Building Envelope Commissioning: Lessons Learned from Data Center Construction

FM 1-52 Testing Reveals Widespread Roof Failures

Systematic uplift resistance testing following FM 1-52* protocols revealed critical roof failures across multiple buildings. Two primary failure modes were identified:

1. Membrane Adhesion Failure: Inadequate bonding between roof membrane and underlying asphalt layer
2. Coverboard Delamination: Poor adhesion between gypsum coverboard and asphalt layer on insulation

Investigation revealed that asphalt quantities in failed areas fell below specified minimums, though material testing confirmed all components met published specifications. The failures resulted from installation methodology rather than defective materials.

When initial membrane attachment failures occurred on the Administration building, shortly after roof installation was completed, testing expanded to the data hall building where installations were underway. Different failure patterns emerged, specifically coverboard release from underlying asphalt layers due to inadequate bonding during hot asphalt application.

A modified installation methodology was successfully tested, involving weighting coverboards with stored materials rather than relying solely on crew members walking boards into position. Despite successful validation testing, the installing contractor reverted to original methods, citing manufacturer installation guidelines.

This case demonstrates why comprehensive roofing forensics and building envelope expert consultation during the design and construction phases are essential for preventing costly failures in critical infrastructure projects.

*FM Global Property Loss Prevention Data Sheet 1- 52, Field Verification of Roof Wind Uplift Resistance. 

Remediation and Lessons Learned

Four repair options were developed ranging from wholesale membrane replacement to targeted repairs with perimeter reinforcement. Each option required manufacturer warranty validation and carried distinct schedule and risk implications.

The collaborative approach between the hyperscale owner's risk management team, general contractors, manufacturers, and commissioning agents resulted in comprehensive solution development, though implementation extended well into the construction timeline.

Conclusion: Success Through Systematic Approach

While roof assembly failures cannot be considered successful outcomes, the systematic identification and resolution process demonstrates building envelope commissioning value. Without proper BECx implementation, these deficiencies would likely have manifested as catastrophic failures in an operational data center environment.

The project illustrates that comprehensive building envelope commissioning, despite implementation challenges, provides essential protection for mission-critical facilities. The lessons learned emphasize the importance of early integration, systematic quality assurance, and collaborative problem-solving in delivering high-performance building envelopes for data center applications.

For facility owners and construction professionals, this case study reinforces that investing in proper building envelope commissioning protocols pays dividends in avoiding costly post-occupancy failures and ensuring long-term asset protection in critical facility environments.