Saint-Gobain Announces Sustainability Awards Winners

Saint-Gobain has announced the winners of its sustainability awards program, which recognizes company locations across North America for their sustainability efforts. The winning sites were recognized at a companywide sustainability conference.
 
“Saint-Gobain’s commitment to sustainability compels us to consider the environmental impact of our business at every stage, from product design to product disposal at the end of life,” says John Crowe, president and CEO of Saint-Gobain and CertainTeed Corp. “As a company, we realize it is the aggregate of efforts made by our approximately 14,000 employees that will allow us to reach our targets for waste, water, energy and carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction, and we believe recognizing sites for their programs will advance achievement across our portfolio.”
 
The program, referred to as the Waste, Water and Energy Program was established in 2016 by the Saint-Gobain Environmental, Health and Safety Department. The program is designed to highlight practical and effective solutions for increasing the sustainability of sites.
 
“Many of the champions were selected based on their commitment to improvement and the systems they put in place to achieve it, not simply one-time projects,” says Lauren Alterman, vice president-environmental, health and safety of Saint-Gobain Corp. “Our plants take sustainability measures every day, and it’s exciting to be able to review all the efforts collectively and celebrate the biggest achievements with such a fun competition.”
 
The Saint-Gobain Environmental, Health and Safety Department recognized the following 2016 champions:

  • Waste Champion: Saint-Gobain Crystals Hiram/Newbury, Ohio, is the recipient of the Waste Belt for its development of a comprehensive program designed to reduce hazardous waste. The site achieved a 46 percent reduction in the identified waste stream through programmatic and technological advancements by working with a coalition of third-party waste handlers, process quality engineers, Saint-Gobain Environmental, Health and Safety Department personnel and within its manufacturing program.
  • Water Champion: Saint-Gobain Ceramic Materials Wheatfield, N.Y., is the recipient of the Water Belt for its water reduction program. The program began with a cooling water system opportunity and expanded from there by pursuing water reduction strategies in a number of areas around the plant. The focus went beyond a single project and instead evaluated how the site uses water as a system, allowing the site to achieve a reduction of 10.1 million gallons of water used per year through various project efforts.
  • Energy Champion: SageGlass Faribault, Minn., is the recipient of the Energy Belt for its comprehensive energy reduction strategy. The site evaluated all of its energy-using systems, from lighting to HVAC to process, and designed programs, capital projects and educational tools to reduce energy intensity by 54 percent year over year.
  • CO2 Champion: CertainTeed Roofing Oxford, N.C., is the recipient of the CO2 Belt for its reduction in greenhouse gas emissions per unit of product made. Using ISO systems 14001 and 26000 (Environment and Corporate Social Responsibility) to design a system focused on energy and carbon reduction, the Oxford, N.C., roofing plant was able to achieve results. These management systems guided its energy team to focus on the large users of energy and creators of carbon, which ultimately resulted in projects addressing fume burner improvements, more efficient process heating and the elimination of No. 2 fuel oil from usage.
  • Overall Champion: CertainTeed Roofing Ennis, Texas, is the recipient of the Overall Champion Belt for being a finalist in all four sustainability categories due to a broad and extensive focus on its impacts inside and outside of its plant. For water, waste, energy and CO2 emissions, the team undertook a multitude of projects including: an LED retrofit; a program to recycle used wood pallets; and a system that resulted in the reuse of 50 percent of process cooling water.

 
“This program is unique because it encourages some fun internal competition in a way not seen before in the industry,” says Ryan Spies, manager-process sustainability & energy of Saint-Gobain Corp. “There’s nothing quite like a plant manager holding up a 20-pound, custom-designed, bejeweled belt for all his or her plant to see and then having to defend that belt next year.”

Better Understand Why the Combination of Moisture and Concrete Roof Decks Is Troublesome

The primary function of a well-built and well-designed roofing system is to prevent water from moving through into the building below it. Yet, as the Rosemont, Ill.-based National Roofing Contractors Association has observed, an increasing number of “good roofs” installed on concrete roof decks have failed in recent years. Blistering, de-bonding and substrate buckling have occurred with no reports of water leakage. Upon investigation, the roofing materials and substrates are found to be wet and deteriorated.

Wagner Meters offers moisture-detection meters for concrete. The meters are designed to save time and money on a project or job site.

Wagner Meters offers moisture-detection meters for concrete. The meters are designed to save time and money on a project or job site.

Why is this? One potential cause is trapped moisture; there are numerous potential sources of trapped moisture in a structure. Let’s examine the moisture source embedded within the concrete roof deck.

WHY DOES THIS MOISTURE BECOME TRAPPED?

It often starts with the schedule. In construction, time is money, and faster completion means lower cost to the general contractor and owner. Many construction schedules include the installation of the roof on the critical path because the interior building components and finishes cannot be completed until the roof has been installed. Therefore, to keep the project on schedule, roofers are pressured to install the roof soon after the roof deck has been poured. Adding to the pressure are contracts written so the general contractor receives a mile- stone payment once the roof has been installed and the building has been topped out.

Historically, roofers wait a minimum of 28 days after the roof deck is poured before starting to install a new roof. This is the concrete industry’s standard time for curing the concrete before testing and evaluating the concrete’s compressive strength. Twenty-eight days has no relation to the dryness of a concrete slab. Regardless, after 28 days the roofer may come under pres- sure from the general contractor to install the roof membrane. The concrete slab’s surface may pass the historic “hot asphalt” or the ASTM D4263 Standard “plastic sheet” test, but the apparently dry surface can be deceptive. Curing is not the same as drying, and significant amounts of water remain within a 28-day-old concrete deck. Depending on the ambient conditions, slab thickness and mixture proportions, the interior of the slab will likely have a relative humidity (RH) well over 90 percent at 28 days.

FROM WHERE DOES THE WATER COME?

Upon placing the concrete slab, the batch water goes to several uses. Portland cement reacts with water through the hydration process, creating the glue that holds concrete together. The remaining water held in capillary pores can be lost through evaporation, but evaporation is a slow, diffusion-based process. The diffusion rate of concrete is governed by the size and volume of capillary pores which, in turn, are controlled by the water/cement (w/cm) ratio. The total volume of water that will be lost is controlled by the degree of hydration, which is primarily related to curing and w/cm.

A 4-inch-thick concrete slab releases about 1 quart of water for each square foot of surface area. If a roof membrane is installed before this water escapes the slab, it can become trapped and collect beneath the roof system. The water does not damage the concrete, but it can migrate into the roofing system—and that’s when problems begin to occur. For instance, moisture that moves into the roofing system can:

  • Reduce thermal performance of the insulation.
  • Cause the insulation, cover board, adhesive or fasteners to lose strength, making the roofing system susceptible to uplift or damage from wind, hail or even foot traffic.
  • Lead to dimensional changes in the substrate, causing buckling and eventually damaging the roof membrane.
  • Allow mold growth.

A number of factors compound the problem. In buildings where a metal deck is installed, moisture cannot exit the slab through its bottom surface. Instead, the moisture is forced to exit the slab by moving upward. Eliminating one drying surface almost doubles the length of drying time of a concrete slab. The small slots cut in ventilated metal decking have little effect on reducing this drying time.

Ambient conditions also affect the drying rate of a concrete slab since it readily absorbs and retains moisture. Additional moisture may enter an unprotected roof slab from snow cover, rain or dew. Even overcast days will slow the rate of drying.

A MODERN-DAY PROBLEM

Before the introduction of today’s low-VOC roofing materials, historic roof systems didn’t experience as many of these moisture issues. Typically, they were in- stalled onto concrete decks on a continuous layer of hot asphalt adhesive that bonded the insulation to the deck. This low-permeable adhesive acted as a vapor retarder and limited the rate of moisture migrating from the concrete into the roofing assembly. As a result, historic roof systems were somewhat isolated from moisture coming from the concrete slab.

Many of today’s single-ply roof membranes are not installed with a vapor retarder. Moisture is able to migrate from the concrete slab into the roof materials. Modern insulation boards are often faced with moisture-sensitive paper facers and adhered to substrates with moisture-sensitive adhesives. These moisture-sensitive paper facers and adhesives are causing many of the problems.

Rene Dupuis of Middleton, Wis.- based Structural Research Inc. recently presented a paper to the Chicago Roofing Contractors Association on the subject. Some of his findings include the following:

  • Due to air-quality requirements, government regulations curtailed the use of solvent-based adhesives because they are high in VOCs. Consequently, manufacturers changed to water-based adhesives because they are lower in VOCs, have low odor, are easy to apply and pro- vide more coverage.
  • There can be several drawbacks to water-based bonding adhesives. One is that they may be moisture sensitive. Moisture and alkaline salts migrating into roof systems from concrete decks can trigger a negative reaction with some water-based adhesives. This reaction can cause the adhesives to revert to a liquid, or it may alter or delay the curing of some foam-based adhesives. Some adhesive manufacturers have recognized these problems and have be- gun reformulating their adhesives to address these drawbacks.
  • Negative reactions also occur when moisture-sensitive paper facers come into contact with moisture. This reaction typically results in decay, mold growth and loss of cohesive strength. Moisture in the roof system may also cause gypsum and wood-fiber-based cover boards to lose cohesive strength.

Dupuis noted moisture from any source can compromise adhered roof systems with wind uplift when attached to paper insulation or gypsum board. He also said facer research clearly shows paper facers suffer loss of strength as moisture content increases.

PHOTOS: Wagner Meters

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Water Is Construction’s Worst Enemy

I have a water phobia. When I was very young I fell into a pool and nearly drowned. Consequently, I never learned to swim out of sheer fear. Despite my attempts to avoid it, water continues to haunt me. (See an article I wrote about my Chicago condo’s construction defects for some background.) It’s ironic I now live along the nation’s southernmost glacial lake. I love the view from our home, but the lake’s recreational opportunities are lost on me.

To further substantiate my negative feelings toward water, 2015 was an especially wet year for the Midwest. In mid-December, my Iowa town received 5 inches of rain in a day and a half. Our basement—where my office is located—flooded (for the second time since August). My husband bought the house (which he planned to make his lifelong bachelor pad) knowing the basement might leak during heavy-rain events. He never planned to have anything down there. Then I came along.

As this issue was coming together—around the same time our basement was soaked—I read a line in “Tech Point” that really resonated with me: “… water is construction’s worst enemy, so when it goes where it shouldn’t, it’s causing damage—seen or unseen.” I shared that line, which was written by Armand T. Christopher Jr., AIA, with my husband. The next week we hired a basement waterproofing contractor to solve our ongoing water problems.

Christopher’s story likely will resonate with you, as well. He and his team had recently installed a PVC roof system on a high-profile government building in central New Jersey. Six months after the install, a three-day nor’easter exposed numerous leaks in the building, which the client thought were coming from the new roof. The ensuing “detective work” Christopher’s team completed was tedious but uncovered the cause of the leaks and made Christopher and his colleagues heroes.

Christopher points out a nice feature of the roof’s thermoplastic cap sheet is areas where water had pooled within the roof system were dried and resealed with heat-welded target patches. Thomas W. Hutchinson, AIA, FRCI, RRC, CSI, RRP, builds upon this idea in his “From the Hutchinson Files” article. Hutchinson notes today’s “new age” roofs may not require removing all system components during reroofing. Instead, it may be in the customer’s best interest to consider restoration; roof-cover removal, enhanced with additional insulation; using the existing roof membrane as a vapor retarder; or membrane removal before installation of a new roof cover.

My husband and I seem to have found the best solution to our basement water problems. Although we’re not looking forward to the construction ahead, we are excited about all the things we can do with a dry basement. Right now, we’re envisioning a mini spa in which we can relax after a stressful workday—another welcome upgrade my husband never imagined for his “bachelor pad”.

Locating the Source of Water Intrusion Can Be Tricky

The building in question features one whole face that is an aluminum-framed glass curtainwall. The curtainwall extends up above the roof lines, slopes up (from the vertical) forming a peaked skylight, which then slopes back toward the roofs that were holding water.

The building in question features one whole face that is an aluminum-framed glass curtainwall. The curtainwall extends up above the roof lines, slopes up (from the vertical) forming a peaked skylight, which then slopes back toward the roofs that were holding water.

As architects/roof consultants, there is nothing we hate more than to get a call from a client who says, “My new roof is leaking.” Yet, that is exactly what happened to us not long ago. My firm had put a new thermoplastic PVC roof system on a high-profile government building in central New Jersey. The owner was my long-time client, and I ran the project, so I was intimately familiar with it and utterly shocked to get this call about six months after the project was completed. We had just experienced a three-day nor’easter that began on Thursday night and ran straight through to Monday morning when the client arrived at the building to find numerous leaking areas.

I responded by immediately going to the building. I was accompanied by the roofing system manufacturer. As the client led us around the building, water was dripping through suspended ceilings all over, which gave us the sinking (almost apocalyptic) feeling you hope to never know. However, when we went up to examine the roof, much to our surprise, there was no blow off; no seams torn; in fact, no apparent defects at all. Our thermoplastic cap sheet looked perfect on the surface.

On the upper roof, aluminum-framed sawtoothed skylights were dripping water when the team first arrived. This gave the only clue to where the “smoking gun” may lie.

On the upper roof, aluminum-framed sawtoothed skylights were dripping water when the team first arrived. This gave the only clue to where the “smoking gun” may lie.

What we did find, however, was large amounts of water trapped between this cap sheet and the 90-mil bituminous base sheet underneath. This was creating large water-filled blisters on the roof that looked like an old waterbed as you walked up to and around them. No matter how hard we looked we just couldn’t find defects in the membrane surface or at any of the flashing connections or terminations that could be causing this. There was, however, a likely suspect looming adjacent to and above our roofs. The building experiencing the roof leaks has one whole face that is an aluminum-framed glass curtainwall. It extends up above the roof lines, slopes up (from the vertical) forming a peaked skylight, which then slopes back toward these roofs that were holding water. On the upper roof, sawtoothed skylights of the same construction were dripping water when we first arrived. This gave the only clue to where the “smoking gun” may lie.

METHODOLOGY

Water was dripping from the saw- toothed skylights into a planter in the 4-story atrium. The client said that was typical with all hard rains. Armed with this clue, and no other apparent explanation for such a large amount of water intrusion, the owner engaged us to find out what indeed was the root cause of this problem.

On the upper roof, aluminum-framed sawtoothed skylights were dripping water when the team first arrived. This gave the only clue to where the “smoking gun” may lie.

On the upper roof, aluminum-framed sawtoothed skylights were dripping water when the team first arrived. This gave the only clue to where the “smoking gun” may lie.

In a couple days, the dripping subsided and most of the water blisters had dissipated or at least were reduced and stabilized. In the interim, I assembled a team consisting of a roofing restoration contractor (this is not a rip and tear production contractor but one especially geared to finding problems and making associated repairs), skylight restoration contractor and testing agency capable of building spray racks onsite to deliver water wherever it’s needed. With this team, I embarked on a systematic investigation that would make any “detective” proud.

First, we plugged the roof drains and let water pool on the roof until the en- tire surface was wet. Meanwhile, “spot-ters” inside the building were looking for any sign of water intrusion using lights above the dropped ceilings. When this showed nothing, we began constructing spray racks and running water for set intervals on every adjacent surface rising above and surrounding the lowest roof in question. We first sprayed the exposed base flashings, then rose up to the counterflashing, then further up the wall, then to the sill of the windows above, etc. Then we would move laterally to a new position and start again.

The team first sprayed the exposed base flashings with water, then rose up to the counterflashing, then further up the wall, then to the sill of the windows above, etc. Testing moved laterally to a new position before starting again.

The team first sprayed the exposed base flashings with water, then rose up to the counterflashing, then further up the wall, then to the sill of the windows above, etc. Testing moved laterally to a new position before starting again.

This proved painstakingly tedious, but we knew that making the building leak was not enough; we had to move slowly and systematically to be able to isolate the location to determine what exactly was leaking and why. It is important when applying water this way to start low and only after a set period move upward, so when water does evidence itself as a leak, you know from what elevation it came.

After an entire day of spraying the rising walls surrounding the first (low) roof area, we could not replicate a leak. Somewhat frustrated—and rapidly burning the testing budget—we began the second day focusing on the adjacent peaked skylight, which is more than 75- feet long.

The team first sprayed the exposed base flashings with water, then rose up to the counterflashing, then further up the wall, then to the sill of the windows above, etc. Testing moved laterally to a new position before starting again.

The team first sprayed the exposed base flashings with water, then rose up to the counterflashing, then further up the wall, then to the sill of the windows above, etc. Testing moved laterally to a new position before starting again.

Again, we started low, where our base flashing tied into the knee-wall at the base of the skylight, below the aluminum-framed sill. Still no leaks. Late in the day, when we were finally up to the glass level, we sprayed water from the ridge and let it run right down the glass onto our roof below. Finally, we found some leaking occurring at a skylight flashing to wall connection. OK, that was reasonable to anticipate and easy to correct.

Pages: 1 2

Restore Roofs that Retain Water

The #8000 from RM Lucas is ideal for flat roofs that experience periods of retained water.

The #8000 from RM Lucas is ideal for flat roofs that experience periods of retained water.


RM Lucas adds #8000 Silicone Roof Coating to its line of roof restoration products. The #8000 is ideal for flat roofs that experience periods of retained water. The breathable coating may be applied by spray or roller and is available in reflective white and other common colors. The coating bonds to all major roof substrates and comes with a warranty.