MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295066506 · doi:10.1007/s10694-022-01312-4

Review of the NRC Canada Studies on Fire Resistance of Walls: Results, Research Gaps and Design Guidelines

2022· article· en· W4295066506 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueFire Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire effects on concrete materials
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsGypsumStructural engineeringFire resistanceEngineeringResistance (ecology)Forensic engineeringGeotechnical engineeringComposite materialMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The National research council Canada conducted three major fire resistance studies on the interior party walls, interior fire separation walls and exterior walls. The fire resistance results of these studies were published over the past three decades and the publications were short in suggesting design guidelines for practioners’ use and gaps for future research. This paper summaries the fire resistance results of 35 full-scale wall tests, suggests design guidelines and identifies future research gaps for interior party walls, interior fire separation walls and exterior walls. The result summary includes the effect of different design parameters on the fire resistance performance of wall assemblies such as the stud type and spacing, number of stud rows, number of gypsum board layers and thickness, mid-height blocking, resilient channels installation and spacing, screws spacing for attaching gypsum board to either wall faming or resilient channels, insulation type and exterior wall sheathing type on the fire resistance of loadbearing and non-loadbearing wall assemblies. The summary results was used as the basis for suggesting design guidelines for practioners’ use and identifying gaps for future research to improve the fire resistance performance of wall assemblies. For example, the use of a reduced screw spacing from 406 mm o.c. to 203 mm o.c. in the gypsum board field and from 406 mm o.c. to 150 mm o.c. at the board joints was suggested for future research to keep the protective gypsum board layer attached to studs or resilient channels longer for a better fire resistance performance of wall assemblies. Also, fire resistance design guidelines are suggested, for examples, the use of rock fibre insulation for non-load bearing interior party walls to achieve 1.5-h fire resistance, the use of cellulose fibre insulation for loadbearing fire separation walls to achieve 2-h fire resistance rating and the use of reduced screw spacing in attaching the gypsum board to wall framing from 406 mm o.c. to 203 mm o.c. for loadbearing exterior wall assembly with gypsum board glass mat sheathing to expand the fire resistance rating from non-useful 30-min to a useful code compliance 45-min fire resistance rating assembly. Additional suggested examples for future research gaps and design guidelines are also provided.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.607
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.253 · 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