International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 5355–5363

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhmt

Reliability of material data measurements for hygroscopic buffering

Staf Roels a,*, Prabal Talukdar b, Chris James c, Carey J. Simonson d
a
Laboratory of Building Physics, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 40, B-3001 Leuven, Belgium
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110016, India
c
Saskatchewan Research Council, 125 – 15 Innovation Blvd., Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 2X8
d
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, 57 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 5A9

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Numerical models of heat, air and moisture (HAM) transport in building components continue to
Received 25 September 2009 advance, but the reliability of the measured material properties, which serve as input for the HAM-mod-
Received in revised form 7 June 2010 els, remains very uncertain. In the framework of IEA/ECBCS Annex 41 a round robin experiment on the
Accepted 7 July 2010
determination of the hygric properties of porous building materials was performed to generate a dataset
Available online 11 August 2010
for benchmarking numerical models. In the round robin experiment, 14 laboratories measured the
vapour permeability and sorption isotherm of coated and uncoated gypsum board. Apart from a zero
Keywords:
off-set due to different conditions during oven-drying, the measured sorption isotherms showed accept-
Sorption isotherm
Vapour permeability
able agreement. But for the vapour transmission tests, though performed according to an international
Round robin testing standard, a wide spread in the measured data was found. The differences are most pronounced for vapour
Gypsum board tight specimen. The large number of participants in the round robin experiment, allowed to investigate
Moisture buffering possible causes for the observed deviations. To show the importance of correct material data, the conse-
quences of using this kind of contradictive results was investigated by calculating the impact on the
moisture penetration depth and equivalent moisture capacity.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction experiments in the literature are conducted on non-hygroscopic

As computing power increases and numerical models for whole
building heat, air and moisture (HAM) transfer advance, there
remains a general need for more experimental data that quantify
HAM transport in porous building materials. For example, recent
benchmark data for validating 1-D HAM simulation models pro-
duced in a large international project [1] rely solely on numerical
and analytical data because well-documented and accurate 1-D
data are scarce. In IEA/ECBCS Annex 41 [2] numerical models have
been used to simulate heat and moisture transfer between indoor
air and hygroscopic materials during transient changes in indoor
humidity because previous studies have shown that moisture buf-
fering may improve comfort, air quality and energy consumption
in buildings [3–8]. To validate models that simulate moisture buf-
fering of hygroscopic materials, new experimental data are needed
that accurately quantify heat and moisture transfer between
humid air and hygroscopic materials during transient changes in
the air humidity. Experimental data are available in the literature,
but most data are not well suited to benchmark detailed numerical
models because carefully planned laboratory experiments are best
suited for model validation [4,6,9–14]. In addition many of the
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 16 321349; fax: +32 16 321980.
E-mail address: staf.roels@bwk.kuleuven.be (S. Roels).
materials, where a majority of the moisture accumulation is due
to condensation and frosting near a cold surface. Furthermore, in
many cases the thermal transients dominate the problem. To
benchmark models that intend to consider moisture buffering of
hygroscopic materials in contact with indoor air, experimental
data are needed where the air humidity is changed in a transient
manner as presented in this study.
Within Subtask 2 of IEA/ECBCS Annex 41 [15,16] experimental
and numerical data for 1-D heat and moisture transfer in a bed
of gypsum board were compared. Comparing the numerical and
experimental data serves a dual purpose of validating the numer-
ical models as well as confirming the experimental data. However,
as previous research e.g. [17–19] showed that apart from the lack
of good benchmark cases, also attaining uniformity in measuring
material properties remains difficult, it was decided to perform
first an inter-laboratory comparison of the measurement of the
hygric properties of porous materials by means of a round robin
test. Not all material properties have been measured, but the round
robin focussed on those properties relevant for indoor moisture
buffering: the water vapour transmission properties and the sorp-
tion isotherm. Both material properties are based on common
measuring techniques, even described in international standards,
but nevertheless an unacceptable spread in results was found. In
total 14 laboratories participated in the round robin test. The paper

0017-9310/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2010.07.020
5356 S. Roels et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 5355–5363
Nomenclature
A surface area of finishing material (m2)
b width of the masked edge (m)
Cme correction factor for the masked edge ()
d thickness of the specimen (m)
db depth of humidity buffer layer (m)
gv (vapour) flux (kg/m2 s)
m weight of the specimen (kg)
pv vapour pressure (Pa)
Rv gas constant of water vapour (462 J/kg/K)
S hydraulic diameter (m)
sd equivalent air layer thickness (m)
T temperature (K)
tp period of humidity variations (s)
u moisture content mass per mass (kg/kg)
starts with a description of the test materials and test series. Then
the results of the measured data are compared and discussed and
the consequences of using this kind of contradictive results when
simulating hygroscopic buffering is elucidated. Finally, the most
reliable data is transformed into analytic expressions that can be
used in numerical HAM-models. Comparison of the numerical pre-
dictions using this input data with the results of a dynamic hygric
loading experiment is presented in [20].
2. Test materials and test series
The ECBCS Annex 41-project of the International Energy
Agency focused on indoor hygric buffering. Therefore, a finishing
material (gypsum board) was selected as test material and the
material was measured both uncoated and finished with a prim-
ing coat and two kinds of finishing coats. As will be shown fur-
ther, the applied coat will significantly change the material
properties, enlarging the relevance of the round robin experi-
ment as similar results can be expected for all kind of porous
building materials. Due to the large number of participants in
the project, no real round robin was performed, but samples of
the same batch were randomly distributed among the participat-
ing laboratories. The gypsum board and primer have been sup-
plied by GYPROC BPB, Belgium. The gypsum board is from the
type ‘GYPROC A ABA-board’ with overall dimensions of
1200  2400 mm2 and a thickness of 12.5 mm. For the finishing
coats two types, labelled A and L, have been used. Both were
supplied by BOSS Paints, nv Bossuyt, Belgium. Finishing coat A is
an acrylic paint (type Decomat, BOSS paints) and is coloured
light blue. Finishing coat L is a latex paint (Bolatex, BOSS paints)
and is coloured light yellow.
Three test series have been measured: (1) the uncoated gypsum
board; (2) the gypsum board covered with the priming coat and ac-
rylic finishing coat A; (3) the gypsum board covered with the prim-
ing coat and latex coat L. This series allows one to assess the
reliability of the measurement of the vapour permeability of a
layer of paint. In total 20 plates of gypsum board (2400  1200
 12.5 mm3) have been cut in different parts of 500  300 mm2.
All parts were labelled. To randomise the test samples as much
as possible, parts from different boards were sent to each partner.
Each partner cut specimens from these parts in such a way that for
each material property, specimens of different boards are mea-
sured. For series 2 and 3, the priming coat and finishing coat were
applied with a paint roller by the University of Leuven and the
painted gypsum board samples were distributed among all
participants.
V volume of the room (m3)
Greek symbols
d water vapour permeability (s)
l water vapour resistance factor ()
q density (kg)
n moisture capacity with respect to relative humidity (kg/m3)
U relative humidity ()
Subscripts
o dry (weight)
sat saturated (vapour pressure)
v vapour
w wet
3. Water vapour transmission test
A water vapour transmission test is a standardised method
[21,22] to characterise a porous material with respect to water va-
pour diffusion. It is commonly referred to as cup-method, because
the general measuring principle is sealing a vapour tight cup con-
taining a desiccant or saturated salt solution, with the test mate-
rial. The desiccant or saturated salt solution will realise a
constant relative humidity below the sample and when the cup
is then placed in a test chamber at constant temperature but at dif-
ferent relative humidity (RH) than the one in the cup, a vapour
pressure gradient is realised across the specimen. Regular gravi-
metric measurements of the cup are used to determine the weight
gain (or loss) of the cup and hence the moisture flux gv (kg/m2 s)
through the specimen. Assuming that the whole process can be de-
scribed by Fick’s law for vapour diffusion the water vapour perme-
ability d (s) of the material can be determined. In Europe the
vapour permeability is usually replaced by the vapour resistance
factor l () or equivalent air layer thickness sd (m) as typical va-
pour transfer property of the building material:
dDpv da Dpv da Dpv
gv ¼ ¼ ¼ ð1Þ
d ld sd
with Dpv (Pa) the difference in vapour pressure at the opposite sides
of the specimen, da (s) the water vapour permeability of stagnant air
and d (m) the thickness of the specimen. Note that in Eq. (1) the va-
pour resistance of the stagnant air layers below and above the spec-
imen are neglected.
3.1. Test method and test conditions
For the current round robin experiment, the water vapour
transmission properties have been determined in accordance to
EN ISO12572:2001 Hygrothermal performance of building materials
and products – determination of water vapour transmission proper-
ties. A complete description of the test method and procedure
can be found in [22]. All three test series (the uncoated gypsum
board, the gypsum board covered with primer and paint A and
the gypsum board covered with primer and paint L) were mea-
sured at three test conditions as given in Table 1. Test condition
C1 and C2 of Table 1 correspond, respectively, to set A and set C
in Chapter 7.1. of European standard [22]. Test condition C3 was
included to allow an analytic fit to the measured data, which could
be used in the benchmark for the numerical models [20]. If CaCl2-
flocks were used as desiccant in test condition C1, it was asked to
make sure to start from fully dried (at 200–250 °C) flocks as previ-
ous studies showed that it is difficult to maintain 0% RH within the
 S. Roels et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 5355–5363
Table 1
Test conditions for the determination of the water vapour transmission properties.
Set Conditions (°C–RH)
C1 23–0/50
C2 23–50/93
C3 23–86/93
cup [23,24]. Specific prescriptions for the preparation and more de-
tails on the applied test assemblies can be found in [15].
3.2. Main results
The results of the water vapour transmission tests are presented
as equivalent air layer thickness (sd-values in m). Fig. 1 shows the
mean values as measured by the different participating laborato-
ries as a function of relative humidity for the three test series when
no corrections for the air layers or for the masked edge are per-
formed (see Section 3.3). Fig. 2 shows the probability density func-
tions of the same results with error bars, indicating the maximum
and minimum values measured by each lab. The uncoated gypsum
board is found to be very vapour open. In fact, only the dry cup va-
lue (test condition C1) exceeds an equivalent air layer thickness of
0.1 m, the criterion used in the standard as minimum value to
make cup tests applicable due to the increasing uncertainty on
the measurement results for more vapour open materials. Applying
a primer and finishing coat on the gypsum board changes the va-
pour permeability considerably, but the type of coat seems to be
very important. Applying an acryl finishing coat triples the equiv-
alent air layer thickness (mean value of all laboratories for test con-
dition C1), while the latex coat multiplies the equivalent air layer
thickness with almost a factor 30! But, the dependency of the va-
pour permeability on relative humidity is far more pronounced for
the coated gypsum board than for the uncoated gypsum board. Put
otherwise, the vapour resistance of the finishing coat strongly de-
10
latex coated
equivalent air layer thickness (m)
1 pour open materials. In the European standard, very permeable
acrylic coated
uncoated
0.1
0.01
0 20 40 60
relative humidity (%)
Fig. 1. Mean values of the equivalent air layer thickness as determined by the
participating laboratories for uncoated, acrylic coated and latex coated gypsum
board. The continuous lines correspond to the analytic expression used for the
numerical simulations (see Section 5). Note that, the equivalent air layer thickness
is plotted on a logarithmic scale.
5357
Temperature (°C) Relative humidity
Climatic chamber Cup
23 ± 0.5 Aqueous solution 53% Desiccant
Mg(NO3)2 CaCl2-flocks or Mg(ClO4)2
23 ± 0.5 Aqueous solution 53% Aqueous solution 94%
Mg(NO3)2 KNO3
23 ± 0.5 Aqueous solution 85% Aqueous solution 94%
KCl KNO3
creases with increasing relative humidity. This feature is far more
pronounced for the latex coat than for the acrylic coat. Compared
to the uncoated gypsum board where the wet cup value of the
equivalent air layer thickness (test condition C3) is ±70% of the
dry cup value, a reduction with almost a factor three is found for
the acryl coat and a reduction with a factor seven for the latex coat.
As can be seen in Fig. 1, when comparing the results of the dif-
ferent laboratories, the data show remarkable high differences.
Knowing that the measurements are carried out according to the
prescriptions of an existing standard, unacceptable deviations are
found. Furthermore, the more vapour tight the specimen is (dry
cup values of gypsum board covered with latex coat), the more
pronounced the differences become.
Remarkably is that, when comparing the individual results of
each of the laboratories (see horizontal minimum–maximum bars
in Fig. 2), the deviations are most of the time much smaller than
the deviations between the laboratories. This suggests that there
could be systematic differences between the participating labora-
tories. However, when plotting the data of the three test series ver-
sus one another, no indication for systematic differences between
the participating laboratories could be found. This can be seen in
Fig. 3, which plots as an example, the sd-value measured for the
dry cup conditions on the latex coated gypsum board as a function
of the value measured by the same laboratory on the acrylic coated
gypsum board.
3.3. Discussion
The results presented in Figs. 1–3 correspond to uncorrected
data. Depending on the test set-up assembly two types of correc-
tions are required. According to Annex G of the European standard
[22] a correction for the vapour resistance of the layer of air in and
above the cup has to be applied for very permeable materials. Paz-
era and Salonvaara [23] also stress this issue when dealing with va-
materials are defined as materials with an equivalent air layer
thickness less than 0.2 m. This is the case for the uncoated gypsum
board and for the gypsum board with acrylic finishing coat under
test condition C2 and C3. (Note that for uncoated gypsum board
only test condition C1 is within the scope of the standard.)
For the air layer in the test cup, the measured permeance has
to be corrected with the permeance of the stagnant air layer in
the cup. Since most of the laboratories followed the prescriptions
very well, which stated that the air space between the desiccant
or aqueous solution and the specimen had to be within the range
of 15 ± 5 mm, all correction are in the same order of magnitude.
80 100 In this way applying a correction for the air layer in the cup just
reduces the calculated equivalent air layer thickness (mean value
after correction 0.107 m instead of 0.128 m), but has hardly any
difference on the spread in the results. To ensure that the resis-
tance of the air layer above the cup is negligible, [22] requests
that the air in the test chamber is well mixed and to ensure an
air velocity above each specimen of at least 2 m/s. Furthermore,
5358 S. Roels et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 5355–5363

0.75

probability (-) 0.5

test condition C1: 0/50 % RH

0.25 test condition C2: 50/93 % RH
test condition C3: 86/93 % RH
UNCOATED GYPSUM BOARD
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
1

0.75
probability (-)

0.5

test condition C1: 0/50 % RH

0.25 test condition C2: 50/93 % RH
test condition C3: 86/93 % RH
GYPSUM BOARD with ACRYLIC COAT
0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
1

0.75
probability (-)

0.5

test condition C1: 0/50 % RH

0.25 test condition C2: 50/93 % RH
test condition C3: 86/93 % RH
GYPSUM BOARD with LATEX COAT
0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
equivalent air layer thickness (m)

Fig. 2. Cumulative distribution function of the mean values of the equivalent air layer thickness as determined by the participating laboratories for uncoated (top), acrylic
coated (middle) and latex coated (bottom) gypsum board. The error bars indicate the minimum and maximum value measured by the laboratory.

it is advised to use cups without a high rim. For most laboratories Some participants use cup types with ‘masked edges’, which
the air velocity in the test chamber is much lower than 2 m/s means that the edge of the specimen overlaps the edge of the
[15]. Moreover, different types of cups have been used, some with cup. This overlap zone is a possible route for two dimensional va-
and others without a rim. To investigate the possible influence of pour transfer, leading to an overestimate of the vapour permeance,
the air velocity in the test chamber, the measured equivalent air since the total flow through the specimen in the test assembly is
layer thickness as measured by the participating laboratories is greater than that through the exposed area of the specimen. Annex
plotted as a function of air velocity above the cups. Fig. 4 shows F of EN ISO12572:2001 proposes a correction if a masked edge is
the data for test condition C1 (dry cup) for uncoated gypsum present. This is done by dividing the measured vapour flow with
board and for gypsum board coated with an acrylic paint. No sig- a correction factor Cme:
nificant correlation can be found. Also, concerning the type of  
4d 2
cups, no correlation could be found between the measured values C me ¼ 1 þ ln ð2Þ
and the presence of a rim.
pS 1 þ expð2pb=dÞ
 S. Roels et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 5355–5363 5359

5.0 tor of 10 (between 0.4 and 4.3 m)! Since this is the most vapour
tight material, a possible explanation could be leakage through
the seal. To investigate this, Fig. 5 replots the probability function
4.0 of the measured mean values, with the type of seal indicated. Ex-
latex coated gypsum board

cept for two outliers, cups with a wax seal seem to perform much
2
better than all other kinds of seals. The lowest value of the two out-
R = 0.2538 liers corresponds to a special way of sealing where the wax is
3.0
poured into a collar. The second outlier, with a value of 2.2 m cor-
responds to a mean value of two measurements around 3.4 m and
three measurements around 1.4 m. So, there it seems that the seal
2.0 is imperfect for three of the five cases.

1.0 4. Sorption isotherm

In addition to the water vapour permeability, the sorption iso-

therm of the gypsum board was measured as part of the round ro-
0.0
bin experiment. The sorption isotherm, or hygroscopic curve,
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 describes the relation between moisture content and relative
acrylic coated gypsum board humidity for open porous materials. If these materials – starting
from dry state – are exposed to moist air, moisture is adsorbed
Fig. 3. Equivalent air layer thickness (m) measured for the dry cup conditions on
at the inner surface of the pores, resulting in an increase of the
the latex coated gypsum board plotted as a function of the value measured by the
same laboratory on the acrylic coated gypsum board. weight of the material. This sorption process can be identified by
two phenomena: molecular mono- and multilayer surface adsorp-
tion in the lower relative humidity range, and capillary condensa-
0.6 tion in the relative humidity range above approximately 40%. Both
phenomena combined are described by the sorption isotherm. The
uncoated gypsum board
measured sd-values dry cup (m)

general principle for the determination of the sorption isotherm is

0.5 gypsum board with acrylic coat conditioning specimen at different relative humidity and gravimet-
rically determining the equilibrium moisture content at each rela-
0.4 tive humidity. Due to hysteresis effects ad- and desorption
measurements result in different sorption isotherms.

0.3
4.1. Test method and test conditions

0.2 Since the hygroscopic behaviour of the finishing paint is in the

precision range of most weighing devices, it was decided to deter-
0.1 mine the sorption isotherm only on the uncoated gypsum board.
For the determination of the isothermal adsorption curve initially
oven dried samples had to be conditioned at different relative
0.0 humidities and at constant temperature until a static sorption
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 equilibrium was attained between the relative humidity of the
air velocity above cup (m/s) environment and the moisture content of the specimen. Equilib-
rium between moisture content and relative humidity is defined,
Fig. 4. Influence of the air velocity above the cups on the measured equivalent air in this paper, when repeated weighing, at intervals of at least
layer thickness of uncoated gypsum board and gypsum board with an acrylic one week, show a difference in mass of 0.1% or less. The equilib-
finishing coat for test condition C1 (dry cup).
rium moisture content mass by mass u (kg/kg) of the specimens
is calculated as

The correction factor depends on two ratios: the width of the
masked edge b (m) divided by the thickness of the specimen d
(m) and the thickness of the specimen d divided by the hydraulic
diameter S (m) of the specimen. Since the gypsum board is only
12.5 mm thick, the effect of the masked edge is limited. For the
cup assemblies with the most extreme masked edge (a square
cup with a masked edge of 21% of the exposed area and a circular
cup with a masked edge of 24% of the exposed area) the correction
factor is 1.089 and 1.106, respectively. Though this influences the
obtained equivalent air layer thickness by approximately 10%, it
hardly influences the variation of the results and cannot explain
the deviations found between the different laboratories.
Most striking when comparing the data and looking at the
cumulative distribution function of the measured mean values, is
the wide spread found in the dry cup data (test condition C1) of
the gypsum board finished with the latex coat (see Fig. 2, bottom).
The measured mean equivalent air layer thickness varies by a fac-
u ¼ ðmw  mo Þ=mo ð3Þ
with mw (kg) the mass of the moist specimen and mo (kg) the mass
of the specimen in dry state. To control the relative humidity of the
environment, the samples were placed in desiccators that contain
different aqueous solutions. To control the temperature, the desic-
cators were stored in temperature controlled climatic chambers at
23 ± 1 °C. The measurements were performed at four relative
humidities: 33%, 53%, 79.5% and 94%. For the adsorption curve, dif-
ferent specimen could be used for the different relative humidities.
So, specimen were not necessarily taken stepwise from low to high
relative humidity, but to save time all the adsorption isotherm data
points could be determined simultaneously using different speci-
men. When equilibrium was achieved all specimen had to be taken
stepwise from high to low relative humidity to study the desorption
behaviour starting at different points. So both the specimen at 53%,
79.5% and 94% RH were stepwise taken from high to low relative
5360 S. Roels et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 5355–5363

0.75

probability (-) 0.5

wax seal
0.25 rubber seal
epoxy seal
other
0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
equivalent air layer thickness (m)
Fig. 5. Influence of the type of seal on the measured equivalent air layer thickness of gypsum board with a latex finishing coat for test condition C1 (dry cup).

humidity. In this way, some of the intermediate scanning curves be-

tween the ad- and desorption isotherm were measured.
To allow a statistic analysis, each participant had to prepare
0.015
from the delivered boards five test specimen for each relative
humidity, each of them with a surface area of 60  60 mm2. All moisture content (kg/kg)
specimens had to be dried beforehand at a temperature of 50 °C
until the weight loss between two successive measurements, with
0.01
a time interval of at least 24 h, remained less than 0.1%. Drying at a
higher temperature was found not recommendable since also
chemically bounded water may be removed. Some preparatory
measurements indicated that drying at 50 °C in a vented oven
0.005
was not dehydrating the gypsum but was also not removing all
the hygroscopically bounded water. This means that the starting
point of the sorption isotherm (the intended dry weight) does
not correspond to the origin of the sorption isotherm graph. The
0
shape of the curve, though, will not be influenced and since the
main focus is the dynamic hygric behaviour of the material, the 0 20 40 60 80 100
measured slope of the sorption isotherm is of main interest. More relative humidity (%)
details on the prescriptions of preparation and measurements of
Fig. 7. Adsorption (solid line) and desorption curve (dashed line) as measured by
the specimen can be found in [15]. one of the participants.

4.2. Results
example of the measured desorption and intermediate scanning
Fig. 6 shows the adsorption curves (mean of five specimen) as curves starting from the different positions on the adsorption iso-
measured by the participating laboratories. Fig. 7 shows a typical therm. As could be expected, a significant difference in absolute

0.03
1
moisture content (kg/kg)

0.75
probability (-)

0.02

0.5

0.01 0.25 RH: 33-53%

RH: 53-79.5%
RH: 79.5-94%

0
0.0000 0.0005 0.0010 0.0015
0
capacity [(kg/kg)/%RH]
0 20 40 60 80 100
relative humidity (%) Fig. 8. Cumulative distribution function of the mean values of the piecewise
capacity determined for the adsorption curve by the participating laboratories. The
Fig. 6. Sorption isotherm of uncoated gypsum board as measured by the partic- error bars indicate the minimum and maximum values determined by each
ipation laboratories for the adsorption curve. laboratory.
 S. Roels et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 5355–5363 5361

values can be observed in Fig. 6 when comparing the measured
adsorption isotherms. This can be attributed to the different
oven-drying conditions and corresponding correction for the dry
weight. When comparing the slopes of the curves (see Fig. 8) a
much better agreement is found. Between 30% and 80% RH the
slope of the adsorption curve is – ignoring one outlier – for all insti-
tutes in the same order of magnitude. For the higher RH’s (above
80%) a larger spread is obtained. For the desorption curves – data
not included, but presented in [15] – it was observed that, apart
from the first desorption step, the slope of the adsorption, desorp-
tion and scanning curves is almost the same. This can also be seen
in Fig. 7. So, it seems that hysteresis on the hygric capacity plays
mainly a role in the first part, in the current case when the switch
is made from loading to unloading.
5. Consequences for hygroscopic buffering models
The previous sections showed that, though determined accord-
ing common measuring techniques, a wide spread in the measured
data was found. Therefore it is interesting to investigate the impact
of using this kind of contradictive results when simulating hygro-
scopic buffering of indoor enclosures. The measured data are typi-
cally used as input data in numerical HAM-models or to calculate
derived properties as the moisture penetration depth or the equiv-
alent moisture capacity. The sensitivity of numerical models to
variations in vapour permeability and sorption isotherm has been
extensively studied in [20] who compared numerical results with
experimental data of hygroscopic buffering measured in a bed of
gypsum boards. Here, the impact on the derived equivalent mate-
rial properties will be shown.
The equivalent moisture penetration depth model and the
equivalent moisture capacity model are simplified lumped ap-
proaches, frequently used in building energy simulation models,
to simulate hygroscopic buffering by finishing materials when in-
door humidity variations occur [2,25]. In the equivalent moisture
penetration depth model it is assumed that only a thin surface
layer of the material interacts with the indoor air (the so-called
Hence, the reliability of both the equivalent moisture penetra-
tion depth model as well as the equivalent moisture capacity mod-
el mainly relies on the measured moisture capacity and vapour
permeability. To show the impact of the spread in data measured
for these properties, Table 2 summarises the minimum, mean
and maximum values of the calculated moisture penetration depth
that can be obtained from the round robin data for the uncoated
and coated gypsum board, when submitted to daily indoor humid-
ity variations (tp = 24 h, Ti = 293 K). As can be seen for most condi-
tions the maximum values are two to three times larger than the
minimum values. For the latex coated gypsum board at 30% RH
the calculated penetration depth may even vary with a factor up
to nine!
To investigate the impact on the assumed hygric buffering
capacity of the gypsum board the multiplication factor M as used
in the equivalent moisture capacity model is calculated for a small
(one person) room of 27 m3 with 36 m2 of gypsum board as finish-
ing material. Applying the data of Table 2, the moisture capacity of
the indoor air is assumed to increase with a factor 24–87 for the
uncoated gypsum board (30% RH) and with a factor varying be-
tween 8 and 72 when the room is finished with the latex coated
gypsum board. Similar results are obtained at other RH-conditions.
Hence, it can be concluded that reliable simulations of moisture
buffering can be obtained only if the uncertainty on measurement
data of sorption isotherm and vapour permeability can be solved
first.
6. Analytic expressions for the material properties
The gypsum board that was characterised in the current round
robin experiment has also been used in a numerical bench mark
Table 2
Calculated moisture penetration depth for the different gypsum boards under three
relative humidity conditions.
Penetration depth (m)

humidity buffer). The depth of the humidity buffer db is related Minimum Mean Maximum
to the period of the typical humidity variations in the indoor air Uncoated gypsum board 30% 0.049 0.113 0.191
[26]: 73% 0.092 0.133 0.200
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 90% 0.031 0.055 0.094
tp  d  pv ;sat Acrylic coated 30% 0.031 0.068 0.114
db ¼ ð4Þ 73% 0.064 0.091 0.134
pn
90% 0.024 0.046 0.096

where tp (s) is the period, d (s) and n (kg/m3) are the water vapour Latex coated 30% 0.010 0.026 0.094
permeability and moisture capacity of the buffering layer and pv,sat 73% 0.030 0.051 0.083
90% 0.016 0.029 0.055
(Pa) the saturated vapour pressure. Moisture storage and transport
in this buffer layer are then described with a single control volume
equation.
The second model, the equivalent moisture capacity model, is
more simplified. Here, it is presumed that the humidity in the buf- Table 3
Parameters of the analytic expressions of the equivalent air layer thickness sd(U) and
fer layer of the finishing materials is at all times in equilibrium
sorption isotherm u(U).
with the room air humidity. The moisture buffering capacity of
the finishing materials can then easily be taken into account by Gypsum board Acryl coat Latex coat
increasing the room air moisture capacity with a multiplication Equivalent air layer thickness sd(U)
factor M. The correction factor M is calculated from the surface a 7.080 3.125 0.270
b 0.240 0.127 0.003
area, moisture capacity and moisture penetration depth of the
c 3.800 5.450 8.250
interior finishing:
!, Sorption isotherm u(U)
 usat 0.077 0.066 0.056
V A  q  n  db V
M¼ þ ð5Þ s 1 2 2
Rv T i pv ;sat Rv T i l1 1.00 0.19 0.32
a1 215.23 0.27 0.68
with V/(RvTi) (m3 kg/J) the moisture capacity of the zone air, A (m2) n1 1.628 1.525 1.55
the total surface area and q (kg/m3) the density of the finishing l2 0.81 0.68
a2 14.89 93.40
material, Rv (462 J/kg/K) the gas constant of water vapour and Ti
n2 2.200 1.46
(K) the interior air temperature.
5362 S. Roels et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 5355–5363
case in which the dynamic behaviour of a bed of gypsum boards
was simulated. James et al. [20] describes the dynamic experiment
and the result of the numerical simulations. To perform the numer-
ical simulations, initial conditions, boundary conditions and mate-
rial properties were given to the different participants. The given
material properties were deduced from the results of the presented
round robin experiment. The previous sections showed that both
the equivalent air layer thickness and the moisture capacity are
strongly nonlinear functions of relative humidity. To exclude inter-
polation differences in the numerical simulations analytic expres-
sions were fit through the measured data. The equivalent air
layer thickness of the acrylic and latex coat was determined by
subtracting the value measured on the uncoated gypsum board
from the one measured on the coated board. Equivalent air layer
thickness sd as a function of relative humidity for both uncoated
gypsum board and the two finishing layers were described by an
exponential expression of the form
sd ðUÞ ¼ a þ b  ecU
with U () the relative humidity and a, b and c fitting parameters.
To determine the parameters the measured mean values were used,
except for the latex coat, for which the fit was based only on the lab-
oratories sealing the cups with wax. The obtained expressions are
compared with the mean measured data in Fig. 1.
The sorption isotherms u(U) are described with an analytical
function of the form
 
X
s
ni
1ni
ni
uðUÞ ¼ usat li ð1 þ ða: lnðUÞÞ Þ
i
with s the number of subsystems, li a weighing factor and ai, ni and
also usat are used as parameters. The data for the uncoated gypsum
board is based on the mean values of the round robin experiments.
The data of the two finishing coats was determined out of the round
robin experiment [27].
The parameters of both analytic expressions for the uncoated
gypsum board, the acrylic coat and the latex coat are summarised
in Table 3.
7. Conclusions
Within IEA/ECBCS Annex 41 Subtask 2 a numerical and experi-
mental analysis of moisture buffering was performed. It was
decided to investigate whether it is possible to determine the nec-
essary moisture properties with an acceptable level of precision
and repeatability. Therefore, a round robin test was set-up. In total
14 laboratories measured the vapour permeability and sorption
isotherm of gypsum board. The vapour transmission properties
have been measured on three test series: uncoated gypsum board,
gypsum board covered with a priming coat and acrylic finishing
coat and gypsum board covered with a priming coat and latex fin-
ishing coat. The tests were carried out in accordance to EN
ISO12572:2001. Three test conditions (0%/50%, 50%/93% and 86%/
93% RH) were considered. Comparing the results, it was found that
the obtained vapour resistance data show surprisingly high differ-
ences. The differences are most pronounced for vapour tight spec-
imen. The highest measured mean dry cup value of gypsum board
finished with latex coat is more than 10 times larger than the low-
est measured mean value. Although the deviations within the re-
sults of each laboratory are much smaller than the deviations
between the laboratories, no systematic differences could be found
between the participating laboratories. Neither could the type of
desiccant in the dry cup, the masked edge or the vapour resistance
of the air layers in and above the cups explain the observed differ-
ences. Yet, when analysing the type of seal, it was found that the
highest equivalent air layer thicknesses were measured on cups
sealed with wax. It can be concluded that for experiments carried
out according to an existing ISO standard, the obtained results
show unacceptable differences. This is in agreement with previous
round robin testing and stresses the need for further research on
the reliability of cup tests to come to an adequate revision of the
existing standards.
Both the sorption isotherm, desorption isotherm and some
intermediate scanning curves have been determined on uncoated
gypsum board. Due to differences in the determined dry weight,
the absolute curves deviate significantly, the measured slopes of
the sorption isotherm correspond much better. Therefore, compar-
ison of the results was based on the piecewise capacity of the sorp-
tion isotherm. Based on the mean values as measured by each of
the participating laboratories it can be concluded that a rather
good agreement is found in the adsorption curve as long as the rel-
ative humidity remains below 80%. At higher values of humidity,
the differences between the laboratories increases. Both for the
main desorption curve as well as for the intermediate scanning
ð6Þ
curves hysteresis were mainly found to play a role in the first
desorption step. For the following desorption steps the piecewise
capacity was nearly the same as determined from the adsorption
curve.
The consequences of using this kind of contradictive measure-
ment data for simulating hygroscopic buffering, was investigated
by calculating the equivalent moisture penetration depth and
moisture capacity. Due to the spread in results on the basic prop-
erties, it was found that the equivalent moisture properties, which
are commonly used in building energy simulation models, cannot
ð7Þ
be predicted with an acceptable level of reliability. For the current
case, the calculated moisture penetration depth may vary with a
factor two to nine, and similar results are found when calculating
the multiplication factor used to increase the indoor air capacity
in the equivalent capacity model. So, it can be concluded that the
current uncertainty on measurement data of sorption isotherm
and vapour permeability hamper reliable simulations of hygro-
scopic buffering. The same conclusion most probably holds for all
kind of simulations in which vapour transport through the material
plays an important role.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to gratefully thank all the participants of
the round robin experiment within IEA/ECBCS Annex 41 for their
joint effort.
References
[1] C.E. Hagentoft, A.S. Kalagasidis, B. Adl-Zarrabi, S. Roels, J. Carmeliet, H. Hens, J.
Grunewald, M. Funk, R. Becker, D. Shamir, O. Adan, H. Brocken, K. Kumaran, R.
Djebbar, Assessment method of numerical prediction models for combined
heat, air and moisture transfer in building components: benchmarks for one-
dimensional cases, J. Therm. Envelope Build. Sci. 27 (4) (2004) 327–352.
[2] M. Woloszyn, C. Rode, IEA Annex 41 Whole Building Heat, Air, Moisture
Response. Modeling Principles and Common Exercises, K.U.LEUVEN, Belgium,
2008.
[3] C. Rode, N. Mendes, K. Grau, Evaluation of moisture buffer effects by
performing whole building simulations, ASHRAE Trans. 110 (2) (2004) 783–
794.
[4] A. Holm, H. Kunzel, K. Sedlbauer, Predicting indoor temperature and humidity
conditions including hygrothermal interactions with the building envelope,
ASHRAE Trans. 110 (2) (2004) 820–826.
[5] C.J. Simonson, M. Salonvaara, T. Ojanen, Heat and mass transfer between
indoor air and a permeable and hygroscopic building envelope : Part 1 – Field
measurements, J. Therm. Envelope Build. Sci. 28 (1) (2004) 63–101.
[6] C.J. Simonson, M. Salonvaara, T. Ojanen, Heat and mass transfer between
indoor air and a permeable and hygroscopic building envelope : Part 2 –
Verification and numerical studies, J. Therm. Envelope Build. Sci. 28 (2) (2004)
161–185.
[7] O.F. Osanyintola, C.J. Simonson, Moisture buffering capacity of hygroscopic
building materials: experimental facilities and energy impact, Energy Build. 38
(2004) 1270–1282.
 S. Roels et al. / International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 53 (2010) 5355–5363
[8] J. Kurnitski, T. Kalamees, J. Palonen, L. Eskola, O. Seppänen, Potential effects of
permeable and hygroscopic lightweight structures on thermal comfort and
perceived IAQ in a cold climate, Indoor Air 17 (2007) 37–49.
[9] F. Tariku, K. Kumaran, Hygrothermal modeling of aerated concrete wall and
comparison with field experiment, in: P. Fazio et al. (Eds.), Research in Building
Physics and Building Engineering, Taylor and Francis Group, London, 2007, pp.
321–328.
[10] K. Svennberg, K. Lengsfeld, L.E. Harderup, A. Holm, Previous experimental
studies and field measurements on moisture buffering by indoor surface
materials, J. Build. Phys. 30 (2007) 261–274.
[11] T. Kalamees, J. Vinha, Indoor humidity loads and moisture production in
lightweight timber-frame detached houses, J. Build. Phys. 29 (3) (2006) 219–
245.
[12] M. Qin, R. Belarbi, A. Ait-Mokhtar, A. Seigneurin, An analytical method to
calculate the coupled heat and moisture transfer in building materials, Int.
Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 33 (1) (2005) 39–48.
[13] P. Talukdar, S.O. Olutimayin, O.F. Osanyintola, C.J. Simonson, An experimental
data set for benchmarking 1-D, transient heat and moisture transfer models of
hygroscopic building materials, Part I: experimental facility and material
property data, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 50 (2007) 4527–4539.
[14] P. Talukdar, O.F. Osanyintola, S.O. Olutimayin, C.J. Simonson, An experimental
data set for benchmarking 1-D, transient heat and moisture transfer models of
hygroscopic building materials, Part II: experimental, numerical and analytical
data, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 50 (2007) 4915–4926.
[15] S. Roels, IEA Annex 41 Whole Building Heat, Air, Moisture Response.
Experimental Analysis of Moisture Buffering, K.U.LEUVEN, Belgium, 2008.
[16] S. Roels, C. James, P. Talukdar, C.J. Simonson, Reliability of transient heat and
moisture modeling for hygroscopic buffering, ASHRAE Trans. 115 (2) (2009).
[17] BCR, Eur 14800 – The BCR Programme on Applied Metrology and Chemical
Analysis, Projects and Results 1988–1992, Office for official publications of the
European Communities, Luxembourg, 1992.
5363
[18] B. Time, S. Uvslokk, Intercomparison on measurement of water vapour
permeance, Nordtest-project agreement 1529-01, Prosjektrapport 339,
Norges byggforskningsinstitutt, Oslo, 2003.
[19] S. Roels, J. Carmeliet, H. Hens, O. Adan, H. Brocken, R. Cerny, Z. Pavlik, C. Hall, K.
Kumaran, L. Pel, R. Plagge, Interlaboratory comparison of hygric properties of
porous building materials, J. Therm. Envelope Build. Sci. 27 (4) (2004) 307–
325.
[20] C. James, C.J. Simonson, P. Talukdar, S. Roels, Numerical and experimental data
set for benchmarking hygroscopic buffering models, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer
53 (2010) 3638–3654.
[21] ASTM, ASTM E 96-05, Standard Test Method for Water Vapour Transmission of
Materials, American Society for Testing and Materials, vol. 14.06, 2005.
[22] EN ISO 12572:2001, Hygrothermal performance of building materials and
products – determination of water vapour transmission properties, European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2001.
[23] M. Pazera, M. Salonvaara, Examination of stability of boundary conditions in
water vapour transmission tests, J. Build. Phys. 33 (1) (2009) 45–64.
[24] S. Roels, How reliable are standard cup tests for the determination of the
vapour permeability of building materials? in: N.T. Bayazit et al. (Eds.),
Proceedings of the Fourth International Building Physics Conference: Energy
Efficiency and New Approaches, 15–18 June 2009, Istanbul, Istanbul Technical
University, 2009, pp. 1001–1006.
[25] H. Janssen, S. Roels, Qualitative and quantitative assessment of interior
moisture buffering by enclosures, Energy Build. 41 (2009) 382–394.
[26] M.J. Cunningham, The building volume with hygroscopic materials – an
analytic study of a classical building physics problem, Build. Environ. 38
(2003) 329–337.
[27] S. Roels, J. Carmeliet, Water vapour permeability and sorption isotherm of
coated gypsum board, in: Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Building
Physics in the Nordic Countries, The Icelandic Building Research Institute,
Reykjavik Iceland 2005, pp. 609–616.