Water Penetration of Cladding Components—Results from Laboratory Tests on Simulated Sealed Vertical and Horizontal Joints of Wall Cladding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Considerable work has focused on the deterioration of jointing compounds used to seal building joints; less emphasis has been placed on understanding the consequences of seal failure, particularly in respect to watertightness. Jointing products are subjected to different climate effects; some induce aging in the sealant that in time leads to deficiencies. Deficiencies may also come about from design faults or improper installation. Water entry at deficiencies may lead to a number of different deteriorating effects on the building fabric that may induce failure of other envelope components or premature failure of the joint sealant. Joints are also subjected to substantial wind driven rain loads, in particular atop multi-story buildings. The approach taken in this study focuses on determining the fault tolerance of joint systems of a simulated wall panel when subjected to watertightness tests that emulate heightened wind-driven rain loads. Vertical and horizontal joints of 20 mm width and sealed with a one-component polyurethane product were subjected to water spray rates ranging between 1.6 and 6 L/(min-m2) and pressures of up to 2 kPa. Faults introduced to the sealed joint and representative of deficiencies through which water could penetrate consisted of cracks of 2 to 16 mm long introduced along the sealant to substrate interface. For specific crack lengths, the crack size related to the degree of joint extension, the extension reaching a maximum of 10 % of joint width. Rates of water entry across the joint were determined for cracks of different lengths and size and the nature of water entry at deficient joints in which cracks were introduced was also examined. Results on vertical joints indicated that water readily enters open cracks in relation to the crack size, quantity of water present at the crack, and pressure across the opening. Water may also penetrate cracks of nonextended “closed” joints.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".