U Factor

This file is licensed to Rabee Taleb (rabee_t@hotmail.com).
Publication Date: 6/1/2013
Related Commercial Resources

CHAPTER 26
HEAT, AIR, AND MOISTURE CONTROL IN BUILDING

ASSEMBLIES—MATERIAL PROPERTIES
INSULATION MATERIALS AND INSULATING Surface Emissivity and Emittance Data................................. 26.12
SYSTEMS.............................................................................. 26.1 Thermal Resistance of Plane Air Spaces ............................... 26.12
Apparent Thermal Conductivity............................................... 26.1 Air Permeance Data ............................................................... 26.12
AIR BARRIERS ........................................................................ 26.5 Moisture Storage Data ........................................................... 26.15
WATER VAPOR RETARDERS ................................................. 26.6 Soils Data ............................................................................... 26.18
DATA TABLES ......................................................................... 26.7 SURFACE FILM COEFFICIENTS/RESISTANCES............... 26.20
Thermal Property Data ............................................................ 26.7 Codes and Standards.............................................................. 26.20
T HIS chapter contains material property data related to the

thermal, air, and moisture performance of building assemblies.
The information can be used in simplified calculation methods as
ASTM Standard C168 defines terms related to thermal insulating
materials.
applied in Chapter 27, or in software-based methods for transient APPARENT THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY
solutions. Heat transfer under steady-state and transient conditions
Licensed for single user. © 2013 ASHRAE, Inc.
The primary property of a thermal insulation material is a low

is covered in Chapter 4, and Chapter 25 discusses combined heat/air/
apparent thermal conductivity, though selection of the appropriate
moisture transport in building assemblies. For information on ther-
material for a given application also involves consideration of the
mal insulation for mechanical systems, see Chapter 23. For informa-
other performance characteristics mentioned previously.
tion on insulation materials used in cryogenic or low-temperature
Thermal conductivity (symbol k,  in Europe) is a property of a
applications, see Chapter 47 of the 2010 ASHRAE Handbook—
homogeneous, nonporous material. Thermal insulation materials are
Refrigeration. For properties of materials not typically used in build-
highly porous, however, with porosities typically exceeding 90%. As
ing construction, see Chapter 33 of this volume.
a consequence, heat transmission involves conduction in the solid
Density and thermal properties such as thermal conductivity,
matrix but mainly gas conduction and radiation in the pores (even
thermal resistance, specific heat capacity, and emissivity for long-
convection can occur in larger pores). This is why the term apparent
wave radiation are provided for a wide range of building materials,
thermal conductivity is used. That property is affected by structural
insulating materials, and insulating systems. Air and moisture prop-
parameters such as density, matrix type (fibrous or cellular), and
erties (e.g., air permeance, water vapor permeance or permeability,
thickness. Each sample of a given insulation material has a unique
capillary water-absorption coefficients, sorption isotherms) are
value of apparent thermal conductivity for a particular combination
given for several materials.
of temperature, temperature difference, moisture content, thickness,
Data are also provided on soil thermal conductivity, air cavity and age; that value is not representative for other conditions. For
resistances, and surface film coefficients, because these are also more details, refer to ASTM Standards C168, C177, C335, C518,
important factors in performance of building assemblies. C1045, and C1363.
INSULATION MATERIALS AND Influencing Conditions

INSULATING SYSTEMS Density and Structure. Figure 1 illustrates the variation of the
apparent thermal conductivity with density at one mean temperature
The main purpose of using thermal insulation materials is to (i.e., 24°C) for a number of insulation materials used in building
reduce conductive, convective, and radiant heat flows. When prop- envelopes. For most mass-type insulations, there is a minimum that
erly applied in building envelopes, insulating materials do at least not only depends on the type and form of the material but also on
one of the following: temperature and direction of heat flow. For fibrous materials, the val-
ues of density at which the minimum occurs increase as the fiber
• Increase energy efficiency by reducing the building’s heat loss or diameter [or cell size; see Figure 2 (Lotz 1969)] and mean tempera-
gain ture increase.
• Control surface temperatures for occupant comfort Structural factors also include compaction and settling of insula-
• Help to control temperatures within an assembly, to reduce the tion, air permeability, type and amount of binder used, additives that
potential for condensation influence the bond or contact between fibers or particles, and type
• Modulate temperature fluctuations in unconditioned or partly con- and form of the radiation transfer inhibitor, if any. In cellular mate-
ditioned spaces rials, most factors that influence strength also control the apparent
thermal conductivity: size, shape, and orientation of cells, and thick-
Additional functions may be served, such as providing support ness of cell walls. As Figures 1 and 2 suggest, a specific combination
for a surface finish, impeding water vapor transmission and air leak- of cell size, density, and gas composition in those materials produces
age into or out of controlled spaces, reducing damage to structures optimum thermal conductivity.
from exposure to fire and freezing conditions, and providing better
Temperature. At most normal operating temperatures, the appar-
control of noise and vibration. These functions, of course, should be
ent thermal conductivity of insulating materials generally increases
consistent with the capabilities of the materials.
with temperature. The rate of change varies with material type and
density. Some materials, such as fluorocarbon-expanded, closed-cell
The preparation of this chapter is assigned to TC 4.4, Building Materials polyurethanes, have an inflection in the curve where the fluorocarbon
and Building Envelope Performance. changes phase from gas to liquid. The apparent thermal conductivity
26.1
Copyright © 2013, ASHRAE
This file is licensed to Rabee Taleb (rabee_t@hotmail.com). Publication Date: 6/1/2013
26.2 2013 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals (SI)
very low temperatures, however, some polymeric compounds may

undergo glass transition, which is characterized by a marked
increase in thermal conductivity. For urethanes and butyl-based
compounds, this occurs at approximately –40°C, but for silicones
the glass transition temperature is more in the range of –90°C,
which is not normally encountered in building applications. In any
case, decomposition, excessive linear shrinkage, softening, or other
effects limit the maximum suitable temperature for a material.
Moisture Content. The apparent thermal conductivity of insu-
lation materials increases with moisture content. If moisture con-
denses in the insulation, it not only reduces thermal resistance, but
it may also physically damage the system, because some insulation
materials deteriorate with exposure to water. Most materials would
be damaged if moisture were allowed to freeze in the material,
because water expands when it freezes. The increase in apparent
thermal conductivity depends on the material, temperature, mois-
ture content, and moisture distribution. Section A3 of the CIBSE
Guide A (CIBSE 2006) covers thermal properties of building struc-
tures affected by moisture.
Thickness. Radiant heat transfer in pores of some materials
increases the measured apparent thermal conductivity. For low-
density insulation (e.g., 5.5 kg/m3), the effect becomes more pro-
nounced with installed thickness (Pelanne 1979). The effect on
Fig. 1 Apparent Thermal Conductivity Versus Density of thermal resistance is small, even negligible for building applica-
Several Thermal Insulations Used as Building Insulations tions. No thickness effect is observed in foam insulation.
Age. As mentioned previously, most heat transfer in insulation
materials at temperatures encountered in buildings and outdoors
occurs by conduction through air or another gas in the pores (Lander
1955; Rowley et al. 1952; Simons 1955; Verschoor and Greebler
1952). In fact, heat transfer in dry insulation materials can be closely
approximated by combining gas conduction with conduction
through the matrix and radiation in the pores, each determined sep-
arately. If air in the pores of a cellular insulation material is replaced
by a gas with a different thermal conductivity, the apparent thermal
conductivity changes by an amount approximately equal to the dif-
ference between the thermal conductivity of air and the gas. For
example, replacing air with a fluorinated hydrocarbon (HFC) can
lower the apparent thermal conductivity by as much as 50%. Fluo-
rocarbon-expanded cellular plastic foams with a high proportion
(i.e., more than 90%) of closed cells retain the fluorocarbon for
extended periods of time. Newly produced, they have apparent ther-
mal conductivities of approximately 0.022 W/(m·K) at 24°C. This
value increases with time as air diffuses into the cells and the fluo-
rocarbon gas gradually dissolves in the polymer or diffuses out. Dif-
fusion rates and increase in apparent thermal conductivity depend
on several factors, including permeance of cell walls to the gases
involved, foam age, temperature, geometry of the insulation (thick-
ness), and integrity of the surface facing or covering provided. Bran-
dreth (1986) and Tye (1988) showed that aging of unfaced
polyurethane and polyisocyanurate is reasonably well understood
analytically and confirmed experimentally. The dominant parameters
for minimum aging are
Fig. 2 Variation of Apparent Thermal Conductivity with • Closed-cell content >90%, preferably >95%
Fiber Diameter and Density • Small, uniform cell diameter <<1 mm
(Lotz 1969) • Small anisotropy in cell structure
of a sample at one mean temperature (average of the two surface tem- • High density
peratures) only applies to the material at the particular thickness • Increased thickness
tested. Further testing is required to obtain values suitable for all • High initial pressure of fluorocarbon blowing agent in the cells
thicknesses. • Polymer highly resistant to gas diffusion and solubility
Insulating materials that allow a large percentage of heat transfer • Larger proportion of polymer evenly distributed in struts and win-
by radiation, such as low-density fibrous and cellular products, dows between cells
show the greatest change in apparent thermal conductivity with tem- • Low temperature
perature and surrounding surface emissivity. For laminated and spray-applied products, aging is further
The effect of temperature on structural integrity is unimportant reduced with higher-density polymer skins, or by well-adhered fac-
for most insulation materials in low-temperature applications. At ings and coverings with low gas and moisture permeance. An oxygen
Heat, Air, and Moisture Control in Building Assemblies—Material Properties 26.3
diffusion rate of less than 3.5 mm3/(m2·day) for a 25 m thick facing The thermal conductivity of glass fiber and mineral wool (see
is one criterion used by some industry organizations for manufac- Table 1) is lower for higher-density blankets. Glass and mineral fiber
turers of laminated products. Adhesion of the facing must be con- are very vapor permeable. The coefficient of thermal expansion is
tinuous, and every effort must be made during manufacturing to low for both materials, at ~7 × 10–6 K–1, and irreversible hygrother-
eliminate or minimize the shear plane layer at the foam/substrate mal deformation does not occur. The two are also very temperature
interface (Ostrogorsky and Glicksman 1986). resistant, although the binder may start evaporating above 250°C
Before 1987, chlorinated fluorocarbons were commonly used as and degrades above 600°C for glass fiber and above 850°C for min-
cell gas. Because of their high ozone-depleting potential, chlorofluo- eral wool (consequently, mineral wool is preferred for high-tem-
rocarbons (CFCs) were phased out during the 1990s in accordance perature applications). Both insulation materials are quite moisture
with the Montreal Protocol of 1987. Alternatives used today are flu- tolerant, although wet batts and blankets lose their shape, and the
orinated hydrocarbons, CO2, n-pentane, and c-pentane. stiffness and compression strength of some dense boards degrade
Closed-cell phenolic-type materials and products, which are when wet. Glass fibers slowly pulverize when exposed to a combi-
blown with similar gases, age differently and much more slowly be- nation of high temperature, moisture, and oxygen. Neither glass
cause of their closed-cell structure. fiber nor mineral wool burn, but binders can vaporize or burn as
Other Influences. Convection and air infiltration in or through temperature is increased. Also, most facing layers are flammable.
some insulation systems may increase heat transfer. Low-density, Glass fiber and mineral wool are widely used insulation materi-
loose-fill, large open-cell, and fibrous insulation, and poorly de- als. Applications range from low-slope roofs (dense boards) and
signed or installed reflective systems are the most susceptible. The pitched roofs (blankets, batts, and soft boards) to cavity fill (semi-
temperature difference across the insulation and the height and dense water-repellant boards), timber-frame insulation, exterior
width of the insulated space influence the amount of convection. In insulation finishing systems (EIFS) (dense boards), floor insulation
some cases, natural convection may be inherent to the system (Wil- (dense boards), and perimeter insulation (dense boards). Manufac-
kes and Childs 1992; Wilkes and Rucker 1983), but in many cases turers modify specific products for many applications, including
it is a consequence of careless design and/or construction of the in- boards with improved water-repellent properties for full-cavity fill
sulated structure (Donnelly et al. 1976). Gaps between board- and and boards with a dense upper layer for low-slope roofing.
batt-type insulations lower their effectiveness. Board-type insula- Cellulose Fiber. Cellulose fiber insulation (CFI) is manufac-
tion may not be perfectly square, may be installed improperly, and tured from recycled newsprint, cardboard, or other natural-fiber
may be applied to uneven surfaces. A 4% void area around batt in- mixtures, with the total recycled content generally greater than 80%
sulation can produce a 50% loss in effective thermal resistance for by mass. Fire-retardant formulations consist of various proportions
ceiling application with R = 3.4 (m2 ·K)/W (Verschoor 1977). Sim- of boric acid, ammonium sulfate, and lesser amounts (under 1% by
ilar and worse results have been obtained for wall configurations mass) of other chemicals added as corrosion inhibitors, pH modi-
(Brown et al. 1993; Hedlin 1985; Lecompte 1989; Lewis 1979; fiers, or dust controllers. Cellulose products are made for many
Rasmussen et al. 1993; Tye and Desjarlais 1981). As a solution, types of applications and are available in several forms: loose fill,
preformed joints in board-type insulation allow boards to fit to- spray applied, and premanufactured batts and boards. Loose fill is
gether without air gaps. Boards and batts can be installed in two pneumatically installed into horizontal spaces of commercial and
layers, with joints between layers offset and staggered. The pre- residential buildings. When installed dry, it settles to densities from
scriptive compliance path of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 provides ad- 24 to 40 kg/m3; a stabilized form of loose fill is installed with an
ditional guidance on proper installation of insulating materials, as adhesive together with a water mist to produce an insulation with
does Chapter 44 in the 2011 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Applica- minimal shrinkage and settling. Cellulose with an adhesive is
tions. installed with a water mist into open cavities of walls and floors, and
Measurement. Apparent thermal conductivity for insulation without an adhesive or water into closed cavities. Specialized CFI
materials and systems is obtained by the measuring methods listed fiber mixtures are also installed with liquid adhesive add-ons to pro-
in ASTM (2008). These methods apply mainly to laboratory mea- duce a self-supporting spray-applied insulation that is used for
surements of dried or conditioned samples at specific mean temper- exposed applications primarily in commercial buildings.
atures and temperature gradient conditions. Although fundamental Cellulose fibers gain and lose water from the environment just
heat transmission characteristics of a material or system can be like wood and many other building materials. The added chemicals
determined accurately, actual performance in a structure may vary tend to reduce the water absorbed per unit mass of insulation,
from laboratory results. Only field measurements can clarify the because the chemicals are not as hygroscopic. The cellulose fibers
differences. Field-test procedures continue to be developed. Enve- are also capillary active, and vapor permeability is high. The settling
lope design, construction, and material may all affect the procedure exhibited by low-density loose-fill cellulose is taken into account in
to be followed, as detailed in ASTM (1985a, 1985b, 1988, 1990, the coverage charts as required by law. Less densely packed prod-
1991). ucts that are wet-blown can exhibit shrinkage upon drying which is
also taken into account on coverage labels. Avoid environments that
Materials and Systems produce long-lasting moisture content above 20% (as a percentage
Glass Fiber and Mineral Wool. Glass fiber is produced using of dry mass), because these levels can lead to decay. Typical cellu-
recycled glass, whereas mineral wool uses diabase stone. Glass and lose fibers with fire retardant added are still combustible. Boric acid
stone are melted, after which a spinning head stretches the melt into and ammonium sulfate are not benign: exposure may cause respira-
fibers with diameter <10 µm. These fall through a spray of binder tory and skin irritation, and ingestion could induce gastrointestinal
onto a conveyor belt. The fiber blankets, batts, or boards pass a distress (e.g., nausea, persistent vomiting, abdominal pain, diar-
heated press where the binder cures and the insulation gets its final rhea). Under certain conditions, ammonium sulfate has been known
density and thickness. After passing through the press, the blankets, to decompose and release ammonia.
batts, or boards are cut to size and any facings are attached to the Cellulose fibers are typically used for many of the same applica-
materials. The spectrum of finished products includes loose fill; tions as glass fiber and mineral wool. Typical applications are in
blankets and batts; and soft, semidense, and dense boards. Blankets buildings of wood or steel framing, and applications above living
cannot take any extra load, except their own weight. Dense boards spaces, between floors, and within walls. The board form is used for
are moderately compression resistant, with a compression strength insulating pitched roofs. Cellulose insulation should not be used in
of 10% strain (10) ~0.04 to 0.08 MPa. wet areas.
Plastic Foams. The benefits of CAIMs for insulating existing wall structures are
Expanded Polystyrene (EPS). The basic material for EPS is pen- therefore still debatable. Other potential concerns are that their ther-
tane-blown polystyrene pearls. In a first step, the pearls are heated mal resistances are also generally inferior to that of conventional
above 100°C, at which temperature the evaporating pentane causes insulation [k = 0.05 to 0.06 W/(m·K)], and wicked moisture
expansion. The expanded pearls are then stored for a few days, increases their apparent thermal conductivity.
allowing diffusion of the remaining pentane. Then they are poured Transparent Insulation. Transparent insulation material (TIM)
into molds and steam heated, so that the expanded pearls coagulate combines transparency for short-wave radiation with low heat
in their own melt. Once cool, the blocks are cut into boards and conduction, extremely low convection, and opacity for long-wave
stored until initial shrinkage ends. EPS is a thermoplastic with a radiation. The material comprises thin parallel transparent plastic
problematic fire reaction: it melts and drips when burning. Conse- tubes or transparent glass fibers sandwiched between two glass
quently, additives are used to slow down flammability. sheets. TIM has a higher thermal conductivity than classic insula-
tion materials [between 0.049 and 0.063 W/(m·K)] but allows solar
Extruded Polystyrene (XPS). The basic material for XPS is poly-
gains into the conditioned space, so the net heat balance (equilib-
styrene pearls, which are melted, blown with a blowing agent, and
rium between losses and gains) may be more favorable.
extruded as a continuous board with high-density skin surfaces.
Still, use of this material remains limited. The plastic tubes
Downstream in the process, the boards are trimmed to the finished
slowly yellow, and, if the space between the two glass sheets is not
dimensions and profile (e.g., square, tongue and groove, shiplap)
vaportight, water vapor may diffuse into the panels and condense
before final packaging. XPS is also a thermoplastic with additives to
against the coldest sheet. Dust may enter the TIM boards through
slow down flammability. The water vapor resistance of XPS boards
spacer leaks and be fixed in the condensate. Also, the exterior sur-
is very high, allowing their use in inverted roofs and as perimeter
face of the panels can become soiled. Overheating is moderated by
insulation in humid soils.
combining the TIM with solar shading, but this is currently too
Polyurethane (PUR) and Polyisocyanurate (PIR). PUR and PIR expensive to be economically viable.
are the only insulation materials produced chemically by isocyanate Vacuum Insulation Panels. Vacuum insulation is available in
reacting with polyolefin in the presence of a catalyst, a blowing agent, rigid and semirigid panels of various sizes. Vacuum insulation pan-
and additives. The difference between the two is the isocyanate ratio: els consist of an interior filler material and an exterior barrier mate-
in PIR, this ratio is high enough (60 to 65% kg/kg instead of 50 to rial. Heat conduction through the center of the panel is typically less
55% kg/kg) to form autopolymers. The main result is a better reac- than 0.007 W/(m·K); some panels have been manufactured with a
tion in combustion. As the explosive isocyanate/polyolefin reaction is center-of-panel thermal conductivity less than 0.0025 W/(m·K).
highly sensitive to temperature and relative humidity, strict control of However, heat is also transported around the edges of the panel, and
both parameters is needed. The reaction product is also very sticky, that heat transport (often referred to as edge effect) can signifi-
which allows the mixture to be sprayed on many kinds of substrates, cantly reduce the thermal resistance of the whole panel compared
or to be used to produce sandwich panels (Figure 3). Once the reac- to the thermal resistance of the center region. For that reason, resis-
tion is finished, the boards are cut to the desired size and stored. tance of the whole assembly should be considered, and larger pan-
R-11 [a CFC with ozone depletion potential (ODP) = 1] was used els are generally preferred. Vacuum panels may be used when
as a blowing agent until the early 1990s. Since then, blowing agents space for thermal insulation is tightly constricted, such as in his-
with zero ODP are preferred, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) toric building retrofits; they are also used in appliances and ship-
for PUR insulation boards, HFCs or CO2 for spray-applied PUR, ping containers. Vacuum insulation panels rely on reduced gaseous
and pentane for PIR boards. conduction, via reduced air pressure, for their thermal performance
Cellular Glass. Cellular glass is a light, expanded-glass insula- and must therefore be protected from puncture or other physical
tion with closed-cell pores. It is water- and vaportight, allowing nei-
ther vapor diffusion nor capillary suction through the material.
Depending on the production process, cellular glass is delivered
either as insulating boards or as loose-fill aggregate. The boards are
used for roof, wall, basement, and foundation insulation; loose fill is
only used for foundation or basement insulation. Cellular glass
boards must be protected from frost damage caused by water freez-
ing in its open surface pores. The R-value of cellular glass boards is
not affected by moisture, but the thermal resistance of loose fill
decreases in moist conditions because of water clinging to the sur-
face of the aggregates.
Capillary-Active Insulation Materials (CAIMs). CAIMs are
used as interior wall insulation for existing buildings. Despite being
rather vapor permeable, they are applied without a vapor-retarding
layer because condensing moisture is supposed to be wicked away
toward the interior wall surface (Figure 3). In contrast to conven-
tional insulation systems that need a vapor retarder to protect the
wall structure from harmful condensation, CAIMs provide conden-
sation control without reducing the drying potential towards the
indoors. Because of increasing demand in Europe, capillary-active
insulation systems made of calcium silicate, foamed concrete, or
hydrophilic glass fiber have appeared on the market. Tests show that
these materials may differ in their wicking ability, but most of them
succeed in redistributing condensate by capillary suction. However,
even the best-performing CAIM cannot prevent increased relative
humidity at the interface between interior insulation and original Fig. 3 Working Principle of Capillary-Active
wall surface of up to 95% or more in winter [e.g., Binder (2010)]. Interior Insulation
damage. A panel’s thermal resistance degrades over time as air dif- wind and other loads, it must be supported on both sides to account
fuses into the panel through the exterior barrier and leaks in at the for positive and negative wind gust pressures.
seams. To delay this phenomenon, most barrier materials incorpo-
rate a very thin metallic layer (often produced using vapor deposi- In addition, the following properties can be important, depending
tion methods). Another way to slow aging is to incorporate getter on the application:
materials (i.e., any reactive material that absorbs small amounts of • Elasticity
gas in an evacuated space) within the panel; some filler materials act • Thermal stability
as getters themselves. The filler material supports the exterior atmo- • Fire and flammability resistance
spheric pressure load on the panel and reduces both radiative and • Inertness to deteriorating elements
gaseous heat transport across the panel. To reduce gaseous heat • Ease of fabrication, application, and joint sealing
transfer, voids in the filler material must be smaller than the mean
free path of the gas molecules, which is in turn determined by the air Air barriers may control both vapor and airflow (i.e., they may
pressure in the panel. Therefore, filler materials with finer void sizes act as an air/vapor retarder), depending on the characteristics of the
retain their heat transfer reduction abilities at higher pressures than materials used. Many designs are based on this idea, with measures
fillers with greater void sizes do. taken to ensure that the layer with vapor-retarding properties is con-
Reflective Insulation Systems. Reflective insulation consists of tinuous to control airflow. Some designs treat airflow and vapor
surfaces having high reflectance (and low emittance or emissivity) retarders as separate entities, but an airflow retarder should not be
for long-wave radiation, thus reducing radiant heat transfer. To be where it can cause moisture to condense if it also has vapor-retard-
effective, these surfaces must face an air layer, or no radiant heat ing properties. For example, a vapor-retarding air barrier placed on
transfer is available to be reduced. Calculations of the thermal resis- the cold side of a building envelope may cause condensation, par-
tance of enclosed reflective air spaces are based on reduced radia- ticularly if the vapor retarder at the other side of the building is inef-
tive transport across the air space and convection/conduction fective. Instead, a carefully installed, sealed cold-side air retarder
occurring in the air space, so air film resistances are included. that has sufficient thermal resistance may lower the potential for
Enclosed reflective air spaces in series increase overall thermal condensation by raising the temperature at its inside surface during
resistance, but thermal resistance cannot be greater than that of still the cold season (Ojanen et al. 1994).
air with no radiation. In any case, air movement in and out of the Air leakage characteristics can be determined with the ASTM
enclosed space must be inhibited or the reduction in radiative heat Standard E1186 test method for air barriers on the interior side of
transfer will be overshadowed by airflow through the space. the building envelope, and described according to ASTM Stan-
Conventional insulation can be combined with reflective surfaces dard E1677. Specific air leakage criteria for air barriers in cold
facing air spaces to increase thermal resistance. However, each heating climates are found in Di Lenardo et al. (1995). These spec-
design must be evaluated, because thermal performance of these sys- ifications provide classes for air leakage rates of 0.05, 0.10, 0.15,
tems depends on factors such as condition of insulation, shape and and 0.20 L/(s · m2) when measured with an air pressure difference
form of construction, means to avoid air leakage and movement, and of 75 Pa, depending on the water vapor permeance of the outer-
condition and aging characteristics of reflective surfaces. most layer of the building envelope. The highest leakage rate
Values for foil insulation products supplied by manufacturers applies if the permeance of the outermost layer is greater than
must be used with care because they apply only to systems that are 600 ng/(Pa ·s · m2); the lowest rate applies if the permeance is less
identical to the configuration in which the product was evaluated. In than 60 ng/(Pa · s· m2). Intermediate values are also provided. The
addition, surface oxidation, dust accumulation, condensation, and recommendations apply only to heating climates.
other factors that change the condition of the low-emittance surface The required air permeance of an air barrier material has been
can reduce the thermal effectiveness (Hooper and Moroz 1952). set by some building codes at 0.02 L/(s· m2) at a pressure differ-
Deterioration can result from contact with acidic or basic solutions ence of 75 Pa. ASHRAE Standard 90.1 also references this value.
(e.g., wet cement mortar or preservatives found in decay-resistant ASTM Standard E1677 provides an alternative minimum air bar-
lumber). Polluted environments may cause rapid and severe degra- rier test and criteria specifically suitable for framed walls of low-
dation. However, Hooper and Moroz found that site inspections rise buildings.
showed a predominance of well-preserved reflective surfaces, with Air leakage characteristics of an air barrier assembly can be
only a small number of cases of rapid and severe deterioration. An determined with the ASTM Standard E2357 test method, which
extensive review of the reflective building insulation system perfor- measures the air leakage of three wall specimens: (1) with the air
mance literature is provided by Goss and Miller (1989). barrier material installed using air barrier accessories alone, (2) with
the air barrier material installed and connected to air barrier compo-
AIR BARRIERS nents (window, doors, and other premanufactured elements) using
air barrier accessories, and (3) with an air barrier wall assembly con-
The main characteristic of an air barrier system is reduced air nected to a foundation assembly and roof assembly using air barrier
permeance. To create that performance, the barrier must accessories. The test method reports the air leakage rate at a refer-
• Meet material permeability requirements. ence pressure difference of 75 Pa, not because it is necessarily rep-
• Be continuous when installed (i.e., tight joints in air barrier assem- resentative of in-service conditions, but because it provides a more
bly; effective bonds in air barrier materials at intersections such as accurate measurement that can then be adjusted for actual condi-
wall/roof, wall/foundation, and wall/windows; tightly sealed pen- tions.
etrations). Building assemblies are constructed and the various air barrier
• Accommodate dimensional changes caused by temperature or assemblies are connected to form an air barrier system for the
shrinkage without damaging joints or air barrier material. whole building. The building’s air leakage characteristics can be
• Be strong enough to support stresses applied to air barrier material determined with the ASTM Standard E779 test method. ASHRAE
or assembly. The air barrier must not be ruptured or excessively Standard 90.1 requires 2.0 L/(s· m2) at 75 Pa pressure difference
deformed by wind and stack effect. Where an adhesive is used to for assemblies.
complete a joint, the assembly must be designed to withstand The effectiveness of an air barrier is greatly reduced by openings
forces that might gradually peel away the air barrier material. and penetrations, even small ones. These openings can be caused by
Where the material is not strong enough to withstand anticipated poor design, poor workmanship during application, insufficient
coating thickness, improper caulking and flashing, uncompensated balanced design approach is required: a vapor retarder can reduce
thermal expansion, mechanical forces, aging, and other forms of the potential for an assembly to dry, but can also reduce the potential
degradation. Faults or leaks typically occur at electrical boxes, for the assembly getting wet. ASHRAE Standard 160 should be fol-
plumbing penetrations, telephone and television wiring, and other lowed to determine the need for and placement of a vapor retarder.
unsealed openings in the structure. This is especially true if tele- The 2007 supplement to the International Codes (ICC 2007) lists
phone, television, or other services are installed after the envelope three water vapor retarder classes:
has been inspected and/or tested. A ceiling air barrier should be con-
• Class I: 5.7 ng/(Pa · s · m2) or less
tinuous at chases for plumbing, ducts, flues, and electrical wiring. In
• Class II: more than 5.7 ng/(Pa · s · m2) but less than or equal to
flat roofing, mechanical fasteners are sometimes used to adhere the
57 ng/(Pa · s · m2)
system to the deck, and often penetrate the air barrier. In heating cli-
mates, the resulting holes may allow air exfiltration and accompa- • Class III: more than 57 ng/(Pa · s ·m2) but less than or equal to
nying water vapor leakage into the roof. ASTM Standard E1186 570 ng/(Pa · s · m2)
describes several techniques for locating air leakage sites in build- The designer should determine the type of water vapor retarder
ing envelopes and air barrier systems. needed and its location in the envelope assembly, based on cli-
As noted previously, air barrier assemblies must withstand pres- matic conditions, other materials used in the assembly, additional
sures exerted by stack effects, wind, or both during construction and sources of humidity, and the building’s use (e.g., intended relative
over the building’s life. The magnitude of pressure varies, depend- humidity).
ing on building type and sequence of construction. At one extreme, A vapor retarder typically slows the rate of water vapor diffusion,
single-family dwellings may be built with exterior cladding partly but does not totally prevent it. In most cases, requirements for vapor
or entirely installed and insulation in place before the air barrier is retarders in envelope assemblies are not extremely stringent:
added. Chimney effects in these buildings are small, even in cold because conditions on the inside and outside of buildings vary con-
weather, so stresses on the air barrier during construction are small. tinually, air movement and ventilation can provide wetting as well
At the other extreme, wind and chimney effect forces in tall build- as drying at various times, and water vapor entering one side of an
ings are much greater. A fragile, unprotected sheet material should envelope assembly can be stored temporarily as hygroscopic mois-
not be used as an air barrier because it will probably be torn by wind ture and released later. However, if conditions are conducive to
before construction is completed. excessive humidification, water vapor retarders help to (1) keep
Calculations of water vapor flow, interstitial condensation, and thermal insulation dry; (2) prevent structural damage from rot, cor-
related moisture accumulation using only water vapor resistances rosion, freeze/thaw, and other environmental actions; and (3) reduce
are useless when airflow is involved. More information on air leak- paint problems on exterior walls (although rain absorption through
age in buildings may be found in Chapter 16. cracks in the paint may be a more probable cause of paint problems)
(ASTM Standard C755). Judicious placement of a vapor retarder
WATER VAPOR RETARDERS may also help an assembly to dry out. Another way to look at a
vapor retarder is that it is the most vapor-resistant layer in the assem-
The main characteristic of a water vapor retarder is low vapor bly; a capable designer knows where this layer is and ensures that it
permeance. The following properties are also important, depending does not promote excessive moisture accumulation or prevent the
on the application: assembly from drying. Therefore, all building envelope assemblies
• Mechanical strength in tension, shear, impact, and flexure should be assessed to ensure that an unintentional water vapor
• Adhesion retarder does not create problems.
• Elasticity The vapor retarder’s effectiveness depends on its vapor perme-
• Thermal stability ance, installation, and location in the insulated section; the retarder
should be at or near the surface exposed to higher water vapor pres-
• Fire and flammability resistance
sure and higher temperature. In heating climates, this is usually the
• Resistance to other deteriorating elements [e.g., chemicals, ultra-
winter-warm side.
violet (UV) radiation]
Water vapor retarders are classified as rigid, flexible, or coating
• Ease of fabrication, application, and joint sealing
materials. Rigid retarders include reinforced plastics, aluminum,
Although a flow of dry air may accelerate drying of a wet build- and stainless steel. These usually are mechanically fastened in place
ing component (Karagiozis and Salonvaara 1999a, 1999b), vapor and are vapor-sealed at the joints. Flexible retarders include metal
retarders are completely ineffective without effective airflow con- foils, laminated foil and treated papers, coated felts and papers, and
trol, A single layer may serve both purposes, of course: the designer plastic films or sheets. They are supplied in roll form or as an inte-
must assess the needs for control of water vapor and air movement gral part of a building material (e.g., insulation). Accessory materi-
in a building envelope, and devise a system that guarantees the als are required for sealing joints. Coating retarders may be
required vapor retarder and air barrier properties. semifluid or mastic; paint (called surface coatings); or hot melt,
Water vapor retarders demand consideration in every building including thermofusible sheet materials. Their basic composition
design. The need for and type of system depend on the climate zone, may be asphaltic, resinous, or polymeric, with or without pigments
construction type, building usage, and moisture sources other than and solvents, as required to meet design conditions. They can be
indoor water vapor to be considered. Water vapor retarders were applied by spray, brush, trowel, roller, dip, or mop, or in sheet form,
originally designed to protect building elements from water vapor depending on the type of coating and surface to which it is applied.
diffusing through building materials and condensing against and in Potentially, each of these materials is an air barrier; however, to
layers at the cold side of the thermal insulation. It is now recognized meet air barrier specifications, it must satisfy requirements for
that it is just as important to allow a building assembly to dry as it is strength, continuity, and air permeance. A construction of several
to keep the building assembly from getting wet by vapor diffusion. materials, some perhaps of substantial thickness, can also constitute
In some cases, to allow the building assembly to dry, a water vapor a vapor retarder system. In fact, designers have many options. For
retarder may not be needed, or should be semipermeable. In other example, airflow and moisture movement might be controlled using
cases, the environmental conditions, building construction, and an interior finish, such as drywall, to provide strength and stiffness,
building usage dictate that a material with very low water vapor along with a low-permeability coating, such as a vapor-retarding
permeance should be installed to protect building components. A paint, to provide the required low permeance. Other designs may
use more than one component. However, (1) any component that permeance at high relative humidity. During the heating season in
qualifies as a vapor retarder usually also impedes airflow, and is thus cold and moderate climates, the indoor humidity usually is below
subject to air pressure differences that it must resist; and (2) any 50% and the smart vapor retarder’s permeance is low. In the summer
component that impedes airflow may also retard vapor movement or on winter days with high solar heat gains, when the temperature
and promote condensation or frost formation if it is at the wrong gradient is inward, moisture moving from exterior parts of the wall
location in the assembly. or roof raises the relative humidity at the vapor retarder. This
Several studies found a significant increase in apparent perme- increases vapor permeance and potential for the wall or roof to dry.
ance as a result of small holes in the vapor retarder. For example, One such vapor retarder is described by Kuenzel (1999). Below
Seiffert (1970) reported a hundredfold increase in the vapor perme- 50% rh, the film’s permeance is less than 57 ng/(Pa·s·m2), but it
ance of aluminum foil when it is 0.014% perforated, and a 4000-fold increases above 60% rh, reaching 2050 ng/(Pa·s·m2) at 90% rh.
increase when 0.22% of the surface is perforated. In general, pene-
trations particularly degrade a vapor retarder’s effectiveness if it has
very low permeance (e.g., polyethylene or aluminum foil). In addi- DATA TABLES
tion, perforations may lead to air leakage, which further erodes
effectiveness. THERMAL PROPERTY DATA
“Smart” vapor retarders allow substantial summer drying while
functioning as effective vapor retarders during the cold season. One Steady-state thermal resistances (R-values) of building assem-
type of smart vapor retarder has low vapor permeance but conducts blies (walls, floors, windows, roof systems, etc.) can be calculated
liquid water, allowing moisture that condenses on the retarder to from thermal properties of the materials in the component, provided
dry. Korsgaard and Pedersen (1989, 1992) describe such a retarder by Table 1, or heat flow through the assembled component can be
composed of synthetic fabric sandwiched between staggered strips measured directly with laboratory equipment such as the guarded
of plastic film. The fabric wicks liquid water while the plastic film hot box (ASTM Standard C1363). Direct measurement is the most
retards vapor flow. Another type of smart vapor retarder provides accurate method of determining the overall thermal resistance for a
low vapor permeance at low relative humidities, but much higher combination of building materials combined as a building envelope
Table 1 Building and Insulating Materials: Design Valuesa

Density, Conductivityb k, Resistance R, Specific Heat,
Description kg/m3 W/(m·K) (m2 ·K)/W kJ/(kg·K) Referencel
Insulating Materials
Blanket and battc,d
Glass-fiber batts................................................................... 0.8 Kumaran (2002)
7.5 to 8.2 0.046 to 0.048 — — Four manufacturers (2011)
9.8 to 12 0.040 to 0.043 — — Four manufacturers (2011)
13 to 14 0.037 to 0.039 — — Four manufacturers (2011)
22 0.033 — — Four manufacturers (2011)
Rock and slag wool batts..................................................... — — — 0.8 Kumaran (1996)
32 to 37 0.036 to 0.037 — — One manufacturer (2011)
45 0.033 to 0.035 — — One manufacturer (2011)
Mineral wool, felted ............................................................ 16 to 48 0.040 — — CIBSE (2006), NIST (2000)
16 to 130 0.035 — — NIST (2000)
Board and slabs
Cellular glass ....................................................................... 120 0.042 — 0.8 One manufacturer (2011)
Cement fiber slabs, shredded wood with Portland cement
binder............................................................................. 400 to 430 0.072 to 0.076 — —
with magnesia oxysulfide binder................................... 350 0.082 — 1.3
Glass fiber board.................................................................. — — — 0.8 Kumaran (1996)
24 to 96 0.033 to 0.035 — — One manufacturer (2011)
Expanded rubber (rigid) ...................................................... 64 0.029 — 1.7 Nottage (1947)
Extruded polystyrene, smooth skin ..................................... — — — 1.5 Kumaran (1996)
aged per Can/ULC Standard S770-2003....................... 22 to 58 0.026 to 0.029 — — Four manufacturers (2011)
aged 180 days ................................................................ 22 to 58 0.029 One manufacturer (2011)
European product........................................................... 30 0.030 One manufacturer (2011)
aged 5 years at 24°C ...................................................... 32 to 35 0030 — — One manufacturer (2011)
blown with low global warming potential (GWP) (<5)
blowing agent ............................................................. 0.035 to 0.036 — — One manufacturer (2011)
Expanded polystyrene, molded beads ................................. — — — 1.5 Kumaran (1996)
16 to 24 0.035 to 0.037 — — Independent test reports (2008)
29 0.033 — — Independent test reports (2008)
Mineral fiberboard, wet felted............................................. 160 0.037 — 0.8 Kumaran (1996)
Rock wool board ................................................................. — — — 0.8 Kumaran (1996)
floors and walls ............................................................. 64 to 130 0.033 to 0.036 — — Five manufacturers (2011)
roofing ........................................................................... 160 to 180. 0.039 to 0.042 — 0.8 Five manufacturers (2011)
Acoustical tilee .................................................................... 340 to 370 0.052 to 0.053 — 0.6 to 0.8
Perlite board ........................................................................ 140 0.052 — — One manufacturer (2010)
Polyisocyanurate ................................................................. — — — 1.5 Kumaran (1996)
unfaced, aged per Can/ULC Standard S770-2003 ........ 26 to 37 0.023 to 0.025 — — Seven manufacturers (2011)
with foil facers, aged 180 days ...................................... — 0.022 to 0.023 — — Two manufacturers (2011)
Table 1 Building and Insulating Materials: Design Valuesa (Continued)

Phenolic foam board with facers, aged................................ — 0.020 to 0.023 — — One manufacturer (2011)
Loose fill
Cellulose fiber, loose fill ..................................................... — — — 1.4 NIST (2000), Kumaran (1996)
attic application up to 100 mm ...................................... 16 to 19 0.045 to 0.046 — — Four manufacturers (2011)
attic application > 100 mm ............................................ 19 to 26 0.039 to 0.040 — — Four manufacturers (2011)
wall application, dense packed ...................................... 56 0.039 to 0.040 — — One manufacturer (2011)
Perlite, expanded ................................................................. 32 to 64 0.039 to 0.045 — 1.1 (Manufacturer, pre 2001)
64 to 120 0.045 to 0.052 — — (Manufacturer, pre 2001)
120 to 180 0.052 to 0.061 — — (Manufacturer, pre 2001)
Glass fiberd
attics, ~100 to 600 mm ................................................. 6.4 to 8.0 0.052 to 0.055 — — Four manufacturers (2011)
attics, ~600 to 1100 mm ................................................ 8 to 9.6 0.049 to 0.052 — — Four manufacturers (2011)
closed attic or wall cavities............................................ 29 to 37 0.035 to 0.036 — — Four manufacturers (2011)
Rock and slag woold
attics, ~90 to 115 mm .................................................... 24 to 26 0.049 — — Three manufacturers (2011)
attics, ~125 to 430 mm .................................................. 24 to 29 0.046 to 0.048 — — Three manufacturers (2011)
closed attic or wall cavities............................................ 64 0.039 to 0.042 — — Three manufacturers (2011)
Vermiculite, exfoliated ........................................................ 112 to 131 0.068 — 1.3 Sabine et al. (1975)
64 to 96 0.063 — — Manufacturer (pre 2001)
Spray-applied
Cellulose, sprayed into open wall cavities .................... 26 to 42 0.039 to 0.040 — — Two manufacturers (2011)
Glass fiber, sprayed into open wall or attic cavities...... 16 0.039 to 0.042 — — Manufacturers’ association (2011)
29 to 37 0.033 to 0.037 — — Four manufacturers (2011)

Polyurethane foam .............................................................. — — — 1.5 Kumaran (2002)
low density, open cell .................................................... 7.2 to 10 0.037 to 0.042 — — Three manufacturers (2011)
medium density, closed cell, aged 180 days.................. 30 to 51 0.020 to 0.029 — — Five manufacturers (2011)
Building Board and Siding
Board
Asbestos/cement board........................................................ 1900 0.57 — 1.00 Nottage (1947)
Cement board....................................................................... 1150 0.25 — 0.84 Kumaran (2002)
Fiber/cement board.............................................................. 1400 0.25 — 0.84 Kumaran (2002)
1000 0.19 — 0.84 Kumaran (1996)
400 0.07 — 1.88 Kumaran (1996)
300 0.06 — 1.88 Kumaran (1996)
Gypsum or plaster board ..................................................... 640 0.16 — 1.15 Kumaran (2002)
Oriented strand board (OSB).............................9 to 11 mm 650 — 0.11 1.88 Kumaran (2002)
......................................................................... 12.7 mm 650 — 0.12 1.88 Kumaran (2002)
Plywood (douglas fir) ............................................ 12.7 mm 460 — 0.14 1.88 Kumaran (2002)
......................................................................... 15.9 mm 540 — 0.15 1.88 Kumaran (2002)
Plywood/wood panels............................................ 19.0 mm 450 — 0.19 1.88 Kumaran (2002)
Vegetable fiber board 650 — 0.11 1.88 Kumaran (2002)
sheathing, regular density ................................ 12.7 mm 290 — 0.23 1.30 Lewis (1967)
intermediate density................................... 12.7 mm 350 — 0.19 1.30 Lewis (1967)
nail-based sheathing ........................................ 12.7 mm 400 — 0.19 1.30
shingle backer.................................................... 9.5 mm 290 — 0.17 1.30
sound deadening board .................................... 12.7 mm 240 — 0.24 1.26
tile and lay-in panels, plain or acoustic 290 0.058 — 0.59
laminated paperboard 480 0.072 — 1.38 Lewis (1967)
homogeneous board from repulped paper 480 0.072 — 1.17
Hardboard
medium density ............................................................. 800 0.105 — 1.30 Lewis (1967)
high density, service-tempered grade and service grade 880 0.12 — 1.34 Lewis (1967)
high density, standard-tempered grade .......................... 1010 0.144 — 1.34 Lewis (1967)
Particleboard
low density..................................................................... 590 0.102 — 1.30 Lewis (1967)
medium density ............................................................. 800 0.135 — 1.30 Lewis (1967)
high density ................................................................... 1000 1.18 — — Lewis (1967)
underlayment .................................................. 15.9 mm 640 — 1.22 1.21 Lewis (1967)
Waferboard .......................................................................... 700 0.072 — 1.88 Kumaran (1996)
Shingles
Asbestos/cement ............................................................ 1900 — 0.037 —
Wood, 400 mm, 190 mm exposure................................ — — 0.15 1.30
Wood, double, 400 mm, 300 mm exposure................... — — 0.21 1.17
Wood, plus ins. backer board............................... 8 mm — — 0.25 1.30
Siding
Asbestos/cement, lapped .................................. 6.4 mm — — 0.037 1.01
Asphalt roll siding ......................................................... — — 0.026 1.47
Asphalt insulating siding (12.7 mm bed) ...................... — — 0.26 1.47

Hardboard siding ............................................... 11 mm — — 0.12 1.17
Wood, drop, 200 mm ......................................... 25 mm — — 0.14 1.17
Wood, bevel
200 mm, lapped .......................................... 13 mm — — 0.14 1.17
250 mm, lapped .......................................... 19 mm — — 0.18 1.17
Wood, plywood, lapped .................................... 9.5 mm — — 0.10 1.22
Aluminum, steel, or vinyl,h, i over sheathing................. —
hollow-backed ....................................................... — — 0.11 1.22i
insulating-board-backed ........................... 9.5 mm — — 0.32 1.34
foil-backed................................................ 9.5 mm — — 0.52 —
Architectural (soda-lime float) glass 2500 1.0 — 0.84
Building Membrane
Vapor-permeable felt ........................................................... — — 0.011 —
Vapor: seal, 2 layers of mopped 0.73 kg/m2 felt ................. — — 0.21 —
Vapor: seal, plastic film ....................................................... — — Negligible —
Finish Flooring Materials
Carpet and rebounded urethane pad ........................ 19 mm 110 — 0.42 — NIST (2000)
Carpet and rubber pad (one-piece) ........................ 9.5 mm 320 — 0.12 — NIST (2000)
Pile carpet with rubber pad......................... 9.5 to 12.7 mm 290 — 0.28 — NIST (2000)
Linoleum/cork tile .................................................. 6.4 mm 465 — 0.09 — NIST (2000)
PVC/rubber floor covering .................................................. — 0.40 — — CIBSE (2006)
rubber tile .......................................................... 25 mm 1900 — 0.06 — NIST (2000)
terrazzo .............................................................. 25 mm — — 0.014 0.80

Metals (See Chapter 33, Table 3)
Roofing
Asbestos/cement shingles.................................................... 1920 — 0.037 1.00
Asphalt (bitumen with inert fill) ......................................... 1600 0.43 — — CIBSE (2006)
1900 0.58 — — CIBSE (2006)
2300 1.15 — — CIBSE (2006)
Asphalt roll roofing ............................................................. 920 — 0.027 1.51
Asphalt shingles .................................................................. 920 — 0.078 1.26
Built-up roofing ....................................................... 10 mm 920 — 0.059 1.47
Mastic asphalt (heavy, 20% grit) ........................................ 950 0.19 — — CIBSE (2006)
Reed thatch .......................................................................... 270 0.09 — — CIBSE (2006)
Roofing felt.......................................................................... 2250 1.20 — — CIBSE (2006)
Slate ......................................................................... 13 mm — — 0.009 1.26
Straw thatch ......................................................................... 240 0.07 — — CIBSE (2006)
Wood shingles, plain and plastic-film-faced ....................... — — 0.166 1.30
Plastering Materials
Cement plaster, sand aggregate ........................................... 1860 0.72 — 0.84
Sand aggregate......................................................... 10 mm — — 0.013 0.84
........................................................................... 20 mm — — 0.026 0.84
Gypsum plaster.................................................................... 1120 0.38 — — CIBSE (2006)
1280 0.46 — — CIBSE (2006)
Lightweight aggregate ............................................. 13 mm 720 — 0.056 —
............................................................................ 16 mm 720 — 0.066 —
on metal lath ...................................................... 19 mm — — 0.083 —
Perlite aggregate .................................................................. 720 0.22 — 1.34
Sand aggregate..................................................................... 1680 0.81 — 0.84
on metal lath ...................................................... 19 mm — — 0.023 —
Vermiculite aggregate .......................................................... 480 0.14 — — CIBSE (2006)
600 0.20 — — CIBSE (2006)
720 0.25 — — CIBSE (2006)
840 0.26 — — CIBSE (2006)
960 0.30 — — CIBSE (2006)
Perlite plaster ....................................................................... 400 0.08 — — CIBSE (2006)
600 0.19 — — CIBSE (2006)
Pulpboard or paper plaster................................................... 600 0.07 — — CIBSE (2006)
Sand/cement plaster, conditioned ........................................ 1560 0.63 — — CIBSE (2006)
Sand/cement/lime plaster, conditioned................................ 1440 0.48 — — CIBSE (2006)
Sand/gypsum (3:1) plaster, conditioned .............................. 1550 0.65 — — CIBSE (2006)
Masonry Materials
Masonry units
Brick, fired clay ................................................................... 2400 1.21 to 1.47 — — Valore (1988)
2240 1.07 to 1.30 — — Valore (1988)
2080 0.92 to 1.12 — — Valore (1988)
1920 0.81 to 0.98 — 0.80 Valore (1988)

1760 0.71 to 0.85 — — Valore (1988)
1600 0.61 to 0.74 — — Valore (1988)
1440 0.52 to 0.62 — — Valore (1988)
1280 0.43 to 0.53 — — Valore (1988)
1120 0.36 to 0.45 — — Valore (1988)
Clay tile, hollow
1 cell deep.......................................................... 75 mm — — 0.14 0.88 Rowley and Algren (1937)
.................................................................... 100 mm — — 0.20 — Rowley and Algren (1937)
2 cells deep ...................................................... 150 mm — — 0.27 — Rowley and Algren (1937)
3 cells deep ...................................................... 300 mm — — 0.44 — Rowley and Algren (1937)
Lightweight brick ................................................................ 800 0.20 — — Kumaran (1996)
770 0.22 — — Kumaran (1996)
Concrete blocksf, g
Limestone aggregate
~200 mm, 16.3 kg, 2200 kg/m3 concrete, 2 cores ......... — — — —
with perlite-filled cores............................................ — — 0.37 — Valore (1988)
~300 mm, 25 kg, 2200 kg/m3 concrete, 2 cores ............ — — —
with perlite-filled cores............................................ — — 0.65 — Valore (1988)
Normal-weight aggregate (sand and gravel)
~200 mm, 16 kg, 2100 kg/m3 concrete, 2 or 3 cores… — — 0.20 to 0.17 0.92 Van Geem (1985)
with perlite-filled cores............................................ — — 0.35 — Van Geem (1985)

with vermiculite-filled cores.................................... — — 0.34 to 0.24 — Valore (1988)
~300 mm, 22.7 kg, 2000 kg/m3 concrete, 2 cores ....... — — 0.217 0.92 Valore (1988)
Medium-weight aggregate (combinations of normal and lightweight aggregate)
~200 mm, 13 kg, 1550 to 1800 kg/m3 concrete, 2 or 3 cores — — 0.30 to 0.22 — Van Geem (1985)
with perlite-filled cores............................................ — — 0.65 to 0.41 — Van Geem (1985)
with vermiculite-filled cores.................................... — — 0.58 — Van Geem (1985)
with molded-EPS-filled (beads) cores..................... — — 0.56 — Van Geem (1985)
with molded EPS inserts in cores ............................ — — 0.47 — Van Geem (1985)
Low-mass aggregate (expanded shale, clay, slate or slag, pumice)
~150 mm, 7 1/2 kg, 1400 kg/m2 concrete, 2 or 3 cores — — 0.34 to 0.29 — Van Geem (1985)
with perlite-filled cores............................................ — — 0.74 — Van Geem (1985)
with vermiculite-filled cores.................................... — — 0.53 — Van Geem (1985)
200 mm, 8 to 10 kg, 1150 to 1380 kg/m2 concrete ..... — — 0.56 to 0.33 0.88 Van Geem (1985)
with vermiculite-filled cores.................................... — — 0.93 to 0.69 — Shu et al. (1979)
with molded-EPS-filled (beads) cores..................... — — 0.85 — Shu et al. (1979)
with UF foam-filled cores ....................................... — — 0.79 — Shu et al. (1979)
with molded EPS inserts in cores ............................ — — 0.62 — Shu et al. (1979)
300 mm, 16 kg, 1400 kg/m3, concrete, 2 or 3 cores.... — — 0.46 to 0.40 — Van Geem (1985)
with vermiculite-filled cores.................................... — — 1.0 — Valore (1988)
Stone, lime, or sand ............................................................. 2880 10.4 — — Valore (1988)
Quartzitic and sandstone...................................................... 2560 6.2 — — Valore (1988)
2240 3.46 — — Valore (1988)
1920 1.88 — 0.88 Valore (1988)
Calcitic, dolomitic, limestone, marble, and granite............. 2880 4.33 — — Valore (1988)
2560 3.17 — — Valore (1988)
2240 2.31 — — Valore (1988)
1920 1.59 — 0.88 Valore (1988)
1600 1.15 — — Valore (1988)
Gypsum partition tile
75 by 300 by 760 mm, solid ........................................ — — 0.222 0.79 Rowley and Algren (1937)
4 cells ................................... — — 0.238 — Rowley and Algren (1937)
100 by 300 by 760 mm, 3 cells.................................... — — 0.294 — Rowley and Algren (1937)
Limestone ............................................................................ 2400 0.57 — 0.84 Kumaran (2002)
2600 0.93 — 0.84 Kumaran (2002)
Concretesi
Sand and gravel or stone aggregate concretes ..................... 2400 1.4 to 2.9 — — Valore (1988)
(concretes with >50% quartz or quartzite sand have 2240 1.3 to 2.6 — 0.80 to 1.00 Valore (1988)
conductivities in higher end of range) 2080 1.0 to 1.9 — — Valore (1988)
Low-mass aggregate or limestone concretes ....................... 1920 0.9 to 1.3 — — Valore (1988)
expanded shale, clay, or slate; expanded slags; cinders; 1600 0.68 to 0.89 — 0.84 Valore (1988)
pumice (with density up to 1600 kg/m3); scoria (sanded 1280 0.48 to 0.59 — 0.84 Valore (1988)
concretes have conductivities in higher end of range) 960 0.30 to 0.36 — — Valore (1988)
640 0.18 — — Valore (1988)

Gypsum/fiber concrete (87.5% gypsum, 12.5% wood chips) 800 0.24 — 0.84 Rowley and Algren (1937)
Cement/lime, mortar, and stucco......................................... 1920 1.40 — — Valore (1988)
1600 0.97 — — Valore (1988)
1280 0.65 — — Valore (1988)
Perlite, vermiculite, and polystyrene beads......................... 800 0.26 to 0.27 — — Valore (1988)
640 0.20 to 0.22 — 0.63 to 0.96 Valore (1988)
480 0.16 — — Valore (1988)
320 0.12 — — Valore (1988)
Foam concretes.................................................................... 1920 0.75 — — Valore (1988)
1600 0.60 — — Valore (1988)
1280 0.44 — — Valore (1988)
1120 0.36 — — Valore (1988)
Foam concretes and cellular concretes ................................ 960 0.30 — — Valore (1988)
640 0.20 — — Valore (1988)
320 0.12 — — Valore (1988)
Aerated concrete (oven-dried) ............................................ 430 to 800 0.20 — 0.84 Kumaran (1996)
Polystyrene concrete (oven-dried) ...................................... 255 to 800 0.37 — 0.84 Kumaran (1996)
Polymer concrete ................................................................. 1950 1.64 — — Kumaran (1996)
2200 1.03 — — Kumaran (1996)
Polymer cement ................................................................... 1870 0.78 — — Kumaran (1996)
Slag concrete ....................................................................... 960 0.22 — — Touloukian et al (1970)
1280 0.32 — — Touloukian et al. (1970)
1600 0.43 — — Touloukian et al. (1970)
2000 1.23 — — Touloukian et al. (1970)

Woods (12% moisture content)j
Hardwoods — — — 1.63k Wilkes (1979)
Oak ...................................................................................... 660 to 750 0.16 to 0.18 — — Cardenas and Bible (1987)
Birch .................................................................................... 680 to 725 0.17 to 0.18 — — Cardenas and Bible (1987)
Maple................................................................................... 635 to 700 0.16 to 0.17 — — Cardenas and Bible (1987)
Ash....................................................................................... 615 to 670 0.15 to 0.16 — — Cardenas and Bible (1987)
Softwoods — — — 1.63k Wilkes (1979)
Southern pine....................................................................... 570 to 660 0.14 to 0.16 — — Cardenas and Bible (1987)
Southern yellow pine........................................................... 500 0.13 — — Kumaran (2002)
Eastern white pine ............................................................... 400 0.10 — — Kumaran (2002)
Douglas fir/larch.................................................................. 535 to 580 0.14 to 0.15 — — Cardenas and Bible (1987)
Southern cypress.................................................................. 500 to 515 0.13 — — Cardenas and Bible (1987)
Hem/fir, spruce/pine/fir ....................................................... 390 to 500 0.11 to 0.13 — — Cardenas and Bible (1987)
Spruce .................................................................................. 400 0.09 — — Kumaran (2002)
Western red cedar ................................................................ 350 0.09 — — Kumaran (2002)
West coast woods, cedars .................................................... 350 to 500 0.10 to 0.13 — — Cardenas and Bible (1987)
Eastern white cedar.............................................................. 360 0.10 — — Kumaran (2002)
California redwood.............................................................. 390 to 450 0.11 to 0.12 — — Cardenas and Bible (1987)
Pine (oven-dried) ................................................................ 370 0.092 — 1.88 Kumaran (1996)
Spruce (oven-dried) ............................................................ 395 0.10 — 1.88 Kumaran (1996)
Notes for Table 1

aValues are for mean temperature of 24°C. Representative values for dry materials are intended iVinyl specific heat = 1.0 kJ/(kg·K)
as design (not specification) values for materials in normal use. Thermal values of insulating jSee Adams (1971), MacLean (1941), and Wilkes (1979). Conductivity values
materials may differ from design values depending on in-situ properties (e.g., density and listed are for heat transfer across the grain. Thermal conductivity of wood varies
moisture content, orientation, etc.) and manufacturing variability. For properties of specific linearly with density, and density ranges listed are those normally found for wood
product, use values supplied by manufacturer or unbiased tests. species given. If density of wood species is not known, use mean conductivity
bSymbol  also used to represent thermal conductivity.
value. For extrapolation to other moisture contents, the following empirical equa-
cDoes not include paper backing and facing, if any. Where insulation forms boundary (reflec-
tion developed by Wilkes (1979) may be used:
tive or otherwise) of airspace, see Tables 2 and 3 for insulating value of airspace with appro- –2 –4
priate effective emittance and temperature conditions of space.  1.874  10 + 5.753  10 M 
dConductivity varies with fiber diameter (see Chapter 25). Batt, blanket, and loose-fill min- k = 0.1791 + ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 + 0.01M
eral fiber insulations are manufactured to achieve specified R-values, the most common of
which are listed in the table. Because of differences in manufacturing processes and materi- where  is density of moist wood in kg/m3, and M is moisture content in percent.
als, the product thicknesses, densities, and thermal conductivities vary over considerable kFrom Wilkes (1979), an empirical equation for specific heat of moist wood at
ranges for a specified R-value. 24°C is as follows:
eInsulating values of acoustical tile vary, depending on density of board and on type, size, and
 0.299 + 0.01M 
depth of perforations. c p = ---------------------------------------- + c p
fValues for fully grouted block may be approximated using values for concrete with similar  1 + 0.01M 
unit density. where cp accounts for heat of sorption and is denoted by
gValues for concrete block and concrete are at moisture contents representative of normal use.
hValues for metal or vinyl siding applied over flat surfaces vary widely, depending on venti- –3 –5
c p = M  1.921  10 – 3.168  10 M 
lation of the airspace beneath the siding; whether airspace is reflective or nonreflective; and
on thickness, type, and application of insulating backing-board used. Values are averages for
where M is moisture content in percent by mass.
use as design guides, and were obtained from several guarded hot box tests (ASTM Stan-
dard C1363) on hollow-backed types and types made using backing of wood fiber, foamed lBlankspace in reference column indicates historical values from previous vol-
plastic, and glass fiber. Departures of ±50% or more from these values may occur. umes of ASHRAE Handbook. Source of information could not be determined.
assembly. However, not all combinations may be conveniently or Table 2 Emissivity of Various Surfaces and Effective
economically tested in this manner. For many simple constructions, Emittances of Facing Air Spacesa
calculated R-values (see Chapter 25) agree reasonably well with
Effective Emittance eff of
values determined by hot-box measurement. Air Space
Values in Table 1 were developed by testing under controlled
laboratory conditions. In practice, overall thermal performance can Average One Surface’s Both
be reduced significantly by factors such as improper installation, Emissivity Emittance ; Surfaces’
Surface  Other, 0.9 Emittance 
quality of workmanship and shrinkage, settling, or compression of
the insulation (Tye 1985, 1986; Tye and Desjarlais 1983). Good Aluminum foil, bright 0.05 0.05 0.03
workmanship becomes increasingly important as the insulation Aluminum foil, with
requirement becomes greater. Therefore, some engineers include condensate just visible 0.30b 0.29 —
additional insulation or other safety factors based on experience in (>0.5 g/m2)
their design Aluminum foil, with
condensate clearly visible 0.70b 0.65 —
The values in Table 1 are recorded at 24°C, and are intended to
(>2.0 g/m2)
be representative values of generic materials. The tabulated thermal
Aluminum sheet 0.12 0.12 0.06
conductivities are either relatively constant as tested, or vary over a
Aluminum-coated paper,
range of densities. For the most part, thermal conductivity varies 0.20 0.20 0.11
polished
directly with density, which provides some guidance for users Brass, nonoxidized 0.04 0.038 0.02
where a range is presented. A conservative design might use values Copper, black oxidized 0.74 0.41 0.59
at the higher end of the range (unless moisture content is a concern, Copper, polished 0.04 0.038 0.02
in which case low-conductivity materials might reduce the assem- Iron and steel, polished 0.2 0.16 0.11
bly’s ability to dry out, and would thus be a more conservative Iron and steel, oxidized 0.58 0.35 0.41
choice). References are provided for each material, so users can Lead, oxidized 0.27 0.21 0.16
investigate the as-tested conditions, and additional information Nickel, nonoxidized 0.06 0.056 0.03
regarding the test specimens. Silver, polished 0.03 0.029 0.015

Note: there have been many changes to manufacturing processes Steel, galvanized, bright 0.25 0.24 0.15
and feed materials over the years, and updates to this chapter reflect Tin, nonoxidized 0.05 0.047 0.026
those changes. Sources for Table 1 values include published inde- Aluminum paint 0.50 0.47 0.35
pendent tests, published material standards, published manufactur- Building materials: wood,
ers’ specification sheets, and confidential information submitted to paper, masonry, nonmetallic 0.90 0.82 0.82
the technical committee. References are provided for each material, paints
so users can consider the source and determine whether the material Regular glass 0.84 0.77 0.72
tested is consistent with current materials. For historical materials, aValues apply in 4 to 40 m range of electromagnetic spectrum. Also, oxidation, cor-
see previous handbook editions from the appropriate decade. rosion, and accumulation of dust and dirt can dramatically increase surface emittance.
Caution: values in Table 1 should not be used without referring Emittance values of 0.05 should only be used where the highly reflective surface can
to the footnotes, which define limitations and some of the as-tested be maintained over the service life of the assembly. Except as noted, data from VDI
(1999).
conditions for the materials listed. bValues based on data in Bassett and Trethowen (1984).
Because commercially available materials vary, not all values
apply to specific products. reflective insulation (in most cases, heat transfer is dominated by
wind-driven convection, rather than radiant exchange). Thermal
SURFACE EMISSIVITY AND resistance values for siding with reflective foil backing are provided
EMITTANCE DATA in Table 1.
Table 2 provides measured long-wave emissivities for various
surfaces, which are used to characterize radiant heat transfer to or AIR PERMEANCE DATA
from these surfaces. To simplify radiant heat transfer calculations,
Table 4 provides measured air permeability of different materials,
the combined emittance for two surfaces is also provided, although
tested in accordance with Bomberg and Kumaran (1986), to be used
these values can be calculated using eff = 1/(1/1 + 1/2 – 1). As
in assessing the suitability of these materials in an air barrier assem-
described previously, surface oxidation, dust accumulation, conden- bly. As discussed previously, low air permeance is not sufficient to
sation, and other factors can impair the emissivity of highly reflec-
ensure a reliable air barrier assembly: the system must be properly
tive surfaces, so slightly higher values should be used. fastened and supported (on both sides) to resist wind loads, and all
materials must be durable for the expected service life of the assem-
THERMAL RESISTANCE OF PLANE AIR SPACES bly. The air barrier must also be continuous, and should be installed
Table 3 provides effective resistance values for plane (i.e., gen- in such a way as to discourage wind washing (i.e., air movement that
erally flat) air spaces enclosed in an assembly. Where an assembly reduces the thermal resistance of insulation layers in the assembly).
incorporates reflective insulation, the effect of the reflective surface
is ascribed to the air space, not to the material component. Note that WATER VAPOR PERMEANCE DATA
the reflective surface must face an air space to have any effect in
reducing thermal transmittance, and assigning the value of the Table 5 gives typical water vapor permeance and permeability
reflective surface to the air space in a design calculation reinforces values for common building materials. These values can be used to
this concept. Reflective insulation systems are bounded by an calculate water vapor flow through building components and assem-
enclosed air space within an assembly, whereas radiant barrier blies using equations in Chapter 25.
systems feature a reflective surface facing an open airspace. Reflec- Water vapor permeability of most building materials is a function
tive insulation may be described as modifying the effective R-value of moisture content, which, in turn, is a function of ambient relative
of the assembly, but a radiant barrier system may not. This includes humidity. Permeability values at various relative humidities are pre-
reflective surfaces behind siding, which should not be considered sented in Table 6 for several building materials. The same data are
Table 3 Thermal Resistances of Plane Air Spaces,a,b,c (m2 ·K)/W

Air Space Effective Emittance eff d,e
Position of Direction of Mean Temp. 13 mm Air Spacec 20 mm Air Spacec
Air Space Heat Flow Temp.d, °C Diff.,d K 0.03 0.05 0.2 0.5 0.82 0.03 0.05 0.2 0.5 0.82
32.2 5.6 0.37 0.36 0.27 0.17 0.13 0.41 0.39 0.28 0.18 0.13
10.0 16.7 0.29 0.28 0.23 0.17 0.13 0.30 0.29 0.24 0.17 0.14
10.0 5.6 0.37 0.36 0.28 0.20 0.15 0.40 0.39 0.30 0.20 0.15
Horiz. Up 17.8 11.1 0.30 0.30 0.26 0.20 0.16 0.32 0.32 0.27 0.20 0.16
17.8 5.6 0.37 0.36 0.30 0.22 0.18 0.39 0.38 0.31 0.23 0.18
45.6 11.1 0.30 0.29 0.26 0.22 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.27 0.22 0.19
45.6 5.6 0.36 0.35 0.31 0.25 0.20 0.38 0.37 0.32 0.26 0.21
32.2 5.6 0.43 0.41 0.29 0.19 0.13 0.52 0.49 0.33 0.20 0.14
10.0 16.7 0.36 0.35 0.27 0.19 0.15 0.35 0.34 0.27 0.19 0.14
10.0 5.6 0.45 0.43 0.32 0.21 0.16 0.51 0.48 0.35 0.23 0.17
45° Up 17.8 11.1 0.39 0.38 0.31 0.23 0.18 0.37 0.36 0.30 0.23 0.18
Slope
17.8 5.6 0.46 0.45 0.36 0.25 0.19 0.48 0.46 0.37 0.26 0.20
45.6 11.1 0.37 0.36 0.31 0.25 0.21 0.36 0.35 0.31 0.25 0.20
45.6 5.6 0.46 0.45 0.38 0.29 0.23 0.45 0.43 0.37 0.29 0.23
32.2 5.6 0.43 0.41 0.29 0.19 0.14 0.62 0.57 0.37 0.21 0.15
10.0 16.7 0.45 0.43 0.32 0.22 0.16 0.51 0.49 0.35 0.23 0.17
10.0 5.6 0.47 0.45 0.33 0.22 0.16 0.65 0.61 0.41 0.25 0.18
Vertical Horiz. 17.8 11.1 0.50 0.48 0.38 0.26 0.20 0.55 0.53 0.41 0.28 0.21
17.8 5.6 0.52 0.50 0.39 0.27 0.20 0.66 0.63 0.46 0.30 0.22
45.6 11.1 0.51 0.50 0.41 0.31 0.24 0.51 0.50 0.42 0.31 0.24
45.6 5.6 0.56 0.55 0.45 0.33 0.26 0.65 0.63 0.51 0.36 0.27
32.2 5.6 0.44 0.41 0.29 0.19 0.14 0.62 0.58 0.37 0.21 0.15
10.0 16.7 0.46 0.44 0.33 0.22 0.16 0.60 0.57 0.39 0.24 0.17
10.0 5.6 0.47 0.45 0.33 0.22 0.16 0.67 0.63 0.42 0.26 0.18
45°
Slope Down 17.8 11.1 0.51 0.49 0.39 0.27 0.20 0.66 0.63 0.46 0.30 0.22
17.8 5.6 0.52 0.50 0.39 0.27 0.20 0.73 0.69 0.49 0.32 0.23
45.6 11.1 0.56 0.54 0.44 0.33 0.25 0.67 0.64 0.51 0.36 0.28
45.6 5.6 0.57 0.56 0.45 0.33 0.26 0.77 0.74 0.57 0.39 0.29
32.2 5.6 0.44 0.41 0.29 0.19 0.14 0.62 0.58 0.37 0.21 0.15
10.0 16.7 0.47 0.45 0.33 0.22 0.16 0.66 0.62 0.42 0.25 0.18
10.0 5.6 0.47 0.45 0.33 0.22 0.16 0.68 0.63 0.42 0.26 0.18
Horiz. Down 17.8 11.1 0.52 0.50 0.39 0.27 0.20 0.74 0.70 0.50 0.32 0.23
17.8 5.6 0.52 0.50 0.39 0.27 0.20 0.75 0.71 0.51 0.32 0.23
45.6 11.1 0.57 0.55 0.45 0.33 0.26 0.81 0.78 0.59 0.40 0.30
45.6 5.6 0.58 0.56 0.46 0.33 0.26 0.83 0.79 0.60 0.40 0.30
Air Space 40 mm Air Spacec 90 mm Air Spacec
32.2 5.6 0.45 0.42 0.30 0.19 0.14 0.50 0.47 0.32 0.20 0.14
10.0 16.7 0.33 0.32 0.26 0.18 0.14 0.27 0.35 0.28 0.19 0.15
10.0 5.6 0.44 0.42 0.32 0.21 0.16 0.49 0.47 0.34 0.23 0.16
Horiz. Up 17.8 11.1 0.35 0.34 0.29 0.22 0.17 0.40 0.38 0.32 0.23 0.18
17.8 5.6 0.43 0.41 0.33 0.24 0.19 0.48 0.46 0.36 0.26 0.20
45.6 11.1 0.34 0.34 0.30 0.24 0.20 0.39 0.38 0.33 0.26 0.21
45.6 5.6 0.42 0.41 0.35 0.27 0.22 0.47 0.45 0.38 0.29 0.23
32.2 5.6 0.51 0.48 0.33 0.20 0.14 0.56 0.52 0.35 0.21 0.14
10.0 16.7 0.38 0.36 0.28 0.20 0.15 0.40 0.38 0.29 0.20 0.15
10.0 5.6 0.51 0.48 0.35 0.23 0.17 0.55 0.52 0.37 0.24 0.17
45° 17.8 11.1
Slope Up 0.40 0.39 0.32 0.24 0.18 0.43 0.41 0.33 0.24 0.19
17.8 5.6 0.49 0.47 0.37 0.26 0.20 0.52 0.51 0.39 0.27 0.20
45.6 11.1 0.39 0.38 0.33 0.26 0.21 0.41 0.40 0.35 0.27 0.22
45.6 5.6 0.48 0.46 0.39 0.30 0.24 0.51 0.49 0.41 0.31 0.24
32.2 5.6 0.70 0.64 0.40 0.22 0.15 0.65 0.60 0.38 0.22 0.15
10.0 16.7 0.45 0.43 0.32 0.22 0.16 0.47 0.45 0.33 0.22 0.16
10.0 5.6 0.67 0.62 0.42 0.26 0.18 0.64 0.60 0.41 0.25 0.18
Vertical Horiz. 17.8 11.1 0.49 0.47 0.37 0.26 0.20 0.51 0.49 0.38 0.27 0.20
17.8 5.6 0.62 0.59 0.44 0.29 0.22 0.61 0.59 0.44 0.29 0.22
45.6 11.1 0.46 0.45 0.38 0.29 0.23 0.50 0.48 0.40 0.30 0.24
45.6 5.6 0.58 0.56 0.46 0.34 0.26 0.60 0.58 0.47 0.34 0.26
Table 3 Thermal Resistances of Plane Air Spaces,a,b,c (m2 ·K)/W (Continued)

Air Space Effective Emittance eff d,e
Position of Direction of Mean Temp. 40 mm Air Spacec 90 mm Air Spacec
Air Space Heat Flow Temp.d, °C Diff.,d K 0.03 0.05 0.2 0.5 0.82 0.03 0.05 0.2 0.5 0.82
32.2 5.6 0.89 0.80 0.45 0.24 0.16 0.85 0.76 0.44 0.24 0.16
10.0 16.7 0.63 0.59 0.41 0.25 0.18 0.62 0.58 0.40 0.25 0.18
10.0 5.6 0.90 0.82 0.50 0.28 0.19 0.83 0.77 0.48 0.28 0.19
45° 17.8 11.1 0.68 0.64 0.47 0.31 0.22 0.67 0.64 0.47 0.31 0.22
Slope Down
17.8 5.6 0.87 0.81 0.56 0.34 0.24 0.81 0.76 0.53 0.33 0.24
45.6 11.1 0.64 0.62 0.49 0.35 0.27 0.66 0.64 0.51 0.36 0.28
45.6 5.6 0.82 0.79 0.60 0.40 0.30 0.79 0.76 0.58 0.40 0.30
32.2 5.6 1.07 0.94 0.49 0.25 0.17 1.77 1.44 0.60 0.28 0.18
10.0 16.7 1.10 0.99 0.56 0.30 0.20 1.69 1.44 0.68 0.33 0.21
10.0 5.6 1.16 1.04 0.58 0.30 0.20 1.96 1.63 0.72 0.34 0.22
Horiz. Down 17.8 11.1 1.24 1.13 0.69 0.39 0.26 1.92 1.68 0.86 0.43 0.29
17.8 5.6 1.29 1.17 0.70 0.39 0.27 2.11 1.82 0.89 0.44 0.29
45.6 11.1 1.36 1.27 0.84 0.50 0.35 2.05 1.85 1.06 0.57 0.38
45.6 5.6 1.42 1.32 0.86 0.51 0.35 2.28 2.03 1.12 0.59 0.39
Air Space 143 mm Air Spacec
32.2 5.6 0.53 0.50 0.33 0.20 0.14
10.0 16.7 0.39 0.38 0.29 0.20 0.15
10.0 5.6 0.52 0.50 0.36 0.23 0.17
Horiz. Up 17.8 11.1 0.42 0.41 0.33 0.24 0.19
17.8 5.6 0.51 0.49 0.38 0.27 0.20

45.6 11.1 0.41 0.40 0.34 0.27 0.22
45.6 5.6 0.49 0.48 0.40 0.30 0.24
32.2 5.6 0.57 0.54 0.35 0.21 0.15
10.0 16.7 0.39 0.37 0.29 0.20 0.15
10.0 5.6 0.56 053 0.37 0.24 0.17
45°
Slope Up 17.8 11.1 0.41 0.40 0.33 0.24 0.18
17.8 5.6 0.53 0.51 0.39 0.27 0.20
45.6 11.1 0.38 0.37 0.32 0.26 0.21
45.6 11.1 0.49 0.48 0.40 0.30 0.24
32.2 5.6 0.66 0.61 0.38 0.22 0.15
10.0 16.7 0.50 0.47 0.35 0.23 0.16
10.0 5.6 0.66 0.61 0.42 0.25 0.18
Vertical Horiz. 17.8 11.1 0.54 0.52 0.40 0.28 0.21
17.8 5.6 0.64 0.61 0.46 0.30 0.22
45.6 11.1 0.53 0.52 0.43 0.32 0.25
45.6 11.1 0.63 0.61 0.49 0.35 0.27
32.2 5.6 0.865 0.78 0.44 0.24 0.16
10.0 16.7 0.68 0.64 0.43 0.26 0.18
10.0 5.6 0.87 0.80 0.49 0.28 0.19
45°
Slope
Down 17.8 11.1 0.75 0.71 0.50 0.32 0.23
17.8 5.6 0.87 0.82 0.56 0.34 0.24
45.6 11.1 0.75 0.73 0.56 0.39 0.29
45.6 11.1 0.87 0.83 0.62 0.41 0.31
32.2 5.6 2.06 1.63 0.63 0.28 0.18
10.0 16.7 1.87 1.57 0.71 0.34 0.22
10.0 5.6 2.24 1.82 0.75 0.35 0.22
Horiz. Down 17.8 11.1 2.13 1.84 0.90 0.44 0.29
17.8 5.6 2.43 2.05 0.95 0.46 0.29
45.6 11.1 2.19 1.96 1.10 0.58 0.39
45.6 11.1 2.57 2.26 1.18 0.61 0.40
aSee Chapter 25. Thermal resistance values were determined from R = 1/C, where C = hc + eff hr, hc cA single resistance value cannot account for multiple air spaces; each air
is conduction/convection coefficient, eff hr is radiation coefficient  0.227eff [(tm + 273)/100]3, and space requires a separate resistance calculation that applies only for
tm is mean temperature of air space. Values for hc were determined from data developed by Robin- established boundary conditions. Resistances of horizontal spaces with
son et al. (1954). Equations (5) to (7) in Yarbrough (1983) show data in this table in analytic form. heat flow downward are substantially independent of temperature differ-
For extrapolation from this table to air spaces less than 12.5 mm (e.g., insulating window glass), ence.
assume hc = 21.8(1 + 0.00274tm)/l, where l is air space thickness in mm, and hc is heat transfer in W/ dInterpolation is permissible for other values of mean temperature, tem-
(m2 ·K) through air space only. perature difference, and effective emittance eff. Interpolation and moder-
bValues based on data presented by Robinson et al. (1954). (Also see Chapter 4, Tables 5 and 6, and ate extrapolation for air spaces greater than 90 mm are also permissible.
Chapter 33). Values apply for ideal conditions (i.e., air spaces of uniform thickness bounded by eEffective emittance  of air space is given by 1/ = 1/ + 1/  1,
eff eff 1 2
plane, smooth, parallel surfaces with no air leakage to or from the space). This table should not where 1 and 2 are emittances of surfaces of air space (see Table 2).
be used for hollow siding or profiled cladding: see Table 1. For greater accuracy, use overall U- Also, oxidation, corrosion, and accumulation of dust and dirt can
factors determined through guarded hot box (ASTM Standard C1363) testing. Thermal resistance dramatically increase surface emittance. Emittance values of 0.05
values for multiple air spaces must be based on careful estimates of mean temperature differences should only be used where the highly reflective surface can be main-
for each air space. tained over the service life of the assembly.
Table 4 Air Permeability of Different Materials

Mean Air
Permeability,
Material kg/(Pa · s · m)
Cement board, 12.5 mm, 1140 kg/m3 3 10–8
Fiber cement board, 6.3 mm, 1380 kg/m3 3  10–12
Gypsum wall board, 12.5 mm, 625 kg/m3 4.2  10–9
with one coat primer 2.2 10–8
with one coat primer/two coats latex paint 2.5  10–9
Hardboard siding, 9.5 mm, 740 kg/m3 4.5  10–9
Oriented strand board (OSB), 1140 kg/m3, 9.5 mm 1  10–9
11 mm 2  10–9
12.5 mm 1  10–9
Douglas fir plywood, 12.5 mm, 455 kg/m3 4  10–11
16 mm, 545 kg/m3 1  10–9
Canadian softwood plywood, 19 mm, 450 kg/m3 2  10–11
Wood fiber board, 9.5 mm, 320 kg/m3 2.5  10–7
Masonry Materials
Aerated concrete, 460 kg/m3 5  10–9
Cement mortar, 1600 kg/m3 1.5  10–9 Fig. 4 Permeability of Wood-Based Sheathing Materials at
Clay brick, 100 by 100 by 200 mm, 1990 kg/m3 2 to 5  10–10 Various Relative Humidities
Limestone, 2500 kg/m3 negligible
Portland stucco mix, 1990 kg/m3 1  10–11
Eastern white cedar, (transverse) 19 mm, 465 kg/ negligible

m3}
Eastern white pine, (transverse) 19 mm, 465 kg/m3 1  10–12
Southern yellow pine, (transverse) 19 mm, 500 kg/ 3  10–11
m3
Spruce, (transverse) 19 mm, 400 kg/m3 5  10–11
Western red cedar, (transverse) 19 mm, 350 kg/m3 < 1  10–12
Cellulose insulation, dry blown, 32 kg/m3 2.9  10–4
Glass fiber batt, 16 kg/m3 2.5  10–4
Polystyrene expanded, 16 kg/m3 1.1  10–8
sprayed foam, 38 kg/m3 1  10–11
6.5 to 19 kg/m3 4.2  10–9
Polyisocyanurate insulation, 26.5 kg/m3 negligible
Bituminous paper (#15 felt), (transverse) 0.7 mm, 2.5  10–6
865 kg/m3 Fig. 5 Sorption/Desorption Isotherms, Cement Board
Asphalt-impregnated paper 1.1  10–6
#10, (transverse) 0.13 mm, 95 kg/m3
#30, (transverse) 0.15 mm, 130 kg/m3 6.6  10–6 moisture (the sorption isotherm) is usually above the curve show-
#60, (transverse) 0.23 mm, 260 kg/m3 7.1  10–6 ing drying (the desorption isotherm) because the material’s uptake
Spun bonded polyolefin (SBPO) (transverse) 0.1 4.6  10–7 and release of moisture are inhibited by surface tension. Table 7 pro-
mm, 14 kg/m3 vides data for these curves for several hygroscopic materials, and
with crinkled surface, (transverse) 0.075-0.1 mm, 3  10–7 Kumaran (1996, 2002) and McGowan (2007) provide actual curves,
15 kg/m3 additional data, and conditions under which they were determined.
Wallpaper, vinyl, (transverse) 0.13 mm, 94 kg/m3 5  10–9 Table 7 expresses moisture content as percentage of dry mass,
Exterior insulated finish system (EIFS), 1 mm, 0 followed by a subscript value of the relative air humidity at which
1140 kg/m3 this moisture content occurs. Note that these values are based on
Source: Kumaran (2002). measurement of materials that have reached equilibrium with their
surroundings, which in some cases can take many weeks. Most
hygrothermal simulation software programs that use these values
presented in Figure 4 for oriented strand board (OSB) and plywood assume that equilibrium is achieved instantaneously.
samples. Data in this table and chart are from Kumaran (2002). Maximum values in Table 7 are those that could be realistically
Users of the dew-point method may use constant values found in measured in laboratory conditions, so not all materials have a listing
Table 5. However, if condensation in the assembly is predicted, then for maximum moisture content at 100% relative humidity. For those
a more appropriate value should be used. Transient hygrothermal that do, there may be two listings: the moisture content measured
modeling typically uses vapor permeability values that vary with when the material’s capillary pores were saturated (shown as 100c),
relative humidity, such as those given in Table 6. and the value at total saturation (shown as 100t). Note that the mois-
ture content of any material is 0.0 at a theoretical relative humidity
MOISTURE STORAGE DATA of 0%, so this point is not shown in the table.
Transient analysis of assemblies requires consideration of the Figure 5 shows an example of a conventional sorption isotherm
materials’ moisture storage capacity. Some hygroscopic materials graph. Curves show sorption (wetting) and desorption (drying) for
adsorb or reject moisture to achieve equilibrium with adjacent air. data in Table 7 and from Kumaran (2002). (Data from Table 7 were
Storage capacity of these materials is typically illustrated by graphs selectively used to provide an accurate representation of the sorp-
of moisture content versus humidity. The curve showing uptake of tion isotherm; not all data from the original source are represented.)
Table 5 Typical Water Vapor Permeance and Permeability for Common Building Materialsa
Permeance, ng/(Pa · s · m2)
Mass, Thickness, Permeability,
Material kg/m2 mm Dry-Cup Wet-Cup Other Method ng/(Pa · s · m)
Plastic and Metal Foils and Filmsb
Aluminum foil 0.025 0.0
0.009 2.9
Polyethylene 0.051 9.1 4.7  10–4
0.1 4.6 4.7  10–4
0.15 3.4b 4.7  10–4
0.2 2.3b 4.7  10–4
0.25 1.7 4.7  10–4
Polyvinylchloride, unplasticized 0.051 39b
Polyvinylchloride, plasticized 0.1 46 to 80
Polyester 0.025 42
0.09 13
0.19 4.6
Cellulose acetate 0.25 263
3.2 18
Liquid-Applied Coating Materials
Commercial latex paints (dry film thickness)
Vapor retarder paint 0.07 26
Primer-sealer 0.03 360
Vinyl acetate/acrylic primer 0.05 424

Vinyl/acrylic primer 0.04 491
Semigloss vinyl/acrylic enamel 0.06 378
Exterior acrylic house and trim 0.04 313
Paint, 2 coats
Asphalt paint on plywood 23
Aluminum varnish on wood 17 to 29
Enamels on smooth plaster 29 to 86
Primers and sealers on interior insulation board 51 to 120
Various primers plus 1 coat flat oil paint on plaster 91 to 172
Flat paint on interior insulation board 229
Water emulsion on interior insulation board 1716 to 4863
Paint, 3 coats
Exterior paint, white lead and oil on wood siding 17 to 57
Exterior paint, white lead/zinc oxide and oil on wood 51
Styrene/butadiene latex coating 0.6 629
Polyvinyl acetate latex coating 1.2 315
Chlorosulfonated polyethylene mastic 1.1 97
2.2 3.4
Asphalt cutback mastic
1.6 mm, dry 8.0
4.8 mm, dry 0.0
Hot-melt asphalt 0.6 29
1.1 5.7
Building Paper, Felts, Roofing Papersc
Duplex sheet, asphalt laminated, aluminum foil one side 0.42 0.1 10
Saturated and coated roll roofing 3.18 2.9 14
Kraft paper and asphalt laminated, reinforced 0.33 17 103
Blanket thermal insulation back-up paper, asphalt coated 0.30 23 34 to 240
Asphalt, saturated and coated vapor retarder paper 0.42 11 to 17 34
Asphalt, saturated, but not coated, sheathing paper 0.21 190 1160
asphalt felt, 0.73 kg/m2 0.68 57 320
tar felt, 0.73 kg/m2 0.68 230 1040
Single kraft, double 0.16 1170 2400
Polyamide film, 2 mil 62.9 1174
Source: Lotz (1964).
aThis table allows comparisons of materials, but when selecting vapor retarder materials, exact values for permeance bUsually installed as vapor retarders, although sometimes
or permeability should be obtained from manufacturer or from laboratory tests. Values shown indicate variations used as exterior finish and elsewhere near the cold side,
among mean values for materials that are similar but of different density, orientation, lot, or source. Values should where special considerations are then required for warm-
not be used as design or specification data. Values from dry- and wet-cup methods were usually obtained from side barrier effectiveness.
investigations using ASTM Standards C355 and E96; other values were obtained by two-temperature, special cell, cLow-permeance sheets used as vapor retarders. High per-
and air velocity methods. meance used elsewhere in construction.
Table 6 Water Vapor Permeability at Various Relative Humidities and Capillary Water Absorption Coefficient
Permeability at Various Relative Humidities, Water
ng/(Pa · s · m) Absorption
Coefficient,
Material 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% kg/(s½ ·m2) References/Comments
Asbestos cement board, 3 mm thickness 0.66 to 1.37   N/A  Dry cup*
with oil-base finishes  0.05 to 0.09   N/A 
Cement board, 13 mm, 1130 kg/m3 7.4 7.4 9.3 12 16 0.013 Kumaran (2002)
Fiber cement board, 8 mm, 1380 kg/m3 0.21 0.58 1.6 4.7 14.8 0.025 Kumaran (2002)
Gypsum board 21 23 30 Kumaran (1996)
asphalt impregnated  0.038 
Gypsum wall board, 13 mm, 625 kg/m3 23.4 27.2 31.9 37.6 44.7 0.0019c Kumaran (2002)
with one coat primer 6.83 14.9 22.0 28.9 35.9 N/A Kumaran (2002)
with one coat primer/two coats latex paint 1.1 2.1 4.0 8.0 16.5 N/A Kumaran (2002)
Hardboard siding, 11 mm, 740 kg/m3 3.92 4.28 4.67 5.10 5.58 0.00072 Kumaran (2002)
Oriented strand board (OSB), 9.5 mm, 660 kg/m3 0.0064 0.177 0.487 1.35 3.83 0.0016 Kumaran (2002)
11.1 mm 0.026 0.60 1.23 2.30 4.08 0.0022 Kumaran (2002)
12.7 mm 0.044 0.344 0.90 1.70 2.75 0.0016 Kumaran (2002)
Particleboard 4.4 6.0 10.2 15.2 Kumaran (1996)
Douglas fir plywood, 12 mm, 470 kg/m3 0.19 0.59 1.46 3.19 6.50 0.0042d Kumaran (2002)
15 mm, 550 kg/m3 0.15 0.41 1.09 2.91 7.99 0.0031 Kumaran (2002)
Canadian softwood plywood, 18 mm, 445 kg/m3 0.06 0.57 2.28 6.12 13.30 0.0037 Kumaran (2002)
Plywood (exterior-grade), 12 mm, 580 kg/m3
0.21 0.36 0.80 8.62 Burch and Desjarlais (1995)

Wood fiber board, 11 mm, 320 kg/m3 12.4 13.6 15.0 16.4 18.1 0.00094 Kumaran (2002)
25 mm, 300 kg/m3 71.5 58.4 86.7 77.2 Burch and Desjarlais (1995)
Masonry Materials
Aerated concrete, 460 kg/m3 11.2 15.9 22.9 33.4 50 0.036 Kumaran (2002)
600 kg/m3 18 21.6 22 42 63 Kumaran (1996)
Cement mortar, 1600 kg/m3 13.6 16.5 20.1 24.5 30.2 0.02 Kumaran (2002)
Clay brick, 100 by 100 by 200 mm, 1980 kg/m3 4.14 4.44 4.77 5.12 5.50 0.17 Kumaran (2002)
Concrete, 2200 kg/m3 1.26 1.4 2.5 6.5 Kumaran (1996)
Concrete block (cored, limestone aggregate), 200 mm27.4
Lightweight concrete, 1100 kg/m3 12.3 11.4 18.7 Kumaran (1996)
Limestone, 2500 kg/m3 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.00033 Kumaran (2002)
Perlite board 28 33 82 Kumaran (1996)
Plaster, on metal lath, 19 mm 16.3
on wood lath 12.0
on plain gypsum lath (with studs) 21.7
Polystyrene concrete, 530 kg/m3 0.88 1.1 2.7 Kumaran (1996)
Portland stucco mix, 1985 kg/m3 0.81 1.15 1.63 2.31 3.26 0.012 Kumaran (2002)
Tile masonry, glazed, 100 mm 0.69
Woods
Eastern white cedar, 20 mm, 360 kg/m3 (transverse) 0.013 0.078 0.48 3.05 20.9 0.0016 Kumaran (2002)
Eastern white pine, 19 mm, 460 kg/m3 (transverse) 0.47 0.17 0.67 2.58 10.2 0.0066 Kumaran (2002)
Pine 0.35 0.51 1.1 3.1 6.3 Kumaran (1996)
Southern yellow pine, 20 mm, 350 kg/m3 (transverse) 0.12 0.404 1.37 4.7 16.9 0.0014 Kumaran (2002)
Spruce (longitudinal) 53 74 84 86 87 Kumaran (1996)
20 mm, 400 kg/m3 (transverse) 0.37 1.08 3.13 9.27 29.5 0.002 Kumaran (2002)
Western red cedar, 18 mm, 350 kg/m3 (transverse) 0.106 0.228 0.491 1.06 2.29 0.001 Kumaran (2002)
Insulation
Air (still) 174 
Cellular glass  0.0 
Cellulose insulation, dry blown, 30 kg/m3 112 140 156 168 178 0.1 Kumaran (2002)
Corkboard 3.0 to 3.8 14
Glass fiber batt, 11.5 kg/m3 172 172 172 172 172 N/A Kumaran (2002)
Glass-fiber insulation board, 24 mm, 120 kg/m3 238 152 Burch and Desjarlais (1995)
facer, 1.6 mm, 880 kg/m3 0.004 0.00251 0.0184 0.0389 Burch and Desjarlais (1995)
Mineral fiber insulation, 30 to 190 kg/m3 70 88 250 Kumaran (1996)
Mineral wool (unprotected) 245 
Phenolic foam (covering removed)  38 
Polystyrene expanded, 14.8 kg/m3 2.85 3.36 3.96 4.66 5.50 N/A Kumaran (2002)
extruded, 28.6 kg/m3 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 N/A Kumaran (2002)
Polyurethane expanded board stock
[(R = 1.94 W/(m2 ·K)] 0.58 to 2.3
Table 6 Water Vapor Permeability at Various Relative Humidities and Capillary Water Absorption Coefficient (Continued)
Permeability at Various Relative Humidities, Water
ng/(Pa · s · m) Absorption
Coefficient,
Material 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% kg/(s½ ·m2) References/Comments
sprayed foam, 39.0 kg/m3 2.34 2.54 2.75 2.97 3.22 N/A Kumaran (2002)
6.5 to 8.5 kg/m3 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 87.5 N/A Kumaran (2002)
Polyisocyanurate insulation, 26.5 kg/m3 4.04 4.56 5.14 5.80 6.55 N/A Kumaran (2002)
Polyisocyanurate glass-mat facer, 0.8 mm, 430 kg/m3 0.49 0.90 1.30 2.29 Burch and Desjarlais (1995)
Structural insulating board, sheathing quality 29 to 73
interior, uncoated, 13 mm 37.2 to 67 
Unicellular synthetic flexible rubber foam 0.029
Foil, Felt, Paper
Bituminous paper (#15 felt), 0.72 mm, 515 g/m2
(transverse) 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.40 1.17 0.0005 Kumaran (2002)
Asphalt-impregnated paper
10 min rating, 0.2 mm, 170 g/m2 (transverse) 0.24 0.43 0.78 1.48 3.06 0.001 Kumaran (2002)
Spun bonded polyolefin (SBPO)
0.14 to 0.15 mm, 65 g/m2 (transverse) 4.37 4.37 4.37 4.37 4.37 0.00031 Kumaran (2002)
with crinkled surface,
0.1 to 0.11 mm, 67 g/m2 (transverse) 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17 3.17 0.00024 Kumaran (2002)
Wallpaper
paper 0.12 1.2 to 1.7 Kumaran (1996)

textile 0.05 0.74 to 2.34 Kumaran (1996)
vinyl, 0.205 mm, 170 g/m2 (transverse) 0.08 0.14 0.21 0.32 0.46 0.00025 Kumaran (2002)
Other Construction Materials
Built-up roofing (hot-mopped) 0.0 
Exterior insulated finish system (EIFS), 4.4 mm 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.00053 Kumaran (2002)
acrylic, 1140 kg/m3
Glass fiber reinforced sheet, acrylic, 1.4 mm 0.01 
polyester, 1.2 mm 0.035 
*Historical data, no reference available N/A = Not applicable
using envelopes of thermal behavior coupled with field moisture

content ranges for different soil types. In Figure 6, “well graded”
applies to granular soils with good representation of all particle
sizes from largest to smallest. “Poorly graded” refers to granular
soils with either uniform gradation, in which most particles are
about the same size, or skip (or gap) gradation, in which particles of
one or more intermediate sizes are not present.
Although thermal conductivity varies greatly over the complete
range of possible moisture contents, this range can be narrowed if it
is assumed that the moisture contents of most field soils lie between
the wilting point of the soil (i.e., the moisture content of a soil
below which a plant cannot alleviate its wilting symptoms) and the
field capacity of the soil (i.e., the moisture content of a soil that has
been thoroughly wetted and then drained until the drainage rate has
become negligibly small). After a prolonged dry spell, moisture is
near the wilting point, and after a rainy period, soil has moisture
content near its field capacity. Moisture contents at these limits have
been studied by many agricultural researchers, and data for different
Fig. 6 Trends of Apparent Thermal Conductivity types of soil are given by Kersten (1949) and Salomone and Mar-
of Moist Soils lowe (1989). Shaded areas in Figure 6 approximate (1) the full range
of moisture contents for different soil types and (2) a range between
average values of each limit.
SOILS DATA Table 8 summarizes design values for thermal conductivities of
Apparent soil thermal conductivity is difficult to estimate and the basic soil classes. Table 9 gives ranges of thermal conductivity
may change in the same soil at different times because of changed for some basic classes of rock. The value chosen depends on
moisture conditions and freezing temperatures. whether heat transfer is calculated for minimum heat loss through
Figure 6 shows typical apparent soil thermal conductivity as a the soil, as in a ground heat exchange system, or a maximum value,
function of moisture content for different general types of soil. The as in peak winter heat loss calculations for a basement. Hence, high
figure is based on data presented in Salomone and Marlowe (1989) and low values are given for each soil class.
Table 7 Sorption/Desorption Isotherms of Building Materials at Various Relative Humidities

Sorption, % Moisture Content at Desorption, % Moisture Content at
Material % Relative Humidity % Relative Humidity References
Cement board, 13 mm, 143 1.970 3.481 6.193 42.7100t 1.643 3.270 4.681 6.293 1899.27 2899.93 Kumaran (2002)
1130 kg/m3
Fiber cement board, 450.6 5.870.4 16.889.9 34.7100t 6.650.5 12.370.5 19.690.6 31.395.32 32.599.49 33.999.93 Kumaran (2002)
8 mm, 1380 kg/m3
Gypsum wall board, 0.450.5 0.6570.5 1.890.8 4.294 68.9100c 113100t 0.9950.4 1.3271.5 1.6984.8 1.8288.3 Kumaran (2002)
13 mm, 625 kg/m3
Hardboard siding, 4.750.3 6.969.6 13.191.3 90100t 4.450.3 7.669.2 13.491.3 3891.3 Kumaran (2002)
11 mm, 740 kg/m3
Oriented strand board (OSB),
9.5 mm, 660 kg/m3 4.648.9 7.669.1 14.788.6 126100c 6.949.9 9.169.4 16.290.3 17.392.3 39.399.3 60.699.8 Kumaran (2002)
11.1 mm, 650 kg/m3 5.448.9 8.269.1 14.788.6 160100t 7.949.9 9.969.4 17.490.3 39.199.3 62.799.8 Kumaran (2002)
12.7 mm, 650 kg/m3 4.648.9 7.869.1 14.888.6 124100t 7.949.9 1069.4 17.690.3 2092.3 4299.3 59.5 Kumaran (2002)
Particle board, 19 mm, 1.211.3 6.357.6 9.778.6 11.384.1 15.993.6 21.597.3 1.711.3 8.857.6 1478.6 16.684.1 1993.6 23.397.6 Kumaran (1996)
760 kg/m3
Plywood, 13 mm 748.9 9.269.1 15.888.6 170100t 8.449.9 10.869.4 18.290.3 1992.3 7099.3 101 Kumaran (2002)
16 mm 6.848.9 9.669.1 16.888.6 140100t 8.649.9 11.369.4 19.890.3 19.392.3 4799.3 79 Kumaran (2002)
19 mm 6.748.9 10.169.1 17.688.6 190100t 8.949.9 11.369.4 19.390.3 20.792.3 6699.3 9999.8 Kumaran (2002)
Plywood (exterior grade), 1.8311.3 6.958 9.578.7 12.184.5 17.993.8 22.1 2.0911.3 9.358 13.778.7 15.284.5 19.893.8 23.4 Burch and
12 mm, 580 kg/m3 Desjarlais (1995)
Wood fiber board,
11 mm, 320 kg/m3 4.650.6 7.470.5 15.891.1 304 3.950.6 7.471.1 1590.6 23099.71 23099.85 23099.93 Kumaran (2002)
25 mm, 300 kg/m3 0.6311.3 5.758 9.278.7 11.384.5 16.493.8 24.697.4 1.2611.3 7.658 1278.7 14.684.5 20.693.8 28.197.4
Masonry Materials
Aerated concrete, 460 kg/m3 1.150.6 2.171.5 588.1 83100c 172 1.150.6 2.271.5 6.388.1 3497.81 7299.85 9299.99 Kumaran (2002)
600 kg/m3 1.817.8 3.275.8 4.690.3 6.492.4 9.695.9 17.598.4 2.317.8 2.833 455.2 6.675.6 15.491.6 36.598 Kumaran (1996)
Cement mortar, 1600 kg/m3 0.4249.9 2.370.1 5.389.9 26100t 3.449.9 4.470.2 6.189.9 1798.9 2299.63 2599.93 Kumaran (2002)
Clay brick, 100 × 100 × 0.0850 0.1269.1 0.191.2 9.9100t 050 091.2 4.598.9 699.63 8.299.71 9.199.93 Kumaran (2002)
200 mm, 1980 kg/m3
Concrete, 2200 kg/m3 0.8825.2 1.1544.9 1.7465 2.6280 3.3589.8 4.4598.2 0.9420 2.1945.4 2.9865.6 3.8584.8 4.5794.8 Kumaran (1996)
Lightweight concrete, 2.924.4 3.445.2 465.2 4.685 6.698 3.119.6 4.440 5.259.8 679.6 7.194.7 Kumaran (1996)
1100 kg/m3
Limestone, 2500 kg/m3 050 070 0.188.5 1.8100t 070.5 0.188.6 0.2195.3 0.598.9 0.699.27 1.399.93 Kumaran (2002)
Perlite board 13033 16052 26075 38086 80097 117099.8 Kumaran (1996)
Portland stucco mix, 350 3.770.3 5.889.9 12100t 4.250 5.270.3 790.3 10.395.29 11.698.9 11.799.93 Kumaran (2002)
1985 kg/m3
Woods
Eastern white cedar, 25 mm, 3.449.8 7.670 12.888.5 228100t 1.750 7.470.5 11.988.7 8598.9 11899.63 17699.92
360 kg/m3
Eastern white pine, 25 mm, 3.249.8 7.670 1288.5 192100t 3.250 970.5 12.488.7 8499.78
460 kg/m3
Southern yellow pine, 25 mm, 3.649.8 8.170 15.288.5 158100t 4.350 1070.5 15.688.7 5799.78
500 kg/m3
Spruce (transverse) 4.149.8 9.270 16.788.5 228100t 4.950 11.370.5 17.788.7 14895.96 18799.78
Western red cedar, 25 mm, 3.449.8 670 9.688.5 228100t 150 970.5 13.388.7 11399.78
350 kg/m3
Insulation
Cellulose, dry blown, 30 kg/m3 6.150.5 9.671.5 2488.1 550.2 1272.8 2688 Kumaran (2002)
Glass fiber batt, 11.5 kg/m3 0.2150.6 0.3471.5 0.7588.1 0.2450.4 0.3571.4 0.6788.2 Kumaran (2002)
Glass fiber board, 0.1611.3 0.75 0.8278.7 0.9684.5 1.393.8 2.0397.4 0.4311.3 0.8632.8 1.1158 1.2684.5 1.7493.8 2.1697.4 Burch and
Glass-fiber board facer, 0.0911.3 0.5358 0.7678.7 0.8484.5 1.1493.8 1.5497.4 0.1811.3 0.5658 0.8778.7 1.0984.5 1.4593.8 1.8197.4 Burch and
1.6 mm, 880 kg/m3 Desjarlais (1995)
Mineral fiber, 40 kg/m3 0.520.1 0.5545.4 0.5965 0.785.2 0.7694.5 0.897.5 0.520.1 0.5844.9 0.6364.9 0.8184.5 1.194.7 1.697.8 Kumaran (1996)
Polystyrene, expanded,
14.8 kg/m3 0.450.4 0.368.3 0.288.3 0.450.1 0.567.9 0.587.9 Kumaran (2002)
extruded,
28.6 kg/m3 0.650.4 0.568.3 0.488.3 0.550.1 0.567.9 0.487.9 Kumaran (2002)
Polyurethane, sprayed foam, 1.350.4 1.768.3 288.4 1.150.1 1.567.9 1.887.9 Kumaran (2002)
39 kg/m3
6.5 to 8.5 kg/m3 0.550.4 170.2 1.690.3 150.5 2.170.9 791.3 Kumaran (2002)
Polyisocyanurate, 26.5 kg/m3 1.350.4 1.768.3 2.188.3 1.150.1 1.567.9 1.987.9 Kumaran (2002)
Polyisocyanurate glass facer, 1.3611.3 4.558 6.878.7 984.5 12.593.8 17.997.4 0.8911.3 5.858 8.378.7 10.9 14.493.8 18.497.4 Burch and
Table 8 Typical Apparent Thermal Conductivity Values Table 10 Surface Film Coefficients/Resistances
for Soils, W/(m· K) Surface Emittance, 
Recommended Values for Designa Reflective
Nonreflective
Lowb Highc Direction
Normal Range  = 0.90  = 0.20  = 0.05
Position of of
Sands 0.6 to 2.5 0.78 2.25 Surface Heat Flow hi Ri hi Ri hi Ri
Silts 0.9 to 2.5 1.64 2.25
Indoor
Clays 0.9 to 1.6 1.12 1.56
Loams 0.9 to 2.5 0.95 2.25 Horizontal Upward 9.26 0.11 5.17 0.19 4.32 0.23
a Reasonable
Sloping at 45° Upward 9.09 0.11 5.00 0.20 4.15 0.24
values for use when no site- or soil-specific data are available.
b Moderately conservative values for minimum heat loss through soil (e.g., use in soil Vertical Horizontal 8.29 0.12 4.20 0.24 3.35 0.30
heat exchanger or earth-contact cooling calculations). Values are from Salomone and Sloping at 45° Downward 7.50 0.13 3.41 0.29 2.56 0.39
Marlowe (1989). Horizontal Downward 6.13 0.16 2.10 0.48 1.25 0.80
c Moderately conservative values for maximum heat loss through soil (e.g., use in peak
winter heat loss calculations). Values are from Salomone and Marlowe (1989). Outdoor (any position) ho Ro
Wind (for winter) Any 34.0 0.030 — — — —
Table 9 Typical Apparent Thermal Conductivity Values at 6.7 m/s
for Rocks, W/(m ·K) Wind (for summer) Any 22.7 0.044 — — — —
at 3.4 m/s
Normal Range
Notes:
Pumice, tuff, obsidian 0.5 to 2.2 1. Surface conductance hi and ho measured in W/(m2 ·K); resistance Ri and Ro in
Basalt 0.5 to 2.6 (m2 ·K)/W.
2. No surface has both an air space resistance value and a surface resistance value.
Shale 0.9 to 4.0 3. Conductances are for surfaces of the stated emittance facing virtual blackbody sur-
Granite 1.7 to 4.3 roundings at same temperature as ambient air. Values based on surface/air tempera-
ture difference of 5.6 K and surface temperatures of 21°C.
Limestone, dolomite, marble 1.2 to 4.3

4. See Chapter 4 for more detailed information.
Quartzose sandstone 1.4 to 7.8 5. Condensate can have significant effect on surface emittance (see Table 2). Also, oxi-
dation, corrosion, and accumulation of dust and dirt can dramatically increase sur-
face emittance. Emittance values of 0.05 should only be used where highly reflective
As heat flows through soil, moisture tends to move away from surface can be maintained over the service life of the assembly.
the heat source. This moisture migration provides initial mass trans-
port of heat, but it also dries the soil adjacent to the heat source, thus Table 11 European Surface Film Coefficients/Resistances
lowering the apparent thermal conductivity in that zone of soil.
Typically, when other factors are held constant, k increases with Direction of h, R,
moisture content and with dry density of a soil, but decreases with Position of Surface Heat Flow W/(m2·K) (m2·K)/W
increasing organic content of a soil and for uniform gradations and Indoors
rounded soil grains (because grain-to-grain contacts are reduced). Horizontal, sloping to 45° Upward 10 0.1
The k of a frozen soil may be higher or lower than that of the same Downward 6 0.17
unfrozen soil (because the conductivity of ice is higher than that of Vertical, sloping beyond 45° Any direction 7.7 0.13
water but lower than that of typical soil grains). Differences in k
Outdoors 25 0.04
below moisture contents of 7 to 8% are quite small. At approxi-
mately 15% moisture content, k may vary up to 30% from unfrozen
values. conditions, including interior surface temperatures for fenestration
When calculating annual energy use, choose values that repre- systems, use ASHRAE (1998) or values from Chapter 15 to deter-
sent typical mean site conditions. In climates where ground freezing mine the surface film coefficients/resistances. Table 11 lists the
is significant, accurate heat transfer simulations should include the standard surface film coefficient values used in European stan-
effect of the latent heat of fusion of water. Energy released during dards.
this phase change significantly retards the progress of the frost front
in moist soils. CODES AND STANDARDS
For further information, see Chapter 17, which includes a ASHRAE. 2010. Energy standard for buildings except low-rise residential
method for estimating heat loss through foundations. buildings. ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2010.
ASHRAE. 2009. Criteria for moisture-control design in buildings. ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 160-2009.
SURFACE FILM COEFFICIENTS/ ASTM. 2010. Standard terminology relating to thermal insulation. Standard
RESISTANCES C168-10. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Con-
shohocken, PA.
As explained in Chapter 25, the overall thermal resistance of an ASTM. 2010. Standard test method for steady-state heat flux measurements
assembly comprises its surface-to-surface thermal resistance Rs and thermal transmission properties by means of the guarded-hot-plate
and the surface film resistances between the assembly’s surfaces apparatus. Standard C177-10. American Society for Testing and Materi-
and the interior and exterior environment (Ri and Ro). Table 10 als, West Conshohocken, PA.
gives typical values for the surface film coefficients hi and ho and ASTM. 2010. Standard test method for steady-state heat transfer properties
of pipe insulation. Standard C335/C335M-10e1. American Society for
their reciprocals, the surface resistances Ri and Ro. As shown, the Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
indoor values depend on position of the surface, direction of heat ASTM. 2010. Standard test method for steady-state thermal transmission
transfer, and the surface’s long-wave emissivity. Outdoors, the val- properties by means of the heat flow meter apparatus. Standard C518-10.
ues depends on air speed and the surface’s long-wave emissivity. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
Table 10 reflects standard situations, with an assumed (approxi- ASTM. 2010. Standard practice for selection of water vapor retarders for
mate) interior surface temperature representative of wall or roof thermal insulation. Standard C755-10. American Society for Testing and
assemblies. For situations that deviate substantially from standard Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. 2005. Standard classification of potential health and safety concerns Brandreth, D.A., ed. 1986. Advances in foam aging—A topic in energy con-
associated with thermal insulation materials and accessories. Standard servation series. Caissa Editions, Yorklyn, DE.
C930-05. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Con- Brown, W.C., M.T. Bomberg, J. Rasmussen, and J. Ullett. 1993. Measured
shohocken, PA. thermal resistance of frame walls with defects in the installation of min-
ASTM. 2007. Standard practice for calculating thermal transmission prop- eral fibre insulation. Journal of Thermal Insulation and Building Enve-
erties under steady-state conditions. Standard C1045-07. American lopes 16(April):318-339.
Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA. Burch, D.M., and A.O. Desjarlais. 1995. Water vapor measurements of low-
ASTM. 2011. Standard test method for thermal performance of building slope roofing materials. Report NISTIR 5681. National Institute of Stan-
materials and envelope assemblies by means of a hot box apparatus. dards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
Standard C1363-11. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Cardenes, T.J., and G.T. Bible. 1987. The thermal properties of wood—Data
Conshohocken, PA. base. American Society of Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken,
ASTM. 2010. Standard test methods for water vapor transmission of mate- PA.
rials. Standard E96/E96M-10. American Society for Testing and Mate- CIBSE. 2006. Thermal properties of building structures. Chapter 3 in
rials, West Conshohocken, PA. CIBSE Guide A: Environmental Design. The Chartered Institution of
ASTM. 2010. Standard test method for determining air leakage rate by fan Building Services Engineers, London, U.K.
pressurization. Standard E779-10. American Society for Testing and Construction Specifications Canada. 1990. Tek-AID on air barrier systems.
Materials, West Conshohocken, PA. Toronto.
ASTM. 2009. Standard practices for air leakage site detection in building Di Lenardo, B., W.C. Brown, W.A. Dalgleish, K. Kumaran, and G.F. Poirier.
envelopes and air barrier systems. Standard E1186-03 (2009). American 1995. Technical guide for air barrier systems for exterior walls of low-
Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA. rise buildings. Canadian Construction Materials Centre, National
ASTM. 2008. Standard test method for temperature calibration of thermo- Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
mechanical analyzers. Standard E1363-10. American Society for Test- Donnelly, R.G., V.J. Tennery, D.L. McElroy, T.G. Godfrey, and J.O. Kolb.
ing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA. 1976. Industrial thermal insulation: An assessment. Oak Ridge National
ASTM. 2011. Standard specification for air barrier (AB) material or system Laboratory Reports TM-5283, TM-5515, and TID-27120.
for low-rise framed building walls. Standard E1677-11. American Soci- Glaser, P.E., I.A. Black, R.S. Lindstrom, F.E. Ruccia, and A.E. Wechsler.
ety for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA. 1967. Thermal insulation systems—A survey. NASA Report SP5027.
ASTM. 2011. Standard test method for determining air leakage of air barrier Goss, W.P., and R.G. Miller. 1989. Literature review of measurement and
assemblies. Standard E2357-11. American Society for Testing and prediction of reflective building insulation system performance: 1900-
Materials, West Conshohocken, PA. 1989. ASHRAE Transactions 95(2).
VDI. 1999. Environmental meteorology—Interactions between atmosphere Hedlin, C.P. 1985. Effect of insulation joints on heat loss through flat roofs.
and surfaces—Calculation of short-wave and long-wave radiation. Stan- ASHRAE Transactions 91(2B):608-622.
dard 3789 Part 2. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (Association of German Hooper, F.C., and W.J. Moroz. 1952. The impact of aging factors on the
Engineers), Dusseldorf. emissivity of reflective insulations. ASTM Bulletin (May):92-95.
ICC. 2007. 2007 supplement to the International Codes. International Code
REFERENCES Council, Washington, D.C.
Adams, L. 1971. Supporting cryogenic equipment with wood. Chemical ISO. 2003. Thermal performance of windows, doors, and shading devices—
Engineering (May):156-158. Detailed calculations. Standard 15099. International Organization for
ASHRAE. 1998. Standard method for determining and expressing the heat Standardization, Geneva.
transfer and total optical properties of fenestration products. SPC 142. Karagiozis, A.N., and H.M. Salonvaara. 1999a. Hygrothermal performance
ASTM. 1974. Heat transmission measurements in thermal insulations. Spe- of EIFS-clad walls: Effect of vapor diffusion and air leakage on the dry-
cial Technical Publication STP 544. American Society for Testing and ing of construction moisture. Special Technical Publication STP 1352,
Materials, West Conshohocken, PA. pp. 32-51. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Con-
ASTM. 1978. Thermal transmission measurements of insulation. Special shohocken, PA.
Technical Publication STP 660. American Society for Testing and Mate- Karagiozis, A.N., and H.M. Salonvaara. 1999b. Whole building hygrother-
rials, West Conshohocken, PA. mal performance: Proceedings of the 5th Symposium on Building Phys-
ASTM. 1980. Thermal insulation performance. Special Technical Publica- ics in the Nordic Countries, Goteborg, vol. 2, pp. 745-753. C.E.
tion STP 718. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Con- Hagentoft and P.I. Sandberg, eds.
shohocken, PA. Kersten, M.S. 1949. Thermal properties of soils. University of Minnesota,
ASTM. 1983. Thermal insulations, materials, and systems for energy con- Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin 28 (June).
servation in the ’80s. Special Technical Publication STP 789. American Korsgaard, V., and C.R. Pedersen. 1989. Transient moisture distribution in
Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA. flat roofs with hygro diode vapor retarder. Proceedings of ASHRAE/
ASTM. 1985a. Guarded hot plate and heat flow meter methodology. Special DOE/BTECC/CIBSE Conference on Thermal Performance of Exterior
Technical Publication STP 879. American Society for Testing and Mate- Envelopes of Buildings IV.
rials, West Conshohocken, PA. Korsgaard, V., and C.R. Pedersen. 1992. Laboratory and practical experi-
ASTM. 1985b. Building applications of heat flux transducers. Special Tech- ence with a novel water-permeable vapor retarder. Proceedings of
nical Publication STP 885. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASHRAE/DOE/BTECC/CIBSE Conference on Thermal Performance of
West Conshohocken, PA. Exterior Envelopes of Buildings V, pp. 480-490.
ASTM. 1988. Thermal insulation: Material and systems. Special Technical Kuenzel, H.M. 1999. More moisture load tolerance of construction assem-
Publication STP 922. American Society for Testing and Materials, West blies through the application of a smart vapor retarder. Proceedings of
Conshohocken, PA. Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of Buildings VII, pp.
ASTM. 1990. Insulation materials: Testing and applications. Special Tech- 129-132. ASHRAE.
nical Publication STP 1030. American Society for Testing and Materi- Kumaran, M.K. 1989. Experimental investigation on simultaneous heat and
als, West Conshohocken, PA. moisture transport through thermal insulation. Proceedings of the Con-
ASTM. 1991. Insulation materials: Testing and applications, 2nd vol. Spe- seil International du Batiment/International Building Council (CIB)
cial Technical Publication STP 1116. American Society for Testing and 11th International Conference 2:275-284.
Materials, West Conshohocken, PA. Kumaran, M.K. 1996. Heat, air and moisture transport. Final Report, vol. 3,
Bassett, M.R., and H.A. Trethowen. 1984. Effect of condensation on emit- task 3: Material properties. International Energy Agency Annex 24.
tance of reflective insulation. Journal of Thermal Insulation 8(Octo- Kumaran, M.K. 2002. A thermal and moisture transport database for com-
ber):127. mon building and insulating materials. ASHRAE Research Project RP-
Bomberg, M.T., and M.K. Kumaran. 1986. A test method to determine air 1018, Final Report. National Research Council, Canada.
flow resistance of exterior membranes and sheathings. Journal of Ther- Lander, R.M. 1955. Gas is an important factor in the thermal conductivity of
mal Insulation 9:224-235 most insulating materials. ASHRAE Transactions 61:151.
Lecompte, J. 1989. The influence of natural convection in an insulated cav- Touloukian, Y.S., R.W. Powell, C.Y. Ho, and I.G. Clemens. 1970. Thermo-
ity on the thermal performance of the wall. Special Technical Publication physical properties of matter. Thermal conductivity data tables of non-
STP 1000:397-420. American Society for Testing and Materials, West metallic solids. IFI/Plenum, New York.
Conshohocken, PA. Tye, R.P. 1985. Upgrading thermal insulation performance of industrial pro-
Lewis, W.C. 1967. Thermal conductivity of wood-base fiber and particle cesses. Chemical Engineering Progress (February):30-34.
panel materials. Forest Products Laboratory, Research Paper FPL 77, Tye, R.P. 1986. Effects of product variability on thermal performance of
June. thermal insulation. Proceedings of the First Asian Thermal Properties
Lewis, J.E. 1979. Thermal evaluation of the effects of gaps between adjacent Conference, Beijing, People’s Republic of China.
roof insulation panels. Journal of Thermal Insulation (October):80-103. Tye, R.P. 1988. Aging of cellular plastics: A comprehensive bibliography.
Lotz, W.A. 1964. Vapor barrier design, neglected key to freezer insulation Journal of Thermal Insulation 11:196-222.
effectiveness. Quick Frozen Foods (November):122. Tye, R.P., and A.O. Desjarlais. 1981. Performance characteristics of foam-
Lotz, W.A. 1969. Facts about thermal insulation. ASHRAE Journal in-place urea formaldehyde insulation. ORNL/Sub-78/86993/1. Oak
(June):83-84. Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
MacLean, J.D. 1941. Thermal conductivity of wood. ASHVE Transactions Tye, R.P., and A.O. Desjarlais. 1983. Factors influencing the thermal perfor-
47:323. mance of thermal insulations for industrial applications. In Thermal insu-
McGowan, A.G. 2007. Catalog of material thermal property data (RP-905). lation, materials, and systems for energy conservation in the ’80s, F.A.
ASHRAE Research Project, Final Report. Govan, D.M. Greason, and J.D. McAllister, eds. ASTM STP 789:733-
NIST. 2000. NIST standard reference database 81: NIST heat transmission 748.
properties of insulating and building materials. Available from http:// Valore, R.C., 1988. Thermophysical properties of masonry and its constitu-
srdata.nist.gov/insulation/. U.S. Department of Commerce, National ents, parts I and II. International Masonry Institute, Washington, D.C.
Institute of Standards and Materials, Gaithersburg, MD. Van Geem, M.G. 1985. Thermal transmittance of concrete block walls with
Nottage, H.B. 1947. Thermal properties of building materials used in heat core insulation. ASHRAE Transactions 91(2).
flow calculations. ASHVE Transactions 53:215-243. Verschoor, J.D. 1977. Effectiveness of building insulation applications.
Ojanen, T., R. Kohonen, and M.K Kumaran. 1994. Modeling heat, air, and USN/CEL Report CR78.006—NTIS AD-AO53 452/9ST.
moisture transport through building materials and components. Chapter Verschoor, J.D., and P. Greebler. 1952. Heat transfer by gas conductivity and
2 in Manual MNL 18, Moisture control in buildings. American Society radiation in fibrous insulations. ASME Transactions 74(6):961-968.
for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
Wilkes, K.E. 1979. Thermophysical properties data base activities at Owens-

Ostrogorsky, A.G., and L.R. Glicksman. 1986. Laboratory tests of effective- Corning Fiberglas. Proceedings of the ASHRAE/DOE-ORNL Confer-
ness of diffusion barriers. Journal of Cellular Plastics 22:303. ence on Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of Buildings,
Pelanne, C.M. 1979. Thermal insulation heat flow measurements: Require- ASHRAE SP 28, pp. 662-677.
ments for implementation. ASHRAE Journal 21(3):51. Wilkes, K.E., and P.W. Childs. 1992. Thermal performance of fiberglass and
Rasmussen J., W.C. Brown, M. Bomberg, and J.M. Ullett. 1993. Measured cellulose attic insulations. Proceedings of the ASHRAE/DOE/BTECC/
thermal performance of frame walls with defects in the installation of CIBSE Conference on Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of
mineral fibre insulation. Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Building Buildings V, pp. 357-367.
Physics in the Nordic Countries, pp. 209-217. Wilkes, K.E., and J.L. Rucker. 1983. Thermal performance of residential
Robinson, H.E., F.J. Powlitch, and R.S. Dill. 1954. The thermal insulation attic insulation. Energy and Buildings 5:263-277.
value of airspaces. Housing Research Paper 32, Housing and Home Yarbrough, D.W. 1983. Assessment of reflective insulations for residential
Finance Agency. and commercial applications. ORNL/TM-8891. Oak Ridge National
Robinson, H.E., F.J. Powell, and L.A. Cosgrove. 1957. Thermal resistance Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
of airspaces and fibrous insulations bounded by reflective surfaces.
National Bureau of Standards, Building Materials and Structures Report BIBLIOGRAPHY
BMS 151.
Rowley, F.B., and A.B. Algren. 1937. Thermal conductivity of building ASHRAE. 1996. Building insulation system thermal anomalies. ASHRAE
materials. University of Minnesota Bulletin #12, Minneapolis. Research Report RP-758. Enermodal Engineering, Ltd.
Rowley, F.B., R.C. Jordan, C.E. Lund, and R.M. Lander. 1952. Gas is an ASTM. 2008. Annual book of ASTM standards, vol. 04.06, Thermal insula-
important factor in the thermal conductivity of most insulating materials. tion; building and environmental acoustics. American Society for Test-
ASHVE Transactions 58:155. ing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
Sabine, H.J., M.B. Lacher, D.R. Flynn, and T.L. Quindry. 1975. Acoustical CIMA. 2007. Measured thermal resistances for cellulose insulation products
and thermal performance of exterior residential walls, doors and win- commercially available in 2007. Report prepared by R&D Services, Inc.,
dows. NBS Building Science Series 77. National Institute of Standards for the Cellulose Insulation Manufacturers Association.
and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD. Hedlin, C.P. 1988. Heat flow through a roof insulation having moisture con-
Salomone, L.A., and J.I. Marlowe. 1989. Soil and rock classification accord- tents between 0 and 1% by volume, in summer. ASHRAE Transactions
ing to thermal conductivity: Design of ground-coupled heat pump sys- 94(2):1579-1594.
tems. EPRI CU-6482. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. Pelanne, C.M. 1977. Heat flow principles in thermal insulation. Journal of
Seiffert, K. 1970. Damp diffusion and buildings. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Thermal Insulation 1:48.
Netherlands. Raznjevic, K. 1976. Thermal conductivity tables. In Handbook of thermo-
Shu, L.S., A.E. Fiorato, and J.W. Howanski. 1979. Heat transmission coef- dynamic tables and charts. McGraw-Hill, New York.
ficients of concrete block walls with core insulation. Proceedings of the Rowley, F.B., and A.B. Algren. 1932. Heat transmission through building
ASHRAE/DOE-ORNL Conference on Thermal Performance of the Exte- materials. University of Minnesota Bulletin #8, Minneapolis.
rior Envelopes of Buildings, ASHRAE SP 28, pp. 421-435. Yarbrough, D.W., R.S. Graves, D.L. McElroy, A.O. Desjarlais, and R.P. Tye.
Simons, E. 1955. In-place studies of insulated structures. Refrigerating 1987. The thermal resistance of spray-applied fiber insulations. Journal
Engineering 63:40, 128. of Thermal Insulation 11(2):81-95.
Related Commercial Resources

U Factor

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

U Factor

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

This file is licensed to Rabee Taleb (rabee_t@hotmail.com).

Publication Date: 6/1/2013

Related Commercial Resources

HEAT, AIR, AND MOISTURE CONTROL IN BUILDING

T HIS chapter contains material property data related to the

The primary property of a thermal insulation material is a low

INSULATION MATERIALS AND Influencing Conditions

26.2 2013 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals (SI)

very low temperatures, however, some polymeric compounds may

Heat, Air, and Moisture Control in Building Assemblies—Material Properties 26.3

26.4 2013 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals (SI)

Heat, Air, and Moisture Control in Building Assemblies—Material Properties 26.5

26.6 2013 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals (SI)

Heat, Air, and Moisture Control in Building Assemblies—Material Properties 26.7

Table 1 Building and Insulating Materials: Design Valuesa

26.8 2013 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals (SI)

Table 1 Building and Insulating Materials: Design Valuesa (Continued)

29 to 37 0.033 to 0.037 — — Four manufacturers (2011)

Heat, Air, and Moisture Control in Building Assemblies—Material Properties 26.9

Table 1 Building and Insulating Materials: Design Valuesa (Continued)

terrazzo .............................................................. 25 mm — — 0.014 0.80

26.10 2013 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals (SI)

Table 1 Building and Insulating Materials: Design Valuesa (Continued)

with perlite-filled cores............................................ — — 0.35 — Van Geem (1985)

Heat, Air, and Moisture Control in Building Assemblies—Material Properties 26.11

Table 1 Building and Insulating Materials: Design Valuesa (Continued)

2000 1.23 — — Touloukian et al. (1970)

Notes for Table 1

26.12 2013 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals (SI)

regarding the test specimens. Silver, polished 0.03 0.029 0.015

Heat, Air, and Moisture Control in Building Assemblies—Material Properties 26.13

Table 3 Thermal Resistances of Plane Air Spaces,a,b,c (m2 ·K)/W

26.14 2013 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals (SI)

Table 3 Thermal Resistances of Plane Air Spaces,a,b,c (m2 ·K)/W (Continued)

17.8 5.6 0.51 0.49 0.38 0.27 0.20

Heat, Air, and Moisture Control in Building Assemblies—Material Properties 26.15

Table 4 Air Permeability of Different Materials

Eastern white cedar, (transverse) 19 mm, 465 kg/ negligible

26.16 2013 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals (SI)

Vinyl acetate/acrylic primer 0.05 424

Heat, Air, and Moisture Control in Building Assemblies—Material Properties 26.17

0.21 0.36 0.80 8.62 Burch and Desjarlais (1995)

26.18 2013 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals (SI)

paper 0.12 1.2 to 1.7 Kumaran (1996)

using envelopes of thermal behavior coupled with field moisture

Heat, Air, and Moisture Control in Building Assemblies—Material Properties 26.19

Table 7 Sorption/Desorption Isotherms of Building Materials at Various Relative Humidities

26.20 2013 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals (SI)

Limestone, dolomite, marble 1.2 to 4.3

Heat, Air, and Moisture Control in Building Assemblies—Material Properties 26.21

26.22 2013 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamentals (SI)

Wilkes, K.E. 1979. Thermophysical properties data base activities at Owens-

Related Commercial Resources

Potrebbero piacerti anche