The existing Note 3 discusses the volume of water that is delivered from the calibrated spray rack and equates it to rainfall records recorded in the contiguous 48 United States many years ago. This suggests, incorrectly, that the standard spray rate is intended to replicate or correspond to a weather event. The standard spray rate is intended to wet the specimen with a uniform film of water to allow evaluation of all parts of the test specimen. Depending on building height, orientation, water shedding features, local climatology, etc., the service window may see more or less water than the spray rate delivers. Therefore, the note is misleading and should be revised. The note does not occur in E331 or E547, the standards upon which E1105 is based.
Keywordscurtain walls; doors; skylights; water penetration; windows; Air pressure testing--building constructions/materials; Curtain walls; Cyclic static air pressure tests; Doors/door assemblies; Exterior doors; Exterior windows; Field testing--building materials; Fire-resistant materials/testing; Penetration--building materials/applications; Pressure testing--building constructions/materials; Skylights; Uniform static air pressure difference; Water penetration--exterior windows/curtain walls/doors; Water resistance; Windows/window assemblies;
Negative Votes Need Resolution