Brick Masonry Enclosure Evaluation Report Brooke Charter ...

Gale Associates, Inc. Gale JN 831240

163 Libbey Parkway | P.O. Box 890189 | Weymouth MA 02189-0004

P 781.335.6465 F 781.335.6467 www.gainc.com

Brick Masonry Enclosure Evaluation Report Brooke Charter School 190 Cummins Highway Roslindale, MA

October 25, 2016

G a l e J N 8 3 1 2 4 0

Prepared for: Edward W. Brooke Charter Schools 190 Cummins Highway Roslindale, MA 02131

Gale Associates, Inc. Gale JN 831240

163 Libbey Parkway | P.O. Box 890189 | Weymouth MA 02189-0004

P 781.335.6465 F 781.335.6467 www.gainc.com

Brick Masonry Enclosure Evaluation Report Brooke Charter Schools 190 Cummins Highway Roslindale, MA

October 25, 2016

G a l e J N 8 3 1 2 4 0

Executive Summary ...................................................................... 1 Background Information .............................................................. 2 Existing Conditions ....................................................................... 2 Interior Leak Audit ........................................................................ 9 Discussion and Recommendations............................................... 9 Recommendation Synopsis ........................................................ 13 Preliminary Cost Estimates......................................................... 14 Appendix

Preliminary Cost Estimates ...................................... Appendix A Photographic Documentation .................................. Appendix B Field Sketches ........................................................... Appendix C Reduced Size Drawings ............................................ Appendix D

Table of Contents

1

BRICK MASONRY ENCLOSURE EVALUATION REPORT BROOKE CHARTER SCHOOL

ROSLINDALE, MA 02131 GALE JN 831240

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In accordance with our contract, Gale Associates, Inc. (Gale) performed an evaluation of the brick masonry facade and associated components at the Edward W. Brooke Charter School (BCS) located at 190 Cummins Highway in Roslindale, MA. The following evaluation report is provided to BCS to present them with an understanding of the condition of the building’s brick masonry facade and the cause for observed cracking and displacement. This evaluation is augmented with preliminary cost estimates, photographic documentation, field sketches, reduced size drawings, as well as, Gale’s supporting back-up materials to augment our findings and recommendations. Based on information and documentation provided to Gale by BCS, Gale’s field evaluation reported areas of brick masonry flexure/displacement, failed/shallow brick masonry control joints, cracked brick masonry, spalled brick masonry, deteriorated mortar joints, step cracking, cracked concrete, spalled concrete, red rust deteriorated steel lintels, rust staining, failed window perimeter sealant, and cracked window glazing. It is Gale’s opinion that all conditions and recommendations for the building’s brick masonry façade are important and should be addressed as soon as possible. However, given possible budget constraints, the various scopes have been broken out into possible construction phases. Based on our findings, Gale estimates that the total construction budget to complete the brick masonry facade and associated scope of work items will be approximately $2,130,000. This budget can be broken down into the following phases, listed in order of priority; Phase 1: Immediate Recommendations - $716,000; Phase 2: Short Term Recommendations - $348,000; Phase 3: Long Term Recommendations - $1,066,000. The construction budget numbers include a twenty percent (20%) contingency, which is a value included in the event that unforeseen conditions are encountered either during the design development or construction phase of the project. This preliminary budget does not include interior renovations or repairs beyond those presented in the report, permitting, administration of the project, or engineering fees beyond that which has been presented. These budget numbers also do not include yearly escalation costs should these phases be completed over multiple years. Gale does not recommend utilizing these estimates for sensitive budgeting.

2

BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Edward W. Brooke Charter School (BCS) consists of an original three (3) story structure built circa 1916, a classroom wing addition built circa 1956, and a gymnasium addition built circa 1961. The original building is concrete framed with exterior walls consisting of multi-wythe brick masonry with associated concrete water tables, accents, window sills and window headers. The 1956 classroom wing and the 1961 gymnasium additions also appear to be concrete framed but have exterior walls consisting of a brick masonry veneer with a combination of brick masonry and concrete masonry unit (CMU) back-up walls. Wall openings are framed with concrete window sills and steel lintel headers. The purpose of this evaluation was to determine the as-built conditions of the brick masonry facade, to document possible damages and/or defects observed. The main focus of this report is the apparent displaced masonry within the Southeast wall of the 1956 classroom wing, in addition to the cracked mortar within the glazed tile observed on the interior of the Southwest staircase of the classroom wing. Additional observations were made on the entire façade of the school and associated components that could affect the performance of the brick masonry façade. Please refer to various Appendices at the end of this report for additional information. EXISTING CONDITIONS Existing Drawings and Documents As part of the evaluation of the existing brick masonry facade, Gale reviewed the available building drawings, reports and other documentation, as provided by the BCS. The following documents and drawings were available for review: 1. Drawings titled “Brooke Charter – 2006 Survey” were provided to Gale by BCS, no architectural

or engineering firm name was indicated on the existing drawings. The above mentioned set of drawings include First Floor Plans, Second Floor Plans, Third Floor Plans, and a Basement Plan.

2. Roome & Guarracino, LLC’s “Exterior Façade Condition Assessment Report” for the Edward W.

Brooke Charter School was also provided to Gale by BCS. The report, which is dated July 9, 2007, appears to provide a brief outline of visually observed defects within the BCS buildings’ existing brick masonry enclosure system.

The documentation and drawings provide Gale with a cursory understanding of the BCS building’s spatial composition, the building’s brick masonry facade, and the associated components. However, additional field evaluation was needed to provide Gale with the information necessary to understand the as-built conditions of the BCS building’s façade and possible cause of the reported displacement and deterioration.

3

Field Evaluation Methods On June 8, 2016 and June 29, 2016, representatives from Gale performed an interior and exterior visual evaluation of the BCS building’s brick masonry façade and associated building components. In addition to a visual evaluation, destructive test cuts were performed by removing five (5) approximately 2’-0” x 2’-0” square areas of brick masonry to observe backup wall conditions as well as methods and materials used for construction. Additionally, two (2) destructive test cuts were performed by removing an approximate 2’-0” x 2’-0” square area of the glazed tile from within the main staircase along the classroom wing’s Southwest elevation. Folan Waterproofing & Construction Co., Inc.’s services were utilized to perform and repair the destructive test cuts and provide portable lift access. As part of the visual evaluation, representatives from Gale walked the exterior perimeter of the building and entered open/accessible rooms on the interior, to observe defect locations. Along the exterior of the building, the evaluation was performed utilizing high powered binoculars from ground level and a 60’-0” aerial lift to obtain a “hands reach” evaluation. Visual Observations The following is a synopsis of the observations made during Gale’s visual evaluation, please note that observations relating to destructive test cut locations are not listed below as they are addressed in the Destructive Test Observations portion of the report: Original Building The original building exterior facade, appears to consist of a multi-wythe brick masonry wall. Multi-wythe walls or “mass” walls consist of multiple wythes of brick masonry with cross laid brick units called “header bricks” that tie the multiple wythes together, creating an almost solid wall of brick masonry. This type of wall system was common during the construction period of the main building. Multi-wythe walls tend to vary between 3 to 4 wythes in depth and, judging by masonry wall thickness at door openings, the wall appears to be approximately 13” thick. This type of wall construction was assumed based on the time period and the observation of the header bricks in alternating brick courses. To determine the wall construction, destructive testing would be required where layers of the masonry could be removed to observe wall construction techniques. Please note that since the masonry appears to be in good condition, no destructive testing was performed in the main building. 1. Brick masonry units are a standard modular tan clay brick with typical dimensions of 7-3/4” long,

3-1/2” wide, and 2-1/4” tall. Mortar joints appear to be approximately 1/4” wide and are tooled to a “concave” finish.

2. The brick masonry is laid in a common bond pattern with a header course every sixth course.

3. Brick masonry mortar joints typically appear to be in fair condition, however, at multiple isolated locations, areas of cracked or deteriorated mortar joints were observed in isolated locations throughout the building.

4. Brick masonry units appear to be in fair condition, however, at multiple isolated locations, areas of cracked or spalled brick masonry was observed on the building.

4

5. Multiple locations of rusted and abandoned anchors were observed throughout the building.

6. Multiple locations of rust staining were observed throughout the building. The most common rust staining location appeared to be below the aluminum window sills.

7. Associated concrete components appeared to be in good to fair condition, with isolated observed locations of spalled concrete and concrete cracking.

Classroom and Gymnasium Wings

The classroom wing addition and the gymnasium addition’s brick masonry facade, consists of a multi-wythe brick masonry wall with a combination of brick masonry and CMU back-up wall. As with the main building, header bricks were observed within the brick coursing indicating the wall construction may consist of multiple wythes of brick. However, through destructive testing, it was determined that the exterior wall consists of a brick masonry veneer that utilizes wall ties to help support the wall laterally and tie the veneer to the supporting back up wall. As the facade appears to be experiencing displacement of the exterior veneer, destructive testing was performed to verify wall construction. Please refer to the Destructive Testing portion of this report for additional information.

1. Brick masonry units are a standard modular tan clay brick with typical dimensions of 7-3/4” long, 3-1/2” wide, and 2-1/4” tall. Mortar joints appear to be approximately 1/4” wide and are tooled to a “concave” finish.

2. The brick masonry is laid in a common bond pattern with a header course every sixth course.

3. Brick masonry units appear to be in fair condition, however, at multiple isolated locations, areas of cracked or spalled brick masonry was observed on the building.

4. Multiple locations of rusted and abandoned anchors were observed throughout the building.

5. Brick masonry mortar joints are in fair condition, however, at multiple locations, areas of cracked or deteriorated mortar joints were observed through the building. It appears that step cracking was typically observed at locations adjacent to building corners or adjacent to the end of steel lintels.

a. At the classroom wing addition’s Southeast elevation, substantial step cracking was observed at the corner of the addition, adjacent to the gymnasium. The observed step cracking locations were several feet in length, approximately 1/2" wide, and appeared to originate at the end of a window steel lintel.

6. Vertical expansion joints have been saw cut to a depth of approximately 1/2" and filled with sealant. The expansion joint sealant appears to be cohesively and adhesively failed with multiple isolated locations of displaced or loose sealant observed. While an expansion joint appears to exist, it was observed that the depth of the cut through the brick does not extend through the full depth of the brick. This makes the expansion joint ineffective. It was also observed that the location and spacing of the expansion joints is not adequate.

5

7. At multiple locations on the classroom wing addition’s Southwest and Southeast elevations, large areas of brick masonry are displaced by up to approximately one inch (1”). The displacement is “bellied” or outward movement and was observed above and between window openings and lintels. Please refer to the Destructive Testing segment of this report for observations of wall reinforcing and construction at this location.

a. In addition to the brick masonry displacement outward, it appears that the brick masonry also shifts horizontally towards the gymnasium.

8. Multiple locations of rust staining were observed throughout the building. The most common rust staining location appeared to be directly below the steel window sills.

9. The lintels appear to be in fair condition, with the exception of isolated locations where light surface rust and paint coating deterioration was observed on the underside of the steel lintel. No head joint weeps or baffles were observed within the brick masonry above lintel locations.

10. Associated concrete components appeared to be in good to fair condition, with isolated observed locations of spalled concrete and concrete cracking.

Staircase – Interior Conditions The staircase, located on the Southwest elevation of the classroom wing appears to consist of a multi-wythe brick masonry wall with a glazed tile interior finish. As with the main building, header bricks were observed within the brick coursing indicating the wall construction may consist of multiple wythes of brick. As the interior glazed tile is experiencing displacement and step cracking, destructive testing was performed to verify wall construction. Please refer to the Destructive Testing portion of this report for additional information.

1. At multiple locations and levels within the staircase, step cracking was observed within the glazed tile. The step cracking were several feet in length and appeared to originate at staircase corners and window jamb locations.

2. Isolated locations of the glazed tile displacement were observed. The displacement was common below window sill locations and was observed to be up to approximately 1/2".

3. Cracking of the mortar and displacement of the glazed tile becomes increasingly more pronounced the higher the elevation above grade. There was no evidence of cracking or displacement at the basement level or around the first floor window. Cracking and displacement was observed at the second floor window and even more at the third floor window. Cracking appears to originate around the window opening and extend into the surrounding walls.

4. The concrete foundation wall of the classroom wing staircase is in good condition with no observed defects on the interior surface. Please note that no excavation was performed to reveal/evaluate the exterior face of the staircase foundation.

6

Additional Observations

1. The steel window assemblies at the classroom wing and gymnasium additions are in poor condition. At multiple locations, cracked/broken glazing units were observed as well as blistered/peeling of the window paint finish, allowing the rusting of the underlying steel window components.

2. Window perimeter sealants are in poor condition and have lost their adhesive bond or are missing.

a. Along the classroom wing addition’s Southeast elevation, it appears that the horizontal movement within the masonry has compressed the window perimeter sealant along the window’s left jamb and has stretched the window perimeter sealant along the window’s right jamb. As a result, the sealant along the window’s right jamb has lost its cohesive bond to the brick masonry and an approximately 3/8” wide gap has formed between the window perimeter sealant and the brick masonry.

3. The gymnasium addition’s Southeast elevation, isolated locations of displaced roof edge metal coping were observed. The displaced edge metal coping is exposing the wood blocking nailers and roofing system beyond to possible moisture infiltration.

Destructive Testing To determine possible causes for the observed defects and to document as-built conditions, a destructive evaluation was performed to review the methods and materials used in construction. Gale utilized the services of Folan Waterproofing & Construction Co., Inc. (Folan) located in South Easton, MA to perform the destructive testing, as well as to repair all openings made during the evaluation. Please note that the test cuts performed only revealed a relatively small portion of the overall building construction, and might not accurately represent the majority of the building’s as-built conditions. The critical field conditions have been documented and described within the following synopsis: Destructive Test Cut #1: Destructive Test Cut #1 was performed on the Southeast elevation of the classroom wing addition at the top right corner of the second floor window, adjacent to the gymnasium. This location was selected due to the step cracking and brick masonry displacement observed. Only three (3) brick masonry units were removed from this test cut location, due to concerns expressed by Folan regarding the brick masonry façade’s structural integrity as the bricks appeared loose. The following was observed at this test cut location: 1. The back-up wall appears to be the structural frame of the building. With concrete framed floor

and roof slabs as well as support columns used for construction, it is common for the concrete construction to exist directly behind the exterior masonry façade. Typically, the ends of the concrete floor or roof slabs have a large turned down edge that adds strength to the floor slab and making the edge much thicker than that of the actual slab. These turned down edges also provide an anchor point for the steel window lintels and the brick facade. This appears to be what is observed at this test cut. The presence of concrete also indicates that the exterior wall

7

system is a type of cavity wall and not solid masonry as it appears from the visual evaluation. This would indicate that the header brick in these locations are false.

2. The 4” x 4” x 1/2” thick steel lintel stops at the edge of the brick masonry opening and does not extend past the opening to bear on the brick masonry facade. Instead, the lintel is welded to an 8” x 8” x 1/2" thick steel plate which is fastened to the concrete structure.

3. Copper sheet metal flashing is installed over the steel lintel and extends past the end of the lintel. It appears that the flashing was cut to create an end damn at the flashing edges but was never turned up and soldered together. Instead the flashing terminates within the brick masonry façade and lays flat on the steel.

4. Copper fabric was observed lapping over the copper flashing, steel lintel, steel plate, and onto the concrete structure. The fabric turns up behind the masonry and is not sealed. The flashing is also very brittle and easily torn. Numerous tears were observed within the flashing rendering them ineffective.

5. The four (4) courses of brick masonry installed above the steel lintel are cut/broken brick masonry units, with approximate dimensions of 7-3/4” long by 1-3/4” wide by 2-1/4” tall. The masonry units are cut down to fit within the narrow wall created by the depth of the steel lintel. The void between the half sized brick and the copper fabric is filled with mortar.

6. No weeps or baffles were observed within the brick masonry. Destructive Test Cut #2: Destructive Test Cut #2 was performed on the same elevation as test cut #1, at the head of a first floor window on the south side of the wall. This location was selected due to the amount of brick masonry displacement observed. Seven (7) brick masonry units were removed and the following observed conditions were similar to that of Destructive Test Cut #1, with the exception of the following: 1. The header brick at the exterior wythe of the brick masonry facade is false. This means that the

observed header brick does not extend into the building’s back-up wall.

2. The brick masonry above the steel lintel is displaced by up to approximately 1” from the exterior edge of the lintel.

Destructive Test Cut #3: Destructive Test Cut #3 was performed on the window bay to the north of test cut #2 between the first and second floor windows. This location was selected in an effort to understand how the strength of the masonry wall is maintained. Four (4) brick masonry units were removed, around what appeared to be a header brick, and the following was observed: 1. The wall assembly consists of one (1) wythe of brick masonry, approximately 1-3/8” thick cavity

space filled with mortar, and a back-up brick masonry wall. This test cut confirms that the wall system is a cavity wall and not that of the solid masonry as visual observation would suggest. Refer to description of test cut #1 for further discussion.

8

2. The header brick at the exterior wythe of the brick masonry facade is false, which means that header bricks observed at this location do not extend into the building’s back-up wall. As a result, the wall system relies on brick ties for lateral support and to tie the façade to the back-up wall. However, no brick ties were observed at the test cut location.

3. Locations of brick masonry displacement were observed adjacent to the test cut, however, the brick masonry and mortar joints appeared to be in good condition.

4. The back-up wall’s brick masonry and mortar joints appeared to be in good condition. However, due to the mortar filled cavity, Gale was unable to obtain a clear understanding of the condition of the brick masonry back-up wall.

Destructive Test Cut #4: Destructive Test Cut #4 was performed at the interior of the southwest stairwell of the classroom addition. The test cut was performed on the interior of the second floor at the West corner of the staircase, and was selected due to the presence of step cracking and displacement observed in the glazed tile finish. Five (5) glazed tiles were removed and the following was observed:

1. The interior finish of the stairwell consists of approximately 8” wide by 5” tall by 3-5/8” thick glazed tiles with 1/4" wide joints. At locations adjacent to the concrete column and floor slab, the thickness of the tile is reduced to 1-5/8”, to allow the tile to fit around the concrete column within the wall system. There is an approximately 1/2" wide air space between the concrete and the tile.

2. A 10” wide concrete column was exposed, once the glazed tile was removed. To the left of the column, there is a 1” air space between the column and 2 wythes of brick masonry, which appears to comprise the corner of the staircase’s exterior wall. To the right of the column, the 3-5/8” thick terracotta block tiles abut the column.

3. The exposed portions of the concrete column appeared to be in good condition, although this is a significantly small portion of the column that was exposed. However, the cause of the cracking and displaced glazed tile does not appear to be caused by movement or failure of the buildings structural components.

Destructive Test Cut #5: Destructive Test Cut #5 was as performed within the southwest staircase. The test cut location was performed on the interior of the second floor, between the window jamb and the South corner of the staircase. The location was selected due to observed cracking and displacement observed within the glazed tile. One (1) tile was removed from this test cut location, and the following was observed:

1. From the interior most component outward, the wall assembly consists of 1-5/8” thick glazed tile block, 1-3/8” thick air space, an interior wythe of brick masonry, and an exterior wythe of brick masonry with a void between the exterior and interior wythe of brick masonry filled with mortar. The observed assembly was approximately 11-1/2” thick.

9

INTERIOR LEAK AUDIT As part of the evaluation on the brick masonry façade, an interior leak audit was performed by Gale. The interior leak audit was performed during a time without precipitation, including multiple days prior to the leak audit. No active leak locations were observed at the time of Gale’s audit, and no active leak locations were reported to Gale by BCS. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Gale’s evaluation of the BCS building’s brick masonry facade revealed a variety of different as-built conditions, isolated defect locations, and locations of displaced brick masonry that will require extensive repairs. As previously mentioned, defect locations such as brick masonry displacement, failed/shallow brick masonry control joints, cracked and spalled masonry units, deteriorated mortar joints, step cracking, cracked and spalled concrete, rusting steel lintels, rust staining, failed perimeter sealant and cracked window glazing were observed at multiple locations throughout the building. While all the defects noted above will require repair or replacement, they vary in priority. The Brooke Charter School is a large school and therefore the cost of the entire project may exceed budgeting established by the School. As such, Gale has prioritized the repairs based on severity of deterioration, life safety, and the potential for further deterioration if left in its deteriorated state. Therefore, a phased approach has been established for this work that will allow for future budgeting. For the purposes of this report, Phase 1 items should be considered high priority repairs. Original Building As stated previously the exterior walls of the original building appear to be in good condition with only isolated areas of cracked or deteriorated mortar and/or brick masonry units. As the façade appeared to be in good condition, no destructive testing was performed to verify inner wall conditions or wall construction. Based on the age of the structure and review of window jambs, door openings, basement areas, and exposed interior wall conditions the wall construction appears to consist of multiple wythes of solid masonry. As stated previously, these “mass walls” are constructed using multiple layers of brick to build up walls 13” to 19” in thickness. They are essentially self-supporting walls that usually connect to the main structure of the building. They generally do not contain back-up walls and interior finishes are used to provide furring to the interior side of the masonry wall. As the walls are multiple walls thick and lack internal drainage planes “cavities” for moisture control, they were typically constructed without embedded flashing that would be used to control moisture. Brick masonry is a porous material that will absorb moisture during rain events, mass walls retain the moisture until the heat from the exterior and interior slowly dry the walls out. Drying times relate to the amount of moisture and time of year. During the course of the year the drying days usually balance out the days of moisture, maintaining the walls in a dry state and limited to how far the moisture migrates. As these walls age the mortar slowly deteriorates allowing more moisture to penetrate which can affect the drying time of the walls. When that occurs, typically the mortar is replaced or cracks repaired. During our visual review we observed isolated areas of cracked brick masonry units, and cracked or deteriorated masonry mortar joints. These areas should be repaired by replacing the cracked bricks and repointing the cracked or deteriorated mortar.

10

Cracked and deteriorated mortar is replaced by a process called repointing. Repointing involves cutting the original mortar out from between the brick units. The mortar should be cut to a depth of a minimum of 1” but will depend on the thickness of the mortar joint. With the old mortar removed new mortar is applied in “lifts” or applications not exceeding 3/8” in thickness. The mortar is packed into the joint as each lift is applied. The final lift is struck clean at the face of the mortar in a typically concave profile. The work associated with the Original Building is not considered for immediate repairs and therefore was not included within the Phase 1 scope of work. Classroom Wing Addition - Southeast Elevation: The brick masonry façade on the Southeast elevation is in poor condition and has become displaced by up to approximately 1” in some locations. The brick masonry displacement appears to be symptomatic of multiple conditions, including but not limited to, false brick masonry header units, lack of proper steel lintel flashing, window perimeter sealant failures, and a lack of and improperly installed vertical control joints. The classroom wing addition appears to be constructed in a manner that the CMU/brick masonry back-up wall, the concrete columns, and the concrete floor slabs are the load bearing structural components. The exterior brick masonry wythe acts as a veneer system and is not a-structural load bearing component. Therefore, the brick veneer should be properly supported or tied into the load bearing structural back-up wall, with brick header units or masonry ties, to withstand external and internal forces. However, as previously mentioned within the report, the header units in this wall are false and do not tie the brick veneer into the load bearing structural back-up wall. In addition, without header bricks the wall must incorporate wall ties to add the support. During each test cut masonry wall ties were either not visible or deteriorated. Without properly installed brick header units or masonry ties, the brick veneer is supporting its own structural load and all other forces acting on it, such as forces from thermal expansion and freeze/thaw cycles. Forces created from thermal expansion and contraction exert stress on the brick veneer. During warm weather, building materials tend to expand and during cold weather building materials contract. Depending on the building material, temperature, and other criteria, building components expand, contract, and move at different rates. Masonry typically expands vertically from supports and horizontally from the center of the wall area which exerts forces and structural loads on the brick veneer. Additionally, forces created from moisture infiltration and freeze/thaw cycles exert stress on the brick veneer. Failed window perimeter sealant allows for moisture to infiltrate the brick masonry façade. Additionally, no weeps or baffles were observed and the copper flashing installed does not terminate in an end damn condition, but instead terminate within the brick veneer. These conditions are problematic as the moisture that enters the brick masonry façade has no outlet, becomes trapped, is forced to flow horizontally, and deposits into the brick masonry. In climates with cold weather and freeze/thaw cycles, the trapped moisture will freeze and expand, exerting additional forces on the brick masonry veneer.

11

Vertical and horizontal façade expansion joints are included within brick masonry to account for the forces that create lateral and vertical movement within the brick masonry. Façade expansion joints in a veneer wall are considered joints where the brick masonry veneer is terminated at a predetermined location. The veneer is terminated to create an opening between wall sections, and the width of this joint is determined based upon the anticipated movement within the brick veneer. The resulting joint between the masonry is, in turn, filled with a preformed expansion joint material or with a backer rod and sealant materials capable of creating a flexible soft joint that can withstand compressive and tensile forces. This flexible soft joint permits the segregated sections of the brick veneer to move under thermal expansion, structural loads, or freeze/thaw forces without inducing excessive stress on the brick veneer or the back-up wall. However, while previous remedial repair attempts were made by saw cutting approximately 1/2" deep vertical expansion joints into the brick veneer, it does not appear that the installed expansion joints or the installed joint filler material were sufficient to allow for the amount of movement within the brick veneer. In order for an expansion joint to be effective, it must be cut all the way through the brick wythe, otherwise there is no accommodation for expansion. As stated above the joints were only cut half way through the brick making them ineffective. In addition, the location and spacing of the expansion joints were not adequate to accommodate the amount of movement that can be expended within a masonry veneer wall. In considering potential fall hazard associated with the brick masonry displacement, deteriorated mortar joint, spalled brick masonry unit, step cracking and cracked brick masonry unit defects located on the classroom wing’s Southeast elevation, it is Gale’s opinion that the Southeast elevation’s brick veneer should be removed and replaced with a new brick veneer system. The new brick veneer will be installed to match the size, color and pattern of the existing, with an air/vapor retarder installed over the back-up wall, and new mechanical ties installed at 16” on center. Additionally, the new brick veneer scope of work will include the removal and replacement of the steel lintels and the associated flashing, with new continuous steel lintels, through wall sheet metal flashing, and weeps installed at approximately 24” on center. Finally, the new brick veneer system will be installed with new horizontal and vertical expansion joints filled with a flexible sealant material, to allow for movement, and new perimeter sealant will be applied to all window locations. Gale’s recommended repairs are intended to provide a connection between the classroom wing addition’s back-up wall and brick veneer, mitigate the amount of moisture infiltration into the brick veneer, and provide weeps to allow any trapped moisture to exit the system. Please note that the full extent/condition of the CMU/brick masonry back-up walls were not observed during the evaluation. Additional mortar joint cutting and pointing and brick masonry replacement might need to be performed on the back-up walls. The cost to perform this work has been included within the preliminary estimates but may need to be re-evaluated once the exterior façade has been removed. The work associated with this façade is considered a high priority due to its potential safety concerns with the bowing masonry and lack of proper wall ties. All work associated within this wing has been included within the Phase 1 scope of services. Classroom Wing - Southwest Staircase Step cracking and displacement was observed on the interior terracotta tile finish within the classroom wing’s Southwest elevation staircase. Due to the quantity and extent of step cracking and displacement observed, Gale was concerned that the conditions were associated with larger structural

12

defects. However, after the visual and destructive evaluations were performed, it does not appear that the step cracking and displacement of the terracotta tiles are associated with any structural defects. Based on Gale’s evaluation, the classroom wing’s staircase structure is comprised of concrete columns and floor slabs, with a wall assembly consisting of, from the interior most component outward, terracotta tile, a narrow air space, and a two (2) wythe thick brick masonry wall. The terracotta tile finish is not tied into the concrete or brick masonry structure and moves independently. Therefore, it appears that the observed terracotta tile displacement and the step cracking is the result of the movement within the brick masonry and concrete structure conflicting with the movement of the terracotta tile finish. When the two components of the wall system move separately and are in conflict, the weaker of the materials will be the one to fracture/displace, which in this instance, is the terracotta tile. This occurs at the rigid concrete columns where the tile was cut down to get past the narrow wall gap. This also occurs around the window opening as well. The windows are steel formed and far more rigid than the terracotta tile. In both instances the rigid concrete and steel will cause the weaker terracotta tile or mortar to fracture if exerting a force onto the more rigid material. It is Gale’s opinion that the locations of the terracotta tile exhibiting step cracking should be removed and replaced. Additionally, vertical and horizontal expansion joints should be installed in the terracotta tile to absorb movement. As previously mentioned, the step cracking and displacement in the terracotta tile finish is not structural in nature. Therefore, the repairs are recommended for aesthetic purposes and do not need to be performed immediately. However, the cracking mortar and tile does have some sharp edges. These edges should be cleaned off or protected. As the cracking does not appear to be structural, this repair was not included within the Phase 1 scope of repairs. Although the sharp edges should be removed until the blocks can be replaced or repaired. Remaining Masonry Façades: The remainder of the building’s brick masonry facade appears to be in good to fair condition with isolated defect locations that require remedial work. The isolated defect locations including, but are not limited to, brick masonry displacement, failed/shallow brick masonry control joints, cracked brick masonry units, spalled brick masonry units, deteriorated mortar joints, step cracking, cracked concrete, spalled concrete, red rust deteriorated steel lintels, rust staining, and failed window perimeter sealant. It is Gale’s opinion that the following remedial repairs should be performed at the isolated defect locations, replace spalled/cracked brick masonry units, cut and point deteriorated mortar joints, saw cut new vertical and horizontal expansion joints, repair spalled/cracked concrete components, remove and replace window perimeter sealants, and remove steel anchors from the brick masonry facade. These items were not included within the immediate repair scope. Windows: Based on Gale’s visual and destructive observations, the classroom wing and gymnasium addition’s steel framed window systems are in poor condition. The steel framed windows consist of multiple single lite glazing units and do not appear to have a thermally broken frame. In addition, the window sashes are missing weather-stripping and window perimeter sealants are extensively failed. These window defects are decreasing the thermal performance of the window units that can lead to

13

discomfort of the building occupants. During Gale’s field evaluation, multiple broken/cracked glazing units, failed window perimeter sealants, and a significant amount of paint deterioration resulting in rusting of the underlying steel window system component, was observed. The rusting of the window system components is problematic as it corrodes the window system and causes the observed rust staining on the classroom wing and gymnasium. The aluminum windows within the original building appear to be in fair condition, with isolated locations of displaced window gaskets and failed window perimeter sealant observed. Typical window systems can have a service life of between 20 to 30 years, depending on the type of system, frequency of use and exposure to weather. Steel window have shown to have a longer service life if properly maintained. However, as the classroom wing and gymnasium addition’s steel window system are original to the buildings construction and appear to have exceeded their estimated service life. In addition, the aluminum windows of the original building are also approaching the end of its estimate service life. Therefore, it is Gale’s opinion that BCS should consider replacing the windows throughout the school. As the windows are in a varying degree of deterioration, it is not necessary to replace all the windows immediately. Gale would recommend that the windows within the classroom wing be replaced in conjunction with the masonry repairs to the facade. All other windows could be phased for future years. Please note that if BCS would like to move forward with the window replacement option, an additional evaluation should be performed to evaluate the as-built conditions of the window systems, as this was not part of Gale’s scope at this time. RECOMMENDATION SYNOPSIS Phase 1: Immediate Recommendation: ............................................................................... $716,000 Stabilization of the Classroom Wing Addition’s Southeast Elevation Veneer and Window Replacement

Remove and replace brick veneer.

Evaluate the now exposed back-up wall and repoint the wall 100%.

Install air/vapor retarder over the back-up wall.

Install wall ties at 16” on center.

Remove and replace the steel lintels with new continuous steel lintels, through wall flashing, and weeps at 24” on center.

Remove and replace the steel windows with new aluminum windows. Phase 2: Short Term Recommendation: ............................................................................... $348,000 Repair of All Other Elevations at Classroom Wing Addition

Remove and replace spalled/cracked brick masonry units.

Cut and point deteriorated mortar joint locations.

Perform repairs to interior of southwest stairs.

Saw cut new vertical and horizontal control joints.

Repair spalled/cracked concrete.

Remove and replace window perimeter sealants.

Install helical ties at classroom wing addition’s Southwest elevation.

14

Phase 3: Long Term Recommendation: ............................................................................. $1,066,000 Window Replacement

Remove and replace steel and aluminum windows with new aluminum windows. (Excluding the classroom wing’s Southeast elevation windows.)

Note: If there are no long term plans to replace all the window units then Gale would recommend replacing all window perimeter sealants at each door and window opening. This will provide an air and moisture barrier at the window perimeters that if not treated could allow moisture and air to enter the wall systems causing further deterioration. PRELIMINARY BUDGET ESTIMATES The budget estimates presented in the Executive Summary and Appendix A of this report have been broken down for each of the recommended options listed within this report’s Discussion and Recommendations section. These estimates, which are based on current construction costs, should be considered preliminary and should not be used for sensitive budgeting. These estimates have been generated from various sources and may not reflect the actual conditions at the time of construction. These budget estimates do not include soft costs associated with the Owner’s project management or site renovations associated with the site logistics. Also, please note that the costs of building materials, primarily metals and petroleum based products, are extremely volatile and BCS may want to utilize additional inflationary values for future planning. The recommended construction budgets listed within the Executive Summary portion of this report includes a 20% design contingency as a defined scope has not been determined, as well as to account for potential unforeseen conditions that may be encountered. The above budgets do not include yearly escalation costs should the phases be completed over multiple years. I:\831240\01 Evaluation\report\831240 2 Evaluation Report 2016 1025.docx

Date: October 25, 2016 Job Number: 831240

Project: Masonry Façade Evaluation Estimated/checked by: acp/srm

Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts File Name: I:\831240\01 Evaluation\report\Appendix A - Preliminary Cost Estimate

10% Overhead

and Profit Subtotal 20% Contingency Subtotal

Phase 1: Immediate RecommendationStabilization of Classroom Wing Southeast Elevation $542,202 $54,220.2 $596,422 $119,284 $715,707

Phase 2: Short Term RecommendationStabilization/Remedial Repair of Entire Veneer $263,559 $26,355.90 $289,915 $57,983 $347,898

Phase 3: Long Term RecommendationRemove and Replace Windows $806,908 $80,690.80 $887,599 $177,520 $1,065,119

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE

Summary Sheet


Project: Masonry Façade Evaluation Estimated/checked by: rco/srm


Item Description

Stabilization of the Classroom Wing's Southeast Number Unit Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total

Elevation Veneer and Window Replacement

General Conditions

Lift Rental 6 week $1,200.00 $7,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,200

Dumpster 8 each $1,100.00 $8,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8,800

Temporary Protection 1 lump sum $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,000

Pipe Staging 3,700 square feet $3.00 $11,100.00 $1.50 $5,550.00 $4.50 $16,650

Temporary removal of electric connections & re-install 1 lump sum $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 $3,000

Total General Conditions $40,650

Masonry Repairs

Rebuild exterior brick masonry 1,900 square feet $15.00 $28,500.00 $82.00 $155,800.00 $97.00 $184,300

Replace steel lintels with new above all windows 350 linear feet $38.00 $13,300.00 $30.00 $10,500.00 $68.00 $23,800

Install new through-wall flashing at all windows 350 linear feet $22.00 $7,700.00 $56.00 $19,600.00 $78.00 $27,300

Install new expansion joints 200 linear feet $10.00 $2,000.00 $15.00 $3,000.00 $25.00 $5,000

Install new air vapor barrier behind exterior masonry 1,900 square feet $4.00 $7,600.00 $4.00 $7,600.00 $8.00 $15,200

Repoint Deteriorated Mortar Joints of Back-up Wall 1,900 square feet $5.00 $9,500.00 $22.00 $41,800.00 $27.00 $51,300

Total Masonry Repairs $306,900

Windows

Aluminum Windows 1,900 square feet $65.00 $123,500.00 $20.00 $38,000.00 $85.00 $161,500

Operable Aluminum Windows 54 each $85.00 $4,590.00 $18.00 $972.00 $103.00 $5,562

Screens (at Operable Units) 54 each $135.00 $7,290.00 $0.00 $0.00 $135.00 $7,290

Sill Pan Flashings 400 linear feet $16.00 $6,400.00 $8.50 $3,400.00 $24.50 $9,800

Window Perimeter Sealants 1,000 linear feet $3.00 $3,000.00 $7.50 $7,500.00 $10.50 $10,500

Total Windows $194,652

Subtotal $542,202

Phase 1: Immediate RecommendationPRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE

Engineering EstimateLabor CostMaterial CostQuantity




Item Description

Stabilization of the Classroom Wing's Southwest Number Unit Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total

Elevation / Remedial Repairs of Entire Veneer

General Conditions

Lift Rental 8 week $1,200.00 $9,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,200.00 $9,600

Dumpster 6 each $1,100.00 $6,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,600

Pipe Staging 3,000 square feet $3.00 $9,000.00 $1.50 $4,500.00 $4.50 $13,500

Temporary Protection 1 lump sum $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 $2,000

Temporary removal of electric connections & re-install 1 lump sum $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000


Masonry Repairs

Install mechanical tie anchors to entire veneer @

Classroom Wing's Southwest Elevation (Elev #2) 2,400 square feet $4.00 $9,600.00 $18.00 $43,200.00 $22.00 $52,800

Replace Masonry Units 600 units $10.00 $6,000.00 $65.00 $39,000.00 $75.00 $45,000

Repoint Deteriorated Mortar (LF) 1200 square feet $5.00 $6,000.00 $22.00 $26,400.00 $27.00 $32,400

Repair Spalled Concrete 90 square feet $10.00 $900.00 $55.00 $4,950.00 $65.00 $5,850

Repair Cracked Concrete 135 linear feet $2.00 $270.00 $8.00 $1,080.00 $10.00 $1,350

Repair Spalled Limestone 2 square feet $10.00 $20.00 $55.00 $110.00 $65.00 $130

Saw cut vertical & horizontal expansion joints 400 linear feet $10.00 $4,000.00 $25.00 $10,000.00 $35.00 $14,000

Scrape, prime paint exposed rusted steel lintels 12 linear feet $7.00 $84.00 $10.00 $120.00 $17.00 $204

Remove existing anchors from masonry & replace brick 75 units $10.00 $750.00 $65.00 $4,875.00 $75.00 $5,625

Saw cut vertical & horizontal expansion joints in

terracotta tile within the Southwest Staircase125 linear feet $10.00 $1,250.00 $20.00 $2,500.00 $30.00 $3,750

Replace terracotta tile units 50 units $10.00 $500.00 $65.00 $3,250.00 $75.00 $3,750

Paint entire terracotta tile itnerior finish 2,500 square feet $2.00 $5,000.00 $4.00 $10,000.00 $6.00 $15,000

Repair roof edge metal 200 linear feet $5.00 $1,000.00 $20.00 $4,000.00 $25.00 $5,000

Total Masonry Repairs $184,859

Building Sealants

Remove and replace window perimeter sealants 4,000 linear feet $3.00 $12,000.00 $7.50 $30,000.00 $10.50 $42,000

Total Perimeter Sealants $42,000

Subtotal $263,559


Phase 2: Short Term Recommendation

Quantity Material Cost Labor Cost Engineering Estimate




Item Description

Window Replacement Number Unit Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total

General Conditions

Mobilization 1 lump sum $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $73,400.00 $73,400

Dumpster 10 each $1,200.00 $12,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,200.00 $12,000

Lift Rental 12 week $1,200.00 $14,400.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,200.00 $14,400

Temporary Protection 1 lump sum $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000


Windows

Aluminum Windows 6,700 square feet $65.00 $435,500.00 $20.00 $134,000.00 $85.00 $569,500

Operable Aluminum Windows 216 each $85.00 $18,360.00 $18.00 $3,888.00 $103.00 $22,248

Screens (at Operable Units) 216 each $135.00 $29,160.00 $0.00 $0.00 $135.00 $29,160

Sill Pan Flashings 1,600 linear feet $16.00 $25,600.00 $8.50 $13,600.00 $24.50 $39,200

Window Perimeter Sealants 4,000 linear feet $3.00 $12,000.00 $7.50 $30,000.00 $10.50 $42,000

Total Windows $702,108

Subtotal $806,908


Phase 3: Long Term Recommendation

Quantity Material Cost Labor Cost Engineering Estimate

PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION Edward W. Brooke Charter School Roslindale, Massachusetts Gale JN 831240

B - 1

1. Partial view of the Brooke Charter School’s Southwest facing elevation, photo was taken looking Northeast while standing on Cummins Highway.

2. Partial view of the Brooke Charter School’s Southwest facing elevation, photo was taken looking

Northwest while standing on Ada Street.


B - 2

3. Partial photo of the Brooke Charter School’s Southeast facing elevation, photo was taken looking North

while standing on Cummins Highway.

4. Partial photo of the Brooke Charter School’s Southeast facing elevation, photo was taken looking West

while standing in the Northeast corner of the school’s driveway.


B - 3

5. Partial view of the Brooke Charter School’s Northeast facing elevation, photo was taken looking

Southwest while standing on Allen Street.

6. Partial View of the Brooke Charter School’s Northwest facing elevation, photo was taken looking

Southeast while standing on Brown Ave.


B - 4

7. Partial view of the Brooke Charter Schools courtyard elevations, photo was taken looking Southwest while standing in the school’s playground area.

8. Partial view of the Brooke Charter Schools Northeast facing elevation, photo was taken looking Southwest while standing in the school’s playground area.


B - 5

9. Partial view of the Brooke Charter School’s Northwest facing elevation, photo was taken looking Southeast while standing on Brown Ave.

10. Partial view of the Brooke Charter Schools Northwest facing elevation, photo was taken looking East while standing at the intersection of Cummins Highway and Brown Ave.


B - 6

11. Photo of brick masonry displacement along the building’s Southeast facing elevation. A significant amount of brick masonry displacement was observed above and adjacent to the existing window steel lintels. Note that at some areas of brick masonry displacement have shifted one inch (1”) or greater.

12. Photo of observed red rust corrosion on the underside of a window steel lintel.


B - 7

13. Partial photo of a “cut-in” brick masonry control joint. It appears that the typical “cut-in” expansion joint was saw cut to a depth of roughly on half of an inch (1/2”) and infilled with sealant.

14. Photo of typical sealant failure at “cut-in” brick masonry expansion joint location.


B - 8

15. Photo of a typical brick masonry step cracking location. With the assistance of a crack gauge, the above photograph brick masonry step crack appears to be approximately .040 inch (.040”) in width.

16. Photo of a typical spalled brick masonry unit.


B - 9

17. Typical photo of an observed deteriorated mortar joint location.

18. Photo of a large brick masonry step crack that appears to originate at the edge of a window’s steel lintel location. The step crack was too wide to assess with the assistance of a crack gauge, but appeared to be roughly one half an inch (1/2”) wide at their point of origin.


B - 10

19. Photo of a typical concrete crack observed within the building’s concrete foundation.

20. Photo of a concrete spall location observed within the building’s concrete foundation.


B - 11

21. Photo of destructive test cut #1, the copper flashing appears to extend past the end of the window steel lintel.

22. Photo of destructive test cut #2, the copper fabric was lift up to reveal that the window steel lintel is welded to an 8”x8”x1/2” steel plate that is bolted to the concrete structure beyond.


B - 12

23. Photo of destructive test cut #3, performed below an observed header course. Test cut later revealed that the observed brick masonry header course was in fact false and that no ties were observed between the brick masonry veneer and the back-up wall assembly.

24. Photo of destructive test cut #4 showing how the existing terracotta block tile abuts the main staircase’s concrete structure. Please note that the step cracking above this test cut location appears to be in line with where the terracotta tile abuts the concrete column.


B - 13

25. Photo of destructive test cut #5 revealing the 1-5/8” thick terracotta tile block, the 1-3/8” wide air space and the brick masonry structure beyond.

26. Photo of a steel window system sill condition in which the rusted steel window components has resulted in rust staining on the brick masonry and concrete sill below.


B - 14

27. Photos of typical window jamb locations of a steel window system located on the classroom wing addition’s Southeast elevation. Due to the horizontal movement of the brick masonry veneer, the perimeter sealant on the left jamb is significantly compressed and the perimeter sealant on the right jamb has stretched and created a gap between the sealant and the brick masonry.

28. Photo of a typical failed window perimeter sealant of an aluminum window located on the original building structure.


B - 15

29. Photo of a steel window system with cracked/broken glazing and blistering/peeling paint allowing for rust deterioration to form on the steel window components beyond.

I:\831240\01 Evaluation\report\Appendix B - Photodoc\831240 Photodoc 2016 0622.docx

190

©2016

Gale Associates, Inc.

Engineers and Planners

163 LIBBEY PARKWAY | WEYMOUTH, MA

02189P 781.335.6465 F 781.335.6467

www.gainc.com

Boston Baltimore Orlando Hartford

©2016

Gale Associates, Inc.

Engineers and Planners

163 LIBBEY PARKWAY | WEYMOUTH, MA

02189P 781.335.6465 F 781.335.6467

www.gainc.com

Boston Baltimore Orlando Hartford

Brick Masonry Enclosure Evaluation Report Brooke Charter ...

Documents

Transcript of Brick Masonry Enclosure Evaluation Report Brooke Charter ...