Civil Engineering Department, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1

Understanding Vapour Permeance and Condensation in

Wall Assemblies: Phase II
Results from Extension of Above-Grade Wall Testing
John Straube, Associate Professor and BEG Director

Introduction
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) funded a large research project
entitled Understanding Vapor Permeance and Condensation in Wall Assemblies. This
project was carried out by Halsall Associates in partnership with the Building Engineering
Group at the University of Waterloo. A final report dated May 2007, was submitted.
The research project focused on the impacts of cold-weather condensation on exterior
sheathing when no vapour barrier was used, and the impact of warm-weather condensation
on the vapour barrier when poly was used. In all cases, a functional air barrier system was
provided, as this is required in all conditioned buildings, and is critical in enclosures subject
to challenging environments.
A small extension to the project was funded to allow the same above grade walls to be tested
for another year with two changes:
1. a vapor barrier paint was added to investigate its impact on cold-weather condensation in
the two walls which used latex paint finish as the vapor control layer in Phase I, and
2. a significant increase in ventilation potential was added to the brickwork of the wall which
used a low-permeance interior vapor barrier to investigate the ability of increased cladding
ventilation to reduce the impact of warm-weather inward vapor drive condensation.
This report briefly reviews the experimental set-up (fully described in the previous project
report), documents the changes to the walls, and reports and discusses the new results.

Methodology
Three types of full-scale walls (north and south duplicates; six walls total) were installed in
the University of Waterloos BEGHut exposure facility. Figure 1 and Table 1 describe the
wall assemblies chosen to review the impact of: different vapour control layers, insulating
sheathing, and wall orientation. In Phase I, the paint vapor retarder was a standard primer
plus latex paint. In Phase II, the paint vapor control layer was a vapor retarding paint,
intended to act as a vapor barrier.

Page 1 of 25

University of Waterloo

Figure 1: Simplified Test Wall Sections

The interior of the hut was maintained at 50% relative humidity and 20 to 21 C
year round. This is a high and dangerous interior relative humidity for winter conditions (it
will result in extensive and persistent condensation on double-glazed windows), and was
designed to cause significant outward wintertime diffusion wetting. The interior temperature
is lower than most air-conditioned residential applications in summer (by 2 to 4 C), and this
is intended to increase the duration and severity of inward flows and summer condensation
problems. Drying of accidental moisture leaks was not considered.
Table 1: Above-grade wall assemblies
Layer
Interior finish
Vapour control layer
Framing/insulation
Sheathing
Water resistive
barrier
Drainage cavity
Cladding

wall 1: 2x6 with 6 mil

polyethylene (S/N-3)
!"/12.7 mm gypsum
wallboard w. latex paint
6 mil polyethylene
2x6 16" o.c. with R20/RSI-3.5 fibreglass batt
!"/12.7 mm OSB

Wall 2: 2x6 paint w/o

polyethylene (S/N-2)
!"/12.7 mm gypsum
wallboard w. latex paint
None
2x6 16" o.c. with R20/RSI-3.5 fibreglass batt
!"/12.7 mm OSB

Spun-bonded polyolefin
(SBPO) housewrap
1"/25 mm space;
bottom vents only
Single wythe brick veneer

Spun-bonded polyolefin
(SBPO) housewrap
1"/25 mm space;
bottom vents only
Single wythe brick veneer

Wall 3: 2x4 w/XPS, w/o

polyethylene (S/N-1)
!"/12.7 mm gypsum
wallboard w. latex paint
None
2x4 16" o.c. with R12/RSI-2.1 fibreglass batt
1"/25 mm extrduded
polystyrene R-5/RSI 0.9
Spun-bonded polyolefin
(SBPO) housewrap
1"/25 mm space;
bottom vents only
Single wythe brick veneer

The walls were extensively instrumented with temperature, relative humidity (RH) and
moisture content sensors (MC) following the methods outlined in Straube et al (2002). In
addition, the moisture content of a small wafer of wood was used to indicate the presence
and severity of condensation at non-hygroscopic surfaces such as at the poly-fibreglass, and
fiberglass-foam interfaces. Interior and exterior test hut conditions are also measured,
including temperatures, relative humidity, wind speed & direction, horizontal solar radiation,
and rainfall. The same sensor layout was used in all walls, in order to allow direct
comparisons between the walls. All sensors were installed at the vertical centerline of the
wall, as shown in Figures 2 and 3. The wall specimens and instrumentation are described in
more detail in Appendix B.

Building Engineering Group

Page 2 of 25

University of Waterloo

Figure 2: Typical Wall Instrumentation

Building Engineering Group

Page 3 of 25

University of Waterloo

Figure 3: Sensor Locations at Wall Midpoint

Phase II Specimen Changes

Two changes were made to the test walls in November 2006: the addition of a vapor barrier
paint to the interior of the non-poly wall (Walls #2, and #3) and the addition of top vent
openings in all walls. Other changes were explicitly avoided.
Paint

The walls were painted with Rodda Paint Vapor Block (see Figure 4) over the original primer
and paint. This product is specified by the manufacturer as a styrene butadiene interior latex
moisture vapor barrier coating. The specifications can be found in Appendix A.
The paint was applied with a roller (Figure 5). The paint tray and roller were measured
before and after painting, to determine the net amount of paint deposited on the wall. At
the density stated in specifications of 10.8 lbs. per gallon, the coverage of the first coat
calculated out to 540 sf/gallon. Since this was a thinner single coat than covered in the
specifications (see table below), a thin second coat was applied, at 1260 sf/gallon. The two
coats, summed, would give a coverage rate of 380 sf/gallon. Extrapolating from the data
below, this should provide a perm rating in the 0.75-0.90 US perm range, or 43-51
ng/(s!m2!Pa). This data is plotted in Figure 6.

Building Engineering Group

Page 4 of 25

University of Waterloo

Figure 4: Photograph of the Vapor Barrier Primer

Figure 5: Application of Vapor Barrier Paint by Roller

Building Engineering Group

Page 5 of 25

University of Waterloo

Figure 6: Vapor Permeance Properties of Rodda Vapor Block

The data provided by the manufacturer is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Rodda Vapor Block Permeance versus Application Rate and Coats
One Coat @ 320 sf/gallon = .68 Perm Rating
One Coat @ 210 sf/gallon = .50 Perm Rating
One Coat @ 160 sf/gallon = .42 Perm Rating

Two coats @ 640 sf/gallon = .55 Perm Rating

Two coats @ 425 sf/gallon = .50 Perm Rating
Two coats @ 320 sf/gallon = .30 Perm Rating

Vapor permeance tests were conducted of painted drywall samples taken from the test walls.
The dry cup test method of ASTM E96 was chosen (<3% RH on one side, and 50%RH on
the other) as this most accurately represents the conditions experienced by these walls in
cold weather conditions. Wet-cup tests also often result in mold damage to the paper facings
of the drywall. The results of the tests (shown as weight gain over time) are plotted in Figure
7.
From the slope of the data, the permeance values for the Rodda Block vapor barrier paint
samples can be calculated to be in the range 50-100 ng/(s!m2!Pa) or 0.9 to 1.75 US Perms.
This is slightly higher than the predicted permeance based on the manufacturers published
data. It is also slightly greater than the Part 9, National Building Code of Canada 60 ng/Pa s
m2 value (1 US Perm).
The latex primer plus paint coating returned permeance values of 400-600 ng/(s!m2!Pa), or
7-11 US Perms. These figures can be compared to the 150-200 ng/(Pa!s!m2) (2.6-3.5 perm)
dry cup values stated in the literature for latex primed and painted drywall (Kumaran 2002).
Building Engineering Group

Page 6 of 25

University of Waterloo

Figure 7: Measured dry cup permeance of painted drywall samples

(S1/N1=Rodda Block paint, S2/S3/N2/N3= latex paint)

In summary, the application of the vapor retarding coating reduced the dry cup vapour
permeance by a factor of 6 to 8, and thus reduced the permeance to a range that extends just
above the standard definition of a vapor barrier (that is, 60 metric perms/ 1 US perm).
Ventilation

In the first phase, open head joints were installed in the base of all of the brick veneers at
600 mm on center (i.e., 2 vents per 1.2 m wide test panel). These open head joints were then
partially blocked by installing an insect screen that has been previously tested and shown to
reduce airflow by a factor of more than 10.
In the second phase, the venting of Wall #1 on both orientations was modified on Nov 26,
2006. The head joints in the top of this wall were opened and the vent screens were removed
to significantly increase the potential for ventilation flow after this date.

Building Engineering Group

Page 7 of 25

University of Waterloo

Figure 8: Bottom drain/vent screen used for Walls#2 &3 for all phases

Figure 9: Open drain/vent Wall #1 in Phase II

Building Engineering Group

Page 8 of 25

University of Waterloo

Results
Weather Conditions
The winters of 05-06 (Phase I) and 06-07 (Phase II) were quite similar. The average outdoor
temperature during the period Nov 1 through Mar 31 in Phase I was -1.38 C, whereas the
same period was slightly colder (-1.68 C) in Phase II. The average daily average, high, and
low temperatures for 2006 were all higher than in 2007. Precipitation in 2007 was
significantly below average (at 677.9 mm), and below 2006 (1076.6 mm).
The weather conditions experience by the walls during the winter period therefore are
almost the same in Phase I and Phase II, with Phase II being very slightly colder. The
summer conditions in 2006 were wetter and slightly warmer, particularly in the spring and
fall.
Wall Performance
The wall performance metrics of most interest are the moisture contents of the interior of
the OSB (the cold weather condensation plane) and the outside of the vapor barrier layer
(warm weather condensation plane).
The average sheathing moisture content (measured by electrical resistance, and not corrected
for OSB species) is plotted in Figure 10 below. The moisture content of the OSB sheathing
in Wall #2 (vapor retarding paint / OSB) is strictly controlled (to below 15%) in all walls, to
a level below even that of Wall #1 (poly, OSB) in it original unventilated state. When
comparing Wall #1 (poly/OSB wall) with well-ventilated cladding to Wall #2 (vapor
retarding paint / OSB), the performance is similar but with a slight summer-time advantage
to the well-ventilated Wall #1. This similar performance is likely due to the fact that in the
well-ventilated wall (#1) drying to the outside is encouraged whereas in the vapor retarder
paint wall (#2), drying to the inside is encouraged.
Phase I of this project used computer modeling to predict this outcome, and further
indicated that vapor diffusion wetting could be controlled by a 60 ng/Pa s m2 paint coating
for even cold climates under normal interior housing relative humidity conditions. The
modeling also showed that in colder climates the lower cooling loads reduced the risk of
inward drives and hence adding cavity ventilation in colder climates is generally not required.

Building Engineering Group

Page 9 of 25

University of Waterloo

Figure 10: Daily Average Sheathing Moisture Content

The MC values for Wall #3 are the measurements of very small wood moisture wafers, as
there is no hygroscopic (moisture absorbent) sheathing in this wall design. For these sensors,
moisture contents in the range of 25-30% indicates incipient condensation, and a value of
over 30% represents the high probability of numerous hours of consecutive condensation
(Ueno & Straube 2008).
To assess the potential for summer condensation, the dewpoint temperature of the
studspace air can be compared to the temperature of the vapor barrier. The interior Beghut
temperature (about 1 C cooler than the exterior of the drywall) is plotted along with the
studspace dewpoint temperature for all six walls in Figure 11. It can be seen that during the
first phase both of the Wall 1 samples (poly) exhibited a significant number of hours with
the studspace dewpoint above the interior temperature. The south-facing Wall#1 RH sensor
stopped working for the peak hours of 2006. However, during the opening of the walls and
visual inspection, the south-facing Wall 1 (Panel Slot S3) was found to be wet, experiencing
condensation, and exhibited staining and mold growth.

Building Engineering Group

Page 10 of 25

University of Waterloo

Figure 11: Daily Average Studspace Dewpoint Temperature

The plot of wafer moisture content at the warm-weather condensation plane (Figure 12) is
much more enlightening and representative of what was observed in the first phase. During
Phase I, Wall#1 (polyethylene and R19 batt) exhibited condensation on the polyethylene
sheet for several months. The north-facing orientation was less severe and condensation
lasted for less than one month because of less solar heating on the north side than the south.

Building Engineering Group

Page 11 of 25

University of Waterloo

Figure 12: Wood Wafer Moisture Content at Exterior of Drywall

During phase II, the plot clearly shows that adding vent openings at the top of the wall and
reducing vent opening obstruction (along with a clear ventilation cavity) provided acceptable
control of inward vapor drives, essentially eliminating warm-weather condensation. The
application of vapor barrier paint to the poorly ventilated base walls slightly increased the
moisture content of the wafer in both Wall#2 samples and even had a slight effect on the
south-facing Wall #3 (panel slot N1). This provides evidence that the vapor barrier paints
increase the risk of warm weather accumulation in the drywall, but this risk is manageable
even under the demanding conditions of this experiment.

Conclusions
It is clear from the data that both factors changed in Phase II resulted in a significant
beneficial effect.
The application of the 50-100 ng/s!m2!Pa (0.9 to 1.75 US Perms) vapor retarding paint layer,
while not of very low permeance, was sufficient to completely control cold weather
sheathing moisture content due to diffusion even under the challenging 50%RH interior
Building Engineering Group

Page 12 of 25

University of Waterloo

conditions. There was a slight increase in moisture levels at the drywall during summer
inward vapor drive conditions, but there was no evidence of condensation or liquid water
wetting.
The provision of a significant increase in ventilation rate through the cavity behind the
veneer of the 2x6 wall with a polyethylene sheet vapor barrier essentially controlled warmweather inward vapor drive wetting. This required open brick head joints (no insect screens)
at the top and bottom of a relatively clear cavity.
This extension of the original research project has provided valuable information:
1. Providing a vapor resisting layer of around, or slightly more than, 60 ng/s!m2!Pa (1
US perm) can safely control vapor diffusion in a typical framed wall even with a high
interior humidity level in a 4500 HDD climate. Computer simulations in Phase I
predicted this outcome for even cold climates under normal interior housing relative
humidity conditions.
2. Providing a significant, but practically achievable, amount of natural ventilation
behind a moisture absorbent cladding such as brick can control summer
condensation on walls with interior low permeance vapor barriers otherwise at risk.

Acknowledgements
Numerous students participated in this multi-year study. Kohta Ueno, M.A.Sc. provided the
bulk of the experimental set-up and analysis. Rachel Smith took over parts of the project and
conducted the vapor permeance tests. Nicolas Bronsema deserves thanks for looking after
data collection and Beghut operation during Phase II. Chris Black and Chris Schumacher
volunteered their time during panel construction and instrumentation.
David DeRose and James Wilkinson provided oversight to the program, and ensured we did
not stray from the proper course.
Don Fugler, of CMHC has been a helpful project manager, and we thank him for trusting
our vision of the work.

References
Understanding Vapour Permeance and Condensation in Wall Assemblies, Final Report for CMHC,
Halsall Associates and Building Engineering Group University of Waterloo, May 2007.
Kumaran, M.K. et. al. 2002. NRC-IRC (Institute for Research in Construction) A Thermal
and Moisture Transport Property Database for Common Building and Insulating Materials,
Final Report from ASHRAE Research Project 1018-RP, Ottawa, Ont.: National Research
Council of Canada.

Building Engineering Group

Page 13 of 25

University of Waterloo

Straube, J., Onysko, D., and Schumacher, C. 2002. "Methodology and Design of Field
Experiments for Monitoring the Hygrothermal Performance of Wood Frame Enclosures," J.
of Thermal Env. & Bldg. Sci., Vol.26, No.2. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Ueno, K., Straube J., !Laboratory Calibration and Field Results of Wood Resistance
Humidity Sensors" Building for Energy Efficiency and Durability at the Crossroads Conference
Proceedings: Bugs Mold And Rot IV, June 2008.

Building Engineering Group

Page 14 of 25

University of Waterloo

Appendix A: Paint Data

Building Engineering Group

Page 15 of 25

University of Waterloo

Appendix B: Specimen Details

The three above-grade assembly types (north and south duplicates; 6 walls total) were
installed in the University of Waterloos test hut, the Beghut. Illustrations of the test hut and
removable panel slots are shown.

Plan view of BEGHut, showing orientation and

removal panel locations

Opening details for removable panels

Wall sensors measure temperature, relative humidity, and wood moisture content; in
addition, interior and exterior conditions at the test hut were measured, including
temperatures, relative humidities, wind speed & direction, solar radiation, and rainfall. The
same sensor layout was used in all walls (as much as possible), in order to allow direct
comparisons between the walls. All sensors shown in the following diagrams are to be
installed at the vertical centerline of the wall; a section at this plane is used to show sensor
placement.
The sensor layouts are shown in the drawings below.

Building Engineering Group

Page 16 of 25

University of Waterloo

Above Grade Assembly 1 (2x6 w. polyethylene)

Building Engineering Group

Page 17 of 25

University of Waterloo

Above Grade Assembly 2 (2x6, no polyethylene)

Building Engineering Group

Page 18 of 25

University of Waterloo

Above Grade Assembly 3 (2x4, XPS sheathing)

Building Engineering Group

Page 19 of 25

University of Waterloo

The placement and choice of sensors warrant explanation; it is broken down by wall
component, moving from the exterior of the wall to the interior

Brick temperatures are measured at the inboard and outboard faces; sensors will be
embedded in the brickwork. The inboard brick face temperature influence
ventilation flows and cavity temperatures.

Airspace conditions are measured with both a temperature/relative humidity sensor

and a moisture content block (similar to a Duff gauge); sensors will hang in the open
airspace.

Sheathing moisture content and temperature are measured; in the insulating foam
sheathing wall, only the sheathing surface temperature will be measured. Sheathing
moisture content reflects drives and gradients across the assembly; temperature is
used to correct the moisture content measurement.

Stud space temperature and relative humidity are measured at two locations (midheight and low); redundant sensors are used for these important measurements
typically used to characterize walls against each other. The sensor will be placed
mid-thickness in the insulation batt.

Stud and sill plate moisture content and temperatures are measured at the inboard
and outboard sides (approximately 3/8 from the faces); these measurements reveal
moisture drives towards the interior or exterior of the assembly.

At the interface between the vapor barrier (or exterior side of the drywall) and the
stud bay cavity, two sensors are installed: a temperature sensor, and a moisture
content block. The temperature sensor can be used, for instance, to compute the
relative humidity at the vapor barrier, given the dewpoint of the stud space (from the
T/RH sensor). The moisture content block can be used to estimate moisture
accumulation (or lack thereof) at the vapor barrier interface.

Note that these figures do not include flashing or airsealing details: they are meant as a
schematic representation of the wall assemblies. Building Engineering Group has developed
details for flashing of test panels, airsealing at joints, airsealing at instrumentation wiring
penetrations, and hygrothermal isolation of panels that will be implemented in this research.

Building Engineering Group

Page 20 of 25

University of Waterloo

Photograph of South Oriented Test Panels Installed: Walls#1-3 are on the right

Installation of Brickwork

Building Engineering Group

Page 21 of 25

University of Waterloo

Relative Humidity Sensor Installed at Mid-height Behind Brickwork

Building Engineering Group

Page 22 of 25

University of Waterloo

Full Complement of Studspace Sensors Installed: Note the outboard wood wafer moisture
sensor installed against the foam sheathing and the inboard temperature and wood wafer
sensors awaiting installation of batt and drywall

Building Engineering Group

Page 23 of 25

University of Waterloo

Building Engineering Group

Page 24 of 25

University of Waterloo

Building Engineering Group

Page 25 of 25