Construction Defects

HVAC Related Pipe Freeze

Construction Defects

HVAC Related Pipe Freeze

Construction Defects

HVAC Related Pipe Freeze

A large hospital addition in the Toronto area was adjoined to one of the existing exterior walls of the original building.  A void of approximately 12 inches was left between the existing wall of the old building and the new wall of the addition.  The existing building housed a mechanical room along the subject exterior wall.  A louver in the exterior wall had served as the fresh-air intake to the air-handling unit.  When the addition was built, the new wall would have blocked the intake louver, so the fresh-air path to the air-handling unit was ducted to a gravity ventilator on the roof.   

Rooftop Gravity Ventilator

During a period of low temperatures, cold air entered the building through the rooftop gravity ventilator.  The cold air travelled into the wall cavity between the existing building and the addition via the opening in the existing wall where the fresh-air intake louver formerly resided.  The cold air froze a 2” fire-sprinkler pipe running within the wall cavity to a fire-hose box in the corridor of the addition.  The pipe freeze caused flooding and damage to the hospital addition.

Louver Opening
Frozen Pipe in Wall Cavity

Various parties associated with the design and construction of the hospital addition stated that after the fresh-air intake louver was removed from the existing building’s exterior wall, the opening should have been sealed per the project drawings.  It was further alleged that, had the opening been sealed as the plans instructed, then the pipe freeze would not have occurred.

EIS was asked to review the project drawings, specifications, design correspondences and construction documentation to determine who was responsible to have sealed the louver opening.  After careful review, EIS determined that the instructions given in the architectural plans stated that the mechanical contractor was responsible to seal the opening.  Contrarily, the mechanical plans also included a note that general trades were responsible to seal the opening, not the mechanical contractor.  With each contractor focused on the drawings pertinent to their particular trade, each followed the instruction on their respective plans that they were not responsible to seal the opening.  Ultimately, it was an oversight of the design team that produced the building plans which resulted in the unsealed louver opening which lead to the pipe freeze and resultant flooding.      

A large hospital addition in the Toronto area was adjoined to one of the existing exterior walls of the original building.  A void of approximately 12 inches was left between the existing wall of the old building and the new wall of the addition.  The existing building housed a mechanical room along the subject exterior wall.  A louver in the exterior wall had served as the fresh-air intake to the air-handling unit.  When the addition was built, the new wall would have blocked the intake louver, so the fresh-air path to the air-handling unit was ducted to a gravity ventilator on the roof.   

Rooftop Gravity Ventilator

During a period of low temperatures, cold air entered the building through the rooftop gravity ventilator.  The cold air travelled into the wall cavity between the existing building and the addition via the opening in the existing wall where the fresh-air intake louver formerly resided.  The cold air froze a 2” fire-sprinkler pipe running within the wall cavity to a fire-hose box in the corridor of the addition.  The pipe freeze caused flooding and damage to the hospital addition.

Louver Opening
Frozen Pipe in Wall Cavity

Various parties associated with the design and construction of the hospital addition stated that after the fresh-air intake louver was removed from the existing building’s exterior wall, the opening should have been sealed per the project drawings.  It was further alleged that, had the opening been sealed as the plans instructed, then the pipe freeze would not have occurred.

EIS was asked to review the project drawings, specifications, design correspondences and construction documentation to determine who was responsible to have sealed the louver opening.  After careful review, EIS determined that the instructions given in the architectural plans stated that the mechanical contractor was responsible to seal the opening.  Contrarily, the mechanical plans also included a note that general trades were responsible to seal the opening, not the mechanical contractor.  With each contractor focused on the drawings pertinent to their particular trade, each followed the instruction on their respective plans that they were not responsible to seal the opening.  Ultimately, it was an oversight of the design team that produced the building plans which resulted in the unsealed louver opening which lead to the piping freeze and resultant flooding.      

A large hospital addition in the Toronto area was adjoined to one of the existing exterior walls of the original building.  A void of approximately 12 inches was left between the existing wall of the old building and the new wall of the addition.  The existing building housed a mechanical room along the subject exterior wall.  A louver in the exterior wall had served as the fresh-air intake to the air-handling unit.  When the addition was built, the new wall would have blocked the intake louver, so the fresh-air path to the air-handling unit was ducted to a gravity ventilator on the roof.   

Rooftop Gravity Ventilator

During a period of low temperatures, cold air entered the building through the rooftop gravity ventilator.  The cold air travelled into the wall cavity between the existing building and the addition via the opening in the existing wall where the fresh-air intake louver formerly resided.  The cold air froze a 2” fire-sprinkler pipe running within the wall cavity to a fire-hose box in the corridor of the addition.  The pipe freeze caused flooding and damage to the hospital addition.

Louver Opening
Frozen Pipe in Wall Cavity

Various parties associated with the design and construction of the hospital addition stated that after the fresh-air intake louver was removed from the existing building’s exterior wall, the opening should have been sealed per the project drawings.  It was further alleged that, had the opening been sealed as the plans instructed, then the pipe freeze would not have occurred.

EIS was asked to review the project drawings, specifications, design correspondences and construction documentation to determine who was responsible to have sealed the louver opening.  After careful review, EIS determined that the instructions given in the architectural plans stated that the mechanical contractor was responsible to seal the opening.  Contrarily, the mechanical plans also included a note that general trades were responsible to seal the opening, not the mechanical contractor.  With each contractor focused on the drawings pertinent to their particular trade, each followed the instruction on their respective plans that they were not responsible to seal the opening.  Ultimately, it was an oversight of the design team that produced the building plans which resulted in the unsealed louver opening which lead to the piping freeze and resultant flooding.