 Difference in weight before and after heating ................................ ................................ ... 61 7 2 Percentage of volatiles ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 61 7 3 Percentage of nonvolatiles ................................ ................................ ................................ 62

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Building Constructio n FLUID APPLIED WATERPROOFING SYSTEMS: A CASE STUDY OF KILEY GARDENS By Sarah Vasconi August 2009 Chair: R. Raymond Issa Cochair: Larry C. Muszynski Major: Building Construction The idea of waterproofing is presented here in terms of how it affects and influences sustainable construction, the environment, and human involvement through a study of liquid applied waterproofing systems, in addition to a case study where a waterproofing failure has occurred. Waterproofing is an important element in the m anufacturing process of a sustainable system and also is one of the most common forms of failure in a structure. In Florida, where humidity and water intrusion is a constant factor impacting the built environment, waterproofing systems become key to the lo ngevity and subsequent sustainability of a structure, and once that fails the building will become uninhabitable soon afterwards. By looking into the current trends of waterproofing systems in construction as well as doing laboratory testing, advantages and disadvantages between the latest synthetic rubber and polyester resin based products will be determined and also what sort of implications the product application has on the environment. This study delves into the volatility and toxicity of liquid app lied waterproofing. W ithout such technology, green roofs, for example, would never have come to fruition. This idea has

PAGE 11

11 been around for a couple of decades now and just recently has the technology actually been improved enough to sustain a green roof over a number of years. To illustrate the process, a case study documenting the restoration project, Kiley Gardens in Tampa Florida, is included in this report. At that particular site there was inadequate waterproofing installed roughly 25 years ago and subse quently caused numerous problems to the structure beneath. This case study shows the relationship between old techniques of applying waterproofing and the technology that is now being used to rectify the problems caused by the original inadequacies.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Advances in construction technology revolutionize the way things have been viewed and done for countless years. But new technologies sometimes create underlying problems while unobtrusively fixing the existing problem. The intent of this research is to take a deeper look into liquid applied waterproofing systems and determine whether there is an underlying volatile toxic emission problem associated with this technology. The advent of liquid applied wate rproofing systems has quickly changed the way water resistant membranes are viewed in the construction industry. The conventional methods of using commonplace materials for built up membranes, such as tar like bitumen are becoming obsolete when it comes to completely making a structure water tight. A waterproofing system that is not monolithically applied typically has failures, either by initial application or migration of water over time through seams. The invention of liquid applied waterproofing has eli minated many problems when correctly applied but little is known about what types of toxics are released during the application process. Because a chemical reaction occurs to bond the liquid applied waterproofing system to a substrate, certain questions mu st be asked in order to fully understand whether this product is harmless or not. During the time taken to apply the system, what are the types of emissions and at what level are they emitted? Do the emissions affect indoor air quality or the ozone when ap plied outdoors? Are the trained professionals that handle this type of product on a daily basis risking their health after long term exposure? Are there major differences in emissions between acrylic, polyester, and polyurethane based products or are they all similarly VOC (volatile organic compound) emitting products? And finally do the benefits outweigh the risks ass ociated with the application?

PAGE 13

13 Research on the chemical properties and application process will establish a basis to test for emissions of li quid applied waterproofing. Testing will be done in a laboratory so as to control and negate outside influences; the results will be used to compare and determine whether a current project, used as a case study in this report, which is employing one of the liquid applied waterproofing is better or worse than the other typ es, in terms of emissions. The initial research on general waterproofing will introduce this topic, while more examination will continue by including a case study of the North Carolina Nat ional Bank Plaza, which is more commonly known as, and in this paper will be referred to as, Kiley Gardens in Tampa, FL. By intensely perusing the original drawings, historical reports, engineering reports, and approved drawings and specifications for the renovations, the waterproofing failures of the structur e will be determined. Another main concern is, to determine with a minimal harm to the environment, whether the new plan will actually repair the issues for any real length of time. This case study cat alogs the current trend of liquid applied waterproofing as well the historic approaches to waterproofing, coupled with a look at the systems dependent on and aff ected by the waterproofing.

PAGE 14

14 CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW OF WATERPRO OFING aterproof or wa ter resistant describes objects unaffected by water or resisting water passage, or which are covered with a material that resists or does not allow water passage. Waterproofing describes making an object waterproof or water resistant but in the construction industry that term is defined as the treatment of a surface or structure to prevent the passage of water under hydrostatic pressure ( National Roofing Contractors Association 1996) There are many different ways and different materials that are used to waterproof parts of a building. The main concern discussed here is to understand the types of waterproofing systems used in below grade situations, historically as well as recently. The information reviewed and presented here begins with the under standing of a basic sealant, delves into all types waterproofing membranes, and finally settles on the most current trends in waterproofing which uses solvent based mixtures containing a base of urethanes, rubbers, plastics, vinyls, polymeric asphalts, or combinations thereof (Kubal 1993) Generic Sealants The best way to begin to understand the way a sealant works, prior to delving into a waterproofing system, is to briefly present how generic base components affect the classification parameters of waterp roofing. When discussing generic sealants, there are certain classification parameters which determine suitability in particular applications. The parameters include the following: 1. Generic type 2. Cost 3. Movement capabilities 4. Curing mechanisms 5. Recovery properti es (Panek and Cook 1991, p. 17)

PAGE 15

15 Generic Type and Cost A major reason for so many different types of sealants is cost (Panek and Cook 1991) It has been proven that a urethane sealant has high enough performance that it would suffice in most sealing applications, but because of its high cost it may not be necessary in all applications (Panek and Cook 1991) Therefore many other generic based s ealants have been developed to give the consumer a variety of choices for their basic sealing needs. Movement Capability Movement capability is expressed as a + % value, the plus value indicating the amount of movement a sealant can take in extension in a typical joint, and the minus value the amount of movement a sealant can take in a compression in the same joint (Panek and Cook 1991, p. 18) For example, a sealant with a + 50% joint movement capability has the ability to move 50% in either direction of compression or extension based on the original joint dimension. Curing Mechanisms The three basic ways that a sealant cures is by oxidation, moisture activation, and by solvent release. Another factor that affects the cure is whether the sealant is one p art or two part. Typically a one part sealant is preferred because that eliminates the problem of getting a good mix (Panek and Cook 1991) The only type of sealant that cures by oxidation is oil and resin, which becomes a very rigid material that offers l ittle movement capability. Among the polymer types that cure by moisture activation are polysulfide, urethane, and silicone. And all the sealant types referenced in T able 2 1 that are solvent based cure by releasing solvents, which could possibly create a problem of poor air quality. If solvent based products are used in a large area such as in a waterproofing application then they could possibly affect the environment. This will be discussed in a later subsequent section.

PAGE 16

16 Table 2 1. Typical Application Areas for Generic Sealants (Panek and Cook 1991, 19) Generic Base Typical Uses Oil Small wooden window sash Oil and Resin Metal windows Butyl Noncuring With polybutene for metal buildings, slip joints, interlocking curtain walls, sound deadening, tapes Butyl Curing Home sealants, repair of lock strip gasket, tapes: with resins for hot melts on insulating glass Polyisobutylene Primary seal on insulating glass Asphalts With bitumen on gutters, driveway repair; with neoprene on gutters, waterstops, and adhesives Acrylic Nonplasticized Water based for interior use joints on wallboard Acrylic Plasticized Caulks for exterior joints on low rise housing, with good movement capabilities, excellent weathering Acrylic Solvent based Exterior joints on high rise construction, around doors and windows with low movement Block polymer Solvent based For low rise buildings with good movement Hypalon Solvent based Exterior joints on high rise construction, around doors and windows PVC coal tar As a hot melt on airfield runways and highways Polysulfide One part High rise building joints Polysulfide Two part High rise building joints, aircraft fuel tank, boating, insulating glass sealant for remedial housing; with coal tar for airport aprons Urethane One part High rise building joints Urethane Two part High rise building joints, insulating glass sealant, with coal tar and asphalt for membrane waterproofing compounds Silicone One part Low and medium modulus for high rise building joints; low modulus for highways and difficult building joints; medium and high modulus for insulating glass with polyisobutylene; structural glazing; home use as bathtub caulk Silicone Two part Mostly in plant use on prefab units and insulating glass Neoprene Fire resistant gaskets, lock strip gaskets, foam gaskets EPDM Gaskets, lock strip gaskets, foam gaskets Nitrile Solvent based For small cracks and narrow joints Epoxy Concrete repair, complex beam construction; potting, molding, sealing transformers; high voltage splicing, capacitor sealant; with polymers as a concrete coating on bridges Polyester Potting, molding, and encapsulating

PAGE 17

17 Recovery Properties Once a sealant has cured, through whichever method, their recovery properties are affected. Recovery is a term used to describe the shape that a sealant is in after the release of compression or extension, which is also shown as a + percentage like movemen t capability. Sealants cured through a solvent release method are hard and exhibit poor recovery. Ones cured by moisture evaporation, become a tough rubber like consistency with a relatively low recovery. But some sealants, such as silicone or urethane, th at are highly plasticized or catalyzed exhibit fair to excellent recovery (Panek and Cook 1 991 ) Waterproofing Membrane Systems Waterproofing systems for foundations developed out of the technology for generic sealants and the only difference is that it is applied over a larger area. Tests have been developed to investigate certain characteristics of a sealant as well as a large membrane system. These characteristics are important in explaining the performance of waterproofing and helping a consumer in deci ding what type of sealant is appropriate for what type of application. The following is a partial list of what waterproofing membranes are tested for: Movement capability Solids content Resistance to heat aging Tensile adhesion Resistance to water Modulus of elasticity Abrasion resistance Color retention Hardness Percentage of weight loss after heat aging Resistance to weathering Adhesion to peel Tear resistance Solvent and chemical resistance Toxicity Staining of masonry and building surfaces

PAGE 18

18 Historically, built up sheet membranes have been used for waterproofing foundations and below grade structures. Felts and rubber type sheets are laid down in a tar like substance and the process mimics the way a roof is waterproofed; mopped on in several layers. They can be categorized into three types according to the application method: hot applied, cold applied and fluid applied. (Maslow 1974) Hot applied refers to a tar like product that is mopped on from a heated kettle. Cold applied refers t o a rubber or plastic sheet type product that is adhered to the substrate either only at the edges or the entire membrane. Fluid applied membranes are sprayed, brushed, troweled or squee geed on to produce a cured film. The liquid is spread on a number of times to build up a monolithic membrane (Maslow 1974) A fluid applied waterproofing membrane should be applied to a relatively smooth surface, but not necessarily a steel troweled finish. A rough or uneven surface takes a greater amount of fluid membrane to fill all voids (Maslow 1974, p. 464) Most any type of substrate can be covered by a fluid applied waterproofing system but under no circumstances is light weight aggregate concrete permitted, since vermiculite or other blown aggregate holds large quan tities of water, which never dries out and causes extensive adhesion loss in the membrane over time (Panek and Cook 1991) Fluid applied systems are available in the following derivatives and are shown in Table 2 2 : urethane (single or two component), rubber derivatives (butyl, neoprene, or hyphalon), polymeric asphalt, modified urethane (water based polyurethane), acrylic resin, PVC, and hot applied systems (asphalt). (Kubal 1993) The most common types of membranes are: Built Up Bituminous Membrane s V ulcanized Elastomers 1 (Thermosets 2 1 Elastomer : a polymer with the property of elasticity usually thermosets can be thermoplastic monomers included are carbon, h ydrogen, oxygen, a nd/or silicon 2 Thermosetting Polymers : polymer materials that irreversibly cure (toughening or hardening of polymer material by cross linking of polymer chains, brought about by chemical additives, ultra violet radiation, electron beam or heat. For rubb er it is called vulcanization.) Thermoset materials are usually liquid or malleable prior to curing and designed to be molded into their fi nal form, or used as adhesives.

PAGE 19

Table 2 2. Comparison of Waterproofing Membranes (Compiled from Monroe 1990, p. 8 9) Type Format Description Assembled on site Advantages Disadvantages Built Up Bituminous Membrane Sheets Two or more plies of felt, which is saturated with bitumen (asphalt or coal tar pitch) By bonding each ply together with alternating layers of bitumen Reflective cracking, Low elongation properties, Deteriorate when exposed to standing water Vulcanized Elastomers (Thermosets) Sheets Elastomeric. Polymers undergo chemical cross linking during manufacturing: ethylene propylene diene terpolymer (EPDM), neoprene (CR) and butyl (IIR) Large manufactured sheets are applied directly to substrate and s pliced to the next Excellent weathering properties, High elongation, Good puncture resistance Sheets are difficult to splice together, field splices are not warranted Nonvulcanized Elastomers Sheets Polymeric sheets not cured (vulcanized) during manufacturing and are usually reinforced with a polyester mat Small manufactured sheets are applied directly to substrate and spliced to the next Can be heat welded in the field Small sheet size results in many seams, Plasticizer loss, Embrittlement Thermoplastics Sheets Compounded from rigid plastics (PVC) and made flexible by the addition of plasticizers, can be reinforced with glass fiber or polyester mats Large manufactured sheets are applied directly to substrate and heat welded to the next Low w ater absorption, Good elongation, Good puncture resistance Plasticizer loss, Embrittlement Modified Bituminous Membranes Sheets Bituminous sheets modified with synthetic rubbers to improve flexibility, elasticity, and cohesive strength of bitumen Small manufactured sheets are applied directly to substrate and spliced to the next More flexible than traditional bituminous membranes Installation sensitive to site conditions, Small sheet size results in many seams Hot Applied Rubberized Asphalt Membranes Monolithic Compound of virgin or reclaimed rubber dispersed in asphalt with oil and mineral fillers Melted in a kettle and applied once hot to form a continuous membrane No seams Reflective cracking, Lack of flashing accessories, Quality sensitive to work manship Cold Applied Liquid Membranes Monolithic Emulsion or solvent based liquid polymeric compound that combine one or more of the following: coal tar pitch, modified asphalt, various resins or elastomers (polyurethane) Single or two component liquid is mixed and applied over substrate to form a continuous membrane No seams Reflective cracking, Lack of flashing accessories, Quality sensitive to workmanship 19

PAGE 20

20 Thermoplastics 1 Modified Bituminous Membranes, Hot Applied Rubberized Asphalt Membranes, Cold Applied Liquid Membranes Asphalt and rubber derivative systems are the oldest technology and the least effective over time in most situations, but in comparison to all the rest they are still the most cost effective, which is what keeps these products around. Urethane systems have the most elastomeric capabilities and have good resistance to most chemicals found in below grade conditions. (Kubal 1993) The polyurethane systems are comparable to the formations of urethane sealants. A typical two component elastomeric membrane contai ns a urethane prepolymer, blended with a small percentage of an isocyanate 2 as one component; the coal tar oil, catalysts, and drying agents to inhibit moisture are packaged as the other components (Maslow 1974, p. 469) Table 2 3 shows two of the same typ e of waterproofing systems but with chemical different bases. Table 2 3. Physical Properties of Coal Tar Elastomeric Waterproof Membrane ( Source: Maslow 1974, p. 47) Physical Properties of Polysulfide -Coal Tar Elastomeric Waterproof Membrane Physical Pr operties of Polyurethane -Coal Tar Elastomeric Waterproof Membrane Tensile Strength 100 psi Tensile Strength 50 psi Elongation 900% Elongation 600% Modulus at 100% 20 psi Modulus at 100% 10 psi Modulus at 300% 40psi Shore A hardness 12 Shore A hardness 25 Solids Content 100% Solids Content 100% Permeability rating -(50 mils) 0.007 perms Permeability rating -(50 mils) 0.110 perms Resistance to fungus and bacteria Excellent Resistance to fungus and bacteria Excellent Cure time 72 hrs. Cure time 72 hrs. 1 Thermoplastic Polymers : turns into a liquid when heated and freezes to a very glassy state when cooled sufficiently. Ex. Polyethylene and polystyrene 2 Isocyanate : is the functional group of atoms N=C=O (1 nitrogen, 1 carbon, 1 oxygen). An isocyanate that has two isocyanate groups is known as a diisocyanate Diisocyanates are manuf actured for reaction with polyols in the production of polyurethanes.

PAGE 21

21 It must be stated here that historically, coal tar was used in this type of application but according to the website of the International Agency for Research on Cancer preparations that include more than 5 percent of crude coal tar are a Group 1 carcinogen Coal tar is a by product of the carbonization used to produce coke and/or natural gas. Coal tar creosotes are distillation products of coal tar, while coal tar is a residue produced during the distillation of coal tar. Coal tar pitch vo latiles are compounds given off when heated, from products contain ing coal tar (US Dept of Health 2002), such as the waterproofing systems developed in the past. Such hazards have been documented, but on the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (O SHA) specific standard for occupational exposure to coal tar pitch volatiles (CTPVs). Exposures are regulated under OSHA's Air Contaminants Standard. Employees exposed to CTPVs in the coke oven i ndustry are covered by found in waterproofing products today, but some will specifically state that they are coal tar free. Other than conveying an histor ic view on waterproofing components, Table 2 3 does show that fluid applied systems have elastomeric properties with tested elongation over 500 percent, with recognized testing such as ASTM C 836. This enables fluid applied systems to bridge substrate crac king up to 1/16 inches wide. An advantage with fluid applied is their self flashing installation capability. This application enables material to be applied seamlessly at substrate protrusions, changes in planes, an d floor wall junctions. (Kubal 1993) Pos itive vs Negative Side Waterproofing in below grade applications can be referred to as negative side or positive side. This reference concerns which side of the structural element the system is installed. Positive

PAGE 22

22 side waterproofing is an application wher e the source of hydrostatic pressure 3 or water and the system are both on the same side. Negative side waterproofing is an application on the opposite side of the structural element that the hydrostatic pressure is exerting. Basically, in most instances, i f there is a CMU block foundation wall for a typical basement, the waterproofing Field observations indicate that coating or barrier s perform quite well, presumably because the hydrostatic pressure pushing on the system tends to keep the system in place without allowing the concrete behind it to become excessively damp. Coating systems applied to the after a time since they tend to disband and then leak if any amount of h ydrostatic head later develops Pratt 1990, p. 138) This study focuses on positive side liquid applied waterproofing systems used in green bui lding roof applications. The p ositive side waterproofing barrier system is put in place to eliminate or mitigate water intrusion into the substructure of the building and this waterproofing is usually inaccessible after installation. It is now the predomin ant type of waterpro ofing used in new construction and consist s of all commercially available dampproofing or waterproofing systems. Properly applied positive side waterproofing protects the interior of the facility from moisture infiltration and protects the structural components including concrete and steel. 2006) Positive side waterproofing is important mainly for the fact of protecting the structural elements that are susceptible to deterioration when exposed to water and other harmful cor rosives. Water (in either vapor or liquid form) will leak or pass through concrete, because it is 3 Hydrostatic Pressure : the pressure equivalent to that exerted on a surface by a column of water of a given height. Water exerts a pressure of 62.3 pounds of force per foot (1000 kg per meter) of depth. Therefore, water lying against a barrier exerts a steadily increasing pressure as the depth increases. ( National Roofing Contractors Association 1996)

PAGE 23

23 which dry white when the solution reaches the surface or th e concrete; this deposit is termed water also will carry ions, which not only attack the concrete but will also attack the steel att 1990, p. 137) Prevention with waterproofing is the only method of addressing this problem. Advantages and Disadvantages of Fluid Applied Waterproofing Systems Many of the afore mentioned waterproofing systems have their advantages and disadvantages, a s listed in Table 2 2, but since this study is focusing on liquid applied systems, it must delve deeper into that specific topic. Table 2 4 lists the major advantages and disadvantages of a monolithic fluid applied system. Table 2 4. Properties of Fluid A pplied Systems ( Source: Kubal 1993, p. 23) Advantages Disadvantages Excellent elastomeric properties Application thickness controlled in field Ease of application Not applicable over damp or uncured surfaces Seamless application Toxic chemical additives The use of fluid applied elastomeric systems offers many advantages. They have excellent adhesion properties and provide continuous watertight protection that is fully bonded to the substrate, preventing the lateral movement of wat er beneath the membrane (Monroe 1990, p. 122) Other advantages include: flexible through a wide range of temperatures, light in weight and therefore requiring no added structural support to accommodate the system, typically vapor permeable which allows water to esc ape from the concrete slab over time, and their elastomeric properties allow for seamless bridging of gaps or cracks within certain limits. Of the disadvantages, continuous adhesion to the substrate is characteristic of these membranes and therefore puts them in danger of reflective cracking and resultant leakage if proper precau tions are not installed (Monroe 1990). Another disadvantage is the fact that

PAGE 24

24 application is controlled in the field. It becomes very difficult to control the thickness of the fluid when applying it in layers. One other less used system is a sheet membrane that is supplied in rolls of approximately 3 or more feet in width and 60 mils in thickness. This rubbery sheet is either spot adhered or laid down using an adhesive. The advantag e of this system is that it guarantees a fixed thickness. The disadvantages are that it may allow water to flow under the sheet and that it is very difficult to conform to columns, protrusions, corners and cant areas; therefore, skillful installation is ne eded to make the system work properly ( Panek and Cook 1991, p. 258) Similarly, the product that was used 20 years ago at Kiley Gardens, a polymer modified bitumen sheet membrane allowed roots to penetrate at the seams and created a major water intrusion p roblem to the structure below. An upgrade for this structure involves excavating to the old waterproofing, stripping it, and applying a new monolithic, solvent based fluid system. Unfortunately for the progression of waterproofing, these systems contain so lvents which make the materials toxic and hazardous, which require safety protection during installation and disposal, and become topic of discussion for environ mentally friendly groups (Kubal 1993) Better understanding of the chemical make up of all the material options available for waterproofing the substrate of a large outdoor park will show what type and how bad toxic emissions might be for the environment and to the person doing the application Until this point, little testing has been done on the toxicity of these materials and its impact on the environment a major problem (Panek and Cook 1991) The rest of this study will discuss specific char acteristics, including the toxic volatility, of typical waterproofing systems used in a below grade, positive side applications that are on the market today and look at what is being implemented at Kiley Gardens in Tampa, FL

PAGE 25

25 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY In order to understand liquid applied waterpr oofing in terms of hazardous emissions during the application process, research and testing is done on the material. Once the water proofing systems have been analyzed on a material basi s, the application process is then observed and the data will be used to relate back to the information collected from the Kiley Gardens case study. The obtainm ent of information for Kiley Gardens is recorded below. In attempts to completely understand Kiley Gardens so as to make it a conclusive case study, research began with traveling on October 10, 2008 down to Tampa Fl to visit Skanska, the construction ma nagement firm on the project, and obtain all the current construction documents including specifications and photos of the current condition as well as past photos dating back to May 2008. Actual field observations of the project were made every weekday be tween the dates May 12, 2008 to August 15, 2008 in addition to the October 10, 2008 visit. From that trip, contact was made via email with Michael DeMeo from RS&H, the engineering firm, to set up a meeting date for October 24, 2008 so that available copie s of the historic original drawings that they were able to obtain from the Harvard library could be studied. From the 200+ drawings that RS&H had collected, fifteen were found that showcased the overall structure, and important details illustrating the or iginal waterproofing specifications. In addition to the original drawings, a copy of the historical evaluation of Kiley Gardens that was done for RS&H by Pressley Associates, Inc., which catalog the intent of the project and contained some important inform ation about the original ideas surrounding the downtown of Tampa, Florida was obtained.

PAGE 26

26 Walter P. Moore, another engineering firm associated with the project, conducted an extensive survey of the parking garage structure located underneath Kiley Gardens a nd analyzed the effects of the waterproofing failure. Laboratory testing will be u sed to determine the volatile content and volatile organic compound content of three different liquid applied waterproofing products : a polyurethane base, polyester base and another type of synthetic rubber base. The information found from this testing will be used to compare to the waterproofing system being used to restore Kiley Gardens, which will determine whether it was the best choice in terms of the type used in a belo w grade application as well as the amount of solvents released during application. Since the entire project is outdoors and the concentration of possible toxics become quickly dispersed, the conventional way of testing for emissions will not work. Controll ed laboratory testing is the only other way to obtain accurate results. A relatively small sample of the three types of waterproofing was obtained to conduct the testing The results will be compared and contrasted in terms of the volatile content (ASTM D 2369) and the volatile organic compound content ( ASTM D 3960 ) as well as discussing volatile organic emissions testing (ASTM D 6420 and ASTM D6803) In summary, the methodology used for the rest of this study is two fold: extensive research of informatio n for Kiley Gardens to determine the cause and impact of the waterproofing failure and labor atory testing to determine hazardous volatility for individual waterproofing materials, one of which will be used in the repair process.

PAGE 27

27 CHAPTER 4 KILEY GARDENS: BACKGROUND Historic Site Analysis The North Carolina National Bank Plaza was constructed in 1986 to 1988. The bank located on the site is now NationsBank, and the plaza has become more commonly known as Kiley Gardens or Kiley Park. This location will be r eferred to as Kiley Gardens in this study. The site is located in downtown Tampa, Florida and is located at 400 N Ashley St. As shown in Figure 4 1, the site borders the Hillsborough River to the southwest, Kennedy Blvd to the southeast and N Ashley Street to the northeast. To the northwest, E Twiggs Street will be extended and become the new entrance for the parking garage. Figure 4 1. S atellite image of 400 N Ashley Street (Source: Google 2009) Working closely with the architect Harry C. Wolf of Wolf Associates who designed the limestone tower and banking hall which occupies the southernmost portion of the site, Dan Urban Kiley designed the plaza with precise mathematical measurements in mind. Th e 33 story tower was designed with the Fibonacci sequenced employed, which is a mathematical system of proportions in which after the first two starting values, each subsequent number is the sum of the two preceding values. This numerical sequence is 0, 1,

PAGE 28

28 Wolf used this type of thinking to determine the radius of the tower, floor heights, dimensions, and the frequency of the window openings. The idea then became to extend the fenestration pattern of the tower, bas ed on the Fibonacci pattern, to the plaza so that the buildings would seamlessly sit within the landscape. Dan Kiley agreed to the plan and incorporated the same proportions into the dimensions of the walkways and of the precast pavers. Shown in Figure 4 2 is an image taken once the plaza was completed which conveys a whimsical secret garden feeling within the structured pattern underfoot. Figure 4 2. Photo circa 1996 ( Source: The Cultural Landscape Foundation 1996) As an influential modern landscape arc hitect during his time, Dan Kiley was influenced additionally by the Moorish revival Tampa Bay Hotel, which is now Plant Hall on the University of Tampa campus and can be seen from the plaza across the Hillsborough River. Elements in the park serve as mode rn interpretations of the Eastern influence as well as appearing as a Persian carpet when viewed from some stories up in the tower. The intent was to release people into space, for them to experience a markedly different perspective and place than anywhere else in the rest of the city. This concept for Dan Kiley acted like the ancient Persian concept of paradise,

PAGE 29

29 gardens have a water source which starts in the center and flows toward the four cardinal directions. Kiley Gardens incorporates the water source within its stringent geometrical design and designed runnels to extend the length of the park to carry water to the glass bottom canal. Figures 4 3, 4 4, and 4 5 sho w the results of a study done by Pressley Associates Landscape Architects; they illustrate the original design, as well as the additions, and demolitions Current Site Analysis The trees that were on the site were comprised of Sable Palm and Crape Myrtle. The white and purple Crape Myrtle trees were removed in 2006, following the series of hurricanes that swept the area and in preparation for repairs to the parking garage. The three reflecting pools located on the lower plaza area were demolished and turne d into a vehicular turn around in 2000. Also in 2000, the glass bottom canal was also removed and concrete bleachers were added to serve as a retaining wall for the upper plaza and almost 7 foot elevation change. The water to the runnels and fountains wer e shut off at that time and the two reflecting pools that were on either side of the parking garage entrance had gravel added to them. The non historic additions are shown in Figure 4 4. Most of Kiley Gardens has been retained as is over the years, includi ng the amphitheatre and other ponds, but when the next round of renovations occur, another portion of Kiley Gardens will be lost. Since the park is such a labor intensive piece of land to maintain, it has almost always been neglected and now the water func tions will not be fully restored and a large portion of the precast pavers have been cracked due to settling and general neglect and will need to be removed. Casting new pavers is an expense that the City of Tampa cannot afford at this time. Shown in Figur e 4 5 is the conditions of the site, before demolition to the Tampa Museum of Art and new construction has begun.

PAGE 30

Figure 4 3. Missing historic features of Kiley Gardens (Pressley Associates 2007) 30

PAGE 31

Figure 4 4. Highlighted non historic add itions to the site (Pressley Associates 2007) 31

PAGE 32

Figure 4 5. Kiley Gardens as of year 2007 (Pressley Associates 2007) 32

PAGE 33

33 As of May 2008, the park is almost unrecognizable. Figures 4 6 through 4 9 show the park right before construction begins to repair the waterproofing to the structure beneath. This is an extensive process involving removing all of the vegetation, pavers, concrete elements, and dirt in the structure and basically starting from scratch, from the Kiley Gardens standpoint. Figure 4 6. View from on top of the amphitheatre Figure 4 7. Extent of neglect after crape myrtles were removed

PAGE 34

34 Figure 4 8. Amphitheatre Figure 4 9. Portion of the plaza not owned by the City of Tampa and maintained as a part of the towers grounds. Rest of neglected Kiley Gardens shown in the distance In the following section, the final reiteration of Kiley Gardens is discussed and shown in Figure 4 10, which is an analysis done over Figure 4 4 after reviewing the latest construction drawing and interpreting what th e site will finally look like.

PAGE 35

Figure 4 10. Kiley Gardens once the latest renovations are completed 35

PAGE 36

36 Final Site Analysis Over the years, many changes have been made to the site, and after the latest construction Figure 4 10 shows what the site will look like. The fountains will be replaced in their original location but water will not flow to them. The five reflecting pools in the front of the site are now all filled in or removed and the final two ponds were demolished to make room for the re routing of the garage entrance by extending Twiggs Street along the side of this site. The original intent of having a water source is no longer feasible and has taken away a significant importance to the design little by little every couple of years. Most of the precast pavers had been cracked and could not be put back to their original location, so the site design was modified to acco mmodate for paver harvesting without needing to cast new ones, which was a cost that the City of Tampa could not justify spending. This will also cut down on the maintenance, as every paver has to be edged around. These two large sections will now act as m ore of a lawn which will also work cohesively with the new Curtis Hixon Waterfront Park (CHWP). As well as design linkage, there is physical linkage of the two parks; a new pedestrian bridge has been added to the north side of Kiley Gardens which connects to the main north/south walkway and traverses over the new Twiggs Street road into CHWP. Which leads to the waterproofing upgrades; the extent of the latest construction is shown in Figure 4 10 and will not include the portion that the tower sits on. The original project was done in two phases: the tower portion and then the garage and there is a large expansion joint that connects the sections together which is getting new sealant in addition to the waterproofing upgrade. The rest of the issues concerning this structure is documented in Chapter 5 and thoroughly explains the reason for the renovations after only twenty five years. Kiley Gardens has become a modern influential piece of landscape architecture and is most likely to be considered for the Nation al Registry of Historic Places. Since the plaza is only

PAGE 37

37 twenty five years old, the Register will not recognize the place as historic, at the moment, because it does not meet the historic criteria of 50 years. But the site does meet the other final criteria : exemplary significance at the state, local, or national level.

PAGE 38

38 CHAPTER 5 KILEY GARDENS: WATER PROOFING ISSUES Kiley Gardens has only been in existence for approximately twenty five years and already is in need of serious repair. If the site is ever to b ecome a historic landmark, then improvements had to be made in order to preserve the structure for longer than another 25 years. Already in danger of becoming structurally compromised by the failure of the waterproofing if the structure was left to deterio rate of its own accord without any intervention, the City of Tampa took control of the situation when it finally became necessary. Rectifying the problems at this stage will hopefully halt the deterioration, and solve the current nuisances caused by the wa ter intrusion. More than one issue will be addressed and documented in this report of Kiley Gardens and its waterproofing failure. A combination of systems and overall design problems have resulted in the structure deteriorating into the state it is in to day. Minor attempts have been made to lessen the water intrusion problem by the owners of the garage, which is documented as well, but as only a temporary fix the attempts were fruitless. The only way to solve the problem is to go to the source, and the on ly way of going to the source is to understand the problem and subsequently determining its source. Although a thorough survey and report was done by an engineering firm of the entire property before construction started, what is presented here is a perso nal account of the case and does not draw from the engineering survey. Issue1: Waterproofing Membrane Historically, a modified bituminous waterproofing membrane has been the most cost effective, but in terms of a long term waterproofing solution, it offer s almost no protection against water penetration. The system is manufactured in small sheets, and although application is easy enough because the sheets are elastomeric and requires nothing other than a clean, dry

PAGE 39

39 substrate to adhere to, the system acts mo re like a proverbial waterproof bandage, adhering for awhile and then starting to peel around the edges over time when things start interacting with it. This is precisely what occurs to a bituminous membrane when it sits in water over time; it is made to r epel when it comes in contact with water, but only for brief periods of time, not every second of every day for a number of years. Modified bituminous membranes were a standard in the waterproofing industry over 20 years ago, and even though liquid applied waterproofing was around, it still remained the more expensive choice and it was not known whether its material properties made it the most suitable for green roof applications. A monolithic waterproofing system is far more superior to sheet membranes be cause of the obvious elimination of seams. Water has a vantage point for intrusion from the very beginning with numerous seams in the system, mainly because they are done by hand and human error can play a factor in failures. The seams are also a vantage p oint for root intrusion from the various plants that are placed in the ground near the waterproofing. Over just a short period of time, roots can easily penetrate the modified bituminous sheets and provide a big enough amount of space for more water to int rude. The original specifications for Kiley Gardens called for the modified bituminous membrane Bituthene as the main and only waterproofing material used on the structure as shown in Figure 5 1 and in Figure 5 2. Once the original waterproofing was une arthed, it was obvious that it was not doing any sort of waterproofing as was originally intended, and merely looked as if someone had buried trash. Clearly shown in Figure 5 2, the outer layer of the membrane had wrinkled from the amount of moisture it ha d been subjected to over the years, as well as the root intrusion.

PAGE 40

40 Figure 5 1. Modified Bituminous Membrane Sheet Bituthene from Kiley Gardens (10 10 2009) Figure 5 2. Bituthene from Kiley Gardens with clear root penetration and deterioration When determining how much water intrusion the structure sustained, a metal panel was removed from a portion of the amphitheatre and the underside of the panel was completely rusted and even the concrete from the planter was wet, after twenty five years. Fi gure 5 3 and a closer image in Figure 5 4 show the extent of the deterioration. The concrete appeared to have been slowly, gravitationally drawing the water that had been sitting in the planters to the metal

PAGE 41

41 panels and subsequently severely corroded them. The hope is to stop this type of corrosion in the rest of the structure. Figure 5 3. Removal of a metal ceiling panel at the amphitheatre Figure 5 4. Detail of a welded seam at the amphitheatre Issue 2: Drains and Plumbing The drains installed within the cells are the type that allows for only water to drain and did not take into the account that dirt might accompany the water as it drained. Subsequently the drains and the plumbing became clogged with dirt over time and therefore could not drain the ce lls properly. The plumbing for the fountain features, as shown in Figure 5 5, were inadequate

PAGE 42

42 to deal with dirt and became damaged and ineffective over time and cannot be easily replaced or repaired. The scope of this project will not fully restore the fou ntains. They will be put back in the original location, but water will be absent. The original design had water running from the round pools, which were pumped with water from beneath and then spilled over the side into runnels which ran down the length of the park. Figure 5 5. Unearthed fountain feature from Kiley Gardens The extent of the plumbing issues is more clearly seen from underneath Kiley Gardens, inside the parking garage. At the junctions, where the plumbing from the cells came together, leak ing almost always occurred since they were clogged with dirt. Leaking occurred from the piping at the intersection of each column as shown in Figure 5 6 by the presence of efflorescence. At some point in the past, at a couple of the column intersections, q uick fixes for overflow were installed and can be seen in Figure 5 7. Presumably the leaking was much more significant than what is shown in Figure 5 6, but even these drain lines that were installed off of the plumbing did not solve the problem.

PAGE 43

43 Figure 5 6 Efflorescence present on B14 column as well as A14 Figure 5 7. Extraneous drain installed after structure was completed The amount of water flow into the parking garage, through various locations and means, is excessive. This is noticeable at the l ocation shown in Figure 5 8 where the plumbing leaks constantly and in Figure 5 9 where leaking occurs from a couple of points that cannot be specifically shown, but is evident by the amount of water sitti ng on the floor of the garage.

PAGE 44

44 Figure 5 8. Significant plumbing leak location just below the amphitheatre Figure 5 9. Ever present water sitting on the parking garage lower level floor Issue 3: Overall Design The overall design is significant to the waterproofing failure as well as th e other issues presented here because it directly results in water intrusion into the structure beneath. Kiley Gardens was constructed as the plaza level of the parking garage and was done so by using beam and lintel concrete technology. The appearance mak es it look like it is an upside down waffle

PAGE 45

45 slab with large cells. This idea created numerous deep planters in which to add dirt and various types of foliage. The intent was to create a green roof in this particular situation, but it was poorly executed. The constructed cells are approximately and it is common knowledge now that the grass and plants are capable of thriving in 6 to 24 inches of dirt for an intensive green roof. The difference between intensive and extensive green roof types are the soil depth and the types of plants that are planted. The extensive type has 1 to 6 inches of dirt, has a weight of 15 50 pounds per square foot, an d is planted with sedums or prairie type flowers which are low to the ground and require less maintenance. The intensive type has over 6 inches of dirt, can be planted like a traditional garden, and a llow s for a greater variety of plants including hardy pe rennials, native flowers (more expensive), shrubs, and even trees. These plants require regular mai ntenance including watering and weeding. The original design for Kiley Gardens had crepe myrtle and large palm trees in these cells and without knowing the recent data on tree growth in only 2 feet of dirt, the designers overdesigned this structure by an additional 2 feet. Also, as per the original design, the drains t of water, as shown in Figure 5 10 to sit in the cells for 25 years, and not drain properly. This major design flaw led to significant water intrusion to th e structure below. Water mitigation through concrete causes damage to the steel structural system, and in this case study only portions of the parking garages rebar have been surveyed. The extant of the damage is not enough to compromise the structure at this point in time, but would become a major issue if the waterproofing was not replaced.

PAGE 46

46 Figure 5 10. Water sitting in cells for 25 years To correct this flaw, the floors of the cells have to be raised to the level of the original drains and piping. This was done by installing Styrofoam (Figure 5 11 and Figure 5 12), so as to not add extra weight, and then placing three inches of concrete, which is sloped toward the new drains, over the foam blocks. The concrete was then hand troweled to give the appropriate slope (Figure 5 13). Figure 5 11. Installation of Styrofoam blocks to raise the finished elevation

PAGE 47

47 Figure 5 12. Styrofoam installation complete with new slope shown Figure 5 trowel ed finish Another two design issues has water, from when it rains, entering to garage area from unlikely entry points. The f irst entry point is through the grated vents; which lead from the lower level of the garage straight up to the street level at Ashley drive. The rain collects and drains into these vents as if they are a part of a storm drain system and then floods a porti on of the garage. The second unlikely entry point for rain water is down the stairwells located towards the northeast portion of the garage. Figure 5 14 shows how the rainwater cascades down the

PAGE 48

48 stairwells causing additional flooding. This becomes a serio us slipping hazard since a large portion of the parking garage floor was finished incorrectly. The floor was given a smooth floated finish, as shown in Figure 5 15, whereas all parking garages are supposed to be broom finished or given something in the nat ure of a non slip finish. Only half of the garage was finished this way and it presumably was an unintentional flaw, since it was corrected elsewhere. Figure 5 14. Rainwater entering via stairwell Figure 5 15. Rainwater reaching smooth finished concre te flooring

PAGE 49

49 Issue 4: Lack of Responsibility The final issue associated with Kiley Gardens and its waterproofing failures is the failure of the owners of the structure to take responsibility for repairing the cause of damage. The City of Tampa owns the top portion of Kiley Gardens and maintains the landscaping, which is quite labor intensive, as well as costly. The building of 400 N Ashley Drive, known as the North Carolina National Bank Tower or SYKES, owns the rights to the parking garage, as well as is re sponsible for the maintenance of that portion of the structure. Over the years, the leaking in the structure has increasingly worsened but the finger pointing and lack of assumption of responsibility for the problem, lead to the conditions documented in th is study. Since the structure has a footprint of over 86,000 square feet, it becomes necessary to address the impacts associated with covering every inch of the plaza level with a liquid applied waterproofing product, since that is the course of action be ing taken to rectify the waterproofing membrane issue. In Chapters 6 and 7, testing of waterproofing is discussed; results are reported and are related back to this case study.

PAGE 50

50 CHAPTER 6 WATERPROOFING MEMBRA NE COMPONENTS In determination of which liquid applied waterproofing products to consider for testing, research was done on the various types that are on the market today from six of the leading manufacturers of this particular specialized industry All in al l, eleven different products were considered and the information published by the manufacturers in the Material Safety Dat a Sheets and the Specifications are tabulated in comparison (Table 6 1), and additional research of the key components from these prod ucts is discuss in further detail The information tabulated in Table 6 1, is the culmination of all testing of the purpose of comparing a wide variety of liquid appl ied waterproofing products which are commercially available was to determine which particular ones would be sufficient for testing. One of course, is the type employed at Kiley Gardens which is annotated as E1 and the others chosen for testing should be comp arable in statistics, but of different chemical components. The sample decision was made after researching these products. The attempt was made to compare all the products in all of the areas recorded along the right side of Table 6 1 but not all of t he manufacturers did all of the same tests or published the either not applicable to that particular product or not published record, whether or not it is relev ant is not shown from this comparison. From this comparison, certain characteristics were more important in the decision of which to sample, since they needed to be comparable to the type used at Kiley Gardens, which is mostly horizontal application, so o nly formulas used for vertical application were not considered.

PAGE 51

Table 6 1. Manufacturer's Comparison of Liquid Applied Waterproofing Systems (Source: Compiled from Buildsite) Manufacturer A A A B B C Product A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 C1 Surface Horizontal Vertical Horizontal or Vertical Horizontal Vertical Horizontal or Vertical Single or Dual component Single Single Dual Single Single Dual Composition Modified Polyurethane Modified Polyurethane Water based Asphalt Emulsion Moisture Cure Urethane Moisture Cure Urethane Synthetic Rubber Cold or Hot Applied Cold Cold Hot Cold Cold Cold Application Method Squeegee: 1 coat Roller: 2 coats Spray: 1 or multiple coats Squeegee: 1 coat Roller or Spray: 2 coats Trowel or Spray: 2 coats Finished Product Thickness 60 mils 60 mils 60 mils 60 mils 60 mils 120 mils Coal tar Free Yes Yes No Data No Data No Data No Data Tack Free Time 16 hrs @ 77F 16 hrs @ 77F No Data 16 hrs 16 hrs 2 4 hours Cure Time 36 hrs @ 77F 36 hrs @ 77F Initial Cure: 10 minutes 36 hrs @ 75F 36 hrs @ 75F No Data Solids Content 82% (+/ 2) 82% (+/ 2) Solvent Free 85% 90% 100% VOC Content No Data No Data No Data >250 g/l >250 g/l 75 g/l Hardness ASTM D2240: 30 Shore A (min) ASTM D2240: 30 Shore A (min) No Data ASTM D2240: 20 Shore A ASTM D2240: 25 Shore A No Data Elongation ASTM D412: 575% ASTM D412: 600% ASTM D412: +1300% ASTM D412: 650% ASTM D412: 650% ASTM D412: 500% Resilience No Data No Data ASTM D3407: 98% recovery No Data No Data No Data Tensile Strength ASTM D412: 250 psi ASTM D412: 400 psi No Data ASTM D412: 250 psi ASTM D412: 300 psi No Data Water Vapor Permeance ASTM E96: 0.07384 perms ASTM E96: 0.07176 perms ASTM E96: 0.02 perms ASTM E96 (B): 0.09 perms ASTM E96 (B): 0.09 perms ASTM E96 (B): 0.08 perms Adhesion to Concrete (Primed Concrete) ASTM D4541: > 150 psi (Primed Concrete) ASTM D4541: > 150 psi No Data ASTM C794: 20 psi ASTM C794: 20 psi No Data For Reinforced Systems Also Use: Polyester Reinforcing Fabric = 40" x 324' Polyester Reinforcing Fabric = 40" x 324' Polyester Reinforcing Fabric = 40" x 324' No Data No Data Reinforcement Mesh Note: Information was obtained from MSDS and specifications of the individual manufacturers 51

PAGE 52

Table 6 1. Continued Manufacturer C D D E F Product C2 D1 D2 E1 F1 Surface Vertical Horizontal or Vertical Horizontal or Vertical Horizontal or Vertical Horizontal or Vertical Single or Dual component Single Single Single Dual Single Composition Synthetic Rubber Modified Rubberized Asphalt Modified Rubberized Asphalt with 20% post consumer recycled content Polyester Resin and Catalyst Powder Modified Polyurethane Cold or Hot Applied Cold Hot Hot Cold Cold Application Method Trowel Squeegee Squeegee Roller or Brush Spray, Roller, Trowel or S q ueegee Finished Product Thickness 60 mils 180 mils and 250 mils 180 mils and 250 mils 70 mils 60 mils Coal tar Free No Data No Data No Data No Data Yes Tack Free Time 2 4 hours No Data No Data 4 hrs No Data Cure Time No Data Cools Down, Does not cure Cools Down, Does not cure 3 days No Data Solids Content 100% Solvent Free: 100% Solvent Free: 100% No Data 88 92% VOC Content 75 g/l No Data No Data 42 g/l 95 g/l Hardness No Data No Data No Data ASTM D2240: 40 Shore A ASTM C836: 58 64 Shore 00 Elongation ASTM D412: 500% ASTM D5329: 1000% min ASTM D5329: 1000% min ASTM D412: 55% No Data Resilience No Data ASTM D3407: 40% min ASTM D3407: 40% min No Data No Data Tensile Strength No Data No Data No Data ASTM D751: > 90 lb/in No Data Water Vapor Permeance ASTM E96 (B): 0.08 perms ASTM E96 (E): 0.3 ng/Pa(s)m ASTM E96 (E): 0.3 ng/Pa(s)m ASTM E96: 0.27 perms No Data Adhesion to Concrete No Data ASTM D3407: Pass @ 0F ( 18C) ASTM D3407: Pass @ 0F ( 18C) No Data No Data For Reinforced Systems Also Use: Reinforcement Mesh Flex Flash F or Flex Flash Vertical Flex Flash F or Flex Flash Vertical Polyester Reinforcing Fleece No Data Note: Information was obtained from MSDS and specifications of the individual manufacturers 52

PAGE 53

53 Synthetic Rubber Most of the products that are available today are similarly made of different combinations of synthetic rubber, which is any type of artificially made polymer material which acts as an el astomer. Synthetic rubber offers a wider range of capabilities than natural rubber, which comes from latex and is mostly polymerized isoprene with a small amount of impurities in it. Polymerization of a variety of monomers such as isoprene, butadiene, chlo roprene, or isobutylene form the basis of some liquid applied waterproofing and with the addition of other various proportions of monomers to the mix can create copolymerization, which gives the product a wide range of physical, mechanical and chemical pro perties. A few of the most common types of synthetic rubber are found in Table 6 2. One of the most common occurrences of a synthetic rubber in liquid applied waterproofing is polyurethane. When a monomer from the isocyanate group reacts with the hydroxyl functional group that form s a urethane linkage If a diisocyanate is reacted with a compound containing two or more hydroxyl groups (a polyol), long polymer chains are formed, which is known as polyurethanes. Isocyanates are powerful irritants to the mucous membranes of the eyes and gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts. Direct skin contact can also cause marked inflammation. Isocyanates can also sensitize workers, making them subject to severe asthma at tacks if they are exposed again ( National Inst itute for Occupational Safety and Health 2009) The most commonly used type of isocyanate is the diisocyanate and one that can be found in liquid applied waterproofing is toluene diisocyanate, which in addition to causing asthma is on the list of Group 2B p ossible carcinogen to humans as stated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on their website.

PAGE 54

54 Table 6 2. Different Types of Synthetic Rubber (Source: Wikipedia) ISO Standard Code Chemical Name Common Names BR Polybutadiene CIIR Chloro Isobutylene Isoprene Chlorobutyl, Butyl CR Polychloroprene Chloroprene, Neoprene CSM Chlorosulphonated Polyethylene Hypalon ECO Epichlorohydrin ECO, Epichlorohydrin, Epichlore, Epichloridrine EP Ethylene Propylene EPDM Ethylene Propylene Diene EPDM, Nordel EVA Ethylene Vinyl Acetate EVA FKM Fluoronated Hydrocarbon Viton, Kalrez, Fluorel HNBR Hydrogenated Nitrile Butadiene HNBR IR Polyisoprene (Synthetic) Natural Rubber IIR Isoprene Butylene Butyl Butyl NBR Butadiene Acrylonitrile NBR, Nitrile, Perbunan, Buna N PU Polyurethane Polyurethane SBR Styrene Butadiene SBR, Buna S, GRS SI Poly Siloxane Silicone Rubber Asphalt Asphalt is a sticky, black and highly viscous liquid or semi solid that is present in most crude petroleum and is still widely used in liquid applied waterproofing but modified with main component in the waterproofing system that was originally installed at Kiley Gardens (modified bituminous membrane). Asphaltic products have good water resistant capabilities but must be refined from certain crude oils by the pr ocesses which expend a lot of energy.

PAGE 55

55 Carbon Black Carbon black is a material that can be found in liquid applied waterproofing that are black in color is they are not specifically an asphalt or bitumen product already. This is a material that is produced by the incomplete combustion of heavy petroleum products such as coal tar and FCC tar. Carbon black is a form or amorphous carbon and has a moderately high surface area to volume ratio, and is mostly used as a pigment and reinforcement in rubber and plast ic products, therefore making it a viable product to use in waterproofing. The downside of using carbon black frequently is that it is also on the IARC list of Group 2B carcinogen to humans. Carbon black dust is generally the form in which discomfort to th e upper respiratory tract is associated with, and it has not been proven to be carcinogenic yet. Styrene With less elasticity, but with greater strength and durability, styrene is also known as vinyl benzene and is named after the styrax tree from which benzoin resin can be extracted. Styrene makes up a large portion of vinyl based (resin type) liquid applied waterproofing products, and is an organic compound with a high volatility rate and has a sweet smell, although can be less pleasing if in high conce ntrations at one time. Because of the presence of the vinyl group, styrene is capable of polymerization and can therefore be used in many different applications, as well as making it a precursor to polystyrene, which is one of the most common type of plast ics in use today. The polymerization capabilities allow styrene to become a type of synthetic rubber when mixed with butadiene and creates greater elastomeric potential. Volatility are organic compounds that can vaporize under normal temperature and pressure. The

PAGE 56

56 understanding and tracking of volatile organic compounds th at are produced by the numerous chemical products is important because of the impact to the environment as well as humans who is also a contributing factor t o sick building syndrome. According to the Environmental t he term sick building syndrome (SBS) is used to describe situations in which building occupants experience acute health and comfort effects that appear to be lin ked to time spent in a building, but no specific illness or cause can be identified. Acute Inhalation Toxicity Included in some of the Material Safety Data Sheets is the toxicology information from testing on animals that determine acute inhalation toxici ty, acute dermal toxicity and acute oral toxicity. Although, the data from animal testing cannot be directly correlated to humans, the warning must be given to avoid the same concentrations as they are potentially dangerous or even deadly. Acute inhalatio n toxicity is the total of adverse effects caused by a substance following a single uninterrupted exposure by inhalation over a short period of time (24 hours or less) to a substance capable of being inhaled. The LC50 (median lethal concentration) is a sta tistically derived concentration of a substance that can be expected to cause death during exposure or within a fixed time after exposure in 50% of animals exposed for a specified time. The LC50 value is expressed as weight of test substance per standard v olume of air (mg/1) or as parts per million (ppm) ( Organisation for Economic Co Operation and Development 1981, 1) The lower the number *mg/l the test results are, the more toxic the substance, and it is possible for a substance to be more toxic via inha lation than by oral ingestion or via skin contact. It is also possible for a substance to be more toxic if swallowed and not toxic at all if inhaled. Table 6 and shows a b reakdown of LC50 results and what the concentration means. The Material Safety Data Sheets in Appendix A for liquid applied waterproofing show a relatively high toxicity

PAGE 57

57 rating for the LC50 test (ex. 11.8 mg/l [styrene] and 10 mg/l [toluene diisocyanate] f or rat at 4hrs). Table 6 3. Toxicity Classes: Hodge and Sterner Scale ( Source: Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety 2005) Oral LD50 Inhalation LC50 Dermal LD50 Toxicity Rating Commonly Used Term (single dose to rats) mg/kg (exposure of rats for 4 hours) ppm (single application to skin of rabbits) mg/kg Probable Lethal Dose for Man 1 Extremely Toxic 1 or less 10 or less 5 or less 1 grain (a taste, a drop) 2 Highly Toxic 1.0 50 10 100 5.0 43 4 ml (1 tsp) 3 Moderately Toxic 50 500 100 1000 44 340 30 ml (1 fl. oz.) 4 Slightly Toxic 500 5000 1000 10,000 350 2810 600 ml (1 pint) 5 Practically Non toxic 5000 15,000 10,000 100,000 2820 22,590 1 liter (or 1 quart) 6 Relatively Harmless 15,000 or more 100000 22,600 or more 1 liter (or 1 quart) As this data shows, t he risk in handling volatile substances is dependent not only on the toxicity but also on the volatility For a risk assessment, toxicity based on an LC50 value may not be sufficient on its own, but should always be considered together with the volatilit y of the substance ( Organisation for Economic Co Operation and Development 1981, 9)

PAGE 58

58 CHAPTER 7 TESTING PROCEDURE AN D ANALYSIS As discussed in Chapter 6, eleven product types were researched and three different type s were chosen for testing. In reference to Table 6 1, product types C2, E1, and F1 are used in the following testing for volatile content and VOC emissions. These products are all solvent reducible and do not have the presence of water. C2 is a single comp onent system, E1 is a dual component system (part A is a liquid and part B is a powder catalyst), and F1 is a dual component system (part A and part B are both liquids). The chemical composition is tabulated in Table 7 1. Table 7 1. Product Composition o f Samples used for Testing Product Part Chemical Name Weight % C2 A Calcium Oxide 25.0 50.0 Castor oil based ester 1.0 10.0 Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated heavy naphthenic 50.0 100.0 Quartz 1.0 10.0 Zinc oxide 1.0 10.0 B Styrene Butadiene block copolymer 50.0 100.0 E1 A Styrene 25.0 50.0 B Catalyst 25.0 50.0 F1 Single Aromatic process oil 40.0 70.0 Polyurethane Polymer 30.0 60.0 Calcium Carbonate (Limestone) 10.0 30.0 Calcium oxide 3.0 7.0 Carbon Black 3.0 7.0 Stoddard solvent (Mineral Spirits) 1.0 5.0 Anthracene 1.0 5.0 Dioctyl phthalate < 1.0 2,4 Toluene diisocyanate < 1.0 Toluene 2,6 Diisocyanate <0.1 C r ystalline Silica (Quartz)/Silica Sand <0.1 Note: Information was obtained from MSDS of the individual manufacturers Refer to Appendix A.

PAGE 59

59 Volatile Content The ASTM test used for the volatile content of coatings is ASTM D 2369, which is the test method that was followed to determine the volatile percentage as well as the nonvolatile percentage of three types of liquid applied waterproofing. The test required the use of a forced draft oven and takes the following steps: 1. Separate the samples into their own aluminum tins (2 for each type of waterproofing sampled), weighing the tin first and using the same amount of each type of specimen. 7g of specimen was used in this test. 2. The samples are then heated in a forced draft oven at 110C 5C for 60 minutes. 3. After 60 minutes, removal of the samples to a desiccator until their temperature cools is required. 4. The samples are then weighed together with the tin and the d ata is used to calculate the percent volatile matter, V in the liquid coating in the equation provided. V A = 100 [((W 2 W 1 )/S A ) 100] Where: V A = % volatiles (first determination), W 1 = weight of dish, W 2 = weight of dish plus specimen after heating, S A = specimen weight, and V B = % volatiles (duplicate determination; calculate in the same manner as V A ). (ASTM D 2369) V = (V A + V B )/2 V is reported when the mean of the duplicate determination and the first determination has a relative percent differ ence of 1.5% or less, if not repeat the test. The percent of nonvolatile matter, N, can be calculated as follows: N = (N A + N B )/2 Where: N A = 100 V A and N B = 100 V B (ASTM D 2369) Table 7 2 has the data that was coll ected and the outcome from the two equations.

PAGE 60

Table 7 2. Determination of Volatile Content of Coatings A B A + B C C A D E (D+E)/2 100 D 100 E Weight of aluminu m dish (grams) Weight of specimen (g) Weight togethe r before heating (g) Weight of dish and specimen after heating (g) Weight of specimen after heating (g) VA = % of volatiles (first determina tion) (%) VB = % of volatiles (duplicate determination) (%) V = mean % of volatile s (%) NA = % of nonvolatiles (%) NB = % of nonvolatiles (%) N = mean % of nonvolatile s (%) C2.1 (A +B) 11.2 7.0 18.2 17.8 6.6 5.7 94.3 C2.2 (A + B) 11.2 7.0 18.2 17.8 6.6 5.7 94.3 C2 Total 5.7 94.3 E1.1 (Part A) 11.2 7.0 18.2 16.1 4.9 30.0 70.0 E1.2 (Part A) 11.3 7.0 18.3 16.2 4.9 30.0 70.0 E1A Total 30.0 70.0 E1.3 (A + B) 11.2 7.0 18.2 17.2 6.0 14.3 85.7 E1.4 (A + B) 11.2 7.0 18.2 17.1 5.9 15.7 84.3 E1 Total 15.0 85.0 F1.1 11.2 7.0 18.2 18.0 6.8 2.9 97.1 F1.2 11.1 7.0 18.1 18.0 6.9 1.4 98.6 F1 Total 2.1 97.9 Note: Data is reported as stated in ASTM D 2369 60

PAGE 61

61 Figure 7 1, 7 2, and 7 3 are graphical representations of the data tabulated in Table 7 2. Figure 7 1. Difference in weight before and after heating Figure 7 2. Percentage of volatiles

PAGE 62

62 Figure 7 3. Percentage of nonvolatiles The percentage of volatiles lost to the air after one hour f or the C2 product is only 5.7%, which is not a very large percentage. As it appears on in Table 7 2, E1 is shown twice; once only Part A was used in the test and the second time Part B was added to cure the compound. Since Part A is a liquid (gallons) and Part B is in a powder form (grams), it was necessary to determine the amount of catalyst per liquid. It was already known that one bucket containing 2.2 gal of liquid uses three parts of catalyst powder which come in a 102 gram packet, so the mixture is a 3 to 1 ratio. The bucket containing the liquid was weighed at 23.68 lbs, minus the bucket weight of 2.3 6 lbs; the liquid weight was approximately 21.32 lbs. The conversion rate of pounds to grams is 1 lb = 453.6 grams. The liquid weight of 21.32 lbs to grams is 9670.6 grams, that divided by 3 (the 3 to 1 ratio) is 3223.5 grams. 3223.5 grams of liquid divide d by 102 grams of the catalyst yields 1 gram of catalyst powder to a rounded 31.6 grams of liquid. E1 (Part A only) yielded 30% of volatiles lost to the air, almost a third of its volume, which is a significant amount. Part A will not cure on its own, or when exposed to air. The

PAGE 63

63 solvents will release and the compound will become more viscous due to its percentage of volatiles lost. Curious to see how the catalyst (Part B) has an effect on Part A, a second test was done using both parts. The E1 product begi ns to cure as soon as the catalyst is entered into the liquid and will become too difficult to work with after approximately an hour. Once the sample was mixed, it was immediately put into the forced draft oven and fully cured after an hour. The percentage of volatiles lost was only 15% when the catalyst was introduced and since the liquid applied waterproofing cured within the time it was in the oven, the curing mechanism actually trapped much more of the volatiles than when Part A only was tested. Still 1 5% is a moderate loss to its volume. Product F1 had the least percentage loss of volatiles after an hour, of the three products tested, at 2.1%. The chemical components is products C2 and E1 do not have data about whether any are carcinogenic but F1 has t wo chemicals which are possible carcinogens (Group 2B). The amount of volatiles being given off of these products is important when analyzed in conjunction with the type of volatiles being given off. What type and how much determine wheth er a product is to xic or not. Volatile Organic Compound Content ASTM D 3960 is the Standard Practice for Determining Volatile Organic Compound Content of Paints and Related Coatings, which measures the VOC content once the volatile content is established by using the ASTM test D 2369. Certain organic compounds that may be released under the specified bake conditions are not counted toward coating VOC content because they do not participate appreciably in atmospheric photochemical reactions. Such negligibly photochemical ly reactive compounds are referred to, as exempt volatile compounds in this practice (ASTM 2006, methylene chloride (dichloromethane), methy chloroform, parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF), siloxanes, acetone, perchloroethylene (tetrachloroethylene), methyl acetate, and t butyl acetate (ASTM 2006, 470)

PAGE 64

64 When referring to Table 7 1, it is shown that none of the exempt volatile compounds listed here are used in the chemical makeup of e ither of the samples tested. This means that all of the solvents which were released during the baking process of the previous test were indeed volatile organic compounds. VOC content is calculated as a function of the volume of coating less water and exe mpt volatile compounds, the volume of solids, and the wei 465) Since the se liquid applied waterproofing samples do not have water or exempt volatile compounds incorporated in their mix, it will be ea sy to determine the VOC conten t, which is expressed as the mass of VOC per unit volume of coating. The calculation is as follows: VOC = (W V )(D C )/ 100% Where: W V = weight of total volatiles, % D C = density of co ating, g/L, at 25C. (ASTM 3960) Table 7 3. Determination of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Content Weight of specimen (g) Volume (mL) Volume (L) Density (g/L) C2 (A + B) 7.00 5.50 0.00550 1272.73 E1 (A + B) 7.00 7.00 0.00700 1000.00 F1 7.00 5.75 0.00575 1217.39 Mean weight after heating (g) Mean volume (including air) after heating (mL) Mean volume (including air) after heating (L) Density after heating (g/L) Mean % of volatiles (%) VOC (g/L) C2 (A + B) 6.60 14.17 0.01417 465.77 5.7 26.5 E1 (A + B) 5.95 5.55 0.00555 1072.07 15.0 160.8 F1 6.85 7.39 0.00739 926.93 2.1 19.5 Products C2 and F1, after heating, had some air entrapped inside the specimen which lowered the density a small amount. The air entrapped in specimen C2 significantly altered the volume after it was baked. To obtain an accurate volume, the specimen should not be heated, and left to cure as per specifications of the product instead of following ASTM 3960 test procedure.

PAGE 65

65 But once the calculations are complete it shows that C2 had 26.5 g/L VOC content which should Product F1 had 19.5 g/L which appears to be a close approximatio n, since only a very small amount of air was entrapped into this specimen Still, with regards to the air, t hese numbers both suggest that they are both low VOC producing products, and once the material cures then it stops producing high amounts of VOC emi ssions. Product E1 did not have any air trapped in the specimen after heating and it is shown in Table 7 2 as well as Table 7 3 that a high amount of volatiles were released during the one hour heating period, which means that the product will become The final VOC content is 160 g/L for E1 According to the National VOC Emission Standards for Architectural Coatings 600 g/L is the limit for waterproofing sealers and treatments (EPA) before a manufacturer must change the formula or utilize the exceedance fee or tonnage exemption provisions But also per the EPA, a low VOC coating or sealant contains 50 g/L or less. Anything over 50 g/L will cause short term adverse health effects if the product is not used in a well ve ntilated area. Volatile Organic Compound Emissions The final step in establishing whether a product is toxic or has hazardous volatility is to determine the type of compounds that are released in a gaseous form. If they are the types that releas ed, the product is deemed toxic and preventative measures should be taken when handling the product. But the two possible method s involv ing the analysis of emissions are complicated and lengthy one s, and although the methods are discussed in this subsectio n, they are not carried out.

PAGE 66

66 The first method uses gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC/MS) to identify different substances within a test sample. Here is an explanation of a portion of the process: Gas Chromatography (GC) is used to separate volatile components of a mixture. A small amount of the sample to be analyzed is drawn up into a syringe. The syringe needle is placed into a hot injector port of the gas chromatograph, and the sample is injected. The injector is set to a temperature higher tha So, components of the mixture evaporate into the gas phase inside the injector. A carrier gas, such as helium, flows through the injector and pushes the gaseous components of the sample onto the GC column. It is within the column that separation of the compone nts takes place (Welder 2008, 1) The mass spectrometer becomes the detector of the substances that are separated in the gas chromatograph which is basically a computer connected to the GC which has recognition sof tware installed. The standard test method for determination of gaseous organic compounds by direct interface gas chromatography mass spectrometry located in The Annual ASTM Standards is D 6420. In the ory, this sounds like the optimal way to analyze the VO applied waterproofing products, but the problem is that the samples are too viscous and cure to a solid in a small amount of time. Liquids are injected, not semi solids. Another issue is that the concentration of volatiles of the s amples is far too great for the gas chromatograph, which is typically used to determine trace amounts of volatile compounds. Trying to perform this test would complet ely saturate the columns and subsequently would have to be discarded. The second method i nvolves using a small environmental chamber to capture the volatile organic compounds emitted from the samples under controlled conditions. ASTM test D 6803 silica g el treated with 2,4 dinitrotrophenylhydrazine (DNPH) and can be analyzed by the environmental chamber and analyzed following the procedure in ASTM test D 3687.

PAGE 67

67 More simply pu t, t he small environ mental chamber is 1 meter in volume and can accommodate for a sample of liquid applied waterproofing that has been applied to a small piece pump s to draw air into sorbent tubes, which are then analyzed by thermal desorption (TD) and a mass spectrometer (MS) for the identification of compounds (Yu and Crum p 2003) Directly injecting compounds which are already in a gaseous state into the gas chromatograph is preferable to even injecting a highly volatile liquid and waiting for it to off issimilar ones Although, it is possible to use the first method alone to identify volatile organic compounds if the product was a liquid, in this case of using highly viscous material, it is necessary to employ the use of a small environmental chamber as the first step in the process of VOC identification.

PAGE 68

68 CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSI ONS As far as waterproofing goes, technologies have advanced materials used in the field to become more reliable, resilient, elastic, etc. and those qualities are found in the latest liquid applied membranes. The methods used historically deteriorate over time, as was in the case of Kiley Gardens, but the methods used today are more harmful to the environment. They are for certain, more volatile because of the s olvent borne curing mechanism that most of the latest membranes use, but are more efficient for the built environment. This leads to the sustainability debate of whether it is right to sacrifice the environment for the built environment or vice versa. The current trend is to find ways of harmoniously working with the environment or basically sustainably subsidize portions of a structure while neglecting other s. With regards to the sustainable standard of the moment, Leadership in Energy and Environmental D esign (LEED), waterproofing seem s to fall into the category of necessary evil s for building. Since the membrane is applied outdoors, it does not affect indoor environmental quality, and since it does not affect water or energy consumption, waterproofing pr oducts do not fall into any of the standard LEED categories. These products are proven to be harmful when used in a non ventilated area because of the volatile content and the VOC content, but since the products are applied outdoors, sometimes respiratory protective equipment are neglected because of the natural ventilation already available; t his is the case in regards to the ap plication process of the product (E1) on Kiley Gardens T he square footage is approximately 86,000, and since it is outdoors ther e were not any regulatory restrictions to the types of products that were chosen to be used on the structure. To lessen the impact that the project had on the environment, one of the other two products that were tested in this study should have been used ( C2 or T1). T1, in particular, lost minimal

PAGE 69

69 volume due to solvent loss, and since it is a single component polyurethane product, it retained higher elastomeric properties as well as taking out a portion of human error (not requiring the use of mixing two pa rts together) that the other products still include. In addition to environmental impact, product E1 is a polyester resin base which has much less elastomeric qualities than most products on the market today and will most likely cause other problems in th e next twenty five years. Deterioration of resin based products happens over time once exposed to chemicals and acids commonplace in soils, even the engineered soil that was installed at Kiley Gardens. In summary, liquid applied waterproofing should be st udied further in terms of the type of emissions they produce and at what amount. Since these products will be ever changing with the advancement of technologies, it should be in a direction that is more sustainable and emission efficient.

PAGE 70

70 CHAPTER 9 RECOM MENDATIONS As for recommendations of further research on this subject, determination of the types of volatile organic compounds emitted from samples of liquid applied waterproofing using the methods described at the end of Chapter 7 would be a good startin g point. Actually creating a new way to test waterproofing samples using a gas chromatograph would be inventive and most likely could support an entire additional report. The thought process involved with the analysis is extensive, time consuming and requi res possibly a chemical or engineering background. Also the testing itself is expensive and cannot be accomplished by one single person in any feasibly short timeline. In this particular case, referring to this research collectively, resources were limite d and al though an attempt was made to o utsource to other colleges in the university, the funds to support emissions testing were not available nor the educational backg round to personally analyze the data Another recommendation would be to develop a life cycle analysis of different types of liquid Since the products incorporate chemicals as well as minerals with little or no room for recycled material in the mix it would be interesting to see if the impact was something to be concerned about.

PAGE 71

71 APPENDIX A MATER IAL SAFETY DATA SHEE TS (MSDS)

PAGE 72

72

PAGE 73

73

PAGE 74

74

PAGE 75

75

PAGE 76

76

PAGE 77

77

PAGE 78

78

PAGE 79

79

PAGE 80

80

PAGE 81

81

PAGE 82

82

PAGE 83

83

PAGE 84

84

PAGE 85

85

PAGE 86

86

PAGE 87

87

PAGE 88

88

PAGE 89

89

PAGE 90

90

PAGE 91

91

PAGE 92

92

PAGE 93

93

PAGE 94

94

PAGE 95

95 LIST OF REFERENCES American Society for Tes ting and Materials International (2006 TM D 2369 04 standard test method for vo An nual book of ASTM standards 2006 : Section six : P aints, related coating, and aromatics (Vol 06.01 Paint tests for chemical, physical, and optical properties; appearance ), ASTM, Easton Maryland, 250 252 American Society for Tes ting and Materials International 05 standard practice for volatile organic compound (voc) content of paints and related An nual book of ASTM standards 2006 : Section six : P aints, related coating, and aromatics (Vol 06.01 Paint tests for chemical, physical, and o ptical properties; appearance), ASTM, Easton, Maryland, 465 470. American Society for Tes ting and Materials International (2006 99 ( Reapproved 2004) stand ard test method for determination of gaseous organic compounds by direct interface gas chromatography mass spectrometry Annual book of ASTM standards 2000: Section eleven: Water and environmental technology (Vol 11.03 Atmospheric analysis; occupational health and safety; protective clothing ), ASTM, Easton, Maryland, 922 927 American Society for Tes ting and Materials International 99 standard practice for testing and sampling of volatile organic compounds (including carbonyl compoun ds) emitted from paint using small environmental chambers Annual book of ASTM standards 2000: Section eleven: Water and environmental technology (Vol 11.03 Atmospheric analysis; occupational health and safety; protective clothing ), ASTM, Easton, Marylan d, 1084 1089 Buildsite (n.d.) Category 07140 Dampproofing and waterproofing Fluid applied waterproofing. Retrieved May 8, 2009, from http://buildsite.com/query/detail/category/07140_fluid_applied_waterproofing Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. (2005). What is an LD50 and LC50? Retrieved June 15, 2009, from http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/ld50.html City of Tampa Public Works, Parking and Parks Department, Skanska, and RS&H. (Revised July 2, 2008). Construction Permit Set of Drawings: City of Tampa Kiley Park, 400 North Ashley Street Waterproofing and Structural Improvements RS&H Tampa, Florida Liquid applied membrane: Waterproofing systems. Architectural roofing and waterproofing Retrieved April 24, 2009, from http://www.arwmag.com/Articles/Feature_Article/B NP_GUID_9 5 2006_A_10000000000000358511 Positive vs. negative waterproofing: Where, when and why. Architectural roofing and waterproofing Retrieved April 23, 2009, from http://www.arwmag.com/Articles/Feature_Article/106f05efb01fe010VgnVCM100000f932 a8c0____

PAGE 96

96 Digital Globe; the Florida Department of Environmental Protection; GeoEye; U.S. Geological Survey; and Te le Atlas. (2009). Google maps. Retrieved June 5, 2009, from http://maps.google.com/maps?sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4TSHB_enUS308US309&q=40 0+n+ashley+st+in+tampa+fl&um=1&ie=UTF 8&split=0&gl=us&ei=mcpOSvPtHo_mM5 Ule4D&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1 Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). Nation al volatile organic compound emission standards for architectural coatings. Retrieved May 15, 2009, from http://www.epa.gov/EPA AIR/1998/September/Day 11/a22659.htm Farahmandpour, K ami. (2002). Failure mechanisms in liquid applied waterproofing systems. Paper presented at the 12th International Roofing & Waterproofing Conference, September 25 27, in Orlando, Fl. Henshell, Justin. (2000). The manual of below grade waterproofing systems (C. W. Griffin, Ed.), John Wiley and Sons, Inc. United States of America International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2009). Retrieved June 4, 2009, from http://www.iarc.fr/ Kamsons Chemicals PVT LTD. (2008). Water based polyurethane dispersions: An introduction. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://www.kamsons.com/products1.html Kemper System. (n.d.) Cold applied liquid waterproofing. Retrieved April 20 2009, from http://www.kempersystem.co.uk/p_fasttrack.html Kubal, Michael T. (1993). Waterproofing the building envelope McGraw Hill New York Maslow, Philip. (1974). Chemical materials for c onstruction: Handbook of chemicals of concrete, flooring, caulks and sealants, epoxies, latex emulsions, adhesives, roofing, waterproofing, technical coatings and heavy construction specialties Structures Publishing Company Farmington, Michigan Mayer, Peter. (n.d.) Durability liquid roof waterproofing. Retrieved April 15, 2009, from http://www.greenspec.co.uk/html/durability/roof_waterproofing.html Monroe, David C. (1990). Reflective cracking and cold, liquid applied elastomeric deck coating and membrane systems: Practical considerations from field observations. In Laura E. Gish (Ed.), Building deck waterproofing ASTM Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 121 130. Nationa l Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2009). Safety and health topic: Isocyanates. Retrieved June 15, 2009, from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/isocyanates/ National Roofing Contracto rs Association. (1996). The waterproofing and dampproofing manual National Roofing Contractors Association United States of America

PAGE 97

97 Organisation for Economic Co Operation and Development. (Adopted May 12, 1981). Acute inhalation toxicity. OECD guideli nes for testing of chemicals Retrieved June 15, 2009, from http://www.nikkakyo.org/ontai/merumaga/Challenge/OECD/TG_403.pdf Panek, Julian R. and John Philip Cook. (1991). Construction sealants and adhesives 3 rd Ed John Wiley and Sons, Inc. United States of America. Panek, Julian. (Ed.) (1976). Building seals and sealants ASTM Baltimore, Maryland Pratt, Charles O. (1990). Waterproofing problems in terminology. In Laura E. Gish (Ed.), Building deck waterproofing ASTM Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 121 130 Pressley Associates, Landscape Architects. (2007). North Carolina bank plaza historic evaluation report: Prepared for the city of Tampa, FL Pressley Associates Cambridge, Massachusetts Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. (January 15, 2008). Specifications manual: City of Tampa Kiley park, 400 North Ashley Street waterproofing and structural improvements RS&H Tampa, Florida Ruggeriero, Stephen, and Dean A. R utila. ( 1990). Principles of design and installation of building deck waterproofing. In Laura E. Gish (Ed.), Building deck waterproofing ASTM Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 5 28 US Department of Health and Human Services. (2002). Toxicological profile for wood creosote, coal tar, coal tar pitch, and coal tar pitch volatiles Retrieved May 5, 2009, from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp85 c2.pdf The Cultural Landscape Foundation. (1999 2006). Kiley gardens at NationsBank plaza: An irrational fate Retrieved May 28, 2009, from http://www.tclf.org/landslide/2006/nations_bank/i ndex.htm Welder, Dr. Cathy. (2008). Gas chromatography Retrieved from Wake Forest Department of Chemistry Web Site: http://www.wfu.edu/chem/courses/organic/GC/index.html Synthetic Rubbe r. (n.d.) Retrieved April 8, 2009, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_rubber Yu, C.W.F. and D.R. Crump. (2003). Small chamber tests for measurement of voc em issions from floor Indoor and built environment Retrieved June 17, 2009, from http://ibe.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/12/5/299

PAGE 98

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Sarah Vasconi was born in Clearwater, Florida and went to a private sc hool until high school, which she attended Tarpon Springs HS and graduated Summa Cum Laude with a GPA of 4.2. Th e only college that she applied to was the University of Florida and was accepted strai ght from high school in 2003. In d eciding which major to pursue, Sarah stuck to her strengths a nd passions of design and art. She received a Bachelor Degree of Architecture in May 200 7, but felt that she had more to learn about the physi cal construction of buildings. Sarah therefore applied and was accepted to the Construction Management Master Program at The M.E. Rinker Sr. School of Building Construction a nd concentrated on a Sustai nable Construction With the completion of this thesis, and subsequent gra duation, she will begin work August 2009 as a project eng ineer with Skanska in Tampa, FL