Try this.

The more important question is what did the contract specification establish as the performance standards for this material. Is it an air barrier as well as a weather barrier? What is the exterior cladding and how was that assembly described in the contract?

Tyvek "DrainWrap" is the same material as "StuccoWrap" and is wrinkled so that it forms a "drainage plane" behind the exterior wall cladding. The absence of that feature, if required by the specifications, would be obvious grounds for rejecting EasyWrap as an equal to DrainWrap.

ASTM stands for the American Society for Testing and Materials.

There standards are available for $$.

You can often find the full title for a standard and its data of issue without any charge, but ASTM makes money from selling the standards.

Some larger libraries may have the standards available if you really want to read them.

Here is a link that might be useful: ASTM

Mercifully, the American Society for Testing and Materials changed their name to ASTM, International in 2001.

The ASTM provides pretty good descriptions of the individual documents they offer for sale on their website:

ASTM E84 - 10 Standard Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials.

ASTM E96 - 05 Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Transmission of Materials.

ASTM E1677- 05 Standard Specification for an Air Retarder (AR) Material or System for Low-Rise Framed Building Walls

ASTM E2178- 03 Standard Test Method for Air Permeance of Building Materials.

ASTM D779 - 03 Standard Test Method for Water Resistance of Paper, Paperboard, and Other Sheet Materials by the Dry Indicator Method (Boat Test)

ASTM D882 - 09 Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Thin Plastic Sheeting

ASTM D5034 - 09 Standard Test Method for Breaking Strength and Elongation of Textile Fabrics (Grab Test)

Here is an International Codes Council evaluation report for the American made DuPont Tyvek including its "Drain Wrap":

http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_files/ICC-ES/ESR-2375.pdf

Here is an ICC evaluation report for the Chinese made 'Easyguard' product sold by Home Depot:

http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_files/ICC-ES/ESR-2252.pdf

Comparing DuPont's "Drain Wrap" to the Chinese "Easyguard" is like comparing apples to kumquats.

"Drain Guard" can be used to meet both building codes as a weather barrier and energy codes as an air barrier.

"Easyguard" is manufactured, listed and labled only as a 'weather barrier'.

This means if you install 'Easyguard' you will have to take extra precautions with caulking and sealing of your home's exterior thermal barrier to assure energy compliance.

This will cost you more money.

Simply put, you get 2 for 1 with the Tyvek product...and waste your money with Easyguard....

Regardless what "ASTM" stands for.....

The issue here is whether or not EasyGard is equivalent to Tyvek HomeWrap/DrainWrap in performance.

The contract should make it the contractor's responsibility to show evidence that it is equivalent. If he has not done that in writing it is possible that he has not met the terms of the contract.

What is in the contract regarding material submittals and substitutions? Is an architect administrating the contract?

It would help if you posted the specification sheet for EasyGard so we would know what you are talking about.

"Drain Guard" sounds like a smart compromise solution.

Thank you everyone! I have looked at the sites you gave me.. I had found the ASTM site for $$... but can't buy the book :(
Anyway- the problem is that Tyvek's results are easy to read...but... Easy Gard seems to be 'different'.. Here is what I mean:

Easy Gard Product Specification

Gurley Hill
(air penetration resistance) TAPPI T- 460 26 sec/100cc

Water Resistance ASTM D779 >/=10 minutes

Vaper Permeability/transmission ASTM E96-05 >/=5perms
method A

method b >/= 13perms

Tensile Strength(MD/CD) ASTM D828 77/54lb/in

Basis Weight ASTM D646-07 2.2oz/yd2

Thickness ASTM D645-07 4mls

Ultra Violet Light Exposure 120 days

Water Resistance Barrier Design Code ICC-ES-AC-38 meets minimum requirements

Now....

Tyvek Results

Air Penetration Resistance ASTM E2178 .004
Gurley Hill
Tappi T460 >300
ASTM E 1677 Type 1

Drainage ICC-ES AC 24 pass

Water Vapor Transmission ASTM E96-00
method A (g/m2-24hrs) 250
perms 36

method B (g/m2-24hr) 350
perms 50

Water Penetration Resistance ATTC-127 210

Basis Weight 2.1

Breaking Strength lb per in 30/30

Tear Resistance(trapazoid) ASTM D1117 7/9

Surface Burning Characteristics ASTM E84 5
Flame Spread Class A

Smoke 25
Class A

Some of the results are measured differently- I understand the Tyvek results, but some of the Easy Gard confuse me.

Such as the Water Resistance- seems like 2 different tests, ie one is ASTM D779 with a result of >/= 10 min, the other is ATTC 127, with cm of 210. How do I compare these?

Water Vapor Transmission- one is E96-05, the other is E96-00...how do I interpret these?

Tensile Strength/Breaking Strength- one is ASTM D828, the other D882

These seemingly different tests confuse me when trying to compare product.
1. The contract says 'Tyvek' or comparable material.
2. Contract says all siding/trim will be Hardie-Plank, but
some 2x2's are regular wood.
3. When talking to Hardie-Plank rep, he say NO CALKING the siding!! (the siding is calked at all butt joints- which some joints are 'straight down a vertical line', without staggering.
4. Nails are deeply countersunk..:(
5. Where trim is not 90 degree angles, a miter saw is not being used- just butting ends of flat ended trim, leaving a large gap behind the trim.
6. Hardie-Plank rep says whenever there is a 'butted-ends', there should be 2 layers of housewrap behind the butts'. Not being done.
7. Housewrap is not being overlapped 6 inches as directed in Tyvek site, but nothing at all is on the Easy Gard site.
8. There are gaps in the cuts of the Hardie-Plank up to 1 inch (or more)- they are calking these large gaps.
9. The previous builder used drywall on the OUTSIDE, under the siding. The contractor is supposed to be looking at the 2x4's underneath to see if they need replacing, but isn't taking the drywall off...how the H does he know if the 2x4 is good (they are all wet) if he doesn't take the drywall off???

I am certain those of you who are good/conscientious builders would find alot more!!

I have contacted the city building inspector, but haven't heard back yet.

Lawyer says to take pictures, tell contractor/engineer that they are not following contract or using materials as specified (I printed out the instructions), to remind them. If they continue to do the whole complex, he might have to redo it at his expense...

Anyway- how do I interpret the ASTM tests that have different numbers, please???

Thanks for helping me get my ducks in a row.

Oh yes.. the engineer called and 'respectfully' says Tyvek and Easy Gard are the same thing...if he is passing the inspections, he is useless!!

Thanks..

AIR PENETRATION
TAPPI (formerly the “Technical Association of the Pulp & Paper Industry”) publishes a 2006 test standard called “Air Penetration of Paper (Gurley Method) Test Method T460 om-06”.
The test measures the time it takes (in seconds) for 100 mL of air to pass through a membrane at a pressure differential of 1.22 kPa.
The air sample penetrated the EasyGard membrane after 26 seconds and had apparently not penetrated the Tyvek membrane at 300 seconds (tests are sometimes terminated after a certain amount of time).

WATER RESISTANCE
Resistance to water penetraion is tested in two ways: ASTM D779 (the “boat test”) which is not a very effective test for this kind of material. Apparently EasyGard passes the minimum test requirement of 10 seconds. I have read in the literature of other manufacturers that Tyvek HomeWrap has failed this test which might explain why DuPont uses the more reliable test published by the AATCC (American Association of Textile Chemists & Colorists) titled: “AATCC Test Method 127, Hydrostatic Pressure Test”. Tyvek HomeWrap apparently withstands a column of water 210 cm high. I don’t know the details of the test method but if EasyGard was able to meet or exceed the Tyvek test result, it is highly likely the manufacturer would publish that result.

WATER VAPOR PERMEABILITY/TRANSMISSION
Both manufacturers use both Method A and Method B of ASTM E96 (forget the year published) but it appears the Method A test of EasyGard was stopped at the minimum requirement of 5 perms and the Tyvek test continued to 36 perms. In the Method B test EasyGard stopped at 13 perms and the Tyvek test reached 50 perms. There is no way to be completely sure but it appears that Tyvek is considerably more vapor permeable than EasyGard. This is not surprising since Tyvek has one of the highest permeability ratings if any house wrap on the market.

TENSILE STRENGTH
For EasyGard you list ASTM D828 "Standard Test Method for Tensile Strength of Paper and Paperboard Using Constant-Rate-of-Elongation Apparatus" which was withdrawn by ASTM in Sept 2009 for lack of interest in updating it.

Tyvek lists ASTM D882 “Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Thin Plastic Sheeting”.

I’m not sure these two different test results can be accurately compared even if the two test methods were carefully compared. It seems very strange that EasyGard’s manufacturer would use a standard for paper since they manufacturer many plastic sheet goods for many different uses.

TEAR RESISTANCE
ASTM D1117 is the standard for testing trapezoid tear resistance. There is apparently no listing for EasyGard but Tyvek lists a score of 7/9. If the contractor installs the products correctly the tear resistance should not matter.

BASIS WEIGHT
Both unfinshed membranes are of similar weight per square yard.

UV EXPOSURE
Both manufacturers set the same maximum time period for exposure to sunlight.

ICC ES Report
Both materials meet the minimum Water Resistance Barrier Design requirements of the ICC.

Tyvek additionally meets the ICC requirements for an air barrier.

It seems reasonable to assume from this omission and the air penetration test results above that EasyGard cannot meet the ICC air barrier requirements. This is major difference between the membranes.

DRAINAGE
EasyGard does not have a drainage feature and cannot pass the ICC-ES AC 24 requirements but as Tyvek DrainWrap does. This is another major difference between the materials.

SURFACE BURNING CHARACTERISTICS
Same for both materials.

CONTRACT TERMS
It is difficult to believe that the contract specification only says “Tyvek or comparable material.“ Are you sure you are not leaving something out? What section was it specified under (weather protection or air barrier)? Forgive me, but this cannot be considered a competent or professionally written specification.

The term "comparable" is not normally used in construction specifications but the dictionary says it means "similar or equivalent". A plain plastic weather barrier is not similar or equivalent to a weather/air barrier with a drainage feature.

INSTALLATION PROCEDURES
You said: “Housewrap is not being overlapped 6 inches as directed in Tyvek site, but nothing at all is on the EasyGard site.”

Neither website is important. The ICC-ES Report (ESR 2252) for EasyGard describes the required installation procedure for EasyGard, It says, in part, that “A minimum overlap of 6 inches must be provided for both vertical and horizontal seams.” This document establishes that EasyGard meets the weather barrier requirements of the IRC and IBC (whichever, if either, applies to this project) and it sets the REQUIREMENTS for installation. The word "MUST" is not a suggestion.

If either of these codes apply, or the local building department requires an ICC ES Report, the wrap must be installed as described in the Report in order to pass inspection.

“the engineer called and 'respectfully' says Tyvek and Easy Gard are the same thing”. Anyone familiar with these materials would not dare make such a statement in writing. He is either ignorant or he has a conflict of interest.

Get everything in writing. Talk means nothing.

I am curious why an engineer would be monitoring the work.

What kind of engineer is he, what is his specific project role, who does he work for, how often does he visit the site, does he administrate the contract, and does he write weekly reports?

The fact that the sheathing is exterior gypsum board makes the quality of the weather/air barrier and the installation detailing far more important IMHO.

If flashing is not installed behind the HardiPlank butt joints, you can count on water eventually getting behind the siding even if the joints are caulked. Aligning the butt joints vertically is further clear evident of poor workmanship and a bad contractor attitude.

Dare I ask what the spec says about the siding installation?

Tell me again where this project is located. Sometimes the only protection against a disreputable contractor is to involve the consumer fraud division of the state attorney general's office.

macv stated:

"AIR PENETRATION
TAPPI (formerly the “Technical Association of the Pulp & Paper Industry”) publishes a 2006 test standard called “Air Penetration of Paper (Gurley Method) Test Method T460 om-06”.
The test measures the time it takes (in seconds) for 100 mL of air to pass through a membrane at a pressure differential of 1.22 kPa.
The air sample penetrated the EasyGard membrane after 26 seconds and had apparently not penetrated the Tyvek membrane at 300 seconds (tests are sometimes terminated after a certain amount of time).

Macv's comments merely reflect and confirm the findings of the International Codes Council Evaluative Service I previously cited that DuPont's "Drain Guard" has been tested and listed as BOTH an 'air barrier' AND 'weather barrier':

http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_files/ICC-ES/ESR-2375.pdf

But that the 'EasyGuard' is only tested and listed as a 'weather barrier':

http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_files/ICC-ES/ESR-2252.pdf

Comparing the two is like comparing apples and carburetors.

They are NOT the same products and do not serve the same comparisons under any purpose(s).

That said, macv also stated:

"I am curious why an engineer would be monitoring the work.
What kind of engineer is he, what is his specific project role, who does he work for, how often does he visit the site, does he administrate the contract, and does he write weekly reports?

To which I enquire: Why would macv be so interested?

Many states certify architects and engineers equally, with one certification no more recognized than the other....and there is absolutely NO benefit to hiring either one to oversee a building project unless one wants to throw away their hard earned money in most cases.

I would, therefore, be more interested to know why ANY "architect" or "engineer" should be necessary at all to oversee and evaluate the scope, materials, products, or implementation of building products when NONE of tasks these are within the professional expertise of architects or engineers to normally evaluate....and even moreso interested in whay any architect or engineer would misrepresent the scope of their professional services so...

Consumer fraud laws extend ALSO to architects and engineers who try to suggest they are qualified to evaluate and oversee construction practices and materials when they are not, you know...
------------------

Bottom line in this thread is that "DrainGuard" and "Easyguard" are not even similar products and cannot be compared.

Of the two, only DuPont "DrainGuard" offers BOTH
"air barrier" as well as "weather barrier" protection.."Easyguard" only acts as a "weatherbarrier".

And no architect or engineer able nor qualified to oversee any project they cannot also actually "build".

The fact that EasyGard is not an effective air barrier is not going to help the OP much in his argument because it appears that the contract specification doesn't say it is intended to serve as an air barrier.

In fact, if the specification doesn't say the wrap is supposed to be Tyvek DrainWrap it's going to be hard to argue that as grounds for breach of contract.

If the drawings and specifications were not prepared in a professional manner there's not much to protect the owners.

As for the advantage of hiring an architect or engineer to oversee a project, it is typically required by law for multi-family projects, at least it is in every state where I have practiced. The architect or engineer of record is often required to sign an affidavit at the completion of the project certifying that the project was built according to the approved drawings... No design professional, no certificate of occupancy. In most states, for projects over a certain size or complexity, the design professional must be an architect rather than an engineer. In general, engineers can only practice architecture when it is incidental to their work as an engineer.

In nine or so states where I have designed buildings only an architect has the professional capacity to "oversee and evaluate the scope, materials, products, or implementation of building products" for a major construction project.

Someone may be allowed to do this kind of work without a license for a single-family residence but not for a multi-family or commercial project.

Your idea that only contractors and building officials have the necessary knowledge to design and supervise a building project is simply a self-serving fantasy.

So, if you know so much tell me what this DrainGard stuff is.

ilmbg

There are too many contradictions in the information you have given us.

You say the contract requires "Tyvek or comparable material" but then you mention "DrainWrap", a very special kind of Tyvek apparently not mentioned in the contract. If the contract requires the use of DrainWrap then you have not quoted it accurately. For anyone to help you you must tell us exactly what the contract says and in what section it says it.

You have mentioned an architect and an engineer but you haven't said what their responsibilities are or for whom they work so no one can help you in that respect.

Comparing ASTM test results may seem like a good argument against the substitution of EasyGard but it is a big jump from there to getting anyone to pay attention to you.

You need to tell us more precisely what the situation is, what the contract requires and who is overseeing the project.

Sloppy information got you into this situation and more of it certainly won't get you out.

This is about all I can do for you at the moment because the thread has gone on long enough to attract the attention of trolls who take advantage of the internet to obstruct discussions and insult those who try to help others.

If you put an email address on your "member's page" members can help you privately.

Good luck

The two avenues of potential redress are to prove a violation of the contract or of the building code and you have not told us much about either one.

In case it happens to apply, the IBC says:

106.1.3 Exterior wall envelope.
Construction documents for all buildings shall describe the exterior wall envelope in sufficient detail to determine compliance with this code. The construction documents shall provide details of the exterior wall envelope as required, including flashing, intersections with dissimilar materials, corners, end details, control joints, intersections at roofs eaves or parapets, means of drainage, water-resistive membrane and details around openings.
The construction documents shall include manufacturer’s installation instructions that provide supporting documentation that the proposed penetration and opening details described in the construction documents maintain the weather resistance of the exterior wall envelope. The supporting documentation shall fully describe the exterior wall system which was tested, where applicable, as well as the test procedure used.

For anyone unclear about the distinctions between the responsibilities and capacities of architects and those of engineers, here is an example of what is set forth in most state laws:

THE PRACTICE OF ARCHITECTURE
The rendering or offering to render certain services, hereinafter described, in connection with the design and construction of a structure or group of structures which have as their principal purpose human habitation or use, and the utilization of space within and surrounding such structures. The services referred to in the previous sentence include planning, providing preliminary studies, designs, drawings, specifications, and other design documents, construction management and administration of construction contracts.

The foregoing shall not be deemed to include the practice of engineering as such, for which separate registration is required ... excepting only engineering work incidental to the practice of architecture.

THE PRACTICE OF ENGINEERING
The application of the mathematical and physical sciences for the design of public or private buildings, structures, machines, equipment, processes, works or engineering systems, and the consultation, investigation, evaluation, engineering surveys, construction management, planning and inspection in connection therewith, the performance of the foregoing acts and services being prohibited to persons who are not licensed under this act as professional engineers unless exempt under other provisions of this act.

The foregoing shall not be deemed to include the practice of architecture as such, for which separate registration is required ... excepting only architectural work incidental to the practice of engineering.

The above professional distinctions are currently the law in PA. Because the larger proportion of the design work on a building is provided by the architect of record, the design engineers usually work for and under the supervision of the architect.

My only project experience in PA was on a dormitory and dining hall at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh for which I was responsible for the design and coordination of the reinforced masonry, face brick and cast stone building envelope, building code analysis, and professional oversight of the construction work and the owner's testing agencies as required by law. In that capacity I relied on the assistance of several engineering consultants.

Although the masonry contractor was the largest in the area he had never built reinforced masonry that required full time field inspection and claimed it was not necessary, having obviously ignored the reinforced masonry requirements of the contract specifications.

I had to bring the structural designer to a project meeting so he could explain why this process was necessary and how it had to be done to the contractor and his foreman. When the contractor asked our engineer the source of his design information, the engineer said he was the chair of the ACI Committee 530, authors of ACI 530 "Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures" which was the standard required by the applicable building code for the project. He gave them his copy of it because they had apparently misplaced theirs.

The point of this story is that just because someone has extensive construction experience does not necessarily mean he knows, or is willing to use, proper and/or code required materials techniques and methods of construction and that is the reason why professional drawings, specifications and field oversight are required by state law for any project larger than a 3 story one or two family dwelling or townhouse.

Here is a link that might be useful: dorms & dining hall