Fire Performance of Houses. Phase I. Study of Unprotected Floor Assemblies in Basement Fire Scenarios. Part 1 - Results of Tests UF-01 and UF-02 (Solid Wood Joists)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report documents part of the research project involving a series of full-scale fire experiments in a test facility that simulated a two-storey single-family house with a severe, fast growing fire originating in an unfinished basement to study the fire performance of the floor/ceiling assembly constructed over the basement. The report presents the results and analysis of Test UF-01 and Test UF-02 carried out in the test house with an unprotected solid wood floor/ceiling assembly above the basement. The two tests were identical except for the state of the door in the doorway leading from the first storey to the basement, which was absent in Test UF-01 (i.e. completely open basement doorway) and completely closed in Test UF-02 (i.e. closed basement doorway). A number of measurements were taken at various locations during the tests such as temperatures, smoke alarm activation times, smoke optical density, floor deflection and concentrations of CO, CO2 and O2. For these two tests, untenable conditions on the upper storeys were reached before failure of the test floor assembly. The results showed that closing the door to the basement delayed the failure of the unprotected floor assembly over the basement as well as the onset of untenable conditions on the upper storeys.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".