MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399194830 · doi:10.1002/fam.3224

Effects of incident heat flux on heat release rates and temperatures in cone calorimeter tests of polyurethane foam

2024· article· en· W4399194830 on OpenAlexafffund
Obiora Ugo‐Okeke, David A. Torvi

Bibliographic record

VenueFire and Materials · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire dynamics and safety research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCone calorimeterHeat fluxMaterials scienceThermocoupleCalorimeter (particle physics)Composite materialPolyurethaneFlame spreadFire testFlux (metallurgy)CombustionHeat transferIgnition systemCritical heat fluxMechanicsThermodynamicsChemistryOpticsCharMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is great interest in developing methods to predict full‐scale fire performance of mattresses and upholstered furniture for design and regulatory purposes using cone calorimeter and other small‐scale test results. One method used in the past is a model developed during the European Combustion Behavior of Upholstered Furniture (CBUF) project. To support the further development of this model, cone calorimeter tests of polyurethane (PU) foam specimens 5–10 cm thick were conducted using incident heat fluxes between 5 and 35 kW/m 2 . Temperatures were measured using thermocouples located on the surface and at four depths within 10 cm thick foam specimens to determine the effects of heat flux on heat transfer and foam degradation. Peak and average heat release rate (HRR) values for a particular thickness of foam increased with an increase in heat flux. An increase in heat flux decreased the times to reach the two peaks in the HRR curve, which represent the collapse of foam and burning of liquid products, as well as burning duration. Heat flux had a larger effect on the second HRR peak than the first peak. Significant temperature gradients were initially confined to the top portion of the foam. A surface temperature of 150–200°C was shown to be indicative of the onset of ignition, while a temperature of 150°C at a particular location was indicative of when temperatures began to more rapidly increase at deeper locations within the foam. Infrared video records were also used to examine three‐dimensional burning behavior of the foam.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.354

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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