Hygrothermal Monitoring of Two Pilot Prefabricated Exterior Energy Retrofit Panel Designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract NRCan undertook a proof-of-concept project to retrofit a small building with prefabricated wall panels in 2017 in Ottawa, Canada. The retrofit used two wall panel designs: nailbase and woodframe. The Nailbase panel consisted of fiberglass batt, an expanded polystyrene (EPS) core, oriented strand board (OSB) sheathing, a rainscreen, and cladding. The Woodframe panel also featured OSB sheathing and included a 90 mm stand-off gap filled with dense-packed, fibrous insulation. A side-by-side comparison of cost, constructability, and performance was performed. The wall assemblies were instrumented to monitor the temperature, relative humidity, and moisture content of sensitive layers. The data was used to evaluate the hygrothermal performance, moisture accumulation, and risk of associated problems such as mould growth. This paper presents the monitored hygrothermal data from 2017 to 2021, compares the two approaches and assesses their feasibility. During construction, some of the fibrous insulation may have been wetted by wind-driven snow before completion. The data showed that this moisture was able to dissipate without significant risk. The sheathing of the Woodframe panel experienced a higher peak moisture content during the dry-out period. Otherwise, both panel designs showed limited potential for mould growth on monitored surfaces over the monitored period.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".