INFRARED THERMOGRAPHY USERS

Comment

Comment by Michael Stuart on December 6, 2010 at 7:49am

So TJ... did you ever get the bulletin board down for a closer look?

Comment by allen p tanner on November 18, 2010 at 11:30am

To properly scan a concrete block wall; the wall needs to be thermally loaded. The Delta T needs to be high enough, (18*f or more), to get a good scan. Again, it is nearly impossible to IR a concrete block wall from the inside. Go to nyinfraredscan.com and you will see that we IR block walls as a business. I would not recommend scanning a block wall, especially one with a brick facade, from the inside. Wood frame walls with missing insulation are very well accepted for IR imaging from the inside of exterior walls.
Let me know what you find. Are you going to do a destructive core sample?

Comment by Michael Stuart on November 18, 2010 at 10:57am

TJ, You definitely have an array of theories presented so far. It will be interesting to see what additional data you can obtain on Friday to support or debunk them. Please let us all know what you find. If you take the bulletic board down, please post both visible and infrared images. (We will be waiting in suspense!)

Comment by TJ Ewing on November 17, 2010 at 1:15pm

Thanks for the input Allen. the wall is above grade and is stacked concrete block. Hopefully know more on friday.

Comment by allen p tanner on November 17, 2010 at 1:06pm

The church wall that is showing blue may be wet or may have an active air leak causing the cooling effect. Check along the wall with a radiometric meter and measure temperature difference. A pin point or radiometric moisture meter will confirm moisture.

Comment by allen p tanner on November 17, 2010 at 1:02pm

The bulletin board is causing the wall to appear cool around it as the heat is being redirected away from the wall in this area.
allen@nyinfraredscan.com

Comment by allen p tanner on November 17, 2010 at 1:00pm

The wall appears to be stacked concrete block. To check for open cells, missing insulation or filler: you need to thermal load the wall from the outside and check with IR several times during the loading span to get a good picture of the cells. If the wall is below grade; then it will be harder to test. It appears that the hot electric or water baseboard is heating the wall unevenly and distorting the IR image. It will be nearly impossible to get and accurate IR scan on a concrete wall below grade or in contact with soill.
allen@nyinfraredscan.com

Comment by dale garren on November 11, 2010 at 8:32am

one more question, is the masonary full cell grout?

Comment by Rod Hoff on November 11, 2010 at 8:27am

TJ
Yes, to see a thermal drop due to evaporative cooling where the moisture issued is water intrusion the surface would have to be permeable. The moisture must reach the surface. Condensation, of course, occurs on the surface and therefore is not affected by permeance.

Comment by TJ Ewing on November 10, 2010 at 7:45pm

Yep still here but was out of office all day today, just getting caught up on the flurry of input! Thanks so much for the questioning and ponderings Michael, Rod and Dale.

Just a note that the wall was not showing signs of surface water at the time the thermograms were taken.
- The bulletin board is flush with the wall, no standoffs.
- The wall is masonry block with an external brick veneer
- The interior of masonry is painted, unknown permeability. Drip marks are evident along the bottom of the bulletin board at the center area of interest
- At time of thermogram, Temp-in = 72, RH-in= 70% (at end of mass with >300 people inside), Temp-out=63, RH-out=64%. Again the wall surface wetness manifests only during summer on hot humid days.
- The heating system is water based, and does not provide cooling. No cooling at all in building.

Rod, the evaporative cooling water technique you outline is very interesting. So do I have it correct that you are saying if there is evaporative cooling and a non-permeable surface then we can rule out water intrusion? However if the surface is permeable we can’t rule out either intrusion or condensation?

What seems to make sense at this point is for further inspection by removal of the bulletin board. And as Dale aptly suggested, inspection at the beam pocket, and to determine a presence of a vapor barrier?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page