Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To mark the 100th anniversary of the standard time-temperature curve and fire resistance test's first usage, ASTM International held a workshop on December 6 and 7, 2018, on Advancements in Evaluating the Fire Resistance of Structures at the Washington Hilton in the United States. The conference cochairs were John Gales (York University), Marc Janssens (SWRI), Beth Weckman (University of Waterloo), and Rodney Bryant (NIST). The workshop consisted of 17 presentations on the following subjects: Examining Fire Resistance Principles; Computational Studies; and Steel, Concrete and Timber Constructions. These presentations were selected on the basis of maximum score as ranked by invited expert peer reviewers. The organizers received 57 submitted abstracts. The workshop was highlighted by an invited keynote presentation from Dr. Jim Mehaffey who presented on “Tibor Harmathy's Contribution to the Provision of the Adequate Fire Resistance of Structures”. Dr. Mehaffey spent his early career working with Dr. Tibor Harmathy. Dr. Harmathy was an active contributor to the fire resistance standards of ASTM through the decades of his career at the National Research Council of Canada. He recently passed away, and this workshop was dedicated to his legacy. Of particular importance to the workshop was the engagement with young fire engineers. Tibor's influence on generations of students was profound. His influence is still being seen on key fire resistance thesis topics such as material science, sustainability in building design, and fire dynamics. This was highlighted in the opening remarks of the workshop by the chairpersons. This ASTM workshop also featured a dinner reception with a presentation of a further seven research posters, in addition to the oral speakers. The workshop concluded with a tour of the new National Fire Lab facilities in Gaithersburg, near the conference venue. There, attendees were shown original furnace calibration documentation of Simon Ingberg's first standardized fire tests and were taken on a facility tour where demonstrations of fire severity were performed to various degrees (Figure 1). Overall, the workshop was attended by over 100 attendees, predominantly featuring next-generation student speakers, with an emphasis on global diversity. The workshop also featured historical references in printed form that provided the basis of the standard fire temperature curve's development as chosen by the workshop chairs. These featured papers are1-4 supplemental material for this editorial: the original Standard Specifications for Fire tests of Materials and Construction c19-18 (1918); Tests of the Roebling System of Fire Proof Construction (1898), which details the first organized tests performed by Ira Woolson that helped define the curve; the NBS (now NIST) study of Fire Tests of Building Columns (1916), where the standard fire curve was presented for the first time; and the Resolutions of the Associated Architects (1793), which discusses the first attempt at comparative fire testing of building materials ever recorded. As all these articles are out of copyright and were requested by attendees, they have been digitized and provided as supplemental material for universal access. Each article presented in this special issue provides both novel and useful information toward contemporary developments of fire resistance testing and fundamental theory for future advances. Due to modern developments in the construction materials industry, to ensure design safety, we are being challenged with requiring significant understanding of new materials and their performance in fire. Since 1918, the standard fire time-temperature curve has been utilized to assess the fire resistance of building materials. It remains, 100 years later, a part of the foundation of building fire codes and standards. It is actively maintained by Committee E05 of ASTM International. It is predominantly featured within the E119 standard.17 The standardized fire time-temperature curve will see continued development over the next decades. Its development depends on the involvement of those keen to participate in the standardization process.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».