Technical Updates

Posts Tagged ‘building envelopes’

With the widespread use of mold-prone, porous sheathing materials (such as exterior gypsum sheathing), the selection of the waterproofing membrane in the drainage plane and its interface with the flashing requires more careful thought. Breaches in the waterproofing layer can easily result in wetting, degradation, and mold growth on the sheathing and other wall materials, including the interior drywall.

Failures of exterior insulation and finish systems (EIFS) installed in the 1980s and 1990s have been widely reported. The early uses of this European system in the United States often failed because they relied entirely on the primary weather barrier of the synthetic stucco. When this stucco failed, often where it joined other building components such as windows, water penetrating behind the insulation could not drain out. The porous sheathing materials (most likely gypsum or oriented strand board [OSB]) absorbed the water, degraded, and failed. Newer EIFS designs require drainage planes in the wall system, which reduce the likelihood of such water drainage problems.

To control air and moisture flow through the wall, any air barrier or vapor retarder must have the proper air resistance or moisture permeability and must be installed at the correct location within the walls. The presence of multiple vapor retarders within a wall system is a common problem, and many architects do not recognize that common construction materials act as effective barriers. For example, exterior grade plywood is a relatively low-permeability material that can function as a vapor retarder.

Condensation tends to occur where cool surfaces meet warm, moist air. If moisture-laden outside air is retarded before it meets the first cool surface inside the building envelope (often called the “first plane of condensation”), then few problems will result. If this moisture is allowed to further enter a wall system, it will condense. That is when moisture and microbial growth problems threaten. If the cool surfaces and moist air meet within the occupied space, then moisture problems can occur throughout the building, resulting in widespread mold odors and complaints from occupants.

To be continued…

Comparing the latent and sensible loads for several major cities in different geographic regions (Peart and Cook 1994) helps illustrate the new definition. A study was done showing the monthly average latent and sensible loads from outside air for Orlando, Florida; Atlanta, Georgia; and Columbus, Ohio. During the cooling season in Orlando, the latent load far exceeds the sensible load of outside air. The effect of these conditions, which occur for more than half a year, is that any outside air drawn into the building envelope or occupied space will likely cause moisture accumulation and microbial growth problems. Furthermore, because this outside air is used for ventilating the building’s occupied spaces, it presents a huge dehumidification challenge for the makeup air system. Clearly, under these conditions, Orlando is highly susceptible to moisture intrusion problems.

Atlanta was shown to be less susceptible to moisture intrusion problems than Orlando because, on average, the difference between sensible and latent load is small, particularly during the peak cooling months. Standard AC systems have a better chance of accounting for the latent load in Atlanta than in Orlando. Nevertheless, the latent load in Atlanta represents enough of a moisture accumulation risk that it belongs within the upper boundary of the humid zone. However, according to the ASHRAE-defined humid zone, Atlanta is outside the critical zone for humid conditions.

When looking at Columbus, the latent load from outside air is consistently less than the sensible load. The reversal of the load relationship explains why buildings in Columbus are not likely to develop moisture-related problems from outside air intrusion, because any outside air that infiltrates into buildings in Columbus will be adequately dehumidified before it is cooled.

The new definition also explains why, in certain areas of the country, building commissioning procedures are more critical than in others. For example, if the building exhaust systems are started before the AC and makeup air systems, as is typical, huge amounts of moisture may infiltrate the building, depending on the outdoor conditions.

In applying the new humid climate definition, however, two qualifications must be made:

• The definition is based on average climatological data. At certain times during the summer, the latent load of outside air can exceed the sensible load to a much greater extent than was reflected in the study. Such episodes of extreme high moisture entering the building can cause problems despite seemingly safe average conditions and must be considered in problem prevention.
• If the building envelope has an improperly located vapor retarder, moisture accumulation problems can occur, even if a favorable sensible/latent load relationship exists. Condensed moisture behind the vapor retarder will never reach the AC system for proper dehumidification but will accumulate in the wall system. Thus, architectural aspects of the building work in conjunction with outside conditions to create problems.

To be continued…