Simulation efficiency and accuracy of different moisture transfer potentials

Simulation models for moisture transfer in building materials are highly incongruent with respect to the moisture potential used. Often the relatively better numerical efficiency and accuracy of a certain moisture potential is put forward as motivation. Various claims are made in that respect, but factual evidence is typically lacking. This paper aims at providing such support by assessing simulation efficiency and accuracy for capillary pressure, relative humidity and -log(-capillary pressure). To that goal, a suite of benchmark simulations are performed with those three potentials and performances are compared, based on deviations from reference solutions and on numbers of iterations required. The study initially reveals mixed results, showing no consistent advantages for either potential. Further analysis uncovers though that -log(-capillary pressure) suffers from a strongly nonlinear moisture capacity near saturation. This finally results in a decision in favour of capillary pressure and relative humidity, at least for general-purpose moisture transfer simulation.