Moisture Ingress in Building Envelope Materials: (II) Transport Mechanisms and Practical Mitigation Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary goal of this review is to explore both the fundamental dynamics of moisture ingress and practical strategies for its mitigation. Moisture ingress remains a critical issue due to its impact on the structural integrity of buildings and the health and safety of occupants. This work adopts a systematic approach, focusing on key mechanisms of water transport—capillary action, vapour diffusion, and condensation—and how different parameters influence the process of moisture transport. Moisture ingress, whether through direct leakage, capillary action, air infiltration, or vapour diffusion, poses significant risks to the premature degradation of building envelope materials. In this study, emphasis has been placed on describing the methods for controlling liquid water movement, preventing condensation, and using moisture-resistant materials. Additionally in this study, the advanced design and hygrothermal performance simulation tools are examined; the use of such tools is considered essential for predicting and managing moisture-related issues in building envelopes. Finally, the significance of complying with moisture control standards and guidelines is highlighted, ensuring a comprehensive framework for effective moisture management in building design and maintenance. Beyond this review, key knowledge gaps in moisture control strategies have been identified, particularly in respect to material performance, the accuracy of predictive modeling, and the standardization of mitigation techniques. Addressing these gaps is essential for advancing building design, maintenance practices, and regulatory frameworks that together combine to enhance moisture resilience.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".