Optimizing the grid size used in CFD simulation to evaluate fire safety in houses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the event of a fire in a house, the occupants may be harmed by untenable conditions developed during the fire. The time to untenable conditions can be estimated using experimental studies or numerical simulations. Experimental studies usually provide realistic informa-tion but are expensive and time consuming. Numerical simulations, using validated models, can therefore be used to overcome these drawbacks and may also be used to help in the design of experimental setups. As part of a research project to evaluate life safety in houses, the Fire Risk Management Program at IRC/NRC has carried out numerical simulations to study fire performance of Canadian houses. The nu-merical simulations were conducted using the Fire Dy-namics Simulator (FDS) [1], a CFD model developed by NIST. As a first step, the effect of the grid sizes on the simulation results of the fire in a house was investi-gated in order to determine an optimum grid size that will be adopted for future simulation. Several fire sizes have been investigated and the optimum grid resolution has been found. The chosen grid resolution was then used to determine the time when conditions would be-come untenable, based on criteria found in the literature. This paper presents the details of the grid optimization study as well as the evaluation of life safety in houses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".