MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027394502 · doi:10.1115/imece2013-63981

Heat Transfer in Cone Calorimeter Tests of Generic Wall Assemblies

2013· article· en· W2027394502 on OpenAlexafffund
Charles T. Aire, David A. Torvi, Elizabeth J. Weckman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire dynamics and safety research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsCone calorimeterFire testFire performanceFull scaleFire resistanceThermal insulationCalorimeter (particle physics)Heat transferStructural engineeringGypsumHeat fluxEngineeringMaterials scienceComposite materialWaste managementLayer (electronics)Detector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is critical for the construction industry to ensure that new building designs and materials, including wall and floor assemblies (e.g., a studded wall with insulation and drywall) provide an acceptable level of fire safety. A key fire safety requirement that is specified in building codes is the minimum fire resistance rating, which is a measure of the ability of an assembly to limit fire spread within a building. A manufacturer of building materials (e.g., insulation or drywall) is required to perform full-scale fire resistance furnace tests to determine the fire resistance ratings of assemblies that use their products. Fire resistance test facilities are very limited and these tests are very expensive to perform. Therefore, it can be difficult to properly assess the impact of changes to individual components on the overall fire performance of an assembly during the design process. As part of a project to develop methods of using small-scale fire test data to predict full-scale fire resistance test results, the heat transfer through scale models of common wall assembly designs was measured during cone calorimeter tests using an incident heat flux of 75 kW/m2. Wall assemblies consisting of single and double layers of 12.7 mm (1/2 in.) regular and lightweight gypsum board, and 15.9 mm (5/8 in.) type X gypsum board, along with mineral wool insulation and wood studs were tested. Temperature measurements made at various points within these assemblies are presented in this paper, and are discussed using results from thermal gravimetric analysis tests of the three types of gypsum board. Implications of this research to the development of heat transfer models and scaling relationships are also briefly discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire dynamics and safety researchFrench-language works237,207