Contents

Introduction 1

Scope and Approach 1

Topic 1: Rainscreens and General Cladding 2

Early History of Rainscreens 2
Modern Rainscreen Era 4
Summary and Recommendations 6

Topic 2: Drainage and Water Resistant Barriers 6

WRB and Building Codes 11
Summary and Recommendations 12

Topic 3: Cladding Ventilation 13

3.1 Summary and Recommendations 15

Topic 4: Pressure Equalization 15

4. 1 Summary 20

Topic 5: Testing and Evaluation 21

5.1 Hygrothermal models 23
5.2 Recommendations 23

Topic 6: Rain penetration mechanisms 23

6.1 Summary 25

Topic 7: Climate and Exposure 25

7.1 Summary 28

Closure 28

Rainscreen Bibliography 29

RAiNA Literature Review Report

Introduction
This document is the result of a Performance Committee of the Rainscreen Association in
North America (RAiNA) request for a literature review on rainscreen performance to
provide a baseline of knowledge. At the end of this document is a comprehensive list of
almost 400 pieces of literature relevant to rainscreen performance along with some brief
comments. The information collected is grouped into 7 different categories, a summary
of the state-of-knowledge is provided for each, and questions that could benefit from
further research are provided.

Scope and Approach

RAiNA has recently defined a Rainscreen1 Wall Assembly as

an assembly applied to an exterior wall that consists of, at minimum, an outer

layer, an inner layer, and a cavity between them sufficient for the passive removal
of liquid water and water vapor.

The focus of the review was wall assemblies that meet this broad definition, the building
science governing their performance, and testing and evaluation of them.

An important part of the work was selecting what kind of literature should be included.
The performance of an enclosure wall is, of course, multi-faceted and includes aspects of
structural performance, material durability, fire resistance, and aesthetics. Moisture
control (primarily rain), specifically drainage and ventilation drying were to be a focus. A
decision was made to exclude categories of information such as cladding attachment,
thermal performance, and fire resistance along with aesthetics, and thermal bridging.
However, many of the documents listed do cover some of these aspects—these
documents are included because they offer valuable information or consensus about
other aspects of rainscreen performance.

Although there are many overlapping categories of technical knowledge, seven primary
categories of information were identified and used to collect and summarize the
information.

• Topic 1 Rainscreen design guidelines / general cladding

• Topic 2 Drainage behind cladding, Water Resistive Barriers (WRBs)

• Topic 3 Ventilation & drying behind cladding

• Topic 4 Pressure equalization (benefits to structure and / or rain)

• Topic 5 Testing and evaluation

• Topic 6 Rain penetration mechanisms, all modes

• Topic 7 Climate and exposure influences

A summary of important findings for each of these seven topics is provided below.

1
As rainscreen is a term that has not had a fixed definition over time or between different locations,
many documents do not even use the term. Essentially the same definition has been proposed for
inclusion in the 2024 International Building Code

Page 1
A bibliographic list of reference documents is provided at the end of this report. Many of
the sources referenced are technical papers, presented at technical conferences or in
peer-reviewed journals, or reports by research organizations. Relatively few of the sources
include books or industry guides, but these can be quite important because of their
widespread accessibility and lasting permanence. Very few sources are from magazines
or manufacturers’ literature as these rarely include significant technical content. Some of
the listed documents include standards for performance testing and evaluating rainscreen
assemblies.

The bibliography provided at the end of this report include codes indicating which
categorization they fall into (and often there is more than one). These two-character
codes, designed to facilitate software searches, begin with the letter Z and end with the
topic number.

Topic 1: Rainscreens and General Cladding

Early History of Rainscreens
Some of the concepts around rainscreens are not new, although not widely deployed in
practise or described rationally and scientifically until more recently. For example,
Vitruvius, in his Ten Books of Architecture, (Vitruvious 1914) written 2000 years ago, said

“…if a wall is in a state of dampness all over, construct a second thin wall a little way
from it….at a distance suited to the circumstances….with vents to the open
air….when the wall is brought up to the top, leave air holes there. For if the moisture
has no means of getting out by vents at the bottom and at the top, it will not fail to
spread all over the new wall”.

This certainly emphasizes ventilation drying and recommends a capillary break but does
not discuss drainage, air barriers, or pressure equalization.

The true modern rainscreen literature begins with a 1946 paper by the Swede C.H.
Johansson [1946]2. This seems to be the first reference to a screen:

“...it is clearly unwise to allow walls, whether of brick or porous cement, to be exposed
to heavy rain. They absorb water like a blotting paper, and it would therefore be a
great step forward if an outer, water-repelling screen could be fitted to brick walls,
with satisfactory characteristics from the point of view of appearance, mechanical
strength and cost. This screen could be applied so that water vapour coming from
within is automatically removed by ventilation of the space between wall and screen.

If a rain screen of this type is used, the thermal resistance of the wall can be
considerably increased for only a slight increase of expense, by employing one of the
highly porous, thermally isolating materials now obtainable. With a highly porous
layer between the actual wall and the rainscreen, the house would retain its good
characteristics as regards heat capacity, sound isolation and fire risk.”

Many researchers in the post-war period accepted the merits of this multi-layer approach
and began to do work on the concept. Hutcheon, in his seminal 1953 paper [Hutcheon

2
References to specific literature or documents will take the common form of “[Author, year]” unless
the sentence includes the author already, in which the reference will be “[year]”. The bibliographic list
at the end of this document is arranged alphabetically by author.

Page 2
1953], Fundamental considerations in the design of exterior walls for buildings, he quotes
directly from Johansson, but expanded the conversation to include other building
performance factors, such as temperature differences, condensation, differential
movement, etc. In Canada, Ball [1956] also introduced the idea of walls comprised of
multiple layers.

Garden [1963], in his influential 1963 Canadian Building Digest, Control of Rain
Penetration stated:

“In essence the outer layer is then an “open rain screen” that prevents wetting of the
actual wall or air barrier of the building.”

He began the serious discussion of air pressures and pressure equalization but makes no
mention of drainage.

In Norway, Svendsen [1967] produced a paper describing the two-stage weather

tightening approach. In the figures of his paper (Figure 1) the term rain barrier (not
rainscreen) is used and the term wind barrier (was air barrier meant?) on the exterior of
the insulation is identified, with an interior vapour barrier. No drainage or water resistant
“drainage plane” is identified.

Figure 1: Two-stage Weathertightness from Svendsen (1967)

Page 3
By 1968, Birkeland [1968] had developed a concise understanding of the principles of
rainscreens (although he applied the label to the cladding), one which was applied in
practice to joints, not walls:

“On the basis of the knowledge of rain and wind penetration presented in this paper,
a principle for designing weathertight joints is given. The rain and wind must be
stopped separately. There must be an exterior rain screen, behind which is an air
space that is ventilated so there is no wind pressure drop across the rainscreen.
Behind the ventilated air space should be an airtight wind stop to prevent air from
penetrating through the wall.”

Modern Rainscreen Era

A significant amount of knowledge about the performance of rainscreens was gained and
documented prior to the 1970’s. Most of this early literature focused on pressure-
equalization, with ventilation and drainage rarely mentioned as strategies. This context
must be understood when assessing performance today. A profound change in rain
penetration control (and hence rainscreen design and research) occurred in North America
between about 1990 and 2010. Building codes, design standards, even testing changed
during this time to include dedicated water resistant layers and drainage as key elements.
The same change is underway in Europe, but has only begun in some circles.

As rainscreens became an accepted and often preferred approach in research and

academia, practical industry-focused guides began to be produced. This topic also
included influential documents that provided recommendations for all kinds of enclosure
walls or those that highlight rain control failures of walls.

In the early days of research (e.g. before 1960) rainscreen quickly took on the meaning of
“pressure equalized” rainscreen. Today, the term often implies, but does not state, that a
larger gap exists behind the cladding which is often ventilated. This change in use of the
term and the lack of clarity and precision has caused significant confusion over time and
between Europe and North America.

The curtainwall industry was an early adopter of the term rainscreen, and their explicit
use of the rainscreen principle. American Architectural Manufacturers Association (AAMA)
[1971] The Rain Screen Principle and Pressure-Equalized Design Details of Three Recent
Buildings, was the first industry association guide followed by several other guidelines
and recommendation documents. All of these relied heavily on Garden’s [1963] 1963
Digest. Subsequent work by Latta [1973], Killip & Cheetham [1984] and others at
NRC/IRC provided more science- and measurement-based advice for designers. This
resulted in an internal report entitled Review of design guidelines for pressure equalized
rainscreen walls [Baskaran & Brown 1992] which was widely disseminated in Canada.

The influential British book Rainscreen cladding: a guide to design principles and practice
by Anderson and Gill [1988] fills the role of a design guide. This book identified the three
approaches to rain penetration control – described as mass, fully-sealed, and rainscreen --
and then described pressure-equalized walls and “back ventilated” walls as separate
rainscreen approaches. This document focused on pressure equalization performance,
mentions ventilation, and rarely mentioned drainage or water resistant layers. The
drawings in this guide (e.g., Figure 2) do not include water resistant layers, just cladding,
insulation, structure, and interior finish.

Page 4
Figure 2: Rainscreen wall concept from Anderson and Gill [1988]

The AAMA released a slightly updated guide in 1996 (with an editorial revision in 2004)
with advice that is also mentioned briefly in their 2005 Curtainwall Design Guide which
continued to rely on research conducted before 1970. However, the updated 1996/2004
AAMA guide begins to apply modern language and understanding:

“Pressure equalization should not be confused, as some designers may do, with the
more “conventional” and long accepted “theory of secondary defense,” depending on a
drainage system within the wall–a theory which, when properly applied, has also
proven to be dependable”.

By 1999 the National Research Council of Canada’s forty-years of research on the topic
culminated in a concise document (hardly a design guide) by Brown et al [1999] that
focused its recommendations on the “second-line of defense” and mentioned drainage as
an important element alongside a passing mention of pressure-equalization as a rain
control strategy. Very similar advice was given in Rousseau [1998]. This was a major
change in emphasis. The focus on pressure-equalization as part of rainscreen
recommendations that had been in industry guides such as Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation publications [e.g., Drysdale 1991, Morrison Hershfield 1998] faded
in the 2000’s.

The term “rainscreen” does not occur in major North American building codes except in
the explanatory appendices of the Canadian National Building Code (first in the 2005
NBCC and unchanged today) which mentions pressure equalization but does not discuss
drainage, flashing, cavities, or ventilation. Rainscreen assemblies, are described in
Appendix A (A-9.27) of the NBCC:

“… rainscreen assemblies include both a first and second plane of protection. The first
plane comprises the cladding, which is designed and constructed to handle virtually
all of the precipitation load. The second plane of protection is designed and
constructed to handle only very small quantities of incidental water …”

In Europe, the International Federation for the Roofing Trade [2018] has developed a
Guideline for Design and Installation of Rear-Ventilated Rainscreen Façades document as
recently as 2018. This guideline mentions the drainage function of the cavity in passing
and explicitly states that “membranes” (assumed here to mean a Water Resistive Barrier

Page 5
(WRB) or air barrier) are not required in properly designed and built assemblies. This is a
major, even fundamental, difference in approach from the recommendations and codes in
North America.

Figure 3: Definitions of “Rear-Ventilated Rainscreens” from IFD (2018)

Summary and Recommendations

When reviewing the literature is important to note that the terminology used at different
times and by different countries must be borne in mind. Even today, the use of terms as
common as WRB and air barrier can have different meanings in North America than
Germany, and the way these terms were used has changed significantly. The RAiNA
Definitions Committee is helping to reduce the uncertainty and imprecision of the
language in future, but interpreting the true meaning of both current and historical
terminology remains a challenge.

Terminology varies significantly between different countries, different types of

manufacturers, and different times of writing. Care must be taken to interpret information
and the development of modern consensus definitions is a helpful step forward. The
difference in terminology and rain control philosophy used by Europeans and
Scandinavians should be resolved in some manner, possibly by striking an international
working group.

There are no up-to-date and modern design guidelines in North America for designers and
specifiers, particularly none that applies to opaque assemblies other than metal
curtainwall frames. Such a guidance document would certainly be useful.

Topic 2: Drainage and Water Resistant Barriers

One of the cornerstones of modern North American building science is that enclosure
walls use drainage as a strategy and hence include drainage planes (more properly, water-
resistant barriers WRB’s) to manage rainwater penetration through the cladding (Figure 4).

Page 6
Based on the literature review, it should be noted that:

1) drainage as an explicit mechanism is a rather recent focus in design, and

2) many modern and successful enclosure systems such as Insulated Metal Panels,
Insulated Glazing Units, Architectural precast concrete, low-slope membrane roofs3, and
below-grade waterproofing are all perfect barrier systems that do not rely on drainage to
perform.

Cladding

Structural Support / Backup

Drainage Plane
(WRB)

Drainage
space

Flashing
Vent & Drain
Openings

Figure 4: Conceptual Drained Wall

A limited awareness of the historical development of enclosure wall rain control has led to
confusion about:

• the role of gaps behind cladding,

• the meaning of common terms such as WRB, and

• a belief that drainage is the only or best rain control strategy for all enclosure
assemblies.

Some of the early researchers clearly understood the importance of gravity and the need
for drainage. For example, the Norwegian scientist Isaksen [1965] was aware that water
could cross an air gap at door and window penetrations and of the importance of
drainage. He wrote:

“Our model tests showed that the air leakages had to be very great and concentrated
if they managed to tear off water from surfaces. In the cladding case the water will
run down on the inner side of the cladding and stick to it, it will not jump across the
air space. It can, however, be led over to the back wall when the drainage is bad, i.e.
via door- or window frames. A wind pressure potential across the air space is

3
Low-sloped roofs, of exposed membrane or protected membrane design, rely on the perfect
barrier approach to rain control. Of course drainage can occur across the water control layer in
all systems, face-sealed, mass, or otherwise, but by definition these systems do not require
drainage to perform adequately as an enclosure system.

Page 7
 therefore not the reason for water penetration through the wall when the cladding
has closed joints. A faulty design of drainage and/ or holes in the wind barrier are
usually the main cause, the water simply flows into the wall by gravity”.4

Herbert [1974] from the UK Building Research Establishment (BRE) wrote:

“It is important to realise that, however well they are designed and built, rain screen
walls will allow some water to cross the cavity, and will also allow some water to
drain down the back face of the screen.”

Although this quote might suggest an emerging interest in drainage planes and water
resistant barriers (WRBs), it is difficult to find any mention of a water barrier, water
resistant material, or equivalent in the literature of that time.

Garden, who wrote early influential papers about pressure equalization and rain control
[1963], was well aware of the importance of drainage, as he indicated in a research paper
[Garden 1967]:

“It was recognized that in the United Kingdom a masonry wall would inevitably leak,
thus cavity wall construction was adopted. With a properly drained clear space
between two walls, the outer wall leaked as anticipated but the inner wall remained
dry.”

Not only was drainage little discussed, water resistant barriers (WRB) of any type were
absent from the discussion and design drawings in this era. Garden also described
effective rainscreens as “two-stage weather tightening” (adopting Svendsen’s label, as
many others did) with the help of case studies [Garden 1971]. Neither a water-resistant
layer nor drainage is mentioned or labelled on the drawings he produced (Figure 5). The
building paper widely used behind shingles in walls was labelled an air barrier, a label
current building scientists would not use.

Figure 5: Drawing of a rainscreen from Garden (1971)

4
Note “wind barrier” here is the building paper (common terminology in Scandinavia at the
time), which is also assumed to be the primary air barrier – showing how language and
performance expectations can be very different.

Page 8
As another example, the drawings in Latta’s Canadian design handbook [1973] shows an
air barrier and an exterior “rain barrier”: the water resistant barrier (aka drainage plane, or
second-line of defense) assumed in modern walls and required by modern American and
Canadian codes is conspicuously absent from drawings of this era.

An excellent representative example of the 1981 state-of-the-art comes from a Canada

Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) advisory document by Plewes [1981].
Although the document takes care to document the needed components of a wall, and
applies modern principles of building science, the drawings of masonry walls show no
membrane applied as a drainage plane (Figure 5). The parged masonry inner-wythe was
considered sufficient as both the air and water barrier (field experience showed it too
often was not sufficient in situations with high exposure or poor workmanship [Cutlet
1980]).

Figure 6: Note the careful and precise detailing (and code clauses) of masonry, weep
holes, flashing, air barrier and vapor barrier, with no discussion of water resistant
barrier or drainage [Plewes 1981]

A state-of-the art book by Ronald Brand (1990) showed excellent detailing, but focused on
the need for an air barrier, a cavity to prevent water bridging, and pressure equalization.
No water resistant barrier (WRB) or explicit drainage path was discussed or shown

Page 9
(although implicitly the flashings and air barrier membranes often provided that function).
However, even at this date the role of pressure equalization as rain penetration control
was beginning to be questioned:

“In the case of masonry, so much water leaks through the brick cladding with no
pressure difference across it that it is doubtful pressure equalization would have
much additional effect” (p. 178)

A major change in rain penetration control thinking began in the 1990’s when it became
widely accepted that both air and water barriers were needed in all walls, whether
ventilated or pressure-equalized, or, for that matter, whether they were rainscreen,
barrier, or mass walls. Practitioners perhaps because of widely publicised rain control
failures (in for example, North Carolina and Vancouver, B.C.) were driving drainage as the
primary rain control strategy.

As early as 1990, practitioners such as Stephen Ruggiero of the leading building science
firm Simpson Gumpertz & Heger identified that drainage was a critical factor in rain
penetration control. Specifically, he stated [Ruggerio 1991]:

“Our experience in evaluating and testing various wall systems is that much of the
leakage can be replicated by allowing water to flow over the wall system without
application of a differential pressure across the wall, i.e., wind pressure”.

The importance of drainage was a key lesson learned by the wider North American
industry from the failures that began to become prevalent in the mid-1980s, such as the
Vancouver leaky stucco condo crisis and the North Carolina EIFS (Exterior Insulation Finish
System) failures.

From 1990 publications begin to appear, again first from practitioners, about how one
could measure and test drainage in walls [Krogstad 1990, Brown et al 1997, Karagiozis
2002]. The research into drainage continued in the early 2000’s [Straube et al 2000,
Smegal 2006, Straube & Smegal 2007, Onysko 2007] and has subsequently been picked
up in Europe [Van Linden at al 2018, 2022].

It took until 2009 for Krogstad’s method for masonry veneer walls to become an official
ASTM Standard, C1715-09, whereas a method for EIFS drainage measurement (ASTM
E2273) was approved as early as 2003 because of the pressing need created by the North
Carolina EIFS failures.

The concept of a “second line of defense”, usually provided by a water-resistant layer

(most commonly a building paper or housewrap) was accepted as minimum performance
and integrated into all major North American building codes over the period of about
1995 to 2003 for almost all wall types. Unlike “two-stage weather tightening”, which
ascribed different functions to the inner and outer layers, the second line of defence
philosophy focused on a water-resistant layer behind the cladding (the first line of
defense). The National Research Council of Canada’s Institute for Research in
Construction, a primary advocate of pressure-equalization, developed the new strategy
and helped bring it into Canadian codes.

Dr Michael Lacasse, of Canada’s National Research Council’s Institute for Research in

Construction (NRC/IRC), led a major project investigating the rain penetration resistance
of residential systems in a methodical way, beginning in 1998. Lacasse reported on lab

Page 10
test results that showed a water-resistant barrier or “second line of defense” was needed
even with a large cavity (i.e., 10 mm or more) behind the cladding. He wrote [2003]:

“Interestingly, the IRC test results also indicated that even with the presence of this
clear drained cavity behind the cladding, a small quantity of water could still find its
way into the stud cavity.”

and

“Even when an air space was present behind the cladding system, it was beneficial to
ensure that the component of the assembly acting as second line of defence, be it a
water-resistive membrane or a board stock material, be attached in a water-resistant
manner.”

His conclusions are in some ways a rediscovery of what Isaksen and Herbert concluded
(see the earlier quotes from 1965 and 1974).

The awareness of the primacy of drainage over pressure equalization also focused
attention on WRB (which was also sometimes called the underlay or the drainage plane).
In the same Ruggiero article referenced above, the importance of a secondary plane of
water tightness was highlighted and it was concluded this was more important than an air
barrier (though one was still needed) for rain penetration control.

As early as 1997, Bill Brown, of NRC/IRC and previously the author of numerous
publications focused on pressure equalisation, began to release a series of papers that
investigated pressure equalisation, drainage, and rainwater management in general
[Brown et al 1997]. He tested several enclosure wall systems with small drainage gaps (3
mm or 1/8” wide and smaller) and developed methods to measure drainage. Numerous
peer-reviewed international research papers and university theses over the last 20 years
have reported experimental results demonstrating that even gaps of less than 1 mm
(1/16”) can be used to provide effective drainage -- Tonyan et al [1999], Straube et al
[2000], Weston et al [2001], Smegal [2007], and van Linden [2018, 2022].

Although research has unequivocally shown that small gaps allow drainage, small gaps
also may retain water at the bottom of a drainage space because of capillary forces. For
gaps of 1 mm width this amounts to storage of up to 20 mm of water and thus 20 mL per
meter length (less than one ounce per yard of wall length).

WRB and Building Codes

The first US building code to explicitly mention drainage and Water Resisitve Barrier (WRB)
provisions was the 1999 National Building Code of the Building Officials of America
(BOCA) which required:

The exterior wall envelope shall be designed and constructed in such a manner as to
prevent the accumulation of water within the wall assembly by providing a water-
resistive barrier behind the exterior veneer as described in Section 1406.3.6 and a
means for draining water that enters the assembly to the exterior of the veneer...

The first nationally adopted code in the United States was the International Residential
Code of 2003. It also used the term water resistive barrier:

The exterior wall envelope shall be designed and built … to prevent the accumulation
of water within the wall assembly by providing a water-resistive barrier.

Page 11
Unlike the US, the term Water Resistive Barrier does not occur in Canadian codes. The
product category label of sheathing membrane is used in Part 9 of the code (prescriptive
design), but the philosophy of a “second plane of protection” is embodied as a
requirement in the NBCC starting from 2005.

“The second plane of protection shall consist of a drainage plane having an

appropriate inner boundary and flashing to dissipate rainwater to the exterior.”

The relevance of drainage was recognised5 by the National Building Code of Canada in
1995, when it required [NBCC 1995]:

5.6.2.1 Except as provided in Sentence (2), materials, components, assemblies,

joints in materials, junctions between components and junctions between
assemblies exposed to precipitation shall be

(a) sealed to prevent ingress of precipitation, or

(b) drained to direct precipitation to the exterior.

This was further explained in the Appendix:

A-5.6.2.1. Sealing and Drainage. Providing a surface-sealed, durable, watertight

cover on the outside of a building is difficult. Where there is a likelihood of some
penetration by precipitation into a component or assembly, drainage is generally
required to direct the moisture to the exterior.

Summary and Recommendations

During the historical development of rainscreens the importance of drainage was
recognized and the limited role of air pressures driving rain penetration identified. Today
the North American building industry accepts that a WRB, integrated with flashing and
weepholes, is a minimum requirement. However, there is a difference of philosophy in
Europe, where large gaps are seen as sufficient to prevent the passage of rain water. This
difference should be resolved and publicized.

A consensus outcome of drainage research over the last almost 20 years is that small
gaps, e.g. in the order of 1 mm or 1/16”, can provide good drainage.

As water can be stored on and in materials lining the drainage gap, drainage tests on
different types of walls can have very significant differences in results, differences that
may have no impact on drainage performance. The method by which water is injected, the
size of the specimen, the water application rate, and the duration of the test will have
major impacts on the results. These differences require more research to understand. The
ASTM E2273 test may be appropriate for EIFS, but its use for different assemblies that
have absorbent materials lining the drainage path is questionable. Development of a more
universal drainage effectiveness test would be desirable.

5
The requirement for drainage was not identified in the 1990 NBCC.

Page 12
Topic 3: Cladding Ventilation
Ventilation, the exchange of air in the cavity behind cladding with the outdoor air, is a
strategy long used in both walls and roofs. However, the scientific study of ventilation,
especially its ability to remove moisture from the cavity, was not considered seriously
until relatively recently.

Structural Support / Backup

Vent Openings

Drainage Plane
(WRB)

Ventilation &
Drainage space

Flashing
Vent & Drain
Openings

Figure 7: Ventilated and Drained Wall Cladding Concept

Some study of the ventilation was undertaken in Germany as early as 1973 by Schwarz
[1973] and Frank [1973] followed by some seminal work by Popp [1980] and Kuenzel
[1983]. A series of books about ventilated light-weight cladding were written in Germany
[Liersch 1984] for practitioners but most of the guidance was related to implementing
such systems under the then current building codes with only some detail about
estimating ventilation airflow.

Figure 8: Field ventilation drying results [Popp 1980]

Page 13
Although research demonstrating effective ventilation drying dates to at least 1940
[Rowley et al 1940, 1949] in North America, it was only in the 1990s that ventilation
behind cladding began to be studied again as a potentially important drying mechanism
by Ten Wolde [1992] and Straube & Burnett [1995, 1998]. A major multi-institutional
study sponsored by ASHRAE [Burnett, Straube & Karagiozis 2004, Van Straaten 2003]
combined field measurements, laboratory testing, and computer modeling to develop and
validate methods that can predict airflow and the drying that can be generated.

A significant amount of experimental work has since replicated, validated, and extended
this earlier work in New Zealand [Basset & McNeil 2006 and 2009], Europe [Falk & Sandin
2013, Nore et al 2005, Gudum 2004], and North America [Simpson 2010, Tariku 2011].
Research that does not challenge the wall with additional moisture (either by building
walls with defects or injecting controlled water “leaks”) tend to find little benefit of
ventilation (Hansen 2002, Kehl et al 2010).

Field research and analysis shows that very small amounts of ventilation can bypass the
vapor resistance of vapor impermeable claddings like metal and glass. Ten Wolde et al
[1998] and Straube & Burnett [1995] developed theory to predict the equivalent vapor
permeance of a cladding material as a function of ventilation and cladding material
(Figure 9). Moisture storing cladding systems, such as those made of fibre cement and
stucco, or enclosures sheathed with wood, can benefit from ventilation drying [Straube et
al 2004, Finch & Straube 2007] at modest air flow rates. The volume needed for
meaningful cooling of solar gains is very high and rarely effective in practical assemblies.

Figure 9: The relationship of ventilation flow and equivalent vapor permeance for
different claddings [adapted from Van Straaten 2004]

For most wall systems the primary driving force driving ventilation air flow is solar
buoyancy (which coincides with the majority of drying), although wind generates the
highest peak pressures. The primary resistance to airflow, and hence the design element
with the biggest effect on flow rates, are the vent openings and details.

It is important to note that there is a consensus in the literature that providing a vent only
at the bottom of the cavity behind the cladding is not sufficient to achieve ventilation

Page 14
drying: a vent must be provided at the top and bottom to allow meaningful amounts of air
to flow behind the cladding.

Although not well researched, analysis [Van Straaten 2003, Rahiminejad and Khovalyg
2022] strongly suggests that normal ventilation rates behind cladding systems has only a
modest, usually negligible impact on R-value. Despite the limited research, the underlying
physics of heat flow combined with a few physical measurements are unequivocal.
Ventilation flow rates through most cladding systems are small enough, and the thermal
resistance of even still air low enough, that ventilation of an airspace does impact the
assembly value. Of course, if the same amount of airflow were to penetrate through the
enclosure, rather than circulate behind the cladding, the impacts on enclosure thermal
performance would be very significant and problematic.

3.1 Summary and Recommendations

Reasonable methods to predict ventilation air flow behind generic cladding have been
documented, field validated, and replicated. It would be helpful to measure the behaviour
of systems with complex (e.g., horizontal girts) and small air cavities to expand our
knowledge.

There is little guidance on which systems require ventilation to perform acceptably, which
benefit from ventilation, and which are not impacted. Although the research already
conducted provides a wealth of information, it has not been summarized and placed in a
general form for use by designers.

There is a useful collection of data on the nature and magnitude of air pressures that will
drive ventilation air flow. However more field measurements of different systems on
buildings with a range of exposures would be helpful to develop general consensus
methods of prediction. The data already documented should be more widely
disseminated.

Standard methods of measuring the resistance to airflow should be developed to allow for
designers to select systems with the amount of ventilation desired or required.

Topic 4: Pressure Equalization

RAINA’s Definitions Committee recently defined pressure equalization as a performance
state whereby the wind-induced pressures on the face of a cladding is exactly equalized
by air pressure behind the cladding. This state is desirable both because a) it reduces the
structural loads the cladding needs to be designed for and b) because it eliminates air
pressure as one of the forces causing rain penetration of the cladding.

Page 15
 Water control &

Structure / Backup wall

air barrier

Drainage gap and

pressure chamber

Wind Pressure

Flashing
Drain Opening
& Vent

Figure 10: Conceptual pressure equalized wall concept

Garden, in his influential Canadian Building Digest Control of Rain Penetration [Garden
1963] stated that is pressure equalization could be achieved:

“In essence the outer layer is then an “open rain screen” that prevents wetting of the
actual wall or air barrier of the building.”

He began the serious discussion of air pressures and pressure equalization, a topic
investigated by many building research establishments in the 1960’s (note, there is no
mention of drainage or WRBs).

The curtainwall industry grasped the rainscreen principle and pressure equalization early
on, perhaps because they could benefit the most. The AAMA publication The Rain Screen
Principle and Pressure-Equalized Wall Design [AAMA 1971] was a seminal document that
informed many manufacturers and practitioners. Here the authors defined rainscreen “the
component” as distinct from the rainscreen “the principle”.

“The rain screen principle may be defined as a theory governing the design of a
building enclosure in such a way as to prevent water penetration due to rain; in other
words, a scientific approach to eliminating water leakage.

What is referred to as the “rain screen” is the exposed outer skin or surface element of
the wall, backed by an air space and so designed that it shields the wall joints from
wetting. It is made resistant to water penetration, not by sealing its joints and
openings but by eliminating the pressure differences – or equalizing the pressures –
occurring on its inner and outer surfaces, while the primary wall joint seals are
removed from this outer wall face to the inner part of the wall., where they are kept
dry. Thus, instead of the joint seals being subjected to both water and wind pressure,
a two-stage protection is provided; the rain screen shielding against water
penetration and the joint seals only against air penetration”.

and ….

“It should be recognized, to begin with, that the terms “rain screen principle" and "
pressure-equalized design," though closely related and, in fact, interdependent, are
not strictly synonymous. The "rain screen" is only the outer skin or surface of a wall
or wall element - the part exposed to the weather. The "rain screen principle" is a
principle of design which prescribes how penetration of this screen by rain water may

Page 16
 be prevented. Thus, the use of the rain screen principle is essential to achieving a
pressure-equalized design, and conversely, a pressure-equalized design depends on
this principle”.

Pressure equalization began to be understood as only part of a wall design by Canada’s

NRC/IRC in a 1998 publication of entitled Pressure equalization in rainscreen wall
systems [Rousseau and Brown,1998] which concluded:

“PER [pressure equalized rainscreen] walls are not only about pressure
equalization across the rainscreen. Other forces are at work as well, not the least of
which is gravity; their control is part of the PER wall strategy for rain penetration
control in exterior walls. One should assume that some rain will enter at some time
during the service life of any wall assembly; that water must be disposed of quickly.
Drainage of the air compartment is an important feature; properly detailed and
sloped flashings and drainage channels are necessary for that reason”.

Although not always written, and often forgotten by practitioners, there is in North
America a wide-spread acceptance that pressure equalization cannot exist on its own as a
rain control strategy as it can neither manage all rain penetration mechanisms nor does it
perform perfectly all the time. Pressure equalization is always a complementary addition
to the fundamental drainage approach to rain penetration control.

As noted in Topic 1 of this document, Baskaran of NRC [1992] summarized the state of
the art in the early 1990s and proposed a series of research questions. Much was already
known by that date, but additional research around the world has improved
understanding of pressure equalization.

Figure 11:Components of a Pressure-equalized Rainscreen Wall from Baskaran [1992]

A complete and detailed field study of a high-rise building with a small chamber, very
stiff, very airtight, and well compartmented assembly was conducted by Ganguli &
Dalgliesh [1988]. They found:

During periods of high wind, maximum gust pressures (both inward and outward)
ranged from 400-475 Pa (8.4-9.9 psf). However, the largest wind-induced pressure
differences across the rain screen lasting several seconds or more were only 50-60 Pa
(1.0-1.25 psf).

Page 17
Brown et al [1991] field tested an average quality (for the time) brick veneer steel stud
system designed to be a rainscreen. Measured performance ranged from 35 to 65%
pressure moderation. Field measurements of well-vented and compartmentalized brick
veneers at the University of Waterloo studied performance in the frequency domain
[Straube 2001]. He found good equalization at average pressures (over 95%) but poor
(less than 50%) moderation of wind gusts. Kumar et al [2003] and van Bentum & Geurts
[2015] measured the performance on a high-rise building and found similar results.

It can be concluded from essentially all laboratory and field studies that perfect pressure
equalization at every moment is rarely achieved in practice. However, in some cases most
of the instantaneous pressure difference acting on the enclosure may be equalized,
leaving only a small and brief residual pressure difference.

Laboratory, simulation and field studies can be summarized to conclude that the degree
of equalization (or pressure moderation) depends on two general classes of factors:

A. the enclosure system characteristics, and

B. the nature of the wind loading.

The enclosure system characteristics (A) can be further sub-divided into categories of
characteristics that:

I. minimise the volume of flow required to achieve pressure equalisation,

and

II. maximise the ease of flow of air into the chamber.

Factors included under the first category (I) of enclosure characteristics are:

1. air barrier leakage, or more precisely, the nature and magnitude of leakage;

2. the volume of air in the chamber;

2. the spatial extent of the chamber, i.e. compartmentalisation; and

3. chamber deformability (or stiffness, including the flexibility of both the

cladding and the air barrier);

The second category of enclosure characteristics (II) includes factors such as:

4. venting, or more precisely the nature, magnitude, and spatial distribution of

cladding air permeance; and

5. the air flow characteristics within the chamber.

The wind load characteristics (B) that affect pressure moderation are:

1. the mean pressure across the enclosure system;

2. the mean gradients (in two dimensions) across the exterior of each
compartment;

3. the time-varying pressures across the system (i.e., speed of gusts); and

4. the instantaneous pressure field acting across the exterior of each

compartment (i.e., the severity and duration of spatio-temporal pressure
variations).

Page 18
 All of these four characteristics are strongly dependent on the building shape,
size, orientation and the nature of the upwind topography

Figure 12 shows the well known fact that wind velocity at a point in space varies with time
and can be described as a normal distribution upwind of the building (shown). The
resulting pressure variations on a building face are similar but modified as they are
influenced by building aerodynamics. The term turbulence intensity is defined as the
standard deviation of the windspeed about the mean. Literature results suggest
turbulence intensity can vary from below 10% to more common values of 25% or more.

A significant amount of the research literature found examines how to predict or test the
pressure response of an air cavity to spatially uniform but time-varying exterior pressure.
By the 1990’s the National Research Council of Canada [e.g., Poirier et al 1992] and others
[Alqhoury 1990, Ganguli & Quirouette 1987] were publishing the response of wall
pressures to carefully controlled time-variant pressure waves.

Figure 12: Example of the variation of windspeed at a point in space, and metrics used to
describe this

That spatially-variable pressures (Figure 13) can influence the pressure experienced by a
wall system, and hence its pressure equalization performance was known from relatively
early times. For example, Dalgliesh and Garden [1968] described this challenge:

“ … pressure equalization is not always achieved in a cavity which is open at two or

more locations. The cavity must be closed at strategic locations to prevent air flow
behind the outer screen. Knowledge of both the overall and local pressure variations
is necessary for full exploitation of the principle of pressure equalization as a means
of controlling rain penetration”.

Page 19
Figure 13: Average wind pressure over the face of a cuboidal building plotted as the
percentage of total stagnation wind pressure for wind acting at 0°, 30° and 45° to the face
(adapted from ASHRAE)

Much more sophisticated methods and wind tunnel tests were used by Inculet et al [1996,
1997] to investigate compartmentalization. They proposed recommendations, but the
stringent size limitations at the perimeter (1.0 m compartment size or less) meant these
have not been adopted.

Measuring and reporting pressure equalization performance is more complex and

challenging than might be assumed. The ratio of the pressure across the cladding to the
total pressure across the wall is a good measure of pressure equalization. However, this
measure varies significantly with the magnitude and direction of the applied wind
pressure, the speed of the wind gust, the direction (negative or positive pressure) and the
spatial extent of gusts. Hence, although the Pressure Equalization Factor (PEF) is likely the
most commonly used term, its definition varies significantly between researchers. To
respond to the major influence of wind gust duration, frequency-domain methods were
developed (Inculet & Davenport 1994, Straube & Burnett 1997). While very effective for
analysing complex field data, results in the frequency domain strictly only apply to
specific wind directions for a given building shape and depend somewhat on wind speed.

4. 1 Summary
There is a consensus on the physical characteristics and environmental factors influencing
pressure equalization performance. However, the relative impact of each factor cannot be
predicted with as much confidence.

There is sufficient knowledge to calculate, with reasonable accuracy, the pressure

equalization performance of a well-built sample when exposed to spatially uniform
pressures dynamically varied as a sine wave. Current test methods (such as AAMA 508)

Page 20
impose spatially uniform and simple air pressure waves that do not correlate with
measured field performance. Although research into the significant impact of spatially
varying pressures has progressed in the last decade, predicting, and understanding field
performance remains at an early stage.

In practice the role of pressure equalization as a supplement to drainage (and WRB’s)

rather than an alternative remains confusing to many architects and engineers. Education
and consistent industry guidelines should be able to clarify this.

Topic 5: Testing and Evaluation

Managing rain penetration of building enclosures has been noted as a challenge from the
beginning of recorded history. However, like most human endeavours, science began to
be applied to the study and control of rain penetration in the 20th century. In the US,
Fishburn [1938] produced a detailed early study that developed and reported on testing of
masonry wall systems (the dominant solution then) and how the mass (storage) strategy
of rain penetration control could be applied.

In much of North America and Europe three categories of test standards were developed:
one for windows and doors, one for walls (usually masonry) and later one for curtainwalls.
Even as early as the 1950s it was recognized that different test standards were needed for
the two vastly different kinds of vertical enclosures: masonry walls and the glass filled
windows installed within them.

In Canada Ritchie was investigating the use of small specimens for masonry walls in 1958,
while Svendsen in Norway was working on a window test apparatus. Also in this year, the
United States’ Aluminum Window Manufacturers Association (AWMA) created a spray rack
with a series of commercially available nozzles placed in a grid pattern.

Within 4 years, Birkeland and Svendsen [1962] reported on a complex Norwegian

apparatus that moved spraying nozzles up and down a masonry wall to mimic wind-driven
rain. Interestingly, his paper also reported extensively on the measured driving rain
characteristics in that country.

By 1968 Sasaki and Wilson in Canada were proposing a standard window testing approach
after comparing a number of spray rates and test durations: the 15 minute test using
uniform spray grids became the standard for windows around this time. It is worth noting
that their research showed that results were similar after 30 minutes of testing, but close
enough that the practical value of a shorter duration of 15 minutes became the norm.

In 1967 the ASTM E331 Tentative Method of Test for Water Resistance of Windows by
Uniform Static Air Pressure Differential was published for windows and three years later
was modified to include application to curtain walls and doors. The standard has seen
very little change since then and is at the core of most North American standards. ASTM
E547, Test for Water Penetration of Exterior Windows, Curtain Walls, and Doors by Cyclic
Static Air Pressure Differential followed in 1975 and explicitly noted its application to
curtainwalls.

As a result of this work two different groups of standards were developed, one for testing
windows (e.g., ASTM E331, BS EN 1027) and one for testing masonry walls (e.g. ASTM
E514). The British released BS 4315 Part 1 in 1968 for windows, and BS 4315 Part 2 in
1970 for masonry walls. Today, EuroNorms, prefaced with EN, provide standards for the

Page 21
entire European Union. Over time curtainwalls, which tend to be larger, include integrated
structural resistance and accommodate movement, have developed their own series of
standards such as AAMA 501.1-94 Standard Test Method for Exterior Windows, Curtain
Walls and Doors for Water Penetration Using Dynamic Pressure. Omnibus standards such
as Euro Norm 13830 Curtain Walling and AS/NZS 4284:2008 Testing of building facades
include a series of tests to cover rain resistance, airtightness, structural properties, etc.

Laboratory rain penetration testing is most commonly conducted for compliance with
specific project specifications (for large buildings) or local code requirements. Most rain
penetration tests are intended to provide repeatable results in a laboratory environment
rather than replicate performance in the field. This characteristic, repeatability, is critical
for quality control testing and comparisons between systems. However, it is usually not
possible to directly translate the results of laboratory performance to performance in the
field and this is sometimes explicitly stated in test standards. Instead, using laboratory
test data requires proper interpretation of the test results, and consideration of the
imposed test conditions and the intended use of the assembly tested.

The concept of rain penetration testing is simple - water, simulating rain, and air
pressures or air flows, simulating wind, are imposed on a specimen. However, within this
basic construct there are many different test protocols and choices to be made. There are
dozens of rain penetration test standards and protocols.

The factors that vary between different test protocols include:

• the nature and quantity of water application;

• the nature (dynamic, static, spatially uniform or variable) and magnitude of the air
pressure difference; and

• the specimen to be tested, especially its size and the number of features
included.

In addition, there are supplemental choices about design of the apparatus, including how
observations of the performance are to be made (for example, whether these are limited
to visual observations, or incorporate quantitative data) and, if the test is a pass/fail
assessment of the assembly, the evaluation criteria to be used.

Each of the testing standards and protocols, although following the same basic approach,
uses a different combination of experimental design choices.

Current research is highlighting the fact that existing test standards do not directly apply
to drained and ventilated walls [Arce et al 2019, Krogstad 1990, Baskaran & Brown 1995,
Bitsuamlak et al 2009, Matthews et al 1996]. Some drainage and cavity ventilation test
standards for specific applications have been developed since 2000 (see Topic Z2 and Z3).
For example,

• ASTM C1715-09 Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Water Leakage

Performance of Masonry Wall Drainage Systems,

• ASTM E2925-19a. Standard Specification for Manufactured Polymeric Drainage

and Ventilation Materials Used to Provide a Rainscreen Function, and

• ASTM E2273-18. Standard Test Method for Determining the Drainage Efficiency of
Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) Clad Wall Assemblies.

Page 22
Drainage testing methods for other cladding systems have not been standardized but
developed and applied to many systems by researchers [Smegal 2006, Straube & Smegal
2007, Onysko 2007, Van Linden et al 2022]

Two relatively new standards have been developed that are directly relevant to
rainscreens: AAMA 508 Voluntary Test Method and Specification for Pressure Equalized
Rainscreen Wall Cladding Systems and AAMA 509 Voluntary Test and Classification
Method for Drained and Back Ventilated Rainscreen Wall Cladding Systems. These
standards both reference ASTM E331 for rain penetration resistance, and do not quantify
or measure ventilation. AAMA 508 is the only standardized enclosure pressure
equalization test method. This test method imposes a spatially uniform pressure of a
single frequency and hence does not reflect our understanding of wind loads on pressure
equalization described in Topic 4. AAMA 508 also defines failure as when water contacts
the water resistant barrier (WRB) – all the effort invested in producing and testing WRBs is
rendered irrelevant by the 508 standard.

Both standards require prescribed “failures” in the air barrier (that is, they imposed
significant air leakage) as part of the specimen. While important developments, these two
standards apply ideas from the 1980s (especially Gill & Anderson [1988]), do not address
the importance of spatial variation, do not consider the way in which WRBs are commonly
used today, and do not address ventilation at all.

5.1 Hygrothermal models

Evaluation of building enclosure assemblies is now commonly conducted with the air of
hygrothermal models. ASHRAE Standard 160 provides some guidance for modeling rain
penetration, which suggests water be added to layers within an assembly to predict its
tolerance to rain leaks. Topic 6 provides a summary of the research that aims to estimate
the magnitude of these leaks. Some research has also been conducted [e.g. Moore &
Lacasse 2020] to guide the modeling of rain penetration and this work has highlighted
the importance of understanding the magnitude and nature of the rain penetration (Topic
6) and environmental loads such a wind-driven rain and wind pressures (Topic 7).

5.2 Recommendations
New consensus standards are needed to address the current global move beyond perfect
barrier (glass), mass (masonry), and perfect barrier with drained joint (curtainwall)
systems towards drained and often ventilated enclosure walls. There is little to no
research that answers how much water can pass the cladding and enter the drainage
system or how much water on the Water Resistant Barrier is acceptable, or standards for
defining the ventilation performance of a system.

Topic 6: Rain penetration mechanisms

As a primary goal of rainscreen systems is the control of rain penetration, the body of
knowledge surrounding the physics and practicality of rain penetration was also reviewed.
The literature categorized as Topic 6 relates in most cases to rain penetration
mechanisms applied to rain screens, i.e., there is a focus on drainage and air-pressure
driven penetration.

Page 23
Garden [1963] again is a seminal paper that briefly listed six different mechanisms, a list
that has been echoed countless times since. The original Garden document included
dimensions for the openings for which the mechanisms applied: in most subsequent
documents these relevant dimensions are missing. This is relevant as there remains
confusion in practice about the role of capillary forces, gravity and air pressure in rain
penetration.

Figure 14: Rain penetration forces (adapted from AAMA [2004] and Garden [1963])

For a time, research into rain penetration of wall assemblies ignored the likelihood of
gaps and imperfections. Around 2000, along with the embrace of drainage and second
lines of defense Lacasse et al [2003, 2007, w/ Armstrong 2009], Sahal & Lacasse [2005],
Salazano [2010], Lopez et al [2011], Ollson [2014, 2015, 2018], Ngudjiharto et al [2014],
Ngudjiharto [2015], and many others began the investigation of leakage rates and factors
influencing these through a range of common assemblies and defects. This research is
different than many of the older references in that the more recent work attempts to
quantify leakage rates, albeit usually under unrealistic levels of rain deposition and air
pressure differences.

Research into the physics of rain penetration mechanisms has continued and is a current
active area. Recent work of note has been done by Van den Bossche [2013] and his
collaborators [e.g., w/ Janssens 2008, /w Lacasse 2012] and Lacasse et al [2003, 2007, w/
Hiroyuki 2009, van Linden 2022]. This work has explored the physics behind water
penetration of cracks and openings in walls with and without air pressure differences.
Although it may be surprising, the amount of water that might penetrate a known opening
is difficult to predict with current knowledge [Stover et al 2022].

Page 24
6.1 Summary
The basic mechanisms of rain penetration are well known to science, but not always well
known to practitioners. There is a useful and growing body of research to provide leakage
rates for common defects, but almost none of this data was collected with realistic
combinations of likely rain and air pressures. Correlating test leakage rates and locations
with natural field exposure leaks has not been undertaken at anything but the most
general level. This lack may be the most significant knowledge gap in this topic.

Topic 7: Climate and Exposure

This is a major topic of study that is applicable to all types of building enclosures,
structural design, cladding selection, paint choice, etc. However, the focus of the
documents for the review in this category was rain deposition on walls (wind driven rain)
and local wind pressure loads.

Driving rain has been scientifically studied for over a century. Modern English-language
work by Lacy [1965] and others [Marsh 1977] (Figure 15) was widely used by researchers.

The research and experience was eventually developed into a British standard BS 8104:
Code of Practice for Assessing Exposure of Walls to Wind-Driven Rain (and ISO 15927).
Scandinavian and German research (e.g., Schwarz 1973, Frank 1973) were developing
useful knowledge in parallel.

After a lull, research activity picked up with more detailed work aimed at estimating
driving rain deposition on buildings. Work by Kuenzel [1994], Straube [1999], Straube and
Burnett [2000], and Blocken and Carmeliet [2000,2004] formed the foundation of
practitioner-friendly guidance developed by Straube and Schumacher [2005] and Cornick
and Lacasse [2004, 2010]. Recently work has continued to study the impact of different
building shapes (Figure 16) and overhangs on full-scale buildings in the field [e.g. Ge and
Krpan 2007, Kubilay 2014, Ge and Stathopoulos 2017, Ge and Chiu 2017, Smegal et al
2014, Abu-Zidan et al 2021].

Wind pressure distribution on buildings is complex but has been studied for reasons of
structural design for many years and has a rich body of scientific and engineering
knowledge. Perhaps because of the focus on structural design, there is a surprising lack
of clear consensus of what air pressures should be considered for driving rain penetration
of facades. In the last decades the co-incidence of wind and rain, the intensity, duration
and frequency of driving rain has begun to receive more attention [Tsimplis 1994, Sahal
et al 2008, Van Den Bossche et al 2013, Xia et al 2021].

Page 25
Figure 15: Early overhang sheltering research results from the UK [Marsh 1977]

The figure plots the amount of driving rain collected in a natural exposure test rig over
time at different heights and when exposed to different wind speeds. Higher winds result
in more rain water deposited, but the rain was concentrated at the top of wall, especially
during high winds and with small overhangs.

Figure 16: Example of driving rain shielding caused by interacting buildings [Carmeliet
2019]. Wind speed distribution on left, rain deposition on right.

Page 26
The pressure levels chosen for structural design purposes, although widely available and
standardized, are not very relevant to water penetration testing. Pressures for structural
design purposes are by necessity, rare events (e.g., once-in-50 years) and short duration
(a few seconds). If they are exceeded, even for a few seconds, the building can collapse,
or at least sustain substantial damage.

Selecting air pressures for rain penetration testing is completely different. First, the
likelihood of very high wind pressures coincident with driving rain is a statistically less
likely event than just high wind pressures. Second, and more significantly, rain leakage is
clearly tolerable for periods of time far longer than 3 seconds in fifty years. Even the worst
hour every 5 or 10 years might be considered an unreasonably high target for glass and
metal systems with no moisture storage. For opaque enclosure systems comprised of
absorbent materials, such as wood, stucco, and masonry, leakage into moisture sensitive
components (like wood or light gauge steel framing) may occur for as much as several
hours every few months, provided sufficient safe storage capacity is available and drying
is allowed to occur.

Although countries such as Canada (in the National Building Code) and New Zealand
[Overton 2013] publish the pressures during the worst hour of wind-driven rain in five
years, more frequent events (eg annually or semi-annually) are implicated in most in-
service rain leakage. Little information is available for these more likely events to guide
testing and evaluation. The research conducted shows that wind pressures during rainfall
drop significantly for rain events that occur only one hour every second or fifth year
(Figure 17).
1000

800
Wind Pressure During Rainfall (Pa)

600

400

200

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Return Period (years)
Boston Miama Minneapol is Phil adelphia Seattle

Figure 17: Wind pressure during rain as a function of return period for five US cities
[adapted from Cornick & Lacasse 2010]

Selecting high air pressures as “proof” pressures for rain penetration testing is reasonable
during product development and mock-up testing to provide assurance that the system
under test will perform at the lower more likely pressures to be experienced in service.

Page 27
However testing under pressures that are too high has the disadvantage that rain leakage
paths and mechanisms that are different than in service can act, thereby disguising actual
performance in the field. In practise it is usually much more fruitful to investigate the
consequences of material aging (e.g., sealant debonding), workmanship errors (e.g.,
fishmouths), and structural movement (e.g., deflection cracks and bulging): it is difficult
to “test” for these latter very practical issues.

7.1 Summary
Although precision is difficult to achieve, useful and practical estimates of wind driven
rain deposition on facades are easy to create. Research continues to provide more detail
regarding the influence of particular building shapes and features.

The air pressures that occur over a building façade are well understood, but the duration
and magnitude of these pressures as they relate to return periods of interest for rain
penetration are not well researched. Such data is needed and useful for the development
of testing parameters but information for events more frequent than one hour every five
years are difficult to find.

Although not thoroughly explored in the literature review, climate change is beginning to
impact the frequency, intensity, and duration of wind and rain. The nature of this change
and its significance for rainscreen wall design has not been studied at any depth but may
become important.

Closure
This extensive literature search was wide-ranging and deep. However, there are certain to
be documents not included that may be useful, especially those in languages other than
English. Although the terminology and the focus of research and concern around the
topic of rainscreens has changed over the years there is a large body of published
research and knowledge. The volume of information in the documents listed is
prodigious, but like all areas of study there remains a lack of consensus or clarity on
many issues. Perhaps what is more surprising is that there is strong consensus on some
topics that does not appear to be reflected in the knowledge of current practitioners and
researchers.

We hope that this list of resources will help move research forward and provide the basis
for practice guidelines.

Yours truly,

John Straube | PhD, P.Eng. Reviewed by

Principal, Senior Building Science Jonathan Smegal | M.A.Sc.
Specialist Associate, Senior Building Science Consultant
[email protected] [email protected]
RDH Building Science Inc. RDH Building Science Inc.

encl. Rainscreen Bibliography

Page 28
Rainscreen Bibliography
Searchable multi-factor codes.
• Z1 rainscreen design / general cladding
• Z2 drainage of water behind cladding, WRB
• Z3 ventilation & drying behind cladding
• Z4 pressure equalization – benefits to structure and / or rain
• Z5 testing / evaluation
• Z6 rain penetration mechanisms, all modes
• Z7 Climate and exposure influences

Use the search function in your pdf viewer, all references with an assigned code can be
selected.
1. AAMA 508-21. Voluntary Test Method and Specification for Pressure Equalized Rainscreen
Wall Cladding Systems. Z5
2. AAMA 509-22. Voluntary Test and Classification Method for Drained and Back Ventilated
Rainscreen Wall Cladding Systems. Z5
3. AAMA. 1971. The Rain Screen Principle and Pressure-Equalized Design Details of Three Recent
Buildings. CW-2-71 American Architectural Manufacturer's Association, Schaumburg,
Illinois. Z1, Z4, Z5. This is a seminal publication that introduced pressure-
equalization to many practioners, particularily curtainwall and window manufacturers.
The mechanisms of rain penetration (essentially taken for Garden’s earlier CBD)
were outlined and definitons given. Z1, Z4
4. AAMA. 1996. The Rain Screen Principle and Pressure-Equalized Wall Design. CW-RS-1
American Architectural Manufacturer's Association, Schaumburg, Illinois. An update
of the original 1971 AAMA document. Z4
5. AAMA. 2005. Curtain Wall Design Guide Manual. CW-DG-96. American Architectural
Manufacturer's Association, Schaumburg, Illinois. Z1
6. Abu-Zidan, Y., Nguyen, K. and Mendis, P., 2021. “Influence of building shape on
wind-driven rain exposure in tall buildings”. J Architectural Engineering, 27(3), p.
04021027. Although based mostly on computer simulations this paper presents
general information reinforcing the fact the tops ands edges of tall buildings receive
much more rain than lower down. Z7
7. Alkhoury, E. 1990. “Window Rain Screen Evaluation". Proceedings of the 5th Canadian
Building Science Tech., Toronto, Canada, March 1-2, pp. 240-257. Interesting paper that
reports on measured pressure response of window frames to dynamic air pressures in
the laboratory. Both good and bad PE performance of vented window frame designs
are documented. Z4, Z5
8. Andersen, N.E., “Summer Condensation in an Unheated Building,” Proc. of Symposium
and Day of Building Physics, Lund University, August 24-27, 1987, Swedish Council for
Building Research, 1988, pp. 164-165. The second significant literature mention of
solar-driven vapor causing condensation in the summer on interior vapor retarders.
The role of ventilation behind the cladding as a solution is not addressed. Z1
9. Anderson, J. M., & Gill, J. R. 1988. Rainscreen cladding: a guide to design principles and
practice. Butterworth-Heinemann. Classic and influential book of its time—created
the pressure equalized rainscreen and back-ventilated categories. Peak of the art just
before awareness of widespread failures in North American practise change the
conversation (to drainage and water resistant barriers) in the US and Canada. Z1, Z4
10. Anon. 2009. Stucco in New Residential Construction - A Position Paper Includes - Updates
to Original Information. In: Division, B. I. (ed.). Woodbury, Minnesota: City of
Woodbury. Z1, Z6
11. Arce-Recatalá, M., Garcia Morales, S. and Van den Bossche, N., 2020. “Pressure-
equalised façade systems: Evaluation of current watertightness test standards used to
assess the performance of enclosure components”. Journal of Building Physics, 43(5), pp.
369-397. A review of test methods with no critical analysis if any of the methods
apply to field performance. Z5
12. Arce-Recatalá, M., García-Morales, S. and Van den Bossche, N., 2020. “Quantifying
wind-driven rain intrusion: a comparative study on the water management features of
different types of rear-ventilated facade systems”. In Proc of 12th Nordic Symposium on
Building Physics. A European paper that acknowleges air AND water barrier. Testing
shows all systems are perfectly pressure equalized by the test conditions. Z4, Z5
13. Arce-Recatala, M.A., Morales, S.G. and Van Den Bossche, N., 2018. “Experimental
assessment of rainwater management of a ventilated façade”. Journal of Building Physics,
42(1), pp.38-67. Quote “Facades are not watertight systems in which the exterior
surface of the cladding plays the role of the water shedding surface; the air space is
the drainage plane; the exterior surface of the thermal insulation layer acts as water-
resistive barrier, and the interior layer of the inner leaf is supposed to be the air
barrier.” Shows confusion/difference between European and North America views.
Z5
14. Arce, Maria & Garcia-Morales, Soledad & Van Den Bossche, Nathan. 2019.
“Pressure-equalised façade systems: Evaluation of current watertightness test
standards used to assess the performance of enclosure components”. J of Building
Physics, Vol . Z4 Z5
15. AS/NZS 4284:1995. Testing of building facades. Z5. An omnibus test procedure
including the application of cyclic air pressures during water spray to assess rain
penetration resistance. Used mostly in Australia and New Zealand, often for
curtainwalls.
16. ASTM C1715-09. Standard Test Method for Evaluation of Water Leakage Performance of
Masonry Wall Drainage Systems. Z5 Although developed by Krogstad of WJE around
1990, it became a standard much later.
17. ASTM E331-00(2023) Standard Test Method for Water Penetration of Exterior Windows,
Skylights, Doors and Curtain Walls by Uniform Static Air Pressure Difference. Z5
18. ASTM E514-20. Standard Test Method for Water Penetration and Leakage Through Masonry.
Z5
19. ASTM E547-00(2016). Standard Test Method for Water Penetration of Exterior Windows,
Skylights, Doors, and Curtain Walls by Cyclic Static Air Pressure Difference .Z5
20. ASTM E1105-15. Standard Test Method for Field Determination of Water Penetration of
Installed Exterior Windows, Skylights, Doors, and Curtain Walls, by Uniform or Cyclic Static
Air Pressure Difference. Z5.
21. ASTM E2273-18. Standard Test Method for Determining the Drainage Efficiency of Exterior
Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS) Clad Wall Assemblies. Z5
22. ASTM E2925-19a. Standard Specification for Manufactured Polymeric Drainage and
Ventilation Materials Used to Provide a Rainscreen Function. Z5
23. Baheru, T., Chowdhury, A.G., Pinelli, J.P. and Bitsuamlak, G., 2014. “Distribution of
wind-driven rain deposition on low-rise buildings: Direct impinging raindrops versus
surface runoff”. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 133, pp.27-38.
Wind tunnel study of rain deposition at very high wind speeds on low-rise building.
Z7.
24. Baker, F. and Bomberg, M. 2005 "The Functional Requirements for Water Resistive
Barriers Exposed to Incidental Water Leakage. Part 1: Classification of Membranes."
Journal of Testing and Evaluation 33, no. 3 (2005): 1-4. Z5
25. Baker, F. and M. Bomberg 2005. "The Functional Requirements for Water Resistive
Barriers Exposed to Incidental Water Leakage. Part 1: Classification of Membranes,"
Journal of Testing and Evaluation 33, no. 3: 1-4.
26. Balderrama JA, Masters FJ, Gurley KR, Prevatt DO, Aponte-Bermúdez LD,
Reinhold TA et al. 2011. “The Florida Coastal Monitoring Program (FCMP): A
review”. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 99(9): 979-995.
27. Ball, W.H., 1956. Exterior Wall Construction. Building Research Note #26, Division of
Building Research, National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada, August. A very early
paper that introduced the idea of multiple layers as a means of meeting the competing
needs of Canadian enclosure wall. The basic ideas of a drained, ventilated and
 pressure equalized (the latter term is not used, but the concept is described) air gap
behind cladding is however espoused. Z1, Z2, Z3, Z4
28. Barrett D. 1998. The renewal of trust in residential construction, Commission of inquiry into the
quality of condominium construction in British Columbia, Government of the Province of
British Columbia. Z1
29. Baskaran BA, Brown WC. 1995. “Dynamic evaluation of the building envelope for
wind and wind driven rain performance”. J Therm Insul Build Envelopes 18: 261-275. Z4
Z5
30. Baskaran, A., 1992. Review of design guidelines for pressure equalized rainscreen walls. Internal
Report 629. National Research Council Canada, Institute for Research in
Construction. Although an internal report, this document was widely disseminated at
the time and is still available on line. It summarized some of the recent field
measurements and provided a good explanation of the state of research at the time.
Z1, Z4
31. Baskaran, B. A., & Brown, W. C. 1992. “Performance of pressure equalized
rainscreen walls under cyclic loading”. Journal of Thermal Insulation and Building
Envelopes, 16(2), 183-193. Presented some of the NRCC/IRC measured lab results of
wall samples exposed to sinusoidal pressures of different magnitude and frequency.
The results allowed for an understanding of Z4, Z5
32. Bassett, M. R., & McNeil, S. 2005. “The theory of ventilation drying applied to New
Zealand cavity walls”. Proc of 2005 IRHACE Conference, Nelson, New Zealand, 20-22
May 2005. Z3
33. Bassett, M. R., & McNeil, S. 2006. “Measured ventilation rates in water managed wall
cavities”. In Proceedings from the 3rd International Building Physics Conference, Montreal,
Quebec, Canada pp. 403-10. This New Zealand BRANZ research measured
ventilation in walls using tracer gas under natural conditions. The predictive equations
of the Straube & Burnett (1995) research where shown to follow the observed trends.
Z3
34. Bassett, M. R., Burgess, J. C., & Camilleri, M. J. 2003. “The weathertightness of
window-to-wall joints–dependency on installation details”. In IRHACE Annual
Conference, Hamilton, New Zealand. Z1 Z5
35. Bassett, M. R., Overton, G., & McNeil, S. 2015. “Water management in walls with
direct-fixed claddings”. Journal of Building Physics, 38(6), 560-576. Z2 Z3
36. Bassett, M., & McNeil, S. 2009. “Ventilating wall cavities above windows”. J of
Building Physics, 32(4), 305-318. Z3
37. Bassett, M., & McNeil, S. 2009. “Ventilation measured in the wall cavities of high
moisture risk buildings”. Journal of Building Physics, 32(4), 291-303. Z3
38. Bassett, M., McNeil, S., & Bennett, J. 2009. “Drainage and Evaporation from
Window Sill Trays”. J of Building Physics, 32(4), 319-333. Z3 Z2
39. Beall, C. 2000. “Rain penetration in building envelopes.” RCI Interface Magazine. Z1
40. Birkeland O. 1966. General report on Rain penetration. NBRI report on RILEM/CIB
Symp. on Moisture Problems in Buildings, Rain Penetration, Helsinki, August 16-19.
41. Birkeland O. 1968. “The mechanism of rain penetration”. Weathertight Joints for Walls,
Proceedings of the International Symposium, held in Oslo, September 25-28,1967. “On the
basis of the knowledge of rain and wind penetration presented in this paper, a
principle for designing weathertight joints is given. The rain and wind must be
stopped separately. There must be an exterior rain screen, behind which is an air
space that is ventilated so there is no wind pressure drop across the rainscreen.
Behind the ventilated air space should be an airtight wind stop to prevent air from
penetrating through the wall.” Z1, Z4, Z6
42. Birkeland, O. and Svendsen, S. 1962. “Norwegian Test Methods for Rain Penetration
through Masonry walls”. ASTM STP320. Z5, Z6
43. Bishop D, Webster CJD, Herbert MRM. 1968. “The performance of drained joints”.
Paper No. 64c, Weathertight Joints for Walls, Proc. of the International CIB Symposium, Oslo,
1967. Important early paper to discuss drainage as an important function, but
focused on joints not walls. Z2
44. Bishop, R. C., & Bassett, M. R. 1990. Weathertightness of Domestic Claddings. Study report
No. 22. Building Research Association of New Zealand. Z4. A research study of wall
systems which applied air pressure and rain simulataneously. Z4, Z5.
45. Bitsuamlak GT, Chowdhury AG, Sambare D. 2009. “Application of a full-scale
testing facility for assessing wind driven rain intrusion”. Build Environ 44(12): 2430-
2441. Z5
46. Blackall, T.N. and Baker, M.C. (1984). Rain Leakage of Residential Windows in the Lower
Mainland of British Columbia, Building Practice Note, Division of Building Research,
National Research Council of Canada, BPN-42, pp. 8, November. Z1
47. Blocken, B., Carmeliet, J., “Driving Rain on Building Envelopes—I. Numerical
Estimation and Full-Scale Experimental Verification,” J. of Thermal Insulation and
Bldg Envelopes, Vol 24, No 4, 2000, pp. 61-110. Z7
48. Blocken, B., Carmeliet, J., “Driving Rain on Building Envelopes— II. Representative
Experimental Data for Driving Rain Estimation,” J. of Thermal Insulation and Bldg
Envelopes, Vol 24, No 4, 2000, pp. 61-110. Z7
49. Bomberg, M., Pazera, M., & Onysko, D. 2005. “The Functional Requirements for
Water Resistive Barriers Exposed to Incidental Water Leakage, Part 2: Testing
Materials”. Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 33(3), 1-7. Z2
50. Bomberg, M., Pazera, M., Zhang, J., & Haghighat, F. 2003. “Weather-resistive
barriers: assessment of their performance”. Research in Building Physics: Proceedings of the
Second International Conference on Building Physics, Leuven, Belgium, 14-18 September
2003., p. 135. Z2
51. Bomberg,M., M. Pazera, and D. Onysko, "The Functional Requirements for Water
Resistive Barriers Exposed to Incidental Water Leakage, Part 2: Testing Materials,"
Journal of Testing and Evaluation 33, no. 3 (2005): 1-7. Z2
52. Boyd, D.W., Driving-rain map of Canada, Technical Note No. 398, Division of Building
Research, National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada, 1963. Z7
53. Brand, R. 1990. Architectural details for insulated buildings. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold. An excellent practical guide to the design of building enclosures exhibiting
best practises of the time. Pressure equalization discussed as the best means of
controlling rain. Z1
54. British Standards Institution 1992. British standard code of practise for assessing the expossure
of walls to wind-driven rain, BS 8104, British Standards Institution. Z7 The British
standard based on Lacy (1965) work
55. Brookes, A.J. 1998. Cladding of Buildings. 3rd Edition. E and FN Spon, London. Some
backkground of pressure equalized rainscreens, applied to joints mostly of many
moden claddings. No direct discussion of air barriers or drainage planes and drainage
is discussed for open joints behind cladding. Z1
56. Brown, N.G. and Ballantyne, E.R. 1972. “Watertight or weatherproof? Wind driven
rain and the multi-storey building”. Paper No. 6. Melbourne, Division of Building
Research, CSIRO, 11 pp. don't have X
57. Brown, N.G. and Ballantyne, E.R., 1973. “Watertight or weatherproof—application
of drained joint principles”. In Building forum (Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 2-8). Z2, Z4
58. Brown, W. C., Chown, G. A., Poirier, G. F., & Rousseau, M. Z. 1999. “Designing
exterior walls according to the rainscreen principle”. Construction Technology, 34, 1-8.
This is a general design docoument that discusses drainage and drainage gaps,
capillary flow in addition to pressure equalization Z1, Z2, Z4
59. Brown, W. C., Rousseau, M. Z., and Dalgliesh, W. A. 1991. "Field Testing of
Pressure-Equalized Rain Screen Walls," Exterior Wall Systems: Glass and Concrete
Technology, Design, and Construction, ASTM STP 1034, B. Donaldson, Ed., American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 59-69. Z4
60. Brown, W., Adams, P., Tonyan, T., & Ullett, J. 1997. “Water management in exterior
wall claddings”. Journal of Thermal Insulation and Building Envelopes, 21(1), 23-43. Z2, Z4.
Still relevant study of drainage and pressure equalization of wall assemblies with and
without defects.
61. Brown, W., Ullet, J., Karagiozis, A., & Tonyan, T. 1997. “Barrier EIFS clad walls:
results from a moisture engineering study. Journal of Thermal Insulation aand Building
Envelopes, pp. 206-226. Z2
62. Brown, W.C., Ullett, J.M, Dalgliesh, W.A. Measured Pressure Equalized Performance of a
Brick Veneer/steel Stud Assembly: Performance of Pressure Equalized Rainscreen Walls, a
Collaborative Research and Development Project. CMHC, June, 1995. Baskaran BA, Brown
WC. 1995. “Dynamic evaluation of the building envelope for wind and wind driven
rain performance”. J Therm Insul Build Envelopes 18: 261-275. Z4 Z5
63. Brown, W.C., Ullett, J.M, Dalgliesh, W.A. Measured Pressure Equalized Performance Two
Precast Concrete Panels: Performance of Pressure Equalized Rainscreen Walls, a Collaborative
Research and Development Project. CMHC, May, 1995. Z4 Z5
64. Brozovsky, J., Nocente, A. and Rüther, P., 2023. “Modelling and validation of
hygrothermal conditions in the air gap behind wood cladding and BIPV in the
building envelope”. Building and Environment, 228, p.109917. Z3
65. Building Research Establishment. 1967. Joints between concrete wall panels: open drained
joints. BRE Digest 85. London: H.M.S.O., 6 pp.
66. Building Research Establishment. 1972. Principles of joint design. BRE Digest 137.
London: H.M.S.O., 4 pp. Early paper that investigated research results and their
impact on design of joints. This included general principles, dimensional tolerance,
and etc pressure equalization.
67. Burgess, J. C. 1995. “Air pressure equalization in rainscreened joints by geometric
alteration”. Building and Environment, 30(1), 13-18. An early New Zealand study that
investigated the influence of geometry – and hence drainage – as well as pressure
equalization of joints. Z2, Z4.
68. Burgess, J. C., & McCardle, G. 2000. “Building cladding air pressure equalisation
investigations—comparison between field results and a numerical model”. Building
and Environment, 35(3), 251-256. New Zealand’s BRANZ provided some field
measurements and predictions of a system installed on a multi-storey buildings.
69. Burnett, E. F. P., Straube, J. F., & Sloof, P., 1994. “The Relative Merits of Zero-
Cavity Brick Veneer Walls”. Proc. of the 10th International Brick and Block Masonry
Conference, pp. 369-381. Z1
70. Burnett, E.F., Straube, J.F., Karagiozis, A.K., 2004. ASHRAE 1091 –Synthesis Report
and Guidelines, ASHRAE, Atlanta. A comprehensive 1000 page study using field,
laboratory and computer modeling approaches that demonstrated ventilation drying
and inward vapor drives in the field, and provided a summary of how to calculate
ventilation airflow rates, the influence of wind and stack effect, and ventilation Z3.
71. Butt, T. K. (2005). “Water resistance and vapor permeance of weather resistive
barriers”. Journal of ASTM International, 2(10), 1-15 and ASTM STP1484. Z2
72. Carmeliet, J. Kubilay, A. Allegrini, J Derome, D. 2019. “New Developments in
Understanding Wind-driven Rain Deposition on Building Envelopes and its
Consequences”. Proc. Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of Whole Buildings XIV
(pp. 582-590). American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning
Engineers, Inc.
73. Choi, E.C. and Wang, Z., 1998. “Study on pressure-equalization of curtain wall
systems”. J Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 73(3), pp. 251-266. A
laboratory study of curtainwall spandrel panels and pressure equalization that varied
the important variables of vent area, backpan stiffness, etc. Test methodology and
laboratory performance results are explained. Z4, Z5
74. Chown, G. A., Brown, W. C., & Poirier, G. F. (1997). Evolution of wall design for
controlling rain penetration. Construction Technology Update No. 9. Institute for
Research in Construction, National Research Council of Canada. Z1 Z4
75. CMHC, Survey of Building Envelope Failures in the Coastal Climate of BC. Report by RDH
& Morrison-Hershfield for CMHC, Ottawa, Nov. 1996.
76. Cope, A.D., Crandell, J.H., Johnston, D., Kochkin, V., Liu, Z., Stevig, L. and
Reinhold, T.A., 2013. “Wind loads on components of multi-layer wall systems with
air-permeable exterior cladding”. In Advances in Hurricane Engineering: Learning from Our
Past (pp. 238-257). Detailed wind tunnel study of vinyl siding over wood framed
walls. Although well vented, the siding experienced about 65 to 75% of the peak
wind loads acting on the entire wall. Z4.
77. Cope, A.D., Crandell, J.H., Liu, Z., and Stevig, L., 2014. “Wind loads on fasteners
used to attach flexible porous siding on multi-layer wall systems”. J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 133, 150-159. Wind tunnel study of fastener loads for vinyl siding over
wood framed walls. Concludes that loads on the cladding can be assumed to act
directly on the fasteners. Z4.
78. Cornick, S.M. and M. A. Lacasse 2010. “An Investigation of Climate Loads on
Building Façades for Selected Locations in the United States.” Journal of ASTM
International Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 1-33. Z7
79. Cornick, S.M. and M. A. Lacasse, 2004. “A Review of Climate Loads Relevant to
Assessing the Watertightness Performance of Walls, Windows and Wall-Window
Interfaces,” Performance and Durability of the Wall-Window Interface: ASTM STP 1484, B.
G. Hardman, C. R. Wagus and T. A. Weston, Eds., ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA and Journal of ASTM International, no. 10, pp. 1-15. A good
example of work that considers wind pressure coincident with rainfall at return
periods more likey to be considered for rain penetration control. Z5 Z7
80. Cutlet J.F. 1980. Recommended details and general information to overcome water penetration and
vapor movement in exterior masonry wall systems. City of Toronto Masonry Water
Penetration Study Committee, 30 pp. A historical document that documented in
good technical detail the moisture and rain penetration problems of high-rise
Toronto apartments during the 1970’s. Z1, Z6. *
81. Dalgliesh,W.A. and Garden,G.K. 1968. “Influence of wind pressures on joint
performance”. Proceedings of the International Symposium Weathertight Joints for Wall, held in
Oslo, Norway, September 25-28, 1967. CIB Report No. 11, NBRI Report 51C,
January 1968, pp. 329-331. “Rain penetration of joints can be prevented by providing
sufficiently large openings in the outer screen so that the air pressure on both sides
becomes equally high. However, the wind pressure on all sides of the building is not
the same; a certain flow-off around sharp edges will occur. Therefore, pressure
equalization is not always achieved in a cavity which is open at two or more locations.
The cavity must be closed at strategic locations to prevent air flow behind the outer
screen. Knowledge of both the overall and local pressure variations is necessary for
full exploitation of the principle of pressure equalization as a means of controlling
rain penetration. This paper examines some of the pressure variations caused by
corners and projections.” Z4
82. Davison, J.I. 1979. Rain penetration and design detail for masonry walls. Building Practice
Note 13. Ottawa: National Research Council Canada, Division of Building Research,
8 pp. Z1
83. Davison, J.I. 1979. Rain penetration and masonry wall systems. Building Practice Note 12.
Ottawa: National Research Council Canada, Division of Building Research, 5 pp. Z1
Z6
84. Davison, J.I. 1980. Workmanship and rain penetration of masonry walls. Building Practice
Note 16. Ottawa: National Research Council Canada, Division of Building Research,
6 pp. Z1 Z6
85. Derome D, Desmarais G, Thivierge C. 2007. “Large-scale experimental investigation
of wood-frame walls exposed to simulated rain penetration in a cold climate”. Proc of
Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of Whole Buildings X Conference, December 2-
7, Clearwater Beach, FL, U.S.A., ASHRAE. Z2 Z1
86. Drysdale, R.G. and Suter, G.T. 1991. Exterior Wall Construction in High-Rise Buildings:
Brick Veneer on Concrete Masonry or Steel Stud Wall Systems.Canada Mortgage & Housing
Corporation, 206 pp.. A state of best practise guide of the time for a common wall
system of the time. There is no requirement for drainage or water resistant layers
behind cladding. Z1, Z2
87. Durst, C. S.,1960. “Wind speeds over short periods of time”. Meteor. Mag, 89(1056),
pp. 181-187. This is an early and still relevant paper that provides the scientific basis
for adjusting hourly average wind speeds (and pressures) to shorter-term gusts of
more interest to structural design and pressure equalization. Z4
88. Edgar, J., Brown, W.C., and Rousseau, J., 1996. “Noncombustible, Pressure-
Equalized Rainscreen Technology to Reduce Leaking in EIFS” Exterior Insulation
Finish Systems (EIFS): Materials Properties, and Performance. ASTM STP 1269, P. Nelson
and R. Kroll Eds. American Society for Testing and Materials. Z4
89. Edgar, J., 1999. “Performance of Source Drainage External Insulation Finish System
at the Window/Wall Junction”. Journal of Thermal Envelope and Building Science, 23(1),
57-77. Z2
90. Eppell, F.J., 1980. "State of the Art Report: Rain Penetration of Masonry", Proc. Second
Canadian Masonry Symposium, G.T. Suter and H. Keller Eds., June 9-11, Ottawa,
Canada, pp. 521-536.* Z1 Z6
91. Eppell, F.J., 1983. "A Report on a Cross Canada Survey of Rain Penetration Risk in
Masonry Buildings", Proc. Third Canadian Masonry Symposium, J. Longworth and J.
Warwaruk Eds., June 6-8, Edmonton, Canada, pp.31-1 - 31-15.*
92. Falk, J., & Sandin, K., 2013. “Ventilated rainscreen cladding: Measurements of cavity
air velocities, estimation of air change rates and evaluation of driving forces”. Building
and Environment, 59, 164-176. This is a Swedish study that followed on the North
American (Burnett et al, Straube) and New Zealand studies (BRANZ) with basic
confirmation. Z3.
93. Falk, J., Molnár, M. and Larsson, O., 2014. “Investigation of a simple approach to
predict rainscreen wall ventilation rates for hygrothermal simulation purposes”.
Building and Environment, 73, pp. 88-96. Z3.
94. Fazio, P., S.R. Mallidi, D. Zhu, 1995. “A quantitative study for the measurement of
driving rain exposure in the Montreal region”, Build. Environ. 30 (1) 1–11. Z7.
95. Finch, G., Straube, J., Hubbs, B. and Eng, P., 2007. “Hygrothermal performance and
drying potential of wood frame rainscreen walls in Vancouver’s coastal climate”. Proc.
11th Canadian Conference on Building Science and Technology, July. Z3. Field measurements
of the dynamic response of walls and the role of ventilation. Z3.
96. Finch, G., Straube, J.F., 2007. “Ventilated Wall Claddings: Review, Field
Performance, and Hygrothermal Modeling”, Proc. of ASHRAE Buildings X,
Clearwater, FL. Comparison of field measured hygrothermal performance with
computer modeling, providing guidance for ventilation drying. Compare with Falk &
Sandin 2013. Z3.
97. Fishburn, C.C, Parsons, D.E., Petersen, P.H. 1941. Effect of Outdoor Exposure, on the
Water Permeability of Masonry Walls. NBS BMS Report 76, August. One of the first
large rain penetration of walls testing studies published in the US. Z5, Z1
98. Fishburn, C.C, Watstein, D., Parsons, D.E., 1938. Water Permeability of Masonry Walls.
NBS BMS Report 7. October. Oldest serious scientific study of rain penetration that
lead to ASTM E514 standard testing. Z5
99. Frank, W., 1973. “Einwirkung von Regen und Wind auf Gebäudefassaden” Berichte
aus der Bauforschung, Verlag Ernst & Sohn, pp.17-40. Z7. This german study
investigated driving rain deposition and wind influences on building facades.
100. FVHF. Planning and Constructing Rear-Ventilated Rainscreen Façades. Guideline of
Fachverband Baustoffe und Bauteile für vorgehängte hinterlüftete Fassaden, Berlin,
2018.
101. Ganguli, U., & Dalgliesh, W. A. 1988. “Wind pressures on open rain screen walls:
Place Air Canada”. Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(3), pp. 642-656. Probably still
the best documented field study of pressure equalization in a high-rise building. An
excellent enclosure design that performed very well. Z4
102. Ganguli, U., & Quirouette, R. L. 1987. “Pressure equalization performance of a metal
and glass curtain wall”. CSCE Centennial Conference Montreal, Quebec, May 19- 22, Vol.
1, pp. 127-144. A rare example of a measure pressure response of curtainwall. Z4
103. Garden GK. 1963. Rain penetration and its control. Canadian Building Digest, Division of
Building Research, National Research Council, CBD40, pp. 401-404. This is a
seminal and widely distributed digest that introduced pressure equalization to a wide
audience. Drainage was not explicity mentioned and water resistant barriers had not
yet been labelled, but it remains a good introduction. Z1
104. Garden, G. K., 1967. “The Problem of achieving weathertight joints”. Weathertight
Joints for Walls, Proceedings of the International Symposium. Oslo, Norway, September 25-
28. A discussion of how two-stage joints and pressure equalization can be used to
manage rain penetration. Z2, Z4
105. Garden, G.K. 1968. Look at Joint Performance. Canadian Building Digest 97. National
Research Council Canada, Division of Building Research, 4 pp.
106. Garden, G.k., 1968. “Some experience with joints” . Weathertight Joints for Walls,
Proceedings of the International Symposium. Oslo,Norway, September 25-28, 1967. CIB
Report No. 11, NBRI Report 51C, pp. 249-250.
107. Garden, K. 1971. “Rain and Air Leakage at Joints” Industrialization Forum, vol.2 no.4
July p. 7-12.
108. Gavanski, E., and Kopp, G.A., 2012. “Effects of pressure equalization on the
performance of residential wall systems under extreme wind loads”. J. Struct. Eng. 138,
526-538. This paper considers how much load reduction pressure equalization may
provide during the extreme wind events that govern most cladding design. Z4
109. Ge, H. and Krpan, R., 2007. “Field measurement of wind-driven rain on a low-rise
building in the coastal climate of British Columbia”. In Proceedings of the 11th Canadian
conference on building science and technology, March, Banff, Alberta. One of the few field
measurements of wind-driven rain deposition useful for understanding the relative
scale of rain penetration load. Z7.
110. Ge, H., Chiu, V. and Stathopoulos, T., 2017. “Effect of overhang on wind-driven rain
wetting of facades on a mid-rise building: Field measurements”. Building and
Environment, 118, pp. 234-250. A unique field study of wind driven rain deposition
impacted by overhang dimensions. Z7.
111. Ge, H., Nath, U.D. and Chiu, V., 2017. “Field measurements of wind-driven rain on
mid-and high-rise buildings in three Canadian regions”. Building and Environment, 116,
pp.228-245. Z7.
112. Gerhardt, H.J. and Janser, F., 1994. “Wind loads on wind permeable facades”. Journal
of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 53(1-2), pp.37-48. Field and wind
tunnel measurements that showed the positive impact of compartmentalizing cavities
at the corners of buildings and the possible wind load reductions on cladding. Z4
113. Gerhardt, H.J. and Kramer, C., 1983. “Wind loads on wind-permeable building
facades”. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 11(1-3), pp.1-20. Some
of the earliest wind tunnel research into pressure equalization of ventilated facades
and load reductions, including the impact of corner sealing compartmentalization.
Z4.
114. Geurts, C. P. Bouma, P. W., Aghaei, A. 2005. “Pressure equalisation of brick masonry
cavity walls”. In Proceedings Fourth European-African Conference on Wind Engineering. A
very brief paper that descreibes field measurements of pressure equalization of brick
cavity walls. Turbulence and spatial variations are shown to be important and
significant gust pressures are partially (30-50%) moderated. Z4
115. Gigla, B. “Protection of masonry veneer walls against driving rain”. Mauerwerk, Dec
2017, 21(6), pp. 391-398. Another representative European paper discussing rain
penetration control that shows No WRB is used, and full reliance is placed on cavities
and flashing. Z2
116. Gigla, B., 2017. “Resistance of Masonry Veneer Walls against Rain Penetration”. In
Proc., 13th Canadian Masonry Symposium, Halifax, NS, Canada. A companion of the
paper by Gigla but in a North American setting. Z2.
117. Grimm, C.T., 1982. "Water Permeance of Masonry Walls: A Review of the
Literature", Masonry: Materials, Properties, and Performance, ASTM STP 778, J.G.
Borchelt, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 178-
199.*
118. Gudmundsson K, Klintberg T, Soederstroem O. 2012. "The drying out capacity of a
ventilated internal cavity with a heating cable, analytical model and empirical
verification". Building and Environment Vol 52, pp. 171 -176. Z3.
119. Gudum, C. and Rode, C., 2004. "Moisture transport by convection in lightweight
exterior facades". Proc of Performance of Exterior Envelopes of Whole Buildings IX.
Clearwater. Z3.
120. Gudum, C., 2003. Moisture Transport and Convection in Building Envelopes: Ventilation in
Light Weight Outer Walls. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Technical
University of Denmark. Z3
121. Haavaldsen, T., "Driving Rain Penetration in Brick Masonry", Proc. Eigth Int.
Brick/Block Masonry Conference, Trinity College, Dublin, Republic of Ireland, Sept. 19-
21, 1988, Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London & New York, 1988, pp. 242-
251.*
122. Hansen, M., Nicolajsen, A., Stang, B., 2002. “On the influence of ventilation on
moisture content in timber framed walls”, Building Physics 2002 – 6th Nordic Symposium,
Trondheim Norway. This field study compared ventilated and non-ventilated walls
with no failures: hence all walls had wood moisture contents below 16%. Hence, the
conclusion that ventilated walls performed little better. Other studies that challenge
the wall with additional moisture sources reach different conclusions.
123. Harrison HW, Bonshor RB. 1970. Weatherproofing of joints: a systematic approach to design.
Ministery of Public Building & Works, Building Research Station, UK, Current
Papers, 29/70
124. Herbert, M.R.M. 1974. Open-jointed rain screen claddings. Current Paper CP89174.
Garston, England: Building Research Establishment, 9 pp. Important paper which
reports field measurement of water crossing open joints: 5 mm wide joints limited
passage across as 25 mm cavity for 20 mm thick cladding, but gaps of 2.5 mm width
 needed for thin 5 mm cladding. Not much about claddings, a focus on joints. A clear
acknowledgement of drainage needed. Z1, Z2, Z4
125. Herbert, M.R.M. 1974. Window to wall joints. Current Paper CP86174. Garston,
England: Building Research Establishment, 9 pp.
126. Herbert, M.R.M., and Harrison, H.W. 1974. New ways with weatherproof joints. Current
Paper 90174. Garston, England: Building Research Establishment, 12 pp Z2 Z4
127. Hutcheon, N.B. 1953. “Fundamental Considerations in the Design of Exterior Walls
for Buildings.” Proc. 47th Annual Meeting of the Engineering Institute of Canada, Halifax,
NS, May. A fundamental paper about modern multi-layer wall design. Z1.
128. Inculet DR. 2001. The design of cladding against wind-driven rain. Ph.D. thesis, University
of Western Ontario, London, Canada. Important thesis that explored frequency-
domain analysis, spatial variations, and compartmentalization as they influence
pressure equaization. Z4, Z7
129. Inculet, D.R., Surry, D., Davenport, A.G., 1997. “Unsteady Pressure Gradients and
Their Implications for Pressure-Equalized Rainscreens”, Proc. of ICBEST ‘97, Bath,
U.K., pp. 457-463. A modern serious study of compartmentalization requirements
with guidance. Z4
130. Inculet, D., Surry, D., The Influence of Unsteady Pressure Gradients on Compartmentalization
Requirements for Pressure-Equalized Rainscreens, Report by BLWTL, The University of
Western Ontario for CMHC, Ottawa, June, 1996. A modern serious study of
compartmentalization requirements. Z4.
131. Inculet, R.D. 1990. Pressure-Equalization of RainScreen Cladding, M.A.Sc. Thesis, Faculty
of Engineering Science, Universily of Western Ontario. London. Ontario, Canada.
132. International Federation for the Roofing Trade (IFD) 2018. Guideline for Design and
Installation of Rear-Ventilated Rainscreen Façades. A current design guideline for
European ventilated claddings. Note: no real discussion of drainage or WRBs. Z1.
133. Isaken, T. 1965. “Rain Penetration in Joints: Influence of Dimensions and Shape of
Joints on Rain Penetration”. Proceedings of the RILEM/CIB Symposium on Moisture
Problems in Buildings, held in Helsinki, August 16th-19th.
134. Isaksen T. 1972. Driving rain and joints: testing of model joints between elements. Norwegian
Building Research Institute, 30 p.
135. Ishikawa H. 1974. “An experiment on mechanism of rain penetration through
horizontal joints in walls”, Proceedings of the 2nd International CIB/RILEM Symposium on
Moisture Problems in Buildings, Rotterdam, 10-12 September 1974.
136. ISO 15927-3, Hygrothermal Performance of Buildings - Calculation and Presentation of Climatic
Data – Part 3: Calculation of a Driving Rain Index for Vertical Surfaces from Hourly Wind and
Rain Data, Standard, International Standards Organisation, 2009. Z7. An updated
standard for simple prediction of driving rain on building facades.
137. Jacobson L. 1977. “Driving rain in vertical surfaces at CTH field station for building
research and testing”. RILEM/ASTM/CIB Symp. on Evaluation of the Performance of
External Vertical Surfaces of Buildings. Otaniemi, Espoo, Finland. August 28-31 and
September 1-2, 1977, Vol. 1, pp. 170-180.
138. Johansson, C. H. 1946. The influence of moisture on the heat conductance for bricks.
(Fuktighetens inverkan pa varmeledningen i tegal.). Byggmastaren, Nr. 7, s. t17-124. I
have not been able to get this full document, just long quotes. Z1
139. Jung, E. "Dauerstandverhalten von Verblendziegelmauerwerk unter
Witterunsbeansphruchung und Auswirkungen von Kerndämm-Maßnahmen",
Baustoffindustrie, No. 6, November, 1985, pp. 185-188.
140. Kala, S., T. Stathopoulos, et al. . 2008. “Wind loads on rainscreen walls: Boundary-
layer wind tunnel experiments”. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics
96(6-7): 1058-1073.
141. Kanarowski, S.M. 1975. Waterproofing materials for prevention of wind blown rain penetration
through masonry walls. Technical Report M75. Champaign, Illinois: Construction
Engineering Laboratory, 47pp.
142. Karagiozis, A.N. 2002. Building Enclosure Hygrothermal Performance Study, Oak Ridge
National Labs, Oak Ridge, TN. Appendix D, Preliminary Investigtion of Drainage in
Full-scale Walls Clad with Stucco and Horizontal Vinyl Siding. Z2. Drainage testing
of small gaps behind common claddings showing effectiveness.
143. Karagiozis, A.N. and Kuenzel, H.M., 2009. “The effect of air cavity convection on
the wetting and drying behavior of wood-frame walls using a multi-physics
approach”. J of ASTM International, 6(10), pp.1-15. A comparison of simplified
modeled and measured brick veneer wall showing good agreement. Z3.
144. Kehl, D., Weber, H. and Hauswirth, S., 2010. “Ist die Hinterlüftung von
Holzfassaden ein Muss?”. Bauphysik, vol. 32(3), pp.144-148. Translates as “Is
ventilation behind wood cladding necessary”. Different european view that shows no
WRB, and no ventilation needed. “"Ventilated constructions" and "non-ventilated
cladding with an air layer" … facades, such as those found in board and profiled
timber facades, work even without ventilation openings. This is shown not only by
the simulations presented and the practical example, but also by long-term field
trials”. Z3
145. Kerr, D.D. 1985. Annotated bibliography on the Rainscreen Principle. National Research
Council of Canada, Division of Building Research, Ottawa.
146. Kerr, D.D. 1990. “The Rain Screen Wall”, Progressive Architecture, Vol. 8.90, pp. 47-52.
Z1.
147. Killip, I. 1976. The rain penetration of external walls. Thesis. University of Liverpool, 71
pp. The thesis that documents the history and development building up to the 1984
paper. Z1
148. Killip, I.R., D.W. Cheetham, 1984. “The prevention of rain penetration through
external walls and joints by means of pressure equalization”, Building and Environment,
Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 81-91. Seminal experimental look at role of airtightness and vent
area in pressure equalization performance to follow up on Latta’s 1973 theoretical
work (whichlead to 10:1 recommendation). Briefly mentions drainage as part of an
approach: “The success of traditional brick walls where weepholes admit air to raise
air pressures in the cavity as well as provide drainage points.” Z1, Z4.
149. Kopp GA, Morrison MJ, Henderson DJ. 2012. “Full-scale testing of low-rise,
residential buildings with realistic wind loads”. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 104–106: 25-
39. Z7
150. Krogstad, N.V., "Masonry Wall Drainage Test - A Proposed Method for Field
Evaluation of Masonry Cavity Walls for Resistance to Water Leakage," Masonry:
Components to Assemblies. ASTM STP 1063. John H. Matthys, Editor, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1990, pp. 394-402. First real enclosure wall
drainage test measurement approach that was subsequently developed into ASTM
C1715. Z2, Z5
151. Kubilay, A. 2014. Numerical simulations and field experiments of wetting of building facades due
to wind-driven rain in urban areas. Ph.D. thesis, ETH Zurich, Switzerland. Z7
152. Kumar, K. S. 2000. “Pressure equalization of rainscreen walls: a critical review”.
Building and Environment, 35(2), 161-179. Z4
153. Kumar, K. S., Stathopoulos, T., & Wisse, J. A. 2003. “Field measurement data of
wind loads on rainscreen walls”. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics,
91(11), 1401-1417. Important field measurements of a small 1 x 1.25 m curtainwall
spandrel in middle of large tall building. “pressure equalization of mean as well as
low-frequency pressures can be achieved by providing adequate venting area with
respect to the panel area and air barrier leakage. Pressure equalization of the short
duration pressure fluctuations seems to be difficult”. Z4
154. *Kumar, K., & Van Schijndel, A. 1999. “Prediction of pressure equalization
performance of rainscreen walls”. Wind and Structures. 2(4): 325- 345. Do not have
access to.
155. Künzel, H., Mayer, E., Untersuchung über die notwendige Hinterlüftung an
Außenwandbekeidung aus großformatigen Bauteilen, Schriftenreihe Bundesminister für
Raumordnung, Bauwesen, und Städtebau, 3/1983. Z3
156. Künzel, H.M., 1994. Bestimmung der Schlagregenbelastung von Fassadenflächen. Institut
Bauphysik, Fraunhofer, IBP Mittilung 262. Z7. A short summary of simple predictive
driving rain methods.
157. Kuenzel, H.M. Zirkelback, D. 2013. “Advances in hygrothermal building component
simulation: modelling moisture sources likely to occur due to rainwater leakage”. J
Building Performance Simulation, V 6, p. 346.
158. Lacasse MA, O’Connor T, Nunes SC, Beaulieu P. 2003. Report from Task 6 of MEWS
Project : experimental assessment of water penetration and entry into wood-frame wall specimens.
Final Report, Research Report No. 133, Institute for Research in Construction,
National Research Council of Canada, 308 p. Z6
159. Lacasse MA. 2003. “Recent studies on the control of rain penetration in exterior
wood-frame walls”. Proceedings Bulding Science Insight 2003, Canada, pp. 1-6.
160. Lacasse MA. 2004. “IRC studies on the control of rain penetration in exterior wood-
frame walls”. Solplan Review, no. 14, January 2004, pp. 14-15.
161. Lacasse, M. A., M. Armstrong, G. Ganapathy, M. Rousseau, S. M. Cornick, D. Bibee,
D. Shuler, and A. Hoffee. 2009. "Assessing the Effectiveness of Wall-Window
Interface Details to Manage Rainwater—Selected Results from Window Installation
to a Wall Sheathed in Extruded Polystyrene." Journal of ASTM international 6, no. 9,
pp. 1-26.
162. Lacasse, M. A., M. M. Manning, M. Z. Rousseau, S. M. Cornick, S. Plescia, M.
Nicholls, and S. C. Nunes. 2007. "Results on assessing the effectiveness of wall-
window interface details to manage rainwater." In 11th Canadian Conference on Building
Science and Technology, Banff, Alberta, pp. 1-14.
163. Lacasse, M.A., Rousseau, M., Cornick, S.M., Armstrong, M., Ganapathy, G., Nicholls,
M. and Williams, M.F., 2007. “Laboratory tests of water penetration through wall-
window interfaces based on US residential window installation practice”. Journal of
ASTM International, 6(8), pp.1-24. Z6
164. Lacasse, Michael A., Hiroyuki Miyauchi, and J. Hiemstra, 2009. "Water penetration of
cladding components—results from laboratory tests on simulated sealed vertical and
horizontal joints of wall cladding." Journal of ASTM international 6, no. 6, pp. 1-21. Z6
165. Lacy, R.E., 1965. “Driving rain maps and the onslaught of rain on buildings”. In Proc.
of CIB/RILEM Symposium on Moisture Problems in Buildings, Helsinki, 1965. Z7. One of
several publications by Lacy that describe driving rain as a weather load.
166. Langmans, J., Desta, T.Z., Alderweireldt, L. and Roels, S., 2016. “Field study on the
air change rate behind residential rainscreen cladding systems: A parameter analysis”.
Building and Environment, 95, pp.1-12. Z3. Compares of a number of cladding types
 and confirms previous research that shows brick veneers have ventilation rates of less
than 10ACH whereas other claddings can reach 1000 ACH.
167. Latta. J.K. 1973. Walls, Windows, and Roofs for the Canadian Climate - a summary of the
current basis for selection and design. Special Technical Publication No. 1 NRCC 13487,
National Research Council of Canada, Division of Building Research, Ottawa.
168. Laviolette, S., and Keller, H., Performance Monitoring of a Brick Veneer / Steel Stud Wall
System, CMHC Research Report by Keller Engineering, June, 1993. Included some
pressure measurements…but they were taken at a long time scale.
169. Laviolette, S., and Keller, H., Performance Monitoring of a Brick Veneer / Steel Stud Wall
System Phase 2, CMHC Research Report by Keller Engineering, February, 1995.
170. Lawton, B., Brown, W., and Lang, A., 2002. “Stucco Clad Wall Drying Experiment”
Proc. Thermal Performance of Building Envelopes VIII, Clearwater Florida. Z3
171. Lee TK, Kuo CY, Pan AD, Li YC. 2013. “Pressure distribution of dynamic water
penetration tests for curtain walls”. J of Testing and Evaluation. 2013 Apr Vol 41(3), pp.
471-80. Z4, Z5
172. Leslie, N. P. 2007. “Evaluation of Water-Resistive Barrier Performance in Stucco
Walls”. ASHRAE/DOE Buildings X Conference, Clearwater Beach, FL. Z2
173. Lieb, R.B., W. M.. 2010. “Wind Load Reduction Due to Pressure Equalisation Behind
Vented Façade Cladding”. Proceedings of International Conference of Building Envelope
Systems and Technology (ICBEST) Vancouver, British Columbia. Z4.*
174. Liersch, K. W. 1984. Belüftete Dach- und Wandkonstruktionen, Band 1 : Vorhangfassaden -
Bauphysikalische Grundlagen des Wärme- und Feuchteschutzes. Band 2: Vorhangfassaden-
Anwendungstechnische Grundlagen. Bauverlag Wiesbaden. Z1, Z3. This is a series of
books that provided practical advice and a significant amount of background
calculation methods for ventilation.
175. Lopez C, Masters FJ, Bolton S. 2011. “Water penetration resistance of residential
window and wall systems subjected to steady and unsteady wind loading”. Bldg
Environ 46(7), pp. 1329-1342.
176. Lstiburek, J. “Water-managed Wall Systems”, Journal of Light Construction, March 2003.
177. Lstiburek, J., “Understanding Drainage Planes”, ASHRAE Journal, Feb 2006, pp. 30-
35.
178. Lstiburek, Joseph W. "A cup in the rain." ASHRAE Journal, vol. 50, no. 4, 2008.
179. Lundby, S.E., and Wigen, R. 1956. Window studies 11. Window casings in framed houses:
tests on resistance to wind and rain. Oslo: Norges byggforskningsinstitutt, 38 pp. Summary
in English. Don't have—in Kerr biblio
180. Lyman,V.F., and Ball, W.H. 1971. The control of rain wetting and penetration of brick-clad
masonry walls. Halifax: Technical University of Nova Scotia, School of Architecture, 8
pp.
181. Marsh P. 1977. Air and rain penetration of buildings. The Construction Press Ltd.,
Lancaster, England. 174 p. discusses state of the art and reviews current literature on
rain, rain tightness and some drained joints. Z1

182. Matthews RS, Bury MRC, Redfearn D. 1996. “Investigation of dynamic water
penetration tests for curtain walling”. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics. Apr 1; 60(1–3):1–16. Z4, Z5
183. McNeil, S., & Bassett, M. 2007. “Moisture recovery rates for walls in temperate
climates”. Proc. 11th Canadian Conference on Building Science and Technology. Banff, Alberta,
Canada. Important for ventilation drying as field studies show the benefit when wall
challenged with moisture. Z3
184. Miller, C. 2020. Design Wind Loads for Air-Permeable Multilayer Cladding Systems. PhD
Thesis, Western University, London, Canada. Z4
185. Miller, C.S., Kopp, G.A., Morrison, M.J., Kemp G., and Drought, N., 2017. “A
multichamber, pressure-based test method to determine wind loads on air-permeable,
multilayer cladding systems. Front. Built Env. 3:7. Describes a complex test apparatus
capable of imposing realistic dynamic wind loads. Z4, Z5
186. Monks, W.L. 1966*. Tests to assess the resistance to rain penetration of joints between large
precast concrete wall panels. Technical Report TRA397. London: Cement and Concrete
Association, 24pp. in Kerr biblio
187. Moore, T.V. and M. A. Lacasse, 2020. “Approach to Incorporating Water Entry and
Water Loads to Wall Assemblies When Completing Hygrothermal Modelling,” in
Building Science and the Physics of Building Enclosure Performance, ed. D. J. Lemieux and J.
Keegan (West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 2020), 157–176. Z6
188. Morrison Hershfield and RDH Building Engineering Ltd. 1998. Best Practice Guide for
Wood Frame Construction in the Coastal Climate of BC. CMHC Ottawa ON
189. Morrison Hershfield Limited 1990. 'A Study of the Rain Screen Concept Applied to
Cladding Systems on Wood-Framed Walls', Prepared for Canadian Mortgage &
Housing Corporation, Ottawa, Canada.
190. Morrison Hershfield Limited. 1996. Survey of Building Envelope Failures in the Coastal
Climate of British Columbia, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Morrison
Hershfield Limited. Vancouver, British Columbia, 51 p.
191. Nelson, C., & Norris, R. E. (2010). “Mock-Up Water Test Results of Sample Flashing
Systems for Storefront Windows in Stucco Walls”. RCI Interface.
192. Newman AJ, Whiteside D, Kloss PB, Willis W. 1982. “Full-scale water penetration
tests on twelve cavity fills - Part I. Nine retrofit fills”. Build Environ, 17(3), 175-191
193. Newman AJ, Whiteside D, Kloss PB. 1982. “Full-scale water penetration tests on
twelve cavity fills - Part II. Three built-in fills. Build Environ 17(3), 193-207. Important
tests of drinage capacity and realistic in situ performance. In short, realistic long
duration low intensity rain deposition water penetrates masonry veneers at high rates
and and a significant amount crosses the cavity. Z6
194. Newman, A.J. 1981. “Water penetration of external masonry walls and remedial
measures”. Building Technology and Management,vol.18, no. 11, pp. 33-34. Z6
195. Ngudjiharto, E., Tariku, F., & Fazio, P. 2014. “Preliminary results from field
experimental study of rain load and penetration into wood‐frame wall systems at
window sill defects.” Proc. 14th Canadian Conference on Building Science and Technology,
Toronto, ON, Canada. Z6
196. Ngudjiharto, Elsa 2015. Field Study of Wind Driven Rain Penetration into Vinyl Sidings and
Stucco-Clad Wood-Frame Wall Systems at Window Sill. Masters thesis, Concordia
University. Z6
197. Nordtest 1993. NT build 421 Roofs: Watertightness under Pulsating Air Pressure Espoo:
Nordtest.
198. Nore K, Blocken B, Jelle BP, Thue JV, Carmeliet J. 2007. “A dataset of wind-driven
rain measurements on a low-rise test building in Norway”. Bldg & Environ 42(5):
2150-2165. Z7.
199. Nore K, Blocken B, Thue JV. 2010. “On CFD simulation of wind-induced airflow in
narrow ventilated facade cavities: coupled and decoupled simulations and modelling
limitations”. Building and Environment Vol 45, pp. 1834-46.
200. Nore, K., Thue, JV, Time, B., Rognvik, E., 2005. “Ventilated Wooden Claddings - A
Field Investigation”, Proc of Seventh Nordic Building Physics Conference.
201. Oh, J.H., and Kopp, G.A., 2014. “Modelling of spatially and temporally-varying
cavity pressures in air permeable, double-layer roof systems”. Build Environ. 82, 135-
150.
202. Oh, J.H., and Kopp, G.A., 2015. “An experimental study of pressure distributions
within a double-layered roof system in a region of separated flow”. J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 138, pp. 1-12.
203. Olsson, L. 2014, “Results from laboratory tests of wind driven rain tightness in more
than 100 façades and weather barriers”, 10th Nordic Symposium on Building Physics, 15-19
June, 2014, Lund, Sweden: Lund University. Z6
204. Olsson, L. 2015, “Long-term Field Measurements of Moisture in Wooden Walls with
Different Types of Façades: Focus on Driving Rain Tightness”, Energy Procedia, Vol.
78, pp. 2518-2523. Z6.
205. Olsson, L. 2016. “Laboratory study of rates of inward leakage in seven different gaps
in a façade exposed to driving rain or water splash”, Buildings XIII – Thermal
Performance of the Exterior Envelope of Whole Buildings Conference, Clearwater Beach,
Florida, US: ASHRAE.
206. Olsson, L. 2018 Driving Rain Tightness, Intrusion Rates and Phenomenology of Leakages in
Defects of Façades: A New Calculation Algorithm. Department of Architecture and Civil
Engineering, PhD Thesis. Chalmers University, Sweden.

207. Olsson, L. 2018. “Rain resistance of façades with façade details: A summary of three
field and laboratory studies”, J of Building Physics, 2018, Vol. 41(6) pp.521– 532.
208. Olsson, L., Hagentoft, C-E. 2018, “New algorithm for water leakages flow through
rain screen deficiencies”, 7th International Building Physics Conference, 23-26 Sep, 2018,
Syracuse, NY, USA. Z5
209. Onysko, D. 2007. Drainage and Retention of Water by Cladding Systems-Part 8: Summary
Report. CMHC Research Report, Canada. Z2, Z5.
210. Onysko, D. and Thivierge, C., 2007. Drainage and Retention of Water by Cladding Systems-
Part 2: Testing and Measurement Methodologies. CMHC Research Report, Canada. Z2, Z5.
211. Onysko, D. and Thivierge, C., 2007. Drainage and Retention of Water by Cladding Systems–
Part 3: Drainage Testing of EIFS Wall Systems. CMHC Research Report, Canada. Z2, Z5.
212. Onysko, D., Thivierge, C., Plescia, S., & Craig, B. 2008. “Drainage and retention of
water by cladding systems”. In Proc 2008 BEST Conference, June, Minneapolis. Z2, Z5.
An important paper describing the Canadian approach to drainage of EIFS
213. Orr, S.A. and Viles, H., 2018. “Characterisation of building exposure to wind-driven
rain in the UK and evaluation of current standards”. Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, 180, pp.88-97. Z7 A recent paper considering different
methods of calculating driving rain deposition
214. Ott, S.A, Tietze A. & Winter, S. 2015. “Wind driven rain and moisture safety of tall
timber houses – Evaluation of simulation methods”, Wood Material Science &
Engineering, 10:3 pp. 300-311. This German study questioned the need for a WRB in
wood frame buildings with wood cladding. Z2
215. Overton, G. Bassett, M., McNeil, S. 2010. “The Performance of Wall Drainage Media
in New Zealand”, Proc CIB World Building Congress 10‐13 May, Salford, United
Kingdom pp 54-62. Z2, Z3
216. Overton, G.E., 2013. An Analysis of Wind-Driven Rain in New Zealand. BRANZ. This is
an excellent national study of wind-driven rain intensity and simultaneous wind
pressures for a range of return periods and many locations.
217. Pérez-Bella, J.M., Domínguez-Hernández, J., Cano-Suñén, E., Alonso-Martínez, M.
and del Coz-Díaz, J.J., 2020. “Equivalence between the methods established by ISO
15927-3 to determine wind-driven rain exposure: Reanalysis and improvement
proposal”. Building and Environment, 174, p.106777. Z7. A recent paper considering
different methods of calculating driving rain deposition
218. Platts, R.E. and Sasaki, J.R., Rain Leakage Tests on vertical Through Joints. Internal Report
323. Ottawa: National Research Council Canada, Division of Building Research,
Ottawa, October 1965. Z2, Z4
219. Plewes, W.G. 1981. Exterior Wall Construction in High-Rise Buildings. Advisory
Document. Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation, 1981. 73 pp. State of the art
Canadian report in 1981 that makes no mention of drainage as a requirement. Z2
220. Poirier, G.F., Brown, W.C., Baskaran, A., "Pressure Equalization and the Control of
Rainwater Penetration", Proc. Sixth Conference on Building Science & Technology, Toronto,
March 5-6, 1992, pp.45-64. Important—shows sine wave tests and results of wall
systems, not joints. Z4, Z5
221. Popp, W., Mayer, E., Künzel, H., 1980. Untersuchungen über die Belüftung des Luftraumes
hinter vorgesetzten Fassadenbekleidung aus kleinformatigen Elementen. Forschungsbericht B
Ho 22/80: Fraunhofer Institut für Bauphysik, , Holzkirchen, Germany. Seminal feld
study of ventilation drying. Z3
222. Pountney MT, Maxwell R, Butler AJ. 1988. Rain penetration of cavity walls: report of a
survey of properties in England and Wales. Building Research Establishment Information
Paper 2/88. Z6
223. Quirouette, R. L. and Rousseau, J., 1998. "A Review of Pressure Equalization and
Compartmentalization Studies of Exterior Walls for Rain Penetration Control," Water
Leakage Through Building Facades, ASTM STP 1314, R. J. Kudder and J. L. Erdly, Eds.,
American Society for Testing and Materials. Z4
224. Quirouette, R., & Arch, B. (1997). “Review of the NRCC and USG study of the EIFS
barrier walls for wood framed houses in Wilmington, North Carolina”. Journal of
Thermal Insulation and Building Envelopes, 20(4), 350-358. Z6
225. Quirouette, R., 1996. Laboratory Investigation and Field Monitoring of Pressure-Equalized
Rainscreen Walls, CMHC Research Report, September. Z4 Z5
226. Rahiminejad, M. and Khovalyg, D., 2020. Impact of air-flow on thermal performance of air-
spaces behind cladding. ASHRAE Research Report 1759. ASHRAE, Atlanta, Georgia.
This detailed report is summarized in the 2022 paper by the same authors.
227. Rahiminejad, M. and Khovalyg, D., 2021. “Review on ventilation rates in the
ventilated air-spaces behind common wall assemblies with external cladding”. Building
and Environment, 190, p.107538.
228. Rahiminejad, M. and Khovalyg, D., 2022. “Measuring the effective thermal resistance
of ventilated air-spaces behind common wall assemblies: Theoretical uncertainty
analysis and recommendations for the hot box method modifications (ASHRAE
1759-RP)”. Science and Technology for the Built Environment, 28(3), pp.320-337. Z3
229. Rahiminejad, M. and Khovalyg, D., 2022. “Numerical and experimental study of the
dynamic thermal resistance of ventilated air-spaces behind passive and active
façades”. Building and Environment, Vol 225, p.109616. Modeling and field
measurements of the effective R-value of the air gap of well ventilated claddings. In
short, the R-value was found to be close to common design assumptions, in the range
R-0.7 to R-1.0 even when well ventilated. Z3.
230. Rain Penetration of Masonry: A Bibliography, Selectively Annotated. 1980. Technical
Publication No. TP-21, Centre for Research & Development in Masonry, Nov..*
231. Rathbone, A. J. Rain and Air Penetration Performance of Concrete Blockwork . Wexham
Springs: Cement and Concrete Association, 1982. Z6
232. Raths, C.H.,"Brick Masonry Nonperformance Causes"; Masonry: Research, Application,
and Problems, ASTM STP 871, J.C. Grogan and J.T. Conway, Eds., American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1985, pp. 182-201.*
233. Reijnierse P.C 1971. “Rain and wind tightness of light metal facades.” Bouwwereld vol
67 no 32 p 27-34. Z1
234. Ricketts, D. R. 2002. Water Penetration Resistance of Windows: Study of Manufacturing,
Building Design, Installation and Maintenance Factors, RDH Building Engineering Report
for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa, December, 86 p. Z2, Z4
235. Ritchie T, Davison JI. 1969. The wetting of walls by rain. Internal report No. 367,
Division of Building Research, National Research Council, Ottawa, Canada. Z7.
236. Ritchie, T. 1958. Small-Panel Method for Investigating Moisture Penetration of Brick Masonry.
National Research Council of Canada. Division of Building Research, Ottawa.
237. Ritchie,T.L. 1957. A review of literature on rain penetration of unit masonry. Technical Paper
No. 47 (NRCC 4336). Ottawa: National Research Council Canada, Mvieion of
Building Research, 72 pp.
238. Ritchie,T.L. 1960. Rain penetration of walls of unit masonry. Canadian Building Digest 6.
Ottawa: National Research Council Canada, Division of Building Research, 4 pp
239. Ritchie,T.L. 1972. Water penetration tests of TTW brick walls. Building Research Note 86.
Ottawa: National Research Council Canada, Divisionof Building Research, 23 pp.
240. Robinson G, Baker MC. 1975. Wind-driven rain and buildings. National Research
Council of Canada, Division of Building Research, Technical Paper No. 445, Ottawa.
241. Rostron R. M. 1964. Light Cladding of Buildings. The Architectural Press, London.
Great introduction to design thinking of practioners at the start of the 1960’s – no
rain control strategies, design methods etc are discussed. Z1
242. Rousseau J. 1983. “Rain penetration and moisture damage in residential
construction”. Building Science Insight '83, Seminar on Humidity, Condensation and
Ventilation in Houses, Canada. Although the focus of research at this time was
condensation issues (themselves exacerbated by the changes to buildings generated by
the oil crisis), rain penetration was becoming more of a concern by the early 1980s.
Z1.
243. Rousseau J. 1999. Drying of walls with ventilated stucco cladding: a parametric analysis. Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), Ottawa.
244. Rousseau, M. Z., 1990. “Facts and fictions of rain screen walls”. Construction Canada
90, Volume 32, Number 2 March/April 1990 pp. 40-47. Z1, Z4
245. Rousseau, M.Z., Poirier, G.F. and Brown, W.C., 1998. Pressure equalization in rainscreen
wall systems. CTU 17. Institute for Research in Construction, National Research
Council of Canada. Excellent summary of the state of the art practise
recommendations for the time. Also emphasized that PE was just one part of a wall
design and that drainage was an important feature. Z1, Z4
246. Rowley , F. B. , Algren , A. B. , and Lund , C. E. 1940. Methods of Moisture Control and
Their Application to Building Construction Bulletin 17 , Univ of Minnesota April.
Seminal remarkable study of ventilation drying of wood frame walls with siding. Z3.
247. Rowley, F.B. and Lajoy, M.H., 1949. Some Causes of Paint Peeling. Bulletin No. 30. Univ
of Minnesota. Very early discussion of the role of ventilation as a method of drying
cladding and managing moisture flowing from inside the building. Z3.
248. Ruggiero, S. S., & Myers, J. C. 1991. “Design and Construction of Watertight
Exterior Building Walls”. ASTM STP 1107 Water in Exterior Building Walls: Problems
and Solutions. T. Schwartz Ed., ASTM International. One of the first published
documents identifying drainage and WRB as critical to performance. Z2
249. Rüther, Petra, and Time, B. 2015 “External Wood Claddings - Performance Criteria,
Driving Rain and Large-Scale Water Penetration Methods.” Wood Material Science &
Engineering 10.3, pp. 287–299. Another European paper that, surprisingly, still is not
considering a WRB in 2015. Z2, Z5
250. Sahal, N., & Lacasse, M. A. 2005. “Water entry function of a hardboard siding-clad
wood stud wall”. Building and Environment, 40(11), 1479-1491. Z2, Z6
251. Sahal, Nil, & Lacasse, M.A., 2008. "Proposed method for calculating water
penetration test parameters of wall assemblies as applied to Istanbul, Turkey." Building
and Environment 43, no. 7, pp. 1250-1260. Z5, Z7
252. Sakhnovsky, A. A., 1991. "Full-Scale Performance Testing of Curtain Walls," Exterior
Wall Systems: Glass and ConcreteTechnology, Design, and Construction, ASTMSTP 1034, B.
Donaldson, Ed., AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials, pp. 47-58. Z4, Z5
253. Sakhnovsky, A.A. 1974. “Testing for Water Penetration, Window, and Wall Testing,”
ASTM STP 552, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1974, pp. 31-35.
Describes testing and the need for same by the early proponent of full-scale mockup
testing. Z5
254. Salzano CT, Masters FJ, Katsaros JD. 2010. “Water penetration resistance of
residential window installation options for hurricane-prone areas”. Build Environ 45(6):
1373-1388. Z5, Z6, Z7
255. Sandin K. 1994. “Moisture conditions in cavity walls with wooden framework”.
Building Research and Information 21, pp. 235-238. Z3. This paper is important as it
reports inward vapor drive condensation problems and the potential for ventilation as
a means for removing moisture (which it largely dismisses). Z3
256. Sandin, K., 1991. Skalmurskonstruktionens fukt- och temperaturbetingelser. Rapport
R43:1991 Byggforskningsrådet, Stockholm, Sweden. This is the report that contains
the full information for the 1994 Sandin paper, and includes more information about
driving rain and inward vapor diffusion condensation. Z3, Z7
257. Sasaki, J. R., & Wilson, A. G. 1968. “A method for water leakage testing of windows
in North America”. Weathertight Joints for Walls Proceedings of the International Symposium,
Oslo, September 25-28, 1967. This is the most important paper describing the
development of the ASTM E331 which is the basis for many modern ASTM and
AAMA rain penetration standards. Z6
258. Sasaki, J.R. 1964. “An apparatus for determining the rain tightness of windows and
walls”. Project Notes No. 65. Ottawa: National Research Council Canada, Division
of Building Research, 5 pp. JFS Cant find original anymore….
259. Sasaki, J.R. 1971. “Evaluating the rain-tightness of joints between exterior wall
components”. Technical Paper No. 364 (NRCC 12579). Ottawa: National Research
Council Canada, Division of Building Research, 3 pp. (Reprinted from Research into
Practice: The Challenge of Application, 5th CIB Congress, Versailles, June 1971, pp.
485-487.)
260. Sasaki, J.R. 1971. “Testing building enclosure elements for rain penetration”.
Technical Paper No. 334 (NRCC 11798). Ottawa: National Research Council Canada,
Division of Building Research, 4pp. (Reprinted from Specifications Associate, vol. 12:
no. 5, p. 47.)
261. Sasaki, J.R., and Platts, R.E. 1967. “Tests on vertical joints for a wood- panel wall
system”. Weathertight Joints for Walls Proceedings of the International Symposium, Oslo,
September 25-28, 1967. CIB Report No. 11, NBRI Report 51C, January 1968, pp.
292-294.
262. Säwén, T., Stockhaus, M., Hagentoft, C.E., Schjøth Bunkholt, N. and Wahlgren, P.,
2022. “Model of thermal buoyancy in cavity-ventilated roof constructions”. Journal of
Building Physics, 45(4), pp.413-431.
263. Schwarz B. 1973. Witterungsbeanspruchung von Hochhausfassaden“ (in German).
HLH (Heizung, Lüftung/Klimatechnik, Haustechnik), Bd. 24, Nr. 12, 376-384. Measured
ventilation flows velocity behind open joint cladding in field conditions on a high
rise. Z3
264. Scott, D.L. 1984. Rain leakage in wood frame walls: two case histories. Building Research
Note 210. National Research Council Canada, Division of Building Research, Ottawa.
Z6.
265. Sexton, DE. 1968. Building Aerodynamics. Current Paper 64/68, Building Research
Station, also In: Proceedings of the CIB Symposium on Weathertight Joints for Walls,
Oslo, September 25–28, 1967. Z7
266. Shi, X. and Burnett, E., 2013. “Effect of membrane ballooning on screen pressure
equalization: A short literature review.” J of Building Physics, 37(2), pp.185-199.
267. Simpson, Y. 2010. Field evaluation of ventilation wetting and drying of rainscreen walls in coastal
British Columbia (Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University). Z3
268. Skeen JW. 1971. Experiments on the rain penetration of brickwork: the effect of mortar type.
Building Research Station Current Paper 33/71. Z1 Z6
269. Smegal, J., A. Lukachko, J. Straube and T. Trainor, 2014. “Quantitatively Evaluating
the Effectiveness of Different Drip Edge Profiles”, Proc. 14th Can Bldg Sci & Tech
Conf. Toronto, Oct. pp. 89-99. Z7. An example of measurements of surface runoff
and concentration that impact rain penetration loads. Z7
270. Smegal, J., Drainage and Drying of Small Gaps in Wall Systems. MASc Dissertation, Civil
Engineering Department, University of Waterloo, 2006. Extensive measurements of
the drainage effectiveness of small gaps, experimental methods, and ventilation. Z2,
Z3.
271. Spagna, F. Ruggiero, S. 2003. "Stucco Cladding — Lessons Learned from
Problematic Facades," in STP 1422 Performance of Exterior Building Walls, ed. P.
Johnson. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International, 214-230. Z6

272. Støver, E.A., Sundsøy, M.H., Andenæs, E., Geving, S. and Kvande, T., 2022. Rain
Intrusion through Horizontal Joints in Façade Panel Systems—Experimental
Investigation. Buildings, 12(10), p.1497. Z6

273. Straube J.F., Burnett EFP. 1993. The Zero Cavity and DPV Project. University of
Waterloo report for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Ottawa.
274. Straube J.F., Burnett EFP. 1997. “Driving rain and masonry veneer.” ASTM Symp. on
Water Leakage Through Building Facades, Orlando, March 17 1996. Special Technical
Publication, ASTM STP 1314, Philadelphia, 1997, pp. 73-87
275. Straube, J., 2001, "Pressure moderation and rain penetration control", Ontario
Building Envelope Council -- Proc. of Pressure Equalized Rainscreens: Design and
Performance, International Plaza Hotel, Nov. 21. Z4. Detailed field measurements of
wall systems presented in the fequency domain.
276. Straube, J., van Straaten, R., & Burnett, E. 2004. “Field studies of ventilation drying”.
Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of Whole Buildings X International Conference.
Clearwater Beach, Florida. December. Z3. Detailed field measurements of the drying
potential of water that wets the sheathing of walls as a function of ventilation.
277. Straube, J.F. and Burnett, E.F.P., 1994. "Performance Measurement of Pressure-
Moderated Screened Walls", Proc. of Int. Conference on Building Envelope Systems and
Technology, Singapore, Dec 7-8, pp. 479-484.
278. Straube, J.F. and Burnett, E.F.P., 1995. Vents, Ventilation Drying, and Pressure
Moderation. Building Engineering Group report for CMHC, Ottawa. Z3, Z4. Detailed
theoretical background to allow preduction of ventilation flow and a deep review of
the pressure equalization research to that date.
279. Straube, J.F. and Burnett, E.F.P., 1997 “Driving Rain and Masonry Veneer,” Water
Leakage Through Building Facades, ASTM STP 1314, R. Kudder and J.L. Erdly, Eds.,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 73-87.
280. Straube, J.F. and Burnett, E.F.P., 1997. "Rain Control and Screened Wall Systems",
Proc. of the Seventh Building Science and Technology Conference, Toronto, March 20-21, pp.
17-37.
281. Straube, J.F. and Burnett, E.F.P., 1998. “Drainage, Ventilation Drying, and Enclosure
Performance,” Proceedings of Thermal Performance of Building EnvelopesVII, Clearwater
Beach Florida, December 4-7, pp 189-198.
282. Straube, J.F. and Burnett, E.F.P., 1999. “Rain Control and Design Strategies,” J. Of
Thermal Insulation and Building Envelopes, July, pp. 41-56. Z1. A fundamental paper that
identifies the how rainscreen, drainage, and ventilation fit into the universe of all wall
and enclosure rain control strategies.
283. Straube, J.F. and Burnett, E.F.P., 2000,. “Simplified prediction of driving rain on
buildings”. In Proc of the Int Bldg Phys Conference, September 2000, Eindhoven,
Netherlands pp. 375-382. Z7. A paper that describes field measurements and theory
behind the methods used in WUFI and current European standards for predicting
wind-driven rain deposition on building facades.
284. Straube, J.F. and Burnett, E.F.P., 2000. "Pressure Moderation and Rain Control for
Multi-Wythe Masonry Walls". Proc of International Building Physics Conference, Eindhoven,
September 18-21, pp. 179-186.
285. Straube, J.F. and Smegal, J. 2007. “Modeled and Measured Drainage, Storage, and
Drying Behind Cladding Systems”, Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of Whole
Buildings X International Conference, Clearwater, Dec.
286. Straube, J.F. Schumacher, C.J. 2005. “Driving Rain Data for Canadian Building
Design” in Proc. 10th Canadian Building Science & Tech. Conf., Ottawa, May. Z7. A
summary of research performed to identify driving rain information for building
design in Canada.
287. Straube, J.F., and Smegal, J., 2007. “The Role of Small Gaps Behind Wall Claddings
on Drainage and Drying”, Proc. of 11th Canadian Building Science & Technology Conference,
Banff, March. Z2. A summary paper of extensive research conducted into drainage in
small gaps.
288. Straube, J.F., 1998. Moisture Control and Enclosure Wall Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Civil
Engineering Department, University of Waterloo, April.
289. Straube, J.F., Lstiburek, J., Karagiozis, A.K. Schumacher, C.J. 2000 “Appendix D:
Preliminary Investigation of Drainage in Full-Scale Walls Clad with Stucco and
 Horizontal Vinyl Siding” in Oak Ridge National Laboratory Building Enclosure
Hygrothermal Study, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
290. Surry D, Inculet DR, Skerlj PF, Lin J-X, Davenport AG. 1994. “Wind, rain and the
building envelope: a status report of ongoing research at the University of Western
Ontario”. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 53: 19- 36
291. Surry, D., Skerlj, P. , Mikitiuk, M.J., An Exploratory Study of the Climatic Relationships
between Rain and Wind, Final Report BLWT-SS22-1994, Faculty of Engineering
Science, University of Western Ontario, London, September, 1994.
292. Svendsen, S., 1967, “The principles of one-stage and two-stage seals”. Weathertight
Joints for Walls: Proceedings of the International CIB Symposium, pp. 25-28. Z1, Z4. A
seminal paper in the history of pressure equalized rainscreens and rain penetration
control of enclosure walls.
293. Svendsen, S.D. 1962. Principles for preventing wind and rain penetration. Norwegian
Building Research Institute, Oslo 20 pp.
294. Svendsen, S.D., and Wigen, R. 1958. “Norwegian test methods for wind and rain
penetration through windows”. ASTM STP 251 pp. 36-38. Z5
295. Tanner, C. 1993. Hinterlueftete Fassaden. Abschlussbericht Projekt 127378. 2nd ed.,
August, EMPA Dubendorf. A report investigating Swiss rainscreen claddings,
including moisture tolerance of insulation, cladding attachment, and testing and
analysis of rain penetration resistance. Pressure equalization is not discussed, and
although water is shown to penetrate through the insulation to the backup wall
(especially at cladding attachments) a WRB is not recommended, just flashing details
around windows, etc.
296. Tariku, F. and Iffa, E., 2019. “Empirical model for cavity ventilation and
hygrothermal performance assessment of wood frame wall systems: Experimental
study”. Building and Environment, 157, pp.112-126. Z3.
297. Tariku, F., & Ge, H. 2011. “Moisture response of sheathing board in conventional
and rain-screen wall systems with shiplap cladding”. Journal of Testing and Evaluation,
39(3), 381-388. Z3
298. Tariku, F., & Simpson, Y. 2013. “Hygrothermal Performance Assessment of Vented
and Ventilated Wall Systems: An Experimental Study.” Thermal performance of the
exterior envelopes of Whole Buildings XII International Conference, Clearwater Beach, Florida,
USA, December 1–5, 2013. Z3
299. Teasdale-St-Hilaire, A. and D. Derome. 2005. “State-of-the-art review of simulated
rain infiltration and environmental loading for large-scale building envelope testing”.
ASHRAE Transactions 111(1), pp. 389-401, 2004. Z5
300. Teasdale-St-Hilaire, A. and Derome, D., 2006. “Methodology and application of
simulated wind-driven rain infiltration in building envelope experimental testing”.
ASHRAE Transactions, 112, p.656. Z5.
301. Teasdale-St-Hilaire, A. and Derome, D., 2007. “Comparison of experimental and
numerical results of wood-frame wall assemblies wetted by simulated wind-driven
rain infiltration”. Energy and Buildings, 39(11), pp.1131-1139. Z5.
302. TenWolde, A., and C. Carll. 1992. “Effect of cavity ventilation on moisture in walls
and roofs”. Proc of the Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of Buildings V,
Clearwater Beach, Florida, pp. 555–62. Z3.
303. TenWolde, A., Carll, C., and Malinauskas, V., “Airflows and Moisture Conditions in
Walls of Manufactured Homes,” Airflow Performance of Building Envelopes, Components,
and Systems, ASTM STP 1255 Mark P. Modera and Andrew K. Persily, Eds., American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1995, pp. 137-155. Z3.
304. TenWolde, A., Carll, C.G. and Malinauskas, V., 1998. “Air pressures in wood frame
walls”. In Proceedings Thermal VII. Dec, Clearwater Beach, Florida, pp. 555–62. Z3.
305. Tonyan, T. D., Moyer, K. W., & Brown, W. C. 1999. “Water management and
moisture transport in direct-applied and EIFS wall assemblies”. Journal of testing and
evaluation, 27(3), 219-230. Z1, Z2
306. Tsimplis, M.N. 1994 “The correlation of wind speed and rain”, Weather 49, 135–139.
Z7.
307. Tsongas, G. A., Govan, D. P. and McGillis, J.A, 1998), "Field observations and
laboratory tests of water migration in walls with shiplap hardboard siding", Thermal
Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of Buildings VII, Clearwater Beach, Florida, pp. 469.
Z2
308. Tveit, A., 1970. “Moisture absorption, penetration and transfer in building
structures”. In Urban Climates and Building Climatology Symposium. WHO, Tech. Note, 109,
pp. 151-158. Z5
309. Ullett, J.M, Brown, W.C., 1996. Measured Pressure Equalized Performance of an Exterior
Insulation Finish System (EIFS) Specimen: Performance of Pressure Equalized Rainscreen Walls,
a Collaborative Research and Development Project. CMHC, April.
310. Underwood, S. J. and V. Meentemeyer 1998. “Climatology of wind-driven rain for
the contiguous United States for the period 1971 to 1995”. Physical Geography 19(6),
pp. 445-462. Z7.
311. van Bentum, C. A., Kalkman, I., & Geurts, C. P. 2014. “Field tests to study the
pressure equalization on air permeable façade elements”. In 7th International Conference
on Building Envelope Systems and Technologies (ICBEST 2014), Aachen, Germany.
312. van Bentum, C. and Geurts, C., 2015. “Full scale measurements of pressure
equalization on air permeable façade elements”. Proc 14th Internation Conference on Wind
Engineering, ICWE14, Brazil.
313. Van Den Bossche, N. and Janssens, A., 2016. “Airtightness and watertightness of
window frames: Comparison of performance and requirements”. Building and
Environment, 110, pp.129-139.
314. Van Den Bossche, N., Janssens, A. and Moens, J., 2008. “Pressure equalisation as
design strategy for watertight windows”. In Nordic Building Symposium, Copenhagen,
Denmark, pp. 769-776.
315. Van Den Bossche, N., Lacasse, M. & Janssens, A. 2011. “Watertightness of masonry
walls: an overview”. 12th International conference on Durability of Building Materials and
Components (X). pp. 49-56. Z6
316. Van Den Bossche, N., Lacasse, M., Moore, T. & Jannsens, A. 2012. “Water
infiltration through openings in a vertical plane under static boundary conditions”.
5th International Building Physics Conference (IBPC-2012),. Ghent University, pp. 457-463.
Z6
317. Van Den Bossche, N., Van Goethem, S., Scharlaken, S., Sulmon, S. and Janssens, A.,
2015. “Watertightness and water management of curtain walls”. In 1st International
Symposium on Building Pathology (ISBP-2015) (pp. 431-438).
318. Van Den Bossche, N.,. 2013. Watertightness of Building Components: Principles, Testing and
Design Guidelines. Doctoral thesis, University Ghent, Belgium. This is an important
thesis that documents a range of carefully thought out experiments exploring the
factors that influence pressure equalization and the relationship to water penetration.
Static and cyclic dynamic tests are conducted and window frames given special
attention. Z2, Z4, Z5
319. Van Den Bossche, Nathan, Arnold Janssens, J. Moens 2008. "Pressure equalisation as
design strategy for watertight windows." Proc Nordic Building Symposium, Copenhagen,
Denmark, pp. 769-776.
320. Van Den Bossche, Nathan, Michael A. Lacasse, and Arnold Janssens. "A uniform
methodology to establish test parameters for watertightness testing: Part I: A critical
review." Building and Environment 63 pp. 145-156, 2013.
321. Van Den Bossche, Nathan, Michael A. Lacasse, and Arnold Janssens. 2013. "A
uniform methodology to establish test parameters for watertightness testing Part II:
 Pareto front analysis on co-occurring rain and wind." Building and Environment 63 pp.
157-167.
322. Van Linden, S. and Van Den Bossche, N., 2022. “Review of rainwater infiltration
rates in wall assemblies”. Building and Environment, p.109213. Z2. Z7.
323. Van Linden, S., & Van Den Bossche, N. 2019. “Water Management in Cladding
Systems with Small Drainage Cavities: A Review”. Thermal Performance of the Exterior
Envelopes of Whole Buildings XIV International Conference, pp. 867-874. Z2
324. Van Linden, S., Lacasse, M., & Van Den Bossche, N., 2018. “Drainage and retention
of water in small drainage cavities: Experimental assessment.” 7th International Building
Physics Conference, Syracuse, NY. Z2
325. Van Linden, S., Lacasse, M. and Van Den Bossche, N., 2022. “Drainage of infiltrated
rainwater in wall assemblies: Test method, experimental quantification, and
recommendations”. J. of Building Physics. Review of many studies of laboratory
rainwater penetration studies reporting on the wide range of rates. Z2, Z5.
326. Van Linden, S., 2022. Fourth Generation Watertightness: A Performance-Based Strategy to
Control Rainwater Infiltration in Façade Systems. PhD Thesis, Ghent University.
327. Van Schijndel, A.W.M. and Schols, S.F.C., 1998. “Modeling pressure equalization in
cavities”. J of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 74, pp.641-649. Z4.
328. Van Straaten, R. A. 2003. Ventilation of Building Enclosure Assemblies. M.A.Sc. Thesis,
Civil Engineering Dept. University of Waterloo.
329. Van Straaten, R. A. 2017. Pressure Equalization of Wind-Induced Pressures on Residential
Vinyl Siding Cladding in Full-Scale. PhD Thesis, Western University, London, Canada.
Z4. A detailed study of the theory of pressure equalization supported by unique
laboratory data
330. Van Straaten, R. A., Kopp, G. A., & Straube, J. F. 2010. “Testing water penetration
resistance of window systems exposed to “realistic” dynamic air pressures”. In
Proceedings of International Conference of Building Envelope Systems and Technology (ICBEST),
Vancouver. Z5.
331. Vanpachtenbeke, M., Langmans, J., Van den Bulcke, J., Van Acker, J. and Roels, S.,
2020. “Modelling moisture conditions behind brick veneer cladding: Verification of
common approaches by field measurements”. Journal of Building Physics, 44(2), pp.95-
120.
332. Vanpachtenbeke, M., Langmans, J., Van den Bulcke, J., Van Acker, J. and Roels, S.,
2017. “On the drying potential of cavity ventilation behind brick veneer cladding: A
detailed field study”. Building and Environment, 123, pp.133-145. Z3.
333. Verhoef LGW, Cuperus YJ. 1993. Detailleren met baksteen. Voorkomen van visuele schade
door vervuiling (in Dutch). Rapport 93-2 Civieltechnisch Centrum Uitvoering Research
en Regelgeving –Koninklijk Verbond van Nederlandse Baksteenfabrikanten. Z3.
334. Viljanen, K., Lü, X. and Puttonen, J., 2021. “Factors affecting the performance of
ventilation cavities in highly insulated assemblies”. Journal of Building Physics, 45(1),
pp.67-110. Z3.
335. Vitruvius, Marcus Pollio, 1914. The ten books on architecture, translated by Morris Hicky
Morgan. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. A historic classic which is one of
the few documents that provide technical knowledge and ideas from the Roman
times. Z1
336. Vos BH. 1974. “Introduction to the Second International Symposium on Moisture
Problems in Buildings”. 2nd International CIB/RILEM Symposium on Moisture Problems in
Buildings. Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 10-12 September, 1974. Z1
337. Vos, B.H. and Tammes, E., 1977. “Rain penetration through the outer walls on
cavity-structures”. In Rilem/ASTM/CIB symposium on evaluation of the performance of
external vertical surfaces of buildings. Otaniemi, Finland, 28. 8-2. 9 Vol. 1, pp. 304-314. Z5
338. Waldum, A.M.,"The Performance of Masonry Walls in Wet and Cold Norwegian
Climate", Proc. Sixth Canadian Masonry Symp., Saskatoon, Canada, 15-17 June, 1992.*
339. Wang, L., & Ge, H. 2019. “Effect of rain leakage on hygrothermal performance of
highly insulated wood-framed walls: a stochastic approach”. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 46(11), 979-989.
340. Weston, T. A., Pascual, X., & Boone, K. (2006). “Water Resistance and Durability of
Weather-Resistive Barriers”. In Performance and Durability of the Window-Wall Interface.
ASTM STP 1484.
341. Weston, T. A., Stachnik, M., & Waggoner, J., 2001. “Development of a textured
spun-bonded polyolefin water barrier for stucco and EIFS”. ASHRAE Transactions,
107, p. 433.
342. Weston, T. A., Waggoner, J., Zatkulak, T. D., and Kang, N., “Laboratory
Investigation of Weather Resistive Barriers Used with Cedar Siding,” Proceedings for
Performance of Exterior Enveloped and Whole Buildings VIII, December 2–7, Clearwater
Beach, FL, 2001.
343. Weston, T., & Boone, K. (2016). “A Review of Cladding Drainage Testing,
Standards, and Codes”. ASTM STP 1585 Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems (EIFS):
Performance, Progress and Innovation, pp. 183-196.
344. Whiteside D, Newman AJ, Kloss PB, Willis W. 1980. “Full-scale testing of the
resistance to water penetration of seven cavity fills”. Build Environ, Vol. 15, pp. 109-
118
345. Wigen, R. 1958. Window studies 111, Wooden windows: tests on resistance to wind and rain.
Oslo: Norges byggforskningsinstitutt, 48 pp. Summary in English. Don't have.
346. Williams, M. 2004. “Water-Resistive Barrier Performance Using Simple Ponding and
Vapor Diffusion Tests” Proc of ASHRAE/DOE Buildings IX Conference, Clearwater
Beach, FL.
347. Williams, M. 2008. “Evaluating Drainage Characteristics of Water Resistive Barriers
as Part of an Overall Durable Wall Approach for the Building Enclosure”. Journal of
ASTM International .
348. Williams, M. 2010. Evaluating Drainage Characteristics of Water Resistive Barriers as
Part of an Overall Durable Wall Approach for the Building Enclosure. In Up Against
the Wall: An Examination of Building Envelope Interface. Journal of ASTM International.
349. Williams, M. F., & Williams, B. L. 1998. “An overview of water leakage problems in
single-family residences clad with exterior insulation and finish systems (EIFS)”. In
Water Leakage Through Building Facades., ASTM STP 1314, R. J. Kudder and J. L. Erdly,
Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials. Z1, Z6
350. Williams, M.F. 2010. "Evaluating Drainage Characteristics of Water Resistive Barriers
as Part of an Overall Durable Wall Approach for the Building Enclosure," in
STP1509 Up Against the Wall: An Examination of Building Envelope Interface, ed. C. Carll,
B. Hardman, and T. Weston. ASTM International, pp. 139-156. Z2
351. Xiao, Z., Lacasse, M.A. and Dragomirescu, E., 2021. “An analysis of historical wind-
driven rain loads for selected Canadian cities”. J of Wind Engg and Ind Aero, 213,
p.104611. Useful compendium of extreme coincident wind pressures and driving rain
Z7
352. Xie, J., Schuyler, G.D. and Resar, H.R., 1992. “Prediction of net pressure on pressure
equalized cavities”. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 44(1-3),
pp.2449-2460. A study of curtainwall spandrel panels that included some lab tests and
development of a model to match. Z4, Z5
353. Zwayer, G.L., and Johnson, D.K.,"Masonry Leak Investigation: Theory and
Technique", Proc. of Sixth North American Masonry Conference, Philadelphia, June 6-9,
1993, pp. 885-892.* Z6