Evaluating wall-window interface details for risk of condensation on box and flanged windows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of alternative details to manage water intrusion at the wall-window interface has produced a number of novel approaches to detailing the interface between the window and 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 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 report provides information on a laboratory evaluation of conditions that could result in 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. The laboratory test protocol is provided that includes a description of the test set-up and apparatus, fabrication details of the specimen and information on instrumentation and calibration. The experimental results for flanged and box windows are each discussed in turn. Included in the results is a preliminary analysis based on thermal simulation of the window frame in which experimental results are presented and compared to those obtained from simulation undertaken using a commercially available thermal software.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".