December 2008


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Erik Heikel <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
VGBN Discussion <[log in to unmask]>, Erik Heikel <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:44:06 -0500
text/plain (196 lines)
Ask tile installer to use Laticrete 9235 (or similar) brush on  
membrane over hardibacker to create continuous waterproofing under
tile. After using a number of techniques, this seems to be the best
way to protect against water infiltration if a leak presents itself.
Make sure to spray foam all penetrations (knobs, shower head, etc.)
before applying the membrane.
Erik Heikel

On Dec 18, 2008, at 7:27 PM, Tim Yandow wrote:

>> I am interested to know if anyone has an opinion about or
>> experience with
> the following situation:
> I am currently constructing a 2000 sq ft double wall, dense pack
> cellulose
> house. Due to a number of factors, an upstairs shower stall, 4' X
> 4' ended
> up in an outside corner of the house (north west corner). I know
> this is
> not a great spot for it, but there it is. The tiler would like me
> to place
> a vapor barrier over the framing before the hardy backer and tile
> go on.
> There is 12 inches of cellulose in the walls with a thermal break
> (2- 2x4
> walls) behind the shower. This I presume is to keep moisture from the
> shower away from the insulation. I am wondering if this is a good idea
> given the porous nature of tile and hardy backer. Any input? Thanks.
> Tim Yandow
> I am not sure what makes the most sense here
>> --- On Tue, 12/16/08, William C Badger AIA
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Stain may be fine for certain applications, but white stain does
>> not cut
>> it on a 19th Century Greek Revival building. There are many
>> applications
>> where paint is the only suitable coating and our wall sandwich has to
>> accept that.
>> Acrylic water-based primers and paints are relatively vapor
>> permeable, as
>> long as they don't have lead or zinc oxide pigments.
>> I have been on the scaffolding and seen soggy paper mache that was
>> once
>> cellulose insulation pulled out of walls.
>> Without the forensic analysis that would determine the source of the
>> moisture, that anecdote indicates nothing.
>> Try telling the owners of a late 18th Century library that all the
>> books
>> and shelves need to be removed and the wood paneled walls painted
>> with
>> vapor barrier paint. For that matter, any old house with an
>> historic or
>> just well finished interior is not a candidate for an interior vapor
>> barrier.
>> Many of the early cellulose retrofits had insufficient density to
>> prevent
>> the air movement that is the primary vector of moisture in walls. If
>> properly dense-packed, and interior humidity levels are appropriately
>> controlled (and there are no sources of bulk moisture, such as wet
>> basements or crawl spaces or ice dam leakage), cellulose retrofits
>> do not
>> require a vapor retarder. In fact, one cellulose manufacturer -
>> Applegate
>> - will void their warrantee if a vapor retarder IS used.
>> More attention is being paid to the "flow-through" concept of
>> moisture
>> control, allowing drying in both directions.
>> In 1979 a field study in Portland, Oregon (4,792 degree days)
>> concluded
>> there is no risk of moisture damage in mild climates without a vapor
>> barrier
>> A second major field study was done in Spokane, Washington (6,835
>> degree
>> days) by George Tsongas, Ph.D. P.E. Professor of Mechanical
>> Engineering at
>> Portland State University. The exterior walls of 103 homes were
>> opened, 79
>> with retrofitted insulation and 24 uninsulated as a control group.
>> “This
>> study strongly concludes that the addition of wall insulation
>> without a
>> vapor barrier does not cause moisture problems in existing homes in
>> climates similar to that of Spokane.” Bonneville Power Administration
>> provided funding for this study.
>> A 2004 study released by building scientist Erkki Kokko of Finland,
>> ”Hygroscopic Cellulose Fiber Insulated Structures” found the use of
>> permeable building materials resulted in improved indoor air
>> quality. The
>> absence of a vapor barrier, such as polyethylene film, allowed the
>> wall to
>> absorb and desorb relative humidity. This enables the interior
>> relative
>> humidity to remain more constant and comfortable to the occupants.
>> They also found a 30% reduction in the carbon dioxide levels.
>> The EEBA’s Builder’s Guide for Cold Climates states in Appendix III,
>> “Polyethylene on the inside of building assemblies in cold, mixed-
>> humid,
>> mixed-dry, hot-humid, and hot-dry climates is not generally a good
>> idea.” “A classic flow-through wall assembly should have a permeable
>> interior surface and finish and permeable exterior sheathing and
>> permeable
>> building paper drainage plane.” This permits drying to both the
>> interior
>> and exterior.
>> In a December 2001 presentation in Proceedings of Thermal
>> Performance of
>> Building Envelopes VIII, Asst. Prof. John Straube stated “In many
>> practical situations, a low permeance vapour barrier will not improve
>> hygrothermal performance, and may in fact increase the likelihood of
>> damaging condensation or trap moisture in the system. In some
>> cases, a
>> low-permeance vapour barrier may be called for, but in many practical
>> high performance enclosures, none is needed, and eliminating them
>> will
>> actually improve performance by encouraging drying and avoiding
>> solar-driven diffusion wetting.
>> I would pose a typical problem building for group comments. A late
>> 19th
>> Century structure with some timber frame and some stick built
>> walls. The
>> bulk of the walls are uninsulated with clapboards nailed directly
>> to the
>> studs (no sheathing). The interior walls are lath and plaster with
>> 1/2"
>> Celetex over it and 1/4" plywood paneling over that. It has a stone
>> foundation and slate roof. The attic is vented and the attic floor is
>> insulated with a nominal 12" of fiberglass, but electricians over the
>> years have done their best to rearrange it. The paint tends to
>> hold fairly
>> well, but is a mix of relatively new coatings and what ancient
>> bits have
>> still hung on. Will dense pack cellulose exert enough pressure to pop
>> clapboards off (small cut nails are what was used)? Will moisture
>> transfer
>> peal the paint?
>> As long as moisture sources are mitigated (stone basement?) and
>> interior
>> humidity levels are controlled with appropriate ventilation, this
>> might be
>> a good candidate for dense-pack cellulose. It's unlikely that the
>> installation would pop the cladding nails, as aged wood has amazing
>> holding power, unless previous rusting has deteriorated the bond.
>> Ironically the potential problem in this case might be the
>> presence of an
>> interior vapor barrier - the Celotex, with its double foil
>> facings. Since
>> the exterior cladding has no weather-resistant barrier (not even
>> sheathing), there is a potential for wind-driven moisture
>> penetration,
>> particularly if there is a high exposure level (no trees or other
>> adjacent
>> buildings as protection).
>> This wall structure would have to do all its drying to the
>> outside; but
>> since there should be little moisture drive from the inside, the
>> outward
>> drying force may not be sufficient to lift the paint.
>> But, if I were interested in preserving this building, I would
>> consider
>> removing (and either saving or replacing) the exterior cladding and
>> installing a weather-resistant barrier (probably 15# felt or grade D
>> building paper). Without such a secondary drainage plane, it's
>> likely that
>> you would be up on that scaffolding again removing soggy cellulose
>> and
>> rotted wood.
>> Removing the cladding would also allow the cellulose to be blown
>> in behind
>> InsulWeb netting for a more complete installation (around knee
>> braces,
>> etc), then covered with WRB and siding.