Ada 419415

Form Approved
0MB No. 0704-0188
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering aftd maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing thjs burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson
Davis Highwiay, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4^02, and fo, the Office of Management and Budget, Paperw/ork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave b/ank)
3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
2. REPORT DATE
MAJOR REPORT
9.Jan.04
5. FUNDING NUMBERS
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
"VAPOR BARRIERS IN RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION: WHEN, WHERE,

AND IF TO UTILIZE THEM"
6. AUTHOR(S)
CAPT FRAILIE DERON L

PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNICAL INSTITUTE
CI04-6
10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

AFIT/CL\, BLDG 125
2950 P STREET
WPAFB OH 45433
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE
12a. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Unlimited distribution
î-Bf-M--A
In Accordance With AFI 35-205/AFIT S^pTRIBUTJOM STATEMENT A
Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)
20040121 091
15. NUMBER OF PAGES
14. SUBJECT TERMS
230
16. PRICE CODE
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
OF REPORT
18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF THIS PAGE
19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

OF ABSTRACT
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) (EG)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239.18

Designed using Perform Pro, WHS/DIOR, Get 94
THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF

THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT REFLECT THE OFFICIAL
POLICY OR POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES AIR
FORCE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, OR THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT
VAPOR BARRIERS IN RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION: WHEN, WHERE,

AND IF TO UTILIZE THEM
Project and Report

prepared by
Deron L. Frailie
In partial fulfill of the requirements for completion of
Master of Science in Architecture, Construction Management Option
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Fall 2003
5 Dec 03
Committee:
Yvan Beliveau, Ph.D and P.E. (Committee Chair)
Michael O'Brien, R.A.
Ronald Wakefield, Ph.D.
DISTRIBUTION STATEfyiEMT A
Approved for Public Release
Distribution Unlimited
Table of Contents
Proposal
Abstract
Executive Summary
1.0 Literature Review for Vapor Barriers in Residential Construction Applications
26
1.1 Introduction
27
1.2 Keywords and Definitions
28
1.3 Review of Literature

1.3.1 What is moisture?
1.3.2 How is moisture generated?
1.3.2.1 UquidFlow
1.3.2.1.1 Mass/Storage Walls
1.3.2.1.2 Perfect Barriers
1.3.2.1.3 Screened Drainage Walls
1.3.2.2 Capillary Suction
1.3.2.3 Air Movement
1.3.2.4 Vapor Diffusion
1.3.3 How do you deal with the moisture transport mechanisms?
1.3.3.2 Liquid flow
1.3.3.3 Evaporation
1.3.3.4 Ventilation
1.3.3.5 Vapor diffusion and air leakage
1.3.4 Why vapor barriers are used today?
1.3.5 How do you use a vapor barrier?
29
29
31
32
32
33
33
34
34
38
39
39
40
42
42
43
46
48
1.4 Summary
54
1.5 References Cited
56
2.0 The Code Recommendations for Vapor barrier implementation in Residential

Construction: Do the recommendations make sense?
59
2.1 Introduction
60
2.2 Standards defined by ASTM
60
2.3 CABO and ICC Code Summaries
62
2.4 What the codes should say...foundation, wail, and ceiling/roof

2.4.1 Foundation - slab
2.4.2 Foundation - crawl space
2.4.3 Foundation - basement
2.4.4 Walls
2.4.5 Roof/Ceiling
64
64
66
67
68
74
2.5 Summary
77
78
3.0 WUFI Data Results Summary
79
3.1 Background of Software Program, Initial Assumptions, and Limitations
80
3.2 Model Development and Data Interpretations

3.2.1 New Orieans Data Results
3.2.2 Minneapolis Data ResuHs
3.2.3 Roanoke Data Results
81
83
84
86
3.3 Summary
90
96
4.0 Summary and Conclusions
97
4.1 Summary
98
4.2 Detail Conclusions and Specifics for Foundations, Walls, and Roofs
4.2.1 Foundations
4.2.2 Walls
4.2.3 Roofe
98
98
100
103
4.3 Summary of Lessons Learned
104
109
Appendix 1 - New Orleans Test Data
Ill
Appendix 2 - Minneapolis Test Data
144
Appendix 3 - Roanoke Test Data
177
5.0 Bibliography
226
Proposal
The major problem cited by independent residential builders in new housing construction is
moisture related, primarily, rot, decay, and the growth of molds and fungus. First recognized and
investigated in a 1923 Forest Products Laboratory survey of dwellings, condensation and
moisture related problems were witnessed in early exterior structure paint feilure (U.S. Forest
Service, 1949). Current building codes and property standards contribute to the problem since the
methods employed are prescriptive rather than performance oriented, and the code requirements
have tried to create a universal approach for construction rather than looking holistically at the
wall assembly components (Trechsel, Achenbach, and Launey, 1982 and Sherwood and Moody,
1989). The purpose of the proposed project and report will be three fold: 1.) Conduct a review of
the current building codes for residential construction practices (CABO, International Residential
Code and American Society of Testing and Materials) and provide a discussion of the code
prescribed installation methodologies and the information/guidance that should be included; 2.)
Produce a guide of best practices for proper design and detailing of vapor barriers according to
the primary climatic region conditions for several common wall assemblies utilized in residential
construction; and 3.) Analyze common wall assemblies and the associated dew point locations
under several climatic conditions utilizing WUFI, a diffusion modeling software program tiiat helps
predict/compute relative humidity levels which when used in conjunction with the temperature
enables the user to determine the dew point.
Abstract
moisture related, primarily, rot, decay, and the growth of molds and fungus. Current building
codes and property standards methods are prescriptive rather than performance oriented. Wall
assembly components should be considered holistically rather than individually (Trechsel,
Achenbach, and Launey, 1982 and Shenwood and Moody, 1989).
The report defines and discusses the physical characteristics and standards of vapor barriers as
provided by the American Society of Testing Materials
(ASTM) for the design of building
systems. The Council of American Building Officials, CABO: One and Two Family Dwelling
Code. 1995 Edition. Fourth Printing, and International Code Council, International Residential
Code: For One and Two Family Dwellings, codes will then be summarized, discussed, and
evaluated to determine whether the code recommendations follow the information from the
reviewed literature that has been published with respect to this subject.
A recommended
description of how to design the wall systems with respect to vapor barriers is provided. WUFI,
Warme-und Feuchteransport Instationar (Transient Heat and Moisture Transport), a computer
wall-modeling program, was utilized to determine whether the proposed solutions remain valid
once the wall sections were subjected to weather conditions.
The primary conclusion that can be drawn from this report is that the concern when designing,
detailing, and constructing a structure for vapor/moisture is that air moves far more vapor and
moisture than is diffused through the wall cavity materials. Air movement is the movement
mechanism that needs to be addressed in our structures.
Executive Summary
Abstract
Current building codes and property standards contribute to tlie moisture problem currently being
experienced in many of our residences. The methods being employed in the codes [Council of
American Building Officials (CABO) and the International Code Councils (ICC)] are prescriptive
rather than performance oriented, and have tried to create a universal approach for construction
rather than looking holistically at the individual wall assembly components and specific structure's
design (Trechsel, Achenbach, and Launey, 1982 and Shenwood and Moody, 1989).
The
following paper contains a summary of lessons learned during the course of a review of literature,
a summary of the ASTM vapor bamer standards, a detailed examination of the current existing
building codes in relation to vapor barriers, and concludes with recommendations that are climate
specific with regard to the foundation, walls, and roofing systems most commonly utilized in
residential construction today.
Keywords
Vapor barriers/vapor diffusion retarders, building codes, air baniers, moisture, and condensation
Introduction
Condensation and moisture related problems were first recognized and investigated in a 1923
Forest Products Laboratory survey of dwellings with early exterior paint failure on residential
houses (U.S. Forest Service, 1949). It has more recently been reported, "with the exception of
structural errors, 90% of building construction problems are associated with water" and the
harmful effects related to its penetration into our structures (Trechsel, Achenbach, and Launey,
1982). Buildings continue to be a source of health problems because of the accumulation of
moisture and the subsequent growth of mold and fungi within our structure's envelope.
Current building codes and property standards contribute to this problem because the methods
being employed are prescriptive rather than performance oriented. The codes have tried to
create a universal approach for construction rather than looking holistically at the wall assembly
components and specific structure's design (Trechsel, Achenbach, and Launey, 1982 and
Sherwood and Moody, 1989).
A major assumption that this paper espouses is that air moves far more moisture vapor than
diffusion through building materials. Following the assumption that air moves more moisture
vapor than diffijsion, the subject of air transported moisture vapor remains the greatest enemy of
the wall system in our residences.
The principle of restricting air-transported moisture has
created the need to concentrate on quality control in residential construction. The most effective
means to prevent or retard the flow of air through a wall system is to ensure that when the wall is
constructed that the air barrier and all penetrations through the wall (such as vents, inlets, and
outlets) are correctly and carefully detailed and installed to minimize the harmful effects of air
movement within the wall system.
Moisture dissipation from within a wall is directly related to Irath air movement and vapor diffusion
through the structure's wall assembly materials (Carll, 2000). The rampant use of vapor baniers
in residential construction has in many instances created redundant vapor barriers within the wall
cavity that may trap moisture and water. Even if the vapor barrier is not redundant, the vapor
barrier's placement is oftentimes in the wrong location creating as many problems as
redundancy. A vapor barrier's location should be carefully designed and specifically applied in
relation to the wall design, climatic conditions, and the wall's directional orientation (North, South,
East, or West). In order to more effectively control moisture, designers and builders must look
holistically at the indoor and outdoor atmospheric conditions of the building system design to
create the appropriate foundation, walls, and roof sections for the building assembly (Caril, 2000).
The recommended placement of a vapor barrier should not be universal. When determining
whether or not to use a vapor barrier, the specific application should be studied, designed, and
incorporated.
It should be noted that the term vapor barrier, as used in this paper, has been referred to as a
vapor diffusion retarder, vapor retarder, and vapor diffuser in the surveyed literature. The term
used on the job site to describe any of these materials is vapor barrier. For simplicity and
consistency within this paper and utilizing the language used on the job site, all future references
to any of these terms (vapor barriers, vapor diffusion retarders, vapor retarders, and vapor
diffusers) will simply be refen-ed to as vapor barriers.
A vapor barrier's performance is measured in perms, which is "the passage of one grain of water
vapor per hour through one cubic foot of material at a pressure differential of one inch of mercury
between the two sides of the material" (Allen, 1990). A vapor barrier is any material that has a
permeance of less than or equal to 1 in residential construction, but this number is typically much
lower for other types of construction (ASTM, 1999; Lstiburek, 2000). Materials that are
intentionally utilized as vapor barriers commonly have a perm rating of .1 or less, even though the
definition provides for less stringent permeance characteristics (DoE, 2002). To further prevent
any trapping of moisture in the wall cavity, the cold side of the material should have a perm rating
at least five times greater than the value at the warm side (DoE, 2002). A vapor barrier is not a
waterproofing application; it is a material with a low permeance that aims to slow or retard the
movement of vapor through the material to prevent the vapor from reaching the dew point on the
next cold surface (Bordenaro, 1991; DoE, 2002; Kubal, 2000; ASTM, 1999; Quiroutte, 1991; DoE,
2002; Straube, 2002; Lstiburek and Carmody, 1991; ICAA, 2002). The vapor barrier should
ideally be placed so that it is the next cold surface once the dew point has been reached within
the wall cavity. A vapor barrier should be included in the wall system design when the designer is
seeking to create a moisture and infiltration tight environment for the wall system (Stein and
Reynolds, 1992; Lstiburek, 2000). The correct incorporation of a vapor barrier in the wall system
can be looked at as a means of helping control condensation in wall assemblies.
The function of an air barrier is to stop outside air from infiltrating the building system materials
through the walls, windows, or roof and to keep inside air from exfiltrating through the building
envelope to the outside (Quiroutte, 1991). An air barrier may be utilized at any location within the
wall assembly and must be specifically designed, detailed, constructed and in order to ensure
that it is effective (Rousseau, 1990). Since air leakage is the most significant mechanism to be
considered in moisture control, air leakage should be controlled regardless of climate. It should
be remembered that air leakage moves far more moisture than vapor diffusion does through
materials (Sherwood and Moody, 1989 and Letter, 2000). A key principle to be remembered with
an air barrier is that they should be used everywhere, and they should be properly designed and
subsequently constructed (Straube, 2002). The air and vapor barrier information in Table 1 is a
source for definitions and a list of sample materials.
Air that leaks into a wall assembly must also have a means to exit the assembly. In most cases,
air leakage can be corrected through careful detailing and maintaining quality control at the inlet
and outlet opening sources of air leakage into wall assemblies (Lstiburek and Carmody, 1991).
Inlet openings are typically unsealed electrical outlet boxes, bottom edges of interior gypsum
board cladding, or openings/gaps/joints in interior air barrier systems. Outlet openings are joints
between sheets of exterior sheathings, top plate and bottom plate connections to the exterior
sheathings, service penetrations, and other construction flaws. These openings must be detailed
and constructed correctly if the air bam'er's integrity is to be maintained.
Table 1 - Vapor Barriers vs. Air Barriers, Definitions and Sample Materials
VDRA/apor
barrier
Air Barrier/
Pressure
Threshold
Definition
1. "The control of water vapor diffusion to
reduce the occurrence or intensity of
condensation" (Straube, 2001) that is driven
by diffusion, and
2. May have imperfections and small cracks in
its surfeice without greatly impairing the
perfbmance of the penneable vapor barrier
(Straube, 2001), or
3. Defined by building codes as anything with
a permeability of 1 perm or less (Lstiburek,
2000)
1. "Control airflow and thereby control

convection vapor transporf (Straube, 2001),
2. Controls the moisture that is transported
along with this airltow (Straube - vapor, 2002);
3. Helps to increase comfort, reduce energy
consumption, help control odor, and help
reduce sound transmission (Straube, 2001);
and
4. Must be "continuous, durable, stiff (or
restrained), strong, and air impemieable
(Straube, 2001)
5. The point where the air pressure drop
occurs within the cavity (Lstiburek, 2000)
Sample Materials
- Polyethylene sheet membrane (Visquene) or film
(varying throknesses, 2-6 mil and in 3-20 foot rolls)
sealed with manufocturer recommended caulk,
sealants, and tapes
-EPDM
- Plastic sheeting
- Rubber membranes
-Glass
- Aluminum foil
- Sheet metal
- Oil-based paint
- Bitumen or wax impregnated krafl paper
- V\^ll coverings and adhesives
- Foil-faced insulating and non-insulating
sheathings
- Vapor retarder latex paint
- 2 coats of acrylic latex paint top coating mth
premium latex primer
-3 coats of latex paint
- Scrim (open-weave fabric like fiberglass fabric)
- Hot, asphaltk: rubberized membranes
- Some insulations (elastomeric foam, cellular
glass, foil faced isofoam) if sealed
- Aluminum or paper faced fiberglass roll insulation
- Foil backed wall board
- Rigid insulatfon or foam-board insulation
- 1/4 inch Douglas fir plywood with exterior glue
- High-performance cross-laminated polyethylene
(Infonnation from Lstiburek, 2000; ICAA, 2002;
Spence, 1998; Bordenaro, 1991; Maness, 1991;
Lotz, 1998; Lstiburek and Carmody, 1991; Forest
Products Lab, 1949; DoE, 2002)
- Unpainted gypsum board (sealed)
- House-wrap, if property sealed and continuous
- Continuous building paper (151b or 301b felt paper)
- Plywood sheathing if joints property sealed
- Foam board insulatton
- Hot, asphaltic rubberized membranes
glass, foil faced isofoam) if sealed
(Information from ICAA, 2002; DoE, 2002)
Air leakage through a wall assembly nearly approaches zero in modem construction because of
the rampant use of sealers and caulks between any and all the joints and materials (Straube,
2002). While the approach specified by most designers today calls for the use of housewrap as
the air barrier, they should be cautioned since this material has been shown in the DOE (2000),
Holladay and Vara (2000), McDaniel (2000), Holladay (2000), Cushman (1997), and James
(2000) articles to allow air, and subsequently moisture, to pass through once it has been stapled
or attached by other means. While all the joints may be taped, as directed by the housewrap
manufacturer, tapes and sealants are prone to deterioration over time. The importance has been
mentioned since housewrap is a frequently used component that must be considered and
designed when dealing with moisture. A full discussion of housewrap will not be discussed in this
paper.
Air barriers often adt like vapor barriers due to the permeance of the materials used (Straube,
2002). The designer should consider whether or not the air barrier material qualifies as a vapor
barrier because utilizing a redundant system will often lead to harmful moisture issues within the
wall cavity by trapping vapor and creating an ideal environment for rot, decay, mold, and fungi to
flourish in (Roger, 1^4). Examples of easily incorporated inadvertent vapor barriers include vinyl
wall coverings and multiple coats of paint (i.e., 3 coats of latex paint) that inhibit the wall's
capacity to dry (Lstiburek, 2000). The inadvertent use of air barriers that behave like vapor
barriers contribute to the problems within our structures.
As a building is renovated and repaired, redundancy and inadvertent vapor barriers are often
created. For example, a common manner in which an Inadvertent vapor barrier is created in a
residence is when the occupants repaint a room. The structure's wall, when constructed, may
have a primer coat on the gypsum wallboard and two additional coats of non-vapor retarding latex
paint. When the occupants repaint their walls to update their home with two new of coats of latex
paint, they have unintentionally created a vapor barrier on the interior side of the wall. The
inclusion of this vapor barrier either creates a vapor barrier where none previously existed or has
now created a redundant vapor barrier because of one that was intentionally installed during
construction. Unintentional vapor barriers are frequently incorporated into buildings and should
be avoided when possible.
Caution should be taken when renovating or updating
residences/structures to prevent redundancy.

The predominate approach to climate zone definition has segregated the United States into
climatic zones or areas according to the number of heating degree-days that the specific location
experiences throughout the year. The climatic zones used in this paper follow these principles:
Heating climate is defined as an area that has 4000+ heating degree-days (Lstiburek
andCarmody, 1991).
Mixed climate is an area that has up to 4000 heating degree-days (Lstiburek and
Carmody, 1991).
Cooling climate is defined as an area that has 67F or higher WB temperatures for
3000+ hours during the warmest 6 consecutive months and/or 73F or higher WB
temp for 1500+ hours during the warmest 6 consecutive months (Lstiburek and
Carmody, 1991).
The information in Table 2 lists the approximate locations, but the specifics should be confirmed
for each locale prior to any design. Specific climatic information may be gathered fi-om ASHRAE,
the National Weather Service Bureau, or other relevant sources.
10
Table 2, States in the various climatic zones of the United States adapted from the
graphical depiction of climatic zones from Lstiburek and Carmody (1991)
Heating Climate
Mixed Climate
Cooling Climate
Maine, New Hampshire, Vemwnt, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa,
Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho,
Utah, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, the northern half of California (roughly from San Francisco
north), and Alaska
Delavrare, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, northern
2/3 of Texas (roughly area north of El Paso, San Antonio, and Beaumont), New Mexico, Arizona, and
southern half of Califomia
South Carolina, Georgia, Ftorida, Alat>ama, Mississippi, Louisiana, southern 1/3 of Texas, and
Hawaii
Summary of Lessons Learned from the Review of Literature

The following points have been adapted from a review of literature:
1.
In a cold climate, a vapor barrier should be Installed close to the interior (warm) side of
the insulation.
2.
in a hot, humid, tropical climate a vapor bamer should be placed on exterior (warm) side
of the insulation, if one is used.
3.
In mild, more temperate climates a vapor barrier may or may not be necessary
depending upon the specific wall materials. For example,
a.
The brick veneer and spruce siding wall may have a vapor barrier installed on the
exterior side of the insulation.
It is recommended that no vapor bamer be
included because the vapor diffusion difference is not too different when
comparing a vapor barrier wall to the same wall without a vapor barrier. The
added expense of a vapor bamer should dictate not including one in this design.
The effective incorporation of proper ventilation and clear weep holes within this
wall cavity design is necessary because once water penetrates the cavity a
means to exit and a means to dry should exist.
b.
The use of a plaster veneer wall should be avoided in this climate. This exterior
wall system's components (Durarok and plywood) behave like a vapor retarder
for diffusion through the wall system and as such should be avoided to avoid
potential redundancy.
However, if this wall system is utilized in this climate
proper ventilation and clear weep holes within this wall cavity design is necessary
to allow water to exit the cavity or to dry.
4.
A vapor barrier should only be used if needed, and the use should be based upon the
specific wall system design, climate and orientation (North, South, East, or West) of the
structure's location and specific wall design.
5.
A vapor barrier in a basement should be implemented in the same manner and location
as it was in the above-grade wall system.
6.
A vapor barrier performs as a ground cover below the slab-on-grade and in crawl spaces
and shouki always be used. The vapor banier's inclusion in these locations helps reduce
11
moisture transport through capillary movement/suction from the soil up and into the
structure's materials.
7.
The vapor barrier does not have to be airtight, but should be installed with as few
imperfections as possible to prevent the flow of air and vapor into the envelope. A rule of
thumb when installing vapor barriers is "a vapor barrier that covers 90% of the surface is
90% effecfive' (JLC Staff, 1993).
8.
Common wall cover applications act as vapor barriers (i.e., 3+ coats of non-vapor
retarding latex paint and vinyl wall covering wallpaper).
9.
The building's wall cavity should not be ventilated in hot, humid (cooling) climates.
10. The building's wall cavity should be ventilated in temperate and cold (heating) climates.
11. An air barrier is needed and should be designed into all structures, regardless of climate.
12. Air moves far more moisture than diffusion through materials.
13. Care should be taken when installing an air barrier because the air banier is onjy as
fundional as the air bamer's material integrity (i.e., be free of cuts, tears, punctures, rips).
14. Ventilation requirements in the attic space or crawl space should not be reduced with the
inclusion of a vapor barrier.
WUFI - Student Version, a transient heat and moisture transport computer wall modeling
program, was used to model vapor diffusion through several common wall assemblies (WUFI,
2003). The effects of air transported vapor remains the primary factor in determining whether or
not to utilize a vapor barrier in the construction of a wall system. The results from the WUFI test
runs have been summarized below with the assumption that vapor diffusion through the wall
system materials is the only driving force within the wall:
1.
A vapor barrier [s necessary on the outside of the insulation in cooling climates to combat
the effects of vapor diffusion.
2. A vapor barrier js necessary on the inside of the insulation in heating climates to combat
the effects of vapor diffusion.
3. A vapor barrier is not necessary in mixed climates to address vapor diffusion through the
wall system.
The effect of air movement through building materials remains the primary issue to be addressed
in building system design and construction. The air barrier should be installed with no
penetrations, cuts, tears, or unsealed openings. The air barrier's integrity is critical if the wall
components are to be kept dry and not subjected to the harmful effects associated with moisture
penetration due to air movement. The air barrier's integrity should be checked prior to the
installation of subsequent building assembly layers. The vapor barrier's integrity, on the other
hand, does not have to be as perfect if the air barrier has been installed correctly. If the vapor
12
barrier only has to combat the effects of vapor diffusion through the materials, rather than the
effects of air movement and vapor diffusion, then a vapor barrier with a few minor blemishes will
perform its role correctly and efficiently. If the vapor barrier is to fulfill the dual role of vapor and
air barrier then the rules for installing an air barrier apply.
The quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) processes are critical during the construction
of the air barrier and the sub-slab ground cover vapor barrier. These barriers should be installed
as imperviously as possible and their integrity should be carefully checked prior to subsequent
work being placed on top of their respective surfaces. The effectiveness of the wall system air
barriers and the sul)-slab ground cover vapor barriers are only as effective as they are continuous
(JLC Staff Report, 1993).
Any and all penetrations should be patched or sealed. QA/QC
procedures during construction of these barriers are vital to the success of the wall assembly in
the building as it combats moisture.
The directional orientation that the wall faces plays a significant role in the determination of
whether or not to include a vapor barrier within the wall. The directional orientation of south and
west facing structure walls will require different design parameters than walls facing north and
east. The south and west facing walls face more effects from themnal mass and heat gain due to
their particular directional orientation.
These walls can be expected to maintain higher
temperature readings than those on the north and east facing walls throughout the year and the
dew point temperatures, and possibly the dew point location, within the wall may vary significantly
compared to the same wall on the east or north face of the structure. The specific dew point
locations vnthin the wall system should be calculated for each structure's wall when designing the
residences wall systems.
Vapor barrier standards defined by ASTiVI

The ASTM standards, C755, define the vapor barrier's primary function within the wall system as
1o control the movement of diffusing water vapor into or through a permeable insulation system"
(ASTM, 1999). The diffused movement of vapor into and through a wall system follows one of
two flow patterns, unidirectional or reversible (ASTM, 1999). Vapor pressure difference is the
driving factor in determining how vapor barriers are to be used since the greater the pressure
differential, the greater the rate of diffusion through the assembly (ASTM, 1999). During the
design phase, the expected pressure differences should be realistic, not estimated, when
determining the vapor banier requirements (ASTM, 1999).
ASTM defines unidirectional flow, as having a "water vapor pressure difference [that] is
consistently higher on one side of the system than the other" (ASTM, 1999). In cooler climates,
13
this unidirectional vapor flow should include the design of the vapor bamer on the indoor, warmer,
side of the wall insulation.
Reversible flow is defined as having a "vapor pressure [that] may be higher on either side of the
system, and it often changes with the seasons" (ASTM, 1999).
Design for reversible flow
conditions do not greatly influence where in the wall system the vapor bamer should be placed.
The assumption made with reversible flow is that drying will occur during the opposite season for
which the barrier was placed within the cavity.
If a membrane retarder material is to be used within the cavity, ASTM recommends using a
retarder with a lower permeance if a five-foot (1.5 meter) wide roll is used, or using a vapor
barrier/retarder with a higher permeance if a 20 foot (6.1 meter) width is installed (ASTM, 1999).
The reason for the permeance difference, dependent upon the width of the roll, is due to the air
penetration through the materials. The smaller width roll of membrane retarder would require a
lower permeance because there would be more laps, joints, and seams than the wider roll and
thus more air entrained vapor would potentially be allowed to pass through the openings. Even
with proper sealing of the laps, joints, and seams of the smaller width rolls, perfect construction
quality should never be relied upon for installation, especially since sealants are prone to
breakdown over time and the quality of installation cannot be relied upon to be "as
recommended" by the manufacturer (which most design specifications indicate). When designing
the cavity, low permeability insulation installed with sealed, vapor tight joints often acts like a
vapor barrier within the wall. A redundant vapor barrier system should be avoided, but is often
inadvertentiy constructed into the wall system design when a vapor banier is purposefully used in
conjunction with low permeability insulation.
The ASTM standards also recommend the implementation of an air banier system within the wall
cavity (ASTM, 1999). The potential for condensation should be investigated when designing the
placement of the air barrier within the wall system (ASTM, 1999). The recommended placement
of the air banier within the cavity is on the warm side of the insulation and should be installed in a
continuous, unbroken manner to prevent the uncontrolled movement of air through the wall
system, as previously discussed.
The ASTM has defined two recommended vapor barrier design principles called flow-through
design and moisture storage. Flow-through design is supposed to eliminate the possibility of
condensation within the insulation and should include the use of a highly permeable insulation
within the cavity (ASTM, 1999). The purpose of the high permeability insulation is to allow vapor
to flow through the insulation and condense, if the vapor is to condense, on the next lower
14
permeable surface (ideally the vapor isarrler) within the system where the liquid would either be
drained or removed through ventilation. The moisture storage principle allows for some moisture
accumulation within the system's insulation, but the rate of accumulation is small and low
permeability insulation should be used (ASTM, 1999). The design utilizing the moisture storage
principle assumes that moisture condensation quantities will not exceed the storage
characteristics of the material before the moisture is removed from within the system.
The vapor pressure differentials in summer tend to cause vapor to flow in an inward direction, and
as such, a vapor barrier should be used on the outer side of the insulation facing the exterior
covering of the structure (ASTM, 1999). The ASTM guidance goes on to state "the vapor retarder
should still be located on the side of the insulation facing the interior of the building to control
vapor flow under the more severe conditions" (from the warm winter side of the system) (ASTM,
1999). The guidance continues, stating that if an impermeable insulation material is utilized, a
separate vapor banier is not needed at all as long as the "joints (if any) are made impermeable by
suitable sealing methods" as recommended by the manufacturer (ASTM, 1999). The wall system
must be designed for moisture that penetrates the retarder, moves into the insulation, and finally
continues on to the outside through some means of ventilation or forced air movement within the
cavity (ASTM, 1999).
The ASTM standards provide design solutions/recommendations to
effectively handle all climatic conditions encountered in the United States construction process,
and they provide designers and builders with a clear understanding of how to correctly utilize
these materials in the wall systems.
CABO and ICC Code Summaries

The current residential building codes, as published by the Council of American Building Officials
(CABO) and the International Code Councils (ICC), have been investigated with regards to the
implementation of vapor barriers for residential one and two family dwellings. The applicable
code sections from these references have been tabularized in summary fomri in Table 3 below.
Table 3, Vapor barrier specific code summaries, adapted from CABO (1995) & ICC (2000)
Section
321
Code
CABO
Title
"Moisture Vapor Retarders"
Discussion
- Required in all iianne walls and floors, and ceilings, not
ventilated to allow moisture to escape.
- Vapor larrier to be used on warm-in-winter side of thermal
insulation with two (2) exceptions:
1.) Where moisture or its freezing will not damage the
materials.
2.) Hot, humid climates: 67F+ wet bulb temps for 3000+
hours or yS'F* wet bulb temp for 1500+ hours during
warmest six (6) consecutive months of year.
15
Discussion
- In all framed vralls, floors and roofs/ceilings comprising elements
of building thermal envelope.
- A vapor barrier shall be installed on warm-in-winter side of
insulation with three (3) exceptions:
1.) Where moisture or its freezing will not damage the
materials.
2.) Hot, humid climates: 67F+ wet bulb temps for 3000+
hours or 73F+ wet bulb temp for 1500+ hours during
vrarmest six (6) consecutive months of year.
3.) Counties listed in ICC Table 1101.2, p.72-80
(summarized In report's table 2).
- No discussion other than waterproofing applications and
"Foundation Waterproofing
CABO
406
moisture banier installation
and Dampproofjng"
ICC
R406
- When ground surfece is treated with a vapor banier, ventilation
"Crawl Space"
409
CABO
opening requirements may be reduced to 1/1,500 of the underfloor area, or
- Ventilation openings may be omitted when continuously
operating mechanical ventilation is provided at a rate of 1.0 cftn
for each 50 ft^ of crawl space and the ground surface covered
with a vapor barrier.
- Same two rules/exceptions as CABO, plus
"Under-Ftoor Space"
ICC
R408
- Ventilation openings not required if ground covered with a vapor
banier, space is supplied with conditioned air, and perimeter
walls are insulated.
- Vapor barrier with Joints lapped at least six inches (6") shall be
"Concrete Floors (on
505
CABO
placed between slab and base course or prepared subgrade if no
ground)"
base course exists
- Three (3) exceptions:
1.) Detached structures that are to be unheated (i.e.,
garages).
2.) Flatwori< not likely to be enclosed and heated later (i e.,
sidewalks, patios).
3.) As approved by building official.
Exact words and requirements described in CABO
ICC
R506
Net free cross-ventilation area may be reduced to 1 to 300 with
"Roof Ventilation'
CABO
806
installation of vapor barrier (material with a transmission rate not
exceedinq 1 perm) installed on the warm side of ceiling.
R806
ICC
It should be noted that t>oth CABO and the ICC state, with identical language, that "the total net free ventilating area shall
not be less than 1 to 150 of the area of space ventilated except that the total area is permitted to be reduced to 1 to 300,
provided at least 50% and not more than 80% of the required ventilating area is provided by ventilators located in the
upper portion of the space to be ventilated at least 3 ft. above the eave or comice vents with the balance of the required
ventilation provided by eave or comice vents."
- Vapor banier to be installed between deck and insulation where
"Built-up Roofing"
CABO
907
average January temperature is below 45F, or
- Where excessive moisture conditions anticipated within the
building.
- Nothing vapor larrier specific
R907
ICC
Sectron
R322
Code
ICC
Title
The information that is presented in Table 4 has

been adapted and condensed from the ICC,
Section R322, Table 1101.2, pages 72-80. The
exact
counties/parishes
listed
should
be
referenced when designing or constructing a

structure in these states, and an exemption is
being sought for moisture vapor barrier inclusion
on the warm in winter side of the insulation.
16
Table 4, Adapted from information from ICC (2000):

Section R322, Exception 3
Number of counties exempted from
state
warm-in-winter V.R. installation
North Carolina 16 of 100 counties
South Carolina 30 of 46 counties
109 of 159 counties
Georgia
All counties
Florida
47 of 67 counties
Alabama
64 of 82 counties
Mississippi
Louisiana
All parishes
44 of 75 counties
Arkansas
2 of 95 counties
Tennessee
Oklahoma
6 of 78 counties
139 of 254 counties
Texas
The two codes have similar intended audiences (one and two fanrfliy dwelling designers and
builders), and the requirements with regards to vapor barriers are nearly identical in both
language and verbiage. Both of the codes dictate to the designer or builder where the vapor
barriers will be placed with the exception of the section on concrete floors (on ground) where the
provision, "or as approved by building official" is included.
The requirements, as outlined in the codes, are fairly specific with regards of where, when, and
how to install vapor barriers within the wall systems. The code requirements do not easily allow
proposals for acceptable alternatives by designers and builders who may be implementing
altemative approaches to construction.
Detail Specifics for Foundations, Walls, and Roofs

Foundations
The foundation vapor barrier design is straightforward and consistent for heating, cooling, and
mixed climates. A vapor barrier should be included in all climates as a ground cover under slabon-grade and in crawl spaces. The accumulation of moisture through the foundation/support
elements (slab, basement, crawl space, etc.) is the primary point of entry into residential
construction assemblies (Suprenant, 1994). The incorporation of vapor barriers in the foundation
design is only going to be as effective as the drainage mechanisms facilitate. Designing proper
drainage includes not only collecting the water, but also effectively moving the water out and
away from the structure so that the water does not accumulate and then migrate back up and into
the wall system.
Two typical design details for the slab-on-grade and a crawl space may be
seen in Figures 1 and 2.

The placement of the sub-slab vapor barrier will perform a dual role in the structure's moisture
protection.
The first role is to break capillary movement of moisture upward and into the
structure's assembly (Lstiburek and Camriody, 1991). The role of the sub-slab vapor barrier is to
break capillarity, and provide the building with its first preventative measure in dealing with
moisture by minimizing the potentially harmful effects within the structure. Special care should be
taken to ensure that the vapor barrier's integrity is maintained since it is also fulfilling the role of
an air barrier.
17
The second role of the sub-slab vapor barrier is to help prevent moisture migration through the
porous concrete (Suprenant, 1994). The vapor barrier material for this application may include
sheet polyethylene, damproofing material, multiple layers of roofing paper, or EPDM sheeting. All
joints should be lapped at least six inches, and the vapor barrier material should be as impervious
as
possible to
any
breaks, punctures, or
other such penetrations
(Suprenant, 1994). The
role of the vapor barrier
in
this
j. p6|tjTieTS3 ptwtJ Pipe
particular
application should be
designed
and
constructed in a similar
Figure 1, Adapted standard slab-on-grade and basement detail

from Ramsey and Sleeper (1992).
manner as an air barrier

within the wall system.
The vapor barrier should be placed on top of, and in direct contact with, the compacted subgrade
material. Then, on top of the vapor barrier and below the concrete slab, a three-inch thick layer of
sand or varied sizes of
gravel should be applied
vw*-fe;gs^
and lightly compacted

(Suprenant,
1994).
Gravel is recommended
^ iiDi>"rt<tJ
over sand because gravel

pSCP8aJGD**NT
is less easily displaced

;. CMEec <SRi/teu
t)B*iM6e RFC
during the placement of

the concrete slab and
provides a consistently
more uniform surface for
the
slab's
placement
(Suprenant, 1994).
discussion
with
residential house builder
^'
i.vviv
Figure 2, Adapted standard crawl-space detail from FPL

(1949) and Ramsey and Sleeper (1992).
stated that this sand or gravel layer is seldom incorporated because of the significant cost and the
perceived benefits of incorporation do not outweigh the increased cost of installation (Vinson,
2003). Special care and oversight should be taken during tiie concrete placement phase since
the vapor barrier's effectiveness is proportional to the integrity of the banier membrane below
(JLC Staff, 1993).
18
The requirements, as outlined in the CABO and ICC codes, make recommendations for the
incorporation of vapor barriers in the on-grade, sub-slab section that are in line and follow the
recommendations and guidance discovered during a review of literature not presented here.
Walls
The climate where the residence wall is to be located, in conjunction with the composition of the
wall components, strictly define how, where, and if a vapor barrier should be included in the
design. As previously discussed, the directional orientation of the wall system also plays a
significant role in determining when to place a vapor barrier within the wall system. The internal
wall temperatures vary significantly depending on if the wall is exposed to climatic conditions on
the north, south, east or west sides of the structure. The wall assembly temperatures and
thermal mass effects are greatly impacted by the directional orientation. The examples selected
do not represent all known housing solutions, merely the most popularly used solutions in the
residential construction industry today.
In a heating climate, a vapor barrier should be installed on the warm side of the insulation in both
the spruce siding model and the brick veneer models. The type of vapor barrier recommended in
this climate is the polyethylene sheet membrane. The use of the plaster-like exterior material, in
conjunction with Durarok and plywood, should be avoided in this climate because of
redundancy since a vapor barrier is necessary on the warm side of the insulation in this climate.
The plaster wall system's component composition (Durarok and plywood) on the interior of the
plaster coat behaves like a vapor barrier for vapor diffusion through the wall system.
It is
recommended that this assembly be avoided in mixed and heating climates because of the great
potential for vapor barrier redundancy.
In a cooling climate, a vapor banier should be installed on the exterior side of the insulation. A
"Smart Vapor Banier", or bitumen or wax impregnated krafl paper, is recommended instead of a
polyethylene sheet membrane in this climate. It should be noted that clear weep holes and
proper ventilation should be utilized if a plaster-like exterior surface is selected.
In a mixed climate, a vapor barrier is not recommended. If a vapor barrier used then it should be
installed at the same location within the wall as that for a cooling climate. It should be noted that
a vapor barrier is not recommended because of the added cost and high probability of
redundancy. If a vapor barrier is used, then install it like in cooling climate structure discussed
earlier. The plaster-like exterior wall system, in conjunction with Durarok and plywood, already
behaves like a vapor barrier and a separate vapor barrier should not be installed. However, if this
19
wall system Is utilized in the mixed climate strict adherence to proper ventilation and clear weep
holes within this wall cavity design are necessary to allow water to exit the cavity or to dry.
The effects of the redundancy (for example, as caused by multiple layers of latex paint) in a
cooling climate's structure are expected to be worse than those in the heating climate. The
placement of the intentional vapor banier on the exterior side of the insulation in a cooling climate
and the inclusion of the inadvertent vapor barrier on the interior side of the gypsum board will
create a potential vapor trap in the insulation and gypsum board components of the cooling
climate's wall assembly. The effect of redundancy caused by paint in the heating climate, with an
intentional vapor barrier on the interior warm side of the insulation, creates a vapor trap inside of
the gypsum board. It may be concluded that the effects of vapor accumulation will be significantly
minimized in the heating climate when compared to the cooling climate's wall.
Proper ventilation and dear weep holes in the wall cavity must exist because once water enters
the cavity it should have botii a means to exit and a means to dry.
If the water is not allowed to
exit once it enters the cavity, the water will seek equilibrium within the space and migrate across
and through other materials.
In this climate, the spruce siding wall assembly has the same
recommendations as those for the brick veneer wall. A plaster veneer wall should be avoided in
this climate.
Table 5 has been developed as a synopsis or guide for use when making design decisions with
regard to the common wall systems in use in residential housing today.
Roofe
The use of a vapor barrier in the roof/ceiling components of the assembly is effective and
recommended as a means of being able to reduce the ventilation requirements in this part of the
assembly according to the codes. The specifics of utilizing, or not utilizing, a vapor barrier in this
area of the assembly is dependent upon the climatic area of the structure, the design of the
ceiling/roofing connection, and whether or not the roof is ventilated. All of these items must be
considered in conjunction with one another and cannot be looked at or designed in isolation when
making a determination for when to utilize a vapor banier.
A great deal of debate is present in the literature that has been reviewed, and no firm consensus
has been reached across all the material reviewed with regards to vapor barriers in the roof
system. The only firm conclusion with regards to the inclusion or exclusion of vapor barriers in
the roof design is to calculate the specific point where the dew point is reached within the roof
system and place the vapor barrier on the next cold surface. The infiuence of air movement must
be considered, as well as the potential for drying through air movement to the interior or exterior
20
of the roofing system materials. The designer must also be cognizant of the fact that if a vapor
barrier is included and the roof develops a leak, the vapor barrier could behave as a vapor trap
and cause the system to retain the water by not allowing it to escape.
Table 6 has been
developed as a synopsis or guide for use when making design decisions with regard to various
roofing systems.
Conclusions
In conclusion, builders ridicule the literature and construct out of experience and not what either
the literature or wall analysis calculations reveal. The different climate summaries and opinions of
the authors are as follows:
1.
Heating Climate: Vapor barriers should be used in heating climates at all locations within
the structure's foundation, wall, and roof assemblies.

2.
Cooling Climate: The implementation of a vapor barrier should be included within the
foundation and wail assemblies of all structures in a cooling climate, but the specific
application in the roof remains one area that depends upon the specific, detailed structure
design.
3.
Mixed Climate: A vapor barrier is recommended for the foundation and roof assembly for
all structures in the mixed climate, but the when and where to utilize one within the wall
system remains less clear and is not recommended. The principles of flow-through design
are to be utilized in this climatic area according to the literature reviewed. The flow of air
through the wall is the primary driving agent of moisture into and out of the wall assembly
depending upon what season the structure is in currently. The principle of flow-through
design should be adhered to since it allows wetting during one season and drying during the
opposite so that moisture within the cavity attains equilibrium across the wall section during
the course of the year.
References Cited
Allen, E. (1990). Fundamentals of Building Construction: Materials and Methods, 2nd Edition.
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; New York; 803 p.
American Society ofTesting and Materials (ASTM). (1999). ASTM Standards in Building Codes.
Volume 2: Designation C 755 - 97. ASTM; West Conshohocken PA; 1994 p.
Bordenaro, M. (1991). "Vapor Retarders Put Damper on Wet Insulation." Building Design and
Constmction. 32(9), 74-77.
Carll, C. (2000). 'Rainwater Intrusion in Light-Frame Building Walls." From Proceedings of the
2nd Annual Conference on Durability and Disaster Mitigation in Wood-Frame Housing:
November 6-8, 2000, Madison Wl, fl'om www.toolbase.org, accessed 3 Jun 03.
Council of American Building Officials. (1995). CABO: One and Two Family Dwelling Code,
1995 Edition, Fourth Printing. CABO; Falls Church VA; 350 p.
21
Department of Energy. (2002). "Vapor Diffusion Retarders and Air Barriers." Consumer Energy
Information: EREC Reference Briefs obtained from
www.eere.enerav.qov/consumerinfo/rfbriefe/bd4.html, accessed on 28 IVIay 03.
Insulation Contractors Association of America (ICAA). (2002). "Technical Bulletin: Use of Vapor
Retarders." ICAP; Alexandria VA. Obtained from www.toolbase.orq, accessed 3 Jun 03.
International Code Council. (2000). Intemational Residential Code: For One and Two Familv
Dwellinas. International Code Council; Falls Church VA; 566 p.
JLC Staff Report. (1993). "The Last Word (We Hope) on Vapor Barriers: Answers to the most
common questions about moisture migration through walls and ceilings." Journal of Light
Construction, 11(11), 13-17.
Kubal, M. (2000). Construction Waterproofing Handbook. McGraw-Hill Handbooks; New York.
Letter and response in "On the House". (2000). "Ceiling Vapor Barrier-Yes or No?" Journal of
Light Construction, 18(5), 21,23,24.
Lotz, W. (1998). "Specifying Vapor Barriers." Building Design and Construction, 39(11), 50-53.
Lstiburek, J. (2002). "Air Barriers vs. Vapor Barriers" from
www.buildinascience.com/resources/walls/air barriers vs vapor barriers, accessed on 4
June 03.
Lstiburek, J. (2000). BuikJer's Guide to Mixed Climates: Details for Desian and Construction.
The Tauton Press; Newton CT; 328 p.
Lstiburek, J. and Camnody, J. (1994). "Moisture Control for New Residential Construction" in
Moisture Control in Buildinas. ASTM Manual Series: MNL 18; Philadelphia, PA; 321-347.
Lstiburek, J. and Camriody, J. (1991). Moisture Control Handbook: New, low rise residential
constmction. Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Oak Ridge TN; 247 p.
Maness, G. (1991). "Preventing Wall Deterioration." Journal of Property Management. 56(5),
33-38.
Quiroutte, R. (1991). "Air and Vapor Baniens." Progressive Architecture. 72(9), 45-51.
Ramsey, C and Sleeper, H. (1992). Construction Details from Architectural Graphic Standards.
Eight Edition. ecSted by James Ambrose. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sherwood, G. and Moody, R. (1989). Light-Frame Wall and Floor Systems: Analysis and
Perfomrtance. General Technical Report, FLP-GTR-59; U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory; Madison Wl; 162 p. Obtained from
vtfww.nahbrc.ora, accessed 3 Jun 03.
Spence, W. (1998). Constmction Materials. Methods, and Technigues. Delmar Publications;
NewYork;1195p.
Stein B. and Reynolds, J. (1992). Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Buildinas: 8th
Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; New York; 1627 p.
Straube, John F. (2002). "Moisture in the Buildings." ASHRAE Journal, January 2002.
httD://www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/beq/Downloads/ASHRAE%20Journal%20Jan%202002%20
Moisture.pdf, accessed on 31 Oct 02.
22
Suprenant, B. (1994). "Sub-Slab Vapor Barriers." Journal of Light Construction, M{8), 37-39.
Trechsel, H., Achenbach, P., and Launey, S. (1982). "Moisture Control in Building Wall Retrofit"
in Moisture Migration in Buildings. ASTM STP 779; Philadelphia PA; 148-159.
U.S. Forest Service. (1949). Condensation Control: in dwelling construction by Forest Products
Laboratory, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture in collaboration with the
Housing and Home Finance Agency, Forest Products Laboratory; Madison Wl; 73 p.
Vinson, J. (2003). Telephone interview with Joe Vinson of Joe Vinson Builders (Mobile,
Alabama) on 21 Aug 03.
Wetterman, T. (1982). "Control of Moisture Migration in Light Frame Walls" in Moisture Migration
In Buildings. ASTM STP 779; Philadelphia PA; 102-109.
WUFI. (2003). WUFI: V\Srme-und Feuchteransport InstationSr (Transient Heat and Moisture
Transport), Educational Software Program. Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Oak Ridge
TN; obtained from www.ornl.qov/ORNL/BTC/moisture/. and accessed on 1 Sep 03.
23
c
o
(0
c
uo
0
c
o
8
T-
C!
0
E
ST
<o
o
"
I
c
C
s
<.
O)
8
S
So
c
ra
J-=
Q.
1 Is
1
Ul u. Ota
.1
?l
1^
sg
18
II
n cB
> a
15
.9
5m
ra
CM
c
c
is
u
c IK
X
<^
^^ ^^^
"""^
""
C CO
S
1
X
'io
a
o
c
>
(0
E
o
-4-"
1
C
t
IT
S
8
^-^
1^
Ci
a.
|2
1 K^
i 1
1 E
St
1
-1
CM
u.
To
o o
a.
1
CD
U D^
ll
ro
8
ro
f 8'-^
0 JJ
ro
.2 E g
ii! "
0) c
1^
OJ
ro
Si
c

|-^
a> o
1o
1oo
O
<l>
CD
>
1 II
o
c
i5c
T3
3
O
3 a>
B E
5g
,c
. ">
_ 2
CD
>
ra u
C 3
S "ffi
- 'o
< E
-a
a.
o
0)
>
8
8
o
c
to
ID
k-
<
a>
a.
oc
>>
lg
c
o
1 .1
10
a
a
(0
V.B. should be installed betwee

If the winter temps are as dis
design calculations necessitate
0)
(0
c
o
n
5
(U
3c
ID O
at
c
oS
1c
c
- 0)
0) 0)
If
go
o
m
tSiS
C.2
.S>
C 3
(0
d-E
(0
0) o
>
ro o
fro
"3
a>
c
a>
c
2>
0)
a
CD' TJ
ra
.EtS
1
CD W
> ro
III
5c
ro
u.
1>
f
-o
 g" %3
|1
C
>- V
"1
.2>f
O)
1
a3
E
c
> o
S3
c
ro
s
0)
0
s
ro
1
c.2
fl
^"
Ig-jEo
=3
0 "-^s
10 0
11
3 2
roo
C.O
O) (0
W.3

S5
3
ro
3
c
)
o
p
^3
> o
Sill
C C 0) >
as
0)
8|
a>
c
1-
ro CO C
lU
a
8 .E
n >>
^
o 'io
o>
ro Tj
^ =
"c
tc
0) .i
l2
ll
c
g
c
C
CO *o
1_c
0)
Super low permeance plastic s

designed between built-up roo
8000+ heating degree day cllmi
o
o
o
o
* 0) fl) 0
|i
1s
0)
0
2
"oj
=1 c 0 c
2 1
II
3
0
5
>
ro :^ 0) *^
D
(0
1
(0
(fl
iEo
E *
?
s
<o
C
ro
i;
if
11
0)
E 0) -o !-
U) <D
ro >
retarder (material
ireas where roof v
llowance under th
ded. Theventilat
^.2
c
ro
?ro
V
<u
to
c
.2
C
(0 0
11
go
C.9
fl
iBO and ICC codes state, "[n]et free cross-v entilation area may be reduced to 1 to 30
m) installed on the warm side of ceiling." The allowed reduction does not appear to mal<e
roof ventilation is to allow the space to dry out should the space below the roof become we
on. The opinion of the author is that the code s allowed reduction in ventilation within the
ating moisture accumulation in heating and m ixed climates but not in cooling climates.
**"'^^"
.c
O)
D)
C
<t is - a= .Q
0
15
0
0)
.c
0 g.o ro E
<n *= 0
^W>i
LU (U 3 I'.s
1- S Q. S U
0 g |i2
z u V
in
CM
1.0 Literature Review for Vapor Barriers in Residential Construction

Applications
26
1.1 Introduction
moisture related, primarily, due to rot, decay, and the growth of molds and fungi. Condensation
and moisture related problems were first recognized and investigated in a 1923 Forest Products
Laboratory survey of dwellings due to early exterior paint failure on residential houses (U.S.
Forest Service, 1949).
It has more recently been reported, "with the exception of structural
errors, 90% of building construction problems are associated with water" and the harmful effects
related to its penetration into our structures (Trechsel, Achenbach, and Launey, 1982). Current
building codes and property standards also contribute because the methods being employed are
prescriptive rather than performance oriented and these codes have tried to create a universal
approach for construction rather than looking holistically at the wall assembly components
(Trechsel, Achenbach, and Launey, 1982 and Sherwood and Moody, 1989).
Several assumptions and limitations were been made in the course of the literature review, during
the code analysis, and the test data results interpretations. A major assumption that this report
espouses is that air moves far more moisture vapor that diffusion through materials. Following
the assumption that air moves more moisture vapor than diffusion, the subject of air carried
moisture vapor remains the greatest enemy of the wall system in our residences. The principle of
preventing air-transported moisture has created the need to concentrate on quality control in
residential construction. The most effective means to prevent or retard the flow of air through a
wall system is to ensure that when the wall is constructed that the air barrier and any penetrations
(such as vents, outlets, etc.) are correctly and carefully detailed and installed to minimize air
movement into the wall system.
It is the opinion of the author that if careful and thorough
attention to these details is done that the effects of moisture vapor penetration in our wall systems
will be reduced.
It should be noted that the term vapor barrier has been referred to as a vapor diffusion retarder,
vapor retarder, and vapor diffuser in the literature surveyed. For simplicity and consistency within
this report, all future references to any of these terms (vapor barriers, vapor diffusion retarders,
vapor retarders, and vapor diffusers) will simply be referred to as vapor barriers from this point
fonward.
The literature review has been broken down into six primary sections for initial investigation and
basic understanding of the role that vapor barriers play in dealing with moisture in residential
construction. The literature review will: 1.) Provide definitions to be utilized in the course of this
investigation, 2.) Explain what moisture is, 3.) Investigate how moisture is generated, 4.) Study
some means for dealing with the moisture transport mechanisms, 5.) Perform a comprehensive
review of why vapor barriers are used today, and 6.) Conclude with a review of the how to design
27
and implement vapor barriers in building assemblies (foundations, walls, and roofe/ceilings)
according to what has been published.
1.2 Keywords and Definitions

The report has the following keywords: moisture, condensation, vapor barriers/vapor diffusion
retarders, and air t)arr1ers.
The following definitions will be used when referencing these terms in the discussion that follows
in the subsequent sections.
Adsorption
Absorption
Air Barrier
Air
1 nfiltration/Transport
Condensation
Dew Point (DP)
Desorption
Dilution Ventilation
Dry-Bulb
Temperature (DB)
Enthalpy
Evaporation
Humidity Ratio
Pemn
Relative Humidity
(rh)
Resistance
Saturation Line
The soaking in of moisture (Kubal, 2000), and

The attraction of water vapor molecules close to solid molecules by
complementary polar nature of solid molecules or the polarity induced in
solid molecules by dispersion and induction effects (Straube, 1988)
The collection or condensation of moisture on the surface of a material
(Kubal, 2000)
Any material that blocks the flow of air through a building system, or the
point where the air pressure drop occurs within the cavity
Movement of air through a wall system from an area of high pressure to an
area of low pressure, this is typically a fast process (Krogstad and Weber,
1999) and (Lstiburek, 2000)
The moisture contained within air that is deposited in a liquid or solid state
on a cool surface (Krogstad and Weber, 1999)
100% relative humidity, or the point when dew will form and water vapor
will condense when saturated air touches the first surface that is at or
below the air's dew point temperature (Stein and Reynolds, 1992),
or "the temperature at which a specific atmosphere is saturated with water
vapor" (ASTM, 1999),
or the temperature at which a volume of air will become saturated, and
below which condensation will occur (Krogstad and Weber, 1999)
"The action or process of releasing an absorbed substance from
something" (Guralnik, 1982)
Similar process to dehumidification (Lstiburek, 2000)
"Temperature of ambient mixture of air and water vapor measured in the
normal way with a simple thermometer" (Stein and Reynolds, 1992)
"The sum of the sensible and latent heat content of an air-moisture
mixture, relative to the sensible plus latent heat in air at 0F at standard
atmospheric pressure" (Stein and Reynolds, 1992)
"A process in which something is changed from a liquid to a vapor without
its temperature reaching the boiling poinf (Guralnik, 1982)
"The amount of moisture by weight within a given weight of air (Stein and
Reynolds, 1992)
The unit of measure used to measure the passage of one grain of water
vapor per hour through one cubic foot of material at a pressure differential
of one inch of mercury between two sides of a material (Allen, 1990)
"Ratio of density of water vapor in air to maximum density of water vapor
that such air could contain, at the same temperature, if it were saturated"
(Stein and Reynolds, 1992)
The degree to which material restricts the flow of water vapor through it
(O'Connor and Johnson, 1995)
The line on the psychrometric chart where the dew point is reached in a
specific building system and condensation will occur
28
Splashback
Thermal Insulation
System
Vapor Diffusion
Vapor Diffusion
Retarder (VDR) or
Vapor Bamer
Water Leakage
Water Vapor
Diffusion
Water Vapor
Permeability
(Permeability)
Water Vapor
Pemeance
(Permeance)
Water Vapor
Transmission
Wet-Bulb
Temperature (WB)
Water bouncing off the ground and splashing back onto the structure
(Fisette, 1995)
"Thermal resistance to heat flow combined with means for attachment to
the surface to be insulated, and with facings, vapor diffusion retarders, joint
sealants, or protective coatings as installed." (ASTM, 1999)
Process by which moisture moves from air with a higher dew point
temperature to air with a lower dew point temperature seeking equilibrium,
this is typically a slow process (Krogstad and Weber, 1999),
or the movement of moisture in the vapor state through a material as a
result of vapor pressure difference (from a area of high pressure to and
area of low pressure or concentration gradient) and/or temperature
difference (warm side of a material to cold side of a material or the thermal
gradient) (Lstiburek, 2000)
"Those materials or systems which adequately retard the transmission of
water vapor under specified conditions. (For practical purposes it is
assumed that the permeance of an adequate retarder will not exceed 1
perm, although at present this value may be adequate only for residential
construction. For certain other types of construction the permeance must
be very low.)" (ASTM, 1999), or
Any material that has a permeability of 1 perm or less (Lstiburek, 2000)
The water penetration of a wall system that causes damage (Krogstad and
Weber, 1999)
"The process by which water vapor spreads or moves through permeable
materials caused by a difference in water vapor pressure." (ASTM, 1999)
"The water vapor transmission of a homogeneous material under unit
vapor pressure difference between two specific surfaces, per unit
thickness." (ASTM, 1999), or
"the rate of water vapor transmission induced by a difference in vapor
pressure through a certain area of material, per unit of thickness"
(Holladay, 2000)
"The water vapor transmission of a material under unit vapor pressure
difference between two specific surfaces." (ASTM, 1999), or
the amount of water vapor diffusing through a material (O'Connor and
Johnson, 1995), or
"the rate of water vapor transmission induced by a difference in vapor
pressure through a certain area of material" (Holladay, 2000)
"The steady-state time rate of water vapor diffusion or flow through unit
area of a material, normal to specific parallel surfaces under specific
conditions of temperature and humidity at each surface. (ASTM, 1999), or
"the rate at which a certain weight of water vapor passes through a certain
area of a material, under certain test conditions" (Holladay, 2000)
"Temperature shown by a thermometer with a wetted bulb rotated rapidly
in the air to cause evaporation of its moisture" (Stein and Reynolds, 1992)
1.3 Review of Literature

1.3.1 What is moisture?
Several underlying principles exist when trying to understand building systems and the capacity
of the system materials and design to carry, transport, and store water (regardless of its form).
The principles can best be summarized with the statement that "water is lazy, and it will always
chose the easiest path to travel" (Lstiburek, 2000). The purpose of this literature review will be to
gain an understanding of the basic principles of water in its moisture phase and then develop an
understanding of how moisture moves through building system materials.
29
The basic principles of moisture closely adhere to the second law of thermodynamics. The
second law deals with the natural flow of energy processes and can be summarized as; things
are constantly seeking a state of equilibrium and move from areas of more to areas of less.
Applying this principle to vapor pressure, areas of high vapor pressure move towards areas of low
vapor pressure and this can be correlated to movement from warm areas to cold areas (Stein and
Reynolds, 1992).
Webster's Dictionary has defined moisture as "water or other liquid causing a slight wetness or
dampness" (Guralnik, 1982). Moisture is all around us. Its presence is created with each activity
we perform, and it is in each material we use in the course of our daily lives.
It is present as a vapor in the air all around us (ASHRAE, 1972).
It is adsori3ed in the materials we use (ASHRAE, 1972).
It can change forms from a vapor to a liquid to a solid depending upon the
temperature, pressure, and relative humidity levels (ASHRAE, 1972).
It desires as a vapor 1o move from high concentrations to low concentrations, or from
more to less" (Straube - moisture, 2002).

Moisture can be transported through four movement mechanisms: 1.) Liquid flow, 2.) Moisture
transport due to capillary suction, 3.) Air movement, and 4.) Vapor diffusion (Lstiburek and
Carmody, 1991 and Straube, 2002). Each of these mechanisms must be dealt with during the
design and construction of the structure's systems (foundation, walls, and roof) in order to
effectively respond to moisture (Lstiburek and Carmody, 1991). The moisture movement control
mechanisms must be specific and not generic with regards to what climatic region of the United
States the designer or builder (simply referred to as designer from this point forward) is designing
or planning. The design for moisture must be climatically specific since each climatic area of the
country dictates different details that are responsive to the different environmental conditions to
be experienced.
The predominate approach to climate zone definition appears to have segregated the United
States into climatic zones or areas according to the number of heating degree-days that the
specific location experiences throughout the year. Thus, each designer should analyze his or her
particular code and climate to determine how to address this subject. The climatic zones adapted
as the most common follow these principles:
Heating climate is defined as an area that has 4000+ heating degree-days (Lstiburek
and Carmody, 1991).
Mixed dimate is an area that has up to 4000 heating degree-days (Lstiburek and
Carmody, 1991).
30
Cooling climate is defined as an area that lias 67F or higher WB temperatures for
Carmody, 1991).
The specific locale's climatic information may be gathered and computed from ASHRAE, the
National Weather Service Bureau, or other relevant sources.
Lstiburek and Carmody have
defined these areas using a map of the United States. The information in Table 1.1 lists the
approximate locations, but the specifics should be confinned for each locale prior to any design.
Table 1.1, States in the various climatic zones of the United States adapted from the
graphical depiction of climatic zones from Lstiburek and Carmody (1991)
Heating Climate
Mixed Climate
Cooling Climate
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York, Massactiusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa,
Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Cotorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho,
Utah, Nevada, V\feshington, Oregon, the northern half of California (roughly from San Francisco
north), and Alaska
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, northern
2/3 of Texas (roughly area north of El Paso, San Antonio, and Beaumont), New Mexico, Arizona, and
southern half of California
South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alat>ama, Mississippi, Louisiana, southern 1/3 of Texas, and
Hawaii
1.3.2 How is moisture generated?

Indoor moisture generation initially comes from numerous construction conditions and sources.
After construction has been completed, and the initial high concentrations have been removed,
some accumulated construction moisture must still be dealt with in the structure. Source moisture
from the daily activities occurring in the structure and multiple external sources, such as rain
penetration, are the greatest sources of moisture. Moisture is generated by each and every
human, plant, and animal. In addition, many materials, appliances, and processes utilized in our
daily lives and activities generate additional moisture. Some examples and the quantities of
moisture generated from construction, combustion sources, and daily activities are listed in Table
1.2. While these numbers appear to be high in many instances and have not been confimned by
any known research data, the quantities are very similar when compared to the sources from
which the table's data was created. The exact quantities, while seemingly high and questionable
to the author, do make the point that each and every activity that we participate in creates
moisture in our living spaces that must be dealt with in our structure's assembly.
31
Table 1.2, Quantities of moisture generated by daily activities adapted from Rogers (1964)
and Straube (2002).
Source
Stone concrete
Gypsum concrete
Gypsum piaster
Heating salamanders
People (evaporation per person)
Humidifier
Hot Tub, Whirlpool
Firewood, per cord
Washing Floors etc.
Dishwashing
Cooking for four
Frost-free refrigerator
Typical bathingAwashing per person
Shower (ea.)
Bath (ea.)
Unvented Gas Appliance
Seasonal Desorption (of new
materials)
Plants/ Pets
Moisture Production
1 ton/1 OOOS.F. of 4" thick floor slab
2.7 tons of water/1 OOOS.F. of 2" roof slab
1600 lbs. of water/IOOOS.F. of 1" plaster
4.92 liters of water/gallon of oil burned in an unvented space heater
0.75 (sedate), 1.2 (avg.) to 5 (heavy work) liters/day
2-20+ liters/day
2-20+ liters/day
1-3 liters/day
0.2 liters/day
0.5 liters/day
0.9 to 2 (3 with gas range) liters/day
0.5 liters/day
0.2 to 0.4 liters/day
0.5 liters/day
0.1+ liters/day
0.15 kg/kWh for Natural gas, 0.1 kg/kWh for Kerosene
3-8 liters/day depends on the house construction
0.2 - 0.5 (Five plants or one dog) liters/day
While it is impossible to totally eliminate moisture as a source, understanding its movement into
our structures must be better understood by designers and correctly detailed in the design
documents. IVIoisture becomes a concern witliin a structure througli tlie movement mechanisms
of liquid flow, moisture transport due to capillary suction, air movement, and vapor diffusion
(Lstiburek and Carmody, 1991 and Straube, 2002).
The principles of moisture movement
regarding each of these topics are critical to understanding the movement of moisture within our
wall assemblies.
1.3.2.1 Liquid Flow

Water enters our structures mostly through its flow as a liquid. Water is able to enter the wall
system in liquid form in a relatively short period of time due to the design and detailing of the
exterior envelope. The detailing of splashback is also critical in the design of wall since this is an
area that may allow the base of the wall cavity to pull water back inside and up into the wall cavity
through capillary suction (Fisette, 1995). The detail that deals with splashback may not allow
drained water to fully move away and exit the wall system structure (Fisette, 1995). Wall design,
with respect to liquid flow, can be broken down into three primary methods of construction:
mass/storage walls, perfect barriers, and screened-drainage walls (Straube, 2002; ASTM, 1999).
1.3.2.1.1 Mass/Storage Walls

The ideal of the mass/storage wall is a very thick wall section that deals with moisture intrusion
through its mass and thickness of construction. Water only tends to penetrate small distances
through these types of walls and is not as prone to penetrate completely through the wall due to
the girth and width of the wall and the nature of materials typically utilized (concrete, stone, etc.)
32
(Straube, 2002). Water must search for cracks, voids, and openings as it nrraves from the exterior
skin through the entire cross section and then locate openings, cracks, and voids within the
interior sections of the wall for it to migrate from exterior to interior. The path that the water must
travel within this wall section must be continuous since the material thickness and the quantities
being absorbed tend to stop or inhibit water's entry. These walls are very effective at stopping
liquid flow of water, but are nonetheless very expensive, time-consuming, and often difficult to
construct in today's construction market (Straube, 2002).
1.3.2.1.2 Perfect Barriers

The perfect barrier type of wall enclosure primarily works well in laboratory and experimental
situations, but can rarely if ever be accomplished for long, if at all, in the built environment due to
poor field construction quality (Straube, 2002). The perfect barrier wall system is the ideal to be
targeted with each construction project. The material must be installed perfectly and then behave
exactly as it was designed. The perfect barrier does exactly what its name implies; it provides
perfect protection from water intrusion. The perfect barrier stipulates that no openings, crack, or
voids exist within the building system.
Manufactured homes often strive for this type of
constmction, and builders and designers attempt to create this type of structure by sealing all the
openings and joints during construction (Straube, 2002).
This type of construction requires
extreme quality control at all phases of construction installation. Sealants, impervious sidings,
and other means used in perfect barriers break down overtime.
1.3.2.1.3 Screened Drainage Walls

The most common type of enclosure in use today is the screened-drainage wall (Straube, 2002).
The screened-drainage wall assumes that water will enter the building system, and then takes
steps to mitigate the harmful effects of water entry into a closed cavity by designing a means of
removal. The design recommendations drawn by this report will utilize the screened-drainage
wall concept since this technique is involved in the residential lightwood frame construction
industry.
Once water has entered the wall cavity it can do a number of different things depending upon the
conditions it is exposed to. Water can become a solid, liquid, or vapor depending upon the
temperature and pressure in its environment. Liquid water may enter the wall cavity through
cracks, voids, openings, and then be absorbed by any material it may come into contact with.
Wood siding and brick are extremely porous materials that allow a great deal of water to pass
through. Once water has penetrated these materials and the exterior skin, the materials on the
interior portions of the wall easily absorb and then diffuse this water. If the water that has entered
the cavity is absorbed and stored by the materials inside the cavity, the water can then be easily
turned from liquid to vapor through processes such as the sun warming the exterior siding on a
33
warm day. Once this liquid has been converted into vapor, it may pass more easily through the
material's pores and any materials that have a higher permeability than the layer where the vapor
currently resides. It may then be moved from its current location to other areas in the wall
assembly as it seeks a state of equilibrium. It is this movement of water in its vapor state that
vapor barriers aim to control. The majority of moisture problems in residential construction are
related to liquid water entry, not vapor condensation generation (Holladay, 2000). The elimination
of liquid water entry into the wall cavities all but eliminates the moisture issue within the building
systems.

Moisture transport due to capillary suction primarily deals with moisture movement into the
building envelope from the exterior and then its redistribution as condensation within the building
envelope (Lstiburek and Carmody, 1991). Capillary suction deals with the moisture pressure
differentials between materials and the transport of moisture across materials where there is no
noticeable break in the material. Typical modes of transport that utilize capillary suction exist
where channels or paths exist in materials that can store or move liquid. It is also common for a
nonabsorbent material, such as metal, to allow water and moisture to be transported when they
are sandwiched together. In the case of a nonabsorbent material used in the wall assembly,
water or moisture can be transported due to pressure differentials that exist within the wall
system. Typically the migration occurs from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure and
the state of equilibrium is constantly being sought. The vacuum or suction created during this
migration subsequently draws the water upward towards other materials along these similar
material planes.
1.3.2.3 Air Movement

Air transported moisture is moved from areas of high air pressure to areas of low pressure and
closely follows the second law of thermodynamics, stated earlier in Section 1.3.1 (Lstiburek,
2000). An air current is the festest means of transferring moisture within a building cavity (DoE,
2002). Air currents move "...in the range of several hundred cubic feet of air per minute" and this
"...accounts for more than 98% of all water vapor movement in building cavities" (DoE, 2002). It
has also been documented that vapor diffusion through a weather resistive barrier would be 2/3
of a pint of water during the heating season while the same material writh a 1/2-inch hole through
it will produce up to 50 pints of water during the same heating season (DoE, 2000). Air leakage is
the most significant mechanism of moisture transfer and should be controlled regardless of
climate writhin a concealed space (Rousseau, 1990; Sherwood and Moody, 1989). The effects of
air leakage must be effectively addressed during the design and then be correctly and carefully
installed during construction.
34
Insulation causes water vapor temperatures to drop rapidly which can cause condensation if the
relative humidity conditions are correct (DoE, 2002). Moisture, when the state changes from
vapor to liquid, is said to have reached its dew point or has reached "the temperature at which a
specific atmosphere is saturated with water vapor", or the temperature at which a volume of air
will become saturated, and below which condensation will occur (ASTM, 1999 and Krogstad and
Weber, 1999). The physics of how moisture contained in air reacts in different temperature
conditions has been defined and documented in psychrometric charts.
These charts help
determine where the dew point will be reached within cavities and when moisture within the air
can no longer maintain its gaseous state and becomes liquid condensate (DoE, 2002).
Determining when the dew point will be reached can be accomplished utilizing a psychometric
chart. In order to utilize a psychrometric chart, the designer must make some design parameter
assumptions about the environmental conditions under which the wall assembly will be utilized.
Some of these assumptions include maintaining a constant relative humidity within each material;
no airflow through the assembly, the wall is a perfect barrier, etc. The designer must have the
indoor and outdoor dry bulb temperature and the indoor and outdoor relative humidity conditions.
The design temperatures are not conclusive numbers but are industry accepted approximations
used to calculate the dew point within the wall cavity. The process can be further used to
determine the exact location in the wall assembly that the dew point will be reached. By utilizing
the heat exchange formula obtained from Stein and Reynolds (1992) Mechanical and Electrical
Equipment for Buildinas: 8th Edition, in conjunction with psychrometric charts it is possible to
determine where the dew point will be reached in the assembly. The point where the dew point
occurs is where the designer should place design emphasis and address the effects of moisture.
The following heat exchange formula helps determine these locations:
q = 2:(U A) At
where, q is the total heat exchange conducted through the building assembly
U and A are specific to each skin element in the building assembly, and
At is the change in temperature difference across the entire building assembly.
The following example shows how the air temperature changes as it move through the building
assembly. The wall section used in the Stein and Reynolds (1992) Mechanical and Electrical
Equipment for Buildings: 8th Edition example is constructed, moving from the interior to the
exterior, of a brick wall, nomnal 6-inch batt insulation, 1/2-inch plywood, and a 1-inch wood siding
(Stein and Reynolds, 1992). Other assumptions that have been made are that the interior air
temperature is 68F and the exterior air temperature is 32F (see wall section sketch in Figure
1.1), the relative humidity has not changed through the wall cavity, and the wall cavity is a perfect
barrier (Stein and Reynolds, 1992). The computed temperatures at each material change have
35
been diagrammed in Figure 1.1. The temperatures were computed using the formula discussed
above and the computational calculations have been shown in Table 1.3.
Table 1.3, Calculated temperature change from one material to another within a wall
section copied from Stein and Revnolds (1992). Mechanical and Electrical Eauioment
for Buildinqs: 8th Edition
Rvalue
Component
0.68
0.20
19.00
0.62
0.79
0.17
Inside air layer

Common brick
Nominal 6-inch insulation
1/2-inch plywood
1-inch wood siding
Outside air layer
SR-value
from
interior
0.68
0.88
19.88
20.5
21.29
21.46
Temp Drop from Interior (F) using

(R total at componentffiR for wall asseml)ly) x At
(0.68/21.46) X 36 = 1.1
(0.88/21.46) X 36 = 1.5
(19.88/21.46) X 36 = 33.3
(20.5/21.46) X 36 = 34.3
(21.29/21.46) X 36 = 35.7
(21.46/21.46) X 36 = 36
Temp Drop From

Outer Edge of
Component (F)
68-1.1 =66.9
68-1.5 = 66.5
68-33.3 = 34.7
68-34.3 = 33.7
68-35.7 = 32.3
68-36=32
Then using a psychrometric chart and an accurate relative humidity for the project's specific
location, the dew point can be determined for the wall assembly by calculating the dew point at
each of the various material changes within the wall section utilizing the R-values for each of the
materials, an accurate relative humidity level for the area, and accurate design temperature to be
experienced. A diagrammatic psychrometric chart with sample numbers is shown in Figure 1.2,
and the associated definitions may be referenced from Section 1.2, pages 21 - 22. The dew point
location, under the specific relative humidity and temperature conditions, for the specific designed
J?.**r
i,
Figure 1.1, Sample wall section with temperature changes diagrammed adapted from
Stein and Reynolds (1992), Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Buildinqs: 8th
Edition
wall assembly will then allow the designer to more easily determine the steps necessary to
address vapor condensation within the particular assembly. The dew point for a specific wall
section should be calculated using the average historical monthly temperatures and relative
36
humidity conditions over tlie course of a year. Once the designer has the dew point locations for
the specific wall section, the specific design details may then be designed to respond to moisture
within the wall cavity.
The following example explains how to utilize the psychrometric chart in determining where the
dew point will be reached under certain design conditions. The sample wall section and
calculated temperatures are used from Figure 1.1 and Table 1.3 and the dry bulb temperatures
are used for the indoor surface and the intersection of the brick and the insulation, the various
dew point temperatures are calculated for the designed wall system by using a psychrometric
chart. The dry bulb temperature is 66.5F at the material change from brick to insulation. This is
lin sF4KBmr
Me 6TVP5 toKTtSKT
Kt4gtevpg-"g%rK
Figure 1.2, Sample psychrometric chart, adapted from Stein and Reynolds
(1992), Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Buildings: 8th Edition
from the calculations in Table 1.3 and this point is shown as Point 1 in Figure 1.2 (psychrometric
chart). Following the psychrometric chart lines vertically to the intersection point of the design
relative humidity line (assumed in this example to be 50% relative humidity), and then following
the line of constant enthalpy over to the 100% relative humidity (saturation line) shows that the
dew point for 66.5F and 50% relative humidity conditions and at this location is 47F. Following
the same assumptions for the indoor dry bulb 2 (inside air layer temperature) temperature of 68F
with 50% relative humidity provides the designer with a 49F dew point temperature. The same
calculations/extrapolations must to be done for all the other surfaces to determine at what
temperature condensation will occur within the wall cavity for each of the various materials. It
37
should be remembered that the relative humidity levels will not remain constant for any climate,
but the designer must use the most representative historical numbers in determining how to
design the wall cavity section and where (if at all) to utilize a vapor barrier in the design.
1.3.2.4 Vapor Diffusion

Through the process of diffusion, water vapor is transported from areas of higher vapor
concentration to areas of lower vapor concentrations and is constantly seeking and desiring a
state of equilibrium (Straube, 2002). In order for moisture to be a problem in a constructed
structure, four basic conditions must be satisfied:
1. "A moisture source must be available,
2.
There must be a route or means for this moisture to travel,
3.
There must be some driving force to cause moisture movement, and
4.
The material(s) involved must be susceptible to moisture damage' (Straube,

2002).
Water vapor can also be described by its drive through a material as being either positive or
negative. Positive vapor drive can be described as moisture vapor traveling from moist, warm
outside air to the cool, drier interior area (Kubal, 2000).
Typically, much of the country
experiences positive vapor drive during summer conditions, or simply as vapor's desired
movement from the exterior to the interior. Negative vapor drive process describes vapor
movement from the warm, moist interior air being pulled outward to the drier, cooler air by the
differences in vapor pressure (Kubal, 2000).
Vapor diffusion primarily deals with moisture movement from the exterior and from within
conditioned spaces into the building envelope.
Diffusion principles are closely related and
associated with air movement and controlling/stopping airflow through the building envelope. The
"diffusion of moisture through a material is a function of its permeance to vapor and the vapor
pressure difference across its surface" and thus by lowering the vapor permeance of the material
the diffusion through it will ultimately be lower (Rousseau, 1990). The overall process of water
vapor diffusion through a wall system is a very slow process. The movement of moisture in its
vapor state is a function of the vapor permeability of a material and the vapor pressure differential
that acts across the wall system's material cross section (Lstiburek and Carmody, 1991). Vapor
diffusion is a function of the specific climatic area where the structure is located. In cold climates,
vapor diffusion will typically move moisture from within the conditioned space into the wall
assembly (Lstiburek and Carmody, 1991). In warm, climates, the vapor diffusion process moves
moisture from the exterior into the building assembly and then into the conditioned space
(Lstiburek and Carmody, 1991). It should be remembered that air leakage and air movement
38
accounts for far more concentrations of moisture movement than does vapor diffusion (Letter,
2000).
1.3.3 How do you deal with the moisture transport mechanisms?

Once the moisture transport methods are understood, the designer must then address each
transport mechanism individually and find a solution for controlling moisture's movement within
the structure. In theory, if one of the moisture movement mechanisnns, previously discussed could
be removed from the scenario then moisture as a concern in the structure could be eliminated
entirely (Straube - moisture, 2002). Moisture is all around us, and to fully eliminate any of these
items/sources is impossible. However, employing better techniques and paying more attention to
the detailing of several critical areas during design and in the subsequent construction of the
structures can minimize the harmful effects of moisture within our structures. Placing emphasis
on the effects that moisture has on our structures could eliminate many health concerns and
eliminate building deterioration due to rot in our residences (Trechsel, Achenbach, and Launey,
1982). A key principle to detailing writh moisture in mind is to follow the guidance of "keep it out,
and let it out when it gets in" (Lstiburek, 2000). In order to design a solution, the designer must
address the principles of capillary suction, liquid flow, evaporation, ventilation, and finally vapor
diffusion and air leakage (Straube, 2002). Understanding these principles and concepts is critical
in dealing with moisture within a stmcture and designing a moisture responsive stmcture.
The pull of moisture and water into the building is called capillary suction. One way of breaking
the capillary suction is the incorporation of an air space within the wall that facilitates drainage
and acts as a capillary or surface tension break between the cladding and rest of wall (Straube,
2002). Capillary suction may be created by using similar material surfaces, for example, placing
two plates of glass next to one another creates a plane in which water is easily transported often
draws up water. The same principle exists between the siding and the wall structure and can be
corrected in practical applications by several methods such as: 1.) Painting the siding, 2.) Placing
sealant at laps in the siding, 3.) Placing tacks at laps in siding, 4.) Painting the back of siding or
back-priming the siding, 5.) Designing an air space between the exterior siding and the
nonabsorptive building paper, 6.) Placing siding directly on absorptive building paper, 7.) Leaving
an air space behind brick veneer, 8.) Breaking contact with the foundation soil under the slab, 9.)
Utilizing an air space between the siding and the nonabsorptive building paper, and many others
(Lstiburek and Garmody, 1991). One effective means of breaking capillarity between a footer and
the foundation wall is by placing a sheet polyethylene layer or by applying damproofing on the top
surface of the footer prior to placement of the foundation wall as diagrammed in the Figure 1.3
sketch (Lstiburek and Garmody, 1991).
39
1.3.3.2 Liquid flow

Drainage and liquid flow of
water that enters the wall
cavity is primarily an issue
MGMBBANB
of utilizing good detail

design
and
implementing
then
effective
quality control during the

construction.
of the
Resistance
wall
to
water
FftoifMG-'
intrusion is determined by:
Resistance of the
wall to
leakage
(Carll, 2000),
Figure 1.3, Sample footer diagram adapted from Lstiburek

and Carmody (1991), Moisture Control Handbook:
New, low rise residential construction
Resistance of the
materials within the wall to be damaged should they become wet (Carll, 2000), and
Ability of the wall to rapidly dissipate any intruding water entering the cavity (Carll, 2000)
Leakage can best be dealt with through ventilation applications and allowing any liquid flow of
water that may enter the wall cavity to escape through weeps or other intentionally designed
drainage points. Liquid flow escaping through weeps and drainage points acknowledge that
water will enter the wall cavity and as such must be allowed to escape. To properly handle this
liquid entry, proper flashing techniques are the first layer of defense for the structure. Flashing,
drip edges, and appropriate sloping must all be con-ectly designed and then constmcted (Straube,
2002). Excellent checklists were developed in Paul Fisette's article, "Making Walls Watertight",
which addressed the critical areas of a wall and things to be accomplished during construction.
The checklists have been recreated and consolidated in Table 1.4 for reference when perfonning
quality control on a residential construction project's housewrap, corner boards, vwndow flashing,
and siding (Fisette, 1995).
Table 1.4 - "Making Walls Watertight" Checklists
From Paul Fisette's article, "Making V\falls Watertighf from Journal of Light Construction, Volume 14, Number 3,
December 1995, pages 35-38.
Housewrap Checklist
"Use housewrap or felt paper on all houses, no matter what kind of siding you are using."
"The wrap should be continuous; avoid patchwork of small pieces."
"Provide an unrestricted path down and out of the space behind the siding. Wall membranes
should overlap by 3 inches horizontally and 6 inches vertically. Tape all seams."
"Protect all pathways into the building envelope by lapping housewrap over flashings."
Corner Board Checklist
"Install felt paper or housewrap at all corners."
"Double-wrap corners by applying vertical felt or housewrap splines under the corner boards."
"Don't caulk the joint between the siding and corner board; caulk deteriorates over time, providing a
40
pathway for water to get into the frame and preventing trapped water from escaping."
Window Flashing Checklist
"Protect the top of the window flashing with overiapping wrap."
"Double-overlap housewffap around nailing fins of vinyl and dad windows."
"At sills, splines must direct water over underlying housewrap."
"At head, leave a 1/4 inch gap between the window flashing and bottom edge of siding to prevent
wncking of moisture."
Siding Checklist
"Don't install board siding on a diagonal."
"For horizontal board siding, use tofvgrade boards with no knots, splits, or other defects. Install
T&G and shiplap siding so that the joints between boards drain away from the sheathing."
"For panel siding, use housewrap over studs. Housewrap should overlap Z-flashing at the joint
between panel courses."
"Protect wall sheathing dose to grade with bituminous membrane."
"Siding should overlap sill-to-foundation joint by at least 2 inches."
Proper drainage is also done through the implementation of weep holes or designing drainage
points corrertly. Weep holes, when they are utilized, should be kept free of obstruction and the
path leading to the weep holes should be clear so that water can travel to and exit through these
designated points easily and readily (Lstiburek and Carmody, 1991). The importance of the weep
holes and drainage points also facilitates the implementation of ventilation within the structure's
wall cavity (Lstiburek and Carmody, 1991). The approaches to weep holes and drainage points
should be properly sloped, and elevated correctly so that water cannot flow into the openings
from the outside but still exit the wall easily. The area around these openings should also be free
of any outside obstructions such as vegetation and soil embankments that could hamper air
circulation or drainage.
The openings should be clear and visible from the exterior of the
structure. Regardless of the wall assembly design, proper drainage must be considered and
designed to allow for drainage at the bottom of the wall.
In order to properly deal vwth leakage and drainage in construction several principles should be
remembered:
1.
Think like water!
2.
"If you can't figure out how to flash it, don't build it." (McDaniel, 2000)
3.
Water is easily controlled if you design a path for it to flow, remember typically water
flows downhill except under capHllary suction conditions.
4.
"Water is lazy. Water will always choose the easiest path to travel." (Lstiburek,
2000)
5.
Pay attention to how you flash, lap and layer any flashing or housewrap in the flow
direction. (McDaniel, 2000)
6.
A weather resistive barrier is nothing more than a drainage plane to control the flow
of water. (DoE, 2000)
7. Avoid capillary suction by designing effective breaks at suspected junctions that

promote this condition.
41
1.3.3.3 Evaporation
The evaporative process of moisture within the wall cavity is very closely related to the properties
associated with ventilating the wall that will be discussed in the next section.
However,
evaporation may occur from the inside or from the outside (Straube, 2002). Evaporation is tied to
the characteristics of the specific, individual material utilized (Straube, 2002). The evaporation
process is difficult to separate and closely related to the ventilation properties contained in the
designed wall cavity.
1.3.3.4 Ventilation
Ventilation of the wall assembly is a good means of dealing with moisture and leakage and
provides a means of drying components should they get wet. Ventilation follows the air pressure
differential principle that was discussed earlier and allows rising air heated by the sun to pull air
and force air movement within the wall cavity (Straube, 2002). The air pressure differential
principle allows for the difference in pressure across the wall section to act as a means of pulling
air into the wall cavity while facilitating pressure equalization through the process of convection.
Designing an exit, as well as an entry, allows airflow to move through the wall creating convection
patterns within the cavity, and cavity condensation may be controlled by facilitating control over
where condensation could accumulate (Straube, 2002).
Ventilation should be closely examined and investigated in relation to the climatic area that the
structure is being designed for. Ventilating may be detrimental and actually facilitate adverse
moisture conditions within the wall cavity in certain climatic areas. As a general rule, the wall
cavity design should not be ventilated in a hot, humid climate due to the fact that warm air is
capable of maintaining and holding more moisture than cold air. Ventilating in this area could add
to the moisture levels within the wall if air were allowed to freely flow through the wall in these
areas (Lstiburek and Carmody, 1991). For the other more temperate and cold regions of the
country ventilation of the wall cavity should be encouraged. Minimizing holes and penetrations to
lower the air volume change within the wall cavity could inadvertently facilitate wetting of the wall
cavity materials and reduce the opportunity for drying to occur (Lstiburek, 2000). By not allowing
moisture that accumulates within the wall cavity to dry, interior moisture levels rise and
condensation could become visible on interior surfaces and windows. The conditions favor
mold/mildew growth, and ultimately decay within the wall cavity and attic spaces if the problem
goes unnoticed for long (Lstiburek, 2000). The need to dehumidify the space or implement
dilution ventilation is necessary to help eliminate these types of problems in the unventilated wall
cavity (Lstiburek, 2000). An air space utilized in design should have "a clear space with a
minimum thickness of 3/8 of an inch, although 1-2 inches is recommended" (Lstiburek and
Carmody, 1991).
42
1.3.3.5 Vapor diffusion and air leakage

Vapor transport through diffusion and air leal<age can best be understood once the difference
between an air banier and a vapor barrier has been explained. In wall assemblies there are two
primary barriers that are installed, but they perform drastically different roles in dealing with
moisture and vapor penetration within the wall assembly. These two barriers, vapor and air, are
typically used or required by code during the construction of a structure. The purpose and use of
air and vapor barriers are often confused by the designers, builders, and code officials (Straube,
2001).
it should also be remembered that water vapor moves through the processes of vapor
diffusion, air transport mechanisms, heat exchange, and the other means previously discussed
that deal with water's movement (Lstiburek, 2000). To help simplify and clarify the differences
between these two barrier/retarder systems, definitions and sample material lists are provided in
Table 1.5 below.
Table 1.5 -Vapor Barriers vs. Air Barriers. Definitions and Sample Materials
VDR/Vapor
barrier
Air Barrier/
Pressure
Threshold
Definition
'the control of water vapor diffusion to reduce
the occurrence or intensity of condensation"
(Straulje, 2001) that is driven by diffusion, and
may have imperfections and small cracks in
its surface without greatly impairing the
performance of the permeal)le vapor barrier
(Straube, 2001), or defined by building codes
as anything with a permeability of 1 penn or
less (Lstiburek, 2000)
"control airflow and thereby control convection

vapor transport" (Straube, 2001),
controls the moisture that is transported along
with this airflow (Straube - vapor, 2002);
helps to increase comfort, reduce energy
consumption, help control odor, and help
reduce sound transmission (Straube, 2001);
and must be "continuous, durable, stiff (or
restrained), strong, and air impermeable
43
Sample Materials
- Polyethylene sheet membrane (Visquene) or film
(varying thicknesses, 2-6 mil and in 3-20 foot rolls)
sealed vrith manufacturer recommended caulk,
sealants, and tapes
-EPDIWI
- Piastre sheeting
- Rubber membranes
-Glass
- Aluminum foil
- Sheet metal
- Oil-based paint
- Bitumen or wax impregnated kraft paper
- Wall coverings and adhesives
- Foil-feced insulating and non-insulating
sheathings
- 2 coats of acrylrc latex paint top coating with
premium latex primer
- 3 coats of latex paint
- Scrim (open-weave fabric like fiberglass ^bric)
- Hot, asphaltk; rubtierized membranes
- Some insulations (elaslomeric foam, cellular
glass, foil foced isofbam) if sealed
- Aluminum or paper feced fiberglass roll insulation
- Rigid insulatbn or faam-board insulation
-1/4 inch Douglas fir plywood with exterior glue
- High-perfomiance cross-laminated polyethylene
(Information fi-om Lstiburek, 2000; ICAA, 2002;
Spence, 1998; Bordenaro, 1991; Maness, 1991;
Lotz, 1998; Lstiburek and Cannody, 1991; Forest
Products Lab, 1949; DoE, 2002)
- Unpainted gypsum board (sealed)
- House-wffap, if properiy sealed and continuous
- Continuous building paper (15# or 30# felt paper)
-Plywood
- Foam board insulatfon
- Hot, asphaltb rubberized membranes
glass, foil laced isofbam) if sealed
Sample Materials
(Infonnation from ICAA. 2002; DoE, 2002)
Definition
(Straube,2001)
Now that these two barriers have been defined and some sample materials that qualify as air and
vapor barriers have been listed, we can begin our discussion of why we would utilize these
materials in a wall assembly.
The function of an air barrier is to stop outside air from infiltrating into the building through the
walls, windows, or roof and to keep inside air from exfiltrating through the building envelope to the
outside (Quiroutte, 1991). An air barrier may be utilized at any location within the wall assembly,
but the designer must always consider the following points when designing an air barrier
Air barrier must be continuous throughout the building envelope. The wall must be
continuous with the roof and must be connected to openings such as doors,
windows, etc. (Quiroutte, 1991),
Must be securely fastened to the structure to resist vwnd load, stack effect, and
pressurization from mechanical systems (Quiroutte, 1991),
It must be virtually "air-impemieable" (Quiroutte, 1991),
Avoid air leakage, cracks, and holes in construction (Handegord, 1982),
Air tightness must be designed, constructed, and maintained around all details
(Handegord, 1982),
Permeability of the material used as an air barrier must be determined (Rousseau,

1990),
Ease of detailing and building a continuous assembly with the contract documents
(i.e., Can it be built as designed?) (Rousseau, 1990),
Sequencing of wall assembly during construction (Rousseau, 1990),
Ease of inspection and performing maintenance once installed (Rousseau, 1990),

and
Material durability at the selected location (Rousseau, 1990).
An air bamer must be specifically designed, detailed, constructed and in order to ensure that it is
effective (Rousseau, 1990).
Since air leakage is the most significant mechanism to be
considered in moisture control, it should be controlled regardless of climate.
It should be
remembered that air leakage moves far more moisture than vapor diffusion does through
materials (Sherwood and Moody, 1989 and Letter, 2000). A key principle to be remembered with
an air barrier is that they should be used everywhere, and they should he properly designed and
subsequently constructed (Straube, 2002). A fine line exists because the reduction of air
infiltration in homes today has helped create the moisture dilemma since wall systems hold more
moisture than they used to because of better insulation and airtight construction techniques (U.S.
Forest Service, 1949). The honnes of decades past were able to breathe more Oe., "the old drafty
44
house") and were better able to transpire and reduce the accumulated moisture being generated
by our daily activities (Wettemrian, 1982). It has been reported that a family of four produces 7.512 liters of moisture per day and that the comfort level for humidity in a house is only 2.5-3.5 liters
of air-borne moisture within a 2000 ft^ house (Wetterman, 1982). The excess moisture must be
dealt with in our homes.
Air that leaks into a wall assembly must also have means to exit the assembly and, in most
cases, can be corrected through careful detailing and maintaining quality control at the inlet
openings and outlet openings are the sources of air leakage into wall assemblies (Lstiburek and
Carmody, 1991). Inlet openings are typically unsealed electrical outlet boxes, bottom edges of
interior gypsum board cladding, or openings/gaps/joints in interior air barrier systems. Outlet
openings are joints between sheets of exterior sheathings, top plate and bottom plate
connections to the exterior sheathings, service penetrations, and other construction flaws. These
openings must be detailed and constructed correctly if the air barrier's integrity is to be
maintained.
Major points to be considered with regards to air barriers are:
Air barriers often act like vapor barriers due to the permeance of the materials used
(Straube, 2002).
The designer should consider whether or not the air barrier material qualifies as a vapor
barrier because utilizing a redundant system will lead to harmful moisture issues within
the wall cavity by trapping vapor inside layers creating an ideal environment for rot,
decay, mold, and fungi to flourish in (Roger, 1964). Examples of easily incorporated
inadvertent vapor barriers include vinyl wall coverings and multiple coats of paint (i.e., 3
coats of latex paint) that inhibit the wall's capacity to dry.
In order for an air barrier to be totally effective, an airtight seal must be maintained
between all elements that the air barrier comes into contact with (James, 2000).
A vapor barrier may have holes, but the air barrier must be continuous and free of holes
in order to control any unwanted water vapor movement (Lstiburek, 2000; DoE, 2002;
Lstiburek and Carmody, 1991).
The specific location of the air barrier within the wall cavity is not as important as the air
barrier maintaining "intimate contact" with the insulation so that the cavity does not
promote conditions that facilitate convection and the subsequent moisture generation
problems associated with these air currents (Quiroutte, 1991).
Air leakage through a wall assembly nearly approaches zero in modern construction because of
the rampant use of sealers and caulks between any and all the joints and materials (Straube,
45
2002). While the approach spedfied by most designers calls for the use of housewrap as the air
barrier, they should be cautioned since this material has been shown in the DOE (2000), Holladay
and Vara (2000), McDaniel (2000), Holladay (2000), Cushman (1997), and James (2000) articles
to allow air to pass through once it has been stapled or attached by other means. While all the
joints may be taped, as directed by the housewrap manufacturer, tapes, and sealants are prone
to deterioration over time. A full discussion of housewrap cannot be adequately discussed for the
brevity of this report (references for an initial investigation of housewraps has been included in
the bibliography). The importance has been mentioned since housewrap is a critical component
that must be considered and designed when dealing with moisture. Two principles should be
remembered: 1.) "If all building assembly openings are controlled then air movement as well will
be controlled" and 2.) A tight assembly equals less air movement, which equals less moisture
movement (Lstiburek and Carmody, 1991). Once air movement is controlled, how the designer
deals with and details for the potential moisture accumulation becomes the central concern in wall
cavity design.
While the five subjects of 1.) evaporation, 2.) capillary suction, 3.) leakage, 4.) ventilation, and 5.)
diffusion all seemingly act independent of one another, the areas must be designed, detailed, and
constmcSed with an understanding of how each separate component's behavior affects the other.
Failure to address each subject correctly could potentially lead to moisture related concerns
within the cavity wall system. It has been reported "with the exception of structural errors, 90% of
building construction problems (are) associated with water" (Trechsel, Achenbach, and Launey,
1982).
We shall now investigate why vapor barriers, termed vapor diffusion retarders by
ASHRAE (and to be referred to as vapor barriers from here forward), are used today and then we
will look at how the literature reviewed says they should be used.
1.3.4 Why vapor barriers are used today?

A vapor banier's performance is measured in perms, which is "the passage of one grain of water
vapor per hour through one cubic foot of material at a pressure differential of one inch of mercury
between the two sides of the material" (Allen, 1990). A vapor barrier is any material that has a
permeance of less than or equal to 1 in residential constmction, but this number is typically much
lower for other types of construction (ASTM, 1999; Lstiburek, 2000). Materials that are
intentionally utilized as a vapor barrier have a perm rating of .1 or less, even though the definition
provides for less stringent permeance characteristics (DoE, 2002).
To further prevent any
trapping of moisture in the wall cavity, the cold side of the material should have a perm rating at
least five times greater than the value at the warm side (DoE, 2002). The penneance of the vapor
barrier becomes purely academic once a hole is made, therefore, any work occurring after the
installation of the vapor barrier should be checked to ensure that no major tears, punctures, or
46
damage has disturbed its surface integrity (Lotz, 1998; Wilson, 1999). A vapor barrier should be
included in the wall system design when the designer is seeking to create a moisture and
infiltration tight environment for the wall system (Stein and Reynolds, 1992; Lstiburek, 2000). A
vapor barrier is not a waterproofing application; it is a material with a low permeance that aims to
slow or retard the movement of vapor through the material to prevent the vapor from reaching the
dew point on another surface (Bordenaro, 1991; DoE, 2002; Kubal, 2000; ASTM, 1999; Quiroutte,
1991; DoE, 2002; Straube, 2002; Lstiburek and Carmody, 1991; ICAA, 2002).
The incorporation of a vapor barrier in the wall system can be looked at as a means of controlling
condensation in wall assemblies.
The vapor barrier is expected to control condensation,
regardless of how the moisture entered the cold side of the assembly (Rousseau, 1990; Forest
Products Lab, 1949). Stewart Rogers (1964) summarized prevention of condensation in buildings
as "keeping the indoor air dry or keeping impervious interior surfaces warm or keeping moist air
from coming into contact with cool surfaces." He enumerated six steps for accomplishing this
task (Rogers, 1964).
1.
"Get rid of excess moisture" through drainage, venting, and isolating moisture generating
sources" (Rogers, 1964).
2.
"Keep moist air away from cold surfaces" by using a vapor barrier or other vapor
impervious materials (Rogers, 1964).
3.
"Keep critical surfaces warmer than dew point temperature" by insulating the cold side
and not using thermally effective material on the warm side of the vapor resistant
components (Rogers, 1964).
4.
"Allow water vapor within construction to escape through the cold side" by designing the
outer skin with a vapor porous material or by using air vapor paths through vents in the
skin (Rogers, 1964).
5.
"Avoid vapor traps' by not using a double vapor barrier or unintended vapor barrier and
using vented flashing in built-up roofs (Rogers, 1964).
6.
"Use absorbent materials that can hold transient condensation harmlessly" by allowing air
circulation over indoor surfaces to prevent and encourage reevaporation of any moisture
the materials may acquire (Rogers, 1964).
The principles of vapor drive mentioned eariier, Section 1.3.3, pages 32-39, are a prime reason
for incorporating a vapor barrier in the wall system design. In winter, the warm, moist interior air
is drawn outward to the drier, cooler air by the differences in vapor pressure associated with
negative vapor drive (Kubal, 2000). The opposite tends to occur in the summer when the
moisture vapor travels from the moist and warm outside air to the cool, dry interior area called
positive vapor drive (Kubal, 2000). Vapor drive within the cavity is the process through which
47
materials seek a state of equilibrium and move vapor to other parts of the wall system. A vapor
barrier is useful in the battle against vapor drive and the moisture contained in the migrating air
(Kubal, 2000).
If the building design provides for an air barrier and is constructed correctly wîth no openings, the
airflow and its capacity to move water vapor into and through a wall system can be elinranated.
Vapor diffusion must then be designed for and implemented in the structure because heat
transfer, air transport, and vapor diffusion are the only means through which water vapor can
move within a wall system (Lstiburek, 2000). The continuity of the vapor barrier is not as
important as the continuity of the air barrier. However, the vapor bamer shouW be as impervious
as possible, and continuity should be striven for since air movement should be minimized when
aiming to control vapor movement (Lstiburek, 2000; Lotz, 1998; DoE, 2002).
The effectiveness
of the vapor banier is said to be proportional to its continuity and integrity Q.e., a vapor barrier that
has 10% of its surface area vflth openings is 90% effective against vapor diffusion) (Lstiburek,
2000). If the vapor barrier also fulfills the role of the air barrier, then the vapor barrier must be
installed in the same manner as the air barrier in order to be effective in both roles.
If the wall system is detailed correctly, the flashing should be carried up and through the vapor
barrier so that any condensation that does build up on the vapor barrier will have a designed path
for the liquid condensate to exit the wall system (DoE, 2002). Vapor barriers stop the drying
process, so there must exist a means of allowing water to be removed from the wall system
(Straube, 2002). Storage capacity should be determined for each specific material that is to be
used as a vapor banier (Shenwood and Moody, 1989).
1.3.5 How do you use a vapor barrier?

In a cold climate, a vapor barrier should be installed as close to the warm side of the wall or
thermal insulation as possible to aid in preventing water vapor from entering the insulation and
condensing into liquid at the point where the air temperature inside the cavity drops and reaches
the dew point (Stein and Reynolds, 1992; Allen, 1990; Kubal, 2000; Rogers, 1964; McGinley and
van der Hoeven, 1999; Quirouette, 1991; Lotz, 1998; Sherwood and Moody, 1989).
The
application of a vapor barrier on the warm in winter side of the insulation tends to reduce the
temperature and relative humidity of the structure (Rogers, 1964). Any material used on the cold
side of the vapor barrier should see a rise in the permissible relative humidity and temperature of
the wall section (Rogers, 1964). Typically a vapor barrier is a plastic film and is placed just
behind the interior wall surfaces (gypsum board and flooring) (Stein and Reynolds, 1992).
However, in hot, tropical areas the vapor barrier should be placed on the exterior side of the
insulation to prevent condensation from wetting the insulation as the air migrates under positive
48
vapor drive (Kubal, 2000; Lotz, 1998). In mild, more temperate climates, a vapor barrier may or
may not be necessary. The specific wall assembly design and climatic conditions should be
calculated when deciding whether or not to use a vapor bamer regardless of the climate.
A vapor barrier may be accidentally or inadvertently installed in the wall system due to the many
types of materials that qualify as a vapor barrier as seen in Table 5 in Section 1.3.3.5. All
material permeance ratings should be checked prior to being installed in the wall system
(Rousseau, 1990). Many materials that are used behave like a vapor barrier and often trap
moisture within the wall system, which often leads to deterioration, moW and mildew growth,
and/or corrosion if left uncorrected or unnoticed (Maness, 1991). The vapor barrier should be
installed in a seamless, or as near to seamless, as possible manner to reduce air infiltration
(Allen, 1990). The vapor barrier sheet application should be lapped and sealed to prevent any
breaks in the barrier, and any holes or cracks should be sealed if the vapor barrier is to perform
adequately in retarding moisture (Kubal, 2000; Maness, 1991). A vapor barrier is often attached
as a finish to batt insulation material (for example, wax impregnated kraft paper), or the vapor
barrier may be applied separately, which is often preferred by designers because of the fewer
number of seams that have to be sealed during construction (Allen, 1992).
A vapor barrier should not be used in a waterproofing application role because of its low
permeability. The vapor barrier does, however, act quite effectively at preventing and breaking
the upward capillary movement of vapor into the pores of concrete by providing a contact break
with the soil located sub-slab (Kubal, 2000; Lstiburek, 2000).
According to Lstiburek and
Carmody (1991), moisture is also prone to collect as condensation at the following interchanges
where vapor barriers are often used:
Insulation and sheathing
Sheathing and building paper
Building paper and cladding.
An air mass that is cooled below its dew point can no longer retain the vapor that is being earned
and condensate may be formed (Allen, 1990). The specifics of where to locate the vapor barrier
should be calculated for the specific climatic condition and the specific wall system as discussed
and calculated earlier in Section 1.3.2.3. The particular orientation of the structure also plays a
critical role in locating where, if, and when to utilize a vapor banier. Each of the north, south, east
and west facing walls have different design parameters due to the varying climatic conditions
each orientation presents. The purpose for locating the vapor barrier near the interior surface, in
most heating climates, is because the higher indoor air temperatures are capable of carrying
more water vapor that can reach the dew point when the air current reaches the insulation (and
49
cools down) as the air passes through the wall cavity (Allen, 1990). In hot, hurrwd warm weather
climates, the vapor barrier should be located outside of the insulation and in other mild climates a
vapor barrier may not even be needed (Allen, 1990).
The incorporation of a vapor barrier in a mixed climate is the area that remains most vague and
for the most part neglected in the literature reviewed. The primary difference for determining
whether to use a vapor barrier or not depends upon understanding the nature of vapor movement
and the potential for drying within the specific wall system design. The ASTM recommends
utilizing a flow-through design approach, and this approach closely follows other research and is
logical for combating the moisture problem. The flow-through design approach acknowledges the
fact that wetting will occur from one side of the wall system during one season, and that the wall
system will allow drying in the next season from the opposite side. Following the flow-through
approach for the mixed climate region of the country is the most logical approach from a design
perspective.
The design for these types of wall systems must be closely examined and
investigated because the potential for creating a redundant or inadvertent vapor barrier system
within the wall cavity creates the ideal environment for problems associated with vapor
accumulation, such as mold, nruldew, and ultimately decay.
The following is in specific reference to the roof, however, the principle also applies to the wall
assembly as a whole. "The specific location of the vapor barrier in the wall system should be
determined by calculating where the dew point is located in the system and then placing the
vapor barrier at a location above the dew point, if the dew point is outside of flie system, a vapor
barrier may not even be needed" (Bordenaro, 1991). The geographic conditions (specific number
of cooling and heating days) and orientation of the designed walls should be investigated and
specifically designed for when considering the inclusion of a vapor barrier in the wall system
(Allen, 1990). A vapor banier should be located on the outside face of the insulation in hot,
humid climates and on the inside face of the insulation in cold climates (Krogstad and Weber,
1999). As a general rule, the colder the climate the greater the need for a vapor barrier within the
wall system (ICAA, 2002).
The codes (CABO: One and Two Familv Dwelling Code. 1995 Edition. Fourth Printing, and
International Residential Code: For One and Two Family Dwellings) call for the cold regions of the
United States to use the vapor barrier on the interior of the building assembly since moisture
tends to migrate from inside to outside (Lstiburek and Carmody, 1991). Wetting of the wall
system tends to occur from the interior, and drying tends to occur towards the exterior in a
heating climate. Therefore, a vapor barrier and air barrier should be installed towards the interior
(Lstiburek, 2000). The purpose of locating the vapor barrier as prescribed by Lstiburek is to
50
prevent the wall system from becoming wet by Interior sources. It Is recomnriended that the
exterior sheathlngs be made of permeable materials (Lstiburek, 2000). A sample wall section for
this heating climate may be referenced in Figure 1.4.
The cooling climate (hot, humid)

regions of the United States
should have a vapor barrier
installed towards the exterior of
the building assembly because
moisture tends to migrate from
the
outside
to
the
6â Lflse/tip. eicp^p.^

eypSuM Bxsapo
inside
(Lstiburel< and Carmody, 1991).

The role of the vapor barrier in
this climate is to prevent the
wetting of the wall assembly from
Figure 1.4, Samiple heating climate wall section

adapted from Rogers (1964), Themfial Design of
Buildings
the exterior due to the moist air drive from the exterior towards the cool, interior air (Lstiburek,
2000). Therefore, the vapor barrier and the air barrier system should be installed towards the
exterior of the wall assembly
(Lstiburek, 2000). The purpose
of this design strategy is to
facilitate drying towards the
IWCEDftOeMWBUB5
interior if the wall assembly were

to get wet from moisture's
SWUB> OfP9JH heK^ W'tTH
infiltration. A sample design for a

wall system for this climate can
be seen in Figure 1.5.
The largest portion of the United
Figure 1.5, Sample cooling climate wall section

adapted from Lstiburek (2000), Builder's Guide to
Mixed Climates: Details for Design and
Construction
States falls into the mixed

climate region. The mixed climate region experiences one half of the year of inside to outside
moisture movement and the other half outside to inside moisture movement (Lstiburek, 2000 and
2002). In this instance the design would necessitate a "flow-through" design approach, which is
defined by ASTM as "unidirectional vapor flow in installations where any water vapor that diffuses
into the insulation system is permitted to pass through without significant accumulation" (ASTM,
1999).
The "flow-through" approach includes utilizing permeable and semi-permeable material
on the interior and exterior surfaces (Lstiburek, 2000). An appropriate material would be kraft
paper faced insulation installed towards the interior so that the kraft paper faced insulation
51
behaves to satisfy the "flow-through" conditions at the respective times of the year (Lstiburel<,
2002). A sample "flow-through" wall may be seen in Figure 1.6. Another appropriate design
approach for this climatic area
would be to implement and utilize
the normal assembly design
implemented in either the cold or
hot, humid climates.
Designers
utilizing this approach accept

moisture accumulation in the wall
assembly for part of the year and
assume drying will occur during
the other part of the year
(Lstiburek, 2000).
Figure 1.6, Sample mixed climate wall section

adapted from Lstiburek (2000),
Builder's Guide to Mixed Climates: Details for Design
and Construction
The last
alternate design approach for this climatic region would be to install the vapor barrier
(impermeable/semi-impermeable insulating sheathing on the exterior of the cavity wall system,
like 1.5 inch foil-faced insulating sheathing) in the middle of the wall assembly (Lstiburek, 2000).
A sample of this wall system designed for this climatic region can be seen in Figure 1.7.
Foundation design is an area that is often overlooked and poorly detailed during residential
construction. Concrete is a permeable material and water migrates through concrete over time.
An article written in Concrete
Products in the "Contractor Talk"
column points out that there are
four conditions under which a
vapor
barrier
should
be
implemented. The conditions are

as follows:
"1. When an impermeable
surface
will
be
applied
to
the
concrete
surface,
Figure 1.7, Sample mixed climate wall section

adapted from Lstiburek (2000),
Builder's Guide to Mixed Climates: Details for
Design and Construction
such as sealers or
coatings,
2.
When goods or merchandise stored on the floors is moisture sensitive,
3.
When moisture on the floor will damage machinery, and
4.
When installed flooring and adhesives are moisture sensitive." (Anonymous, 1993)
52
The article also stated two conditions under which the implementation of a vapor barrier would
probably not be necessary:
"1. When the building sites are well drained and the water table is normally well below
the ground surface elevation, a compacted layer of granular fill at least 4 in. thick can
be placed in place of a vapor barrier. This has often been proven satisfactory when
the floor coverings and adhesives are not moisture sensitive, and
2.
Where no soil moisture problems exist or regions where irrigation, heavy sprinkling
and high rainfall are not common." (Anonymous, 1993).
The implementation of uninsulated crawl spaces has led to an increased stack-effect vapor
movement and in general a rise in overall moisture content within the wall (FPL, 1949; Lstiburek
and Carmody, 1991).
Uninsulated, bare earth crawl space often has condensation and moisture
associated problems. Designers often combat this problem in the cold, mixed, and hot, humid
areas using heavy roll roofing underlayment or by applying a membrane vapor barrier in the crawl
space (FPL, 1949; Lstiburek and Carmody, 1991; ICAA, 2002). Implementation of a moisture
cover over the ground in a crawl space will help to minimize the moisture migration into the
structure from the ground below (ICAA, 2002). The correct height of the ventilated crawl space is
one that wouW be sufficient for maintenance to be done. The crawl space should be properly
graded for drainage and have adequate drainpipes to remove any water that may accumulate in
this space away from the wall cavity (U.S. Forest Service, 1949).
The design of vapor bamer underlayment, as recommended by the American Concrete Institute,
shouW include a 3-inch thick layer of sand or gravel over the vapor barrier before placing the
concrete for the slab (Suprenant, 1994). Gravel with sand, to fill in the voids between the gravel
pieces, is the preferred material since gravel would not be moved or displaced as easily during
the placing of the concrete as a straight layer of sand (Suprenant, 1994; Anonymous, 1993). The
recommended vapor barrier for the sub-slab location is a 4-6 millimeter polyethylene membrane
or other membrane (EPDM if high durability is desired) with all joints lapped at least 6-inches
(Suprenant, 1994; Anonymous, 1993; Lstiburek and Carmody, 1991; Rogers, 1964). During the
placement of concrete, the vapor barrier should be protected from any punctures since a hole in
the vapor barrier would allow the concrete to become a channel for the moisture movement that
the vapor barrier was designed to prevent (Suprenant, 1994).
Many lawsuits are filed each year related to moisture problems that have originated at the
juncture of the roof to the wall (Cash, 1993). The poor construction of the roof/wall joint is
primarily due to poor detail design of the flashing and subsequent poor field construction because
the laborers and/or designers do not understand the principles of water movement or are not able
53
to visualize a means of flashing the joint correctly t)ecause of the complexity of the design (Cash,
1993). Moisture and condensation are troublesome at this joint because of the potential for a
redundant vapor barrier. The need for a vapor barrier in the roof or ceiling is not a universal
solution, but should be evaluated just as the implementation of a vapor barrier should be
elsewhere (Cash, 1993). The conditions in the roof/ceiling and the incorporation of a vapor
barrier should be considered in conjunction with whether or not the space is ventilated (ICAA,
2002). A ceiling with a space above and proper ventilation may not require a vapor barrier (ICAA,
2002). The ICAA has reported, "if sufficient attic ventilation exists, condensation problems do not
occur in most U.S. climates' (ICAA, 2002). Climates that should not be ventilated include hot,
humid and cold, hostile, arctic/subarctic climates where moisture/condensation problems are
induced through ventilation and the general inability for drying to occur (Lstiburek and Carmody,
1991). The codes rCABO: One and Two Familv Dwelling Code. 1995 Edition. Fourth Printing and
International Residential Code: For One and Two Family Dwellings) require less ventilation in
attics and crawl spaces if a vapor barrier has been incorporated in the structure (Shenwood and
Moody, 1989).
1.4 Summary
Moisture dissipation from within a wall is directly related to both air movement and vapor diffusion
(Caril, 2000). The rampant use of intentional vapor barriers in residential construction is in many
instances creating redundant vapor barriers systems within the wall cavities, thus trapping
moisture and water that cannot escape. Even when the vapor barriers are not redundant, the
placement is often times in the wrong location, which creates as many problems as redundancy.
A vapor barrier's location should be carefully designed in relation to the specific wall design,
climatic conditions, and orientation. In order to control moisture, designers and builders must
look holistically at the indoor and outdoor atmospheric conditions as well as the design of the
building system to create the appropriate foundation, walls, and roof interactions in the wall
assembly (Caril, 2000). Regardless, the recommended placement of a vapor barrier cannot be
universal.
The following points are what seem to be the most important and salient points discovered in the
course of this literature review:
1.
Air moves far more moisture through materials than diffusion.
2.
In a cold climate, a vapor barrier should be installed as close to the warm side of the wall.
3.
In hot, hunrwd, and tropical areas a vapor bamer should be placed on the exterior (warm)
side.
4.
In mild, more temperate, climates a vapor barrier may or may not be necessary.
5.
A vapor barrier in a basement should be implemented in the same manner as it was in

the above-grade wall system.
54
6.
A vapor barrier should be only used if needed, and the use should be determined for the
specific wall system design, climate, and orientation (North, South, East, West) where the
structure will be located.
7. A vapor barrier is a good ground cover below slab-on-grade, and it is important in crawl
spaces.
The vapor barrier should help reduce moisture transport through capillary
movement fi'om the soil into the stmcture.

8.
The vapor barrier does not have to be impervious, but should be installed with as few
imperfections as possible to prevent the flow of air.
9.
Multiple layers of paint (the non-vapor retarding type, i.e., latex), 3+ coats, behave like a
vapor barrier.
10. Wallpaper, especially vinyl wall covering, behaves like a vapor barrier.
11. The wall cavity should not be ventilated in hot, humid (cooling) climates.
12. The wall cavity shouki be ventilated in temperate and cold (heating) climates.
14. Care should be taken when installing an air barrier because the air barrier is only as
functional as the air barrier's material integrity (i.e., be impervious to cuts, tears,
punctures, rips, etc.).
15. House wrap is a greatly misunderstood material despite its prolific use in residential
construction.
17. All walls are different and will behave differently depending upon where and how they are
to be constructed.
55

Allen, E. (1990). Fundamentals of Building Construction: Materials and Methods. 2nd Edition.
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; New Yorl<; 803 p.
American Society ofTesting and Materials (ASTM). (1999). ASTM Standards in Building Codes.
Volume 2: Designation C 755 - 97. ASTM; West Conshohocken PA; 1994 p.
American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers. (1972). 1972
ASHRAE Handbook - Fundamentals. Menasha, Wl, Banta Co. Inc.
Anonymous. (1993). "Vapor Barriers under Slat)s." Concrete Products. 96(3), 8.
Constniction. 32(9), 74-77.
Carll, C. (2000). "Rainwater Intrusion in Light-Frame Building Walls." From Proceedings of the
2nd Annual Conference on Durability and Disaster IVIitigation in Wood-Frame Housing:
November 6-8, 2000, Madison Wi, from www.toolbase.org. accessed 3 Jun 03.
Cash, K. (1993). "Where Roofe Meet Walls." Progressive Architecture. 74(2), 31-35.
Cushman, T. (1997). "Can Moisture Beat Housewrap?" Journal of U^t Construction, ^^{Q),
9,14.
Department of Energy. (2000). "Weather Resistive Bariers: How to select and install housewrap
and other types of weather-resistive barriers." Technology Fact Sheet Series from the
Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy obtained from
www.eere.energv.gov/buildings/documents/pdfs/28600.pdf accessed on 28 May 03.
www.eere.energv.gov/consumerinfo/rfbrief5/bd4.html, accessed on 28 May 03.
Fisette, P. (1995). "Making Walls Watertight." Jouma/of L/gWConsfrurf/on, 14(3), 35-38.
Forest Products Laboratory (FPL). (2000). Tediline Durability: Controlling Moisture in Homes,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, from
www.toolbase.org, accessed 3 Jun 03.
Guralnik, D. (1982). Webster's New World Dictionary: Second College Edition. New Yoric, Simon
and Schuster.
Handegord, G. (1982). "Air Leakage, Ventilation, and Moisture Control in Buildings" in Moisture
Migration in Buildings. ASTM STP 779; Philadelphia PA; 223-233.
Holladay, M. (2000). "Choosing a Sheathing Wrap." Journal of Ught Constniction, ^8{^\), 7987.
Holladay, M. and Vara, J. (2000). "More Housewrap Performance Tests." Journal of Light
Construction, 18(5), 13,16.
Insulation Contradors Association of America (ICAA). (2002). "Technical Bulletin: Use of Vapor
RetarderTS." ICAP; Alexandria VA. Obtained from www.toolbase.org, accessed 3 Jun 03.
56
James, M. (2000). "Don't Staple Tyvek." Home Energy, UiS), 8.

Consf/Tucffon, 11(11), 13-17.
Krogstad, N. and Weber, R. (1999). "Evaluation of Moisture Problems in Exterior Wall
Assemblies" in Water Problems in Buildina Exterior Walls: Evaluation. Prevention, and
Repair. ASTM STP 1352; West Conshohocken PA; 115-124.
Letter and response in "On the House". (2000). "Ceiling Vapor Barrier - Yes or No?" Journal of
Ught Construction, 18(5), 21,23,24.
June 03.
Lstiburek, J. (2000). Builder's Guide to Mixed Climates: Details for Design and Construction.
Lstiburek, J. and Cannody, J. (1991). Moisture Control Handbook: New, low rise residential
construction. Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Oak Ridge TN; 247 p.
33-38.
McGinley, W. and van der Hoeven, R. (1999). "Envelope Analysis of Exterior Load Bearing
Single-Wythe Partially Reinforced Hollow Clay Masonry Wall Systems for Residential
Applications" in Water Problems in Building Exterior Walls: Evaluation. Prevention, and
McDaniel, P. (2000). "Wrapping the House: Dos and Don'ts - Install it right, and housewrap
works well to keep water out; lap it wrong and you are better off without it." Journal of
Ught Construction. 18(6), 71-78.
O'Connor, T. and Johnson, P. (1995). "Stop that Water Vapor." Progressive Architecture.
76(12), 86-89.
Quiroutte, R. (1991). "Air and Vapor Barriers." Progressive Architecture. 72(9), 45-51.
Ramsey, C. and Sleeper, H. (1992). Construction Details from Architectural Graphic Standards.
Rogers, S. (1964). Thermal Design of Buildings. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; New Yori<; 196 p.
Rousseau, M. (1990). "Air Barriers and Vapor Baniers: Are they of any use in low-slope roofs."
Progressive Architecture. 71(7), 137-143.
Schroter, E. and Klein, K. (1999). "Considerations for Waterproofing of Wood-Framed Buildings"
in Water Problems in Building Exterior Walls: Evaluation. Prevention, and Repair. ASTM
STP 1352; West Conshohocken PA; 296-302.
57
Schuller, M, van der Hoeven, R., and Thomson, M. (1999). "Comparative Investigation of Plastic
Properties and Water Permeance of Cement-Lime Mortars and Cement-Lime
Replacement Mortars" in Water Problems in Building Exterior Walls: Evaluation.
Prevention, and Repair. ASTM STP 1352; West Conshohocken PA; 145-158.
Shenwood, G. and Moody, R. (1989). Uaht-Frame Wall and Floor Svstems: Analvsis and
Perfomnance. General Technical Report, FLP-GTR-59; U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Forest Products Latwratory; Madison Wl; 162 p. Obtained from
wvwv.nahbrc.org. accessed 3 Jun 03.
Spence.W. (1998). Construction Materials. Methods, and Technioues. Delmar Publications;
NewYork;1195p.
Stein B. and Reynolds, J. (1992). Mechanical and Electrical Eouipment for BuiMings: 8th
Straube, J. (1998). "Moisture Control and Enclosure Wall Systems", Thesis for Dissertation from
the University of Waterloo; Waterloo, Ontario, Canada; 408 p.
Straube, J. (2001). "The Influence of Low-Penmeance Vapor Barriers on Roof and Wall
Perfonnance." Conference Paper presented at Proceedings of Themnal Performance of
Building Envelopes VIII, Clearwater Beach, FL, 2-7 Dec 01.
http://www.buildingsolutions.ca/Download%20Solutions.html, accessed on 31 Oct 02.
http://www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/beg/Downloads/ASHRAE%20Journal%20Jan%202002%20
Moisture.pdf. accessed on 31 Oct 02.
Straube, J. (2002). "Principles of Rain Control for Enclosure Design" from
www.buildingsolutions.ca. accessed on 31 Oct 02.
Straube, J. (2002). "Vapor Barriers - Where and when do you need them?"
http://www.buildingsolutions.ca/Download%20Solutions.html. accessed on 31 Oct 02.
Straube, J. and Burnett, E. (1999). "A Review of Rain Control and Design Strategies." Journal of
Thermal Insulation and Building Envelopes, July 1999, 41-56.
Suprenant, B. (1994). "Sub-Slab Vapor Barriers." Journal of Light Cons&uction, 12(8), Z7-39.
in Moisture Migration in Buildings. ASTM STP 779; Philadelphia PA; 148-159.
U.S. Forest Seroice. (1949). Condensation Control in Dwelling Construction by Forest Products
Wettemnan, T. (1982). "Control of Moisture Migration in Light Frame Walls" in Moisture Migration
in Buildings. ASTIV! STP 779; Philadelphia PA; 102-109.
Wilson, M. (1999). "Common 'Unique' Cavity Wall Flashing Problems: Mistakes Frequently
Made, Their Resolution, and Presentations from Case Histories" in Water Problems in
Building Exterior Walls: Evaluation. Prevention, and Repair. ASTM STP 1352; West
Conshohocken PA; 240-252.
58
2.0 The Code Recommendations for Vapor barrier Implementation in

Residential Construction: Do the recommendations make sense?
59
2.1 Introduction
Vapor barriers are often misunderstood and misused materials within the building systems that
are utilized in residential construction. The standards as defined by the American Society of
Testing Materials (ASTM), and in the codes of the Council of American Building Officials, CABO:
One and Two Family Dwelling Code. 1995 Edition. Fourth Printing, and International Code
Council, International Residential Code: For One and Two Family Dwellings provide the industry
with certain recommendations and requirements of when, where, and if to utilize this material
within a structure's foundation, wall, and ceiling/roof cavity designs. The code recommendations
will be evaluated, and subsequent recommendations will be made for designers and builders who
reference/use/adhere to the code requirements to make decisions regarding the potential
implementation of vapor baniers for the specific location.
2.2 Standards defined by ASTIVI

The ASTM standards, C755, define the vapor barrier's primary function within the wall system as
"to control the movement of diffusing water vapor into or through a permeable insulation system"
(ASTM, 1999). The diffused movement of vapor into and through a wall system follows one of
two flow patterns, unidirectional or reversible (ASTM, 1999). Vapor pressure difference is the
driving factor in determining how vapor barriers are to be used since the greater the pressure
differential, the greater the rate of diffusion through the assembly (ASTM, 1999). During the
design phase, the expected pressure differences should be realistic, not estimated, when
determining the vapor barrier requirements (ASTM, 1999). The general practices for building
cavity design as stated in ASTM cover air-conditioned structures, wood frame construction, and
the placement of the insulation in the wall system design.
ASTM defines unidirectional flow, as having a "water vapor pressure difference [that] is
consistently higher on one side of the system than the other" (ASTM, 1999). In cooler climates,
this vapor flow should include the design of the vapor barrier on the indoor, warmer, side of the
wall insulation. Reversible flow is defined as having a "vapor pressure [that] may be higher on
either side of the system, and it often changes with the seasons" (ASTM, 1999). Design for
reversible flow conditions do not greatly influence where in the wall system the vapor barrier
should be placed. The assumption is that drying will occur during the opposite season for which
the barrier was placed within the cavity.
If a membrane retarder material is to be used within the cavity, the ASTM recommends using a
retarder virith a lower permeance if a five-foot (1.5 meter) wide roll is used, or using a vapor
barrier/retarder with a higher permeance if a 20 foot (6.1 meter) width is installed (ASTM, 1999).
The reason for the permeance difference, dependent upon the width of the roll, is due to the air
penetration through the materials. The smaller width roll of membrane retarder would require a
60
lower permeance because there would be more laps, joints, and seams than the wider roll and
thus more air entrained vapor would potentially be allowed to pass through these potential
openings. Even with proper sealing of the laps, joints, and seams of the smaller width rolls,
perfect construction quality should never be relied upon for installation, especially since sealants
are prone to breakdown over time and the quality of installation cannot be relied upon to be "as
recommended" by the manufacturer (which most design specifications indicate). When designing
the cavity, low permeability insulation installed with sealed, vapor tight joints often acts like a
vapor barrier within the wall. A redundant vapor barrier system should be avoided, but is often
inadvertently constructed into the wall system design when a vapor barrier is purposefully used
and when the permeability characteristics of the other utilized wall system materials is not
researched or thoroughly understood.
The ASTM standards also recommend the implementation of an air barrier system within the wall
cavity (ASTM, 1999). The potential for condensation should be investigated when designing the
placement of the air barrier within the wall system (ASTM, 1999). The recommended placement
of the air barrier within the cavity is on the warm side of the insulation and should be installed in a
continuous, unbroken manner to prevent the uncontrolled movement of air through the wall
system, as previously discussed in the literature review. The air barrier is only as useful as it is
continuous.
A vapor barrier shouW be installed with all joints, holes, penetrations, and cuts being carefully
sealed with the recommended manufacturer specific sealants or tapes in order to maintain the
vapor diffusion resistance characteristics of the material (ASTM, 1999). The ASTM has defined
two recommended vapor barrier design practice principles, flow-through and moisture storage.
Flow-through design is supposed to eliminate the possibility of condensation within the insulation
and shouW include the use of a highly pemieable insulation within the cavity (ASTM, 1999). The
purpose of the high permeability insulation is to allow vapor to flow through the insulation and
condense, if the vapor is to condense, on the next lower permeable surface (ideally the vapor
barrier) within the system where the liquid would either be drained or removed through ventilation.
The moisture storage principle allows for some moisture accumulation within the system's
insulation, but the rate of accumulation is small and low permeability insulation should be used
(ASTM, 1999).
The design utilizing the moisture storage principle assumes that moisture
condensation quantities virill not exceed the storage characteristics of the material before the
moisture is removed ft-om within the system.
When determining the vapor flow within the system, the calculations are very similar to the
calculations made to measure the heat flow through the wall system, see Section 1.3.2.3, pages
61
27-31. The formula, as provided by ASTM (1999), for calculating vapor flow through the wall
system is:
Vapor flow = Vapor pressure difference (between interior and exterior)
Vapor flow resistance
The vapor pressure differentials in summer tend to cause vapor to flow in an inward direction, and
as such, a vapor barrier should be used on the outer side of the insulation and feeing the exterior
covering of the structure (ASTM, 1999). The ASTM guidance goes on to state Ihe vapor retarder
should still be located on the side of the insulation facing the interior of the building to control
vapor flow under the more severe conditions" (from the warm winter side of the system) (ASTM,
1999). The guidance continues, stating that if an impermeable insulation material is utilized, a
separate vapor barrier is not needed at all as long as the "joints (if any) are made impermeable by
suitable sealing methods" as recommended by the manufacturer (ASTM, 1999). The standard
includes a statement regarding residential construction and the implementation of a totally
separate system. The wall system must be designed for moisture that penetrates the retarder,
then moves into the insulation, and finally continues on to the outside through some means of
ventilation or forced air movement within the cavity (ASTM, 1999). The ASTM standards provide
design solutions/recomnrtendations to effectively handle all climatic conditions encountered in the
United States construction process, and they provide designers and builders with a clear
understanding of how to correctly utilize these materials in the wall systems.
2.3 CABO and iCC Code Summaries

The current residential building codes, as published by the Council of American Building Officials
(CABO) and the International Code Councils (ICC), that have been investigated with regards to
the implementation of vapor barriers are for residential one and two family dwellings.
The
applicable code sections from these references have been tabularized in summary form in Table
2.1 below.
Tabfe 2.1, Vapor barrier specific code summaries, adapted from CABO (1995) & ICC (2000)
Section
321
Code
CABO
Title
"Moisture Vapor
Retarders"
Discussion
- Required in all frame walls and floors, and ceilings, not
ventilated to allow moisture to escape.
- Vapor barrier to be used on warm-in-winter side of
thermal insulation with two (2) exceptions:
3.) Where moisture or its freezing will not damage
the materials.
4.) Hot, humid climates: 67F+ wet bulb temps for
3000+ hours or 73F+ wet bulb temp for 1500+
hours during warmest six (6) consecutive months
of year.
62
Section
R322
Code
ICC
406
R406
CABO
ICC
409
CABO
R408
ICC
505
CABO
R506
806
ICC
CABO
R806
ICC
907
CABO
R907
ICC
Title
"Foundation
Waterproofing and
Dampproofing"
"Crawl Space"
Discussion
- In all framed walls, floors and roofe/ceilings comprising
elements of building thermal envelope.
- A vapor barrier shall be installed on warm-in-winter side
of insulation with three (3) exceptions:
4.) Where moisture or its freezing will not damage
the materials.
5.) Hot, humid climates: 67F+ wet bulb temps for
3000+ hours or 73F+ wet bulb temp for 1500+
hours during warmest six (6) consecutive months
of year.
6.) Counties listed in ICC Table 1101.2, p.72-80
(summarized in report's table 2).
- No discussion other than waterproofing applications and
moisture barrier installation
- When ground surface is treated with a vapor barrier,

ventilation opening requirements may be reduced to
1/1,500 of the under-floor area, or
- Ventilation openings may be omitted when continuously
operating mechanical ventilation is provided at a rate of
1.0 cfm for each 50 fl^ of crawl space and the ground
surface covered with a vapor barrier.
- Same two rules/exceptions as CABO, plus
"Under-Floor Space"
- Ventilation openings not required if ground covered with
a vapor barrier, space is supplied with conditioned air, and
perimeter walls are insulated.
Vapor barrier with joints lapped at least six inches (6")
"Concrete Floors (on
shall be placed between slab and base course or
ground)"
prepared subgrade if no base course exists
- Three (3) exceptions:
4.) Detached structures that are to be unheated (i.e.,
garages).
5.) Flatwork not likely to be enclosed and heated
later (i.e., sidewalks, patios).
6.) As approved by building official.
Net free cross-ventilation area may be reduced to 1 to 300
"Roof Ventilation"
with installation of vapor barrier (material with a
transmission rate not exceeding 1 perni) installed on the
warm side of ceiling.
It should be noted that both CABO and the ICC state, with identical language, that "the
total net free ventilating area shall not be less than 1 to 150 of the area of space
ventilated except that the total area is permitted to be reduced to 1 to 300, provided at
least 50% and not more than 80% of the required ventilating area is provided by
ventilators located in the upper portion of the space to be ventilated at least 3 ft. above
the eave or cornice vents with the balance of the required ventilation provided by eave
or cornice vents."
- Vapor barrier to be installed between deck and insulation
"Built-up Roofing"
where average January temperature is below 45F, or
- Where excessive moisture conditions anticipated within
the building.
- Nothing vapor barrier specific
63
The information that is presented in

Table 2.2 has been adapted and
condensed from the ICC, Section
R322, Table 1101.2, pages 72-80.
The exact counties/parishes listed
should
be
referenced
when
designing or constructing a structure

in these states, and an exemption is
being sought for moisture vapor
barrier inclusion on the warm in
winter side of the insulation.
The two codes have similar intended
Table 2.2, Adapted from information from ICC

(2000): Section R322, Exception 3
Number of counties exempted from
State
wann-in-winter V.R. installation
North Carolina 16 of 100 counties
South Carolina 30 of 46 counties
109 of 159 counties
Georgia
All counties
Florida
47 of 67 counties
Alabama
64 of 82 counties
Mississippi
All parishes
Louisiana
44 of 75 counties
Arkansas
2 of 95 counties
Tennessee
6 of 78 counties
Oklahoma
139 of 254 counties
Texas
audiences (one and two family dwelling designers and builders), and the requirements with
regards to vapor barriers are nearly identical in both language and verbiage. Both of the codes
dictate to the designer or builder where the vapor barriers will be placed with the exception of the
section on concrete floors (on ground) where the provision, "or as approved by building official" is
included.
The requirements, as outlined in the codes, are feirly specific with regards of where, when, and
how to install vapor barriers vnthin the wall systems. The code requirements do not easily allow
proposals for acceptable alternatives by designers and builders who may be implementing
altemative approaches to construction.
2.4 What the codes should say...foundation, wall, and ceiling/roof

2.4.1 Foundation - slab
The accumulation of moisture through the foundation/support elements (slab, basement, crawl
space, etc.) is the primary point of entry into residential construction assemblies (Suprenant,
1994). The incorporation of vapor baniers in the foundation design is only as effective as the
drainage mechanisms facilitate and allow. Designing proper drainage includes not only collecting
water, but also effectively moving water away from the structure so that it does not accumulate
and then migrate or be sucked up and into the wall system.
The proper drainage requirements
are dictated by tiie specific site conditions. An attempt to cover the drainage requirements will
not be discussed at this time, other than to enforce the fad: that drainage is a critical element for
the design of the foundation system.
The placement of the sub-slab vapor barrier performs a dual role in the structure's moisture
protection.
64
structure's assembly (Lstiburek and Carmody, 1991). Capillary break points should be designed
into the entire foundation system for the many reasons discussed in the literature review Sections
1.3.2.2 and 1.3.3.1. The utilization of the vapor barrier to break capillarity and in these locations
provides the building with this first preventative measure in dealing with moisture and minimizing
the potentially harmful effects within the structure.
joints should be lapped at least six (6) inches, and the vapor barrier material should be as
impervious as possible to any breaks, punctures, or other such penetrations (Suprenant, 1994).
Any and all openings should be sealed with an appropriate sealing material as recommended by
the particular vapor barrier manufacturer.
The role of the vapor barrier in this particular
application should be designed and constructed in a similar manner as an air barrier within the
wall system.
The vapor barrier should be placed on top of, and in direct contact with, the
compacted subgrade material. Then, on top of the vapor barrier and below the concrete slab, a
three (3) inch thick layer of sand or varied sizes of gravel should be applied and lightly compacted
(Suprenant, 1994). Gravel is recommended over sand because gravel is less easily displaced
during the placement of the concrete slab and provides a consistently more uniform surface for
the slab's placement. A discussion with Joe Vinson, a residential house builder, reveals that this
layer is seWom used in residential construction because of the significant cost, and the perceived
benefits of incorporation do not outweigh the increased cost of installation (Vinson, 2003).
Special care and oversight should be taken during the concrete placement phase since the vapor
barrier's effectiveness is proportional to the integrity of the retarder membrane below. The usage
of a sand/gravel break between the vapor barrier and the concrete helps to prevent several
problenns that are often experienced when the concrete is placed in direct contact with the vapor
barrier. The break between the vapor barrier and the concrete allows for speeding up the time
between placement and finishing, helping to reduce the effects of cracking, improving the slab's
strength, and helping to eliminate slab curiing which may be experienced when concrete is placed
in direct contact with the vapor barrier (Suprenant, 1994).
The requirements as outlined in the CABO and ICC codes make recommendations for the
incorporation of vapor barriers in the on-grade sub-slab section that is in line and follows the
recommendations and guidance as discovered during the review of literature.
Graphical detail drawings of the slab-on-grade foundation may be found in Figure 2.1.
65
j. pBitfijetfreo ppAirJ Pipe
VAfoft- ft^vpgtef^ ^cofe-oc-eT)
Figure 2.1, Adapted standard slab-on-grade and basement detail

from Ramsey and Sleeper (1992).
2.4.2 Foundation - crawl space
The next aspect of the foundation system that would need a vapor barrier, according to the
codes, is in the crawl space design that exists in many pier-post structures and other raised
structures including basements.
The crawl space design is very similar to that of the sub-slab
vapor barrier. The same types of vapor barrier materials should be utilized in the crawl space
area, as in the slab-on-grade, but it may be necessary to cover the vapor barrier with either a soil
or gravel cover to prevent the vapor barrier from being moved. The ground cover vapor barrier
should follow the same design and installation requirements as an air barrier (i.e., seal and lap all
joints).
The ground-cover vapor banier should be attached to the structure's support columns or
perimeter wall, if the space is enclosed.
At all locations where the support columns or perimeter
walls intereect the wall system, the vapor barrier design should include a membrane to provide a
designated location to break capillary movement.
The crawl space design should include a
properly designed drainage system to include grading to prevent ponding that may occur should
water pass through the crawl space. Ventilation of the crawl space is also necessary to help
prevent moisture from accumulating in an unvented space that could migrate up and into the
structure.
The codes state that "when [the] ground surface is treated with a vapor barrier, ventilation
opening requirements may be reduced to 1/1,500 of the under-floor area, or ventilation openings
may be omitted when continuously operating mechanical ventilation is provided at a rate of 1.0
cfm for each 50 fl^ of crawl space and the ground surface covered with a vapor barrier" CABO,
66
1995 and ICC, 2000).
The code allowed reduction does not follow the literature
recommendations that were reviewed in the previous chapter. The purpose of the vapor barrier
within this space proves to be very effective at combating the accumulation of moisture within the
substructure that could then be pulled or transported up and into the structure. The opinion of the
author is that maintaining the original recommended ventilation requirements in the crawl space,
with or without a vapor barrier, is a necessity for residences. Ventilation in this semi-enclosed
space is important should this space become wet.
Drying can be facilitated through proper
ventilation and moisture accumulation can be minimized and removed.

Graphical detail drawings of the crawl space foundation may be found in Figure 2.2.
__V^g,bgM^
t>il*>TiM
f. scpB6NS> ^*^'T
Figure 2.2, Adapted standard crawl-space detail from FPL (1949) and Ramsey
and Sleeper (1992).
2.4.3 Foundation - basement

The design of the basement walls with regard to moisture is another problematic area that
changes with regard to the particular building design. Basement slab design should follow the
same design guidance that was provided in Section 2.4.1 with respect to sub-slab design. Due to
the presence of high quantities of construction water that migrate out of the concrete basement
walls over the first six (6) plus months, it is recommended that the basement walls not be
insulated or finished during this time period. Allowing the basement walls to cure and expel this
67
construction water from the structure will help eliminate many of the problems that finished
basements are prone to encounter. A preventive measure for the basement footings is to design
a capillary break using a vapor barrier between the footing and the vertical basement wall
(Lstiburek, 2000). Other than the standard dampproofing and waterproofing applications applied
to the exterior surfaces of the basement walls, no other vapor barrier treatments are needed or
required in these systems since the drying characteristics of the wall will vary significantly with the
seasons. A vapor barrier would not facilitate the flow-through principle that should be utilized in
basements. It should be noted, though not the opinion of the author, that the literature reviewed
does recommend following the example of what was done above grade should be implemented
below grade (i.e., if a vapor barrier was incorporated on the inner portion of the above grade wall
then one should be used at the same location in the below grade basement wall system).
Graphical detail drawings of the basement foundation may be found in Figure 2.1 in Section 2.4.1
above.
2.4.4 Walls
The use of a vapor barrier in a wall assembly is an often confusing and wrongly accomplished
detail that may lead to many moisture problems within assemblies. The application of the vapor
barrier within the wall system design is greatly dependent upon where the structure is climatically,
the orientation of the wall, and the wall system design. It should be noted that when a vapor
barrier is installed incorrectly or redundantly the vapor barrier might become a vapor trap. Many
materials behave like a vapor bamer within the wall cavity and all material permeance ratings
should be investigated before designing or constructing the wall. ASTM states, "for practical
purposes it is assumed that the permeance of an adequate retarder will not exceed 1 perm,
although at present this value may be adequate only for residential construction" (ASTM, 1999).
The climatic regions for residential design that this report will follow are in line with the ones
presented by Lstiburek and Carmody and are labeled as heating climates, mixed climates, and
cooling climates. The climatic regions are identified in Table 1.1, Section 1.3.1, of the literature
review, but the characteristics are resummarized as follows:
Heating dimate is defined as an area that has 4000+ heating degree-days (Lstiburek
andCamriody, 1991).
Mixed climate is an area that has up to 4000 heating degree-days (Lstiburek and
Carmody, 1991).
Cooling climate is defined as an area that has 67F or higher WB temperatures for
Carmody, 1991).
68
The implementation of a vapor barrier within the wall system of the residence built in a heating
climate should follow the guidance that a vapor barrier should be installed on the inside of the
wall insulation.
The recommendations made in both the CABO and ICC codes follow this
guidance fairly closely, although the number of heating degree-days varies slightly. The specific
wall system design should be analyzed in more detail by utilizing psychrometric charts and
investigating how the wall system temperature drops at each material change to determine where
and if to incorporate a vapor barrier. The specific points where the dew point is reached within
the cavity should be determined, and the vapor barrier incorporated as appropriate in a heating
climate for each specific wall design.
A vapor barrier within the cavity of a wall system built in a cooling climate, or one which is
typically classified as a hot and humid weather location, should place the vapor barrier on the
outside (towards the exterior) of the wall system's insulation. Although the conditions for these
locations would qualify as an exemption in the CABO and ICC codes (with the same slight
deviation in the specific number of wet bulb temperatures) for placement on the warm-in-winter
side, the codes recommendations are vague as to exactly where the vapor barrier should be
placed within the wall system. The ICC does provide a very thorough listing of counties within
each of the states in the United States that would qualify under this code exemption. Both codes
should state that the vapor barrier should be located on the side of the insulation facing the
structure's exterior if any of the exemption rules qualify.
The incorporation of a vapor barrier in a mixed climate is the area that remains most vague and
for the most part neglected in the code requirements and in the literature reviewed. The primary
difference for determining whether to use a vapor barrier or not depends upon understanding the
nature of vapor movement and the potential for drying within the specific wall system design. The
ASTM recommends utilizing a flow-through design approach, and this approach closely follovre
other research and is logical for combating the moisture problem. The flow-through design
approach follows the principle discussed in the literature review. Section 1.3.5, pages 41 - 47.
This approach acknowledges the fact that wetting will occur from one side of the wall system
during one season, and that the wall system vrill allow drying in the next season from the opposite
side. Following the flow-through approach for the mixed climate region of the country is the most
logical approach from a design perspective. The design for these types of wall systems must be
closely examined and investigated because the potential for creating a redundant or inadvertent
vapor barrier system within the wall cavity creates the ideal environment for problems associated
with vapor accumulation, such as mold, mildew, and ultimately decay.
69
The codes need to make recommendations for vapor barriers within the wall systems that are
more climatically specific and address the permeability issues of the other materials that are
utilized in the wall systems. Redundant vapor barrier systems are often inadvertently installed
during construction, preventative maintenance, and renovation.
Several examples of the
incorporation of unintended vapor barriers include multiple, as few as three, coats of paint (nonvapor retarder latex specific), two coats of acrylic latex paint with premium latex primer
underneath, vinyl wall coverings or wallpaper, the various adhesives used with wall coverings, foil
faced plywood/OSB, bitumen/wax Impregnated kraft paper, aluminum or paper faced fiberglass
roll insulation, and using 1/4-inch Douglas fir plywood with exterior glue, etc (Lstiburek, 2000;
ICAA, 2002; Spence, 1998; Bordenaro, 1991; Maness 1991; Lotz, 1998; Lstiburek and Carmody,
1991; Forest Produds Lab, 1949; and DoE, 2002).
The recommendations for several wall section systems are summarized in Table 2.3 below. The
discussed wall sections incorporate the following components: wood siding, aluminum siding,
brick veneer, plaster veneer, and concrete shell. The various sections will be described with
generic section solutions in the "Model Wall Section/Type" column. The respective climatic area
columns will be used to discuss where the vapor barrier or other wall section revisions should be
incorporated if one of these sections were utilized in the particular climatic area.
70
CJ
3 <o
CO j^
I "E
11
=
n
o
5
^ E 0)
' sz
> S (D
- >
i ' ^
at
\E%
IB
E2 [- (u
o o >,
o c
o o
; a>
>i.T3 E
: a> to E
1 In (0 u
o
*^
9)
ii
8 (0
.E >.
ot3
X
T3 ra
0) 't
U CO
E JD
CO _
T3 E
3 O C
o " .2
:=
(0 0) 3
= 5 OT3
)S
-1, to -S
^
0) E
|-5i
E o
a
ffl ^
(I) J3
C; j_ (O "^
^\--n E
Ifl
S8
RE IS sfE
c 0) n
^ CD
(D
Si
is
8 to
>.
U-
So
T3 t
O " o
UJ
- -^ ^
0
0
m
- &=
<
0)
Sro LJ
E=i
c a) 3
1o
u
o
<
(0
Cl
1.1 8
CO S
CD S
;:^
J
CO
0
tg
fc
(0
o.
a
<
- - to T3
ra ^
ES
c
e
- a> 3
c o >,
TR i
f!
In if
'' co~ o
b
E^
a58
a. E CO
2 8g
(0
CO CO s
18
O O)
CO j^
CO ^
^^
f5 io
o o
^.
8 (0
o ni
.E >.
ii
-EQ
||E
CO go
C " CD
i8
|5
^Sl
E S
Ef
8
If.
all I
*8iiii
UJ
Q"
"W . . O =^
Eo ^-^
^ T3 CQ oS
g E Ô
XI
ml
3 E
>
E.2
0)
E
o
a.
E S
E-S
8 o
Ii.
8
Q
Ul
CO Ic 3
CO
to
OS
pi
T3
0)
N
IS
a> S
o =
^ to
Q. O
III
ii
^^
< "O TJ
9 S-S
is
TS
( 0 0
^ 0
fc
il
55
8
E
0) > > n
> ^ 03 :
b (U O
6 e g 1
d
(N
CD
0
(N
|,
5
-I
0)"
^
E
1to
3
c
-3
rJ
0
fe
0 F :
1 F

I
1
iS
1
X
z
- S >!
CD
>(
f^
'co
Z3
IS
S2 c
u. B
c
c
gsg
.ffl in.
3
Sow
u.
"S'
c 2.9!
o o a>
(0 0) 5
S*S
|8
IE"
0 3
1
1
Ul U. OS.
ifi o
n
3
O
'C
1 Is
llll
llll
5iS8
fc -S o
CO
0
CD
E^
.
5" to m S
4-5
^" ^^^^
m^^
iS
""^
iE
Eg|
T3
SJ
0
0) 0) g
^ 3 to
0
A
4-m
S"
Q
^
:S.
"^ CO
CO
If
CO
d'
"" d oM
Q CQ
1 ^
Graphical detail drawings of the wall section described above may be found in Figures 2.3 to 2.6.
}:
(g)r:
. .i
5 6yFUM fc<qdj2t?
i
Figure 2.3, Adapted standard stucco veneer detail from Ramsey and
Sleeper (1992).
Figure 2.4, Holistic House Wall Section provided by Yvan Beliveau.
72
Fiaure 2.5, Adapted standard wood-sidina detail from Ramsey and
c;.
MPTAI-Ties'
E- SHBA-miHtf6-. ^psoH fcevytt>
Figure 2.6, Adapted standard brick veneer on light-wood frame

detail from Ramsey and Sleeper (1992).
73
2.4.5 Roof/Ceiling
recommended as a means of being able to reduce the ventilation requirements in this part of our
making a determination for when to utilize a vapor bamer.
The United States Forest Service published a pamphlet in 1949 that clearly explained the vapor
barrier requirements according to the various climatic regions of the United States and the
varying types of roofs (flat, gable/hip with no occupancy, and gable/hip with occupancy). The
1949 pamphlet's format served as the template for Table 2.4 that was developed to help explain
the roof design recommendation in this report.
Tabre 2.4, Various Roofing V.B. Applications According to Climate
Roof Type
Flat Roof
Heating Climate
V.B. may be installed
between deck and
insulation, if design
calculations prove its
necessity
Mixed Climate
- V.B. should be installed
between deck and
insulation, if the winter
temps are as discussed in
codes and design
calculations necessitate
incorporation
- Higher pemieance V.B. &
air barrier designed
between built-up roofing
and insulation
- Circulation/venting must
be provided
- Design calculations must
be utilized to determine
inclusion or exclusion
Cooling Climate
V.B. not needed
- V.B. should not be used in

- Super low permeance
this climate
plastic sheet V.B. & air
- Air circulation/venting
barrier designed between
sufficient in hot, dry
built-up roofing and
environments
insulation In 8000+ heating
- Air circulation/venting
degree day climates
should be avoided due to
- Higher permeance V.B. &
high moisture concentrations
air barrier designed
In hot, humid environments
between built-up roofing
- Air barrier designed to
and Insulation
prevent air leakage
- Circulation/venting must
be provided
- V.B. not necessary
- V.B. installed below the
Cathedral
- Ventilation requirements
insulation (in the interior
insulation (in the interior
Celling
same as attic space and
side
of
insulation)
side of insulation)
should occur at eave and
- Ventilation at the eave
- Ventilation at the eave
ridge if ventilated
and ridge vented
and ridge vented
Note: The CABO and ICC codes state, "[n]et free cross-ventilation area may be reduced to 1 to 300 with
installation of vapor retarder (material with a transmission rate not exceedng 1 perm) installed on the warm
side of ceiling."
Roof with Attic
74
system. The only firm conclusion with regards to the inclusion or exclusion of vapor barriers in
the roof design is to calculate the specific point where the dew point is reached within the roof
system. The influence of air movement must be considered and the potential for drying through
air movement to the interior or exterior of the roofing system materials. The designer must also
be cognizant of the fact that if a vapor bamer is included and the roof develops a leak, the vapor
barrier could behave as a vapor trap and cause the system to retain the water by not allowing it to
escape.
The codes state that the "[n]et free cross-ventilation area may be reduced to 1 to 300 with
installation of vapor barrier (material with a transmission rate not exceeding 1 perm) installed on
the warm side of ceiling" (CABO, 1995 and ICC, 2000). The allowed reduction does not appear
to make any sense for the climatic areas where roof ventilation is required. One of the purposes
of roof ventilation is to allow the space to dry out should the space below the roof become wet,
and reducing the ventilation requirements would hamper this needed process. The opinion of the
author is that the codes allow reduction of ventilation within the roof cavity is not recommended.
The ventilation of the roof is necessary in effectively combating moisture accumulation in a
heating area but not in a cooling environment.
Graphical detail drawings for the roofing applications described above may be found in Figures
2.7 to 2.9 below.
^SH6A.TH1NS-
F- SflFFtT
H. Bu>c}JN6-
OiM&T^ BxUJQ-r 0<tAA\i(r CUV^/SXB .
Fiaure 2.7. Adanted standard roof with attic detail from Ramsey and Sleeper M992^.
75
f. ^2AFret2-
see-T*ei-c sv^ft^w^-
Figure 2.8, Adapted standard flat-roof detail from Ramsey and Sleeper (1992).
aitm^-6)UGf=r HdH*flc?
A.ASfHAUT m'^MU^
i, fSAPTCtt
Figure 2.9, Adapted standard cathedral ceiling detail from Ramsey and Sleeper (1992).
76
2.5 Summary
While the specifics are not provided for all situations that can be encountered in the building
systems of the United States, several common and general details are discussed with areas of
inclusion and exclusion noted. The standards as defined by the American Society of Testing
Materials (ASTM), and the codes of the Council of American Building Officials, CABO: One and
Two Family Dwelling Code. 1995 Edition. Fourth Printing, and International Code Council,
International Residential Code: For One and Two Family Dwellings provide the industry with the
recommendations and requirements of when, where, and if to utilize these materials in our
structures. Some, but not all, of the code recommendations make sense in light of the literature
that was reviewed, but where the codes do not make sense recommendations are provided.
The author has come to the conclusion that regardless of the literature that has been reviewed,
the subject of vapor barriers remains a greatly misunderstood and confusing building material.
Builders ridicule the literature and construct out of experience and not what either the literature or
simple calculations reveal. It is the opinion of the author that vapor barriers should be used in
heating climates at all locations within the structure's foundation, wall, and roof assemblies. The
implementation of a vapor barrier should be included within the foundation and wall assemblies of
all structures in a cooling climate, but that the specific application in the roof remains one area
that depends upon the specific, detailed structure's design but specific recommendations have
been made in the roofing section for several roof types.
While this report's specific aim is to clarify and determine when, where, and if to utilize a vapor
barrier in the mixed climate area, the topic remains quite variable and specific depending upon
the design, materials utilized, and orientation of the structure. A vapor barrier is recommended
for the foundation and roof assembly for all structures in this climate, but the when and where to
utilize a vapor barrier within the wall remains less clear. The literature states that a vapor barrier
is not necessary within the wall in a mixed climate. The literature also states that the principles of
flow-through design are to be utilized in this area, and for this reason an air barrier should not be
incorporated into the design. The flow of air through the wall is the driving agent of moisture into
and out of the wall assembly depending upon the season. The principle of flow-through design
allows wetting during one season and drying during the opposite that should effectively handle
moisture within the cavity. The flow-through principles should effectively control moisture in the
mixed climate without the needed incorporation of a vapor barrier into the wall system. It is the
opinion of the author that a vapor barrier is not needed for the mixed climate. A vapor barrier
may be used in the wall section, and should be placed in the same position as in the cooling
climate wall. The benefits of utilizing a vapor barrier in the mixed climate do not outweigh those
for not using one. The added cost, without benefits, should help make the decision easier not to
use a vapor barrier in a mixed climate.
77

American Society of Testing and IVIaterials (ASTM). (1999). ASTM Standards in Building Codes,
Volume 2: Designation C 755 - 97. ASTM; West Conshotiocken PA; 1994 p.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). (2001). "3280.504 Condensation Control and Installation of
Vapor Retarders." Code of Federal Regulations: 24CFR3280.504. U.S. Government
Printing Office via GPO Access from
www.hud.qov:80/offices/cpd/energvenviron/enerav/iawsandregs/reas/subpartf/3280504.
accessed on 3 Jun 03.
Council of American Building Officials. (1995). CABO: One and Two Family Dwelling Code.
1995 Edition. Fourth Printing. CABO; Falls Church VA; 350 p.
Retarders." ICAP; Alexandria VA. Obtained from www.tooibase.org. accessed 3 Jun 03.
Intemational Code Council. (2000). International Residential Code: For One and Two Family
Dwellings. Intemational Code Council; Falls Church VA; 566 p.
Construction, ^'i{^^),^3-17.
Letter and response in'On the House". (2000). "Ceiling Vapor Barrier - Yes or No?" Journal of
Ught Construction, 18(5), 21,23,24.
Lstiburek, J. (2000). Builder's Guide to Mixed Climates: Details for Design and Construction.
Lstiburek, J. and Carmody, J. (1991). Moisture Control Handbook: New, low rise residential
constmction. Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Oak Ridge TN; 247 p.
Stein B. and Reynolds, J. (1992). Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Buildings: 8th
Suprenant, B. (1994). "Sub-Slab Vapor Barriers." Jouma/of L/gWConsfr-ucfton, 12(8), 37-39.
U.S. Forest Service. (1949). Condensation Control: in dwelling constmction by Forest Products
78
3.0 WUFI Data Results Summary
79
3.1 Background of Software Program, Initial Assumptions, and Limitations

WUFI, Warme-und Feuchteransport Instationar (Transient Heat and Moisture Transport), is a
program that was developed as part of two student dissertations at German Universities in 1994
and 1995. Tiie Oak Ridge National Laboratory is the point of contact for the software in the
United States.
The WUFI software program that was used for the data interpretation was the
"Student Version" software. The WUFI program is an effective testing tool for the analysis of
Thermal Conductivity, Diffusion Resistance, Liquid Transport, Total Water Content in the
construction and in the individual components. Solar Radiation calculations, Air Temperatures
changes, and the Relative Humidity level changes at various component locations within the wall
system. The WUFI program does allow the user to model the different directional conditions that
the wall system would be exposed to by allowing the user to select the direction of the wall, such
as North, South, East, and West. The user can run the test wall through each different direction
to see the directional impact that the building systems will experience.
The "Student Version" software program has several data and program output limitations. The
program does provide the end user with the information necessary to calculate the dew point but
stops short of plotting the dew point for the respective data runs.
In addition, the software
evaluates the effects of diffusion through materials but does not consider the effects of air
movement through the wall system. As the title states, the point of interest is in "Transient Heat
and Moisture Transport," but the moisture transport is limited to transport through diffusion, which
as the literature review stated, is the mechanism that transports the least amount of moisture
through the building assembly. The inputs for the wall systems that could be tested were limited
to being able to test vertical wall assemblies only, so no roof or foundation systems could be
tested or evaluated. The library of components that the "Student Version" of the software offered
was extremely limited, and the only assemblies discussed in the previous sections that could be
tested were for a wood (spruce) siding model and a brick veneer model.
The major assumption that was made with regards to the WUFI data is that air movement, not
vapor diffusion, is the major transport method to be dealt with in our wall systems. The WUFI
student version software program evaluates the effects of vapor diffusion through the wall system
but does not address the effects of air movement, which the literature reviewed stated is the
predominant means of transporting vapor through the building systems. Air penetrates the
building system and allows vapor to enter the building materials through the joints between
materials, at the corners, through inlets and outlets, at the top plate, and sill plates. Once air
enters the wall system, the potential for condensation to form within the cavity is created at the
next coldest location once the dew point has been attained. The wall section evaluations that the
WUFI program performs are similar to those discussed in Section 1.3.2.1.2, Perfect Barriers, and
as such do not consider any of the effects that the quality of the construction detail has on our
80
buildings. The construction detail that Is done correctly and has no openings for air to move
through the wall components would behave in this manner, but that level of construction cannot
be attained throughout the entire building and therefore air movement should still be considered.
As such, the effects of air movement through the wall system were not modeled or considered
discussion of the WUFI results that follow in the next few sections, but these effects still need to
be considered.
The data result interpretations were made utilizing the assumption that air movement, not vapor
diffusion, transports the majority of moisture vapor in our wall cavities. The results that were
obtained from the WUFI software Indicate this assumption to be true. The results with regard to
air transported moisture vapor remains unproven/untested in this report's result section that
follows. This assumption was validated by the WUFI results because the relative humidity levels,
due to vapor diffusion, rarely rose high enough at the expected dew point locations to reach the
dew point and create liquid condensate. The monitor positions 2 and 3 within the modeled walls
are the theoretical points vtdthin the wall cavity where condensate (caused by the attainment of
the dew point on the next cold surface) would be expected to form within the wall. The theory of
where condensate typically occurs within the wall systems helped determine the likely points
within the wall cavity to establish and nrranitor the relative humidity levels.
The software program also has several output limitations that were observed during the test runs
and the subsequent data interpretation process. The outputs for the "Student Version" of the
program were quite limited and would only allow the end user to view preprogrammed outputs
that were in graphical form and did not allow any tabular data outputs or other forms of
customization. Sample manual dew point calculations utilizing the psychrometric charts from
Stein and Reynolds, Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Buildings: 8th Edition, utilizing the
relative humidity and temperature readings that WUFI generated have been accomplished and
may be seen found in Figures 3.2 - 3.7 at the end of this section (Stein and Reynolds, 1992).
3.2 Model Development and Data Interpretations

Once the software program had been experimented with and the program's limitations were
better understood, the code system. Table 3.1, was developed to maintain control over the
numerous data samples that were taken. The purpose of utilizing the WUFI program became to
test the findings from the literature review that vapor moved by air transported mechanisms is the
predominant issue within the wall cavity. Diffusion through the wall materials is not the primary
concem because the amount of vapor moved by diffusion is negligible when compared to air
transport.
81
Table 3.1, WUFI File Data Key

1-2-3-4-5-6-7.pdf
Block 1
What is the wall section? 1 - Brick and 2 - Spruce
Block 2
VB - Vapor Barrier or NVB - No Vapor Barrier
Block 3
Where is structure located? R - Roanoke, M - Minneapolis, and NO - New Orleans
Block 4
What month the data was run for? 1 - January, 4 - April, 7 - July, and 10 - October
Block 5
What is interior climate control? AC - Air Condition and NAC - No Air Condition
Blocks
Data plot number (1 or 2)
Block 7
Where is the vapor barrier location? 1 - New Orleans and 2 - Minneapolis
For example, a 1-VB-R-4-AC-1-2 means that the PDF file is for a Brick veneer structure, with a
vapor barrier, in Roanoke, during April, in an air conditioned space, that the plot was the first one,
and that the vapor bam'er location was in the same location that the vapor barrier would occupy
in Minneapolis (\.e., between the gypsum board and the insulation).
The tests run, using the WUFI program, created 112 data samples for the two exterior wall cover
systems. The tests were conducted only for the months of January, April, July, and October with
the belief that these tests would provide enough data to show how the "vapor barrierTno vapor
barrier" assemblies behaved to test the conclusions that were drawn in the previous sections for a
heating climate (Minneapolis), a nnixed climate (Roanoke), and a cooling climate (New Orleans)
with
respect
diffusion.
to
vapor
The wall section
that was utilized in the 112

tests is as diagrammed in
1 i
1
4
Monitor positions in program
V
50 mm air layer
Figure 3.1.
' Brick/Spruce
"5mm air layer
The program only allowed for
' 60 minute building paper
the
-Exterior grade plywood
monitoring
of
four
positions per test run, and the
-Fiber glass
exterior and interior positions
"Gypsum wallboard
were
"50 mm air layer
default
positions
established in the program.

The
other two
selected
5 mm polyethylene vapor
barrier position
positions were placed within
New Orleans Minneapolis

V.B.
VB.
the wall section at the most
Figure 3.1, WUFI wall section utilized in the tests
likely accumulation points for

vapor/condensation once the dew point is reached within the cavity
82
The use of a five-millimeter polyethylene vapor barrier was selected since this vapor barrier
presented the wall section to the vapor retarding material with the lowest permeability and least
capacity to store vapor. The other alternative for the vapor barrier was to utilize a "smart vapor
barrier" which is a wax or asphalt impregnated building paper that retains water in some seasons
and dries during the opposite one. The "smart vapor barrier" was not used due to its capacity to
retain water and subsequently dry. The two positions for the vapor barriers writhin the wall section
are the two expected vapor barrier installation points utilized in the construction industry and in
the literature reviewed. The New Orleans positioned vapor barrier was placed on the exterior or
warm side of the insulation due to the high temperatures and high levels of humidity to be
experienced from the exterior and the use of air conditioning in the interior. The Minneapolis
positioned vapor barrier was placed on the interior side of the insulation to account for the cold
exterior temperatures and the high use of heating systems by the occupants for the majority of
months in the year.
3.2.1 New Orleans Data Results

The test results for the New Orleans wall sections without a vapor barrier, both bricl< and spruce
models, had nearly identical results utilizing the WUFI software. The only noted variations within
the wall sections occunred within the monitored position 2, and the relative hunrwdity levels did not
vary more than approximately 2% relative humidity. The relative humidity levels did not change
significantly during the course of a one-month test run. The noted changes within the wall section
can be attributed to the diffusion characteristics of the materials, and since the exterior materials
are relatively the same, the amount of infiltration within the two different cavities appears to be
similar.
The relative humidity levels at both monitor positions 2 and 3 were similar when
compared to the same positions in the vapor barrier and no vapor barrier models.
The test results for the New Orleans wall sections with vapor barrier were nearly identical to the
no vapor barrier nrrodels when compared during the month of January, when the exterior relative
humidity levels were the lowest for the year. The test results during the month of April, when
compared to the same month's model without a vapor barrier, were nearly identical.
The relative
humidity levels rose quite significantly when compared to the conditions during January, but
remain consistent with the no vapor barrier model during the same time period. The relative
humidity levels at both monitor positions 2 and 3 were similar when compared to the same
positions in the vapor barrier and no vapor barrier models.
The July test results for the New Orleans wall section with a vapor barrier compared to the
section without a vapor barrier showed very similar results during the first 20 days of the test run.
The exterior relative humidity levels were extremely high when compared to the two previous
83
months' test run data. The data that was monitored at monitor position 2 showed a decline in the
relative humidity levels in the vapor barrier wall section. The deviation at the 20-day period is
approximately 5% lower when compared to the no vapor barrier model.
The respective
deviations at the 25- and 30-day periods are approximately 5% lower at each of the periods and
show a significant drop in the relative humidity. These data results con'elate to less opportunity for
condensate to form, and thus less opportunity for mold and fungi propagation. The monitor
position 3 remains identical for both vapor barrier and no vapor barrier systems with regards to
relative humidity.
The October test results show relative humidity levels that are higher than both the January and
April test runs, but significantly less than those experienced and tested during the July run. The
data obtained from monitored position 2 within the wall section shows a slight decline at the 25and 30-day periods.
The drop in relative humidity levels for the vapor barrier wall when
compared to the no vapor barrier wall is approximately 5% less per 5-day period. The monitor
position 3 relative humidity levels remain identical for both of the tested systems.
Table 3.2, New Orleans summary of relative humidity data results from WUFI when
compared to the no vapor barrier model results
VB placement
New Orteans
Monitor 2
Monitor 3
January - Spruce Model
April - Spruce Model
July - Spruce Mode!
t
t
October - Spruce Model
The New Orleans test data graphs can be found in Appendix 1 at the end of the report.
3.2.2 Minneapolis Data Results

The test results for the Minneapolis brick and spruce wall sections with no vapor barrier showed
very slight to no deviation utilizing the WUFI software. The deviations noted were all seen at
monitor position 3 within the wall section with only one noted change occurring at monitor position
2. The first relative humidity deviation at monitor position 3 occurred in January around the 20day point and was approximately 5% higher in the spmce model. The relative humidity levels in
the spruce model at the 25-day point was approximately 3% higher, and the 30-day period saw a
rise of approximately 5%. The April test run did not reveal any relative humidity level changes at
monitor position 3. The July test run revealed relative humidity level changes at monitor position
2 beginning at day 10. The change at day 10 showed an increase in relative humidity on the
spruce model compared to the brick model of approximately 3%. The relative humidity level
84
changes for the 15-, 20-, 25-, and 30-day periods showed a rise of approximately 5% per 5-day
period in the spruce model. The rise in the relative humidity levels during July in the spruce
model is very lilêiy to be attributable to the moisture storage and diffusion characteristics of the
spruce. The monitor position 3 in July does not show any significant change between the two
models. The October test result data does not show any significant changes in either the monitor
2 or 3 positions. The test run data for the spruce and brick wall sections with vapor barrier show
nearly identical test results. The slight deviations were noted, but the change was approximately
1% relative humidity at only a very few data points and do not appear significant enough to
specifically draw attention to those points.
The January test data, both spruce and brick models, comparing the no vapor barrier to the vapor
barrier models reveals that the relative humidity level rises approximately 2% in the no vapor
barrier model at monitor position 2 at the 10-day period. The relative humidity level increase
continues for the 15-, 20-, 25-, and 30-day periods at monitor position 2 with the increases being
approximately 2%, 4%, 5%, and 8%, respectively. The monitor position 3 data results show that
the relative humidity levels are significantly lower for the no vapor barrier models at the beginning
of the test run. At the end of a 5-day period, the relative humidity level for the vapor barrier wall
at monitor position 3 is approximately 15% higher. The relative humidity levels for the 10-, 15-,
20-, 25-, and 30-day periods show increases of approximately 20%, 25%, 15%, 10%, and 25%,
respectively.
The April test data, for both the spruce and brick veneer models, comparing the no vapor barrier
to the vapor barrier models reveals that the relative humidity level rises approximately 1% in the
no vapor barrier model at monitor position 2 at the 10-day period. The relative humidity rise
continues for the 15-, 20-, 25-, and 30-day periods at monitor position 2 with the increases being
approximately 2%, 3%, 5%, and 5% respectively. The monitor position 3 data results show that
the relative humidity levels are lower for the no vapor barrier models at the beginning of the test
run. At the end of a 5-day period, the relative humidity level for the vapor barrier model at monitor
position 3 is approximately 12% higher. The relative humidity levels for the 10-, 15-, 20-, 25-, and
30-day periods show increases of approximately 10%, 5%, 8%, 2%, and 5%, respectively.
The July test data, for both the spruce and brick models, comparing the no vapor barrier to the
vapor barrier models reveals that the relative humidity level decreases approximately 1% in the
no vapor barrier model at monitor position 2 at the 5-day period. The relative humidity level
decrease continues for the 10-, 15-, 20-, 25-, and 30-day periods at monitor position 2 with the
decreases being approximately 5%, 10%, 12%, 15%, and 20%, respectively.
85
The relative
humidity levels for monitor position 3 in the no vapor barrier and vapor trarrier wall does not
reveal any significant deviations between the test data.
The October test data for both the vapor barrier and no vapor barrier models reveal identical
relative humidity levels for both wall systems at monitor position 2 in the cavity. The data for
monitor position 3 shov^ a general increase in the relative humidity levels for the no vapor barrier
model beginning at the 5-day period writh a noted increase of approximately 4%. The increases
for the 10-, 15-, 20-, 25-, and 30-day periods are approximately 1%, 1%, 10%, 8%, and 3%,
respectively.
Table 3.3, Minneapolis summary of relative humidity data results from WUFI when
VB placement
Minneapolis - Brick and Spruce models
Monitor 2
4
4
t
January
April
July
October
Monitor 3
t
t
The actual test run data for the Minneapolis wall sections may be found in Appendix 2 at the end
of the report.
3.2.3 Roanoke Data Results

The test results for the Roanoke brick and spruce wall sections without a vapor barrier had only
very slight to no deviations noted utilizing the WUFI software in the months of January and April
for monitor positions 2 and 3. However, the July data results show a substantial relative humidity
level decrease in the brick model compared to the spruce siding model beginning at day 5 at
monitor position 2. The relative humidity level at monitor position 2 decreases for the 5-, 10-, 15-,
20-, 25-, and 30-day periods are approximately 2%, 4%, 10%, 12%, 15%, and 18%, respectively.
The relative humidity levels for the monitor position 3 during July were identical for the vapor
barrier and no vapor barrier models. The relative humidity levels for position monitors 2 and 3
during October were identical for the vapor barrier and no vapor banier models.
The test results for the brick wall sections, vapor barrier and no vapor barrier, for the month of
January at monitor position 2 show identical relative humidity levels for the vapor barrier located
in the New Orleans vapor barrier placement. The monitor position 2 relative humidity levels for
the Minneapolis vapor barrier placement are identical until the 15-day period, which then shows a
decrease in relative humidity of approximately 1%. The 20-, 25-, and 30-day data periods show a
decrease in relative humidity of 2%, 4%, and 5%, respectively. The relative humidity levels for
the New Orieans placed vapor barrier at the monitor position 3 is identical to the no vapor barrier
86
wall. The Minneapolis placed vapor barrier at the monitor position 3 shows a fairly significant
increase in relative humidity levels when compared to the no vapor barrier wall system. The
relative humidity increase at the 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-, 25-, and 30-day periods is approximately 5%,
10%, 8%, 12%, 10%, and 15%, respectively.
The April data results for the brick wall at monitor position 2 remains nearly identical for the New
Orieans placed vapor barrier as in the no vapor barrier model. The Minneapolis placed vapor
barrier model shows a relative humidity decrease at the monitor position 2 beginning at the 10day period of approximately 1%. The decreases for the 15-, 20-, 25-, and 30-day periods is
approximately 3%, 4%, 5%, and 4%, respectively at monitor position 2. The monitor position 3 for
the New Orleans placed vapor barrier remains identical to the no vapor barrier model. The
monitor position 3 for the Minneapolis placed vapor barrier shows mixed levels of increase and
decrease starting at the 5-day period. The data shows slight decrease in relative humidity in the
vapor barrier model at the 5-day period, an increase of approximately 5% in the vapor barrier
model at each of the 10- and 15-day periods. The model shows the relative humidity level rising
approximately 4% higher in the no vapor barrier wall compared to the vapor barrier model at the
20-day period, and this rises to approximately 10% for the 25-day period. The vapor barrier
model's relative hunrudity level rises to approximately 4% higher than the no vapor barrier model.
The July data for the brick wall at monitor position 2 remains identical for the New Orieans vapor
barrier position and the no vapor barrier walls. The monitor position 2 for the Minneapolis placed
vapor barrier remains significantly higher than the no vapor barrier wall. The relative humidity
levels at the 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-, 25-, and 30-day periods are increased approximately 3%, 5%, 10%,
15%, 20%, and 23% when compared to the no vapor barrier system. The monitor position 3
reading for the New Orieans placed vapor barrier is identical to the no vapor barrier wall. The
monitor position 3 reading for the Minneapolis placed vapor barrier is significantly lower in the
vapor barrier wall during the 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-day periods at which point the data results
parallel the no vapor barrier wall. The relative humidity levels for the 5-, 10-, 15-, and 20-day
periods are approximately 15%, 5%, 4%, and 3% lower in the Minneapolis placed vapor barrier
wall.
The October test data for the brick wall at monitor position 2 shows a slight increase in relative
humidity for the New Orieans and Minneapolis placed vapor barrier walls in comparison to the no
vapor barrier wall. The increase in relative humidity in the New Orleans and Minneapolis placed
vapor barrier walls is seen at the 10-, 15-, 20-, 25-, and 30-day periods. The increases in relative
humidity are approximately 2%, 4%, 4%, 4%, and 4% higher in the New Orleans and Minneapolis
placed vapor barrier walls compared to the no vapor barrier wall in monitor position 2. The
87
monitor position 3 in the New Orleans positioned vapor barrier wall is identical to the no vapor
barrier wall. The monitor position 3 in the Minneapolis positioned vapor barrier wall shows a
fluctuation in relative humidity levels nearly identical to the levels previously discussed in the April
data section.
The test results for the spruce wall sections, vapor barrier and no vapor barrier, for the month of
January at monitor position 2 shows a slight relative humidity level increase of approximately 2%
at each of the 5 day periods for the vapor barrier located in the New Orleans vapor barrier
placement. The data for monitor position 2 in the Minneapolis placed vapor barrier wall shows a
slight decrease of 2% at each of the 5-day periods. The Minneapolis placed vapor barrier at the
monitor 3 position shovtrs a fiairly significant increase in relative humidity levels when compared to
the no vapor barrier wall system. The relative humidity increase at the 5-, 10-, 15-, 20-, 25-, and
30-day periods is approximately 5%, 10%, 8%, 12%, 10%, and 15%, respectively, which is nearly
identical to the conditions experienced in the brick wall mentioned above.
The April data results for the spruce wall at monitor position 2 remains nearly identical for the
New Orleans and Minneapolis placed vapor barriers as the no vapor barrier models. The monitor
position 3 for the New Orleans placed vapor barrier remains identical to the no vapor barrier
model. The monitor position 3 for the Minneapolis placed vapor barrier shows mixed levels of
increase and decrease starting at the 5-day period. The data shows slight increase in relative
humidity in the vapor barrier model at the 5-day period, and an increase of approximately 5% in
the vapor barrier model at each of the 10- and 15-day periods. The model shows the relative
humidity level rising approximately 5% higher in the no vapor barrier wall compared to the vapor
barrier model at the 20-day period, and this rises to approximately 10% for the 25-day period.
The vapor barrier model's relative humidity level increases approximately 2% more than the no
vapor barrier model.
The July data results for the New Orleans placed vapor barrier wall at monitor position 2 shows a
decrease in the relative humidity levels compared to the no vapor barrier wall beginning at the 10day period.
The relative humidity levels for the 10-, 15-, 20-, 25-, and 30-day periods are
approximately 2%, 5%, 8%, 10%, and 12% lower in the New Orieans placed vapor barrier wall
compared to the no vapor barrier wall system. The conditions for the Minneapolis placed vapor
barrier wall are approximately 4%, 5%, 7%, 10%, and 13% higher in the vapor barrier wall when
compared to the no vapor barrier wall at the 10-, 15-, 20-, 25-, and 30-day periods, respectively.
The monitor position 3 in the New Orieans placed vapor barrier wall has identical relative humidity
levels when compared to the no vapor barrier wall. The Minneapolis placed vapor barrier wail
shows a decline in relative humidity levels when compared to the no vapor barrier wall at monitor
88
position 3. The relative humidity levels are approximately 8%, 5%, 4%, 3%, 2%, and 2% higher in
the no vapor barrier wall compared to the Minneapolis placed vapor barrier wall.
The October data for the spruce wall at the monitor position 2 remains identical for the New
Orleans vapor barrier position and the no vapor barrier walls. The relative humidity levels for the
10-, 15-, 20-, 25-, and 30-day periods are approximately 2%, 4%, 5%, 5%, and 5% higher in the
Minneapolis placed vapor barrier wall compared to the no vapor bam'er wall system. The monitor
position 3 for the New Orleans placed vapor barrier remains identical to the no vapor barrier
model. The monitor position 3 for the Minneapolis placed vapor barrier shows mixed levels of
increase and decrease starting at the 5-day period. The data shows a slight decrease in relative
humidity in the vapor barrier model at the 5-day period, and an increase of approximately 5% in
the no vapor barrier model at each the 10- and 15-day periods. The model shows the relative
humidity level rising approximately 3% higher in the vapor barrier wall compared to the no vapor
barrier model at the 20-day period. The relative hunrridity level in the no vapor barrier model is
approximately 4% higher for the 25-day period compared to vapor l)arrier model, and the no
vapor barrier model's relative humidity level is approximately 2% higher than the vapor barrier
model at the 30-day period.
Table 3.4, Roanoke summary of relative humidity level data results from WUFI when
New Orieans VB
Minneapolis VB
placement
placement
Roanoke
Monitor 2
Monitor 3
Monitor 2
Monitor 3
t4
f
t
4t
44
4t
t
44
January - Spruce Model
April - Spruce Model

July - Spruce Model
October - Spruce Model
January - Brick Model
April - Brick Model
July - Brick Model
October - Brick Model
4
A
t
t
4
f
** NOTE: A "A A" means significant increase and a "A^ means mixec1 increase and decrease.
The actual test run data for the Roanoke wall sections may be found in Appendix 3 at the end of
the report.
89
3.3 Summary
The WUFI results that have been discussed only discuss the innpact that vapor diffusion has on
these wall systems and does not consider the effects that air movement has on the same wall
system. The results obtained from the WUFI tests indicate that the effects of vapor diffusion on
the wall system materials as tested are consistent with the recommendations made in the
literature reviewed.
Following the assumption that air moves more moisture vapor than diffusion, the topic of air
carried moisture vapor remains the greatest enemy of the wall system in our residences. The
principle of preventing air-transported moisture has created the need to discuss quality control in
residential construction. The most effective means to prevent or retard the flow of air through a
wall system is to ensure that when the wall is constructed that the air barrier and any penetrations
(such as vents, outlets, etc.) are correctly and carefully detailed and installed to minimize air
movement into the wall system at these locations. It is the opinion of the author that if careful and
thorough attention to these details the effects felt in our wall systems due to moisture vapor
penetration will be lower. The assumption that air moves far more moisture vapor that diffusion
influenced the test data results because the WUFI test data results indicate that diffusion is not
the primary means to be concerned with within our wall systems. The WUFI results indicate that
the dew point was not reached within the wall cavity at the expected dew point locations using the
few dew point calculations that were made in Figures 3.2 - 3.7.
The WUFI tests allowed the following conclusions for the New Orleans wall test runs.
The
positioning of the vapor barrier does not affect the manner in which the wall behaves significantly
because the atisorption characteristics of the wall materials do not allow significant quantities of
moisture to diffuse through the wall materials. The effects of air movement and the transport
capabilities through this mechanism are still believed to be the dominant means of vapor
movement, but it remains unproven due to the limitations of the WUFI software program. The
test results for the New Orieans test walls show the necessity of installing a vapor barrier in the
hot, humid climate if diffusion is the only concern. The minor relative humidity decreases seen in
the New Orieans test walls only considering the diffusion through the material would lead to the
conclusion that a vapor barrier is definitely needed in the wall system when air movement is
added to the system.
The conclusions that can be drawn ftôm the Minneapolis data test on the brick and spruce wall
sections are that a vapor barrier should be included in the wall section to handle the effects of
diffusion through the materials in this climate. The literature reviewed stated that the vapor
barrier was needed in this climate and the WUFI test data provide clear validation. The effects of
90
diffusion in this climate would justify inclusion of a vapor barrier in the wall system without even
needing to consider the effects of air movement. The author further believes that if the wall
section could be modeled for air movement through the system, the differences in relative
humidity levels in the no vapor barrier and vapor barrier models would continue to increase, and
the inclusion of a vapor barrier would remain justified in the wall section. It is also still believed
that with the incorporation of air flow the relative humidity level increase on the exterior sections
of the wall would be reduced.
The conclusions that can be drawn from the Roanoke data test runs on the brick and spruce wall
sections show that a brick siding should be selected over spruce siding in a no vapor barrier wall
system. The brick veneer wall would facilitate lower relative humidity levels within the wall cavity
di'e to less vapor diffusion through the material when compared to spruce siding.
For the
spruce and brick walls in Roanoke, the recommendation is to not place a vapor barrier in the wall
system because the attained results are similar to the results experienced by placing a vapor
barrier on the exterior side (similar to New Orieans) of the insulation. The placement of the vapor
barrier on the interior side (similar to Minneapolis) of the insulation shows varying changes in the
relative humidity levels on both the interior and exterior wall surfaces.
The vapor barrier
placement in this mixed climate location is not recommended. The WUFI program results show
that with the diffusion characteristics in this mixed climate utilizing a spruce and brick wall, it is not
necessary to incorporate a vapor barrier, which is in-line with the literature reviewed.
The effect of air movement remains the primary factor in determining whether or not to utilize a
vapor barrier in the construction of a wall system. The overall lessons learned utilizing the WUFI
sofhware, considering vapor diffusion through the materials within the wall system are:
1.
A vapor barrier is necessary in cooling climates to combat the effects of diffusion.
2.
A vapor barrier te necessary in heating climates to combat the effects of diffusion.
3.
A vapor l)am"er is not necessary in nnixed climates to address diffusion through the wall.
Builders ridicule the literature and construct out of experience rather than what either the
literature or wall analysis calculations reveal. In summary, it is the opinion of the author that vapor
barriers should be used in heating climates at all locations within the structure's foundation, wall,
and roof assemblies.
The implementation of a vapor barrier should be included within the
foundation and wall assemblies of all structures in a cooling climate, but the specific application in
the roof remains one area that depends upon the specific, detailed structure design. A vapor
barrier is recommended for the foundation and roof assembly for all structures in the mixed
climate, but the when and where to utilize one within the wall system remains less clear.
The
literature states that a vapor barrier is not necessary within the wall in this climate. The principles
91
of flow-through design are to be utilized in this climatic area according to the literature reviewed.
The flow of air through the wall is the primary driving agent of moisture into and out of the wall
assembly depending upon what season the structure is in currently. The principle of flow-through
design allows wetting during one season and drying during the opposite so that moisture within
the cavity attains equilibrium during the course of the year.
92
2-NVB-R-1-AC
100-
"\^
m^
"^
-Temp outside (C)
Relative Humidity outside

10 %0 ^
r^^
ii=- , _
I "^^^l*^
A.J
Dew Point Temp outside (C)
1-03
-70
5ân-03
10-Jan03
0
62
0
SO
-1
70
-5
54
-3
52
-10
80
10
80
80
80
80
82
82
-Temp outside (C)

Relative Humidity outside
Oew Point Temp - outside
IS-Jan- 20-Jan- 25-Jan- 30-Jan03

03
03
03
*f-Temp @ monitor
position 1 (C)
Relative Humidity monitor postion 1
Dew Point Temp monitor position 1 (C)
CO
MTemp @ monitor position
ICC)
*-Dew Point Temp - monitor
position 1 CO
Figure 3.2, Spruce Siding, without vapor barrier, in Roanoice, in January with air conditioning.
Outside temperature, relative humidity - outside, Temperature at monitor position 1, and relative humidity - monitor
Dosltlon 1 obtained from WUFI (2003V Dev/ Point data obtained from Stein B. and Reynolds. J. ri992V
2-NVB-R-4-AC
-Temp outside (C)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
-Relative Humidity outside

Dew Point Temp - outside
(C)
-Temp @ monitor position
ICO
^ -H,,.^
5-Apr-03
-Temp outside (C)

-Relative Humidity - outside
(C)
-Temp @ monitor posifion 1
In
"Ki
"n"^**'*!^^ I
1&-Apf-03 15-Apr-03 20-Apr-03 25-Apr-03 30-Apr-03
-Relative Humidity monitor postion 1

-Dew Point Temp monitor position 1 (C)
5-Apr-03 10-Apr-03 15-Apr-03 20-Apr-03 25-Apr-03 30-Apr-03

10
8
10
15
16
10
52
37
82
62
62
90
11
12
14
11
10
15
19
13
80
80
82
82
80
78
12
10
13
17
-CO
-Relative Humidity - monitor

postion 1
-Dew Point Temp - monitor
position 1 (C)
Figure 3.3, Spruce Siding, without vapor barrier, in Roanoice, in April with air conditioning.
Outade temperature, relative humidity - outside. Temperature at monitor position 1, and relative humidity - monitor
position 1 obtained from WUFI (2003). Dew Point data obtained from Stein B. and Reynolds, J. (1992).
93
2-NVB-R-7-AC
-Temp outside (C)

0
5-JUI-03
-Temp outside (C)

-Relative Humidity - outside
(C)
-Temp @ monitor position 1
(C)
postion 1
position 1 (C)
-Temp @ monitor
position 1 (C)
lO-Jul-03
15-Jul-03
20-Jul-03
25-Jul-03
30-]ul-(
5-Jul-03 lO-Jul-03 15-Jul-03 20-Jul-03 25-:ul-03 30-Jul-03

22
22
27
25
25
23
52
82
82
60
55
64
16
20
23
18
21
20
25
23
27
25
23
25
77
74
72
70
67
67
23
20
23
21
19
21
-Relative Humidity monitor postion 1

-Dew Point Temp monitor position 1 (C)
Figure 3.4, Spruce Siding, without vapor barrier, in Roanoke, in July with air conditioning.
Outside temperature, relative humidity - outside, Temperature at monitor position 1, and relative tiumidity monitor position 1 otrtained from WUFI (2003). Dew Point data otrtained from Stein B. and Reynolds, J. (1992).
2-NVB-R-lO-AC
-Temp outside (C)
100
.,
90
80
70
60
\,
^^ "\^
N^

^B
50
-Temp @ monitor
position 1 ("C)
40
- Relative Humidity monitor postion 1
30
20
8-
10
-= **-5iS=:
- Dew Point Temp monitor position 1 ("C)
5-CX-03 lO-Oct-03 15-Oct-03 20-Oct-03 25-Oct-03 30-Oct-03
19
70
16
lO-Od03
16
92
15
15-Oct03
16
75
14
20-Oct03
8
55
5
25-Oct03
12
70
9
30-Oct03
10
54
6
17
18
17
13
16
16
81
80
79
77
77
77
15
16
15
11
14
14
5-Oct-03
Temp outside ("C)
- Relative Humidity - outside
(C)
XTemp @ monitor position 1
CO
Dew Point Temp - monitor
position 1 (C)
Figure 3.5, Spruce Siding, without vapor t>arrier, in Roanolce, in October with air conditioning.
Outside temperature, relative humidity - outside, Temperature at monitor position 1, and relative humidity monitor position 1 obtained from WUFI (2003). Dev/ Point data oljtained from Stein B. and Reynolds, J. (1992).
94
2-VB-M-l-AC
100 -
-Temp outside (C)
60 -
-Rdative Humidity outside
"*
Dew Point Temp outside ("C)

-Temp @ monitor
position 1 (C)
0
5-3 in*83
-Rdative Humidity monitor postion 1

10-Ji>h"e315.- ip'^^SlO- jrtD3BS* ^h^3 ~^-. ar
V
SOan-03
10-]an03
15-]an03
20-]an03
2S-:an03
30-]an03
-10
72
0
-6
80
0
-25
55
0
Temp outside (C)

-Relabve Humidity - outside
-4
90
0
-20
55
0
-18
60
0
KTemp @ monitor position 1
-6
-10
-10
Relative Humidity - monitor

posdon 1
80
80
80
80
80
80
Dew Point Temp - monitor

position 1 (C)
-Dew Point Temp monitor position 1

(C)
Figure 3.6, Spruce Siding, with vapor barrier, in Minneapolis, in January with air conditioning.
Outside temperature, relative humidity - outside, Temperature at monitor position 1, and relative ttumidity - monitor
position 1 obtained from WUFI (2003). Dew Point data obitained from Stein B. and Reynolds, J. (1992).
2-VB-NO-7-AC
10090 n
m ^.____^
80 -
~_
70
"^~'~~~^^-^
60
~~^~~^-
50
40
30
Temp outside (C)

--Relative Humidity outside
-K-Temp @ monitor
position 1 (C)
-i-Relative Humidity monitor postion 1
Dew Point Temp monitor position 1 (C)
O"^^^-K
20
10
5-J ul-03
--Temp outside (C)

--Relative Humidity - outside
Dew Point Temp - outside ("C)
*frTemp ft monitor position 1 (C)
postion 1
position 1 (C)
lO-Jul-03
15-JUI-03
20-JUI-03
25-Jui-03
30-Ju -03
5-JUI-03
25
84
23
25
77
IO-Jul-03
28
84
26
25
72
15JUI-03
28
80
25
25
70
20-JuH)3
28
84
26
25
65
25-Jui-03
28
84
26
28
60
3(Klul-03
25
80
23
25
55
22
21
21
20
22
19
Figure 3.7, Spruce Siding, with vapor t>arrier, in New Orleans, in July with air conditioning.
Outside temperature, relative humidity - outside. Temperature at monitor position 1, and relative humidity - monitor
position 1 ot>tained from WUFI (2003). Dew Point data obtained from Stein B. and Reynolds, J. (1992).
95

stein B. and Reynolds, J. (1992). Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Buildings: 8th
WUFI. (2003). WUFI: Warme-und Feuchteransport instationar (Transient Heat and Moisture
Transport), Educational Soâre Program. Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Oak Ridge
TN; obtained from www.ornl.aov/ORNL/BTC/moisture/. accessed on 1 Sep 03.
96
4.0 Summary and Conclusions
97
4.1 Summary
Moisture dissipation from witliin a wall is directly related to both the air movement and vapor
diffusion through the structure's wall assembly materials (Carll, 2000). The rampant use of vapor
barriers in residential construction has in many instances created redundant vapor barriers within
the wall cavities that trap moisture and water. Even if the vapor barriers are not redundant, the
vapor barrier's placement is oftentimes in the wrong location, creating as many problems as
redundancy. A vapor barrier's location should be carefully designed and specifically applied in
relation to the wall design, climatic conditions, and directional orientation (North, South, East, or
West) of the wall. In order to control moisture, designers and builders must look holistically at the
indoor and outdoor atmospheric conditions of the building system's design to create the
appropriate foundation, walls, and roof sections for the building assembly (Caril, 2000). The
recommended placement of a vapor barrier should not be universal even within similar climatic
regions. The specific, individual wall system design and climatic conditions should be studied
and incorporated when detemiining whether or not to use a vapor banier.
moisture, primarily rot, decay, and the growth of molds and fungi. Condensation and moisture
related problenns were first recognized and investigated in a 1923 Forest Products Laboratory
survey of dwellings due to early exterior paint failure on residential houses (U.S. Forest Service,
1949).
It has more recently been reported, "with the exception of structural errors, 90% of
building construction problems are associated with water" and the harmful effects related to its
penetration into our structures (Trechsel, Achenbach, and Launey, 1982). Current building codes
and property standards also contribute to this problem because the methods being employed are
prescriptive rather than performance oriented and these codes have tried to create a universal
approach for construction rather than looking holistically at the wall assembly components
(Trechsel, Achenbach, and Launey, 1982 and Shenwood and Moody, 1989).
The recommendations that follow may or may not be in line with the requirements made under
the codes and property standards currently in use. The recommendations are broken down into
common areas of interest within our structures, foundation, walls, and roofs. Each section is a
summary of what the report states in more detail.
4.2 Detail Conclusions and Specifics for Foundations, Walls, and Roofs
4.2.1 Foundations
The foundation vapor barrier design is straightforward and consistent for heating, cooling, and
mixed climates. A vapor barrier should be included in all climates as a ground cover under slabon-grade and in crawl spaces. The accumulation of moisture through the foundation/support
elements (slab, basement, crawl space, etc.) is the primary point of entry into residential
98
construction assennblies (Suprenant, 1994). The incorporation of vapor barriers in the foundation
design is only going to be as effective as the drainage mechanisms facilitate. Designing proper
drainage includes not only collecting the water, but also effectively moving the water out and
away from the structure so that the water does not accumulate and then migrate back up and into
the wall system.
Two typical design details for the slab-on-grade and a crawl space may be
seen in Figures 4.1 and 4.2.

The placement of the sub-slab vapor barrier will perform a dual role in the structure's moisture
protection.
structure's assembly (Lstiburek and Carmody, 1991). The sub-slab vapor barrier's role is to break
capillarity, and it provides the building with its first preventative measure in dealing with moisture
and minimizing the potentially harmful effects within the structure. Special care should be taken
to ensure that the vapor barrier's integrity is maintained since it is also fulfilling the role of an air
barrier.
j. Fttfi*!ts3 wwiJ Pipe
Figure 4.1, Adapted standard slab-on-grade and basement detail from Ramsey and
Sleeper (1992).
joints should be lapped at least six inches, and the vapor barrier material should be as impervious
as possible to any breaks, punctures, or other such penetrations (Suprenant, 1994). The role of
the vapor barrier in this particular application should be designed and constructed in a similar
manner as an air barrier within the wall system. The vapor barrier should be placed on top of,
and in direct contact with, the compacted subgrade material. Then, on top of the vapor barrier
and below the concrete slab, a three-inch thick layer of sand or varied sizes of gravel should be
99
applied and lightly compacted ûprenant, 1994). Gravel is recommended over sand t)ecause
gravel is less easily displaced during ttie placement of the concrete slab and provides a
consistently more uniform surface for the slab's placement (Suprenant, 1994). A discussion with
a residential house builder stated that this layer is seldom incorporated because of the significant
cost and the perceived benefits of incorporation do not outweigh the increased cost of installation
(Vinson, 2003). Spedal care and oversight should be taken during the concrete placement phase
since the vapor barrier's effectiveness is proportional to the integrity of the barrier membrane
below (JLC Staff, 1993).
Vgegr^*^
0-t)fawNse PiFc^
^pITl't
Figure 4.2, Adapted standard crawl-space detail from FPL (1949) and Ramsey and Sleeper
The requirements, as outlined in the CABO and ICC codes, make recommendations for the
incorporation of vapor barriers in the on-grade, sub-slab section that are in line and follow the
recommendations and guidance discovered during the review of literature.
4.2.2 Walls
The climate where the residence wall is to be located, in conjunction with the composition of the
wall components, strictly define how, where, and if a vapor barrier should be included in the
design. As previously discussed, the directional orientation of the wall system also plays a
significant role in determining when to place a vapor barrier within the wall system. The internal
100
wall temperatures vary significantly depending on if the wall is exposed to climatic conditions on
the north, south, east or west sides of the structure. The wall assembly temperatures and
thermal mass effects are greatly impacted by the directional orientation. The examples selected
do not represent all known housing solutions, merely the most popularly used solutions in the
residential construction industry today. The wall system assembly descriptions with the
associated component R-values and material thicknesses used in this paper's investigation may
be found in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 -Wall system components, R-value, and materials thicknesses

Material Thickness
R-value
Wall System Model & Components
Wood ?iang fno0el:
.17 in winter & .25 in summer
N/A
- Outside air
.81
.5"
- WDod siding, beveled, lapped (back primed)
.25"
1.35
- Furring strips or similar air gap
Negligible
.06
- Building paper/ housewrap, permeable
.5
.62
-1/2" Douglas fir plywood
11
3.5"
- Unfaced rolled batt-insulation
5/8"
.56
- Gypsum board with paint
N/A
.68
- Inside air
BrioH ven^^r model (HgM wood frm^):
N/A
- Outside air
2.66"
.2
- Face bricl<
1.35
.25"
-Airspace
Negligible
.06
.62
.5"
3.5"
11
5/8"
.56
N/A
.68
- Inside air
Plaster veneer model (on fight wood frame):
N/A
- Outside air
.1
.5"
-Stucco
.26
.5'
- Durarol(
Negligible
.06
.62
.5"
3.5"
11
.56
5/8"
N/A
.68
- Inside air
Concrete shell/Holistic house model:
N/A
- Outside air
2'
.95
- Sealed concrete
38.25
8.5"
- Styropor insulation
5/8"
.56
- Gypsum board with primer coat and latex paint
.68
N/A
- Inside air
***AII R-valueswere obtained from Stein and Reynolds (1992), pages 136-14;1, with the exceptions of
Styropor and Durarok that were obtained from manufacturer's specifications.
The conclusions developed regarding where to install a vapor barrier in a cooling climate and a
heating climate are in line with the information discovered during the literature review. The WUFI
program results indicate the same conclusions as those discovered during the literature review.
The vapor barrier should be installed on the warm-in-winter side of the insulation for both
climates' wall system design solutions (heating climate: the vapor barrier is placed on the interior
face of the insulation; and the cooling climate: the vapor barrier should be placed on the exterior
face of the insulation). The positioning of the vapor barriers within the brick veneer and spruce
siding model wall cavities for both heating and cooling climates are diagrammed in Figure 4.3.
101
The positioning of the vapor barrier in these locations follows the literature reviewed, and
matches the vapor diffusion results obtained from the WUFI Student Version software-modeling
program.
The potential for redundancy still exists in these structures. The effects of the redundancy
(caused by multiple layers of latex paint) in a cooling climate's structure are expected to be worse
than those in the heating climate. The placement of the intentional vapor barrier on the exterior
side of the insulation in a cooling climate and the inclusion of the inadvertent vapor barrier on the
interior side of the gypsum board will create a potential vapor trap in the insulation and gypsum
board components of the cooling climate's wall assembly. The effect of redundancy caused by
paint in the heating climate creates a vapor trap inside of the gypsum board, so it may be
concluded that the effects of vapor accumulation will be significantly minimized.
Monitor positions in program
i
I ,1
mum
50 mm air layer
Brick/Spruce
"jV
5mm air layer

60 minute building paper
mdkm
-Exterior grade plywood
-Fiber glass
Gypsum wallboard
0 mm air layer
.V
5 mm polyethylene vapor
barrier position
New Orleans Minneapolis

V.B.
V.B.
Figure 4.3 - Typical Brici( Veneer and Spruce Siding wall section composition
and the associated vapor barrier location within each section, drawing by author
In a mild, more temperate climate a vapor barrier is not necessary. For example, for the bricl<
veneer wall it is recommended that no vapor barrier be included because the vapor diffusion
difference varies only slightly when compared to the same wall with a vapor barrier. A vapor
102
barrier may be utilized, in the same location as that in a cooling climate, but the added expense of
a vapor barrier should dictate its exclusion since no reductions in relative humidity were observed
in the WUFI data results for vapor diffusion. Proper ventilation and clear weep holes in this wall
cavity and climate must exist because once water enters the cavity it should have both a means
to exit and a means to dry.
If the water is not allowed to exit once it enters the cavity, the water
will seek equilibrium within the space and migrate across other materials. The spruce siding wall
assembly has the same recommendations as those for the brick veneer wall. A plaster veneer
wall should be avoided in this climate.
The plaster wall system's component composition
(Durarok and plywood) on the interior of the plaster coat behaves like a vapor retarder for vapor
diffusion through the wall system. It is recommended that this assembly be avoided in mixed and
heating climates.
A concrete shell model that contains a super insulated wall should not
necessitate a vapor barrier.
4.2.3 Roofe
recommended as a means of being able to reduce the ventilation requirements in this part of the
making a determination for when to utilize a vapor barrier. Table 4.2 was developed to help
explain the roof design recommendations contained in this report.
Table 4.2, Various Roofing V.B. Applications According to Ciimate
Roof Type
Flat Roof
Heating Climate
- V.B. may be installed
between deck and
insulation, If design
calculations prove its
necessity
Roof with
Attic
- Super low permeance

plastic sheet V.B. &air
bam'er designed between
insulation in 8000+ heating
degree day climates
- Higher penneance V.B. &
Mixed Climate
- V.B. should be installed
between deck and insulation,
if the winter temps are as
discussed in codes and
design calculations
necessitate incorporation
- Higher permeance V.B. &
air barrier designed between
built-up roofing and insulation
- Circulation/venting must be
provided
- Design calculations must be
utilized to determine inclusion
or exclusion

insulation
- Circulation/venting must be
provided
be utilized to detemiine
103
Cocking Climate
- V.B. not needed
- V.B. should not be used in

this climate
- Air drculation/venting
sufficient in hot, dry
environments
- Air drculation/venting should
be avoided due to high
moisture concentrations in
hot, humid environments
- Air barrier designed to
prevent air leakage
Cooling Climate
Mixed Climate
Heating Climate
- V.B. not necessary
- Ventilation requirements
insulation (in the interior side insulation (in the interior side
same as attic space and
of insulation)
of insulation)
should occur at eave and
- Ventilation at the eave and
- Ventilation at the eave and
ridge if ventilated
ridge vented
ridge vented
- Design calculations must be
utilized to determine inclusion
or exclusion
Note: The CABO and ICC codes state, '[n]et free cross-ventilation area may be reduced to 1 to 300 with
installation of vapor retarder (nrjaterial with a transmission rate not exceedng 1 perm) installed on the warm
side of ceiling."
Roof Type
Cathedral
Ceiling
system. The only fimi conclusion with regards to the inclusion or exclusion of vapor barriers in
the roof design is to calculate the specific point where the dew point is reached vwthin the roof
system and place the vapor barrier on the next cold surface. The influence of air movement must
be considered, as well as the potential for drying through air movement to the interior or exterior
of the roofing system materials. The designer must also be cognizant of the fact that if a vapor
barrier is included and the roof develops a leak, the vapor barrier could behave as a vapor trap
and cause the system to retain the water by not allowing it to escape.
The codes state that the "[n]et fl-ee cross-ventilation area may be reduced to 1 to 300 with
installation of vapor barrier (material with a transmission rate not exceeding 1 perm) installed on
the warm side of ceiling" (CABO, 1995 and ICC, 2000). The allowed reduction does not appear
to make any sense for the climatic areas where roof ventilation is required. One of the purposes
of roof ventilation is to allow the space to dry out should the space below the roof become wet.
The ventilation reduction allowance under the codes would hamper drying through ventilation.
The opinion of the author is that the codes allowed reduction in ventilation within the roof cavity is
not recommended. The ventilation of the roof is necessary in effectively combating moisture
accumulation in heating and mixed climates but not in cooling climates.
4.3 Summary of Lessons Learned

The following points are the most important and salient points discovered in the course of the
literature reviewed in conjunction vinth the WUFI test results:
1.
In a cokJ climate, a vapor barrier should be installed close to the interior (warm) side of
the insulation.
2.
In a hot, humid, tropical climate a vapor banier should be placed on exterior (warm) side
of the insulation.
3.
In mild, more temperate climates a vapor barrier may or may not be necessary
depending upon the specific wall materials. For example,
104
a.
The brick veneer wall may or may not require a vapor barrier installed on the
exterior side of the insulation.
It is recommended that no vapor barrier be
included because the vapor diffusion difference (with a vapor barrier placed on
the exterior side of the insulation) is not too different when compared to the same
wall without a vapor banier. The added expense of a vapor barrier should dictate
not including one in this design since no significant benefits were observed in the
WUFI test data results. The incorporation of proper ventilation and weep holes in
this wall cavity design is a necessity because once water penetrates the cavity it
should have a means to exit and a means to dry.
b. A spruce siding wall has the same recommendations as those made with the
brick veneer wall previously discussed.
c.
A plaster veneer wall should be avoided in this climate.
This exterior wall
system's components (Durarok and plywood) behave like a vapor retarder for
diffusion through the wall system and as such shouki be avoided.
d.
A concrete shell that is super insulated does not necessitate a vapor barrier.
4. A vapor barrier should only be used if needed, and the use should be based upon the
specific wall system design, clinnate and orientation (North, South, East, or West) of the
structure's location and specific wall design. The climatic differences experienced by the
different directional orientations may dictate different applications of vapor barriers within
the same structure, but the specifics should be calculated for each structure.
5.
A vapor barrier in a basement shouki be implemented in the same manner and location
as it was (was not) in the at)ove-grade wall system.
6.
A vapor barrier performs as a ground cover below the slat)-on-grade and in crawl spaces.
The vapor barrier's inclusion in these locations helps reduce moisture transport through
capillary movement/suction from the soil up and into the structure's materials.
7.
The vapor barrier does not have to be airtight, but should be installed with as few
imperfections as possible to prevent the flow of air and vapor into the envelope. A rule of
thumb when installing vapor barriers is "a vapor barrier that covers 90% of the surface is
90% effective" (JLC Staff, 1993).
8.
Common wall cover applications act as vapor barriers p.e., multiple layers of non-vapor
retarding paint (latex), 3+ coats; and wallpaper (especially vinyl wall covering)].
9. Air moves far more moisture than diffusion through materials.

10. The building's wall cavity shoukJ not be ventilated in hot, humid (cooling) climates.
11. The building's wall cavity shouM be ventilated in temperate and coki (heating) climates.
13. Care should be taken when installing an air barrier because the air barrier is only as
fiindional as the air barrier's material integrity (i.e., be fl-ee of cuts, tears, punctures, rips).
105
15. All walls are different and will behave differently depending upon climate, orientation, and
how they are to be constructed.
The overall lessons learned utilizing the WUFI software considering only vapor diffusion through
the materials within the wall system are:
1. A vapor barrier [s necessary in cooling climates to combat the effects of vapor diffusion.
2. A vapor barrier is necessary in heating climates to combat the effects of vapor diffusion.
3. A vapor barrier is not necessary in mixed climates to address vapor diffusion through the
wall system.
The effects of air transported vapor remains the primary factor in determining whether or not to
utilize a vapor barrier in the construction of a wall system. The WUFI results show that the effects
of vapor diffusion are in line writh those recommendations discovered during the literature review.
The effects of air movement within the cavity and across the materials remains unproven due to
the limitations of the WUFI software.
The effect of air movement through the building materials remains the primary issue to be
addressed in the building system design and construction.
The design of the detail is a
straightforward process that can be obtained from standard detail sources. How the detail is
constructed should be the primary area of concern during construction. The air barrier should be
installed with no penetrations, cuts, tears, and openings. The air barrier's integrity is critical if the
wall components are to be kept dry and not subjected to the harmful effects associated with
moisture penetration due to air movement. The air barrier's integrity should be checked prior to
the subsequent building assembly layers installation. The vapor barrier's integrity, on the other
hand, does not have to be as perfect if the air barrier has been installed correctly. If the vapor
barrier only has to combat the effects of vapor diffusion through the materials, rather than the
effects of air movement, then a vapor barrier with a few minor blemishes will perform its role
correctly and efficiently. If the vapor barrier is to fulfill the dual role of vapor and air barrier then
the rules for installing an air barrier apply.
The quality assurance and quality control process is critical during the construction of the air
barrier and the sub-slab/ground cover vapor barrier installation.
These barriers should be
installed as imperviously as possible and their integrity should be carefully checked prior to
subsequent work being placed on top of their respective surfaces. The effectiveness of the wall
system air barriers and the sub-slab/ground cover vapor barriers are only as effective as they are
continuous (JLC Staff Report, 1993). Any and all penetrations should be patched or sealed. The
106
CWQC procedures during construction of these barriers are vital to tlie success of the wall
assembly in the building as it combats moisture.
The directional orientation that the wall faces plays a significant role in the determination of
whether or not to include a vapor barrier within the wall. The directional orientation of south and
west facing structure walls will require different design parameters than walls facing the north and
the east. The south and west facing walls face more effects from thermal mass and heat gain
due to their particular directional orientation. These walls can be expected to maintain higher
temperature readings than those on the north and east facing walls throughout the year and the
dew point temperatures, and possibly the dew point location, within the wall may vary significantly
compared to the same wall on the east and north faces of the structure.
Vapor barriers, listed in Table 4.3, are often times used redundantly or inadvertently because of
the many potential materials that fulfill the vapor barrier role. Vapor barriers on new construction
are often times an intentionally installed material. As a building is renovated and repaired,
redundancy and inadvertent vapor bam'ers are often tinries created.
Table 4.3 - Vapor barrier definition and examples
DeHniOon
A Vapor Barrier or Vapor
Diffusion Retarder lias
been defined as a
material to:
1.) "The control of water
vapor diffusion to reduce
the occurrence or
intensity of
condensation" (Straube,
2001) that is driven by
diffusion,
2.) A vapor barrier may
have imperfections and
small cracks in its
surface vnlhout greatly
impairing the
performance of the
permeable vapor barrier
(Straube, 2001), or
3.) As defined by
building codes as
anything with a
permeability of 1 perm or
less (Lstiburek, 2000)
ExamfilBS
- Polyethylene sheet membrane (Visquene) or film (varying thteknesses, 2-6 millimeters
and in 3-20 foot roHs) sealed with manufocturer recommended caulk, sealants, and tapes
-EPDM
- Plastk: sheeting
- Rubber memtxanes
-Glass
- Aluminum foil
- Sheet metal
- Oil-t)ased paint
- Bitumen or wax impregnated kratt paper
- Wall coverings and adhesives
- Foil-feced insulating and non-insulating sheathings
- 2 coats of acrylk: latex paint top coating with premium latex primer
- 3 coats of latex paint
- Scrim (open-weave fabric like fiberglass fabric)
- Hot, asphaltic mbberized membranes
- Some insulatk>ns (elastomeric foam, cellular glass, foil faced isofoam) if sealed
- Aluminum or paper faced fiberglass roll insulatnn
- Rigid insulation or foam-board insulation
-1/4 inch Douglas fir plywood with exterior glue
- High-performance cross-laminated polyethylene
(Infonnatnn from Lstiburek, 2000; ICAA, 2002; Spence, 1998; Bordenaro, 1991; Maness,
1991; Lotz, 1998; Lstiburek and Cannody, 1991; Forest Products Lab, 1949; DoE, 2002)
For example, a common manner in which an inadvertent vapor barrier is created in a residence is
when the occupants repaint a room. The structure's wall, when constructed, may have had a
primer coat on the gypsum wallboard and then two coats of non-vapor retarding latex paint.
When the occupants repaint their walls to up-date their home with two new of coats of latex paint,
they have unintentionally created a vapor barrier on the interior side of the wall. The inclusion of
107
this vapor barrier either creates a vapor barrier where none previously existed or has now^ created
a redundant vapor barrier because of one that was intentionally installed during construction.
Unintentional vapor barriers are frequently incorporated into buildings and should be avoided
when possible. Caution should be taken when renovating or updating residences/structures.
In conclusion, builders ridicule the literature and construct out of experience and not what either
the literature or wall analysis calculations reveal. The different clinnate summaries and opinions of
the author are as follows:
1.
Heating Climate: Vapor barriers should be used in heating climates at all locations within
the structure's foundation, wall, and roof assemblies.
2.
Cooling Climate: The implementation of a vapor barrier should be included within the
foundation and wall assemblies of all structures in a cooling climate, but the specific
application in the roof remains one area that depends upon the specific, detailed
structure design.
3.
Mixed Climate: A vapor barrier is recommended for the foundation and roof assembly for
all structures in the mixed climate, but the when and where to utilize one within the wall
system remains less clear.
The literature states that a vapor barrier is not necessary
within the wall in this climate. The principles of flow-through design are to be utilized in
this climatic area according to the literature reviewed. The flow of air through the wall is
the primary driving agent of moisture into and out of the wall assembly depending upon
what season the structure is in currently. The principle of flow-through design should be
adhered to since it allows wetting during one season and drying during the opposite so
that moisture within the cavity attains equilibrium across the wall section during the
course of the year.
108

Constnjction. 32(9), 74-77.
November 6-8,2000, Madison Wl, from www.toolbase.ora. accessed 3 Jun 03.
Council of American Building Officials. (1995). CABO: One and Two Family Dwellinc Code.
Department of Energy. (2002). "Vapor Difllision Retarders and Air Barriers." Consumer Energy
www.eere.enerav.qov/consumerinfo/rfbriefe/bd4.html. accessed on 28 May 03.
Retarders." ICAP; Alexandria VA. Obtained from www.toolbase.ora. accessed 3 Jun 03.
International Code Council. (2000). International Residential Code: For One and Two Family
Dwellings. International Code Council; Falls Church VA; 566 p.
common questions about moisture migration through walls and ceilings." Journal ofLi^t
Consfn/cffon, 11(11), 13-17.
Lotz, W. (1998). "Specifying Vapor Barriers." Building Design and Constnlction,Z9(^^),50-5Z.
June 03.
Lstiburek, J. ^000). Builder's Guide to Mixed Climates: Details for Desian and Construction.
Lstiburek, J. and Carmody, J. (1994). "Moisture Control for New Residential Construction" in
Moisture Control in BuikJinas. ASTM Manual Series: MNL 18; Philadelphia, PA; 321-347.
Lstiburek, J. and Camnody, J. (1991). Moisture Control Handbook: New, low rise residential
Maness, G. (1991). 'Preventing Wall Deterioration." Journal of Property Management. 56(5),
33-38.
Ramsey, C and Sleeper, H. (1992). Construction Details from Ardiitectural GraMc Standards.
Spence, W. (1998). Construction Materials. Methods, and Techniques. Delmar Publications;
NewYork;1195p.
Suprenant, B. (1994). "Sub-Slab Vapor Baniers." Journal of Light ConstrucSon,M{B), 37-39.
U.S. Forest Service. (1949). Condensation Control: in dwelling construction by Forest Products
Latxiratory, Forest Senîce, U.S. Department of Agriculture in collaboration with the
109
Vinson, J. (2003). Telephone interview with Joe Vinson of Joe Vinson Builders (IVIobile,
WUFI. (2003). WUFI: Warme-und Feuchteransport Instationar (Transient Heat and Moisture
TN; obtained from www.ornl.qov/ORNL/BTC/moisture/. and accessed on 1 Sep 03.
110
Appendix 1 - New Orleans Test Data
111
30
"~" MonSwpos. 1 (Exterior Surface)
"^-Monitorpos. 2
3
^
2
o
OL
E
a
X
$
10
15
Time [d]
Pralort: Prcjtrrt ard Report / Case 1,ficcVVonnerr,laitc!- 1.N'*'EHO.i-AC
112
20
30
' MonRorpDS. 3
MonRorpos. 4 (InlBrinr Surface)
r-,
20
10
O.
-10
100
MotlHc>rpDS. 3
"-"-MonScitpos. A (Inte 'ior Sufface)
75
3
I
50 ^
\-J
i5
o
Of
25
::ixO ie^^^^t>
10
15
Time [d]
Prclcrt- Prclort and RcpnH /Case 1: Bf ck VnncorModel - l-NS'E NO-I-AC
113
20
^^
25
30
30
-" MonKorpos. 1 {Exterior Surface)
-MonHorpos. 2
&
E
o
a.
E
100
MoniSoTpos. 1 (Exterior Surface)
-MonBorpras. 2
1
X
->
14.4
Time [d]
PrcjDrt: Prc^Drt ard Report i" Case 1: Bf ck Vcnepr Hntlfi! - 1-K'*'E N0-4-AC
114
19.2
28.8
30
" MonPforpos. 3
Moni?(Mp.DS. A {IntBrior Surface)
^
p
20
e
m
a.
10
JO
-10
100
1
1
1
~~" Monitcjrpos. 3
^-MonScjrpos, 4 (IntB ior Sutfacs)
75
D
rd^
50 ^
?
25
4.8
9.6
14.4
Time [d]
PrcjD* PfcjniS and Report/Case 1:firckVflncfirMflria!- 1-NVE-NO-4-AC-
115
19.2
24.0
28.8
60
MonRcktpos. 1 (Extc rior Surface)
MonScvTpos. 2
^
O
40
&
20
i^^KîmmPP^**t^^0*A
O.
|2
E
I
i5
Pre)!!* Projoa and Ropoit f Cjio 1: BV VcncorMoacl l-NOT NO 7JIC
116
30
"~~ MonRorpos. 3
"-Monilorpos. 4 (Interior Sutface)
20 r^
O
p
&
3
*^
E
10
Q.
3
X
I
JO
10
15
Time [d]
PrcJDft Prcjo!! anil Rcpcrt / CasR 1: Bj-^rk VdncBr ModGl - 1-NVE NO-7^C
117
20
30
1
i
I
' Monitorpos. 1 (Exterior Surface)
MonP.orpos. 2
o
B
c
Q.
-10
100
T
1i
Monitcirpos. 1 (Ext =rior Surface)
-"MonRc rpos. 2
ik i 11 IPw
^^
75
is
E
X
50
25
tt^
i^
i/ii
10
15
Time [d]
Prcject PrcjnrtardRflpnrtfCasD liBrc*. VsinnDrMotfoi- l-NV'B-NO-tO AC
118
20
25
30
30
o
o
MonSoTpos. 3
"- Monilorpos. 4 (Interior SuTfacs)
20 P^
SIMIPU
10
E
-10
100
i
1
MonRctfpas. 3
Monitcrpos. 4 (Inte ior Surface)
75
T3
50
V,
25
10
15
Time [d]
Prcjctt PtcjBCt BjTd Report iCase 1: Erck VeneerMndo! - t-NVS NO-f 0-AC
119
20
25
30
o
3
o.
E
E
X
S
Prcjisa- Prcjoa iwa Rspnrt I Case 1: Ercl Vcnccr Modo! - l-VE MO-1 -AC
120
30
~ MonRorpos. 3
- MonRorpos. 4 {IntErior Surface)
O
a
&
3
&
10
E
|2
-10
100
1
MonRorp-as. 3
"MonRotrpos. 4 (IntH ior Surface)
75
D
50 ^
X
:C:x:^ ^ -^ ^^^m-t
-43
TO
a>
DC
25
10
15
Time [d]
PrcJ&cl; Prcjita and Report / CasiD 1: BTck Vflnner Wade! - i-V&NO-l AC
121
20
25
30
niiniiJ
&
E
a.
E
100
MonRwpos. 1 (Exterior Surface)
MonRorpos. 2
is
E
3
I
$
on
14.4
Time [d]
Prcinrt Presort ard Report {Cas.fi 1: BrrX Wttnovr h
!t-1-VE-MO--AC
122
19.2
28.8
30
MoniScytpos. 3
Monftt>r[>3s. 4 (Inte 'ior Sufface)
e
a.
E
20
10
-10
E
3
X
IB
i5
14.4
Time [d]
PrejDflt PrcjBCt and Rcpnrt i* Case 1: Brcit Vfineisr Madft! - 1-NVE NO-4-*C
123
19.2
28.8
60
o
a
40
o
Q.
1
1
"~~ MoniSc rpos. 1 {Exte rior Surface)
MoniSctrpos. 2
20
m^Kai^tmm*t^m0**
|2
10
15
Time [d]
Prcârt Prciod! afvil Report rCum 1: Brck. Vfinocr Wodc! - l-VB-NO-T-AG
124
20
30
r
1
MonKc rpos. 3
^-MonKc^rpos. 4 (Inte 'inr Surface)
O
0
&
3
10
<D
Q.
-10
E
3
X
10
15
Time [d]
Prajcil: Piojort ara) Ropoit I Cast 1: B/c* Vcnoor UaHitl 1-V& NO-T-AC
125
20
30
Monflorpos. 1 (Ext =riar Surface)

^-MonRorpos. 2
O
3
&
20
10
^Wfil
"
yi
i1f
"i
|2
-10
100
75
2-
13
X
50
TO
25
25
Prcjfttt PtcjBrt ard Report i* Case t: ficcV Vonocr Mode! - 1-VE-MO-10 AC
126
30
30
-MonKc>rpos. 3
Monticapos. 4 (Inte inr Surface)
O
a
e
1O
10
a.
|2
-10
100
75
E
50
' ' "1

~~ MonBctrpas. 3
-"Monftcrpos. 4 (Inte ior Surface)
s
V
^-^-vs.^m'
25
10
15
Time [d]
PrcjDCt Prijcrt aim Report I Cajci 1: Rick Vcnocr Moits! - 1-VE NO.10-AC
127
20
25
30
30
MonRorpos. 1 (Exteriw Surface)
Monftorpos. 2
20
3
Q.
.0)
100
'
1
1
r
"~" Monitorpos. 1 (Exterior Surface)
-MonRorpos. 2
75
6
3
X
50
$
DC
25
10
15
Time [dj
Prcjod: Prcicd ard Report I Caatr 2 Sp4\Kfi Stcaig Wxfcl - 2-NVa-*KS-1-AC
128
20
30
30
"~ MonSorpos. 3
- MonSwpos. 4 (Interior Surface)
20?
&
10
e
ca.
E
.>
-10
100
75
Is
E
3
X
$
50
r
"~>" MonBcirpas. 3
MonKcirpos. 4 (Inte ior Surface)
-spî::^
*^s= -y"'^
25
10
15
Time [dj
Prcjc* Prcjcr! ari) Report fCaio 2: Eff-KO EkSnj Mxfcl - J-N-j^-Nn-t-AC
129
20
25
30
30
' Moni?orpos. 1 {Exterior Surface)

MontSofpos. 2
e
E
<D
Q.
E
(2
E
3
X
14.4
Time [d]
Picjctt Prc\oTt and Report I Case 2: Sprjtn Siding M:>dcl - Z-Wi/S-MO -i-AC
130
19.2
28.8
30
MonBoipos. 3
MonRorpos. 4 {Inlerior Suitace)
^
o
smn
20
&
10
Q.
-10
100
1
""" MonRt>rpos. 3
"MonRt>rp-3s. 4 (Inte ior Surface)
75
E
X
50 ^
->
TO
e
25
4.8
9.6
14.4
Time [d]
Prclc* Prcjca anit Kcfnttt CasD 2: Sf<\Ki'î*M0M
F
<D
OL
-20
E
3
X
10
15
Time [d]
Projott Projoa ard Report f Casi! 2: SfftKe Slng Mxfcl - I-NVE-ND-T-AC
132
20
30
20
s<D
10
r"~~ MonRctrpos. 3
-MonRcirpos. 4 {Inte ior Sufface)
O.
.2
-10
100
1
!
MonRcrpos. 3
MonRc rpos. 4 {Inte ior Surface)
75
E
50
25
10
15
Time [d]
Prcjott Prc|c9 and Rtport (Can: 2: S^.Kn SWnj Mrfrt - J-MijBNO-T-AC
133
20
25
30
30
MonRorpos. 1 {ExIerioT Surface)
-Montorpos. 2
O
g
&
1(D
O.
-10
100
75
50
$
(0
25
Prcjott Pnrjoa ara RapDrt f Cajli Z Spfjts Sang Mllsl - 2-NVS WD-IO-AC
134
30
* Monfiorpos. 3
MonRorfKJS. 4 {Interior Surface)
20 f
MM*
10
&
a>
a.
-10
100
1
"~~ Monilcrpos. 3
""MonScupos. 4 {Inte ior Surface)
75 V
E
3
I
50
->
W
CC.
25
10
15
Time [d]
PrclB* Prcjoa aim Ropoit (Case 2: Efr.K EH113 M>*! - 2.N';B-NO-10-:
135
20
25
30
o
e
"e3
E
a.
E
3
X
10
15
Time [d]
Prcjc* Prcjotl ans Report ^Caso2: Eprj:c Eianj Wa*;(. J-VB-MJ-I-AC
136
20
30
MonRtsrpos. 3
Moniiorpos. 4 (Inlerior Surface)
^
O
&
3
*-*
E
20
10
OL
E
.2
-10
100
75
E
X
50
1
~~ Moni?ctrpos. 3
MonSoirpos. 4 (Inte ior Surface)
L
Xss
25
10
15
Time [d]
Prc-jDCt Prc^Dflt aiMj Report i Caris 2; S^jza Skflng Macte! - 2-VB-Na-l-AC
137
20
25
30
30
MonSoTp^DS. 1 (Exterior Surface)

MonBoipos. 2
E
o
Q.
E
i2
E
3
X
$
TO
28.8
Prcô* Prcjcdtard Report i'CasD 2: EpcKfi swing W>dlc?-2-VBMa-4-AC
138
30
* Moni?or[K)S. 3
MonrSorpos. 4 (Interior Surface)
20
&
10
o.
E
-10
100
-MonBcHP0S. 3
-MonRcjTpos. 4 (Inte ior Surface)
75
is
E
3
X
50 ^
25
4.8
iscm
9.6
14.4
Time [d]
Prcjisit PrcjcO ami Rcpoit ! Ca=o 2: E(:r.K SMnj Mxfcl -
J-VB-NDJI-AC
139
19.2
24.0
28.8
60
MonKo rpM. 1 (Exteriw Surface)

MonRo rpos. 2
40
cv>
20
a.
E
.
13
X
10
15
Time [d]
Prc-JO! PrcjBrt ard Report {Cast* 2: Sffîcfl Skanp M>:fct - 2-VB-Na-7-AC
140
20
30
MonRctrpos. 3
Moniloirpos. 4 (Inle ior Surface)

^-_-^_j
E
m
10
Q.
.2
-10
100 ^
"" MonRcrpos. 3
MonRcirpos. 4 {Inta ior Surface)
75
X
$
TO
50
V
v^
25
10
15
Time [d]
Prcjort Prcêrt ara Report ( CJSC 7: Eprjtc Siian^ M>*:3 - 2-VB'NO-7-AC
141
20
25
30
1
O.
T
MonHctrpos. 1 (Ext arior Surface)
"MonScrpos. 2
75
E
3
X
50
5
TO
i k1
"11
i1^
iffl
25
10
15
Time [d]
Pre]Dct Prcjool and Ropnrt.' Case 2: SfAco sauj VbiH - 2-Va MHIO-AC
142
20
25
30
30
1
1
*~~ MonKorpos. 3
MoniSoTpos. 4 (Interior Sutfacs)
20 f'
&
ffi
Q.
E
10
-10
100
MonRckrpoB. 3
MonrSotrpros. 4 {Inte ior Surface)
75
"S
E
50 ^
5
ffl
c
CC
25
10
15
Time [d]
Prcjo* PrclBtf am Hoân lCAUD 2. Sprjci: SKSnaMxfcJ -2-VSMD'IO-AC^
143
20
25
30
Appendix 2 - Minneapolis Test Data
144
24
1
1r
r
~ MoniSorpos. 1 (Exts rior Surface)
-Monaorpos. 2
12
o
p
3
so
v7S\
Vir n
0
-12 ^
t^V
-24
H'^\
/\
vv
%/
Al<i/^
VV
\
-36
100
MonRo rpos. 1 (Exte rior Surface)

Monftotrpos. 2
VA,/'Jy
r
1
.
75
E
3
I
50
'T
rntrA
ry
"^
If
25
10
15
Time [d]
Prejert PfcêrtardReport 1 Casn 1:BrckVenisprModn!- 1-N\'BM 1-,:
145
20
25
30
30
o
c
1
1
MoniSorpDS. 3
MonKorpos. 4 (Interior Surface)
20
&
10
<D
Q.
-10
100
75
D
50
1i
"~~ Moni?c rpos. 3
MonBctrpras. A (Inte ior Surface)
L.
-,.--J w"-*
^^:::^ ^w"^
'^
m
e
OH
25
10
15
Time [d]
Prc|e!* Prcjnrt and Report f Case VefckVannorMtsdol- 1-N\'BM-1-^
146
20
25
30
fto^
*^
3
E
o
Q.
E
|2
100
"~~ MonRorpos. 1 (Exterior Surface)
-Montorpos. 2
3
X
S3
Prelo* Pro|ca nrd RipoTt / Caso 1; Beck Vcncor Modol l-NTO M J-AC
147
30
MonRorpos. 3
" MonRurpos. 4 (Interior Surface)
^
O
20
=u=
&
E
a>
a.
E
10
|2
&
E
3
-aa
<D
9.6
14.4
Time [d]
Prslo* PK)e:( and Ripoit (Cam 1; e<T.V Vonocr Model - l-NV-E M 4-AC
148
19.2
24.0
28.8
60
" MonitariKJS. 1 {Exterior Surface)

~"MonfSorpos. 2
O
3
E
e
a.
E
40
20
f^ A
-20
100
1
1
r
"~ Monitorpos. 1 {Exterior Surface)
""Monfiorpos. 2
75
TJ
50
S
re
25
10
15
Time [d]
Prciott Prcjart and Report / CJSE 1: Err> Veneer Mattfti - 1N^'B M-7-AC
149
20
30
Moni5crpos. 3
MonRcrpos- 4 {Inte 'ior Surface)
ffi
E
10
-10
100
MonRckrp-DS. 3
^"MonRcirpos. 1 (Inte ior Surface)
75
E
50
N.
I
25
10
15
Time [d]
Pro|B* Prcjca ana Rcpoit ? Cam 1: Beck VoncDr Model - 1-N\'E M TJkC
150
20
25
30
30
"~* MoniJorpDS. 1 (Exterior Surface)
MonrSarpos. 2
O
a
&
c
E
100
-~ MonRorpas. 1 (Exteriw Surface)

i"~'"MonRorpos. 2
75
E
3
50
IT
25
10
15
Time [d]
Prcjctt Projcrt and Report f Case 1: Bf ck Vcnimr Modol 1.N\'e M 10JVC
151
20
30
""' MonRo rpos. 3

"MonRoirpos. 4 (Inte ior Surface)
ea.
20
fc
fc<^Ûi^*****i
10
-10
100
75
g
50
1
"" MonRo rpos. 3
"MonRoHpDS. 4 (Inte nor Surface)
.^2::;s kCkMaeprf ..cC:
.-^
25
10
15
Time [d]
Prcjert P^c^Dfl^ ard Report i' Casts 1; BrcK VBneer MortoJ -1 N'l'B-H 1C~AC
152
20
25
30
24
r"-
MonBorpos. 1 (Exts ricjr Surface)

"Monitorpos. 2
1
1
O
f \\J\
{
e
o.
E
4 fJn
V
t
4^.
'
-12
-24
1 V ^Jpx
^
Vv
-36
100
"~~ MonRorpos. 1 (Exterior Surface)
"-MonKiwpos. 2
75||f
as
Q:
10
15
Time [d]
Prc\tiXt Pfcjcct and Report ("Caan IrBfcVVennRrMQdot. 1.VB-M-1-/C
153
W\f
30
"~ Moniiarpas. 3
""Montorpos, A (Inlerior Surface)
20
&
10
CO
Q.
|2
-10
100
* MonBckrpos. 3
MonRcrpos. A (Inte -ior Surface)
75
....^
13
I
v-'''^
50
MWMB,
>-.
"-1^!!^
-^
ta
25
10
15
Time [d]
Prcjorl: Prcjca arat Ropoit f Cast 1: EfcV Voimar Koaol - l-VE-M-IAC
154
20
25
30
30
MonRcrpos. 1 (Exteriof Surface

-MonRcrp-as. 2
20
\
10 \
E
V "
f^
'
^
^
1
riTI
.,
tlJ^V
-10
100
i
1
~" MonRtjrpos. 1 (Ex1 rior Surface;
MonRc^^pos. 2
If
75
is
E
50
1 rt
-a
A
*
25
4.8
9.6
14.4
Time [d]
Pralod: Prîttrtard Reports Case IrBrck VoniserKoilo!- 1-VEM4-AC
155
19.2
24.0
28.8
30
MonRcvfp-os. 3
"MonRc>rpos. 4 (InlB ior Surface)
e3
E
o
Q.
E
20::!
10
12
-10
100
""" MonRorpos. 3
MonRarpos. 4 (Interior Surface)
3
X
50
^-
25
4.8
9.6
14.4
Time [d]
Prcloa: Prcjna KiiJ Hcport f Case 1: Bret Voiwor Model 1-VE-M 4 JiC
156
19.2
24.0
28.8
60
1
i
r
' Monrtorpos. 1 {Exterior Surface)
' MonSorpos. 2
40
&
E
m
Q.
E
20
-20
100
> MonRorpos. 1 (Exterior Surface)
MonRorpos. 2
13
X
-s
ProjBti: Prcjncl Ofid Report ^ CasD liE^ckVcnserMoilc!- 1-VE-M-7-AC
157
30
' MonRorpos. 3
" MonSwpos. 4 (Interior Surface)
E
a>
a.
E
10
-10
100
!i
-MonRoupos. 3
MonRchrpos. 4 (Inte tor Surface)
75
E
50
?
o
25
10
15
Time [d]
Prcjoct PrcjDct aird Rcpoit ^ Cisc 1: tfrX Vrniocr Model - 1-VEM T*C
158
20
25
30
30
20
Q.
E
. 1
UlJf
&
\
1
r~~- MonftoTpDS. 1 (Exterior Surface)
""MonHcffpos. 2
10
.iJL
|J%
fWmrlJ r
^MrW k
Ittf IIÎV
Njf I
-10
100
-~~ MotiRorpos. 1 (Exterior Surface)
li~"" MonSorpos. 2
is
E
V
W
Prcjcrt: PrcjDrt and Report t C5D 1; Ef^cV Veneer rrfoiJc! - 1A'B-M lOAC
159
||l
1
li
30
-MonHorpos. 3
""MonfioITpOS. 4 (IntB ior Surface)
20
&
1o
10
o.
E
-10
100
"~" MonBcapas. 3
MonRcirpos. A (Inte lor Surface)
75
E
X
$
-0
50
="'.
aMflHi^M
25
10
15
Time [d]
Pfcjoflt- Prcicrt am Report i* Case 1: Br^ck Vonoor Model - i-VB-M-IO-^^
160
20
25
30
o
p
s3
E
o.
E
aE
10
15
Time [d]
Prefect Prcind ard Rflport t' Cdll5 2: Spf^^fi SWlrt^ M>*H - J-W^B-^T-I -AC
161
30
Monfturpos. 3
" MonRorpos. 4 {Inlerior Surface)
20
&
3
10
a.
-10
100
MonKokrFKJS. 3
-"MonSokfpos. 4 (Inte ior Surface)
75
E
S
ffl
e
50
I
I
-N>
""^^
25
10
15
Time [d]
Pn;}ocfc Prcjocland Report ( Case2; Ec^JTfl Sv3n^*A-xk\ -Z-W/a-M-l-AC
162
20
25
30
30
Monflorpos. 1 (Exterior Surface)
^-MonRorpos. 2
O
6
3
a.
E
-lU
100
""" MonRorpos. 1 {Exterior Surface)

"MonRoTfras. 2
75
i-
T3
3
I
50
iR
a:
25
9.6
14.4
Time [d]
Prclnrt: Prcjcct and Report.' Case 2 SpfJô Skflng M*:i - 2-*f/S-\V4 AC
163
19.2
24.0
28.8
30
MonRcjrfKJS. 3
""Monfic>rpos. 4 (Inte 'ior Sufface)
-mf^'
20
10
<D
Q.
-10
100
r-
"~~ MonKcjrpos. 3
MonRcitpos. 4 (Inte ior Surface)
75
2>
|D
50
-KSZC
-s
re
a>
25
4.8
9.6
14.4
Time [d]
Prcjo* Prcjoa ia Ropoit f CasB 2; Siyjrii sang M>*l l-tt/B-V-CM:
164
19.2
24.0
28.8
60
~" MonrSorpos. 1 (Exterior Surface)

-Mon'rtorpos. 2
o
ft
e3
E
40
20
Q.
fi'^r Y*
JIAAAR AJM
f^
-20
100
Monawpos. 1 (Exterior Surface)
MonRorpos. 2
13
X
$
iS
PrclB* PiDlDrt and Report I Casn 2: Eff-cc SitSiij Mibd - 2-WiB.W-7.AC
165
/.A r^T
AAAiUi
r^
30
r^
P
1
~" MonKcirpos. 3
rpos. 4 (Inte ior Surface)
20
&
10
a.
E
m
-10
100
"^ Monftorpos. 3
MonSarpos. 4 (Interior Surface)
75
E
X
50
s^_^^_j_;
?
m
>
25
10
15
Time [d]
Prclcrt: Prc|oa orit Ropon I Case 2 Sfry.t: EkSrij Mi*:1 2Jfj'EJJO-T-AC
166
20
25
30
30
-"- MonRorp-3B. 1 {Exterior Surface)

Monrtorpos. 2
*"*
a>
Q.
.2
100
1
-1
*~~ MoniSorpos. 1(Exte rior Surface)
-~"Moni!orpos. 2
75
E
50
-(
$
w
<D
25
0
0
rl
/
f
1
#
10
15
Time [d]
Prajuct Prcicfl ard Rfijjort t" Cacc 2: Ep<.t:fl Sfcang M>5te( - 2-*J'/aAI-1{J-AC
167
U-- T1"
"
20
25
30
30
' MonRctrpas. 3
""MoniSc>r|K)S. 4 {Inle ior SuTfacE)
O
3
20
10
a.
E
-10
100
' 1
MonRc rpos. 3
"""MonRcirpos. 4 (Inte lor Surface)
75
E
3
X
50
^^^
^b^^
5
iS
a>
25
10
15
Time [d]
PrcHott PwjBrt af^d Report.' Casr 2: Spr.Ko Siding 9Ayi 2~f^'M\^^Q-AC
168
20
25
30
o
0
&
&
<D
Q.
E
3
X
as
TO
IT
10
15
Time [d]
Prolta: Prejetl and Report i Case 2: Sprjri! SKlnj M:*) - 2.VB !tM-*E
169
20
30
o
ft
MonRorpos. 3
MonRofpos. 4 (Interior Surface)
20
"i*
3
10
Q.
-10
100
75
E
3
X
50
'
"" i
" MonScrpos. 3
^-MonRotrpos. 4 (Inte ior Sufface)
~^_
L_.
=^
TO
a>
25
10
15
Time [d|
Prc(ai:t Pmicrt and Rnpnrt {Casit 2- Sprjrc EWng MxJct - 2-VH r/-1 .AC
170
20
25
30
30
" MonRorpos. 1 (Exterior Surface)
""Mon'torpos. 2
s
a.
E
5
E
X
S
iS
DC
14.4
Time [d]
PtniQdr. Prc(Drt ard Report / Case 2: Spr.KC SicSng M>:fc^ - 2-VB^'-4-AC
171
19.2
28.8
30
o
p
1
~1
MonHcjrpos. 3
"MonRc^^pos. A (Inle ior Surface)
^^îmmmfl^*
20 ::^
10
<D
Q.
-10
100
"~~ MonBtirpos. 3
MonRcirpos. 4 (lots ior Surface)
75
o
1
X
50
5
i5
Q>
25
4.8
9.6
14.4
Time [d]
Prciod: Prclnrf and Report ^ Case 2: Sff.KB Skanj Mais) - 2-VB-M^ ftC
172
19.2
24.0
28.8
60
-~" Monftorpos. 1 {Exlerior Surface)
MonSorpos. 2
40
&
E
o.
20
-20
100
"" MonRorpos. 1 (Exteriar Surface)
MonilorfSos. 2
75
E
X
50
re
25
10
15
Time [d]
Pfcôrfc Prc^nri ard Report / Cdcci 2: Ejy.KC SWng V>*;! - 2-VS M^T-AC
173
20
30
-~~ MonHorpos. 3
^-Mon3c3T[X)S. A (InteriDr Suiface)
20 5^=
10
-10
100
1
*~~ MonHctrpos. 3
MoniScffpos. 4 (Inle ior Surface)
75
E
3
I
50^
^
25
10
15
Time [d]
PrcjD* Prcjnd and Report f Caso 2: Eff-ici! SKSrij Mxfct - 3-VE-W r.AC
174
20
25
30
30
- MonRcHpos. 1 {Extericff Surface)

rpos. 2
O
o
&
3
e
Q.
E
10
.Hi.
\l\^ r\
f^
(W
lif w
ntiv
^^
1 " 'V
\\
-10
100
MonKorpos. 1 (ExtGrior Surface)

Moniforpos. 2
75
X
S
50
25
10
15
Time [d]
PrcjBct: Prcjed ard Rnpnrt i* Caaa 2 Spr.KR SWna Mxic! - 2-Va^*^-10-AC
175
20
25
30
30
MonRckrp-os. 3
MonRcrpos. 4 (Inte ior Surface)
mmm^^^^'^'
&
3
10
-10
100
'
~~~ Moniiosrpos. 3
""MonHc fpos. 4 {Inte 'ior Sufface)
75
13
X
50^*-'
S3
25
10
15
Time [d]
Prcled: PrcjDrt and Report i" Caso 2 Sprjcc S3n3 MatteJ - 2-V&W 10 AC
176
20
25
30
Appendix 3 - Roanoke Test Data
177
60
~~ MonSc rpos. 1 (Exteriur Surface)

MonRcrpos. 2
^
O
40
&
20
a.
E
f% ?^^Y î^c?^
IT^ ''\)ug^ /pv
1'
*>iry\^ *-i.<-V
'^ V
A/V
-20
100
MonRorpos. 1 (Exterior Surface)
MonBorpos. 2
E
3
X
S
e
10
15
Time [d]
PrfljBd- Prcjoct aril Report i Case 1: Brclr VcinocT Madol - l-NVTS R 1-A^
178
20
30
30
- MonRofp-DS. 3
-MonRorpos. 4 (Interior Surface)
eo
20 S
10
Q.
.2
-10
100
...
"" MonRc rp-3S. 3

"^-MonRotrpas. 4 (Inte lor Surface)
75
E
X
50
*~~*^;
-.0
Si
25
15
10
Time [dj
Prcjc* 9\c\t!^ ard Rcpoft t Case 1: BrcK Vcnoor Moda! - 1-m'E B- 1-AC
179
20
25
30
30
MonRorpos. 1 {Exterior Surface)

"""MonRorpos. 2
o
&
E
o
Q.
E
1 kA^Lxi
ft
1IWITV ' "
20
1
\\l L
f i
ff wfvj
10 \\\^l^.
Av
11
mm^\11^
AWu
Vv^
f
Jl^Jff
'^H'iV
-10
100
X3
m
e
Q:
4.8
9.6
14.4
Time [d]
Prcjiozt Prci&dr and Reports Case 1:Bi"ck VenoorKntlfil- l-NV'E F-4-AC
180
19.2
24.0
28.8
30
' MonRwpos. 3
MontorpoB. 4 {Interior Surface)
^
O
20
&
10
Q.
-10
100
"~- MoflRorpos. 3
MonRorpoE. 4 (Interior Surface)
75
E
3
X
50
25
4.8
9.6
14.4
Time [d]
PfCiort Prcjua ard Report ^ Case 1; Brck Venncr Modal 1-MVE-R 4-AC
181
19.2
24.0
28.8
60
MonRokrpos. 1 {Exte>rior Surface)
Mon'rtokfpos. 2
^
O
40
&
20
mmm^mMm0^
'
a.
'
-20
100
" MonJSorp-as. 1 {Exterior Surface)

"MontorfKJS. 2
is
E
25
Prc|Brt PfcjoctanfJRiipcrti'CaSB t:BrckViinofirMado!- l-N'.'B-R-7-yy:
182
30
30
1
1
""" MOHRDrpos. 3
MoniSc rpos. 4 (Inte ior Surface)
^..^-^^_^
20
10
&
O
Q.
-10
!
100
~~ MonfIcffpos. 3
MonKc rpKJS. 4 (Inte ior Surface)
75
13
X
50
5
25
10
15
Time [d]
Prcjea." Prelect
OPO
Report / CJEII 1: Ei'rA Vcnnor Moilfi! - l-KVE-fl-T-AC
183
20
25
30
30
20
^
E
o
a.
E
10
MonRorpos. 1 {Exterior Surface)

MonRorpos. 2
Ai
1if w
in
Jip 4||
iv
f
-10
100
" MoniSorpos. 1 {Exterior Surface)

" MonPtoTpos. 2
75
f4
50
5
JO
25
10
15
Time [d]
Prciet:t: PfclDd and RcpGrt i*Case ^.Srck Vencnr Mortol 1-NVBR 10^C
184
20
30
MonRorpos. 3
MonKoTpos. 4 {Interior Surface)
o
o
&
3
*^
&
20
10
O
Q.
10
15
Time [d]
Prclo* PKicrt and Report i Case 1: Ef-cV VonnoT MfldDl - l-NVE RIO-AC
185
20
1^ 1
60
MonRc rpos. 1 (Exterior Surface)

MonRcitpos. 2
e3
E
m
o.
20
hftA\
f'
fv(r^ ''VA? Ipv '"'<f"^

^ V ly^
''^^
ii7h^""V VNTJ^^
-20
100
' Moni!orp.3s. 1 {Exterior Surface)
Montlorpos. 2
X
o
ffl
>
10
15
Time [d]
Prcjact Prcjort and Rcpctt i' Cast 1: E^-cti Vonccr Model - l-VB-R-I^C <Nn* Orfcarr. VB Locat an)
186
30
MonSorpos. 3
Monr?(iip>os. 4 {Interior Surface)
e3
20
10
(S
-10
100
1
krpos. 3
MonSc)rpos. 4 (Inte ior Surface)
75
3
X
50
$
TO
25
10
15
20
Time [d]
Prcjcct PrclBCtard RflportfCast! 1: Br'cVVcncDrMatle!! - 1-VB-R-1-AC (Ncr* OrtcaisVB Localan)
187
25
30
30
o
0
e3
1
i
1
MonRorpos. 1 (Exterior Surface)
~ "MonHtsrpos. 2
' 1
>||. mi
10
*N.kW
I L1 \
1 Aklt
mm^<iiv
11*17'' "^
20
ft
ft
1n wf^
IKm. LL.V
Am/
JiiJff f
^
Vv^
'^H'ji
V
-10
aE
?
B
14.4
19.2
Time [d]
PfC^fttt Prcjnrt ard Report i"Case 1: Brck VEnnerMadol - l-VB R-4-AC <Nc* Crt:ars ^/B Locrfton)
188
28.8
30
MonRorpos. 3
MonHorpos. 4 (Inlerior Surface)
o
c
20
&
3
E
m
a.
E
10
-10
100
i
1
r
"~~ MonSorpos. 3
" MonfS&rpns. 4 (IntBrior Surface)
75
E
3
I
50
*g'Jin<gWoij^
$
TO
25
4.8
9.6
14.4
19.2
Time [d]
Prcj0rt PrcjDOl ard Rfiport r Cdsc 1; ErcV VunonrMorffl! 1-V& R-4-AC <Nir* Orfe>aiE VB Ucatcn)
189
24.0
28.8
1
1
I
MonRcWfKJS. 1 {Ext''rior Surface]
MonScHpos. 2
60
3
E
40
20
ummmifMm}^
'
^~- 1
Q.
e3
5
(0
25
10
15
20
Time [d]
Prcjort Prclca ard Rflport r*CasD 1: E^ck VononrModel - 1-VB-R-7-AC<No Orfcars VB Iccsion)
190
30
"" MonilMpos. 3
MonKorpos. 4 {Interior Surface)
VterMM Mter<^l^M I
20
&
10
a>
Q.
E
-10
100
1
r
MonScrpos. 3
^-MonRcrp-os. 4 (Inte tor Surface)
75
E
50
v^
^--^
5
25
10
15
20
Time [d]
PrcjBrt: Prcjo:! wid Report (C^wc 1: ErcV Voniser Mode! - 1-VE-R-7-AC <NfiBf Grte-a^s VB Locarton)
191
25
30
30
1
i
r
"" MonHorp-os. 1 (Exterior Surface)
'^" MonKorpos. 2
O
p
8
3
c(D
CL
100
X
$
w
10
15
Time [d]
PmjDcJ: Pfcjea ard Report / Case 1; BrcV Vcncor Modol - 1-VB-R-1C-AC <ND* Orfcnra VB Ucaaan)
192
30
MontSc rpos. 3
'-MonRcwpos. A (Inte 'ior Surface)
19
20
10
-10
100
1
"~" MonBcwpos. 3
~- MontScrpos. 4 {Inte 'ior Surface)
75
E
50
>
25
V.J2^ -^^^ ---^
10
15
20
Time [d]
Prcjed: P^:Î!Cta^d Rcpoft CCasc liBrck VoncBrMotlo!- 1-VE R-lC-AC(Ntnii OrJcans VH locifion)
193
25
30
60
"-~ MonRorpos. 1 (Exterior Surface)

-MonSorpos. 2
40
20
{ o^^^^L;^p^^
-20
100
""" MonrSoTpos. 1 {Exterior Surface)
"--"Moniieffpos. 2
Prcjnct: Pn:|i!!S and Report / Ca5G 1; Erck VanRcr Model - 1-VE-R-l-AC ^MJ^PGapotl; VH locaflonj
194
30
"~~ Monilc>rpos. 3
MonKcrpos. 4 (Inte iar Surface)
20:3
E
e
Q.
E
10
-10
100
""" MonRcsrpos. 3
Montcjrpos. A (Inta ior Surface)
75
1
I
--JMTT i.> ^>i>_

50 îsrsS ^^r:i^
5
25
10
15
20
Time [d]
Prcjtftit- PrcjBCt and Report/CaEfi 1:8?".:*.Vonfiiif Hiiilcl- i-VB-R-l-AC^MkrrenpQKVB Loca'JcnJ'
195
25
30
30
1
r
-" Moni?CH-p3S. 1 (Exterior Surface)
-Monfforpos. 2
20
10
E
-10
100
*~~ MonRorpos. 1 (Exierior Surface)
""MonRoTpos. 2
75
V
E
3
50
33
ta
DC
25
4.8
9.6
14.4
19.2
Time [d]
Prc^Btt: Prcjcrt and Rcpart / Caso l: BCcK Vcnoisr Made! - 1-VB-R.4-AC {MimoapaK VB Locafinn)
196
24.0
28.8
30
i
1
i
MonRtjrpos. 3
-MonPItjrpos. A (Inte ior Surface)
20
10
a.
,2
-10
100
75
&
a
E
3
50
1
1
"~" Moniltjrpos. 3
""Moniitjrpos. 4 (Inle ior Surface)
LJ
?
W
25
4.8
9.6
14.4
19.2
Time [d]
Prcjorfc Prcjortard Rcport^CaBnliBrcfc: VcnenrModn!- 1-VB-R-4-AC<MirnisapoliiVH Locaflon)
197
24.0
28.8
1r1
MoniScwpos. 1 (Exte rioT Surface]
~-MonRo*rpos. 2
60
^
O
40
3
^^
(O
'
20
mlhmmfSum0i
'
Q.
|2
-20
100
' MonRcwpos. 1 {Exterior Surface)
MonRorpos. 2
10
15
20
Time [d]
Picjfl* Prcjort art! Ropott f Casp 1: Erck Vcnortr Mods" - 1-VE-R-7-AC ^MI-nfiapoK VB Locann)
198
'
30
1
1
MonRcupas. 3
-MonSctrpos. 4 (Inle 'ior Surface)
20
10
a.
E
-10
100
-" MonitoTpos. 3
" MonRorpos. A (Interior Surface)
1
3
5
TO
a>
10
15
20
Time [d]
Prcjoci Prcjert aril Report /Case 1: Brck Venosr Mads! - 1-VE-R-7-AC <Mif5ncapQlr, VB Locjaon)
199
30
"~" MonRoipos. 1 {Exteriw Surface)

MonfSwpos. 2
Q.
E
X
e
10
15
20
Time [d]
PrajDCf: Prcjert and Report ('Casrs 1: &"^rk, VflnocrMode! - 1-VB-R-1P-4C<MrrflapQSE, VB LncaSan)
200
30
1
MonRckrpos. 3
MontScwpos. 4 (Inte 'ior Surface)
mPif'' *i^
20
&
3
10
Q.
-10
100
""" MonScrpos. 3
Monilcirpas. 4 (Inte 'ior Surface)
75 I
E3
50
25
10
15
20
Time [d]
PrcjcttPrcjBCt art) Report ("Case ItEfckVoneor Mortal. l-VB-R-lO-AC^MrrfiapoSuVH Ucoflon)
201
25
30
p
E
n.
E
if
E
S3
JS
10
15
Time [d]
Prcifict Pn:jcd ard Report i* Case 2: Sf^rjce EWIng M:Kfc^ - Z-Wi^f^-l-AC
202
20
30
MonRcffpos. 3
MonBc>rpos. A (Inte inr Surface)
20
&
3
10
C
Q.
-10
100
o
E
3
I
Pnzjoct Prc|ert and Report/Case 2: SfxiKc sang Mrfl.2-M'-/a-K-1"AG
203
o
p
3
c
Q.
E
|2
^
is
-cs
14.4
Time [d]
Prc|Brtr Prcjor* arfl Report / Case : Sprxa SWIng WyM . 2-W/B-R-4-*
204
19.2
28.8
30
MonrSoffKJS. 3
-MonRoT[K)S. A (Interior Surface)
O
3
&
20
10
<D
O.
-10
100
75
5Jo
E
3
Z
50
or
25
1 i'
1
1
MonSt>rpos. 3
MonStjrpos. 4 (Inte ior Surface)
_____ !^!^!S^
WliM'gi
4.8
9.6
14.4
Time [d]
PrclctJ: Prcjcrt and Ripoit I Casi! 2 Epcjce Skiing Mj*:l 2-fWH-R-4-*C
205
19.2
24.0
28.8
60
o
p
40
20
1
1
1
MonRorpoE. 1 (Exterior Surf ace;
-Monitofpos. 2
f0 m MM0
K' f
a.
-20
100
1
r
"" Montorpos. 1 (Exterior Surface)
^-MonSorpos. 2
?
iS
10
15
Time [d]
Prejoa: Prclod ard Report ^ Case J: Sfojcs Sanj M:>*J - 2-W/H-R-7JIC
206
20
1 V
30
MonKchrpos. 3
MoniJcH-fKis. 4 {Inle 'ior Sufface)
o
e3
20 a^"^"^*^"^
10
a.
E
-10
100
1
"~~ MonKcrpos. 3
MonRcrpos. 4 (Inte iar Surface)
75
E
X
S
50
s.
25
10
15
Time [d]
Prciact Prcjort and Report {CaKc 2- Spr-Cfl SKSng Wî:) - 2^/B-R-7.*C
207
20
25
30
30
20
3
*>*
e
10
CJ
t
(D
h-
-10
100
' MonRorfvas. 1 (Exterior Surface)
MonRorpas. 2
75
50
-.e
CO
25
10
15
Time [d]
Projett Prcjcct and Report (Casr 2 Sprjce Sl-ang M>3c^ - 2-MV9-R-10-AC
208
20
30
30
MonRorpos. 3
"MonSorpos. 4 (Intarior Surfacs)
20
e
E
10
(D
I
-10
100
1
1
MonRcIfpos. 3
Monilcirpos. 4 {Inte ior Surface)
75
E
3
I
50 ^ -^->^
f
25
10
15
Time [d]
Pn:}orit PrciDaaPilRfipartfCa5c2:S?)rjCflSi5rtj|M5*:l .2-NV5-R-10-AC
209
20
25
30
o
0
&
en.
E
E
3
X
5
W
10
15
20
Time [d]
Prdo* Prc^BCt ana Report I Caso 2: Sprxo SUnj Mxfcl 2.VH S-1-*C INr Oitcans VB Lorato-ll
210
30
- Moni!c rpos. 3
Moni?c r|X)s. 4 (Inte 'ior Surface)
^
O
20
'"^.""I-III--J -~-~*---i --
&
10
-10
100
75
13
50
1
1
"~* MonHctrpos. 3
wpos. 4 (IntB ior Surface)
L
\
mtm^mm^mmmm
re
<D
or
25
10
15
20
Time [d]
Prcjeat Prc-fBd arrt Hapcrt i'Casts 2: Sprj:*! Sang M^dcl - Z-VH-R-I-AG (Nc^-vOrtoant VB LxaUanl
211
25
30
30
MonRorpos. 1 (Exterior Surface

MonRcjrpos. 2
20
10
.2
'i-h
K.Jr'-.^j^^^ (^ffH
i 1 M VIfJ
\i
-10
100
MonRorp-DS. 1 (Exterior Surface)
MonRoTpos. 2
E
3
X
?
re
28.8
PfcjKcfc Prc^ftct and Bfipnrt ^ Case 2: Sfr-KO SkSf>g MadcJ - 2-Va-R-*-AC {New Ortfiant VE bKaUyiJ
212
30
" MonHorpos. 3
MonRorpos. 4 (Irrterior Surface)
20
&
ca>
10
Q.
-10
100
i
MoniSorpos. 3
MoniJcsrpos. 4 {Interior Surface)
3
X
9.6
14.4
19.2
Time [d]
PrcjfiCt: Prcjna and Report / Caatj 2: Spra:*! Srtng \t^-M - 2-VB R-* AC |Ncw Driflans VB LocaH^'Î
213
24.0
28.8
60
- Montiorpos. 1 (Exterior Surface]

-""Monitrapos. 2
o
&
40
mMftAD (y*(m 0^
r
K^|-r
20 rt
(D
yn
Vj
Q.
-20
100
' Monilorpos. 1 (Exteriof Surface)
" MonRorpos. 2
E
3
X
as
Pra(ra Prcjoct anil Report ! CKO 2; EfTjô Snj M>*:4 2-VB-R T^C INy* CMoans VB Lo:aton|
214
"
1*
30
o
p
MonRorpos. 3
MonRorpos. 4 (Interior Surface)
20
&
3
10
a>
Q.
E
-10
100
" MonRctrpos. 3
MonRo)Tpgs. 4 (Inte ior Surface)
g::,
E
3
X
75
50
V
v^
S
W
25
10
15
20
Time [d]
Project PrajBtt and Report < Case 2: Spr,f:c SiSng MUa - 2-VB-R T.AC (ffew Oilcimc VB Localto-il
215
25
30
10
15
20
Time [d]
PrejD* Prefect and Report t Caivo 2: S|:r.:c S^ng Ms*:! - 2-VB R-10 AC ff4:w Orioans VB Vo:aH>nt
216
30
"~ MonSorpos. 3
"- MonRorpos. 4 (Interior Surface)
o
3
*^
E
a>
a.
E
20
10
-10
100
r*~~* Monitc>rpos. 3
MonHcapos. 4 (Inte for Sufface)
75
E
=
50 ^
..^
as
25
10
15
20
Time [d]
PrcjBCt Picioa ard Report I'Casis 2: SprvKO SteUng M^SW - 2-VB.R-10-AC (New Ortoanc VB loraltDnl
217
25
30
60
40
&
20
<D
OL
MonRckrpos. 1 {Ext riw Sutface)

<MontScnpos. 2
Nî^t hui\
*'
'-v^^
'^ V liM '^VAJ^
i\r^ Ai\
TfiCC; '"-?>
-20
100
"" MonKorpos. 1 {Exterior Surface)

MoniSorpos. 2
10
15
20
Time [d]
Presort Prcjftd am Rfipnit / Caso 2: Sprjro B^Sng M>4:I - 2-VB-??-1 -AC lMnnEa::l)s VE tocatlsnl
218
25
30
~~ MonBorpos. 3
MonHoTpos. 4 (Inlerior Surface)
^
O
3
20
10
Q.
-10
100
1
1
* MoniJwpoS. 3
MonKorpos. 4 (Inlerior Surface)
E
3
-s
TO
Prcjo* Prljoin and Faport i' Case 2: Spr-Kii SHng M>*l - 2-VB R-1 -AC (IflnnomrfB VE Wcan:i|
219
30
" MonrSmpos. 1 (Exterior Surface)

^-MonHorpos. 2
o
p
IE
3
&
O
a.
E
li
1 1 iill
Riofflfinnvi
1 nmn/vui
v
I 1 .
UlU
\Ly<
1
YC^
\ ANrnv_BN-J..kl,^^ ,TI 1
'li
10
V
yw
20
i T mfN
<
-10
100
E
3
X
5
J5
or
9.6
14.4
19.2
Time [d]
Prcjo* Prcjort and Report {Dane 2: Sprê SiCSnp MDCfcl Z-VH-R-4-AC iMnnna^Nts VB t-^xatlcf^l
220
24.0
28.8
30
- MonacjTpos. 3
MonScwpos. A (Inle rior Surface)
20
&
&
10
-10
100
75
o
E
3
X
50
~~ MonRc
MonRtj-rpos. 4 (Inte ior Surface)
Ij
a:
25
4.8
9.6
14.4
19.2
Time [d]
Piciatt Prcjfifl ard Report (Casii 2: Sprxo sang W3dd 2-VH.R .4-AC fft^nncaot^lE VE LKaH:^}
221
24.0
28.8
60
"~~ Mon'tiOTpos. 1 (Exterior Surface]

MonRofpos. 2
40
15
3
E
e
Q.
E
20
MMJ)
/y# /^m(
* V
/LA A An AAAAA
p" f
V '
-20
100
> MonBorpos. 1 {Exteriof Surface)
MonHwpos. 2
>
E
10
15
20
Time [d]
PrCjlDrt PfGjott ard Report t Caaa 2: SpriKn SkSng M>4H - Z-VB-R-7^C i1lfinnoa&at(s ^fB LocatVxit
222
AAlifij
i
1
MonRc>r[K)S. 3
Monfichrpos. 4 (Inte 'lor Sujface)
30
o
IE
3
^>*
&
20
B-^M
^^***^^
10
a>
Q.
E
-10
100
MonRcifpos. 3
MonRcirpos. 4 (Inte tor Surface)
^5
E
X
75
50
L
I
25
10
15
20
Time [d]
Pfojcrt Prcjort aniJ Rnport i Caso 2:
SF-TJCC
Stang M3.*:t - a-VE-R-TÂC (Mnnna&:*5 VB locattcni
223
25
30
30
20
e
a.
E
10
|2
^
1
MonRwp'DS. 1 (Exterior Surface)
^-MonRwpos. 2
1W w
HI
1
^
.1
=a|;
f
-10
100
MonSorpos. 1 (Exteriw Surface)
Moni!(srpos. 2
1
=
75
50
25
10
15
20
Time [d]
PfCicct Prcjca ard Report i" Cuac 2: SprvKe Siding Macfcl 2-VB-Ria-AC (mnnaziyJH VE
224
LOCHUITII
30
30
" MonRorpas. 3
MonSorpos. 4 (Interior Surface)
20
E
a.
E
10
-10
100
75
5
3
X
50
1
MonRcrpoB. 3
MonRctrpos. 4 (InlB ior Surface)
L,
?
w
a>
25
10
15
20
Time [dj
PrcjDct Prciort ard Report (Case 2- Spr.Ko SitSng Mxld - a-VS-R-l O-AC (TWnTHsafix^k VB UxalkMil
225
25
30
5.0 Bibliography
Achenbach, P. (1994). "General Construct'on Principles" in Moisture Control in Buildings. ASTM
Manual Series: MNL 18; Philadelphia, PA; 283-290.
Alien, E. (1990). Fundamentals of Building Construction: Materials and Methods. 2nd Edition.
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; New York; 803 p.
American Society ofTesting and Materials (ASTM). (1999). ASTM Standards in Buildino Codes.
Volume 2: Designation C 755 - 97. ASTM; West Conshohocken PA; 1994 p .
American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). (1972).
1972 ASHRAEHandiook- Fundamentals. Menasha, Wl, Banta Co. Inc.
Anonymous. (1993). "Vapor Barriers under Slabs." Concrete Products. 96(3), 8.
Constniction. 32(9), 74-77.
Building Science Corporation. (2002). "Air Bamers vs. Vapor Barriers." From,
www.buildingscience.com/research/walls/air barriers vs vapor barriers.html. accessed
on 3 Jun 03.
November 6-8, 2000, Madison Wl, from www.toolbase.org. accessed 3 Jun 03.
Cash, K. (1993). "Where Roofe Meet Walls." Progressive Architecture. 74(2), 31-35.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). (2001). "3280.504 Condensation Control and Installation of
Vapor Retarders." Code of Federal Regulations: 24CFR3280.504. U.S. Government
Printing Office via GPO Access from
vww.hud.gov:80/offices/cpd/energvenviron/enerqv/lawsandregs/regs/subpartf/3280504.
accessed on 3 Jun 03.
Council of American Building Officials. (1995). CABO: One and Two Family Dwelling Code.
Cushman, T. (1997). "Can Moisture Beat Housewrap?" Journal of Li^t Construction, ^5{9),
9,14.
Department of Energy. (2000). "Weather Resistive Bamers: How to select and install housewrap
and other types of weather-resistive barriers." Technology Fact Sheet Series from the
Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy obtained from
www.eere.energv.gov/buildings/documents/pdfe/28600.pdf. accessed on 28 May 03.
Information: EREC Reference Briefe obtained from
www.eere.energv.gov/consumerinfo/rfbriefe/bd4.html. accessed on 28 May 03.
Fisette, P. (1995). "Making Walls Watertight." Journal of Light Construction, UiZ), 35-38.
Forest Products Laboratory (FPL). (2000). Tedtline Durability: Controlling Moisture in Homes,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory, from
www.toolbase.org. accessed 3 Jun 03.
226
Gratwick, R. (1974). Dampness in Buildings. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; New Yorl<; 375 p.
Guralnik, D. (1982). Webster's New World Dictionary: Second College Edition. New York, Simon
and Schuster.
Handegord, G. (1982). "Air Leakage, Ventilation, and Moisture Control in Buildings" in Moisture
Harrje, D. (1994). "Effect of Air Infiltration and Ventilation" in Moisture Control in Buildings.
ASTM Manual Series: MNL 18; Philadelphia, PA; 185-194.
Holladay, M. (2000). "Choosing a Sheathing Wrap." Journal of Light Constniction, ^S{^^),7987.
Holladay, M. and Vara, J. (2000). "More Housewrap Performance Tests." Journal of Light
Constmction, 18(5), 13,16.
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2001). "3280.504 Condensation Control and
Installation of Vapor Retarders." U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's
Homes and Communities website at
http://www.hud.gov:80/offices/cpd/energvenviron/energv/lawsandregs/regs/subpartf/3205
04.cfm. accessed on 3 Jun 03.
Retarders." ICAP; Alexandria VA. Obtained from www.toolbase.org. accessed 3 Jun 03.
International Code Council. (2000). Intemational Residential Code: For One and Two Familv
Dwellings. International Code Council; Falls Church VA; 566 p.
James, M. (2000). "Don't Staple Tyvek." Home Energy, 17(5), 8.
Johnson, R. (1982). "Residential Moisture Conditions - Facts and Experiences" in Moisture
Constmction, 11(11), 13-17.
Karagiozis, A. (2002). "Impact of Air Leakage on Thermal and Moisture Perfomriance of the
Building Envelope" from www.ornl.gov/librarv/. accessed on 28 May 03.
Krogstad, N. and Weber, R. (1999). "Evaluation of Moisture Problems in Exterior Wall
Assemblies" in Water Problems in Building Exterior Walls: Evaluation. Prevention, and
Kumaran, M., Mitalas, G., and Bomberg, M. (1994). "Fundamentals of Transport and Storage of
Moisture in Building Material and Componerrts" in Moisture Control in BuikJings. ASTTVI
Manual Series: MNL 18; Philadelphia, PA; 3-17.
Letter and response in "On the House". (2000). "Ceiling Vapor Barrier-Yes or No?" Journal of
Light Construction, 18(5), 21,23,24.
227

June 03.
Lstiburek, J. (2000). Builder's Guide to l\/1ixed Climates: Details for Design and Construction.
Lstiburek, J. and Carmody, J. (1994). "l\/loisture Control for New Residential Construction" in
Moisture Control in Buildings. ASTM Manual Series: MNL 18; Philadelphia, PA; 321-347.
Lstiburek, J. and Carmody, J. (1991). Moisture Control Handbook: New, low rise residential
33-38.
Manufactured Housing Research Alliance. (2003). "Alternatives for Minimizing Moisture
Problems in Homes Located in Hot, Humid Climates: Interim Report." Prepared for U.S.
Department of Housing and Uriian Development, Affordable Housing Research and
Technology Division from www.huduser.org/publications/destech/moisture problem,
accessed on 3, Jun 03.
McDaniel, P. (2000). "Wrapping the House: Dos and Don'ts - Install it right, and housewrap
works well to keep water out; lap it wrong and you are better off without it." Journal of
U^t Construction. 18(6), 71-78.
McGinley, W. and van der Hoeven, R. (1999). "Envelope Analysis of Exterior Load Bearing
Single-Wythe Partially Reinforced Hollow Clay Masonry Wall Systems for Residential
Applications" in Water Problems in Building Exterior Walls: Evaluation. Prevention, and
O'Connor, T. and Johnson, P. (1995). "Stop that Water Vapor." Progressive Architecture.
76(12), 86-89.
Quiroutte, R. (1991). "Air and Vapor Barriers." Progressive Architecture. 72(9), 45-51.
Ramsey, C and Sleeper, H. (1992). Constnxôn Details from Architectural Graphic Standards.
Eiaht Edition. ecSted bv James Ambrose. New York, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Rogers, S. (1964). Thermal Design of Buildings. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.; New York; 196 p.
Rousseau, M. (1990). "Air Barriers and Vapor Barriers: Are they of any use in low-slope roofs."
Progressive Architecture. 71(7), 137-143.
Schroter, E. and Klein, K. (1999). "Considerations for Waterproofing of Wood-Framed Buildings"
in Water Problems in Building Exterior Walls: Evaluation. Prevention, and Repair. ASTM
STP 1352; West Conshohocken PA; 296-302.
Schuller, M, van der Hoeven, R., and Thomson, M. (1999). "Comparative Investigation of Plastic
Properties and Water Permeance of Cement-Lime Mortars and Cement-Lime
Replacement Mortars" in Water Problems in Building Exterior Walls: Evaluation,
Prevention, and Repair. ASTM STP 1352; West Conshohocken PA; 145-158.
Shenwood, G. and Moody, R. (1989). Light-Frame Wall and Floor Systems: Analysis and
Perfomriance. General Technical Report, FLP-GTR-59; U.S. Department of Agriculture,
228
Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory; Madison Wl; 162 p. Obtained fronn
www.nahbrc.orq. accessed 3 Jun 03.
Shirtfiffe, C. (1994). "A Conceptual System of IVIoisture Performance Analysis" in Moisture
Control in Buildings. ASTM Manual Series: MNL 18; Philadelphia, PA; 453-461.
Spence, W. (1998). Construction Materials. Methods, and Techniques. Delmar Publications;
NewYork;1195p.
Stein B. and Reynolds, J. (1992). Mechanical and Electrical Equipment for Buildings: 8th
Edition. John VWley and Sons, Inc.; New York; 1627 p.
Straube, J. (1998). "Moisture Control and Enclosure Wall Systems", Thesis for Dissertation from
the University of Waterloo; Waterloo, Ontario, Canada; 408 p.
Straube, J. (2001). "Rain Control Primer: Principles of Rain Control for Enclosure Design", fi-om
Straube, J. (2001). "The Influence of Low-Permeance Vapor Barriers on Roof and Wall
Performance." Conference Paper presented at Proceedings of Thermal Performance of
Building Envelopes VIII, Clearwater Beach, FL, 2-7 Dec 01.
httD://www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/beg/Downloads/ASHRAE%20Journal%20Jan%202002%20
Moisture.pdf. accessed on 31 Oct 02.
Straube, J. (2002). "Principles of Rain Control for Enclosure Design" from
Straube, J. (2002). "Vapor Barriers - Where and when do you need them?"
Straube, J. and Burnett, E. (1999). "A Review of Rain Control and Design Strategies." Journal of
Thermal Insulation and Building Envelopes, July 1999, 41 -56.
http://www.buildinqsolutions.ca/Download%20Solutions.html. accessed on 31 Oct 02.
Suprenant, B. (1994). "Sub-Slab Vapor Barriers." Journal of Light Construction,'[2{B),Z7-ZQ.
Ten Wolde, A. (1994). "Design Tools" in Moisture Control in Buildinqs. ASTM Manual Series:
MNL 18; Philadelphia, PA; 208-215.
Tobiasson, W. (1994). "General Considerations for Roofs" in Moisture Control in Buildinqs.
ASTM Manual Series: MNL 18; Philadelphia, PA; 291-320.
in Moisture Migration in Buildinqs. ASTM STP 779; Philadelphia PA; 148-159.
Tye, R. (1994). "Relevant Moisture Properties of Building Construction Materials" in Moisture
Control in Buildinqs. ASTM Manual Series: MNL 18; Philadelphia, PA; 35-53.
U.S. Forest Service. (1949). Condensation Control: in dwellinq construction by Forest Products
229
Wettemian, T. (1982). "Control of Moisture Migration in Light Frame Walls" in Moisture Migration
in Buildings. ASTM STP 779; Philadelphia PA; 102-109.
Wilson, M. (1999). "Common 'Unique' Cavity Wall Flashing Problems: Mistakes Frequently
Made, Their Resolution, and Presentations from Case Histories" in Water Problenns in
Building Exterior Walls: Evaluation. Prevention, and Repair. ASTM STP 1352; West
Conshohocken PA; 240-252.
WUFI. (2003). WUFI: Warme-und Feuchteransport instationar (Transient Heat and Moisture
TN; obtained from www.ornl.gov/ORNL/BTC/moisture/, and accessed on 1 Sep 03.
230

Ada 419415

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Ada 419415

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Form Approved

0MB No. 0704-0188

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave b/ank)

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

"VAPOR BARRIERS IN RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION: WHEN, WHERE,

CAPT FRAILIE DERON L

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNICAL INSTITUTE

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

12a. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for Public Release

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

14. SUBJECT TERMS

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239.18

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF

VAPOR BARRIERS IN RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION: WHEN, WHERE,

Project and Report

1.0 Literature Review for Vapor Barriers in Residential Construction Applications

1.2 Keywords and Definitions

1.3 Review of Literature

1.5 References Cited

2.0 The Code Recommendations for Vapor barrier implementation in Residential

2.2 Standards defined by ASTM

2.3 CABO and ICC Code Summaries

2.4 What the codes should say...foundation, wail, and ceiling/roof

2.6 References Cited

3.0 WUFI Data Results Summary

3.1 Background of Software Program, Initial Assumptions, and Limitations

3.2 Model Development and Data Interpretations

3.4 References Cited

4.0 Summary and Conclusions

4.3 Summary of Lessons Learned

4.4 References Cited

Appendix 1 - New Orleans Test Data

Appendix 2 - Minneapolis Test Data

Appendix 3 - Roanoke Test Data

(ASTM) for the design of building

The principle of restricting air-transported moisture has

1. "Control airflow and thereby control

Caution should be taken when renovating or updating

residences/structures to prevent redundancy.

Summary of Lessons Learned from the Review of Literature

It is recommended that no vapor bamer be

However, if this wall system is utilized in this climate

Any and all penetrations should be patched or sealed. QA/QC

These walls can be expected to maintain higher

Vapor barrier standards defined by ASTiVI

Design for reversible flow

The ASTM standards provide design solutions/recommendations to

CABO and ICC Code Summaries

The information that is presented in Table 4 has

referenced when designing or constructing a

Table 4, Adapted from information from ICC (2000):

Detail Specifics for Foundations, Walls, and Roofs

seen in Figures 1 and 2.

j. p6|tjTieTS3 ptwtJ Pipe

Figure 1, Adapted standard slab-on-grade and basement detail

manner as an air barrier