Water Vapor Permeance Permeance is the conductance of moisture flow through a material for a unit thickness.

The unit of Vapor Permeance is 1 Perm = 1 grain H2O/(hr-ft2-in Hg), and is assigned for a given thickness of material. Perm Ratings are assigned for products with a defined thickness, so one would say that 5/8 OSB has a Perm Rating of 2 perm. In addition, there is a metric perm rating that is often listed that should not be directly compared. The biggest clue is if temperature is given in degrees Celsius. Alternately, Lstiburek defines Permeance as the ratio of WVT (Water Vapor Transmission) of a material under unit vapor pressure difference between two specific parallel surfaces, to the vapor pressure difference between the two surfaces. Recently, perm rating results are taken for all sorts of new standards to classify vapor barriers, retarders, and to decide where to install them. For example Lstiburek offers the following definitions for dry cup perm ratings: Class I - 0.1 perm or less (Vapor Barrier) Class II - 1.0 perm or less and greater than 0.1 perm Class III - 10 perm or less and greater than 1.0 perm, Or Vapor impermeable: 0.1 perm or less Vapor semi-impermeable: 1.0 perm or less and greater than 0.1 perm Vapor semi-permeable: 10 perms or less and greater than 1.0 perm Vapor permeable: greater than 10 perms Qualitatively, Bomberg makes the following distinctions in weather resistant barriers according to materials: Class C - Asphalt -impregnated cellulose fibers Class M - Micro-porous film Class P - Polymeric fibers Class PP - Perforated polymeric film Class LA - Liquid-applied (trowel) film The commonly used term Permeability is a technical term used to describe the conductance of moisture flow through a material with a thickness of 1 inch. This rating is rarely used in the field, because products are rated at the thickness that they are offered in the market place. Testing for Permeance is described in ASTM E96, Standard Test Methods for Water Vapor Transmission of Materials, and prescribes both a wet-cup test and a dry-cup test. Ideally, the type of test selected, and thus rating provided, should reflect the

properties of the material under critical conditions. For a master list of values and variability, see ASHRAE Fundamentals, CH 25. How the Perm Rating is determined (ASTM E96): The test is designed for individual materials. There is presently no approved methodology or rating system for complete assemblies, another significant limitation in the field application of the perm rating. Many authors caution against making the mistake of adding together the perm rating of each component, as many non-linear affects take place. Regardless, the two approved methodologies are as follows: Dry Cup 1. A sorbent mineral such as silica gel is desiccated (dried) and cooled to room temp 2. A material specimen is attached to the top of the cup to minimize edge effects and air movement 3. Constant room temperature and 50% RH is maintained 4. Weight gain of sorbent is noted at intervals, which is associated with gain due to moisture flow through the material Wet Cup 1. Cup is filled with water, instead of desiccated mineral 2. Water is NOT supposed to touch underside of materials 3. Constant room temperature and 50% RH is maintained 4. Weight gain of sorbent is noted at intervals, which is associated with gain due to moisture flow through the material

(Pazera, 2005)

Unfortunately, according to Rose, there are many errors and inconsistencies in reporting of values, up to 10:1 between wet and dry cup. Many studies support the assertion that the values change based on test conditions, and in particular that the permeance of a material varies as its moisture content changes. The water vapor permeance of materials is a very strong function of moisture content... This variability of vapor permeance with moisture content is found in ceramic materials (e.g., concrete, stone, brick, gypsum) as well as organic materials such as wood and paper. (Rose, 75). Unfortunately, while many authors acknowledge the dependence of moisture content in the material for the perm rating, the only solid evidence for the effect in the literature is in the difference between wet and dry cup results. There doesnt appear to be a good study quantifying how the perm rating changed as the material became wet. Qualitatively, Bomberg describes this change in behavior. At the initial stage of water absorption, this coefficient is governed by the properties of the material surface. When water penetrates deeper into the composite the properties of the substrate will play more important role and after a sufficiently long period the water absorption coefficient of this composite will depend mainly on that of the substrate. (Bomberg, 7) In addition, some research indicates that in some cases perm ratings vary with temperature as well. Ojanen, et al, ran tests based on the wet cup method on entire assemblies and at 3 different temperatures. They report the following (note metric units as well): Structures with porous wood fiber board and gypsum board wind barriers had about the same kind of drying efficiency during the freezing period During periods having above freezing temperatures, the structures with gypsum board wind barriers had about 30 40% higher drying efficiency than those with porous wood fiber board or gypsum with open exterior insulation All the structures had higher drying efficiency in the conditions above freezing than in the freezing period Exterior mineral wool insulation and stucco dried out about 2 times faster when the temperature was above 0 C. The plywood wind barrier allowed even higher relative change in the drying efficiency with higher outdoor temperatures. Plywood structure had more delay in reaching the final moisture mass flow rate level than the other cases, which was due to the high moisture absorption capacity and lower vapor permeability than what for example the wood fiber board had. (Ojanen, 4) However, in a 2005 study, Mukhopadhyaya et al argue that while increasing temperature does exponentially increase the water vapor that passes through a material (they studied fiberboard and gypsum board), it does not impact the perm rating. They argue that while looking at this relationship one should remember that rate of WVT is a measure of mass transfer per unit area of specimen and this it does not reflect the intensity of prevalent driving force causing the water vapor transmission. The water vapor transfer coefficient that represents the water vapor transfer property under unit driving force through unit area is called 'water vapor permeability'. (Mukhopadhyaya, 8)

It should be noted that a modified test method was used that, while not accepted by ASTM E96, is often discussed in the literature as a possible improvement in test procedures. But essentially, the increasing temperatures increased vapor drive, but at a rate consistent with the per unit pressure of the perm rating. Bomberg encountered a similar effect in other tests, and summed it up saying, the change in moisture content of the hygroscopic sink affects the partial pressure of vapor at the material surface, which in turn modifies the driving force for the vapor flow. These effects are outside the scope of the perm rating, which will predict vapor flow at different pressure differentials. This concept is familiar to building scientists, that transport of either air or water needs both a hole and a driving force. Even with water sitting on a roof surface, the force of gravity downward is the driving force (hydraulic head), which is needed to force water into holes in the material. The amount of hydraulic head needed to force water into a given hole can be calculated by the formula: h = (2**cos )/(r**g), where h = hydraulic head = surface tension of water (typically 0.0728 J/m2) = contact angle of water (110 is normal) r = radius of a hole in the surface = density of water (typically 1 g/cm3) g = acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s2) Using a hole in the surface of 1mm and using the formula above, an estimation of the needed hydraulic head to cause a leak is 2.54 mm. Thus, if ponding in the roof exceeds this depth, water is able to overcome surface tension and is forced into the assembly. To have a leak, both a hole and a driving force are necessary. The two major sources of a driving force, in a roof, are ponding and funneling. Thus, taking care of these is more effective at preventing leaks than sealing every conceivable hole. A study at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks in 2000 echoed these findings, and added another factor into the mix quality of installation. Vapor pressures depend on the temperature and relative humidity (RH) of the air as temperature and RH go up, vapor pressure gets higher. The greater the vapor pressure differential across or through a material, the greater the tendency for water vapor to migrate from the high pressure side to the low pressure side In practice, however, it is not usually the perm rating of the water vapor barrier which determines how much water will pass into the insulation, but the quality of the vapor barrier installation For this reason, published perm ratings are not to be regarded as the truth, but as a design guide. (UAF, 1)

A survey of moisture problems in British Columbia by Morrison Hershfield Ltd supports this assertion. The survey of building envelope failures in the coastal climate of BC identified: 25 % of the problems were related to windows and their interface with the wall (mitered corners in window frames and wall/window interfaces were not sealed, wall/window head or sill interface was inadequately flashed, and building paper was inappropriately installed). 25 % of the problems were attributed to inadequate flashing on horizontal surfaces, including parapet cap flashing, or the interfaces between horizontal members and vertical surfaces, such as the guardrail/wall interface with saddle flashing. 17% of the problems were attributed to decks/balconies/walkways. The interfaces between the waterproof membrane and the wall, or joints with penetrations comprised the primary paths for water entry. The remaining 33% of problems were attributed to inadequate roof/wall flashing, insufficient eave, and vents, etc.

Table 2. Sources of water penetration through WRB (Morrison Hershfield Ltd., 1998) No exterior sheathing Discontinuities Material degradation No or reversed lap At flashing At penetration Other 14% 30% 11% 10% 16% 16% 3%

Table 5a. Frequency of moisture paths through the WRB in the same study (Building Envelope Engineering, 2000) Paths through the WRB Laps Flashing Discontinuities No barrier Penetrations Degradation Frequen cy 44% 22% 22% 6% 3% 1%

Other

2%

OSB vs. Plywood Drying in an Assembly The best study found in the research on drying and wetting in an assembly were compiled for Canada Mortgage and Housing by Hazleden. The following is quoted at length from various parts of the report: Twelve wall panel designs, including ten stucco-clad and two wood-clad wall panels were tested. Nine of the wall panels used OSB sheathing and three used plywood sheathing. Nine of the wall panels used conventional 30-minute building paper (Haltex 30) and three used Spun Bonded Polyolefin (Tyvek). Three of the panels used conventional stucco cladding applied directly over the sheathing protection membrane to the sheathing. Seven panels used stucco on a variety of strapped cavities. One wood-clad panel used the direct applied method and one wood-clad panel incorporated a vented cavity behind the siding. The wall panels with vented cavities used a variety of venting and cavity size arrangements to examine what differences these would make The studs absorbed water consistently from panel to panel reaching an average moisture content of 30%. The OSB sheathing reached an average 22% moisture content, while the plywood sheathing was higher at 35% moisture content. The interior of the chamber was conditioned to steady state conditions typical of a winter drying day in Vancouver B.C. (70% RH at 5oC). The exterior of the chamber (laboratory space) was conditioned to simulate the interior of a home or apartment (40% RH at 21oC). An air pressure differential of 0 Pa was maintained between the interior of the chamber and the lab. In order to simulate the ambient air conditions on the exterior of a wall, air was blown across the exterior face of the test panels. This resulted in a 1 to 5 Pa pressure differential between the bottom and top of each panel. The panels went through two phases of testing; Phase 1 without simulated solar radiation for 1500 hours and Phase 2 with simulated solar radiation for 2000 hours. The solar effect was simulated with heat lamps inside the chamber, radiating on the panel cladding. The solar effect was adjusted to simulate the exposure of a north east wall in Vancouver B.C., in the period from January 10th to February 10th. (P. 4-5) 8 Questions from research: 1. When specimen wall panels are wetted to > 25% moisture content, do they ever dry out? Drying occurred in all panels. The moisture content in the studs at the time of installation averaged 29% and at the time of removal averaged 12%. There were no test panels in which all locations in all However, the drying was not uniform over all components of the panels and these slower drying areas would be at risk of decay if the test were to continue indefinitely. 2. Under test conditions and without re-wetting, how long do they take to dry out?

The framing dried on average to below 19%, in less than 500 hours in both phases. The OSB and the plywood sheathing generally stayed above 19% MC to beyond the end of the test, in both phases Framing can be divided into 2 Zones; Zone 1, more than 20 mm from the sheathing and Zone 2, within 20 mm of the sheathing. Zone 1 dried to below 19% within 500 hours. Zone 2 dried slower than Zone 1. In some panels Zone 2 in the upper part of the stud dried to below 19% within 1000 hours. However in the bottom 600 mm of the stud, Zone 2 generally stayed above 19% for over 1500 hours in Phase 1 and over 2000 hours in Phase 2 Often, when the sheathing started at a lower MC than framing, the MC rose in the sheathing as the framing dried out. 3. Are some test wall panels drying faster than others? What is the variation between the test panels? 1) Panels with cavities dried faster than comparable panels without cavities. 2) Panels with plywood sheathing dried faster than comparable panels with OSB sheathing. 3) There was no substantial difference in the drying rates of panels with building paper vs. panels with spun bonded polyolefin. 4) Panels with top and bottom vented cavities dried faster than comparable panels with bottom only vented cavities 5) Panels with wood siding dried faster than comparable panels with stucco cladding in Phase 1; however this trend was reversed in Phase 2 (with solar). 4. Does the drainage cavity width affect drying? By how much? Three cavity widths (depth from cladding to sheathing protection membrane) were tested, 0 mm 10 mm and 19 mm. Cavity width appears to be a major determinant in affecting drying rates. In both phases panels with large cavity widths dried faster than panels with small cavity widths. 7. Compare the calculated permeance of the test wall panels to their effective permeance. We expected that the effective permeances would be greater in the case of vented cavity panels. This turned out to be correct from 1.0 to 3.6 times the calculated permeance. 8. Compare the effect of the solar simulation on wall panels. The effective permeances were higher with the solar effect. Additionally, there were differences in the final moisture distribution in the sheathing between Phase 1 and Phase 2. In Phase 2, after 2000 hours, (with the solar effect) the moisture content of the OSB in panels with vented cavities had risen an average of 11% while the moisture content in the plywood-sheathed panels with vented cavities had dropped an average of 7.5%. The

plywood sheathing had 13% higher moisture content than the OSB sheathing at the start of Phase 2. The data suggests that moisture was leaving the framing and migrating into the plywood and OSB sheathing. All panels lost moisture during the test. However, in Phase 2 moisture was not leaving the OSB sheathing at the rate it was entering in either the vented or the unvented panels. In the plywood sheathed panels with vented cavities, the data suggests that moisture was leaving the plywood sheathing at a greater rate than it was entering the differences do suggest that cavity venting of plywood-sheathed panels (starting at >35%MC) has a substantial effect on drying but that the same venting has less of an effect on drying for OSB-sheathed panels (starting at >25%MC). Data Conclusions: The EDRA experiment was able to demonstrate differences in the drying rates of test panels under experimental conditions depending on their materials, drainage cavity and venting. The arrangement of materials and cavity width matters substantially in drying. Differences in drying rates between comparable cavity and non-cavity panels can be as much as a factor of 3. The sheathing material was the other major factor affecting drying rates in the 12 panels tested. Plywood sheathed panels absorbed more moisture initially and dried faster than comparable OSB-sheathed panels. Both OSB and plywood-sheathed panels ended the test with moisture levels above 19% in the sheathing. The portions of the studs within 20 mm of the sheathing were slow in drying and in most cases remained above 20% moisture content at the end of both phases of the experiment. (Hazleden, Canada Mortgage and Housing, 2001) Other Field Effects of Moisture Dynamics But there are other considerations, besides the standard plea for proper installation techniques, when considering moisture effects out in the field. We generally think of water existing in 3 states: liquid, vapor, and solid. However, there is an important 4th state for Building Scientists, which is Adsorbed Water water bonded to a surface. A molecule of water is a tiny magnet, a dipole, with a hydrogen-rich (+) side and an electron-rich (-) side. This polarity accounts for its high degree of interaction with most everything on earth. This polarity also causes a large amount of molecular motion, whichever state the water is in. The work required to keep the molecules at the surface in place, as opposed to flying off into the air, is Surface Tension. Surfaces are generally classified as hydrophilic or hydrophobic. Hydrophilic surfaces are attractive to water, and in bonding cause an acute (less than 90) contact angle between water and the surface. Hydrophobic surfaces are repellent to water, and in bonding cause an obtuse (greater than 90) contact angle between water and the surface. It is nearly impossible to predict if a surface will be hydrophilic or hydrophobic, because the presence of dirt, dust, and other impurities can override the properties of the surface.

Dirt is almost always hydrophilic, and the presence of it can draw water into cracks that would not happen if the surface were clean. Dirt can turn a low-energy surface which beads and sheds water into a high-energy surface that bind water to the dirt on the surface. Also, as materials break down, the surface geometry can change so that crevices can allow places for water to pool, even in vertical surfaces. However, this is generally surface bonding, which is absorption. 4 Steps of Water Adsorption for a porous, hydroscopic material (EX: fiberboard): 1. Adsorbed into the exposed cellulose molecules via electron bonding 2. Adsorbed into the matrix of fibers in the material 3. Fills available pores in the material 4. Once saturated, water droplets form on the surface of the material What is generally thought of as condensation is actually adsorbed water. The moisture storage and drainage of clay versus sand helps illustrate the bonding potential of water to materials. Sand is made of silicon, which is not electrically active, and produces a very small binding energy, thus the sorption of water is small as well. Clay, however, is a matrix of ions, which binds strongly to water. Although we think of clay as dense, it contains far more open space than sand. This is measured in porosity, the percent of void, nonsolid space compared to the total volume of the material. Sand always has a porosity of less than 50%, meaning that greater than 50% of sand in a given volume is solid. But clays may have a porosity of up to 85%, so that only 15% of what appears to be dense clay is actually solid. The impermeability of water to clay is due to chemical reactions on the surface of the clay with water molecules, preventing water from filling wide open pores into the clay, and inside the matrix of the clay, preventing water from easily flowing through it. An important concept to understand wetting and drying is hysteresis, which is that some processes get different results depending on the history and direction of the process. Thermal events usually dont show any hysteresis; a glass of hot water and a glass of cold water left out will come to the same temperature. But, hysteresis plays an important role when considering moisture content in porous, hygroscopic materials, as the bonding inside the material overpowers some of the common sense behaviors wed rather see. Wetting and drying are directional events, and materials such as wood and soils will have different equilibrium moisture contents at the same relative humidity depending on if the material is moving from dry to wet, or wet to dry. If a dry piece of wood is left in ambient conditions at a set RH that is higher than its RH, it will come to equilibrium at a certain moisture content. However, if the same wood is wetted and allowed to dry at the same RH, it will come to a different equilibrium moisture content that is higher than the first piece of wood. In general, wood that is drying has a higher equilibrium moisture content. Bonding within the fibers will overcome diffusion equilibrium.

Hysteresis also acts on soil moisture. Rain, and other bulk water soaking in from above, drive out air in the pores of the soil due to the force of the head of water, allowing greater bonding in the soil matrix. Soil wetting from below, a rise in the water table, will not have the same head and will displace less air, and the same amount of water will result in a lower moisture content. Effect of Surfactants Anything added to water is called a solute, and will reduce its vapor pressure, meaning it is more susceptible to evaporation and movement by diffusion. For example, salt water evaporates faster than fresh water. Solutes in water are capable of driving water across a semipermeable membrane and making a solution climb in. Water will move from unsalted to salted, which is known as the Solute Potential. If adding a solute to water increases diffusion and evaporation, then this should be considered in the selection of building materials, their stability and if they dissolve in water. Dissolved salts are the largest concern. These solutes can come from contaminants on the surface, or from the material itself as it degrades or reacts chemically with other building materials. One important class of chemicals that has building scientists concerned are surfactants, which are found in soaps, cleaning materials, and oils. Surfactants cause a decrease in surface tension, and water is more easily able to penetrate membranes. The question, which several research projects have studied, is what effect the presence of surfactants has on the WRB. This becomes important to consider since many construction materials also have various levels of surfactants (or other water soluble extracts that behave similarly), such as cedar and wood sidings, as well as paints and stucco. Contamination of surfaces can also occur from handling by workers who carry surfactants on their hands. Non-construction sources of surfactants include the practice of powerwashing ones homes, and also from environmental contamination from surfactants, a well documented phenomenon in lakes, rivers, and rainfall. Paul Fisette, researching at UMass Amherst, studied the effect of surfactants from both soap and cedar on Tyvek, R-Wrap, and 15 pound felt. Loading each with a 3 inch hydro head to simulate the driving force of 70 mph wind on a rain covered wall, he studied the amount of water that leaked thru each material in a 2 hour period. In the baseline run with clean water, neither Tyvek nor R-Wrap leaked. Felt lost 30% of its water on average, but often held water for 30 minutes or more before leaking. Fisette reports the results for the tests with surfactant laden water: Tyvek and R-Wrap lost about 10% of the soapy water column in 2 hours. Felt seemed unaffected by soap, still loosing 30% of its water. Tyvek and R-Wrap lost about 3% of the cedar-extractive mix in 2-hours, while Felt again lost 30%. It does appear that soaps

and extractives do have at least some affect on the water resistance of housewraps. (Fisette, 2001) Another study, by Bomberg et al, also looked at the effects of surfactants. The most startling of their findings was that small quantities of soap in water (concentration as low as 0.01%) can have a significant effect on the surface tension of the water.

Bomberg, Laboratory Testing of Moisture Flow, Date Unknown Although this was not followed into a quantifiable change in the amount of water passing thru the WRB, the Perm Rating does assume a surface tension of pure water, and the link between a lowered surface tension and an increase in ability for water to penetrate a membrane is well established in the biological sciences. Due to the small amount of contaminant needed to make a difference, this represents an area for further investigation in the building sciences. Tools for Analysis Hygrothermal Gradients refer to the combination of both moisture and heat thru an assembly. A Thermal gradient can be traced thru an envelope assembly using the Rvalues of components. A Vapor Pressure gradient can be traced thru an assembly using the permeance of materials. The Profile Analysis (also known as Dew Point Method, or Glaser Method See ASHRAE Fundamentals Chapter 23, or Rose p. 79 81, and Lstebrik) is the comparison of these two gradients for moisture accumulation, given that at any temperature we know the saturation VP. Then, we can calculate the ability of materials and assemblies to withstand the condensation (i.e., dry out). However, there are problems with this method. For one, condensation will tend to occur on the surface of materials, not in the middle (inside a batt, for ex.). For sources of water, it ignores bulk flow, air transport, or capillary movement; for heat, it ignores convection and radiation. Since diffusion is only

a small part of moisture problems in buildings (Rose 1%), this analysis is overrated as a method of indicating moisture problems. However, it is the easiest and most accessible calculation, provided the complete calculation is rarely done. An obvious problem, discussed earlier in this paper, is the problem of what perm rating to select for a material, and the validity of each. Also, remember that there is a vapor pressure gradient to contend with, between the inside and outside vapor pressures. Finally, the profile analysis looks at the conditions moment to moment; effects of heat and water storage in materials are not accounted for. Hysteresis is one example of nonlinear effects the Profile Method misses. Damage can occur before 100% humidity, much corrosion, wood swelling, etc. occurs before. Rose outlines three steps to a moisture engineered assembly: 1. Determine moisture loads using a profile method or computer modeling (MOIST or WUFI) 2. Use these loads to analyze the moisture and thermal behavior in assemblies 3. Compare these results to an accepted bench mark Rose considers this to be an underdeveloped approach for design professionals, especially in a lack of tools for step 2. In addition, there is much that is needed in improvement of computer modeling that is not currently available. Models become suspect with the presence of air circulation in the assembly, or with the presence of liquid water on materials. Unfortunately, modeling in general is not ready to deal with local wet spots, models assume a distribution of wetness once the initial barrier has been penetrated. A final method is the use of conservation of mass some problems require a lot of water, some require a little. Most moisture problems can be diagnosed by looking at the condition and asking how much water it took to create that problem. Solving the problem amounts to asking where that amount of water could have come from and where it should go. (Rose, 29)

Bibliography ASTM, 2000, E96 Standard test methods for water vapor transmission of materials Bomberg, M., Pazera, M., and Ellringer, P., 2005. 3E Wall For All Climates: Parts 1 & 2, International Building Lime Symposium, March 9 -11, 2005, Orlando, Florida Bomberg M., M. Pazera, J. Zhang, T. Mungo and F. Haghighat, 2003, Weather resistive barriers: New methodology for their evaluation, AIVC/BETEC Conf. Oct 12-14, 2003, Washington, DC Bomberg M., M. Pazera and F. Haghighat, 2003, Weather resistive barriers: assessment of their laboratory and field performance, , 2nd Int. Building Physics Conf., Leuven, Sept 14-16 Bomberg M, M. Pazera, and F. Haghighat, 2002, On testing moisture flow through weather resistive barriers, 11th Building Physics Conference, Dresden, Sept 26-27, 2002 Bomberg M, M. Pazera, J. Grunewald, and F. Haghighat, 2002, Modified cup for testing of water vapour transmission through think, permeable materials, 6th Nordic Symposium Bomberg, M, et al, 2002, Position Paper on Material Characterization and HAM Model Benchmarking, 6th Nordic Symposium Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation, 2001, Envelope Drying Rates Experiment Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation, 1998 Survey of Building Envelope Failures in the Coastal Climate of British Columbia, 1998 (English only) Canadian Housing and Mortgage Corporation, 1993, Exterior insulation finish systems (EIFS) field performance evaluation Lstiburek, J., 2004, Vapor Barriers and Wall Design, Building Science Corporation. Lstiburek, J., 2004, Confusion about Diffusion, Building Science Corporation. Lstiburek, J., 2003, Insulations, Sheathings and Vapor Diffusion Retarders, Building Science Corporation. Lstiburek, J., 2004, Understanding Vapor Barriers, ASHRAE Journal, August 2004.

Mukhopadhyaya, P.; Kumaran, M.K.; Lackey, J., 2005, Use of the modified cup method to determine temperature dependency of water vapor transmission properties of building materials, Journal of Testing and Evaluation, v. 33, no. 5, Sept. 2005, pp. 316-322 Ojanen, T., M. Salonvaara, C. Simonson, 2002, Integration of Simplified Drying Tests and Numerical Simulation in Moisture Performance Analysis of the Building Envelope, 6th Nordic Symposium Rose, W. 2005, Water in Buildings: An Archiects Guide to Moisture and Mold, John Wiley & Sons Publishing, Hoboken, NJ University of Alaska-Fairbanks, 2000, Permeability of Common Building Material to Water Vapor EEM-00259