promoting building envelope excellence · winnipeg, mb r3c 1l6 toll free: 1-866-999-1299 toll free...

Can

ada

Pos

t P

ublic

atio

ns A

gree

men

t N

umbe

r: 4

0609

661

PromotingBuildingEnvelopeExcellence

PromotingBuildingEnvelopeExcellence

Winter 2004/05

Pushing the EnvelopeThe premier magazine of the OntarioBuilding Envelope CouncilWinter 2004/2005

Published For:OBEC1951 Fairport RoadPickering, OntarioL1V 4M2Phone: (905) 831-2588 Fax: (905) [email protected]

Published By:Matrix Group Inc.Publications Mail Agreement Number 40609661Return all undeliverable addressed to:52 Donald StreetWinnipeg, MB R3C 1L6Toll Free: 1-866-999-1299Toll Free Fax: [email protected]@matrixgroupinc.netwww.matrixgroupinc.net

President & CEOJack Andress

PublisherMaurice LaBorde

Editor-in-ChiefShannon Lutter

Finance/AdministrationShoshana Weinberg

Director of Marketing & DistributionJim Hamilton

Sales ManagerNeil Gottfred

Team LeaderAndrew Bond

Account ManagersPat Andress, Albert Brydges, George Gibson, Vicki Sutton

Layout & DesignJ. Peters

Advertising DesignJames Robinson

2004 Matrix Group Inc. All rights reserved.Contents may not be reproduced by anymeans, in whole or in part, without the priorwritten permission of the publisher.Published November 2004

Messages:Message from OBEC President Anna Prioste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Features:Mould: The Dirty Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Building With BRAGG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Vapour Barriers: Codes, Myths and Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15OBEC on the Web . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Understanding Rain Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21"Measuring Up" With BSSO Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23Looking Back: The History of a Unique Industry Organization . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Regional RoundupCapital Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27Southern Tip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27Central Ontario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29GTA & Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29North by Northwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Buyer’s Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

PREMIER EDITION • Pushing the Envelope 5

Table ofContents

On the Cover: Architecture in downtown Torontoblends the modern with the historical as manydifferent designs join together to form a uniqueskyline.

Welcome to the OntarioBuilding EnvelopeCouncil’s premiereissue of Pushing the

Envelope magazine! One of OBEC’slongstanding objectives has been topromote excellence in the design, con-struction and performance of the build-ing envelope. Over the past 17 years,this has been accomplished by provid-ing a forum for the varied professionaldisciplines who have an interest in thebuilding envelope through our monthlyevening technical presentations, semi-nars, field trips and events. This maga-zine enables OBEC to better meet itsobjectives by allowing us to reach outto a larger and broader group of build-ing professionals.

Pushing the Envelope has been madepossible thanks to a partnership withour publisher, Matrix Group Inc., ouradvertisers, our editorial contributionsand the foresight provided by our PastPresident, Brian Shedden who spear-headed this initiative last year. The edi-torial content will mirror the high levelof quality that OBEC has delivered inall of our programs and educationalseminars over the years. Our emphasiswill be on providing information thatwill help bridge the gaps between archi-tecture, engineering, building scienceand construction, and our section onOBEC Tech Talk will focus on technicalrequirements and issues that relate tothe building envelope.

One of my personal objectives asPresident this year is to strengthen ourties with the architectural communityand seek acceptance of our educationalprograms for continuing educationcredits through the Ontario Associa-tion of Architects. By developingstronger ties, we can better achieve our

common mandates of increasing theknowledge of our members and pro-moting excellence in the design andconstruction of buildings.

If you’re not already a member ofOBEC, I encourage you to visit ourwebsite at www.obec.on.ca and browsethrough our schedule of events to get ataste of what we’re all about. Goodbuilding science is the fundamentalingredient for designing and construct-ing durable, healthy and sustainablebuildings. So, if you have an interest inbuilding science, building performanceand learning about the latest advancesin building materials and systems, consider membership in our dynamicassociation. Some of our upcomingevents include a half-day seminar onHygrothermal Modeling Tools and afull day seminar on Designing for Dis-aster. If you live in the Ottawa Regionor in Quebec, Manitoba, Alberta orBritish Columbia, I encourage you tosupport your local building envelopecouncils.

With the launch of this magazinecoinciding with the Construct CanadaTrade Show (December 1-3, 2004 at theMetro Toronto Convention Centre),consider attending some of the Build-ing Envelope Solutions Seminars thathave been organized by OBEC. Theseminars will cover topics such asDesign, Construction, Maintenanceand Building Systems and Compo-nents.

If you have any comments or ideasfor improving this magazine or ourassociation, please contact me. Onbehalf of all of us on the 2004/2005Board of Directors, we thank you foryour support and look forward to Push-ing the Envelope for many more yearsto come!


Message from the President

Anna Prioste, B.Tech.OBEC President

2004/2005 OBEC Board of Directors

President:Anna Prioste,

Yolles Partnership Inc.

Past President:Brian Shedden,

J. McBride & Sons Ltd.

Vice President: Peter Adams,

Morrison Hershfield Ltd.

Secretary:Allen Lyte, Halsall Associates Ltd.

Treasurer: Robert Rymell,

RBS Consulting Engineers

Director: David De Rose,

Halsall Associates Ltd.

Director: Peter Kubas, Tremco Ltd.

Director: Raymond George, Soprema Inc.

OBEC Administrator:Carol Taylor

A30-year-old multi-family low-income housing complexhad undertaken repairs in southeastern Alaska. Exten-sive pin leaks had developed in much of the water sup-ply piping. A decision was made to engage a plumbing

contractor to replace the old copper with new. The baths werestacked over the kitchens, and adjoining units shared commonwet walls. Initial excavations showed what appeared to be blackmould growing in the vicinity of the leaking pipes. Having beenpreviously alarmed over the dangers of exposure to black toxicmould, the plumbers asked that the mouldy wall be tested. Some-one collected a sample of the blackened gypsum wallboard andsent it off to a laboratory for analysis. The verdict came backStachybotrys chartarum, the famous “black toxic mould”, and theplumbers walked off the job.

Rumours about dangerous mould began to spread amongstthe residents. There were reports of lawyers circling. A decisionwas made to evacuate the buildings until the problem could be

corrected. I was asked to come to the complex to evaluatethe situation. When I arrived, the 30 or so units were allempty. Only one of the walls had been opened beforework ceased. Several square meters of dry wall fragmentsthat had been torn out were sitting in a trash barrel. Thewall on the other side of the studs was intact, and showeddense black staining reflecting the patterns of water leaks.Damage appeared to be confined to the stud cavities closeto the water supply pipes. Tape lifts from black stainedsurfaces were examined by light microscopy, confirmingthe diagnosis of Stachybotrys chartarum.

I toured the complex, which consisted of 10 freestand-ing structures. The complex was located in the heart of thePacific temperate rain forest. The local airport weatherstation reported over 250 centimetres of annual precipita-tion, and occasional wind gusts in excess of 160 km/hr.After 30 years out in this kind of weather, the buildings


By McGregor Pearce, MPH Environmental Health Consultant, LLC

Mould:The DirtyDetails

Striking a balancewith mould...

Above Photos: Black toxic mould (Stachybotrys chartarum) can be found inside walls, under tubs, behind appliances etc. and itmay not be visible to the naked eye.

is it possible?

were showing a bit of wear and tear inthe exterior shells. Roof decking in theattics supported patches of fungalgrowth. When discrete holes were cutbelow tired looking windows that facedthe worst of the weather, there was evi-dence of minor water damage.

I was asked to speak to a meeting ofvarious interested parties, includingmanagement, maintenance staff, and ofcourse, the plumbers. Stachybotrys char-tarum was the first item on the agenda.To put risks in perspective, I told them

that Stachybotrys was potentially poison-ous, but not that poisonous. To provemy point I ran my finger down a pieceof the mouldy drywall from the trashcan. I showed the audience my black-ened finger, then put it in my mouthand licked it clean. There were somestartled looks, others laughed. Thepoint was made that poison risk is afunction of dose.

We discussed the trashcan full ofdrywall debris, emphasizing the impor-tance of proper containment during

removal of mouldy material. Mouldybuilding materials can support the pro-duction of millions of spores per squareinch. When such spore-loaded surfacesare disturbed, these spores are releasedinto the surrounding air. This sporecloud creates an immediate inhalationexposure to those nearby. In addition,the spores eventually land and becomein irritating component of the settleddust. Carpet replacement was part ofthe renovation project, so the clean upwould have smooth surfaces to workwith.

Plastic sheeting and tape were rec-ommended to enclose the main floorkitchen and second floor bath walls.Barriers would be required on eachside of the water-damaged walls. Aspieces of dry wall were removed, theywere to be bagged and sealed beforebeing carried through the apartmentsto the outdoors. In order to generate“clean-to-dirty” airflow, exhaust airscrubbers were to be ducted from thecontainment areas to the outdoors.After all of the mouldy material wasremoved, remaining surfaces were tobe HEPA vacuumed and then handscrubbed. Everyone seemed satisfiedwith this course of action, and I flewhome.

Several months later I was asked toreturn and evaluate the progress of theclean up work. An environmental firmwith extensive asbestos removal experi-ence had been chosen to perform themould abatement work. When I arrivedabout a third of the units had beentreated, and I found crews busily work-ing in several units at once. All clean-up personnel wore half-face respira-tors, gloves and disposable Tyvek suits.Roto-Zip tools attached to HEPA vac-uum cleaners were used to cut awaywallboard with minimal dust genera-tion. The cleaned apartments appeareddust free. Wet walls were strippeddown to the studs and plates. A dampfinger found no dust or dirt on anycleaned surfaces. While it appearedthat the work was satisfactory, a fewproblems were noted in the units beingactively cleaned.

In a second floor bath, through thetranslucent plastic sheeting, I could dis-cern a busy worker cutting away dry-

10 Winter 2004/05 • Ontario Building Envelope Council

wall. Outside his containment barrier Inoted three open trash bags full ofmouldy debris. His exhaust machine(called a “hog” by the asbestos trade)was roaring, and the belly on the plasticsheet was pointing in towards the workarea, proof that “clean-to-dirty” airflowhad been established. It was only withpersistence that I could get him to stopwork while I questioned him as to whythe bags were open at the top andunsealed. He explained that the plasticlawn waste bags were too thin. Whenthey tried to close them, the corners ofthe drywall cut through the thin plastic.I suggested using sturdier bags. He toldme that someone had been dispatchedto a hardware \store to find them. Iasked why the unsealed bags had beenremoved from the containment area.He replied that he had dragged themout of the work area because they werein his way and slowing him down!

Downstairs several workers werecutting away the kitchen wall. The hogwas bellowing but the plastic sheet wallhung limp and flat. I pointed this out tothe crew. It took only a moment to dis-

cover that roughly two meters of ducttape had pulled away from the kitchenceiling, breaking the containment seal.It was decided that in the future, thatthey would look to the belly on theplastic sheet to indicate proper con-tainment conditions, and would notrely on the running sound of themachine.

The environmental firm had pro-posed that a testing firm be engaged todemonstrate the effectiveness of theirefforts. I recommended against this asexpensive and of little value. No build-ing can stand in such a hostile climatefor 30 years without sustaining a cer-tain amount of mould growth. I point-ed to the concrete block trash contain-er, which was covered with a 5 cm thickgrowth of lichens and mosses. Thepoint of this job was to minimize mouldexposure, not to render the propertymould free.

In the end, the buildings were reoc-cupied and no ill effects have beenreported to date. This case illustratessome of the problems that we face inmaintaining buildings. All living things

eventually die and return to the soil,and moulds are active soil builders.Paper covered wall finishes are particu-larly vulnerable to mould/moisturedamage. In the long term, changing outpaper-covered wallboard will be rou-tine maintenance, just as we change theoil in our automobiles.

There is almost a hysterical level ofpanic about mould in our homes andbuildings. At least 20 per cent of thebiological activity on earth is fungal inorigin. Wherever we go, moulds are notfar away. While some fungal speciesgenerate toxic compounds, it is safe tosay that all living creatures must strikea balance with fungal growth in orderto survive. If decay organisms as agroup were poisonous to other lifeforms, they would long ago have killedoff their food source and vanished fromthe earth. On the other hand, the fungiwill have our way with us soon enough,and there is no need to rush things.Damp mouldy buildings are unaccept-able environments, and we need toaddress moisture/mould problemspromptly and with proper care. ■


Information current as of October 14, 2004While the final provisions of Bill 124 don’t

fully come into effect until July 1, 2005, theactual premise of it has been kicking aroundsince the spring of 2000. That’s when BRRAG,the Building Regulatory Reform AdvisoryGroup was established, with the goal of stream-lining the building permit process throughoutOntario.

Stakeholders, including builders, develop-ers, designers and building officials had, formany years, pressed to get shorter wait timesfor permits. Participants of BRRAG, includingpublic officials, staff from affected governmentministries and interested industry leaders, metfive times over the span of three months. Dur-ing that time an ongoing theme seemed toemerge — the need for consistent performanceby practitioners with respect to compliancewith the Ontario Building Code (OBC).

A few of the key elements were broughtinto force on September 1, 2003. However, themajority of the changes, the ones that willaffect you the most, will come into affect onJuly 1, 2005. These include new options forservice delivery by principal authorities (includ-ing Registered Code Agencies), the mandatoryuse of common building permit applications,new rules governing building permit fees,mandatory notifications and time lines as towhen a builder will be ready for inspection, andspecific timeframes for building permit deci-sions.

There is some apprehension though,explains Demir Delen, P.Eng., Director, FireProtection Engineering at Morrison HershfieldLtd. “There are a lot of concerns from differ-ent sectors in the industry,” he says. “Profes-sional engineers and architects, for example,are being forced to earn another qualificationabove and beyond their licence and for thatreason, it seems that the new regulations arenot being well received.”

No matter the area of specialty, doing any-thing in the building industry requires profes-sionals to pass at least two exams — one in oneof the 10 categories identified in the OBC thatsuits their technical discipline best, and one inthe legal/process that includes the BuildingCode Act and the General Requirements inthe OBC.

Designers, engineers and architects alikemust pass these exams, which are currentlyavailable throughout the province. As well,Building Code courses are available to helppractitioners prepare. But it’s kind of like tak-ing a drivers licence exam, explains Delen. “As


Get to know Bill 124Public Safety:• Mandatory provincial Building Code

knowledge requirements will applyto building officials, personsemployed or engaged by privateinspection agencies (RCAs) and topersons responsible for designactivities.

Streamlining:• Specific time limits on building per-

mit decisions, ranging from 10 daysfor houses to 30 days for complexbuildings.

• Provisions that support designinnovations and new building prod-ucts include rulings by the Ministerof Municipal Affairs and Housingapproving alternative materials, sys-tems and building designs. The leg-islation also gives the Minister theability to issue binding interpreta-tions of the Building Code.

Accountability:• Provisions describing the roles of

key parties in the building construc-tion process including: designers;builders; persons, (eg. propertyowners), who cause a building to

be constructed; manufacturers,suppliers and retailers of productsintended to be used in buildingscovered by the Building Code;RCAs; chief building officials; andinspectors.

• Mandatory professional indemnityinsurance coverage for personsengaged in the business of provid-ing design services to the public,and for RCAs.

• Qualifications and insurancerequirements for designers andRCAs to be enforced through aprovincial registration system withannual renewal.

• RCAs must register annually withthe government, have qualified staffwho have passed provincial Build-ing Code exams, prepare andadhere to a “quality managementplan”, comply with conflict of inter-est provisions, and have on staff anarchitect or engineer where theRCA reviews or inspects buildingsthat need to be designed by anarchitect or professional engineer.For more information on Bill 124 go

to www.aato.on.ca

BuildingWith

BRRAG

BuildingWith

BRRAGHow will Bill 124 change

how you do business?

By Shannon Lutter


long as you pass, you’re good to go. Forthe most part, it doesn’t take intoaccount which discipline you are special-ized in. That means OBEC membershave to pass an exam that has no sepa-rate classifications, meaning they have toknow things that aren’t necessarily intheir job description.”

And that seems to be creating someresentment in other disciplines. Forexample, members of the Ontario Archi-tects Association, like many otherOBEC’s members, are required to pass

professional exams to become licensedbefore they can seal drawings. However,the new building code exams encompassinformation that goes far beyond whatarchitects need to know, also includingsections of the Building Code that theydo not normally get involved in.

Aside from exam content, there areother causes for concern. Delen explainsthat certain insurance provisions in theact have changed resulting in increasedexpenses for small companies.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs

and Housing, on their website, state that,“the reforms will update and improveOntario’s building regulatory system.Implementation of the legislation willincrease the safety and quality of build-ing construction in Ontario, streamlinethe regulatory system, enhance account-ability and create a more transparentand innovation-friendly regulatory envi-ronment for the construction industry.”

Will that happen? Until the full-forcecomes into effect in 2005, that remainsto be seen. ■

Codes That there is confusion is exemplified by

the stream of questions from builders, own-ers, architects, engineers, and code officials.Most of these questions are prompted bypeople who feel they are required by the localbuilding code to install a low permeancevapour barrier. In fact, even at the recent 9th

Canadian Conference on Building Scienceand Technology, one paper on the subjectinterpreted the building code to say that,“these requirements effectively mean that avapour barrier must be installed in the build-ing envelope assemblies of all occupied build-ings in Canada”. This is certainly not true forbuildings designed under Part 5.

The 1997 Ontario Building Code Section5.5 Vapour Diffusion, essentially the same asthe National Building Code is, in fact quiteclear that a vapour barrier may not berequired. It states, in 5.5.1.1 (1), that a “com-ponent or assembly shall include a vapourbarrier” where it “will be subjected to a tem-perature differential and a differential inwater vapour pressure”. Seems clear. Burieddeeper in the code however (in the next sen-tence) it states that “A vapour barrier is notrequired where it can be shown that uncon-trolled vapour diffusion will not adverselyaffect” the health of the users, intended useof the building, or the operation of buildingservices. This could all be summarized as “usea low permeance vapour barrier when notusing one will result in bad performance” or“use an appropriate level of vapour resistanceto avoid problems”. It cannot and should notbe interpreted to mean “you must use a lowpermeance vapour barrier in all buildings”.

The OBC also requires in 5.5.1.2 (1) thata vapour barrier “shall have a sufficiently lowpermeance and be positioned” so as to avoiddamage. In fact the OBC goes further, defin-ing that one must design an assembly to avoidnot condensation but a damaging amount ofcondensation. One source of confusion is thatthe Code defines a vapour barrier as “the ele-ment installed to control the diffusion ofwater vapour”, unlike the common – almostuniversal – use of the term vapour barrier toapply to materials with a permeance of lessthan 60 ng/Pa·s·m2 (1 US perm)*. Hence, theOntario Building Code is remarkably precise,applies the correct physics, and is more for-ward thinking than any other North Ameri-can code that I am aware of.

An Application for Science?Although rarely applied, the decision of

where and what kind of a vapour retarder touse depends on scientific principles. When Iworked as a structural designer, I was neverasked, “Do I need an 8 inch deep I-beam?”Everyone in the building business acceptsthat such a question is naive, impossible toanswer without more information, and theanswer could include a great variation (from6 inch to 60 inch deep beams). The same istrue of vapour barriers.

The most important fact to recognize isthat an air barrier and a vapour barrier per-form different functions. Both control themovement of water vapour into enclosures,and hence both aim to control excessive (i.e.,damaging) condensation from occurring.Vapour barriers control moisture transportdriven by diffusion. Diffusion is simply the


By Dr John StraubeSchool of Architecture andDepartment of Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo

Vapour Barriers:Codes, Myths, and RealityVapour Barriers:Codes, Myths, and Reality

The simpletruthaboutvapourbarriers

The simpletruthaboutvapourbarriers

“Do I need a vapour barrier” is the most common building science question I get from

builders, engineers, code officials and architects. The queries come from all corners of

the continent, and from people involved in all kinds of buildings. Despite the confusion,

the answer is usually simple to give, provided one knows enough about the specific situa-

tion.

movement of water vapour from regionsof more to less vapour. Air barriers con-trol the moisture that is transportedalong with airflow. Airflow is driven byair pressure differences, and it moveswater vapour in the direction that the airpressure drives it. Air barrier systems areneeded in just about every type of build-ing, whereas specific vapour retardinglayers are not needed in many situations(because many materials have inherentvapour resistance). Air barriers must besealed, continuous, strong, air imperme-able, and stiff. Vapour barriers need onlybe vapour impermeable, and sealingjoints, small punctures, and cracks is notusually necessary.

The widespread confusion between

air barriers and vapour barriers has per-haps arisen because some materials,glass, and sheet metal, can be used aspart of an air barrier system while at thesame time act as a vapour barrier. Anexample does not prove the rule ofcourse, and materials like unpaintedgypsum board can be excellent air barri-er materials while providing essentiallyno vapour diffusion control. Add tothese mix materials like unsealed or tornpolyethylene, which act as a vapour bar-rier but not as part of an effective airbarrier system, and the confusionbecomes understandable. Many NorthAmerican (not European, since physicallaws are apparently different there)building codes add to the mess by requir-

ing vapour barriers (arbitrarily definedas materials with a permeance of theconveniently round number of 1 USperm) while remaining mute on themuch greater need for air barrier sys-tems. This latter stance is simply techni-cally incorrect and the cause of manyfailures.

Manufacturers and others often usethe term air-vapour barriers or retarders toeffectively restrict the whole discussionto only one limited choice – that of a sys-tem which combines the material andlocation of both airflow and vapour dif-fusion control functions.

Why not just place a vapour barrieron both sides of an enclosure all the timeand stop worrying? Because this is the


surest way to rot, corrode, and otherwisedestroy your building enclosure inrecord time. Low permeance vapourbarriers stop drying, and so we must besure that we do not use a vapour barrieron the wrong side, or, even worse onboth sides, since they will practically stopthe drying of any moisture that might(will!) get in. To avoid vapour barriers onboth sides we sometimes ventilatebehind cladding systems made of materi-als that would otherwise be vapour barri-ers (e.g., metal and vinyl siding).

To decide how to control vapour dif-fusion properly you must have informa-tion about three different aspects of yourspecific situation: the exterior climate,interior conditions, and the propertiesand arrangements of the enclosureassembly. Each is considered in turnbelow.

Exterior ClimateAs mentioned above, vapour diffu-

sion moves from more vapour to lessvapour. Dr Lstiburek’s climate classifica-tions (www.buildingscience.com) arevery helpful in assessing what type of cli-mate we have. For a climate with morevapour (meaning hot and humid) out-doors all the time than indoors (e.g.Miami), it stands to reason that oneshould place a vapour barrier near theexterior of the assembly. Not all codesrecognize this yet, but it is a fact. Similar-ly, for a climate with less moisture out-side all the time (e.g., severe cold north-ern Whitehorse) a vapour barrier shouldusually be placed near the interior. Forall other situations, we need to knowmore before we decide.

It must also be remembered that theoutside could also mean the conditions


created behind rain wetted, absorbentcladding (like brick, cedar shakes, stuc-co, wood, cement board) exposed to sun-shine. This creates a “climate” outside ofthe wall or roof similar to a sauna, andhence drives moisture inward. For enclo-sures with absorbent claddings in rainytemperate climates (like Windsor), thiseffect can become quite important andmay require a re-evaluation of the walldesign. In fact, this situation is one rea-son to avoid low permeance interiorvapour barriers.

Interior ConditionsIf one is building a swimming pool,

you can be quite sure that it will be veryhumid and warm inside all year long.Thus, a vapour barrier or retarder on theinside is practically mandatory in all butthe hottest and most humid climates. Onthe other hand, if the enclosure isaround a deep-freeze storage facility orhockey arena, there will be more mois-ture outside most of the time, and thevapour barrier may need to go on theoutside, even in a climate like Ottawa.

Houses and offices should typicallybe maintained at moderate interiorhumidity levels by using ventilation incool weather and dehumidification whenhumid to avoid condensation due to airleakage. The interior RH in such build-ings is thus moderate from a vapour dif-fusion point of view as well. If a home orresidence were to operate at a high rela-tive humidity during cold weather, exces-sive window condensation, interstitialcondensation, and surface mould arelikely to result well before diffusion caus-es a problem.

Wall AssemblyThe wall assembly used plays a

very significant role in deciding onvapour diffusion control requirements.Although designers and code officialstend to be fixated on the need to labelvapour barriers, the fact is many materi-als in an assembly may control vapourdiffusion. While batt insulation (perme-

able at 1800 metric perms) has practical-ly no vapour resistance, 8” of concrete isa pretty good barrier (in the order of 30metric perms) and latex paint on gyp-sum board is a semi-permeable vapourretarder (about 200 to 300 metricperms).

Thus, a wall with painted gypsumalready has some pretty good vapourcontrol, and would not need an addi-tional layer if used to separate a moder-ate exterior climate from a moderateinterior climate (say a house with goodventilation). For a colder climate (sayNew Liskeard), an 8” structural con-crete wall, or 6” of EPS (about 45 metricperms), would be sufficient for all butvery humid interior conditions.

The arrangement of the layers is alsoimportant. Using an unventilated low-permeance layer on the exterior (such asa roofing membrane, precast concrete,etc.) in a cold climate will prevent watervapour from escaping to the exterior(this slows drying to the outside). In verycold climates, the permeance of theinterior layers must be considerably lessthan the permeance of outer layers (var-ious rules, never substantiated scientifi-cally, place the ratio at 3:1 to as much as10:1).

Using insulating sheathing alsochanges the behaviour of the assemblydrastically. Increasing the temperatureinboard of the insulated sheathingessentially transports the wall to awarmer and more temperate climatezone, thereby also reducing the need forlow-permeance vapour barriers. Forexample, an R12 wood frame house wallwith R7.5 insulated sheathing in Toron-to would typically not require a sheetpoly vapour barrier, but would require anormal latex paint layer.

Finally, the use of vapour barrierprimers will often provide more thansufficient diffusion resistance even incold climates. Such primers, initiallydeveloped in Canada, have been appliedin thousands of houses throughout thenorthern US.

Figure it outGiven the kind of information

described above, it is reasonably easy todecide if, where, and what kind ofvapour barrier you need. The ASHRAEHandbook of Fundamentals describessimple procedures. Serious building sci-entists can apply simple dynamic com-puter models such as WUFI (http://www.ornl.gov/ORNL/BTC/moisture) toget more detailed and accurate insight.The analyst of course must still intelli-gently decide on what kind of interiorand exterior conditions to apply, theproperties of the materials, and thecapacity for wetting that those materialscan withstand. In this author’s opinion,those who cannot competently conductsuch calculations are not in any positionto decide on the location and perme-ance of vapour diffusion control layers.

ConclusionsIf you learn anything from this arti-

cle, learn this: air barriers are importantand necessary components of almost allbuilding enclosures in all climates,whereas vapour barriers are typicallyless important components that may ormay not be needed. How does onedecide if you need a vapour barrier onyour next project? The code does notrequire professional designers toinclude one blindly, so figure it out. Andwhile you do your figuring rememberthat you must include the exterior cli-mate, interior conditions, and the prop-erties and arrangements of the enclo-sure assembly. Any rules imposed bycodes, manufacturers, or designers thatdo not account for these three factorsare doomed to failure. ■

Dr John Straube is an Assistant Pro-fessor in the Department of Civil Engi-neering and the School of Architecturewhere he teaches structural design andbuilding science to both disciplines. Hehas consulted on building designs andforensic investigations throughout NorthAmerica, Europe, Asia and the Carib-bean. www.civil.uwaterloo.ca/beg


* In keeping with practice, I will use the term vapour barrier for low permeance vapour barriers with a permeance of less than 60metric perms (as required by Part 9 of the OBC and many US codes). The term vapour retarder has been introduced to describe amaterial that resists diffusion less effectively, i.e., with a permeance in the range of about 60 – 300 metric perms. These definitionsmake practical, useful and important distinctions that the current Code does not.

New to OBEC? Or perhaps a seasoned veteran? Eitherway, there is a good source of Council informationout there available for your perusal. OBEC.on.ca waslaunched a number of years ago to provide the mem-

bership and guests with easy access to information on councilevents as well as technical information on building envelopes andrelated topics.

A large portion of the site is available to the general publicand includes general information items such as contact informa-tion, particulars on the Board of Directors, what OBEC is allabout, and links to other industry-related web resources thatinclude corporate members. Also available is information on thenew Building Science Specialist Ontario (BSSO) designation,and the President’s Award, otherwise known as the “Beckie”,which is a prestigious award presented annually on behalf of themembership to an exceptional individual in the industry.

Also available is the calendar of events page, which not only

provides monthly information on upcoming and past OBECevents, but also information on other related industry events.Often these calendar entries are linked to more detailed infor-mation found elsewhere on the Web. Check it out and see what’scoming up! If you feel that you have an upcoming industry-relat-ed event in Ontario (or perhaps beyond) that you would likeposted, let us know.

Members only area...Shhhhhhhh. On the website there is pass-word-protected area that contains all kinds of goodies availableonly to members. There is a list of educational resources, whichincludes electronic presentations that were delivered at variousOBEC events, and other industry related information and docu-ments. There is a wealth of information here, all available at theclick of a mouse. Advanced glazing technologies, objective-basedbuilding codes, and designing for blast protection, just to name afew.

The “News & Views” section contains all of the recent elec-tronic versions of this publication. With the release of Pushingthe Envelope, we are going through some changes with our publi-cations schedule, however all new and past electronic editions ofN&V will be available. The value of this section will increasesubstantially over the next few months. OBEC is currently work-ing on making all previous, paper-produced editions of News &Views articles available online.

We hope that you will find the page useful. Like any website,OBEC.on.ca is always a work in progress. If you have any ques-tions or suggestions on how to improve things, contact us [email protected] , (905) 831-2588, or toll free at (877) 235-6232. ■


OBEC on the WebOBEC on the WebOBEC information isjust a click away

Controversy about exterior insu-lation finish systems (EIFS)first stemmed from com-bustibility and impact resist-

ance issues but, in the past decade, thescrutiny has changed to rain control. Inthe last four decades, EIFS has grownfrom zero to approximately 20 per centof the cladding used on buildings inNorth America. Initially it was embracedin commercial and multi-residential con-struction, now it is also used in single-family-dwellings and townhouses.

EIFS are intrinsically different fromother claddings; being one of the onlycladding systems which incorporate insu-lation as a load-bearing element of theassembly (not a structural dead-loadcapacity per se, but the insulation com-ponent within EIFS supports the stuccolamina and transfers wind- and impact-loads to the substrate). In the currentmantra surrounding rain control (bydesign), the long-touted rainscreen prin-ciple has been embraced with EIFS.Although, the definition of “rainscreen”is being debated by some academics, theCanadian Mortgage and Housing Cor-poration’s (CMHC) Rain Control Prac-tice Guide has been the quintessentialresource of late, defining a rainscreenfirst by requiring a secondary moisturebarrier behind cladding systems, then asa bonus, pressure equalizing (or moder-

ating) to offset the impact of wind-drivenair pressure differentials. Nonetheless,these principles have found their wayinto defining EIFS today, such that in1995, rainscreen EIFS was written intothe building by-law of the City of Van-couver, and more recently, the OntarioAssociation of Architects (OAA) tookaction.

In July 2002, the OAA enacted aPractice Bulletin to its members, where-by insurance coverage* of wall designsrequired the inclusion of secondarymoisture protection of certain types of“face-sealed” cladding systems selectedfor stud wall construction. This changeof practice was based on alleged increas-es in claims made by OAA members

The OAA Exclusion:“The association will not cover you,

pay damages, provide you with a defenceor make supplementary payments forclaims made against you, directly or indi-rectly arising out of, contributed by,caused by ingress of precipitation, result-ing from, or in connection with yourdesign or selection of an exterior above-grade wall which has no provision fordrainage of precipitation that penetratesthe wall system, or as otherwise providedin the Practice Bulletins issued by theOAA.”

The OAA explains this exclusiondoes not apply to:• Solid masonry or concrete wall sys-

tems, metal siding or window sys-tems, or any system specificallyapproved by the association and pro-vided in the Certificate of Coverageor otherwise;” nor

• Designs commenced prior to July 1,2002.EIFS forming part of a face-sealed

stud-framed wall assembly was one ofthe intended exclusions for indemnitycoverage. This exclusion is specific towood- and steel-framed wall assemblies,regardless of building type or climaticconditions. The OAA’s Rain ControlGuide Practice Bulletin delineated theconsiderations for moisture manage-ment for both relative exposure and cli-mate conditions.

Although the OAA exclusion stipu-lates a provision for draining wall assem-blies, the mechanisms to do this are onlydescribed conceptually in the PracticeBulletin.

There are system classifications onmoisture management characteristics:• FS: face-sealed (not covered for

framed-wall assemblies)• FS/DJ: face-sealed/drained joints• DB: dual-barrier (with drained joints)• D: drained (drained joints and

cladding)• PM: pressure-moderated (commonly

known as PER [pressure-equalizedrainscreen])Moisture management classifications

can have subtle differences in detailing.


By Kevin C. Day

UnderstandingThe lowdown on exteriorinsulation finish systems

Rain ControlUnderstanding

Rain Control

Consider this example; does a mechani-cally fastened EIFS over housewrap andwood sheathing provide a DB-typeassembly as described in OAA’s PracticeBulletin? Conversely, what if the sametype of EIFS was mechanically fastenedover a waterproof membrane and woodsheathing?

Ultimately, it is the flashing and jointdetails that determine the differencesbetween systems, defined as D or PM,but the open pathway for drainagebehind the EIFS insulation componenthas not been qualified. Further, there isa secondary moisture barrier required inthe design of an EIFS-clad wall, thenonly the provision of drained joints isrequired for compliance to the OAA’sPractice Bulletin.

Experience has shown there to behigher risks associated with face-sealedwall assemblies. The evolution frommass masonry construction towardsbuilding with steel and wood framing inNorth America has created wall assem-blies that are less forgiving to periodic/incidental moisture ingress. Hence,whether a wall is clad with EIFS or anyother system, there is a need to protectmoisture-sensitive substrates from inci-dental rain ingress. Drainage for EIFSdoes not require the same size and depthof cavity as with more porous claddingsystems (such as stucco or brick), but anominal 1/8 inch (3.1750 mm) is morethan ample to drain most EIFS walls. Ifthere is a volume of water anticipatedthat would require more than a 1/8 inchcavity for EIFS, then this would imply aserious breach of design or constructionwould cause open waterflow through theassembly during any given rainfall.

OAA’s Requirements? A Step Further

The interpretation of the OAA’s RainPractice Bulletin leads one to under-stand the following minimum require-ments for EIFS:• The exclusion of indemnity coverage

pertains to face-sealed cladding (ofwhich EIFS is included).

• The exclusion does not pertain to

concrete and masonry substrates.• Systems require either “drainage” for

the joints, or a strategy for managingincidental moisture.

• The minimum requirements shallinclude drained joints and a second-ary moisture barrier, but does notrequire drainage throughout the con-cealed face of the cladding.Beyond these requirements, perform-

ance properties should be made toinclude:• Drainage of joints pertains to all

cladding systems. • Moisture-sensitive substrates should

have drainage characteristics definedas; a) sheathing membrane (house-wrap & building paper) shouldinclude some form of capillary breakto prevent water penetration, or b)continuous waterproofing.

• Drainage for EIFS does not need tobe as substantial as that for brickmasonry veneer.

• For EIFS-type materials, a 3-mm(0.13-in.) nominal cavity may be suffi-cient for a capillary break betweenthe insulation and moisture barrierfor low-rise construction (furtherresearch required).A list of requirements for drainage

options for EIFS is currently part of themandate for the Underwriters Laborato-ries of Canada (ULC) S716 Subcommit-tee on EIFS. ULC-S716 is developingthree consensus standards for the testingand application of EIFS, as well as pro-viding a set of design guidelines.

A drainage cavity for EIFS is some-what different when compared to othercladding systems. Ensuring the thermalbenefits of the insulation is a considera-tion, such that drainage options for EIFScould include:• Interconnected horizontal and verti-

cal pathways within the insulation;• Vertical grooves in the insulation;• Ribbed adhesive forming vertical rib-

bons supporting the insulation uponthe substrate;

• Drainage mats, or metal/plastic lath,typically installed over house wrap orbuilding paper (more common on

wood-framed wall construction); and• Upper horizontal and vertical EIFS

terminations should be closed andsealed to prevent wind-washing,

• Venting the top portion of the EIFSdrainage cavity is inappropriate asthis can lead to unwanted thermalresistance loss,

• Cavity venting can be achieved with aproprietary medium, supplied as partof the system, or the insulation form-ing the horizontal termination can bepre-backwrapped with base coat andreinforcing mesh, cured and installedwith vertically-notched, trowelledadhesive ribbons (ribbed adhesive).

• EIFS installed on high-rise buildingsare typically required to be installedwith adhesive. It is important toinstall standard or grooved insulationwith ribbed adhesive, where the nom-inal dry thickness of the ribbonswould be 3 mm,

• Drainage mats, or metal/plastic lath,typically require the mechanical fas-tening of the EIFS. This could beinappropriate for high-rise applica-tions, as would be determined bothby wind-load and fire-testing for codecompliance. ■


* The OAA has indemnified its members for practice in Ontario since 1986, but in response to a reported increase in claims involving face-sealed wall assemblies, it issued an exclusion for indemnity coverage to its members in 2002.

References1. OAA Exclusion Bulletin.2. OAA Rain Penetration Control

Practice Guide.3. K.C. Day and P.E. Gallant,

“Understanding EIFS,” Cana-dian Architect, July 2002.

4. M. Bomberg, K. Kumaran, andK. Day, “Moisture Manage-ment of EIFS Walls: Part 2,Classification of EIFS,” Journalof Thermal Envelope & BuildingScience, Vol. 23, October 1999.

5. K.C. Day, “Designing EIFS fora Predictable Service Life,”Proceedings from the 8th Con-ference on Building Scienceand Technology, February 2001.

6. K.C. Day, “Practical Require-ments for Pressure-EqualizedRainscreen EIFS,” OAA Con-vention, May 2002.

In the spring of 2002, under the guidance of thenOBEC President Ted Denniston and ExecutiveDirector Dale Kerr, OBEC began an undertak-ing that would make available a Certification

Mark, giving Building Science Professionals bothadded credibility and an entrenched requirement forcontinuing education in the field of Building Scienceand the Building Envelope.

As Building Science continues to emerge as a dis-tinct specialty in both the New Construction andRestoration/Renovation Sectors, a bonafide and sanc-tioned Certification Mark was deemed both desirableand beneficial. A combination of education, experi-ence, industry involvement, ethics and a commitmentto continuing education became the cornerstone ofOBEC’s BSSO Certification initiative.

BSSO (Building Science Specialist Ontario) is a RegisteredCertification Mark, owned by the Ontario Building EnvelopeCouncil. The first BSSO Certifications were officially bestowedupon the successful applicants at our President’s Award Banquet,held in June of 2004 at the Fairmont Royal York Hotel.

What follows is detailed explanation of what constitutes theBSSO Certification Program. An application for a BSSO is avail-able to be downloaded from the OBEC web site www.obec. on.ca.

What is a BSSO?Individual Members of the Ontario Building Envelope Council

(OBEC) are entitled to seek accreditation as a Building ScienceSpecialist of Ontario and, if successful, to use the designation let-ters BSSO.

Accreditation is subject to the member being in good standingand having proven satisfaction on BSSO eligibility requirements.To keep the BSSO designation, members must adhere to the Codeof Ethics and Standards of Conduct for Building Science Specialistsof Ontario, maintain an up-to-date membership in OBEC, payannual BSSO administration dues and provide proof of requiredcontinued education within every two-year period of accreditation.

The Building Science Specialist of Ontario designation will pro-vide members of the industry, including building designers, speci-fiers, developers, contractors and owners, the knowledge that anyperson with such a designation has a high level of education andunderstanding in the field of Building Science, as deemed by theBSSO Advisory Board which is formed by key industry figure heads.

Eligibility RequirementsTo become eligible, a member in good standing of OBEC must

have:• An engineering or architectural undergraduate degree OR


Note: the BSSO Advisory Board may grant exemptions, upon review,for Building Science I and II course equivalents offered by otherCanadian Universities, and for possibly the other modules, if andwhen course equivalents are offered by other Canadian Universities.

By Brian Shedden, Past President – OBEC,V.P. Client Services J. McBride & Sons Ltd.

“MeasuringUp” with BSSO Certification

OBEC leads the way with theirBSSO Certification Program

• An Engineering or architecturaldiploma from a recognized collegeor polytechnical institute and threeyears work related experience OR

• Significant work related experiencein building design, construction ormaintenance as deemed appropriateby the Advisory Board AND

• Have successfully completed the“Building Science Certificate Pro-gram” offered by the University ofToronto Professional DevelopmentCentre (minimum six of eight mod-ules to have been completed, withBuilding Science I and II modulesbeing mandatory).

Advisory Board ApprovalUpon meeting the eligibility

requirements and submitting a com-plete application, the candidate’s namewill be forwarded to the advisoryboard. They reserve the right, in itsabsolute discretion, to request addi-tional information from the applicantand/or to refuse the request for accred-itation.

The advisory board is presentlymade up of the following key industryfigureheads:

Ms. Dale Kerr, P.Eng. A.C.C.I.Principal, Kerr Associates TechnologyTransfer Program Coordinator,University of Toronto Building ScienceCertificate Program,

Dr. Kim PressnailAssociate Professor, University ofToronto. Member of AcademicAdvisory Committee, University ofToronto Building Science CertificateProgram,

Mr. Brian SheddenVice President - J. McBride & SonsLtd. Past President - Ontario BuildingEnvelope Council

Prof. Vera Straka, M.Eng, MISTRUCTE, P.Eng.Associate Professor, Ryerson Polytechnic University,

Dr. John StraubAssociate Professor, University of Waterloo

George Torok, B.Tech.Past President – Ontario BuildingEnvelope Council. Project Manager,GRG Building Consultants Inc.

How to Maintain the BSSODesignation?

Designated Building Science Spe-cialists of Ontario are entitled to usetheir designation letters, BSSO, provid-ed that they:• Maintain an up-to-date membership

in OBEC;• Maintain up-to-date annual BSSO

administration dues (presently$150.00 + GST per year);

• Provide proof of 20 eligible continu-ing professional education creditswithin every two year period ofaccreditation

Notes:Continuing education creditscan be acquired by various means,including the following:

Attendance at 1.0 creditan evening OBEC/OAA/CSC meeting:

Attendance at a ? day 2.5 creditsOBEC/OAA/CSC seminar:

Attendance at a full 5.0 creditsday OBEC/OAA/CSC seminar:

Attendance at a 15.0 creditsuniversity, min. 20hr, course:

Giving a <3hr technical 3.0 creditspresentation:

Giving a >3hr to full 10.0 creditsday technical presentation/course:

Acceptance of any and all continuingprofessional education credits shall besubject to review by the AdvisoryBoard, and the Advisory Boardreserves the right, in its absolute discre-tion, to request additional informationfrom the applicant and/or to refuse therequest for accreditation.

Code of EthicsThe following is the Code of Ethics

of a BSSO:• It is the duty of the practitioner to the

public, to the practitioner’s employer,to the practitioner’s clients, to the othermembers of the practitioner’s profes-sion, and to the act at all times with,

• Fairness and loyalty to the practition-er’s associates, employers, clients,subordinates, and employees;

• Fidelity to public needs;• Devotion to high ideals of personal

honour and Integrity;• Knowledge of developments in the

areas of building science relevant toany services that are undertaken;and

• Competence in the performance ofany services that are undertaken.A practitioner shall,

• Regard the practitioner’s duty topublic welfare as paramount;

• Endeavour at all times to enhancethe public regard for the practition-er’s profession by extending thepublic knowledge thereof and dis-couraging untrue, unfair or exagger-ated statements;

• Not express publicly, or while thepractitioner’s is serving as a witnessin court, commission or other tribu-nal, opinions on matters that are notfounded on adequate knowledgeand honest conviction;

• Endeavour to keep the practition-er’s license, temporary license, limit-ed license or certificate of authori-zation, as the case may be,permanently displayed in the practi-tioner’s place of business;

• Act in matters for each employer asa faithful agent or trustee, and shallregard as confidential informationobtained by the practitioner as tothe business affairs, technical meth-ods or processes of an employer andavoid or disclose a conflict of inter-est that might influence the practi-tioner’s actions or judgment

• Disclose immediately to the practi-tioner’s client any interest, direct orindirect, that might be construed asprejudicial in any way to the judg-ment of the practitioner in render-ing service to the client;

• A practitioner who is an employeeand is contracting in the practition-er’s own name to perform work forother than the practitioner’semployer, must provide the practi-tioner’s client with a written state-ment of the nature of the practition-er’s status as an employee and theattendant limitations on the practi-


“Measuring Up” continued

tioner’s services to the client, mustsatisfy the practitioner’s employer,and must inform the practitioner’semployer of the work;

• A practitioner must co-operate inworking with other persons engagedon a project.A practitioner shall:

• Act towards other practitioner’swith courtesy and good faith;

• Not accept an engagement to reviewthe work of another practitioner forthe same employer except with theknowledge of the other practitioneror except where the connection ofthe other practitioner with the workhas been terminated;

• Not attempt to gain an advantageover other practitioner’s by payingor accepting a commission in secur-ing work;

• Give proper credit for work, upholdthe principle of adequate compensa-tion for work, provide opportunityfor development and advancementof the practitioner’s associates andsubordinates, and extend the effec-tiveness of the profession throughthe interchange of information andexperience;

• Maintain the honour and integrityof the practitioner’s profession andwithout fear or favour expose beforethe proper tribunals unprofessional,dishonest or unethical conduct byany other practitioner.

MisconductIn these matters, “negligence”

means an act or an omission in carryingout of the work of a practitioner thatconstitutes a failure to maintain the

standards that a reasonable and pru-dent practitioner would maintain in thecircumstances.

For the purpose of this document,“misconduct” means,

Negligence:• Failure to make provision for safe-

guarding of life, health, or propertyof a person who may be affected bythe work for which the practitioneris responsible;

• Failure to act to correct or report asituation that the practitionerbelieves may endanger the safety orwelfare of the public;

• Failure to make responsible provi-sion for complying with applicablestatues, regulations, standards,codes, by-laws, and rules in connec-tion with work being undertaken byor under the responsibility of thepractitioner;

• Signing or sealing a final drawing,specification, plan, report or otherdocument not actually prepared orchecked by the practitioner;

• Failure of a practitioner to presentclearly to the practitioner’s employ-er the consequences to be expectedfrom a deviation proposed work, ifthe judgment of the practitioner isoverruled by non-technical authorityin cases where the practitioner isresponsible for the technical ade-quacy of work;

• Undertaking work the practitioneris not competent to perform byvirtue of the practitioner’s trainingand experience;

• Failure to make prompt, voluntaryand complete disclosure of an inter-est, direct or indirect, that might in


any way be, or be construed as, prej-udicial to the judgment of the prac-titioner in rendering service to thepublic, to an employer or to a client,and in particular, without limitingthe generality of the foregoing, car-rying out any of the following actswithout making such prior disclo-sure;

• Accepting compensation in anyform for a particular service frommore than one party;

• Submitting a tender or acting as acontractor in respect of work uponwhich the practitioner may be per-forming as a consultant, engineer,architect, or similar;

• Participating in the supply of materialor equipment to be used by theemployer or client of the practitioner;

• Contracting in the practitioner’sown right to perform services forother than the practitioner’semployer;

• Expressing opinions or makingstatements concerning matters ofpublic interest where the opinionsor statements are inspired or paidfor by other interest;

• Conduct or an act that, havingregard to all circumstances, wouldreasonably be regarded by the pro-fession as disgraceful, dishon-ourable, or unprofessional;

• Failure by a practitioner to abide bythe terms, conditions or limitationsof the practitioner’s accreditations;and

• Failure to supply documents orinformation requested by an investi-gator acting under the direction ofthe BSSO Advisory Board. ■


The History of a Unique Industry Organization

OBEC has truly been an asso-ciation for the industry rightfrom its beginnings. Spurredon by Michel Perreault, son

of the legendary J.C. Perreault, a groupof 30 industry professionals, includingarchitects, engineers, building code offi-cials and manufacturers gathered in theoffices of Morrison Hershfield Limitedin April 1987. Mr. Rick Quirouette pro-vided an overview of the history andactivities of the Alberta Building Enve-lope Council, the first such council in thecountry, which sparked discussion ofpossible aims and objectives for a similarOntario organization. OBEC’s purposewas formalized on August 26, 1987,when OBEC was granted Letters Patentand incorporated with the followingobjectives:• To promote excellence in the design,

construction and performance of thebuilding envelope;

• To develop standards to maintain thebuilding envelope for continued per-formance;

• To conduct research and develop-ment aimed at improving buildingenvelope performance;

• To participate in education relating tothe design and construction of thebuilding envelope;

• To distribute, publish and for theobjects aforesaid, sell technical infor-mation and literature;

• To accept gifts, bequests, donationsand legacies; and

• To do all such acts and things as maybe considered desirable for theattainment and fulfilment of theabove objects.OBEC maintains these objectives to

this day, although OBEC’s focus hasalways been on education and the dis-semination of technical information.

OBEC’s initial funding came from agroup of approximately 40 CharterMembers, who each contributed $100for the privilege of being recognised as afounding member. Regular individual

membership fees were established at $25per year. By January 1988 individualmembership in OBEC had surpassed200, demonstrating the strong industrysupport for the organization. The Cor-porate Membership category was addedin 1989, the same year the Presidents’sAward, affectionately known as the“Beckie”, was conceived by Tony Woodsand presented to John Timusk.

The first Board of Directors waselected on October 13, 1987, with PaulSandori assuming the role of President.OBEC’s first official “home” was estab-lished at Paul’s workplace - the School ofArchitecture, University of Toronto. Tohelp focus the efforts of the organiza-tion, four technical committees wereestablished by the first board: Walls,Roofing, Waterproofing, and Air andMoisture. There has been some restruc-turing of the Board over the years andthese committees are no longer active,however for most of OBEC’s early years,each committee held lively monthly dis-cussion meetings, fostering communica-tion and learning among members. Thelively discussions and debates still occur,only under a different format.

OBEC’s first official function was aForum on Roofing and Waterproofing,presented January 12, 1988 to more than160 people. The intent of the Forum wasto allow different and sometimes oppo-site points of view to be presented and toallow the public to get information, shareexperiences and suggest improvements.This philosophy is continued today in theday-long seminars, typically held twiceper year, and in the manufacturer “show-downs” held about once per year. Thetradition of the monthly meeting was alsoestablished early in OBEC’s history, withthe first monthly meeting held on Febru-ary 11, 1988 where Jerry Genge discussedseveral case studies involving buildingfailures. The monthly meetings wereoriginally held on the evening of the thirdThursday of the month at the Universityof Toronto, and then at the OAA. Inmore recent years, these meetings have

also incorporated a pre-meeting socialand dinner. But by far the biggest eventsever hosted by OBEC were the 1992 two-day, multi-stream Building Better Con-dominiums Symposium, championed bythen-President, Paul Duffy, followedclosely by the 8th Conference on Build-ing Science and Technology, chaired byJohn Straube in 2001.

In the early years, the OBEC month-ly newsletter (published and edited bynone other than the author of this arti-cle) played a significant role in dissemi-nating information to membership.Those were the dark ages before e-mail,the Internet, or even broadcast faxes.The only way members were notified ofmeetings was through the snail-mailednewsletter. Meeting topics weren’t oftenknown more than a month in advanceand the only way members had of know-ing about that month’s meeting was thenewsletter. Deadlines were critical andat one point, the newsletter distributionhit 500! Fortunately for my sanity andOBEC’s continued existence, there wasthe dawn of the electronic age. OBEC’sfirst electronic newsletter was producedin August 2000. However, the timing ofthe newsletters became less critical asOBEC starting distributing meetingnotices via e-mail, significantly improv-ing OBEC’s communications with mem-bers. The distribution of the newsletterhas become less critical for event notifi-cation and focussed more on educatingits membership. The move to this maga-zine is an exciting and progressive newstep for OBEC towards meeting itsobjectives.Dale D. Kerr is the GeneralManager of GRG Building Consultantsof Newmarket, ON and Principal ofKerr Associates Technology Transfer ofSutton, ON. Dale was first involved withOBEC in 1988 as Newsletter Editor, andin more recent years as Treasurer andExecutive Director. ■

OBEC Quick Facts:• Years OBEC has been in operation

(since incorporation): 17• Number of full or multi-day

seminars: 24• Number of Newsletters published: 118• Number of monthly meetings: over 150• Number of different individuals who

have served on the Board: 48• Number of BECKIE Winners: 15

By Dale D. Kerr, M.Eng, P.Eng., ACCI, BSSO

Looking Back

Capital RegionJoin us at the Capital Conference

The Building Envelope Council Ottawa Region (BECOR) will be hosting the 10thCanadian Building Science & Technology Conference in Ottawa, May 12, 13, 2005. The10th Conference will build upon the successful string of past Canadian Building Science& Technology Conferences by offering a “capital” venue for building scientists, archi-tects, engineers, property managers, contractors and other stakeholders in the buildingconstruction industry to present and share ideas on building, renovating and repairingbetter buildings. Over 400 national, and international, experts on building science areexpected to participate in the two full days of presentations and discussions focusing onpractical applications, case studies and fundamental research.

The conference is a “must” for those with an interest in building science, buildingenvelope, construction, renovations and repairs. For more information, please visitwww.nbec.net

Ottawa EventsPlease join us at these upcoming events. For more information on dates and times

email [email protected]

2004 - 2005 SeasonDate TopicOctober 2004 Insurance issues for practitioners and builders November 2004 Full day IAQ session December 2004 Lucky #13, Annual Brag Session January 2005 Windows: New national standards.

Case study of window/wall system February 2005 Building science diagnostics (5 years later review of

moisture monitoring and infrared thermography) March 2005 Curtain wall case studies: New and retrofit examples April 2005 Objective-based codes review and discussions May 2005 10th Canadian Conference on Building Science

and Technology

Southern TipWindsor and Area 2003 Commercial Development Summary

Construction in the commercial sector was very strong in 2003 with building permitstotalling over $111 million, a four per cent increase from 2002. Large-scale retail proj-ects led the field in the commercial sector last year, including the completion of a newWal-Mart and the start of a new Canadian Tire and La-Z-Boy Furniture Gallery. InEssex County, Kingsville reported the largest increase in commercial building permits,more than doubling their 2002 total. This increase was due, largely, to the constructionof an $8.5 million long-term care facility. Below are just a few of the projects complet-ed/underway.


If youhave information/news thatPushing the Envelopereaders need to know about,email it to editor@matrixgroupinc,for possible inclusion in the next issue.

Check Out What’s Happening Dreading a long dreary winter?

Check out these great eventshappening at home and abroad:• Construct Alberta and

Homebuilder and Renovator ExpoNovember 2 to 3, 2004Calgary, Alberta

• Toronto Sustainable Design andConstruction Roadshow(Cement Assoc. of Canada)November 3, 2004Toronto, Ontario

• NOWRA’s 13th Annual TechnicalEducation Conference andExpositionNovember 7 to 10, 2004Albuquerque, New Mexico

• Greenbuild InternationalConference and ExpoNovember 10 to 12, 2004Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.

• LEED Canada Level I TrainingWorkshop — SaskatoonNovember 18, 2004Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

Regional RoundupRegional Roundup

Company Name Type of Building Location ValueWal-Mart Canada Corp. Retail Windsor $10,000,000(2 permits)928572 Ontario Ltd. Long Term Care Kingsville $8,500,000Loblaw Properties Grocery Store Leamington $7,250,000(3 permits)1256414 Ontario Ltd. Office Windsor $4,500,000Canadian Tire Retail Windsor $4,300,000Best Buy (2 permits) Retail Windsor $3,000,000Pita Pit Commercial Centre Windsor $2,500,000Revenburg Holdings Car Dealership Windsor $2,300,000Sobey’s Grocery Store Amherstburg $1,800,000 Continued on page 29

Sarnia StatisticsApproximately 23,700 people are employed in over 1,600 industrial-orientated firms

and enterprises. Here’s how Sarnia stacks up.Sector Firms Employment % Manufacturers 224 9,715 41.0 Construction 365 2,821 11.9 Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 284 2,034 8.6 Wholesalers & Distributors 207 1,818 7.7 Transportation & Warehousing 146 2,221 9.4 Administrative Services 116 2,440 10.3 Utilities 16 815 3.4 Repair and Maintenance 177 774 3.2 Waste Management 20 464 2.0 Information Services 56 610 2.5 All Sectors 1,452 19,219 100%Source: Sarnia-Lambton Office of Economic Development

Central OntarioKitchener Construction

Here’s what’s going UP in Kitchener:• Chandler-Mowatt CC – 10,000 SQ

FT Community Centre• Downtown Wellness Centre

– 30,000 SQ FT Renovation• Kitchener Rangers Addition

– 2 Storey Office• Regional Ambulance Waiting Station

– 1,093 FT Addition• Stanley Park CC

– 19,760 SQ FT Addition to St.Daniels School

• Victoria Hills CC – 6,000 SQ FT Addition

Brantford Business• On April 6, 2004, Procter & Gamble

Inc. announced its decision to buildits new Canadian Distribution Centrein Brantford. The site is expected tobe fully operational by June 2005 andwill employ over 150 people. Thetotal investment is estimated to be

business advice from the experts andhear about the latest building trends.

For a complete list of events go towww.constructcanada.com

Hi-Tech Training Facility OpenedWoodbridge is now home to an

impressive, 180,000-square-foot trainingcentre for the skilled trades, whichopened in June 2004. It includes offices,classrooms and 60,000 square feet ofindoor training space where apprenticesreceive the hands-on, practical instructionthat’s vital to all apprenticeship programs.


$70 million and the facilities will be775,000 square feet.

• Glow Metal Trading Inc. has begunconstruction of a 40,000 SQ FT facili-ty on five acres in the city’s BraneidaIndustrial Park. Construction on themulti-million dollar building began inearly March 2004 by local builderVicano Construction. Occupancy isexpected for June and productionscheduled to begin early July.

GTA & AreaConstruct Canada

Get ready for Construct Canada ’04,being held at the Metro Toronto Con-vention Centre, December 1 – 3, 2004.With over 320 speakers and 200 presen-tations you’ll be able to see and learnabout the latest products, newest tech-nologies and best solutions for the entirespectrum of building design, construc-tion, retrofit and renovation — for bothcommercial and residential. You canalso attend skill-building sessions, get

• Building Saskatchewan Green (Sustainable Buildings)November 18 and 19, 2004Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

• LEED Canada Level I TrainingWorkshop — MontrealNovember 30, 2004Montreal, Quebec

• Construct CanadaDecember 1 to 3, 2004Toronto, Ontario

• Homebuilder and Renovator ExpoDecember 1 to 3, 2004Toronto, Ontario

• PM EXPODecember 1 to 3, 2004Toronto, Ontario

• AHR Expo — 2005February 7 to 9, 2005Orlando, Florida

• Affordable Comfort Northwest 2005February 23 to 24, 2005Portland, OR USA

• Prospering in Changing Times,RESNET 2005 ConferenceFebruary 28 – March 2, 2005San Antonio, Texas USA

Continued on page 31

Building the $17 million trainingfacility was necessary says Eddie Thorn-ton, executive director of Carpenters’Local Union 27, because the shortage ofskilled trades people in the greaterToronto area is only expected to growworse in the coming years, given thelarge number of workers poised to retireover the next 15 years.

National Campaign Launched inWoodbridge

In September 2004 a national cam-paign was launched right here inOntario. Designed to promote skilledtrades to Canada’s youth, the “SkilledTrades: A Career You Can Build On”,will increase the awareness of skilledtrades as a first-choice career option.

Currently there is a negative percep-tion which exists among today’s youthand, in a recent survey, almost half(42%) of Canada’s youth claim that theyare unlikely to consider a career in theskilled trades.

“We are very excited to launch thiscampaign as we recognize the urgency ofmaking young people, and their parents,more aware of the benefits of choosing acareer in the trades. Deciding to enter askilled trade can lead young people intorewarding and satisfying careers that willserve them well throughout their lives,”says Keith Lancastle, Executive Directorof CAF-FCA. “We are proud to be oneof the contributing partners in thisimportant national initiative.”

The campaign has two importantobjectives: to change the negative per-ception of careers in skilled trades thatexists among youth, parents and educa-tors; and to encourage employers to hireand retain more apprentices. The cam-paign will feature television, radio, cine-ma and print ads. For more informationvisit www.careersintrades.ca

North by NorthwestSudbury Success

Two hundred construction jobs werecreated in September 2004, as Sudburyprepares to expand the RioCan Centre,a local mall. The project, worth $25 mil-lion, will add 169,000 SQ FT and isexpected to generate around $600,000 intotal tax revenues.

The majority of the construction

project has been awarded to contractorsbased in Greater Sudbury including:KONA Builders, AJM Project Manage-ment, Interpaving Ltd., Pioneer Con-struction, Hollaway Construction, Den-nis Consultants, William FryerLandscape Architect, Sandro Steel Fab-rication, Centis Tile and Terrazzo, Para-mount Construction and numerous localsub-contractors.

Thunder Bay Gets in the GameThunder Bay’s Canada Games Com-

plex is undergoing an extensive facelift.Built to host the swimming, diving andwater polo events of the 1981 CanadaSummer Games, more than $4 mil-lion will be injected into both inte-rior and exterior repairs andupgrades. The project, whichhas been split into two phases, willalso see a two-foot extension added tothe building to house a new mechanicalair handling system.

For more information visit www.cmhc.ca ■


AIR BARRIERS/WATERPROOFINGBakor Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19AIR, HEAT & MOISTURE CONTROLDryvit Systems Canada . . . . . . . .inside front coverANTI-GRAFFITI PRODUCTSGEO ENVIRO Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17ARCHITECTURAL FINISHING SYSTEMSDuRock Alfacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20ASBESTOS, LEAD & MOULD ABATEMENTMonalt Environmental Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28BASEMENT LEAKS/WATERPROOFINGJAGG Enterprizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19BREATHABLE MEMBRANE SHEATHINGAlcan Composites Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11BUILDING RESTORATIONALTO Restoration Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28BUILDING SYSTEMSMurox/Expanpro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL BUILDING PROTECTIONSoprema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34COMMERCIAL SEALANTS & WATERPROOFINGTremco Incorporated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16COMMERCIAL WRAPEl Dupont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14COMMUNICATIONSSpectrum Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31CONCRETE & CONCRETE BLOCKSRainbow Concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29CONSTRUCTION WORKWEAR SUPPLIERRichlu Manufacturing . . . . . . . .outside back coverCONSULTING ENGINEERSKleinfeldt Consultants Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Morrison Hershfield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25DOOR MANUFACTURERArctic Door . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

GENERAL CONSTRACTORS/RESTORATIONJelco Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16HOTEL ACCOMODATIONSBest Western Dryden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30INSULATED CONCRETE FORMSAmvic Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8Quad-Lock Building Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13INSULATIONThermo-Cell Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10JOHN DEERE CONSTRUCTION/FORESTRYEQUIPMENT DEALEROntrac Equipment Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33MANUFACTURER OF INSULATION BLOWINGEQUIPMENTStar Machine Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17MECHANICAL INSULATORSMulti-Glass Insulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17MOISTURE PROTECTIONW.R. Meadows of Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3PRECAST CONCRETE BUILDING SYSTEMSCPCI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13PROMOTION, LABOUR RELATIONS, TRAININGTerrazzo, Tile & Marble Guild of Ontario Inc. . . . .25RESTORATIONJ. McBride & Sons Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31ROOFING & WATERPROOFING PRODUCTSIKO Industries Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . .inside back coverROOFING SYSTEMS & INFORMATION SERVICESTremco Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19SCAFFOLDINGSkyhigh Scaffold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30SKYLIGHTS & SUN TUNNELSVelux Canada Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32SOLAR POWER SYSTEMSOttawa Solar Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28


STONEArriscraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6WATERPROOFING & ROOFING Industrial Waterproof Systems Ltd. . . . . . . . . . . .30WATERPROOFING PRODUCTS CONSTRUCTIONSUPPLIERDRE Industries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33WINDOW MANUFACTURERNorthern Window Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Buyer’s Guide

promoting building envelope excellence · winnipeg, mb r3c 1l6 toll free: 1-866-999-1299 toll free...

Documents