I ’ve heard that there have been updates to the AAMA standards. If I’ve been running the AAMA 502-02 spray test how do I need to adjust?
The AAMA 502-02 has been replaced by the AAMA 502-08 and the AAMA 511-08.

AAMA 502-02 was called “Voluntary Specification for Field Testing of Windows and Sliding Glass Doors”.

AAMA 502-08 is now called “Voluntary Specification for Field Testing of Newly Installed Fenestration Products”. The AAMA 502 can no longer be performed on any window or door that has been installed for more than 6 months. It is only to be used “during construction, prior to issuance of the building occupancy permit but no later than six months after installation of the fenestration product.” (AAMA 502-08, page 4, section 1.1). The aim here is to discover corrections that need to be made early in the construction process in order to minimize the financial impact on any responsible parties.

Also of significance is that the changed standard specifies that the 502 test “shall be performed by an AAMA accredited independent testing agency.” (page 5, section 3.4). So basically the AAMA 502 has gone the way of the dodo bird for most test engineers. 

Now most will be performing the AAMA 511-08 instead. It’s a new procedure but it’s basically the same as the AAMA 502-02. It’s to be used in the case of any window or door that has been installed more than 6 months previous. And nowhere in the AAMA 511 does it state that the test can only be performed by an AAMA accredited agency.

Both the AAMA 502 and the AAMA 511 refer to the ASTM E1105 and ASTM E2128 for various things, so these standards should be known as well.

The ASTM E2128 is a good standard to know — it’s referred to by many other new standards, and it’s also used when other tests produce failures but an actual cause cannot be determined. 

All these standards can seem stringent and somewhat arbitrary. The best approach is to be well versed in as many pertinent standards as possible so that you are covering all your bases and performing any test procedure correctly. Because of the complicated nature of the test standards, the performance of these procedures is one of the things looked at most often by both sides in litigation.

How often do I need to calibrate my air infiltration test kit?
Every 6 months:
(The ASTM E 783 refers to AAMA 204-98 page #4 FIG.1 for dimensions and guidelines of the field calibration box).

ASTM E 783-02 “Standard Test Method for Field Measurement of Air Leakage Through Installed Exterior Windows and Doors” Page #4 Paragraph 12.1 “All test apparatus shall be calibrated at a minimum of every six months”.

CLICK HERE to see the RM Group’s calibration box, now available.

Why does my spray rack have to be calibrated according to the ASTM E331 if I’m performing a spray test according to the ASTM E1105 or the AAMA 502 specifications?

The ASTM E1105 standard uses the same rules for spray apparatus calibration as the E331 does. The ASTM E547 does as well. The AAMA 502-08 and 511-08 refer to the ASTM E331 for this calibration too.

How often does my spray rack have to be calibrated?

Every 6 months:
ASTM E 1105-00 “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” page #4 paragraph 9.1.1 “Recalibrate at intervals necessary in the judgment of the testing agency but not more than six months.”

ASTM E 331-00 “Standard Test Method for Water Penetration of Exterior Windows, Skylights, Doors, and Curtain Walls by Uniform Static Air Pressure Difference” page #3 paragraph 9.1.1 “Recalibrate at intervals of not more than six months.”

ASTM E 547-00 “Standard Test Method for Water Penetration of Exterior Windows, Skylights, Doors, and Curtain Walls by Uniform Cyclic Air Pressure Difference” page #3 paragraph 9.1.1 “Recalibrate at intervals of not more than 6 months.”

CLICK HERE to see the RM Group’s spray rack calibration box, now available.

Can I use your Rain Wand, (the AAMA 501.2 spray nozzle apparatus) on a residential window or for an 1105 test?
NO!! You could cause damage to the window. The Rain Wand is only to be used for the AAMA 501.2 test on curtain walls or storefront type windows.

Is changing the pressure in the whole room with a blower door sufficient when performing the ASTM E1105 or the AAMA 502.08 or 511.08 spray test?
No. You must have a specific pressure difference at the surface of the test specimen.
ASTM E1105-00, paragraph 6.2.1 Test Chamber—
A test chamber or box made of plywood, plastic, or other suitable material and sealed against the test specimen. Test chambers mounted on the interior must be made so that interior surfaces and joints of the specimen can be easily observed for water penetration during the test…

Scott Wood Says: 
October 7th, 2008 at 3:35 pm   editIn your comment on using a blower door to depressurize a room you state it cannot. You go on to suggest a specific pressure difference at the surface of the test specimen is required. “Is changing the pressure in the whole room with a blower door sufficient when performing the ASTM E1105 or the AAMA 502.08 or 511.08 spray test?
No. You must have a specific pressure difference at the surface of the test specimen.”
I’m still trying to understand the physics. Would not measuring the pressure difference at the surface of the window, both exterior and interior, and adjusting it to the specified pressure difference provide proper surface test pressure? A pressure difference between the room (test chamber or box) would be the same unless makeup air was providing a pressure variation on the surface. However, since you can monitor the pressure difference at the window surface verse the exterior, a uniform pressure over the window surface would be provided using either the room or a test chamber. Please help me understand the requirements for the test chamber verse room pressure difference. Thanks

Todd Mikkelson, RM Group

todd@sprayrack.com

I understand that you’re thinking the room itself could be a huge air chamber. It’s not so much that that is a wrong assessment, because theoretically it’s not wrong. But by performing a test in this manner you’re modifying the standard. Whenever you modify the standard you’re making yourself vulnerable to an invalid test ruling during litigation.

The ASTM E1105 specifies in paragraph 6.2.1:
Test Chamber–A test chamber or box made of plywood, plastic, or other suitable material and sealed against the test specimen…
…At least one static air pressure tap shall be provided to measure the chamber air pressure versus the ambient air pressure and shall be so located that the reading is unaffected by exterior impinging wind , or by the velocity of air supply to or from the chamber.
6.2.2 Air System–A controllable blower, compressed air supply exhaust system, or reversible blower designed to supply the required maximum air pressure difference across the specimen. The system must provide essentially constant air flow at a fixed pressure for the required test period.
6.2.3 Pressure measuring apparatus–A device to measure the test pressure difference within a tolerance of plus or minus 2% or 2.5Pa (0.01 in. of water column), whichever is greater.

Then there’s a diagram of a chamber built within a room and around the inside of the test specimen with an air system with a control valve and a pressure measuring device.

I used to be hired by a window company to video spray tests and record the application by the test engineers among other things. The slightest deviation from the test standard on my video was the first thing looked at by their lawyers. They would go to court and motion that the test application was not performed according to the ASTM or AAMA standard, therefore the test was invalid, and that was about it. They were off the hook of having to take any responsibility to replace windows. Of course it was usually not the window that turned out being the problem, but any one of the possibly responsible parties could contend the performance of the test procedures.

It would be pretty easy for a lawyer or an expert witness or consultant to have the court look at these paragraphs and the diagram from the E1105 I’ve quoted here and then point out that none of these things were done in this fashion and it would be ruled an invalid test.

I realize there are people who do the test with a blower door because it saves them from doing the task of building an air chamber. But the test also says that you must remove the trim and whatever else surrounds the window so that you can see all parts of the window frame that’s inside the wall in order to observe water penetration. That’s actually the hardest part of building the chamber anyway.

The method of measuring the air pressure at the window surface is also an issue here. The only way of doing this that I can think of in a case where a blower door is being used would be to hold a barometer close to the window. That’s not going to give you the plus or minus 2% accuracy also required by the standard and it’s barometric pressure instead of static air pressure.

So basically the point is that whenever you’re modifying the procedure, you’re not performing the test according to the standard. This is why the standard is so specific. There’s got to be some set of rules in order to have performance tests on the materials being used in the architecture.

Thank you.

Scott Wood Says: 
December 22nd, 2008 at 3:35 pm   edit

Todd,

Thanks so much for confirming my suspicions. Yes, a standard is not one unless it is followed the way it is written. Hope you have a happy holiday. Thanks again for the information.