2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.matlet.2020.127459
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Water vapour permeability of innovative building materials from different waste

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
5
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
2
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, it is possible to observe that the water vapour resistance properties obtained for the WW-based fillers are in the range of 2.2–3.3, which are in a good agreement with the values of vegetable fibres, such as wood (3–10), hemp, flax and corn (1–3), as presented in Reference [ 40 ].…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Furthermore, it is possible to observe that the water vapour resistance properties obtained for the WW-based fillers are in the range of 2.2–3.3, which are in a good agreement with the values of vegetable fibres, such as wood (3–10), hemp, flax and corn (1–3), as presented in Reference [ 40 ].…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 83%
“…Additionally, the WB filler has the lowest possible porosity (~60 vol.% [37]) compared to WS (~78 vol.% [38]) and HS (~77 vol.% [39]) fillers, which might be another key factor influencing the increased water vapour resistance. Furthermore, it is possible to observe that the water vapour resistance properties obtained for the WW-based fillers are in the range of 2.2-3.3, which are in a good agreement with the values of vegetable fibres, such as wood (3-10), hemp, flax and corn (1-3), as presented in Reference [40].…”
Section: Selection and Characterisation Of The Ww-based Fillersupporting
confidence: 80%
“…The possibility of introducing uncertainties in measurements was higher for smaller specimens, thus the number of specimens was increased from three to five, and a comparison with previous studies was run to confirm the accuracy of the results. Hence, Table 5 reports values of WVP and resistance factor determined by dry cup from the literature [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]. For clayand air-lime-based plasters, the consistent difference between the dry and wet methods has previously been shown by some authors [43,[45][46][47], with values of resistance factor determined by dry cup two times higher than by wet cup, but no evidence of this difference was found for cement mortars.…”
Section: Water Vapour Permeabilitymentioning
confidence: 90%
“…The dry cup method contains a desiccant saturated solution inside the cup, ensuring a humidity of 0–3% [ 32 , 33 , 34 ]. Calcium chloride [ 8 , 9 ] or silica gel [ 35 ] can be used as a desiccant. The wet cup method, on the other hand, contains a saturated aqueous solution, which provides a moisture content with a range of 52–98% [ 32 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%