MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414339632 · doi:10.1007/s10694-025-01806-x

Effect of Thin Intumescent Coating Type and Thickness on the Charring of Mass Timber Under Varied Heat Flux Exposure

2025· article· en· W4414339632 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueFire Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of Queensland
KeywordsCharringOpacityCoatingIntumescentHeat flux

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study investigates how three types of thin intumescent coatings, applied at different Dry Film Thicknesses (DFTs), influence the charring behaviour of mass timber in fire, including the effects of varying heating conditions. Bench-scale timber samples of Cross-Laminated Timber (CLT) were tested for 60 min at a constant 25, 50, or 75 kW/m 2 incident radiant heat flux. Tests were conducted on timber samples painted with opaque coatings (solvent-based Coating A and water-based Coating B) and a transparent coating (water-based Coating C), as well as bare timber samples as a control. Three DFT thresholds were considered for each coating, spanning 0.98–2.60 mm for the opaque coatings and 0.18–0.40 mm for the transparent coating. The findings demonstrated that, although coated timber still chars, the onset of charring is significantly delayed compared to bare timber. For the opaque coatings, this was dependent on both thickness and heat flux, whereas for the transparent coating, the insulating efficacy was primarily governed by the heat flux – with its durability markedly compromised above 25 kW/m 2 . Compared to bare timber, opaque coatings A and B showed reductions in mean charring rates of up to 70%, 62%, and 56% under heat fluxes of 25, 50, and 75 kW/m 2 , respectively. In contrast, timber with transparent Coating C achieved mean charring rate reductions of up to 36%, 18%, and zero under the same heat flux conditions. The main conclusions from the study were: (1) opaque coatings are more effective than the transparent coating in reducing timber charring; (2) higher heat flux conditions reduce the effectiveness of intumescent coatings for all coating types; and (3) while increased DFT generally reduced charring of coated timber, particularly for opaque coatings A and B samples, it was insufficient to offset the effects of higher heat flux intensity in timber samples with transparent Coating C - especially at 50 and 75 kW/m 2 . Graphical Abstract

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)0.000
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 score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.202 · 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