Assessing Water Loads Post-Flooding in Envelope Assemblies: Effects of Interstices and Hydrostatic Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recurring floods and increasing disaster management costs highlight the need for resilient building envelope assemblies, and this also applies to Québec, Canada. This study investigates the effects of hydrostatic pressure and interstitial gaps between materials on water loads, and drying behaviour on the occurrence of damage (e.g., swelling, mould growth) in building assemblies. Based on flood event scenarios, individual envelope components were exposed to varying water levels and durations to document the effect of hydrostatic pressure. Neutron imaging was employed to visualize water drainage and residual water trapped within interstices. Additionally, a dedicated experimental setup with 80 thermocouples and 20 probes was utilized under controlled conditions to monitor drying processes in representative assemblies. We found a 2 m hydrostatic pressure led to a significant increase in water uptake, e.g., 20% for spruce under water for 4 days. In addition, interstitial gaps act as reservoirs and preferential water pathways. In consequence, this added water notably delays drying and heightens mould risk. The combined dataset from these experiments will improve our understanding of assemblies’ behaviour during flood events and inform flood-resilient design guidelines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".