1 Energy-Efficient, Flood-Damage-Resistive Residential Envelope Systems Testing (Final Project Review) June 16, 2005 Robert Wendt, Oak Ridge National Lab Heshmat Aglan, Tuskegee University Sherry Livengood, Oak Ridge National Lab

2 Project Objective: Investigate impact of flood water on performance of traditional and flood- damage-resistant residential envelope systems.

3 Project Background:  ORNL and Tuskegee University collaborated on this multi-year project  Sponsors: HUD, FEMA and DOE (initially)  Tasks included: 1)Field testing and evaluation 2)Best practices guidance 3)Representative floodwater identification 4)Laboratory testing and evaluation 5)Pre-standards recommendations

4 Project Methodology:  Field testing of full-size, complete system level modules  Controlled flooding with untreated lake water.  Uncontrolled drying conditions (subject to local weather conditions)  Lab testing of full size representative system sample  Controlled “flooding” with representative flood water  Semi-controlled drying conditions (similar to local weather)  Focus on wetting and drying damage.  Address material property changes and restorability

5 Experimental Facility at Tuskegee University

6 Field Test Modules

7 Crawl Space Test Module Before and During Flooding

8 Field and Lab Testing was guided by:  Protocol for field testing  Protocol for drying out test facilities  Detailed evaluation format and data sheets  Protocol for laboratory testing  Specification for representative floodwater

9 Data Collected from Field Modules and Lab Samples  Visual observations (interior and exterior)  Pictorial documentation  Moisture content in various elements  Relative humidity profiles  Temperature profiles  Mechanical properties  Mold observations

10 Module C-4 field testing and evaluation  Further explored flood damage resistant envelope materials  Provided a reference point to compare lab testing results  Investigated the performance and impact of kitchen base cabinets

11 Module S-1moisture content of gypsum wallboard Interior wall (open cavity)South exterior wall (fiberglass insulation)

12 Module C-4 moisture content of gypsum wallboards Water resistant green board with SPUF (Wall 1) or fiberglass (Wall 4) insulation in exterior walls Conventional gypsum board with SPUF insulation in exterior walls

13 Module S-1 post flood interior wall mold growth Mold growth Post flood (12 days) Water level

14 Module C-4 post flood interior wall conditions Pre-flood conditionPost-flood condition

15 Module C-4 temperature and relative humidity data

16 Modules C-1 & S-1 flexural strength test data Post 30 day drying period flexural strength of gypsum board based on four point bending tests Module C-1 (Crawl Space) Module S-1 (Slab on grade) Exterior Wall (Fiberglass insulation)Interior Wall (Open Cavity) Above water levelBelow water levelAbove water levelBelow water level 3.67 MPa1.88 MPa3.75 MPa3.17 MPa Exterior Wall (Fiberglass insulation)Interior Wall (Open Cavity) Above water levelBelow water levelAbove water levelBelow water level 3.2 MPa1.64 MPa3.68 MPa3.56 MPa MPa = Mega Pascals

17 Flexural Strength for Wall 4 in Module 4-C Green Gypsum with Fiber Glass Insulation Sample #Max Stress (MPa) (Below Water) Max Stress (MPa) (Above Water) Max Stress (MPa) (As Received) Average Aver. With SPUF Moisture Flexural Strength for Wall 4 in Module 4-C Regular Gypsum Board with Foam Insulation Sample #Max Stress (MPa) (Below Water) Max Stress (MPa) (Above Water) Max Stress (MPa) (As Received) Average Moisture Modules C-4 flexural strength test data Post drying period (180 day) flexural strength of green board and conventional gypsum board based on four point bending tests MPa = Mega Pascals

18 Module C-4 - Vinyl flooring (above) and SPUF (below) inhibits subfloor drying Wind blown rain

19 Module C-4 kitchen base cabinet tests Pre-flood ConditionPost-flood condition (30 days)

20 Mold growth behind base cabinet 10 months after flood exposure

21 Module C-4 exterior before and after flooding Post-flood conditionPre-flood condition

22 Observations from Module C-4  “Water resistant” green board does not perform well under flood conditions  Wood sub-flooring between vinyl flooring and SPUF insulation will not dry  High ambient temperatures may impede mold growth

23 Best Practices Guidance:  Based on analysis/evaluation of field test data to determine performance of materials and systems  Provided flood damage resistance findings regarding: - available materials/systems - clean-up and restoration methods

24 Best practices guidance flyer

25 Representative floodwater – approach used  Identify most likely contaminants in flood water  Define representative flood water characteristics  Describe a reproducible representative floodwater for use in lab experiments  Use in tests of damage resistant systems and materials and evaluate results

26 Sources for defining floodwater components  Library/internet search of quantitative and qualitative components of flood water  Flood data from USGS/FEMA and analyze  Survey and interview of flood plain managers and other flood experts  Flood Response Industry Advisory Group (FRIAG)

27 Tasks to define floodwater components  Develop selected list of “typical” floodwater components and review with expert advisors  Create a replicable “recipe” for field experiments and review with expert advisors  Develop test plan for lab experiments and compare results with field experiments  Evaluate “recipe” and refine based on lab testing  Report findings as input to pre-standards process

28 Laboratory testing and evaluation  Develop and evaluate lab test protocols  Compare lab test with field test results  Evaluate proposed representative floodwater  Test samples with contaminated floodwater – surrogate sewage, oil, staining agent (clay)  Provide input to pre-standard

29 Laboratory test samples were developed  Full scale testing of system performance  Conventional drywall and wall finish  SPUF insulation  OSB sheathing and vinyl siding  Standard wood framing and subfloor

30 Five identical samples were fabricated and tested Inside Outside Section

31 Sample - during immersion (flood) testing

32 Samples after draining “floodwater” Floor and interior (drying in tank – days 4-8) Exterior (drying in lab – days 8-28)

33 Sample-1 moisture content of gypsum wallboard compared with Module C-2 Module C-2Sample - 1

34 Samples – 1 & 2 lab temperature and relative humidity data

35 Sample - 1 flexural strength test data for gypsum wallboard Post drying period flexural strength of conventional gypsum wallboard based on four point bending tests Sample - 1 and Module S-1 Sample - 1 (SPUF insulation)Module S-1 (no insulation) Above water levelBelow water levelAbove water levelBelow water level 4.31 MPa4.41 MPa3.68 MPa3.56 MPa

36 Recommendations to pre-standards from representative floodwater  Accomplish additional work to develop a more representative floodwater  Test flood damage resistance with representative floodwater alone as basic test  If successful, then add individual contaminants to floodwater  Base certification on passing basic test alone with supplementary certifications for specific contaminants

37 Recommendations to pre-standards from laboratory testing  Revise NES and ORNL test protocols which do not adequately reflect results from field tests  Water too benign  Dries too quickly  No mold development  Use test samples developed which have the potential to represent field conditions