MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324943694 · doi:10.1007/s10694-016-0581-7

Case Study and Computational Modelling of the Impact of Fire Retardant on Fire Spread for Metal Building Insulation

2016· article· en· W2324943694 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Senez, Adrian Milford, Keith Calder

Bibliographic record

VenueFire Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire dynamics and safety research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFire retardantCone calorimeterFlammabilityFlame spreadCombustibilityMaterials scienceFire performanceForensic engineeringEnvironmental scienceComposite materialWaste managementCombustionCharEngineeringPyrolysisFire resistance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews a large fire loss that occurred at a seasonally operated Canadian food-processing facility. The fire occurred when the facility was not in production and started near a work area where employees had been previously unloading a trailer. The origin and cause investigation revealed different metal building insulation (MBI) products were used throughout the building on walls and ceilings. It was suspected that MBI material contributed to the rapid fire spread to otherwise empty parts of the building and that this material did not meet the relevant Building Code requirements. The facility used MBI product consisting of a polypropylene moisture barrier over fiberglass insulation. A detailed analysis of recovered MBI materials found that some of the material was flame retardant and some was not flame retardant. Additional testing of the materials was used to calibrate computational fire model inputs in order to estimate the behavior of MBI coatings by simulating fire scenarios in the full building. The intent of the analysis was to evaluate the relative propensity of the two MBI insulation products to facilitate flame spread from the area of fire origin in a comparative, qualitative framework. Test results showed that flame retardant MBI material substantially reduced fire spread compared with the non-flame retardant material. The ignition temperatures derived from cone calorimeter testing were higher (407°C compared with 226°C) and the peak heat release per unit area was lower for the flame retardant MBI coatings. The non-flame retardant MBI had a measured flame spread rating of 120, which was greater than the maximum flame spread rating of 25 permitted by the Building Code for ceiling finishes. Computational modeling correlates with non-flame retardant coated insulation (noncompliant) being present in the area where the fire originated, facilitating significant fire spread. The model predicted that the presence of non-flame retardant MBI on the ceiling facilitated flame spread across a significant distance from the area of origin within the first 300 s to 400 s, while the flame retardant MBI product yielded minimal flame spread beyond the incident area over a 20 min exposure.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFire TechnologySame topicFire dynamics and safety researchFrench-language works237,207