English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In February 2019 this journal published the article “An efficient numerical model for liquid water uptake in porous material and its parameter estimation”, (re)introducing the Scharfetter-Gummel numerical model for simulation of moisture transfer in building materials, and applying it for the inverse characterization of hygric properties based on a capillary absorption experiment. This critique voices concerns on the moisture transfer model defined and on the moisture transfer simulations performed. It moreover formulates doubts on the obtained identification and intended identifiability of the moisture transfer properties. This critique invites the article’s authors to address these concerns, to confirm their outcomes’ reliability.

A critique on “An efficient numerical model for liquid water uptake in porous material and its parameter estimation”