WUFI

Forum for the WUFI Software family

We are pleased to announce the release of WUFI® 2D 4.0

To upgrade sign in to our online shop
It is currently Tue Dec 11, 2018 1:38 am -1100

All times are UTC-11:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: De l'utilité d'un pare-vapeur sur un support béton
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2015 1:28 am -1100 
Offline
WUFI User
WUFI User

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:01 am -1100
Posts: 43
Bonjour,

Je tente mon explication en français, le sujet me paraissant complexe. Je m'essaierai à l'anglais si besoin :)

J'ai un mur en ossature bois qui repose sur un support béton isolé par l'extérieur (avec un relevé d'étanchéité, j'ai utilisé la membrane V13). Ce support bénéficiera également de l'isolation intérieure complémentaire (nue sans pare-vapeur) qui est prévue pour le reste du mur.
Attachment:
support beton pour MOB.png
support beton pour MOB.png [ 52.25 KiB | Viewed 3078 times ]
Un calcul statique type Glaser m'annonce alors une très forte condensation dans la laine intérieure au contact du béton. Au contraire, WUFI voit lui un comportement beaucoup plus sain sans le pare-vapeur en amont de l'isolant intérieur !
Attachment:
WUFI support beton pour MOB.png
WUFI support beton pour MOB.png [ 151.46 KiB | Viewed 3078 times ]
Qu'en pensez-vous ?

Je comprends que l'absence de pare-vapeur permet un meilleur séchage mais mon modèle est-il suffisamment valide ? Et s'il y a des remontées capillaires ?


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: De l'utilité d'un pare-vapeur sur un support béton
PostPosted: Fri Jan 23, 2015 12:31 am -1100 
Offline
WUFI User
WUFI User

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:01 am -1100
Posts: 43
OK, no help, I try in English :P

I am astonished enough by the WUFI results for a concrete support for a timber frame construction (without vapour barrier film).

Whereas a Glaser calculation announce a lot of condensation without the vapour barrier film, WUFI says exactly the opposite : the healthiest wall is without the vapour barrier !

I understand that no vapor barrier provides better drying but is my model sufficiently valid?


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: De l'utilité d'un pare-vapeur sur un support béton
PostPosted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 12:00 am -1100 
Offline
WUFI User
WUFI User

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:01 am -1100
Posts: 43
OMG, even, Christian Bludeau has no opinion ?! :roll:


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: De l'utilité d'un pare-vapeur sur un support béton
PostPosted: Wed Jan 28, 2015 10:31 pm -1100 
Offline
WUFI SupportTeam IBP
WUFI SupportTeam IBP

Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:08 pm -1100
Posts: 778
Location: IBP Holzkirchen, the home of WUFI
Hello Olivir,
sorry, did not read your post.
It is possible here, that Glaser shows dew water, while WUFI does not, as Glaser works with much stronger boundary conditions and most of the effects happening in the assembly are not taken in account.
As in your case the case without retarder is better than with retarder, you should think of the initial moisture of your concrete. It is possible, that the moisture can dry out without the retarder while with retarder it is blocked.
You could further do an assessment of the layer, in that Glaser shows the dew-water. I guess it would be the connection mineral wool - concrete. Duplicate the mineral wool and split of 1-5mm close to the concrete. Assess the water content of this small layer and transform it to g/m². In this case to amount of dew water should not be higher than 200 (EN13788) to 500 (DIN 4108) g/m² to avoid the water running off the wall and out off the insulation.
Christian


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: De l'utilité d'un pare-vapeur sur un support béton
PostPosted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 10:55 pm -1100 
Offline
WUFI User
WUFI User

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:01 am -1100
Posts: 43
Thank you, Christian !

Waiting for your answer :), I noticed that concrete humidity was determinant : with 2,5 % initial moisture, retarder is a bad option, with 8 % (typical construction level given by your database) retarder or nothing are both bad options, a variable Sd value (intello) is needed.

I am going to check if there is a risk of running water as you suggest. I did not do it yet because I thought that the concrete porosity was big enough not to be worried by that.

In the WUFI help, there's only the DIN4108 recommendation, is the EN13788 only for concrete ? What should I think about a result between 200 and 500 g/m² ?

Finally, I have a better comportment with Sd variable retarder but it began with a big variation and ends with low variation (196 g/m²), what do you think ?

Image

Subsidiary question : my method for measuring the increase in humidity is correct ?!


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: De l'utilité d'un pare-vapeur sur un support béton
PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2015 11:12 pm -1100 
Offline
WUFI User
WUFI User

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:01 am -1100
Posts: 43
As I think about it, it would not hurt to see these recommendations appear somewhere in the charts...


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: De l'utilité d'un pare-vapeur sur un support béton
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 11:10 pm -1100 
Offline
WUFI SupportTeam IBP
WUFI SupportTeam IBP

Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:08 pm -1100
Posts: 778
Location: IBP Holzkirchen, the home of WUFI
Dear Olivir,
yes, thats the way you can access the dew water in a layer. The DIN 4108 is the glaser which is still in use in Germany and many other countries. EN 13788 is the so called EURO-Glaser, its the old glaser with a view changes to adapt it to the climate etc. It is not handling a special material. For the effect of water running down the 500g/m² might be quite high. So the value of the EN 13788 may be more realisitc. But that always also depends on the material, in which water is running.
There is a further Standard handling the dew water in constructions again with other values: BSI 5250 (BSI 5250:2011: Control of condensation in buildings. BSI - British Standards Institution, London, 2011) which gives the effects of condensate on impermeable surfaces:
  • < 30g/m² - A fine mist which does not run or drip
  • 30 – 50g/m² - Droplets form and begin to run down vertical
    surfaces
  • 51 – 250g/m² - Large drops form and begin to run down sloping
    surfaces:
    • 70 g/m2 will run down a 45° slope
    • 150 g/m2 will run down a 23° slope
  • > 250g/m² - Drops form and drip from horizontal surfaces
Thats all for tight surfaces. You have to choose something which suites to your material. As the concrete is not completely tight and will "take up" a small amount of water I guess I would use the 200g/m² to be on the save side. If there is no problem if some drops of water can run down probably 500 g/m² is usable as well.

Christian


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: De l'utilité d'un pare-vapeur sur un support béton
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:24 am -1100 
Offline
WUFI User
WUFI User

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:01 am -1100
Posts: 43
Oh thank you, that's a very comprehensive answer !


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC-11:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Imprint
Standard Business Terms/ Allgemeine Geschäftsbedingungen


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited