Testing Water Penetration Resistance of Window Systems

Exposed to Realistic Dynamic Air Pressures

R. A. Van Straaten1, G. A. Kopp2, J. F. Straube3

1 Research Lab for Better Homes, University of Western Ontario, London,
Canada. rvanstra@uwo.ca
2 Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel Lab, University of Western Ontario,
London, Canada. gak@blwtl.ca
3 Building Engineering Group, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
jfstraube@uwaterloo.ca

ABSTRACT
A method for testing a series of windows exposed to simulated real dynamic wind loads
is proposed. Three vinyl framed residential windows installed in a full scale wood
framed house were tested with the method. The windows were exposed to realistic
fluctuating wind pressures on the surface of a building, obtained from wind tunnel
experiments, and were replicated in full-scale using novel pressure loading actuators.
In the series of tests reported herein, the incidence of water penetration was compared
between static and dynamic pressure tests. It was found that the peak pressures at which
the windows gasket systems could tolerate water exposure were much higher for realistic
wind pressures than for those in the static pressure tests. The test methodology has the
potential of providing greater insights of the performance of such systems exposed to
actual severe wind storm conditions.

1. INTRODUCTION repeated for at least 15 minutes. ASTM

Water leakage, and particularly water leakage
associated with window systems, has been
identified as a significant contributor to moisture
problems in buildings [1].
The recent North American Fenestration
Standard/Specification for Windows, Doors, and
skylights AAMA / WDMA / CSA 101 / I.S.2 /
A440-08 [2] includes testing requirement for a
window products water infiltration performance
under constant (i.e., static) pressure be reported as
per test methodology ASTM E331-00 [3]. A
methodology for water penetration testing under
cyclical applications of air pressures is provided
in ASTM E547-00 [4]. These cyclic pressures
include application of a constant pressure for 5
minutes, reduced to no pressure for 1 minute, and
E2269-04 [5] includes water penetration
testing with rapid pulsed air pressure
differences. These tests involve cycling
pressure between 50% and 150% of a
median air pressure. The frequency of the
cycles is 0.5 Hz. The standard includes
the detail The median test pressure used
in this test method is defined as the
specified test pressure supplied by the user
and related to the maximum positive
building design pressure. This detail will
be discussed later in this paper. The
standard also includes the commentary
The pulsed pressure of this test method
may act to pump water past dry seals and
breather systems of units incorporating
these features, thereby making the test
method more severe than a static pressure
test method. On the other hand, the low pressure
portions of the pressure cycles of this test method
may allow weep systems and drainage dams to
dissipate water from units incorporating these
features, thereby making the test method less
severe than a static pressure test method. From
these comments it would seem sensible to apply
realistic fluctuating pressures to such tests to
address these concerns.
Testing full scale building and building
components under realistic wind pressures and
driving rain conditions is undergoing or in
development at several research institutions.
Girma et al. [6] are using the International
Hurricane Research Centers Wall of Wind, a wall
consisting of large powerful fans, and water spray
rack to expose building components to driving
rain conditions. The advantage of introducing the
water spray into a stream of air flowing past the
specimen is that it allows the water droplets to
follow more realistic paths. In ASTM testing the
spray racks send a stream of water with impinging
velocity and distribution irrespective of actual
driving rain behaviour. Salzano et al. [7] have
recently published testing on water penetration
resistance of residential window installations
using the University of Florida Hurricane
Simulator. The system consists of water spray
racks and eight large vaneaxial fans that produce
stagnation pressures up to 1.67 kPa. The setup
applies driving rain similarly to the Wall of Wind
but they include rapidly varying cyclical pressures
as high at 0.33 Hz. The Institute for Home and
Business Safety [8] is developing a very large
wind tunnel with capacity to test full scale houses.
This facility will be able to replicate realistic
fluctuating wind pressures (as opposed to
sinusoidal pressures) and will also introduce wind
driven rain into experiments.
The Insurance Research Lab for Better Homes
(IRLBH) at the University of Western Ontario has
developed technology capable of imposing
realistic static pressures following pressure traces
derived from wind tunnel or field data. To date,
use of this equipment in published research
studies has been conducted the Cyclone Testing
Station in Townsville Australia [9] to
investigate structural performance of
building components. IRLBHs equipment
consist of relatively small pressure load
actuators whose characteristic are
described in greater detail by Kopp et. al.
[10]. The equipment could be used for
testing under realistic air pressure in small
window test laboratories without the need
for the electrical power and financial
capital to construct large fan arrays.
this paper reports on the most recent
progress on the development of testing
methodologies that utilize dynamic wind
loads to investigate water penetration
through window systems.
2. OBJECTIVE
The objective of the work reported in this
paper is to develop testing methodologies
to investigate windows water penetration
resistance performance under realistic
fluctuating air pressures resulting from
high wind conditions.
3. SCOPE
The test method was applied to 89 cm x
153 cm windows installed in a house built
to the Ontario Building Code in our
laboratory. The house was used in a
previous study which included application
of high wind loads to the roof which may
have affected the entire structure of the
house. All windows were square and
opened freely and did not appear to have
significantly shifted or been effected
structurally at the time of the testing.
Some initial caulking failures on the
exterior of the windows were evident prior
to testing. Due to this consideration, the
use of the results in this paper is limited to
developing testing methodologies and not
to make conclusion regarding window
performance.
4. METHODOLOGY

The facility utilized Pressure Load Actuators

(PLAs) to provide the desired pressures. The
units consist of a regenerative blower with high
and low pressure side connected to a special
valve. The valve position is changed by a high
speed servo motor. The system is capable of
following pressure traces with a frequency up of 7
Hz and pressures in a 1.2 m x 1.2 m enclosure air
box up to 10 kPa when well air sealed. For this
study a simple mobile air box was installed on the
inside of the test house windows (Figure 1).
Water was introduced with a spray rack system as
prescribed in ASTM E331-00 and shown in
Figure 2.

Figure 2. Water Spray Rack.

The windows were tested at constant

Figure 1.Air Box installed on inside of house.
For this study, wind loads (air pressure traces)
were drawn from positions on the building with
high and moderate exposure and from a variety of
wind velocities. The base wind pressures were
derived from testing at the Boundary Layer Wind
Tunnel Laboratory [11] and for higher wind
velocities using previously developed techniques
[12]. The pressures are spatially uniform, which is
realistic for small windows away from corners.
pressures of 150 Pa, 360 Pa, 540 Pa, and
720 Pa with water exposure for 15 minutes
as per ASTM E331. The windows were
allowed to dry for at least 24 hrs between
tests. These same windows were then
tested when exposed to realistic air
pressures traces derived from wind tunnel
measurements of wall pressures at two
points on a building at wind velocities of
20, 25 and 20 m/s. These traces had mean
(peak) pressures of 113 (690) Pa, 169
(814) Pa, 180 (1078) Pa, 270 (1273) Pa,
261 (1552) Pa, and 394 (1832) Pa. Two of
these traces are plotted in Figure 3. All
pressure traces and exposures lasted for 15
minutes.
 0.5

In the test performed water leaked through

0
the window gaskets well below rated
performance of the window (B7 or 720 Pa
static pressure as per CSA A440). We did
Pressure (kPa)

-0.5
not disassemble the window to investigate
water leakage within the wall assembly
-1 between tests due to concerns about
changing the nature of the window system
-1.5
between tests. Hence, water leakage may
30 m/s trace or may not have been occurring at the
20 m/s trace
window to wall interface at the pressure
-2
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 660 720 780 840 900 reported in this paper or lower. A picture
Time (s) of a small water leak and a large water
Figure 3. Wind Pressure Trace with 20 m/s - 113 leak are shown in Figures 5 and 6.
(690) Pa and 30 m/s - 261 (1552) Pa Mean (Peak)
Pressure.

Water penetration on the indoor face of the

specimen was recorded to identify failure.

5. RESULTS

Measured pressure is plotted relative to the

corresponding target pressure trace at peak
pressure in Figure 4. Close agreement between
targeted and achieved pressures are achieved in
the test demonstrating the equipments Figure 5. Small (<5 g) Water Leak
capabilities.

0.5

0
Air Pressure (kPa)

-0.5

-1

20 m/s Trace
Achieved
-1.5 25 m/s Trace
Achieved
Figure 6. Large (>100 g) Water Leak
-2
225 227 229 231 233 235
Time (s)
We did not attempt to measure the amount
of water which leaked through the
Figure 4. Trace (Targeted) and Achieved Air
windows during the constant air pressure
Pressure at 20 m/s - 113 (690) Pa and 25 m/s -
tests. However, it was generally a large
261 (1270) Pa Mean (Peak) Pressure Traces at
amount which ran over the indoor window
Peak Pressure
sills, down the drywall, and onto the floor. These water penetration resistance performance
leaks are all indicated in Figure 7 as 100 g of testing of building envelop components.
water leakage even through they we not actually
measured. Since only three samples were tested it is
not possible to make broad conclusions
100
relating the windows performance under
90
Window 1 static and dynamic pressure traces.
80
Window 2 However, the results suggest that testing
Window 3 windows at static pressures derived from
70
Water Leakage (g)

mean wind induced surface pressures may

60
optimistically predict performance during
50
actual exposure.
40

30
Providing a test methodology that more
20
closely reflects real air pressure conditions
10
could allow manufacturers to design to
0
0 150 360 510 730 113 169 180 270 261 394
window to withstand more realistic wind
Static Pressure Test (Pa) Realistic Wind Test (Pa mean) conditions during exposure to exterior
water. A review of wind conditions
Figure 7. Water Penetration Resistance Testing
during rain events would assist selection
Results for Constant and Realistic Air Pressures.
of appropriate conditions for such tests
under various climate conditions. A larger
The results of the realistic pressure tests are also
scale study of water penetration
shown in Figure 7. Window 3 was the worst
performance of windows utilizing realistic
performer in both test methodologies. Windows 1
fluctuating wind traces would provide
and 2 performed similarly. The windows failed at
greater insights into to actual performance
lower mean pressure conditions during the
should be considered now that such
realistic fluctuating pressure testing than during
capabilities are readily available.
the static pressure tests.
In future tests we would consider
Generally the water leakage in these tests
installing moisture detection systems
appeared to be set off at peak gusts during the
within the assembly to investigate water
exposure period. During these tests we chose to
penetration at the wall to window
measure the actual water leakage because in some
interface. Since reinstallation of the
cases only a small amount of water leaked
windows could affect performance, we are
through the gasket during a very brief and severe
greatly interested in the potential for
pressure fluctuation. The leakage was measured
moisture detection devices to allow
by weighing paper towels before and after being
repeated testing on single installations
used to absorb as much of the leaked water as
with minimal time delay between tests.
possible.
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
6. CONCLUSIONS
We would like to thank Juan Botero and
The testing reported in this paper demonstrates the
Greg Hebb for there input and assistance
capability of pressure load actuator equipment to
in the lab. We would also like to thank
generate dynamic air pressures following real
Chris Schumacher at Building Science
fluctuating wind data or wind tunnel data for
Corporation for his insights and lending
equipment for this study.

8. REFERENCES
[1] RDH Building Engineering Limited (2002)
Water Penetration Resistance of Windows
Study of Manufacturing, Building Design,
Installation and Maintenance Factors, Report
for CMHC, Canada.
[2] AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440-08
(2008) NAFS North American Fenestration
Standard/Specification for windows, doors,
and skylights.
[3] ASTM E331-00 (2000) Standard Test Method
for Water Penetration of Exterior Windows,
Skylights, Doors, and Curtain Walls by
Uniform Static Air Pressure Difference.
[4] ASTM E547-00 (2000) Standard Test Method
for Water Penetration of Exterior Windows,
Skylights, Doors, and Curtain Walls by Cyclic
Static Air Pressure Difference.
[5] ASTM E226804 (2004) Standard Test
Method for Water Penetration of Exterior
Windows, Skylights, and Doors by Rapid
Pulsed Air Pressure Difference.
[6] Girma B., Chowdhury A., and Sambare D.
(2009) Application of a full-scale testing
facility for assessing wind-driven-rain
intrusion, Building and Environment , 44 pp.
2430-2441.
[7] Salzano C., Masters F., and Katsaros J., (2010)
Water penetration resistance of residential
window installation options for hurricane-
prone areas, submitted to Building and
Environment.
[8] Reinhold T. (2005) Testimony to the
Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention
and Prediction of the Committee on
ommerce, Science, and Transportation
of the United States Senate, June 29,
2005.
[9] Henderson D., Ginger J., Morrison M.,
and Kopp G. (2009) Simulated
tropical cyclonic winds for low cycle
fatigue loading of steel roofing, Wind
and Structures, 12(4) pp. 383-400.
[10] Kopp G., Morrison M., Iizumi E.,
Henderson D., and Hong H. (2008)
The Three Little Pigs Project:
Hurricane Risk Mitigation by
Integrated Wind Tunnel and Full-Scale
Laboratory Tests, submitted to ASCE
Natural Hazards Review.
[11] Oh T., Surry D., Morrish D., and
Kopp G. (2005) The UWO
contribution to the NIST aerodynamic
database for wind loads on low
buildings: Part 1. Archiving format
and basic aerodynamic data, Journal
of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, 93 pp. 1-30.
[12] St. Pierre L., Kopp G., Surry D., and
Ho T. (2005) The UWO contribution
to the NIST aerodynamic database for
wind loads on low buildings: Part 2
Comparison of data with wind load
provisions Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, 93 pp 31-59.