Smoke Control in High-Rise Residential Buildings with Stair Pressurization Systems
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stair pressurization systems are designed to create a smoke-proof barrier, preventing the ingress of smoke into staircases within buildings. In tall buildings over 25 m, evacuation strategies can utilize phased or simultaneous evaluation of multiple storeys. This paper examines the performance of a stair pressurization with a differing number of doors open starting from two doors, with an incremental step of two up to a total of 10 doors into the shaft. Simulations using Fire Dynamics Simulation (FDS) have shown that a system that would pass commissioning requirements allows smoke in the shaft if there are more than four doors open simultaneously. The required airflow to prevent smoke ingress was found to be above an average flow speed of 0.7 m/s. Past this limit, the amount of smoke that leaks into the staircases continues to increase as more doors open. The study suggests that standards regarding stair pressurization systems should be updated to account for realistic evacuation scenarios, including the system’s cascade settings, number of storeys, and expected evacuation time, as evidenced by the smoke leakage once four doors were open and the drop-in flow rate between two-door and four-door open cases.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 it