INTRODUCTION

An alarming number of new buildings suffer from moisture and mold problems. The risk of failure is highest in—but not limited to—cold, temperate, warm-humid, and hot-humid climates. The debate on why some buildings fail and others do not, as well as who is responsible for these failures and how to fix them, rages on. Instead of being aired in architecture schools and at engineering society meetings, however, this debate goes on in courtrooms and mediation hearings, among highly paid expert witnesses and lawyers—not among people who should be preventing failures, but among those who are rewarded by their occurrence.

The building industry seems baffled about the prevalence of building failures. Many wonder why the rate of building failures is not declining despite better technology, increased training, and more sophisticated building systems. It is not due to indifference or ignorance. We know we can prevent buildings from failing because we can fix them once they do fail. The primary reason we are not coming to grips with this far-reaching problem is simple: the design professionals entrusted with building performance are not receiving adequate feedback on the performance of their previous buildings.

Without that feedback, we do not know why some buildings work well and others do not, despite being apparently designed the same way. Metrics may say that the industry did a good job, yet clients keep complaining about building failure and the construction litigation business keeps growing. Until architects and engineers receive better performance feedback, they will have neither the ability nor the incentive to change.


Continue Reading

peer review webinarNot all buildings are created equal. In fact, some fail at alarming rates, often soon after being commissioned. Some building failures occur at a high rate of frequency but result in minor consequences, while others are infrequent but lead to catastrophic results, such as significant mold and moisture problems.

What is the difference between building success and failure? Experts at Liberty Building Forensics Group have learned firsthand that there is one overarching factor: conducting a peer review. They will be conducting a free webinar on this topic on Tuesday, March 6 from 1:15pm – 2:15pm. It is AIA-CES registered for 1 LU-HSW. Register here: https://lx375-800425.pages.infusionsoft.net.

A peer review introduces into the design and construction processes a subject matter expert who understands that there are less-costly options that can still achieve the desired project results.
Continue Reading

Avoid Catastrophic Mold and Moisture Problems in Hot, Humid Climates Due to Air Barrier Standard Confusion

By George DuBose, CGC; Richard Scott, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP; and Donald B. Snell, PC CIEC

Imagine the following scenario: you just designed your newest project to meet the most current whole building air leakage standards, and your mechanical engineer subconsultant has designed an HVAC system that includes one of the latest energy recovery strategies. Both factors are intended to meet high energy efficiency goals, making you proud that your firm is doing its part (amongst other things) to minimize your impact on the climate change problem.


Continue Reading

As the building and construction industry continues to come out of the hibernation that has been the norm since 2009, it unfortunately appears that it’s déjà vu all over again when it comes to water-related building failures. As new buildings are being constructed, the same design and construction deficiencies of the past are being repeated, leading to (often catastrophic) mold and moisture problems.

It may seem somewhat unbelievable that the industry still finds itself making these same basic mistakes time after time. After all, preventative solutions to these issues have been understood and well-published for many years.


Continue Reading

The emergence of #modular construction as an option for new construction is becoming mainstream. The reasons have been reported on well. However, what has not been reported is that the modular construction industry has had mold and moisture problems, especially, when used in a warm and humid climate like the Southeast US. Both wood frame and steel frame modular construction have experienced problems with crawl space, marriage wall, and ceiling to floor cavity, condensation problems that have not only resulted in deterioration of the wood, corrosion of metal floor pans, deteriorate wallboard and mold.

The greatest risk of modular construction failures has been seen to be when this type of construction and delivery is used for hotels, student housing, senior living, soldier housing, type facilities. In general, facilities that are domicidal or multi family in nature. This is because these types of facilities have inherent similarities in a living unit that requires both an individual cooling/heating unit, bathroom exhaust, and some sort of central HVAC make up air system. In addition, there are many more modular “boxes” in these kinds of buildings increasing the number of marriage wall interior cavities and ceiling to floor cavities that otherwise might not be required in other types of modular construction. The nature of modular construction makes it difficult to repair once it is found to be damaged. Sometimes, the damage can be such that the modular building has to be deconstructed to remove damaged materials and then re-designed and re-constructed using conventional methods. This essentially makes the modular construction advantages dissolve away as the building gets converted to a traditional “stick” building.


Continue Reading