FLOOD04190

• County: Statewide
• Community: State of Colorado
• Stream Name: All
• Basin: Statewide
• Title: Flood Proofing Tests: Test of Materials and Systems for Flood Proofing Structures
• Date: 8/1/1988
• Prepared For: US Army Corps of Engineers
• Prepared By: US Army Corps of Engineers
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Educational/Technical/Reference Information

Wall

Closures, Tests, and Test Results

The summary of tests (identical closures) on Wall 1 is contained in the
following tabulation.

Test

2

Closure

A closure constructed
of plywood and 2- by
2-in. boards (Fig-
ure 36) was used.
Rubber gasket material
and caulking compound
were used to seal the
closure to the brick
wall and floor. This
closure was considered
to be one that an
ordinary homeowner
could construct and
use economically.

The same as Test 1.

3

Same as Tests 1 and 2.

Wall

Nothing was put on the
brick-veneer wall.

Two commercially
available coatings
were used on the wall.
One was used on half
of the wall and the
other on the other
half of the wall. The
coatings were near the
consistency of water.
The wall was soaked
with the coatings.

Coated with asphalt
cement. Figure 37
shows the wall after
the test.

(Continued)

38

Test Results

The wall leaked so
badly that the closure
could not be tested.
Seven tubes of caulking
were used to seal the
closure to the brick
wall and floor. For
several openings this
would be an unreason-
able amount of sealing
compound.

The wall leaked so
badly that the closure
could not be tested. A
thick coating with body
is needed to adequately
reduce flow through the
wall. The low-viscosity
coatings will not water-
proof a brick-veneer
wall.

The wall continued to
leak in a couple of
places. After the bulk-
head was removed, no
flaws could be observed
in the asphalt cement
coating in areas where
the wall leaked. This
implies that great care
must be exercised, even
if asphalt cement is put
on the wall, or water
will penetrate the
house. The wall leaked
so badly that the clo-
sure was not tested for
water.