Building and Environment 123 (2017) 50e65

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Review of moisture behavior and thermal performance of polystyrene

insulation in building applications
Shanshan Cai a, *, Boxiong Zhang a, Lorenzo Cremaschi b
a
School of Energy and Power Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Expanded polystyrene (EPS) and extruded polystyrene (XPS) are insulation materials used in thermal
Received 3 February 2017 insulation systems for building envelopes, below-grade foundations, and roofs. There are approximately
Received in revised form 56 test reports and research papers that have been identified on the specific topic about the moisture
21 April 2017
behavior and degradation of thermal performance of XPS and EPS in building applications. However,
Accepted 18 June 2017
Available online 19 June 2017
without critical review on this data, such large set of data collection can barely be used due to the
controversies and inconsistences existed in the current form. This paper focuses on addressing this
challenge by introducing two new parameters “SVR/Density” and “dPP/Density” during the analysis of
Keywords:
Moisture
the moisture behavior and thermal performance of polystyrene thermal insulation tested with various
Thermal conductivity properties and conditions. With better interpreting on the data, the impacts of measuring techniques,
TCR test conditions, material density and insulation mean temperature on the relevant test results (moisture
XPS content and thermal conductivity ratio - TCR) are studied and clarified. According to the analysis on the
EPS appropriateness and applicability of the reported values, correlations are proposed on the variation of
TCR versus moisture content and with density effect also taken into consideration. The correlations
match the experimental data within the acceptable ranges.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2. Classification on the test methodologies for moisture content measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.1. Summary of test methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.2. Laboratory methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.2.1. Immersion test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.2.2. Chamber test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.2.3. Cold-hot box test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.2.4. Comprehensive comparison on the laboratory test methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.3. Field testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3. Data analysis on the moisture content in XPS and EPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.1. Isotherm test results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.1.1. Water immersion tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.1.2. Soil immersion tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.2. Gradient test results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.3. Field testing results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.4. Comparison of the moisture content derived from laboratory tests and from field testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4. Classification on the test methods for thermal conductivity measurements of wet insulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.1. Laboratory methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.2. Field testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: shanshc@hust.edu.cn (S. Cai).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.06.034
0360-1323/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Cai et al. / Building and Environment 123 (2017) 50e65 51

5. Data analysis on the thermal conductivity in XPS and EPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

5.1. Discussion on the variation of TCR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5.2. Empirical correlations on TCR of wet insulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Names and abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

1. Introduction temperature would be studied and clarified. Understanding the test

Expanded polystyrene (EPS) and extruded polystyrene (XPS) are
insulation materials used in thermal insulation systems for building
envelopes, below-grade foundations, and roofs. These thermal
insulation systems tend to operate in applications in which the
environments surrounding the insulation promote moisture
ingress if the moisture control components fail or deteriorate
during the service lifetime. This phenomenon (which is undesired
and often unavoidable) leads to wet insulation, deteriorates the
insulation integrity, increases the insulation weight, and supports
mold growth and bacteria when in direct contact with air. More
importantly, moisture retention in an insulation material decreases
its R-value, which means that more heat loss occurs across the
insulation than expected from the original design of the insulation
system.
To date, at least 56 test reports and papers have been identified
on the measurement of moisture content and effective thermal
conductivity of polystyrene insulation with moisture ingress, see
Table 1. These studies generated a large amount of data and ob-
servations that have not yet been critically reviewed and analyzed.
The test methodologies used to generate these data, including
moisture content and effective thermal conductivity, were different
and might be inconsistent with industry standards. Without critical
review on the test methods and data resources, controversies and
inconsistences exist in the current data and this large data set
collection can barely be used during further study on the moisture
behavior and thermal performance of XPS and EPS insulation. It is a
challenge to develop a novel way to retrieve general findings that
can better describe the characteristics of XPS and EPS insulation,
instead of to retrieve a few specific findings derived from limited
samples with properties varied in an extremely narrow range. This
paper focused on addressing this challenge. Test methodologies on
the measurement of the moisture ingress and the effective thermal
conductivity of XPS and EPS identified from literature studies were
first reviewed, then according to different test methods, the
collected data set were analyzed in detail to determine the
appropriateness and applicability of their values to the projects. In
order to better use the data collection, the impacts of test tech-
niques, test conditions, material density and insulation mean
Table 1
Summary of data resources referenced in this paper.
Reference filter Group
- Total
Locationa North America þ Canada
Other locations
b water absorption are ASTM C272 and ASTM D2842. It should be
Standard ASTM
Other standards
Not mentioned
a
Three documents [1e3] include moisture and thermal data derived from both
locations in the North America, Canada, and other locations.
b
Two documents [1,3] includes moisture data derived from both standards.
methodologies and the data used for estimating moisture behavior
and thermal performance is critical to research engineers, insu-
lation manufacturers, and practitioners that design, install, and
service these types of insulation systems as well as stakeholders
and policy makers of building regulatory codes.
Considering the differences on the manufacturing techniques,
only the results collected from researches reported in North
America and Canada were considered in the section of data anal-
ysis. It should be noted that all data in this report were procured
from 56 studies in the literature (see Table 1), i.e., the authors of this
paper did not perform any testing or any characterization of the
products presented herein.
2. Classification on the test methodologies for moisture
content measurements
2.1. Summary of test methodologies
Reviewing the current test methodologies for moisture content
measurement is an important task, and it is the basis for the
analysis of the insulation's moisture content. Different testing
methodologies lead to variations of the insulation moisture con-
tent. Table 2 categorized the test methodologies referred in the
literature that were considered for providing the set of data on
moisture content. These methodologies include water immersion
test, soil immersion test, climate chamber test, cold-hot box test
and field test. Standards only exist on water immersion test and in
this paper, US standards were mainly considered because the set of
data that used for analysis was primarily collected in North America
and Canada. In order to better interpret the moisture content data
collected from the open literature, this paper begins with a thor-
ough review of the most common methods proposed for measuring
moisture content in XPS and EPS insulation.
2.2. Laboratory methods
2.2.1. Immersion test
An immersion test is normally conducted for insulation applied
in membrane roofs or geotechnical applications, such as pavement
structures and building foundations, which are in conditions that
would be subjected to direct moisture exposure. The procedure of
the test depends on the medium in which the insulation sample is
immersed. The immersion tests are grouped by water or soil types
Moisture data Thermal data of immersion.
36 31
26 29 2.2.1.1. Water immersion test. The relevant standards for measuring
13 5
14 18
4 1 noted that the term “water absorption” refers to the absorption of
20 12 liquid water, and it represents the case in which the insulation
boundary surfaces are in direct contact with water in the liquid
phase. Although standards ASTM D2842 and C272 give detailed
procedures for a water absorption test that is commonly used for
52 S. Cai et al. / Building and Environment 123 (2017) 50e65
Table 2
Summary of test methodologies for moisture content measurements.
Methods
Water immersion
Soil immersion
Climate chamber with cold surface
Cold-hot box
Field
XPS and EPS, researchers pointed out that the maximum acceptable
water absorption in percentage by volume provided in these
standards should only be used for the purpose of quality control [4]
and may not well correlated with the findings derived in the field
[3]. Therefore, during most immersion tests, the operating condi-
tions required for measuring water absorption were controlled for a
period long enough for water absorption to effectively take place in
the closed cellular structure of the test specimen.
The detailed procedures can be divided into three steps: drying,
conditioning and weighing, Materials can be initially dried inside
an oven or pre-conditioned in an ambient controlled chamber.
Common pre-conditioned conditions are 65 ± 1  C (149 ± 1.8  F) [5]
of oven drying, or 23 ± 5  C (73.5 ± 9  F), 50 ± 5%RH of ambient
chamber [6]. A desiccant drying oven can be considered as an
alternative method to chambers. In immersion tests, the samples
are conditioned under water for certain period of time. According
to the environment applications designed for the insulation system,
the sides of insulation samples are not exposed directly to the
ambient, but tightly connected with other insulation sections.
Therefore, during immersion tests, the moisture intrusion from side
sections of the test specimens should be prevented by placing va-
por retarder on all sides of test specimens. For example, some
samples were required to be sealed with two coats of vapor barrier
at two end sides and at the top before placing them in the im-
mersion tank [7]. The immersion depth [8e10], the local temper-
ature of the water surrounding the test sample and the
temperature of the water reservoir affected the moisture ingress
rate. These parameters might somewhat skew the data obtained
from this method, and users using these type of data from the lab
should pay attention to these details before generalizing the results
from water type immersion tests to the actual environment appli-
cation. During the weighing procedure, it is recommended that the
samples' weight be measured without removing them from the
water. Otherwise, it is questionable whether the weighed water is
located at the sample surface or inside the sample [5,11]. Normally,
the test samples are immersed in the water tank but are anchored
to a precision scale to measure their weight increases during the
immersion period. If a sample has to be removed from the water
and then weighed, it is recommended to wipe off the dripping
water from the test sample and immediately wrap the sample by
using a wet cloth, in order to preserve the moisture conditions [6].
Plastic bags can also be used for wrapping the samples in order to
preserve the moisture conditions. If the moisture content is
measured by volume, the water absorption is normally determined
directly from the water volume variation in the water reservoir
[8,10,12].
2.2.1.2. Soil immersion test. Insulation buried in soil is very com-
mon for below-ground applications. However, in current methods
used in this field of research, using soil as an immersion medium is
rare because of the challenges it poses related to the preparation
and maintenance of uniform moist soil environments. It is
preferred to test the insulation either by using water type immer-
sion tests, as reported in Chuy, Zeng, and Ye's works [10,12], or in
direct contact with saturated air with 100% relative humidity, as
Quantity of references Standards
8 ASTM C272, D2842
3 No standard
2 No standard
5 No standard
20 No standard
described by Sandberg [13]. When the insulation material is tested
with a soil type immersion test method, the drainage effects occur
in the test samples with low density, and they might lead to
negative moisture content. More specifically, this occurs when the
measured weight of the test sample at the end of the soil type
immersion test period is lower than its initial weight. This short-
coming is not present in water type immersion tests [14,15], and
that may be one reason that water type immersion tests are typi-
cally preferred over soil-type immersion tests. However, until now
it was not observed negative moisture content in polystyrene
samples.
2.2.2. Chamber test
Exposing insulation test specimens to high humidity air in a
climate controlled room is a widely-used method for conducting
moisture tests. However, several researchers have pointed out that
the moisture content accumulation inside the insulation test
specimens is often lower than the moisture content measured in
the insulation in actual operating conditions during environment
applications [16e20]. This discrepancy is caused by the weak vapor
gradient created during the laboratory tests, and it leads to a low
level of equilibrium moisture content.
Compared with the climate chamber test methods, the method
of climate chamber with cold surface used a cold surface to create a
temperature difference and further thermally induced the vapor
pressure gradient across the test insulation. Researchers indicated
that results from the laboratory test method that adopted a tem-
perature gradient across the insulation test samples were more
realistic and closer to the actual environment application, such as in
the case of insulation intended for drywall panels [7,21]. The
samples also became wet at an accelerated rate because of a high
drive for the water vapor to enter, condense, and diffuse in the
insulation test sample. A major shortcoming of using climate
chamber with cold surface test methods is that the insulation test
sample is anchored to a metal plate; consequently, weighing the
moist sample directly in-situ and in real-time during the test might
not be feasible.
2.2.3. Cold-hot box test
Two chambers are required in a cold-hot box test instead of a
single one in the chamber test. The test samples are positioned in a
frame fixed between the hot box and the cold box. To promote one-
dimensional heat transport, air leaks are minimized by taping all
the edges between the test insulation and the connecting frame.
The humidity levels in both boxes are controlled with saturated salt
solutions [22]. The constant temperature fields are provided by the
heating and cooling units. For example, according to the tests re-
ported by Vereecken and Roels [22], in the cold box, a temperature
of approximately 2  C (35.6  F) was implemented using a cooling
unit, and in the hot box, infrared bulbs were used to obtain a
temperature of 35  C (95  F). Although these conditions were not
representative of real case boundary conditions for the insulation,
they were selected to obtain a clearly detectable increase in
moisture content over a short time span.
 S. Cai et al. / Building and Environment 123 (2017) 50e65 53

2.2.4. Comprehensive comparison on the laboratory test methods
Based on the source generated to promote moisture absorption,
laboratory methodologies are further referred to as “isotherm test”
and “gradient test”. In the isotherm test, the insulation samples are
usually placed in an ambient environment with a constant tem-
perature. Immersion tests and chamber tests are considered
“isotherm tests,” and there are no gradients across the insulation. If
there are any types of gradient through the insulation, such as
temperature gradient, concentration gradient, or pressure gradient,
the test methodologies should be treated as “gradient tests”.
Typical gradient tests use the methods of “cold-hot box” and
“chamber with cold surface.” Table 3 provides a comparison of the
various laboratory test methods used for moisture content
measurements.
2.3. Field testing
In-situ measurements represent field testing of moisture con-
tent, and they are classified in two different groups: traditional in-
situ tests and novel in-situ tests. Sampling in the field (in-situ
sampling) and measuring in the lab by following the common
weighing-drying-weighing method are traditional test procedures.
In-situ sampling means that the test specimens are collected
directly from the field rather than prepared in controlled laboratory
environments. All traditional test methodologies for the measure-
ment of moisture content require both weighing and drying pro-
cedures, and they are subsequently difficult to be conducted
directly in-situ. Some novel techniques adopt portable devices,
which make them more suitable for in-situ measurements of
moisture content directly within the application environment,
including dual probe heat pulse (DPHP) method [23], nuclear
magnetic resonance methods [23e25], electric based methods
[25e27], ultrasonic based methods and mechanical based methods
[23].
3. Data analysis on the moisture content in XPS and EPS
3.1. Isotherm test results
The isotherm tests are divided into four groups: water immer-
sion tests, soil immersion tests and chamber tests. However, few
references [35] mentioned chamber tests to observe moisture
content versus time and only immersion tests will be mainly dis-
cussed here.
3.1.1. Water immersion tests
In order to determine if the test results collected from different
literature were comparable, the data resources were analyzed and
categorized in groups according to the procedures proposed by
different authors, as summarized in Table 4.
With respect to the following figures, there is a large variation of
the insulation material density in the studies from the literature,
and the density ranges are conveniently grouped in this study in
the categories of low-, medium-, and high-density ranges, as
summarized in Table 5.
Fig. 1 shows the moisture test results collected for XPS insu-
lation. According to the measuring procedures listed in Table 4, the
data retrieved from literature studies were divided into three
groups as indicated in the caption of Fig. 1. Due to the fact that
group 2 include data points from low-, medium- and high-density
ranges, this group was taken to study the density impact on the
variation of moisture content. It is observed that the moisture
content measured in the samples of low-density is much higher
than that in the samples of medium- and high-density. In the
medium-density range, the water content of the XPS insulation
varies above and below 1% by volume, which is, on average, lower
than the low-density materials. The blue squares, which represent
the data points of medium-density range from group 2, are located
only slightly higher than the “purple cross” symbols, which
represent data of high-density range. This is because the medium-
density sample was found to be manufactured with dense surface
skin and this special layer prevented moisture ingress to the in-
ternal regions. By comparing data points in groups 2 and 3, it is
found that the amount of moisture ingress into insulation is similar
between samples within the medium- and high-density ranges.
Therefore, the specific procedures listed in Table 4 may not lead to
large variations on the moisture content data collected from
different literature studies. It should also be noted that in the me-
dium- and high-density ranges, specimens under higher pressure
(2 kPa) do not significantly absorb more water than normally tested
specimens (0.25e0.5 kPa), but seem to absorb even less amount of
water. A possible reason is that the pressure exerted on the insu-
lation result in small deformations of the pores, which tend to
restrict and potentially close the pores in an incompletely closed
insulation structure [8]. If the pressure applied on the water sur-
rounding the test samples is not high enough to overcome the
resistance caused by the partial closing of the pores, then a slight
decrease on the moisture content could be observed when the
water is pressurized.

Table 3
Comparison of laboratory test methodologies [1,2,6,8e14,28e34].

Methods Application field Sample size Control Weighing method Cost Test Findings Uncertaintya
parameters length

Water Direct contact with water: inverted Dependent on the Twater, Both direct and Low 24hrs Water accumulation ±4% ~ ±18.18%
roofs, below ground surface-to-volume Pwater indirect
ratio measurements
Soil Direct contact with moist soil: below Dependent on the Twater, Tair Removal and Moderate Long Water accumulation e
ground surface-to-volume weighing
ratio
Climate Direct contact with moist air: building Dependent on the Tair, RHair Direct High <30 Water e
chamber envelope surface-to-volume measurement days accumulation;
ratio Absorption
isotherm
Climate Direct contact with moist air: building Large Tair, RHair, Removal and High Medium Water accumulation e
chamber with envelope, below ground, refrigeration Tcold surface weighing
cold surface units
Cold-hot boxes Direct contact with moist air: building Large Tcold, RHcold, Removal and Moderate Long Water e
envelope Thot, RHhot weighing accumulation;
Absorption
isotherm
a
The authors did a thorough search on the uncertainty reported in these experimental findings, however, few of them clarified the measuring uncertainty and the error bars
would be missing in the following plots.
54 S. Cai et al. / Building and Environment 123 (2017) 50e65

Table 4
Analysis on the data by “procedures” of water immersion test.

Procedure Technique Standard References

XPS EPS

Pre- Oven drying ASTM C272 [28] [30]

conditioning ASTM D2842 [1,3] [1,3]
Chamber drying ASTM C240a [8,36] [8,36]
b e [14]
N/A e e [37]
Immersion Pressurized (>0.5 kPa) eb e [14]
Fully submerged eb [1,3] [1,3]
(<0.5 kPa) without any seal ASTM C272 [28] [30]
Fully submerged eb [8,36] [8,36]
(<0.5 kPa) with edge seal
N/A e [37] [37]
Weighing Remove from the test ASTM C240 [8,36] [8,36]
apparatus before weighing ASTM C272 [28] [30]
Without removal from the test apparatus before weighing ASTM D2842 [1,3] [1,3]
N/A e e [14,37]
Calculation By volume eb [1,3,8,28,36] [1,3,8,14,30,36,37]
By mass e e e
a
Although standard ASTM C240 is designed for cellular glass, but the test procedures are basically the same except the recommended size of test samples.
b
The corresponding method is mentioned but without specific standards clarified in the publication.

Table 5 with the density than the immersion size of test samples.
Density range defined for XPS and EPS in the present report. Fig. 2 summarizes the test results for the moisture content of
Density range XPS EPS EPS derived from water immersion tests. In all three groups of data
(groups #2, #3 and #4), the moisture content is inversely propor-
kg/m3 lbm/ft3 kg/m3 lbm/ft3
tional to the material density. It should be noted that some of the
Low 35 2.2 20 1.2
symbols of “black plus”, which represent the data points of
Medium 35e45 2.2e2.8 20e30 1.2e1.9
High 45 2.8 30 1.9 medium-density materials in group 3, indicated higher values of
moisture content when compared to those of the samples within
low-density range from the same group, shown as the symbols of
“red plus”. This phenomenon is caused by the similarity in the
Considering the fact that for immersion tests, the surface-to-
material density, which is 19.7 kg/m3 (1.2 lbm/ft3) and 21.3 kg/m3
volume ratio may also cause a variation of the material moisture
(1.3 lbm/ft3), respectively, but these two values are classified in the
content, the same set of moisture content data are analyzed with
low- and medium-density ranges according to Table 5. The impact
respect to the ratio between Surface-to-Volume Ratio (SVR) over
of pressure on the moisture content is different from the findings
material density, referenced in this section as “SVR/Density”
concluded from XPS as described in the previous paragraph. One
parameter. A higher “SVR/Density” represents a higher SVR and/or
possible reason for this phenomenon is that the pressure applied
lower density, and generally, the moisture content increases with
on the water surrounding the low-density samples might be easier
higher values of “SVR/Density”. However, the correlations varied
to overcome the resistance caused by the partial closing of the
with “SVR/Density” did not clearly indicate in Fig. 1b. Although the
pores and a slight increase on the moisture content could be
distributions of most points from group 2 can be explained with the
observed when the water is pressurized. Besides pressure impact,
values of “SVR/Density”, the data points from group 1 and group 3
additional finding is derived by comparing data collected on
showed some exceptions and it is difficult to be explained with this
moisture content from different groups with specific procedures. In
parameter. Therefore, the moisture content measured from the
the low-density range, the moisture content provided in group 1
water immersion test on XPS insulation would be better correlated

Fig. 1. Moisture content data collected from water immersion test on XPS (#1 [28], #2 [8,36] and 3 [1,3]) and organized (a) with respect to the density; (b) with respect to the
surface-to-volume/density (SVR/Density) parameter.
 S. Cai et al. / Building and Environment 123 (2017) 50e65
Fig. 2. Moisture content data collected from water immersion test on EPS (# 1 [30], #2 [8,36], #3 [1,3] and #4 [14,37]) and organized (a) with respect to the density; (b) with respect
to the surface-to-volume/density (SVR/Density) parameter.
and 3 indicate higher values than that in group 2, which might be
due to the partial seal during immersion and the sample removal
during weighing. In the medium-density range, the moisture con-
tent in group 3 is observed higher than that in group 2 due to
similar reasons. Similar to the analysis on XPS insulation, the
parameter “SVR/Density” is also considered on EPS as shown in
Fig. 2b. Generally, the symbols of “red dot” and “green triangle”
locate lower than the symbols of “blue square” and “purple cross”,
and the “black plus” symbols locate at the highest position with the
same values on the x-axis. The observation indicates that the value
of “SVR/Density” is able to better predict the variations on the
moisture content than the values of density and the moisture
content increases with higher value of “SVR/Density”. The reason is
that the measuring procedures affect the results of water immer-
sion test and the impact of the specific procedure, which is the area
of surfaces in direct contact with water, could be considered in the
parameter “SVR/Density” during the estimation of moisture
ingress.
3.1.2. Soil immersion tests
In this section, moisture content accumulated in XPS and EPS
were quantified by placing the samples in the moist soil. It should
be noted that no standards currently exist for the moisture test in
soil; therefore, all the data points shown in the figures of this
section do not refer to any standard. Similar to the previous section,
data resources were first classified by “procedures” as indicated in
Table 6 and references with similar procedures should be appro-
priate to be considered in the same group.
Fig. 3 summarizes the variation on the moisture content accu-
mulated in XPS and EPS with time. If one compares the data indi-
cating 2 years (around 700 days) in Fig. 3a with the data in Fig. 1 at
the same time mark of 2 years (around 700 days), it is evident that
Table 6
Analysis on the data by “procedures” of soil immersion test.
Procedure Technique References
XPS
Pre-conditioning Oven drying [8]
Without drying
e
Immersion In the moist silt [8]
In the moist sand e [14]
Weighing By slicing into pieces [8]
Without slicing e [14,37]
Calculation By volume [8]
By mass e e
55
the average amount of moisture is lower in soil tests than that
measured from water immersion tests. This seems reasonable,
because in water immersion tests, larger contact areas are present
between the sample and the liquid water than in the soil immer-
sion tests. Similarly, for EPS shown in Fig. 3b, the moisture content
measured from the soil immersion test indicates lower average
values than those derived from water immersion tests. For
example, for the water immersion test, after 14 days, the average
moisture content of materials in the low-density range is about
4.45% by volume (see Fig. 2a), while the values from the soil im-
mersion test is about 0.15% by volume (see Fig. 3b). The average
moisture content derived from different test methodologies will be
summarized in Section 3.4. Similar to the findings in water im-
mersion test, the impact of density on the amount of water behaves
more significant on XPS insulation and it is clearly observed that
the average moisture content measured in the denser materials
were much lower than the samples in the low-density range. For
EPS insulation shown in Fig. 2b, the three points in group 2 are
derived by burying samples in sand, which provide more humid
ambient than soil, so that these three values are much higher than
the other points. Due to the missing information on the insulation
thickness, the parameter “SVR/Density” is not available in the soil
immersion test.
3.2. Gradient test results
Cold-hot box tests and chamber with cold surface tests are two
typical types of gradient tests that are used for testing moisture
absorption. The testing facility for cold-hot box tests can be used to
test the insulation in direct contact with either moist air or liquid
water. The chamber with a cold surface is more often used for direct
contact with liquid water. At the same dry-bulb temperatures, cold-
hot box methods can provide higher water vapor pressure differ-
ences through the insulation than those using the chamber with a
cold surface. The specific procedures of gradient tests are listed in
Table 7 and the test results would be categorized into groups ac-
cording to similar procedures.
Fig. 4a shows the experimental results from gradient tests on
EPS
the moisture content measured in XPS insulation. The effect of
[8] density on the variation of the system's moisture content is not
[14,37]
quite clear from this plot. Data points in group 1 represent test
[8,37]
results of cold-hot box method and those in group 2 indicate the
[8] gradient test methodology of chamber with cold surface. The
maximum test length for cold-hot box and the chamber with cold
[8,14,37] surface was found to be about 1800 days and 56 days, respectively.
The test length for the latter method is typically shorter than the
56 S. Cai et al. / Building and Environment 123 (2017) 50e65

Fig. 3. Moisture content data collected from soil immersion test on: (a) XPS ([8]) and (b) EPS (#1 [8], #2 [14] and #3 [37]).

Table 7
Analysis on the data by “procedures” of gradient tests.

Procedure Technique Standards References

XPS EPS

Pre-conditioning Chamber drying EN 12088 e [14]

N/A [7,38,39] [7,38,39]
N/A N/A [28,40] [30,40]
Humidification Cold side without seal (higher RH @ hot side) N/A [38,40] [38,40]
Cold side without seal (higher RH @ cold side) N/A [28,38]a [30,38]2
Cold side with seal EN 12088 e [14]
N/A [7,39] [7,30,39]
Weighing Remove and weight N/A [7,28,38e40] [7,14,30,38e40]
Calculation By volume N/A [7,28,38,40] [7,14,30,38,40]
By mass N/A [39] [39]
a
Reference [30] contains data derived from both sealed and unsealed cold surface tests.

Fig. 4. Moisture content data collected from gradient tests on XPS (#1 [28,38,40] and #2 [7,39]) and organized (a) with respect to the density; (b) with respect to the partial water
vapor pressure gradient/density (dPP/Density) parameter.

cold-hot box test. This is because (i) higher absorption rates are
observed when the insulation is in direct contact with liquid water,
and (ii) operation costs for conducting these types of tests are high.
For gradient tests, temperature and humidity gradients are
important factors in moisture absorption. In order to further study
moisture content's variation over time among different groups, the
impact of partial water vapor gradient (dPP) should be considered.
A new factor, “dPP/Density,” was defined in this paper, and it rep-
resents the ratio between the partial water vapor pressure gradient
over the material dry density. Higher values of the factor “dPP/
Density” mean a larger water vapor gradient; more specifically, this
means higher driving force for moisture ingress and lower resis-
tance to moisture ingress inside the insulation test specimen. The
moisture content data were re-organized in Fig. 4b, according to the
“dPP/Density” factors. High “dPP/Density” factors yielded to high
moisture content and it was clear that the “dPP/Density” factors
characterize very well the insulation moisture content dependence
in these types of tests. The major difference in the specific pro-
cedures during humidification was appropriately included in the
parameter “dPP/Density” and this parameter would help better
analyze reported data by different literature studies. It should be
noted that the data circled out in group A (see Fig. 4b) shows much
 S. Cai et al. / Building and Environment 123 (2017) 50e65 57

lower moisture content than the other data classified in the same
group (group 1 and group 2), this phenomenon may cause by the
following two reasons. First, for the symbols of “red circle” in group
A, researchers derived this data by applying higher humidity at the
cold side, which leads to a very low value of “dPP/Density”. Second,
the symbols of “purple cross” represent test result of samples with
dense surface, which also leads to extremely low moisture
absorption.
Fig. 5 indicates the moisture absorption data set reported in the
literature for EPS insulation. Compared to the test results on XPS,
the moisture content data for EPS are more scattered, but the trends
indicate that EPS insulation absorbs more water than XPS for some
specific cases. Similar to the findings on XPS in Fig. 4a, it is difficult
to explain the variations on data points by simply comparing ma-
terial density, such as the scattered distributions of “red circles”
within the low-density range. However, by taking “dPP/Density”
into consideration, it is observed that in both groups 1 and 2, most
of the data points correlated with the variations on this newly
introduced parameter and the moisture content is generally
increased with higher values on “dPP/Density”. Some exceptions
were found around day 28 when “dPP/Density” was higher than
0.07 and these results were derived from publications after year
1990. Therefore, it might be possible that manufacturing tech-
niques improved after year 1990 which cause a decrease on the
insulation effective thermal conductivity.
3.3. Field testing results
Moisture content can be evaluated from field testing by col-
lecting samples from the actual application environments. The data
reviewed from the field studies in North America and Canada are
summarized and categorized with detailed conditions shown in
Table 8. Data points derived under similar conditions are consid-
ered in the same group and are further compared in Fig. 6.
Fig. 6a indicates the moisture content measured in XPS insu-
lation which were derived from field applications. Data points in
groups 1, 2 and 3 represent moisture content of test samples
derived from below-grade applications with failed conditions, from
below-grade applications with normal conditions and from roof
applications with undefined conditions, respectively. It should be
noted that typical failure reasons reported in the failed conditions
are: the protective coating was damaged, deteriorating or absent;
gap existed between the bottom of the siding and the insulation;
the system was poorly drained, etc. Due to the uncertain conditions,
it is difficult to determine the density impact on the amount of
moisture ingress into insulation quantitatively. Data points in group
1 show that the moisture content derived in the materials within
low-density range vary more when compare to that derived in the
materials within medium-density. The possible reason for the
narrower fluctuation band at medium-density is that it would be
more difficult for denser materials to absorb water from, as well as

Fig. 5. Moisture content data collected from gradient tests on EPS (#1 [30,38,40] and #2 [7,14,30,39]) and organized with respect to (a)density and (b) the partial water vapor
pressure gradient/density (“dPP/Density”).

Table 8
Analysis on the data by details of field testing.

Sample sourcesa Application Failure situationb References

XPS EPS
c
From normal buildings Below-grade Failed [2,37,41,42] [2,14,37,41,42]
Not failed e [2,14,37]
N/A [1e3,37,43e47] [1,3,46e48]
Membrane roof, Failedc e e
USD roof, etc. Not failed e e
N/A [1,3,45,49,50] [1,3]
From test buildings Below-grade Failedc [51] [51]
Not failed e [52,53]
N/A [54] e
Membrane roof, Failedc e e
USD roof, etc. Not failed e e
N/A [7] [7]
a
“Normal buildings” means that the buildings in actual use rather than experimental facilities, while “Test buildings” means that the buildings are designed as experimental
facilities.
b
References [2,14,37] contain data derived from both failed and normal insulation systems.
c
Typical failure reasons are: below-grade protective coating was damaged, the above-grade protective coating was deteriorating or absent, a gap existed between the
bottom of the siding and the insulation, the system is poorly drained.
58 S. Cai et al. / Building and Environment 123 (2017) 50e65
Fig. 6. Moisture content collected from in-situ tests on (a) XPS (#1 [2,37,41,42,51], #2 [1e3,37,43e47,54] and #3 [1,3,7,45,49,50]); (b) EPS (#1 [2,14,37,41,42,51], #2 [2,14,37,52,53],
#3 [1,3,46e48] and #4 [1,3,7]).
release water to the ambient. However, this phenomenon is
different in group 2. Within the same time period between 1 year
and 5 years, the variations on the moisture content derived from
materials within low- and medium-density ranges are very similar.
This is because all the data points in group 2 were derived from
applications with normal conditions; these protective conditions
may help prevent unstable variations and the density affect become
minor. However, data in different groups indicate that the moisture
content in XPS may increase to high level (higher than 60% by
volume) after certain years of operation, ten years, for example,
which might be caused by the continuous accumulation of water, or
the breakage of cell structures, etc.
Fig. 6b indicates the moisture content measured in EPS insu-
lation which were derived from field applications. Data points in
groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 represent moisture content of test samples
derived from below-grade applications with failed conditions, from
below-grade applications with normal conditions, from below-
grade applications with undefined conditions and from roof ap-
plications with undefined conditions, respectively. Generally, EPS
insulation showed a large scattering of the data of moisture content
versus years of operation in the application environment. Similar to
the previous findings in the experimental data analysis, density is
not an appropriate parameter on the evaluation of moisture con-
tent and the data points with different density ranges vary versus
time without regularity. Parameters “SVR/Density” and “dPP/Den-
sity” might be helpful for detailed study on the variation of mois-
ture content, but these parameters are difficult to be derived due to
the unstable and cycling effect of ambient conditions in the field.
One important finding in Fig. 6b is that the high values of moisture
content in group 4 were collected from roof applications. This
phenomenon might be explained by the difficulties in designing
appropriate drainage on the roofs, especially on the flat roofs.
Without the values provided in group 4, the moisture content in
EPS insulation decreased dramatically down to 10% by volume
within 19 years.
3.4. Comparison of the moisture content derived from laboratory
tests and from field testing
The moisture content values measured from laboratory tests on
XPS and EPS are compared in the forms of maximum values (MAX),
minimum values (MIN), average values (AVG), and standard
deviation (SD) as tabulated in Table 9 and Table 10. These values are
derived according to the data points collected on specific test
lengths. “SVR/Density” and ”dPP/Density” are two new parameters
to evaluate test results retrieved from samples with different
shapes, dimensions, density ranges, and test conditions. With these
two new parameters, researchers are able to collect more compa-
rable data either from experiment or from literature, and further
evaluate the moisture behavior of XPS and EPS without require-
ment of batch experiments. However, in almost one-third of the
current studies, relevant information on the material properties
and test conditions was not well documented with the published
data. From test results on both XPS and EPS, it seems that isotherm
test with “SVR/Density” provide faster moisture ingress when
compare to the gradient test with “dPP/Density”. This phenomenon
is observed by comparing average values of moisture content re-
ported on specific days. Table 11 tabulated the moisture content
values measured from field tests on XPS and EPS. Further,
comparing the average values of field test results with the average
values derived from laboratory gradient tests at the timeline of
1000 days, it shows that most laboratory testing provided higher
moisture content and faster absorption rates than the field test. This
observation was somewhat expected and can be generalized,
because laboratory test methods tend to replicate the moisture
ingress phenomena observed in the field by possibly accelerating
the moisture transfer process in the controlled environments in
laboratory.
However, there are other factors that contributed to this result.
First, in the actual field application environments, there is a natural
seasonal climate cycling process that alternates between wetting
and drying periods on the insulation, which tend to reduce the
actual moisture accumulation rate of the EPS and XPS insulation
with respect to the long-term predictions based on extrapolation of
the laboratory data; while cycling effects are only taken into
consideration when conducting freezing and thawing type mea-
surements, and most laboratory test methods commonly used to
generate moisture content projections across time fail to consider
the cycling effects. Second, the test samples in the laboratory are
often prepared without consideration of the actual surface-to-
volume ratio of the insulation as it is installed in the application
environment. When the surface-to-volume ratio of the test samples
prepared in the laboratory is not representative of the actual
surface-to-volume ratio of the insulation systems installed in the
 S. Cai et al. / Building and Environment 123 (2017) 50e65 59

Table 9
Comparison of the moisture content derived from different test methodologies on XPS.

Test measurement Moisture content in XPS (% by volume)

14 days 28 days 120 days 1000 days

Isotherm Test (Water)

SVR/Density ¼ 0.01 MAX ¼ 1.78 MAX ¼ 2 MAX ¼ 1.09 e
MIN ¼ 0.45 MIN ¼ 0.5 MIN ¼ 0.76
AVG ¼ 0.97 AVG ¼ 1.1 AVG ¼ 0.93
SD ¼ 0.54 SD ¼ 0.64 SD ¼ 0.17
SVR/Density ¼ 0.02 MAX ¼ 1.8 MAX ¼ 3.55 MAX ¼ 4.55 e
MIN ¼ 0.23 MIN ¼ 0.45 MIN ¼ 2.61
AVG ¼ 1.25 AVG ¼ 2.16 AVG ¼ 3.43
SD ¼ 0.91 SD ¼ 1.09 SD ¼ 0.82
Isotherm Test (Soil)
SVR/Density ¼ 0.02 e e e MAX ¼ 1.31
MIN ¼ 0.44
AVG ¼ 0.79
SD ¼ 0.29
Gradient Test
dPP/Density ¼ 0e0.01 MAX ¼ 0.85 e MAX ¼ 0.02 e
MIN ¼ 0.85 MIN ¼ 0.01
AVG ¼ 0.85 AVG ¼ 0.016
SD ¼ 0 SD ¼ 0.003
dPP/Density ¼ 0.02e0.03 MAX ¼ 1.3 MAX ¼ 2.38 e e
MIN ¼ 1.19 MIN ¼ 1.65
AVG ¼ 1.25 AVG ¼ 2.02
SD ¼ 0.06 SD ¼ 0.37
dPP/Density ¼ 0.04e0.06 e e e MAX ¼ 7.5
MIN ¼ 5.9
AVG ¼ 6.7
SD ¼ 0.8

Table 10
Comparison of the moisture content derived from different test methodologies on EPS.

Test measurement Moisture content in XPS (% by volume)

14 days 28 days 120 days 1000 days

Isotherm Test (Water)

SVR/Density ¼ 0.02 MAX ¼ 4.83 MAX ¼ 5.45 MAX ¼ 2.86 e
MIN ¼ 0.5 MIN ¼ 1.76 MIN ¼ 2.86
AVG ¼ 2.91 AVG ¼ 3.6 AVG ¼ 2.86
SD ¼ 1.8 SD ¼ 1.85 SD ¼ 0
SVR/Density ¼ 0.03 MAX ¼ 7.39 MAX ¼ 3.75 e e
MIN ¼ 3.12 MIN ¼ 3.43
AVG ¼ 4.58 AVG ¼ 3.59
SD ¼ 1.99 SD ¼ 0.16
SVR/Density ¼ 0.04 MAX ¼ 7.65 MAX ¼ 5.26 MAX ¼ 6.9 e
MIN ¼ 3.53 MIN ¼ 4.12 MIN ¼ 6.9
AVG ¼ 5.15 AVG ¼ 4.69 AVG ¼ 6.9
SD ¼ 1.61 SD ¼ 0.57 SD ¼ 0
Isotherm Test (Soil)
SVR/Density ¼ 0.04 e e e MAX ¼ 1.7
MIN ¼ 1.7
AVG ¼ 1.7
SD ¼ 0
Gradient Test
dPP/Density ¼ 0e0.03 MAX ¼ 1.1 MAX ¼ 2.15 MAX ¼ 0.006 -
MIN ¼ 1.1 MIN ¼ 0.43 MIN ¼ 0.001
AVG ¼ 1.1 AVG ¼ 1.32 AVG ¼ 0.003
SD ¼ 0 SD ¼ 0.64 SD ¼ 0.002
dPP/Density ¼ 0.04e0.06 MAX ¼ 2.23 MAX ¼ 1.9 MAX ¼ 7.2 MAX ¼ 52.3
MIN ¼ 2.23 MIN ¼ 1.9 MIN ¼ 7.2 MIN ¼ 52.3
AVG ¼ 2.23 AVG ¼ 1.9 AVG ¼ 7.2 AVG ¼ 52.3
SD ¼ 0 SD ¼ 0 SD ¼ 0 SD ¼ 0
dPP/Density ¼ 0.07e0.1 MAX ¼ 4.96 MAX ¼ 6.2 e MAX ¼ 58.3
MIN ¼ 4.96 MIN ¼ 5.5 MIN ¼ 58.3
AVG ¼ 4.96 AVG ¼ 5.85 AVG ¼ 58.3
SD ¼ 0 SD ¼ 0.35 SD ¼ 0

application environment, the moisture accumulation rates exposure for water ingress versus the volume of insulation avail-
collected from laboratory test methods are also not representative able for water (moisture) retention are different in the two cases.
of the moisture accumulation rates in the field. The area of An extrapolation from laboratory data to actual performance in the
60 S. Cai et al. / Building and Environment 123 (2017) 50e65
Table 11
Comparison of the moisture content derived from field test on XPS and EPS.
Test measurement Moisture content (% by volume)
1 yr
XPS in below-grade applications e (MAX ¼ 1.09
Normal (failed)a
XPS in roof applications MAX ¼ 1.3
N/Ab MIN ¼ 0.72
AVG ¼ 1.01
SD ¼ 0.29
EPS in below-grade applications Normal (failed)a MAX ¼ 0.21
MIN ¼ 0.11
AVG ¼ 0.16
SD ¼ 0.03
EPS in roof applications MAX ¼ 31.15
N/Ab MIN ¼ 11
AVG ¼ 19.31
SD ¼ 8.08
a
The definition of “failed” refer to the footnote of Table 8.
b
No detailed description on the test conditions for all data points provided in roof applications.
field is difficult to justify because of a lack of geometric similarities,
which are key to moisture transport in insulation systems [55]. For
these reasons, no accurate mathematical functions, derived from
statistical curve-fitting methods, exist that translate the experi-
mental findings gathered from laboratory test methods in perfor-
mance predictions for EPS and XPS in field application
environments [4]. Because of the unpredictable climate of the
application environments and the unsystematic controls of tem-
perature and humidity at the test sample boundaries, in-situ field
measurements cannot be used to generate correlations for pre-
dicting moisture content inside insulation. Laboratory test
methods, on the other hand, still remain viable venues for gener-
ating data for the development of first principle, physics-based
models of moisture transport in insulation. Once these models
are ready, they can be verified with in-situ field measurements and
potentially used for long-term performance projections of EPS and
XPS in their application environments. However, by considering
parameters of “SVR/Density”, ”dPP/Density” and cycling effect, it
might be possible to find a laboratory procedure that can be directly
used to predict long-term performance, instead of only being used
as validation data for simulation models.
4. Classification on the test methods for thermal conductivity
measurements of wet insulation
4.1. Laboratory methods
The literature defined two types of thermal conductivity:
nominal thermal conductivity and apparent thermal conductivity.
When moisture distribution within the material is in the steady
state and there is no liquid movement within the material, the
nominal thermal conductivity is a material property, and it depends
upon moisture content and temperature, but not on testing con-
ditions. Apparent thermal conductivity, on the other hand, takes
the moisture transfer into consideration. Steady state methods
include guarded hot plates (GHP) [56,57], heat flow meters (HFM)
[58e60], thin heater apparatus (THA) [61] and hot box methods
[62]. Steady state methods are preferred for measuring the nominal
thermal conductivity and the apparent thermal conductivity of
moist insulation only if appropriate insulation boundary conditions
are replicated in the laboratory. However, for the measurement of
the apparent thermal conductivity without appropriate insulation
boundary conditions, steady state test methods do not perform well
3 yrs (1000 days) 10 yrs 15 yrs
e e
MIN ¼ 0.03
AVG ¼ 0.46
SD ¼ 0.4)
MAX ¼ 1.88 e e
MIN ¼ 1.55
AVG ¼ 1.72
SD ¼ 0.17
MAX ¼ 4.43 MAX ¼ 2.7 MAX ¼ 6.8
MIN ¼ 1.1 MIN ¼ 1.1 MIN ¼ 6.8
AVG ¼ 2.23 AVG ¼ 1.93 AVG ¼ 6.8
SD ¼ 0.91 SD ¼ 0.58 SD ¼ 0
MAX ¼ 44.87 e e
MIN ¼ 23.08
AVG ¼ 37.45
SD ¼ 10.17
on moist insulation with low heat fluxes and high permeability.
Transient test methods includes the transient hot wire (THW) [63],
transient hot strip (THS) and transient plane source technique (TPS)
[64e66] methods, their testing time that is typically very short.
This feature overcomes the issue caused by irregular and uncon-
trolled moisture redistribution within the insulation material due
to variations of the insulation boundary conditions during testing.
However, the experimental data measured with transient test
methods are often not representative of the insulation mean values
because of possible material inhomogeneity. The authors' previous
work [21] provided a specific review of the main laboratory test
methodologies for the measurement of the nominal and apparent
thermal conductivity of moist insulation.
4.2. Field testing
In-situ measurements are applied directly to the insulation
exposed to the field application environment. The measurements
provide direct estimations of the thermal performance of the
insulation as installed and serviced in the field. However, consid-
ering that field ambient conditions are inherently not stable nor
steady state, as well as that field installation quality may vary from
site to site, the results from field measurements are often not
repeatable and sometimes not representative of the average per-
formance of the insulation. The sensors used during the measure-
ments can either be portable devices (such as a thermal
conductivity probe) or in-situ devices, which are previously
installed together with the insulation. These test methodologies
have been standardized to the relevant standards, such as ASTM
C1046 [67] and ASTM C1155 [68]. Heat flux transducers (HFT,
similar to HFM) [52,69], heat flow comparators (HFC) [70] are
widely-used for steady state or transient measurements. The
thermal conductivity values measured in the field by using steady
state methods consider moisture movements within the insulation,
and these values belong to the definition of apparent thermal
conductivity measurements. Due to the moisture's continuous
travels within the insulation, probing one sample for moisture
content in a specific location within the insulation system does not
often provide consistency and repeatability of the measurements.
One method of assessing this range of values is to subject moist
specimens to conditions similar to those that occur in buildings and
to measure periodically their heat flows and temperature differ-
ences over a set period of time; nominally a year would be required
 S. Cai et al. / Building and Environment 123 (2017) 50e65 61

for a full cycle of effects to occur. Table 13

Temperature range defined for XPS and EPS.

Temperature range XPS&EPS

5. Data analysis on the thermal conductivity in XPS and EPS
 
C F
5.1. Discussion on the variation of TCR Low 0e10 32e50
Medium 10e30 50e86
Data collected from previous literature studies are categorized High >30 >86

by test methods and are divided into groups with similar tech-
niques, as tabulated in Table 12. It should be noted that although
test samples were derived from different applications, such as
below-grade insulation, roof insulation and laboratory conditioned
insulation, these applications correlate with water accumulation
and distribution in the materials. The studies reviewed in this paper
focused more on the variation of insulation thermal conductivity
with the amount of water and the impact of moisture distribution
on the effective thermal conductivity would not be included due to
the lack of detailed information. Related study on the moisture
distribution has been reviewed and discussed thoroughly in the
authors' previous work [21].
The variations of the thermal conductivity of XPS and EPS are
plotted with moisture content and with other properties, such as
the insulation density and mean insulation temperature. The
insulation's mean temperatures were grouped in three categories
(i.e., low, medium, and high temperature range), as shown on
Table 13.
Fig. 7 plots the variations on the values of thermal conductivity
ratio (TCR) with moisture content in the insulation lower than 50%
by volume. Within this amount of water, TCR ranges within 1.2,
which is an appropriate range to guarantee system performance, in
the insulation industry, and TCRs above 1.2 might be considered
unacceptable from an end-user perspective. The collected data are
divided into three groups in order to further study the impacts of
measuring techniques, insulation mean temperature and material
density on the system effective thermal conductivity. Group 1, 2
and 3 include thermal conductivity data derived by GHP method,
HFM method and undefined test method, respectively. It should be
noted that about 80% of the data on TCR were not directly reported
in the resources, and the authors of this review computed these
values. This ratio are determined from the effective thermal con-
ductivity measured with specific amount of water, which are nor-
mally provided in the tables or plots of the published work, over the
dry values of the same material reported in the identical study and
at similar temperatures. If the dry values are not documented in the
resource, this baseline data would be derived by following the re-
ported variation curves of effective thermal conductivity versus
moisture content, and selected the point at extremely low amount
of water (lower than 0.05% by volume). However, in the studies
applying test techniques of “thermal conductivity robe” and “heat
flux comparator”, the dry values on the effective thermal conduc-
tivity are difficult to be determined and the data from these
research work are not considered in the following analysis.
Fig. 7a indicates the variation of TCR with moisture in XPS
insulation and it seems that the values of TCR fluctuate within a
narrow range. Due to the limited data in this range, it is difficult to
quantify the difference among diverse test methods. If select two
groups of data measured on test samples with similar density and
temperature (the green triangles and the blue squares), it seems
that test results of group 1 (GHP) are slightly higher than those in
the group 2 (HFM). However, to reach a conclusion on the accuracy
of each method requires further studies on the physical theory of
these test techniques. From the current data set, test results derived
from different measuring devices are comparable and the fluctua-
tions on the values of TCR are within acceptable range. The impacts
of insulation mean temperature and material density are evaluated
according to the data provided in the group 2. The symbols of “red
circle” and “blue square” represent the measurement of samples at
low and medium temperature, and results indicate that tempera-
ture has minor effect on the values of TCR. If further compare the
symbols of “blue square” with “purple diamond”, which represent
the measurement of samples at low temperature, but medium
density, the results on TCR almost overlap when the moisture
content is lower than 5% by volume. If the moisture content is
higher than 5%, TCR increases slightly faster in low-density material
than in medium-density, but the uncertainty might be the reason
that leads to such difference (see the error bars in Fig. 7a). There-
fore, in the current range of moisture, the values of TCR indicates a
linear increasing with water content and according to the reported
set of data, measuring technique, insulation mean temperature and
material density cause minor effect on the values of TCR.
Fig. 7b indicates the variation of TCR in EPS insulation with
moisture. Similar to the analysis in XPS insulation, the impacts of
test technique, insulation mean temperature and material density
are also investigated by comparing TCR values provided in different
series of data. From the symbols of “orange cross”, “black plus” and
“red star”, which represent test results of samples with similar

Table 12
Analysis on the data source of thermal conductivity.

Applicationa Test methods Standards References

XPS EPS

Below-grade Guarded hot plates ASTM C177 [54] N/A

N/A [1,3] [1,3]
Heat flow meter ASTM C518 [41e45,49e51] [41,42,48,51,53]
Thermal conductivity probe N/A [47] [47]
Heat flux comparator N/A [52,70] [52,70]
N/A N/A [2] [2,14]
Roof Guarded hot plates N/A [1,3] [1,3]
Heat flow meter ASTM C518 [45,49,50] N/A
N/A N/A [16, 71] [16]
Laboratory Heat flow meter ASTM C518 [7,28,38,39] [7,30,38,39]
Guarded hot plates N/A [1,3] [1,3]
a
The term “application” here means the sources of the specimens, the term “laboratory” means the specimens were not ever used in the field applications while the other
two refers to the specimens wer derived directly from fields.
62 S. Cai et al. / Building and Environment 123 (2017) 50e65
Fig. 7. The thermal conductivity ratio data of XPS and EPS in the region of TCR ranging from 1 to 2: (a) XPS (#1 [1,3,54], #2 [7,28,38,39,41e45,49e51] and #3 [2, 16, 71]) and (b) EPS
(#1 [1,3,54], #2 [7,28,38,39,41e45,49e51] and #3 [2, 16, 71]).
density and at similar temperatures, it is observed that the values of
TCR measured in group 1 is lower than those in group 2, but the
differences decrease with higher moisture content. However, the
uncertainty might be the reason that leads to such difference. Data
points in group 2 are still preferable reference to estimate impacts
of other factors on the values of TCR, and these factors are insu-
lation mean temperature and material density. The symbols of “red
circle” and “blue square” represent test results of low-density
samples at different temperatures. With an acceptable overlap in
the low moisture region, it seems that the temperature impact
could be neglected during the analysis of TCR. In order to investi-
gate the impact of material density on TCR, the symbols of “blue
square”, “black plus” and “yellow long bar” are selected for further
comparison. These points represent data derived on the samples at
medium temperature, but in different density ranges. From the
comparison, it is found that in medium-density material, TCR be-
haves similar with that of high-density material, but increases
faster than that of low-density material when moisture content
ranges from 1% to 10% by volume. One possible explanation is that
EPS at low density may be manufactured with “better fusion and
less void” [51] and may perform better than the materials at
medium-density. Therefore, in the current range of moisture, the
values of TCR in EPS insulation indicates a linear increasing with
water content, which is similar to the findings in XPS. According to
the reported set of data, the impact of measuring technique and
insulation mean temperature could almost be neglected, but ma-
terial density seems to affect TCR in specific moisture range, that is,
around 1%e10%.
Fig. 8 shows the variation of TCR with moisture content
expanded upto 56% in XPS and 64% in EPS. According to the pre-
vious findings, these data are only divided by material density. By
comparing the values reported with moisture content more than
25%, the increasing rate on TCR of low-density materials are higher
than that of medium-density materials in XPS insulation (see
Fig. 8a). For EPS insulation, the increasing rate on TCR of medium-
density seems to be higher than low-density material when the
moisture content ranged from 10% to 25%, but the differences
gradually decrease at high moisture level. These outcomes match
well with the findings derived in Fig. 7. The statistical analysis on
TCR would be tabulated in Table 14 in the following section.
5.2. Empirical correlations on TCR of wet insulation
Clear trends of the TCRs were observed for XPS and EPS in Fig. 8a
and b, respectively. It is possible to develop empirical correlations
for predicting the variations of TCRs of EPS and XPS with moisture
content by using the data reviewed from the literature and that
were presented in the previous figures. TCRs were estimated with
 S. Cai et al. / Building and Environment 123 (2017) 50e65
Fig. 8. Thermal conductivity ratio (TCR) data versus moisture content (a)XPS insulation products [1e3, 7, 16, 28, 37e39, 41e46, 49e51, 54, 69, 71] and (b) EPS insulation products
[1e3, 7, 16, 30, 37e39, 41, 42, 46, 48, 51, 53, 72].
Table 14
Correlation parameter and statistical analysis on the thermal conductivity ratio of XPS and EPS (Vw<25%).
Insulation type a MAX
XPS Low density 0.0406 1.11
Medium density 0.0251 1.04
High density e
EPS Low density 0.0353 1.01
Medium density 0.0452 1.05
High density 0.0599 1.05
Note: Statistical analysis was derived at Vw ¼ 1%.
linear correlations of the type
TCR [ - ] ¼ a , Vw [% by volume] þ 1 (1)
where Vw is the moisture content percentage by volume and a is
coefficient reported in Table 14. The coefficient in the linear cor-
relations were determined from statistical analysis of the data
shown in Fig. 8. With respect to the original experimental data, the
newly developed linear correlations predicted the TCR within
±23%, ±12% for XPS products at low- and medium-density, and
±20%, ±15%, ±13% for EPS products at low-, medium- and high-
density. However, predicting the moisture content in these prod-
ucts is not a trivial task, and more advanced models, which must be
also experimentally validated, are required for future work in this
field.
6. Conclusions
This paper aims to provide a better way to use current data set
collection on the moisture behavior and thermal performance of
XPS and EPS insulation, with the impacts of measuring techniques,
test conditions, insulation mean temperature and material density
on the relevant test results studied and clarified.
Isotherm test and gradient test are two main types of laboratory
methods used to determine the variation of moisture content with
time. Two new parameters, “SVR/Density” and “dPP/Density” are
appropriate parameters to include the major impact from different
boundary conditions during moisture test. Results show that in
most cases, the moisture content increases with higher values of
“SVR/Density” in isotherm test and of “dPP/Density” in gradient
test, respectively. These two parameters would help analyze the
moisture behavior of polystyrene thermal insulation even if the
samples are tested with various properties and conditions. Till now,
there is not yet a single laboratory test that can adequately replicate
63
MIN AVG SD D
1.03 1.07 0.04 ±23%
1.04 1.04 0 ±12%
0.97 0.99 0.02 ±20%
1.03 1.04 0.01 ±15%
1.05 1.05 0 ±13%
moisture conditions observed in the field for EPS and XPS insu-
lation. The laboratory tests generally provide higher moisture
content values and bigger absorption rates than the field tests; this
phenomenon is probably caused by higher values of “SVR/Density”
and “dPP/Density”, and also the neglect of cycling effects. By
considering these impact factors, it might be possible to find a
laboratory method that can be directly used to predict long-term
performance, instead of only being considered as validation data
for simulation models.
TCR is an effective parameter to evaluate the thermal perfor-
mance of XPS and EPS with moisture ingress. The impacts of
measuring techniques, insulation mean temperature and material
density on the values of TCR are studied. Results show that
measuring techniques and insulation mean temperature have mi-
nor effect on the values of TCR, but density behaves differently on
the thermal performance of XPS and EPS insulation. When the
moisture content is low, it seems that the TCR normalizes the
density effect on the thermal conductivity data of wet insulation.
However, when the moisture content increases higher than 10%,
TCR increases faster in XPS with lower density. In EPS, the values of
TCR fluctuate more in the medium moisture range, around 1e10%,
and in this range, TCR of low-density material performs better than
medium-density samples due to the internal structure with “better
fusion and less void”. As clear trend that observed on TCR with
moisture content, linear empirical correlations are proposed for
predicting TCR of EPS and XPS with moisture content and material
density by considering data set reviewed in the literature. These
newly developed linear correlations predict the thermal conduc-
tivity of wet insulation within ±12e23% for XPS and ±13e20% for
EPS, with respect to the original experimental data.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank and acknowledge EPS Industry
64 S. Cai et al. / Building and Environment 123 (2017) 50e65

Alliance for funding and supporting this work under the RFP enti- [15] C.W. Kaplar, Effects of Moisture and Freeze-thaw on Rigid Thermal Insu-
lations: a Laboratory Investigation, vol. 1, 1978, pp. 403e417.
tled d Polystyrene Rigid Foam Insulation Water Absorption Liter-
[16] T. McFadden, Thermal performance degradation of wet insulations in cold
ature Review. regions, J. Cold Regions Eng. 2 (1) (1988) 25e34.
[17] M.K. Kumaran, Moisture transport through glass - fibre insulation in the
presence of a thermal gradient, J. Therm. insulation 10 (1987) 243e255.
Names and abbreviations [18] W.J. Batty, S.D. Probert, M. Ball, P.W. O'Callaghan, Use of the thermal - probe
technique for the measurement of the apparent thermal conductivities of
AVG average value moist materials, Appl. energy 18 (4) (1984) 301e317.
[19] M. Kehrer, H.M. Kunzel, K. Sedlbauer, Ecological insulation materials - does
D deviation from the experimental data sorption moisture affect their insulation performance? J. Therm. Envelope
dPP/Density partial water vapor pressure difference/density Build. Sci. 26 (3) (2002) 207e212.
EPS expanded polystyrene [20] C. Langlais, M. Hyrien, S. Klarsfeld, Moisture Migration in Fibrous Insulating
Material under the Influence of a Thermal Gradient and its Effect on Thermal
MAX maximum value Resistance, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1982.
MC moisture content [21] S. Cai, L. Cremaschi, A. Ghajar, Pipe insulation thermal conductivity under dry
MIN minimum value and wet condensing conditions with moisture ingress: a critical review,
HVAC&R Res. J. 20 (4) (2014) 458e479.
P pressure
[22] E. Vereecken, S. Roels, A comparison of the hygric performance of interior
RH relative humidity insulation systems: a hot boxecold box experiment, Energy & Build. 80
SD standard deviation (2014) 37e44. %\ 2016-03-02 09:23:00.
SVR water-contact surface area/sample volume [23] S.U. Susha Lekshmi, D.N. Singh, M.S. Baghini, A critical review of soil moisture
measurement, Measurement 54 (2014) 92e105.
SVR/Density SVR/Density [24] G.-j. Chen, X.-w. Liu, Y.-m. Chen, X.-g. Guo, Y.-q. Deng, Development of
T temperature experimental study on coupled heat and moisture transfer in porous building
TCR thermal conductivity in wet condition/thermal envelope, J. Central South Univ. Technol. 19 (3) (2012) 669e674.
[25] S. Tada, K. Watanabe, An overview of principles and techniques of moisture
conductivity in dry condition properties measurement for building materials and components, in: France-
Vw moisture content by volume (in percentage. %) Japan Workshop on Mass-energy Transfer and Deterioration of Building Ma-
XPS extruded polystyrene terials and Components, 1998. Tsukuba, Japan.
[26] W.R. Whalley, T.J. Dean, P. Izzard, Evaluation of the capacitance technique as a
method for dynamically measuring soil water content, J. Agric. Eng. Res. 52 (2)
Subscript (1992) 147e155.
[27] Z. Pavlik, J. Mihulka, L. Fiala, R. Cerny, Application of time-domain reflec-
air ambient air
tometry for measurement of moisture profiles in a drying experiment, Int. J.
cold cold box side Thermophys. 33 (8e9) (2012) 1661e1673.
cold-surface cold surface side [28] S. XPS, SPI XPS Moisture Absorption Simulation, 1983.
hot hot box side [29] I. Gnip, V. Kersulis, V. Jelis, S, S. Vaitkus, Long-term Water Absorption of
Expanded Polystyrene Boards, 2006.
soil soil or sand used for immersion [30] S. EPS, SPI EPS Moisture Absorption Simulation, 1983.
water water used for immersion [31] M. Du Kov, Materials research on EPS20 and EPS15 under representative
conditions in pavement structures, Geotext. Geomembranes 15 (1e3) (1997)
147e181.
References [32] E. Vereecken, S. Roels, A comparison of the hygric performance of interior
insulation systems: a hot boxecold box experiment, Energy Build. 80 (2014)
[1] F.J. Dechow, K.A. Epstein, Laboratory and field investigations of moisture ab- 37e44.
sorption and its effect on thermal performance of various insulations, Therm. [33] K. Li, X. Zhang, J. Gao, Experimental investigation of hygrothermal parameters
Transm. Meas. Insulation, ASTM STP 660 (1978) 234e260. %\ 2016-01-08 09: of building materials under isothermal conditions, J. Build. Phys. 32 (4) (2009)
03:00. 355e370.
[2] J.H. Crandell, Below-ground performance of rigid polystyrene foam insulation: [34] J.R. Mumaw, A Test Protocol for Comparison of the Moisture Absorption
review of effective thermal resistivity values used in ASCE standard 32-01- Behavior of Below-ambient Piping Insulation Systems Operating in Hot-
design and construction of frost-protected shallow foundations, J. Cold Re- humid Environments, American Society for Testing and Materials,
gions Eng. 24 (2) (2010) 35e53. Charleston, SC, USA, 2002.
[3] K.A. Epstein, L.E. Putnam, Performance criteria for the protected membrane [35] A. Lakatos, F. Kalmar, Examination of the change of the overall heat transfer
roof system, J. Build. Phys. 1 (2) (1977) 149e167. coefficients of building structures in function of water content, Build. Serv.
[4] J. Whalen, Performance of molded expanded polystyrene (EPS) thermal Eng. Res. Technol. 35 (5) (2014) 507e515.
insulation in below-grade applications, October 21, 2002-October 22, 2002, [36] K.A. Linell, E.F. Lobacz, Design & Construction of Foundations in Areas of Deep
in: Insulation Materials: Testing and Applications, 4thAmerican Society for Seasonal Frost & Permafrost, CRREL Special Report (US Army Cold Regions
Testing and Materials, Charleston, SC, United states, 2002. Research and Engineering Laboratory), 1980, p. 80, 34.
[5] S.D. Dahl, T.H. Kuehn, J.W. Ramsey, C.-H. Yang, Moisture storage and non- [37] W.J. Whalen, Performance of Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) Insullation in
isothermal transport properties of common building materials, HVAC R Res. Below-grade Applications, 1996.
2 (1) (1996) 42e58. [38] W. Tobiasson, J. Ricard, Moisture Gain and its Thermal Consequence for
[6] I.Y. Gnip, V. Kersulis, S. Vejelis, S. Vaitkus, Water absorption of expanded Common Roof Insulations, Proceedings of The Western Snow Conference,
polystyrene boards, Polym. Test. 25 (5) (2006) 635e641. 1979, pp. 4e16.
[7] W. Tobiasson, A. Greatorex, D. Van Pelt, Wetting of polystyrene and urethane [39] W. Tobiasson, A. Greatorex, D. Van Pelt, New Wetting Curves for Common
roof insulations in the laboratory and on a protected membrane roof, J. Therm. Roof Insulations, US Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and
insulation 11 (1987) 108e119. Engineering Laboratory, 1992.
[8] C.W. Kaplar, Technical Report, Moisture and Freeze - Thaw Effects on Rigid [40] C.P. Hedlin, Moisture Gains by Foam Plastic Roof Insulations under Controlled
Thermal Insulations, vol. 249, United States Army, Corps of Engineers, Cold Temperature Gradients, National Research Council Canada, Division of
Regions Research & Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, N.H, 1974. Building Research, 1977.
[9] A. Chalumeau, A. Felix-Henry, Water Absorption Effect on Syntactic Foam [41] B.D. Nelson, Conditions of a Sample of Minnesota Exteruir Foundation Wall
Thermal Insulation of a Flexible Pipe, American Society of Mechanical Engi- Insulation Materials, 1989.
neers, Hamburg, Germany, 2006. [42] EnergyDivision, A Survey of Minnesota Home Exterior Foundation Wall
[10] M.-C. Chyu, X. Zeng, L. Ye, Effect of moisture content on the performance of Insulation: Moisture Content and Thermal Performance, Engery Division
polyurethane insulation used on a district heating and cooling pipe, ASHRAE Minnesota Department of Public Service, 1988.
Trans. 103 (1997) 309e317. [43] B. Hinrichs, Water Absorption & Thermal Resistance Testing of Extruded Foam
[11] M. Duskov, Materials research on EPS20 and EPS15 under representative Plastic Insulation - ESP014171P-2, 2013.
conditions in pavement structures, Geotext. Geomembranes 15 (13) (1997) [44] B. Hinrichs, Water Absorption & Thermal Resistance Testing of Extruded Foam
147e181. Plastic Insulation - ESP014171P-1, 2013.
[12] M.-C. Chyu, X. Zeng, L. Ye, Performance of fibrous glass pipe insulation sub- [45] B. Hinrichs, Water Absorption & Thermal Resistance Testing of Extruded Foam
jected to underground water attack, ASHRAE Trans. 103 (1997) 303e308. Plastic Insulation - ESP014171P-5, 2013.
[13] P.I. Sandberg, Moisture content and thermal conductivity in soil insulation, [46] B. Hinrichs, Thermal resistance and Moisture Content Testing of Foam Plastic
J. Therm. insulation 10 (1986) 124e141. Insulation, 2008.
[14] T. Ojanen, E. Kokko, Moisture Performance Analysis of EPS Frost Insulation, [47] D.C. Esch, Insulation performance beneath roads and airfields in Alaska,
ASTM, Quebec City, USA, 1997. Transp. Res. Rec. 1146 (1988).
 S. Cai et al. / Building and Environment 123 (2017) 50e65
[48] J.B. MacMaster, G.A. Wrong, Role of extruded expanded polystyrene in
Ontarios provincial transportation system, Transp. Res. Rec. 1146 (1987)
10e22.
[49] B. Hinrichs, Water Absorption & Thermal Resistance Testing of Extruded Foam
Plastic Insulation - ESP014171P-4, 2013.
[50] B. Hinrichs, Water Absorption & Thermal Resistance Testing of Extruded Foam
Plastic Insulation - ESP014171P-3, 2013.
[51] G. Ovstaas, S. Smith, W. Strzepek, G. Titley, Thermal performance of Various
Insulations in below - Earth - Grade Perimeter Application, ASTM, Clearwater
Beach, FL, USA, 1983.
[52] M.C. Swinton, M.T. Bomberg, M.K. Kumaran, N. Normandin, W. Maref, Per-
formance of Thermal Insulation on the Exterior of Basement Walls, Institute
for Research in Construction, National Research Council of Canada, 1999.
[53] SPI, Expanded Polystyrene Thermal Insulation Performance in a Below-grade
Application, The society of the plastics industry, 1994.
[54] M. Kehrer, J. Christian, Measurement of Exterior Foundation Insulation to
Assess Durability in Energy-saving Performance, Oak Ridge National Labora-
tory (ORNL); Building Technologies Research and Integration Center, 2012.
[55] ASTM_D2842, ASTM Standard D2842-12, in Standard Test Method for Water
Absorption of Rigid Cellular Plastics, ASTM International, Philadelphia, 2012.
[56] ASTM_C177, ASTM Standard C177-10, in Standard Test Method for Steady-
state Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties by
Means of the Guarded-hot-plate Apparatus, ASTM International, Philadelphia,
2010.
[57] ISO_8302, ISO 8302, in: Thermal insulation - Determination of Steady-state
Thermal Resistance and Related Properties - Guarded Hot Plate Apparatus,
1991.
[58] ISO_8301, ISO 8301, in: Thermal insulation - Determination of Steady-state
Thermal Resistance and Related Properties - Heat Flow Meter Apparatus,
1991.
[59] BS-EN12667, BS-EN 12667, in: Thermal Resistance of Building Materials and
Products - Determination of Thermal Resistance by Means of Guarded Hot
Plate and Heat Flow Meter Methods - Products of High and Meduum Resis-
tance, British-Adopted European Standard, 2001.
[60] ASTM_C518, ASTM Standard C518-10, in Standard Test Method for Steady-
state Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Heat Flow Meter
Apparatus, ASTM International, Philadelphia, 2010.
65
[61] ASTM_C1114, ASTM Standard C1114, in Standard Test Method for Steady-
state Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Thin-heater Appa-
ratus, ASTM International, Philadelphia, 2006.
[62] ASTM_C1363, ASTM Standard C1363-11, in Standard Test Method for Thermal
Performance of Building Materials and Envolop Assemblies by Means of a Hot
Box Apparatus, ASTM International, Philadelphia, 2011.
[63] S.E. Gustafsson, E. Karawacki, M.N. Khan, Transient hot - strip method for
simultaneously measuring thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity of
solids and fluids, J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 12 (9) (1978) 1411e1421.
[64] M. Gustafsson, E. Karawacki, S. Gustavson, On the use of transient plane
source sensors for studying materials with direction dependent properties, in:
Review of Scientific Instruments, 1994, p. 3856.
[65] W. Sabuga, U. Hammerschmidt, New method for the evaluation of thermal
conductivity and thermal diffusivity from transient hot strip measurements,
Int. J. Thermophys. 16 (2) (1995) 557e565.
[66] M. Rides, J. Morikawa, L. Halldahl, B. Hay, H. Lobo, A. Dawson, C. Allen,
Intercomparison of thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity methods for
plastics, Polym. Test. 28 (5) (2009) 480e489.
[67] L. Verdolotti, M. Lavorgna, R. Lamanna, E. Di Maio, S. Iannace, Polyurethane-
silica hybrid foam by sol-gel approach: chemical and functional properties,
Polym. (United Kingdom) 56 (2015) 20e28.
[68] B.S. Good, Structure and thermal conductivity of silica aerogels from computer
simulations, 28 Nov.-2 Dec. 2005, in: The Hydrogen Cycle-generation, Storage
and Fuel Cells. Symposium, Materials Research Society, Warrendale, PA, USA,
2006.
[69] C.P. Hedlin, Effect of moisture on thermal resistance of some insulations in a
flat roof under field-type conditions, Am. Soc. Test. Mater., Spec. Tech.
Publ.;(United States) (1983) 602e625, 789(CONF-811222-).
[70] M.T. Bomberg, M.K. Kumaran, Laboratory and Roofing Exposures of Cellular
Plastic Insulation to Verify a Model of Aging, vol. 1224, ASTM Special Technical
Publication, 1994, pp. 151e167.
[71] T. McFadden, Moisture Effects on Extruded Polystyene Insulation, ASCE,
Anchorage, AK, USA, 1986.
[72] J.D. Mar, E. Litovsky, J. Kleiman, Modeling and database development of
conductive and apparent thermal conductivity of moist insulation materials,
J. Build. Phys. 32 (1) (2008) 9e31.