Determination of Equilibrium Moisture Content of Building Materials: Some Practical Difficulties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though the definition of equilibrium moisture content of porous materials is straightforward from the point of view of equilibrium thermodynamics, experimental determination of this quantity may not always be easy. Many factors play roles from an experimentalist's point of view. Hysteresis, the reference dry state, the initial moisture content, the history of the test specimen, the size of the test specimen, the drying technique, and drying temperature—all influence the value that is arrived at by an experimentalist. This paper reports results from several series of measurements on gypsum board, eastern white pine, aerated concrete, and calcium silicate brick using the ASTM Standard C 1498 in the hygroscopic ranges and pressure plate techniques above the hygroscopic range of equilibrium moisture content. These results show the ambiguities that may surround the experimental definition of equilibrium moisture content. The results presented in the paper demand a few refinements in the existing ASTM Standard C 1498 as well as in the procedure that is used in the pressure plate method. The paper proposes a few refinements for both. The need for the development of an ASTM standard for the pressure plate technique is identified.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".