The field of the invention is waterproofing at- and below-grade rooms.
Ground and below-ground floors and walls often suffer water damage as water flows through the ground and into the walls and floors. This water flow at best causes dampness, and at worst, can shift a foundation or cause a catastrophic wall and/or floor cave-in. Between these two extremes lie the more common water damage effects like mildew, rot, and other property damage.
Water seepage into an underground basement often results from foundation settling. Some parts of the soil footing that the foundation rests upon may be weaker than others, and the result is an uneven distribution of a structure's weight, often stressing the wall and causing cracks, which create an entrance place for moisture.
This water seepage may be the result of heavy ground moisture. Areas in which clay subsoils, high water tables, or other poor drainage conditions can result in a tremendous hydrostatic force exerted by water in the ground that drives the water through a block wall's pores.
Solving these moisture seepage problems, particularly in below-ground rooms like basements, is the business of many companies. Their specialty is helping property-owners assess the sources of the water and seal against the water or redirect it.
The sealing solutions prevent the water's egress into the basement by sealing the basement walls and floor. For example, simply coating the interior of the basement wall is a common homeowner's solution that is unfortunately often ineffective because the coatings alone cannot withstand the hydrostatic pressure created by the water.
Another sealing solution includes using membranes along the outside surface of a basement wall. These membranes generally comprise fabric, tar, or asphalt that are disposed on the outside wall as a layer. This system is relatively expensive.
Another sealing example involves coating of waterproofing to the outside surface of the basement wall. Such a coating involves the use of bituminous emulsion or mastic without a membrane. The biggest disadvantage of this system is that its reliability diminishes under an extended and substantial hydrostatic pressure.
Solutions involving redirecting water can be done by rerouting gutters, grading the land outside the enclosed space, and installing exterior drains and runoffs.
More effective redirection involves capturing the incoming water and directing it from inside the basement to outside the basement. Such a water removal technique involves a series of common steps discussed with reference to
First, an existing basement concrete floor 40 is removed to form a trench 44 adjacent the wall 42's edge. This trench 44 is usually formed approximately 12 inches from the wall 42's edge and parallels the basement's interior wall 42 to form the trench 44 for a drain, described in a subsequent step. (The wall 42 is shown as resting on a footer 64.)
Second, once dug out, the blocks 42 facing below the floor 40 are bled by drilling bleeder holes 46 through the block walls 42 into the core pocket/cell 48 (and into the mortar joints between the blocks) to remove excess water trapped therein.
Third, and depending on the type of wall material, the walls 42 may be treated with coatings 60 and/or a wallboard 62 may be installed over the block wall 42.
Fourth, the trench 44 is filled with washed gravel 50 or similar stone, which envelops a 4″ A.D.S. flexible and coiled perforated piping 52. The trench 44 is covered with a vapor barrier material 54 and finished to grade with a cement layer 56. To aid in drainage, a rippled material under the vapor barrier can direct water from the bleeder hole 46 into the trench 44.
This interior drain system directs water from the pipe 52, where it flows to an area outside of the enclosed space, or to a pump (not shown) that pumps the water outside the basement.
This drain system works well, but one feature improves its performance. It can readily be seen that when the bleeder holes 46 are punched through to the cells 48 within the block walls 42, water exits more slowly that it would from on open vessel. The reason for this is back pressure: as water exits the cells through the hole, the space it once occupied must immediately be filled by the surrounding air; otherwise a vacuum results. As water leaves the cells 48 through the bleeder holes 46, atmospheric pressure forces air into the wall 42 to take its place, and slows the water exiting the cells 48. This doesn't prevent the water from exiting the cells 48, but it does slow its flow. (In a different but more common context, the flow of liquids exiting a can or bottle is regularly interrupted to allow air to enter, resulting in the familiar ‘chug-chug’ sound.)
To minimize back pressure, a second hole 51 connecting the cell 48 (or larger cell 49 formed of adjacent cells 48) to atmosphere is drilled into the wall 42. This second hole 51 allows air to enter the cells 48 and drive water through the bleeder hole 46.
The problem with this solution is that the second hole 51 often gets clogged with debris. Particularly with cinder block walls, the block 42 may crumble around the hole 51 and air flow. Once the second hole 42 is clogged, it becomes useless, and back pressure can prevent or inhibit the flow of water through the cells 48 into the French drain, causing water build-up within the cells 48, and potentially damaging the basement.
Another problem with this solution is that the bleeder holes 46 may be blocked or not drain into the trench 44.
A corner and edge plate directs draining water from within the cells 48 to into the trench 44.
The open vent plug minimizes blockage within the second hole and insure consistent airflow through the cells to drive water into the bleeder hole. The open vent port has a hole therethrough that forms an opening joining the cells and atmosphere. The vent port preferably has a screened opening at one or both ends to prevent debris from blocking the second hole, and sidewalls of the open vent port prevent the wall from crumbling into the hole and blocking airflow therethrough. The screen prevents insects from entering. This airflow also allows for continuous ventilation, thus airing out the walls after periods of heavy rain.
Similarly, a plate can be used in conjunction with the drainage system above. The plate is for use along a wall/floor boundary. The goal of the plates is to provide an open path from the bleeder hole to the trench. This facilitates water drainage and ventilation from the cells.
Other features of the invention are discussed below.
Further features and advantages of the invention will become clearer from the description of some preferred embodiments, made with reference to the attached drawings.
The open vent port 10 has a first lip 22 extending from the open end 14 away from the body 12. This first lip 22 overlaps a surface of the wall 42 to prevent debris from entering the hole from inside the basement.
The open vent port 10 also has at least one second lip 24, preferably three lips 24, that press against the interior surface of the second hole 51 to secure the open vent port 10 in place within the wall 42. As best seen from the Figures, the first and second lips 22, 24 are preferably convex in opposite directions; the second lips being convex to aid in installation.
As best seen in
The open vent port 10 is preferably made of polyethylene. The first lip 22 has a preferable diameter of 1.5 inches and 1.25 inches long. These dimensions are chosen as the preferred dimensions based on their being commonly used with block walls 42.
The wall extensions 104 show a rib 106 that helps reinforce the wall extension 104 and maintain consistent spacing from the wall 42. Although not shown with respect to the corner plate 100, the base 102 could also comprise a similar reinforcing rib 106.
The wall extensions 104 and base 102 further comprise lips 108 that space the wall extensions 104 and/or base 102 away from the wall 42 and floor respectively.
During installation, corner plates 100 and edge plates 200 mate with each other to create a consistent boundary of plates between the floors and walls. The plates 100, 200 comprise mating tabs 110, 210 that facilitate this mating and if properly sealed at the tabs, create a waterproof seal.
The corner and edge plates in
It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that changes may be made to the construction of the invention without departing from the spirit of it. It is intended, therefore, that the description and drawings be interpreted as illustrative and that the following claims are to be interpreted in keeping with the spirit of the invention, rather than the specific details set forth.
It is also to be understood that the following claims are intended to cover all the generic and specific features of the invention herein described and all statements of the scope of the invention that, as a matter of language, might be said to fall therebetween.
This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/499,581, filed Aug. 4, 2006, which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2239255 | Shaw | Apr 1941 | A |
2271733 | Clark | Feb 1942 | A |
2341113 | Nelson | Feb 1944 | A |
2427664 | Dunbar et al. | Sep 1947 | A |
2664809 | Morell | Jan 1954 | A |
2709402 | Malm | May 1955 | A |
2764929 | Tegarty | Oct 1956 | A |
2779065 | Rehme | Jan 1957 | A |
2782464 | Joppich | Feb 1957 | A |
3159090 | Schutt | Dec 1964 | A |
3283460 | Patrick | Nov 1966 | A |
3422998 | Murray | Jan 1969 | A |
3727539 | Wilmes | Apr 1973 | A |
3800791 | Visor | Apr 1974 | A |
3850193 | Guzzo | Nov 1974 | A |
3966099 | Sanford, Jr. et al. | Jun 1976 | A |
4222315 | Weirich | Sep 1980 | A |
4245443 | Beechen | Jan 1981 | A |
4381630 | Koester | May 1983 | A |
4569208 | Villa | Feb 1986 | A |
4587891 | Kruse | May 1986 | A |
4590722 | Bevelacqua | May 1986 | A |
4612742 | Bevilacqua | Sep 1986 | A |
4662270 | Fiddler et al. | May 1987 | A |
4745716 | Kuypers | May 1988 | A |
4757651 | Crites | Jul 1988 | A |
4867149 | Falco | Sep 1989 | A |
4869032 | Geske | Sep 1989 | A |
4907385 | Biodrowski | Mar 1990 | A |
5094049 | Sells | Mar 1992 | A |
5113967 | Killion et al. | May 1992 | A |
5277003 | Myers | Jan 1994 | A |
5501044 | Janesky | Mar 1996 | A |
5501547 | Mantelli | Mar 1996 | A |
5522769 | DeGuiseppi | Jun 1996 | A |
5765323 | Bevilacqua | Jun 1998 | A |
5771643 | Parker | Jun 1998 | A |
5936208 | Hamery | Aug 1999 | A |
6230468 | Klaus | May 2001 | B1 |
6662504 | Krogstad | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6672016 | Janesky | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6695093 | Falco | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6964136 | Collins et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6994621 | Mashiko et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7166024 | Mashiko et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7553104 | Nordhoff | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7832156 | Trotter | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7980035 | D'Apolito et al. | Jul 2011 | B1 |
20050198916 | Janesky | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20070092338 | Nordhoff | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070151190 | Huff et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2149494 | Jun 1985 | GB |
2162305 | Jan 1986 | GB |
2281324 | Mar 1995 | GB |
2006013179 | Feb 2006 | KR |
Entry |
---|
USPTO Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/366,617 dated Aug. 5, 2013. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20080028696 A1 | Feb 2008 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11499581 | Aug 2006 | US |
Child | 11653513 | US |