Towards Quantifying the Air Leakage Through Cross-laminated Timber
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As cross-laminated timber (CLT) gains popularity in the design of high-performance buildings, it is important to understand the best practices in its use in aspects towards ensuring building performance – such as airtightness. This study aims to contribute to limited research evidence for evaluating air leakage through Canadian manufactured CLT. The research objective is to characterize and quantify air leakage paths across CLT panels and evaluate the impact of additional air barrier system components to CLT. Through experimental testing of various panel parameters, metrics including the air leakage rate, normalized equivalent leakage area, as well as the flow exponent and flow coefficient were assessed, and leakage rates determined were compared to requirements for air barrier assemblies. For the 3-ply and 5-ply CLT panels utilized in research, significant air leakage through panel edges compared to air leakage through the panel face was observed due to unglued edge joint gaps typical to Canadian manufactured CLT. Further, sealing panel edges with an effective air barrier such as a self-adhered membrane to reduce air leakage from 4 - 12 2 2 L/sm to 0.09 - 1.4 L/sm was not enough to meet more stringent thresholds for air barrier assemblies at 0.1 L/sm at a 75 Pa pressure differential. Understanding air leakage across CLT is important to the continuous development of design and construction practices towards ensuring the performance of CLT buildings.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".