Laboratory Tests of Window-Wall Interface Details to Evaluate the Risk of Condensation on Windows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The development of alternative details to manage water intrusion at the window-wall interface has produced a number of novel approaches to detailing the interface between the window and the adjacent wall assembly. Many of these approaches advocate the need to provide drainage at the rough opening of the window subsill, given that the window components themselves are susceptible to water entry over their expected life. Depending on the types of windows used and the cladding into which the windows are installed, there arise different methods to provide drainage that may also affect air leakage through the assembly. This in turn may give rise to the formation of condensation along the window, at the sill, or along the window sash and glazing panels. Hence, there is a need to determine if, under cold weather conditions, specific interface details that incorporate sill pans provide a potential for condensation on the window components in which air leakage paths may be prominent at the sill or elsewhere on the window assembly. The paper reports on a laboratory evaluation of conditions suitable for the formation of condensation at the window frame perimeter of the interface assembly as a function of both temperature deferential and air leakage rate across the test assembly. A summary of the laboratory test protocol is provided, which includes a description of the test setup and apparatus, fabrication details of the specimen, information on instrumentation and calibration, and experimental results for one type of window (flange window). In parallel, preliminary simulation results were presented and compared to those obtained from the experiment using the commercially available thermal software BISCO.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".