The Impact of Hygrothermal Aging on Stability and Water Pressure Resistance of Building Envelope Membranes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Building membranes, specifically those designed as water-resistive barriers (WRBs), play a pivotal role in construction, serving as protective barriers against moisture infiltration from environmental stresses like wind-driven rain, thereby influencing the durability of buildings. As these materials age, changes in their structure can significantly affect their performance in resisting water ingress, with potential implications for the durability of building structures. Therefore, this research investigates the transformative effects of hygrothermal aging on the water-resistance performance, hydrophobicity, chemical integrity, and thermal resistance of the WRBs with a specific focus on non-woven polyethylene, self-adhesive polyethylene, and asphalt-saturated kraft paper, which represent a diverse array of materials commonly used in the construction industry. Two distinct combinations of hygrothermal conditions were designed to age the sample which are 90% RH at 70°C and 40% RH at 40°C, over different time spans of up to eight months. Water pressure resistance was evaluated using a hydrostatic head tester to assess the membranes' ability to withstand water pressure under various aging conditions. Hydrophobicity, a critical characteristic influencing moisture management, was determined through contact angle measurements. Additionally, Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FT-IR) was used to detect chemical changes in membrane composition. The thermal stability of the WRBs was also analyzed by thermal gravimetry analysis (TGA). The study shows that aging leads to a slight reduction in the average of water pressure resistance, indicating slight decreases in barrier effectiveness. For contact angle, no significant change is observed in the hydrophobicity of building paper but a very slight decrease in Spun-bonded Poly Olefin film (SPBO) and self-adhesive film. FTIR analysis reveals subtle oxidation changes in building paper, while TGA indicates only minor thermal stability degradation on this membrane and no significant alternation in the chemical integrity of SBPO and self-adhesive film.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".