Leaky Building

Harbour Royal Apartments – Aamsko’s Weathertightness Documentation & Diagnostic Process Project: 88 Anzac Avenue, Auckland CBDClient: Body Corporate 170878Consultants: Aamsko (NZ Property Practice Ltd) and Zenith Facilities Services Ltd At Harbour Royal Apartments—an eleven-storey residential complex in the heart of Auckland’s CBD—the passing of time had begun to reveal early weathertightness vulnerabilities. Built in 1995 under the Building Regulations Act 1992, the building featured a direct-fixed EIFS cladding system (Insulclad), which had reached the edge of its expected service life. Following initial investigations by KRT Building Consulting, the Body Corporate engaged Aamsko and Zenith Facilities to document the condition of the building envelope and perform a detailed diagnostic analysis of water ingress at apartments 10C and 11C. Background & Initial Observations KRT’s preliminary building inspection in late 2022 had noted that the external cladding and joinery had met their 15-year durability requirements under the Building Code but showed signs of aged repairs and deterioration. Cladding joints had been repeatedly patched with sealant—a short-term fix that had ultimately failed under long-term weather exposure. KRT identified a lack of critical components such as air barriers and wall underlays, raising concern about internal damage hidden behind the cladding. Their invasive inspection at apartment 10C revealed water damage related to weak horizontal joints, with leaks tracking through the EPS (expanded polystyrene) panels and into the wall structure. These findings set the stage for Aamsko’s more detailed investigation, which aimed to define not only where water was getting in, but how and why—and to establish a repair methodology that would be fit for purpose over the long term. External Survey & Rope Access Inspection Zenith Facilities conducted a rope-access survey of the entire external façade in March 2023. This identified widespread issues with cladding alignment, sealant failures, corrosion around panel joins, and poorly executed historic repairs. Most notably, the original design drawings showed that head flashings and parapet cap flashings had been specified—but never installed. This omission left critical areas of the building exposed to uncontrolled moisture entry. Misalignment at panel joints, rust bleeding through surface coatings, and deteriorated silicone joints were particularly evident on the north-west and southern elevations. Apartments 10C and 11C were flagged for detailed inspection due to repeated water ingress reported by the residents and building manager. Invasive Inspections at Units 10C & 11C On 15 May 2023, Zenith performed targeted invasive inspections in units 10C and 11C. Wall linings were removed to access internal steel framing and confirm the source and extent of moisture damage. Key findings included: In both apartments, the steel framing met minimum standards for EPS cladding support, but the overflow and pooling of water due to poor drainage and detailing was clearly evident. Balcony Cavity Borescope Inspections Using a borescope, the underside of the A4 balcony and parapet walls was also investigated. Moisture droplets, corrosion to joist welds, mould on the tile backer board, and laitance to the internal cementitious lining all pointed to balcony membrane failure and ineffective guttering. The original detailing had created conditions that allowed moisture to collect and remain trapped, contributing to corrosion and potential structural damage. AAMA 511 Water Ingress Testing Two rounds of forensic water testing were conducted on 14 June and 8 September 2023. Aamsko and Zenith followed the AAMA 511 testing protocol—based on ASTM E2128—which is designed to simulate real-world water exposure and trace active leak paths. Key Findings from Testing: Photographs and diagrams captured the precise ingress path—starting at poorly detailed ledges and ending in rust-stained internal steel framing and saturated insulation materials. Conclusions This investigation confirmed that the majority of water ingress was not caused by vertical or horizontal panel joints, as initially suspected, but instead by the corbel ledges and EPS panel fixings that had been penetrated during historic installations or repairs. The problem was compounded by the absence of critical flashings and inadequate balcony drainage detailing. The invasive inspections and AAMA 511 testing eliminated guesswork. They provided clear, evidence-based findings that allowed Aamsko to develop a tailored remedial specification designed to resolve the building’s issues permanently—not patch over them. Remedial Recommendations Aamsko’s final recommendations included: Final Thoughts Aamsko’s role at Harbour Royal was not only to document the current state of the building, but to give the Body Corporate clarity and confidence. By combining architectural insight, forensic testing, and practical remediation design, we transformed assumptions into evidence—and guesswork into actionable plans. This is the heart of our service: helping Auckland’s apartment communities protect their assets and extend the life of their buildings, one careful diagnosis at a time. 📞 Contact us today to discuss a site-specific solution for your commercial building. Aamsko New Zealand – Experts in Leaky Building Remediation Design, Contract Management, and Weathertightness Consultancy.

Aamsko, in partnership with Zenith Facilities Services, was commissioned to assess and provide remedial solutions for the weathertightness failures concerning three buildings in Newmarket, to provide the client with invaluable insight into the health and longevity of these three buildings, to allow an informed strategic plan for the finding, investment and renovation renovations. The buildings have a unique building envelope design utilising precast and in-situ concrete, concrete masonry blocks together with glazed aluminum curtain wall systems. Zenith Facilities Services conducted forensic water and moisture ingress documentation under the guidelines of ASTM E 2128 to obtain a forensic understanding of the building’s condition so that a suitable remedial maintenance scope and specifications can be attained. The data was gathered via internal and external visual inspections, together with moderately invasive internal inspections and water ingress testing, involving the roof, walls and joinery to identify vulnerabilities and point of failure for all three buildings. The results highlighted several weathertightness concerns of similar nature contributing to the water and moisture ingress presenting at the buildings. Based on our inspections and information available from the property file, Aamsko created detailed drawings to clearly depict the weathertightness failures and points of water/moisture ingress into the buildings. Concrete Cantilever Balconies with Concrete Masonry Parapet The balconies are flooding due to lack of correct fall and drainage, resulting in water entering the building due to the lack of an adequate upstand for the sliding door. Water seepage from the cold join of the balcony deck and the parapet wall due to the decks flood can be visually observed. Due to prolonged and consistent moist condition of the masonry block parapet and lack of flashings, cracks are presenting because of over carbonation, and the steel balustrade rail is rusted beyond safe use. Insipient anode syndrome has begun to present where concrete has commenced to spall around the mounting of rusted parapet rails. Internal Gutter System – Ingress at Concrete Masonry Wall and Glazed Curtain Wall The internal gutters of the buildings are constructed of plywood substrate, with metal box guttering and waterproof membrane that has exceeded its useful serviceable life. AAMA 511 water ingress testing of the internal gutter systems resulted in water and moisture ingress into the internal space at several locations in the three buildings is a result of the internal gutter system, due to the lack of gutter capacity, fall, and poor design/workmanship. The internal gutter was determined to be the cause of ingress through AAMA 511 water ingress testing and the monitoring of moisture levels as the tests were conducted at the masonry black walls. The inadequate fall of the internal gutter system is causing to water pooling for long periods of time. This results to premature degradation of waterproofing and the timber substrate, leading to overflow into interior of the building and a prolonger moisture seepage into concrete black walls. Protruding Fin Detail The façade design of two of the buildings has radial protruding concrete masonry fin detail, the defects of which observed to be worse at Level 2 and the site of the central fin below the internal gutter end. Significant moisture ingress damage in the form of efflorescence and loss of adhesion to paint where the fin protrudes the interior space. This moisture damage continued to the exterior of the fin, tracking along the masonry block joints. Water-marked timber framing and plywood was present around the internal gutter, with a gap in the gutter visible from the interior. On the roof, the flashing wrapping the concrete masonry fin has wet marks, with water retained under the cap flashings at fixing points. AAMA 511 water ingress testing was conducted at the internal gutter, and water ingress was observed, with the amount of water increasing as the gutter exceeded its capacity and overflowed. Water leaked through a gap in the gutter system, splashing down onto the loadbearing pillar before spilling onto the floor. Water ingress into the internal space is due to lack of gutter capacity, fall, and poor design/workmanship. Internal Intertenancy Party Wall The reinforced concrete masonry intertenancy wall on the ground floor at one of the buildings shows signs of moisture ingress and damp rising on both sides of the wall. The defects presented as loss of paint cohesion, concentrated at the base of the wall, suggesting it originates from the ground or carpark below. The carpark concrete masonry retaining wall directly below has severe muddy water marks and mould growth.

Leaky Office Building in Newmarket The Level 3 occupants of a well-known building in Newmarket raised concerns about water ingress in their office spaces and its effect on the internal structure of the building. Aamsko was approached to document the causation of the water ingress, with the view to plan remedial maintenance for the building. After an initial site visit, our partner Zenith Facilities Services conducted invasive inspections at the sites where water ingress was identified to be affecting the interior spaces by the interviews with the Level 3 building occupants. The wall linings were removed to expose the internal structure at four locations including the the Level 3 office spaces, toilets, and the common stairwell. The inspection data outlined the extent of the water ingress observed, including damage to the structural framing, such as: In addition to the invasive internal survey, Zenith conducted an exhaustive visual survey, utilising rope access to observe the exterior condition of the building and identify any possible vulnerabilities or points of water ingress. The external survey documented the damage and degradation presenting at the cladding system and window joinery, features that are most susceptible to water penetration. Based on the inspection data gathered in the internal and external surveys, AAMA 511 water ingress testing was conducted at two Level 3 office sites to test the façade and aluminum joinery to determine the point of water ingress. Despite these sites at Level 3 evidently showing historical water ingress issues, the AAMA 511 testing did not yield any instances of water ingress at these locations. The inconclusive test results could not confirm our hypothesis of water ingress causation. The outcome suggests that the water ingress presenting at the Level 3 offices is originating at a level above, allowing the water to track down the framing cavity before presenting at Level 3. Aamsko and Zenith carried out another set of interior observations to survey the condition of the building at the sites directly above the affected areas at the Level 3 offices. Interviews carried out with respective occupants of each floor revealed that the Level 3 offices were only the only one being affected. The Level 4 offices have been experiencing more prominent effects of water ingress, including: The building condition investigation identified the defects to the cladding, joinery and concrete floor beams. It appears that the water damage seen at Level 3 is a result of a building component or design failure at Level 4 or above. Observations suggest that water is running down the interior face of the cladding, soaking into the timber framing, and eventually reaching the bottom plates. The presence of moisture at the locations of water ingress has resulted in the increased carbonation of the reinforced concrete floor slabs. As a result, the concrete will become more brittle while corroding any reinforcement, resulting in the eventual decline in its performance.

Weathertightness Diagnosis – Albert Street, Auckland CBD Conversion of an Office Building into a Luxury Hotel When a prominent architectural firm commissioned Aamsko to carry out a weathertightness investigation at a commercial building on Albert Street, the objective was to identify potential moisture ingress issues ahead of its conversion into a luxury hotel. The project involved not only a change in use but also a substantial investment in refurbishing and upgrading the building envelope to suit high-end accommodation standards. The initial brief focused on the aluminium joinery and cladding system. The client requested a full external inspection, targeted water-ingress testing, and reporting to determine whether joinery and façade elements were contributing to existing internal moisture damage. However, our investigation quickly revealed that the weathertightness concerns extended far beyond the previously suspected joinery failures noted in the Airey Review (2017). This prompted a deeper forensic investigation into the building’s original construction and the condition of its concrete façade system. Our Inspection & Diagnostic Approach To accurately diagnose the sources and pathways of water ingress, Aamsko adopted a layered approach combining multiple investigative techniques: Externally, we examined every concrete panel, including horizontal and vertical joints, and all aluminium-framed joinery across the window bays. Each inspection was carefully recorded using both still photography and video. A sample of these visuals was included as Annexure A to our final report. Internally, all window bay locations across all levels were examined. Where signs of chronic water ingress were present—such as staining, damp linings, or musty odours—we conducted invasive inspections. This included removal of linings and in some cases, minor concrete cuts to confirm water tracking paths and structural impact. Testing Locations and Selection Protocol From the external joinery inspections and internal moisture mapping, four distinct test sites were chosen. These represented varied conditions of moisture severity, panel type, and construction joint design. Each site was subjected to: The goal was to not only confirm the presence of leaks but also understand how and where water was travelling once inside the façade system. These insights were vital in determining the nature and scope of any future remediation strategy. Key Findings 1. Cracks in Concrete Panels – Vertical, Horizontal & Re-Entrant Cracks were observed in multiple locations, especially around window bays. These ranged from fine surface-level cracks to more advanced re-entrant cracking—a classic symptom of failed movement control and thermal cycling stress. Concrete is inherently porous. Over time, moisture enters through microcracks or areas where protective coatings have deteriorated. This initiates a cycle of expansion, contraction, and material fatigue, especially under Auckland’s seasonal changes. Our testing confirmed that these cracks were actively drawing in water and contributing to significant internal dampness. 2. Hairline Cracking Hairline cracks, though visually minor, pose a serious long-term risk. These are early indicators of panel stress and are often missed during casual observation. If left untreated, they tend to expand under environmental stressors, eventually requiring more invasive remediation. 3. Crazing Crazing—a fine network of shallow surface cracks—was identified across several exposed areas of the concrete façade. While not structurally critical at this stage, these cracks highlight the impact of environmental pollutants (carbon dioxide, dirt) and poor coating maintenance. Crazing must be addressed early to prevent escalation. 4. Spalling and Reinforcement Corrosion Spalling was observed in several panel locations. This is often caused by prolonged exposure to moisture, which enables corrosion of the embedded steel reinforcement. Once corrosion begins, it expands, displaces the surrounding concrete, and compromises the panel’s integrity. AS/NZS 2327:2017 specifies that such degradation should be addressed to maintain concrete performance. Limitations of the Investigation; it is important to note: Further deterioration may be uncovered once coatings and paint layers are removed during remediation. A complete and detailed Remediation Specification should be developed prior to tendering for any façade work. Conclusion The Albert Street building displays all the hallmarks of age-related weathertightness failure—particularly within its concrete panel façade and joinery systems. The issues are compounded by a lack of maintenance and possibly past repairs that have since failed or reached the end of their service life. By conducting a systematic, forensic-documentation—combining modern diagnostic tools with architectural and historical context—Aamsko was able to provide the project architect and developers with a clear understanding of current conditions and the steps required for robust remediation. This has laid a sound foundation for the next phase of the building’s transformation into a luxury hotel, ensuring both structural integrity and guest comfort.