[Greenbuilding] Exterior insulation retrofit
terrain at shaw.ca
Mon May 23 11:02:28 PDT 2011
Which cavity are we talking about?
The NZ requirement I referenced was for any drainage/ventilation cavity - I
don't think a size was specified. Our code requires 10mm which is an
arbitrary number except that it is a nice round one (and close to 3/8" -
though it is surprising how picky building inspectors can be on .0187 of an
inch. Our building code requires bottom drainage of a 10mm gap but does not
require top venting.
So what I was originally looking for was any research relevant to d-rating
insulation over a 10mm (or so) drainage gap and it seems there really isn't
From: greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
[mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of John
Sent: May-23-11 10:50 AM
To: Green Building
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Exterior insulation retrofit
That cavity is 20 mm wide! That is an insane width for installation behind
the EPS in an EIFS wall.
Products are considered to have a big cavity when they are 3 mm wide. most
are in the 1 mm wide.
A 20 mm cavity will let a lot of air to flow through it, especially if
vented at the top and bottom and then I would reduce the R-value by MORE
But for the Sto, Dryvit, Synergy etc products on the market, the gap is just
for drainage, not for ventilation.
On 2011-05-23, at 1:10 PM, JOHN SALMEN wrote:
> Hi John
> The original reference was from a current NZ eifs manuf spec. Sheet (BRANZ
> appraised) which required a .45 factor for derating anything outboard of
> sheathing. The standard was NZS 4214 which is pretty old - here is an info
> sheet from BRANZ
> I don't know how the current standard has changed as I couldn't access any
> free versions of it but assume the drating is still in effect.
> As for the liquid membrane we will be using it. I'm pretty curious and
> ext walls are all engineered shear walls so movement has been limited. To
> honest the product application specifications I think put it in the grey
> area of overall credibility. Legally I think the liability is so diffused
> that the product cost is probably more related to managing risk than
> -----Original Message-----
> From: greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org
> [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
> Sent: May-23-11 8:22 AM
> To: Green Building
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Exterior insulation retrofit
> Hiya John
> Liquid applied membranes, at least the ones out there, are all
> superior to mechanically attached sheet membranes.
> They can be applied to plywood or non-paper-faced gypsum (the paper facing
> was of course the biggest problem, not the gypsum).
> They all require joints to be treated with a tape of special mastic before
> roller/spray applying the membrane.
> I attach two photos of non-EIFS systems, but all the EIFS folks have their
> own as well.
> Even Tyvek now has a fluid applied air and warter barrier as part of its
> CCMC has tested these systems and included the testing of movements and
> drainage. I have tested several for drainage, and water resistance.
> In every way, except cost (they are more) and weather-sensitivity during
> construction (they need to cure before it rains), these fluid membranes
> superior in performance, often significantly.
> I know of a lot of work done at BRANZ, and have collaborated with them on
> their ventilated wall research, but I have not seen them tackle the heat
> loss question yet. Any idea where this 20% (which seems very high) comes
> from? Could not find it by googling.
> Greenbuilding mailing list
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
Dr John Straube, P.Eng.
University of Waterloo
Dept of Civil Eng. & School of Architecture
Greenbuilding mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
More information about the Greenbuilding