Open Access
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 172, 2020
12th Nordic Symposium on Building Physics (NSB 2020)
Article Number 08003
Number of page(s) 7
Section Multidimensional modelling and thermal bridges
Published online 30 June 2020
  1. K. Calle, T. De Kock, V. Cnudde, and N. Van den Bossche, “Liquid moisture transport in combined ceramic brick and natural hydraulic lime mortar samples: Does the hygric interface resistance dominate the moisture transport?,” J. Build. Phys., vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 208–228, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.1177/1744259119857762. [Google Scholar]
  2. H. Derluyn, H. Janssen, and J. Carmeliet, “Influence of the nature of interfaces on the capillary transport in layered materials,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 3685–3693, Sep. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.03.063. [Google Scholar]
  3. X. Qiu, F. Haghighat, and M. Kumaran, “Moisture Transport Across Interfaces Between Autoclaved Aerated Concrete and Mortar,” J. Build. Phys., vol. 26, Jan. 2003, doi: 10.1177/109719603032804. [Google Scholar]
  4. E. Vereecken and S. Roels, “Hygric performance of a massive masonry wall: How do the mortar joints influence the moisture flux?,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 41, pp. 697–707, Apr. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.12.024. [Google Scholar]
  5. X. Zhou, G. Desmarais, P. Vontobel, J. Carmeliet, and D. Derome, “Water uptake in masonry: effect of brick/mortar interface,” in 7th International Building Physics Conference Proceedings, Syracuse, 2018, pp. 103–108. [Google Scholar]
  6. S. Roels, K. Vandersteen, and J. Carmeliet, “Measuring and simulating moisture uptake in a fractured porous medium,” Adv. Water Resour., vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 237–246, Mar. 2003, doi: 10.1016/S0309-1708(02)00185-9. [Google Scholar]
  7. S. Rouchier, “Hygrothermal performance assessment of damaged building materials,” Doctorate, Universite de Lyon, Lyon, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  8. X. Li, S. Chen, Q. Xu, and Y. Xu, “Modeling Capillary Water Absorption in Concrete with Discrete Crack Network,” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., vol. 30, no. 1, p. 04017263, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002122. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. D. Smyl, M. Hallaji, A. Seppanen, and M. Pour-Ghaz, “Three dimensional electrical imaging of moisture ingress in mortar,” in American Concrete Institute, ACI Special Publication, 2016, vol. 2016-January, pp. 27–48. [Google Scholar]
  10. R. W. Zimmerman and G. S. Bodvarsson, “Hydraulic Conductivity of Rock Fractures,” Lawrence Berkley Laboratory, Oct. 1994. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. S. R. Brown, “Fluid flow through rock joints: The effect of surface roughness,” J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, vol. 92, no. B2, pp. 1337–1347, Feb. 1987, doi: 10.1029/JB092iB02p01337. [Google Scholar]
  12. S. Ge, “A governing equation for fluid flow in rough fractures,” Water Resour. Res., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 53–61, Jan. 1997. [Google Scholar]
  13. S. Kirkpatrick, “Percolation and Conduction,” Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 574–588, Oct. 1973, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.45.574. [Google Scholar]
  14. E. Hakami, “Aperture Distribution of Rock Fractures,” Ph.D, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  15. L. J. Pyrack-Nolte, L. R. Myer, N. G. W. Cook, and P. A. Witherspoon, “Hydraulic and mechanical properties of natural fractures in lowpermeability rock,” Research Org.: Lawrence Berkeley Lab., CA (USA), 1987. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bauklimatik Dresden, DELPHIN 6.0. Dresden, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  17. Martinus. Th. van Genuchten, “A Closed-form Equation for Predicting the Hydraulic Conductivity of Unsaturated Soils1,” Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., vol. 44, no. 5, p. 892, 1980, doi: 10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x. [Google Scholar]
  18. N. T. Burdine, “Relative Permeability Calculations From Pore Size Distribution Data,” SPE-225-G, vol. 5, no. 03, pp. 71–78, Mar. 1953, doi: 10.2118/225-G. [Google Scholar]
  19. G. Scheffler, J. Grunewald, and P. Haupl, “Calibration of an engineering model of hygrothermal material characterisation,” in Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction W40 Meeting, Glasgow, Scotland, 2004. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.