Introduction

Moisture Control Strategies Presently Employed

Proposed Moisture Control Strategy

Developing the Algorithms

Using the Algorithms

An Example

Comparison with Existing Methods

Conclusions/Future Work

References

Two roofing systems are examined. The systems are identical, except for the insulation material. Both are analyzed for the climate in Chicago with an indoor relative humidity of 50% and indoor temperature of 68°F. Both have a black outer membrane and a tight metal deck. Fiberboard and foam systems are analyzed. Insulation thickness is 3 inches for both.

Requirement 1:
Both systems pass requirement 1, since the H of Chicago is 6151 which is less than or equal to 8992.

Requirement 2:

For both systems:	H = 6151 P = 0.64 English perms r = 0.1 hr = 0.5 T = 3 inches Rd = 1.56 reps
For 3-inch fiberboard: For 3-inch foam:	Ri = 0.071 reps Ri = 1.39 reps

Substituting these values into Eqns. 1, 2, and 3 yield:

pvm	=	0.110 psi
t	=	6.4 months
pvi	=	0.171 psi

m	=	0.215 (6.4)(0.171-0.110)/(0.211 +1.56 + 0.071)
m	=	0.046 lb/ft2

m	=	0.215 (6.4)(0.171-0.110)/(0.211 +1.56 + 1.39)
m	=	0.027 lb/ft2

Requirement 3:

For the fiberboard system, the condition for failure is not met, so this system passes.

For the foam system, the vapor resistance ratio is calculated:

R_i/R_d = 1.39/1.56 = 0.9.

Requirement 4:

Using Eqns. 7 and 8 to determine the relative time to dry for the fiberboard and foam systems:

t = 3 months (for fiberboard)
t = 7 months (for foam)

The fiberboard system passes all four requirements and therefore represents an acceptable design for moisture control for this roofing application. The foam system would likely see condensation at the roof membrane in the winter and represents a poor design for moisture control in this case.