Confirmation of Anomalous Diffusion in Non-saturated Porous Building Materials by a New Capillary Rise Absorption Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new one-dimensional capillary rise absorption test by direct weighing is presented in this note. The motivation is to obtain more accurate cumulative infiltration measurements in order to test the validity of a new theoretical description of the absorption process recently introduced in [1]. While in most of the technical specifications, weighing is generally carried out manually and requires to remove the specimen from water at intervals, the new apparatus allows a continuous automatic weighing of the specimen during water absorption. The typical performance of the experimental set-up is one measure per second with an accuracy of 0.01 g. Preliminary tests were conducted on four specimens of common red fired-clay bricks. The adjacent sides of the specimens were previously sealed with paraffin to prevent water infiltration from lateral faces of the material: this guarantees that the absorption process actually remains unidirectional. Whereas the amount of absorbed water is expected to increase as t1/2 (with t the elapsed wetting time) according to the standard unsaturated flow theory, the cumulative infiltration (I) was found to systematically deviate from the simple t1/2 relation. It is shown that absorption in brick scales as tα with 0.57 ≤ α ≤ 0.59 (i.e. larger than 1/2), as previously predicted in [1]. This implies that the long-time predictions of both the amount and the penetration depth of absorbed water based on the classical t1/2 relation are generally underestimated. Because this may also apply to the many deleterious chemical agents mediated by water, the consequences of water infiltration on the durability of building materials may also be dramatically underestimated. We suggest that the ASTM technical specifications for water absorption measurements should be reexamined at the light of these new results. The experimental procedure should be improved to increase the number and accuracy of cumulative infiltration data, especially at short times, to allow more reliable estimates of the absorption properties of porous building materials.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".