Moisture Response of Sheathing Board in Conventional and Rain-Screen Wall Systems with Shiplap Cladding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Building enclosures are subjected to a random climatic loading on the exterior surface and a relatively stable indoor condition on the interior. These loadings result in a transport of heat, air, and moisture across the building enclosure. In this paper, the drying and wetting of sheathing board in two exterior walls, more specifically 2×6 in.2 wood-frame conventional (no strapping between sheathing membrane and cladding) and a rain-screen wall system (with vertical strapping), are investigated through an experimental field study. The experiment is carried out at British Columbia Institute of Technology field exposure test facility, where the test walls are exposed to the coastal climate (Vancouver weather) on the exterior and controlled indoor temperature and relative humidity conditions in the interior. The field experimental results indicate significant moisture accumulation on the exterior sheathing boards (plywood) during the Winter period. During the 9-month monitoring period from March 13 to Dec. 6, 2009, the plywood underwent a process of drying and wetting. In both the conventional and rain-screen wall systems, the plywood dried to a comparable moisture level during the Summer before the wetting process started. For the wall systems considered in this study, the plywood in the rain-screen wall has a tendency of faster drying and wetting in the Spring and Fall seasons, respectively, in comparison to the plywood in the conventional wall, which is attributed to the presence of an air gap in the rain-screen wall between the sheathing membrane and the cladding. A similar trend is observed during the monitoring period from December 7 to June 15, 2010.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".