Data Center Water Intrusion Investigation

Case Study

Incident Investigation

A heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) contractor was put on notice in response to a claim that several rooftop air conditioning units (RTU) that were installed at a recently completed Data Center were allegedly leaking. The roof of the Data Center had hundreds of RTUs installed on it. The plaintiffs alleged that the HVAC contractor did not install the maintenance access doors on the RTUs as per the specifications. The plaintiffs also asserted that the improper door installation was the cause of water intrusion inside the Data Center. S-E-A was retained on behalf of the HVAC contractor to determine the source of the reported water intrusion and evaluate the RTU installation.

Assigned Task:

S-E-A was asked to perform a forensic evaluation of the facility and individual units allegedly causing moisture intrusion.

To perform the analysis, S-E-A took the following steps:

Created three-dimensional scans of the facility’s interior spaces and RTUs using Matterport cameras for forensic documentation and evidence retention.
Investigated the RTU exterior enclosures.
Assessed the configurations and condition of interior mechanical, electrical, and structural RTU connections.
Examined the surrounding facility structure and building envelope.
Reviewed the manufacturer specifications, equipment service history, applicable building code requirements, operations and maintenance documentation, and contract documents.

Analysis:

Utilized scan data from multiple areas inside and outside of the building to compare the location of the RTUs in relation to the origin of the water intrusion.
Analyzed the path of water intrusion from the interior through the roof assembly to the origin of the water intrusion outside the building envelope.
Determined if design, construction, or maintenance practices contributed to the documented conditions.

Evidence was evaluated resulting in the following findings:

The RTU was installed as required by the contract documents.
The RTU envelope and interior connections were not contributing to interior moisture intrusion.
The RTUs were partially supported by sleeper curbs. The RTUs were fastened through the top of the curb instead of through the side, as per contract documents. This allowed water to pool on the coping of the sleeper curb, which resulted in sealant deterioration near the fasteners, and water to penetrate through the curb to the interior of the facility.
S-E-A found that the third-party inspector and roofing contractor in the construction process failed to note this construction detail.