Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “ROOFS”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2016

Field Testing of an Unvented Roof with Fibrous Insulation, Tiles, and Vapor Diffusion Venting

This research is a test implementation of an unvented tile roof assembly in a hot-humid climate (Orlando, FL; Zone 2A), insulated with air permeable insulation (netted and blown fiberglass). Given the localized moisture accumulation and failures seen in previous unvented roof field work, it was theorized that a 'diffusion vent' (water vapor open, but air barrier 'closed') at the highest points in the roof assembly might allow for the wintertime release of moisture, to safe levels. The 'diffusion vent' is an open slot at the ridge and hips, covered with a water-resistant but vapor open (500+ perm) air barrier membrane. As a control comparison, one portion of the roof was constructed as a typical unvented roof (self-adhered membrane at ridge). The data collected to date indicate that the diffusion vent roof shows greater moisture safety than the conventional, unvented roof design.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2014

Hygrothermal Performance of West Coast Wood Deck Roofing System

Simulations of roofing assemblies are necessary in order to understand and adequately predict actual the hygrothermal performance. At the request of GAF, simulations have been setup to verify the difference in performance between white and black roofing membrane colors in relation to critical moisture accumulation for traditional low slope wood deck roofing systems typically deployed in various western U.S. Climate Zones. The performance of these roof assemblies has been simulated in the hygrothermal calculation tool of WUFI, from which the result was evaluated based on a defined criterion for moisture safety. The criterion was defined as the maximum accepted water content for wood materials and the highest acceptable moisture accumulation rate in relation to the risk of rot. Based on the criterion, the roof assemblies were certified as being either safe, risky or assumed to fail. The roof assemblies were simulated in different western climates, with varying insulation thicknesses, two different types of wooden decking, applied with varying interior moisture load and with either a high or low solar absorptivity at the roof surface (black or white surface color). The results show that the performance of the studied roof assemblies differs with regard to all of the varying parameters, especially the climate and the indoor moisture load.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2015

Comparison of software models for energy savings from cool roofs

For this study, a web-based Roof Savings Calculator (RSC) has been deployed for the United States Department of Energy as an industry-consensus tool to help building owners, manufacturers, distributors, contractors and researchers easily run complex roof and attic simulations. RSC simulates multiple roof and attic technologies for side-by-side comparison including reflective roofs, different roof slopes, above sheathing ventilation, radiant barriers, low-emittance roof surfaces, duct location, duct leakage rates, multiple substrate types, and insulation levels. Annual simulations of hour-by-hour, whole-building performance are used to provide estimated annual energy and cost savings from reduced HVAC use. While RSC reported similar cooling savings to other simulation engines, heating penalty varied significantly. RSC results show reduced cool roofing cost-effectiveness, thus mitigating expected economic incentives for this countermeasure to the urban heat island effect. This paper consolidates comparison of RSC's projected energy savings to other simulation engines including DOE-2.1E, AtticSim, Micropas, and EnergyPlus. Also included are comparisons to previous simulation-based studies, analysis of RSC cooling savings and heating penalties, the role of radiative heat exchange in an attic assembly, and changes made for increased accuracy of the duct model. Finally, radiant heat transfer and duct interaction not previously modeled is considered a major contributor to heating penalties.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2019

Roof ponds combined with a water-to-air heat exchanger as a passive cooling system: Experimental comparison of two system variants

Two roof pond configurations combined with a water-to-air heat exchanger (WAHE) are evaluated. Test cells of 1.35 m × 1.35 m x 1.35 m with the same thermal properties, except for the roofs, are built in a hot-dry climate with mild winters. They are connected with a WAHE placed inside the roof pond's water by a pipe through which the indoor air is re-circulated. The first roof consists of a 0.35 m deep water pond covered with a floating polystyrene insulation 0.03 m thick, and a spray system located 0.5 m above it that operates at night. The second roof is covered with an aluminum plate separated by a 0.10 m air gap above a 0.25 m deep water pond. We ran multiple series and compared the results to a control cell that had a California energy code compliant insulated roof. Predictive equations are developed to dimension the WAHE system. Results demonstrate that the cells with roof ponds have better cooling performance than the code compliant control cell. The best performance is obtained in the cell with the WAHE operating continuously. In this case, the indoor temperature stayed below 24 °C even with ambient temperatures above 35 °C.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2014

Soiling of building envelope surfaces and its effect on solar reflectance – Part II: Development of an accelerated aging method for roofing materials

Highly reflective roofs can decrease the energy required for building air conditioning, help mitigate the urban heat island effect, and slow global warming. However, these benefits are diminished by soiling and weathering processes that reduce the solar reflectance of most roofing materials. Soiling results from the deposition of atmospheric particulate matter and the growth of microorganisms, each of which absorb sunlight. Weathering of materials occurs with exposure to water, sunlight, and high temperatures. This study developed an accelerated aging method that incorporates features of soiling and weathering. The method sprays a calibrated aqueous soiling mixture of dust minerals, black carbon, humic acid, and salts onto preconditioned coupons of roofing materials, then subjects the soiled coupons to cycles of ultraviolet radiation, heat and water in a commercial weatherometer. Three soiling mixtures were optimized to reproduce the site-specific solar spectral reflectance features of roofing products exposed for 3 years in a hot and humid climate (Miami, Florida); a hot and dry climate (Phoenix, Arizona); and a polluted atmosphere in a temperate climate (Cleveland, Ohio). A fourth mixture was designed to reproduce the three-site average values of solar reflectance and thermal emittance attained after 3 years of natural exposure, which the Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC) uses to rate roofing products sold in the US. This accelerated aging method was applied to 25 products₋single ply membranes, factory and field applied coatings, tiles, modified bitumen cap sheets, and asphalt shingles₋and reproduced in 3 days the CRRC's 3-year aged values of solar reflectance. In conclusion, this accelerated aging method can be used to speed the evaluation and rating of new cool roofing materials.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Observations and Lessons Learned From Installing Residential Roofing-Integrated Photovoltaics

Building-sited solar photovoltaics (PV) could play a key role in decarbonizing the building sector either through racked and mounted PV or through Building-integrated PV (BIPV). BIPV is installed into the building envelope itself, with solar cells and/or modules forming the outer layer of a building structure, thus transforming a single-purpose structure into one that serves the dual purposes of the building envelope and electricity. BIPV can be applied to building roofs, facades, awnings, pergolas, windows, skylights, balustrades, and other external surfaces. Given BIPV products vary widely, the focus of this research is residential roofing integrated PV (RIPV), where solar is incorporated into or otherwise replaces the roofing material. Previous research suggests that residential RIPV could reduce customer acquisition, labor, supply chain, and equipment costs. These products have yet to realize these cost savings and deployment remains significantly less than conventional rooftop PV as a relative share of the addressable market in the US. One potential barrier to broader residential roofing integrated PV deployment may be higher costs relative to conventional rooftop PV, primarily because the design and installation of these products is still evolving. Here, we explore residential RIPV cost-reduction opportunities by analyzing installation processes. Our study documents residential RIPV installations at 2 reroofing sites and the equivalent of 9 new construction sites in California through a methodology known as time and motion study. We also conducted interviews with subject-matter experts to identify barriers and solutions to maximize these products' market penetration. Our time and motion study breaks the RIPV installation process into four steps: 1) staging, unloading, and roof preparation; 2) fire resistant underlayment(s) (synthetic material laid between roof shingles and roof deck); 3) flashings and PV installation; and 4) wiring and monitoring. We measure the time required for each step in terms of worker-hours, representing an hour of labor from a single worker. We further normalize process time by dividing worker-hours by kilowatt (kW) of system capacity. The most time-intensive step was flashings and PV installation, taking around 2.4 worker-hours per kW on average and accounting for around 60% of the process time for an average installation. The total installation process took on average about 6.4 and 3.5 worker-hours per kW at the reroofing sites and new construction sites, respectively. For comparison, a previous time and motion study documented a time of 6.9 worker-hours per kW for conventional rooftop PV. The shorter RIPV installation times are consistent with previous studies suggesting that RIPV could be installed faster than conventional rooftop PV. The time and motion results and feedback from interviewees provide insights into potential residential RIPV cost reduction opportunities. Several interviewees suggested that these products would be more efficient if PV installation was more fully integrated into the roofing/construction industries, which currently use separate supply chains and skillsets. Further integration could reduce supply chain delays and labor force redundancies. Future research could explore specific ways to integrate these industries to help realize the cost savings potential of RIPV.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2013

The Equivalent Thermal Resistance of Tile Roofs with and without Batten Systems

Clay and concrete tile roofs were installed on a fully instrumented attic test facility operating in East Tennessee s climate. Roof, attic and deck temperatures and heat flows were recorded for each of the tile roofs and also on an adjacent attic cavity covered with a conventionally pigmented and direct-nailed asphalt shingle roof. The data were used to benchmark a computer tool for simulation of roofs and attics and the tool used to develop an approach for computing an equivalent seasonal R-value for sub-tile venting. The approach computed equal heat fluxes through the ceilings of roofs having different combinations of surface radiation properties and or building constructions. A direct nailed shingle roof served as a control for estimating the equivalent thermal resistance of the air space. Simulations were benchmarked to data in the ASHRAE Fundamentals for the thermal resistance of inclined and closed air spaces.

attic↗
DOE OSTI2015

Technology Solutions Case Study: Field Testing an Unvented Roof with Asphalt Shingles in a Cold Climate

Test houses with unvented roof assemblies were built to measure long-term moisture performance, in the Chicago area (5A) and the Houston area (2A). The Chicago-area test bed had seven experimental rafter bays, including a "control" vented compact roof, and six unvented roof variants with cellulose or fiberglass insulation. The interior was run at 50% RH. All roofs except the vented cathedral assembly experienced wood moisture contents and RH levels high enough to constitute failure. Disassembly at the end of the experiment showed that the unvented fiberglass roofs had wet sheathing and mold growth. In contrast, the cellulose roofs only had slight issues, such as rusted fasteners and sheathing grain raise.

ASHRAE 160↗
DOE OSTI2019

Roof-integrated radiative air-cooling system to achieve cooler attic for building energy saving

The building attic usually subjects to substantial solar heat gain and has much higher temperature compared to the conditioned living space during the day, especially in summer and in hot areas. Reducing attic temperature can reduce cooling energy consumption in buildings. However, conventional techniques such as cool roof or attic ventilation, suffer from either heating penalty in winter or limited attic temperature reduction. In this work, a new roof-integrated radiative air-cooling system is introduced, which couples radiative sky cooling with attic ventilation to reduce attic temperature. A radiative air cooler with 1.08 m 2 surface area is constructed using a recently developed daytime radiative sky cooling metamaterial [Zhai et al., Science 355, pp. 1062–1066, 2017]. Experimental tests show that sub-ambient air cooling is achieved throughout 24-h day-and-night cycle in a summer day with clear sky conditions. Depending on air flow rates, measured sub-ambient temperature reductions of air are 5–8°C at night and 3–5°C at noon under direct sunlight, respectively. An in-house model is first developed for the radiative air-cooling system, the model is then coupled with EnergyPlus to study annual energy saving of buildings. The performance of the radiative air-cooling system is compared with three reference systems: shingle roof, attic ventilation, and cool roof. Results show that for a single-family house, attic temperature can be substantially reduced by 15.5–21.0°C, varying with attic insulation level, compared to shingle roof on typical summer days. Compared to a shingle roof (solar reflectance 0.25, thermal emittance 0.9) residential building with attic insulations of R-30 (RSI-5.28), R-10 (RSI-1.76), and R-0.8 (RSI-0.14), the roof-integrated radiative air-cooling system can achieve annual cooling energy savings of 0.4–1.5 kWh/m 2 (4.6–18.8%), 1.2–3.6 kWh/m 2 (10.2–41.4%), and 3.7–11.8 kWh/m 2 (26.5–76.1%) respectively.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2014

In-Depth Analysis of Simulation Engine Codes for Comparison with DOE's Roof Savings Calculator and Measured Data

The Roof Savings Calculator (RSC) was developed through collaborations among Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), White Box Technologies, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), and the Environmental Protection Agency in the context of a California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research project to make cool-color roofing materials a market reality. The RSC website and a simulation engine validated against demonstration homes were developed to replace the liberal DOE Cool Roof Calculator and the conservative EPA Energy Star Roofing Calculator, which reported different roof savings estimates. A preliminary analysis arrived at a tentative explanation for why RSC results differed from previous LBNL studies and provided guidance for future analysis in the comparison of four simulation programs (doe2attic, DOE-2.1E, EnergyPlus, and MicroPas), including heat exchange between the attic surfaces (principally the roof and ceiling) and the resulting heat flows through the ceiling to the building below. The results were consolidated in an ORNL technical report, ORNL/TM-2013/501. This report is an in-depth inter-comparison of four programs with detailed measured data from an experimental facility operated by ORNL in South Carolina in which different segments of the attic had different roof and attic systems.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

Retrofitting Buildings with Solar-Reflective Roofs and Walls and its Impact on Peak Power Demand

Buildings are a major consumer of electricity in the United States and a significant portion of the consumption comes from heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) applications. Passive cooling strategies in the building envelope help to reduce the energy consumption for HVAC as well as peak electricity demand. Although being one of the most cost-effective passive cooling strategies, modern reflective roofing and reflective exterior wall technology is not well documented for its impact on peak demand. This study utilized whole building energy simulations on residential and commercial building prototype models to quantify the impact of cool roofs and cool exterior walls. The analysis was performed in three climate zones with varying insulation levels and solar reflectances for roofs and exterior walls. For both the residential and commercial buildings, the baseline building had a roof solar reflectance value of 0.10 and an exterior wall solar reflectance value of 0.25. The results from the simulations show that roofs and exterior walls with higher reflectance values increase cooling energy savings but can also increase heating energy consumption. The impact of changes in solar reflectances was greater in buildings with low roof/wall insulation levels compared to roofs/walls with higher insulation levels. A baseline for the simulations was set with the roof and exterior wall solar reflectances set at 0.1 and 0.25, respectively and simulations having varying roof and exterior wall thermal resistances were compared to the baselines.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Measure Guideline: Deep Energy Enclosure Retrofit for Interior Insulation of Masonry Walls and Flat Roofs

Measure Guideline: Deep Energy Enclosure Retrofit for Zero Energy Ready House Flat Roofs BSC TO5 Task 7.4 Deep Energy Enclosure Retrofit (DEER) for Interior Insulation of Masonry Walls Lawrence, MA 01840 This Measure Guideline describes a deep energy enclosure retrofit solution for insulating mass masonry buildings from the interior. It describes the retrofit assembly, technical details, and installation sequence for retrofitting masonry walls. Interior insulation of masonry retrofits might adversely affect the durability of the wall. This guideline includes a review of decision criteria pertinent to retrofitting masonry walls from the interior and the possible risk of freeze-thaw damage. This Measure Guideline is intended to support contractors who are implementing an interior insulation-based high-performance enclosure retrofit for masonry buildings and designers who are looking to design such retrofits. It may also be helpful to building owners who wish to learn more about strategies that are available for deep energy enclosure retrofit of masonry residential buildings on the interior. This Measure Guideline is important to the high-performance retrofit industry because the solution described here provides an opportunity to retrofit masonry buildings with ambitious energy performance goals by insulating them from the interior without disturbing their exterior appearance. BSC TO5 Task 7.4 Deep Energy Enclosure Retrofit (DEER) for Zero Energy Ready House (ZERH) Flat Roofs House Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 This Measure Guideline provides design and construction information for a deep energy enclosure retrofit solution of a flat roof assembly. It describes the strategies and procedures for an exterior retrofit of a flat wood-framed roof with brick masonry exterior walls using exterior and interior (framing cavity) insulation. The approach supported in this guide could also be adapted for use with flat wood-framed roofs with wood-framed exterior walls. Designers, contractors, and building code officials will benefit from the information contained in this Measure Guideline. The guide may also be helpful to building owners who wish to learn more about strategies for deep energy enclosure retrofit of flat roofs. This Measure Guideline is important to the high-performance retrofit industry because it demonstrates techniques for retrofitting flat roofs from the exterior, which is less disruptive to the living space and allows the structure to remain occupied during the project. It also illustrates a solution for preparing homes to become zero energy ready.

Array↗
DOE OSTI2014

Comparison of Software Models for Energy Savings from Cool Roofs

A web-based Roof Savings Calculator (RSC) has been deployed for the United States Department of Energy as an industry-consensus tool to help building owners, manufacturers, distributors, contractors and researchers easily run complex roof and attic simulations. This tool employs modern web technologies, usability design, and national average defaults as an interface to annual simulations of hour-by-hour, whole-building performance using the world-class simulation tools DOE-2.1E and AtticSim in order to provide estimated annual energy and cost savings. In addition to cool reflective roofs, RSC simulates multiple roof and attic configurations including different roof slopes, above sheathing ventilation, radiant barriers, low-emittance roof surfaces, duct location, duct leakage rates, multiple substrate types, and insulation levels. A base case and energy-efficient alternative can be compared side-by-side to estimate monthly energy. RSC was benchmarked against field data from demonstration homes in Ft. Irwin, California; while cooling savings were similar, heating penalty varied significantly across different simulation engines. RSC results reduce cool roofing cost-effectiveness thus mitigating expected economic incentives for this countermeasure to the urban heat island effect. This paper consolidates comparison of RSC s projected energy savings to other simulation engines including DOE-2.1E, AtticSim, Micropas, and EnergyPlus, and presents preliminary analyses. RSC s algorithms for capturing radiant heat transfer and duct interaction in the attic assembly are considered major contributing factors to increased cooling savings and heating penalties. Comparison to previous simulation-based studies, analysis on the force multiplier of RSC cooling savings and heating penalties, the role of radiative heat exchange in an attic assembly, and changes made for increased accuracy of the duct model are included.

New, Joshua Ryan↗
DOE OSTI2014

Analysis of DOE's Roof Savings Calculator with Comparison to other Simulation Engines

A web-based Roof Savings Calculator (RSC) has been deployed for the Department of Energy as an industry-consensus tool to help building owners, manufacturers, distributors, contractors and researchers easily run complex roof and attic simulations. This tool employs the latest web technologies and usability design to provide an easy input interface to an annual simulation of hour-by-hour, whole-building performance using the world-class simulation tools DOE-2.1E and AtticSim. Building defaults were assigned based on national averages and can provide estimated annual energy and cost savings after the user selects nothing more than building location. In addition to cool reflective roofs, the RSC tool can simulate multiple roof and attic configurations including different roof slopes, above sheathing ventilation, radiant barriers, low-emittance surfaces, HVAC duct location, duct leakage rates, multiple layers of building materials, ceiling and deck insulation levels, and other parameters. A base case and energy-efficient alternative can be compared side-by-side to generate an energy/cost savings estimate between two buildings. The RSC tool was benchmarked against field data for demonstration homes in Ft. Irwin, CA. However, RSC gives different energy savings estimates than previous cool roof simulation tools so more thorough software and empirical validation proved necessary. This report consolidates much of the preliminary analysis for comparison of RSC s projected energy savings to that from other simulation engines.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2016

Impact Study of Metal Fasteners in Roofing Assemblies using Three-Dimensional Heat Transfer Analysis

Heat transfer analysis was performed on typical roofing assemblies using HEAT3, a three-dimensional heat transfer analysis software. The difference in heat transferred through the roofing assemblies considered is compared between two cases - without any steel fasteners and with steel fasteners. In the latter case, the metal roofing fasteners were arranged as per Factor Mutual Global (FMG) approvals, in the field, perimeter, and corner zones of the roof. The temperature conditions used for the analysis represented summer and winter conditions for three separate Climate Zones (CZ) namely Climate Zone 2 or CZ2 represented by Orlando, FL; CZ3 represented by Atlanta, GA; and CZ6 zone represented by St. Paul, MN. In all the climatic conditions, higher energy transfer was observed with increase in the number of metal fasteners attributed to high thermal conductivity of metals as compared to the insulation and other materials used in the roofing assembly. This difference in heat loss was also quantified in the form of percentage change in the overall or effective insulation of the roofing assembly for better understanding of the practical aspects. Besides, a comparison of 2D heat transfer analysis (using THERM software) and 3D analysis using HEAT3 is also discussed.

3D modeling↗
DOE OSTI2013

Roof and Attic Design Guidelines for new and retrofit Construction of Homes in Hot and Coild Climates

Some guidelines for improving the energy efficiency of roofs and attics are presented and are based on the research of the DOE Building Technology. The results of combined analytical and experimental studies were used to benchmark computer tools, which in turn, were used to simulate homes in hot and cold climates. Adding floor and roof insulation, above deck ventilation, radiant barriers, cool color shingle, metal or tile roofs, sealing the attic floor, sealing the duct system and sealing the attic were simulated to compute the cost of energy savings. Results are prioritized to help building owners make an informed economic decision when contemplating roof and attic retrofits. Sealing the attic floor is a top retrofit option. The sealed attic approach and a new prototype roof assembly an insulated and ventilated roof are good options for retrofit work but have paybacks ranging from 15 to 25 years. A new sealed attic concept was simulated and computations show its simple payback is about 10 to 12 years in hot and cold climates; its first cost is significantly reduced from that of a spray foam approach. For new construction the best option is to keep the ducts out of the attic, make sure the attic floor is sealed and add at least code level of insulation to the ceiling.

attic↗
DOE OSTI2023

Observations and Lessons Learned in Residential Roofing Integrated Photovoltaics

The data file includes field observations of residential roofing integrated photovoltaics installation that happened between July 2021 and June 2022 in California. There are 21 observations - 2 in the re-roofing category and 19 in the new construction category. The file includes two time and motion forms (Re-Roofing & New Construction) we used to capture the time it takes for each activity in the rooftop solar and electrical installation process. You will see the duration for detailed steps along with activities that are included for total installation time for the paper. There are three parts to the time and motion form - Part 1 has project and crew characteristics, product information, and inspection and permitting data and can be filled before the installation. Part 2 has the actual installation time stamps and related notes. Part 3 has the crew information and can be filled on-site or off-site, but this section is optional. The re-roofing form has pre-solar activities and gutters and vents section in Part 2 of the form, whereas new construction form includes a section for capturing the time it took for rough wiring. The re-roofing form does not include rough wiring but instead includes the final electrical wiring process. These are the key differences in both the forms. Each day/step/installation activity needs to include the crew break time as they happen and there is space available to capture the crew breaks duration. In Table 1 below, the different terms used in the time and motion form are defined and their corresponding unit of measurement stated. We also highlight the optional sections. The data is captured in total mins, total hours, person mins, person hours. You can use this form or make edits to the form to recreate the study or make your own observations. The data herein was reviewed but may not be comprehensive. NREL invites questions and inputs to improve the data, including to: Correct erroneous information Fill in missing/updated information Clarifications on data and variables Updated information may be submitted to Sushmita Jena at sushmita.jena@nlr.gov.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Investigation of the proposed solar-driven moisture phenomenon in asphalt shingle roofs

We report that unvented, sealed or conditioned attics are an energy efficiency measure to reduce the thermal load of the home and decrease the space conditioning energy consumption. This retrofit is usually done by using spray polyurethane foam underneath the roof sheathing and on the gables and soffits of an attic to provide a thermal and air barrier. Unvented attics perform well from this perspective but from a moisture perspective sometimes the unvented attic homes have high interior humidity or moisture damage to the roof. As homes become more air tight and energy efficient, an understanding of the hygrothermal dynamics of the home become more important. One proposed reason for high unvented attic humidity has been that moisture can come through the asphalt shingle roof system and increase the moisture content of the roof sheathing and attic air. This has been called solar driven moisture. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) investigated this proposed phenomenon by examining the physical properties of a roof and the physics required for the phenomenon. Results showed that there are not favorable conditions for solar driven moisture to occur. ORNL also conducted an experimental study on an unvented attic home and compared the humidity below the roof sheathing before and after a vapor impermeable underlayment was installed. There was no statistically significant difference in absolute humidity before and after the vapor barrier was installed. Finally, the outcome of the theoretical and experimental study both suggest that solar driven moisture does not occur in any significant amount.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗