A literature review of the fire performance of floor assemblies commonly used in houses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Joint Task Group (JTG) was established to address a request from the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes (CCBFC) to determine the minimum level of structural performance for floor assemblies in houses. In support of the JTG, this report summarizes the results of the Phase 1 of the Fire Performance of Houses (FPH) Project that was conducted at the NRC and a literature review conducted recently on other related research and North American regulatory developments. The literature review covered more than 50 fire experiments (excluding the 16 tests conducted at NRC for the FPH) that have been conducted with floor assemblies constructed with dimensional lumber joists and five main types of engineered joists: wood I-joists, steel C-joists, metal-plate connected wood truss, finger jointed (glued) wood truss and metal-webbed truss. The tests reviewed were grouped into two main categories: standard and non-standard, defined by the type of fire exposure. Non-standard tests seek to simulate actual compartment fires using combustible fuel loads and the tests are typically conducted on structures that are constructed with representative construction materials. Non-standard tests also included tests that are conducted in fire resistance furnaces without following the CAN/ULC-S101/ASTM E119 temperature-time exposure. Such non-standard tests usually attempt to simulate temperature conditions that are consistent with compartment fires. Although many of the non-standard compartment tests were very well instrumented for temperature, heat flux and gas concentration measurements, only the tests conducted at NRC included a detailed tenability analysis along with a review of evacuation from typical single family houses in the event of a fire.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".