Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 02/21/16. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Evaluation and Repair of a Distressed Masonry Veneer Façade: A Case Study

of the Litton Reaves Repair Project

J. E. Peterson1 and T. Shelton2

1
Whitlock Dalrymple Poston & Associates, P.C., 10621 Gateway Boulevard, Suite
200, Manassas, Virginia 20110; PH (703) 257-9280; FAX (703) 257-7589; email:
epeterson@wdpa.com
2
Viginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 90 Sterrett Facilities Complex,
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061; PH (540) 231-4076; email: sheltont@vt.edu

ABSTRACT
The Litton Reaves facility is a multi-use laboratory and classroom building for the
Animal Science Department of Virginia Tech. Constructed in the early 1980s, the
facility had been in service for almost 20 years before symptoms of distress began to
appear in the exterior cladding of the building. The severity of the distress was
punctuated by the partial failure of a section of oolitic limestone panel that fractured
and had to be removed from the facility. This case study offers an overview of the
evaluation performed on the exterior cladding system of the building and discusses
the mechanisms that led to the problems in the brick and limestone veneer. The paper
discusses the repair program and highlights several structural repair and sequencing
challenges that were encountered due to the redistribution of forces within the veneer.
Correction of nagging water penetration and air infiltration problems were sequenced
and performed in conjunction with the structural repairs in order to improve the
building’s interior conditions while meeting the University’s “design-to” budget.

INTRODUCTION
The Litton Reaves facility is a three story building on the campus of Virginia Tech
consisting of a combination of classrooms, office spaces and laboratory facilities
(Figure 1). In August of 1999, a portion of one of the limestone panels fractured,
became loose and consequently had to be removed from the building for safety
purposes. A preliminary review of the exterior cladding by University personnel
identified other areas of similar distress throughout the façade including displaced
and cracked exterior brick masonry, cracked and spalled limestone panels, displaced
interior slabs, cracked concrete masonry interior walls and other cladding related
problems throughout the facility. The University undertook an initial repair program
to stabilize some of the limestone by installing threaded steel rods set in high-strength
epoxy at displaced or cracked panels. Ultimately, a more in-depth investigation was
undertaken to determine the underlying causes of the distress. Repairs were then

85

Copyright ASCE 2009 Forensic Engineering Congress 2009

Forensic Engineering 2009
 86 FORENSIC ENGINEERING 2009
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 02/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

designed to restore the integrity and support of the building’s exterior façade while
maintaining occupancy of the facility.

Figure 1. Litton Reaves front elevation.

BUILDING EVALUATION
The Litton Reaves building was constructed with a reinforced concrete frame
founded on concrete caisson foundation systems. The exterior skin of the building
consisted of brick veneer with bands of limestone panels and limestone window
surrounds. The exterior veneer was supported by concrete grade beams spanning
between the caissons at the first floor level and by structural steel angles connected to
embedded plates at each floor line. Limestone window surrounds were supported on
the exterior perimeter beams and clipped to the concrete with bolted steel angles.
Figure 2 shows a typical elevation and wall section for the building at the window
stack.

Copyright ASCE 2009 Forensic Engineering Congress 2009

Forensic Engineering 2009
 FORENSIC ENGINEERING 2009 87
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 02/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 2. Typical building section and window detail.

The evaluation of the building generally consisted of a visual survey of the facade
distress, probe openings at critical points of lateral and vertical restraint, water testing
of exterior brick veneer and window systems, non-destructive testing of structural
framing systems and material testing of façade components. The brick was found to
be of generally good quality with little to no evidence of durability problems that
would require a complete recladding. Localized areas of distress such as through-
brick cracks and spalls were observed sporadically at the shelf angle locations and
building corners. The condition of the brick at the upper floors was appreciably
worse with visible cracking and out-of-plane displacement. The masonry mortar
exhibited some minor shrinkage cracking, but otherwise appeared to be in reasonably
good condition in most areas of the building. Occasional voids in the head joints
were observed in probe openings which, combined with the shrinkage cracking,
contributed to moderate rates of water penetration.

During the inspection of the limestone panels, the anchors for lateral restraint were
found to be incorrectly installed into oversized holes in the panels that were not filled
with mortar as recommended by the Indiana Limestone Institute. This permitted
excessive free play of the panel connections prior to engaging the lateral restraint and
allowed many of the panels to displace out-of-plane. The brick masonry veneer ties
were located non-destructively using a pachometer (ferrous metal detector). The
spacing between ties was somewhat inconsistent and there were large areas where no
ties were detected, such as at the corners of the building. Random probe openings
indicated that the galvanized ties displayed very little corrosion, even after 25 years
of service; however, because the tie spacing was often excessive, parts of the
masonry veneer were not adequate to resist the design lateral loads. Both the

Copyright ASCE 2009 Forensic Engineering Congress 2009

Forensic Engineering 2009
 88 FORENSIC ENGINEERING 2009
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 02/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

limestone panels and the brick veneer would require supplemental lateral restraint to
stabilize the veneer.

The original design did not include horizontal expansion joints below the shelf angles
to accommodate expansion of the veneer as is required in current industry
recommendations. Distress resulting from restrained differential movement was
obvious and widespread. Frame shortening combined with clay brick moisture
expansion had taken a severe toll on the structural integrity the cladding. Based on
coefficients of volume change for these conditions, maximum relative displacements
for the veneer were likely as much as 1” with almost 1/2” at the mid height shelf
angles. Figure 3 schematically depicts this phenomenon and the resultant distress.

Displacement of
brick and limestone

Figure 3. Schematic illustration of relative movement for brick veneer over a

concrete frame and resultant displacements of brick and limestone.
The horizontal legs of the masonry shelf angles were typically set in contact with the
brick below, developing internal stress as the veneer expanded into the bottom of the
angle. This was most evident where hard plastic shims were found between the shelf
angle and the brick below, likely to level the shelf angle. Because the shims were
never removed, the compressive stresses formed between the angle and the brick
crushed and split the plastic shims, leaving an indentation from the brick cores. The
masonry veneer below the two plastic shims was also cracked due to the stresses
generated. The original design specified bolted connections between the shelf angle
and the embedded angle. However, due to irregularities in the concrete slab edges,
the original bolted connection was often abandoned and the angle was welded either
along the heel of the angle or along the toe of the vertical leg. Where the veneer
came in contact with the shelf angles, the forces created by the restrained movement

Copyright ASCE 2009 Forensic Engineering Congress 2009

Forensic Engineering 2009
 FORENSIC ENGINEERING 2009 89
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 02/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

cracked and spalled the masonry and limestone, or in some cases, distorted bolts and
fractured the welds of the supporting elements. With the connection to the building
severed, the masonry above the shelf angle became predominantly supported by the
masonry below, thus increasing the internal stresses on the veneer of the lower levels
(Figure 4).

Figure 4. Restrained movement in brick veneer and resulting damage.

Clockwise from top right 1) broken weld connection behind angle; 2)
overstressed bolts with deformed washers; 3) rotation of shelf angle and
cracking of mortar joints; 4) crushing of embedded shims with indentations
from brick cores.

Copyright ASCE 2009 Forensic Engineering Congress 2009

Forensic Engineering 2009
 90 FORENSIC ENGINEERING 2009
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 02/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Limestone panels installed at the roof elevation were constructed to bear on a

galvanized plate with a toe bar welded to the leading edge at the top of the spandrel
beam. The inside face of the panel was notched at the bottom to receive the lipped
plate connection, but no mortar was installed between the stone and the steel. On
many of the panels, the front edge was observed bearing directly on top of the panel
below and the panel was completely disengaged from the bearing connection. This
condition resulted in fractured welds at the support points and spalling on the interior
face of the panel from the masonry expansion (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Condition of limestone panels at supports and broken weld on support

plate.
In addition to the structural deficiencies noted in the façade, several serviceability
problems were observed in the exterior wall system. Significant air infiltration
through the building envelope was apparent while walking through the hallways on
windy days that originated from the window systems and ceiling plenums. Severe air
exfiltration was observed from the masonry cavities on the exterior due to positive
building pressurization and an incomplete air/moisture barrier for the building. A
study of the drawings and the interior plenum spaces above the drop ceilings
indicated that there were large areas where air could migrate into the cavity of the
veneer from behind the limestone panels and around the windows and doors.

Copyright ASCE 2009 Forensic Engineering Congress 2009

Forensic Engineering 2009
 FORENSIC ENGINEERING 2009 91
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 02/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Flashings were often terminated at the limestone window surrounds and other
interruptions without end dams and were held back from the exterior face of the
brick. The sections of the through wall flashing spanning the wall cavity were filled
with mortar and often sagged in the cavity, which inhibited the drainage of water.
Coping stone flashings were not terminated correctly on the leading edge, nor were
they tied into the roof membrane on the back side of the parapet (Figure 6). Because
of these deficiencies, testing was performed on the masonry in accordance with
ASTM C1601, “Standard Test Method for Field Determination of Water Penetration
of Masonry Wall Surfaces” to determine how much water would be expected to
penetrate the veneer during a severe rain event. The testing revealed that the veneer
was relatively permeable and would experience significant volumes of water in the
cavity during periods of heavy wind driven rain. Thus, the condition of the flashing
system was critical to the overall performance of the wall system and would have to
be repaired.

Figure 6. Poorly installed flashing including shelf angles with missing end dams
and cavity.
Sealants installed around windows, between brick and limestone, at limestone panel
joints, at window perimeters and at capstone joints had all failed. The sealant texture
was hard and brittle, and sealant was often cracked or extruded from the joints at
material transitions due to expansion of the veneer. The sealants on the building
appeared to be original, indicating that they have been in service for approximately
25 years, far beyond the anticipated service life of most sealant materials. Because
there were no secondary barriers to water penetration, failures of these sealants
allowed water to enter directly into the building through limestone panels above the
window heads. Water damaged fiberglass insulation and water staining on the ceiling
tiles were observed at several locations above and around the windows (Figure 7).

Copyright ASCE 2009 Forensic Engineering Congress 2009

Forensic Engineering 2009
 92 FORENSIC ENGINEERING 2009
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 02/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 7. Failed panel sealant joints and resultant leakage over windows.
Water tests performed on the operable windows in accordance with ASTM E 1105,
“Standard Test Method for Field Determination of Water Penetration of Installed
Exterior Windows, Skylights, Doors, and Curtain Walls, by Uniform or Cyclic Static
Air Pressure Difference” resulted in severe water penetration into the building. The
leakage was the result of failed internal sealants, worn glazing and sash gaskets and
ineffective weep components. Since refurbishing the windows would only solve a
portion of the leakage issues during severe weather events, it was recommended that
the windows be replaced.

REPAIR PROGRAM
Based on the findings of the forensic investigation, the University initiated a repair
program for the building. Since funding for the program was limited, and the
building was to remain occupied during the restoration, a re-cladding scenario was
ruled out and a selective repair program was initiated. The repairs were prioritized
based on the funds available to correct the structural deficiencies first, with the
remaining funds used to improve the serviceability problems such as water
management and energy losses. The program objectives were as follows:
• Re-establish reliable support of the veneer at each floor level;
• Relieve the stresses currently stored in the building façade;
• Provide for additional future movements from any residual long-term
expansion and cyclic thermal movements;
• Improve the water management capability of masonry flashings and weep
systems;
• Reduce the water penetration through the masonry veneer and limestone
panels; and
• Replace the existing window systems throughout the building.
Coincidentally, a new stone masonry building was slated to be constructed directly
adjacent to the Litton Reaves facility that would share the loading dock space and
have a common wall in the southeast corner of the building. Both construction
projects shared work areas and lay-down space, which required careful sequencing of

Copyright ASCE 2009 Forensic Engineering Congress 2009

Forensic Engineering 2009
 FORENSIC ENGINEERING 2009 93
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 02/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the work to prevent delays to both projects. The most significant challenge was to
maintain operations in the facility during construction. Primary and emergency
egress points had to be maintained at all times throughout construction. Lighted
sidewalk sheds were designed to provide protection from potential overhead hazards
from the distressed cladding and were erected two years prior to construction. The
same systems were also designed and utilized to isolate and protect the pedestrians
from the construction operations and support the scaffold systems during
construction.

As the work was to be done with the veneer in place, the repairs were sequenced to
incrementally reduce the load in the facade while establishing new connections to the
building frame. This was performed by working in a “top down” approach on the
building. Existing shelf angles were removed in sections while shoring each floor of
masonry (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Shoring of existing masonry after replacement of shelf angle sections.

Because of lead based paint on the structural steel, and asbestos mastics found on the
existing flashing materials, shelf angles were replaced with new galvanized steel
angles bolted into the existing concrete frame. Angles were mounted to create room
for future expansion and contraction of the floors below and new flashing elements
were installed with hemmed drip edges and end dams at each floor to improve the
water management system. After isolating and re-supporting the masonry at the top
shelf angle, the process was repeated sequentially on the floors below.

The limestone panel systems around the entire perimeter of the building at the third
floor and parapet levels were temporarily removed from the building to obtain access
to the damaged supports. Removal of the panel systems was complicated by the fact
that the building envelope was breached at each window by the removal of the
limestone panels that served as the primary weather resistive barrier in these locations
(Figure 9). Building occupants were temporarily relocated while the panels were
removed and the repairs were performed in the area. The removal of the panels to
repair the supports also facilitated access to the most severe air infiltration points and
allowed for supplemental sheathing and framing to be added behind the limestone in
order to seal the gap between the window head and the slab above. Once the closure
panel was installed, the building occupant was free to re-occupy the office. The

Copyright ASCE 2009 Forensic Engineering Congress 2009

Forensic Engineering 2009
 94 FORENSIC ENGINEERING 2009
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 02/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

entire process took approximately 3 days per window to complete from beginning to
end and the impact to the office occupant was minimized where possible.

Figure 9. Removal of limestone panel exposing breach in exterior envelope and

installation of envelope closure panels.
To reduce the amount of water penetration through the veneer, the mortar joints of
the entire masonry exterior were tuck-pointed. This also permitted the repair of the
existing masonry cracks and allowed the mortar from the repairs to the shelf angles to
be replaced with the tuck-pointing, resulting in a more uniform appearance of the
building façade. Because of the unusual color of the original brick, a suitable
replacement could not be obtained to install where the brick could not be salvaged.
Even with an approximate 80% salvage rate, new brick would be required to be
blended with the old in most areas of the building. A decorative plaza perimeter wall
constructed with an identical brick to the main building was demolished and the brick
was salvaged to be used on the building in order to make replaced brick less
noticeable.

After the project was underway, the University elected to replace all the windows in
the facility as a supplemental project that ran concurrently with the repairs to the
cladding. A thermally broken heavy commercial window system with low E glass
was installed to further improve the energy efficiency of the building. This work was
sequenced into the phasing of both the repair project and the newly constructed
facility adjacent to Litton Reaves.

After the repair project and the window installation were complete, the University
elected to stain the brick masonry to allow it to blend aesthetically with the stone
masonry buildings in the vicinity, including the new building with which it shared a
loading dock. The completed exterior facade is shown in Figure 10.

Copyright ASCE 2009 Forensic Engineering Congress 2009

Forensic Engineering 2009
 FORENSIC ENGINEERING 2009 95
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 02/21/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Figure 10. Elevations of Litton Reaves after installation of masonry stain.

CONCLUSION
The project was completed in 2008. The University spent approximately 2.9 million
dollars on the renovation which was performed on-schedule, under budget, and with
minimal disruption to the building occupants. Since the renovation, the water leakage
observed through exterior walls and window systems was eliminated and the severe
air infiltration experienced during the winter months was significantly reduced. On
the exterior, the improvements made to the lateral and vertical support conditions,
coupled with the new horizontal and vertical movement joints installed, allow the
veneer to expand and contract without developing the internal stresses that led to the
previous cladding failures. Recent exterior surveys of the building indicate that the
lateral and vertical displacements have been arrested and there is no evidence of
distressed veneer or masonry cracking. Overall, the Litton Reaves Repair project
demonstrates how significant serviceability and energy efficiency improvements can
be implemented into a structural and architectural repair program without imparting
substantial additional costs to the project.

REFERENCES:
Indiana Limestone Institute of America, Inc., Bedford, Indiana
Brick Industry Association Technical Notes 18 and 18A (2006). “Volume Changes –
Analysis and Effects of Movement.” Brick Institute of America, Reston, Virginia
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania

Copyright ASCE 2009 Forensic Engineering Congress 2009

Forensic Engineering 2009