Professional Documents
Culture Documents
bACkgRound
In recent years, the roofing industry data on the acceptable moisture limits of 1.1 Consequences of Moisture
has become increasingly aware of the prob- roofing materials. We explore the question While the primary function of a roofing
lems caused by moisture in concrete roof of acceptable moisture limits through an system is to prevent water from passing
decks that migrates into the roofing system. extensive review of published literature, through it into the building or structure
Installing a vapor retarder over the concrete product-specific recommendations from below, water or moisture vapor that col-
deck is the primary method of addressing manufacturers, and some preliminary lab- lects within the roofing system can also be
this problem. This paper summarizes some oratory testing of some common roof cover detrimental, both to the roofing system’s
of the challenges associated with incorpo- boards. This paper is based on the authors’ immediate performance and its long-term
rating a vapor retarder into the roofing sys- experience as designers and investigators durability. Besides leakage to the interi-
tem. For example, selecting a vapor retarder of roofing systems, literature review, and or, moisture in roofing systems can have
of the appropriate vapor resistance is chal- laboratory testing. numerous negative consequences, includ-
ing the following:
• Reduced thermal resistance of insu-
lation
• Loss of strength of the insulation,
coverboard (Photos 1 and 2), adhe-
sive, or fasteners (Photo 3), leaving
the roofing system vulnerable to
uplift damage from wind or crushing
from foot traffic or hail
• Deterioration of the structural deck
• Dimensional changes in the sub-
strate, which can in turn damage
the roof membrane
• Blistering or weakening of the roof
membrane itself, especially with
built-up roofing (BUR)
• Mold growth
a p r I l 2 0 1 4 Ê Interface • 27
flooring industry, which has also of low-rise foam adhesive). Incorporating a 2.2.1 Rules of Thumb
suffered detrimental effects from vapor retarder into the system means add- One rule of thumb7 that is sometimes
moisture diffusing out of concrete ing another layer that needs to be adhered used is that every layer in the system
and, as a result, has developed con- to the concrete and to which the insulation should be ten times more permeable than
sensus test methods for measuring needs to be adhered. In this situation, the the vapor retarder to avoid creating a vapor
the internal relative humidity (RH) of vapor retarder can affect the wind uplift trap. Table 1 lists the typical range of per-
concrete or moisture evaporating out resistance, so it is crucial that the vapor meance of some common roof membranes
of concrete. Flooring manufacturers retarder be part of the tested assembly. and vapor retarders. Because of the low
typically specify acceptable RH or Most roofing system manufacturers now permeance of most roof membranes, using
moisture vapor emission limits for offer tested assemblies that include adhered a vapor retarder often violates the rule
the concrete as a condition of their vapor retarders, but the relative number of thumb for avoiding a vapor trap. This
warranties. By contrast, the roofing of options for this system is more limited means many roofing systems have very
industry, while it has begun to focus than those without a vapor retarder. Recent limited ability to self-dry any water that
more attention on this issue,1 had searches of FM Global’s RoofNav online leaks through the membrane. Even a small
not, as of 2011, “established any database6 found that there are 2.5 to 3 membrane defect that may not produce a
benchmarks or acceptance levels” times fewer tested systems with a vapor large enough volume of leakage to appear on
for moisture in concrete.2 retarder than the number of systems with- the inside of the building can cause water to
out a vapor retarder. These searches includ- accumulate in the roofing system over time
A 2012 research update3 proposes that ed both adhered and mechanically attached and result in concealed damage. Desjarlais
“Until we have more data, 75% relative insulation systems. In the authors’ experi- explains the disadvantages of compact roofs
humidity appears appropriate for normal- ence, roofing system designs with adhered in several of his publications8,9,10 and recom-
weight concrete” and recommends mon- insulation and a vapor retarder have even mends avoiding vapor retarders where they
itoring the RH of concrete according to fewer options. can be shown to be unnecessary. However,
ASTM F21704 to determine when it is “dry” If the vapor retarder is going to be in many cases—including new construction
enough to roof over. adhered, moisture in the concrete deck with concrete decks—vapor retarders have
However, one limitation of F2170 testing can affect the adhesion, so the question of been shown to be necessary.11
is that the standard requires conditioning acceptable moisture content in the concrete
both the concrete slab and the air above deck still must be addressed. Similar to 2.2.2 Moisture Vapor Transmission
it to a constant “service temperature” and adhering a plaza waterproofing membrane Calculations
relative humidity for at least 48 hours or deck coating to concrete, it is advisable to Calculations provide a more sophisticat-
before making measurements. But con- contact the manufacturer for recommenda- ed analysis than simple rules of thumb, but
stant temperature and RH do not exist tions and use a mock-up as the final criteria they also have their own challenges.
for an in-service roof; the conditions vary for evaluating whether good adhesion can Moisture moves between components of
constantly with the weather. Furthermore, be achieved. the roofing system by diffusion over time.
the effect that concrete moisture has on the Fortunately, designers have other The moisture content of a particular layer
roofing system will depend on the specifics options besides adhesive for securing roof may vary with daily or seasonal weather
of the roofing system and the local climate, insulation. Roof insulation (or membranes) variations, and there may be a net wetting
so it may be difficult to establish an indus- can be mechanically attached through the or drying over the long term (multiple years).
try-wide “acceptable” level of moisture for vapor retarder into the concrete deck, which The construction industry has been
all concrete roof decks. avoids the difficulty in finding a tested developing and publishing methods for eval-
Another recent study5 found that concrete system that relies on adhesion of (and to) uating moisture vapor flow for many years.
retains significant amounts of water after the vapor retarder. Alternatively, roofing Hand calculation methods developed spe-
months of drying; therefore, high moisture systems in some regions can be ballasted; cifically for the roofing industry include two
levels are likely to still be present when the however, building codes prohibit stone bal- published in 198015 and another in 198916;
roofing system is installed. In most roofing last in some high-wind regions. other criteria exist in ASHRAE and NRCA
installations, it is impractical to wait for the publications. In the past two decades, expo-
concrete deck to “dry” fully; it is often faster 2.2. Product Selection nential increases in available computing
and more reliable to install a vapor retarder Another challenge is determining the power have made state-of-the-art computer
over the concrete deck to inhibit the migra- appropriate vapor permeance for the vapor programs for predicting moisture vapor flow
tion of moisture from the concrete into the retarder. Some designers rely on past expe- (e.g., MOIST and WUFI) readily available.
roofing system. Specifying the vapor retard- rience and rules of thumb or the minimum These programs have made moisture vapor
er presents several challenges as discussed requirements of the building code, while transport easier to quantify and are more
in the next section. others use moisture vapor transmission cal- accurate than previous hand calculations.
culations to predict the in-service moisture These state-of-the-art computer programs
2. vAPoR REtARdER CHAllEngEs contents of any moisture-sensitive materials are now in widespread use by building enve-
2.1 Wind Uplift Rating in the roofing system. Rules of thumb and lope consultants.
In many roofing systems installed calculations are discussed in more detail WUFI,17 a computer program by the
over concrete decks, the roof insulation is below. Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics
adhered to the concrete (often with ribbons (Germany), calculates transient one-
dimensional heat and moisture transport ture, RH, solar exposure, etc.) during the easily reviewed to determine, for each layer
and can be used to quantitatively pre- course of the simulation. An example out- in the roofing system, moisture-related data
dict how moisture levels within a building put screenshot is shown in Figure 1. such as (1) maximum annual moisture con-
envelope assembly vary over time. WUFI WUFI can also simulate several years of tent, (2) quantities of condensate (if any),
uses historical, hourly weather data for moisture migration to analyze seasonal vari- (3) number of occurrences of moisture con-
user-selected project locations to simulate ations and year-to-year cumulative wetting tent exceeding established thresholds, and
time-varying exterior conditions (tempera- and drying trends. The output data can be (4) number of freeze-thaw cycles.
a p r I l 2 0 1 4 Ê Interface • 31
average surface temperature (for the isocyanurate insulation and gypsum cover tures its gypsum board to less than 2% free
duration of interest) is between 41°F boards to ask for recommendations on water and recommends that its product
and 104°F: acceptable in-service moisture limits for does not become “wet” but could not define
— 30-day running average surface their products. This section summarizes what moisture content it considers to be
RH ≥ 80% the information provided by manufacturers. “wet” or provide any recommendations for
— 7-day running average surface in-service moisture limits.41 The other man-
RH ≥ 98% 3.2.1 Polyisocyanurate Insulation ufacturer stated that its product often has
— 24-hr running average surface We contacted four manufacturers less than 1% free water as delivered from
RH = 100% of polyisocyanurate roof insulation and the factory, and cited a variety of thresholds
inquired about acceptable in-service mois- of concern for moisture content in service,
In summary, a wide range of theories ture limits. One manufacturer was unre- including 2%, 4%, and 5% but did not pro-
has been proposed regarding acceptable sponsive, and two said they do not have vide clear recommendations for an accept-
moisture limits in roofing materials. Most any data or recommendations. The fourth able level for long-term performance.42 Also,
past physical testing on the effects of mois- manufacturer cited 3% moisture content the manufacturer did not provide any sup-
ture on roofing materials has focused on as a rule of thumb but did not provide any porting data on the strength of its material
two issues: (1) loss of thermal resistance of supporting data.39 at those moisture levels.
insulation, and (2) weakening, decay, and In summary, very little information is
dimensional instability of built-up roofing. 3.2.2 Gypsum Cover Boards available from manufacturers of roofing
In our experience, loss of strength of the A 2001 article40 provides data on the materials regarding their products’ resis-
insulation (or its facers) and cover board water absorption of a gypsum cover board tance to moisture degradation.
are also significant concerns, because they product after 24 hours of conditioning at
affect the ability of the roofing system to 95% RH, two hours of exposure to surface 3.3 Laboratory Testing
resist common loads such as foot traffic, moisture, two hours of immersion, and 24 To collect some initial data on the
hail, or wind uplift. Moisture-induced deg- hours of immersion. The article also pro- moisture resistance of roofing materials,
radation of water-based membrane bonding vides peel adhesion data for hot asphalt we selected three insulation cover board
adhesive has also been reported.38 application to boards at ambient conditions products for testing. Two of the products
However, we are not aware of any indus- and after seven days at 95% RH. The article are gypsum-based, the third is high-density
try publications containing data on how does not provide any recommendations for polyisocyanurate, and all are nominally ½
moisture affects the strength of insulation, acceptable moisture limits; its main focus in. thick. Insulation and bonding adhesive
cover boards, or bonding adhesive, with the is on avoiding heat damage to the gypsum are also of interest, but are excluded from
exception of some limited data on gypsum during installation of roofing membranes this initial testing.
cover boards discussed in the next section. set in hot asphalt or torch application.
In addition, we contacted two manufac- 3.3.1 Description of Testing Program
3.2 Product-Specific Manufacturer turers of gypsum cover boards and inquired We exposed the samples to a variety of
Recommendations about acceptable in-service moisture limits. moisture conditions and tested their flexur-
We contacted manufacturers of poly- One manufacturer stated that it manufac- al strength. Flexural strength is relevant to
Publish in Interface
Interface journal is seeking submissions for the following issues. Optimum article size is 1,500
to 2,500 words, containing five to ten graphics. Articles may serve commercial interests but
should not promote specific products. Articles on subjects that do not fit any given theme may be
submitted at any time.
IssuE subJECt submIssIon dEAdlInE
July 2014 Entrapped moisture April 15, 2014
August 2014 Insulation May 15, 2014
September 2014 Building envelope issues June 13, 2014
October 2014 Roofing failures July 15, 2014
November 2014 Traditional materials August 15, 2014
December 2014 Codes and standards September 15, 2014
32 • I n t e r f a c e Ê aprIl 2014
Photo 4 – Flexural test setup.
4. ConClusIons And
RECommEndAtIons
We conclude the following regarding Figure 4 – Percent of original flexural strength retained vs. moisture content (% of original
roofing system design for moisture in con- mass) for three cover board products. Each data point indicates one sample.
crete decks:
• Most roofs on new concrete decks
need vapor retarders. This poses our data are insufficient to establish 2. Structural Lightweight Concrete Roof
some challenges with wind uplift acceptable moisture levels. Decks, MRCA T&R Advisory Bulletin
rating and product selection, but • We recommend additional research
these challenges can be addressed into the acceptable in-service mois-
through careful design. As addition- ture limits of roofing materials. In
al roofing systems that include an the interim and until additional data
adhered vapor retarder are devel- become available, roofing profession-
oped and tested for wind uplift, als will have to continue to rely on
designers will gain more flexibility. their experience and judgment.
• State-of-the-art analysis tools are
available to predict time-varying ACknoWlEdgmEnts
moisture levels due to vapor migra- The authors would like to thank the
tion through the roofing system and management and shareholders of Simpson
assist selecting an appropriate vapor Gumpertz & Heger, Inc. for their financial
retarder. Interpreting the results of support of the laboratory testing described
these analyses requires knowledge in this paper.
of the acceptable in-service moisture The authors would also like to acknowl-
limits of roofing materials. edge the significant contributions made by
Stephen Condren, Joseph Piñon, and Paul
We conclude the following regarding Scheiner in their August 2012 work refer-
acceptable in-service moisture limits: enced in this paper. Their work has lent
• Prior publications have proposed much-needed clarity to the issue of mois-
various acceptance criteria for mois- ture in concrete roof decks, and provided
ture content of roofing materials. An a clear direction for future research needs.
industry consensus does not exist,
and product-specific data and rec- This article is republished from the
ommendations from manufacturers Proceedings of the 28th RCI International
are lacking. Convention and Trade Show.
• Our test data show that some com-
mon cover board products lose FootnotEs
strength quickly and at relatively 1. Mark S. Graham, “Moisture in
low moisture contents (less than Concrete Roof Decks,” Professional
5% by mass) when wetted. However, Roofing, February 2010.
a p r I l 2 0 1 4 Ê Interface • 35
1/2011. September 2011. Drying Low-Slope Roofs,” CON 380, telephone conversations with techni-
3. René Dupuis, “Research Continues Oak Ridge National Lab, p. 82, May cal representatives, September 2012.
on Moisture in SLC Roof Decks,” 1994. 14. ASHRAE Fundamentals, American
Midwest Roofer, June 2012. 9. A. Desjarlais, N. Byars, “A New Look Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
4. ASTM F2170-11, Standard Test at Moisture Control in Low-Slope Air Conditioning Engineers, 2009.
Method for Determining Relative Roofing,” Proceedings of the 4th 15. S.J. Condren, “Vapor Retarders in
Humidity in Concrete Floor Slabs International Symposium on Roofing Roofing Systems: When Are They
Using in-situ Probes, ASTM Technology, pp. 341-346, NRCA, Necessary?” Moisture Migration in
International, 2011. September 1997. Buildings, ASTM STP 779, M. Lieff
5. S. Condren, J. Piñon, and P. 10. A. Desjarlais, A. Karagiozis, “Review and H.R. Trenschell, eds., American
Scheiner, “What You Can’t See Can of Existing Criteria and Proposed Society for Testing and Materials,
Hurt You – Moisture in Concrete Calculations for Determining 1982, pp. 5-27.
Roof Decks Can Result in Premature the Need for Vapor Retarders,” 16. W. Tobiasson, “Vapor Retarders
Roof System Failure,” Professional Proceedings of the North American for Membrane Roofing Systems,”
Roofing, August 2012. Conference on Roofing Technology, Proceedings of the 9th Conference
6. www.roofnav.com, searched Sep- pp. 79-83, NRCA, September 1999. on Roofing Technology, NRCA, pp.
tember 2012 with the following 11. Condren et al., 2012. 31-37, May 1989.
search terms: single-ply roof system, 12. The conditions at which permeance 17. A free educational version is avail-
new roof application, adhered cover, is measured can significantly affect able online at http://www.ornl.gov/
structural concrete deck, board the result, but most manufacturers sci/btc/apps/moisture/; the profes-
stock insulation, and wind uplift only report data for standard con- sional version is for purchase.
ratings ranging from 60 to 300. ditions. Some manufacturers do not 18. Condren et al., 2012.
7. Like any rule of thumb, this is a gen- report the test procedure, but most 19. Kyle and Desjarlais, 1994.
eralization, and there are some con- do. Those that do report a proce- 20. W. Tobiasson, “Condensation
ditions where it may not be suitable. dure, report Procedure B. Con-trol in Low-Slope Roofs,”
8. D. Kyle, A. Desjarlais, “Assessment 13. Manufacturers’ data is from a combi- Proceedings of Workshop on Moisture
of Technologies for Constructing Self nation of published data sheets and Control in Buildings, Building
Marriott Waterside
Hotel & Marina
Tampa, Florida
Tampa
36 • I n t e r f a c e Ê aprIl 2014
Thermal Envelope Coordinating Bureau of Standards, July 1978. Buildings, 2009.
Council (BTECC), Washington, DC, 32. Carl G. Cash, “Moisture and Built- 38. “Noteworthy Limitations of Water-
September 1984. Also available as Up Roofing,” published in A Decade Based Bonding Adhesives,” MRCA
CRREL miscellaneous paper 2039. of Change and Future Trends in T&R Advisory Bulletin, 2/2011.
21. J. Kirby, “Determining When In- Roofing – Proceedings of the 1985 39. Telephone conversations with man-
sulation Is Wet,” Professional Roof International Symposium on Roofing ufacturers, September 2012.
ing, February 1999. Technology, September 1985. 40. Colin Murphy and Robert Wills,
22. W. Tobiasson, A. Greatorex, and 33. Carl G. Cash, Roofing Failures, Spon, “Dens-Deck Roof Board: Product
D. VanPelt, “New Wetting Curves 2003, p. 46. Review, Testing, and Application
for Common Roof Insulations,” Pro 34. Extracted from Cash, 1985, and Recommendations,” Interface, March
ceedings of the International Sym Cash, 2003. 2001.
posium on Roofing Technology, pp. 35. Extracted from Tobiasson et al., 41. Telephone conversation with manu-
383-390, 1991. 1991. facturer, September 2012.
23. Tobiasson, 1984, cites the following 36. International Energy Agency 42. Private correspondence from manu-
source: K. Hoher, Environmental and (IEA) Condensation and Energy facturer, 2010 through 2012.
Climatic Factors in the Specification of Sourcebook, Report Annex XIV, 43. ASTM C473-10, Standard Test
Roofing Membranes, 1982, Sarnafil, Volume 1, 1991. Methods for Physical Testing of
Canton, MA. 37. ASHRAE Standard 160, Criteria for Gypsum Panel Products, ASTM
24. Kirby, 1999. Moisture-Control Design Analysis in International, 2010.
25. Tobiasson, 1989
26. Tobiasson, 1984.
27. Condren, 1982 Greg Doelp, RRC, Phil Moser, PE,
28. Desjarlais and Karagiozis, 1999 PE, is a senior prin LEED AP, is on
29. Desjarlais and Byars, 1997. cipal with Simpson the building tech
30. Thomas A. Schwartz and Carl G. Gumpertz & Heger nology staff at
Cash, “Equilibrium Moisture Content Inc. (SGH) and has SGH and holds a
of Roofing and Roof Insulation 27 years of expe BS in civil infra
Materials, and the Effect of Moisture rience as a con structure from
on the Tensile Strength of Roofing sulting engineer. Cornell University.
Felts,” Proceedings of the Symposium Doelp specializes He specializes
on Roofing Technology, National in designing and in designing and
Bureau of Standards and National investigating roof- investigating roof-
Greg Doelp, RRC, PE ing, waterproofing, Phil Moser, PE, ing, waterproof-
Roofing Contractors Association, pp. LEED AP
238-243, September 1977. and exterior wall systems. He holds a BS ing, and exterior
31. H. Busching, R. Mathey, W. Rossiter, in civil engineering from the University of wall systems, and is also actively involved
W. Cullen, “Effects of Moisture in Delaware and an MS in civil engineering in ASTM Committee D08 on Roofing and
BUR: A State-of-the-Art Literature from Cornell University. He is an RRC and Waterproofing as a task-group chair.
Survey,” Tech Note 965, National member of RCI.
Engineer The engineer who declared that a mall was safe two days before its roof
collapsed, killing two, has been charged with three counts of criminal negligence.
Charged
Robert Wood, 64, former president of M.R. Wright & Assoc. Inc., Sault Sainte
Marie, Ontario, had inspected the Algo Centre Mall in Elliot Lake, Ontario, just
prior to its collapse in June 2012.
With A judicial inquiry heard that the roof of the poorly designed structure leaked
from the time of its construction, and decades of water and salt penetration
Negligence caused severe rusting of the steel support structure. In a 2011 conversation
attested to during the hearing, Wood was said to have told a prospective buyer
in Mall Roof that it would cost $1.5 million to fix the mall’s roof and reportedly warned that the
structure had to be fixed or the roof would cave in.
Collapse Wood was stripped of his professional engineering license in November 2011
after admitting to misconduct related to the mall.
— Canadian Press Enterprise
a p r I l 2 0 1 4 Ê Interface • 37