investigation of the moisture buffering potential of magnesium oxide...
TRANSCRIPT
Investigation of the Moisture Buffering Potential of Investigation of the Moisture Buffering Potential of Magnesium Oxide Board
Introduction
• Excess humidity is one of the main factors affecting building envelope failures.
• Additionally, it creates a favorable environment for mold growth on the interior finish of the building envelope which pose respiratory health risks to occupants.
• Controlling indoor humidity within an acceptable range is therefore important.
• Indoor humidity control is typically achieved by ventilation, however, excess ventilation negatively impacts the building energy performance.
• By employing interior finishes with moisture buffering potential; the ability of materials to absorb excess moisture when the indoor humidity is high and vice versa, indoor humidity control can be achieved passively thereby reducing the ventilation energy requirements.
• More benefits attributed to this moisture buffering phenomenon are: reduction of building latent heat load, cooling load and equipment size.
• Knowing that the moisture buffering potential varies for different materials, that of Magnesia board; a relatively new product, is not known and is investigated in this research project.
Research Scope
• The objective of this project was to investigate the moisture buffering potential of Magnesia board under different operation scenarios.
• This involved monitoring two identical side-by-side buildings while measuring the indoor air temperature and relative humidity to evaluate the moisture buffering potential.
• These two test buildings are called the Whole-Building Performance Research Laboratory (WBPRL). Laboratory (WBPRL).
• One of the buildings is set as a reference building and the second one as a test building.
• The interior of the reference building is finished with gypsum panels; the most common interior finish, and the test building will be finished with the magnesia board.
• Both buildings are exposed to the identical indoor hygrothermal loads generated by an in-house developed Indoor simulation system.
• The different operation scenarios are designed to access the effect of finishing, occupancy density, ventilation rate and control strategy and a combination.
Whole-Building Performance Research Laboratory (WBPRL)
Overview of Test Facilities
Occupancy Simulation System
TRIAD MAGNETICS F-401U
TRANSFORMER
OMRON G3NA-205B SOLID
STATE RELAY
AALBORG PSV-D SOLENOID
VALVE DRIVER
TRIAD MAGNETICS WSU240-1000 DC POWER SUPPLY
FTDI-USB-RS485-PCBA CONVERTER
ADAM-4024 CONTROLLER
Occupant simulation system control box
Humidification system components of the occupant simulator system
MethodologyMethodology
TEST #1:Normal Moisture
Production and 15cfm
TEST #2:Normal Moisture
Production and 7.5cfm
TEST #3: High Moisture
Production and 15cfm
TEST #4:Normal Moisture
Production and RH control
Field Verification of Moisture Production
Laboratory Calibration of Occupant Simulator Units
NORTH BUILDING (Painted Gypsum)
SOUTH BUILDING (Painted MAGO Board)
PARAMETERS: Indoor Temp, Relative Humidity
COMPARE
ANALYZE MOISTURE BUFFERING POTENTIAL
PARAMETERS: Indoor Temp, Relative Humidity
Phase I: Laboratory Calibration of the Phase I: Laboratory Calibration of the Occupant Simulator Units
Calibration Procedure
Determination of pump refill water level trigger
Laboratory setup for calibration of the indoor simulation units
Run #1: Linear fit of cumulative weight loss over time for occupancy simulator unit 1
y = 100.97x - 0.386
y = 89.837x + 1.6631R² = 0.9989
y = 88.664x + 1.9943R² = 0.9986
y = 85.26x + 4.8729R² = 0.997
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cum
mul
ativ
e W
eigh
t L
oss
(g)
y = 100.97x - 0.386R² = 0.9991
0
10
20
30
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Cum
mul
ativ
e W
eigh
t L
oss
(g)
Time (hr)
Trial #1-1st quarter Trial #1-2nd quarter Trial #1-3rd quarter
Trial #1-4th quarter Linear (Trial #1-1st quarter) Linear (Trial #1-2nd quarter)
Linear (Trial #1-3rd quarter) Linear (Trial #1-4th quarter)
Phase II: Field Verification of the Moisture Production Rate of the Moisture Production Rate of the
Occupant Simulator Units
Experimental Setup of WBPRL
RH-T’s
RH-T’s
POLY LINING OF THE CEILING,
OCCUPANT SIMULATOR
UNITS
RADIANT HEATER
RH-T’s
THE CEILING, FLOOR AND
WALLS
Field verification of the moisture production rate in the north and south building: Indoor temperature comparison
21
22
23
24
Tem
pera
ture
(oC
)
16
17
18
19
20
2/3 17:00 2/3 23:00 2/4 5:00 2/4 11:00
Tem
pera
ture
(oC
)
SB Indoor Temp NB Indoor Temp
Field verification of the moisture production rate in the north and south building: Relative humidity comparison
70
80
90
100
Rel
ativ
e H
umid
ity
(%)
20
30
40
50
60
2/3 17:00 2/3 23:00 2/4 5:00 2/4 11:00
Rel
ativ
e H
umid
ity
(%)
SB Indoor RH NB Indoor RH
Comparison of the Laboratory derived and field derived calibration rates of the occupant simulator units
SouthBuilding Occupant
Simulator 1
SouthBuilding Occupant
Simulator 2
NorthBuilding Occupant
Simulator 1
NorthBuilding Occupant
Simulator 2
Calibrated Rate [g/hr] 90 141 70 126
Actual Rate [g/hr] 120 189 102 185
Phase III: Field testing of the moisture buffering potential of painted Magnesia buffering potential of painted Magnesia
board
Experimental Setup of WBPRL
Ceiling Fan
Poly Lining
Ceiling Fan
RH-T’s
Occupant Simulator
Unit
Radiant Heater
Poly Lining Of Ceiling And Floor
RH-T’sRH-T’s
Radiant Heater
Occupant Simulator
Unit
Poly Lining Of
Ceiling And Floor
South Building: MAGO BoardNorth Building: Gypsum Board
Test case #1: Relative humidity comparison of both buildings exposed to normal moisture production and normal ventilation rate
60
70
80
90
100
Rel
ativ
e H
umid
ity
(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
4/11 4:00 4/11 10:00 4/11 16:00 4/11 22:00 4/12 4:00
Rel
ativ
e H
umid
ity
(%)
MAGO_RH Gypsum_RH
Test case #2: Relative humidity comparison of both buildings exposed to normal moisture production and low ventilation rate
50
60
70
80
90
100
Rel
ativ
e H
umid
ity
(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
4/25 15:00 4/25 21:00 4/26 3:00 4/26 9:00 4/26 15:00
Rel
ativ
e H
umid
ity
(%)
MAGO_RH Gypsum_RH
Test case #3: Relative humidity comparison of both buildings exposed to high moisture production and normal ventilation rate
50
60
70
80
90
100
Rel
ativ
e H
umid
ity
(%)
0
10
20
30
40
50
4/16 4:00 4/16 10:00 4/16 16:00 4/16 22:00 4/17 4:00
Rel
ativ
e H
umid
ity
(%)
MAGO_RH Gypsum_RH
Test case #4: Relative humidity comparison of both buildings exposed to normal moisture production and RH controlled ventilation rate
50
60
70
80
90
100
Rel
ativ
e H
umid
ity
(%)
0
10
20
30
40
5/3 4:00 5/3 10:00 5/3 16:00 5/3 22:00
Rel
ativ
e H
umid
ity
(%)
MAGO_RH Gypsum_RH
Test case #4: Ventilation Rate comparison of both buildings exposed to normal moisture production and RH controlled ventilation rate
20
25
30
35
40
45V
enti
lati
on R
ate
(CF
M)
0
5
10
15
20
5/4 14:00 5/4 20:00 5/5 2:00 5/5 8:00 5/5 14:00
Ven
tila
tion
Rat
e (C
FM
)
MAGO_CFM_Rate Gypsum_CFM_Rate
Conclusion
• No measureable difference in moisture buffering performance between the gypsum and magnesia board.
• This is attributed to the interior surface coating of both interior finishes.
• To put in perspective, the permeability of ½” gypsum wall board is 51 perms, according to ASHRAE HOF, priming and coating gypsum has the potential to drop the permeability to about 10 perms.
• Falls under the category of Class II vapor retarders.• Falls under the category of Class II vapor retarders.
• The same could be said about the magnesia board, hence the similarity in moisture buffering performance of both interior finishes.
• In Phase IV of this research project both interior finishes will be tested without the interior primer or paint coating for maximum moisture buffering potential
Phase IV: Investigation of the moisture buffering potential of unpainted Investigation of the moisture buffering potential of unpainted
Magnesia board
Experimental Setup of WBPRL
Ceiling Fan
Poly Lining
Ceiling Fan
RH-T’s
Occupant Simulator
Unit
Radiant Heater
Poly Lining Of Ceiling And Floor
RH-T’sRH-T’s
Radiant Heater
Occupant Simulator
Unit
Poly Lining Of
Ceiling And Floor
South Building: MAGO BoardNorth Building: Gypsum Board
Test case #1: Relative humidity comparison of both buildings exposed to normal moisture production and normal ventilation rate
60
70
80
90
100
Rel
ativ
e H
um
idit
y (%
)
MAGO_RH
Gypsum_RH
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
8/14 4:00 8/14 10:00 8/14 16:00 8/14 22:00 8/15 4:00
Rel
ativ
e H
um
idit
y (%
)
Test case #2: Relative humidity comparison of both buildings exposed to normal moisture production and low ventilation rate
60
70
80
90
100
Rel
ativ
e H
umid
ity
(%)
MAGO_RH
Gypsum_RH
0
10
20
30
40
50
7/14 4:00 7/14 10:00 7/14 16:00 7/14 22:00 7/15 4:00
Rel
ativ
e H
umid
ity
(%)
Test case #3: Relative humidity comparison of both buildings exposed to high moisture production and normal ventilation rate
60
70
80
90
100
Rel
ativ
e H
umid
ity
(%)
MAGO_RH
Gypsum_RH
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
8/26 0:00 8/26 6:00 8/26 12:00 8/26 18:00 8/27 0:00
Rel
ativ
e H
umid
ity
(%)
Test case #4: Relative humidity comparison of both buildings exposed to normal moisture production and RH controlled ventilation rate
60
70
80
90
100
Rel
ativ
e H
umid
ity
(%)
MAGO_RH
Gypsum_RH
0
10
20
30
40
50
9/3 3:00 9/3 9:00 9/3 15:00 9/3 21:00 9/4 3:00
Rel
ativ
e H
umid
ity
(%)
Test case #4: Ventilation Rate comparison of both buildings exposed to normal moisture production and RH controlled ventilation rate
25
30
35
40
45
Ven
tila
tio
n R
ate
(CF
M)
MAGO_CFM_Rate
Gypsum_CFM_Rate
0
5
10
15
20
25
9/3 3:00 9/3 9:00 9/3 15:00 9/3 21:00 9/4 3:00
Ven
tila
tio
n R
ate
(CF
M)
Conclusion/Further Work
• Magnesia board showed similar moisture buffering capability to gypsum in that the discrepancies in the relative humidity comparisons
• Considering the similar moisture buffering behavior different surface characteristics of both boards, gypsum is more receptive to mold growth as a substrate
• Reason: Gypsum is paper faced compared to the hard and smooth magnesia board surfaceboard surface
• That being said, the experimental setup was designed to investigate the maximum buffering potential and it was found to be significant when compared with the previous phase
• Following, both boards will be coated with high permeable paint to investigate its impact on the moisture buffering.