Inspections and testing were completed during February 2023.
CASE STUDY / 04
Water-leak diagnostics in a commercial unit
Recurring water ingress into a car park below an operating food-service unit required separating possible causes from those that testing could confirm or rule out.
2023Year
05Diagnostic methods
01Material hidden defect
THE SITUATION
Water repeatedly entered an underground car park from the level of a commercial food-service unit. Visible symptoms could have been linked to floor gullies, damaged joints, pressurised services, drainage pipework or the floor build-up. The task was not to name the first plausible cause, but to test each potential water path systematically.
The client, operator and exact location are withheld for confidentiality. Only anonymised technical findings are presented.
VERIFIABLE FACTS
From assumptions to
evidenced causes.
The findings come from an actual diagnostic investigation carried out in February 2023. The scope combined visual inspection, fluorescent and pressure testing, CCTV pipe inspection and local probes.
An operating unit located above an underground car park.
The exact address and operator remain confidential.
Fluorescent testing, pressure tests, CCTV inspection, probes and document review.
A control probe exposed a floor build-up without a waterproofing layer, a material hidden defect.
The results demonstrated multiple defects and the need for reconstruction rather than ineffective sealing of a single location.
HOW WE INVESTIGATED
Each hypothesis received
its own test.
No single method can reliably explain an entire water-ingress mechanism. We therefore combined several complementary tests.
Fluorescent testing
Separate dye testing of gullies, floor areas and damaged junctions.
Pressure testing
Testing of hot and cold water circuits, clearly distinguishing exclusions from items requiring retesting.
CCTV pipe inspection
Drainage inspection identified a blockage near the rear access.
Probes and records
Local opening-up of the floor build-up and comparison of service routes with project records.
KEY CONCLUSIONS
There was no single cause.
It was a combination of defects.
The report separated confirmed causes, excluded sources and items that could only be closed after repairing defective fittings and repeating tests.
Floor gullies were not confirmed
Fluorescent testing of all gullies did not demonstrate leakage from them.
Water migrated through the damaged floor
After testing damaged joints and plinth details, fluorescent dye appeared on drainage pipework in the car park.
The floor build-up lacked waterproofing
A probe showed that the waterproofing layer was absent. Further control probes were recommended to confirm the extent.
Degraded linings created a hazardous condition
Elevated moisture and mould damaged lightweight linings; safe remediation required reconstruction of the unit.
AUDICO EXPERT PERSPECTIVE
The wet location is not automatically
the source.
Water-ingress investigations must progressively rule out each possible path and distinguish cause from consequence. Here, only the combined testing and probes demonstrated that repairing a single detail would not resolve the problem.
Ing. Miroslav Prešinský, PhD. · AUDICOCLIENT DELIVERABLE
From symptoms to a
remediation plan.
- 01Register of confirmed, excluded and open causes
- 02Photographic record and individual test results
- 03Identification of the hidden defect and hazardous condition
- 04Sequence of repairs, control probes and repeat tests
- 05Conclusion that remediation required reconstruction of the unit
Source: an anonymised AUDICO diagnostic report for a commercial unit, 2023. The findings relate to this specific asset and cannot be applied to another property without a separate investigation.
FREE CONSULTATION
Need to distinguish the cause
from the consequence?
We will define a diagnostic plan around the symptoms, construction and access constraints of the asset.
info@audico.sk ↗