building science.

com
© 2009 Building Science Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

Ventilated Wall
Claddings: Review, Field
Performance, and
Hygrothermal Modeling
Research Report - 0907
2009
John Straube and Graham Finch

Abstract:

The use of ventilated air spaces behind claddings has been shown to influence the
performance of some wall assemblies. Recently completed field and laboratory research
has shown that cladding ventilation has the potential to increase drying and reduce
wetting from absorptive claddings and sun-driven moisture.

The use of one-dimensional hygrothermal simulation software has been well established
for a wide range of wall and roof assemblies. However the use of such software has
previously had a limited ability to accurately model the physics of enclosures with
ventilated claddings. The most recent version of WUFI 4.1 (a widely used hygrothermal
simulation package) has added the ability to model enclosure systems that incorporate
embedded sources and sinks of moisture and heat. This capability can be used to model
source effects such as air and rain leakage within a wall assembly or sinks such as
drainage and ventilation.

This paper investigates the use of the WUFI “source and sink” approach in a one-
dimensional model to simulate ventilation and rain leakage behind claddings. The
simulation predictions are compared to the field performance of several different wall
assemblies. Lessons learned on the use of this new model will be discussed. The impact of
such effects as rain water leaks and cladding ventilation rates are also investigated.
Introduction
The balance between wetting, drying, and safe storage is critical to the long term performance of
building enclosures. Where wetting cannot be controlled to acceptable levels, safe storage and drying
become critical. Many common building materials have little safe storage capacity, that is, they cannot
be exposed to high levels of moisture for long periods of time.

The sheathing is one building component often made of moisture-sensitive materials placed directly
behind the cladding, separated by only a thin sheathing membrane and air gap. For some periods of
time, the sheathing can be expected to be exposed to rainwater wetting from the exterior or
condensation wetting (air leakage or vapour diffusion) from the interior. Protecting the sheathing
from moisture is seen as important and has been the goal of many product manufacturers, builders,
and practitioners over several decades. However experience has shown that accidental leaks can still
occur, and hence the role of drying is very important to the moisture balance.

Moisture can be transported by airflow (convection), diffusion, or gravity into and through an
enclosure wall assembly. Drainage will remove much of the bulk moisture by gravity, when a
drainage path is provided, however moisture can still remain adhered or absorbed to materials within
the wall assembly. The amount of moisture that can be safely absorbed or stored depends on the
material properties. Drying can occur by vapour diffusion, evaporation, desorption, or by air
convection (ie. ventilation). Vapour diffusion is shown to be a relatively slow process particularly
when low permeance materials are used within the wall assembly. Evaporation or desorption can
only occur when moisture is able to get to the surface of the material (often only at the cladding or
interior surface), and be removed by the flow of air. Allowing evaporation or desorption to occur at
layers within the wall assembly, particularly at the sheathing and removing the excess moisture by
ventilation to the exterior provides an effective means to remove additional moisture directly from
sensitive materials and improve the drying potential of some wall assemblies.

It is becoming more common in North America to construct walls with claddings separated from the
framed wall by an air cavity. This is used as a rain control strategy to eliminate capillary flow between
the cladding and sheathing, provide drainage of incidental moisture, and provide some venting or
ventilation to remove evaporated/desorbed moisture. Practitioners and builders have sometimes
found this gap to be beneficial, particularly in rainy climates such as coastal British Columbia where
so-called “rainscreen” wall assemblies are now required by code for most new buildings. The
separation of the cladding from the wall assembly has sparked much debate among the building
science community. The functions and benefits of providing this cavity are not seen as necessary by
all those parties involved, and the actual characteristics of the cavity and vent/drains has not been
scientifically determined as a function of performance required. The minimum size of the air gap is
also debated; however recent work has shown that walls with even very small continuous gaps (<1
mm) can drain well (Smegal 2006). Although the drainage and a capillary break are obvious
improvements, the need for and role of ventilation in improving drying is still debated. Recent
ASHRAE-sponsored research however has been able to predict ventilation rates and show the
benefits of ventilation on ventilation drying and reduction of inward solar-driven vapor (Burnett et al
2004).

The ability to model the impacts of ventilation within wall assemblies using hygrothermal models has
so far been limited to a few research-grade two-dimensional research models. Recently IBP/ORNL
enhanced their one-dimensional hygrothermal software, WUFI 4.1, which is used by many
practitioners worldwide. The new enhancement can account for the two-dimensional effects of
ventilation within wall assemblies, by modeling heat and moisture sources or sinks at any layer within
the wall. In addition, the 1% driving rain load mentioned in the proposed ASHRAE 160P Standard
can be easily simulated.

This paper discusses how source and sinks can be used in a hygrothermal model to simulate rain
leaks and ventilation drying. The model results are compared to measured field data for common wall
assemblies with ventilated claddings, and guidance is provided as to calculating cladding ventilation
rates and performing accurate simulations.

The role of ventilation in wall performance, the fluid flow mechanics, and previous research are
reviewed first to provide the foundation for the research presented here.

Background
It is well accepted that moisture is one of the primary causes of premature building enclosure
deterioration. Excess moisture content combined with above-freezing temperatures for long enough
will cause rot, mold growth, corrosion, and discoloration of many building materials. The four major
moisture sources and transport mechanisms that can damage a building enclosure are (Figure 1 left
side):

precipitation, largely driving rain, or splash-back at grade);

1. water vapor in the air transported by diffusion and/or air movement through the wall (both to
interior and exterior);
2. built-in and stored moisture, particularly for concrete or wood products;
3. liquid and bound groundwater, driven by capillarity and gravity.

At some time during the life of a building, wetting should be expected at least in some locations. In
the case of a bulk water leak, drainage, if provided, will remove the majority of the moisture from the
wall cavity. However a significant amount of water will remain absorbed by materials and adhered to
surfaces. This remaining moisture can be removed (dried) from the wall by the following mechanism
(Figure 1 right side):

1. evaporation (liquid water transported by capillarity to the inside or outside surfaces;

2. evaporation and vapor transport by diffusion, air leakage, or both either outward or inward;
3. drainage of unabsorbed liquid water, driven by gravity;
4. ventilation by convection through intentional (or unintentional) vented air cavities behind the
cladding.

Figure 1: Wetting (Left) and Drying (Right) Mechanisms for Walls

A balance between wetting, drying, and storage is required to ensure the long term durability of the
building enclosure. Some commonly used building materials are more sensitive to moisture (eg. paper
faced gypsum and untreated wood based sheathings) and hence require a higher drying potential than
the more durable materials they have replaced (eg. concrete, masonry, or solid sawn timber). Several
wide-spread building enclosure failures in the past decade including those in Vancouver BC,
Wilmington NC, Minneapolis, MN and other locations in North America have further raised the
awareness and impact of moisture and its impact on building materials (Crandell & Kenney 1996,
Morrison Hershfield 1996, Brown et al. 1997, Barrett 1998, RDH 2001, Brown et al. 2003).

Recent building enclosure failures have shown that the drying potential of some wall assemblies in
certain climates may be insufficient when exposed to accidental wetting or leaks. As a response to
these failures, drained walls have been widely recommended to deal with rainwater penetration.
However, cladding ventilation may be needed or useful to increase drying for some wall assemblies in
some climates. Ventilated claddings can also control wetting due to inward driven vapor from rain
wetted absorbent claddings. The use of large ventilated and drained cavities has already been
mandated by some building codes (NBCC 2005).

Some definitions are useful. A ventilated wall is one which has vent openings at the top and bottom of
an air cavity, to promote air circulation. A vented wall has only vent openings at the bottom of the
wall, usually provided for drainage (Straube & Burnett, 1999). Some exchange of air between the
exterior and cavity will occur in a vented wall, however the volume will be small and the area over
which it acts is limited in comparison to a ventilated wall.

In both ventilated and vented walls, the cladding is separated from the rest of the wall assembly by a
gap or cavity. A WRB (water resistive barrier), which acts as a drainage plane and secondary capillary
break, is usually provided to the interior of the cladding and ventilated cavity. The cladding and gap,
while significantly limiting the amount of rain penetration, are not relied upon to stop all water. The
WRB is also not expected to be completely water tight and may allow some small amount of liquid
water penetration. The gap must be drained to the exterior using flashings at penetrations and at the
base of wall.

A rainscreen wall as discussed in this paper is comprised of a cladding (stucco, vinyl, cement board,
wood) over a ventilated and drained cavity, with flashed details at windows, penetrations, and other
transitions.

Not all drained walls are ventilated, and simply providing a drainage cavity does not ensure
ventilation will occur. Vent locations and details are important and should be understood by
designers.

The principle of using drained claddings with a vented or ventilated cavity behind is not new, and has
been used for several centuries. For example, brick veneer has typically been installed away from the
sheathing since the late 19th century (although the cavity was often blocked with mortar droppings or
filled with insulation). The benefits of providing this vented or ventilated cavity has been debated and
the topic of much research in the past few decades.

Previous Research
The previous field research, ventilation mechanics and driving forces are discussed.
Field Research
As early as the late 1970’s and early 1980’s the role of ventilation behind wood claddings was being
investigated in Atlantic Canada as problems with warping and paint deterioration of wood sidings
became apparent (Marshall 1983) in some climates. Wood siding manufacturers performed in-house
tests and found that placing wood siding over a strapped air cavity reduced the occurrence of such
moisture problems (Morrison Hershfield 1992).

Throughout the 1980’s a growing number of moisture-related failures were discovered in the
Canadian housing stock. Field exposure test huts were constructed in different Canadian climates to
study the drying of wood-frame walls, particularly when constructed with initially saturated lumber as
was common practice for parts of the country (McCuaig 1988, Forest & Walker 1990, Burnett &
Reynolds 1991). These studies showed that drying built-in moisture was practical and possible, and
also provided some evidence that cladding ventilation could improve drying. However, the studies
were not conclusive, as test variables were insufficiently controlled to isolate the role of ventilation
and its specific impact on drying.

In Europe, the Franhofer-Institut für Bauphysik (IBP) conducted field monitoring of ventilation flow
and drying effectiveness for different panel claddings in several different projects. Popp et al. (1980)
found that the drying rate of an initially wetted aerated concrete block work wall was significantly
faster when the cladding was ventilated or even vented compared to an impermeable cladding which
was adhered directly to the concrete.

Similar results of ventilation drying effectiveness were also shown by Mayer and Künzel (1983) who
measured ventilation behind large cladding panels on a three-storey building in service. The two
forces affecting ventilation were found to be wind induced pressure differences and solar-induced
thermal buoyancy. Hourly air velocities were measured between 0.05 and 0.15 m/s when the wind-
speed was between 1 to 3 m/s. Wind direction influenced the ventilation air velocity more than
wind-speed. From the testing they concluded that a clear cavity depth of 20 mm was generally
sufficient for panel-type claddings, and although a large vent area is not absolutely necessary for
acceptable wall performance, it is a practical means of removing trapped moisture. Finally it was
recommended that if moisture sensitive materials are used in the backup wall, the upper and lower
vent openings should be as large as possible for increased ventilation rates.

In the United States, the impacts of cladding ventilation on wood frame walls was also investigated
by TenWolde and Carll (1992) and TenWolde et al (1995). These studies found that in walls with
little or no air leakage (from the interior), cavity ventilation promoted drying. When air leakage was
allowed it dominated the results.

In full-scale Canadian field studies, Straube and Burnett (1995) and Straube (1998) investigated the
role of airspaces in ventilation drying and pressure moderation behind brick veneer and vinyl siding.
The study outlined methods to calculate ventilation flow and found that cladding ventilation could be
useful as a means to control inward vapor drives behind brick veneers.

Two Canadian laboratory studies investigated the role of ventilation drying of walls in Vancouver,
BC in the late 1990’s. The studies were directly as a result of the “leaky-condo crisis”, where a large
number of moisture failures were observed in the recently constructed residential housing stock in
coastal British Columbia (Morrison Hershfield 1996, Barrett 1998). Both Morrison Hershfield (1999)
and Forintek (2001) undertook laboratory studies to determine the impact venting or ventilation had
on the performance of wood-frame wall assemblies.

In the Morrison Hershfield study (1999), full-scale insulated wall assemblies with stucco cladding
were constructed and initially wetted on the interior side of the sheathing . The walls were exposed to
approximately 10°C exterior conditions with no air movement or solar radiation. The major
conclusions of the study were that drying was slow for all wall types and that the ventilated rainscreen
wall design did not enhance drying of water that penetrates into the stud cavity. Even though the
parameters were untested, the authors concluded that solar radiation and wind would have no
significant effect on drying, nor would other types of cladding. Applying the physics of thermal and
moisture buoyancy described in the next section, calculated natural ventilation rates and driving
temperature differences are very low for these walls and in hindsight it is clear why ventilation drying
would not have been effective in these test conditions.

The Forintek Envelope Drying Rate Analysis (EDRA) study (2001) was larger and studied more
parameters in simulated environments. Two phases were completed, one without simulated exterior
wind and solar effects and one with. Solar radiation was simulated up to a 120 W/m2 peak,
equivalent to diffuse radiation on a north facing wall in Vancouver. Wind pressure differences of 1 to
5 Pa between top and bottom vents were also simulated. The walls were initially soaked to pre-wet
the sheathing and studs, and hence had a relatively uniform distribution of moisture. The sample
walls included both stucco and vinyl siding, vented and ventilated designs, SBPO and building paper
sheathing membranes, and OSB and plywood sheathing. Some of the conclusions from the study
included:

• Walls with cavities (vented and ventilated) dried faster than comparable panels without cavities
(face-sealed). There was a substantial range in the drying rates: as much as three times higher
drying rate for comparable walls with a ventilated cavity than for those without.
• Ventilation (top and bottom vents) resulted in marginally faster drying than vented (bottom vents)
walls. The width of cavity was also important, and those walls with cavities of 19 mm dried faster
than 10 mm.
• Walls with plywood dried faster than comparable walls with OSB sheathing. OSB has a lower
vapour permeance than plywood and may have restricted the drying through the sheathing to the
exterior.
• Solar radiation increased drying rates of the ventilated walls but had little effect on the face-sealed
walls (all walls were restricted from drying to the interior by a low permeance interior vapor
barrier)
Recently ASHRAE sponsored a large research and development project (ASHRAE TRP-1091) to
study the mechanics of ventilation in wall systems and assess the potential for ventilation drying of
common, above-grade residential wall assemblies. Three institutions were involved in this project,
namely, the Pennsylvania Housing Research/Resource Center at Penn State (PHRC/PSU), the
Building Engineering Group at the University of Waterloo (BEG/UW) and the Building Technology
Center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (BTC/ORNL). The project produced a total of 12 reports
and numerous conference and journal papers and is summarized by Burnett et al. (2004).

A review of the literature and theory was performed, hygrothermal properties of several materials
were determined, a study of ventilation flows was performed for brick veneer and vinyl siding, the
impact of ventilation drying was determined, CFD simulations were performed, and the Moisture-
Expert hygrothermal model was validated using the field data which allowed further parametric
simulations to be performed. The following conclusions were made from the study:

• Ventilation rates are dependent on the cladding and venting configuration (size and type of
openings) and strongly influenced by weather events (wind and solar radiation). Brick veneer
walls had lower ventilation rates than vinyl siding walls.
• Solar-driven vapor diffusion can act to redistribute vapor from within the wall to the interior,
where it can condense and in some cases, cause damage. Cladding ventilation reduces the
magnitude of this flow as this vapor is directly removed to the exterior.
 • Installing vents at both the top and bottom of a brick wall cavity was shown to benefit drying.
Ventilation was more effective than venting (bottom vents only).
o For a 1.22 m wide by 2.4 m high brick wall with a 20 mm deep cavity with two open
head joints (no bug-screen) at top and bottom, ventilation rates were predicted and
confirmed to be between 0 to 90 ACH or 0 to 0.50 l/s/m2 of cladding.
o Plastic bug-screens typically installed in the vent openings are restrictive to flow and
will significantly reduce this ventilation rate, by an order of magnitude.
• The vinyl siding profile tested allowed significant ventilation-induced drying with or without
furring strips as it was inherently very leaky. Considerable flow occurs across the cladding,
upward and downward and laterally.
o For a 1.22 m wide by 2.4 m high wall, contact-applied vinyl siding can be expected
to be in the range of 0.6 to 2.7 lps/m2 for pressures of 1 to 10 Pa.
• The effective ventilation rate behind the cladding was dependent on both the wall system and
exterior climate. High winds and high temperature gradients produced higher flow rates.
• Fast-drying wall designs can be repeatedly wetted over several years and remain in almost perfect
condition without damage.
• Higher ventilation rates behind the cladding increased the drying rate of an initially wetted wall as
shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Drying Comparison for a 50mm Cavity with Different Ventilation Rates (Schumacher et al.
2004)
Also part of the ASHRAE-1091 project, the MOISTURE-EXPERT hygrothermal model was
validated with measured laboratory and field results of ventilated walls. Good agreement between the
modeled and measured data was demonstrated (Karagiozis 2004). Using the model, parametric
simulations were performed to make recommendations to other wall assemblies and in different
climates.

Recently Bassett and McNeil (2006) measured ventilation flows behind several cladding types in a
field exposed lab in New Zealand using CO2 as a tracer gas. Claddings included fiber cement board,
EIFS, and brick veneer. They found excellent agreement between calculated and measured results
using equations provided by Straube and Burnett (1995) which are essentially the same as those
presented in the next section by Straube et al. (2004). Calculated versus measured ventilation rates are
shown in Figure 3 with good agreement for four different ventilation configurations tested. The
drained and ventilated walls have top and bottom vents, open rainscreen walls have only bottom
vents and drainage plane walls only have bottom vents but air flow is restricted by the use of a nylon
drainage mat in the cavity.
 Drained and ventilated walls 11, 12, 15 and 16
Open rainscreen walls 1, 2 and 3
10.00 Open rainscreen walls 25 and 26
Drainage plane wall 6

Calculated ventilation rates l/s.m

1.00

0.10

0.01
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Measured ventilation rates l/s.m
Figure 3: Ventilation Rates behind Claddings (Bassett and McNeil 2006)

McNeil and Bassett (2007) also showed good correlation between faster sheathing drying rates with
higher ventilation rates (as a function of venting strategy).

Recent studies of drainage spaces behind claddings further show the impact of cladding ventilation
on wall performance. At the University of Waterloo, Smegal (2006) showed that while the majority of
water that enters the cavity behind the cladding will be drained, some moisture will also remain after
drainage stops, stored on surfaces by surface tension and/or absorbed into porous materials. Even
vinyl siding will store a considerable amount of moisture in the drainage tracks and by capillary
suction between laps. After drainage is complete (within a few seconds) the most effective way to
remove this additional moisture from the wall assembly is by ventilation.

In summary, while some of the past research shows conflicting results, the consensus in recent years
is that cladding ventilation can improve the drying potential of wood-frame walls when exposed to
initial or periodic wetting events. Measured ventilation flow rates show good agreement with the
presented theory, and can be predicted using CFD models. Therefore the ventilation theory could
potentially be applied a hygrothermal model to predict field performance.

Ventilation Mechanics
Ventilation drying occurs when convective forces cause moist air to be moved out of an air space
and replaced with drier air. Drying of an air space involves the evaporation or desorption of moisture
from materials adjacent to the airspace, followed by convective transport of moisture to the exterior
environment. Ventilation within a wall system therefore has potential as a means of drying for some
wall systems.

Ventilation flow through a wall cavity is analogous to fluid flow through a pipe network with
calculable pressure drops from cavity friction and vent openings. Fluid flow equations are well
developed from civil and mechanical engineering applications and are presented in the current
ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals (2005).

Methods to numerically calculate airflow rates through ventilation spaces behind cladding and
determine the forces driving ventilation are presented by Straube and Burnett (1995), Straube (1998)
and most recently by Straube et al. (2004) using empirical and well established fluid flow mechanics.
Pressure differences between the top and bottom vents will drive ventilation flow through the cavity,
and at equilibrium the pressure drop across the cavity and vent openings will equal the pressure
difference as a result of the driving forces. Driving forces include thermal and moisture buoyancy
and wind pressures.

The following equations developed in the ASHRAE TRP-1091 reports (Straube et al. 2004) are
summarized here for a panel cladding with a continuous vent opening, and a brick veneer wall with
discrete vent openings (at head joints).

The pressure balance through the ventilated cavity can be simplified to:

PTotal = Pentrance + Pcavity + Pexit (1)

For a panel cladding, such as stucco or cement board with continuous slot vents, the pressures can
be determined from:

32 ‡k f ‡V ‡ ‡L
PTotal = C entrance ‡0.5 ‡V 2 + 2
+ C exit ‡0.5 ‡V 2 (2)
c ‡Dh
Where, C is a flow coefficient for the entrance/elbow/exit, from published literature
is the density of air [kg/m3]
V is the velocity, through the vent or cavity [m/s]
kf is a correction factor for a rectangular conduit
is the dynamic viscosity of air [18.1x10-6 N!s/m2 from ASHRAE 2005]
L is the cavity length [m]
c is a cavity blockage factor to account for mortar protrusions etc.
Dh is the hydraulic diameter of the cavity [m]
For brick veneers, the vents can be treated as standard sharp edge orifices (Straube and Burnett
1995), and the equation is simplified to:

2 2
Qvent 1 32 ‡k f ‡V ‡ ‡L Qvent 2
PTotal = + + (3)
0.6 ‡hv 1 ‡wv 1 ‡ v1 c ‡Dh
2
0.6 ‡hv 2 ‡wv 2 ‡ v2
3
Where, Qv is the airflow through each vent (m /s)
hv and wv are the vent height and width (m)
v is a vent blockage factor to account for bug-screens, obstructions etc.
Guidance to selecting appropriate cavity or vent blockage factors can be found in Straube et al.
(2004), and are related geometrically to correct for the actual versus intended size of opening (ie a
cavity blockage factor of 0.5 relates to a 50% restriction in size).

The equations presented here assume laminar flow, which typically occurs in the field. Where
turbulent flows occur the equations can be modified accordingly. CFD modeling refinements by
Piñon et al (2004) and Stovall and Karagiozis (2004) confirm the development of fully laminar air
flows within the cavity and refine some loss coefficients in brick vents to reflect non-laminar flow.

Four typical North American wood-frame wall assemblies with ventilated claddings are compared
below using the flow theory presented above. Details were selected to be representative of common
practice and to show the relative differences in ventilation flows between cladding types as a result of
the selected vent configurations. The four walls are described in Table 1, and using the presented
equations, the air velocity and ventilation flow versus pressure is presented in Figure 4 and Figure 5.
Table 1: Ventilation Cavity and Vent Details for Four Cladding Types

1. Cement Stucco on 2. Horizontal wood 3. Brick Veneer with 4. Metal Panel with
backer board on siding (or cement top and bottom slot vents
strapping board) on strapping vents
Cavity Notes 19 x 38 mm wood 19 x 38 mm wood 25 mm (1”) open 12 mm open cavity,
strapping at 400 mm strapping at 400 mm cavity, brick ties as steel z-girts at 914
(16”) on center (16”) on center required mm (3’) o.c.
Cavity width 362 mm (14.5”) 362 mm (14.5”) Continuous, per 1000 914 mm (3’)
mm (3.28’) width
Cavity depth 19 mm (3/4”) 19 mm (3/4”) 25 mm (1”) 12 mm (1/2”)
Cavity height 2743 mm (9’-0”) 2743 mm (9’-0”) 2743 mm (9’-0”) 2743 mm (9’-0”)
Cavity Blockage 0.9 (assume slight 1.0 (cladding is rigid 0.8 (mortar 1.0 (smooth metal
Factor - bowing of stucco enough to span protrusions in well panel)
(0.01 to 1) backer board when between strapping) constructed brick
stucco is installed veneer)
Vent Notes Continuous through- Continuous through- Spaced every 2 bricks Drilled or punched
wall flashing at floor wall flashing at floor top and bottom slot vents top and
height top and bottom height top and bottom bottom
Vent dimensions 12 mm bottom, 12 19 mm bottom, 19 10 mm x 65 mm 6 mm x 25 mm
mm top – both mm top – both spaced @ 400 mm spaced @ 456 mm
continuous continuous (1.5’)
Vent Blockage 0.5 - mesh bug- 0.5 - mesh bug 0.1 - plastic bug- 1.0 – open slots, no
Factor screen, estimate screen, estimate screen insert (Straube restrictions
(0.01 to 1) 1998)

Figure 4: Velocity Airflow versus Pressure for Walls 1 through 4.

Figure 5: Air Flow (ACH) versus Pressure for Walls 1 through 4.

As shown, the wall systems with large open vents (panel claddings) will experience large ventilation
rates at relatively low driving pressures. Therefore under normal conditions they will be well
ventilated whereas wall systems with small restricted vents require much higher driving pressures to
attain large ventilation rates.

Vinyl siding, while commonly used, was not compared above as ventilation flow cannot be accurately
calculated. Laboratory testing has shown that vinyl siding profiles are very leaky and have numerous
flow paths through and around the cladding (VanStraaten 2004). For modeling purposes it can
however be assumed that the ventilation rate is very high when vinyl cladding is used and one could
calculate flows for a panel cladding (equation 2) with wide open unobstructed vents as a reasonable
estimate to account for the leakage through multiple paths.

Once the flow versus pressure relationship is determined for a specific wall and vent arrangement,
the driving pressures can be applied to determine the ventilation rate.

Driving Forces
Ventilation flow is driven by a combination of thermal buoyancy, moisture buoyancy and wind
pressures. When a difference of pressure between the air cavity and exterior exists, ventilation flow
will occur. Thermal buoyancy and moisture buoyancy are relatively predictable and often steady, and
can be high when the materials lining the ventilation cavity are wet. Combined thermal and moisture
buoyancy can be calculated from the following simple equation (Straube et al. 2004):

Pbuoyancy = [ exterior int erior ]‡g ‡L (4)

Where, is the density of moist air at specific temperature and RH (ASHRAE 2005)
Wind pressures are highly variable, and can be very large for short periods of time. For wind to drive
ventilation pressures, a pressure differential must occur between connected vent openings, and this
pressure difference vary with wind speed and direction (Straube 1998, Straube et al. 2004).
The wind pressures on the wall are typically presented as a fraction of the stagnation pressure
(Pstagnation), and correlated to a specific wall on a building using a ventilation pressure coefficient (Cpv),
where the ventilation pressure (Pventilation) is determined by:

1 2
(5)
Pstagnation = ‡Vwind
2
Pventilation = C pv ‡Pstagnation (6)
Simple stagnation pressure coefficients (Cp) factors have been developed for square building shapes
and could be used for static cases, where the Cp factor at the top and bottom vent is determined, and
the difference between the two is the ventilation factor (Cpv). Unfortunately the basic factors rarely
represent buildings in the field (due to shape and other influences), and vary with wind direction.
More accurately these Cp factors can be determined for a specific building with use of CFD
modeling, wind tunnel studies, or field monitoring.

Measured Performance of Walls with Ventilated

Claddings
Field data was collected from monitored buildings in Vancouver, BC and Waterloo, ON with a range
of different wall assemblies and cladding. The data is used in this paper to demonstrate the impact of
cladding ventilation and to validate the hygrothermal model.

The data from Vancouver is taken from several residential buildings with ventilated rainscreen
claddings which were monitored for a period of five years from 2001 to 2006. A total of five
buildings were monitored as part of the project, however only data from the three wood-frame
buildings is presented in this paper (Referred to as Buildings 1, 2 and 4 for consistency with other
reports). The research project was undertaken by RDH Building Engineering (RDH), Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), the Homeowner Protection Office (HPO), and British
Columbia Housing Management Commission (BCHMC). Data collection methodology, building
details, and results are presented in more detail in RDH (2005) and Finch (2007).

The data from Waterloo is taken from a research project at the University of Waterloo’s field
exposure and test facility (BEGHut). Data from a set of wood-frame walls with ventilated brick
veneer monitored in a recent study is presented in this paper. The data collection methodology for
the walls presented in this paper is discussed by Finch et al. (2007a) and is consistent with Straube
(1998), VanStraaten (2004).

For both studies sensor and instrumentation methodology can be found in Straube et al. (2002). A
summary of the monitored walls is provided in Table 2 including an overview photograph of the
building, a typical wall assembly and ventilation cavity details.
Table 2: Summary of Monitored Field Buildings

Vancouver – Building 1 Vancouver – Building 2 Vancouver – Building 4 Waterloo – BEGHut

4 storey, vinyl clad 4 storey, stucco clad 4 storey, cement board 1 storey, brick veneer –
rainscreen walls – new rainscreen walls – rainscreen (floors 2-4) and field exposed test facility
construction rehabilitation project brick veneer (floor 1) –
new construction

- vinyl siding - 19 mm stucco cladding - 6 mm cement board - 89 mm clay brick

- 19 mm ventilated cavity - 19 mm ventilated cavity - 19 mm ventilated cavity - 38 mm ventilated cavity
(19mm treated wood (19mm treated wood (19mm treated wood (openings at 400mm top
strapping @ 400 mm) strapping @ 400 mm) strapping @ 400 mm) and bottom)
- 2 layers 30 min building - 1 layer SBPO house-wrap - 2 layers 30-min building - 1 layer SBPO house-wrap
paper - 13 mm plywood paper - 12 mm OSB sheathing
- 13 mm plywood - 140 mm fiberglass batt - 13 mm plywood - 140 mm open or closed
- 140 mm fiberglass batt - 4 mil polyethylene - 89 mm fiberglass batt cell sprayfoam
- 6 mil polyethylene - 12 mm gypsum drywall - 6 mil polyethylene - 12 mm gypsum drywall
- 12 mm gypsum drywall - latex paint and primer - 12 mm gypsum drywall - latex paint and primer
- latex paint and primer - latex paint and primer
Continuous vent openings Continuous vent openings Continuous vent openings Brick vent slot openings, at
at 2nd and 4th floors (cavity at every floor level (cavity at every floor level. (cavity every other brick, top and
flashing). Approx 12 mm flashing). Approx 12 mm flashing). Approx 12 mm bottom (400 mm o.c.). 10
opening between vinyl opening top and bottom opening top and bottom mm x 65 mm opening, with
starter track and metal vent with bug-screen. vent with bug-screen. plastic bug-screen insert.
flashing.

Predicted Cavity Ventilation

Hourly wind ventilation pressures were calculated for the BEGHut brick veneer walls from
Equations 4, 5, & 6 in addition to previously developed wind directional ventilation pressure
coefficients from Straube (1998) (ie. same building, wall type, and vent arrangement as previously
studied). Total driving pressures were compared before and after the addition of the wind pressures
and while significant as a percentage, had only a small impact on the overall ventilation rates. Wind
pressures increased the average annual ventilation rate from 1.6 ACH to 2.1 ACH on the north to 2.2
to 2.3 ACH on the south, the baseline being thermal and moisture buoyancy pressures only. The
wind pressures evening out the differences between the shaded north and solar exposed south
elevation.

For the three Vancouver buildings presented, wind direction and ventilation pressure coefficients
cannot easily be determined as the buildings are a different shape and height and have a different
vent configuration than the BEGHut. Therefore cladding ventilation as a result of wind pressure was
excluded from the analysis of these walls. However it will be shown later that the additional effect of
wind driven ventilation may only have a minor impact on the results as high ventilation rates are
already observed from thermal and moisture buoyancy alone. Although wind will significantly
improve ventilation behind the claddings of these buildings, it will be shown that buoyancy pressures
alone can generate high ventilation flows. Once high ventilation flows are reached, the additional
impact of wind-induced ventilation will have little impact on the performance of these wall
assemblies.
Applying the pressure-ventilation relationships, an annual histogram of calculated ventilation rates
for an east facing rainscreen stucco wall in Vancouver, BC (Building 2) is compared to both a north
and south facing brick wall for Waterloo, Ontario (BEGHut) in Figure 6. Note wind pressure
induced ventilation is excluded from the Vancouver building.

Building 2 (East)-ACH Histogram BEGHUT - ACH Histogram

1400 2000
North

1800 South
1200 No rth :
8.4 ACH M a x im u m
1600
2.1 ACH Ave ra g e

year)
per year)
529 ACH M a x im u m 1000 1.2 ACH Sta n d a rd De via tio n
1400
140 ACH Ave ra g e
So u th :

hours per
106 ACH Sta n d a rd De via tio n 1200
800 9.6 ACH M a x im u m

(# hours
1000 2.3 ACH Ave ra g e
1.2 ACH Sta n d a rd De via tio n
600

Frequency (#
800

Frequency
400 600

400
200
200

0 0
0

9
50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

10
0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5

7.5

8.5

9.5

10.
Ventilation Rate - ACH Ventilation Rate - ACH

Figure 6: Building 2, Vancouver and BEGHUT, Waterloo - Annual Ventilation ACH Histograms

The BEGHut calculated ventilation rates are consistent with previously reported values (Straube
1998), accounting for the flow reduction from the plastic bug-screen brick vent inserts. The
calculated ventilation rate for building 2 (stucco rainscreen) is similar to that measured by Bassett and
McNeil (2006) in Figure 3. Bassett and McNeil measured average ventilation rates of 0.5 to 5 L/s/m
for similar type walls which equates to 40 to 400 ACH, similar to the distribution of rates shown
above.

While the annual average ventilation rate has been shown, it tells little about the hourly or daily
ventilation rates. Figure 7 shows the hourly calculated ventilation rate for two days during March
2002 for building 2 in Vancouver, which compares to the cavity and exterior air temperature and the
impact of solar radiation on the east wall surface.

Figure 7: Building 2 - Calculated ACH versus Measured Temperatures and Solar Radiation

The impact of solar radiation and cavity temperature driving buoyancy pressure differences is shown.
March 1st was a cloudy day and had low solar radiation, and a reduced ventilation rate. March 2nd was
a clear day and solar radiation increased the cavity temperature 20°C above the ambient exterior air
temperature. The temperature differential between the cavity and exterior air acted strongly to drive
the large ventilation rates during the day when the sun is out. Hence the role of solar radiation is
important and cannot be excluded from the analysis of cladding ventilation rates.
Hygrothermal Modeling of Ventilated Cladding
Commercially available one-dimensional hygrothermal software such as WUFI 4.0 1D (Fraunhofer-
Institut für Bauphysik IBP) are often used by practitioners to perform design analyses or forensic
simulations of wall and roof assemblies. To assist in making design decisions, several cases can be
modeled together with different variables (including materials or boundary conditions) to develop an
understanding of the performance range of a particular system. The limitation of such current
hygrothermal software includes the inability to model air leakage, account for ventilation or rain
leaks. The latter ability is important if one is to meet the proposed ASHRAE SPC 160P requirement
for 1% of the driving rain load to be modeled as leaking past the cladding.

Currently modeling of walls with cladding ventilation tends to yield inaccurate results unless
modifications are made to the cladding materials or assembly to approximate the effects of
ventilation (this is discussed in detail in the next section).

To account for ventilation, IBP has introduced a new version of WUFI 4.1 which can model heat
and moisture “sources and sinks” within wall assemblies at locations other than the exterior or
interior boundary layers. In addition to ventilation, rain leaks, air leaks, or heat sources can be added
to layers within the assembly and modeled. Different types of moisture and/or thermal sources or
sinks can be modeled as follows (Kehrer 2006):
1. Source from file (constant or at user defined interval)
2. Source as fraction of boundary conditions (ie. 1% driving rain load for ASHRAE SPC 160P)
3. Source derived from air change rate in a ventilated gap (constant or user defined interval)

In the third option, WUFI 4.1 allows the user to ventilate airspaces by assigning either a fixed or
hourly ventilation rate (in the form of air changes/hr). The moisture added to or extracted from the
cavity is modeled as a well-mixed process:

(7)

where, Qm is the moisture source/sink strength [kg/m²s]

Xout is water content of the outdoor air [kg/m³], and
Xcavity is water content of the cavity air [kg/m³] .
The thermal source is calculated as follows:
(8)

where, Qt is the thermal source term [W/m²], and

Cp,Air is the specific heat capacity of dry air at constant pressure, moisture excluded.
When the simulation is complete, the user can check for errors and the balances to ensure the
accuracy of the calculations.

The accuracy of previous versions of WUFI have been verified against many full-scale field studies of
enclosure performance (roofs, walls, foundations, parking garage decks, etc.) over a number of years
(Karagiozis et al. 2001, Künzel 1998a, Künzel 1998b, Straube & Schumacher 2003). The source and
sink model builds on the existing platform.

The use of a two-dimensional hygrothermal model may be more accurate at modeling the effects of
ventilation or leaks. However 2D models may not be required in all situations or practical for some
users. Modeling the impacts of leaks or ventilation in a two-dimensional model is currently time
consuming. Therefore the ability to estimate some two-dimensional effects (heat and moisture
sources, ie rain and air leaks or ventilation) in existing one-dimensional models which are fast, well
benchmarked, and widely used is desirable for practitioners.

A single wall assembly is used throughout this paper for comparing field and modeled results. This
wall is representative of building 2 (See Table 2 for details). The monitored wall is exposed, faces
east, and is on the fourth floor and a rain deposition factor (RDF) factor of 0.5 was used, which was
calibrated using collected driving rain data for the east wall of this building (Finch 2007). The vent
configuration and blockage factors are consistent with Wall 1 as presented earlier (19 x 364 x 2743
mm cavity, 12 mm vent openings, 0.5 blockage factor for fine mesh bug screens). Moisture content
data is typically presented for the plywood sheathing as it is a measure of the performance of a wall;
however the temperature, relative humidity, and dewpoint (or absolute moisture) readings
throughout the wall were compared to measured data when making conclusions regarding the
accuracy of the modeling.

Previous Modeling Techniques

A number of modeling techniques have been used by practitioners in the past to model wall
assemblies with ventilated claddings. These techniques have included the following:

1. Ignoring Ventilation Effects – The traditional approach has been to ignore the impact of
ventilation by inserting a still air cavity behind the cladding and in some cases (where
ventilation is very low, in dry climates, or with high permeance cladding) this may produce
reasonable results. However for most climates and wall assemblies, this method will yield
inaccurate results, highlighting the importance of ventilation and the cladding properties.
2. Effective Cladding Permeance – The user modifies the vapour permeance of the cladding
material by an order of magnitude depending on the estimated ventilation rates. Effective
permeance can be calculated using methods as shown by TenWolde and Carll (1992) and
Straube and Burnett (1995, 2005) which typically results in an order of magnitude increase to
the cladding vapour permeability. The cladding is left in the model as a screen to account for
solar radiation heating and moisture storage from wetting events. The effective vapour
permeance which is determined by the user has a significant impact on the results, and hence
can be subjective based on the user’s experience.
3. Removal of Cladding – The user removes the cladding from the model, and at the same time,
rain and solar radiation loads are typically turned off in the model, to prevent the sheathing
from being directly wetted or solar heated. The impacts of solar radiation and rain have a
significant result on the moisture distribution, wetting and drying and therefore this method
tends to under-estimate the moisture loading.
4. Using Cavity Conditions as Exterior Boundary Conditions – Involves using measured cavity
conditions (T/RH) as the exterior boundary conditions in a KLI file with the cladding and air
cavity removed. This method has been shown to be accurate at capturing the wall
performance to the interior of the cladding (Finch et al. 2007a, 2007b). However it can only
be used if collected cavity data is available. It is not useful to the general user who uses a
model to design and therefore is not discussed further in this paper.
The sheathing moisture content of a stucco clad rainscreen wall (Building 2) modeled using the
different techniques discussed above are reported in Figure 8 and Figure 9. The wall assembly listed
in Table 2, with materials properties in the WUFI database was used. A “face-sealed” case (one in
which the stucco is in direct contact with the water resistant barrier) was also modeled for
comparison. Face-sealed assemblies have a poor record of performance in Vancouver due to
sheathing rot and decay (Morrison Hershfield 1996).
Figure 8: Hygrothermal Modeling Techniques – Comparison of Modeling Techniques (1&3)

Figure 9: Hygrothermal Modeling Techniques – Comparison of Effective Cladding Permeance

Experience and moisture probe testing of wood frame buildings in Vancouver’s coastal climate has
shown a seasonal moisture trend from low in the summer (5-15% MC) to high in the winter (15-25%
MC). The moisture content of the sheathing is at its highest during the wet winter months starting
during the first significant rainfalls in fall (October-November) until the warmer and drier weather in
spring (March-April). Similar trends have been observed in ventilated rainscreen walls of the
Vancouver monitoring study for the past five years (Finch 2007). Not including the effect of
ventilation in the model results in a significant (as much as 15%MC higher) over-prediction of the
moisture content and a shift in the peak moisture levels until the summer months.

Therefore when the modeled results show skewed curves with peak moisture contents occurring in
late spring-early summer, the user should be aware that the results may not be accurate. This occurs
in the model as rain, coupled with higher exterior temperatures and solar radiation act to drive
moisture into the wall (reverse vapour drive) which elevates sheathing moisture levels. Allowing this
moisture to dissipate (less permeable cladding, or ventilation) shifts the peak to the wet winter
months.

Source and Sink Approach to Modeling Ventilated Claddings

The impact of the ventilation rate was investigated with the model for the stucco rainscreen clad wall
used in the previous example. Fixed ventilation rates of 1, 10, 50, 100, 140, and 200 ACH were
considered as well as an hourly varying ventilation calculated from the buoyancy pressures alone
(Equation 4). From the results shown in Figure 10, it is again clear that the cladding ventilation rate
can have an important effect on the modeled performance of rainscreen walls in Vancouver’s
climate. Lower ventilation rates will result in higher sheathing moisture contents for prolonged
periods of time during the warm spring-summer months, which could allow mould growth and
decay.

Figure 10: Effect of Cladding Ventilation on Moisture Content of Sheathing.

The use of the calculated ventilation rate for buoyancy only results in a close fit to the data. Higher
ventilation flow rates likely occur in the field because of the flow induced by wind. Using a fixed (or
annual average, (140 ACH in the case of Building 2) ventilation rate can predict field performance
with reasonable accuracy and captures the trends of the sheathing moisture content. For these
simulations the annual average rate is sufficient for most modeling purposes. Obviously using the
actual hourly ventilation rate is more accurate; however it may not be worth the extra effort.

For the results shown above, the buoyancy pressures were calculated using the measured cavity
temperature and RH. Without these field measurements, one can estimate the hourly ventilation rate
iteratively by trial and error using the following method: 1. calculate the flow versus pressure
relationship for the wall assembly and venting arrangement you wish to model, 2. choose an annual
ventilation rate and run model, 3. export predicted hourly cavity temperature and RH, 4. calculate
thermal/buoyancy and wind pressures to predict a new hourly ventilation rate, 5. run model with new
calculated hourly ventilation rate, 6. compare cavity T/RH with previous, 8. repeat until T/RH from
previous case is close enough to previous case. In our experience convergence occurs within one or
two iterations.

Future software versions could automate this iterative and time consuming process. Users could
input the wall cavity and vent dimensions and details, and the software could apply the relationships
and automatically determine the cladding ventilation based on wind and thermal/moisture buoyancy
pressures.

Validation with Measured Field Data

The source and sink approach was applied to the stucco-clad wall of Building 2 and the vinyl
cladding of Building 1. It was necessary to add a small amount of moisture storage (about 0.7 kg/m2
at saturation) to account for the liquid water that can be stored in the tracks of the vinyl cladding. If
this amount of storage is not added the moisture content is under-predicted in the model and varied
from 6 to 12% instead of 8% to 17% MC.
Measured field data from rainscreen clad walls in Vancouver, BC shows good correlation with the
WUFI model using either hourly or annual average cladding ventilation rates (Figure 11). Sheathing
moisture contents for buildings 1 and 2 are shown. The modeled results are plotted against eight
measured locations in each building (four monitored areas at the center of wall and at details) to
show the range observed in the field results. A relatively large scatter exists in the measured data;
however the trends are consistent and captured accurately by WUFI. Other parameters including
temperature and relative humidity through the wall were compared and shown in more detail by
Finch (2007). Results from Building 4 (cement board cladding) are not shown here but show similar
results however good agreement with the model required a different sorption isotherm for plywood
than in the WUFI database.

Figure 11: Building 1 and 2, 2002 Measured versus Calculated Sheathing Moisture Content.

Material properties have a significant impact on the modeling results. Results shown here are for
“first-run” type simulations where materials from the WUFI database were used (with the exception
of vinyl siding and cement board, which were modified to provide additional moisture storage to
more accurately reflect measured results). Further research and measurements of cladding properties
should be performed, to update the material database.

The measured data from the brick veneer walls in the BEGHut were also compared to the WUFI
model, using hourly ventilation rates. The ventilation rates within the brick veneer are lower
(<10ACH), and hence the wall assembly is more sensitive to moisture loading from the absorptive
cladding. The measured and modeled results closely correlate when the rain loading is carefully
controlled, using rain deposition factors (RDF) previously determined for the BEGHut. Again the
model is sensitive to the material properties of the brick veneer, and depending on which database
material is used, slightly different results will occur. The ventilation rate was also found to have a
strong influence on the moisture content of the sheathing. Increasing the cladding ventilation rate
reduced the sheathing moisture content, particularly when exposed to higher driving rain. However
in practice it may be difficult to effectively increase the ventilation rate in brick veneer walls with
traditional venting arrangements.

Impact of Leaks
The impact of rainwater leaks on the performance of rainscreen wall systems in Vancouver, BC was
also modeled. The stucco-clad rainscreen Building 2 model was used with a leak depositing moisture
at one of two locations within the wall assembly. The total calculated driving rain on the east
elevation was 373 kg/m2 when an RDF of 0.25 was used. A leak as a percentage of the driving rain
was modeled for three cases: 0.1% (0.37 kg/m2), 0.5% (1.87kg/m2) and 1.0% (3.73 kg/m2). The
moisture source was placed into the model at either the exterior or interior surface of the plywood
sheathing. It was found that adding the leak to the exterior surface of the sheathing membrane has
only a negligible impact on the sheathing moisture content, as the additional moisture was removed
by the high ventilation rate (annual average 140 ACH) for this particular wall assembly. However
when the leak occurred past the WRB at either plywood surface, it was absorbed and increased the
sheathing moisture content. The results for six cases are presented in Figure 12. The leak at exterior
side of the sheathing shown in the left plot, and the leak at the interior insulation/sheathing interface
is shown in the right plot. Vapour diffusion drying was prevented to the interior by the use of a
polyethylene vapor barrier, and as no annual storage was observed, all added moisture from the leak
was removed from the wall assembly by ventilation to the exterior.

Figure 12: Effect of Rainwater Leaks in a Stucco Clad Rainscreen Wall in Vancouver, BC

All cases dry out by the summer in this climate but reach dangerous levels for months if more than
0.1% leakage occurs. The location of the leak can be seen to have an impact on the results, but higher
sheathing moisture contents are reached when the leak occurred at the interior face of the sheathing.
As expected this indicates that the vapour permeance and moisture transport properties of the
sheathing can limit or reduce the drying potential somewhat.

In reality, most leaks tend to be localized not uniformly distributed as assumed by the model and
hence some redistribution of moisture will occur within the wall assembly. To model the effect of a
small leak and the impact it has on the surrounding materials, two-dimensional or three dimensional
models may be required to properly account for redistribution to un-wetted materials. The one-
dimensional model can show the effect of large widespread leaks, but may not be able to accurately
model small isolated leaks. Further research is required in this field before guidelines can be
developed to accurately model different types of leaks.

Conclusions and Recommendations

While some previous research of ventilation drying shows conflicting results, the consensus in recent
years is that cladding ventilation has the potential to increase the drying potential of a wall and reduce
wetting from absorptive claddings and sun-driven moisture. Higher ventilation rates are shown to
result in faster drying rates of wood sheathings. Measured ventilation rates in the field and laboratory
show good agreement with the predicted rates calculated from fluid flow mechanics theory. The
probable range of ventilation rates depend on the cladding type, cavity dimensions, and venting
arrangement, and are driven by thermal and moisture buoyancy and wind pressures.
It was shown that current one-dimensional hygrothermal software has a limited ability to model the
wetting and drying of walls with ventilated claddings. Modeling “tweaks” were found to be limited in
their accuracy for some ventilated cladding scenarios. The new version of one-dimensional WUFI
4.1 which can model heat and moisture “sources and sinks” within wall assemblies can overcome
many of the limitations of using 1-D models. This hygrothermal model was validated with measured
field data from three buildings constructed with ventilated claddings in Vancouver, BC and one in
Waterloo, Ontario.

Results from the new model highlight the importance of cladding ventilation for several wood-frame
wall assemblies. When hourly or annual average cladding ventilation rates are calculated using the
theory outlined and ventilation modeled as a source/sink, the correlation between the field measured
and modeled results is excellent. Further modeling shows that higher ventilation rates can improve
the performance of certain wall assemblies (reduce sheathing or overall moisture levels and reduce
solar-driven moisture).

The larger the cavity, the greater the ventilation flow for similar driving pressures. The vent openings
are a critical detail, and should be made as large and unobstructed as possible without allowing rain
penetration or bird/animal/insect ingress. Brick vent bug-screen inserts are especially problematic,
and by removing the inserts the ventilation rate can be increased by a factor of 10 for similar driving
pressures. Alternately, larger or additional vent openings (between every brick) may be an option to
improve ventilation rates and thus drying potential.

The impact of a rainwater leak that penetrates the wall assembly can also be modeled, and it was
shown that continual leaks (as a fraction of the driving rain load), can lead to elevated moisture
contents even in ventilated rainscreen wall assemblies. Selection of an appropriate leak size is up to
the user, and will vary depending on climate and exposure. Further research should be performed to
determine the validity of modeling small leaks with a one-dimensional hygrothermal program, and
the impacts of three-dimensional re-distribution of moisture.

The hygrothermal model could also be updated to calculate flow versus pressure relationships for
user defined wall assemblies and vent configurations. The hourly ventilation flow rates could then be
determined by the software based on thermal and moisture buoyancy and wind pressures.
References
ASHRAE. 2005. ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Atlanta, GA.

Barrett, D. 1998. The Renewal of Trust in Residential Construction - Part 1. Commission of Inquiry
into the Quality of Condominium Construction in British Columbia.

Bassett, M.R., McNeil, S. 2006. Measured Ventilation Rates in Water Managed Wall Cavities.
Proceedings from 3rd International Building Physics Conference. Montreal, Quebec. August 2006. pp 403-410.

Burnett, E., and Reynolds, A. 1991. Final Report – Ontario Wall Drying Study. University of
Waterloo, Building Engineering Group Report for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation,
Ottawa.

Burnett, E., Straube, J., Karagiozis, A. 2004. Synthesis Report and Guidelines – Report #12.
ASHRAE 1091 – Development of Design Strategies for Rainscreen and Sheathing Membrane Performance in
Wood Frame Walls. The Pennsylvania Housing Research/Resource Center, Pennsylvania State
University Report for ASHRAE.

Brown, W. & Adams, P., Tonyan, T. & Ullett, J. 1997. Water management in exterior wall claddings.
Journal of Thermal Insulation and Building Envelopes, vol. 21, (pp. 23-43).

Brown, W., Chouinard, K., Lawton, M., Patenaude, A. Vlooswyk, J. 2003. Field Experience with
Moisture Management – Putting Principals into Practice. Building Science Insight Proceedings of the Seminar
Series, 15 Canadian locations. October 2003 to January 2004. NRC-IRC. Canada.

CMHC 1999. Wood-Frame Envelopes in the Coastal Climate of British Columbia – Best Practice
Guide, Building Technology. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC).

Crandell, J. and Kenney, T. 1996. Investigation of Moisture Damage in Single-family Detached

Houses Sided with Exterior Insulation Finish Systems in Wilmington, NC. NAHB Research Center,
Inc. Upper Marlboro, MD.

Finch, G. 2007. The Performance of Rainscreen Walls in Coastal British Columbia. M.A.Sc. Thesis.
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo.

Finch, G., Straube, J. Richmond, M. 2007a. Field Performance of Spray Polyurethane Foam: The
Role of Vapour Diffusion Control. Proceedings from 11th Canadian Conference on Building Science and
Technology. Banff, Alberta March 2007.

Finch, G. Straube, J. Hubbs, B. 2007b. Hygrothermal Performance and Drying Potential of Wood
Frame Rainscreen Walls in Vancouver’s Coastal Climate. Proceedings from 11th Canadian Conference on
Building Science and Technology. Banff, Alberta March 2007.

Forintek. 2001. Envelope Drying Rates Experiment. Forintek Canada Corp. for Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation, Contract 99-2221.

Forest, T., and Walker, I. 1990. Drying of Walls – Prairie Region. CMCH Report by Department of
Mechanical Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. December 1990.
Hazleden, D., and Morris, P. 2002. The influence of design on drying of wood-frame walls under
controlled conditions. Proceedings of the Thermal Performance of Building Envelopes VIII, Clearwater Beach,
Florida.

Karagiozis, A.N., Künzel, H.M., Holm A. 2001. “WUFI-ORNL/IBP - A North American

Hygrothermal Model.” Proceedings from Performance of Exterior Envelopes of Whole Buildings VIII, Dec. 2-7
2001, Clearwater Beach, Florida.

Karagiozis, A. 2004. Benchmarking of the Moisture-Expert Model for Ventilation Drying.

ASHRAE 1091 – Development of Design Strategies for Rainscreen and Sheathing Membrane Performance in
Wood Frame Walls. Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report for ASHRAE.

Kehrer, M. 2006. Personal communication, re: WUFI 4.1 BETA Program using sources and sinks.
Franhofer-Institut für Bauphysik [IBP]

Künzel, H.M. 1998a. “Effect of interior and exterior insulation on the hygrothermal behaviour of
exposed walls.” Materials and Structures 31, H. 206, pp 99-103.

Künzel, H.M. 1998b. “More Moisture Load Tolerance of Construction Assemblies Through the
Application of a Smart Vapor Retarder”, Performance of Exterior Envelopes of Whole Buildings VIII,
Clearwater Beach, Florida, December 1998, pp. 1129-132.

Marshall. 1983. Moisture Induced Problems in NHA Housing: Parts 1, 2 and 3. Marshall, Macklin,
Monaghan Ltd. Report for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa.

Mayer, E., Künzel, H. 1983. Untersuchungen über die notwendige Hinterlüftung an

Auβenwandbekeidung aus groβformatigen Bauteilen. Franhofer Institut für Bauphysick,
Forschungsbericht B Ho 1/83, March.

McCuaig, L. 1988. Final Report on the Drying of Walls – Atlantic Canada 1987. Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation, Ottawa.

McNeil, S., Bassett, M. 2007. “Moisture Recovery Rates for Walls in Temperate Climates”. Proceedings
from 11th Canadian Conference on Building Science and Technology. Banff, Alberta March 2007.

Morrison Hershfield. 1992. Moisture in Canadian Wood-Frame House Construction: Problems,

Research and Practice from 1975 to 1991. Morrison Hershfield Ltd. Report for Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation, Ottawa.

Morrison Hershfield. 1996. Survey of Building Envelope Failures in the Coastal Climate of British
Columbia. Morrison Hershfield Ltd. Report for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa.

Morrison Hershfield. 1999. Stucco-clad Wall Drying Experiment. Morrison Hershfield Ltd. Report
for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa.

NBCC. 2005. National Building Code of Canada. National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa. 12th
Edition, 1st printing.

Popp, W., Mayer, E., Künzel, H. 1980. Untersuchungen über die Belüftung des Luftraumes hinter
vorgesetzten Fassadenbekleidung aus kleinformatigen elementen. Forschungsbericht B Ho 22/80.
Franhofer Institut für Bauphysick, Holzkirchen, Germany.
Piñon, J.P., Burnett, E.F.P., Davidovic, D. and Srebric, J. 2004. The Airflow Characteristics of
Ventilated Cavities in Screen Type Enclosure Wall Systems. Proceedings of the Performance of Exterior
Envelopes of Whole Buildings IX. Clearwater Beach, Florida. December 2004.

RDH. 2001. Study of High-Rise Envelope Performance in the Coastal Climate of British Columbia.
RDH Building Engineering. Report for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa.

RDH. 2005. Performance Monitoring of Rainscreen Wall Assemblies in Vancouver, British

Columbia. RDH Building Engineering. Report for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation,
Ottawa.

Shi, X., Schumacher, C., Burnett, E. 2004. Ventilation Drying Under Simulated Climate Conditions –
Report #7. ASHRAE 1091 – Development of Design Strategies for Rainscreen and Sheathing Membrane
Performance in Wood Frame Walls. The Pennsylvania Housing Research/Resource Center, Pennsylvania
State University Report for ASHRAE.

Schumacher, C., Shi, X., Davidovic, D., Burnett, E., Straube, J. 2003. Ventilation Drying in Wall
Systems. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Building Physics, Leuven, Belgium, Sept. 14-18.

Smegal, J. 2006. Drainage and Drying of Small Gaps in Wall Systems. M.A.Sc. Thesis. Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo.

Stovall, T.K. and Karagiozis, A. 2004. Airflow in the Ventilation Space behind a Rainscreen Wall.
Proceedings of the Performance of Exterior Envelopes of Whole Buildings IX. Clearwater Beach, Florida.
December 2004.

Straube, J., and Burnett, E. 1995. Vents, Ventilation, and Pressure Moderation. University of
Waterloo Building Engineering Group Report for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation,
Ottawa.

Straube, J.F. 1998. Moisture Control and Enclosure Wall Systems, Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Waterloo.

Straube, J.F. 2000. Moisture Properties of Plaster and Stucco for Strawbale Buildings. Report for
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. June 2000.

Straube, J., Onysko, D., & Schumacher, C. 2002. “Methodology and design of field experiments for
monitoring the hygrothermal performance of wood frame enclosures” Journal of Thermal Insulation and
Building Envelopes, 26(2), pp. 123-151,

Straube, J.F., and Schumacher, C.J, 2003.“Hygrothermal Enclosure Models: A Comparison with
Field Data”, Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Building Physics, Leuven, Belgium, Sept. 14-
18, pp. 319-326.

Straube, J.F., Burnett, E., VanStraaten, R., Schumacher, C. 2004. Review of Literature and Theory –
Report #1. ASHRAE 1091 – Development of Design Strategies for Rainscreen and Sheathing Membrane
Performance in Wood Frame Walls. University of Waterloo, Building Engineering Group Report for
ASHRAE.

Straube, J. and Burnett, E. 2005. Building Science for Building Enclosures. Building Science Press,
Westford, MA.
TenWolde, A., and Carll, C. 1992. Effect of Cavity Ventilation on Moisture in Walls and Roofs.
Proceedings of the Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of Buildings V, Clearwater Beach, Florida,
December 1992, pp. 555-562.

TenWolde, A., Carll, C., and Malinauskas, V. 1995. Airflows and Moisture Conditions in Walls of
Manufactured Homes. Airflow Performance of Building Envelopes, Components and Systems, ASTM STP
1255, Mark P. Modera and Andrew K. Persily, eds., ASTM, Philadelphia, pp. 137-155.

VanStraaten, R. 2004. Measurement of Ventilation and Drying of Vinyl Siding and Brick Clad Wall
Assemblies. M.A.Sc. Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo.