MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410567488 · doi:10.1016/j.firesaf.2025.104432

Quantitative review of experimental tests and theoretical models of flashover occurrence in compartment fires

2025· article· en· W4410567488 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad Javad Moradi, Hamzeh Hajiloo

Bibliographic record

VenueFire Safety Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire dynamics and safety research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCompartment (ship)Forensic engineeringPoison controlEngineeringArc flashEnvironmental scienceMedical emergencyMedicineGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

: In performance-based fire design (PBFD), flashover is the rapid transition from a growing to a fully developed fire. In this study, a comprehensive literature review and analysis of 93 large-scale compartment fire experiments were conducted to identify the key factors that affect the HRR required for flashover (Q FO ). For each fire test, key parameters were documented, including fuel load, fuel type, compartment configuration, ventilation properties, boundary characteristics, and the heat release rate (HRR)-time curve. The impact of each parameter on Q FO was assessed through comparison with experimental data. It was shown that there are direct correlations between these parameters and Q FO . Moreover, available analytical models to predict Q FO were compared against the compiled experimental results. Based on experimental data, an equation was proposed to estimate Q FO by considering the effect of fuel load, opening factor, boundary characteristics, and compartment shape. These parameters, not previously used all together in other models, resulted in improved accuracy, with the proposed model achieving a mean squared error (MSE) of 0.46 and an R 2 value of 86%, outperforming other theoretical models. The average time to flashover onset, calculated using the proposed equation based on 8,800 different scenarios of the same compartment as a case study, varies from 1 minute for an ultra-fast fire to 11 minutes for a slow-growing fire, indicating the need for a fire safety strategy that accounts for different parameters influencing flashover.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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