Sustainability 12 09020

sustainability
Article
Moisture Dry-Out Capability of Steel-Faced Mineral
Wool Insulated Sandwich Panels
Kristo Kalbe 1, *, Hubert Piikov 1 and Targo Kalamees 1,2
1 Nearly Zero Energy Buildings Research Group, Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture,
Tallinn University of Technology, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia; hubert.piikov@gmail.com (H.P.);
targo.kalamees@taltech.ee (T.K.)
2 Smart City Centre of Excellence (Finest Twins), Tallinn University of Technology, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia
* Correspondence: kristo.kalbe@taltech.ee

Received: 25 September 2020; Accepted: 21 October 2020; Published: 30 October 2020
Abstract: Moisture dry-out from steel-faced insulated sandwich panels has previously received little
attention from researchers. This paper reports the results from laboratory tests and dynamic heat, air,
and moisture transport simulations of the moisture dry-out capabilities of a steel-faced sandwich
panel with a mineral wool core. Three test walls (TWs) with dimensions of 1.2 m × 0.4 m × 0.23 m
were put above water containers to examine the moisture transport through the TWs. A calibrated
simulation model was used to investigate the hygrothermal regime of a sandwich panel wall enclosure
with different initial moisture contents and panel joint tightening tapes. The moisture dry-out capacity
of the studied sandwich panels is limited (up to 2 g/day through a 30-mm-wide and 3-m-long vertical
joint without tapes). When the vertical joint was covered with a vapour-permeable tape, the moisture
dry-out was reduced to 1 g/day and when the joint was covered with a vapour-retarding tape,
the dry-out was negligible. A very small amount of rain would be enough to raise the moisture
content to water vapour saturation levels inside the sandwich wall, had the rain ingressed the
enclosure. The calculated time of wetness (TOW) on the internal surface of the outer steel sheet stayed
indefinitely at about 5500 h/year when vapour-retarding tapes were used and the initial relative
humidity (RH) was over 80%. TOW stabilised to about 2000 h/year when a vapour-permeable tape
was used regardless of the initial humidity inside the panel. A vapour-permeable tape allowed
moisture dry-out but also vapour diffusion from the outside environment. To minimise the risk of
moisture damage, avoiding moisture ingress during construction time or due to accidents is necessary.
Additionally, a knowledge-based method is recommended to manage moisture safety during the
construction process.
Keywords: moisture safety; sandwich panels; moisture dry-out; laboratory test; HAM modelling
1. Introduction
Insulated sandwich panels are layered structures which have two facings and an insulating core.
The facings are relatively thin and strong and could be made out of varied materials, e.g., metals
(commonly steel) or fibre-reinforced composites and wood-based materials [1,2]. The majority of
sandwich panel producers in Europe focus on panels with metal facings and rigid plastic foam or
mineral wool for the core material [2]. Plastic foams give the highest values of thermal insulation
but panels with mineral wool can also reach adequate thermal insulating properties. Such panels are
particularly well suited for walls and roofs [2]. However, plastic foam materials are combustible and
mineral wool is preferred when there is a particular requirement for fire safety [2]. Recent research
suggests that mineral wool has a lower environmental impact than hydrocarbon-based insulation
materials [3,4] and, thus, might be of interest as the more sustainable choice of the two. For a building
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9020; doi:10.3390/su12219020 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 9020 2 of 18
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 18
to be sustainable,
literature regarding it must, among
durability andother aspects, maintain
sustainability and brought long-term
out that durability.
one of thePerismostMora reviewed
efficient ways
literature regarding durability and sustainability and brought out that one
to achieve sustainability is to improve the durability of the construction works and that greater of the most efficient ways to
achieve sustainability
material durability leads is totoimprove
less timetheanddurability
resources of required
the construction
to maintainworks andThe
it [5]. thatannual
greaterinstalled
material
durability
area of theseleads
typeto of
lesspanels
time andhas resources
reached up required
to 130to maintain
million m2 it
in[5]. The annual
Europe installed
[6]. Thus, area of these
the evaluation of
type of panels has reached up to 130 million m 2 in Europe [6]. Thus, the evaluation of the hygrothermal
the hygrothermal performance and from this the durability of the panels could interest the
performance industry.
construction and from this the durability of the panels could interest the construction industry.
Moisture dry-out
Moisture dry-out from from structures
structures is an important
important part part of
of the
the overall
overall hygrothermal
hygrothermal performance
performance
of the
of the building
building envelope
envelope [7–9]. Information
Information aboutabout the
the dry-out
dry-out capability
capability is is necessary
necessary to to design
design andand
construct buildings
construct buildings in in aa manner
manner wherewhere there
there would
would not not bebe any
any threats
threats toto human
human health
health asas aa result
result of
of
high humidity [10]. In Sweden, an industry standard for including moisture
high humidity [10]. In Sweden, an industry standard for including moisture safety in the construction safety in the construction
commonly used
process is commonly used [11].
[11]. However,
However, research
research from
from Sweden
Sweden showsshows that,
that, even
even after
after the
the industry
industry
standard has
standard has been
been in in use
use for
for years,
years, the
the knowledge
knowledge in in moisture
moisture safety
safety isis still
still low
low and
and designers
designers havehave
problems assessing moisture risks [12]. Therefore, Therefore, itit isis necessary
necessary for forresearchers
researchers to to provide
provide guidelines
guidelines
for stakeholders
for stakeholders in in the
the construction
construction business
business about
about drydry building
buildingdesign
designand andmoisture-safe
moisture-safepractices.
practices.
Knowing the
Knowing thecritical
criticalenvironment
environmentconditions
conditions during
during construction
construction timetime
andand the moisture
the moisture dry-out
dry-out rate
rate
of of used
the the used structures,
structures, stakeholders
stakeholders responsible
responsible forfor moisturesafety
moisture safetycan
canmake make knowledge-based
knowledge-based
decisions. Experience
decisions. Experienceshows showsthat thatgeneral
general guidelines
guidelinessuch such asas “avoid
“avoid moisture
moisture ingress”
ingress” or or “protect
“protect
moisture-sensitive materials
moisture-sensitive materials during
during construction
construction or or storage”
storage”are arenotnotthoroughly
thoroughlyfollowed
followed(Figure
(Figure1).1).
More specific
More specific guidelines,
guidelines, such such as as in
in which
which conditions
conditions (e.g.,(e.g., relative
relative humidity
humidity of of outside
outside air,air, rain
rain
amount) it
amount) it is
is safe
safe to
to install
install specific
specific details,
details, in
in which
which conditions
conditions the the details
details mustmust bebe stored,
stored, etc.,
etc., could
could
be useful.
be useful. ToTo give
give such
such guidelines,
guidelines, itit isis necessary
necessary to to know
know thethe moisture
moisture dry-out
dry-out capability
capability andand the
the
conditions when critical situations occur.
conditions
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 1.
1.Sandwich
Sandwichpanel
panelinsulating core
insulating exposed
core to outside
exposed environment
to outside during
environment construction
during (a) and
construction (a)
storage (b). Photos
and storage takentaken
(b). Photos by thebyauthors.
the authors.
However, there
However, there has
has been
been little
little research
research regarding
regarding the
the moisture
moisture dry-out
dry-out ofof steel-faced
steel-faced sandwich
sandwich
panels. Most research regarding the durability of these panels has focused
panels. Most research regarding the durability of these panels has focused on the mechanicalon the mechanical resistance
and only aand
resistance fewonly
acknowledge the influence
a few acknowledge the of moisture.
influence Pfeiffer brings
of moisture. outbrings
Pfeiffer in his out
thesis about
in his the
thesis
durability of sandwich panels that “temperature and humidity affect the ageing
about the durability of sandwich panels that “temperature and humidity affect the ageing of mineral of mineral wool cores
in sandwich
wool cores in panels”
sandwichand that
panels”“it isand
expected thatisincreased
that “it expectedhumidity and increased
that increased humidity temperature lead
and increased
to a faster loss
temperature in strength”
lead to a fasterbecause
loss in “cured urea-formaldehyde
strength” (UF) resin is not completely
because “cured urea-formaldehyde (UF) resinstable to
is not
hydrolysis” [13]. Being a component of the mineral wool binder, UF resin makes
completely stable to hydrolysis” [13]. Being a component of the mineral wool binder, UF resin makes its hydrolysis to
influence
its the mechanical
hydrolysis to influenceproperties of the mineral
the mechanical propertieswool
of[13]. Moisture-induced
the mineral wool [13]. damage to mineral
Moisture-induced
wool is also reported in a recent study where the authors determined that
damage to mineral wool is also reported in a recent study where the authors determined that the the mean compressive
strength
mean of a mineral
compressive wool sample
strength that had
of a mineral a prolonged
wool presence
sample that had aofprolonged
elevated moisture
presence content was
of elevated
93% lower
moisture than the
content was declared
93% lower valuethan[14].
thePfeiffer
declared reports
valuethat
[14].a Pfeiffer
combination
reportsof that
elevated temperature
a combination of
elevated temperature (65 °C) and humidity (≈100% relative humidity) decreases the tensile strength
of a sandwich panel to 60% of its initial strength in about a year, stabilising to around 40% to 50% of
(65 ◦ C) and humidity (≈100% relative humidity) decreases the tensile strength of a sandwich panel to
60% of its initial strength in about a year, stabilising to around 40% to 50% of the initial strength after
a few more years. Although Pfeiffer notes that the scatter in results is great and the results depend
largely on sample variation, it is evident that high relative humidity (RH) levels are to be avoided
in the sandwich panel. In the book Lightweight Sandwich Construction [2], it is also highlighted that
high humidity rather than high temperature is the degrading factor for mineral wools in the sandwich
panel. The authors of the book also mention that internal moisture variations in the sandwich panel
could lead to the corrosion of the steel faces. The back faces are usually coated to inhibit corrosion.
The principle of the test method to evaluate corrosion resistance of the coatings is to expose the test
panel to continuous water condensation for 500 h or up to 1500 h [15]. However, if there is a water
leakage situation, the high humidity conditions could last longer. Increasing moisture content also
increases the thermal conductivity of mineral wool [16]. Studies show that significant reduction in the
thermal insulation function is already present at relatively low moisture contents of 5–20% by volume
of the mineral wool insulation [17].
Laukkarinen et al. made a series of laboratory measurements with steel-faced mineral wool
sandwich panels in a water leakage situation [18]. Their paper focused mostly on measurement
techniques and methods to detect moisture leakages, but it was evident from the measurements that
the outer layer of the mineral wool core experienced condensing conditions repeatedly. The authors
reported that the spread of moisture is more influenced by the evaporation speed than the speed of
vapour diffusion [18]. Nonetheless, there was no analysis of the moisture dry-out capability of the
tested structures.
The purpose of this study is to quantify the moisture dry-out capability of steel-faced sandwich
panels and investigate the hygrothermal behaviour of the panels when different joint sealing tapes are
applied and how the tapes affect the moisture dry-out and the overall hygrothermal performance of
steel-faced sandwich panels. The knowledge from the study gives an important input to dry building
design and moisture safety management of the construction process. For example, the dry-out rate of a
structure is required to evaluate the criticality of wetting incidents or the need for weather protection.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Studied Sandwich Panels

The studied panels are steel-faced and have a mineral (stone) wool insulation core. The insulation
thickness of the panels is 230 mm. The insulation thickness could vary in practice depending on
the needed thermal transmittance. The thickness of the external steel sheet is 0.6 mm and of the
internal sheet, 0.5 mm. According to the standard installation method, the vertical joints of the panels
have a 30 mm wide gap, which must be filled with insulation and sealed from both sides during
the installation of the panels (Figure 2a,b). Horizontal joints have elastic sealing strips in place from
the factory (Figure 2c). Steel faces are vapour tight and only a negligible amount of water vapour is
assumed to escape through the horizontal joint, thus, the only area to have an impact on the drying
capability of the panels is assumed to be the vertical joint and the tapes covering it.
and of the internal sheet, 0.5 mm. According to the standard installation method, the vertical joints
of the panels have a 30 mm wide gap, which must be filled with insulation and sealed from both sides
during the installation of the panels (Figure 2a,b). Horizontal joints have elastic sealing strips in place
from the factory (Figure 2c). Steel faces are vapour tight and only a negligible amount of water vapour
is assumed2020,
Sustainability to escape
12, 9020through the horizontal joint, thus, the only area to have an impact on the drying
4 of 18
capability of the panels is assumed to be the vertical joint and the tapes covering it.
Sustainability 2020,
Sustainability 2020, 12,
12, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 44 of
of 18
18
2.2. Laboratory
2.2. Laboratory Test
Test
The laboratory
The laboratory test test (Figure
(Figure 3) 3) was
was set
set up
up in in aa controlled
controlled environment
environment to to measure
measure the the dry-out
dry-out
capability and
capability and study
study thethe effects
effects of of aa vapour-permeable
vapour-permeable and and aa vapour-retarding
vapour-retarding wind wind barrier
barrier tape
tape onon
the drying
the drying outout of of moisture
moisture from from the the steel-faced
steel-faced sandwich
sandwich panel. panel. Three
Three segments
segments (test (test walls,
walls, TWs)
TWs)
(a) (b) (c)
were extracted
were extracted from from two
two larger
larger sandwich
sandwich panelspanels (Figure
(Figure 4). 4). Test
Test wall
wall 11 (TW1)
(TW1) and and test
test wall
wall 22 (TW2)
(TW2)
were Figure
wereFigure
cut from
cut 2. AA
2.
from the
the mock-up
mock-up of aa standard
of
same panel
same panel standard
and had
and vertical
hadvertical panel joint
panel
the insulation
the insulation joint (a), the
(a),
(stone
(stone the
wool)
wool) respective
respective detail drawing
detail
fibres parallel
fibres parallel drawingtheir(b)
to their
to (b) and asides.
and
longer
longer asides.
Test drawing
Test drawing
wall of the
of
wall 33 (TW3)
(TW3)the horizontal
horizontal
was cut
was cut outpanel
panel
out from
from jointanother
joint (c).
(c).
another panel with
panel with thethe stone
stone wool
wool fibres
fibres perpendicular
perpendicular to to its
its
longer
longer
2.2. sides. Test
sides.
Laboratory
It was
It was necessary
necessary to to create
create aa gradient
gradient of of water
water vapour
vapour pressure
pressure through
through the the insulation
insulation (stone(stone
wool) The
of laboratory
the sandwich test (Figure
panel. A 3) was
container set up
filled in a
with controlled
water was environment
wool) of the sandwich panel. A container filled with water was put under the TWs (Figure 3b). Theput under to
the measure
TWs (Figure the dry-out
3b). The
capability
TWs were
TWs were 10and
10 mm study
mm apart the effects
apart from
from the of
the watera vapour-permeable
water level
level and
and care
care was and
was taken a vapour-retarding
taken not not toto disturb
disturb the wind
the waterbarrier
water level tape
level whileon
while
the drying
weighing the
weighing out
the TWs of
TWs to moisture
to avoid from
avoid water the
water contact steel-faced
contact with
with the sandwich
the insulation. panel.
insulation. The The TWsThree
TWs were segments
were prepared (test
prepared in walls,
in such TWs)
such aa way
way
were extracted
that water
that water vapour from
vapour could two larger
could escape
escape themsandwich
them only panels
only through (Figure
through aa designated 4). Test wall
designated surface, 1 (TW1)
surface, which and
which was test
was onon thewall 2 (TW2)
the opposite
opposite
were
side of
side cut
of thefrom
the water
water thecontainer.
same panel
container. Alland
All other
otherhadsides
the insulation
sides of the
of the TWsTWs (stone
were
were wool)
sealed
sealed fibres parallel
vapour
vapour tighttowith
tight theiraalonger
with sides.
butyl band
butyl band
Test
and wall 3 (TW3)
and aluminium
aluminium foilwas
foil cut outThis
covering.
covering. from
This another
setup
setup panel
imitated
imitated thewith
the the stone wool
circumstances
circumstances fibres arise
that would
that would perpendicular
arise ifif water to its
water leaked
leaked
longer
into thesides.
into the sandwich panel
sandwich panel and
and accumulated
accumulated in in its
its bottom
bottom partpart (e.g.,
(e.g., in
in the
the plinth
plinth rail).
rail).
232mm
232 mm ONLYTOP
ONLY TOPSIDES
SIDESOPEN
OPENTOTO
400mm
400 mm VAPOURDIFFUSION
VAPOUR DIFFUSION
300mm
300 mm 200mm
200 mm
SENSOR 33
SENSOR
STUDIED
STUDIED
TAPES
TAPES
300mm
300 mm SENSOR 22
SENSOR
300mm
300 mm SENSOR 11
SENSOR
WATER
WATER
300mm
300 mm UNDER
UNDER
PANELS
PANELS
(a)
(a) (b)
(b) (c)
(c)
Figure
Figure 3. 3D model
3. 3D model of of aa test
test wall
wall (TW)
(TW) (a)
(a) with
with indicated
indicated sensor
sensor placement (red dots)
placement (red dots) and
and photos
photos of
of
the TWs (b)
the TWs (b) in
in the
the TalTech
TalTech
TalTech nZEBnZEB Test
Test Facility
Facility and
and of
of the
the top
top sides
sides of
of the
the TWs
TWs with
with drying
drying apertures
apertures
covered with
covered with tapes
tapes (c).
(c).
Figure 4.
Figure 4. Location
Location of
Locationof the test
ofthe test wall
wall (TW)
(TW) cut-outs
cut-outs (blue
(blue dashed
dashed line)
line) in
in the
the larger
larger sandwich
sandwich panels.
panels.
Nine temperature
Nine temperature andand RH
RH (t&RH)
(t&RH) sensors
sensors (HOBO
(HOBO UX100-023A)
UX100-023A) were
were installed
installed on
on the
the centre
centre line
line
of the
of the TWs
TWs inin the
the middle
middle of
of the
the insulation
insulation layer.
layer. The
The sensors
sensors were
were distributed
distributed at
at equal
equal distances
distances (300
(300
mm) from
mm) from each
each other
other and
and from
from thethe water
water level
level and
and top
top side
side (Figure
(Figure 3a).
3a). All
All the
the penetrations
penetrations due
due toto
the sensors’ cables were sealed with a butyl band and an aluminium tape to minimise
the sensors’ cables were sealed with a butyl band and an aluminium tape to minimise their influencetheir influence
on the
on the measurements.
measurements. Another
Another t&RH t&RH sensor,
sensor, which
which logged
logged the
the ambient
ambient air
air temperature
temperature andand RHRH
during the
during the test,
test, was
was installed
installed directly
directly above
above the
the TWs.
TWs.
It was necessary to create a gradient of water vapour pressure through the insulation (stone wool)
of the sandwich panel. A container filled with water was put under the TWs (Figure 3b). The TWs were
10 mm apart from the water level and care was taken not to disturb the water level while weighing the
TWs to avoid water contact with the insulation. The TWs were prepared in such a way that water
vapour could escape them only through a designated surface, which was on the opposite side of the
water container. All other sides of the TWs were sealed vapour tight with a butyl band and aluminium
foil covering.
above the Thisaqueoussetup imitated
solutions the circumstances
of MgCl, NaCl and K2SO that would
4, which arise if water
produced leaked into
an environment theansandwich
with RH
panelofand accumulated
32.78% ± 0.16, 75.29% in its bottom
± 0.12 part (e.g.,
and 93.58% in respectively,
± 0.55, the plinth rail).at 25 °C. The sensors were held above
the
Ninesaturated salt solutions
temperature and RH for at least 12sensors
(t&RH) h after the readings
(HOBO stabilised. Thewere
UX100-023A) correction valueson
installed reached
the centre
upthe
line of to +3.7%
TWs in at the
79%middle
RH butofstayed below +2.5%
the insulation at 33%
layer. Theand 98% RH,
sensors werebeing below +1.5%
distributed for most
at equal distances
points at these RH levels (Figure 5). This was considered when reporting
(300 mm) from each other and from the water level and top side (Figure 3a). All the penetrations the results of this paper.
due to the sensors’ cables were sealed with a butyl band and an aluminium tape to minimise their
sensor relative humidity value
influence on the measurements.4.0Another t&RH sensor, which logged the ambient air temperature and
Correction for the t&RH
3.5
RH during the test, was installed 3.0
directly above the TWs.
The accuracy of the t&RH sensors 2.5 was validated with the help of saturated salt solutions, which
produce a fixed humidity level, as described by Greenspan [19]. The sensors were placed sequentially
2.0
1.5
aboveabove
the aqueous
the aqueous solutions of of
solutions MgCl, MgCl,NaCl
NaClandand K SO44, ,which
K22SO whichproduced
produced an an environment
environment withwith
an RH an RH
1.0 ◦ C. The sensors were held above
of 32.78% ± 0.16, 75.29% ± 0.12 and 93.58% ± 0.55, respectively, at 25
of 32.78% ± 0.16, 75.29% ± 0.120.5and 93.58% ± 0.55, respectively, at 25 °C. The sensors were held above
the saturated
the saturatedsalt salt
solutions
solutionsforfor
at0.0at
least
least12
12hhafter the readings
after the readingsstabilised.
stabilised.
TheThe correction
correction values
values reached
reached
up toup +3.7%
to +3.7% at 79%
at 79%RHRH butbut
stayed
stayed 20 30
below
below +2.5%
40
+2.5%50 at 60
at 33%
33% 70
and
and 80
98%
98% 90
RH,
RH, 100
being
being below
below +1.5%
+1.5% for most
for most
Relative humidity, % R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
pointspoints at these
at these RH RH levels
levels (Figure
(Figure 5).5).This
Thiswas
was considered
considered R6
when
when
R7
reporting
reporting
R8 R9
thethe
results of this
results paper.
of this paper.
Figure 5. Correction values4.0for the temperature and relative humidity (t&RH) sensors (R1–R9) at
sensor relative humidity value
different RH values.
Correction for the t&RH
3.5
3.0
The TWs were kept in isothermal 2.5 conditions, i.e., the ambient temperature and RH were the
same around all sides of the TWs 2.0 (Figure 6, water vapour pressure 793–1266 Pa), with the exception
of the bottom side of the TWs 1.5 where the RH was ≈ 100% due to the water vapour pressure (2642–3166
Pa) generated from the water1.0 in the container beneath. This setup created a sufficient water vapour
gradient for the experiment. 0.5
0.0
The designated drying surface 20 area
30 of40 the TWs
50 was
60 changed
70 80 throughout
90 100 the test, being either a
fully open top side (230 mm × 400 mm) or
Relative an aperture
humidity, % of 30 mm
R1 R2 ×R3
375 mm. R4 The R5 width of the aperture
(30 mm) was chosen to reflect the width of the standard R6 vertical
R7 R8jointR9for these types of sandwich
panels. 5.ForCorrection
the purpose of measuring
values the waterand vapour saturation speed, there was also a test
FigureFigure 5. Correction valuesforforthe
thetemperature
temperature and relative
relative humidity
humidity (t&RH)
(t&RH) sensors
sensors (R1–R9)
(R1–R9) at at
sequence
different when
RH values. TW1 had all sides sealed. Figure 7 shows a timeline describing the series of
different RH values.
measurements and changes made to the dry-out aperture and the environment surrounding the TWs
throughout
The TWs
The TWs thewere
were test.
keptA vapour-permeable
in
keptisothermal
in isothermal (with ani.e.,
conditions,
conditions, Sdi.e.,
or
the equivalent
ambient
the ambient air layer thickness
temperature
temperature andof
and RH0.05
RH m) tape
were
were the
the same
and
same
around a vapour-retarding
allaround
sides of allthe
sidesTWs (S d = 15 m) tape were used on the aperture to study the effect of the tapes
of the TWs (Figure
(Figure 6, water 6, vapour
water vapour
pressure pressure 793–1266
793–1266 Pa),Pa),
withwith
thethe exceptionof the
exception
(Figure
of the 3c). side of the TWs where the RH was ≈ 100% due to the water vapour pressure (2642–3166
bottom
bottom side of the TWs where the RH was ≈100% due to the water vapour pressure (2642–3166 Pa)
In addition
Pa) generated fromto the data gathered
the water with t&RH sensors,Thisall the TWs were regularly weighed to
generated from the water in thein container
the container beneath.
beneath. This setup
setupcreated
created a sufficient
a sufficientwater vapour
water vapour
determine the mass
gradient for the experiment.of dried-out (evaporated) water. A calibrated Kern DS 30K0.1L platform scale
gradient for the
was used experiment.
with a maximum
The designated dryingweighing
surface area capacity
of theof 30 kg,
TWs wasreadability of 0.1 g andthe
changed throughout repeatability
test, being of 0.2 g.a
either
fully open top side (230 mm40
× 400 mm) or an aperture of 30 mm × 375 mm. 100
The width of the aperture
(30 mm) was chosen to reflect
35 the width of the standard vertical joint for 90 these types of sandwich
Relative humidity, %
panels. For the purpose 30 of measuring the water vapour saturation speed, 80
there was also a test
Temperature, C
25 70
sequence when TW1 had 20 all sides sealed. Figure 7 shows a timeline 60 describing the series of
measurements and changes 15 made to the22dry-out
- 23 C aperture31and the Outdoor
- 35 C environment 50 surrounding the TWs
10 40
throughout the test. A vapour-permeable
5
(with an Sd or equivalent air layer 30
thickness of 0.05 m) tape
and a vapour-retarding (Sd0 = 15 m) tape were used on the aperture to study 20 the effect of the tapes
(Figure 3c). -5 10
-10 0
In addition to the data0 gathered
7 with
14 21 28 t&RH
35 42 sensors,
49 56 63 all 70
the77TWs 84 were regularly weighed to
determine the mass of dried-out (evaporated) water. A calibrated Kern DS 30K0.1L platform scale
Temperature around test walls
Time, dayscapacity of 30Relative
was used with a maximum weighing kg, readability
humidity aroundoftest0.1
wallsg and repeatability of 0.2 g.
Figure 6. 6.Ambient
Figure
40
Ambientconditions duringthe
conditions during thelaboratory
laboratory test.
test.
100
35 90
ative humidity, %
30 80
perature, C
25 70
20 60
15 22 - 23 C 31 - 35 C Outdoor 50
10 40
5 30
The designated drying surface area of the TWs was changed throughout the test, being either a
fully open top side (230 mm × 400 mm) or an aperture of 30 mm × 375 mm. The width of the aperture
(30 mm) was chosen to reflect the width of the standard vertical joint for these types of sandwich
panels. For the purpose of measuring the water vapour saturation speed, there was also a test sequence
when TW1 had all sides sealed. Figure 7 shows a timeline describing the series of measurements
and changes made to the dry-out aperture and the environment surrounding the TWs throughout
the test. A vapour-permeable (with an Sd or equivalent air layer thickness of 0.05 m) tape and a
vapour-retarding = 15
Sustainability 2020, 12,(SxdFOR m) tape
PEER were used on the aperture to study the effect of the tapes (Figure6 of
REVIEW 3c).
18
Water under TWs

Measuring moisture dry-out
Days: 0 26 32 42 53 70 84 88
Vapour-permeable
Fully closed top surface
TW1 tape (Sd = 0.05 m) Tapes removed from aperture
to measure saturation speed
over aperture
Vapour-retarding tape
Fully open top surface to measure
TW2 (Sd = 15 m) Tapes removed from aperture
water vapour permeability of mineral wool
over aperture
Fully open top surface to measure Vapour-permeable
TW3 water vapour permeability of tape (Sd = 0.05 m) Tapes removed from aperture
mineral wool over aperture
tambient ≈ 22-24 C tambient ≈ 31-35 C tambient ≈ 0-10 C

RHambient ≈ 31-34% RHambient ≈ 25% RHambient ≈ 90-100%
No dry-out Dry-out through fully open top surface
Dry-out only through 30 mm x 375 mm aperture (with or without tapes) Studying temperature variation effects
Figure
Figure 7. Timeline(in
7. Timeline (indays)
days)ofofthe
the laboratory
laboratory testtest with
with descriptions
descriptions of various
of various partsparts
of theoftest.
the Each
test.
Each horizontal
horizontal bandband describes
describes one one
TW.TW. Distinct
Distinct colours
colours indicate
indicate changes
changes to the
to the toptop surface
surface ofof the
the TWs.
TWs.
In addition
2.3. HAM to the data gathered with t&RH sensors, all the TWs were regularly weighed to
Modelling
determine the mass of dried-out (evaporated) water. A calibrated Kern DS 30K0.1L platform scale was
The numerical
used with a maximum simulation
weighing tool Delphin
capacity of 305kg,
was used for of
readability the0.1combined heat, air and
g and repeatability of 0.2moisture
g.
(HAM) transport modelling. Delphin is a well-developed, advanced and validated software suitable
for building
2.3. sciences [20,21].
HAM Modelling
The simulation models were calibrated against the measurements with sufficient accuracy as
The numerical simulation tool Delphin 5 was used for the combined heat, air and moisture (HAM)
described by Kalbe et al. [22]. A 2D model was necessary to achieve a good agreement between the
transport modelling. Delphin is a well-developed, advanced and validated software suitable for
measured data and simulation results. Kalbe et al. [22] reported a good agreement of the measured
building sciences [20,21].
and simulated drying processes, but there was a possibility of a slight overestimation of drying. The
The simulation models were calibrated against the measurements with sufficient accuracy as
authors compared the measured and simulated RH and water vapour pressures (Figure 8), which
described by Kalbe et al. [22]. A 2D model was necessary to achieve a good agreement between the
showed sufficiently good agreement, although the simulation tended to underestimate RH in the
measured data and simulation results. Kalbe et al. [22] reported a good agreement of the measured and
high humidity region. This could have been partly due to the positive shift of registered RH values
simulated drying processes, but there was a possibility of a slight overestimation of drying. The authors
(up to +3.7% at 79% RH) detected with validating the readings of t&RH sensors over saturated salt
compared the measured and simulated RH and water vapour pressures (Figure 8), which showed
solutions. These discrepancies have been considered when reporting the results of this paper.
sufficiently good agreement, although the simulation tended to underestimate RH in the high humidity
region.
100
This could have been partly due to the positive shift
5000
of registered RH values (up to +3.7% at
79% RH) detected with validating the readings of t&RH4500 22-23saturated
sensors over C 31-35 C Outdoor
salt solutions. These
Water vapour pressure, Pa
90
80 4000
discrepancies have been considered when reporting the results of this paper.
70 3500
60 3000
50 2500
40 2000
30
Fully open Sd 30-mm-wide 1500
surface 0.05m open surface Sd
20 1000
tape Fully open 0.05m 30-mm-wide
10 22-23 C 31-35 C Outdoor 500 surface tape open surface
0 0
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84
Time, days Measured_1 Measured_2 Measured_3 Time, days Measured_1 Measured_2 Measured_3
Simulated_1 Simulated_2 Simulated_3 Simulated_1 Simulated_2 Simulated_3
(a) (b)
and simulated drying processes, but there was a possibility of a slight overestimation of drying. The
authors compared the measured and simulated RH and water vapour pressures (Figure 8), which
showed sufficiently good agreement, although the simulation tended to underestimate RH in the
high humidity region. This could have been partly due to the positive shift of registered RH values
(up to +3.7%
Sustainability at 12,
2020, 79% RH) detected with validating the readings of t&RH sensors over saturated7 salt
9020 of 18
solutions. These discrepancies have been considered when reporting the results of this paper.
100 5000
22-23 C 31-35 C Outdoor
Water vapour pressure, Pa

90 4500
80 4000
70 3500
60 3000
50 2500
40 2000
30
Fully open Sd 30-mm-wide 1500
surface 0.05m open surface Sd
20 1000
tape Fully open 0.05m 30-mm-wide
10 22-23 C 31-35 C Outdoor 500 surface tape open surface
0 0
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84
Time, days Measured_1 Measured_2 Measured_3 Time, days Measured_1 Measured_2 Measured_3
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER
Simulated_1 REVIEW
Simulated_2 Simulated_3 Simulated_1 Simulated_2 7 of 18
Simulated_3
(a) (b)
2.3.1. Material Properties
Figure
Figure 8.
8. Comparison
Comparisonofofmeasured
measuredand
andsimulated
simulatedRH
RH(a)
(a)and
andwater
watervapour
vapourpressure
pressure(b)
(b)ofofTW3.
TW3.
Table
Adapted
Adapted1 from
and
fromFigure
Kalbe et
Kalbe et9al.
present
al. [22]. the material properties used in the HAM models. The material
[22].
properties are based on the data provided by the producer of the sandwich panels and Delphin’s
2.3.1. Material Properties
default functions (for the properties that depend on the hygric environment) [22].
Tablesteel
The 1 and Figure
sheets 9 present
were thefrom
omitted material properties used
the simulation in the
models andHAM models.exchange
no vapour The material
was
propertieson
modelled are
thebased on the data
corresponding provided by the producer of the sandwich panels and Delphin’s
boundary.
default functions (for the properties that depend on the hygric environment) [22].
Table 1. Material properties of the stone wool insulation of the sandwich panels [22].
Table 1. Material properties of the stone wool insulation of the sandwich panels [22].
Material Property Value
Bulk density
Material ρ, kg/m3
Property 85
Value
Thermal conductivity
Bulk density ρ, kg/m3 λ, W/(m·K) 850.04
Specific
Thermalheat capacityλ,c,W/(m·K)
conductivity J/(kg·K) 840
0.04
Specific heat capacity c, J/(kg·K)
Water vapour diffusion resistance factor μ, - 8401.0
Water vapour diffusion resistance factor µ, - 1.0
Effective saturation θ, m3/m3
Effective saturation θ, m3 /m3 0.90.9
Porosity θ, m
Porosity θ, m33/m
/m33 0.97
0.97
Water uptakecoefficient
coefficient 1 s½ )
Water uptake AwA, wkg/(m·s
, kg/(m·
2)
0 0
Liquid water conductivity k , kg/(m·s·Pa)
Liquid water conductivityl kl, kg/(m·s·Pa) 0 0
900
600
300
0
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Relative humidity, % Sorption isotherm
Figure 9.
Figure Sorptionisotherm
9. Sorption isothermused
used for
for the
the stone
stone wool
wool in
in the
the simulations.
simulations.
2.3.2.The steel Data

Climate sheetsand
were omitted Conditions
Boundary from the simulation models and no vapour exchange was modelled
on the corresponding boundary.
The HAM transport simulations were made with the outside temperature and RH data of the
Estonian moisture
2.3.2. Climate Datareference year (MRY)
and Boundary for water vapour condensation analysis. The climate data
Conditions
(Figure 10a) correspond to a year where the potential of an assembly to dry out is low and which
would occur once in every ten years in Estonia [23]. A simplified relationship of outdoor and indoor
Estonian moisture reference year (MRY) for water vapour condensation analysis. The climate data
temperatures was used for the indoor boundary (Figure 10b). This corresponds to typical indoor
(Figure 10a) correspond to a year where the potential of an assembly to dry out is low and which
conditions of heated warehouses and is based on the approach described in EN 15026:2007 [24]. No
vapour exchange was assumed between the panel and the indoor environment.
100 100 28
90 90 Indoor temperature
perature, oC
80
e humidty, %
26
80
70
70 60 24
60 50
C
40
50 22
30
,
2.3.2. Climate Data and Boundary Conditions
Estonian moisture reference year (MRY) for water vapour condensation analysis. The climate data
(Figure 10a)
Sustainability correspond
2020, 12, 9020 to a year where the potential of an assembly to dry out is low and which
8 of 18
conditions of heated warehouses and is based on the approach described in EN 15026:2007 [24].
conditions of heated warehouses and is based on the approach described in EN 15026:2007 [24]. No
No vapour exchange was assumed between the panel and the indoor environment.
vapour exchange was assumed between the panel and the indoor environment.
100 100 28
90 90 Indoor temperature
Indoor temperature, oC
80
Relative humidty, %
26
80
70
70 60 24
60 50
C
40
50 22
30
Temperature,
40 20
10 20
30
0
20 18
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW -10 8 of 18
10 -20
0 -30 16
06.1995 09.1995 12.1995 03.1996 05.1996
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
2.3.3. Simulation Model
Date, mm.yyyy Relative humidity,% Outside temperature, °C Outdoor temperature, oC
The HAM simulation model (a) comprised only the stone wool part, with (b)steel modelled as a
boundary without vapour exchange. A model of half of a 6-m-long and 230-mm-thick sandwich panel
was Figure
made. 10.
TheTemperature
length of 6 and
Temperature and
m isRH
RH valuesforof
values
typical the
the climate
ofsandwich
climate data
data used
panels. Thein
used in heat,
heat, air
air and
30-mm-wide moisture
andjoint (see (HAM)
moisture (HAM) 2.1)
Section
simulations for the outside (a) and inside (b) boundaries.
where vapour exchange could occur was also included and the corresponding boundary layer was
simulated
2.3.3. with anModel
Simulation Sd of 0.05 m, which is the value for a vapour-permeable wind barrier tape.
To simplify the model and reduce simulation time, the principle of symmetry was applied. Thus,
The 2D
the final HAM simulation
geometry in themodel comprised
simulation model was only3015
the stone
mm bywool part,(Figure
230 mm with steel
11). modelled as a
boundary without study,
In a previous vapourwhere
exchange. A model
the authors of half
used of a 6-m-long
constant and 230-mm-thick
climate conditions sandwich panel
for the simulations [22],
was made. The length of 6 m is typical for sandwich panels. The 30-mm-wide
it was reported that a high RH occurs in the external part of the panel. Thus, the RH outputs joint (see Section
(P1, 2.1)
P2,
where vapour exchange could occur was also included and the corresponding boundary
P3) in the current simulations were assigned to 3 mm × 3 mm segments in the outermost layer of the layer was
simulated
insulation with an 11).
(Figure Sd ofThe
0.05output
m, which is the
P1 was value for
assigned to athe
vapour-permeable wind barrier
middle of the diffusion tape. P2 was
open joint,
To simplify the model and reduce simulation time, the principle of symmetry was
assigned to a point at one-quarter of the panel length and P3 was assigned to the middle of the panel applied. Thus,
the
(farfinal
right2D geometry
edge in the simulation
in the simulation model was 3015 mm by 230 mm (Figure 11).
model geometry).
Figure 11. Geometry of the simulated model (yellow) in the context of a standard vertical joint (on the
right). Locations
Locationsof ofsimulated
simulatedRH RHpoints
pointsareareshown
shownwithwithleaders
leaders (P1(P1 = the
= at diffusion
at the diffusionopen joint;
open P2
joint;
= at=one-quarter
P2 of the
at one-quarter panel;
of the P3 =P3
panel; at =half of the
at half ofpanel). A zoomed-in
the panel). A zoomed-inview of the of
view leftthe
side ofside
left the model
of the
at the diffusion
model open joint
at the diffusion openisjoint
given on the
is given onbottom left of
the bottom the
left of figure. MRY—moisture
the figure. MRY—moisture reference year.
reference year.
In
Thea previous
simulationsstudy, where
were made the with
authors
twoused constant
initial climate
moisture conditions
contents: 0.134forkg/m
the simulations
3 and 0.291 [22],
kg/mit3
was reported that a high RH occurs in the external part of the panel. Thus, the
which respectively correspond to 80% RH and water vapour saturated conditions (97% RH on theRH outputs (P1, P2, P3)
in the current
sorption simulations
curve). The latter were
(overhygroscopic mm × 3 mm
assigned to 3moisture) segments
would in the about
occur when outermost
67 g layer of the
of water is
insulation
sealed into(Figure 11). The
a sandwich output
panel with P1 was assigned
material propertiesto the middleearlier
described of the and
diffusion open joint, P2
with dimensions of was
1m
assigned to am
× 1 m × 0.23 point at with
(thus, one-quarter
a volume of the panel
of 0.23 m3length
, 0.23 mand
3 × P3 was
0.291 assigned
kg/m to×the
3 ≈ 6.69 10−2middle of the panel
kg moisture). The
(far right edge
situation would in be
thesimilar
simulation model
to a test geometry).
where a mineral wool sample is put above free water (without
direct contact and capillary water flow) in a sealed box and the mineral wool acquires the maximum
amount of water molecules due to adsorption. One hundred per cent RH would mean that the
mineral wool is saturated with free water (moisture content ≈ 900 kg/m3; Figure 9).
The 80% RH level describes a situation where no water leak has occurred, but the panel has
equalised with a surrounding autumn outside environment (for comparison, the 28-day moving
average of RH values during the autumn and winter of the selected MRY is constantly over 80%).
The simulations were made with two initial moisture contents: 0.134 kg/m3 and 0.291 kg/m3 which
respectively correspond to 80% RH and water vapour saturated conditions (97% RH on the sorption
curve). The latter (overhygroscopic moisture) would occur when about 67 g of water is sealed into a
sandwich panel with material properties described earlier and with dimensions of 1 m × 1 m × 0.23 m
(thus, with a volume of 0.23 m3 , 0.23 m3 × 0.291 kg/m3 ≈ 6.69 × 10−2 kg moisture). The situation would
be similar to a test where a mineral wool sample is put above free water (without direct contact and
capillary water flow) in a sealed box and the mineral wool acquires the maximum amount of water
molecules due to adsorption. One hundred per cent RH would mean that the mineral wool is saturated
with free water (moisture content ≈ 900 kg/m3 ; Figure 9).
The 80% RH level describes a situation where no water leak has occurred, but the panel has
equalised with a surrounding autumn outside environment (for comparison, the 28-day moving
average of RH values during the autumn and winter of the selected MRY is constantly over 80%).
Thus, for the panel with a volume of 0.23 m3 , there would be 0.23 m3 × 0.134 kg/m3 ≈ 3.08 × 10−2 kg of
moisture (water vapour). The difference of moisture contents between the 80% RH level and water
vapour saturated conditions is 0.157 kg/m3 or 3.61 × 10−2 kg for a panel with the volume of 0.23 m3 .
The simulations were made with the wall facing north, west and south, considering the solar
diffuse and direct radiation data of the MRY climate data. The external surface of the sandwich panel
was assumed to be medium grey with an absorption coefficient of 0.6. Additionally, a simulation
without any radiation influence was made. All the simulations were started with the beginning of
January and the yearly data were treated as cyclic, i.e., data wrapped after 365 days.
2.3.4. Time of Wetness

Time of wetness (TOW) is widely used regarding metallic materials and is defined in the ISO
standard 9223:2012 as a “period when the metallic surface is covered by adsorptive and/or liquid films
of electrolyte to be capable of causing atmospheric corrosion” [25]. The standard also describes that
TOW is calculated as the length of time (in hours per year) during which the relative humidity is
greater than 80% at a temperature greater than 0 ◦ C and notes that “wetting of surfaces is caused by
many factors, for example, dew, rainfall, melting snow and a high humidity level”. TOW categories
(Table 2) range from internal microclimates (level T1 ) to damp climates and unventilated sheds in
humid conditions (level T5 ). A higher TOW indicates higher corrosivity of the atmosphere. The latter
is also influenced by airborne salinity (represented by chloride) and the concentration of pollutants
(sulphur-containing substances represented by sulphur dioxide) in the atmosphere; but in the context of
this study, it is assumed that the concentration of these inside the sandwich panel is at the lowest level.
Table 2. Time of wetness (TOW) and corrosivity categories [25].
TOW, h/Year TOW Level Corrosivity Category for Steel *

10 T1 C1
10 < TOW ≤ 250 T2 C1
250 < TOW ≤ 2500 T3 C2–3
2500 < TOW ≤ 5500 T4 C3
5500 < TOW T5 C3–4
* Assuming the lowest chloride and sulphur dioxide concentration.
A recent study described that when estimating TOW from measurement data, a more accurate
approach would be to use values obtained from the surface of the metal material, instead of ambient
air RH [26]. The same approach has applied in this study to calculate the TOW of the steel surface
inside the sandwich panel. The temperature and RH data used in the TOW calculation is simulated in
the point P3 (Figure 11), i.e., in the outermost 3 mm thick layer of the mineral wool core in the middle
of the panel.

3. Results
about 1 g/(m2∙h) (Figure 12d,f). This could be considered the maximum dry-out rate under these
3.1. Laboratory Test Results
climate conditions. In a later phase of the experiment, when the ambient temperature was increased
to 31The firstthen
°C and set of analyses
further to 35examined the saturation
°C, the dry-out rate perspeed
squareofmetre
waterofvapour (TW1,
the drying Figureincreased,
surface 12a) and
the distribution
which of water vapour
could be explained by the inside
greaterthe sandwich energy
evaporation panel (TW2,
due toFigure
higher12c and TW3, Figure
temperatures. 12e).
However,
Then the configuration of the drying surface was changed (see Figure 7 in the Methods
the dry-out rate remained modest at best being 1.5–1.75 g/(m ∙h). It is to be expected that with lower
2 section for
a more detailed
ambient description):
temperatures, only rate
the dry-out an aperture 30 mm × 375 mm
is lower.ofUnfortunately, due was left open toexperiments,
to overlapping diffusion and it
covered
was not with a vapour-permeable
possible tape on TW1
to measure the dry-out and TW3
rate when the and
TWswith a vapour-retarding
were placed in outdoortape on TW2.
conditions.
After the RH readings
Nevertheless, stabilised,
the measured the tapes
RH levels werethat
indicate removed,
due to leaving
the higha RH
30 mm wide
in the surface
outside uncovered.
environment,
In
theparallel, the dried-out
insulation core in themoisture for eachsaturated
TWs quickly past period for every
with waterTW was determined
vapour and in such (TW1, Figure 12b;
conditions the
TW2,
dry-outFigure 12d and
capacity was TW3, Figure 12f).
negligible.
100 3
Moisture dry-out rate, g/(m2·h)

90 Fully closed Sd 0.05m 30-mm-wide
2.5
80 surface tape open surface

70 2
60
50 1.5
40
Fully closed Sd 0.05m 30-mm-wide 22-23 C 31-35 C Outdoor
surface tape open surface 1
30
20 0.5
10 22-23 C 31-35 C Outdoor
0
0 0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84
Time, days TW1_sensor 1 TW1_sensor 2 TW1_sensor 3 Time, days TW1, average dry-out rate
(a) (b)
100 3
90 Fully open Sd 15m 30-mm-wide
80 2.5
surface tape open surface
70
2
60
50 1.5 22-23 C 31-35 C Outdoor
40
Fully open Sd 15m 30-mm-wide 1
30
20
0.5
10 22-23 C 31-35 C Outdoor
0 0
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84
(c) (d)
100 3
90
Fully open Sd 0.05m 30-mm-wide
2.5
80 surface tape open surface

70
2
60
50 1.5
40
22-23 C 31-35 C Outdoor
30
Fully open Sd 0.05m 30-mm-wide 1
20
0.5
10 22-23 C 31-35 C Outdoor
0 0
0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84 0 7 14 21 28 35 42 49 56 63 70 77 84
(e) (f)
Figure 12. Measured RH inside TW1 (a), TW2 (c) and TW3 (e) at different heights (sensor 1 is located
closest to
to the
thewater
watercontainer,
container,sensor
sensor2 2ininthe middle
the middle of of
thethe
TWTW andand
sensor 3 at3the
sensor at highest point)
the highest and
point)
measured
and moisture
measured dry-out
moisture ratesrates
dry-out of theofTWs (b,d,f)
the TWs during
(b,d,f) various
during partsparts
various of theoftest.
the test.
From the data in Figure 12a, it can be seen that the RH levels in the sandwich panel rise quickly
over 90% if the panel is sealed vapour tight. Water vapour saturation was reached in every measured
point in 26 days. The moisture dry-out rate (Figure 12b) for the corresponding period was negligible
with the exception of the measurement results in the first week of the test. Some vapour leakages were
determined around the water container; these were sealed (Figure 13) and afterwards the dry-out rate
was close to 0 g/(m2 ·h). The same additional sealing was also applied around the water containers of
TW2 and TW3.

(a) (b)
Figure During
13. 13.
Figure the measurement
During of water
the measurement of vapour
water saturation speed in TW1,
vapour saturation anin
speed unexpected
TW1, an reduction
unexpected
of weight occurred. After examining the TW, a leakage point was found (a). Additional aluminium foil
reduction of weight occurred. After examining the TW, a leakage point was found (a). Additional
tape was added (b) to prevent unwanted vapour diffusion.
aluminium foil tape was added (b) to prevent unwanted vapour diffusion.
The RH levels in TW2 and TW3 were distributed

The dry‐out capacity was close to 0 g/(m equally, corresponding to theddistance
2∙h) with the vapour‐retarding (S from the
15 m) tape (Figure
water level. The water vapour was able to dry out without additional resistance (up
12d) and around 0.5 g/(m ∙h) with the vapour‐permeable (Sd 0.05 m) tape (Figure 12b,f). This is in
2 to day 32 on TW2,
Figure 12c and up to day 26 on TW3, Figure 12e). The dry-out rate during these
correlation with the measured RH readings, which show that the RH levels reach saturation with the periods was about
1 g/(m 2 ·h) (Figure 12d,f). This could be considered the maximum dry-out rate under these climate
vapour‐retarding tape, making it comparable to a fully vapour sealed enclosure. With the vapour‐
conditions.
permeable Intape,
a later phase
the RH of the experiment,
levels stabilised on when the ambient
a higher temperature
level compared was
to the increased
situation to 31 ◦ C
without any
and then further to 35 ◦ C, the dry-out rate per square metre of the drying surface increased, which could
added tapes.
be explained by the greater evaporation energy due to higher temperatures. However, the dry-out
rate remained modest at best being 1.5–1.75 g/(m2 ·h). It is to be expected that with lower ambient
3.2. Simulation Results
temperatures, the dry-out rate is lower. Unfortunately, due to overlapping experiments, it was not
With laboratory measurements, it became evident that the moisture dry‐out capacity of the steel‐
possible to measure the dry-out rate when the TWs were placed in outdoor conditions. Nevertheless,
faced sandwich panels is limited. The simulations were necessary to study the humidity regime of an
the measured RH levels indicate that due to the high RH in the outside environment, the insulation
entire sandwich panel over the course of three years with different initial moisture contents, joint
core in the TWs quickly saturated with water vapour and in such conditions the dry-out capacity
tapes, and solar radiation conditions.
was negligible.
The simulation results with a water vapour‐permeable tape (Sd 0.05 m) over the panel joint show
The dry-out capacity was close to 0 g/(m2 ·h) with the vapour-retarding (Sd 15 m) tape (Figure 12d)
that with the initial moisture content corresponding to overhygroscopic level, the outer layer of the
and around 0.5 g/(m2 ·h) with the vapour-permeable (Sd 0.05 m) tape (Figure 12b,f). This is in
stone wool insulation core will experience water vapour saturation conditions for more than 510 days
correlation with the measured RH readings, which show that the RH levels reach saturation with
if no solar radiation reached the surface of the sandwich panel (Figure 14a). It would take about two
the vapour-retarding tape, making it comparable to a fully vapour sealed enclosure. With the
years until the RH levels equalised at the levels produced if the initial RH had been 80% (Figure 14a).
vapour-permeable tape, the RH levels stabilised on a higher level compared to the situation without
The environment in the sandwich panel would become less humid with solar radiation on the
any added tapes.
surface of the wall (Figure 14b–d). Nevertheless, the RH in the centre of the panel would stay at water
3.2.vapour saturation level for more than 200 days if the wall were facing west (Figure 14c). This is 75
Simulation Results
days more than if the initial RH were 80%. For the south direction, the initial humidity levels are
With laboratory measurements, it became evident that the moisture dry-out capacity of the
comparable to those of the westward facing wall, but during the following summers, the RH level
steel-faced sandwich panels is limited. The simulations were necessary to study the humidity regime
decreased more in the south‐facing wall (Figure 14d). However, the wall with the initial moisture
of content on water vapour saturation level still needed over 10 months to equalise with the RH levels
an entire sandwich panel over the course of three years with different initial moisture contents, joint
tapes, and solar radiation conditions.
of the wall with the initial RH of 80%.
The It simulation
is noteworthy results with
that a water
walls with vapour-permeable tape are
the initial RH of 80% (Sd also
0.05 m) over the
reaching panel
the joint show
overhygroscopic
that with the initial moisture content corresponding to overhygroscopic level, the outer
water limit during wintertime if the walls are not facing south, i.e., are receiving little solar radiation. layer of the
stone wool insulation core will experience water vapour saturation conditions for
This is probably due to the vapour‐permeable wind barrier tape allowing water vapour from outside more than 510 days
to enter the internals of the sandwich panel.

if no solar radiation reached the surface of the sandwich panel (Figure 14a). It would take about two
years until the RH levels equalised at the levels produced if the initial RH had been 80% (Figure
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
14a).
12 of 18
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 No solar radiation 50 Facing north

40 40
Jan Jul Dec Jul Dec Jul Dec Jan Jul Dec Jul Dec Jul Dec
Months P1_RH_sat P2_RH_sat P3_RH_sat Months P1_RH_sat P2_RH_sat P3_RH_sat
P1_RH_80 P2_RH_80 P3_RH_80 P1_RH_80 P2_RH_80 P3_RH_80
(a) (b)
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 Facing west 50 Facing south

40 40
Jan Jul Dec Jul Dec Jul Dec Jan Jul Dec Jul Dec Jul Dec
Months P1_RH_set P2_RH_sat P3_RH_sat Months P1_RH_sat P2_RH_sat P3_RH_sat

P1_RH_80 P2_RH_80 P3_RH_80 P1_RH_80 P2_RH_80 P3_RH_80
(c) (d)
Figure
Figure14.14.Twenty-eight-day
Twenty-eight-daymovingmovingaverage
averageofofsimulated
simulatedRH RHlevels
levelsininthe
theoutermost
outermost3-mm-thick
3-mm-thick
layer
layerofofthe
themineral
mineralwool
woolcore
coreatatvarious
variousdistances
distancesfromfromthe
thepanel
paneljoint
joint(P1
(P1being
beingclosest
closesttotothe
thejoint,
joint,
P2==atatone-quarter
P2 one-quarter of the panel;
panel; P3P3== at
athalf
halfofofthe
thepanel)
panel) and
and with
with anan initial
initial RHRH of 80%
of 80% andand at level
at the the
level of water
of water vapour
vapour saturation
saturation (dashed(dashed lines)
lines) of of a sandwich
a sandwich panel
panel wall wall
fully fully (a)
shaded shaded (a) or
or facing facing
north (b),
north
west (b), west
(c) or (c) (d).
south or south (d).
The28-day
The environment
movinginaverage
the sandwich panel RH
of simulated would become
levels (Figure less15)humid
in the with
middle solar radiation
of the panel inonthethe
surface of the wall (Figure 14b–d). Nevertheless, the RH in the
outermost 3 mm thick layer of the mineral wool core with varying initial moisture contents and centre of the panel would stay at water
vapour saturation
without level for more
any solar radiation showthanthat200 whendaysusing
if thethe
wall were facing west (Figure
vapour-permeable (Sd = 0.05 14c).
m)This
tapeis(Figure
75 days
morethe
15a), thanRH if the initial
will RH were
stabilise for 80%.
mostFor the south
initial moisture direction,
content the levels
initial humidity
after onelevels year,are comparable
reaching the
to those of the westward facing wall, but during the following
overhygroscopic RH level in winter even if the initial moisture content was close to 0 kg/m3. summers, the RH level decreased more
in the south-facing
Evidently, when using wallthe(Figure 14d). However,
vapour-retarding (Sd =the15 wall
m) tape, withthe theouter
initiallayer
moisture
of thecontent on water
insulation core
vapour
will remain saturation level still needed
at approximately the leveloverof10overhygroscopic
months to equalise with the
moisture RH levels of
indefinitely the initial
if the wall withRH theis
initial RH of 80%.
more than 80% (Figure 15b). The RH inside the sandwich panel did not reach the overhygroscopic
It is noteworthy
level with lower initialthat walls with
moisture the initial
contents RH of 80% to
corresponding are< also
50%reaching
RH during the the
overhygroscopic
simulated period,water
limit
but theduring
modelwintertime
with an initialif themoisture
walls arecontent
not facing of 0south,
kg/m3i.e., are receiving
showed a tendency littleofsolar radiation.
rising RH. This is
probably due to the vapour-permeable wind barrier tape allowing water vapour from outside to enter
the 100
internals of theJoint sandwich panel.
tape Sd = 0.05 m
100
Joint tape Sd = 15 m
The 28-day moving average of simulated RH levels

90 90 (Figure 15) in the middle of the panel in the
80 80
outermost
70 3 mm thick layer of the mineral wool core with 70 varying initial moisture contents and without
any 60solar radiation show that when using the vapour-permeable 60 (Sd = 0.05 m) tape (Figure 15a), the RH
50 50
will 40
stabilise for most initial moisture content levels after 40
one year, reaching the overhygroscopic RH
level30in winter even if the initial moisture content was30close to 0 kg/m3 . Evidently, when using the
d = 15 548
20 20
vapour-retarding
Jan
0 Jul
183
(S365
Det m) tape,
Jul Det the outer
730 Jul
913
layer
1Det
095
of the insulation
Jan
0 Jul
183
coreDetwill remain
365 Jul
548
at approximately
Det
730 Jul
913 1Det
095
the level of
Months overhygroscopic
P3_RH_sat moisture
P3_RH_90 indefinitely
P3_RH_80 if the initial
Months RH is more
P3_RH_sat than
P3_RH_90 (Figure
80% 15b).
P3_RH_80
The RH inside theP3_RH_50 sandwich panel P3_RH_0did not reach the overhygroscopicP3_RH_50 level with lower P3_RH_0initial moisture
contents corresponding (a)to < 50% RH during the simulated period, but the
(b) model with an initial
3
moisture content of 0 kg/m showed a tendency of rising RH.
Figure 15. Twenty-eight day moving average of simulated RH levels in the outermost 3-mm-thick
layer of the mineral wool core in the middle of the panel (output P3) with varying initial RH with a
vapour-permeable (a) and a vapour-retarding (b) tape over the panel joint.
overhygroscopic RH level in winter even if the initial moisture content was close to 0 kg/m3.
Evidently, when using the vapour-retarding (Sd = 15 m) tape, the outer layer of the insulation core
will remain at approximately the level of overhygroscopic moisture indefinitely if the initial RH is
more than 80% (Figure 15b). The RH inside the sandwich panel did not reach the overhygroscopic
level with lower
Sustainability 2020, 12,initial
9020 moisture contents corresponding to < 50% RH during the simulated period,
13 of 18
but the model with an initial moisture content of 0 kg/m3 showed a tendency of rising RH.
Joint tape Sd = 0.05 m Joint tape Sd = 15 m

100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
Jan
0 Jul
183 Det
365 Jul
548 Det
730 Jul
913 1Det
095 Jan
0 Jul
183 Det
365 Jul
548 Det
730 Jul
913 1Det
095
Months P3_RH_sat P3_RH_90 P3_RH_80 Months P3_RH_sat P3_RH_90 P3_RH_80
P3_RH_50 P3_RH_0 P3_RH_50 P3_RH_0
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure 15.15. Twenty-eight
Twenty-eightdaydaymoving
movingaverage
averageofofsimulated
simulatedRHRHlevels
levelsinin the
the outermost
outermost 3-mm-thick
3-mm-thick
layer
layer of the mineral wool core in the middle of the panel (output P3) with varying initialRH
of the mineral wool core in the middle of the panel (output P3) with varying initial RHwith
withaa
vapour-permeable
vapour-permeable
Sustainability (a)
2020, 12, x FOR(a) and aa vapour-retarding
vapour-retarding (b)
andREVIEW
PEER (b) tape over the panel joint. 13 of 18
Thecalculated
The calculatedtime
timeofofwetness
wetness(TOW)
(TOW)in inthe
themiddle
middleof ofthe
thepanel
panelin
in the
the outermost
outermost 3-mm-thick
3-mm-thick
layer of the mineral wool core reaches a constant level after three years from the simulation
layer of the mineral wool core reaches a constant level after three years from the simulation start startat
at
about 2000 h/year when using the vapour-permeable
about 2000 h/year when using the vapour-permeable (S = 0.05 m) tape regardless of the initial
d (Sd = 0.05 m) tape regardless of the initialmoisture
moisture content (Figure 16a). TOW would reach to habout
content (Figure 16a). TOW would reach to about 5400 with initial
5400 hmoisture content
with initial corresponding
moisture content
to 80% RH or more, had a vapour-retarding (S
corresponding to 80% RH or more, had a vapour-retarding
d = 15 m) tape been used (Figure 16b).
(Sd = 15 m) tape been used (Figure TOW 16b).
stays
belowstays
TOW 200 h/year
belowwith
200 vapour-retarding tapes and lowtapes
h/year with vapour-retarding initialand
moisture content
low initial (≤50%) but
moisture tends(≤50%)
content to rise
each year.
but tends to rise each year.
Joint tape Sd = 0.05 m Joint tape Sd = 15 m

6000 6000
5000 5000
P3_RH_sat,
4000 4000 P3_RH_90
P3_RH_80
3000 3000
TOW, h
TOW, h
2000 2000
P3_RH_50,
P3_RH_0
1000 1000
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Time, years P3_RH_sat P3_RH_90 P3_RH_80 Time, years P3_RH_sat P3_RH_90 P3_RH_80
P3_RH_50 P3_RH_0 P3_RH_50 P3_RH_0
(a) (b)
Figure
Figure16.
16. Calculated
Calculated TOW from
fromthe
thesimulated
simulatedtemperature
temperature andand
RHRH levels
levels in the
in the outermost
outermost 3-mm-
3-mm-thick
thick
layerlayer
of theofmineral
the mineral
wool wool core
core in theinmiddle
the middle
of theof the panel
panel (output(output P3)varying
P3) with with varying
initial initial
RH with RHa
with a vapour-permeable
vapour-permeable (a) and(a) and a vapour-retarding
a vapour-retarding (b)
(b) tape tapethe
over over thejoint.
panel panel joint.
The spatial
The spatial distribution
distributionofofRH RHin the sandwich
in the sandwich panelpanel
on day on183
day(summer) illustrates
183 (summer) how moisture
illustrates how
would bewould
moisture distributed in the panel
be distributed using
in the a vapour-retarding
panel (Figure 17a)
using a vapour-retarding or a 17a)
(Figure vapour-permeable
or a vapour-
tape (Figure
permeable 17b)
tape on the
(Figure 17b)vertical joint. Relative
on the vertical humidity
joint. Relative becomes
humidity evenly
becomes distributed
evenly distributedwithwith
the
vapour-retarding
the vapour-retarding tape.tape.
ThisThis
suggests that that
suggests the dry-out
the dry-outis negligible whenwhen
is negligible usingusing
these these
tapes.tapes.
If the If
RH in
the
the panel
RH in thehad equalised
panel to 80% before
had equalised to 80%it was sealed
before it with
was asealed
vapour-retarding tape, the outermost
with a vapour-retarding tape,layer
the
would experience
outermost conditions
layer would near the
experience overhygroscopic
conditions near the limit even during alimit
overhygroscopic warm season
even (Figure
during a warm17a).
If vapour-permeable
season tapes are used, the tapes
(Figure 17a). If vapour-permeable RH levels
are used,in the
thepanel will be
RH levels in below
the panel 90% (Figure
will 17b)90%
be below and
mostly influenced by the outside climate.
(Figure 17b) and mostly influenced by the outside climate.
However, this
However, this means
means thatthat with
with the
the vapour-permeable
vapour-permeable tape, tape, the
the panel
panel also
also acquires
acquires excessive
excessive
moisture from the
moisture the outside
outsideenvironment.
environment.This Thiswill
will lead
leadto to
RHRH levels reaching
levels the overhygroscopic
reaching the overhygroscopic limit
during wintertime in the outermost layers even if the initial RH were 50% (Figure
limit during wintertime in the outermost layers even if the initial RH were 50% (Figure 18b). This 18b). This does not
happen
does not when
happen using
when vapour-retarding tapes (Figure
using vapour-retarding tapes18a).
(Figure 18a).
Initial RH = 80%, joint tape Sd = 15 m

season (Figure 17a). If vapour-permeable tapes are used, the RH levels in the panel will be below 90%
(Figure 17b) and mostly influenced by the outside climate.
However, this means that with the vapour-permeable tape, the panel also acquires excessive
moisture from the outside environment. This will lead to RH levels reaching the overhygroscopic
limit during
Sustainability wintertime
2020, 12, 9020 in the outermost layers even if the initial RH were 50% (Figure 18b).
14 This
of 18
does not happen when using vapour-retarding tapes (Figure 18a).
(a)
Initial RH = 80%, joint tape Sd = 0.05 m
(b)
Figure 17. Simulated
Figure Simulatedspatial
spatialdistribution of of
distribution RHRH in the sandwich
in the sandwichpanel on day
panel 183 (summer)
on day 183 (summer)with
vapour-retarding
with (a) and
vapour-retarding vapour-permeable
(a) and vapour-permeable(b) tapes overover
(b) tapes the the
panel jointjoint
panel (the(the
upper left left
upper corner in the
corner in
graphs)
the with
graphs) an initial
with RHRH
an initial of 80%.
of 80%.
(a)
Initial RH = 50%, joint tape Sd = 0.05 m
(b)
Figure 18.
Figure 18. Simulated
Simulatedspatial
spatialdistribution of of
distribution RHRH in the sandwich
in the panel
sandwich on day
panel 365 (winter)
on day with
365 (winter)
vapour-permeable
with (a) and
vapour-permeable (a)vapour-retarding (b) tapes
and vapour-retarding (b) over
tapesthe panel
over thejoint
panelwith anwith
joint initial
anRH of 50%.
initial RH
of 50%.
3.3. Critical Rain Amount and Moisture Safety Measures
3.3. Critical Rain Amount and Moisture Safety Measures
The results from the laboratory test showed a limited dry-out capacity and the simulations
The results
indicated from the
a high TOW levellaboratory test showed tapes
with vapour-retarding a limited dry-out
and initial capacity
moisture and the
contents simulations
corresponding
indicated a high TOW level with vapour-retarding tapes and initial moisture
to 80% RH or more. The difference in the moisture content corresponding to 80% RH and water contents corresponding
to 80% RH
vapour or more.level
saturation The difference in the
is very small: moisture
0.157 kg/m3content
or 3.61 ×corresponding to 80%
10−2 kg for a panel RHthe
with andvolume
water vapour
of 0.23
saturation level is very small: 0.157 kg/m 3 or 3.61 × 10−2 kg for a panel with the volume of 0.23 m3 .
m . Assuming the density of water to be 1000 kg/m makes the volume of this amount to be 3.61 × 10−5
3 3
Assuming the density of 3 3.61 × 10 −5 3
m3. This corresponds to water
roughlyto 1.57
be 1000× 10kg/m
−4 m ormakes
≈ 0.16 the
mmvolume
of waterof column
this amount
overto besurface
the with mthe.
−4 m or ≈0.16 mm of water column over the surface with the
This corresponds
dimensions of 0.23tomroughly This×is10
by 1 m.1.57 a remarkably small amount. For triple the volume (e.g., had the
dimensions
wall enclosure of 0.23
been m 3bym1high),
m. This
thisis would
a remarkably
be ≈ 0.5 small
mm.amount. For triple
Which means thatthe volume
a very (e.g.,
small had the
amount of
wall enclosure been 3 m high), this would be ≈0.5 mm. Which means that a
rain would be enough to raise the moisture content to water vapour saturation levels inside thevery small amount of rain
would
sandwich be enough
wall, had to the
raise theingressed
rain moisture the content to water
enclosure. Forvapour
example,saturation
the mean levels inside theamount
precipitation sandwich per
wall, had the rain ingressed the enclosure. For example, the mean precipitation
one wet day is 5.4 mm in Estonia [27], and a rainfall event is considered as heavy when amount per one wet
the
day is 5.4 mm in Estonia [27], and a rainfall event is considered as heavy when
accumulated sum of precipitation is over 50 mm per day [28]. In a study discussing heavy rainfallsthe accumulated sum of
in Estonia, the authors reported that in total 509 heavy precipitation events occurred in Estonia
during a 44-year period [28].
Due to the combination of a limited dry-out and the possibility of a long time of wetness had a
small amount of rain entered the panel, guidelines to enhance the moisture safety of such structures
are presented in accordance with and in addition to the Swedish industry standard for moisture
safety of the construction process [29].
precipitation is over 50 mm per day [28]. In a study discussing heavy rainfalls in Estonia, the authors
reported that in total 509 heavy precipitation events occurred in Estonia during a 44-year period [28].
Due to the combination of a limited dry-out and the possibility of a long time of wetness had a
small amount of rain entered the panel, guidelines to enhance the moisture safety of such structures
are presented in accordance with and in addition to the Swedish industry standard for moisture safety
of the construction process [29].
• A moisture management plan should be prepared considering the limited dry-out rate up to
2 g/day (without tapes, in favourable conditions) through a 30-mm-wide and 3-m-long joint.
• The moisture management plan should also consider that the panels must not equalise to ambient
air conditions if ambient RH > 80%. A protective film on the exposed sides of the insulating
core must be in place from the factory if such conditions or rain might occur. The film should be
removed before the installation of the panels.
• If ambient RH > 80% during storage and installation, then vapour-permeable tapes must be used
to cover the outer joints.
• A moisture safety officer should be on site during the installation of the panels.
• Moisture inspection rounds must be carried out regularly.
• Spot measurements of humidity in the panels are recommended.
• In the case of water ingress, all free water must be immediately removed from the structure and
t&RH sensors must be installed where the leakage occurred.
# If RH > 80% inside the panel, then aided drying is necessary and outer joints must not be
covered with vapour-retarding tapes.
• Non-conformances in relation to the moisture safety plan must be documented.
4. Discussion
The findings of the laboratory test and the following simulations indicate that the dry-out capacity
of steel-faced sandwich panels is low (about 1 g/(m2 ·h)) even if there is no wind barrier tape covering
the vertical joint, which is the only area where moisture dry-out could occur at a significant level.
A dry-out rate of 1 g/(m2 ·h) means that the moisture dry-out would be about 2 g/day through a
standard 30 mm wide and 3 m long vertical joint. The laboratory test demonstrated that when the
vertical joint is covered with a vapour-permeable tape, the moisture dry-out will be reduced to a half
of that of an uncovered joint (to 1 g/day). Moisture dry-out is also temperature driven and the dry-out
rates presented here would appear under the most favourable conditions (high ambient temperature
and low external RH). It is to be expected that with lower ambient temperatures, the dry-out rate is
even lower.
If the joint were covered with a vapour-retarding tape, no moisture dry-out is to be expected and in
case of any water ingress into the insulation space, water vapour saturation would persist in the outer
layers of the insulation core. This could have a negative impact on the glue adhering the steel sheet to
the insulation core or to the steel sheet itself [2,13]. Pfeiffer reported the results of different temperature
and humidity conditions on the tensile strength of a sandwich panel with mineral wool core. His
research suggests that the tensile strength decreases the most when the sandwich panel experiences
water vapour saturation and overall it is expected that increased humidity and temperature lead to
a faster loss in strength [13]. Moreover, research shows that persisting elevated moisture content of
mineral wool reduces its compressive strength and thermal insulation function significantly [14,17].
All of which leads to durability issues and lesser sustainability of the overall structures.
In the simulations, a comparison was made between the situation with an initial moisture
content corresponding to a water vapour saturated level and 80% RH. The results indicate that the
vapour-permeable tape indeed allowed moisture to dry out; however, the process would be slow and
it would take 10 to 24 months for the humidity levels to equalise with the levels produced by an initial
RH level of 80% depending on the presence of solar radiation (from exposed directly towards south to
a fully shaded situation). This suggests that moisture ingress could have a negative impact on the
longevity of the structure regardless of the use of vapour-permeable tapes over joints. Nevertheless,
the vapour-permeable tapes indeed help to clear out excess moisture from the panel.
However, the simulations also indicate that the vapour-permeable tape allows vapour to enter the
structure from outside and, regardless of the initial moisture content, an equilibrium state will arrive
where there is an environment with high humidity levels over three months during the wintertime.
This is something to be considered when using the vapour-permeable tapes of the joints—whether the
yearly recurring high moisture levels are problematic or not.
Further simulations demonstrated that when using the vapour-retarding tape, there was little
vapour flow into the sandwich panel and with initial moisture contents corresponding to >50% RH,
the humidity levels in the panel did not reach the overhygroscopic limit during the three-year simulation
period. However, it was evident that even with the relatively vapour-retarding tape, the RH levels
inside the panel still tended to rise. This suggests that over the course of the building lifespan,
unfavourable conditions might occur. It is also common that these panels are installed during periods
when the outside air RH is over 80% and if the panel had equalised to these conditions the outer layer of
the insulation core would experience persisting water vapour saturation, leading to possible damage.
TOW calculations indicated that regardless of the initial moisture content, TOW will stabilise to
level T3 if vapour-permeable tapes are used. This suggests that if the airborne salinity contamination
and the concentration of sulphur compounds in the sandwich panel are low, the corrosivity category of
the inside environment of the sandwich panel would be up to C3 or medium [25]. In more aggressive
environments or when using vapour-retarding tapes, the corrosivity category could reach C4 .
It is advisable to supply the panels sealed with a protective film over the exposed insulation core
so that they would not adsorb moisture during the storage or installation process. This is to avoid
the panel equalising to high RH (e.g., >80%) conditions, which could lead to persisting water vapour
saturation in the external layer of the insulating core and a high TOW value. The protecting film should
be removed right before the installation of the sandwich panel. The combination of limited moisture
dry-out and the possibility of persisting water vapour saturation conditions in the outer layer of the
insulation core due to small amount of rain leads us to suggest that the storage and installation process
of such panels must be well managed. Other research also recommends the inclusion of moisture safety
management in the building process to maintain a dry building process [11]. More research is needed
to determine the limiting time of wetness or humidity criteria for such panels. A degradation model
could be useful. The degradation model should consider corrosion, decomposition of the adhesive
between steel and mineral wool, change of strength or thermal properties of the mineral wool and
mould risk (if there is a possibility of air leakages to the indoor environment).
5. Conclusions
This study investigated the moisture dry-out capacity and the hygrothermal regime of a steel-faced
sandwich panel with mineral wool insulation. A series of laboratory tests and heat, air and moisture
transport simulations were carried out. The results indicate that the moisture-dry out capacity of
the studied sandwich panels is limited (up to 2 g/day through a standard 30-mm-wide and 3-m-long
vertical joint without covering tapes in favourable conditions). When the vertical joint is covered
with a vapour-permeable tape, the moisture dry-out will be reduced to a half of that of an uncovered
joint (to 1 g/day) and if the joint were covered with a vapour-retarding tape, no moisture dry-out is to
be expected. Use of vapour-retarding tapes on the outer joints will lead to persisting high humidity
conditions and a high TOW value inside the panel if the initial relative humidity is higher than 80%.
Vapour-permeable tapes allow moisture to dry out, but the rate of 1 g/day for a standard size panel
leads to a time-consuming dry-out if there is any water leak into the panel. It is recommended that
the sandwich panels be supplied on site in a sealed condition so that they would not adsorb moisture
before installation and that, during the construction time, weather protection be used to avoid water
ingress into the panels. The panels must not equalise to the outside air conditions if the air RH is 80%
or higher. The inside to the steel sheets should withstand an environment with a corrosivity category
at least C3 even with thorough moisture management and vapour-permeable tapes or C4 when using
vapour-retarding tapes. The results indicate that very little moisture could lead to conditions where
damages might occur. This means that the protection method should not allow water to enter the
insulation space and in case of water ingress all free water must be immediately removed from the
structure and additional aided drying is necessary if the RH in the panel exceeds 80%. This study
confirms that construction time moisture management is also important with structures that are
regarded as moisture tolerant under usage conditions.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.K. and T.K.; methodology, K.K. and T.K.; investigation, K.K. and
H.P.; writing and visualization—original draft, K.K.; writing—review and editing, K.K. and T.K.; supervision, T.K.;
funding acquisition, T.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported by the EC—Research Programme of the Research Fund for Coal
and Steel—HAIR—Improved Durability of Steel Sandwich Panel Constructions regarding Hygrothermal and
AIRtightness Performance (grant No. 754185), Estonian Centre of Excellence in Zero Energy and Resource Efficient
Smart Buildings and Districts, ZEBE (grant No. 2014–2020.4.01.15-0016) and funded by the European Regional
Development Fund, by the Estonian Research Council (grant No. PRG483), and by the European Commission
through the H2020 project Finest Twins (grant No. 856602).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Khan, T.; Acar, V.; Aydin, M.R.; Hülagü, B.; Akbulut, H.; Seydibeyoğlu, M.Ö. A review on recent advances in
sandwich structures based on polyurethane foam cores. Polym. Compos. 2020, 41, 2355–2400. [CrossRef]
2. Davies, J.M. Lightweight Sandwich Construction; Davies, J.M., Ed.; Blackwell Science Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2008;
ISBN 9780470690253.
3. Hill, C.; Norton, A.; Dibdiakova, J. A comparison of the environmental impacts of different categories of
insulation materials. Energy Build. 2018, 162, 12–20. [CrossRef]
4. Llantoy, N.; Chàfer, M.; Cabeza, L.F. A comparative life cycle assessment (LCA) of different insulation
materials for buildings in the continental Mediterranean climate. Energy Build. 2020, 225, 110323. [CrossRef]
5. Peris Mora, E. Life cycle, sustainability and the transcendent quality of building materials. Build. Environ.
2007, 42, 1329–1334. [CrossRef]
6. Spitzner, M.H.; Koschade, R.; Cammerer, J. Entwicklung eines Sandwichelements mit Energie-Akkumulation,
Energieverteilung und Dämmung (SEA). In FIW München Geschäfts-und Tätigkeitsbericht 2010;
Forschungsinstitut für Wärmeschutz e.V. München: Gräfelfing, Germany, 2010.
7. Pihelo, P.; Lelumees, M.; Kalamees, T. Influence of Moisture Dry-out on Hygrothermal Performance of
Prefabricated Modular Renovation Elements. Energy Procedia 2016, 96, 745–755. [CrossRef]
8. Kukk, V.; Külaots, A.; Kers, J.; Kalamees, T. Influence of interior layer properties to moisture dry-out of
CLT walls. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2019, 46, 1001–1009. [CrossRef]
9. Pihelo, P.; Kalamees, T. Commissioning of moisture safety of nZEB renovation with prefabricated timber
frame insulation wall elements. Wood Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 1–8. [CrossRef]
10. EU 305/2011 Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council laying down harmonised conditions
for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC. Off. J. Eur. Union
2011, 54, 5–43. [CrossRef]
11. Mjörnell, K.; Arfvidsson, J.; Sikander, E. A Method for Including Moisture Safety in the Building Process.
Indoor Built Environ. 2012, 21, 583–594. [CrossRef]
12. Olsson, P.; Tjäder, E. Suggestions for adjustment of ByggaF to improve the current use and suit the process of
renovation. Energy Procedia 2017, 132, 921–926. [CrossRef]
13. Pfeiffer, L. Durability Assessment of Sandwich Panel Construction. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Surrey,
Guildford, UK, 2005.
14. Ivanič, A.; Kravanja, G.; Kidess, W.; Rudolf, R.; Lubej, S. The Influences of Moisture on the Mechanical,
Morphological and Thermogravimetric Properties of Mineral Wool Made from Basalt Glass Fibers. Materials
2020, 13, 2392. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. EN 13523-26:2014—Coil Coated Metals—Test Methods—Part 26: Resistance to Condensation of Water;

Technical Committee CEN/TC 139 “Paints and varnishes”; National Standards Authority of Ireland:
Dublin, Ireland, 2014.
16. Karamanos, A.; Hadiarakou, S.; Papadopoulos, A.M. The impact of temperature and moisture on the thermal
performance of stone wool. Energy Build. 2008, 40, 1402–1411. [CrossRef]
17. Jerman, M.; Černý, R. Effect of moisture content on heat and moisture transport and storage properties of
thermal insulation materials. Energy Build. 2012, 53, 39–46. [CrossRef]
18. Laukkarinen, A.; Vinha, J.; Kalbe, K.; Kesti, J.; Kalamees, T.; Honkakoski, E. Laboratory tests and modelling
of mineral wool insulated steel sandwich panels. E3S Web Conf. 2020, 172, 17006. [CrossRef]
19. Greenspan, L. Humidity fixed points of binary saturated aqueous solutions. J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand.
1977, 81, 89–96. [CrossRef]
20. Nicolai, A.; Grunewald, J.; Zhang, J.J. Recent improvements in HAM simulation tools: Delphin
5/CHAMPS-BES. In Proceedings of the 12th Symposium for Building Physics, Dresden, Germany,
29–31 March 2007; pp. 866–876.
21. Sontag, L.; Nicolai, A.; Vogelsang, S. Validierung der Solverimplementierung des Hygrothermischen
Simulationsprogramms Delphin; Technische Universität Dresden: Dresden, Germany, 2013.
22. Kalbe, K.; Piikov, H.; Kesti, J.; Honkakoski, E.; Kurnitski, J.; Kalamees, T. Moisture dry-out from steel faced
insulated sandwich panels. E3S Web Conf. 2020, 172, 17007. [CrossRef]
23. Kalamees, T.; Vinha, J. Estonian Climate Analysis for Selecting Moisture Reference Years for Hygrothermal
Calculations. J. Build. Phys. 2004, 27, 199–220. [CrossRef]
24. EN 15026 Hygrothermal Performance of Building Components and Building Elements—Assessment of Moisture
Transfer by Numerical Simulation; Technical Committee CEN/TC 89 “Thermal performance of buildings and
building components”; European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
25. ISO 9223:2012—Corrosion of Metals and Alloys—Corrosivity of Atmospheres—Classification, Determination
and Estimation. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/53499.html (accessed on 12 October 2020).
26. Hoseinpoor, M.; Prošek, T.; Babusiaux, L.; Mallégol, J. Toward more realistic time of wetness measurement
by means of surface relative humidity. Corros. Sci. 2020, 177, 108999. [CrossRef]
27. Tammets, T.; Jaagus, J. Climatology of precipitation extremes in Estonia using the method of moving
precipitation totals. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2013, 111, 623–639. [CrossRef]
28. Mätlik, O.; Post, P. Synoptic weather types that have caused heavy precipitation in Estonia in the period
1961–2005. Est. J. Eng. 2008, 14, 195–208. [CrossRef]
29. ByggaF Industry Standard ByggaF—Method for Moisture Safety of the Construction Process.
Branschstandard ByggaF—Metod för fuktsäker byggProcess, Version 08/05/2013 (English translation); 2013.
Available online: http://www.fuktcentrum.lth.se/verktyg-och-hjaelpmedel/fuktsaekert-byggande/byggaf-
metoden/ (accessed on 12 October 2020).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Sustainability 12 09020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 12 09020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Sustainability 2020, 12, 9020; doi:10.3390/su12219020 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Studied Sandwich Panels

Water under TWs

tambient ≈ 22-24 C tambient ≈ 31-35 C tambient ≈ 0-10 C

No dry-out Dry-out through fully open top surface

Water vapour pressure, Pa

2.3.2.The steel Data

2.3.4. Time of Wetness

Table 2. Time of wetness (TOW) and corrosivity categories [25].

TOW, h/Year TOW Level Corrosivity Category for Steel *

Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18

Moisture dry-out rate, g/(m2·h)

80 surface tape open surface

80 surface tape open surface

The RH levels in TW2 and TW3 were distributed

50 No solar radiation 50 Facing north

50 Facing west 50 Facing south

Months P1_RH_set P2_RH_sat P3_RH_sat Months P1_RH_sat P2_RH_sat P3_RH_sat

The 28-day moving average of simulated RH levels

Joint tape Sd = 0.05 m Joint tape Sd = 15 m

P3_RH_50 P3_RH_0 P3_RH_50 P3_RH_0

Joint tape Sd = 0.05 m Joint tape Sd = 15 m

Initial RH = 80%, joint tape Sd = 15 m

Initial RH = 80%, joint tape Sd = 15 m

Initial RH = 80%, joint tape Sd = 0.05 m

Initial RH = 50%, joint tape Sd = 15 m

Initial RH = 50%, joint tape Sd = 0.05 m

15. EN 13523-26:2014—Coil Coated Metals—Test Methods—Part 26: Resistance to Condensation of Water;

You might also like