## 3 Results
### Results from the Rain Infiltration Test
The drying time, based on the RH levels, was similar to the cold side of the wood frame, which is consistent with the results from the built-in moisture test. The outmost measurement points in the HI walls behind the wind barrier coating (Figure 6c) had relative humidities between 70% and 85%. The differences between the different HI walls were small. In addition, the RH level change between leakage phases was relatively low. However, an elevation of RH from 76-80% was present with the higher leakage rate. It is noteworthy that the RH level in the HI walls began to decline already before the last two leakage events, which is explained by the high drying ability of the structures originating from the low Sd-values presented in Section 3.1. The additional T/RH measurement points in the bottom part of the frame (Figure 6d), added during leakage phase two, showed that the RH level was higher for the baseline wall compared to the middle height measurement. This might result from the sealing tapes of the test walls mentioned in Section 3.2. Walls HI1 and HI3 showed 4% lower RH results for the bottom location compared to middle height. A possible reason for this is the higher temperatures at the test wall edges, due to the plywood frame. The cold bridge of the plywood frames was discontinuous to the outdoor because wb-mineral wool was assembled over the plywood frame. The cold bridge was connected to the indoor because the soft 50 mm wool was assembled inside the plywood frame. What stands out was the increasing level of RH in the BL wall at the end of leakage phase two, which was not visible for HI1-HI3 walls. Thereby, moisture risks might appear before in the BL wall than in the HI walls, under high rain infiltration levels. The bottom part of the walls had similar drying curves compared to the middle height of the walls. The results from the moisture content of the wood frames during the rain infiltration test are presented in Figure 8. The wood moisture results for the HI3 wall were omitted from the analysis, since these measurements suffered from significant electrical interference during the leakage test. This effect distorted the MC results for wall HI3 to be unusable. The interference effect was apparently lower in the other walls. The interference was caused by an electrical current near the datalogger of the MC electrodes. Therefore, only the electrodes in one logger signaled this effect. According to the manufacturer of the MC measurement equipment, the effect does not change the measurement equipment's reading accuracy after the interference has disappeared. The wood moisture content in the middle height of the frame in the cold side (Figure 8a) showed minor changes connected to the water leakage test. In walls HI1 and HI2 moisture content rose 0.2-0.3 wt-% during the second leakage phase. The drying of built-in moisture was still present in the BL wall at the cold side of the frame because the MC curve declined throughout the test. The drying accelerated at the start of the leakage test because the level change in the outdoor RH (Figure 7). This effect was not present for the HI walls, possibly due to the R-value of the wb-mineral wool. The wind barrier mineral wool declined the RH level in walls HI1 and HI2. Therefore, the outdoor RH level change from 90-80% did not affect lower RH levels in the cold side of the wood frame. At the warm side of the middle frame (Figure 8b) the moisture content increased less than in the cold side, approximately 0.05-0.15 wt-% in the HI walls and 0.175 wt-% in the BL wall. The MC in the BL wall was stable, which implies that the R-value level of the wb-layer and the decline of the outdoor RH do not affect the MC level of the wood frame in the warm side. The MC changes in the walls (Figure 8a,b) imply that the leakage moisture was directed into the middle height of the frames to a small extent. This is consistent with the assumption that most of the leakage moisture will drain to the bottom of the wall.