Air leakage performance of a silicone-based air barrier system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Air barrier systems (ABS) play an essential role in controlling the risk of condensation within wall assemblies by minimizing the infiltration and exfiltration of air through the building envelope, as specified in the National Building Code of Canada (NBC). This research work is focused on air leakage performance of a liquid-applied silicone-based ABS. The ABS included an air-barrier membrane applied to the field of the wall, a liquid-flashing applied to concrete elements, window openings, corners and gaps, an elastomeric sealant for joints, and a prefabricated transition membrane to bridge different wall elements and large joints. This ABS was intended for application in commercial steel-frame construction. We first report on the testing of the standalone membrane on the basis of ASTM E2178 for air permeance. The standard method requires some modification to allow for the testing of elastomeric silicone membranes. We also report on the air-leakage testing for the entire silicone system, in accordance with CAN/ULC-S742, in which testing at both 20 °C and −20 °C is required on three wall test specimens as per ASTM E1424 and ASTM E2357. In this instance, the three wall test specimens had, respectively: no penetrations; a window and 10 other penetrations; and, a junction with a concrete floor and 27 penetrations. For acceptable performance, the NBC requires an ABS air leakage rate below 0.2 L/s•m² at an air pressure difference of 75 Pa before and after wind aging, and testing at both 20 °C and −20 °C. The air leakage test results showed that the air leakage rate of silicone ABS can be well below 0.2 L/s•m² at 75 Pa, and at least an order of magnitude better. In this paper we describe the test methods and troubleshooting necessary to characterize the materials in accordance with the standard methods.
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) | 0.000 | 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".