Hygrothermal performance of different wood-frame wall assemblies wetted by simulated rain infiltration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The infiltration of rainwater can result from envelope defects that allow water to infiltrate into the stud cavity behind the exterior sheathing, i.e. the back wall. Once rainwater migrates into the stud space, it cannot easily evacuate and is thus likely to accumulate, leading to potential degradation of the wood studs and exterior sheathing, depending on the temperature conditions. Therefore, studying the drying potential of wood-frame wall assemblies that have been subjected to a moisture load like rain infiltration can provide valuable information with respect to the assembly's hygrothermal performance. The primary objectives of the research project were: (1) To evaluate the wetting and drying performance of hygroscopic components in wood-frame wall assemblies wetted by rain infiltration; (2) To investigate the impact of several parameters on the hygrothermal response of the various monitored components such as the sheathing material, the type of vapor retarder, and the presence of foam insulation on the exterior side of the assembly, (3) To develop a framework for large-scale envelope testing of wall assemblies subjected to wind-driven rain infiltration. The role of the vapor retarder, the exterior insulation, an added exterior insulation, the wall height, the presence of hygroscopic cladding was studied and the effect of varying the moisture load was also investigated. The research was primarily experimental but also included some simulation work. The moisture content results from the experiments show that the sheathing material had the most significant impact on the drying response of the wall components, with the lowest and highest drying rate occurring when OSB and fiberboard sheathings were employed, respectively. Increasing the vapor permeability of the vapor retarder within the range allowed by the National Building Code of Canada increased the drying rate of the wetted components within the walls when OSB sheathing was employed. Comparison of the experimental and numerical results highlighted the difficulties in simulating a three-dimensional problem in a two-dimensional domain, the need for accurate and complete material properties, and the need to include of all relevant transport phenomena like air transport in hygrothermal envelope models to increase the accuracy of the simulation results
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".