Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mohiuddin Ahmad and Rafiqul Tarefder Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Mexico
Mohiuddin Ahmad and Rafiqul Tarefder Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Mexico
3
Existing flow models No 7.4% 2.9%
consider it?
4.0%
2 6.2%
2.8%
3.6%
5.4%
1
YES as swelling
0
Need for new model? changes pore 3 cm samples 2 cm samples 1 cm samples
structure Thickness of the samples, cm
20
R² = 0.9517
A time dependent vapor flow function is 15
10
considered Test Results 5 R² = 0.9717
0
2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
Air void (%)
Development of the model
50
Generalized for variable air void and
Vapor flow for 1cm samples, gm
45 R² = 0.9958
40 High air void
thickness 35 Medium air void
30 Low air void
25
R² = 0.9948
Validated using laboratory tests 20
15
10
5
0
1 10 100 1000
Time, days
• Three different
thickness
Laboratory Testing
voids 3 cm
0.12 R² = 0.9995
• Two replica 2 cm
0.1 1 cm
R² = 0.9949
0.08
0.06
• 250C and 50 % RH
• Vapor flow recorded 0.04
R² = 0.8925
at 3, 6, 10, and 365 0.02
days
0
• Swelling ranges from 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
0.56 to 4.76 Air void, %
0.14
1 ∆𝐺
Basic equation: 𝑉𝑇 =
Experimental vapor permeability
𝐴 ∆𝑡 0.12
Where,
Model Verification
Analytical Development
𝛼
Assuming, 𝑉𝑇 (𝑡) = VT = Vapor transmission rate 0.1
𝑡
𝐺 = 𝛼𝐴 ∗ 𝑙𝑛(𝑡) + 𝑐 ΔG = amount of vapor flow
gm/cm2/day