Effect of Gypsum Board Orientation on Board Fall-Off in Fire Resistance Test Assemblies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents and discusses the results of an attempt that was made to determine the Type X, 12.7 mm and 15.9-mm-thick, gypsum board fall-off in fire resistance tests of different orientations (horizontal and vertical assemblies) for 83 and 41 full-scale floor and wall test assemblies, respectively. These tests were conducted at the National Research Council of Canada in accordance with the CAN/ULC–S101 standard, which is similar in fire exposure to the ASTM E119 fire resistance standard for updating the fire resistance ratings in the listed wall and floor assemblies in Part 9, Appendix A, of the National Building Codes of Canada. The results of tests were further analyzed to investigate the gypsum board fall-off for wall and floor assemblies. Four different approaches were investigated using the floor assemblies' test results to identify board fall-off criterion. The proposed temperature criterion selected is based on the sudden temperature rise on the back side of the fire exposed gypsum board due to the board fall-off. The same criterion was also used in predicting the gypsum board fall-off in wall assemblies. A comparison of the gypsum board fall-off based on test observations and temperature measurements and temperature criteria for gypsum board fall-off for both vertical and horizontal applications are presented and 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".