Field Study of Hygrothermal Performance of Cross‐Laminated Timber Wall Assemblies with Built‐In Moisture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cross-laminated timber (CLT) panels have potential market in North America for building mid-rise structures due to their good structural and seismic performance, lightweight, and prefabricated nature. However, to ensure long-term durability, the hygrothermal performance of CLT wall assemblies needs to be evaluated in terms of drying and wetting potential before their widespread adoption in North America. A test wall was constructed with initially wetted CLT panels, and monitored over a year. The drying behaviour of the panels was analysed, and results were compared to hygrothermal simulations. It was found from the field data that no tested wall assemblies in the given climate prevented the panels from drying in enough time to prevent decay initiation. The hygrothermal simulation program is capable of predicting general trends, and can predict if a wall be safe, but tends to be overly conservative. Further refinement of the model for wood is needed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".