4.7 Article

Hygric properties of porous building materials (VII): Full-range benchmark characterizations of three materials

期刊

BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 195, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.107727

关键词

Porous building material; Moisture storage; Moisture transport; Full humidity range; Benchmark measurement

资金

  1. Key Laboratory of New Technology for Construction of Cities in Mountain Area [LNTCCMA-20200108]
  2. EU H2020 project RIBuild -Robust Internal Thermal Insulation of Historic Buildings [637268]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study characterized the hygric properties of three porous building materials - calcium silicate, autoclaved aerated concrete and ceramic brick, using standardized experimental methods and recent novel techniques. The obtained data on moisture storage and transport properties throughout the full humidity range can be used as material data in hygrothermal simulations and as experimental benchmarks for the validation of material models, providing valuable insights for the scientific community.
Material properties are requisite for all coupled heat and moisture transfer analysis, crucial to obtain clear insight into and optimized control of the hygrothermal processes in building envelopes and the built environment. Unfortunately, current databases and reported studies fail to provide the hygric properties of porous building materials exhaustively. This study characterized the hygric properties of three porous building materials ? calcium silicate, autoclaved aerated concrete and ceramic brick. Standardized experimental methods were combined with recent novel techniques. All important moisture storage and transport properties were obtained, for the full humidity range, for both absorption and desorption. This completeness makes this data set valuable to the scientific community. The results can be used as material data in hygrothermal simulations and as experimental benchmarks for the validation of material models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据